As corroboraton from the American side of the pond, take a look at the CIA’s October 2002 assessment of Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs. It’s very strongly worded for as little as it turned out the US actually knew about Iraqi WMD’s:
Skepticism about the analytical purity of this report appeared immediately:
The analysts at the CIA can’t be universally stupid. Some of them must at least rise to the level of the Doper’s who were bitching about the poor quality of Iraq WMD intelligence during the run up to war. Now that it turns out that there was no secret and damning proof of Saddam’s weapons and weapons program related activities, it’s perfectly reasonable to ask why those CIA skeptics were never heard from. If anyone has a more plausible explanation for that than Bush’s agendaization of the nations intelligence apparatus, I’m sure that we’d all like to hear it.
Thanks for the pitting. Really. It’s an honor to be noticed.
OTOH, one thing you might not have considered is that I’ve made a lot of stupid predictions that haven’t come true yet. When I say “predictions” I mean sometimes it’s just an interesting article. Specifically I mentioned several articles that suggested the weapons were smuggled to Syria early on.
Given Israel’s interest in getting Syria out of Lebanon, I chalked that one up to Mossad propaganda. Really, even I like wacky conspiracy theories involving Mossad, especially if it just means floating a news story. Nobody gets shot in the head with a .22.
Also, I’ve made a lot of correct predictions.
Basically, I was typing angrily. I’m so sick of the “one issue for war” argument run simultaneously to the “planning it since the Gulf War” argument.
I’ve been for knocking off Saddam since I didn’t favor knocking him off the first time. I thought the UN, the no-fly zones, or GHWB would handle it. Boy, was I wrong!
Hearing about the slaughters from the rebellions we encouraged, but didn’t support, the failed sanctions, the corrupe oil-for-food program that led to starvation through Saddam’s typical savagry, I pretty much decided to work from what I’ll call the Nuremburg Principle – if you kill enough people I’ll support “pre-emptive” war. I was ahead of the curve on that one. Saddam was my learning curve.
First it was the Iran War (I didn’t know he had an execution party the day he took office), then I heard about rumors of torture. Not uncommon for that region. The news really picked up about the time of the Kuwaiti invasion – including the armored incursion into Saudi Arabia the US demolished – and the missiles shot at Israel.
That was great video, poor Jewish children huddled in gas masks being asked not to shoot back. That made a real impression on me. Then the barracks was blown up.
Then you have the Iraqi links to the first WTC. I was saying, um, “Bill?” Then again in 1998.
Well, fast forward through dozens of acts of terror from the barracks bombing(s). I can’t keep them all straight any more. Then NYWTC x 2, the Penatgon, Cole, embassies, you name it. The one thing they all had in common was this interlinked shadowy world of state-sponsored terrorism.
One view was to release the legal hounds. That worked in some cases. If the bulk of the problem is manufactured overseas, funded by states, and imported it seems pretty unlikely that even the FBI – given the domestic emphasis – was going to be able to do much about Saudi, Iraqi, Iranian, and Syrian funding. Nor were the cops going to shut down the terrorist training camps the functioned in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Iran, et al for years.
So, in conclusion, war against people that want to kill you is not a bad idea.
The reality (sad for some) is that in the historical record, Democrats -usually- do follow the war plans of the outgoing republican presidents, some could say: more zealously, since they in turn get accused of being soft against the enemy.
Heck, even if Dean by any chance is nominated and then win, I do think that whatever plan is set by the Bush admin -regarding the exit strategy of Iraq- it will be followed by the Democratic president to the bitter end.
The difference (important IMO) though, is that whatever democrat gets in, he will get more diplomatic openings than the current turd, and so an exit will be easier then for the US. Not to mention that the continuing war against terror still needs more international cooperation (like international airplane security)
Related to the OP:
One thing that should not go to the memory hole, is that Bush -for the Iraq information- depended mostly on the OSP:
A group that “enhanced”, as Condolesa Rice would said, the information at hand. I also do remember that some reports mentioned that that enhanced info, is what congress got on the eve to granting the permission to go to war.
[Speculation time]
Here, I have the gut feeling that the control of info to congress was changed right after 9/11 due in part to Orrin Hatch’s big mouth, so the result was that congress had a very controlled pipeline of info coming to them, regarding items like Iraq.
[/Speculation time]
What I am getting to, is that the president may plausibly deny that he was lying. However, so far, it seems that this president choose to trust partisan information sources, and the thing that SHOULD be a scandal is that that info was not only used by the president, but by congress. While the OSP office was disbanded after the war. (Mission accomplished as Joshua Marshall I think once said) I do think that our intelligence was compromised outside the white house too.
Kay is almost getting it:
The real question should be: Do you think this president and the current majority in Congress will investigate thoroughly what happened, regarding the OSP and the intelligence failures?
Sam, if you say “EVERYONE” believed there were WMD one more time I’m going to vomit. You said it once and I couldn’t believe how someone so articulate could be so utterly, blindly stupid. When you said it again I was flabbergasted. Can you honestly not see how stupid it is to say such a thing?
To me, admitting “I was duped” would not go far enough. It is hard to defraud an honest man. It is easy to defraud someone whose greed blinds their judgement.
