# "A War We Just Might Win" **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 31, 2007, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-war-we-just-might-win/413749 "2007-07-31T00:32:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 16
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2007, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-war-we-just-might-win/413749/301 "2007-08-12T18:22:53Z")
[http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/08/12/ohanlon/index.html](http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/08/12/ohanlon/index.html) An inteview by Glenn Greenwald with Michael O’Hanlon, wherein Mr. O’Hanlon has the decency to admit that characterizations of himself as a “vocal critic of the war” are utter and complete bullshit. [QUOTE=Mr. O’Hanlon] …And in fact I would not even use that characterization of myself, as I will elaborate in a moment… [/QUOTE] Which he does. He also goes on to describe the circumstances of his trip, and how each and every contact was arranged and controlled by the Dept. of Defense. If you are interested in seeing this bit of horseshit thoroughly debunked straight from the horse’s, ah, “mouth”…go to this interview. ( **Sam? Sam?** Go read the interview, **Sam** …) ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2007, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-war-we-just-might-win/413749/302 "2007-08-12T19:12:19Z")
Response to **elucidator** ’s [link to the O’Hanlon interview](http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/08/12/ohanlon/index.html): I understand that Pollack has a similar level of decency and intellectual honesty. [QUOTE=marshmallow] It shouldn’t have been much of a surprise. Even Powell and Rice admitted Iraq had no WMD circa the summer of 2001. Failing that, you could’ve listened to the testimony of Ritter and other UN inspectors and weapon experts who pleaded for sanity in the run up to war. Or the foreign press, who were quite knowledgeable and confused as to why the U.S. was acting the way it was. Or…well, basically anything except the U.S. mass media propaganda. [/QUOTE] I need a cite if you are claiming that Powell and Rice claimed in 2001 that Iraq had no WMDs. (_Later_, after the invasion, they presumably have confirmed that, but we’re talking about pre-war public information here.) Ritter, Hans Blik, foreign press: Been there, done that. Actually, I did _better_ than that by posting my opinions on this board, thus exposing my take on hundreds of extra eyeballs. _Rough_ drafts of some of my posts are sometimes saved to my hard drive. Let’s turn back the clock. (The actual post probably differed somewhat, but I’d rather not deal with the board’s wonky search engine): > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by MfM on 31 Jan 2003 :smack: \* > > **errata** : “Yet hasn’t he shown far less military action since being contained?” > > I think you’re missing the point. 1) Saddam continued to make military maneuvers during the 1990s, which were effectively countered with the use of US military forces and some adept diplomacy with the Syrians. Oh, and sorry, massing 80,000 troops near the border of a country that you recently invaded (as Saddam did in October 1994), is not a mere “troop movement”. Rather, it appears that he figured that he could occupy Kuwait and that the US would be too pre-occupied with Haiti, Bosnia, etc. to counter his move. Wrong again, Saddam. > > 1. Nonetheless, as long as Saddam is using conventional weapons, he’s in a box. > > 2. But once he acquires a nuke, all bets are off. There are also biological and chemical weapons to consider. > > **errata** : " This part is still pretty shaky, evidence wise. " > > Ok, so the issue turns on whether Saddam is pursuing WMDs. If it can be shown that he is not, I would oppose an invasion. [Furthermore, if containment could be re-assembled - that is, if we could persuade the Turks, Syrians, Iranians and Jordanians to stop trading oil with Saddam outside of the UN food for oil program AND we could persuade the French and Russians to stop circumventing UN resolutions regarding trade restrictions, then I would also oppose an invasion] > > But let’s look at the evidence that Saddam has not forsworn WMDs. > > 1. Saddam refuses to have Iraqi weapons scientists meet with UN officials without being accompanied by his secret police. Why? > > 2. In May 1992, Iraq was shown to have lied about having a biological weapons program, and basically made a (partial) confession. (Pollack, p. 63) > > 3. In 1995, following the defection of Hussein Kamel, the UN was shown to 650,000 pages of documents, revealing Saddam’s ongoing bioweapons program. > > 4. In 1997-98, Saddam blocked a surprise inspection of UNSCOM, harassed that organization’s personnel (eg tried to seize controls of a helicopter in flight, put a rocket-propelled grenade through UNSCOM HQ in Baghdad) and generally hindered their work. > > 5. Though Iraq has categorically denied ever putting