Iraq: what we're not being told (yet...)

Great Debates
41

OK, greco_loco, you’ve got me on my assumptions on what goes on in Saddam’s head… there’s no cite for that. However, I don’t doubt that given his colossal ego, total indifference to the suffering of others and plain old bitterness, if he’s going to go down, he’s going to make the process as painful as possible for all involved.

As for the general behaviour of Saddam, I’ll cite Out of the Ashes: The Resurrection of Saddam Hussein by Cockburn & Cockburn and Saddam’s Bombmaker by Khidhir Hamza. You know your stuff very well so you may already be familiar with these. The latter is the account of a former Iraqi atomic scientist who did, yes, manage to make it out of Iraq (barely) and tell his story. If we believe his account, and I can’t think of a reason to doubt it, Saddam tortures his WMD scientists (and their families too) when they refuse to play his game. As for the general brutality of Saddam, check out Republic of Evil: The Politics of Modern Iraq (sorry, author’s name escapes me, but I’ll find out…)

And we in “South Yorkshire” are reknowned for Knowing Lots. We did give the world the Industrial Revolution, professional football, stainless steel and 80s electro-pop, which is pretty impressive.

42

Sorry, that’s actually Republic of Fear by Kanan Mikaya, although “Republic of Evil” might be a good name for a band.

43

Wooly, one must, of course, take a moment to admire an Aussie who is willing to sober up long enough to make a cogent post.:wink:

That said, there is some truth to the statement as regards my skepticism. At this point in time, I will indeed find it hard to accept “evidence” from GeeDubya. If he tells me the sky is blue, I’m gonna want sworn testimony from a meteorologist.

I’m about one inch from recommending impeachment. The man has lied to us: blatantly, willingly, and without so much as a hint of repentance.

A few months ago, he stood with Tony “The Poodle” Blair, and waved a report in the air and declaimed without hesitation that it was proof positive, no ifs ands or buts, this is it, the genuine article. “What more proof do you need?”

And it didn’t even exist. He wasn’t even slanting it, or quoting out of context, it was a bald faced lie.

Then we have the Aluminum Tube fiasco, touted and blustered again as “proof positive” of an ongoing uranium enrichment program. Recent news shows that to be a complete fabrication. Bushwa.

Lies.

Does he rush to the podium to explain? To recant? To apologize? No such thing. Just stands there and thrusts his chin out like a defiant child. The most charitable explanation is that he didn’t know he was purveying a falsehood, and that isn’t nearly good enough. Not by a long shot. Even a poltical lie can be forgiven, to some degree. His economic plan to “stimulate” the rich folks is a shuck and jive, but hey! that’s politics. But this has mortal consequences. This kind of shit gets innocent people killed. If Bill C. can be impeached for lying about a knobjob in the Oval Office, how much more grave is lying about war?

When he first strode into office, I regarded him as a well-meaning but mediocre man trying to fill shoes several sizes too large. I was too kind. I repent of that generosity.

So now if he comes out with some irrefutable proof, something he couldn’t tell us before because of “national security”, the bar for acceptance has been raised. A signed confession, written in blood and signed by Saddam bin Laden, witnessed and sworn to by Jesus Horatio Christ would do it.

That’s an exaggeration. But not by much. GeeDubya has dishonored his office, his oath, and our nation. To hell with him!

44

The real answer to this is to read the books cited by I Know Lots, who does.

What this bogus story reminds me of is the World War I Belgian baby bayoneting myth, still cited by various internet Kaiser apologists. True, the Germans in World War I did not single out Belgian babies. Instead they killed EVERYONE, man, woman, and child in hostile Belgian villages.

Same for Iraq, just substitute Kurdish for Belgian.

45

I understand that Scott Ritter is a controversial voice in the matter; personally I’m inclined to believe what he says. But he raises more questions (for me) than he ever answers. The VX gas thing - considered a success for the inspectors.

http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/twr147e.htm

I believe that was a ‘success’ of inspections, proof that they are doing the hazardous, conscientious work that they set out to do. According to Ritter Iraq cannot produce VX.

On the other hand, it’s proof that Iraq lies frequently about WMD programs to avoid being caught, and that inspectors actually found evidence related to the production of VX after about five years. Inspections had been ongoing since '91.

