The Last Letter
A Message to George W. Bush and Dick Cheney From a Dying Veteran
To: George W. Bush and Dick Cheney
From: Tomas Young
I write this letter on the 10th anniversary of the Iraq War on behalf of my fellow Iraq War veterans. I write this letter on behalf of the 4,488 soldiers and Marines who died in Iraq. I write this letter on behalf of the hundreds of thousands of veterans who have been wounded and on behalf of those whose wounds, physical and psychological, have destroyed their lives. I am one of those gravely wounded. I was paralyzed in an insurgent ambush in 2004 in Sadr City. My life is coming to an end. I am living under hospice care.
I write this letter on behalf of husbands and wives who have lost spouses, on behalf of children who have lost a parent, on behalf of the fathers and mothers who have lost sons and daughters and on behalf of those who care for the many thousands of my fellow veterans who have brain injuries. I write this letter on behalf of those veterans whose trauma and self-revulsion for what they have witnessed, endured and done in Iraq have led to suicide and on behalf of the active-duty soldiers and Marines who commit, on average, a suicide a day. I write this letter on behalf of the some 1 million Iraqi dead and on behalf of the countless Iraqi wounded. I write this letter on behalf of us all—the human detritus your war has left behind, those who will spend their lives in unending pain and grief.
I write this letter, my last letter, to you, Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney. I write not because I think you grasp the terrible human and moral consequences of your lies, manipulation and thirst for wealth and power. I write this letter because, before my own death, I want to make it clear that I, and hundreds of thousands of my fellow veterans, along with millions of my fellow citizens, along with hundreds of millions more in Iraq and the Middle East, know fully who you are and what you have done. You may evade justice but in our eyes you are each guilty of egregious war crimes, of plunder and, finally, of murder, including the murder of thousands of young Americans—my fellow veterans—whose future you stole.
Your positions of authority, your millions of dollars of personal wealth, your public relations consultants, your privilege and your power cannot mask the hollowness of your character. You sent us to fight and die in Iraq after you, Mr. Cheney, dodged the draft in Vietnam, and you, Mr. Bush, went AWOL from your National Guard unit. Your cowardice and selfishness were established decades ago. You were not willing to risk yourselves for our nation but you sent hundreds of thousands of young men and women to be sacrificed in a senseless war with no more thought than it takes to put out the garbage.
I joined the Army two days after the 9/11 attacks. I joined the Army because our country had been attacked. I wanted to strike back at those who had killed some 3,000 of my fellow citizens. I did not join the Army to go to Iraq, a country that had no part in the September 2001 attacks and did not pose a threat to its neighbors, much less to the United States. I did not join the Army to “liberate” Iraqis or to shut down mythical weapons-of-mass-destruction facilities or to implant what you cynically called “democracy” in Baghdad and the Middle East. I did not join the Army to rebuild Iraq, which at the time you told us could be paid for by Iraq’s oil revenues. Instead, this war has cost the United States over $3 trillion. I especially did not join the Army to carry out pre-emptive war. Pre-emptive war is illegal under international law. And as a soldier in Iraq I was, I now know, abetting your idiocy and your crimes. The Iraq War is the largest strategic blunder in U.S. history. It obliterated the balance of power in the Middle East. It installed a corrupt and brutal pro-Iranian government in Baghdad, one cemented in power through the use of torture, death squads and terror. And it has left Iran as the dominant force in the region. On every level—moral, strategic, military and economic—Iraq was a failure. And it was you, Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney, who started this war. It is you who should pay the consequences.
I would not be writing this letter if I had been wounded fighting in Afghanistan against those forces that carried out the attacks of 9/11. Had I been wounded there I would still be miserable because of my physical deterioration and imminent death, but I would at least have the comfort of knowing that my injuries were a consequence of my own decision to defend the country I love. I would not have to lie in my bed, my body filled with painkillers, my life ebbing away, and deal with the fact that hundreds of thousands of human beings, including children, including myself, were sacrificed by you for little more than the greed of oil companies, for your alliance with the oil sheiks in Saudi Arabia, and your insane visions of empire.
I have, like many other disabled veterans, suffered from the inadequate and often inept care provided by the Veterans Administration. I have, like many other disabled veterans, come to realize that our mental and physical wounds are of no interest to you, perhaps of no interest to any politician. We were used. We were betrayed. And we have been abandoned. You, Mr. Bush, make much pretense of being a Christian. But isn’t lying a sin? Isn’t murder a sin? Aren’t theft and selfish ambition sins? I am not a Christian. But I believe in the Christian ideal. I believe that what you do to the least of your brothers you finally do to yourself, to your own soul.
My day of reckoning is upon me. Yours will come. I hope you will be put on trial. But mostly I hope, for your sakes, that you find the moral courage to face what you have done to me and to many, many others who deserved to live. I hope that before your time on earth ends, as mine is now ending, you will find the strength of character to stand before the American public and the world, and in particular the Iraqi people, and beg for forgiveness.
The Last Letter.
The Last Letter.
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Re: The Last Letter.
Good Lord, what a huge load of re-hashed, unsubstantiated, propaganda...is there a single anti-Bush cliche line that was missed? The thing reads like a collaborative effort by a group of Code Pink interns...
Is this guy auditioning for a job with the BBC?
Is this guy auditioning for a job with the BBC?
THIS SOUNDED SO TRUE...
... that I had to verify it. To my surprise... it is correctly attributed, and true.
Sadly, it appears that Marine Corporal Young is currently in the process of choosing his right to die and a non-assisted suicide is eminent. This open letter is strong testament to the strength of this soldier's character, and convictions, knowledge of the facts, but mostly his bravery.
I thank him for his service to our country, his honesty, and wish him well on the journey that awaits him.
God bless Corporal Young, and God bless America.
Verification:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/tomasyoung.asp
His story:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1068634/
Sadly, it appears that Marine Corporal Young is currently in the process of choosing his right to die and a non-assisted suicide is eminent. This open letter is strong testament to the strength of this soldier's character, and convictions, knowledge of the facts, but mostly his bravery.
I thank him for his service to our country, his honesty, and wish him well on the journey that awaits him.
God bless Corporal Young, and God bless America.
Verification:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/tomasyoung.asp
His story:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1068634/
“In a world whose absurdity appears to be so impenetrable, we simply must reach a greater degree of understanding among us, a greater sincerity.”
Re: The Last Letter.
An Iraq war veteran who lost the use of his legs in the conflict has decided to end his life.
Tomas Young has also written a letter to former President George W Bush and ex-Vice-President Dick Cheney, accusing them of being responsible for what happened to him and others injured and killed in Iraq.
When President Bush stood on the rubble of Ground Zero just after the 9/11 attacks in 2001 and pledged to go after those responsible, Tomas Young, 22, took up the call and joined the US Army.
But instead of being deployed to Afghanistan to fight al-Qaeda and its allies, he ended up in Iraq in 2004 following Saddam Hussein's capture by coalition forces.
On the fifth day into his deployment, Mr Young's unit came under fire from insurgents in Baghdad. He was hit and his spine was severed.
After his return to the US he campaigned from his wheelchair against the conflict and in 2007 was the subject of a documentary, Body of War.
But now his condition has deteriorated to such an extent that he wants to put an end to his suffering.
"He felt he's gone as far as his physical shell will take him and he is ready to rest," his wife, Claudia Cuellar, tells BBC World Service, speaking on his behalf because he has difficulty talking and tires easily.
"We accepted a certain level of suffering," she says. But last year his pain and discomfort increased dramatically and he grew weary of repeated hospital visits to treat infections and other ailments.
"He didn't want to do any more procedures or surgeries," Ms Cuellar says.
"I felt like I was losing him emotionally and psychologically. I felt that it was just too hard to get through the course of a single day and we had to have the conversation that people have when..." she said, not finishing her sentence.
"I could sense that he was suffering to a level that just wasn't right for us as a couple. I can keep him around for me, but that isn't fair to his journey.
"It's not that he wants to die - he simply doesn't want to suffer any more," Ms Cuellar says.
But she adds: "He's the person I love the most in the whole world. I will miss this person."
In 2008 Mr Young suffered a pulmonary embolism and an anoxic brain injury due to a reduced oxygen supply that impaired his speech and arm movement. A colostomy operation last year provided only temporary relief.
Unable now to eat solid food, he is fed through a tube in his stomach. The skin on his hips is breaking down, exposing raw flesh and bone.
