http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7310-2003Apr21.html I couldn't get the clip I wanted in the title, which I hope isn't misleading. (I do know it's short. ). It's an article saying the Bushies are started to wonder about their pre-war intel. I've been wondering about this myself...have we not found stuff because it got moved, or because our intel was crap? This article indicates it's much more likely the latter. If it was because the stuff was moved, the Bushies would have expected this. Also, there's a disturbing revelation...our intel indicates that some of the "looting" was insiders getting files and equipment to sell. As many here (loney most prominently) have pointed out, one of the many contradictions of this war is that we're likely to aggravate the problem we're ostensibly attacking. I mean, at least when Saddam was in charge, we knew where the s*** was.
I have read in other reports that some of the intelligence came from the INC, which had ulterior motives for us to invade. It's not unlike the post-Taliban situation in Afghanistan, where "informants" were telling US soldiers that rival warlords were actually Taliban or AQ. Soldiers then killed the warlord, and the informants moved into the dead warlord's territory. Again, do I think that Saddam had / has WMD? Yes. But he most likely never came close to having the massive stockpiles that Bush said in his State of the Union speech that he had.
Whither WMDs??? We have enough evidence to nail Saddam and his cronies on in any sort of war crimes court without the WMDs... on human rights violations, etc. BUT... that leads one to the point, what do Baath Party officials have to gain from hiding such evidence of WMDs now that we have toppled that regime? If we cannot find those WMDs or materials, and fast, we (the U.S.) are going to look a lot worse in the eyes of the rest of the world than we do already.
Re: Whither WMDs??? We have enough evidence to nail about 40 different countries in any sort of war crimes court on human rights violations, etc. The WMD were the ace up Bush's sleeve. If he can't produce it, he's got a lot of 'splaining to do.
What's worse, our "Coalition" allies may not be as eager to aid us next time around should we need them. Tony Blair sold this war to the people of Britain based on our line that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. More than a bit of egg on his face if we can't find those WMDs... BTW, I thought we weren't going to be the "world's police force," Mr. President...?
Re: Re: Whither WMDs??? Not to mention several past U.S. presidents along with Henry Kissinger and Madeline Albright at the very least.
It doesn't matter if after 5 years all we find is a half used can of Raid. The WMD was only an excuse to get us into Iraq a little smoother and it worked well enough. It doesn't even matter to the American citizens because they already know the war was to free the Iraqi people (and it was always about freeing the Iraqi people). Bush has Iraq now and that's all that matters.
You forgot the part about how the war was also going to stop all terrorism because saddam was behind the 9/11 attacks. That was a big hit here as well, especially among dittoheads and people who think "Central America" means "Kansas".
The fact that our intel may have been crap also raises some other issues... How can we trust any intel regarding our national security, threats against the U.S. etc... Things that are essential in preventing another 9/11? If it's crap on this occasion, and since it's been crap in the past, is anyone doing the crucial tasks right in our intelligence service? Bush may indeed have exacerbated the problem he sought to stamp out.
Ah yes, one mistake means EVERYTHING is a mistake. Of course, our intelligence was crap when we took out the car in Yemen. Of course, our intelligence was crap when we got the Mr. Ron Jeremy lookalike in that sh-t-hole apartment in Pakistan. Of course, our intelligence is crap when our Spanish friends pounce on some Bearded-one operatives. Of course, our intelligence is crap when we freeze bank accounts, listen in on cell conversations, take pictures from 100 miles up. Crap, pure unadulterated crap. Meanwhile, why do people persist in believing intelligence is a science? That it's not useful or helpful until it's precisely accurate? That it isn't really productive until it gets you the complete and total picture immediately and on demand?? I'm filing this thread away. As Arnold said, we'll be back.
