1

Very funny stuff

I thought that the signs saying, "No War for Oil!" were literal. Meaning that the anti-war movement had the same motivation you had, Joe! Don't want war? Give us oil!

I suppose I was wrong though, not like there is any proof out there that those who opposed the war were in cahoots with Saddam Hussien for his oil.

What's that you said? Oh yeah, C'est la vie

2

'But what I can't live with is paying $2.60 for a gallon of gas when the entire purpose for going to war was to to steal the oil.'

it is Exxon that keepin your gas relatively high, not the A-rabs.

why don't you ask Mr. bush why he is allowing them to rip off the American people? Even Bill O'Reilly agrees with this.

3

I've been tempted to write much the same story, but from the opposite angle. Doesn't the price history prove that the war *wasn't* fought for cheap oil? If it was, then where is the cheap oil?

Bush-haters really need to get their stories straight; is he an evil genius, or an evil dummy? Did he want to drive oil prices *up* (as war and instability are wont to do), or *down*?

4

Of course, there are many of us who opposed (and still oppose) the war simply because it seemed like a terrible idea, fraught with difficulty and sacrifice and a low possibility of a positive outcome. It's hard for me to see how the lives of most Americans will be improved even in the unlikely event that civil war is avoided and democracy takes hold. Why couldn't we let Iraqis deal with their problem? What is our excuse for not similarly liberating North Korea and Iran?

5

Rob Ryan,

Of course, there are many of us who opposed (and still oppose) the war simply because it seemed like a terrible idea, fraught with difficulty and sacrifice and a low possibility of a positive outcome.

Sometimes a low possibility of success is the best you can hope for.

England faced a low possiblity of success at the beginning of World War II. Many were tempted to avoid a costly fight with Hitler and negotiate some kind of co-existence with his evil.

It's hard for me to see how the lives of most Americans will be improved even in the unlikely event that civil war is avoided and democracy takes hold.

It's hard for me to see how the lives of most Americans would not be improved by democracy taking hold in Iraq.

We would have a mighty, strategically priceless ally in the War on Islamist Terror in the heart of the Arab world. We would have a beacon of democracy undermining the lure of Islamism on a daily basis, broadcasting by its mere existence the hopeful possibility of Islam melding with a humane version of society.

We would deal a strategic blow to jihadis worldwide who made the subversion of Iraq their primary short-term goal, including the crazy jihadis right next door who are in charge of Iran.

We would finally have begun the long process of putting responsibility for the depressed state of affairs in many parts of the Islamic world right where it belongs: on the shoulders of the people themselves (as opposed to some outside force like the Great Satan, the will of Allah, the great Zionist conspiracy, and so on and so on).

I cannot imagine how democracy taking root in Iraq would be anything other than a great boon for our interests and the interests of the whole world. It could hardly be otherwise.

Why couldn't we let Iraqis deal with their problem? What is our excuse for not similarly liberating North Korea and Iran?

Because it was finally time to start somewhere, and Saddam Hussein was kind enough, through his aggressive brinkmanship and despotic inhumanity, to volunteer his own country.

Strategically, Iraq had much to recommend it as a starting point for fighting back against despotic regimes. Just its prime location was a most compelling argument: right there on the other side of Iran from Afghanistan, bordering on Jordan, Syria, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia. Excellent location really.

In addition, the secular nature of Saddam's regime was likely to make the liberation process at least a little bit easier than in some fervently religious government's domain, like Saudi Arabia.

Rob, I don't think you approve of the liberation and reconstruction of Iraq.

That's fine, skepticism is good, especially when we continue to suffer dozens of casualties every month, and when Iraqis continue to suffer several times than many casualties themselves.

But from where I sit, you seem to be throwing out the very, very good just because it doesn't meet some extraordinary standard of perfection. If a majority of Americans persist in seeing things your way, then that would be a tremendous shame.

The reconstruction of Iraq is largely a contest of wills. We need to marshall our collective will-power in order to avoid defeat.

Of course the danger with maintaining our will is that we might become impervious to strategic errors or to the diminishing returns of a losing campaign. But that is also an excellent reason for war critics to stay as focused as possible and attuned to the reality on the ground.

Critics who are not simply blind naysayers are just as important to the war effort as having strong-willed leaders making the tough decisions in Washington, D.C.

6

Let's see, the Bush administration is filled with Oil Men — and then there's the ex-CEO of Haliburton sitting in the Veep seat. Consequence of Iraq war: oil prices shoot through the roof, oil companies set historical records for profits, and Haliburton gets a windfall. Cheap gasoline would have been the worst result for these guys, no profit in that.

7

As I understand it, there are a number of reasons we invaded Iraq. Oil was one of those reasons. Joe does us all a disservice with this jeering simplification of the issue.

If we turn the clock back to just prior to Bush's decision to invade Iraq, we see that Saddam is making moves to convert his petro dollars to euros. While we had an oil embargo in place, he was allowed to sell oil on the open market for food/medicine (heh, right) and other basic funding needs. We were trying to prevent him from selling surpluses and re-arming.

But all mid-east oil is sold for dollars. This is one way in which we keep our dollar strong against other currencies and is, to use economist-speak, "important."

And there's this pesky problem of India and China modernizing and looking to secure permanent, stable sources of petroleum. Since the biggest sources are Saudi Arabia and Iraq, we want to be there. We want a physical, military presence in those countries and in the region so that when China comes knocking, they'll come knocking on our door. More importantly, we won't have to go to them and if Saddam was of such a mind, he might have starting selling bigtime to China directly, in Yuan or Euros, which would have put us at a serious strategic disadvantage.

But to Joe's mind, we aren't talking about any of this, it's a simplistic "steal the oil" framing. For shame, Joe.

8

Matthew, finally something we agree on. Well said, Mr. Goggins.

I would add that the Middle Eastern problem is huge, way bigger than Iran or Iraq. Furthermore, what could we do about Iran if we were not in Iraq? We were justified in going into Iraq, for humanitarian reasons, if nothing else. The recently-released Iraqi documents are starting to show a close relationship between Saddam and Al Quaeda. And there are increasing rumors that the Iraqis moved a lot of WMDs into Syria in the months that the Democrats had us pidding around trying to get UN backing.

Now that we are in Iraq, managing Iran will be easier, especially if it requires the military. Even the threat of military action has a positive impact on our position.

N. Korea is a smoke screen for the liberals. They have had nukes for a long time, certainly before Bush got in office. And they have a very concerned neighbor, China, who can be reasoned with, and will strongly oppose an invasion of N. Korea.

Here is an idea. Maybe our overall intelligence efforts are better than the picture that we are seeing vis-a-vis the CIA. Maybe somebody has known that Iran and Iraq and Syria are supporting terrorism as much as Afghanistan did. Maybe they knew that the region was on the verge of chaotic nuclear expansion. And maybe that had a lot to do with the decision to take action before it got out of hand.

9

Matthew Goggins:
It's hard for me to see how the lives of most Americans would not be improved by democracy taking hold in Iraq.

We would have a mighty, strategically priceless ally in the War on Islamist Terror in the heart of the Arab world.

Matthew, what makes you think that a democratic Iraq would be allied with us and not, for instance, their co-religionists across the border?

The whole point of democracy is that they wouldn't have to do what we want.

Perhaps you meant a puppet Iraq?

10

To Raven, Goggins, et al.: In the words of John McEnroe, "You cannot be serious!" Or, in plainer terms, "THIS POST IS SATIRE".

Lighten up!

11

But all mid-east oil is sold for dollars. This is one way in which we keep our dollar strong against other currencies and is, to use economist-speak, "important."

