Mr. President: Peter David from www.peterdavid.net. In the past you have repeatedly criticized “activist judges” who have been, in your opinion, playing fast and loose with the Constitution in order to further their own agendas. Yet you, who twice took an oath to protect the Constitution, signed into law a historic curtailing of habeas corpus that many are decrying as blatantly unconstitutional. Would it therefore be reasonable to accuse you of being an “activist president?”
PAD
UPDATE FROM GLENN, 9/26: Apparently, Betty The Crow News is collecting questions for their reporter to ask Tony Snow. Feel free to click here and cross-polinate.
• 
Yo, Craig J. Ries — seriously, you’re starting to sound like Mikey. I’m not trying to insult you, by the way. I’m just letting you know how you’re coming off. If you were Mikey, I wouldn’t bother. But you’re an intelligent guy and I believe you’re better than that.
Just because you disagree with Jay Tea doesn’t mean he’s been “brainwashed.”
And… to ensure that this post stays relevant to the thread topic:
Mr. President, Bill Myers, former journalist. Yeah, I’m still here. During the 2000 campaign, you said you were “…a uniter, not a divider…” but you have proven to be one of the most divisive presidents in recent memory, rivaling if not exceeding Bill Clinton in this regard. To what do you attribute your remarkable inability to live up to your own hype?
Second, recent polls are showing that you have lost the support of many Republicans and/or conservatives. How can you expect to govern for another two years when you cannot even inspire confidence in people who should, by rights, be your supporters?
Mr. President,
You continue to state that Iraq is not in the middle of a civil war. Would you please give us your specific definition of what would constitute a civil war in that country? After doing so, if at some time in the future civil war does break out in Iraq per your definition, would you now swear not to:
a) deny it being a civil war and claim you never said it, chalking it up to being one of those “exaggerations”?
b) say that everyone, Republicans and Democrats, subscribed to your definition, leaving you faultless in having said it?
c) mention “September the 11th” even once?
But sometimes it’s the right move. We fought a two-front war in World War II, and that worked out all right
Yes, but then we had allies not a coalation where we provide 90% of the troops, equipment, & expense. We also had a President & administration who listened to the generals & admirals, and didn’t fire the ones who disagreed.
Mr. President:
Is your real name Baltar, and can you address the rumors that the Vice-President is actually a Cylon?
does that mean if it ever is shown that they DID have something to do with Al Qeada you will then HAVE to accept that they did have something to do with 9/11?
I would certainly consider the possibility.
But, after 5 years of attempts, no such proof has been found whatsoever. No connection to 9/11, and no connection to Al Qaeda.
Just like no massive amounts of WMD and nukes that were going to be used on the US and our allies at a moment’s notice.
And on the topic of brainwashing, I’m not even going to attempt to mince words on this.
At one point, 70% of the people in this country said that they thought Saddam had something to do with 9/11. On insinuations, lies, and half-truths that dumped us in Iraq with no way out.
That, folks, is brainwashing. To continue to believe in that complete falsehood is to admit you’ve been brainwashed by Bush’s propoganda.
Mr. President, Paul B from PeterDavid.net here. During the 2004 Presidential debates, you kept hammering away at John Kerry’s use of the phrase “global test” in relation to the decision to use military force against another nation. Since Senator Kerry’s meaning in using that phrase was very different from the meaning that you kept ascribing to it, I wondered at the time whether the problem was that you yourself were too stupid to understand what he really meant, or if you just believed that everyone watching the debates was too stupid to understand what he really meant. Tell me, Mr. President, which was it?
And as a followup, how exactly do you reconcile your sworn oath to uphold the United States Constitution with your administration’s continued efforts to gut most of the provisions of that document, most recently the repeal of the right of Habeas Corpus, one of the oldest principals of Western democracy?
And, conversely, an astounding 30something percent believe that the USA government had something to do with 9/11. Which, I submit, is several order of magnitudes more insane than thinking that Iraq had something to do with it. Both are probably wrong but if thinking Iraq was involved indicates brainwashing I can only wonder what it is to think our own government brought down the towers–a brain enema?
