New at Reason

|6.15.05 @ 10:26PM|#

The characterization of the memo as "hearsay" is inaccurate. The relevant comments would be statements against interest by a party to the action (i.e., the Bush administration) and thus admissible.

|6.15.05 @ 10:35PM|#

"The majority of American voters understand it too, and they re-elected Bush handily and have yet to turn solidly against the war in Iraq."

Indeed.

It's part of human nature, I think, that people don't like to think of themselves as sheep.

|6.15.05 @ 10:37PM|#

" It presents hearsay evidence from a British politician. "

Actually it presents intelligence about the US position, collected at first hand, by the head of British Intelligence.

That's probably the single strongest piece of intelligence of all the intel that was involved in the entire war.

|6.15.05 @ 10:41PM|#

In "Plan of Attack" Bob Woodward detailed that the Bush administration wanted to invade Iraq and that WMD's was the best justification for the invasion they could come up with. He also detailed how the UN resolutions were window dressing to give political justification to the invasion and get time to position our forces. "Plan of Attack" came out in January of 2004.

Perhaps the memo gives more credibility to old news, but it seems like old news to me.

|6.15.05 @ 10:44PM|#

Wasn't there a time, when hawks were happy to rely on MI-6's judgement about WMD, or mobile labs, or Niger uranium, or whatever?

Anything of that nature was based on far weaker evidence than 'C's report in the DSM.

|6.15.05 @ 10:48PM|#

Jack and Jon H,

In my humble opinion, the important part of Tim's piece was the observation that there's really nothing new here.

Perhaps there's some controversy about point 3: "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." ...But I don't think that's very controversial either.

I've been hittin' friends and family over the head with these facts for years, and even the people who support the Administration don't seem to find these observations controvesial anymore. At some point, I have to come to the conclusion that people understand what the Administration did, and they're okay with it.

Baa Baa Baa

|6.15.05 @ 11:00PM|#

"In my humble opinion, the important part of Tim's piece was the observation that there's really nothing new here"

The concepts aren't new, as such, but the source is.

It might have been touched on in "Plan of Attack", but that could be easily dismissed, having come from a journalist (even a suck-up like Woodward.)

(And Richard Clarke could be dismissed as being disgruntled.)

There seems to be a qualitative difference between something that appears, second-hand, in a journalist's book, and something that appears in an official document of another country.

In Woodward's case, it could be dismissed as him having observed loose talk, or blue-sky discussions. "Oh, at the White House we talk about all kinds of options...."

In the case of the DSM, it seems to me that an official meeting between high-level officials of the two countries makes it far more likely that the message conveyed was intentional, and that the head of MI-6 didn't just sit in on a semiformal bull session where he picked up on Rummy being facetious.

|6.15.05 @ 11:06PM|#

I have to admit to having a "Plan of Attack"-shaped hole in my recollection of 2004.

Did anyone actually pay much attention to it? Did it get swamped in the media by political conventions, or swift boats, or something?

|6.15.05 @ 11:15PM|#

At some point, I have to come to the conclusion that people understand what the Administration did, and they're okay with it.

I agree. Some people believe that invading Iraq was so important that even a certain amount of dishonesty was OK.

It was a "noble lie" needed to get support for something that the hawks, however rightly or wrongly, viewed as tremendously important.

Whatever the merits or lack thereof may be, I think it's an accurate assessment.

|6.15.05 @ 11:33PM|#

To be fair, even in the presence of uncertainty a respectable case still could have been made for war: Even the mere possibility of a nuclear-armed Middle Eastern dictator is unacceptable, and so it is better to err on the side of caution.

I'm not sure I'd buy that argument, but it's a respectable one. And it would be an honest one.

I don't think that life and death decisions should be made by people who play fast and loose with intelligence.

I don't regard the "Democratic Domino Theory" as a particularly respectable argument. We have a mixed record on building democracies. It worked in Germany, Japan, and Italy. However, when you look at our other foreign endeavors the record is more checkered. We tend to leave behind undemocratic client states rather than democracies. Some of those client states transition into democracy, although it can take a while, and during their despotic stages they continue to enjoy our patronage (e.g. South Korea, Phillipines, Panama). Other client states remain basket cases (e.g. Haiti). And still others succumb to anti-American revolutions (e.g. Cuba, Iran).

Adam|6.15.05 @ 11:42PM|#

Maybe he's right, and in some incremental way, this will push the discussion toward a final historical decision that the invasion of Iraq was a colossal error. Since I believe the invasion of Iraq was a colossal error, I hope that's the case.

Isn't it a little early to be making "final historical decisions"? Shouldn't we wait to see how things pan out in the Middle East over the next few years?

As for facts being fixed around policy and the administration's devious plotting in 2002, it's preposterous to think that the administration wouldn't be drawing up invasion plans, or wouldn't have them drawn up already. I hope we have some for North Korea, Iran, Syria and any other country that might get a little rambunctious in the future.

The WMD were a central - but never a full and complete - rationale for removing Hussein from power. Even after the inspectors went back in, he failed to document or otherwise demonstrate that he had destroyed the stockpiles of weapons he had used on his own people. The man was and is a maniac, a madman, a loose cannon, and utterly and completely evil. This wouldn't be Bush's problem if the U.N. or Clinton bothered to enforce the previous resolutions in the years before. It took Bush to do it, and despite all the bitching here, he was still right.

And, Ken the Baathist, go baa baa baa yourself!!

|6.16.05 @ 12:01AM|#

"And, Ken the Baathist, go baa baa baa yourself!!"

I've been called a lot of things. I remember when the torture apologists were in full effect, one of them called me an America hater. When I openly questioned the efficacy of Reverse Domino Theory, someone called me a racist. ...but I've never been called a Baathist before!

I think I see what you mean though, anyone who thinks propaganda about WMD and Al Qaeda collaboration doesn't justify sacrificing the lives of American soldiers and Iraqi civilians must be a Baathist. ...oh but wait! ...I missed your point, didn't I? You're trying to say that the propaganda wasn't fake, it was real, aren't you? Ha!

It takes a special kind of lambkin to really believe all that stuff! I don't even know how to reach out to you. I hope your shepherds have as warm a heart as you seem to think they do.

|6.16.05 @ 12:28AM|#

Well, this didn't seem to upset the apple cart in Israel, so I think Tim is on firm ground in his assessment.

We might not be at the same level of fear of destruction as Israel, but I suspect a majority of the public's reaction is , ho-hum.

Sen. Snowe said her constituents preferred that things are "blurry" in the WOT, which I take to mean, do what you need to keep me safe.

|6.16.05 @ 12:32AM|#

"Sen. Snowe said her constituents preferred that things are "blurry" in the WOT, which I take to mean, do what you need to keep me safe."

In another time and place, it would have meant "we don't want to know what happens in those camps with the chimneys".

Adam|6.16.05 @ 12:34AM|#

Ken, you're good at dishing it out, but you're not good at taking it. Now settle down, grab some more popcorn, and get back to Fahrenheit 9/11 and your hot love session with your blow-up Howard Dean doll.

At this point, I'll save you some time before you flip out again: I'm kidding.

|6.16.05 @ 1:23AM|#

Y'know.. back in 1999, when the internet was still kinda novel, i downloaded a satellite photo of the house i lived in at the time. Still have it. You could see the backyard, the pool, the shrubs... you could even make out the deck chairs.

And at that same time, the US of A had two big no fly zones going over Iraq. A goodly portion of that country had US planes patrolling over it day and night... for YEARS.

So I'm thinking... if there was a WMD factory there, we'd 'a seen it. I mean shit. If they could see my damn pool from outer space, they could see what was going on there. If the satellite didn't catch it, then i reckon our planes ought to have seen something. And this is assuming of course, we had ZERO assets "on the ground" to keep tabs on the doins'. Course, we know that lily livered coward Clinton didn't let the CIA or NSA do anything, and so no intelligence could have been collected from 1992 to 2000, right?

