Frustration
Dec. 19th, 2003 09:38 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
erikredDiane Sawyer interviewed the President this past week.
When asked whether the American people are wrong to think that the administration deliberately misled them by saying that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction when the evidence pointed to him not having them but wanting to acquire them, the President answered:
The difference? Try the difference between the American people following you into war because they believed they were in imminent danger of having those weapons used on them as opposed to not following you into war because there were no such weapons out there. The difference is the vast gulf of fear and paranoia inspired by your statements. The difference is 321 American deaths since the end of major hostilities.
There were other ways to remove Saddam Hussein. Lying to the American people to remove him was the basest way to do so.
When asked whether the American people are wrong to think that the administration deliberately misled them by saying that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction when the evidence pointed to him not having them but wanting to acquire them, the President answered:
PRESIDENT BUSH: So what's the difference?
The difference? Try the difference between the American people following you into war because they believed they were in imminent danger of having those weapons used on them as opposed to not following you into war because there were no such weapons out there. The difference is the vast gulf of fear and paranoia inspired by your statements. The difference is 321 American deaths since the end of major hostilities.
There were other ways to remove Saddam Hussein. Lying to the American people to remove him was the basest way to do so.
DIANE SAWYER: Fifty percent of the American people have said that they think the administration exaggerated the evidence going into the war with Iraq, weapons of mass destruction, connection to terrorism. Are the American people wrong? Misguided?
PRESIDENT BUSH: The intelligence I operated one was good sound intelligence, the same intelligence that my predecessor operated on. The — there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein was a threat. The — otherwise the United Nations might — wouldn't a passed, you know, resolution after resolution after resolution, demanding that he disarm. ... I first went to the United Nations, September the 12th, 2002, and said you've given this man resolution after resolution after resolution. He's ignoring them. You step up and see that he honor those resolutions. Otherwise you become a feckless debating society. ... And so for the sake of peace and for the sake of freedom of the Iraqi people, for the sake of security of the country, and for the sake of the credibility of institu — in — international institutions, a group of us moved, and the world is better for it.
DIANE SAWYER: But let me try to ask — this could be a long question. ... ... When you take a look back, Vice President Cheney said there is no doubt, Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction, not programs, not intent. There is no doubt he has weapons of mass destruction. Secretary Powell said 100 to 500 tons of chemical weapons and now the inspectors say that there's no evidence of these weapons existing right now. The yellow cake in Niger, in Niger. George Tenet has said that shouldn't have been in your speech. Secretary Powell talked about mobile labs. Again, the intelligence — the inspectors have said they can't confirm this, they can't corroborate.
PRESIDENT BUSH: Yet.
DIANE SAWYER: — an active —
PRESIDENT BUSH: Yet.
DIANE SAWYER: Is it yet?
PRESIDENT BUSH: But what David Kay did discover was they had a weapons program, and had that, that — let me finish for a second. Now it's more extensive than, than missiles. Had that knowledge been examined by the United Nations or had David Kay's report been placed in front of the United Nations, he, he, Saddam Hussein, would have been in material breach of 1441, which meant it was a causis belli. And look, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein was a dangerous person, and there's no doubt we had a body of evidence proving that, and there is no doubt that the president must act, after 9/11, to make America a more secure country.
DIANE SAWYER: Again, I'm just trying to ask, these are supporters, people who believed in the war who have asked the question.
PRESIDENT BUSH: Well, you can keep asking the question and my answer's gonna be the same. Saddam was a danger and the world is better off cause we got rid of him.
DIANE SAWYER: But stated as a hard fact, that there were weapons of mass destruction as opposed to the possibility that he could move to acquire those weapons still —
PRESIDENT BUSH: So what's the difference?
DIANE SAWYER: Well —
PRESIDENT BUSH: The possibility that he could acquire weapons. If he were to acquire weapons, he would be the danger. That's, that's what I'm trying to explain to you. A gathering threat, after 9/11, is a threat that needed to be de — dealt with, and it was done after 12 long years of the world saying the man's a danger. And so we got rid of him and there's no doubt the world is a safer, freer place as a result of Saddam being gone.
