What it was really about

[kallend 1,673]

"But make no mistake - as I said earlier - we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about. ", White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, April 10, 2003.

Funny, really, in a sad kind of way, that they later had to make up alternate reasons.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[tkhayes 145]

Don't forget Colin Pwell's address to the UN, all now completely false about the weapons they found.

Originally convinced even me that it might be OK to go it there.

At least I can admit that I was wrong. I did really hope for the sake of the USA that they found something, but I was not really surprised when they did not.

So the UN sanctions and inspections and the US threats actually DID work to disarm Saddam Hussein and he was NOT actually lying when he said he had none.

Not that he is such a great guy or anything, just that we were WRONG.
TK

[wmw999 2,167]

It's OK to be wrong, too. But you have to take the consequences. Declaring yourself to be right doesn't cut it.

The consequences are a large number of people dead and injured either doing what they signed up for (supporting their government/company/service organization) or just trying to live (Iraqi civilians).

I'm not including the hard-core insurgents, but, darn it, wasps aren't all that dangerous until you piss them off, either.

That's a lot of consequences of "bad intel." And not taking responsibility for its being bad (e.g. declaring it to be not what we were fighting about after all, or misleading) is definitely not standing up to the consequences.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

"But make no mistake - as I said earlier - we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about. ", White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, April 10, 2003.

Oh boy, let's bust out the long, long list of quotes from democrats (including Kerry) who believed the same thing back then.

Should we? Or should we just keep the blinders in close.

. . =(_8^(1)

[tunaplanet 0]

Seems everyone thought Hussein had WMDs.

Forty-two

[billvon 2,467]

>Oh boy, let's bust out the long, long list of quotes from democrats
>(including Kerry) who believed the same thing back then.

Yep. Most of them have no problem admitting they were wrong.

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

>Oh boy, let's bust out the long, long list of quotes from democrats
>(including Kerry) who believed the same thing back then.

Yep. Most of them have no problem admitting they were wrong.

As did Bush today.

. . =(_8^(1)

[rushmc 18]

Quote

"But make no mistake - as I said earlier - we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about. .

No, only one part. Bush said he was dangerous and a threat. Kerry said he was an imminent threat. When you going to get that right

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SkyDekker 1,150]

Quote

As did Bush today

he doesn't have much of a choice. He has been looking more stupid than normal claiming he did everything right when the rest of the world is telling him he did it all wrong.......

[kallend 1,673]

Quote

Seems everyone thought Hussein had WMDs.

No, only naive people who have not previously been exposed to government lying for political reasons. I think a lot of us older folks who'd seen Johnson and Nixon in action were quite sceptical.

On Feb 16 2003 (before the war) I wrote this:

"Why do you believe every line the administration puts out without the appropriate skepticism, given the historical tendency of all administrations to lie to the American people and even to Congress?

The "evidence" so far presented on which you place your belief that everyone "knows" about WMDs, etc. would not be strong enough to convict a shoplifter in a US courtroom (except maybe in Illinois where we routinely sentence innocent people to death), but you are prepared to go to war on the strength of it?


Link
here

Additionally, a lot of people who had been deceived into thinking he had WMD due to Bush's lies were quite willing to wait until Blix and UNMOVIC completed their work before rushing to war.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,673]

Quote

Quote

"But make no mistake - as I said earlier - we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about. .

No, only one part. Bush said he was dangerous and a threat. Kerry said he was an imminent threat. When you going to get that right

So you know better than the official White House spokesman what the war was about. Cool.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mr2mk1g 10]

I don't have a problem with the fact that this war was about WMD.

I remember a lot of people agreed, indeed it wasn't a particularly partisan issue - most of the major political partys official line was that there were WMD.

I note the fact that there were in fact no WMD.

I recognise the fact that SH was an evil man in a dictatorship that should have been taken out in 1991.

I don't have an issue with taking him out simply because of his regime.

I do have a big problem that we are now being told that this is why we went to war.

We didn't. We went to war to take out his WMD. The regime change is a bonus - not THE reason.

I don't have a problem with the fact that it turns out that we only get the bonus - that's fine... as far as I'm concerned it's a job that still needed to be done.

I do have a big problem with the fact that we are being lied to about how that was always the aim. That was not what we were told the aim was before we went in, it is not right to present it as so.

