# Bush bungled the diplomacy...how did he do that, exactly? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 13, 2003, 8:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-bungled-the-diplomacy-how-did-he-do-that-exactly/168411 "2003-04-13T08:02:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Tee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@Tee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tee)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2003, 7:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-bungled-the-diplomacy-how-did-he-do-that-exactly/168411/101 "2003-04-20T07:28:25Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by clairobscur \* > \*\*That was exactly the issue. The US and the Uk had already decided to go to war, and were merely searching some pretext to do so. They couldn’t care less about the results of the weapon inspections and such things. And that’s precisely what Chirac was opposed to : this “we’re going to wage war anyway” stance. \*\* That’s his prerogative to oppose it, but like I already suggested Chirac has little say in matters of US national security. “Merely searching for some pretext” is backwards - the US and the UK had the pretext (at the time there’d been no inspections in Iraq for years) and were seeking UN involvement in invading Iraq by way of previous resolutions. If there is a case for protecting national interests then no permission from any organization is needed; if UN-sanctioned action is sought and refused and the threat is still there, obviously the US is still going to act. We risk the French and others accusing us of arrogance and blatant disregard for world opinion, international relations - so what’s new, everybody does - but we get rid of a source of weapons proliferation as well as an asymmetrical threat to our people and untold others via state-sponsored terrorism, and who knows what else, with humanitarian side benefits. Wow, tough decision. By the way I’m citing direct quotes on which I based my opinion, which is more than others did, so saying I’m ignoring reality because it conflicts with my opinion is ass-backwards too. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by tomndebb_ > **Sorry. We were discussing Clinton, not the mob that rushed to grant Bush unlimited powers based on lies declared by the administration. The current war powers were granted too broadly and for the wrong reasons. Where is their evidence?** :::shrug::: Like I said if you don’t believe that Iraq was a threat and it was all “lies” then we’re at polar opposites. No biggie. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2003, 12:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-bungled-the-diplomacy-how-did-he-do-that-exactly/168411/102 "2003-04-20T12:08:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by elucidator \* > \*\*And what do you make of the fact that the vast majority of this planets citizens rather strenuously disapprove. \*\* Cite? How could anyone even purport to know what a majority of the planet’s citizen’s believe? And, if tyrannies like PRC had mis-reported events to their people, in a way that led them to disapprove of (their understanding of) what the US had done, would that mean we’ve done wrong? I don’t think so. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2003, 12:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-bungled-the-diplomacy-how-did-he-do-that-exactly/168411/103 "2003-04-20T12:28:20Z")
Boy, you got me that time, **dec**! All I got to go by is millions of people marching in the capitals of the world. Probbly the liberal media suppressed all of the “Boy, Do We Love America!” rallies in Spain, Germany, France, England, Singapore, etc. etc. Of course, we have to consider that they are all led by people who aren’t as straightforward and honest as Our Leader, who’s steely-eyed candor is the stuff of legend. A man who cannot tell an unscripted falsehood. Tell you what, lets reverse. You show me reliable cites indicating world wide approval of our course of action, and I’ll eat my hat. Then I’ll eat your hat, and your Momma’s hat, and a cat-box omelette. 'Cause, buckaroo, it ain’t gonna happen. ---
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2003, 12:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-bungled-the-diplomacy-how-did-he-do-that-exactly/168411/104 "2003-04-20T12:29:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > \*\*And, if tyrannies like PRC had mis-reported events to their people, in a way that led them to disapprove of (their understanding of) what the US had done, would that mean we’ve done wrong? I don’t think so. \*\* And, if _liars like Rumsfeld_ had mis-reported events to their people, in a way that led them to _approve_ of (their understanding of) what the US had done, would that mean we’ve done _right_? I don’t think so. That kind of bullshit cuts both ways, doesn’t it, **december**. ---
