Post by Ironside on Oct 12, 2003 7:42:18 GMT -5
What was the big hurry to attack Iraq? The UN had their inspector’s back in Iraq and we had a military force build-up in Kuwait. Though moving slowly, the situation in Iraq was moving in America’s favor. While the UN Inspectors were searching for weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and the United States had built up an excusable force of might in Kuwait to look over them, we were fighting the real “War on Terror” in Afghanistan. At this point in history, President George W. Bush had the opportunity to show the American people and the people of the world what a great leader he…<br>
…could have been.
However, for whatever reasons this Administration decided to matters into its own hands.
Now, we have been in Iraq searching the places we thought to have possessed these WMD, for too long now, only to come up empty handed. The very buildings identified by the Bush Administration, in satellite photos, as “chemical bunkers” have since been searched and come up dry. This Administration also made much of aluminum tubes which, they said, could be used as centrifuges for enriching uranium and thus constituted proof that Saddam remained "determined to acquire nuclear weapons." Even back in February, Secretary of State Colin Powell conceded that some intelligence analysts thought the tubes were meant for conventional artillery rockets, though he added, "It strikes me as quite odd that the tubes are manufactured to a tolerance that far exceeds U.S. requirements for comparable rockets." Now, it doesn't seem odd at all; indeed, the tolerances turn out to be exactly the same type as those of conventional artillery tubes made in Italy. As for the "mobile biological-weapons labs," one trailer of which was supposedly found in northern Iraq last May, the Defense Intelligence Agency has recently conclude that the trailer was in fact what Iraqi officials claimed it was: a producer of hydrogen for military weather balloons. (Even the rival CIA’s report of May 28, which called the trailers "the strongest evidence to date that Iraq was hiding a biological-warfare program," was, read closely, far more ambiguous than its sweeping summary paragraphs suggested.)
We have captured and interrogated Saddam Hussein’s closest aides, only to be told there are no WMD. Even if we did find them now, who would believe we didn’t plant them, besides Americans? Then again, maybe we don’t care what anybody thinks. That seems to be the approach this Administration has taken. Even if we now find them, how do we convince the American people and the people of the world that America was in eminent danger?
This Administration’s supporters argue… Iraq, nonetheless, was in violation of the UN resolutions. I argue… who made the United States the enforcer of UN rules? The UN voted no to attacking and wanted to stay on course. They had inspectors back in the country. They had Saddam very much in check. What was the hurry?
Though several reasons for attacking Iraq were mentioned by the Bush Administration, the main reason for this war was to rid Iraq of WMD. I, myself, didn’t ever think Iraq was a threat to America. Surely not to the extent al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas and some others are. I do think that, had we attacked and I was proved wrong and the United States was in more danger than we thought from attacks by Iraq, the war would have been well worth the costs. Unfortunately, it appears obvious, no matter what we find now… there was no eminent threat to the United States, by Iraq.
Yes, it’s good to see the Saddam Hussein regime out of business. That said, I don’t think, however, that was worth the cost of one American life. Paul Wolfowitz, the Pentagon's intellectual architect of Gulf War II, even admitted in his famous Vanity Fair interview that Iraqi human rights alone would not have justified the sacrifice of American soldiers.
So I ask, one more time… what was the hurry attacking Iraq?
Blaming former President Clinton’s intelligence wouldn’t be fair. Bush has all the resources Clinton had and can do his own homework. Before any preemptive strike, shouldn’t we confirm all the facts?
Perhaps the Bush Administration feared Iraq’s nuclear program.
Powell made the best argument when he addressed the UN on February 5, 2003. Powell introduced the briefing as "an accumulation of facts and disturbing patterns of behavior" that "demonstrate that Saddam Hussein and his regime have made no effort to disarm" and, in fact, "are concealing their efforts to produce more weapons of mass destruction."
Months later, we find out Powell had spent several days at CIA Headquarters in Langley, Virginia looking over the intelligence. He used only the strongest evidence in his claim. He deliberately didn’t use some claims, including the claim from British Intelligence that Saddam Hussein had been shopping for uranium in Africa as President Bush announced in a State of the Union Address. Powell found that claim to be flimsy, if not fraudulent.