Unless you believe that "Clinton blacked out the spooks for eight years" then i find it pretty god damned hard to accept that we didn't have a pretty detailed account of Saddam's weapons.

The fact that we've turned up Jack Shit, after all this huffin and puffin about the WMD's, suggests to me that the President was full of fucking shit about the whole thing. If they could take a fucking picture of my backyard in 1999, which I assume was not a big national security priority, then I have to damn well assume they could monitor some weapons factories in Iraq, assuming there was any interest in doing so in a country where we had personnel sitting in harm's way for more than a decade.

To me, the fact that no WMD's turned up in Iraq is more than a puzzle. It means that either Saddam was one crafty weapon-hiding son of a bitch who could elude satellites with deck-chair-detecting resolution, OR the administration was full of shit.

Seeing Saddam standing around scratching his head in his underwear these days, I am less and less inclined to think he had the wherewithal to hide his deck chairs, let alone his Weapons of Mass Destruction, from the satellites. I'm a crafty son of a bitch myself, and i couldn't hide MY deck chairs (other than puttin em in the garage, which the satellite ALSO picked up), so either Saddam is the greatest criminal mastermind of all time, or somebody lied about his damn weapons.

fyodor|6.16.05 @ 1:25AM|#

Adam,

You don't seem to understand. The Administration didn't even think Hussein had the weapons. So what the hell difference does it make that Hussein failed to document the destruction of weapons he didn't have? I've said it before and I'll say it again. I doubt any government including our own keeps as good records as what was demanded of Hussein. In a regime that corrupt, it's even less surprising that his paperwork was lacking. But the point is this: this is what made WMD's a GOOD EXCUSE. But that's all it was, an EXCUSE. The evidence has mounted that the Bush Administration knew damn well that Hussein didn't have the weapons. Therefore Hussein's inability to prove he'd destroyed them is moot, not the trump card you act like you're playing. But I suppose it's a nice smokescreen behind which to hide from the truth. Oh and BTW, while the WMD's may not have been the only reason for invasion, they were more than "central," they were necessary. Without them, the invasion doesn't happen.

|6.16.05 @ 1:35AM|#

Adam writes: "As for facts being fixed around policy and the administration's devious plotting in 2002, it's preposterous to think that the administration wouldn't be drawing up invasion plans, or wouldn't have them drawn up already"

The intelligence fixed around policy has nothing to do with invasion plans. It's all about invasion *rationalization*. It was about ginning up a minimally credible excuse to *use* the invasion plans.

I assume, and hope, that the Pentagon is drawing up all kinds of *plans*. But I don't want those plans being put into action justified by dishonest and flimsy reasoning.

|6.16.05 @ 3:09AM|#

I assume, and hope, that the Pentagon is drawing up all kinds of *plans*.

If we ever need to go into Canada, believe me, I'm ready!

|6.16.05 @ 3:21AM|#

If we ever need to go into Canada, believe me, I'm ready!

As Canadians never tire of pointing out, we got our asses kicked both times we tried to do that in the past. Though it might be different now, when they don't have their big brother to fight for them (and when we are in fact bigger than the big brother).

Adam, I presume you were making a funny on "baa" and "baathist." If not, elevate your game.

|6.16.05 @ 3:44AM|#

Like many, maybe most, Americans, I now believe the takeover of Iraq was simply not worth it. At best it was poorly calculated, at worst it set off a chain of events that we will still be dealing with for decades to come.

Yet, I can't bring myself to believe that President Bush was flat-out lying about the WMD's. Assuming that Tony Blair was going along with it, which is what the DSM implies, there are two gaping holes in the "fabrication" explanation:

1. What did Tony Blair have to gain from this? Sure, he might get a share of the oil, but would that be enough to justify what he knew at the time to be massive outrage from the British public, plus a long-term involvement that could upset allies in the Middle East?

2. Wouldn't someone in the White House at least have piped up and said "Excuse me, sir, but what will we do when we are forced to admit there were no WMD's to begin with?" If not that, surely someone would have said "Excuse me, sir, but even if we are able to somehow convince people that they should switch their focus from the WMD's to the freedom of the Iraqi people, wouldn't that put us, once again, in the role of the world's policeman? I mean, there are a ton of other nations out there suffering under brutal dictators..."

I know everyone here can probably poke holes in these two things, but, for whatever horrible mistakes have been made in strategy and execution, I just can't believe that Bush made everything up from the start. He had to believe that there was something there besides oil.

|6.16.05 @ 4:05AM|#

Worm,
You overestimate the ability of being able to figure out what is happening on the ground by analyzing pictures from the air. I think that the Clinton administration did too, this is why we has such a shortfall of intel, we had no humint

If in fact it was possible to do so much with picutures that are so accurate that you can read licence plates with, why is there still crime in CA?

But they can take pictures and see what you are doing? They can't see everything all the time. They can't know what is in a container. They can't know anything that is going on under a roof. (to a certain extent). The bad guys can track sattelites too.

Furthermore, prior to the invasion of Iraq, we were in effect in a state of war with Iraq, as were the Kurds. We had to bomb Iraq on a daily bases to maintain the status quo. Our sanctions were causing starvation to the population. We were directly responsible for the death of thousands of children. Saddam was figuring out how to get weapons and stuff anyway from the French and the Russians.

Al Qaida had in fact moved cells to Iraq to set up shop while we moved into Afghanistan.

Those of you with 20/20 hindsight, what would you have us do?

|6.16.05 @ 7:03AM|#

Can anyone tell me any instance in the history of the universe when a politician WASN'T "fixing the facts" around their desired position? It is called "spin" and is about as new as dirt.

Bush was spinning. The anti-war crowd was spinning. France, Russia, and Baghdad Bob were all spinning, too. They are all still spinning, too, except perhaps for Bob. Anyone who doesn't know this and factor it into their decision has some serious issues.

It was obvious that our direct evidence for WMD was weak. However, the circumstantial evidence was strong, though somehow wrong in hindsight. We still haven't resolved this contradiction. Saddam had WMD. Where did they go? If he didn't have them, why was he sticking it to the UN, right up to the end? In the end, the circumstantial evidence was good enough, even without much solid evidence, to fool almost everyone, including Bush, Blair, Clinton, Chirac, and Putin - hardly a crowd that is going to get together and conspire to lie to the world.

One final point. If Iraq is clearly a worse place because of the war in March 2013 than it was in March 2003, I will apologize pubically for my support for the war. How many of the anti-war crowd is willing to make the reverse promise? Let history be the judge.

|6.16.05 @ 8:17AM|#

I'm confused here, maybe those of you that say Bush lied about the WMD can explain this to me.

On one hand you are saying Bush is an evil genius mastermind who used the fear of WMDs he knew did not exist to fool all of the worried sheep into supporting invading Iraq.

On the other hand, if this is true Bush must actually be one dumb SOB because after invading Iraq for reasons he knew were false, he did not have enough smarts to plant enough WMDs in Iraq to justify the invasion.

It seems to me the two options are mutually exclusive. Would someone please explain this to me?

|6.16.05 @ 8:45AM|#

"If Iraq is clearly a worse place because of the war in March 2013 than it was in March 2003, I will apologize pubically for my support for the war. How many of the anti-war crowd is willing to make the reverse promise? Let history be the judge."

Chad, since when are foreign wars, at the vast expense of American lives and dollars, judged by their ability to make those foreign places better off? How many lives, and how much money, is it worth to "make Iraq a better place"? There are plenty of places around the world that could use a good fixin-up, but that's not a reason to go a-nationbuildin'. We've been thru all this shite before, but, I was just curious why you judge the success of the war by whether the country is a "better place" 10 years later. Our armed forces exist to defend our nation, not galavant around the globe making life better for various foreign countries.

