Please take Al Gore's crystal ball away from him.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Iraq was all about the perceived WMDs. Again, Bush was not the only one who thought he had them, the Dems did, too. NK has not proven itself a threat to us. Saudi Arabia is working to clean up their radical element because it's as much a threat to their government as it is to ours. Ditto for Pakistan, we are trying to work with that government and it is trying to work with ours.

Anyway, I've said what I believe, and exactly what context I place the "9/11 changed everything" statement.

In other words, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's have died, thousands of American troops have died, but the only response is "oops, we were wrong." Seriously? That's your arguement?

Shouldn't that, at the very least, act as a preventive measure to make sure you're right before launching a goddamn war given what's at stake? I don't oppose war (and I supported the Iraqi war on the premise that getting rid of Saddam was a moral benefit to the world) - that's a foolhardy stance, given human nature. I do opposed ill-thought out wars with no planning ("Mission Accomplished?") and people like you who seem to think that a significant error requires no backtracking or understanding of what went wrong, and we should just get on with the next one (bomb Iran!).

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Iraq was all about the perceived WMDs. Again, Bush was not the only one who thought he had them, the Dems did, too.

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Why does it always come back to the Clintons? Look, the list of people who, in 2002, are on record as saying "Saddam has WMDs" is long, no one's going to deny that. But what else were they going to say? What evidence did they have to go on?

Answer: The evidence the Bush Administration was giving (notably via Colin Powell) in support of invading Iraq. Evidence that was later found to be:

• Heavily slanted in CIA reports that were largely authored by the "Office of Special Plans" set up by Dick Cheney in the Pentagon.
• Almost entirely based on the word of a single source, i.e. "Curve Ball", who was later found to be completely unreliable.
• Difficult even to pass the "sniff test" of Powell, who exploded when reading the first draft of his speech for the U.N.
• Contradicted by at least one major U.S. intelligence agency (the State Department's INR)

It does your argument no credit to say "well, the Clintons/Al Gore/random democrats agreed with Bush in 2002." At the time, these people were doing, ironically, what the Republicans have vilified them ever since circa 2004 for not doing, i.e. standing by their President in a time of crisis. And you wish to use this to support an argument about a decision that has since been shown to have been based on incorrect or fabricated evidence and seriously biased conclusions? Please rethink this.

Originally Posted by gstelmack

NK has not proven itself a threat to us.

And Iraq had? Iraq had no WMD delivery systems that could reach the USA (or much past their borders, for that matter) in 2002. Unless you're arguing that Iraq could have sold WMD to terrorist groups, but the same was (and still is) true for NK. And it's probable that NK has enriched plutonium. Iraq didn't.

Saudi Arabia is working to clean up their radical element because it's as much a threat to their government as it is to ours. Ditto for Pakistan, we are trying to work with that government and it is trying to work with ours.

I find it surprising that you're willing to trust the House of Saud and Musharraf this much.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

In other words, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's have died, thousands of American troops have died, but the only response is "oops, we were wrong." Seriously? That's your arguement?

Shouldn't that, at the very least, act as a preventive measure to make sure you're right before launching a goddamn war given what's at stake?

You won't believe my answer (for the record, it's that we didn't kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, nor did we start a civil war among them that did cause that), and I'm not here to debate. I stand by my original point earlier: you either believe 9/11 changed everything, or you don't. And that's a fundamental dividing line in America right now. As evidenced by the continuation of this thread. Everyone wants to argue whether I'm right or not that it changed everything. I stated what I believe, but I can't prove a negative. I can't prove that if we had hit Afghanistan only and left the Middle East quickly, we would have been hit again and harder. I believe it, you don't.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Why does it always come back to the Clintons? Look, the list of people who, in 2002, are on record as saying "Saddam has WMDs" is long, no one's going to deny that. But what else were they going to say? What evidence did they have to go on?

