A Caucus of Democracies

[adios]

This op ed piece touches on many reasons why the UN is flawed organization. This excerpt sums it up well I think:

The U.N. today remains far short of realizing its potential or its stated aspirations. Its direction and control have been hijacked by authoritarian regimes, the relics of yesterday. We must work diligently toward realizing its original goals: freedom, democracy and human rights for all the peoples of the world. Until then, with our national values and security at stake, we must not permit our interests to be diverted and undermined by the unprincipled.

Also regarding Israel and the UN:

In 1948, the U.N. recognized Israel as a new state and member. Shortly thereafter, Israel's Arab neighbors -- refusing to accept the U.N. decision -- invaded Israel. Since that time, and until quite recently, neighboring Arab states have publicly considered themselves in a perpetual state of war with Israel, and have acted accordingly. How has the U.N. responded? Since 1964, the Security Council has passed 88 resolutions against Israel -- the only democracy in the region -- while the General Assembly has passed more than 400 such resolutions. The U.N., an organization committed to peace, permitted Yasser Arafat to address its General Assembly in 1974 with a pistol on his hip, and subsequently formed -- under U.N. auspices and with U.N. funding -- three separate entities with large staffs which advance the Palestine Liberation Organization's anti-Israel agenda: the Division for Palestine Rights; the Committee for the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People; and the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Human Rights Practices Affecting the Palestinian People. No Arab state has ever been chastised by the U.N. for actions against Israel and for its defiance of the 1948 U.N. resolution

Of course I've stated the the US ought to pull out of the UN ASAP as I'm not as optimistic as the author is. I think much more can be accomplished towards the original stated goals of the UN without the UN in it's current form. The entire op ed piece.


A Caucus of Democracies

By MAX M. KAMPELMAN

The United Nations is perceived by most Americans as indispensable for maintaining stability in the world. That was certainly the intent when it was created at the end of World War II. Its charter proclaims that "faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, and in the equal rights of men and women" are principles central to peace and security. Regrettably, the U.N. has failed to act upon the centrality of human rights to its mission. Secretary-General Kofi Annan apparently recognized this reality in his Nobel lecture when he said: "The sovereignty of states must no longer be used as a shield for gross violations of human rights."

Since the U.N.'s creation, millions have been killed, maimed, starved, tortured or raped by brutal rulers whose governments nevertheless wield great influence in the U.N. General Assembly and the Security Council. These facts clearly reflect the inadequacies and failures of the U.N. For example, North Korea's dictator, Kim Jong Il, has inflicted a holocaust on his people. Defectors and observers have estimated that more than a million people have starved to death in brutal Gulag-type camps. The resulting flood of refugees into China, where an estimated 360,000 North Koreans may now be hiding in an effort to escape brutality, has not produced action in the U.N., though the U.N. High Commission on Refugees is fully aware of this human catastrophe. China classifies these tragic human beings as "economic migrants" and "not refugees," while cynically embracing the refugee convention as the "Magna Carta of international refugee law" and thereby earning the applause of U.N. officials.

The U.N. Human Rights Commission has become a travesty. Two years ago, the U.S. -- which has worked diligently to make the commission an effective instrument -- was replaced by Syria, a corrupt, totalitarian supporter of terrorism. This year, in spite of American efforts, Libya was elected to chair the commission, an egregious challenge to the commission's integrity considering Libya's rule by a militant tyrant responsible for the 1988 bombing of a U.S. civilian jet in Lockerbie in which 270 people were murdered. U.S. opposition to Libya was supported only by Canada and Guatemala; 33 countries voted for Libya, while our European "friends" conspicuously abstained from voting at all. In electing such states as Syria, Libya, Vietnam, China, Saudi Arabia, Cuba and Zimbabwe to serve on the commission, the ostensible guardian of human rights, the U.N. has forfeited its commitment to those values.

In 1948, the U.N. recognized Israel as a new state and member. Shortly thereafter, Israel's Arab neighbors -- refusing to accept the U.N. decision -- invaded Israel. Since that time, and until quite recently, neighboring Arab states have publicly considered themselves in a perpetual state of war with Israel, and have acted accordingly. How has the U.N. responded? Since 1964, the Security Council has passed 88 resolutions against Israel -- the only democracy in the region -- while the General Assembly has passed more than 400 such resolutions. The U.N., an organization committed to peace, permitted Yasser Arafat to address its General Assembly in 1974 with a pistol on his hip, and subsequently formed -- under U.N. auspices and with U.N. funding -- three separate entities with large staffs which advance the Palestine Liberation Organization's anti-Israel agenda: the Division for Palestine Rights; the Committee for the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People; and the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Human Rights Practices Affecting the Palestinian People. No Arab state has ever been chastised by the U.N. for actions against Israel and for its defiance of the 1948 U.N. resolution.

Is it any wonder that many Americans hesitate to place our security concerns in the hands of the U.N.? Daniel Patrick Moynihan, as he was leaving his role as U.S. ambassador to the U.N. in 1976, called it a "theater of the absurd."

The U.N. today remains far short of realizing its potential or its stated aspirations. Its direction and control have been hijacked by authoritarian regimes, the relics of yesterday. We must work diligently toward realizing its original goals: freedom, democracy and human rights for all the peoples of the world. Until then, with our national values and security at stake, we must not permit our interests to be diverted and undermined by the unprincipled.

At a minimum, it is essential that the U.S. take the lead in establishing and strengthening a Caucus of Democratic States committed to advancing the U.N.'s assigned role for world peace, human dignity and democracy. The recently established Community of Democracies (CD) has called for this move, a recommendation jointly supported in a recent report by the Council on Foreign Relations and Freedom House.

In June 2000, the U.S., under the leadership of Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and in cooperation with Poland, Chile, Mali and other democratic states, convened the first meeting of the CD to "collaborate on democratic-related issues in existing international and regional institutions . . . aimed at the promotion of democratic government." More than 100 countries participated. It was necessary for the CD to withhold full membership from some countries that sought to be included but did not adequately meet democratic standards. A second such meeting took place in Seoul in November 2002, where participants reaffirmed the need to create a U.N. Caucus of Democratic States. Secretary of State Colin Powell called it "a new tool in the U.S. policy tool bag." A third meeting of the CD is scheduled for Chile in 2005. The CD could be effective in refocusing the efforts of the U.N. to more closely follow its founding principles. At the same time, the CD is uniquely capable of filling the gaps left by the U.N.'s inadequacies, both internally and externally. But the CD's existence seems to be a great secret in the press. How often have you read about it?

The Community of Democracies is not alone in recognizing the need for more ardent advocacy of democratic principles in the U.N. The European Parliament early last year called for the creation of a working democratic caucus at the Human Rights Commission. Recently, Sen. Joseph Biden introduced a resolution in the Senate in support of the establishment of a U.N Democratic Caucus as "an idea whose time has come." It would be enormously valuable for the president of the United States to address the American people and enunciate a strong overall policy on the U.N., its opportunities and its limitations. He should make clear that broad promises about human rights must be replaced by specific implementation of human rights standards.

In order to advance the principles of the U.N. Charter, a strong Democratic Caucus must emphasize human dignity as an essential ingredient for peace and stability. It must challenge and limit the influence of the regional blocs that, for example, decide on the rotating membership of the Security Council and the various U.N. missions and commissions. Decisions and resolutions of the heavily politicized General Assembly -- including the selection of states for commissions and other U.N. activities -- should be formally approved by the Security Council before being considered decisions of the U.N. This would provide a safeguard for the U.N. Charter's foundational principles and objectives. More difficult is the need to reorganize the composition of the Security Council itself to reflect today's realities and not those of 50 years ago.

A strong case may be made for the need for an international body to which all of the world's states, democratic and authoritarian, belong. Discussion and constructive exchange may flow from it. But let us not bestow on it the appearance of being a forum of principle or wisdom qualified to judge the dimension of our national welfare and value. The changes necessary in the U.N. will be difficult to achieve, and some may not be achieved at all. But the impetus for such change must be a commitment to human rights and democracy. We should put Kofi Annan's statement to the test: "When the U.N. can truly call itself a Community of Democracies, the Charter's noble ideas of protecting human rights . . . will have been brought much closer."

Mr. Kampelman was U.S. ambassador to the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe.

Updated January 6, 2004

[Zeno]

I have a nitty-gritty plan. The US kicks everyone out of the UN then the vacant UN building can be turned it into the world’s largest legal brothel. All proceeds go into a non-profit trust and used for training US citizens in small arms use, both pistol and rifle marksmanship along with courses in proper gun safety and responsibility.

The bedraggled nations can then set up there own UN someplace else - like the outback of Australia where they can first test their imbecilic notions and resolutions on sheep and cattle.

Le Misanthrope

[MMMMMM]

Excellent plan, Zeno.

Trying to reach multilateral concordance with dictators, despots, fanatics, (and weak-kneed Europeans too, apparently) is a grand foolish waste of time, money and breath.

Your plan would permit the U.N. to show the stuff it is really made of -- hot air. If they want multilateralism let them have it just as you suggest. In the meantime, while they are sitting around some wasteland jawboning between meals and martinis, U.S. citizens can be improving their health and minds and gaining practical knowledge of how to defend themselves.

[Cyrus]

The United Nations has served the world well. It has been a place for direct talks and meetings between friends and/or adversaries, during a most dangerous time for the world, the Cold War. Dismissing the UN's invaluable worth and services rendered is like badmouthing a former lover about her falling looks : not classy.

Whether the U.N. survives the new order of things in its current form or not, is open to debate. Probably something different will slowly emerge to replace the old order. What exactly will that be we don't know but we can be sure that plus ca change, plus c' est la meme chose -- though the Who put it better.

[MMMMMM]

Cyrus I beg to differ with you. The U.N. has not served the world well at all. Most things that it should have condemned and tried to stop, it didn't; and some things it shouldn't have even bothered about (by comparison), it did. The worst human rights abuses in the world it didn't even censure, let alone pass resolutions against.

Also, how can you support an organization that so amplifies the voices of tinpot dictators? The world would have been better off without the U.N. all along, IMO.

As for meetings between friends and adversaries, those could have occurred anyways, as they currently do, and as they did for throughout history. The U.N. provided an artificial format which impeded progress, and gave more voice to evil totalitarian regimes while also diminishing the political influence of democratic nations. Further the U.N. did all these things while adding layers of bureaucracy to an already too bureaufied world.

[jokerswild]

What a reactionary you are! I bet that you believe thatthe world would have been a better place if the US Eastern seaboard, and the USSR were both obliterated in 1962 over Cuba.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

[ QUOTE ]
The U.N., an organization committed to peace, permitted Yasser Arafat to address its General Assembly in 1974 with a pistol on his hip, and subsequently formed -- under U.N. auspices and with U.N. funding -- three separate entities with large staffs which advance the Palestine Liberation Organization's anti-Israel agenda: the Division for Palestine Rights; the Committee for the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People; and the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Human Rights Practices Affecting the Palestinian People. No Arab state has ever been chastised by the U.N. for actions against Israel and for its defiance of the 1948 U.N. resolution

Two years ago, the U.S. -- which has worked diligently to make the commission an effective instrument -- was replaced by Syria, a corrupt, totalitarian supporter of terrorism. This year, in spite of American efforts, Libya was elected to chair the commission


[/ QUOTE ]

But the world is mad at us for ignoring the wishes of the UN.

My official opinion, stated publicly for the record:

FK the UN!

The UN is a room full of hot air. We should WITHDRAW. from the UN, if anything. It's an organization that is so ineffective it's pathetic.

al

al

[Al_Capone_Junior]

[ QUOTE ]
The bedraggled nations can then set up there own UN someplace else - like the outback of Australia where they can first test their imbecilic notions and resolutions on sheep and cattle.


[/ QUOTE ]

Moo = Yes. That way all their resolutions pass.

al

[Al_Capone_Junior]

I thought the M man had legitimate points. Your response accuses him of thinking nuclear war with russia in the 60s would have been a good thing. But HE'S the reactionary?

I often agree with M man's points on political matters. I agree with him on these UN matters. Does that mean I favor total obliteration of the universe?

al

[MMMMMM]

"What a reactionary you are! I bet that you believe thatthe world would have been a better place if the US Eastern seaboard, and the USSR were both obliterated in 1962 over Cuba."

No, I definitely don't think that, jokerswild--but I do think the world would have been a better place if the USA had somehow managed to prevent the USSR from developing nuclear weapons in the first place.

Maybe a doctrine of pre-emption in the late 1940's, when we had nukes and they didn't, would have done the trick? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Zeno]

I regard the UN as I do most religions - casuing more harm than good.

I agree that The Who kicked it out better. I have the recently released (2003?) 'The ultimate Collection' (sounds big but it is only 2 CDs plus a 4-track bonus CD) and think it is a good overall retrosective of their work. Worth getting if you don't already have all the older stuff.


-Zeno

[hetron]

because you make too many absolute statements. To say something is NEVER right, or that the U.N. has not served the world well AT ALL is too radical a statement to ever be correct on an SAT, LSAT or MCAT type test.

M, I will again say that your statements since the 9/11 attacks have taken a very radical swing. To say that the UN isn't the most effective organization is one thing; to say that the "UN hasn't served the world well at all" is quite another. Its humanitarian efforts, through UNICEF and other sub-organizations alone, have had a positive impact worldwide. And I can't think of one particular episode in world politics where the UN as an organization has caused harm that would not have occurred if it never existed. Ineffective, yes; harmful, no.

And by the way, I can think of a few cases where democratic nations had a chance to censure despotic countries yet refused to do so. I can also think of one particular situation where the US used it's authority in the UN to build an international fighting force to reverse the takeover of a small nation by a larger one with a despotic ruler.

[Gamblor]

to Israeli child survivors of Arab Warfare or Palestinian Arab terrorist attacks, especially given the Israeli economy of late?

A: Because it's a politically-biased organization serving the interests of the few and having long lost its mandate.

Like the UN itself.

[Cyrus]

"Most things that [the United Nations organisation] should have condemned and tried to stop, it didn't; and some things it shouldn't have even bothered about, it did."

The U.N. takes its major (and binding) decisions through the Security Council. The Permanent Memebers of the SC were US, UK, France, then Russia and China. The set-up reflected the realities of the Cold War, no more and no less. The SC has served the interestes of world peace and diplomacy quite well.

As just one example of the UN's achievements, it facilitated the emergence of the Non-Allied movement of third world countries, which acted as both a buffer and a conduit between the two camps of the Cold War.

"The worst human rights abuses in the world it didn't even censure, let alone pass resolutions against."

The rule during the Cold War was non-interference to countries' so-called domestic affairs. If Czechoslovakia crushes down on dissidents and shoots two thousand anti-communist demonstrators, this could not be an issue for the UN or its SC. And it was, actually, the correct, if not the only, way to go about things. Because (and this is what detractors keep forgetting) the UN was meant as a forum for adversaries too, and not just like-minded countries ("caucus of democracies", etc).

"How can you support an organization that so amplifies the voices of tinpot dictators?"

The voice of each country is its vote. Each country has one vote. In the important decisions, the USSR, a dictatorship, did not have just one vote, it had veto power over SC's resolutions. So, what would you prefer to have instead, the USSR ostracised from world diplomacy and the UN? This would have been as dangerous as possible a course.

The voice of individual countries was actually diminished under the SC's heavy weight. And the veto of the SC's Permament Members had a very good effect : it forced opposing diplomats to work together and compromise as much as possible, in order to reach an agreement -- on statements, resolutions, communiques, etc. Those texts formed the backbone of international relations for decades.

"As for meetings between friends and adversaries, those could have occurred anyways, as they currently do, and as they did for throughout history."

No, this is not correct. Meeting can be from easy to very difficult to set up, in world diplomacy! And not just because delegations will quarrel over the agenda. But because they might disagree about the shape of the table! (e.g. the Paris talks babout Vietnam.) On the other hand, the UN provided a permanent and easy place for official AND casual contact between diplomats. The channels of communication were consistently open!

This helped diplomacy enormously.

"The U.N. provided a ... format which impeded progress."

The format was what it was. But progress was a different matter. Count Bernadotte was assassinated by enemies of peace. Look up his name sometime on the web (http://www.spectacle.org/495/deir.html) . Then, you just might understand how "progress was impeded" and by whom (http://www.mideastfacts.com/bernadotte_hirst.html) !

"The U.N. [added] layers of bureaucracy to an already too bureaufied world."

Setting up a forum for world diplomacy comes necessarily with bureaucracy. That bureaucracy is a reflection of the safeguards and the myriads of rules that every nation feels are necessary for the appropriate conduct of that diplomacy. (The alternative is always less "bureaucratic" : Guns and devastation.)

"The U.N. has not served the world well at all."

I beg to differ.

[adios]

"I can also think of one particular situation where the US used it's authority in the UN to build an international fighting force to reverse the takeover of a small nation by a larger one with a despotic ruler. "

Not shining example for the UN IMO. The force was predominantly US and the UN Resolution ruled out a removal of Hussein from power which was an absurd restriction given Hussein's action and history of actions. If the US would have ignored this resolution at the time Hussein would be a distant memory saving countless lives. This is yet another example of a botched UN initiative.

[Gamblor]

Way to spin everything against the Jews!

Nice demonization campaign, and furthermore, excellent job of singling out the Jews as the evil perpetrators of violent actions against the UN!

I'm reminded of a story I read in article...

An old Harvard President in the 1920s, named A. Lawrence Lowell, decided that the number of Jews admitted to Harvard should be reduced because "Jews cheat." When a distinguished alumnus, Judge Learned Hand (of Hand Rule fame), pointed out that Protestants also cheat, Lowell responded, "You're changing the subject; we're talking about Jews."

[adios]

"The U.N. takes its major (and binding) decisions through the Security Council. The Permanent Memebers of the SC were US, UK, France, then Russia and China. The set-up reflected the realities of the Cold War, no more and no less. The SC has served the interestes of world peace and diplomacy quite well."

Where's the example of an acheivment?

[MMMMMM]

I suppose it is emblematic of your views, Cyrus, that you would consider the countries of the so-called "non-aligned" movement to actually be non-aligned. Cuba, the leader (?) of the so-called "Non-Aligned" movement sure as hell was aligned, no matter what BS was spouted about being "non-aligned.". Indeed my overall impression of the non-aligned movement at the time was that it consisted of pro-Soviet countries. What a bad joke--and you swallowed it hook line and sinker.

Also I take issue with your thinking that the diplomacy of the U.N. saved lives in aggregate: I suspect it actually cost lives in aggregate. Guns and force don't always lead to devastation or greater loss of lives; indeed they often have saved lives. Case in point: Iraq, where the status quo would almost surely have killed (and tortured) more Iraqis over the next decade (or even year or two?) than the war. Dilpomacy, and the pernicious U.N., didn't save those Iraqis; the guns of the U.S. and U.K. did. Likewise the U.N. didn't even act in the Bosnia etc. affairs; the U.S. had to take near-unilateral actions to save lives.

Pah on French diplomacy, and on the historically "status-quo loving" U.N.

[MMMMMM]

Saying "the U.N. hasn't served the world well at all" is, IMO, a bit different than saying "the U.N. hasn't served the world well in even one instance."

Perhaps my intended meaning would have been more clear had I written, "Generally speaking, the U.N. hasn't served the world well at all."

As for my performance on standardized tests, you happen to be guessing in the wrong direction.

[hetron]

A: Israel signed an agreement with UNICEF in 1948 on the establishment of the State of Israel, and was a recipient of substantial UNICEF technical and material assistance until 1965. In that year Israel informed UNICEF that it were sufficiently developed not to require further assistance from the organization, but that it would thereafter become a donor country.

Aiight?

[Gamblor]

Twisted my facts.

It is the ignorance of the crimes against Palestinian children that betrays UNICEF's anti-Israeli bias.

The New York Times knew that the PA education ministry has recruited 25,000 9 and 10 year olds to train in school for military confrontation with Israelis, including the training with Molotov cocktails thrown at passing Israeli vehicles, but not a word from UNICEF.

What of Palestinian children, sent with rocks by their own families to the front lines, so photojournalists can send the image back to the media, instead of protecting them. Where is UNICEF in this case?

Naturally, it ignores the entire educational infrastructure that the Israeli government set up, hoping to educate the Palestinians properly. Now that it is in PA control, the textbooks glorify the "Shaheeds", and demonize Israel

[Cyrus]

"I suppose it is emblematic of your views, that you would consider the countries of the so-called "non-aligned" movement to actually be non-aligned. Cuba, the leader (?) of the so-called "Non-Aligned" movement sure as hell was aligned."

Cuba was nowehere leading anything or anyone. Where do you get such crap?

The true leaders of the non-aligned movement were countries such as Egypt, India and Yugoslavia. Were those countries completely without alliances or ideological inclinations? No, they weren't but the leaders of those countries prefered to chart a semi-independent course.

The fact that an Eastern bloc country such as Tito's Yugoslavia could thumb its nose to the Soviets or that India could decide on serious matters alone without checking fisrt with the British Colonial Office were momentous achievements. The bloc of non-alogned nations helped the belancing between the two superpowers' camps.

Believe otherwise at the cost of your learning.

--Cyrus

PS : One achievement of the Non-Aligned movement could have been the attraction of Cuba to their cause, hence the numerous invitations to and diplomatic contacts with Castro's regime. But the U.S. would have none of it. Their beligerent and pro-Batista position made the Cubans run for cover. Fron nationalist insurgents they ended up being allies of the bear. Nice work, "best & brightest".

[Cyrus]

"Way to spin everything against the Jews! Nice demonization campaign, and furthermore, excellent job of singling out the Jews as the evil perpetrators of violent actions against the UN!"

Such indignation! Such sarcasm! Words like "spin" and "demonising", wow, whoa!

And for what? For me bringing up, in order to show the measure of respect that Israel has always held for the United Nations, how Israel has dealt in the past with the organisation's envoys. (=It killed them when it didn't like 'em! Faster than you can say Tony Soprano.)

You folks are up in arms about the United Nations, its "ineffectiveness", its "bureacuracy", etc. You forget that it is the countries participating in the U.N. that are responsible ultimately for the organisation's effectiveness. The U.N. is not a "world government" (thatnk, God).

So, Israel (whose loyal supporters, such as Gamblor find it to be peachy) assassinated the U.N. envoy in 1948, an envoy mind you of impeccable credentials, a member of the Swedish royal family who was strongly pro-Jewish and pro-Israel. His "crime"? He found out first-hand about the Israelis' mass ethnic cleansing campaign in Palestine and was ready to shoot off his mouth, the dirty rat. He was duly executed, with a couple of bullets to the heart, by Israeli "terrorists" who collaborated closely with the Israeli Army in the act. Ben-Gurion was hugely relieved and swiftly condemned the act in public.

Post script : The assassins were brought to justice. Israel was not so arrogant in 1948 yet so it reluctantly arrested 'em and tried 'em, in Israel. They were let go after some token time in prison and later were honored by the state as heroes. See? It's all the UN's fault!...

Who killed the man of peace ? (http://www.mideastfacts.com/bernadotte_hirst.html)

[Cyrus]

Check out his biography. My favorite is the part about Krushchev's basically peasant nature. The author relates Krushchev's visit to the U.S., a visit that included the Hollywood sights, and claims, with convincing arguments, that the Russian would have been right at home as a self-made movie mogul.

[Gamblor]

Way to go, Cyrus.

The title of your website includes the words "The Case Against Israel and the Destruction of Iraq." What you've done, you see, is used another one of those pro-Palestinian propaganda sites and suddenly I can, without fear of double standards (!) use any and all Israeli propaganda. Wait til you see the deluge of Ministry of Foreign Affairs crap I send your way. Nice precedent, I'm excited for all of us.

But, once again, your racism and irrational hatred for that which is Jewish (far be it from you to admit it, though) shines through once again. Here it is folks, Jewish Original Sin! Those Jews killed Bernadotte (although not for the reasons you mention, but they did commit the crime). Yes, the evil Zionists must pay for their crimes against the peace loving Arabs! The State of Israel is to be condemned wholly and without reservation, for the acts of 4 individuals in a non-official military faction known as Lechi, that Ben-Gurion condemned outright even before the assassination. Naturally, though, Israel is a monolith for the bigot-eer.

All of Israel should pay for the crimes of a few, and if you truly believe the UN's position (especially given Israeli UN aid to disasters in, say, Argentina) is based on this single event almost 80 years ago, I got a great used truck out back. Works fine, trust me. No warranty, though.

But to use this "Original Sin" as an excuse for the UN's current record against Israel does what the UN member-states have done for years - amplify each sin commited by Israel and ignore their own, and those of their allies. Don't you get it? Israel is the "Jew" of the United Nations!

[MMMMMM]

Yugoslavia was Communist, India's leader didn't like the word "profit", Egypt was closer to the USSR than the USA, and Cuba was a pure Soviet client state (how the hell was Cuba even admitted to the "non-aligned" movement, since Cuba was so obviously and clearly "aligned" ?)

Some "Non-aligned" movement, Cyrus. Thanks for the laughs. I didn't know you were so delusional. Thanks for the heads-up, too ;-)

[MMMMMM]

"You folks are up in arms about the United Nations, its "ineffectiveness", its "bureacuracy", etc. You forget that it is the countries participating in the U.N. that are responsible ultimately for the organisation's effectiveness."

Yes, Cyrus, that is precisely why all non-democratic countries should be kicked out of the U.N.--or alternatively, democratic countries should depart the U.N. and form their own organization.



The U.N. is not a "world government" (thatnk, God)."

But it wants to be.

[Cyrus]

"Yugoslavia was Communist, India's leader didn't like the word "profit", Egypt was closer to the USSR than the USA, and Cuba was a pure Soviet client state."

You have no idea what you are talking about. You are just making up your answers as you go along. When something you did not know inevitably comes up, you fumble and improvise. I'm sorry but I don't know how else to describe the way you are posting.

A glaring example of ignorance (coupled, alas, with arrogance) is the above post. You come off all indignant about the nature of the Non-Aligned bloc when you clearly know little about it.

Briefly : The world had two major military alliances during the Cold War, NATO and Warsaw. (NATO had various other offsuits, such as ASEAN, which were essentially NATO transplanted elswhere.) Some countries that were not aligned, militarily or politically, to either camp, formed an informal bloc within the U.N. that was self-proclaimed to be the Non-Aligned bloc. That group did not profess to offer any uniform solutions to the world nor did it support one and the same political ideology. The essential criterion was that, irrespective of domestic economic and political system, the countries that wanted to be part of that bloc must chart an independent course in world affairs. The bloc's main movers were India, a capitalist and very nationalist country, whose leadership never had anything to do with communist ideas, Egypt, an extremely anti-communist nation, with the standard state-run Third World economy of the time (albeit much less "socialist" than Israel! -- see how ridiculous your post is?) and Yugoslavia, a country that despite being run as a communist one-party state, allowed relative freedom of travel, was quite permissive in its morals, tried its hand before any other Eastern country in privatizing some sectors, and more importantly thumbed its nose to Stalin himself! Yugoslavia left the Comintern (look it up) when this was unthinkable for any communist country. All these countries, and more like them, came together from very different political backgrounds in order to strengthen their voice in world diplomacy and be heard. (This was soon after the de-colonisation of Africa and Asia, we must not forget.)

One can afford to cavalierly dismiss now those countries' efforts, which did help peace and facilitate world diplomacy numerous times (if anything, as arbitrators) but that's understandable. This is currently done not just by people who ignore recent History but by quite knowledgeable ones too, because American omnipotence clouds their judgement.

"I didn't know you were so delusional."

Well, believe what you want, but, with all due respect, I didn't know you were so ignorant of recent History.

[Cyrus]

Hey, relax, this is just the internet, ya know.

"You used another one of those pro-Palestinian propaganda sites."

Site schmite. Do you deny any of the facts of the Count Bernadotte assassination? You come off so dismissive about the United Nations when Israel has commited bloody murder against the very institution! Do you deny that Israeli terrorists in cahoots with the Israeli Army (read the description of the assassination in non-"propaganda" websites) murdered a UN envoy because he would blow off his mouth about the Palestinians' plight? Do you deny that the man's assassins were declared "impossible to trace" by the Israeli authorities (the same authorities you say condemned the "viled act") ?? Do you deny that after tremendous international pressure and indignation, the assassins were picked up (easily) by Israeli authorities and (reluctablty) tried? Do you deny that they were slapped on the wrist by the Israeli courts (they commited murder!) and upon their release from prison became Zionist heroes?

Do you deny that the same treatment was accorded to the other Zionist terrorists, the ones that blew up four British soldiers when therer was absolutely no hostility or animosity between Britain and Israel?

What is it you deny exactly? Are you in the midst of some attack of complete denial?

"...based on this single event almost 80 years ago..."

Try less than sixty.

But aside from the inaccuracy in chronology, you are also guilty of clumsy diversion. You're trying to present this as an isolated case -- when it is simply just one example of how Israel always treated the U.N., world opinion and resolutions AND the United States (its "faithful ally") policies and policymakers.

"Israel is the "Jew" of the United Nations!"

No, it's the Palestinians who are the Jews of the world, today.

[hetron]

Yugoslavia was Communist, India's leader didn't like the word "profit", Egypt was closer to the USSR than the USA, and Cuba was a pure Soviet client state (how the hell was Cuba even admitted to the "non-aligned" movement, since Cuba was so obviously and clearly "aligned" ?)


You clearly have no idea what you are talking about if you think any of these countries (other than Cuba) where lackeys for the Soviets. India clearly was clearly non-aligned, allowing for neither Soviet nor US bases on its soil. Yugoslavia might have been Communist, but were NOT in the Warsaw pact.

[Gamblor]

We do not have to apologize for anything. We are a people as all other peoples; we do not have any intentions to be better than the rest. As one of the first conditions for equality we demand the right to have our own villains, exactly as other people have them. Yes, we do have provocateurs and draft dodgers, and it is even strange that we have so few of them under current conditions. Other people have also these kind of "good", and, in addition, they have embezzlers, and pogrom-makers, and torturers--so what-- the neighbors live and are not ashamed.... Do our neighbors blush for the Christians in Kishinyov who hammered nails into Jewish babies' eyes? Not in the least,--" they walk with head raised high and look everybody in the face; they are absolutely right, and this is how it must be, as the persona of a people is royal, and not responsible and is not obliged to apologize. ...".. We do not have to account to anybody, we are not to sit for anybody's examination and nobody is old enough to call on us to answer. We came before them and will leave after them. We are what we are, we are good for ourselves, we will not change and we do not want to."

