Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Book Review: "A Better Country"
Posted by: McQ on Thursday, November 20, 2008

A Better Country: Why America Was Right To Confront Iraq”. Arthur Borden, 88 pages, Hamilton Books, 2008.

Arthur Borden is a Democrat, World War II veteran and attorney, who, in 2002, became appalled at the opposition his party was mounting to the looming war in Iraq. He started the book, “A Better Country” back then and over the years closely monitored and documented the evidence and arguments pertaining to our entry into the war as well as the ensuing years.

Unsurprisingly, much of what was said and presented by Democrats during that time both shocked and saddened him. He believes part of the problem dates back to the cultural divide that established itself during the Vietnam War and continues to this day. That, coupled with the belief that Democrats were unjustly denied the presidency in 2000, has combined to create hatred for George W Bush and “Bush’s War” that is almost pathological. Borden found the unrelenting and untoward criticism by Democrats of President Bush to be not only unjustified but in many cases irresponsible.

Written in the compact style of a lawyer, Borden lays out a compelling case for the war in Iraq being a necessary one. Reaching back to the Carter doctrine, he ably argues that Bush’s actions, and President Clinton’s, were simply extensions of this well-known doctrine. Jimmy Carter declared that the free flow of oil was critical to our nation and its economic survival and we, as a country, would do what is necessary to ensure it. Every president since Carter has honored and enforced that doctrine.

The middle of the book is where Borden delves into the various charges and accusations leveled against George W Bush and his administration by the Democratic opposition. He addresses the fact that WMD weren’t found and why that isn’t a particularly strong argument in opposition to the war.

He outlines the containment argument and discusses why that wasn’t a valid for Iraq. Borden also talks about the various other claims that those in opposition to the war used to attack Bush - the claim the administration addressed Iraq as an “imminent threat”; the assertion that war supporters believed there was a link between al Qaeda, Iraq and 9/11; the aluminum tubes and yellow cake “lie” and the general charge that Bush “lied” to get us into war. For readers of this blog, those questions have all been examined and rejected. But with Borden’s book, they’re all included within its pages, extensively documented and well argued.

In the last portion of the book, Borden addresses all of the various and sundry attempts by the Democratic opposition to delegitimize the war. It is the most important part of the book in my opinion. His analysis of the Democrat’s opposition to the war and their conduct is invaluable in understanding how destructive it has been. It would be an understatement to conclude Borden found their conduct to be less than becoming. In fact, he found it shameful.

As a historical counterpoint, Borden relates the story of Wendell Willkie, the Republican nominee for president who ran against FDR in 1940 and refused to exploit the war during the campaign. After losing Willkie stepped forward and backed the president as he prepared the nation for war. While Willkie upheld the opposition’s right to “criticize the policies of the government”, he said that meant being “a vigorous, loyal and public-spirited party” and not one that would “fall into the partisan error of opposing things just for the sake of opposition”.

In the case of the Iraq war, as Borden documents, Democrats committed the partisan error Willkie warned against, to their everlasting shame. For the most part, they have not been the “loyal opposition”.

The book is highly recommended to those who are tired of having to accept the conventional wisdom that has been crafted over the years and want something solid with which to fire back. Arthur Borden’s “A Better Country” delivers the necessary ammo.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
I thought to myself, "Well, this should certainly earn him some vitriol from the Kos Kontingent, et al. I went to Amazon to look at the reviews. Surprisingly in the mere 4 reviews the book earned 5 stars by all four.
I see it’s offered by B&N so I may stop by to try my bit at improving sales during this economic downturn.
 
Written By: tom scott
URL: http://
Arthur Borden’s "A Better Country" delivers the necessary ammo.
Just in time for the big celebration.
 
Written By: Linda Morgan
URL: http://
I’m deep into Shelby Foote’s history of the Civil War. There is a lot there about how Lincoln had to fight backstabbers in Congress who were as willing to harm the war effort for party and personal advantage as comtempory Democrats have beem over Iraq.

In fact, they used many of the same political and rhetorical techniques.
 
Written By: Joseph Somsel
URL: http://
This is a bit off topic, but as a public service I would like to remind everyone that today is World Toilet Day.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24670784-2,00.html

I know it is late, but this year is the United Nations International Year of Sanitiation. For those who would like to attend next year’s World Toilet Summit (this year’s was in Macau), the following link may prove useful.

http://www.worldtoilet.org
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Well, that takes care of my Christmas gifts for several co-workers.
 
Written By: Achillea
URL: http://
Erb? Erb? Wherefore art thou, Erb?
 
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
Not sure, I might read it. The truth is I was for the war, then I was against the way it was being fought. Now I am not so convinced it was the right thing to do, although it was probably inevitable.

I grow weary of all the arguments of how only the United States and their poor taxpayers can bear all the burdens of the world. I wonder how much would be done by our very wealthy allies if the HAD TO. If they knew that Uncle Sapp would no longer pick up the tab.
 
Written By: kyleN
URL: http://impudent.blognation.us/blog
Erb? Erb? Wherefore art thou, Erb?
"la la la I can’t hear you! I’m getting ready for final exams! la la la"
 
Written By: Titus Quinn
URL: http://
I grow weary of all the arguments of how only the United States and their poor taxpayers can bear all the burdens of the world. I wonder how much would be done by our very wealthy allies if the HAD TO. If they knew that Uncle Sapp would no longer pick up the tab.


kyleN,

Keep in mind, before we were the "big dog", it was England and the Royal Navy that did the heavt lifting, protecting sea lanes, fighting the slave trade and piracy, protecting Latin America, and so forth.

Someone has to do it. It’s our turn now, and if we don’t we will suffer along with everyone else (except the bad guys).

 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
There is a huge difference between the Copperhead Democrats during the Civil War and the anti-Iraq war democrats. The former were protesting a war in which a significant portion of the population was drafted, killed and wounded. The US population (North and South, including 3 million slaves) totaled 30 million. 3 million troops (10 percent of the population) served. 600 thousand (20% of those serving and 2% of the population) died.

To approximately extrapolate to today’s circumstances, multiply by 10. That makes 300 million population and would mean 30 million serving and 6 million dead. And that is not considering casualties who were merely wounded.

Let’s assume that there will be 5 thousand troops killed in Iraq. In a population of 300 million, that is .0017 % of the population.

I submit the anti-Iraq Dems had much less to fuss about than the infamous Copperheads.
 
Written By: jim Rhoads aka vnjagvet
URL: http://www.yargb@blogspot,com
Someone has to do it. It’s our turn now, and if we don’t we will suffer along with everyone else (except the bad guys).
And where is that written in stone? If, for instance, Russia decides to invade the Ukraine or Georgia again, how does it fall upon us to oppose them other than verbally?

Did you know that Europe, which is politically unified, has more population and wealth than the usa? why should we continue to bear the burdens of their security?

I am not convinced by siting World War 2 so please don’t even try. There is no correlation in the modern world with WW2.

If we were faced with a large international tyrannical philosophy like national socialism or international communism again then I would say, yes we have to oppose it. But that is no longer the case.

Like beaten dogs we just keep blindly following this mantra without questioning it. I am sick and farking tired of it. Our nation is nearly bankrupt and our so called allies fight us at every turn, while the third world hates us even while they are sucking on our generous teat.

I am sick to death of it.
 
Written By: kyleN
URL: http://impudent.blognation.us/blog
Speaking of illuminating gift books, does anybody know of one to serve as an antidote to Zinn’s "People’s History of the US?" I know someone in dire need of it.
 
Written By: Achillea
URL: http://
Like beaten dogs we just keep blindly following this mantra without questioning it. I am sick and farking tired of it. Our nation is nearly bankrupt and our so called allies fight us at every turn, while the third world hates us even while they are sucking on our generous teat.


Well, here’s the thing, if we are going to spend 3/4 of a trillion dollars on defense, we may as well use it. We are spending more on defense than perhaps the next eight highest defense spenders combined.

Now go try and win an election on a platform of spending just as much as the next two high spenders on the globe, and watch yourself be called un-American, weak, appeaser, communist, socialist, traitor, and all around pus*y.

This guy would be laughed out of the primaries as a moonbat today...

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
 
Written By: CaptinSarcastic
URL: http://
Wow, now it’s 3/4’s of a trillion dollars? This says otherwise.

Fiscal Year 2009 Department Of Defense Budget Released


President George W. Bush today sent to Congress his Defense budget for Fiscal Year 2009. The budget provides $515.4 billion in discretionary authority for the Department of Defense (DoD), a $35.9 billion or 7.5 percent increase over the enacted level for Fiscal Year 2008.

http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=11663

Unless, there is another 250 billion out there unaccounted for, where does anyone get 3/4’s of a trillion dollars? I’ve seen exaggeration and embellishment before, but that’s going a bit far.

 
Written By: RFN
URL: http://
And where is that written in stone? If, for instance, Russia decides to invade the Ukraine or Georgia again, how does it fall upon us to oppose them other than verbally?
It isn’t written in stone. And, doing something about, say, Georgia may not be the right answer.

The point, however, is that for the last 200 years Anglo Saxon navies have made the world a much better place, and we are in no position to end that now . . .
Did you know that Europe, which is politically unified, has more population and wealth than the usa? why should we continue to bear the burdens of their security?
I don’t agree that Europe has any real unity . . .

Europe simply will not (and probably can’t) step up and take our place controlling the world’s oceans. Likely they can take care of their regional defense, but beyond that, they can’t do the heavy lifting.
If we were faced with a large international tyrannical philosophy like national socialism or international communism again then I would say, yes we have to oppose it. But that is no longer the case.
We need the heaving lifting power up front. It is cheaper if no one is willing to stand up to us, it is more expensive when we have to actually do some serious fighting . . .
Like beaten dogs we just keep blindly following this mantra without questioning it. I am sick and farking tired of it. Our nation is nearly bankrupt and our so called allies fight us at every turn, while the third world hates us even while they are sucking on our generous teat.


Uh, our financial problem is mostly due to Democrats pushing bad loans . . .

Our deficit is mostly due to entitlements Democrats have pushed since the ’30s (although Bush got in the act as well . . . )

Nevertheless, someone needs to provide security, and that be us, baby . . .
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Unless, there is another 250 billion out there unaccounted for, where does anyone get 3/4’s of a trillion dollars? I’ve seen exaggeration and embellishment before, but that’s going a bit far.
The cost for the Iraq and Afghanistan operations are supplementals that are kept off the books. They are not included in the DoD budget but are definitely DoD expenditures.
 
Written By: Is
URL: http://
Unless, there is another 250 billion out there unaccounted for, where does anyone get 3/4’s of a trillion dollars? I’ve seen exaggeration and embellishment before, but that’s going a bit far.
There is another $250 billion out there, and more.

Iraq, Afghanistan, and the GWOT were funded by "Emergency Supplemental Requests".

For 2008, they added up as follows:
Iraq and Afghanistan - $198 Billion
Global War on Terror - $145 Billion

And then of course the actual defense budget for 2008 - $481 Billion

Total - $824 billion (a bit more than 3/4 of a trillion dollars)

So no, I was not remotely exagerrating, I was understating, with the expectation that Iraq and Afghanistan combined cost will come down in 2009, bringing the total to around $750 Billion.

So now that we have that out of the way, what’s your point, that we don’t spend much?





 
Written By: CaptinSarcastic
URL: http://
WMD? Nope.
Mobile bio weapons labs? Nope.
Active Nuclear Program? Nope.
Operational ties to Al Qaeda? Nope.
Cakewalk? Not exactly.
Six days or six weeks? Nope.
A phase IV plan? Nope.
Determined to invade Iraq on 9/12? Yep.

You’re right Bush totally didn’t lie at all.

 
Written By: Retief
URL: http://
And again, we’re treated to the left’s eternal attempt to redefine the word, "lie".

Can’t wait until it is used in the same context with the upcoming Democratic administration.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Project much?

lie 2 (l)
n.
1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
 
Written By: Retief
URL: http://
Oh, you mean like Obama saying he pledged to use federal matching funds and then not doing so?

Now that was a lie - as opposed to being wrong about things.

Not to worry, we’ll be glad to improve your education in the next 4 years by pointing out the difference between being wrong about something (WMD) and lying about something (Fed Matching Funds).
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Oh yes. Poor, poor little Bush. He’d never have invaded Iraq if not for that dratted ambiguous intel.

In what fantasy world of yours is "the smoking gun could be a mushroom cloud" not intended to decieve?
 