Adam|6.16.05 @ 8:54AM|#

Apparently, the LATimes is publishing more memos. I haven't had a chance to read them yet, but they're available here.

|6.16.05 @ 9:01AM|#

It would be a good time for the French to dust off their documents of the same period. It would help explain that it was more than being on the take of the oil scheme for refraining to join the coalition.

|6.16.05 @ 9:02AM|#

"On one hand you are saying Bush is an evil genius mastermind who used the fear of WMDs he knew did not exist to fool all of the worried sheep into supporting invading Iraq.

"On the other hand, if this is true Bush must actually be one dumb SOB because after invading Iraq for reasons he knew were false, he did not have enough smarts to plant enough WMDs in Iraq to justify the invasion."

More like he was banking on finding WMD's that he had no idea were there or not. He and his handlers also knew full well (and how right they were!) that even if they didn't find a single WMD, they could still wriggle their way out of it with rhetoric about "liberation" and "he gassed the kurds!"

On the other hand, it's not as easy to wriggle your way out of getting caught trying to plant WMD's to support your rationale. That would be one of the biggest scandals ever. He couldn't very well say "yeah, maybe I did plant those WMD's, but, Saddam gassed his own people!"

Yet, as you can see, Bush not only overcame the WMD "scandal", but he even got reelected! I'd say Rove & Co. are playing their cards just right.

David Woycechowsky|6.16.05 @ 9:25AM|#

Why was this memo a secret in the first place? It seems like something that could have and should have been disclosed at the time it was written. I don't get it.

|6.16.05 @ 9:31AM|#

TJIT - that would've been a better observation if it wasn't taken directly from a section of "Slander" about the Christian Right. Harumph.

|6.16.05 @ 9:35AM|#

Why was this memo a secret in the first place?

Probably because the Brits are obsessed with secrecy. Something the Bushies have taken to emulating. :)

David Woycechowsky|6.16.05 @ 9:38AM|#

No they haven't. Why I was just listening to the uncensored tape of Flight 93 the other day. Interesting stuff going on in the last couple minutes there.

David Woycechowsky|6.16.05 @ 9:43AM|#

Oh wait. Cancel that last thing. Now that I think about I realize it was a dream. The tape hasn't been released actually.

|6.16.05 @ 9:44AM|#

These don't count as money quotes?

"The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime." We started the war during the period the president was looking us in the face and saying he was hoping for a peaceful solution.

"No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections." The president is subordinating military planning to the political calender.

"It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran."

|6.16.05 @ 9:48AM|#

Great one liners from Adam:

"The man was and is a maniac, a madman, a loose cannon, and utterly and completely evil."

Booga Booga Booga! Look over there! Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! 9/11! 9/11! He gassed his own people! Gaaaaahhhh! (Slump over like John Belushi in a Weekend Update sketch)

"This wouldn't be Bush's problem if the U.N. or Clinton bothered to enforce the previous resolutions in the years before." It is now univerally known, though apparently not universally admitted, that the entirety of the Iraqi nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs was destroyed during Bill Clinton's presidency, through a combination of U.S. military actions and U.N.-mandated inspections.

"It took Bush to do it, and despite all the bitching here, he was still right." It is also now universally know, though also not universally admitted, that George Bush's splendid little war did not succeed in destroying a single nuclear, chemical, or biological weapon.

|6.16.05 @ 9:50AM|#

"On one hand you are saying Bush is an evil genius mastermind who used the fear of WMDs he knew did not exist to fool all of the worried sheep into supporting invading Iraq.

"On the other hand, if this is true Bush must actually be one dumb SOB because after invading Iraq for reasons he knew were false, he did not have enough smarts to plant enough WMDs in Iraq to justify the invasion."

The Bushies have proven themselves to be more adept at manipulating public opinion to advance their political cause than at the actual busiess of governing. This is a difficult concept?

|6.16.05 @ 9:54AM|#

And finally, Tim, just because you, I, and our circles of acquaintances knew all of this three years ago, doesn't mean that the American public did.

Recall the polling data about Bush voters and their beliefs about WMDs and Saddam's direct involvement with the 9/11 attacks.

There are people who are going to consider this to be the first evidence they've ever seen that the WMD "intelligence failure" was anything but an honest mistake.

David Woycechowsky|6.16.05 @ 9:56AM|#

I think if the memo was released when it was written then there is less chance we would have done the Iraq War.

|6.16.05 @ 9:57AM|#

After seeing the photos of Saddam in his underwear, and comparing it to the photos of Bush in his bulgy flightsuit, my new theory is that the Iraq war had nothing to do with oil, WMDs or trying to kill the president's dad--I think it was just plain Freudian jealousy.

|6.16.05 @ 9:58AM|#

If we ever need to go into Canada, believe me, I'm ready!

Gus and Tim, sorry to go OT but that reminds me of when the Toronto Star (IIRC) breathlessly reported in about '70 or '71 that they had discovered that the evil merkins had a secret plan to invade Canada. You can imagine the outrage generated.

A few days later it was revealed that Canada also had a plan to invade the US, and that in fact practically every country in the world has plans in place to invade its neighbour(s).

|6.16.05 @ 10:08AM|#

Bush has gotten away with a bit too much from the people who should know better with the premise that "Yes, it is horrible, but the masses will not care, so there is no reason for me to appear upset or even to make sure they understand the implications."

fyodor|6.16.05 @ 10:19AM|#

It is called "spin" and is about as new as dirt.

The level of newness of such deception is hardly the issue.

David Woycechowsky|6.16.05 @ 10:22AM|#

Those of you with 20/20 hindsight, what would you have us do?

Lift the economic sanctions against Iraq and get out of that foreign entanglement. Stop selling Saddam gas to gas the Kurds with. Focus on North Korea and Iran. Prioritize.

|6.16.05 @ 10:36AM|#

Our armed forces exist to defend our nation, not galavant around the globe making life better for various foreign countries.

That's really the crux of the issue, isn't it? If you beleive in nation-building, even a little bit, then the invasion of Iraq could well be worth the cost eventually. Does it really surprise me that yet another President has lied, that the American people bought and paid for it, and that kids are dying for it? Of course not.

If you believed, as the Bush Admin did, that the invasion of Iraq was of paramount importance to the future of the US and the world, what would you do to sell it to the American people? The issue for me is not that they lied or misled us, but why they believed it was so important and proper in the first place.

|6.16.05 @ 10:41AM|#

Stretch, if I believed having an Iraq war was essential for the future of America, I'd have reasons for that belief. I wouldn't have to make up reasons, because I'd have actual reasons to try to convince people of.

|6.16.05 @ 10:46AM|#

If you have to lie to win support for your cause, you should consider the real possibility that your cause isn't worth supporting.

|6.16.05 @ 10:52AM|#

"If you have to lie to win support for your cause, you should consider the real possibility that your cause isn't worth supporting"

Somehow medical marijuana comes to mind when I hear stuff like that.

David Woycechowsky|6.16.05 @ 10:52AM|#

Those of you with 20/20 hindsight, what would you have us do?

Whatever is to be done should be done with a lot less secrecy than the Iraq War was. All of that extreme secrecy did not keep our ships afloat, did not save the lives of US/Brit military personnel, did not minimize collateral damage and did not keep Saddam and his sons from slipping away. All the secrecy did was to prevent meaningful debate about the Iraq War before said war was, errrr, sure as shit.

Perceptive readers will note that a new character enters at this point. His name is Lurking Irony. She is having trouble squaring all of this anti-democratic secrecy with the justification for the Iraq War that the administration seems to have finally settled on.

