Only mindless and politically incognizant people advance these arguments; I have seen/heard these same reasoning being advanced by die hard Bushites on various talk shows and TV shows. Regardless of all the various quotes you have listed, the fact remains, GWB is the one who ultimately responsible in launching an illegal and preemptive war on Iraq. If you, just for a moment, put aside your feelings, emotions and allow reason to govern your thinking, you may see the light. This is not about the nature of Sadam or Iraq's WMD but it is about the way GWB and the neocons sold the war to the American people and attempted to sale it to the World, the latter didn't buy it. Here is the difference between GWB and those you have quoted: While both sides agree and share the same concern on the nature of Sadam and Iraq's WMD, they didn't agree on how best to address these concerns. As we all know, GWB and the neocons were determined for regime change in Iraq before 9/11, no matter who agreed or disagreed with them. They bullied the US Congress and the UN, once again failed on the latter to gain legitimacy. So to return to your point, that is: Why condemn GWB and not the others? The act that is being condemned here is not the believe that Sadam was bad or Iraq has WMD but acting on that believe in a manner inappropriate for a just and democratic nation. No matter how you slice it, you can't convince any good-thinking person that an illegal and preemptive war against Iraq was justified.

This is not about the nature of Sadam or Iraq's WMD but it is about the way GWB and the neocons sold the war to the American people

You fail to be able to read. You must not have read how it WAS NOT ONLY GWB (as you call him) that attempted to sell all this to the American public. While it was fashionable, all the quoted people stood up and called for action, GWB is the only one THAT CAN take action. So he did. Now that it proves unpopular, those that were quoted have backed out. The President is the only one to stand up for what he said and has not backed down. The rest have selective memory loss.

While both sides agree and share the same concern on the nature of Sadam and Iraq's WMD, they didn't agree on how best to address these concerns.

OK so we agree BOTH SIDES were in agreement that he possessed WMD's and needed dealing with. Problem is I am guessing from your post you would want to sit around and wait? For what? More useless resolutions by the UN? Wait for Sadam to use the WMD's against his own people again? Kill a few thousand more? Use it against his neightbors? Give it to some terrorist to use? At least we did something. Instead of standing around with our thumbs up our collective rears.

GWB and the neocons were determined for regime change in Iraq before 9/11, no matter who agreed or disagreed with them.

Show me your proof for this claim. Thats all I ask.

They bullied the US Congress and the UN, once again failed on the latter to gain legitimacy.

How did they bully the Congress and the UN? If they had "bullied" them wouldn't that have meant the UN would have voted FOR the US Resolution for action? Oh and you may want to check you facts, as for "legitimacy" you may want to look at all the UN resolutions that the UN did pass AGAINST Iraq.

Why condemn GWB and not the others?

Yes that is my question. You still have not answered it yet. If you blame President Bush you also must blame all those that also thought Iraq had WMD's and said so, and now back pedal becuase they are to afriad to stand up for what they said.

The act that is being condemned here is not the believe that Sadam was bad or Iraq has WMD but acting on that believe in a manner inappropriate for a just and democratic nation.

I know you can not possibly suggest we wait for attacks and then react to them are you? Or maybe your suggestion is to take a popular vote of the people anytime before we take military action against another country? Based on the available information, and WITH THE FULL AGREEMENT OF THOSE QUOTED President Bush took action, they may not have agreed on the type of action, but someone has to make a call and at least President Bush DID SOMETHING, rather than wait for something to happen and then react to it. What is your death count that has to be reached before we begin to take pre-emptive actions? 500? 1000? Is 3000+ not enough?

No matter how you slice it, you can't convince any good-thinking person that an illegal and preemptive war against Iraq was justified.

I may not be able to convince a "good-thinking" person, but anyone who is "realistically-thinking" and looks at all the facts as were available will see that based on what we were told, and what most of the Congress was echoing, President Bush took action. And now everyone who wants to be an armchair general is taking shots. If he had not taken action, and Iraq had done something, kill its own people, attack a neightbor, or any other action and used WMD's you all would be crying for President Bushes head for NOT taking action. Your pacifist thinking can only lead to more Americans being killed. I guess you think the actions being taken in New York, New Jersey and D.C. is overboard and not needed right? When is it time to step up to the plate and take action? And who decides what that action is? Thats why we have them men and women in these positions. To take these actions. If you can put aside your political blinders and look at it as an American (if you are one) you have to see that we have had enough, its time to take action and if we don't we have only ourselves to blame for what follows.

President Bush's fatal errors were these:

When faced with the 9/11 calamity, he and the people closest to him decided to pour a huge percentage of our response into attacking Iraq. He sold this to America as being primarily a matter of Saddam Hussein having WMD and of the unsatisfactory nature of the international inspections.

I heard this with my own ears, and I cannot imagine what would convince me that this did not take place. Issue #1, then, is why did he say that Iraq had WMD? The obvious answer is that he believed it to be true.

