Imminent Front

New at Reason: Jacob Sullum considers the aftermath of the WMD light show.

Comments

[Fin]

I'd say Sullum both mischaracterizes the intelligence on Iraq and the stated reasons for war. So, to use the logic of anti-war protestors, Sullum is "lying!".

[TJ]

Fin,

"Sullum is lying"

You know, most of his article is supported by direct quotes. Some of these quotes are from pro-war people.

So, are you saying that Kay, Pollock, Friedman, and Sullivan are lying? Are you saying these quotes are taken out of context? Or are you using a crystal ball?

Just curious how your conclusions are arrived at.

[Ruthless]

As Tom Friedman said, the "real" reason was because we needed to smack some Muslim country around.

The "real" problem for Bush is that Muslims smacked and are still smacking us back.

WMD are mostly irrelevant to all parties.

[Ignorant Law Student]

In my mind, there are two important questions, and I think they go in order:

1) Did anyone who supported the war really think that Saddam's weapons were the primary reason for going to Iraq?

2) Were we lied to about the nukes, germs, and poison gas?

The answer to the second question is up in the air. It's hard to tell if the administration was really credulous because the information was supportive (and, so goes the subtext, they're not particularly competent), or actively selecting only the supportive information.

But if the people who really wanted to go to war were in Sullum's other categories -- the moralists, realists, or the right -- then the answer to the second question is less important.

I think much of the focus on what Saddam did or didn't have is to placate those who opposed the war, at least in the United States. I haven't seen any polls (but if any of you have, feel free to link them), but I get the anecdotal sense that the war types are all about geopolitics and altering the Middle East, and weapons of mass destruction is a tiresome argument they deign to play because it was supposed to convince a lot of nay-sayers.

But if you weren't for the war, you didn't believe the evidence, or didn't think it was worth going to war for.

So I could be convinced that the Administration lied to the American people about what Iraq had. But I don't think those lies were critical in getting troops into Iraq.

[alma hadayn]

CONDOLEEZZA RICE: No one will want to know more than the president the comparison between what we found when we got there and what we thought was there going in.

A couple of weeks earlier...

DIANE SAWYER: (You) stated as a hard fact, that there were weapons of mass destruction as opposed to the possibility that he could move to acquire those weapons still ?

PRESIDENT BUSH: So what's the difference?

It would be easier to give Bush the benefit of the doubt if he expressed even the slightest interest in accounting for his numerous false statements without the help of the entire Washington press corps snapping at his heels.

[Warren]

It's just amazing to see the pro war people clinging to their delusions. No amount of reality can shake dislodge them. When we inevitably withdrawal from Iraq and it descends into chaos. The will cry that what was needed was more guns and bombs.

The cure exasperating the disease thus requiring more of the cure seems to be a common characteristic of war. Consider:

War on Poverty
War on Drugs
War on Terrorism

And no matter how patently obvious the foolishness becomes, we never here the words "I was wrong, this was a bad idea".

Still It's pretty funny to hear them now "I never said what I said, and besides I only said it because I believed it, because it was true even though we now know it was a lie, but it wasn't my lie. And it doesn't even matter because what I said when I was making my point was totally besides the point."

[alma hadayn]

"1) Did anyone who supported the war really think that Saddam's weapons were the primary reason for going to Iraq?"

The President repeatedly said that the weapons were the only reason for the war, for example this quote in November: "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."

If there were other reasons that justified the war, it makes no sense to say "the world will be better off" by Saddam Hussein's peaceful disarmament.

There are many more quotes like that one, just look at whitehouse.gov for Nov-Dec 2002

[nobody]

I think a War on War is needed. The concept will devour itself, then everyone will be content.

[Gene Berkman]

Before ordering the troops into Iraq, President Bush stated that Hussein was forcing us into a war by refusing to disarm. He claimed that he did not want war but that we had no choice because Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction that threatened us.

Since they cannot find the evidence, supporters of war or of the President resort to the humanist argument that Hussein was an evil dictator and had to be removed. I think everyone cheers his removal, but it has proved to be very costly in money and lives.

And if the successor government does not meet our standards of democracy and human rights, are the Bush leaguers prepared to send the troops back and spend more hundreds of billions of dollars to guarantee democracy and human rights in Iraq?

[Andrew Lynch]

What Gene said.

[mak_nas]

It's just amazing to see the pro war people clinging to their delusions. No amount of reality can shake dislodge them.

and this, warren, because the fantasy is so much more appealling than the truth: america, whatever its professed ideals, is a militant democracy with a global empire and very little interest in brooking dissent to the exercize of its awesome power to further the scope and reach of said empire.

[How'd He Get In Here?]

And if the successor government does not meet our standards of democracy and human rights, are the Bush leaguers prepared to send the troops back and spend more hundreds of billions of dollars to guarantee democracy and human rights in Iraq?

Not if John Kerry has something to say about it!

[PapayaSF]

The President repeatedly said that the weapons were the only reason for the war

Sorry, alma, that's not correct. In the runup to the war, Bush was actually criticized for giving too many reasons for the war, so they settled on Iraq's violations of UN WMD resolutions as their main argument.

As it turned out, either 1) Saddam was bluffing, or 2) his scientists were lying to him about WMDs, or 3) they did the textbook Soviet client state "ditch the weapons and we'll build some more later" trick, or 4) the stockpiles will still be found. None of these cases invalidate the war. Personally I think the best reason to give was that Saddam had violated many of the terms of the ceasefire from the last war, so the ceasefire was off. Simple and perfectly legal.

[alma hadayn]

"Not if John Kerry has something to say about it!"

John Kerry had something about the first time around, and it amounted to "go nuts George"

[Hank]

OOoohhh. Here comes the scary empire again. Sweet Geebus. Bush friggin' lied cuz its the only way to get the hair brained public to allow him to do what was necessary. Take out an relatively easy target, so we can establish a foothold of power smack in between possibly the two largest supporters of terror and ant-americanism in the region. The friggin Wahabis in the Kingdom of Saud, and that cursed theocracy over there in Tehran.

Course, its just a minor bonus that we rid the Iraqis of a murderous regime. No big deeeaaaall.

[Ignorant Law Student]

"If there were other reasons that justified the war, it makes no sense to say 'the world will be better off' by Saddam Hussein's peaceful disarmament."

Absolutely true. But what Bush says isn't the same as what Americans think.

What I want to know is how many people actually supported Bush based on those kinds of statements. I know many in the anti-war camp claimed that they wanted this kind of statement and information as it was the only true justification in their minds for invasion, but I'm not sure that any of the anti-war American population was at all convinced by Bush's numerous pronouncements.

I'm more of the sentiment that the necessary plurality to go to war was formed through a bunch of vengeful or idealistic Americans (maybe more vengeful than idealistic, depending on your point of view), and that neither they nor their opponents really seemed all that willing to budge by the summer of 2002, except for professional politicians, who were trying to figure out which side was larger.