-Ze'ev Jabotinsky

[MMMMMM]

Cyrus, first of all Cuba had NO place calling itself even slightly "non-aligned." Nor did anyone else have any justification for calling Cuba "non-aligned."

Secondly I never meant that all those countries were lackeys for the Soviet Union (though Cuba clearly was).

Thirdly Yugoslavia was Communist and no Communist country could rightly be called "non-aligned."

Fourthly, the USSR sold and gave arms to many Arab states, and very well might have backed them (including Egypt) in war against Israel had diplomatic efforts not staved that off.

India was not Communist, obviously. However the leader of India publicly regarded "profit" as a dirty word and that philosophy held India back from full economic growth for many years. So I could see India and Egypt as being considered "non-aligned", but not Cuba and Yugoslavia.

And the whole idea of "non-aligned" was made a mockery of by Cuba's membership, and because the "non-aligned" countries generally tended to vote more with the USSR than the US. So the whole idea was a sham to a large extent.

[Cyrus]

Nice to see you, finally, quoting from your ideology teacher, the teacher of hate and race supremacy. (Drawing out the bigot in you is more easy than you think. Just a thought for your game.)

Gamblor comes clean (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=481285&page=9&view=ex panded&sb=6&o=14&vc=1)

[southerndog]

[Gamblor]

Nice to see you, finally, quoting from your ideology teacher, the teacher of hate and race supremacy. (Drawing out the bigot in you is more easy than you think. Just a thought for your game.)

Where exactly does it say, in that quote, how superior the Jews are? In fact, all it argues for is equality.

That's all Jabotinsky ever argued for - the right to a self-determining nation.

The Arab nation gets to claim millions of square miles as "Their own" - why not 20,000 km2 for some Jews?

[Chris Alger]

Here's your author writing to the President in April 2002:

"There can be no doubt that Saddam has chemical and biological weapons and, according to published intelligence and defector reports, it appears to be only a matter of time before he also acquires nuclear weapons. Having used such weapons in the past, not only against his enemies but his own people, we must prudently assume that he is fully prepared to use them again."

Another piece by a WMD liar and supporter of the most unpopular war in the world criticizing the UN because it's members fail to heed popular opinion. Why do you waste your time? You can't possibly take this seriously.

[MMMMMM]

Hey Chris,

Damn near EVERYONE in 2002 was convinced Saddam possessed WMD. The governments of not only the US, UK, and Israel, but also of China, Australia, France and Germany all concurred with this assessment. Germany said that by 2005 at the latest Saddam would possess nuclear weapons. Clinton and his cabinet forcefully stated the case against Saddam and said he had WMD.

If you're going to call all those assessments "lies," and those who made them "liars," you had better say that about everyone including Gephardt, Clark, Clinton and a great many more. In fact I cannot even think of any member of Congress or Cabinet who disputed such assertions during the Clinton years.

Or maybe you should realize that maybe they didn't lie, because various intelligences worldwide about all Iraq essentially pointed in the same direction, and because many major governments drew the same conclusions.

If you call all those governments and people "liars" about this issue--and further use that approach to discredit other words by any of those same parties--I think it clearly shows your lack of critical analytical thinking, as well as your proclivity for knee-jerk partisan-type reactions. In other words, it appears that you read and write well--but you don't really think. So...why don't you try thinking about that for a bit.

[adios]

"If you're going to call all those assessments "lies," and those who made them "liars," you had better say that about everyone including Gephardt, Clark, Clinton and a great many more."

Don't forget Wesley Clark. I was reading some accounts of his Congressional testimony in 2002 regarding Iraq. I'll try and find a source for the exact quotes. But here some excerpts for a WSJ editorial today. Clark stated in his testimony:

"There's no question Saddam Hussein is a threat," Mr. Clark told the House Armed Services Committee on September 26, 2002. "Every President has deployed forces as necessary to take action. He's done so without multilateral support if necessary."

It gets better. Mr. Clark also cites approvingly the Darth Vader of the vast Iraq War conspiracy: "I want to underscore that I think the United States should not categorize this action as pre-emptive. ... As Richard Perle has so eloquently pointed out, this is a problem that's longstanding. It's been a decade in the making. It needs to be dealt with and the clock is ticking on this."

On the nature of Saddam's threat: "He has chemical and biological weapons. ... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities. ... I think there's no question that, even though we may not have the evidence as Richard [Perle] says, that there have been such contacts [between Iraq and al Qaeda]. It's normal. It's natural. These are a lot of bad actors in the same region together. They are going to bump into each other. They are going to exchange information. They're going to feel each other out and see whether there are opportunities to cooperate."

[Chris Alger]

"Damn near EVERYONE in 2002 was convinced Saddam possessed WMD."

No one, every intelligence agency in world, including all of ours, every harbored a good faith belief that there could be "no doubt" that Saddam had such massive amounts of WMD that we "must" assume that "he is fully prepared to use them again." Kampelman knew this claim was pure B.S.

I agree that Gephardt and Clark are culpable for swollowing Bush's lies and for authorizing the use of terror. That's why they don't deserve to hold elected office, much less that of the Presidency. Clinton never claimed that Saddam's WMD arsenal was so great that we should assume he's going to use it against us or the region, nor did any intelligence assessment I'm aware of, including any of our own. In fact, the CIA's conclusion was exactly the opposite, as Tenet's letter to Congress warned that war would increase any threat of WMD deployment.

[Chris Alger]

I agree, however, that on the issue of foreign policy that the U.S. amounts to a one-party state. Officials and the mass media across the spectrum of "responsible" opinion lied and lied about the threat posed by Iraq and the necessity of U.S. force to conquer it. Further proof that Kampelman's complaint about the absence of democracy among UN member states is another phony premise for the unilateral expansion of U.S. power.

[MMMMMM]

First of all, it is probably wrong to say Bush lied. Secondly, anyone who (prior to the war) thought that Saddam didn't have WMD's was taking a position that flew in the face of all available evidence and assessments, as well as Saddam's history and character.

So calling these people liars is, IMO, quite wrong.

Further, it is despicable that you should refer to the Iraq war as "the use of terror" when it was the fastest and most humanely fought significant war in modern history--and since it averted terror (the continual terror of Saddam's regime against Iraqis). That you so loosely and inappropriately use the word "terror" is disgraceful, and a slap in the face of all Iraqis brutalized, tortured and murdered by Saddam's regime. You perception of the world is not only upside down; your moral understanding of terror and tyranny, liberation and benificence, is also inverted.

[MMMMMM]

Hopefully we will see a lot more unilateral expansion of US power and a lot less phony UN multilateralism, cronyism, and support for dictatorships.

Multilateralism with dictatorships and Communists and theocratic Islamofascists sucks. When they become decent democracies then they should have a say. Until then, to hell with their fascist regimes.

[Chris Alger]

"Hopefully we will see a lot more unilateral expansion of US power and a lot less ... support for dictatorships."

Since the unilateral expansion of US power is dictatorship, this is another example of the inability of imperialists to grasp the scope of their contradictions.

[MMMMMM]

Unilateralism is not synonymous with dictatorship.

[Drunk Bob]

Darn I tend too agree with you /images/graemlins/shocked.gif.

I must need too pump-up my right-wing aggressiveness.

[Drunk Bob]

How could that have been done without the loss of 100,000s if not millions of lives?

[MMMMMM]

Maybe by threatening to nuke their nuclear research facilities--or more--if they don't desist?

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
No one, every intelligence agency in world, including all of ours, every harbored a good faith belief that there could be "no doubt" that Saddam had such massive amounts of WMD that we "must" assume that "he is fully prepared to use them again."

[/ QUOTE ]

What does this sentence even mean? I do a fair amount of posting while drunk, but this is just incomprehensible.

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
Officials and the mass media across the spectrum of "responsible" opinion lied and lied about the threat posed by Iraq and the necessity of U.S. force to conquer it.

[/ QUOTE ]

To lie is to know otherwise and intentionally deceive. Do you really think that a huge portion of the media knew the truth about Iraq but tried to misleed the public? That's a bold claim to make.

[sam h]

[[ QUOTE ]
Do our neighbors blush for the Christians in Kishinyov who hammered nails into Jewish babies' eyes? Not in the least,--" they walk with head raised high and look everybody in the face; they are absolutely right, and this is how it must be, as the persona of a people is royal, and not responsible and is not obliged to apologize.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
all it argues for is equality. That's all Jabotinsky ever argued for - the right to a self-determining nation.


[/ QUOTE ]

Woo-hoo. Aspira ad astra. Way to take the moral high ground.

[Cyrus]

"Maybe by threatening [in the late 1940s] to nuke [the Soviets'] nuclear research facilities--or more--if they don't desist? We had the bomb and they didn't."

Desist from ...what?! From practising "godless communism"?? (orgies in the Kremlin!) In the late 40s there was no communist aggressive posture anywhere in the whole wide world.

...Don't worry, M. Those bright stars who were formulating foreign policy during the Cold War didn't have much smarter ideas either.

/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Cyrus]

"Unilateralism is not synonymous with dictatorship."

Democracy is built on plurality. The farther we get from plurality, the closer we get to autocracy and, finally, to dictatorship.

Unilateral decisions are the primary characteristic of dictatorships. Unilateral decision making by the United States is dictatorial decison making. Your suggestion that the U.S. should unilaterally expand its influence all over the world "in the cause of freedom and democray" is a suggestion in the cause of dictatorship and slavery.

The ends do not justify the means. No matter how noble or desirable the end is, it can never justify means that conflict with it.

All the above is, as they say, by definition. So that particular argument is over and done with. (But you may continue to argue past this stage, as you usually do.)

[Cyrus]

Chris Alger's text came out somewhat mangled this time. Here it is, cleared out :

No one, not even one intelligence agency in the world, including none of ours, ever<font color="red">y </font> harbored a good faith belief that there could be "no doubt" that Saddam had such massive amounts of WMD that we "must" assume that "he is fully prepared to use them again."

(Sam, you should also try reading while drunk. It all makes sense!)

[Chris Alger]

Websters' secondary definition of "lie" is "to create a false or misleading impression." My New World Dictionary defines includes among its definitions of "lie" as "anything that gives or is meant to give a false impression."

