I’d like to begin with some words from our President:
“The Government of Iraq crossed a new threshold of noncompliance… when it repeatedly blocked attempts by U.N. weapons inspectors to enter certain Iraqi government facilities. The investigators from the United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM)… believe Iraq may be hiding information on its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs.”
This statement was not made by President Bush, but by President Clinton in a 1996 letter to Congress. This shows that Bush did not create Iraq as a threat. It has been one for some time. Furthermore, this quote negates the idea that further negotiations would have helped. People complain that we should have “given peace a chance” but peace was given a chance for 12 years. Since 1991, the UN had been making resolutions trying to force Saddam Hussein to destroy weapons of mass destruction. In July of 1991, UN weapons inspectors report that Iraq has concealed much of its nuclear and chemical weapons programs. In 1997, The UN disarmament commission concluded that Iraq has continued to conceal information on biological and chemical weapons and missiles. In 1998, Iraq suspended all cooperation with the UN inspectors and continued to impede the UN inspection team, demanding that sanctions be lifted. Iraq finally agreed to unconditional cooperation with the UN inspectors but by a month later in December of 1998, chief UN weapons inspector Richard Butler reports that Iraq has not lived up to its promise.
So as you can see, the negotiations were not exactly making much progress. Our choices were to continue with this useless rhetoric against Iraq, or actually do something about the regime. Personally, I would choose to do something about the danger of Saddam Hussein’s regime. That’s what the War in Iraq was supposed to do. I know you all are probably saying, “But there were no WMDs, Bush was lying!” However, a lie is a purposeful falsehood. If you are saying what you believe to be true, and it turns out to be wrong, that is not a lie. So at the very most, President Bush could be mistaken, but could not have been lying.
It’s certainly debatable whether there were WMD or not. Although we have not found viable WMD’s, we have found evidence that Iraq was not following disarmament policies. For instance, 500 weapons munitions containing degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent were found in Iraq since 2003. So although these may not be completely effective, they prove that Saddam Hussein was lying when he said he had destroyed all weapons. Moreover, it shows how easily the inspections could miss weapons, if they missed 500 of them. Remember, weapons of mass destruction don’t have to be of mass proportion and Iraq is about the size of California, so it is not difficult to hide weapons. Thus, to say that there are no WMD in Iraq at all is an incredible assumption.
Furthermore, even if it could be proven that there are no weapons of mass destruction at all in Iraq now, that does not prove they never existed. Iraq had a long time period to get rid of its weapon systems before the United States entered. In fact, one of Hussein’s former military leaders, General Georges Sada, states that he knows for sure that Hussein transferred his WMD to Syria. Furthermore, if Iraq never had WMD, then why did Saddam’s regime refuse to go along with the UN resolutions?
Another issue to be addressed is the connection between Saddam Hussein and terrorist organizations. People have greatly misinterpreted the fact that Hussein had no OFFICIAL ties with Al Qaeda to mean that he had no relations with Al Qaeda or any other terrorist group. However, this could not be more untrue. Saddam had supported terrorism to such an extent that he had terrorism training camps. The former regime of Saddam Hussein trained thousands of radical Islamic terrorists from the region at camps in Iraq over the four years immediately preceding the U.S. invasion. Furthermore, there have been non-official relations between al-Qaeda and Iraq. Evan Bayh, a Democrat from Indiana who sits on the Intelligence Committee, told the Weekly Standard, “the relationship seemed to have its roots in mutual exploitation. Saddam Hussein used terrorism for his own ends, and Osama bin Laden used a nation-state for the things that only a nation-state can provide.”
Lastly, I’d like to talk about the situation in Iraq now. People have called Iraq a quagmire and some say that it will never improve. This is untrue. According to the report to Congress by General Petraeus, civilian deaths have also declined considerably, by over 45% Iraq-wide since the height of the sectarian violence in December. In Baghdad, the decline was by 70%. The number of ethno-sectarian deaths has also declined significantly since the height of the sectarian violence in December. Iraq-wide, the number of ethno-sectarian deaths has come down by over 55%, In Baghdad, the number of ethno-sectarian deaths has come down by some 80% since December.
