Today New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman (12/21/11) gives readers a sense of what the Iraq War was all about:
Iraq was always a war of choice. As I never bought the argument that Saddam had nukes that had to be taken out, the decision to go to war stemmed, for me, from a different choice: Could we collaborate with the people of Iraq to change the political trajectory of this pivotal state in the heart of the Arab world and help tilt it and the region onto a democratizing track?
Huh. A collaborative effort with the people of Iraq? Friedman goes on:
But was it a wise choice?
My answer is twofold: “No” and “Maybe, sort of, we’ll see.”
Hmm.
Others remember a different Tom Friedman, interviewed by Charlie Rose on May 30, 2003.
“Now that the war is over,” Rose began his question–a conclusion widely jumped to in the early days of the war. When asked if invading Iraq was worth it, Friedman responded that it was “unquestionably worth doing.”
The war, back then, was an attack on the “terrorist bubble,” which in Friedman’s mind meant that “we needed to go over there and take out a very big stick… and there was only one way to do it.”
He went on:
What they needed to see was American boys and girls going house to house, from Basra to Baghdad, and basically saying: “Which part of this sentence don’t you understand? You don’t think, you know we care about our open society, you think this bubble fantasy, we’re just gonna to let it grow? Well, suck. On. This.” That, Charlie, is what this war is about. We could have hit Saudi Arabia; it was part of that bubble. Could have hit Pakistan. We hit Iraq because we could.
The house-to-house, “suck on this” democracy campaign. That’s how it’s normally done.
I guess one great thing about being a Times columnist is that you not only get to write about the present–you can also re-write your own past.
I also remember Friedman on a panel discussion on Charlie Rose rationalizing the war (to no demurrals) by exclaiming that we need to show the Arabs “that we could break something” as well (or words to that effect). Thus, the “temper tantrum” school of foreign affairs.
What a sorry excuse for a journalist this guy is, a disingenuous manipulator of facts and a pompous, opinionated, self-important, and not overly astute observer. His winning 3 Pulitzer Prizes surely diminishes the reputation of that award. At least his photo above demonstrates that this truly is a man of indisputable gravitas.
The guy is either an idiot or a tool of the military industrial complex. Probably both.
Tom Friedman was definitely a Pollyanna on the Iraq war, in his NYT column as well as on Charlie Rose. I don’t know how anyone could have thought that something good would ever come of that tragic disaster other than Exxon-Mobil.
Friedman’s reputation as an intellectual is seriously in doubt. He was wrong on Iraq, wrong on the “debt crisis,” and so off-track in so many of his columns that I rarely bother to read him anymore.
Anyone who would dare to differ with Paul Krugman on economics might want to check their facts, but Friedman has done it (and been wrong) repeatedly.
Friedman is and always has been nothing more than a self-promoting suck-up to power, Israeli government apologist and front man. Why he’s continued to be taken as a “serious-thinker” shows how shallow and essentially stupid the Beltway media and their corporate owners really are.
Nick name: “Doughy Pant-load)
Most known for: “The Friedman Unit”
(An infinitely reset-able 5 year period during which all the biggest problems in Iraq would be turned around.)
So now we have Shia religious parties emerging with ties to Iran. Whatever Washington wanted when it decided to invade Iraq, I can’t imagine that stronger ties between Iraq and Iran was one of the desired outcomes. And Friedman is still scratching his head, wondering if it was a wise choice.
While there is much worthy of criticism related to Friedman’s printed and spoken views, the derision and personal putdowns sometimes come off as sour grapes, given his widespread success and renown as an author of books and newspaper columns. We do not need to demonize or set up a whipping boy. Let’s just stick to the content-oriented analyses and critiques, while heralding and publicizing those whose analyses stand the test of time and facts. Truth be told, Friedman is a good writer and sometimes offers interesting insights which turn into a Trojan Horse for the status quo.
I think I know his secret, he thinks he doesn’t have to look at himself in the mirror becasue he thinks he can think, that he is important. Where did he ever get that idea from? My guess is that he is a kept man, kept by a woman worth many millions, and this makes him – somehow – an important thinker.
That’s it in a nutshell.
A man who fails to understand that the war in Iraq was a momumental U.S. blunder cannot be taken seriously, from my perspective.