There shouldn't even be a debate over whether US officials and prominent media commentators and organs lied. When the media weren't lying independently of the state, it supplied the resources to broadcast, typically without qualification or contradiction, lies by current and former U.S./U.K. officials. They lied repeatedly, even daily, to create a false impression of a threat that they had no good faith reason to believe existed.

That's technically but not substantively different from claiming that the media and government "knew" that Saddam had no WMD and yet said the opposite. Of course no one "knew" that there would be no hidden cache buried in the desert, or scientists working on a secret plans. Since these things were impossible to know about any country, such a standard for knowledge is meaningless. The real issue is whether, based on the best information avaialble, the threat statements about Iraq had a reasonable factual basis.

Just look at how the intelligence community perceived the threat and compare it to how those perceptions were described by officials and the media. Here, for example, is how the DIA assessed Iraq's CBW capabilties to Congress in September 2002 (from the Carnegie Foundation report): <ul type="square"> A substantial amount of Iraq ’s chemical warfare agents,precursors,munitions,and production equipment were destroyed between 1991 and 1998 as a result of Operation Desert Storm and UNSCOM actions. Nevertheless, we believe Iraq retained production equipment, expertise, and chemical precursors and can reconstitute a chemical warfare program in the absence of an international inspection regime ...
There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons, or where Iraq has -- or will -- establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities ... Iraq is steadily establishing a dual use industrial chemical infrastructure that provides some of the building blocks necessary for production of chemical agents. [/list] (My emphasis).

Note that this was before Blix's and el Baradei's teams scoured hundreds of suspected WMD sites first hand and came up with no indications of WMD cache's or renewed programs. Contrast the above with the following sampling of how officials and media commentators described the WMD production and stockpiles, both before and after the inspections:

Mona Charen 8/9/2 (syndicated column): “we must prevent Saddam from transferring weapons of mass destruction to our terrorist enemies ... the only way to do so is to overthrow him.”

Michael Kelly 8/14/2 (Washington Post): “Saddam’s regime persists in an aggressive campaign to acquire weapons of mass destruction.”

Dick Cheney 8/26/2 (VFW Speech): “Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.”

Ken Adelman 8/28/2 (Wall Street Journal): “[Saddam has] scores of scientific laboratories and myriad manufacturing plants cranking out weapons of mass destruction.”

George Bush, 9/12/2 (UN Speech): “Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons. . . . . United Nations inspections also revealed that Iraq likely maintains stockpiles of VX, mustard and other chemical agents, and that the regime is rebuilding and expanding facilities capable of producing chemical weapons.”

Donald Rumsfeld (testimony before House Armed Services Comm.), 9/18/02: “We do know that the Iraqi regime has chemical and biological weapons. . . . His regime has amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons – including VX, sarin, cyclosarin and mustard gas.”

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

Charles Krauthammer (syndicated column), 9/20/2: “[Saddam is] developing weapons of mass destruction that could kill millions of Americans in a day.”

Tony Blair 9/24/2 (Speech summarizing UK “dossier” on WMD): “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.”

George Bush (Rose Garden speech), 9/26/2: “The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons. The Iraqi regime is building the facilities necessary to make more biological and chemical weapons.”

Donald Rumsfeld (remarks to reporters), 9/26/2: “[Iraq has] active development programs for those weapons, and has weaponized chemical and biological weapons.”

George Bush, 10/7/2: “[Iraq] “possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. . . . Saddam Hussein has chosen to build and keep these weapons despite international sanctions, U.N. demands, and isolation from the civilized world.” “After 11 years during which we have tried containment, sanctions, inspections, even selected military action, the end result is that Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more.”

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.”

Ari Fleischer, 1/9/3: “We know for a fact that there are weapons there.”

Condoleza Rice, NY Times, 1/23/2: Iraq has made a “high-level political commitment to maintain and conceal its weapons.” It has not explained its “efforts to get uranium from abroad.”

George Bush, 1/28/3 (State of the Union message): “Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.”

Colin Powell, 2/5/3: “We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, he’s determined to make more.”

George Bush 2/8/3: “We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.

Colin Powell, 3/7/3: “So has the strategic decision been made to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction by the leadership in Baghdad? I think our judgment has to be clearly not.”

Dick Cheney, 3/16/3 (Meet the Press): “[Hussein] has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.”

George Bush, 3/17/3 (final speech before ordering the invasion): “Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.”

Ari Fleischer, 3/21/3: “Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly.”

Tommy Franks 3/22/3 (Press Briefing in Iraq): “There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction.”

Kenneth Adelman, 3/23/3: “I have no doubt we’re going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction.”

Donald Rumsfeld, 3/30/3: “we know where they [the weapons] are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."

Do you seriously believe that these quotes, which I submit were commonplace before the war, constitute something other than a pattern of public deception? If so, how do you explain the fact that the public was, in fact, deceived? Gallup polls throughout 2002 show that 95% of the public believed (http://www.americans-world.org/digest/regional_issues/Conflict_Iraq/weapons_MassDest.cfm) that Iraq either alread had WMD (about 55%) or was trying to acquire them. Indeed, a September 2002 CBS/New York Times poll showed that among the 80% who believe Iraq has WMD, 78% believe Iraq "is planning to use [them] against the United States."

[MMMMMM]

When the USA decides it must act on matters of hr own security, she (hopefully) does so unilaterally. She shouldn't have to ask France and New Guinea if it is OK with them if she takes steps she considers necessary to defend herself.

When we enter treaties with other nations, we generally do so unilaterally.

When you decide that you would be better off working for X Corporation than Y Corporation, you probably did so unilaterally.

Unilateral is not a dirty word. What is dirty is people trying to make it seem so.

US interests and unilateral US power in certain regions, in conflict with dictatorial regimes and the totalitarian political systems of those regions, is to some extent unavoidable. It is not dictatorship, but rather merely conflict, with the stronger side probably winning. Sorry if you think Saddam Hussein had a right to rule his country, or if it was not right to remove him absent a worldwide consensus.

Thank God there isn't a one-world government with tyrants voting too, as they do in the U.N. And thank God that for once in history, Might finally happens to be on the side of Right.

[MMMMMM]

Desist from working to build nukes, Cyrus...that's all.

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
Websters' secondary definition of "lie" is "to create a false or misleading impression." My New World Dictionary defines includes among its definitions of "lie" as "anything that gives or is meant to give a false impression."

[/ QUOTE ]

Come on, this is a completely specious argument. The above meaning for the verb is used only in cases where the subject is impersonal and cannot have intent - "the numbers lie, because..." When you have a human subject, lying by definition involves knowing deception.

And the administration obviously did knowingly decieve the public, which in predictable fashion they have not owned up to at all. But to say that people in the media "lied" about the WMDs is ridiculous. The distinction between bad reporting and lying is huge.

You undermine the strength of your arguments - with which on some general level I often agree - by not bothering to parse these distinctions, or treating "the government" and "the media" as one big ideological apparatus.

[adios]

"I agree, however, that on the issue of foreign policy that the U.S. amounts to a one-party state."

One persons one-party state in another's stable, consistent, principled government.


"Officials and the mass media across the spectrum of "responsible" opinion lied and lied about the threat posed by Iraq and the necessity of U.S. force to conquer it."

Others have commented on the validity of this statement. Ridiculous on it's face.

"Further proof that Kampelman's complaint about the absence of democracy among UN member states is another phony premise for the unilateral expansion of U.S. power."

This post is an example of what has been discussed previously as an excercise in illogic but this one is even a stretch for the illogical.

[adios]

Actually Iraq was a multilateral action. Much progress in diplomacy occurs bilateraly and multilateraly with UN involvement. The UN isn't required and is often an impediment to successful bilateral and multilateral diplomacy.

[Chris Alger]

"The above meaning for the verb is used only in cases where the subject is impersonal and cannot have intent - "the numbers lie, because..." When you have a human subject, lying by definition involves knowing deception."

That's not accurate. The (usually secondary) definition you mean allows the use of the word when there is no posibility of intent (as the Shorter OED puts it, "chiefly" regarding inanimate objects). This doesn't imply unfair use every time the speaker recklessly exaggerates without actual knowledge of all facts or couches his assertion as opinion. Since you acknowledge that the "administration obviously did knowingly deceive the public," I'm not sure why you're quibbling. Few people realize, as you do, that some 10,000 people were killed as a result of "knowing deception" by the White House. It would appear ineluctable that something is horribly wrong with the system by which information is publicly disseminated, regardless of how one labels it.

As for media lying being "ridiculous," how else would you describe the WSJ's use of its editorial pages to broadcast made-up facts like this: "[Saddam has] scores of scientific laboratories and myriad manufacturing plants cranking out weapons of mass destruction." (Ken Adelman). "Bad reporting?" You think it was random stupidity that led one of the most stridently pro-war papers (whose daily circulation is the country's second largest) to include statements like these (one of many) on it's op-ed page almost every week? You think Fox just got unlucky with all of its similar reporting and commentary?

As for the more objective media, they were facilitators, aiders and abbettors of lying and are therefore no better or substantively different. Their owners and publishers knowingly used their resources to broadcast statements that they knew or should have known amounted to reckless, unfounded exaggerations concerning the state of the available evidence, but failed to warn the public of this fact. After all, how many media correctives or qualifiers did you see whenever Bush &amp; Co. sounded the alarm? How many news lead-ins began with something like "President Bush today again denounced Iraq for failing to destroy its weapons of mass destruction. He still has not, however, pointed to any new evidence that such weapons survived or have been reconstituted following their mass destruction several years ago." If a foreign leader says something damning about the U.S., the mainstream press virtually always puts some response by a publicly credible source in tandem. When the White House or its acolytes did the same, they either took it at face value, in Pravda fashion, or attributed the denials to Saddam or some other equally respectable figure.

The war in Iraq and events leading up to it were the most widely reported in America. As a result of that coverage, 90% of the public believed that Saddam had or was actively working on building WMD, and most of those believed that he was planning to use them against the U.S. These misperceptions cannot adequately be explained as a case of mass journalistic incompetence.

