THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

Angie, the arguments you present here are repetitions of arguments repeatedly refuted here. So I shall again repeat some of those refutations.
If George Bush had stood before the American people after 911, when they expected a plan to get Osama, and announced that the US would be invading Iraq to "bring democracy" to the country, my guess is that he would have received little or no support from progressives or conservatives.
The truth or falsity of this argument is irrelevant. First, in early 2003, George Bush did not announce the purpose of our invasion was to bring democracy to the country. Second, when George Bush did state in later 2003 the additional objective of bringing democracy to the country, he made it plain enough that he saw this as a means to stabilize achievement of his original objectives. Those objectives have the support of a majority of Americans, and so does George Bush's means to stabilize achievement of those objectives.

www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2003/17300pf.htm
General Colin Powell declared to the UN, 2/5/2003, that the US administration advocated invading Iraq for the following five reasons:
1. Saddam Hussein and his regime have not proved, as the UN demanded, that they no longer possess ready-to-use WMD;
2. Saddam Hussein and his regime have not disarmed as the UN demanded;
3. Saddam Hussein and his regime are concealing their efforts to produce ready-to-use WMD;
4. Saddam Hussein and his regime are permitting members of the al Qaeda confederation to be based in northern Iraq and did not respond to US requests to extradite their leaders.
5. Saddam Hussein perpetrates the mass murder of civilians living in his own and neighboring countries.

www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/Comp_Report_Key_Findings.pdf
Charles Duelfer's Report, 9/30/2004, alleged that Saddam Hussein did not possess WMD after 1991, but intends to redevelop and reassemble WMD when UN sanctions on Iraq are lifted and/or become sufficiently ignored.

www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm
The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States Report, i.e., The 9-11 Commission Report, 9/20/2004, alleged:
1. Osama bin Laden in 1998 declared war on both civilian and military Americans with the objective of killing all of them wherever they be found;
2. President George Bush on 9/11/2001 declared to the National Security Council that the United States would not just punish the perpetrators of terrorist attacks on Americans but also those who harbored them;
3. President Bush declared to the nation on TV the night of 9/11/2001 that we would make no distinction between the terrorists who committed terrorism against Americans and those who harbor them.
4. President Bush declared to Congress and to the nation on TV the night of 9/20/2001 that our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every government that supports them… Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but does not end there … Our war on terror will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped, and defeated.
5. The al Qaeda are a confederation of multiple terrorist groups led by Osama bin Laden.
6. Osama bin Laden aided a group of Islamic extremists encamped in northern Iraq.
7. The Al Qaeda encamped in northern Iraq, suffered major defeats by Kurdish Forces in the late 1990s.
8. In 2001, the Al Qaeda remnant in northern Iraq, with Osama bin Laden’s help, re-formed into an organization called Ansar al Islam.

General Tommy Franks in "American Soldier," 7/1/2004,[/b] alleged:
1. In 2003, the US defeated the al Qaeda in northern Iraq;
2. Over 1,000 large weapons and munitions dumps, some containing very high explosive materials, were found scattered throughout Iraq by the US in 2003 and 2004;
3. Thousands of buried, murdered Iraqi citizens were discovered throughout Iraq by the US in 2003 and 2004.

In 2003 the George Bush Administration concluded that the best way to prevent Iraq from murdering civilians in Iraq and allowing murderers of civilians in other countries from locating in Iraq was to help the Iraqis develop and secure a democracy of their own design.

And certainly he could not have used oil to justify his pre-emptive invasion. Hence the WMD lie. Now that we're there, the "spreading democracy" theory is being used to justify the invasion retroactively, which is absurd.
This is a provably false statement. General Powell presented the five reasons stated above--and so did President Bush later--for invading Iraq. The idea of helping the Iraqis develop and secure a democracy of their own design was perceived not as a justification for the invasion, but rather as a means to accomplish the original objectives of the invasion.

The elections came and went, which is all they had to do. No matter how many people showed up and what conditions prevailed, the elections would be spun into a "success". Weren't we sold the same crap about Vietnam re democracy ? All those years and all those young lives, for what ? We could not force democracy down the throats of the Vietnamese then, and we cannot do it now with the Iraqis. Vietnam took decades to find its place in the modern world, and that happened only after we left.
We went to South Vietnam to rescue it from being invaded by North Vietnam, not to impose a democratic government on them. We went into South Korea previously to rescue it from being invaded by North Korea. The difference is we achieved our objective in Korea, but cowardly abandoned our objective in South Vietnam, when according to later stated opinion by the North Vietnamese themselves, we had won the Tet Offensive and the war in South Vietnam, but had lost the public opinion offensive and the war at home.

