A Damning Argument, but… What's That Behind You?!?

In response to Paul O'Neill's recent revelation that the Bush Adminsitration began planning the ouster of Saddam Hussein eight months before the 9/11 attacks, the folks at National Review Online have mounted a counterattack, which consists of observing that O'Neill is "a pompous, self-indulgent prima donna" (twice); that he "is considered a menace by those who want to trim federal spending"; that it "was his policy to charge people to attend the company Christmas party"; and that he was "a flake."

The bearing this has on the exploitation of a national tragedy to launch a war the administration wanted for independent reasons? (Cue Jeopardy music…)

Comments

[R. C. Dean]

Yawn. Another ersatz scandal. FYI, Clinton and the first Bush administration also had plans to invade Iraq and depose Saddam Hussein. So what? That just proves our military is doing its job by having contingency plans handy.

[Voxxy]

Julian: There is nothing to indicate that the administrated exploited "a national tragedy to launch a war the administration wanted for independent reasons" Planning to oust Saddam was going on since the Gulf War and became national policy with the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998, which, incidentally, passed the Senate unanimously. I would expect us to be working on plans to oust the North Korean, Syrian, Iranian and any other regime that is a threat. It would be irresponsible not to, although the plans concerning Khadaffi apparently can go on the backburner for now.

[Jean Bart]

Argumentum ad hominem, spiced with a little a Ad hominem tu quoque, and a dash of genetic fallacy.

[Jean Bart]

BTW, O'Neill is not charging that they had a "contingency plan" ready; he is charging that the plans were already set (there was nothing contingent about it at all in other words).

[Steve Skutnik]

It only figures that the folks at NR would repeatedly trash the only senior member of the Bush staff that actually advocated fiscal austerity. After all, balanced budgets are so 1994.

[R. C. Dean]

From the article:

?From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,? says O?Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.

?From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime,? says Suskind. ?Day one, these things were laid and sealed.?

As treasury secretary, O'Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as "Why Saddam?" and "Why now?" were never asked.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ?Go find me a way to do this,?" says O?Neill. ?For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap.?

Given the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act, this sounds like exactly what the administration should have been doing. You will note that ONeill never says it was all about invading Iraq under any pretext, but rather is careful to speak in generalities that are perfectly consistent with exploring sanctions, diplomacy, etc. as ways to accomplish regime change.

Like I said, ersatz. To that, let me add: spin. And: ultimately, ineffectual.

Way to crap all over your own personal legacy, Paul.

[John Q]

Let the defense of the idiot King begin! The robes having been pulled back with the O'Neill book, the public sees the Wizard of Crawford is a fraud! NRO must rush to assure us that he actually is a wizard --- or at least he is a Top Gun fighter pilot.

I'm not surprised by any of this. But I'm glad the truth is getting out to other Americans who've been deprived of inside information. Hailing from Pittsburgh myself, I've always liked Paul O'Neill. Like all of us, the man surely has his flaws but he is neither a flake nor a liar. Peiople on Wall Street know this very well.

[Jean Bart]

R.C. Dean,

Then why hasn't your President said this all along? Indeed, O'Neill's comments may be general; but they are specific enough to demonstrate, if true, that Bush was rather disingenuous when he said only after 9/11 did the Bush administration start planning (not meaning contingencies here, but top-level planning, that concerning the President, which slightly different than some mere plans drawn up for a possible future).

[Dan]

The bearing this has on the exploitation of a national tragedy to launch a war the administration wanted for independent reasons?

Like the United States' entry into World War II? 🙂

[Steve in CO]

In all seriousness, it looks as if 9/11 was the "pearl harbor," the PNAC/White House was wishing for all along ... hmmm.

Now where did I put that aluminum foil? Oh yeah, Paul O'Neill, former CEO of alcoa, see the connection? Just musing.

Seriously, it is all quite creepy to me. And the non-stop right wing echo chamber (fondly referred to as the Wurlitzer) is painting O'Neill as someone who obviously became Treasurary Secretary by accident.

🙂

[Mark]

(1) "9/11 changed everything! We must have pre-emptive war!"

(2) O'Neill reveals pre-9/11 plans.

(3) "Oh, yeah--we were planning that all along, everybody knew that; it's old news. And Paul O'Neill is a commie pinko bedwetter."

Welcome to the world of neo-conservative logic and veracity.

[Jon H]

Bizarre...

The BBC World Service just had a bit about O'Neill, with comment from a Democrat who was in the Clinton administration and a Republican pollster or something.

The Democrat was more critical of O'Neill than the Republican.

[Martin]

Paul, are you denying the historical gact that there was planning to remove Saddam in the Clinton administration? Are you denying that the Iraqi Liberation Act, passed in 1998, called for that? Then, what veracity question can there be about planning for his removal going on for years before 9/11?

[Jean Bart]

Martin,

The veracity question is why did Bush say such planning only started after 9/11? And as far as I can tell, the Iraqi Liberation Act was more a wish, desire, etc., than it was an act created to bring about anything.

[Jason Ligon]

I have the feeling that this is much ado about semantics. One person's contingency plan is another's top level planning.

This story is not analyzable, because it hinges on when someone moved from "We won't go unless ..." to "We are going." Please note that in the real world, there is a distinct "We might go shortly," in between. What is the criminal culpability of we might go?

Finger pointing and 'Vast Right Wing Conspiracy' defences from administration supporters are nothing new when the heat is on. I have to agree with the ho hum I read above ...

[Zathras]

Well, JB, so was the Bush administration's pre-9-11 planning. It was wholly consistent with past administrations' wishful thinking about how to extricate ourselves from the untenable situation created when the first Bush administration decided to declare victory after four days of ground fighting and leave Saddam Hussein in power in 1991.

Does anyone know if Mr. O'Neill raised any of the questions about this "huge leap" Bush was supposedly taking at the time it was first discussed?

[HH]

From day one, (gasp!) they thought Hussein was bad and (gasp!) he shouldn't be running Iraq!

Kinda like Clinton circa 1998. Really shocking revelation, that.

And then there are the documents which, thus far, aren't holding up under examination...

[Jean Bart]

Zathras,

One would think not, given the level of exposure it is being given in the media, but that is only a guess.

[Robert Speirs]

If we were "ready to go" into Iraq in January 2001, why did we go into Afghanistan first? Why did it take two years to go into Iraq? Why did we even try all those UN resolutions and diplomatic channels for months and months and months? Please. Revisionist history is not always better than the original. The only reason Clinton didn't go into Iraq was that he didn't properly perceive the danger. 9/11 showed the danger clearly. Without 9/11 Bush never would have invaded Iraq. Patzers.

[Jean Bart]

Robert Speirs,

Some argue that the only reason he didn't go was because of a cum stained dress; that his pulling of the inspectors (whom Saddam had idling) was part of a run to war with Iraq.

[Jean Bart]

Robert Speirs,

And I should also have pointed out that conference they had in Ohio about a possible invasion in 1997. The pro-war crowd in my mind want it both ways - they want to portray Clinton as both pro-war on Iraq during his administration, but also weak on Iraq.

[HH]

Jay Nordlinger of NRO says, "O'Neill has made quite serious charges, and they deserve quite serious answers. Mr. O'Neill is not a left-wing, Bush-hating flake.O'Neill has made quite serious charges, and they deserve quite serious answers. (Well, he may be Bush-hating, but the other things, he is not.)"

In coming days, I'm sure we'll see more NRO responses that aren't ad hominems... I'm sure we'll see links to those here too...

[R. C. Dean]

HH is being too kind, above. One of the showcased documents has nothing whatsoever to do with regime change in Iraq at all, and to wave it about while claiming that constitutes evidence of post-war planning within weeks of Bush's inauguration is, well, fraudulent. ONeill has some serious explaining to do, as far as I can tell.

I also second the comment above that this may all boil to down to semantics over "contingency" v. "top-level" planning. You know, a give plan can be one, the other, neither, or both.

Ersatz. Spin. Ineffectual.

[Bushitler LIED!!!!]

1) I recognize there is a problem and come up with a possible solution (Iraq ---> Invasion).

2) An event occurs (like 9-11) that highlights then need to solve the problem.

3) I act on my solution.

The above very evil and never ever occurs anytime else in the world. The neocon conspiricy is in full effect.

[Jean Bart]

R.C. Dean,

You keep on repeating that word "ersatz" in that mantra-like manner; oh, and do it in a fetal position on the floor. 🙂

[joe]

RC, you are right that the military has all kind of contingency plans. It is not suprising that such plans existed for an Iraq invasion. But the issue is not whether we were prepared for a contingency. The issue is whether Bush, contra to all his assertions about "last resorts" and "9-11 changed everything," was working hard to make that contingency come about. Whether or not this war was thrust upon us, or was actively sought by the administration for its own ideological ends, is not a semantic question.

RC and Bushitler Lied!, above, make the point that this revelation, like the non-existant WMDs, are irrelevant to question of whether liberating the Iraqi people and getting rid of the Saddam government was a good idea. I agree; the way Bush behaved is irrelevant to that question.

It is, however, relevant to the question of whether or not Bush is a slimy, dangerous piece of crap whose dishonesty should preclude him from a second term.

Even if you still support the war, he told us he would not use our military as the world's policeman, then he did. He told us he would not use our military for nation building, then set out to do just that. He told us that war was a last resort and he would try to solve the situation peacefully, when he was working to make the war happen all along.

[Jean Bart]

BushHitler Lied:

What did 9/11 have to do with Iraq?

[R. C. Dean]

More on what in ineffectual spin job this is:

What former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill and other Bush administration blabbermouths failed to mention when leaking NSC documents and the like for the forthcoming book O'Neill worked on, is that the Clinton administration had many of the same documents prepared laying out plans for a Iraq post-invasion Iraq.

"We had the same stuff," says a former senior Clinton Administration aide who worked at the Pentagon. "It would have been irresponsible not to have such planning. We had all kinds of briefing material ready should the president have decided to move on Iraq. In fact, a lot of the material we had prepared was material that the previous Bush administration had left for us. It just isn't that big a deal. Or shouldn't be."

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=6008

In addition to the misrepresentation noted above, this should close the book on this ersatz scandal.

[R. C. Dean]

More on what in ineffectual spin job this is:

What former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill and other Bush administration blabbermouths failed to mention when leaking NSC documents and the like for the forthcoming book O'Neill worked on, is that the Clinton administration had many of the same documents prepared laying out plans for a Iraq post-invasion Iraq.

"We had the same stuff," says a former senior Clinton Administration aide who worked at the Pentagon. "It would have been irresponsible not to have such planning. We had all kinds of briefing material ready should the president have decided to move on Iraq. In fact, a lot of the material we had prepared was material that the previous Bush administration had left for us. It just isn't that big a deal. Or shouldn't be."

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=6008

In addition to the misrepresentation noted above, this should close the book on this ersatz scandal.

[Josh]

JB: "What did 9/11 have to do with Iraq?"

It highlighted the ineffectiveness of our previous policies in the Mideast.

[joe]

So you're sticking with "Having contingency plans is the same thing as trying to make the contingency happen?" You're going with that?

[Bushitler LIED!!!]

"What did 9/11 have to do with Iraq? "

Nothing. Everything in the Middle East was fine until the neocons staged 9-11, and even if they did not and even if we find WMDs (which would be planted by Bush) then it doens't matter because the election was STOLEN by a greedy, rich stupid FRAT BOY. The type that used to beat me up in High school.

[dhex]

heh, fratboys can't fight. at least not by the standards of the able-bodied.

[Jason Ligon]

"Whether or not this war was thrust upon us, or was actively sought by the administration for its own ideological ends, is not a semantic question."

Just because they prepared didn't mean they were always going to pull the trigger. The analysis of this is semantic because not everyone would agree on what 'actively sought' means here, nor would they agree on the notion that some wars are ideological while others are 'thrust upon' you.

How does the president work hard to make the contingency come about? Is there an allegation that Bush invited the attack so that he could launch his bif for empire? My point is that one has to presuppose nefarious intent for O'Neil's charges to have any meaning, because we are bickering about what Bush REALLY meant to do before 9/11. Under one view, the prez wanted a war, found an excuse and had one and under the other the prez saw a danger, saw a tragedy that for him reinforced the danger, and went to war.

[jdm]

Say, Bushitler LIED!!!, don't you mean that everything in the Middle East was fine until The Joos staged 9/11?

Those devil-ish rascals.

[Blixa]

Many of the people who are outraged that the Bush admin. (like the Clinton admin. of course) had a contingency plan to invade Iraq prior to 9/11 also hold the view that 9/11 had nothing whatsoever to do with Iraq and that Iraq was a spurious, wasteful, distraction from dealing with the problems raised by 9/11.

What these people need to explain then is why it matters to them whether the planning for invading Iraq (something they disagreed with anyway) was instigated prior to the magical, non-Iraq-related date of 9/11/2001 or after that date. Since (the argument goes) the invasion of 9/11 and Iraq had nothing to do with each other, why should the former have have preceded the latter and how can it be a scandal that it didn't?

One cannot rationally hold to the view that 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq, and that planning to invade Iraq prior to 9/11 is more scandalous than planning to invade Iraq after 9/11, at the same time. One or the other assertion must be jettisoned.

[John Q]

According to RC above, a trip to one website will clear all this up. Wait, what website is that? The freaking American Spectator?? A veritable beacon of journalistic integrity it is, replete with unnamed sources ("a former Clinton adminisration official told the American Spectator right-wing correspondent yesterday that . . . ."). Ye gads, the Bush defenders must really be desperate if this is all they can do.

[Blixa]

oops: "invasion of 9/11 and Iraq" should read "9/11, and [planning for] invasion of Iraq", or some more understandable version of that

[Rick Barton]

From the CBS news article:
O?Neill,...adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.

This sounds rather more volitional and ominous than just; "having contingency plans handy."

In foisting their lies for this war on the public the neo-cons inflicted their influence on different parts of the administration. Check out this article by a senior Air Force officer reporting on the civilians who undermined Pentagon objectivity:
http://www.amconmag.com/12_1_03/feature.html

Voxxy:
"Julian: There is nothing to indicate that the administrated exploited "a national tragedy to launch a war the administration wanted for independent reasons"

Nothing?? What about all the duplicity concerning WMD and terrorist connections? They were based on fabrications of such magnitude to persuade the public, that they surely would have landed a corporate CEO in prison.

"I would expect us to be working on plans to oust the North Korean, Syrian, Iranian and any other regime that is a threat."

It isn't "us", it's the government and I would expect you learn the meaning of the word "threat"

This whole tragic affair just makes clear the truth of what conservatives and libertarians have been telling us for years; you can't and shouldn't trust the government!

[Mona]

Oh gasp! You mean, the Bush administration had Saddam on its shit list just as....Clinton did? You now, the same Saddam who tried to assassinate a former president of the United States, behavior which could, kinda sorta, be considerd an act of war? (Perhaps only to a "neocon," the latest hysteria-indced scapegoat in our political lexicon, supplanting the once-popular "pinko.") The Saddam who consistently refused to let UN inspectors see, in full, whether he had completely disposed of WMDs?

Well, by god, how nefarious of Bush. Yeah, there is a campaign sinker if ever I saw one. As others have said...yawn.

[joe]

Not true, Blixa. A decision to respond to 9/11 by invading Iraq looks, to this antiwar viewer, like a bad strategy carried out by people acting in good faith. It's basically a policy disagreement, albeit an extemely important one. An effort to exploit 9/11 in order to make a decided-on war happen, on the other hand, looks downright evil. What kind of heartless bastard responds to deaths of 3000 countrymen with "Now's our chance?"

[Jean Bart]

Though I didn't support the war, etc., etc., etc., this entire debate has become academic. People are entrenched in their positions like religious zealots, nothing will change that. It has become useless and tiresome to discuss this issue without a breather. I hope others agree with this analysis. 🙂

[beanie]

The connection between Saddam and 9/11?

Al Qaida had training grounds in Iraq. (Salam Pak)

[joe]

Mona, you do a good job arguing that we should have invaded Iraq, 9/11 or no. But doesn't it bother you that Bush campaigned on exactly the opposite foreign/military policy than that which he intended to pursue? That he chose to set aside your argument, which was the real reason for getting into this war, so that he could make a more convenient, though thoroughly dishonest, one?

Or are you so happy that the war happened that you're willing to accept the precedent of the president treating the American people the way he did?

[Paul]

The Islamic terrorists declared war against the United States many year ago. The minute they did so the U.S. was at war with them, and their sponsors, whether the anti-war crowd want to believe it or not. I for one take comfort that the Bush administration recognized that fact long before 9/11.

[John Q]

The Islamic terrorists declared war against the United States many year ago. The minute they did so the U.S. was at war with them, and their sponsors, whether the anti-war crowd want to believe it or not. I for one take comfort that the Bush administration recognized that fact long before 9/11.

Dude, what the hell does that have to do with anything? I'm sick to death of the b---s--- which says if you don't support W's latest neo-con fantasy then you're a sympathizer. It is the lamest sort of argument, the last refuge of scoundrels and liars.

[Mona]

joe asks: "Or are you so happy that the war happened that you're willing to accept the precedent of the president treating the American people the way he did?"

Actually, I was opposed to the war in the beginning. Participation on a Yahoo list where there is a friend of mine -- a bright fellow who tilts libertarian but who is frequently accused of being a "neocon" -- persuaded me otherwise.

Bush did campaign on an anti-foreign interventions platform. Presumably, he meant it, and would have made a case to the American people for taking on Saddam if and when he decided it was necessary, absent the events of 9/11. Or not. We do not know what information or reasons he might have offered sans 9/11, reasons and info he may not have fully had or appreciated when campaigning.

I did not vote for Bush. (Or for Gore.) I disagree with him on a great deal, but am utterly appalled at the anti-Bush hatred that is pervasive on the 'net. Whateve else is true of him, he seems to be a sincere and decent man who believes what he says to be accurate. In that respect, he is distinct from his predecessor.

[mak_nas]

The Democrat was more critical of O'Neill than the Republican.

then he must be a decent guy. 🙂

too much of the defense against o'neill's comments is "of course they had plans -- they had to plan!" i imagine the pentagon also has plans for invading canada -- does that mean they will? no (i hope).

what o'neill's observations demonstrate is that 1) the neocons hold much more sway in the white house than anyone would like to see, and 2) the iraqi war -- sold at least in part as a necessity to avert an imminent wmd disaster, in part as a response to terror -- was in fact immanentizing the eschaton conceived by perle and the neocons nearly a decade before, and little else.

it's time for people to begin to accept that the war had far less to do with reality than with philosophy, i.e. neocon ideology along the lines of "a clean break". the question is: do you want to live in a nation that attacks others solely as a philosophical/moral matter? such "justifications" strike me as putridly similar to the liebensraum arguments of seventy years ago.

[beanie]

If I may make an analogy:

I need a winter coat. Winter, I've determined, is going to be particularly brutal, but right now, I'm shopping around. Sure enough, a snow storm hits and is, in fact, worse than I thought. Now I say, "Here is a great reason to buy that coat." This is neither opportunistic nor is it deceptive.

As far as the link between Iraq and terrorism. It's synecdoche to me. See my above post re Salam Pak.

