I thought the USA laid down how to deal with such issues at the Nuremberg Trials in 1945.
From this page:
Describes to a T what president Bush has been doing since he took office.
But … but … Kay looked so confident, didn’t he? Enough to convince Sam, even.
Nope. No weapons found in sufficient quantity and condition to constitute a real threat = Bush lied and got a lot of good people killed for it. That’s exactly where we’re headed, based on this. But perhaps we won’t have to put up with being told otherwise by the dead-ender Bush spokespersons here, or elsewhere, after this Kay report, though.
Aternative scenario, a la Scylla:
There are those in Neo-Con and Pentagon circles (Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Pearle) that have been itching for years to move on Iraq for strategic military and economic reasons. (See the letter to Clinton in the 90s urging renewed intensive action in Iraq.) These individuals have, over the past decade, become close with a group, headed by Chalabi, known as the Iraqi National Congress.
With knowledge and tacit approval of certain US government circles (hey – its a speculative scenario, I get to indulge my inner conspiracy theorist) Chalabi and his Iraqi National Congress arrange the defection of “highly-placed governmental officials” with “knowledge” of “weapons of mass destruction”. The information given by these defectors is plausible, based on what was then generally known about the state of the Iraqi weapons program following the end of the first war.
Chalabi and his friends in government spread the belief that once the war is over, everyone but a few traffic cops can go home, and drive big fancy cars filled with gas from Iraqi oil. Chalabi’s plan is that he will emerge as the most logical person to lead new Iraq – he led the way, he’s got friends in high places. The conspirators in the US government and industry’s plan is for long range stability in Iraq, and secured access to Iraq oil reserves.
Using the WMD as the rationale, and selling hard the idea that “once our boys get to Bagdhad they get to come home”, these folks secure the backing of the President of the United States of America, who uses his power, and that of the CIA and the state department, to sell the war to the people and the Congress. He is unable to sell the war to the UN, but, hey, who cares, once this is over, we’ll be sitting pretty in Iraq on top of all that oil, and they’ll be wishing they’d listened to reason.
US into Iraq. US now holds Iraq for the foreseeable future. Win for Chalabi, win for long-term US strategic interests. Not so great for Saddam, but who cares about him.
Law of unitended consequences and law of actions taken by the Pentagon (by the way, how did we ever forget that the Pentagon is ill equiped to ever do anything in an intelligent and efficient way?) – No budget for the $75 billion cost of the war. No budget for the ongoing costs of occupation, estimated (but, since no one is saying, no one really knows) at $50 billion a year. No Iraqi oil available for much of anything for the next 5 years (best estimates are that for that period of time, oil revenues will be spent rebuilding the oil infrastructure). Streets of Iraq filled with angry locals. American soldiers getting killed on a daily basis. “Old Europe” saying, sorry chums, can’t really help you. US citizenry waking up (slowly) and saying, man this is not a great situation. What is it we are doing here again?
Reactions to the massive reality check? (1) “Just wait, we’ll find those WMDs!” (2) “It was never really about WMD’s, it was about liberating the people of Iraq from an evil, evil dictator!” (3) “Massive WMDs any second now! We’ve got evidence, but can’t show it to you just now, but come September, watch out!” (4) “Uh, it was all Saddam’s fault! He tricked us!!”
**
What? these? Ummm, these are just aspirin. Yeah that’s the ticket. Aspirin.
Well now, I can’t have accusations, bandied at me, can I?
Of course I make no such implication that all criticism is unreasonable.
Unreasonable nuttiness, remains unreasonable nuttiness, and you seem to concede there is some of this, so what’s the prob?
Well yes, it is speculative. I had hoped that I’d made that clear. However, it does have evidence supporting it. It’s unkind of you to imply it doesn’t.
As a scenario goes, it’s a fairly decent effort. I am by no means married to it, and if it turned out to be exactly true, nobody would be more surprised by itself.
Why it’s a nice scenario is because it explains a couple of very difficult things to explain, and covers the facts inclusively.
I agree. Fortunately for me, this is not what I’ve suggested.
I have suggested that Saddam might force the sanction issue in his favor by making the US appear to be fabricating evidence against him.
