“Seven Years of War Provides Many Answers” is USA Today‘s front-page headline (8/27/10) over a story by Jim Michaels and Mimi Hall that attempts to take stock of the Iraq War. But one issue that the paper can’t seem to get right seven years later is how the war started.
USA Today provides this stunningly deceptive summary:
In October 2002, the House and Senate voted overwhelmingly to authorize force against Iraq. In November, the United Nations Security Council adopted a unanimous resolution offering Saddam “a final opportunity” to comply with disarmament. Three months later, Secretary of State Colin Powell said U.S. and European intelligence agencies believed Iraq was hiding its weaponry and seeking more.
The final U.N. inspection report stated that Iraq failed to account for chemical and biological stockpiles. U.N. inspector Hans Blix said he had “no confidence” that the weaponry had been destroyed.
In his 2003 State of the Union Address, Bush said: “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? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late.”
At 5:34 a.m., March 20, 2003, a U.S. force backed by 34 nations crossed into Iraq. The war was on.
A more accurate chronology of the weapons inspection–like this one from the Arms Control Association–revealsthat while inspectors expressed frustration with someIraqi behavior, theywere encouraged by the progress they were making. They determined rather early in the process, for instance, that there was no Iraqi nuclear program to speak of. Thatwas one of the Bush administration’s most damning claims against Iraq; its falsehood should figure into any account of the pre-war period.
That chronology also recalls that there wasan effortto get the U.N. Security Council to pass a resolution that would formally endorse the war, even though the weapons inspections process was not finished. The U.S. failed to prevail in that effort, and the inspectors were removed. Again, it’s hard to imagine a summary of the run-up to the war that discounts the fact that the United States launched the war without the U.N. approval it sought.
It’s not entirely clearwhere the Hans Blix quote (“no confidence”) comes from. He does use that phrase in regards to a “preliminary assessment of Iraq’s weapons declaration” (12/19/02)–pretty much the opposite of a “final U.N. inspection report”–explaining why such declarations have to be verified and can’t be taken at face value.
In his February 14presentation to the U.N., Blix seemed pleased with Iraq’s compliance:
Mr. President, in my 27th of January update to the Council, I said that it seemed from our experience that Iraq had decided in principle to provide cooperation on process, most importantly on prompt access to all sites and assistance to UNMOVIC in the establishment of the necessary infrastructure.
This impression remains, and we note that access to sites has, so far, been without problems, including those that have never been declared or inspected, as well as to presidential sites and private residences.
Blix also said:
How much, if any, is left of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and related proscribed items and programs? So far, UNMOVIC has not found any such weapons, only a small number of empty chemical munitions, which should have been declared and destroyed.
Recalling this history merely as Blix saying that he had “no confidence” that Iraq had destroyed any weapons isterribly misleading. But it ishelpful to those who still wish to argue that the Iraq War was a good faith effort to destroy the weapons of a madman.
More like a faith-based effort to destroy the “W”MDs of BushCo. madmen; an effort which Obamanibly continues to this day by perpetual USraeli use on Mideast MUSLIMS!
I seem to recall that the day before Prince W reigned stupidity on Iraq, Dr. Blix said that the inspection system was working.
Lies need constant support so that the majority who have any interest in news would see this slop first, and if they remember it all that will be better for the propagandists. Too bad so few people are interested in news at all.
That’s why I’ve always hated USA Today more than any other newspaper. Their foreign reporting is a CIA redacted AP ticker tape. Its like J. Edgar Hoover faked his own death and became their International editor. USA Today reporting on the Iran-Contra affair read like a series of patriotic post cards from George Schultz. I find their insulting Op-Ed page is written better than the front-page headliner.
Does anyone see the similarity to the current disinformation about Iran? We must end these neo-Colonial wars, if we are to solve our economic problems, and more importantly become the democracy envisioned by great leaders like Dr. Martin Luther King. Not to mention the framers of the Constitution.
This beating a dead horse seems to be never ending. At this point the world knows George new full wel what he and the Cheney administration were doing and the reason why. Just as the knew full well therir name for Afganistan wsPipelansastan when they went in there.
The government of America is about EMPIRE the people of America are caught up between really wanting PEACE and Government Promoted FEAR. Have we ever really been at peace with the world, I wonder?
So much is said about Obama, why is it that we hardly everhear about all the policies of the Bush administration he has contiued and re-ratified some even more deadly. Stop rendition start executon squads.
What am I going on for, neo-liberals , blue dog Dems, epublicans and Tea Party are all the puppets of Capitol that unlike their fore father who were hands on business and real patriots these decendants are cupon collectors and solely concerned with ROI AMERICA BE DAMNED
Nobody want to really acknowlrdge that Facism is now firmly wrapped up in the RED, WHITE and BLUE with all its STARS and STRIPES
Re: USA Today’s Iraq War Timeline
In response to USA Today’s (08/27, 6A) article, â┚¬Ã…“Iraq: Events That Shaped the War,â┚¬Ã‚ the following is also a timeline which â┚¬Ã…“looks back at the conflict’s historyâ┚¬Ã‚ Ãƒ¢Ã¢”š¬“ without glossing over â┚¬Ã…“key momentsâ┚¬Ã‚Â:
http://seaclearly.wordpress.com/2010/08/29/re-usa-todays-iraq-war-timeline/
Lots more to this story.Saddam admited he lied ,and misled ,and left the impression he still had those weapons because….He felt more afraid of Iran ,and he knew if they thought he still had them(wmds) they would think twice.So he played a dangerous game and lost.He threw out inspection teams because they were about to possibly claim he had been defanged,and he could not allow that.He had also broken every caveat of his “surrender” treaty concerning the first gulf war.17 in all.Any ONE of which should, and could of led to an immediate resumption of hostilities.Forget everything else.That alone was enough.ON his death bead he brazenly stated he was the lion of judea.He had the right to seek nuclear and bio weapons….and use them against the jews.And he claimed he would have according to his CIA debriefer.Was it all bluster?We will never know.He left much for the world leaders of that time to ponder and fear.Bush and the UN worked with what they had.Much of the intel was faulty.Will Iran play this dangerous game?Keeping those they have threatened guessing.Never stepping off as much as stepping back while still within striking distance.Hoping the US has a president like Obama .A man not up to the job.In Bush they pushed too far at just the wrong moment in history.The American people.The prez and the Congress were at their ropes end.It is a lesson to be learned.Sadam stated he never thought Bush would “see”his bluff and move against him.911 we now know was the deal breaker.I see a lot of people here monday morning quarterbacking and playing the hate America game and the all Republicans are mean nasty dummies.History will not get bogged down by such partisenship. I remember at the time all Liberals said Bush was going to war only to steal Iraqi oil.OK you said it.You meant it.DID WE?????Not as far as I can see.Theory Uno……SHOT TO HELL!
