Bush had to make a promise to Arabs such as the Saudis that Saddam would stay in power. Your posts ignore this and therefore really don't make a lot of sense. Apparently you aren't particularly interested in them making any sense. OK. Wail away.

Edited by author 03-21-2003 11:10 PM
"You're saying that Bush Sr. had Saddam at a point where we could dictate terms, as we did, yet didn't insist on his ouster because Bush thought he would keel over afterward? Wow. That's really stupid."

Um... NO. The DEMOCRAT CONTROLLED CONGRESS wouldn't allow it. Remember, the Congress VOTES on whether we go to war or not, and Bush Sr could NEVER get approval to go into Baghdad. The "Road of Death" into Basra was hitting the TV and the American people were getting squeamish. Going into Baghdad was NEVER on the table, it's how far would we chase the enemy troops. Once the ROad of Death was on TV, Congress got wind that their constituancy was getting squeamish and wouldn't have allowed any more war.


OK, so let me get this straight:

Since Bush Sr. MISTAKENLY (for the sake of argument) allowed Saddam to stay in power, we are doomed to leave him there!?! PLUS the "HIGHLY PAID Intelligence community" that you are saying that Bush Jr should listen to ADVISED BUSH SR. TO PULL OUT!


"Our behavior with Iraqi insurgents after, asking them to rise up and then letting them get slaughtered, is really bad. "

Once again, for the sake of argument I'll agree with EVERYTHING you say. How does that impact the situation TODAY? Are you saying "Bush Sr. made a mistake, so now we have to live with it"?!? Your argument about whether Bush Sr. went far enough is irrelevant anyway, all that matters is that Saddam IS in power and he IS a threat.

Nice straw man, but it's not relavent.

You're saying that Bush Sr. had Saddam at a point where we could dictate terms, as we did, yet didn't insist on his ouster because Bush thought he would keel over afterward? Wow. That's really stupid. When you've got the guy on the canvas, as we did, you don't leave him in power (unless you're incredibly stupid) unless you have a deal in place (as Bush Sr. did) with Arabs like the Saudis about not taking the guy out. (This was a sore point with Arab governments, and for that matter, still is.)

Our behavior with Iraqi insurgents after, asking them to rise up and then letting them get slaughtered, is really bad. Nothing new, sadly, but really bad. We should stop doing that.

Oh, and Bush Sr. didn't go into Baghdad for another reason too: He thought Saddam's regime would topple.

All the "Highly paid intelligence community" (ahem...) members told him that Saddam's regime would fall all on its own. Bush wanted to limit the loss of life and took the advice and pulled out.

The BIG MISTAKE was when Schwartzkopf allowed the Iraqis to continue to fly their gunships. If he didn't they might not have been able to quell the Shiite uprisings and Saddam may have fallen. Hindsight is 20/20, so just because a mistake was made doesn't me we should go fix it. Or are you suggesting that once a mistake is made it should be left to stand indefinately?

Bush (and the Intelligence community) underestimated Saddam's grip on his military and on his country. They underestimated the FEAR his officers feel that keeps them loyal. A mistake, no doubt, but not one that we must let stand forever.

We also abandoned the Kurds when they tried to revolt, costing thousands of Kurdish lives. The CIA failed, abandoning plans and leaving field agents to take the blame. A mistake? Sure, in hindsight, but if the Kurdish uprising would have succeeded noone would have thought it a mistake. It's easy to be an armchair quarterback when you're watching an instant-replay.

Sanctions, negotiations, etc mean NOTHING to a man willing to kill his own people to expand his power. Sometimes a military move is needed, and if we EVER want Saddam out, we'll have to use the military.

"How about the suggestions of his foriegn service and the intelligence community? That's what they get paid the big bucks for. Even the Washington Times, the rightwing Moonie paper that loves both Bushes, has quoted sources there as saying that Bush Jr. did a rotten job and essentially blew it."

Once again, not a single suggestion. Criticism, but no suggestions.

Intelligence community? Oh, you mean the one that told him to strike the HQ building with Tomahawks at the start of this war? Yeah, sounds like they wanted to wait it out...


Please tell me how Bush "Blew it". I know, general things like "He didn't build a coalition", etc. but that doesn't mean squat. WE (the US) feel like Saddam, once he has NUKES, will use them against us, and will supply terrorists with chemical agents. Now, how did we get that idea? Could be when Saddam said his GOAL was to "Drive the (Americans and Jews) into the sea". I don't particularly want to wait and see if he means it or not.

Again, read Saddam's autobiography. Once you see his rise to power as a hitman, then his position as lead torturer for the government, then the bloody coup where he finally became leader where he had his long-time friends assasinated (all facts that Saddam isn't shy about) I think you'll have a better idea about who this guy is.