True the need for people to obtain dollars to pay for their oil does cause the dollar to rise somewhat but it is just as easy for those selling the oil to turn around and convert their dollars into anything else they want (Euros, gold, camels, whatever). Also you might have missed it but a strong dollar is a double edged sword. It makes US products more expensive hurting our export industries.

If anyone's a cause of a strong dollar it is China which uses its trade surpluses to purchase dollar denominated bonds. The strong dollar has hardly been a happy thing for the Bush administration. You might have missed it but not that long ago China was being treated like they were committing an act of war on us.

12

Matthew Goggins,

England faced a low possiblity of success at the beginning of World War II. Many were tempted to avoid a costly fight with Hitler and negotiate some kind of co-existence with his evil.

You are not seriously comparing the Iraq "war" with World War II, are you? The "co-existence" we had "negotiated" with Saddam was a tad one-sided. Dominating Iraq with no-fly zones in the north and south is a bit different than allowing Germany to annex the Sudetenland.

We would have a mighty, strategically priceless ally in the War on Islamist Terror in the heart of the Arab world. We would have a beacon of democracy undermining the lure of Islamism on a daily basis, broadcasting by its mere existence the hopeful possibility of Islam melding with a humane version of society.

Yes, and if pigs had wings.... Meanwhile the policy of containment which was working just fine with Iraq and our presence in Afghanistan had Iran more than a little concerned. So far our Iraqi War seems to have served as a rallying cry for those that advocate terror and there are no signs of democracy breaking out in the Arab world.

13

The Raven,

But to Joe's mind, we aren't talking about any of this, it's a simplistic "steal the oil" framing. For shame, Joe.

Two points:

It's not a bad thing to fight for oil. Oil is important -- not as important as democracy and human rights, but important nonetheless.

Also, there is no shame in Joe's mocking the "No war for oil"/Bush-is-the-antichrist brigades. By engaging in mockery (pretty intelligent and amusing mockery, by the way), he has provided you with a forum to put forth some opposing points. That's a good thing, not a bad thing.

Scott,

Matthew, finally something we agree on. Well said, Mr. Goggins.

Thank you. Perhaps my other beliefs have more merit than you think -- come explore the Dark Side :)

Here is an idea [ . . . ] Maybe somebody has known that Iran and Iraq and Syria are supporting terrorism as much as Afghanistan did. Maybe they knew that the region was on the verge of chaotic nuclear expansion. And maybe that had a lot to do with the decision to take action before it got out of hand.

Sure looked that way to me three years ago.

Nick,

Matthew, what makes you think that a democratic Iraq would be allied with us and not, for instance, their co-religionists across the border?

The whole point of democracy is that they wouldn't have to do what we want.

Perhaps you meant a puppet Iraq?

Because Iran is not democratic.

If Iraq chooses to ally with Iran instead of us, that will be a huge tip-off that the democratic project in Iraq is either dead or on serious life support.

A democracy, by definition, cannot be a puppet. If Iraq were to become our puppet, that would also be a huge tip-off that democracy had bit the dust. That won't happen, though, because we don't have the stomach to do one hundredth of what it would take to turn Iraq into a puppet. We would sooner invade North Korea.

Matthew M.,

"You cannot be serious!" [ . . . ] "THIS POST IS SATIRE".

Lighten up!

Good satire is a very serious business, Mr. M.

Joe uses humor to make a serious point: our fight in Iraq is primarily about democracy and human rights, and not about "stealing" oil.

Boonton,

Do you think a dramatic devaluation of the U.S. dollar would be a good thing or a bad thing?

AndyS,

I'm sorry to disappoint you by reaching an understanding of Middle Eastern and world affairs that clashes with your own analysis.

Perhaps I can explain a little bit why I think my views are justified.

You are not seriously comparing the Iraq "war" with World War II, are you? The "co-existence" we had "negotiated" with Saddam was a tad one-sided. Dominating Iraq with no-fly zones in the north and south is a bit different than allowing Germany to annex the Sudetenland.

Here's a link to an opinion piece last Friday from the London TimesOnline, written by columnist Gerard Baker:

It's three years from the successful U.N. disarmament of Saddam Hussein -- here's how it went.

I think Mr. Baker's column is as good a piece of alternative history as one is likely to get in answer to the question: What if we had let the U.N. inspectors "do their job" and disarm Saddam peacefully?

So the answer to your question is, yes, I am comparing the liberation of Iraq to World War II. Yes, Saddam was a deadly threat -- not imminently perhaps, but certainly a gathering threat, as President Bush liked to put it.

If Neville Chamberlain had faced down Hitler the way President Bush faced down Saddam, tens of millions of lives could have been saved.

Yes, and if pigs had wings....

The battle over the reconstruction of Iraq is far from over.

We could still lose it, but we actually seem to be holding most of the cards at this point.

Nothing in war is predictable, much less guaranteed. But right now I'd much rather bet on the American coalition than on the Sunni insurgents and their former Al Qaeda allies.

The theocratically-minded Shiite militias are still a scary problem. But just walking away isn't going to help the good guys in Iraq pull it off.

So far our Iraqi War seems to have served as a rallying cry for those that advocate terror and there are no signs of democracy breaking out in the Arab world.

The terrorists have paid dearly for their resistance to a democratic Iraq, certainly much more than we have paid. And if you do not see any signs of democracy breaking out in Arabia, then you are not looking for them.

We all need to pay attention to those Arabs and Muslims who desperately want to create humane and democratic societies. If we ignore them, they might very well wither and die, both figuratively and literally.

AndyS, you ask good questions, although I don't think the points you make are strong enough to justify much snarkiness on your part.

I hope I can explain myself at least enough to allow you to see that supporters of the liberation and reconstruction of Iraq are not necessarily inflexible or ignorant ideologues.

14

Do you think a dramatic devaluation of the U.S. dollar would be a good thing or a bad thing?

Probably bad, however oil companies demanding payment in Euros rather than dollars would not cause it.

If Neville Chamberlain had faced down Hitler the way President Bush faced down Saddam, tens of millions of lives could have been saved.

Ohhh yea well if Germany was say about hundred times weaker than the UK then yea millions could have been saved if Chamberlian had been more forceful with Hitler.

It's easy to attack with 20-20 hindsight and act as if an Allied victory in WWII was preordained. One forgets that Britain came very close to losing the war. Out of the numerous strategic decisions Hitler made it would have taken only a handful to have gone the other way for the entire war to have ended quite differently.

The terrorists have paid dearly for their resistance to a democratic Iraq, certainly much more than we have paid. And if you do not see any signs of democracy breaking out in Arabia, then you are not looking for them.

I'm still open minded on whether or not this war was a good idea, a risky gamble that isn't paying off or a risky gamble that is paying off. However I think you are just oblivious to the huge price we have paid for this war. To charge that this is a 'good beginning' doesn't pass the laugh test. Everyone knows this President and this country does not have the stomach to start doing more rounds of nation building in other Middle Eastern trouble spots. There's not going to be any Iraq Part II taking place in Iran, Syria, Egypt and so on.

15

Among all of America’s wars, this one may be unique for the lack of consensus over the causes and purposes of the war. As controversial as Vietnam was, at least its supporters were united on its purpose: to stop the spread of Communism. And while World War I, the Spanish-American War and the Mexican-American War were also opposed by vocal minorities, the proponents of those wars also agreed on why we were fighting.

With regards to the present war, both supporters and opponents of the war are divided in the real reason(s) for the war.

