Had we been told then what America knows now (Iraq WMD)

GoGov.com ^ | July 4, 2003 | Russell Betts

[Matchett-PI]

"If we had been told before the war that Iraq was absolutely no danger to us..."

What planet have you been living on? Your remarks are waaaaaay out there

Here are the facts about what you were told right from the horses' mouth. Where were you when they were spoken by G.W. Bush, himself? Get your facts straight:

The UN, DemocRATS and other Marxists accuse President Bush of going to war when there is no "imminent threat" against America.

But they conveniently ignore what President Bush plainly told them in his latest State of the Union address this Spring, 2003, when he said this, EXCERPTED:

"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?"

==

And here is the bottom line excerpt from President Bush's speech aboard The USS Abraham Lincoln:

"Our war against terror is proceeding according to principles that I have made clear to all:

*Any person* involved in committing or planning terrorist attacks against the American people becomes an enemy of this country, and a target of American justice.

Any person*, *organization*, or *government* that supports, protects, or harbors terrorists is complicit in the murder of the innocent, and equally guilty of terrorist crimes.

Any outlaw regime that has ties to terrorist groups and SEEKS or possesses weapons of mass destruction is a grave danger to the civilized world -- and will be confronted.

In just a minute, I'm going to be furnishing you with some more facts straight from the horses' mouth when "W" gave Saddam 48 hours to get out of Baghdad.

[Republican Wildcat]

Are you lying, or just insane?

[Matchett-PI]

"If we had been told before the war that Iraq was absolutely no danger to us..." ~ Mike4Freedom

Here's even more that you were told *before the war*. The question is 'Where WERE you' *before the war* when Bush was saying all these things?:

Text Of Bush Speech On Iraq - WASHINGTON, March 17, 2003

(AP) Below is the text of President Bush's prime-time address Monday on Iraq, as transcribed by eMediaMillWorks Inc.:

My fellow citizens, events in Iraq have now reached the final days of decision.

For more than a decade, the United States and other nations have pursued patient and honorable efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime without war. That regime pledged to reveal and destroy all of its weapons of mass destruction as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War in 1991.

Since then, the world has engaged in 12 years of diplomacy. We have passed more than a dozen resolutions in the United Nations Security Council. We have sent hundreds of weapons inspectors to oversee the disarmament of Iraq.

Our good faith has not been returned. The Iraqi regime has used diplomacy as a ploy to gain time and advantage. It has uniformly defied Security Council resolutions demanding full disarmament.

Over the years, U.N. weapons inspectors have been threatened by Iraqi officials, electronically bugged and systematically deceived. Peaceful efforts to disarm the Iraq regime have failed again and again because we are not dealing with peaceful men.

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people.

The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of America and our friends and it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al-Qaida.

The danger is clear: Using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country or any other.

The United States and other nations did nothing to deserve or invite this threat, but we will do everything to defeat it. Instead of drifting along toward tragedy, we will set a course toward safety.

Before the day of horror can come, before it is too late to act, this danger will be removed.

The United States of America has the sovereign authority to use force in assuring its own national security. That duty falls to me as commander of chief by the oath I have sworn, by the oath I will keep.

Recognizing the threat to our country, the United States Congress voted overwhelmingly last year to support the use of force against Iraq.

America tried to work with the United Nations to address this threat because we wanted to resolve the issue peacefully. We believe in the mission of the United Nations.

One reason the U.N. was founded after the Second World War was to confront aggressive dictators actively and early, before they can attack the innocent and destroy the peace.

In the case of Iraq, the Security Council did act in the early 1990s. Under Resolutions 678 and 687, both still in effect, the United States and our allies are authorized to use force in ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction.

This is not a question of authority, it is a question of will.

Last September, I went to the U.N. General Assembly and urged the nations of the world to unite and bring an end to this danger. On November 8th, the Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1441, finding Iraq in material breach of its obligations and vowing serious consequences if Iraq did not fully and immediately disarm.

Today, no nation can possibly claim that Iraq has disarmed. And it will not disarm so long as Saddam Hussein holds power.

For the last four and a half months, the United States and our allies have worked within the Security Council to enforce that council's long-standing demands. Yet some permanent members of the Security Council have publicly announced that they will veto any resolution that compels the disarmament of Iraq. These governments share our assessment of the danger, but not our resolve to meet it.

