Powell admits to misleading the public about Iraq-Al Qaeda

[Gamblor]

.S. run governments do not have a good human rights record.

The US is a democracy in which each citizen is entitled to vote as he or she chooses, as well as dissent from the elected government's policy. By virtue of this fact alone, the US's government is an extension of its inhabitants. So either condemn yourself, or realize that by virtue of this fact alone the United States, as a nation, has moral superiority in all actions, in that it is the result of the aggregate choice of its citizens.

[MMMMMM]

"...A decision was made to go to war and get rid of Hussein. There would be less discussion now had the evidence for Hussein's brutality been presented to us, rather than the less the credible evidence for the existence of WMDs, Hussein's intention to use them, and the purported connection with 9-11. Again, this is something Mr. Alger pointed up in this forum long ago."

The evidence of Hussein's brutality WAS presented. Almost everyone knew of this and had a rough idea of the scope as well.

andy, what does it say about the ability of certain persons to reason and to keep in mind the entire picture, when: these persons would have supported the war for humanitarian reasons alone (of which they knew), but ended up opposing the war because they were unsure whether other pro-war arguments were also valid? Even if NO other pro-war arguments were justified cause for war, and ONLY the humanitarian argument justified the war, the fact that other pro-war arguments were raised should not have detracted from the commitment to war of those who would have favored the war solely on humanitarian grounds. Not, I guess, unless they had so little powers of concentration and focus that they could not keep the entire picture in mind at once. It isn't that darn complicated once one acknowledges that humanitarian reasons justified the war. And the humanitarian argumentr was made loud and clear.

[Gamblor]

the existence of WMDs, Hussein's intention to use them, and the purported connection with 9-11. Again, this is something Mr. Alger pointed up in this forum long ago.

So you're prepared to take the risk?

You're a poker player, wise up:

Suppose that pre-War, Bush estimated the likelihood of Hussein having, and eventually using WMDs, and collaboration with Al Qaeda at 10%.

Is it worth the risk - how about if your child was working in the WTC on 9/11?

[Chris Alger]

I get these emails from the State Dept. and received the full text of the press conference this morning (I didn't have it when I posted and relied on the Times article and the State Dept.'s version of Powell's UN address). Here's the full Q &amp; A about Al Qaeda: <ul type="square"> QUESTION: On the subject of weapons of mass destruction, Mr. Secretary, one of the other conclusions of that [Carnegie Endowment] report was that there was no evidence of a connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida and that there was no evidence of a likelihood that he would transfer weapons to al-Qaida.

What do you think about that, looking back? And I know that, you know, hindsight is 20/20, but to think back --

SECRETARY POWELL: My presen --

QUESTION: Do you think that there were ways other than war to have handled this threat and that the -- that it was not an imminent threat to the United States?

SECRETARY POWELL: My presentation on the 5th of February when I talked to this issue made it clear that we had seen some links and connections to terrorist organizations over time, and I focused on one particular case, Zawahiri, and I think that was a pretty solid case.

There is not -- you know, I have not seen smoking-gun, concrete evidence about the connection, but I think the possibility of such connections did exist and it was prudent to consider them at the time that we did.

Were there other ways to solve this problem? I think the President gave the international community every opportunity to solve this problem another way.

The international community gave the Iraqis 12 years to solve this problem any other way.

The President took the case to the international community and said: For 12 years, you have been defied. What are you going to do now? It's time for us to act.

And the President, after a reasonable period of time -- inspectors were still being thwarted, we got an incorrect, ridiculous declaration from the Iraqi Government in response to Resolution 1441 -- and after waiting a sufficient period of time, the President decided he had to act because he believed that whatever the size of the stockpile, whatever one might think about it, he believed that the region was in danger, America was in danger, and he would act and he did act.

And he acted with a large number of countries who felt likewise, and he acted under the authority that we were absolutely sure we had because we negotiated it that way in UN Resolution 1441.[/list][ QUOTE ]
The main arguments was that Saddam did not live up to the U.N.resolutions and did not provide the neccessary documentation as to what happened to the weapons that were known to exist. Is was fully in Saddams control to stop the invasion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whether or not they were the "main" arguments they are extremely bad ones. First, in the absence of any immediate threat posed by Iraq that could not be resolved through diplomacy, the war was fundamentally as wrong and immoral as Germany's invasion of Poland or Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.