I agree with Joe that it is silly to think that the war was primarily about oil. On the other hand, I think it is naïve to think that oil had nothing to do with it. The U.S. seems content to ignore human rights violations and the lack of democracy in poor countries like Sudan.

Among the reasons offered by supporters of the war:
1. to seize weapons of mass destruction.
2. to promote democracy in the Middle East.
3. to stop Saddam Hussein’s violation of human rights.
4. to prevent the rise of terrorism.

From very early in the war, I believed that the real reason for the war was to satisfy a need to strike back at someone for the September 11 attacks. If the war in Afghanistan had been much more difficult and costly, that would have satisfied our need for revenge. As it was, that war was over before we knew it. It was too easy. Thus, we set our eyes on another country we could invade. Iraq was perfect. Saddam was a cruel dictator (although one we had supported in the past). He had been a thorn in our side, and especially the Bush family, ever since 1991. We could attack a Muslim, Arab country with a reasonable chance for success. And we could do it while claiming the purest of motives – to rid the world of an evil dictator and prevent future terrorist attacks.

Thus, it was with interest that I read the results last month of the Zogby poll of American combatants in Iraq. While it is doubtful that those fighting the war have any special insight into the minds of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice, it is likely that they have spent more time thinking about this than the average American has.

Among the results of the poll:

“Ninety-three percent said that removing weapons of mass destruction is not a reason for U.S. troops being there.”

Just 24% said that “establishing a democracy that can be a model for the Arab World" was the main or a major reason for the war. Only small percentages see the mission there as securing oil supplies (11%) or to provide long-term bases for US troops in the region (6%).

85% said the U.S. mission is mainly “to retaliate for Saddam’s role in the 9-11 attacks.”

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075

16

Ohhh yea well if Germany was say about hundred times weaker than the UK then yea millions could have been saved if Chamberlian had been more forceful with Hitler.

France and England could have handled Germany easily before 1938. If they had acted decisively they could have done the same in 1939 during the Polish campaign, when the vast majority of Germany's military was occupied in Poland. By not acting, England (under Chamberlain) and France allowed Hitler to consolidate his substantial geographic and material gains, secure his flanks and rear (via the Nazi-Soviet non-aggression pact), and concentrate his forces against the Allies culiminating in the Battle of France.

17

ex,

I think Christopher Hitchens made the best argument in support of the war. Basically it went like this: Iraq's stability was an illusion. Saddam would not live forever and even if he did it was not clear that he could maintain control of Iraq. If Saddam fell either of natural causes or by being overthrown Iraq would quickly descend into a choas of civil war that would possibily draw other Arab countries into the mix (probably to keep Iran from taking advantage of the situtation to increase their influence).

Given this it was not unreasonable to believe that Saddam would have sought to prop himself up by making deals with radical terrorist groups. While it's clear he didn't have serious WMD at all, he could still have given them support enough to have caused major problems for the US and the West.

So on the one hand you'd have an Iraq increasingly willing to try to buy stability by making deals with terrorist groups both to quell internal dissenters and to play to the Arab street. On the other hand you have an Iraq that is falling apart as different groups start understanding that Saddam was weakening. Finally you have the international motivation for enforcing the sanctions, 'no fly zone' and other tools of containment weakening year by year.

That last bit is overlooked quite a bit. People forget that even the Bush administration itself floated a trial balloon of normalizing relations with Iraq & ending the sanctions when it first came into office. In many countries the sanctions were being blamed for numerous deaths and other inhumane conditions inside of Iraq.

SO the argument becomes more sustainable at the expense of simplicity. Iraq's stability was only temporary & it's implosion was not what the US needed right after 9/11. Acting also served notice that the US would not tolerate 'bad actors' in the Middle East and that it would make an example of one.

However the flip side is that the US is now in over its head. Putting its eggs in creating some type of USA-lite in Iraq has allowed terrorists to blacken the US's eye without ever having to pull off an attack on American soil anymore. Other regimes are probably taking note of the invasion and pulling the wrong lesson out of it. The lesson they are pulling is that the way to keep the US out is to have a working supply of WMD's. I don't doubt for a second that Iran and North Korea have accelerated their nuke programs because they think nukes will serve as deterrence from a US invasion.

18

France and England could have handled Germany easily before 1938. If they had acted decisively they could have done the same in 1939 during the Polish campaign, when the vast majority of Germany's military was occupied in Poland. By not acting, England (under Chamberlain) and France allowed Hitler to consolidate his substantial geographic and material gains, secure his flanks and rear (via the Nazi-Soviet non-aggression pact), and concentrate his forces against the Allies culiminating in the Battle of France.

Did France and England have the military forces necessary to not only strike but subdue Germany at that point? My impression was that both countries had massively demobilized after WWI and in the wake of the Great Depression. A military planner at that time would have to have considered the possibility that if Germany was struck it would remove its forces from the east and bring them around to strike in the west. The USSR, let's recall, was seen as hostile and dangerous to Western nations so they could not be trusted to have not given Germany a pass on the eastern front.

19

Matthew:
Because Iran is not democratic.

So? The United States, a democracy, has allied itself with non-democratic states in the past and will almost certainly ally itself with non-democratic states in the future. On the other hand, the United States has had strained relationships with some democratic states, and it is not obvious that we will always be allied with particular democratic states.

The Shi'a in Iraq share culture, religion, and considerable history with the Shi'a in Iran. For example, remember that Grand Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani is Iranian. A large part of Saddam's oppressive policies were attempts to weaken that connection. It seems highly likely that a democratic Iraq, particularly one dominated by the majority Shi'a, would find its interests more closely aligned with its neighbor than with a secular state half a world away.

If Iraq chooses to ally with Iran instead of us, that will be a huge tip-off that the democratic project in Iraq is either dead or on serious life support.

Hardly. The idea that "democratic" necessarily means "friends with the United States" is naive. Consider the recent democratic election of Hamas in Palestine.

20

Boonton,

Ohhh yea well if Germany was say about hundred times weaker than the UK then yea millions could have been saved if Chamberlian had been more forceful with Hitler.

Hitler came to power in 1933 and invaded Poland in 1939.

Over the course of six-and-a-half years, Hitler kept on rolling the dice in his quest to consolidate his power and extend it to neighboring countries.

Most of the time, Hitler found himself in a relatively weak position vis-a-vis Great Britain and France, and all those countries really had to do would have to been to take a stand and smack Hitler down.

For example, Hitler marched his troops, in violation of the Versailles treaty, into the Rhineland region of Germany on March 7,1936. It was a considerable act of Hitlerian chutzpah -- England and France could have easily intervened had they the will -- the German troops were obliged to ride to their posts on bicycles, and many were armed only with broomsticks.

It's true that Britain and France were weak, and that Germany was marshalling its strength, in the years from 1933 to 1939. But that is precisely the reason that it made sense to face down Hitler sooner rather than later: time was on Hitler's side.

Likewise, time was Saddam's friend as well.

The liberation of Iraq went off miraculously well. The reconstruction, not quite. But if we had waited three, two, or even one year to attack Saddam's regime, it only would have been all the harder and all the more costly.

Perhaps the biggest problem was that we waited until spring 2003. Maybe we should have liberated Iraq as soon as the Taliban fell in Afghanistan (I don't think that myself, but many serious people do think we wasted as much as six months of precious time by going back to the U.N. weapons inspectors).

It's easy to attack with 20-20 hindsight and act as if an Allied victory in WWII was preordained. One forgets that Britain came very close to losing the war. Out of the numerous strategic decisions Hitler made it would have taken only a handful to have gone the other way for the entire war to have ended quite differently.

Reading comp, my friend, reading comp. The original point that I made to Rob Ryan was:

Sometimes a low possibility of success is the best you can hope for.

