The Human Rights Issue

[Chris Alger]

In a post below, M makes a point you see a lot to justify the war:

"[Saddam] ground the bones of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis in his torture chambers, rape rooms, prisons and mass graves. A few hundred American lives and a few thousand Iraqi lives are a serious price to pay for his removal--but a small price compared to the vast carnage he wreaked on his own people. The human costs of this "war" are almost surely less than the number of Iraqis he would have had tortured and killed in the very next year alone if left to his own conscienceless, sadistic, ruthless devices. That goes as well for his animal offspring Uday and Qusay: rapists, torturers, sadists both. They learned the art of torture directly from their father, who himself had been chief torturer in the state security service before he murdered his way up to greater and better things.”

What this ignores, of course, is that any assumption that the US will provide Iraq with something better has been repudiated by history. After all, how many Iraq bones were ground as a result of the US giving Saddam the means to stay in power power for more than a decade? There has never been any dispute that the US supplied critical intelligence data, including supersecret satellite reconnaissance information to Saddam during the Iran war. In addition, according to Patrck Tyler in the NY Times, "[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." NYT, 8/18/2. Through this assistance, by early 1988 "the Iraqi Army ... retook the Fao Peninsula in an attack that reopened Iraq's access to the Persian Gulf." This was at the height of the Anful campaign of atrocities against the Kurds (although predating comparable atrocities against the Kurds by our still-clients, the Turks).

Worse, "“[a]n eight-year-old Senate report [May 25, 1994] Senate Banking Committee report confirms that disease-producing and poisonous materials were exported, under U.S. government license, to Iraq from 1985 to 1988 during the Iran-Iraq war. Furthermore, the report adds, the American-exported materials were identical to microorganisms destroyed by United Nations inspectors after the Gulf War. The shipments were approved despite allegations that Saddam used biological weapons against Kurdish rebels and (according to the current official U.S. position) initiated war with Iran.” Robert Novak's column, 9/22/2.

This assistance occurred after US officials knew perfectly well what Saddam doing and likely to continue doing to Iraq if he remained in power. For all the repression in Iran, nothing comparable has occurred there compares to Saddam. If the US had not intervened, Saddam would probably have been toppled by Iran or overthrown from within.

These condemnations of Saddam from allegedly patriotic war supporters therefore ring hollow because they have no problem supporting the very US institutions that helped keep Saddam in power and indeed are in the process of picking his replacement. Indeed, M has even suggested Rumsfeld for President, the same man that shook Saddam's hand in December 1983 (see photo of Rmsfeld with his pal (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/)) when he visited Iraq as Reagan's special envoy, shortly before he offered the old bone grinder Export-Import credits courtesy of US taxpayers.

It's just like when communists blindly followed the Comintern line about not criticizing the Third Reich while the Hiter-Stalin pact remained intact. Then, when Hiter turned on Stalin, the apparatchiks abruptly switched to screaming about Hitler's tyranny, vile character, etc. Like the war supporters' descriptions of Saddam, they were right, but nobody believed those making them had any principled problem with murder and torture as long as their favorite government benefitted.

My questions to all the war supporters:

(1) If the US was willing to help the Butcher of Baghdad remain in power to further US interests, what's to prevent the US from installing or helping (say a few years down the road, when the media spotlight is off) a new butcher(s) if US interests are served thereby?

(2) If a US-supported Iraqi government becomes as bad or worse than Saddam, what will you do specifically besides what you did the last time US assistance kept Iraqi tyranny alive (which from what I can tell is nothing more than assuming that the US government knows best)? If you become critical, how will you respond to the next generation of flag wavers accusing you of "blaming America first," "tearing down this great country" or supporting "terrorists" trying to undermine or overthrow our "free world" ally?

[Jimbo]

"(1) If the US was willing to help the Butcher of Baghdad remain in power to further US interests, what's to prevent the US from installing or helping (say a few years down the road, when the media spotlight is off) a new butcher(s) if US interests are served thereby?"

Nothing really, after all our interests are the most important. How could you forget this? Altruism is trumped by patriotism, Darwin actually had it correct.

"(2) If a US-supported Iraqi government becomes as bad or worse than Saddam, what will you do specifically besides what you did the last time US assistance kept Iraqi tyranny alive (which from what I can tell is nothing more than assuming that the US government knows best)? If you become critical, how will you respond to the next generation of flag wavers accusing you of "blaming America first," "tearing down this great country" or supporting "terrorists" trying to undermine or overthrow our "free world" ally?"

If the new goverment becomes worse than Saddam? C'mon Chris, are you expecting an alien invasion by a race of spider people?

Flag wavers are good folks in my humble opinion.

Allow me to ask you a question Chris. Do you stay up late at night worrying about worse case scenarios? What makes it seem so likely that a worse leader than Saddam might emerge in post-war Iraq? Perhaps you are just trying to stir the pot of litttle minds like several of the democrat presidential contenders ( ie: Dean and now Kerry).