(If anyone out there is seriously into the 9/11 conspiracy stuff, please just ignore me. Don’t send me emails showing me how if you squint just right it kinds sorta looks like a rocket coming out of the escape hatch or whatever the wacky idea du jour is. I spent a year of my life arguing with Creationists and I have no intention of repeating it with their intellectual equals on the far left. Just assume I’m part of the Big Conspiracy and move on…)
But, after 5 years of attempts, no such proof has been found whatsoever. No connection to 9/11, and no connection to Al Qaeda.
I’m not sure that’s accurate. The 9/11 part yes but not the rest. To mention just one example–in 1998 Bin Laden was indicted in the USA for, among other listed crimes, “In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of
Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al
Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.”
the indictment can be read at http://www.fas.org/irp/news/1998/11/98110602_nlt.html
Obviously, Bush was not president at the time this was written, if that gives it any more legitimacy in anyone’s eyes.
In fairness to Craig, I note that he did say “proof”. I don’t think a link has been “proven”. Witnesses are not proof. Written records are not proof. Evidence yes, proof no.
Mr President…
What do you know and when will you know it?
a brain enema?
Something along those lines, yes. 🙂
In some cases, I think people do a good job of brainwashing themselves into believing something that has no basis in reality. Believing our government would want 9/11 would be one of those times. 9/11 was a matter of convience for Bush in terms of having an excuse for the Iraq war; if it wasn’t 9/11, he would’ve found another excuse.
But when it comes to the (many) reasons we went to Iraq over the last few years, Bush continues to trot out things like the 9/11 connection, or Al Qaeda connection, or WMD. He’s preaching to the choir, because the rest of us woke up long ago.
Obviously, Bush was not president at the time this was written, if that gives it any more legitimacy in anyone’s eyes.
Well, just so we’re clear: yes, I know that much of this intelligence with Saddam goes back to Clinton’s days.
Which just means Clinton’s assessment of Iraq was as wrong as Bush’s assessment; Clinton just never tried to take us to war over it.
Evidence yes, proof no.
And evidence, in this case, is in the eye of the beholder.
To some, 20 year old shells are the smoking gun of Saddam’s ready-to-destroy-the-US arsenal.
To me? Well it’s proof of the fact we shouldn’t be giving WMD’s to foreign powers ruled by unstable dictators.
But at every step of the way, somebody has been out there saying “umm, you know, that’s not been substantiated” or something along those lines.
What’s also been shown, in all of this, is how bad our intelligence network is, regardless of whether some Administration plans to ignore the intelligence from that network.
Mr. Bush – Luke K. Walsh, SUNY Oswego Oswegonian. Why do you consider it so preferable to throw leftover materials from in-vitro fertilization into the trash, rather than use them for stem cell research, that you exercised your veto power for the first and only time in over six years in office to preserve that status quo?
Luke K. Walsh — my beautiful girlfriend, Jeannie, is an Oswego alum! Go Oswegonians! Or something like that.
Oops, I said I would only post questions to President Bush in this blog. I broke my vow and now I will burn in hëll forever.
Drat.
Mr. President: Having just delivered yet another Special Comment aimed directly at the tragedy that has been your administration, do you think Keith Olbermann is the Murrow of our time?
American’s gave Small Pox-laden blankets to the Indians.
The CIA provided drugs to the inner city residents.
The US secretly worked with Noriega for years before they arrested him.
The US provided guns and training to Osama.
And so many other things.
Is it any wonder that over 25% of today’s American populace believes that the US government had some involvement in 9/11?
———————–
Mr. President, where do you find all these people who are so willing to blindly repeat your despicable lies?
Mr. President, Allyn Gibson of the Reality-Based Community here.