England faced a low possiblity of success at the beginning of World War II. Many were tempted to avoid a costly fight with Hitler and negotiate some kind of co-existence with his evil.

In other words, I agree with you that the crusade against Hitler was far from a sure thing, especially from Britain's perspective.

That's why Churchill was right in demanding a pre-emptive stategy against Hitler all throughout the 1930's.

However I think you are just oblivious to the huge price we have paid for this war.

Where does this come from? Because I said the terrorists have paid a higher price?

The terrorists and the insurgents have paid a higher price (and the Vietnamese, both North and South, paid a higher price in that war too). They have suffered greatly, and lost thousands of their cadres over the past three years in Iraq.

For example, in the second battle for Fallujah during November 2004, we had about five dozen Marine fatalities. The insurgents lost about 1,600 men.

Fallujah is an extreme example, but it is worth mentioning nonetheless. It illustrates that there have been times and places where American military power has been very devastating to our enemies in post-Saddam Iraq. It also illustrates that American troops can learn from and adapt to difficult situations, and sometimes even come out on top.

To charge that this is a 'good beginning' doesn't pass the laugh test. Everyone knows this President and this country does not have the stomach to start doing more rounds of nation building in other Middle Eastern trouble spots. There's not going to be any Iraq Part II taking place in Iran, Syria, Egypt and so on.

Things haven't turned out the way we hoped they would back in April and May of 2003. But they have turned much better than any of the worst-case scenarios that were flying around back in February and March of 2003.

Iraq has a democratic, representative government, and that is a truly amazing accomplishment.

That government faces some mortally dangerous problems, and could very well fail. But it is standing up to the violence and to the foreign agitators, and it deserves our respect and our support.

To dismiss it as failing the laugh test is unjustified, and I'm surprised you hold that opinion.

And do you think Iran and Syria would be more likely to respect/fear us if we had refrained from toppling Saddam? I don't follow your logic here.

Nick,

"Because Iran is not democratic."

So? The United States, a democracy, has allied itself with non-democratic states in the past and will almost certainly ally itself with non-democratic states in the future. On the other hand, the United States has had strained relationships with some democratic states, and it is not obvious that we will always be allied with particular democratic states.

Nick, you are forgetting your question and misreading my response. You asked me,

Matthew, what makes you think that a democratic Iraq would be allied with us and not, for instance, their co-religionists across the border? [emphasis added]

And I responded that a democratic Iraq would reject an alliance with a dictatorial, theocratic Iran.

I agree with you that it is possible that Iraq might end up allying itself (minus the Kurdistan north, which would have seceded by that point) with the Iranian mullahs. But that would not be a democratic Iraq, that would be an Iraq that had chosen to forswear democracy (similar to the way Germany and Austria ended up turning away from democracy in the 1930's).

If we are allied with Iraq, it is possible that it might be with some kind of authoritarian regime. But such an alliance would be inherently unstable. The only true long-term alliance we could have with Iraq would be with an Iraq committed to democracy and minority rights.

The problem here is not that Iraq is not our ally -- it already is. The problem is that Iraq is having great difficulty establishing a viable democracy after decades of totalitarian abuse.

Hardly. The idea that "democratic" necessarily means "friends with the United States" is naive. Consider the recent democratic election of Hamas in Palestine.

And you think Palestine is a democracy because... ?

21

Boonton,

I agree that there were good reasons to go to war. Personally, for instance, I think removing an evil dictator is a pretty good reason.

My point is that those were not the reasons that most Americans supported the war. Joe Sixpack wanted to kick some Middle-Eastern (preferably Arab) Muslim butt. We couldn't invade our "friends" Saudia Arabia, Jordan, Egypt or Pakistan. But Iraq was ripe for the picking. Plus, we believed that most Iraqis would welcome us, while we knew that most Saudis, Pakistanis, etc would not.

At the time, it just seemed like a win/win, no-brainer.

22

Matthew:

Nick, you are forgetting your question and misreading my response.

No, I'm not forgetting my question. I may be misreading your response, particularly if you are using "democratic" as some sort of umbrella term for all sorts of western enlightenment values not directly linked to political elections.

Yes, in answer to my question, you answered:
that a democratic Iraq would reject an alliance with a dictatorial, theocratic Iran.

And I responded that the democratic United States has, historically, allied itself with dictatorial regimes when it suited the interests of the United States, so the mere fact of an alliance with a dictatorship cannot indicate failure of democracy. I then suggested several reasons why close ties with Iran might be in the interests of Iraq, even if it is not in the interests of the United States. An Iraq-Iran alliance would not necessarily indicate the failure of democracy in Iraq. It would simply indicate that Iraqi interests are not equivalent to U.S. interests.

23

Come on guys, lets have some serious comment, preferably with a bit of biblical insight, maybe looking for the things which prophets of old banged on about - righteousness, justice, peace, honesty in government - old fashioned ideas which wouldn't find much traction among the smart guys in Washington but do seem to be mighty important to the Almighty.
At least there is some honesty in admitting that oil was a big motivation. But how anyone can believe that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11 or how he, leader of a bankrupt and neutered shell, could be compared with Hitler who led a resurgent first-rate military and industrial power, simply astonishes me!

24

Ex-preacher,

Joe Sixpack wanted to kick some Middle-Eastern (preferably Arab) Muslim butt. [ . . . ] At the time, it just seemed like a win/win, no-brainer.

In some ways it was a no-brainer.

We wanted to jump-start democracy in the Muslim world, and if we weren't going to do it in Iraq, then we weren't going to do it anywhere. For as you point out, the other options had even more serious pitfalls and dangers.

But your glib dismissal of "Joe Six-pack" (and by extension, his representatives in Washington) overlooks the fact that going to war is never truly a no-brainer. The course of least resistance is always to sit back and hope for the best. Let the enemy come and attack us, because maybe this time they'll finally leave us alone.

September 11th forced us to stare at this do-nothing strategy point-blank in the face, and its defects became all too obvious.

Now, with Saddam gone and with a dearth of terror attacks on our homeland these past four-and-a-half years, the do-nothing strategy is raising its head again. Many of us have forgotten just how ugly that strategy is when you look at it at close quarters.

I don't think it's right for you to look down the stem of your wine glass at Joe Six-pack. We were right to spill our blood and our treasure getting rid of that horrible man Saddam -- if it seemed like a no-brainer at the time, it's because we still had the courage of our convictions.

You look down at the moral clarity of some, at their bravery, and dismiss it as possibly rascist bravado (wanting to kick some Arab/Middle-Eastern butt). The truth is, it was a willingness to make sacrifices in order to advance the common good. Big difference.

Nick,

I think we're making progress here in getting our points across to each other.

I may be misreading your response, particularly if you are using "democratic" as some sort of umbrella term for all sorts of western enlightenment values not directly linked to political elections.

Saddam had elections, Iran has elections. Both are examples of authoritarian, non-democratic regimes.

Political elections are meaningless without civil rights or freedoms, and are very problematic without protections for electoral minorities.

Democracy means "rule of the people". But the people cannot rule without freedom of the press and freedom of assembly.

And people cannot rule well without protections for minorities. Otherwise majority rule will sooner or later (usually sooner) degenerate into mob rule.

So you are quite correct. I withhold the label "democracy" from any regime that fails to uphold the rule of the people in the two ways I have just mentioned.

... the democratic United States has, historically, allied itself with dictatorial regimes when it suited the interests of the United States, so the mere fact of an alliance with a dictatorship cannot indicate failure of democracy.

Very good point.