Many nations, however, do have the resolve and fortitude to act against this threat to peace, and a broad coalition is now gathering to enforce the just demands of the world.

The United Nations Security Council has not lived up to its responsibilities, so we will rise to ours.

In recent days, some governments in the Middle East have been doing their part. They have delivered public and private messages urging the dictator to leave Iraq so that disarmament can proceed peacefully.

He has thus far refused.

All the decades of deceit and cruelty have now reached an end. Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict commenced at a time of our choosing.

For their own safety, all foreign nationals, including journalists and inspectors, should leave Iraq immediately.

Many Iraqis can hear me tonight in a translated radio broadcast, and I have a message for them: If we must begin a military campaign, it will be directed against the lawless men who rule your country and not against you.

As our coalition takes away their power, we will deliver the food and medicine you need.

We will tear down the apparatus of terror and we will help you to build a new Iraq that is prosperous and free.

In free Iraq there will be no more wars of aggression against your neighbors, no more poison factories, no more executions of dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms.

The tyrant will soon be gone. The day of your liberation is near.

It is too late for Saddam Hussein to remain in power. It is not too late for the Iraq military to act with honor and protect your country, by permitting the peaceful entry of coalition forces to eliminate weapons of mass destruction. Our forces will give Iraqi military units clear instructions on actions they can take to avoid being attacked and destroyed.

I urge every member of the Iraqi military and intelligence services: If war comes, do not fight for a dying regime that is not worth your own life.

And all Iraqi military and civilian personnel should listen carefully to this warning: In any conflict, your fate will depend on your actions. Do not destroy oil wells, a source of wealth that belongs to the Iraqi people. Do not obey any command to use weapons of mass destruction against anyone, including the Iraqi people. War crimes will be prosecuted, war criminals will be punished and it will be no defense to say, "I was just following orders."

Should Saddam Hussein choose confrontation, the American people can know that every measure has been taken to avoid war and every measure will be taken to win it.

Americans understand the costs of conflict because we have paid them in the past. War has no certainty except the certainty of sacrifice.

Yet the only way to reduce the harm and duration of war is to apply the full force and might of our military, and we are prepared to do so.

If Saddam Hussein attempts to cling to power, he will remain a deadly foe until the end.

In desperation, he and terrorist groups might try to conduct terrorist operations against the American people and our friends. These attacks are not inevitable. They are, however, possible.

And this very fact underscores the reason we cannot live under the threat of blackmail. The terrorist threat to America and the world will be diminished the moment that Saddam Hussein is disarmed.

Our government is on heightened watch against these dangers. Just as we are preparing to ensure victory in Iraq, we are taking further actions to protect our homeland.

In recent days, American authorities have expelled from the country certain individuals with ties to Iraqi intelligence services.

Among other measures, I have directed additional security at our airports and increased Coast Guard patrols of major seaports. The Department of Homeland Security is working closely with the nation's governors to increase armed security at critical facilities across America.

Should enemies strike our country, they would be attempting to shift our attention with panic and weaken our morale with fear. In this, they would fail.

No act of theirs can alter the course or shake the resolve of this country. We are a peaceful people, yet we are not a fragile people. And we will not be intimidated by thugs and killers.

If our enemies dare to strike us, they and all who have aided them will face fearful consequences.

We are now acting because the risks of inaction would be far greater. In one year, or five years, the power of Iraq to inflict harm on all free nations would be multiplied many times over.

With these capabilities, Saddam Hussein and his terrorist allies could choose the moment of deadly conflict when they are strongest. We choose to meet that threat now where it arises, before it can appear suddenly in our skies and cities.

The cause of peace requires all free nations to recognize new and undeniable realities. In the 20th century, some chose to appease murderous dictators whose threats were allowed to grow into genocide and global war.

In this century, when evil men plot chemical, biological and nuclear terror, a policy of appeasement could bring destruction of a kind never before seen on this earth. Terrorists and terrorist states do not reveal these threats with fair notice in formal declarations.

And responding to such enemies only after they have struck first is not self-defense. It is suicide. The security of the world requires disarming Saddam Hussein now.

As we enforce the just demands of the world, we will also honor the deepest commitments of our country.

Unlike Saddam Hussein, we believe the Iraqi people are deserving and capable of human liberty, and when the dictator has departed, they can set an example to all the Middle East of a vital and peaceful and self-governing nation.