The problem is that, in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, he almost certainly ordered the CIA to produce evidence of a connection to Iraq. I find it difficult to believe that he did this for dishonest reasons; rather, I think that he and those around him were so steeped in the evil of Saddam Hussein that they presupposed and thus ordered the truth to follow the presupposition.

You must remember that the head of the CIA works at the pleasure of the President of the United Sates. Although every president tries to create a veil of deniability, there is never any doubt that the agency is working for the President, not for any other part of the government. So the CIA was essentially under orders to make the case that Iraq needed to be attacked... Thus, the lack of enthusiasm on the part of the CIA for the thesis that Iraq was the appropriate target must be read in that context, and the fact is rather extraordinary.

Thus, I strongly believe that President Bush was guilty of poor leadership, in that he held a preconception of the truth, that he then ordered his subordinates to produce evidence of that truth, and that he never noticed that those around the world who disagreed with his facts could possibly be correct.

Second... Critics call the above point "lying" but I disagree. However, there was some political dishonesty. Although President Bush and many others believed that there were probably WMD in Iraq, this was not his true reason for attacking at that time. How do I know? Because it was so clearly irrelevant to President Bush and his supporters that no WMD were found.

The true reason for attacking Iraq was that America was being dissed by evil Muslims in the Middle East, and that it was time to beat the snot out of one of them. On a human level, if I put up with all kinds of abuse down at the local bar and start to be seen as a willing victim, I have to stand up and fight to regain the respect of the crowd. I need to kick the snot out of someone with a fearsome reputation in the area, and it really doesn't matter all that much which one I choose. It's some "shock and awe" that is called for.

This is what President Bush and many of his loyalists still believe in their hearts, and I cannot state as a fact that they are wrong, although I believe that there are some strong counter arguments...The dishonesty on the part of President Bush was in obscuring this argument in a lot of WMD and inspection talk. The result was to split our country profoundly. The many who would have bought either argument for attacking Iraq don't see what all the hue and cry is about, and truly believe that President Bush was clear all along. Those who only bought the literal message about WMD are furious, not only that we were wrong about the WMD, but, more centrally, that President Bush and the conservatives don't see that fact as relevant.

That's the problem with winning a political argument by deceit -- there is a price to be paid down the road, and the country is paying that price. The irony is that, as commander in chief, I think that President Bush could have won his argument if he had stated his purposes more accurately. A fair share of ShadowWar's quotes boil down to: "You're the boss, President, we are all in this together as Americans" and they would have supported most anything President Bush said.

In my view, none of this is in any way countered by the fact that most Americans agreed that Saddam Hussein was an evil man, who probably had WMD, and would have happily done anything in his power to harm the US. Nor is any of this countered by the fact that most Americans gave President Bush pretty much carte blanche in the months after 9/11 to do what he thought was right.... It is the view of most Americans that the patriotic thing to do is to let the leader make those calls and voice your approval.

The flip side of all that power is that the commander in chief is the indivdual with all the accountability later on. You cannot have it both ways -- either it is a patriot's duty to think critically about the leader's plan at the time, or it is a patriot's duty to think critically about the leader's plan later. If we go by the latter plan, then it is highly reasonable that today's critics supported the president in the months after the attack.

Unless you actually believe that a patriot's duty is to never think critically about the leader -- in which case you have kissed the American way goodbye.

While both sides agree and share the same concern on the nature of Sadam and Iraq's WMD, they didn't agree on how best to address these concerns.

So, both Democrats and Republicans agreed that Iraq had WMDs, but only Bush lied because he stated that Iraq had WMDs even though many others stated the same thing?

Some people simply need a boogeyman to blame for all of the world's problems.

I say you have your talking points, just like all Bushites do. The fact remains that GWB and the neocons mislead, slanted intelligence and over stated Iraq’s capabilities in declaring Iraq as imminent and gathering threat to the US and the world. These were reasons used to justify the war against Iraq. As we all know, all those stated reasons that lead America to war in Iraq have been proven wrong at present. Most of us knew before the war that GWB and the neocons had different motives for going to war. To prove my thinking about the existence of different motives for the war, I will direct your attention to Bush’s remark today, when he said "knowing what I know today, we still would have gone on into Iraq". GWB, essentially, is admitting as having different reason to launch the war on Iraq. Although all assumptions that led America to Iraq war have been proven to be wrong, GWB says he still would have gone on into Iraq. To all good-thinking people, his remark is indicative of the existence of hidden motives. It is logical then to conclude that GWB was not truthful about the initial reasons leading to the war in Iraq or not truthful now in his remark, either way GWB is a liar! As for your assertion about the legitimacy of the war, US attempted to get a final resolution from the UN but having being out smarted diplomatically by France the US had to abandon the effort.

the fact remains, GWB is the one who ultimately responsible in launching an illegal and preemptive war on Iraq

Actually, war is declared by Congress. Bush can't declare it unilaterally. The House and the Senate voted overwhelmingly in support of the war (both dems and republicans). Then the democratic senators come back and complain they were lied to when tide of public opinion turns against the war. Didn't their staffers investigate the evidence? If not, WHY not, that's what they're paid to do.

