Jessica Schulberg: The debate over the legitimacy of the Iraq War was never about whether or not Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction at some point in history. It is well known that Saddam Hussein used a variety of chemical weapons against Iran during the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s--and the U.S., eager to see the destruction of the nascent Islamic Republic of Iran, aided him in creating the program.
Nor was it on whether the WMD that were found there, during the Iraq war, were from a different era or during the lead up to the invasion. The argument was simple. Those who disagreed with the Iraq war insisted that Saddam had "no" WMD. They did not argue that he had WMD from a previous era. They insisted that Iraq had "no" WMD. They did not specify time periods, they just simply advanced the "no WMD" argument.
Throughout the last decade, there have been reports of WMD being found in Iraq. Many of these WMD were used as part of IEDs. These were making some reports, but these were also underreported. Out of those that did report these WMD's, they went out of their way to try to downplay the significance of the find.
But, the fact remains, that despite the argument that there was "no" WMD in Iraq, there was indeed WMD's in Iraq. This is one of the reasons that President Bush argued for going into Iraq. It turned out to be true. He was not lying.
Also, the idea that the United States assisted Saddam in constructing his WMD program is a myth. The technology to create chemical and biological agents has been around for decades. They were created by countries that were not as advanced during their time as Iraq was in the later decades. To argue that the Iraqis need help to create these WMD program is to show lack of understanding of WMD technologies. In fact, people can create WMD's in their garages with technologies and items that they could purchase in the open market.
Jessica Schulberg: But on Septmeber 12, 2002, President Bush described a different threat while making the case for the 2003 Iraq invasion: "Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons." The Times' investigation doesn't mention any findings of biological weapons.
What he actually said:
"From 1991 to 1995, the Iraqi regime said it had no biological weapons. After a senior official in its weapons program defected and exposed this lie, the regime admitted to producing tens of thousands of liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents for use with Scud warheads, aerial bombs, and aircraft spray tanks. U.N. inspectors believe Iraq has produced two to four times the amount of biological agents it declared, and has failed to account for more than three metric tons of material that could be used to produce biological weapons. Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons." -- President Bush, September 12, 2002.
When you put the sentence that you quoted in the paragraph that she got that from, you get a different picture of what he was arguing. In the last sentence, he was talking about improving the facilities, but he made no mention about what was being done from those facilities. Whether the New York Times mentioned biological weapons or not is irrelevant. Again, the argument was on whether Iraq had WMD or not. WMD consists of chemical, biological, and radiological agents.
The New York Times mentioned the chemical agents that were found. That was all that was needed to prove wrong the argument that Bush "lied" about WMD. He didn't.
The collection of speeches, that Bush made, regarding Iraq were consistent with the themes of the speeches that he has made regarding the War on Terror in general. WMD was not the only justification used. He also used the need for freedom to take place in Iraq. He argued that "freedom" angle. He also argued the "security in the region" angle. The later is the same argument that President Clinton made during one of his speeches after he ordered airstrikes on Iraq during his term.
The facts indicate that President Bush didn't lie about WMD, and that he had other arguments for going into Iraq. Bottom line, the opposition was wrong.
Jessica Schulberg: He went on, "The regime is rebuilding and expanding facilities capable of producing chemical weapons."
Saddam intended to reconstitute his WMD capabilities after the inspectors left. Saddam made no secret about his spending lots of money to rebuilding and expanding facilities of his interest. This is true whether he was rebuilding mosques, or any military weapon infrastructure they had.
Jessica Schulberg: According to the investigation, the chemical weapons discovered by U.S. soldiers after the 2003 invasion were all manufactured before 1991.
Irrelevant, the opposition argued that Iraq had "no" WMD. The opposition did not argue that Iraq only had WMD that existed prior to the Gulf War. The opposition did not argue that Iraq only had WMD that was deteriorating. No. They argued that Iraq had "no" WMD.
When they were made was not an issue. The fact that they were discovered, proving the opposition wrong, is what matters. The opposition insisted that there were none, when the facts indicated that WMD did exist in Iraq as was argued. Insisting that they were from prior to 1991 is an attempt for the opposition to move the goal posts. They lose credibility some more when they do that.
Jessica Schulberg: Directly addressing the United Nations General Assembly, Bush continued, "We have been more than patient. We have tried sanctions. We have tried the carrot of 'oil for food' and the stick of coalition military strikes. But Saddam Hussein has defied all these efforts and continues to develop weapons of mass destruction."
This was based on a pattern, by Saddam, of going full throttle on programs he was not supposed to have that the U.N. was inspecting. When inspection teams restarted in the early 21st century, Saddam immediately resorted to the tactics he used when dealing with inspectors back in the 1990s.
Colonel Stanislav Lunev, Senior GRU officer to defect to the United States as of this time, mentioned this in his book. The tactics Saddam used in 2002 were many of the same tactics he used in the 1990s. As part of an auxiliary Russian special forces unit, his task was to provide training to the Iraqis on how to move, hide, and camouflage WMD for the inspectors. He talked of Russian intelligence officials acting as inspectors, within the inspection team, providing information to the Russians assisting the Iraqis.
He wrote his book in the 1990s. The tactics, mentioned in his book, were repeated again when inspectors went back to Iraq in the early 21st century. That argument is extremely reasonable given Saddam's track record with regard to WMD. He had done this before, he was playing his same games again.