Reading Bob Woodward’s latest book and reviewing Richard Clarke’s testimony before the 9-11 Commission, I am struck by the multiple chances your Administration had in the months leading up to 9-11 to deliver a blow to Al-Qaeda, from implementing the Clinton Administration’s late plan to retaliate for the USS Cole bombing to George Tenet’s panicked meetings with Condi Rice and John Ashcroft in early July 2001, but these were all chances that were missed, chances that allowed the 9-11 plot to continue and ultimately execute. Had Al Gore become President in 2001, these chances to thwart Al-Qaeda would not have been missed–the Cole retaliation would have gone forward, the information that led to John Ashcroft avoiding public air transportation post-July 2001 might have had traction beyond a few Cabinet secretaries. It’s conceivable, Mr. President, that the events of 9-11 would have have happened.
Had you known at the time what you know now, would you have held off on your lawsuit to prevent the Florida recount in the full knowledge that Al Gore, not you, would become President in January 2001 if that meant that three thousand Americans would not have died in September 2001 because of your Administration’s incompetance?
Bill Mulligan,
In as much as I’m replying in a debate, yes, my nerves are touched. Debating, meet Bill Mulligan. Bill Mulligan, meet debating. I believe you are acquainted with De’s cousin, Mastur.
Now, you were first drawn in on this because I made a specious statement concerning you and Jerry C. I’m embarrassed. I now apologize for that. I don’t reserve the right to continue to mischaracterize your intentions again.
How do you make your point that I made a specious statement? Referring to me you said:
Bill Mulligan, you are no less “humorless, snide, not nearly as smart as [you] think [you] are” than anyone you care to criticize. In the future, please try to use analogies that don’t also apply to yourself.
Sigh… I had really hoped Peter would settle the whole “to debate or not to debate in this thread issue.” But, y’know, I bet he’s got better things to do and we’re all adults here. If I stray a bit from the original intent of this thread — well, there are far worse transgressions.
Mikey, I think I speak for a number of posters here when I say: bored now. You’re one for the “ignore pile.”
Bill Myers, just because I was referring to you, that doesn’t mean I was talking to you. What’s your problem?
You were the one who imposed the standard of substance and logic into this who deal. Are you also speaking for other posters when you withdraw the application of your stated principles for your own convenience, Billy? (Which rhymes with hypocrisy.)
Wow, Peter David doesn’t know that judge and president are two different jobs and that one of those is *gasp* supposed to be ‘activist’. What a surprise! (Hint: it’s not the judge.)
(Hint: it’s not the judge.)
Hint: activist is not synonymous with “decisions I don’t like.”
What measure of activist would exclude decisions like LOVING v. VIRGINIA?
Jon Meltzer: I have the magician James “The Amazing” Randi here. Will you grant him full access to your debate and press preparation, so that those charges can be evaluated by a professional?
Luigi Novi: Hmph. That’s the least of the things about Bush that Randi could debunk.
Me, I wanna see Randi debunk the trick Bush does where he takes the Iraq-shaped spoon and bends it until it looks like a pile of WMD’s.
American’s gave Small Pox-laden blankets to the Indians.
The CIA provided drugs to the inner city residents.
The US secretly worked with Noriega for years before they arrested him.
The US provided guns and training to Osama.
And so many other things.
Is it any wonder that over 25% of today’s American populace believes that the US government had some involvement in 9/11?
Well, yes. Those other facts, while interesting, have nothing to do with it. One could just as easily list a bunch of Saddam atrocities and claim it makes it no surprise that he was behind 9/11. Illogical.
Besides, I though the smallpox blanket bit was not entirely certain. It’s well known but not well documented. And has it been proven that the CIA gave drugs to inner city residents? I remember the accusation but not any proof of such.
In as much as I’m replying in a debate, yes, my nerves are touched. Debating, meet Bill Mulligan. Bill Mulligan, meet debating. I believe you are acquainted with De’s cousin, Mastur.
Whoo hoo! Oh my sides! (wipes a tear of mirth from eye).
