"A Crock of Shit"

That's what reports that Saddam Hussein could deploy WMDs in 45 minutes actually were, or so says a lobbyist for the Iraqi exile group which made the claim.

It is becoming increasingly clear what happened in late 2002 in the run up to war. The intelligence services of both Britain and the U.S. could not nail down evidence of WMDs in Iraq, so the paid flacks of Iraqi exile groups stepped up with dubious tales of super-weapons. Pro-war officials, particularly in the Bush administration, then seized upon these tales to press the case for invasion and occupation.

They knew better. Now you do too.

Comments

[Fred Gillette]

No more Left bashing, please. The Left would have wanted Saddam gone in 1978, which would have been quite prescient given what happened in Iran in 1979. But, gee wiz, we couldn't take him out given that he may have been a useful ally in the Cold War.

[Jon H]

"Jon, he STILL had one of the largest militaries in the middle east. I don't have numbers before me, but I'd bet money it was the single largest army in the region, possibly excepting Iran's. You need to get your facts straight."

A military of patched-up tanks and out-of-date weapons, which crumbles in front of the opposition, isn't much of a military.

[mak_nas]

Mak - exactly how much implication can you get out of "I'm not saying it was a bluff"?

rst, you say explicitly "i'm not saying it's a bluff" -- and then go on to describe it as a bluff without using the word. very nice wordplay, but it still amounts to you (perhaps inadvertently) justifying the bush administration intentionally overplaying its hand by misrepresenting the reality of the cards it held.

which is great in poker, but not in a democratic government.

The guy who steals your newspaper is a bad man. Guys who beat their wives are "bad men." Slide umpteen billion spots down the spectrum into mass murder and ethnic cleansing and what have you got? Still just "bad men," apparently.

dubya's words, not mine.

[Slippery Pete]

Mak Nas and I probably disagree about the overall merits of the war, but I totally agree with his description of how Bush misused intelligence. I also agree that the Pentagon-funded Iraqi National Congress produced exiles who were eager to say whatever the Bush administration wanted them to say.

The New York Times bought this hook, line, and sinker.

Basically what we had was the Pentagon funding the INC, which turned around and concocted WMD testimony that suited the purposes of the Pentagon and the executive. Most of it turned out to be completely false.

A good president understands the nature of intelligence, especially witness testimony, and ESPECIALLY witness testimony coming from exiles on the Pentagon's payroll who want to run Iraq once we're done invading it! The New Republic was reporting on this bogus testimony months before the war was launched.

The only reason this whole stinking pile hasn't been investigated is that soulless Republicans run everything and don't hold their own to any meaningful standards.

As I said before: A better president (more articulate, more principled, more aware of what his own bureaucracies are up to) could have accomplished the goal without basically destroying our collective credibility in the process.

[Les]

rst,

These aren't "suspicions." These are facts. The intellegence community reported to the White House that aluminum tubes in question were probably not for nuclear purposes. Cheney, Rice, and Powell told the world that they definitely were for nuclear purposes. Same with the amounts and locations of WMD's.

Of course, you can say that Cheney, Rice, and Powell were "of the opinion" that the intelligence they were receiving was incorrect. But the language they used explicitely described their findings as in tune with the intelligence they were receiving.

Don't take my word for it. Greg Thielmann, a former director of the Strategic, Proliferation and Military Affairs Office at the State Department's Intelligence Bureau, accuses the White House of "systematic, across-the-board exaggeration" of intelligence as it made its case that Saddam Hussein posed an imminent threat to the U.S. Thielmann, who left his job in September 2002, also contends that much of the intelligence about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction was entirely politicized. "Senior officials made statements which I can only describe as dishonest," he says.

This is the prevailing attitude among members of the intelligence community.

Why is it so hard to believe that senior members of the federal government are liars (especially in light of clear evidence that they simply lied)? It's hardly unprecedented.

[Slippery Pete]

Jon -

You are so fricking obtuse. I know it's not much of a military, my friend. We're comparing it to others in the Middle East, in case you forgot. Whose was better? Jordan's? Kuwait's? Syria's? Saudi Arabia's? Nope, nope, nope.

[rst]

This is the prevailing attitude among members of the intelligence community.

You mean, the intelligence community is saying, "it's not our fault!" ? How surprising.

[Bostonian]

Another war about the war...

Let's not forget that the UN (not the US) repeatedly demanded that Iraq *prove* that it had no weapons. Neither the UN (officially at least) nor the US was satisfied that Iraq had done so.

Why is this fact so conveniently forgotten now?

If Saddam Hussein wanted to avoid war, he could have done so by letting the inspectors do what they wanted to.

Actually, because of 12 years of delay and international non-action, he was obviously convinced that UN resolutions are toothless-WHICH THEY ARE. Also, Chirac had so very stupidly promised to veto any UN action approving force, so even if 12 years of scolding hadn't convinced him the UN was useless, Chirac made it easy for even the stupidest person on the planet to realize that SH was free to do what he wanted.

I'm glad someone had the balls to take down this shithead.

[shane]

Les,

The administration never said that Hussein at the time was "an imminent threat". They said if he were allowed to continue developing his WMD then he would become "an imminent threat" if not dealt with.

This article speaks to me loud and clear why I'm not a "big L" libertarian.

Reality can get in the way of idealogy.

[Nobody]

Mak Nas: Go Bush. You guys suck.

R.C. Dean: You shouldn't generalize. We don't ALL suck.

Slippery Pete: Yeah, you do.

That's what's so great about the primaries: people talking about issues.

[rst]

Why is it so hard to believe that senior members of the federal government are liars

It's not hard to believe. It's the opposite. It's so easy to believe that anyone will believe it, regardless of whether the evidence supports it or merely suggests it. Regardless of what has been said, all you know is that the administration and the intelligence agencies are pointing fingers. As much as you'd like to think you know, you don't. I do not trust the government. I agree with its actions in Iraq, but I've held the opinion that Hussein should be gone since I was 11 years old. So now that it's happened, I don't exactly care about our "international credibility," given the fact that few other nations have any credibility with us. Like I give a rat's ass what some PM is going to say about our country while his own secret police are beating women in the street for being out in public without an escort? Like I'm going to take seriously the gripes of the Jordanians, who have no problem expelling Palestinian refugees en masse?

I have a big hairy ass for them all to kiss.

[Bostonian]

Fred Gillette says: "No more Left bashing, please. The Left would have wanted Saddam gone in 1978, which would have been quite prescient given what happened in Iran in 1979. "

Then I am at a complete loss to understand the vitriol of the Left's opposition to removing Saddam now. I understand wanting to spend our resources elsewhere instead, I understand preferring a different target or different timing, but I do not understand why so much of the Left apparently considers this war to be fundamentally evil.

True, the president in 1978 (Jimmy Carter) thought it was expedient to leave this guy in place, and true, that was a bad decision, but do you really mean to argue that no US president can ever change our foreign policy?

[Rick Barton]

Slippery Pete:
"So the UN refused to "authorize" our invasion of Iraq, and we went anyway, so the UN threatens our sovereignty?"

SP, By all means, please don't let your ignorance of a situation stop you from making strong statements about it. Well, at least you haven't tossed out any of your usual accusations at anyone being an; anti-Semite so far.

The ICC and the WHC are just two of the UN international governence mechanisms which threaton US sovereignty.

http://www.americanpolicy.org/un/unarticles.htm

http://www.conservativemonitor.com/opinion/2001057.shtml

http://www.greencity.com/un43098.htm

[Walter Wallis]

Say you are an Iraqi general. Your phone rings at home, and a voice tells you that if you use weapons of mass destruction you will be hanged.

You get the same message at several other phones [The U.S. invented the telephone campaign of mass distraction, after all] and so you believe it. When the war starts and you see the U.S. is going to win, you send your WMD to Syria or you bulldoze a pit and bury it.

Given a week or so, the United States could probably bury our nuclear arsenal deep enough to make it almost impossible to find, especially if we did not worry about future safety.

[Les]

rst,

You keep suggesting that we're not sure what the intelligence community was telling the administration and so it's just a "they said/they said" situation. This isn't true. We KNOW what the administration was being told. We KNOW that they were told, for example, that the aluminum tubes in question were not useful for nuclear development and we KNOW that Cheney, Rice, and Powell said that they were. This is not a "suggestion" of lying. This is lying pure and simple.

It seems that if we can't agree on something as simple as what a lie is (or what "is" is?) we're in no position to judge something as complex as the political situation in the Middle East.

[alma hadayn]

"Actually, because of 12 years of delay and international non-action, he was obviously convinced that UN resolutions are toothless- WHICH THEY ARE."

"The Iraqis say that they believed that Unscom was more effective, and they didn't want to get caught"- that's David Kay, explaining why Iraq had gotten rid of its WMD

"Let's not forget that the UN (not the US) repeatedly demanded that Iraq *prove* that it had no weapons."

It is impossible to "prove" that something does not exist, and it is even harder when the one you're trying to prove it to falsely insists that there is evidence to the contrary.

Why did the US sponsor 1441, which called for inspections, when it obviously didn't care what the results of those inspections were?

[Les]

Shane,

What makes you think I'm a "big L" libertarian? All I'm arguing is that there is solid evidence to demonstrate that our government lied to us in order to gather support for the war in Iraq, nothing more. What's ideology have to do with that?

[Ron Hardin]

It doesn't hurt to wander over to http://belmontclub.blogspot.com occasionally, the current essay suggesting that the loose-WMD situation is a little more grave than had even been imagined. He writes like Walter Lord sometimes too.

