Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
About that Whole “Bush Lied, People Died”
“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” — John Adams
Published in General
I have not watched the video, but I will say that President Bush made a speech to the U.N. General Assembly on September 12, 2002 that laid out many reasons for confronting Iraq. Every person who asserts that the existence of WMD was the only reason offered for the invasion is stating a glaring falsehood.
Read the following litany of justifications. One may disagree as to whether they constitute a casus belli, but they were all valid and true and continue to be so:
-“Twelve years ago, Iraq invaded Kuwait without provocation.”
-“Iraq continues to commit extremely grave violations of human rights.”
-“Iraq continues to shelter and support terrorist organizations that direct violence against Iran, Israel, and Western governments.”
-“Iraq attempted to assassinate the Emir of Kuwait and a former American President.”
-“The Iraqi regime agreed to destroy and stop developing all weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles, and to prove to the world it has done so by complying with rigorous inspections. Iraq has broken every aspect of this fundamental pledge.”
-“The regime admitted to producing tens of thousands of liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents.”
-“Saddam Hussein’s regime is a grave and gathering danger.”
-“Liberty for the Iraqi people is a great moral cause.”
-“He’s fired ballistic missiles at Iran and Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Israel.”
-“With every step the Iraqi regime takes toward gaining and deploying the most terrible weapons, our own options to confront that regime will narrow.”
Democrats always believe Republicans behave like they do, so figured the Bush Administration was lying. They project and their media join in. It was an election year. What did we expect? After they found none, I figured Sadam thought there were such weapons because he’d been paying for them. We underestimate the depth of corruption in such places after a dictator has been in power for very long. I’d seen it before and should have guessed but I didn’t. The intelligence was picking up on the programs but not on their emptiness.
Works for me, but the salient characteristic of those with a counter-narrative is their inability and unwillingness to listen to facts.
BTW, Miller:NY Times :: Cruz: Senate. They threw her under the bus after the invasion in another display of “integrity” by the paper.
No. After reading the 9/11 Commission Report not once, but twice, this is what they did find in Iraq:
My belief is as soon as the UN removed sanctions (as it was preparing to do), Saddam was determined to pursue production.
Intelligence is never an exact science. Many of our allies and Democrats in the Senate believed there existed an immediate and legitimate danger. This is not to mention the attempted assassination of Bush in Kuwait and the attacks on our military aircraft as they protected the no-go zones in northern and southern Iraq.
Condi Rice put it best, “One never gets credit for being pro-active.”
The mistakes we made in Iraq -as far as I’m concerned- happened in the G.H.W. Bush era when he failed to take Saddam down in the first place. It is akin to our failure to recognize Hitler’s intentions after the invasion of the Sudetenland and Czechoslovakia.
History never changes; I do wish we would take note of this.
Santayana said that “those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it,” to which Mark Twain is purported to have said: “History doesn’t repeat itself; but it does rhyme.” But whether it repeats or rhymes, it does so regardless of whether we remember the past or not (witness the equally famous aphorism that generals always fight the last war), it does so because human nature doesn’t change.
To believe that one can change human nature is my working definition of a progressive.
Plus ça change.
Love the way the blue people are used on Prager and Ricochet
Yes. And they continued after W left office. We can argue about intelligence, but history will show ISIS was born out of the vacuum left by Obama removing all forces. We still have troops in South Korea, Germany and Japan, but blind politics trumped policy.
Care to elaborate? Not sure what you mean.
I noticed that too.
Blue faced people admitting all these mistakes, the narrator mea culpaing in a blue dress, in fact the whole colour theme of the video is blue. The ‘other colour‘ – when it appears – is disguised as a burnt orange.
The colour blue is the hidden persuader.
Makers of this video, j’accuse!
The video’s argument seems to boil down to:
May be a character defence, but it’s not persuasive wrt foreign policy chops.
The video confirmed what I had found in my research years ago. Prager always produces a succinct message. It’s too bad that more people on the left won’t see it. They’d rather believe their lie. Thanks, David.
Judith Miller is a controversial figure. Her erroneous reporting led to the loss of her job at the NYT, Pulitzer notwithstanding. She was involved in the Scooter Libby/Valerie Plame case.
Without commenting on the merits of her story or the veracity of her critics, I simply note that that her narrative is hotly disputed. If you try to use this on a knowledgeable lefty, you will be met with a cannonade of criticism. This is a better line of argument.
Some important words are seared into my memory like Kerry’s trip to Cambodia–except that my memories reference something real. I remember them as Googles searches, although the first is also a headline:
I also remember that these points were in the Duelfer report (2004):
Exactly so. In fact, if anything proves W right, it is ISIS’s taking over Syria and northern Iraq. It would have happened eight years sooner.