The U.S. is supposed to impose democracy on a nation that has never known it? If this isn’t imperial overreach, I don’t know what is. How other nations govern themselves is up to them, not up to us. Are we on some sort of crusade? Interfering in the internal affairs of other nations is not making us more secure and certainly not in the Middle East which doesn’t appear to be particularly attracted to democracy as we know it.
How would we feel if the tables were turned and the same was done to us?
My best memory of him is declaring the invading Iraq was something like “the greatest foreign policy decision in US history”
His continued stature at the Times and among the ruling class indicates their days are numbered.
I have given up reading Thomas Friedman. He is very dishonest and I don’t see how anyone can still find him credible. As for the Iraq war, I distinctly remember reading a column by him, don’t know how many years ago, where he mentioned that his wife did not approve of his own cheerleading for the invasion of Iraq. Then when his wife tragically died a few years thereafter, he wrote that she was the one who was for the invastion of Iraq, not himself! One thing to understand about Friedman is that he is first and foremost an “Israel ueber alles” guy, and from there flow all his musings.
It is pretty impressive how easily Friedman and Rose can bend with the wind. In the real world, I have to have some consistency or explain the change or evolution in my thought. Not in the corporate media, where every day every story can be sui generis!
Eilaine: While I agree with your basic sentiments, I disagree that the Iraq war was a blunder, at least not from the standpoint of the folks who contrived and executed it.
If you understand this as a resource war and realize that Saddam Hussein had committed the ultimate crime for a 3rd World head of state: nationalizing a major resource, Iraqi oil, then the war makes perfect sense.
3rd World countries are not permitted to nationalize their resources, thereby allowing that country to use the profits of that resource to help their own populations rather than to fill the coffers of US-based multinational corporations.
From the standpoint of Big Oil, and both the Obama and Bush administrations, this war was a whopping success. It is only a blunder if you look at it from the people’s standpoint.
As a result of this war the world is less secure and terrorism has grown; the Iraqi people are living (largely) in ethnicly cleansed, tent encampments in dire poverty; but the multinationals have their large contracts, and 3rd world leaders all around the world can see what is in store for them if they dare to stand up against US imperialism.
You raise an important point, Allan. I was, indeed, looking at this from the perspective of the suffering of people, on both sides, and the enormous financial costs. You gave me a reality check.
Today I read that the old resentments between Sunni and Shiite are worsening. Sunnis fear that the Shiite majority is squeezing them out of the political process and Shiites suspect Sunnis of links to terroism. There were serious bombings on Thursday in Baghdad that ripped apart mostly Shiite neighborhoods and killed at least 69 people.
As to the oil, at first I read that American oil companies were not awarded any of the contracts and that the most lucrative went to Russia, China, and some European countries. Now I read that American oil companies are getting some good deals too. Things change quickly, don’t they?
Friedman?????Who really cares what his beliefs are/were on the war.Just another opinion(and everybody has one)Why are we signaling him out for discussion?I truly do not attribute any particular importance to his opinion.
Further….I notice that there is not a liberal opinion out there that say’s “we sure wish Saddam was back in charge”.The good old days.Yet to call the war ,and it’s outcome a blunder leaves no other result possible.So we will take it for granted some here believe that.Some here would disregard every world leader(and their staffs) that called the shots in favor of historical revisionists.I see it now.A twenty 3 year old reporter setting us all on the path to understanding.People who believe Bush started the war to avenge his father.Or began the war to capture iraqi oil.Or lets face it because he was plain stupid.That Obama seemed to mirror his every move in conducting the war, does set heads a wagging on the left though doesn’t it?.Bloggers here really should read the history of those times.Understand that WMDs or not -war may of happened.Saddam simply would not come to heal in a period after this country had been attacked.He had broken every surrender term- demanding a resumption of war(as written in the terms).To disregard those who were there calling all the shots, has become a strange weave of revisionist cloth the left now wearsThere are other important questions dealing with the war that are never asked here.Because it does not fit the lefts template.So they dig and dig to keep their perspective alive.Friedman and Rose,Rose and Friedman.Who really cares what they think?There is an Iraqi general coming out with a book soon.During the war he was with Saddam everyday till he went into hiding.His book will it is said turn peoples hair grey to understand the man Saddam was.I will be interested to see if anyone here takes his words seriously.