[Blixa]

joe,

An effort to exploit 9/11 in order to make a decided-on war happen, on the other hand, looks downright evil.

What is "exploit"? You mean, "now that a dramatic event has happened people will be more willing to agree to this thing we want to do"? Another term for this is "politics". Yes, the decision to go/not go to war was influenced to some extent by politics. That's kinda the way it's supposed to be in a democracy.

What kind of heartless bastard responds to deaths of 3000 countrymen with "Now's our chance?"

I dunno, the kind of heartless bastards which were saying "this just shows we shoulda signed Kyoto" on 9/12/2001? 😉

Anyway, if memory serves the Bush admin actually responded to 9/11 by going after Afghanistan, not Iraq. I still don't understand quite what the relevance is supposed to be of the respective dates "9/11/2001" and "the date an Iraq contingency plan was drawn up" given that the events of 9/11/2001 supposedly had nothing whatsoever to do with Iraq. Why should the latter date necessarily have come *after* the former date? Ironically, the position "they should have waited till after 9/11/2001 to plan for invading Iraq" seems to reinforce the idea of invading Iraq as a valid response to the well-known non-Iraq-related events of 9/11/2001. Is that the point you're trying to get across?

[mak_nas]

mona -- i think the point of o'neill's book is that, if he telling it as it actually is, a lot of your assumptions regarding campaign stances and personal triats are a crock of shit we've been sold.

i work in finance, and have some respect for o'neill. it sickens me to see him, as a longtime republican and sensible libertarian moderate, being crucified by his party for daring to dissent with evidence. it should, imo, scare all republican moderates who eschew the religion in politics.

[Which is it?]

So the majority of the people (say at least 50-100 million) who supported the war are neocons? Libertarians who supported the war are necons?

Or that pro-war people are just fucking stupid and the neocons were able to trick them to supporting something they didn't? (i.e. also anti-war people are smarter than everyone else)

[HH]

Possible illegal leak from O'Neill may be investigated

The calls for O'Neill to be "frog-marched" should start any moment now from the left...

[Rick Barton]

Mona:
"Perhaps only to a "neocon," the latest hysteria-indced scapegoat in our political lexicon, supplanting the once-popular "pinko."

Perhaps if you would undertake to better inform yourself you wouldn't post such silly things.

You might start with:
http://www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html

http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/neocon101.html

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15481

http://www.amconmag.com/12_1_03/feature.html

[mak_nas]

which is it --

i'd say some of both, unfortunately. you plainly can fool some of the people some of the time, and i know plenty of voting american folks who are less than attentive to these affairs who recite the reasons for the iraq war as 1) terrorism and 2) wmd. no one (myself included, as a staunch advocate of the hoi polloi to which i belong) wants to believe that these people exist -- but they do, in numbers. c'est la vie. it has nothing to do with smarts, imo, and it doesn't make their point of view invalid -- a lot of people just can't be bothered to follow it closely, and so rely on what they hear as much as what they think. much as in the stock bubble, the best and brightest among us often believe what we hear in spite of ourselves, including myself. we aren't rational machines, after all.

but that has little to do with o'neill's observations, imo.

[HH]

Ah, the American Spectator says it so it must be BS. Well then, I'm sure there will be a parade of Clinton officials denying they ever had documents on ending Saddam's regime, despite the fact that Clinton signed such a policy into law. I, however, will not be holding my breath until this parade surfaces...

[mak_nas]

also, there are plainly many who have thought it through who simply have different priorities than i do, for instance. these priorities may not have much to do with the libertarian ideals that this nation was founded on -- but then, we've been straying from individual freedom to the legal/safety/paranoia state for decades.

[Mahatma]

Bunch of useless blather...most of the evidence that O'Neill is relying upon appears to be Energy Policy documentation that had nothing to do with invading Iraq it was evaluating Iraqi oilfields. They have identical documents for Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, etc...

O'Neill probably knows this but it wouldn't help sell books. Also, I think, as the title clearly indicates, he is pissed off at the Bush administration and wants to extract a pound of flesh.

Get your head out of your ass and quit falling for the scandal-du-jour. You look like a tabloid not a serious journal.

[Rick Barton]

beanie:
The connection between Saddam and 9/11?

Al Qaida had training grounds in Iraq. (Salam
Pak)

Even the administration backed off this nonsense!:
From:
http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_1417930,00.html

18/09/2003
Washington - President George W Bush said on Wednesday there was no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 - disputing an impression that critics say the administration tried to foster to justify the war against Iraq.

[mak_nas]

except, mahatma, that he's taking no money for his role in the book. he's a very wealthy guy, and hardly needs it.

and, according to suskind:

?Everything's there: Memoranda to the President, handwritten "thank you" notes, 100-page documents. Stuff that's sensitive,? says Suskind, adding that in some cases, it included transcripts of private, high-level National Security Council meetings. ?You don?t get higher than that.?

no, i don't think this can be passed off as a money grab or as an unevidenced tar-and-feather. o'neill has a reputation as a very straight shooter, and he may be taking a principled stand. he did work for ford and nixon, you know, and may simply be appalled at how things really are on the inside.

[Evan McElravy]

>>The Islamic terrorists declared war against the United States many year ago. The minute they did so the U.S. was at war with them, and their sponsors, whether the anti-war crowd want to believe it or not. I for one take comfort that the Bush administration recognized that fact long before 9/11.

[Mona]

Rick Barton accuses me: "Perhaps if you would undertake to better inform yourself you wouldn't post such silly things."

I did not check your links, but I am aware that the term "neocon" was once used non-pejoratively. It has, however, long ceased to be that, and is now primarily a mindless epithet hurled promisciously by many on the left and by some libertarians. I myself have been tarred with the label, which is beyond absurd.

To many, neocon is code for Zionist/Jew. To others it is that and an umputation of Straussian predilections. There are a samll number of people who would fit that profile, but even they do not deserve demonization; I'm not a Straussain, but do not dismiss their points out of hand.

What I object to is the suspension of thought that now occurs whenver the neocon label is tossed out: it is ad hominem and no substitute for calm and reasoned debate.

It is no different than rejecting the arguments of a collectivist by crying that s/he is a pinko.

[davidf]

hi Mona,

this is sorta an old bit: "what's a neocon?", but i've never heard it used as "code for zionist" or anything like that. i've only heard it in context of the "big gov't conservatives, ex-trots, etc." like in Jesse's blog.

honestly, the only people who talk about that "code name" seem to be akin to those PC types in college for whom "capitalist" was "racist swine"... or something like that.

regards,
drf

[Jason Ligon]

Have to say, drf, in defense of Mona's argument, the Neocon term is used to describe an ever increasing list of unpleasantness.

There is a rather large step between "I feel that the US is the only capable agent of liberal values in the world, and we should maintain our superpower status as a result," and "I will MURDER BILLIONS and lie to everyone and destroy the environment and annihilate civil liberties so I can wear my crown as King of the World - Bwa ha haaa!"

"Neocon" is just an excuse to assume to most nefarious motives for complex actions.

[John Hensley]

Claiming that Iraq had "nothing" to do with 9/11 is complete hogwash.

- Who organized the WTC attacks?

- What was their primary demand against the US?

- Why did that situation exist?

You have 10 minutes. Please begin.

[Warren]

- Who organized the WTC attacks?
Pissed off Arabs

- What was their primary demand against the US?
Stop supplying Israel with the bombs they're dropping on us.

- Why did that situation exist?
Two words: Foreign Aid

[John Hensley]

Sorry Warren, you flunk.

[JDM]

Ummmm... what's the news here? Bush's national security team wanted to invade Iraq before 9/11, and also after? Didn't we already know that?

If the invasion of Iraq was seen as necessary for national security, it would only be more obviously necessary after the timebomb that was (and still is) the Middle East went off once. It makes no sense to fixate on this story unless you believe the "blood for oil" line. Clearly, there is no reason to think any of the humanitarian or national security arguments (which are not completly unrelated, of course) changed after 9/11, the importance of reforming the Middle East was just seen as a higher priority.

[Mona]

mak nas writes: "mona -- i think the point of o'neill's book is that, if he telling it as it actually is, a lot of your assumptions regarding campaign stances and personal triats are a crock of shit we've been sold."

I don't think so. Bush did indicate during the campaign that he might decide it is necesary to deal militarily with Sadddam. As I've seen pointed out elsewhere, during one of the debates in response to Jim Leherer he said:

"I think that we also have to keep a weather eye toward Saddam Hussein, because he's taking advantage of this situation to once again make threats, and he needs to understand that he's not only dealing with Israel, he -- he is dealing -- he's dealing with us, if he -- if he is making the kind of threats that he's talking about there."

Bush went on to say:

"The coalition against Saddam has fallen apart, or it's unraveling,let's put it that way. The sanctions are being -- are being violated.There's -- we don't know whether he's developing weapons of massdestruction. He better not be, or there's going to be a consequence should I be the president."

So, O'Neill's "revelations" notwithstanding, Bush gave warning that Saddam was on his radar.

[R. C. Dean]

But Mona, don't you understand? Bush engaged in planning, high-level planning, to follow through on his campaign promises. Even worse, those promises were consistent with legislation passed by Congress and signed by his predecessor.

And then, if that weren't enough, he declined to follow through on his high-level planning by actually invading Iraq until 18 months after 9/11, and six months of lining up international support!

My God, is there no end to his depravity?

[Shultz]

Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but if I understand the argument correctly, it's being suggested here that this is an AD HOMINEN attack.

And I agree!

Just because Bush was plotting the overthrow of Saddam Hussein before 9/11 doesn't mean that Paul O'Neill isn't a "pompous, self-indulgent, prima donna", or that O'Neill isn't "a flake" who "is considered a menace by people who want to trim federal spending."

