I rise to underscore an argument made by the cool breeze from the North, Big Svin…
“Imminent threat” was essential to the legality of the Iraq invasion. As noted by Finn, it was not only central to the case presented to the UN by Colin Powell, it was, for all practical purposes, the only argument. This was not an error or an oversight: the only legal justification for a pre-emptive strike is a genuine threat. A presumptive threat that may or may not loom into reality does not qualify. These very same themes are stressed in the Downing Street Smoking Memos. Our British cousins, innocent naifs that they are, truly gave a rat’s patoot about matters of international law, more fools they.
Granted, given the disastrous results of this adventure, its begins to seem trivial, these questions of legality. But, at the time, the Bushiviks and their supporters went to great lengths to make a false and misleading case for legitimacy. It was only when that case failed did they begin to pretend that it never mattered.
I urge the reader to remember: out of Powell’s hour long exposition of damning evidence not one…not one!.. of his assertions have proven out.
Note that the Congressional Resolution on Iraq never uses the phrase “imminent threat”. Instead it uses, multiple times, the phrase “continuing threat”. IOW, it’s been a threat all along, and we’re now going to deal with it. Perhaps this paragraph sums up the resolution best:
I will absolutely agree that that paragraph could be interpreted as describing an “imminent threat”, but it doesn’t necessarily have to be interpreted that way. A surprise attack could be tomorrow or 3 years from now.
Although, even in a speech that was certainly delivered primarily on the subject of WMD, Powell included this:
Which is more about human rights violations and torture than WMD.
Preach it, brother - maybe it will be more acceptable coming from you.
And MaxTheVool - am I correct in thinking that you were saying that the suggestion that only a racist/fool/whatever could support Bush was misguided? If so, I apologize for misunderstanding you. I thought you were saying that I was doing harm to the SDMB by pointing it out. My bad, I think.
I can certainly understand why you might want that.
And yes, it is certainly a common strategy, employed by both conservatives and liberals alike, especially when they find themselves in your situation.
You can certainly assume whatever you like. It might go down a little better if you can point to where Sam stated that Kerry never said anything that could be interpreted, or misinterpreted, by partisans.
Knowing what we do about Sen. “I voted for it before I voted against it” Kerry, I would be surprised if anyone expected that kind of consistency from him.
Well, from your own cite:
I won’t pretend that WMD weren’t stressed as the basis for the invasion. But I also won’t pretend that this was the only reason. And I am afraid I will have to decline the Left’s attempt to pretend for me.
Shodan: WMDs may not have been the only reason, but they absolutely were the sine qua non for the justification for war. That’s what has many folks more than a little upset about the justification leading up to the war. Personally, I wouldn’t have favored the war even if we did have 100% certainty of WMDs in Iraq.
Not that it matters much, but I am genuinely curious:
They weren’t even researching biological or chemical weapons?
My understanding is that the Iraqi nuclear “program” was largely on paper, and propped up by the verbal assurances of fearful Iraqi nuclear scientists to Saddam Hussein that all was full steam ahead.
But the Iraqi biological and chemical programs was in similar shambles?
I used the singular version of the verb when I should have used the plural.
What I’m asking is this: we know that the Iraqi nuclear program was essentially an “Emperor’s New Clothes” scenario. I am asking if research into biolgical and chemical weapns programs was going on in Iraq.
Reason I’m asking: “WMD” is a semi-weaselly term to get people to think “nukes”, but it technically encompasses bioweapons and chemical weapons. So, if Iraq had ongoing research into biological/chemical weapons, Powell’s statements quoted about torture would seem to have some legitimacy.
I think you understand me now. Making blanket negative statements about Bush supporters (ie, “all Bush supporters are idiots”) is both false and harmful. Which is not to say it never happens.
That’s a good point you raise, and to be honest I don’t have the time to address it fully right now as I’m heading off to a friend’s house to drink a cold beer or three. I’ll try to get some research done later this evening or tomorrow though.
For now, IIRC, all of the WMD programs were in much the same state as the nuke program, and Sadaam was focusing most of his energy on the nuke program in any case.
But, even if Sadaam was working towards biological/chemical WMD, then Powell’s statements about torture were still only in the context of that WMD development. Sorta like
“And in order to develop his WMD, he’s torturing people.”
Well, to start with, I would argue that intelligence evaluated in a “reasonable and prudent” manner would likely turn out to be true. At least, a large portion of such intelligence would turn out to be true.
The fact that so much of the OSP intelligence product turned out to be completely false argues against it being evaluated in a reasonable and prudent manner, don’t you think?
But let me continue as well by challenging you to provide, say, 3 examples of intelligence produced by the OSP that meet your own standards of reasonable and prudent evaluation.
Yes, Tenet did take responsibility for the error. But your source does not tell you that Tenet did, in fact, personally contact Bush and advise him to strike the exact same claim in speech made three weeks previously (in Cincinnati, if memory serves) ; that the CIA and the White House wrangled over the yellowcake accusation in great detail prior to the speech, because the CIA knew the claim to be false; that the CIA finally relented when the White House speechwriter came up with a creative way of pitching the story, by pinning it to a report issued by the British government. The precise formulation of the statement made it technically true, even though the CIA and the White House speech writer knew that the actual accusation was extremely dubious at best.