There are evil people all over this world. For the U.S. to rid the world of tyrants, will bankrupt and bleed this country in short time. How is bankrupting and bleeding this country in our national interest? Further, how do we assert this moral right to police the world, punish the bad guys, and keep the peace all over the planet? What country has ever been able to do this? Our forefathers thought they were creating a republic that would be made secure by staying out of wars. Little did they know.
Intervention is not the answer to America’s problems in the Middle East. Intervention has become the problem.
Anyone who wants to rid the world of bad leaders should sign up, suit up, and go fight them. Some people are never at a loss for ways to divert the wealth of this country into new causes, while people right here at home are suffering in so many ways.
Michael,
You or I may not give any importance to Friedman, however, he is a columnist at the NY Times and therefore very influential in many people’s thinking. That’s why he needs to be called out as much as possible to make him honest. Charlie Rose is in the same category, not an intellectual by far, but influential. As for Saddam Hussein, did he do anything worse than Abu Ghraib, or Haditha, or the other atrocities too numerous to count perpetrated on the Iraqi people by the American invasion? He may have been a bastard, but during his tenure Iraq was also a secular country, women were relatively free, the electricity worked, etc.. In fact, you may not know this but before the invasion, he made sure that every Iraqi had three months’ supply of food available. (As for America being attacked, Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with it and by now I thought everyone knew this. There was something else in play.) So he was bad, but not all bad and yes, there are Iraqis saying they were better off under him. The point is, we know that the country is totally destroyed and the “constitution” written for them by our own Noah Feldman ensured that there would be secular division and strife on a large scale. And now there’s El Maliky, another strongman not much different from his predecessor, whom our government also supports. Tragic!
Very well put, Laila.
Laila…The food supply was put up for his people under a wartime act.He was in a perpetual war time footing.We did not attack Iraq because he attacked us.We attacked him because he had broken every surrender agreement and was again taking on a stance against us that threatened our security.He played a dangerous game by not coming clean about WMDs and in fact lying about it to keep the world guessing.In every way he threw the finger at Bush and his demands to stand down and comply with all things being asked of him by not only us but the world bodies.At his death he admitted he had no intention of ever being dictated to.Bad call.As far as him being all bad….Yes Laila he was.To say good of him is the old axiom that Hitler made the trains run on time.I suppose his murderous rein where up to 1500 died each week did keep the secular strife down. But again that is like saying Hitler really kept Jewish crime to a minimum.I wont argue with you about what kind of man he and his sons were.I would hope you would read some of the books out there.He was evil with a capital E.This is a man that used to take his kids to torture rooms on Sunday when they were young to kick back and watch the fun.
As far as were is Iraq now…….They have a chance at freedom in a place where little is given.If it succeeds American blood is to be thanked.If it does not it shall be a sad day.We have died in other places on other shores where freedom has blossomed.Im sure you and all the liberals here at fair wish that for the Iraqi people.
Belen Fernandez just wrote a book about Friedman. I haven’t read it yet, but it is being reviewed a lot on the left, and looks good. It examines his bullshit over the last ten years and exposes what a fake he is by directly quoting him. I haven’t bothered to read his work myself for years, since I lost any respect I had for him long ago.
Isn’t it interesting that the country that has the most lethal weapons in the world and plenty of them, (and that would be the U.S.), never feels secure, always feel threatened, even by a two-bit dictator who could have never won a war against us? I guess we’ll never feel secure until we make the world just like us. After we get rid of evil, we can work on getting rid of greed and dishonesty but first we need to cleanse the world of evil so that we can keep fighting wars we can never win. We can also expect more countries to hate us and seek reprisals against us. This way we can become the recruiting slogan for the world to fight America.
Here’s hoping the newly formed democracies don’t have a democracy like this one where corporations or the uber rich pay for the seats of many in government to continue policies that guarantee their own welfare, instead of the welfare of its own citizens.
Even when we’re broke and trillions in debt, most ” fiscal conservatives”, as they call themselves, can always find it in their heart to support yet another war. It’s spending money on ordinary Americans that becomes a problem for them.
Yes, friedman has changed position. Anyone reading his first editon of “the world is flat” got a very hawkish view. I haven’t seen the 2nd edition, but considering the time it was released, he may have edited that portion.
There are some Americans who believe that life is better in Irag for the average Iraqi, since the invasion.