Bill Mulligan, you are no less “humorless, snide, not nearly as smart as [you] think [you] are” than anyone you care to criticize. In the future, please try to use analogies that don’t also apply to yourself.
Wow, that’s the best comeback since I heard one kid say to the other “No, YOU suck.” See, he turned it right around on the guy! And it was the emphasis on the “you” that really sold it.
But you’ve certainly put the lie to any accusations that you are “humorless”. I expect there’s a lot of us laughing right now.
Billy? (Which rhymes with hypocrisy.)
ZING! In your face Myers! Back away, friend, this guy is more than we can handle…
Wow, Peter David doesn’t know that judge and president are two different jobs and that one of those is *gasp* supposed to be ‘activist’. What a surprise!
The president’s job is to sign bills into law, or to veto them.
Unfortunately, Bush had decided to hijack the legislature (who’s job it really is to make laws) by using signing statements to ignore the law. The president does not make law, yet that is what Bush’s signing statements do.
Bush is, indeed, an ‘activist’ in the worst way with his abuses of the signing statements.
And, yeah, I’d say even the legislative branch can be ‘activist’ as well if their only response to a situation is entirely and utterly knee-jerk, like what happened with Terry Schiavo, where they attempted to take what a was a state matter and hijack it for their own political agenda on the federal level.
Oh, man, the Terry Schiavo comment reminded me of a question I’d like to ask:
President Bush, you have in the past stated that you believe in the sanctity of marriage, and yet you (and your brother Jeb) attempted to step in and overturn that sanctity in the case of Terry Schiavo. Are you, yourself, willing to allow Congress to overturn any decisions that you or your wife might make in similar situations?
Mr. President,
Is Jenna currently unattached?
“Also, on the WMDs, the burden of proof was NOT on Bush. It was on Saddam, to PROVE that he had no WMDs, no WMD programs, no WMD materials. He reapeatedly cheated and lied and evaded on that. “
So much for that old ‘innocent until proven guilty’ nonsense then….
Cheers
Craig, that’s a fair description of the President’s legislative duties. But he is mainly responsible for EXECUTING the laws. The government agencies that carry out and enforce the law are all under the Executive Branch, and that is headed up by the President.
Peter, Saddam was not entitled to the “innocent until proven guilty” standard. For one, that is just in relation to civilian law, not international. For another, he had admitted guilt and agreed to certain conditions in exchange for the end of hostilities. To complete the metaphor, he was a convicted felon on parole, and had to continually re-establish his “innocence.”
Are you arguing that requiring parolees to submit to drug testing and other conditions is also unfair? Do you really want to give felons “the presumption of innocence” while they are still serving their sentence?
J.
Mr. President, I still can’t find my other blue sock. Where is it, Mr. President? Like Adlai Stevenson said to the Soviet representative to the U.N. on Oct. 25, 1962, “I am prepared to wait for my answer until Hëll freezes over!”
Or until this thread is bumped off the front page by newer threads. One or the other.
Bill Mulligan,
I never said I wasn’t humorless. You’re the one who turned all humor-police in this thread, not me. You tell me I’m not funny, it sucks to be me. You tell me I’m not funny when you aren’t funny yourself — that’s sheltering a predatory agenda. What defense is there against that?
“sheltering a predatory agenda”???
You are taking this WAY too seriously. Really.
But feel free to get the last word in, though I don’t think there’s anything of much value left to say in this exchange.
“Wow, Peter David doesn’t know that judge and president are two different jobs and that one of those is *gasp* supposed to be ‘activist’. What a surprise! (Hint: it’s not the judge.)”
Mr. President, a follow up: I’m specifically referencing the oath of office which reads, “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Since the authors of the oath of office felt so strongly about the constitution that they used three words (preserve, protect, defend) that mean pretty much the same thing, would you say they were trying to convey the notion that the LAST thing a president should be doing is being an activist vis a vis constitutional change or undermining the Bill of Rights?
