A Grave and Gathering Threat

[andyfox]

"There is no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein was a grave and gathering threat to America and the world," Presdient Bush said today.

Where was this grave and gathering threat? What had Iraq done to make it so grave a threat? It couldn't have been its military strength; Iraq's was effort against the coalition was laughable. It couldn't have been WMDs; they didn't use them in the war, most likely because they didn't have them. What could have been so grave?

And what does the President mean by gathering? That the threat was increasing? Iraq was a shell of what it was in the 1980s and early 1990s because of the sanctions and weapons inspections.

The President should stick to the argument that Hussein was a tyrant. The argument that he keeps making about our safety being dependent on Hussein's government being destroyed is hardly credible.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Iraq was a shell of what it was

*shrug* They said the same thing about Germany in the early 30's. Good thing my parents' generation didn't think like most Americans do today.

[elwoodblues]

They might have said that about the Germans, and with the Germans they would have been wrong. Being wrong about the Germans in the 30s says absolutely nothing about Iraq in 2003.

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
*shrug* They said the same thing about Germany in the early 30's. Good thing my parents' generation didn't think like most Americans do today.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who? They may of made excuses about why Germany was re-arming but I don't think any thinking person at the time seriosly thought Germany was a shell of what it was.

[ QUOTE ]
Good thing my parents' generation didn't think like most Americans do today.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can I correct the common misconception of most Americans, WW2 started in Sept '39, (earlier if you lived in Czechoslavika), not Dec '41. This is not an attack on your grandparents or any Americans who fought in WW2 (we owe them a great debt), but America's appeasement policy/ostrich head in sand outlook was as shameful as most of Europes pre Sept '39.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

but America's appeasement policy/ostrich head in sand outlook was as shameful as most of Europes pre Sept '39.

No argument. Before 12/7/41, most people in the US were isolationist, preferring to think that "that european war" had no impact on us over here. It also didn't help any that Joseph Kennedy, the ambassador to England, thought Hitler was no real threat and advised Chamberlain to appease him.

[adios]

I was going to leave this alone because the answer is obvious. I'm sure you don't agree with it so I won't even go into it. Anyway I think this article gives a broader perspective on the remarks the President made yesterday and the issues involved:

The complete Bush quote:

"There is no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein was a grave and gathering threat to America and the world," Bush said. "And I say that based upon intelligence that I saw prior to the decision to go into Iraq and I say that based upon what I know today. And the world is better off without him."

Other relevant quotes from the article IMO:

The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Porter Goss, said in an Associated Press interview Tuesday that Kay was doing a favor for the nation's intelligence system with his harsh criticism of the CIA's flawed prewar estimates.


Goss blamed the problem on underestimation of the fear and repression in Saddam's Iraq and insufficient intelligence budgets during the 1990s. He said the intelligence system needs more resources.


"I already knew it, but I know it in a more reinforced way now, and I figure Dr. Kay has done me a favor," Goss said.

Interesting and my take would be that the pendulum regarding the tightening if you will of the rules regarding intelligence gathering has swung too far.

The Polish leader offered his own defense of Bush, saying many experts believed before the war that Iraq had built banned weapons. Kwasniewski said a top U.N. weapons inspector had told him several months before the invasion that "Saddam has these weapons or is ready to produce these weapons."

Will the Democrats trash the Polish leader as well?

Senate minority leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., demanded a new investigation by an independent commission, or a broadened probe by the Senate Intelligence Committee, into the "administration's role in the intelligence failures leading up to the war with Iraq." The Republican-controlled Senate Intelligence Committee is currently looking into what the CIA knew before the war, but the scope doesn't include the Bush administration's role.

Pure politics on Daschle's part IMO. Doesn't have a shred of evidence to back it up. As I stated in another post that's the new cry from the Democrats, the administration fabricated intelligence data. This charge is meant to offer up a reason why so many Democrats voted to approve the Iraqi resolution authorizing force and now are doing a flip flop.

"The administration did cook the books," Howard Dean (news - web sites) told reporters. "I think that's pretty serious."

Of course Dean has no evidence to back up this claim. If he did we'd have already seen it.

Bush broke a pledge to go to war "legitimately, as a last resort," Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites) of Massachusetts said on ABC's "Good Morning America."

This is ridiculous. If Kerry had any doubts he should have voted no.

The complete article for those who don't have broadband conncetion:

Bush Defends War Decision With Iraq (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=3&u=/ap/20040127/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq_weapons)

Bush Defends War Decision With Iraq
Tue Jan 27, 6:52 PM ET Add Top Stories - AP to My Yahoo!


By TERENCE HUNT, AP White House Correspondent

WASHINGTON - President Bush (news - web sites) said Tuesday that Iraq (news - web sites) undoubtedly posed a threat to America last year and the U.S.-led invasion was justified, despite his outgoing arms inspector's conclusion that Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) had no weapons of mass destruction.

But Bush and his aides backed away from often-stated predictions that such weapons will eventually be found in Iraq. And the president deflected questions about the discrepancies between his dire warnings on Iraq and former chief inspector David Kay's findings.

"There is no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein was a grave and gathering threat to America and the world," Bush said. "And I say that based upon intelligence that I saw prior to the decision to go into Iraq and I say that based upon what I know today. And the world is better off without him."


Kay believes his team's failure to find banned weapons in Iraq points to problems in the intelligence suggesting they were there, and he said over the weekend that the CIA (news - web sites) owes Bush an explanation.


The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Porter Goss, said in an Associated Press interview Tuesday that Kay was doing a favor for the nation's intelligence system with his harsh criticism of the CIA's flawed prewar estimates.


Goss blamed the problem on underestimation of the fear and repression in Saddam's Iraq and insufficient intelligence budgets during the 1990s. He said the intelligence system needs more resources.


"I already knew it, but I know it in a more reinforced way now, and I figure Dr. Kay has done me a favor," Goss said.


Bush, during a meeting with Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski, said he had "great confidence in our intelligence community," and he displayed no interest in such an accounting from the CIA.