How do you know what he wanted? If he currently had little or no military programs why would he object to inspectors?
If he’s clean, he might be able to get the sanctions lifted and start up his programs again.
It’s like a junkie offering to take a urine test when he knows he’s clean.
Yes he did. After ten years, it still wasn’t working. Perhaps it was time to try something new
Uhhh. Yes. You see. The accusations fly. He gets inspected under a microscope and pronounced clean. The US looks evil. Saddam gets to complain about we’ve been vilifying him unfairly and demand the sanctions be lifted. He gains cred and he forces the issue to a head.
Do you not understand the scenario as I’ve written it?
You might want to check my exact words. I don’t think I exactly promised to come to the dark side.
But do me a favor. Should the need come after thanksgiving, please don’t go demanding a retraction at 12:01 Am the day after Thanksgiving.
I am aware of what I said, and have no intention of hiding from it. Hopefully you will grant me the courtesy of allowing me to address the issue myself before you go making demands.
And tsk tsk tsk. Shame on you, for the implied accusation that I would duck my word. You have impugned my character.
I demand that you disimpugn it immediately.
T. Mehr said…
“It is very unlikely that Iraq sponsored any terrorism against the western world. And the payment to sucide bombers was meant to help the widows. Basically it was a political act to gain support in the arabic world and piss of the west. Defenitely no sponsoring of terrorism. So here is no reason for the invasion. Dig deeper.”
And then today…
The car bomb killed at least 82 people, including Iraq’s leading Shiite politician, Ayatollah Mohammad Baqer al-Hakim, and wounded more than 200 outside one of Shiite Islam’s holiest shrines in the central Iraqi city.
If I were a rude man ** T. Mehr*, I would call you a simpleton. But I’m not - you have simply been mislead*.
** Dig Deeper**.
God bless** George"“W” Bush**.
Milum, are you seriously asserting that this bombing was both the work of Saddam, and targeted against “the western world”? Really?
Looks from all the news reports so far like one Shiite faction going after another’s leader and as many of his followers as possible. Add your own flavor as to the current security situation in Iraq.
Someon posted a theory a while back that Saddam didn’t want it known that he’d given up his WMD research because he’d no longer be the most feared leader in MENA.
IAC, it’s painfully obvious that he didn’t have them, and we had no real idea of where they would have been if he had had them. Bush should do the honorable thing and resign. However, I can’t see that happening. Nor, in all honesty, can I see the Democrats managing to get their act together well enough to unseat him, unless the economy goes in the tank or they manage to convince Gen. Wesley Clark to run. (IIRC, he’s supposed to announce any day now if he’s going to run or not.)
Thanks for that Millum. Truly a classic post and the funniest thing I’ve read today. “Dig Deeper”!!!
No, I predict it will be just another pitiful fart.
Scylla:
Are you sure? You seem to be reacting strangely to them; you appear to be suffering from hallucinatory speculations.
Well, you have in the past, suffering from a fit bitterness and perhaps a bit of blue funk, clearly insinuated that the criticisms directed towards Bush over the Iraq invasion were equivalent to those leveled at him concerning insider trading; and then further indicated that you believed both to be equally void of real content. I took your observation about blaming Bush for the orbit of mars as an indication that you were still of the same opinion.
You may have changed your mind on this matter, in which case all I can do is congratulate you for taking yet another step closer to the dark side.
Regarding your scenario: I’m not going to get into a debate with you over the details of a hallucination. For more reasons than I care to list (starting with a judicious application of Occam’s Razor), I simply don’t believe it to be a realistic possibility.
You disappoint me, young Scyllawalker. Feel your anger. You know you cannot resist. Join me now on the Dark Side, and together we will rule the message board as father and son – well, uh, I mean, after I adopt you, of course.
Curses! I confess, I did have something along those lines in mind. Perhaps you can forgive my eagerness, though, you see I’m working on my Sith Lord badge this cycle and, as you know, one of the assignments involves corrupting a pure, untainted soul. You seemed exceedingly promising to me.
Well, except for the “pure, untainted” part.
Well, to be honest, I wasn’t really intending to. I was kinda planning on rubbing your nose in it, in that shameless and uncouth fashion so common to us lefties.
