Fleishcer: Saddam destroyed WMD on the "eve of war"

[Chris Alger]

Recall that the central argument for invasion concerned the “implausibility” of Iraq’s position regarding WMD. It was not logical, said the White House, to think that Iraq would first conceal its program and then reveal everything to inspectors. It was not likely, they argued, that Iraq could have destroyed the WMD it said it did without retaining substantial proof of the particulars.

The latest White House theory about why no one can find any of the “thousands of tons” of alleged Iraqi WMD is that Saddam secretly destroyed them, under the world's nose, “on the eve of the war.” White House spokesperson Ari Fleischer speculated that Iraq might have done this “the fear of them actually being discovered,” thus being “caught red handed with the very weapons we said they had.”
http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=2633190

So while it was not plausible for Iraq to destroy its WMD in order to avoid sanctions and war, it is plausible that Iraq would destroy them once war was inevitable in order to avoid embarrassment.

Thus the evidence mounts that Iraqi WMD was a hoax in order to justify replacing a renegade client with one more inclined to follow orders. Lest anyone think that we are not caught up in a mass media system dominated by official propaganda, consider the number of media flacks that insisted that Iraqi WMD was so obvious that it wasn't even arguable. “Ludicrous,” for example, was how Ann Coulter’s described any argument that “Saddam's weapons of mass destruction are no threat to America.”

The following are a few snippets (of probably hundreds) from the war drum-beaters, reminders of "lies in the absence of liberty," "so blessedly beyond the understanding of most Americans" of "how we underestimate, again and again, the lies that dictators tell and the lies that their subjects are forced to live" .... in other countries. Fred Hiatt, W Post, 4/14/3

Linda Chavez, 2/19/3: “Iraq's weapons of mass destruction will be unearthed by a U.S. invasion. When that happens, not even Johnnie Cochran could convince the world that Saddam was the innocent party and President Bush the great threat to world peace.”

Michael Dobbs, Washington Post, 12/8/2: “U.S. officials say ... the rest of the world should expect a pattern of telltale signs that lead to ‘only one logical conclusion’: that Hussein still has weapons of mass destruction and “‘values these weapons very dearly.’”

Wall Street Journal editorial, 12/6/2: “As U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said this week, ‘The United States knows that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. The U.K. knows that they have weapons of mass destruction. Any country on the face of the Earth with an active intelligence program knows that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction.’”

Gary Milhollin, Wall Street Journal, 11/26/2: “Saddam will never be forced to give up his mass destruction arsenal--which every Western intelligence service believes he has--because Mr. Blix will never uncover what is hidden.”

Pete DuPont, Wall Street Journal, 10/16/2: “In taking on Saddam Hussein, there is a broader agenda, something of more lasting significance than eliminating the immediate threat posed by his weapons of mass destruction.”

Richard Spertzel, Wall Street Journal, 9/24/02: “Should Iraq be allowed to retain its biological weapons (and other weapons of mass destruction programs) it will remain a menace not only to its neighbors, but to the world at large because of the concomitant instability it would create in the region.”

Benjamin Netanyahu, Wall Street Journal, 9/20/2: “This is a dictator who is rapidly expanding his arsenal of biological and chemical weapons....”

Pres. Bush, 9/7/2 Press Conference: “I would remind you that when the inspectors first went into Iraq and were denied—finally denied—access, a report [from the International Atomic energy Commission] came out...that they were six months away from developing a weapon ... I don’t know what more evidence we need.” [The head of the IAEC later claimed Bush was lying, issuing a statement that “there’s never been a report like that issued from this agency.”]

PM Blair, September 2002: “I am in no doubt that the threat is serious and current, that he [Saddam] has made progress on WMD, and that he has to be stopped. ... Some of these weapons are deployable within 45 minutes of an order to use them.” [The line about being able to deploy them in 45 minutes was widely repeated throughout the mainstream press].

Ken Adelman, Wall Street Journal, 8/28/02: Saddam has “scores of scientific laboratories and myriad manufacturing plants cranking out weapons of mass destruction.”

[John Cole]

Quote of the Year: "They couldn't have destroyed them, if they didn't have them."

Well, maybe, perhaps.

[MMMMMM]

...that Iraq destroyed or disassembled WMD on the eve of war. An Iraqi scientist said it first.

[David Steele]

I am surprised you are still talking about this since the
discovery of the smoking gun, Saddam's bedroom art collection.

D.

[Parmenides]

The Bush thugs don't care. They've admitted that the intelligence used to persuade Congres to approve military action in Novemmber last year was faked and came straight from British intelligence.

The Bush fascists believe that the more they repeat their lies, the more people will believe them. They may have a point. If they put one in jail for denying that the emperor wears no clothes, then most people will say his clothes look fabulous.

[Chris Alger]

An "unnamed" Iraqi scientist to whom journalists were given no access and allowed to "report" about him only on the condition that the story would be vetted by the Pentagon --- which refused to confirm the report in any event -- in order to ensure it had the proper absence of skepticism.

Excerpts from Judith Miller's report in the NYT, 4/21/03:

The US military "declined to identify him, saying they feared he might be subject to reprisals."

