50-Year Iraq Presence A ‘Realistic Assessment’

[sirs]

Iraq was obviously NOT a threat to the US. Even if it did have the weapons that were alleged, it had no means of delivering them to the US, and everyone bloody well knows this.

And just as much as bloody well everyone knows, the U.S. & Bush were never referencing the threat of Iraq using them on our soil.  Against our soldiers, in Iraq, plausibly, but NEVER in reference to some actual attack by Saddam on U.S. soil.  Did I mention "never"? 

But by all means, produce the quote(s) that prove me wrong.  Not quotes that can be taken completely out of context, or so vague they could be said to be referencing an imminent attack on Rancho Cucamonga.  Actual quotes

I know I won't need to hold my breath

[Universe Prince]

And just as much as bloody well everyone knows, the U.S. & Bush were never referencing the threat of Iraq using them on our soil.  Against our soldiers, in Iraq, plausibly, but NEVER in reference to some actual attack by Saddam on U.S. soil.  Did I mention "never"? 

But by all means, produce the quote(s) that prove me wrong.  Not quotes that can be taken completely out of context, or so vague they could be said to be referencing an imminent attack on Rancho Cucamonga.  Actual quotes

I know I won't need to hold my breath

President Bush, March 6, 2003:
"Saddam Hussein has a long history of reckless aggression and terrible crimes. He possesses weapons of terror. He provides funding and training and safe haven to terrorists -- terrorists who would willingly use weapons of mass destruction against America and other peace-loving countries. Saddam Hussein and his weapons are a direct threat to this country, to our people, and to all free people.

"If the world fails to confront the threat posed by the Iraqi regime, refusing to use force, even as a last resort, free nations would assume immense and unacceptable risks. The attacks of September the 11th, 2001 showed what the enemies of America did with four airplanes. We will not wait to see what terrorists or terrorist states could do with weapons of mass destruction.

"We are determined to confront threats wherever they arise. I will not leave the American people at the mercy of the Iraqi dictator and his weapons."

Later, in answer to a question:
"Saddam Hussein is a threat to our nation. September the 11th changed the strategic thinking, at least, as far as I was concerned, for how to protect our country. My job is to protect the American people. It used to be that we could think that you could contain a person like Saddam Hussein, that oceans would protect us from his type of terror. September the 11th should say to the American people that we're now a battlefield, that weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a terrorist organization could be deployed here at home.

"So, therefore, I think the threat is real. And so do a lot of other people in my government. And since I believe the threat is real, and since my most important job is to protect the security of the American people, that's precisely what we'll do."

Later, in answer to a question about the then upcoming war with Iraq:
"If I thought we were safe from attack, I would be thinking differently. But I see a gathering threat. I mean, this is a true, real threat to America."

While there may not be a precise and literal quote of saying Saddam was going to send WMD over here with ICBMs (although there may be something like that out there that I just didn't find), clearly the point was that Saddam Hussein and his regime were a direct threat to the United States.

Source for the quotes is whitehouse.gov.

[sirs]

You did catch the qualifier "in context", right Prince?  No one said Saddam's WMD weren't a threat.  What Bush & his administration made crystal clear was the threat of those WMD finding their way into terrorists' hands, which would then have been a "direct threat to this country".  Want a do over?  I'm serious.  WHERE is there some quote that references Saddam's imminent attack on the U.S.??  Not the threat his WMD posed, which was not being argued, but his plans to use them on us, right here in the good 'ol U.S. of A??

[Universe Prince]

You did catch the qualifier "in context", right Prince?

Uh, yeah. That's why I posted the comments in context and provided a source to the webpage where I found the quotes. You did catch that, right Sirs?

No one said Saddam's WMD weren't a threat.  What Bush & his administration made crystal clear was the threat of those WMD finding their way into terrorists' hands, which would then have been a "direct threat to this country".  Want a do over?

Um, okay. I'll try this one again: "Saddam Hussein and his weapons are a direct threat to this country, to our people, and to all free people." Not "will then be a threat". Specifically, "are a direct threat".

I'm serious.  WHERE is there some quote that references Saddam's imminent attack on the U.S.??  Not the threat his WMD posed, which was not being argued, but his plans to use them on us, right here in the good 'ol U.S. of A??

I'm glad you're serious. 'Cause I was joking. No, not really. You're splitting hairs, Sirs. The President called Iraq and Saddam Hussein a threat to America. And as I look back at the thread, I don't see where anyone was accusing the President of claiming imminent attack on the U.S. from Iraq. If you do, please show me the the quote, in context and nothing so vague it could be referencing a claim of something other than imminent attack.

President Bush did acknowledge that Saddam Hussein might attempt an attack through terrorists. March 17, 2003:
"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."

Again, the clear point here is that we were under the threat of an attack by Saddam Hussein. Via terrorists, yes, but an attack by what was then the Iraqi government nonetheless. This whole bit about Bush not claiming imminent attack is a lot of smoke. Bush claimed the threat was direct, and clearly, it was not. Bush assured us time and again that we had intelligence that "leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." Apparently, there should have been some doubt.

I am more than willing to concede that President Bush acted in good faith on what he believed was solid intelligence. The reasons why he thought that I might question, but I'll concede that he thought so anyway. President Bush said there was a threat, and that threat now turns out to have been, for the most part, a large bluff. And imo, criticizing the administration for not knowing it was a bluff is not unfair.