And, logically, just because George Bush planned the ouster of Saddam Hussein before 9/11, it doesn't mean that it wasn't Paul O'Neill's "policy to charge people to attend the company Christmas party."

It doesn't necessarily mean that at all.

[Mona]

davidf opines: >>this is sorta an old bit: "what's a neocon?", but i've never heard it used as "code for zionist" or anything like that. i've only heard it in context of the "big gov't conservatives, ex-trots, etc." like in Jesse's blog.honestly, the only people who talk about that "code name" seem to be akin to those PC types in college for whom "capitalist" was "racist swine"... or something like that.

[Jean Bart]

mak nas,

I am noiw reading the book you proferred last week; I should be done with it a few days (unless some catastrophe happens at work) and will comment. 🙂

[Rick Barton]

Mona,
Your point that we should not be dismissive of an
advocacy based solely on a label attached to that advocacy is very well taken.

But, it is exactly the content of the neocon positions and their influence that I think is so harmful. Specifically the hyper-interventionist foreign policy especially their support of "Israel first" and "greater Israel" expansionism, positions (they seem to ignore protests that the "greater Israel" idea is not good for the Israeli people and unfair to the Palestinian people) and the willingness to spend American gold and blood in pursuit of these advocacies. The domestic agenda advocated by neos is for the most part (with a few exceptions) acquiescent to bigger government and anything but conservative.

The phony identification of "neocon" with "Jew" forms the basis of unfounded charges of anti-Semitism against neocon detractors. This ploy doesn't get much traction anymore though, as there are too many non-Jewish neos and also to many of their critics are Jewish.

[matt]

"Neocon" simply refers to social democrat types who favor a strong military. Their "heroes" include guys like FDR, but not the conservative icon Goldwater. As Kristol says in the link below,"[n]eocons do not feel that kind of alarm or anxiety about the growth of the state in the past century, seeing it as natural, indeed inevitable."

Iving Kristol, who wrote a book called "Neoconservatism" in 1995, spells it our here:
http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/000tzmlw.asp?pg=2

[Rick Barton]

Warren at 06:04 PM,
You get an "A"

John Hensley,
You seem to be in no position to be giving tests.

[John Hensley]

- Who organized the WTC attacks?
al-Qaeda

- What was their primary demand against the US?
Withdrawal of US forces from the middle east (in particular, Saudi Arabia)

- Why did that situation exist?
Give me an I, give me an R, ...

[Josh]

Warren and Barton -- time to reevaluate your understanding of the situation if you think Al Qaeda's main grievance is Palestine/Israel.

[Warren]

John Hensley,
Am I following you right?
We had to invade Iraq to fight terrorism because...
Al Qaeda was targeting the US for attack because...
We had our military in the region because...
We attacked Iraq.

In other words, Iraq forced us to attack them because attacking them makes us a target for terrorists?

right?

[Evan McElravy]

>>In other words, Iraq forced us to attack them because attacking them makes us a target for terrorists?

[Blixa]

Not to keep beating a dead horse, but....

In other shocking news, it's been revealed that contingency plans for invading Iraq existed before the date 4/3/1999. What important events took place on 4/3/1999? The film "The Matrix" was released. What does that important event of 4/3/1999 have to do with Iraq? Nothing whatsoever.

Just like the events which took place on 9/11/2001, supposedly.

On neither date did the most important events which occurred have ANYTHING WHATSOEVER to do with Iraq. (Actually, on 9/11/2001, Iraq shot down a US spy plane... but nobody considers this event any more relevant to the Iraq war than the release of "The Matrix", and in any event the *most* important events of 9/11/2001 were the airplane hijackings/kamikazes.)

So if you don't think it's important whether the plans-for-invasion were created before or after 4/3/1999, can you explain to the class why in the world you think it's of utmost importants whether plans-for-invasion were created before or after 9/11/2001? Remember: neither date is more significant than the other, when it comes to Iraq. Supposedly. That's what you believe, right?

Well, do you believe it, or don't you?

[Kevin Carson]

Glad to see the Justice Department is so on the ball about investigating leaks. They jumped on this faster than you can say "Valerie Plame."

And HH, I can't wait to hear the chorus of people on the Right minimizing the importance of O'Neil's leaks, and dismissing the scandal as a tempest in a teapot. I think this falls under the "Pot to Kettle" heading.

[Rick Barton]

John Hensley and Josh,
In his 9/11 Fatwa Bin Laden told us the three reason for the 9/11 attack:

1. The American military in the Arabian Peninsula too close to Mecca. (This idiocy is at last ending)

2.The blockade if Iraq.

3. American government support for the Israeli government's occupation of Palestinian land.

http://www.ict.org.il/articles/fatwah.htm

If our government had listened to the admonitions of the founders of our republic the 9/11 tragedy would likely not have happened:

the safety of the people of America against dangers from foreign force depends ...on their placing and continuing themselves in such a situation as not to invite hostility or insult; for it need not be observed that there are pretended as well as just causes of war.

John Jay, Federalist No. 4

exclude foreign intrigues and foreign partialities, so degrading to all countries and so baneful to free ones; support the Constitution, which is the cement of the Union, as well in its limitations as in its authorities; to respect the rights and authorities reserved to the States and to the people

James Madison, Second Inaugural Address, March, 1813

Keep the U States free from political connections with every other Country. To see that they may be independent of all, and under the influence of none. This, in my judgment, is the only way to be respected abroad and happy at home.

George Washington, letter to Patrick Henry, October 9, 1775

[mak_nas]

blixa, i would only say that there is a difference between contingency planning -- as every administration is obligated to endeavor in -- and making it your top foreign policy objective on "day one" -- which is what o'neill observed. these are not the same; i think o'neill's account suggests that cheney, et al, were not involved in contingency planning any more than hitler was in planning barbarossa.

and it is yet again another thing to then sell your preconceived long-term objective using unsubstantiated inferences to an galvanizing but evidently unrelated event that occurred months later. (if you think it is somehow related, SHOW ME YOUR EVIDENCE, as i have seen none.)

[mak_nas]

mak nas,

I am now reading the book you proferred last week

i'll look forward to your thoughts -- email me if i miss your comments, jb.

[Mona]

Rick Barton writes: "But, it is exactly the content of the neocon positions and their influence that I think is so harmful. Specifically the hyper-interventionist foreign policy especially their support of "Israel first" and "greater Israel" expansionism, "

To a great extent I agree with that. The question of the State of Israel is one I frankly find terribly vexing. At the end of the day, I accept, strongly, its right to exist. If I were Jewish I would be way, way all done with waiting to trust some European or American savior when the pogrom/Auschwitz comes. They NEED a homeland. Whether, however, the Palestinians have been dealt with as fairly as possible, well, this is a serious moral issue, too.

Rick Barton continues: "The phony identification of 'neocon' with 'Jew' forms the basis of unfounded charges of anti-Semitism against neocon detractors. This ploy doesn't get much traction anymore though, as there are too many non-Jewish neos and also to many of their critics are Jewish."

Look, Irving Kristol is full of shit. I utterly reject most of his domestic and some of his foreign policy agenda. But, one can accept the legitimacy of the State of Israel (which does not mean one has no criticism of it), and one can for reasons independent of Kristol and "neocons" find justice in the war with Iraq, and not be a Kristol neocon. Again, what bugs the crap out of me is the mindlessness of employing the "neocon" label to dismiss the views of anyone who might, for their own valid reasons, hold **any** views that parallel Irving or Bill Kristol's.

[Blixa]

mak nas:

there is a difference between contingency planning -- as every administration is obligated to endeavor in -- and making it your top foreign policy objective on "day one"

Why can't an administration make something-or-other their top foreign-policy objective on day one? One would think all administrations have foreign policy objectives on day one, some of them are more important than others so one of them is "top", although not all of them follow through or succeed of course. But there's nothing inherently invalid about any of this.

it is yet again another thing to then sell your preconceived long-term objective using unsubstantiated inferences to an galvanizing but evidently unrelated event that occurred months later.

What on earth do you mean by saying they "sold" their objective using the most-well-known events of 9/11? The administration has been careful never to link Iraq with the most-well-known events of 9/11.

They "sold" the Iraq war based on not-necessarily-9/11-related considerations. I approved of the Iraq war based on not-necessarily-9/11-related considerations. I assume most everyone else who approved of the war did too. So what on earth does 9/11 have to do with anything in this discussion? Why should the relationship between "9/11/2001" and "date of Iraq invasion planned" necessarily be one thing or the other? People like you have been telling me over and over again that the two things (9/11 and Iraq) have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with each other, and here I'm taking your word for it.

But so then why does it *matter* whether Iraq war plans existed before, on, or after, 9/11/2001? 9/11/2001 had nothing to do with Iraq - you've convinced me! So if 9/11/2001 had nothing to do with Iraq, then why should the plan for invading Iraq have anything to do one way or the other with 9/11/2001?? I must be missing something.

You're complaining that they planned to invade Iraq before calendar date 9/11/2001 A.D. Turn that around; by implication, you're saying it would have been somehow *better* if they hadn't planned to invade Iraq until some time after that special magical date. But why in the world would that be? As we all know, the well-known events of 9/11/2001 had NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with Iraq, so how on earth could those non-Iraq-related events *possibly* justify or make even slightly more palatable the creation of an Iraq-invasion plan after that time?

I'm trying to understand the complaint logically but it just doesn't make sense.

[neoconlibertarianzionistimperi]

Just keep saying that, Rick. If the U.S. puts its tail between its legs and tries to be quiet, these crazy murderous fucks won't bother us. I'm unconvinced.

[Rick Barton]

Mona,
I know of no libertarian/conservative critics of the neocons (I find Bill Kristol a lot more obnoxious than his Dad.) who do not accept Israel's right to exist. For my part; if our government were financing the dispossession and murder of Israeli Jews I would be writing against that.

