# The Great Pro-War Massacree Thread (and General Meltdown) **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 25, 2004, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-pro-war-massacree-thread-and-general-meltdown/226019 "2004-01-25T18:07:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![Tee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@Tee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tee)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2004, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-pro-war-massacree-thread-and-general-meltdown/226019/201 "2004-01-30T20:02:25Z")
> [@MMI](#): > > Why the rush, **Tee**? Was it in the interests of the Iraqi people to be without water, electricity, or police protection for several months? Or is the sacrifice of any number of them worth it because we _really_ don’t like that Hussein guy? If piss-poor post-invasion preparation was due to the need for speed then from whence comes the need for speed? > > You (seem to) have accepted that there was no imminent danger - and in essence (seem to) claim that the American people, in general, saw through all of the administration’s fear-mongering claims of imminent danger. Then why go in half-assed? Why the occupation fuck-ups? If it’s worth doing, it’s worth doing well, especially when lives are on the line. Why not wait until you no longer need special forces in Afghanistan to chase down OBL before you start using them in Iraq? All good points. “Imminent danger”…meaning of attack by those same proscribed weapons on US soil? I thought it very unlikely. I have no rational basis whatsoever for thinking it wasn’t going to happen, but there it is. Our civilians and staff outside of US borders is a different story. I think they’ve been in imminent danger for years now, but one doesn’t really need military capability to kill people and strike at the US when a truck bomb will do. “Secular” Saddam recruiting would-be martyrs was always more of an issue with me than possible chemical or biological attacks. I believe that they had a nuclear program on ice all through the 90’s, and never doubted the probability of them having nuclear weapons within a few years. I had serious doubts whether their supposed paranoid recluse of a leader was actually running the whole show. But whoever was actually running it sure outsmarted the West at every opportunity. David Kay’s latest remarks haven’t changed any of this for me. Within all that is my opinion on “imminent danger.” Yes and no. The other things like timing, the UN, the state of occupation…still debatable. Like I said I supported the decision to overthrow the regime by force but I wouldn’t defend each and every step of the process. And it’s not over yet. Overall, imo, it was worth doing. ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2004, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-pro-war-massacree-thread-and-general-meltdown/226019/202 "2004-01-30T22:25:02Z")
> [@Tee](#): > > Like I said I supported the decision to overthrow the regime by force but I wouldn’t defend each and every step of the process. Like _I_ said (borrowing someone else’s phrase): _Bad cop._ ---
**Author:** ![Beagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/85f322/32.png) [@Beagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beagle)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2004, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-pro-war-massacree-thread-and-general-meltdown/226019/203 "2004-01-31T17:31:27Z")
All things considered, **elucidator** , as you only attacked my last paragraph involving the whole partisan angle on all this, I’ll just leave it at you agree with me then that the war was just for the reasons I outlined. I just threw that in there as a mention of the fact that we are allowed to change our leader every four years. I know, the horrible courts and their dastardly decisions. Whatever. The intelligence failure, as I’ll still call it, is a wonderful example of bureaucratic blameshifting. As is so often the case, I can’t tell who is playing CYA more, the White House, Blair, the CIA, the Iraqi dissidents (some military types, not just Chalabi) that still claim he had them, MI5, Syria, whoever. Your hatred for Bush is noted. He does scare me with his simplistic language and analysis. Clinton was a MUCH better off the cuff. Now that Bill’s a hawk and all statesmanlike, I want to vote for him. I’ll just have to wait for Hillary in 08. She’s ready to put in more troops to finish the job. Good for her. ---
**Author:** ![Beagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/85f322/32.png) [@Beagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beagle)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2004, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-pro-war-massacree-thread-and-general-meltdown/226019/204 "2004-01-31T18:08:35Z")
Clinton was a much better speaker off the cuff, or he was much better off the cuff – not both. In a thread in GD I typed Treasur(e) Department. That made me think of the pirates that would certainly be in charge, and it goes something like this… Nah. I think our allies in the UK do a much better job of expressing what this was about than GWB ever did. [UK](http://www.fco.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1007029394374) > [@](#): > > \*\*‘In partnership with Iraqis, we will work to promote stable, internationally-recognised federal government whose leaders they can choose, which respects their diversity and protects the rule of law and human rights.’ > > ‘Our commitment to restructuring Iraq is firm.’ > > ‘Whatever the differences a year ago, the whole international community stand by the Iraqi people. We are committed to helping them achieve their goal of building the free, secure and prosperous country they deserve.’\*\* > > - From a speech at the World Economic Forum by the Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, in Davos, Switzerland, on 21 January 2004. ---
**Author:** ![casdave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c6cbf5/32.png) [@casdave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/casdave)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2004, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-pro-war-massacree-thread-and-general-meltdown/226019/205 "2004-01-31T19:11:55Z")
Well Jack Straw is certainly articulate and intelligentvut this still hasn’t turned up those WMD and without those the urgency that led to war does not exist. That statement could still be true, without the lies for war scandal. Sanctions cut Saddam Hussains regime off at the knees, inspections appeared to make little progress simply because there was little progress that could be made. We had to wait decades for Franco to die before we could get a democracy in Spain, we have been prepared to bide our time in other cases too, there is no reason to suggest that doing so with Hussain would not have returned a more favourable result, at least we could have waited a few months to bring on board the rest of the world. …and the rest of the world would have done so, because I really think that Saddam Hussains obfuscation and evasions would have finally frustrated even Hans Blix. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Svinlesha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/22d042/32.png) [@Mr.Svinlesha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Svinlesha)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2004, 10:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-pro-war-massacree-thread-and-general-meltdown/226019/206 "2004-02-01T10:50:39Z")
This just in: > [@](#): > > _[US officials knew in May Iraq possessed no WMD](http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1136350,00.html)_ > > \*\* Senior American officials concluded at the beginning of last May that there were no weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq, The Observer has learnt. > > Intelligence sources, policy makers and weapons inspectors familiar with the details of the hunt for WMD told The Observer _it was widely known that Iraq had no WMD within three weeks of Baghdad falling, despite the assertions of senior Bush administration figures and the Prime Minister, Tony Blair_. > > Among those interviewed by The Observer was a very senior US intelligence official serving during the war against Iraq with an intimate knowledge of the search for Iraq’s WMD. > > ‘We had enough evidence at the beginning of May to start asking, “where did we go wrong?”,’ he said last week. ‘We had already made the judgment that something very wrong had happened [in May] and our confidence was shaken to its foundations.’ > > The source, a career intelligence official who spoke on condition of anonymity, _was also scathing about the massive scale of the failure of intelligence over Iraq both in the US and among its foreign allies - alleging that the intelligence community had effectively suppressed dissenting views and intelligence_. > > The claim is confirmed by other sources, as well as figures like David Albright, a former UN nuclear inspector with close contacts in both the world of weapons inspection and intelligence. > > ‘It was known in May,’ Albright said last week, ‘that no one was going to find large stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons. The only people who did not know that fact was the public.’\*\* ---
**Author:** ![London\_Calling](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@London\_Calling](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/London_Calling)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2004, 11:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-pro-war-massacree-thread-and-general-meltdown/226019/207 "2004-02-01T11:23:35Z")
That’s fair enough, Mr Svinlesha, the US Intel community is engaged in a blame battle with the White House and this planted (Sunday) story is a fairly simple (counter) shot across the bows to the “I want the facts” bullshit (by Bush) on Wednesday. Reason it can be seen as a shot across the bows is because it doesn’t come right out and say “You bastard Bush, we know you knew from the end of 2001 and we can prove it” - it’s saying to Bush ‘Ease off, pal’, imho. Interesting, though, from a UK perspective that Blair is so soon caught up in this US domestic tiff. Fwiw, I much prefer Wolfowitz’s explanation; that WMD was the (false) pretext all parties could agree on as a reason to oust Saddam (okay, he may have termed it common ground, or similar) – disarmingly candid and has the ring of truth. That statement (by Wolfowitz) also fits the facts as we knew them to be from the UNSCOM reports (about the state of Saddam’s bio, chem and nuclear capabilities and development), as well as the predetermined nature of the Bush/Cheney agenda from the turn of 2001/2. Recap: 1. We can no longer rely on Saudi to supply at the rate and price we need 2. We and capitalism cannot afford to be this exposed 3. We need to control other major supplies 4. Saddam must go 5. Justify why Saddam must go The story is Sunday that serves both the papers’ needs and the sources needs – just another Sunday in the papers. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2004, 11:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-pro-war-massacree-thread-and-general-meltdown/226019/208 "2004-02-01T11:50:42Z")
And this just in: > **[THE STRUGGLE FOR IRAQ: INTELLIGENCE; Powell's Case, a Year Later: Gaps in...](https://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/01/world/struggle-for-iraq-intelligence-powell-s-case-year-later-gaps-picture-iraq-arms.html)** > > Secretary of State Colin L Powell's warnings to United Nations Security Council one year ago about Iraq's banned weapons programs have not been borne out by findings of Iraq Survey Group; his carefully worded presentation was considered Bush... An extensive examination in the _NY Times_, including my own personal sentimental favorite, the Intercontinental Drone Aircraft of Doom. ---