David Woycechowsky|6.16.05 @ 10:53AM|#

S/he's also having some gender confusion issues apparently.

|6.16.05 @ 11:02AM|#

I think Joe's got it right and Tim's missing the point. Yes, there is nothing new in the memos for people who have been paying attention. Most of the war hawks knew that WMD was not the primary reason we were invading and so don't see why it's a big deal if we were cherry-picking intelligence to support the program. I agree that the Bush team probably did sincerely believe that Sadaam had some kind of weapons program, (personally I'm shocked how little we've found in Iraq so far). But the reason the left wants these memos talked about is because this not "old news" to 80% of the American people. Most Americans don't pay attention every day, they assumed Saddaam represented a clear and present danger and that there was some 9/11 connection. These are the same people who are now getting increasingly disillusioned with American troops dying in a war most people thought was won last year (wasn't the whole point to get Saddam? We did that already). As it becomes clearer and clearer to the average American that the Bush adminstration was really pursuing a utopian scheme to remake the Middle East, and not just taking out a repugnant dictator, the greater the rift is going to grow between traditional conservatives and the President's supporters. Media elites like Kinsley want to stop this discussion now because it raises uncomfortable questions about what a poor job the press really did in the months leading up to the war.

|6.16.05 @ 11:07AM|#

Why isn't anyone commenting on the real news to come out this week? Apparently, we're really fighting terrorists in Iraq! Saudis, Syrians, Iranians, you name it, jihadists everywhere are dying to go to Iraq. That beats the shit out of them coming here. GI Joe in a Humvee has a hell of a better shot at extinguishing them than Joe Sixpack on his couch. As far as WMD, If Kahn hadn't already sold Saddam the bomb, he surely would have eventually.

David Woycechowsky|6.16.05 @ 11:09AM|#

Why isn't anyone commenting on the real news to come out this week? Apparently, we're really fighting terrorists in Iraq! Saudis, Syrians, Iranians, you name it, jihadists everywhere are dying to go to Iraq.

How many of them are jihadists because of the Iraq War. If we create more than we kill its a net loss. A possibility to consider here.

|6.16.05 @ 11:11AM|#

If in fact it was possible to do so much with picutures that are so accurate that you can read licence plates with, why is there still crime in CA?

But they can take pictures and see what you are doing? They can't see everything all the time. They can't know what is in a container. They can't know anything that is going on under a roof. (to a certain extent).

Kwais, to me the key difference is this: spotting my pool from outer space was the result (i hope) of random photo taking, or some kind of cartography project.

However, i think when your intel starts telling you "Hey that's WMD down there" you tend to focus in a little more on the area of activity you are interested in monitoring.

And while you ask why is there still crime in CA despite all the cameras Big Brah has installed there, my answer is: because there aren't enough cops watching enough cameras. But if you put a specific set of cameras on a specific area and assigned a team of cops to monitor those cameras, you would in fact be able to see the crime going on, and if you had cops stationed nearby, could call them to intervene. So I'm calling that argument inapposite; because the presence of a suspected WMD factory would, I hope, warrant specific focus and specific analysis by teams of people skilled in the art of analyzing that type of intel, instead of just continued random picture taking.

With all the technology and analysis, I believe our intel folks had to have been able AT LEAST ascertain a basic yes/no answer on the basic question: "so, any WMD's down there?"

I mean that's a 50/50 question even if you've never heard of Iraq and you were on Who Wants to Be a Millionaire and had to take a guess.

Maybe they might not have been able to tell if its sarin or VX gas in the canister. But ya should be able to tell if there's something wrong there. Too many chemical signatures, heat signatures involved in the making for them not to at least be able to be correct about the basic presence or absence of WMD.

So i guess my basic argument is: I don't believe our intel could possibly have been as wrong as what the difference between the admin's version of it, and the reality of it, was, given the resources, technology, and talent at hand.

|6.16.05 @ 11:12AM|#

I think a large part of the US public believe Osama when he says it is a battle between the Ummah and the west.

Some people on both sides of the conflict think of the Muslim �nation� as extending from the Atlantic coast of Africa to Southeast Asia, and of the Muslim government as the binding religion of that region. If this is the case, then we have pulled the teeth of the biggest threat in West Ummah, namely Libya, and we�ve invaded and set up military forces in the center of the area, namely Afghanistan and Iraq. Plus we�re waving the magical �democracy� and �freedom� banners around which we can get disaffected members of the Ummah, and throwing serious cash around to ensnare other members of the Ummah, thereby weakening the spiritual and morale control that Osama and the various Princes of the Ummah have.

Plus we�ve removed out troops from the holy province of Saudi Arabia and the leaders of those shrines have given us, if not a blessing, than at least not a curse.

As weird as it is, this IS how a lot of people think. If Bush went into Congress and said we needed to establish another beachhead in the central Ummah, he would have confused half the house and convinced the other half he�s crazy. Hence the need for the weapons of mass destruction rationale.

That�s also why a majority of the public don�t care about the Downing Street memos, they�re happy with the general direction the war against the Ummah is going and view the entire weapons of mass destruction as a PR ploy not for US consumption but for the Intellectuals in the Ummah. This is also why many people view folks on the left who call WoT supporters sheeple as being ignorant and unable to see the big picture.

|6.16.05 @ 11:13AM|#

James,

The flytrap theory is nice but Joe Sixpack might well ask if it wouldn't be a hell of a lot easier and cheaper to just not let Saudis, Syrians, Iranians, etc. come to the US. We're also doing the repressive governments of Syria, Saudia and Iran a favor by letting them export their more excitable and uncontrollable youth. We've replaced the Al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan with real time training in Iran. It's not an unmitigated blessing.

|6.16.05 @ 11:14AM|#

ok, so the first paragraph in my last post was NOT supposed to be there. i cut it out from the middle, intending to delete it completely, yet somehow i ended up pasting it... at the very beginning...

time for coffee..

|6.16.05 @ 11:18AM|#

Let's see: The French shoe is about to drop. Make that the French slipper.
Nobody is volunteering to fight this war because it's not worth fighting.
Seems like a tipping point here to me.

dagny|6.16.05 @ 11:19AM|#

Not that this proves anything one way or another, but how exactly do you spot a WMD factory from a plane? Because I've seen a number of factories and the only way I've ever been able to tell what they manufacture without going outside is if they have a sign out front that says something like "GM parts plant". So what do you expect, a big flashy sign that says "Weapons of Mass Destruction, Inc. Mass Distruction in under an hour or your money back! Lots of weapons here!" ?

|6.16.05 @ 11:26AM|#

Vanya, If they come here, it will only take a couple of explosions to create a panic that will likely cost trillions of dollars in lost economic activity. I'm happy spending hundreds of billions over there to avoid that catastrophy. As far as training, it doesn't require too much "realtime" training to latch up a bomb belt.

|6.16.05 @ 11:26AM|#

As weird as it is, this IS how a lot of people think.

And you know this how?

drf|6.16.05 @ 11:33AM|#

Dagny Dagny Dagny...

sigh.

Peter Arnett has already explained this to us: factories either have "BABY FOOD FACTORY" written on them, or they are used for agriculture. Sometimes they make chocolate.

mmmmm. chocolate.

|6.16.05 @ 11:34AM|#

Worm,
I think you vastly overestimate the ability of gathering intel from photographs, and the amount of Intelligence analysts that it takes to cover a country like Iraq.

Do you think we know where all the nuke facilities are in Iran? That is a much much easier thing to find from outer space. You can make chemical weapons in your house and no one would know by looking at pitures of you from outside.

David W,
1 if we left Iraq alone, we would be doing a lot worse in Afghanistan and the war on terror.
2 If we left Iraq alone, we would give another Somalia type signal to the jihadists. I believe it was the weakness percieved from our actions in Somalia that led them to commit 9/11. We would be signalling to them that we are ripe for the taking.
3 The number of Jihadists is the same before Iraq as after, they are focusing on Iraq, where they may not have a focus without the Iraq war. But still, they are focused on Iraq. All the countries involved are thinking that they don't want to be the next Iraq.

Maybe we should have invaded Iran instead, I am not sure. But we had to invade one of them to have a chance in this war, and we were alread at war with Iraq.

jimmy|6.16.05 @ 11:35AM|#

300,000 iraqis killed by saddam really didn't care much about WMDs or whether bush was lying. holocaust victims really didn't care much about whether FDR tricked us into WWII either. would the america-haters prefer to have simply waited around for another 300,000 to be killed?

|6.16.05 @ 11:37AM|#

And yet, dagny, that is exactly how the United States, Britain, and the United Nations inspectors succeeded in completely eliminating Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities during the 1990s.

