Senate WMD Report Whacks CIA, But Bush Deserves Blame, Too
The United States went to war on the basis of false claims. More than 800 Americans and countless Iraqis have lost their lives because of these false claims. The American taxpayer has to pay up to $200 billion–and maybe more–because of these false claims. The United States’ standing in the world has fallen precipitously because of these false claims. Two days before the war, when George W. Bush justified the coming invasion of Iraq by saying “intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal” weapons of mass destruction, he was dead wrong. And when he later claimed his decision to attack Iraq had been predicated upon “good, solid intelligence,” he was dead wrong.
The debate is over–or it should be. According to the report released today by the Senate intelligence committee, the intelligence community–led by the CIA–"overstated” and “mischaracterized” the intelligence on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. In the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, produced hastily and haphazardly in October 2002, the intelligence community concluded that Saddam Hussein’s regime possessed chemical and biological weapons, was “reconstituting” its nuclear weapons program, was supporting an “active” and “advanced” biological weapons program, and was developing an unmanned aerial vehicle “probably intended to deliver” biological weapons. All of these critical findings, the committee report says, “either overstated, or were not supported by, the underlying intelligence reporting.”
As Senator Jay Rockefeller, the ranking Democrat on the intelligence committee, put it at a press conference, this is one of the “most devastating…intelligence failures in the history of the nation.” The 500 page report repeatedly details instances when the intelligence community botched its job by ignoring contrary evidence, embracing questionable sources, and rushing to judgments that just so happened to fit the preconceived notions of the Bush administration. If CIA director George Tenet had not said good-bye to the CIA the day before the report came out, he would deserve immediate dismissal. But the report–justifiably harsh in its evaluation of the CIA–is part of an effort to protect Bush and his lieutenants. The political mission: make the CIA the fall guy.
The report does not examine how Bush and his senior aides handled and represented the flawed intelligence. Senator Pat Roberts, the Republican chairman of the committee, has delayed that portion of the investigation….
next post: Senate WMD Report, the 9/11 Report–Will They Matter?
“But the report–justifiably harsh in its evaluation of the CIA–is part of an effort to protect Bush and his lieutenants. The political mission: make the CIA the fall guy.”
Okay, what’s the point?
Comment by Citizen — 7/9/2004 @ 3:37 pm
It appears they are counting on the complete idiocy of the uninformed half of this country to secret reality behind the façade of CIA “Failures”. And It’s absolute bullshit. Intelligence is never perfect, but the intelligence they had was MORE than good enough to lead anyone honest to the right conclusion. Somehow, despite this supposed intelligence “failure”, Scott Ritter figured it out. And apparently Colin Powell and Condi Rice figured it out too, but they suffered an inexplicable case of amnesia as soon as their boss said “We’re doig Iraq”. How else does one explain their statements in 2001 boasting that Saddam was NOT a threat, that he had developed NO new weapons capacity, and that he was effectively isolated and under a level of scrutiny which would prevent him from doing anything.
No, this is abject GARBAGE, and I have to say upon reading your article, you fail to call a spade a spade and fail to present a true picture in your giving any credence to the Senate Intelligence Committee report whatsoever, when at the end of the day, it’s absolutely meaningless. Millions of people concluded the Bush administration was lying through their teeth BEFORE the war, and we did so by reading the very same intelligence that was presented to congress. We did so by NOTING the former statements of Powell and Rice in 2001, we did so by noting the intentional removal of EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE as provided by Hussein Camel by the administration, and we did so by recalling the account of Powell’s indignation when he threw the U.N. presentation into the air and said “This is bullshit”. Bullshit indeed.
That the portion of the investigation that deals with what was DONE with the available intelligence is not going to be made public until AFTER the election, is the most overt conspiracy I have ever seen to protect the CRIMINAL and treasonous actions of an administration with the blood of thousands on their hands, I have ever seen. It’s absolutely appalling and the Republican members of this sham committee are co-conspirators to a criminal act committed by the White House.
Stop pulling your punches Mr. Corn, this is far too serious for half-truths to suffice.
Comment by Jay Esbe — 7/9/2004 @ 4:10 pm
Y’know, Jay, you are right. I do think, however that you’re being a bit harsh on David. He’s at least trying to get folks thinking past the official line. There aren’t too many of us common folk climbing Capitol Hill with pitchforks and torches just yet, even if it seems justified.
We are a little too comfortable, I think, and complacent in our own lives to demand a true revolution right now. To beat the system in place would require just that.
What we need to do is to help the Bush Administration and the right-wing majority in the House and Senate continue to tighten the ropes around their own necks, work our asses off for a regime change in the White House and Senate and get the oblivious half of this nation to threaten ALL of their Representatives with immediate dismissal for their complacency and culpability in this abomination. Starting with their local congressperson all the way up the chain.
Shy of that, if you can assemble a million pitchforks, I’ll bring the torches, tar and feathers. Now all we need is 999,998 townsfolks willing to make the climb. They can’t shoot us all, CAN they?
-T
Comment by T.Hajji — 7/9/2004 @ 7:08 pm
Jay, like so many folks here is completely missing the point. I doubt many of the posters here have read the multitude of reliable, verifiable, publicly available documents, news pieces and articles that prove beyond any argument that Saddam maintained his WMD programs in violation of the relevant U.N. resolutions. Iraq was also found to have prohibited WMD material and weapons systems once we got in there and discovered them. Funny how these were missed by Mr. Blix and Company.
There are also many, many tantalizing pieces of information that point to Saddam having either hidden or shipped out what WMD’s he had just prior to the invasion. It is interesting to note that right up to the war he continued to attempt the purchase of large quantities of the newest technology atropine injectors. Also, ss our troops advanced they found large quantities of brand new chem-bio suits. Now Saddam knew very well we possessed no chemical or biological weapons to use on the battlefield. Would any of you care to explain your theories as to what Saddam needed these items for?
One interesting and plausible theory I read posits that we have already found WMD’s in Iraq. They were right under our noses all the time, but we just didn’t put two-and-two together. In the early stages of the war as our troops advanced there were numerous reports of highly suspicious chemical materials that always set off the detectors, but after further testing were shown not to be WMD’s. These materials were often found in camoflaged drums and hidden at least from our satellites and aerial recon. Another tantalizing bit of info was that these types of materials were often found at so-called “agricultural chemical” manufacturing facilities (again, conveniently located near ammunition dumps or other military facilities.) In fact, the suspicious chemicals often tested out to BE agricultural chemicals. Now, why do you suppose Saddam needed to hide agricultural chemicals in this fashion? Answer: the chemicals are recognized precursors for certain chemical weapons. Not only this, but it was well known before the war that Saddam had set up a lot of factories that could be converted to produce chemical or biological weapons. Verdict: Saddam GUILTY!
It sometimes just galls the hell out of me to listen to all the people tearing down our President and our country. I really have to ask: just whose side are they on?
Comment by Tim — 7/9/2004 @ 7:28 pm
Jeez, Tim, you are so caught up in your own denial that you simply repeat the same posting of piffle from the previous discussion, as if even the Senate Intel Committee hasn’t now acknowedged that there is no there there. How delusional can you get?
Comment by howard — 7/9/2004 @ 9:35 pm
…and I thought a night’s rest might bring fresh, new intelligent insight. I guess Bill and Ted’s excellent adventure continues….
Bill, those “Chemical protection suits” were found in a uhm, the remains of a HOSPITAL! I work in a hospital! We HAVE CHEMICAL PROTECTION SUITS!!! Aw, SHIT! Here come those black CIA helicopters, again!
Gotta run!
-Hajji
“Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, Eventually they will believe it.” -Adolf Hitler
Comment by T.Hajji — 7/10/2004 @ 2:58 am
Tim and Bill repeat the same bullshit they are told by talk show hosts. They can’t think for themselves. This is what happens when a political party is overrun with religious zealots.
Comment by Janet — 7/10/2004 @ 4:00 am
Tim,
Then join in getting rid of such a President. Defending such a non-elected populace-abusing law-breaking systematic liar will NOT do anything to help our country.
-T
Comment by T.Hajji — 7/10/2004 @ 6:39 am
I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that President Bush declaration of war with the information he had might be an impeachable offense, especially sine he could not wait for the inspectors to finish their search for wmd.
Comment by Morris Bock — 7/10/2004 @ 9:52 am
“We cannot afford to wait…we cannot have the proof of Iraqi WMD be mushroom clouds of logic and insight over U.S. cities…then we wouldn’t get to have this dirty, little “cakewalk” of a war to assuage the impotency of a post-9/11 America.” Dubbya, Condi, Dicky, Donnie, Colie, Paulie, et al.
Comment by T.Hajji — 7/10/2004 @ 10:39 am
The astute among us already knew this. There were voices during the “Hans Blix” inspections making these claims. The USA does not appreciate democracy. Journalists and other mediums do not report the facts. They report “balance.” What a joke. In the meantime, Bush and his ilk work hard to discredit these reports and win because they have the newsmakers on their side. The American people are taken for fools. It’s difficult to be busy raising children, working daily, and keeping up with the business of life and be informed when the information that’s out there doesn’t speak from facts but from ideology. And the “beat goes on” as once was sung.
Comment by Joe Tully — 7/10/2004 @ 10:42 am
LMAO! This is too much…
“…Iraq was also found to have prohibited WMD material and weapons systems once we got in there and discovered them…”
Typical right wing dung. What would you expect from someone that idolizes a narcotic addict?
Ditto monkeys are brain dead, that is for sure. Well, hopefully after the next terrorist attack there’s not to many thousands killed, and I prey that I’m far from ground zero when it happens.
We can thank the right wing neo-nazis for urinating on our Constitution, raping the American flag, and tossing our reputation to the wind. After the right wingers steal the next election it’ll be all over at that point anyway.
Get ready for Gulag – Bush (sort of a combination of Htiler & Stalin rolled up into one) is getting ready to preciptiate a major middle east conflicts – us and the jews against the blasphemous sand niggers! Kill ‘em all! Glass Iran!
..and the cow jumped over the moon.
Comment by Louis Lemire — 7/10/2004 @ 2:11 pm
“I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that President Bush declaration of war with the information he had might be an impeachable offense, especially sine he could not wait for the inspectors to finish their search for wmd.”
I’ll simply keep repeating the facts in an attempt to counter all the stuff like the quote above. All the relevant U.N. resolutions put the burden on SADDAM to PROVE he no longer had WMD’s, WMD programs, other prohibited weapons systems AS WELL AS account for stocks of chem-bio weapons he was KNOWN TO HAVE. It was not the responsibility of the United States or any other country to do this. Everyone seems to forget Saddam’s 10+ years of obstructing every peaceful effort to force him to comply with even the accords he agreed to after the Gulf War. let me repeat: SADDAM SHOWED NO INTENTION OF EVER COMPLYING WITH THE RELEVANT UN RESOLUTIONS!