Reprisals from whom? So we can conquer the country but can't protect this guy? And the Pentagon can't risk revealing his name but can risk disclosing his existence merely to publicize an unverified, non-evidenced preliminary account that barely supports the White House? What kind of fool would believe any of this?

"But they said that they considered him credible and that the material unearthed over the last three days at sites to which he led them had proved to be precursors for a toxic agent that is banned by chemical weapons treaties."

Note that the first sentence of the article refers to "chemical weapons," but down in the fifth paragraph is not even a toxic agent but an unidentified "precursor."

According to unnamed source for the article, the buried "precursor" is "the most important discovery to date in the hunt for illegal weapons."

Ready to launch in 45 minutes?

"Under the terms of her accreditation to report on the activities of MET Alpha, this reporter was not permitted to interview the scientist or visit his home. Nor was she permitted to write about the discovery of the scientist for three days, and the copy was then submitted for a check by military officials. ... Military spokesmen at the Pentagon and at Central Command headquarters in Doha, Qatar, said they could not confirm that an Iraqi chemical weapons scientist was providing American forces with new information."

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/21/international/worldspecial/21CHEM.html?pagewanted=1&tntemail1

This is not normal reporting, even in wartime, and especially not for the New York Times.

And Judith Miller? She's the WMD person at the Times, apparently the only one, and the one who "broke" the story about the steel "centrifuge" rods, also based on unnamed Pentagon sources, and also bogus. In other words, she's the willing conduit for Pentagon disinformation into the "legitimate" press.

[MMMMMM]

I've got an idea for you, Chris.

Instead of arguing everyuthing from Saddam's side, why don't you use your legal mind and techniques to look at it the other way around.

Start by presuming Saddam is guilty. Start by presuming he had weapons of mass destruction--a most reasonable assumption, given his history and actions over the past 15 years or so. Then try to find any reasons he would have destroyed them ALL without being forced to. Try to find reasons he would have acted 100% out of character.

Iraq was a vast bureaucracy. They recorded everything from tortured prisoners to military and weapons matters. If they had truly and unilaterally destroyed all the WMD (some of which UNMOVIC was not given permission nor access to witness), they surely would have recorded that too. Now why couldn't they produce any of those records?

In our legal system, innocent until proven guilty is a good standard. In international military matters and matters of security, especially when dealing with tyrants with horrid histories such as Safddam Hussein's, the opposite is true. Guilty until proven innocent is actually the far more rational approach in this instance.

I suggest if you flip your thinking around a bit and start looking for inconsistencies in the other direction, you'll find a wheelbarrow full.

[andyfox]

"“Ludicrous,” for example, was how Ann Coulter’s described any argument that “Saddam's weapons of mass destruction are no threat to America.”"

Bill Maher's description of Ann Coulter seems about right: "You just make sh*t up," he said to her.

The media gets most of its "news," and always has, from government sources. The myth of media leftism is exactly that, a myth.

[andyfox]

I'm more concerned when my government is not open and honest with me than when Saddam Hussein is not. I expect him to lie and cheat; I don't expect my government to do so.

[andyfox]

Is saw that "art." Had I known about it before, I would have supported the invasion.

[MMMMMM]

That's not the point I'm making though.

I'm saying that too many people are arguing the WMD case as though the place to start is by giving Saddam the benefit of the doubt.

I also don't think it's clear at all that our government lied about this.

And if you "expect Saddam to lie and cheat" then I expect you will agree that the place to start on the WMD issue is by presuming it most likely that Saddam had WMD rather than that he did not.

[MMMMMM]

It is a ludicrous argument, because if Saddam had WMD they surely might be a threat to the USA. In other words you can't rule that out.

The al Qaeda ricin cell caught in Europe is thought to have gotten the ricin from Iraq or to have made it in Iraq.

If you or Bill Maher wants to presume that biological weapons in the hands of Saddam are no threat to the USA, and that there's no chance he will provide them to terrorists, that's your prerogative. Fortunately, our current policy makers see the wisdom of not entrusting our security to Saddam's good graces.

[andyfox]

No one is arguing to give Saddam the benefit of the doubt. Where do you see that in Chris's or anyone else's argument? I read Chris as trying to understand the logic of the administration's statement about the WMDs. And the statement is, as he points out, illogical.

This is of much more concern to me than the cheating of the government in Iraq, whether it took place or not. Because if our government deals in illogic, as it has many times in trying to justify the war, it is logical to conclude that it too is trying to cover its tracks.

[Chris Alger]

I've never taken "Saddam's side" any more than those that opposed Hitler's invasion of Russia were taking "Stalin's side."

"Then try to find any reasons he would have destroyed them ALL without being forced to. Try to find reasons he would have acted 100% out of character."

Because we can assume that his "character" compelled him to try to retain his power and privilege and at least to survive personally. He might have lost it all even without WMD, but using or having WMD would tend to seal his fate.

Further, for some reason you still don't grasp how this "motivation" argument undermines your position. If he had WMD, we can assume he had them for some purpose other than self-destruction because he wouldn't need WMD to do that. Yet all the evidence shows that any WMD he had were left on the shelf as if they didn't exist. So either (1) the WMD are irrelevant as his "character" (whatever the hell you mean by this) did not compel him to use them; or (2) he had no WMD. Under both scenarios, which exhaust the range of reasonable possibility, there was never a WMD threat from Iraq that justified the invasion and the destruction that went with it.

