Because, of course, the cause against war was a lie unless we were 100% certain there were no WMDs.
:rolleyes:
Well, as recently as March 2, 2003, just 18 days before the troops crossed the border, Saadi gave a press conference on the subject of Iraq’s banned missiles. The Washington Post described him at that time as both a general and as Saddam’s “top science adviser.”
When he first surrendered, the NY Times described him as a general; as a “top science adviser;” as the “architect of Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons programs;” as the “liaison with United Nations arms inspectors searching for banned weapons” and as “34th on a list of 55 Iraqi government officials wanted for prosecution as war criminals.”
It may turn out that he really has been retired since 1994, but it doesn’t exactly look that way and I can’t blame “the authorities” if they want a little more proof than his wife’s say-so before they release him.
zig:
So let’s see, then. We’ve had the “architect of Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons programs” in custody and under interrogation for about three months, now – and still we can’t find a single catch of chemical or biological weaponry?
This doesn’t shake the faith of the flock even a tiny bit? Are you going to hang it on David Kay’s “smile,” now?
The further it goes, the more pathetic it gets. Wake up. Your emperor has no clothes, and all the desperate rhetorical gesticulation in the world isn’t going to change that.
Not so stupid that I’ve given up believing in the evidence of my own senses, me. Not yet at least.
No, I’m just content to be patient. Three months is nothing. Heck, I’m still learning about Vietnam and thats 30 years now.
The fact is that I don’t see any point in debating the future. We will find what we find.
Here’s the difference, in case you’re interested.
In Vietnam, it was in the interest of the Administration to keep the revelations from the last 20-30 years secret.
They current Administration would dearly love to fill you in on any discoveries. The would sacrifice their first-born to find the missing pieces that they need to justify their war.
IMHO, they can wait til the cows come home. It ain’t forthcoming. Click you heals together as many times as you wish. Kansas is a dream.
Now why would the administration want to keep it a secret that, contrary to popular belief, blacks and low income people actually did not make up most of the fatalities in Vietnam?
Why would they want to cover-up the fact that a blood bath actually did occur after the US left?
Why would they hide the fact that the general picture of the 18 year old draftee was a myth?
Why would they pretend that the Viet Cong didn’t murder 5,000 civilians in Hue?
Explain please. I am interested.
‘though his dreams are barely afloat
I’m far to polite to gloat
Or to mention my view
Of his toupe askew
. . or that his Titanic is no more afloat
eh rats, pasted the draft:
last line: . . . ‘as I cruise past on my ya(ch)te’
hey ho . . . good night.
Look, in Vietnam at least we had the rationale of helping to defend one (then-)sovereign nation, South Vietnam, from North Vietnam’s attempts to conquer and annex it. We weren’t trying to invade, conquer, or occupy North Vietnam. However ill-advisedly, we were trying to defend South Vietnam against a combination of foreign aggession and domestic insurgency sponsored in part by foreign powers. You don’t need a whole lot of evidence to justify the right to do that sort of thing.
But invading and occupying a sovereign nation is a whole different matter. One should damn well have one’s justifications lined up beforehand. If those justifications turn out to be false, then whatever the domestic political repercussions, the U.S. has basically lied to the world. And admitted that it will say anything to gain some fig leaf of approval (“coalition of the willing”, anyone?) to violate international norms whenever the hell it wants to, for whatever reason it wants to.
Just WTF was our reason for invading Iraq, btw? Last I’d heard, there wasn’t a particular reason; the Bushies couldn’t agree on why it needed to be done, just that it needed to be done. And WMDs was what they could convince Congress and the public of, and what they had hopes of convincing the UN of. That’s one hell of a sorry basis for deposing a foreign head of state, no matter how despicable.
Getting back to the main subject, what the Moonie Paper didn’t say was that the “Big Impact” plan isn’t a plan for collecting information about WMDs; it’s a plan for managing the PR about WMDs.
And I’ve got to quote this passage from the Washington Times ‘story’:
Yeah, except the Bush Administration made its case by lying, because the facts in hand at the time weren’t sufficient to persuade much more than a sixth-grade class at Bob Jones Elementary School.
You could also mention that the Hovver Institution is an ultra-conservative organization. Cites available if needed.
That was the best, most original, quickly composed, diversionary reply I"ve ever seen.
The Administration during the Vietnam War was trying to keep secret from the American people information that would reflect poorly upon their justification for the war. And it worked for a long time.
I guess there is more of a parallel here than a disparity.
The current administration is also trying to keep, as long as possible, the fact that they had no evidence to wage war.
I hope you lead a healthy life. You’ll need it to wait for the proof.
To repeat myself, Sam: Osama killed more U.S. citizens in one day than Saddam did in two wars.
I have no trouble at all deciding who’s the greater threat, and who we should be focussed on. And I certainly don’t need a crystal ball to tell me who that person is. All I need do is remember that awful day, and recall that nagging feeling that comes to me every morning, when I get dressed to ride the bus back into NYC for work.
I know who’s threatening my life, and I know who doesn’t give a damn about it, as long as he can win the next election.
Oh, they’ll find proof all right. They will find a weapons program, because everybody has some documentation, some plans, some knowledge of this poisonous crap. We all do. The US is still trying to figure out how to safely dispose of the nasty shit we already possess.
Somewhere, in at least one filing cabinet in Iraq, there are plans and discussions, etc., about nerve gas, anthrax, you name it. If that’s all it takes to be a “weapons program”, they’re home free.
And you can bet your sweet butt that they will be advancing that very same proposition: look here, plans for an anthrax bomb, got official Iraqi seals and everything, yesiree, Bob, a “weapons program”.
This will prove that Iraq was about as much of a threat as Belgium.
Sam:
Comments from two members of the Intelligence Committees that actually heard Kay’s briefings clearly gainsay your optimistic appraisal of their contents:
zig:
I see no reason to wait. Consider the following:[ul][li]On Sept. 7, 2002, Bush said, “I would remind you that when the inspectors first went into Iraq and were denied – finally denied access, a report came out of the Atomic – the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency], that they were six months away from developing a [nuclear] weapon. I don’t know what more evidence we need.” This statement was nothing less than a blatant lie.[/li]
[li]prior to the war Powell claimed that “there was no doubt” that Iraq possessed “chemical weapons stocks.” A DIA report from the same period, in contrast, stated unequivocally that there exists ‘‘no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing or stockpiling’’ chemical weapons.[/li]
[li]speaking in Cincinnati during the run-up to the war, Bush stated unequivocally, “After 11 years during which we have tried containment, sanctions, inspections, even selected military action, the end result is that Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more.” Note: not weapons programs. Weapons. Note as well that Bush does not prevaricate; apparently, he knows the weapons exist. Now, 3 months after the war, the administration still can’t find them.[/li]
[li]In his presentation to the UN, Powell declared:[/li][QUOTE]
- Saddam Hussein is determined to get his hands on a nuclear bomb. He is so determined that he has made repeated covert attempts to acquire high-specification aluminum tubes from 11 different countries, even after inspections resumed.
These tubes are controlled by the Nuclear Suppliers Group precisely because they can be used as centrifuges for enriching uranium. By now, just about everyone has heard of these tubes, and we all know that there are differences of opinion. There is controversy about what these tubes are for.
Most U.S. experts think they are intended to serve as rotors in centrifuges used to enrich uranium.*
[/QUOTE]
He then went on to list the reasons that led him to believe that the tubes were really intended for uranium enrichment. Curiously, his assessment ignores the findings by State’s own intelligence organ, which had concluded that it was “far more likely that the tubes are intended for another purpose, most likely the production of artillery rockets."