[Chris Alger]

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
That's not accurate. The (usually secondary) definition you mean allows the use of the word when there is no posibility of intent (as the Shorter OED puts it, "chiefly" regarding inanimate objects). This doesn't imply unfair use every time the speaker recklessly exaggerates without actual knowledge of all facts or couches his assertion as opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

The OED definition may leave a bit of nebulous wiggle room, but this does not mean that your usage of the word is correct.

[ QUOTE ]
It would appear ineluctable that something is horribly wrong with the system by which information is publicly disseminated, regardless of how one labels it.


[/ QUOTE ]

I basically agree, but I also think that the way one labels it is very important if you are serious about analyzing how ideology is propagated through media. Calling certain pieces of reporting or op-eds lies tends to lead one in unproductive and simplistic directions - it just boils down to conspiracy, an intentional duping of the masses by a everybody in the media. While there may be some of that going on in some quarters, it is certainly not the full story, which is much more complex.

[adios]

[Cyrus]

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
The OED definition may leave a bit of nebulous wiggle room, but this does not mean that your usage of the word is correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

It isn't "nebulous wiggle room" it's common sense. A false or misleading statement made to deceive or create a false impression is a lie. People who make such statements or, as you put it, "knowingly deceive," are called "liars." The officials and pundits who affirmatively asserted that Iraq threatened the U.S. with WMD are properly termed "WMD liars," or if you prefer, "WMD knowing deceivers." As I think you've acknowledged, the point is that officials and the media didn't have to actually know that Iraq had no WMD to fairly call them liars when they claimed to see a WMD threat.

"Calling certain pieces of reporting or op-eds lies tends to lead one in unproductive and simplistic directions - it just boils down to conspiracy, an intentional duping of the masses by a everybody in the media. While there may be some of that going on in some quarters, it is certainly not the full story, which is much more complex."

It has nothing to do with conspiracy, any more than the statement "much product advertising consists of creating false impressions" implies a conspiracy among advertisers or sellers. It's more like a free market model of information flow: policy arguments with the greatest value to those who benefit from their dissemination tend to get the most dissemination. Like advertising, however, the value of information to those with the privilege of disseminating it doesn't necessarily correlate to the needs of consumers. Sometimes the most prevalent claims do little but create false impressions. Because the war advocates were powerful, their opinions were more saleable by the media than those of dissenters. Consider the pressure on news outfits to gain greater and better access to the corridors of power. How long well do you think they'd maintain access if the powerful consistently regreted giving it to them, at least compared to gentler practitioners of the journalistic arts? Look also at the number of careers consisting of little more than spinning variations on the official line, so-called "conservative" commentary.

The case of Iraqi WMD is sufficiently egregious to justify the phrase "mass lying." Yet it doesn't require some secret agreement among war supporters or allies in the media. (The shameless tendency of the Murdoch organs broadcast and buttress official propaganda in exchange for official favors might be an exception).

The war was planned because after 1990 Saddam was no longer suitable to help safeguard U.S. interests and overthrowing him created a host of opportunities, ranging from government contracts to butressing U.S. "credibility" (by seemingly lowering the threshold for U.S. resort to mass violence). Concrete U.S. interests consist primarily of access to and control over oil, but secondarily involve military and political support in a region of economic and strategic value. Since these interests have little appeal to the general public, certainly not enough to justify supporting a war, the war supporters had little to say until 9/11. That event, however, allowed them to feign a terror of Iraqi WMD so great that it could only be met by overthrowing Saddam, installing a U.S. occupation government and organizing the eventual replacement regime. Iraqi WMD was the most saleable argument for the war, therefore it was the one that war advocates tended to broadcast. The WMD hoax was perpetrated through the ordinary functioning of the mass media and without any need for a secret plot among conspirators.

[Gamblor]

Aspira ad astra.

My knowledge of Latin is Zero outside of common vernacular...

Aspire to the stars, is my best guess.

[MMMMMM]

Amazing that you consider it a hoax (and perpetrated by the media), when it was also the conclusion of the world's best intelligence agencies. Also, a long list of notable Democrats subscribed to the same views during this administration and during the prior administration.

[adios]

[Chris Alger]

No, it wasn't their conclusion at all. The Carnegie Foundation report gives several examples of extreme variances between official statements and those in the intelligence reports. Specifically, and as I've pointed out to you several times before, intelligence officials told elected officials that they had no good information about what Iraq had or was doing. The elected officials, OTOH, frequently claimed that there was no question that Saddam had vast amounts of WMD and was building more.

This is another one of those frequent "facts" you keep citing without any evidence to support it.

[adios]

Remember Chris's assertion earlier in the thread though:

"that on the issue of foreign policy that the U.S. amounts to a one-party state."

So Chris has left HIMSELF wiggle room /images/graemlins/smile.gif. Again what one considers a one-party state others see as government stability, consistency, and principle.

[Zeno]

Why the appeal to semantics and the aura of conspiracy? In my opinion, this is becoming somewhat drafty and leads down the road to delusion. You are starting to sound like Brad.

Are you sure that you haven't simplified the situation to fit your own worldview and political agenda?

Can't gathered intelligence be partial or at best only certain pieces known with other things less well known that have to be fit together as best as possible. And overall, everything is subject to interpretation. And bias interpretation at that, depending on your particular worldview. This is true of everyone - including me and including you.

Is absolute certainty the criteria for all actions? If so, inaction would become the main occupation for officials and leaders and the world in general and gridlock would be the order of the day.

You need to clam down in my opinion. You are letting your passions get the best of you.

Propaganda – it's everyone’s tool.

-Zeno

[MMMMMM]

Varying opinions as to how much WMD/programs Saddam had, but I think it was unanimous amongst major inteligence agencies that he did have them. Also, varying opinions as to what should be done about it. However you are vastly oversimplifying a complex matter and further you are presuming as fact that he did not have any WMD/programs of late, yet even that is far from established.

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
It isn't "nebulous wiggle room" it's common sense. A false or misleading statement made to deceive or create a false impression is a lie. People who make such statements or, as you put it, "knowingly deceive," are called "liars."

[/ QUOTE ]

This is asinine. First you argue that deception doesn't have to be intentional to qualify as a lie. I point out that this is wrongful usage of the word in this context, which if you bothered to pick up a usage dictionary you would soon find out. Now you imply that the "lies" were intentional anyway.

[ QUOTE ]
As I think you've acknowledged, the point is that officials and the media didn't have to actually know that Iraq had no WMD to fairly call them liars when they claimed to see a WMD threat.


[/ QUOTE ]

No I never acknowledged this with respect to the media. That's what we've been arguing about.

[ QUOTE ]
It's more like a free market model of information flow: policy arguments with the greatest value to those who benefit from their dissemination tend to get the most dissemination.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, but a free-market model would work in a completely different fashion - predicting that information (prices) would clear at some equilibrium point dictated by supply and demand. What you are proposing is completely different, though certainly a more accurate model.

All news reporting is normative. The decisions of reporters and news outlets are affected by a variety of factors - considerations about future access, about individual careers, about how well the news product will "sell" in the market, and a host of others. It is precisely because there are so many factors involved, in a context of limited information, that you need to have a complex analysis centered upon both a theory of ideology and the nature of news as a business, one that also allows for individual actions. I don't pretend to have such an analysis all worked out. I just know what perspectives are lacking - and the "mass lying" one qualifies.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
"I think it was unanimous amongst major inteligence agencies that he did have them."

[/ QUOTE ]
It wasn't even unanimous among U.S. intelligence agencies. Note my quote above from the DIA that "no reliable evidence" supports a claim that Iraq had supplies or programs for chemical weapons, which is flatly inconsistent from dozens of White House statements.

Regarding nuclear weapons, the Carnegie Foundation report also notes that, prior to 9/11, the CIA's National Intelligence Estimate concluded only that Iraq “has probably continued at least low-level theoretical R&amp;D associated with its nuclear program ... The Intelligence Community remains concerned that Baghdad may be attempting to acquire materials that could aid in reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.” Vague concerns such as these were consistent with official statements downplaying the potential threat from Iraq, such as the one by Colin Powell on 2/24/01: "He [Saddam] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction."

Then came 9/11 and the beginning of the White House pressure to manufacture the case against Iraq. In his VFW speech in August 2002, Cheney said <ul type="square"> But we now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons. . . . Many of us are convinced that Saddam will acquire nuclear weapons fairly soon. . . . Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us. [/list] Indeed, only after statements like these, the CIA started singing a different tune. Still, there was no unanimity over whether Iraq had started to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program. The National Intelligence Estimate given Congress in Sept. 2002 shortly before the war resolution asserted that "Iraq is continuing, and in some areas expanding, its chemical, biological, nuclear and missile programs." It predicted that, as a result of such efforts, Iraq could develop nuclear weapons within a decade. This same NIE, however, included what the Carnegie authors call a "rare" dissent from the State Department's own intelligence experts: <ul type="square"> The activities [State/INR ] have detected do not, however, add up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing what INR would consider to be an integrated and comprehensive approach to acquire nuclear weapons. Iraq may be doing so, but INR considers the available evidence inadequate to support such a judgment. [/list]All of this was before the IAEA inspectors were able to get on site. Its conclusion of March 7, 2003, was based on their 237 on-site inspections at all 148 sites identified by satellite intelligence as having "suspicious" activity, including all intelligence provided by the U.S.: There is "no indication of resumed nuclear activities . . . nor any indication of nuclear-related prohibited activities at any inspected sites." That Iraq in fact had no such active nuclear program was borne out postwar by David Kay on October 2, 2003: "[W]e have not uncovered evidence that Iraq undertook significant post-1998 steps to actually build nuclear weapons or produce fissile material."

So the only accurate statement one could make about intelligence and Iraq's nuclear program prior to the war was that (1) some but not all intelligence analysts believed prior to the IAEA inspections that Iraq was trying to reactivate it's nuclear program, but (2) subsequent on-site inspections failed to reveal any evidence of this, therefore (3) there is no good evidence that Iraq was actively trying to build nuclear weapons.

Yet Bush's statement to the American public on the eve of war (March 17) said virtually the opposite of what the intelligence showed: "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised . . . The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country or any other." The day before Cheney told Meet the Press that "[Saddam] has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." (This statement met no challenge from the commentators, even though the IAEA report, based on the same intelligence, claimed it was bullshit. After the invasion, Cheney claimed that he meant to say the equally misleading "reconstituted nuclear weapons programs.")