[Warren]

mak nas,
Yeow, you are even more cynical than I am. I despise all our leaders, and all of their followers, yet I still think this it the best country yet crafted by man. There are things about our government, our history, and our culture that can cause me to weep for the love of it.

[just wondering]

Is anyone else thinking that forcing the Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites to form one "country" is about as useful as forcing the Israelis and Palestinians to do the same?

[Ruthless]

How come we can give native americans reservations? We can cut some slack on those nekkid natives down in the Upper Amazon area. We cut kurds slack. We cut African-Americans slack with affirmative action.
Why is it so necessary for us to step into an imminent civil war between Iraqi Sunnis and Shias?

[Warren]

Hank,
Your post sounds like this to me:

Ohh stop with the rape talk already. Look, I had to hold her down and force her legs open so I could have sex with her. The spontaneous abortion was just a bonus. Really it's no big deal.

[alma hadayn]

Nov 1: The United States will fulfill its obligations to peace; Saddam Hussein will disarm; if not, for the sake of peace, for the sake of securing the homeland, for the sake of protecting our friends and allies, the United States will lead a mighty coalition of freedom-loving nations and disarm Saddam Hussein.

Nov 3: And my message to Saddam Hussein is that, for the sake of peace, for the sake of freedom, you must disarm like you said you would do. But my message to you all and to the country is this: for the sake of our future freedoms, and for the sake of world peace, if the United Nations can't act, and if Saddam Hussein won't act, the United States will lead a coalition of nations to disarm Saddam Hussein.

Nov 7: The only way, in my judgment, to deal with Saddam Hussein is to bring the international community together to convince him to disarm. But if he's not going to disarm, we'll disarm him, in order to make the world a more peaceful place.

Nov 8: All patriotic Iraqis should embrace this resolution as an opportunity for Iraq to avoid war and end its isolation. Saddam Hussein cannot hide his weapons of mass destruction from international inspectors without the cooperation of hundreds and thousands of Iraqis -- those who work in the weapons program and those who are responsible for concealing the weapons. We call on those Iraqis to convey whatever information they have to inspectors, the United States, or other countries, in whatever manner they can. By helping the process of disarmament, they help their country.

Nov 20: Secondly, as to Iraq, it's very important for our nations, as well as all free nations, to work collectively to see to it that Saddam Hussein disarms. If the collective will of the world is strong, we can achieve disarmament peacefully. However, should he choose not to disarm, the United States will lead a coalition of the willing to disarm him.

Nov 21: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.

How can anyone read the above quotes and still argue that Bush never said an Iraq war would only be a last resort to disarm Saddam Hussein of weapons of mass destruction? And these are just from Nov 2002!

Please, it's a matter of public record - revisionism does not work.

[bigslacker]

Alma, when you say "the first time around" are you refering to his more recent vote to authorize Bush Jr. to do whatever is necessary, or are you refering to his vote to liberate Kuwait?

I'm surprised nobody has commented on the following story - maybe it hasn't recieved wide-scale attention yet:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/Investigation/saddam_oil_vouchers_040129-1.html

The story starts "ABCNEWS has obtained an extraordinary list that contains the names of prominent people around the world who supported Saddam Hussein's regime and were given oil contracts as a result."

[Mark Anderson]

Hank,
We are back to it again. Do you believe you should be mislead so you will support something someone feels is necessary? If this is so obviously necessary, why lie about it? Oh yeah, to convince my dumbass our best defense is a good offense and rah rah rah!! Reverse dominoes, shock and awe! GO GET EM HANK!!! Kill all those terrorists before they kill us!! And don't stop killin till the killin is done!!

[Anymouse]

Monday...Morning...Quaterbacks...

[John Hood]

If you read Kay's actual statements, and put credence in them, then some of the arguments made by war supporters, including me, earlier in the year turn out to be incorrect. That is, there appear not to have been existing stockpiles of biochems that Hussein could have smuggled out to terrorists for use against the U.S. or its allies (though individual weapons or weapons material such as biochem agents may well have existed and may still be found in Iraq or elsewhere). And Hussein did not, in turns out, have weapons in usable form with which to deter attacks against him after taking some sort of future action, such as another invasion, another attempt on an American president or leader, or a terrorist attack by his own thugs against U.S. targets. (The best evidence for this fact, BTW, was not Kay's report but the absence of chemical attack during the campaign.)

On the other hand, by reading Kay and taking him seriously you would also have to conclude: 1) that Hussein probably thought he had stockpiles, which could well have led him to the same dangerous (for us) conclusions about his ability to get away with assasinations or terrorism; 2) that Hussein's scientists, while likely misleading him and his generals as to the condition of weaponry current available, were continuing the research activities necessary to ramp up production once UN sanctions and Allied military pressure were eased, thus still running the risk of proliferation to our terrorist enemies; and 3) Hussein and his regime had every intention of posing the risk to Amerian security that the Bush administration and others claimed, but were just somewhat farther behind than Western intelligence agencies thought.

How are these conclusions inconsistent with the realist case for war, setting aside the moralist and quasi-realist one about the advancement of freedom in the Islamic world being worth the cost in and of itself?

Perhaps it's not the slam-dunk case some of us saw in the spring, based on the available evidence, but I would content that it is still a compelling and persuasive case, particularly because the other costs of not going to war when we did were significant -- the continuation of a costly and inhumane policy of economic sanctions and military encirclement, the flouting of the ceasefire negotiated in the first Gulf War, the logistical difficulties of waiting until the next spring to invade if necesary, etc.

Bottom line: if Saddam Hussein and his generals believed they had operable chemical weapons and were close to operable biological weapons, why is it deemed so ridiculous that the rest of the world came to believe it, too? Why is this some near-criminal failure of human intelligence? I've just been re-reading some World War I history and marveling at how horribly wrong both sides' intelligence was about the other, and how many people even today believe things about that war -- about the importance of the American Expeditionary Force, for example -- that are false but were widely believed at the time due to poor intelligence and limited data.

Frankly, the world as we actually find it is often messier than it appears in theoretical debates. The anti-war faction has been at least as ridiculously wrong about its pre-war predictions of dire consequences, massive casaulties, the Arab street, the impact on other proliferators (e.g. Libya), and international repercussions generally.

[alma hadayn]

I'm inclined to agree with Ignorant Law Student by the way.

[Jason Holliston]

Personally, I see Reason as a spectacular resource for domestic and social discourse, but on foreign policy, most of the articles I've read have been incredibly isolationist. That is the classic Libertarian position on foreign policy, so I'm not surprised. It just shows that no, I'm not a Libertarian either (as I'm not a Republican or Democrat).

As for the substance of the article, while I know there are people out there that WMD was always the number one reason for invasion, it was always a pretty small one for me, so these reports are interesting, but don't change my opinion in the least about whether or not what we did was a good or misguided thing.

[shane]

[i]The President repeatedly said that the weapons were the only reason for the war[/i]

Nope. He was criticized by some for not making the WMDs argument enough.