**Author:** ![Mandelstam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Mandelstam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mandelstam)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2003, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-bungled-the-diplomacy-how-did-he-do-that-exactly/168411/105 "2003-04-20T13:04:56Z")
**Tee** _" That’s his prerogative to oppose it, but like I already suggested Chirac has little say in matters of US national security. “Merely searching for some pretext” is backwards - the US and the UK had the pretext (at the time there’d been no inspections in Iraq for years) and were seeking UN involvement in invading Iraq by way of previous resolutions. If there is a case for protecting national interests then no permission from any organization is needed; if UN-sanctioned action is sought and refused and the threat is still there, obviously the US is still going to act. We risk the French and others accusing us of arrogance and blatant disregard for world opinion, international relations - so what’s new, everybody does - but we get rid of a source of weapons proliferation as well as an asymmetrical threat to our people and untold others via state-sponsored terrorism, and who knows what else, with humanitarian side benefits. Wow, tough decision."_ Gosh, **Tee** , you have really bought the administration’s line hook, line, and sinker. Do you remember what weapons got to us on 9/11? Hint: box cutters. And now we have helped this problem because even more inflamed Muslims are marching in the street? [This](http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/19/opinion/19KELL.html) would be an interesting editorial for you to read, I think (written by a columnist who was not wholly critical of the war, btw): "\*\*…[T]he biggest attraction of continued war, I suspect, is that in the war on terror, offense is just a lot more exciting than defense. The military triumph in Iraq, despite some mishaps and heartbreak, was a romp compared with the long slog to secure our own shores. Protecting our ports, securing vulnerable chemical plants, tracking foreign visa holders, fixing our dysfunctional intelligence community, getting emergency equipment to firefighters and hospitals ? there are no cakewalks on the home front. … The government has…made serious headway in policing the millions of shipping containers that enter the country every year. Since Baltimore was cinematically incinerated by a containerized nuke in “The Sum of All Fears,” this has been everyone’s favorite candidate for delivery of some hideous weapon. The Bureau of Customs and Border Protection has introduced earlier screening, better scanners and radiation detectors, and especially a computerized crunching of shipping information to identify suspicious containers. The system will never be fail-safe, but it is no longer a pushover. For a pushover, you might consider your local chemical plant. The Environmental Protection Agency lists 123 chemical plants so close to urban centers that a “worst case” terrorist attack at any one of them could endanger more than a million people. In this case, though, the chemical lobby has risen up to fight off mandatory safety measures, like efforts to substitute less hazardous chemicals where possible. The Bush administration and its regulation-phobic allies on Capitol Hill have decided we can trust the industry to fix itself voluntarily. Sure we can. The other day [a reporter] asked a homeland security official why the administration was willing to force safety on the airline industry but not on chemical makers. The answer: because the weapon of choice on Sept. 11 was not a chemical plant. In other words, wait until they blow up a chlorine tank."\*\* Do you remember why Osama bin Laden was so angry with the United States? Hint: something about troops stationed in his country ever since the Gulf War. And now, thanks to Bush’s brilliant foreign policy, [here](http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/20/international/worldspecial/20BASE.html) is what we plan to do in Iraq by way of winning hearts and minds: \*\*" American military officials, in interviews this week, spoke of maintaining perhaps four bases in Iraq that could be used in the future… … Whether that can be arranged depends on relations between Washington and whoever takes control in Baghdad. If the ties are close enough, the military relationship could become one of the most striking developments in a strategic revolution now playing out across the Middle East and Southwest Asia, from the Mediterranean to the Indian Ocean."\*\* Yep, I feel safer already. Do you know what has, in the opinion of most experts, been the single most effective prong in the war against terrorism? Hint: not “preventive” invasion and occupation of countries with 20 million people and lots of infuriated neighbors. No it’s international police networks: in other words, the cooperation and goodwill of our friends and allies in countries from Germany and France to Pakistan and India to the Middle East. Since 9/11, writes the same _Times_ columnist, “the more liberal flow of intelligence from allies has led to some important arrests…” But let’s go ahead and offend our largest and oldest European allies b/c our President tells us it’s our national interest to do so and that six month’s or a year’s diference in additional inspections time will save us from the supposed “imminent” threat we faced from this regime that took us 3 weeks to topple. And those WMDs that supposedly threatened us so imminently? Where are they now? Well darned if the President’s men can’t answer that question. Coz, wouldn’t cha know it, maybe in the chaos of war they were just passed on to some other country like Syria. Dang! I seem to recall _that_ possibility predicted by just about everyone not directly toeing the Bush party line. So maybe an expanded inspections regime backed up with UN troops in Iraq might not have been such a bad idea? And maybe the French timetable would have been a good way to back it up with force, as