Comments on: He could have done bad stuff! http://ryan.freebern.org/2004/07/12/he-could-have-done-bad-stuff design.ui.technology.art.interaction.writing.creativity.politics.environment.family Thu, 04 Dec 2008 06:38:10 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Brian http://ryan.freebern.org/2004/07/12/he-could-have-done-bad-stuff#comment-6 Brian Wed, 14 Jul 2004 13:56:36 +0000 http://ryan.freebern.org/2004/07/12/he-could-have-done-bad-stuff#comment-6 Bush made it very clear from the beginning that although Saddam might not have been a threat now (this first part was said very softly), he might be a threat in 1 or 5 or 1000 years if we didn't bomb the crap out of him. Matthew Murray is a bit disingenuous in his fury. Yes, Clinton did claim that Saddam was developing WMDs in 1998. But Clinton decided that "he needs to be taken care of" meant bombing raids not a disastrous full-fledged invasion, conquest and Occupation. Bush made it very clear from the beginning that although Saddam might not have been a threat now (this first part was said very softly), he might be a threat in 1 or 5 or 1000 years if we didn’t bomb the crap out of him.

Matthew Murray is a bit disingenuous in his fury. Yes, Clinton did claim that Saddam was developing WMDs in 1998. But Clinton decided that “he needs to be taken care of” meant bombing raids not a disastrous full-fledged invasion, conquest and Occupation.

]]> By: Ryan Freebern http://ryan.freebern.org/2004/07/12/he-could-have-done-bad-stuff#comment-5 Ryan Freebern Tue, 13 Jul 2004 18:41:58 +0000 http://ryan.freebern.org/2004/07/12/he-could-have-done-bad-stuff#comment-5 Matthew, I think maybe you missed my point. I'm saying that Bush wasn't actively trying to fool the American people into going to war. He was just eager to go to war, and the CIA's problematic intelligence gave him reason to do it. Those links do seem to provide good, concrete analyses of the report, and seem to support my point: the CIA's intelligence on WMDs in Iraq was incorrect. Bush based his argument for invading Iraq on the fact that they illegally had WMDs. Hence, the war was precipitated on faulty reasoning. I've never addressed the issue of Clinton's views on Iraq, since I've only really been paying attention to politics since the 2000 election. But I think it's perfectly fine for Clinton to have said that Saddam was developing WMDs and that he needs to be taken care of, because he didn't then proceed to use any excuse he could find to start a war, putting hundreds of thousands of people in harm's way and causing the deaths of tens of thousands of them. I object to Bush saying it now because he's just reaching for an excuse to have fought a war that shouldn't have been. At some point, he ought to just come clean and say that he was misled, that his original reasons for going to war were incorrect. Yes, it's a good thing that Saddam is out of power; you won't find many people who disagree with that. The method used to remove him from power is what's wrong. Matthew,
I think maybe you missed my point. I’m saying that Bush wasn’t actively trying to fool the American people into going to war. He was just eager to go to war, and the CIA’s problematic intelligence gave him reason to do it.

Those links do seem to provide good, concrete analyses of the report, and seem to support my point: the CIA’s intelligence on WMDs in Iraq was incorrect. Bush based his argument for invading Iraq on the fact that they illegally had WMDs. Hence, the war was precipitated on faulty reasoning.

I’ve never addressed the issue of Clinton’s views on Iraq, since I’ve only really been paying attention to politics since the 2000 election. But I think it’s perfectly fine for Clinton to have said that Saddam was developing WMDs and that he needs to be taken care of, because he didn’t then proceed to use any excuse he could find to start a war, putting hundreds of thousands of people in harm’s way and causing the deaths of tens of thousands of them.

I object to Bush saying it now because he’s just reaching for an excuse to have fought a war that shouldn’t have been. At some point, he ought to just come clean and say that he was misled, that his original reasons for going to war were incorrect. Yes, it’s a good thing that Saddam is out of power; you won’t find many people who disagree with that. The method used to remove him from power is what’s wrong.

]]> By: Matthew Murray http://ryan.freebern.org/2004/07/12/he-could-have-done-bad-stuff#comment-4 Matthew Murray Tue, 13 Jul 2004 18:14:36 +0000 http://ryan.freebern.org/2004/07/12/he-could-have-done-bad-stuff#comment-4 How interesting that you say, of Bush, that he "seems to think that if he repeats something enough, it’ll become true," when you and other people of your political persuasion do exactly the same thing. (I'd bring up the 2000 election as an example, but I can't bear to get into it again right now.) But, since it's okay for President Bill Clinton and other Democrats to state in 1998 that Saddam Hussein is developing weapons of mass destruction and he needs to be taken care of, but it's not okay for President Bush to say that in 2003, I suppose I really shouldn't be surprised. Anyway, I'd like to encourage you to read http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.asp?ref=/ledeen/ledeen200407120941.asp and http://windsofchange.net/archives/005191.php for information about what's really in the report, a fair amount of which hasn't really been accurately reported elsewhere. If you don't trust those sites (and I'm guessing you probably won't), the report itself can be found online at http://intelligence.senate.gov/iraqreport2.pdf. How interesting that you say, of Bush, that he “seems to think that if he repeats something enough, it’ll become true,” when you and other people of your political persuasion do exactly the same thing. (I’d bring up the 2000 election as an example, but I can’t bear to get into it again right now.) But, since it’s okay for President Bill Clinton and other Democrats to state in 1998 that Saddam Hussein is developing weapons of mass destruction and he needs to be taken care of, but it’s not okay for President Bush to say that in 2003, I suppose I really shouldn’t be surprised.

Anyway, I’d like to encourage you to read http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.asp?ref=/ledeen/ledeen200407120941.asp and http://windsofchange.net/archives/005191.php for information about what’s really in the report, a fair amount of which hasn’t really been accurately reported elsewhere. If you don’t trust those sites (and I’m guessing you probably won’t), the report itself can be found online at http://intelligence.senate.gov/iraqreport2.pdf.

]]>