What I was trying to do was draw them into attempting to form a real argument so that they could perhaps realise that alot of what they claim isnt based on anything very substantial. Iraq is far from being minor but its even further away from being vietnam.
Yeah but if you want to get relative about it, Vietnam was far, far away from WWII. Almost 6x the number of servicemen died in battle during WWII than in Vietnam. And if you really want to get relative, per capita, the Civil War was far more costly in terms of soldier deaths compared to WWII.
Yet no one would call Vietnam a "minor conflict" based on the fact that "only" 50,000 servicemen died (not including non-theater deaths) vs. 300,000 during WWII. Likewise, no one would ever think of calling WWII a minor conflict compared to the Civil War.
Isn't it largely agreed upon - on both sides of the aisle - that the US military is facing a severe shortage in manpower? And if that's the case, if a third conflict were to jump off, would we even have the capacity to respond efficiently and effectively? If the answer is no, then clearly, what we're engaged with is pretty major.
The thrust of this article is about how, in desperation, Army recruiters signed up an autistic 18-year-old in direct contradiction to recruiting standards.
The Portland Army Recruiting Battalion Headquarters opened its investigation into Jared's case last week after his parents called The Oregonian and the newspaper began asking questions about his enlistment.
Maj. Curt Steinagel, commander of the Military Entrance Processing Station in Portland, said the papers filled out by Jared's recruiters contained no indication of his disability. Steinagel acknowledged that the current climate is tough on recruiters.
"I can't speak for Army," he said, "but it's no secret that recruiters stretch and bend the rules because of all the pressure they're under. The problem exists, and we all know it exists."
I was trying to make these people substantiate themselves for once and you dont inspire that with considered analysis. It worked in the sense that most have conceded that actually the US isnt on the verge of economic implosion.
that's known as a straw man my friend. no one was saying the US was on the verge of economic implosion. I posted an article - intended as satire, but actually quite accurate - relating to the state of the economy under Bush relative to Clinton .
What I was trying to do was draw them into attempting to form a real argument so that they could perhaps realise that alot of what they claim isnt based on anything very substantial. Iraq is far from being minor but its even further away from being vietnam.
return of the straw man. no one said anything about Vietnam.
I dont ususlly like to get into these political discussions on the Strut, not due to apathy or a lack of opinion, it is mainly due to the fact that we have some amazingly informed and intelligent players here, on both sides of the political fence. dudes that can back up what they say with facts, figures and examples. I prefer to let the big guns weigh in on such topics.
I also feel that i can learn a lot more by listening to Americans debating American politics than i could by contributing as a New Zealander living in Europe. (even though USA policies both domestic and international affects the world i live in).
I guess im just writing to say that i really enjoy these political threads, the ones that provoke intelligent dialogue.
that's known as a straw man my friend. no one was saying the US was on the verge of economic implosion. I posted an article - intended as satire, but actually quite accurate - relating to the state of the economy under Bush relative to Clinton.
It was clear my comments werent in direct response to the satirical article. I sought to challenge the sentiment of the thread that the economy under bush was performing badly.
What I was trying to do was draw them into attempting to form a real argument so that they could perhaps realise that alot of what they claim isnt based on anything very substantial. Iraq is far from being minor but its even further away from being vietnam.
return of the straw man. no one said anything about Vietnam.
I never said anyone here claimed it was analogous to vietnam(though that kind of rhetoric does feature prominently on the left). My point is that I feel the situation in iraq is exagerated to a very high degree.
What I was trying to do was draw them into attempting to form a real argument so that they could perhaps realise that alot of what they claim isnt based on anything very substantial. Iraq is far from being minor but its even further away from being vietnam.
Yeah but if you want to get relative about it, Vietnam was far, far away from WWII. Almost 6x the number of servicemen died in battle during WWII than in Vietnam. And if you really want to get relative, per capita, the Civil War was far more costly in terms of soldier deaths compared to WWII.
Yet no one would call Vietnam a "minor conflict" based on the fact that "only" 50,000 servicemen died (not including non-theater deaths) vs. 300,000 during WWII. Likewise, no one would ever think of calling WWII a minor conflict compared to the Civil War.
Isn't it largely agreed upon - on both sides of the aisle - that the US military is facing a severe shortage in manpower? And if that's the case, if a third conflict were to jump off, would we even have the capacity to respond efficiently and effectively? If the answer is no, then clearly, what we're engaged with is pretty major.
I exaplained why I used the term minor. What I want people to do is look objectively and not fall back upon lazy rhetoric. Honestly, is there any empirical evidence that justifies much of the language often used in reference to the iraq war? too many use the iraq situation as a political football without considering the potential consequences of doing so.
Hmm... Let's see... during the Clinton years Iraq was neutralized and contained, terrorist plots were stopped, genocide in Kosovo was stopped, war in the Balkans was brought under control and peace was established there, for the first time ever every Western Hemisphere country was democratic, conditions for workers improved in China, China eased up a little on political dissenters, Russia became more democratic, North Korea put plans for a nuclear bomb on the shelf and started talking to the West.
Let's see what the implementation of the rights ideas have wrought, democracy and limited freedoms were brought to Afganastan which had been the most oppressive goverment in the world, Iraq has become a killing ground and a real world terrorist training ground where Saudi facists are being trained to overthrow their goverment, terrorist plots were ignored, genocide in Darfur is ignored, peace in the Balkans continues to hold, Haiti has returned to a US backed dictatorship, the US backed a coup in Venezuela, business conditions continue to improve in China while personal and political freedoms shrink, Russia has moved away from democracy, North Korea has stopped talking to the West and claims to have built nuclear bombs.
Congratulations.
the clinton administrations foreign policy was hardly leftist was it? much of what you claim as succesful practices of a leftist foreign policy wouldve been done and are done by the bush administration. I somehow get the feeling your summary is not very impartial. The bush administration hasnt stopped any terrorist plots? the clinton administration never made intelligence mistakes? there havent been any positive points to iraq? current day kosovo is a beacon of tranquility and social harmony? I also have numerous problems with many of your assertions the principle one being this:
if saddam was contained under clinton, and they really believed containment was the way forward, why was regime change in iraq a stated objective of the clinton administration? you should really study the findings of the iraq survery group before you claim saddam was contained.(Its worth mentioning that much of the left actually opposed the containment policy also. Im sure you remember the repeatedley touted figures of deaths attributed to sanctions. This is what im talking about when I say the left needs to think instead of just moralise. If you dont favour regime change OR containment then what exactly DO you want to do?)
I would say Bush at his best moments has been rhetorically courgeous (speech after 9-11, second inaugural, Condi's speech last June at the American University of Cairo). But the policy has been a hodge podge of support for freindly client dictators who torture al Qaeda, no clear policies on what to do in Iraq, combined with the kind of rhetoric that bestirs the region's liberals but with little to no follow through.
It obviously could have been done better but the fact thats hes actually taking it on is, in my opinion, courageous. Many like to claim this administration is a body of ineptitude and ignorance(whilst simultaneuously claiming they are evil geniuses) but they knew what a risk this was politically, even if they had found the wmd. You can tell this from the reaction to, or non-reaction to, the findings of the iraqi survey group. Its true that they didnt find any wmd but its not as if saddam was being a good boy all along. They discovered a prohibited missile system which had been secretely developed and extensive plans for the reconstitution of the WMD programs. If this isnt enough to convince people that saddam posed a threat then I doubt the recovery of some anthrax would either.
The problem with this argument was that Iraq was completely contained and not really a threat to anyone. They had 2 no fly zones, one in the north and one in the south. They had no connections to any active anti-Western terrorist groups. They were not going to do anything without America knowing it.
Here's what England, our closest ally had to say about Iraq's WMD from the Downing Street Memos:
???But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.???