The president said he wanted to let American weapons inspectors complete their search in Iraq before drawing conclusions. That work is 85 percent complete, Kay has said.


Last year, the president made Iraq's alleged weapons cache a central rationale for the Iraq invasion.


On Jan. 22, 2003, Bush told an audience in St. Louis, "The dictator of Iraq has got weapons of mass destruction." On the eve of the war in March, he said, "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."


Sunday, after nine months of searching, Kay said, "I don't think they exist." Kay quit his post on Friday.


Bush cited other reasons Tuesday behind his decision to go to war, and he tried to direct Americans' attention to the future of Iraq, not his own past assertions.


"America is more secure, the world is safer, and the people of Iraq are free," Bush said.


"We're now at the business of making sure Iraq is free and democratic," Bush said. "That's important, as well, for long-term stability and peace in the world, and we're making good progress toward that goal."


Bush did not mention twin roadside bombings west of Baghdad that killed three American soldiers Tuesday.


The Polish leader offered his own defense of Bush, saying many experts believed before the war that Iraq had built banned weapons. Kwasniewski said a top U.N. weapons inspector had told him several months before the invasion that "Saddam has these weapons or is ready to produce these weapons."





Senate minority leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., demanded a new investigation by an independent commission, or a broadened probe by the Senate Intelligence Committee, into the "administration's role in the intelligence failures leading up to the war with Iraq." The Republican-controlled Senate Intelligence Committee is currently looking into what the CIA knew before the war, but the scope doesn't include the Bush administration's role.

Bush ignored a reporter's question about whether he would support or resist a new probe.

Daschle's request for a new inquiry led to a testy exchange in the Cabinet Room on Tuesday afternoon. Bush met with congressional leaders of both parties, and Daschle told him it was important to get to the bottom of whether intelligence was misused.

Bush denied his administration had manipulated intelligence to bolster the case for war, and told lawmakers Kay's search had been worthwhile, according to a participant in the meeting. Bush said he had not given up on the weapons hunt.

Daschle replied that it is crucial such an apparent intelligence failure does not happen again, noting that many lawmakers had based their votes on authorizing force on the intelligence.

Democratic presidential contenders grabbed hold of Kay's conclusion on the absence of banned weapons as they made 11th-hour appeals to New Hampshire voters.

"The administration did cook the books," Howard Dean (news - web sites) told reporters. "I think that's pretty serious."

Bush broke a pledge to go to war "legitimately, as a last resort," Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites) of Massachusetts said on ABC's "Good Morning America."

American voters "want a foreign policy that's based on truth and that actually makes America stronger, doesn't put it at greater risk," Kerry said.

[andyfox]

"There is no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein was a grave and gathering threat to America and the world," Bush said. "And I say that based upon intelligence that I saw prior to the decision to go into Iraq . . "

SOP. Blame the faulty intelligence.

[andyfox]

Every tyrant who comes across the horizon is not a Hitler. Saddam was forced out of Kuwait. His country was struggling under the weight of the sanctions. His military proved to be a joke in both wars.

Most Americans supported the invasion of Iraq, no?

[MMMMMM]

"SOP. Blame the faulty intelligence."

Well seeing as how Bush wasn't in Iraq prior to the war with a telescope and magnifying glass, conducting his own personal inspections, I don't see why anyone should expect him to know more about the situation than was contained in the intelligence with which he was provided.

SOP?

Also, intelligence-gathering and espionage are far from exact sciences--they're more like piecing together a puzzle based on very partial information.

[andyfox]

When I say "SOP, blame the faulty intelligence," I mean to suggest that there's a possibility that it wasn't faulty intelligence, that the intelligence was used or distorted or compiled to agree with the decision that was already made. I've cited plenty of evidence to suggest this (for example, James Fallows' article in The Atlantic and Paul O'Neill's comments). We've seen this plenty of times before.

What you say about intelligence-gathering is indeed true, but, if Fallows' article has validity (and the other reports as well, for example, that Cheney was a regular visitor to Langley), information that was known to be less than the best was used and information that was known to be more reliable was ignored, because the less reliable information favored going to war and the more reliable did not.

[Utah]

Hi Andy,

Just so I understand the logic:

The president was so hell bent on going to war that he undertook an incredibly risky endevour to his political future based on premise that he knew would turn out to be false and that he also knew would be a major weapon against him in the next election?

Maybe Karl Rove is not as smart as people think.

[Chris Alger]

1. They can't decide which lie to tell even when their versions of events contradict. As with the WMD "trailer" hoax, they originally claimed that Kay's preliminary report vindicated the perception of a threat. They still do this sometimes, but as Rep. Porter suggests there's a contradictory version: the intelligence was "flawed" and showed a "grave and growing threat" where none existed but Bush relied on it in good faith, and therefore isn't culpable for misleading. Still another variation is that the intelligence was not flawed and the weapons are probably still there (Krauthammer), or were sent to Syria (as someone in the WSJ opined today, omitting Kay's retraction of the quote attributed to him), or were destroyed at the last minute (Ari Fleischer), etc. These are the habits of bad liars caught in the act: throwing out one excuse after another, without regard for logic or consistency, as the evidence against them mounts.

2. They can't point to the "intelligence" that shows that Iraq was a "grave and growing threat," they can only point to intelligence (virtually all speculation, usually qualified as such) about WMD. But of course WMD isn't the threat because a lot of countries, including several highly brutal ones, have WMD and they're not only "non-threats" but we suppport them, as we did Iraq at the height of it's WMD capability. This is a critical omission because in fact the intelligence also concluded that any WMD Saddam had was no immediate threat to anyone, as top officials (like Powell) claimed prior to 9/11, or as George Tenet pointed out in his letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee that a war would probably increase any chance of WMD use by Iraq. The Carnegie Foundation report, for example, has some good stuff about how intelligence analsysts believed that Saddam was unlikely to suddenly depart from his 30-year habit of refusing to give WMD to terrorists, and that his WMD stockpiles were intended for domestic use and self-defense. There isn't a shred of intelligence I've seen, for example, suggesting that the overwhelming force of U.S. deterrent power would be unlikely to contain any threat with as much success as it prevented Saddam from fully occupying even his own country.