If statements like these by the President and Vice President of any country the U.S. were hostile toward, media commenta would unanimously laughed them off as pathetic lies (just as it laughed off the largely vindicated WMD report provided to UNSCOM by Iraq, a "tissue of lies" Krauthammer called it). But because they are who they are, we are told to give them the benefit of the doubt, or to assume they "prudently overestimated" or simply "misinterpreted" what the read, perhaps as a result of bad advice from subordinates. We do this because we're indoctrinated to do so, and are too scared or lazy to face the consequences of what it means if the President of the U.S. can have thousands of innocent people killed as a result of lying, and not only get away with it but remain widely honored and even celebrated.

[Chris Alger]

I never said a "lie" in the sense I used it needn't be intentional. You said "To lie is to know otherwise and intentionally deceive," and "Do you really think that a huge portion of the media knew the truth about Iraq...?" I responded by pointing out that no dictionary supports this "knowing the truth" requirement, explained how someone without knowledge could lie by asserting facts without reasonable basis "to mislead," and gave examples of crude propaganda for which there obviously was no basis, reasonable or otherwise, that appeared in widely circulated mass media organs. I think I've sufficiently proven that the mainstream media lied and broadcast lies by officials to the point where they convinced the public to accept an utterly false picture of reality. Given the wide spectrum of opinion about the "WMD threat" when we look at all sources, especially internationally, it's really quite a feat, and one that's hard to imagine being the result of accident or randomness.

All I mean by "free market" is simply that it is more profitable for the media messages to dominated by propaganda more than accurate information, and gave some examples of certain market forces could encourage this result. Therefore, a model of the dominent media as amounting to a propaganda machine in the service of external power neither requires nor implies the existence of any "conspiracy," as you argued.

Whether media-disseminated propaganda can be fairly characterized as so much lying by the media about a particular topic is simply a question of how crude the propaganda is (how it compares to the known record) and whether those most responsible for it realize it's intended effect on public opinion and policy. Alternatively, one could postulate that those in the news media generally are too stupid or credulous to realize what they're doing. This is undoubtedly true in some cases, but as a rule I very much doubt it.

[MMMMMM]

There are 3 types of WMD: chem, bio, and nuke. Just because one agency may have had doubts that Iraq possessed one type and another group may have doubts that Iraq possessed another type does NOT mean that they all had great doubts about all types. You are combining selective uncertainties from various sources and trying to say that means the whole thing was a hoax. But even your "dissent" shown below is only doubt as to one type of WMD, nuclear.

"The National Intelligence Estimate given Congress in Sept. 2002 shortly before the war resolution asserted that "Iraq is continuing, and in some areas expanding, its chemical, biological, nuclear and missile programs." It predicted that, as a result of such efforts, Iraq could develop nuclear weapons within a decade. This same NIE, however, included what the Carnegie authors call a "rare" dissent from the State Department's own intelligence experts:

'The activities [State/INR ] have detected do not, however, add up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing what INR would consider to be an integrated and comprehensive approach to acquire nuclear weapons. Iraq may be doing so, but INR considers the available evidence inadequate to support such a judgment.' "

As you can see, the INR is not disputing the other types of WMD programs but is only casting doubt on the drawing of definite conclusions regarding nukes.

As for the overall picture, I believe it was essentially unuanimous amongst major intelligence agencies, including many foreign ones, that Iraq fairly recently had some WMDs and/or ongoing WMD programs. And nothing you have submitted shows otherwise--you've only picked snippets of doubt here and there as to certain specifics, but not as to the whole.

[MMMMMM]

Chris Alger: "I think I've sufficiently proven that the mainstream media lied and broadcast lies by officials to the point where they convinced the public to accept an utterly false picture of reality."

You haven't proved a damn thing except that some doubts regarding certain specifics existed--and that you are adept at assembling snippets of information and drawing poor conclusions in order to present your case. How anyone, let alone a lawyer, could call that "proof" is simply beyond me.

[Chris Alger]

Pretending that unambigous list of assertions I've quoted in this thread are tainted only by "certain doubts about certain specifics" is an extreme example of your state-worshipping compulsion to whitewash even the most obvious official deceptions, underscored by your inability to locate the factual basis for any of them.

[hetron]

[ QUOTE ]

Secondly I never meant that all those countries were lackeys for the Soviet Union (though Cuba clearly was).


[/ QUOTE ]

I think you imply further down that they were.

[ QUOTE ]

Thirdly Yugoslavia was Communist and no Communist country could rightly be called "non-aligned."


[/ QUOTE ]

Why not? Non-aligned meant that they did not necessarily agree or vote with the Soviet bloc in all situations. Did all democracies necessarily vote with the US?

[ QUOTE ]

Fourthly, the USSR sold and gave arms to many Arab states, and very well might have backed them (including Egypt) in war against Israel had diplomatic efforts not staved that off.


[/ QUOTE ]
Almost every country at that time was getting its weapons either from the US or the Soviets.


[/ QUOTE ]
India was not Communist, obviously. However the leader of India publicly regarded "profit" as a dirty word and that philosophy held India back from full economic growth for many years. So I could see India and Egypt as being considered "non-aligned", but not Cuba and Yugoslavia.


[/ QUOTE ]

Which leader of India? India had a lot of leaders. Nehru? So Democracies can be non-aligned but socialist countries can't?
[ QUOTE ]

And the whole idea of "non-aligned" was made a mockery of by Cuba's membership, and because the "non-aligned" countries generally tended to vote more with the USSR than the US. So the whole idea was a sham to a large extent.


[/ QUOTE ]

So if they had tended to vote more with the US, they would have been non-aligned? And the fact that there were communist countries in there, you submit as further proof that they weren't really non-aligned?If I was a communist, could I say that the non-aligned bloc was really a sham because there were non-communist countries in there?

[MMMMMM]

Hair-splitting.

The mere fact that the "Non-aligned" movement even permitted Cuba to join its ranks ands maintain membership, shows that the movement did not live up to its name and was in fact a sham.

[MMMMMM]

Believing that that list disproves the general intelligence assessments of world agencies prior to the war is ridiculous. Doubts are not proof of the contrary.

I'm not inclined to wade through all the recent controversy which is probably flooding the keyword search engines, in order to dig up worldwide intelligence assessments from years ago. I took one look at the first search page and saw it was all too recent to be applicable and stopped. Actually I hadn't even planned on doing even that except you suggested it.

If I were being paid to do it I would but I'm not. I know what I've read for years prior to the Iraq war, and worldwide intelligence assessments were in general agreement though not identical. And further, anyone who kept up with this subject a little bit in the news for the last 7 years or so knows that they have read the same things--all pointing in the direction of WMD programs in Iraq. Doubtless that information was imperfect and incomplete, but it was the general opinion of intelligence worldwide. That's my point, and your list of doubts does not prove that Saddam had no WMD, or that your views are correct. All that list of doubts does is cast some more doubts. And it certainly has no bearing on a "media conspiracy" or "indoctrination." I formed my opinion after years and years of reading references to intelliugence assessments of foreign countries. Also I read the assessment of one major international organization (like HRW, or UN, or something along those lines--forget which one now) and it seemed in concurrence with the belief that Saddam had at least some WMD/WMD programs.

Do you deny that the governments of Germany, France, UK, Israel, France, Australia and even China made assessments that Iraq had WMD and/or WMD programs? And that this was their general position for years before and leading up to the Iraq war?

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
Believing that that list disproves the general intelligence assessments of world agencies prior to the war is ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]
You haven't reviewed any such assessments and are relying solely on the statements of officials and right-wing pundits. Therefore, it's a circular defense: the officials weren't lying because they were supported by the intelligence, and we know this because the officials say so.

The fact remains that statements by officials stating or implying unanimity among intelligence analsysts were lies, as the September 2002 NIE proves.

[ QUOTE ]
And further, anyone who kept up with this subject a little bit in the news for the last 7 years or so knows that they have read the same things--all pointing in the direction of WMD programs in Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, this is a flat-out falsehood. As I pointed out above, the CIA's NIE in the late 1990's didn't even mention the possibility of Iraq having reconstituted the nuclear weapons program that was shut down after the Gulf War. The DIA report on chemical weapons, far from "pointing in the direction of" such weapons concluded that it knew of "no reliable evidence" that they existed. The MI6 dossier provided to Whitehall had to be "sexed-up" at the direction of Blair's political handlers before it was released. Whitehall's own "intelligence" assessment was based on a plagiarized, outdated, second-hand paper by a grad student. The CIA report suggesting that the two trailers were bioweapons factories" was later discredited by DIA and Kay himself. The African uranium hoax. The forged documents the U.S. gave to IAEA. The reports from intelligence analysts about White House pressure to make the WMD case stronger. And on and on, all contradicting the White House line that "intelligence" so strongly showed the existence of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons development at such an advanced stage that direct military action was the only reasonable recourse. "Unanimous" assessments my ass.

"Do you deny that the governments of Germany, France, UK, Israel, France, Australia and even China made assessments that Iraq had WMD and/or WMD programs? And that this was their general position for years before and leading up to the Iraq war?"

Yes. The assessments you refer to occurred after the UNSCOM/IAEA inspectors went to Iraq and found nothing. Therefore, France, Germany and China all opposed imminent military action: they had to reason to perceive any WMD threat. I dealt with the UK above, and more is coming out every month about "Bliar's" prevarications. Israel? You must be joking. As for Australia, it's another among the familiar pattern: <ul type="square"> Prime Minister John Howard's office exaggerated intelligence reports on the threat posed by Iraq to justify going to war, a former government intelligence analyst told an Australian parliamentary inquiry on Friday.
Andrew Wilkie, who resigned from Australia's top intelligence assessment agency, the ONA, last March to protest the government's stance, said Howard's office deliberately skewed the truth and misled the public over Iraq's weapons capabilities. "It was sexed up," Wilkie told the inquiry into the accuracy of intelligence reports in the lead up to the war. "Sometimes the exaggeration was so great, it was clear dishonesty." [/list] iafrica.com (http://iafrica.com/news/worldnews/264743.htm)

[MMMMMM]

Chris,

I'm talking about assessments after 1995 but well before the possibility of the Iraq war was even put forth. I specifically recall reading in a mainstream newspaper report (maybe 5 years ago now) that German intelligence asserted that within 5 years at the outside, Saddam would have nukes. Also and more recently I read that it was well-known and documented that Iraq did attempt to acquire yellowcake well prior to the infamous botched report, and from other suppliers. Also there is the fact that tons of chem weapons were unaccounted after inspectors were booted out in the 90's. Evben the UNMOVIC or UNSCOM report back then (I forget which is which, at the moment) strongly suspected WMDs still in existence in Iraq.

Now whether such things were sufficient cause for war is another matter. However I do think most of the world's major intelligence agencies, along with the inspection team which was booted out, came down much more on the side of "likely WMD of some sort" than on "entirely clean bill of health." Now, are you disputing this too?

[adios]

The "liar, liar pants on fire" arguement falls apart not only with the annunciation of long standing US Iraqi policy from both Democrats and Republicans but also with the accounts of the LACK of WMD evidence actually discovered in Iraq. Obviously WMD could be planted and the painstakingly, embarassing revelation that the evidence does not exist would be swept under the rug so to speak. A compulsively deceptive liar doesn't become brutally honest, while embarassing onesef, by suddenly becoming a compulsively honest truth teller. Your arguments and positions have lost a lot of credibility due to many people's understanding and awaremess of these simple facts and obvious conclusions about the obvious irrationality of the "liar, liar pants on fire" arguements. It's why Dean is losing his lead, it's why the Democrats know that they'll certainly lose if their candidate for president embraces this stupidity. It's why people that support your arguements are considered to be fringe elements of the political makeup in the US.

[Chris Alger]

Iraqi "regime change" on the grounds of undisclosed, threatening WMD was never U.S. policy, or that of any political party, before Bush. I haved no idea what the rest of this post means.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
I specifically recall reading in a mainstream newspaper report (maybe 5 years ago now) that German intelligence asserted that within 5 years at the outside, Saddam would have nukes.

[/ QUOTE ]
The report you're referring to is undoubtedly this one: <ul type="square">The German intelligence authorities made an oft-quoted estimate last year in which it was stated that Iraq could, in the worst case, have a nuclear weapon in 3-6 years. German intelligence noted the growth in Iraqi procurement efforts in particular for weapons-related items. However, how this projection was made is not public and it may include significant uncertainty. [/list] Strategy Page (http://www.strategypage.com/iraqwar/testimony/3.asp)

Of course, this was before the IAEA verified that there was nothing to the "suspicious activity" indicated by the satellite intelligence and no evidence of increased procurement activity. Further, note that WMD programs were only the most important link in the chain: the White House also claimed that intelligence indicated that Saddam was a "madman" likely to provide WMD to terrorists who would then likely use them against the U.S. Even if we substitute "possibly" for "likely," no intelligence made public showed any inclination by Saddam to guarantee the termination of his regime by the inevitable retalliation by the U.S. Indeed, the CIA's assessment of the purposes of Iraqi WMD and Saddam's history suggested the opposite. These claims were also manufactured out of nothing to get Americans to support a war that they previously did not.

[ QUOTE ]
Also and more recently I read that it was well-known and documented that Iraq did attempt to acquire yellowcake well prior to the infamous botched report, and from other suppliers.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, this is the "botched report." Iraq has harmlessly kept 500 tons of yellowcake at Tuwaitha for years, inspected annually by the IAEA. The reports of trying to acquire enriched uranium (yellowcake) were those that appeared in the 9/02 NIE. All referred to African countries and were subject to the State Dept.'s dissent, which the White House kept secret fromt he public until after the war: "[T]he claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are,in INR’s assessment, highly dubious." As for UNSCOM, there is nothing in any report it issued following the most recent round of inspections suggesting that it "strongly suspected" that WMD still existed. Bush also lied about UNSCOM's conclusions.

Ths is my last post on this thread, which started as the claim by war defenders to more strongly favor democracy then their opponents. What they've revealed here, by attempting to apologize and whitewash all the lying about WMD, is that far from defending or advocating democracy they viciously despise its very premise: rule by the informed consent by the governed. It betrays a stunning degree of hypocrisy that I suspect the rest of the world understands quite well. Many more people, in addition to the roughly 10,000 that have already died, will likely pay a horrible price as a result.

[hetron]

So you are saying that the proof that the Bush White House didn't deliberately pump up the WMD angle to get support for the invasion of Iraq is the fact that they didn't plant any evidenceof WMDs once in Iraq?

[adios]

Nope. Knowing that Iraq didn't have stockpiles have WMD's and then lying about it by saying they did is what Chris is accusing Bush and his administration of. You too?

[hetron]

[ QUOTE ]
Nope. Knowing that Iraq didn't have stockpiles have WMD's and then lying about it by saying they did is what Chris is accusing Bush and his administration of. You too?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that is what he is saying at all. He is saying the administration had at best dubious evidence that there were WMD's in Iraq. They then went to the American people and acted as if their evidence was rock solid. Chris is saying that pretending your evidence is solid when it is flimsy (or damn near non-existent) is dishonest. That I agree with.

[adios]

I wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
Nope. Knowing that Iraq didn't have stockpiles have WMD's and then lying about it by saying they did is what Chris is accusing Bush and his administration of. You too?

[/ QUOTE ]

You responded in part:

[ QUOTE ]
Chris is saying that pretending your evidence is solid when it is flimsy (or damn near non-existent) is dishonest.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're saying that one should not infer that something probably does not exist due to the lack of evidence or virtually no evidence of that something especially after trying to uncover such evidence? If Bush had flimsy or non existent evidence of WMD stockpiles in Iraq then I believe a reasonable inference from this lack of evidence is that it doesn't exist. Isn't that what you'd infer? At some point a lie in my mind is stating something that is true that you believe is not true. If you don't follow this line of thinking then I guess what you're saying is that George Bush didn't care whether there were WMD stockpiles in Iraq or not, was going to push to invade the country to satisfy his agenda, then deal with the possibility that they didn't exist if that's the way it turned out. Doubt if that is remotely close to reality.

[hetron]

[ QUOTE ]

At some point a lie in my mind is stating something that is true that you believe is not true. If you don't follow this line of thinking then I guess what you're saying is that George Bush didn't care whether there were WMD stockpiles in Iraq or not, was going to push to invade the country to satisfy his agenda, then deal with the possibility that they didn't exist if that's the way it turned out. Doubt if that is remotely close to reality.

[/ QUOTE ]


Why do you doubt it? All the evidence points in that direction. If the opposite is true, how come the credible evidence that Iraq had WMD's (and were either planning to use them OR ship them to Al Qaeda) never came forth? Where is this credible evidence?

Meanwhile, there is at least SOME evidence to what Chris and I are saying is true, including most recently O'Neill's account. Do you think O'Neill is lying? Did you think Blix and Scott Ritter were lying?

[adios]

Did I get Bingo! on this:

[ QUOTE ]
At some point a lie in my mind is stating something that is true that you believe is not true.

[/ QUOTE ]

or this

[ QUOTE ]
If you don't follow this line of thinking then I guess what you're saying is that George Bush didn't care whether there were WMD stockpiles in Iraq or not, was going to push to invade the country to satisfy his agenda, then deal with the possibility that they didn't exist if that's the way it turned out. Doubt if that is remotely close to reality.

[/ QUOTE ]

If it's this:

[ QUOTE ]
At some point a lie in my mind is stating something that is true that you believe is not true.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then we've come full circle as you originally started this sub thread when I wrote this:

The "liar, liar pants on fire" arguement falls apart not only with the annunciation of long standing US Iraqi policy from both Democrats and Republicans but also with the accounts of the LACK of WMD evidence actually discovered in Iraq. Obviously WMD could be planted and the painstakingly, embarassing revelation that the evidence does not exist would be swept under the rug so to speak. A compulsively deceptive liar doesn't become brutally honest, while embarassing onesef, by suddenly becoming a compulsively honest truth teller. Your arguments and positions have lost a lot of credibility due to many people's understanding and awaremess of these simple facts and obvious conclusions about the obvious irrationality of the "liar, liar pants on fire" arguements. It's why Dean is losing his lead, it's why the Democrats know that they'll certainly lose if their candidate for president embraces this stupidity. It's why people that support your arguements are considered to be fringe elements of the political makeup in the US.

if I get Bingo! for this:

[ QUOTE ]
If you don't follow this line of thinking then I guess what you're saying is that George Bush didn't care whether there were WMD stockpiles in Iraq or not, was going to push to invade the country to satisfy his agenda, then deal with the possibility that they didn't exist if that's the way it turned out. Doubt if that is remotely close to reality.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then I've already stated that I don't think that scenario is realistic or bears any semblance to reality.

[MMMMMM]

http://www.strangecosmos.com/view.adp?picture_id=6281

http://www.strangecosmos.com/view.adp?picture_id=9145

[hetron]

[ QUOTE ]

Then I've already stated that I don't think that scenario is realistic or bears any semblance to reality.


[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you think it bears no semblance to reality? You have an ex cabinet official saying that is what happened (O'Neill), you have major papers like Time and Newsweek saying the same thing. Again, point me to the evidence that Iraq posed a clear and viable threat in terms of either a. using WMD's against the US or b. selling them to Al Qaeda.
The evidence that was presented before the war was pretty flimsy, but we were assured that these stockpiles of doomsday weapons existed.

[hetron]

That's pretty harsh. I heard Ritter speak and actually think he is a decent human being. You, on the other hand, seem to have developed a hatred for anyone who disagrees wtih the status quo mindset regarding the middle east.

[MMMMMM]

No, I don't have a hatred of anyone who disagrees as you say. However Scott Ritter, IMO, was as good as a spokesman or lawyer for Saddam...and what was it he did with underage girls?

[MMMMMM]

I don't think we should have waited until Iraq posed a "clear and viable threat" as you put it--by then it could have been too late. Saddam was evil to Iraqis and to his neighbors--he had to go--and the sooner the better. So any evidence at all that Iraq had WMD programs should have been enough to justify taking the EVIL BASTARD out and protecting the Iraqis, and his neighbors, and potentially us, from any future schemes he might have hatched to deliver WMD to terrorists.

Why everyone is so against trouncing evil is beyond me. If a devil was in charge of Iraq, he wouldn't have done any worse to the Iraqis than did Saddam. Rejoice that the bloody bastard is gone; as most Iraqis are glad. Sheesh.