posted
Not just the 'decades' statement, every statement made there has been found to be untrue. There were no high level collaborations. There was no training of al qaeda operatives. There was no free operation in Baghdad.
There are records of operations against terrorists who were operating in Iraq (not out of altruism, the terrorsts' operations were sometimes against the Iraqi regime, which Al Qaeda was known to strongly dislike).
Any argument that constructs the Hussein regime in Iraq as a threat based on some potential to aid terrorists must explain a history of contrary behavior and deal with why it matters with Iraq when even the highest level of operation of al qaeda in Iraq was less than typical operation of terrorist groups in numerous surrounding countries.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Not just the 'decades' statement, every statement made there has been found to be untrue. There were no high level collaborations. There was no training of al qaeda operatives. There was no free operation in Baghdad.
There are records of operations against terrorists who were operating in Iraq (not out of altruism, the terrorsts' operations were sometimes against the Iraqi regime, which Al Qaeda was known to strongly dislike).
Any argument that constructs the Hussein regime in Iraq as a threat based on some potential to aid terrorists must explain a history of contrary behavior and deal with why it matters with Iraq when even the highest level of operation of al qaeda in Iraq was less than typical operation of terrorist groups in numerous surrounding countries.
Sorta like how China aided Vietnam while we were there fighting the viet cong and then upon us leaving, promptly attempted their own invasion?
My history teacher said some very wise words to me once,
"Politics makes for strange bed fellows."
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Could you be more explicit how you think that analogy is appropriate?
Yes, politics makes for strange bedfellows, but this is an observation, not a justification for a policy decision.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Hussein was a threat by himself. Removing him also removed the possibility that he could, should he ever decide to, provide advanced weaponry to Al Qaeda operatives.
How was he a threat? There were neither WMD in Iraq nor any hope of them getting WMD under the pre-war treatment.
Where does this threat come from?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:They want us in Iraq where they can get all like minded men to fight us there, where sectarian violence can be easily summoned, and once our media and people scream at us loud enough to leave, they can say to themselves, "See See! Americans are gutless, and we can beat them, we are after all Allah's soldiers!"
What with their actions leading to increased terrorist recruiting and activity, increased threat to the U.S., the loss of billions of doolars worth of U.S. resources, a large strain put on America's armed forces, a bitter divide in America, enfringement of U.S. civil liberties, the removal from power of U.S. allies in foreign governments, and the loss of U.S. prestige and reputation in the wider world, a squandering of the goodwill and real opportunity to organize worldwide efforts to combat terrorism that the 9/11 attacks presented us, I agree that the Bush administration has largely played into terrorists hands.
In the future, I wouldn't be surprised if their actions are used as examples of how not to respond to terrorist attacks.
---
The single greatest factor in people's disapproval of the Iraq war is the behavior of the Bush administration. They have been dishonest the whole way in. They also planned crucial aspects very poorly if at all and failed in many areas of execution.
The reason we are going to leave Iraq in failure lies directly on their shoulders (even to the point where they've loudly defined what is what I can see as our only potentially positive outcome - redeploying in the region - as failure, for no other purpose I can see other than polical gain). And I say this as someone who sort of agrees with the basic neo-con idea of spreading democracy in response to terrorism, etc.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
To clarify from earlier, Saddam was most certainly involved in terrorist activities, even under that legal definition. He paid off the families of suicide bombers who attacked Israel. The problem, is that that had nothing to do with Al Qaeda, and it had nothing really to do with the United States, unless you make an indirect argument that Israel's safety IS our safety.
But that allows anyone to say "Saddam supported terrorists" and then in the same breath mention 9/11 or Al Qaeda, because we all know that he DID support terrorists, but it's the inference that is the problem, even though if you look at Bush and his subordinates' words literally, it comes off as the truth.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:But that allows anyone to say "Saddam supported terrorists" and then in the same breath mention 9/11 or Al Qaeda, because we all know that he DID support terrorists, but it's the inference that is the problem, even though if you look at Bush and his subordinates' words literally, it comes off as the truth.
I don't really have a problem with that inference, and I think you don't give enough credit to that particular mindset.
If one believes that terrorism is worth fighting, points out that someone he's trying to persuade his nation to fight is a terrorist, and then goes on to say that one of our nation's greatest tragedies was the result of terrorism...there's not a thing problematic about that.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Alright, if your cause has nothing to do at all with national safety, then I agree with you.
But, if your FIRST goal is to make sure your own nation is safe, then why are you going after someone else's enemy before the guys directly threatening you?
There are other countries that directly fund the terrorists that attacked us 9/11, so what did we do, we ran straight towards Israel's enemy? Makes zero sense in my book, and when you make the reference in a speech WITHOUT declaring the context, then I think it is misleading. You're making people think that by attacking Saddam that you're making yourself safer, but you aren't.
Therefore, it is misleading, unless everyone agrees that we're all on the same righteous crusade to end terrorism regardless of who the terrorists are fighting. Do you agree that that is what Americans all believe? That's like saying we have to end terrorism for the sake of ending terrorism, not because terrorists are a threat to us. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are more our enemies than Iraq was, but we went after someone else's bad guy. It's misleading.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Alright, if your cause has nothing to do at all with national safety, then I agree with you.
That doesn't track. You later start prioritizing, which is a bit different.
quote:There are other countries that directly fund the terrorists that attacked us 9/11, so what did we do, we ran straight towards Israel's enemy? Makes zero sense in my book, and when you make the reference in a speech WITHOUT declaring the context, then I think it is misleading. You're making people think that by attacking Saddam that you're making yourself safer, but you aren't.
What, not even a little? You don't think America is even marginally safer without Saddam Hussein? And before you try to dodge that question, please note that I'm not talking about the perfection of hindsight, but asking a very direct question: is the United States safer, less safe, or no change at all with Saddam Hussein removed?
quote:Therefore, it is misleading, unless everyone agrees that we're all on the same righteous crusade to end terrorism regardless of who the terrorists are fighting. Do you agree that that is what Americans all believe? That's like saying we have to end terrorism for the sake of ending terrorism, not because terrorists are a threat to us. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are more our enemies than Iraq was, but we went after someone else's bad guy. It's misleading.
Interesting. So, unless a politician can precisely match their speeches and policies to what everyone agrees, they're being misleading?
Now that you've trotted out Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, I'm surprised you haven't brought up North Korea too?
I'm certain you're aware of a hole host of reasons why we didn't go after those two nations. Could we have done better than Iraq? Yes, I think we could have. Those two nations, though? Nuh-uh.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
1. Your statement earlier, to me, said that it doesn't matter which terrorists we fight, so long as we fight terrorists. If we choose to fight terrorists who are not threatening us when there are terrorists out there who ARE threatening us, then that means fighting terrorism for the sake of fighting terrorism, meaning, a cause worth fighting for, then national security doesn't so much matter, I guess unless you want a rallying cry.
2. Wait, you want me to answer without hindsight, as if I don't know what the Iraq War would have led to? Alright, I'd say no change, for a variety of reasons, leaning towards less safe. WITH the benefit of hindsight I'd say we are extremely less safe than we were with Saddam in power. There's no dodge there. I'm not adding "well if we had attacked THIS guy then..." or any other cavaets, I'm saying straight out that we are now less safe than when Saddam was in power.
quote:Interesting. So, unless a politician can precisely match their speeches and policies to what everyone agrees, they're being misleading?
Where did you get that from? Your earlier statement suggests that people won't really care one way or the other if the terrorists we are fighting threaten US directly, so long as we say they are terrorists, and remind people that we were once the victim of terrorists, then it's all fair game. I disagree very, very strongly that a majority of the people in this country hold that point of view. So when a politician talks to a populace mainly concerned with THEIR OWN safety and security, and he suggests that we must fight this terrorist because terrorists are dangerous to us, regardless of the fact that THIS terrorist is NOT dangerous to us, then yes, that is misleading. I never said anything about matching speeches to what EVERYONE agrees to, and I don't see the line you followed to get there.
quote:I'm certain you're aware of a hole host of reasons why we didn't go after those two nations. Could we have done better than Iraq? Yes, I think we could have. Those two nations, though? Nuh-uh.
