0
   

Who Is Buried in Bush's Speech?

 
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jul, 2003 12:06 am
No, not semantics. Powell's statements were clarified to mean that the administration believed that if Saddam left their invasion would continue as planned but there'd be "no war".

It was never expected to be put to the test but they included the caveats in case he decided to one-up the US and actually leave.

The administration amde it clear through the appropriate channels that even if he left the invasion would proceed.
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jul, 2003 12:06 am
Blatham's having too much fun.
What is that thing between your legs?
It looks like you drew in a penis.
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jul, 2003 12:10 am
Its funny, sorta. The time before the war, I was so thankful there was a chance we would avoid war.

An invasion to disarm may have avoided the more major fireworks, but I didn't envision a warlike action.... thinking...
0 Replies
 
maxsdadeo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jul, 2003 12:10 am
Quote:
It looks like you drew in a penis.


Oh, my!

He has to draw one in?

The poor dear! Laughing
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jul, 2003 12:12 am
I think it's just a splatter of errant cheese from a flying lasagna, but I could be wrong. (Ask anyone.)
0 Replies
 
LibertyD
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jul, 2003 12:13 am
The administration saying that war could be avoided if Saddam left Iraq was ridiculous. I don't see how they could possibly believe that he would leave on his own accord -- that guy gets off on war and power and international attention too much to just wither into the background and surrender for the sake of avoiding war.

The Bushies were under pressure both from the international community and from many here at home to at least *try* to avoid war, and asking Saddam to leave peacefully was their pathetic way of trying to cover their asses and appear as if they wanted to avoid war while knowing full well that it wouldn't work.
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jul, 2003 12:13 am
He had to draw one on because Lola absconded with the original one.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jul, 2003 12:16 am
Sofia,

The administration made an earnest effort to make their unprovoked attack seem to be a decision in saddam's hands.

They'd forcefully state that if Saddam left there's be "no war" but then quietly repeat that they meant "no hostilities" i.e. a peaceful invasion.

I do not yet know of anyone who believed that if saddam and family left there'd be no hostilities. Here is Bush:

"It is not too late for the Iraqi military to act with honor and protect your country, by permitting the peaceful entry of coalition forces to eliminate weapons of mass destruction." He urged military and security forces "not to fight for a dying regime that is not worth your life."

Many of them made it clear time and again that their invasion was going to proceed as planned. The crap about Saddam leaving was purely rhetorical. One more stone in the "it's all his choice, the ball's in his court" campaign.
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jul, 2003 12:25 am
Craven--
I can easily see why you and others believe that.

--------------
I thought when Saddam saw the full array of stuff pointed at him, he may save his skin.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jul, 2003 12:30 am
LibertyD,

I agree that it was a rhetorical demand. Besides the low likelihood of Saddam leaving the administration made it clear *before* Bush said those words that even if he left the invasion would proceed as planned.

Sofia,

I will use as a reference a US government site so as to avoid the source discrediting.

On March 17, 2003, Colin L. Powell gave a briefing in Washington, D.C. at 10:48 a.m. EST. He spoke of the decision to not seek a UN resolution and in carefully phrased diplo-speak blamed France.

Powell was laying the groundwork for Bush's speech and made it very clear that the demand Bush would make for Saddam to leave the country did not mean that their invasion would be halted. Only that they allege that it would be peaceful.

This allowed Bush to state more emphatically that there'd be "no war" if Saddam left.

Laymen started up with the "It's all in Saddam's hands" line while anyone following it recognized that the planned mission would continue and that the demand issued to Saddam would not change the war plans.

Here is a verbatim quote from Powell's briefing:

"President Bush will address the nation and the world on the situation as we now see it. In his speech, he clearly will issue an ultimatum to Saddam Hussein that the only way to avoid the serious consequences that were built into 1441 is for Saddam Hussein and his immediate cohort to leave the country and to allow this matter to be resolved through the peaceful entry of force and not a conflict."

You can find it here:

http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/text2003/0317pwl.htm

It's quite clear that there was no offer to halt the march to war. Only to postulation that it would be a "peaceful entry of force" (an oxymoron is there ever was one) if Saddam left.

Frankly I'm tired of the argument that Saddam could have avoided war by leaving once the 48 hour ultimatum was issued. It represents a very selective approach to the information coming right out of the horses' mouths.
0 Replies
 
LibertyD
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jul, 2003 12:35 am
I agree, Craven.
0 Replies
 
maxsdadeo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jul, 2003 12:42 am
Craven: I think you are mixing apples and oranges.
apples: conflict between Iraq and the Coalition.
oranges: Saddam's continued ruling of Iraq.