Those Americans have no right to make that statement. Only the Iraqi people should answer that. I’m sure you’ll find some Iraqis who are happier, now that they have weopons and anonymity to reek havoc on any ethnic or religious group that they oppose for the greater blessing of whatever sect they belong to. Can’t forget those nationalists who want to use another reason to blow somebody up, too. And lastly there is Al Qaida (the real al quaida, the one[s] that are popping up in those unstable eastern countries and blowing people up for whatever reason. Not the fake al qaida that just messes with us in times square. Maybe we should ask an Iraqi who had to leave his own home and live like a refugee if he is better off now with more democracy. Or maybe an Iraqi woman who may have had a pretty good position in life and now has to wear robes and be a good Muslim woman and stay in the shadows of daily life because somebody might kill her because she exposed her hair or ankle. Or how about a religious pilgrim or even an Iraqi Christian, having to walk through a gammut of bombs just to pray in his own church or mosque.
And there are some Americans who still believe that Saddam was really a threat to us. They believed it even though our jets were flying over Iraq (no fly zone) for almost twelve years. Anywhere our jets fly, we have air superiority and yet they never got any definitive photos of a “nuclear” project.
Colin Powell, one of the most trusted men in politics, lost his believeability because of that stunt he pulled at the U.N. I wonder where he is now and if anyone gives a rats butt what he thinks about anything anymore. He sold his soul and now no one cares about him.
Thanks George!
Well Ralph I would compare it to post war Europe.Lots of blood shed and a lot of work to be done.But worth the struggle if freedom blooms.If they use this chance- history has shown their life will improve,along with our security(Democracies don’t attack one another).You are right in thinking time will tell.Are they a people who will use this chance to settle old scores and throw woman into servitude?This is a moment when the so called arab spring will show what kind of people they are.Will they take a desert and make it bloom like the Israelis?Or fall into hatred as old as the stones in their mountains?Their choice.We have given them that chance.
And remember Weighing the threat level Saddam was to us is forgetting what a couple of nuts in 4 airplanes did.Out nuclear deterrent does not stretch everywhere.Same for air superiority.Saddam meant to rearm by his own admission.That he had not done so yet is true.He in simple terms -was told by Bush and the world body to cease and desist ,and to stand down.He answered with threats,defiance,and by flaunting his surrender terms by breaking every one of them.As I said….. Bad call.After 911 bush was not to be trifled with.
Before George W. Bush became president, he really had no experience in foreign policy and did not appear to be militaristic, calling for a more humble approach to foreign affairs. But into his inner circle came the neocons. Richard Perle, one of them, said this about Bush:
“The first time I met him,……I knew he was different. Two things became clear. One, he
didn’t know very much. The other was he had confidence to ask questions that revealed he
didn’t know very much. Most people are reluctant to say when they don’t know something, a
word or a term they haven’t heard before. Not him.”
I suppose the neocons were thrilled. Here was a piece of clay, waiting to be molded and mold they did.
michael e wrote: Weighing the threat level Saddam was to us is forgetting what a couple of nuts in 4 airplanes did.
________________________________________________________
This rationale can be used to attack any country, anywhere, at whatever time. Some of the 9/11 hijackers came to the US via Germany. We better attack Germany now before it happens again! And Canada and Mexico, too, just to be sure. Etc.
Furthermore, it seems incredibly counter-productive to overall national security and regional and world stability. If the danger is from “nuts in airplanes,” then why should we waste gazillions of dollars and far too many of our young peoples’ lives (not to mention the far greater number of Iraqi lives): (1) invading a country that as near as anybody can tell had nothing to do with 9/11; (2) a country that was bluffing regarding WMD’s, as many analysts wrote before they were marginalized and shouted down; (3) a country that was ruled by an admittedly brutal dictator who, as a side effect of his own leadership style, repressed and controlled his people to such a degree that there was little or no opportunity for Iraqi terrorist groups to germinate and start to grow (and even if such groups did get some traction, they’d just as likely to be aimed against Hussein instead of the US); (4) turning that country into a finishing school where terrorists and other militants can really learn how to fight; (5) handling the whole thing so poorly that we’ll be lucky if our national image and credibility ever recover; and (6) creating an incident that is bound to play into anti-Western extemist propaganda?
If the danger to my house is the fact that my neighbor’s house is on fire, the wise thing is for the fire department to come and put it out. It would seem counter-productive of them to respond to the scene and then tell me that they’re more worried about this building that hates them where they think there might maybe be a fire someday. And getting to this building is gonna cost an enormous amount of lives and money. And once they get there, they’re gonna eff up the execution of the mission so bad that they might as well spray gasoline all over the place and play with matches.
