What did a GWB Presidency look like?

[Zoupa]

Keep going guys, I feel 20 again

[Berkut]

I am not interested in re-arguing the factors that led to that particular war. Hell, that would be a rather untenable argument for me to make now.

Just pointing out that there were arguments beyond the obviously bullshit WMD ones, and that just seems rather self-evidently true.

There were other reasons to engage in that conflict.

And the basic factors that made the conflict happen went far beyond neo-cons looking for get some sweet, sweet oil.

[grumbler]

No I don't believe that. I was just responding in kind to your trash talking.

I was reporting what soldiers who served told me.

I am aware with the weak sauce shit that was found in Iraq. Ancient shells from the Iran-Iraq War. Chemical weapons, ancient ones that were barely useful anymore. The yellow cake shit. But none of that nonsense was actually functional as a weapon. Some 1980s mustard gas was a huge threat to the United States?

Call me crazy but I don't think barely functional traces of something that might be usable as a weapon in some ideal circumstances classifies as a "weapon of mass destruction" they are barely usable as weapons. We have been over this point many many times in the many years. All the stuff we found was ancient legacy crap from the days of yore. The Iraqis did not actually have a functional WMD program when we invaded.

But instead of recognizing the practical fact and practical reality that there were no weapons that posed any threat to the United States in Iraq, we have tiresome bores clinging to the technical definition of a weapon of mass destruction. Which is not untrue but it is so misleading that it might as well be a lie.

So, there were WMD, but you want to dance the Dance of the Weasel and argue that they were not really WMD-WMD, just some kind of non-WMD WMD that don't, somehow, count as WMD?

Dance away, my friend.  But that's a solo dance, so I won't join you.

[grumbler]

No I don't believe that. I was just responding in kind to your trash talking.

I was reporting what soldiers who served told me.

I am aware with the weak sauce shit that was found in Iraq. Ancient shells from the Iran-Iraq War. Chemical weapons, ancient ones that were barely useful anymore. The yellow cake shit. But none of that nonsense was actually functional as a weapon. Some 1980s mustard gas was a huge threat to the United States?

Call me crazy but I don't think barely functional traces of something that might be usable as a weapon in some ideal circumstances classifies as a "weapon of mass destruction" they are barely usable as weapons. We have been over this point many many times in the many years. All the stuff we found was ancient legacy crap from the days of yore. The Iraqis did not actually have a functional WMD program when we invaded.

But instead of recognizing the practical fact and practical reality that there were no weapons that posed any threat to the United States in Iraq, we have tiresome bores clinging to the technical definition of a weapon of mass destruction. Which is not untrue but it is so misleading that it might as well be a lie.

No I think you're wrong there, because if you were making the point that the Iraqi WMD had some significance, he'd be making the counter argument.

No one ever claimed that the war was about a threat to the US.  Not even the weak-ass Shrubbery justifications for the war claimed that.

[Eddie Teach]

Not completely true, there were attempts to connect Saddam's security forces with 9/11.

[Zoupa]

No I don't believe that. I was just responding in kind to your trash talking.

I was reporting what soldiers who served told me.

I am aware with the weak sauce shit that was found in Iraq. Ancient shells from the Iran-Iraq War. Chemical weapons, ancient ones that were barely useful anymore. The yellow cake shit. But none of that nonsense was actually functional as a weapon. Some 1980s mustard gas was a huge threat to the United States?

Call me crazy but I don't think barely functional traces of something that might be usable as a weapon in some ideal circumstances classifies as a "weapon of mass destruction" they are barely usable as weapons. We have been over this point many many times in the many years. All the stuff we found was ancient legacy crap from the days of yore. The Iraqis did not actually have a functional WMD program when we invaded.

But instead of recognizing the practical fact and practical reality that there were no weapons that posed any threat to the United States in Iraq, we have tiresome bores clinging to the technical definition of a weapon of mass destruction. Which is not untrue but it is so misleading that it might as well be a lie.

No I think you're wrong there, because if you were making the point that the Iraqi WMD had some significance, he'd be making the counter argument.

No one ever claimed that the war was about a threat to the US.  Not even the weak-ass Shrubbery justifications for the war claimed that.

Jesus Christ, how many times are you going to claim this? Are you the only one that forgot the whole "let's whip up the american people in this imaginary threat so that they'll support this bogus shit"

"We Don't Want The Smoking Gun To Be A Mushroom Cloud." How many times did Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld etc. use that phrase in interviews and statements?

They ALL claimed the war was about a threat to the US.

[Maladict]

No one ever claimed that the war was about a threat to the US.  Not even the weak-ass Shrubbery justifications for the war claimed that.

The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of America and our friends. And it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda.

The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other.

The United States and other nations did nothing to deserve or invite this threat. But we will do everything to defeat it. Instead of drifting along toward tragedy, we will set a course toward safety. Before the day of horror can come, before it is too late to act, this danger will be removed.

The United States of America has the sovereign authority to use force in assuring its own national security. That duty falls to me, as Commander-in-Chief, by the oath I have sworn, by the oath I will keep.

Recognizing the threat to our country, the United States Congress voted overwhelmingly last year to support the use of force against Iraq.

[DGuller]

No I don't believe that. I was just responding in kind to your trash talking.

I was reporting what soldiers who served told me.

I am aware with the weak sauce shit that was found in Iraq. Ancient shells from the Iran-Iraq War. Chemical weapons, ancient ones that were barely useful anymore. The yellow cake shit. But none of that nonsense was actually functional as a weapon. Some 1980s mustard gas was a huge threat to the United States?

Call me crazy but I don't think barely functional traces of something that might be usable as a weapon in some ideal circumstances classifies as a "weapon of mass destruction" they are barely usable as weapons. We have been over this point many many times in the many years. All the stuff we found was ancient legacy crap from the days of yore. The Iraqis did not actually have a functional WMD program when we invaded.

But instead of recognizing the practical fact and practical reality that there were no weapons that posed any threat to the United States in Iraq, we have tiresome bores clinging to the technical definition of a weapon of mass destruction. Which is not untrue but it is so misleading that it might as well be a lie.

So, there were WMD, but you want to dance the Dance of the Weasel and argue that they were not really WMD-WMD, just some kind of non-WMD WMD that don't, somehow, count as WMD?

Dance away, my friend.  But that's a solo dance, so I won't join you.

I think your use of the word "weasel" here is completely unwarranted, and honestly makes it look like you have no argument.  It looks to me like you're clinging to being "technically correct" in a situation where it is very apparent to any reasonable observer that technical correctness here is very misleading in context.

[Berkut]

No I don't believe that. I was just responding in kind to your trash talking.

I was reporting what soldiers who served told me.

I am aware with the weak sauce shit that was found in Iraq. Ancient shells from the Iran-Iraq War. Chemical weapons, ancient ones that were barely useful anymore. The yellow cake shit. But none of that nonsense was actually functional as a weapon. Some 1980s mustard gas was a huge threat to the United States?

Call me crazy but I don't think barely functional traces of something that might be usable as a weapon in some ideal circumstances classifies as a "weapon of mass destruction" they are barely usable as weapons. We have been over this point many many times in the many years. All the stuff we found was ancient legacy crap from the days of yore. The Iraqis did not actually have a functional WMD program when we invaded.

But instead of recognizing the practical fact and practical reality that there were no weapons that posed any threat to the United States in Iraq, we have tiresome bores clinging to the technical definition of a weapon of mass destruction. Which is not untrue but it is so misleading that it might as well be a lie.

So, there were WMD, but you want to dance the Dance of the Weasel and argue that they were not really WMD-WMD, just some kind of non-WMD WMD that don't, somehow, count as WMD?

Dance away, my friend.  But that's a solo dance, so I won't join you.

I think your use of the word "weasel" here is completely unwarranted, and honestly makes it look like you have no argument.  It looks to me like you're clinging to being "technically correct" in a situation where it is very apparent to any reasonable observer that technical correctness here is very misleading in context.

Actually, I look at grumblers argument and think "Yeah, I am going to board the weasel train!"

Because I would say exactly what he is contemptuously saying. That the WMD found does not in fact, count as "WMD". It is very much non-WND WND. In that it isn't what was meant when we said Saddam was not abiding by the "NO WMD!" part of the ceasefire agreement. Most actual intelligence at the time, the stuff the Bush Admin supressed when they told the CIA to go back and re-do their threat assessment said that whatever WMD was still in Iraq was very possibly not even stuff that Saddam was even aware he still had, the country was such a mess.

Still, even at the time, my support for the war had little to do with that part. My support was based on the future threat of a Saddam led Iraq without any external controls on his ability to re-start a WMD program, sell his oil, and re-arm and give it all another go in ten more years. Which I thought was nearly inevitable under the existing circumstances. And in fact, I *still* think that was inevitable under those circumstances.

It is all counter factual at this point of course, but I never heard a credible counter idea to the idea of war. Saddam was basically telling the world to go fuck ourselves. He did not allow inspectors access as agreed. He acted as if he was in fact hiding WMD, or a program. He constantly challenged the no fly zones, and went on a rampage butchering his dissident factions despite the coalition bombing him when he did. He only came to the table when the US and the coalition sent in enough troops into the region to credibly threaten his removal from power.

People seem to forget all that. The US sent tens of thousands of troops to SA and Kuwait. THAT is what forced Saddam to actually let inspectors in again. What is the counter narrative? Leave those troops sitting there indefintely? Ship them back to the US, and then repeat in another 18 months? That was not going to happen. If we backed down at that point, the deal was over. When the bad guy calls your bluff and basically says "You are not serious about removing me from power" and you back down, then you are done trying to influence the situation with the threat of force.

The same thing happened in Syria. Once Assad crossed the "red line" and nothing happened, it's not like we could draw a new red line and have anyone do anything but laugh at it. At that point Assad was basically free to act as he wished.

Again, when you step back and look at it as a whole, "Well, we sent them there so might as well have a war!" is a stupid reason for a war that results in half a million people dead. But if you honestly look at how these things progress, you can appreciate that it is never anything like that. It is a series of steps, each of which makes sense in and of themselves, often motivated by perfectly reasonable and defensible ideals, that lead to a outcome nobody wanted.

There are so many examples of this in history as well. This is not a new story. Hell, WW1 is the canonical case! Nobody at the start of the process that ended in millions dead thought "Well, we mobilized! I guess we might as well have a war that is going to kill millions of our own people and even if we win absolutely destroy our country! I mean, the alternative is that we just send everyone home!"

I supported this war. In hindsight, that was clearly a mistake. When I think about why I was wrong, GWB banding his shoe on the table about WMDs doesn't even enter my calculus. It was never why I thought we should go to war, and was always pretty obviously just something (even at the time) being used to *justify* the war in a simple manner that the administration thought would sell to the American public, and *they* were not going to war for that reason either.

[grumbler]

Not completely true, there were attempts to connect Saddam's security forces with 9/11.

There were attempts, but neither the UN speech nor the request for AUMF made such claims.  They linked SH to international terrorism in general, but not to 9/11.

The thrust was that SH was an enemy of the US, not that he posed an immediate threat to the US.

[grumbler]

Jesus Christ, how many times are you going to claim this? Are you the only one that forgot the whole "let's whip up the american people in this imaginary threat so that they'll support this bogus shit"

"We Don't Want The Smoking Gun To Be A Mushroom Cloud." How many times did Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld etc. use that phrase in interviews and statements?

They ALL claimed the war was about a threat to the US.

Jesus Christ, when are you just going to look at the actual evidence rather than your fevered views of "let's whip up the american people in this imaginary threat so that they'll support this bogus shit"?

The justifications claimed for the war were not that "we must attack now to stop Saddam Hussein from attacking the US," it was "we must attack now because we need to nip this WMD program in the bud before SH has the ability to threaten use of WMD if we threaten his regime." 

There is no question but what the CIA and US And UK government officials "cooked the books" with regard to the actual threat SH posed and the immediacy of the threat.  But we don't have to invent a new history to explain what the existing history explains quite well.

SH ironically doomed himself by refusing to allow the UN inspectors to verify that he had, in fact, effectively complied with the significant UN resolutions.

[grumbler]

I think your use of the word "weasel" here is completely unwarranted, and honestly makes it look like you have no argument.  It looks to me like you're clinging to being "technically correct" in a situation where it is very apparent to any reasonable observer that technical correctness here is very misleading in context.

The use of the word "weasel" is perfectly accurate, since the original claim was that "the rank and file infantry thought they were going in to find WMDs and were greatly demoralized and angry when they discovered there were none."  When I pointed out that WMD were found and disposed of, the argument because that the people who did that were "Fantasy people."

When invited to reconfirm that only "fantasy people" ever found WMD, Valmy didn't concede that we was wrong, he just switched his argument to "they are barely usable as weapons." 

That's classic weaseling, given that the point he was arguing against was simply that WMD were, indeed, found.  He can't deny that, so he starts to dance.

If you want to strawman my simple observation (not an argument at all) into some "clinging to being "technically correct" in a situation where it is very apparent to any reasonable observer that technical correctness here is very misleading in context," go right ahead.  Strawman arguments are no more compelling than the Dance of the Weasel.

[grumbler]

Actually, I look at grumblers argument and think "Yeah, I am going to board the weasel train!"

What argument do you believe I made?  What quote from me can you provide that includes that argument?

[crazy canuck]

No I don't believe that. I was just responding in kind to your trash talking.

I was reporting what soldiers who served told me.

I am aware with the weak sauce shit that was found in Iraq. Ancient shells from the Iran-Iraq War. Chemical weapons, ancient ones that were barely useful anymore. The yellow cake shit. But none of that nonsense was actually functional as a weapon. Some 1980s mustard gas was a huge threat to the United States?

Call me crazy but I don't think barely functional traces of something that might be usable as a weapon in some ideal circumstances classifies as a "weapon of mass destruction" they are barely usable as weapons. We have been over this point many many times in the many years. All the stuff we found was ancient legacy crap from the days of yore. The Iraqis did not actually have a functional WMD program when we invaded.

But instead of recognizing the practical fact and practical reality that there were no weapons that posed any threat to the United States in Iraq, we have tiresome bores clinging to the technical definition of a weapon of mass destruction. Which is not untrue but it is so misleading that it might as well be a lie.

No I think you're wrong there, because if you were making the point that the Iraqi WMD had some significance, he'd be making the counter argument.

No one ever claimed that the war was about a threat to the US.  Not even the weak-ass Shrubbery justifications for the war claimed that.

I know the then President of the United States is held in low esteem, but he wasn't exactly a nobody.

And if you don't want to take the time to read all the following text of just one of the speeches Bush made at the time, which shows your position is not accurate.  Just pay attention to this one thing he said.

"We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs for missions targeting the United States."

Transcript: George Bush's speech on Iraq
Following is the text of an address given by President Bush in Cincinnati
Mon 7 Oct 2002 09.00 BST
44
Thank you for that very gracious and warm Cincinnati welcome. I'm honored to be here tonight. I appreciate you all coming. Tonight I want to take a few minutes to discuss a grave threat to peace and America's determination to lead the world in confronting that threat.

The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime's own actions, its history of aggression and its drive toward an arsenal of terror.

Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism and practices terror against its own people. The entire world has witnessed Iraq's 11-year history of defiance, deception and bad faith.

We must also never forget the most vivid events of recent history. On September 11 2001, America felt its vulnerability even to threats that gather on the other side of the Earth. We resolved then, and we are resolved today, to confront every threat from any source that could bring sudden terror and suffering to America.

Members of Congress of both political parties, and members of the United Nations Security Council, agree that Saddam Hussein is a threat to peace and must disarm. We agree that the Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten America and the world with horrible poisons and diseases and gases and atomic weapons.

Since we all agree on this goal, the issue is how best can we achieve it?

Many Americans have raised legitimate questions about the nature of the threat, about the urgency of action. Why be concerned now? About the link between Iraq developing weapons of terror and the wider war on terror.

These are all issues we've discussed broadly and fully within my administration, and tonight I want to share those discussions with you.

First, some ask why Iraq is different from other countries or regimes that also have terrible weapons. While there are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place.

Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are controlled by a murderous tyrant who has already used chemical weapons to kill thousands of people. This same tyrant has tried to dominate the Middle East, has invaded and brutally occupied a small neighbor, has struck other nations without warning and holds an unrelenting hostility toward the United States. By its past and present actions, by its technological capabilities, by the merciless nature of its regime, Iraq is unique.

As a former chief weapons inspector of the UN has said, "The fundamental problem with Iraq remains the nature of the regime itself." Saddam Hussein is a homicidal dictator who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction.

Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today - and we do - does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?

In 1995, after several years of deceit by the Iraqi regime, the head of Iraq's military industries defected. It was then that the regime was forced to admit that it had produced more than 30,000 litres of anthrax and other deadly biological agents. The inspectors, however, concluded that Iraq had likely produced two to four times that amount. This is a massive stockpile of biological weapons that has never been accounted for and is capable of killing millions.

We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, Sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas. Saddam Hussein also has experience in using chemical weapons. He's ordered chemical attacks on Iran and on more than 40 villages in his own country. These actions killed or injured at least 20,000 people: more than six times the number of people who died in the attacks of September 11.

And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons. Every chemical and biological weapon that Iraq has or makes is a direct violation of the truce that ended the Persian Gulf War in 1991.Yet Saddam Hussein has chosen to build and keep these weapons, despite international sanctions, UN demands and isolation from the civilized world.

Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles; far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey and other nations in a region where more than 135,000 American civilians and service members live and work.

We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles [UAVs] that could be used to disperse chemical and biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs for missions targeting the United States.

And, of course, sophisticated delivery systems aren't required for a chemical or biological attack. All that might be required are a small container and one terrorist or Iraqi intelligence operative to deliver it. And that is the source of our urgent concern about Saddam Hussein's links to international terrorist groups.

Over the years Iraq has provided safe haven to terrorists such as Abu Nidal, whose terror organization carried out more than 90 terrorist attacks in 20 countries that killed or injured nearly 900 people, including 12 Americans.

Iraq has also provided safe haven to Abu Abbas, who is responsible for seizing the Achille Lauro and killing an American passenger. And we know that Iraq is continuing to finance terror and gives assistance to groups that use terrorism to undermine Middle East peace.

We know that Iraq and the al-Qaida terrorist network share a common enemy: the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al-Qaida have had high-level contacts that go back a decade.

Some al-Qaida leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al-Qaida leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks.

We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaida members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September 11 Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.

Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints.

Some have argued that confronting the threat from Iraq could detract from the war against terror. To the contrary, confronting the threat posed by Iraq is crucial to winning the war on terror.

When I spoke to Congress more than a year ago, I said that those who harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists themselves. Saddam Hussein is harboring terrorists and the instruments of terror, the instruments of mass death and destruction, and he cannot be trusted. The risk is simply too great that he will use them or provide them to a terror network.

Terror cells and outlaw regimes building weapons of mass destruction are different faces of the same evil. Our security requires that we confront both, and the United States military is capable of confronting both.

Many people have asked how close Saddam Hussein is to developing a nuclear weapon. Well, we don't know exactly, and that's the problem. Before the Gulf War, the best intelligence indicated that Iraq was eight to 10 years away from developing a nuclear weapon. After the war, international inspectors learned that the regime had been much closer. The regime in Iraq would likely have possessed a nuclear weapon no later than 1993.

The inspectors discovered that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a workable nuclear weapon and was pursuing several different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. Before being barred from Iraq in 1998, the International Atomic Energy Agency dismantled extensive nuclear weapons-related facilities, including three uranium enrichment sites.

That same year, information from a high-ranking Iraqi nuclear engineer who had defected revealed that, despite his public promises, Saddam Hussein had ordered his nuclear program to continue.

The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists . . . his "nuclear mujaheddin," his nuclear holy warriors.

Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of his nuclear program in the past.

Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.

If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, he could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year.

And if we allow that to happen, a terrible line would be crossed. Saddam Hussein would be in a position to blackmail anyone who opposes his aggression. He would be in a position to dominate the Middle East. He would be in a position to threaten America. And Saddam Hussein would be in a position to pass nuclear technology to terrorists.

Some citizens wonder, "After 11 years of living with this problem, why do we need to confront it now?"

And there's a reason. We have experienced the horror of September 11. We have seen that those who hate America are willing to crash airplanes into buildings full of innocent people. Our enemies would be no less willing, in fact they would be eager, to use biological or chemical or a nuclear weapon.

Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof, the smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.

As President Kennedy said in October of 1962, "Neither the United States of America nor the world community of nations can tolerate deliberate deception and offensive threats on the part of any nation, large or small. We no longer live in a world," he said, "where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nation's security to constitute maximum peril."

Understanding the threats of our time, knowing the designs and deceptions of the Iraqi regime, we have every reason to assume the worst, and we have an urgent duty to prevent the worst from occurring.

Advertisement

Some believe we can address this danger by simply resuming the old approach to inspections and applying diplomatic and economic pressure. Yet this is precisely what the world has tried to do since 1991.

The UN inspections program was met with systematic deception. The Iraqi regime bugged hotel rooms and offices of inspectors to find where they were going next. They forged documents, destroyed evidence and developed mobile weapons facilities to keep a step ahead of inspectors. Eight so-called presidential palaces were declared off-limits to unfettered inspections. These sites actually encompass 12 square miles, with hundreds of structures both above and below the ground where sensitive materials could be hidden.

The world has also tried economic sanctions and watched Iraqi's billions of dollars in illegal oil revenues to fund more weapons purchases rather than provide for the needs of the Iraqi people.

The world has tried limited military strikes to destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities, only to see them openly rebuilt while the regime again denies they even exist.

The world has tried no-fly zones to keep Saddam from terrorizing his own people, and in the last year alone the Iraqi military has fired upon American and British pilots more than 750 times.

After 11 years during which we've tried containment, sanctions, inspections, even selected military action, the end result is that Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more. And he is moving ever closer to developing a nuclear weapon.

Clearly, to actually work, any new inspections, sanctions or enforcement mechanisms will have to be very different. America wants the UN to be an effective organization that helps keep the peace. And that is why we are urging the Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough, immediate requirements.

Among those requirements the Iraqi regime must reveal and destroy, under UN supervision, all existing weapons of mass destruction. To ensure that we learn the truth, the regime must allow witnesses to its illegal activities to be interviewed outside the country. And these witnesses must be free to bring their families with them, so they are all beyond the reach of Saddam Hussein's terror and murder.

And inspectors must have access to any site, at any time without pre-clearance, without delay, without exceptions.

The time of denying, deceiving and delaying has come to an end. Saddam Hussein must disarm himself, or, for the sake of peace, we will lead a coalition to disarm him.

Many nations are joining us and insisting that Saddam Hussein's regime be held accountable. They are committed to defending the international security that protects the lives of both our citizens and theirs.

And that's why America is challenging all nations to take the resolutions of the UN Security Council seriously. These resolutions are very clear. In addition to declaring and destroying all of its weapons of mass destruction, Iraq must end its support for terrorism. It must cease the persecution of its civilian population. It must stop all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. It must release or account for all Gulf War personnel, including an American pilot whose fate is still unknown.

By taking these steps and by only taking these steps, the Iraqi regime has an opportunity to avoid conflict.

These steps would also change the nature of the Iraqi regime itself. America hopes the regime will make that choice. Unfortunately, at least so far, we have little reason to expect it. And that's why two administrations - mine and President Clinton's - have stated that regime change in Iraq is the only certain means of removing a great danger to our nation.

I hope this will not require military action, but it may. And military conflict could be difficult. An Iraqi regime faced with its own demise may attempt cruel and desperate measures. If Saddam Hussein orders such measures, his generals would be well advised to refuse those orders. If they do not refuse, they must understand that all war criminals will be pursued and punished.

If we have to act, we will take every precaution that is possible. We will plan carefully. We will act with the full power of the United States military. We will act with allies at our side and we will prevail.

There is no easy or risk-free course of action. Some have argued we should wait, and that's an option. In my view, it's the riskiest of all options, because the longer we wait, the stronger and bolder Saddam Hussein will become. We could wait and hope that Saddam does not give weapons to terrorists or develop a nuclear weapon to blackmail the world. But I'm convinced that is a hope against all evidence.

As Americans, we want peace. We work and sacrifice for peace. But there can be no peace if our security depends on the will and whims of a ruthless and aggressive dictator. I'm not willing to stake one American life on trusting Saddam Hussein.

Failure to act would embolden other tyrants, allow terrorists access to new weapons and new resources, and make blackmail a permanent feature of world events.

The United Nations would betray the purpose of its founding and prove irrelevant to the problems of our time. And through its inaction, the United States would resign itself to a future of fear.

That is not the America I know. That is not the America I serve. We refuse to live in fear.

This nation, in world war and in cold war, has never permitted the brutal and lawless to set history's course. Now, as before, we will secure our nation, protect our freedom and help others to find freedom of their own.

Some worry that a change of leadership in Iraq could create instability and make the situation worse. The situation could hardly get worse for world security and for the people of Iraq.

The lives of Iraqi citizens would improve dramatically if Saddam Hussein were no longer in power, just as the lives of Afghanistan's citizens improved after the Taliban.

The dictator of Iraq is a student of Stalin, using murder as a tool of terror and control, within his own cabinet, within his own army and even within his own family.

On Saddam Hussein's orders, opponents had been decapitated, wives and mothers of political opponents had been systematically raped as a method of intimidation, and political prisoners had been forced to watch their own children being tortured.

America believes that all people are entitled to hope and human rights, to the nonnegotiable demands of human dignity.

People everywhere prefer freedom to slavery, prosperity to squalor, self-government to the rule of terror and torture.

America is a friend to the people of Iraq. Our demands are directed only at the regime that enslaves them and threatens us. When these demands are met, the first and greatest benefit will come to Iraqi men, women and children. The oppression of Kurds, Assyrians, Turkomen, Shia, Sunnis and others will be lifted, the long captivity of Iraq will end, and an era of new hope will begin.

Iraq is a land rich in culture and resources and talent. Freed from the weight of oppression, Iraq's people will be able to share in the progress and prosperity of our time.

If military action is necessary, the United States and our allies will help the Iraqi people rebuild their economy and create the institutions of liberty in a unified Iraq, at peace with its neighbors.

Later this week, the United States Congress will vote on this matter. I have asked Congress to authorize the use of America's military if it proves necessary to enforce UN Security Council demands.

Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable. The resolution will tell the United Nations, and all nations, that America speaks with one voice and it is determined to make the demands of the civilized world mean something.

Congress will also be sending a message to the dictator in Iraq that his only chance - his only choice is full compliance, and the time remaining for that choice is limited.

Members of Congress are nearing an historic vote. I'm confident they will fully consider the facts and their duties.

The attacks of September 11 showed our country that vast oceans no longer protect us from danger. Before that tragic date, we had only hints of al-Qaida's plans and designs. Today, in Iraq, we see a threat whose outlines are far more clearly defined and whose consequences could be far more deadly.

Saddam Hussein's actions have put us on notice, and there's no refuge from our responsibilities.

We did not ask for this present challenge, but we accept it. Like other generations of Americans, we will meet the responsibility of defending human liberty against violence and aggression. By our resolve, we will give strength to others. By our courage, we will give hope to others. And by our actions, we will secure the peace and lead the world to a better day.

May God bless America.

President Bush, in a speech in Cincinnati, Ohio, on October 7, 2002, said, "[Iraq] possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons.... Members of Congress of both political parties, and members of the United Nations Security Council, agree that Saddam Hussein is a threat to peace and must disarm. We agree that the Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten America and the world with horrible poisons and diseases and gases and atomic weapons."

[grumbler]

I know the then President of the United States is held in low esteem, but he wasn't exactly a nobody.

And if you don't want to take the time to read all the following text of just one of the speeches Bush made at the time, which shows your position is not accurate.  Just pay attention to this one thing he said.

"We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs for missions targeting the United States."

Yes.  That's consistent with my position.  SH posed some potential future threat to the US, not a current threat.  The attack didn't come because the US felt threatened by Saddam Hussein.

President Bush, in a speech in Cincinnati, Ohio, on October 7, 2002, said, "[Iraq] possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons.... Members of Congress of both political parties, and members of the United Nations Security Council, agree that Saddam Hussein is a threat to peace and must disarm. We agree that the Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten America and the world with horrible poisons and diseases and gases and atomic weapons."

Exactly as I have argued: a threat to peace (not the US) and must not be "permitted to threaten America."  Current threat is to others, but we must act now to so as not to permit a future threat to the US.

I'd note that my interpretation of Bush's declared motives is not nearly as forgiving as yours.