Now, it is possible to lay responsibility for this at the feet of the White House speechwriter – whose name escapes me at the moment, unfortunately – but we must wonder: did Bush really know nothing at all about this controversy? Seems pretty unbelievable to me. At the very least it seems compelling evidence that something fishy was going on (not proof).
If not, however – what then? A lie?
I also want to communicate my irritation over the fact that Bush allowed a spokesman to later retract the statement, while he himself never admitted it to be false.
Sorry, Bricker, this was a none response. Editorial choices are made for a reason. What reason, do you think, lies behind the Bush administration’s specific editorial choices when arguing its case for war?
This argument seems really weak to me, councillor. In fact, if, as you claim, “directly contradictory statements” would suffice to convince you that Bush lied, then I would like you to compare this statement:
…with post-war claims that intelligence is a “murky business,” in which little can be known with certainty.
Or are you arguing that prior to the war, the Bush and his administrators didn’t know that intelligence gathering is a murky business?
Hopefully someone with a bit more time on their hands can ferret out a couple of quotes, after which I’d like to hear your response.
Rather than going through this all again, I refer you to the this discussion, in particular between Sam and myself, beginning about the middle of page 4 (start with post 165). And I’ll also quote from the Washington Post:
And so forth. There’s more in the linked thread.
I’m sorry. I thought the State Department was a part of the administration. Anyway, my point was that State’s assessment 2 years prior to the war changed after 9/11, drastically, despite a conspicuous lack of evidence to support the reassessment.
They don’t ”prove” anything, as you’ve noted yourself. They’re merely evidence, in the form of a judgement made by a person one might reasonably believe to be capable of accurately reporting the facts of the matter – namely, the head of British Intelligence Services.
I tell you, “Bricker, I am absolutely, completely, 100% certain there’s a white alligator in your backyard pool.” Half a dozen experts jump up from behind your couch and say things like, “Well, you know, there’s no such thing as a white alligator,” or “In fact, alligators are tropical creatures, and your pool is in a temperate zone.” I respond, “No. They are wrong. There can, in fact, be absolutely no room for doubt about the existence of this crocodile.”
You go and look in the pool. No alligator. You return to me. I say, “Well, ahem…of course, alligator detection has always been a ‘murky business.’”
Might it be reasonable to conclude that, in fact, I was actually lying about the alligator in your pool?
I doubt I can produce the latter. For examples of the former, see above.
Oh, dear, Bricker! You messin’ with Big Svin, the Google Monster.
But allow me to pick off a couple of the really crippled assertions, save the Big Guy some needless work.
The reputation of Dr. Khidir Himza sleeps with the fishes. He has been thoroughly discredited, indeed, the Bushiviks have quietly but thoroughly disassociated themselves with him, after he proved to be a total buttmuchkin.
And even if he had been a paragon of truth and virtue, he left Iraq years…years!..before the time in question, and had no knowledge anyone is obliged to regard as credible or useful.
Similarly, the expertise of Mr. Rolf Ekeus is, at best, unreliable, having left his position in 1997.
Commendable candor, admitting the blazingly obvious. But followed by:
Why, yes, perhaps! Could be! Have you the slightest reason to assert this, or are you merely indulging in idle and whimsical spreculation? If you tried to pull this stuff in a courtroom, would your opposite number rise in objection, or merely fall to the floor in giggling fits?
And please note: when GeeDubya made this assertion about the IAEA report, he brandished the alleged report as he stood there! Never forget the punch line, as he waved the nonexistent report: “I don’t know how much more proof you need!” Now, I don’t know what exactly he held in his hand, but I’m damned sure what he didn’t have in his hand! As are you.
Gosh, Bricker, so many “Ooopsies!” So many, many times false statements passed through the Presidential pie hole! And yet you would have us entertain the notion that he is innocent in all of this, a loveable doofus who just, goshdarn it!..didn’t quite have all his ducks in a row.
I fantacize of you defending Jeffrey Dahmer:
“My client stands accused of murder, cannibalism, unsavory practices, and violations of the health code in matters of food storage, as well as jaywalking. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, it cannot be conclusively proven that my client has ever been convicted of jaywalking, 337 indictments notwithstanding! Well, then, if he can’t be proven guilty of that, might we not believe that these other charges are equally unproveable!?”
The rest I’ll leave to Big Svin. Man, you’re gonna get soooo creamed!
Oh, I’m just giving you crap. You don’t know 'cause I don’t think I’ve ever said. But I’m definitely one of those who is far from right-wing in any objective sense, but has been called a “Bush-worshipper,” “mindless drone” and the like more than a few times.
Not that I have a lot of time on my hands (I have a grant proposal I have to get in on the 1st), but this was one of my favorites. For some reason, I have very clear memories of being in NYC in a hotel listening to Rumsfeld lie these lies.
I think my favorite, favorite part of this press conference is the work of one intrepid reporter who points out how three administration figures are saying the same thing over the same two day period. Not only does that information turn out to be a lie, but it is clear that the administration was pushing the information. It is also helpful to keep in mind that this concerted selling of a lie was done just a couple of weeks before the Senate voted on the resolution.
