Perhaps its worth noting, as well, that Kelly was considerably less certain of the existence of Iraq’s weapons programs (let alone, the existence of its weapons), than the Bush administration:
Imagine that. 30% chance.
This isn’t just a debate, december. Real people are dying because of your fantasy.
Think about it. According to you, there was a risk of WMDs, which could have killed U.S. citizens. So to prevent these hypothetical deaths of U.S. citizens, GWB causes the actual death of U.S. citizens - the soldiers. And there’s no end in sight, is there?
Good luck on the election campaign. Maybe you can come up with a dead soldier revival campaign to go with it.
Does it strike anyone else that we have seen the administration’s public position on “WMDs” and the nature of the threat posed by Saddam’s regime pass from confident assertion of a clear and present danger last fall and over the winter, to confident assertion of a potential threat, to confident assertion that there will sometime in the near future be evidence of a potential threat, to not so confident assertion that there will be evidence sometime in the indefinate future, to obfuscation, to confident assertion of a potential but different threat, to, now, sullen silence and hope that something turns up?
The really scary thing, however, is that the electorate doesn’t care. Someplace I have heard (I think on PBS’s Washington Week in Review) that there is a current poll that reports that 70% of the public thinks it was a good thing to take Saddam out- no matter what our excuse was. While the people on this board care passionately about the justification for the war, whether for reasons of partisan politics or real concern to know the real reasons, we may be alone. Apparently the Administration can shift its grounds all it wants. There can be a claim that Saddam was the love child of Elvis and an alien intruder and the electorate will look at it, shrug its collective shoulders, and continue to fixate on The Survivors.
Actually, I more had in mind the already known nuclear material that we allowed anyone free access to, through what you call a “quite successful” strategy.
The other aspect of the argument, well advanced by others here, is not all that nuanced that it should be difficult to follow. If you allege that there are WMD sites to justify your invasion, this should be apparent in the care you take to secure them during the invasion.
I do have a great deal of pity for you.
L_C, hilarious imagery! It reminds me of that old saying, “…for the sea is so big, and my torn off chunk of Titanic decking is so small. And goddamn cold.”
Or something like that.
Certainly a good point. Additionally, I just got my letter saying that W. is giving me $800 for my two kids. So I’ve got that going for me.
I think the man is doing awesome!
You sound like the war is really over. The marginally formal war has ended and an informal war continues. The end of oganized fighting isn’t the end of the war.
WWII didn’t really end until the Marshall Plan got Europe on its feet and the Cold War finally petered out with the collapse of the Soviet Union after what? 45 years and the expenditure of hundreds of billions of dollars?
The only thing the cambat phase does is determine who is going to make the rules and in the case of WWII even that wasn’t decided until long after. In our present case GW et al up in the political stratosphere have announced quite loudly that our rule is to let the Iraqis make the rules - just as soon as we can get order restored - but that might take several years.
The end of the Iraq adventure hasn’t come, you don’t know what the ultimate end of it will be, neither does GW, Rummy or that instant paragon of all wisdom in foreign affairs, Condoleeza Rice.
There is some saying about counting your chickens before they are hatched, I believe.
GW’s history seems to be that he is impatient with details and it would seem that in his business career this led to several messes left for others to clean up. The Iraq project is beginning to look similar while GW is off raising money for reelection and anouncing yesterday, 2 August, that the economic picture looks rosy. I suppose it does for him. It looks to me like the Supreme Court gave us Candide for President.
Sam:
Aye, but there’s the rub, Sam. It appears that the US had no reliable intelligence reports of Iraqi weapons programs, at least not from the last five years. See, for example, this article from the NYT:
Yet the Bush administration nevertheless claimed, at the same time, that it possessed compelling evidence that Iraq did possess WMDs – not programs, mind you, but the real stuff. Where is it, this compelling evidence, I wonder?
Or, consider this puzzling contradiction:
Your cites are less than compelling as well, I might add. Regarding cooperation between US inspectors and Iraqi scientists, for example, the Washington Post recently reported:
So really, Sam, all you’ve got thus far is a great friggin’ load of untranslated documents.
By the way, I would but too much faith in your weirdo Debka report, if I were you. Scrolling down a bit further from the bit you quoted, for example, we find that Debka has finally uncovered the source of those false Niger documents:
Yeah, right.
Paranoid much?
But what gets me about this entire thing, really, is that first, the US government claims to have strong evidence that the Iraqi government possessed these weapons – such strong evidence, in fact, that it feels compelled to go to war. Then, after the war, they don’t have jack shit, suddenly. “We know Iraq possess stocks of chemical weapons,” says Powell, before the war. “We were force to work with murky intelligence,” says Wolfowitz, afterwards.
And now they want 6 months to construct the case for war; a case they should have constructed before the whole thing started in the first place.
Can’t y’all see just how fucked up that is? What does it take? A 2 by 4 upside the head?
Er… above the last quote in my post it should read, “By the way, I wouldn’t put too much faith in your weirdo Dubka report…”
Please excuse my typo.
So much december, such a little shovel…
Start from the top: “dirty bomb” hysteria. There isn’t the slightest need for a “dirty bomb” program, as has been exhaustively demonstrated over our media. Any damn fool can make one: a barrell full of cast-off radioactive dreck and a stick of dynamite, and there you have it.
The presence of Al Queda in Iraq: well, of course! What situation is more likely to draw thier attention? Your argument is Post Iraq ergo Propter Iraq, because they are there now, they must always have been. Its like taking a dump in your living room, come back in a couple of days and saying “AHA! I told you the living room was full of flies!”
The prospective landslide (by which you mean, I gather, an installation without the previous shenanigans) please note some conditions. There is discontent bubbling to the surface, just barely registering at this point, but growing. Its in the truck stops, the beauty parlors and in my very own trailer park. Its the wives, husbands, parents and friends of Johnny, Janie, Tyrone and Pablo, who are not marching home, hurrah, hurrah. They are talking to thier friends, their relatives, their fellow parishioners. And they are not happy.
GeeDubya desperately needs a victory speech before an adoring audience of returning heroes. Hence the delicate feelers being extended toward the UN and the “coalition” for troops, lots of troops. “Excuse me, but would you mind sending some of your kids to die? Mine are too expensive…” The influx of foreign fanatics only makes it worse, after all, a lot of them actually speak Arabic.
Barring a miracle, America will have more, not less, troops in Iraq. And the billions of dollars pissed away into the Godforsaken Desert will be gone, without so much as a damp spot to show where it went. Money that should have gone for our own people, for health care, education, job programs - all pissed away.
And, finally, the cherry on top of the turd sundae: the Troglodyte Right, who fervently demand a return to the America of Ozzie and Harriet. For all his gesturing and gesticulating, GeeDubya has not delivered for this most loyal constituency, he must continually bleat that he is on thier side, but the libruhls keep thwarting God’s Will. If a leader rises up on that side of the spectrum, and fans the discontent, then its goodnight, Nurse.
Mr. Svinlesha: I guess time will tell. David Kay now says he has strong, compelling evidence of a very sophisticated series of WMD programs, and evidence of the existence of the weapons themselves. If that’s the case, than all the carping you guys have been doing about how obviously duped we all were is going to come back and bite you in the ass.
If not, then I will admit that I was duped. Whether it was by the Bush Administration or the Hussein Administration remains to be seen. I assume that all this information will come out, and we’ll be in a better position to say just what happened before this war in a reasonably short period of time.
All I’ve been saying in this thread is that it would serve the Democrat’s interests to just lay low for a while until the details come out. If David Kay shows up in Congress with an open-and-shut case showing that Saddam had everything the Administration said he had, then the Bush administration is going to have tons of ammunition to use against Democrats to show that they’re soft on security. Can you imagine a Bush commercial interspersing a scrolling list of Saddam’s WMD plans and weapons with Howard dean yelling, “Why did we go to Iraq???”
If that happens, the Democrats will get slaughtered in the next election. All I’m saying is, you’d better hedge your bets. The administration is acting awfully cocky about this right now, and David Kay has a big smile on his face. Y’all might want to be just a bit careful about your claims.
I’m not even sure the issue is that they duped us, so much as they duped themselves and are then forced to dupe us retroactively.
And, really, Sam. Honest Native American, do you really really believe that if they found warehouses stocked to the roofs with Bad Mojo, they would keep it quiet in order to stealth the Democrats?
Remember the Dreaded Anthrax Trailers? Sure you do, you were watching Fox News when the story broke. Almost immediatly it was called into question by experts in the field, it was dubious from day one, and later proved to be the utterest balderdash, sir.
Remember how GeeDubya went to Warsaw and had that interview? Wherein the stated flatly and without caveat that the Dreaded Trailers were exactly as advertised? Without so much as a hint of doubt, or shred of decency. Ever hear him explain that, Sam? I sure didn’t.
