Controversy!

New reader Joe writes:

George W. Bush made a lot of mistakes in the Iraq war, but they are not what you may think. The war with Iraq was ABSOLUTELY necessary. I just wish that Bush had never mentioned WMD. He didn’t need it. As soon as Iraq told the weapons inspectors to get out we should have bombed them then, without hesitation just for stopping the weapons inspections.

Iraq lost the Gulf War, and one of their agreements was that our weapons inspectors could inspect until WE were satisfied. That never happened. Of course Iraq was part of the 9/11 attack. What part of “Death to America? don’t you understand.

We told Saddam that his military could fly in Iraq as long as it was not in either of the “no fly zones.? He used that loophole to attack his own citizens from the air when they tried to overthrow him, and we did nothing about it. We should have. In the long run it would have saved more lives, just like when Clinton FINALLY sent troops into the former Yugoslavia. It finally ended the bloodshed.

In Iraq, we didn’t send in enough troops and we didn’t attack Syria and Iran with EVERYTHING short of nuclear weapons. Those would have been okay too, if there weren’t so many other countries that also have nuclear weapons. You don’t get peace by talking; you get peace by being strong.

So here I am criticizing the Bush administration just like most of the bloggers I’ve read, its just from the other side of the fence. I guess maybe that’s what blogs are best at after all…venting.

My rebuttal:

Well, let’s get started, not that any of this will make a difference.

As soon as Iraq told the weapons inspectors to get out we should have bombed them then, without hesitation just for stopping the weapons inspections.

Right out of the gate we have a problem. Here’s what Scott Ritter, who headed some of these inspection teams, has to say about this:

With Berger facing one last opportunity for decisive military action, Butler was instructed to organize inspection activity designed to provoke Iraq into breaking its agreement to cooperate fully with UNSCOM.

Deliberately controversial inspection sites would be selected using intelligence provided by the United States and Britain. The most provocative act, however, would be left to UNSCOM; without consulting the Security Council, and acting at the behest of the United States, Butler declared that the sensitive site modalities were null and void.

During a Dec. 8, 1998 meeting with UNSCOM inspectors in Baghdad, the Iraqis were notified of the nullification of the sensitive site modalities, expressing shock at this declaration. The following day, when UNSCOM, inspectors attempted to gain entry to a Ba’ath Party headquarters in downtown Baghdad, the Iraqis invited them in, providing the sensitive site modalities applied. The inspectors refused, saying the modalities no longer were in effect. Iraq then denied the team access, and the inspectors were withdrawn from the site.

On Dec. 11, 1998, while inspectors still were working in Iraq, Butler again met with Berger to discuss how best to frame Butler’s report to the Security Council regarding Iraq’s level of cooperation with the inspectors.

Following this meeting, in which both Butler and Berger had decided that the Iraqi blockage of inspectors at the Ba’ath Party site was damning enough to justify a U.S. military strike — despite the fact that as the two men spoke, Iraq was providing inspectors with immediate access to a series of sensitive security installations.

In order to prevent an accumulation of further in stances of Iraqi cooperation, Butler, acting on Berger’s ad vice, ordered the inspection team withdrawn from Iraq.

Berger reported the intended tone of the Butler report to President Clinton, who was at that time in Israel.

The president, on Sunday Dec. 13, 1998, gave the orders for a military strike against Iraq.

On Monday, in keeping with the script, Butler drafted his report to the Security Council about Iraq’s cooperation with the work of UNSCOM.

Once the language had been fine tuned to U.S. specifications, Butler released the report to the Security Council members and the secretary general. That evening — under direct orders from the acting U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, and in violation of the assurances he had given France and Russia that no such action would be made without consulting the Security Council — Butler ordered all UNSCOM inspectors withdrawn from Iraq.

Even though the current script says that “Saddam kicked out the inspectors,” even the State Department denies this:

Myth: UNSCOM inspectors behaved badly and deserved to be thrown out of Iraq.

Fact: The inspectors were not thrown out of Iraq. Iraq’s obstructionism and refusal to cooperate with the weapons inspectors, who were carrying out a UN Security Council mandate, prevented the inspectors from fulfilling their mission and they had no choice but to leave.

The thing that I find interesting about this line, that Saddam had to be punished for violating United Nations resolutions, is that in no other way do any of the President’s supporters seem to care about the UN. Sending John Bolton as Ambassador pretty much sums up how the Conservatives feel about the UN when that organization isn’t a convenient excuse for them.