Bush was taking a foolish risk when he said he wouldn't attack Iraq if they obeyed the UN resolutions, by the way. They might have complied. I was worried they would in fact.

[thoreau]

Les-

If my President has to lie to get the lefties in Congress to support killing some Muhammed-worshipping camel jockeys, fine by me. The government is here to do what's right by whatever means necessary. And if that means lying so they can intimidate dark-skinned superstitious foreigners, then fine. After all, intimidating those towel heads who worship the desert god is necessary to keep America safe. The only way to deter a suicide bomber is by killing people who aren't involved in suicide bombing.

You liberal wimps get all bent out of shape just because the government lied. Next you'll probably be upset because the government is incompetent too.

(yes, the above was sarcasm)

[Slippery Pete]

Rick -

I'm afraid you don't understand the words you're using. We retain membership of certain conventions and treaties per the US constitution, and can pull out at any time, per the US constitution AND per those treaties themselves. We have non-extradition treaties with ICC members, but we're not even a member of the ICC to begin with. Now, absent those treaties, if we were a party to the ICC, in some small ways it could violate our sovereignty, but that's why we didn't join. Get it? See how that works?

PS: Tossing out links like rice at a wedding is irritating and unproductive. Especially if the links are for flaky, wacko far-left and far-right organizations run by tin-hatters and moonbats (which, incidentally, is all you seem to read...which would help expain why you're so weird, I suppose).

Is Somalia a member of the UN, Rick?

[Rick Barton]

Slippery Pete:
"If he "knew" they did not, he wouldn't have said they did, only to be publicly tarred and feathered when it turned out he was wrong.

I said that the evidence from the wild duplicity that they engaged in (such as the UN "report") was that the Bush administration and the neo's didn't believe that there were any WMD. (see post at 11:52 AM)

Also, in fact Bush has not been "publicly tarred and feathered", has he? In Politics, sometimes one can get away with fabrications. Clinton made a career of it.

[Slippery Pete]

Clinton was impeached.

Bush's popularity is right at 50% now, and polls indicate that he'd lose to a Democrat if the election were held today. So it escapes me in what sense he's "getting away with it", inasmuch as he's less popular now than he was before 9/11.

Anyway, all of this is beside the point. The point is whether he'd deliberately lie about WMD if he knew for a fact that he'd be found out after the war. I mean, that just makes no sense. It's like saying he wanted to set himself up to lose the next election. If he were that crazy, he would have planted WMD, but he clearly did not.

Obviously, your interpretation of the facts is just that - an interpretation. I think it's bizarre and conspiratorially minded, but you are a well-known conspiracy theorist around here, so that's par for the course. All I can do is highlight very basic facts that suggest you're completely nuts. Such as:

1. Even France and Germany stated PUBLICLY that they believed Saddam still had WMD. They publicly chastised Saddam's WMD report as being woefully inadequate, specifically because they believed they had reliable intelligence that suggested he probably still had WMD. Now, if France and Germany publicly stated they believed he had WMD, why would "neos" refuse to believe such an incredibly helpful thing?

2. Even if Bush - alone among all world leaders - felt Saddam were squeeky clean of WMD, why would he lie about it so energetically when he knew with perfect certainty that he'd be proven wrong before the entire world in just a few weeks? You say that leaders can get away with lying, and that's true. They can. But they still, obviously, would rather not take the risk, ESPECIALLY when they know for absolute fact that they will be proven completely and utterly wrong in just a matter of weeks, and before the entire world.

Buy more tin foil.

Is Somalia a member of the UN, Rick?

[shane]

Les,
I was talking about Taylor's article, not your post. 🙂

[Rick Barton]

Slippery Pete,

Because it's our own politicians that can sell out US sovereignty to the UN doesn't mean that prospect is not a threat.

It's obvious from your post that you do not have even a rudimentary understanding of the UN governance mechanisms and how they pose a threat to US sovereignty.

I know this is asking a lot from you, but before you call them silly names you might actually try reading the links.

Two of the three organizations I linked in that post to have been linked to by Reason editors for previous threads. That?s where I found out about one of them.

I also remember that in a different thread you actually called American Conservative: a "neo-fascist publication???(?))
http://www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html

[stubby]

Much the same thing happend in the leadup to the Kosovo war. Anti-Serbian elements, pro-KLA folks and human rights organizations talked up the atrocities being perpetrated against Muslims and Albanians in Kosovo and soon everyone was talking about genocide. After Serbia pulled out and people went in and started looking around, their were far fewer mass graves, fewer dead bodies in general, than had initially been expected - it didn't amount to genocide.

Now, I was in favor of the action in Kosovo, and I believe that what Serbia was doing, and intended to do, justified the use of force. And, considering the Serbian atrocities that were confirmed to have been committed in other parts of Yugoslavia, including Srebenica and elsewhere, it was not difficult to believe that they had already committed the same level of atrocities in Kosovo - but they hadn't.

I was reminded of all this because I'm just getting around to reading the collected articles of Danny Pearl (At Home in the World), published shortly after his death.

[Jean Bart]

R.C. Dean,

Chirac and Blix repeatedly said that there "might" be WMD programs in Iraq; however, they also said there was no conclusive evidence of such programs or such weapons. Indeed, Chirac argued repeatedly that because of such uncertainty an invasion was the worst of all options at that point. Just because Faux News doesn't report something, doesn't mean it didn't occur.

[Dudie]

Let me sum up:

Bush the evil chimp is Hitler.

He doesn't have ESP either.

His lack of ESP and Hitler-simian qualities mean just one thing: BUSHITLER LIED!!!!

Now you know.

[Rick Barton]

Slippery Pete:
You wrote in your post at 12:36PM:

"If he "knew" there were no WMD...he would have PLANTED some!"

So, you think that the Bushies would plant WMD but not lie about what there real assessment was??
You're flaying about illogically here Slippery Pete.

How do you explain the UN report? The best excuse for Bush personally, is that he actually believed the neocom lies for the war. That is possible. That excuse won?t work for the whole administration obviously.

So what if Clinton was impeached? He still made a career out of lying.

[Jason Ligon]

Man, go to a meeting, and look what you miss.

mak:

"jason, you're essentially saying that:

1) although hussein presented no material direct threat to anyone (even his neighbors) at that time, we were justified in invading;"

This all hinges on what one means by a material direct threat, and it leaves out the fact that in a very real sense this is the bully who lost a fight, called Uncle, then went back to his old ways. The fight wasn't over yet.

The greatest threat to America is not that Saddam would invade us, it is that he had no fear of retaliation so long as he strung along the UN. Terrorism could not exist without the complicity of the UN, which continually sides with terrorists. We demonstrated simultaneously that the Arafat shield of "Hey! We aren't an army! You can't use the army against just plain criminals!" would not fly and that sovereignity means nothing for a tin pot. These are real threats and they were addressed.

"2) that we were justified because he was jockeying politically (as all nations do) for regional influence; and because we were really, really scared after 9/11 -- even though saddam almost certainly had nothing to do with it;"

He jockeyed by making a public mockery of the threat of US force. The undermining of the credible threat of harm to local dictators and mullahs was the largest threat we faced.

3) that the actual desired outcome was the intimidation of any possible enemy, real or perceived. (i'd throw in that our perpetual presence in iraq as an american military center is similarly intended.)

I don't know about that last bit, but I'm fine with the former as long as you add that we ALREADY had justification for finishing business with Saddam. The justification was in his failure to comply with the terms of his surrender, the treatment of his people, the fact that as a tin pot his sovereignity means nothing, and the danger that he would divert funds and possibly WMD to agents who intended harm to the US. The TIMING was about intimidating real and perceived threats immediately after we had been attacked.

[Dudie]

Oops, I also forgot to mention the 12 evil neocons, who run the world from their cave in Geneva They also lied. LIED!

my bad. add that in and that sums it up.

[Les]

Shane,

Oops. Sorry. I withdraw my hasty inquiry.

[Jason Ligon]

I would take this opportunity to point out the difference between being certain that information is false and using insufficiently scrutinized information to bolster a public case.

It is not the case that if the intelligence in question was bad, we knew there were no weapons.

Being guilty of adding fluff to support one's claim is still not good, but I don't think there is a government in history who would be innocent by that standard. Similar tactics are used by the anti war crowd when they argue that they KNOW there was no weapons program. What is the source of that knowledge again?

[Les]

I'd like to clarify that I'm not accusing Bush of lying. I know of no evidence that he has said anything other than what he's been told to say. Generally, you can tell when he says something he wasn't told to say because it's often grammatically clumsy and contextually bizarre.

He actually might be the most honest person in his administration.

[Les]

"Being guilty of adding fluff to support one's claim is still not good, but I don't think there is a government in history who would be innocent by that standard. Similar tactics are used by the anti war crowd when they argue that they KNOW there was no weapons program."

Jason, I completely agree with you. Of course, as U.S. taxpayers, we're not responsible for the actions of other governments or anti-war organizations.

That said, I'll just reiterate that I don't think Cheney, Rice, and Powell KNEW that there were no weapons. But they DID know that what they were telling the public was significantly different from the intelligence reports they were receiving.

[Tru]

You can lie as much as you want after the fact, Taylor. It doesn't change anything.

[Slippery Pete]

Rick Barton -

Generally speaking, people who use the words "the neocons" are either paranoia-addled conspiracy theorists or idiots. They invariably have no idea what they're talking about.

Is Condoleeza Rice a "neocon"? Nobody who knows what a neocon is would say she's one of them. Neither is Donald Rumsfeld or Colin Powell or Dick Cheney or...er...George Bush. They're not neocons, yet oddly those are the names we see on the doors of the really big offices. That's weird.

I guess what you're saying is that it's the undersecretaries - people with names like Wolfowitz and Feith - who have somehow tricked an otherwise well-meaning George Bush into wanting to invade Iraq.

I mean, that's the only explanation, right? Bush NEVER talked about invading Iraq before he was elected, right? I mean, why would he? That's crazy. Oh, sure, Saddam tried to assassinate Bush Sr. a few years after Gulf War I, but that was like five years ago!

If you don't think George Bush was publicly advocating the removal of Hussein before he even heard a name like 'Wolfowitz', then you clearly weren't paying attention. You were probably buried deep in an article about Somalia.

So, to clarify, there is no secret cabal of undersecretaries secretly manipulation and tricking the saintly, temperate, and well-meaning gentiles occupying the big offices in Washington, D.C. Those even-tempered gentiles were planning to get Saddam since forever, and they've been talking about it forever, and only a fool or an idiot should be suprised that they did what they said they would do.

Doesn't mean I take back my position that Bush manipulated and exaggerated the WMD evidence, and ultimately misled the world about the principal BASIS for his invasion of Iraq. But I do disabuse you of your (let's be honest) insane fixation on whatever dastardly cabal of manipulators you insist on blaming for this.

The blame rests with the white evangelical protestant in the Oval Office named George Bush who certainly didn't need any help fucking up an otherwise excellent case for regime change.

Specifically, you wrote:

So, you think that the Bushies would plant WMD but not lie about what there real assessment was??
You're flaying about illogically here Slippery Pete.

Deep breath here, 'k, Rick? Let's try this again.

No, I do not think Bushies would plant WMD. I did not say I thought that.

What I said was that IF he were crazy enough to deliberately lie about WMD that he actually KNEW did not exist, then he'd be crazy enough to plant WMD and spare himself the hassle of dealing with the aftermath (that is, the entire planet asking him where all the WMDs are that he promised us he knew were there.)

Got that?

[Slippery Pete]

Only a freak or a 'neocon' could believe that Iraq had WMD, right, Rick?

Check out this list of neocons who also thought Iraq had WMD. (Source: USA Today, 3 June 2003)

Reports by the United Nations, CIA, State Department and private researchers, many issued during the Clinton administration, all concluded that Saddam had large amounts of banned weapons despite years of U.N. inspections. Examples:

* A February 1998 State Department study found that Saddam was "making every effort to preserve them."

* A January 1999 report from U.N. inspectors said Iraq had failed to account for weapons it previously had declared, including 1.5 tons of VX gas, 8,000 liters of anthrax, 7,000 liters of botulinum toxin and nearly 1,000 liters of aflatoxin, a potent carcinogen.

* A June 1999 CIA report said Iraq likely had 6,000 hidden chemical munitions.

* An August 2002 report from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace said Iraq "almost certainly does have large numbers of chemical weapons and some biological weapons."

* A September 2002 report from the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies said Iraq had probably retained "a few hundred tons" of deadly mustard and sarin gases.

* In January, chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix concluded that Iraq had yet to account for 1,000 tons of chemical agents or its anthrax stockpile. Blix's latest report, issued Tuesday, said Iraq still hadn't proved itself weapons-free on the war's eve.

But, shit, everybody knows the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace is just a mouthpiece for neocons, right? 😉

(Note: This is almost enough to make me take back my assertion that Bush even exaggerated the WMD threat)

[Andrew]

Majorities in an evolved democracy have a (n inarticulate) way of sensing where the REAL issue lies-- and far more clever pundits have a way of confusing it.

The REAL issue was NOT the current state of Saddam's arsenal.

The REAL issue since 2002 was this-- Saddam was offering some 300 billion dollars worth of "sweet-heart" oil contracts to, among others, France, Russia, Germany and Syria in exchange for the lifting of UN economic sanctions...which would have re-empowered his odious regime. He had every reason to believe he would be successful-- France and Russia are permanent members of the Security Council, and Syria and Germany were rotating in as temporary members...and the UN tilts towards guys like Saddam.

The question facing the US was whether to permit the "re-financing" of Saddam's dictatorship, or (at last) remove this blight off the face of the planet.

The administration, the congress and the American people (wisely) believed that removing Saddam was far preferable to lifting (or maintaining) sanctions.

When the American (and British) people wished the administration to go to the UN for prior approval, that is because they believed (naively) that such approval would (or at least, might) be forth-coming. When in the weeks that followed, it became apparent that this was not so, a consensus to remove Saddam's regime unilaterally shaped up in America and Britain.

How much did beliefs or concerns about the CURRENT state of Saddam's arsenal play in any of this? Probably next to nothing, really.

It is EXTREMELY unlikely that pro-war majorities in America or Britain believed that Saddam's palace contained the Q-BOMB ready to vaporise the Western World in the next fifteen minutes.

(If they had, invading wouldn't have been a sensible response-- if we do something about North Korea someday, we will bomb them, not invade.)

What pro-war majorities did believe, quite sensibly, is that Saddam Unleashed would be a danger to the peace of mankind. They were right.

In a sense, you CAN'T lie to someone, if they don't believe you.

[Jean Bart]

"The REAL issue since 2002 was this-- Saddam was offering some 300 billion dollars worth of "sweet-heart" oil contracts to, among others, France, Russia, Germany and Syria in exchange for the lifting of UN economic sanctions...which would have re-empowered his odious regime. He had every reason to believe he would be successful-- France and Russia are permanent members of the Security Council, and Syria and Germany were rotating in as temporary members...and the UN tilts towards guys like Saddam."

Hmm, Saddam actually ordered in 2001, after France supported the American "smart-sanctions" plan, that French companies were not to be considered for any oil contracts. I don't where you get this "$300 billion" sweet-heart deal information from, but it doesn't fit with reality.

[alma hadayn]

These facts are not in dispute:

1)Bush said repeatedly that Iraq had WMD
2)Bush said repeatedly he hoped Iraq would get rid of its WMD to avert a war (he said this many times in Nov/Dec 2002 - you can look at whitehouse.gov)
3)A preponderance of evidence now indicates that Iraq did not in fact have WMD for the last decade.

So those who say Bush didn't lie- will you at least admit he went to war by mistake?

[Jean Bart]

Andrew,

BTW, until the war actually started, there was never a pro-war majority in Britain; indeed, there isn't one now - what support Blair had has now evaporated.

[Jean Bart]

After a while you get the impression that Americans were "suckered," and they just don't want to admit it. Indeed, it appears that Iraq was collapsing on its own, and that if you had left it alone to rot, that it would have done so. Now you have to keep an occupying force there and beg the international community quarterly for money. This goes back to my statements earlier that the U.S. is really not a hyper-power. 🙂

[Jean Bart]

Andrew,

BTW, if France's opposition was for some sweet-heart deal with Saddam, that is "for oil" (indeed, this is the equally wacky inverse argument of some members of the anti-war crowd about the U.S. and its desire for oil), then it would have made far more sense for France to support the U.S. once it became apparent that the U.S. was serious about invading. Indeed, it would have made sense for France to send troops there as it had in 1991 (I was amongst them). After all, what better way to get to the oil than to be an occupier of the fields?

[Jason Ligon]

alma,

Saddam could have addressed the claim by supplying the information pertaining to the tons of unaccounted for VX that Hans Blix still was complaining about on the eve of the war.

Bush could have been incorrect about the WMD and Saddam could still have been flouting the terms of his surrender. The war being fought at this time was not a mistake on this one point, because the point was bring Saddam into compliance.

[Jason Ligon]

JB:

What if Saddam collapsing on his own wouldn't serve the same purpose? A reason of convenience is still a reason.

[Slippery Pete]

Alma -

I agree with your assessment. I find myself in the interesting position of arguing loudly and angrily for an actually pretty subtle position - or rather, a subtle distinction.

I think Bush overestimated the reliability of the intelligence we had on WMD. I also think that the US president must meet a higher threshold of credibility than, for example, the Carnegie Endowment or, say, France. That is to say, Carnegie's overestimation of Iraq's WMD stockpiles is more forgiveable than a US president's.

But, to me, it is a huge and untenable leap to go from that, to saying that Bush knew all along that there were no WMD (which puts Rick Barton in the position of suggesting that we had ROCK SOLID intelligence that Iraq did NOT have WMD). I find this argument to be appalling and irresponsible and, frankly, the product of an unbalanced or woefully ignorant mind.

Look, when a US president bases his case for war on intelligence that turns out to be mostly faulty, heads should roll...preferably, his own head. You better be goddamn sure about it before you send 150,000 troops over to the middle east (or anywhere else) to invade, occupy, and rebuild a country. Bush said, "Trust me. I have intelligence we can't share at this time, but we know he has WMD." Well, they didn't know.

The facts I cite above, for the most part, honestly state that vast quantities of WMD are "unaccounted for." And that's a different charge. Still scary. Still, in my mind, justifying war. But it's a different charge.

The American people and the international community deserve a chance to make up their minds about war based on the truth, and not shades of truth.

And for purely selfish reasons, it's to our great disadvantage to have our word doubted in the future, as it absolutely will be. Our credibility is greatly damaged by this, despite the fact that most observers also thought Iraq had WMD.

I feel like I'm splitting hairs here, but if you think about it, most of you will see that I'm not. I maintain that a better, more articulate president could have made a compelling case based on strategic interests, human rights issues, and the obvious and cruel failure of the UN sanctions regime.

It's Occam's Razor - you don't have to believe the guy's an evil genius and did it all on purpose. You don't have to concoct bizarre conspiracy theories about cabals of undersecretaries exercising mind control over a hapless president. All you have to believe is that the president was sloppy and gullible and blind to risks of relying on conflicted bureaucracies for information.

