Forgot to add. Whether they are liars or left wing loonies doesn’t matter. They could be the most truthful people ever to walk the face of the earth and they’re still speculating by their own admission. That was the only point I was trying to make. It’s speculation. Do with that what you will.
Not all speculation is equal.
The WH already knew that Zarqawi’s camp was the only AQ presence in Iraq, by the way. They would have had absolutely nothing else to point at as evidence for an AQ presence in Iraq after Zarqawi had been destroyed.
John, why do YOU think Bush passed three times on the opportunity to wipe out Zarqawi?
Yah, Zarcowardly’s “highway to Hell” concert tour was sure to be followed by the wailing and gnashing of teeth. You just have to take the good with the sad and do the best you can.
Just out of curiosity, who here has condemned the Zarqawi hit?
Zarqawi’s death saddens me not. Bon riddance!
As to the meta-argument, let me just say this:
An evil man gone, it’s true. It will save some lives, but not all. Largely the future of this conflict will not be known for years. It all depends on JUST HOW MANY OF THOSE EVIL BASTARDS THERE ARE. That’s the question. How many, and where?
We focus much, rightly, on one end of the equation. Killing them. But there is almost no talk of the second end of this grisly puzzle: Not making more.
And I fear the consequences.
There needs to be a change in leadership, sooner than later. Someone who understands that this coin has two sides.
I don’t know. Maybe he didn’t trust the intelligence. Would you have?
But one of the reasons you listed earlier might very well be it. Maybe, in the lead-up to the war, the US didn’t want to pull the trigger too soon. Maybe we were really still trying “suck up to the French” and Germans and Russians by not looking too trigger happy. That’s not neceassarily a bad thing. And, to paraphrase a common theme form the Bush, no one could have predicted that Zarqawi would become such a pivotal figure in a post-war Iraq. (Just kidding about that last part.)
In the end though, I just don’t know. It’s easy to speculate incorrectly when you just don’t have all the information. Keep in mind that when a reporter says there was “speculation” you don’t even now what that means. Did the reporter ask for a reason and get:
*
Well, I was in some meetings and from what I heard, I’d say it might have been…*
-or-
I’m really not sure. If I had to speculate I’d say…
The source might want to give the reporter something juicy and the reporter most definitely wants to print something juicy, so as long as it’s “speculation”, he’s not so much at risk. There are so many different scenarios that could have produced that remark that I just don’t think it has any usefullness.
By suggesting that there might be anything other than roses-and-kittens resulting from this action you are implicitly doing so.
Der.
-Joe
Sure. There was never anything wrong with any of it. Bush was just dishonest in how he chose to interpret it and spin it. If a bunch of chicken coops could theoretically have been used as chem labs then they WERE chem labs. When they turned out to actually be chicken coops…well that was bad intelligence.
It sounds like they thought the Zarqawi intel was airtight. In fact that was the exact word used by the Penatgon sources, “airtight.”
No, the intel wasn’t good and it was spun poorly. It’s not an either/or situation.
But if this recent attack on Zarqawi had been like the one last year on Zawarhiri, and some pentagon analyst had said the intel was “airtight”, we’d have 5 Pit threads going right now lambasting US intelligence. Are you saying you’d be in there with a counterclaim about how great US intel is?
And so what if the intel was “airtight” back in '02. Are you saying there was no legit reason not to go after him? This is all Monday morning quarterbacking, without even having seen all the plays on Sunday.
And of course the caviot is…why do you trust THIS ‘airtight’ intel, DtC, but didn’t trust the ‘airtight’ intel by the Pentagon (among other sources) that Iraq had WMD? Especially since THIS ‘airtight’ intel was never put to the test, never acted on. Talk about pure speculation! 
It amazes me to see you trust THIS intel, and from a Pentagon source…especially since its a bit like trusting someone that they have the infamous Invisible Pink Unicorn in there garage…at this late date there is absolutely no way to substantiate how ‘airtight’ or leaky this intel really was. And of course, the track record for ANY intel from this period is decidedly suspect these days by your own crowd…and you yourself (hell, me too…I’m on that bandwagon myself these days!).
After all, you (and others on this board) were right…there really weren’t WMD in Iraq…though we were all told repeatedly that the intel was solid, and one of the sources was…yep, the Pentagon. You guys can spin it now that Bush tricked and lied to everyone, that really no one believed they had the things, but the majority opinion at places like the Pentagon and CIA was that Saddam and his merry men had the things somewhere.
Of course, just because they were wrong about WMD doesn’t mean they are always wrong. The flip side of that though is…they don’t necessarily have to be right either. The moral of this story (which I learned myself in a painful manner on the WMD issue) is: Don’t knee jerk trust a source just because its telling you what you want to hear, or what you are prejudiced to believe.