I am annoyed that the administration on both sides of the Atlantic can't simply admit the fact that they were wrong. Blame faulty intel - fine... but the buck stops at the top. The buck stops with the people who arranged for that intel, interpreted it and chose to rely on it.

Opposition parties can only vote on and agree with what they're told by the administration; they are not in charge of the intelligence community; they're not privy to the classified reports - they only know what the administration tells them.

It is disappointing to see politicians still denying things we now know to be true. You will still not hear party officials say there was no direct link between Al Qaeda and Hussain. You will still not hear party officials say that there were no WMD in Iraq.

We now know those things to be true – our administrations own reports conclude the same. But despite the conclusions of their own reports they still refuse to openly admit these things. That is a very sorry state of affairs.

[kallend 1,673]

Quote

I don't have a problem with the fact that this war was about WMD.

I remember that we all thought he had them.

Not all of us! see:

www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1289047#1289047

And most of those who thought he had them were content to let UNMOVIC finish its job.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[nigel99 151]

So should Blair be left to a purely political judgment on this or should it go on to the ICC?

I am not sure the general British public care enough about Blairs lies over Iraq to choose Howard just yet though.

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[mr2mk1g 10]

They would have to chose Charles Kennedy, not Howard. The Conservatives don't question the war, only the Lib Dems.

[mr2mk1g 10]

Happy to amend to simply the fact that it was not a partisan issue - ie the official line of virtually all political parties was to agree that there were WMD.

[kallend 1,673]

Quote

Happy to amend to simply the fact that it was not a partisan issue - ie the official line of virtually all political parties was to agree that there were WMD.

That appears to be true. However, rushing to war while UNMOVIC was still on the ground in Iraq and was doing a good job was a purely Bush administration decision. Bush gambled before the UNMOVIC reports were in that WMDs would be found. Bush gambled and 1000+ US soldiers lost. Bush deserves to lose in November.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kiltboy 0]

I'd say a political judgement should be good enough as he consulted Parliament. It was debated in the commons so Parliament should hold him accountable. There were major problems with the intelligence community and the way that the intelligence was presented to the PM.
I do feel that professional intelligence officers should have known better and should have been able to put the proper weight and caution on the intelligence presented.
I believe that the PM should also have questioned the intelligence chiefs to clearly understand what was being presented. On that point I feel he failed to question and heard what he wanted to hear. That I believe is a failure in his duty as PM to be fully aware of the issue before he committed troops to war. War should be the most serious decision a PM makes and he should be fully aware of the situation.
Incidentally the troops that went were lacking in ammo and equipment which I find disgusting I also find the latest round of defence cuts to be crazy.

David (Brit in the US)

[nigel99 151]

Granted the Lib dem's oppossed the war - I am just not keen enough on Charles honesty to want my tax to go up

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[nigel99 151]

Quote

I believe that the PM should also have questioned the intelligence chiefs to clearly understand what was being presented

I think he had made up his mind - even the September dossier was fairly heavily caveated. Blair was clearly negligent though as it was only recently that he admitted to not knowing key facts - i.e. 45 minute claim details etc.

And yes cutting defence spending now is stupid...

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

"But make no mistake - as I said earlier - we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about. .

No, only one part. Bush said he was dangerous and a threat. Kerry said he was an imminent threat. When you going to get that right

So you know better than the official White House spokesman what the war was about. Cool.

Thanks

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[mr2mk1g 10]

He's only dangerous and an imminent threat because he has WMD... no WMD, no danger, no threat.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

So you know better than the official White House spokesman what the war was about. Cool.

My stapler knows better what this war was about than what's coming out of the white house official statemetns.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

He's only dangerous and an imminent threat because he has WMD... no WMD, no danger, no threat.

I noticed now the new line from Bush as of yesterday is he had knowledge. First he had WMD, then he had WMD programs, then he had WDM facilities, then he had the ability to quiclkly start WMD facilities, now the line is.....Well, turns out he didn't have any of those things, but he had knowledge about how to make them.

Guess what, so does everyone else with an internet connection!

[rushmc 18]

Quote

He's only dangerous and an imminent threat because he has WMD... no WMD, no danger, no threat.

Your thoughts, not mine. Read the last half of the report about SD and WMD's.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln