Woodward article

The lack of reaction is because the Bush Admin has been talking about this "evidence" for months, and we've stiil yet to see it.

 

Since you're so anxious to get some responses...

The Administration has to do this because without it, there's not enough global or even national support to perform a pre-emptive strike. The question is whether or not shuffling weapons around in bunkers is enough to change public opinion.

In 1991, the US people were duped by p.r. firms and the Kuwaiti royal family members into thinking that Iraqi soldiers were killing babies in hospitals. And, much of the rightward shift in elected officials over the past decade is based on a mistrust of the federal government, so for CIA and Defense Dept people to say "Iraq is a threat, but we can't tell you how, just trust us" rings hollow. Real hard evidence is necessary this time.

Meanwhile, what's not mentioned is more important than what is -- no mention of presenting evidence that links Iraq to Al Qaeda. If they had it, pro-war polls in the US would skyrocket. I don't think they have it.

 

Does anyone doubt that Saddam is a lying sack of shite and that of course he'd be trying to hang onto any potential weapon he's got? The question is how to deal with such a case.

Bombing the hell out of a lot of innocent people just doesn't seem like a reasonable way to handle it.

Now if we have evidence that right now he is very close to having bombs (even with the UN inspectors currently running around his country sticking their noses where they want) AND intends to make some type of preemptive strike against us or our allies (nothing in his history would suggest that this is even remotely plausible), then that would be different.

But I really can't imagine that any weapons program in Iraq has gotten much work done in the last few months. They surely have some stockpiles of crap in crude forms, but with Blix and co. roaming the country, there is no way the development is ongoing. What would be the cost of simply having a full-time UN "pain in the ass" to Iraq crew? This has neutralized Saddam for over a decade already and would much less costly (financially, morally, politically) than simply bombing a bunch of poor saps.

The point is, war should still be so far down our list of options as to be practically unimaginable. Instead, war has indeed been our primary goal from the start--the rest has all been political manouvering to try to justify it.

 

If that would make you happy, you can take it for that. Or you could take it for what it really is - a bunch of folks unwilling to continue holding their breath for this "evidence"

 

Hey, some of us only opened their eyes two hours ago, period. I was up late last night downloading porn.

I mean, downloading 80's hits. Wait, that's almost as bad.

Are you sure this isn't the Bob Woodward article you meant to link?

http://www.mediawhoresonline.net/woty02win.htm

 

Originally posted by DoctorJones24
Does anyone doubt that Saddam is a lying sack of shite and that of course he'd be trying to hang onto any potential weapon he's got? The question is how to deal with such a case.

Good. Now that we've got that worked out. I can't wait to hear your plan...

Bombing the hell out of a lot of innocent people just doesn't seem like a reasonable way to handle it.

I agree and so does the president, Powell, SecDef, Rice....That is why we aren't planning on bombing "the hell out of a lot (sic) innocent people." We haven't used that silly doctrine in decades. PGM and enhanced intel capabilities should ensure minimal killing of civilians, by our side. What Saddam does is on his head.

Now if we have evidence that right now he is very close to having bombs (even with the UN inspectors currently running around his country sticking their noses where they want) AND intends to make some type of preemptive strike against us or our allies (nothing in his history would suggest that this is even remotely plausible), then that would be different.

History suggests that Iraq is exactly the country most likely to preemptively strike her neighbors. What history are you looking at? This is the same guy who attacked Iran, gassed them, gassed Kurds, then launched an invasion of Kuwait, bombed Israel and S.Arabia with Scuds, set fire to Kuwait's oilfield. What makes you so sure that if he got a nuke or if our presence in the region declined that he wouldn't attack again?

But I really can't imagine that any weapons program in Iraq has gotten much work done in the last few months. They surely have some stockpiles of crap in crude forms, but with Blix and co. roaming the country, there is no way the development is ongoing. What would be the cost of simply having a full-time UN "pain in the ass" to Iraq crew? This has neutralized Saddam for over a decade already and would much less costly (financially, morally, politically) than simply bombing a bunch of poor saps.

Again history disagrees with your wild guesses. Germany was able to develop and field an impressive array of weapons even under day and night bombardment, attacks on the east and west fronts, sabotage from resistance in conquered countries, limited access to necessary resources, and while busy killing millions of Jews, Gypsies, etc. with an expensive genocide bureacracy. S.Africa developed nukes while under fairly extreme international sanctions. Iraq's most recent nuclear program (that we know of) was conducted under the noses of the inspectors. N. Korea continued to work on their nuclear program despite a UN presence, international isolation, and widespread famine. I'm fairly confident that Saddam could continue his WMD program without much of a problem from a few UN inspectors.

Your comments also ignore the fact that the Saddam would not even allow the inspectors within Iraq if it was not for the threat of a US-led attack. So add billions to the cost of that handful of inspectors to fund all of the troops needed to credibly threaten Iraq. There is also the question of how long the U.S. can keep the UN focused on Iraq. Only under considerable, sustained pressure did the UN return to the Iraq issue. It is simply unrealistic to assume that all of the forces can be maintained forever. Time is on Saddam's side, not ours.

The point is, war should still be so far down our list of options as to be practically unimaginable. Instead, war has indeed been our primary goal from the start--the rest has all been political manouvering to try to justify it.

I guess you missed the decade of diplomacy, sanctions, UN resolutions, inspections, enforcement of the no flight zones, etc. The simple fact is that there is no evidence that any of these methods have worked. I agree that direct evidence of their failure needs to be shown prior to war but to argue that these other methods are the answer ignores their limited utility in stopping Iraq's WMD and missile programs.

 

I don't understand the importance of this article...it's just administration sources giving authorized leaks to the WPost.

First of all, he was OUR FRIEND when he invaded Iran. I've made this point elsewhere today, but there's an Orwellian "we've always been at war with Oceania" element to including this war in an indictment of Saddam. Plus, he bombed Saudi Arabia after the Saudis ATTACKED HIM!!! Yeah, it was justified on the Saudis' part, but it strikes me as, well, Orwellian to demonize Saddam for defending is country from attack.