And before you talk about the various voices of reason or opposing opinion about the intelligence, DtC…do you know for a fact that there were no voices of opposition about THIS intelligence? I can pretty much guarentee that there were, though I doubt it would be possible to dig up a cite on it. In my own experience though there are ALWAYS those who disagree…whether for valid or invalid reasons. Of course, its moot at this point as I said above…there is no way to take a time machine back and see how ‘airtight’ this intel really was, and to see if in fact we could have wacked Zarqawi.
-XT
The Pentagon got its knowledge of (Bush’s creative interpreation of) the WMD evidence from Bush. They didn’t generate the raw intel themselves. Confirming the existence of a terrorist camp is not exactly comparable to the massive amount of subjectivity and ambiguity involved in interpreting the raw WMD related data anyway. Plus, there’s no evidence White House ever expressed any doubt about Zarqawi’s presence either on or off the record.
I think you guys (John and xtisme) are scraping for a reason to excuse Bush’s decision not to hit Zarqawi. Does either of you honestly believe that a lack of faith in the intel was the reason? Does either of you sincerely believe that the WH had more faith in the WMD stuff than they did that Zarqawi had a camp in Northern Iraq? Is that really the most likely reason that Bush chose not to bomb the camp? That they thought it might not really be there? Be real.
Really? Thats a facinating observation. Did Bush collect all the data himself as well? 
What color cape does Bush wear again?
Why? They seem pretty comparable difficulty wise, especially if we don’t go by your interperetation. Instead of saying the intelligence merely confirmed the existance of a terrorist camp (childs play I suppose in the day of satelite intelligence…though they do seem pretty hard to find since we don’t bomb them every day though we look hard enough for em), but to find a terrorist camp AND pin point it as a camp that Zarqawi is in AND figure out where in the camp he’s at AND determine, in a meaningful timeframe WHEN he’s located in a nice spot for a bomb…thats a more difficult trick.
Two things here. First off, I don’t recall this was John’s argument and I’m not sure of his position on it. Probably rolling his eyes at me to be honest. 
Secondly, no…I don’t think the intelligence was a factor in the decision to hit or not hit Zarqawi…at least not a major factor. I merely find it ironic how you can be so focused and trusting of THIS intelligence because it makes Bush look bad, while disreguarding the fact that the same sources (aproximately) that would find such intelligence would ALSO be those that would be used to look for things like WMD in Iraq. Its a personal observation that strikes me as funny. I’m wierd that way.
No, personally as I said earlier, it seems more likely to me that Bush et al didn’t wack Zarqawi when he was in the terrorist camp in Northern Iraq because they weren’t ready to open up the war quite yet and still had some hope of bringing the Euro’s on board. Logically it makes more sense to me.
In the larger scheme of things (at the time) Zarqawi AND the terrorist camp were small beans compared to getting ANY of the Euro’s to sign up…especially France and Germany. We could always get them later after all…not like they were going anywhere and the big hammah was going to be coming down soon on Iraq…we could get all the bad guys in one fell swoop. Ok, it didn’t work out that way, but I can see the logic. Getting the Euro’s on board was VERY important to Bush at the time…it would have been key in fact to have France OR Germany as part of the coalition, and I can see them doing whatever it took, within reason from their perspective, to achieve that. Think how things would be today had, say, France joined the coalition and committed the same force level as the Brits…or say, if Germany or even Russia had done the same thing. It would be worth not wacking a few mangy terrorists just for the chance.
To me this makes perfect sense. It doesn’t make sense to keep him alive just for a justification to invade or to try and make a case that Saddam had ties to AQ…certainly not as a PRIMARY reason. WMD after all was the primary reason…things like Saddam’s supposed ties to AQ, and freeing the Iraqi’s from Saddams evil rule, those were icing on the cake…IMHO.
Anyway, as I said we are quibbling here. The discussion is supposed to be about Zarqawi and whether his being killed will make a difference. The fact that Bush didn’t wack Zarqawi and Clinton/Bush I didn’t wack Bin Laden…thats water under the bridge.
-XT
Please. It’s well known that the “data” was handpicked by the Administrations little group of liars, the “Office of Special Planning”.
As far as why we didn’t strike at him back then, I expect it was so we could point at him and see “See ! See ! Terrorist in Iraq !”. I also strongly suspect that he was killed now to distract us from such things as Bush’s falling polls and massacres by US Marines; the timing is yet another convenient coincidence for Bush.
Please back atcha. Its a ridiculous arguement that Bush fed false data and analysis to the Pentagon. The Pentagon is one of the sources OF data and analysis (especially analysis)…though to a lesser extent than CIA or NSA of course. They also receive data and even analysis from sources OTHER than Bush and the White House.