[li] the White House admitted that the SOTU contained false/misleading information on Iraq’s attempt to purchase uranium from an African country, and has been unable to provide a satisfactory explanation for how the claim came to be included in the speech. [/li]
[li]on March 17, in a televised speech on the eve of the invasion, Bush stated that “'intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.” I repeat: a DIA report from the same period, in contrast, stated unequivocally that there exists ‘‘no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing or stockpiling’’ chemical weapons.[/li]
[li]and, of course, the kicker: despite dire warnings of the immediate threat posed by Hussein’s regime, an intensive search of the country has failed to uncover a single “WMD,” leaving the administration to now attempt to cobble together a case after the fact with nothing but a couple of trailers full of documents.[/ul][/li]
That’s just a small sample, by the way. I could probably fill a couple of pages with similar examples.
If y’all were so fired up to go to war on the basis of such flimsy evidence against Hussein, why balk now? We have much more evidence of misdeeds on the part of the Bush administration than we ever had of Iraq’s possession of “WMDs.”
I mean, even if Kay’s inspection teams luck out and stumble across something now, after the fact – so what? Isn’t it already clear that they don’t really know yet if it’s there or not – despite their previous claims of certainty? Is this not in itself strong evidence that Bush and his cronies lied to the American public in order to instigate a war?
The time for a congressional probe on this matter is long overdue.
Also, Sam, why are you so insistent on declaring the war in Afghanistan a victory NOW (your capitalization), while insisting on waiting for some hoped-for “truth” to emerge re Iraq? The latter is a simple yes/no, while the former requires judgment. But you’re denigrating anyone who disagrees with you either way.
The only consistency there is your total support of whatever the Bush Administration does or even says, isn’t it?
Victory in Afghanistan? What victory? If there was one is seems to have been ephemeral. This Los Angeles Times story on Afghan troubles would lead one to conclude that.
This looks like GW’s mode of operation. Dive in, do a half-assed job, then move on as soon as you’ve gotten all the personal gain you can. That seems to have been his mode in business and if it worked to his advantage then why not now?
First of all. Sam hasn’t declared a victory. But, things are certainly better for the people there. One doesn’t need perfect results to recognize substantial improvement. E.g.,
Racism in America isn’t eliminated, but it’s a lot less than it was 100 years ago.
Gays don’t have full equality, but their situation is a lot better than it was 100 years ago.
The social safety net – welfare, Social Security, etc. – hasn’t wiped out poverty, but the poor are a lot better off than they were 100 years ago.
SIMILARLY –
Conditions in Iraq and Afghanistan aren’t perfect, but the residents are a lot better off than they were when their wretched prior governments were in power. Also better off are people from other countries who might have been attacked by these wretched governments.
Forget this thread already, did you? It was just a few days ago. You were there, too.
Wishing doesn’t make it so.
ElvisL1ves:
This is what I said:
How do you read into that some statement that from now until the end of eternity Afghanistan will be a great place to live?
As for ‘declaring victory’, that’s an interesting question. If the goal of the war was to depose the Taliban and break down the terrorist training camps, then it was an unqualified victory. If the goal was to ‘get Osama Bin Laden’, then it wasn’t. Note, however, that that was never the stated victory condition. The capture or killing of a single individual has never been the stated victory condition of the U.S. government. In a world of 6 billion people, it can be awfully difficult to find individuals, even if you’re a superpower.
Now, how does this relate in any way to the arguments I’ve been making with respect to Iraq?
Let me repeat my position:
The lack of WMD so far is puzzling. However, absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absense, especially when we know this regime was actively hiding those programs. We’ve been finding hidden and buried stuff all over the place. It does not stretch the imagination to suggest that we may find WMD that way.
And now David Kay says he has reams and reams of documentary evidence that they are still going through, including information about efforts to hide weapons and move them to Syria. My position is, “Well, maybe we should wait until we see what’s there before declaring that BUSH LIED! and that the whole war was a sham.”
Filtered through your radical prisms, I’m sure that sounds like an outrageous thing to do. For those of us living on Planet Earth, it’s simply prudent.
I tried to catch that message before it submitted and retract that last paragraph. It was unnecessary. Let me rephase it as, "To me, this seems like the prudent course of action. If you think that’s a crazy notion, fine.