Taken as a whole, a better title is “fundamentally homicidal and terminally aggressive, 95% disarmed we think.” It’s useful only if one is trying to define a threat in legalistic terms, indeed “step away from the emotion of it and look at the facts.” Uh, no thanks, I’d like to see all of it within the context of the lie, if that’s ok. There’s no reason why we shouldn’t.

46

That’s a good link, Tee - pretty well summarizes Ritter’s pov’s. YMMV :wink:

Interestingly, I noticed Ritter was being smeared this past week by…who knows. Curious timing. Shades of Nixon, I wouldn’t wonder…

47

Tee !

Thanks man for the link.
http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/twr147e.htm

regarding the Original Post: What we are not being told is, the truth. Or more precisely, FACTS.

Iraq doesn’t have capabilty to do shit. What the Bush cabal is feeding us is lies, lies and more lies.

48

LC, Tee, thanks for the links. though I tend to side with Ritter, I shy away from using him as a source of support; granted, he is probably correct, but he is easily attacked for having made a fairly dramatic about-face on his position, and then refusing to actually admit it, as such. The war supporters brush aside all of his experience and information due to what they feel is a credibility issue; I think the same case can be made using other sources, without the liability.

I Know Lots - the books you cite are familiar to me, but thanks for mentioning them; I firmly believe that Saddam is extremely brutal (hence my “Stalinesque” comment), but I do know that the borders are quite porous for those that want to leave. Only the highest echelon have any kind of security apparatus in place to curtail there movements, and mostly after the defections of Hussein Kamel and Hamza; though Saddam’s internal security is strong and greatly feared, there was no serious thought for many years that his scientists would leave. He did give them perks that were unattainable anyhwere else in the Arab world, and set them up with whatever they asked; he is indeed a harsh taskmaster, but you know what they say about selling yourself to the devil…

BTW - the books mentioned do tend to the “sensational”; Ritter, in his most recent book, evidently criticizes Hamza and claims he is a fraud of some sort. Don’t know, as the book has just been recently released; will have to get a copy and see what he says. If the link provided by L_C is any indication, it should be an interesting read.

Thanks -

Greco

49

You’re welcome for the link. As for your assessment of what Iraq can do, :::shrugs::: I wish I could agree. My view matches that of Beagle up there at the beginning, that they still have the capacity to plunge the whole region into war.

Was it really an about-face, or it just appears that way? I’m not up on what people on either side have said about him.

50

I don’t understand why you guys are so willing to accept Scott Ritter’s word at face value - it doesn’t match with what he said after he left Iraq, and he’s had no new information since then. So his flip-flop is completely inexplicable.

And, other inspectors don’t agree with him. His boss Richard Butler doesn’t agree with him. Hans Blix doesn’t agree with him.

And that ‘smear’ of Ritter happens to be that he was arrested for soliciting underage girls on the internet - twice. This makes him a target for Iraqi blackmail, for example. It casts more suspicion on him.

And hearing the guy speak, he sounds almost totally unhinged. He threatens people who disagree with him, he yells, he acts like a complete whackjob. This guy is clearly an ‘unreliable witness’.

51

Sam: And I don’t understand why you accept the Bush administration’s assertions at face value, if indeed you do.

52

It’s a good thing I don’t, then. I consider it evidence. I am prepared to change my mind. For example, they appear to have mischaracterized those aluminum tubes, which are used for a different, but still illegal purpose.

I fully expect the Bush administration to put a negative spin on whatever information they release. Nonetheless, my opinion is that the vast preponderance of evidence supports the Bush position. Part of my reasoning for that is that other people who are not in that administration but who have had access to the intelligence are strongly in favor of the administration’s actions. Tony Blair and Bill Clinton, for example. And 77 Senators. And all 15 members of the Security Council who signed 1441.

And when I look at the critics of the U.S., I see a lot of self interest and duplicity. The main critics are France, Germany, and Russia, and all of them have a strong self-interested reasons to object to a war regardless of how dangerous Saddam is to the U.S.

My position is that the burden of proof is on Saddam, for very good reason. He has not earned the right to be taken at face value. And he’s failing miserably at showing he’s disarmed.

53

“mischaracterized”

Goodness, but you’re generous, Sam. As noted in the other thread, both serial murder and jaywalking are illegal, but I doubt very much that you would accept lethal force being applied to prevent the crime of jaywalking.

“mischaracterized”, my Aunt Fanny! It was a lie. The intent of the lie was to create hysteria to justify a preemptive, which is to say aggressive, which is to say illegal, war.