READ DAVID KAY’s REPORT. Instead of focusing on what we didn’t find in Iraq, which was one part of the requirements placed upon Saddam, why don’t you people do some careful analysis of what we did find? Oh no, that wouldn’t fit your agenda WHICH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE WAR IN IRAQ! It seems a lot of you simply want to rant and rave and express ypour intense dislike of George Bush, conservatives, or anyone else that doesn’t fit your worldview.
Now, what the hell is all this talk about the United States and specifically President Bush BEING AT FAULT. RIDICULOUS! Get a grip, folks!
Comment by Tim — 7/10/2004 @ 2:13 pm
The thing that irritates me most about all of this is that people act like this is some kind of big surprise, when in fact it was quite clear before the war that the intelligence was questionable, if not downright bogus. Those that pretend ignorance are either disingenuous or were not paying attention to the developments in the runup to the conflict.
Bottom line: there were no NBC weapons, Iraq was never a credible threat to national security, and in attacking them we have foolishly given the people who are really bent on attacking us time (by not pressing matters in Afghanistan), manpower (by rallying people to the Al Qaida cause), and legitimacy (by occupying a Middle Eastern nation and making the “Crusade” radical Muslims warned about a reality).
Comment by moonbiter — 7/10/2004 @ 2:20 pm
Weapons of Mass Destruction have just been found in Iraq. The weapons are “a few bad apples.” Military sources believe that the apples found may contain sarin, anthrax or hints of aspartame.
Why Are We Back In Iraq?
Comment by Ron Brynaert — 7/10/2004 @ 2:50 pm
“All the relevant U.N. resolutions put the burden on SADDAM to PROVE he no longer had WMD’s, WMD programs, other prohibited weapons systems AS WELL AS account for stocks of chem-bio weapons he was KNOWN TO HAVE.”
Well, you know it´s impossible to prove a negative. If your neighbor told the police you were stockpiling illegal weapons in your home and the police came and told you that you had to PROVE you did not have such weapons, tell me how would you accompish this? How can you PROVE the non-existence of something. If the police search your home and find nothing that still doesn´t PROVE you don´t have the weapons. Of course you probably shipped them off to Uncle Bill´s house. And so on….
The point here is that the overthrow of Saddam was a foregone conlusion from the time Bush cried “he killed my Dad!”
Comment by Will — 7/10/2004 @ 3:37 pm
Sorry, the quote should have been “he tried to kill my Dad!”
Comment by Will — 7/10/2004 @ 3:39 pm
Of course Bush is at fault. He’s admitted it, himself, repeatedly when he says he “continues to have every confidence” in so-called “intelligence", George Tenent, Donald Rumsfeld and every other harbinger of information which has PROVEN TO BE FALSE. And they still, every day, repeat it all like they really mean it. Maybe if I tell that blonde radiologist every day that I’m Brad Pitt…I’ll wake up to find myself sleeping with Jennifer Aniston!
Comment by T.Hajji — 7/10/2004 @ 3:55 pm
Tim, some of us did read the Kay report; that’s why we don’t take you seriously.
And now that we’ve had the run of the country for 14 months, captured most of the “55 most wanted,” held a number of scientists, tortured people, and still haven’t found anything worth going to war over, and indeed hardly anything period (some old weapons). In short, as a matter of fact, saddam did comply, just like he said he did.
Comment by howard — 7/10/2004 @ 5:17 pm
PS, Tim: just because we “could” go to war doesn’t mean that we “should;” it’s called costs and benefits.
Now i think calling for bush’s impeachment is getting carried away myself, but what i don’t think is carried away is recognizing that bush wanted this war, hyped up the case for it, and it has been one of the great strategic disasters of the post-ww ii period.
I think the voters understand that.
Comment by howard — 7/10/2004 @ 5:19 pm
“Now Saddam knew very well we possessed no chemical or biological weapons to use on the battlefield” What kind of a fantasy land do you live in?
Comment by Ron Brynaert — 7/10/2004 @ 5:34 pm
Yeah, some of those new “Bunker Buster Nukes” oughta make the next sovereign nation who can’t prove that they don’t have a super-secret Winnebago of Mass Dumbstruption think twice before saying “No, really, we don’t have any…really.” The good Ol’ US of A has so much chemical and biological weapons agent they can’t build incinerators fast enough in neighborhoods objecting to that crap being there in the first place! Come to think of it, wasn’t that anthrax, in those capitol hill letters some that got out of our own CDC?! Yeah, we got none of that Crap….and Israel hasn’t got any nukes, either…
Comment by T.Hajji — 7/10/2004 @ 6:16 pm
““Now Saddam knew very well we possessed no chemical or biological weapons to use on the battlefield” What kind of a fantasy land do you live in?”
O.K., name the chemical and biological weapons we use. Mustard gas, sarin, which ones do we have loaded in our artillery shells?
Comment by Tim — 7/10/2004 @ 7:03 pm
“… and it has been one of the great strategic disasters of the post-ww ii period. ”
Howard,
Even if you are right about the first part of the paragraph I’v'e quoted above, you are sadly mistaken about the war being a strategic blunder. By what definition?
Comment by Tim — 7/10/2004 @ 7:06 pm
Bunker-buster nukes not WMD enough for you Timmy? “Daisy Cutter” conventional bombs that flatten 20 acres not WMD enough for you? Oh, yeah howzabout those cluster bombs with between a 5-15% (temporaritly) dud rate, just waitin’ to be picked up? Spent Urianium Sabot rounds with a half-life of a gazillion years? WHO THE HELL DO YOU THINK SOLD IRAQ THOSE INGREDIENTS and RECIPIES back in the 80’s, Tim? That’s right Uncle Sam’s WMD club! Save up to 50% when you buy in bulk! Why do we waste our time? Oh, yeah…I got no life….sigh…
Comment by T.Hajji — 7/10/2004 @ 7:13 pm
Hajji,
The idea that the US “sold WMDs to Iraq in the ’80s” is a little misleading. Hundreds of companies from dozens of nations supplied Iraq during that era.
Comment by Bill — 7/10/2004 @ 8:20 pm
I don’t know, Tim. I don’t have access to any of our artillery shells at the moment. Do you? If you do…check and see if there is any trace of depleted uranium. But this is besides the point. The US, undoubtedly, does possess chemical, biological and nuclear weapons and there is no FREAKING way that Saddam could’ve been assured that we wouldn’t have used them. But is there any point in arguing with you? People like you can never be reasoned with. At least, you write well.
Comment by Ron Brynaert — 7/10/2004 @ 8:48 pm
howard,
You claim that we “still haven’t found anything worth going to war over". I beg to differ. We’ve found that Iraq intended to surge WMD production through concealed or dual-use facilities as soon as UN inspections were fulfilled.
If you think the world would be safer today with Saddam still in power, having “occasional meetings” with Al Qaeda, and ready to produce chem/bio agents in massive amounts at the drop of a hat… well, I’m just happy that you aren’t making policy decisions.
Comment by Bill — 7/10/2004 @ 10:01 pm
Okay , that’s enough.
Put out the fire and get in those tents. I have to check some other grounds but I’ll be back later.
And remember:
DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS
Comment by Forest Ranger — 7/11/2004 @ 12:44 am
Reading through these posts I see that most here suppose the U.S. up to nefarious no-good in all of its doings, the White House a hotbed of fascism and subterfuge, war games fiendishly plotted by an utter dunderhead who duped all of America despite having an IQ of a goat, a George maddenly successful despite his stupidity in bamboozling the smartest and most insightful people to ever pen a corn blog. It’s an outrage.
Comment by Mike — 7/11/2004 @ 12:45 am
I knew it.
Leave food around and see what happens -
more TROLLS
Comment by Forest Ranger — 7/11/2004 @ 12:49 am
Has anyone else noticed the resemblance between George Bush and David Corn, or is it just me?
They could be brothers!
Comment by Dave — 7/11/2004 @ 1:41 am
I haven’t seen this obvious comment, so I’ll make it (but I admit I scanned the comment quickly).
If this report is accurate and the CIA was at fault, why hasn’t Dubya already done anything about it? We’re talking about mistakes that go a long time back, and it has already become quite clear that someone failed, and badly, and failing to address that failure is ANOTHER failure. (However, I do believe the cover-Dubya’s-ass version, so the primary blame should also go to Dubya in the first place.)
Comment by Shannon Jacobs — 7/11/2004 @ 7:55 am
Ron, thanks for the complement on my writing.
I still maintain that the U.S. has no offensive chem-bio weapons of the WMD variety. What I mean is weapons like Saddam used on the Iranians during their war. Or another example would be anthrax, etc. released over a large body of troops. You can’t really compare tank rounds that use depleted unranium to WMD.
Also, I’m not sure we have bunker-buster nukes yet. I think we are in the development stage with those. Finally, the “daisy-Cutter” weapon is certainly not a WMD! Come on, folks.
Comment by Tim — 7/11/2004 @ 8:47 am
Forest Ranger,
Please go look up the definition of trolling, would you?
Comment by Tim — 7/11/2004 @ 9:14 am
“Similar to a fuel-air bomb, the BLU-82, also called “big blue", combines a watery mixture or “slurry” of ammonium nitrate and aluminium powder with air creating a mist which, when egnited, explodes with a blast that incinerates everything within between 300 and 600 yards.
“The blast produces an overpressure of 1,000 pounds per square inch, close to that of a tactitcal nuclear weapon. It can be felt miles away.”
“As you would expect, they make a heck of a bang when they go of and the intent is to kill people.” -General Peter Price, vice-chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff.
-quoted from a 11/01 interview with Guardian,-UK.
So…you don’t think one of those could kill everybody within a few city blocks, Timmy? How many people DOES one have to kill to be a “mass” murderer? How many does it take to make it “mass destruction"? What difference does it make if 50 kids die in 10 years from effects of low-grade radiation poisoning or 50 commuters die in a sarin bomb subway car?
If the US doesn’t have stockpiles of poison gas weapons, then why are the citizens of Hermiston, OR worried about the incinerators at the Umatilla Army Chemical Depot affecting the lives of thier children?
www.cwwg.org/tch05.21.04.html
The US has so much stockpiled chemical agents, we can’t get rid of the old stuff fast enough!
Comment by T.Hajji — 7/11/2004 @ 9:50 am
By the way, why doesn’t everybody just stick to one thread here. I think the most recent one should be sufficient.
Comment by T.Hajji — 7/11/2004 @ 10:09 am
Name calling aside, do I understand Timmy correctly? Is he stating that a daisy cutter is not a WMD?
Comment by Janet — 7/11/2004 @ 11:07 am
WMD?
Us?
Chemical weapons?
Us?
Biological weapons?
Us?
The U.S.?
So opinionated.
http://www.tooele.army.mil/aedtstpm.htm
Educate yourselves.
Tooele (pronounced Tawilla) Seriously.
Don’t but a house without knowing the origin of the land fill.
Bonus point - the daisey cutter is also a product of the same state. The inventors son was a member of Congress.
Comment by Niccolo — 7/11/2004 @ 11:25 am
Tim,
1. Are you suggesting that America doesn’t have any anthrax?
2. Why don’t you google the CIA report on the chemical weapons deployed in the Iran Iraq War and then revisit.
Comment by Ron Brynaert — 7/11/2004 @ 11:46 am
The reason we are destroying our stock of chemical agents is that we repudiated their use years ago and agreed never to use them offensively. Thus they must be destroyed.
The daisy cutter would have to be a helluva lot larger (by an order of magnitude) to fit the definition of a WMD. Folks, just do some research.
Anthrax. Where do we have or even state that we have a biological weapon that we would use? I’m waiting for the evidence.
Also, when trying to do comparisons it is helpful to use the proper context. Collateral damage on the battlefield cannot be compared to something like the attempted gassing of 5,000 people in Japan. It was only by good fortune and heroic effort that more people didn’t die. They were the target of a MASS MURDERER intent on killing as many people as possible. So are you folks here comparing our military to the likes of them?
Comment by Tim — 7/11/2004 @ 12:31 pm
This is straying pretty far afield. “WMDs” are chemical, nuclear, or biological weapons. Not conventional weapons.
Tim’s statement was that Iraq did not possess chemical suits for protection against US chemical weapons. That’s true, unless someone can demonstrate that the US has a habit of using chemical weapons in warfare. Anyone?
Comment by Bill — 7/11/2004 @ 12:41 pm
Chemical and biological protection suits are just that, for protection. The reason we have them in hospitals is for the prevention of exposure, not necessarily to biological weapons, but to infected human beings or accidental spills of the myriad of chemical agents present in the healthcare environment.
They told our soldiers to pack up their MOPP suits 3 days into the invasion. (20% of them were probably defective, anyway) Somebody was already convinced that likely exposure was minimal. Somebody should’ve know (and likely did) that there wasn’t anything in the theater to fear, in regards to NBC weps. And guess what…there wasn’t! There isn’t now, either or our soldiers would still be packing MOPPS.
My stepson’s guard unit turned in their chemical suits while still in Kuwait. Kept their Kevlar and ceramic though. Probably need it next deer season in Indiana.
Comment by T.Hajji — 7/11/2004 @ 1:19 pm
The question is “What makes a weapon a WMD?” The modality of death? The horrible way it might kill? Or simply the number of people that can lose their life? If that is the case, then yes, the USA is still the reigning world champion of using WMD in war. Hiroshima? Nagasaki?
But that was wars and wars ago….sorry to stray off course.
Comment by T.Hajji — 7/11/2004 @ 1:25 pm
For all those engaged in the topic sidetrack of the definition of is…….
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons_of_mass_destruction
“Semantic Disputes
The phrase weapons of mass destruction is the source of various semantic disputes. The phrase originated in 1937 to describe the use of strategic bombers by the German Luftwaffe during the Spanish Civil War. By 2003, weapons of mass destruction had become such a controversial phrase that the American Dialect Society dubbed it the Words of the Year for 2002. During the Cold War, WMD exclusively meant nuclear weapons. Indeed, modern nuclear weapons are vastly more destructive than either biological or chemical weapons. Chemical weapons expert Gert Harigel believes that, as a result, only nuclear weapons should be called weapons of mass destruction.
The modern use of WMD to refer to NBC weapons was coined by UN Resolution 687 in 1991. This resolution refers to the “threat that all weapons of mass destruction pose to peace and security", and mentions in particular nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, and the three relevant treaties:
* Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
* Chemical Weapons Convention
* Biological Weapons Convention
United States law defines WMD as “to cause death or serious bodily injury to a significant number of people” using chemicals, a disease organism, radiation or radioactivity. However, the FBI also considers conventional weapons (i.e. bombs) to become WMD: “A weapon crosses the WMD threshold when the consequences of its release overwhelm local responders".
In fact, so called “weapons of mass destruction” account for a small proportion of overall deaths due to weapons in general. Colombia’s Vice President Gustavo Bell Lemus told the UN that deaths from bullet-firing weapons “dwarf that of all other weapons systems - and in most years greatly exceed the toll of the atomic bombs that devastated Hiroshima and Nagasaki".
Comment by Digger — 7/11/2004 @ 1:37 pm
The real debate lies around what the Administration was told by OUR intelligence, and how they portrayed that information to us, the U.S. public (and our representatives in Congress).
I would start by looking at all the quotes from the Administration about the ‘imminent threat’ Saddam posed to the U.S. (there were many).
Of coarse, theres also the constant bonding of Saddam and Al-qaeda in the Administration’s selling of this war. Neither of these two assertions hold water anymore, yet people still defend them…
Tim, if you want to debate the war, start by defending what the administration told us before it started. Solely having WMD is NOT the issue, there are many countries who do, and you don’t advocate attacking them. The REAL issue is whether Iraq posed an ‘Imminent threat’ to the U.S.. Which is the only reason that would make the war legitimate, both morally and legally.
Here’s a good article about part of the issue, have a read.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2026&e=7&u=/latimests/keyrevisionsweremadetociadocument
Comment by Digger — 7/11/2004 @ 1:58 pm
Digger,
Thanks for the clarification on WMD’s. I quote you: “The REAL issue is whether Iraq posed an ‘Imminent threat’ to the U.S.. Which is the only reason that would make the war legitimate, both morally and legally.” Well, that is an opinion I don’t happen to share, but hey it’s O.K. to disagree. I think Bill has provided all the relevant prewar rationale used by the United States in a thorough exposition of the facts in another thread. I can’t say it better than he has, although it’s not for lack of trying.
Comment by Tim — 7/11/2004 @ 2:19 pm
I understand…I wouldnt want to try and validate those assertions either.
BTW , which thread is Bill’s validations of pre-war rationale in?
Comment by Digger — 7/11/2004 @ 2:36 pm
Digger,
This is from the State of the Union speech of 2003:
“Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?
If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.”
There is no claim that the threat from Iraq is imminent. The idea was that we shouldn’t wait for it to become imminent.
Comment by Bill — 7/11/2004 @ 2:50 pm
“There is no claim that the threat from Iraq is imminent. The idea was that we shouldn’t wait for it to become imminent. ”
Are you absolutely sure about this?
I seem to remember otherwise.
Comment by Digger — 7/11/2004 @ 3:21 pm
Timmy,
Fuck you and your condescending bullshit motherfucker.
Comment by Janet — 7/11/2004 @ 3:28 pm
Digger,
The next topic down on the main page titled “Will Bush Really Read the Senate Report on MIA WMDs?” Although Bill and I have posted in a number of threads here.
Comment by Tim — 7/11/2004 @ 3:40 pm
There are two schools of thought when it comes to dealing with misbehaving children. One says you should simply ignore the behavior because the child is just trying to get attention. If you give them the attention when they are misbehaving, then this will reinforce the undesirable behavior. It will reinforce their narcissistic tendencies.
The other (old) school of thought says you do not tolerate misbehavior. The child must receive discipline in order to keep them on the right path and to prevent them from becoming misbehaving (or worse) adults. Personally, I subscribe to the latter tried-and-true approach, but alas I am unable to get my hands on the child. Therefore I have no choice but to ignore her and hope she sees the error of her ways (the classic liberal approach.)
Comment by Tim — 7/11/2004 @ 4:57 pm
“I still maintain that the U.S. has no offensive chem-bio weapons of the WMD variety.” Tim
Dear Tim,
Are you aware of Maj. Doug Rokke (U.S. Army Ret)? Dr. Rokke MD, was the person in charge of the pentagon DU weapons program. Here is one of his comments on DU weapons use in Gulf War I:
ROKKE: “At the completion of the Gulf War, when we came back to the United States in the fall of 1991, we had a total casualty count of 760: 294 dead, a little over 400 wounded or ill. But the casualty rate now for Gulf War veterans is approximately 30 percent. Of those stationed in the theater, including after the conflict, 221,000 have been awarded disability, according to a Veterans Affairs (VA) report issued September 10, 2002.
Many of the US casualties died as a direct result of uranium munitions friendly fire. US forces killed and wounded US forces.
We recommended care for anybody downwind of any uranium dust, anybody working in and around uranium contamination, and anyone within a vehicle, structure, or building that’s struck with uranium munitions. That’s thousands upon thousands of individuals, but not only US troops. You should provide medical care not only for the enemy soldiers but for the Iraqi women and children affected, and clean up all of the contamination in Iraq.
And it’s not just children in Iraq. It’s children born to soldiers after they came back home. The military admitted that they were finding uranium excreted in the semen of the soldiers. If you’ve got uranium in the semen, the genetics are messed up. So when the children were conceived—the alpha particles cause such tremendous cell damage and genetics damage that everything goes bad. Studies have found that male soldiers who served in the Gulf War were almost twice as likely to have a child with a birth defect and female soldiers almost three times as likely.”
Sounds like chemical poisoning on a large scale to me. On another front, we are continuing to spray large areas of Columbia with the herbicide Glyphosate, and researching the use of the fungus Fusarium oxisporum. While this is said to be for the purposes of drug crop eradication, it still acts as bio-warfare against the peasants and poisons their foodcrops as well as coca and poppy.
And, we still have the Big One.
Comment by Robert Schwartz — 7/11/2004 @ 5:17 pm
Tim
Thanks for the ‘point in the right direction (#52).
After thinking about your response where you disagreed with my statement…
“The REAL issue is whether Iraq posed an ‘Imminent threat’ to the U.S.. Which is the only reason that would make the war legitimate, both morally and legally.”
I started wondering… what part do you disagree with?
Just curious.
Comment by Digger — 7/11/2004 @ 5:35 pm
I missed the Sunday Morning “Spin for your Life” shows. Did anybody hear anybody in the West Wing start talking about rounding up all those responsible for these “intelligence failures” and lining them up against the wall so that the mothers, wives, husbands and children of all the US military service personel who’ve made “the ultimate sacrifice” because of their “failures” can slowly, painfully beat the livin’ shit out of ‘em? NO? Why? Why is the Whitehouse unwilling to either take responsibility for its own actions or at least admit that thedecisions they made were at best, bases on flawed intelligence and reasoning and start holding people accountable?
They were all too willing to let Tennent off the hook. Anybody ’spect that he knows enough to take some power-tie wearing, neo-con military-industrial “star chamber” sons of bitches down with him if it starts to turn ugly? (as if it could get any uglier)
I dunno, just got home to find that a power failure screwed up the VCR. If any admissions or plans to at least FIRE the sons of bitches who’s hubris caused the deaths of almost a thousand of uhm, US…and tens of thousands of uhm, THEM, then please let me know where you heard it. They’ve got some ’splain’ to do to Jill for her continuing sleepless nights thinking of one son just back, and another on his way.
Comment by T.Hajji — 7/11/2004 @ 5:44 pm
Tim,
Your “Old Shoe” comment made me feel all warm and fuzzy inside…
No wait, that’s just another inflamed hairy hemorroid.
-T
Comment by T.Hajji — 7/11/2004 @ 5:49 pm
Okay, let me get this straight: Everyone else is supposed to hault the manufacturing of nucler weapons, biological weapons, but the U.S. can have a surplus? Shouldn’t we perhaps lead by example and get rid of our stockpile?
Comment by Jean — 7/11/2004 @ 5:52 pm
What a bunch of hypocrites we are. Every discussion of the war on Iraq and whether it was “justified” inevitably has both sides of the fence eventually disclaiming at some point that “Saddam was evil, there’s no question". I’m not about to disagree with that, but stop for a moment and examine the authoritative, no-questions quality of the statement.
Why is it that we debate the nuances and minutae of CIA/whitehouse/congressional involvement in this monumental blunder instead of applying that same no-nonsense mentality to it at some point?
Here lets give it a try, it’s suprisingly simple when you take a few steps back from the noise and look at it as oh… say… anybody from another country???
1. We know it was wrong (most of us knew that before the report made it out)
2. The fact is this happened under Bush’s watch.
3. Both parties did precious little to question the move before it was too late.
It’s wrong, fix it!
Dont let the Bush administration, and for that matter practically all of both the elected Democratic and Republican party members hide behind our supposedly checked and balanced system of government and an obvious hanging out to dry the intelligence community when it actually comes time to own up to their respective lies/negligence/apathy/obliviousness.
And you wonder why American “democracy” is the ridicule of the planet?
Comment by Eric — 7/11/2004 @ 5:56 pm
Tim: the war was a strategic disaster in the following ways: a.) the US government insisted that certain things were true that have not been found to be true, thereby harming the good word of the US. If and when a true scenario arises in which pre-emption is called for, who will believe us?; b.) the limites of the US military have been starkly revealed. Whereas prior to the war, the image of the US military around the world was that of an unstoppable fighting machine, what is now clear is that we don’t have sufficient on-the-ground force strength for any kind of prolonged conflict; c.) as a follow-on, the US therefore has no spare military capacity left should a real problem arise elsewhere (for a random instance, we can’t suddenly amp up our troop strength on the afghanistan/pakistan border, so we are forced to cut deals with musharaff, whose government has been the most egregious offender with respect to the spread of nuclear weapons in modern history; d.) every cent we are spending on this war is borrowed, with interest, primarily from chinese (and to a lesser degree, japanese) central bankers, and we’ll be paying it off for somehwere between 10 and 30 years; e.) al qaeda recruiting has increased; f.) the opportunity cost of failing to complete the job at Tora Bora is incalculable; g.) the US government stands revealed, in front of all the world, as willing to engage in torture, thereby sullying our comparative advantage over the dictators, terrorists, and haters who populate the planet; h.) we have alienated many of the democratically elected governments of the world, who are, after all, only being responsive to their people; i.) we have incurred the hatred of a good percentage of the iraqi people; k.) the odds of civil war breaking out in iraq remain quite good; l.) the odds of iraq becoming a failed state home to terrorism remain quite good.
I could go on, but my time is short.
So what, exactly, is the strategic gain of this war? You could, i supposed, support Bill, whose position on the war is essentially that someday, saddam would almost certainly have tried to reconstitute the weapons programs whose reconstitution was supposedly the cause for this war. This argument, of course, assumes that saddam would have had the wherewithal to do such a thing at some unknown point in the future, and that, in doing such a thing, he would have done so without our discovery and ability to do something about it at the time, and which also assumes, as bill has noted, that suddenly, despite not having done so until now, saddam would then take these weapons that he had labored so long and hard to reconstitute the programs for and produce and turn them over to al qaeda.
i’m underwhelmed.
Bill, let’s not play the imminent game: i can pull as many cites about people in the bush administration actually saying “imminent” and/or “immediate” as you can pull carefully constructed cites that say the threat wasn’t immiment but it would have been. What can’t be denied is that the threat assessment was grandly overhyped, and the relationship of this threat to the problem of islamic fundamentalist terrorism has never been demonstrated, and that, therefore, we used a policy, pre-emption, that should be reserved for a true “imminent” threat just as if the threat were “imminent.”
And it weren’t….
Comment by howard — 7/11/2004 @ 6:00 pm
My bad, I guess the United States only deploys chemical weapons on Americans citizensUS chemical weapons
Why Are We Back In Iraq?
Comment by Ron Brynaert — 7/11/2004 @ 6:18 pm
Eric,
Point taken. Please see my resignation to that very fact in post #3 this thread. But what, as citizens do we do? My drawers are full (heh, heh) of copies of letters to the editor and my senators. I think my congressman is getting a restraining order on me. I’ve lost the ability to communicate with lifelong friends who’ve been lost to what I call “the dark side".
In this part of the country, you’d usually be better off telling somebody you’re a child molester than a leftward-leaning “liberal". While the democrats of this state uniquely in the nation chose Edwards as the preferred Presidential candidate, it was mostly because he was born here.
“Who yer daddy is” carries a lot of weight.
People who I’ve believed to be intelligent, good people express completely oposite views from those I hold. As a matter of fact just today my radiologist stopped talking to me just because I mentioned that I thougth Dubbya was less than a mental gargantuan, not to mention less than what I considered a “moral” person.
I’m almost tired of the argument. I KNOW I’m right. All debates prove to me that I am and unless I want to “jes shut the hell up” I’ll get myself shot by somebody who thinks us “tree-hugging peace and love MF’s” are coming to take their guns and marry their sons into a lifetime of gay marriage!
I’m sure there’s enough who’d stop me at “jes shut the hell up”
-T
Comment by T.Hajji — 7/11/2004 @ 6:18 pm
Bill
Seems Howard is correct. I have found several quotes that show the Administration representing Iraq as an ‘imminent threat’.
Here is one just to show you….
” Q Ari, the President has been saying that the threat from Iraq is imminent, that we have to act now to disarm the country of its weapons of mass destruction, and that it has to allow the U.N. inspectors in, unfettered, no conditions, so forth.
MR. FLEISCHER: Yes.
Q The chief U.N. inspector, however, is saying that…”
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021016-5.html
There are a couple more with the word imminent, and there are many others which don’t use the word imminent, yet the meaning is clearly the same.
Just thought you might wanna know.
Comment by Digger — 7/11/2004 @ 7:59 pm
Digger,
Thanks for the link. Let’s look at it a little more closely:
“… the President has made it perfectly plain that the United States will assemble a coalition of the willing who are going to enforce the U.N. resolutions” (Did you hear that, howard?)
Q Ari, the President said he was, quote, fully – he wanted – his goal was to fully and finally remove a real threat. Was he talking about weapons of mass destruction or Saddam Hussein? Or both?
MR. FLEISCHER: He’s talking about both. The policy of the United States is both. We talk in the United Nations about the enforcement of the resolutions which focus on disarmament; end of hostility towards the neighbors; end of repression of minorities, which the President also spoke about. And of course, the policy of the United States is regime change. And today, given the signature by the President on the bipartisan authorization to use force it is the position of the United States now in 2002 that force is authorized in the event that Saddam Hussein does not comply.
Q Is the President going to ask Prime Minister Sharon not to speak at all about any possible retaliation against Iraq? And what’s the administration’s position of Israel saying that it would retaliate this time around if Iraq did launch any attack on Israel?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, one, I think the very premise of your questions underscores how dangerous Iraq is. The very fact that people ask a question, a serious one about Iraq attacking its neighbors once again shows how threatening the Iraqi regime is.
But we are worried and concerned about the risk of Iraq attacking its neighbors. We share the concern of all the countries in the region about the aggressive, invading Iraqi regime. I want to remind you that over the last 20 years, Iraq has invaded its Muslim neighbors – it’s invaded Iran, it’s invaded Kuwait; it’s launched missiles at Saudi Arabia, at Iran. It’s also launched missiles at Israel, of course.
We’re going to closely consult with our friends and allies in the region about this threat and ways to reduce the risk from this threat. And again, the President has not made any determination about whether he would or would not engage in military action. But no matter what decisions are made, we will consult closely with all our friends in the region, including Israel.
There is a tendency in the world to allow the current path to continue even with the risks that that can take for war and peace, rather than confront the evil that is menacing and growing.
Q Ari, if there is a war in Iraq, can the American public and the world expect any incontrovertible proof that this menace is growing?
MR. FLEISCHER: Incontrovertible – I think there is only one way to have to incontrovertible proof and that’s when it’s too late. If you’re asking about a menace growing, the risk – and this is why Presidents make very difficult decisions about war and peace – the risk is how long do you wait for Saddam Hussein to grow stronger, to develop those weapons and acquire nuclear weapons before it’s too late? Do you only act after he has used them? Or if we had known that 9/11, for example, was coming, would we have acted to stop it? Of course, we would have. Now with Saddam Hussein the President has to ask similar tough questions.
Can we know with certainty what Saddam Hussein is going to do? Only Saddam Hussein knows with certainty what he’s going to do with all the weapons that he’s growing and acquiring. And the risk of inaction is it means we have to trust Saddam Hussein to use wise judgment and discretion, something he has never shown an ability to do. Instead he’s done just the opposite; he’s used his weapons to invade his neighbors. And that’s how the President approaches this.
That doesn’t sound like “rushing into a war” to me… does it to you?
Comment by Bill — 7/11/2004 @ 8:35 pm
howard,
The only thing missing from your “war on terror” assessment above is– you, running around in circles, yelling “the sky is falling, the sky is falling".
Regards.
Comment by Bill — 7/11/2004 @ 8:55 pm
Bill, ol’ buddy, you aren’t actually calling Ari Fleischer as a witness for your incorrect claim about the UN, are you? Ari Fleischer? Please….
Remember, compound sentence, Bill, compound sentence. We did not go to war to enforce UN resolutions, or else neither the resolution nor Bush’s letter would have had a compound sentence. Let me know when you have a response to that that doesn’t rely on something Ari Fleischer said.
Meanwhile, of course, you realize that having called Ari as a witness, you are now obliged to accept that your own witness agreed that the threat was “imminent?” As i noted, i don’t believe in playing the “imminent” game; this has been debated to death and bush-enablers aren’t going to change their minds, so i don’t waste any time on it.
As for whether we “rushed” to war, let’s put it this way: for months and months in 2002, it was made clear through various pieces of reporting (and links) that it would take until early 2003 to have all the troops in place, and that March would be a good month for the invasion to start so that we could count on victory before the summer heat. And waddya know? Even though the inspectors weren’t finding anything, even though the Turks turned us down to have a northern front, we went ahead and invaded in March.
Yeah, i’d call that a rush. How about you?
Comment by howard — 7/11/2004 @ 8:57 pm
Bill, what exactly does your comment 65 mean? That you can’t understand the Englsh language?
I noted that the invasion of Iraq was a strategic disaster. Tim asked me in what ways. I explained a subset of the ways; it’s too depressing to keep listing them. What does any of that have to do with an assessment of the war on terror (which is also a failure, thanks for asking, but not the topic i addressed).
What’s your assessment of the strategic gain from our invasion of Iraq? That down is up? I’m certainly waiting to hear, because the one that you’ve advanced to date, which i mentioned in my comments to tim, is distinctly underwhelming….