"That's probably the toughest one for me, to see that deterioration," she says.
Medical marijuana eases his discomfort and gives him peace of mind without the side effects of pharmaceutical drugs, Ms Cuellar says.
Mr Young says he wrote to Mr Bush and Mr Cheney on behalf of the wounded veterans and relatives of those killed and injured in Iraq.
"On every level - moral, strategic, military and economic - Iraq was a failure. And it was you, Mr Bush and Mr Cheney, who started this war. It is you who should pay the consequences.
"My day of reckoning is upon me. Yours will come. I hope you will be put on trial. But mostly I hope, for your sakes, that you find the moral courage to face what you have done to me and to many, many others who deserved to live. I hope that before your time on earth ends, as mine is now ending, you will find the strength of character to stand before the American public and the world, and in particular the Iraqi people, and beg for forgiveness."
Cuellar says of the letter: "We just want to share the story of our struggle, which is the story of the struggle and suffering of so many, so that we can begin to look at the realities of the consequences of war."
Ms Cuellar moved to Kansas City to be with Mr Young after they met while he was in hospital in her hometown, Chicago, in 2008.
She says Mr Young, who is virtually bedridden and in hospice care, cannot legally be helped to commit suicide in Missouri and so will have to starve himself to death.
He will continue to take food and liquids until their first wedding anniversary on 20 April. After that they will stop talking publicly about his case and spend time together until they feel the time is right for him to end his life.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-cana ... print=true
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Re: The Last Letter.
Iraq was a terrible mistake. It has cost us 4500 lives, hundreds of thousands of people crippled for life and several trillions already. Trillions more will be spent caring for them.
Republicans should be apologizing for it and telling us what they learned that they will never do again. Instead they make cheap excuses.
Liars.
yrs,
rubato
Republicans should be apologizing for it and telling us what they learned that they will never do again. Instead they make cheap excuses.
Liars.
yrs,
rubato
Re: The Last Letter.
Has anyone ever learned anything from any war? If they had, war would be no more; but the clarion call to battle is too great for many. Certainly the invasion of iraq was a mistake, spnsored by the republicans (but enthusisastically endorsed by many in both parties), but so were many other wars, including ones fought mainly under democrats. No one ever learns.
WAR IS A POWERFUL YOUNG MAN'S FOLLY...
... and who is subservient to weaker old men. The irony is a killer, heh?
“In a world whose absurdity appears to be so impenetrable, we simply must reach a greater degree of understanding among us, a greater sincerity.”
Re: The Last Letter.
Assuming the letter is legitimate, and with all due respect to those who voluntarily "fight our countries battles in the air, on land and sea," it is filled with stuff and nonsense.
The Iraq war was a mistake, to be sure, but to claim (or believe) that it was somehow waged based on "lies," or on the hope that someone's friends would gain financial profit is sophomoric crap - which is why this sort of thing is received so well on this BBS.
Why, oh why, do the Lefties on this board perpetually refuse to admit that Bush43 was not the only one sounding the alarms about Saddam's WMD's? Both Clinton's, Kerry, Kennedy, and a gigantic laundry list of Democrats are all on record with approximately the same assessment of Saddam's weaponry. If GWB lied then they all did, because they were all saying the same things. And they all had access to exactly the same "intelligence" data and assessments from exactly the same agencies within the U.S. government and elsewhere.
It is perfectly valid to question whether the military reaction to the perceived threat was wise - and history certainly argues against it - but the President cannot declare war or spend a significant amount of money on his own, and the United States Congress appropriated every dime that has gone to finance this war, from beginning to end. This may have been Bush's war, but it was financed by a bipartisan coalition of Congresspersons, like it or not.
Every Commander in Chief is required to evaluate contradictory information from a number of different sources, and history records that GWB believed assessments from Iraqi expats, telling him that the people of Iraq would welcome their American liberators as conquering heroes, and form a coalition government not unlike most of the rest of the civilized war. Maybe not, eh?
I can't imagine many worse things than being crippled or killed in a war that later proves to have been pointless, but this ain't the first generation of soldiers in that situation. Unfortunately, such decisions have to be made in real time, without the benefit of knowing the outcome.
