No smoking gun? NO SMOKING GUN?? [in Iraq]

Great Debates
121

I note the emphasis, Milo, that you place on context, the post “9/11 world”. It carries an emotional weight, and I would urge you to be suspect of emotional weight. It makes a very poor advisor.

The world did not change on 9/11. A crew of delusional thugs achieved an impact far out of proportion to thier importance. I mean, seriously, the cockpit door was open? Men armed with boxcutters could simply walk in and take over? After all the terrorist events we have witnessed, this was the level of our preparedness? We got hurt because we were stupid, complacent and naive. It is a world changing event only because of our emotional reaction to it.

And our reaction was stupid and crude. We had the sympathy and understanding of the entire world, long standing hostilities were set aside. An amazing opporunity was squandered because we had to be tough guys.

But we are the most powerful military force in the world, and when you are a hammer, all problems look like nails. We became participants in the decades long gang-bang of Afghanistan. It is claimed that we have gained much from it, I remain skeptical.

The “Al-Queda” operatives that have been captured in foreign lands have been captured primarily by the standard means of investigation and arrest, no F-14 flew over Hamburg to strike at Al-Queda.

The Bushistas have very effectively tied Iraq and Al-Queda together in the public mind, to the extent that Americans believe, without evidence, that such a connection exists. Remember Oklahoma City? Remember how most everyone was “pretty sure” it was Muslim terrorists until McVeigh was caught? Just yesterday, GeeDubya used the same strategy of implication, and innuendo, when he suggested that pre-emptive strategy had been made somehow legitimate by the events of 9/11.

Being a victim does not legitimize victimizing others. The innocent residents of Baghdad have no culpability whatsoever in that crime. Given the glaring disparity of motives between a religious fanatic and a secular cynic, it is exceedingly unlikely that Saddam bin Laden has any either.

The world did not change on 9/11, our viewpoint of it changed. Americans are far more likely to accept pre-emptive war, which is to say aggressive war, as legitimate. It is not, and never has been. To claim that you can determine someone’s intention without any manifestation of that intent borders on metaphysics, it is statecraft by way of scrying with entrails. It is nonsense.

Fear is insidious, nothing warps reason more quickly than fear, save perhaps lust. If we give in to it, we are at risk of becoming no better than the men we rightly despise.

122

elucidator, I wish you were president.

qoute:

“I find the foreign policy of the Bush administration exceedingly dangerous. Although the terrorist threat is real, and we must defend against it, we are going about it the wrong way. What makes this situation so dangerous is that nobody dares to say so. The nation is in danger therefore it is unpatriotic to criticize our leader. That is not what has made this country great. The strength of this country lies in the declaration of independence and the Bill of Rights and the freedom of speech and thought.” – George Soros, Philanthropist, University of Pennsylvania, april 8, 2002.

123

"THE PRESIDENT: Actually, prior to September the 11th, we were discussing smart sanctions. We were trying to fashion a sanction regime that would make it more likely to be able to contain somebody like Saddam Hussein. After September the 11th, the doctrine of containment just doesn’t hold any water, as far as I’m concerned.

I’ve told you the strategic vision of our country shifted dramatically, and it shifted dramatically because we now recognize that oceans no longer protect us, that we’re vulnerable to attack."
(Bolding mine)

  • From the press conference following the Bush/Blair meeting.

Quite my point. Before 9/11, a sensible approach was preferred. Afterwords, despite the fact that no plausible connection between Iraq and 9/11 existed, Bush changed his mind about Iraq!

124

elucidator:

**
At long last, something upon which we can agree.

To wit, the Bush administration will no longer wait and hope against threats to the U.S. and its interests. Astonishingly, many still seem to harbor the same sentiments that in essence allowed 9/11 to happen. More than once I’ve seen here that Saddam Hussein should be given the benefit of the doubt because he hasn’t attacked anybody, or used WOMD on anybody, since 1991.

“Terrorists aren’t going to hijack airplanes, fly them into the WTC and destroy it, and hit the Pentagon, because if they could do so, they already would have done it.” - Anybody, Sept. 10, 2001.

That is the way in which 9/11 has changed how the U.S. approaches Saddam Hussein, whether or not Iraq and Al Qaeda were linked. (And I’m not nearly as convinced that they weren’t as you seem to be.)

This is Gulf War 1991! That war ended when Saddam said he would do certain things with regard to his WOMD that he has not done. Interestingly, there is pretty much nobody, nowhere, who disputes that.

Some of you, however, want us to take Saddam Hussein’s word on what he did with thousands of tons of chemical weapons, among other things. What reason has this thug given you to trust him?

