Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Why this sudden push to rewrite history about the Iraq war? [View all]Cleita
(75,480 posts)98. Oh, for chrissakes! We all who were here ten years ago, know what happened.
It's you who are trying to whitewash it. The nation and the world were against it. Massive protests that were totally ignored by the mainstream media prove it. However, the Project for a New American Century, Republicans represented by Bush/Cheney and company were itching for war with Iraq as far back as 1998. Proof is in a letter they wrote to then President Clinton urging him to attack Iraq.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
January 26, 1998
The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC
Dear Mr. President:
We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Husseins regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.
The policy of containment of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraqs chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddams secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.
Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the worlds supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.
Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.
We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.
The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC
Dear Mr. President:
We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Husseins regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.
The policy of containment of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraqs chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddams secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.
Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the worlds supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.
Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.
We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.
Sincerely,
Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitage William J. Bennett
Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad
William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W. Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber
Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick
Please note the roster of the damned who signed it. Any names familiar to you. Also, Jeb Bush and Dick Cheney were members of this cult.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
187 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
If you disagree, please provide your evidence. Name calling should be beneath Democrats. nm
rhett o rick
Feb 2013
#26
"Bush Administrator (sic) sympathizers" are NOT the "American public", far from it.
George II
Feb 2013
#57
I've read it several times, don't have time to point out each and every fallacy in it.
George II
Feb 2013
#62
I was here then. If there was a contingent of pro-war-w/-Iraq people here...
Cooley Hurd
Feb 2013
#118
YOU are the one that needs to prove your assertion. That DU'ers largely supported Iraq fiasco.
KittyWampus
Feb 2013
#25
You are wrong on this, the people were deceived. Many did not support the invasion of Iraq.
we can do it
Feb 2013
#3
And many that did support the invasion did so because they believed the lies of the bush admin.
George II
Feb 2013
#60
And five, there isn't a draft, which means most people wouldn't have to worry about their loved ones
raccoon
Feb 2013
#137
I think they gave too much weight to Bill Clinton's analysis that military force was needed
blm
Feb 2013
#65
You took my "we" literally. I was referring to the entire country that, on average, supported it.
Buzz Clik
Feb 2013
#24
From what I remember about the time, this OP is unfortunately true........
socialist_n_TN
Feb 2013
#13
Oh please. Many MANY American protested. And many supported war because they were lied to.
KittyWampus
Feb 2013
#18
It's true that a lot of people did know they were lying. Certainly every member
sabrina 1
Feb 2013
#19
I think its clear from Rachels special tonight that most people in congress did not know.
stevenleser
Feb 2013
#157
Senator Graham had special access as a member of the intel committee that other members of
stevenleser
Feb 2013
#174
No, I am not remembering the 'whole thing in its entirety'. I am remembering
sabrina 1
Feb 2013
#175
I know who you were talking about. Bob Graham. I spoke with him several times.
stevenleser
Feb 2013
#178
exactly, when the people who make these calls are broadcasting bold faced lies...
pasto76
Feb 2013
#42
There is one bid diff, We the People are not the subjects of war crime laws, our leaders are though!
Coyotl
Feb 2013
#101
It's like wearing silver/garlic necklaces 24x7 - in case werewolves & vampires are real...
FleetwoodMac
Feb 2013
#123
I dont think this is an attempt to "rewrite" history as to bring it back to life.
rhett o rick
Feb 2013
#43
To a much, much smaller extent, the type of thinking leading up to the invasion of Iraq, are
RC
Feb 2013
#102
It's a hoax to suggest that every Dem who supported the Iraq War was hoaxed into it.
leveymg
Feb 2013
#44
I joined DU in 2002, which was heavily against the war BEFORE invading Iraq
Martin Eden
Feb 2013
#47
People rationalized, yes, but there's no "re-write" in talking about the lies.
DirkGently
Feb 2013
#48
Many people didn't think a president would lie so blatantly in the wake of a national tragedy
Martin Eden
Feb 2013
#75
It's not sudden, it has been going on since even before the initial invasion.
George II
Feb 2013
#55
Why did the German civilians claim they didn't know what was going on before WW2?
JayhawkSD
Feb 2013
#61
yes this right wing hatred of evil criminals has made its way into democratic circles
liberal_at_heart
Feb 2013
#63
Exactly. Attacking Afghanistan for 9/11 was quite supported but we were tricked into Iraq
uppityperson
Feb 2013
#89
If there's any push to "rewrite history", it's to actually get it right this time.
gtar100
Feb 2013
#76
The entry into Iraq war was stage-managed long before GW Bush took office. His ascension enabled it.
Ford_Prefect
Feb 2013
#84
It was a mob mentality that prevailed at that time, and politicians led the mob.
Tierra_y_Libertad
Feb 2013
#85
You are wrong. A few did support it but over all, no. And wrong, we were tricked. Afghanistan was
uppityperson
Feb 2013
#90
That whole era in US history is full of awful, disturbing behavior on the part of politicians,
WCGreen
Feb 2013
#109
"he who controls the past controls the future, and he who controls the present controls the past"
Snarkoleptic
Feb 2013
#106
Remember the Third Way Democrats? You know those guys who wanted war with Iraq?
Catherina
Feb 2013
#110
What a searing indictment...."an ugly fact, that Americans, in their rage and fear, reverted to
indepat
Feb 2013
#114
I think you really exposed your bias and revisionism here. Only Bush admin deserves blame.
stevenleser
Feb 2013
#116
If you recall, the media shut off coverage of the protests. I remember when CNN abruptly stopped
Rhiannon12866
Feb 2013
#121
I will not carry the baggage of the dumbass Americans who supported that war
bluestateguy
Feb 2013
#126
I don't remember any rage against Iraq and I don't remember anyone being tricked either.
Ganja Ninja
Feb 2013
#142
I agree the correct information was out there, but I don’t agree that most people were aware of it.
deurbano
Feb 2013
#143
Many were duped.Even Colin Powell was duped...lied to, truth hidden from, unaware of the extent of
judesedit
Feb 2013
#147
I believed Colin Powell, because I thought he was the one grown-up in the room.
Ian David
Feb 2013
#151
May 2003 A Gallup poll made on behalf of CNN and USA Today concluded that 79% of Americans thought
totodeinhere
Feb 2013
#159
We enabled this when we failed to prosecute any for setting up the Viet Nam war.
Waiting For Everyman
Feb 2013
#187