The U.S. claimed that not only did Iraq have WMD, but that its program was actually larger than before the Gulf War. Here's what the English thought of that:
???Iraq???s nuclear & WMD programs had not advanced in recent years.???
Bush administration received over 30 intelligence reports saying that Iraq had no ties with Al Qaeda. The English seemed to agree with those intelligence reports as well:
???US scrambling to establish a link between Iraq and Al Aaida is so far frankly unconvincing.???
???In addition, there has been no credible evidence to link Iraq with UBL [bin Laden] and Al Qaida.???
The Iraq war was started for a number of reasons. Rumsfeld had a traditional view that Saddam was a threat to the flow of oil through the Persian Gulf and a war could be another example of his transformation of the U.S. military that he was pushing. Neoconservatives who held high positions throughout the Pentagon, NSC and Vice President's office considered Iraq unfinished business from the first Gulf War. They wanted to remove Saddam to spread democracy in the Middle East as a solution to Islamic terrorism. Cheney bought into this argument. Being a serious and imminent threat was not a real point. This was a war of choice.
The U.S. did believe that Iraq had WMD, but they never got any serious intelligence that it was connected to terrorism. These were simply the arguments they presented to convince the public of war.
I dealt with the issue of saddams containment in the above post but I will expand somewhat. I dont think in lieu of what has been discovered in iraq post-war you can make the argument that saddam was contained. Furthermore its not enough to say he wasnt a threat just because other opponents of the US had greater arsenals. Its not just the weaponry at their disposal it is the likelyhood of them using it. Saddam had demonstrated on numerous occassions that he was completely irrational. Its of course to some extents subjective but I dont think gambling on the restraint of a man who has commited genocide is a wise bet to make.
what did you think about he Neibhur/Keenan article in the New York Times Mag last week. It seems like that is a more thoughtful and effective approach than these clowns are taking. I appreciate your candor on how poorly things are going in Iraq/Afghanistan. We can't move forward if people really think that things are working out.
On the economy. I agree that it is doing well by most standards. However, I am deeply worried about the lack of sustainability due to the tax cuts/debt which eventually will drive the price of money up. Expensive money=low economic growth. Some of us remember the late 70s when inflation, high interest rates really took the economy down. With the high gas prices, overinflated real estate market and foreign wars going badly it feels like 1974 again.
I'm with you Dr. Wu (Are you really just a shadow of the man that I once knew--Okay I can't help myself, I love that song). I know Beinart and he has been making this argument for two years now. My problem with Beinart's thesis is that he ignores how multilateralism, especially in the 1990s, was often an impediment to implementing robust liberalism in dire circumstances. Like everything, the record is mixed. In the end the international community and the UN succeeded in winning independence for East Timor. In the end, NATO (but not the UN) stopped Milosevic from cleansing Kosovo of Albanians and in the end Europe stood behind a fledgling nonviolent opposition in Serbia that ended up ousting Milosevic in a velvet revolution. But in this same period, these institutions which limited American power also supported the ascession of Libya, Cuba, Sudan, Vietnam and other human rights abusers to the UN Commission on Human Rights; failed to act in Rwanda, failed for the first Milosevic attempted genocide in Bosnia. This says nothing of the UN oil for food scandal. My glasses get steamed when I think of how the left has completely ignored a situation where mainly European politicians aided and abetted a deliberate plan to malnourish the nation of Iraq for petroleum vouchers. Isn't this closer to blood for oil than the war to end the reign of the man stealing those oil prophets and distributing them to any UN bureaucrat or French minister corrupt enough to stay silent on his graft. This also says nothing of the fact that international law prohibits almost every element of Richard Clarke's Dellenda plan, proposed in 1999 as a covert war on al Qaeda. In 2004 Dems touted that plan as the predecessor to their foreign policy without quite understanding that Clarke was proposing an agressive dirty war against a violent NGO in Afghanistan. I am not an extreme America firster and generally agree with Beinart's point about showing and not telling the world that we can restrain our power for the sake of spreading of liberty. But Beinart does not realize that the very worst regimes were given lifelines in the 1990s by European companies seeking to exploit markets off limits to the west. And that the institutions he sees as so vital to the spread of democracy are often the impediments to the multilatteral and principled action he wants.
Hmm... Let's see... during the Clinton years Iraq was neutralized and contained, terrorist plots were stopped, genocide in Kosovo was stopped, war in the Balkans was brought under control and peace was established there, for the first time ever every Western Hemisphere country was democratic, conditions for workers improved in China, China eased up a little on political dissenters, Russia became more democratic, North Korea put plans for a nuclear bomb on the shelf and started talking to the West.
Let's see what the implementation of the rights ideas have wrought, democracy and limited freedoms were brought to Afganastan which had been the most oppressive goverment in the world, Iraq has become a killing ground and a real world terrorist training ground where Saudi facists are being trained to overthrow their goverment, terrorist plots were ignored, genocide in Darfur is ignored, peace in the Balkans continues to hold, Haiti has returned to a US backed dictatorship, the US backed a coup in Venezuela, business conditions continue to improve in China while personal and political freedoms shrink, Russia has moved away from democracy, North Korea has stopped talking to the West and claims to have built nuclear bombs.
Congratulations.
the clinton administrations foreign policy was hardly leftist was it? much of what you claim as succesful practices of a leftist foreign policy wouldve been done and are done by the bush administration. I somehow get the feeling your summary is not very impartial. The bush administration hasnt stopped any terrorist plots? the clinton administration never made intelligence mistakes? there havent been any positive points to iraq? current day kosovo is a beacon of tranquility and social harmony? I also have numerous problems with many of your assertions the principle one being this:
if saddam was contained under clinton, and they really believed containment was the way forward, why was regime change in iraq a stated objective of the clinton administration? you should really study the findings of the iraq survery group before you claim saddam was contained.(Its worth mentioning that much of the left actually opposed the containment policy also. Im sure you remember the repeatedley touted figures of deaths attributed to sanctions. This is what im talking about when I say the left needs to think instead of just moralise. If you dont favour regime change OR containment then what exactly DO you want to do?)
Regime change under Clinton and regime change under Bush were 2 different things.
Under Bush, members of his administration always urged military action. At first it was supporting a Shiite uprising, or having exiles go in, etc. etc. After 9/11 they had the excuse they needed to push for an invasion.
Regime change under Clinton was giving money to exile groups, who basically didn't really do anything. It's not that Clinton probably didn't want Saddam gone, but in the end, he didn't really push it. Clinton basically relied upon containment and occassional missile strikes.
And in the end, Saddam WAS contained. His WMD and nuclear program were almost completely dismantled. Something that the West actually heard about in 1995 from Hussein Kamal, the head of Iraq's WMD program, who defected to Jordan. It's just that he wasn't believed. That didn't fit the anti-Iraqi view held by the U.S. intelligence community. Iraq also had 2 no fly zones. The unaccounted for WMD, that Bush always talked about were stockpiles leftover from BEFORE the Gulf War. Many of these had a limited shelf life and were unusuable by the time of the U.S. invasion. The only thing he actually was working on was a missile program.
Besides, here's the basic flaw in the Bush administration's argument for war:
Bush claimed that Iraq had connections with Al Qaeda and might give them WMD or nuclear weapons.
1) Bush never received credible intelligence that Iraq was connected to Al Qaeda.
2) Iraq only had battlefield WMD that requires hundreds of missiles or artillery shells to blanket an area to be effective. They never had the technology to make sophisticated enough WMD to be used in small doses by a terrorist group.