The U.N. officials doing the weapons inspections in Iraq acknowledge that those inspections are not effective if Iraq is not cooperating. And they also acknowledge Iraq is not cooperating.

**
Who said they did? Your glaring silence on about 20 of my points above indicates to me you are in agreement. If not, say so.

Those in your ideological camp are the ones who have been saying Iraq is a distraction on the War on Terror. How so? When has the intelligence and law enforcment effort ever waned since the morning of Sept. 11, 2001?

** The approach on Iraq was and is affected by 9/11 in the manner which I’ve said repeatedly in this thread. So what if some people aren’t paying attention? And you are correct to say no evidence exists to-date to make a connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11. That is quite different than saying Saddam Hussein played no part in it.

AGAIN, regardless of whether he did, that is not the reason for the impending action by the U.S., British and others.

** Agreed. Please point out where that has occurred since Sept. 11, 2001, and as a result of the terrorist attacks.

Innocent people were hurt in Afghanistan. Innocent people get hurt in war-time. It is a sad inevitability. That fact, however, in my opinion, should not preclude taking military action when it is warranted.

Do you intend to argue the action against Al Qaeda training camps, and the repressive Taliban government hosting Osama Bin Laden, was not warranted? Do you intend to argue that action was done in haste?

**
Agreed again. Do you see the fact that some will be hurt or killed as Saddam Hussein’s fault, or the U.S.A.'s?

Adopting your approach, any dictator anywhere can get away with anything, if he puts his innocent civilians in harm’s way to prevent military reprisal. Build your bombs under hospitals and orphanages, and hide your soldiers among women and the elderly.

**
Your stirring oratory doesn’t get weapons of mass destruction out of Saddam Hussein’s hands.

He has them. He can’t prove he got rid of the ones we knew he had before. He is demonstrably lying and thwarting weapons inspections. The entire world acknowledges Saddam Hussein can’t be allowed to have WOMD, and that he must help point out the ones he has, and prove he no longer has ones he once possessed. He hasn’t done it. The weapons inspectors themselves say this makes their efforts ineffective.

Awaiting your solution.

**
The speeches and press conferences would certainly be more, uh, interesting. :wink:

125

Attacking Iraq as a result of 9/11 makes no more sense than attacking Cuba for Pearl Harbor.

And if we are to no longer await concrete manifestations of intent, like some actual action, are we to conduct foreign policy by way of clairovoyance? Are we to peer into other mens minds and make our policy, and our wars, accordingly? Shall we then raise Miss Cleo to a cabinet post? Or perhaps The Shadow?

Forgive if I seem to deride your position unfairly. But you are already claiming that we know what is in Saddam’s mind, hence we are justified in a preemptive strike. And to use a phrase I am heartily sick of hearing: “make no mistake about it” pre-emptive war is aggressive war.

Yet you would surely howl with outrage if N. Korea took preemptive action against the US, based on Kim Jong-Il’s prescience of GeeDubya’s mind. And you would be right, of course. Right and wrong is not so flexible as to apply differently to different political entities. It is wrong, and universally recognized as wrong, to attack a nation that has not attacked you. Do you disagree? And if this principle be true, to whom do we apply for special dispensation? The law is the law, unless your America, and then it is a guideline?

We don’t care, we don’t have to, we’re the Americans.

As to presidential aspirations, I cannot accept any responsibility that would preclude an occassional night off to go shoot pool, get drunk, and seek the despoilation of maidens. Perhaps I could be a Public Scold, like Bill Bennet, if I could rid myself of my sense of humor. Or perhaps the Power Behind the Throne!

Elucidator - Eminence Greasy! Have to admit, it has a certain ring.

126

What do you gather of Saddam Hussein’s intent that the entire world has told him to get rid of his WOMD, and comply with U.N. weapons inspectors, and he hasn’t done it?

What do you gather of Saddam Hussein’s intent that the U.S., Britain and other countries are ready to go to war with him, remove him from power, if he doesn’t do the aforementioned, and he still won’t do it?

A country wary of waiting around to be victimized again (us) isn’t going to view his intentions as noble. It isn’t going to hope for the best.

Saddam’s had every opportunity to comply with the world community. Agreed?

127

The entire world was perfectly content to let well enough alone until GeeDubya went stomping into the UN to tell them what to believe, what to do, and when to do it.

Sigh. I give up. You are entirely convinced that you can peer into Saddams mind and take inventory. It is nonsense, of course, but how does one argue against nonsense?

Tell me this: when GeeDubya went stomping in as mentioned, did you hear a mighty cheer go up in the General Assembly? A standing ovation, perhaps? Perhaps I missed it, how the whole world community rushed to express thier eager joy, pressed thier treasure upon us, and offered us thier children for soldiers.