[Chris Alger]

"(1) If the US was willing to help the Butcher of Baghdad remain in power to further US interests, what's to prevent the US from installing or helping (say a few years down the road, when the media spotlight is off) a new butcher(s) if US interests are served thereby?"

Jimbo: "Nothing really, after all our interests are the most important. How could you forget this? Altruism is trumped by patriotism, Darwin actually had it correct."

"Our" interests? Who is us? How, for example, did you have an "interest" in keeping Saddam in power, and how do you expect to have in interest in helping his future clone?

Further, since you consider your "interests" so important that you are willing to engage in murder and torture to further them, shouldn't the rest of us put you in the same category as Saddam, a butcher (or would-be butcher) who spouts a lot of rhetoric about human rights not because he means any of it but to fool people into thinking he's like ordinarily decent people?

[Jimbo]

"Further, since you consider your "interests" so important that you are willing to engage in murder and torture to further them, shouldn't the rest of us put you in the same category as Saddam, a butcher (or would-be butcher) who spouts a lot of rhetoric about human rights not because he means any of it but to fool people into thinking he's like ordinarily decent people?"

Sure Chris in America you are allowed to put me in any category you see fit. Just putting me there does not make me a butcher of Baghdad clone unless perhaps I begin sharpening my steak knives and get an evil grin on my face like Jack Nicholson in The Shining.

[HDPM]

I think the question you are asking is whether it is immoral to prop up immoral regimes to advance some foreign policy interest. The answer is no. The question then becomes whether foreign policy is a moral game. That is a harder question. Part of my answer as to the morality issue depends on my philosophical outlook that morality cannot be viewed teleologically. Utilitarians might well disagree.

Anyway, a revolutionary foreign policy would be to hold those we help or prop up to some kind of standard. As I mentioned before, I think that was less practical during the Cold War. Now, however, I think the case can be made for a moral foreign policy. In the long run I think it would pay dividends. It will take a lot of guts to implement though, and there will be problems with it. This is also one reason I have supported a form of imperialism as to Afghanistan and Iraq. I think it is disingenuous to suggest part of the reason these places need taking over is because of human rights, etc..., and then to allow a form of government that would allow the same abuses. If you are going to go to the trouble of overthrowing a regime on the basis it threatens freedom, you have the obligation to promote a free society. So we should impose a constitution on these places and insure free elections and law-making within, and ONLY within that framework. If that proves unworkable, perhaps the invasion wasn't justified. Or perhaps it was, but then we should not make any noise about human rights. rather, we should simply say the overthrown government was a threat, so we removed it.

[HDPM]

In the first part of the post, I meant to say yes, it is immoral to prop up immoral regimes. Not that it wasn't immoral. The preview and edit features aren't working when I post from this machine sorry.

[jokerswild]

Jimbo doesn't fool anyone. He isn't like ordianry decent folk. He supports murder and torture because he enjoys them.

[MMMMMM]

Iraq isn't at war with Iran now; the USA isn't having to choose between two evils (Iraq vs. Iran in those years)...so just why would the USA be likely to support another tyrant in Iraq now?

Your claim that past history repudiates future results is not solid, because circumstances are vastly different now. Of course you conveniently ignore this (as you generally ignore the necessity of the USA allying with some abhorrent regimes during the Cold War).

Also, the USA is not exactly supporting a horrid, tyrannical regime in Afghanistan at present. So if anything, recent history would seem to cast doubt on your suggestion. Yet you conveniently ingnore both the fact that conditions are very different today, and the fact that recent events would suggest an outcome different than what you would fear.

To not presume that a new US-supported regime would likely be less ogre-ish than was Saddam's regime (especially given that Saddam's was so very horrific) simply does not seem to me like a very rational assessment. And if the new regime is less horrific than Saddam's (as it in all likelihood will be), then the few thousand lives lost in the replacement process, while still grievous, are in fact a lot less death, suffering and horror than would likely have continued had the Baathists stayed in power.

[MMMMMM]

jokerswild, I think you're somehow mixing up Jimbo and Saddam.

[Jimbo]

"Jimbo doesn't fool anyone. He isn't like ordianry decent folk. He supports murder and torture because he enjoys them. "

Well not normally but in your case Jokerswild I would make an exception. Just for my favorite troll though, not for anyone else.

[adios]

Look it, the current administration knows what the best course of action, why are you blaming the US first anyway by always tearing down this great country and in effect supporting terrorism that wants to destroy the free world.

[Chris Alger]

Iraq isn't at war with Iran now; the USA isn't having to choose between two evils (Iraq vs. Iran in those years)...so just why would the USA be likely to support another tyrant in Iraq now?

For the same reason it supported this tyrant in Iraq before and tyrants in other countries now (like Uzbekistan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc.). Do know any facts showing (1) how support for Saddam at the pinnacle of his terror campaigns was based on weighing respective evils and (2) that US policymakers actually believed that Iran was worse on people than Saddam?