Fact check. 😉

[alma hadayn]

"when you say 'the first time around' are you refering to his more recent vote to authorize Bush Jr. to do whatever is necessary, or are you refering to his vote to liberate Kuwait?"

The former- John Kerry actually voted AGAINST driving Hussein out of Kuwait in 1991, something Howard Dean has recently been pointing out (Dean says he was in favor of that war.)

[thoreau]

Well, a lot of the pro-war people on this forum have argued in various threads that WMD was a minor part of the case for war. The major reasons were (in their eyes)

1) We needed to smack around a Muslim country to show that we mean business. Their contention is that attacking the people in Afghanistan actually connected to the attack just wasn't good enough.

2) Humanitarian reasons: As much as I sympathize with this one, I don't think that humanitarian goals alone justify wars. To say otherwise is to kick the sled down a very slippery slope. Humanitarian goals are good, but some other justification should also be present at the same time.

3) Transforming a region: The idea is that we'll establish a free, secular, and prosperous society in the Middle East. This will undermine despots in neighboring countries and remove some of the factors that drive people to terrorism. The problem is that we can't even transform inner-city DC, let alone an entire region.

It is certainly possible to remove tyrants. We have done so. It is sometimes possible to leave a country freer in the wake of our intervention. Germany and Japan come to mind. But transform an entire region? That presumes various domino effects and social engineering goals. As a comparison, we might be able to force a dead-beat father in inner-city DC to take responsibility for his kids, and arrest gang members who have committed theft and murder, but we can't make the entire city block peaceful and prosperous by doing so. We can remove some of the obstacles to peace and prosperity, but there is no magic.

Nonetheless, some here believe that if we smack some people around to show that "we mean business" and bring some reforms to one country, somehow that will have a ripple effect.

Pardon me if I don't hold my breathe.

[alma hadayn]

"The anti-war faction has been at least as ridiculously wrong about its pre-war predictions..."

I don't agree, but at any rate, a big difference is that you don't need a reason not to go to war; the absence of a reason to go to war is sufficient. And the reason given by the President (and please, before anyone tells me that Bush never said the war was only necessary if Saddam Hussein did not get rid of his WMD) was flat out wrong. This is a far bigger mistake/deception than Joe leftist incorrectly predicting an uprising on the streets of Amman.

[alma hadayn]

before anyone tells me Bush never said the war was only necessary if Saddam Hussein did not get rid of his WMD... look at the quotes I posted above.

[TJ]

What thoreau said.

Regarding the humanitarian reasons being tossed around lately: Who's arguing that Hussein wasn't / isn't a bastard? But as thoreau said, to overthrow a sovereign nation because their leader is a bastard is a slippery slope indeed. Hell, there's no shortage of bastard leaders in this world. Most would agree that there's one just a short boat ride off the Florida coast. But we have respected Cuba's sovereignity since, well since the Bay of Pigs. If the humanitarian reason was the prime motivator for Bush's little war, why wasn't Bush senior a little more upset about Hussein gassing the Kurds? Bush senior pushed for further normalization of relations with Hussein / Iraq just a year after the incident.

Transforming the region: Does anyone really believe that we can just install a democratic secular government for these people? That neighboring countries will follow Iraq's lead?

If I believed that as a result of this war, Iraq would develop this kind of government in my lifetime, I just might support this war.

[joe]

"Monday...Morning...Quaterbacks..."

I was saying this shit in the Fall of 2002. And so were a lot of other people around here.

[Matthew Cromer]

I wish some of the anti-war people would just admit that it's fine for the government/ruler of any country to massacre, murder, and rape its citizens, start wars of aggression, commit genocide, and perform satanic tortures on innocents and it's fine for Europeans to sign sweetheart oil contracts with such leaders, but it's awful to get rid of such a government and ruler.

Because at the end of the day, that's exactly their stand.

My coworkers feel that Arabs deserve to live in slavery under butchers like Hussein and his spawn. Perhaps the Kurds of Hajalba deserved to lie dead and twisted in their homes? For that matter, what concern of ours were the death camps in Auschwitz? Not our problem, I guess, according to some.

[Andrew]

This windy editorial contributes nothing to the debate, and if the print edition of Reason is filled with offerings like this, that's another good reason not to subscribe.

Thoreau, you set some pretty high standards for democratic transformation...I would LOVE it if post-War Iraq resembled the District of Columbia, and I am quite sure that such a society would not only no more pose a security problem for the US than say Kenya, but would have a revolutionary (and positive) impact on its neighbors.

All the great republics of the West (including the US) emerged directly from societies VASTLY more fucked-up than the District.
(I grew up in Mayor Dailey's Chicago-- stupid me, I felt priviledged to be an American!)

New Iraq is going to be "whiskey-whiskey sexy-sexy" and "messy-messy". Bring it on! It is already better than Saddam, and that is how you get from HERE to THERE.

Mean time, at the Libertarian Ladies Garden Party, they can suitably deplore how the post-Fascist state deviates from Iowa caucus night. Call me a fool the first time you can point to a fresh mass-grave.

[alma hadayn]

"I wish some of the anti-war people would just admit that it's fine for the government/ruler of any country to massacre, murder, and rape its citizens, start wars of aggression, commit genocide, and perform satanic tortures on innocents... Because at the end of the day, that's exactly their stand."

What pathetic bullshit. That touching sympathy for the Kurds is 15 years late. When Hussein gassed Halabja, the United States Senate unanimously passed the Prevention of Genocide Act, a bill of sanctions on Iraq. It was vetoed by Ronald Reagan.

[MB]

Andrew:

Now, do the bodies all have to be in one hole to count as a "mass grave," or can I go ahead and call you a fool?

http://www.occupationwatch.org/article.php?list=type&type=8

[alma hadayn]

Correction: Reagan did not actually veto it. He killed the bill in the house by threatening to veto it.

[TJ]

"that is how you get from HERE to THERE."

Maybe, Andrew, maybe. But the US has a bit of history in overthrowing foreign leaders, and accepting WHATEVER mess fills in the vacuum. Call me a cynic, but I'll be real impressed if that doesn't happen in Iraq. If a theocracy fills the void, the Iraqi's could be in the same old shit in a handfull of years. Hmm, how's Afghanistan doing these days?

[Jean Bart]

The belief of WMDs in Iraq can best be described as a self-reinforcing delusion.

[Andrew]

MB

Thought it was an interesting link (the whole site) and added it to my favorites...but I'm not persuaded, yet.

I could be persuaded that this whole idea was a mistake-- but that isn't a construction I am going to force on ANY real world outcome.

(PS spelled Daley wrong-- been a long time,)

[Les]

I want to contribute something, but Alma and Warren have said everything I could, but better.

Okay, I'll add one more thing, what the hell.

We don't know that Bush lied about anything. I've not seen any evidence that he's ever said anything he wasn't told to say. Rice, Cheney, and Powell, on the other hand were explicitely given information that contradicted what they wanted to hear and so ignored it with the intention of bolstering support for a war. I don't know which is more disgusting, that they did it or that there are so many thinking Americans who shrug their shoulders at this behavior.

I think it's possible to support the war and acknowledge that such dishonesty in a democratic government is unacceptable.

[fyodor]

Ignorant Law Student,

I cannot tell you exactly how many war supporters thought WMD's were the "primary" reason to invade and conquer Iraq, but as to your original question asking if "anyone who supported the war" thought that, the answer is yes. Happy now? 🙂

[Andrew]

I have always wondered what democracy sceptics (and cultural relativists) would accept. The principal reason we won't proceed on Sistani's demand for a free election, is that the census would have to be based on the ration cards issued by Saddam's government-- and those cards were issued almost exclusively to adult male heads of families.

But what if we just said "OK!".

Switzerland didn't adopt female sufferage until late in the 20th century-- and no one says Switzerland wasn't a democracy. I suspect Arab women would get a better deal in an Arab society with a male-sufferage multi-party democracy than they get anywhere else now...and it might be an irrevokable step in the right direction. It would be tough to take the vote away from men who get used to it!

[Jean Bart]

Andrew,

"Switzerland didn't adopt female sufferage until late in the 20th century-- and no one says Switzerland wasn't a democracy."

That depends on the canton; remember, Switzerland is a federation; some of the cantons had universal suffrage before the U.S.

"I suspect Arab women would get a better deal in an Arab society with a male-sufferage multi-party democracy than they get anywhere else now...and it might be an irrevokable step in the right direction."

Why do you suspect that?

"It would be tough to take the vote away from men who get used to it!"

Historically speaking, there have been a number of nations where voting was taken away, restricted, suspended, etc., and rather easily too.

[Andrew]

JB

Good points, I guess...LOVE to discuss it.

Like to know more about Switzerland. Of course, most contemporary democracies that can trace to the 19th century started with exclusively male sufferage.

Hard to see how things would get WORSE for women as men get the vote, and difficult to believe it wouldn't be extended in time-- the ration cards WERE issued to some women: mostly widows with children.

The near-by prededents are Turkey, Lebanon and Iran (also the no-fly zone) where, for all the travesties, the vote has been curiously persistent-- the Lebanese can't do anything about the Syrian occupation, the Turkish vote began as a travesty and has been interrupted by military coups, and Iran's clerics ignore the will expressed in elections...but somehow the vote persists.

Iraqi elections would have real consequences at once, and the ration cards are at least fairly proportionaty distributed between ethnic groups, I'm told.

[TWC]

It is disingenuous to claim Bush made up stories about WMD in order to whip the American pysche into a frothing state of lust for divine retribution. Everybody on the planet was convinced that WMD existed and that Sodom had used them on his own people. Perhaps the US had 12 years of really bad intelligence (duh) but the Clinton Klan sure thought the tale of WMD was true as did many others on that side of the aisle. The whole point being that the idea of WMD didn't occur in the vaccuum of the Bush oval office, it had a grand history that Bush merely built upon. Allow me to refresh......

?The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow."?Bill Clinton

We know, he (Saddam Hussein) has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons."?Al Gore

"There has never been an embargo against food and medicine. It's just that Hussein has just not chosen to spend his money on that. Instead, he has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."?Madeline Allbright

"The United Nations has determined that Saddam should not possess chemical or biological or nuclear weapons, and what we have is the obligation to carry out the U.N. declaration."?William Cohen

"It (the UN) is ineffectual; it is not able to do its job by its own judgment. It doesn't provide much deterrence against WMD activity."?Sandy Berger

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people."?Tom Daschle

"For the United States and Britain, an Iraq equipped with nuclear, chemical or biological weapons under the leadership of Saddam Hussein is a threat that almost goes without description. France, on the other hand, has long established economic and political relationships within the Arab world, and has had a different approach."?John Kerry

[M. Simon]

No WMDs? Despite scientists and programs and Iraqi cooperation with other nations.

I think Americans would count that as a success.

George did say he wanted to stop them before they were immanent. He did. Success.

Get it through yer heads: for most Americans no WMDs is a success not a failure.

I also would like to point out that for Kay the most worrysome part of the exercise is that no WMDs were found. Given the distributed nature of the current threat.

Iran next.

Free the Iranian people.

What we are seeing is the revival of a militant Americanism not unknown in the 1790s. Of course the rigid Jeffersonians are not comfortable with this. What else is new?

[M. Simon]

A quote from Belmont Club:

The race to prevent rogue nations from acquiring WMDs has already been lost, and the race to keep them from falling into private hands is all but. The most horrifying thing about David Kay's report is his finding that Saddam's weapons were never under his control at all, but in the actual keeping of his minions, who misled him at every turn. The componentry may now be in Syria, where, if Iraq is any guide, they are under even looser custody. If the Saudis have made no secret of their desire to buy nuclear weapons, it is only because they know that these are for sale. It is safe to predict that the next mass attack on America will involve fission weapon of Pakistani design with a 40Kt yield, charged with uranium purified by Malaysian manufactured centrifuges from a design originally developed by Urenco in the Netherlands and probably paid for by Saudi Arabia. The World Bomb.

http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/

[Ruthless]

This may or may not be a reply to M. Simon.

Paranoia about WMD is identical to paranoia about citizens carrying concealed pistols.

The working assumption must be: everybody is packing heat and every dictator/President/Prime Minister is packing WMD.

Then the sane response is to avoid pissing them off, for the simple reason disarmament and gun control is a labor-intensive wild goose chase.

[Matthew Cromer]

Alma,

I don't hear anyone defending the Realpolitic that let Reagan to decide to give Saddam a pass given the fact that we were in a state of war with Iran.

The point is, we stopped giving him a pass, and we got rid of him, and the "human rights" community prefers the plastic shredders and rape rooms were still in operation.

As David Trimble says, they are hypocrites and liars.

PS I'd love to see the US help the Iranians knock over their Mullahocracy, and someone put down the mad dog of North Korea.

[alma hadayn]

"we stopped giving him a pass, and we got rid of him, and the "human rights" community prefers the plastic shredders and rape rooms were still in operation... they are hypocrites and liars.

I respect the humanitarian argument for removing Saddam Hussein but it is by no means a slam dunk. How many women did the Mukhabarat rape, and how many women get raped b/c of the lack of security on the streets of Baghdad? (See this report by HRW: http://hrw.org/reports/2003/iraq0703/)

How many people was Saddam Hussein executing (not in 1988 or 1991 or 1995 but in 2003) and what gives America the right to decide that their lives are more precious than the thousands of innocent people who were killed in the invasion, or the unknown number who have been killed in the violence since?

I'm actually not convinced either way, but it is at least a more complex issue than antiwar=pro-rape.

I recommend Ken Roth's thoughtful piece on the issue: http://hrw.org/wr2k4/3.htm#_Toc58744952

And if you want to talk about liars and hypocrites, what do you call a government that refused to sanction Saddam Hussein when he was actually committing genocide and suddenly gets very pious about human rights when it's stated reason for invading Iraq goes up in smoke?