3) Iraq never had a workable nuclear bomb plan. The two plans for bombs they had were so heavy that they were completely unusable. Not only that, but intelligence reports still said they were years away from getting even near a bomb. The Bush administration talked about Iraq having a bomb within a year before the invasion, but that's because they dropped all the "Ifs" from the intelligence reports, such as "If" they got enough uranium from another country, "If" they were able to build enough centrifuges, "If" they got FOREIGN aid with technology, "If" they actually got a plan for a bomb that could actually work and be used, etc.
4) Several U.S. intelligence reports said that Iraq would not give WMD or a nuclear weapon to a terrorist, nor even use a terrorist group if it wanted to strike another country. Saddam was all about control and he would not have control over a 3rd party terrorist group, and when Iraq had struck at exiles or another country, they had always used their own intelligence agency.
I dealt with the issue of saddams containment in the above post but I will expand somewhat. I dont think in lieu of what has been discovered in iraq post-war you can make the argument that saddam was contained. Furthermore its not enough to say he wasnt a threat just because other opponents of the US had greater arsenals. Its not just the weaponry at their disposal it is the likelyhood of them using it. Saddam had demonstrated on numerous occassions that he was completely irrational. Its of course to some extents subjective but I dont think gambling on the restraint of a man who has commited genocide is a wise bet to make.
That's the Tony Blair administration saying that Iraq was not a threat. England is our closest ally in the Iraq war, and they're saying Iraq isn't a threat.
I haven't read the final report of the Iraq Survey Group. I read reports about their preliminary report, and I've read the Senate Intelligence Committee Report on Pre-War Intelligence, and the findings of that other group that looked into it (name escapes me right now).
Here are the preliminary claims of the Iraq Survey Group however from October, 2003:
Interim Progress Report of the Iraq Survey Group given by David Kay.
Early evidence found that Iraq's WMD capabilities had been reduced if not destroyed during Gulf War and during U.N. inspections.
Report said that after 1996 Iraq had not focused on producing WMD, but the capability to produce WMD.
Kay said that Saddam had the ambition to gain a nuclear weapon, but they had not found any evidence that Iraq had worked on its nuclear program since 1998.
Kay said that Iraq had less ability to produce enriched uranium than he had in 1991.
Kay said that the U.N. inspectors had effectively dismantled Iraq's nuclear program.
Found evidence that Iraq interested in restarting its centrifuge program in 2002 but found no evidence that anything had happened.
Sources also told Kay that Iraq wanted to renew its chemical weapons program in 2003, but found no evidence that it happened.
Kay's group found a vial of live C. botulinum Okra B in a scientists refrigerator, but it had been there since 1993.
Kay said he also found new research into Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever and Brucella that pointed towards a new WMD program.
(LA Times reported that both diseases are common in Iraq and that there was no evidence that Iraq tried to turn research into weapons. Experts also told the LA Times that no country had ever weaponized the Congo Fever and Brucella was found to be ineffective by the U.S. because it acted too slow and could easily be treated.)
Had not found any SCUD missiles.
Reported 2 cruise missiles programs, but they were stopped when U.N. inspectors returned in November, 2002.
Had covert buying program for missiles which violated U.N. sanctions.
Kay said that Iraq had kept some of its nuclear technology from the Gulf War.
Fallujah II chlorine plant turned out to be in derelict condition and had not operated since Gulf War.
Iraqi officials said that the plan was to convert dual-use facilities to the production of WMD in the future.
Iraq had maintained some WMD capabilities such as scientists, labs, expertise, and other facilities hidden in the security services.
The only program still in full development was the missile program.
Overall, Saddam wanted to make WMD in the FUTURE, but the program had moslty been dismantled by U.N. inspectors. Doesn't that prove that sanctions, U.N. inspectors and containment had worked?
After David Kay, head of the Iraq Survey Group resigned because they had found no WMD he also made the following statements:
Kay told NPR that the intelligence community owed the president and public an explanation for why they were so wrong on Iraq.
Kay said that intelligence failed to detect that Iraq's WMD programs were in disarray.
Kay said that Iraq attempted to restart its nuclear program in 2000 and 2001 but never got that far
Kay said that Iraq was working on WMD ricin poison program right up until March and war.
Were also working on other WMD and missile programs, but had no weapons.
Kay said he believed that most of Iraq's weapons were destroyed in 1991 after Gulf War
Much of Iraq's WMD programs were corruption schemes by Iraqi scientists and generals to gain money from Saddam.
Kay said that the U.N. weapons inspectors were largely successful in deterring Iraq from carrying on with its WMD program
Kay also said 1998 bombing campaign by Clinton destroyed most of Iraq's WMD program that had not been destroyed after Gulf War.
Kay said that the Iraq Survey Group had found documents that proved that Iraq had destroyed its WMDs in the mid-1990s
Kay believed that Hussein bluffed about his WMDs after their destruction to maintain his power.
Kay said in 1995 Iraq scientists tried to tell U.N. weapons inspectors that Iraq had destroyed its WMD but they were not believed.
Kay reported to the Senate Armed Services Committee, "We were almost all wrong" about Iraq's WMD.
Kay wanted intelligence community to be investigated for its failures on Iraq's WMD.
Kay said intelligence failure was because the CIA relied too much on U.N. inspectors who left Iraq in 1998 leaving CIA with no human intelligence within Iraq.
Kay said that the Iraq Survey Group's search was not done, but that it could be concluded that Iraq did not have any WMD or nuclear weapons.
Hmm... Let's see... during the Clinton years Iraq was neutralized and contained, terrorist plots were stopped, genocide in Kosovo was stopped, war in the Balkans was brought under control and peace was established there, for the first time ever every Western Hemisphere country was democratic, conditions for workers improved in China, China eased up a little on political dissenters, Russia became more democratic, North Korea put plans for a nuclear bomb on the shelf and started talking to the West.
Let's see what the implementation of the rights ideas have wrought, democracy and limited freedoms were brought to Afganastan which had been the most oppressive goverment in the world, Iraq has become a killing ground and a real world terrorist training ground where Saudi facists are being trained to overthrow their goverment, terrorist plots were ignored, genocide in Darfur is ignored, peace in the Balkans continues to hold, Haiti has returned to a US backed dictatorship, the US backed a coup in Venezuela, business conditions continue to improve in China while personal and political freedoms shrink, Russia has moved away from democracy, North Korea has stopped talking to the West and claims to have built nuclear bombs.
Congratulations.
1)I am so sick of you ignoring what people write to complain about the "left". I am not the "left". If you have a disagreement with something I write, talk about what I write.
2) I am sick of saying you want people to prove their point. Have you read the Iraq Survey Group? If yes inform us, if no shut the fuck up.
the Clinton administrations foreign policy was hardly leftist was it? much of what you claim as successful practices of a leftist foreign policy would've been done and are done by the bush administration.
You can't back this up with one example? Compared to Bush Clinton is far far far left.
I somehow get the feeling your summary is not very impartial. The bush administration hasnt stopped any terrorist plots? the clinton administration never made intelligence mistakes? there havent been any positive points to iraq? current day kosovo is a beacon of tranquility and social harmony?
Since I said none of those things I will assume you are talking about the mythical "left". If you think Iraq is positive please step up and explain, or shut the fuck up. I was giving Bush credit for not allowing the Balkans to deteriorate the way he has allowed other fledging democracies.
I also have numerous problems with many of your assertions the principle one being this: if saddam was contained under clinton, and they really believed containment was the way forward, why was regime change in iraq a stated objective of the clinton administration? you should really study the findings of the iraq survery group before you claim saddam was contained.(Its worth mentioning that much of the left actually opposed the containment policy also. Im sure you remember the repeatedley touted figures of deaths attributed to sanctions. This is what im talking about when I say the left needs to think instead of just moralise. If you dont favour regime change OR containment then what exactly DO you want to do?)
