Just another note to point out that Werekoala did not answer the question by me that was cited:
I have asked, “Do you agree or disagree with the point of the question posed that Bush is wrong in his video taped performance to state that his first choice was diplomacy?”
Werekoala replied that Bush’s first choice was diplomacy but saying nothing of what I asked about agreeing or disagreeing if it is wrong to state it today. Also, if my question were understood as written one would know that it was asked as ‘First Choice’ in the context of Bush’s current video which is the choice between ‘putting troops in harms way’ versus a choice of 'continued diplomatic efforts/ UN inspections.
Here was the first part of Werekoala’s reply to my question:
“Of course his first choice was diplomacy, he didn’t have troops in place to make his first choice a military one. Time was needed for preparation and deployment, and during that time diplomatic means were attempted to get Saddam to back down and comply.”
… wow, I’m actually a bit surprised. You truly believe that’s why we invaded, not that it was all lies and excuses cooked up for some other nefarious purpose? Because if that’s true, then you must also believe that we invaded because Hussein had not fully complied with the ultimatums given, in which case we probably, mostly, agree - and as a consequence, you just answered the question you asked me as to whether I think Hussein failed to comply with the directives and ultimatums given.
In short, it was stated that he did not fully disclose and open for inspection all of his WMD operations and/or stockpiles. As you said, this was the basis for attack, and was supposedly backed up with sufficient evidence to launch the invasion. All of this was based on what was known at the time (or was stated was known) and much of it has turned out not to be the case in the years since, but we acted on the best available information at that time, not with the benefit of hindsight.
Now if you’re be sarcastic, then that’s another matter and we’ll have to try another route.
Also, I guess I wasn’t clear in my original response - yes, I think his first choice was diplomacy. This was evidenced by nearly a year of televised UN hearings and news reports about diplomatic efforts, inspections, etc. before the first bomb was dropped. I also believe that a military buildup is, in and of itself, a form of diplomacy. Someone famous once said something about war being diplomacy by other means, I believe. And yes, I still believe that it is correct today to state that it was his first choice.
What makes you think SH failed to do what was asked of him; and what parties asked him to do it, and in whose judgment is it that SH did not comply?
Bear in mind that when Bush asked Congress to confront Iraq in 2002 and to authorize force if necessary there were no UN inspectors inside Iraq. Iraq was in violation of international law at that time.
However when Bush decided to put US troops in harms way in March 2003 there were UN inspectors inside Iraq, and diplomatic efforts were seen to be working. And there us no case to be made that Iraq was in violation of international law at that time as long as UN Res 1441 was not taken to a material breach by SH’s lack if cooperation.
Are you are aware of that and the folliwing major distinction?
Not in compliance with international versus in compliance with UN Res 1441 and thus in compliance with international law.
Why must I believe that “we invaded because Hussein had not fully complied with the ultimatums given…”?
I believe what I can define to be true based upon the facts and historical record.
Will you provide one sliver of an ultimatum on the historical record related to the UN Security Council that expressed an ultimatum that Saddam Hussein had to be ‘fully complied’ by March 17, 2003 or any time before when Bush decided on his own to put and end to diplomacy and follow his first choice to put our troops in harms way and start a war?
Can you provide one sliver of an ultimatum on the historical record related to the UN Security Council that expressed an ultimatum that Saddam Hussein had to be ‘fully complied’ by March 17, 2003 or any time before that deadline when Bush decided on his own to put an end to diplomacy and follow his first choice to put our troops in harms way and start a war?
What is the point of you asking people to show something that you’ve already made up your mind about? Seriously, what do you get out of it?
I’m not disagreeing with your fundamental point, but you keep repeating these questions as if you’re a die-hard Red Sox fan who keeps asking people to convince him that the Yankees are a great baseball team. No matter what anyone says, you’ll just go on saying that the Red Sox are awesome, and repeating pleas for Yankee fans to come forward because nobody has convinced you yet.
