Gitmo and GoDaddy: Changing one man's mind on torture.

[Dartful Dodger]

*yawn*

See, those of us that live in the great USA, can rest easy.

Thank you Bush.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Now get this - Bush is in until 2008.  The war is on. No amount of hindsight will change that. It's a done deal. 

You are definitely right about that, and you'd sure like it if he was never held accountable for anything, wouldn't you?



mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

*yawn*

See, those of us that live in the great USA, can rest easy.

Thank you Bush.

I still want to know when you plan on signing up to fight in Iraq? Do you have kids? Are they old enough to enlist? If so, why aren't they over there fighting your "good fight"?

Or do you prefer that other people's children die just to help you feel so smug?

[TOK]

[

I still want to know when you plan on signing up to fight in Iraq? Do you have kids? Are they old enough to enlist? If so, why aren't they over there fighting your "good fight"?

Or do you prefer that other people's children die just to help you feel so smug?

We do have a completely enlisted armed forces now, so these "Silver Spoon" arguments don't really carry much weight. Nobody who is there was drafted in against their will.
I had a friend come back from Iraq for a two week leave. There is something that you don't seem to hear in the news going on. The Iraqi police they are training and even civilians are thanking them for what they're doing. They are understanding they were supressed, and as bad as things are right now, there is hope for democracy there. This is nearly an every day occurrance.

[DrewKaree]

I'd imagine you just take everything he says at face value

Reading into what someone means or trying to read between the lines INSTEAD of taking someone's words at face value is best done only to other members of a forum that you belong to. 

See?

[DrewKaree]

I don't recall a direct link to 9/11 from Iraq in the arguments for the war in 2002 and 2003.  The so called "link" was a generalization of all terrorists and countries that support terrorists.  Remember the catch phrase from 2001 - "You are with us or the terrorists?". 

No need to recall.  I listened to it.  The war on terror started on 9/11.  The war is AGAINST terrorists who are commonly mislabeled "insurgents" for reasons unbeknownst to anyone.  A good lot of those terrorists were in or are coming into Iraq to fight their holy war against the infidel Americans and garner a special place with virgins aplenty. 

Saddam was in fact supporting terrorists, that's fact and reiterated in the 9/11 commission report.  He was also supporting terrorists in Palestine.  Plus, he had the capablitity of sometime getting out of the box the UN put him in with the oil-for-food money.  Left unchecked, he would have been 100X the threat we thought he was with WMD.

I'll put this up in case anyone missed it the last time:

"If Saddam Hussein fails to comply and we fail to act or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop his program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of sanctions and ignore the commitments he's made? Well, he will conclude that the international community's lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on doing more to build an arsenal of devastating destruction. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow. The stakes could not be higher. Some way, someday, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal." 

We couldn't choose which despots to NOT support....Each time we did one of these steps, it was for a reason. D or R, it was for a diplomatic / strategic reason. We still do it.  Who knows what will the ramifications of diplomacy would / will be with each zig and zag. 

Exactly.  Just think about it....if we had just left Hitler alone, perhaps we wouldn't have felt the need to build all those nukes to keep a step ahead of the Russians because they wouldn't have been our enemy we were worried about.

[DrewKaree]

I'll be drunk, since I'm playing the "Bush Speech Drinking Game."

A list of phrases to drink at every time they are uttered (please add to this list):

    * "democracy/liberty/freedom is on the march"
    * any scripted line that illicits the mandatory "Hoo Rah" or "Hooah" from the military backdrop.

mrC

When did the ideals this country was founded on become something to be derided, to be used in a "how can I get plastered through drinking" game?  It should upset you if he uses them in a way you detest, but to drink to the "idea" does nothing but demean the concepts and shows you lack imagination in your protest. 

Not to add insult to injury...but that one and only applause line in the middle of the speech was staged. It was prompted by Bush White House Staffers in the back of the auditorium. Fox News, ABC, and NBC all reported this in their commentary after the speech.

Please look back at the last time the President gave a speech.  Remember?  He was "all dolled up, obviously trying to create a photo-op moment" on a ship.  Ring a bell?  Go back and look at it.  Please report back to us about all the times he received applause (and when) during that speech as well.  The "hooah" lines weren't there either, but they're similar to liberal's "this is a quagmire" sound bites.  People use speeches to elicit a response from the audience they expect.  That speech had a purpose, this speech did as well.  That you don't understand the replies of the last speech from the soldiers simply means those points weren't meant for you.  In spite of that response, there still was something missing from that speech that happened in the speech the other night. 

To quote why:
"The military does not applaud during official speeches. The only reason they did is because they were led, but there is a protocol. They don't applaud. It is a sign of respect. This was not a rally. This was a presidential address."

I've been to a couple of "official speeches".  Certainly you have too, I'm thinking.  Somehow this never registered with you.  Perhaps while you were watching, you noticed something else as well.  I don't know your military background or knowledge of things military, but something should have STOOD OUT.

[JCL]

"If Saddam Hussein fails to comply ..."

Comply with what exactly? Ending his weapon programs? He did it. Allowing UN inspectors in? He did it. Cooperating with UN inspectors? He did it.


So what exactly is your point?

Did you fail to notice that the inspectors said they found no weapons of mass destruction? Did you fail to notice that Bush invaded anyways? Did you fail to notice that after tens of thousands of needless deaths, and billions of dollars of wasted money, no weapons of mass destruction were found?

[DrewKaree]

I still want to know when you plan on signing up to fight in Iraq? Do you have kids? Are they old enough to enlist? If so, why aren't they over there fighting your "good fight"?

Or do you prefer that other people's children die just to help you feel so smug?

You should be thankful that other people's children died for your right to speak out against our government.

What you miss is that none of those people signed up to fight in Iraq.  They signed up to serve their country.  What difference would it make if he had signed up? Would it make his sacrifice, and therefore his words, somehow more valid to be put forth than yours?  Fredster has served his country, and I'm betting tall cash he's felt smug a few times in his responses to you.  Does that make you the inferior one in that matchup?

The same question can be posed to you, and have the exact same non-meaning.  Why aren't you signing up to serve in Iraq?  Do you have kids? Are they old enough to enlist? If so, are they over there fighting to help the formerly-oppressed people enjoy the freedoms you enjoy here in America?

Or do you not appreciate that other people's children died so you can speak out against your government, something Iraqi's weren't able to do until those soldiers came to help them out?  It must be nice to feel so smug thinking Iraq was somehow safer with Sadaam there.
 
See how it works?  Nothing meaningful, only designed to splatter upon contact. 

[DrewKaree]

"If Saddam Hussein fails to comply ..."

Comply with what exactly? Ending his weapon programs? He did it. Allowing UN inspectors in? He did it. Cooperating with UN inspectors? He did it.

So what exactly is your point?

Oh, that's not my point.  You should try to read it with a less jaded eye.  I simply re-quoted the statement.

Did you fail to notice that the inspectors said they found no weapons of mass destruction? Did you fail to notice that Bush invaded anyways? Did you fail to notice that after tens of thousands of needless deaths, and billions of dollars of wasted money, no weapons of mass destruction were found?

What I've failed to notice is the part where you tell us the reasons Bush gave for going to war against Sadaam Hussein.  I HAVE noticed that you and others like you continue to focus on two primary objects.  WMD's and oil. 

Look for Bush's speech to the American people where he gave the reasons (that's PLURAL, as in "more than one") for going to war.  Let us know what it says.  Try to avoid reading between the lines, or if you are, try reading my gas receipts before you tell me some other "third gunman on the grassy knoll" crock of another "war for oil".

You want to put "step 12" at the top of the line and rewrite history.  That's fine in your world, but reality has provided you with transcripts of the actual story.

[JCL]

What exact speech are you refering to, Drew?

The pre-war speeches focused primarilly on WMDs. And they also tried to imply links between Al-Qeda and Iraq that our own intelligence community doesn't believe in. And contained bogus stuff like talk of aluminum tubes that were known to be for rockets. And contained other BS about reconstituted weapons programs etc.

So where's the speach where Bush concentrated on all those other reasons? You know, those reasons that weren't based on falsehoods?