The defeat retreat and surrender crowd is now in power God help us..If they were 4 years ago- the Iraqi war would of been lost.Now they are conducting a war they supposedly agreed with.We shall see how well they do.Bush made mistakes.Obama will also.Problem is now we have a man in charge who would not of been able to secure even a cabinet position, in any administration I can think of let alone the top spot.He just does not have the brains or the balls.Bill Clinton said to one of Rove’s people during the election”Imagine this guy(BAM) would of been getting us our Coffee a couple years back.Nasty but true.
On the convenient media myth that Saddam Hussein was bluffing about WMDs, with the U.S. his innocent dupe:
https://fair.org/index.php?page=3463
Not a single thing michal e says above is true. Not even one. Quite an accomplishment.
Graeme
By saying nothing is true that led to the war.By saying the transcripts out of Saddams own mouth(bluffing on WMDs)….The security conclusions of the allied nations ,the united nations,and so on is simply to believe that Well all that happened was all an illusion.Made in Hollywood by the “corporate military industrial complex.”Some day in my lifetime I am sure I will hear many years from now- that the twin towers never even existed.And if they did it was all our fault anyway.FRom the beginning the conspiracy nuts were running about like ants.This war which is so easy to track has now been played as a grand conspiracy.With America as the bad guy!!!!Saddam must be laughing his ass off somewhere in the great beyond.So Evil greedy Georgie Bush lead the world to galloping ruin because skull and bones told him to do it.Good lord man yes mistakes were made.Always are in war.But the real mistake was made by a very evil man who had no controls placed on him.Even on the gallows he had no come to Jesus(sic)moment.He mocked his tormentors.But yes I will buy your ultimate conclusion…..Bush was worse!You dont know George bush at all.You believe the nonesence written of him.And you obviously never read, or believed a word that Saddam himself uttered as he threatened the Jews and the world.He suffered the hatred he himself- loosed upon the world.
To Jim Naureckas
You believe Peter Heart- who writes for FAIR and is a well known liberal hack who has never yet as far as i can ascertain from his articles written one word that is “fair and balanced”.Me ,I discount him.I will for my part believe George Bush over Peter.And I will believe Saddam over Peter. The words came from SH own mouth during his imprisonment.Unlike you, he never made one excuse for his right to do all he did….and all he would of done.As the “elected” leader of Iraq he had the right to maim, torture, and kill all those he saw as deserving that.To conduct wars as he saw fit.AND to have nuclear, Bio, and chemical weapons- as is the right of any soverien country.And to use them as he saw fit- when he saw fit
.Funny thing is is the two main characters in this drama George Bush and Saddam, are on the same page as far as the “history”of what happened during those times goes.Their narratives don’t divide at too many important points.It does show how important good intel is to a commander n chief.And Bush did not get the best.Obama I notice has changed 180 on many of his stances concerning the wars.It is called getting a top secret briefing and realizing he never knew how bad it all was.Notice he never came out and said “Now that i have all the information I claim George Bush as a war criminal.I shall release all to prove the complicity of the Republican party.The oil companies.The military industrial complex.And so on”…Just the opposite in fact.The grandstanding greatly died away(to the horror of his lib base).He was finally being broken free of the grey cloud of liberal mind skrew.The information he was receiving was hard cold fact.Even being the ideolog he is……..He could not change the truth.So He began the painful process of conducting a war.And in the process grew closer to Bush than he will ever be to any of you waving CHANGE YOU CAN BELIEVE IN SIGNS.
I just saw a poll that Bush is scoring higher than Obama in popularity polls.What next…Glen Beck with 6 hundred thou on the doorstep of the white house?Tough days ahead for you progressives.Tough days
michael e must type these comments one handed while holding a photo of our action figure ex-prez, commander codpiece…
To chris Mathews-legg
Codpiece???????What does that harken back to might i ask?
Don’t kid yourself Chris- I was no shill for Bush.His spending among other things turned me way way off.I like to say he was a flawed capitalist- among other failings.
And may I be the first to admit that Obama has far less flaws…….AS A SOCIALIST- big government, tax and spend creator of the worlds largest nanny state that is.Very few flaws indeed.On everything else he is always the most inexperienced guy in any room he enters.As bad as Bush sometimes was..Obama couldn’t make a “piece” of commander cods arse.As promised he is a Disaster disaster disaster.In Foreign policy.In war policy.In executive policies home and abroad.Complete and absolute disaster.Action figure /BAM the destroyer..Who would of thunk it?
michael, my namesake.
It appears that we have all drawn the same conclusion. Namely that your rambling walls of shouty deranged text are not worth reading and contain not a single coherent, intelligent, evidence based thought.
Did you have a point to make that isn’t made entirely of extremist rightist lies?
More on the myth of “Saddam’s bluff”:
https://fair.org/index.php?page=3256
https://fair.org/index.php?page=3390
correction: michael e must type these comments one handed, keeping the other one in motion, while looking at a photo of our action figure ex-prez, commander codpieceâ┚¬Ã‚¦
Still waiting still waiting still waiting For one coherent,intelligent,evidence based thought on these return blogs that is not based on liberal mindset insanity….Still waiting -still waiting For that one small iota of a conclusion ,that coincides and agrees with the mass of humanity who will soon hand Obama his walking papers.Did any of you have a point to make that isn’t made up entirely of extremist leftist lies? You may of all drawn the same conclusion in these delusion based rants and PERSONAL attacks (a libs natural state) on me or any person appearing here who is diametrically opposed to your elitist views….But what of the majority of Americans now that are quickly turning against your “give us the moolah and we will create 500 thousand jobs a month crowd “?Are they all hated by your little click as well?Do you need to correct them and TELL them how they should live?Good lord when will you come down from your high horses? !You are quickly becoming a minority of useful idiots.Read the tea leaves you lot of college posers.You have failed to persuade.You have failed in the arena of ideas.You have failed in your governance.And soon(Im singing this to you all)Soon we will be waving bye bye as you drive your prius’-slapped up in “Change you can believe in” stickers to the ash heaps of history.
Im tired.The country is tired.Of people who claim that anyone who disagrees with you elitist snobs are simply masturbating to pictures of an ex presidents.Yeah we need your positive energy ferrrrrr sure.Just what we need.Keep your eyes on the exit signs guys.November is the first answer to your holier than now progressive rule.Seen the polls?Or are they all telling untruths as well?
To Jim Naureckas
For the love of God stop quoting articles by Seth Ackerman.He is not anyone to use as a basis for any argument on such weighty matters.First of all is this guy older than 18?He looks about 16. Just because you forward some journalists opinion does not mean it carries any weight. Especially ones that seem to more often than not follow one sides thought processes.This being a liberal agenda.To be clear…I probably would value your opinion more than your source in this case. Sorry Seth
The enter and space keys are not friends of yours are they michael. Or neural activity for that matter.
Still waiting for any kind of reference. At all.
I wasn’t aware that the inmates at Arkham Asylum has internet access until I came across these comments from michael e…i’ll ask Commissioner Gordon to check into this…
Michael e wrote “Obama couldn’t make a “piece” of commander cods arse.”…..vell, vell…another conzervative with an unhealthy fixation on gay male zex….joost like that Rush Limbblow who is always going on about “grabbing your ankles.” i zuggest therapy…
interesting to note that michale e can’t be bothered to attemp to refute a single thing that seth ackerman sites as evidence…just a personal attack on his appearance
Howdy ho Woodward and B .Hope your research button is well and rested.Tally hoAnd to the rest of you- your jabs are funny and I will give ya that.You better keep that sense of humor burning.Your gonna need it to feel warm and loved come November.
To W and B I spent quite some time reading Seths articles.What can I say but his agenda is always clear.I get it.You get it.You buy it.And I dont .Personal attack?????Since when sir is saying you look like your 18 an attack?Say it all day to me if you please.
Hope he(Seth) writes about the small small man who gave a speech on Iraq last night.I won a hundred bucks in a gentleman’s wager with a lib friend.I Said BAM would not mention the surge and who had it called right.Bingo….. ding ding ding another conservative winner!Im sure he will see it(the speech) as pure gold.By the way it was was pure shite.
To Seth….watched a video of you.Sorry to use you as a political football.You seem decent enough.But you are wrong.As your defenders above are. It will all shake out in the end.Andl the rats will jump this sinking ship ,and we can stop arguing such liberal claptrap nonsense.In November we will send to Washington a new group- to restore the balance between Government and the private sector.Sorry but really that is as they say..that.
michael e is what happens when you totally neglect spending on mental health care.
interesting to note that michale e STILL can’t be bothered to attempt to refute a single thing that seth ackerman sites as evidenceâ┚¬Ã‚¦all he can do is make up stuff about his age….
W and B
Pick an article and I may refute it.I have not seen much to agree with in any of his work so it should be easy for both of us.This article is simply trying to poke holes into the reasons the war did start.I don’t see where/ why HE believes it began.What is his theory?It is obviously outside the record as put down by our government, and most of those involved including Saddam himself.Im getting that ol scary feeling that you believe he knows something no-one else does.Pray tell do honor us with this brilliance.Why does Seth believe the war happened?
And Mike……What in anything Ive written proves that I may be a few bricks under a full load?Other than the fact that all people who believe in American exceptionalism …the constitution….capitalism…..personal freedoms over the collective are in your eyes deluded?