Your claim that past history repudiates future results is not solid, because circumstances are vastly different now. Of course you conveniently ignore this (as you generally ignore the necessity of the USA allying with some abhorrent regimes during the Cold War).

I didn't claim that past history "repudiates" future results, I'm saying that history helps predict them. You are the one intent on repudiating history by claiming that new circumstance render it irrelevant. Since new circumstances are a given, this is no better than saying that all history is irrelevant and "new" circumstances (mostly consisting of new official slogans) can justify any policy as lesser evil, even support for someone that's worse than Saddam. Of course, if history is irrelevant, then Saddam's history is irrelevant too, particularly since Iraq in 2003 was a shell of the power that invaded Kuwait in 1990 and Saddam's human rights abuses abated in recent years compared to the 1980's.

What you keep missing are the durability of the institutions that tend to create siimilar problems over time. The US has consistently -- from the War in 1812 to the Monroe Doctrine to the Spanish American and Caribbean Basin wars onward -- invoked mythical foreign threats to justify any foreign policy that was criticized as aggressive or expansionist.

Also, the USA is not exactly supporting a horrid, tyrannical regime in Afghanistan at present. So if anything, recent history would seem to cast doubt on your suggestion.

Just because the US supports regimes less bad than Saddam's doesn't mean that the US will not support much worse regimes. You could have pointed to the Soviet Union's support for Israel in the 1940's to say: "See? The USSR likes the good guys, This proves they're not inclined to help the bad guys."

Yet you conveniently ingnore both the fact that conditions are very different today, and the fact that recent events would suggest an outcome different than what you would fear.

[b]Recent event show that the US officials will lie in order to scare the public into supporting war. Recent events show that the US is committed, for the first time, to an aggressive policy of "preventive" war. It is pollyanish to claim that "recent events" prove that the US is embarked on a new course of spreading joy instead of business as usual, or even worse than usual.

[Chris Alger]

"The question then becomes whether foreign policy is a moral game. That is a harder question."

Note that it's only hard when it comes to our own country. When we think about the foreign policies of other countries, most of us rationally assume that they're based on some assessment of the interests of elite political and economic forces that dominate them, interests that have the most to win or lose from policy and the means to influence it. In our country we're overwhelmed with popular ignorance and populist rhetoric, propaganda and "emotionally potent oversimplifications" that constantly attempt to link foreign policy to the things average people fear and hate the most. To even suggest that the US is like other countries in prosecuting seflish elite interests is enough to make some people quake with fear and loathing because it suggests that their emotional commitment to "America," with which they identify the state, has been wasted on a kind of fraud. Its hard to overstate the power of something formed formed from the earliest days in schools, church, scouts and other indoctrinating institutions that constantly reinforced with propaganda. Even the relatively intellectual and others less susceptible to rhetoric have a need to believe, however qualified with cynicism or reservations, they they're not part of some enterprise that history will judge as destructive or evil.

I agree that foreign policy, or at least popular support for it, should reflect certain fundamental values, and strongly agree that the US is responsible for situations it creates. I think most other people do too.

The problem is that I don't see any mechanism that translates popular concerns for human rights into policy except in the most extreme spotlighted situations, usually when the elites are divided among themselves and the media can't avoid discussing it (like now, to a limited extent). The rest of the time the average guy is left in the dark, knowing little about what happens in places like Uzbekistan or Honduras and less about what the US does there. The void is filled by those that have day-to-day concerns in these countries. Any regard that these actors have for human rights among the (mostly) poor are overwhelmed by their relations with local elites and more immediate, concrete priorities like US political hegemony, local stability to foster investment and trade, and access to markets and raw materials.

[MMMMMM]

Chris, I agree that at times US policy has been selfish and brutal. However when you say that means what we learned in civic groups, churches or schools is a fraud, you are oversimplifying. For example, in order for US influence and actions to sum up as net positive for the world, there can still be some bad involved if the good outweighs the bad. Also, the alternatives to current Western democracy and capitalism which have been tried thus far have proved to be far worse (Nazism, Fascism, Communism and Theocracy). So it appears we are left with an imperfect approach in an imperfect world.
e--and they are considerably worse--then we are left with an imperfect approach in an imperfect worse.

Also, much of the "bad" we have done was done in combatting some of the greatest evils of the 20th century. I submit you can't fight a war without doing some bad, even if it is a just war for good causes--such as defeating Nazism, or Sovietism.

We're on a long hard slow road to progress that started thousands of years ago. So when you hold the US up to "ideals" and condemn the US for failing to meet these ideals, it isn't a completely fair standard. No other major
historical power meets your standards either, and some of them are guilty of considrerably vaster atrocities. The real world can be a pretty brutal and ugly place at times, and operating in the real world is generally difficult to say the least.

