Bush -- Intelligence -- Iraq -- Argh!

The BBQ Pit
1

So let me see if I understand this (based on the above quote and other articles): The US is going to invade Iraq based on whether the UN Inspectors list of Iraqi weapons matches some (presumably deeply classified)list which the CIA has made up?
:confused:
This would be funny if it wasn’t so fucking sad. I understand there may be valid reasons for going to war in Iraq:
[ul]
[li]distracts people from the lack of progress in the War on Terror[/li][li]Iraq is not a credible threat to the US forces, so there will not be a lot of casualties (except for friendly fire, of course)[/li][li]George has never been in a war, and wants to experience new things[/li][li]provides continued employment for Defence Contractors, boosts the economy, justifies a $335B budget[/li][li]because we can, and no-one can stop us![/li][/ul]

But seriously, why does anyone think this is a good idea? It’s undoubtedly not going to stabilize the region, and it’s going to piss off a whole bunch of people who already don’t like us very much. Face it, the 9/11/01 incident was organised by one small group of people who had been planning an attack for a number of years, and had previously tried (and failed) to demolish the WTC.

But hell, it’s only a few rag-heads, right?

2

Link.
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20021204_1089.html

3

The only voice of reason in the whole mess seems to be, not surprisingly, Colin Powell’s. From DDG’s link:

My question is, why isn’t anyone listening to him? Apparently, Bush is too eager for war to hear what his betters have to say.

4

I’m totally confused on the situation. On the one hand I would like for the mess in 91 to be cleaned up, and for Hussein to be removed from power. On the other hand I wish they would tone the fucking rhetoric down a few notches. It almost seems like he cant do anything right. Let the inspectors do their work, lets stop speculating about the list until we have it, and we’ll get to blowing his ass off the face of the planet when its time to cross that bridge.

5

I was having similar thoughts when watching all this unfold on the news the other night. Bush’s logic is impeccable for his purposes:

a) if the weapons inspectors find weapons of mass destruction, that confirms what we’ve been saying all along about Iraq.
b) if they find nothing, it must be because Saddam is hiding them, which also confirms what we’ve been saying all along about Iraq.

Either way, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld at al. get their war.

And why am i not surprised that the media (again) fails to notice the glaring inconsistencies in this administration’s logic?

6

You guys seem to have faith in something I can’t see. Help me out here, 'cause I really don’t get it.
Iraq launched an attack against Kuwait in 1990. Multiple, read: more than one UNSCR’s were passed requiring Iraqi withdrawal to previous borders and return of various and sundry properties, prisoners, blah blah blah. Iraq ignored them, one and all. His last chance came in UNSCR661 which gave him a dropdead date of Jan 15, 1991 to comply or face military action. We all know how that story turned out, don’t we? Do I seriously have to refresh your memories? Remember SCUD missiles landing in Israel? Remember Iraq setting the oil fiels on fire as his troops retreated? Remember the term they used at the time, oh, wait, wasn’t it something like environmental disaster? So, Saddam is badly beaten, nay almost humiliated, and he retreats to Baghdad, courtesy of UNSCR687 to lick his wounds and live to fight another day. Now, let’s look at the intervening years. Did Saddam or did he not agree to the terms of the ceasefire? Has he complied? Yes. No. What has been the punishment inflicted by the U.N. in response? More paper, with lots of pretty words. Sure, sanctions were imposed. Have they been successful? Yeah, if we intended to hurt Iraqi civilians. I’m sure you all think that’s just swell, don’t you. You don’t? Hmm, imagine that. So, we have a serious problem brewing STILL in Iraq. He funds families of suicide bombers in Israel. That in my definition is called incentive. I also call that a serious attempt to destabilize the region. But, hey, that’s different, right? Better we should let him continue to develop nasty things to use, because we’re not concerned that he’s already demonstrated that he will use these things, and next time against…? You choose his next victim. His own people again? Iran? Israel? Kuwait? You can’t argue that he won’t. I argue he will, based strictly on precedence. So, come up with a workable solution, or stay out of the way. Fish or cut bait.

As to the points listed:

Distracting from the War on Terror - what part of Iraqi terror in my list did you miss? Has W. not made the point, over and over again, that nations which support or harbor terrorists are terrorists? Did W. not make the point that responding to the 9/11 terrorists was just the beginning of the war against terrorism in all its forms? Yes, yes he did. That he is finishing the job left undone does not constitute a distraction. Call if what it is, phase 2.