no, the articles from seth under review on this are discussing the myth of saddam claiming to have weapons he didn’t have, he’s not poking holes into the reasons the war started, he’s poking holes in folks rewriting the reasons the war started
here are the two that jim n. offered up
https://fair.org/index.php?page=3256
https://fair.org/index.php?page=3390
show us the factual errors in seth’s work
start with either of the seth articles jim n. posted links to…show us factual errors in seth’s reporting….he’s discussing the myth that saddam stated publicly and repeatedly that he still retained wmd….as for this delusion from you: “Im getting that ol scary feeling that you believe he knows something no-one else does,”
is false…i never suggested anything of the sort…
Hey Mike….Like an amoeba, Michael e responds to a variety of stimuli with a single response. And like an amoeba, that may be the extent of his range. ..You may want to readjust your expectations.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/24/60minutes/main3749494_page4.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody
Well W and B you say” what factual errors are there in the links named”.Let me say this.The articles are simply scattershot ideas.Drawn from a number of sources,some better than others.They access a number of founts without once going to the source.Things thrown out without any conclusions.Trying to implant the notion that in every word uttered by the powers(Bush ,Blair etc- that were in those times bringing about war)- was an inherent underlying untruth.So what is THE TRUTH?What conclusion would you have me believe?That Bush started the war because he disliked Saddam’s mustache?Conclusion gentleman.What is your conclusion?That I will debate.So far I hear only a number of stories.Above I have linked you to Saddams interrogation.His words!!!!!!!We know what Bush felt or at least what he said he felt.We know what Tony Blair felt or said he felt.We know what the world body,the UN,and our Congress believed at the time of the war’s onset.I see your “men” bringing up a number of theories.Yet they do not settle the issue with their conclusion as to why they believe the war began.For instance Saddam stated that he attacked kuwait because of a personal insult.Or at least it weighed in the equation.
Did Saddam honestly deal with us and the world prior to the onset of hostilities…..IN A PIGS EYE!Did it contribute to the reasons for the war.WITHOUT ANY DOUBT!He was not an honest partner in dealings with weapons inspectors.As Iran today is not.As Korea is not.As Germany prior to WW2 was not.If the question you are asking is…..Does that/Did that and all that happened- constitute reasons for war?Well that is a real question.And Good people must mull that deep to the core of their souls for many days to come.And history with hindsight will be better placed to view that.
Cuba in the 60s almost led to a thermo nuclear war.Was it worth the risk?To the military yes it was.To the Amish?As the Amish believe that “if you take a gun into your hand you take a gun into your heart.They would never see any war for any reason as” reason” enough.
I still do believe Bush made in good conscience what he thought was the right call for our safety.Using the information he had at the time.And I do believe that if Saddam would of not taken the path he did– that war could of been avoided.It was always avoidable.He was one stubborn man. Facing a president who at that time and place in history would not allow the danger he saw in that stubborn continence.
To Jacques Cousteau……….Didnt you die in a bathtub accident?Amoeba one out!!!!!!!
I would just note that the story michael e links to is discussed at length in Seth’s piece–which points out that it does not, in fact, quote Saddam Hussein on the supposed bluff.
Jim it is memoirs of his months in detention by the person who was put in charge of his general debriefing by the FBI CIA.Every word of which …every utterance of which was taped and transcribed.Nothing has been discounted here.And there is nothing new here.Peter heart simply missed it?So Calm down.This was not all faked just to shoot holes in your beliefs.Stop being argumentative just for the sake of it.Game over unless you have some new revelations.
So now you have Saddams words.You have Bushes words.And you have the the historical record. All basically conjoin .And then you have your liberal perception which is basically conspiracy theories and as usual these days completely full of shit. Off on some tangent.You are a tiring bunch.In November you will not be defeated…..you will be trancended(Prez.Ronald R.)
@ Jim Naureckas….micheal e’s problem is that he can’t read for comprehension [and anything that conflicts with his world view is disregarded]…and he can’t cite facts, so he can’t debate …..
W and B the key word here is tiring.As it applies to you.As with most Dems you have placed a magic finger down and given a judgement(of me this time)and as usual it has no tie to reality.”Cant read for comprehension”?????Well well well not many folks with my educational accomplishments and professional background would be accused of that,but feel free and accuse away.It is a free country after all
.In my younger days I worked for a certain presidential nom during his campaign(who you probably voted for) and I was if fact a policy wonk fact research analyst.I learned then how to “read” the way facts are laid out and I mean no insult in saying Most people on these blogs are rank novices.They simply could not swim in that ocean for ten minutes.To willing to be taken away of flights of fancy.Facts were than -and are my life now as far as politics go.But Dems dont live with facts sir .Not real facts.If they did how could they support Poloci and BAM and their wacky theories?They simply argue the world is round with a flurry of articles from Lib writer’s who believe otherwise.Tiring is the word that comes back into play.And you expect people like me to debate that????That is the reason I give “opinion” more than simple ties to the experts you should really look to.
Your whole argument was Saddam never indicated a bluff.And second ,the reason George Bush really started the war was………??????(actually you never said).I simply gave you an article that is easy to truth test…that is theee words of Saddam himself.I pointed out it seems to coincide and dovetail with the historical record.And you see that hard as rock evidence as actual proof that everyone is lying. Including me!You sir win the Lib of the week award.
You seem to of been fortunate in your educational past…..But I find in you a man not educated enough to admit when you are wrong
I would appreciate if someone(W and B.. Jacques…Jim…Mike?)anyone, would go out on a limb and give an opinion on why the war did resume with Iraq.Let us take for granted your(most of you)theory that the whole world was absolutely sure WMDs were non existent was true.That Iraq was an honest partner.That George Bush was the lier,the instigator,the war criminal that ran this country headlong into war.WHY did he do it?Was it on a bet?Most libs early on said it was to steal Irag’s oil reserves.OK that did not pan out.What is the theory now spinning away in lib minds?
Micheal e wrote ” my educational accomplishments and professional background .” Mein Gott. Zumeone call the man with the butterfly nets. Zis boy needs therapy.
micheal e “So now you have Saddams words. ”
Jim Naureckas “I would just note that the story michael e links to is discussed at length in Seth’s piece–which points out that it does not, in fact, quote Saddam Hussein on the supposed bluff.”
michael e “I simply gave you an article that is easy to truth testâ┚¬Ã‚¦that is theee words of Saddam himself.”
Jim Naureckas “I would just note that the story michael e links to is discussed at length in Seth’s piece–which points out that it does not, in fact, quote Saddam Hussein on the supposed bluff.”
Jacques Cousteau “Like an amoeba, Michael e responds to a variety of stimuli with a single response.”
Jim Lobe:
The invasion was a forceful – indeed, a shock- and awe-some – demonstration to the rest of the world, especially potential strategic rivals like China, Russia, or even the European Union, of Washington’s ability to quickly and effectively conquer and control an oil-rich nation in the heart of the energy-rich Middle East/Gulf region any time it wishes, perhaps persuading those lesser powers that challenging the U.S. could well prove counter-productive to long-term interests, if not their supply of energy in the short term.
Indeed, a demonstration of such power could well be the fastest way to formalise a new international order based on the overwhelming military power of the United States, unequalled at least since the Roman Empire. It would be a “unipolar world” of the kind envisaged by the 1992 draft Defence Planning Guidance (DPG) commissioned by then-Pentagon chief Dick Cheney, overseen by Wolfowitz and Cheney’s future chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby, and contributed to by future ambassador to “liberated” Afghanistan and Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad and Bush’s deputy national security adviser, J.D. Crouch.
It was that same vision that formed the inspiration for the 27 charter signatories – a coalition of aggressive nationalists, neo-conservatives, and Christian Right leaders that included Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Libby, Khalilzad, and several other future senior Bush administration national-security officials – of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) in 1997. It was the same project that began calling for “regime change” in Iraq in 1998 and that, nine days after the 9/11 attack on New York and the Pentagon, publicly warned that any “war on terror” that excluded Hussein’s elimination would necessarily be incomplete.
In retrospect, it seems clear that Iraq had long been seen by this group, which became empowered first by Bush’s election and then super-charged by 9/11, as the first, easiest and most available step toward achieving a “Pax Americana” that would not only establish the U.S. once and for all as the dominant power in the region, but whose geo-strategic implications for aspiring “peer competitors” would be global in scope.
For the neo-conservative and the Christian Right members of this group, who were its most eager and ubiquitous war boosters, Israel would also be a major beneficiary of an invasion.
Rupert Cornwell:
Former Palestinian foreign minister Nabil Shaath says Mr Bush told him and Mahmoud Abbas, former prime minister and now Palestinian President: “I’m driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, ‘George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan.’ And I did, and then God would tell me, ‘George go and end the tyranny in Iraq,’ and I did.”
Mr Abbas remembers how the US President told him he had a “moral and religious obligation” to act. The White House has refused to comment on what it terms a private conversation. But the BBC account is plausible, given how throughout his presidency Mr Bush, a born-again Christian, has never hidden the importance of his faith.
From the outset he has couched the “global war on terror” in quasi-religious terms, as a struggle between good and evil. Al-Qa’ida terrorists are routinely described as evil-doers. For Mr Bush, the invasion of Iraq has always been part of the struggle against terrorism, and he appears to see himself as the executor of the divine will.
He told Bob Woodward – whose 2004 book, Plan of Attack, is the definitive account of the administration’s road to war in Iraq – that after giving the order to invade in March 2003, he walked in the White House garden, praying “that our troops be safe, be protected by the Almighty”. As he went into this critical period, he told Mr Woodward, “I was praying for strength to do the Lord’s will.
“I’m surely not going to justify war based upon God. Understand that. Nevertheless, in my case, I pray that I will be as good a messenger of His will as possible. And then of course, I pray for forgiveness.”
Zat Buzhie boy had zerious daddy issues…he vent after Zaddam with zhock und awe to finally do zumpthing his daddy couldn’t do..und zen he flew to ze aircraft carrier wearing ze biggest codpiece ever zeen by mankind…obviouzly overcompenzating….
huh! huh! he said “masturbating to pictures.”
heh! heh! he said “hard as rock.”
Anyone care to hazard a guess as to the “educational accomplishments and professional background” of someone who would write a series of sentences as totally incoherent as: “Facts were than -and are my life now as far as politics go.But Dems dont live with facts sir .Not real facts.If they did how could they support Poloci and BAM and their wacky theories?They simply argue the world is round with a flurry of articles from Lib writer’s who believe otherwise?”
What does this stuff even mean? And what does Majority Leader Pelosi and President Obama have to do with anything being discussed on this thread? Plus, the last time I looked liberals don’t ARGUE that the world is round, they KNOW the world is round.
Whoops..make that Speaker Pelosi
w and B finally a good piece of work.To the rest you who follow the paths of a recent article”When Libs have nothing to say they argue spelling ,writing styles- and diction. I say two thumbs up for being true to the blitheringly stupid liberal patterns.You are failing to persuade .The public has your number.And your sounding frantic .Resorting to personal attacks.Spiteful and sad.So angry when you can get no one to believe your absolute beliefs in your pet theories.Harvard was full of you clowns.
Back to W and B.I notice you believe Bush when he says one thing(his religious beliefs)yet nothing else.You trust Nabil shaath and and Mahmoud Abbas and what they say….. yet not what Saddam says?.Why you would believe anything they say(Shaath and Abbas) I am not sure.But at least I know where you are coming from now.In essence you believe “GOD TOLD BUSH DO IT”(debunked long ago).Well OK that is a theory I suppose.Lets put that up o the old chalk board. And JIm Lobe feels it was all that neo con nonsense and crapola. Oil always….And Israel of course- who was pulling the strings of the puppet Bush.Well Ok that is a theory too.We can now definitely agree to disagree .You will call it hard cold fact.I will call it nothing but pet theories.EVeryone has one.(I always believe he was playing world monopoly and simply landed on that square.)Who knows there may even be an ounce of truth in all of it I suppose.Doubt it.Your cherry picking.Problem is you take that ounce and spin and spin and spin.There is just nothing to support your beliefs.Nothing at all.I do like the simple mindedness of it though.GOD TOLD HIM TO DO IT!Love that. By the way PLAN OF ATTACK Is a terrible book.You would love it .Belongs in the thrift shop discount rack which is where I think I just saw it.