VX nerve agent in its missiles, UNSCOM found traces of the agent in missile fragments that the Iraqis had cleaned and then unilaterally destroyed. This was in 1998. > > Following the departure of UN weapons inspectors, I find it difficult to conceive of a scenario whereby Saddam would suddenly cease his WMD programs without presenting evidence of it. > > **errata** : " Yes just like when those evil communists Soviets developed nuclear weapons, we were left with no choice but to cede them the world. Perhaps you would have also posited that N Korea would have immediately invaded S Korea on obtaining a nuclear weapon. " > > Ok, rhetoric aside, you make an interesting point. Our approach with N. Korea is “deterrence”. North Koreans know that if they attack S. Korea, the US will attack them. So why not use the same technique against Saddam? The answer (as I have written elsewhere, following reasoning by K. Pollack) is that Saddam is a serial miscalculator with territorial and even somewhat messianic ambitions. My arguments heavily depended upon the book by Kenneth Pollack. So I’m back on topic! ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2007, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-war-we-just-might-win/413749/303 "2007-08-12T20:00:19Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] [http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/08/12/ohanlon/index.html](http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/08/12/ohanlon/index.html) An inteview by Glenn Greenwald with Michael O’Hanlon, wherein Mr. O’Hanlon has the decency to admit that characterizations of himself as a “vocal critic of the war” are utter and complete bullshit. [/QUOTE] Well, then it’s a good thing I didn’t characterize him as such, huh? > [@Sam Stone](#): > > As background, both O"Hanlon and Pollack are liberals, and they work for the Brookings Institution, which is not exactly a hotbed of conservatism. Both have been opponents of the administration’s conduct of the war. Elsewhere I noted that both of them initially supported the war. Greenwald’s ‘big expose’ appears to be that Hanlon and Pollock have only opposed the administration’s conduct of the war for 3 years instead of four or five. BTW, just to refresh your memory in case you think I’m a ‘rah rah cheerleader’ for the administration or painting a rosy scenario of what’s going on in Iraq, I finished my OP like this: > [@](#): > > It’s not all good news, of course. On the political front, the leaders of Iraq have not stepped up to the plate. The Iraqi police forces are still a mess. There is still significant sectarian tension and violence. As they say, “The situation remains grave”. By the way, how come a person’s views are automatically dicredited if they ever supported the war, but if a person has always vocally opposed the war their views are taken as gospel? If one side is to be dismissed for bias, shouldn’t the other? Glenn Greenwald is an extremely anti-war pundit, who has been leveling all kinds of accusations at the military and others with wild abandon. I fail to see how a guy like Greenwald is a valid cite, while if I posted the opinions of say, Bill Kristol I’d be savaged. But it’s always easier to swallow the accusations and claims of someone you agree with, and that works for both sides. So maybe, just maybe, we should stop trying to carry out ideological purity tests on the messengers and instead just debate the message? At this point, I conclude the following: 1. As a military operation, the surge is working so far. 2. The surge is only half of the solution. The other half, the political process, is broken and not improving at all. Do you agree with that? ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2007, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-war-we-just-might-win/413749/304 "2007-08-12T20:32:27Z")
FTR, here is Glenn Greenwald’s position, from the article: > [@](#): > > Manifestly, then, to describe them as “aggressive critics of the Bush administration’s handling of the war” or as “critics of the war” – as virtually every media figure and pro-war pundit did with no correction – is misleading in the extreme. In no meaningful sense is Michael O’Hanlon any more of a “strong critic of the administration” or “vigorous opponent of Bush’s war policies” than Bill Kristol or Fred Kagan, who also frequently bickered over the administration’s strategic choices, accused them of poor war management, and/or called for a greater troop presence. > > While this entire group of “war scholars” continuously objected to various strategies executed along the way – they always believed they harbored the undiscovered Perfect Plan for this war – they were in the past and are now full-throated supporters of the invasion itself and Bush’s subsequent occupation. They are full-fledged members of the small minority of Americans who have been pro-war since before the invasion and who continue to be. The contrary media depictions of O’Hanlon and Pollack (which they actively encouraged) were just pure fiction. > [@Sam Stone](#): > > If one side is to be dismissed for bias, shouldn’t the other? Glenn Greenwald is an extremely anti-war pundit, who has been leveling all kinds of accusations at the military and others with wild abandon. I don’t dismiss Kristol for bias. I don’t dismiss Fox News for bias. Having an opinion doesn’t bother me. No, it’s intellectual honesty _and a concern for getting the argument right_ that concerns me. Those who paint O’Hanlon and Pollack as war-opponents-who-have-changed-their-mind are being grossly misleading, whether by intention or otherwise. > [@](#): > > So maybe, just maybe, we should stop trying to carry out ideological purity tests on the messengers and instead just debate the message? At this point, I conclude the following: > > 1. As a military operation, the surge is working so far. > 2. The surge is only half of the solution. The other half, the political process, is broken and not improving at all. > > Do you agree with that? No, mostly because the political process isn’t, “The other half”: it’s all of it. Furthermore, as of May 2007, Iraqi civilian deaths were the same compared with the previous year. Other year-on-year measures of process are either flat or declining (with the exception of telephone service, which has gotten better). [Here’s my data, by the way](http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/06/10/opinion/10opart.big.jpg). Let’s hope the year-on-year August numbers are better. (Those who want more recent figures can visit the Brookings website and slog through the tables.) ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2007, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-war-we-just-might-win/413749/305 "2007-08-12T21:04:11Z")
Permit me to link approvingly to [this webpage](http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/841519.html), which is ultraliberal by US media standards: > [@](#): > > **Tactical success guarantees nothing** > > As important as they are in achieving security, military actions by themselves cannot achieve success… Insurgents that never defeat counterinsurgents in combat still may achieve their strategic objectives. Tactical actions thus must be linked not only to strategic and operational military objectives but also to the host nation’s essential political goals. Without those connections, lives and resources may be wasted for no real gain. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2007, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-war-we-just-might-win/413749/306 "2007-08-12T21:18:16Z")
[QUOTE=Sam Stone] …BTW, just to refresh your memory in case you think I’m a ‘rah rah cheerleader’ for the administration or painting a rosy scenario of what’s going on in Iraq, I finished my OP like this:… [/quote] Well, yes you did, **Sam** after a long and detailed recitation from the, ahem, “article” of truly splended progress that seems to have escaped the attention of many, many people. Did you note wherein Mr. O’Hanlon admits that everything he saw, everyone he talked to, was stage-managed by the DoD? Did that escape your attention? > [@](#): > > … > > 1. As a military operation, the surge is working so far. > 2. The surge is only half of the solution. The other half, the political process, is broken and not improving at all. > > Do you agree with that? Working? In what regard is it “working”? The idea, as I understand it, was that the surge would provide stability and security such that the political process could proceed. On the assumption that the political process was stalled due to a lack of security in Baghdad, which the surge would fix. So either the surge did not suceed, or the wrong cure was applied. Is it not entirely possible that political reconciliation is not proceeding because none of the principal players want it to? The operation was a complete success, but the patient died. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2007, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-war-we-just-might-win/413749/307 "2007-08-12T21:50:25Z")
Here you go, **Sam** , more vitriol from America-hating, pinko-commies who appear, none the less, to have been “right” (as was the “left\*” in general worldwide) from the get-go: [**Winning Is Losing**](http://www.fff.org/comment/com0708a.asp) > [@](#): > > Wow. Stop the presses. > > Michael E. O’Hanlon, a senior fellow at Brookings, and Kenneth M. Pollack, director of research at its Saban Center for Middle East Policy, claim that the war opponents “seem unaware of the significant changes taking place… We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms.” > > They concede that the “Bush administration has over four years lost essentially all credibility.” But that doesn’t keep them from stating, “How much longer should American troops keep fighting and dying to build a new Iraq while Iraqi leaders fail to do their part? And how much longer can we wear down our forces in this mission? These haunting questions underscore the reality that the surge cannot go on forever. But there is enough good happening on the battlefields of Iraq today that Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 2008.” > > **O’Hanlon and Pollack portray themselves as harsh critics of the administration’s handling of the war, but Glenn Greenwald at [Salon.com](http://Salon.com) shows that this is untrue. O’Hanlon has repeatedly both praised President Bush’s strategic decisions and predicted victory. In 2002 Pollack wrote The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq. That these guys now see the light at the end of the tunnel — after an eight-day guided tour of Iraq — should impress no one.** > > The passage quoted above contains the key to the problem: “How much longer should American troops keep fighting and dying to build a new Iraq?” \*\*Why should any American die to build a new Iraq? That’s for the Iraqis to take care of. Only imperial aspirations make it America’s business. > > It comes as no surprise that O’Hanlon and Pollack do not include Iraqi deaths in their question. But it should be asked, How much longer should Iraqis die while America tries to the build the Iraq it wants Iraq to be? That puts a different light on the subject.\*\* > > **The important question is not, Can America win? but, What does “win” mean and would it be good for the American people? Winning would mean the success of a blatantly imperial mission that violates the tenets of limited government. Iraq did not attack or threaten the American people. It didn’t even have the leftovers of the so-called weapons of mass destruction the Reagan administration furnished Saddam Hussein in the 1980s, when the United States backed him in his aggressive war against Iran. Thus, the current war was unprovoked and unrelated to defense, motivated by a Bush administration desire to rid the Middle East of any possible rival who could deter its activities there. Once Saddam stopped being “our” tyrant, he had to go. WMDs, UN resolutions, and no-fly-zone violations were convenient rationalizations.** > > A victory would be taken by the administration and perhaps the American people as a sign that the United States can indeed assume the role of imperial policeman. As a result, policymakers will be emboldened and the neoconservative advocates of “benevolent hegemony” will be back in full voice. The table will be set for the next war. In Iran or Pakistan, perhaps? > > But this just begins to describe the troubles that victory would bring. Imperial occupiers always are targets of “terrorists,” which is what the strong call the weak. Unfortunately, people who engage in terrorism (not unlike people who direct great standing armies) kill and injure innocent people. **We like to distinguish terrorists who target civilians from governments that drop bombs from 30,000 feet knowing they will kill civilians, but is that distinction really worth making?** – highlights mine. Would that the warmongers finally put-down their pom-poms and realize just how fucked-up their rationalizations were from _before_ Day 1. That, of course, would entail dealing with **reality**. Is that an even _possibility_ amongst the last of the hardcore – or are they going to have to go the way of the Mohicans? ETA= \*“left” as in anyone who dared disagree with The Decider. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2007, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-war-we-just-might-win/413749/308 "2007-08-12T22:53:37Z")
To be scrupulously fair, **Red** , you’re answering an op-ed with another op-ed. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2007, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-war-we-just-might-win/413749/309 "2007-08-13T00:46:27Z")
[QUOTE=Sam Stone] By the way, how come a person’s views are automatically dicredited if they ever supported the war, but if a person has always vocally opposed the war their views are taken as gospel? [/quote] Because the first person’s informedness and judgment have been shown generally sound, and the second person’s have been shown to be generally unsound. Now does that \*really \* require an explanation? :dubious: > [@](#): > > 1. As a military operation, the surge is working so far. > 2. The surge is only half of the solution. The other half, the political process, is broken and not improving at all. > > Do you agree with that? No. They aren’t two “halves” of anything. One is the alleged precondition for the other, as you should have understood when Bush first announced it. Now, \*given \* that the political process is not improving, and given that there is no basis for belief that it will, what does that mean for the usefulness of the military operation to allow it to happen? Class? ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2007, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-war-we-just-might-win/413749/310 "2007-08-13T03:54:32Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] To be scrupulously fair, **Red** , you’re answering an op-ed with another op-ed. [/QUOTE] That’s correct. After citing any number of cites linkg to factual information, I decide to be “scrupulously fair.,” and respond in kind. * * * > [@Ekives](#): > > Because the first person’s informedness and judgment have been shown generally sound, and the second person’s have been shown to be generally unsound. Now does that really require an explanation? If you turned that sentence around you might be making a bit/whole more sense, right? Or am I missing something? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2007, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-war-we-just-might-win/413749/311 "2007-08-13T04:02:41Z")
[QUOTE=RedFury] That’s correct. After citing any number of cites linkg to factual information, I decide to be “scrupulously fair.,” and respond in kind… [/QUOTE] But **Sam’s** smarter than you, and will use it against you! Nothing personal, **Red** , but you _are_…well…you know…Yurpeen. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2007, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-war-we-just-might-win/413749/312 "2007-08-13T04:30:33Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] But **Sam’s** smarter than you, and will use it against you! Nothing personal, **Red** , but you _are_…well…you know…Yurpeen. [/QUOTE] Nothing personal taken from your response. OTIH, I await with bated breath the Canadians’ First Keyboard Brigade response. Just so I can crawl back into my dumb Yurpeen hole…or mayhaps not. Hmm…perhaps you’re misunderstimating moi. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2007, 12:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-war-we-just-might-win/413749/313 "2007-08-13T12:52:23Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > An inteview by Glenn Greenwald with Michael O’Hanlon, wherein Mr. O’Hanlon has the decency to admit that characterizations of himself as a “vocal critic of the war” are utter and complete bullshit. [QUOTE=Sam Stone] Well, then it’s a good thing I didn’t characterize him as such, huh? [/quote] > [@Sam Stone in the OP](#): > > As background, both O"Hanlon and Pollack are liberals, and they work for the Brookings Institution, which is not exactly a hotbed of conservatism. Both have been opponents of the administration’s conduct of the war. Nonetheless, they are reporting significant progress due to the surge: Tiptoe through the tulips, **Sam**. Only you are buying that one. Okay, maybe not only you. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2007, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-war-we-just-might-win/413749/314 "2007-08-13T21:58:36Z")
[QUOTE=Sam Stone] The article goes on to make the following points: - Morale in the army is high - higher than it’s been for a while. [/QUOTE] [A dissenting view](http://observer.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,330553669-119093,00.html): > [@](#): > > Lieutenant Clay Hanna looks sick and white. Like his colleagues he does not seem to sleep. Hanna says he catches up by napping on a cot between operations in the command centre, amid the noise of radio. He is up at 6am and tries to go to sleep by 2am or 3am. But there are operations to go on, planning to be done and after-action reports that need to be written. And war interposes its own deadly agenda that requires his attention and wakes him up. > > When he emerges from his naps there is something old and paper-thin about his skin, something sketchy about his movements as the days go by. > > The Americans he commands, like the other men at Sullivan - a combat outpost in Zafraniya, south east Baghdad - hit their cots when they get in from operations. But even when they wake up there is something tired and groggy about them. They are on duty for five days at a time and off for two days. When they get back to the forward operating base, they do their laundry and sleep and count the days until they will get home. It is an exhaustion that accumulates over the patrols and the rotations, over the multiple deployments, until it all joins up, wiping out any memory of leave or time at home. Until life is nothing but Iraq. > > Hanna and his men are not alone in being tired most of the time. A whole army is exhausted and worn out. You see the young soldiers washed up like driftwood at Baghdad’s international airport, waiting to go on leave or returning to their units, sleeping on their body armour on floors and in the dust. > > Where once the war in Iraq was defined in conversations with these men by untenable ideas - bringing democracy or defeating al-Qaeda - these days the war in Iraq is defined by different ways of expressing the idea of being weary. It is a theme that is endlessly reiterated as you travel around Iraq. ‘The army is worn out. We are just keeping people in theatre who are exhausted,’ says a soldier working for the US army public affairs office who is supposed to be telling me how well things have been going since the ‘surge’ in Baghdad began. > > They are not supposed to talk like this. We are driving and another of the public affairs team adds bitterly: ‘We should just be allowed to tell the media what is happening here. Let them know that people are worn out. So that their families know back home. But it’s like we’ve become no more than numbers now.’ ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2007, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-war-we-just-might-win/413749/315 "2007-08-13T23:28:08Z")