Meanwhile, other countries such as Israel continue to defy UN resolutions and I’m sure no one over there is worried about U.S. bombers showing up any time soon.

I just wish that Bush had never mentioned WMD. He didn’t need it.

And yet he did. Over and over again. He mentioned it despite plenty of people telling him it wasn’t true. He had to bring it up because the UN Resolution argument was so weak. His PNAC handlers wanted Saddam’s head, and they were going to get it, by any means necessary.

And now we know that this information was false. Actually, some of us, who were actually paying attention to what those naysayers were saying at the time knew all along the WMDs weren’t there. But shucks, by that time it didn’t matter; we were already got the war we wanted.

Should we investigate whether or not pre-war intelligence was misused by the Administration? Nah, that’s “on the back burner”, according to Senate Intelligence Committee Pat Roberts (R-KS). No hurry on finding out if the administration lied to the public. Especially when so much of the public doesn’t seem to care.

Of course Iraq was part of the 9/11 attack. What part of “Death to America” don’t you understand.

Even your President denies this. (Granted, he does so within the context of denying he ever said Iraq WAS tied to 9/11, which he and his people most certainly did.) Osama bin Ladin and the Taliban were behind the attack. Exactly zero of the hijackers were from Iraq. Fifteen of them were from Saudi Arabia, who we are still very good friends with (despite this fact and despite the fact that they too are a repressive regime with little concept of human rights.) While I believe Saddam certain didn’t mind the attack on America, there is absolutely no evidence that he was connected to it. None.

In Iraq, we didn’t send in enough troops and we didn’t attack Syria and Iran with EVERYTHING short of nuclear weapons. Those would have been okay too, if there weren’t so many other countries that also have nuclear weapons. You don’t get peace by talking; you get peace by being strong.

And what had Iran and Syria done at that point? They weren’t involved in 9/11 either. Nor were they connected with any of Iraq’s UN Resolutions. Just because they’re there and convenient to bomb? Do we just start bombing and not stop until everyone else cries “Uncle Sam”? How do you settle your everyday affairs, by constantly threatening violence to everyone around you? Were you wanting France bombed too, for not wanting to play along?

Your diatribe is shocking, not just for the amount of information you are simply wrong on, but for the limits to which you’re willing to go because of it. It’s hard to take seriously the idea of Memorial Day being a sort of patriotic holiday, when so many of our current patriots have no memory to speak of.

This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Controversy!

  1. Joe Giarratano says:

    Dave, of course you are quite right. None of this makes any difference. However, for the sake of form…

    First of all, Scott Ritter is an asshole who has always had his own agenda, and anything that starts with the words, “Scott Ritter said,” has no meaning in reality. All this mumbo jumbo about “modality” etc. is also meaningless.

    What matters is that Iraq lost Gulf War I. We did not pursue Saddam’s forces back to Baghdad which was the sin of George H. W. Bush. He could have ended the whole thing and saved countless more lives and not left it to kids who 10 years later would have to go back and clean up the mess he left. For our forebearance we should be able to look anywhere in Iraq anytime for as long as we want. They lost their sovereignty when they lost the war. Whether you call it being “kicked out” or “lack of cooperation” it means the same thing. We didn’t get what we wanted, so they get what they should have gotten 10 years earlier.

    Once again you are right. Bush DID mention WMD over and over as if he needed some other excuse to bomb Iraq. It just shows what a wimp Bush is, and his wimpishness in trying to run a war while at the same time trying to throw his critics some acknowledgement just costs more lives. Once it is time to fight, time for listening to critics is over, regardless of what it does to your polls. If he had gone in with sufficient troops and handled Iraq like we handled Japan after World War II, it would be over by now.

    Of course Iraq was part of the 9/11 attack. My point is that EVERY SINGLE INDIVIDUAL, whether they live in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Israel or the UNITED STATES, who says “Death to America” was part of the 9/11 attack. You don’t need to find “minutes to the meeting” or birth certificates to know this. “Death to America” means we are for ANYTHING that kills Americans, even flying commercial jets into buildings no matter WHO actually does the flying.

    Iraq isn’t the only one, they were just next in line. We still need to go after Iran and Syria because they also want to kill Americans. You don’t need a nexus to defend yourself from mortal enemies. You just kill them before they kill you, and they WILL kill you if they can, even if you are against the war in Iraq. They don’t care. That’s why we shouldn’t care.

    The U.N., of course, is at best a joke, and at worst an enemy of the United States. We need to get OUT of the U.N. and tear down the U.N. Building in New York. I suspect that Hillary Clinton will be our next president. When that happens you will see how SHE handles the war. She will kick more ass than George Bush ever thought of. I may not like her domestic policy, but at least she is definitely NOT a wimp. I plan to vote for her.