Sorry you don't get how it works.

David Woycechowsky|6.16.05 @ 11:39AM|#

Those of you with 20/20 hindsight, what would you have us do?

Take the money to be spent on the Iraq War and use it to fund alternative energy research, as a matter of national security, as a defense item. For example, it sure would be nice to be in a position to liquidate the strategic oil reserves.

If any of the money is left, then pay down the deficit.

Boy, Kwais, you raise an excellent question!

David Woycechowsky|6.16.05 @ 11:41AM|#

Kwais,
Meanwhile North Korea got tha bomb. Your priorities are screwed.

|6.16.05 @ 11:42AM|#

Ruthless,
What do you mean? Do you mean that no one is volunteering in our armed services, because of the failure to meet recruitment goals?

If so then you are mistaken. The Marine Corps and the Army are falling short in their recruitment goals over all, but are but they are falling short in the support roles. They have too many volunteers for the combat arms roles.

IMO, The people that join during war time want to fight, and the people that join during peacetime want their college paid for.

They just need to rethink how they run their buisness.

David Woycechowsky|6.16.05 @ 11:43AM|#

By the way, if we were in a position to liquidate the strategic reserves, we would also be in a better position to effectively eliminate trouble makers in the Mid East, if u kno what I mean.

David Woycechowsky|6.16.05 @ 11:44AM|#

By the way, if we were in a position to liquidate the strategic reserves, the terrorists would probably have less money to spend on yellow cake.

|6.16.05 @ 11:45AM|#

kwais,

And yet, during the Clinton adminstration, without a ground invasion, the United States and the United Nations succeeded in completely demolishing Iraq's WMD capabilities.

And yes, I'm going to keep writing the same post, for as long as people continue to make the argument that only a ground invasion could have prevented the Iraqi government from threatening us with ABC weapons.

|6.16.05 @ 11:50AM|#

David,
I really think that if we had discovered an alternative fuel prior to 9/11, even if we had, 9/11 would still have happened.

If we discover alternative fuel tomorrow, the war won't end tommorrow. Pulling out of Iraq and pretending that it isn't there wont help either.

Without Saddam having oil resources to buy weapons he would indeed have an obstacle to overcome. But all of that is wishfull thinking anyways.

If it is all a matter of funding, stop all welfare, stop all SS payments, stop the war on drugs ect ect ect...But if there is one valid use of taxpayer money IMO it is Defense.

David Woycechowsky|6.16.05 @ 11:52AM|#

By the way, if we were in a position to liquidate the strategic reserves, we probably wouldn't have to worry about tensions within the US that will ensue when the oil runs out.

|6.16.05 @ 11:52AM|#

kwais,

Why would we be doing worse in Afghanistan if troops, resources, and attention hadn't been diverted to Iraq? Is this some kind of "too many cooks" theory?

No one wanted to "leave Iraq alone." If the situation had been as Bush said it was in 2002/2003 (and not as it really was, as laid out in the Downing Street Memo), and we were interested in resolving the WMD/Inspections issue without an invasion, we could have done so. We had inspectors on the ground, and a credible threat of military force to compel cooperation. (Exactly the situation that existed during Bill Clinton's presidency, when the United States and the UN successfully cooperated to eliminate completely the threat of Iraqi WMDs).

"The number of Jihadists is the same before Iraq as after, they are focusing on Iraq." And you know this, how? Because invading a country and killing scores of thousands of its people doesn't result in others joining up to fight the invaders?

drf|6.16.05 @ 11:53AM|#

Joe:

a quick clarification: when exactly did Iraq pose a threat to the US? with ABC weapons or not?

just askin'

(ducking the fuel i just poured on the fire)

grin.

|6.16.05 @ 11:55AM|#

David W,
North Korea is a whole nother topic, supposing Iraq was the right and inevitable thing to do, would you have us invade N. Korea simultaneously?

I don't really have an answer for you in N. Korea, except that they seem to be doing a moderate job of unfucking the mess that Madeline Notso Bright left.

|6.16.05 @ 11:56AM|#

drf,

For a brief period in the 1990s, Iraq continued to have chem and bio weapons, as well as ongoing chem, bio, and atomic programs. Whether this constituted a microscopic, tiny, or just plain small threat to us is a matter of opinion, but it was still worth eliminating that threat while we were in the neighborhood.

David Woycechowsky|6.16.05 @ 11:56AM|#

What I am saying Kwais is that I am thinking of the long run. You seem to be thinking about the short run. As such, I think my strategy is better over the long run.

Frankly, I don't mind a couple 9/11's in the short run, if the long range result is that another World War or Civil War is avoided. In both absolute and relative terms more Americans seem to die in these big wars than from terrorist attacks, even spectacularly successful attacks. Prioritize.

|6.16.05 @ 11:57AM|#

I have to agree with David on making alternative energy sources a matter for the Department of Defense, with a chunk of the GNP spent on it.

If there wasn't a need for oil no one would give a hoot about what happened in the ME.

Maybe there are some secret designs in the works?

David Woycechowsky|6.16.05 @ 11:58AM|#

I think North Korea could have been bought and paid for with what we are ending up spending on the Iraq War.

|6.16.05 @ 12:01PM|#

Joe,
I remember when I went to the church of the almight Clinton savior of America, and they talked about some of the stuff you mention.
Except that Clinton said himself unto his people, "Saddam has weapons of Mass destruction, and the man needs to be stopped" I reread his bible, and I didn't see the quote "Y'all can lift the sanctions now, I have fixed the problem that was Iraq"

Oh well I must just be a non believer.

Not to mention the fact that the policies that he was partaking of was a cruel injustice to the people of Iraq.

Neither here nor there about when he used the US military to bomb a medicine factory to avert the public's attention from a cum stain on a dress about to become public.

|6.16.05 @ 12:03PM|#

"Frankly, I don't mind a couple 9/11's in the short run, if the long range result is that another World War or Civil War is avoided."

Then you shouldn't mind Iraq and Afghanistan, either.

|6.16.05 @ 12:04PM|#

"The Marine Corps and the Army are falling short in their recruitment goals over all, but are but they are falling short in the support roles. They have too many volunteers for the combat arms roles."

So kwais, has a media conspiracy made us unaware of your fact?

|6.16.05 @ 12:05PM|#

David,
"I think North Korea could have been bought and paid for with what we are ending up spending on the Iraq War."

Yeah, unfortunately you aren't the only one who came up with that logic. When you pay ransom, you are subsidizing kidnappers, when you pay money to Nuclear threats to keep quiet, you are subsidizing nuclear threats.

|6.16.05 @ 12:07PM|#

kwais,

Saddam did have weapons of mass destruction. He did need to be stopped. That's why Clinton destroyed his weapons of mass destruction, and stopped him.

Which you apparently disapprove of, because he seems to have hit the wrong target on a single occasion. I'm curious, when you and your comrades come home (safely and soon, Inshallah), should we hold you to the same standard?

|6.16.05 @ 12:07PM|#

Adam,

Ha! ; )

...You gotta understand, at one point or another, I've caught it all!

|6.16.05 @ 12:18PM|#

It was on Armed forces radio, and in the Marine Corp Times. They both might have been lying, I can't tell for sure. I haven't spoke to a recruiter, or seen any TV in a couple of months, so I couldn't tell you about who is lying.

What I originally said makes sense to me though. I have friends, and friends sons who have been asking about joining the Corps and they all want infantry.

When I went to join during the first gulf war, the Marine recuiters werent that exited because of the surplus, after the war there was no such surplus.

Marine Grunts are getting experience that most Marines haven't been able to claim in a career prior to this conflict. I know snipers and recon Marines who got out prior to the conflict, and are trying to get back in, and the recruiters cannot promise them that they won't have a pogue job.

