Another Iraqi Smoking Gun, and the Dog That Didn't Bark

[FinnAgain]

“In December 1998, Unscom pulled out of Iraq amid complaints of obstruction by Iraq. Meanwhile, Baghdad claimed that the body was little more than a front for US spies (with some justification; the presence of CIA agents was later confirmed by the US, UN and former inspectors)”

So they should’ve just given us unlimited rights to espionage?

[Revtim]

@Bricker

I think if Saddam Hussein had agreed to full, complete, open, no-conditions, no-bullshit weapons inspections, and committed again to observing the no-fly zone imposed after GW I, I believe that would have guaranteed a peaceful solution.

So then Bush would not have freed the Iraqi people from Saddam? There wouldn’t be a stronghold of democracy to spread freedom into the middle east from? Isn’t that what the war is supposed to be about now?

[tagos]

@ElvisL1ves

I do understand the system and the bind it puts you into. My question was if Blair will choose to interpret a Labour victory as a vindication of his Iraq policies.

He’s on record as saying he won’t. What I want to correct is the US media, as reported on a news programme by a journalist, which said that the story US correspondents are poised to write is that a Labour victory vindicates the war. They don’t seem to understand our system and I guess, want to see it as vindication of their own country’s act and their own craven lack of questioning of the rationale.

If Labour win it will be despite Blair and the war.

[ElvisL1ves]

@vibrotronica

New CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll out today reports that 55% of American voters disapprove of Bush’s handling of Iraq. Your view is now in the minority, Bricker, by a percentage that George W. Bush would call a mandate.

Link.

Fifty-seven percent of those polled said they did not believe it was worth going to war, versus 41 percent who said it was.
…
Asked how things are going for the United States in Iraq, 56 percent said “badly” or “very badly”.
…
Americans appeared evenly divided over whether the decision to send U.S. troops to Iraq was a mistake, with 49 percent saying yes and 48 percent saying no.

“The majority of voters” *do * share our outrage, Bricker. Why don’t you?

[Mtgman]

@Bricker

I think if Saddam Hussein had agreed to full, complete, open, no-conditions, no-bullshit weapons inspections, and committed again to observing the no-fly zone imposed after GW I, I believe that would have guaranteed a peaceful solution.

Bush disagrees.

All the decades of deceit and cruelty have now reached an end. Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict, commenced at a time of our choosing.

Any interest in addressing my points regarding the credibility of the memo? Or is the official record, which is good enough to present to the Prime Minister, still “totem-pole hearsay” to you?

Enjoy,
Steven

[Mycroft_H]

While there has been a lot of interesting opinion and quality discussion here, I need to go back to the OP and mention something brilliant that has not been properly recognized.

@elicidator

“But, Holmes, the dog didn’t bark!”

“Yes, I know that, that’s the whole bloody point, you malodorous toffee nosed medical twit!”

As an avid (nay, obsessive… manic even?) Sherlockian, I must thoroughly compliment and congratulate you on your paraphrasing of the classic Holmes lines from The Adventure of Silver Blaze. Bloody brilliant and it gave me quite a chuckle.

Mycroft

[kidchameleon]

@This Year's Model

kidchameleon, I remember a time when a president who had won reelection by literally historic proportions was driven from office only a year and a half later for his crimes. I am apalled that my country has changed to such an extent that that is no longer possible.

Yeah, I was only 4 months old at the time, so I don’t remember the feeling of things back then. I grew up on Ronny and George H, I even voted for George when I turned 18. Come to think of it, I’ve never voted for a winning President…

But at least to my young eyes, prior to the Clinton/Gingrich era, politicians at least seemed to keep the blatent abuses behind closed doors. Perhaps things have always been as they are and today they just can’t hide it like they could. I’d love to see some way to reform things, but I’m not sure if that will ever happen.

[elucidator]

Will the Bushiviks call attention to a Blair victory as a vote of confidence? I doubt it, I think their strategic reserves of raw chutzpah are depleted. As well, there is the awkward necessity of putting such forward without having to answer any troublesome questions, for instance, the gathering and grumbling crowd of peasants, pitchforks, torches, that sort of thing.

They will, however, stand in quiet approval while the keening castrato of the Moron Tabernacle Choir (S. Hannity, lead tenor) sing Wagnerian arias of praise to the probity and wisdom of The Leader. Feh! as they say in Lubbock.

(Aside to Myrcroft: One blushes, with the mild demur that one merely basks in the reflected radiance of the master. One looks forward to the day when science catches up, and can finally grasp the bio-mechanics that explain why a snake can respond to a whistled call. Our calm confidence will be proven well-founded.)

[Spavined_Gelding]

While it is probably not as apparent as I might hope, I’ve tried to stay off these boards since November. The tone of tribal posturing and triumphalism has just been more that I can deal with and keep a civil tongue in my head. It is no different in this thread than it has been in God knows how many others. Rational discussion and good faith attempt as persuasion have given way to incessant foam finger waiving and personal vitriolic vituperation. I don’t see this discussion one going any where, either.

Our friend Elucidator is wrong. The leak of the Downing Street cabinet minutes is not a smoking gun. It is not the subtle clue that reveals the truth. It is simply one more pebble thrown into a pond. It may disappear into the depths but it does imperceptibly raise the water level. Sooner or later the pond will overflow. When that happens this Administration with all its manipulations, misrepresentations, alarms in the night, posturing, convenes, and general ruthlessness with the objective of comforting the comfortable and afflicting the afflicted, its robber baron economic theory, its savaging of republican principle (note the small R), its neo-colonial approach to the rest of the world and its general corruption will be swept away in the general flood, along with the horse it rode in on. When that happens, God help us all.

[Bricker]

@Revtim

Bricker, completely ignoring the cite in the OP, do you think Bush was open to a negotiated, peaceful solution? If so, under what conditions?

@Bricker

I think if Saddam Hussein had agreed to full, complete, open, no-conditions, no-bullshit weapons inspections, and committed again to observing the no-fly zone imposed after GW I, I believe that would have guaranteed a peaceful solution.

@Mtgman

Bush disagrees.

That’s very deceptive garbage. Of course there came a point at which Hussein’s continued refusal was intolerable. My answer to Revtim’s question was true in the weeks and months leading up to conflict, and intended to address the hypothesis that Bush was committed to war from the beginning.

Any interest in addressing my points regarding the credibility of the memo? Or is the official record, which is good enough to present to the Prime Minister, still “totem-pole hearsay” to you?

Frankly, I’ve nothing more to say to you after that garbage.

[GaWd]

Frankly, I’ve nothing more to say to you after that garbage.

Wah.

[FinnAgain]

Bricker: How about the fact that Sadaam couldn’t agree to inspections because we were cheating and sneaking in spies?

[ElvisL1ves]

@Bricker

My answer to Revtim’s question was true in the weeks and months leading up to conflict, and intended to address the hypothesis that Bush was committed to war from the beginning.

Would that there was evidence to support your assertion that Bush had genuinely not yet committed himself to war. Alas, you are once again asserting wishful thinking born of your absolute loyalty as Truth, the facts notwithstanding.

The 10 Downing Street memo itself ought to be enlightening to you, if you can let loose your clutch on the “totem pole hearsay” dismissal that comforts you so for long enough. The minutes of Blair’s meeting 23 July 2002 include these nuggets (bolding added):

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime’s record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

**The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. ** The situation might of course change.

You can continue to believe that the opposite was true in “the weeks and months” between 7/02 and 3/03 - but if you want to convince anyone else, why, you’ll have to come up with a case.

[Typo_Negative]

@elucidator

Whazza diff? If they only solicited responses from carbon-based life forms, so what? I suppose, from the Bushivik point of view, vetting them as voters makes it from bad to worse, but still, there isn’t any good news there.

Perhaps I misunderstand the thrust of your question.

Just that 7 months ago, 51% of actual voters* actually * voted for Bush (much to my chagrin). And the Iraq situation hasn’t changed that much. So, are they talking to the people who actually show up to make the decisions, or…

[ElvisL1ves]

The Iraq situation hasn’t changed that much? Why, since the US election, they’ve had their own and are now a self-governing democracy just blossoming, already inspiring the entire region. Haven’t you heard?

Never mind the car bombs. They mostly blow up each other, not us.

[Mtgman]

@Bricker

Of course there came a point at which Hussein’s continued refusal was intolerable. My answer to Revtim’s question was true in the weeks and months leading up to conflict, and intended to address the hypothesis that Bush was committed to war from the beginning.