  2. Topher says:

    Note: Please don’t feed the trolls.

    Thanks!

    The Mgt.

  3. Dave says:

    Now Topher. I’ve been in Joe’s shoe’s before. Just because you’re saying something different from the rest of folks around doesn’t make you a troll.

    So Joe, your view is that anyone who doesn’t like America needs to be bombed into submission. Iraq, Syria, and Iran to start. North Korea, I’m sure, is on the list. We need to add Saudi Arabia, if they’re supplying men and money to aid attacks. Pakistan has also helped Bin Ladin, and we’re pretty sure they’re helping him now. Venezuela is so bombed, thanks to Mr. Chavez. What about France and Germany? I bet we could add them, since they weren’t overly keen on helping us bomb Iraq in the first place. I’m not crazy about Russia right now, but I think we can let them slide for the moment. England will have to be spared; its people don’t like us much but Tony Blair is our lapdog, and that’s all that matters. India’s troubling because it’s a hotbed of Islam, and I’m sure not a few residents have said “Death to America” on occasion, but it is a good source of cheap labor. China too…on the one hand it’s supposedly Communist, but on the other hand, it’s one of our biggest economic buddies. You can make the call there. Cuba, of course, gets some bombs…that should take at most an afternoon. I know there are others I’m forgetting.

    There’s also a serious problem of actual people in America who have spoken against the land of the free. Some may have said at times, “Death to America”. Will there be camps for them or something? Do we deport them to a country we’re getting ready to bomb? What if they haven’t gone so far as to actually call for the death of America but are very opposed to America’s policies and practices? Does that count?

    Now here’s something we need to be prepared for. Although nobody should have a problem with us merely defending ourselves from people who seek to do us harm by not liking us, you know how people are. This intense bombing campaign across the globe is likely to make some of the weaker-willed nations’ opinions turn against us. I’m thinking before we’re done Canada, Turkey, and swaths of Europe and South America are going to need a lesson.

    It might take a little while, and there’s definitely going to be a lot of bombs involved, but I think once we’re done, we should have a world much better suited to America’s wants and needs.

    By the way, Joe, would you mind if I asked how old you are?

  4. David Thiel says:

    Let me take a crack at this insane troll logic.

    Say for a moment that I really, really want to punch Dave in the face. He’s been talking smack about the movie “Krull,” and I think that nothing would better show him the error of his ways than a five-finger statement of intent. Now, I’m not the only one who wants to take a poke at him–he has that effect on people–but I’ve been pretty vocal about it.

    I may not actually sock Dave in the jaw. After all, he’s several states away. Plus, he’s bigger than me. But the potential is certainly there. Whether or not I eventually do cold cock him, it’s not at all impossible that I might jump on a plane, arrive on his porch and give him the ol’ one-two.

    By the above logic, should Dave’s face ever find itself the target of someone’s meaty fist, Dave has every right to proactively punch out my lights. After all, even though I never touched him or was in any way involved in the deed, I clearly wanted it to happen. In fact, he can jet on over to Illinois, kick down my door, pound my face into hamburger and take my DVD collection.

    Okay, I get it now.

    Kill or be killed. We shouldn’t care because they don’t. They’re just a bunch of bloodthirsty fundamentalists, and we’re…?

  5. Joe Giarratano says:

    “Death to America” does not mean that you don’t “like” America. It doesn’t mean “America is wrong.” It doesn’t mean that “America should change its policies.” It means exactly what it says DEATH! If you are reported saying, “Death to the President,” as opposed to “I don’t like the President.” or “Impeach George Bush” you will be arrested and possibly convicted. So yes, everyone who says, “Death to America” in this country should be arrested, and everyone who says it outside this country should be bombed. Everything else is just lawyers talking, and Shakespeare knew what to do with lawyers.

  6. Jeff says:

    I personally don’t we why the actual words even need to be spoken. If they’re thinking it, bombs away, baby.

  7. David Thiel says:

    Why not arrest or bomb everyone who isn’t Joe Giarratano? That’d solve everthing.

  8. Charlie says:

    Not to feed the arguement or anything. Well I suppose this will feed the arguement but at least down in the lands of MS when the president comes through anyone who would protest his policies is generally sectioned off in a fenced in area so that they can be controlled “for his safety”. Seems to me that this is a step away from setting up the “camps” mentioned above.

    Hey, does this count as fodder???