However, it is very unlikely (impossible?) that a democratic Iraq would ally itself with a regime that has been actively campaigning to undermine democracy in Iraq for the past three years. It's just not going to happen.

Richarda,

... how anyone can believe that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11... ?

We don't know what Saddam did or didn't do with Al Qaeda. How do you know he didn't have anything to do with 9/11?

And do you always hold people in disdain just because they disagree with you -- is that something that Jesus told you to do in the Bible?

25

But how anyone can believe that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11 or how he, leader of a bankrupt and neutered shell, could be compared with Hitler who led a resurgent first-rate military and industrial power, simply astonishes me!

Before Hitler took over, Germany was a "bankrupt and neutered shell", primarily due to restrictions imposed by the Versailles Treaty, but also due to the worldwide depression of the 1930's. Of course, Germany did have a culture that encouraged scientific inquiry and industry, something lacking in Hussein's Iraq.

26

Matthew G: "Now, with Saddam gone and with a dearth of terror attacks on our homeland these past four-and-a-half years, the do-nothing strategy is raising its head again. Many of us have forgotten just how ugly that strategy is when you look at it at close quarters."

I think there are options between "do nothing" and invade a country on false pretenses. I would actually see us dramatically increase the number of troops in Afghanistan and make a little more effort to find Osama Bin Laden. Remember him? Most Americans now realize that the strategy of the last three years has actually made us less safe.

MG: "I don't think it's right for you to look down the stem of your wine glass at Joe Six-pack. We were right to spill our blood and our treasure getting rid of that horrible man Saddam -- if it seemed like a no-brainer at the time, it's because we still had the courage of our convictions."

We were right to spill "our blood"? I haven't spilled any myself. Have you? So far, I don't think we've actually spilled any treasure either. We just put it on Mastercard. Some had courage, others had bravado. Big difference.

MG: "You look down at the moral clarity of some, at their bravery, and dismiss it as possibly rascist bravado (wanting to kick some Arab/Middle-Eastern butt). The truth is, it was a willingness to make sacrifices in order to advance the common good. Big difference."

I am not in any way looking down on the bravery of those who have fought, been injured or died in Iraq. I do look down on those who talk big while others make the sacrifices. What sacrifices have you made? What sacrifices have most Americans made? Not many that I can see. Those actually doing the fighting do not believe they are fighting to plant democracy in the Middle East.

27

Winston Churchill:

“… If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without bloodshed;

If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly;

You may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival.

There may be even a worse fate.

You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”

The goal of the Islamofascists is world domination. They hold a long view of history. We are probably going to sell out and give up.

Don't forget the Kellogg-Briand Treaty before WWII. They denounced war and made it illegal. They still can't understand why Hitler would break the law. Imagine that!

Why would anyone in the Middle East want to be our ally after what we did to the freedom loving people of SEAsia. They trusted us and we left them to be slaughtered. Vietnamese, Cambodians, Laos, Hmongs... Where was the outcry?

Even Harvard and Yale are grovelling for $millions. Taliban students? Arab studies depts. The only requirement is anti-Semitism. We are cheap prostitutes.

Powerline has two posts on "They too dare to speak out!"

Things are starting to look alot like the 1930's. As soon as Bush leaves... God forbid!

28

Remember also that Churchill speculated in the late 1930s that if the U.S. had not entered World War I, then the war would have ended with much better terms for Germany (with Britain and France being the ones asking for peace). Thus no Treaty of Versailles, no bitter resentment, no opportunity for Hitler to rise to power.

2003 was not 1936. Saddam was not Hitler. Blair is not Churchill. Bush is not FDR.

History can teach us many things, but unfortunately (or maybe fortunately) it never repeats itself exactly.

Certainly we must learn the lessons of World War II. But we must also learn the lessons of Vietnam and Algeria.

29

Ex-preacher,

Certainly we must learn the lessons of World War II. But we must also learn the lessons of Vietnam and Algeria.

And that's exactly why the case for liberating Iraq, however compelling it was, was never a "no-brainer".

I think you can safely assume that President Bush is just as familiar with the lessons of Vietnam and Algeria as anyone who is participating in this discussion. He certainly knows a lot more than I do about how the dynamics of those wars should influence the coalition's campaign in Iraq.

We should give a lot of credit to President Bush for grappling for a long time with the decision to invade Iraq. He also deserves a lot of credit for not ducking the opportunity to use force against Saddam.

The responsibility for our taking on the burden of Iraq rests squarely on the president's shoulders. If democracy in Iraq doesn't pan out, Bush will get clobbered with blame. So if democracy succeeds there, he should be given a full measure of appreciation and praise.

If that happens, if the Iraqis do succeed in building a democratic nation, will you be willing to give him his due?

30

Ex-preacher,

We were right to spill "our blood"? I haven't spilled any myself. Have you? So far, I don't think we've actually spilled any treasure either. We just put it on Mastercard. Some had courage, others had bravado. Big difference.

Some people don't care about our troops' dying and getting maimed on our behalf.

Since I support the liberation and ongoing reconstruction of Iraq, I certainly feel responsible for what is done in my name (of course, the fighting is done in all our names, but that would certainly include me).

If soldiers are spilling their blood and getting mangled or killed, then I feel responsible for that (and so do many or most war-protestors). So when I say we are spilling our blood and our treasure over in Iraq, I mean the military is doing that on our behalf.

I agree with you that most people don't share in the sacrifices. But as a democratic country, we are all responsible for the sacrifices of those who are fighting for us.

I think there are options between "do nothing" and invade a country on false pretenses.

Actually, you just went on to choose option number one, "do nothing":

I would actually see us dramatically increase the number of troops in Afghanistan and make a little more effort to find Osama Bin Laden. Remember him? Most Americans now realize that the strategy of the last three years has actually made us less safe.

See -- nothing in there about Iraq, is there?

And what's this about false pretenses?

My understanding of the purpose of the invasion (as explained to me ad nauseum by the White House and President Bush himself in several important speeches in the months leading up to the invasion) has not changed over the past three years.

If I wasn't misled, I'm not sure how it happened that you were misled yourself.

There was a lot of talk about WMD's, but that was never the primary casus belli that President Bush put forth.

And while the hunt for WMD's never did figure out exactly where the stockpiles ended up, the hunt did show us that Saddam was fully capable of replenishing his stockpiles any time that he wanted.

Are you comforted that Saddam was able to smuggle his sarin gas into Syria a few weeks before we invaded -- and does that establish that we invaded under false pretences? Saddam had WMD's and gave them away or hid them. If we had left him in power, he would have stockpiled them up again at some point -- so I don't fully understand your "false pretenses" point.

31

Matt: "I think you can safely assume that President Bush is just as familiar with the lessons of Vietnam and Algeria as anyone who is participating in this discussion. He certainly knows a lot more than I do about how the dynamics of those wars should influence the coalition's campaign in Iraq."

Really?

I don't think Bush knows anything about Vietnam except that it was a place he didn't have to go. I'm positive - betcha 20 bucks positive - that Bush doesn't know anything about Algeria at all and couldn't find it on a map to save his life.

The man is so ignorant and uninquisitive it's breathtaking; he doesn't even read, fergawdsakes. But none of this should be construed as "Bush bashing," OK? I'm not saying he's a drooling moron who can't chew food without an instruction book. He does, after all, ride his bike everyday. But to claim that he knows as much, or more, than most of us here about warfare, tactics, strategy, politics, language, sociology, mathematics, culture, philosophy, ethics, or law, is on a par with claiming that you have a dog that plays "Chopsticks" on the Souzaphone.