Dj Spellchecka great name.Love the way you ran it all together.Sooooooo gramatical.And right from the get go.How impressive.
Harvard Md PHD?No?…..Bummer dude it’s a damn good life..Where did you graduamate the ninth grade from Mr Jethro Bodine?yeah I am laughing at you
Uh….I just cut and pasted your words from the comment you posted at 6:09 the way you typed it…Did you somehow forget your own post ?
michael e “You trust Nabil shaath and and Mahmoud Abbas and what they sayâ┚¬Ã‚¦.. yet not what Saddam says?”
Jim Naureckas “I would just note that the story michael e links to is discussed at length in Seth’s piece–which points out that it does not, in fact, quote Saddam Hussein on the supposed bluff.”
Jacques Cousteau “Like an amoeba, Michael e responds to a variety of stimuli with a single response.”
ps: jim lobe did not say that isreal was pulling bush’s strings…simply that a lot of american neocons in the administration believed that invading iraq would ultimately benefit israel. you really can’t seem to read for comprehension
Ps Dj………Should be “who would have you believe otherwise”Sorry that was a bit confusing.Could sound a might Hard daysnightish is you said it fast.
Point is I think the speaker…the majority leader….may actually be a little bit addled.Bats in the bell tower stuff.Crazy as a shit house rat!VP Joe B is firing a bit off off the ol bulls eye himself.Obama is not crazy.He just grew up in a world that taught him so many wrong concepts that he sometimes seems like he must be.My point is as clear thinking as you and your lib friends may believe yourself to be……….These are your leaders.They brought in thier looney administration to rule and not to govern. YesI blame you for your vote.And I hold you suspect in any dealings with you.Especially as far as debating world geo politics.After all……….You are the followers of some really crazy theories as espoused by this Dem leadership.You are painted somewhat by the friends you keep.
W and B
I may be thick but….Are you saying the Saddam link I sent you is doctored or phony?Or both?Or are you saying he was lying to his debriefers so you discount it?Because his words as reflected on in that link have been recorded for history word for word.THe CIA agent is only giving his recollection, yet nothing as far as I know differs from the transcripts.I am confused on what basis you discount his own explanation on the reason why he did not come clean to Bush even as the end drew near(the fear of Iran theory).This is not Rove or Rummy speaking.Or Bush.It was Saddam.Yet you discount it with a weird notion that he was not quoted?????And you have indicated it more than once.ARe not his words as taped and transcribed in effect a quote?
The men in white coats are coming for you michael e, stay where you are you dribbling moron.
michael, i’m reacting to the cbs news story at the link your sent and as seth pointed out, the cia interrogator makes the claim that saddam wanted to keep up the illusion of possessing wmd’s to keep iran off balance, but he never says that saddam said that, no date, no direct quote…here’s the relevant passage
“So why keep the secret? Why put your nation at risk, why put your own life at risk to maintain this charade?” Pelley asks.
“It was very important for him to project that because that was what kept him, in his mind, in power. That capability kept the Iranians away. It kept them from reinvading Iraq,” Piro says.
“He believed that he couldn’t survive without the perception that he had weapons of mass destruction?” Pelley asks.
“Absolutely,” Piro says.
piro never puts saddam’s supposed statements into a time frame…perhaps saddam was talking about what was happening in the 90s, because, as seth points out again, iraq released a 1200 page report in late 2002 saying categorically that they had no weapons.. [odd way to convince iran of a continued iraqi threat.]
then, saddam went on 60 minutes on feb 26th 03 and told dan rather in an interview “Iraq was absolutely certain that what it had said–what the Iraqi officials had kept saying–that Iraq was empty, was void, of any such weapons, was the case.” He did so “in order to make the case absolutely clear that Iraq was no longer in possession of any such weapons.” [another odd way to convince iran of a continued iraqi threat.]
in other words, this question from cbs’s pelley: “So why keep the secret? Why put your nation at risk, why put your own life at risk to maintain this charade?” isn’t based on the actual historical record of late 02- early 03.
now i suppose all of what happened in the six months before the invasion COULD be described as saddam “not coming clean,” but that would involving accepting that words don’t actually have any fixed meaning.
then there’s the fact that Saddam “wouldn’t admit he had no weapons of mass destruction”? A lot of things may have taken place since 2003, but it shouldn’t be too hard for a CBS viewer to remember that this simply isn’t the way things happened. When inspectors were sent back to Baghdad in 2002, Iraq released a massive report insisting there were no such weapons. Indeed, CBS, like every other news outlet, reported this at the time.
Bob Schieffer, the network’s Washington bureau chief, announced the news this way (12/8/02): “Saddam Hussein says he has no weapons of mass destruction, but should we believe him?” Interviewing a visiting senator on Face the Nation, Schieffer asked what would happen if U.S. experts “conclude that Saddam Hussein is once again lying, as he has so often in the pastâ┚¬Ã‚¦claiming he doesn’t have the weapons, when in fact we know that he has. What do we do next?”
Schieffer’s question was quickly answered by the White House. “The American people know that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction,” Bush declared (3/6/03) shortly before the invasion, in a typical pronouncement from that period. “He declared he didn’t have any. [The U.N.] insisted that he have a complete declaration of his weapons; he said he didn’t have any weapons.”