PAD
That is my understanding of why it’s bad to hold people to principles you don’t live by yourself: because it shelters predatory agendas.
If you don’t like that explanation, give us something else to think. If I’m wrong, it shouldn’t be too hard. Or give us the virtues of hypocrisy. You can save Mark Foley’s political career.
Mr President, how many finger am I holding up?
Mr. President, if the institution of marriage is so sacred that we need a constitutional amendment to make it illegal for homosexuals to be married, how do you explain the staggering number of marriages that end in divorce? And why has more not been done to either change the divorce laws to make it more difficult to get a divorce, or else attempt to create a constitutional amendment to make it illegal to get a divorce?
Yo Bush, I mean, Mr. President! Rob Brown again. Mr. David there reminded me of another question that had somehow slipped my mind.
You’ve gone on the record as being against “activist judges” who seek to change the law as it’s currently written. But you have also made no secret of the fact that in your ideal world, the Roe v. Wade decision would be overturned and abortions would be illegal. I ask you now sir, if the Supreme Court one day overturns Roe v. Wade, will you publicly denounce and criticize them as “activist judges”?
(One more thing, to “Jay Tea”. You say Peter, Saddam was not entitled to the “innocent until proven guilty” standard. For one, that is just in relation to civilian law, not international. Listen pal. The idea behind “innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt” is to make ABSOLUTELY sure that an innocent person doesn’t suffer for a crime they didn’t commit. Now, if the life of one person is important enough to use that standard, then surely the lives of tens or hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians are also important enough. Because when war is declared, we are not talking about the fate of one person, we are talking about the fate of a whole COUNTRY full of people! Understand?)
Posted by: Rob Brown at October 24, 2006 10:06 AM
(One more thing, to “Jay Tea”. You say Peter, Saddam was not entitled to the “innocent until proven guilty” standard. For one, that is just in relation to civilian law, not international. Listen pal. The idea behind “innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt” is to make ABSOLUTELY sure that an innocent person doesn’t suffer for a crime they didn’t commit. Now, if the life of one person is important enough to use that standard, then surely the lives of tens or hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians are also important enough. Because when war is declared, we are not talking about the fate of one person, we are talking about the fate of a whole COUNTRY full of people! Understand?)
I was, and continue to be, as opposed to the ill-advised invasion of Iraq as anyone. Your premise, however, is incorrect. As Jay Tea correctly pointed out, Iraq was indeed in violation of the terms of its 1991 surrender to the United States, and also in violation of U.N. resolutions. Therefore, Jay Tea’s parolee analogy is apt: Iraq was not entitled to a “presumption of innocence.”
By the way, I’m sure Jay Tea understands you, as do I. You’re conflating disagreement with a lack of understanding.
Mind you, just because we had the legal authority to invade Iraq doesn’t mean we were required to do so, and I still believe the invasion was ill-advised. While it is true that the “international community” by and large also believed Saddam had WMDs, that same community by and large also wanted to allow more time for inspections to work. Moreover, members of the U.S. intelligence community complained that Bush had politicized intelligence, and ignored intelligence that cast significant doubt on the existence of WMDs. He also ignored the advice of many experienced, high-ranking military leaders, such as Gen. Colin Powell — one of the architects of the first Gulf War. Powell is no “dove,” and if he had misgivings about a second invasion of Iraq, that should’ve given Bush pause.
We are not talking about 20-20 hindsight. There were plenty of clear reasons not to invade Iraq again, and they were apparent before the decision was made.
Rob, there were many reasons why we shouldn’t have invaded Iraq. “Presumption of innocence,” however, was not one of them.
I was all set to argue with Jay about drug testing parolees until I read the post AGAIN and realized that we would be arguing the same point.
Bill Myers–I have your other blue sock! I will hold it in custody until it tells me what I want to know! Don’t bother trying to find my secret lair, unless you’re on I-95 and you see the exit ramp to my secret lair. Gotta get that thing taken down.
