Those who have decided conclusively, from the comfort of their favorite armchair here in America, that WMD never existed, comes "Saddam Had WMD" from Investors Business Daily. It is the latest of many stunning revelations translated from tapes and documents of the Hussein regime.
Inconveniently for critics of the war, Saddam made tapes in his version of the Oval Office. These tapes landed in the hands of American intelligence and were recently aired publicly.
The first 12 hours of the tapes — there are hundreds more waiting to be translated — are damning, to say the least. They show conclusively that Bush didn't lie when he cited Saddam's WMD plans as one of the big reasons for taking the dictator out.
Nobody disputes the tapes' authenticity. On them, Saddam talks openly of programs involving biological, chemical and, yes, nuclear weapons.
War foes have long asserted that Saddam halted his WMD programs in the wake of his defeat in the first Gulf War in 1991. Saddam's abandonment of WMD programs was confirmed by subsequent U.N. inspections.
Again, not true.
Naturally, all of the revelations are being well covered, if not over-covered, by a main stream press desperate to make sure Americans are armed with the truth. Or not.
The more you doubt the existence of WMD, at odds with all common sense, the more necessary it is to read this entire article. Here's another excerpt:
Perhaps most chillingly, the tapes record Iraq Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz talking about how easy it would be to set off a WMD in Washington. The comments come shortly after Saddam muses about using "proxies" in a terror attack.
What is the left going to do when the "Bush lied" mantra falls apart? Given that the Bush administration has stated publicly that the intelligence regarding Iraq's WMD programs was in error, perhaps the new left mantra will be "Bush lied about lying."
22 comments:
No one argues that in 1995 Saddam had WMD. That's why Clinton bombed him, that's why we set up no-fly zones.
As for the 2000 tapes, no one argues that Saddam wanted Nukes. Or, at least, anyone who is rational doesn't argue that. But so every asshole leader wants them. Nuclear weapons make war unfeasable. However, wanting them does not mean he is able to make them.
I just feel like it's beating the old drum - on both sides - when WMDs are brought up.
We thought he had them. Intelligence said he did. Some people didn't think he did. We got there and found nothing. I think we can accept that now.
Great post!
But sadly, the liberal media is not reporting this story, go figure. ;)
And Dave embodies what we'll hear from the left. They aren't there now, blah,blah,blah.
Come on Dave, just admit it, ya'll were wrong, and Bush was right. Boo Hoo.
It's hard for me to calmly reply to this, but I'm going to break down this article piece by piece to explain my point. I'm standing 100% by what I said above, and after, I'll explain why this and that are the same.
The article starts with a joke, then says that Saddam's weapons program, "the linchpin of opposition to the Iraq War — never really strong to begin with — has taken some real hits in recent weeks." There is more to the opposition of the war than the actuality of WMDs or not, but unfortunately the debate has centered around whether or not he did in fact have them, so I will humbly concede that it is the "linchpin." But to dismiss opposition to the war as weak is foolish, especially considering recent polls indicate an approval rating of 37 percent, and furthermore since early 2004 approval of the war has been below 50%, with times in 2003 below 50% as well. So while a minority may think the opposition does not hold a strong case, one must admit that the people would feel otherwise. The recent bump of 5% since November would indicate a slightly improving opinion, but with all-out Civil War looming, everything about post-war planning comes into question.
The article then goes on to suggest that the first 12 hours of literally hundreds of untranslated tapes would seem to show that the "Bush lied" theory is wrong. However, this counter-argument suggests that the general consensus of the rational left is that Bush deliberately lied, as opposed to the less-incendiary term "misled" or "cherry-picked." There are differences. While no less wrong, per-se, selectively choosing intelligence is far different from all-out lying. I personally do not believe Bush "lied." But I think there was a lot of information that went ignored and/or disregarded.
More critically, however, the article makes wildly misleading statements. The article makes no mention of the December 16-19, 1998 bombing of 100 Iraqi targets as part of Desert Fox, which was designed to take out several key WMD sites. It is important to note that time and again Saddam defied UN Weapons inspectors who claimed, and proved, he had weapons of mass destruction or biological and chemical agents. To suggest that the Democrats or the left denies this is to deny history, since a Democratic administration authorized these strikes. This renders the 1995 conversations completely null to the current debate. I do not see any new evidence brought by the 1995 tapes cited, except confirmation for what everyone already knew.
The article then moves to more recent and applicable conversations, namely the 2000 discussion of Iraq's plasma uranium program, which supposedly was missed by WMD inspectors. The article, however, fails on two accounts. First, it fails to explain where this particular program might have been occurring, and second fails to explain how a desire to pursue a nuclear weapons program means he actually had a nuclear weapons program. To say Saddam was NOT search for a nuclear device would be foolish. It is one of the most advanced and evil weapons of mankind, one that ensures sustained power. But desire does not equal ability, thankfully. While the weapons inspectors were being kicked out and refused by Saddam, it seems unlikely that due to US, British and other UN military presence in the area, including a February 2001 airstrike against various targets, a large-scale, or any-scale nuclear program would have been infeasable if not impossible for Saddam.
But all this seems to coincide with the general feeling among the intelligence communities of the West prior to the Iraq invasion. Though the validity of the "Niger connection" and the strength or existence of WMDs at all is now in question, at the time it seemed like "a slam dunk." But there was certainly dissenting information and feelings in the US intelligence community and abroad about the actual abilities of Saddam's WMD programs.
The final fact of the WMD discussion is that, when we invaded Iraq, we found no weapons. The lack of hard evidence, coupled with the later revelations about the questionable validity of pre-war intelligence, would seem to suggest that there were no WMDs actually present in Iraq. That Saddam wanted them is no guess. But, again, to beat the same old drum, wanting does not mean having.
The article then goes on to suggest Saddam was involved in 9-11 or wanted to carry out a WTC-style terrorist attack. But if it were so easy to execute these kinds of attacks in Washington or the wonderful city of New York or other cities in the USA, then why does it not happen more often? Or, more importantly, why is there no "slam dunk" evidence on the connection of Iraq to 9-11?
The article suggests, without giving any dates but rather a time when there was a Syrian flood (presumably during the flood that occurred after the Zeyzoun dam collapsed mid-2002), that Saddam moved the weapons by commercial jets, trucks and ships. The only major water-connection between Iraq and Syria is the Euphrates river, and trade and travel out of Iraq via the river was strictly monitored. Although this December 17 article says that airlines were planning to resume flights to and from Iraq, specifically Baghdad, Syria is not one of the countries involved. Furthermore, while this article confirms that at least one flight did go to Syria, it specifically states that this was not a regular flight and that it occurred early 2001, a full year and a half before the Syrian flood. Also, it said any out-bound flights were strictly monitored by the UN. Since radar exists, and Saddam did not exactly have money to throw around for stealth aircraft, it seems unlikely that these flights transferred those munitions. But, like everything about the situation, the truth it murky. Rationale, however, would seem to suggest that it is unlikely Saddam would have been able to move a Nuke out on a commercial flight undetected.
Finally, if this were all true and confirmed, it would seem the Bush administration, which has bet everything on national security and the Iraq war and the "war on terror," would leap all over it. If Bush said something, the 'liberal media' could have no way of supressing it if it were just said enough times.
But alas, we hear nothing but a few hits on google and Hannity and other unreliable sources saying they're in Syria.
It is as easy for the right to say the left is being blind when it says "they aren't there now, blah blah blah," and that "Bush was right," as it is for the left to say the opposite. Instead of using trite bits like "Bush was wrong" or "Bush lied" or "THEY'RE EFFING THERE I KNOW THEY'RE EFFING THERE IF THEY'RE NOT IN IRAQ THEY'RE IN SYRIA DAMNIT," let's elevate the discussion. The situation is murky. The truth is somewhere out there. The facts right now, though, paint a sad story. One that isn't cut and dry, on either side. The facts say what I said in my original post.
"We thought he had them. Intelligence said he did. Some people didn't think he did. We got there and found nothing."
Until another short sentence, like, "Then we invaded Syria and found them," or, "The Russians finally admitted to using Spetznaz units to move them out" are added on, not by singular news stories but by the Administration and other, trustworthy sources, let's accept what's happened.
Clear?
Dave makes a common liberal mistake in assuming that all those who disapprove of how the war is going agrees with him.
Here's some news for Dave. I am not happy with how the war is going. If given this poll I would likely appear on the side Dave believes is with him.
That couldn't be more wrong. I support the mission very strongly, but it is a war and mistakes have been made.
There are many reasons to feel disatisfied with the war, and most have nothing to do with being a weak-kneed liberal.
The article makes no suggestion about 9/11. It merely quotes Hussein and his henchmen. Please stop pushing that propoganda.
Dave then goes on to chastise us to "accept" what happened. Not only do I not give a shit if we ever find WMD, I never did. The list of reasons to go into Iraq was so long it never needed WMD.
My reason for highlighting the article is to point out how little we actually know. Even now, it is way too soon to say there were no WMD. Espercially from Dave's easy chair.
The left has stated unequivically that there were no WMD. "Bush lied." Right? With literally thousands of documents untranslated and hours and hours of tapes not listened to, are you comfortable with that assessment Dave?
If the left wants to take that positive position and use it to endlessly hammer the administration, then I will continue to point every single, tiny, hole in the armor that I can find.
And with each passing day, more and more appear. Ties to terrorism are now proven, and WMD is just now starting to crack.
BTW...This has nothing to do with Bush. His communications team has proven to be incompetent as shown by the UAE situation. This is about truth, and I could care less if Bush ignores it or trumpets it.
Someday the left will be forced to look beyond Bush. Why don't you let that trend start with you.
I regularly watch Bill O'Reilly. I listen to John McCain when he's on TV. I read newspapers, see Republican and Democratic critics who say the war is necessary but we've eff'd up. I'd have to be blind or uninformed to not know that not everyone agrees with me. I think I have shown I am neither.
You can't use the "shit happens" excuse in war. If mistakes have been made, the logical question is why, and how could those have been avoided, and are future mistakes being avoided by adjusting the plan?
I am such a typical weak-kneed liberal. There is a saying in Shorin-Ryu (Matsubayashi) Karate. It's, 'ni sente nashi'. It means, 'there is no first attack.' It's complicated. It's what a lot of Okinawans believed. Do you know why Matsubayashi was invented? Because the Japanese invaded Okinawa and forbid any weapons, and denied Okinawan villagers access to swords specifically. So Okinawans took martial arts from China and modified them and created a way to defend against multiple armed enemies with their bare hands. Ni sente nashi. But that's eastern mumbo-jumbo.
It's easy to call me a weak-kneed liberal, because of course that's what I must be, if I oppose war. Forget the fact that I supported Afghanistan, forget the fact that I've defended myself and will defend myself. Reduce my arguments to general caricatures of the left. That's very effective with rational, middle-of-the-road people.
It's not my propaganda. The article not only implies Saddam's involvement with 9/11, it donates an entire ominous paragraph to it.
"Perhaps most chillingly, the tapes record Iraq Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz talking about how easy it would be to set off a WMD in Washington. The comments come shortly after Saddam muses about using "proxies" in a terror attack.
9-11, anyone?"
The only dates it lists are 1995 and 2000. So obviously this was pre-Sept 11. So the author doesn't have to come out and say it. It's clearly implied. If you can't see that, then I just don't know what to say.
I am not chastising anyone. I'm saying, the fact is, the WMD weren't there.
If you don't care about that, then what WAS the reason for the invasion? Further, if we had KNOWN, we being the American people and the world community, that we would not find WMDs, do you think the war would have gone through? Do you think Bush would have been reelected? Obviously there's no right answer. Just something to REALLY think about instead of knee-jerk reacting.
We do not know everything. I think I've said that over and over, here and elsewhere. I have showed over and over again that I'm willing to accept the failures as failures of intelligence, or mistakes, or selectivity, but not outright lying. And certainly not that there were never WMDs in Iraq. I can keep repeating it until angry people stop ignoring it.
As far as my easy chair goes, it's actually four legs, a stiff back and a piece of plywood in a small apartment in the middle of Brooklyn.
I have said what I believe. I have explained at length. The current facts are the current facts. I'm not going to be blind to the future, nor to the past. Just because they weren't there doesn't mean that the intelligence gathered before the war never happened. Like I said above.
If you read what I've written I just cannot see how you think I'm saying Bush lied. I don't think a President of the US of Fucking A would outright lie about something that crucial.
I think what bothers me most is the attitude on both sides that when a person says they're liberal or conservative the opponents immediately know everything about them. False.
This discussion is about the Bush Administration. GWB is our President, the head of this Administration. It's his call.
And, personally, I care if Bush "ignores" the truth. That's a big deal.
You see Dave, I didn't call you a week-kneed liberal. I referred to a sect of the population that you may or may not belong to.
You drew the conclusion yourself. Just like you drew the conclusion that the authors are implying that Hussein was behind 9/11.
Show me again where the authors reference 9/11? Oh...right. It isn't there. Only a direct quote from Hussein opining about blowing up America.
The author is reporting facts. Should he not do so for fear of reactionaries drawing erroneous conclusions?
Perhaps you should consider actually focusing on what the author is actually saying, instead of digging for something that any clear headed person can see isn't there.
I hate to limit my own realm of discussion, but I just can't talk with blind ideologues like you.
It's been real, baby.
And there you have it....the liberal get's so mad when you point out his obvious errors, that they call you blind and leave. Typical.
I wish, once in a while we'd be confronted by a liberal that is not so typical. You know, one that can actually learn as he goes along, but sadly this will not be the case.
Yes Dave, run along. It's far easier than confronting the flaws in your own thinking.
Jeez, I can't believe I didn't notice this before. I'm embarassed.
Did anyone else notice this is an un-bylined story that, when googled, appears to have run along in the GOP blogosphere? I really was going to cut and run, but I showed the article to a reporter buddy of mine and that's the first thing he noticed.
I traced it back and kept googling various keywords in various articles or essays until I got to this.
http://www.intelligencesummit.org/
Hopefully everyone here had the dilligence to do half the five minutes of googling I did, because I'm sure you could have CRUSHED me with this information, right?
I checked out the absurdly long 160 page PPT presentation. Check it out. It's wonderfully rough, like it was written by a third grader. But it is a translation so I forgive it; I think of how butchered my Spanish and French translations are.
So. I also found this.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/2/17/125334.shtml?s=ic
Just to summarize so you don't have to do any reading, Tierney says ABC deliberately is trying to cover up Saddam's evilness. That seems to fit the conspiracy theories. I don't buy it, I don't think people would cover something like that up. But maybe I'm wrong. Let's assume, for RedVoice's sake, I am. Continuing,
I checked it up some more. The Far Righties like Hannity and Rush have been on this for a while, and this Feb 21 O'Reilly interview
http://www.intelligencesummit.org/news/TomMcInerney/TM022106.php
is very interesting. Bill asks the question why the Bush Administration isn't latching on to this?
He also says Bill Tierney was the translator, not John. But whatever. Mistakes happen.
What we're coming to, more or less, is a very, very disturbing conclusion. What we're coming to is that Russia, RUSSIA, removed those WMDs or at least helped remove those WMDs. They packed up Saddam's program, ditched various files, and scidaddled with them over to Syria, or the Indian Ocean, or dumped them there, or did something. I don't quite follow, but those seem to be the options.
But the chilling conclusion is that Russia was directly involved in this and China and France were secondary appendages. Yikes.
But here's where things start to fall apart. The "floods" in Syria, the major destructive ones, which certainly didn't call for help from a failing Iraqi state, were in 2002!
These tapes are from, according to McInerney, 1992 - 2000. "That's a big window" says Billy, but not a big enough window to include 2k2.
So what's going on here? I'll admit, it seems horribly frightening, but a little fishy, too.
Take a step back. We knew Saddam wanted and had WMDs and bio/chem weapons and sites for producing them in 1995. SO we bombed those targets in 1998 and 1999 and 2000 and 2001.
I don't know if I'm missing something, but didn't we bomb those places during those times because we knew all this stuff?
Further, the dates are not given for each individual conversation in the PPT so that leaves a lot open to questioning.
Looking around at this, I don't see anything NEW here! The latest quoted tape is from 2000, according to the intelligence summit guys themselves!
So, we're left with a few interpretations.
1) This is all old news, and the Russian connection is murky and foggy and unlikely.
2) Russia (and to a lesser extent China and France) engaged in a massive coverup to remove weapons from Iraq prior to 2000 or during the year 2000.
3) The dates are wrong, or just off, and Russia actually helped remove the weapons in 2002 -- when our spy sattelites were ALL OVER Iraq and the UN and US were monitoring borders and business going on all over the desert. But, that still means Russia was involved in saving Saddam Hussein's ass for one reason or another, for defying the UN resolutions/the UN itself, for aiding an enemy of the United States, for misleading us.
Let's see what each of those would mean.
1) It doesn't matter.
2) The highest levels of United States intelligence were probably aware of Russian intentions and either had secret meetings with Russian leaders to let them know they weren't going to take this shit anymore, or they decided to start bombing these sites to let Russia know we knew what they knew without actually saying it, or we didn't know at all and this all just came up. Any of these options are chilling.
3) If everything happened in 2002, then we realized it, sprung on the opportunity, and decided to neutralize a Russian ally and potential threat. But, if we knew that they had taken the weapons out, then every reason for going to war was actually a year or more out of date. So, the reasons would have been a cover-up for the real reason.
So, there it is, I guess. It's all very murky. The real question is: Is this old news? Or are we still in the Cold War? Or is the Bush administration really fighting RUSSIA, through Iraq? Or is the terror war being funded by Russia? So many questions, and no answers. Only common sense and earthly knowledge. As Billy loves to say, "What say you?"
Does that count as addressing flaws in my thinking?
What say me?
I say that my interest in the article has nothing to do with shadowy conspiracy theories regarding the Russians. In fact, I don't believe I have mentioned them once.
My interest lies solely in the damning evidence of Hussein and henchmen talking extensively about their WMD programs and an overall desire to attack America.
That is in direct contrast to the mantra of the left that Hussein "was not a threat."
I will say it seems naive to suggest that because we had spy satellites "crawling" all over Iraq that things couldn't have been moved. Considering that it appears at this time that global intelligence regarding Iraq was inherently flawed, a point that Dave has made repeatedly, it seems awfully convenient to now say that we were on top of any and all movements in Iraq.
Either we were way off the mark or we were on top of the situation. Dave seems to conveniently waffle between the two, depending on the point he is trying to make at the moment.
As I stated early on in this exchange, my interest level for "where are the WMDs" is low for many reasons.
1.We were never charged with proving their existence. That was a known fact. Rather, the UN instructed Hussein to prove that they did not exist, which he failed to even attempt to do.
2. The list of reasons for going into Iraq was long enough without them. What is surprising is the left's sudden blindness to the atrocities in Iraq as long as it is a Republican president taking care of business.
My interest here is that, as more time goes by, the more assertions from the left prove false. For instance, we know now that, contrary to the left's assertions, Hussein was very much involved in Islamic terrorism. He provided training, funds, and protection.
Where did the WMD's go? Who cares.
The left has used false statements to batter Bush over Iraq since 2002. I am interested only in correcting the record. Dave is going to have to solve the Russia conspiracy on his own.
I was just trying to show you some of the developments in the article, I wasn't saying that's what you thought. I was just presenting a bunch of info. I should have clarified that.
I keep saying it, no one disagrees that Hussein was a threat until we took out his weapons capabilities, which these tapes are before.
I will absolutely concede that point; that is a completely incongruent assumption on my part. :( damnit! OK. You win that part.
If you're saying the WMDs don't/didn't matter, then I have to ask why we went in there to build a nation and not somewhere else. A place like Darfur, or Congo, where atrocities are happening? I understand you can't take care of the entire world, but if you wanted us to be policing the world, then why weren't we policing places that needed it? And I certainly think it's our responsibility to deny assistance and trade to anyone like Saddam, but not to preemptively invade him.
As for the Islamic terrorism bit, can you shoot a link over my way? I just haven't seen any but that might help sway my opinion.
I do care, though. Because I do not think the US people want to spend 250 billion to build a nation we're losing to lunatics.
I was showing the Russia thing to show the absurdity of it. C'mon, have faith that I'm not that far out there.
Dave, are you really saying that atrocities were not happening in Iraq?
You can't really be saying that, can you?
One wonders how many hundreds of thousands of people have to die before we can use the word "atrocities."
I would suggest listening to some of the testimony against Hussein. You might find it surprising. You might also google the discovery of mass graves in Iraq.
This should get you started on Iraq's terror training facilities:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/550kmbzd.asp
Payments to terrorits:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/04/03/world/main505316.shtml
Hussein also provided safe haven for Abu Abbas, Abu Nidal, and Zarqawi long before the invasion of Iraq.
Apparently you are under the belief that we were "denying" trade and assistance to Iraq and that it was a successful strategy. Please look up the "UN oil for food" scandal. Sanctions were not working. Not one bit.
If they are so successful, why is sanctions not your solution for Darfur or the Congo?
This is not about "policing the world." It is about rooting out Islamic terrorism at its source, and providing people in the Middle East an alternative to hopeless lives under fanatical tyrants. That is what we are doing right now.
You might ask yourself where the rest of the world is on Darfur. Or is dealing with mass murderers only our job.
The daily suicide bombings by Palestinians seem to have all but stopped now that Hussien isn't there to pay them $25,000.
I didn't say anything like that. I didn't deny the horrible horrible things Saddam did. I was bringing up the obvious point that there are horrible things going on elsewhere that we should be stopping, according to your logic, and, to a large part, my beliefs.
The Oil For Food scandal does not mean all sanctions are useless. If the people on our side our corrupt, of course it won't work. We need to root out our own corruption, too!
Note the exclamation point.
Sanctions are not my solution to Darfur or the Congo. My solution involves action, which we don't seem to be taking.
I think there are and have been regimes that funded terrorism more than Saddam and regimes that were as or more threatening as/than Saddam. That was a tricky sentence.
I also think that the intentions of the war were unrealistic. The pre-war planning for the post-"war" operations was, by all accounts but the Administration's, negligent. You can't root out terrorism if you're not able to control the country afterwards, which seems to be occuring as a result of the negligence.
Unless our goal was to turn Iraq into a big decoy, in which case we're going fine. But that seems wrong to me, morally. And I don't think that's what the intention was, but it's important to address it. "We're fighting them there so we don't fight them here" can mean more than one thing.
The rest of the world was absent on Saddam and you seemed fine with taking a stand then.
Jenn: I just don't know enough about actual levels of bombing pre-Saddam and post-Saddam, but if you're right I'll concede that point.
I'm at a conference in Maryland right now, or rather, a competition, so it will take me a while to engage in our wonderful discussions.
Let me try to point a few things out here. Dave, you say this in your last:
I didn't deny the horrible horrible things Saddam did.
But in essence, you did earlier when you stated:
If you're saying the WMDs don't/didn't matter, then I have to ask why we went in there to build a nation and not somewhere else. A place like Darfur, or Congo, where atrocities are happening?
What you are saying here is that, without WMD we would be better served with a military presence where "atrocities are happening," as though it weren't the case in Iraq. How exactly is that not a denial?
You go on:
there are horrible things going on elsewhere that we should be stopping, according to your logic, and, to a large part, my beliefs.
So then, if you are not denying the atrocities in Iraq, you're beliefs dictate that we should be there?
This is the circular logic of the left I hear. To argue that we should be somewhere where atricities are occuring, you are forced to deny atrocities in Iraq. Othewise, Iraq must fit your value system.
Here's more twisted logic:
The Oil For Food scandal does not mean all sanctions are useless. If the people on our side our corrupt, of course it won't work. We need to root out our own corruption, too!
"Our" corruption? Huh? I guess if the actions of France, China, Russia, and United Nations administration at large qualify as "ours," you've got a point.
If only that were the case. Instead, it sounds like a kind weird trip through fantasy land where the actions of other nations and international bodies is "ours." The only "us" in the equation is in the exposure of corrupt governments and dirty dealings with brutal regimes that took food and medicine from the mouths of innocent civilians.
Talk about "blood for oil." Oh...its real. It happened for a decade under the guise of UN "sanctions."
More:
I think there are and have been regimes that funded terrorism more than Saddam and regimes that were as or more threatening as/than Saddam.
Aside from countries in the Middle East, who would those be? And please, "I think" does not cut it here. Who are they...these great terror supporters, and are you then suggesting we invade?
How would invading another country be any less "unrealistic" than invading Iraq?
Lastly:
The rest of the world was absent on Saddam and you seemed fine with taking a stand then.
Again, refer to the oil for food scandal for the explanation as to why the world was absent. Also, in case you haven't noticed, we are a bit engaged right now. If countries aside from the US are so fabulous, which is what the left says to us every day, where are they on Darfur, the Sudan and the Congo?
Are we supposed to do everything Dave? We're only one country of innumerable. Where are they?
Well, we know that UN peacekeepers have been raping children who want a banana, and the French have been gunning down innocent protestors.
We are not doing anything different in Iraq than we would be doing anywhere else in the third world. And you can almost certainly guarantee that radical Islam would be more than happy to meet us there. So, you choose. Be the one to choose the nation to fight that great battle, if not Iraq.
Where would this "war" would not be a "war?"
I hope, when you return from wherever you are, you can answer these questions satisfactorily. I see them as gaping holes in your worldview. Gaping. Holes. I don't usually spend this much space commeting, but believe you have the capacity to think critically and might actually have an open mind. So...there you go.
Bill writes:
"Hey, dipshit, even the president admits they weren't there." Cheyney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and even Powell all admit they were wrong.
Bill should actually read the articles. Essentially he is saying that, in this case, he trusts Bush so much that he prefers his word over actual documentation and audio recordings of Hussein.
I think, were the administration ever to acknowledge the mounting evidence, we could trust Bill to be the first to float the "Bush lied about lying" theory.
Bill would be outraged!!
Hey Bill, you blind Bush apologist, grow up kid. Or, is your blind faith in Bush so great that you refuse to acknowledge any other evidence?
While the Bush part is doubtful, the blind ideaology certainly isn't. I can almost see the dark red stain across his upper lip.
Darfur/Congo: I was pointing out horrible things are happening elsewhere; why aren't we there!
What we're saying, actually, is we can't police everywhere. I'm not an isolationist, but it's important to realize this was about US interests first and foremost. We did not go into Iraq simply to bring democracy and stop bad things.
When I spoke of "our," you'll notice I was speaking of "people on our side." It is going to be increasingly difficult for the US if we continue to see it as US vs Everyone Else.
I know it happened. I never disagreed, baby.
"I think" is a verbal thing from where I'm from, it must just not be an expression from the midwest. It's all in the inflection, but it means that the following statements are true as far as I know. I'm not being snotty, just making up for the internet gap.
Again, I was pointing out that US interests are always the reason, not democracy or freedom. That's a hopeful byproduct.
Unfortunately I think you missed the gist of my argument.
Also, I was thinking a lot about this weekend, and your argument about the "burden of proof" resting with Saddam actually won one of my debates, so thank you. The more I thought about it the more effective it was. You're right. I'm still against unilateral pre-emptive action, I think more could have been done, but I'm not gonna argue that first bit anymore.
While I appreciate your words on the "burden of prrof" aspect of this discussion, I must say that I am a touch disappointed in the overall response.
Many questions were asked and I don't feel that most received much of an answer.
I'm trying to square your worldview in my mind. Any help you can offer would be appreciated.
Sorry, I'm going back through again, which will hopefully help square this away.
1) What I was trying to say about Saddam's posession/non-posession of WMDs was that his posession of them would have/did justify intervention in Bush's mind. While atrocities were happening, which I do not deny, the question becomes why Iraq and why not the other places they are happening? The point I was trying to make is that the purpose of our military interventions is firstly and only in our interests. It is not in the interests of the United States of America for Darfur to be stabilized; it IS in the interest of humankind. The re-write of that quotation would have been "...like Darfur, or Congo, where atrocities are ALSO happening."
2) I do not know exactly what I believe regarding military intervention. Unfortunately, we cannot police the world. We do not have the manpower or resources; or, rather, we do not currently. With a shift in production and mandatory military service I think we could more or less efficiently run the world. But that's not realistic and furthermore it's really in opposition to the ideals of both the right (capitalism/free enterprise) and the left (freedom of personal choice/personal liberty). Obviously the left is not entirely anti-capitalism and the right is not entirely anti-civil liberties, but I think the point/general image is there.
My gut feeling wants to stop the awful things going on in Iraq and Darfur and Congo and North Korea and rural China et al, but I know we cannot stop everywhere. I think most people feel this way, as decent AND rational human beings. I feel Korea, Vietnam, and now, Iraq, are all proof that it is very difficult to police the world. I know this isn't a solid answer, but that's because I'm not able to give you one yet. One day, hopefully.
3) The oil for food business, that's just fucked up. I am so angry at the dickheads who screw up an organiziation with the kind of insurpassable potential that the UN has. But screw-it-up they do, did, and will keep on doing. I feel like just because something is partially broken doesn't mean we should shatter the entire thing. The UN needs more decisive leadership with a positive, non-ethnocentric viewpoint. It is perfectly possible to achieve this. I trust the US military as a whole, and most of the individual soldiers, despite some of the failures it incurs. I feel the same way about the UN.
I feel I addressed the issue of "our" guys in my previous reply.
4) Afghanistan. We need to finish the job in Afghanistan, get Bin Ladin and send a message to the world that we are not going to let people like the Taliban scare tribes in Afghanistan nor are we going to let people like Bin Ladin hide from us. I am almost at the point where I believe we need to think about forcing Pakistan's hand in the matter.
Bin Ladin was the issue; we needed to end the issue with him, first. And then we needed to bring him before either a US court or the UN court, try him, and hang him. Not lethally inject, or gas, or whatever. Hang him. I feel very strongly about that. Attacking civilians is unacceptable, and while I don't support torture, I do support punishment fitting the crime.
Saddam being out of power is great. But we needed to do the entire thing more effectively and we haven't and are not willing to admit mistakes. Again, to clarify, by "we" I mean Bush.
I hope that helps.
Post a Comment