Are today's soldiers going to have their lives risked to fend off an attack on Seoul from that crazy bastard in North Korea? Will it be "worth it"? Will some soldier in the future write a letter to the editor someplace and say it was stiupid from the outset? No doubt.
The Iraq war was a mistake, to be sure, but to claim (or believe) that it was somehow waged based on "lies," or on the hope that someone's friends would gain financial profit is sophomoric crap - which is why this sort of thing is received so well on this BBS.
Why, oh why, do the Lefties on this board perpetually refuse to admit that Bush43 was not the only one sounding the alarms about Saddam's WMD's? Both Clinton's, Kerry, Kennedy, and a gigantic laundry list of Democrats are all on record with approximately the same assessment of Saddam's weaponry. If GWB lied then they all did, because they were all saying the same things. And they all had access to exactly the same "intelligence" data and assessments from exactly the same agencies within the U.S. government and elsewhere.
It is perfectly valid to question whether the military reaction to the perceived threat was wise - and history certainly argues against it - but the President cannot declare war or spend a significant amount of money on his own, and the United States Congress appropriated every dime that has gone to finance this war, from beginning to end. This may have been Bush's war, but it was financed by a bipartisan coalition of Congresspersons, like it or not.
Every Commander in Chief is required to evaluate contradictory information from a number of different sources, and history records that GWB believed assessments from Iraqi expats, telling him that the people of Iraq would welcome their American liberators as conquering heroes, and form a coalition government not unlike most of the rest of the civilized war. Maybe not, eh?
I can't imagine many worse things than being crippled or killed in a war that later proves to have been pointless, but this ain't the first generation of soldiers in that situation. Unfortunately, such decisions have to be made in real time, without the benefit of knowing the outcome.
Are today's soldiers going to have their lives risked to fend off an attack on Seoul from that crazy bastard in North Korea? Will it be "worth it"? Will some soldier in the future write a letter to the editor someplace and say it was stiupid from the outset? No doubt.
Re: The Last Letter.
Convenient excuse, but complete bullshit. The administration has complete control over what intelligence it "collects" and chooses to disseminate. Members of Congress have no independent intelligence gathering capability of their own; their assessments of any threat depend entirely on the story the administration chooses to tell them.dgs49 wrote:Why, oh why, do the Lefties on this board perpetually refuse to admit that Bush43 was not the only one sounding the alarms about Saddam's WMD's? Both Clinton's, Kerry, Kennedy, and a gigantic laundry list of Democrats are all on record with approximately the same assessment of Saddam's weaponry. If GWB lied then they all did, because they were all saying the same things. And they all had access to exactly the same "intelligence" data and assessments from exactly the same agencies within the U.S. government and elsewhere.
Bush lied to start a war - he lied to Congress, he lied to allies, and he lied to the American people. And if those of you who played cheerleader for that war so hard and for so long are now incapable of facing the fact that you were played for fools, then tough shit, continue living in your delusions, because those of us who were never fooled will never tire of saying we told you so.
So suck it up.
"Hang on while I log in to the James Webb telescope to search the known universe for who the fuck asked you." -- James Fell
Re: The Last Letter.
Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.
Dick Cheney
August 26, 2002
Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.
George W. Bush
September 12, 2002
If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world.
Ari Fleischer
December 2, 2002
The president of the United States and the secretary of defense would not assert as plainly and bluntly as they have that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction if it was not true, and if they did not have a solid basis for saying it.
Ari Fleischer December 6, 2002
We know for a fact that there are weapons there.
Ari Fleischer January 9, 2003
Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.
George W. Bush
January 28, 2003
We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more.
Colin Powell
February 5, 2003
We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.
George W. Bush
February 8, 2003
So has the strategic decision been made to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction by the leadership in Baghdad? . . . I think our judgment has to be clearly not.
Colin Powell
March 7, 2003
We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.
Vice President Dick Chaney
March 16, 2003
Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.
George W. Bush
March 17, 2003
Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes.
Ari Fleisher
March 21, 2003
There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. And . . . as this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them.
Gen. Tommy Franks
March 22, 2003
I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction.
Defense Policy Board member Kenneth Adelman
March 23, 2003
One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites.
Pentagon Spokeswoman Victoria Clark
March 22, 2003
We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.
Donald Rumsfeld
March 30, 2003
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Re: The Last Letter.