The fact is, the decision to go to war in Iraq was made by far more people on both sides of the fence than just Bush.

I say you have your talking points, just like all Bushites do

The problem is you label people, I am not "Bushite", There are many things I disagree with the man on. But I am also smart enough to read and figure things out for myself, and not have the mainstream media try to spoon feed me their load of recycled horse hay.

The fact remains that GWB and the neocons mislead, slanted intelligence and over stated Iraq’s capabilities in declaring Iraq as imminent and gathering threat to the US and the world.

Very simply put, prove this. Show me anywhere in the 9/11 BI-Partisan report that they say President Bush mislead, distorted or lied to anyone, or anywhere else a FACT that proves that statement of yours.

As we all know, all those stated reasons that lead America to war in Iraq have been proven wrong at present.

Actually you are wrong. They have found Chemical Weapons in Iraq, even had them attempted to use them against our troops in one instance. I will agree that they were not in the quanities that they thought were there, but then again we haven't had a chance to search every inch of the country yet. And what were the reasons for going to war? DO you even know why we went, besides the WMD's? If you can quote them you will impress me. Then show me where the President was wrong on all of them.

Most of us knew before the war that GWB and the neocons had different motives for going to war. To prove my thinking about the existence of different motives for the war, I will direct your attention to Bush’s remark today, when he said "knowing what I know today, we still would have gone on into Iraq". GWB, essentially, is admitting as having different reason to launch the war on Iraq.

You are addmitting you had already made up your mind BEFORE the war so there is very little chance that facts will blind you to being misled by the left. Try to put aside your obvious hatered and look at facts. Again all I ask is prove to me your statement with facts. Show me somewhere that proves Bush had other motives. And if you read the statement you quote at face value it simply means that the WMD's were not the only reason we went into Iraq. Which you will find out if you research my question I posed to you above.

Although all assumptions that led America to Iraq war have been proven to be wrong, GWB says he still would have gone on into Iraq. To all good-thinking people, his remark is indicative of the existence of hidden motives.

You are again sticking to the ideas that you are the "good-thinking" one here and that may not be the case when you open your eyes and read the facts and look at things for yourself instead of letting the press and other left leaning sources mislead you and feed you garbage instead of facts.

It is logical then to conclude that GWB was not truthful about the initial reasons leading to the war in Iraq or not truthful now in his remark, either way GWB is a liar!

Actually Logical thinking would lead you to look for facts and the truth not opinions and half truths and misquotes that the people use to mislead people like you. President Bush did not lie to anyone, he used the information that was given to him at the time from several what he and the rest of the government (Dems included) thought were reliable. Based on that information he made a decision that was backed by our governemnet (again Dems also). Since that time SOME of the facts have been proven to be false. Does that make the man a liar or a person that had himself been lied to or misled (wether on purpose or not is still to be seen). So drop the outright hatered and try to look at it like an adult who is capable of thinking for himself.

As for your assertion about the legitimacy of the war, US attempted to get a final resolution from the UN but having being out smarted diplomatically by France the US had to abandon the effort.

Thats because as has been shown now, France was getting millions from the Oil for Food program in Iraq, why stop a cash cow like that? Also France is not exactly know for their military prowness or strength. Gen. G. Patton "I would rather have a German Division in front of me than a French Division behind me." I think France is about as useless a country to have in Military matters as any country you could pick. Oh and don't forget all the resolutions before that one that were passed against IRAQ. Thats just a small point.

So, both Democrats and Republicans agreed that Iraq had WMDs, but only Bush lied because he stated that Iraq had WMDs even though many others stated the same thing?

See my post above. Both sides of this argument are oversimplifying the sequence of events.

Actually, war is declared by Congress. Bush can't declare it unilaterally. The House and the Senate voted overwhelmingly in support of the war (both dems and republicans). Then the democratic senators come back and complain they were lied to when tide of public opinion turns against the war. Didn't their staffers investigate the evidence? If not, WHY not, that's what they're paid to do. The fact is, the decision to go to war in Iraq was made by far more people on both sides of the fence than just Bush.

At the risk of repeating myself, the President is the one with the ultimate responsibility, not because of anything written down in the Constitution but because of the actual rules that we play by.

When anything like 9/11 occurs, the commander-in-chief is the guy who we follow. Only the real fringe questions, and those have their patriotism severely questioned. Yes, the commander-in-chief does have to go to Congress, but we all expect Congress to use the easiest standards to judge his plan.

This may well be wise -- a crisis is not the time for political debate. The checks and balances are there in case we get a crazy man at the helm, but most Americans want the commander-in-chief to be given all benefit of the doubt -- in votes, in words, in expressed unity.

