Once Again: What We Learned. Iraq and September 11 are inseparable.

WSJ OpinionJournal ^ | Sept. 8, 2003 | ROBERT L. BARTLEY

[FairOpinion]

The American collective memory being notoriously short, it's hard to remember that it's only been two years. Perhaps this week's ceremonies--and President Bush's speech last night, not yet given as I write--will revive and implant the lessons we learned on that fateful September 11.

[FairOpinion]

I think it's a great editorial.

My favorit Quote is from Bush's speech he quotes:

" [I]f we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long. . . . Our security will require all Americans to be forward-looking and resolute, to be ready for pre-emptive action when necessary to defend our liberty and to defend our lives."

[Alberta's Child]

No serious observer can believe that we would have invaded Iraq if there had been no hijackings.

I think the author of this article is being disingenuous here. Technically, he's probably right -- but not for the reasons he's trying to portray here.

The U.S. only invaded Iraq because 9/11 gave the Bush administration the political cover it needed, not because there was any relationship between the two. The Bush administration was laying the groundwork for war against Iraq as early as the spring of 2001, which tells me that the author's basic point here is misleading.

[FairOpinion]

Just because we haven't found the WMD, doesn't mean they didn't exist.

And as for the reconstruction -- Saddam destroyed the country, and that is why it's taking longer.

[Alberta's Child]

Just because we haven't found the WMD, doesn't mean they didn't exist.

With all due respect, that excuse is getting a little tired. Even the Bush administration has stopped talking about them -- the little item last week about an administration official saying that "we got bad intelligence about the WMDs" should have been the hint.

The progression of the WMD story was predictable, in a very pathetic sort of way:

1. "Saddam Hussein must be toppled because he is developing weapons of mass destruction."

2. "How can you expect us to find these WMDs so quickly? We've only been in Iraq for two weeks / two months / six months, and he's had years to hide them."

3. "Just because we didn't find them, it doesn't mean they never existed."

4. "Perhaps we got some very misleading information about these WMDs after all."

5. "Iraq is better off now than it was under Saddam Hussein. Besides -- it is now the focus of our 'war on terror.' And who said anything about weapons of mass destruction, anyway?"

And as for the reconstruction -- Saddam destroyed the country, and that is why it's taking longer.

The "reconstruction" they're talking about has nothing to do with the overall reconstruction of the country -- we're talking about some very basic things here. People in Iraq had electricity and running water the day before this war began -- a lot of them still don't have these things today. It's hard to accuse Saddam Hussein of destroying these things, I think.

[FairOpinion]

"People in Iraq had electricity and running water the day before this war began"

--

As a matter of fact they didn't. They had rolling blackout, their hospitals are woefully underequipped and so on.

We didn't take over a country with a booming economy. We took over a country destroyed by 35 years of Saddam, who spent the money on weapons, not the people.

The East European countries were much better off, they got rid of the communists 14-15 years ago, and they still aren't up to Western Standards, so how do you expect Iraq to be in a few months.

[John Valentine]

Your views are both puerile and facetious.

You can't seriously beleive that the United States has been lying in wait, hoping for something like 9-11 just to give us the excuse to remove Saddam Hussein and undertake a multi billion dollar reconstruction effort in Iraq?

Such a view is asinine and absurd. It could be held by no serious person. And, there is a boatload of evidence linking Sadddam's Iraq, not only with the events of 9-11, but with the earlier bombing of the WTC as well. If you are unaware of this, and of numerous other links between Saddam's Iraq and the terror networks, then you are simply too ignorant and unread to hold or expound an opinion on the subject, and expect to be taken seriously.

You simply reveal that you are either a liar or a fool.

In either case, I trust that you are not an American.

Your reference to Alberta makes me think that perhaps you are an Albertan, and that makes your shame Alberta's not America's, and for that I am grateful.

[AIRFORCE76]

No, they aren't the reason. And if you are too bloody stupid to understand that anything else we say is not only redundant, but wasted.

[nutmeg]

read later bump

[AHerald]

I've got this one from the West Point speech (one of Bush's best) on my bulletin board:

The war on terror will not be won on the defensive. We must take the battle to the enemy, disrupt his plans and confront the worst threats before they emerge. In the world we have entered, the only path to safety is the path of action. And this nation will act.

---- President George W. Bush, West Point Commencement Address, June 2002.

[JLS]

"No, Mr. Bartley, they are not. In the case of WMDs, they are not "mere details" -- they are the f#cking reason the U.S. and Britain went to war in Iraq."

First, nice language.

You can not be serious can you? WMD were reasons given to get dims to go along with the war. Iraq had had them and had used them in the past. The dims claim to hate WMD except when they are in the hands of Stalinist governments. Oops Iraq had a Stalinist type government but it was too dicey after 9/11 not to support the war with WMD in the mix.

They reason the US invaded Iraq was that the US was attacked and the Iraq regime lined up on the side of the attackers of the US.

This is no different than the US invading the Solomon Islands in WWII not because they attacked the US but because the people who attacked the US were there.

[FairOpinion]

Also, note the way the Dems uncharacteristically shut up about "no WMD's found in Iraq".

My guess is that they got some classified briefings which proved unequivocable the existence of the WMD-s and in fact they were so scary, that they don't want to release them, so as not to panic the public. Possiblye they have incontrovertible evidence that Saddam had WMD-s and shipped them to Syria, who now has them.

Otherwise, there is no way the Dems would have stopped their "where are the WMD-s mantra".

[unsycophant]

I'm glad that others remember the earlier WTC attack, and that Saddam Hussein was always thought to be involved in it. President Clinton basically did nothing at that time.

We have not been waiting for an "excuse" to remove Saddam Hussein. We just had to wait for a leader who had the guts to do it.

[JLS]

I do think several public statements hint there may be a WMD bombshell that comes out sometime in the not to distant future. But still WMD were a sideshow to defending the US, just for some dims defending the US is not reason enough so they needed the sideshow.

[FairOpinion]

I think WMD was one of several factors, the totality of which made it imperative that we remove Saddam now, rather than later.

Just think if we had to give up our Saudi bases and wouldn't have Iraq to maintain our presence in the Middle East.

[WilliamofCarmichael]

the naysayers have been consistently wrong

True. But as regards the leaders of today's Democ-->rat Party they don't care that they are wrong!

That issue and all "issues" like the 16 words, the WMD, the "lies," are NOT the issues. David Horowitz pointed out that for leftist, the issue is not the issue. I took that to mean "issues" are weapons. Period. While the right defends against an issue the left moves to the next one without looking back.

The only issue for the left is the destruction of the United States of America's sovereignty and military.

We've got to get a House Committee on un-American Activities. Winning the battles over there but losing the war here sucks. We've been there, done that.

[Cindy]

SEPTEMBER 11, 2001: "ATTACK ON AMERICA!" (Updated Daily)
http://www.truthusa.com/911.html

[Alberta's Child]

You can't seriously beleive that the United States has been lying in wait, hoping for something like 9-11 just to give us the excuse to remove Saddam Hussein and undertake a multi billion dollar reconstruction effort in Iraq?

I would not have thought so, but that seems to be the rational conclusion that one would reach if the following facts are true:

1. The U.S. was preparing for the removal of Saddam Hussein months before 9/11.

2. After 9/11 the U.S. toppled Saddam Hussein, on the grounds that his "weapons of mass destruction program" represented a grave threat to the U.S.

3. There has been no sign of these "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq since the end of the war. At first we were told that it would take some time to find them, but now the Bush administration doesn't even talk about them anymore -- now, Iraq is the "focal point of our war on terror."

And, there is a boatload of evidence linking Sadddam's Iraq, not only with the events of 9-11, but with the earlier bombing of the WTC as well. If you are unaware of this, and of numerous other links between Saddam's Iraq and the terror networks, then you are simply too ignorant and unread to hold or expound an opinion on the subject, and expect to be taken seriously.

I have no problem believing any of this (aside from the fact that the 9/11 attacks did not need any kind of support from Iraq -- in fact, they were so utterly simple that a group of suicidal teenagers with an IQ of 80 could have planned and executed them), but if any of these things are true then I would certainly hope that the U.S. government would reveal them instead of offering half-@ssed excuses to the American public.

In either case, I trust that you are not an American. Your reference to Alberta makes me think that perhaps you are an Albertan, and that makes your shame Alberta's not America's, and for that I am grateful.

For some in-depth, factual research, you can simply read my profile page.

[snooker]

Yawn...

[Alberta's Child]

You can not be serious can you? WMD were reasons given to get dims to go along with the war.

The WMDs were reasons given to get the American public to go along with the war (and therefore Congress indirectly). Actually, if you go back and check a lot of Iraq threads here on FreeRepublic over the last year or so, you'll find that the WMDs were reasons given to get a lot of otherwise intelligent Freepers to go along with the war, too.

It will probably take a long time for some folks here on this board to admit it, but the hard truth is that a lot of these people were conned by statements from the Bush administration that were aimed precisely at attracting the support of the same dopey "soccer moms" who were infatuated with Bill Clinton for most of the 1990s.