Its a stretch (IMHO) that Bush so controlled the data/analysis that the CONGRESS only got what he wanted them to see. I’ve never bought even THIS arguement as I know there are select sub-committeees in both the Congress and Senate (bi-partisan) that pretty much views whatever they want to view wrt intelligence…and can get independent analysis done by the CIA and NSA that is different than the NIE’s the White House puts out (if they request it). But the Pentagon? You guys make Bush out to be more than a president…he can leap tall buildings in a single bound (doing evil all the way, no doubt) as well!
I’m sorry it doesn’t sit well with you guys, but while there was differing opinions about WMD in Iraq, the majority view in the US intelligence community was that in fact he had them. (for the sake of not hijacking the thread we won’t even get into OTHER nations intelligence that seemed to indicate the same…though I would have to ask the leading question: Did Bush control all THEM as well? Maybe he IS a god! ). And this was a view that transcended the Bush administration, going back to Bush’s daddy and before. Certainly the previous administration was pretty well convinced the intelligence was solid for Iraq having WMD.
This isn’t to say that Bush et al didn’t cherry pick the data to make their case look better than it in fact was…its pretty obvious he/they did. If you guys left it at that (which, IMHO is bad enough) you’d be on completely solid footing…no real debate at all in fact except by perhaps one of the loony right. But to put forth that Bush controlled all the intelligence data and analysis pertaining to Iraq, even to an agency like the Pentagon, and that he and his administration single handedly, and against the better judgement of pretty much the entire US intelligence community, was able to manufacture these ‘lies’ out of whole clothe without support is…well, nuts. All data does not flow through the White House, and all analysis and spin on all intelligence data does not originate with the White House. Bush is neither god nor king…nor are his evil minions.
-XT
Why would this be substantially different from Bush saying “See! See! We wacked a bunch of AQ terrorists in Iraq! Like illegal Mexicans, where you see one there are really 10 hiding out in the wood work somewhere, sneaking about! We better invade to root it all out once and for all andnone of that non-sense happens again and make sure it doesn’t happen again!”.
Put another way, how would doing this have prevented or derailed the push for war in Iraq? Seems to me people wouldn’t have batted an eye (quite the opposite in fact), nor questioned that the terror camp we struck in Iraq WAS in fact an AQ camp…and using the same rationale we used in Afghanistan Bush et al could have spun things to give Saddam an ultimatum…hand over all AQ operatives or we invade! Of course Saddam would have said there WERE no AQ operatives in Iraq, that Northern Iraq wasn’t really in his control, etc etc…and we would have believed him about as much as when he protested he had no WMD.
Seriously, I don’t get this arguement. I didn’t get it when DtC made it, and it makes less sense now. Let me ask you two a counter question…why does this seem plausable to you, yet it doesn’t seem plausable to you that we didn’t strike because we either didn’t want to tip our hand or because we were still holding out hope that the Euro’s would come on board if we showed restraint and seemed to be exhausting all possibilities for a peaceful resolution (which tossing some bombs in Northern Iraq certainly would have derailed)? Is it just because it makes Bush look worse, or do you really think its more logical?
-XT
Was there anything in particular that made Zarqawi a proficient terrorist leader over others? Something that the next man to step up and take his place might lack?
is, first of all, comparing 30+ years to 3+ years.
How you compare the numbers, and how valid it is, depends on what your purpose is. If the question is, “Where does Saddam stack up on the all-time murderers’ list?” then the 300-400,000 range is the important fact. But if you’re trying to discern whether an invasion will make, or has made, things better for Iraqis, then you’d want to know the rate of ongoing violence by Saddam against his people in a representative period preceding the invasion.
His response to the 1991 uprising is NOT part of a representative period; it’s a spike due to one-time circumstances. If you’re trying Saddam for crimes against humanity, that spike is definitely part of your indictment, because no special circumstances excuse such crimes. But pretending that Saddam was killing twice as many people as he was ca. 2002 on account of 1991 is not accurate. One wouldn’t use statistics like that in a more mundane context, nor should one here.
While www.iraqbodycount.org does an important work, it’s also important to note its limitations. Their cites are almost all recognizable Western media cites, and it goes without saying that a great deal of violence in any country goes unreported in the international media. Kidnappings for money, for instance, are a major problem in Iraq - and if the family can’t pay up, the victim gets killed. But Reuters isn’t going to cover such incidents, nor will it report killings of the plain, ordinary street crime variety. And such crime is far, far more extensive in Iraq today than under Saddam.
Iraqbodycount’s numbers should be treated as perhaps a pretty good count of the political or sectarian violence in Iraq, and as an irreducible floor of overall civilian violence, not as a statistically unbiased estimate of either. In the latter case, we know it must be way low.
You can ‘get at it’ all you want, but unless you quote specific for-instances where he’s refuted Cole, there’s not a reason in the world why anyone should believe you.
That’s what I’m ‘getting at.’ You are making a broad claim, and backing it up by saying, “it’s supported somewhere in that website.” Well, screw that - if you’re making the claim, it’s your job to dig out the support and present it.
Until then, you’ve got no cards on the table, and the game will proceed without you.
“Following the strike,” huh? Wow, talk about presenting a ten-high hand as if it was a full house.
Just because the cops arrive on the scene after the operation, doesn’t mean they were involved in the operation itself. And certainly doesn’t mean anyone had the place surrounded. There’s zero support for that at your link.
*RL: Yes they do, they carry out the daily functions of government
Me: The one essential function of government is to hold a monopoly on major violence. Absent that, all of a government’s other successes are undermined. Now that I’ve reminded you of that, I think you can see that the Iraqi government is nowhere close to governing.
RL: The Iraqi government has been operating for 3 years, suggesting that all levels of violence, from militias to insurgent groups will be solved overnight is naive, but to then say the Iraqi government is ineffective and is unable to govern is also in crude terms B.S.
Given the fact that after the Shrine bombing Jaafaris government was able to bring about calm in Baghdad by declaring martial law, suggests that the Iraqi government is capable of exerting it’s power. *
The question we’re debating in this sequence is, does the government of Iraq govern Iraq now, not about whether appropriate progress is being made. We were debating that a bit further down.
Look, just the other day, a bunch of gunmen in the middle of Baghdad forced fifty or so people onto a bus. That incident was exceptional only by the total number abducted or killed at one time. The Iraqi government does NOT control Baghdad. End of story.
The ‘political void’ has been filled at various earlier points; this is simply the first time they’ve done so under the new Constitution. The previous fillings of the political void haven’t solved anything, and while you’re welcome to believe a piece of paper will make a difference this time, I can hardly see why it should. That a bunch of men in the Green Zone, with limited ability to act even in the rest of the city, agreed on who the new Minister of the Interior is, only gets you so far.
It doesn’t matter what the objective is. If they are moving further from the goal of providing basic security for the people of Iraq, it doesn’t matter what sort of government they want; what they’ve got is a failed state.
In response to this wonderfully Panglossian statement, I’d also note that there are obviously a great many Iraqis whose idea of a ‘democratic state’ differs rather enormously from ours, since they want democracy within the rather constricted confines of Sharia law. If you think Iran is a democracy, then sure, pretty much all Iraqis want democracy of some sort.
But even then, it’s kinda silly to suppose that Iraqis are united by this desire. Shi’ites want to wield the power that they feel their majority status should accord them; Sunnis don’t want to be ruled by Shi’ites, and Kurds want to be independent of Arab Iraq. And that’s without getting into disputes amongst the assorted Shi’ite factions.
Birdmonster: My bad - I didn’t notice your followup post before writing this.
Then they’re obviously having difficulty using their fingers to browse through the Blog, jeez, it’s not that hard. But considering your whinging about this, I’ll provide an example, such as Coles assertion that Sunni Iraqis just ‘love’ their now dead leader/terrorist
http://iraqpundit.blogspot.com/2006_05_01_iraqpundit_archive.html
Done, enjoy.
Iraqi intelligence played a large part in securing the death of Iraqs leading terrorists.
That can happen in any city in any second world or third world state and you know it, it does not indicate that the Iraqi government has no control on the street level, only that the level of violence pittied against it is a challenge to it’s order.
Well if that wasn’t much of a contentious issue because they ‘have limited abilities to act in the rest of the city’ the filling of that cabinet wouldn’t of been so momentous if it wasn’t so important, which it clearly is.
The previous fillings of those cabinets didn’t solve anything because the boycotting of Parliamentary elections by the Sunnis didn’t solve the problem of unitary government in Iraq.
And that’s why I don’t believe Iraq will become as such. Iraq isn’t so much a failed state as it is a crisis state, that is a state which can go either way to a resilient state, where the governmental bodies are able to cope with the stress of each crisis, or collapse and civil war, which has nearly come about before in Iraq.
Iran is not a democratic state, it is a country which is under the control of the Supreme religious council which appoints the PM from parties IT can approve of. That is not democracy. I won’t even delve into the rule of law issues you’ve failed to bring up.
Sharia law, I knew this would come about, it’s not impossible for most aspects of Sharia law to be incorporated into democratic government, just as long as the option of repealing the laws can be brought about at a later date. So if they want Sharia law, that’s not a problem, the only problem will be only if they cannot be removed in any fashion from the levers of government.
The Kurdish leadership has shown considerable compromise considering the situation that has come about regarding independence, the political leadership knows it can punch more politically if it remains engaged with Baghdad rather than inviting Turkish and Iranian Irk and isolation if it becomes independent too soon.
Sunnis, Shias and Kurds will only be satisfied by a federalised constitution.
All the better, considering that if they’re fractous it means they have less chance of cementing their power over the other minorities in the country, and have to rely on them to work in government.