Unless your heart harbors a very authoritarian bent, however, you expect that this extraordinary power of the President will eventually be called to accountability. And unless the crisis remain acute, this will happen at the next election. That is the proper time to express disagreement.

Partisan support of Bush and Kerry aside, that's gotta be the way it works! The alternatives are unacceptable: a) no way we want lengthy dispute during the crisis, and no way we want permanently unaccountable presidents.

Bottom line, the statements of support for President Bush's policies at the time were all but required; therefore, he cannot use those to seriously diminish his responsibility for his decisions.... And, should John Kerry become President Kerry, I will expect Republican support for his moves in crisis, and I will expect their Republican critiques at the next election.

See my post above. Both sides of this argument are oversimplifying the sequence of events.

I saw much speculation.

I saw much speculation.

But a far more reasonable explanation. You would prefer to fight with an oversimplifaction than to deal with a quite likely middle ground that leaves your man not so blameless.

Not speculation: We identified the 9/11 attacker as Osama Bin Laden.
Almost certainly true: President Bush told the CIA to find the link to Iraq.
Not speculation: The CIA works for the President and no one else.
Not speculation: The CIA provided lukewarm evidence for WMD.
Not speculation: President Bush spoke extensively about the WMD, playing up the parts of the intelligence that showed this.
Not speculation: President Bush and conservatives are still sure that attacking was the best thing to do, even if the WMD didn't really exist.
Not speculation: Many liberal critics have turned against the President on his handling of the war on terrorism and the Iraqi war, since WMD turned out to be either non-existent or very hard to find.

Based on these facts, I am not exactly pulling a theory out of thin air. The only reason you don't hear it told this way is Democrats want the truth to be dirtier, and Republicans want the truth to be cleaner.

As to the other side of it, I have a simple question. If the commander in chief makes an error in judgment in responding to a crisis, when should patriotic citizens express their disagreement?
a) At the time
At the next election, unless an acute crisis remains
c) Never

I think I join most Americans in strongly supporting answer B. Democrats such as Kerry had to agree with the President at the time, and, if they believe he was wrong, they have to speak out now.

OK... lengthy message coming up... this is the majority of the President's address to the Pentagon linking Saddam Hussein to terrorism and Weapons of Mass Destruction well before the start of the war in Iraq. Worthwhile reading. He discusses the veracity of the threat and the potential need to send soldiers in. Read it carefully, I'll comment afterwards.


"We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st century. They feed on the free flow of information and technology. They actually take advantage of the freer movement of people, information and ideas.

And they will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen.

There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq. His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region and the security of all the rest of us.

I want the American people to understand first the past how did this crisis come about?

And I want them to understand what we must do to protect the national interest, and indeed the interest of all freedom-loving people in the world.

Remember, as a condition of the cease-fire after the Gulf War, the United Nations demanded not the United States the United Nations demanded, and Saddam Hussein agreed to declare within 15 days this is way back in 1991 within 15 days his nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them, to make a total declaration. That's what he promised to do.

The United Nations set up a special commission of highly trained international experts called UNSCOM, to make sure that Iraq made good on that commitment. We had every good reason to insist that Iraq disarm. Saddam had built up a terrible arsenal, and he had used it not once, but many times, in a decade-long war with Iran, he used chemical weapons, against combatants, against civilians, against a foreign adversary, and even against his own people.

And during the Gulf War, Saddam launched Scuds against Saudi Arabia, Israel and Bahrain.

Now, instead of playing by the very rules he agreed to at the end of the Gulf War, Saddam has spent the better part of the past decade trying to cheat on this solemn commitment. Consider just some of the facts:

Iraq repeatedly made false declarations about the weapons that it had left in its possession after the Gulf War. When UNSCOM would then uncover evidence that gave lie to those declarations, Iraq would simply amend the reports.

For example, Iraq revised its nuclear declarations four times within just 14 months and it has submitted six different biological warfare declarations, each of which has been rejected by UNSCOM.

In 1995, Hussein Kamal, Saddam's son-in-law, and the chief organizer of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program, defected to Jordan. He revealed that Iraq was continuing to conceal weapons and missiles and the capacity to build many more.

Then and only then did Iraq admit to developing numbers of weapons in significant quantities and weapon stocks. Previously, it had vehemently denied the very thing it just simply admitted once Saddam Hussein's son-in-law defected to Jordan and told the truth. Now listen to this, what did it admit?

It admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs.

And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production.

As if we needed further confirmation, you all know what happened to his son-in-law when he made the untimely decision to go back to Iraq.

Next, throughout this entire process, Iraqi agents have undermined and undercut UNSCOM. They've harassed the inspectors, lied to them, disabled monitoring cameras, literally spirited evidence out of the back doors of suspect facilities as inspectors walked through the front door. And our people were there observing it and had the pictures to prove it.