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2004, 12:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-pro-war-massacree-thread-and-general-meltdown/226019/209 "2004-02-01T12:13:04Z")
> [@London\_Calling](#): > > Fwiw, I much prefer Wolfowitz’s explanation; that WMD was the (false) pretext all parties could agree on as a reason to oust Saddam (okay, he may have termed it common ground, or similar) – disarmingly candid and has the ring of truth. That statement (by Wolfowitz) also fits the facts as we knew them to be from the UNSCOM reports (about the state of Saddam’s bio, chem and nuclear capabilities and development), as well as the predetermined nature of the Bush/Cheney agenda from the turn of 2001/2. Recap: > > 1. We can no longer rely on Saudi to supply at the rate and price we need > 2. We and capitalism cannot afford to be this exposed > 3. We need to control other major supplies > 4. Saddam must go > 5. Justify why Saddam must go I don’t disagree with your analysis. However I can’t help but mention the contrast between this and the current war justification, i.e., freeing the Iraqi people from Saddam’s tyranny and spreading democracy throughout the middle east. There were three (public) justifications for the war: WMDs, links with Al Qaeda, and spreading democracy/ending tyranny. The first two have been exposed to be complete and utter bullshit. Only the third remains. For how much longer? Bear in mind that the same fucking idiots that pushed justifications one and two are the same fucking idiots now pushing justification number three. What are the chances of a pro-US democracy surviving in Iraq? Pretty much zero. The Sunnis won’t be happy about being tossed out of power, and both the Kurds and the Shiites are still pissed about the US encouraging an uprising and then standing idly by while the masacres took place more than a decade ago. Bush and Co have been forced to give up the bullshit about the US being welcomed as saviours, but they’re still promoting the line that everything will be rosy once the elections take place and democracy flowers. That’s just complete and utter crap. What’ll happen is that a new pro-US dictatorship will be installed, and it’ll be exactly the freakin’ same as Saddam’s regime. A bunch of Texans will make money out of it, and the US will have recruited a few tens of millions more potential terrorists. I’d be quite happy for history to prove me wrong here, but given the batting average of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et al, I think I’m on pretty safe ground. ---
**Author:** ![London\_Calling](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@London\_Calling](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/London_Calling)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2004, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-pro-war-massacree-thread-and-general-meltdown/226019/210 "2004-02-01T13:40:17Z")
> [@Desmostylus](#): > > What’ll happen is that a new pro-US dictatorship will be installed, and it’ll be exactly the freakin’ same as Saddam’s regime. A bunch of Texans will make money out of it, and the US will have recruited a few tens of millions more potential terrorists. Err yes, but this is not rocket science; installing friendly so-called democratic leaders has been the MO of the US for 40 and years across Central and South America, bits of Africa and Asia . . . same old same old. Where shall we begin . . . Chile, perhaps ? So sure, but anyone with an inkling for _realpolitik_ surely left the ‘Shining beacon’ nonsense behind sometime around Kissinger’s war crimes in Cambodia. Unless, of course, you put your trust in the empire media. In which case, you probably still believe in Santa Claus and 9/11 must have been something of a shock. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Svinlesha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/22d042/32.png) [@Mr.Svinlesha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Svinlesha)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2004, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-pro-war-massacree-thread-and-general-meltdown/226019/211 "2004-02-01T15:57:31Z")
Well, regarding **elucidator’s** _NY Times_ story, I wonder if I should re-post my own analysis of Powell’s speech for a third time, or if simply saying, “I told you so,” will be sufficient. I’ll go with “I told you so,” for the time being. **LC** : > [@](#): > > - That’s fair enough, Mr Svinlesha, the US Intel community is engaged in a blame battle with the White House and this planted (Sunday) story is a fairly simple (counter) shot across the bows to the “I want the facts” bullshit (by Bush) on Wednesday.\* Well, you’re awfully sanguine about the whole thing…. Actually, I think the knot is rather more complicated. I suspect that there are factions within the intel community that are also involved in a conflict among themselves. As I see it right now, many in the top echelon of the intelligence community are aligned with the White House against a subordinate group of internal skeptics – skeptics who have the unfortunate tendency to be RIGHT in their assessments of the intelligence: > [@](#): > > \*\*Other officials, including some still serving in the administration, argue that Mr. Powell presented a case that paid too little attention to information that might have undermined the worst-case conclusions the administration was highlighting. > > “They took every piece of information that proved their point and listed it,” a former senior intelligence official who took part in the prewar debates said, _referring to the senior C.I.A. officials whose analytical conclusions formed the basis of Mr. Powell’s presentation. "They would disregard or make fun of any contrary evidence_. They forgot they were making mere guesses, and even guesses have to be taken with caution. They didn’t hedge or caveat. Instead they would say we’re right and you’re wrong and it’s a matter of national security."