I really agree with you that it is mindlessness to solely employ a label to dismiss views. Unless it is backed up with argument the dismissal is worthless.

[Rick Barton]

neoconlibertarianzionistimperialistmercantilist,

Sans the zionist bit; the rest of that handle is an oxymoron with reference to the libertarian bit.

There is a pretty huge gap between the U.S. government "putting its tail between its legs and trying to be quiet" and what it had in fact been doing pre 9/11. To bad we can't roll the clock back and try less government foreign intervention. Maybe we could have saved all those lives.

[rst]

and this, rst, betrays a societal naivite that i find difficult to understand.

Propaganda does not fire weapons, it rallies support. Troops fight wars because they're ordered to by the same section of the chain that generates the propaganda, not because the populace gave them explicit and direct consent on account of the propaganda. There's only so far along you can pass the blame. The U.S. could have entered into this war without the propaganda, and it would not have altered the mechanics thereof.

disengage the propaganda from reality

Propaganda has no part in reality, that's why it's called propaganda and not reality.

arguing that all who disagree with you are unthinking drones is not just ad hominem

Silly man, I said that in disagreeing with the antiwar crowd one is automatically deemed an unthinking drone by the antiwar crowd, and that the reaction to do so is an unthinking one. At no point did I claim that people who disagreed with me were unthinking drones. Learn to read.

[mak_nas]

If it makes very little sense at this point, to wish for the failure of American efforts in Iraq, and it also makes very little sense to want to see it as a morally ignoble undertaking.

andrew, i concur that its far too late to stop us from going, and i hope we do a good job in establishing a free and independent iraq now that we've made that (imo) mistake.

but when i've been robbed, i want to see the robber caught long after i've stopped pining for what was taken. crime earns punishment. and if i've been lied to by men who were elected to be at least reasonably straight with me, i want them held accountable -- at the ballot box, on the floor of congress, before the supreme court.

clinton lied to a federal prosecutor, and he was impeached for it. i supported that as a check on rampant executive power. i hold bush to the same standard.

[mak_nas]

what country in the world FEARS being conquered by the United States? In Iran, the ordinary people ask why we haven't been to conquer them.

so let us conquer the planet, andrew -- after all, they all want us to?

[Rick Barton]

rst:
Again, you presume that he's lying.

We know that the Bush administration lied about WMD. Among the lies which would have landed them in prison had they been corporate CEO's instead of government officials was the duplicity in the presentation as well as the content of the report that Powell presented at the UN and described as; "valuable intelligence" but turned out to be an altered, plagiarized and dated grad student thesis.

The only possible pretext for Bush, himself is that if he actually believed the wild neo-con fabrications:

[mak_nas]

Learn to read.

lol -- because i don't know how to? again, insulting your opponent as a simpleton makes you one.

[rst]

insulting your opponent as a simpleton makes you one.

The fact remains that you did not read my post correctly. Whether you are a simpleton is irrelevant.

We know that the Bush administration lied about WMD...The only possible pretext...if he actually believed the wild neo-con fabrications.

Make up your mind. Either you know he lied, or you know he believed in his intel. You know, the kind that might lead a president to lauch a multi-million dollar missile into a tent and hit a camel in the ass.

[mak_nas]

Again, you presume that he's lying. The safe mathematical assumption was that Hussein still had WMD, because he had not yet destroyed as much as he was known to have. That mathematical assertion was supported by the Dec 11 declaration to satisfy 1441. You can take all the other angles on WMD and Iraq you like, but simple mathematics trumps silly ideology. Taha admitted in 95/96 that there was an active germ program. That was 4 years after the sanctions. To assume that Hussein had done an about-face and after 12 years of dodging and weaving, our solution was 4 months down the road, would be silly.

again, rst, the lie does not have to be the possible existence of wmd -- the lie was the imminent threat, which utterly anyone paying attention -- including you, i submit -- knew did not exist. and yet they said the threat did exist and was imminent, justifying a pre-emptive war.

and that all to ignore the lies of terrorist connections, the lies of african uranium sales -- at some point, doesn't a sensible person like yourself get skeptical?

[mak_nas]

Either you know he lied, or you know he believed in his intel.

i would submit, especially in light of o'neill's observations, it does not matter which. we know the intel community was shocked at how their information was warped in its presentation. if his people are warping intel and putting him out front to speak the lie, and he does so, is he not just as responsible? he is the CEO, after all, is he not?

the problem is either that bush lied, or the people he is responsible for lied to him and he repeated it -- either way, he is accountable.

[Rick Barton]

The only reasonable conclusion is that the Bush administration has mislead us. Yet another example:

For reasons of lack of any evidence, intelligence officials successfully excised a line in a speech by the president in Cincinnati about Iraq seeking nuclear material from Niger. But, the reference was regurgitated in the language of the State of the Union speech which said: 'sought uranium from Africa.' Beyond forged documents no evidence was forthcoming. The reference to Africa remained in the State of the Union because it is harder to refute and the effect to frighten the American people could still be realized.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/14/white.house.intel/

You can be pretty sure a politician has lied when he/she says things like 'When I gave the speech, the line was relevant' as Bush did when he was confronted to prove previous claims about Iraq's weapons program. (see above link)

These examples just makes clear the truth of what conservatives and libertarians have been telling us for years; You can't, and should not trust the government!

[Rick Barton]

"Either you know he lied, or you know he believed in his intel."

That is not logical, because as I said:
"The only possible pretext for Bush, himself is that if he actually believed the wild neo-con fabrications"

To try to make your point you simply excluded the
word "himself" when you quoted me! Nice Try.

.

[rst]

the lie was the imminent threat, which utterly anyone paying attention

At times that threat has been both overblown and underblown. They were and continue to be a threat to their neighbors, which is a threat to stability, which is a direct threat to us. Hussein had designs on destabilizing the region, which was why he fired rockets into Israel in the first place. Consider that with Salman Pak, the training grounds with the 747 in which Fedayeen Saddam troops were trained in taking over planes and buses without the use of weapons. Consider that with Hussein's defiance of the inspection process, which by 2002 showed no signs of abatement. I don't think the sense was ever that the Iraqi military was going to storm Florida. The implication was far more sinister, and personally I think Hussein would have been capable and willing to carry out an attack on the U.S. if given enough time to plan it. I do not think terrorism above heads of state, and for a guy who had gone from being a secularist to painting Arabic onto the Iraqi flag and invoking the desert god non-stop, it would be haphazard to dismiss him as a crazy old coot rather than a world leader likely with WMD - and the only one I've ever heard of who used them on his own - with four enemies in common with a.q.: the Americans, the Israelis, the Saudi Royals, and the Shiites. Maybe there is no threat there. That we are not charged with making that decision insulates us from having to think about it as anything more than a cerebral evaluation.

You don't know what these lies are or if they are lies. Lying is an intent to deceive when the truth is known to be otherwise. You've read some commentary and a few stories, and you're ready to pronounce it one way. Sensibility indeed demands skepticism. History is our only indicator, and present debate about whether the president lied or not only matters if you hinge your support for the war on the notions forwarded by that propaganda. Others of us have been waiting more than a decade for this to happen, and I'm only 26. What Bush Jr has to say about it, who gives a shit, he's a moron. What he would do about Iraq in light of all this, not to mention Clinton's Iraqi Liberation Act, was the matter of consequence.

[rst]

Rick you're arguing syntax over a sentence that's grammatically incorrect. You still do not know he's lying, you only believe he's lying. In order to know he's lying you'd have to know that he knew what he was saying to be wrong when he said it. That is what lying is. And none of you antiwar types have demonstrated that. And until you can do so, don't expect any support except from those who believe that Bush acted with intent to deceive...most of whom likely believe Bush stole the election, etc.

[mak_nas]

even if all of your citations about how bad a guy saddam was are true, rst -- and he wasn't a good guy, surely -- does that mean the bush administration did not lie to the american public when trying to make a case for a first-strike war? plainly they did! i'm not a antiwar zealot, but i and anyone could easily see that saddam was in utterly no position to attack anyone, and that was obvious.

again, you can be for the war based on these reasons and others -- even if i personally believe the standards for initiating a war have to be MUCH higher than this.

but that does not mean you or any supporters of the war have to deny the several obvious deceptions to be morally upright or even consistent.

[HH]

O'Neill claims keep falling apart

No one dismisses the charges as a "tempest in a teapot"... they are quite serious if true, but the law involved is quite complicated and much must have happened in order for anything to come of this. Thus far, there has yet to be much particularly damning outside of what Joe Wilson, a proven liar, alleges. And thus far, no one on the right has seriously called for O'Neill to be "frog-marched." Pot-kettle, indeed.

[Rick Barton]

rst,
"Lying is an intent to deceive when the truth is known to be otherwise."

Right, governments tend to do a lot of this. The
Bush administration did, about Iraq.

[mak_nas]

rst, you can't seriously be giving the benefit of the considerable doubt to this administration? you can't believe that all the exampled inconsistencies were just screwups and accidents, can you? that all the unknowns that they seized on as concrete reasons will come in on their side? that, instead of being liars, they're just mistake-prone? when all the mistakes fell to the side of giving them what they ideologically wanted?

you know, there are people around today who still think nixon got screwed.

[Rick Barton]

What was "incorrect" was the refutation you gave of the choice I presented in : "The only possible pretext for Bush, himself, is that if he actually believed the wild neo-con fabrications"

Of course, by "himself", I was delineating; as opposed to the whole administration. It's obvious that you removed that one word to try to make your point. You are defending the Bush administration, but need you act like them?