Second, nothing in UNSCR 1441 (or any of the prior resolutions during the "12 years" of U.S. patience that Powell proclaims) authorized the U.S. to take unilateral action. 1441 provided that the Security Council <ul type="square"> Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above [material omissions or obstruction with inspectors], in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security; [and] Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations."[/list]Third, history proves that the U.S. could care less about the violation of Security Council resolutions when its own interests are furthered thereby, illustrated by Israel's unenforced violations of at least 26 UNSC Resolutions (in addition to well over 50 GA resolutions) over the last 30 years. A major reason why they remain unenforced is that proposals to enforce them are routinely vetoed by the U.S., acting alone.

Fourth, although Iraq's WMD from before the 1990's -- the ones the U.S. claimed that Iraq failed to prove were destroyed -- apparently were indeed destroyed, there aren't necessarily documents proving this. For one, many WMD's were secretly destroyed in order to prevent their discovery by the UN, which would make the absence of a paper trail plausible. For another, the "unaccounted for" WMD's didn't necessarily exist in the first place. As Blix's reports noted, Iraqi documents contradicted one another regarding the quantities of particular materiel. The Bush administration contended that any document referring to a larger quantity was necessarily the correct one. Yet the UN inspectors remained unconvinced that the WMD's that Iraq failed to account for ever existed.

[ QUOTE ]
Additionally, the world was pretty much united that the weapons were there. I do not recall arguments from any govenment before the war saying the weapons did not exist.

[/ QUOTE ]
"The world" was never united on the question of whether WMD's existed immediately prior to the U.S. invasion. The only general agreeement was that (1) Iraq possessed large quantities of CBW's and an active nuclear program in 1990; and (2) the nuclear program was shut down and the vast majority of Iraqi CBW's were destroyed under UN auspices, and estimated 90-95% according to former UNMOVIC inspector Scott Ritter. Although the administration endlessly trumpted the first point, it typically neglected to point out how the second made it largely irrelevant. Just prior to the American invasion, most governments and informed observers concluded that the U.S. failed to make a good case that Iraq posed any quantities of WMD's, much less quantities sufficient to pose a threat. This was, for example, the conclusions of those with the best first-hand and most recent information, including access to U.S. intelligence: the UN inspectors. AS Blix told CNN in June of 2003: "The commission has not at any time during the inspections in Iraq found evidence of the continuation or resumption of programs of weapons of mass destruction or significant quantities of proscribed items, whether from pre-1991 or later."

[ QUOTE ]
I still do not understand you absolute hate for the U.S. How can you possibly compare the former Iraqi dictatorship to a US run government? What do you prefer and what is your proposal?

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't hate the U.S. any more than Southerners who opposed slavery necessarily hated the South. I certainly don't hate it as much as the use of euphamism to whitewash reality: a dictatorship does not cease from being one just because it's run by the U.S. The U.S. exercises power in Iraq from by force of arms. It has not allowed elections and has even cancelled those where the likely winner will be hostile to U.S. interests. It's current plan for "transferring power to Iraqi's" prohibits nationwide elections to determine the country's leader. It is currently demanding that the Kurds surrender the degree of autonomy they enjoyed prior to the war. There is utterly no reason to assume that the U.S. in Iraq will depart from its usual pattern of trying to influence events in weaker countries to further it's own interests regardless of what the population of those countries prefer, even if it means another Saddam, or worse.

My preference would be for the U.S. to pay reparations for the cost to Iraq for supporting Saddam, for helping to enforce sanctions that harmed Iraqis more than Saddam, and for it to unilaterally surrender authority over Iraq to the UN or even the Arab League. If the U.S. insists on retaining control over Iraq, I would like to see it renounce it's former support for Saddam and to at least make concrete, enforceable pledges that it will never again provide aid or support to any Iraqi leader who is culpable of war crimes and crimes against humanity. I recognize that none of this is any more realistic than similar demands made of other successful conquorers, such as those mentioned above, on the dawn of their victories.

[ QUOTE ]
Your "8,000 dead" analysis is a false one. You have to compare to a baseline of dead and maybe factor is quality of life as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dead is dead. You don't mitigate the crime of murder on the grounds that the victims lead miserable lives. Your point would be better taken in rebuttal to the grandiose claims of how life in Iraq has improved after the war. Many of these claims are accurrate, yet they often fail to account for the effect of sanctions being lifted and all the aid that's flowing in, rather than the war and U.S. dictatorship.

[ QUOTE ]
For some reason, you don't seem to realize that Iraq was an endless killing field filled with torture and terror before the U.S. invasion.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not quite. If you look at the State Department's list of Saddam's war crimes, you'll find that they chonologically stop with the brutal campaign against the Marsh Arabs in the early to mid- 1990's, following their attempted uprising in 1991. After that, the U.S. allegations refer to "possible crimes against humanity for killings, ostensibly against political opponents, within Iraq." These no doubt occurred, and hundreds and maybe even thousands of Iraqis were tortured or killed illegally in the latter 1990's. But the notion of ongoing mass murder, a human rights crisis like Cambodia's, Rwanda's or Indonesia's (none of which, you'll note, led to U.S. intervention to protect victims) is a propaganda myth. Try finding, for example, good statistics proving that the number of people Saddam killed in the five or so years prior to the invasion exceeded the number of people killed by the invasion.

During the last few years Saddam was probably as bad as Pinochet or Suharto during their last years. Which is pretty bad, but nobody argued for the need to "liberate" Chile or Indonesia by a U.S. invasion. Indeed, the U.S. didn't even back sanctions against these countries, a strong indicator of how much the U.S. cares about human rights. When the invasion occurred, Saddam's prisons were largely empty.

Further, if you were even slightly concerned about Saddam's war crimes, you'd show some concern for U.S. complicity in them. The U.S. supported Saddam in his early years and renewed its ties with him after many of the worst of his crimes became apparent, to the point of providing vital military assistance to keep his regime in power during and after the Iranian war. Some of the people who were instrumental in this effort, such as Donald Rumsfeld, not only remain at large but are influencing the future government of Iraq. Your failure to condemn these actors, many of which you can influence more strongly than the Baathists who remain at large, is as hypocritical as your assumption that they intend to bring "good government" to Iraq is absurd, given the history.

[Gamblor]

Third, history proves that the U.S. could care less about the violation of Security Council resolutions when its own interests are furthered thereby, illustrated by Israel's unenforced violations of at least 26 UNSC Resolutions (in addition to well over 50 GA resolutions) over the last 30 years. A major reason why they remain unenforced is that proposals to enforce them are routinely vetoed by the U.S., acting alone.

The UN has long since been hijacked by Arab interests -
Nearly two-thirds of all General Assembly and Security Council resolutions passed since the UN's birth in 1945 have been directed against Israel. Likewise, Israel is the only UN member nation that is not allowed to hold a seat on the Security Council.

Was there no time for Suharto, Milosevic, the IRA, FARC, or the Russians in their dealings with Chechens? How about the Basques?

And Israeli attempts to pass a resolution condemning acts of terror on Israeli children?

Rejected out of hand by the Arab contingent.

Shows how much the UN is worth.

[adios]

I couldn't agree with you more. Alger often brings up this garbage about Israel and the UN but never in the light that you just presented it in. The US ought to withdraw from the UN ASAP. It's a flawed model and flawed organization.

[andyfox]

By U.S. run governments, I did not mean the U.S. government. I meant governments installed at our behest. Human rights have never been a prime consideration in this process, witness our support for many tyrannical regimes because they were "our bastards."

The belief that we are morally superior to other countries has been a prime reason for our missteps in the world.

[adios]

'By U.S. run governments, I did not mean the U.S. government. I meant governments installed at our behest."

I suppose you consider Iraq an example of this. If and when the Iraqis form another government would you say be saying the same thing about Iraq?

"Human rights have never been a prime consideration in this process, witness our support for many tyrannical regimes because they were "our bastards." "

Cold war policy that was wrong probably.

"The belief that we are morally superior to other countries has been a prime reason for our missteps in the world. "

Don't agree at all. I believe it was due to erroneous beliefs about the nature of communism and the cold war.

[andyfox]

You're missing my point, sir. Let me see if I can explain it better.

Perhaps we should have taken the risk, and perhaps we should not have. My point is that the evidence on which we should make that decision should be truthfully presented and honestly analyzed. We should not be told one thing before going to war and another after. And the evidence should not be interpreted to support a preordained conclusion.

Had I a child killed on 9/11 I would want my government to do the right thing based on the evidence they had and to be truthful to me about it. I felt the administration took its time to establish the responsibility of Al Qaeda for the attacks. And that it was correct in its assessment that Al Qaeda was being harbored by the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. That's why I agreed with the attack on Afghanistan.

The President himself said that Iraq was not an imminent threat, but that he didn't want to wait until it became one. The evidence presented to show why it would become one was tainted.

[Gamblor]

Fair enough. You are correct.

Perhaps he chose the most opportune time - i.e. least impact on the economy, he thought the timing would best serve his re-election bid. Who knows.

But the war was a necessity, now or later.