Despite Iraq's deceptions, UNSCOM has nevertheless done a remarkable job. Its inspectors the eyes and ears of the civilized world have uncovered and destroyed more weapons of mass destruction capacity than was destroyed during the Gulf War.

This includes nearly 40,000 chemical weapons, more than 100,000 gallons of chemical weapons agents, 48 operational missiles, 30 warheads specifically fitted for chemical and biological weapons, and a massive biological weapons facility at Al Hakam equipped to produce anthrax and other deadly agents.

Over the past few months, as they have come closer and closer to rooting out Iraq's remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their ambitions.

By imposing debilitating conditions on the inspectors and declaring key sites which have still not been inspected off limits, including, I might add, one palace in Baghdad more than 2,600 acres large by comparison, when you hear all this business about presidential sites reflect our sovereignty, why do you want to come into a residence, the White House complex is 18 acres. So you'll have some feel for this.

One of these presidential sites is about the size of Washington, D.C. That's about how many acres did you tell me it was? 40,000 acres. We're not talking about a few rooms here with delicate personal matters involved.

It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feed stocks necessary to produce them.

The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons.

Now, against that background, let us remember the past here. It is against that background that we have repeatedly and unambiguously made clear our preference for a diplomatic solution.

The inspection system works. The inspection system has worked in the face of lies, stonewalling, obstacle after obstacle after obstacle. The people who have done that work deserve the thanks of civilized people throughout the world.

It has worked. That is all we want. And if we can find a diplomatic way to do what has to be done, to do what he promised to do at the end of the Gulf War, to do what should have been done within 15 days within 15 days of the agreement at the end of the Gulf War, if we can find a diplomatic way to do that, that is by far our preference.

But to be a genuine solution, and not simply one that glosses over the remaining problem, a diplomatic solution must include or meet a clear, immutable, reasonable, simple standard.

Iraq must agree and soon, to free, full, unfettered access to these sites anywhere in the country. There can be no dilution or diminishment of the integrity of the inspection system that UNSCOM has put in place.

Now those terms are nothing more or less than the essence of what he agreed to at the end of the Gulf War. The Security Council, many times since, has reiterated this standard. If he accepts them, force will not be necessary. If he refuses or continues to evade his obligations through more tactics of delay and deception, he and he alone will be to blame for the consequences.

I ask all of you to remember the record here what he promised to do within 15 days of the end of the Gulf War, what he repeatedly refused to do, what we found out in 1995, what the inspectors have done against all odds. We have no business agreeing to any resolution of this that does not include free, unfettered access to the remaining sites by people who have integrity and proven confidence in the inspection business. That should be our standard. That's what UNSCOM has done, and that's why I have been fighting for it so hard. And that's why the United States should insist upon it.

Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made?

Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction.

And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal. And I think every one of you who's really worked on this for any length of time believes that, too.

Now we have spent several weeks building up our forces in the Gulf, and building a coalition of like-minded nations. Our force posture would not be possible without the support of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, the GCC states and Turkey. Other friends and allies have agreed to provide forces, bases or logistical support, including the United Kingdom, Germany, Spain and Portugal, Denmark and the Netherlands, Hungary and Poland and the Czech Republic, Argentina, Iceland, Australia and New Zealand and our friends and neighbors in Canada.

That list is growing, not because anyone wants military action, but because there are people in this world who believe the United Nations resolutions should mean something, because they understand what UNSCOM has achieved, because they remember the past, and because they can imagine what the future will be depending on what we do now.

If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program. We want to seriously reduce his capacity to threaten his neighbors.

I am quite confident, from the briefing I have just received from our military leaders, that we can achieve the objective and secure our vital strategic interests.

Let me be clear: A military operation cannot destroy all the weapons of mass destruction capacity. But it can and will leave him significantly worse off than he is now in terms of the ability to threaten the world with these weapons or to attack his neighbors.

And he will know that the international community continues to have a will to act if and when he threatens again. Following any strike, we will carefully monitor Iraq's activities with all the means at our disposal. If he seeks to rebuild his weapons of mass destruction, we will be prepared to strike him again.

The economic sanctions will remain in place until Saddam complies fully with all U.N. resolutions.

Consider this already these sanctions have denied him $110 billion. Imagine how much stronger his armed forces would be today, how many more weapons of mass destruction operations he would have hidden around the country if he had been able to spend even a small fraction of that amount for a military rebuilding.

We will continue to enforce a no-fly zone from the southern suburbs of Baghdad to the Kuwait border and in northern Iraq, making it more difficult for Iraq to walk over Kuwait again or threaten the Kurds in the north.

Now, let me say to all of you here as all of you know the weightiest decision any president ever has to make is to send our troops into harm's way. And force can never be the first answer. But sometimes, it's the only answer.

You are the best prepared, best equipped, best trained fighting force in the world. And should it prove necessary for me to exercise the option of force, your commanders will do everything they can to protect the safety of all the men and women under their command.