You can rail at the problems free trade produces, and the evils of business, etc. --but you can't show us a better way. The only better way is the slow hard process of trying to improve things. The magical utopian ideal of Communism, for instance, not only failed, but it cost perhaps 100 million lives along the way: all people who essentially died for nothing, for a failed and ultimately impractical system which also somehow lends itself to the terrible state abuse of its citizens (the "stewards" under communism inevitably become the elite and the oppressors, in a most brutal manner).

It is essential to understand, too, that trade is not inherently evil: it's a human necessity.

I think if you want to look for evil processes, take a look at Communism and the 100 million people it killed for nought. Then consider the USA with perhaps a little more sense of perspective.

Where does wealth in the world spring from? From the relatively free democracies, overwhelmingly. No state-planned economy has ever done much but stagnate and slowly die. If there is hope for Third World countries, it is in becoming ideologically and economically free through embracing secularism, and the sorts of freedoms we take for granted in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and in capitalism. As badly as those seem to work, everything else simply works worse.

As far as Iraq, we have our interests there and so do the Iraqis. Fortunately, this time both of our interests seem to have a fair bit in common.

[MMMMMM]

I think it should be obvious conditions are not only different now, but also how they are different. We aren't torn between supporting the evil Saddam or the evil Mullahs at the moment, at war with each other, as we were. At the time, the USA judged the Iranian Shiite rule to be even less desirable.

The two scenarios--then and now--are so very different, that to say that this history will help in predicting what will occur in Iraq shows, IMO, either a mind which works very simply, or a mind which works very craftily and deceptively.

It is also, I fear, probably untrue to claim that US officials lied in order to scare the public into supporting the war. Here is what Bush actually said in his State of the Union Address:

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

Well that's what the British government believed and said. Now please examine the above statement and show me where in it Bush, or US officials, lied.

Article: Bush's Enemies Aren't Telling the Truth About What He Said

http://www.nationalreview.com/may/may071103.asp

[HDPM]

"Its hard to overstate the power of something formed formed from the earliest days in schools, church, scouts and other indoctrinating institutions that constantly reinforced with propaganda."

I agree with this, but it is a universal problem. Most people cannot distinguish reality from their beliefs about reality and they have very little insight as to how irrational many of their beliefs are. I suppose we're all guilty of it to one degree or another, although institutions like churches and scouts go out of their way to foster irrational belief. I guess that is why public education is in the communist manifesto, eh? /forums/images/icons/laugh.gif Schools are powerful instruments for political control and socialization. An ideal society would have a highly educated populace and no government involvement in schools. I have no idea how to do that though.

[andyfox]

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa"

Ari Fleischer said that this statement should never have been in the SOTU speech. Why would he say this? Because the British government did NOT learn that Saddam Hussein recentlyt sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. The British "knowledge" was false. And the American government knew that it was false.

Suppose I said that "M recently learned that John Cole was seeking employment from 2 + 2 Publishing." Suppose too that I knew that M's information was false. Wouldn't is not be disingenuous of me to make that statement here? Wouldn't others reading it assume that I felt M's information was true? Wouldn't others reading it assume that I too thought John Cole was seeking employment from 2 + 2?

Yet exactly the opposite is true. I know A) that M's information is unture; and B) that John Cole is not seeking employment from 2 + 2.

This is what happnened with Bush's statement in teh SOTU speech. He knew that what the British had "learned" was untrue. And he knew that Hussein had not recently sought to acquire uranium from Africa. Yet he deliberately decided to give the impression to the American people that the British "learning" was true and that Hussein had indeed recently tried to acquire uranium from Africa. Both deliberate deceptions. A deliberate deception is a lie.

[John Cole]

For the record, I'm not seeking employment anywhere.

A quick check of threads before the war began should show that many of us questioned what Bush, Powell, and Ari said. Whenever Ari was questioned and asked to provide more detail about "intelligence," (and few even bothered to question) he indicated that such details would compromise intelligence sources. (No wonder he's "pursuing other opportunities in the private sector" at the moment.) Also, we should question why Bush's advisors, many of whom distrusted the CIA, suddenly developed faith in the organization and its information.

[MMMMMM]

"This is what happnened with Bush's statement in teh SOTU speech. He knew that what the British had "learned" was untrue. And he knew that Hussein had not recently sought to acquire uranium from Africa"

So then what about the recent headlines we have been seeing that Britain stands by its intelligence reports (I didn't check them out yet)?

And even if Saddam did not seek uranium from that country, you can't make the jump and say that we (or Bush) "knew" that Saddam had not sought uranium from the whole of Africa. As the fairly short NRO article points out, "many intelligence analysts long believed that he was trying to acquire such material from wherever he could — not just from Niger but also from Gabon, Namibia, Russia, Serbia, and other sources." The article then goes on, "Maybe there was no reliable evidence to support the particular intelligence report saying that Saddam had acquired yellowcake (lightly processed uranium ore) from Niger. But the British claim was only that Saddam had sought yellowcake — not that he succeeded in getting a five-pound box Fedexed to his palace on the Tigris. And is there even one member of the U.S. Congress who would say that it was on the basis of this claim alone that he voted to authorize the president to use military force against Saddam? Is there one such individual anywhere in America?"

andy do you believe that Saddam's twice-arrested nuclear program was completely mothballed? That would seem to me a very naive outlook. Bush in SOTU: "The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb."

