WMDs and Bush - Lie or mistake?

[ QUOTE ]


I think that there is a very large chance that you've experienced some cognative dissonance on this issue. And I also believe that if there was any actual evidence of this whatsoever it would be part of every Bush speech and every McClellan press gaggle.



[/ QUOTE ]

When using phraseology such as "cognitive dissonance," one should at least know the correct spelling, lest others doubt the intelligence of the aforementioned user.

[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

p.s.
"gaggle" - cute

[andyfox]

As I said, I think the humanitarian case is one that could have been made to support the war. But not by our guys. The reasons they gave for getting rid of Hussein never said anything about the people of Iraq. The open letter to President Clinton of January 26, 1998, signed by Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz (among others) said nothing about the people of Iraq.

James Woolsey signed that letter. After 9/11, he said Iraq should be the target, "no matter who should be responsible" for the attacks. On September 15, Wolfowitz presented the argumment that the United States should attack Saddam Hussein, not Afghanistan.

While Hussein may well have obfuscated, his obfuscations and "spin" didn't hold a candle to ours. Richard Perle, who also signed the 1998 letter, said on behalf of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board that should the United States fail to get rid of Hussein, "it will open the floodgates to terror against us." The president told an audience in the Rose Garden in September 2002, "the danger to our country is grave." Although Iraq had just accepted the unconditional return of inspectors, whose aim was to account for weapons as yet undiscovered, Bush somehow already knew that "the Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons. . . The Iraqi regaime is building facilities necesary to make more biological and chemical weapons. . . The regime is seeking a nuclear bomb." A month later he said, "The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program," and "it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year." The president told journalists in the Rose Garden that "according to the British government, the Iraqi regime could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given." This was based on a British dossier which was lifted from a ten-year-old article in Middle East Review of International Affairs and two articles in Jane's Intelligence Review (including spelling mistakes!). The plagiarized ten-year-old evidence received a facelift in London, the language modifed by the Downing Street team to heighten the drama.

We utilized a "bit of spin" to go to war against a country that did not attack us on September 11; that did not intercept our planes (as did North Korea); that did not finance Al-Qaeda (as did Saudi Arabia); that was not home to Osama bin Laden's lieutenants (as was Pakistan); and was not a host body for terrorists (as were Iran and Syria).

And then, if this was not shameful enough, we refused to plan for the occupation, despite having all the information we needed to know about the perils of disbanding the army, the potential for looting, the probability of an insurgency, etc.

The reason the administration did not play up the humanitarian argument was because they didn't care about it. They only used it after its other arguments were questioned. There's no outcry from the administration, nor has there ever been, about widesprad torture, severe
restrictions on the media, arbitrary imprisonment of citizens, harassment and incarceration of opposition leaders, closure of opposition newspapers, and elections that are neither free nor fair when they take place in Uzbekistan or Kyrgyzstan. There's no case made for human dignity or freedom where the widespread use of forced child-labor camps in Myanmar or the Bhutanese government's atrocities involving village raids, gang rapes, torture and forced eviction against its southern Nepali-speaking population is concerned. There's no mention of a great moral cause or even a great strategic goal concerning the infamously despotic regime of Equatorial Guinea or the President of Turkmenistan, who granted himself presidency for life in a country known for its arbitrary imprisonment and torture of its citizens.

[andyfox]

"I thought the administration's line was that of precluding the advent of imminent danger, not that it was already upon us."

President Bush, September 2002: "The danger to our contry is grave." "The Iraqi regime could launch a biological or chemical atack in as ltttle as 45 minutes after the order is given."

I consider 45 minutes imminent.

"Andy seems immensely concerned with the propriety of our own conduct, whereas I feel the plight of the brutalized and tyrannized should take precedence in evaluating things."

I feel that way too. I wish our administration did. They don't. And yes, I'm concerned about propriety when the well-being of 200,000 of our boys are jeopardized for a policy based on "spin."

[MMMMMM]

Andy,

You are more concerned than I that we always act in the most impeccable manner possible.

Getting rid of Saddam was in my view a good and moral undertaking on every count, even if we went about it less than ideal propriety:

1) depose a brutal tyrant; give potentrial hope to the Iraqi people for the first time in decades

2) hopefully initiate and spread democracy in the Middle East

3) preempt any possibility of Saddam at later date supplying WMD to terrorists, or threatening his neighbors

4) whether or not he actually had WMD at the moment was largely irrelevant in my opinion: he had had them previously; he greatly desired and eventually would have acquired them again; he was our mortal enemy. Good enough reason right there to take him out.

5) he financially supported suicide bombers attacking Israel; he routinely fired on our aircraft patrolling the no-fly zone; he was intransigent as hell and extremely disinclined to honor the terms of the cease-fire which he signed

5) We need a major military outpost in the region from which to be able to counter Iran, and from which to have the option of exerting pressure on all manner of terrorist groups and their state supporting actors

6) We need a major military outpost in the region to be able to ensure the free passage of oil to world markets

7) We also need that same outpost in case we have to take out Iran's accelerating nuclear program before it reaches the point of no return

You seem SOOOOOO concerned that we act as perfect, as well as perfectly honorable, gentlemen, when dealing with bloodthirsty tyrants. I don't share your degree of concern because I think that the other matters--and our potential security concerns--weigh FAR more heavily.

Also, you seem to couch the humanitarian or liberating element only by comparing it to our endeavors )or lack thereof) regarding other worthy targets of intervention. But we have quite limited resources, and directing humanitarian aid primarily where it also serves our interests achieves a double-purpose and thus reduces effective cost in the long run.

All in all, I think you sort of are trying to apply your own standards of how you would deal with others in your own personal life or business, to national/international matters. Sadly, it just doesn't work that way, though. Moreover, I think that the big considerations as enumerated above simply dwarf any justifiable rebukes regarding our improprieties.

The most important thing is the Iraqi people now have a chance at freedom and self-determination, after decades of terror and brutality imposed upon them. In my opinion, that alone is worth more than all of your objections combined. The fact that we did not "sell" the war primarily on that basis DOES NOT detract one whit from the actual potential benefit to the Iraqi people. The fact that the welfare of the Iraqi people was somewhere well down the list of our objectives, is entirely IRRELEVANT to the Iraqis themselves who stand to benefit so greatly (hopefully, that is) from being freed from a Stalinist-style tyranny and by having the chance at genuine self-determination and freedom. Why the hell does it matter, humanitarian-speak-wise, what our goals are or were, if the Iraqis achieve such a chance for once? Even were our primary goals only to carry off 20 tons of secret mithril desert sands, the fact of their liberation dwarfs the importance our motivations, from THEIR perspective. And that's by far the most important perspective to be talked about, when disussing the humanitarian aspect in this case.

I realy think you are somewhat missing the forest for the trees, with your over-concern about the propriety and peccability of our conduct, because those are just NOT the most important concerns in this whole complex scenario, either from a humanitarian standpoint or from a security standpoint. Yes, it's nice to be perfect, and yes, we can always do better; but international affairs very seldom are perfect, and for good reason: the scale is too large and the matters too complex.

I do have some criticisms of the war, and of the "spin" employed, and of some other things; but overall I believe the war was an excellent cause, and that those concerns are relatively minor details against the much greater strategic and humanitarian backdrops.

[MMMMMM]

I recall things otherwise regarding the "imminent" aspect of the selling of the war; are you sure those quotes are not out of context slightly? At any rate I seem to recall that think there were more numerous quotes indicating a "grave" and "growing" danger rather than an "imminent" one.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Andy seems immensely concerned with the propriety of our own conduct, whereas I feel the plight of the brutalized and tyrannized should take precedence in evaluating things."


[/ QUOTE ]

I feel that way too. I wish our administration did. They don't. And yes, I'm concerned about propriety when the well-being of 200,000 of our boys are jeopardized for a policy based on "spin."

[/ QUOTE ]

Incomplete; just because there was some spin does not imply that there were not also valid reasons to go to war. See my other response for a more detailed listing of such reasons.

[Cyrus]

What a title, huh? [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
I would have had far less trouble with the decision to depose Saddam had the rationale simply been put in moral terms: "He's a bad guy, and we have the moral obligation to end the suffering of the Iraqi people." Of course, you see why we can't use this sort of language.

[/ QUOTE ]

The reason that such a reasoning cannot be accepted* is that we would end up in situations where at all times, for action X, the public should accept reason A, without contest and as given by the government, while the real reason would be B.

But this would be accepting 1984 as our permanent date.





* It cannot be accepted theoretically, because this is what happens most of the time, actually. This is why "we cannot be using that kind of language", i.e. we cannot be invoking the plain truth. "We" being our government.

[twowords]

[ QUOTE ]
Getting rid of Saddam was in my view a good and moral undertaking on every count, even if we went about it less than ideal propriety:

1) depose a brutal tyrant; give potentrial hope to the Iraqi people for the first time in decades

2) hopefully initiate and spread democracy in the Middle East

3) preempt any possibility of Saddam at later date supplying WMD to terrorists, or threatening his neighbors

4) whether or not he actually had WMD at the moment was largely irrelevant in my opinion: he had had them previously; he greatly desired and eventually would have acquired them again; he was our mortal enemy. Good enough reason right there to take him out.

5) he financially supported suicide bombers attacking Israel; he routinely fired on our aircraft patrolling the no-fly zone; he was intransigent as hell and extremely disinclined to honor the terms of the cease-fire which he signed

5) We need a major military outpost in the region from which to be able to counter Iran, and from which to have the option of exerting pressure on all manner of terrorist groups and their state supporting actors

6) We need a major military outpost in the region to be able to ensure the free passage of oil to world markets

7) We also need that same outpost in case we have to take out Iran's accelerating nuclear program before it reaches the point of no return


[/ QUOTE ]

Your utilitarian reasons are not "good enough" for me to go to war or ask other Americans to do so in my place. The argument that these various potential benefits will outweight the tremendous costs is not good enough, and current trends suggest that they will not outweight them in any case.

If our best and brightest plotted scenarios of the Middle East and found that it was a strategic necessity to establish a US permenant base for the various reasons that you cited, I would like to see them. You might save yourself the trouble though. Instead of you'll find the first-term Bush State Department experts marginalized and often ignored, with the ideological and incompetent Rumsfeld and Wolfie in charge of our foreign policy.

The point remains that Bush et al. decided to take Iraq, then worked out the justifications and spun the evidence to make it possible. The thread at least seems to have agreed that WMD was the given primary reason, but not the true primary reason. "Lies" does not really apply, but the willing deception and insincerity cannot be denied. Our troops were intentionally deceived.

Of course, taking a country to war under manufactured pretexts is pretty standard throughout history. But Vietnam was supposed to be the last time for us; it was a lesson we should never have forgetten. Now, we've turned back the clock, and so much for the ideals of democracy and American exceptionalism.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Getting rid of Saddam was in my view a good and moral undertaking on every count, even if we went about it less than ideal propriety:

1) depose a brutal tyrant; give potentrial hope to the Iraqi people for the first time in decades

2) hopefully initiate and spread democracy in the Middle East

3) preempt any possibility of Saddam at later date supplying WMD to terrorists, or threatening his neighbors

4) whether or not he actually had WMD at the moment was largely irrelevant in my opinion: he had had them previously; he greatly desired and eventually would have acquired them again; he was our mortal enemy. Good enough reason right there to take him out.

5) he financially supported suicide bombers attacking Israel; he routinely fired on our aircraft patrolling the no-fly zone; he was intransigent as hell and extremely disinclined to honor the terms of the cease-fire which he signed

5) We need a major military outpost in the region from which to be able to counter Iran, and from which to have the option of exerting pressure on all manner of terrorist groups and their state supporting actors

6) We need a major military outpost in the region to be able to ensure the free passage of oil to world markets

7) We also need that same outpost in case we have to take out Iran's accelerating nuclear program before it reaches the point of no return

[/ QUOTE ]




Your utilitarian reasons are not "good enough" for me to go to war or ask other Americans to do so in my place.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. We'll never agree on this, then. I personally think that attempting to relieve a country from brutal totalitarian tyranny and slaughter is a very good reason to contemplate war. I take it you must have been against the military intervention in Kosovo and the region, then, under Clinton?

I also think our potential future security concerns are very important indeed. You must weight the security-related points I listed as being of far less importance or seriousness than I do.

[ QUOTE ]
The argument that these various potential benefits will outweight the tremendous costs is not good enough, and current trends suggest that they will not outweight them in any case.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you must have weighted the cost/benefit ratio differently than I did, prior to the war. My own assessment of that ratio has changed somewhat since the war, and I can see things we should have done differently. Hindsight is always superior.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
We've probably been over this before, but I would have had far less trouble with the decision to depose Saddam had the rationale simply been put in moral terms: "He's a bad guy, and we have the moral obligation to end the suffering of the Iraqi people."

[/ QUOTE ]

I think one can well criticize the administrations selling of the war, but for me that is different than criticizing the act of going to war itself. If the reason you list is valid, it is not made more or less valid by the administration's emphasis of selling points or lack thereof.

[ QUOTE ]
Of course, you see why we can't use this sort of language.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suggest the following for consideration: that all free countries in the world should join together for a common purpose, use exactly such language, and jointly depose every dictator and totalitarian regime on the face of the Earth in sequential fashion; replacing them all with democratic-style constitutional republics. Of course, the handwriting on the wall after the first half-dozen or so, would probably provide greater impetus to reform in countries where there are already reform movements which presently lack sufficient strength to carry out their objectives.

[andyfox]

"You are more concerned than I that we always act in the most impeccable manner possible."

That's an inexact description of my position. I am, apparently, more concerned than you that we tell the truth when we're talking about invading a country with 200,000 troops and plan to occugy it for several years. I am concerned that the whole enterprise isn't based on a sham.

That's a big issue to me. Much bigger than, say, when the prsident and Hary Reid say Ms. Miers will make a wonderful Supreme Court justice. There they're probably "spinning" since she hasn't been a judge heretofore.

I don't see how the invasion can be considered a moral undertaking when the undertakers (no pun intended) were neither truthful with their explanation about why we did it, nor careful with American lives in the execution (no pun intended).

I don't ask for perfection. I ask for candor and diligence. We got neither.

As for the forest, it's a mess. Our curent military policy seems to be having our boy drive up and down the streets of the cities until they'r shot at. The election which was held yesterday is ridiculous. The draft constitution will only be rejected if more than 2/3 of the voters reject it in three out of four regions. And the insurgency is killing far more Iraqis than Americans. We could have planned for such an insurgency but rejected planning in favor of Rumsfeld's "stuff happens."

It's a disgrace. The people of Iraq deserve better, as do our boys.