But on the topic of religion, I'd be willing to entertain the notion that Bush could talk certain elements of New Testament stuff with some of you and possibly demonstrate familiarity with some of the ideas there. He's really big on prayer breakfasts and bible study, according to White House insiders.

32

I don't think Bush knows anything about Vietnam except that it was a place he didn't have to go. I'm positive - betcha 20 bucks positive - that Bush doesn't know anything about Algeria at all and couldn't find it on a map to save his life.

We don't elect Presidents based on their knowledge of geography or military history, we elect them because they are able to articulate a vision for the country that a plurality of voters agree with. Presidents have huge staffs that are able to give him information on a variety of topics, like Vietnam, Algeria, and even such mundane subjects as hog breeding and auto maintenance.

The man is so ignorant and uninquisitive it's breathtaking; he doesn't even read, fergawdsakes.

And yet he is President of the United States. Must be pretty gauling for a brilliant guy like yourself to live in a country where a "mouth-breather" like Bush can be elected President. Perhaps you should consider emmigrating to a country where they have really smart people in charge, like Canada or France, or even Cuba. Believe me, nobody in Cuba questions Castro's intelligence (and lives to tell about it).

But on the topic of religion, I'd be willing to entertain the notion that Bush could talk certain elements of New Testament stuff with some of you and possibly demonstrate familiarity with some of the ideas there.

How remarkably generous of you.

33

We wanted to jump-start democracy in the Muslim world, and if we weren't going to do it in Iraq, then we weren't going to do it anywhere. For as you point out, the other options had even more serious pitfalls and dangers.

Errr this demonstrates ex's point. Bush argued for war on the grounds of just about everything but this. In fact he campaigned against this idea when he first ran for President. Remember back then this was called 'nation building'.

34

Boonton,

Errr this demonstrates ex's point. Bush argued for war on the grounds of just about everything but this [jump-starting democracy in the Muslim world].

Boonton, please allow me to introduce a couple of President Bush's speeches into the record. If you click on the highlighted blue title, you can read the full text of the speech.

From President's Remarks at the United Nations General Assembly, September 12, 2002

The United States has no quarrel with the Iraqi people; they've suffered too long in silent captivity. Liberty for the Iraqi people is a great moral cause, and a great strategic goal. The people of Iraq deserve it; the security of all nations requires it. Free societies do not intimidate through cruelty and conquest, and open societies do not threaten the world with mass murder. The United States supports political and economic liberty in a unified Iraq.

President Bush gave many speeches in the run-up to war with Iraq in which the primary emphasis was the liberation of the Iraqi people and the establishment of a democracy.

The following speech was made by President Bush in Washington, D.C., just three weeks before we invaded:

President Discusses the Future of Iraq, February 26, 2003

Take a look at paragraphs 9 and 10:

... The current Iraqi regime has shown the power of tyranny to spread discord and violence in the Middle East. A liberated Iraq can show the power of freedom to transform that vital region, by bringing hope and progress into the lives of millions. America's interests in security, and America's belief in liberty, both lead in the same direction: to a free and peaceful Iraq.

The first to benefit from a free Iraq would be the Iraqi people, themselves. Today they live in scarcity and fear, under a dictator who has brought them nothing but war, and misery, and torture. Their lives and their freedom matter little to Saddam Hussein -- but Iraqi lives and freedom matter greatly to us.

The following passage starts at paragraph 15:

The United States has no intention of determining the precise form of Iraq's new government. That choice belongs to the Iraqi people. Yet, we will ensure that one brutal dictator is not replaced by another. All Iraqis must have a voice in the new government, and all citizens must have their rights protected.

Rebuilding Iraq will require a sustained commitment from many nations, including our own: we will remain in Iraq as long as necessary, and not a day more. America has made and kept this kind of commitment before -- in the peace that followed a world war. After defeating enemies, we did not leave behind occupying armies, we left constitutions and parliaments. We established an atmosphere of safety, in which responsible, reform-minded local leaders could build lasting institutions of freedom. In societies that once bred fascism and militarism, liberty found a permanent home.

There was a time when many said that the cultures of Japan and Germany were incapable of sustaining democratic values. Well, they were wrong. Some say the same of Iraq today. They are mistaken.

The nation of Iraq -- with its proud heritage, abundant resources and skilled and educated people -- is fully capable of moving toward democracy and living in freedom.

The world has a clear interest in the spread of democratic values, because stable and free nations do not breed the ideologies of murder. They encourage the peaceful pursuit of a better life.

And there are hopeful signs of a desire for freedom in the Middle East. Arab intellectuals have called on Arab governments to address the "freedom gap" so their peoples can fully share in the progress of our times. Leaders in the region speak of a new Arab charter that champions internal reform, greater politics participation, economic openness, and free trade. And from Morocco to Bahrain and beyond, nations are taking genuine steps toward politics reform. A new regime in Iraq would serve as a dramatic and inspiring example of freedom for other nations in the region.

It is presumptuous and insulting to suggest that a whole region of the world -- or the one-fifth of humanity that is Muslim -- is somehow untouched by the most basic aspirations of life. Human cultures can be vastly different. Yet the human heart desires the same good things, everywhere on Earth.

In our desire to be safe from brutal and bullying oppression, human beings are the same. In our desire to care for our children and give them a better life, we are the same. For these fundamental reasons, freedom and democracy will always and everywhere have greater appeal than the slogans of hatred and the tactics of terror.

And here are the closing paragraphs of the speech:

Members of our Armed Forces also understand why they may be called to fight. They know that retreat before a dictator guarantees even greater sacrifices in the future. They know that America's cause is right and just: liberty for an oppressed people, and security for the American people. And I know something about these men and women who wear our uniform: they will complete every mission they are given with skill, and honor, and courage.

Much is asked of America in this year 2003. The work ahead is demanding. It will be difficult to help freedom take hold in a country that has known three decades of dictatorship, secret police, internal divisions, and war. It will be difficult to cultivate liberty and peace in the Middle East, after so many generations of strife. Yet, the security of our nation and the hope of millions depend on us, and Americans do not turn away from duties because they are hard. We have met great tests in other times, and we will meet the tests of our time.

We go forward with confidence, because we trust in the power of human freedom to change lives and nations. By the resolve and purpose of America, and of our friends and allies, we will make this an age of progress and liberty. Free people will set the course of history, and free people will keep the peace of the world.

Thank you all, very much.

35

I think Matthew is telling us that Bush isn't an idiot, he just plays one on TV.

And yes, Bush talked about spreading democracy and removing a tyrant as reasons to invade Iraq. But you are ignoring three things:

1. The rationale you excerpted would also provide justification for invading about 49 other countries including Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, Syria, North Korea, Sudan, most of the rest of Africa, Vietnam, China, Russia, Cuba, etc. Why choose Iraq to invade?

2. The case was also made that Iraq possessed WMD. Remember Colin Powell's presentation to the UN Security Council? Or did I dream that?

3. It was strongly implied that Saddam had something to do with 9-11. What is Bush talking about when he says that this mission is also about our security?

You and I both know that without #2 and #3, this country would never have gone to war in Iraq.

36

Ex-preacher,

I think Matthew is telling us that Bush isn't an idiot, he just plays one on TV.

You're entitled to your opinion. I think he plays a very intelligent person on TV myself.

But you are ignoring three things:

I'm not ignoring anything. Your rhetoric is heavy-handed, sir.

In fact, I explicitly addressed your first point in my first comment to Rob Ryan (March 20, 2006, at 9:10 am):

... it was finally time to start somewhere, and Saddam Hussein was kind enough, through his aggressive brinkmanship and despotic inhumanity, to volunteer his own country.

