One:  This is well-known information. There were contacts between Iraq and Al Qaida but no evidence to suggest that Iraq was involved in 9/11, nor evidence to suggest cooperation/coordination between Iraq and Al Qaida. This was the conclusion of the 9/11 commission (as well as others). At this point, it is probably only Cheney, Feith, and Perle who are still trying to peddle the notion that there was a close relationship between them. As I recall (and, if necessary, I can try to locate the reference) an alliance between the two was precluded by the fact that Saddam is a secularist while Bin Laden is an Islamicist.

Two:  The point that I was trying to make—and you have essentially conceded it—was that the administration sold the war on the basis of WMD (just as tikal said). Once it became clear that there was no WMD, the sales pitch shifted to a litany of reasons (regime-change, etc).

Three:  The most interesting item may be that years ago during the Clinton administration, this same basic group (Feith, Perle?, Kristol?, perhaps another) wrote an open letter to Clinton advocating regime change in Iraq. Bush & neocons came into office planning to go to war in Iraq; 9/11 merely provided a convenient excuse. After 9/11, Perle pushed the invasion to the pentagon as a way to pressure Saudi Arabia. By invading Iraq and controlling Iraqi oil, the theory went, we could send a message to the Saudis (threatening them with decreased oil sales), achieve a geopolitical advantage, and obtain an economic boost. Soon after we invaded Iraq, we began to construct numerous, permanent military bases in Iraq (Why? Because we had no intention of leaving since this was to be our new home in the Middle East). The original plan of the neocons was to install Chalabi (by democratic means, I am sure) as our man in Iraq. Regardless of the Bush administration’s rhetoric concerning WMD, regime change, or democracy, their actions conspicuously resemble an old-fashioned colonial-power land grab.

Perhaps this is good foreign policy and Perle’s theory is right (I am not judging) but if I were a parent who’s son or daughter came home from Iraq without a leg, I could never forgive the Bushies for having sent my child to war on FALSE pretenses. The nation was deprived of the facts and an opportunity for honest discussion and debate prior to the invasion (remember how we were all told that it wasn’t patriotic to question the president while at war with the terrorists). Dying to save your country from a nuclear attack is one thing; dying because the neocons want to empire-build is another. Democracy means the president doesn’t just get to do whatever he wants –by whatever means--and to hell with the rest of us (see my Washington Post below which outlines how the Bushies hyped and mislead the nation about the WMD threat).

Finally, I remind you that—according to Clark--dying for Iraqi democracy does not equate to increased US security.

You presented the following as fact:

"The thousands of US young men and women, who have sacrificed or will sacrifice their lives and limbs, deserved to know the truth about the rationale for war IN ADVANCE. First it was a preemptive strike in the face of an imminent WMD threat, then it became "we're fighting the war over there so we won't have to fight it here" --like terrorist can't do two things at once. Now it's the theoretical notion that democracy in Iraq will spread to other Middle Eastern countries and that this will make us all safe from terrorism."

That's bullshit. All of the above reasons, not to mention the overwhelming humanitarian reason, were discussed / presented / debated prior to the Iraq invasion. Extensively debated, for nearly a year. Any informed person who's been paying attention knows this. Your claim that it was only WMD and all WMD, only to be followed by more reasons is total, complete bullshit. You can spin and spout half-baked rantings about the Neocons quest for empire and oil all you want to, but it won't change the fact that your initial post was an incorrect assertion, unsupported by any documentary evidence.

RLTW





-- Modified on 2/8/2005 8:32:15 PM

Well, if you feel that all of these issues were thoroughly debated, discussed, presented, etc prior to the war--and that most Americans were given the impression that we're doing this for WMD, and all of these other wonderful reasons--then you and I simply disagree. My point was that the emphasis was first and foremost clearly WMD--and not just the biological and chemical kind. The implication (both implied and stated) was nukes. The shift in the Bush position began when the WMD case fell apart.

Rant, insult, whatever you'd like. You just don't have much of a case. As far as the Perle theory outlined above: it is well documented in the print media. If anyone is interested, I may be able to locate the link or the article itself.

Finally, Richard Clark's point still stands: contrary to the administration’s latest rationale, democracy in Iraq will not ensure our safety in the US.

Thanks.

-- Modified on 2/8/2005 9:09:53 PM

WMD! WMD!  Funny, that's all I remember!  Cheney till the end kept on claiming it.

I do not approve of anything that tampers with natural ignorance.  Ignorance is like a delicate exotic fruit.  Touch it, and the bloom is gone.

Answer this one question.

Is America safer now that the elections in Iraq are over?

If so, why hasn't the terror threat level been lowered?

Regardless of the causes for the Bush War on Iraq, and regardless of the outcome in Iraq, the US will not be safer.

look at Libya, plus now there is no terrist friendly government in Iraq.

The reason the terror alert is where it is is because it only takes a few assholes to carry out a terrorist threat. If I have to explain that to you, it shows you do not understand the issues.

and remember not to dive into that shallow water you're swimming in.

RTLW

1. "To disarm Iraq"   (He was careful not to mention WMD
                      because he knew there were none)

2. "To free the Iraqi people"  (I don't remember the Iraqis
                               begging us to save them)

3. "To defend the world"  (Most countries were against the
                          invasion)

Wow, that's deep!

which has similarly been shown to not be supported by a single shred of evidence.  It was these justifications, and ONLY these, that were responsible for the huge political support that Bush had for the invasion of Iraq at the time it was done.   The other issues you cite were known to be ancillary benefits, but insufficient for the American public to countenance the sending of troops for an invasion, with the concommitant loss of lives and treasury.

That was the actual situation in late 2002 when we ran up to the Iraq war.   Anything else is simply revisionist bullshit (to use a term you seem to like) by which the Bush Administration is trying to re-spin their inability to back up the two major claims which were used to SELL the war, prior to the fact both domestically and internationally, and you know it.

Reon't be so self-critical. It's not healthy. -eom

I apologize.  You apparently can dish out cryptic "warnings" but cannot take a humorous harmless comment of opportunity.

Please tell me about this "cryptic warning".

You're such a delicate flower, I(smartass) will forever leave you alone... xoxox