\*\* I strongly suspect this is an attitude that emanated, so to speak, from the White House (especially the office of the Vice-President) and the DoD (Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz), through Tenet, and into the CIA; an attitude that was powerfully reinforced by the intelligence failures surrounding 9/11. As Pollack notes in his piece, which I linked to earlier: > [@](#): > > \*\* The intelligence community’s overestimation of Iraq’s WMD capability is only part of the story of why we went to war last year. The other part involves how the Bush Administration handled the intelligence. _Throughout the spring and fall of 2002 and well into 2003 I received numerous complaints from friends and colleagues in the intelligence community, and from people in the policy community, about precisely that. According to them, many Administration officials reacted strongly, negatively, and aggressively when presented with information or analysis that contradicted what they already believed about Iraq_. Many of these officials believed that Saddam Hussein was the source of virtually all the problems in the Middle East and was an imminent danger to the United States because of his perceived possession of weapons of mass destruction and support of terrorism. _Many also believed that CIA analysts tended to be left-leaning cultural relativists who consistently downplayed threats to the United States_. They believed that the Agency, not the Administration, was biased, and that they were acting simply to correct that bias. > > Intelligence officers who presented analyses that were at odds with the pre-existing views of senior Administration officials were subjected to barrages of questions and requests for additional information. They were asked to justify their work sentence by sentence: “Why did you rely on this source and not this other piece of information?” “How does this conclusion square with this other point?” “Please explain the history of Iraq’s association with the organization you mention in this sentence.” Reportedly, the worst fights were those over sources. The Administration gave greatest credence to accounts that presented the most lurid picture of Iraqi activities. _In many cases intelligence analysts were distrustful of those sources, or knew unequivocally that they were wrong. But when they said so, they were not heeded; instead they were beset with further questions about their own sources_.\*\* As I pointed out previously, the one doesn’t necessarily exclude the other: that is to say, the Cheney administration (and I mean, from now on, let’s call a spade a spade) could have been spinning evidence that was already an overestimate on the part of the intelligence community But it’s interesting to compare the two stories from today. The _Independent_ cites a “career intelligence official” who states: > [@](#): > > \*\* ‘We had enough evidence at the beginning of May to start asking, “where did we go wrong?”,’ he said last week. ‘We had already made the judgment that something very wrong had happened [in May] and our confidence was shaken to its foundations.’\*\* It also quotes David Albright – research fellow at ISIS, and an authority who draws a lot of water with yours truly. The _Times_ story quotes a “senior intelligence official” who says: > [@](#): > > \*\* "[we] continue to a believe that given the information available to us at the time, it is hard to see how analysts could reasonably have come to any other overall judgments than the ones they reached…. There are still millions of documents that have yet to be examined, thousands of scientists and former government officials yet to be thoroughly debriefed, and countless possible hiding sites which have yet to be searched…. We find it puzzling that those who say the intelligence community reached its conclusions on limited evidence are reaching opposite conclusions on even less.”\*\* The assessment in the _NY Times_ is the diametrical opposite of that in the _Independent_. Talk about cognitive dissonance…. That last statement from the Times piece, however, is the giveaway, since we have infinitely more evidence regarding Hussein’s “WMD” programs now than we did prior to the invasion. So this “intelligence official’s” contrary assertion is just one more example of typical, neo-con upside-downism: _we did it, but we deny that we did it and accuse you of doing it instead_. I’m dumbfounded by the ubiquity of that technique among the administration’s defenders – do they all take some sort of special course together, or what? **Desmo** : > [@](#): > > - There were three (public) justifications for the war: WMDs, links with Al Qaeda, and spreading democracy/ending tyranny. The first two have been exposed to be complete and utter bullshit. Only the third remains. > > For how much longer? Bear in mind that the same fucking idiots that pushed justifications one and two are the same fucking idiots now pushing justification number three.\* Which, to steal an observation from Juan Cole, brings up an interesting point: if the US was so concerned about the human rights violations in Iraq under Hussein, why didn’t they simply invoke Article 8 of the [**UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide**](http://www.hrweb.org/legal/genocide.html)? > [@](#): > > \*\*Article 8: > > Any Contracting Party may call upon the competent organs of the United Nations to take such action under the Charter of the United Nations as they consider appropriate for the prevention and suppression of acts of genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in Article 3.\*\* Both Saddam’s Anfal extermination program and his treatment of the “Marsh Arabs” would seem to fall under the category of genocide. > [@](#): > > - What’ll happen is that a new pro-US dictatorship will be installed, and it’ll be exactly the freakin’ same as Saddam’s regime. A bunch of Texans will make money out of it, and the US will have recruited a few tens of millions more potential terrorists.\* It’s always difficult to predict the future, but I don’t know if this scenario is really feasible, given 1) the current pressures in Iraq, especially among Shiites, for a quick free election, and 2) the scrutiny which current US actions are currently subjected to by the international community. At this point, the Cheney administration has almost no choice; to maintain any sort of credibility at all, it _must_ live up to its pre-war promises. And that’s one mighty big crap shoot, that. [Here’s](http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/01/magazine/01SHIITE.html?pagewanted=all&position=) an interesting article from the _NY Times_ on the current situation “on the ground” in Iraq. Given the potential strength of the Shiite resistance, I doubt installing a puppet will be an easy task for our current Puppet Masters. ---
**Author:** ![Beagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/85f322/32.png) [@Beagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beagle)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2004, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-pro-war-massacree-thread-and-general-meltdown/226019/212 "2004-02-01T20:00:34Z")
[Saudi Cleric Speaks, Beagle Agrees!](http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=2&u=/ap/20040201/ap_on_re_mi_ea/saudi_hajj_040201143020) Stop the presses. If I’m not mistaken, this is another move in the direction of moderation. I’m also 100% behind the clerics that suggest stampeding is not a good idea. > [@](#): > > \*\*Sheik Abdul Aziz al-Sheik said in his sermon there were those who claim to be holy warriors, but were shedding Muslim blood and destabilizing the nation. > > Is it holy war to shed Muslim blood? Is it holy war to shed the blood of non-Muslims given sanctuary in Muslim lands? Is it holy war to destroy the possession of Muslims," he said, adding that their actions gave enemies an excuse to criticize Muslim nations. > > A large number of the victims of suicide attacks in Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iraq (news - web sites) and elsewhere have been Muslims. \*\* Moreover, it won’t work. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2004, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-pro-war-massacree-thread-and-general-meltdown/226019/213 "2004-02-01T20:36:06Z")
This just in: “Moderates sieze power!” ---
**Author:** ![Tee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@Tee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tee)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2004, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-pro-war-massacree-thread-and-general-meltdown/226019/214 "2004-02-01T20:43:40Z")
> [@Mr. Svinlesha](#): > > Well, regarding **elucidator’s** _NY Times_ story, I wonder if I should re-post my own analysis of Powell’s speech for a third time, or if simply saying, “I told you so,” will be sufficient. > > I’ll go with “I told you so,” for the time being. Powell’s case was devoted almost entirely to holding Saddam to his obligations under relevant UNSC resolutions, and was more about the deceptive practices of the regime and its unwillingness to comply than the cumulative threat it posed to other countries. I’ve gone years without registering to access the NYT and won’t bother now either…but afaik there was no doubt that Iraq was blocking the efforts of the international community to find out what it had. There was no serious doubt (according to Pollack) that Iraq had active weapons programs either, but at the very least, lowest-common-denominator UN stance there was agreement that Iraq would try to thwart any of the controls placed on it, and this formed the basis for Powell speeches. Yes, there is an internal dispute within the CIA - old news. Bush and Cheney favored removing Saddam by force with or without UN approval - old news. Powell being State Dept is independent of this, and is probably the sole reason for bringing the case to the UN in the first place. David Kay summed it up a whole year ago, “_It is easy, if painful, to see how the United Nations slid back into the fool’s game of trying to find a smoking gun inside a totalitarian country such as Iraq. What is much harder to understand is why the Bush administration, which so clearly seemed to have understood that this was not a game that they wanted to play or could win, let itself be trapped like this. But trapped it is._” (my underline). [http://www.useu.be/Categories/GlobalAffairs/Iraq/Jan1903IraqSmokingGunKay.html](http://www.useu.be/Categories/GlobalAffairs/Iraq/Jan1903IraqSmokingGunKay.html) Pollack’s article also mentions the “shameful performance” of Security Council members France and Germany in 2002-2003, and that containment policies weren’t working, which is pretty funny. He seems to contradict himself in places. There is “no doubt” among those in intelligence that Saddam has an active nuclear program for example, but analysts still complain that the administration is cherry-picking evidence. Which is also old news, but I never understood that one in particular. Everyone talking about it is always “senior” but "unnamed"and even “former.” These people expect to have their allegations taken as seriously as those specific people accountable to the public? ---
**Author:** ![Beagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/85f322/32.png) [@Beagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beagle)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2004, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-pro-war-massacree-thread-and-general-meltdown/226019/215 "2004-02-01T21:14:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\*In speaking about terrorists who killed fellow Muslims, al-Sheik was clearly referring to the prophet’s final sermon, which contained the line: “Know that every Muslim is a Muslim’s brother, and the Muslims are brethren. Fighting between them should be avoided.” > > Al-Sheik also criticized the international community, accusing it of attacking Wahhabism, the strict interpretation of Islam that is applied in Saudi Arabia: “This country is based on this religion and will remain steadfast on it.”\*\* He already explained this underlined part in the previous quote… > [@](#): > > **…their actions gave enemies an excuse to criticize Muslim nations…** If you say it is OK to kill Americans just because of who we are – thus supporting al Qaeda – we have a problem. I learned about Wahhabism the hard way, as they say. Now, with a new take on terrorism, if true, things would be quite different. And a nitpick. If Saddam was not the worst guy in the region, isn’t it time to do something for the region? What did toppling Saddam gain us? Leverage on Syria and Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah. The primary external threat to Saudi Arabia was removed along with our troops there. Technically, we should earn al Qaeda points for that. Saddam, the mass murderer (once dupe of the CIA, Chirac, Rumsfeld, Russia, France, Poland, Germany – I mean, this guy got around), is in jail. One potential missile shooter in the ME is out of commission. The other biggest candidate (Iran) is cooperating with international bodies regarding their WMD. Or, so I’ve heard. Take Iran off “Axis of Evil,” add it to “Not Quite a Democracy, Yet”. The notion that the US wanted to steal the oil is not borne out by this [story](http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/iraq.html). To me, it sounds more like Saddam, the Europeans, and the UN stole the oil, mostly Saddam. > [@](#): > > Status of Oil Development Deals with Foreign Companies > Prior to the toppling of Iraq’s Ba’athist regime, the country reportedly had signed several multi-billion dollar deals with foreign oil companies mainly from China, France, and Russia. Deutsche Bank estimates $38 billion total on new fields – “greenfield” development – with potential production capacity of 4.7 million bbl/d if all the deals come to fruition (which Deutsche Bank believes is highly unlikely). The former Iraqi government reportedly had been growing increasingly frustrated at the failure of these companies actually to begin work on the ground, and was threatening to no longer sign deals unless firms agreed to do so without delay. Iraqi upstream oil contracts generally required that companies start work immediately, but U.N. sanctions dissuaded companies from doing so for the most part. > > Now, following the toppling of Saddam Hussein’s regime, the legal status of these agreements is up in the air, increasing the uncertainty level for companies interested in doing business with Iraq. Besides legal issues, companies are also looking for a relatively stable security situation, a functioning government, and other conditions to be in place before they move heavily into the country. In May 2003, Philip Carroll stated that contracts signed under the previous regime would be assessed to determine whether “they were made in the best interests of the Iraqi people.” > > Russia, which is owed billions of dollars by Iraq for past arms deliveries, has a strong interest in Iraqi oil development. This includes a $3.7 billion, 23-year deal to rehabilitate Iraqi oilfields, particularly the 11-15 billion barrel West Qurna field (located west of Basra near the Rumaila field). West Qurna is believed to have production potential of 800,000-1 million bbl/d. In a surprising and somewhat puzzling development, in mid-December 2002 the Iraqi Oil Ministry announced that it was severing its contract with the Lukoil consortium on West Qurna due to “fail[ure] to comply” with contract stipulations. Specifically, the Iraqis cited Lukoil’s failure to invest a required $200 million over three years. Two other, smaller, stakes in West Qurna by Russian companies Zarubezhneft and Mashinoimport reportedly were left intact. > > In addition, three exploration and production deals were signed between Iraq and Russian companies (Soyuzneftegaz, Stroytransgas-Oil, and Tatneft, to develop the 100,000-bbl/d Rafidain field, the Western Desert’s Block 4, and the Western Desert’s Block 9, respectively). Despite all this, Russia’s Foreign Ministry said that it viewed the Iraqi decision on Lukoil and West Qurna “with regret.” In mid-February 2003, following a month of talks between the two sides aimed at reversing Iraq’s decision, the Iraqis announced that its decision to cancel the Lukoil deal was “finished and the contract has been scrapped.” In May 2003, Lukoil said it would fight to keep the contract, and Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister said that Russia would seek compensation if contracts signed under the Saddam Hussein regime now were not honored. > > In May 2003, another Russian company, Tatneft, set up a joint venture with Germany’s MRH in order to win work in Iraq’s oil sector. According to Tatneft’s President, the company had been close to reaching a deal on exploring Block 9 in Iraq’s Western Desert region prior to the war. In October 2001, a joint Russian-Belarus oil company, Slavneft, had signed a $52 million service contract with Iraq on the 2-billion-barrel, Suba-Luhais field in southern Iraq. Full development of Suba-Luhais could result in production of 100,000 bbl/d (35o API) at a cost of $300 million over three years. > > In early April 2001, Russia’s Zarubezhneft received U.N. approval to drill 45 wells in the Ajil (formerly"Saddam") field, plus Kirkuk and Bai Hassan, as part of an effort to reduce water incursion into the fields. The Ajil field contains 3 billion barrels of oil and 5 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of associated gas. Iraq had been seeking foreign assistance for a second-phase Ajil development, which would raise oil production capacity to 50,000 bbl/d, as well as 300 Mmcf/d of gas. > > The largest of Iraq’s oilfields slated for post-sanctions development is Majnoon, discovered by Braspetro of Brazil in 1975, and containing reserves of 11-30 billion barrels of 28o-35o API oil. Majnoon is located 30 miles north of Basra on the Iranian border. In the 1990s, French company Elf Aquitaine (now merged with Total as TotalFinaElf) negotiated on a possible $4 billion deal with Iraq on development rights for Majnoon. In 1999, however, TotalFinaElf declined to sign a 23-year production sharing agreement (PSA) with Iraq… Don’t worry, there is plenty more in there for the terminally interested. Having Saddam in power kept Iraq in a dark age. The sanctions, cold-blooded murder, wars, and corruption were truly epic. He was not your average dictator. To even suggest so is an insult to less bloodthirsty dictators everywhere. Musharraf comes to mind. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Svinlesha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/22d042/32.png) [@Mr.Svinlesha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Svinlesha)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2004, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-pro-war-massacree-thread-and-general-meltdown/226019/216 "2004-02-01T23:12:00Z")
**Tee** : > [@](#): > > - Powell’s case was devoted almost entirely to holding Saddam to his obligations under relevant UNSC resolutions, and was more about the deceptive practices of the regime and its unwillingness to comply than the cumulative threat it posed to other countries.\* No, it was not. Powell wove skillfully between accusations that the regime was not cooperating with the inspectors, on the one hand, and insinuations that this lack of cooperation constituted proof that Iraq possessed “WMDs,” on the other. When he held up a vial of white pulver to demonstrate how much anthrax it would take to kill see-and-so many people, he was definitely emphasizing the threat Iraq posed to other countries. > [@](#): > > _There was no serious doubt (according to Pollack) that Iraq had active weapons programs either, but at the very least, lowest-common-denominator UN stance there was agreement that Iraq would try to thwart any of the controls placed on it, and this formed the basis for Powell speeches._ Oh yes, of course, indeed – if we chose to ignore his faulty analysis of the aluminum tubes, his accusations that Iraq had significant ties to Al Queda, that tiny section of the speech that was plagiarized, literally word for word, from a _12-year-old doctorate thesis somebody found on the net_, and so on. If we simply chose to ignore any of the specific claims made by Powell, then of course you’re right. > [@](#): > > - Yes, there is an internal dispute within the CIA - old news. Bush and Cheney favored removing Saddam by force with or without UN approval - old news.\* There were in fact no “WMDs” in Iraq – new news! That Bush and Cheney were just making it up as they went along – old suspicion, new news again! That some people prefer to stick their fingers in their ears and go “LA-LA-LA-LA” in a loud voice – old news. Your cite, as far as I can see, isn’t really relevant to this discussion – unless you think that finding even a modicum of what the Cheney administration originally claimed to be in Iraq is the equivalent of locating a “smoking gun.” Kay is trying to point out that it was foolish for the administration to try to locate such a gun prior to the invasion – remember, when he wrote that little snippet back in January of 2003, he was one of those who firmly believed Iraq possessed “WMDs.” > [@](#): > > - Pollack’s article also mentions the “shameful performance” of Security Council members France and Germany in 2002-2003, and that containment policies weren’t working, which is pretty funny. He seems to contradict himself in places.\* Yeah, I noticed some inconsistencies in his paper as well. But he _is_ quite clear about the way in which the administration pressured intelligence personnel to produce analyses that followed the party line, wasn’t he? Or did you chose to simply hop over that bit? > [@](#): > > - There is “no doubt” among those in intelligence that Saddam has an active nuclear program for example, but analysts still complain that the administration is cherry-picking evidence.\* That’s one of the inconsistencies I also find puzzling, since Pollack’s claim appears to contradict the CIA’s assessment in 1999: > [@](#): > > **_We do not have any direct evidence that Iraq has used the period since Desert Fox [1998] to reconstitute its WMD programs_, although given its past behavior, this type of activity must be regarded as likely. The United Nations assesses that Baghdad has the capability to reinitiate both its CW and BW programs within a few weeks to months, but without an inspection monitoring program, _it is difficult to determine if Iraq has done so_.** According to the Carnegie report, _Iraq and WMD_: > [@](#): > > **_In 1997 and 1999, unclassified CIA reports on Iraq’s WMD did not mention a nuclear program_. In the first half of 2001, the reports concluded that Iraq “has probably continued at least low-level theoretical R&D associated with its nuclear program. . . The Intelligence Community remains concerned that Baghdad may be attempting to acquire materials that could aid in reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.”** These claims contrast quite starkly with Pollack’s assertion that all the UNSCOM inspectors at a certain meeting in spring 2002 were convinced that Iraq was operating a secret centrifuge plant. > [@](#): > > - Everyone talking about it is always “senior” but "unnamed"and even “former.” These people expect to have their allegations taken as seriously as those specific people accountable to the public?