well as a way of compromising with our allies and involving the UN? No, no. We’re a unified country now led by a great strong man with really smart guys like Rumsfeld and Perle to tell him what to do. If they say it’s in the country’s national interest, the rest of us will just hop to it. After all, we’re either with him or against him, right? ---
**Author:** ![AZCowboy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/97f17d/32.png) [@AZCowboy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AZCowboy)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2003, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-bungled-the-diplomacy-how-did-he-do-that-exactly/168411/106 "2003-04-20T14:04:31Z")
**december** , do you really assert that the majority of the world’s population supported US action in Iraq? It is silly to ask **luc** for a cite on that. However, I am not persuaded by the rallies across international capitols, as that could simply be a vocal minority. If you really need a cite, review [this](http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/courses/ed253a/world_opinion_iraq_war.html) information. And for **Tee** , the results of our little action, taking over Iraq in less than a month and with less than 200 soldiers killed, establishes quite well that Iraq wasn’t much of threat to the US. Other than because Bush said so, how can you arrive at such a conclusion? ---
**Author:** ![Tee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@Tee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tee)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2003, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-bungled-the-diplomacy-how-did-he-do-that-exactly/168411/107 "2003-04-21T15:30:38Z")
Nah, it just proves the Coalition had the superior military force. Which was never in doubt anyway. Of course he could attack the US. By delivering bio weapons to this country, or chemical weapons or terrorist attacks to our embassies, citizens, or military personnel in the Mideast…just about anything you can imagine in the context of terrorism, or asymmetrical warfare, he was capable of arranging. And one only had to listen to him talk (or read the transcripts) once to imagine the possibilities. You know, “national security” concerns. Not “concern about the US being overthrown or defeated”, which is not the criteria. ---
**Author:** ![Mandelstam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Mandelstam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mandelstam)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2003, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-bungled-the-diplomacy-how-did-he-do-that-exactly/168411/108 "2003-04-21T15:47:11Z")
**Tee** : _“And one only had to listen to him talk (or read the transcripts) once to imagine the possibilities.”_ Yes, but since you are so very imaginative on behalf of all the terrible things that Saddam Hussein _might have done_, in spite of there having been no evidence at all that he had plans to do any of them, why you are so very _unimaginative_ about all the terrible ramifications that have been unleashed by fighting this war in this way? It’s as though on the one side you are a veritable William Blake for the Bush adminstration, dreaming up apocalyptic visions of Saddam-induced atrocity; while on the other side you are a naive Pollyanna ready to wholeheartedly swallow any propaganda served up in defense of the administration’s policy. That is why this debate will never end: you’ll keep arguing that the thing had to be done this way because of problems that may have occurred; and we’ll keep arguing that other means would have better addressed those potential problems without creating even more and more dangerous problems. At least as far as you are concerned, I’m ready to give it a rest though I doubt that **december** will ever stop sending out invitations to the party ;). ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2003, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-bungled-the-diplomacy-how-did-he-do-that-exactly/168411/109 "2003-04-21T16:31:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Desmostylus \* > \*\*And, if _liars like Rumsfeld_ had mis-reported events to their people, in a way that led them to _approve_ of (their understanding of) what the US had done, would that mean we’ve done _right_? I don’t think so. > > That kind of bullshit cuts both ways, doesn’t it, **december**. \*\* No. Read this article from _Arab News._ > [@](#): > > **Arab Media’s Conduct During War Indicative of a Deeper Malaise** > Dr. Abdulhamid Al-Ansary, Special to Arab News > > …The Arab media succeeded in deceiving the people. On the whole, the deception was worse than in 1967. Fatwas succeeded — “Rise up for jihad!” — in burying some misguided volunteers and suicide bombers. The misguided fatwas did nothing but confirm those who were already miserable in their misery while those responsible for the fatwas continued to enjoy life. What are the masses now saying in their happiness to see an end to the tyrant whose photograph they rip apart and beat with their sandals? Only yesterday, they fell in line, actively demonstrating in the street with his photograph, repeating “Here we are, ready to sacrifice ourselves with our souls and blood for you!” And he led them into defeat! > > …The question is: Why did the Arab media consent to align itself with the Iraqi regime while at the same time pretending that it was with the people? > > It is my view