I’m just puzzled what you expect others to say, and why you think other people should respond to endless variations of the same questions you’ve been asking since you joined here. Why do you do this?
It’s like in his other pedantically epic thread about the IRS scandal. People have explained to him, over and over again and in multiple different ways why it’s a scandal, and he just keeps going on and on like a bulldog and ignoring what people tell him. Same in this thread. Besides the fact that he’s just not an engaging poster and, frankly, is pretty boring especially when you have to cover the same ground over and over again, the board is just a pain in the ass to post on, at least for me, ATM, so it’s simply not worth beating my own head against his granite wall of pedantry, handwavery and goal shifting.
We all get it…you don’t like GW Bush. Yup, that’s pretty clear. And it’s SUCH a bold stance on this board, where I can’t even think of many ‘conservative’ posters who liked the man or thought he was a good president…and ‘conservatives’ are highly outnumbered here. By a pretty huge margin.
Since you have asked me a question I will attempt to answer it perhaps a bit more than right now, but it may take a few more posts since I prefer to do it with some facts and citations of where this particular thread has been and I think is going.
I can best explain what you’ve asked if you can at least reply at some point when I am answering a question that has been asked of me.
If you could at least respond that you have read my response to your specific question and let me know what you think of it.
As to this specific issue that you have inquired about, what I want is at least some kind of response from XT and others who have attacked my knowledge of what ‘unfettered inspections’ are what Blix said about them.
I believe it is one purpose of forums such as this to test our viewpoints against a certain basis of facts known and words written and said by people involved in the run up to war in Iraq.
Therefore I am asking that you consider if it id fair to at least have some kind of response to my last point in defense of my view of what Blix said about cooperation on process and cooperation on substance.
The complaint leveled against me is based upon a blurred non-separation of c.o.p and c.o.s. by XT and others.
The two are critically separate criteria that Blix used and I can back it up with facts if you do not wish to believe me.
In the Blix quote from the Jan 2003 NYT link above - I believe the distinction is made quite clear and the purpose of making that distinction is plainly explained by Blix.
Unfettered inspections c.o.p (access to sites) and logistics issues resolved etc were all
Required for Blix to report that the inspection process was working - not complete but working, And indeed Blix always reported that c.o.p was immediate and full with very few minor issues needing resolved at the start.
We all should understand that Iraq was always in compliance with UN Res 1441 for the cooperation on process that was provided and better than at any time prior to the 1441 round.
But looking at what Blix said above it is obvious that c.o.s was not to determine if inspections were working or failing it was to bring the inspection process to an end and get into the monitoring phase.
UN Res 1441 required that SH allow the inspectors to have access to sites to avoid the UNSC from deciding material breach of 1441 and thus perhaps authorizing military force.
NO DEADLINE for FULL and final COMPLIANCE.
There was no timetable or deadline set for Iraq to get found in full compliance.
So Ravenman that is what I want.
This point/argument has not been dealt with here to the level we’ve all taken it thus far.
I would like to know what XT and Werekoala have against my last point.
XT has not responded on content ever since I brought up the difference between c.o.p. and c.o.s and a true definition of ‘unfettered inspections’.
I don’t believe XT or anyone else has a valid response on recent content after assailing my earlier statement about Blix, so we see what we just saw from XT in last night’s post.
It sure doesn’t seem like what you want, because I asked you a question on why you post small variations of the same thing over and over, and simply ignore or reject anything that doesn’t fit into your narrow world view.
But fine, I’ll post one more thing on this point: you said that there was no deadline for Iraq to be in full compliance. This isn’t quite accurate. There was no deadline for UNSCOM/UNMOVIC to complete its work. In UNSC 1441, Iraq is told no less than four times that its cooperation must be “immediate,” as in paragraph 9: “[The UN Security Counsil} Requests the Secretary-General immediately to notify Iraq of this resolution, which is binding on Iraq; … and demands further that Iraq cooperate immediately, unconditionally, and actively with UNMOVIC and the IAEA.”