"If they had truly and unilaterally destroyed all the WMD (some of which UNMOVIC was not given permission nor access to witness), they surely would have recorded that too. Now why couldn't they produce any of those records?"

The suppressed testimony of Kamal Hussein, Saddam's brother-in-law that alerted the UN to the particulars of Iraq's WMD program, was that all WMD were secretly destroyed years ago. And UNMOVIC was given access to witnesses, and access was being given more readily when the decision to invade was taken. The plain facts suggest that the US was worried about Iraq's greater degree of cooperation because the propaganda grounds for war would dissipate over time. This is undoubtedly the reason that the US refused France's last proposal to give the regime 30 days to resolve the WMD issue once and for all.

"In international military matters and matters of security, especially when dealing with tyrants with horrid histories such as Safddam Hussein's, the opposite is true. Guilty until proven innocent is actually the far more rational approach in this instance."

That's a lot of totalitarian, state-worshipping nonsense and not the way it's supposed to work at all. When the state asks you to support the use of military force in a context that means the destruction of thousands of innocent lives, no reasonable, decent human being lends it automatically under the "assumption" that the state must have good reasons, that its target should be "presumed guilty." The state gets a monopoly right on the use of military force only in exchange for using it with the informed consent of the goverened. The burden of proof therefore is always on the state that wants to use force. Making the state meet that burden is the only way a democracy can possibly work. Otherwise, we leave our rights and responsibilities dormant, give the state has carte blanche to use military force for bad reasons and we are no different than prisoners in totalitarian societies. Moreover, if we reasonably know or should know that the state is trying to deceive us (as in this case where the highest officials -- President and Vice President -- have been caught lying in their teeth), but we not only refuse to dissent but support official lying in order to kill, then we become no better than supporters of terrorists, and deserve a worse fate. Aside from these elementary moral considerations, there is no pragmatic argument to the contrary. You can't identify a single instance where military force was justified for reasons that could not be made apparent to the public. Finally, if you think that giving a presumption of guilt to the state in the realm of military policy will foster the presumption of innocence when the state comes for you or your neighbor, then you are hopelessly naive.

[andyfox]

"if Saddam had WMD they surely might be a threat to the USA."

"Surely" and "might" don't go together. Either they're surely a threat or they might be a threat. Any weapon possessed by any country or individual might be a threat. That's why it's called a weapon.

That the ricin found in Europe was thought to have been obtained in Iraq is not much of a demonstration that Iraq is surely a threat to the U.S.

Whether or not Saddam Hussein's regime possessed biological weapons and, if he did, they posed a threat to the United States, are indeed important points. But just because the administration says they had them and they posed threats doesn't make it so. And when the administration resorts to dubious evidence and logic to support its case, it gives me pause.

BTW, Bill Maher was against the war, but was not sure about it. He indicated he felt it was a 60-40 case. He felt that Hussein did have biological weapons, but that the connection between Hussein and Al Qaeda was manufactured. I only brought his name into the discussion because I felt his characterization of Ann Coulter was right on the mark.

[MMMMMM]

andy you really have to look a little more critically at Chris' argument.

He's saying it's absurd that Iraq might destroy it's WMD once it saw it was about to get pounded. First, probably Iraq didn't just destroy them all. Iraq probably did 3 things: shipped some to Syria, dissasembled some and buried/hid the building blocks so that they might later be reconstructed, and destroyed some as well. So yes, if Saddam had outright destroyed them all that probably wouldn't make sense. Instead it seems plausible that he did the above which would be more in keeping with his character and goals of preserving both some of his WMDs and himself. So by failing to acknowledge the importance of thre other two things it is thought Saddam did, Chris effectively focusses the argument on the one aspect he can say is illogical--and it is, taken by itself. But in context with Saddam's other two suspected/likely actions it is imminently believable and doesn't seem so outrageous.

In another thread, Chris claimed that Saddam would surely have used WMDs in defense had he had them. Again Chris' reasoning is flawed. Had Saddam used them he would have guaranteed his own destruction and still lost the war. Saddam did the clever thing in hiding and shipping some off, and he might have even managed to escape himself. By the way, Saddam's WMDs were never built for deterrent purposes. In fact Saddam's entire military was extremely offensively oriented in structure, from the types of weapons and tanks to the composition of his divisions. His was a military built primarily to project regional might. Of course that's not to say that WMDs couldn't be used defensively, but apparently Saddam saw the wisdom and uselessness of so doing when the chips were really down.

So here we have two arguments by Chris, backed up with facts and well-presented, and apparently logical...until you look a little deeper at the reasoning.

Our government really isn't claiming anything illogical here...it is only superficial and incomplete reasoning that may cause it to appear so.

[MMMMMM]

Saddam used WMD against the Kurds, and against Iran. So his WMD's weren't simply "left on the shelf." And apparently he saw the wisdom of not using them recently against the coalition.

