@old-crescent Do you think the NYT misquoted Bush in September of 2003 saying there was no evidence linking Iraq to 9/11? If so, I can find another news source.
I posted AI because CoH did.
Again, the intelligence agencies did not tell Bush that Iraq played a part in 9/11 because as Bush admitted, there was no evidence of that.
We invaded Iraq in March of that year - 6 months before Bush made his statement.
I think, at the time of the invasion, we didn’t really know if there was a link to 9/11, but there was suspicioun.
the main reason for invasion was WMD, which our intelligence indicated Saddam had.
DANC
@old-crescent Correct--the timimg makes it worse. If we didn't have any evidence in September of that year, it's a pretty safe assumption that we didn't have any in March either. Evidence doesn't just disappear . . . well, if it's not connected to Epstein, it doesn't.
From March 2003:
Sources knowledgeable about US intelligence say there is no evidence that Hussein played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks, nor that he has been or is currently aiding Al Qaeda.
https://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html
would never be reported as such but the US toppling Saddam was also meant as a clear message to the Middle East that any future 9/11s would end in regime change for involved governments. Saudi Arabia included.
Except that Iraq wasn't an "involved government."
would never be reported as such but the US toppling Saddam was also meant as a clear message to the Middle East that any future 9/11s would end in regime change for involved governments. Saudi Arabia included.
Except that Iraq wasn't an "involved government."
didn’t matter. Saudi Arabia et al. saw the writing on the wall anyway. Two birds (or more), one stone.
@old-crescent Correct--the timimg makes it worse. If we didn't have any evidence in September of that year, it's a pretty safe assumption that we didn't have any in March either. Evidence doesn't just disappear . . . well, if it's not connected to Epstein, it doesn't.
From March 2003:
Sources knowledgeable about US intelligence say there is no evidence that Hussein played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks, nor that he has been or is currently aiding Al Qaeda.
Beauty is in they eye of the beholder. If he'd have had WMDs and used them, would you have felt better if we'd waited to take him out?
Do you approve of the bombing of Iran? What is the 'prood' they had enriched enough uranium to make a bomb?
I remember post-9/11 very well and there was real fear that there was a nexus between Iraq and the al Quaida. Hindsight being 20/20, we now realize that was unfounded. But, as President, do you take the risk?
Iraq having WMD was the prime reason we invaded anyway, and intelligence agencies were giving reports he had them. Yes, it was an error to invade, but considering the times, it's understandable. The US did a lot of things during WWII, due to fear, that we wouldn't do normally, either.
DANC
@old-crescent I remember it very well, too. Yes, there was a "very real fear" of Iraq having a connection to Al Queda. Why? Because the Bush admin. drummed that up to provide a reason to invade Iraq. Read the article I linked from the Christian Science Monitor. The Bush admin knew what they were doing and they shouldn't have done that. It was a long-standing war hawk position that we had to bomb and maybe invade Iraq for WMDs and the Bush admin. (hi, Dick Cheney) used 9/11 as their excuse. Even given the intelligence for WMDs, the admin lied about the certainty of their conclusions based on the intelligence. Hell, Cheney said there was "no doubt" Iraq had WMD and "no doubt" that Iraq was planning on using them against the U.S. Those were lies--the evidence was not that clear cut and he knew it.
Your other reasons prove too much. If that's the case, why shouldn't we invade and try to nation build every single nation that we "fear" might be trying to get WMD? In fact, under that reasoning, Trump should be invading Iran right now. Do you want that?
The Iraq invasion was a mistake that was clearly one at the time, I thought. I never thought there was much risk of a minor nation state's leader directly attacking the US--just as there is no such appreciable risk now--and certainly not enough to justify invading a foreign nation on the other side of the globe, which is the enormous difference between the Iraq invasion and the Iran bombing.** And if you remember the time well, you'll remember that we had Iraq locked up with no-fly zone and that Clinton bombed them when they rejected UN inspectors in '98 (in the midst of the Lewinsky scandal).
**Remember, Hussein was no religious zealot. He was a pragmatic despot, concerned with holding onto power and wealth, not jihad. Did he, personally, deserve what was coming to him? Absolutely. But I think you're too sophisticated to believe that's a reason that should be weighed in making decisions such as this.
You wrote as an ultimate conclusion in your last post that the Bush admin's decision was "understandable." On that, we can agree and I think that can be said of nearly every single foreign policy blunder in history--in fact, I think that's the most interesting part of history is trying to understand a situation, a time, a culture well enough to see how whatever disastrous (or horror-inducing) decision they made was "understandable" to them.
So while I agree with your sentiment, I don't think that takes it out of the realm of a "worst foreign policy mistake." I judge that based on results, cost, etc.
@old-crescent I remember it very well, too. Yes, there was a "very real fear" of Iraq having a connection to Al Queda. Why? Because the Bush admin. drummed that up to provide a reason to invade Iraq. Read the article I linked from the Christian Science Monitor. The Bush admin knew what they were doing and they shouldn't have done that. It was a long-standing war hawk position that we had to bomb and maybe invade Iraq for WMDs and the Bush admin. (hi, Dick Cheney) used 9/11 as their excuse. Even given the intelligence for WMDs, the admin lied about the certainty of their conclusions based on the intelligence. Hell, Cheney said there was "no doubt" Iraq had WMD and "no doubt" that Iraq was planning on using them against the U.S. Those were lies--the evidence was not that clear cut and he knew it.
