Hubris: The Iraq War

[RedFury]

@Ravenman

I’m not inclined to be lectured on reality because someone reads articles on websites that have predicted seven of the last zero invasions of Iran.

::::shrug:::: Attack the article, not the site.

You can’t.

Cheers.

[Ravenman]

I’m not going to disagree with your overarching point – that the absence of WMD undercut the whole rationale for war – but I’ll go one further, in that even if WMD had been found, there were better ways of dealing with it than war.

But on a technical matter, you do overestimate the significance of Blix’s findings. As Blix said himself:

…part of the problem was that he himself had believed the weapons probably existed. “I’m not here to have gut feelings,” he said. “But yes, in December 2002 I thought Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.” …

Blix did not rule out that even if inspections had been allowed to continue, military intervention in Iraq might still have been necessary. “I am not a pacifist,” he said. But he is a lawyer and a diplomat, and he believes that it was the responsibility of the Security Council to uphold its own resolutions regarding Iraq, not the responsibility of one or two council members acting alone. Had Iraq resisted further inspections, or had they turned up evidence of another nuclear weapons program - the area Blix said that sanctions and inspections had been most effective in squelching - Security Council members Russia and China would most likely have voted for military action, giving it international legitimacy.

Link.

For as much as people want to say that Blix exploded the lies about WMD, the historical record is unambiguous that he neither attempted to do that, and he did not reach such a conclusion himself. He went about his job in a very… Swedish manner, paying excruciating attention to process and detail. Keep in mind that he also seemed to feel burned because the IAEA inspections prior to 1991 were quite weak.

So, if your own personal conclusion is that Blix’s work undermined the case for war, that’s cool – but it is interesting that Blix wasn’t quite on the same page.

[RedFury]

And no, Israel doesn’t have the balls of attacking Iran on their own for all the saber-rattling they continually do. They well know that short of going nuclear – which we all know, won’t happen – their only hope is to get the US to do the fighting for them. And although I am displeased with Obama’s foreign policy in many ways, I doubt he’ll fall into that obvious trap.

Which is why he was always the lesser of two evils vs Romney.

[RedFury]

@Ravenman

I’m not going to disagree with your overarching point – that the absence of WMD undercut the whole rationale for war – but I’ll go one further, in that even if WMD had been found, there were better ways of dealing with it than war.

But on a technical matter, you do overestimate the significance of Blix’s findings. As Blix said himself:Link.

For as much as people want to say that Blix exploded the lies about WMD, the historical record is unambiguous that he neither attempted to do that, and he did not reach such a conclusion himself. He went about his job in a very… Swedish manner, paying excruciating attention to process and detail. Keep in mind that he also seemed to feel burned because the IAEA inspections prior to 1991 were quite weak.

So, if your own personal conclusion is that Blix’s work undermined the case for war, that’s cool – but it is interesting that Blix wasn’t quite on the same page.

Diplomat Harsh on Leaders in Testimony for Iraq Inquiry

He’s gotten a lot bolder.

**Mr. Blix, the Swedish diplomat who led the United Nations body that scoured Iraq for traces of Saddam Hussein’s banned weapons program, used the word “absurd” on several occasions to describe American arguments for going to war. He also described Britain, the United States’ main ally in the invasion, as “a prisoner on the American train.” **

ETA: Obviously I am a nobody an a MB. But yes, way before he said that I argued here that the whole thing was absurd. Might as well invade Haiti under the same false alarms.

[Ravenman]

@RedFury

::::shrug:::: Attack the article, not the site.

You can’t.

Cheers.

It’s a waste of time to issue reasoned rebuttals to articles written by alterno-journalist felons who offer overly-long streams of leftist claptrap for the sole purpose of appealing to those who seek affirmation about the Illuminati-like conspiracies of big oil, corporations, and seething anger. There’s just nothing in it for me.

[Ravenman]

@RedFury

Diplomat Harsh on Leaders in Testimony for Iraq Inquiry

He’s gotten a lot bolder.

ETA: Obviously I am a nobody an a MB. But yes, way before he said that I argued here that the whole thing was absurd. Might as well invade Haiti under the same false alarms.

I always thought the idea of war with Iraq was senseless. And what he said there was substantively no different than what he said many times before: he’s severely questioned the judgment of Bush and Blair, but not their integrity. That’s diplomatic speak for calling them “narrow minded zealots,” I suppose.

[RedFury]

@Ravenman

It’s a waste of time to issue reasoned rebuttals to articles written by alterno-journalist felons who offer overly-long streams of leftist claptrap for the sole purpose of appealing to those who seek affirmation about the Illuminati-like conspiracies of big oil, corporations, and seething anger. There’s just nothing in it for me.

Some would call that an “evasion of uncomfortable facts.” I’d be one of them

@Ravenman

I always thought the idea of war with Iraq was senseless. And what he said there was substantively no different than what he said many times before: he’s severely questioned the judgment of Bush and Blair, but not their integrity. That’s diplomatic speak for calling them “narrow minded zealots,” I suppose.

Fully agreed. Which makes it even more puzzling what you are arguing for.

Niters.

[Condescending_Robot]

@John_Mace

Secondly, the statement that either the Republicans or the Democrats think that “we know all Muslims are actually terrorists who deserve to die” is an absurd strawman, so we can dismiss it without further debate.

You should see what some of Obama’s biggest boosters are posting in the latest drone threads.