I haven't dug deeply into exactly who knew what in the matter of the British report, and I think it may be a while before we know for sure. We seem to be getting some conflicting claims in the press right now and I haven't followed it all in depth. But I can't say I would be surprised if Saddam had recently been seeking uranium. In fact, I'd be surprised if he hadn't.

[MMMMMM]

"The statement that he made was indeed accurate," Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice (search), said on Fox News Sunday. "Not only was the statement accurate, there were statements of this kind in the National Intelligence Estimate (search)," a classified document compiled by U.S. agencies, she said.

In this year's State of the Union (search) address on Jan. 20, President Bush laid out reasons for military action against Iraq and said: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

But during the past week, the White House has faced a barrage of criticism after it disavowed the accusation that Saddam's regime sought to buy uranium from Niger for a nuclear weapons program. The CIA, in turn, admitted it had doubts about the claim.

As it turns out, some of the intelligence obtained by British officials may have been forged, but the message passed on to U.S. officials was that the charge was true.

Prime Minister Tony Blair (search) said he still believes the uranium charge to be true. He says the charge was based on sources other than the forged document, which were not shared with the United States.

"U.K. officials were confident that the dossier's statement was based on reliable intelligence which we had not shared with the U.S.," British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw (search) said over the weekend. "A judgment was therefore made to retain it," Straw said, referring to the intelligence contained in the dossier.

Still, Rice agreed the statement shouldn't have been mentioned in the State of the Union address because it wasn't verified thoroughly.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,91786,00.html

Funny, I didn't see this story on the CNN website: no doubt they'll catch up, though.

[nicky g]

"We aren't torn between supporting the evil Saddam or the evil Mullahs at the moment, at war with each other, as we were. At the time, the USA judged the Iranian Shiite rule to be even less desirable."

Would you concede that the US was wrong to back Saddam in that conflict? The rule of the mullahs was and is certainly undesirable (no more - probably less so - than the Shah, but regardless), but faced with an unpleasant, repressive theocracy, and a regime that was killing and gassing hundreds of thousands of people, surely you'll agree that it was absoultely wrong to support that regime? If Iraq was going to be invaded and Saddam toppled, it should have been before or during such actions, not 15 years and hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis (from Saddam's rule, the sanctions and the effects of two devestating attacks) later when his power had been severly curtailed.

[andyfox]

"what about the recent headlines we have been seeing that Britain stands by its intelligence reports"

Irrelevant to the discussion at hand. As Ari said, that line from the SOTU speech should not have been in the speech because it was misleading information. At the time the speech was given, it was known to be misleading information.

Because M wouldn't be surprised if Saddam was recently seeking uranium doesn't mean he was. And if he was, how does that give the president of the United States a pass to say something without proof, or worse, with "proof" that was known to be without basis?

Frankly, I don't understand your reluctance to accept the fact that the administration sought to put its planned actions in the best light possible. All administrations do this. Wouldn't it in fact be surprising if they did not do this? Government play fast and loose with facts when A) it suits their purposes; and B) they think they can get away with it. It's surprising to me that a knowledgeable and sophisticated observor like you would doubt it.

[andyfox]

"Rice agreed the statement shouldn't have been mentioned in the State of the Union address because it wasn't verified thoroughly."

So why, then, was it in the State of the Union address? Because it made the administration's case stronger. Again, not very unusual. Government's going to war make the best case for that war and they sometimes include false statements, or statements that aren't "verified thoroughly," in their explanations.

[andyfox]

"For the record, I'm not seeking employment anywhere."

Yeah, well British intelligence stands by their original report. While the document they gave me was false, and I knew that particular document was false, they how say they have other information, which they didn't give to me, which backs up their claim of your seeking employment somewhere.

So I did not lie.

[nicky g]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it, the diplomat that investigated the Niger conncection on behalf of the CIA did not simply say that that particular document was a forgery. He said the whole story about Iraq seeking uranium from Niger did not stand up and that it was unlikely it had ever happened.
Now we are expected to accept that, although the evidence intially presented to us was forged (noone has bothered to ask who forged it), there is in fact other special top secret evidence of the connection that we're not allowed to see, ever. Right.

[MMMMMM]

I'm not saying that can't be the case, but that isn't the same as lying. Also, since this is but one small piece of the reasons and rationale for the war, big whoop-de-doo, in my opinion. And IMO it borders on the idiotic or at least the incredibly agenda-driven, to presume that Saddam had entirely halted his WMD programs (and that includes his nuclear WMD programs).