Your other reasons prove too much. If that's the case, why shouldn't we invade and try to nation build every single nation that we "fear" might be trying to get WMD? In fact, under that reasoning, Trump should be invading Iran right now. Do you want that?
The Iraq invasion was a mistake that was clearly one at the time, I thought. I never thought there was much risk of a minor nation state's leader directly attacking the US--just as there is no such appreciable risk now--and certainly not enough to justify invading a foreign nation on the other side of the globe, which is the enormous difference between the Iraq invasion and the Iran bombing.** And if you remember the time well, you'll remember that we had Iraq locked up with no-fly zone and that Clinton bombed them when they rejected UN inspectors in '98 (in the midst of the Lewinsky scandal).
**Remember, Hussein was no religious zealot. He was a pragmatic despot, concerned with holding onto power and wealth, not jihad. Did he, personally, deserve what was coming to him? Absolutely. But I think you're too sophisticated to believe that's a reason that should be weighed in making decisions such as this.
You remember, then, that Saddam was blocking inspectors and satellite photos of trucks moving items around that were reported as possible WMDs.
Saddam purposely made it seem as if he had WMDs to intimidate his neighbors and us. He succeeded and paid the price.
DANC
@old-crescent True.
Doesn’t make the decision to invade less of a mistake, though.
Hindsight is always 20/20
DANC
@old-crescent I remember it very well, too. Yes, there was a "very real fear" of Iraq having a connection to Al Queda. Why? Because the Bush admin. drummed that up to provide a reason to invade Iraq. Read the article I linked from the Christian Science Monitor. The Bush admin knew what they were doing and they shouldn't have done that. It was a long-standing war hawk position that we had to bomb and maybe invade Iraq for WMDs and the Bush admin. (hi, Dick Cheney) used 9/11 as their excuse. Even given the intelligence for WMDs, the admin lied about the certainty of their conclusions based on the intelligence. Hell, Cheney said there was "no doubt" Iraq had WMD and "no doubt" that Iraq was planning on using them against the U.S. Those were lies--the evidence was not that clear cut and he knew it.
Your other reasons prove too much. If that's the case, why shouldn't we invade and try to nation build every single nation that we "fear" might be trying to get WMD? In fact, under that reasoning, Trump should be invading Iran right now. Do you want that?
The Iraq invasion was a mistake that was clearly one at the time, I thought. I never thought there was much risk of a minor nation state's leader directly attacking the US--just as there is no such appreciable risk now--and certainly not enough to justify invading a foreign nation on the other side of the globe, which is the enormous difference between the Iraq invasion and the Iran bombing.** And if you remember the time well, you'll remember that we had Iraq locked up with no-fly zone and that Clinton bombed them when they rejected UN inspectors in '98 (in the midst of the Lewinsky scandal).
**Remember, Hussein was no religious zealot. He was a pragmatic despot, concerned with holding onto power and wealth, not jihad. Did he, personally, deserve what was coming to him? Absolutely. But I think you're too sophisticated to believe that's a reason that should be weighed in making decisions such as this.
You remember, then, that Saddam was blocking inspectors and satellite photos of trucks moving items around that were reported as possible WMDs.
Saddam purposely made it seem as if he had WMDs to intimidate his neighbors and us. He succeeded and paid the price.
I remember thinking at the time that Saddam was doing all the wrong things. He was basically inviting an invasion that he shouldn't have wanted. He was, as you say, behaving as though he had something to hide.
But I also remember thinking very clearly that it was obvious BS on his part, and that no one should have considered for a moment that it was a genuine threat.
So, on one hand Saddam brought it on himself, but on the other hand, we still shouldn't have done it, and that should have been clear even at the time.
@goat Yes. Although, again, this issue of WMD is not the original one we were discussing. It is indisputable at this point that we had NO evidence linking Saddam or Iraq to 9/11.
And if the issue was WMDs, why couldn't we bomb them again, like Clinton did or Trump just did? If you favored invading Iraq then, why not Iran now?
@old-crescent You can say that about any foreign policy mistake, including ones you've pointed out about other presidents, though. So that doesn't shield Bush from criticism here.
By the way, I agree with you that Bush seems like a generally decent guy. And I believe Dick Cheney was pushing for what he genuinely thought was the best course of action. But, of course, I believe that about pretty much every president like Carter, Jefferson, Madison, LBJ, etc. That doesn't mean we can't judge which ones had the most disastrous foreign policy during their presidency.
@old-crescent You can say that about any foreign policy mistake, including ones you've pointed out about other presidents, though. So that doesn't shield Bush from criticism here.
By the way, I agree with you that Bush seems like a generally decent guy. And I believe Dick Cheney was pushing for what he genuinely thought was the best course of action. But, of course, I believe that about pretty much every president like Carter, Jefferson, Madison, LBJ, etc. That doesn't mean we can't judge which ones had the most disastrous foreign policy during their presidency.
Bush’s foreign policy was 100% a reaction to WWII. I can’t think of another President faced with such a calamity his first year as President.
that doesn’t mean I think he did a great job, although he gets an A from me for rallying the country. I’m not a fan of his decision to go in with the CIA and Special Forced instead of overwhelming force right away.
DANC
Latest Post: Anyone remember La Bamba restaurant Our newest member: Doug Beder Recent Posts Unread Posts