Iraq not a credible threat to our military? Well, you might be right. But our military is not at risk by terrorists as much as the 3,000 civilians sitting at their desks on 9/11. And the evidence of his possession of Bio-Chem weapons ought to be frightening, given his history. This is called asymmetrical warfare. Get used to it, we’ll be seeing a lot of it. If we can use our military superiority, we’d be suicidal not to.

W. has never been to war: Stupid comment. Neither had Clinton, didn’t stop him from Somalia, Kosovo, Bosnia.

Boosts the economy via defense contractors: See above. I’ll retract my ‘stupid’ comment if you can show your consistency in criticizing Clinton during his terms on this issue.

Because we can, and no one can stop us: So, we should just abdicate our power in the interests of who, precisely? And just who can or will defend us afterward? France? Germany? I laugh.

By the way, have you heard that the official French flag has been changed?

It’s now white. :smiley:

Now, let me tell you what I think is really going on. I think what you’re seeing is a sophisticated game, a marvelous one, of Good Cop/Bad Cop. In order for Good Cop (Powell) to be effective, Bad Cop has to be big, bad, yes, I know, and scary. G.W. is the stick, if you prefer FDR’s words, with Powell, the soft walker. W. paces in the White House, breathing fire and threatening dire actions against Saddam. Powell runs to the U.N., and when they seem less than inclined to cooperate, he gives them this little bit: “Well, if you can’t work with me…”, and the UNSC falls in line. Now, Saddam has had a decade to play hide and seek and outlast the revolving seats on the UNSC, and it’s worked. Some members are ready to call it quits and give in, even. So this has got to look real. Hence the buildup of military might. You can’t bluff if the other guy thinks you’re bluffing, can you? Now, you might ask why I think this way. One, I give W. a little more credit than to believe that he’s a warmonger, idiot Republican. Was he hasty in Afghanistan? Did he give the Taliban plenty of opportunity to cooperate? Did he bomb the hell out the civilian population? No, no, no. Sounds like a reasoned military response to me. Has he acted prematurely in Iraq? No. He originally singled out Iraq in his Jan 02 SOTU address. Hardly the election-eve distraction it was portrayed in the dem/media spin. Has he acted unilaterally? No, he not only sought Congressional approval in advance, he sought out UNSC support, and worked for 8 weeks to achieve a unanimous vote. Hardly unilateralism at its finest. So stop using the word, already. If you think Powell is the voice of reason in a Dr. Strangelove admin, you must then conclude that Powell is deranged, because his aid in achieving these critical votes finds him complicit with the insane Peter Sellers. But, that wouldn’t make sense, would it?

7

Good Cop/Bad Cop ? Probably.
A marvelous game ? Unlikely.

8

Well, first of all, if violating a UN Security Council Resolution is sufficient cause for military action, then you have your priorities wrong. The following two countries top the list of UNSCR violations:

  1. Israel
  2. Turkey

Where’s the US invasion force to correct these egregious snubbings of world opinion? Israel routinely violates human rights of Palestinians and acts belligerently in international affairs. And Turkey’s assault on its own citizens, especially Kurds, are so well documented that even the US State Department chooses to ignore rather than deny them.

The issue here is not whether Saddam is a good guy or not. He’s not. I’d be quite happy to see him out of power. But for someone who pretends such concern for Iraqi citizens, you seem pretty sanguine about the consequences for those same citizens of a massive US-led bombing and ground attack. But of course, American “smart bombs” never go anywhere near civilians. :rolleyes:

And many of the evil deeds you attribute to Saddam - the Scuds, the firing of the oil wells, etc. - were done after he was attacked by US-led forces. Why was the US so happy to support his human rights violations and terrorism in the 1980s, and then suddenly opposed to it in the 1990s? And not only were the UNSCRs that you describe worded so belligerently that Iraq could never be expected to accede to them, but the US made it clear that it did not even want Saddam to cave in, but preferred war. When asked about the possibility that Iraq would accede to UN demands in late 1990 and withdraw, one US government representative called that the “worst case scenario.” Then, as now, every time Iraq even looked like complying with US/UN demands, those demands were ramped even higher.