[Rick Barton]

rst:
"You still do not know he's lying, you only believe he's lying. In order to know he's lying you'd have to know that he knew what he was saying to be wrong when he said it."

Of course by that standard we can't know anyone is lying! So this is what the defense of the Bush administration has been reduced to?!

I gave you the best possible defense for Bush. You better run with it. Even if Bush knew the falsehoods he was presenting were just that; I still blame the neocons more. They were the big motivaters behind the war:

http://www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html

[rst]

deny the several obvious deceptions to be morally upright or even consistent.

Obvious deceptions cannot be morally upright, and are by definition inconsistent with any observable phenomena that would indicate its nature as deceptive. Your statement makes no sense.

The Bush administration did, about Iraq.

This is the part you cannot yet prove. And if you do, then string him up. But without evidence, you are a resounding cymbal. You have only motive, and the observation that past administrations have lied. How shaky a foundation by which to judge someone. I wonder how we'd react were a judge to use that kind of reasoning against a defendant.

you can't seriously be giving the benefit of the considerable doubt to this administration?

That is the nature of accusation. The burden is upon you to prove your assertion, not upon me to disprove it.

The propaganda did not give them what they want, it only gave them popular support. We do nothing by referendum; the propaganda only gave them political currency, which is the sole purpose of propaganda in the first place. If you put stock in it as anything more than the filler that propaganda always has been, whose fault is that? Looking to propaganda for objective justification for anything is like looking up your chimney for Santa Claus.

[rst]

You are defending the Bush administration

Incorrect.

[mak_nas]

Your statement makes no sense.

lol -- only if you willfully choose not to understand, rst.

i'm done. what can be said has been, and you can believe what you wish about bush and his men.

[Rick Barton]

rst:
That is the nature of accusation. The burden is upon you to prove your assertion, not upon me to disprove it.

That's not an aaaanswer! (To be sung like the line was by Pontus Pilot in "Jesus Christ Superstar"

[George W. Bush]

Holy cow, why was the former Yankee's right fielder allowed to be on Security Council? Man, you'd think we could find more qualified people...

[rst]

That's not an aaaanswer!

sed res ipsa. I did not get caught up in the feces-flinging craze of shrieking about White House lies. There was no benefit of doubt to give; the rhetoric was and is propaganda wherein lay no objective justifications or metrics. Propaganda is a political tool designed to get those who will bite the worm to do so. At issue is whether he misled; I see no reason to believe that he did. Facets of the administration, perhaps, but that is something we can safely expect from any administration, for any purpose, at any time. Safely expect and justly accuse are two different things.

Many who opposed the war had already made up their minds to do so when Bush was elected, before 9/11, and before Patriot. These same people already decided that what Bush was saying was a lie when he said it, so that a discovery that the information may have been wrong, whether or not the information actually was wrong, "vindicates" their position.

We still don't know for certain that Iraq didn't try to get uranium from Africa, we only know that documents found supporting the assertion may have been forged. In the game of news reporting that says one thing. In the game of espionage that says many things.

[tonio_k]

"Many who opposed the war had already made up their minds to do so when Bush was elected, before 9/11, and before Patriot."

??? most people were against war with iraq back then. 9/11 was the catylist that changed things. hell, the inquirer had stories back in 98 about "not getting involved in iraq without UN" just before we almost invaded. the feb 1998 "neocon" letter to Prez willy showed that some were for action back then. but even many conservatives were against the war. but most were against going into iraq under clinton's watch.

i have never really followed your argumentation before (what "a rock" symbolizes (ignoring the performative nature of the words on the rock; ignoring that that particular rock could be swapped out for this moonstone i have, etc), for example) - but i'm really lost on what you're saying here. you demand "proof" for everybody else's claims, but give yourself a pass. you claim not to defend the bush administration, yet you do not doubt the veracity of their claims. I'm a self-described hawk, but i wanted to go in during the last war, so i hadn't changed (except i didn't want a clintonian UN model in the rebuilding of iraq). And even I feel that the administration sold a bill of goods - including not clearly marking the differences between "terror" and "9/11". this is the golf of tonkin or "remember the maine" all over again.

quadaffi's admission of late ruined one of my pet theories: he is a bad buy that's worse than SH was: PA 103 was a ostensible terror attack planned by him, targeting america specifically. he's used gas. he's bumblied around with his neighbors. yet nobody, nobody (self included) clamored for his removal pre 1998 or post 9/11. he is the prototypical "new hitler" that every body wants to have.

i understand that you were for taking out iraq during the first war (right?)? that's cool and fine. however, even agreeing with you, i'd want the un to take this over.

as for you disputing the claims about iraq and uranium in niger, those claims were made in support of the action. without those claims, many wouldn't be for the war. the burdon of proof is on the administration. i'd like to think that our side would hold our people to the same standards of proof and credibility we set during the clinton administration (where every FP decision was questioned in the highest regard).

Eric ("TK")

[rvman]

Observation: We didn't "first strike" or "start a war". The first gulf war ended its hot phase with a ceasefire which was predicated on the premise "If Iraq doesn't do what it promises here, we come back and finish the job." Iraq had violated that ceasefire's terms within months of the end of hostilities. They never revealed the chemical weapons, or the bio and nuke programs. (That was the terms: Reveal them, allow them to be inspected, and then destroy them under the supervision of the UN. Whatever Hussein did with his weapons, he didn't follow the terms of the ceasefire.) They fired on US aircraft. They expelled inspectors, and denied them promised access to sites. Bush I and Clinton allowed all of this to fester.

Bush II planned Hussein's ouster before 9/11. So what? So did Clinton and Bush I. What changed with 9/11 is that, prior to those events, we were comfortable just letting our problems sit there.

After 9/11, it became obvious to most that, as long as we were sitting in Saudi Arabia, Al Qaida or successor groups would be able to easily recruit folks to attack us. And we couldn't leave Saudi without dealing with Iraq. First we went directly after our attacker - Al Qaida in Afghanistan, then we went after the roots of the problem - our presence in Saudi, and the Israeli question. We couldn't leave Saudi Arabia as long as Hussein was in power, and so we took him down. With some luck, in a few years our "presence" in Iraq will be one or two isolated bases which will be far less antagonistic to Islamic mores than our presence on the Arab Peninsula was.

We also couldn't abandon Israel, so we've been brokering. Badly, I might add - I think Bush's program is well-aimed, not that it has been handled deftly.

WMD's (I hate that term, I prefer NBC weapons, if we must class them together) were the justification for the invasion, but they weren't necessarily the motivation for the invasion, nor should they have been.

[Rick Barton]

rst:
At issue is whether he misled; I see no reason to believe that he did. Facets of the administration, perhaps,

Right, like the facets behind the UN presentation. (see post at 01:19 PM)

"but that is something we can safely expect from any administration,"

True. We are talking the federal government here.

Also, the linty of Bush's "Terror Link" statements are pretty damn duplicitous. But he was probably "fed" this stuff.

"We still don't know for certain that Iraq didn't try to get uranium from Africa..."

Again, that is an impossible standard. We can't possibly know that for certain.

"we only know that documents found supporting the assertion may have been forged."

They WERE forged and saying that they were, "found" might be quite charitable.

[Blixa]

tonio k writes:

...the claims about iraq and uranium in niger, those claims were made in support of the action. without those claims, many wouldn't be for the war.

This is amazing on several levels.

1. Bush never made any claims about Iraq and uranium in Niger; he didn't even mention "Niger" in his State of the Union address. Niger is not the only country in Africa.

2. The speech in question was given in January, several months after the War Powers Resolution vote in Congress. So if the claims (about Africa not "Niger") were made "in support of the action" they must have traveled back in time somehow, to influence that Congress vote. (Because if they didn't influence the Congress vote, then what does it matter?)

3. I dare you to produce a single person in all of this entire world whose support for the war (which was already approved by Congress of course) was changed from "against it" to "for it" solely and entirely because of the thing Bush said in his speech about Hussein seeking uranium from Africa. I double-dog dare you! I don't think any such people exist.

Add it all up and you've got Bush saying a sentence about Africa which magically becomes a claim about "Niger", whizzes back in time and influences the Congressional War Powers vote, and along the way convinces a bunch of pacifists to support the war. Magic!

[rst]

Blixa, it probably non-causally influenced the Iraqi Liberation Act as well.

you claim not to defend the bush administration, yet you do not doubt the veracity of their claims.

Defending the Bush administration and not believing that the Bush administration entered into a conscious effort to mislead us are two different animals. There is no link between them, except that which you draw by my unwillingness to crucify the man, like the unwillingness I had to crucify Clinton over a blowjob made it "patently obvious" to my conservative friends that I was a left-wing apologist liberal. Such inane and misguided observations obfuscate the points being made. It was only when he committed the crime of perjury that I believed impeachment was appropriate. So far there is no evidence of a crime. Therefore aside from the desire to have someone else in the White House in November, I bear no malice. I hold them in suspicion, but I hold you in suspicion too. Ain't no thing. I don't strictly believe that there are WMD in Iraq. I don't strictly believe that Iraq presented a clear and present threat to the U.S. But I do believe that none of you have any further data - as opposed to opinion - on either subject. I reserve judgment until the actual practical effects of this action have been realized.

Oh, and my problem with the rock? Removing it didn't do anything to fix the actual problem, which wasn't the rock but the judge who ruled by that rock. That judge wasn't removed for his consistent miscarriages of justice, but because he refused to move a rock from the front of the building to the back. Ostensibly in the back of a building a rock with ten commandments printed on it has less of an overall effect on the quality of justice received in a courthouse. Symbols can have their importance, but when people rally around a symbol as the be-all and end-all of the crisis at hand, they need to be beaten about the head and neck with that symbol. The logic of using the standards printed on that rock to judge lesbian custody cases, for instance, persists. In all that mess, nobody actually solved the problem indicated by the symbol. They just moved a rock. Yay.