[BadTux]

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me why we went to war. Was it the WMD? But there are no WMD. Was it to bring democracy to Iraq? But the most likely outcome (and the reason Bush Sr. did not remove Saddam in 1993) is a Shiite theocracy, which is what the majority of Iraqis would vote for in any free and democratic election. No democracy has ever been installed at gunpoint. Democracy has been restored at gunpoint (Hitler was elected, remember -- we restored democracy after he seized power as a tyrant, but Germany was a democracy at the time Hitler was elected), but nobody, anywhere, has ever installed democracy at gunpoint into a country that has no history of democracy. Was it the oil? But that one doesn't hold weight either. While Iraq has a lot of oil, it's not enough to make it worth the hundreds of billions of dollars we've spent on it. Iraq's oil industry is on the verge of collapse and will take more billions to revive than the oil is worth. It'll be a decade, at least, before Iraq's oilfields are profitable.

The best I can come up with is that the neo-cons wanted a sandbox where they could experiment with all their wild and whacky ideas about how to create a conservatopia. But then that doesn't explain why they kicked out a cell phone operator who set up shop without permission. I thought that in conservatopia, anybody could start up any business anywhere, without permission from the government. So that cannot be it either.

Somebody help me here: why did we go to war in Iraq? All the stated goals have proven to be utter nonsense. Is there something I'm overlooking? Is it all about Bush needing to kick over some ant hill because the American people are still feeling vengeful and vindictive about 9/11 and want to kill ragheads, any ragheads, anywhere? While I can see some Freepers who might fit that stereotype, surely that can't be a majority of Americans, so even that one doesn't hold water. Ideas, anybody?

[Ruthless]

I thought we had settled this BadTux.

Saddam was holding the lowest number.
We needed a Muslim country to smack around.

My thought, shortly after 9-11, was to nuke Baghdad and let that be that.

Dubya couldn't resist being compassionate. He had to air drop MRE, meals ready to eat, along with his "smart" bumbs.

A smart bomb up a camel's butt plus good nutrition! That's the ticket.

[Jean Bart]

TWC,

"Everybody on the planet was convinced that WMD existed..."

I wasn't; indeed, I suspected that they didn't, and was relishing the political nightmare that was to ensue their non-discovery. 🙂

The psychological aspects of this are also interesting; it has - as I wrote earlier - all the aspects of a self-reinforcing delusion.

Andrew,

Switzerland's history is fascinating.

[Andrew]

Alma

The humanitarian case for the war IS easy to make-- it would take a long time to fill enough body-bags and graves to off-set the number of political prisoners we released during the three weeks of the invasion.

The post-occupation chaos is regrettable, but already abated and not destined to last-- how long could Saddam's regime have endured, and what makes you think any real-world devolution would have been pleasant?

(There are three hundred thousand Iraqis "missing" and millions in exile.)

I have examined all kinds of worst-case scenarios for the future of Iraq...and I sit here wondering how ANY of them sound worse than the continuation of the Hussein regime for even a handful of years.

A shiite theocracy in the South is everyone's favorite scare scenario, but not only do I rate it as not being terribly likely, but I also don't see why we couldn't live with that outcome, any more than we live with Iran now...and It's really tough to see why it would be SO bad for the Iraqis effected

(or so good for the Mullahs in Tehran, who would suddenly find themselves in a close embrace with a similar but competing set of spiritual claimants.)

The burden of proof has shifted to the war-sceptics-- if your contentions are anything more than intellectual laziness and lack of imagination, convince me (and your selves) that things are getting worse, or are likely to.

[thoreau]

Ruthless-

We needed a Muslim country to "smack around". We found one: the country whose leaders aided Al Qaeda and sheltered its training camps. That country was called Afghanistan. We invaded, we routed their leaders, and we're in the process of rebuilding and finishing the job (I hope).

We invaded Iraq because killing foreigners is a time-honored re-election strategy for US Presidents going back generations. It doesn't always work (just ask Papa Bush) but that doesn't stop them from trying. After all, if they aren't white, Christian, or American, who cares if they die? Certainly not our leaders, sadly.

[alma hadayn]

"The humanitarian case for the war IS easy to make-- it would take a long time to fill enough body-bags and graves to off-set the number of political prisoners we released during the three weeks of the invasion."

Read the letter by Ken Roth of Human Rights Watch, whose organization was documenting Saddam Hussein's atrocities while the US government was still selling him weapons on credit.

[alma hadayn]

I should not have said "selling him weapons on credit"- the gov't did extend Iraq credit through 1990, and we all know how Saddam Hussein was spending his money then.

[Andrew]

Joe

Sorry if I got you wrong, but I heard the mantra I have stumbled across on the Paleo sites-- Rockwell and Buchanan-- and the Euro-leftists a-la Galloway, renowned Saddam sympathiser and arse-hole.

I don't know what the fundys think of Saddam, and I think it little matters-- they have been attacking American soldiers in the region since 1996, and I scarce think they need to be persuaded of anything.

Who DOES remain to "alienate" in the Mid East political terrain?
A collection of mouldering Marxist-Leninists in the Palestinian front who have squelched (if you believe them) their ideological principles, and declared a truce vis-a-vis US Imperialism, only because they see the "primary contradiction" as murdering Israeli civilians?
-- whose ideology, if it wasn't already repugnant enough on the face of it, is likely just a pitch to the EC intellectual elites (describe yourself as a homicidal Marxist, and you'll find a place in the hearts of Europeans!), and who, when you even slightly scratch the surface, always turn out to be Allah-intoxicated martyrdom-monkeys, anyway?

(PS: Why respond to "Ruthless", unless you need a strawman...anyone could reasonably think he's a troller.)

[Andrew]

Thoreau

Your "analysis" is patently unfair and untrue-- we didn't smack Iraq around, we liberated her from murderous gangsters who were already smacking her around. We went to enormous lengths to avoid civlian casualties...ask any of the numerous Iraqi bloggers whether they felt like they were being "smacked around" those three weeks.

There is no way that any political adviser to Bush within his senses believed that this was a risk worth taking going into an election year. Had Bush coasted on Afghanistan and permitted the economy to mend (rather than committing $100 million to this project), does anyone believe his chances for re-election would be worse?

The timing of this war was forced by the looming collapse of the sanctions regime (we see more evidence of that every day) and Bush's motive was simply that he believes in it.

You can certainly debate the wisdom and merit of the war, but attributing the motivation to Karl Rove is even dumber that blaming it on Halliburton.

Certainly Bush will benefit if his decisions are ultimately perceived as wise, but he could have had that for free by taking a different tack, and any subsequent crisis in the region would have (near-term) seemed like just another problem to be solved, or (long-term) have been somebody else's problem.

Instead, Bush has to fight a re-election campaign long before his judgement can be clearly vindicated (if it is) and this was fore-seeable. It was a risk he decided to take-- and right or wrong, his courage and vision deserves to be recognised.