that the answer was stated by the director of one of the satellite channels: “It is competition. In such circumstances, either we win the viewers or others win them.” Thus he summarized the way of most of those in the Arab media. Their aim is to win the street at any price. The street is emotional and has little confidence in the Americans… > > To a large extent, the Arab media was characterized by selectivity, and it was decidedly on the side of the Iraqi regime… > > It was the Arab media itself which claimed that the aims of the war were to destroy Iraq, put an end to its capabilities, and, in the end, to occupy it… > > The Arab media attacked the Iraqi opposition and imposed a collective boycott while satellite stations played host to everyone but the Iraqis who were, after all, the ones most concerned. The Kuwaiti media was the sole exception to this rule. Not one satellite channel had the courage to transmit scenes of welcome to the coalition troops in the liberated cities. Instead, the satellite stations made a great fuss over what they called the crimes of the coalition and ignored the crimes of the regime. The correspondents continued to impose their political points of view on viewers. Not one of the satellite stations, except Kuwait, had the courage to show a tape of the chemical strike against Halabja. It was the same with the air attack of the 1991 uprising in which holy places were hit and hundreds of Shiites were killed and tortured. More than 250,000 Iraqi citizens were killed in the uprising. > > …One Arab channel deliberately blamed the weapons and ammunition hidden by Saddam’s soldiers who were in civilian clothes in a house. This was shown in its entirety by CNN. The aim of the Arab satellite stations was to suggest that the allies were “savage” in their treatment of civilians. Furthermore, respectable newspapers were not considered to be devout if they did not cover the sorrowful and tragic accident of the journalists who were killed by the coalition forces — in order, they said, to silence Arab satellite stations… > > …The musings of a simple Iraqi from a liberated area caught my attention. He said: “The Arabs left us and did not liberate us. Why are they attacking the coalition which wants to liberate us?” Read the whole thing. The comparison to Rumsfeld is ludicrous. **elucidator, AZCowboy** , I do not claim to know what the world’s population thinks. My point is that nobody knows. Note that demonstrators are not a random sample of the populace. Note that many thousands of Americans attended anti-war demonstrations at a point in time when surveys showed that the majority of Americans were pro-war. **Mandelstam** , I think you exaggerated when you claimed that there was “no evidence at all” that Saddam might do various terrible things. Evidently there wasn’t enought evidence to convince _you_, but there was a certain amount of evidence that[ul][_]Saddam had substantial stores of chemical and biological weapons.[_]Saddam had a willingness to use such weapons.[_]Saddam was seeking nuclear weapons.[_]Saddam had some contact with terrorists.Saddam was interested in taking over neighboring countries by military force.[/ul] ---
**Author:** ![Mandelstam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Mandelstam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mandelstam)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2003, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-bungled-the-diplomacy-how-did-he-do-that-exactly/168411/110 "2003-04-21T16:55:11Z")
**december** , re-read my post. The issue there isn’t evidence of what Saddam _might_ have done–it is easy enough to provide all kinds of evidence for what parties may do. There is, in this sense, “evidence” that Al Qaeda may blow up a chlorine tank and kill thousands of people, and yet the Bush administration doesn’t see this as sufficient cause to warrant imposing any _preventive_ regulation on the chemical industry. The whole point of my post is that **Tee** seems selectively to “imagine” bad outcomes: giving free rein to her imagination when it comes to dangers that justify the administration’s war, but suffering a notable failure of the imagination when it comes to threats that fall outside of Bush’s immediate political objectives. You seem to exhibit the same imaginative pattern. Please read more carefully in the future. ---
**Author:** ![Sofa\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/58956e/32.png) [@Sofa\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sofa_King)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2003, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-bungled-the-diplomacy-how-did-he-do-that-exactly/168411/111 "2003-04-21T17:43:21Z")
I’m sorry, but I can’t agree with most of this statement, **december** : [QUOTE] **Mandelstam** , I think you exaggerated when you claimed that there was “no evidence at all” that Saddam might do various terrible things. Evidently there wasn’t enought evidence to convince you, but there was a certain amount of evidence thatSaddam had substantial stores of chemical and biological weapons. [ul][li] Saddam had a willingness to use such weapons.[/li][li] Saddam was seeking nuclear weapons.[/li][li] Saddam had some contact with terrorists.[/li][li] Saddam was interested in taking over neighboring countries by military force.[/ul] [/li][/QUOTE] [ul][li] Saddam had a willingness to use such weapons.