Strategically, Iraq had much to recommend it as a starting point for fighting back against despotic regimes. Just its prime location was a most compelling argument: right there on the other side of Iran from Afghanistan, bordering on Jordan, Syria, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia. Excellent location really.

In addition, the secular nature of Saddam's regime was likely to make the liberation process at least a little bit easier than in some fervently religious government's domain, like Saudi Arabia.

I also referred to your first point a second time when I said to you (March 20, 2006, at 4:23 pm):

In some ways it was a no-brainer.

We wanted to jump-start democracy in the Muslim world, and if we weren't going to do it in Iraq, then we weren't going to do it anywhere. For as you point out, the other options had even more serious pitfalls and dangers.

As for WMD's, even Hans Blix, the chief U.N. weapons inspector, was convinced that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's. Even today, Mr. Blix remains convinced that Saddam himself believed he had stockpiles of WMD's.

The problem was that Saddam was either unwilling or unable to account for the WMD's that had been uncovered in previous U.N. inspections.

Colin Powell's presentation to the U.N. turned out to have used a few examples of wrong intelligence. I personally don't feel misled by that. If you do, that's your prerogative, and I will acknowledge that Colin Powell unintentionally misled you.

It was strongly implied that Saddam had something to do with 9-11. What is Bush talking about when he says that this mission is also about our security?

The White House always said that there was no evidence linking Saddam to 9/11, and that it was possible he didn't even know about it beforehand. The White House has never made a connection between the 9/11 attacks and Saddam.

What President Bush and the White House did say was that 9/11 changed the way we evaluate threats. Before 9/11 we were willing to play the sanctions/no-fly zones game with Saddam, but after 9/11 it had become clear that such a game was too dangerous and that Saddam had to be taken out.

If we left Saddam in place, the risk that he would sponsor and/or assist terrorists like the 9/11 attackers was too great.

37

Strategically, Iraq had much to recommend it as a starting point for fighting back against despotic regimes. Just its prime location was a most compelling argument: right there on the other side of Iran from Afghanistan, bordering on Jordan, Syria, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia. Excellent location really.

The problem is that it also appears to be the ending point. Everyone knows the US is bogged down in Iraq and there will not be any invasion of Syria, Turkey, or Saudi Arabia to say nothing of Iran.

As for WMD's, even Hans Blix, the chief U.N. weapons inspector, was convinced that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's. Even today, Mr. Blix remains convinced that Saddam himself believed he had stockpiles of WMD's.

Saddam wanted the question of whether he had WMD's to remain a mystery. In other words, he wanted the option to be able to bluff having them. He also wanted to have as much ability as possible to jump start a new WMD program as soon as he was free of inspections, sanctions and other restrictions.

A deeper problem with the containment was that it was actually making him more powerful. He was able to use oil-for-food to bribe his way to getting political support in the Western world. Also the sanctions made it so that Iraq's economy was suffering deeply. Ironically this made him more powerful because his regime was the only one that controlled what few resources could come into the country. Dissident groups were hit more by the sanctions than Saddam was. A similiar scenero, IMO, has played out in Cuba letting Castro continue what seems to be a neverending mission to bankrupt his country's people.

38

Oil is to our foreign policy military initiatives what the pic of a naked gal with big boobs is to PLAYBOY magazine.
I now say NO MORE BLOOD FOR COAL.
We should demand strip mining in open pits. How many more innocent miners does the USA want to see perish in coal mines needlessly??

39

Matthew Goggins,

"The White House has never made a connection between the 9/11 attacks and Saddam."

Yes, the White House didnt say there was a direct link. But they may as well have, because they so strongly implied it, that it had the same effect, tricking people to believe it in order to gain support for the war.

---------

Statement by Vice President Richard Cheney
"If we're successful in Iraq, if we can stand up a good representative government in Iraq, that secures the region so that it never again becomes a threat to its neighbors or to the United States, so it's not pursuing weapons of mass destruction, so that it's not a safe haven for terrorists, now we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."

Source: Meet the Press, NBC (9/14/2003).

---------

Statement by Vice President Richard Cheney
"I have argued in the past, and would again, if we had been able to pre-empt the attacks of 9/11 would we have done it? And I think absolutely. We have to be prepared now to take the kind of bold action that's being contemplated with respect to Iraq in order to ensure that we don't get hit with a devastating attack when the terrorists' organization gets married up with a rogue state that's willing to provide it with the kinds of deadly capabilities that Saddam Hussein has developed and used over the years."

Source: Meet the Press, NBC (3/16/2003).

---------

Statement by Vice President Richard Cheney
"VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: Well, I want to be very careful about how I say this. I'm not here today to make a specific allegation that Iraq was somehow responsible for 9/11. I can't say that. On the other hand, . . . new information has come to light. And we spent time looking at that relationship between Iraq, on the one hand, and the al-Qaeda organization on the other. And there has been reporting that suggests that there have been a number of contacts over the years. . . . There is -- again, I want to separate out 9/11, from the other relationships between Iraq and the al-Qaeda organization. But there is a pattern of relationships going back many years. And in terms of exchanges and in terms of people, we've had recently since the operations in Afghanistan -- we've seen al-Qaeda members operating physically in Iraq and off the territory of Iraq. . . . QUESTION: But no direct link? VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: I can't -- I'll leave it right where it's at. I don't want to go beyond that. I've tried to be cautious and restrained in my comments."

Source: Meet the Press, NBC (9/8/2002).

----------

Statement by Vice President Richard Cheney
"[Since September 11] We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW, that al-Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaeda organization."

Source: Meet the Press, NBC (9/14/2003).

-----------

Statement by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
"With each passing day, Saddam Hussein advances his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and could pass them along to terrorists. If he is allowed to do so, the result could be the deaths not of 3,000 people, as on September 11th, but of 30,000, or 300,000 or more innocent people."

Source: Donald H. Rumsfeld Delivers Remarks to American Troops, Defense Department (3/20/2003).

----------

Statement by President George W. Bush
"And the United States, along with a growing coalition of nations, is resolved to take whatever action is necessary to defend ourselves and disarm the Iraqi regime. September the 11th, 2001, the American people saw what terrorists could do by turning four airplanes into weapons. We will not wait to see what terrorists or terrorist states could do with chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear weapons."

Source: President Bush: "World Can Rise to This Moment", White House (2/6/2003).

--------------

Statement by President George W. Bush
"Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses, and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other planes -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known."

Source: President Delivers "State of the Union", White House (1/28/2003).

--------------

Statement by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
"Since we began after September 11th, we do have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of al Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad. We have what we consider to be very reliable reporting of senior-level contacts going back a decade, and of possible chemical- and biological-agent training. And when I say contacts, I mean between Iraq and al Qaeda. The reports of these contacts have been increasing since 1998. We have what we believe to be credible information that Iraq and al Qaeda have discussed safe haven opportunities in Iraq, reciprocal non-aggression discussions. We have what we consider to be credible evidence that al Qaeda leaders have sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire weapon of -- weapons of mass destruction capabilities. We do have -- I believe it's one report indicating that Iraq provided unspecified training relating to chemical and/or biological matters for al Qaeda members. There is, I'm told, also some other information of varying degrees of reliability that supoprts that conclusion of their cooperation."

Source: Defense Department Regular Briefing, Defense Department (9/26/2002).

40

So... those who supported this war actually KNEW it was a sham in its early stages? Wow, way to support the troops.

41

http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/024eyieu.asp

I hope the left is following the translations of the documents captured in Iraq.

Rhys, will Kennedy, Kerry and Hillary apologize to the President if they were telling the TRUTH?