But, as I said, IMO, this war was never about "spreading democracy". Some think it was about oil, some think it was about revenge, but it was never about spreading democracy. (If Bush is really interested in spreading democracy, why not start with his oil buddies in Saudi Arabia?)
It has been about spreading democracy since 2003. Spreading democracy is our administration's way of attempting to stifle terrorism

What any post 911 military action should have been about was getting bin Laden, and that would not necessarily have translated into invasion or regime change anywhere. Instead, Bush's attitude and actions have fueled anti-American sentiment globally increasing the ranks of terrorists and making us less safe, have spread our military dangerously thin, and have actually brought terrorists into Iraq where a new regime may very well be dominated by religious extremist fundamentalists rather than secularists.
Not to worry! What really may happen is that everyone will love us again when we accomplish our mission. We either accomplish our mission or we fail to survive.

Al Qaeda was recruiting terrorists and killing Americans around the world long before we invaded Iraq. I'm thankful that many, hopefully most, of these previously recruited terrorists have immigrated to Iraq. It makes it easier to exterminate them if they are based in one country.

The ethnic and religious divisions in Iraq have been there for hundreds of years, and as with Yugoslavia, hostilities resulting from these divisions were kept under control by the reigning tyrant. The notion that these divisions can be put aside and the country united peacefully under a democratic system is naive. In the end, the country now known as Iraq may end up partitioned along these ethnic and religious lines, as happened with Yugoslavia.
More importantly, Iraq may end up with a government of the Iraqis own design that does not murder civilians in Iraq and does not allow murderers of civilians in other countries to locate in Iraq.

I began this post with the statement: "If George Bush had stood before the American people after 911, when they expected a plan to get Osama, and announced that the US would be invading Iraq to "bring democracy" to the country, my guess is that he would have received little or no support from progressives or conservatives." It was, IMO, simply wrong to go there, and I believe history will, in the end, bear that out. Sadly, thousands of innocent people will have to die first.
One more time! George Bush gave several reasons for invading Iraq. Only one reason the Clinton-Bush mutual opinion that Iraq possessed ready-to-use WMD turned out to be the only false reason. Spreading democracy is our means to stifle terrorism. It is not in itself a justification for invading anyone. Spreading democracy is what we have decided to do to stifle terrorism. Stifling terrorism is one of our justifications for invading Iraq.

GWB's approval rating is off the high end of the charts among both the military and their families

You keep this in a seperate file, so you can post it over and over again, don't you?

Yes!

These are the facts of Iraq:

1. The Iraqi people risked their lives to establish a democracy of their own design;
2. The Iraqi people want the US to help end Iraqi dependence on US troops for securing Iraqi democracy;
3. The US is eager for the Iraqi government to ask the US to remove its troops from Iraq;
4. When the Iraqi government tells the US to remove its troops from Iraq, the US will remove its troops from Iraq.

The Iraqi people will establish a democratic government that:

1. Is the Iraqis' own design;
2. Doesn't murder civilians in Iraq;
3. Prevents murderers of civilians in other countries from locating in Iraq.

Anyway one slices it, truth is worth repeating! It helps sort out the critics from the solvers.

Fox, I'm not sure what your definition of "way off the charts" means, but here's the actuals for the past several months.

Foxfyre was talking about the approval of George Bush by the "military and their families."
[quote="Foxfyre"]GWB's approval rating is off the high end of the charts among both the military and their families. And the wishes of the families

I would say I do approve of George W. Bush's decision to invade Iraq, because he has done what is necessary to secure the liberty of Americans.

Old Europe: I want to assure you, on behalf of the GWBush administration, that we intend to bring democracy throughout the world starting with Saudia Arabia and Egypt

www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2003/17300pf.htm

Page Not Available

Sorry, you have tried to access a page that is not available.