(Incidentally, I also blame Jacques Chirac, who personally convinced Saddam that he could and would keep the US from invading Iraq, thus convincing Saddam that he didn't need to cooperate. Recall that we told Saddam we would allow him to go peacefully into exile if he would quit his position, and he refused, believing the US would back down. For this, thank France.)

[Andrew]

It is NOT so clear to me that Saddam's regime would inevitably collapse had he gotten "clean away with it" regarding compliance and sanctions.

I believe he COULD have spared himself an invasion by permitting real inspections, but that such a sign of weakness could have put his regime at risk-- and this, presumably, was the reason he resisted.

Precedents in eastern Europe tend to support the notion that "softening" is fatal to authoritarian regimes...a lesson that, sadly, seems to have been learned by the regimes in Peking and Havana.

It WAS right for the US to insist on prompt and total compliance...or war. Our fundamental position was sound.

[Jean Bart]

Slippery Pete,

"(Incidentally, I also blame Jacques Chirac, who personally convinced Saddam that he could and would keep the US from invading Iraq, thus convincing Saddam that he didn't need to cooperate. Recall that we told Saddam we would allow him to go peacefully into exile if he would quit his position, and he refused, believing the US would back down. For this, thank France.)"

Do you have evidence of this? Chirac caught on tape telling Saddam this, for example?

[rst]

3)A preponderance of evidence now indicates that Iraq did not in fact have WMD for the last decade.

Incorrect. There is no "in fact" about the state of Iraq's WMD programs over the past decade; otherwise no inspections would have been necessary.

[Rick Barton]

Slippery Pete:

"No, I do not think Bushies would plant WMD. I did not say I thought that."

You most certainly did.
You wrote in your post at 12:36PM:

"If he "knew" there were no WMD...he would have PLANTED some!"

Now, after I bring this up as to how it was involved in a contradiction in what you wrote about the Bushie's Iraq WMD knowledge, you try to spin the fact (last paragraph in your 3:37PM post) with such vigor that even Bill Clinton would admire your efforts.

Why do you think that Rumsfeld is not part of the neocon orbit? His history suggests he is. But what ever, that the Neocons have been the main agitators for war is well documented and has been at work for a long time.

Is Paul Wolfowitz usually thought of as a neo-con? He's a member of the Bush administration. How ever did you leave the Defense Deputy Secretary out of your list of folks with names on the door? You are just to transparent Slippery Pete.

In 1998, Rumsfield and Wolfowitz were both were involved with the neo-con think tank Project for a New American Century, which was established in 1997 by William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard, to dictate American foreign policy.

Rumsfield and Wolfowitz wrote to Clinton urging him to use military force against Iraq and remove Hussein from power, because the country posed a threat to the United States due to its alleged ability to develop weapons of mass destruction. The Jan 26, 1998, letter sent to Clinton from the Project for the New American Century said a war with Iraq should be initiated even if the United States could not muster support from its allies in the United Nations. Kristol also signed the letter.

The full contents of the Rumsfield and Wolfowitz letter can be viewed at the Project for the New American Century.

[Andrew]

Slippery

The US word will be doubted in the future. Who cares?

We won't ask again. Since the end of the Cold War, unilateralism is the name of the game. Curiously, Clinton seemed to understand this better than the Bush's.

[rst]

Our fundamental position was sound.

Not to mention the fact that it's too late. We already did it. You cannot go back, and unless you pull off some kind of evidentiary miracle, you're not going to scrape together enough evidence to unseat let alone impeach Bush. No matter what you think of what this evidence about Bush lying vs. Bush believing intelligence accounts demonstrates, the same rules of evidence apply. You do not know what Bush believed vs. to what extent he sat behind his large oaken desk, rubbing evil republican hands together and squealing with laughter like Dr. Claw. You do not know that there is no WMD hidden in Iraq, as there remains a large percentage of the land area unsearched. Whine some more, but the search is not complete. Until available land area has been exhausted, the answer is wholly indeterminate.

I submit that the scariest possibility of all is that there is in fact no WMD there. Because at a point in time some of you seem to have forgotten, UN inspectors knew there were WMD, destroyed some of the WMD (this stuff called "anthrax"), and were unable to complete the task (I think some silly fool offered that there was no evidence that Iraq had any WMD in the past decade. Somebody was apparently born nine years ago). As late as December 2002, Iraq hadn't accounted for all of it. If it's not there, I have to wonder where it is. Syria perhaps? You'll all whine about WMD not being there as some kind of inane political ammunition. You should probably tremble at the possibility for more consequential reasons than edifying your own philosophical differences with the HNIC down there in D.C.

As "armchair politicians" we all have the distinct advantage of not having to take action, or respond appropriately to risk assessment, or answer to the American people for pilots missing from Iraqi no-fly zone violations, nor any of the other trappings of actual leadership. So for you, the distinction between actionable intelligence and non-actionable intelligence is self-evident, you can only act on the hard facts. If hard facts had ever existed in the intelligence industry since the dawn of the second oldest profession, you might actually be taken seriously. Thankfully you're not.

[Rick Barton]

Slippery Pete, you wrote:

"Bush is guilty of misrepresenting the evidence."

And

"Doesn't mean I take back my position that Bush manipulated and exaggerated the WMD evidence"

More like, the "evidence" was actually invented as in the UN report. But it might well be more of a case of Bush being misled by the neocons. Bush doesn't strike me as overtly dishonest the way, for example, that head neo; Richard Perle does.

[bigslacker]

Jean Bart, I found it:

"NPR newswire: March 9, 2003. NPR has learned of audio tapes sent by Mr. Chirac to Saddam Hussein promising an end to the American military threat and the construction of a second nuclear reactor at the former osirak site"

Happy now?

OK, I MIGHT have paraphrased that a bit...

http://www.japantoday.com/gidx/news252247.html

In a televised interview, French President Jacques Chirac said Paris would vote against any resolution that contains an ultimatum leading to war "no matter what the circumstances."
It was the first time Chirac explicitly said France would use its veto power as a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council to block the United States' quest for world body approval for war.
A French "no" vote would not go down in history as a veto if France was voting with the majority of nine needed to defeat the U.S.-backed measure.

France has repeatedly said that the United States will not get nine "yes" votes, but de Villepin's last-minute Africa lobbying blitz suggested the French were concerned about the numbers.

Meanwhile, Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz said Monday that invading forces "are not going to take Iraq easily" because Iraqis will fight to defend their country.
He said a U.S.-led force of more than a quarter-million troops massing around Iraq would not be able to drive the Iraqi government from power without a bloody fight.
"They cannot take Baghdad. The people of Iraq are prepared to fight to defend their sovereignty, their honor, their national interests," he said. "They are not going to take Iraq easily."

[alma hadayn]

BTW, I believe that Bush did believe that Iraq had WMD, although he vastly overstated the evidence. I also believe that he had decided to go to war before 1441 and was using the UN inspections as a pretext, which I consider to be dishonest (admittedly I am not a mind reader-but the administration instantly trumpeted every example of what they considered to be technical noncompliance by the Iraqis, and downplayed every positive statement by the inspectors, which is not the behavior of one interested in peaceful disarmament).

[Slippery Pete]

Rick -

You are a slow little turtle. I really cannot believe how many times I have to retread the same arguments and how many times you keep misreading them.

Take the bit that you quoted from me. The first word is "IF". What I said was that IF bush KNEW there were no WMD and launched a war anyway, THEN he'd also be crazy enough to plant WMD.

Rick, read this next part out loud and don't be shy about moving your lips. I DON'T BELIEVE THE "IF" PART. Ok? THEREFORE, I also don't believe the THEN part. This is like fourth-grade reading comprehension here. How old are you?

Let's try this again, and I'll be as deliberate and unambiguous as I'm capable of.

"If Bush were crazy enough to launch a war based on evidence he knew was faulty, then he'd also be crazy enough to plant WMD in that country, so he wouldn't look like a big fuck-up. It makes no sense to believe he's crazy enough to deliberately lie about something that can be disproven in a few short weeks, but not crazy enough to plant WMD."

So, once again, for like the fifth time, I am NOT saying Bush is crazy enough to have planted WMD. I'm saying he's NOT. I couldn't possibly explain this any better than I have.

Incidentally, this is why I oppose social promotion in gradeschool.

Jean Bart:

I read an article recently (in a reputable journal, not a nutter rag like Rick Barton reads) that described interviews with Iraqi and French officials who confirmed that Saddam felt the French had assured him that they could stop the US from invading. But I don't remember where I read this, so I can't produce it for you. It would fit with the French habit of overestimating their importance in the world and generally being chummy with nasty people, as well as the habit - or policy - of axiomatically opposing the US on almost everything. But until I can back this up, I guess I can only present it as opinion at this point, eh?

[Jean Bart]

Slippery Pete,

"I read an article recently (in a reputable journal, not a nutter rag like Rick Barton reads) that described interviews with Iraqi and French officials who confirmed that Saddam felt the French had assured him that they could stop the US from invading. But I don't remember where I read this, so I can't produce it for you."

In other words, its an unnamed source, from an unnamed publication. Right. 🙂

"It would fit with the French habit of overestimating their importance in the world and generally being chummy with nasty people, as well as the habit - or policy - of axiomatically opposing the US on almost everything."

In other words, you're main basis for this claim is poorly-informed stereotypes. That sound you hear is me laughing at you.

[Rick Barton]

Slippery Pete,
Spin, spin, spin, and throw in a little juvenal, name calling. It's pretty funny when you get caught in untenable positions and/or contradictions.