You mean the weeks and months where the inspectors were getting more and more co-operation from the regime, more and more unfettered access, up to the point where Hans Blix said this in his address to the UN in March of '03

Inspections in Iraq resumed on the 27th of November 2002. In matters relating to process, notably prompt access to sites, we have faced relatively few difficulties, and certainly much less than those that were faced by UNSCOM [U.N. Special Commission] in the period 1991 to 1998. This may well be due to the strong outside pressure.
…
This is not to say that the operation of inspections is free from frictions, but at this juncture we are able to perform professional, no-notice inspections all over Iraq and to increase aerial surveillance.
…
One can hardly avoid the impression that after a period of somewhat reluctant cooperation, there’s been an acceleration of initiatives from the Iraqi side since the end of January. This is welcome. But the value of these measures must be soberly judged by how many question marks they actually succeed in straightening out.

This is not yet clear.

Against this background, the question is now asked whether Iraq has cooperated, “immediately, unconditionally and actively,” with UNMOVIC, as is required under Paragraph 9 of Resolution 1441. The answers can be seen from the factor descriptions that I have provided.

However, if more direct answers are desired, I would say the following: The Iraqi side has tried on occasion to attach conditions, as it did regarding helicopters and U-2 planes. It has not, however, so far persisted in this or other conditions for the exercise of any of our inspection rights. If it did, we would report it.

Those weeks and months? The ones where the inspectors followed up on leads from intelligence and found no WMD?

Frankly I don’t care if you address the points about the credibility of the memo or not. They are there and other readers can use them to judge the matter themselves. The idea that the official meeting minutes of a senior level briefing represent totem pole hearsay is ludicrous.

Enjoy,
Steven

[elucidator]

And bravely he did bugger off
Brave, brave, brave Sir Bricker…

What about the testimonys of others, Richard Clarke, for instance? And Paul Allen?

And this quote from Time:

But in a remarkable though little noted disclosure, Time magazine reported that in March 2002 – a full year before the invasion – Bush outlined his real thinking to three U.S. senators, “Fuck Saddam,” Bush said. “We’re taking him out.”

Liars and scoundrels all? Each and every one?

Howzabout this, then?

Readers who picked up their New York Times on Thursday morning were treated to a bombshell – a front-page article detailing a bizarre, murky escapade in the weeks leading up to the war, when increasingly desperate Iraqi officials used a mysterious Beirut middleman to offer the U.S. just about any deal it wanted to avoid invasion…

(emphasis added)

http://archive.salon.com/opinion/feature/2003/11/07/iraq/index_np.html, “The Case of the Last Minute Offer”

Outside of a faith that surpasseth all reason, have you anything to offer in the way of evidence? Anything at all?

(Aside to Spav, esteemed correspondent from Flat: You are, and would be, sorely missed. Your calm and polite reasoning is a virtue I heartily admire without any intention of emulating. And if I can see the worth in your presence, I have no doubt whatever that such esteem is shared by others who are not arrogant snots. I suck at sincere, leave it at this: your counsel is valued…)

[Hazel]

@kidchameleon

Honestly, after Clinton I stopped caring. They all freaking lie, and right at us these days. It’s like being outraged that the Mob would kill you after promising not to if you told them where the money was. Where’s the ‘blah’ smiley?

Clinton lied about a cheap affair; a matter that was (a) of no real importance, and (b) of no proper concern to anyone but Clinton, Hillary, and Monica.

Bush lied us into an unnecessary war that (a) has killed a lot of people, and (b) is costing the American taxpayers a lot of money.

I would suggest that it is not hard to sort out which lies one should care about.

[Mtgman]

@Spavined Gelding

While it is probably not as apparent as I might hope, I’ve tried to stay off these boards since November. The tone of tribal posturing and triumphalism has just been more that I can deal with and keep a civil tongue in my head. It is no different in this thread than it has been in God knows how many others. Rational discussion and good faith attempt as persuasion have given way to incessant foam finger waiving and personal vitriolic vituperation. I don’t see this discussion one going any where, either.

I know the feeling. I’m doing enough in real life to see that the pebbles continue to flow into the pond. At this point I’m beginning to notice I’m getting angry when people who should not be blind fools act like blind fools even when I’m patiently explaining things. I don’t think I want to follow Bricker down the path to becoming a snarling idealogue who posts nasty comments mere minutes after an OP that he couldn’t possibly have had time to follow up on and rationally think about before posting his “translation”.

Back to work then.

Enjoy,
Steven

[Hazel]

@elucidator

…Moron Tabernacle Choir…

LOL – that’s great!