I find it hard to believe that if a Democratic government threw up the wall of spin that Bush’s government did, Sam and his fellow travellers would have any difficulty showing scepticism and picking apart the lies.
“I was told that I was being duped, I was pointed at evidence I was being duped, but I was nonetheless duped because I refused to believe that I was being duped” might come close.
An entire thread for The Usual Weasels? I admire your dedication and patience, Svinlesha, but isn’t this rather like bailing out the Titanic with a 5-gallon bucket?
Their ship has sunk. Only God and Robert Ballard can save them now, and God has no patience for those bearing false witness.
b) & c) Another false claim. Of course, only 100,000 Iraqis protested in Baghdad. This next one is, admittedly, from last year, but they are cites from March or later, so it falls in the timeframe of the war. I never cite FOX, but maybe this will help our more conservative brethren begin to accept the inevitable reality that the “Arab Street” is angry, and has risen up: <shudder> FOX on Arab protests.
As for the “chaos” claim, Afghanistan & Iraq are in utter chaos, and Pakastan isn’t exactly a case study in stability. Isreal/Palestine? Just a little chaotic, wouldn’t you say? Let’s see, Syria isn’t chaotic? Saudi Arabia is well on its way to political instability. It might just be me, but the already chaotic situation in the Middle East, which Bush did admittedly inherit, has been made worse by implimentation of the Bush Doctrine. And it shows no sign of slowing.
d) Well, that remains to be seen. So far, there are a few similarities, such as:
and
Now we’re nowhere near 50, 000 (and I hope we never are), but the rest stands, IMO.
In conclusion, to me it’s not a matter of I was right/you were wrong, it’s a matter of consistently spouting false information and a seeming inability on the part of some (not singling out Sam here) to reflect, analyze and conclude in a meaningful way. That does not mean my way. What it means is that it appears, in my limited experience, that the conservative mindset is generally selective and reactionary. However, I am gratified to see the doubt expressed openly by some Bush supporters recently, though it remains to be seen if that translates to a new president and a really strong national comment that we’re not going to take it, and to prove our ideals, enshrined in the Constitution, are not hollow and/or irrelevent.
True, but Sam would do just as well, much better even, to take the time to watch The Truth Uncovered, in which many extremely credible, informed people reveal that his desperately-clung-to-belief that gee, * everybody thought so! *is absolutely, clearly, unquestionably false. Flat out wrong. At best, mistaken in the extreme.
But we don’t want to take away his blankie.
bingo. We’ve had several “Well, you guys were mean, too!” remarks. Still not a single example.
You shouldn’t. And the smug, relentless repitition of empty, meaningless remarks that are wildly inappropriate to the given circumstances, that mean to marginalize the opposing viewpoint, as though by incantation alone, is really starting to look creepy and sad.
Get a new schtick, people. The old one isn’t working anymore. The people are awake.
ALmost forgot… I am reminded by this thread of all the conservative voices that have grown quiet. I think the reason the SDMB may be currently seen as “trending left” is because so many rightys are too embarrassed to show up here.
You know, Stoid, you sure do know how to pick a fight. Had it been anyone but you who wrote that little taunt above, I would have come in here six guns blazing.
Anyway, the reason why the conservative crowd doesn’t come in here anymore is not because we’re too embarassed to show up, it’s because most of us have no desire to throw ourselves in waves at the liberal guns trying to defend what is now quite obviously indefensible. Most of us just sit back, correct your minor factual errors, clear a few things up here and there, and stand back so you guys can have your 15,000 threads of self-congratulation.
See, most of us already know what’s up. The ones that don’t by now never will. So starting 10 of these type threads every day is overkill to the point where we don’t even look anymore.
I second Avalonian and commend you on your open-mindedness.
On the other hand, to my knowledge, you never publicly promised to admit it.
I don’t think you’ll have to worry about that, because I suspect Bush will do everything in his power to get the fuck out of Iraq before the election. There’s a June deadline for withdrawal at the present, you know. Beagle:
No prob. However, not to bum you out or anything, but you may have noticed that my list of quotes doesn’t include you. In the threads I have access to you were actually pretty noncommittal, you cagey bastard. Alas! If only the search function was working!
Still, let us give credit where credit’s due: it was your comment about Syria that proved to be the last straw. You may proudly proclaim that you were the one who caused me to lose my composure. Specifically, this statement:
I mean seriously, Jesus H. motherfucking Christ on a goddamned fucking pogo stick. Are you really that stupid, or are you simply hoping that I’m that stupid? Can you give me one reason – any reason at all – to believe that Syria would accept “WMDs” from Iraq, either on the eve of or during the war, outside of your masturbatory neo-con fantasies of grandeur and moral righteousness? Because, seriously, I really want to know – what the fuck do you base that steaming pile of crapulous assertions on? Tell me! A Drudge report, maybe? Something hot off the wire over at Debka?
I mean, look – I’ve been polite, haven’t I? Haven’t I been polite? Haven’t I shown my debating opponents over the last year a great deal of respect? Haven’t I been willing to meet their arguments unflinchingly, no weaseling, no name-calling (with perhaps a minor exception or two in the heat of the moment)? In fact, haven’t I been a goddamn near perfect gentleman about this shit?