And why does one need to have criticized Clinton in order to criticize Bush? Well, if that’s how it has to be for fools who believe that tit-for-tat is the same thing as balanced analysis, then here you go: i think Clinton’s policies in Somalia and the Balkans sucked. Happy now?

Your argument about Iraq and terrorism is pretty much one big non-sequitur. No-one has managed to link Iraq to the 9/11 attacks, and its internal terrorism was going on during the 1980s, when the US was supplying Iraq with weapons. If he’s really serious about fighting terror, perhaps he should start looking at the arms manufacturers - many based in the US and allied countries - who supply many of the weapons used by people like Saddam, Bin Laden, etc. A key plank in Bush’s logic has been Iraq’s alleged possession of “weapons of mass destruction,” including nuclear weapons. But as November’s Harper magazine says, when Bush cited “evidence” of Iraq’s military threat on September 7, he cited two reports, and the last time the agency that produced those reports (International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna) had any new information about Iraq’s nuclear program was back in 1998. And, at that time, IAEA had no indications of “any physical capacity” to produce nuclear material of weapons grade.

And you have still failed to address the main point made by more than one person on this thread, which had to do with Bush’s logic regarding the success or otherwise of UN weapons inspectors. That is, he seems to be assuming that if the weapons inspectors don’t find anything, that it’s not because there’s nothing to find, but because Iraq has successfully hidden the weapons. Well, if he’s going to base his whole strategy on that assumption, why did he spend so much time asking for the inspectors to be allowed back in? It seems to me that what you see as reasonable, rational, multilateral diplomacy is actually little more than window dressing designed to cover his ass when he does what he was going to do all along - invade.

9

NaSultainne first let me say a couple of things for the record:
(1) I don’t think Saddam Hussein is an angel; I’d be quite happy if he was no longer in power. He’s a petty, power-mad dictator who has made several attempts to attack neighbouring countries (a long war with Iran, the annexation of Kuwait, odd border incidents and incursions) and who treats ethnic minorities in his own country as worse than animals. But you know, he’s got a lot of fairly mediocre company down there in Mesopotamia – it’s not an area of the world well known for democracy, human rights and tolerance.

(2) Sorry for the cheap shot at Bush’s war record. :o
Now here’s where we differ, I think.

I personally have seen no compelling evidence that says Iraq was strongly involved in the outrageous attacks on the WTC and Pentagon on 9/11. I don’t trust our government, especially in this case.

I think that Bush leading a unilateral military action against Iraq will inflame the terrorists/enemies of the USA in the region, most/all of whom are based outside Iraq. I think that a unilateral military action against Hussein might well turn him into some kind of “martyr for the cause” and will inexorably lead to more terrorist attacks on the USA.

Look at Osama bin Laden. His group plotted for years to attack the WTC; they made at least one abortive attempt several years ago – when that failed, they planned and executed another more successful attack. What drove Osama bin Laden to seek vengence on the US, and to take almost a decade to do it? Some of the motivation was (apparently) the actions of the US during Desert Storm. Now we’re going to go back and do the same again (Desert Storm 2, or as my friends in an allied military force call it, Operation Deny Christmas).

So in closing (and this is what makes me so mad, although this has been a mild pit rant – I apologise) it seems to me that our President is attacking Iraq for reasons more to do with wounded pride (either the Bush family pride, or the shock to the national pride that was 9/11/01), and because Saddam is a convenient target to distract the voting public from the realities of the War on Terror.

I fucking hate that his actions are giving America a widening reputation as a somewhat unstable bully with a increasingly poor record on human rights, international law and the sovereignity of any other country that we don’t happen to like.

Look, I really hope you are right and this is a “good cop/bad cop” game – if it is, our boy George is one hell of a player. But I’m really saddened and angered by what appears to be an attempt to bolster support for a war which we are going to have no matter what.

Biut on the plus side, at least this will be a real war; we won’t have another concentration camp full of “enemy sympathisers” or whatever the poor sods at Camp X are called these days.
I apologise the for length and incoherence.

10

Nice post NaSultainne.

I never understood what’s behind the idea that we need a new war to distract us from the War on Terror. What is that all about.