[Ravenman]

@RedFury

Fully agreed. Which makes it even more puzzling what you are arguing for.

The sinister cause of accuracy in the historical record. You had no idea I was so subversive, didja?

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@Condescending_Robot

You should see what some of Obama’s biggest boosters are posting in the latest drone threads.

Yes we should, if you’re trying to make a relevant point of it.

That’s why people link or quote stuff other people should see.

[ralph124c]

George Bush actually believed that democracy would take hold in Iraq-in this way, he was a lot like Woodrow Wilson. Plus, the State Dept. (And Ahmed Chalabi) were quite willing to feed Bush all the BS he wanted to hear.
If any good came out of this, it is that the USA will never again attempt “nation building” in an Islamic country. That is why Obama realized intervening in Syria would be the worst thing we could do. I am no fan of Obama, be he is right on in this.

[NotfooledbyW]

@Ravenman

There were Iraqi generals who did not know that there were no CW in Iraq. Even Hans Blix has said that Saddam’s wanted the rest of the world to think that he had CW, and Bush and Co. took that at face value. Blix also believes that Bush and Blair were not lying, and that they were wrong. They simply could not give up the Rumsfeld maxim that absence of evidence is not evidence of abscence.

Do you have the quote, date and context for which you claim that Dr Blix said that.

And if you do not, please tell why you would be passing that myth along in writing with your name attached to it.

[Ravenman]

@NotfooledbyW

Do you have the quote, date and context for which you claim that Dr Blix said that.

And if you do not, please tell why you would be passing that myth along in writing with your name attached to it.

Amanpour asked why, if those weapons had been destroyed, would Saddam have continued to let the world believe he still possessed them at the risk of losing his country? Blix surmised that the bluffing was a cheap and effective deterrent. “[The Iraqis] didn’t mind the suspicion from the neighbors - it was like hanging a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the dog’ when you don’t have a dog,” he speculated…

March 18, 2004. I trust that answers your question.

Cite.

[NotfooledbyW]

@Ravenman

The law invested Bush with the authority to determine necessity. Even if any other reasonable person on earth thought it stupid, the law was clear: Bush was handed a blank check for war, and everyone voting on that authorization should have known it.

Haggling over the phrase “as he determines necessary” in order to come up with a definition that isn’t the plain meaning if those words is as silly as asking what the meaning if “is” is.

The JAUF(Oct2002) was the same as with any legal contract. The President is obligated and expected to fulfill the contract with propriety, integrity and with respect to the resounding purpose of the contract.

And the purpose of subject contract was to exhaust all peaceful means possible prior to resorting to war.

Bush did none of that.

[John_Mace]

@NotfooledbyW

The JAUF(Oct2002) was the same as with any legal contract. The President is obligated and expected to fulfill the contract with propriety, integrity and with respect to the resounding purpose of the contract.

And the purpose of subject contract was to exhaust all peaceful means possible prior to resorting to war.

Bush did none of that.

So, sue him.

[NotfooledbyW]

@Ravenman

The law invested Bush with the authority to determine necessity. Even if any other reasonable person on earth thought it stupid, the law was clear: Bush was handed a blank check for war, and everyone voting on that authorization should have known it.

Haggling over the phrase “as he determines necessary” in order to come up with a definition that isn’t the plain meaning if those words is as silly as asking what the meaning if “is” is.

The JAUF(Oct2002) was the same as with any legal contract. The President is obligated and expected to fulfill the contract with propriety, integrity and with respect to the resounding purpose of the contract.

And the purpose of subject contract was to exhaust all peaceful means possible prior to resorting to war.

Bush did none of that.

[Human_Action]

@NotfooledbyW

The JAUF(Oct2002) was the same as with any legal contract. The President is obligated and expected to fulfill the contract with propriety, integrity and with respect to the resounding purpose of the contract.

And the purpose of subject contract was to exhaust all peaceful means possible prior to resorting to war.

Bush did none of that.

Cite that a Congressional joint resolution is equivalent to a contract?

[Ravenman]

@NotfooledbyW

The JAUF(Oct2002) was the same as with any legal contract. The President is obligated and expected to fulfill the contract with propriety, integrity and with respect to the resounding purpose of the contract.

And the purpose of subject contract was to exhaust all peaceful means possible prior to resorting to war.

Bush did none of that.

If that were the legal requirement, then the remedy for executive malfeasance is impeachment. Since Congress did not even try to impeach, its reasonable to assume that Congress believed that the President’s actions satisfied their intent. Which, as I have explained, was to go to war.

You can’t seriously argue that Bush subverted the will of Congress in going to war with Iraq when it is abundantly clear that at the time, Congress as a whole was satisfied that the war was lawful and a good idea.

ETA: Plus, the idea that statutes are the same as contracts is just a silly idea. Like, Freeman on the Land silly.

[John_Mace]

@Human_Action

Cite that a Congressional joint resolution is equivalent to a contract?

Hey, he’s not fooled by W. He didn’t say he wasn’t fooled by anyone else!

[NotfooledbyW]

@Ravenman

March 18, 2004. I trust that answers your question.

Cite.

That answers the question that you have no quote by Blix that in reference to Saddam Hussein wanting the rest of the world to think that he had CW in 2002 and 2003.

And anyway Blix was offering his opinion not a professional finding of fact.

So you are spreading a myth based on a less than half truth and a non-fact based finding.