No military action, however, is risk-free. I know that the people we may call upon in uniform are ready. The American people have to be ready as well.

Dealing with Saddam Hussein requires constant vigilance. We have seen that constant vigilance pays off. But it requires constant vigilance. Since the Gulf War, we have pushed back every time Saddam has posed a threat.

When Baghdad plotted to assassinate former President Bush, we struck hard at Iraq's intelligence headquarters.

When Saddam threatened another invasion by amassing his troops in Kuwait along the Kuwaiti border in 1994, we immediately deployed our troops, our ships, our planes, and Saddam backed down.

When Saddam forcefully occupied Irbil in northern Iraq, we broadened our control over Iraq's skies by extending the no-fly zone.

But there is no better example, again I say, than the U.N. weapons inspection system itself. Yes, he has tried to thwart it in every conceivable way, but the discipline, determination, year-in-year-out effort of these weapons inspectors is doing the job. And we seek to finish the job. Let there be no doubt, we are prepared to act.

But Saddam Hussein could end this crisis tomorrow simply by letting the weapons inspectors complete their mission. He made a solemn commitment to the international community to do that and to give up his weapons of mass destruction a long time ago now. One way or the other, we are determined to see that he makes good on his own promise.

Saddam Hussein's Iraq reminds us of what we learned in the 20th century and warns us of what we must know about the 21st. In this century, we learned through harsh experience that the only answer to aggression and illegal behavior is firmness, determination, and when necessary action.

In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.

If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program.

But if we act as one, we can safeguard our interests and send a clear message to every would-be tyrant and terrorist that the international community does have the wisdom and the will and the way to protect peace and security in a new era. That is the future I ask you all to imagine. That is the future I ask our allies to imagine.

If we look at the past and imagine that future, we will act as one together. And we still have, God willing, a chance to find a diplomatic resolution to this, and if not, God willing, the chance to do the right thing for our children and grandchildren.

Thank you very much. "

That was the address that President Clinton delivered to the Pentagon and the Joint Chiefs of Staff on February 17, 1998. The link to terrorism, the Weapons of Mass Destruction, the need for military action, and the threat to our country and indeed, the rest of the world. All talking points in former President Clinton's speech. Note he even refers to an "unholy axis of terror" (kind of like Bush's "axis of evil" they must have some of the same speechwriters on staff).

The various contingency plans to overthrow Saddam's regime have been in place for years before Bush stepped into office.

So point the finger at Bush all you want. Sure he's the one who finally made the call after years and years of the US, the UN, and UNSCOM letting him play his little games while he worked desperately to acquire chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. But he's not solely to blame. The Senators and Representatives who supported it are just as responsible. They voted "yes" on Iraq, and whether they did it because they believed it was right or because they didn't want to lose votes, they have to be responsible for their own actions, just like Bush is.

Did Bush do the right thing? Will Iraq be a better place? Regardless of who wins this November, we won't know the answer for years. Until then we won't know if Iraq is better off or not, if relations between Iraq and the US are better, or if it was all for naught.

And what were the reasons for going to war?

I believe the most relevant speech is the one where Bush gives Saddam 48 hours to leave or face war. This is the declaration of war speech. This is the speech to the American people where he says why. I'll quote in full...

"THE PRESIDENT: My fellow citizens, events in Iraq have now reached the final days of decision. For more than a decade, the United States and other nations have pursued patient and honorable efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime without war. That regime pledged to reveal and destroy all its weapons of mass destruction as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War in 1991.

Since then, the world has engaged in 12 years of diplomacy. We have passed more than a dozen resolutions in the United Nations Security Council. We have sent hundreds of weapons inspectors to oversee the disarmament of Iraq. Our good faith has not been returned.

The Iraqi regime has used diplomacy as a ploy to gain time and advantage. It has uniformly defied Security Council resolutions demanding full disarmament. Over the years, U.N. weapon inspectors have been threatened by Iraqi officials, electronically bugged, and systematically deceived. Peaceful efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime have failed again and again -- because we are not dealing with peaceful men.

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people.

The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of America and our friends. And it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda.

The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other.

The United States and other nations did nothing to deserve or invite this threat. But we will do everything to defeat it. Instead of drifting along toward tragedy, we will set a course toward safety. Before the day of horror can come, before it is too late to act, this danger will be removed.

The United States of America has the sovereign authority to use force in assuring its own national security. That duty falls to me, as Commander-in-Chief, by the oath I have sworn, by the oath I will keep.

Recognizing the threat to our country, the United States Congress voted overwhelmingly last year to support the use of force against Iraq. America tried to work with the United Nations to address this threat because we wanted to resolve the issue peacefully. We believe in the mission of the United Nations. One reason the U.N. was founded after the second world war was to confront aggressive dictators, actively and early, before they can attack the innocent and destroy the peace.