11

Maybe because the “war on terror” is not really going so well. Sure, they’ve bombed the shit out of Afghanistan and gotten rid of the Taliban (who no-one in the US government seemed too worried about before 9/11), and even caught a few important Al Qaeda operatives. But Bin Laden is still out there, and the fact that they haven’t got him yet seems to be of some embarrasment to the administration, given that George W. Bush has not mentioned Bin Laden’s name in public even once since July 8, according to the December Harper’s. In that same period, he has been constantly talking up the threat posed by Iraq.

And, by the way, for those like NaSultainne who say they are concerned about the plight of the Iraqi people, check the November Harper’s for Joy Gordon’s article “Cool War: Economic sanctions as a Weapon of Mass Destruction,” pp. 43-49, to see who is really causing so much of the Iraqis’ plight. Some choice reading from the article:

12

That’s just fucking hilarious. By the way, americans are fat bastards who eat hamburgers all day, the scottish are alcoholics who all wear skirts and say och aye the noo, the english are stuck up snobs who dislike sex…
…seeing as national stereotypes are so funny, and all.

13

To be honest, neither do I. But I still think Saddam should be removed. Granted, I think this should be done through covert operations rather than overt military invasion, but I still think that it’s something that needs to be done.

14

That was Teddy, not Franklin, and the quote was “Speak softly and carry a big stick.” Not “walk.” And frankly, your grasp of modern international politics is about as firm as your grasp of classic political rhetoric.

15

Damn, i must have skipped over that rather egregious error in my haste to correct NaSultainne’s many other clunkers. Nice catch, Miller.

16

Isn’t it true that the economic sanctions are in place because of Iraq’s refusal to disarm? Per the UN?

Many people think the sanctions should be lifted, no military action should be undertaken, ‘leave it to the UN’ which is what has been done for 11 years or so already…no one else is interested in forcing SH to comply with UN demands I guess. So from where I’m sitting, the claim that we’re ‘being distracted from the War on Terror’, among other things, looks just as much like a distraction from the fact that the UN has no intention of enforcing its own resolutions, and the world doesn’t really care very much. No one at this point should have to prove that Hussein is a threat.

Unless a lot people don’t think he is a threat…is that it?

17

Ok I’ll bite. What people are saying is that the sanctions as they are are not doing what they were intended for and that is to weaken the position of the Iraqi Government in the eyes of its people,resulting in its over throw and to make sure it can not build its military again. The only people hurt are the citizens and they seem to blame others rather than their own government.

And some people aren’t really in favour of FORCING complience with a military strike 'cause guess who gets hurt again. I’ll give you a hint the initaials are not S.H.

I don’t think that is the case at all. Just many people don’t see the immediate threat that the Bush administration keeps foaming about. To many people it looks like the Military might of the US is going to be used to kick a manwhen he’s down. The evidence that Iraq is amassing WMDs is being sought now with the inspectors. Guess what? If Iraq has been doing this for the last 11 years we will find out. Then we can decide on a proper action.

This shoot first ask questions later attitude is unecessary. There is no imediate threat. We can take the time to investigate and assess the situation impartially through the UN.
Or do you really fear that the Iraqi hoardes will over run the Middle east and cut off our oil supply by the end of the week?

Crap on a cracker!!! This is the kind of thinking that everyone is complaining about. No Hussaein is not a good guy. He deserves to be ousted but we are not talking about walking up to the presidential palace and evicting the bum, you are talking about weeks of bombing followed by a military invasion into several cities.
I don’t care how sophisticated your technology is civilians will die, American soldiers will die even if it is just one that is too many.
You want all of this based on a hunch.

I don’t know about you but my conscience will be a lot clearer if there was a rock solid proof that action is required. You know something we can all agree is a threat.

18

I say ‘marvelous’ in that Bush has gained the qualified supportl of the Congress, UNSC and Nato to end Saddam’s defiance of long-standing SC resolutions. Not for unlimited, unrestrained action, but they’re on board at this point. And did I not already point out that Good Cop/Bad Cop does not work if the perp knows what’s going on? How worried would Saddam be if he knew, I mean knew as clear as day, that Bush would never resort to military action?

