Posted on 06/17/2005 10:54:05 AM PDT by Graybeard58
Call it what you want. What's your plan ?
BTW, I thought that Wilsonianism held that the people of the Middle East were not capable of governing themselves therefore we had to govern them. Bush's plan is that they will select democracy once they see a functioning example in their midst.
"Imagine if a democrat had GW's record so far."
There'd certainly be more questioning of the democrat's motives, given such questionable data about pre-war intelligence.
Very simple:
1. Iraq invaded Kuwait.
2. Coalition came to Kuwait's defense.
3. Iraq agreed to ceasefire.
4. Iraq repeatedly violated terms of ceasefire.
5. Coalition forces eventually responded to Iraq's technical resumption of war.
A more detailed view of what happened between 4 and 5 is interesting:
4.1. Iraqi forces repeated fired upon coalition aircraft for years following the ceasefire (one violation).
4.2. Iraq obstructed UN inspectors (another violation).
4.3. UN demanded accounting Iraq's known and unknown WMDs promising retribution for noncompliance.
4.4. Iraq did not comply.
4.5. Coalition force build up.
4.6. Coalition leader (Bush) gave Iraq's leader 24 hours to leave Iraq to avoid invasion.
4.7. Iraq's leader did not leave.
So, the justification for the response to Hussein's war is solid and independent of any terrorism or WMDs.
The only question is whether the Bush administration was unethical in his efforts to raise US public support for the response, by building on 9/11 fears and overstating evidence of Iraqi WMDs.
But 9/11 is not needed to justify Bush's response to Hussein's war.
Frankly, Bush could have simply announced on the day he took office that the US was going to unilaterally invade Iraq to end the regime, and he would have been justified.
There was only one war--Iraq invaded Kuwait. The limited nature of the coalition's response to that invasion was contigent upon Iraq's compliance with the ceasefire. Iraq repeatedly violated that ceasfire. The coalition then responded definitively.
Everything else is about the politics within the coalition, not about the justification of US & coalition actions.
I'm not sure I have much of a choice. As I said, I voted for GWB. But I wasn't thrilled about his performance. I think his whole team overpromised and underdelivered.
But he didn't. He rested his case primarily on bad intelligence.
Maybe. The strange thing is that I read or listened to all his and Powell's major speeches leading up to the invasion, and yet I didn't know that knowledge of WMDs was his reason until after the media told me.
What *I* heard from Bush is that it was the LACK of knowledge about WMDs that was the reason for going forth with the invasion (which, as I've said, was already justified).
The only way he could have been misleading is if there was good intelligence that WMDs did NOT exist.
If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do --Saddam Hussein has chosen to build and keep these weapons despite international sanctions, U.N. demands, and isolation from the civilized world.
Come to find out there weren't any weapons.
I heard excerpts from this speech AFTER the war when the case was being made for how he misled people. Prior to the war, I heard his addresses to the nation, and Powell's UN presentations.
But you are right. In a minor speech to a Cincinatti audience, he stated that Iraq had WMDs. But you have to put this into context:
1) He told Iraq to make an accounting of WMDs. Why do this if he already knew the WMD situation?
2) The evidence presented by Powell was primarily a demonstration of how Iraq was evading inspectors, not direct evidence of WMDs.
It was clear during the time leading up to the war that Bush was making a PRESUMPTION of WMDs based upon known past use of WMDs, and current evading of inspectors. It was decided that an Iraq with WMDs would not be allowed to exist, and knowledge of WMDs could not be obtained without an invasion (b/c inspections were unreliable, intelligence was scant, and Hussein did not own up as demanded of him).
This was the understanding in my mind, and in the press, and with all the talking heads leading up to the invasion. Then after the invasion, there was total revisionism.
Now we learn that the CIA director was telling Bush that Iraq had to have WMDs, again, because of their past existence and b/c of Iraqs evading--Which is just what we knew before the invasion!
That was NOT a minor speech.
It was not delivered to a national audience, only covered by national press. AND it still has to be taken in the context I outlined. In context, it was not inappropriate.