Chris you simply can't give hostile tyrants the benefit of the doubt and require the same standards of proof that would be required for more reasonable countries. To do so would ensure that you would act too late. It's not bureaucratic nonsense. You simply can't trust them and you can't base your policy as if you trust them.

Not presuming Saddam guilty, based on his past history, is ludicrous. If he had presented any evidence to the effect that the WMDs were really destroyed, or if he had not stonewalled inspectors and the world at every opportunity for a dozen years, maybe then--just maybe--you could give him a little leeway. But your position is asinine. The guy deserves zero leeway--and we would be 100% fools to countenance the chance that he would provide biological WMD to terrorists.

If your views were implemented as policy through and through the government, the USA would soon be attacked and would suffer immense harm. It's just foolhardy and unreasonable to give totalitarianand hostile regimes immense benefit of the doubt.

France, by the way, no more truly wanted a genuine 30 days to see--they just wanted to stall us out further until the hot weather. This should be plain from the fact that they at first made it seem that they might well agree to military actions should Saddam fail to meet 1441--which he clearly did. What else could "serious consequences" mean? So France strung us along from the outset, knowing all along they would veto any future resolution authorizing military force. They then lobbied the world against us. Believe it or not, France is not too far from falling from friend to foe--their conduct was duplicitous and they have aligned themselves with terrorists over the USA. De Villepin just sided with Syria too.

Well you can continue to think that terrorists are just freedom fighters, and that tyrants should get the benefit of the doubt, and that they all really don't pose a threat to us, and so on. However I'm glad that less gullible folk are running the show in this country today, and that they have the backbone to do what needs to be done.

Iraq (check), Iran, Syria, and North Korea will all have to be defanged. And it looks like it may not be be nearly as much trouble or as lengthy a process as we might have feared.

You can argue all you want about the rights of "sovereign nations" which are run by thugs and terrorists. Fortunately for us and for the peoples of these captive nations your ideas won't much effect the outcome. The "sovereignty" of a nation will, at some point in the next half-century, be acknowledged only when that country is run by a representative elected government. That's the way it should be, and likely will be. The leftists will cry bloody murder. They never seem to really hear the cries of those who were stamped under the heels of the tyrants however.

[ACPlayer]

Hmmm.

his having WMD is a threaten the US citizens. He now has US citizens coming to his backyard bring guns and missiles and promising to kill/jail/execute him. So.... he destroys them.

Hmmm.

[MMMMMM]

"surely" and "might" DO go together here if you follow it through conceptually. The "surely" here applies to the existence of the possibility of danger from Saddam's WMD, not to the probability of the event. As I said in the post, you can't rule out the possibility that Saddam's WMD pose a danger to us (as Chris Alger has tried to do).

We can't have a policy based on giving guys like Saddam Hussein the benefit of the doubt. Look at how O.J. got off--just how much evidence is needed to convince the average Joe or Josephine of something? Yet letting off a criminal is not usually terribly dangerous to our national security. Letting a dictator pass WMD to terrorists is. And this criminal, Saddam Hussein, has a far more incriminating past than did O.J.

[ACPlayer]

At least saying that he shipped them off to someone is a plausible arguement (and actually quite likely if he had them). Saying he destroyed them is a little more hard to swallow. Though anything is possible.

[MMMMMM]

That's why it is misleading of Chris to focus the argument on only the "destroyed them" statement, when other statements regarding "shipping them off" and "disassembling them and hiding them" have also been made.

Very misleading indeed.

[ACPlayer]

You do have to admit though that if he ever wanted to use them against Americans this was a great chance. Set a trap and lower the boom. His legacy and legend in the Arab world would be assured.

If no credible WMD threat is discovered the admin is going to loose a great deal of credibility.

And, if a representative regime (theocratic or not) is not installed (within say 18 months) there will be no credibility left at all. This is the fundamental risk of the go it alone approach both pre and post war.

[MMMMMM]

I think Saddam would rather see others martyred than become one himself.

[MMMMMM]

"if Saddam had WMD they surely might be a threat to the USA."


andy, if I had instead written:

"Surely, if Saddam had WMD they might be a threat to the USA."...would it have read better?;-)

I thought it necessary to emphasize this point because not only has Chris Alger argued at length that any WMD Saddam might have possessed would be no danger to the USA, but because many seem to think our Iraq foreign policy should not reflect considering any Iraqi WMDs as significant potential threats.

On a separate note regarding the English, observe the apparent conflict between tenses used: "if Saddam had WMD they might be a threat to us." However, this too is deliberate and accurate because any WMD Saddam had may still be a threat to us if these WMD still exist--others could use these weapons against us. Here too what might appear poor usage is actually very precise when followed closely. Not that I don't make plenty of mistakes;-)

Maybe there's a better way to write it: accurately and leaving no easy places for the reader to misstep, but it didn't occur to me at the time.

[Chris Alger]

“Saddam used WMD against the Kurds, and against Iran. ... you simply can't give hostile tyrants the benefit of the doubt and require the same standards of proof that would be required for more reasonable countries. ...You simply can't trust them and you can't base your policy as if you trust them.”