But you tell me – when does it stop? Does it stop at all? After the US invades Syria, only to find it devoid of “WMDs,” do you plan to simply pick some other little piece of shit third-world rat-hole to bomb into oblivion? Do you really think that the majority of people are too stupid to see through this ridiculousness, or is it just you? Seriously, I really want to know. Are you really so stupid that you would actually believe Iraq has hidden its “WMDs” in Syria? For the love of Christ!
And then, to top it off, you follow up with this:
Oh yeah, that’s classic. Yup, we anti-war types are just making it up as we go along, aren’t we? You don’t remember Bush’s speech in Cincinnati, the SOTU, the NIE, the almost endless list of assertions made by various members of the administration in the run up to the war, Powell’s presentation to the UN…. Gee, to think that I’m not even a “half-assed” student of modern history.
Seriously – did someone drop you on your head as a child?
Yeah, stupefying is the word all right.
I wonder what in the Holy Fuck you have to be angry about. You got your precious little war, didn’t you?
What an incoherent paragraph. I’m going for “too stupid to know the difference,” me.
And then, from the same thread, total fucking crap, like this:
I mean, lame? It goes beyond lame. It’s cosmically lame. It’s the archetype of lame, rising up from the collective unconscious. We’re talking primordially lame, here.
And while we’re at it let’s not forget the big cheeses as well – the guys this rotten collection of masturbating mental midgets continue to support. Like George W. Bush, that contemptuous frat-boy dullard. Here’s an example: after months of inspections, Kay managed to locate a single vial of C. botulinum Okra B. virus in the refrigerator of an Iraqi scientist. Not even a vial of the toxin the virus produces, mind you, just the virus itself – a standard product in most biotech laboratories. It had been sitting there since 1993 and, according to specialists, had actually been ordered from the US during the 1980s. Also, no country on earth has ever succeeded in weaponizing that particular strain: Iraqi bio-weapons research prior to 1991 had focused on botulinum A., mimicking US and Soviet programs.
So then, up pops dork-wad and publicly states, with his face hanging right there off the side of his neck, that this single vial of “deadly virus” was proof that “Saddam was a danger to the world.” As if the invasion had thereby been justified by the discovery of a vial of frikkin Botox. You know, my Swedish wife read that, looked at me with pity, shook her head and said, “Pathetic.” But this goes beyond pathetic, when the fucking president of the United States spews nonsense of this order. It’s like pathetic[SUP]100[/SUP] x stupefying [SUP]100[/SUP]. It’s so much pathetic that it’s patheticness could stretch to the universe and fill up the black hole in space.
And yet still you support him. You do realize that your boy is making y’all look like pack of nature-born fools, don’t you? That he’s successfully run America’s already poor reputation into the ground, thanks in large part to your mindless, gibbering support?
Or take this one. Cheney sent out Christmas cards last year to all his acquaintances in the international community. At the recent conference in Davos, Switzerland, he held a talk, and afterwards the moderator (Klaus Schwab, another business big-wig) wondered a little about the card’s inscription. It was the following quote from Benjamin Franklin:
Schwab suggested that the card’s message might be slightly off-putting to non-Americans. What was that ninny Cheney smoking, I wonder? And do you know what he did, the lying scumbag? He blamed his wife.
Well, anyway, as you can see, I’ve finally arrived at the “general meltdown” part of the thread.
And I must say, it feels pretty good.
I needed it, I think. Airman:
To be clear, I do not count you among the targets of the above rant. It is directed towards, as you say, the ones who don’t know what’s up and, apparently, never will.
On the other hand, I do wonder what the hell this is supposed to mean:
Perhaps you have an example of me attempting to defend “what is now obviously indefensible”?
Just a minor thing, Mr. Svinlesha. I think you misinterpreted Airman:
I don’t think he was saying that you were defending the indefensible, but rather that the “conservative crowd” had no wish to defend the indefensible.
OTOH, Airman also claims that the conservative crowd doesn’t even look at these “15,000 threads of self-congratulation” anymore, which is kinda strange. I guess they all just post without looking.
Sam Stone: *In the meantime, perhaps we should start some threads detailing the predictions of those of you […] *
Go right ahead Sam. I’ll be happy to admit anything I was wrong about and apologize for anything I was rude about.
I believe I’m already on record somewhere on these boards as admitting that I was wrong in my estimate of how long the full-scale conflict in Afghanistan would take. (I wish I had been equally wrong in my predictions that one year later, we still wouldn’t have captured bin Laden and we still wouldn’t have a stable and effective government in the country. And I’m getting positively sick and tired of not being wrong in my pessimism about the Iraq war.)
So your saying we should have given Saddam another decade or so to get his numbers up? Perhaps another generation of jailed, tortured, and mass buried Iraqis under the care of Saddam’s sons?
I don’t particularly like the war this war was spun. I really don’t like how unprepared for its aftermath we have been. But don’t try to spin the blood toll on me. Another generation of misery under the Baath party would make sure that the number of corpses and ruined lives won’t support your arguement.