Being a pogue would suck. You are in Iraq, in the hot ass, dusty, smelly, awful food, suck, just like the grunts. But unlike the grunts, the pogues rarely leave the base. And even thought unlike the grunts the pogues have 1 woman per 100 dudes (where the grunts have none) the women generally want to be with a grunt, or a contractor.

If you are a pogue, you might get convoy security, which I don't think is that bad, but many of them dread it.

That is just my take.

drf|6.16.05 @ 12:22PM|#

Hi Joe:

yup.

and Joe and Kwais:

even the Cato institute was worried about WMDs in the late 90s

http://www.cato.org/pubs/fpbriefs/fpb51.pdf
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-306.pdf

David Woycechowsky|6.16.05 @ 12:26PM|#

Well, we have a philosophical disagreement here Kwais. I think that autonomous nations have the right to develop whatever defenses they want. If teh US doesn't want this to happen, then itt is only fair for the US to pay for that preference. That is not extortion. Thats fair trade.

To that other person: You miss my point. I wish we had spent the money we spent on Iraq on avoiding the bigger conflicts by doing things like buying N. Korea and developing alt energy. However, the money was spent in Iraq instead, so we are not following my plan, we are not avoiding the larger conflicts and I am not ok with it.

|6.16.05 @ 12:26PM|#

It has occurred to me that Bush's approach in the War on Terror has been the same as his approach in the 2004 election: focus on the base, not the undecideds.

He's concentrated on acting like a badass, for the benefit of his own base of supporters, and in an attempt to intimidate the terrorist base of hardliners.

I think this is a mistake, in that we should be more concerned about not turning undecideds towards siding with the terrorists and taking up their fight against us.

|6.16.05 @ 12:27PM|#

Joe,
I don't think that Clinton destroyed all of his weapons of mass destruction. I could be wrong. I think that if he did indeed have them, he shipped them to Syria, or buried them somewher and we haven't found them.

I have seen civilians take bullets and bombs intended for me, but I am pretty sure that I have not killed anyone I wasn't supposed to.

But that is not the point, the point is the reason he ordered the inefectual airstrike, that only seemed to embolden our enemies.

David Woycechowsky|6.16.05 @ 12:30PM|#

As far as Afghanistan: like the comedian said, even Nader would have bombed Afghanistan. I am open to the possibility that we are spending more in Afghanistan than we need to be and that we are getting a poor security ROI on the dollars now being spent there.

|6.16.05 @ 12:32PM|#

Jon H,
I don't think that we are turning any undecideds into terrorists in the large picture.

In the small picture, it could be that some Army unit is proving to be an easy target, or some Iraqi civilians are proving to be an easy target so some hoodlums are deciding to be terrorists. But in the large picture, in the larger area, the effect is negligable.

|6.16.05 @ 12:35PM|#

Why do you have to sell a war if you have "sound" reasons for going to war? Simple. A large part of the USA does not have the will(and a good thing too, imo) to support spending billions of dollars and losing thousands of American lives (and more) for an overarching strategy that will take literally decades to show any results, good or bad. You need an immediate threat, and WMD's coupled with Sadaam Insane seemed plausible enough, at least in the short run. And at this point many (if not most) of those who were/are against the war have trouble supporting the cut-and-run option that will leave a country in turmoil we created.

I say mission accomplished. We're now stuck and no amount of bitching can reverse that. My point is that any lying is secondary to the attitude and thinking that allows any administration to categorically disregard the ideals and welfare of many of its citizens for what I consider to be a strategic longshot.

Do I agree with going to war with Iraq? No. Can I understand the broader implications that led us there? Sure. Will this lead to a stable and largely peaceful ME? Maybe, but it's doubtful. Especially considering that the touch-and-go work, whether military or diplomatic, will need to continue for the next 2, 3 administrations and beyond. IMO, that leaves too much to chance.

Adam|6.16.05 @ 12:37PM|#

One last thought - it seems to me that the anti-war crowd has been obsessed with Bush but has failed to give Congress a similar beating about the head for abdicating their responsibility to debate and declare or not declare war. Why oh why does Congress get off the hook for a war you folks find mistaken while Bush takes the heat? Did you all really believe John Kerry when he said that Bush "mislead" Congress? Are you that gullible?

David Woycechowsky|6.16.05 @ 12:41PM|#

Adam:
Why do you think we have congregated around this *non-partisan* watercooler? Just being here is a tacit statement that we get your point.

David Woycechowsky|6.16.05 @ 12:50PM|#

Oh, and I think that Tim misses the point for a different reason:
I think the Downing Street memo will have little impact at this late date not because it is so tame or cumulative or whatever. I think it will have little impact because people have a hard time admitting they were wrong.

|6.16.05 @ 12:56PM|#

kwais,

"I think that if he did indeed have them, he shipped them to Syria, or buried them somewher and we haven't found them." As opposed to using them to prevent the toppling of his regime, the destruction of his life's work, the occupation of his homeland by a nation he hates, and his own capture, trial and execution?

"I don't think that we are turning any undecideds into terrorists in the large picture."

I never joined the service. I loath and detest the Baathists and Taliban, but I've never been motivated to put my ass on the line to do anything about them. However, if members of my family were killed by the Iraqi military, or if a friend of mine was disappeared and tortured, I can imagine myself taking every available opportunity to kill any Iraqi soldiers I could get a clean shot at. I can even imagine, if I'd seen toom much horror, putting on a bomb vest and taking a bunch of them with me as I put myself out of my misery.

I don't think this mindset is unique to me - I'm not a particularly bloodthirsty person. Ask anyone. Why don't you think youngish men in Iraq would respond in the same way?

|6.16.05 @ 1:03PM|#

A fairy tale, as inspired by a comment from Ruthless on another thread.

The elderly were frightened and demanded protection. But where are the troops to protect us? "Draft 'em all!", cried the old folk.

Social Security will fail by 2020. But what are we to do? "Kill all the geezers!", cried our youth. And with their new-found military/killing skills they could not fail.

After the Slaughter of the Useless, 'Merica was born anew, and prosperity was the good fortune of all (of the survivers).

Nighty-night, sweet'ums. Sleep well for tomorrow you will be drafted.

gaius marius|6.16.05 @ 1:13PM|#

If the common people only understood�if they would just attend to our media, read our books, empurple over our pet outrages�surely the scales would fall from their eyes.

i find this particularly funny coming from a libertarian magazine. :)

fyodor|6.16.05 @ 1:13PM|#

kwais,

I don't think that we are turning any undecideds into terrorists in the large picture.

I believe one of the Reason staffers, maybe Julian, satirized that POV once with a blog headline that read: "No Marginal Terrorists." And that pretty much sums it up for me. Since anyone who know anything about anything should know there's marginal everything. I notice you don't backup your, uh, thought. One could, I suppose, argue that the deterrence we are creating to terrorism outweighs the added emotional incentives we are creating, and there'd be no way of knowing for sure, but to just glibly dismiss the possibility that our actions encourage terrorist recruitment is, well, glib. And not a very serious position.

|6.16.05 @ 1:13PM|#

Chad wrote:

If Iraq is clearly a worse place because of the war in March 2013 than it was in March 2003, I will apologize pubically for my support for the war. How many of the anti-war crowd is willing to make the reverse promise? Let history be the judge.

Will you really apologize pubically? How about you do it publicly so everyone can see?

David Woycechowsky|6.16.05 @ 1:17PM|#

F:
Do you really think we should be marginally increasing the number of margins? Isn't there some kind of infinite regression risk in that? :7)

fyodor|6.16.05 @ 1:22PM|#

Chad,

If Iraq is clearly a worse place because of the war in March 2013 than it was in March 2003, I will apologize pubically for my support for the war.

Will you apologize to all the Americans and Iraqis who were killed or wounded or had their property destroyed as a result of your support for a decision in which they had no say, regardless?