Comment by howard — 7/11/2004 @ 9:00 pm
Robert,
I will certainly concede there may be problems with depleted uranium residues,but they still do not meet the definition of WMD’s or offensive chemical weapons which is the point I’m trying to make.
Now with respect to eradicating Coca crops, how does spraying crops equate to WMD’s? There’s no connection there. Look, if we were spraying an agent over the area that directly attacked the human nervous system with the intent to Kill you would have an argument.
No matter how hard you folks try, you are just not going to be able to prove the U.S.A. is in the business of using or threatening to use WMD’s! Finally, with respect to Nuclear weapons I say so what? We would never use them except in the doomsday scenario in self defense. You can’t equate our possession of nukes to someone like Saddam or the Grand Ayatollah of Iran having them!
Comment by Tim — 7/11/2004 @ 9:00 pm
I am concerned about today. With the Intelligence so flawed, what makes the current “Terror” assestments valid?
Comment by Larry — 7/11/2004 @ 9:32 pm
Bill
You clearly stated “There is no claim that the threat from Iraq is imminent.”
I found a quote that says exactly that.
Then you post a different quote from Ari…I don’t see the sense in that.
But, pay no mind, cause I’d much rather you respond point by point to Howards post (#60).
I’m sure there are others here, pro and con, which would like to see how it would come out as well.
Comment by Digger — 7/11/2004 @ 9:34 pm
Tim,
Problems with DU residues? Does not fit the definition of WMD?
As defined by Dr. Rokke, the use of Depleted Uranium munitions is a “crime against humanity", and as I pointed out earlier, Dr. Rokke was the Pentagon’s own expert on the subject.
This is excerpted from an article on the History News Network website by Will Mallon:
http://hnn.us/articles/1522.html
The term Weapons of Mass Destruction was first used in the London Times in 1937, according to Robert Whealey, writing on H-Diplo. It was used to describe a Luftwaffe German air force attack on the town of Guernica, Spain. The attack reportedly lasted for 3 hours and destroyed 70 percent of the town and killed a third of the population. The attack was ordered by President Franco of Spain to crush the Basque resistance to Nationalist forces. Documents discovered after World War II suggest that Guernica served as the testing ground for a new military tactic – blanket-bombing of a civilian population to demoralize the enemy. When the London Times reported the bombing of Guernica the paper was referring to the devastation caused by the blanket bombing. Although the phrase “Weapons of Mass Destruction” was used to describe the massive amount of damage by conventional bombs, it was not associated with biological or chemical weapons as it is today.
The term became popular in the United States after World War II. It was used to refer to the atomic bomb and later the hydrogen bomb. The term WMD is used to describe different types of nuclear, biological, chemical and radiological weapons. The news media have recently expanded the definition of WMD’s to include planes and suicide bombs. WMD’s are different from conventional weapons because of the amount of damage they can inflict.
The use of the term WMD seems to have varied over the last 50 years. Since the September 2001 terrorist attacks it has become all encompassing and now includes any and every type of weapon capable of killing a large number of people.”
Sounds like DU fits the bill to me.
Your comment on “intent to kill” rather than merely killing by willful neglect, reminds me that if an interrogators intent is simply to extract information by use of the tool of severe pain, then it is not torture, only if the original intent is to cause extreme pain does the action meet the definition of torture.
Some definitions are more useful than others!
Robert
Comment by Robert Schwartz — 7/11/2004 @ 9:58 pm
howard,
My comment in #65 should be easy for anyone to understand, even yourself. You sounded like Chicken Little.
And BTW, your comments were not limited to the action in Iraq; you referred to Afghanistan as well, hence… your “war on terror assessment"… which is long on opinion and short on fact. Hysterically so.
Comment by Bill — 7/11/2004 @ 10:33 pm
Incident - An individual of Arabian descent (hereto as ‘him/he’) launches an attack against the U.S.
Follow Up - The population is told the reason is because he hates our freedom
Result - U.S. Patriot Act
Score: him 1 U.S. 0
Follow Up - He claims he hopes to ignite the world in a war of christians in the west and Islamic lands in the east
Result - Increase of weapons grade uranium in Iran, Israel builds a wall and decides that the west bank isn’t as negotiable as previously thought., U.S. is involved in a war with an Islamic country that he has nothing to do with, The U.S. State Dept. reports incidents of terrorism around the world have increased since the attack.
Score: him 1 U.S. 0
Standing Total: him 2 U.S. 0
Whether a glowing victory or a tragic defeat would depend on how full or empty one sees the glass.
None the less the score remains. (aka as ‘bottom line’)
Comment by Niccolo — 7/11/2004 @ 10:51 pm
Digger,
I quoted Bush in the SOU address where he said we shouldn’t wait for the threat to become imminent.
You provided that press briefing where a reporter said “the president says the threat is imminent, we have to act now to disarm", and so forth, and Fleischer said “yes". I’m not sure what he was saying yes to… yes to allowing inspectors in, yes to disarming Iraq, yes to the threat is imminent… All of them? Whatever; but all we really have there is a reporter saying that the president said the threat is imminent, among other things, to which Ari responded.
I provided those other quotes because Fleischer repeats several times that the “threat” or “evil” is “growing” or “menacing". He asks how long should you wait until it is too late? It sounds consistent with what Bush was saying months later, that we have to act before the threat really is imminent.
If there are other, more convincing examples, please fire them to me.
I wasn’t planning on responding to howard’s post since he is dug in so deep, but I will try to do so.
Comment by Bill — 7/11/2004 @ 10:52 pm
a.) The “good word” of the US seems to have recovered nicely, as the UN has authorized the new government of Iraq and the presence of our coalition to provide security assistance.
b.) The US military has performed brilliantly in Iraq and continues to do so, while continuing to maintain global obligations. With considerably increased funding, it’s going to be better than ever in years to come. As for the perception that it was an “unstoppable force” prior to 2003, nonsense. You only have to read what bin Laden thought of it: “In the past when al Qaeda fought with the mujahedeen, we were told, “Wow, can you defeat the Soviet Union?” The Soviet Union scared the whole world then. NATO used to tremble of fear of the Soviet Union. Where is that power now? We barely remember it. It broke down into many small states and Russia remained. God, who provided us with his support and kept us steadfast until the Soviet Union was defeated, is able to provide us once more with his support to defeat America on the same land and with the same people. We believe that the defeat of America is possible, with the help of God, and is even easier for us, God permitting, than the defeat of the Soviet Union was before…. We experienced the Americans through our brothers who went into combat against them in Somalia, for example. We found they had no power worthy of mention. There was a huge aura over America – the United States – that terrified people even before they entered combat. Our brothers who were here in Afghanistan tested them, and together with some of the mujahedeen in Somalia, God granted them victory. America exited dragging its tails in failure, defeat, and ruin, caring for nothing.”
I think bin Laden bit off more than he could chew.
c.) Is the military spread too thin if a “real” problem arises somewhere else? We’ll have to wait and see I guess. The military tends to get spread too thin during a war; it’s inevitable. It certainly isn’t some new phenomenon.
d.) Every cent we’re spending on this war is borrowed, blah blah blah. We spend as much on servicing the national debt as we spend on the DoD, already. Blah blah blah.
e.) “al qaeda recruiting has increased” Yeah I wonder if they’ve recruited enough new guys to make up for the ones we’ve killed or captured?
f.) “the opportunity cost of failing to complete the job at Tora Bora is incalculable” Since when is Tora Bora part of Iraq?
g.) “the US government stands revealed, in front of all the world, as willing to engage in torture, thereby sullying our comparative advantage over the dictators, terrorists, and haters who populate the planet” What a load of horseshit!!
h.) “we have alienated many of the democratically elected governments of the world” And the rest of the are ON OUR SIDE… LOL!!!
i.) “we have incurred the hatred of a good percentage of the iraqi people” Well sheee-it, we have incurred the hatred of a good percentage of the American people also. Some of them post here.
[BTW, you skipped “j"]
k.) “the odds of civil war breaking out in iraq remain quite good” Now which bookie is giving odds on that? And why do you sound so cheerful about it?
l.) “the odds of iraq becoming a failed state home to terrorism remain quite good” See above.
I could go on, but my time is short.
Comment by Bill — 7/12/2004 @ 12:29 am
God, who provided us with his support and kept us steadfast until the Soviet Union was defeated, is able to provide us once more with his support to defeat America on the same land and with the same people. We believe that the defeat of America is possible, with the help of God, and is even easier for us, God permitting, than the defeat of the Soviet Union was before….
I smell a christian fundamentalist . . .
oops gotta go - god on line 2
Comment by Jon Mendez — 7/12/2004 @ 12:40 am
Ah - I misread ya - nevermind.
Comment by Jon Mendez — 7/12/2004 @ 12:41 am
Howard,
To your post #60. I usually just echo my agreement with Bill when he offers counterpoints to your arguments and I do again for this one, but I also want to offer my view as this is in the realm of judgment as opposed to arguing facts. Now obviously I take issue with your wording “strategic disaster.” That conjures up scenarios like Jimmy Carter’s inaction in the face of Iran’s act of war in taking our embassy personnel hostage. Or perhaps Bill Clinton’s refusal to take Bin Laden when he was offered up by Sudan. Or perhaps Bill Clinton’s refusal to order the strike on Bin Laden when he was in the crosshairs of armed predator drones in Afghanistan. Or perhaps the theft of our most sensitive atomic secrets from Los Alamos under Bill Clinton’s watch. Or perhaps it was Bill Clinton bargaining with North Korea in the naïve belief that they would honor the agreement to dismantle their nuclear program. I don’t know, but these are true strategic blunders that do not equate with our winning the war in Iraq!
a.) “the US government insisted that certain things were true that have not been found to be true… ”
So? How does this negate the great victory we achieved?
b.) “the limits of the US military have been starkly revealed …”
We won a resounding victory in Iraq with one hand tied behind our back. We seized the strategic high ground and we could have put more troops in had we thought it necessary. Also, the units weren’t pulled from Afghanistan to be deployed in Iraq.
c.) “as a follow-on, the US therefore has no spare military capacity left …”
Then what are all the armored divisions doing at their bases here in the U.S.? The fact is that while certain limitations are evident, the U.S. military remains capable of the mission we require of it. We are not going in anywhere else are we? The rest of the argument on Pak has nothing to do with your assertion concerning the war in Iraq being a strategic blunder.
d.) “every cent we are spending on this war is borrowed, with interest, primarily from chinese (and to a lesser degree, japanese) central bankers, and we’ll be paying it off for somehwere between 10 and 30 years”
So? The strategic importance of our victory is worth the cost in many people’s estimation.
e.) “al qaeda recruiting has increased”
So you have the recruitment stats from Al Qaida’s HR department? Do you think their recruitment efforts were decreasing before the war? Isn’t it entirely possible that they need more people because we have KILLED SO MANY of them? Regardless, we have removed one of the world’s chief supporters of terrorism and installed a nascent democracy in a country in the Middle East. No wonder the terrorists are worried!
f.) “the opportunity cost of failing to complete the job at Tora Bora is incalculable”
Our problem was that the Afghan warlords didn’t perform as expected. Besides, how is this a “strategic disaster” anyway?
g.) “the US government stands revealed, in front of all the world, as willing to engage in torture …”
We didn’t engage in torture. The abuse perpetrated on Iraqi prisoners was not sanctioned by the U.S. Military, the Defense Department, the President or the citizens of the United States. Quit trying to tar and feather everyone because of the actions of the few.
h.) “we have alienated many of the democratically elected governments of the world, who are, after all, only being responsive to their people”
Ha! What a laugh! So we should be worried about France and Germany? They should get down on their knees and thank us again for saving them from Hitler.
i.) “we have incurred the hatred of a good percentage of the iraqi people”
Newsflash! They don’t hate us, they just want us out. Read some of the polls taken in post-Saddam Iraq.
k.) “the odds of civil war breaking out in iraq remain quite good”
The odds of civil war NOT breaking out in Iraq remain quite good. My statement is equal to yours. What are the strategic implications of your statement? It would be unfortunate, but if a civil war does break out how is it a strategic disaster for us?
l.) “the odds of iraq becoming a failed state home to terrorism remain quite good.”