Go back to what you wrote in your post at 12:36PM:
No mention of "crazy" or an insinuation of it.
But then, look at how you try to get out of it at
6:36PM. You started all this nonsense for a pathetic defense to my pointing out a contradiction of yours.

[Rick Barton]

Jean Bart,
I seem to remember Slippery Pete pulling the "unnamed source, from an unnamed publication" bit before. I'm laughing with you. Get ready. When Slippery Pete gets really desperate he's given to calling people anti-Semites.

[Jean Bart]

bigslacker,

You are misqouting Chirac; he said under the current circumstances France would vote no, not that it would vote no on all occassions or under any circumstances. Indeed, on a number of occassions I've had to correct people for their misqoutations, so let me give you the transcript to the aforementioned interview (see below).

"France has repeatedly said that the United States will not get nine "yes" votes, but de Villepin's last-minute Africa lobbying blitz suggested the French were concerned about the numbers."

Indeed, the U.S. never did get the nine votes; and it could never sway Mexico or Chile, no matter how much it threatened them, to vote yes.

__________________________________

VOTE ON SECOND RESOLUTION/FRENCH VETO

QUESTION - And if you go to the UN, it's to say what? It's to vote "no", possibly use your veto or to abstain?

THE PRESIDENT - What's involved here? Today, we are following a course of action laid down by UNCSR 1441. This means that the international community, expressing its view through the unanimous adoption of this resolution by the fifteen Council members, particularly at the suggestion of France who played a very active part in drafting it, has decided to disarm (...) Iraq, through inspections, detection then destruction of the weapons of mass destruction...

QUESTION - Now, we're moving on to a second resolution....

THE PRESIDENT - (...) and in our view, the inspectors' reports confirm that there are no grounds for changing, that we must pursue this path and that the goal can be achieved by pursuing it. Some of our partners, who have their reasons, consider that we need to finish the task fast and by taking another approach, that of war.

QUESTION - With an ultimatum?

THE PRESIDENT - That led to the proposal of a new resolution setting an ultimatum. To start with, there was talk of 17 March, then of a possibility of a British amendment to postpone the date of the ultimatum a bit, it's of little consequence. In other words, we move from a course of action involving the pursuit of the inspections in order to disarm Iraq to a different one consisting of saying: "in so many days, we go to war".

QUESTION - And you don't want that?

THE PRESIDENT - France won't accept it and so will refuse that solution.

QUESTION - If need be, she will threaten to exercise her veto? (...) That way you will scupper the resolution.

THE PRESIDENT - I repeat: France will oppose that resolution. Now what does that mean? There are fifteen members of the Security Council. Five permanent members and ten members who change every two years. For a resolution to be adopted, it must have a majority of nine members. So the first scenario which is today, this evening, the most probable, is that this resolution won't get a majority of nine members.

QUESTION - The Americans are saying the opposite. Colin Powell thinks he will get it.

THE PRESIDENT - I'm telling you what I feel. I firmly believe, this evening, that there isn't a majority of nine votes in favour of that resolution including an ultimatum and thus giving the international green light to war.

QUESTION - In other words, France wouldn't need to use her veto?

THE PRESIDENT - In this scenario, that's exactly right. In this scenario, France will, of course, take a stand. There will be nations who will vote "no", including France. Some will abstain. But, in any case, there won't, in this scenario, be a majority. So there won't be a veto problem.

QUESTION - And if the opposite happens?

THE PRESIDENT - Then, the second scenario: what I believe this evening to be the views of a number of people change. If this happens, there may indeed be a majority of nine votes or more in favour of the new resolution, the one authorizing war, to put things simply. If that happens, France will vote "no". But there is one possibility, what's called exercising a veto, it's when one of the five permanent members - the United States, Britain, Russia, China and France - votes "no", and then even if there is a majority in favour of it, the resolution isn't adopted. That's what's called exercising a veto.

QUESTION - And, this evening, this is your position in principle?

THE PRESIDENT - My position is that, regardless of the circumstances, France will vote "no" because she considers this evening that there are no grounds for waging war in order to achieve the goal we have set ourselves, i.e. to disarm Iraq

____________

His words concerning "no grounds" clearly imply that in the future there may be some grounds; furthermore, it is also equally clear that phrase "no circumstances" has been twisted to mean something which it did not, and that the absence of the rest of Chirac's statement in the U.S. press (including writers here at Reason.com) has been a blatantly dishonest reading of Chirac's statement.

[Jean Bart]

Rick Barton,

My Jewish wife would be surprised to hear that I am an anti-semite. 🙂

[Slippery Pete]

Rick -

I'm not conducting this idiotic debate with you anymore. My point, simply, was that a person crazy enough to use evidence he knew was fault (and everybody else would soon know was faulty) would also be crazy enough to plant WMD. He wouldn't do one and not the other. It's not a difficult concept, my dimwitted friend. It's a standard if-then statement, and by calling the "then" into question, I called the "if" into question. Evidently this is way above your pay grade.

Jean Bart -

I was being gentlemanly in stating that I could not, off the top of my head, name my source, as most of us who post here cannot quote chapter and verse of our sources when we're engaged in a freewheeling debate. That's absurd. You're being rather dickheaded about it now.

My French comments were comments on the direction of French foreign policy which everybody from Pat Buchanan (Rick Barton's number one source) to Tom Friedman understands. This is mainstream stuff. You may not like it, but you have no basis for characterizing it as anything other than a common interpretation of otherwise inexplicable behavior. I've roundly criticized my president, and many aspects of US foreign policy, right here, and I reserve the right to criticize decisions made by other governments. It's absurd for you to characterize this as some kind of "ethnic" thing when I'm, in fact, being far gentler on Chirac than I have been on Bush. You and your pal Rick accuse me of accusing you of being anti-Semites, yet your the ones tossing that particular bomb here.

There's a word for that, you know, but I can't remember the French translation of it.

Finally, it is universally understood in this country - for very good reasons - that Chirac scuttled any possibility of getting Saddam to back down before the war. Colin Powell has publicly said so to your FM. For you to characterize this opinion as somehow originating from Reason shows simply that you need to broaden your sources of information a little bit.

[Slippery Pete]

Jean Bart -

Thank you for posting the transcript of the conference where Jacques Chirac destroyed any possibility of compromise leading up to the war. What you posted states clearly that Chirac believed the US could not win 9 votes, but that if it did, France would veto under any circumstances. It's right there, in black and white.

You wrote:

His words concerning "no grounds" clearly imply that in the future there may be some grounds...

There is no basis at all for you to say this. He makes no distinction between the present and the future, and makes no mention at all of any possible change in the future. He states that there are no grounds, not that there are "currently" no grounds but that France holds open the possibility that they could change their minds. France will veto. Period.

You wrote:

furthermore, it is also equally clear that phrase "no circumstances" has been twisted to mean something which it did not...

Now I'll echo Rick Barton. Does it depending on what the meaning of the word "is" is? Or on what the meaning of the words "no circumstances" is? Tell me, Jean, what part of "no circumstances" you do not understand.

It's funny. They say that French is the language of diplomacy. I don't see even a hint of it here.

Again, thanks for clearing things up by posting the actual transcript.

[Jean Bart]

Slippery Pete,

"I was being gentlemanly in stating that I could not, off the top of my head, name my source, as most of us who post here cannot quote chapter and verse of our sources when we're engaged in a freewheeling debate."

I'm not asking you to qoute chapter and verse; I am asking you for your source (indeed, you know that is all that I am asking, but you dishonestly try to the spin argument to something else). You can't produce it, nor have you apparently even taken the effort to even google for it. Therefore, I do not remotely take your comments seriously. What else can one say about such lazy and dishonest beahvior?

"I've roundly criticized my president, and many aspects of US foreign policy, right here, and I reserve the right to criticize decisions made by other governments."

You weren't criticizing Chirac, nor were you criticizing the French government on any specific issue; you were attempting to play on stereotypes. And now you are lieing about it. Its rather humorous that it is claimed that Frenchmen are the ones who are irrationally anti-American, and live under the impression of ill-informed stereotypes about America, but it is specific Americans like yourself who are really doing the converse here.

"Finally, it is universally understood in this country - for very good reasons - that Chirac scuttled any possibility of getting Saddam to back down before the war."

This is merely you masking your earlier claim in another form. Where's the evidence? Furthermore, even if I were to accept your opinion as fact for sake of argument, merely ebcause something is "universally understand" does not make it true; indeed, your appeal to popularity is one of many forms of logical fallacy.

"Colin Powell has publicly said so to your FM. For you to characterize this opinion as somehow originating from Reason shows simply that you need to broaden your sources of information a little bit."

I did not characterize that this opinion eminates (originally or otherwise) from Reason.com; indeed, I never once made an argument about this opinion. I did say that some people at Reason.com had incorrectly qouted Chirac, which they clearly have (see my earlier posting); indirectly qouted him regarding his "no circumstances" statement that is.

BTW, let me re-qoute you to make it abundantly clear what you are doing regarding stereotyping:

"It would fit with the French habit of overestimating their importance in the world and generally being chummy with nasty people, as well as the habit - or policy - of axiomatically opposing the US on almost everything."

Note the phrase "French habit." What is especially humorous about this statement is (a) the U.S. is itself very chummy with thugs when it wants to be (pots and kettles), and (b) that the second prong of your stereotype is incredibly far off the historical mark regarding Franco-American co-operation as to be laughable. To cite some recent examples: France complies fully with U.S. security requests (many based on bogus claims) regarding flights from France; France has garrisoned over a thousand soldiers in Afghanistan; France alerted U.S. authorities about a possible attempt to high-jacked a Brazilian airliner in late 2003; etc.

[Jean Bart]

Slippery Pete,

He most certainly does make such a distinction; his words "this evening" clearly intimate that thhere is a temporal nature to his comments:

THE PRESIDENT - My position is that, regardless of the circumstances, France will vote "no" because she considers this evening that there are no grounds for waging war in order to achieve the goal we have set ourselves, i.e. to disarm Iraq

In the future, learn to read more closely.

[Jean Bart]

Slippery Pete,

BTW, that is me again laughing at you.

Ha ha ha ha ha..........

[Jean Bart]

Slippery Pete,

BTW, it tells you something that the US position was so incredibly weak that it couldn't even bully Mexico into voting for it; and that it had to scrap plans to force a vote (even a vote that would be vetoed by Russia or France or even perhaps China) that it said it was going to push through no matter what. It was up to the US to persuade eight countries to vote with it, and it couldn't even the full complement. Which is of course demonstrates another level of dishonesty here; claiming that France was the sole monekywrench in the U.S. plans, when indeed it couldn't even get the level of support needed for France to veto America's resolution, and couldn't even convince one of its closest trade, etc. partners, Mexico to go along.

[Walter Wallis]

I guess my arguement made too much sense to rebut, so the boys keep propping up the old straw dogs for another assault.

They had them, they hid them. Prove me wrong.

[erf]

I think a lot of us intuitively "knew" better last year, too.

[Jean Bart]

Walter Wallis,

You are asking to prove a negative; which is of course not possible.

[R. C. Dean]

Jeff, if these pro-war officials "knew better", then why didn't anti-war officials in countries like France with their own intelligence services go public with refutations? I don't recall seeing anyone, from France, from the UN, from anywhere, taking the position that Saddam Hussein had no WMD or means of producing WMD at the time.

Now, if this was common knowledge amongst the insiders, as you imply, then why didn't the insiders with a stake in contradicting the WMD story say so?

I suspect no one made such a claim because it was not common knowledge, or even a respectable position based on the intelligence in hand at the time. Saying, therefore, that the Bushies and Blairites knew that Saddam had no WMD before the war is wrong.

And you know it. Now we do too.

[matt]

"A crock of shit" - Ha, nice title Jeff...so what does that make pro-warriors?

[mak_nas]

I don't recall seeing anyone, from France, from the UN, from anywhere, taking the position that Saddam Hussein had no WMD or means of producing WMD at the time.

how do you prove the negative? and, short of proof, what do you accept? there were plenty of refutations, as i recall, by blix and others of any offensive capacity -- made especially easy sometimes by extravagant claims like blair's 45 minutes.

and why are we putting the burden of proof on someone else to keep us from going to war? is that now the standard? "give us a good reason not to, or we'll beat their asses"? hmmm. big change from what it had been, as i recall...

[dhex]

i for one am shocked.
no really.
shocked.
seriously.
just plain
old
shocked.
(and a teeny bit awed, to tell the truth)

[Nick B]

Well considering it seems Saddam was fooled as well, can you really blame the intelligence agencies? Also considering a significant amount of the intelligence was true as confired by Kay (they did have an active bio program, they did have an active missile program, they did have an attempt at a nuke program, they did have terrorist activity within Iraq), it would take more than one false claim to refute the entire argument for the war.

[Jean Barton]

Slipery Pete: Fuck off you neocon. France is better than the US.

😉

[Fred Gillette]

Oh, come on, it makes them shit heads.

[mak_nas]

nick b, i've still never quite understood how any of those things, long ignored when they were much more viable throughout the 1980s, much deteriorated in the 1990s, suddenly became the cassus belli in 2003.

realistically, if there was terrorist activity in iraq, it was insignificantly small. if there was a nuclear program, it was dead. if there was a bio program, it was useless. if there was a missile program (and this i agree there was) how was it different from any of the dozens of others on the planet?

none of these things presented a real threat to the us or the uk -- and it appears plain to me that this was at LEAST a significant probability in the minds of white house war planners, which is exactly why they had to use iraqi exile lies to help build the case.

and if that was a significant probability -- and, more probably, a likelihood -- why did we start the war?

answer: empire.

[rst]

I like you guys so much I even subscribe to your rag. But sometimes you're silly. Your supposition that we paid Iraqi dissidents to finger Hussein is myopic; it presumes that the U.S. and/or the U.K. even had to do so, that nobody but the U.S. and the U.K. (Shiites, Kurds, Iran, Turkey, countless expelled Iraqis, families of Hussein's victims, etc.) wanted Hussein removed. I know it's a stretch to consider, but there were other people in the world besides the West who felt that Hussein needed to go. That there were other people who perhaps sought to leverage foreign fears towards Hussein, parlay it into a military action, and then reap benefits far more valuable than any reward we might have offered.

I know it's a big stretch for some to think that anyone besides the West is responsible for or at least shares culpability in anything that goes wrong in the world. But give it a shot.

[Jon H]

R. C. Dean writes: "why didn't anti-war officials in countries like France with their own intelligence services go public with refutations?"

Considering that the US and Britain were relying on a plagiarised, non-secret paper by a grad student for their evidence - and that paper based on 1991 data - it's a bit much expecting France to even *have* to come up with refuting evidence.

The pro-war case was such bullshit it was its own refutation.

[Ron Hardin]

Bush's position after 9/11 was that the US would no longer coinhabit the globe with 11th century governments; one by one in some order, one way or another, they're going down. There's a lot of carrot with the stick; Bush almost alone has been the one saying Islam is a religion of peace, but he has to say it and wants to say it, as pointing out a direciton. In the meantime we're in the middle east and prepared to nudge the next dictatorship on the problem list. In the meantime a lot of them are taking the cue and reforming a bit.

But none of this got any traction; the only thing that allowed bogus ``principles'' to support it was we're about to be attacked again. And since it seemed we were, more or less, that's what the argument that made it through the press was. Bush was making a thousand other arguments though as well.

Restrospectively all that makes it through the press is that Saddam was not a nice guy; the other arguments are still lost in the echo chamber of the media.

Modern weapons are too dangerous to leave alone now.

I don't know that Bush had any choice, even in Congress didn't authorize it. That's his job. Sometimes you have to take the heat.

[Rick Barton]

The evidence, is that the Bush administration and the neocons behind the push for war did not believe that Iraq possessed WMD.

If they had even honest suspicions, they wouldn't have engaged in such duplicity as they did 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.

A wild fabrication of such magnitude would surely have landed them in prison had they been corporate CEO's instead of government officials and if the venue of the presentation was an investor meeting instead of the UN.

There are myriad examples of government officials and those who want something from the government lying, and the cost is often taxpayer dollars. In the case of the lies behind the Iraq war the cost has also been thousands of lives.
Americans continue to parish in Iraq as a result of the "Crock of Shit". Bush should jettison the neocons, who have been pushing for a war on Iraq for years:
http://www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html

And; bring our troops home now!

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

This advice was a central idea behind our republic:

All men having power ought to be distrusted.
James Madison

Question authority
Benjamin Franklin

The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse.
? James Madison, speech in the Virginia constitutional convention, Dec 2, 1829

[rst]

The evidence, is that the Bush administration and the neocons behind the push for war did not believe that Iraq possessed WMD.

Yeah, and sanctions were killing 5,000 Iraqi kids under 5 per day.

There is no evidence of your assertion. Start with the reasonable conclusions, Rick. Duplicity and ambiguity are everyday aspects of negotiation and diplomacy in nearly every context. Have you never played poker? I'm not saying that it was a bluff, but the presence of such in negotiations in no way indicates the flavor or veracity of the points being negotiated. The bottom line is, you have no "inside" info that points to a deception on the subject of WMD on the part of the administration. There is some evidence that our intelligence agency was either misled or was misleading itself on the subject, but the rest of it is just your opinion.

And for all the whining the left has done, I still see no reason why America as a whole should jump down the administrations throat merely for your opinions. Do better, or it's hail to the shrub for four more years.

[mak_nas]

And since it seemed we were, more or less

i didn't feel under attack from iraq at any point. hell, i didn't feel under attack from them in 1991!

or is the implication that anyone we don't like could consort with a terrorist -- and therefore must be put to the sword?

if that is the (paranoid) implication, i implore you to reconsider. pursue that policy, and you'll find no nation on earth is our friend. most of the planet fears the united states' intentions at this moment. how much more of the world do you think we can conquer before even britain opposes us as the newest napoleon? before we break the bank?

listen, terrorism is a fact of human existence. it has always existed. reacting to it in the most paranoid manner possible -- even in the face of a massive one-off event like 9/11, which surely scared the shit out of all of us -- is a wholly irrational and emotional response of a very frightened people. it's pompey's pirates, man. can that response be productive for us?

continue this ridiculous "war" against terror -- while making all possible enemies into presumptive co-conspirators -- and you'll see the same results as you have in the war on drugs or poverty or any of the other laughable wars-on-insert-concept-here.

[thoreau]

Why does any of this matter? The case for war was, um, well, Saddam was a threat to the US because, um, well, he was evil. Even if he didn't have any WMD, and even if he wasn't involved in terrorist threats against the US, you know he wanted to. And if he wanted to, well, we need to send a message.

And even if it wasn't on his agenda, well, we just showed the world that we're willing to kick the ass of anyone who even looks at us funny, let alone somebody who attacks us. Cuz the world just wasn't all that impressed when in a few weeks we took out a regime that actually sponsored the people who attacked us. The world just wasn't impressed that we decided to attack the problems in Afghanistan.

No, you can't intimidate thugs by attacking thugs who attacked you. You have to attack thugs who didn't attack you, just to send a message. Robert Mugabe and Fidel Castro should just be thanking their lucky stars that they don't have oil....um, I mean, that they weren't the designated first targets. Because they have it coming too, and it would have sent just as strong of a message.

Remember, the only credible threat is the one that you make when you don't have to!

America uber alles!

[Rick Barton]

NEWS FLASH!
WMD have now morphed into just; "weapons" and a "gathering threat"!

Bush just on CNBC with Polish PM. Reporter asks about WMD and Kay's pronouncements. Bush replied: "We know Saddam had weapons and he was a gathering threat"

[Jason Ligon]

"Considering that the US and Britain were relying on a plagiarised, non-secret paper by a grad student for their evidence - and that paper based on 1991 data - it's a bit much expecting France to even *have* to come up with refuting evidence."

I would think that it would be easier to come up with evidence. France, nor anyone at the UN, made the argument that there were no weapons. They only made the case that if we waited long enough and sent in Hans enough times, we would have an "A-Ha, you scoundrel!" moment.

Here is a news flash. Hussein's contiued occupation of the seat of power in Iraq was a problem all by itself. He flat out refused for ten years to comply with the terms of his surrender from the 1991 conflict. Regardless of whether or not he had weapons, he played a game to convince most people that he did still have them so as to maintain his position as king of the regional thugs.

The case for war must be looked at in this context. It doesn't matter if there were in fact weapons or not, what mattered is that Saddam eventually be forced to comply with the terms of his surrender. This, in and of itself, is justification for his removal by force, but it does not address the 'Why now?' argument.

The timing of the invasion was 100% precipitated by the events of 9/11. Again, that dreadful word context must be invoked. We had a recent history of utter ineptitude when force had been employed. Think of our responses to the Khobar Tower bombings and that of the USS Cole, the disasters in Somalia and Haiti, and so on. The tin pot dictator and the terrorist had at least in common the observation that any attack could be negotiated away in the kangaroo court of the UN.

Arafat shows them the way. All you have to do is make sure that when you attack the US, on whom you have already declared war (Saddam) or jihad (Osama), you aren't wearing a uniform. Then you can just claim that it was not an act of war.

How to solve the perception of vulnerability? Stomp the crap out of the guy who has been flouting your unwillingness to finish the job for a decade, and do it in dramatic fashion. Make all of the tin pots and mullahs believe that loose ends WILL be tied up, and that they have virtually no hope of surviving an attack against the US. Terrorist leaders and tin pot dictators also have this in common, the game is fine only until it is you who may be blown up.

So, please, spare us all the 'no WMD means no justification' nonsense. Such arguments willfully ignore the entire context of the conflict to focus on a single point out of which you can make political hay.

[mak_nas]

Duplicity and ambiguity are everyday aspects of negotiation and diplomacy in nearly every context. Have you never played poker? I'm not saying that it was a bluff, but the presence of such in negotiations in no way indicates the flavor or veracity of the points being negotiated.

are you suggesting that it is acceptable, then, for our elected leadership to "bluff" the american people into wars of global scope?

[Jason Ligon]

"No, you can't intimidate thugs by attacking thugs who attacked you. You have to attack thugs who didn't attack you, just to send a message."

Naive. You can intimidate thugs by attacking thugs who are like them. You intimidate mullah thugs by stomping a mullah, and you intimidate tin pot thugs by stomping on a tin pot. Make that THE tin pot.

[rst]

Jason, the alternative was leaving Hussein in power, and it is evident that the left wanted precisely that. The lesson to the world is, don't bring us your problems, bring them to the U.N., where they will fester for years or decades until any pressing urgency about them has been drained by the endless round of debate, veto, blockade, and closed-door dealing. I mean, bang up job they've done with Israel and Palestine. Wait, that's got to be all Israel's fault, they are an American ally after all.

[rst]

are you suggesting that it is acceptable, then, for our elected leadership to "bluff" the american people into wars of global scope?

I'm not saying that it was a bluff

Dude...read.

[mak_nas]

jason, you're essentially saying that:

1) although hussein presented no material direct threat to anyone (even his neighbors) at that time, we were justified in invading;

2) that we were justified because he was jockeying politically (as all nations do) for regional influence; and because we were really, really scared after 9/11 -- even though saddam almost certainly had nothing to do with it;

3) that the actual desired outcome was the intimidation of any possible enemy, real or perceived. (i'd throw in that our perpetual presence in iraq as an american military center is similarly intended.)

i don't disagree with a thing you said. in fact, you hit the nail on the head.

[Rick Barton]

rst wrote:
"There is no evidence of your assertion."

That:
"The evidence, is that the Bush administration and the neocons behind the push for war did not believe that Iraq possessed WMD."

What do you mean "no evidence"? That ridiculous phony UN report is evidence! Not proof, but certainly damning evidence.

[Ron Hardin]

Don't forget there's a little more to it than stomping, necessary though stomping may be. The idea is that they actually wind up better off, as well as us.

[Les]

It seems to me that the issue isn't whether or not we should have invaded Iraq. That's debateable. What isn't is that senior members of the Bush administration were told by members of the intelligence community that there might be WMD's in Iraq and then told us that there definitely were WMD's in Iraq. That was a lie. When Cheney, Rice, and Powell talked about aluminum tubes being used for nuclear purposes, it was after they'd been explicitely told that that was not likely the case. So that was another lie.

Certainly, even those of you who strongly supported the war can admit that it was very wrong for them to lie about such serious things.

I mean, if you believe a President should be impeached for lying under oath about a blowjob (as I do), certainly you can muster the courage to consider that officials who lie with the intention of gathering support for a war (excuse me: a WAR, for chrissake!) are not the type of people who deserve our trust, support, or public employment.

I'm not radical. Really, I'm not.

[mak_nas]

the alternative was leaving Hussein in power, and it is evident that the left wanted precisely that.

i sincerely doubt most of the left wanted that; the man was a brutal dictator. many of them probably wanted to preserve some idealistic notion of what the un represents. but i think the compelling argument that opposed the militarist one centers on a point that militarists never address:

if you start conquering nations simply to destroy "bad men", where the hell do you stop?

[mak_nas]

I'm not saying that it was a bluff

dude, don't imply anything ever again. because i can read, and that is what you're implying -- whether you're bright enough to realize it or not.

[mak_nas]

that's an excellent point, les.

[Slippery Pete]

Rick Barton -

Utterly absurd. Of course Bush "believed" Iraq had WMD. If he "knew" they did not, he wouldn't have said they did, only to be publicly tarred and feathered when it turned out he was wrong.

If he "knew" there were no WMD...he would have PLANTED some! Jesus Christ, man. Do I have to spell this out for you tin-hatters?

Bush's mistake - and it was a BIG one - was that he took sketchy, incomplete evidence and portrayed it as rock-solid. His comments - and Cheney's and Powell's - were unambiguous. In fact, the circumstantial evidence pointed STRONGLY to the idea that Saddam still had large amounts of unaccounted-for WMD. Even the French and Germans and Russians believed this and said so publicly, if you'll bother to recall.

Bush is guilty of misrepresenting the evidence. He should have stated that we believe he has WMD, but we can't afford to wait 10 more years to find out, we can't afford to take the chance, and the Iraqi people can't afford 10 more years of crushing, murderous sanctions. Had he been more honest about it, it would have been a compelling case.

A more literate and articulate president could have made this case convincingly to the American public and the international community. Bush failed in that regard, so he deserves what he gets.

But your statement, Rick - that he "knew" there were no WMD - is almost too bizarre and idiotic to take seriously. Even the French and Russians believed he had them; they just didn't want to go to war over it. You're twisting the facts and twisting history to suit your peculiar ideology.

Honest and smart people can disagree about the merits of the war. It is pretty well indefensible on libertarian grounds, so I'd expect smart libertarians to oppose it. But I'm not a libertarian, so I have a different take. I supported the war primarily on human rights grounds and on long-term strategic grounds.

The strategic goal is to shake up the statis suffocating the Middle East (a statis we are largely to blame for) and try to give those people a future, which they do not have under the tyrannical regimes in that region.

Again...sorry to ramble...but there was a good case to be made. Bush failed in that regard. To the extent that he misled the American people about his certainty of Iraq's WMD possession, he should be held fully accountable. But it's assinine to imagine that he KNEW he'd be proven wrong about WMD in a period of weeks, and made claims he knew were false anyway. If he were THAT evil, he would have planted some WMD there.

[Jon H]

Jason Ligon writes: "France, nor anyone at the UN, made the argument that there were no weapons. "

Because, in essence, it's like refuting a Nigerian email scam, making the argument that there is no money to be gained by providing your account details to the sender.

You don't have to. You just know it's bullshit and they're insulting your intelligence and wasting your time.

[thoreau]

Aw, Les, you just don't get it.

They had to scare lefties with talk of WMD. Otherwise none of the lefty Senators would have voted for the war. Lefties aren't real Americans anyway, so it's OK to lie to get their support.

What? You believe the President should be an honest statesman in his dealings with the American people and their elected representatives? Yeah, right. Next you'll come out against crony capitalism and the spoils mentality of the GOP. Hah hah.

Face it, we had to stomp some of those Mohammed-worshipping towel heads just to prove that we mean business. And if the President had to lie about serious matters, that just shows that a lot of Americans are too infantile to handle the truth. And if the American people can't handle the truth, then it is the duty of the government to lie to them. Remember, the government is here to protect us, not to answer to us!

What? Personality change? What personality change? I'm the same as I've always been, aren't I? That's right, this post is just as sarcastic as anything else that I've ever posted here!