Or did they come up with a stall, some measure to buy time without pissing of the Americans, who have apparently gone off thier collective nut? If, as you say, America embodies the will of the World Community, why then does GeeDubya have to repeat, over and over and over, that America will proceed regardless. That would be rather pointless, would it not? Why even mention it, if we are the beloved leader of nations?

128

So you are defending the U.N.'s complete lack of spine regarding Saddam’s thumbing his nose at their resolutions?

I give up, too.

Kudos to Bush for calling the U.N. out for becoming irrelevant paper-shufflers. Especially being country #1 on the list who might be damaged from the U.N.'s lack of backbone is the USA (or #2 behind Israel).

If you honestly say no conclusions can be drawn from Saddam Hussein’s intransigence on the world’s call for him to come clean on his WOMD, I’m speechless.

129

If that “wariness” extends to a deep rooted need to run about beating up on random bad-guys for no good reason, what the country really needs is a few years therapy with a competent shrink.
As far as Saddam’s intentions go, the only reasonable conclusion we can reach from his actions thus far is that he doesn’t like being pushed around by the UN. Neither does Bush. Is that so terrible ?

130

Jane Harman means nothing to me, nor does her party affiliation, although that seems to be the deciding factor for you in assessing any situation, doesn’t it? Hint: Many, probably most, people are capable of thinking outside that box you insist on living in.

But it’s certainly not unreasonable to insist on facts, is it? Especially if they’re being looked for to support a decision already made, not the reverse as normal honesty requires? If there are persuasive facts, let’s see them. It’s been long enough that we can wait a few more days. You are clearly already persuaded, based only on your pure faith in the righteousness of a Republican President, despite the pile of proven “misstatements” of same from the administration already. Sorry, pal, we’re about fighting ignorance here, ya know?

If Saddam is shown to have been behind 9/11, he needs to be gotten and the consequences dealt with anyway, and nobody here has said otherwise. If he isn’t, then getting him is a distraction from getting those who were, no matter the motivations. That connection is unshown after over a year of bluster, despite your assumption that it is fact.

We have here a historically-rare opportunity to prevent a massive folly before it happens, if folly it is. How is anything other than healthy skepticism appropriate?
Re Schwarzkopf’s “change of heart”, who really thinks that a few platitudinous sentences in a Bush speech changed how he, an unusually intelligent as well as uniquely experienced man, sees a complex problem? Or, further, that he thinks it requires a large-scale ground invasion and street infantry battles (note his careful wording)? Isn’t it just possible instead that his old Army buddy Powell privately asked him not to undermine his behind-scenes efforts to keep a lid on this thing?

131

Gee, Milo, you’re all over the map here. First your talking about the solidarity of the world community, then the spinelessness of same.

And UN resolutions my ass! You know perfectly well that the US considers UN resolutions to be toilet paper if it suits our fancy. All this Bushwa about the sanctity of UN resolutions! We demand that they enforce whichsoever UN resolutions we approve of, and that’s it.

Or are you planning on cheering them if they get the “spine” to tell GeeDubya to go pound burdocks? What song are you going to sing if the UN declares a preemptive war against Iraq to be illegal?

132

Let’s look at the particulars of Squink’s version of history.

– Saddam started a nuclear weapons program over 20 years ago because he was being pushed around by the UN.

– Saddam imprisoned, tortured and murdered thousands of his own people because he was being pushed around by the UN.

– Saddam began a horrendous war with Iran because he was being pushed around by the UN.

– Saddam invaded Kuwait and tried to take it over because he was being pushed around by the UN.

Squink, do you want to modify your “only reasonable conclusion”?

133

Nope, the scope of the relevant discussion here in re a “smoking gun” has been post 9/11/01. Dragging in misdeeds from the 80’s to mid 90’s can’t provide that. Granted, Saddam is a bad guy who’s done lots of nasty stuff in the past. That alone is not sufficient to prove anything on the current smorgasbord of accusations. To do that you need a smoking gun, and no one has yet delivered one. Perhaps Colin Powell will next week, but we’ve been hearing that same old story for months now.

134

I know you weren’t talking to me, but I don’t get the need to have al-Queda connected to this. Or a smoking gun. SH not complying with weapons inspectors and past and present incidents of hostility, statements and acts of intent, are enough justification to seek to remove him. IMO. You and others may not agree w/that but to demand proof of a connection that’s not even being sold as ‘proof’…his noncompliance regarding weapons is proof. (And it fits the goal of the War on Terrorism just fine.) Blix just has to say they aren’t cooperating, and there’s the justification.