[Andrew]

Thoreau

Where did you get that Chomsyite horse-shit about American presidents going to war as a re-election strategy?

WWI started during Wilson's second term. WWII in FDR's third. Korea started during Truman's second term-- he could have run again, but Korea destroyed him (difficult to see how he started that, anyway).

Vietnam destroyed LBJ's administration. Most of Reagan and Clinton's foreign policy activism occured during their second terms, and as you say Bush Sr. benefitted not at all from liberating Kuwait.

I think McKinley could have handily flattened William Jennings Bryan without the Spanish-American War.

[Jennifer]

Concerning the idea that everyone in Iraq is better off now that we've taken over:

As a woman, if I absolutely HAD to live in either Hussein's secular Iraq or the religious one forming now, I'd go with Hussein. Already women are being forced to wear veils, having acid thrown in their faces, etc. Yes, of course Hussein was evil but I'd choose his secular Iraq over any Muslim theocracy, just as a black man in 1940 would probably choose to live in segregated Alabama rather than Nazi Germany.

[jackson zed]

I'm startled at the poor reasoning displayed in Sullum's piece, arguing against the war with information that could only be had as a result of going to war.

Jean Bart's undocumented prescience notwithstanding, BEFORE the war, was there anyone calling for restraint against Saddam based on the thesis that he didn't actually have any of these weapons? Anyone at all? Anywhere? Not even in France, Germany or Russia, the war's primary international opponents? Anyone? Anyone at all? Bueller?

Whether weapons stockpiles are eventually found or not, what all of this demonstrates is that at best, before the war, we had no idea whether an imminent WMD existed or not. Based on the information available at the time, there was every reason to believe that Hussein had these weapons and no real reason at all to believe that he didn't.

Also, I've yet to hear anyone make an argument, let alone a convincing one, that the US could have somehow escaped an additional decade of Saddam's rule, followed by another generation or two of rule under Uday/Quasay, without experiencing some sort of violent confrontation with Iraq or worse, given the nature and past behaviour of these psychopaths. Yet, obviously, a rational argument against a war on our terms with the Hussein regime not only implies such an argument, it requires that such an argument be made.

In the face of an inevitable conflict of unknown imminence, we took the war to Saddam; it was the only intelligent, prudent thing to do, especially in a post-9/11 world. And now it's time for the civilized world to come to grips with the fact that we cannot extend the rules of civilized conflict resolution to uncivilized juntas whose only fealty to any rule at all is solely to the Rule of the Jungle.

Regards/
jackson.

[joe]

"My thought, shortly after 9-11, was to nuke Baghdad and let that be that."

Wow, eliminate a secular, corrupt, westerinzed, modernizing tyrant, while providing the world with irrefutable evidence of the evil of the US! Damn, bin Ruthless, what mosque do you go to?

[Andrew]

"a secular...westerinzed, modernizing tyrant"

Joe

Explain to me why Saddam Hussein gets such good press with you anti-war types? With every month that goes by, pre-war Iraq is revealed to be more like Nigeria than Singapore.

In particular the education and health services more nearly resemble the slip-shod "modernization" in Castro's paradise.

Or is that it? Is it because his posse wore fatigues and berets that you excuse his ongoing gang-rape of a once-vital society?

[thoreau]

Prior to the war I argued in most conversations that Iraq posed no WMD threat because Hussein's #1 concern was Hussein's continued life and power.

I said that if Iraq had WMD we would be safe because Hussein was deterrable (unlike, say, Osama).

OK, not quite the same as "There were no WMD" but certainly along the lines of "no WMD threat."

[alma hadayn]

"Based on the information available at the time, there was every reason to believe that Hussein had these weapons and no real reason at all to believe that he didn't."

Based on what information? That he had them in '91 and there were some stockpiles whose destruction could not be verified? Rolf Ekeus, an Iraq hawk on the grounds of Hussein's alleged continued WMD ambitions, said in October of 2002 that when UNSCOM left in '98 there was "very little left; there were probably some precursors."

Pat Roberts & company want to blame it all on the CIA; there was no human intel, they complain. In fact, there was human intel,as Fareed Zakaria has written- the UN inspectors were human intel, and they said before the war that the US intel on WMD was "garbage" (See this CBs story from last February:http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/18/iraq/printable537096.shtml)

The Bush administration just chose to ignore the human intel, as in its reaction to Mohammed el Baradei's report that his inspections had yielded "no evidence or plausible indication" that Iraq had restarted its nuclear program: Cheney stated on national television "We believe he [Saddam Hussein] has, in fact, reconstituted
nuclear weapons. I think Mr. El Baradei frankly is wrong", without providing any evidence at all. Was that the CIA's fault also?

In fact a conflict was not at all inevitable; th UN had successfully disarmed Hussein after the Gulf War and he had since made no significant progress towards rearming. Bush said we had to go to war because that was the only way to disarm Hussein, which was wrong whether or not Bush believed it at the time.

[Andrew Lynch]

Andrew,

I know I'm pissing into a interventionist gale, here, but what business is it of yours or your government's what goes on in Iraq, particularly since the imminent national-security threat has been (or is in the process of being) disproved?

Why are you so interested in meddling in the affairs of a foreign country? You are quite the libertarian foil, I must admit, but your one-note reaction (Saddam's gone, Yay, US) is thin. How do you REALLY feel about the intrusive application of U.S. power abroad (Spare me arguments about the just cause...or is that the centerpiece of your argument?)?

[John Hood]

Thoreau:

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but if I'm reading David Kay correctly, your pre-war argument is actually disproven by what has since been found. In other words, while Kay did not have large stockpiles of biochem weapons, he did find that sufficient data, expertise, and perhaps precursors existed to manufacture such weapons and that contrary to prior belief, Saddam Hussein's weapons scientists were not really under his control. Great potential existed for them independently to proliferate or sell their wares to the highest terrorist bidder. That's why Kay said, seemingly paradoxically, that his findings suggested perhaps a greater danger in Iraq than originally feared.

So your theory about deterring Hussein turns out to be off the mark. He didn't really know what was going on with the weapons program, and did not exercise meaningful control over it. Deterrence would not have worked. This is a post-facto justification for military action, I think, while the prior justifications other than the existence of stockpiles remain intact.

[thoreau]

John-

Somebody supposedly once asked John Maynard Keynes when he changes his mind, and Keynes said "When I'm informed of new facts. What about you?" I might have the precise wording wrong, but it was a joke on economists' habit of saying different things at different times. "Under these circumstances this would be true, under those circumstances that would be true."

If it can be demonstrated to me that this WMD program was poised to go mercenary, then I would support some sort of action. I might not support an all-out regime change if the case could be made that covert action would suffice. It would all depend on the details. But if a WMD program was successful, and if its members were willing and able to go mercenary, I would definitely support some sort of action. The type of action would depend on the details (don't use a hammer on a set screw, or an Allen key on a nail) but I would definitely support some sort of action.

See, everybody, I'm not 100% opposed to all military action. It all depends on the facts of the situation.