Jessica Schulberg: While Bush's plea to the international community did not win the blessing of the U.N. Security Council,
It didn't win the blessing of the U.N. Security Council, because three of the veto wielding members had their hands in Saddam's pockets. That was discovered after the invasion. It was these same three countries that refused to lift the sanctions on Iraq after the invasion. It was done for political purposes, not for strategic purposes.
Jessica Schulberg: he used this rhetoric as the justification for invading Iraq and toppling Saddam Hussein.
First, this wasn't rhetoric. It was a fact based logical argument for going into Iraq. He used multiple arguments, all tied to his overall strategic mission, for waging the War on Terror. He argued for freedom for the Iraqi people, which was an ingredient needed for stability in Iraq and in the region. There is a reason to why it was called Operation Iraqi Freedom, NOT Operation Iraqi WMD. WMD was NOT the only reason for invading Iraq. After the coalition invaded Iraq, WMD laced IED's were used against the troops.
Jessica Schulberg: He was not declaring war on a decades-old chemical weapons program, but on an alleged new and ongoing program that could be used to destroy mass civilian populations.
Wrong. He was not declaring war on either an old or new WMD programs. He was simply going by the themes of the speeches that he had made since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. He was engaging in asymmetrical warfare, or, rather, responding to an asymmetrical threat, that was very much a part of the asymmetrical war being waged against us, using asymmetrical warfare.
In many of the speeches that he made, he warned that this war would take a long time, that we would have more than one campaign. At the same time, he laid out what needed to be done in order to create what form of environment was needed to fight against terrorism. This, is what the invasion of Iraq was about.
He argued, after September 2001, that this war was going to be multiple faceted. It was going to involve an economic element. It was going to involve a political element. It was going to involve a military element. He identified an entity that was both "visible" and "invisible" to the rank-and-file civilian.
It was against this entity, and the threat it presented against Western civilization and the world in general, that George Bush waged his war against. Anybody, that argues that this was just about WMD, is clueless about the geopolitical and geostrategic threats that the United States has to address.
Iraq, under Saddam, was a logical next step on the War on Terror. That created a checkerboard pattern, in the Middle East, of countries in different states of democratic development. This was one of George Bush's intense. It was the change, happening in these countries in the region, that was going to cause a chain reaction of events that would lead to democracy throughout the region. Obama failed to capitalize on this.
This was not just about WMD.
Jessica Schulberg: If the post-2003 discovery of a decaying chemical weapons program could serve as proof that the invasion was justified, the Bush White House would have seized the opportunity to proclaim so.
Because WMD was not the only reason for the Bush administration's arguing for going to war in Iraq. It also was not the main reason for going into Iraq. Again, the main thrust of Bush's arguments for going into Iraq were consistent with his statements and speeches after September 11, 2001. A common theme is the fact that we needed to change the environment that created the terrorist mentality. In order to do that, you have to create an economically prospering environment.
George Bush, in 2002, argued that people in Iraq needed to experience freedom. The conditions, to make that possible happen to be the same conditions that facilitate economic development.
So, when troops encountered WMD laced IED's, President Bush did not emphasize those reports. This was not only about WMD. This was about setting up conditions, in the Middle East, that would act as catalyst for change towards democracy in the region. I saw that in play when I was in Iraq.
Jessica Schulberg: By 2005, CIA weapons inspectors concluded in a 92-page report that the WMD investigation had "gone as far as feasible" and found no evidence of an active weapons program.
They also explained what they meant by "going as far as feasible." They explained the security situation did not facilitate them following all leads. They couldn't search all the country. They couldn't interview all of the people that he needed to interview in order to do a complete report. After an extremely limited search in Iraq, they came up with the conclusion that they came up with.
The results of the investigation could only be applied to the area of the Iraq that they inspected. It's an extremely limited area. You can only apply the results to the areas searched, and people talked to. Applying the results, of the investigation to this limited area of Iraq to the entire country of Iraq is academically irresponsible.
However, their finding "no" evidence of an active weapons program is not the same thing as that program not existing.
This leads me to a question that I have for all who buy into this argument:
As of the time stamp on this post, Jessica Schulberg has no evidence that I, herfacechair, exist. Does that mean that I do not exist? YES [ ] NO [ ]
If you told your friend about my existence, and your friend has never seen my posts, should he dismiss your reports, of my existence, as "hearsay" and as an "allegation" because he hasn't seen my posts or me? YES [ ] NO [ ]
Please copy the questions, and their yes/no options, to your reply. Place an "X" in the boxes that represent your reply. Spare me any additional explanations that you might want to add to clarify your response.
Jessica Schulberg: The CIA report included an addendum: "military forces in Iraq may continue to find small numbers of degraded chemical weapons -- most likely misplaced or improperly destroyed before the 1991 Gulf War."
Again, the opposition insisted that Iraq had NO weapons of mass destruction. No weapons of mass destruction means that, no weapons of mass destruction. It's not saying no weapons of mass destruction after 1991. To turn this into an argument about when they were made is to move the goal posts. They were clear on what they were arguing.
The major fact that WMD was discovered there post invasion proves wrong the argument that there were "no" WMD in Iraq, and that Bush "lied." Neither were true. The opposition, instead of acknowledging that they were wrong, are moving the goal posts, and building strawmen arguments.
Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid
