No Dan. I don’t.
Didn’t the NY times reveal that the Niger document was a fake 9 or ten months before it was presented by the Bush admin to the public as evidence?
Didn’t the IAEA suspect it was a fake immediately and confirm it in just a few hours?
Didn’t it have the signature of a government official who had left the Nigerien gov in th epreviuos decade?
Isn’t it standard to vet important evidential documents?
I don’t know. Was it?
I don’t know.
I dunno. You got a copy of it we can see?
Beats me.
Do you have definitive factual answers to these?
Scylla:
I don’t seem to be getting my point across, so let me try again.
First off, I’m not advocating a “rush to judgement” against either Hussein or Bush.
What I’m trying to say is:
- The evidence presented by the Bush administration against the Iraqi regime, especially with regard to stockpiles of so-called “WMDs,” was weak and circumstantial. In several instances, we know that the US leadership put forth false, or at the very least gravely exaggerated, claims. For example, Bush stated that he possessed a report published by the IAEA which asserted that Iraq was six months away from developing a nuclear weapon; the very next day, the IAEA repudiated that it had published any such report. Or, again, we know Bush claimed that Iraq possessed “unmanned drone aircraft” which were capable of attacking the continental US: I remember threads in which this outlandish claim was seriously debated by rabid pro-war types. It turned out to be completely false.
Yet on the basis of this and similar very flimsy evidence, many people were convinced that Iraq possessed “WMDs” and that it was a credible, imminent threat to the US. They believed it so fervently that they were ready to go to war, risk American lives, kill Iraqi soldiers and civilians, and spend billions of dollars to secure the US from this threat.
- Now we have evidence that the claims made by the Bush administration against Iraq have been forged, fudged, spun, exaggerated, and otherwise misrepresented in order to convince the US public of the need for war. The Niger fiasco is just one example: there are many others. In my opinion, the evidence of governmental mendacity in this issue is overwhelmingly strong; considerably stronger than the evidence we originally had against Iraq, if you understand me. Yet now, the same people who were willing to go to war against Iraq on the basis of very flimsy evidence are defending the current administration in the face of very strong evidence of fraud.
So my point, which has nothing to do with my position, but addresses yours: you were willing to go to war on the basis of poor evidence against Iraq. But in the face of strong evidence that the administration has lied to you, suddenly you want to play fair.
Or to put it another way: I, and literally millions like me, approached the problem of Iraq in precisely the same way you advocate approaching the accusations against Bush: we wanted to see the reports of “WMDs”, to analyze the data, to submit it to teams of specialists, to allow time for inspections, and so on. We were scoffed at, played to the left, told that the really damning info was secret, and so on. Now that the accusations are against Bush, suddenly you wish to apply those reasonable standards that, before the war, you and many others stridently sought to toss out the window.
You had little or no real evidence that Iraq possessed “WMDs” (let alone that it was credible threat to the US), yet you believed. You have reams of evidence that Bush lied to you, yet you doubt.
Why the double standard?
CITE?
Were you alive during the Nixon administration?
Svinlesha:
It would be a double standard if I accepted your assumptions, but I don’t.
I think the evidence against Bush is a cause for concern but by no means overwhelming. Government mendacity works both ways, and our government is by its nature adversarial as part of its checks and balances, so I am unsurprised at the allegations. Whether or not they stick and to what degree there was malfeasance has yet to be seen.
There have been an awful lot of attempts at creating a scandal against Bush. There is a lot of politics involved. There are a lot of people out to get him. In that light I am extremely skeptical. I will need pretty damn unassailable proof of deliberate and prolonged wrongdoing to convince me rather than hearsay and circumstantial evidence.
Human nature being what it is, it obviously takes more proof to convince me of something I don’ want to be true than it takes to convince you of something you already believe.
Vice versa with Saddam and Iraq.
I think he was a very bad guy, and I think it’s a great thing we got rid of him. I think it’s clear that he has had WMDs. After all, he has used them on more than one occasion. He kicked inspectors out in 1998 and Clinton sent missiles in to suspected sights.
That Saddam Hussein had WMD and was actively seeking more is to me the status quo. We know he had them. We know he used them. The onus is not on us to prove he has more and is seeking more. The onus is on Saddam to prove that they are all gone.
This he did not do. In fact, his actions are those of a person covering up.
Saddam had a lot of time and a lot of warnings about these WMDs. It’s not like this was a surprise attack. He may have destroyed them. He may have moved them to foreign countries like Syria. They may still be hidden, or he may have had no more.
We do know that he had them, and that he used them.
Now this is the important part Svin. This is the difference IMO.
Because of Saddam’s record of atrocities, his unwarranted attacks against other countries, his history of using WMDs, his bad faith with the UN inspectors and terms, he doesn’t get the benefit of the doubt. His guilt has been established.
That is the status quo. That is the reasonable conclusion supported by the preponderance of history and evidence.
I think the allegations of ties to terrorism are well-supported by captured documents, and most certainly by the appeals of Iraqi officials to terrorists to come and assist, and certainly by the fact that we encountered a bunch of these foreign terrorist screwballs while in Iraq.
As for the threat? I sincerely beleive that a screwball like Hussein with his record and rhetoric and past actions represents a present threat to the US, and I think we’re safer for having taken him out. I’m pretty sure we should have done it.
The WMDs are the big issue now, but Bush generally cited 4 major issues as his rational:
- Breaking of resolutions
- Wmds
- Oppression of Iraqi people
- Ties to terrorism
I’m satisfied on 3 of 4, and I recognize that with the warning he had Saddam had the opportunity to do a lot with his WMDs if he had them in order to make it difficult to find them, and that by the nature of things this would be something he would try to hide well.
I am surprised and concerned that they haven’t turned up yet, but I’m not panicked.
Saddam’s evasions, lies, lack of cooperation are certainly not explained by innocence. In this instance the burden was on him to prove that he was no longer in posession of weapons he was known to be in posession of.
He failed in that burden, and that combined with the flaunting of the resolutions since the last time we went to war with Saddam is really all the reason that I need to see the war as justified.
Even so, if Bush has deliberately manufactured evidence to justify this thing (which did not need it, IMO (Feel free to check pre-war threads and you’ll find that UN violations are My major argument for war,) than that is an issue which needs to be examined.
We do not start with Bush with the same presumptions we started with Hussein. The two are not equivalent.
Another issue I have a problem with can be summarized as “oversimplification.”
The fact is that this thing with Iraq has been an ongoing issue for the last twelve years that was legitimately, in my eyes, shifted into a new light after the events of 9/11.
The war did not happen because of the “Niger report.” It’s not the be all end all. There wasn’t one thing. There was a lot of things over a very long period of time.
Yes I was. I was in a car with my father when the reprot of Spiro Agnew’s resignation was announced. My father says I said “But Dad isn’t he supposed to be one of the good guys.”
But yes, I still for the most part trust my leaders in terms of policy and big picture.
Yes, he’d had them, yes he’d used them. however since the BUsh Administration did in fact claim that he had more (ie still had stockpiles upon stockpiles), the onus AFAICS shifted back on the BUsh admin to substantiate that claim. Prior to the war, they refused to do so, claiming that to do so would put lives in danger (that whole ‘if we tell what we know, they’ll know who told us’).
now, however, the verbalization has indeed shifted from claims that “we know he has them” (present tense, speaking of WoMD) to “we know he had a weapons program” not at all the same claim.
Yes, the admin had other gripes against SH. But, of course, they’d played those cards and no one jumped on board. It was only after the claims that SH had current stockpiles of WoMD, nearly had nukes and had the ability to strike at US targets that folks started getting on board w/the war game.
to again shift away from the final game plan of the administration’s call to war, to other rationales or reasonings is duplicitous. In the sales game, they call that 'Bait and switch", get you to come into the store by promising one deal and as soon as you’re there and got your cash out, switch to something else entirely. It’s dishonest in the extreme.
Wring:
I strongly disagree and believe you are misremembering. In making the case to congress and the UN Bush’s words concerning WMDs almost always contained the word “unaccounted,” and “he must account for.”
really. I have limited time to do searches during the week lately, but IIRC, there was a thread in the pit recently where they had specific Bush quotes and when he made them. If some one could look around, I’d love it. If I end up having to do so, and find that your recollection is correct, that he never claimed that SH actually had currently WoMD, I’ll take it back (I will add the caveat that if senior persons in his administration - Powell, Rice, CHeany, Rusmfeld for example - made the statement, I’d consider it the same as Bush making the claim, naturally you’re welcome to disagree w/that stance if you wish).
If we find that your recollection is wrong, I would expect the same level of retraction from you.
So - I won’t be able to do any searching on any real basis til the weekend. But I won’t forget.
Yeah, that’s what I asked, too. Cite?
Scylla:
I’m sorry. Real life events constrain me from continuing this discussion – specifically, I’m flying into the States with my family in a couple of days, and between now and then I have shitloads to do. So I can only respond very briefly, with the hope that other Dopers will be able to meet your objections point by point. I’ll be away for the next month or so; we might be able to return this discussion again when I get back.
Regarding the allegations of scandal-mongering: to begin with, that’s certainly not my bag. I addressed this accusation previously, you may remember. Again and again I’ve brought up specific examples in which the best that can be said, given a benign interpretation, is that Bush was misleading. In my previous post, I mentioned two such examples – do you think I’m lying? Or did you simply not read them?