So these are the guys you think will carefully hoard precious evidence, waiting with cunning patience to spring thier trap?
I’ll not lose much sleep over that one.
Sam and december, what “crystal ball” do you have that says there was any significant real threat to US security from Iraq? What “crystall ball” do you have that tells you that the WMD’s that have been the subject of so much strenuous investigation will actually turn up? Despite, note, that the US Army unit devoted to it has already given up, and that not a single Iraqi has come forward to claim the bounty. If you really want to be taken seriously here, you do have to have your arguments grounded in some kind of factual basis, ya know. (and resorting to citing Debka should tell you something).
No, per your last post, it is damned well not time to “lay low and let the details come out”. The details are out, despite your fondest hopes. It’s time to holler bloody murder about it.
Your “time will tell” approach is simple denial. Time has told already. Your attitude is grossly irresponsible.
Yes, but is this the same strong, compelling evidence that Colin Powell had before the war (but seems to have mislaid) or different strong, compelling evidence?
In addition to evidence of the banned weapons, please do not forget the necessity of evidence that these presented a credible threat to the US in the short-term.
I believed in th exietence of the banned weapons. I’ve yet to see evidence of the threat to the US, esp in the short-term.
ElvisL1ves said:
I don’t. My position since the day the war ended is that this whole WMD thing is a mystery. Maybe they were there, maybe they weren’t. The evidence is not there, but is being looked for. The possibility exists that they were moved to Syria, that they are buried somewhere and will be found, that they were destroyed on the eve of war, or that they were destroyed before 1998 and Saddam was playing a game that the Bush administration fell for it a little too well.
I’m not making any claims. My argument is that the rest of you who ARE making claims are jumping the gun. I know it feels good to go, “nyah nyah, evil Bush…”, but if that evidence turns up it’s going to come back and bite you on the ass. For that same reason, I haven’t been running around going, “It’s there! It’s there!” Because it might not be. I did that before the war, and it may cause me to have to issue my own mea culpas. So I’ve learned my lesson. Have you?
But if I were a betting man (and I am), I’d be laying odds right now that some pretty good evidence is going to come out. There’s a whiff of it in the air. If you wanted to bet me that compelling evidence of WMD will not be found, I’d probably offer you 2-1 odds on that. Of course, the sticking point will be what we would consider to be ‘compelling evidence’.
And I’ll make a firm prediction right now - whatever evidence Kay comes up with, partisans on both sides of the issue will still be arguing over it during the next election.
What I want to know is what is the justification for holding some of the Iraqi scientists indefinitely? It smells of “tell us what we want to hear and then we’ll let you go”.
From the previously cited Washington Post story:
The status of these scientists have yet to be explained and I think it stinks to high heaven. I guess this is our idea of bringing the rule of law to Iraq.
rsa…given that Amir Saadi and Hossam Amin are both generals in the Iraqi armed forces, I rather suspect that they are prisoners of war. Or is the US no longer even allowed to take prisoners?
An adult would understand that it gives us no pleasure at all. A lot of people are dead, and more are going to die, because of it. It does not “feel good” to know that, and it does your credibility not only as a debater but as a human being to dismiss that in schoolyard terms.
[/quote]
For that same reason, I haven’t been running around going, “It’s there! It’s there!” Because it might not be. But I did that before the war, and it may cause me to have to issue my own mea culpas. So I’ve learned my lesson. Have you?
[/quote]
Once again, you’re using a false dilemma. The argument against the war was, if you were being honest enough to recall, based on many things. In regard to WMD’s it wasn’t about their simple presence or absence, but their likelihood of being used and against whom if they existed. The most usual anti-war argument was that it still wouldn’t be enough. I did expect to see some encrusted barrels in the desert (do your own search if you doubt me), but not enough to constitute an imminent threat that would justify a war. You, however, were strenuously arguing that Saddam not only had the shit ready to go, but that we was insane and unpredictable and therefore would use them at any moment or else give them to his buddy Osama. I have not had to reconsider my prewar views on its justification, because they’ve been borne out by fact. Yours have not.
There’s a whiff of something in the air all right. But vindication it ain’t.
Amin yes (I suppose, I don’t know the rules for an occupying force after official hostilities have ended.) But Saadi is a long retired general. So it is more accurate to say that he is a former general. Also, if they are prisoners of war, why are they not being accorded POW status?
For all I know, the US has excellent reasons for all these arrests including the non-military ones. But I have to tell you that the current administration has made me cynical as hell.