Ditto my response to k.)
Comment by Tim — 7/12/2004 @ 8:24 am
It would seem that the views of everyone who posts here are not going to change no matter what proof, quotes or anything else that is offered is going to change. As for my view, I hope that Bush is not reelected, but I am not convinced that Kerry is much better. We have been lied too by all in the government. As commander in chief Bush should be help responsible but so should all the people in congress for letting the war happen. The only logical course of action is to start over with all new people. Instead of rich people who have no sense of what life is really like for the average person maybe we need to get some ordanary people in to office. Just a thought.
Comment by Paul — 7/12/2004 @ 9:53 am
“We didn’t engage in torture. The abuse perpetrated on Iraqi prisoners was not sanctioned by the U.S. Military, the Defense Department, the President or the citizens of the United States.” Total bullshit. What kind of a phony idiot would take this position? Absolutely ridiculous.
Comment by Stephen G. Petersen — 7/12/2004 @ 11:05 am
Hey Stephen,
I say again the abuse perpetrated on Iraqi prisoners was not sanctioned by:
the U.S. Military - those responsible are being prosecuted.
the Defense Department - (ditt0 the above)
the President - did not order or condone what happened.
the citizens of the United States - we are holding our government accountable. I don’t advocate abusing prisoners, do you?
What else do you want, other than to simply call people names when you don’t agree with them?
Comment by Tim — 7/12/2004 @ 11:13 am
Timmy,
The abuse scandals, like the WMD propaganda, will with time most likely reveal a lot more embarrassing info about how inept, at least, certainly dangerous and downright immoral in the extreme the actions of our government AND its agents have and continue to be.
The DOD at the very least made concious decisions to re-define words like “torture” and “pain” in a way that would allow them break the spirit of international treaties, if not the treaties themselves. That sort of institutionalized immorality had a trickle-down effect to allow DOD and independent contractors to encourage part-time military personel to act in such ways.
Until the trials, we’ll have no way of knowing if those responsible are being punished, or even convicted for that matter. We may NEVER know the full extent of such actions, since like most of our government’s actions opacity is the norm.
Now, anybody got the date yet when those responsible for WMD intelligence failures are being lined up against the way to be kicked “sqarely in the nuts” by the people who’ve lost loved ones in this unnecessary orgy of death our government has (under) handed us?
kisses,
-T
Comment by T.Hajji — 7/12/2004 @ 11:35 am
Bush carries some of the blame. It seems sad that a president who said that he was not interested in nation building has been the greatest nation builder since the British attempted to build the Arabian land. I continue to believe that if President Bush possessed a true interest in facts and expertise that we would not have gone to Iraq at all. He had evil people around him like P. Wolfowitz, D. Cheney, and some others in the military who are of the type aching for war. Yes, Bush is to blame as well as the CIA. President Bush doesn’t respect the facts and the CIA failed to get the facts before reporting out the information. But, Mr. Bush is not to blame for going to war. All the information he had and all his advisers wanted our involvement in Iraq. Someone who should receive more blame is Colin Powell. He knew better than to get in this silly war and has the ability to fight for what is right but instead took the new Republican Party line of “my President: right or wrong.” There are many other Republican officeholders who knew better as well but kept their mouths shut for party unity. It is this loyalty that creates shame no less than the Nazi loyalty to Hitler created shame.
Comment by Joe Tully — 7/12/2004 @ 11:55 am
Bill,
As you indicate to the readers, “The idea that the US ’sold WMD’s to Iraq in the ’80s’ is a little misleading. Hundreds of companies from dozens of nations supplied Iraq during that era.” I have to say that the point is NOT that everyone was doing it, the fact that WE did it should be troubling to any honest man. Hell, Donald Rumsfeld even went so far as to shake the hand of Saddam Hussein, so we all have to admit that America was dug pretty deep in the dirty dealings. And, despite the current revelations from the Senate WMD report citing the “failure” of our intelligence community, I don’t think that any sensible man would agree that our intelligence community and our political leadership at the time believed we were dealing with St. Hussein of Iraq; we knew very well that we were dealing with a ruthless dictator. (Perhaps a less sensible man, but a wise old fool would say we may have thought (or hoped) he would use these weapons to kill some Iranians).
So I have to wonder, Bill, what are our, America’s, standards? Certainly our country should have an indivisible consensus on this critical issue before we move forward in these “troubled times"; we could certainly avoid unnecessary confusion about our interpretations of international treaties, he-said she-said diversions, and partisan witch hunts (as well as save a lot of tax dollars and law enforcement resources). So all of us Americans should ask ourselves the following question and demand from ourselves the true answer that lies in our hearts: Should we believe that if the other counties are doing it too, then we may as well go along for the ride as long as we are not the worst of the worst, and do our best to scurry away from the situation before we get caught out by the truth (as a pack of gazelles with the lions)? (I believe this was referred to as “group-think” in the Senate’s WMD report). Or, should we believe that America is a just and good country, a leader of nations, whose values are based on truth, liberty, and justice for all; a country who seeks to spread peace, and through peace spread liberty, justice, human rights, and the gift of a free market and social mobility? I don’t know where other people grew up (America is a big place), but I was born and raised in Michigan, and I see every indication from our politicians, the pledges, patriotic songs, and homegrown folklore I learned as a boy, that most Americans, whether honestly or not, would choose the latter option. In any case, whichever option we choose as our standards for the conduct of our nation’s political policies and foreign relations, it is, cumulatively, the patriotic duty of our citizens to hold the politics of our leaders accountable to those standards with our votes and our systems of justice. My dear friends, I truly believe that this is the elusive “point”.
America is, or, for the most part, claims to be, a religious nation. We insist (or are led by the media to insist) that our presidents attend church. Of course, all that can be said is that they are going through the motions, but most of us don’t mind, and we could even be inspired, with the right dramatics, if our leaders throw in a vague reference to God from time to time. Even if we do not claim to be religious, we cannot escape the influence of religion on our values of what is right and wrong, our beliefs in what is just and unjust, and our love for the meek (or the underdogs) to triumph over the ruthless powers that be (Hollywood had made billions off the latter concept). Being raised within the Christian faith (and while I cite the teachings of Christianity, I am sure that the fundamentals of all religions fall along the same lines), I learned that Christians believe that mankind, even those of us with the best intentions, are all sinners and that the true path to righteousness lays in ones ability to honestly repent their sins (or wrong-doings). So it is also true for nations, as nations are merely an assembly of men; America, no matter how just and righteous our intentions may be, we must admit to ourselves that we are only a nation of men and we are therefore always capable of committing injustices, mistakes, and sin. But the key is to go beyond admission, and reflect on our behavior honestly, and then move to try to repent, annul, and or rectify our mistakes. As defined by Christ (who we must not forget is the namesake of Christianity) in his sermon on the mount, the fundamental teaching of Christianity, this ability to admit culpability and repent is what defines the true strength in a person. The power of the apology Richard Clarke to the families of 9/11 before the 9/11 commission is a testament to the power of this philosophy, no matter what you may think of Clarke’s integrity. Unfortunately, our politicians, who wear their Christianity on their sleeve (another big no-no according to Christ in his sermon on the mount), have no time to think of such things when mired in the nuances of realpolitik as their goals are more or less focused only on the next election or, ironically, the idealistic meanderings of and academic locked up in a think tank.. This is how we end up with Iranian Shaws that get replaced by fundamentalist Ayatollahs, or ruthless dictators gassing their own people, etc, when we lay aside our righteous values as the easy route to satisfy the geopolitical realities at hand.
Yes, we Americans are perfectly capable of getting carried away with our enormous power, and it certainly not anti-American to admit that. Indeed, it is anti-human to insist otherwise! Would anyone claim that your family does not love you when they scold you for misbehaving? But what is a slap in the face to any serious American, who believes what he/she says while reciting the Pledge or singing the national anthem, or to any righteous person for that matter, is for one to claim that it is OK for us to break from our principles as long as other people are doing it too.
In the end, whether you truly believe the Iraq war was a mistake, or the right thing to do, nothing justifies a vote for Bush by these American standards upon which we stand. It is clear that Bush and his administration overstated what has now been termed “bad intelligence.” Even if they did not know the intelligence was bad or good at the time, it is clear they overstated what they did have at the time (Senator Rockafella is right, there is no reason that any reports on the Bush Administration’s over-hyping should be delayed; the proof is out there in the press archives, just compare the public statements to the intelligence and you’re done!). Would anyone argue that we should postpone our values of truth and liberty and put this off until the election? I would think most Americans, as the idealist we are, would answer no to this question, but alas, somehow this actually happened! But the greatest disservice to the American values and especially to the Christian values they wear on their sleeves is that they refuse to take accountability for their mistake yet always insisting it from their opposition (Rice and Cheney knew damn well there were no nuclear weapons or capabilities when the ran around painting pictures of mushroom clouds over American cities like chicken little running about claiming the sky is falling). Bush and his Attorney General, John “the feux patriotic minstrel” Ashcroft insist that Americans must sacrifice liberty in return for security (but of course, we know from history that there cannot be security without liberty and I think Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and all their buddies would agree). The legal counsel of the Bush Administration has abandoned the values of American justice with the belief that the President should have unlimited (that is, unchecked) power in times of war. If I recall correctly, we fought a war against England a few hundred years ago, founded a new nation, and wrote a constitution with a bill of rights just so that would not happen. I suppose to Bush and his friends, the American revolution is dead.