People who glibly (I'm on a "glib" kick today!) say the war was worth the costs generally leave out of their calculus that the costs were and are being borne by others. Only absolute necessity for survival justifies placing such costs on others.

fyodor|6.16.05 @ 1:26PM|#

David W,

The marginal benefits of marginal thinking are marginally better than margarine. At least that's what the notes I scribbled in my margin say.

|6.16.05 @ 1:29PM|#

My town has a road called "Marginal Street."

"So, is your neighborhood nice?"

"Eh..."

|6.16.05 @ 1:35PM|#

fyodor,

That was exactly the point I was planning to make before being sidetracked into glibness by Chad's typo. Thanks.

|6.16.05 @ 1:35PM|#

Bush was spinning. The anti-war crowd was spinning.

I subscribe to the quaint notion that the burden of proof should be on the pro-war crowd.

Peter K.|6.16.05 @ 1:48PM|#

You mean *the* Massey Prenup? It is kind of funny to see the anti-war folks scream that the DSM is as ironclad as the Massey Prenup. Sounds a lot like when the Shiite Baptist dittoheads go on and on about one of their pet causes and spin to an unbelievable degree.

I'd see more to this if British intellegence chief Dearlove had the opinion that regime change would happen *even if Saddam compied with what was required of him and the Baathists.*

Maybe some of you know-it-alls feel it wasn't fair to treat Saddam this way, to actually demand he behave in a certain way and maybe you believe the US acted like some sort of vigilante Batman. Maybe you felt "more time was needed." By reelecting Bush, I think the vaunted "American people" didn't agree with you.

But it's a fact supported by the testimony of some of Saddam's henchman that for whatever reason, he wanted his neighbors and the world to the think he had WMDs. That's why he didn't come clean. Did he think Bush was bluffing? Who knows and who cares.

Tim's wrong in one respect besides his view that the war a mistake.

"The majority of American voters understand it too, and they re-elected Bush handily and have yet to turn solidly against the war in Iraq. "

They have sort of turned against the war and want to bring the troops home and leave the hapless Iraqis to fend for themselves. I think it's like 60 percent in a recent poll. Meanwhile Bush and company fillibuster by changing the subject and talking about Social Security ad nauseum.

Funny thing is, privatizing Social Security and leaving the Iraqis to descend into civil war both bespeak a "I want mine and Hell take the hindmost" attitude and ethos.

|6.16.05 @ 1:51PM|#

Fydor,
"And not a very serious position."

The other position being; lets not defend ourselves, that would make them mad, and then we would need more defending than before.

|6.16.05 @ 1:56PM|#

fyodor
If Chad has to apologize to everyone harmed by the war does that mean that anti-war types need to apologize to all the victims of the peace? Lots of people suffered and died due to sanctions according to Amnesty Internation.

|6.16.05 @ 1:57PM|#

Joe, your excuses don't cut it. Your meaning is that you will only fight in a war that YOU approve of. In another simpler time you would have been labeled as a (insert primitive hateful speech here). Nowadays you just come across as a (insert modern hateful speech).

|6.16.05 @ 2:03PM|#

Joe,
"As opposed to using them to prevent the toppling of his regime"

come on man! because any chemichal and biological weapons he had could stop the US military right? The generals would all be "oh, we hadn't thought of that one"

Those weapons are practically useless against the US military unless you caught us by surprise. Those weapons are good against a Saudi Arabi, Iran, or some other third world nation. Or as a terrorist weapon against the US public, but they wont stop the US military.

And as to your second point;
Are you going to go and put a bomb vest on and get some retribution if the DEA kills some of your family by accident?

David Woycechowsky|6.16.05 @ 2:05PM|#

apologize to all the victims of the peace?

I think the idea is that there were survival justifications back when Saddam was in his Kurd gassing phase.

It is sad that the sanctions didn't sunset in tandem with the gas we sold him.

drf|6.16.05 @ 2:06PM|#

And Jack:

the point seems to be that 1) what thoreau said (burden of proof on the pro war side) and 2) war hawks support this war and approve of it. how often have we heard the "no nation building" proejcts from many of the right wing (i'd rather not say "conservative" for not wanting to insult Goldwater conservatives out there)?

The point is that both sides use exactly that argumentation that you note. Neither side will admit wrongdoing. And those who did expect the case for war to be made and demonstrated are still waiting, while glib "i'll gladly apologize" statements (talk about a really fucking dumb statement) fly around. And those who were against the war for anti bush reasons will never change their minds. it's reasonable to expect the pro war crowd to give good argumentation for it.

for the record: i was against, but since we did attack, i had expected to find actual WMDS (maybe stockpiles?) in amounts that nobody would quibble about. instead we have people believing that we found some, and we have an official report stating there were none. for me, the war was not justified based on their case they gave. and from a cost-benefit point of view, i do not see it as being beneficial, either.

Godwin's Law indeed.

(insert primitive exit to letter)
(insert modern HTML)

drf

|6.16.05 @ 2:18PM|#

If Chad has to apologize to everyone harmed by the war does that mean that anti-war types need to apologize to all the victims of the peace? Lots of people suffered and died due to sanctions according to Amnesty Internation.

First of all, Chad was the one who promised to offer an apology and I believe fyodor was just pointing out how pointless and empty that offer was. Second, one of the anti-war crowds' core causes from the end of Gulf War I to the run-up to Gulf War II was the lifting of UN sanctions in Iraq for precisely the reasons you mention. It makes me sick whenever the Iraq crusade is draped in compassion and humanitarianism. It's just too shameless and cynical for me to stomach.

|6.16.05 @ 2:19PM|#

David,
I am not totally sure, but I don't think that it was us that sold him the gas. I know that we did sell him some stuff, but I haven't seen any American gear in Iraq.

David Woycechowsky|6.16.05 @ 2:23PM|#

Whether or not we sold him gas, we certainly went through a phase where we encouraged his acquisition of same.

. . .and you know me by now -- I don't think or I are in a position to know if we truly sold him gas.

|6.16.05 @ 2:24PM|#

One last thought - it seems to me that the anti-war crowd has been obsessed with Bush but has failed to give Congress a similar beating about the head for abdicating their responsibility to debate and declare or not declare war.

Hear, hear!

People who glibly (I'm on a "glib" kick today!) say the war was worth the costs generally leave out of their calculus that the costs were and are being borne by others. Only absolute necessity for survival justifies placing such costs on others.

Amen!

Chad, since when are foreign wars, at the vast expense of American lives and dollars, judged by their ability to make those foreign places better off? How many lives, and how much money, is it worth to "make Iraq a better place"? There are plenty of places around the world that could use a good fixin-up, but that's not a reason to go a-nationbuildin'.

Hallelujah, brother!

You mean *the* Massey Prenup?

Yes, the Massey Prenup!

drf|6.16.05 @ 2:24PM|#

Matty:

not only is AI an evil organization, think back to Vietnam and all of the apologists there. Or think about the cover of life magazine the "Nice and Clean" where US hippies not only minimized NVA torgure, they justified it. And they did it in the name of "peace".

Ramsey Clark et al apologizing for the soviets.

You are right that those lefty "peace" (read: anti US) types most certainly supported the most evil of institutions of the 20th century, the USSR.

The Iraqi crusade for many on the left and right represents, by proxy, a crapload of things. Pro and Anti US power. Pro and Anti Israel. Pro and Anti UN. Pro and Anti Globalization. Hell, we could probably fit abortion in there somehow.

Whenever the dogmatic types on either side, most of whom wouldn't admit they're fundies (including the one who accuses me of wanting a "libertarian dictatorship based on natural rights and the US Constitution" -- he actually said that!!!!!), start masking the furthering of their over-zealot agendae in the pleasant disguise of compassion or humanitarianism (environmentalism, women's rights, for cute, fuzzy animals, etc), I'll join you in a mass puke that would be worthy of Gary in TEAM AMERICA (fuck yeah)

cheers,
drf

David Woycechowsky|6.16.05 @ 2:26PM|#

I do think the probability that we sold him a powerful gamma ray weapon is vanishingly small, tho.

|6.16.05 @ 2:30PM|#

kwais,

"because any chemichal and biological weapons he had could stop the US military right?" As opposed to the Fedayeen Saddam, SRGs, Republican Guards, and regular army forces he did use? Yes, I believe that Saddam would have considered chemical and atomic weapons to be quite useful in a fight agains an invading army. The use of chemical, or worse, weapons against large, hemmed in formations in the Kuwaiti staging areas was a major concern of American war planners, espeically given how effectively they were used, on occasion, against Iranians.

