Not to put too fine a point on it—and this is a digression since it seems to be pretty well conceded by almost all that if not new stuff Saddam still has chemical and bios found but not destroyed by the inspectors in 1995—the photos Adli Stevenson displayed in the UN were, first, state of the art at the time (1962 or 63) and, second, clearly missile installations and nothing else. In addition there were photos of missile bodies on the deck of a Soviet freighter. The photos while not of “show the brand of cigarettes” quality were unambiguously of ballistic missile stuff.
I suppose it could be argued that Secretary Powell’s photos are not as persuasive as Ambassador Stevenson’s but that is mere nit-picking. Powell’s photos served to demonstrate that there was some factual foundation to the contention that Saddam is likely making new stuff. It did that about as well as could be expected.
As an after thought, let it be noted that I have had an epiphany on the need to go to war with Iraq.
I am persuaded that there is a vital national interest at stake that can only be adequately protected by turning lose the dogs and reducing as much of urban Iraq as may be necessary to a smoking ruin no matter what the rest of the world may think or how they may react. The vital interest arises because out President, the Vice President, the Secretary of Defense and God alone knows who else have done so much talking and posturing, have announced so often that they can lick any man in the house, that a failure to act seriously degrades our standing in the international community and licenses every other tin-horn government in the world to ignore the US’s declarations as merely shaking the bushes and howling in the darkness.
I can only hope that our next tax statement says “you put your money where Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld’s mouth was.” I don’t even want to think about what we put on the grave markers. No matter how you cut it this is a foreign policy catastrophe. But now we have no options left. We can only hope that the guys who go in with a pair of dry socks, a full canteen and five hundred rounds can end it quickly with minimum casualties.
You did notice, did you not, that none of the letters to which you linked came from or were signed by George Bush? If you want to show what Bush’s intentions were, you will have to do a bit better than quoting someone else.
Well, as one of the letters you cited was addressed to Bush, I would imagine his being aware of the opinions of the writers is a pretty safe bet.
As for being duped, again, I am not sure what you are talking about. If Bush was duped into doing something he didn’t want to, surely that shows that he did not intend it when running for President. If he intended to attack Iraq from the start, why did he wait until after 9/11 to act? Unless you are alleging that by “duped” you mean that Rumsfeld et al. staged the attacks of al-Queda in some way.
In which case, I reiterate my concerns for the integrity of your tinfoil hat.
The actual quote was:
Perhaps my restatement was unclear, because the original claim is contradictory.
You say that Bush complained about the US acting as the world’s policeman, because he wanted the US to act as the world’s policeman. This makes no sense, at least to me - why would Bush complain that the US was doing something that he wanted her to do?
Your false dilemma is badly constructed.
Yes, this has everything to do with terrorism - Iraq is a terrorist state. Your implication that al-Queda is the only terrorist group on earth worthy of US attention is silly.
Is/was war with Iraq a foregone conclusion? No, it was not, and you have presented no evidence whatsoever that this is the case. If Iraq had kept her sworn word, and complied with the ceasefire protocols, not only would there be no war with her, there could have been discussions on lifting the sanctions and allowing her to rejoin the community of civilized nations. Since this did not happen, and we know that Saddam is a liar and a cheat as well as a murderer and a terrorist, war is being contemplated.
Your notion of Bush as a raging cowboy, with some kind of hard-on for Iraq that caused him to lie awake nights fantasizing of the chance to unleash hellfire and brimstone on her, is little more than caricature.
If it makes you feel any better, I will grant you this. We now have a President who, post 9/11, takes the idea of national security one hell of a lot more seriously than his predecessor. Clinton seemed to regard Iraq as a convenient place to lob a few missiles if he thought it would help him to avoid impeachment. When confronted with genuine crisis - like North Korea and its nuclear program - Clinton put his faith in negotiation and delay. What resulted from that we are seeing on the Korean peninsula today.
Fortunately, we now have a President who thinks a little bit more with the parts above his necktie, and a little bit less with the parts below his belt. Talk, often, is cheap, and sometimes it is worthless. And sometimes, a last chance really is a last chance, and then you have to take action, or you get more serious problems later.