So in other words, we should leave the bigger evils at bay, because fighting them would be too hard, and instead we should exhaust ourselves against enemies that pose us no threat? Going after Iraq after being attacked by an Al Qaeda funded by Saudi Arabia and Pakistan is like going after Russia after we were bombed at Pearl Harbor. I'm sure that speech would have gone over splendidly in 1941.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Going after Iraq after being attacked by an Al Qaeda funded by Saudi Arabia and Pakistan is like going after Russia after we were bombed at Pearl Harbor.
Except Russia did not lose a war, agree to terms of surrender and then violate that agreement repeatedly for more than decade.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, theoretically if you want to follow the metaphor PRECISELY, then it would have been like attacking Germany and leaving Japan at our backdoorstep untended.
But Iraq's violations have nothing to do with their support for Palestinian terrorism, and nothing to do with Al Qaeda. It's a nice way to fog the issue, but it's really not relevant.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Except that we also went to Afghanistan so it would have been like attacking Germany and simultaneously attacking Japan, which is what we did. Iraq's violations have a lot to do with how Al Qaeda perceived America. The fact that Iraq could stand up to the world and constantly get away with violations plus get even richer off of the Oil for Food program lead Al Qaeda to think that America is just a paper tiger. PBS Bin Laden interviewPosts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Well, theoretically if you want to follow the metaphor PRECISELY, then it would have been like attacking Germany and leaving Japan at our backdoorstep untended.
And ALOT of people said we should avoid fighting Germany as JAPAN had attacked us, and in a very spirited way screamed at the governent to stay out of Europe. Unfortunately or perhaps fortunately Germany decided to declare war on us days later, making the decision a no brainer.
Lyrhawn, you keep ignoring the fact that the west perceived that Hussein had secret WMDs and that his refusal to allow inspectors was because he was developing them with the intent of using them one day, possibly on us.
If a man barracades himself in his house and in the past he has been convicted of purchasing illegal arms, at what point do you stop negotiating and kick in the door?
Maybe there weren't WMDs, evidence does not suggest their existance, but it also does not confirm their non existance.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr S: I agree that all the things you have listed have happeened. But place the blame more firmly on the terrorist insurgents who have flooded into Iraq expressly to thwart us there. They are the ones blowing up a Shitte shrine when things start simmering down, and then the next day setting a bomb off in a Sunni marketplace.
They rage through the country seeking to destroy what they can, they have no plans of building something better, only of killing as many Americans and Iraqi sympathizers as possible before they get killed and get their 43 virgins.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Except that we also went to Afghanistan so it would have been like attacking Germany and simultaneously attacking Japan, which is what we did.
Except Iraq had no strong ties with Al Qaeda or the Taliban, so no, it wasn't much like that at all.
I supported an action in Iraq, though I did not support the particular plan (or lack thereof for the post-invasion period) we used. I think there were sound justifications for an invasion of Iraq. I think justifications based on ties to terrorism are extraordinarily weak.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Evidence does not confirm their nonexistence, that being impossible, but evidence strongly confirms extensive destruction of WMDs that were present, absence of maintenance/mothballing of WMDs that weren't specifically destroyed (and of which we found several small examples in now-useless form), no work on nuclear weapons (many parts of the process being extremely hard to hide), et cetera.
Oh, and lets not forget the numerous people now freed from consequences for revealing such programs, the high ranking officials who could have some expectation of improved treatment if they gave us information on WMD programs, and so on.
