They just shrugged off the NIE report that Iran had ceased its nuclear weapons program in 2003. It did not really matter to this administration. It did not matter to some of our Democrats either.
It is because we already crossed that Rubicon, attacking a country that had not harmed us because there was a chance they might do so in the future. Pre-emptive, preventive, either word will do. We may have done this kind of thing sneakily in the past, but this time it was right out in the open. Bombs, shock and awe, all played out on our TV screens.
The head of our party, and the man who is now the titular head because of his former elevated position....gave a speech in front of the Council on Foreign Relations in June 2002. It did not exactly glorify preventive war, but the speech did not oppose it either.
Our Shared Future: Globalization in the 21st CenturyFirst Bill Clinton speaks of a global coalition against the prospect of catastrophic terror, which should include the United States, Russia, China, Europe, India and Pakistan, and any other countries with research facilitates that have any amount of weapons grade plutonium.
And this is really where the question of Iraq comes in. There's a lot of debate about what should we do with Iraq, and when. And you may want to ask further questions, but I will just make one observation. Saddam Hussein presents no conventional military threat to us, and a much smaller one to his allies than he did before the Gulf War. His military strength, it is commonly conceded, is about 40 percent of what it was before the Gulf War. He did try to assassinate former President Bush in 1993 with the most clumsy terrorist operation I ever saw. The car bombs that we uncovered practically said, "made by the operatives of Saddam Hussein in Baghdad." But after we bombed his intelligence building, as far as we know, he never took another serious terrorist act himself. And the Bush administration has said that Iraq was not involved in September the 11th.
I must disagree with that last sentence. This speech was given in June 2002, and yes, most certainly Mr. Bush had given every indication that Iraq was part of that attack. I have not looked up the exact words he used, but he sure had a whole country of very fearful people believing it. Mr. Bush also said Saddam WAS a threat to us militarily. Over and over. Why did our Democratic leaders not speak up then?
More from the speech:
The problem he presents to the world is that he has laboratories working to produce chemical and biological weapons. And they would be working to produce nuclear weapons if they had any weapons grade plutonium. We know that from the people who have defected, we know that from what he's done in the past. We launched a military operation in 1998, after he threw the inspectors out in an attempt to destroy as many of those facilitates as possible. So would it be a good idea if he weren't there? And were replaced by someone committed to a responsible course with regard to weapons of mass destruction? Yes. Would it be a good idea if the people of Iraq weren't siding with him, since he's a murderer and a thug? Yes. Should we unilaterally attack him? Well, that depends. And you may want to ask me more about that, and I'll try to weave that into my remarks later on.
Should we unilaterally, pre-emptively, attack him? He says more on that later. Not no, not yes. What an influence for truth he could have been at that time.
Later in the speech he shares how he feels.
"So here's what I have to say about it. First of all, there are all kinds of logistical problems with a full-scale military invasion if that's what we want to do. And there were major articles in the press in the last month or so about the senior advisers at the Pentagon counseling against such a thing. But it clearly could be done, and it wouldn't be that much problem if you could take the resources away from other things and you want to spend a fortune, you could do that. I just believe, looking down the road, the most important thing is to get our priorities in order.
That is far too equivocating when a belligerent leader is pushing for war.
So what I think is, A, let's put all of our . . . make the most intense possible efforts to build a legitimate peace process and have diminishing of the violence in the Middle East between the Arabs, the Palestinians and the Israelis. B, is look at what our options are, and try to find a way to do whatever we do with as much of a coalition as possible, and not unilaterally. Without giving up the right to take unilateral action if the intelligence indicates it's the right thing to do. That's basically what I think we ought to do.
That is sort of like he disapproves of attacking Iraq, but not really.
When the NIE came out about Iran, the bloggers and forums were all over it. We thought to ourselves what a wonderful thing that is....Bush proven not to be telling the truth. I did not see or hear Democratic leaders speaking about it.
But the next day when the announcement was made that the CIA tapes had been destroyed (sure got Little Boots off the hot seat), there were all kinds of outrages from almost everyone. They are even going to investigate.
The NIE did not matter that much because we already crossed the line of attacking a country because it just might hurt us someday. The line was crossed with the help of too many Democrats. After the first time, it won't be that hard to do it again.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