Mr. President, I saw in an interview recently that you use your faith to make decisions. It’s also been well-documented that you pay little to no attention to newspapers or broadcast journalism. My question is why is it that you can jusitfy making decisons based on your faith and your faith in your advisors and place so LITTLE faith in they who observe and report on the events around you?
Sean Scullion, the only thing that sock will tell you is that my feet stink. If you value your health, burn that dámņ thing.
Mr. President, Den Wilson, taxpayer and voter here, given that the past six years of near-total Republican dominance of the federal government has resulted in a new round of exploding deficits, does your party have any credibility left as the party of fiscal conservatism?
As a follow-up, your supporters continue to blame every mistep and disaster of the past six years on the Clinton administration, how do you square that with your party’s traditional view of itself as the party of personal responsibility?
Also, how do you square your recent statements that our troops will be in Iraq well into the next administration with pre-invasion statements by Ðìçk Cheney, Paul Wolfovitz, and Donald Rumsfeld that the invasion and occupation would be over in less that six months?
I am holding a map of the world, please point out where North Korea is.
Would you care to comment on the rumors that Ðìçk Cheney is a Sith Lord and that the majority of his body has been replaced by cybernetic enhancements?
Final question, on the domestic side, of three points that you campaigned on as the important points on your domestic agenda during the 2000 election: the faith-based initiatives, No Child Left Behind, and privatizing Social Security, which one would you say was the least abject failure?
Sorry, but just one more thing: Recently, you’ve said that “we’ve never been about ‘stay the course'”. However, we have you and members of the administration on videotape saying some variation of “we need to stay the course”. How do you square this apparent contradiction with reality?
Also, what are our goals in Iraq this week?
Mind you, just because we had the legal authority to invade Iraq doesn’t mean we were required to do so, and I still believe the invasion was ill-advised. While it is true that the “international community” by and large also believed Saddam had WMDs, that same community by and large also wanted to allow more time for inspections to work. Moreover, members of the U.S. intelligence community complained that Bush had politicized intelligence, and ignored intelligence that cast significant doubt on the existence of WMDs. He also ignored the advice of many experienced, high-ranking military leaders, such as Gen. Colin Powell — one of the architects of the first Gulf War. Powell is no “dove,” and if he had misgivings about a second invasion of Iraq, that should’ve given Bush pause.
Moreover, Bush and his cronies pretty much banned ANY planning for handling Iraq post-invasion. And filled the governance team with people who had no expertise in recovery, public health or reconstruction, but only with folks who were party loyalists:
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2006/10/stunning_incompetence_in_iraq.php#c246764
Hm. Mr. President, how is this different from Hussein or any other Third World ruler?
As Jay Tea correctly pointed out, Iraq was indeed in violation of the terms of its 1991 surrender to the United States, and also in violation of U.N. resolutions. Therefore, Jay Tea’s parolee analogy is apt: Iraq was not entitled to a “presumption of innocence.”
Rob, there were many reasons why we shouldn’t have invaded Iraq. “Presumption of innocence,” however, was not one of them.
Let’s say that we presume Iraq isn’t an imminent threat, then, until there is concrete evidence of it. I don’t think anybody believes Saddam to be innocent of everything he’s been charged with, but the question back then wasn’t “Is Saddam Hussein innocent of any and all wrongdoing?” The question was “Is Saddam Hussein getting ready to attack us or our allies?”
This is an argument I’ve heard many times: that even if there were no WMD aimed at innocent people with Saddam’s finger on the button, Iraq was still thumbing its nose at the UN and assuming there would be no consequences. “We couldn’t let them just get away with it,” people have told me.
In a perfect world, yes, they would have to follow the rules. But if the only alternative to letting Iraq get away with it was to invade, occupy and have the deaths of many, many civilians on our heads…then I prefer letting them get away with it. Otherwise you’re throwing a whole nation into chaos as punishment for the actions of its leader. No Democratic candidate seems willing to say the following because they’re afraid of how it’ll make them look, but I believe it to be true so I’ll say it:
“As bad as Saddam was, Iraq is worse off right now than it was when he was still in power, and the fault for that rests squarely on the Bush administration.”