The administration was built on a house of cards (or more appropriately, a house of lies), and not a single American philosophy can justify his actions. He promised us in 2000 that he would unite us; instead he divided not only us, but the world. Bush promised to restore accountability and respect for the office of the President, instead he has allowed George Tenant to fall on his rubber sword any time the heat was turned up, or he timidly, yet slyly (and most surely at the behest of his aides), utters a vague statement that could or could not be an admission of guilt (or “wrong-doing” as he like to call it) and let the talking heads debate the statement for a week so he could get a minute of shelter before the next storm came in (Medicate price tags, 9/11 committees, Abu Ghraib, legalistic torture memos, Energy commissions, the Supreme Court and Guantanamo, and Donald Rumsfeld with his memos memos memos!). Unfortunately for us and the world, Mr. Bush, or “God’s Son” as he likes to think of himself, never read that all important part of the Bible that says one must admit and repent his sins to find the forgiveness of god. (If only this guy would read, we could save ourselves so many problems!)
To continue, Bush told us he would be compassionate (which, for all the lawyers and those keeping score, really means: the ability for one to have a sympathetic consciousness of others’ distress together with a desire to alleviate it), instead he cut state funding (forcing the states to cut spending across the board (education, transportation, law-enforcement (in states short-changed by Homeland Security), MedicAid, etc.) to plug the deficits from his “tax-cuts” that left most of us standing in line at the bank with a third of $1000+ check (a figure calculated via the “fuzzy math” our dear leader so disdains) we were promised in the 2000 election while the pioneers and rangers cut to the front of the line to take home more from a tax cut than technically impoverished people make in a year (or two). Is this compassion? Is this what George Bush believes to be sympathetic consciousness of others’ distress together with a desire to alleviate it? George W. Bush and his friends and aides in the Executive love to remind us of the suffering and plight of the New Yorkers who suffered under the terrorist attacks, yet he is content to sit idly by as New York’s emergency services declare that they are severely under-funded by Homeland security while the quiet state of Wyoming (Dick Cheney’s home state coincidentally), is up to their ears in high tech anti-terror equipment even while running a surplus on their state budget! Is this the president’s idea of compassion for the bulls-eye of terrorism? Is this even Justice? Again, our dear leader should take his mother’s advice that reading is fundamental and try to learn the meaning of compassion!
Therefore my dear friends, as the election draws near just remember the face of our “Strong Leader in Times of Change” as he sat in that Florida elementary school classroom during the biggest moment of change over the last fifty years of our nation’s history; as airplanes were smashing into the world trade center. And lets not forget the image of our surrogate hero on that day , Rudi Julliani as he walked confidently down the streets of southern New York while our executive branch ran for shelter or ziz-zagged through the sky. It is clear to me that there are a lot of decent Republicans out there who could probably do a respectable job at the Presidency, so why does this party insist on giving us Bush? The brand name wasn’t even that good (Bush the first was a one-termer and the beer really is a disaster), and besides, shouldn’t we, as Americans who revolted against the ideas of patriarchal entitlements of leadership, be leery about selecting our political leaders based on the “brand-name” of a last name?
In conclusion, there are absolutely no grounds based on fundamental American principles that could justify support, let alone a vote for George W. Bush. Only those who lost touch with (or never took seriously) the fundamental values of the American experience can justify support for this disgrace of a man, Christian, and American. The Bush campaign did get it right, it is definitely a time a change in this country; the precedents set by this administration set the stage for the fast erosion of the fundamental principles that characterize the notion we all hold dear as the American experiment. A referendum on the Bush administration this November will only put the wheels in motion to bring us swiftly out of the American dream.
P.S. Why is there all this talk of Regan to be put on the money before Dr. M.L. King?
Comment by Brian — 7/12/2004 @ 12:20 pm
Brian,
Perhaps the worst dictator of the 20th century, Uncle Joe Stalin, was our ally during WW2. Does that answer your question?
We allied with Saddam because he was at war with Iran, and Iran was our enemy. We couldn’t allow Iran to win that war and for Islamic fundamentalism to dominate that region. Pretty simple stuff really.
Comment by Bill — 7/12/2004 @ 12:41 pm
Tim,
In order to communicate, I need to understand some of your terms. Would you please define:
a) Great Victory. Here, I must confess my confusion. I was under the impression that in order for one side to be victorious one side must be vanquished. Last I saw, Saddam Hussien, who has never surrendered, nor has any other member of his government, was proclaiming his legal status as President of Iraq, in a Court which he denies has legal jurisdiction.
b) nascent democracy - and just how does a foreign power install one by placing one of its former agents in charge.
c) WMD - as you haven’t responded to the definition that I posted above in #71.
Thank you,
Robert
Comment by Robert Schwartz — 7/12/2004 @ 12:43 pm
Bill,
We allied with Saddam because he was at war with Iran, and Iran was our enemy. We couldn’t allow Iran to win that war and for Islamic fundamentalism to dominate that region. Pretty simple stuff really.
Simple maybe, but not the whole truth. We had allied with the Baath party before Saddam came to power, and in fact, used Saddam to help us eleminate the Communists in Iraq.
When Saddam was captured, the rejoycing we saw on the Bagdhad streets was the Communists, with their Red Banners. They stand out, because most Islamic Banners are primarily green.
Robert
Comment by Robert Schwartz — 7/12/2004 @ 12:57 pm
Robert,
At that time, Saddam wasn’t known as such a bad guy. In fact, he won a UNESCO award in 1979 for slashing illiteracy rates in Iraq.
Comment by Bill — 7/12/2004 @ 1:15 pm
Bill,
Yes we did ally with Stalin-on paper. But through a well founded mutual distrust, the British and Americans fought the Germans more or less independently with the exception of several tragic Arctic convoy missions and a few British planes that arrived to Russian territory. In order to stop the already ghastly bloodshed, we made the proper and, most importantly, honorable, agreement to divide up occupied Germany between the four major powers. And we certainly did not give them the bomb or share too many intelligence secrets and other weapons technologies. In fact, we took great care to keep the nuclear, chemical, and bio-weapons technology of both the Germans and the Japanese out of the hands of the Soviets; indeed, it has to be said that our advancements in weapons technology helped to send the imminent hot war with out “ally” that followed the defeat of Germany to a cold war. But we and the Soviets, unfortunately, found ourselves together in a hot war together with Germany and while we were not necessarily friends or indeed allies, we kept our differences off the table until the Nazis and Imperialist were out of the way. But then they came to the surface, and without much hesitation from either side.
But Iran and Iraq in the 1980’s are a completely different situation. The Iranians got pissed at us because we installed and supported a ruthless dictator in their country. They had a revolution, got rid of the guy, and made the extremely poor decision to take hostages from our embassy as payback. We could have admitted our mistake right there and extradited a tyrant back to his people for the hostages instead of treating his cancer. Instead, we negotiated the hostages back for some weapons to use against their neighbor’s air force. However, not to let the Iranians become too strong, we gave the Iraqis some weapons and satellite photos of Iranian troop movements. We let the tensions build, and then we sat back and watched one of the largest air forces in the region get chopped to pieces while one of the largest standing armies in the region was simultaneously hacked to bits. I have to say aside that this is a great example of out of the box thinking, but in this case, it probably would of have been better to stay inside the box, or go further out of the other side. This fiasco probably does contribute to some of the problems we are having today, especially with some Iraqis I would imagine.
But in the end, after the hostage crisis, the stage with Iran turned cold. We were not at war with Iran together with Iraq; there were no declarations of war on Iran by congress. There was no need to get in bed with Hussein simply because he was fighting Iran, with whom we settled our immediate dispute and only had a cold relationship of distrust and suspicion. To borrow a buzz word from the news, we did it “simply because we could", and you certainly cannot support that philosophy considering where it came from.
Bill, I am sorry, bit is not that simple, in fact, it is quite foolish to compare our partnership with Joseph Stalin to our partnership with Saddam Hussein. The partnership with Stalin was a partnership of NECESSITY, the partnership with Hussein was one of CHOICE. And that brings us to Iraq. My dear friends, I am happy to announce to you all that it appears we have made progress with Bill today. Bill still has yet to comprehend the difference between NECESSITY and CHOICE.
But Bill, I will also do you one better and provide you with the moral to the story: sometimes your choices of friends can come back to haunt you. Mushareef does sit upon a shaky throne with nukes ready for the taking by the Al-Qaida friendly populace. Perhaps this is our new worst friend?
Comment by Brian — 7/12/2004 @ 1:39 pm
Brian,
Our CHOICE was between a western-friendly dictator and a radical Islamic republic which wanted to quash all western influence in the region.
It was a NECESSITY to support Iraq against Iran.
But thanks for a well-written post.
Comment by Bill — 7/12/2004 @ 1:49 pm
Remind me to git some’a ‘yall to help me if I ever need another term paper!
-T
Comment by T.Hajji — 7/12/2004 @ 1:51 pm
And Bill, don’t even bean count with that UNESCO award crap. Even at that time, anyone who was someone at the decision making lavel knew that the Bath Party was a secular arab supremist party who considered Hitler and Stalin to be good examples of leadership.
Comment by Brian — 7/12/2004 @ 1:52 pm
Brian,
A secular arab supremicist party was the lesser of 2 evils. The fact that the Soviet Union also supplied Iraq ought to tell you something.
Neither of the world’s superpowers could sit back and allow a radical fundamentalist Islamic movement to unify and dominate the region.
Comment by Bill — 7/12/2004 @ 2:09 pm
Bill,
I guess if you define a party assasin as “not such a bad guy", you might have a point. I will allow that Saddam, as a secular leader in Iraq, actually did build a modern infrastructure, with schools, hospitals, roads, etc. This does not discount his history, the history of the rise of the Baath Party, or the US role in the same.
Why is it that so many of our previous assests come back to haunt us?
Robert
Comment by Robert Schwartz — 7/12/2004 @ 2:10 pm
And I would not call Saddam Western friendly either, as this is false. He was simply an opportunist who would take weapons from anyone who wanted to give them away. I think that was the reality of the situation. In reality, we had the choice of an opportunist dictator, and an Islamic theocracy. I’m not privy to policy, but I can imagine VP GHW Bush sitting with the boys and telling them it “wouldn’t be prudent". We were damned either way. Actually, there was a third choice, to stay out of it.
And to pre-empt you next post, this is very similar to our “allies” in Afghanistan. With hindsight, would you suggest that it was a good idea to befriend Osama bin laden and arm him to the teeth (But certainly you wouldn’t call him western friendly?); perhaps, if you really believe that Afghanistan had that much to do with the fall of communism. It did help, but only a bit in my opinion. It was the solidarity movements of people in the Eastern block countries, with a lot of inspiration from Regan no less (I complain a lot, but there has to be credit given for good work too), that brought the fall of single party socialism (that great oxy-moron of the 20th century); Germany (I think) broke first, and the rest followed (in a bizarre twist of fate, the Germans in the end gave the final “kick” that brought the rotten system crashing down (albeit, after quite a few poundings on the doors by the Americans)). If Bush does really admire Regan, then he should follow the lead and try to provide that same type of leadership and inspiration to the Arab world, instead of talking listfully of crusades and taunting them to “bring it on".
Comment by Brian — 7/12/2004 @ 2:16 pm
Tim,
I say again the abuse perpetrated on Iraqi prisoners was not sanctioned by:
the U.S. Military - those responsible are being prosecuted.
the Defense Department - (ditt0 the above)
the President - did not order or condone what happened.