Since none of this has anything to do with anything I said, blah blah blah.
Basically he "refutes" imaginary arguments going on in his head while the adults on the board are discussing serious issues.
Comment: "Iraq is a mess." Dolo: "C'mon it's nowhere near Vietman!"
Comment: "The ecomony was better under Clinton." Dolo: "C'mon it's nowhere near total collapse."
Comment: "The Bush administration led us into a war under false pretenses." Dolo: "The bush administration hasnt stopped any terrorist plots? the clinton administration never made intelligence mistakes? there havent been any positive points to iraq? current day kosovo is a beacon of tranquility and social harmony?"
and so on...
I guess we're not as dumb as he'd like us to be so he has to put words in our mouths...
1)I am so sick of you ignoring what people write to complain about the "left". I am not the "left". If you have a disagreement with something I write, talk about what I write.
You mad?
I think youre too excited. If you take a few deep breaths and read through again youll see that I addressed your points and then went on to speak about elements on the left. If you dont consider yourself one of those elements then why did you interpret it as an accusation or slander? Youre initial problem was with my claim that the left needs to think about what would happen if its policies were implemented. Me talking about the simultaneous opposition to intervention and containment from quaters of the left was an example of why I made the statement you objected to.
2) I am sick of saying you want people to prove their point. Have you read the Iraq Survey Group? If yes inform us, if no shut the fuck up.
I empathise. It would be alot easier if we didnt have to actually think about things but I happen to think that opinions should be grounded on a reasoned interpretation of the evidence. I has already referenced some of the more high profile findings of the report(the discovery of the secret missile system, discovery of exhuastive plans to restart wmd programs) though since you are so sure that iraq posed no threat it seems reasonable to assume youd read at least partial excerpts. If you havent even read the most indepth, thorough and credible report on saddams pre-war activities and capabilities how can you be so sure he wasnt a threat? what is your opinion actually based upon?
You can't back this up with one example? Compared to Bush Clinton is far far far left.
Id disagree. There is no significant ideological gulf seperating bush and clinton. In fact based upon the role of government under bush you could make the argument that he is to the left of clinton. Examine the similarities: both believers in military intervention, both supported the iraq war, both pro death penalty, both fiscal conservatives(clinton more so).
Since I said none of those things I will assume you are talking about the mythical "left". If you think Iraq is positive please step up and explain, or shut the fuck up. I was giving Bush credit for not allowing the Balkans to deteriorate the way he has allowed other fledging democracies.
You implied all of those things. To suggest that thwarting terrorist plots as a psoitive of 'leftist'(though I must reiterate clintons foreign policy was anything but liberal) foreign policy is to imply that it doesnt happen under a right wing foreign policy.
you seem to be misunderstaning my motivations. The majority of my arguements are not so much pro-bush, they are anti-ignorance. There are arguments to be made against the iraq war on both its conception and its continued conduct. My problem is that few are making those arguements accurately or responsibly.
Since none of this has anything to do with anything I said, blah blah blah.
considering you claimed that iraq was 'neutralised and contained' under clinton I think it has quite alot to do with what you said. I appreciate you substituting the 'blah blah blah' for your previous attempts at coherent discourse. It saved me alot of time.
motown, I asked for YOUR interpretation of the threat posed based upon the information we now have. You will not overwhelm me with masses of irrelevant information
motown, I asked for YOUR interpretation of the threat posed based upon the information we now have. You will not overwhelm me with masses of irrelevant information
Wow.
Maybe if you actually read what I posted you would know what I think. Let's see:
1) I posted the first couple intelligence reports that Bush received about Al Qaeda and Iraq and 9/11. All of which said there was no connection.
2) I posted a selection of quotes by Tony Blair's cabinet all saying that Iraq wasn't a threat.
3) I posted a series of quotes and summaries of David Kay and the Iraq Survey Group all saying that Iraq had no WMD, and that containment had worked.
4) I posted a summary of Bush's argument, Iraq had ties with terrorists and might give them WMD or nukes, and refuted all of those statements.
5) I said that containment was working based upon Point #1, Point #2, Point #3, and Point #4.
Gee, I guess I really can't tell what I think now can I?
Let's see now, can Dolo actually read and follow someone else's argument?
Point #1 - The Bush administration never received any credible intelligence that Iraq was connected to Al Qaeda or 9/11. Summary of initial intelligence reports recevied by administration:[/b]
9/12/01 ??? Richard Clarke, head of anti-terrorism briefed Bush saying no connection between 9/11 and Iraq.
9/12/01 ??? Bush ordered Clarke and the FBI to prepare a report on whether Iraq behind 9/11. Found no evidence.
9/13/01 ??? Deputy Sec. of Defense Wolfowitz asked the CIA, FBI and DIA to look into claim that Iraq behind 1993 World Trade Center bombing based upon book he had read. He was told Iraq not behind 1993 bombing.
9/13/01 - Wolfowitz conducted his own investigation by sending former CIA chief Woolsey to Europe to look into 1993 World Trade Center Claim. Found no evidence.
9/21/01 ??? Bush had asked for a special intelligence briefing on Iraq and Al Qaeda. During his daily intelligence briefing he was told there was no connection and that Iraq was not behind 9/11.
9/21/01 ??? The Daily intelligence briefing was later turned into a longer intelligence report and given to Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, and others.
Fall 2001 ??? Administration asked intelligence agencies to look into claim that 9/11 hijacker Atta met with an Iraq intelligence official in Prague prior to 9/11. Told that meeting never happened.
10/01 ??? Pentagon set up its own unit called the Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation Group, staffed by 2 neoconservatives with no background in intelligence. They were told to find connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda and they claimed they found some. Point #2 - Tony Blair's Cabinet said that Iraq was not a threat in a series of secret British Memos. Here's quotes from those memos:[/b]
???But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.???
The U.S. claimed that not only did Iraq have WMD, but that its program was actually larger than before the Gulf War. Here's what the English thought of that:
???Iraq???s nuclear & WMD programs had not advanced in recent years.???
Bush administration received over 30 intelligence reports saying that Iraq had no ties with Al Qaeda. The English seemed to agree with those intelligence reports as well:
???US scrambling to establish a link between Iraq and Al Aaida is so far frankly unconvincing.???
???In addition, there has been no credible evidence to link Iraq with UBL [bin Laden] and Al Qaida.??? Point #3 - Since you've brought up the Iraq Survey Group, here is a summary of their initial findings and interviews David Kay made after he quit the group all saying that Iraq had no WMD, just the hopes of making it in the future:[/b]
Interim Progress Report of the Iraq Survey Group given by David Kay.
Early evidence found that Iraq's WMD capabilities had been reduced if not destroyed during Gulf War and during U.N. inspections.
Report said that after 1996 Iraq had not focused on producing WMD, but the capability to produce WMD.
Kay said that Saddam had the ambition to gain a nuclear weapon, but they had not found any evidence that Iraq had worked on its nuclear program since 1998.
Kay said that Iraq had less ability to produce enriched uranium than he had in 1991.
Kay said that the U.N. inspectors had effectively dismantled Iraq's nuclear program.
Found evidence that Iraq interested in restarting its centrifuge program in 2002 but found no evidence that anything had happened.
Sources also told Kay that Iraq wanted to renew its chemical weapons program in 2003, but found no evidence that it happened.
Kay's group found a vial of live C. botulinum Okra B in a scientists refrigerator, but it had been there since 1993.
Kay said he also found new research into Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever and Brucella that pointed towards a new WMD program.
(LA Times reported that both diseases are common in Iraq and that there was no evidence that Iraq tried to turn research into weapons. Experts also told the LA Times that no country had ever weaponized the Congo Fever and Brucella was found to be ineffective by the U.S. because it acted too slow and could easily be treated.)