In the case of Iraq, the Security Council did act, in the early 1990s. Under Resolutions 678 and 687 -- both still in effect -- the United States and our allies are authorized to use force in ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a question of authority, it is a question of will.

Last September, I went to the U.N. General Assembly and urged the nations of the world to unite and bring an end to this danger. On November 8th, the Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1441, finding Iraq in material breach of its obligations, and vowing serious consequences if Iraq did not fully and immediately disarm.

Today, no nation can possibly claim that Iraq has disarmed. And it will not disarm so long as Saddam Hussein holds power. For the last four-and-a-half months, the United States and our allies have worked within the Security Council to enforce that Council's long-standing demands. Yet, some permanent members of the Security Council have publicly announced they will veto any resolution that compels the disarmament of Iraq. These governments share our assessment of the danger, but not our resolve to meet it. Many nations, however, do have the resolve and fortitude to act against this threat to peace, and a broad coalition is now gathering to enforce the just demands of the world. The United Nations Security Council has not lived up to its responsibilities, so we will rise to ours.

In recent days, some governments in the Middle East have been doing their part. They have delivered public and private messages urging the dictator to leave Iraq, so that disarmament can proceed peacefully. He has thus far refused. All the decades of deceit and cruelty have now reached an end. Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict, commenced at a time of our choosing. For their own safety, all foreign nationals -- including journalists and inspectors -- should leave Iraq immediately.

Many Iraqis can hear me tonight in a translated radio broadcast, and I have a message for them. If we must begin a military campaign, it will be directed against the lawless men who rule your country and not against you. As our coalition takes away their power, we will deliver the food and medicine you need. We will tear down the apparatus of terror and we will help you to build a new Iraq that is prosperous and free. In a free Iraq, there will be no more wars of aggression against your neighbors, no more poison factories, no more executions of dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms. The tyrant will soon be gone. The day of your liberation is near.

It is too late for Saddam Hussein to remain in power. It is not too late for the Iraqi military to act with honor and protect your country by permitting the peaceful entry of coalition forces to eliminate weapons of mass destruction. Our forces will give Iraqi military units clear instructions on actions they can take to avoid being attacked and destroyed. I urge every member of the Iraqi military and intelligence services, if war comes, do not fight for a dying regime that is not worth your own life.

And all Iraqi military and civilian personnel should listen carefully to this warning. In any conflict, your fate will depend on your action. Do not destroy oil wells, a source of wealth that belongs to the Iraqi people. Do not obey any command to use weapons of mass destruction against anyone, including the Iraqi people. War crimes will be prosecuted. War criminals will be punished. And it will be no defense to say, "I was just following orders."

Should Saddam Hussein choose confrontation, the American people can know that every measure has been taken to avoid war, and every measure will be taken to win it. Americans understand the costs of conflict because we have paid them in the past. War has no certainty, except the certainty of sacrifice.

Yet, the only way to reduce the harm and duration of war is to apply the full force and might of our military, and we are prepared to do so. If Saddam Hussein attempts to cling to power, he will remain a deadly foe until the end. In desperation, he and terrorists groups might try to conduct terrorist operations against the American people and our friends. These attacks are not inevitable. They are, however, possible. And this very fact underscores the reason we cannot live under the threat of blackmail. The terrorist threat to America and the world will be diminished the moment that Saddam Hussein is disarmed.

Our government is on heightened watch against these dangers. Just as we are preparing to ensure victory in Iraq, we are taking further actions to protect our homeland. In recent days, American authorities have expelled from the country certain individuals with ties to Iraqi intelligence services. Among other measures, I have directed additional security of our airports, and increased Coast Guard patrols of major seaports. The Department of Homeland Security is working closely with the nation's governors to increase armed security at critical facilities across America.

Should enemies strike our country, they would be attempting to shift our attention with panic and weaken our morale with fear. In this, they would fail. No act of theirs can alter the course or shake the resolve of this country. We are a peaceful people -- yet we're not a fragile people, and we will not be intimidated by thugs and killers. If our enemies dare to strike us, they and all who have aided them, will face fearful consequences.

We are now acting because the risks of inaction would be far greater. In one year, or five years, the power of Iraq to inflict harm on all free nations would be multiplied many times over. With these capabilities, Saddam Hussein and his terrorist allies could choose the moment of deadly conflict when they are strongest. We choose to meet that threat now, where it arises, before it can appear suddenly in our skies and cities.

The cause of peace requires all free nations to recognize new and undeniable realities. In the 20th century, some chose to appease murderous dictators, whose threats were allowed to grow into genocide and global war. In this century, when evil men plot chemical, biological and nuclear terror, a policy of appeasement could bring destruction of a kind never before seen on this earth.

Terrorists and terror states do not reveal these threats with fair notice, in formal declarations -- and responding to such enemies only after they have struck first is not self-defense, it is suicide. The security of the world requires disarming Saddam Hussein now.

As we enforce the just demands of the world, we will also honor the deepest commitments of our country. Unlike Saddam Hussein, we believe the Iraqi people are deserving and capable of human liberty. And when the dictator has departed, they can set an example to all the Middle East of a vital and peaceful and self-governing nation.

The United States, with other countries, will work to advance liberty and peace in that region. Our goal will not be achieved overnight, but it can come over time. The power and appeal of human liberty is felt in every life and every land. And the greatest power of freedom is to overcome hatred and violence, and turn the creative gifts of men and women to the pursuits of peace.

That is the future we choose. Free nations have a duty to defend our people by uniting against the violent. And tonight, as we have done before, America and our allies accept that responsibility.

Good night, and may God continue to bless America. "



paul.

So what in the speech above is a lie?

- "It has uniformly defied Security Council resolutions demanding full disarmament"
- "Peaceful efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime have failed again and again "
- "no more torture chambers"

these were lies. Unknown lies, but lies none the less. Not too important in this debate as almost everyone beleived these.


- "And it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda."
- "America tried to work with the United Nations to address this threat because we wanted to resolve the issue peacefully."
- "Under Resolutions 678 and 687 -- both still in effect "
These are stretching the truth to the very limit. Still some stretching of the truth is expected so again I can ignore these comments.



- "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised"
- "no nation can possibly claim that Iraq has disarmed"
- "and his terrorist allies "
more lies, but important ones as Bush knew at the time they were lies. Bush knew there were doubts about the intelligence. He knew links to terrorist organisations were untrue. He knew countries like France insisted that no WMD evidence existed. These are the lies he is solely responsible for.


paul.

Almost certainly true: President Bush told the CIA to find the link to Iraq.

Actually this has been completly and utterly denied. No basis in fact at all.

Not speculation: The CIA works for the President and no one else.

Actually not true. The CIA director is appointed by the President and reports to the National Security Advisor. In addition what has who the CIA DIrector reports to got to do with anything? The President works for me so are you implying I am at fault?

Not speculation: The CIA provided lukewarm evidence for WMD.

"Lukewarm"??? Where was this term used for the information? At the time it was reported it was reported as fact to the President. Where do you find the term lukewarm in any of the offical reports on this information.

Not speculation: President Bush spoke extensively about the WMD, playing up the parts of the intelligence that showed this.

Actually not true. If you look at the talks he gave WMD's were a part of the speech not the whole or majority of the speech. And again its YOUR term "playing up". Actually he reported it as it was reported to him.

Not speculation: President Bush and conservatives are still sure that attacking was the best thing to do, even if the WMD didn't really exist.

Actually they did and still do exist. For your reading edification: http://shadowwar.joeuser.com/index.asp?AID=19297

Not speculation: Many liberal critics have turned against the President on his handling of the war on terrorism and the Iraqi war, since WMD turned out to be either non-existent or very hard to find.

This statement of yours contradicts your statement above it. Either they do exist or they don't, since they were found (I'll agree in small quanitys SO FAR) I guess they do exsit.

Based on these facts, I am not exactly pulling a theory out of thin air. The only reason you don't hear it told this way is Democrats want the truth to be dirtier, and Republicans want the truth to be cleaner.

Well actually I am not wanting the truth to be anything but the truth and what I can see as factual and not speculation or someones ideas of what is meant or said, When all else fails take things at face value, don't read anything into anything and see what you come up with.

Democrats such as Kerry had to agree with the President at the time, and, if they believe he was wrong, they have to speak out now.

AGain your assumption is wrong. No one HAS to agree. People are entitled to speak their minds anytime. The Fact of the matter is that when it was fashionable to be "with" the President then they spoke in favor. WHen it is now a way to try and get votes, they will turn around and say the opposite of what they said before. No other President except the one in office during Pearl Harbor, has had to deal with an attack on our homeland by people intending to kill and harm America and Americans. If he was given bad information, or information that was misleading, and he acted on it in what he thought was the best interest of the Ameircan people at the time, has he really done anything worng. I venture he has not. He acted on information he thought was correct, he acted on what he and OTHERS thought was a threat that needed taking care of and taking care of now. Had he not done anything and Americans had died again here as a result of inaction then we would all be calling for his removal. Damned if you do, Damned if you don't. Rather be damned for doing.

That was the address that President Clinton delivered to the Pentagon and the Joint Chiefs of Staff on February 17, 1998. The link to terrorism, the Weapons of Mass Destruction, the need for military action, and the threat to our country and indeed, the rest of the world. All talking points in former President Clinton's speech. Note he even refers to an "unholy axis of terror" (kind of like Bush's "axis of evil" they must have some of the same speechwriters on staff).

Very good point. Those that are blaming Bush for this information fail to understand he inherited this problem, he did not make it. he did not start it, but at least he did something about it. Did it help save lives in the long run here at home? We may not know. I am willing to guess yes.