[_JS]

Sirs claimed:

And just as much as bloody well everyone knows, the U.S. & Bush were never referencing the threat of Iraq using them on our soil.  Against our soldiers, in Iraq, plausibly, but NEVER in reference to some actual attack by Saddam on U.S. soil.  Did I mention "never"?

 

Prince responded with a quote from President Bush:

Saddam Hussein and his weapons are a direct threat to this country, to our people, and to all free people.

Sirs qualifies, justifies, etc

Want a do over?

Perhaps if you used some other form of English Prince. Apparently that quote was too complicated and left far too many loopholes. Taken in context it appears that "Saddam Hussein and his weapons are a direct threat to this country" really means something entirely different.

Prince Responded:

I am more than willing to concede that President Bush acted in good faith on what he believed was solid intelligence. The reasons why he thought that I might question, but I'll concede that he thought so anyway. President Bush said there was a threat, and that threat now turns out to have been, for the most part, a large bluff. And imo, criticizing the administration for not knowing it was a bluff is not unfair.

Very well said.

Also note Bush's reference to September 11th. Though of course he never explicitly ties it directly to Saddam Hussein like in a children's book. "See Saddam handing the bad guy a box cutter." It is still interesting to see the reference when discussing the threat of Hussein and Iraq.

[gipper]

I have always understood Bush's position, from the context of my having lived through the times, to be that we had to guard against use of Iraqi WMD on our soil through the agency of a terrorist group cooperating clantestinely with Iraq. Sirs is an ass.

Michael, as is often the case, makes some very trenchant comments. The question of timing is essential: WHEN would the feared attack be launched? One has to consider in this regard preparation time, which subsumes the very practical problems of how to transport the weapons, the need to train and install the agents, and then to plan and execute the attack. To a large extent, these activities already came under the watchful eye of CIA, FBI, state and local law enforcement, tangentially the Department of Defense, and squarely the nascent Department of Homeland Security. This array of defenses raises the damnable specter of a redundant war, if not one aimed at a spectral threat.

Further, and crucially important, on known intelligence the "remedy of war," especially as it's unfolded, is grossly disproportionate (causes human death and suffering exponentially greater than that "expected" for us) to the harm an attack WITHIN THE REALM OF RATIONAL PREDICTION could inflict on us.

The national debate at the time never progressed this far.

[Amianthus]

The national debate at the time never progressed this far.

Of course not.

It got stuck on "Republicans are Nazis who stole the election."

[gipper]

I'll agree to that characterization, which is undoubtedly true at least parodically, if you agree that the administration "debate management" was a bit "fascistic."

[Amianthus]

I'll agree to that characterization, which is undoubtedly true at least parodically, if you agree that the administration "debate management" was a bit "fascistic."

What debate management? When were there any "debates" to "manage"?

[gipper]

Which makes my point.

[Amianthus]

Which makes my point.

Well, not really. The "Republicans stole the election" actually started out as "Republicans are GONNA steal the election" months before the election ever happened. There has been no effective debate in this country since '98. The media seems to be saturated with the right wing and left wing equivalents of Knutty, effectively stifling any discussion.

[sirs]

So nice to know I have likely the most arrogant egotistical fan, here in the forum.  Thanks Domer

[Universe Prince]

Perhaps if you used some other form of English Prince. Apparently that quote was too complicated and left far too many loopholes. Taken in context it appears that "Saddam Hussein and his weapons are a direct threat to this country" really means something entirely different.

I guess. I notice the lack of a quote from Sirs. Anyway, I don't get the hair splitting as defense here. Saddam Hussein was presented as a direct threat that we had to deal with right away or live with the consequences of an attack. Iraq was, as I recall, a "terrorist state", i.e. allied in some way with the terrorists. The case was attack Iraq or we will be attacked with a weapon of mass destruction. Imminent or not, the case was the same. And it turned out to not be true. What has irked me all along about this is that we should have known better. I'm not saying there was an intentional ignoring of evidence, but we should have known what the reality of the situation was. We got duped. Imagine if the situation were inverted. Imagine that instead of overestimating Iraq's capability, we had underestimated it. My point being that we did not accurately know the situation we were getting into. And now, U.S. troops may be in Iraq indefinitely. Yes, we still have troops in Germany and all that, but we shouldn't. Our troops ought to be here, in the U.S.

Also note Bush's reference to September 11th. Though of course he never explicitly ties it directly to Saddam Hussein like in a children's book. "See Saddam handing the bad guy a box cutter." It is still interesting to see the reference when discussing the threat of Hussein and Iraq.

I think we're going to see that sort of thing no matter who is President. All sorts of military actions around the world now have a convenient excuse, that September 11, 2001, proved we are not safe from international terrorism. Boogidy boogidy boo! Yeah, I think we need to take terrorism seriously, but I think it's now another card in the deck of needlessly aggressive foreign policy. And Democrats who "need" to look strong on national security are going to use it. Fear of this and that is all I seem to see from most politicians these days. Fear of vast numbers of criminal immigrants using up all our resources, or fear of poverty or fear of terrorists or fear of fatty food, on and on. I wish the government would stick to the whole bridge building, water testing stuff and stop trying so hard to protect us all from life.

[sirs]

Prince (& Js) the copious amount of quotes you so graciously provided reference the point I was making, about taking quotes out of contect and/or providing quotes so vague, that you could argue an imminent attack on DC itself.  The quotes repeatively document that threat the WMD were, which again, has never neen at issue. 

You have YET to show ANWHERE some quote that provides the threat of an imminent WMD attack, BY Saddam/Iraq, ON U.S. soil.  Please, if I missed it, highlight it for me.       

[gipper]

Still an ass.