[joe]

How do you get "good press" out of "corrupt tyrant?" Is it because I pointed out what type of corrupt tyrant he was, instead of leaving it at the vapid "evil" that seems to be limit of your side's comprehension? Typical rightie, even the wrong denunciations get interpreted as sympathy.

Anyways, Einstein, I was writing from the POV of a fundi jihadist. Now go stare at something shiny.

[thoreau]

Joe-

Though you were indeed writing from the viewpoint of a crazy Jihadi, you still phrased it pretty awkwardly.

Andrew-

OK, we didn't "smack a Muslim country around", we did indeed liberate it. I was borrowing a characterization from some of the pro-war posters here to argue against their own point.

[Jean Bart]

M. Simon,

Washington at the end of his Presidency (in 1797) warned of foreign entanglements and endeavours. And one wonders what "militant Americanism" you are talking about. What, the barely pursued quasi-war (because America was so weak) with France? The attempted coup d'etat during the first Adams administration?

And to be frank, praising the failure of the American intelligence community is laughable; one has to wonder, where else are they wrong? Indeed, can you even trust them in any of their assessments? Your attempt to spin this abject failure displays the absolute vacuousness of the pro-war argument these days vis a vis WMD.

[Andrew]

Joe

You are wrong. The burden of proof was on Saddam Hussein-- HE signed an agreement to get rid of WMD, and PROVE he got rid of them...an agreement he violated for 13 years. Now we know why-- he believed he still had them, and intended to continue resisting inspections.

The question is, could Saddam have spared himself an invasion? For all the US eagerness to go to war, I believe he could have, perhaps as late as a couple of weeks prior. Was he going to do the things he would have had to do to avoid an invasion? No.

[TJ]

Matthew,

Got some proof about this "plastic shredding machine" story? I'd love to see it. Until then, I regard that story as propaganda, like the Kuwaiti baby incubator story of '91. Shouldn't have to say it, but for the logic impaired, questioning this particular story does not make me a Hussein fan.

WMD's: I was reasonably certain, prior to this war, that Iraq did NOT have nukes. Biologicals, maybe. But damn near anyone with a science education can manufacture a biological weapon. Should we ban science education as being too damn dangerous?

Pre-emptive war as foreign policy: this war kind of trashes the concept of sovereignity, hmm? It's just a kind of "might makes right" foreign policy. It's a terrifying precedent to set.

I dislike watching some backwards third world country struggle to get it's act together as much as the next guy. But overthrowing Hussein and his cronys, and installing a new government acceptable to ours, does not mean that new government will be acceptable to the Iraqi people. My estimation is that the Iraqi's will not be able to maintain a democratic republic just yet. If "the ends justify the means" is bad policy to begin with, not achieving the ends really stinks.

[joe]

So, Andrew, we are compelled to sacrifice our young men and women on the battlefield whenever some country doesn't uphold its obligations under UN treaties? Not just allowed, but actually obligated? Funny, I don't recall hearing your side express that level of respect for the UN before your last justification for this fiasco collapsed.

And I can't believe you are even trying to pass off the "war was a last resort" story. Did you not read any of the coverage of Paul O'Neil's book? Notice the overlap between PNAC (who had been pushing for this war for a decade) and Bush's foreign policy team? Encounter the 9/14/01 memo from Rumsfeld recommending that we use this "opportunity" to go after "not just OBL, but SH?"

There are some hawks who make serious arguments in favor of this war, whose thoughts need to be taken seriously. You are not among them; you just recycle discredited talking points.

[Les]

John,

"Great potential existed for them independently to proliferate or sell their wares to the highest terrorist bidder. That's why Kay said, seemingly paradoxically, that his findings suggested perhaps a greater danger in Iraq than originally feared."

Since we know that "great potential" exists for similar weapons to proliferate to terrorists from many countries like Russia, Ukraine, Pakistan, Syria, North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia (indeed since Saudi Arabia is the only country we KNOW to have employed officials involved in the 9/11 plot), which ones do we invade?

Whether or not the war was just is, to me, less important than the question of whether or a not we should allow demonstrably dishonest individuals to lead us through it.

[Les]

Matthew, that's not a productive question because it's hyperbolic (is that a word?). If you disagree with Jennifer, then show her facts that demonstrate that life for a woman is easier in a fundamentalist Muslim theocracy than it was in Iraq during Hussein's tyrannic rule. If you can't, you might just try considering the point she's trying to make.

[Andrew]

Andrew Lynch

I am not altogether sure I understand your question. But I will have a swing at it.

Do I want to interfere in the affairs of other nations? Yes-- to some extent, yes.

I think any thoughtful person would like to see a world of liberal democracies, and some would say that the best way to get there is to wait, while dealing with threats as they arise.

I disagree. I do not believe that passivity and defensiveness supply either the optimal, nor even the safest path for the United States to reach the world where we would flourish along with the rest of mankind. I think it is both more desirable, AND more prudent to pursue an activist foreign policy.

That implies a certain amount of strategy: you look for things that are easy to do; you look for things that supply a high pay-off for the commitment; you look for things that may be urgent; you make reasonable assessments of risks and resources.

It might be easy to do some things about the Syrian police-state for example-- whereas Egypt has to wait. It would be spectacular to see a regime change in Iran-- and less important in Bengla Desh. It is imperative to confront North Korea-- what can we do about China? The ex-Soviet 'stans make everyone uneasy, but perhaps things will right themselves.

It is not a case of rushing to every situation on the basis of "the greatest good for the greatest number". But it is a case of having a goal and pursuing it rationally.

The goal is to shift the world decisively toward commercial republics. The opportunity exists-- and while there are risks to action, risks may also attach to inaction.

A lot of people (certainly here) would disagree. I could change my own view in the course of time-- but this is where I stand now.

(I should add, that I see moral contraints on such an activist foreign policy-- but they would be MY constraints, not what just happens to seem shocking to others: I would have to be persuaded that the particular policy was immoral, in the instance.)

I know a lot of people will vehemently disagree. I'm happy to discuss it.

[Andrew]

Joe

I did NOT say that we were obligated to invade Iraq-- the US isn't obligated to do anything we don't feel to be in our best interests. But I do feel we had both an interest and a legitimate pretext for enforcing an agreement Saddam made with both us and the UN.

And it is no small thing-- yes the administration was considering war with Iraq when they came into office...as was the Clinton administration previously, and for the same reason-- because Saddam was not in compliance with his obligations, and giving every indication of being a man with something to hide...because he believed he was.

This whole thread was dedicated to re-cycling the canard that the administration was "lying", "cherry-picking" intellegence and exagerating the intel they were getting...and it is becoming more apparent every day that they weren't.

What is interesting is to consider what Saddam would have had to do two weeks before the invasion, if (say) he had ordered his people to prepare a pre-emptive strike, and discovered the cupboard was bare.