1. Saddam Hussein and his regime have not proved, as the UN demanded, that they no longer possess ready-to-use WMD;
2. Saddam Hussein and his regime have not disarmed as the UN demanded;
3. Saddam Hussein and his regime are concealing their efforts to produce ready-to-use WMD;
4. Saddam Hussein and his regime are permitting members of the al Qaeda confederation to be based in northern Iraq and did not respond to US requests to extradite their leaders.
5. Saddam Hussein perpetrates the mass murder of civilians living in his own and neighboring countries.

ican
Listing Powell's (and others) attempts to link Saddam to 911 does not make them true. The whole WMD/imminent threat thing was a sham, and Powell knew it.
It wasn't linked to 911; it was linked to future 911s. The whole argument seems to rest on the concept of imminent threat. The only way a threat can be proven to be an iminent threat is for it to have been executed. Then and only then, can those who survive that execution prove the threat was an imminent threat. I think it would have been irresponsible for Bush or anyone else to have waited until we suffered the consequences of one or more imminent threats like 911 before we went from defense to offense. Remember when 911 was proven an imminent threat it had already happened.

Did Clinton's administration know Sadda's alleged WMD were a sham too, even while they sought to reinstate inspections repeatedly interrupted by Saddam during Clinton's administration, but only finally reinstated shortly before Powell spoke to the UN in Bush's adinistration. How do you know? Faced with this on-again-off-again inspection stuff, I think it a futile exercise allowing Saddam to move stuff around from one hiding place to another between inspections.

Otherwise why not wait for the weapons inspectors to finish their job? Perhaps because Bush et al KNEW what the result would be, and that would deny them their alleged pretext for war.
They chose not to wait any longer because Bush et al believed exactly what they said they believed in Powell's speech to the UN, and in all of Bush's speeches to both the nation and to Congress. They wanted to strike before the threat of other 911s became imminent.


Invading Iraq, a sovereign nation, was not a defensive act, but an offensive one. We would never have done such a thing during the cold war, when each of the two superpowers kept the other in check. Having the power to act unilaterally now, however, (for any reason other than defending our country), does not give us the right to do so.
Neither the US or the terrorists have the power to keep either of us in check and not to attack the other to avoid being exterminating by the other. Both the USSR and the US rightfully assumed that if either attacked first, both of us were doomed. When the terrorists attacked us they weren't threatened by us until we invaded two of the countries in which they were based. They were quite content to continue to commit suicide in their efforts to exterminate us.

you wrote: "Spreading democracy is our administration's way of stifling terrorism". If you think about it, invading a sovereign nation and imposing democracy might have exactly the opposite effect.
Might have exactly the opposite effect If pigs had wings they might be able to fly. It is clear now that we are attempting to impose (your word) or help (my word) the Iraqis achieve what they want to achieve and have wanted to achieve for a very long time: a democracy of their own design. I bet their are millions throughout the world who crave to suffer that identical imposition.

Democracy is a wonderful thing, when people are ready for it, and ready to fight for it. If the Iraqis wanted democracy so badly, they ought to have revolted against Saddam and then asked for multinational help in their battle for freedom.
This argument seems disgustingly analogous to the argument that the doctrine of separate but equal should be retained until the blacks are ready to enjoy equal without the separate . That disgusting stuff I heard repeatedly while growing up. I have zero tolerance for both that, and for the idea that people have to be ready for democracy and to fight for it before they may be allowed to have it. Who are we or anyone else to dictate the conditions for people to enjoy the freedom democracy can deliver?

Which brings me back to my original point: if Americans knew then what they know now that Iraq posed no imminent threat from WMDs to our national security, they would never have endorsed this unilateral invasion for any other reason, including spreading democracy.
I as well as a great majority of the people I know endorse spreading democracy as a rational method that will probably prove effective in not only stifling terrorist acts, but also of eventually stifling the conditions of hopelessness that promote its attraction for recruits.

The US has for years promoted the doctrine of working with tyrannical governments and not giving a damn about the effects of that on the people being tyrannized by such governments. OK, we can't correct those past blunders all at once. We lack the means. But we can start and continue work to rectify those blunders now. We do have the means for that start and continue work. It's long past time for all of us to realize that start and continue work not only serves our own self-interests, but also serves the interest of all human kind. So stop carping and start encouraging all of us to finally do the right thing to honorable completion.

ican711nm wrote:

www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2003/17300pf.htm

Quote:

Page Not Available Sorry, you have tried to access a page that is not available.