The United States with other countries will work to advance liberty and peace in that region. Our goal will not be achieved overnight, but it can come over time. The power and appeal of human liberty is felt in every life and every land, and the greatest power of freedom is to overcome hatred and violence, and turn the creative gifts of men and women to the pursuits of peace. That is the future we choose.

Free nations have a duty to defend our people by uniting against the violent, and tonight, as we have done before, America and our allies accept that responsibility.

Good night, and may God continue to bless America.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/17/iraq/main544377.shtml

[Matchett-PI]

"If we had been told before the war that Iraq was absolutely no danger to us.."

On July 4, 2003, Bush continued saying the same things he has been saying all along. He said nothing different, and his meaning is the same. I hope these quotes I'm sending you will get you up to speed, since you must have missed them first time around. Here's the latest:

Bush Vows Pre-Emptive Attacks Against Enemies Excerpts:

President Bush said on Friday the United States is still at war and vowed to attack any "terrorist group or outlaw regime" that threatens the United States with mass murder.

Bush's tough message came as he marked the July 4 Independence Day holiday with a flag-waving speech before 25,000 or so military personnel and families ....

"The United States will not stand by and wait for another attack or trust in the restraint and good intentions of evil men," Bush said ...

"We are on the offensive against terrorists and all who support them. We will not permit any terrorist group or outlaw regime to threaten us with weapons of mass murder. We will act, whenever it is necessary, to protect the lives and the liberty of the American people," he said. ...

"Our nation is still at war. The enemies of America plot against us. And many of our fellow citizens are still serving and sacrificing and facing danger in distant places," Bush said. ...

"Without America's active involvement in the world, the ambitions of tyrants would go unopposed, and millions would live at mercy of terrorists. With Americans' active involvement in the world, tyrants learn to fear, and terrorists are on the run," he said. ....

Excerpted from: WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE, Ohio (Reuters)-Fri July 4, 2003 by Patricia Wilson

[truth_seeker]

"I voted for Harry Browne in the election"

Thanks for letting us know who your soulmates are, with regard to the War on Terror, eg post 9/11/2001.

Browne came out of the Box after 9/11/2001 and BLAMED America. According to him, we DESERVED it.

You and Browne are apparently birds, feathers.

[optimistically_conservative]

I got the number from www.Iraqbodycount.net

Yes, I figured that. It's not an accurate count, or an apolitical site.

Last count I saw from AP was AP Tallies 3,240 Civilian Deaths in Iraq.

Even that count includes Iraqi military. I'm pretty sure the right number is less than the 500,000 predicted prior to the war and significantly fewer than were murdered by Hussein's regime. But I suppose a single civilian casualty would be cause enough for your kvetch and to berate the conduct of the war, instead of admitting the efforts to protect the civilian population.

[Mike4Freedom]

He said "UN resolutions" not "The UN Security council"

UN resolutions come from the UN Security Council. What is the problem?

[Matchett-PI]

"I am a Libertarian ..."

It is NOT SAFE for those who love freedom to vote for a third party candidate because the result will be a DemocRAT in the White House appeasing terrorists again.

It is NOT SAFE for those who love freedom to vote DemocRAT.

It is NOT SAFE for those who love freedom to sit at home and not vote.

"Those who don't go all out to see to it that G.W.Bush is re-elected will be aiding and abetting America's enemies -- either indirectly, by not voting, or directly, by voting DemocRAT or Third Party.

America's enemies (at home and abroad) will applaud anyone who votes DemocRAT or for for ANY of the third party candidates other than Nader (who always takes some of the Commie/Marxist votes from DemocRATS).

If you are so clueless as to not be able to pick up on the significance of the fact that our enemies LOVE DemocRATS and other losers, and absolutely HATE and despise Bush and the Republicans, and why that is, then you are a threat to America's freedoms. You are either with us or against us and on the side of our enemies.

Abraham Lincoln: "Our greatest enemy is not beyond our shores, but the enemy within."

[Matchett-PI]

"...next year... Bush .. will be a known liar for sure by then..." ~ Mike4Freedom

No kidding? What sort of mentalities are you hoping to gain credibility with when you make such ludricrous, dogmatic statements about the future? You sound like the "prophecy" grifters on TBN/CBN. Hahahaha

Union Leader 6/30/03 Jonah Goldberg

Bush bashers should get facts straight before crying 'liar'

I HAVEN'T WRITTEN much about the ongoing brouhaha over whether President Bush "lied" America into the war with Iraq.