Written By: Retief
URL: http://
"the smoking gun could be a mushroom cloud"
Still don’t understand, do you retief?

Fed Matching Funds - lie.

Belief, based on intel, which turns out not to be valid - wrong.

Read the book - Borden does a nice job of explaining the difference even for those who continue to have difficulty with understanding the difference.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Retief:

If your next door neighbor is a known murderer and he points a gun at you, would you not call the police?

Saddam Hussein attacked his neighbors, Kuwait and Iran. His missiles rained down on Iran with chemical warheads. Do you know what the US policy is toward a chemical or biological attack? A thermonuclear weapon. Saddam used poison gas on the Kurds, for which he was tried, convicted and executed.

Iraq had a nuclear weapons development program and concealed it. Even Joe Wilson (Mr Valerie Plame) admitted it. Iraqi diplomats were seeking a special trade relationship with Niger. The phony yellow cake messages were never believed by the intell community. Saddam’s chief nuclear scientist defected to the West and is now in Washington DC. A weapons program does not mean you have weapon components ready to assemble.

When you use intelligence information, 80% is correct and 20%, incorrect. The question is which 80%? From a security standpoint, could we have allowed Saddam to continue to threaten us and his neighbors. Failing to act, as Bill Clinton did, is considered irresponsible.

 
Written By: arch
URL: http://
Read the book - Borden does a nice job of explaining the difference even for those who continue to have difficulty with understanding the difference.
BDS sufferers are resistant to logic and facts.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Fed Matching Funds - lie.
This is a statement of future intent, not fact. If Obama knew he would not be accepting federal funds in the future, then it would have been a lie, so as soon as you can prove his contemporaneous private thoughts at that moment, I will concede. Otherwise, he changed his mind. Or maybe he knew he would not bind himself to the politically expedient answer he gave, and it was an outright lie. So what, this wasn’t life or death, or war. All politicians lie, but there are different kinds of lies, aren’t there?
Belief, based on intel, which turns out not to be valid - wrong.
Here’s the problem with this, the intelligence did not say what Bush said, and that’s where the lying comes in.

If for example, the intelligence services said there is no doubt that there are purple unicorns in Tikrit, with no dissenting intelligence, and Bush told the American public that there was no doubt there are purple unicorns in Tikrit, it would have been an honest statement for his part, regardless of the presence of unicorns.

But that’s not what Bush did.

It was more like this...

Intelligence services NEVER exppressed certainty of the presence of WMD’s in Iraq, for every report that indicated a likelihood of said presence, there was another that expressed doubt of their presence, and in case did any intelligence ever indicate that there is no doubt, but that’s not how the administration presented it.

Dick Cheney said: "There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use ... against us."

Condoleezza Rice: "We do know that [Hussein] is actively pursuing a nuclear weapon."

Donald Rumsfeld: "[Hussein’s] regime has amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons."

George W. Bush - "Iraqi operatives continue to hide biological and chemical agents to avoid detection by inspectors."

All statements of certitude where no certitude was supported by the intelligence.

What do you call it when someone tells you that something might be so, and you pass it on as someone telling you that something is so without a doubt, and does it in the interests of gaining support for war?

I don’t have qualms with people that call it exaggeration, or with people that call it lying. I disagree completely with people that suggest that he was just wrong, because if he were not lying or exaggerating, he could not have been wrong. We (the public) may not have known what the truth of the intelligence was, but Bush did, (or if he didn’t that is an even worse breach of duty), and we counted on him to tell us what information we actually had, and he did not communicate that information honestly.
When you use intelligence information, 80% is correct and 20%, incorrect.
I’m okay with going with 80% for the most part, unless the difference means people’s lives, then I want simple proof. But don’t tell me it was 100% and then say you were wrong. You can’t be wrong if it’s 100%, but words like "no doubt" and "we know" don’t express 80/20, they express 100/0.

Either Bush was manipulated by his subordinates to allow the case for to expressed with certitude where the intelligence expressed no such certitude, which would indicate incomptence, or he knew the doubts the intelligence expressed and misled the American people about it.

You pick. I don’t care.
 