The line should not have been in the report because it was not sufficiently verified perhaps, and because raw intelligence may not belong in an SOTU address. But the administration was facing incredible pressure to make a public case for Saddam's WMD programs, so they included a bit more than should have been included. Take that piece out and you still have a case. And take away the entire case, even, and anyone with a brain should still know that Saddam didn't go from pursuing WMD's at every turn for many years to being instead a Boy Scout. The chances that OJ was innocent are far greater than the chances that Saddam had unilaterally and secretly abandoned his WMD programs after kicking the U.N. Inspectors out.

[MMMMMM]

nicky I really don't know. The mullahs rule by terror and repression too. I would say that morally you are probably right, but I wasn't as attuned to world affairs back then so I don't know as much about what was going on. Let's not forget, too, that the Khomeini regime was radically opposed to the USA. Shiite control of the entire Middle East might have been disastrous for the West if it were allowed to occur. As crazy as it sounds, perhaps the best thing back then would have been for the free nations to have taken over both Iraq and Iran, and to have started earlier the process of getting rid of both Baathist fascism and theological fascism. However that would probably have been impractical if not impossible, especially given the USSR's friendship with many Arab states.

[Cyrus]

"Prime Minister Tony Blair said he still believes the uranium charge to be true. He says the charge was based on sources other than the forged document, which were not shared with the United States."

OK, so far we have one forged document being part of a most serious (supposedly!) security assessment. This the Brits they admit.

As a bonus, the Brits softly capitulate abt their "sources" accuracy, if not existence. (Remember that the Brits used to be lotsa more adamant an' getting all indignant if their "impeccable sources" were doubted.)

"Rice agreed the statement shouldn't have been mentioned in the State of the Union address because it wasn't verified thoroughly."

Next up, we have the Yanks unwittingly (and you can say that again!) accepting as-is a document that they cannot be sure of, and, what's more, incorporating it into a minor li'l speech known as the State of the Union address. Nice going, creeps.

"Funny, I didn't see this story on the CNN website: no doubt they'll catch up, though."

CNN will give it the full treatment on Saturday, on that funny comedian's show, whatshisname. Be sure to tune in.

[MMMMMM]

If the world hadn't been so unreasonable in demanding a public case for the existence of Saddam's WMD programs (everyone knew Saddam hadn't totally revoked those programs, even those calling on the USA to provide 'proof' of their existence...and yes, I'll bet even Chris Alger knew in his heart of hearts that Saddam hadn't truly renounced WMD's), then the Bush administration wouldn't have been under such pressure to put forth even raw intelligence of uncertain validity. In other words, the vast majority of the doubters were doubting publicly because it suited their political purposes, not because they truly believed Saddam had no WMD programs (although the issue of what danger those programs might have posed, and how soon--a large part of the war rationale--is another matter). IMO, those opposed to the war should have focused on the rationale for the war, not on the proof of existence of WMD programs.

How's that for a turnaround, lol;-)?

[andyfox]

I have never doubted Saddam was a bad guy and that he was cheating. You say we take out this line and you still have a case. I say there was never any case to begin with, or rather, that the case the administration made was hooey (to use what is apparently my favorite word). Saddam did not pose a threat to us, there was no connection between him and 9/11. There were people in the administration who had been calling for his removal for years and they made up their mind he was out.

The particular issue about the supposed attempted purchase of uranium is symptomatic, as I have said, of the way this administration, and all others, pursue public approval of aggressive military action. Truth becomes a secondary consideration.

[andyfox]

The major rationale for the war was that Saddam Hussein had violated the UN sanctions calling for complete compliancer on WMDs. He was part of the axis of terror. Later, the administration made a connection between Hussein and Bin Laden and still later they said he was a bad guy who treated his people badly. Still later they said that getting rid of him would cause a domino principle to take effect, leading to democracy in other countries of the region.

Yes, the administration was under "pressure" to present facts to back up their assertions. When those facts turn out to be baloney, the rationale is called into question.

[adios]

Here are some undeniable facts IMO:

1. The US has taken the position that Hussein possessed WMD's for a decade or so spanning 3 administrations. It's not unique to Bush or the Republicans for that matter.

2. The certainty of Iraqi possession of WMD's was necessary to justify the Iraqi regime change to the UN and perhaps certain members of the press. Certainly this was not the standard for the majority of the American voting public.

I'd bet a lot of money that the American voting public isn't paying all that much attention to recent developments regarding Iraqi WMD's and what Bush stated.

[Chris Alger]

If Colin Powell didn't believe the "African connection" had any basis in january 2003, why should we now? Recall his telling the press that the story couldn't withstand the "test of time" between the SOU speech and his UN address two weeks later. It appears that the test of time was even shorter. One week after the SOU speech, "American diplomats warned the International Atomic Energy Agency that the United States could not confirm the reports" about the African connection, according to the July 9 NY Times, citing statements that day by the State Dept. to the House Committee on Government Reform.

Look at the chronology: in December, the IAEA asks the US for documents that prove the alleged Niger connection. The US withholds them until Feb. 4, a week after the SOU address. "The I.A.E.A. quickly concluded that the documents the United States had turned over to support Mr. Bush's claims were fraudulent. But even in turning over the material, the State Department told the organization, 'We cannot confirm these reports and have questions regarding some specific claims.'" NY Times, 7/9/3.