3. White House and Congressional Republicans are fighting tooth and nail to prevent any inquiry of the pressure the White House put on intelligence anlaysts, or to come up with any other explanation of how the WMD (not "threat") assessment changed so drastically in September 2002, when an alarmist, highly qualified and dissent-ridden NIE was thrown together with record speed, reportedly due to White House pressure. When someone offers an opportunity at exoneration and the accused refuses to accept it, it's usually taken as evidence of guilt.

4. None of those claiming that Bush "relied" on the intelligence he was given account for the subsequent findings of the UNSCOM and IAEA inspectors, whose on-site work post-dated the intelligence, pre-dated the war, and came up with nothing that could remotely constitute an immediate threat, just as Kay came up with nothing. (Where, BTW, is the media discussion about how the UN inspectors evidently discovered apparent "flaws" in U.S. intelligence before the bloodshed started?) Note how the Polish comment cagily refers to "several months" before the invasion, allowing for a pre-inspection speculation, as well as not naming his purported source.

5. The clalims of reliance and faulty intelligence fail to account for the outright lies that had no basis in intelligence, and in fact were contradicted by the very intelligence the White House purportedly relied on, such as Cheney's statement that Iraq had "reconstituted nuclear weapons," and Bush's statement that the IAEA had produced a report saying that Iraq would have nuclear weapons in three years, the failure to disclose that Iraq's top defector also told U.S. debriefers that the WMD had been destroyed, among many others.

The most significant issue isn't whether they're lying. The indisputable fact is that there are highly colorable claims of lying to justify a war that virtually all officials knew would kill thousands of innocent people. As long as the Republicans continue, Saddam-style, to block a full accounting of what the war planners knew and when they knew it, they should be presumed guilty and treated with the disdain we reserve for all mass murderers. If the same facts applied to the leaders of Russia or France, this would be considered simple common sense, the ubiquitous line from commentators and officials on TV. But since public discourse in America is governed by a propaganda machine, common sense is relegated to the fringe, and nobody in polite society can label Bush and Cheney the monsters, terrorists and butchers that they (evidently) are.

[MMMMMM]

"The most significant issue isn't whether they're lying. The indisputable fact is that there are highly colorable claims of lying to justify a war that virtually all officials knew would kill thousands of innocent people. As long as the Republicans continue, Saddam-style, to block a full accounting of what the war planners knew and when they knew it, they should be presumed guilty and treated with the disdain we reserve for all mass murderers. If the same facts applied to the leaders of Russia or France, this would be considered simple common sense, the ubiquitous line from commentators and officials on TV. But since public discourse in America is governed by a propaganda machine, common sense is relegated to the fringe, and nobody in polite society can label Bush and Cheney the monsters, terrorists and butchers that they (evidently) are."

Common sense is lacking in those who count only the number of lives lost and ignore the number of lives saved.

[adios]

Hi Chris,

I knew you'd reign in on this so allow me to give you my take on your points.

1. They can't decide which lie to tell even when their versions of events contradict. As with the WMD "trailer" hoax, they originally claimed that Kay's preliminary report vindicated the perception of a threat. They still do this sometimes, but as Rep. Porter suggests there's a contradictory version: the intelligence was "flawed" and showed a "grave and growing threat" where none existed but Bush relied on it in good faith, and therefore isn't culpable for misleading. Still another variation is that the intelligence was not flawed and the weapons are probably still there (Krauthammer), or were sent to Syria (as someone in the WSJ opined today, omitting Kay's retraction of the quote attributed to him), or were destroyed at the last minute (Ari Fleischer), etc. These are the habits of bad liars caught in the act: throwing out one excuse after another, without regard for logic or consistency, as the evidence against them mounts.

No Chris I think Kay's statements that you cite are consistent with an expecation that they existed. Ditto for some other comments you mentioned. I don't read what you read into Rep. Porter's statement. I don't even know what side of the aisle Porter is on but I assume he's a Republican. My take is that Porter believed that there was a lot more uncertainty than what many thought. The buck stops with Bush and Bush knows that. Krauthammer the last time I looked wasn't part of the administration or a member of Congress (neither is FoxNews /images/graemlins/smile.gif). I will say this that Bush emphasized the WMD threat to try and win UN endorsement. As soon as the USA abandons the foolishness of seeking UN endorsement the sooner this kind of foolishness ceases. If Bush would have shunned this tactic I believe he would have emphasized other reasons for pre-emptive action.

2. They can't point to the "intelligence" that shows that Iraq was a "grave and growing threat," they can only point to intelligence (virtually all speculation, usually qualified as such) about WMD. But of course WMD isn't the threat because a lot of countries, including several highly brutal ones, have WMD and they're not only "non-threats" but we suppport them, as we did Iraq at the height of it's WMD capability. This is a critical omission because in fact the intelligence also concluded that any WMD Saddam had was no immediate threat to anyone, as top officials (like Powell) claimed prior to 9/11, or as George Tenet pointed out in his letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee that a war would probably increase any chance of WMD use by Iraq. The Carnegie Foundation report, for example, has some good stuff about how intelligence analsysts believed that Saddam was unlikely to suddenly depart from his 30-year habit of refusing to give WMD to terrorists, and that his WMD stockpiles were intended for domestic use and self-defense. There isn't a shred of intelligence I've seen, for example, suggesting that the overwhelming force of U.S. deterrent power would be unlikely to contain any threat with as much success as it prevented Saddam from fully occupying even his own country.

We've gone down this road before and you've acknowledged yourself that this has been long standing US policy. Even resolution 1441 states that Iraq has not given an accounting for WMD's and associated material. Why not provide us with a link or post the reports by the Carnegie Foundation you mention so we can make our own conclusion?

3. White House and Congressional Republicans are fighting tooth and nail to prevent any inquiry of the pressure the White House put on intelligence anlaysts, or to come up with any other explanation of how the WMD (not "threat") assessment changed so drastically in September 2002, when an alarmist, highly qualified and dissent-ridden NIE was thrown together with record speed, reportedly due to White House pressure. When someone offers an opportunity at exoneration and the accused refuses to accept it, it's usually taken as evidence of guilt.

This is just plain wrong. Congress is holding and will hold many hearings over this and to date no evidence of fabricated intelligence has been produced.

4. None of those claiming that Bush "relied" on the intelligence he was given account for the subsequent findings of the UNSCOM and IAEA inspectors, whose on-site work post-dated the intelligence, pre-dated the war, and came up with nothing that could remotely constitute an immediate threat, just as Kay came up with nothing. (Where, BTW, is the media discussion about how the UN inspectors evidently discovered apparent "flaws" in U.S. intelligence before the bloodshed started?) Note how the Polish comment cagily refers to "several months" before the invasion, allowing for a pre-inspection speculation, as well as not naming his purported source.

Why don't the Democrats make this exact same point you're making regarding the UN inspections? Methinks your smear of the Polish leader is a big time stretch.

5. The clalims of reliance and faulty intelligence fail to account for the outright lies that had no basis in intelligence, and in fact were contradicted by the very intelligence the White House purportedly relied on, such as Cheney's statement that Iraq had "reconstituted nuclear weapons," and Bush's statement that the IAEA had produced a report saying that Iraq would have nuclear weapons in three years, the failure to disclose that Iraq's top defector also told U.S. debriefers that the WMD had been destroyed, among many others.

I posted once asking what a "reconstitued nuclear weapon" was after Andy was similarly trashing Cheney. In all my experience in working around nuclear weapons (including dismantlement) I had NEVER heard this term used. Andy stated that Cheney misspoke and meant a reconstituted nuclear weapons program. If you can explain what a reconstituted nuclear weapon is I'd be happy to read your explanation. I'm not all sure how one would go about "reconstituting" a dismantled nuclear weapon. We'll see what the Democrats come up with and if they ask the same questions that you do. I doubt if they will and they certainly would if they could take the high road and point the finger at administration misconduct.

[Utah]

I think what is missing from you is a comprehensive story. you take little pot shot (lots of them), but you have yet to bring it all together.

I challenge you. In under 500 words, tie the whole story together for me, because it doesnt make sense. If Bush and his team knew Iraq was not a threat why did they attack? If they knew the WMD was B.S. why did they build a case upon it knowing that they would be fried by it later? Why did Saddam not let the inspectors in and why did he live up to the resolutions as he could have easily saved his ass? how is his strategy consistent with every politicans and political parties goal - to achieve and stay in power?

Your a lawyer. Pretend I am the jury. tie it all together for me. While I find elements of the whole ordeal disturbing, I tend to believe that Bush and Co. believed that Iraq was a threat and that they believed the intel. I have not heard a cohesive theory that makes any sense other than this.

My guess is that you are unable to do so. Prove me wrong.

[andyfox]

The president was hell bent on going to war because he and his advisors thought it was the right thing to do. Faulty assumptions and an imperial worldview led to faulty conclusions. 9/11 would carry them through politically. The president still leads all potential Democratic challengers in the polls.

I doubt Karl Rove had anything to do with the decision.

[Utah]

please explain more as I am not sure I understand what you mean by the"right thing to do". If I understand this correctly then they did really believe that Iraq was a threat.

What do you mean by faulty assumptions? Obviously, the lack of WMDs. But, were those assumptions simply wrong, faulty stemming from flaws, misguided to form a belief, or down right manipulated. I keep thinking that if deception fooled its own regime that it seems within reasonable probability that the intelligence agency of another country would think the same thing (i.e., the intelligence agency could have been functioning well and they simply were wrong).

I am not sure what you mean by imperial worldview. Please explain.

Karl Rove would have had to been involved, at least to advise Bush on how to communicate to the public.

[andyfox]

No, I don't think they thought Iraq was a threat in the sense they let on, that is, as a danger to our security vis-a-vis terrorism. But they did think Iraq was a danger to our long-term economic well-being since Hussein had long since ceased to be reliable. He was a threat to open markets, a threat to our oil supply, and a threat to order and the status quo in the world.

By faulty assumptions, I mean, for example, the belief that everything we do is a force for good in the world ipso facto because we do it, that is is our mission and fate to make the world a better place in our own image, that terror is something you can make war against, that longterm consequences of bad decisions don't have to be worried about, if at all, until much later down the road, and that dropping bombs on terrorists recues the number of them.

America is an empire. We see ourselves as the indispensable nation and view the world as our empire. The president has clearly stated that if you're not with us, you're against us (I believe in those exact words.) Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, etc., believe we have to kick some butts to get things back under control. They had long been calling for us to finish the job we started in the first Gulf War. War and imperialism usually go hand in hand.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
"...I think Kay's statements that you cite are consistent with an expecation that they existed."

[/ QUOTE ]
Kay's statements that there were no WMD's in Iraq are inconsistent with White House statements that there were (e.g., Rumsfeld's "we know where they're at").

Kay's statements that the intelligence failed Bush, and that the impression Bush gave the public is that same one made upon him by the spooks, are consistent with the sudden attempts by war proponents to shift responsibility from the White House to the intelligence community. That's hardly surprising: Kay was handpicked by the White House, presumably in part because of his suppport for Bush's war policy.

Kay's (and Porter's) statements that there was an intelligence failure are inconsistent, however, with the administration's failure to identify the intelligence as possibly problematic when the first U.S. searches failed to turn up anything. Then, there was little or no question or second guessing about the accuracy of the intelligence, but repeated assurances that "we'll find them," or sometimes statements that they might have been destroyed on the "eve of war" or moved from the country (a possibility which Kay seems to leave open, offering no evidence).

If the problem was intelligence failure (rather than exaggeration and lying by the White House), this failure was evident as soon as the invasion began when Saddam failed to deploy WMD's in defense. It was more apparent after initial searches by U.S. troops failed to turn up anything. Indeed, the possibility of intelligence "failure" should have surfaced when UNSCOM couldn't locate what intelligence allegedly stated was there. Yet the statements from the White House after the UNSCOM inspections and prior to the war were as emphatic as ever: we are confident our intelligence certain and it leaves us no alternative but war.

