The Basic Case

[andyfox]

"State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said the report showed that some material Secretary of State Colin Powell used to try to induce the United Nations to support war with Iraq was flawed. But, Boucher said, 'The basic case was a correct one. Iraq wanted weapons of mass destruction.'"

So it doesn't make any difference whether they actually had them or just wanted to have them, the basic case is the same.

Is this guy serious?

[elwoodblues]

I wouldn't mind having one (just for personal protection). I'm waiting for the troops to come and blow up all my neighbor's homes and come get me.

[cardcounter0]

That is the basic lie.
It just needs to be repeated enough for it to become truth.

[Utah]

Come on. You know politicians are going to spin negative news. Nothing new here. Would you have expected otherwise?

It is probably even in the nations best interest to spin something like this.

[cardcounter0]

It is UnAmerican and Unpatriotic to not believe this Administration's Spin.

[andyfox]

I actually think the report itself, blaming the CIA for faulty intelligence, might be spin. Tenet as he fall guy (literally and figuratively).

More, please, about how you see this as in our nation's best interest. The ends justify the means?

[Utah]

We also need to spin stuff for the world. You simply cant say to the world - "yep, we sure f'd up! Man, what were we thinking?! I mean, can you believe we attacked a country on a completely faulty basis"

This would be disasterous to both us and our allies

Bob Woodard wrote a little in his book "Shadows of Watergate" about the need of governments to lie.

[andyfox]

Well the Senate report says we did f*ck up. Of course it's putting the blame elsewhere other than the administration.

Nobody really believes the WMD justification now anyway. The should let it die a quiet death and concentrate on the moral argument, which is the only one that had any merit. IMO, to being with.

I guess governments indeed must need to lie, since they do it so often.

[MMMMMM]

"So it doesn't make any difference whether they actually had them or just wanted to have them, the basic case is the same."

Pretty close anyway. Iraq had them before, and never gave up on trying to get them again. Saddam was a bad guy who had to go. The world, the US, and the Iraqis will all be better off this way.

By the way, if someone once tried to murder you with a gun, yet he doesn't have a gun at this moment do you feel a whole lot safer for your future? No, you don't...the guy has got to go, period...bye-bye bad guy, bye-bye Saddam. By the way, if Saddam once tried to assasinate Bush Sr. why the hell should he be allowed to continue living and representing a future threat--a threat which could be magnified if he ever got nukes etc.?

You CAN'T give guys like Saddam the benefit of the doubt, Andy--it's too dangerous. Guys like Saddam simply have to be killed (provided it can be achieved with reasonable risk and cost).

[Gamblor]

Perhaps it's about time for you to contribute something useful to the conversation.

[andyfox]

You're completely mising the point. Nobody denies that Saddam Hussein was a bad guy.

What we're talking about is our government, not his, that does things in your and my name. I speak the English language, it's my mother tongue. Having WMDs and wanting them is not the same thing and it's not close.

"if he ever got nukes" Does this require a war? Israel took out a reactor lickety split. In and out. First he had nukes; then he had reconstituted programs; now he wanted to have 'em. Powell's U.N. speech was a bunch of hogwash, like many said it was when he gave it. SOB.

It's an insult to our intelligence. Drop it. Make the case that he was treating his people inhumanely. Don't keep changing the story. It's not worthy of us; it makes us sound like Baghdad Bob. We're better than that.

BTW, our leaders tried to kill Fidel Castro several times. Did Eisenhower and Kennedy not deserve to live?

Your analogy of a guy with a gun is not apt. We're talking about the United States of America vs. a flea. As the president himself said, he posed no imminent danger to us.

[MMMMMM]

"It's an insult to our intelligence. Drop it. Make the case that he was treating his people inhumanely. Don't keep changing the story. It's not worthy of us; it makes us sound like Baghdad Bob. We're better than that."

Put all the reasons together. Does it really matter that instrad of one being weighted 70 and another 15 that the weightings should have been somewhat different? The reasons to get rid of Saddam were ALL good reasons, regardless of the rating strength of each. Good riddance.

"BTW, our leaders tried to kill Fidel Castro several times. Did Eisenhower and Kennedy not deserve to live?"

It doesn't work that way, Andy. Saddam must die because it is not tolerable to us to be attacked like that and for Saddam to possibly be a future threat in a more devastating manner. Eisenhower and Kennedy were on our side--plus Saddam is a worse guy. Saddam was/is an enemy, a potentially deadly enemy. We don't need that.


"Your analogy of a guy with a gun is not apt. We're talking about the United States of America vs. a flea. As the president himself said, he posed no imminent danger to us."

I don't care if he posed an imminent danger or not. IMO it is not acceptable that he pose a future danger either.

[andyfox]

"The reasons to get rid of Saddam were ALL good reasons"

No, they weren't. The main reasons advanced by the administration, the possesion of WMDs and the danger posed by Hussein were bogus. They were lies, distortion, disinformation and misinformation.

"Saddam must die because it is not tolerable to us to be attacked like that"

To be attacked like what? 9/11? Saddam had absolutely nothing to do with it. The administration told us it was Al-Qaeda and that they were being given safe have in Afghanistan by the Taliban. So we went after Al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

"It doesn't work that way, Andy."

What way doesn't it work. Wouldn't Castro, by your reasoning, have every right to go after Eisenhower or Kennedy (which perhaps he did) because they tried to kill him? Or is just because they were on our side that they get a pass for attempted assassination?

"it is not acceptable that he pose a future danger either."

There are lots of possible future dangers. Certainly the biggest danger to Hussein, as events bore out, was the United States. Did he have the right to go after us? Plus, the information on which we based our analysis that he posed a future danger was a bunch of crap, false information, misleadingly used.

Anyway--a good day of stimulating discussion. I solved the electoral college problem, told scalf where to get off, and asserted that Curly was clearly the best Stooge. /images/graemlins/wink.gif I'm calling it a day. Good night.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
"The reasons to get rid of Saddam were ALL good reasons"

No, they weren't. The main reasons advanced by the administration, the possesion of WMDs and the danger posed by Hussein were bogus. They were lies, distortion, disinformation and misinformation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just a matter of degree and weighting. Still good reasons even if the danger was much less than thought.

[ QUOTE ]
"Saddam must die because it is not tolerable to us to be attacked like that"

To be attacked like what? 9/11? Saddam had absolutely nothing to do with it. The administration told us it was Al-Qaeda and that they were being given safe have in Afghanistan by the Taliban. So we went after Al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

[/ QUOTE ]

To be attacked as in Saddam trying to assasinate Bush Sr.--or to be attacked with WMD at any future date (even if not imminent).

[ QUOTE ]
"It doesn't work that way, Andy."

What way doesn't it work. Wouldn't Castro, by your reasoning, have every right to go after Eisenhower or Kennedy (which perhaps he did) because they tried to kill him? Or is just because they were on our side that they get a pass for attempted assassination?

[/ QUOTE ]

Castro might have that self-interest. It is in our interest to eliminate proven enemies who have tried to do us severely ill and will try to do so again if given the chance.

[ QUOTE ]
"it is not acceptable that he pose a future danger either."

There are lots of possible future dangers. Certainly the biggest danger to Hussein, as events bore out, was the United States. Did he have the right to go after us? Plus, the information on which we based our analysis that he posed a future danger was a bunch of crap, false information, misleadingly used.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Have the right" may not be the only way to look at this. Saddam might have had the self-interest to go after us. We might have the self-interest to go after him. We are stronger and we win. Good thing, that.

Competing interests don't always necessitate moral judgments, or even need have principally moral components. That said, I think our position was/is more moral than Saddam's. Hypothetically, even had the relative moralities/immoralities been equal, it is a good thing our side won.

[ QUOTE ]
Anyway--a good day of stimulating discussion. I solved the electoral college problem, told scalf where to get off, and asserted that Curly was clearly the best Stooge.

[/ QUOTE ]

Anyone who might think that Curly wasn't the best Stooge cannot properly analyze complex scenarios or make good comparative judgments (also, note the hidden necessity of using either/or type thinking in deriving the best Stooge).

[ QUOTE ]
I'm calling it a day. Good night.

[/ QUOTE ]

A fine day indeed, and a night's rest well-earned. Sleep well;-)

[ACPlayer]

Put all the reasons together. Does it really matter that instrad of one being weighted 70 and another 15 that the weightings should have been somewhat different? The reasons to get rid of Saddam were ALL good reasons, regardless of the rating strength of each. Good riddance

Of course quality of decision making matters in management. I keep telling you, it is not the results but the decision making process that seperates men from the boys.

But then you may never have had to make a decision before in your life.

[ACPlayer]

Very, very sound thinking MMMMMMM.

Let us say that tomorrow your investment advisor gets you to invest $100,000 in a project and sells you on expecting an average return of 10% over the next twenty years. Two years into the project you realize that you will be getting an average return on 1%. When you analyze your decision making process (something I expect you never do) would you say: "The decision was still good, the lower return is Just a matter of degree and weighting. Still good reasons even if the return was much less than thought "

[MMMMMM]

Not the analogy I would use. Try this:

Investment advisor lists 5 reasons for a certain risky investment, which is then made. It later turns out, though, that the weightings he assigned to each of those reasons were off, some by a good margin. Yet all reasons listed still had some degree of merit, and the investment, although initially large, and having seen some turbulence, still has a decent chance of producing truly phenomenal returns at some point in the future. At this point, said investment has become a "Hold" recommendation.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Andy, at a given point in time, Saddam did have WMDs. He used them on the Kurds (remember the 60 Minutes report?)

Bill Clinton has repeatedly said that he is 100% certain that on the day he left office, Iraq had WMDs. Now unless you're calling Clinton and 60 Minutes liars, too, you have to stipulate that, at one time, Saddam had them.

There's also no doubt that he had ample time to move them or hide them by the time the war started. It wasn't like the UN inspectors were exactly approaching their job with the zeal of the Spanish Inquisition.

Now we can debate whether of not this war is or is not wasteful, productive, necessary or whatever. But to continually aver that the WMDs were never real is specious.

[Cyrus]

"State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said the report showed that some material Secretary of State Colin Powell used to try to induce the United Nations to support war with Iraq was flawed. But, Boucher said, 'The basic case was a correct one. Iraq wanted weapons of mass destruction.'"

Ah, the memories this brings back!..

I have seen this numerous times. A ploppy or a half-educated beginner follows the more "obvious" plays of Basic Strategy (so he splits 8s, doubles on 11v6, etc) but shies away from "counter-intuitive" plays (so he hits 12v4, stands on A7v6, etc). This earns him a comp from the host and the casino's gratitude.

That's what pays the bill for the millions of lights in Las Vegas - also in Washington : the gullibility of the public and its unwillingness to look beyond the "obvious" and the "intuitive".

--Cyrus

[scalf]

/images/graemlins/blush.gifif the guy wasn't really guilty;

he was thinking about doing it it anyway..

hand him high..

gl /images/graemlins/blush.gif /images/graemlins/diamond.gif

[ACPlayer]

So, all your investment advisor has to do to keep you happy is to provide you with many reasons - some more relevant to the decision than others. Then, if things dont work out he can hand wave around and have you thinking he is a great guy. Oh, and while we are at it, lets keep investing in this dog (like we do by investing our soldiers and money in Iraq) on the hope that something will happen to recover our investment.

Brilliant!

Wanna play some poker?

[MMMMMM]

The investment in Iraq is also intended to hopefully stave off potential problems which could be far worse than the losing of the entire investment. That is an essential part of the equation, too.

[andyfox]

Yesterday's Senate report pointed out that the intelligence reports had consistently indicated Iraq's army was in disarray, so the worry that Iraq posed a threat to its neighbors and our allies was as ill-advised as the worry that it posed a threat to us.

[MMMMMM]

Larger problems even than that, Andy, are what I was referring to as well.

[ACPlayer]

.

[nothumb]

M,

Here is the question I pose to those who say "The basic argument was correct," he was a bad guy, we're better off with him gone, etc.

Suppose we find another bad guy. Most of the world hates his guts but nobody wants to go get him. He's posed a danger in the past, but mostly we seem to have a lid on him. There are tons of sanctions on him and we fly our jets over his airspace with only token resistance.

Say we decide we want to get rid of him. He abuses his people and there is the off chance he could come after us again in the future.

Do you want to lose 1000 lives, spend several hundred billion dollars and lessen our readiness for a more serious conflict in the process? Do you want to get the rest of the world all riled up and get stuck in a country for as long as a decade, possibly without achieving the stability you desire? Are you willing to kill thousands of civilians and risk bringing terrorists into that country and turn them against that country's population?

Those of us who opposed the war were fairly certain most, if not all of those things would happen, and we said so. Most Americans did not believe these things would happen. I don't think most Americans would have supported the war if they had.

NT

[MMMMMM]

There were also long term strategic objectives involving the Iraq war.

[ACPlayer]

Why have we not heard about these supposed "strategic objectives" from the executives we pay to manager our tax dollars?

Unless they state the objectives, define the goals, and point out how the money and manpower are helping us achieve these goals -- any rational assessment of their performance must rest on their stated goals. Their performance on achieving their stated objectives is abysmal and incompetent.

[MMMMMM]

Why aren't some of the longer-term strategic goals obvious?

Also, I don't agree with the following: "Their performance on achieving their stated objectives is abysmal and incompetent."

I happen to think their performance deserves a solid B overall. Considering the complex, difficult challenges, and the constant heckling from the peanut galleries around the world, that "B" that could easily have been an "A-" under less trying circumstances.

[ACPlayer]

Why aren't some of the longer-term strategic goals obvious?

Well, why does the administration not state them? As a supposedly open minded thinker, you should be asking that question so, at a minimum, you can confirm that they are the ones that you want.

None of the main stated reasons for the conflict have been achieved and you give them a B! Dunno where you went to school (did you?).

If you ever wanted to meet a person blindly following an idealogy, a person who lives on faith not reason, -- you are it.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Why aren't some of the longer-term strategic goals obvious?

Well, why does the administration not state them? As a supposedly open minded thinker, you should be asking that question so, at a minimum, you can confirm that they are the ones that you want.

[/ QUOTE ]

I asked that question and am satisfied with the answer I found.

None of the main stated reasons for the conflict have been achieved and you give them a B! Dunno where you went to school (did you?).

Saddam was not removed from power? The Iraqi people are not relieved from his terror? Saddam is not incapable of, at any future point, developing WMD for his own misuse or perhaps the use of our enemies?

If you ever wanted to meet a person blindly following an idealogy, a person who lives on faith not reason, -- you are it.

Quite untrue; and sometimes that which one does not understand may appear illogical, or even magical, to that person. Similarly, you relegate the results of my deeper analysis to faith, beause you do not fully understand them.