Had not found any SCUD missiles.
Reported 2 cruise missiles programs, but they were stopped when U.N. inspectors returned in November, 2002.
Had covert buying program for missiles which violated U.N. sanctions.
Kay said that Iraq had kept some of its nuclear technology from the Gulf War.
Fallujah II chlorine plant turned out to be in derelict condition and had not operated since Gulf War.
Iraqi officials said that the plan was to convert dual-use facilities to the production of WMD in the future.
Iraq had maintained some WMD capabilities such as scientists, labs, expertise, and other facilities hidden in the security services.
The only program still in full development was the missile program.
Kay told NPR that the intelligence community owed the president and public an explanation for why they were so wrong on Iraq.
Kay said that intelligence failed to detect that Iraq's WMD programs were in disarray.
Kay said that Iraq attempted to restart its nuclear program in 2000 and 2001 but never got that far
Kay said that Iraq was working on WMD ricin poison program right up until March and war.
Were also working on other WMD and missile programs, but had no weapons.
Kay said he believed that most of Iraq's weapons were destroyed in 1991 after Gulf War
Much of Iraq's WMD programs were corruption schemes by Iraqi scientists and generals to gain money from Saddam.
Kay said that the U.N. weapons inspectors were largely successful in deterring Iraq from carrying on with its WMD program
Kay also said 1998 bombing campaign by Clinton destroyed most of Iraq's WMD program that had not been destroyed after Gulf War.
Kay said that the Iraq Survey Group had found documents that proved that Iraq had destroyed its WMDs in the mid-1990s
Kay believed that Hussein bluffed about his WMDs after their destruction to maintain his power.
Kay said in 1995 Iraq scientists tried to tell U.N. weapons inspectors that Iraq had destroyed its WMD but they were not believed.
Kay reported to the Senate Armed Services Committee, "We were almost all wrong" about Iraq's WMD.
Kay wanted intelligence community to be investigated for its failures on Iraq's WMD.
Kay said intelligence failure was because the CIA relied too much on U.N. inspectors who left Iraq in 1998 leaving CIA with no human intelligence within Iraq.
Kay said that the Iraq Survey Group's search was not done, but that it could be concluded that Iraq did not have any WMD or nuclear weapons. Point #4 - A summary and response to Bush's basic argument for war:[/b]
Bush claimed that Iraq had connections with Al Qaeda and might give them WMD or nuclear weapons.
1) Bush never received credible intelligence that Iraq was connected to Al Qaeda.
2) Iraq only had battlefield WMD that requires hundreds of missiles or artillery shells to blanket an area to be effective. They never had the technology to make sophisticated enough WMD to be used in small doses by a terrorist group.
3) Iraq never had a workable nuclear bomb plan. The two plans for bombs they had were so heavy that they were completely unusable. Not only that, but intelligence reports still said they were years away from getting even near a bomb. The Bush administration talked about Iraq having a
bomb within a year before the invasion, but that's because they dropped all the "Ifs" from the intelligence reports, such as "If" they got enough uranium from another country, "If" they were able to build enough centrifuges, "If" they got FOREIGN aid with technology, "If" they actually got a plan for a bomb that could actually work and be used, etc.
4) Several U.S. intelligence reports said that Iraq would not give WMD or a nuclear weapon to a terrorist, nor even use a terrorist group if it wanted to strike another country. Saddam was all about control and he would not have control over a 3rd party terrorist group, and when Iraq had struck at exiles or another country, they had always used their own intelligence agency. Point #5 - Me saying that Iraq was contained:[/b]
And in the end, Saddam WAS contained. His WMD and nuclear program were almost completely dismantled. Something that the West actually heard about in 1995 from Hussein Kamal, the head of Iraq's WMD program, who defected to Jordan. It's just that he wasn't believed. That didn't fit the anti-Iraqi view held by the U.S. intelligence community. Iraq also had 2 no fly zones. The unaccounted for WMD, that Bush always talked about were stockpiles leftover from BEFORE the Gulf War. Many of these had a limited shelf life and were unusuable by the time of the U.S. invasion. The only thing he actually was working on was a missile program. Here's even a 6th point for you, that Clinton and Bush did not believe the same thing when they said "Regime Change":[/b]
Regime change under Clinton and regime change under Bush were 2 different things.
Under Bush, members of his administration always urged military action. At first it was supporting a Shiite uprising, or having exiles go in, etc. etc. After 9/11 they had the excuse they needed to push for an invasion.
Regime change under Clinton was giving money to exile groups, who basically didn't really do anything. It's not that Clinton probably didn't want Saddam gone, but in the end, he didn't really push it. Clinton basically relied upon containment and occassional missile strikes. There, it's all there for you like a little package.
The majority of my arguements are not so much pro-bush, they are anti-ignorance.[/b]
motown, I asked for YOUR interpretation of the threat posed based upon the information we now have. You will not overwhelm me with masses of irrelevant information The majority of my arguements are not so much pro-bush, they are anti-ignorance.[/b]
There is no significant ideological gulf seperating bush and clinton. In fact based upon the role of government under bush you could make the argument that he is to the left of clinton. The majority of my arguements are not so much pro-bush, they are anti-ignorance.[/b]
The loss of 2000 troops in three years cannot in anyway be legitimately interpreted as a major engagement. The majority of my arguements are not so much pro-bush, they are anti-ignorance.[/b]
Iraq is far from being minor The majority of my arguements are not so much pro-bush, they are anti-ignorance.[/b]
it's important that people think objectively and really examine the implications of what theyre saying. The majority of my arguements are not so much pro-bush, they are anti-ignorance.[/b]
to refer to the US economy as great was obviously an exageration and over simplification. The majority of my arguements are not so much pro-bush, they are anti-ignorance.[/b]
The populace of nazi germany werent anti-semites The majority of my arguements are not so much pro-bush, they are anti-ignorance.[/b]
To suggest that thwarting terrorist plots as a psoitive of 'leftist'(though I must reiterate clintons foreign policy was anything but liberal) foreign policy is to imply that it doesnt happen under a right wing foreign policy. The majority of my arguements are not so much pro-bush, they are anti-ignorance.[/b]
anti-ignoranceanti-ignoranceanti-ignoranceanti-ignoranceanti-ignorance anti gnoranceanti-ignoranceanti-ignoranceanti-ignoranceanti-ignorance anti gnoranceanti-ignoranceanti-ignoranceanti-ignoranceanti-ignorance anti-ignoranceanti gnoranceanti-ignoranceanti-ignoranceanti-ignorance anti-ignoranceanti-ignoranceanti-ignoranceanti-ignoranceanti-ignorance
Comments
Thank you!
Portland Stand Up!
that's known as a straw man my friend. no one was saying the US was on the verge of economic implosion. I posted an article - intended as satire, but actually quite accurate - relating to the state of the economy under Bush relative to Clinton .
return of the straw man. no one said anything about Vietnam.
I also feel that i can learn a lot more by listening to Americans debating American politics than i could by contributing as a New Zealander living in Europe. (even though USA policies both domestic and international affects the world i live in).
I guess im just writing to say that i really enjoy these political threads, the ones that provoke intelligent dialogue.
cheers guys.
It was clear my comments werent in direct response to the satirical article. I sought to challenge the sentiment of the thread that the economy under bush was performing badly.
I never said anyone here claimed it was analogous to vietnam(though that kind of rhetoric does feature prominently on the left). My point is that I feel the situation in iraq is exagerated to a very high degree.
