Iraq War a Mistake

[Oystein]

...
I just quoted Hans Blix giving a speech before the UN Security Council 12 days before the invasion stating that Iraq was not meeting their obligations under UN Resolution 1441.

One month before the invasion Hans Blix said this about Iraq not cooperating with the inspectors and their agreement required by 1441:

You can post as many links as you want to Hans Blix saying what he thinks after the invasion, what matters is what he said before the invasion.
...

SG already addressed this, but perhaps it bears repeating:

Yes, Blix said Iraq was not meeting their obligations under UN Resolution 1441, BUT he also said there is no good reason to assume that Saddam had WMD, and that it was actually rather doubtful.
The former does not invalidate the latter, and does not validate the forged and false claims advanced by the Bush regime to start war.

 

[Bogative]

You seem to be interpreting that as agreeing with the assessment there were WMDs and/or Saddam was the problem. I interpret it as a very diplomatic way of saying the Bush and Blair administrations were the ones not cooperating.

It was never the responsibility of Bush or Blair to pinpoint the location of WMDs. How could they possibly, there were no inspectors in Iraq for four years.

And, you must've missed the part where Hans Blix said it was solely Iraq's responsibility to prove that the weapons were destroyed, not anyone else's to prove he had them. I'll quote him again:

This is perhaps the most important problem we are facing. Although I can understand that it may not be easy for Iraq in all cases to provide the evidence needed, it is not the task of the inspectors to find it."

Pretty simple:
1) Saddam agreed to destroy his WMDs and document it.
2) Saddam destroyed his WMDs.
3) Saddam did not document it.
4) Saddam had no way of proving he destroyed all of his WMDs.
5) Saddam continued to claim he had WMDs.
6) Bush believed him(and Clinton before him).

 

[RandFan]

Pretty simple:
1) Saddam agreed to destroy his WMDs and document it.
2) Saddam destroyed his WMDs.
3) Saddam did not document it.
4) Saddam had no way of proving he destroyed all of his WMDs.
5) Saddam continued to claim he had WMDs.
6) Bush believed him(and Clinton before him).

Most other nations were not at that moment fearful of Iraq. They, and Blix didn't see a clear and present danger to justify the urgency of an invasion.

In any event, if this were sufficient to justify war then there was no need for the subterfuge (leaking lies and then using the reporting of the lies as justification for the claims and other shenanigans like Kestrel pointed out about the Yellow Cake).

The administration knew they had a week case and had to fortify it with misinformation.

 

[RandFan]

There was also the claim that Iraq trying to purchase uranium ore from Niger and Cheney's outing of Valerie Plame Wilson after her husband Joe Wilson wrote an editorial pointing out why the claim was false.

It's odd now to look back. I had a very dim view of Plame, Wilson, Richard Clarke and others. I bought the yellow cake story hook line and sinker. I'd like to think that at the time I was a reasonable and rational person. I was sincere. I get that people can be manipulated and I was. What I think is intellectually dishonest is refusing to admit that when you boil it all down it was a huge cluster **** that will end up costing us upwards of a trillion and perhaps more (yes, over and above what we would have spent for the military to stay at home).

The cost in human life and the suffering is incalculable. Those like me who staunchly defended the invasion have a responsibility to own up to the lies. If you think the war was a net positive fine but own the costs of this war. The money is either gone or committed. The toothpaste cannot be put back into the tube.

You break it, you own it. --Colin Powell

"As quoted in Plan of Attack (2004) by Bob Woodward, a book in which he was a key source, cautioning President Bush before the Iraqi war that he would be responsible for the fate of the Iraqi's after the fall of the Hussein regime." --Wiki

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

You can go back further than that but it doesn't make Bush's war venture any less of a disaster of Biblical proportion.

It's amazing how you guys will think anything other than how screwed up the Bush/Cheney presidency was.

Cheney/Rumsfeld. Dubya was a little boy eating at the grownups table for at least 3 years before he was able to start to assert himself.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

This is why Cheney is not only evil but damn dangerous.