Here's quite a few speeches, press releases and conferences. They almost all focus in great majority, if not exclusively on illegal weapons that didn't exist:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020926-7.html
Right before the invasion. All WMDs all the time.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030316-1.html
Main thrust is weapons, but it has this gem:
"Iraq must never again be a haven for terrorists of any kind." It wasn't before, it is now.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030308-1.html
Weapons are main justification, again.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030304-11.html
Forcus is on weapons, again.


http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030317-7.html
Here's a good quote from this one "Today, no nation can possibly claim that Iraq has disarmed". Hahaha.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-17.html
Key quote: "Our nation enters this conflict reluctantly -- yet, our purpose is sure. The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder." Reluctantly must mean something different on planet Bush.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030226-11.html
Main thrust (first and recurring point) is WMDs.
"In Iraq, a dictator is building and hiding weapons that could enable him to dominate the Middle East and intimidate the civilized world -- and we will not allow it. "

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030306-8.html
Main point is that Iraq has WMDs and refuses to disarm. As a funny aside, I have to mention that Bush downplays the threat of North Korea as a "reagional issue". Somehow Iraq without WMDs is global, yet North Korea with nuclear weapons and very long range missles is not. Odd that.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021016-1.html

Focuses on WMDs: "Either the Iraqi regime will give up its weapons of mass destruction, or, for the sake of peace, the United States will lead a global coalition to disarm that regime."
and:
"The Iraqi regime is a serious and growing threat to peace. On the commands of a dictator, the regime is armed with biological and chemical weapons, possesses ballistic missiles, promotes international terror and seeks nuclear weapons."


http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/01/20020129-11.html
Tries to tie Iraq and WMDs to terrorism.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020907-2.html
WMDs, WMDs, WMDs. Plus a cameo from PM Blair.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020914.html
At least twice as much about weapons as anything else.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020918-1.html
Weapons, again.

I could go on and on. The main thrust of Bush's pre-invasion rhetoric was that Iraq was a threat due to WMDs and ties to terrorism. Iraq didn't have WMDs and is less tied to terrorism than our great ally (and longtime friends to the Bush Family) Saudi Arabia.

So where is this speech that focused on all the other reasons to invade?

And no cheating by using speeches from after the invasion. That would be historical revisionism.

[DrewKaree]

And they also tried to imply links between Al-Qeda and Iraq that our own intelligence community doesn't believe in.

Doesn't, or didn't?  There's a big difference, seeing as how we have the benefit of hindsight now.  They certainly DID believe links brought up by our own intelligence agencies that led them to believe there were ties between Al-Qaeda and Iraq.  The papers were littered with them, there were TV shows regarding them, and the Iraqi's in position to know better about such things would not be dissuaded by reporters to say otherwise.  You're speaking from hindsight, rather than looking at what was happening at the time.  If you believe they DIDN'T, see if there's some way you can go back in time.  America needs someone like you who can see the future to avoid those pesky World Wars.

Key quote: "Our nation enters this conflict reluctantly -- yet, our purpose is sure. The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder." Reluctantly must mean something different on planet Bush.
Main thrust is weapons, but it has this gem:
"Iraq must never again be a haven for terrorists of any kind." It wasn't before, it is now.

What is "reluctantly" defined as by you so that sentence in its context means something different?  Are you trying to imply that Bush has a hard-on to get American's killed, or did you want to let us know the end of that statement?  Also, do you have a clue what a "haven" means?  You speak of Bush's otherworldy definition of words, yet don't seem to have a good grasp of the English language yourself.

I could go on and on. The main thrust of Bush's pre-invasion rhetoric was that Iraq was a threat due to WMDs and ties to terrorism. Iraq didn't have WMDs and is less tied to terrorism than our great ally (and longtime friends to the Bush Family) Saudi Arabia.

Without fail, you ignore the fact that the only thing the media was concerned with were WMD's and was ONLY focused on knowing what/how much/where they were, ignore the fact that intelligence agencies worldwide believed him to hold them, had used them on his own people (which even YOU should be able to agree would demonstrate he had them), and were investigating links that even the 9/11 commission couldn't/wouldn't dismiss, as fredster's pointed out to you, and finally, somehow ignore the fact that Sadaam was being given (by your own links) day after day after day after day for "just one more chance to demonstrate that he was disarmed/disarming. 

