The Circus in Chicago

09/14/2003, Dick Cheney, Vice President
“If we’re successful in Iraq … we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11.“

09/17/2003, George W. Bush, President
Q: Mr. President, Dr. Rice and Secretary Rumsfeld both said yesterday that they have seen no evidence that Iraq had anything to do with September 11th. THE PRESIDENT: “We’ve had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th.”

So what? If I dug a bit, I could give you a link that reliably shows that the invasion of Iraq was planned within a couple weeks of 9/11.

It doesn't change the fact that Iraq did have nerve gas shells hidden in the desert, and it doesn't change the fact that the mistaken claims that Iraq was still trying to develop nuclear weapons were made in good faith.

The fact that the Bush Administration were wrong on the main reason that they justified an invasion which killed 3,500 Americans and maimed almost 10 times more is just a big "So What"? Egad.

Sunday September 23, 2001

Press Release
SOURCE: Newsweek

Pentagon Board Wants Hit on Iraq After Afghanistan, But Secretary of State Powell Fears Strike Could Shatter Arab Anti-Terror Coalition

NEW YORK, Sept. 23 /PRNewswire/ -- At a two-day meeting last week of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, which is chaired by hard-liner Richard Perle, eminent conservatives including Henry Kissinger, James Schlesinger, Dan Quayle and Newt Gingrich reached a consensus that U.S. military forces should strike Iraq shortly after an initial blow against Afghanistan in response to the terror attack on New York and Washington, Newsweek reports in the current issue. ``When the U.S. loses what may be more than 6,000 people, there has to be reaction so that the world clearly knows that things have changed,'' Gingrich tells Newsweek.

But Secretary of State Colin Powell fears a strike on Iraq could shatter his efforts to build a worldwide anti-terror coalition. The aim would be to pool intelligence on terrorists with ``global reach'' and to gain police cooperation which he and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice believe is at least as critical to cracking down on terror as military action, report Foreign Editor Michael Hirsh and Diplomatic Correspondent Roy Gutman in the October 1 issue of Newsweek (on newsstands Monday, September 24).

The strike-Iraq contingent fears American credibility will be damaged if the U.S. gets bogged down in Afghanistan. It also believes Saddam's weapons of mass destruction could be used against America next, Newsweek reports. There is ``a recognition that it will be very tough to get bin Laden in the rocky and mountainous terrain of Afghanistan,'' said one participant in the Pentagon meetings. ``There's a feeling we've got to do something that counts -- and bombing some caves is not something that counts.''

On the other hand, Powell and deputies believe a full-blown military strike on Baghdad would only kill many Iraqis, enrage the Arab world and probably not dispose of Saddam, who has slowly won new allies with promises of oil deals since 1991.

http://web.archive.org/web/20010924113109/biz.yahoo.com/prnews/010923/nysu001a_1.html

Blickers wrote:

The fact that the Bush Administration were wrong on the main reason that they justified an invasion which killed 3,500 Americans and maimed almost 10 times more is just a big "So What"? Egad.

That number of casualties was just a few hours of battle during WWII.

And the only justification that the US ever needs for invading and smashing up another country is: we felt like doing it.



So yes, people being wrong about Iraq's weapons program is a big "meh" from my perspective.



For what it's worth, here is documentation of White House thinking just after 9/11:

Quote:

Sunday September 23, 2001

Press Release
SOURCE: Newsweek

Pentagon Board Wants Hit on Iraq After Afghanistan, But Secretary of State Powell Fears Strike Could Shatter Arab Anti-Terror Coalition

NEW YORK, Sept. 23 /PRNewswire/ -- At a two-day meeting last week of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, which is chaired by hard-liner Richard Perle, eminent conservatives including Henry Kissinger, James Schlesinger, Dan Quayle and Newt Gingrich reached a consensus that U.S. military forces should strike Iraq shortly after an initial blow against Afghanistan in response to the terror attack on New York and Washington, Newsweek reports in the current issue. ``When the U.S. loses what may be more than 6,000 people, there has to be reaction so that the world clearly knows that things have changed,'' Gingrich tells Newsweek.

But Secretary of State Colin Powell fears a strike on Iraq could shatter his efforts to build a worldwide anti-terror coalition. The aim would be to pool intelligence on terrorists with ``global reach'' and to gain police cooperation which he and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice believe is at least as critical to cracking down on terror as military action, report Foreign Editor Michael Hirsh and Diplomatic Correspondent Roy Gutman in the October 1 issue of Newsweek (on newsstands Monday, September 24).

The strike-Iraq contingent fears American credibility will be damaged if the U.S. gets bogged down in Afghanistan. It also believes Saddam's weapons of mass destruction could be used against America next, Newsweek reports. There is ``a recognition that it will be very tough to get bin Laden in the rocky and mountainous terrain of Afghanistan,'' said one participant in the Pentagon meetings. ``There's a feeling we've got to do something that counts -- and bombing some caves is not something that counts.''

On the other hand, Powell and deputies believe a full-blown military strike on Baghdad would only kill many Iraqis, enrage the Arab world and probably not dispose of Saddam, who has slowly won new allies with promises of oil deals since 1991.


http://web.archive.org/web/20010924113109/biz.yahoo.com/prnews/010923/nysu001a_1.html

No, the opposite. Oralloy is saying that the Iraq War was so much smaller and had so many fewer soldiers die that it is not that big a deal if they lied about the reasons for getting into it.

That number of casualties was just a few hours of battle during WWII.

And the only justification that the US ever needs for invading and smashing up another country is: we felt like doing it.

So yes, people being wrong about Iraq's weapons program is a big "meh" from my perspective.

No, the opposite. Oralloy is saying that the Iraq War was so much smaller and had so many fewer soldiers die that it is not that big a deal if they lied about the reasons for getting into it.