I don't know how I would react is my family was killed by DEA agents. I might well become violent. However, those agents would be from the same country as me, and I haven't spent my life listening to my religious and civic leaders calling for the death of DEA agents.

|6.16.05 @ 2:31PM|#

Your getting silly on me David

drf|6.16.05 @ 2:32PM|#

"nd I haven't spent my life listening to my religious and civic leaders calling for the death of DEA agents."

obviously, you didn't go to hillsdale :)

fyodor|6.16.05 @ 2:46PM|#

First, who said Tim C was allowed to get so happy!?! :-)

Next, to Matt, Chad & David W, my point was primarily that those who add up the costs and benefits of the war usually talk about the "costs" as if they were bearing these costs themselves when in fact they are being borne by others who did not necessarily volunteer for such sacrifice, and I include US service people, as they were not exactly consulted on the decision to go to war. That these costs were thrust on these people directly by our actions makes it different morally from what might be perceived as "allowing" costs to be borne under dictatorial regimes, which, need I remind Chad, we do every day of every year. Gonna apologize to the victims of the peace in Myanmar for not invading to remove that brutal regime, while we're on an apologizing kick?

David Woycechowsky|6.16.05 @ 2:53PM|#

Do you think it would have been okay for us to use the US military to stop the Kurd gassing had we been so inclined?

|6.16.05 @ 3:27PM|#

"The Marine Corps and the Army are falling short in their recruitment goals over all, but are but they are falling short in the support roles. They have too many volunteers for the combat arms roles."

That is an interesting little bit of nuance, kwais. Thank you for mentioning it. Especially in light of the editorials that say, "Support for Bush's war in Iraq are fading; the armed forces are unable to find enough recruits to make their quotas." So plenty of guys are eager to fight; they just aren't motivated by the prospect of sitting in the rear with the gear? Huh, kind of like the Vietnam era in reverse. If this goes on, we'll have to resort to forced busing of young men to Canada.

Ruthless: "So kwais, has a media conspiracy made us unaware of your fact?"

I suspect it's because very few eager young Woodward and Bernstein wannabes are busting their humps trying to build a career on such headlines as Situation More Complicated, Perhaps Not Nearly as Alarming as we Originally Reported, and Contradicts Positions Taken by Our Editorial Writers.

fyodor|6.16.05 @ 3:42PM|#

David W,

Sigh, such questions ignore the reality of...reality, and thus get us into messes like Iraq. On a certain level, sure, if I could volunteer other people to put their lives at risk to save hundreds of thousands whom we had no obligation to protect, yeah, maybe I would do it. It would still be wrong on a certain level too. Unfortunately, choices like that are rarely so clear cut in the real world. So in practical, real world terms, no, it would not have been okay to order our armed forces to invade Iraq because we heard a rumor that a mass murder might be about to take place. Sucks when the rumor turns out to be true for those at the receiving end, but I think that respecting sovereignty and individual rights and the limits of military might makes for a better world overall.

|6.16.05 @ 5:21PM|#

Ann Coulter,

I did not read your book so I did not know what I said below was very similar to what you wrote, sorry.

"I'm confused here, maybe those of you that say Bush lied about the WMD can explain this to me.

On one hand you are saying Bush is an evil genius mastermind who used the fear of WMDs he knew did not exist to fool all of the worried sheep into supporting invading Iraq.

On the other hand, if this is true Bush must actually be one dumb SOB because after invading Iraq for reasons he knew were false, he did not have enough smarts to plant enough WMDs in Iraq to justify the invasion.

It seems to me the two options are mutually exclusive. Would someone please explain this to me?"

fyodor|6.16.05 @ 5:56PM|#

It seems to me the two options are mutually exclusive. Would someone please explain this to me?

He knew he'd have folks like you to explain it all away by asking that question!

Or he figured no one would care. If that rhetorical question is all we have to go on to explain away what otherwise seems plainly obvious, he was evidently right. Well, him or whoever actually makes his decisions.

|6.16.05 @ 6:01PM|#

Evan Williams you said this regarding Bush and his reasons for going to war.

"More like he was banking on finding WMD's that he had no idea were there or not."

This to me is the crux of the disagreement between those who opposed the war and those of us who supported it. It is impossible to tell if a country has WMD on the ground without having free and open access to that country.

9/11 taught us that there was no way to keep terrorists and their tools out of the country. The TSA's continuing laughable performance and our open borders demonstrate this on a daily basis.

Anyone with open eyes can drive around any city and see places where hundreds if not thousands of deaths could be caused using relatively simple weapons. Add a bioweapon or chemical weapon to the mix and the amount of deaths would go up substantially.

In that environment we had Iraq, who had possessed and used WMD, who was hostile to the US, who was not allowing inspectors to search for WMD as required by the agreements that ended the first gulf war. Given those conditions allowing saddam to stay in power would have been absolutely insane.

|6.16.05 @ 6:30PM|#

TJIT-

I think you made the best, most honest case for invading Iraq. I'm not sure that I agree, but I think your argument is compelling enough to deserve consideration.

The problem is that it's largely based on unknowns--some risks are unacceptable. But what if our leaders knew more than us, and the evidence available to them tipped against Iraq having WMD? Certainly not enough evidence to be completely certain, but what if the most likely scenario was that Iraq didn't have WMD?

No prudent policy-maker can insist on zero risk (a world with zero risk is unachievable, despite the best--or worst--efforts of lefties). So a policy-maker needs to set a threshold. For some things a very low threshold might be appropriate, but there should always be a threshold.

And whatever that threshold is, leaders should be honest in reporting the risks. That doesn't mean they should necessarily tell us everything ("...and Dr. Abdul Jaffari of the Baghdad Institue for Nuclear Physics has been passing us secret data for several years now..."). But they should never deliberately deceive the people who vote and pay taxes. In a Republic, we are their bosses!

|6.16.05 @ 6:32PM|#

Finally, given how much is at stake when a nation goes to war, it would be absolutely insane to entrust such important decisions to people who have no qualms about deceiving the public.

|6.16.05 @ 6:58PM|#

"Finally, given how much is at stake when a nation goes to war, it would be absolutely insane to entrust such important decisions to people who have no qualms about deceiving the public."

Well that leaves out every politician ever.

|6.16.05 @ 6:59PM|#

thoreau,

Thanks for the well thought reply.

|6.16.05 @ 7:04PM|#

"Finally, given how much is at stake when a nation goes to war, it would be absolutely insane to entrust such important decisions to people who have no qualms about deceiving the public."

Indeed. I remember when being a Republican was supposed to mean that.

I applauded the Bush Administration when they took the White House--I just knew they would restore some integrity to the office. How disappointing.

...Having read through this thread, I think I was, at least partially, wrong earlier--there are still plenty of people who haven't come to terms with what the Bush Administration did. ...and the more attention this memo receives, the more likely those people are to "get" it.

|6.16.05 @ 7:57PM|#

Thanks, Fyodor. I have been back and forth on that question I asked you. Your answer is convincing to me.

|6.17.05 @ 3:55PM|#

kwais writes: ""The Marine Corps and the Army are falling short in their recruitment goals over all, but are but they are falling short in the support roles. They have too many volunteers for the combat arms roles.""

If you sign up as a tech, there's no guarantee you'll end up as one. The military will put you where they need you, regardless of what preference you expressed at the recruiting station.

|6.17.05 @ 4:02PM|#

joe writes: "My town has a road called "Marginal Street.""

I guess that's what happens when your town planners are stuck using notebook paper.

Reason.com