Your list of quotes is very impressive, except for the fact that everyone in the Clinton Administration said the exact SAME words. To be a democrat, you have to believe that when Bush says the exact same words as Bill Clinton, Bush is lying.

I think this is a huge trick played on the poor bumbling democrats by the eeeeevillll Karl Rove. Cindy Sheehan and Russ Feingold are being paid by the GOP.

42

I couldnt care less if the Clinton Administration said exactly the SAME words. That gives Bush no right what so ever to tell the SAME lies. This is about Bush lying to the world. (Im not from America)

That link hardly proves Saddam was involved in 9/11

Bush said himself after the invasion that there was no direct link between Saddam and 9/11, yet alot of evidence was presented before the war to give that impression.

43

Rhys,

None of the quotes you provide make any link between Saddam and 9/11.

Several of the quotes specifically say that such a link cannot be shown to be true.

Apparently, you were looking for a statement along the lines of, "We truly believe that Saddam would be interested in helping terrorists commit a 9/11 type of attack, and that's why we are considering an invasion of Iraq. However, we think it is actually impossible that there is any connection whatsoever between Saddam and 9/11."

So even though the White House made several statements that almost said this, but not quite, you interpret those statements as implying Saddam was responsible for 9/11 just because those statements didn't explicitly say that it wasn't proven that he wasn't responsible.

Yet by this standard, if Saddam himself didn't deny participating in 9/11, that would be convincing evidence that he was an accomplice. So do you believe Saddam was an accomplice of 9/11, based on his lack of an unequivocal denial?

44

Iraq was invaded to set up a protection base for Saudi Arabia and the other puppet states under American influence. Also to protect Israel. Sagging Iraqi oil outputs directly benefit these puppet states. My 2 cents.

http://www.wtheproblem.com
Give your car a voice.

45

Yes the war is for oil. However, the war is not in self defense, and it is wrong. It is imperialistic and is waged in total disregard for human life. Governments have the right to protect their borders, but to say that Saddam was in with Bin Laden and to somehow give justification for the war in that way is a lie. Bush will lose his majority, we will pull back, and maybe Iraq will be partitioned since no one but Saddam, sad to say, could hold it together. It is one thing to fight terrorists, but it is quite another to be involved in a civil war between Sunnis and Shiites who have been fighting over issues since 700 AD. This part of the war is just like Vietnam. America survived losing Vietnam and it will survive losing Iraq. And BTW, Bush is a liar for saying that Iraq is as important as World War 2. What an insult to those who fought in that war for our survival. His words are a disgrace.

46

Pink diamonds are available in different shades, which can affect the price you pay for a fancy pink diamond ring enormously. Find out more about Pink Diamond Rings as well as many other types of Diamond Rings including Diamond Engagement Rings at Peter's website diamond rings. And while fancy colored diamond rings foreclosuresandflips com, and particularly pink diamond rings, are undoubtedly harder to track. freshcollections com http://www.freshcollections.com/acatalog/resources_wedding_rings.html

47

we can stop the war it starts at home!!!
Phrase God
Living a Better Life
It has truly changed mine!!
We are tapping into the big oil company's profit!!! at : www.bioleaders.mybpbiz.com
Do you know at least three people that drives a car? Yes!
Would you think they would like to save on there gas mileages? sure
who wouldn't They would need to check up, from the neck up !!
people want relief and they want it now!!
call me at: 586-864-3832 Rev. James H. Wheeler Jr
IN JUST (8 WEEKS) 1067 PEOPLE IN MY ORGANIZATION!!
$1,037,303.00 (THAT'S A MILLION!!!!) in commissions and 2,807 commission checks will be mailed this Friday, March 31 for the pay period of March 13 - 19.

141 people earned OVER $1,000.00 during this pay period!!!!

Here's the breakdown:

The number of people who earned $1,000 - $1,999 = EXACTLY 100 people

The number of people who earned $2,000 - $2,999 = 12 people

The number of people who earned $3,000 - $3,999 = 9 people

The number of people who earned $4,000 - $4,999 = 3 people

The number of people who earned $5,000 - $5,999 = 3 people

The number of people who earned $6,000 - $6,999 = 2 people

The number of people who earned $7,000 - $7,999 = 1 person

The number of people who earned $8,000 - $8,999 = 2 people

The number of people who earned $9,000 - $9,999 = 3 people

The number of people who earned $11,000 - $11,999 = 1 person

The number of people who earned $14,000 - $14,999 = 3 people

The number of people who earned $19,000 - $19,999 = 2 people

See what people are saying
http://www.bioleaders.mybpbiz.com/index.asp?pgid=40

BioPerformance does not guarantee incomes whatsoever. This is just a way to strictly congratulate the Top 10 Earners!!! $8,731.00 was the lowest amount earned in the Top 10! Let's congratulate the Top 10 Earners for the pay period of March 13 - 19:

BioPerformance, Inc. started on Thursday, December 8, 2005... only 3 1/2 months ago!!!

29,101 people have signed up since BioPerformance started on December 8!!

500 - 600 new people are signing up everyday!! Note: This past Sunday almost 400 people signed up... and normally in Network Marketing, Sunday is a very, very slow day!!

$13,248,012.00 total sales!! (That's MILLIONS!!!!)

We predicted $6 MILLION in sales for March, but $6,157,476.00 sales so far in March... and March isn't over with yet!! (That's MILLIONS!!!!)

$8,692,711.00 total commissions earned!! (That's MILLIONS!!!!)

22,892 commission checks mailed!!

We predict the company will do $161,000,000.00 the first year!! (That's MILLIONS!!!!)

85% of the people are on auto ship in BioPerformance!!

We Are A Product Driven Company!!

All commissions are earned strictly from product sales!!
!

48

Diamonds can be heated and enhanced or irridated. The rest of the ore is then used for industrial purposes brandoclassicotr com. So then why would a diamond merchant discount the price on a genuinely good quality diamond that is a billion years old. Regardless of the shape, you really need to look at the cut and if there is any damage to the diamond. Also watch out for cosmetic enhancements or synthetic diamonds. ultraintel com http://www.ultraintel.com/cgi-bin/ultra.pl?listing=888&cat=126&seqfrom=6

49

Well,i'm very interested in you, so please contact with me ASAP.Bye!http://superusaonline.com/adsl/index.php
http://superusaonline.com/adsl/index.php
http://superusaonline.com/adsl/adsl.php
http://superusaonline.com/adsl/adsl-host.php
http://superusaonline.com/adsl/adsl-simulator-wireline.php
http://superusaonline.com/adsl/fax-adsl.php
http://superusaonline.com/adsl/speedstream-adsl-modem.php
http://superusaonline.com/adsl/adsl-aol-impossible.php
http://superusaonline.com/adsl/adsl-wireless-xxasdf.php
http://superusaonline.com/adsl/adsl-aztec-modem.php
http://superusaonline.com/adsl/adsl-ligne-test.php

50

bare closeups foot sole @X@ bare club foot golf resort @X@ bare club foot resort villa yacht @X@ melissa wolf password @X@ kathi somers sexy @X@ kayla kleevage galeries @X@ asian handjobs vids @X@ asian nurse hand job @X@ audition hand job @X@ conitos te munecas @X@ mujeres en bolas @X@ psisiones sexuales @X@ vulva colegiala @X@ swinger valladolid @X@ wwwass culo @X@ creampies sandra shine @X@ pussy eiaculation gallery @X@ pussy sqrting photos @X@ tugjob vintage suck @X@ college film handjobs @X@ strokejobs vids yeung @X@