A personal appearance
60 Minutes’ claim that Saddam “wouldn’t admit he had no weapons of mass destruction” is all the more preposterous since Saddam Hussein actually appeared personally on 60 Minutes II to tell the country in no uncertain terms that had no weapons of mass destruction.
In the interview with Dan Rather that rather famously aired on that program (2/26/03) three weeks before the invasion, Saddam explained that Iraq had agreed to allow inspectors back into the country “even though Iraq was absolutely certain that what it had said–what the Iraqi officials had kept saying–that Iraq was empty, was void, of any such weapons, was the case.” He did so “in order to make the case absolutely clear that Iraq was no longer in possession of any such weapons.”
oh dear, i hit the submit button too fast…it’s early
here’s what i meant to post:
michael, i’m reacting to the cbs news story at the link your sent and as seth pointed out, the cia interrogator makes the claim that saddam wanted to keep up the illusion of possessing wmd’s to keep iran off balance, but he never says that saddam said that, no date, no direct quoteâ┚¬Ã‚¦here’s the relevant passage
“So why keep the secret? Why put your nation at risk, why put your own life at risk to maintain this charade?” Pelley asks.
“It was very important for him to project that because that was what kept him, in his mind, in power. That capability kept the Iranians away. It kept them from reinvading Iraq,” Piro says.
“He believed that he couldn’t survive without the perception that he had weapons of mass destruction?” Pelley asks.
“Absolutely,” Piro says.
piro never puts saddam’s supposed statements into a time frameâ┚¬Ã‚¦perhaps saddam was talking about what was happening in the 90s, because, as seth points out again, iraq released a 1200 page report in late 2002 saying categorically that they had no weapons.. [odd way to convince iran of a continued iraqi threat.]
then, saddam went on 60 minutes on feb 26th 03 and told dan rather in an interview “Iraq was absolutely certain that what it had said–what the Iraqi officials had kept saying–that Iraq was empty, was void, of any such weapons, was the case.” He did so “in order to make the case absolutely clear that Iraq was no longer in possession of any such weapons.” [another odd way to convince iran of a continued iraqi threat.]
in other words, this question from cbs’s pelley: “So why keep the secret? Why put your nation at risk, why put your own life at risk to maintain this charade?” isn’t based on the actual historical record of late 02- early 03.
now i suppose all of what happened in the six months before the invasion COULD be described as saddam “not coming clean,” but that would involving accepting that words don’t actually have any fixed meaning.
Michael e “Point is I think the speakerâ┚¬Ã‚¦the majority leaderâ┚¬Ã‚¦.may actually be a little bit addled.Bats in the bell tower stuff.Crazy as a shit house rat!” Gott in himmel! Clazzic projection. Deluzional commenter thinking perfectly normal, if zomewhat ideological, perzon is crazy one. Thiz boy needs therapy.
Ok, i’ll bite. “What really crazy theories as espoused by this Dem leadership am i a follower of?”
W and b.Yes i understand your point.I just think you are getting lost in minutia and being a stickler to avoid a simple truth that you want not to agree with..The words you quoted have been more than confirmed and the transcripts do exist that are the complete debrief of Saddam.There is no divergence I have ever seen or heard of.Even Peter does not claim that.And words do have a fixed meaning.Saddam said a good many things.Our president and the world body at that time chose to make a decision on what they were willing to accept.(Note they were willing to accept nothing but unconditional compliance.)I feel they made those calls in good faith.You do not.I feel Saddam brought much of this on himself.You seem to feel(Ok my words)that he was a somewhat innocent bystander doing everything he was asked -but evil old George Bush was intransient to his parlays.I don’t think any record, historical or otherwise will ever see it that way.His(Saddams) defiance was absolute.It was seen even as he stood on the gallows.Bush could not in any sane way TRUST him.Trust but verify maybe.But it was not to be.And monday morning quarterbacking Bush in the hopes if only he had waited a bit longer Iraqi leadership would of come around is a spurious argument.Saddam told all those concerned about his WNDs……We aint got any, so hit the road Joe.Although Bush and the leaders at that time(Dems as well)did have faulty intel they chose not to live with his words/lies/bluffs/games any longer.Simple no?
Dj
Maybe I made a mistake there come to think of it.I actually don’t recall you ever stating any case on any level at any time.Or taking any particular stance.Just a lot of snarky comments.That said….that is a good description of the libs in power and folks who follow like lemmings behind them.So maybe I did take something for granted. Maybe you did not vote for mr tax -n- spend BAM a licious, community unorganizer, bucking to get on the PGA tour, grand poobah of ours.If you didn’t good for you and I apologize.If ya did …….hows that workin out for ya?
William Hamilton Washington Post April 17, 2004
On Nov. 21, 2001, 72 days after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Bush directed Rumsfeld to begin planning for war with Iraq. “Let’s get started on this,” Bush recalled saying. “And get Tommy Franks looking at what it would take to protect America by removing Saddam Hussein if we have to.” He also asked: Could this be done on a basis that would not be terribly noticeable?
Bush received his first detailed briefing on Iraq war plans five weeks later, on Dec. 28, when Gen. Tommy R. Franks, the head of the U.S. Central Command, visited Bush at his ranch in Crawford, Tex. Bush told reporters afterward that they had discussed Afghanistan.
Michael Smith The Sunday Times [London] May 1, 2005
Tony Blair made his fundamental decision on Saddam when he met President George W Bush in Crawford, Texas, in April 2002.
When the prime minister discussed Iraq with President Bush at Crawford in April he said that the UK would support military action to bring about regime change.
In a Downing Street meeting on July 27, 2002 Sir Richard Dearlove noted his intelligence concerned his recent visit to Washington where he had held talks with George Tenet, director of the CIA.