I protest my innocence, as I’ve done no such thing. I’ve merely posted a gentle reminder.
But, okay, to stuff a sock in it and get serious for second: you did indicate that should no “WMDs” appear by Thanksgiving, you would change your mind in some way regarding the Bush administration. Surely, with the situation developing as it is, this matter must be on your mind to some extent. Let us say that it’s November 26, and nothing has been found: what would that mean to you? Would you come to the conclusion that Bush was lying? Would you withdraw your support for his administration? Would you call for a congressional hearing on the matter? Would you support impeachment?
ElvisLives: Milum, are you seriously asserting that this bombing was both the work of Saddam, and targeted against “the western world”?
Avenger: Thanks for that Millum. Truly a classic post and the funniest thing I’ve read today. “Dig Deeper”!
You two are kidding, right?..No…I can see you are not…
Now boys I don’t want you to think that I’m talking down to you 'cause I’m not. I think that you two are like most human beings in that deep down all you want is to know the truth.
(A) Saddam is a bad man. He knew that he couldn’t defeat the west but he is good at hiding so he hid.
(B) As Baghdad fell hundreds of trained muslim terrorists converged upon Iraq. They did not come to be used as cannon fodder they came as terrorists to be used after the war in the occupation phase - the war of attrition. This was the plan. No other plan was seriously considered.
© Saddam Hussein has always been in bed with terrorists. He is a lying, murdering, bastard who sleeps with the devil, both kinds of devil, Islamic and Jewish. Misinformation to the contrary, Saddam and Bin Ladin have always been good pals.
(D) If I didn’t know it already I would bet you boys that it would be found that the al-Qaida is behind the murdering and maiming of several hundred iraqis at the Shiite Shrine Friday. Who else would kill innocents of their own kind.
Their bloody goal is the same as all cowardly terrorists; kill those that try to help you, kill those who are just standing around, kill until you bring chaos, then rule.
Now you know. Pick your side.
Cite. Gotta have a cite. Oh, yeah. Definitely.
You seriously think that Saddam Hussein, the Butcher of Baghdad, Numero Uno Supremo in the Axis of Evil Trilogy, when facing 200,000+ American soldiers on his border, decided “Nah, I won’t use all my nasty WMDs on 'em, let’s hide it all and run like cowards”??? 
Or is this merely the political version of the old investment warning, “past performance is no indication of future results”?
Misinformation to the contrary, last I heard, the CIA, the FBI, MI-5, and Interpol don’t believe this one bit. If you have evidence to the contrary, I’m sure all those spooks would love to hear from you.
And knowing is half the battle!
Whoops – got caught up in your simplistic black-and-white cartoon view of the world for a minute there. Sorry 'bout that…
Milum , we are currently waiting for cites for:-
Your assertion that the car bomb the other day was an example of “Iraqi state-sponsered terrorism against the Western world”
Your assertion that “Saddan and Bin Laden have always been good pals”. Particularly looking forward to the evidence for that one.
If you have any proof at all for laying the car bombing at the door of Al Qaida, feel free to make with that too.
**
What do you call it, Mickey Mouse? And that one agaisnt the UN building doesn’t do it for you?
If you didn’t see “Road Rules: The Mideast” that’s your fault. I for one was touched when Sadamm lied and took the the blame to cover up that fact that Osama ate all the cookies before the big challenge.
Didn´t al Qaeda took responsibility for that?
Al Qaeda hasn’t “taken responsibility” for anything, ever, AFAIK, nor is there evidence other than rumors for either of the bombings in US/UK-occupied Iraq. It’s certainly plausible, but the OP assumes facts not in evidence.
I suspect the Big Stall on WMD’s has performed its function admirably, that is, it has gotten the whole WMD fiasco off the front pages. The Bushiviks are playing the only card they have left in this particular game, and that is to hope it all sort of blows over if starved for news.
And it very well may work.
Unfortunately true. I believe the polls still show that a large fraction of the population, and some who post here, hold Saddam responsible for the WTC/Pentagon attacks.
At least some people seem to drag in the attacks whenever GW’s Iraw adventure arises as a subject.