I'll grant you that the US Government was quite clear that under no circumstances would there be allowed any oranges, but Saddam served the apples.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jul, 2003 12:47 am
max,

If you believe that Saddam's departure would have resulted in the lack of hostilities despite the entry of force please say so. I have yet to see anyone buy that line.

The administration was clear in that even if Saddam relinquished power the invasion would have proceeded.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jul, 2003 01:15 am
Regime change was decided upon by members of the Bush administration long before 9/11, and long before even Bush's appointment to president.

http://www.ceip.org/files/nonprolif/templates/Publications.asp?p=8&PublicationID=1214

Origins of Regime Change in Iraq
Proliferation Brief, Volume 6, Number 5
Wednesday, March 19, 2003
Long before September 11, before the first inspections in Iraq had started, a small group of influential officials and experts in Washington were calling for regime change in Iraq. Some never wanted to end the 1991 war. Many are now administration officials. Their organization, dedication and brilliance offer much to admire, even for those who disagree with the policies they advocate.

We have assembled on our web site links to the key documents produced since 1992 by this group, usually known as neo-conservatives, and analysis of their efforts. They offer a textbook case of how a small, organized group can determine policy in a large nation, even when the majority of officials and experts originally scorned their views.

In the Beginning
In 1992, Paul Wolfowitz, then-under secretary of defense for policy, supervised the drafting of the Defense Policy Guidance document. Wolfowitz had objected to what he considered the premature ending of the 1991 Iraq War. In the new document, he outlined plans for military intervention in Iraq as an action necessary to assure "access to vital raw material, primarily Persian Gulf oil" and to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and threats from terrorism.

The guidance called for preemptive attacks and ad hoc coalitions but said that the U.S. should be ready to act alone when "collective action cannot be orchestrated." The primary goal of U.S. policy should be to prevent the rise of any nation that could challenge the United States. When the document leaked to the New York Times, it proved so extreme that it had to be rewritten. These concepts are now part of the new U.S. National Security Strategy.

Links to Likud
In 1996, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and David Wurmser, now administration officials, joined in a report to the newly elected Likud government in Israel calling for "a clean break" with the policies of negotiating with the Palestinians and trading land for peace. They said "Israel can shape its strategic environment…by weakening, containing and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq…Iraq's future could affect the strategic balance in the Middle East profoundly." They called for "reestablishing the principle of preemption."

In 1998, 18 prominent conservatives wrote a letter to President Clinton urging him to "aim at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power." Most of these experts are now officials in the administration, including Elliot Abrams, Richard Armitage, John Bolton, Paula Dobriansky, Zalmay Khalilzad, Richard Perle, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz.

The Power of Planning
In 2000, the Project for the New American Century, which is chaired by William Kristol and includes Robert Kagan as a director, issued a report, "Rebuilding America's Defenses." The Project had organized the 1998 letter to Clinton and the 2000 report seems to have become a blueprint for the administration's foreign and defense policies. The report noted, "The U.S. has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in the Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."

While not explicitly calling for permanent bases in Iraq after regime change, the report notes the difficulty of basing forces in Saudi Arabia, given "Saudi domestic sensibilities," and calls for a permanent Gulf military presence even "should Saddam pass from the scene" as "Iran may well prove as large a threat."

The official National Security Strategy of the United States, issued September 2002, holds that our defense "will require bases and stations within and beyond Western Europe and Northeast Asia."

A Rising Chorus
Immediately after September 11, Paul Wolfowitz and other officials urged President Bush to attack Iraq. New Yorker writer Mark Danner notes as part of a PBS Frontline special that they saw this as a "new opportunity presented by the war on terror-that is, an opportunity to argue to the public that Iraq presented a vital danger to the United States." Colin Powell and the joint chiefs opposed them. "Powell's view was that Wolfowitz was fixated on Iraq, that they were looking for any excuse to bring Iraq into this," Washington Post reporter Dan Balz told Frontline. Powell won, but briefly.

Neo-conservative writers began to urge regime change as part of a larger strategy for remaking the Middle East. In June 2002, Michael Kelly wrote that a democratic Iraq and Palestine "will revolutionize the power dynamic in the Middle East…A majority of Arabs will come to see America as the essential ally."

"Change toward democratic regimes in Tehran and Baghdad would unleash a tsunami across the Islamic world," claimed Joshua Muravchik in August of that year. Michael Ledeen on September 4, 2002, called for the US to launch "a vast democratic revolution to liberate all the peoples of the Middle East…It is impossible to imagine that the Iranian people would tolerate tyranny in their own country once freedom had come to Iraq. Syria would follow in short order."

Democracy experts, including Carnegie's Tom Carothers, call this vision "a dangerous fantasy." But on September 12, President Bush embraced the strategy when he told the United Nations, "The people of Iraq can shake off their captivity. They can one day join a democratic Afghanistan and a democratic Palestine, inspiring reforms throughout the Muslim world." The president seems to have absorbed the entire expansive strategy. Now, for him, regime change in Iraq is not the end, it is just the beginning.

Click here for all these documents and more insight into the people and strategy behind the occupation of Iraq.

Joseph Cirincione is a Senior Associate and Director of the Non-Proliferation Project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
0 Replies
 
kuvasz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jul, 2003 01:15 am
"Who Is Buried in Bush's Speech?"

The famous Clenis from Hope, Arkansas?

It's all that big fella's fault. Nothing on Bush's watch is ever his fault or responsibility anyway, so why not the Clenis for the sotu speech too?

Either Bush was lied to which shows him as an even more sad sack case of an incompetent manager, knowingly participated in a manipulation and distortion of language that he castigates when discussing trial lawyers, or what? Just what?

An honest mistake?

If bush was lied to or made to look like a fool, (admittedly, a short hurdle to overcome), he ought to be mad as hell and demanding that the intelligence community, upon which he supposedly relied be thoroughly reviewed.

He hasn't and it becomes more clear each day that Bush calling for a review of the alleged failures in the intelligence community about Iraq and wmd would be like a prostitute crying rape in a brothel.

The Bush propaganda campaign which preceded the war was identical in approach to the selling of soap, viz., identify a problem, stretch the facts to make it look like it is very important to do something about it, propose a solution, have the customer buy it.... of course not Bush alone was selling, can you say "Halliburton"?

The problem was Hussein.

Hussein was going to attack America with WMD, at least Bush and Cheney and that gap-toothed, pointy-headed academician from Stanford Rice said so.

It was the threat of bio/chem weapons, and the threat of nukes, graphically mentioned by Cheney and Bush repeatedly last fall and winter that were the boogiemen.

The alleged support for the accusations of the big three wmd all have been found to be completely false, exaggerated beyond value, or non-sequiters to the issues.

Did Bush lie?

Of course he did, he and his buddies made it up as they went along and cooked the books just like his corporate criminal buddy Ken Lay did at Enron. But what he has done is now so openly proven that anything else he and his minions try to spin looks like a child doing a magic trick before the Amazing Randy... a smile comes to one's face in astonishment that he thinks that no one can see the strings.

But all this crap is a distraction from the active and wilfull destruction of the American economy by the GOP for nothing more than tax cuts for the very rich.

Jesus, never in my lifetime would I have expected to see a $450BILLION deficit, yet two years after Clinton's final year in office and a $120 BILLION surplus, here we are, tax cuts installed, the economy stalled and no sign in sight for a recovery.... today I listened to the Yoda of the Fed, Greenspan and he said the same thing 18 months ago about the economy... prosperity is just around the corner. All the while not mentioning that there is no corner in sight.

If that fella' in the white house had been a paid agent of a foreign power trying to destroy America, he could not have done worse than George Walker Bush.

Hell, don't even use the rhetorical question: "are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?" just trim it to 2 years.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jul, 2003 01:17 am
Regime change was decided upon by members of the Bush administration long before 9/11, and long before even Bush's appointment to president.

http://www.ceip.org/files/nonprolif/templates/Publications.asp?p=8&PublicationID=1214

Origins of Regime Change in Iraq
Proliferation Brief, Volume 6, Number 5
Wednesday, March 19, 2003
Long before September 11, before the first inspections in Iraq had started, a small group of influential officials and experts in Washington were calling for regime change in Iraq. Some never wanted to end the 1991 war. Many are now administration officials. Their organization, dedication and brilliance offer much to admire, even for those who disagree with the policies they advocate.

We have assembled on our web site links to the key documents produced since 1992 by this group, usually known as neo-conservatives, and analysis of their efforts. They offer a textbook case of how a small, organized group can determine policy in a large nation, even when the majority of officials and experts originally scorned their views.

In the Beginning
In 1992, Paul Wolfowitz, then-under secretary of defense for policy, supervised the drafting of the Defense Policy Guidance document. Wolfowitz had objected to what he considered the premature ending of the 1991 Iraq War. In the new document, he outlined plans for military intervention in Iraq as an action necessary to assure "access to vital raw material, primarily Persian Gulf oil" and to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and threats from terrorism.