Let’s compare this to a dispute between individuals instead of nations. Let’s say you lend somebody a CD. After a couple months, you ask for it back. They flip you off and refuse to return it. So what do you do? Do you beat the person up with a baseball bat? Do you break into their apartment and ransack it to get your property? We know that’s not acceptable behaviour for an individual, and similar behaviour by a nation shouldn’t be any more acceptable.
This is an argument I’ve heard many times: that even if there were no WMD aimed at innocent people with Saddam’s finger on the button, Iraq was still thumbing its nose at the UN and assuming there would be no consequences. “We couldn’t let them just get away with it,” people have told me.
Given how many times Bush has also thumbed his nose at international agreements (most recently, his declaration that all previous agreements not to weaponize space are null and void), doesn’t that seem a bit hypocritical?
Here’s what I never got about the WMD’s: From what I remember, the whole deal with Saddam and the inspectors was that the inspectors would want to inspect a location and Saddam would stall and stall and then finally let the inspectors in (to find nothing of real interest). The U.S. position was that this was so that Saddam could move the dangerous materials that were being used to make the WMD’s or move the WMD’s themselves to a new location.
Now, Powell in his UN speech before the invasion had these satellite pictures that supposedly showed WMD factories and this, that, and the other that showed (that PROVED) that Saddam had a working WMD program. I was always a bit confused how if the U.S. had this proof and the satellite technology to basically spy on a location that was suspect, then why couldn’t the U.S. pass that information along to the inspectors and observe whether trucks and such strangely moved out from that location when the inspectors started to show up.
It always seemed to me that Saddam just wanted to be a “Big Dog” in the arab world and so used the UN inspectors to appear as though he was hiding the technology to make WMD’s, when he no longer had that capability (whether through the inspections or not being able to get raw materials, etc., I don’t know). I think he loved the attention and notoriety that the inspections gave him because it gave him greater status in the region. Basically, the big dog was more like a toy poodle. During Bush Sr.’s term he was a big dog, but after…?
Posted by: Rob Brown at October 24, 2006 12:39 PM
Let’s say that we presume Iraq isn’t an imminent threat, then, until there is concrete evidence of it.
In a world where rogue states and stateless terrorist organizations could conceivably get their hands on a nuclear bomb, a supply of live smallpox, or some other devastating weapon, I’m not sure that’s a wise posture to take. If we had actually had intelligence that suggested that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were collaborating as the Bush administration claimed (which we didn’t, but if we did) I would have been on the bandwagon for invading Iraq again.
My choice of the word “suggested” was very deliberate. In the case of a nation like Iraq, which had a history of using weapons of mass destruction against its neighbors and was in violation of the terms of its 1991 surrender, the burden of proof should rest on the accused.
The appalling thing about our invasion of Iraq was not a lack of “concrete evidence.” It was a lack of any persuasive evidence that Iraq was a threat. Yes, the international community thought Iraq had WMDs. But the intelligence community wasn’t as sure. And, y’know, that’s the thing about covert intelligence — you don’t always broadcast it far and wide. There was plenty of reason to doubt that Iraq was a threat. The “evidence” tying Iraq to Al Qaeda was thinner than thin. There were CIA people who questioned whether Iraq had been able to resume its WMD program.
My point? You’re advocating that we play it safe. In today’s world, that’s not possible. Sometimes you have to roll the dice. But the risks we take should be calculated. The problem with Iraq was not that we took a risk, it’s that we took a foolish risk and we had every reason to know better.
Posted by: Rob Brown at October 24, 2006 12:39 PM
In a perfect world, yes, they would have to follow the rules. But if the only alternative to letting Iraq get away with it was to invade, occupy and have the deaths of many, many civilians on our heads…then I prefer letting them get away with it.
That’s a wonderful thought, but you’re forgetting that sometimes doing nothing can lead to the “deaths of many civilians.” Often there are no easy choices, and whether you act or not you can end up with blood on your hands. Remember Neville Chamberlain?
In the case of Iraq, however, there was an alternative: to continue our policy of containment. It turned out that it was working, as evidenced by Saddam’s inability to resume his WMD program.
Posted by: Rob Brown at October 24, 2006 12:39 PM
Otherwise you’re throwing a whole nation into chaos as punishment for the actions of its leader.
That’s a lovely sentiment, but it’s too simplistic. If a nation ruled by a dictator is a threat, it would be foolish in the extreme to choose not to combat that threat because it would be “unfair to those people who are being forced to do the dictator’s bidding.” Life doesn’t always provide one with nice, clean options. Sometimes you end up with blood on your hands no matter what.
Posted by: Rob Brown at October 24, 2006 12:39 PM
“As bad as Saddam was, Iraq is worse off right now than it was when he was still in power, and the fault for that rests squarely on the Bush administration.”
It does, if you believe that the people of Iraq are inferior to us and unable to take responsibility for their choices. We toppled Saddam Hussein’s regime, but that didn’t force the insurgents to do what they did. They made their choices, as we did ours.
That said, the bloodbath that Iraq has become was an entirely forseeable consequence of our invasion. Our current administration’s unwillingness to plan for an insurgent war was unconsionable and unforgiveable.
Posted by: Rob Brown at October 24, 2006 12:39 PM
Let’s compare this to a dispute between individuals instead of nations. Let’s say you lend somebody a CD. After a couple months, you ask for it back. They flip you off and refuse to return it. So what do you do? Do you beat the person up with a baseball bat? Do you break into their apartment and ransack it to get your property? We know that’s not acceptable behaviour for an individual, and similar behaviour by a nation shouldn’t be any more acceptable.
The problem with your analogy is that the harm caused by the theft of a CD is negligible when compared with the misery that a nation like Iraq had caused. Moreover, the petty crime of refusing to return a CD is easily prevented in the future by refusing to lend that person any more of one’s property. The situation in Iraq was, and is, far more complicated with far higher stakes.
Kiefer, I’ve felt that Saddam may have felt it was in his best interest to appear to still have working WMDs. Maybe he thought he was safe from invasion if we believed he’d use them on our troops. Maybe the delays were just about him saving face in the Arab world. Maybe he thought all he had to do was wait out a few more years of inspections and then he’d have a free reign to reconstitute his WMD programs. Either way, it’s clear now that he didn’t have a working arsenal in March 2003.
But yes, the real crime was this administration’s criminal negligence in planning for a post-Saddam insurgency. Hëll, for the first several months, they wouldn’t even admit there was an insurgency. It was just “stuff happens”. I have no faith in their ability to “turn the corner” just by “staying the course”.
Okay, i’ve got a question, not for Bush, but for all the reporters that cover Bush. Why aren’t you asking any of these questions?
We toppled Saddam Hussein’s regime, but that didn’t force the insurgents to do what they did.
True, but the insurgents aren’t responsible for the bombing of hospitals, or the lack of water and electricity.
As for the insurgency, We hold planty of responsibility for it because we toppled a stable government and disbanded it’s military & police forces. The insurgency would be a minor problem of the invasion planning consisted of more than “Let’s get Saddam & let the Iraqi people throw flowers & candy at us”.
As for the insurgency, We hold planty of responsibility for it because we toppled a stable government and disbanded it’s military & police forces. The insurgency would be a minor problem of the invasion planning consisted of more than “Let’s get Saddam & let the Iraqi people throw flowers & candy at us”.
The latter point cannot be emphasized enough. NO planning was done for post invasion Iraq; in fact, planning was actively discouraged. And known experts in public health and reconstruction were repeatedly purged in favor of cronies and political friends, whose ideas were not, in any way, tempered by real world experience.
Why are we tolerating this?