So although the best information we had in February 2003 was uncomfirmable, Rice can now claim that it's accurrate, although she can't provide any evidence. Her only source is Foregin Secretary Jack Straw, under fire for the same misleading statement, who had to point to something other than an admitted forgery or admit that the September dossier was a lie. His solution is the old dodge of insisting that all the evidence that supports the truth is classfied. Straw relies on unnamed secret sources providing information he can't describe about a country that he can't name. Rice is doing the same thing.

On that basis alone, you swallow this whole and conclude that the "British Claim was Accurrate."

Two obvious questions:

(1) Why is information that can save the bacon of both governments still an official secret? The war, after all, is over and won.

(2) If the information was accurrate in Jan. 2003, why didn't Powell believe it and why were forged documents given to UN inspectors a week later instead of simply referring the inspectors to the Brits and their apparently superior intelligence sources?

Rice's failure to even address the obvious is further evidence that she is lying. She has good reason to: it was her office through which CIA intelligence was filtered before it went to the President's speechwriters. Tenet has so far agreed to fall on his sword, although he or his accolytes continue to leak stuff to the press that tends to blace the blame on Rice. With the President's approval numbers down 9 points in a few weeks, Rice now has to stop the bleed, and is now resorting to more drastic tactics than the White House did when this scandal first hit the fan.

[MMMMMM]

I'm saying there would still be a case that he had not abandoned his WMD programs. The case for war is another matter. Also, if less energy and attention had been focused on the pseudo-question of whether he had WMD programs or not, perhaps more time and energy could have been expended on the real question: whether or not there was a compelling case for war.

[John Cole]

M,

I watched Fox News this morning, and I saw the report on the US finding some sort of WMD two weeks ago. Those three goofballs are utterly hilarious. First, they told about some undersecretary type working in Australia that made the claim, and, get this, they opined that Rumsfeld almost mentioned the same thing in his interview yesterday. Almost mentioned!!! (And, I rarely use use even one exclamation mark). Below these three morning idiots, the text read "WMD Found." Egads.

John

[John Cole]

M,

I know you would have a hundred reasons why the war was just, and I think you might feel most strongly tied to the moral imperative. But, don't you see that this can never be the reason to go to war?

In the same way, we will only go after certain terrorist organization and necessarily ignore others.


A few years ago the Shining Path, a major terrorist organization, came very close to toppling Peru's government. What would we have done in response? Answer . . .?

[andyfox]

Time magazine came in the mail today and the cover says "Untruth & Consequences: How Flawed was the Case for Going to War Against Saddam?" And "Plus: An intimate look at seven American soldiers who died this month in Iraq"

When the cost of nation-building in Iraq and Afghanistan gets into the hudnred of billions of dollars, and the economy can't be brought back unless Greenspan can manage to create negative interest rates, the American public will pay attention.

I note that Mr. Chalabi, airlifted into Iraq immediately after the war by the United States, is part of the non-elected council that changed the public holidays in Iraq. Mr. Chalabi had always stated he wanted no part in governing Iraq.

The hubris of this administration will come back to bite it in the ass.

[Chris Alger]

Moreover, Rice's latest line presumes that the NSC believed the substance (not just the literal accuracy) of the claim was true -- albeit not "verified thoroughly" -- while the White House was admitting the mistake of putting it in the SOU address. So the claim was truthful enough for the National Security Advisor to accept and for the public to accept, but not truthful enough to have Bush state it directly without attributing it to the Brits and not truthful enough to avoid making Tenet step forward to admit failure.

This nonsense is taken at face value by the same pro-war camp that sneered at any suggestion that Iraq might not have "thousands of tons" of WMD and an active nuclear bomb program. Here, for example, is Bruce Bartlett in today's WSJ, arguing that Bush's SOU claim was "entirely accurate in the sense that the British government had reached and publicized that conclusion." (My emphasis). However, "British intelligence has not revealed its sources, so unease naturally remains." Unease remains. Where's the evidence that the British weren't fabricating claims and had "reached" the conclusion independently of the same "intelligence" that the CIA warned the Brits was bogus? Bartlett can't say because there isn't any. This from the lead editor of the page that printed Ken Adelman's claim (8/28/2) that Saddam "He has his hands on ... scores of scientific laboratories and myriad manufacturing plants cranking out weapons of mass destruction." But no scores, no myriads, nothing being cranked out, and more of the same from the leading daily for the world's business elite.

What's happened is that Bush's attempt to blame the CIA hasn't worked and a discernable chunk of the electorate is beginning to realize that they've been had. "It's the first time we've seen them sweat," Jennifer Palmieri, the spokeswoman for Mr. [John] Edwards, said of the White House. "It's the first time anything has ever stuck." NYT, 7/14/3. So they're shifting tactics to a more traditional, more direct form of lying, the age-old "we'd love to prove it but the evidence is a secret." In the hands of someone with authentic credibility on the war and willing to kick the crap out of it, say, DENNIS KUCINICH, this could be a lot of fun.