The guidance called for preemptive attacks and ad hoc coalitions but said that the U.S. should be ready to act alone when "collective action cannot be orchestrated." The primary goal of U.S. policy should be to prevent the rise of any nation that could challenge the United States. When the document leaked to the New York Times, it proved so extreme that it had to be rewritten. These concepts are now part of the new U.S. National Security Strategy.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jul, 2003 01:17 am
Links to Likud
In 1996, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and David Wurmser, now administration officials, joined in a report to the newly elected Likud government in Israel calling for "a clean break" with the policies of negotiating with the Palestinians and trading land for peace. They said "Israel can shape its strategic environment…by weakening, containing and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq…Iraq's future could affect the strategic balance in the Middle East profoundly." They called for "reestablishing the principle of preemption."

In 1998, 18 prominent conservatives wrote a letter to President Clinton urging him to "aim at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power." Most of these experts are now officials in the administration, including Elliot Abrams, Richard Armitage, John Bolton, Paula Dobriansky, Zalmay Khalilzad, Richard Perle, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz.

The Power of Planning
In 2000, the Project for the New American Century, which is chaired by William Kristol and includes Robert Kagan as a director, issued a report, "Rebuilding America's Defenses." The Project had organized the 1998 letter to Clinton and the 2000 report seems to have become a blueprint for the administration's foreign and defense policies. The report noted, "The U.S. has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in the Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."

While not explicitly calling for permanent bases in Iraq after regime change, the report notes the difficulty of basing forces in Saudi Arabia, given "Saudi domestic sensibilities," and calls for a permanent Gulf military presence even "should Saddam pass from the scene" as "Iran may well prove as large a threat."

The official National Security Strategy of the United States, issued September 2002, holds that our defense "will require bases and stations within and beyond Western Europe and Northeast Asia."
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jul, 2003 01:17 am
A Rising Chorus
Immediately after September 11, Paul Wolfowitz and other officials urged President Bush to attack Iraq. New Yorker writer Mark Danner notes as part of a PBS Frontline special that they saw this as a "new opportunity presented by the war on terror-that is, an opportunity to argue to the public that Iraq presented a vital danger to the United States." Colin Powell and the joint chiefs opposed them. "Powell's view was that Wolfowitz was fixated on Iraq, that they were looking for any excuse to bring Iraq into this," Washington Post reporter Dan Balz told Frontline. Powell won, but briefly.

Neo-conservative writers began to urge regime change as part of a larger strategy for remaking the Middle East. In June 2002, Michael Kelly wrote that a democratic Iraq and Palestine "will revolutionize the power dynamic in the Middle East…A majority of Arabs will come to see America as the essential ally."

"Change toward democratic regimes in Tehran and Baghdad would unleash a tsunami across the Islamic world," claimed Joshua Muravchik in August of that year. Michael Ledeen on September 4, 2002, called for the US to launch "a vast democratic revolution to liberate all the peoples of the Middle East…It is impossible to imagine that the Iranian people would tolerate tyranny in their own country once freedom had come to Iraq. Syria would follow in short order."

Democracy experts, including Carnegie's Tom Carothers, call this vision "a dangerous fantasy." But on September 12, President Bush embraced the strategy when he told the United Nations, "The people of Iraq can shake off their captivity. They can one day join a democratic Afghanistan and a democratic Palestine, inspiring reforms throughout the Muslim world." The president seems to have absorbed the entire expansive strategy. Now, for him, regime change in Iraq is not the end, it is just the beginning.

Click here for all these documents and more insight into the people and strategy behind the occupation of Iraq.

Joseph Cirincione is a Senior Associate and Director of the Non-Proliferation Project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jul, 2003 01:19 am
from Lola's slate quotation:

Quote:
First there was the mystery sniper. Then there was the mystery arsonist. Now there is the mystery ventriloquist. The media are in a frenzy of speculation and leakage. Senators are calling for hearings. All of Washington demands an answer: Who was the arch-fiend who told a lie in President Bush's State of the Union speech? No investigation has plumbed such depths of the unknown since O.J. Simpson's hunt for the real killer of his ex-wife. (Whatever happened to that, by the way?)


(What happened to the "mystery arsonist, btw?)

An old German proverb says: Be sure your sins will find you out.

The Independent headlines today
Anger grows on both sides of Atlantic at misleading claims on eve of Iraq conflict: Cheney under pressure to quit over false war evidence
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jul, 2003 01:19 am
I apologies for the double post.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/27/2024 at 04:10:58