But the country that helped him use WMD against Iran and worked to help him preserve a regime already known to have slaughtered or “disappeared” hundreds of thousands of civilians must be presumed to be “reasonable” and “worthy of trust?” Your argument and the body of propaganda that inspired it rests on nothing more than a refusal to confront the plain facts of US support for tyranny, terrorism and the acquisition and use of WMD – in Iraq and elsewhere – when it’s “interests” so require. Your persistent refusal to confront or even acknowledge that reality suggests that you don’t believe in your own rhetoric any more than the better-informed propagandists that you read.

From the NY Times last August:

“A covert American program during the Reagan administration provided Iraq with critical battle planning assistance at a time when American intelligence agencies knew that Iraqi commanders would employ chemical weapons in waging the decisive battles of the Iran-Iraq war, according to senior military officers with direct knowledge of the program. ... the American military officers said President Reagan, Vice President George Bush and senior national security aides never withdrew their support for the highly classified program in which more than 60 officers of the Defense Intelligence Agency were secretly providing detailed information on Iranian deployments, tactical planning for battles, plans for airstrikes and bomb-damage assessments for Iraq.

[According to Col. Walter P. Lang, retired, the senior defense intelligence officer at the time] ‘The use of gas on the battlefield by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep strategic concern.’ ... [After the use of gas against Iran had been confirmed], Senior Reagan administration officials did nothing to interfere with the continuation of the program, a former participant in the program said.

... The Pentagon's battle damage assessments confirmed that Iraqi military commanders had integrated chemical weapons throughout their arsenal and were adding them to strike plans that American advisers either prepared or suggested.

... Another former senior D.I.A. official who was an expert on the Iraqi military said the Reagan administration's treatment of the issue — publicly condemning Iraq's use of gas while privately acquiescing in its employment on the battlefield — was an example of the ‘Realpolitik’ of American interests in the war.
... The Pentagon ‘wasn't so horrified by Iraq's use of gas,’ said one veteran of the program. ‘It was just another way of killing people — whether with a bullet or phosgene, it didn't make any difference,’ he said.”

“Officers Say U.S. Aided Iraq in War Despite Use of Gas,” Patrick E. Tyler, NY Times, 8/18/2

[MMMMMM]

So as another poster once wrote, since we have contributed to bad things in the past we should be forever estopped from moving to remedy present bad things?

That's an entirely non-productive argument...and one which also actually harms the interests of those who are suffering today.

[Chris Alger]

"should be forever estopped from moving to remedy present bad things?"

Of course that isn’t the argument. The argument is that the US is not likely to "remedy" anything because prior US support for Iraqi tyranny and torture means that the US has no credibility when it claims a motive and intent to abolish Iraqi tyranny and torture. You merely assume that because the US supported Iraq in the past, its tendency to assist repression also is “in the past” and that “new” Iraq will respect democracy and human rights. And what happens when the new regime reverts to the usual US-client mode and starts to murder and otherwise repress its political opponents? It will be ignored by the media just as US support for Saddam was ignored by the media in the 1980's.

Just like the media ignores Uzbekistan now, a one-party state "where government opponents are purged, jailed or exiled, where authorities hold Stalin-style public denunciations of ‘enemies of the state,’ where dissidents are forced into psychiatric institutions, and where Muslims are jailed and tortured for practicing their faith outside state controls,” where elections are such a joke that the “handpicked opponent” of the incumbant dictator “announced he was voting for the incumbent.”
Human Rights Watch, 3/12/2 http://216.239.37.100/custom?q=cache:Fp7KxIOmgOMC:www.hrw.org/europe/uzbekistan.php+uzbekistan"human+rights"&hl=en&start=2&ie=UTF-8 (http://216.239.37.100/custom?q=cache:Fp7KxIOmgOMC:www.hrw.org/europe/uzbekistan.php+uzbekistan)

A quick look at the HRW reports on Uzbekistan reveals the same pattern of other US-backed dictatorships:

“Uzbek Government Should Stop Torture”
“Deaths in Custody in Uzbekistan”
“Uzbek Opposition Figure Released, but Crackdown on Government Critics Continues”
“The Meaning of Concern: Indulges Uzbekistan’s Atrocities” [Referring to US policy]
“UN Visits Uzbekistan and Finds Torture “Systemic”

http://216.239.37.100/custom?q=cache:Fp7KxIOmgOMC:www.hrw.org/europe/uzbekistan.php+uzbekistan"human+rights"&hl=en&start=2&ie=UTF-8 (http://216.239.37.100/custom?q=cache:Fp7KxIOmgOMC:www.hrw.org/europe/uzbekistan.php+uzbekistan)

If the US were truly interested in furthering the cause of democracy and human rights, it would be quite a bit easier than conquering Iraq to support Uzbeki dissidents and give the government some incentive to liberalize.

And why do you suppose that the average newspaper reader can’t even find this country on a map, why none of the pundits and propagandists that fall over themselves arguing how the US exports democracy and human rights have anything to say about tyranny, torture and political murder in Uzbekistan?