Regarding this:
Yes, you see, that’s my point. In this passage you more or less admit to a double standard.
Look, Scylla, take a step back. What we want to believe, or don’t want to believe, is actually irrelevant. What is relevant, on the other hand, is the truth, as close as we might be able to get to it. In addition, this is the very essence of critical thought – the act of questioning one’s own presuppositions. We learn by discovering what we are fundamentally wrong about.
*You write this, and then you end your post with a complaint about “oversimplification.” I simply don’t get the double-think. (Please don’t take that as deprecation. I really don’t get you.)
At what time did Hussein’s actions coincide with “those of a person covering up?” In 1993? 1994? 1998? 2000? 2003? Or all of the above?
We have a major difference of opinion here, but it is one hidden beneath the rhetoric. In 1993, I would agree with you – Hussein seemed to be trying to hide illicit activities from the UN, the international community, and the inspectors. By 1997, less so – much less so, in fact. By 2003, the Iraqi regime was in complete, or almost complete, accord with the demands of the UN. Let us remember as well that many of those demands were really demands made by the US. And let me issue a challenge: I challenge you cite a single demand from the UN Security Council of which Iraq was in material breach of by the end of February, 2003. They were bending over backwards to be of service – as well they might be, with US forces massing on their borders. Name one breach, I beg you – one act “of a person covering up.”
Another big difference between us. I do not understand this point at all. What guilt had been established?
At some point in the past, Hussein had (and used) chemical weapons – namely, mustard gas. That’s it. Period.
Yes, he was a shithead, a psychopath, a snake in the grass, and so on. But so what? Since when does that justify unilateral US military action? We’re talking about a tin-pot dictator of an impoverished, third-world nation, subjected to weekly US bombing raids and crippling economic sanctions, and you’re trying to tell me, in all seriousness, that a country whose entire GDP was about one tenth of the US military budget (with a negative growth of –6% last year) is some kind of serious threat to the US? Who are kidding? Seriously. Who are you kidding, aside from yourself?
Do we have a military for defense, or offense?
Cite?
Cite?
Cite?
Anybody, anywhere? Captured documents? Foreign terrorist screwballs? What?
You’re not reading closely enough. I addressed this earlier as well. I would agree that, at least to a certain extent, the burden was on Hussein. But I would also like to point out that, no matter how he tried to meet that burden, he was repudiated by a smear campaign on the part of the US. Godammit, Scylla – Powell even used the absence of proof as proof against Iraq in his speech before the UN. Lack of evidence was re-interpreted as evidence that Iraq was hiding something, and so on. They were placed in a no-win situation.
Alas, I’ve gotta go.
Scylla – there is so much evidence against Bush it stinks to high heaven. Go over a few more of these threads and you’ll find much. Note as well the company you’re keeping – december, Beaten Man, and Spite. A pretty pitiful foursome, if you don’t mind me saying so. Otherwise, you’ve been abandoned, even by old faithful Sam Stone.
Don’t you find that worrisome?
I think that was a GD thread, but I can point you to the popup link titled “Bush on Iraq’s Weapons” on this CNN page. Among the Bush claims it documents:
Scylla:
I’m sorry. Real life events constrain me from continuing this discussion – specifically, I’m flying into the States with my family in a couple of days, and between now and then I have shitloads to do. So I can only respond very briefly, with the hope that other Dopers will be able to meet your objections point by point. I’ll be away for the next month or so; we might be able to return this discussion again when I get back.
Regarding the allegations of scandal-mongering: to begin with, that’s certainly not my bag. I addressed this accusation previously, you may remember. Again and again I’ve brought up specific examples in which the best that can be said, given a benign interpretation, is that Bush was misleading. In my previous post, I mentioned two such examples – do you think I’m lying? Or did you simply not read them?
Regarding this:
Yes, you see, that’s my point. In this passage you more or less admit to a double standard.
Look, Scylla, take a step back. What we want to believe, or don’t want to believe, is actually irrelevant. What is relevant, on the other hand, is the truth, as close as we might be able to get to it. In addition, this is the very essence of critical thought – the act of questioning one’s own presuppositions. We learn by discovering what we are fundamentally wrong about.
*You write this, and then you end your post with a complaint about “oversimplification.” I simply don’t get the double-think. (Please don’t take that as deprecation. I really don’t get you.)
At what time did Hussein’s actions coincide with “those of a person covering up?” In 1993? 1994? 1998? 2000? 2003? Or all of the above?