The main reason for my silence is that it's a monstrously stupid argument — and usually deliberately so.

But I have better reasons for my wait-and-see approach.

First, let's deal with the stupidity.

The really dumb argument is that Bush simply made up the whole thing. This line is rarely offered explicitly by serious people because it is so illogical.

But you will hear it alluded to by Democratic presidential candidates like Howard Dean or John Kerry who don't mind leaving the impression that Bush is a deceitful warmonger.

And you will certainly find this "idea" buzzing around the fever swamps of the left, mostly on the Internet.

The basic problem with this analysis is it requires that Bush knew the truth but said the opposite.

After all, a lie is only a lie if you know the truth and then say something very different.

So in this case, Bush needed to know something nobody had an inkling of.

As Kenneth Pollack, formerly on Bill Clinton's national security staff, recently noted in The New York Times, "At no point before the war did the French, the Russians, the Chinese or any other country with an intelligence operation capable of collecting information in Iraq say it doubted that Baghdad was maintaining a clandestine weapons capability."

The United Nations weapons inspectors reported time and again throughout the 1990s that Saddam had not disarmed.

The only time he could have disarmed was during the four-year period when no inspections took place.

No serious person thinks Saddam did that.

Even French foreign minister Dominique de Villepin admitted last November, "The security of the Americans is under threat from people like Saddam Hussein who are capable of using chemical and biological weapons."

In fact, Bush must have known Bill Clinton was wrong, too.

Either that, or Bill Clinton was a liar as well. Because in 1998, Bill Clinton spoke forcefully to the American people about the grave threat posed by Iraq's mounting chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs.

On Dec. 19, 1998, right after Bill Clinton was flouting the will of our allies and the U.N. by launching a military strike against the Iraqis, President Clinton told the American people in a televised address: "Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. ... Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. ... Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons."

The strike was wildly popular with most prominent Democrats at the time, most of whom — including Presidential candidates Dick Gephardt, Joe Lieberman, and John Kerry — were strong Iraq hawks until a few months ago.

But according to the purist "Bush lied" school, not only was everyone wrong about Iraq and weapons of mass destruction, but Bush secretly knew it and didn't say so.

Moreover, he was so convincing in his lies he was able to mislead Democratic leaders, veterans of the Clinton administration and the global intelligence community.

And you thought Reagan was an actor.

Now, there are intelligent anti-Bush arguments out there.

The most defensible, and therefore most serious, is that Bush exaggerated one threat or another, particularly the danger from Saddam's nuclear weapons program. It's certainly true that the White House was wrong to place so much credence on forged documents purporting to show Saddam was trying to purchase uranium in Niger.

But the more intelligent the criticisms of Bush become, the less useful they are for scoring cheap political points.

And that brings me to the main reason I've kept my tongue on this whole issue.

We don't know enough yet. Worse, every week something we thought we knew turns out not to be true.

Saddam's dead. No, he isn't. But Chemical Ali is dead. Oh wait, maybe he isn't. Baathists are heading to Syria. No, wait that's not true. The Baghdad Museum looting was the disaster of the millennium. Whoops, it was a minor problem. Recently at a British media forum, leading journalists admitted that the U.S. "attack" on the Palestine Hotel, which killed two journalists, was "overblown." Don't even get me started on Jessica Lynch.

More important, just this week we learned that an Iraqi scientist was ordered by Uday Hussein to keep vital parts and documents for a nuclear weapons program under a rose bush in his garden.

In a separate discovery, U.S. troops found scads of documents in a warehouse relating to various weapons programs.

And, they found 300 sacks of castor beans — the principal ingredient for the toxin ricin — which were conveniently mislabeled "fertilizer."

If Bush lied, we'll find out. And if he did, he should face the consequences. But because I'm not an opportunistic Democratic Presidential candidate or batty Bush-hating journalist, I don't mind waiting a few months to get my facts straight.

Jonah Goldberg is the editor of National Review Online, available at www.nationalreview.com

[Sofa King]

So now you're going to play "ignore the fact that the council passed a resolution which Saddam was undeniably in violation of"?