I exaplained why I used the term minor. What I want people to do is look objectively and not fall back upon lazy rhetoric. Honestly, is there any empirical evidence that justifies much of the language often used in reference to the iraq war? too many use the iraq situation as a political football without considering the potential consequences of doing so.
the clinton administrations foreign policy was hardly leftist was it? much of what you claim as succesful practices of a leftist foreign policy wouldve been done and are done by the bush administration. I somehow get the feeling your summary is not very impartial. The bush administration hasnt stopped any terrorist plots? the clinton administration never made intelligence mistakes? there havent been any positive points to iraq? current day kosovo is a beacon of tranquility and social harmony? I also have numerous problems with many of your assertions the principle one being this:
if saddam was contained under clinton, and they really believed containment was the way forward, why was regime change in iraq a stated objective of the clinton administration? you should really study the findings of the iraq survery group before you claim saddam was contained.(Its worth mentioning that much of the left actually opposed the containment policy also. Im sure you remember the repeatedley touted figures of deaths attributed to sanctions. This is what im talking about when I say the left needs to think instead of just moralise. If you dont favour regime change OR containment then what exactly DO you want to do?)
I dealt with the issue of saddams containment in the above post but I will expand somewhat. I dont think in lieu of what has been discovered in iraq post-war you can make the argument that saddam was contained. Furthermore its not enough to say he wasnt a threat just because other opponents of the US had greater arsenals. Its not just the weaponry at their disposal it is the likelyhood of them using it. Saddam had demonstrated on numerous occassions that he was completely irrational. Its of course to some extents subjective but I dont think gambling on the restraint of a man who has commited genocide is a wise bet to make.
I'm with you Dr. Wu (Are you really just a shadow of the man that I once knew--Okay I can't help myself, I love that song). I know Beinart and he has been making this argument for two years now. My problem with Beinart's thesis is that he ignores how multilateralism, especially in the 1990s, was often an impediment to implementing robust liberalism in dire circumstances. Like everything, the record is mixed. In the end the international community and the UN succeeded in winning independence for East Timor. In the end, NATO (but not the UN) stopped Milosevic from cleansing Kosovo of Albanians and in the end Europe stood behind a fledgling nonviolent opposition in Serbia that ended up ousting Milosevic in a velvet revolution. But in this same period, these institutions which limited American power also supported the ascession of Libya, Cuba, Sudan, Vietnam and other human rights abusers to the UN Commission on Human Rights; failed to act in Rwanda, failed for the first Milosevic attempted genocide in Bosnia. This says nothing of the UN oil for food scandal. My glasses get steamed when I think of how the left has completely ignored a situation where mainly European politicians aided and abetted a deliberate plan to malnourish the nation of Iraq for petroleum vouchers. Isn't this closer to blood for oil than the war to end the reign of the man stealing those oil prophets and distributing them to any UN bureaucrat or French minister corrupt enough to stay silent on his graft. This also says nothing of the fact that international law prohibits almost every element of Richard Clarke's Dellenda plan, proposed in 1999 as a covert war on al Qaeda. In 2004 Dems touted that plan as the predecessor to their foreign policy without quite understanding that Clarke was proposing an agressive dirty war against a violent NGO in Afghanistan. I am not an extreme America firster and generally agree with Beinart's point about showing and not telling the world that we can restrain our power for the sake of spreading of liberty. But Beinart does not realize that the very worst regimes were given lifelines in the 1990s by European companies seeking to exploit markets off limits to the west. And that the institutions he sees as so vital to the spread of democracy are often the impediments to the multilatteral and principled action he wants.
Regime change under Clinton and regime change under Bush were 2 different things.
Under Bush, members of his administration always urged military action. At first it was supporting a Shiite uprising, or having exiles go in, etc. etc. After 9/11 they had the excuse they needed to push for an invasion.
Regime change under Clinton was giving money to exile groups, who basically didn't really do anything. It's not that Clinton probably didn't want Saddam gone, but in the end, he didn't really push it. Clinton basically relied upon containment and occassional missile strikes.
And in the end, Saddam WAS contained. His WMD and nuclear program were almost completely dismantled. Something that the West actually heard about in 1995 from Hussein Kamal, the head of Iraq's WMD program, who defected to Jordan. It's just that he wasn't believed. That didn't fit the anti-Iraqi view held by the U.S. intelligence community. Iraq also had 2 no fly zones. The unaccounted for WMD, that Bush always talked about were stockpiles leftover from BEFORE the Gulf War. Many of these had a limited shelf life and were unusuable by the time of the U.S. invasion. The only thing he actually was working on was a missile program.
Besides, here's the basic flaw in the Bush administration's argument for war:
Bush claimed that Iraq had connections with Al Qaeda and might give them WMD or nuclear weapons.
1) Bush never received credible intelligence that Iraq was connected to Al Qaeda.
2) Iraq only had battlefield WMD that requires hundreds of missiles or artillery shells to blanket an area to be effective. They never had the technology to make sophisticated enough WMD to be used in small doses by a terrorist group.
3) Iraq never had a workable nuclear bomb plan. The two plans for bombs they had were so heavy that they were completely unusable. Not only that, but intelligence reports still said they were years away from getting even near a bomb. The Bush administration talked about Iraq having a bomb within a year before the invasion, but that's because they dropped all the "Ifs" from the intelligence reports, such as "If" they got enough uranium from another country, "If" they were able to build enough centrifuges, "If" they got FOREIGN aid with technology, "If" they actually got a plan for a bomb that could actually work and be used, etc.
4) Several U.S. intelligence reports said that Iraq would not give WMD or a nuclear weapon to a terrorist, nor even use a terrorist group if it wanted to strike another country. Saddam was all about control and he would not have control over a 3rd party terrorist group, and when Iraq had struck at exiles or another country, they had always used their own intelligence agency.
Answer those critiques for me.
That's the Tony Blair administration saying that Iraq was not a threat. England is our closest ally in the Iraq war, and they're saying Iraq isn't a threat.
Here are the preliminary claims of the Iraq Survey Group however from October, 2003:
Interim Progress Report of the Iraq Survey Group given by David Kay.
Early evidence found that Iraq's WMD capabilities had been reduced if not destroyed during Gulf War and during U.N. inspections.
Report said that after 1996 Iraq had not focused on producing WMD, but the capability to produce WMD.
Kay said that Saddam had the ambition to gain a nuclear weapon, but they had not found any evidence that Iraq had worked on its nuclear program since 1998.
Kay said that Iraq had less ability to produce enriched uranium than he had in 1991.
Kay said that the U.N. inspectors had effectively dismantled Iraq's nuclear program.
Found evidence that Iraq interested in restarting its centrifuge program in 2002 but found no evidence that anything had happened.
Sources also told Kay that Iraq wanted to renew its chemical weapons program in 2003, but found no evidence that it happened.
Kay's group found a vial of live C. botulinum Okra B in a scientists refrigerator, but it had been there since 1993.
Kay said he also found new research into Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever and Brucella that pointed towards a new WMD program.
(LA Times reported that both diseases are common in Iraq and that there was no evidence that Iraq tried to turn research into weapons. Experts also told the LA Times that no country had ever weaponized the Congo Fever and Brucella was found to be ineffective by the U.S. because it acted too slow and could easily be treated.)
Had not found any SCUD missiles.
Reported 2 cruise missiles programs, but they were stopped when U.N. inspectors returned in November, 2002.
Had covert buying program for missiles which violated U.N. sanctions.
Kay said that Iraq had kept some of its nuclear technology from the Gulf War.
Fallujah II chlorine plant turned out to be in derelict condition and had not operated since Gulf War.
Iraqi officials said that the plan was to convert dual-use facilities to the production of WMD in the future.
Iraq had maintained some WMD capabilities such as scientists, labs, expertise, and other facilities hidden in the security services.
The only program still in full development was the missile program.