Which, if you note, I have already quoted Blix stating in March that it is up to the UN Security Council to decide whether Iraq’s cooperation has been “immediate.” Blix himself clearly states that it took months to secure meaningful cooperation with Iraq.
So I responded to one of your points with facts, not my own personal spin of what people said and concluded. Now you tell me why you seem to enjoy posting the same things over and over and over and over and seem to conclude that nobody is responding to you, when in fact you just aren’t getting universal accolades for your version of history that is riddled with serious factual errors.
And yet I generally agree with your conclusion that Bush was seriously, gravely wrong to start the war, which is the view of just about everyone who has ever responded to your posts. So my follow-up question is, why do you persist in foisting such long posts of poorly interpreted history upon people who agree that Iraq was a mistake? You’re picking annoying arguments with people who are on your side. Are you sure you don’t think you’re on a conservative message board?
My response to Adaher that became the focus of an attack on my truthfulness or historical accuracy or what not:
And because I wrote that, this discussion has come to, your determination that I am riddled with errors.
So one reason I keep asking questions is because I do not have to accept that I am the one 'riddled with errors.
Do you see something that I need an explanation for? It is in response to my requests for a ‘deadline’ whereby Iraq was to be in ‘full compliance’.
You wrote, “There was no deadline for UNSCOM/UNMOVIC to complete its work.”
I take “UNSCOM/UNMOVIC to complete its work” as the point when SH is declared to be in Full Compliance with his Disarmament obligation.
Adaher and others are arguing that SH should have been in ‘full compliance’ prior to March 17, the date Bush gave us notice that he had decided upon war… not diplomacy.
Which means you agree with me I would think. You go on to cite ‘immediately’ as I guess, some kind of deadline that applied to SH.
It is not a deadline.
What I don’t understand is how, I am riddled with historical errors, when what I wrote in response to Adaher is much closer to true than anything anyone else has come up with.
IF it was your intent to make “immediacy of action on SH’s part” as some sort of deadline then I believe you have not made a case that I am the one that is “riddled with serious factual errors”.
And the point I am also making is, that I am unaware of any way to counter your accusations against me without making it in some form of a reply and perhaps asking questions about the case you have made against me.
Some of my replies have been to find someone who can show me that there was some kind of deadline for when SH had to be fully compliant. And you say there is none.
IF there are none, then I would like to begin explaining something similar to what Tony Sinclair wrote about immediacy.
You and XT like to declare your points to be flawless and then you ask why I go on repeating the same things over and over again.
Here’s another example of a flaw in your point and a refutation of your complaint that I have been through this with you before. I don’t think we have addressed the issue of ‘immediate cooperation’ as demanded in UN Res 1441.
Go back to Adaher’s posting of the UK’s Prime Minister’s saying, “This is how Saddam plays the concession game. It is not the full, immediate co-operation that the UN demands.”
Now you may come to understand why Blix said deciding if it was ‘immediate cooperation’ that he finally got from Iraq after a few months.
It was indeed the UNSC’s decision.
And the UNSC decision/majority view was opposed to Tony Blair’s spokesmen’s war-mongering opinion that Saddam’s cooperation at that point, was "not the full, immediate co-operation that the UN demands.
Again, I am not repeating anything that we’ve been through before.
If this is truly a dialogue, discussion, debate about something then I should get to express my view even if is after you have declared my position to be “riddled with serious factual errors”.
As far as your citing the fact that Blix left the decision about ‘immediate cooperation’ up to the UNSC to decide, that is what I know and expect he would have said.
That doesn’t mean Blix was less than neutral and was not sure about continuing inspections as the best path to go instead of the ‘absurdity’ of going to war and finding no WMD in the end.