Obviously, progress is being made. I find it ironic that the very people who can wait for 12 years for Iraq to submit to disarmament cannot wait 5 years to create a new government. If we pull out now, according to the findings of a 16 August Defense Intelligence Agency report, it would produce a number of dangerous results, including a high risk of disintegration of the Iraqi Security Forces; Al Qaeda-Iraq regaining lost ground; and a marked increase in violence.
I am an eighteen-year-old college freshman at UC Berkeley who became interested in politics at a young age. Besides being part of the Berkeley College Republicans, Berkeley Students for Life, and KALX, I enjoy reading, singing, and playing guitar. One of my main interests is sharing my opinion at my personal blog and at the ACYU, of which I am a co-founder. Email me: 
December 11th, 2007 at 7:56 pm
Making assumptions off of information published by governmental sites and agencies is usually somewhat dangerous, as the government understandably wants to tell the public what it wants to hear, in order to maintain support. As for Iraq being in the wrong when it presumably falsely informed the US that it had destroyed all WMDs is an action that I’m sure any country interested in its self-preservation would take: why would you tell the country that is, for all intents and purposes when seen from this point of view, trying to make you relatively defenseless, that you hadn’t gotten rid of all your weapons? And to add to that, who is the US to be telling Iraq to get rid of its “weapons of mass destruction”? We have the technology, money, and resources to make so much more efficient and powerful “weapons of mass destruction” and doubtlessly *have* them already that it’s laughable for us to try and tell another country–whose oil we’re consuming at a ridiculous amount–to get rid of any kind of weapon that could be seen as one of “mass destruction.” Allowing one country the right to possess weapons like that–which is what we allow ourselves–and then telling another that it doesn’t have that right is arrogant and absurd.
Multiple government reports told the public of the US that no WMDs had been found anywhere in Iraq, which means that either the intelligence regarding Iraq gathered by the CIA and various national Security agencies was extremely faulty, or that they were using a flimsy excuse to bring a country that was about to up its crude-oil prices to its knees. By crippling the government already existing–which we all agree was oppressing the rights of the people, and should not have been in power–the US can easily set up a new government that is extremely sympathetic to US interests regarding oil-prices. Which could explain why the new US embassy in Iraq is basically the size of a small country. By going into Iraq and handling the war so badly, then failing to pull out in an organized manner or even set up some semblance of control over there if we refused to leave, we’re ruined the lives of the Iraqi people even further and are doing nothing to help it. Warring factions of Iraqis–Kurds, Sunnis, and Shi’ites, as well as other groups–are concentrating on the most foreign enemy, the US. When they get us out, more bloodshed will occur as they fight for power amongst themselves. Right now, innocent civilians who have nothing to do with this absurd war are being killed in car-bomb explosions and shoot-outs aimed towards the US-soldiers that are all over Iraq. They respond with fire and even more people are killed.
Are we really making the situation better in Iraq? A large percentage of the Iraqi population has begun to say that they preferred the dictator-like, but *stable*, rule of Hussein. While they can’t speak for every single person in the country, doesn’t that say something? Maybe the underlying culture of Iraq, dating back from thousands of years, isn’t geared towards democracy–who are we to be forcing our own ideals upon them if they don’t even *want* it? All we’re doing now is ripping their country further apart, yet we’re so far in that pulling out will make it worse also.
December 12th, 2007 at 6:46 pm
Hi Alina,
I agree that we should be critical of government reports, but no more so than we are critical of other things we hear. Thus, I hope you understand that I cannot simply take your word on many of the things that you stated, and would be interested in reading more. Also, I think it is important to note that the government is not a single entity; it is made up of many individuals with different political beliefs and agendas. Thus, there is no single government agenda. Furthermore, the fact that many decisions that the government makes are unpopular means that the government is not doing things in order to please the public.
You state that any government would have acted similarly to Saddam Hussein’s regime, when faced with UN inspectors. I sincerely doubt this. Imagine that a police officer is checking people for weapons. You are basically saying that any normal person would hide a gun, and then not allow the police officer to check. No person would do this with good intentions. Furthermore, only a person who was carrying a weapon would have an incentive to prevent the police officer from checking. Thus, according to this logic, the only explanation is that Iraq did have weapons of mass destruction and was planning on using them.