Our intelligence capabilities are remarkable. So remarkable it is almost scary. I would be very surprised if our intel on WMD turned out to be "crap." I do think the Bushies made the classical mistake of overselling and underdelivering. Intelligence gathering is a science, but interpreting it is more art than science. I'm guessing they interpreted -- or at least publicly represented it -- in the way that most favored their aims (justifying war). They painted Saddam Hussein's Iraq with the most frightening brush possible. Because of that, people were expecting our soldiers to find cannisters of anthrax on every street corner. Now that this hasn't happened, the collective eyebrow of world opinion has been raised. Bush has nobody to blame for this but himself. Eventually, I'm sure they'll find some WMD hook on which to hang this war. I would be surprised if it were as dire as was represented, however. Moreover, their decision to deny UN inspector access means they'll have nobody to blame but themselves when everybody cries foul. I have yet to see a legit reason -- or even a legitimate hypothesis -- for why UN inspectors are not there. It just seems so shortsighted. Do any of you righties have any credible explanation for this (I'm not challenging you, or trying to pick a fight, I'm just curious if a more Bush-sympathetic mind, or perhaps a smarter mind, can conjure a reason/justification)?
I dunno -- it IS puzzling from one perspective. Perhaps we think that UN burned us once, and they might do it again. Or maybe it's because you need a security council resolution, which is just way too messy and untidy. Perhaps we think we can bring more resources to bear. Perhaps we think that we will be able to get more out of interrogations than the UN (and by that I don't mean star chamber like stuff but rather we have more pieces of the puzzle to bring to bear in our questioning). It seems to me we could get a couple of senior UN folks as "advisers" while allowing us to do the day to day work. Anyway, this issue is less important than that we find them.
Sorry, Karl, but when we use the intelligence as a cassus belli, it should damn well be precisely accurate.
Unless of course, the absence of UN inspectors leads to the idea that we less "found" them than "planted" them.
Doublethink should ideally be instinctive, Karl. You don't want the Ministry of Love to re-educate you, do you? Burned us? How, by being right?
Which perspective is that exactly? The one that thinks? Naaaa ... Dewd Luv fielded that one accurately enough. So which of the fourteen resolutions we cited for war isn't justification for having UN Inspectors back in country? Stuff that we're not going to share anyway, so what difference does it make? That kind of stuff? I wish you wouldn't say stuff like that when I'm trying to have a drink. "Find" them? Sure, Ok. We now have complete and unfettered access to the entire country, we now have an army in country to do our searching for us, and we haven't even turned up a can of Raid. They were supposed to be in the hands of the battalion commanders, remember? Where'd they go if all those guys surrendered so fast? "Oh, I'm sorry ossifer, I must have left my WMDs in my other pants ..."
Karl, are you talking about them not approving of our war resolution? If so, allow me to refer you to the thread I started about how when 1441 was passed, we acknowledged that a 2nd resolution was needed. Frankly, the proven difference between us and the UN was that we were horny for war and they were horny for peace. Maybe the UN would have wimped out even if the Bushies had acted reasonably, but that's a hypothetical that was never tested.
Meanwhile, back on the WMD front, another discovery of "worst-case scenario in a can" has crapped out.
George W. Bush is French? Colin Powell is French? The guy who forged the Niger/uranium letters was French? The unmanned drone was made out of French balsa wood? Do you even know what "duplicitous" means? The French and Germans from day freaking one didn't want this war, and said so to anyone who would listen. It was our boys who went in front of the world and said we had enough evidence to convince any reasonable person. And none, zero, zip, bupkis was real. I saw the story obie linked to teased as the lead story on local news last night, and I immediately called bullsh:t. Because every single story without exception - every single thing remotely related to this bullsh:t war - was complete and utter bullsh:t. I really think you could line this bullsh:t war up against every other bullsh:t conflict in human history, measure them for which had the greater degree of bullsh:ttery, and Operation Iraqi Bullsh:t would still win the Bullsh:t Cup. I'll bet Private Jessica Lynch isn't even a natural blonde, how do you like them apples?
Dan, have you ever heard that factoid that more Americans died in the Civil War than all other wars combined? How do you think the bulls*** of this war would stack up using that method of measurement. I'm at the point now where I honestly think it's more likely than not that a) the Bushies didn't just moderatly exaggerate the dangers, but "my wife, Morgan Fairchild" exaggerated them. And b) I'm honestly starting to think it more likely than not that the Army is planning to plant something. And that's not paranoid leftwing pinko commsymp talk either. I can back it up. Hmmm, that sounds like a fun thread. Look at the general politics board tomorrow.