Therefore, the sudden emphasis on intelligence failure is assuredly spin control to divert the spotlight from Kay's revelations that he doesn't see any point in looking further. If the concern for intelligence failures was authentic, there would have been a more exhaustive review of the intelligence after the UN inspections. Alarm bells would have gone off: "The inspections contradict what intelligence tells us. We'd better double check and make damn sure the intelligence is fairly reliable before thousands of people get killed over WMD that might not even be there." Nothing like this happened.

The buck does not stop with Bush, that's just a folksy saying. Bush's supporters are starting to blame an anonymous intelligence community and bureaucracy for misleading the poor honest President who had no choice but to rely on what his subordinates told him (and also misleading Dick and Condy and Colin and Don). The mainstream media is generally following this line because the lack of WMDs leaves only two alternatives over the cause of the false impression Bush created: (1) he did it deliberately and U.S. troops are dying ever day because the President lied; or (2) he did it accidentally, relying in good faith on the best information available. Well, given the external influences on the media, that's no choice at all. As usual, there is virtually no discussion of the first alternative and a growing widespread assumption that the second must be the case. It's a good illustration of the taboo against acknowledging the possibility that current U.S. leaders can be cuplable for evil. Leaders of other countries might be murders and criminals, but ours can only make mistakes, everything they do that's wrong, especially if it gets people killed, by definition must fall within the morally neutral category of error.

Bush did not emphasize the WMD line just to win UN endorsement. He emphasized it to scare the public into supporting the war. Cheney was an outspoken critic of even asking for UN cover, and he was the administration's most alarmist spokesman.

[ QUOTE ]
We've gone down this road before and you've acknowledged yourself that this has been long standing US policy.

[/ QUOTE ]
Advocacy of regime change has been U.S. policy since Clinton, but war to accomplish it was never U.S. policy until Bush, and never in the Bush administration until after 9/11, when large segments of the public blamed Iraq for the attack.

Here's the Carnegie Endowment link: Carnegie Report (http://www.ceip.org/files/projects/npp/resources/iraqintell/home.htm)

[ QUOTE ]
This is just plain wrong. Congress is holding and will hold many hearings over this and to date no evidence of fabricated intelligence has been produced.

[/ QUOTE ]
The GOP has restricted the inquiry to examining the intelligence gathering process, and blocked investigation into whether and how the White House's manipulated the intelligence.

It's not an issue of "fabricated" intelligence, although it might come close. If you spread the net wide enough, there's enough dodgy documents, suspect defector reports, crank memoirs, etc. to say just about anything about any country. The issues for the intelligence community are (1) whether reporting standards were altered or lowered; and (2) why the "intelligence" suddenly took on such an alarmist tone when the White House started making statements about the need for military intervention.

The issue for the public is not whether the intelligence community made technical failures or mistakes, but whether the White House lied about the intelligence it was given.

[ QUOTE ]
Why don't the Democrats make this exact same point you're making regarding the UN inspections? Methinks your smear of the Polish leader is a big time stretch.

[/ QUOTE ]
Several Democrats did, notably Byrd and Kennedy. But as I've said many times, the Democrats as a group are institutionally incapable of drawing a sharp distinction from the GOP on foreign policy. In this area, unlike many others, the Democratic constituency is mostly identical to the Republicans, with the exception of the anti-interventionist left wing, which doesn't count for much. It also would have been political poison during a time when the White House committed "the nation" to war, as it would have invited attacks that the Democrats are siding with the enemy, trying to keep Saddam in power, endangering our troops, etc.

As for my "smear" of the Pole, you're being silly. I simply pointed out how his statement was vague to the point of meanginlessness.

That there might be no such thing as a "reconstituted nuclear weapon" is hardly the point. The public doesn't know that. When Cheney says Iraq has any kind of nuclear weapons on the eve of war (1) when the issue of Iraq's nuclear program is controversial to begin with; (2) after the IAEA couldn't verify any of the activities that Cheney insisted were going on; (3) when we now know that the picture Cheeny painted was grotesquely inaccurate; (4) when public opinion polls showed the widespread belief that Iraq had nuclear weapons, even though the White House had never before said this; and (5) Cheney doesn't even bother to correct himself for six months after the invasion, the obvious conclusion is that Cheney lied to reinforce a public misperception that Iraq was a greater threat than it was.

What's worse, he said it before knowledgeable beltway journalists on Meet the Press, all of whom knew it was nonsense. And none of them even questioned him about it.

[MMMMMM]

"No, I don't think they thought Iraq was a threat in the sense they let on, that is, as a danger to our security vis-a-vis terrorism. But they did think Iraq was a danger to our long-term economic well-being since Hussein had long since ceased to be reliable. He was a threat to open markets, a threat to our oil supply, and a threat to order and the status quo in the world."

So you agree Hussein was a threat, just not the threat that was most emphasized.

"By faulty assumptions, I mean, for example, the belief that everything we do is a force for good in the world ipso facto because we do it,.."

I doubt anybody believes that.

"...that is is our mission and fate to make the world a better place in our own image,..."

As our image is better, kinder, and more respecting of human rights than are Communism, Dictatorship, Fascism and Theocracy; yes, where we can practically influence things for good we probably should to some extent.

"...that terror is something you can make war against,..."

You can make war against those who preferentially employ terroristic tactics.

"...that longterm consequences of bad decisions don't have to be worried about, if at all, until much later down the road,...

Only good point you have made in this entire paragraph.

"...and that dropping bombs on terrorists recues the number of them."

Well until you can show evidence to the contrary I'll continue to believe that it does. Terrorists take years to grow, mature and train--but can be killed in 2 seconds flat. Hence I believe that the math of the situation is firmly behind the view that killing them reduces their numbers. And by the way, 75% of al-Qaeda's top leadership has now been killed or captured.

"America is an empire."

A distorted world view IMO.

"We see ourselves as the indispensable nation and view the world as our empire."

Indispensable to liberty, yes...if it were not for the USA, the chances are very high that most if not all of the world would now be under totalitarian rule of some kind or other.

"The president has clearly stated that if you're not with us, you're against us (I believe in those exact words.)"

An oversimplification but to some extent true. I can think of exceptions.

"Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, etc., believe we have to kick some butts to get things back under control. They had long been calling for us to finish the job we started in the first Gulf War."

This is an oversimplified view but largely true.

"War and imperialism usually go hand in hand."

Indeed they do. So do many other things go hand in hand with war, including overthrowing tyranny.

Peace is actually somewhat overrated: just ask the countless humans who have suffered and died under oppression, tyranny and terror throughout the ages--in peace.

[andyfox]

-Hussein was a threat to our vision of the world, yes.

-The best evidence I can give you about dropping bombs making more, rather than less terrorists, is Israel. Noi country has been more aggressive in going after its enemies that use terroristic tactics, yet no country has continued to be the victim of such tactics (I just heard about a bus bombing in Jerusalem, killing 10). Another classic example would be our policy in Vietnam. The more bombs we dropped and, presumably, killed more guerilla, the more people joined the other side and endedup using the same tactics of the people who had been killed.

-America has always sought to be an empire; all the framers discussed America in those terms. Territorial control is no longer necessary to have an empire. Our leaders continue to talk about us in imperial terms (the most powerful country in the history of the world; the indipensable nation).

[MattHatter]

The simple fact is that UTAH is in denial of reality.

Utah has bought how the Bush administration would like to recast the truth about Intelligence assessments of IRAQ pre-9/11

The fact are that Intelligence agencies knew he had squat.
The bush administration lied by turning al. the 'may' and 'could' into absolute certainties. Remember they had ABSOLUTE PROOF.. not speculation.. a MOUTAIN OF ABSOLUTE PROOF. (everyone in the administration repeated this line)

Funny thing is they refused to provide even 1 piece of this ABSOLUTE proof to anyone, even at the Security council. All Colin Powell could offer was a picture of some trucks and a steaming load of crap to convince the US public. NO ONE at the UN bought this intel at ALL. They had thier own intel.. that let them know the truth.

Because of course they US magnified the whole thing x100000 post 9/11.

Proof?

Here it is from the horses mouth UTAH, and if this isn't good enough you can go on cawing about the sky bieng red.

This is a documentary called 'breaking the silence' and a link to the full thing is here, I suggest you watch it.
"Breaking The Silence" (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/video1/35_mb_pilger_breaking_the_silence.wmv)

It contains footage of Colin Powell at a news conference in Egypt in February 1991 (pre 9/11). (36:30 min in)

He states "He has not developped any significant capabilty with respect to WMD, he is unable to project conventional power against his nieghbors."

And footage of Condoleeza Rice (National Sec Advisor) in July 1991, on CNN (again pre 9/11). (right after Colin)

She states: "We are able to keep arms from him, his military forces have NOT been rebuilt."

And heres another one. Everyone talks about that bad nuclear information.. the yellow cake from Niger? Well Every intelligence agencey in every country knew that was wrong before Bush said it the first time Pre-War. (state of the Union) And so did he.

Proof?

Here is a letter from Rep. Henry Waxman from before the war started Mar 17, 2003. Where he sumamrizes nicely how the CIA and everyone knew that was wrong a LONG time ago. And there was no way that the Prez could miss that fact when it was obvious to anyone who cared to look.

Waxmans Letter to Bush (http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdfs/pdf_inves/pdf_admin_iraq_nuclear_evidence_march_17_let.pdf)

I find it hilarious that all the stuff Waxman said pre-war comes out about 8 mos after the war in the media like its all just been discovered. Americans are none the wiser. Eat it up guys, eat it up.

I could do this all day for just about everything bush has ever said about WMD or the threat posed by Iraq. It just all falls apart under any fact based research and scrutiny. Which you have to do on your own. If you just watch cable news for info you dont even deserve to discuss these topics.

You go on and on Utah.. But you have no proof or facts to back you up, you just tow the BUSH line. And eat all the stuff the patheticly unfair US media feeds you. I don't blame you.. you live in a fishbowl.

But wake up dude. The sky is BLUE.

[andyfox]

"One thing is for certain, one thing we do know ... that Saddam Hussein was a danger, he was growing danger," said the President today.

Don't know, actually if he said "he was growing danger," or "he was a growing danger." Either way, the president ought to present some evidence to back up this claim, to counteract all the contrary evidence.

[MattHatter]

Always remember..

they didn't say he 'might' have WMD.

The said he DEFINATELY DID, and they were absolutely CERTAIN of it.

They said they had absolute proof. No ifs ands or buts about it.

All a lie, and they knew it.

Matt

[MMMMMM]

FYI Jacques Chirac said Iraq had WMD too; France just opposed the war for other reasons and claimed inspections would eventually solve the problem.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
If Bush and his team knew Iraq was not a threat why did they attack? If they knew the WMD was B.S. why did they build a case upon it knowing that they would be fried by it later? Why did Saddam not let the inspectors in and why did he live up to the resolutions as he could have easily saved his ass? how is his strategy consistent with every politicans and political parties goal - to achieve and stay in power?

[/ QUOTE ]
1. The domestic political risk of not invading was far greater. If Bush ignored the demands of his advisors and the right in general to invade, he would almost certainly have been faced with John McCain (or some other opportunist) blaming him for failing to defend the country, most likely waving leaked “intelligence reports” blaming Saddam for 9/11, threatening to launch WMD in 45 minutes, etc. And what if another terrorist attack had come? Bush new that if his best chance of reelection depending on invading regardless of what inspections ultimately found (and it’s a long “ultimately,” as the White House continues to emphasize that the search is ongoing, certainly to be kept alive until after the election).

2. Correct the errata. The administration has not been “fried” by the absence of WMD. Support for the war has declined but Bush’s approval ratings have remained essentially unchanged. His support among Republican leaders and rank-and-file remain solid. The polls have him beating any Democrat running and most analysts think that he’ll probably be reelected. Bush’s achilles’ heel, if he has one, is the economy, not the war. The general propaganda line finds widespread support: the war was unjustified only if we prefer Saddam to have remained in power, regardless of whether he was much of a threat. Most importantly, nobody is seriously talking about giving back the prize.

Second, Saddam did let the inspectors in. UNSCOM had unrestricted access. He never kicked the old UNMOVIC inspectors out. He refused to give access to American inspectors after reports that the Americans were using the inspections process for espionage. After that announcement, the Clinton White House U.S. retaliated by firing a few missiles and ordered the UNMOVIC team out (or rather told Butler, the U.S. head of the team, to remove them, even though Butler technically worked for the UN). The notion that Saddam “kicked out” the inspectors is a persistent propaganda myth.

As for Saddam failing to comply with UNSCR 1441, I don’t know whether that’s true in any significant sense. There were some technical violations of the resolutions subjective requirements that Iraq agreed to cure and an alleged failure to “account” for discrepancies in various documents concerning the quantity of chemical and biological weapons. My understanding is that Iraq claimed to account for these the best it could. The U.S. response was that the accounting wasn’t credible, although some of the material the U.S. claimed wasn’t “accounted for” consisted of agents from the early 1990's with a shelf life of a few years, suggesting the U.S. was looking for a pretext. UNSCOM wanted more time before reaching a conclusion. Regardless of what the technical issues were, three things are clear: (1) at every turn, the U.S. ignored or tried to downplay the results of the inspections and the progress they made; (2) Iraq was willing to allow for continued inspections and those inspections would have obtained the same results – no WMD – that we now have; and (3) the Security Council was not persuaded that Iraq’s purported violations of 1441 were serious enough to justify a military response.

It therefore seems clear that there is nothing Saddam could have done to prevent the U.S. from invading. The is further borne out by the revelations by Richard Perle that he was contacted by representatives of Saddam seeking to negotiate internal reforms, including contested elections, in addition to complete disarmament. These efforts were rebuffed by the Bush administration.

3. Why did Bush invade even though Saddam wasn’t a threat? Because national security threats have little to do with U.S. policy toward the Middle East. Since the end of WWII, when the U.S. displaced the U.K. as the dominant power in the region, the U.S. has sought to support and, where necessary, establish a series of friendly client regimes who’s interests were generally similar to ours.

By “our” interests, however, I don’t mean the public. Ordinary Americans will pay what they must for gas and fuel to whomever sells it. They know little and care less about this part of the world.

U.S. interests, the real ones that animate and drive policy, are those of the constituencies that have the greatest influence: the corporations and financial institutions that have huge resources and the most to gain or lose from the Middle Eastern political environment. This doesn’t mean that oil companies write foreign policy. There is also a huge government (including the military) and academic bureaucracy that attempts to translate the interests of a variety of mostly private (but very powerful) institutions into long-range goals, short-term plans and day-to-day administration. There are the media conglomerates, pundits and celebrities, interlocked with the rest of the private sector and the state, whose job it is to explain U.S. policy and why it warrants popular support, or in the alternative to set the limits of rational and responsible dissent.

These various institutions sometimes have different constituencies to worry about and sometimes their interests diverge. But the paramount importance of strategic and economic control over the fossil fuels and the direction of the financial benefits they create never strays too far from their minds. The primary goals are guaranteed access (preferably to the point of control), political stability and the ability of the private sector to gain financially. On the whole, the system has been a spectacular success for “U.S. interests,” less so for ordinary Americans and the people of the Middle East, the last of which are virtually irrelevant to the system except as an irritant to be marginalized.

In a nutshell, the U.S. courted Saddam to help fill the void after the demise of the Shah. This relationship continued after the Iraq-Iran war, right up until the invasion of Kuwait, when U.S. aid for Iraq was still in the pipeline. This is revealed to some extent by examining the difficulty the first Bush administration had in deciding whether to even oppose Saddam’s invasion. It could have gone the war like the 1975 Indonesian invasion of Timor, a virtually identical invasion armed and supported by the U.S. with virtual silence in the mainstream media. In the end it was decided that Kuwait was too big a prize to give to a local power, so Saddam had to withdraw. When he failed to obey orders immediately, he could no longer be entrusted with Iraq.

From that point it was just a question of time and opportunity. Bush and subsequent administrations faced the political problem of how to replace Saddam. There was little domestic or regional support for outright conquest and occupation. None of the local actors were deemed suitable. So the policy was to demonstrate our wrath by torturing Iraq with sanctions, to weaken Saddam’s military potential, and wait.

Between the demise and UNMOVIC and 9/11, there was very little discussion about the “grave and growing threat” posed by Saddam’s remaining WMD, if any, or his support for Palestinian terrorism (which peaked in the 1980's). The day 9/11 hit, however, Perle, then chairman of the Bush’s Defense Advisory Board, was on TV trying to blame Iraq. Wolfowitz announced (to Powell’s consternation) that the government of Iraq had to be eliminated. Within months, Bush greenlighted the U.S. takeover of Iraq, almost certainly as a result of popular hysteria and hostility after 9/11. It was a simple matter to connect Saddam’s WMD program to “Arab terrorism,” and the media took the ball and ran with it.

9/11 created a situation which previously hadn’t existed: the ability to manufacture consent for the unilateral invasion and occupation of Iraq. Regardless of the risks, it was not an opportunity that many White House occupants could have resisted, certainly not this one.

[Utah]

Thanks Chris. I appreciate you taking the time to respond.

Some of what you say is certainly true and some of it I strongly oppose. However, I still dont see it tied all together based on your premises.

See, a theory like this makes sense - "We got attacked. We were scared Sh$%less. We attacked a known enemy without doing the proper due diligence or without regards to human life outside the U.S. (I am not stipulating to this) as we saw them as a threat and we saw an opportunity to achieve other stategic goals."

Whether I agree with this statement or not, I can at least follow the logic. With your agrument I cannot.

I thought this line in your argument was the most interesting and telling, "9/11 created a situation which previously hadn’t existed: the ability to manufacture consent for the unilateral invasion and occupation of Iraq"

I think this statement wholly ignores the reality of 9/11 - we got attacked and slaughtered. Worse, we lost our feeling of security as a nation. (something we still do not have back). The people of the U.S. were traumitized, grief stricken, and terrorized beyond belief. Our leaders were traumitized, grief stricken, and terrorized beyond belief. The republicans were traumitized, grief stricken, and terrorized beyond belief. Many are still today. I just dont understand how you dismiss this in relation to foreign policy, other to say that it gave the U.S. a context.

In summary, I dont think you make the strong logical case that ties it all together. Maybe (or most certainly) we are working from a different set of assumptions. I start with:

The Bush government care greatly about national security and the fight on terrorists is their number one concern. While of course staying in power is just as important, this only makes the fight on terorrism more important as to prevent or allow terrorist attacks has a huge impact on the election.

It just doesnt square that Bush would fight the war on terror and then divert that war to attack an enemy that was zero threat to the U.S. because the right wanted it and because there were other strategic interests in the region.

[andyfox]

My sense is that looking for one explanation as to why we went to war is wrong. There were a lot of things that went into it. I think the Bush people think they did the right thing. For the good of the country. I think they think it's also good for business (sometimes their own) because they think that's good for the country too. I think they saw a situation where we are the only superpower and we were attacked by a somewhat nameless, facelss enemy and we needed to kick some asses. I think you are correct in that 9/11 scared them immensely. I also think they have used 9/11 for a policy they would have liked to have gone forward with anyway. I think they had it in for Hussein; many of them had been calling for his removal for years; many had felt Bush's father should have finished him off the first time; Bush felt a personal responsibility, either consciously or sub- or unconsciously to avenge the attempted assassination of his father and to finish off his father's unfinished work. I think a lot of the people now in power (Cheney; Rice; Rumsfeld; Wolfowitz; and Bush himself) and a lot of the people they listen to have an imperial view of the world. I think they all felt they could win the war easily. I think they felt Hussein was a bad guy, he must have been up to no good, either in support of Al Qaeda, or in "reconstituting" their WMDs. And I think many of them, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice in particular, see the world in black and white.

[Chris Alger]

The presence of a politically hostile regime in Iraq also threatened U.S. relations with other weak regimes. For the U.S. to be a true superpower, it occasionally has to demonstrate its willingness and ability to use that power, including the application of mass violence, to retain the upper hand. As beltway neocon Michael Ledeen put it, "every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business." Tom Friedman recently said the same thing -- 9/11 created a need for the U.S. needed to strike at the "heart" of the Arab world, essentially to remind everyone that it could. This is generally acknowledged, although with buzzwords like "strengthening America's credibility."

Every hegemonic power through history has at least occasionally relied on the demonstration effect of state terror. We're no different in this regard, but of our unique history and political system requires that we code it with euphemism or simply insist otherwise, as in the rhetoric about the U.S. being solely motivated by "national defense" and otherwise wanting to be "left alone."

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
"We got attacked. We were scared Sh$%less. We attacked a known enemy without doing the proper due diligence or without regards to human life outside the U.S. (I am not stipulating to this) as we saw them as a threat and we saw an opportunity to achieve other stategic goals."


[/ QUOTE ]
I realize you're not stipulating to this, but I believe the better theory is that 9/11 was so shocking and brutal that the outrage and hysteria it generated allowed U.S. officials to implement policies they favored but had formerly been impossible due to lack of poltical support. There's a long list of dormant prerogatives that the public otherwise wouldn't have supported: larger military budgets, expanded domestic police and surveillance powers, war and occupation of Afghanistan, war and occupation of Iraq, civil service reform, an expanded military presence in Central Asia. Everyone tried to exploit 9/11: Israel fans, multiculturalists, anti-tax crusdaers, anti-drug crusaders, internet gambling opponents, and on and on, all trying to jump on the 9/11 and "war against terror" bandwagon. Of course, the greatest ability to harness public sentiment behind policy resided in the White House.

The point is that many of these policies had nothing to do with 9/11 or its perpetrators, or even terrorism or national security, but that the forces that previously prevented them from being implemented either vanished or were marginalized in the wake of 9/11.

Perhaps a better way of looknig at it isn't so much the cynical exploitation of public fear, but the realpolitik recognition of new opportunties that could either be exploited or squandered. U.S. officials and propagandists are masters at the former and wouldn't have the jobs they do if they had the slightest inclination to do the latter. They all have to compete, after all, with unbelievably ambitious people waiting in the wings.

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
The Bush government care greatly about national security and the fight on terrorists is their number one concern. While of course staying in power is just as important, this only makes the fight on terorrism more important as to prevent or allow terrorist attacks has a huge impact on the election.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you believe that the time, money, people etc spent on the Iraq effort have helped in the war on terror?

Note even yesterday one of the generals commented that Al Qaeda now has cells that they are building in Iraq. Where there was no connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda prior to the war.

[Utah]

Do you believe that the time, money, people etc spent on the Iraq effort have helped in the war on terror?

First, thats not the question being addressed. The question being addressed is whether the Bush administration thought it would help. I asked Chris to explain why would Bush and Co. attacked Iraq if they knew WMDs didnt exist and that Iraq did not pose a threat.

Second - Yes, I believe it has helped greatly in the war against terrorists and terrorist regimes for two main reasons. One, it has put the enemy (Iran, Syria, N. Korea) on notice that the U.S. will put boot to ass if they get out of line. I believe this has greatly enhanced our bargianing position with the enemy and I have explianed this in terms of game theory several times in the past.

Second, Iraq is a major strategic position relative to deangerous regimes and it a key stronghold in a nasty part of the world.

Even if Iraq was a mere helpless pawn in the war and the elimination of Saddam and the Baathists in itself did nothing to improve our safety, the war upon itself did. I think it is simply to simplistic to think of the campaign in terms of Iraq alone. btw - I think that Iraqi's have been liberated and the war has done far more good for them than bad.