“I don’t care what evidence is provided. If I can, I’ll claim it’s not sufficient. If that doesn’t work, I’ll say the sources are compromised. Hell, if I have to, I’ll don my tinfoil hat and claim the whole thing was faked. I refuse to acknowledge reality, and you can’t make me, so there. Stop talking, I don’t want to hear it! [plugs ears] La la la la la la la…”
And I’m the one who gets likened to a brick wall…
Jeff
When you can in fact read my mind, Jeff, you will then be qualified to make assertions as to my motives. Until such time you would honor us both by assuming that I argue in earnest, and respond accordingly. Failing that, I will assume you have no such interest, and are concerned with heaping scorn on arguments you cannot otherwise answer.
to be fair, those recordings could have been made by anybody.
Ask yourself: how trusting would YOU be if it was Saddam producing recordings of anonymous voices that somehow “proved” his points?
And by the way, 'luci, my fine friend, the reason I was trying to get you to answer my question was to walk you through this one baby step at a time. The logical progression of ramifications of letting Saddam do what he pleases, to me, is as follows:
Saddam is trying to amass WMDs.
If Saddam DOES have a viable stock of WMDs, he can initiate attacks on a wide variety of targets, in a wide variety of places. It is not unreasonable to believe that he may be able to reach well into Europe, and quite possibly the US, if he so desired, using such means as unmanned aircraft, or just a guy with a vial of VX.
If he is able to initiate such attacks, it becomes very difficult to deal with him, if he starts doing things that jeopardize the safety of others in the region.
As such, if he decided to invade, say, Saudi Arabia, there would be little or nothing we could do without a serious risk of inviting severe attacks on us or our allies in Europe (or Israel, but the anti-war folks don’t seem to give half a damn about them).
The political climate what it is - particularly in Europe - it is quite likely that we would simply let Saddam do what he pleased in the Middle East, since to do otherwise would be to risk thousands or millions of civilians dead.
There is no reason to believe that Saddam would stop after just conquering some token nation. It is not unreasonable to expect that he would just keep conquering everything he could in the region. The only real line of defense in the region is Israel’s threat of using nukes, but Saddam doesn’t care if his own people die, and Saddam himself is hard to find. Saddam has provoked Israel before, for no real reason other than he’s a freakin’ whacko, so it doesn’t seem to me that Israel would be able to reign Saddam in at all.
As such, Saddam would likely eventually control much or most of the Middle East.
Such was my train of logic. And such is the main reason I support war in Iraq. The possibility of Saddam selling weapons to terrorists to curry their favor or use them to his own ends is secondary, but certainly doesn’t hurt the case for war. However, this is only a good reason for war if you have a problem with Saddam controlling an empire in the Middle East. If you see no problem with that, then this reasoning is moot. That is why I asked if you had a problem with such a scenario. If you don’t, then there’s little reason to continue arguing with you.
Of course, all this is academic. I no longer expect anything resembling a cognizant stand from you anymore. Anything beyond “Bush is a liar” seems to be too much trouble for you.
Jeff
Well, then, if baby steps are called for, they shall be given. There is no such possibility, absent divine intervention on Saddam bin Ladens behalf. He has neither the military capacity nor the supine victims to make such a scenario plausible. All the WMD’s he may have, and he very well might, pales in comparison to a single 35 megaton bomb mounted on a cruise missile. America invaded by Canada, bent on subjugation and rule, is more plausible.
We are daily confronted with the hysterical assertion that Saddam is a madman who cannot be contained, cannot be negotiated with. The same wild eyed hysterics point with trembling fingers to the invasion of Kuwait as proof positive of his pathology.
Yet it is a confirmed fact that this same madman consulted with the US ambassador prior to the invasion, and recieved a response that was, at most, ambiguous. Certainly, he was not advised that America would regard such an invasion as cause for war. Hardly the actions of a maniac, driven wild by bloodlust and consumed by the craving for domination.
