Rethinking the Iraq Critics

Townhall.com ^ | May 10, 2008 | Michael Barone

[advance_copy]

There was abundant evidence of contacts between Saddam's regime and al-Qaida and other terrorist groups.

Needs to be repeated, often.

[Kaslin]

Indeed it does

[SomeCallMeTim]

Funny... the book’s been out for a few weeks now. And, other than a few interviews on conservative talk radio, I haven’t seen or heard a peep about it.

I actually still get into arguments with people who don’t believe me when I tell them EVERY intelligence agency around the world was in agreement that Saddam did have WMD. There was, no “lie”.

[Reeses]

There were legal questions brought up about invading a country that was not an imminent danger to America. The WMD charge was the end run around that. Nobody was certain that ready WMD existed but the chance was used as legal justification to invade. This war needed to happen so I don’t care but using this end run in the future probably won’t work again.

[Per-Ling]

I bought the book last Wednesday. Can’t put it down.

[marktwain]

The left in America has been one of the biggest allies of American enemies in Iraq. The narrative that would be in an unbiased press is: The left lied, Americans died.

[leprechaun9]

When Saddam invaded Kuwait, it was readily accepted that this was an act of war. Many nations (the "Coalition") rallied to drive Saddam out of Kuwait. That war was never ended! Remember only a cease fire was declared to save the slaughter of Iraqis.

After years and years of (useless) U.N. resolutions and threats, President Bush ended the cease fire and continued the war that the Coalition had so willingly signed onto at the outset.

There was NO second Iraq war with the Coalition. The useless cease fire was brought to an end, as well as the geonocide of Iraqis by Saddam (in the hundreds of thousands)!

[SomeCallMeTim]

Nobody was certain that ready WMD existed

Sigh..... even here. :-(

No one is EVER "certain" in the intelligence business. But, there clearly was 'consensus' that a stockpile existed. The Russians even warned us to expect them to be used against us if we invaded. Even as the US was closing in on Bagdad, Saddam was threatening to USE what he did not have.

It just kills me how people conveniently forget what they don't want to remember.

[SomeCallMeTim]

When Saddam invaded Kuwait, it was readily accepted that this was an act of war. Many nations (the "Coalition") rallied to drive Saddam out of Kuwait.

Correct... and, here's another little fact you won't here repeated often: There were actually MORE (in numbers) countries involved in the second "coalition of the willing" than there were in the first. Because France and Germany (who were being paid off by Saddam) didn't join the second venture, the Left declared it a "unilateral" decision.

[kindred]

[There was abundant evidence of contacts between Saddam’s regime and al-Qaida and other terrorist groups.]

Barone has got it right, Bush failed not because he went to war with Iraq, but because of the way he let the liberal left, allies of all fascist regimes worldwide, control him and he said nothing while the left turned lies into truths that more than half of America now believes.
Bush was a fool because he did not do what a good conservative would do, Fight all enemies of America both forign and DOMESTIC.
He failed when he could have succeeded and that is a shame, you can not be a conservative and make deals with the liars and fools and neo nazi left wing fascists that destroy everything they touch.

[kindred]

[It just kills me how people conveniently forget what they don’t want to remember.]

A sad fact of the human estate is that we are all blind sheep led by blind sheep, which proves there is a God in heaven who ultimately brings His will to pass, I saw this in America’s birth and , Praise Jesus Christ, in Israel , the reborn nation that will be the nation the Lord Jesus will rule from for 1000 years after the coming 7 year tribulation wrath of God to bring in His Kingdom on the earth.

[em2vn]

” . . .Paul Bremer took the State-CIA view and, without much supervision from Washington, decided that the U.S. occupation would continue for as long as two years . . .”
He should have been given the administration’s viewpoint and directed to follow only that point of view. Failing to do so he should have been fired.

[gr8eman]

I figured it out somewhat after dealing with idiots for many years. There are a lot of people (like my boss) for whom history begins every morning, i.e., if you show them examples and patterns that prove what they do not want to think or believe, they will not believe it and act as it never happened or is a lie. Yet, when documented facts and history proves a positive for them they use it to the hilt for their advantage and to somehow show other people they are brilliant. The "War on Poverty" is prime example of this. Try telling your local commie/socialist that the WOP was a disaster and watch their reaction.

The other distinguishable character is arrogance. Maybe not totally purposeful but subtle.

[Reeses]

When Saddam invaded Kuwait, it was readily accepted that this was an act of war.

I'm not disagreeing with him but Bush Sr. wanted war and tricked Saddam into thinking he could have Kuwait. Before the invasion Bush had his diplomat tell Saddam that the dispute with Kuwait was considered a border dispute that the US had no interest in. The US reaction after Saddam's invasion was a complete surprise to him.

I remember when Bush Sr. pulled his punches and did not march into Iraq to get Saddam the Democrats let him have it, saying the military should have continued on and finished the job. If the president is a Republican then no matter what decision he makes the Democrats will take the opposing point of view. If GW Bush suddenly came out for nationalizing the health care industry the Democrats would suddenly be vehemently against it.

[Verginius Rufus]

I don't have any inside information about the first Bush administration, but I doubt Bush wanted war before the invasion of Kuwait--it took pressure from Margaret Thatcher after the fact to get him to take a firm line. Apparently the administration thought that Saddam might take a small area on the border and were surprised when he decided to swallow up the entire country.

It's worth remembering that a large part of the Democratic Party wanted to do nothing in response to that, except sanctions. The great Al Gore decided which side to support based on who could offer him a prime time speaking slot when the debate over using force was televised.

[Reeses]

Saddam was threatening to USE what he did not have.

Before Saddam went into hiding he was adamantly shouting that he had no WMDs. He didn't threaten to use nuclear weapons against the US military and in fact the reverse was true. He was told by diplomats just before the invasion commenced that if he used poison gas or anything the USA would totally nuke Iraq into a sheet of glass.

I'm generally a proponent of war. Some people just need killing. Just don't confuse the war sales pitch with the history of what actually went down. The truth is much more interesting.

[SomeCallMeTim]

I’m sorry.. you’re facts are incomplete. Do you not recall the threat that if we crossed the line into Bagdad that chemical weapons would be used?

I know that Saddam was claiming, before the war, to not have WMD. I also know most intel agencies did not believe Iraq had much of a nuclear program. Mostly, he was believed to have stockpiles of chemical weapons... and, it was suspected that he was working on biologicals.

Given Saddam’s constant interference with UN inspectors, there was really no way for the world to know, with certainty, what he really had or didn’t have.

Don’t get me wrong: I never thought the WMD argument was the strongest justification for the war. I was happy with “regime change” and “enforcement of the UN resolutions and peace terms”. But, the facts were: MOST intel agencies around the world believed WMD were there... and, after the realities of 9/11, I believe it would have been an unacceptable risk to assume Saddam would not give them to shadow terrorist groups.

[r-q-tek86]

ping

[rdb3]

Saddam had many times to prove that he had no WMD, yet he chose to show bravado instead of coming clean.

Now consider, just consider, he was trying to bluff not only the U.S., but Iran too. I just keep thinking that the old Shi'ite/Sunni rivalry was at play over who controlled the Strait of Hormuz for oil shipping to the Persian Gulf.

Thoughts?