[/li] _Saddam showed a willingness to use such weapons as recently as **fourteen years ago** , of that we are certain. The claims that Chemical Ali used chemical weapons against the Marsh Arabs has yet to be confirmed, although both the American and Australian governments have been promising to provide evidence for that since February. I would point out that chemical **defoliants** were likely used in the reduction of Iraq’s southern marshes, so trace evidence of defoliants almost certainly will be found. Ortho Roundup doesn’t seem to be illegal yet. And let’s not forget the [balsa wood and duct tape](http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/special/iraq/1816454) crop duster powered by lawnmower engines which we were [direly warned about](http://www.janes.com/defence/air_forces/news/jdw/jdw030207_1_n.shtml) by Secretary of State Powell._ [li] Saddam was seeking nuclear weapons.[/li] \*I don’t think we **know** that, either. The significance of the aluminum cylinders Iraq tried to purchase is open to debate. The allegations that Iraq was trying to purchase uranium ore were [flat-out bullshit](http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/14/sprj.irq.documents/). Not a single one of the supposed vast network of individual cyclotrons the Iraqis were supposedly using to separate out U-235 has been found. [li] Saddam had some contact with terrorists.[/li] \*Yes. Saddam allowed Abu Nidal to retire and die in Iraq. We recently captured “Abu” Abbas, but what everyone seems to forget is that he [moderated his terrorist stance](http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9605/10/abu.abbas/) years ago. [Abu Musab al-Zarqawi’s](http://www.observer.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,887379,00.html) connection with Hussein’s Iraq is strongly disputed, and the evidence put forth by the United States was (chacteristically) unsourced. And the fact that the terrorist organization al-Ansar was operating in the territory of our buddies the Kurds, **not** Hussein-controlled Iraq, should be very embarassing to the United States, not an argument that Iraq is somehow linked to al-Qaeda. The one argument left, that I know of, is that Hussein was personally sending checks to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. [So did Americans](http://www.nptimes.com/Jan02/npt1.html). [li] Saddam was interested in taking over neighboring countries by military force.[/ul][/li] _Yes. **Was**. Saddam hasn’t been a threat to anyone since 1991. Arguing that Iraq could be a **future** threat to its neighbors presupposes that the UN would pull out of the area and allow Iraq to rearm, reorganize, and redeploy in the no-fly zones. That’s bullshit, too._[/list] This is the problem I’ve had with all of this rhetoric being spouted by the Bush Administration. _None_ of the evidence was probative or indisputable. _Some_ of it was falsified. _Most_ of it appears to be highly exaggerated. In retrospect, it’s appearing more and more like _all_ of the justifications touted to start this bullshit war were flimsy at best, except one: Iraq was the first damned domino in the line. Period. Shouldn’t that be justification enough for you war hawks? Why not dispense with the bullshit and simply state what is rapidly becoming obvious: America has commenced its war against the Islamic world, and Iraq was just one battle in a much, much larger conflict. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2003, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-bungled-the-diplomacy-how-did-he-do-that-exactly/168411/112 "2003-04-21T17:59:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sofa King \* > \*\*I’m sorry, but I can’t agree with most of this statement, **december** :… _None_ of the evidence was probative or indisputable. \*\* I do not intend to debate just how strong the evidence was on this thread. It would be a hijack. However, _Sofa King_, you have actually supported my point that there was at least _some_ evidence. Another poster had said there was absolutely none. ---
**Author:** ![Mandelstam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Mandelstam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mandelstam)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2003, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-bungled-the-diplomacy-how-did-he-do-that-exactly/168411/113 "2003-04-21T18:13:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > \*\*I do not intend to debate just how strong the evidence was on this thread. It would be a hijack. However, _Sofa King_, you have actually supported my point that there was at least _some_ evidence. Another poster had said there was absolutely none. \*\* Okay, **december** , now since I already took the trouble to correct you you’re engaging in the kind of behavior that leads to people’s losing patience and insulting you. If you have any evidence of actual _plans_–which is what was stated in my post–provide it here and now. Otherwise, desist from wasting my time and yours. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2003, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-bungled-the-diplomacy-how-did-he-do-that-exactly/168411/114 "2003-04-21T18:27:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mandelstam \* > \*\*Okay, **december** , now since I already took the trouble to correct you you’re engaging in the kind of behavior that leads to people’s losing patience and insulting you. If you have any evidence of actual _plans_–which is what was stated in my post–provide it here and now. Otherwise, desist from wasting my time and yours. \*\* **Mandelstam** , sad to say, you and I are conducting a boring debate over semantics. You wrote > [@](#): > > Yes, but since you are so very imaginative on behalf of all the terrible things that Saddam Hussein might have done, in spite of there having been no evidence at all that he had plans to do any of them… To say there was no _evidence of actual plans_ is different from saying that there was _no evidence at all._ ---
**Author:** ![Tee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@Tee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tee)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2003, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-bungled-the-diplomacy-how-did-he-do-that-exactly/168411/115 "2003-04-21T18:29:43Z")
I imagined quite well the terrible ramifications of this war. That Saddam would be removed from power - check. That the Arab world might be surprised to find out how much Saddam was hated by his own people. Check. That many Arabs would begin to question the steady stream of propaganda coming from Iraq, and possibly other sources. Check. That the world in general would cease to buy the bullshit that “those people need a fierce leader like Saddam” or the whole region is going to collapse into anarchy. (We’ll see.) Or that a democratic system cannot even work in Iraq, the ethnic and religious divisions are too pronounced. (We’ll see.) These are all terrible ramifications, if you’re an Islamicist or Palestinian militant. I’m not. Terrible for the US…well…“that many people would be mad at the US and we’ll create a whole new generation of terrorists”…yeah sure, it all depends on our actions, has nothing to do with rhetoric, propaganda, incentives offered by states and governments or decrees by imams that violence against Western targets pleases Allah, and it’s your duty. That is the biggest, filthiest idea being sold today, by people who should know better: that US policy directly influences Muslim extremism. Muslim extremists directly influence Muslim extremism. Possibly giving _those_ people material to work with, by way of removing a threat to our people, is a negative ramification. That it’s enough to refuse to remove a potential source of attacks _now_, from the terrorists already operation (within a state governments no less) is pure speculation…probably an opposition “line” being fed by someone, and swallowed gratefully by starving masses. No, I’m not buying it. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2003, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-bungled-the-diplomacy-how-did-he-do-that-exactly/168411/116 "2003-04-21T19:51:41Z")
\*That the Arab world might be surprised to find out how much Saddam was hated by his own people. Check. \* Factually incorrect. Everyone in the region knew that he was an evil despot. \*That many Arabs would begin to question the steady stream of propaganda coming from Iraq, and possibly other sources. Check. \* Questionable on both counts: What “propaganda” did anyone in the region “believe”? _That the world in general would cease to buy the bullshit that “those people need a fierce leader like Saddam” or the whole region is going to collapse into anarchy._ Seems to be a straw man, inasmuch as I never actually saw anyone make such a claim. (There are comparisons between Hussein and Stalin in that he could garner the grudging fear/respect of his own people, but there was no outside claim (except, perhaps by the Reagan and original Bush administrations) that Iraq “needed a fierce leader.”) \*Or that a democratic system cannot even work in Iraq, the ethnic and religious divisions are too pronounced. \* Another straw man. I have seen concerns that a “democracy” (read Western puppet government) cannot succeed, but I have seen no claim that the Iraqis are not capable of some form of democratic governance. As noted, “we’ll see.” However, had we gone in with a genuine coalition of world and regional support, we would have had a better opportunity to apply financial support and moral suasion from many sources to rebuild the country in a way that would minimize the sectarian violence. Proposing to establish as leader a person who has been convicted of theft and who has not lived in the country for decades does not seem to be a very good way to unite the various factions (other than _against_ the newly imposed government). (It does, however, returning to the OP, reflect the poverty of diplomatic capabilities exhibited by the Bush administration.) _“that many people would be mad at the US and we’ll create a whole new generation of terrorists”…yeah sure, it all depends on our actions_ This statement is true; it does depend on our actions. And, again in keeping with the actual OP, Bush’s complete inability to accomplish anything in the _diplomatic_ arena suggests that we may well fail, here. (If nothing else, his penchant for alienating prospective allies means that we will quite possibly be given less access to intelligence reports regarding terrorist activities, making us less safe in the long run.) ---
