The WMD argument was probably not the best one to highlight in the attempt to simplify and focus the debate. It was never a big one for me. But to pretend that it was the only argument, that it was presented as absolute and definitive, and that it was a lie that was the sole justification for an “illegal” war is just bullshit.

J.

Really?

Condoleeza Rice (responding to Blix’s claim of no WMDs in Iraq):
“The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.”

Dick Cheney:
“And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons”

These were a patently ridiculous statements, meant to spread the idea that Iraq was a clear and present threat, but there were many others (my favorite was the claim that nuclear bombs on Iraqi aircraft drones could hit US soil, though I can’t remember who said it). Other violations by Saddam were clearly in all the legislation authorizing sanctions or war with Iraq, but in the court of public opinion, the major arguments were 1) WMDs (and specifically a nuke) and 2) Iraqi involvement in 9/11.

The Clinton bombings were justified, but all they did was convince Saddam to back off a little and work more subtly — not genuinely change his ways. He had almost bribed his way out of the sanctions when 9/11 happened, and he was nearly back to that point when we invaded.

You are absolutely right, there was no clear and present danger. I don’t recall that being tossed around at the time. On the contrary, the argument was to deal with him BEFORE he became a clear and present danger.

J.

I said nothing about WMD and I placed blame on both parties, and the American citizenry as well. Nothing you said even speaks to my point: we chose to go to war with Iraq. There was no clear and present threat, no immediate need. I believe strongly that the Iraq war is a disgrace to this country’s legacy, and we are all responsible for allowing it to happen. All of us (R), (D), (I) and whatever other parties you want to shove into parenthesis.

As for Clinton’s bombings of Iraq, it would be helpful if you used analogies that actually analogized. Clinton launched air strikes. The 2nd Iraq was involved invasion and occupation. They are not similar in any ways save the country was Iraq and the U.S. military was involved.

No, I’m sorry, he doesn’t. He gets all the blame for the first Iraq War, but he did nothing to provoke the second.

We chose to go to war with Iraq. Choice brings with it responsibility. The responsibility for that choice rests on those in charge when the decision was made. That goes especially for President Bush, but also to both houses of Congress and the American people, who went along without serious complaint for too long.

Zython added:

SaveFarris, if that’s the case, then why didn’t they use that reason back in 2002, instead of the whole WMD schtick? Seems like backtracking to me.

Gentlemen, might I invite you to read the actual Authorization passed by Congress? (frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ243.107)

From the Wikipedia summary:

The resolution cited many factors to justify the use of military force against Iraq:[2][3]

* Iraq’s noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors.
* Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a “threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region.”
* Iraq’s “brutal repression of its civilian population.”
* Iraq’s “capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people”.
* Iraq’s hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the alleged 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.
* Members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq.
* Iraq’s “continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations,” including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
* The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, including the September 11th, 2001 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them.
* The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.
* Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.

Passed with 215 Republicans and 82 Democrats in the House, 48 Republicans and 29 Democrats in the Senate all voting aye. Or, if you like, 297-133, 77-23.

The canard that the war was solely sold on saying that Saddam indisputably had WMDs is a lie, pushed by those who don’t want to admit that the arguments the Bush administration largely echoed those made by the Clinton administration to justify its attacks on Iraq over the years — and were even more valid in 2002 than they were in 1996 and 1998.

J.

Or, if SaveFarris et al do want to say Saddam is responsible for bringing the invasion on himself (because we had to go in and save all those abused Iraqi citizens?) then by that standard the US carries blame for deaths in all the OTHER oppressed countries where we have chosen not to invade.

No, I’m sorry, he doesn’t. He gets all the blame for the first Iraq War, but he did nothing to provoke the second.

Before you get there: I’m well aware of his human rights violations and support of violent fringe groups. He is not alone in this behavior. As the majority of violent dictators are not only still in power but their countries have not been occupied for 6 years, this does not stand as motivation.

We chose to go to war with Iraq. Choice brings with it responsibility. The responsibility for that choice rests on those in charge when the decision was made. That goes especially for President Bush, but also to both houses of Congress and the American people, who went along without serious complaint for too long.

I guess we’re just ignoring the previous 17 years of UN violations and broken peace accords then. Does Saddam get *ANY* blame for the Iraq war?

Jay Tea: The principle isn’t the same. I mean, I’m not saying you can’t blame some of those presidents for some of those acts, but the only two that resemble this situation are the Bay of Pigs and Iran. Iran because we had spent years before propping up unpopular leadership until the extremists in that nation got strong enough to topple it. And Cuba because launching the Bay of Pigs attack was a poor, poor idea.

He is not to blame for “decades of oppression and suffering” though as Kennedy neither started the policies regarding Cuba nor was around long enough to have anything to do with what happened decades later.

On the other hand, the whole of the Iraq War happened under President Bush’s watch. So no, the principle is not the same.

J.

The principle seems the same…

J.