So it comes down to this:

Is the world better WITH Saddam in power in Iraq or not?

If the answer is "NOT", then it comes down to HOW. Here's a guy that ONLY understands violence, isn't afraid to sacrifice his OWN PEOPLE, has been developing nukes and other WMDs since the mid-80's and has been lying to the UN since the early 90's and has stated he wants to destroy the US. Do we give him more time and hope he comes to his senses? Or do we fight?

If not now, WHEN is war justified? Only after he NUKES us? After he ignores his 18th UN mandate? Where would you draw the line?

Bush Sr. didn't go into Baghdad because he had to promise not to in order to get Arab support, in particular the Saudis. So he couldn't take out Saddam. But he could've gotten some better controls after Iraq was beaten, because the Iraqis were of course utterly beaten (as you would expect when a relatively small force goes up against the by far largest military force in the world). The US did at one time tell the Iraqis to rise up and overthrow Saddam, but when they tried, they were slaughtered even though US troops were not far away. Saddam might have had a harder time slaughtering them too if Bush Sr. and crew had taken away his helicopter flying permission, but that seems to have slipped their minds. Oops, sorry Kurds.

You want suggestions? How about the suggestions of his foriegn service and the intelligence community? That's what they get paid the big bucks for. Even the Washington Times, the rightwing Moonie paper that loves both Bushes, has quoted sources there as saying that Bush Jr. did a rotten job and essentially blew it.

"Are you saying that he should be excused because he didn't fumble the ball any worse than his dad? I want better than that from the Prez"

Like what? Lots of criticism, not much in the way of suggestions. That’s the BIGGEST problem I have with the protesters in general, their message is “We don’t want war, but we don’t know any alternative”.

I was against war when 1441 was adopted. I think resolution 1441 was the answer, it called for “the IMMEDIATE (not in 4 months) disarming of Saddam Hussein”. Saddam violated 1441, and the UN could do NOTHING.

France has stated that they will veto ANY resolution that lists military action as a penalty. Think about that for a second. What on Earth could the UN POSSIBLY threaten Saddam with if France won’t approve any penalties!? More SANCTIONS? 12 years of sanctions did nothing. France TOTALLY undercut ANY power the UN had, which is why Bush never went back to the UN, since all that would do is force France to veto the resolution and really screw up French-US relations, so why do it?

I’m interested in hearing what YOU think should have been done. Threats with no intention of backing them up with action doesn’t work.

Seems to me there were at least two reasons for Sr. not taking down Hussein in '91. I'm sure there're more. One, since this was the first large-scale military action since Nam, Powell and Stormin' Norman were explicit about the US objective. Made a big deal out of it. Weren't going to step a foot beyond it, and didn't. Two, at the time, leaving the mad Hussein in the palace was a fine excuse for maintaining a military presence in the region. Better to help the Kurds/Iraqis overthrow him (they didn't) and generally to watch over stuff. Like Iran.

Edited by author 03-21-2003 06:27 PM
"I wish you all were cops, so I'd never get another speeding ticket ever again."

If I were making the laws, speeding per se wouldn't be against the law, but unsafe driving would get your license suspended. If I were a cop, I'd have to uphold the laws.

Now about your ascertion that Bush Sr. should've cleaned up the Iraq mess back in the early 90s -- I agree, he should've instituted harsher controls when he had the guy on the canvas. But he didn't. How exactly does that excuse his son from his hopeless bumbling in the approach to saddam this time? Are you saying that he should be excused because he didn't fumble the ball any worse than his dad? I want better than that from the Prez.

"Iraq told U.N. inspectors in its December weapons declaration, a copy of which was shown to an Associated Press reporter, that it no longer had the Scud missiles it used against Iran in the 1980s and against Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Israel during the 1991 gulf war."

OOPS! Oh well, he lied this ONE time, I'm sure he's telling the truth about the chemical weapons and his nuclear capabilities....

Just to finish my point here, since Blix's statement left some doubt as to whether they were Scud's, they have since been CONFIRMED:


"THE missiles fired at northern Kuwait were banned Scuds, it was confirmed last night.

Saddam Hussein had always denied to UN weapons inspectors that he had remaining supplies of the crude missiles, used extensively during the 1991 Gulf War.

He was banned from having them because their range of about 400 miles was well over the 93 miles permitted under the 1991 surrender.

Iraq had more than 800 of them after the war ended, but claimed all but two had been destroyed.

However, chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix, who headed the latest effort to find Iraq's banned armaments, told the Security Council this month it was "questionable" whether the Iraqis really had destroyed all of their Scuds.

He estimated about 50 Scud warheads were unaccounted for.

Last night, US officers in the Kuwait desert claimed one of the missiles might have been an Al Samoud 2, also banned under the weapons agreement.

Blix ordered the Al Samoud 2 missiles destroyed after the Iraqis reported that, in test flights, they had flown slightly further than the 93-mile limit.

Some were destroyed before the weapons inspectors were forced by the impending war to leave Iraq."



12 years of inspections and this is what we get. Wonderful. And the guy HEADING UP THE INSPECTIONS doubt that more inspections would have worked, yet you all still yell for more time.

I wish you all were cops, so I'd never get another speeding ticket ever again.

Edited by author 03-21-2003 04:25 PM
OK, here's another view of his statements, with quotes but still left off a bit of it. In the interview Blix talked about how the inspector's job was IMPOSSIBLE if Saddam decided to lie and cheat, but this still proves my point:

March 21, 2003 -- WASHINGTON - Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix yesterday said Iraq violated its agreement with the United Nations if the missiles it fired at American troops were Scuds.

"I'm very interested to know whether they used Scuds," Blix said in an interview with the Fox News Channel. "If they're firing [Scuds], of course that shows that there's a violation," he said.

Blix told the U.N. Security Council this month that it was "questionable" whether the Iraqis had destroyed all of their Scuds and that about 50 Scud warheads were still unaccounted for.

Even though he wanted more time for inspections, Blix said yesterday that he didn't know if he could ever be sure that Iraq wasn't hiding the illegal missiles.

"I could not guarantee that we would come to clear conclusions even after some months more," he said.

Blix also said he doubted Iraq would use chemical or biological weapons against U.S. troops - even if it had them.

"If they were to use chemicals or any prohibited weapon, then the whole world opinion, I think, would turn against them immediately," he said.

"Blix did not say that, but then you knew that."

I was paraphrasing. He was interviewed last night and ON CAMERA he said that the SCUD missile launch was a DIRECT violation of 1441 and that Saddam claimed that he had none. Blix admitted that the inspections would likely not have ever disarmed him because he was not being HONEST.

The INPECTORS, were supposed to INSPECT the sites that Saddam declared. They were NOT supposed to be DETECTIVES, which is EXACTLY what they became after they knew that Saddam was lying to them back in 1992. Their goal was to go to the sites that Saddam declared, tag the arms, and verify that they have been destroyed. They were NEVER supposed to be detectives....

I don't listen to talk radio, nor do I watch much TV news except for the live footage because it's facinating to watch history unfold. Most of my info comes from newspapers.com and reading international papers. When I heard Blix was on I had to listen to that though.

For those of you who haven't, please find a translated copy of Saddam's autobiography. If, after reading that, you still like the guy and think he's a fine ruler for Iraq then I'll respect your opinion. His idolization of Stalin is a wonderful characterization of what type of person he is.

If you are against the war, I'm still interested in hearing your alternatives. If Blix doesn't even think more time would have helped, I'm facinated to hear how you think that more time is the answer. Or perhaps more empty threats were what we needed? The first 17 empty threats softened him up, and the 18th would have led to compliance? Please send me a ticket to the fantacyland you live in, I need a vacation.

Edited by author 03-21-2003 03:43 PM
What Cory said -- Electrolite is damned interesting reading and is doing a great job of pointing out interesting commentary on the war. (I said much the same on my blog this morning -- I don't expect to be discussing the war much, and Electrolite was on my short list for where to go for good coverage.)

LoveGravy, you seem to be taking for granted that PNH agrees with the American Prospect article he quoted at length. I'd note that he often posts viewpoints he disagrees with but finds interesting or provocative, so it wouldn't pay to assume that he agrees with everything in the article.

Blix did not say that, but then you knew that.

As for whether this should have been done a decade ago, ask Bush Sr. why it wasn't. Clinton has said he doesn't blame Bush Sr. for not carrying through on his mission of getting Saddam because he promised Arab leaders he wouldn't go on to Baghdad in exchange for their support. (Didn't you ever wonder why he didn't depose make Saddam's surrender a condition of ending that war when he had him on the canvas?)

"Powell's evidence" was the evidence Bush Jr. has been using for some months now; it isn't some private little stash held by Powell. But then you knew that.

The defector did not say Iraq had a nuclear weapon, he said that Iraq had tried but failed to get nuclear capabilities in the 80s and that their nuclear program was a shambles after Gulf War 1. But then you knew that.

But thanks for playing, and take these lovely parting gifts...

What was that Cory was saying about yammering talk-radio thrashes?