You ask “who is the US to be telling Iraq to get rid of its ‘weapons of mass destruction’?” Yet, it was the UN that had been conducting the inspections. Additionally, let me ask you this: Would you support relaxing gun control laws and allowing criminals and mentally unstable individuals obtain guns? If not, why do you support allowing criminal and mentally unstable regimes to get weapons of mass destruction?
You also state that we are consuming Iraqi oil at a ridiculous amount. This seems to be an idea that many people share. However, our top sources of oil are:
Saudi Arabia - 56.2 million barrels
Mexico 53.8 million barrels
Canada 46.2 million barrels
Venezuela 20.2 million barrels
Nigeria 19.3 million barrels
United Kingdom 11.7 million barrels
By contrast, in December 2002, Iraq had 11.3 million barrels.
Could you provide evidence of the multiple government reports? Like I said earlier, I would like to read more about it. Furthermore, the US is not deciding the government in Iraq. Iraq has had several elections and has chosen its government.
You state that we have “failed to pull out in an organized manner or even set up some semblance of control over there.” However, we have plans to gradually withdraw troops because of the successful surge. You can’t say that we have failed to leave in an organized manner when it hasn’t happened yet. Also, like I mentioned in my post, we are making progress. The violence levels have gone down significantly, because the people themselves are tired of the conflict and are taking control.
You state that we are “doing nothing to help” the situation. This is incredibly contrary to fact, as you surely must know. Americans have put in a huge effort to fix the Iraqi infrastructure. Here is a link for data about the improvements just one year after the war started. (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/rls/30820.htm).
May I ask where you are getting your information on the “large percentage of the Iraqi population” that “preferred the dictator-like, but *stable*, rule of Hussein”? According to polls, Three-fourths of Iraqis (77%) said in January (2006) that ousting Saddam was worth it despite any hardships they may have suffered since the 2003 invasion. That’s a clear majority who did NOT prefer Hussein’s regime. We must also take into account that those who were actually part of the former government are represented in those who preferred Saddam Hussein.
Overall, what I said before still holds: Iraq likely did have WMD’s at some point, there was no US government manipulation of data or lying, and progress is definitely being made in Iraq. So, sorry for long comment, but thanks for commenting and I hope to hear back from you soon.
December 13th, 2007 at 9:24 pm
Very well put together, with a solid response to your previous commenter.
For me, the most important fact is that, for good reasons or bad, we are engaged in a war with some very nasty people. If we withdraw in any fashion that allows those people to conclude that the tactics they’ve been using have succeeded, they will use them again and again, in as many places as they can, until we either succumb to them or defeat them. That is the harsh reality of the situation that no one on the left is willing to deal with.
March 5th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
While you are an excellent writer and seem to be a very bright young woman, I’m saddened by your article, which just seems to justify the decision to go to war without adding much critical thought. I feel like I’m reading Ann Coulter, and that isn’t a positive.
I am a Republican and have never voted for a democrat in my life (I just turned 40). But I am absolutely disgusted about Bush and Chaney’s decision to go to war with Iraq despite overwhelming evidence (available at the time) that the information they were relying on had been fabricated. Read “The Italian Letter” and “Curveball,” for starters. Both provide detailed and astonishing accounts of the truth behind information that was used as justification for us to go to war.
I am a conservative Republican who supported the decision to attack Afghanistan, and continue to support attacks on anyone who poses a direct threat to us. Iraq doesn’t, and never did. True conservatives believe in fiscal responsibility and protection of our republic without imperialist tendencies. We need to get out of Iraq and let them rebuild their country. Who cares if a few terrorists say that they beat us (as John McCain keeps saying)? Who are they going to tell it to? The camels in the desert? They have no access to the media (or little, if you want to argue the point), to organization.
And for you to say 5 years is the timeframe is naive. We aren’t even close to wrapping this thing up, and John McCain thinks we could have a presence in Iraq for the next 100 years. How doesn’t that scare you?
I hate sounding like my father, but I have to say, when I was your age I sounded just like you. I supported everything Reagan did, including blindly defending his role in the Iran/Contra scandal. I wrote as many op/ed pieces as I could, and was published in the Bee, UCLA Daily Bruin, and the LA Times. I wasn’t thinking critically — I was merely trying to bash the liberal press/viewpoint and win my argument. It sounds like you are doing the same.
Don’t be afraid to be critical of your party and the decisions our leaders make. It will make you a better representative of our party and frankly, a better person.
