Upon Further Review
Posted by David A at May 31, 2005 12:54 PM
Filed Under | 832 Words
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.grupo-utopia.com/blog/mt/mt-tb.cgi/167
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Downing Street Memo... Some Straight Talk:
» After Downing Street from Freiheit und Wissen
...The Blogswarm: Big Brass Alliance members who have posted on the Memo in the last couple of days [Read More]
Tracked on May 31, 2005 01:41 PM
» The Downing Street Memo from The Rogue Angel
I am late getting involved in this or even commenting, I know. But, I like to read about something before I weigh in on it, most of the time. This time I felt it was real important not to just... [Read More]
Tracked on June 1, 2005 08:12 AM
Comments
All the items in Boyd's Insty link were dated before March 20, 2003. That's why Insty collected them.
Bush frequently stressed the importance of bringing democracy to Iraq, BEFORE the war. That's not a matter of opinion; it't a matter of fact.
Posted by: The Commissar at May 31, 2005 01:27 PM
Yeah he did talk about bringing democracy to Iraq. But deciding the form of government of soveriegn nations is not the right of the American Government, and I will stress what Zen said, if we are now going to rewrite history and make bringing democracy to Iraq the primary reason for going to war there, who is next and what gives us that right.
The argument is a straw man Stephen and you guys know it. You also know that the American Public would have NEVER supported a war in Iraq if that had been "stressed," as the reason.
Posted by: David at May 31, 2005 01:43 PM
I read Instapundit's article.
The very first item was a link to Bush's 2003 State of the Union Address...you know the one that he lied in...except Instapundit left this part out:
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.
Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.
Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.
The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary, he is decieving."
The next item is Bush's address to the U.N. General Assembly from 2002....Instapundit left out this part:
"Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon. Should Iraq acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year. And Iraq's state-controlled media has reported numerous meetings between Saddam Hussein and his nuclear scientists, leaving little doubt about his continued appetite for these weapons."
That's the fixed intelligence in question. Thanks, Commissar, for showing how full of it Instapundit is.
Posted by: Ron Brynaert at May 31, 2005 03:23 PM
Okay, if the right is correct and Bush clearly stated that his main reason for waging war in Iraq was to bring democracy to the country, let me ask how many of them would have supported such a war for that reason alone? And if they do, then how can they say they are for national defense when they are supporting wars for democracy and not against al-Qa'ida and international terrorism which still threatens this country?
Posted by: tas at May 31, 2005 04:17 PM
DSA: "My reccolection is that all these OTHER reasons for invading Iraq were only stressed AFTER it was proven more or less conclussively that the WMD's did not in fact exist."
Commie: "Insty's links document Bush speaking of bringing democracy to Iraq many times before the war."
DSA: "deciding the form of government of soveriegn nations is not the right of the American Government."
C'mon, David, that's not even moving the goalposts. That's moving to a whole different stadium.
If TAS wants to argue about the "main" reason, and what reasons would have been persuasive, that's at least in the same ballpark.
Posted by: The Commissar at May 31, 2005 04:52 PM
I am really not interested in expanding the ballpark, simply pointing out the obvious, which keeps being ignored. Ron did a good job of blowing Reynolds little post to crap. The emphasis was on WMD. It was the reason the American People supported the war. They would NOT have supported (IMHO) the idea of regime change as a reason for putting Americans in Harms way, and the overwhelming number of other regimes with equally wicked records stands to prove that point. But I will let all those arguments lay... Do you want the questions answered about Bush's intention to go to war regardless of whether the reason we gave the U.N. and the American people for doing so?
Posted by: David at May 31, 2005 05:01 PM
What a sweet header you have up there, You Topia You! And we share that same set of links in a string. We are all tied together on this. Stop by soon. Added you to the honor roll of posters at Honor Our Dead
Posted by: The Heretik at May 31, 2005 07:13 PM
Commissar, the point is that Bush's main reasons for going to war, his MAJOR reasons which he rested his whole case for war on, were the claims that Iraq possessed, nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, and that they supported terrorism. The major reason for going to war wasn't to bring democracy to Iraq; that was a secondary part mentioned by Bush in his speeches.
Indeed, at a cornerstone speech in Cincinnati from October 2002, Bush didn't even mention democracy in his introduction.
"Tonight I want to take a few minutes to discuss a grave threat to peace, and America's determination to lead the world in confronting that threat.
The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime's own actions -- its history of aggression, and its drive toward an arsenal of terror. Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people. The entire world has witnessed Iraq's eleven-year history of defiance, deception and bad faith.
We also must never forget the most vivid events of recent history. On September the 11th, 2001, America felt its vulnerability -- even to threats that gather on the other side of the earth. We resolved then, and we are resolved today, to confront every threat, from any source, that could bring sudden terror and suffering to America."
That was Bush's case for war, and we're now finding out that it was a lie. To deny this and insinuate that Bush's main reason to wage war was for democracy is historical revisionism.
Posted by: tas at May 31, 2005 07:17 PM
(For the record, Bush doesn't even mention the word "democracy" in his Cincinnati speech.)
Posted by: tas at May 31, 2005 07:24 PM
We can debate until the cows come home about what was touted as the "main" reason for invading Iraq, and we'll never get anywhere (unless someone can link to an administration official making such a statement, in which case I'd love to see it).
As far as Ron "blowing Reynolds little post to crap," sorry, David, no sale. To make that leap worthy of Superman, one would have to believe that President Bush knew at the time that the statements were incorrect, and made them in order to deceive us. While I can't prove that's not the case, none of you can prove that it is the case, either. It remains a matter of opinion, and all the proclamations of the Left that BUSH LIED!!! don't change that. Period. To prove that someone is lying requires a subordinate proof that they knew it was untrue at the time. No one has done that. Please come back when you have something more than ex post facto evidence that the statement was incorrect. You haven't yet met the burden of proof.
So Ron's smug assertions that "Reynolds didn't quote this!" don't mean squat. Reynolds didn't quote them because everybody knows about those statements. That's what you guys have been screaming about for years. We know about that, already. Reynolds also didn't state that the sky is blue, Iraq is located in Southwest Asia, or God is in His Heaven, all true statements, but none of them pertinent to the point at hand.
And David, you continue to refer to "...the President's speeches in which he implied that Saddam was a clear and present danger to the U.S." If you want to continue to hold that opinion in the face of clear and convincing evidence to the contrary (the President actually characterized Iraq under Saddam Hussein as not an imminent threat, but a grave and gathering danger), there's nothing I or anyone else can do to stop you.
Amongst the other rationales the President presented for invading Iraq, I'll agree that he clearly leaned heavily on the WMD argument, and that he did it to instill fear of Iraq in the American populace. If he believed that Saddam Hussein possessed WMDs in the types and quantities that various intelligence agencies around the world reported, that was actually the responsible stance to take.
The intelligence was wrong, we know now. You don't build my respect for your argument by imputing knowledge after the fact to the President in 2002. It's really easy to be a Monday morning quarterback. I suppose no one has ever second-guessed one of your decisions with the benefit of knowledge you didn't have originally. If it had ever happened to you, you'd remember how pissed off you got at the arrogance of someone twisting some facts and omitting others to twist a knife in your back. And I'm sure you would have had some choice terms for the...ahem...individual...who had done you in.
And in the end, we continue the dance, but you folks are going to have to come up with something new to make it worthwhile. We've covered all this ground many times, and the Left has yet to come up with anything approaching proof. This is just more of the same old stuff, with a pretty wig and some really hot lipstick. Oh, and the perfume is really hot!
But underneath, it's still the same old ugly hag.
Posted by: Boyd at May 31, 2005 08:15 PM
You know, I'm trying to be fair here, but I couldn't even get through the second paragraph of your comment, Boyd. Reasons being...
"We can debate until the cows come home about what was touted as the "main" reason for invading Iraq..."
Or maybe you can listen to fact, not to mention Bush's speeches. Listen Boyd, the MAIN reason was supposed WMDs and links to terrorism. That's. It. Anyone who says otherwise is simply not listening. Linking to a Glenn post where he points out that Bush made references to bringing democracy to the Middle East hardly serves as proof that Bush used democracy as his main reason for going to war in Iraq, it just means that Bush has made a reference to it. There was a study done which showed that Bush gave (I believe) 27 different reasons for going to war. The guy was ready to say friggen anything. But the fact is that the MAIN reasons were highlighted in addresses like the one Bush gave in Cincinnati, where he didn't even MENTION the word "democracy."
Why place importance on the Cincinnati speech? Because Bush can say to any journalist anywhere, or during any little shit everyday speech that he gives, that one reason why he's going to war with Iraq is for democracy. However with the Cincinnati speech, Bush made it an address to the whole nation during the run up to the war in Iraq. And in such address, it was all about Saddam's supposed WMDs and terrorism.
And none of it was even true.
"As far as Ron "blowing Reynolds little post to crap," sorry, David, no sale. To make that leap worthy of Superman, one would have to believe that President Bush knew at the time that the statements were incorrect..."
Well, excuse us for daring to think that the Downing Street Memo should lead to an investigation to determine, once and for all, what Bush knew and when he knew it. Because, Boyd, the evidence is against you and Bush on this one. Paul O'Neill revealed a memo to Ron Suskind which proves that, just a mere two weeks into Bush's first term, he was already thinking about military options for a post-Saddam Iraq. And a UK ambassador to the US has said that Blair had to convince Bush to go after al-Qa'ida and the Taliban first after 9/11, because he was already gunning for Iraq even though he had absolutely no evidence that they were involved in 9/11.
I'm trying not to say anything insulting here, Boyd, but what the fuck? How can you continue to deny even an investigation in the face of such evidence? How can you continu to defend Bush? Do you even care about the state of our national security or the lives of American troops?
I didn't want to bring that up and get personal Boyd, but Jesus. I simply don't get it. I don't get how the right is able to sweep this much evidence under the rug and continue to claim ignorance. This level of partisanship is simply unfathomable to me.
Posted by: tas at May 31, 2005 09:36 PM
David and Tas ... y'all recollection pretty much aligns with mine and the rest of America that doesn't have their heads shoved up an ass. Sorry, Boyd ... but you are beating straw men with a broom and creating a bunch of dust for nothing more than to be making noise and doing what y'all on the "Right" do.
Clinton went through hell for a blow job and a cigar. And, while what he did was a moral issue ... it doesn't even begin to stack up to the lives and money that has been lost during y'alls "boy" play at being president. I am starting to think that y'all were so desperate to have a Republican in the White House that you just really didn't care who he sold his soul to.
Posted by: Rogue at May 31, 2005 11:21 PM
Damn I love it when Angel gets all SOUTHERN and shit. (GRIN)!
Posted by: David at May 31, 2005 11:27 PM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in,
.
Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)