We have a major difference of opinion here, but it is one hidden beneath the rhetoric. In 1993, I would agree with you – Hussein seemed to be trying to hide illicit activities from the UN, the international community, and the inspectors. By 1997, less so – much less so, in fact. By 2003, the Iraqi regime was in complete, or almost complete, accord with the demands of the UN. Let us remember as well that many of those demands were really demands made by the US. And let me issue a challenge: I challenge you cite a single demand from the UN Security Council of which Iraq was in material breach of by the end of February, 2003. They were bending over backwards to be of service – as well they might be, with US forces massing on their borders. Name one breach, I beg you – one act “of a person covering up.”
Another big difference between us. I do not understand this point at all. What guilt had been established?
At some point in the past, Hussein had (and used) chemical weapons – namely, mustard gas. That’s it. Period.
Yes, he was a shithead, a psychopath, a snake in the grass, and so on. But so what? Since when does that justify unilateral US military action? We’re talking about a tin-pot dictator of an impoverished, third-world nation, subjected to weekly US bombing raids and crippling economic sanctions, and you’re trying to tell me, in all seriousness, that a country whose entire GDP was about one tenth of the US military budget (with a negative growth of –6% last year) is some kind of serious threat to the US? Who are kidding? Seriously. Who are you kidding, aside from yourself?
Do we have a military for defense, or offense?
Cite?
Cite?
Cite?
Anybody, anywhere? Captured documents? Foreign terrorist screwballs? What?
You’re not reading closely enough. I addressed this earlier as well. I would agree that, at least to a certain extent, the burden was on Hussein. But I would also like to point out that, no matter how he tried to meet that burden, he was repudiated by a smear campaign on the part of the US. Godammit, Scylla – Powell even used the absence of proof as proof against Iraq in his speech before the UN. Lack of evidence was re-interpreted as evidence that Iraq was hiding something, and so on. They were placed in a no-win situation.
Alas, I’ve gotta go.
Scylla – there is so much evidence against Bush it stinks to high heaven. Go over a few more of these threads and you’ll find much. Note as well the company you’re keeping – december, Beaten Man, and Spite. A pretty pitiful foursome, if you don’t mind me saying so. Otherwise, you’ve been abandoned, even by old faithful Sam Stone.
Don’t you find that worrisome?
Apologies for the double post.
Thanks, minty.
Balderdash, sir! Tommyrot and utter Bushwah!
The “breaking of resolutions”, as has been pointed out to you and yours with monotonous regularity, was an issue between the UN and Iraq, they being, after all, UN resolutions. Unless you can offer evidence to the effect that the UN authorized the US to undertake the role of High Sheriff and Grand International Poo-Bah, this was, is and ever shall be entirely irrelevant. Or are we to assume that Belgium might invade Isreal in order to “enforce” UN resolutions, without so much as a by your leave. I think not.
WMD’s - no, not by themselves, but coupled with relentless insistence that such as these posed an imminent threat to the US. We should not forget that the original hysteria was nuclear. As this particular bit of crapola began to evaporate, it was folded into the larger category of WMD’s.
One suspects that this was adopted as a fall back position: being unable to bust him for 100 lbs of heroin, we search for a roach under the coach and bust him for “drugs”. The outrage over the failure to find WMD’s of any kind derives from a weak justification turning out to be an utterly bogus justification.
Since its handy, we might as well skip over lightly to the last wildly inflated claim of “ties to terrorism”. Since the Bushistas feel free to define “terrorism” in any manner that suits their purpose, one should well imagine that they cannot fail on this score. And yet, they have, and failed spectacularly. Beyond a hopeless attempt to inflate a second hand report of a purported “meeting”, this morsel of mendacity has collapsed under its own weight.
And finally, the “oppression of the Iraqi people”. Pure window dressing, assigning noble purpose to ignoble goals after the fact. We have sat here and watched any number of perfectly horrendous massacres, in any number of places, and done D-for-diddly-squat.
Please tell me that you aren’t going to serioiusly contend that we might have consented to a military adventure based entirely on our humanitarian urges? One must then wonder why you think that we have such a special tenderness of feeling for the oppressed Iraqi? If this justification for war cannot stand alone, it cannot stand at all. Because it must, mustn’t it? As a moral justification standing atop a collection of exaggerations, forgeries and lies, it is nothing more than a cherry atop a turd sundae.
Following up on elucidator’s comments, I would also point out it’s all kinds of instructive to run a news search on CNN for the terms “last chance” and “Iraq.” Tons of hits on WMDs, not a single goddamn story about how it’s Saddam’s “last chance to stop human rights abuses.”
Please remember: when your Cognitive Dissonance volunteer comes to your door, give, and give generously…
A Blogger named billmon came up with an early version of direct quotes from Bush and other Admin officials that are pretty hard to explain as anything other than brazen lies at this point.
http://billmon.org.v.sabren.com/archives/000172.html
Note the complete lack of any qualification. He speaks like a man who has actually seen the weapons.
Here’s my personal favorite:
Note the respective dates. Truly, the man has no shame…