No, we can't confirm Iraq didn't have some tiny portion of WMDs in a barn somewhere, either intentionally or unintentionally. But there were no significant WMD programs, and abundant pre-invasion evidence of this fact in many of the specific cases that were alleged to be occurring; much of this evidence had been accurately assessed by experts, but the intelligence community and the administration demonstrably (and in some cases, provably with lies or complete incompetence) ignored many of these expert opinions.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
fugu13: I agree that to me its more likely the WMDs were not there. But it certainly deals a strong blow to the realist model of IR as even under threat of military action Hussein refused to allow inspectors in. One must wonder what his rational was for holding out so long.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Into what? Inspectors were in Iraq. Why do you think they didn't allow inspectors in? There were some places where access was more troublesome (the Palace for example as I recall) but there were inspectors.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: but the intelligence community and the administration demonstrably (and in some cases, provably with lies or complete incompetence) ignored many of these expert opinions.
quote:Into what? Inspectors were in Iraq. Why do you think they didn't allow inspectors in? There were some places where access was more troublesome (the Palace for example as I recall) but there were inspectors.
I wish I knew. Just plain stupid?
But seriously, faced with continuing defiance or prevarication, if you were in charge, what would you have though, boots?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Into what? Inspectors were in Iraq. Why do you think they didn't allow inspectors in? There were some places where access was more troublesome (the Palace for example as I recall) but there were inspectors.
I wish I knew. Just plain stupid?
Sorry. My phrasing was ambiguous. I should have said, "Why is it that you incorrectly believe that inspectors were not allowed in when, actually, they were?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But seriously, faced with continuing defiance or prevarication, if you were in charge, what would you have though, boots?
Ooo I'll take that question.
When were the inspectors kicked out the first time? Mid 90's? So we decided a half decade later, after leaving the Kurds to the wolves a couple times, we throw up a no-fly zone and then more or less wash our hands of the entire mess. Bush didn't make a PEEP about Iraq before 9/11, he said in his campaign that we should stay away from foreign engagements, that it wasn't our business.
So logically, as soon as 9/11 happens, the first response is to rush off to war as fast as freakishly possible? We got Saddam to let UN inspectors back in with far more access than they had after Desert Storm. And after something like what, a couple months of searching, Bush declared them ineffective and then rushed off with a half assed coalition, half the size of the one that we had when we attacked Kuwait. Which is even more silly considering where the burden of proof was. The burden of proof was on Iraq to prove that weapons that didn't exist, did not fact exist. Our assumption was that the weapons did exist, and we would accept nothing less than an exact location of them. Proclaiming the truth was useless. And then when we found no WMDs in the first couple weeks? Well all of a sudden Bush told us we needed more time. 4+ years apparently.
If you really want to know what I would have done after 9/11, I would have attacked Afghanistan, just as we did. Then I would have made sure that Afghanistan didn't fall back to the control of terrorists! Instead of leaving a token force there just to roam Tora Bora and protect Hamid Karzai, I would have established control of the country and made sure they survived as a nation before leaving them to the wolves and running off to fight in Iraq.
After having Afghanistan in place, I would have put forth a full fledged effort to solve the Palestine/Israel problem. We've spent $500 billion on Iraq, you don't think a couple hundred thousand troops and a half trillion dollars, coupled with some international good will and some time could have dented the issue? I think it could have, I think with all the good will we had from the world, making our first act one of peace, especially to reach out to a destitute Middle Eastern people and make them safe from the number one Middle Eastern enemy, it would have played VERY well in the press.
And then, after all that, if we absolutely felt it necessary to fix Iraq, we should have gone about it the right way. We should have built a coalition like the one we had in the first Gulf War, we should have taken the time to understand the country for what it was, to make sure boarders were secured, to have a plan for what to do with the three pieces of the country, we should have talked with Turkey before hand to make sure they were okay with the Kurds having more power and seeing what was needed to appease them. We should have exhausted every diplomatic avenue, we should have been up front and honest with the rest of the world.
I don't think they were the absolutely best next choice to attack, frankly I think our national security would have been much better served using that 500 billion dollars to break our oil addiction, and then Saudi Arabia, Iran and the others would have zero hold on us, because we'd have zero reason to need to be in the Middle East, and we could deal with them as we needed to. But if we were going to, if we really had to, we should have done it the right way, instead of shooting ourselves in our feet and making us less safe by doing it the way we did it.
Did you read your link? We pulled inspectors out in 1998 and they went back in in 2002. Although Hussein cooperated grudgingly and incompletely, he did invite inspectors back in late 2002.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Did you read your link? We pulled inspectors out in 1998 and they went back in in 2002. Although Hussein cooperated grudgingly and incompletely, he did invite inspectors back in late 2002.
And the inspectors said things like, "There is still no evidence that Iraq has fundamentally changed its approach from one of deceit to a genuine attempt to be forthcoming in meeting the council's demand that it disarm."
Couple that with the faulty inteligence about nuclear materials from Africa and you have what is rightly called one of the worst inteligence blunders of the last 100 years.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
As I said, grudging, incomplete cooperation. That is far different from "not allowing inspectors in". Here is a summary from Hans Blix's report of March 3, 2007:
quote: The Iraqi side has tried on occasion to attach conditions, as it did regarding helicopters and U-2 planes. Iraq has not, however, so far persisted in these or other conditions for the exercise of any of our inspection rights. If it did, we would report it.
It is obvious that, while the numerous initiatives, which are now taken by the Iraqi side with a view to resolving some long-standing open disarmament issues, can be seen as “active”, or even “proactive”, these initiatives 3-4 months into the new resolution cannot be said to constitute “immediate” cooperation. Nor do they necessarily cover all areas of relevance. They are nevertheless welcome and UNMOVIC is responding to them in the hope of solving presently unresolved disarmament issues.
Given that, I would have let the inspectors continue to resolve disarmament issues. What, exactly, was the rush? With regard to the rest, Lyrhawn's plan looks pretty good.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
When I hear the words "grudging and incompletely" to describe access granted to weapons inspectors by someone such as Saddam Hussein and his government...well, to me there's only one truly logical conclusion to come to: he's hiding something.
Yes, I know that might not be the right conclusion, but it's still the only sensible one to reach.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
So the right conclusion wasn't sensible? The logical conclusion, to me, was that he was an arrogant man who balked at submission and that their record keeping of what they had and what had been detroyed (both in compliance and what was destroyed in Desert Storm and Desert Fox) was bad.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just because it's right doesn't make it sensible. I think that we can all agree that 'sensible' and 'correct' aren't synonymous.
And that's the truthfully logical conclusion, given his history of using WMDs on civilian populations, his long-term antagonism of the United States, and his associations with terrorism?
I have to wonder if this is just part of the disconnect then, because to me-even though it turned out to be wrong-I cannot say I would have done differently.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would have. Again, what was the hurry? He hadn't used WMD against anybody since 1988 - except once in 1991 - when we didn't have a problem with it. He wasn't antagonistic toward the US before 1991; he was, if anything, an ally. We supplied him with many of those WMD. He was working for "our interests" before we surprised him with our reaction to the invasion of Kuwait.
His associations with terrorism - paying the families of suicide bombers - were no more (and considerably less) than most rulers of Islamic countries, including our allies.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What was the hurry? You could just as well ask what the hurry was for greater scrutiny of flight-schools and visas in the spring of 2001.
Your bringing up of his relationship with the United States prior to 1991 is totally irrelevant. Can you explain to me why that matters in the slightest?
The same for his supplier.
I dispute just how much we 'surprised' him.
At least you cede the associations with terrorism, though.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
He hadn't done anything for ten years. As far as we know, he had no plans or capability to do anything. What he had done (with regard to attackis with WMD) was done with our sanction - when he was on "our side" against Iran. When you talk about his "long-term antagonism against the US" you might want to explain what that entailed. And when you talk about his use of WMD's you might also want to put that in context. As none of it indicated any threat to us.
I think he was pretty surprised as he had discussed the invasion with April Glaspie, our ambassador, and she said that it was not our concern.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
He hadn't done anything for ten years? Are you sure you don't want to reconsider that statement? I don't cede the "with our sanction" part either, but I'm not certain about it.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think kmb is saying that we should have totally ignored Iraq, clearly they had issues that needed to be resolved. She's taking issue with our methods for resolving them, our horribly bad, inept methods, especially when a much better path was there and we went the other way.
The rush to war was unnecessary. The calling of attention to Saddam and his regime's problems was totally justified.
Also Rakeesh, if you have time, I'd like to hear your comments on my "plan." If I had to guess, I'd say you'd scoff at solving Palestine/Israel and using war funds to break our oil addiction, but I'd be pleasantly surprised if I was wrong.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sorry, I haven't been reading HR as much as I often do. I guess I'm in the trough rather than at the crest, so to speak. Nothing personal. I'll go take a look at your plan, but I can't promise promptness
---------
As for what kmb is actually saying, again, I'm pointing out that we're in perfect hindsight now. And also that, in my opinion, if you're not going to have weapons inspectors with full access-particularly in those circumstances-what's the point of having them at all, really?
The rush to war, in retrospect, was unnecessary. At the time, it was anything but unnecessary.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was under the impression that they had much much greater access, to places including the palaces that Saddam had before called off limits, and that they could do surprise inspections, whereas before they had to give notice before they arrived. But I'll admit my specific knowledge on that is a bit shaky and I could be wrong.
I'm not wholly convinced that at the time the rush was necessary. The war, given Bush's insistance, might have been inevitable, even in the context of what had happened and what was going on, I think the rush was entirely of Bush's creation and design. Outside of his push, I don't think it was necessary, maybe just unavoidable given national emotions at the time.
.........................
quote:I'm sorry, I haven't been reading HR as much as I often do. I guess I'm in the trough rather than at the crest, so to speak. Nothing personal. I'll go take a look at your plan, but I can't promise promptness
Thanks I appreciate that. Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I was under the impression that they had much much greater access, to places including the palaces that Saddam had before called off limits, and that they could do surprise inspections, whereas before they had to give notice before they arrived. But I'll admit my specific knowledge on that is a bit shaky and I could be wrong.
See, this is where the disconnect comes into play for me. I liken this to a parole officer and parolee. Does the parolee get to say, "OK, you can search my house, car, workplace, and do surprise visits to all of those locations...but not my shed out back, and you can come into my garage only when you notify me?"
Of course not!
And if you're the parole officer, what exactly are you going to think when your charge tells you things like that?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It wasn't "hindsight" before the invasion when I (and a lot of other people) were saying exactly the same thing. When we predicted what actually happened. It wasn't illogical or unreasonable. The facts were all there then. You just had to look for them which was difficult when the White House was using a lot of rhetoric that just made people afraid.
Which brings us back to the point.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:See, this is where the disconnect comes into play for me. I liken this to a parole officer and parolee. Does the parolee get to say, "OK, you can search my house, car, workplace, and do surprise visits to all of those locations...but not my shed out back, and you can come into my garage only when you notify me?"
Of course not!
And if you're the parole officer, what exactly are you going to think when your charge tells you things like that?
I agree. But don't you think it was a little silly of the parole officer to agree to that to begin with? Again though, I was under the impression that the second time around, we had full access, which makes it a moot point I'd think.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Its a bit in the past, but I've been at a conference.
quote:By Adminstration do you mean the Clinton Administration? The French Administration? The German Administration? The UN Administration? because all of those Administrations said that Iraq had WMDs.
I'm only aware of solid proof of lies or complete incompetence for the following people: Condoleeza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and arguably Colin Powell. This is because there were verifiably briefings given to them regarding the numerous and likely possible uses of aluminum tubes in areas other than Iraq's (assumed) nuclear programs -- statements backed up by the DOE and most of its nuclear engineers, some of the world's top experts -- but they then all made speeches to the public stating there were no possible uses for the tubes other than nuclear refinement (Powell said something like "almost no", which is also blatantly untrue, but at least slightly qualified).
There might be other proof of lies (or complete incompetence in ignoring/misunderstanding the briefing -- not to mention several other documents they are recorded as having been sent by the DOE), too, but those are the most well documented.
Most everyone else in the Bush administration, including Bush himself, and most people in other administrations, were probably simply mistaken and/or mislead. There may have been people who lied as well, but I know of no proof otherwise.
Your quotations certainly don't suggest it; Senator Clinton was reporting the views of the intelligence community as presented to her (and doing so accurately), Gore was out of office, and his statement was likely literally true when he left office -- Saddam had secured stores of those weapons around the country, but it turned out they weren't maintained properly, resulting in useless material. President Clinton spoke vaguely about getting inspectors in to curtail any WMD programs Iraq had.
If you're going to try to imply others share the blame for lies or complete incompetence (I should be explicit: I mean completely tuning out or failing to realize the implications of an explicit briefing on the status of WMD-related intelligence that seriously undermines the case for their presence), then at least provide some evidence thereof.
Do you have any evidence to support lies by members of other administrations? Clinton's was certainly intensely scrutinized when he just used missiles and planes against Iraq, as you can note in the very link you posted.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK, I don't want to derail the conversation as it is, so ignore my post if you want to, I just need to post my thoughts about the original subject before I forget them.
Anyway, the way I see it, burning a flag is a symbolic act in and of itself. For example, if I were to burn a plain white flag, the message would be one of "Never Surrender"
Hypothetically, if Congress were to meet tomorrow and repeal the Bill of Rights but kept the flag the same, would the flag still represent the same thing? I don't think so, under such circumstances, burning the flag could be an act of civil disobedience, and a direct challenge to the leaders of the nation who have strayed from what the flag used to represent (in this context at least.)
IMO, burning a flag is supposed to be disrespectful, it's meant to symbolize a person's belief that the ideology that the flag represents has been altered or forgotten. In burning it, you say to such leaders that their actions or rhetoric violates the founding concepts of this nation. So, I guess that I probably disagree a little with Penn and Teller's burning the flag in celebration of the freedoms they enjoy, but I agree with their sentiment. If the ideals of the Bill of Rights were done away with, the Flag would cease to represent what it currently does, in my mind at least.
All right, my two cents is off my mind, I apologize if I'm just beating a dead horse... Continue Posts: 681 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I'm only aware of solid proof of lies or complete incompetence for the following people: Condoleeza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and arguably Colin Powell.
Solid proof is allowing Iraq to constantly break all of the UN resolutions placed against it so I would think that should give you proof against Clinton of complete incompetence at least. Iraq lost the war yet in a few months was able to keep the world in the dark about his WMDs and did so for years and years and years. Clinton should have forced this issue in 1992 but didn't.
quote: President Clinton spoke vaguely about getting inspectors in to curtail any WMD programs Iraq had.
Vague Clinton quotes? How about the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 which Clinton signed into law?
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Solid proof is allowing Iraq to constantly break all of the UN resolutions placed against it so I would think that should give you proof against Clinton of complete incompetence at least. Iraq lost the war yet in a few months was able to keep the world in the dark about his WMDs and did so for years and years and years. Clinton should have forced this issue in 1992 but didn't.
I specified what I meant by incompetence. I'm talking about a level of incompetence so great that it would clearly make them unqualified to serve in their posts, and I only really mention it because its a theoretical alternative to lying, which is a far more likely explanation.
Also, Clinton should have forced the issue in 1992?! He wasn't even inaugurated until 1993! And Iraq was being relatively docile for a short while after the war.
Furthermore, Clinton applied considerable diplomatic and military pressure to Iraq -- did you even read the very link you posted? He was being criticized by Republicans for his plans to use force against Iraq -- force he did end up using, with airplanes and missiles, though there was no ground attack.
quote:Vague Clinton quotes? How about the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 which Clinton signed into law?
As I was quite clear about, I referred only to what you posted. Please read more carefully. Not to mention that Clinton's statements about WMDs were vague. The act you cite only mentions WMDs twice, and both are generalized statements. Take a look: http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Legislation/ILA.htm If you're going to question my statements, please question them with something meaningful.
And of course, the last thing to keep in mind is, whatever you think of Clinton's actions wrt Iraq, their objective result was effective to the extent they were intended to be -- no WMDs, a weak military, et cetera.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Also, Clinton should have forced the issue in 1992?! He wasn't even inaugurated until 1993! And Iraq was being relatively docile for a short while after the war.
I did mean 1993, 1992 was a typo and I don't see how Iraq was docile at all? From the NPR Timeline:Resolution 715 Demands Compliance ::: Oct. 11, 1991 Responding to Iraq's consistent efforts to interrupt or block inspection teams, the U.N. Security Council passes Resolution 715. The resolution says Iraq must "accept unconditionally the inspectors and all other personnel designated by the Special Commission". 'Defensive' Biological Weapons ::: May 1992 Iraq officially admits to having had a "defensive" biological weapons program. Weeks later, UNSCOM begins the destruction of Iraq's chemical weapons program. Progress is halted in July when Iraq refuses an inspection team access to the Ministry of Agriculture. Denial and Acceptance ::: 1993 Inspections are again held up when Iraq attempts to deny UNSCOM and the IAEA the use of their own aircraft in Iraq. In late 1993 Iraq accepts resolution 715.
quote: I'm talking about a level of incompetence so great that it would clearly make them unqualified to serve in their posts, and I only really mention it because its a theoretical alternative to lying, which is a far more likely explanation
Clinton and the UN, couldn't get Iraq to allow weapons inspectors total access when Iraq had little means to defend itself and that is considered to be an effective result showing competence? President Bush is the one who found that Iraq no longer had it's WMDs, not the UN and not Clinton. Clinton's statements had to be vague about WMDs because of his complete lack of competence in finding out what the status of those WMDs were for his entire 8 year term in office. Clinton allowed a defeated, militarily weak country to stand up to the US and the UN with little consequence. Unless you want to count the corrupt Oil for Food program that made Saddam even richer? Clinton dropped some bombs and shot off some missles in 1998 and achieved what? This attack was 7 years after Iraq agreed to destroy it's WMDs and even after the attack the US did not know if Iraq had furthur WMDs. We assumed that we had destroyed the rest of Iraq's WMDs but we did not know if we did or not. It was not until 5 years after that attack that our assumption that Iraq no longer possesed stockpiles of WMDs was proven. Had the UN and Clinton enforced UN Resolution 687 none of the resulting actions would have taken place. They could have stopped this problem more than a decade ago and didn't.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The way we did - with lots of people dead, maimed, orphaned, and widowed? With chaos and civil war? And an increase in danger from terrorists?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You are discussing a different definition of complete incompetence. I am not talking about debatable or arguable incompetence. I'm talking incompetence on the order of voting against something because you don't like the color of the paper it is printed on. That level of incompetence, nothing less, is what I've been talking about all along. I have tried to clarify this in numerous ways, but I have apparently not been clear, as you have continued to misunderstand.
As for UN resolution enforcement, it is not our responsibility to enforce UN resolutions (though it is arguably our right). It is also arguable whether or not Clinton should have done something more about Iraq, much less whether or not what he did or did not do was incompetence.
If you wish, I'll come up with a list of UN resolutions Bush has failed to enforce. It should be about as long as Clinton's. Is there anything to your argument of incompetence for Clinton in this situation other than his inability to enforce an agreement or resolution against a large but relatively weak nation without invading it? We can start with Sudan, for Bush, and move down the list.
But whatever it is (even if it is some form of incompetence), it is not prima facie incompetence for Clinton to have failed to get Iraq to conform to UN resolutions. It would be prima facie incompetence for Rice, Cheney, and the others to have failed to listen to a briefing from the DOE which significantly undermined statements they were about to make in public; this is why the evidence greatly suggests they lied.
That is, can you come up with an explanation for the evidence against them (which I have linked to several times before on hatrack, including threads you are in) that is not either lies or abject incompetence? I haven't been able to come up with a single one.
Furthermore, can you conceive of any reason a President might want to not invade another country that is not engaged in any military action against anybody other than incompetence? I suspect you'll be able to think of several.
My mention of incompetence is, again, only a hedge against the slight possibility the people involved are far less intelligence than I suspect and made a grand bungle. If you wish, I will rephrase the statement to be slightly less precise but hopefully more understandable:
Can you find extremely conclusive evidence that anyone in another administration (or part of the opposition political leadership) lied to the public about intelligence related to WMDs in Iraq? Or, for that matter, anyone other than Rice, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Powell? (Actually, there's a good deal of evidence Blair lied, too, but I haven't investigated exactly how conclusive it is).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