OLD: www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2003/17300pf.htm
NEW: www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2003/17300.htm
Sorry about that. I gave you the old link. Please try the new one.

ican711nm wrote:

1. Saddam Hussein and his regime have not proved, as the UN demanded, that they no longer possess ready-to-use WMD;
2. Saddam Hussein and his regime have not disarmed as the UN demanded;
3. Saddam Hussein and his regime are concealing their efforts to produce ready-to-use WMD;
4. Saddam Hussein and his regime are permitting members of the al Qaeda confederation to be based in northern Iraq and did not respond to US requests to extradite their leaders.
5. Saddam Hussein perpetrates the mass murder of civilians living in his own and neighboring countries.

1. So you say the UN are relevant?
No! I didn't say that. I guess you could logically infer that Powell thought that. By the way, I didn't say the UN was relevant or irrelevant.

2. proof?
I cannot prove Powell at the time of his 2/5/2003 speech was correct anymore than you can prove he was incorrect. However, we subsequently discovered persuasive evidence of that after our invasion of Iraq. See General Franks "American Soldier" one of many pieces of persuasive evidence.

3. proof?
I cannot prove Powell at the time of his 2/5/2003 speech was correct anymore than you can prove he was incorrect. However, we subsequently discovered persuasive evidence of that after our invasion of Iraq. See Charles Duelfer Report (link is in my previous post) for persuasive evidence.

4. proof?
I cannot prove Powell at the time of his 2/5/2003 speech was correct anymore than you can prove he was incorrect. However, we subsequently discovered persuasive evidence of that after our invasion of Iraq. See 9/11 Comission Report for persuasive evidence (link is in my previous post).

5. Indeed. So do many regimes. I like the idea of ousting any dictator around the globe who does that. I truly do!!! (Hints: Darfur. North Korea. Saudi Arabia.) I'm looking forward to that! And I like the idea that the US want to do this without the help of the UN. Cause the UN are irrelevant.
When we complete the Afghanistan and Iraq tasks in hand, we may find we have encouraged the people living under tyrants to start their own revolutions to replace their tyrants with democracies of their own design. If not, I say we should proceed to help them do so as our means will allow as follows (the easier ones first):
1. Lebanon
2. Syria
3. Iran
4. Saudi Arabia
5. North Korea
6. If the European Union hasn't acted in the meantime, I say next are the tyrannical African States.

Am I misinterpreting? Hope not!
I think not, but you decide!

Too bad Fox is unable to defend her own statement.

wildeyefatty.jpg
June 20, 2004
Poker With Dick Cheney

ranscript of The Editors' regular Saturday-night poker game with Dick Cheney, 6/19/04. Start tape at 12:32 AM.

The Editors: We'll take three cards.

Dick Cheney: Give me one.

Sounds of cards being placed down, dealt, retrieved, and rearranged in hand. Non-commital noises, puffing of cigars.

TE: Fifty bucks.

DC: I'm in. Show 'em.

TE: Two pair, sevens and fives.

DC: Not good enough.

TE: What do you have?

DC: Better than that, that's for sure. Pay up.

TE: Can you show us your cards?

DC: Sure. One of them's a six.

TE: You need to show all your cards. That's the way the game is played.

Colin Powell: Ladies and gentlemen. We have accumulated overwhelming evidence that Mr. Cheney's poker hand is far, far better than two pair. Note this satellite photo, taken three minutes ago when The Editors went to get more chips. In it we clearly see the back sides of five playing cards, arranged in a poker hand. Defector reports have assured us that Mr. Cheney's hand was already well advanced at this stage. Later, Mr. Cheney drew only one card. Why only one card? Would a man without a strong hand choose only one card? We are absolutely convinced that Mr. Cheney has at least a full house.

Tim Russert: Wow. Colin Powell really hit a homerun for the Administration right there. A very powerful performance. My dad played a lot of poker in World War 2, and he taught me many things about life. Read my book.

TE: He's extremely good at Power Point. But we would like to see the cards, or else we can't really be sure he has anything to beat two pair. We don't think he would lie to us, but ... well, it is a very rich pot.

Jonah Goldberg: Liberal critics of Mr. Cheney's poker hand contend that "he doesn't have anything". Oh, really, liberal critics? Cheney has already showed them the six of clubs, and yet these liberals persist in saying he has "nothing". Why do liberals consider the six of clubs to be "nothing"? Is it because the six of clubs is black?