â┚¬Ã…“Military action was now seen as inevitable,â┚¬Ã‚ said Dearlove. â┚¬Ã…“Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD.â┚¬Ã‚Â
daniel larison sept 1, 2010
Last night, Obama referred to the invasion as a â┚¬Ã…“war to disarm a state,â┚¬Ã‚ which was the official justification given by his predecessor. If we grant that this was the purpose of the war and not the pretext for regime change, it really makes no difference whether a far-off post-Saddam Iraq would have been better or worse than the one that has emerged now, because it means that the U.S. had no business invading on the Bush administration’s own terms.
As Ross Douthat wrote in early 2009: “Strip away Saddam’s (supposed) rearmament and the imminent threat it (supposedly) posed, and the fact that you had nine other â┚¬Ã…“here’s why this might be a good ideaâ┚¬Ã‚ reasons for war did not a strong-enough justification for war make.”
If the primary purpose of the war was always regime change regardless of whether or not Hussein was already disarmed, an antiwar argument focused on preserving Iraqi and regional stability becomes even stronger.
It seems perverse to speculate on how much worse things might have been in Iraq had the United States not launched an unnecessary and illegal invasion that toppled Hussein’s regime. Much like the demagoguing of Iraq’s potential threat to the U.S. before the war, supporters of the invasion make up for their complete lack of evidence by asking us to imagine the very worst things that might occur if we had done nothing.
I have no doubt Bush thought- planned and had plans drawn as you speculate.And damn well he should have.I am just as sure Obama is doing the same in regards to Iran and N Korea and other hot spots.On any given day we have war plans to every place on the face of the earth.The president is briefed and involved.And damned well he better be.To take it a step further and say it proves Bush planned war regardless of what anyone thought beyond treaties and convention is conspiracy nonsense.I remember Clinton saying war with Iraq was unavoidable once they had trashed their surrender agreements.This was before 911.Obama’s people seemed to indicate war crimes against Bush early on,yet once in the loop ….it all faded away.It is called top secret briefings.It has been said when first briefed Obama was ashen faced on the realities of the world.You are talking out of your hat.Using theories by jornalists who don’t have a hat to p in.Churchill once said death is people writing of your life who have never met you or know anything of you writing with the little they know of you.Im getting that feeling about Bush here.
My guess is that ‘michael e’ is a raging meth-addict (with all the attendant legal & social problems that entails) who admires James Joyce ‘stream-of-consciousness’ writing and tries to emulate it in his political writing, a’la Hunter Thompson, but without the coherency. At least HT knew how to spell, punctuate, and make the ‘gonzo’ style occasionally interesting, something which escapes michael e. He answers the question ‘how twisted DO you have to be in order to believe Bush was justified in starting the latest Iraq War?’, so he provides a service thereby…
Michael wrote : “Harvard Md PHD.” By golly, I didn’t know Glenn Beck U had fired up their xerox machine and started cranking out diplomas….gotta get me one, you betcha!
William Hamilton was quoting from plan of attack, a book the white house approved of and Michael Smith was quoting offical british government memos…that activity is know as citing fact, not advancing rumor…
can you offer a source for Clinton saying war with Iraq was unavoidable ? google can’t
Big em and Caribou great to have your viewpoints on this burning issue.Ok not really- but father and mother always told me how to act in polite society.Have you anything other than empty insults?
W and B You can find the Clinton quote in his book(surprise I no longer have it).I used to use it as a talking point.He was asked about it in interviews at that time.His feeling was that as Irag broke one promise after another of their surrender pledges, and as they forced out weapons inspectors that they were on the road to war.That it may be inevitable.At that time I thought he overstated….I worked on his campaign.He was many things.Dumb was not one of them.He had more grey matter than Bush and Obama together and better political instincts.I should of listened a bit closer.He proved to be right on that one.
White house approved?British memos?What white house?What memos?We are listening to paper trails far south of leadership and ignoring the actual leadership?Bush and Blair have not admitted to launching this war for the weak reasons you have positioned as the real reasons for this war.Quite the contrary
Ps
Big em. I never said anyone let alone Bush was “justified”in starting a war.I don’t know if anyone ever is justified.That is beyond my pay grade and beliefs.He did set in motion our military actions.That is historically a fact.To say he did so for spurious reasons and go about drawing all kinds of wacky conclusions outside the historical narrative is going to take serious data and proof.FAIR seems very left sided in all their views.Their starting and ending place always seem flight logged out ahead of time .Always suspect.I think this is a pretty easy to read.And FAIR is just muddying the waters with speculation.
Caribou …Artium baccalaureus,philosophiae doctor,medicinae doctor .What R U a lover of pain and latin?
AS for Glen he had the best butter cookie rec.ever.That I did copy.After I ate them I became a zombie and followed him slavishly.Go ahead and spread that rumor.Hope it cements your beliefs.
Vell, Vell…All of zat wacking off to photos of Bush has finally burned off the few brain zells zis Micheal e fellow had left. Too late for therapy.
oh that is so terrible to say m.e is an admirer of James Joyce because m.e is such a grump and Joyce is so much great fun especially finnegans wake. nothing at all like m.e’s stuff.
hello there and thank you for your information â┚¬“ I have certainly picked up something new from right here. I did however expertise a few technical points using this web site, as I experienced to reload the website lots of times previous to I could get it to load correctly. I had been wondering if your hosting is OK? Not that I’m complaining, but sluggish loading instances times will very frequently affect your placement in google and could damage your high-quality score if ads and marketing with Adwords. Anyway I’m adding this RSS to my e-mail and can look out for much more of your respective interesting content. Make sure you update this again very soon..