“cite-> Blair’s blind faith in intelligence By Dr Blix http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...ony-blair-iraq Excerpts: A month before the war, I told Tony Blair it would be absurd if 250,000 troops were to invade Iraq and find no WMD. <-cite”–Posted by NotfooledbyW #108 06-12-2013 03:38 PM.
And finally, I know you have no sympathies toward Bush deciding to invade Iraq the way he did. But when any of us accept the false notion/conclusion that Iraq was not cooperating enough for a normal US President and even Bush Jr to conclude there was no alternative to war - diplomacy had run its course - Let’s kick Blix and his inspectors out… for war, it is not good or conducive to learning and knowing all that happened and what caused this massive failure of intelligent and pragmatic thinking on the eve of invading and occupying with a somewhat Judeo/Christian influenced military some Muslim nation that was absolutely no threat to us at the time with UN inspectors on the ground.
So more answers to your secondary question is that I would truly like to understand how some people, not just you, who were and are so opposed to what Bush did, can at the same time find some sympathy with Bush defenders like Adaher when they make the claim that “Saddam did not cooperate” or it was ‘not immediate’?
And I would also like to point out in addition to what Tony Sinclair said about ‘lack of immediate cooperation’ somehow being a pretext for justifying the invasion, Bush did not cite, the lack of ‘immediate’ cooperation as a reason in his address for going to war.
Bush cited intelligence that ‘left no doubt’ that SH was ‘NOT COOPERATING’ as he should with the UN inspectors… in fact there was no doubt that SH was 'concealing the most lethal weapons ever devised.
Why did Bush not cite SH’s failure to cooperate immediately as required by the UNSC when he announced to the world that a US invasion of Iraq was coming?
I think it is because to say that, Bush would have been forced to admit that "Iraq had been cooperating -proactively for weeks prior to what Bush’s also described ‘the final days of decision’.
So Bush had to blur somehow the fact that Iraq was cooperating in the UNSC’s eyes, and the alternative had to be somewhat of a real existential threat to our national security.
Iraq was hiding actual lethal WMD from those pitiful UN inspectors who could find nothing at all.
Bush had to cite some real threat. Stating that Iraq did not begin to cooperate “immediately” enough, but was cooperating fully today - would have been a pathetic excuse to start a war.
As Tony Sinclair said, “To any sane person, it is a ridiculous reason to invade.”
I agree. That is where talk about lack of immediate cooperation from SH should go. Into the loony bin.
But it’s not… The Invasion supporters cite that as one of their favorite talking points to explain why Bush the Decider did what he did.
XT made a claim that SH essentially did not allow unfettered insoections (access to sites) from the beginning of Blix’s renewed inspections. XT is making the argument that SH did not comply immediately enough to avoid war which is the same case that invasion supporters make to justify Bush’s final decision which was to invade not over ‘immediacy of cooperation on SH’s part’ but on the undoubtable claim that SH was actually hiding lethal WMD from the inspectors in March 2003:
So I replied to XT on this never before discussed issue, as follows:
But, XT could not apparently find a cite to back his claim and argument.
I must presume that XT agrees that SH provided access to sites from the very start of post-1441 according to Dr Blix.
Therefore the ‘immediacy’ issue should only be applied to cooperation on substance.
And both Tony Sinclair and I have pointed out the lunacy of allowing Bush and his supporters make the later case that immediacy was a suitable justification to invade.
This thread is the first time the discussion about immediacy has come up, so excuses that folks use to abandon this discussion because it is over the same worn out issues are lame.
I see no counter points to my facts and reasoning as the reason for the disengagement from these important topics.
XT makes a perfect example if one follows the course of this thread alone.
[QUOTE=NotfooledbyW]
XT made a claim that SH essentially did not allow unfettered insoections (access to sites) from the beginning of Blix’s renewed inspections. XT is making the argument that SH did not comply immediately enough to avoid war which is the same case that invasion supporters make to justify Bush’s final decision which was to invade not over ‘immediacy of cooperation on SH’s part’ but on the undoubtable claim that SH was actually hiding lethal WMD from the inspectors in March 2003:
[/QUOTE]
You mix stuff I said with your own fucking strawmen and then wonder why no one wants to engage with you anymore. I asked YOU to back up YOUR fucking assertion that Saddam was allowing unfettered inspections. I never said that this justified a fucking gods damned thing…that’s YOUR FUCKING BULLSHIT AND I DON’T APPRECIATE YOU TRYING TO HANG THAT ON ME. The Cliff’s Notes version of what I said was that by the time he started cooperating more fully it was too late, since the decision had been put into Bush’s hands by Congress and the logistics and force structure was deployed and in place and basically just waiting to begin combat operations. I don’t need to find you a cite for that, as it’s reality, whether you want to bury your head up your ass and continue to deny it or not. Once the decision was placed into GW’s hands, and once the troops were deployed it was too late…nothing SH or anyone else did at that point, short of total surrender, was going to stop Bush from launching the war. There was no justification he needed at that point, since the decision was put in his hands and he felt that he had sufficient proof to do what he wanted to do…invade Iraq and remove Saddam and his merry men from power.
And I ignored it since you hadn’t backed up your own statements that I was responding too about unfettered access. I’m not going to give you a cite when you didn’t back up your own statements…why the fuck should I?
No, actually, I was ignoring your pedantic horseshit in this thread and was perfectly willing to let it die, since you were playing the same games you play in all of these threads. Shifting the goal posts, pedantic digressions about the meaning of terms especially wrt your own ridiculous definitions of them, and lots of hand waving. At a guess, everyone else was pretty much ignoring you in this thread as well, since many have tried to get through to you and all have failed miserably.
Yet you haven’t backed up this claim with a cite, while others in this thread have given you cites showing that this wasn’t the case and which you’ve ignored. Just skimming the thread and clicking on links we have this, from post 59:
This is dated Feburary, 2003, only 3 months before the invasion. From post number 63, we have this:
This was dated March 2003, 2 months before the invasion.
And yet, multiple posters have given this to you and you’ve ignored them. To the point where no one is bothering to even engage you anymore since your posts are so ridiculous. And this is in multiple threads, not just this one.
The irony of this statement is pretty much off the charts, such that I had to uncouple my SDMB Industrial Irony Meter 2013, the most powerful irony meter in the known universe, for fear it would self destruct in this thread.
y
On the other hand if I respond to all my attackers from the left on multiple posts they avoid responding and then I get the one trick pony adios.
I appreciate your response to Adaher on the other thread. It seems we agree that reasonable people should label all this anti-Obsma muck-racking as a scandal this and a scandal that,
If you have any comments on whether SH was given a deadline to be fully disarmed or to the lack of immediate cooperation on SH’s part with Dr Blix, I’d like to see them,
So if you are interested in this topic and have comments I would be able to reduce the size of my posts accordingly.
I really didn’t think XT was coming back since his previous post was all insult with no content applied to the discussion we were having.
You have not responded or contested that Blix stated in January 2003 that Iraq was providing full access to all sites from the beginning.
What you and Andaher seem to agree on is that Blix considered cooperation on substance to be exactly the same as cooperation on access to sites which some refer to as unfettered inspections.
So your unawareness of the distinctions Blix made on the cooperation issue caused you to launch your false charge that I don’t know what I’m talking about.
Secondly I provided a Blix quote where he said he told Tony Blair a month before the invasion that it would be absurd to invade Iraq and then to find out they had no WMD,
You insult my certainty that Blix believed the peaceful disarmament (his work) was working and was most certainly preferable to war.
The Blix words affirm that Blix thought would be absurd to give up on inspections and start a war.
You did not respond to any cites I provided in response to you.
And I will continue posting facts and reasonable arguments on the new issues that have come up during since the posting of this thread.
It started out pretty good,
[QUOTE=NotfooledbyW]
You have not responded or contested that Blix stated in January 2003 that Iraq was providing full access to all sites from the beginning.
[/QUOTE]
Probably because you have as yet to conclusively demonstrate this. I just showed you posts from other 'dopers that contradict this claim in fact. Oh, and I did respond to something similar to this in any case…even if you were right and Blix had come out and categorically stated that Iraq was in full and unfettered compliance (which you’ve yet to demonstrate Blix did), by January it was too late. The decision had been placed in Bush’s hands to make, the military had been almost fully deployed and the logistics set up. Why this seemingly simple point is beyond your grasp is a mystery to me, but I freely acknowledge it is…you don’t and seemingly can’t grasp it.
Which YOU refer to as ‘unfettered inspections’ while attempting to put those words in Blix’s mouth. And which is what I actually asked you, pages ago, to back up. Instead you’ve constantly attempted to shift the goal posts and wave your hands about.
Except they don’t say what you said they say, and are contradicted by other users posts, some of which I gave you the post numbers for but which you, again, ignored.
When you post one that actually backs up what you said and which is what posters are asking you for it will be the first time.
I’ll give you this…at least this time it didn’t start off with a ridiculous CT and you spending page after page attempting to justify it or explain/hand wave it away. Other than that, it’s been pretty much par for the course with you.
“even if you were right and Blix had come out and categorically stated that Iraq was in full and unfettered compliance (which you’ve yet to demonstrate Blix did), by January it was too late” -XT
I have never argued that Blix stated " that Iraq was in full and unfettered compliance"… I said unfettered inspections were working and that is the case that even you admit occurred prior to the start of the invasion if you wish to count cooperation on substance coming in around mid to late February.
I will be glad to provide a full summary of claims and arguments and cites etc if you will have s look and response after I do.
This is a request to Adaher. You did respond to Ravenman that the OP was interesting.
We were having a decent discussion about this, I thought, until such time when I replied to your last post directed to me with this:
“Was it the British PM’s office running the inspections? Blix’s professional recommendation was that unfettered inspections were working…”
I then became engaged in conversations with Ravenman and XT and others. So I’d appreciate a follow up to what I asked. If not that is fine. But I thought I would ask.
Here’s a few more cites to refresh your memory to where our discussion ended.
No, they weren’t. The French assessment of Saddam’s capabilities was totally at odds with the public statements of the USA (I wouldn’t know what was the actual assessment made by US intelligence services, but I’m pretty convinced it was also at odds with the statements uttered by US officials. It has been shown to be the case in the UK at least).
Adaher is so far gone with his belief that 'the intelligence communities of the entire world were positive that Iraq had prohibited weapons.
I doubt seriously that our own intelligence services were positive he had prohibited weapons by the first week in March because if they had positively ID’d a location of WMD that were being hidden from UN Inspectors from January 2003 on, then they would have given that up as justification for war.
The US and UK were obligated to turn over all intelligence they had on proscribed weapons per the agreement under UNSC Res 1441. Both governments have stated that they did turn over whatever they had. They had to have nothing.
Bush and Blair practically admit that they had nothing on March 7 2003 when they offered a draft resolution for UNSC member’s vote that would allow S.H. to remain in power if the inspectors declared Iraq fully complied with all UNSC resolutions by March 17, 2003. Hans Blix said that even with Iraq’s proactive cooperation that date would not be possible.
But the point is, Bush backed down from forcing that vote which means that it had to be some time after that March 8th date, Bush got some new intelligence from somewhere 'that left no doubt that Iraq was concealing the most lethal weapons ever devised from the Post 1441 inspectors.
To get new actionable and reliable intelligence confirming that Iraq was hiding WMD from the inspectors somewhere between March 10, 2003 and March 17, 2003 is so farfetched… that to me, it is difficult to understand why no one has ever asked Bush about it.
Bush has been given such a huge pass by US journalists and the political opposition on Iraq it is amazing to see.