OMG! Hell Just Froze Over!!!

Brandon9000 wrote:

Setanta wrote:

Your argument doesn't cut it. If we didn't know if Hussein had womds, and specifically nukes, then we were running the same risk as we would in an invasion of North Korea. If we knew that Hussein could not launch nukes, then the argument that we needed to invade because he possessed them was a knowing lie.

From a cynical point of view, we could invade North Korea today, fairly safe in the knowledge that the Kim Jong Il regime doesn't have the delivery system to hit the United States. But, of course, they also don't have the second largest proven light, sweet crude petroleum fields in the world.

We inaded Iraq precisely to stop them from obtaining nukes or serious bioweapons. That's exactly the reason we invaded.

As for North Korea, it would be insane to invade a country that posseses the option of replying with nukes, and particularly one that's crazy enough to do it. Who needs a delivery system? They could obliterate South Korea, or the attacking American naval fleet, etc.

Iraq and North Korea are not comparable, because in the former case, we felt we had to to stop them from acquiring serious WMD. North Korea already possesses serious WMD.

Short memory?

dyslexia wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Setanta wrote:

Your argument doesn't cut it. If we didn't know if Hussein had womds, and specifically nukes, then we were running the same risk as we would in an invasion of North Korea. If we knew that Hussein could not launch nukes, then the argument that we needed to invade because he possessed them was a knowing lie.

From a cynical point of view, we could invade North Korea today, fairly safe in the knowledge that the Kim Jong Il regime doesn't have the delivery system to hit the United States. But, of course, they also don't have the second largest proven light, sweet crude petroleum fields in the world.

We inaded Iraq precisely to stop them from obtaining nukes or serious bioweapons. That's exactly the reason we invaded.

As for North Korea, it would be insane to invade a country that posseses the option of replying with nukes, and particularly one that's crazy enough to do it. Who needs a delivery system? They could obliterate South Korea, or the attacking American naval fleet, etc.

Iraq and North Korea are not comparable, because in the former case, we felt we had to to stop them from acquiring serious WMD. North Korea already possesses serious WMD.

Short memory?

As usual, you think that debate consists of clever jibes. How about saying what you mean in enough detail for someone to respond to?

Brandon9000 wrote:

We inaded Iraq precisely to stop them from obtaining nukes or serious bioweapons. That's exactly the reason we invaded.

The admininstration's claims and yours are seriously divergent. I see once again a tendancy on your part to state matters in terms convenient to your argument. The adminnistration consistently alleged that Iraq had womd and womd programs, and Cheney, carefully used for plausible deniability, stated that we knew were the weapons were.

Quote:

As for North Korea, it would be insane to invade a country that posseses the option of replying with nukes, and particularly one that's crazy enough to do it. Who needs a delivery system? They could obliterate South Korea, or the attacking American naval fleet, etc.

In the first place, to invade North Korea, the 72nd Armored Regiment and Seventh Cavalry Regiment, which are already in South Korea, would only need to drive across the border. If you don't have a delivery system, how to you propose to target the "fleet" (the imaginary, unnecessary fleet)? They might play bloody hell with South Korea, but once again, that presumes an effective delivery system, which we don't know them to possess. They could lob in scud type missles, with a primitive an inaccurate guidance system, but were not even certain that they have workable warheads, although it is considered likely.

Quote:

Iraq and North Korea are not comparable, because in the former case, we felt we had to to stop them from acquiring serious WMD. North Korea already possesses serious WMD.

Once again, like Winston in 1984, you are re-writing history. This administration alleged that Hussein had womd, and Cheney alleged that we knew where they were.

Brandon9000 wrote:

dyslexia wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Setanta wrote:

Your argument doesn't cut it. If we didn't know if Hussein had womds, and specifically nukes, then we were running the same risk as we would in an invasion of North Korea. If we knew that Hussein could not launch nukes, then the argument that we needed to invade because he possessed them was a knowing lie.

From a cynical point of view, we could invade North Korea today, fairly safe in the knowledge that the Kim Jong Il regime doesn't have the delivery system to hit the United States. But, of course, they also don't have the second largest proven light, sweet crude petroleum fields in the world.

We inaded Iraq precisely to stop them from obtaining nukes or serious bioweapons. That's exactly the reason we invaded.

As for North Korea, it would be insane to invade a country that posseses the option of replying with nukes, and particularly one that's crazy enough to do it. Who needs a delivery system? They could obliterate South Korea, or the attacking American naval fleet, etc.

Iraq and North Korea are not comparable, because in the former case, we felt we had to to stop them from acquiring serious WMD. North Korea already possesses serious WMD.

Short memory?

As usual, you think that debate consists of clever jibes. How about saying what you mean in enough detail for someone to respond to?

Wouldn't be fair, I did complete the 8th grade.

What you believe is not at issue, Brandon. What mattes is the truth, not what you believe.

timberlandko wrote:

I imagine you'll find unsurprising my disagreement with your assessment of the "Mission Accomplished" speech. You may read into it whatever you wish, however, what it said to me was that while one battle in a long, multi-front war, a war against a new kind of enemy, had been won, that enemy was far from defeated and the war which that enemy had thrust upon us continued and would continue untill that enemy had been rendered without the will, means, or ability to wage war against us.

While I'm not quite sure of what you think "my" assessment of that particular speech would be, I'm absolutely not surprised that you would disagree with the conclusion that could be drawn from it, namely that Saddam's Iraq was somehow involved or behind the terrorist attacks of 9/11.

Bugger, even I would disagree with such an assessment, and I even said, in replying to your post, that I would probably not be able to find a quote from someone in the adminstration saying "Iray had an operational role in the events in 9/11".

However, I was not discussing my or your opinion, or the conclusion either one of us would draw from a speech like the "Mission Accomplished" one. What I was saying was that Bush missed no opportunity in order to establish a connection between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks, saying things like

Quote:

The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11th, 2001 and still goes on.

The result can hardly be denied. At the time of this speech (and similar speeches and statements by the Prez and other admin officials), a vast majority of Americans believed that Saddam Hussein was involved in the attacks. For example, in a Washington Post poll published around the time Bush gave this speech, sixty-nine percent of those polled said they believe it is "likely the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks carried out by al-Qaeda."

Obviously, this administration's intent has been for the public to draw that conclusion. At least I am unaware of any official statement to the avail of "We have to fight this war with Iraq, but Iraq was not involved in 9/11."

No, the single purpose of carefully scripted speeches like the carrier speech was to leave the casual listener (your average John Doe with no particular interest in politics - i.e. the vast majority of the population) with the impression that somehow, Iraq was involved in the attacks on the World Trade Center.

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL ONLINE
December 29, 2005

Sizeable minorities of Americans still believe Saddam Hussein had "strong links to al Qaeda," a Harris Interactive poll shows, though the number has fallen substantially this year.

About 22% of U.S. adults believe Mr. Hussein helped plan 9/11, the poll shows, and 26% believe Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when the U.S. invaded. Another 24% believe several of the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqis, according to the online poll of 1,961 adults.

However, all of these beliefs have declined since February of this year, when 64% of those polled believed Mr. Hussein had strong links to al Qaeda and 46% said Mr. Hussein helped plan 9/11. At that time, more than a third said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and 44% said several of the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqis.

Currently, 56% of adults believe Iraqis are better off now than they were under Mr. Hussein, down from 76% in February. Nearly half of those polled say they believe Iraq, under Mr. Hussein, was a threat to U.S. security, down from 61% in February.

ARTICLE
Did President Bush Mislead the Country in His Arguments for War with Iraq?
James P. Pfiffner

President Bush has been accused by some in the popular press of lying in his arguments for taking the United States to war with Iraq in 2003. This article examines several sets of statements by President Bush and his administration: first, about the implication that there was a link between Saddam Hussein, al Qaeda, and the terrorist attacks of 9/11; second, about Iraq's nuclear weapons capacity; and third, about Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons and his ability to deliver them. Although the record at this early date is far from complete, the article concludes that from publicly available evidence, the president misled the country in important ways, potentially undermining the trust of the citizenry.


To cite this article
Pfiffner, James P. (2004)
Did President Bush Mislead the Country in His Arguments for War with Iraq?.
Presidential Studies Quarterly 34 (1), 25-46.
doi: 10.1111/
j.1741-5705.2004.00032.x

Setanta wrote:

What you believe is not at issue, Brandon. What mattes is the truth, not what you believe.

You really don't want to debate this do you? Either admit that my recollection is correct and proceed with the argument, or state that you believe that it's incorect and we can debate that. This post of yours is just a way of escaping from the debate.

The Piffner article wrote:

<snip>

How can we judge this systematic pattern of implication and the sudden reversal by the president? It is difficult to show that there was an outright lie in the president's rhetoric, because his use of language was too careful.

<article continues>

Setanta wrote:

What you believe is not at issue, Brandon. What mattes is the truth, not what you believe.

You really don't want to debate this do you? Either admit that my recollection is correct and proceed with the argument, or state that you believe that it's incorect and we can debate that. This post of yours is just a way of escaping from the debate.

The International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA] confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.

The media linked Saddam to 9/11, not the administration. Please lets all keep that in mind. Certain members of the administration have used 9/11 to explain the war on terror and have used the words "9/11" and "Iraq" in the same sentance. The media blew it up and made it an issue.

In his victory speech on 1 May 2003 on an aircraft carrier off the coast of California, [President Bush] said: "The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001. . . .We've removed an ally of al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding. . . .With those attacks [of 9/11], the terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States. And war is what they got."