[QUOTE=RedFury] If you turned that sentence around you might be making a bit/whole more sense, right? Or am I missing something? [/QUOTE] Dammit, you \*know \* what I mean! I was tired, okay? 😃 ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2007, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-war-we-just-might-win/413749/316 "2007-08-14T01:29:35Z")
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves] Dammit, you \*know \* what I mean! I was tired, okay? 😃 [/QUOTE] Sure did, bud – busting chops that’s all. Just making sure **'luc** wasn’t the only willing to eat their own. What? He thinks he’s got the leftyy cannibal franchise all of his own? Bah! Tex-Minnesota wannabe Leckter puss 😉 Puppies with Corn Pops, fried eggs, a stack of flatcakes with hot maple syrop, hash-browns and a side of (pink obviously) T-bone. Now there’s an unbeatable mans’ man brunch-- just wished those pinko-commies at IHOP would hurry-up and put it on their menu. 'nuff with the “little piggies in a blanket” Conservative cop-out. ---
**Author:** ![Eolbo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d07c76/32.png) [@Eolbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eolbo)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2007, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-war-we-just-might-win/413749/317 "2007-08-14T04:09:00Z")
[QUOTE=Measure for Measure] Response to **elucidator** ’s [link to the O’Hanlon interview](http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/08/12/ohanlon/index.html): I understand that Pollack has a similar level of decency and intellectual honesty. I need a cite if you are claiming that Powell and Rice claimed in 2001 that Iraq had no WMDs. (_Later_, after the invasion, they presumably have confirmed that, but we’re talking about pre-war public information here.) [/QUOTE] I don’t know if Powell or Rice ever explicitly stated that Saddam had no WMD but prior to 9/11 they most certainly were downplaying the idea and publicly dismissed any idea that he was a threat to either the US or his neighbours. See here for instance: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsVKDY74C0g&watch\_response](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsVKDY74C0g&watch_response) After 9/11 this was conveniently forgotten and the propaganda machine went into hyperdrive. We have always been at war with Eastasia and all that. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2007, 4:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-war-we-just-might-win/413749/318 "2007-08-14T04:34:30Z")
Thanks for digging up that link Eolbo: I think I understand now. It’s true that Saddam was in a box in 2001: neither Powell, nor Rice nor even Pollack said otherwise. The fear though at the time was that he was _developing_ WMDs, not that he had them (aside from some possible chemical arsenals). Strictly speaking, Marshmallow’s initial statement was correct though – Saddam was not believed to actually possess nukes or weaponized bioweapons IIRC during that period. So was it just faulty intelligence? Not in my opinion. In at least 3 instances (yellowcake, aluminum tubes and supposed biovans) , the evidence was cooked and the behavior a disgrace. ---
**Author:** ![Eolbo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d07c76/32.png) [@Eolbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eolbo)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2007, 5:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-war-we-just-might-win/413749/319 "2007-08-14T05:07:42Z")
[QUOTE=Measure for Measure] So was it just faulty intelligence? Not in my opinion. In at least 3 instances (yellowcake, aluminum tubes and supposed biovans) , the evidence was cooked and the behavior a disgrace. [/QUOTE] Not in my opinion either. With everything that’s now known I think it’s abundantly clear that the intelligence wasn’t so much faulty as it was flagrantly distorted and manipulated. In my view the publication of the Downing Street memo comprehensively and utterly demolished the “it was all just a mistake” theory. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2007, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-war-we-just-might-win/413749/320 "2007-08-14T15:24:22Z")
And in case anyone needs a link for _that_: [**The Downing Street Memo**](http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-war-we-just-might-win/413749.md?page=15) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-war-we-just-might-win/413749.md?page=17)