Matt Drudge: ****DRUDGE REPORT EXCLUSIVE****
*****MUST CREDIT THE DRUDGE REPORT*****
The Drudge Report has learned that Dick Cheney has a royal flush, hearts. Developing ...

TE: Perhaps if you could just show us a subset of your cards which beat 2 pair? Or tell us exactly what your hand is?

DC: We will show you our cards after we have collected the pot. It is important that things be done in this order, otherwise the foundation of our entire poker game will be destroyed.

TE: We aren't sure ...

DC: Very good. And here are my cards. A straight flush.

Judith Miller: Dick Cheney has revealed a straight flush, confirming his pre-collection claims about beating two pair.

TE: Those cards are of different suits. It's not a flush.

Mark Steyn: When will it end? Now liberal critics complain that Dick Cheney's cards are not all the same suit. Naturally, these are the same liberals who are always whining about a lack of diversity in higher education. It seems like segregation is OK with these liberals, as long as it damages Republicans.

MD: ****DRUDGE REPORT EXCLUSIVE****
*****MUST CREDIT THE DRUDGE REPORT*****
A witness has come forward claiming that The Editors engage in racial profiling in blog-linking. Developing ...

TE: Wait! It's not even a straight! You've got a eight and ten of hearts, a six of clubs, and the seven and five of diamonds. You have a ten high. That's nothing.

Sean Hannity: Well, well, well. In another sign of liberal desperation, liberals now complain that a ten high is "nothing". Does ten equal zero in liberal mathematics? That would explain a lot.

Robert Novak: It's a perfectly valid poker hand. Apparently, liberals have never heard of a "skip straight". It's a kind of straight, just with one card missing. But if you skip around the missing nine, it's a straight.

Alan Colmes: Mother says I mustn't play poker.

TE: There is no such thing as a "skip straight".

Brit Hume: It seems like some people are still playing poker like it's September 10th. Back then, you needed to have all your cards in order to claim a straight. But, as we learned on that day, sometimes you won't have perfect knowledge. Sometimes you have to learn to connect the dots, and see the patterns which are not visible to superficial analysis of the type favored by the CIA and the State Department. Dick Cheney's skip straight is a winning poker hand for the post-9/11 world.

Rush Limbaugh: Do The Editors have two pairs, or a pair of twos? First they say one thing, then another. What are they hiding?

Andrew Sullivan: Dick Cheney never said he had a straight. He was very careful about this. His cards can form many different hands. None of these hands alone can beat a pair of twos; but, taken together, the combination of all possible hands presents a more compelling case for taking the pot than simply screaming "Pair of twos! Pair of twos!" as unprincipled liberal critics of the Vice President so often do.

MD: ****DRUDGE REPORT EXCLUSIVE****
*****MUST CREDIT THE DRUDGE REPORT*****
Did The Editors claim to have "a pair of Jews"? Are they anti-Semites as well as racists? Developing ...

Zell Miller: As a lifelong liberal Democrat, I believe Dick Cheney, and I hate liberals and Democrats.

William Safire: Why are liberals so obsessed by Dick Cheney's poker hand? The pot has been taken, the deal is done. If liberals are upset that we are no longer playing by the Marquis of Queensbury patty-cake poker rules, they clearly lack the stomach to play poker in the post-September 11th environment. And why do they never complain about Saddam Hussein's poker playing, which was a thousand times worse?

Christopher Hitchens: The Left won't be happy until the pot is divided up equally between Yassar Arafat, Osama bin Laden, and Hitler. Orwell would have seen this.

Ann Coulter: Why do liberals object so strenuously to the idea of conservatives having a "straight"? Perhaps because it doesn't fit in with the radical homosexual/Islamist agenda they hold so dear?

Report of the Bipartisan Commission on Poker Hands: There is no such thing as a "skip straight".

DC: I have access to poker rules that the Commission doesn't, and so I know for a fact that the cards in my hand are all intimately connected.

George W. Bush: Dick Cheney is telling the truth. I'm a nice man who would drink a beer with you.

Vladimir Putin: I dealt Dick Cheney three aces and two kings.

DC: My deal.
Posted by The Editors at 07:34 PM Comments (19) | more