[HH]

Well now those hacks over at the Corner are quoting O'Neill in full as he disavows the assertions made in the media and all but disavows Suskind's book. What'll those crazy kids think of next? Takes all kinds...

What we know thus far about the "mountain of documents" is that Suskind apparently sold Energy Task Force documents - which had as much to do with war with Iraq as it did with going to war with the U.A.E. - as Pentagon documents to CBS (if not in his book as well) and CBS lazily (or maliciously) repeated it, despite the fact that an earlier story they had on the documents correctly identified them...

[Andrew]

Blixia

I think you are wrong about one thing...there is one person in the world willing to say "I was a dupe"-- John Kerry. He is finding out what a weak self-endorsement that makes in running for high office.

Hefty pluralities of the Democratic caucus in congress voted for war...after months of debate and scrutiny. And these were people America would reasonably expect to be tending to the matter.

They have little reason to change their position now...and are apt to have a problem with any Party standard-bearer who questions their judgement about such an important matter, then or now.

[HH]

"as for you disputing the claims about iraq and uranium in niger, those claims were made in support of the action. without those claims, many wouldn't be for the war."

No one seriously believes that... the media has been carrying the "Bush lied!" mantra for months and support for the war is in the 50s and 60s... And cut out the "imminent threat" stuff, Bush specifically denied there was an imminent threat. Bush was not claiming anything about Niger, he was making a claim about British intelligence, which those who paid attention know was about possibly several African countries.

[HH]

"there is one person in the world willing to say 'I was a dupe'-- John Kerry."

Solely because he's trying to match Dean's anti-war rhetoric. Gephardt and Lieberman are drawing on Clinton admin. intelligence and neither has changed their position on going to war in a significant way.

[Rick Barton]

rvman:

We didn't "first strike" or "start a war".

First of all, it wasn't "we", it was our government and you may make pretext for the government but you may not deny the fact that our government started the war.

"They never revealed the chemical weapons, or the bio and nuke programs."

Pathetic!
Because there was probably nothing new to reveal after the first UN inspection regime finished it's work. This is what Hans Blix said was the likelihood. And, now we know the extent of those "programs"!:
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994549

"They expelled inspectors, and denied them promised access to sites."

What? Our government had to ask the inspectors to leave so it could start it's killing.

"We couldn't leave Saudi Arabia as long as Hussein was in power."

The government most certainly could leave; The Saudi's have wanted them to leave for years.

"With some luck, in a few years our "presence" in Iraq will be one or two isolated bases which will be far less antagonistic to Islamic mores than our presence on the Arab Peninsula was."

With some luck, our military won't have a presence in Iraq in a few years. If they are in Iraq it increases the chances we will be involved in wars that are not in this nations interest.

"We also couldn't abandon Israel"

Our government not only can, but should quit giving the Israeli government our money. (private giving, which is sizable, is fine of course) Israel is an industrialised nation and the Sharon regime is using our money to prosecute a thieving and murderous occupation of Palestinian land that is harming the Israeli people as well.

"WMD's were the justification for the invasion, but they weren't necessarily the motivation for the invasion, nor should they have been."

But, with out hanging the threat of WMD over the American people?s heads, the war would not have been accepted by them. Thus, all the shameful duplicity so the killing could ensue.

[mak_nas]

blixa --

Why can't an administration make something-or-other their top foreign-policy objective on day one?

You're complaining that they planned to invade Iraq before calendar date 9/11/2001 A.D.

i've no problem with that. i'm simply saying that the ex post facto representation that the war in iraq was not preconceived -- indeed, was going to be implemented come hell or high water -- is false.

The administration has been careful never to link Iraq with the most-well-known events of 9/11.

that's not true -- in fact, they went out of their way at the un and elsewhere to link iraq with terrorist camps and terrosit financing and to imply that representatives of iraq were in contact with al-qaeda. as was noted earlier in this thread, they've since backed off those specious claims -- but they were part of the public justification for war.

I assume most everyone else who approved of the war did too. So what on earth does 9/11 have to do with anything in this discussion?

and, contrary to what you may believe, you need go no farther than my rural christian conservative relation in wisconsin for evidence. they believe it to this day, and they think bush was fighting terrorism in iraq, and they believe it because bush told them so. i asked them. that was their answer. there are millions just like them.

i understand that some approved of the war on other grounds; i disagree, but i understand -- you're entitled, obviously, to your opinion. my beef is not with that, but with the millions who believe iraq was about terrorism -- because bush and powell and rumsfeld told them so, directly or indirectly.

those americans were sold a false bill of goods. unless you're a happy machiavellian (which i also would understand) you should be concerned about that, even if you support the war for viable reasons, instead of denying it.

[davidf]

mona,

mainly i've only heard this "neocon = code name for Jewish" from neocons as an insult to try to deflect the discussion away from some questions they don't seem to want to answer (we saw this from the lefties when discussing race and welfare, too).

it really does remind me of the PC types in college who had all sorts of references to definitions and the "if you say X, you mean {mean things that are inappropriate and wrong}" way of doing things.

questioning what our allies are doing with our money is a ligitimate part of deomocracy, and recognizing that israel plays a huge role in our FP decisions in the middle east is not racist. It's a no-brainer. jeez - that's our only ally in that whole area. that's the only country that has any human rights and civil rights. what - should we focus on our close ties with saudi arabia (ha!)??

It makes no sense to have an FP that wouldn't incorporate and heed that country with which we have perhaps the closest cultural tie (Israel). It would matter, for example, if our fighting in iraq would cause israel to be nuked or something, and that possibility would affect our strategy (and we'd make sure that wouldn't happen).

the defensiveness of the neoconservative defenders is like the village voice's 1993 article about how "there was no PC movement".

in fact, slippery pete was the first and main opiner (to borrow a word) to accuse someone else on this blog of antisemitism because that person used the word "neocon". it's just the same old whiney PC left actions from 10-15 years ago, except we're seeing it from people who have a different form of big government solutions.

why does mentioning israel put that person or issue above criticism?

regards,
drf

[mak_nas]

hh -- with reference to your linked article:

at this point, i think it prudent to realize that a hundred denials by vested interests in the aftermath don't refute one documented statement that endangers those interests. o'neill and suskind have a wealth of internal documents, contemporary notes and recordings to back what they're saying. it will take a lot for me to think o'neill -- a man with a long history of straight talk who stands to lose much and gain little except principle in this -- fabricated all this documentation.

and, as for the furious attempts to smear o'neill with his record at treasury, let me say that none of his "gaffes" that i've seen were anything but the truth as he saw it -- and as i frequently agreed with. they may have been impolitick, but they were not dishonest.

[HH]

"But, with out hanging the threat of WMD over the American people's heads, the war would not have been accepted by them."

But what about the polls showing Americans are for the war even if no WMD are found? Oops... pay no attention to that folks... nothing to see here...

[rst]

they went out of their way at the un and elsewhere to link iraq with terrorist camps and terrosit financing and to imply that representatives of iraq were in contact with al-qaeda

What you describe is in no way an attempt to link Iraq "with the most-well-known events of 9/11". That Salman Pak had a large Boeing airliner and that F.S. troops were being trained there in weaponless takeovers of planes and buses as late as 1999 and 2000, and that Atta may have been provided with some sort of housing/training at Salman Pak during the same time frame, that doesn't link Iraq to 9/11 either.

Does it need to?

The U.N. failed its mandate in '88 when it didn't swoop down on Hussein for using his WMD. It failed its mandate again in 91 when it let him return to Baghdad instead of removing him from power then and there. It continued to fail its mandate when it preferred to starve Iraqis and search for WMD, lining the U.N.'s pockets with oil-for-food money the whole way.

And now, because of the disposition of the propaganda involved, I'm supposed to feel differently about a long overdue military action? Silly.

[mak_nas]

And now, because of the disposition of the propaganda involved, I'm supposed to feel differently about a long overdue military action? Silly.

not if you feel the war was justified on other grounds, of course. the propaganda wasn't directed at you, after all.

but are you quite sure that the lies and half-truths told by the administration are a good thing simply because you agree with the cause they advocate?

i would think that people here would be able to separate the two issues: 1) the war in iraq, and 2) the untruths and propaganda used to convince people. even if you're on board with 1), are you necessarily then a defender of 2)? i don't think so. the war is the war, but propaganda is propaganda -- does the end justify the means?

[rst]

lies and half-truths

What makes it a lie? In claiming so you posit that Bush and co. knew that there were no WMD there, which is ridiculous given that his predecessor and global peers were all convinced that there were WMD in Iraq.

Second, you're also positing that there is in truth no WMD there, when in fact we merely have not yet found any. It goes to that whole notion -of which many people need constant reminding - that the country of Iraq is not a point mass.

Was the material ready-at-hand for combat use? Probably not. But that's about the only conclusion you can reasonably draw without pulling in your biases. Perhaps the programs themselves were probably more fragmented than the world believed, but my conscience I think will survive these ruminations.

[Mona]

davidf claims: "the defensiveness of the neoconservative defenders is like the village voice's 1993 article about how 'there was no PC movement'."

Your analogy is inapposite. PC was/is a pervasive political orthodoxy that obtains in academia. The phrase "politically correct" captures this phenomenon, which is real.

Neocons are also real, but the word has come to be pejorative and applied by some people to other people who reject the label as applied to themselves; they do not deny that there are neocons. It is a thought-stopping epithet that deflects from the argument a person is making and puts them in the position of having to deny being a thing they do not self-identify as being -- a thing the accuser clearly holds in contempt. Thus, it is the promiscuousness of the accusation of being a neocon in political debate that is most akin to PC: it stifles or derails genuine exchange of ideas.