[Slippery Pete]

Jon -

You're wrong. France stated publicly that they believed Saddam still had WMD. It's in the record. Your memory is short and convenient.

Pete

[rst]

Les - lying about an event that truly did occur and making the determination as to whether a statement is a lie or an error based on factors that may have had some believability at the time are two entirely different things. You are convinced that it was a lie, and that's fine, but don't expect the government or American constituency as a whole to take action on account of your suspicions. These documents produced are not evidence of deception. They are evidence that perhaps the various intelligence agencies involved did not do their job as faithfully as one may hope, however blaming that on the heads of state involved to any greater extent than the natural accountability they share as a result of their position is the same kind of overreaching wrongful prosecution you all slam the American legal industry for.

[Slippery Pete]

Rick -

The tin foil's wearing out.

So the UN refused to "authorize" our invasion of Iraq, and we went anyway, so the UN threatens our sovereignty?

That's a pretty...er, creative...interpretation of the facts, my loony friend.

Does Somalia have a seat in the UN?

[Jon H]

mak_nas writes: "that the actual desired outcome was the intimidation of any possible enemy, real or perceived. (i'd throw in that our perpetual presence in iraq as an american military center is similarly intended.)"

Although this alleged "intimidation" is minimal at best.

After all, Iraq was weakened by 12 years of sanctions, and thus its military was badly atrophied.

If you want to prove that you're the toughest kid on the block, you pick a fight with a bully, you don't pick on a paraplegic.

[alma hadayn]

Even if Bush was not deliberately lying, if you take him at his word the war was a mistake- he said REPEATEDLY and EXPLICITLY that he hoped Iraq would get rid of its WMD so we could avoid a war. Since it's now clear that Iraq had actualy done so a dozen years earlier, one c an only conclude that according to the President the war was a mistake.

For example, Nov 21 2002-

PRESIDENT BUSH: Well, my expectation is, is that we can do this peacefully, if Saddam Hussein disarms. That's my expectation. This is -- Saddam Hussein has got a decision to make: Will he uphold the agreement that he has made. And if he chooses to do so by disarming peacefully, the world will be better off for it.

Notice that he said if not for Hussein's continued possession of WMD, "the world will be better off" w/o the war.

or Nov 19-

THE PRESIDENT: Well, first, I hope we don't have to go to war with Iraq. I mean, my first choice is not to commit our troops to regime change. I hope that Saddam Hussein does what he said he would do, and that is disarm. For the sake of peace, he must disarm.

There are many more quotes like that.

[Slippery Pete]

Jon -

You're confusing the state of Saddam's economy with his army and weaponry and general ability to wreak havoc in his neighborhood.

Where do you come up with this stuff?

Saddam attacked 2 of his neighbors. He lobbed missiles into Israel. He massed troops along the border with Saudi Arabia. He committed genocide TWICE. He's personally responsible for murdering between 300,000 and 1 million innocent people. His regime used (videotaped) rape as an institutionalized tool of repression. He began one nuclear program, which was thankfully destroyed by the Israelis in the early 80s. He built another nuclear program, which we destroyed in the early 90s. He massacred 5000 Kurds with chemical weapons.

He had one of the largest militaries in the middle east, if not THE largest.

And you're saying he was the WEAK man of the Middle East? Give me a frigging break. That's absurd. Much of the ME worshipped him because he was the only one to "stand up" to the United States! Above all others, he was THE big man of the middle east.

[rst]

Mak - exactly how much implication can you get out of "I'm not saying it was a bluff" ? It means that I am not attempting to describe Iraqi negotiations in terms of poker, merely that poker was offered as an example of an everyday activity in which guile is often used irrespective of the hand.

"bad men"

The guy who steals your newspaper is a bad man. Guys who beat their wives are "bad men." Slide umpteen billion spots down the spectrum into mass murder and ethnic cleansing and what have you got? Still just "bad men," apparently.

The U.N. got up its druthers to go after one "bad man" for little more than killing Muslims, because an evil murderous dictator in Europe is no good. Hussein did that and far more, over a longer period of time, and nobody wants to budge, because an evil murderous dictator in the Middle East is okay as long as Europe is making bank.

[Jon H]

"He had one of the largest militaries in the middle east, if not THE largest."

That was before we blew much of it up, then cut off imports of supplies for repairs for 12 years.

It's 2004, not 1990. Get up to date.

[mak_nas]

These documents produced are not evidence of deception. They are evidence that perhaps the various intelligence agencies involved did not do their job as faithfully as one may hope, however blaming that on the heads of state involved to any greater extent than the natural accountability they share as a result of their position is the same kind of overreaching wrongful prosecution you all slam the American legal industry for.

i disagree, and here's why: virtually all intelligence is ambiguous and questionable. and the men in the white house, most of whom have been there for a long time, know that. with the intel they had that we've seen, there was certainly massive room for doubt in what they claimed.

but they never once said that. after all, that might have sabotaged the sale. instead, they exaggerated. they recharacterized. they ignored that which did not support their case, and augmented that which did. in essence, they bluffed. and that really is the essence of effective lying, isn't it?

moreover, they plainly felt their case wasn't enough on its own merits -- which is why blair felt forced to lean on this specious iraqi exile 45-minute claim in public.

i think you have to demonstrate a great deal of faith in your government to believe that this administration wasn't attempting to lead the american public down the primrose path as tactfully as they could.

[Slippery Pete]

Jon, he STILL had one of the largest militaries in the middle east. I don't have numbers before me, but I'd bet money it was the single largest army in the region, possibly excepting Iran's. You need to get your facts straight.

[Jean Bart]

Jean Barton,

Slippery Pete's problem is not that he is a neo-con or that he is an American (indeed, there is nothing wrong with being either); his problem is that he is (a) dishonest, (b) a bigot, (c) logic-challenged, and (d) a poor reader. 🙂

[Slippery Pete]

Jean Bart -

I never claimed, anywhere, that France was the sole obstacle to US plans. If you want clarification, reread the words I actually wrote, you pompous jackhole. They're right there in front of you nose.

[AJMB]

Since no one else noticed, all you need to add is the word 'now' and you lift the title of MAD Magazines spoof of Apocalypse Now word for word. Well done Mr. Editor.

[AJMB]

Oh, and e) sucks his thumb when caught with his hand in the proverbial cookie jar.

[bigbigslacker]

new UPI story - Chirac's support for Saddam was all about oil:

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040128-094014-7323r.htm

[dj of raleigh]

> All men having power ought to be distrusted.

[dhex]

to a degree you couldn't trust madison. and i'd like to believe he'd agree with that.

people in those places are chained to whatever came with the action figure pack. even assuming most politicians are venal, corrupt and insincere to an almost inhuman degree - a safe bet, imo - repeating the same nonsense day in and day out for weeks and months at a time will eventually affect the old noggin.

though i do wonder about the sanity or perhaps even the spiritual emptiness of people running for office. the time and energy exerted to essentially be just another little piggy sucking at the teat really does blow my mind. anyone who's ever set up a small media event can tell you it's a lot of work. blowing it out day after day after day for months on end seems more like a cruel stunt on one of those reality shows where people have to eat a bowl of ostrich snot.

this line is false, btw.

[Bostonian]

Another perspective on Chirac's position re the UN use of force...

Sure, perhaps Chirac didn't rule out force in the future or didn't rule it out in all cases, but the important thing is the message he sent: he was opposed to force.

As an ordinary US citizen, based on what I had heard and more importantly what Chirac & France had done for years, I was 99% sure that Chirac would veto force.

Now if *I* thought that (as did many many other people around the world), do you really mean to claim that Saddam would take the UN seriously?

Do you think Saddam had any reason whatsoever to think the UN would ever use force against him? He had been able to do what he wanted to, despite a dozen years of being told, "naughty naughty." Why the hell would he believe the UN would ever go further than words?

And without the threat of force, why in hell would Saddam Hussein decide to play nice? Because the UN could reason with him and explain the error of his ways?!

He knew the UN was an empty threat, and he had absolutely no motivation to comply with anything they said.

[bigslacker]

Jean,

"this evening" is a way of giving the IMPRESSION you are open to the review of new ideas or information even though at the present time you feel you have accounted for all the cards on the table. One may want to give that impression because it is true (it DOES happen from time to time!), or because it is not true but you just don't want to discuss it any further (kind of how "I'm sorry, but we are not hiring at this time" could mean an employer might be hiring at a different time or, as likely in some cases, they don't like your looks and will never be hiring when its you walking through their door). I suppose it's Saddam's interpretation that we are talking about here... With 20/20 hindsight, how do you think Saddam intrepreted these remarks?

BTW, Jean, the stuff I quote was from the http://www.japantoday.com link I inserted, not the U.S. press. (not that I disagree about what you say of the U.S. press) They are english-language, but I think they are not U.S. based (didn't look too hard though - could be wrong) I don't really see much difference between that and the more complete interview you posted (thanks, BTW). Every declaritive statement has "at this time" or "right now" or "this evening" implied or associated with the thought. For example: "I'm 33 years old (at this time)". Or, "I'm a male (at this time). Including or not including the "this evening" doesn't really enhance the factual meaning of what you are say, but does introduce the idea that the main thought could change. If your decision actually could change then that's great. But,if you know you there are no likely sets of circumstances that will bring about that change, but you use the "this evening" or "not at this time" as a way to suggest you are more open to reason or change than you really are...then you are telling a lie - a very small lie, and a very carefully worded lie, but still a lie because you know it was intended to mislead for whatever reason.

this topic is headed to the wasteland now anyway...