Scooter wrote:Convenient excuse, but complete bullshit. The administration has complete control over what intelligence it "collects" and chooses to disseminate. Members of Congress have no independent intelligence gathering capability of their own; their assessments of any threat depend entirely on the story the administration chooses to tell them.dgs49 wrote:Why, oh why, do the Lefties on this board perpetually refuse to admit that Bush43 was not the only one sounding the alarms about Saddam's WMD's? Both Clinton's, Kerry, Kennedy, and a gigantic laundry list of Democrats are all on record with approximately the same assessment of Saddam's weaponry. If GWB lied then they all did, because they were all saying the same things. And they all had access to exactly the same "intelligence" data and assessments from exactly the same agencies within the U.S. government and elsewhere.
Bush lied to start a war - he lied to Congress, he lied to allies, and he lied to the American people. And if those of you who played cheerleader for that war so hard and for so long are now incapable of facing the fact that you were played for fools, then tough shit, continue living in your delusions, because those of us who were never fooled will never tire of saying we told you so.
So suck it up.
Come on Scooter, congress did not act in a vacuum when W issued his lies; there was plenty of countervailing intelligence reports and plenty of discussion of the veracity of W's pronouncements. Those who voted to support the invasion did not do so because they were lied to, they later used the lies as an excuse to cover their butts for making a politically pragmatic decision rather than standing up for what is right. But that's pretty much what politicians do now; few stand up for anything, and then blame others for their inaction.
WAR: WHAT'S IT GOOD FOR?
Selected passage from Wilfred Owen's "Dulce Et Decorum Est"
In all my dreams before my helpless sight,
He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.
If in some smothering dreams, you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil’s sick of sin;
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,—
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori.
(In Latin: “It is sweet and fitting to die for one’s country.” Horace)
In all my dreams before my helpless sight,
He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.
If in some smothering dreams, you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil’s sick of sin;
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,—
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori.
(In Latin: “It is sweet and fitting to die for one’s country.” Horace)
“In a world whose absurdity appears to be so impenetrable, we simply must reach a greater degree of understanding among us, a greater sincerity.”
Re: The Last Letter.
Oh brother...
While it remains an article of faith for so many that Bush "deliberately lied" to get us into the war in Iraq, the proof for this religious belief remains what it has always been; precisely zero, zip, nada, bupkiss....
The intelligence he relied on turned out to be wrong, (and I will remind everyone yet again that every major intelligence agency in the world was wrong about Hussein having WMD; probably because Hussein himself was busy trying to convince them that he did.) but there is a difference between being wrong and "deliberately lying"...
But apparently for many, not if your name happens to be George W. Bush....
If you're George W. Bush and you're wrong, you must be deliberately lying....
You know what's missing from that list of quotes Strop posted? And from numerous other lists I've seen posted by the Bush Deliberately Lied Religious Believers over the years? Any proof, so much as one shred, that the people who made the statements knew they were wrong at the time they were made. Long lists of statements that turned out to be wrong, by themselves, prove absolutely nothing.
Yes, there were a handful of intelligence reports that downplayed the likelihood of Saddam having WMD, but far more that supported it. (If you dig enough in a vast bureaucracy like our collective intelligence community, you'll be able to find a report that says just about anything.) Moreover, the people who Bush relied on to look at these reports, and decide which ones to give more weight to, and provide him with their best assessment, were telling him things like "Mr. President, it's a slam dunk that we will find WMD in Iraq." (A direct quote from then CIA Director George Tenent)
Some of the religious believers want to try to claim that because Bush decided to go with what were the overall assessments provided to him by his intelligence chiefs rather than ignoring all of that and seizing on some little report here or there and basing his policy on that instead, he must have been "deliberately lying"....
Bu that's not how it works. Presidents make decisions all the time based on what the best assessment by the people they have selected to evaluate the intelligence, even if there are some conflicting reports, and they don't get accused of " deliberately lying" for doing that.
For example, there were some intelligence reports that said it was unlikely that Osama Bin Laden was holed up in that Pakistani compound. Of course in the event that turned out well for Obama, but suppose it hadn't? Suppose those reports had turned out to be right, and instead of taking out Bin Ladin, we wound up with no Bin ladin, but instead a number of US personnel killed or captured. Would it then have been fair to accuse Obama of deliberately lying to launch the attack? Of course not. It would be said that he acted in good faith relying on intelligence that turned out to be wrong.