Overall, Saddam wanted to make WMD in the FUTURE, but the program had moslty been dismantled by U.N. inspectors. Doesn't that prove that sanctions, U.N. inspectors and containment had worked?
Kay told NPR that the intelligence community owed the president and public an explanation for why they were so wrong on Iraq.
Kay said that intelligence failed to detect that Iraq's WMD programs were in disarray.
Kay said that Iraq attempted to restart its nuclear program in 2000 and 2001 but never got that far
Kay said that Iraq was working on WMD ricin poison program right up until March and war.
Were also working on other WMD and missile programs, but had no weapons.
Kay said he believed that most of Iraq's weapons were destroyed in 1991 after Gulf War
Much of Iraq's WMD programs were corruption schemes by Iraqi scientists and generals to gain money from Saddam.
Kay said that the U.N. weapons inspectors were largely successful in deterring Iraq from carrying on with its WMD program
Kay also said 1998 bombing campaign by Clinton destroyed most of Iraq's WMD program that had not been destroyed after Gulf War.
Kay said that the Iraq Survey Group had found documents that proved that Iraq had destroyed its WMDs in the mid-1990s
Kay believed that Hussein bluffed about his WMDs after their destruction to maintain his power.
Kay said in 1995 Iraq scientists tried to tell U.N. weapons inspectors that Iraq had destroyed its WMD but they were not believed.
Kay reported to the Senate Armed Services Committee, "We were almost all wrong" about Iraq's WMD.
Kay wanted intelligence community to be investigated for its failures on Iraq's WMD.
Kay said intelligence failure was because the CIA relied too much on U.N. inspectors who left Iraq in 1998 leaving CIA with no human intelligence within Iraq.
Kay said that the Iraq Survey Group's search was not done, but that it could be concluded that Iraq did not have any WMD or nuclear weapons.
Welcome to the world of Dolo the Straw Man.
Basically he "refutes" imaginary arguments going on in his head while the adults on the board are discussing serious issues.
Comment: "Iraq is a mess." Dolo: "C'mon it's nowhere near Vietman!"
Comment: "The ecomony was better under Clinton." Dolo: "C'mon it's nowhere near total collapse."
Comment: "The Bush administration led us into a war under false pretenses." Dolo: "The bush administration hasnt stopped any terrorist plots? the clinton administration never made intelligence mistakes? there havent been any positive points to iraq? current day kosovo is a beacon of tranquility and social harmony?"
and so on...
I guess we're not as dumb as he'd like us to be so he has to put words in our mouths...
You mad?
I think youre too excited. If you take a few deep breaths and read through again youll see that I addressed your points and then went on to speak about elements on the left. If you dont consider yourself one of those elements then why did you interpret it as an accusation or slander? Youre initial problem was with my claim that the left needs to think about what would happen if its policies were implemented. Me talking about the simultaneous opposition to intervention and containment from quaters of the left was an example of why I made the statement you objected to.
I empathise. It would be alot easier if we didnt have to actually think about things but I happen to think that opinions should be grounded on a reasoned interpretation of the evidence. I has already referenced some of the more high profile findings of the report(the discovery of the secret missile system, discovery of exhuastive plans to restart wmd programs) though since you are so sure that iraq posed no threat it seems reasonable to assume youd read at least partial excerpts. If you havent even read the most indepth, thorough and credible report on saddams pre-war activities and capabilities how can you be so sure he wasnt a threat? what is your opinion actually based upon?
Id disagree. There is no significant ideological gulf seperating bush and clinton. In fact based upon the role of government under bush you could make the argument that he is to the left of clinton. Examine the similarities: both believers in military intervention, both supported the iraq war, both pro death penalty, both fiscal conservatives(clinton more so).
You implied all of those things. To suggest that thwarting terrorist plots as a psoitive of 'leftist'(though I must reiterate clintons foreign policy was anything but liberal) foreign policy is to imply that it doesnt happen under a right wing foreign policy.
you seem to be misunderstaning my motivations. The majority of my arguements are not so much pro-bush, they are anti-ignorance. There are arguments to be made against the iraq war on both its conception and its continued conduct. My problem is that few are making those arguements accurately or responsibly.
considering you claimed that iraq was 'neutralised and contained' under clinton I think it has quite alot to do with what you said. I appreciate you substituting the 'blah blah blah' for your previous attempts at coherent discourse. It saved me alot of time.
Wow.
Maybe if you actually read what I posted you would know what I think. Let's see:
1) I posted the first couple intelligence reports that Bush received about Al Qaeda and Iraq and 9/11. All of which said there was no connection.
2) I posted a selection of quotes by Tony Blair's cabinet all saying that Iraq wasn't a threat.
3) I posted a series of quotes and summaries of David Kay and the Iraq Survey Group all saying that Iraq had no WMD, and that containment had worked.
4) I posted a summary of Bush's argument, Iraq had ties with terrorists and might give them WMD or nukes, and refuted all of those statements.
5) I said that containment was working based upon Point #1, Point #2, Point #3, and Point #4.
Gee, I guess I really can't tell what I think now can I?
You're becoming a waste of time. Truly.
Point #1 - The Bush administration never received any credible intelligence that Iraq was connected to Al Qaeda or 9/11. Summary of initial intelligence reports recevied by administration:[/b]
9/12/01 ??? Richard Clarke, head of anti-terrorism briefed Bush saying no connection between 9/11 and Iraq.
9/12/01 ??? Bush ordered Clarke and the FBI to prepare a report on whether Iraq behind 9/11. Found no evidence.
9/13/01 ??? Deputy Sec. of Defense Wolfowitz asked the CIA, FBI and DIA to look into claim that Iraq behind 1993 World Trade Center bombing based upon book he had read. He was told Iraq not behind 1993 bombing.
9/13/01 - Wolfowitz conducted his own investigation by sending former CIA chief Woolsey to Europe to look into 1993 World Trade Center Claim. Found no evidence.
9/21/01 ??? Bush had asked for a special intelligence briefing on Iraq and Al Qaeda. During his daily intelligence briefing he was told there was no connection and that Iraq was not behind 9/11.
9/21/01 ??? The Daily intelligence briefing was later turned into a longer intelligence report and given to Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, and others.
Fall 2001 ??? Administration asked intelligence agencies to look into claim that 9/11 hijacker Atta met with an Iraq intelligence official in Prague prior to 9/11. Told that meeting never happened.
10/01 ??? Pentagon set up its own unit called the Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation Group, staffed by 2 neoconservatives with no background in intelligence. They were told to find connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda and they claimed they found some.
Point #2 - Tony Blair's Cabinet said that Iraq was not a threat in a series of secret British Memos. Here's quotes from those memos:[/b]
???But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.???
The U.S. claimed that not only did Iraq have WMD, but that its program was actually larger than before the Gulf War. Here's what the English thought of that:
???Iraq???s nuclear & WMD programs had not advanced in recent years.???
Bush administration received over 30 intelligence reports saying that Iraq had no ties with Al Qaeda. The English seemed to agree with those intelligence reports as well:
???US scrambling to establish a link between Iraq and Al Aaida is so far frankly unconvincing.???
???In addition, there has been no credible evidence to link Iraq with UBL [bin Laden] and Al Qaida.???
Point #3 - Since you've brought up the Iraq Survey Group, here is a summary of their initial findings and interviews David Kay made after he quit the group all saying that Iraq had no WMD, just the hopes of making it in the future:[/b]
Interim Progress Report of the Iraq Survey Group given by David Kay.
Early evidence found that Iraq's WMD capabilities had been reduced if not destroyed during Gulf War and during U.N. inspections.
Report said that after 1996 Iraq had not focused on producing WMD, but the capability to produce WMD.
Kay said that Saddam had the ambition to gain a nuclear weapon, but they had not found any evidence that Iraq had worked on its nuclear program since 1998.
Kay said that Iraq had less ability to produce enriched uranium than he had in 1991.
Kay said that the U.N. inspectors had effectively dismantled Iraq's nuclear program.
Found evidence that Iraq interested in restarting its centrifuge program in 2002 but found no evidence that anything had happened.
Sources also told Kay that Iraq wanted to renew its chemical weapons program in 2003, but found no evidence that it happened.
Kay's group found a vial of live C. botulinum Okra B in a scientists refrigerator, but it had been there since 1993.
Kay said he also found new research into Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever and Brucella that pointed towards a new WMD program.
(LA Times reported that both diseases are common in Iraq and that there was no evidence that Iraq tried to turn research into weapons. Experts also told the LA Times that no country had ever weaponized the Congo Fever and Brucella was found to be ineffective by the U.S. because it acted too slow and could easily be treated.)
Had not found any SCUD missiles.
Reported 2 cruise missiles programs, but they were stopped when U.N. inspectors returned in November, 2002.
Had covert buying program for missiles which violated U.N. sanctions.
Kay said that Iraq had kept some of its nuclear technology from the Gulf War.
Fallujah II chlorine plant turned out to be in derelict condition and had not operated since Gulf War.
Iraqi officials said that the plan was to convert dual-use facilities to the production of WMD in the future.
Iraq had maintained some WMD capabilities such as scientists, labs, expertise, and other facilities hidden in the security services.
The only program still in full development was the missile program.
Kay told NPR that the intelligence community owed the president and public an explanation for why they were so wrong on Iraq.
Kay said that intelligence failed to detect that Iraq's WMD programs were in disarray.
Kay said that Iraq attempted to restart its nuclear program in 2000 and 2001 but never got that far
Kay said that Iraq was working on WMD ricin poison program right up until March and war.
Were also working on other WMD and missile programs, but had no weapons.
Kay said he believed that most of Iraq's weapons were destroyed in 1991 after Gulf War
Much of Iraq's WMD programs were corruption schemes by Iraqi scientists and generals to gain money from Saddam.
Kay said that the U.N. weapons inspectors were largely successful in deterring Iraq from carrying on with its WMD program
Kay also said 1998 bombing campaign by Clinton destroyed most of Iraq's WMD program that had not been destroyed after Gulf War.
Kay said that the Iraq Survey Group had found documents that proved that Iraq had destroyed its WMDs in the mid-1990s
Kay believed that Hussein bluffed about his WMDs after their destruction to maintain his power.
Kay said in 1995 Iraq scientists tried to tell U.N. weapons inspectors that Iraq had destroyed its WMD but they were not believed.
Kay reported to the Senate Armed Services Committee, "We were almost all wrong" about Iraq's WMD.
Kay wanted intelligence community to be investigated for its failures on Iraq's WMD.
Kay said intelligence failure was because the CIA relied too much on U.N. inspectors who left Iraq in 1998 leaving CIA with no human intelligence within Iraq.
Kay said that the Iraq Survey Group's search was not done, but that it could be concluded that Iraq did not have any WMD or nuclear weapons.
Point #4 - A summary and response to Bush's basic argument for war:[/b]
Bush claimed that Iraq had connections with Al Qaeda and might give them WMD or nuclear weapons.
1) Bush never received credible intelligence that Iraq was connected to Al Qaeda.
2) Iraq only had battlefield WMD that requires hundreds of missiles or artillery shells to blanket an area to be effective. They never had the technology to make sophisticated enough WMD to be used in small doses by a terrorist group.
3) Iraq never had a workable nuclear bomb plan. The two plans for bombs they had were so heavy that they were completely unusable. Not only that, but intelligence reports still said they were years away from getting even near a bomb. The Bush administration talked about Iraq having a bomb within a year before the invasion, but that's because they dropped all the "Ifs" from the intelligence reports, such as "If" they got enough uranium from another country, "If" they were able to build enough centrifuges, "If" they got FOREIGN aid with technology, "If" they actually got a plan for a bomb that could actually work and be used, etc.
4) Several U.S. intelligence reports said that Iraq would not give WMD or a nuclear weapon to a terrorist, nor even use a terrorist group if it wanted to strike another country. Saddam was all about control and he would not have control over a 3rd party terrorist group, and when Iraq had struck at exiles or another country, they had always used their own intelligence agency.
Point #5 - Me saying that Iraq was contained:[/b]
And in the end, Saddam WAS contained. His WMD and nuclear program were almost completely dismantled. Something that the West actually heard about in 1995 from Hussein Kamal, the head of Iraq's WMD program, who defected to Jordan. It's just that he wasn't believed. That didn't fit the anti-Iraqi view held by the U.S. intelligence community. Iraq also had 2 no fly zones. The unaccounted for WMD, that Bush always talked about were stockpiles leftover from BEFORE the Gulf War. Many of these had a limited shelf life and were unusuable by the time of the U.S. invasion. The only thing he actually was working on was a missile program.
Here's even a 6th point for you, that Clinton and Bush did not believe the same thing when they said "Regime Change":[/b]
Regime change under Clinton and regime change under Bush were 2 different things.
Under Bush, members of his administration always urged military action. At first it was supporting a Shiite uprising, or having exiles go in, etc. etc. After 9/11 they had the excuse they needed to push for an invasion.
Regime change under Clinton was giving money to exile groups, who basically didn't really do anything. It's not that Clinton probably didn't want Saddam gone, but in the end, he didn't really push it. Clinton basically relied upon containment and occassional missile strikes.
There, it's all there for you like a little package.
The majority of my arguements are not so much pro-bush, they are anti-ignorance.[/b]
motown, I asked for YOUR interpretation of the threat posed based upon the information we now have. You will not overwhelm me with masses of irrelevant information
The majority of my arguements are not so much pro-bush, they are anti-ignorance.[/b]
There is no significant ideological gulf seperating bush and clinton. In fact based upon the role of government under bush you could make the argument that he is to the left of clinton.
The majority of my arguements are not so much pro-bush, they are anti-ignorance.[/b]
The loss of 2000 troops in three years cannot in anyway be legitimately interpreted as a major engagement.
The majority of my arguements are not so much pro-bush, they are anti-ignorance.[/b]
Iraq is far from being minor
The majority of my arguements are not so much pro-bush, they are anti-ignorance.[/b]
it's important that people think objectively and really examine the implications of what theyre saying.
The majority of my arguements are not so much pro-bush, they are anti-ignorance.[/b]
to refer to the US economy as great was obviously an exageration and over simplification.
The majority of my arguements are not so much pro-bush, they are anti-ignorance.[/b]
The populace of nazi germany werent anti-semites
The majority of my arguements are not so much pro-bush, they are anti-ignorance.[/b]
To suggest that thwarting terrorist plots as a psoitive of 'leftist'(though I must reiterate clintons foreign policy was anything but liberal) foreign policy is to imply that it doesnt happen under a right wing foreign policy.
The majority of my arguements are not so much pro-bush, they are anti-ignorance.[/b]
anti-ignoranceanti-ignoranceanti-ignoranceanti-ignoranceanti-ignorance
anti gnoranceanti-ignoranceanti-ignoranceanti-ignoranceanti-ignorance
anti gnoranceanti-ignoranceanti-ignoranceanti-ignoranceanti-ignorance
anti-ignoranceanti gnoranceanti-ignoranceanti-ignoranceanti-ignorance
anti-ignoranceanti-ignoranceanti-ignoranceanti-ignoranceanti-ignorance
Is that the new typing in ALL CAPS?
"Only the left use apostrophes."
Have you noticed that Dolo's appearance in political threads coincides with Sadbadabads disappearance?
I alluded to that in one of these threads.