**Author:** ![Mandelstam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Mandelstam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mandelstam)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2003, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-bungled-the-diplomacy-how-did-he-do-that-exactly/168411/117 "2003-04-22T00:25:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > **Mandelstam** , sad to say, you and I are conducting a boring debate over semantics. You wrote: > > \*"but since you are so very imaginative on behalf of all the terrible things that Saddam Hussein **might have done** , in spite of there having been no evidence at all **that he had plans to do any of them…** > > To say there was no _evidence of actual plans_ is different from saying that there was _no evidence at all._ **december** , sad to say, _you_ seem to require a boring lesson in grammar. What I said was that there was "**no evidence at all that he had plans to do any [terrible things]"**–a statement that _means the same thing_ as “no evidence of actual plans.” Why? Because the word “that” introduces a relative clause which modifies the statement “no evidence at all.” An English speaker with the reading competence of a fourth-grader will digest such a sentence and ask “no evidence at all” of what? And the lucid English-speaking mind will reply, “no evidence at all _that he had plans to do any [terrible things]_.” Honestly, **december** , I sometimes wonder at your unabashed masochism. **Tee** , **tom** ’s already done a very thorough job of saying what I would say. I’ll just respond to this: _“That is the biggest, filthiest idea being sold today, by people who should know better: that US policy directly influences Muslim extremism.”_ Really? You might be interested to learn that the CIA issued a report within a few days of the war demonstrating that the onset of war was spurring a surge of al Qaeda recruitment throughout the Muslim world. So I guess you’d conclude that the CIA ought to know better and is in the business of selling the biggest, filthiest ideas of our day? Or perhaps you’d like to reconsider the proposition that your embrace of the Bush position has become dogmatic. ---
**Author:** ![Tee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@Tee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tee)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2003, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-bungled-the-diplomacy-how-did-he-do-that-exactly/168411/118 "2003-04-22T02:41:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by tomndebb \* > \*\*Factually incorrect. Everyone in the region knew that he was an evil despot. > > What “propaganda” did anyone in the region “believe”? > \*\* you know, the suggestion that no one in the Middle East believes propaganda is unusual. But I did want to address your deciding what is factually correct and incorrect, based on what you can’t recall or haven’t heard. Here’s one cite for mixed Arab reactions to Iraqis celebrating: [http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101030421/wstreet.html](http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101030421/wstreet.html) > [@](#): > > The Arab psyche took a direct hit last week when American forces toppled Saddam’s regime. Not since Israel’s devastating defeat of its Arab neighbors in the 1967 Six-Day War has military action left the Middle East in such a state of alternating shock, shame, denial and depression. “shock”, of all things. Here’s another: [http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/iraq/chi-0304130512apr13,0,2346638.story?coll=chi-news-hed](http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/iraq/chi-0304130512apr13,0,2346638.story?coll=chi%2Dnews%2Dhed) > [@](#): > > “The biggest collapse is the culture of lies and the culture of the media’s glorifying regimes,” said Abdel Rahman Al-Rashid, editor-in-chief of the London-based Arabic newspaper Asharq al-Awsat. “It’s the biggest shock since 1967, when Egyptian media and Arab media convinced people the Arabs were victorious [against the Israelis] and a few days later, the truth was known.” Not just shock, but the “biggest shock since 1967.” Seems like they were expecting something entirely different, doesn’t it? > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by tomndebb > “That the world in general would cease to buy the bullshit that “those people need a fierce leader like Saddam” or the whole region is going to collapse into anarchy.”_ > > \*\* Seems to be a straw man, inasmuch as I never actually saw anyone make such a claim. (There are comparisons between Hussein and Stalin in that he could garner the grudging fear/respect of his own people, but there was no outside claim (except, perhaps by the Reagan and original Bush administrations) that Iraq “needed a fierce leader.”)\*\* No, I don’t have to use straw men, this is an idea put forth in some circles and it smacks of paternalism to me. First thing I found was Pravda: _These people [the opposition party] lack political and public authority which are essential for preservation of the multi-national country’s unity. Although Saddam’s methods of ruling were extremely cruel, they nevertheless helped maintain this unity. It is not clear what may happen now when Shi’ites, who make up almost half of the Iraqi population, refuse to cooperate with the so-called Iraqi leadership…_ etc. I saw a more blunt quote from an Iraqi during the war, about a new leader, something like “if he’s not fierce he’ll be crushed” and also a quote from one of our Iraq-Americans about the Arabs having to leave behind the cult of personality politics to make a change. So the idea is out there that these multicultural Arab societies need a harsh ruler, even among themselves. There’s also the generally accepted principle that the Kurds will hijack the northern half of the country immediately, you know, like _all of Turkey_ believes this, and that too could be groundless. I’m betting that it is, and will admit it if I’m wrong. There was something else I was going to say. I forget what. Oh well. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Mandelstam_ > **You might be interested to learn that the CIA issued a report within a few days of the war demonstrating that the onset of war was spurring a surge of al Qaeda recruitment throughout the Muslim world. So I guess you’d conclude that the CIA ought to know better and is in the business of selling the biggest, filthiest ideas of our day?** That’s funny. According to the CIA Saddam poses a threat to the US. I dunno, should we believe them or not? Yes, we can believe that, and some of them are probably fighting in Iraq as we speak…the foreign fighters from Syria, Lebanon, Qatar…there are plenty. I still maintain that there are forces at work on those who become terrorists other than straight US hatred, whether it be propaganda, religious encouragement, or whatever…otherwise we need to be wary of normal people suddenly blowing themselves up in crowds or hijacking planes when they see conflict, or political defeat. Have you seen that here? No? Then perhaps is not a natural characteristic of Muslims. There must be other factors involved. ---
**Author:** ![Mandelstam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Mandelstam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mandelstam)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2003, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-bungled-the-diplomacy-how-did-he-do-that-exactly/168411/119 "2003-04-22T03:19:57Z")
**Tee** : _“That’s funny. According to the CIA Saddam poses a threat to the US. I dunno, should we believe them or not?”_ Actually, the CIA repeatedly cast doubt on and sometimes contradicted outright the Bush administration’s putative linkages between Saddam and Al Qaeda. [For example,](http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2002/11/01/bushiraq021101) \*"“The regime has long-standing and continuing ties to terrorist organizations and there are al-Qaeda terrorists inside Iraq, [said Bush]” There’s only one problem with the ties the White House alleges between Saddam and al-Qaeda. According to most experts on Iraq , those ties barely exist, if they exist at all."\* Further down in the same article: \*"Bush makes these specific claims: - that Iraq and al-Qaeda have had high-level contacts - that Iraq is a safe haven for al-Qaeda fugitives - that Iraq instructed al-Qaeda about weapons of mass destruction. According to George Tenet, the director of the CIA, those claims are based on “sources of varying reliability.”\* Mind you, I’ve never argued that Saddam didn’t pose _any_ kind of threat to the US and others; what I’ve argued is that 1) the threat wasn’t imminent; 2) the threat, such as it was, was best dealt with via continuing inspections and working towards peaceful disarmament and, failing that, by force as a last resort and under UN asupices; and 3) that addressing the threat in any other way, and especially via preventive war without the UN was more dangerous than the supposed threat itself. _“I still maintain that there are forces at work on those who become terrorists other than straight US hatred… Then perhaps [suicide bombings are] not a natural characteristic of Muslims. There must be other factors involved.”_ You’ll get no argument from me on that score, **Tee**. In fact I’m not sure what gave you the impression that I was arguing either that nothing but anti-US hatred motivated terrorism, or (still less) that Muslims are naturally terrorists. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2003, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-bungled-the-diplomacy-how-did-he-do-that-exactly/168411/120 "2003-04-22T04:03:01Z")
> [@](#): > > you know, the suggestion that no one in the Middle East believes propaganda is unusual. But I did want to address your deciding what is factually correct and incorrect, based on what you can’t recall or haven’t heard. If what you meant by propaganda was the usual chest beating prior to combat, then I will concede the point. I had thought you meant some more substantive propaganda. In regards to the pre-war boasting, I certainly agree that too many people in that region believed Hussein’s claims–just as too many people in this part of the world believed the claims that millions of Iraqis were going to greet the U.S. troops with cheers. (Although I notice that some on our side still believe that propaganda, even though the numbers of cheering Iraqis was more like the several hundreds or few thousands rather than the overwhelming majority predicted.) And you then contend that _Pravda_ (!) and an anonymous Iraqi represents “the world in general.” (That rather supports my contention regarding comparisons to Stalin vs people _outside_ Iraq.) I am sure that you can find several more people who believe in the “strong leader” motif. However, I objected to your characterization that it was a general belief throughout the world. I still doubt that that is a generalized concept. (And I am not arguing that whoever eventually becomes the executive does not have to be resolute, only that your claim that _the world_ believed they needed a “fierce leader” was in any way generally held.) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-bungled-the-diplomacy-how-did-he-do-that-exactly/168411.md?page=5)