• Leak lies to Judith Miller.
• Wait for Judith Miller to publish the lies.
• Go on meet the press and use Judith Miller's published lies without divulging that you are the source.

That takes some balls and contempt for the American people.

While meantime hiding unsupervised in an Undisclosed Location that sits neither in the Executive nor Legislative branch.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Was I? I thought I was making a simple statement of fact.

That you decided to attach extra baggage to it is your mistake, not mine.

I'll take your word for your corrected intent.

But the baggage I added was because people in this very thread continue to remind us how Obama and both Clintons are equally to blame for the fiasco only Bush/Cheney et al are responsible for.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

We're probably on about the same page.

I don't blame Obama for not immediately fixing the disaster. But he has "owned" the situation for quite some time....
Let's just say I'm disappointed in the pace of our withdrawal.

It's a two edged sword. We withdrew and ISIS exploded into existence. Now what?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It was never the responsibility of Bush or Blair to pinpoint the location of WMDs. How could they possibly, there were no inspectors in Iraq for four years.

And, you must've missed the part where Hans Blix said it was solely Iraq's responsibility to prove that the weapons were destroyed, not anyone else's to prove he had them. I'll quote him again:



Pretty simple:
1) Saddam agreed to destroy his WMDs and document it.
2) Saddam destroyed his WMDs.
3) Saddam did not document it.
4) Saddam had no way of proving he destroyed all of his WMDs.
5) Saddam continued to claim he had WMDs.
6) Bush believed him(and Clinton before him).

OMG! That's some heavy denial there. As for Bush believed the WMDs were there, that is utterly inconsistent with the evidence.

If that were true, Cheney pulled the wool over Bush's eyes and that's even worse. As it was, the inner circle deceived Colin Powell according to his own words, but there's overwhelming evidence Bush was in on the deceit.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It's odd now to look back. I had a very dim view of Plame, Wilson, Richard Clarke and others. I bought the yellow cake story hook line and sinker. I'd like to think that at the time I was a reasonable and rational person. I was sincere. I get that people can be manipulated and I was. What I think is intellectually dishonest is refusing to admit that when you boil it all down it was a huge cluster **** that will end up costing us upwards of a trillion and perhaps more (yes, over and above what we would have spent for the military to stay at home).

Awards the thread win to RandFan. I remember your coming over to the light side.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Cheney/Rumsfeld. Dubya was a little boy eating at the grownups table for at least 3 years before he was able to start to assert himself.

Yeah, I could have put Wolfowitz and Conde Rice in there too but it's easier to write, et al.

I agree whole heartily that Cheney was the main player and Bush was led around by his nose. But Bush clearly knew which evidence was being fabricated. He commuted Scooter Libby's jail sentence knowing Libby was the fall guy and not the instigator of the Plame outing.

 

[RandFan]

Yeah, I could have put Wolfowitz and Conde Rice in there too but it's easier to write, et al.

I agree whole heartily that Cheney was the main player and Bush was led around by his nose. But Bush clearly knew which evidence was being fabricated. He commuted Scooter Libby's jail sentence knowing Libby was the fall guy and not the instigator of the Plame outing.

(emphasis mine)

IMO: Bush's legacy was shaky at best before he commuted Libby's sentence. Had he focused on Iraq and Bin Laden, invested in technology and increased inspections to secure our ports and points of entry for terrorists he might in the least have had a positive outcome. One that he could count on to be included in his resume. Kinda like his father's did when he carefully built a coalition and ousted Saddam in Kuwait. As it is he demonstrably took his eye off of the ball and screwed the pooch with gross incompetence in Iraq. Scooter Libby is the nail in the coffin.

The punchline?

According to Rubio, in hindsight we should not have invaded. However, it wasn't a mistake though because Saddam is gone and the world is safer (Winston Smith would be proud).



Somehow I doubt that the historians are going to buy that BS.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

It's a two edged sword. We withdrew and ISIS exploded into existence. Now what?

I guess my thought is that if things were going to go to hell when we withdrew regardless, might not an expeditious retreat in 2009 have been preferable to this slow withdrawal over 6+ years? At how much of a cost in lives and money?