Well john I think you are believing two things.One that The war was started strictly on a mistake, because Saddam posed no threat,and had no WMDs.And two ,that Iraq is more of a danger to us now.Your first premise does not follow the timelines of the ratcheting up to war,and disregards Saddams hand in that.It simplifies a years march to war to one or two liberal talking points.The second is wrong so far, but of course only time will tell.Im trying to say that we saw what those planes did to us.We were determined to go after the people/country that was responsible.We demanded that the Afghan government hand over the terrorists, and later that Iraq stand down, and abide by all her surrender terms and inspection procedures or else.We could not of been more clear.Afghanistan refused ,and Saddam threatened along with his refusal.If you believe we had no right to make the demands we did you are wrong.Wrong before the decisions of the world bodies, and your own house leadership.Wrong before the dictates of military law when dealing in both instances.We are not a conquering nation.We do not invade to build settlements for Americans to populate.We have left Iraq, and will leave Afghanistan.We invaded one because attack on our country came from her shores.The other was in effect a resumption of the first gulf war due to Iraqs leadership flaunting her surrender terms, and beginning the process of re-arming(to whatever degree).I
@michael e: Regardless of what I believe, your response does not address the idea that your argument is broad enough to justify attacking anyone for whatever reason. The military of Suriname poses no threat to the US, but look at what 4 planes hijacked by fanatics can do, so we better attack Suriname, right?
I’m not simplifying a march to war. You, and others, are re-writing the march to war. It was sold as being about WMD’s. It was not sold as “Iraq broke the terms of their surrender.” It was not sold as “Hussein is an evil dictator and must go.” It was not sold as “let’s spread democracy.” It was not sold as any of those other things you’re now trying to say it was sold as. You cannot make lies true after the fact. It was a pack of lies to say that we need to target Iraq to combat WMD’s, no amount of chanting “Hussein-was-a-bad-guy-who-had-grandiose-ideas-of-regional-domination-and-broke-the-original-surrender-terms” is gonna turn that pack of lies into truths. No matter how true or false those things are now or then, it absolutely cannot change the untruths about WMD’s. If you sell me a car by constantly harping on its awesome 5L V8 engine and then when I buy it and find out the engine is actually a 1-cylinder lawnmower engine and I come complaining about it, you now wanna turn around and say with a straight face: “Well, you’re simplifying my whole sales pitch… I mean, look the new tires and hood ornament on this baby.” That shouldn’t be allowed to fly, but you’re doing your best to bolt wings on it and push it down the runway.
It ain’t just me saying that Iraq posed no serious threat. It was many of our intel analysts– men and women who make a career outta stuff like this– who said the same thing. They were marginalized and shouted down because the administration did not wanna hear it. Allied nations’ intel services concluded the same thing. Read “Fiasco” by Tom Ricks. It’s laid out pretty clearly there. I acknowledge that a lot of this is hindsight being 20/20.
Well John I think that our country was in daily contact with Iraq’s foreign minister for more than a year( as this ratcheted up) and went through a million hurdles to try to come to some sort of agreement to avert war.To say it was the one thing that was sold to the public as the main talking point just simplifies it down and down.Things don’t really happen that way.Certainly at that time I was aware of the more complicated and dangerous nature of the growing conflict.I was not fixated only on WMDs.Today with 20/20 we can say there were no WMDs.We “can’t say” he was not re-arming ,or planning to re-arm, on every level because he himself said he surely would have.This was the crux of the matter.Would he answer fully and truthfully our concerns and demands?The answer was a resounding no.Would he stand down?No he would not.Would he allow inspectors full access ….he did not.Would he stop his daily threats….he did not.After 911 it was a bad call.He felt he could push the American President about like a pawn and in that he was playing a dangerous game.And yes Iraq was a different situation than all those you named because they had launched ,fought ,and lost a war- with militarily imposed surrender terms .As Germany did after WW2.A Clinton said in his book…until Iraq comes to terms with following her surrender protocol a resumption of the war may be inevitable.Again 911 set that stage.The Liberal” Bush derangement syndrome” needs its talking points.But the real story is far more complicated.And I lay it squarely on Saddam Insane.Till the final hour when he was told to leave he could of avoided war.He spat in our faces.Just as he spat in the face of his executioners.