[TexasCowboy]

Mike, I admire your courage in presenting your viewpoints in the face of so much verbal abuse, but in this case, I think you're wrong.
We had the obligation to go into Iraq simply because of Sadaam's refusal to honor the U.N. resolution to disarm.

Even it that were not the case, however, we would have still needed to go in.
Even if there are no MWDs, even if there were no inhumanities visited upon the Iraqi people, even if Iraq had no capability to harm America with weapons or terrorists, we would have still had to go in for one reason - oil.
I'm not saying that's the reason we went. I'm saying it was sufficient reason to oust Sadaam without any other contributing factor.

Iraq sits on the second largest oil reserve in the world.
The first largest is in the control of the Saud regime which is showing signs of toppling.
We needed to secure an oil supply independent of Saudi Arabia. They no longer have the power over the Mid-East that they had during Ronald Reagan's administration.

Ronald Reagan turned our economy around in the mid-80's by convincing Saudi Arabia to open the taps and drive the price of oil down to $11. a barrel.
George Bush doesn't have that option. OPEC won't stand for it, and Saudi Arabia isn't strong enough to make them do it.

The only thing in our economic arsenal which will facilitate a turn-around in this country is cheap energy.
We now have control of a source for that energy, and that is the reason France was so adamant about keeping us out of there. They had huge oil concessions in Iraq under the name of Total Fina Elf, since shortened to Total.
This is a win-win for the US in that we will develop the oil fields and produce the oil giving a large share to the Iraqi people to enhance their standard of living and at the same time hitting the oil markets with an abundance of oil outside of what OPEC produces driving the price of oil down to achieve our own economic recovery.

[Dazedcat]

I have no knowlege, do you? Isn't that why we have military intelligence to pinpoint such things? Secretary Powell went before the UN with "ironclad" evidence. I'm still waiting.

I forgot, never question this current administration here, silly friggin' me.

[Dazedcat]

Where is the proof that Iraq sponsored international terrorism? Did Saadam help fund 9/11? Where are the terrorist basis in Iraq where hijackers receive training.

Give me a link to the information regarding this. Go ahead, take your time, I'll wait.

If you care to take the time, look up my posting history. I supported this war........but I can question this government if I so choose to. I hate to burst your Republican bubble, but it's what citizens are supposed to do, ask questions.

Clear it up for you any?

[MEG33]

Thanks for all the great links.

[MEG33]

I guess your posts were lost....I couldn't find wartime posts.No posts before 6/17. Were you just dropping by?

[MEG33]

Gee, Thanks for dropping by ...Couldn't find any more posts since 2002!

[Republican Wildcat]

Oh, cry me a river. Asking questions just for the sake of asking is not the duty of a citizen.

If you really don't know the answer to the first question you asked in that last post, then you really are a lost cause as far as this topic is concerned.

[BJungNan]

Where is the proof that Iraq sponsored international terrorism? Did Saadam help fund 9/11? Where are the terrorist basis in Iraq where hijackers receive training.

He had the resources, he had the motivation. He had a proven history of using such weapons on very innocent people. And we found some pretty horrible things going on there. If we don't find exactly what we were looking for, so what. I mean, if you went looking for a mass murderer and found a child rapist instead, would you be upset? Come on.

Just what point are you trying to make? Are you saying we should not have gone in? And remember, the CIA had been severely dismantled prior to all of this. If the intellegence crystal ball was a bit foggy, it is hardly Bush's fault.

[MEG33]

This was a great link and so tiny I've had to really search to find it again in #48! A great read for everyone.Thanks.

[Mike4Freedom]

we would have still had to go in for one reason - oil.

Well, at least you are honest about the reason for attacking Iraq! I do not agree that our need for the oil gives us the right to attack another nation to get it. Put that in more personal terms-would it be OK for you to attack your neighbor and take his (fill in the blank) because you really need it? Of course not!

Yet you are not the first person I have heard make that argument. Somehow, the common morality that represents how we deal with each other as individuals has no applicability when dealing with other nations. I just don't understand that.

Our energy problem can be resolved without killing foreigners. For example, we can put a few caribou at risk in the ANWR. We could get the government out of the way in building more nuclear plants again-we have pretty well frozen new construction of those plants for decades now. I am sure you can think of some more ideas that might actually work without the necessity of killing people.