Answer: The evidence the Bush Administration was giving (notably via Colin Powell) in support of invading Iraq. Evidence that was later found to be:

• Heavily slanted in CIA reports that were largely authored by the "Office of Special Plans" set up by Dick Cheney in the Pentagon.
• Almost entirely based on the word of a single source, i.e. "Curve Ball", who was later found to be completely unreliable.
• Difficult even to pass the "sniff test" of Powell, who exploded when reading the first draft of his speech for the U.N.
• Contradicted by at least one major U.S. intelligence agency (the State Department's INR)

It does your argument no credit to say "well, the Clintons/Al Gore/random democrats agreed with Bush in 2002." At the time, these people were doing, ironically, what the Republicans have vilified them ever since circa 2004 for not doing, i.e. standing by their President in a time of crisis. And you wish to use this to support an argument about a decision that has since been shown to have been based on incorrect or fabricated evidence and seriously biased conclusions? Please rethink this.

I'm sorry I missed this earlier. You are focusing on 2002. I was focusing on the Clinton Administration and his quotes when he was in office. It's not like he felt Saddam was sufficiently tame to yank our military out back then when he could have. Before Bush was in office, the Dems felt he was a credible threat, and that he had WMDs. What changed once Bush got into office was 9/11, pure and simple. As I said, it changed everything. Yes, I believe Bush stays out of Iraq if 9/11 doesn't happen. But again, I can't prove a negative.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

I'm sorry I missed this earlier. You are focusing on 2002. I was focusing on the Clinton Administration and his quotes when he was in office. It's not like he felt Saddam was sufficiently tame to yank our military out back then when he could have. Before Bush was in office, the Dems felt he was a credible threat, and that he had WMDs. What changed once Bush got into office was 9/11, pure and simple. As I said, it changed everything. Yes, I believe Bush stays out of Iraq if 9/11 doesn't happen. But again, I can't prove a negative.

It's also not as if Clinton felt he was enough of a credible threat to invade the country, either.

After 1998, there remained the suspicion that he had WMDs, just that. This continued, clearly, through 2001, as evidenced by the quotes from Bush Administration officials below.

Again, if you're suggesting that we're justified in attacking any country whom we suspect has WMDs, then we're going to be really, really busy.

Anyway, what's more relevant, the situation in 1998 or the situation in 2002? How about 2001, for that matter?

MR. RUSSERT: Saddam Hussein, your old friend, his government had this to say: "The American cowboy is rearing the fruits of crime against humanity." If we determine that Saddam Hussein is also harboring terrorists, and there's a track record there, would we have any reluctance of going after Saddam Hussein?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: No.

MR. RUSSERT: Do we have evidence that he's harboring terrorists?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: There is--in the past, there have been some activities related to terrorism by Saddam Hussein. But at this stage, you know, the focus is over here on al-Qaida and the most recent events in New York. Saddam Hussein's bottled up, at this point, but clearly, we continue to have a fairly tough policy where the Iraqis are concerned.

MR. RUSSERT: Do we have any evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraqis to this operation?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: No.

-September 16, 2001

We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq...

-Colin Powell, February 24, 2001

But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.

-Condi Rice, July 29, 2001

So, 9/11 changed everything. What's more likely:

A) A bunch of guys, mostly from Saudi Arabia, crash planes into the Pentagon and the WTC and *poof* Iraq suddenly has the WMD and delivery capabilities the U.S. Government (and everyone else) felt certain it didn't have only a few months previously.

B) Shocked by 9/11, and annoyed by Hussein's comments, Bush (and others) decide to do whatever it takes to teach the tinpot dictator a lesson.

The answer is left as an exercise for the reader.

[JPhillips]

The people that crafted our Iraq policy had been calling for regime change for years. Wolfowitz, Feith, Hayes, Rumsfeld, Perle, etc., didn't wake up to an Iraqi threat on 9/12, they believed that we should use military force to overthro Saddam at least ten years earlier.

9/11 changed everything, but not in the way Greg says. 9/11 finally gave these folks the political opportunity to do what they had been calling for years earlier.

Remember, we know the WMD angle was only agreed on as the focus for, "marketing".