He might mention, for example, another relevant bit of history that should have framed the lead question to Rice's interviews on the the Sunday talk shows, but was graciously overlooked: "Rice's denials are reminiscent of her claim in spring 2002 that there was no reporting suggesting that terrorists were planning to hijack planes and slam them into buildings. In September, the joint congressional committee on 9/11 came up with a dozen such reports."
Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (http://www.counterpunch.org/)

[Jimbo]

"The hubris of this administration will come back to bite it in the ass.

Perhaps but by the time that happens we will have at least experienced 8 years of sanity. After that who knows? Perhaps a relapse into democratic turmoil? We can only pray that doesn't occur.

[MMMMMM]

"But, don't you see that this (a moral imperative) can never be the reason to go to war?"

No, I'm afraid I don't see that, and I'm also not clear on whether you mean "can" in a pragmatic sense or a moral sense. Also, wasn't a moral imperative the reason we went to war to stop the slaughters in Kosovo or Bosnia? Wasn't that what U.N. peacekeepers were supposed to do in Rwanda?

Regarding the latter question in your post, I don't see why the fact that we can't, or won't, go to war for moral imperatives everywhere should mean that we can't or shouldn't go to war for moral imperatives anywhere. And if the moral imperatives happen to coincide with our own interests somewhere (as in Iraq), then so much the better, since we can't expend unlimited energy engaging in innumerable and purely altruistic wars if such wars represent only cost and no benefits to ourselves. We don't have unlimited resources, so our resources should be used wisely in such regards.

[MMMMMM]

Well, I guess this clearly shows that I need to get a TV.

[MMMMMM]

The free western (and Eastern) nations of the world should chip in to help pay for the costs of the Iraqi liberation and rebuilding. So too should the Iraqis. We of course are already paying. If necessary to help defray the costs, some revenues from Iraqi oil should be used.

[MMMMMM]

Chris, for once I'll agree with you and say that this whole aspect of the thing looks somewhat fishy. But strangely, that doesn't bother me nearly so much as the thoughts of what went on in Iraq prior to the war, or the chances that Saddam might someday have sold or given WMD to terrorist organizations. The chance of his eventually doing so might have even been slim (or it might not), but I don't see why we should be required to take that chance at all. Good riddance to bad rubbish, and let's hope they catch or kill him fast.

[andyfox]

Bush 41 looked unbeatable when Clinton was running a poor third behind Ross Perot in mid-1992. Dubya looked like a very poor candidate when he started out. So who knows what will happen in 2004. There doesn't appear to be any Democratic candidate who could win, but who knows. Stranger things have happened.

[Chris Alger]

"The chance of his eventually doing so might have even been slim (or it might not), but I don't see why we should be required to take that chance at all."

This is both illogical and cowardly. It is illogical because you're failing to account for the blowback and rage that will follow from the war, perhaps now even worse as it becomes clearer that US officials tried to deceive the world. It fails to account for the chance that the war increased the probability of greater WMD proliferation or a devastating terror attack against the US by people invoking your own logic of prevention. They'll say: "We live in an area of strategic importance under a government that the US doesn't like. It's just a matter of time before the US collaterally kills 5,000 to 10,000 of us, your countrymen and families, your children. If you care about these people, you must strike first/build a bomb in the hope of proving to America there's a price to be paid for military aggression. The chances might be slim, but it's your only hope of convincing the US to back down."

If you were advising North Korean leaders, how would you respond to this argument? Perhaps you'll say: "we should terminate our nuclear weapons program and and make ourselves weak like Iraq did because the US will only attack if we threaten it by having WMD. Of course they might lie or exaggerate and attack us anyway, but it's a chance we should take." Or would you say what you're saying now, that even a slight chance of a devastating attack justifies drastic measures to prevent it?

You have allied yourself with the romantic war lovers and liberty-haters in this country that welcome this logic and the devastating results likely to follow. When the next attack happens, they'll say it was because we didn't attack Iraq fast enough or hard enough. Or that we didn't also preemptively "take out" Syrian and Iran. Or Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Arab world. Or Cuba, China, Korea, etc.

It's cowardly because as long as WMD exist there will remain the chance of a WMD attack against the US, indeed every country, to say nothing of relatively minor devastations like 9/11. Your logic involves killing thousands of foreigners from time to time in the dubious hope of reducing by some undeterminable degree a threat that can't be eliminated. It's no different that fomenting devastation because of fear that we can't get rid of, of killing people because we're uncomfortable with inevitable risk. It's schoolyard bullyism. It starts from a certain arrogance of power, self-satisfaction and disregard for the rights of others, and tends to end, as every European power and former schoolyard bully knows, with the isolation and destruction of powers thought to have been invincible.