Because the US helps fund it. “In August 2002, the State Department prematurely certified that Uzbekistan was making the progress demanded by supplemental aid legislation, allowing for the release of $16 million in military and security assistance,” according to a Human Rights Watch report that documents just absence of any such progress. http://hrw.org/un/chr59/counter-terrorism-bck4.htm#P364_91494

The US has even welcomed its dictator at the White House with hugs and handshakes, just like Rumsfeld himself was in Iraq shaking Saddam’s hand some 15 years ago, when Saddam’s record for horror was equally well-known. Uzbekistan has become “one of our closest allies,” notes HRW.

“The United States stands to provide Tashkent with comprehensive economic support, according to a memorandum signed by the two countries in Washington.” Eurasiannet.org, 12/10/1, http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/business/articles/eav121001.shtml. Uzbekistan will receive $150 million in direct grants and credits in exchange for “introducing free convertibility of the national currency, improving the investment climate, allowing broader foreign involvement in developing the country's natural resources, and also to easing trade barriers.” According to a diplomatic letter to the tyrants in Tashkent from President Bush, the US intends to “greatly increase assistance to Uzbekistan. The letter also suggested Washington would provide strong backing for Uzbek attempts to develop an ‘independent’ foreign policy, essentially helping Tashkent break out of Russia's sphere of influence.”

“The secretary of state told a news conference that his country's interests in the region were permanent. ‘As regards our interests, unconditionally, they are long-term and President Karimov and I have exchanged views on this. Our interests in this region should be permanent and these relations will continue after the [Afghan] crisis,’ Powell said.

Note: “unconditionally,” meaning without regard to human rights or any degree of political repression or even mass murder. In other words, concrete, real interests of any rational imperial power: access to markets and raw materials, a profitable investment climate, economic, military and political hegemony. Nothing about human rights, torture or democracy here because those are of no concern to US policy makers and the dominant institutions they serve.

Of course, if Uzbekistan defaults on the “deal” or otherwise disobeys orders, as Saddam did when he refused to withdraw from Kuwait, then US officials and their media cheerleaders will crank up the propaganda apparatus, and you’re going to hear all about Uzbekistan’s human rights record and our need to “liberate” its victims. People like you will claim that it goes without saying that the US seeks only to export political freedom and democracy. And critics like me who will point to prior US support for these tyrants will be labeled “defenders” of Tashkent and be met with the same untenable rhetoric that you’re throwing about now.

[nicky g]

"The al Qaeda ricin cell caught in Europe is thought to have gotten the ricin from Iraq or to have made it in Iraq."

Why would they smuggle something half way across the world that could be made quite easily on site from castor beans? Furthermore, the alleged source was an Ansar base in territory not controlled by Saddam.

[Clarkmeister]

"So as another poster once wrote, since we have contributed to bad things in the past we should be forever estopped from moving to remedy present bad things?"

No, the point is that we are still likely doing these types of things even today. So the vast majority of our arguments go down the tubes because we are so hypocritical.

[andyfox]

You say that Saddam shipping some WMDs to Syria, dissembling some and destroying some would be in keeping with his character. But I thought Saddam was a tyrannical menace, comparable to Stalin and Hitler, whose very existence was a threat to our national security. Wouldn't such a person use those weapons when his very survival was at stake, when he was about to be attacked by "the great Satan?" Wouldn't this be in keeping with his character?

Arguments that guess at what a person would do based on their "character" are dubious at best. The facts are that the weapons have not been found and that they were not used.
The principle justification for us going to war was the WMDs. Now that they haven't been found, Bush suggests Saddam may have destroyed them. This is certainly a convenient argument to make. When the U.N. couldn't find them, they definitely existed. Now that we can't find them, they may have been destroyed.

[andyfox]

You can't rule out the possiblity of anyone's weapons posing a danger to us. But President Bush himself said that Hussein's weapons were not an imminent threat to us.

The main reason O.J. got off in the criminal trial is that the evidence was presented very poorly by the prosecution. As it has been in the Hussein case as well.

[andyfox]

The way you wrote it originally said to me that if Saddam had WMDs, they certainly might be a threat to us. Anyone with WMDs might be a threat to us. The question is not whether they might be a threat, the question is whether they are indeed a threat, and now serious and imminent that threat is. Remember that the leader of North Korea specifically threatened to use nuclear weapons against the U.S. if we instituted economic sanctions against his country.

Remember also that President Bush, in his State of the Union speech, specifically said that Iraq's WMDs was not an imminent threat to us. No one claims that the United States should not consider the possibility of Iraq having WMDs in the contact of our foreign relations with Iraq. Those opposed to the war questioned the decision to go to war given the admitted fact that the possible possession of those weapons was not an imminent threat to us.

[MMMMMM]

But andy, it is CHRIS who made the argument that Saddam would surely have used WMDs when the chips were down. I gave reasons ranging from character to practical reasons why he very well might not have used them. Now you are focussing on my argument as if it is what must be proved, when actually it is Chris who made the absolute statement--I just gave some (pretty good) reasons why his absolute statement cannot be taken at face value. Here the burden of proof is rightly more on Chris when he says that Saddam would surely have used WMD as a last resort, and then further claims this reasoning as proof that Saddam did not have them. If merely decent arguments against his assertion exist (and I think I provided such arguments), then his conclusion is faulty since he claims it inescapably follows.