DIANE SAWYER: But, but, again, some, some of the critics have said this combined with the failure to establish proof of, of elaborate terrorism contacts, has indicated that there's just not precision, at best, and misleading, at worst.
PRESIDENT BUSH: Yeah. Look — what — what we based our evidence on was a very sound National Intelligence Estimate. ...
DIANE SAWYER: Nothing should have been more precise?
PRESIDENT BUSH: What — I, I — I made my decision based upon enough intelligence to tell me that this country was threatened with Saddam Hussein in power.
DIANE SAWYER: What would it take to convince you he didn't have weapons of mass destruction?
PRESIDENT BUSH: Saddam Hussein was a threat and the fact that he is gone means America is a safer country.
DIANE SAWYER: And if he doesn't have weapons of mass destruction [inaudible] —
PRESIDENT BUSH: Diane, you can keep asking the question. I'm telling you — I made the right decision for America —
DIANE SAWYER: But-
PRESIDENT BUSH: — because Saddam Hussein used weapons of mass destruction, invaded Kuwait. ... But the fact that he is not there is, means America's a more secure country.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-12-19 01:05 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-12-19 01:14 pm (UTC)It's the "what's the difference?" line that really chuffs me. I cannot countenance the bald arrogance that allows the man to say something like this outright. It makes my blood boil. Posting it here is... therapy.
no subject
Date: 2003-12-19 02:28 pm (UTC)I must be inured to Bush's ignorant arrogance (or arrogant ignorance). I just read it and said, "Yeah, sounds like the normal stupid shit he'd say." You can't tell if it's bluster or cluelessness... or both!
no subject
Date: 2003-12-19 02:35 pm (UTC)Silly me.
Hey, where'd you read about Paul winning the Bellagio? I can't find this anywhere....
no subject
Date: 2003-12-19 09:30 pm (UTC)If it makes you feel better...
Date: 2003-12-19 02:21 pm (UTC)Okay, I'll bite
Date: 2003-12-19 03:14 pm (UTC)It's funny how sometimes things really are as simple as they seem and I think that this is one of those times -- your outrage comes because you see a substantial and significance difference while my puzzlement over your outrage comes because I see a substantial but insignificant difference.
While it remains to be seen whether or not he had WMD at the time of invasion(*) -- the capture of Hussein keeps this question even more open than it was last week -- his earnest search was likely to yield his desired results before very long.
A lot of people who are (or were) against the US invasion of Iraq are (or were) upset that we were not also persuing obvious military action against North Korea. The response from my side of the peanut gallery was largely that North Korea is a good example of why the invasion was necessary: it is much trickier to take these weapons away from a psycho dictator than it is to keep said psycho dictator from garnering them in the first place.
Bush's point in asking what the difference is between Hussein's actual possession and Hussein's acquisition efforts is the results are so similar as to be an intellectual exercise.
My point here is not to tell you that your outrage is without merit, but to say that it is expected: you disagreed that forcible inspection (and disarmament if inspection proved fruitful) was worth invasion. I think that you'll find that outrage/no-outrage over his quip will fall predictably through no-invasion/yes-invasion lines.
You'll also find that Fear Dot Com is a far superior movie to what I assume Swim Fan to be, but I think we're less likely to ever agree on that. Perhaps we can agree that zombie movies as a group are more fun than vampire movies as a group?
(*) I am not including the discovery of the nuclear centrifuge, mobile weapons labs, etc. as WMDs, though I do feel they are indicative: he may or may not have had WMDs, but the presence of these hidden items indicates that he was planning to restart product as soon as the coast was clear.
Re: Okay, I'll bite
Date: 2003-12-19 04:32 pm (UTC)The difference between Saddam Hussein having weapons of mass destruction and earnestly seeking weapons of mass destruction lies in the success of the containment policy. Containment, as far as we have discovered in our intensive search in-country, was working; Saddam's programs had not progressed since before the first Gulf War.
If Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, he most certainly posed a threat (imminent is debatable, but pretty much academic) to the safety of the United States, and an invasion to remove the threat was absolutely in order. If he was earnestly seeking weapons of mass destruction but containment was preventing him from getting them, he did not pose a threat (imminent or otherwise) to the safety of the United States, and the preemptive invasion of Iraq and the subsequent deaths of the soldiers involved since then may have been avoided.
That's one difference.
The current position of the administration is that the ultimate goal of removing Saddam Hussein was the freedom of Iraqis from that dictatorship. This is not what the President asked us to support during the build-up to the war. Then, he and his cabinet were making the case that Iraq, with its weapons of mass destruction, posed an imminent threat to the safety of the United States and, as such, needed to be removed.
I do not believe that the majority of people in this country would have been willing to support unilateral action against Iraq without broad international support if they had thought that Saddam Hussein did not actually possess weapons of mass destruction. I believe they would have been satisfied with stricter enforcement of existing sanctions, especially when confronted with evidence that the sanctions were working to keep Saddam Hussein from acquiring these weapons.
Would the American people have been willing to rally behind a crusade to invade Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein because he's an awful tyrant who oppresses his own people? Perhaps. Could the administration have quieted complaints about going after Iraq first (rather than, say, Burma, Uzbekistan, and Saudia Arabia) by pointing out that a freed Iraq would be in a much better financial position to rebuild itself than those other countries? Perhaps. Will we ever know? No, we won't.
Instead of choosing this noble reason as its rationale for deposing the Butcher of Baghdad, the administration decided to rely on the fear engendered by the completely unrelated terrorist attack on the World Trade Center to goad the American people into supporting the preemptive invasion. The President's indifference to whether Saddam Hussein had weapons or was seeking weapons of mass destruction reveals that he believes that the ends justified the means.
I hope that if enough people are made aware of the President's arrogant remarks, they will question whether or not the President was using them to wage a premature war for specious reasons.
Call it the pedagogic impulse in me.
Now, as to your other heretical assertion that zombie movies as a group are more fun than vampire movies as a group, I must simply point out that you did not enjoy 28 Days Later that much, and that Near Dark raises the bar pretty high in the fun department for vampire films. That said, you know I always enjoy coming over to hang out with you and the Gomi-ster, and I think you're both excellent people. Perhaps we can unite to convince Gomi to abandon his anime fetish.... :)
Okay, I'll bite -- this heading has many uses
Date: 2003-12-19 04:43 pm (UTC)However:
I must simply point out that you did not enjoy 28 Days Later that much, and that Near Dark raises the bar pretty high in the fun department for vampire films.
I didn't like 28 Days Later very much, this is true. However, I also do not have much use for Near Dark, which I found a trifle dull, though nowhere near as stultifying as I did 28 Days Later.
However, the 1990 Night of the Living Dead was a gleeful and Karo syrupy romp. Resident Evil had all the parts that make a fun movie -- one-dimensional portrayals (none of those pesky layers and subtleties), impractical clothing to allow us to see yummy thighs, gratuitous nude scene with bruising, wicked British girl in a pinafore, excessive cursing, soundtrack superior to plot, and enough penetrating wounds and trains in tunnels to make Fellini smile.
I think there are more vampire movies that are good than there are zombie movies that are good, but that when a zombie movie is good, it's more fun than its equally good counterpart.
Re: Okay, I'll bite -- this heading has many uses
Date: 2003-12-19 04:56 pm (UTC)Ah, you spotted the weakness in my armor: I have not seen Resident Evil. And I must admit that Vampire$ set the bar pretty damn low for vampire films.
Hm. Can we agree to laugh at werewolf movies?
Re: Okay, I'll bite -- this heading has many uses
Date: 2003-12-19 05:00 pm (UTC)You must see Resident Evil. Next time you come to the Pond, I shall tie
Bang the drum
Date: 2003-12-19 04:16 pm (UTC)Saddam was a danger and the world is better off cause we got rid of him. Bang the drum.
Saddam was a danger and the world is better off cause we got rid of him. Bang the drum.
Saddam was a danger and the world is better off cause we got rid of him. Bang the drum.
Saddam was a danger and the world is better off cause we got rid of him. Bang the drum.
Bang the Drum.
BANG the DRUM!
BANG THE FUCKING DRUM!!!
Re: Bang the drum
Date: 2003-12-19 04:26 pm (UTC)I haven't laughed about this shit in a while.