Written By: CaptinSarcastic
URL: http://
This is a statement of future intent, not fact.
It was not a statement of future intent. It was a pledge. That means an oath to do something. He didn’t do it. That then make his pledge a lie.
Here’s the problem with this, the intelligence did not say what Bush said, and that’s where the lying comes in.
Uh, no - it depended on which part of the intel you chose to give credence too - that makes it a matter of interpretation.

Obviously, unless he, or you, knew for absolute sure that all of the intel he relied on was false, his reliance on it was a mistake, not a lie.
All statements of certitude where no certitude was supported by the intelligence.
Certitude doesn’t mean someone is lying - it simply means they believe the intel they’ve been given.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
George W. Bush - "Iraqi operatives continue to hide biological and chemical agents to avoid detection by inspectors."
Not to sharpen the point too sharply there Cap, but...they did.

Bio and chemical agents aren’t always the same as a bio and chemical weapon, until they’ve been assembled INTO one.
You want to trot out the exact WORDS to use as proof of Retief’s lie argument...fine...the ones you trotted out don’t say ’weapons’.

So...as you say, you pick, I don’t care.

And let me know how the absolute intel on Iran and their new toys goes later.
I can hardly wait to see how the incoming administration interprets it.
Should be fun eh?

I’ll be warming the word ’lie’ up for you if Barrack makes a mistake.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
I’ll be warming the word ’lie’ up for you if Barrack makes a mistake.


That’s a given
 
Written By: CaptinSarcastic
URL: http://
I’ll be warming the word ’lie’ up for you if Barrack makes a mistake.
No, see that’s the beauty of it...
Under my normal rules mistakes aren’t lies.

For you special people who insist on the validity of the whole lie argument for the Iraq War I’d be willint to make exceptions.

Maybe not though, because you know, SOMEONE has to act like rational adults or this just keeps descending further and further into the maelstrom.

 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Under my normal rules mistakes aren’t lies.
Under my normal rules, lies aren’t mistakes.

If I say to you, there is no doubt there is termite infestation in your house and we need to burn it down, and you agree, and then you learn after your house is a pile of cinders that my information was based on an inspection that informed me that there MAY be a termite infestation in your house, and further, you learn that I had desire you were unaware of to burn your house down in order to improve the neighborhood, did I lie to you, or make a mistake?

However you want to qualify this, one adjective does not apply... honest.

Your house is infested with termites - Bush said the intelligence “leaves no doubt that . . . Iraq . . . continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.”

Your house is infested with termites - Vice President Cheney also was part of the chorus and declared that “there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.”

There’s no termites - Findings do not support the 2002 NIE judgment that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.

There’s no termites - Findings do not support the 2002 NIE assessment that Iraq’s acquisition of high-strength aluminum tubes was intended for an Iraqi nuclear program.

There’s no termites - Findings do not support the 2002 NIE assessment that Iraq was "vigorously trying to procure uranium ore and yellowcake" from Africa.

There’s no termites - Findings do not support the 2002 NIE assessment that "Iraq has biological weapons.

There’s no termites - Findings do not support the 2002 NIE assessment that Iraq possessed, or ever developed, mobile facilities for producing biological warfare agents.

There’s no termites - Findings do not support the 2002 NIE assessment that Iraq "has chemical weapons" or "is expanding its chemical industry to support chemical weapons."

There’s no termites - Findings do not support the 2002 NIE assessment that Iraq likely retained covert SCUD SRBMs.

There’s no termites - Findings do not support the 2002 NIE assessment that Iraq and developed a program for an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle to deliver biological agents.

Read it how you will, and try and get some payback for people calling a lie a lie, because, um, you can?





 
Written By: CaptinSarcastic
URL: http://
The SSCI report
"Conclusion 3. The Intelligence Community (IC) suffered from a collective
presumption that Iraq had an active and growing weapons of mass destruction (WMD) program. This "group think" dynamic led Intelligence Community analysts, collectors and
managers to both interpret ambiguous evidence as conclusively indicative of a WMD program as well as ignore or minimize evidence that Iraq did not have active and expanding weapons of mass destruction programs. This presumption was so strong that
formalized IC mechanisms established to challenge assumptions and group think were not utilized."

"Conclusion 4. In a few significant instances, the analysis in the National Intelligence Estimate suffers from a "layering" effect whereby assessments were built based on previous judgments without carrying forward the uncertainties of the underlying judgments."