Excellent presentation by Ms. Miller.
However, Graham Allison, security analyst, has said repeatedly that one of the problems was that Saddam Hussein was trying to convince Iran that Iraq had WMDs. Saddam Hussein himself was lying about the WMDs, and it’s understandable that we took his lies seriously. I don’t think the intelligence community was at fault. And then there were all of those nuclear weapons that were lost when the USSR broke up. Iraq was fast becoming a rogue nation.
Which seems reasonable and convincing. I don’t understand why people would argue otherwise either way (he had WMDs vs he wouldn’t have developed WMDs).
If he had actually had WMDs in any quantity surely he would have used them against the US troops invading Iraq in 2003 – being invaded is as in extremis as it gets for a country.
ISIS (nee Al-Qaida in Mesopotamia, nee something or the other...) certainly took advantage of the departure of US forces (and the civil war in Syria), but the roots of its support in Iraq lie in the (much earlier) Maliki Government’s policies and how the Coalition (basically the US) tolerated these. For (domestic) political reasons, so yes: for blind politics.
The video is excellent, but it only addresses the WMD issue. There were more reasons to invade Iraq, and the best blog compilation of those reasons is at a blog called Learning Curve.
I stand by that decision. I would do it again if I knew that Obama would not ruin the accomplishment.
Not counting the 5 thousand older sarin and mustard weapons, yes.
Were they still usable? If so, why didn’t Saddam use them when the US invaded?
I don’t know the answer to the first question (anybody who does, please feel free – and this could include you, janaab), and I can’t think of a convincing answer to the second (again, world feel free….)
The 2006 reports suggest that they may not have been. The 2004 report tells us that there were used on US soldiers, but to no greatly devastating effect.
I think the answer was obvious that he didn’t lie once we found the WMD. Libs have tried to excuse this away by saying the WMD were too old and not the ones we were hunting for. Now that is the lie. The hunt was on for the WMD from the late 1980s. The UN search teams were not created to hunt down WMD that didn’t exist, yet. Nobody new the conditions of what was buried. We do know that the WMD intercepted in Kuwait was viable. I don’t know why this is such an unknown fact. I Googled New York Times WMD and the first two items were ”
The Secret Casualties of Iraq’s Abandoned Chemical Weapons …
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.htmlOct 14, 2014 … Sources: Wikileaks and reporting by the New York Times (chemical … Mr. Hussein was hiding an active weapons of mass destruction program, …
BOMBSHELL: New York Times Reports WMDs WERE Found in Iraq …
http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/bombshell-new-york-times-reports-wmds-found-iraq/The New York Times shockingly admitted in an explosive front page report that thousands of WMDs were found in Iraq since the start of the war: From 2004 to …”
Because?
(Troops were wearing gas masks? Or…WMDs past use by date? Other?)
I don’t know. Quite possibly one of those reasons, or the bad guys weren’t using them properly. The first article, “Sarin, Mustard Gas Discovered Separately in Iraq” may explain; I presently lack the time to review it and see.
Thanks, that was fascinating. From the second article:
Well, we did remove over 500 metric tons of yellowcake from Iraq. We also found parts of a centrifuge buried in a Baghdad rose garden. Iraq’s nuclear program in 2003 was comparable to Iran’s in 2003. Which is to say they were both nascent. Dealing with a nascent threat is way easier than dealing with one that it fully formed. The cost of the Iraq War was terrible but it will be dwarfed by the cost of allowing Iran to have nukes.
The idea that Saddam wasn’t a threat or that he didn’t support terrorism is 100% false.
I won a jello-eating contest in high school. But that sounds way beyond my abilities.
But it has such a great second act: But we learned from our mistakes, occupied, & were going to be there for however long, the longer the better.
In the third act, of course, they learn about the electoral cycle–it’s not so heartwarming anymore after that.
I remember on Dennis Miller’s radio show that he used to keep a button with a famous pro-war President Bill Clinton quote that he could press whenever an Iraq war critic called. I don’t remember the exact wording.
Ok, I finally watched the video. I’m a bit annoyed.
A great explanation of how we’re dealing with mistakes, not lies.
But . . . what mistakes were those again?
When you put all that together, I’m left with a few plausible candidates:
But did Bush or Powell or anyone else even say those things?
Even if they did, it was evidently part of a bundle of things said, many of which were true and not all of which were even about WMD. So . . . was there any big intelligence failure, and, really, what was it?