As nasty as it gets

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

As nasty as it gets[/u]
By:Diana West
February 2, 2004

"We were misled -- misled not only in the intelligence, but misled in the way that the president took us to war ... I think there's been an enormous amount of exaggeration, stretching, deception." -- John Kerry, the Democrat who came in first in the New Hampshire primary

"The administration did cook the books." -- Howard Dean, the Democrat who came in second in the New Hampshire primary

We were misled? The Bush administration cooked the books?

Welcome to the ugliest, nastiest policy scrum Americans have ever had to referee in a presidential election year. Rather than hearing a philosophical or strategic alternative to the Bush foreign policy, we are being asked to vote Democrat because leading Democrats charge that the incumbent Republican administration willfully "misled" the American people into war -- exaggerating, stretching, and deceiving -- with a scheme to "cook the books." Are these heinous accusations true?

To be sure, inspectors in Iraq haven't found the weapons of mass destruction (WMD) President Bush and Vice President Cheney warned against. This comes as a shock to us all, including Bill Clinton, Tom Daschle, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Ted Kennedy, Jacques Chirac, Al Gore, German intelligence, Bob Graham, the United Nations, Madeleine Albright, Hans Blix, even John Kerry -- just some of the subscribers to the old Saddam-equals-WMD theory that inspired former President Clinton to warn against "the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program" six years ago.

(As recently as last October, Clinton told the prime minister of Portugal he believed Saddam Hussein possessed WMD until the end of the dictator's regime.)

Think of it (thanks to columnist William Rusher, who compiled the following set of quotations): It was then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, not Condi Rice -- or even George W. Bush -- who in 1998 said, "The risk that the leaders (of Iraq) will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security risk we face." That same year, Democratic senators including Tom Daschle, Carl Levin and current presidential front-runner John Kerry urged Clinton "to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

Even Kerry-boosting, Bush-bashing Ted Kennedy got on the record about Saddam Hussein and his WMD. And in fall of 2002, Al Gore said, "We know (Saddam Hussein) has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

Similar talk has come from the Bush administration, with one enormous difference. While George W. Bush recognized the same threat his predecessors recognized, he alone has been committed to acting against it. Others were content to describe the threat, to rail against it and do nothing. As Colin Powell said recently, "The president took the case to the international community and said: For 12 years, you have been defied. What are you going to do now? It's time for us to act."

It was 12 years of inaction, just as much as any illicit weapons programs, that challenged the rule of law and the peace of the world. During that same period, Islamic terrorists drew strength from perceived American weakness, planning and executing attacks that culminated in the cataclysm of Sept. 11. Not only is the world a safer place now without Saddam Hussein and his terrorist-haven nation, it is also a safer place because the Bush administration showed that the United States is as good as its word.

Former chief weapons inspector David Kay doesn't believe inspectors will ever find warehouses full of newly-minted WMD -- although he also says that because of the looting that took place during the invasion, and the Iraqi transfer of unspecified cargoes to Syria, any complete reckoning of Iraqi stockpiles is impossible.

Significant discoveries to date include an Iraqi effort circa 2003 to produce biological weaponry using the poison ricin, and evidence that Iraq tried to revive its nuclear weapons program in 2001 and 2002. According to Kay, Iraq's nuclear program never got as far as those of Libya or Iran.

Which is probably the biggest bombshell of all. Just as the CIA and other intelligence agencies were blind to Iraq's unraveling in the 1990s, when Kay believes that nation stopped trying to mass-produce WMD, Western intelligence also failed to recognize the advanced state of both Libya's and Iran's nuclear programs. "I think Baghdad was actually becoming more dangerous in the last two years than even we realized," Kay told NBC's Tom Brokaw. "Saddam was not controlling the society any longer. In the marketplace of terrorism and of WMD, Iraq could well have been that supplier if the war had not intervened."

Nothing misleading about that

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,248 • Replies: 12

No top replies

Fedral

George Bush is a goddam liar. He and the folks who pull his strings lied through their teeth about the reasons for the war -- and the reasons for the immediacy.

Like him if you want. Vote for him if you want.

But please, I'd sooner hear you defend the reality of the Easter Bunny than defend what these buffoons pulled in order to have their little war.

0 Replies

I agree with Frank.

0 Replies

America is the land of the free. We are free to do anything we please to anyone we want.

The USA needs no excuse to go to war. All we need is media spin,
and the compliance of a passive population.

Political Darwinism means that the greedy get away with everything they are allowed to.
We allow them to.

0 Replies

None so blind...

0 Replies

LOL I just HAD to post this after finding myself in complete agreement with Frank on the Gay Marriage issue I had to post something so thoroughly Right Wing just to make myself feel in my proper standing. :wink: :wink:

Well now off to my Republican committee meeting where my friends and myself have to figure out how to cut some Social Programs to give tax breaks to millionaires. Rolling Eyes

:wink:

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

None so blind...

We are doing our best to help you, McG.

Give us a chance.

After all, you do cling to your blindness with determination.

It wouldn't hurt if you helped us try to turn on the light for you.

0 Replies

LOL!

0 Replies

Fedral wrote:

LOL I just HAD to post this after finding myself in complete agreement with Frank on the Gay Marriage issue I had to post something so thoroughly Right Wing just to make myself feel in my proper standing. :wink: :wink:

Well now off to my Republican committee meeting where my friends and myself have to figure out how to cut some Social Programs to give tax breaks to millionaires. :wink:

This was not one of your more subtle efforts, Fedral.

I enjoyed what was happening -- and I did my part not to disappoint.

Good luck at the meeting.

Did you know that the very first American conservatives were the people back in revolutionary times who argued that King George was our liege Lord -- and that he could tax us as he wished. Our duty was to simply remain loyal?

Things don't change very much! :wink:

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Did you know that the very first American conservatives were the people back in revolutionary times who argued that King George was our liege Lord -- and that he could tax us as he wished. Our duty was to simply remain loyal?

Things don't change very much! :wink:

Weeeeell ... technically we DIDN'T have the right to break away from England and were in unlawful rebellion against our King at the time.

According to the laws that the colonists were born under, the King not only had every right to force us back 'into the fold' he also had the right to hang any that were in rebellion against their King and country.

I guess I would have been one of the loyalists fighting for King George during the revolution. I always used to say that I am so conservative that I am still not sure we should have left the caves and I'm still not totally sold on this whole 'fire' thing.

0 Replies

Before the war a large part of the intelligence told the administration that there was not any clear evidence that Iraq had WMD, in fact Bush was advised by some people not to use that in his State of Union speech. Colin Powell before the UN said we know where the weapons are, even showed pictures of them being moved that the whole world saw on national TV. Cheney said he knows that Iraq has WMD, a spokesperson for the administration when asked by wolf Blitzer if we are under iminiet threat from Iraq responded that we are. Bush and Cheney used the word "urgent", not "gathering" before the war. Not only that but they kept linking the 9/11 tragedy to Iraq either by just mentioning them both as terrorist threats or in the case of Cheney saying outright that they are connected in an interview on Meet the Press.

What makes Bush and the administration different than the previous administration is that they conducted a new inquiry into Iraq and they received new intelligence that shed some doubt about the WMD and they just ignored that new intelligence and used the same old intelligence or used other intelligence that said what they wanted. If they were honest they would have said something like, "there is some intelligence that says there is not clear evidence of WMD but there is other intelligence that says there is..." so that people could have formed their own minds based on truthful information, but they didn't and that what makes them liars and cheats. (why this is a surprise after the florida thing, i don't know)

So the candidates have every right in the world to use this against the Bush administration, if fact not only do they have the right but they have the obligation and the duty to bring this up over and over again. It is not going to war with Iraq that is the problem it is lying to get their own way in something that concerns people's lives that is the problem. I was not for Dean but I am grateful that he at least opened the door for people to feel that they can speak out without being called "treasons" by the likes of Ann Cultour or whatever her name is.

I thought Iraq had WMD, but I still was against the war because I did not see why we had to go to war when we were not under threat directly from Iraq. It was a world problem and the world should have had a say in it if we went to war and the way it should have been carried out and the way the aftermath should have been handled. If we had done it like that it would not be the huge human disaster that it is now.

0 Replies

The "fire thing" comment was priceless, Fedral.

In fact, most Americans considered themselves to be in rebellion to a Parliament which did not represent them. Parliament replied that they were "virtually" represented. Many people who rebelled believed that George III was in the toils of evil advisors--there was a distinctly religious "battle of good and evil" aspect in the perceptions of many Americans. Parliament could only raise revenues in England in those days by raising property taxes. Members of Parliament were largely either those property holders themselves, or those who had been selected to stand for Parliament by the property owners. They were not likely to raise property taxes. They had gone heavily into debt to subsidize the Prussian King in the Seven Years War, and were casting about for revenue. In actual practice, "the excise" in the colonies had never been enforced. New Englanders smuggled molasses from the West Indies, and bought off the customs inspectors. The Ministry of Bute decided to enforce the excise. Bute himself did not last long, but George stubbornly insisted on the policy. Additonally, Bute (who had been George's tutor and companion) had introduced George to society among his friends who were military officers. After the Seven Years War, they thought to give their friends employment by finding places for them in overseas regiments--in England, the aversion to a standing army was strong.

That aversion was strong here as well. Colonists assumed, and with a good deal of justice, that the new "American" Royal Independent Companies were not there to protect them so much as to keep them east of the mountains. Additionally, Americans had contributed mightily to the war effort during the Seven Years War, known in the new world as the French and Indian War. So both sides were playing fast and loose with the truth, and both sides were trying to assure the advantage of their own particular interest group.

Kinda like politics now . . . forever and ever, world without end, amen.

0 Replies

Re: As nasty as it gets

Fedral wrote:

As nasty as it gets[/u]
By:Diana West
February 2, 2004

We were misled? The Bush administration cooked the books?

Welcome to the ugliest, nastiest policy scrum Americans have ever had to referee in a presidential election year. Are these heinous accusations true?
Rather than hearing a philosophical or strategic alternative to the Bush foreign policy, we are being asked to vote Democrat because leading Democrats charge that the incumbent Republican administration..........blah.......blah.......blah.......blah

Fedral posts the writings of other people because it is easier and, in his case, more eloquent, than typing out a substantive positition. Often, the articles he posts are nothing more than thinly masked attacks of Liberals based on illogical premises and ending in equally illogical conclusions. When the faulty reasoning of these articles is exposed, like it was here in a previous thread, Fedral rarely responds, apparently prefering to let the inanity of his article speak for itself.

It is with this knowledge that I submit a response to his article.

First of all, it relies on twists of wording to imply conclusions that are factually incorrect. For example, the article implies throughout that John Kerry supported the war. It begins with a Kerry quote, then quotes Kerry urging Clinton to "respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." In fact, Kerry did not support Bush's war. It is true that Kerry voted to give Bush the authority to go to war, but only if neccessary. After Kerry gave his vote he said "Mr. President, I don't support your doctrine unless there is an imminent threat that requires our action as a matter of survival. If you go at this unilaterally, I and others will oppose you with everything we have, because such action is catastrophic for America."

Secondly, this entire argument is a rehash of a favorite Conservative trivial truism - namely, that since other people were wrong about the war, this somehow vindicates George Bush. As if, it doesn't matter what the President does, as long as we can find some democrats who may have, at one point in history, agreed with some of his position. The fact that somebody else was wrong about the war doesn't negate the fact that Bush was wrong. The stupidity of this argument is self evident.

Third, the article quotes people from as far back as 1998 saying that Saddam had WMD's. It is possible - even likely - that at that time he did. This has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that he had none when we went to war.

Fourth, some democrats may have been wrong about Iraq possessing WMD's. However, only George Bush - as the president of the United States - has access to all the available intelligence. Only George Bush was able to draw an informed conclusions. The democrats were largely basing thier opinion on what little information they were given. And, again, many of the Democrats being labelled 'pro-war' were only pro-war if it was sanctioned by the UN, non-unilateral, after Iraq had been proven to possess WMD's, and after weapons inspectors had finished.

Fifth, the article starts off with an illogical premise, namely that "rather than hearing a philosophical or strategic alternative to the Bush foreign policy, we are being asked to vote Democrat because leading Democrats charge that the incumbent Republican administration willfully "misled" the American people into war." This is dumb. Although charges that Bush was wrong may be a part of some Democratic candidates campaigns, it is certainly not the main aspect of any candidates campaign. Starting the article off on a false premise makes reaching a false conclusion much easier. It reminds me of what Donald Rumsfel once said, when giving advice on how to conduct a press conference, "start of with an illogical premise, and proceed perfectly logically to an illogical conclusion."

There are several other problems, for example, the author deliberately left out a large chunk of Madelaine Albright's quote to give the false impression that she believed Iraq currently possessed WMD's. But the article has already been exposed for the inane drivle it is, and there is really no point in going on.

0 Replies

As nasty as it gets

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know