But for some reason, for some folks, for George W. Bush this same kind of logic can't be applied . No, if he relied on intelligence that turned out to be wrong, then he must be "deliberately lying"...
Some true believers have anxiously awaited each new book by a Bush Administration official, hoping fervently that at long last it will contain the "smoking gun"; the incontrovertible proof of what they desperately want to be true; that Bush deliberately lied to get us into Iraq....
And with each new book, they have again had their hopes dashed....
I believe it's fair to assume at this point that the reason no proof of this deliberate lie has ever been produced is because none exists; it simply isn't what happened....
Fervently wanting something to be true doesn't make it so.
While it remains an article of faith for so many that Bush "deliberately lied" to get us into the war in Iraq, the proof for this religious belief remains what it has always been; precisely zero, zip, nada, bupkiss....
The intelligence he relied on turned out to be wrong, (and I will remind everyone yet again that every major intelligence agency in the world was wrong about Hussein having WMD; probably because Hussein himself was busy trying to convince them that he did.) but there is a difference between being wrong and "deliberately lying"...
But apparently for many, not if your name happens to be George W. Bush....
If you're George W. Bush and you're wrong, you must be deliberately lying....
You know what's missing from that list of quotes Strop posted? And from numerous other lists I've seen posted by the Bush Deliberately Lied Religious Believers over the years? Any proof, so much as one shred, that the people who made the statements knew they were wrong at the time they were made. Long lists of statements that turned out to be wrong, by themselves, prove absolutely nothing.
Yes, there were a handful of intelligence reports that downplayed the likelihood of Saddam having WMD, but far more that supported it. (If you dig enough in a vast bureaucracy like our collective intelligence community, you'll be able to find a report that says just about anything.) Moreover, the people who Bush relied on to look at these reports, and decide which ones to give more weight to, and provide him with their best assessment, were telling him things like "Mr. President, it's a slam dunk that we will find WMD in Iraq." (A direct quote from then CIA Director George Tenent)
Some of the religious believers want to try to claim that because Bush decided to go with what were the overall assessments provided to him by his intelligence chiefs rather than ignoring all of that and seizing on some little report here or there and basing his policy on that instead, he must have been "deliberately lying"....
Bu that's not how it works. Presidents make decisions all the time based on what the best assessment by the people they have selected to evaluate the intelligence, even if there are some conflicting reports, and they don't get accused of " deliberately lying" for doing that.
For example, there were some intelligence reports that said it was unlikely that Osama Bin Laden was holed up in that Pakistani compound. Of course in the event that turned out well for Obama, but suppose it hadn't? Suppose those reports had turned out to be right, and instead of taking out Bin Ladin, we wound up with no Bin ladin, but instead a number of US personnel killed or captured. Would it then have been fair to accuse Obama of deliberately lying to launch the attack? Of course not. It would be said that he acted in good faith relying on intelligence that turned out to be wrong.
But for some reason, for some folks, for George W. Bush this same kind of logic can't be applied . No, if he relied on intelligence that turned out to be wrong, then he must be "deliberately lying"...
Some true believers have anxiously awaited each new book by a Bush Administration official, hoping fervently that at long last it will contain the "smoking gun"; the incontrovertible proof of what they desperately want to be true; that Bush deliberately lied to get us into Iraq....
And with each new book, they have again had their hopes dashed....
I believe it's fair to assume at this point that the reason no proof of this deliberate lie has ever been produced is because none exists; it simply isn't what happened....
Fervently wanting something to be true doesn't make it so.
Re: The Last Letter.
Jim--how often can a lie be proven to the degree you apparently want? Not very often, if at all, I'd bet. Even in the face of the Pentagon papers, people will still debate if the people were lied to.
Face it, we're lied to all the time; when one controls the flow of information, they will inevitably use it to cover their asses and get the decisions they want. Presidents, especially, want to "sell" the people on their programs, and have gilded the lily by classifying and restricting access to countervailing information again and again--often getting it permanently classified, never to see the light of day. Yes, W was not the only liar, he just wasn't a very good one and many recognized the lie immediately, others later, some never. But, it is still a lie. Can I prove it? No, not to the level of "beyond a reasonable doubt", but I can draw what I believe are fairly substantiated conclusions based on his, and previous presidents', behavior.