19

No, I haven’t said this, despite your attempt to read into my comments. What I said, in a nutshell, was that a lengthy period of violations of numerous SCR’s has passed, and that this is an issue demanding attention. Make up a list of the hotspots around the world, and prioritize to your heart’s content. List by proposed mode of address, military, diplomatic, economic, etc., and let me know where Iraq lands on your list. It is simplistic to believe that the U.S. is incapable of dealing with different problems differently, and doing so simultaneously. For the record, I am not advocating war against Iraq. I’d much rather the inspections were a success and our military buildup the cause.

Oh, puhleeze. I’m hardly nonchalant about this, despite your sarcasm. I’m concerned that Iraq poses a threat to it’s neighbors, a threat to Israel (our ally and good friend), an ongoing source of unneeded friction in the Israel-Palestinian conflict, and a potential supplier of WMD to other entities. I also pointed out that economic sanctions are in fact hurting the civilians, not Saddam, which would, theoretically at least, be the presumed point.

True, but Israel was NOT a party to the conflict, as you well know. Great care was taken to prevent the conflict from growing into a larger war by preventing Israeli involvement or indeed, response to attack.

Okay, the U.S. screwed up in the 80’s by supporting his regime. You would argue that if we were wrong then, we’re wrong now? Based on, what? Your argument that the resolutions have been a pretext aimed at war is supported by who, specifically? How about some names here? ‘One US government representative’ is less than compelling.

No, thanks anyway, idiot. I was looking for a little consistency. Note that under Clinton, regime change in Iraq became government policy, while today that same policy is attacked as being Bush war-talk.

True, if links there be, they haven’t been publically made. My point was in counter to the argument that Saddam supposedly poses no threat outside his borders. If official reports of Iraqi possession of Anthrax, Smallpox, Botulinim, etc., are true, then my point stands. Civilians are now the frontline in a new type of warfare. Terrorism by small units, warfare when perpetrated by governments. I didn’t posit this as a given, just a risk to be evaluated.

Sure, it’s impossible to prove a negative. When DID you stop making B/C/N weapons, Mr. Hussein? Think about this slowly. If Bush has evidence that Saddam has such weapons, he has to prove it to the international community, doesn’t he? Isn’t that what everyone’s been saying all along? Now, if Bush says chem weaponry can be found at point X, how long (prior to the inspectors being in country, of course) would it take Saddam to order the removal of said weapons? Certainly prior to any access to point X being granted, wouldn’t you admit? Then Saddam loudly proclaims the evidence to be CIA manufactured propaganda, and then what do we do? No, he does it smarter. He ensures through UNSC action that inspectors are in Iraq, that the resolution requires Iraq disclosure of all weapons/products, and waits for Saddam to leave out something provable. Then the inspectors are given the information and if all goes as planned, they discover that Saddam has indeed provided less than full compliance. I won’t pretend that I don’t think Bush will take this to war if it comes to that. What I do see is that those who oppose any military action, regardless of cause, seem to offer no real alternative. I’m still waiting.

20

Scruff, actually I find myself more in agreement with your disquiet than perhaps I seem. While I don’t share your strong distrust of government, call my attitude more cautiously watchful, I do see the sum of public information available sufficient to justify Iraq being a clear priority for the US.

As to terrorism/Iraq, that obviously, as you’re the second poster to comment on it, didn’t accurately express my meaning. I meant to say that any country, such as Iraq, with a demonstrated history of aggression, use of chemical weapons against citizen and enemy alike, continuing to pursue even worse weapons, has now, thanks to the overwhelming statement of 9/11, discovered how to wage a new kind of war without leaving a fingerprint behind. This is why I’m not persuaded that the argument that Saddam is not a risk to others is less than reassuring.

Two final points, and I’ll see if I can make them quickly.

Re Bush doing this to assuage family pride. Bear in mind that G.H.W. Bush is a former president, not just anybody’s father. An attack against a former head of state shouldn’t be dismissed quite so lightly.

On to the likelihood of increased support for terrorism as a reaction to events in Iraq. I find this such a weak argument. What you’re saying is that the terrorism committed against U.S. targets during the Clinton terms could get worse, now? Clinton, who certainly couldn’t be viewed as anti-muslim, a warmonger, a cowboy, a unilateralist, right? Didn’t seem to stop the terrorism then, did it? Sept. 11 planning was underway while Clinton was still in office, so this idea that Bush will cause a reaction in the radical muslim community is a stretch. Had we had a Clinton era of worldwide peace in that regard, I’d find the argument more accurate.