Strawberry Fields Forever - Nothing is real

Friday, August 27, 2004

Presidential determination (the last in the series)

Ok, I found the document where the President did in fact inform the leadership of Congress why he was attacking Iraq (as required by the joint resolution on authorizing the Iraq War)

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH

Ok, let's go through this. Now, it is true, our intelligence really stunk. In theory, that's a valid reason why we might have invaded on false pretenses. In large, we really did not know if Iraq did or did not have weapons of mass destruction. Of course, this is an argument as to exactly why we should not have gone to war. After 9/11, it was entirely obvious we had (and still have) massive problems with our intelligence gathering and processing capability. Why would we go to war 18 months after this disaster based on intelligence that we should have been very jaded about? Why were we willing to believe what had failed us so miserably earlier? Why was is so urgent that we told the inspectors to leave Iraq before they had finished their work? Hindsight tells us that there probably aren't weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The inspectors probably would have determined that. Of course, Saddam might still be in power, but, on the other hand, the people of Iraq wouldn't have gone through the disaster of the last 18 months, and we would not have had to have our focus stay so much from fighting Al Qaeda in Afghansitan/Pakistan. (we also wouldn't have the world so royally ticked off at us!) Saddam was/is a totalitarian nightmare. He unfortunately, isn't even close to alone in this world. If that is to be our standard, we have a lot of nations to invade right now.

It's part 2 that is so scandalous. Even back in 2003, it was VERY clear that Iraq had no serious ties to Al Qaeda nor anyone who attacked us on September 11. True, there is as always, wiggle room. You can parse the words very carefully and see that it includes the word "including" meaning that this is not really a part of the counterattack of 9/11, it is merely an attack on a terrorist state unrelated to those who helped on 9/11, but is included in our overall effort against terrorism. Clearly, that's not the impression you get when you read it, but in a hyper-technical sense, it's probably correct. Of course, in a hyper-technical sense, Clinton arguably wasn't lying about having sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinsky.

Leadership is about making choices, and decisions. Bush chose to use our international political capital gained after September 11 and our finite military resources to attack Iraq. To paraphrase the knight in Indiana Jones & The Last Crusade, he chose unwisely. I don't doubt that there were good intentions in the attack. I don't doubt that much of the administration believed the neoconservative dogma. I don't doubt that some even thought that somehow Iraq was an imminent threat to the U.S.'s national security. I don't doubt any of that. I also don't doubt that the path to hell is paved with good intentions. They were wrong. They brought us to this mess, and I refuse to give my authorization for these people to continue to make choices and decisions that so seriously affect the people of this nation and the people of this world. They failed the test of leadership. Now it is time to see how well Kerry does.

5 Comments:

  • How do you think Kerry would do if we went under attack again? What do you think Kerry would do next in the war on terror? Invade Iran. I think it is fact by now that they actually do have WMDs. They aren't very diplomatic either. They (the fundamentalist arabs) hate us.

    So what can we do with such irrational hatred and their potential WMDs. They think Allah wants us dead. They are (the fundamentalists) an INSANE cult. Not a religion, a cult. What do we do about them? they lack rational thinking?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:34 PM  

  • What do you think of this?:

    http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/breaking_news/8181098.htm

    When Kerry was asked about his Castro stance, he said:

    "I voted for the Helms-Burton legislation to be tough on companies that deal with him. "



    The catch is that he didn't. Now it seems to be another "I voted for it before I voted against it" claim.

    explain please.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:53 PM  

  • The reply got WAY too long, so I made it its own post. (see the post above)

    By Blogger Jim Casaburi, at 11:28 PM  

  • Iraq under Saddam Hussien was one of 7 nations that were the biggest national supporters of terrorism, as sited by George Tenet in 2001. The other 6 are Cuba, North Korea, Iran, Syria, Libya, and Sudan. If we are going to win the war on terrorism, we need to stop these countries from supporting terrorism, either by diplomacy or force.

    It is indisputible that Saddam Hussien supported terrorist groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, Saddam Fedayeen, Al Aqsa Marters Brigade, Islamic Gihad, Answar Al Islam (which may be an offshoot of al-queda, and other islamic terrorists groups. Many of these terrorist groups have declared us as an enemy, and some, most noteably Hamas, have actively promised to attack the US on our soil. In fact, I predict that the next terrorist attack on US soil will not be from Al Queda, but from a different islamic terrorist group.

    It is also widely recognized that there is a large level of comingling between these terrorist groups, meaning that an individual terrorist may be a member or have ties with several terrorists groups. Islamic Gihad, for example, has now merged with Al Queda.

    Al Queda is in every other country in the world, why is it so hard to believe they were also in Iraq, a nation that openly harbored terrorists and openly hated us?

    By Blogger Independent1, at 3:07 PM  

  • Oh yeah, I replied at length on a different post (this was close to scrolling off, and it was a LONG reply, plus I like spel czech)

    By Blogger Jim Casaburi, at 4:47 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home