I also suggest you and the rest of the cynics give more time for interviews of the captured Iraqi leaders and the search for WMD. Until we get human information it's a bit like looking for a few needles deliberately well-hidden in a haystack. A little patience, please;-)

And AHA! Also note that Saddam's war strategy was to engage us in a quagmire centered in Baghdad and to wear down our will in the face of increasing difficulties and world opposition. He knew he couldn't actually beat us but he hoped he could make things painful and prolonged enough that we would leave. However one thing that could have thwarted this strategy would have been the finding of a smoking gun while the fighting was ongoing. This of course would have caused a sea change in world opinion and he would then no longer have been able to count on substantial political pressure against the US on the world stage. So to pre-empt this possibility, Saddam may have ordered the disassembly and/or destruction of the WMDs remaining within the country at the time. There's your rationale for why he would do such a thing--to help ensure that he could win the political war if he could prolong and make things nasty enough.

[MMMMMM]

I don't believe we are nearly so likely to do these things today.

I also believe that most of the instances in which we did such things we did them in order to try to counter the threat of Soviet expansionism--which no longer exists.

[nicky g]

"When the U.N. couldn't find them, they definitely existed. Now that we can't find them, they may have been destroyed."

Nicely put.

[MMMMMM]

Just as the USSR was once our greatest enemy and we did many questionable or even bad things to thwart what we saw as Soviet expansionism, today our greatest enemy is radical Islamism and terrorism. Therefore it's not all that surprising that we maintain friendly working relationships with some countries which are actively fighting radical Islamism.

Sometimes to fight evil you have to work with a few devils.

Obviously there are strategic interests in Iraq as well. We can't right all the wrongs of the world at once. Righting one of the worst regimes, and hopefully furthering the cause of democracy in the process, is a worthy goal--made even better if it coincides with our interests.

So...we can't do everything everywhere or be perfect or choose perfect partners. However we can rid the world of a few horrific regimes, one at a time, and I think we probably will. Of course there are those who for whatever reasons would rather we didn't. Maybe someday they'll hear the cries of the oppressed loudly enough in their minds to realize that overthrowing tyranny is always a worthy goal, and that when it can be done practically it's a damn good thing. We don't have infinite money or resources or military might to do it everywhere right now and engage in nation-building as well. So it will have to take place in areas where it will meet other goals also, for the most part at present.

At least it's happening somewhere.

[MMMMMM]

"ou can't rule out the possiblity of anyone's weapons posing a danger to us."

Well that's precisely what Chris Alger tried to do.

"Bt President Bush himself said that Hussein's weapons were not an imminent threat to us."

Bush said they were a growing threat. And r one wouldn't care to wait until they are "imminent" threat.

[MMMMMM]

Well...;-)...as I wrote it originally, do you realize that there is a huge difference between saying "surely might" and "might surely?"

The meanings are vastly different, and the second is contradictory while the first is not.

And as in my post above...if it's a growing threat, why wait until it's an imminent threat and maybe then too late?

[adios]

"The main reason O.J. got off in the criminal trial is that the evidence was presented very poorly by the prosecution. "

I don't agree with this, at least not totally. You'd certainly know better than I would but it seems to me that if the trial is in Santa Monica he has a far greater chance of being convicted. The LA Police Department conduct in the OJ case was too reminiscent of bad experiences the jurors had with LA police either directly or indirectly. Mark Fuhrman was an unmitigated disaster for the prosecution. I read Bugliosi's book about the case where he roundly criticized the prosecution of the case. I do believe that poor prosecution contributed to the verdict but I think the jury clearly reacted poorly to the LA Police Department's handling of the case even more so. I realize too that Fuhrman could have been handled more adroitly by the prosecution.

[nicky g]

"We don't have infinite money or resources or military might to do it everywhere right now and engage in nation-building as well. "

But that's part of Andy's point, and one I've made before too - there are plenty of nasty regimes eg Uzbekistan, Egypt, that the US could exert a lot of leverage on to democratise without having to use the resources it's poured into bombing and rebuilding Iraq.

[Chris Alger]

"Just as the USSR was once our greatest enemy and we did many questionable or even bad things to thwart what we saw as Soviet expansionism, today our greatest enemy is radical Islamism and terrorism."

This merely rephrases your tired religious assumption that the US government can never do anything fundamentally wrong provided it points to some designated "enemy." The HRW reports I cited, for example, are replete with evidence that Uzbekistan isn't waging a defensive campaign against "radical Islam" but has embarked on the wholsesale repression of Islamic worship, coupled with the repression and murder of other dissidents.

As for "Soviet expansionism," you can't identify any evidence that actual cases of this accompanied most of the foreign interventions and covert regime toppling the US has undertaken since WWII, certainly not in cases like Southeast Asia, Latin America and the Middle East, and precious little evidence that US officials really "saw" these as cases of foreign aggression (as opposed to invoking the "evil empire" for rhetorical justfication).

It makes no difference to the American right wing what the US does: tyranny, terrorism, torture, mass murder, death camps, genocide, whatever. The right will always assume as a matter of religious faith, in keeping with their cultish practice of state worship, that the use of force is justifeid, in each and every case, by some core impulse, regardless of the evidence. In fact, that's pretty much the definition of what contemporary "conservatism" means with regard to foreign policy.

The same kind of assumption justifies every act by regime. Pol Pot, Saddam, and Stalin can all tailor your argument to their particular circumstances and conclude: "Sometimes to fight evil you have to work with a few devils." Since everything can become worse, they can claim with as much persuasive force as you have that their alternative by definition represents the "lesser of two evils." This staple of US propaganda therefore amounts to nothing more than a powerful statement of the propaganda's intellectual bankruptcy.

"Maybe someday they'll hear the cries of the oppressed loudly enough in their minds to realize that overthrowing tyranny is always a worthy goal, and that when it can be done practically it's a damn good thing."

Obviously this cannot happen as long as the right prevails in its support for US-backed repression and tyranny by assuming that the bogey man waiting in the wings is the worse alternative. Your response to my evidence that the US is helping make the oppressed of Uzbekistan cry out is to say: "well, that's not so good, but since the US is doing it it must be part of the fight against bin Laden and "radical Islam," so it can't be all bad."

[andyfox]

For me, the important thing is not whether the WMDs are eventually found (or found to have been destroyed), but whether the possession of those WMDs were sufficient justification for the war. Governments always exaggerate danger to rile up their citizens for war.

In this case, we were first told that Saddam had refused to destroy his WMDs and that despite not being able to find them, they surely exist. Then, afraid that perhaps we wouldn't be able to find them (either because they were destroyed, transported elsewhere or never existed), Bush told us that he may have indeed destroyed his WMDs. So when it was in our interest to say that he hadn't destroyed his WMDS, that's what we said. And when it was in our interest to say he had destoyed his WMDs, we said that.

[Chris Alger]

So if Ari Fleischer says something that is facially absurd, it is "misleading" of me to point that out because he has also said other things that, while supported by no evidence, are somewhat less absurd.

This is you at your chauvanistic worse. I'd accuse you of being trained by Soviet "truth" commissars but suspect that they used less crude techniques. You should really declare your philosophy of White House worship a separate religion, maybe get a tax exemption.

[nicky g]

"You should really declare your philosophy of White House worship a separate religion, maybe get a tax exemption. "

I disagree with MMMMMM on Iraq etc, but to be fair to him he has criticised the administration over civil liberties serveral times.

[andyfox]

I surely might realize that there might surely be a difference between "surely might" and "might surely." /forums/images/icons/laugh.gif

Bush's argument in the State of the Union speech was that the threat from Saddam was indeed not imminent, but we could not afford to wait for it be so. Most who opposed the war surely might ( /forums/images/icons/smile.gif ) have doubted the "growing" threat.

[andyfox]

No question that the predominantly black jury was predisposed to vote not guilty. (I still remember the headline in the L.A. Times when the jury came back after the reidiculously short "deliberation." It said "All Parties Shocked.") But a proper presenetation of the case could have overcome this. They never presented the evidence of Simpson's trying to flee with his passport and $10,000. They never presented a witness who claimed to have seen OJ driving back to his house at the critical time. (She sold her story to one of the Enquirer type rags, maybe it was the Enquirer.) Obviously, they botched Fuhrman's disastrous testimony. They never did proper work on the shoes, which in the later civil trial, was crucial in establishing that OJ had indeed owned the footprint shoes and was thus a liar. Having him try on the shrunken glove was quite possibly the stupidest thing ever done in the history of jurisprudence. And then they didn't answer any of the questions Johnny Cochrane posed in his closing argument; instead, Darden told the jury, "you know he did it." It was a shockingly poor closing argument. Clarke and Darden were simply incompetent.i

While the standards are different in a civil trial, making things somewhat more difficult for the defense, Petrocelli put on a much better case and the finding that Simpson was responsible for the deaths was partly, no doubt, a result of the composition of the jury, it was mainly because he was a much better lawyer.

In the criminal trial, the prosecution should have worked more on the limo driver. He almost, but not quite, remembered that Simpson's Bronco was not there when he got there and then, after a while, was there. This would have been the proverbial smoking gun.

[MMMMMM]

Fine, but interestingly Saddam probably considered it in his own best interests at the respective times to have done just what we said he probably did.

[MMMMMM]

Well long before I ever heard of PNAC or any US plans along such lines I derived similar conclusions on my own. I think it's rather remarkable that my own views of the world in strategic terms happen to so closely mirror those of the Defense Department, and it gives me a good feeling of assurance that today we have the right team at the helm.

Also, Fleischer's statement isn't absurd IMO. Given that Saddam's war plan was to mire us down and prolong a nasty battle in the streets of Baghdad, all the while garnering more world sympathy, it would have been a disaster for him on the stage of world politics had WMD actually been found. So it makes sense that he would have prevented this by dismantling or destroying those WMDs remaining which had not already been shipped to Syria.

[MMMMMM]

True, but to properly exert pressure on such regimes it is also generally necessary to have a substantial military presence nearby.

[nicky g]

"but to properly exert pressure on such regimes it is also generally necessary to have a substantial military presence nearby."

Not in the case of regimes that receive massive amounts of funding from the US.