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

FWIW, I think this is a fundamental dividing line in American politics today. To me, 9/11 did change everything, including how we view threats that have nothing to do with terrorism. We thought he had WMDs, the Clintons thought he had WMDs, the main objectors were those making money off him and so were voting their own personal gain, he'd shown a tendency to use them, he was stonewalling everyone, and 9/11 meant we no longer take chances, period, as we were being attacked on our own soil.

So I agree 100% with that change in direction from Cheney. Those of you that don't think 9/11 changed everything will disagree. Whatever.

The problem with this, is that even if you accept the idea that 9/11 changed the equation about whether we go to war with Iraq (which is a big assumption), it changed the benefit side (protecting ourselves from terrorism), not the cost side (involving ourselves in a quagmire). Cheney's statement from 1994 about the difficulty of invading Iraq were not in any respect altered by the events of 9/11. Yet when Cheney and the rest of the administration hit the interview circuit to promote the war they continuously asserted that it would be a cakewalk, in and out in a few months, paid for by oil revenue, flowering democracy in the Middle East and all that other now famous bullshit.

If they really thought that 9/11 changed our evaluation of the threat level such that invading Iraq was worth the cost, when we didn't think it was worth the cost in 1994, then why didn't they make that case to the American people? Why did they have to lie about it? Jon Stewart got this exactly right in this interview last week with Cheney biographer Stephen Hayes, maybe the best interview I've seen Stewart do...

If we could have had an honest discussion of what it would cost and whether that cost was justified, maybe we could have made the proper military preparations to succeed (if that was ever possible), and maybe the American people, having gone to war fully informed, would be more supportive of the time and effort required. Of course, if there had been an honest discussion maybe we would have concluded that this war would be counterproductive and it wouldn't have happened at all. That's what the administration was not willing to risk, and why Cheney pretended the things he said in 1994 never existed. And that's why we were lied to, and why we went into this war half-baked without any real chance of success from the first.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The people that crafted our Iraq policy had been calling for regime change for years. Wolfowitz, Feith, Hayes, Rumsfeld, Perle, etc., didn't wake up to an Iraqi threat on 9/12, they believed that we should use military force to overthro Saddam at least ten years earlier.

9/11 changed everything, but not in the way Greg says. 9/11 finally gave these folks the political opportunity to do what they had been calling for years earlier.

Remember, we know the WMD angle was only agreed on as the focus for, "marketing".

I don't understand how anybody misses this.

The day Bush was elected most of his opponents wondered how long until we attacked Iraq and what the reasoning behind it would be. When we went to Afghanistan it was sort of assumed that once we finished the necessary job there that it's not too far to Iraq. The thing that is mind boggling is that we never bothered to finish Afghanistan off before committing ourselves to a second front, stretching ourselves way too thin.

You either go do something right, or you don't do it at all.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by M GO BLUE!!!

The day Bush was elected most of his opponents wondered how long until we attacked Iraq and what the reasoning behind it would be.

Yep, that's exactly how I remember it, too.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by M GO BLUE!!!

I don't understand how anybody misses this.

The day Bush was elected most of his opponents wondered how long until we attacked Iraq and what the reasoning behind it would be. When we went to Afghanistan it was sort of assumed that once we finished the necessary job there that it's not too far to Iraq. The thing that is mind boggling is that we never bothered to finish Afghanistan off before committing ourselves to a second front, stretching ourselves way too thin.

You either go do something right, or you don't do it at all.

I agree with this as well. Despite the gimmicks that were used, it should (and history will) view it as a continuation of the Gulf War. Too many criticisms for not "finishing the job".

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

In other words, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's have died, thousands of American troops have died, but the only response is "oops, we were wrong." Seriously? That's your arguement?

Gen'l Grant was wrong at Cold Harbor as well.

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by Jas_lov

...Iran and Pakistan might have nuclear weapons, but are they really stupid enough to use them on the most powerful nation in the world and not expect a full out retaliation?...

Iran and Pakistan are planning on nuking China or Russia? Where did you get that info from?

[sterlingice]

Everything else in the thread aside, I just love Meet the Press. That is all, carry on.

SI

[Passacaglia]

Al Gore predicts this thread will be locked.

[Logan]

If this gets locked before 14ers comes back for his medicine, I'll be pissed.