Should we be better than this

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Your intuition is not wrong here. Nobody has "proved" that Bush lied in order to invade Iraq. There are no "facts" to support a "lie,"--just "evidence" that could mean whatever you wish it to mean. Only Bush knows if he lied. And you're right, there were a number of "reasons" to invade Iraq, not just WMD. And if he knew there weren't WMds, he would indeed have been incredibly stupid to declare there were then order his troops to search for them, KNOWING none would be found. PNAC certainly supported regime change, as did Clinton who signed the Iraq Liberation Act. But PNAC, I don't think, ever stated that there were no WMDs. All the so-called "facts" could imply the possibility of a lie, if one chose to conjure up that possibility, especially for political purposes. The fact that there was a great desire to remove Sadaam, by ALL SIDES, doesn't come close to even hinting that Bush lied. Without actual proof it's just politics--that high quality dirt that Spence likes.

In the hundreds of pages of debates on this site over the years I've never asserted that Bush lied.

I do think he surrounded himself with people who were heavily biased towards war with Saddam. I also think he surrendered too much diligence to others without showing much curiosity to their processes.

The result was pretty disturbing. While the threat of WMD were used to justify the invasion to the general public, the real motivation was liberalization of the Middle East. The facts were indeed being fit around the policy...There's enough good investigation and first hand accounts to have a very clear picture of what really happened.

Yes, Clinton and a host of other prominent Democrats were bullish on regime change in the 1990's, but stopped short of using the US Military to demand it, nor did Clinton's scope ever go beyond Saddam.

What is amazing is that all the objectives of the Iraq Liberation Act that Clinton signed have, with that Irag war, been achieved.

Big difference, the Iraq Liberation Act forbid the direct use of force to achieve regime change. The Act provided a few million dollars in funding to aid resistance groups.

By contrast we've spent nearly a trillion dollars on Operation Iraqi Freedom and lost around 4500 personnel to create this fledgeling democratic institution...not very "amazing" in this context. If Iraq does maintain a peaceful democracy we may well be lucky...they've got a ways to go.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Yes, Clinton and a host of other prominent Democrats were bullish on regime change in the 1990's, but stopped short of using the US Military to demand it, nor did Clinton's scope ever go beyond Saddam.


Big difference, the Iraq Liberation Act forbid the direct use of force to achieve regime change. The Act provided a few million dollars in funding to aid resistance groups.

By contrast we've spent nearly a trillion dollars on Operation Iraqi Freedom and lost around 4500 personnel to create this fledgeling democratic institution...not very "amazing" in this context. If Iraq does maintain a peaceful democracy we may well be lucky...they've got a ways to go.

-spence

Without force there would not have been regime change. Not in Iraq. Not in any other Arab country. A few million dollars in funding to aid resistance groups is a nice token to make it look like your serious about the regime change that you say is necessary, but it was only an uneffective token. The threat of Islamic terrorism had risen to demonstrably real events, and there was no real "plan" to strike at its roots. No, or "moderate," action was just encouragement for more terrorism. Massive retaliation or counter attack would, supposedly, just incite more terrorism. The roots of terrorism were planted in a religious view that the West with its democratic secular views was the Devil. Removing that root and planting a new one of, as you put it, liberization of the East needed to begin. If invading Iraq was the wrong way, history may or may not tell. The writers of history also have differing roots. As far as the cost in blood and treasure goes, there is no telling what the cost might be now and in the future if this liberalization did not begin or if we are not "lucky" enough to have it succeed.

Arguments, as ecduzitgood says, go back and forth. You are absolutely sure your argument is right. I am not sure one way or the other. So I'll defer to your view simply to defer also to ecdu's q "I believe this horse is dead now, yes?"

[likwid]

Originally Posted by spence

By contrast we've spent nearly a trillion dollars on Operation Iraqi Freedom and lost around 4500 personnel to create this fledgeling democratic institution...not very "amazing" in this context. If Iraq does maintain a peaceful democracy we may well be lucky...they've got a ways to go.

-spence

You forgot the 100,000 civilian deaths.