I think he would have had to permit an "armed inspection". Allowing Coalition troops to temporarily take charge of Iraq to conduct extremely intrusive inspections. While this would have spared him an IMMEDIATE regime change, when the truth about Saddam's bad faith emerged (as well as the horrific nature of his society, and his apparent weakness) I do not think his regime could have long endured.

We did the right thing, and there is not much wrong with this outcome.

[jackson zed]

Alma!

Based on what information? That he had them in '91 and there were some stockpiles whose destruction could not be verified?

How about Hans Blix's January 2003 report to the UNSC? Everyone believed he had these weapons. Wasn't it Colin Powell who said that "every nation with an intelligence service" believed Saddam had them?

jackson, There were tens of millions of us, in this country alone, calling for the avoidance, or at least delay, of war based on a lack of evidence that there were weapons that posed a threat to us.

Bullshit.

There were tens of millions of you who didn't want to go to war even though you thought he HAD the weapons.

Hey jackson, I think conservatives are stockpiling chemical weapons to use against us liberals. Prove to me they're not, or I'm a-gonna start shootin' em. Pretty inane line of thought, wouldn't you agree?

Every analogy breaks down at some point, and some are so lame that never make it out of the gate. This is an example of one of those analogies. Have these conservatives already attacked the Greens and Libertarians, and possibly even killed a few hundred thousand of their own with these weapons? When you call the police, do they just periodically mail them a complaint and otherwise refuse to do anything about it? Do some members of the police have lucrative oil contracts with the conservatives?

Inane indeed.

Regards/
jackson.

[jackson zed]

TJ!

Pre-emptive war as foreign policy: this war kind of trashes the concept of sovereignity, hmm? It's just a kind of "might makes right" foreign policy. It's a terrifying precedent to set.

Think about everything Saddam has ever said or done. Is there a common denominator? One. Everything he has ever said or done has been consistent with coalescing his power. Otherwise known as "might." That's right, the only law Saddam has ever abided by is Law of the Jungle. And you want to play International Diplomacy with him?

And you are very right here when you say that pre-emptive defense pre-empts "sovereignty." Now let's visit the question begged: Exactly why should Saddam's Torture State be considered "sovereign"? Is anyone who manages to gain a monopoly on coercive brutality in a particular geographic area to be automatically considered "sovereign"?

Regards/
jackson.

[joe]

Jackson sez: "There were tens of millions of you who didn't want to go to war even though you thought he HAD the weapons."

You are woefully ignorant of your oppositions positions, then. Bad place to be if you want to win an argument or understand the truth. I personally figured there were some "weapons of mass destruction related program activities," so to speak, but I couldn't help but notice that all the evidence that there was an immediate, or even near-term, threat kept collapsing at the slightest inspection.

I seem to recall my best friend talking about wanting to go to an anti-war protest with a sign that read "No War Yet." But I guess, omniscient one, that imagined the whole thing.

[alma hadayn]

"How about Hans Blix's January 2003 report to the UNSC? Everyone believed he had these weapons."

Hans Blix absolutely never said that he believed that Iraq still had weapons of mass destruction. He said that Iraqi claims that it had destroyed them after 1991-claims which he now believes to have been true-had not been verified. He explicitly warned the Security Council that just because materials are unaccounted for "one must not jump to the conclusion that they exist."

In fact Rolf Ekeus of UNSCOM said in 2002 that Iraq had "very little left" in 1998. The UNMOVIC inspectors on the ground called the tips they were getting from US intelligence "garbage."

There is a very big difference between knowing that Iraq had WMD, which the Bush administration repeatedly insisted that it did, and assuming (incorrectly, as it happens), which is what they actually did.

[TJ]

Jackson,

"Everything he has ever said or done has been consistent with coalescing his power"

This is patently silly, how is this different than America's posistion?

"Is anyone who manages to gain a monopoly on coercive brutality in a particular geographic area to be automatically considered "sovereign"?"

Well, Iraq was certainly considered sovereign when we were trading with them 10 years ago.
The USA recognizes many sovereign nations whose president was not democratically elected.

Saddam's brutality was not universal, but was directed towards dissidents and other unfavorable segments of society.

It's not a perfect analogy, but as recently as 50 years ago a certain segment of America's society (blacks) were discriminated against at the government level. People were being jailed for espousing unconventional political beliefs (communism). Would Europe have been justified in declaring a war of liberation on America? Why not?

[joe]

"was there anyone calling for restraint against Saddam based on the thesis that he didn't actually have any of these weapons?"

jackson, There were tens of millions of us, in this country alone, calling for the avoidance, or at least delay, of war based on a lack of evidence that there were weapons that posed a threat to us. And call me crazy, but I think the burden of proof needs to be on those who would start a war half way across the world, not those who would not.

Hey jackson, I think conservatives are stockpiling chemical weapons to use against us liberals. Prove to me they're not, or I'm a-gonna start shootin' em. Pretty inane line of thought, wouldn't you agree?

Matthew, would you prefer to live under a capitalist system where a lifelong employee can be fired a week before his pension becomes vested, a capitalist sytem where children get lead poisoning because they're parents don't earn enough money to rent a decent apartment, or a capitalist system in which a little girl becomes an orphan because her mother didn't have health insurance? My point? Politics-by-anecdote is a really stupid way of looking at things.

[Matthew Cromer]

Jennifer,

Since you prefer Iraq under Saddam Hussein, would you have liked to be the bride kidnapped on her wedding night, raped, and strangled by Uday, the woman who watched her husband fed feet first into the plastic shredding machine, or the woman who got to see her children shot in the head and bulldozed into a mass grave?

[TJ]

Andrew:

"Every item on the list above was GENUINE. The defectors weren't lying-- they were passing along reports of colleagues, subordinates and superiors."

Gen-u-wine, huh? And you can prove this???

Once Again! you confuse bald assertion with substantive argument. Until you can develop a logical supposition, preferably supported with verifiable fact, don't bother posting.

[Andrew]

Joe, TJ et al

Once again!
We have a pretty good idea of what intellegence estimates were based on.

a) Defectors.

b) Electronic intercepts

c) Aerial and satellite reconaisance

Add to that...

d) An inability to account for stockpiles and programs KNOWN to have existed

e) A history of frustrating meaningful inspections

f) A history of seeking components and expertise in the international market

Every item on the list above was GENUINE. The defectors weren't lying-- they were passing along reports of colleagues, subordinates and superiors.

The intercepts were not meant to be monitored-- no one was trying to fool US.

The movement detected on ground was likewise intended to deceive Saddam-- not us.

The UN was being systematically frustrated.

The efforts to obtain weapons were genuine (and potentially could have been successful).

Finally the stockpiles REMAIN unaccounted for, and we could never hope to trace their ultimate destination without being in control of Iraq.

The first thing that is apparent is that the White House were not sociopaths, and just making it all up. Just as with Saddam himself, the actions of the administration (and an important ally) are inexplicable save on the assumption that they believed the weapons existed...and had good reason to do so.

[kelstermcgil]

yeah. good reasons to believe so. Reasons other than the truth.