The FACTS are that you don’t know what the president did do - or didn’t do. You don’t. You absolutely do not have this information. I know it is a blow to your sizeable ego. You only think you know. However, it is impossible for you to know this about the president. Just because Hannity, O’Reily, Coulter, or Limbaugh said it doesn’t make it fact.
I’ve not posted much here - because we have made up our minds already. There is no doubt you will support whatever the extreme right and or the president says and does. I can’t stop you - so I don’t waste my time. I realize that at this very moment, you still think you know what Bush has done and or said . . . .but you don’t. I also realize I have completely failed in getting you to realize this.
Comment by Stephen G. Petersen — 7/12/2004 @ 3:00 pm
Robert,
Why is it that so many of our previous assests come back to haunt us?
Probably the same reason that so many of our previous enemies come back to help us. How many times in our history have we fought against England for example?
Comment by Bill — 7/12/2004 @ 3:01 pm
Brian,
Saddam was western-friendly in comparison to Khomeini, there can be little doubt of that. And I don’t think we had the option of staying out of it.
Was it a good idea to side with the mujahideen vs. the Soviets? It seemed to be a good idea at the time. As Bill Clinton would say, “no brainer". Or should we have just stayed out of it, and took a chance on seeing Afghanistan being run by the Soviets and the PDPA for the next decade? I don’t see how we could have done that.
As for the fall of the Soviet Union, I agree; Gorbachev deserves as much credit (both directly and indirectly) as Reagan.
Comment by Bill — 7/12/2004 @ 3:11 pm
Bill,
The only times I can recall are 1775-8, and 1812-4, am I missing any?
Our fight with the British was with our own Colonial Masters. This is an interesting line of thought, which you might consider. In the British Colonial model, what distinguished the Indians from India, who were colonised, from the natives of America who were extinguished, for the most part?
The French did a much better job of working with the natives in this hemisphere, though the English did work with a few tribes.
Anyway, I was just starting to say that our relationship with Britain is fundamentally intwined in our being, and that different British colonies had very different histories.
As to our supplying the muhujadin in Afghanistan, according to Zbignew Brzezenski we started arming them six months prior to the Soviet invasion with the hope of drawing the Red Army into their own quagmire, their very own Vietnam, as it were.
Comment by Robert Schwartz — 7/12/2004 @ 3:41 pm
Robert,
VERY interesting. Manifest destiny wasn’t a Britsh Ideal. Colonists sitting on their hands, biting their tounges and paying their taxes and taking whatever abuse King George handed out. Native Americans subjugated, probably enslaved and used create the “Jewel of the British Empire” instead of simply being exterminated…
I feel like somebody just told me that a whole universe might exist on the tip of my fingernail…
Thanx,
-T
Comment by T.Hajji — 7/12/2004 @ 4:13 pm
Robert,
The Marxist coup which seized control of Afghanistan happened about a year and a half before the Soviets invaded. I’m not surprised that the US started aiding the resistance prior to the Soviet invasion.
Your point on Great Britain is taken. A better example of a more recent enemy who is (at least for now) an ally would be Japan.
Comment by Bill — 7/12/2004 @ 4:19 pm
bill, apparently you have me confused with someone else. i did not mention afghanistan.
As for the sky is falling, no, i’m simply looking at reality.
bill/tim:
a.) The “good word” of the United States has not recovered nicely. Why only this morning, the Times quoted a Bush administration official about how the chinese are stiffing us on teh real problem of north korean nuclear weapons because we were wrong about the threat in iraq; similarly, the article notes, many are stiffing us on iran because we were wrong about the threat in iraq. So, no, the good name of the US has not recovered in the slightest. (Tim, defeating the highly weakened army of saddam hussein demonstrated some impressive military coordination and power, but hardly constitutes a Great Victory in less you live in a world of video games.)
b.) Bill, you aren’t going to tell me that you give a god damn what osama bin laden thought about the us military. I’m talking about the real world, not what a hateful terrorist murdered thinks. Nor do you seem to grasp what the “limits” i referenced are: we don’t have that large a fighting force. That’s why we are leaving troops in place extra long, calling up retireees, extending the reserves through stop-loss orders, and similar matters. Tim, i have no idea what you mean about fighting with one arm tied behind our back. Nor do I have any idea where you think we would have gotten more troops - if we had those more troops, why are we forced to resort to the measures i just outlined? As for forces from Afghanistan, we did move intel capabilities from afghanistan.
c.) So let me get this straight: Tom Ridge says that Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda are planning an attack on the US from somewhere in the Pakistan/Afghani border, and you don’t believe there’s a mission for our troops? We are extending (as i’ve already noted) missions and calling back retirees and so on, but in Tim’s mind, really, we’re doing that because we’d rather leave US troops on bases in America then utilize them? Don’t be silly, buys.
d.) Actually, bill, we don’t yet spend as much servicing the national debt as we do on the DOD, but what does that have to do with anything? At a time when the leading buyers of our debt are our leading strategic rival in the 21st century, you think it’s a good thing that we’re borrowing the money from them? Tim, hyperventilizating about “many people think it’s worth it” is silly. Most people don’t even realize it. The war in Iraq is a leading factor in our declining fiscal position, which means that the strength of the US dollar is now in the hands of others, not ourselves. When we have a dollar crisis, i’ll remember that you guys thought it was no big deal.
e.) Even Rumsfeld is worried that we can’t kill terrorists as fast as they are created, but i wouldn’t worry your pretty little heads, boys: you’ve got a video game mentality, and far be it from me to distract you from it. (btw, there are people out there who know something about al qaeda, who have thought about it and written about it and studied it, and the consensus of them is that al qaeda recruiting has increased, so i don’t need to talk to their HR department). The notion of Saddam as one of the world’s leading sponsors of terror remains as fatuous now as when you first propounded it earlier in this and the previous thread, and remains unsupported by, fer instance, the senate intel report….
f.) the failure to complete the job at tora bora is a direct outgrowth of the failure of the bush administration to take completing the job as seriously as they desired to invade iraq. They shifted intel assets, didnt want to tie up US forces, and therefore cut foolish deals with proxy forces who didn’t do the job. This isn’t that hard to understand.
g.) Bill doesn’t seem to think that the US tortue at Abu ghraib means anything, which is contemptible beyond discussion. Tim at least acknowledges that it might have meaning, although perhaps Tim should notice that Rumsfeld accepted responsibility, that the idea (as someone else here noted) that this was only a few bad apples being punished is being challenged in the various legal proceedings, and the climate in which the torture took place was a climate created by sending over someone to Gitmoize the interrogations. In addition, the Justice Department has now pulled back from the previous position of the Bush administration that torture was acceptable under the presiden’ts powers as commander-in-chief, and many key internal memos are still being withheld by the bush administration without ever citing executive privilege.
h.) Neither of you responded in any meaningful way, so there’s not much more to say here.
i.) Bill, your answer is foolish, wrong-headed, and childish. tim is at least trying; yes, tim, i’ve read those polls, and i read them as hatred. Even if we accept your reading, you think this is a good thing? You think this is an example of why this is a strategic success, that the people we liberated want us out becaus we have failed them in our occupation?
j.) Thank you bill; i apologize for my error in missing “j.”
k.) Bill, another childish response. I am not cheerful about the odds of civil war, i am angry about the odds of civil war. Tim, again, is at least trying. Tim, here’s the situation we’ve got: the Kurds and the Shiites are at loggerheads over the temporary constitution and what it means going forward. The Kurds remain concerned that they will lose some of the freedoms they had, while the Shiites are concerned that they won’t gain the power they have been waiting for. Meanwhile, the Sunis are afraid that they will end up as losers in either case. Each has armed militias that are part of the equation. As a result, the odds of civil war exceed the odds of there not being a civil war, which are based entirely on the fact that there is sufficient iraqi nationalist sentiment that outweights the tribal/ethnic sentiments to override the splintering affect. I’d feel better about these odds if there really was a long-term Iraqi sensibility, but sadly, Iraq was the creation of British imperialism. Now, as for not getting what a disaster a civil war would be: how can you miss it? A civil war could drag in Turkey, Iran, and potentially syria; who knows what further ramifications may be produced. The Hippocratic Oath tells us to first do no harm; replacing Saddam’s iraq with a civil-war-torn country in the heart of the middle east does not constitute doing no harm: it constitutes major harm.
l.) ditto to bill; tim, if there is one area where I do think the bush administrartion has it right, it’s that failed states are breeding grounds for terrorism. Ergo, invading iraq as an action in the war on terrorism that results in a failed state is objectively losing ground, even by the standards of the bush administration….
In short: strategic disaster. Tell me again why it’s a Great Victory?
h.)
Comment by howard — 7/12/2004 @ 4:56 pm
howard,
You mentioned Tora Bora… which I think is in Afghanistan. I’m almost sure it isn’t in Iraq, at least.
Comment by Bill — 7/12/2004 @ 6:03 pm
howard,
a.) Balderdash. N Korea and Iran have announced their nuclear ambitions and possible capabilities to the world. Our intelligence isn’t making those claims- those nations themselves are.
b.) Who is going to invade us and conquer us because our military is stretched so thin? Which of our global obligations have been affected by our troops strength in Iraq. Facts please, no opinions.
c.) So you are claiming that there are no combat soldiers left on US soil? Really? All of our bases have been sent overseas? OMG, Canada will invade us!!
d.) From 1993 to 2000 we spent an average of 2.85% of our GDP on interest, and 3.5% on national defense. You’re right, we didn’t spend quite as much. I stand corrected.
As to whether we should be borrowing from “our leading strategic rival in the 21st century"… would it be better if we were lending to them? I kind of doubt it.
The war in Iraq is a drop in the bucket of our financial position.
e.) The senate intel report has 65 pages about Iraq’s links to terrorism, and the conclusion is that most of the intel was “reasonable".
f.) If Tora Bora had led to complete failure in Afghanistan, you might have something to complain about. As it is, voters are registering for the presidential election in Oct despite sporadic resistance. Things aren’t as bad as your doom and gloom projections.
g.) I think the torture at Abu Ghraib means something. It means that the US military justice system works. What I think is despicable is your use of the torture issue for political purposes. You’ve apparently convicted Bush/Rumsfeld of complicity without even seeing a shred of evidence.
h.) No need to respond.
i.) Your response is childish.
j.) You’re welcome.
k.) This is simply more of your negative spin. I could counter with all the positive things that are happening, but you wouldn’t pay attention.
l.) Again, you have read your crystal ball and projected the future. We’ll have to wait and see how things turn out, but I for one wouldn’t bet on your scenario.
The strategic successes? Let’s see… we have a much stronger presence in the Middle East; we have troops on Syria’s eastern border; we have troops on Iran’s western AND eastern border; we can use our presence there to exert leverage on Syria and Iran; we have bases in Iraq which means we have a place to operate out of without begging Saudi Arabia et al; tens of millions of people have been liberated in 2 nati