“Pure faith in the righteousness…” is politics talking, not sense. I doubt people here are that malleable. I’ve supported the last three Presidents taking action against SH and I’d support the next ones if I had to. My views were formed when possible from the Iraqis themselves who may not trust us very much, but are resigned that something drastic has to happen.

We’ll be dealing with one Hussein or another forever (recent election proved that - *oh yes *that’s scary) until someone removes them by force. We aided the man in his early years; thus we are somewhat responsible. We’re also the only ones willing and able to do anything about it, now. That’s how I see it.

135

Elvis L1ves:

**
The truly relevant part was that those who have seen the intelligence on the Iraq situation, regardless of party affiliation, agree with the U.S. taking action in Iraq. Not surprised that passed by you, because it’s inconvenient.

**
Off the top of my head, I can list three clearly enunciated oppositions I’ve had to Bush administration policies in the past year, posted on these boards.

If you can list a similar number of politically related threads that don’t exhibit you fruggating with your liberal, anti-Bush ideology, I will initiate an MPSIMS thread, singing your praises.

Somehow, I’m not worried.

**
Go back and read Hans Blix’s transcript in the OP. Don’t imagine you’ll want to do that. It’s inconvenient to your position.

elucidator:

**
What part of this is difficult for you to understand?

The world says Saddam Hussein can’t have WOMD. The world has directed him to disarm. He isn’t. And certain countries don’t want to do anything about it. They are being intellectually and ideologically dishonest. They talk about “giving inspectors more time,” while acknowledging what the inspectors themselves say - that the Iraqis aren’t cooperating, and the inspections are largely ineffective without the Iraqis cooperation.

Get it yet? Far from “all over the board.”

Squink:

**
What a ridiculous position.

The U.S.'s decision on whether to attack Iraq will be based solely upon the level of threat it feels as a result of Saddam Hussein’s intransigence and dishonesty with regard to his WOMD. That is directly tied to what he promised to do to end the Gulf War, and never did.

Sorry if you can’t grasp that.

136

If you’re playing some sort of game inside your head, you can set whatever rules you like as to what counts. But, you must agree that, unlike what you said, Saddam’s past deeds DO provide a hint as to his current intentions.

137

Indeed. Just so. We are given to believe that Saddam bin Laden is a threat to the security of the US. An urgent, immediate threat precisely because he is quite mad, cannot be contained, cannot be deterred by the threat of annihilation. We are also given to understand he is simply chock-a-block with ghastly weapons, including but not limited to intercontinental drone aircraft tipped with nuclear anthrax, with which to carry out his dastardly scheme to annihilate Akron.

Hence the desperate urgency.

And yet there he sits, year after year, while our airplanes bitch-slap him on a daily basis. While we methodicly build our forces with the stated intent of kicking his butt into next week. There he sits, this madman who cannot be deterred or contained. Doing nothing.

Stuff and nonsense.

138

If terrorists could hijack airplanes and crash them into buildings, they would have done it already.

  • Anyone, Sept. 10, 2001.

Round and round!

139

So in the absence of evidence of a credible threat, the pro-war faction decides that a twelve year old program constitutes a smoking gun ? That’s quite a game in its own right. Especially since the UN resolution which the US is relying on to legitimize this conquest could never have existed without those very weapons programs. Talk about pretzel logic. :rolleyes:
At least Milo has the honesty to admit that the Bushies real case for war ultimately depends on America’s level of paranoia about Saddam:

No smoking gun needed. The only problem is that unsubstantiated accusations, and rumors of hidden weapons are not a good enough excuse to justify a preemptive attack that will kill thousands of Iraqi’s and many american invaders.

140

Squink Said:

Holy cow, but that’s disingenuous. I saw that episode of ‘Hardball’, and that single quote doesn’t come close to expressing his real opinion. He said almost exactly the same words he used the next day on the ‘Today’ show. The words, “He has got to go.” were used multiple times. Schwartzkopf is clearly a hawk now.

In fact, I just found the full transcript of their discussion here.

Here’s the relevant section of their conversation:

Now that you’ve seen the whole quote, look how misleading Squink’s was. This is the full exchange:

…And here’s what Squink (or the Today Show) chose to print of that:

They cut off that paragraph right before he said, “But, Saddam’s got to go. He’s got to go, and particularly now that there’s this linkage between him and the terrorists. That’s just one more reason why the man’s got to go.” And, they cut off Matthews’ question, which was about as direct as you can get - “In your gut, do you believe we have to fight this war now?” And Schwartzkopf’s response: "I think the time has come. In my gut I do. "

Not only was he misquoted, but his quote was carefully edited to try and make it look like he was saying almost the opposite of what he really said.

I don’t know if that was Squink’s doing or the Today Show’s, but it is such a blatant example of word-twisting that I would call it a lie.