"We know" is not a presumption. It's a representation of facts, which in this case turned out to be wrong.
This is pretty funny, though. By this standard, I guess the Gettysburg Address was much ado about nothing. The entire speech is on the White House web site. He gave the speech. It made news at the time. What's the matter? Why run from it?
I got the following satire from the Bill Wattenburg web site:
SATIRE: How the D-Day Invasion Would Be Reported By Today's Press
NORMANDY, FRANCE (June 6, 1944)
Three hundred French civilians were killed and thousands more were wounded
today in the first hours of America's invasion of continental Europe.
Casualties were heaviest among women and children. Most of the French
casualties were the result of artillery fire from American ships attempting
to knock out German fortifications prior to the landing of hundreds of
thousands of U.S. troops. Reports from a makeshift hospital in the French
town of St. Mere Eglise said the carnage was far worse than the French had
anticipated, and that reaction against the American invasion was running
high. "We are dying for no reason," said a Frenchman speaking on condition
of anonymity. "Americans can't even shoot straight. I never thought I'd say
this, but life was better under Adolph Hitler."
The invasion also caused severe environmental damage. American troops,
tanks, trucks and machinery destroyed miles of pristine shoreline and
thousands of acres of ecologically sensitive wetlands. It was believed that
the habitat of the spineless French crab was completely wiped out, thus
threatening the species with extinction. A representative of Greenpeace
said his organization, which had tried to stall the invasion for over a
year, was appalled at the destruction, but not surprised. "This is just
another example of how the military destroys the environment without a
second thought," said Christine Moanmore. "And it's all about corporate
greed."
Contacted at his Manhattan condo, a member of the French
government-in-exile who abandoned Paris when Hitler invaded, said the
invasion was based solely on American financial interests. "Everyone knows
that President Roosevelt has ties to 'big beer'," said Pierre LeWimp. "Once
the German beer industry is conquered, Roosevelt's beer cronies will
control the world market and make a fortune."
Administration supporters said America's aggressive actions were based in
part on the assertions of controversial scientist Albert Einstein, who sent
a letter to Roosevelt speculating that the Germans were developing a secret
weapon -- a so-called "atomic bomb". Such a weapon could produce casualties
on a scale never seen before, and cause environmental damage that could
last for thousands of years. Hitler has denied having such a weapon and
international inspectors were unable to locate such weapons even after
spending two long weekends in Germany.
Shortly after the invasion began, reports surfaced that German prisoners
had been abused by American soldiers. Mistreatment of Jews by Germans at
their so-called "concentration camps" has been rumored, but so far this
remains unproven.
Several thousand Americans died during the first hours of the invasion, and
French officials are concerned that the uncollected corpses will pose a
public-health risk. "The Americans should have planned for this in
advance," they said. "It's their mess, and we don't intend to help clean it
up."
You can either take his and Powell's *major* speeches where all the "persuasive" evidence was put forward, or you can assume that between those presentations and Cincinnati, he came up with some other stronger secret evidence that he wasn't telling anyone about, except to allude to it in a local speech in Ohio.
It was clearly a presumption of WMDs, and an appropriate one at that. People who think differently were either not paying attention, or were Cherry-picking Bush's words, out of context.
Nothing funny about it. Bush stumps all over the country, even today. When he has a major address, he'll address Congress, or speak from the White House.
BTW, you should know that the Gettysburg Address WAS much ado about nothing. Most people present didn't even know Lincoln was speaking until the speech was half over. It was only later that the speech became popular, and not as a statement of policy, but as an inspirational oratory.
Also, to tear a few words from Bush's Cincinnati speech from the context of everything else his administration had previously presented, would be akin to calling Lincoln a liar because he said "those who here gave their lives that that nation might live", when in fact many of the men were drafted and faught to avoid a firing squad, with no intention of 'giving' anything. That's Michael Moore kind of stuff.
Rangel about to get skewered on Hannity after the bottom of the hour news. (well, hopefully)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.