The Butler report:
"31. As regards assessment of intelligence, we detected a tendency for judgements to be too influenced by past underestimates as well as by Iraq’s previous record, and its programme of deceit and concealment. But we found no evidence of deliberate distortion or of culpable negligence nor for that matter of assessments being influenced by the policy concerns of senior members of the JIC."
http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/news/2004/intell-040714-butler-launch-statement.htm
 
Written By: anonymous
URL: http://
Findings do not support the 2002 NIE judgment that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.
Findings may not support what was believed to be true. That doesn’t mean those who believed it were lying.

That’s the simple truth you and retief can’t seem to grasp.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
I’m fine with people calling Bush a liar, as long as they also call Clinton a liar, since he bombed Iraq in 1998 using the exact same intelligence. Or I guess you could prove to me that between 1998 and 2000, Iraq became clean, but somehow the Clinton admin report to the Bush admin stating that got lost.

Also, if you review the record of weapons inspections in Iraq, I think you see why being skeptical of the Iraqi regime was the right position to take. I don’t know about you, but when it takes upwards of 7 "Full and Final Complete Declarations" to move Iraq from "no biological weapons programs to "weaponized anthrax in production" (and requiring a defecting son-in-law to find out about that.) I would be pretty skeptical.

p.s. Clinton bombed an aspirin factory in Sudan. When you’re done with his war crimes tribunals, let’s talk. What? You’re saying he made a decision based on faulty intel? Seriously?

p.s.s. If you are going to hold Republicans to one standard and Democrats to another, then there is no point in any discussion.
 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
"You saw the defense — you saw the National Intelligence Estimate, Senator Edwards, as a member of the Intelligence Committee. Did you believe it when you saw it? And was that the basis for your vote, which you enthusiastically talked about when you made the vote to authorize war against Iraq?"
EDWARDS: Well, it wasn’t just the National Intelligence Estimate, it was a whole — it was actually two or three years of sitting in briefings and receiving information from the Intelligence Committee, not only about the weapons issue, which is what Howard just talked about, but also about the atrocities that Saddam was committing against his own people, gassing Kurdish children in northern Iraq.
John Edwards
JANUARY 29, 2004
 
Written By: anonymous
URL: http://
McQ, Why do you persist in this delusion that Bush relied on intel supositions about WMD in either deciding to invade or in deciding to emphasize the scary weapons as a rationale for war? We know now that Bush wanted to attack Iraq immediately after 9/11. We know that on the very day, 9/11/01, Rumsfeld asked aides for Intel on Iraq to "Judge whether good enough hit S.H. [Saddam Hussein] at same time. Not only UBL [Osama bin Laden].… Need to move swiftly.… Go massive. Sweep it all up. Things related and not." We know that in meetings on 9/11 and 9/12 Bush and Rumsfeld were already determined to attack Saddam. We know from the British notes that the intel was being fixed around the already decided policy.

How can you keep a straight face while pretending that poor misguided Bush just honestly believed intel that even the CIA wasn’t definitive on?
 
Written By: Retief
URL: http://
McQ, Why do you persist in this delusion that Bush relied on intel supositions about WMD in either deciding to invade or in deciding to emphasize the scary weapons as a rationale for war?
Because I read the book I reviewed and it documents that quite well. Have you read it?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
"We know now that Bush wanted to attack Iraq immediately after 9/11."

And I know a few people I want to smack up side the head with a two-by-four. We all have a wish list. So what?
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Former President Bill Clinton, July 22, 2003 (CNN with Larry King):

"Let me tell you what I know. When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for. That is, at the end of the first Gulf War, we knew what he had. We knew what was destroyed in all the inspection processes and that was a lot. And then we bombed with the British for four days in 1998. We might have gotten it all; we might have gotten half of it; we might have gotten none of it. But we didn’t know. So I thought it was prudent for the president to go to the U.N. and for the U.N. to say you got to let these inspectors in, and this time if you don’t cooperate the penalty could be regime change, not just continued sanctions."

"It is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons. We might have destroyed them in ’98. We tried to, but we sure as heck didn’t know it because we never got to go back in there."
 
Written By: Eric
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider