Pro and Con Iraq War - Arguments and Rebuttals for the Iraq War -

Right Side Redux -
Arguments and Rebuttals for the Iraq War

Many of my friends have fallen down with the media chorus that the war in Iraq is lost and that we made a mistake going to war in the first place. Here are the common themes that people have cited and rebuttals to those arguments.

SUBMIT YOUR OWN ARGUMENT OR REBUTTAL

Latest from Right Side Redux

ARGUMENT

Sources

Iraq and Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11 therefore the war is unjust.

"Whenever we remember 9/11, and we should, we must also remember that some in the administration used 9/11 as an excuse to wage an illegal war against a nation that did not attack us, that had nothing to do with 9/11, that did not have the capability or the intention of attacking us, and that had no weapons of mass destruction." - Congressman Kucinich - 9/8/05

"The 9/11 report -- co-chaired by a Republican, Tom Kean of New Jersey -- said there was no evidence of a terror connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden and that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. " - Howard Dean 10/23/05

REBUTTAL

Sources

Critics see 9/11 as an isolated incident rather than a global war on terror.

"[The primary goal of the war] is to destroy the network of Islamic militants who declared war against the United States when they bombed the World Trade Center on February 26, 1993, and finally jarred us into an appropriate response when they demolished that complex, struck the Pentagon, and killed 3000 of us on September 11, 2001. That is why we are in Iraq...

It’s not about the great experiment in democratization — ... It’s about making our enemies know we are coming for them if they abet and harbor and promote and plan with the people who are trying to kill us...

What does the “nothing whatsoever” crowd have to say about:

show/hide more details

Ahmed Hikmat Shakir
— the Iraqi Intelligence operative who facilitated a 9/11 hijacker into Malaysia and was in attendance at the Kuala Lampur meeting with two of the hijackers, and other conspirators, at what is roundly acknowledged to be the initial 9/11 planning session in January 2000? Who was arrested after the 9/11 attacks in possession of contact information for several known terrorists? Who managed to make his way out of Jordanian custody over our objections after the 9/11 attacks because of special pleading by Saddam’s regime?
Saddam's intelligence agency's efforts to recruit jihadists to bomb Radio Free Europe in Prague in the late 1990's?
Mohammed Atta's unexplained visits to Prague in 2000, and his alleged visit there in April 2001 which — notwithstanding the 9/11 Commission's dismissal of it (based on interviewing exactly zero relevant witnesses) — the Czechs have not retracted?
The Clinton Justice Department's allegation in a 1998 indictment (two months before the embassy bombings) against bin Laden, to wit: In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.
Seized Iraq Intelligence Service records indicating that Saddam's henchmen regarded bin Laden as an asset as early as 1992?
Saddam's hosting of al Qaeda No. 2, Ayman Zawahiri beginning in the early 1990’s, and reports of a large payment of money to Zawahiri in 1998?
Saddam’s ten years of harboring of 1993 World Trade Center bomber Abdul Rahman Yasin?
Iraqi Intelligence Service operatives being dispatched to meet with bin Laden in Afghanistan in 1998 (the year of bin Laden’s fatwa demanding the killing of all Americans, as well as the embassy bombings)?
Saddam’s official press lionizing bin Laden as “an Arab and Islamic hero” following the 1998 embassy bombing attacks?
The continued insistence of high-ranking Clinton administration officials to the 9/11 Commission that the 1998 retaliatory strikes (after the embassy bombings) against a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory were justified because the factory was a chemical weapons hub tied to Iraq and bin Laden?
Top Clinton administration counterterrorism official Richard Clarke’s assertions, based on intelligence reports in 1999, that Saddam had offered bin Laden asylum after the embassy bombings, and Clarke’s memo to then-National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, advising him not to fly U-2 missions against bin Laden in Afghanistan because he might be tipped off by Pakistani Intelligence, and “[a]rmed with that knowledge, old wily Usama will likely boogie to Baghdad”? (See 9/11 Commission Final Report, p. 134 & n.135.)
Terror master Abu Musab Zarqawi's choice to boogie to Baghdad of all places when he needed surgery after fighting American forces in Afghanistan in 2001?
Saddam's Intelligence Service running a training camp at Salman Pak, were terrorists were instructed in tactics for assassination, kidnapping and hijacking?
Former CIA Director George Tenet’s October 7, 2002 letter to Congress, which asserted: Our understanding of the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda is evolving and is based on sources of varying reliability. Some of the information we have received comes from detainees, including some of high rank.
We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda going back a decade.
Credible information indicates that Iraq and Al Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal nonaggression.
Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of Al Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad.
We have credible reporting that Al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to Al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs.
Iraq's increasing support to extremist Palestinians coupled with growing indications of relationship with Al Qaeda suggest that Baghdad's links to terrorists will increase, even absent U.S. military action."

- Andrew McArthy
- see also Mark Levin

ARGUMENT	Sources
The Bush administration and others manipulated evidence to bring us into war.	"The war in Iraq was and remains one of the great acts of misleading and deception in American history," John Kerry

REBUTTAL

Sources

Many Democrats came to the same conclusion looking at the same evidence.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons." _ Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va.

"The war against terrorism will not be finished as long as (Saddam Hussein) is in power." _ Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich.

"Saddam Hussein, in effect, has thumbed his nose at the world community. And I think that the president's approaching this in the right fashion." _ Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., then the Democratic whip.

"Reasonable people can disagree about the conduct of the war but it is irresponsible for Democrats to now claim that we misled them and the American people." - Bush

ARGUMENT	Sources
The Wilson incident proves that the administration manipulated evidence and is willing to do anything to stop war critics.	"The war in Iraq was and remains one of the great acts of misleading and deception in American history," John Kerry

REBUTTAL

Sources

The Wilson story is full of holes. The evidence that Wilson brought back actually supports the war.

Summary: Wilson's infamous mission to Niger actually confirms the Presiden't claims in the State of the Union address. The Senate Intelligence Committee report indicates that Wilson repeatedly lied. The leak of Wilson's wife was not payback but an attempt to refute Wilson's claims.

show/hide more details

Background (paraphrasing a WSJ article and others): Joe Wilson is hired by the CIA on special assignment to investigate whether or not Iraq had sought Yellocake Uranium from Niger.

Why Joe Wilson was sent is unclear since it was Wilson's wife and not Wilson that was the expert in WMDs. Wilson had no expertise to Niger either. Neither did Wilson have any intelligence training or background. Apparently, Wilson was sent to Niger solely at the bequest of his wife.

When Wilson returns he provides no written report, rather he gives an oral presentation to briefers at the CIA and State Department. The CIA does not make Wilson sign a non-disclosure or confidentiality agreement.

A year later Wilson writes a politically charged op/ed in the NY Times charging that the administration ignored his findings and that he was sent by the Vice President on the mission.

The press gets all over the president for alluding to a British report that claims the finding between Niger and Iraq.

The Vice President's office is bewildered at Wilson's claim and discovers that Wilson was recommended for the job by his wife and that he and his wife are contributors to Democratic candidates.

The Vice President's office passes this information onto the press to refute the claims that the VP sent Wilson.

It appears that Wilson then lied about the notion that his wife recommended him. Wilson also misled the Washington Post when he claims to have seen the forged documents which were not in the hands of intelligence officers until 6 months after his trip.

In fact, WIlson told the CIA that Iraq had indeed sought Uranium in 1998 and 1999.

The Butler Report, from the UK, concluded that the Niger documents were not influential in the British conclusions therefore the President's claims in the State of the Union address were accurate.

While the Special Prosecuter has indicted Scooter Libby on charges stemming from the investigation, there is not direct charge relating the "leak" of Wilson's wife's claims.

ARGUMENT	Sources
The war strategy was abysmmal. The administration hasn't changed course.

REBUTTAL

Sources

Yes, mistakes were made in the planning and execution of the war. But the successes of the Iraq war have been overlooked and changes were made to issues in the strategy.

Conservatives recognize that post-war planning issues did occur. The administration took quick action to ensure a course change.

Most wars have serious planning and intelligence issues. When the first landing party lost dozens of troops on the Beaches at Normandy, their task was to take out huge German guns at the top of a bank. The guns were never there.

War is ugly. War is difficult. But winning is war is all important.

- Justin @ RSR

ARGUMENT	Sources
The fact that we haven't found WMDs in Iraq negates our pre-emptive strike into Iraq.

REBUTTAL

Sources

Every credible intelligence agency determined that Iraq had WMDs. The UN had over a dozen resolutions condeming Iraq for its failure to come clean. Republicans and Democrats alike cited frightening reports about Saddam and Iraq. In a post-9/11 world we were willing to act on intelligence that we thought credible. Hindsight is convinient for only two groups: Saddam and war critics.

"A bewildered visitor from Mars would tell Washingtonians something like: "For twelve years you occupied Saddam's airspace, since he refused to abide by the peace accords and you were afraid that he would activate his WMD arsenal again against the Kurds or his neighbors. Now that he is gone and for the first time you can confirm that his weapons program is finally defunct, you are mad about this new precedent that you have established: Given the gravity of WMD arsenals, the onus is now on suspect rogue nations to prove that they do not have weapons of mass destruction, rather than for civilization to establish beyond a responsible doubt that they do?"
- VDH 11/18/05

ARGUMENT	Sources
Pro-war neocons equate criticism of the war as an attack on patriotism, stifling debate and demonizing anti-war activists.

REBUTTAL

Sources

Debate on the Iraq war is still ongoing, forces somehow "stifling debate" seem moot.

Criticism of the war is certainly justified. Conservatives have had many criticisms about how the war is being fought.

But irresponsible comments during war time for political gain are innapropriate and debasing to all Americans.

" Nor is there any problem with debating whether the United States and our allies should have liberated Iraq in the first place. Here, as well, the differing views are very passionately and forcefully stated. But nobody is saying we should not be having this discussion, or that you cannot reexamine a decision made by the President and the Congress some years ago. To the contrary, I believe it is critical that we continue to remind ourselves why this nation took action, and why Iraq is the central front in the war on terror, and why we have a duty to persevere.

What is not legitimate -- and what I will again say is dishonest and reprehensible -- is the suggestion by some U. S. senators that the President of the United States or any member of his administration purposely misled the American people on pre-war intelligence."
- VP cheney 11/21/05