How many people who support the war on Iraq are really acolytes of Irving Kristol; how many are social democrats who love big government and a marauding military?

No one I've read is saying you cannot criticize self-identified neocons like the Kristol pere and fils. My objection is to the gratuitous application of the word to people who reject it FOR THEMSELVES.

[joe]

"And now, because of the disposition of the propaganda involved, I'm supposed to feel differently about a long overdue military action? Silly."

I agree, actually. The legitimacy and wisdom of invading Iraq has nothing to do with whether Bush lied us into a war. It is entirely possible for a war to be a "good war," and still have corrupt people behaving badly in the process of gearing up for it. So keep arguing about Kurds, mass graves, partitions, quagmires, costs, exit strategies, and all the other highlights of the neverending argument we've come to know and love.

However, the way Bush behaved in getting us into this war is entirely relevant to the question of whether he's fit to be president. I do not want an adminsitration that fudges intelligence data. I do not want an adminstration that lies to us about why it's doing what it's doing. Do you?

[rst]

the end justify the means?

p.s. Guns and laser-guided bombs, not propaganda, are the means to war. From a practical standpoint, Bush did not need the propaganda, because it didn't do much to swing anybody either way. The people who opposed Bush opposed the war, and if you didn't, then you were some kind of mindless automaton, the mindlessness inherent in such automatic categorizations notwithstanding. We could have spontaneously gathered our allies and started the war, silent on the WMD issue, instead letting history speak for itself.

Would that have left the war more justified?

No, because history does not speak for itself. People already believed what they wanted to believe about WMD and Iraq and 9/11. The words coming from Pennsylvania Ave reassured the allies and riled up the opponents, which is the purpose of words spoken in the political arena. Action and consequence are where the fitness of a choice is judged.

[Blixa]

mak nas:

i'm simply saying that the ex post facto representation that the war in iraq was not preconceived -- indeed, was going to be implemented come hell or high water -- is false.

Um, who's making that representation? Not I. It was clear to me by fall 2002 (when the campaigning for a War Powers resolution began in earnest) that we were going to invade Iraq no matter what happened at the UN. Ok? So I guess we... agree. Iraq regime-change was policy long ago, and they started planning in earnest to do it at least as early as fall 2002. Then so what's the problem exactly? In particular, of what possible relevance can it be whether the war-plan was drawn up before magic date 9/11/2001 or after that magic date, since/if nothing all that important (vis a vis Iraq-US relations) occurred on that date? I still don't understand this.

Seems to me that if Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 then drawing up a war-plan for Iraq was just as good (or bad) on 9/10 as it was on 9/12. So who cares which came first, war-plan or 9/11? Similarly, if Canada had nothing to do with 9/11 then drawing up a war-plan to invade Canada was just as good (or bad) on 9/10 as it was on 9/12. Would you say that it would be "better" to draw up a Canada-invasion plan on 9/12 than 9/10? But why? Canada had nothing to do with 9/11 so how can 9/11 change anything vis-a-vis Canada?

Similarly: Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 (right??) so how can 9/11 change anything vis-a-vis Iraq?

they went out of their way at the un and elsewhere to link iraq with terrorist camps and terrosit financing and to imply that representatives of iraq were in contact with al-qaeda

I don't know about "went out of their way" but even if you're correct here, this *still* isn't linking Iraq to the most well-known events of 9/11, which is what I actually said. Not all terrorists were behind 9/11 so Iraq can "finance" terrorists without having been behind 9/11. The Bush administration has never publicly accused Iraq of having been behind 9/11.

my rural christian conservative relation in wisconsin for evidence. they believe it to this day, and they think bush was fighting terrorism in iraq, and they believe it because bush told them so. i asked them. that was their answer.

What your rural Christian conservation relations in Wisconsin may believe or not believe is not evidence of something Bush said or didn't say. It really can't be, logically. Hate to break it to you.

But again, even taking that into consideration you have misplaced the goalposts again. You say that your relations believe that Bush "was fighting terrorism in Iraq". Why can't that be a true statement? Surely there are terrorists in Iraq among the resistance (whoever bombed that mosque is a *terrorist* by definition for example) and surely we are, now, fighting them.

This still doesn't mean that Bush has publicly accused Iraq of having been connected to 9/11. Ironically you seem to take "terrorists" to be a synonym for "behind 9/11", and if Bush says we're fighting terrorism in Iraq you think he's saying "Iraq was behind 9/11". Not so. The one does not follow from the other.

my beef is not with that, but with the millions who believe iraq was about terrorism -- because bush and powell and rumsfeld told them so, directly or indirectly.

Again with the equation of "terrorism" and "behind 9/11". For crying out loud, Iraq *did* finance terrorism, that isn't really debatable. "terrorism" and "9/11" are not the same thing! Not all terrorism in the world occured on 9/11/2001! and "terrorist" is not a synonym for "9/11 conspirators"!

those americans were sold a false bill of goods.

You haven't demonstrated how. All you've demonstrated is that you can't tell the difference between an accusation of terrorism towards an entity like Husseinist Iraq, and an accusation of conspiring in the 9/11 attacks against that entity. You think the two accusations are the same thing. Or something. Whatever the case, the primary problem here lies with your understanding, not others'.

[rst]

I do not want an adminstration that lies to us about why it's doing what it's doing. Do you?

Again, you presume that he's lying. The safe mathematical assumption was that Hussein still had WMD, because he had not yet destroyed as much as he was known to have. That mathematical assertion was supported by the Dec 11 declaration to satisfy 1441. You can take all the other angles on WMD and Iraq you like, but simple mathematics trumps silly ideology. Taha admitted in 95/96 that there was an active germ program. That was 4 years after the sanctions. To assume that Hussein had done an about-face and after 12 years of dodging and weaving, our solution was 4 months down the road, would be silly.

That Hussein had no WMD is an easy position to adopt because there's a neocon/wannabe democrat in the White House who "stole the election" and insists that Hussein did have WMD. I'm all for stringing up politicians, in fact I think their proper place is at the bottom of the ocean next to the lawyers, but unless people come up with better material than, "Bush lied, people died" they can't expect anyone to actually take them seriously.

Time did not begin on 9/11. There was history before 2001, for those who have forgotten.

[Andrew]

In the formula for a certain type of sci-fi/thriller, you realise that HE is...

...a robot.

...a zombie.

...an alien from off-planet...

because He has just taken six rounds directly in the chest, only to straighten up (after merely recoiling) to resume moving forward--
THIS IS NO ORDINARY HUMAN BEING!

If it makes very little sense at this point, to wish for the failure of American efforts in Iraq, and it also makes very little sense to want to see it as a morally ignoble undertaking.

Since before the founding of our republic-- that is, since before this greatest of all experiments in human liberty-- the success of American arms has (nearly without exception) invariably obtained the freedom of millions...and the failure of American arms has left millions enslaved.

[Before you run through the Chomskyite Revison, consider that the creation of first the Republic, and later the State, of Texas created rights for millions-- including millions of Mexican descent-- that are rather more recent and qualified in any part of Mexico today; the Spanish-American war created republics in Cuba and the Phillipines, and a democratic commonwealth in Peurto Rico.
Hell, there are seven times as many Indians in North America as when the Mayflower landed-- the introduction of a modern dynamic civilization had the same effect on Indian demographics that it had on Europeans...and, of course, they are all citizens.]

Why not view it as a market-place outcome? The confluence of self-interest (greed) and passions (fear, revenge, injured pride) generates an (approximately) useful outcome.

Ask yourself, what country in the world FEARS being conquered by the United States? In Iran, the ordinary people ask why we haven't been to conquer them.

[mak_nas]

Was the material ready-at-hand for combat use? Probably not.

rst, let's imagine the scope of the lie it took for tony blair to say that britain was under a 45-minute threat window.

you presume that the lie was the existence of wmd. those may (thought i doubt it) be shown to have existed. the lie was the scope and imminence of the threat, which the administration played to the hilt. plainly, it did not exist -- but they represented that it did not only exist, it was an imminent danger warranting war right now. even people in the intelligence chain have said that their intel was completely misrepresented in the political sale.

how is that not a complete bald-faced lie? i'm not a democrat, a liberal, nor a principled peacenik. but i do think it takes an advanced case of conservative religion to not see this all as a classic case of government leadership misrepresenting the truth to get what they ideologically want.

and, again i repeat, that does not mean there aren't viable reasons for supporting the war.

[mak_nas]

Would that have left the war more justified?

rst, you can't now disengage the propaganda from reality and say it would've all happened anyway. karl rove obviously thought the propaganda was needed because he had his guys all over the place espousing it. and that too is part of history now.

also, arguing that all who disagree with you are unthinking drones is not just ad hominem, but a clear sounding of just how little you understand about the opposing point of view. as i said, i am neither democrat nor liberal nor peacenik -- nor am i a drone for some ideological lobby. but if this is really the depth of your understanding of your opposition, perhaps you should consider the possibility that you are....

[davidf]

hi mona!

thanks! i see what you are saying (now, finally).

the words you write express this really well, and
it is redolent of those who support PATRIOT and Oklahoma city, as they want a strong, paternalistic government:
"How many people who support the war on Iraq are really acolytes of Irving Kristol; how many are *
*social democrats who love big government and a marauding military**?" (that last part!)

that's a very true, excellent point, and i have been guilty of overlooking that when thinking about the "pro-contra" sides in this war.

oh - what part of wisc are you from? i have a ton of relatives in dodge county (near the horicon marsh)...

greetings from chicago.

cheers,
drf

[mak_nas]

Guns and laser-guided bombs, not propaganda, are the means to war.

and this, rst, betrays a societal naivite that i find difficult to understand.