So we can attack any country that had nothing to do with 9/11 if they had started a war once? Well we better start planning to attack Germany, Japan, UK, France, Spain, Russia, Serbia, China, North Korea, Vietnam, Italy, and a host of other countries then. None of them had anything to do with 9/11, but they all started a war at one point or another. Care to refine further this ridiculous criteria for when we’re justified in attacking another country that had nothing to do with 9/11, but somehow the attack is in response to 9/11? ‘Cause if there’s some kind of coherent idea in there, I ain’t seein’ it. You say we can’t understate the threat that Iraq’s paltry military posed because 9/11 proved we could be attacked by a small cadre of fanatics? So, instead of crafting an effective response to said cadre of fanatics, we start a major conventional ground war in a nation that had nothing whatsoever to do with that cadre of fanatics and we sell it to public opinion by trumping up WMD’s? Can you see why it’s a non-sequitir? And to top it all off, we eff up the execution of the Iraq war mission so bad we’re lucky to have any military or diplomatic credibility left in the world. For the life of me, I can’t (in hindsight, admittedly) think of a worse plan in response to the 9/11 attacks. And it’s unfathomable to me that you’re linking the Iraq war to the 9/11 attacks– even in such an unconvincing and tangential way. This ain’t about liberal talking points; it’s about what shaky premise you’re espousing as (partial) justification for the war.
And lemme get this straight: in the run-up to the war, you knew the whole ins and outs of Iraq, it’s re-arming, Hussein’s aggressive ambitions, and all this other crap? I call BS on this, unless your real name is Jane’s Defense Weekly, pal. You weren’t buyin’ the hard-sell on WMD’s but stood silent while the govt. ladled out that weak sauce, huh? And you, Miss Freakin’ Cleo, could see the “real reasons” for the Iraq war and figured it’s just fine for the govt. to lie about it to sway public opinion? That about sum it up? OK…
First off, many professionals in the intel community (again, see Fiasco for sources and discussion) said repeatedly that Iraq posed little to no threat. Sorry, but I ain’t buyin’ that you got this one right and the pros got it wrong. But it ceratinly explains why you can swallow Hussein’s deathbed delusions of grandeur– you’re kindred spirits in that regard it seems. Second off, Hussein spit in the face of the UN ceasefire? I thought you Tea Partiers could give a crap about the UN. In fact, I’m quite certain that many of you want the US out of the UN entirely and would gladly spit on any UN representative if given half the chance. But Hussein does it– and the extent and severity of his breach of the terms of the ceasefire is nowhere near as clear cut as you say it is, by the way– and the wrath of the world needs to come down on him, huh? Seems pretty disingenous to me. Third off, since when do you think it’s OK for the govt. to lie (by selling WMD’s as a reason for war) to the people? This acceptance of govt. mendacity sure didn’t survive into the current administration, it would seem. You’re here regularly harping on how the Democrats are lying to everybody to sell their stimulus packages, to sell the Wall Street bailout, to sell their tax policies, and so on. You call out these lies now, but it was just fine in the run-up to the war for the Bush administration to shovel all the BS it possibly could with no challenge from you, you and your keen foreign affairs insight you claim to posess? See a glaring contradiction here, doc?
John you keep falling back to simple talking points that we attacked Iraq because we TIED them to 911.Or for the wMD issue.In this you are not hearing any of the leaders involved, including Saddam himself or his foreign minister or his generals or ours.You are not reading the process that led to war and was agreed to by most of the world body at the time,most of the intelligence, and your own house.That was in fact followed by Obama post war.You are sitting down to a cup of joe with a 24 yr old writer from the onion and monday morning quarterbacking.As if you were not there for the “game’ but are discussing the stats.
I never said we should attack any countries using this specific set of circumstance.I never said I read the intel briefings prior to the war.I said- it was never as simple as liberal talking points.It was a complex year long daily grind(in the paper every day) that resulted in a resumption of the first gulf war(where Iraq was concerned)I never said WMDs were a lie put forward by a criminal gov(ours).They were the intel of the time.Fostered by Saddam himself.
I am now realizing you are part of that “Bush is a war criminal and should be arrested along with his top tier” crowd.Ho hum………..Ok…………Well it is a free country and you are welcome to that view.