Face it, we're lied to all the time; when one controls the flow of information, they will inevitably use it to cover their asses and get the decisions they want. Presidents, especially, want to "sell" the people on their programs, and have gilded the lily by classifying and restricting access to countervailing information again and again--often getting it permanently classified, never to see the light of day. Yes, W was not the only liar, he just wasn't a very good one and many recognized the lie immediately, others later, some never. But, it is still a lie. Can I prove it? No, not to the level of "beyond a reasonable doubt", but I can draw what I believe are fairly substantiated conclusions based on his, and previous presidents', behavior.
-
MajGenl.Meade
- Posts: 21464
- Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
- Location: Groot Brakrivier
- Contact:
Re: The Last Letter.
The last letter?
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts
Re: The Last Letter.
Liars and their Damnable lies:
“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.” — From a letter signed by JOE LIEBERMAN, DIANNE FEINSTEIN, BARBARA A. MILULSKI, TOM DASCHLE, & JOHN KERRY among others on October 9, 1998
“This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.” — From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others
“Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities” — From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002
“Saddam’s goal … is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed.” — MADELINE ALBRIGHT, 1998
“(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983″ — National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998
“Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement.” — BARBARA BOXER, November 8, 2002
“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability.” — Robert Byrd, October 2002
“There’s no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat… Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He’s had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001… He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn’t have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we.” — Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002
“What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad’s regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs.” — Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002
“The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow.” — BILL CLINTON in 1998
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.” — HILLARY CLINTON, October 10, 2002
“I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons…I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out.” — Clinton’s Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003
“Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people.” — TOM DASCHLE in 1998
“Saddam Hussein’s regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal.” — John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
“The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.” — John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
“I share the administration’s goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction.” — Dick Gephardt in September of 2002
“Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.” — AL GORE, 2002
“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.” — Bob Graham, December 2002
“Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction.” — Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” — TED KENNEDY, September 27, 2002
“There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein’s regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed.” — TED KENNEDY, Sept 27, 2002
“I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force – if necessary – to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.” — JOHN F. KERRY, Oct 2002
“The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation.” — JOHN KERRY, October 9, 2002
“(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. …And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War.” — JOHN KERRY, Jan 23, 2003
“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.” — Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002
“Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States.” — Joe Lieberman, August, 2002
“Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 – 1994, despite Iraq’s denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq’s claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction.” — Patty Murray, October 9, 2002
“As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.” — NANCY PELOSI, December 16, 1998
“Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production.” — Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998
“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources — something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.” — John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002
“Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East.” — John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002
“Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts.” — Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002
“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.” — From a letter signed by JOE LIEBERMAN, DIANNE FEINSTEIN, BARBARA A. MILULSKI, TOM DASCHLE, & JOHN KERRY among others on October 9, 1998
“This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.” — From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others
“Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities” — From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002
“Saddam’s goal … is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed.” — MADELINE ALBRIGHT, 1998
“(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983″ — National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998
“Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement.” — BARBARA BOXER, November 8, 2002
“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability.” — Robert Byrd, October 2002
“There’s no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat… Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He’s had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001… He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn’t have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we.” — Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002
“What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad’s regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs.” — Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002
“The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow.” — BILL CLINTON in 1998
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.” — HILLARY CLINTON, October 10, 2002
“I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons…I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out.” — Clinton’s Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003
“Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people.” — TOM DASCHLE in 1998
“Saddam Hussein’s regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal.” — John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
“The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.” — John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
“I share the administration’s goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction.” — Dick Gephardt in September of 2002
“Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.” — AL GORE, 2002
“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.” — Bob Graham, December 2002
“Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction.” — Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” — TED KENNEDY, September 27, 2002
“There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein’s regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed.” — TED KENNEDY, Sept 27, 2002
“I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force – if necessary – to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.” — JOHN F. KERRY, Oct 2002
“The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation.” — JOHN KERRY, October 9, 2002
“(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. …And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War.” — JOHN KERRY, Jan 23, 2003
“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.” — Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002
“Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States.” — Joe Lieberman, August, 2002
“Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 – 1994, despite Iraq’s denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq’s claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction.” — Patty Murray, October 9, 2002
“As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.” — NANCY PELOSI, December 16, 1998
“Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production.” — Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998
“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources — something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.” — John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002
“Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East.” — John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002
“Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts.” — Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002
Re: The Last Letter.