Now the President Bush’s argument for war is looking flimsy at best. Now this raises another question. Since when does America rely on another country’s Intelligence to makes its cause for war?
…could have been.
However, for whatever reasons this Administration decided to matters into its own hands.
Now, we have been in Iraq searching the places we thought to have possessed these WMD, for too long now, only to come up empty handed. The very buildings identified by the Bush Administration, in satellite photos, as “chemical bunkers” have since been searched and come up dry. This Administration also made much of aluminum tubes which, they said, could be used as centrifuges for enriching uranium and thus constituted proof that Saddam remained "determined to acquire nuclear weapons." Even back in February, Secretary of State Colin Powell conceded that some intelligence analysts thought the tubes were meant for conventional artillery rockets, though he added, "It strikes me as quite odd that the tubes are manufactured to a tolerance that far exceeds U.S. requirements for comparable rockets." Now, it doesn't seem odd at all; indeed, the tolerances turn out to be exactly the same type as those of conventional artillery tubes made in Italy. As for the "mobile biological-weapons labs," one trailer of which was supposedly found in northern Iraq last May, the Defense Intelligence Agency has recently conclude that the trailer was in fact what Iraqi officials claimed it was: a producer of hydrogen for military weather balloons. (Even the rival CIA’s report of May 28, which called the trailers "the strongest evidence to date that Iraq was hiding a biological-warfare program," was, read closely, far more ambiguous than its sweeping summary paragraphs suggested.)
We have captured and interrogated Saddam Hussein’s closest aides, only to be told there are no WMD. Even if we did find them now, who would believe we didn’t plant them, besides Americans? Then again, maybe we don’t care what anybody thinks. That seems to be the approach this Administration has taken. Even if we now find them, how do we convince the American people and the people of the world that America was in eminent danger?
This Administration’s supporters argue… Iraq, nonetheless, was in violation of the UN resolutions. I argue… who made the United States the enforcer of UN rules? The UN voted no to attacking and wanted to stay on course. They had inspectors back in the country. They had Saddam very much in check. What was the hurry?
Though several reasons for attacking Iraq were mentioned by the Bush Administration, the main reason for this war was to rid Iraq of WMD. I, myself, didn’t ever think Iraq was a threat to America. Surely not to the extent al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas and some others are. I do think that, had we attacked and I was proved wrong and the United States was in more danger than we thought from attacks by Iraq, the war would have been well worth the costs. Unfortunately, it appears obvious, no matter what we find now… there was no eminent threat to the United States, by Iraq.
Yes, it’s good to see the Saddam Hussein regime out of business. That said, I don’t think, however, that was worth the cost of one American life. Paul Wolfowitz, the Pentagon's intellectual architect of Gulf War II, even admitted in his famous Vanity Fair interview that Iraqi human rights alone would not have justified the sacrifice of American soldiers.
So I ask, one more time… what was the hurry attacking Iraq?
Blaming former President Clinton’s intelligence wouldn’t be fair. Bush has all the resources Clinton had and can do his own homework. Before any preemptive strike, shouldn’t we confirm all the facts?
Perhaps the Bush Administration feared Iraq’s nuclear program.
Powell made the best argument when he addressed the UN on February 5, 2003. Powell introduced the briefing as "an accumulation of facts and disturbing patterns of behavior" that "demonstrate that Saddam Hussein and his regime have made no effort to disarm" and, in fact, "are concealing their efforts to produce more weapons of mass destruction."
Months later, we find out Powell had spent several days at CIA Headquarters in Langley, Virginia looking over the intelligence. He used only the strongest evidence in his claim. He deliberately didn’t use some claims, including the claim from British Intelligence that Saddam Hussein had been shopping for uranium in Africa as President Bush announced in a State of the Union Address. Powell found that claim to be flimsy, if not fraudulent.
Now the President Bush’s argument for war is looking flimsy at best. Now this raises another question. Since when does America rely on another country’s Intelligence to makes its cause for war?
1st Armored Division, HHC 1 Battalion 37th Armor - USAAREUR (74-76)