If I had lost a son or daughter in that time span, I think I might question what it was all for.

Of course, maybe McCain had it right and we should have stayed 100 years if that's what it took.

I don't really know.

 

[lionking]

Many, if not most, wars were mistakes in retrospect. WWI, the Korean War, Vietnam were all mistakes. One can argue that WWII resulted from the grievous mistakes of the Treaty of Versaisses. And yes, Iraq was a mistake.

However at the time I thought that the WMD intelligence and the behaviour of Saddam justified action.

 

[The Big Dog]

I guess my thought is that if things were going to go to hell when we withdrew regardless, might not an expeditious retreat in 2009 have been preferable to this slow withdrawal over 6+ years? At how much of a cost in lives and money?

If I had lost a son or daughter in that time span, I think I might question what it was all for.

Of course, maybe McCain had it right and we should have stayed 100 years if that's what it took.

I don't really know.

Don't buy into the ISIS baloney. Remember that Obama was calling them the jv a year ago. Al Qua-ida is Bush's fault! ISIS is Bush's fault! The Dems were duped into voting for the Iraq war resolution, and it is Bush's fault!

Sure Obama was pumping arms from Libya into Syria, but ISIS is totes Bush's fault.

 

[RandFan]

How many hearings have we had into the lies, obfuscation, incompetence, etc. that resulted in the greatest foreign policy blunder in at least my life time?

Cost $: he U.S. war in Iraq has cost $1.7 trillion with an additional $490 billion in benefits owed to war veterans, expenses that could grow to more than $6 trillion over the next four decades counting interest, a study released on Thursday said.

Cost American Lives: As of May 29, 2012, according to the U.S. Department of Defense casualty website, there were 4,425 total deaths (including both killed in action and non-hostile) and 32,223 wounded in action (WIA) as a result of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Cost Iraqi Lives: There are more than 133,000 individually recorded civilian deaths since the 2003 invasion of Iraq due to direct war related violence and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians have been wounded

Anyone in Congress grill Cheney congress over his lies?

Anyone in Congress grill Karl Rove bout his email scandal?

Anyone care?

 

[RandFan]

Don't buy into the ISIS baloney. Remember that Obama was calling them the jv a year ago. Al Qua-ida is Bush's fault! ISIS is Bush's fault! The Dems were duped into voting for the Iraq war resolution, and it is Bush's fault!

What kind of logic is this? Bush et al lied to the American people, because the Dems took their word the blame his lies with Democrats?

Sure Obama was pumping arms from Libya into Syria, but ISIS is totes Bush's fault.

I explained to you why this is so absurd in the other thread. Never mind that you have no evidence. Never mind that you know that you have no evidence.

 

[Upchurch]

Many, if not most, wars were mistakes in retrospect. WWI, the Korean War, Vietnam were all mistakes. One can argue that WWII resulted from the grievous mistakes of the Treaty of Versaisses. And yes, Iraq was a mistake.

However at the time I thought that the WMD intelligence and the behaviour of Saddam justified action.

The problem with that is that there were plenty of people beforehand, myself included, who thought the justification was pure BS and made absolutely no sense in the greater context of what was happening at the time.

It's hard to make the argument that no one could predict the outcome, when people could and actually did, including Cheney in a previous administration.

 

[Darth Rotor]

The gift that keeps on giving: Operation Iraqi Freedom.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Many, if not most, wars were mistakes in retrospect. WWI, the Korean War, Vietnam were all mistakes. One can argue that WWII resulted from the grievous mistakes of the Treaty of Versaisses. And yes, Iraq was a mistake.

However at the time I thought that the WMD intelligence and the behaviour of Saddam justified action.

And now do you ask yourself why you didn't pay more attention to the big giant red flags with that intel?

All the people that berated my posts (not you, LK) owe me an apology. I posted about the Downing St Memo, about Wilson and Plame, about Richard Clarke and lots of people in this forum argued I was wrong. Someone should dig up the old threads and see what they posted, I don't have the energy.