\* You think backwards, it’s really strange to read sometimes. They make statements to reporters on the condition of anonymity, because they might otherwise suffer negative consequences by going public – loss of job, etc. The question is not whether they _expect_ to be taken seriously – the question is do _you_ chose to take them seriously, or not? After all, unnamed “senior officials” revealed the identity of Valeria Plame, and folks sure are taking that seriously. And an unnamed insider dubbed “Deepthroat” brought down the entire Nixon administration, you may recall…. … or do we take seriously only those “unnamed sources” that tell us what we want to hear? ---
**Author:** ![London\_Calling](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@London\_Calling](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/London_Calling)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2004, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-pro-war-massacree-thread-and-general-meltdown/226019/217 "2004-02-01T23:31:45Z")
> [@Mr. Svinlesha](#): > > **LC** :Well, you’re awfully sanguine about the whole thing…. > > Actually, I think the knot is rather more complicated. I suspect that there are factions within the intel community that are also involved in a conflict among themselves. As I see it right now, many in the top echelon of the intelligence community are aligned with the White House against a subordinate group of internal skeptics – skeptics who have the unfortunate tendency to be RIGHT in their assessments of the intelligence: Oh I do agree. Not just aspects of the CIA vs. Bush either; one can imagine ‘Bush’ fires breaking out all over fuelled by not a little bloodletting between State and the Pentagon and both of those with the White House. Never mind the NSA and any other Agencies that fancy themselves as coming out with some advantage It has all the potential of the bar room brawl scene in The Producers. I just hope none of this is beneath Colin Powell as I’d live to see the departing SoS give George a couple of kicks in the nuts. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2004, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-pro-war-massacree-thread-and-general-meltdown/226019/218 "2004-02-01T23:40:41Z")
Dammit, **Werewolf of London** , look what you’ve done! Now I’ll be awakened repeatedly tonight by spontaneous spasms of chuckling as I see that image in my dreams… ---
**Author:** ![pantom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/34f0e0/32.png) [@pantom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pantom)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2004, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-pro-war-massacree-thread-and-general-meltdown/226019/219 "2004-02-02T01:21:47Z")
And in the _Law of Unintended Consequences_ department, this just in: > [@](#): > > The UN mission - “driving under the [Washington] influence” - may estimate that direct elections are impossible before the American-imposed deadline of July 1. US President George W Bush will then be left with two extremely unsavory options. The caucuses will proceed in Iraq’s 18 provinces, and 15 million Shi’ites will smash - by any means necessary - the legitimacy of any government that might emerge. Or the Americans may hold direct elections - and in this case Sunnis, not only in the Sunni triangle - will upgrade their already ferocious guerrilla war to code red, because they will never accept losing power to Shi’ites. Jihad or civil war: these are the options ahead. from [Sistani’s Way](http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FA30Ak02.html) I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: all going in there accomplished was to put our troops smack in the middle of Iraq’s simmering ethnic rivalries, and no matter who the US decides to favor, the troops are going to be targets for the disaffected of the side that feels it lost. Utterly absurd. ---
**Author:** ![Tee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@Tee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tee)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2004, 6:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-pro-war-massacree-thread-and-general-meltdown/226019/220 "2004-02-02T06:46:37Z")
> [@Mr. Svinlesha](#): > > **Tee** : > No, it was not. > > Powell wove skillfully between accusations that the regime was not cooperating with the inspectors, on the one hand, and insinuations that this lack of cooperation constituted proof that Iraq possessed “WMDs,” on the other. When he held up a vial of white pulver to demonstrate how much anthrax it would take to kill see-and-so many people, he was definitely emphasizing the threat Iraq posed to other countries. Preaching to the choir, isn’t it? The council had already passed 1441, inspectors were already in the country, so he didn’t need to sell them on the threat of WMD. He was going for noncompliance. This is actually supported by your bringing up the plagiarism in the British dossier…that was more to do with Iraq’s practicing deception than its weapons capability, I think. And the Kay quote is relevant. The piece itself is all about how Iraq is mocking the rest of the world wrt inspections and noncompliance. > [@](#): > > _Yeah, I noticed some inconsistencies in his paper as well. But he is quite clear about the way in which the administration pressured intelligence personnel to produce analyses that followed the party line, wasn’t he? Or did you chose to simply hop over that bit?_ Not at all, I just brought it up. The administration “pressured” intelligence to produce findings that they had been talking about amongst themselves for years…“misled” the public into believing what was contained in the (public) National Intelligence Estimate…yes, I am having a tough time taking all that seriously. The CIA was probably as surprised as anyone else that scores of banned weapons haven’t been found and now we’re reading “we knew that but Bush wouldn’t listen.” Just a WAG - that probably began last May. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-pro-war-massacree-thread-and-general-meltdown/226019.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-pro-war-massacree-thread-and-general-meltdown/226019.md?page=12)