Why bother recalling that we had a whole team IN Iraq LOOKING for WMD and not finding them? Why bother recalling that it was led by Hans Blix who caught the N. Koreans enriching uranium when the Bush I administration missed it?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/28/world ... sblix&_r=0
The decision to go to war was based on lies. Stupid lies. Lies contradicted by freely avail. evidence.
Anyone who voted for Bush once and has not said "how did I make such a staggeringly stupid mistake and how will I not do it again" should not be allowed to vote. Anyone who voted for Bush twice needs to take the mental status exam.
yrs,
rubato
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/28/world ... sblix&_r=0
Diplomat Harsh on Leaders in Testimony for Iraq Inquiry
By JOHN F. BURNS
Published: July 27, 2010
LONDON — In the years Hans Blix has spent relating his struggle to deter the United States and Britain from going to war in Iraq, he has rarely spoken with the disdain for President George W. Bush and his top aides that he displayed on Tuesday before Britain’s official inquiry into the war.
Enlarge This Image
Alastair Grant/Associated Press
Hans Blix led a weapons inspection team in the prelude to the 2003 Iraq invasion.
At War
Notes from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and other areas of conflict in the post-9/11 era. Go to the Blog »
Mr. Blix, the Swedish diplomat who led the United Nations body that scoured Iraq for traces of Saddam Hussein’s banned weapons program, used the word “absurd” on several occasions to describe American arguments for going to war. He also described Britain, the United States’ main ally in the invasion, as “a prisoner on the American train.”
Mr. Blix concluded three hours of testimony by saying that Iraqis had suffered worse from the “anarchy” that followed the invasion in March 2003 than it had under the Hussein dictatorship. Iraq was already “prostrate” under Mr. Hussein, he said, and the impact of economic sanctions, and the invasion and its aftermath, made things worse.
Mr. Blix, 82, is customarily courtly, in the way of the Cambridge-educated international lawyer he was before he became Sweden’s foreign minister in the late 1970s. But appearing before the British inquiry as the first non-British witness to speak in a public session, his quiet, detailed account of the weapons inspections — and the decision to go to war before inspections were completed — was punctuated by acerbic observations about the American role.
He repeatedly referred to the American president as “Bush,” without using his title or an honorific, while referring to Tony Blair, the British prime minister who joined the invasion, as “Mr. Blair.” He criticized both leaders, as he has before, for resting their case for going to war on intelligence about Iraq’s weapons programs that he described as poor.
“I have never questioned the good faith of Mr. Blair, or Mr. Bush,” he said at one point. “What I questioned was the good judgment, particularly of Bush, but also about Mr. Blair to some extent.”
After the invasion, American-led weapons inspection teams found no stockpiles of banned weapons or traces of continuing programs to produce them.
As for Mr. Hussein, Mr. Blix said he attributed Iraq’s failure to comply fully with United Nations inspection teams in the years before the invasion to a refusal by Mr. Hussein to undergo what he viewed as “humiliation” at the hands of the West.
“I see him like Nebuchadnezzar, the emperor of Mesopotamia — an utterly ruthless, brutal man who sat with a revolver in his pocket and could use it to shoot you,” and who thought he could outwit the West “and misjudged things at the end,” Mr. Blix said.
After beginning hearings eight months ago , the inquiry is expected to wind them up in the next few weeks and issue a report by the end of the year.
The decision to go to war was based on lies. Stupid lies. Lies contradicted by freely avail. evidence.
Anyone who voted for Bush once and has not said "how did I make such a staggeringly stupid mistake and how will I not do it again" should not be allowed to vote. Anyone who voted for Bush twice needs to take the mental status exam.
yrs,
rubato
Re: The Last Letter.
And what does anyone who voted to support the invasion based on "Lies contradicted by freely avail. evidence" deserve? Or people who voted for those same idiots again and again?
Re: The Last Letter.
Rube, you are not worth the keystrokes it would take to respond.