By the way John I am also NOT saying -that is is a worthless endeavour to revisit any conflict and rethink how on Gods green earth it could of been avoided toward the betterment ,and sanctity of each human life.This goes for WW2 as well.I just reject a belief that those at the time were too stupid to of tried that.And that further….. the hand that drove the war forward did not have an evil man at the helm.
@michael e: These are your quotes from this thread alone:
“Saddam simply would not come to heal in a period after this country had been attacked.”
“Weighing the threat level Saddam was to us is forgetting what a couple of nuts in 4 airplanes did.Out nuclear deterrent does not stretch everywhere.”
“We were determined to go after the people/country that was responsible.We demanded that the Afghan government hand over the terrorists, and later that Iraq stand down, and abide by all her surrender terms and inspection procedures or else.We could not of been more clear.”
“Would he stop his daily threatsâ┚¬Ã‚¦.he did not.After 911 it was a bad call.”
You are the one trying to link the Iraq invasion to the 9/11 attacks– not me. I am pointing out that you cannot justify the invasion by tying it in any way to the 9/11 attacks. I recognize that there are other reasons to have invaded Iraq; in fact, many of the more ruthless international relations academics would say that we could have attacked Iraq because it was a cloudy day, i.e., for no reason at all. However, just because there may have been several reasons to invade Iraq does not mean that every BS reason you spout is correct. And by pointing out the “threat” Iraq posed by saying “look at the 9/11 attacks” you are certainly spouting BS. And it’s the kind of BS that justifies the US invading Australia, lest they be harboring a terrorist cell. Come to think of it, your rationale justifies the UK attacking the more hard-core pro-IRA neighborhoods in Boston, doesn’t it?
You keep putting forth this notion that Iraq was in clear and serious breach of surrender terms, and everybody thought so. That ain’t how I remember it. I remember a lot of nations at the UN refusing to follow our lead on this one. Canada and Australia wouldn’t even dance with us on this one– doesn’t that tell you something? We had 2 tepid allies invading Iraq– the UK and Spain. Know how many nations are in Afghanistan? Let’s see: UK, Canada, Australia, Germany, Norway, Italy, Turkey, Netherlands, France, Hungary, Sweden, Finland, Latvia, Poland, Armenia, Estonia, Spain, Macedonia, Croatia, and there’s probably a few I’m forgetting. Doesn’t that tell you something about the general consensus about how justified the world seems to think we are in Afghanistan versus how unjustified we were in Iraq? ‘Cause it speaks volumes to me. By continually putting forth the idea that it’s just so crystal clear that we needed to attack Iraq because of the breach of the previous ceasefire, you are the one engaging in revision of history it would seem.
Finally, are you seriously citing as evidence Hussein’s “lion of Judea” rant? Really? So any vague deathbed statement, which we have no way of predicting anybody would ever say, is now justification for war, huh? What if he said nothing? What if he said sorry? On a larger note: is it reasonable at all to justify the invasion of a country based on post hoc statements by its deposed leader? I’ve used this example before but you must have missed it. There’s a crazy homeless guy on my street who says he’s Napoleon. Even if he’s 100% correct and he IS indeed Napoleon and is bent on conquest, there’s no need to go kill him until he starts to recruiting the new Imperial Army. Until then he’s just a harmless crazy guy and not a threat to world peace. You need to be able to tell the difference. We had intel analysts who were trying to tell us that Hussein was just some crazy guy who didn’t have enough military power to fight a girl scout troop. We didn’t listen to them.
I don’t think Bush is a war criminal and I ackowledge a lot of what I write here is hindsight being 20/20. But it bothers me that the war was sold on a lie about WMD’s. And it bothers me that you keep chanting these other awfully dodgy justifications and saying that therefore the lies about WMD’s really don’t matter.
I can’t believe this is still going on, but John says it very well. At least some smart people change their opinion based on facts they discover later on, although these could have been discovered had one paid attention at the time. The war criminals are those neocons who pushed us into war against Iraq and for none of the reasons that were cited, and who are trying to do the same to Iran. But Bush enabled them, and he is also responsible. I have an overall question though: Who are we to lord it over the rest of the world in our self-righteous way? Who made us judge, jury and prosecutor? And by what right? Except for our high-tech military and our WMDs, America now lags far behind other countries in education, science, health and social services for its citizens. Shouldn’t we first look at the bolder in our own eyes rather than the spec in the eyes of others’?