I am very reluctant to be persuaded to war. But I’m damned if I’ll be bullshitted into one!

54

Sam, I think 'luce has hit it on the head: the burden of proof that Iraq is in violation is on the administration. Condi Rice, GW, et. al. are pretty much saying ‘trust us, it’s so’. Sorry, not good enough.

The administration doesn’t just automatically get to have my trust on this issue, they have to fucking earn it.

Cheap, dishonest stunts like purposely misquoting UN reports, purposely spinning the aluminum tube ‘evidence’ into something that it’s not, is not engendering any additional faith from me that this administration is worthy of being trusted on this issue.

I honestly don’t see why you or anyone might not think that a huge dose of healthy scepticism is in order regarding the administration’s motives and honesty regarding Iraq.

55

Suppose the day after the St. Valentines Day massacre…

Suppose Al Capone says "Hey, you know, that Bugs Moran guy, he was a bootlegger! So I had my boys snuff him. It was illegal, what he was doing! I went to the the Chicago cops, and they wouldn’t do nothing! Well, OK, they said, lets check it out, lets investigate. I already knew, but I said OK, sure, lets check.

Chicago’s a big place, twice as big as Jersey, so I knew they wouldn’t find nothing, but I figured it would be better if they were on my side. I mean, Bugs is a thug, but he’s not stupid, capisce?

So I did you guys a favor, took him out. So where’s the fuggin’ gratitude!

56

The aluminum tube thing was the report that Iraq was trying to buy tens of thousands of these tubes. The Bush administration claims that is evidence that Iraq is trying to restart it’s nuclear weapons program, that these tubes are specifically for nuclear purposes. Some US and outside officials and experts disagree, saying the tubes could have non-nuclear uses, like for rockets. That’s what you guys are talking about? That’s easy…let’s not have “faith” in anyone and just deal with the fact that Iraq wants tens of thousands of aluminum possible rocket/possible centrifuge tubes. (Unless the whole thing was a lie, but I haven’t seen any claims of that.) How do you get from there to being PO’d at this administration.

Well, he’s the expert on weapons inspections. That’s what I’m taking at face value - his experiences and his assessment of Iraq’s weapons capability as of 1998. I don’t know whether that story has changed over time or not, but that link doesn’t contain a very flattering picture of Iraq…

57

To channel for 'luce again:

The Bush administration may (may, I emphasize) be willing to forego the auspices of the UN and international law to kick Iraq’s butt based upon tenuous (and at times fictional) evidence.

I recall in 1998 quite a few Republicans speaking vehemently and with lip a-quiver about the sancity of the Rule of Law. Does the Rule of Law mean nothing now, or is such verbage just a clever excuse to be used where politically convenient?

58

Tee, respectfully, I think you’re missing a coupla points in what I’d said:

  • I’m not PO’d, my point was that I’m not automatically buying the “trust us, SH has WMD” assertion from the administration w/o some backup.

  • The aluminum tubes were previously touted as proof positive that Saddam has WMD. This turned out to be inflated conjecture at best, and possibly total crapola.

  • The administration has also touted a UN report that didn’t exist as likely proof that Saddam had WMD.

Therefore, the ‘trust us’ clarion from the administration has been a sounding more than bit off-key, a least to my ear.

59

No cite, but I have an “IMO” twist on this …

Keep in mind the possibility that the aluminum tubes weren’t necessarily meant to be firm evidence that Saddam possesses WMD. They were likely seen as circumstantial evidence that Saddam is continuing development of some kind of WMDs – which also be a material breach.

…

I’ve taken my time getting back to wooly, and I hate to hijack this thread – but I’ll make it short.

My posting that I felt elucidator’s stance on this issue is disingenuous is a far cry from calling elucidator’s person a “bounder” or a “cad”.

Also, what’s good for the goose is certainly not good for the gander if one or the other is claiming correctness. One hopes that the incorrect side in a debate is the side resorting to fallacy. If both sides look across the fence and say “hey … that’s dirty pool! Well, I guess I’ll do the same!”, then NEITHER side is making a convincing case to any but the most intractible and chauvinistic of partisans.

60

Well, point of fact, I am a bounder and a cad. Despoiler of maidens, scofflaw, etc. What of it?

It may be that both side of the argument are equally disingenuous, though, naturally, I would dispute that. But even were it so, one side is actively supporting a potential war, with all its attendent…unpleasantness. The other is seeking to prevent such. As moral choices go, that one’s a breeze.