Keep up the interest in politics — It’s great to see interest at your age.
March 16th, 2008 at 10:00 pm
Thanks for the comment, Patrick. The point of your comment seems to be that you think I need to be more critical. That’s an admirable goal. However, I think the bigger problem that plagues our nation is the pseudo-sophistication that people claim by being critics of President Bush. This popular opinion doesn’t make a person anymore analytical. Instead, it is simply bowing to peer pressure. And when that pressure is backed by organizations like moveon.org and the World Socialist Website, it’s hardly an wise movement.
But let’s go over the points you brought up-
You stated “But I am absolutely disgusted about Bush and Chaney’s decision to go to war with Iraq despite overwhelming evidence (available at the time) that the information they were relying on had been fabricated.”
Although I have not read the books that you mention, I have researched them. Your logic is faulty because you and the two books are making one huge assumption: In order for your opinion to be correct, the decision on Iraq would have to be based on intelligence sources such as the Italian Letter or Curveball. This was simply not the case. Both the Butler Report and Select Committee on Intelligence from the United States Senate say that the Italian letter was not the source that was depended upon, and that many different sources were. Butler Report: “It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999. The British Government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger’s exports, the intelligence was credible… By extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bush’s State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa” was well-founded.” The Intelligence Committee concluded that “it was reasonable for analysts to assess that Iraq may have been seeking uranium from Africa based on Central Intelligence Agency reporting and other available intelligence.”
Secondly, you state, “Iraq doesn’t, and never did [pose a threat].” Forgive me, but this is naive and ignorant. A belligerent country that would not agree to nuclear weapon searches and which is led by a killer of his own people is clearly a threat to the US and to the world.
Thirdly, you state, “Who cares if a few terrorists say that they beat us?… They have no access to the media (or little, if you want to argue the point), to organization.” This is ridiculous. In some countries, terrorists and their supporters have their own television stations, and well as newspapers! More importantly, even if the reporting is not done with a terrorist bias, the simple fact that the US would be retreating is damaging. Honestly, this can’t be argued in a reasonable discussion.
To clarify- I didn’t say 5 years was a timetable. Instead, I was making the point that it has been 5 years *thus far*, and people are saying it is too long. If you think 5 years is too long, why did you wait 13 years plus for Iraq to comply with weapons inspections?
Waiting for Iraq does not scare me because things are improving at so quickly a rate, and leaving now would be the worst choice we could make, according to the Defense Intelligence Agency.
So, in conclusion, I agree that people should think more critically. Based on what you have shown thus far, it should be a goal for both of us.
March 19th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
Totally off topic, happy 18th (a day early). I remembered from when one of your friends posted a long time ago, since the 20th is also mine
March 26th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
Clearly we will have to agree to disagree on this. There are so many people your age who have no interest in what is going on in the world that it is refreshing to read your writings, even if your data is relied upon by organizations with a vested interest in which side is believed (yes, a backhanded compliment, I know..sorry). You quote the British Government and the DIA? Come on. That’s as bad as the other side relying on moveon.org as their sole basis for information.
The sixteen words used by Bush in his state of the union were not based on fact, and several members of the CIA, State Department, and DoD wanted it out. Because the British Goverment says it was reasonable does not mean it is true. Come on — I like Tony Blair, but has there ever been more of an American lap dog than him?
Let me rephrase: Iraq did not pose a threat TO THE UNITED STATES. Sorry, spin it how you want, but they didn’t. First, they did allow weapons searches. Sure, they fought it a bit, but in the end, UN weapons inspectors were on the ground before we bombed the heck out of them. I’m not arguing in favor of Hussein — he was a horrible, awful dictator who did horrible, awful things to his people. But is what he did to his people in his country really worth the lives of 4,000 American troops?
Your last line about critical thinking being a good idea for both of us. It’s a great sound bite, but come on. I hate that I am being critical of a Republican. I voted for Bush Sr in 88 and 92, Dole in 96, and Junior in 00. It was critical, analytical thought that brought me to the belief that Bush has done everything he can to ruin the Grand Old Party. We are no longer a conservative, small government party. We no longer believe in individual freedom, limited federal power, state’s rights, or the Constitution. If this is your party, great. Support it with all of the passion that you can muster. I’m just giving you my $.02, coming from someone who sounded just like you when I was a senior at El Camino and throuhout my UCLA career (not a lot of conservatives on that campus, let me tell you).