This wasn't some game of chicken, although Sadaam must have thought so, given the repeated warnings time and again by the previous administration.  The "re-quote" I gave you above is from Bill Clinton.  What'd he feel had to be done?  How'd he feel about FAILING TO ACT?  It's precisely why Sadaam took his country down the path he did.  Funny thing is, it's worked and is working out better for his former country.

"If Saddam Hussein fails to comply and we fail to act or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop his program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of sanctions and ignore the commitments he's made? Well, he will conclude that the international community's lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on doing more to build an arsenal of devastating destruction. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow. The stakes could not be higher. Some way, someday, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal."

Failing to act, failing to respond will simply embolden those who would do exactly what he did to continue to do so.  Seeing him use his weapons on his own people, listening to him speak of destroying America, listening to him speak of inflicting harm to our country.....how you can use hindsight to tell us "I told you so" is beyond me, and is a prime example of why Sadaam needed to be taken out.  It must suck to see someone like Bush who believes in what he is doing and has the conviction to carry it out, knowing American's would die in order to free Iraq, and having the misguided notion that he wouldn't do so with "reluctance". 

THREE of your links give you reasons, there's still a BETTER link out there, yet you seem to only be looking for words that start with "WMD".  Try reading carefully.  He's spoken more than once about the reasons.  Perhaps once you see 'em you'll see how the press couldn't seem to get off of their WMD jag either.  Here's an idea for you.  Find the "on my orders" speech and work backwards, that way you'll be able to see it wasn't after we declared war.  Even in that speech, Bush speaks of the hopes of Iraqi's resting on our troops.  Perhaps try looking for something positive.  It may change your outlook.  Evidently you care somewhat in order to look, so either it'll hit you like a ton of bricks, or you'll just keep choosing to ignore it and pass over it searching for "WMD bwaaak".  Ignore it if you want to, and ignore what every question of him was at the time, but the reasons were given, they were given before we went to war, they were given multiple times, and diplomatic solutions were tried YET AGAIN (Clinton said WHAT about failing to act?) and Sadaam brought his little empire down around his feet.

[patrickl]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030306-8.html
Main point is that Iraq has WMDs and refuses to disarm. As a funny aside, I have to mention that Bush downplays the threat of North Korea as a "reagional issue". Somehow Iraq without WMDs is global, yet North Korea with nuclear weapons and very long range missles is not. Odd that.

You know, that's what scares me too about this whole dumb invasion. I looks like Bush et al are scared of North Korea because it does have nuclear weapons. So what do you think countries who dislike the US are gonna build? Yep you got it, nuclear weapons.

So we have now got a new breeding ground for terrorists (they can actually train on the real thing!), a region wide hatred of the US and governments racing to build nukes. Much good must come of that. It's amazing that 90% of the world population cannot see why this is all for the greater good.

[patrickl]

Without fail, you ignore the fact that the only thing the media was concerned with were WMD's and was ONLY focused on knowing what/how much/where they were, ignore the fact that intelligence agencies worldwide believed him to hold them, had used them on his own people (which even YOU should be able to agree would demonstrate he had them), and were investigating links that even the 9/11 commission couldn't/wouldn't dismiss, as fredster's pointed out to you, and finally, somehow ignore the fact that Sadaam was being given (by your own links) day after day after day after day for "just one more chance to demonstrate that he was disarmed/disarming.

[Dexter]

For every person killed on 9/11 as a result of a terrorist attack by Al Quaida, there are at least 35 dead innocents in Iraq, a country that never attacked the US, was no threat to the US and had no connections to Al Quaida prior to its invasion by the US.

The Bush regiemes actions in their name has desecrated the memories of every single person who died on 9/11 and soaked their graves in the blood of dead women and children. For him to still toe the line that there was a connection even dispite his own administration confirming there was none is a further insult to them. Parading Saddam around like they caught the culprit responsible does the same.

Dexter

[fredster]

We wouldn't know about the WMD if we didn't go in would we?

Every country agreed before the war that Saddam had WMD.  The intel pointed to it from multiple countries.

Can one of you explain to me why Blair went along with this and why his country also had intel that said Saddam had WMD?

[Dexter]

Simple, there was intel both confirming and disproving that there was WMDs there. However, instead of doing what is normally done and taking ALL intel into account to give a clearer overall picture, the British and american governments chose to ignore what didn't back the case for an invasion, and 'sexed up' what did. Same as after 9/11 the way the FBI/CIA were told to find a link between the disaster and Iraq, the fact there was none was a minor inconvenience that the bush regieme didn't want to know about.

You can't pick and choose intel to suit your war plans and expect it to stand up to scrutiny.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

We wouldn't know about the WMD if we didn't go in would we?

Yes we would, if Bush would have allowed inspections to continue instead of rushing to war.

Every country agreed before the war that Saddam had WMD.

[JCL]

Drew --

You still didn't show me the speeches where weapons weren't the main thrust of the argument for war.

Many people thought that Iraq had already disarmed before the war, including UN inspectors who were actaully in Iraq.

You can claim that everyone believed in these weapons, but that doesn't make it true no matter how many times you repeat it. You are just trying to frame the debate by assertion of a falsehood.

Why do you believe that everyone thought these weapons existed? Even the CIA had doubts: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17211-2005Mar31.html.

The links between Iraq and Al Queda were controversial (to say the least) long before the invasion. There were several antebellum reports from the CIA that indicated that they couldn't find a clear link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. Here's a news article on this:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,12875384%5E1702,00.html

As far as reluctantly goes, Bush was pushing to overthrow Saddam on the campaign trail. He wanted Saddam gone, he was far from reluctant. He just needed to rationalize it, regardless of the facts.

So who is being revisionist here?

[patrickl]

Dear lord, people still belief that "every country knew Iraq had WMD" before the invasion? Did you miss the UN hearing on the matter?

Rumsfeld said the US KNEW where the WMD's were. The inspectors went there (completely unhindered) and found NOTHING! They even used scanners that could detect if WMD where ever there before. In fact those searches proofed there would be no WMD found ever.

Poor old Colin Powell was sent to the UN to tell a tale of how the WMD where moved and all the ground beneath them was moved also. The world (apart from some people in the US and Blair) did not belief there were WMD so they dismissed this story.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Another thing these revisionists seem to forget is that almost all the evidence used in the "slam dunk!" WMD case against Iraq came from Ahmed Chalabi (an alleged Iranian spy) and an informant named "Curveball", whom the German intelligence agencies warned was famous for fabricating evidence.

So "NO" not everyone believe in the WMD claims, in fact, plenty of people warned this administration that they didn't have a case.

The Bush Admin then laid the blame on the CIA, but we all know about undercover CIA operative Valeria Plame, right? She is the wife of Ambassador Joe Wilson, and she worked the WMD desk in the CIA. Her husband stood up against this administration's lies about WMD (Niger "Yellowcake") and she was subsequently "outed" in retaliation. So don't tell me that this admin didn't KNOW they were fixing the intel, when they in fact punished the agents for telling them what they didn't want to hear.

Anyhow, today we are one step closer to unraveling this revisionism because Time Magazine was agreed to cooperate in the Plame case. It's unfortunate that it's at the expense of a "free" press, but that's the sort of situation this administration has put our country in.

It's all in the links I've provided. "Boo!" - the sky is purple, be sure to bury your head deeply in the sand!!!


mrC

[fredster]

I'm done with this thread boys.  Have a happy life.

[Dartful Dodger]

I'm done with this thread boys.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

There's a good chance Bush's latest speech may have strengthened the tide against the war...are most people (excluding the Spider-hole hold-outs like Dartful) getting tired of Bush's empty rhetoric?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/29/AR2005062902585.html

The author of this article, Richard Cohen, was a fervent war supporter, that is, until today.

mrC

[DrewKaree]

Drew --

You still didn't show me the speeches where weapons weren't the main thrust of the argument for war.

You've posted 3 of them yourself.  I'll give you the one I refer to shortly.  It's interesting to see all the "It's WMD's" talk.

You can claim that everyone believed in these weapons, but that doesn't make it true no matter how many times you repeat it. You are just trying to frame the debate by assertion of a falsehood.

That's the difference between those who believe in what we are doing in Iraq ("my side") and those who continue to speak about WMD's as the sole reason we invaded ("your side").  I'm not framing the debate, I simply listened to what happened, read what was done leading up to war, and realize that even Bill Clinton knew and told us what had to be done, but no one was willing to do what needed to be done until the decision was put to Bush.  I also can see that the groups of people who haven't been able to remember their very own words can't help but fall all over themselves trying to ignore what happened, what was going on at the time, and the decisions they made. 

As far as reluctantly goes, Bush was pushing to overthrow Saddam on the campaign trail. He wanted Saddam gone, he was far from reluctant. He just needed to rationalize it, regardless of the facts.

Wow!  I guess it's hard to argue with such rationa....."facts".  I'll lay it out for you tomorrow, but reading that, I hold no hopes you'll actually pay attention.  You've already passed over several reasons repeatedly given in links you gave us, and your comments above lead me to believe that you think Bush was willing to kill American soldiers to settle some "personal score".  Presuming to know someone's thought process (and ESPECIALLY in the case of sending thousands of Americans to war) is the height of arrogance and can't be reasoned with.  I'll lay it out for you, and you can go on with those ideas, as they aren't worth debating.

So who is being revisionist here?

I'd have to say the guy who thinks he knows what other people are thinking and can't see that WMD's not only weren't the sole reason, but weren't the main reason. 

[DrewKaree]

....and soaked their graves in the blood of dead women and children.

and on and on and on and on and on.

Be sure to pass along your facts to any of the middle-easterners you run into who are contemplating strapping yet another bomb to themselves or leaving a truck loaded with explosives and heading into an area where they are guaranteed to kill more middle-eastern women, children, and elderly.

You forgot the elderly, Dexter.  Make sure you get them in there too.  Your semi-emotional appeal to us all attempting to tug on our heartstrings about "the poor women and children" rings hollow since your silence seems to say it's ok for the middle-eastern folks to kill the Iraqi women and children, just not 'mercans.  A choice to use the women and children's death in Iraq is the choice of a a coward, be it a terrorist suicide bomber, or someone whose points don't carry enough weight to stand on their own.  See what else you can come up with.  You've turned "all the (dead/blood/lives/goriness) women and children over there" into a hackneyed phrase - kudos for doing exactly that which you claim to detest.

[JCL]

You've posted 3 of them yourself.

[Dexter]

An interesting graphic. Couple this with the US now having a proper powerbase in the middle east to keep the neocon agenda happy and you can see why operation eye-raqi freedom(tm) has been such a 'success'

[Grasshopper]

The reason why the WMD line was pushed so hard was not just to sell the war to the British and American people but because without WMDs Saddam and his (alleged) Al-Qaeda friends could not possibly be a credible threat to any western european country let alone the United States. Actually, he probably wasn't a threat even if he had WMDs but that's another story.

If he's not a threat to us then the (preemptive) self-defence argument cannot be used and the invasion is thus blatantly illegal under international law. Clearly Bush and his supporters don't give a damn about international law. But Blair has a big problem because many people in his own party still believe in International Law. Also, the UK has signed up to the International Criminal Court so it's theoretically possible (although highly unlikely) that Blair could one day be tried as a war criminal.

[Dexter]

...it's theoretically possible (although highly unlikely) that Blair could one day be tried as a war criminal.

On that day, I hope George Galloway is in charge of the proceedings

[DrewKaree]

Let

[DrewKaree]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020918-1.html

We also talked about Iraq. We talked about the fact that Saddam Hussein has stiffed the United Nations for 11 long years, and that, once again, he said -- made some kind of statement, trying to take the pressure off of himself. This statement about unconditional inspections was something he's made in the past. He deceives, he delays, he denies. And the United States, and I'm convinced, the world community, aren't going to fall for that kind of rhetoric on -- by him again.

[DrewKaree]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020917-8.html
In case you missed it or want to somehow paint Sadaam as someone who was a bastion of truth that CERTAINLY wouldn

[DrewKaree]

This one

[JCL]

Drew --

Only one of your links work for me. And that document mentions the word Iraq *once* and does so in the context of ... WMDs.