He was on the recieving end of a jolly good thrashing. Estimates place his military power at something of a 10th of its previous strength. Hardly an Iraqi hoard to put other nations atremble.
Do you hear the Saudi’s, the Jordanians, or the Turks imploring our military intervention? Are they cringing in thier beds? I think not. Perhaps you have proof otherwise, and have not yet proferred it for our eager eyes. If you have evidence that your desperate scenario is plausible, bring it forth. If it is, in fact, nothing more than your political clairovoyance, you need not trouble yourself, and burden unoffending electrons with nonsense.
Look again. Those photos are basically of big, long tents in Cuba and big, long crates on Soviet frieghters. The commonsense interpretation is, of course, that they are missiles, but that conclusion still requires a bit of interpretation, not unlike the photos presented by Powell. If the Soviets were as shameless as the Iraqis in denying reality, they’d just say “so we use long tents and long crates? BFD.”
(I recognize that you agree that Powell’s case is essentially as persuasive as that made by Stevenson, Spavined – my post is directed at the “this isn’t as good as Stevenson” camp.)
For Gods sakes man! I was quoting his Secretary of Defense, Deputy Secretary of Defense, a top security adviser (Perle), Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director on the NSC for Southwest Asia, Near East and North African Affairs (Abrams), the Deputy Secretary of State, A former Bush Speech Writer (Bennett), and a Bush Campaign adviser (Weber), among other Republican big-wigs. It’s an organization to which both his brother and his Vice President belong! Are you really staying the course and saying that Bush didn’t have this in mind when he ran for President? l give you credit for tenacity in face of blatant facts.
If Bush is demanding “regime change” and didn’t know about the organization to which half off his Defense Staff belonged, the he was indeed “duped” into following their will. I said right out that believed that he was not duped and had every intention of regime change in Iraq before 9/11, and indeed while he was running for the presidency. I suppose he was waited until after 9/11 because prior to that his approval rating hovering around 55% (give or take) an having just overcome the spy-plane in China fiasco, I don’t think he was quite ready to propose a major change in foreign policy. Having plans, is a far cry from implementing them.
I’m starting to resent this comment. I think it’s pretty clear that although we may not agree, my accusations certainly aren’t totally baseless. So knock it off.
Because he knew that what American want to hear? He also claimed that the troops were spread too thinly, and yet he certainly hasn’t made any effort to call back troops from the Balkans. Oddly enough, I believe that both parties candidates lie in elections.
I have neverclaimed that al queda is the only terrorist group. However, I do think this administration is doing it’s damnedest to connect the two. A completely dishonest effort, I might add.
Bullshit. The only way a war with Iraq can be avoided is if Saddam leaves. You know, I know, and everyone else in the world knows. If you want to go through with this charade, than by all means, but it’s clearly stated that “regime change” is the only way Bush will be appeased.
Never said it. I think Bush is a cowboy, sure. But it’s your hyperbole, not mine. Nice try though.
Always bring in Clinton. No argument with a zealot is complete until Clinton is invoked. Especially the “wag the dog” scenario.
Well, its hardly fair to hold anyone to the standards set by Adlai Stevenson, whose capacity for raw energy and overwhelming charisma has not been seen since, save for Al Gore or Joe Lieberman.
As I’ve said, I heard the entire presentation, as well as the responses by the various delegates. Comparatively speaking, they were underwhelming. I have no doubt that the pundits are correct in this regard, that thier statements had been written in advance, on the assurance that no “smoking gun” would be offered. And so it was.
There was no stunning revelation, no gasps of “Mon Dieu!” or “Gott in Himmel” or “Bloody Hell!”. They heard nothing they had not heard before, or at least nothing that moved them to ditch thier pre-packaged speeches, which were invariably timed precisely to the seven minute limit. Choreography is seldom as carefully timed.
Mr. Powell is more impressive than his case. Either that, or the delegates simply don’t care that Saddam has these ghastly weapons, which, for all thier dastardly nature, are inherently short ranged: if your aren’t in Iraq, you have little to fear from Iraq.
It would seem that the Administration had opted for the “heap it up in mounds” strategy, much favored by Mr. Bush, whereby the inherent weakness of any particlar piece of evidence is to be counterbalanced by the sheer mass of numbers.
I suspect that the speech was primarily packaged for domestic consumption, to emphasize Mr. Powells shift to a more hawkish stance, and to capitalize on the good opinion of him held by many Americans. As a public relations ploy, it is as masterful as any of the others cobbled together by Mr. Rove, the White House’ Greasy Eminence. As a convincing case for war and slaughter, it is just so much Bushwah.
You do this a lot, and it is pointless as well as irritating. If you mean Saddam Hussein, say Saddam Hussein. If you mean Osama bin Laden, say Osama bin Laden. If you are implying they are connected, say “both Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein” or something. As it stands, I am not sure who you are talking about.
What in the nine circles of hell does an invasion of Canada have to do with anything? He has weapons of mass destruction - anthrax, mustard gas, chemical munitions - that he wants to use to intimidate his neighbors. Who thinks a madman needs “supine victims” in order to attack anyone?
Are you saying that nobody without a military can be a terrorist? Like Osama bin Laden? Or are you saying that we shouldn’t bother our heads about poison gas and germ warfare because nukes would be worse?
Just exactly what the fuck are you blathering about?
This is getting worse by the minute. Now anyone who refuses to deny that the Gulf War happened is a “wild eyed hysteric”. What’s next, denying the Holocaust?
You have been called on this before, and, unsurprisingly, would prefer to pretend otherwise.
The episode to which you refer comes from a transcript of a session provided by the Iraqi government, and specifically denied by the ambassador present. To refer to it as a “confirmed fact” is simply to signal your willingness to believe anything providing it allows you to blame the US for it.
The rest of your ridiculous post isn’t worth bothering with - the usual flowery flatulence restating for the umpteenth time your unshakeable conviction that the US is always in the wrong, Bush is always bad, and nothing anyone ever says will convince you otherwise.
Now post back some garbage about “If you don’t like my idiocies, don’t read my posts” or something, and go back to La-la Land where evidence that contradicts you doesn’t exist.
"…But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait.
I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during the late 60’s. The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America. James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction. We hope you can solve this problem using any suitable methods via Klibi or via President Mubarak. All that we hope is that these issues are solved quickly. "
(bolding mine)
Do you favor any particular sauce with your crow, Shoddy?
Fine, elucidator, I will provide my reasoning behind each of the points I made before in turn.
These, I take to be self-evident. No reasonable person can deny that Saddam has at least some WMDs, nor that they could theoratically be used at a myriad of targets.
This, too, seems self evident to me. If Saddam says, “I am going to nuke/gas/spread small-pox in Paris/London/DC if you don’t let me do what I want”, it clearly complicates things. For the same reasons that we’re left without viable options for how to deal with NK now, we would be similarly unable to deal with Saddam.
This follows directly from the premises above.
A common reason given for not going to war with Iraq is that he may gas our troops. He may give WMDs to others. Many in Europe, in particular, avoided the idea of the “war on terror” because they didn’t want to draw the attention of terrorists. Politicians are simply not going to support a war that is virtually guaranteed to lead to the deaths of thousands or millions of their own people. It would impossible to get the permission of the UN to do anything, which would already lower support in the US. The idea that we’d be inviting death and destruction to our own shores would stave off millions more from supporting such an effort. Attacking a fully-armed Iraq would be political suicide. As such, I maintain that it would not happen. You make reference to a “single 35 megaton bomb mounted on a cruise missile”. Yeah, okay, fine. Who’s going to be sending that little care package over, hmm? Who’s going to be the one to decide that they don’t mind their capital getting a little something in return? Please, name me one nation that you think would risk a retaliation.
Well, this presumption requires two things: That Saddam would be want to invade another nation, and that Saddam would not be content with just one. To the first, I point to Iran and Kuwait. Whether Saddam thought we’d respond to Kuwait is moot, in regards to this point. He clearly wants to expand his domain. Which leads me to the second point - once he started, why would he stop? It’s not in the character of megalomania to set reasonable limits. And Saddam is by no means reasonable. He knows that all he has to do to get us to leave him the hell alone is give up his WMDs. He could then go on butchering people right and left, and hear nary a peep from the civilized world. Yet he doesn’t give them up. Why? During the Gulf War, he launched SCUDs at Israel. There was no logical reason for him to invite the attention of yet another potential attacker, yet he did anyway. Why? The answer to both those is: he’s a nutbar. If you have better reasons, I’m all ears. Insane dictators don’t act rationally. Witness: Pearl Harbor. Witness: Hitler declaring war on America. Neither act was the slightest bit rational. Why’d they do it? Nutbars, all of them.
…and this is what follows from the above premises. QED.
There is one question that remains, though. Could he do it? If we left him alone - hell, if we said, “Go for it, Saddam-baby, knock yourself out”, could he, once he builds. up his arsenal? I think so. He doesn’t need a huge army, he has nerve agents and nukes - the two great tastes that taste great together. Lob some VX at Tehran, waste a few armies, then send in the clean-up crew. WMDs wouldn’t make Iraq a superpower, but it would be close enough to mop the floor with the Middle East.
As to why we don’t hear the Saudis, et al, clamoring for our help - of course not. Yeah, the fear Saddam, but they also fear the insertion of an Islamic democracy. Israel is acceptable, because it’s run by the Evil Jews. But a democracy of non-infidels? Right in their backyard? The long-term consequences would be devestating. You start giving oppressed citizens ideas, and… well, you see what I’m getting at.
Jeff
The point I was responding to was not a reference to the WMDs Saddam necessarily has now, but rather what he would get if he was able to continue his programs. Basically, this was the base assumption of my assertion - if Saddam gets a decent stockpile of weapons, then everything else follows. Sorry for the error - I’m trying to multitask here. Damn job.
Jeff
Jeez, almost forgot! Theres more! In response to feverish attempts to deny the authenticity of the transcripts, journalists approached Ms. Glaspie on the matter:
"Journalist 1:
“Are the transcripts (holding them up) correct, Madam Ambassador?”
(Ambassador Glaspie does not respond)
Journalist 2:
“You knew Saddam was going to invade (Kuwait), but you didn’t warn him not to. You didn’t tell him America would defend Kuwait. You told him the oppose - that America was not associated with Kuwait.”
Journalist 1:
“You encouraged this aggression - his invasion. What were you thinking?”
U.S. Ambassador Glaspie:
**“Obviously, I didn’t think, and nobody else did, that the Iraqis were going to take ALL of Kuwait.” **
From the same site:
"At a Washington press conference called the next day, State Department spokesperson Margaret Tutweiler was asked by journalists:
“Has the United States sent any type of diplomatic message to the Iraqis about putting 30,000 troops on the border with Kuwait? Has there been any type of protest communicated from the United States government?”
to which she responded:
**“I’m entirely unaware of any such protest.” **
On July 31st, two days before the Iraqi invasion, John Kelly, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern affairs, testified to Congress that the
**“United States has no commitment to defend Kuwait and the U.S. has no intention of defending Kuwait if it is attacked by Iraq.” **
Sweet Lord have mercy - now you are claiming that Bush knew about 9/11 ahead of time!
Then I withdraw it.
But don’t you think there are a few holes in this theory of yours?
Bush somehow knew that there was a major terrorist attack coming, so he withheld the idea of attacking Iraq until it occurred. This was because his approval rating was only 55%. Now it is around 59%, and he suggests attacking Iraq. Back right after 9/11, his approval rating was around 90%. Why didn’t he simply declare war then?
This theory suffers from the flaw that many such conspiracy theories do - it is too complex.
Don’t you think it more plausible that Bush was elected with the intention that he was going to upgrade the security of the US against terrorism - among many other things. He took office at a point at which Iraq had been defying the world community by refusing the inspections to which they had agreed (along with attempting to get and conceal weapons of mass destruction). So Bush proceeds for the first eight months of his administration. Iraq is an issue, but it is only one among many.
Then 9/11 goes down. Suddenly, national security and the fight against terrorism (ALL terrorism) becomes a much bigger priority than before. The US is under attack from a lot of different sides - al-Queda, just as when they bombed the World Trade Center and our embassies in Africa, and Iraq is still refusing to allow the inspections (and shooting at our planes when they enforce the no-fly zone, etc., etc.).
There is no more time to fool around. The Taliban has to go - they were not directly responsible for 9/11, but they are harboring those who were, and arming and training them. The US goes to Afghanistan and wipes them out.
It is also time to get serious about Iraq. They are trying to collect WMD, the US is getting anthrax-laden mail from somewhere, the Iraqis are known to be involved in created germ warfare agents - something has to be done. Bush decides it is time to get serious about Iraq disarming. And seriously serious this time - the North Korean nuclear debacle shows that the US had been played for a sucker by the awesome gullibility of Jimmy Carter and Clinton’s inability to believe that anything that isn’t on the front page of the Washington Post is really all that serious. Plus he is too busy scrambling to avoid being kicked out of office to bother about a few terrorist attacks - lob some missiles at Iraq, issue a reward for ObL, and hope everybody forgets. And they do.
Not this time. Something bad has happened, and Bush doesn’t intend for it to slide this time. Clinton did that with ObL and with Saddam and the North Koreans, and see how that turned out.
So by God, this time Saddam is going to toe the line. Bush intends to make it stick this time, one way or the other. So he offers Saddam one last chance, and it becomes rather clear that Saddam hopes a policy of “cheat and retreat” will work again.
It doesn’t. And so we are contemplating war with Iraq.
Doesn’t that sound more believable than the idea that Bush fantasizes about bombing Bagdhad while Laura is giving him a hummer? And that he orchestrated his whole election campaign based on the idea that he would be lucky enough to be President while the US suffered the worst terrorist attack in its history, just so he could do what he wanted to all along?
Think about it. When you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras.
We have bee saying this a hundred times over; you have no right killing someone because of what he might do theoratically.
No, 9/11 didn’t change the rules on that.
My God man, why do you not see where that leads to???
True.
Nasty weapons have been invented. You can’t un-invent them.
Neither can you forever keep them from spreading.
To think otherwise, that is living in La-La Land.
Unless you want to go the road of being the real, live incarnation of a world wide Big Brother. That too is not feasable.
Our best bet is a continued form of mutual destruction threat and an international arbiter, like the UN.
What you do not want to do, is go it alone and swing your basebal bat at the hornets.
The UN should be given more power, so they can truly act as a world government.
Yes, that would mean getting rid of this veto idiocy. Yes, that would mean America would have to give up, at least part, of its power.
And I know you like being on top too much. But, believe me, you will not be able to stay on top for allways. Best start building a safety net.
Above premises were unsound.
Jeeezus!! You really do live inside your own head, don’t you?
Now you are denying we were (and are) right behind you on that one?? Dozens of suspects have been arrested all over Europe, these last months.
How dare you !!
This goes for the agressor as well, of course. What country would risk self destruction over a border dispute or troublesome ethnics?
Do you think India and Pakistan would both be sitting at a table right now, if both didn’t have nukes? No, a full conventional war would be raging as you read this.
You do realise you are spouting ahistorical nonsense, I hope.
giggle
Oh nooo… it continues…
Do you actually believe all this? Really?
Then I give up. You are lost.
Which reminds me, If Hillary had done a better job as First Lady, Clinton would have had more time for foreign policy. Sorry in advance.
Spavined Gelding:
Other than the premises that this is all a creation of Bush II and that it will be like Stalingrad, I agree with you on this. Once a thing like this starts it takes on a life of its own. Every action and counter action is analyzed by every other leader in the world. Bush seems to specialize in the tough talk, which I don’t like on principle, but it is undeniably working in Iraq. But in NK…