It seems to me that you research my points with the goal of refuting me. This is the easy way out. I can find ten quotes from reputable sources to refute every point you made, and you can do the same to mine. Instead of quoting the Britsh Government and the DIA, find independent sources who may have great insight.
The Butler Report is hardly independent. And there is PLENTY of criticism of that report. In two minutes, I found this: “Nuclear expert Norman Dombey has pointed out that the information relied upon by the Butler Review on the Niger issue was incomplete; as he noted, “The Butler report says the claim was credible because an Iraqi diplomat visited Niger in 1999, and almost three-quarters of Niger’s exports were uranium. But this is irrelevant, since France controls Niger’s uranium mines.”(Independent, 25 July 2004). And when asked by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence to discuss the conclusions of British intelligence, Deputy Director of Central Intelligence John McLaughlin stated, “The one thing where I think they stretched a little bit beyond where we would stretch is on the points about Iraq seeking uranium from various African locations. We’ve looked at those reports and we don’t think they are very credible. It doesn’t diminish our conviction that he’s going for nuclear weapons, but I think they reached a little bit on that one point.”
Instead of trying to find information to support your belief, investigate with an open mind. Read the books instead of “researching” them. Read Valerie Plame Wilson’s book — her husband Joe was the one who went to Niger and his account is detailed in the book. Is he right? Is Bush right? I don’t know. But I’ve read both sides and I have a strong suspicion.
I hope to be able to be proud of my party again someday. I will continue to fight for it, and return the party to the greatness of Reagan. Because until we do, we had better prepare for some devastating losses on the national scale. If you think John McCain can beat Obama or Clinton, you’re living in a dream world. And the idea of Clinton as our president scares me more than you will ever know.
I enjoy the debate, and I’m blown away by your interest and passion. I hope I’ve enlightened you just a little. Take care, and (as I see above) happy birthday!
pat
March 26th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
First, about sources- as I said to Alina in an earlier comment, the government is not a single entity, but is made up of both parties. Thus, a government report, depending of course on its exact source, could even be biased *against* other parts of the governments. But you have vastly misunderstood (or perhaps purposefully ignored?) one of the origins of my information. The source was the U.S. Senate Select Committee, which currently has more Democrats than Republicans and which includes people such as Dianne Feinstein. Obviously, this is a bastion of support for Bush. Sorry, that was sarcastic, but I really have been giving you “independent sources who may have great insight” already. And again, this independent source concluded that “it was reasonable for analysts to assess that Iraq may have been seeking uranium from Africa based on Central Intelligence Agency reporting and other available intelligence.”
As for the Butler Report- you seem to devalue facts and arguments on how easy it is to find alternate information. However, it doesn’t matter how many opposing sources there are, or how available those sources are, if those sources are meaningless. So let’s look briefly at the sources you provided. For Dombey’s statement to be meaningful, we must know that 1)No uranium whatsoever could be given by Niger, 2) that the Iraqi government knew this, and 3) that our government knew these two things at the time. After all, the assertion in contention is that the American and British governments believed that Iraq was *trying* to obtain uranium. Whether they could or not in that moment is beside the point. As for McLaughlin, his statement was made to the very committee that I cited, so if the independent committee has already taken his comment into account, but does not agree, why should I?
Next, let me clarify- you said, “Because the British Goverment says it was reasonable does not mean it is true.” This is exactly right. I am not saying it is true at all. I am saying it was reasonable to believe it was true. Thus, the American and British governments were not lying.
Iraq was a threat. You don’t think that a nation that harbored terrorists, and had refused to cooperate in nuclear weapons searches is a threat? Furthermore, to assume that it is not worth American lives to stop Hussein is isolationist and in a way, racist. Why should American lives be valued above those of innocent people in other countries?
As for the election- look at the polls. While Clinton and Obama are imploding, McCain is pulling ahead. (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/03/25/in_polls_mccain_edges_ahead_of_clinton_obama/)
Lastly, you state that you are being a critical thinker, as you asserted before, and say that you have “read both sides.” But is this really true? Frankly, I doubt you have read the Senate Committee’s report, or the Butler report for that matter. Again, being critical is not necessarily critical thinking.