Your other quotes show Bush discussing weapons more than any other reason for war. So without reading between the lines (which you say is bad), the reasonable conclusion is that illegal weapons were Bush's main reason to go to war.

Thanks for proving my point that illegal weapons were the main reason Bush gave for going to war.


Paragraph by paragraph of your quotes:

WMDs
freedom
WMDs

Terrorism
Terrorism
WMDs

WMDs
Threat to Peace (how so without weapons?)
Repression/Terrorism/WMDs

Threat to Peace
Pows/illicit trade/WMDs
WMDs
WMDs
Terrorism/repression/WMDs

Now the biggie, your quotes about the timeline:

WMDs
WMDs
WMDs
WMDs
WMDs
WMDs
WMDs
WMDs
WMDs
WMDs
WMDs
WMDs
WMDs
WMDs
WMDs
and on and on, it's all WMDs, all the time in this quote, and it's a big'en

The last one that you make the most of does start out without as much WMD talk:
Human Dignity/dictatorship/security
terrorism/WMDs
Human Dignity/dictatorship/security/agression
aggression (history of, Iraq invading Kuwait)
broken treaties/terms of cease fire
repression
repression
POWs
Terrorism

but by paragraph 11, it's almost all WMD talk:

WMDs
WMDs
WMDs
WMDs
WMDs
WMDs
sanctions/weapons/repression
WMDs
WMDs
WMDs
WMDs
repression/aggression/freedom/WMDs
democracy
dangers

So even this quote has much more WMD talk than anything else.

So it is very clear, if one is honest, that Bush pushed the WMD line far far more than any other justification for war. That makes it the *main* justification by a large margin, based on Bush's and his peoples own words.

Oh, and nice strawman claiming that people are saying that Bush gave no other reason for war. Nice (dishonest) way to once again try to frame the debate with falsehoods. I claimed that WMDs were the primary justification. Once again, thanks for providing quotes that prove my point for me.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

 
To say that this admin did not use WMD as the primary justification for invading Iraq is one of the most blatantly ignorant things I ever heard. When you mention this fact, the offending Bush supporter will usually follow with, "But everybody thought he had WMD!"...which, to me, proves just how much hype the notion of WMD's was given in the run-up to the war.

Drew knows that WMD was the primary reason, he's just playing games at this point.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

It

[JCL]

Drew knows that WMD was the primary reason, he's just playing games at this point.

And the weird part is that he is so incredibly bad at his game. His quotes went very far in proving my point that WMDs were the main justification given by Bush et al for the war. He didn't even provide quotes that even supported his point (WMDs weren't the main reason) even out of context!

[patrickl]

Drew knows that WMD was the primary reason, he's just playing games at this point.

And the weird part is that he is so incredibly bad at his game. His quotes went very far in proving my point that WMDs were the main justification given by Bush et al for the war. He didn't even provide quotes that even supported his point (WMDs weren't the main reason) even out of context!

Trouble with Drew is that he gets his information from propaganda sites. Propaganda is where the facts get raped by opinons and by taking them out of context.

I'm amazed you guys (JCL and mr.Curmudgeon) take the time to reply to all the "It's not just about the WMD" and "Everyone thought Sadam had WMD" stuff and even the random burps dartful puts out.

[JCL]

Drew knows that WMD was the primary reason, he's just playing games at this point.

And the weird part is that he is so incredibly bad at his game. His quotes went very far in proving my point that WMDs were the main justification given by Bush et al for the war. He didn't even provide quotes that even supported his point (WMDs weren't the main reason) even out of context!

Trouble with Drew is that he gets his information from propaganda sites. Propaganda is where the facts get raped by opinons and by taking them out of context.

I'm amazed you guys (JCL and mr.Curmudgeon) take the time to reply to all the "It's not just about the WMD" and "Everyone thought Sadam had WMD" stuff and even the random burps dartful puts out.

To be fair, it wasn't "just about the WMD". Don't justify Drew's strawman arguments by making this absolute statement.  But WMDs were the main reason given, even according to Drew's selective quotes.

I agree that the "everyone thought" is totally bogus and easily debunked.