[CLUE-Talk] a new note in the usa/iraq tune

[Randy Arabie]

Quoting Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier <jzb at dissociatedpress.net>:

> On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 07:18:01 -0800
> Randy Arabie <randy at arabie.org> wrote:
> 
> > Quoting Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier <jzb at dissociatedpress.net>:
> > > 
> > > Well, we'll get a lot of "it doesn't really matter that the
> > > administration [was totally lying about WMD being the rationale for 
> > > war | was completely incompetent] because Saddam was a bad, bad, bad 
> > > man."
> > 
> 
> > After years of sanctions and inspections we were left with:
> 
> Note that the "sanctions" were U.N. sanctions. Note that the U.N. did
> not approve of the use of force against Iraq. 
> 
> The administration continually sold the war with Iraq as something that
> had to be done to protect the U.S. -- right now! That assertion is being
> proven wrong -- there was no immediate threat from Iraq. 

I disagree.  The policy of "regime change" in Iraq goes back to Clinton.  It 
was the Bush Administration who insisted that the UN WMD Inspections resume.  
Prior to that, the UN was doing little to stop Iraq's WMD programs, or "Weapons 
of mass destruction-related program activities".  Whatever it is you, the 
press, or David Kay want to call them.  The bottom line is, Iraq was not in 
compliance with the UN Resolutions.  These resolutions would have gone on on 
unenforced, had the Bush Administration not pressed the issue.

After being pressured, the UN passed yet another resolution regarding Iraq and 
WMD.  Resolution 1441 demanded that, within 30 days, Iraq provide "a currently 
accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to 
develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and 
other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems 
designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of 
such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related 
material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and 
production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear 
programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to 
weapon production or material." 

Iraq failed to meet the 30-day deadline, and in fact didn't comply within 90-
days.  So, this wasn't the "rush to war" scenario you've attempted to paint.

> > 1. A very incomplete picture of what was going on in Iraq;
> 
> Wait -- I thought we *had* a complete picture -- that's what all that
> intelligence was that they sold us, right? A complete picture that was
> convincing to the Bush administration that Iraq was pursuing WMD. You
> can't have it both ways, Randy -- either we *knew* that they had WMD and
> that justified the war, or we had an incomplete picture and went to war
> on a hunch. First the story was one way, now you want it the other way. 
> Powell stood up before the U.N. to say that we had this convincing
> picture of Iraq's WMD production and we know this and we know that and
> so on and so forth. All the sudden it's now an "incomplete" picture. We
> wanted the world to believe we were the experts on Iraqi WMD programs
> last year, now we're supposed to convince people that we really had a
> fuzzy picture of what was going on, but that it was compelling enough to
> invade another country over? 

We *had* as complete a picture as any foreign intelligence could expect to have 
without either Iraqi cooperation and/or inside informant(s).  No one hid the 
fact that the WMD noted in the intelligence reports were based on 
weapons/stockpiles unaccounted for during the 1998 inspections.  The whole 
premise of the UN WMD inspection regime was that Iraq had to account for the 
weapons they had previously admitted to producing.  If Iraq refused to account 
for them (ie hand them over or show credible evidence of thier destruction), 
then the UN was to assume Iraq is in non-compliance.

We are talking about intelligence assessments here.  They are not mathmatical 
equations where one can get a precise answer.  At the time, no one knew how 
incomplete our picture was.  

You and I are debating how complete the picture was, and we don't even know 
what intelligence hasn't been released to the public.  Whatever the details the 
full  reports contain, it was enough to convince the Senate and House 
Intelligence Committee's to endorse the Bush Administration's request for the 
use of force.  Subsequently, the resolution authorizing force was passed by 
Congress.

> 
> > 2. Continued deceptions from the Iraqi Regime; and
> > 3. Continued non-compliance from the Iraqi Regime.
> >
> > Yes, it does appear that Iraq didn't have massive stockpiles of WMD of any
> > sort.
> >  But, there were still active WMD programs.  
> 
> "Weapons of mass destruction-related program activities" is what Bush said
> this
> year. Not "programs" -- "related program activities." In short -- there
> weren't even full-fledged programs to create WMD, much less actual WMD
> in Iraq.

I'm afraid I don't know the technical difference's between a "WMD program" 
or "Weapons of mass destruction-related program activities".  It sounds like a 
buch of CYA wordsmithing to me.  Either you are working to develop WMD or you 
aren't.

Also, according to this article in the Telegraph (sorry the link may break): 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?
xml=/news/2004/01/26/nblair226.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/01/26/ixnewstop.html 

<quote>
Mr Kay offered some hope to Mr Blair when he told The Telegraph that there was 
evidence that unspecified material "including some components of Saddam's WMD 
programme" went to Syria before the war.
</quote>

So in this case, Saddam did have a WMD program.  I dunno, it seems pretty clear 
to me that Saddam was hell bent on getting WMD.  The only point in question is 
how far along he was.  Personally, I don't care how far along they were.  The 
Iraq regime had WMD programs and they had no intention to comply with the UN 
Resolutions.  They were beyond diplomacy.  War was the only option.

> > Given that, I still believe the war
> > was justifiable.  
> 
> Of course you do. Better than admitting you were wrong. 

Exactly what sort of admission are you seeking?  Was I wrong to believe Iraq 
had WMD or WMD Programs?  Apparently Iraq didn't have WMD stockpiles.  I was 
inclined to believe they did, as the intelligence reports had concluded.  I was 
wrong about that.  However, Iraq most certainly did have WMD programs.
 
> But I don't think it was justifiable. I don't think it's justifiable
> that we've spent tens of billions of dollars on a course of action that
> has made the U.S. internationally-hated and that has cost the lives of
> hundreds of Americans and thousands of Iraqis. War should be a last
> resort, and only to protect the safety of the U.S. -- that's not what
> happened here. 
> 
> > I don't think any other course of action would have prevented
> > the continued redevelopment and production of WMD by the Iraqi regime.
> 
> Obviously, the course of action we were taking *had* prevented Iraq from
> actually developing WMD. Again, the urgency to do something *right now*
> was artificial.

It's only obvious now that the Iraq regime has been removed!  Sure, you can 
look back now, after the fact, and assert that the UN Sanctions were working in 
Iraq.  Perhaps Iraq had no stockpiles of WMD.  However, without going to war 
and removing Saddam's regime, it was impossible verify that.

Go back and look at Blix's reports to the UN Security Council.  He never 
concluded that Iraq didn't have WMD, nor did he conclude there were no active 
WMD programs, nor did he conclude that Iraq was in compliance with the UN 
Resolutions.  

And, with recent relevations about the WMD programs in N. Korea, Iran, and 
Lybia, it appears that other UN efforts at non-proliferation have proven 
equally ineffective. 

Please tell us Joe, when would the right time have been? 

The UN is supposed to be a great, multinational framework where nations can 
work out issues under a unified, agreed upon set of rules.  Well it sounds good 
on paper, but after 12-years we had no meaningful measure of it's success with 
regard to Iraq.  Hanz Blix and his team did not conclude that Iraq was in 
compliance with the UN Resolutions.  Subsequently, the UN refused to enforce 
any meaningful consequences for Iraqi non-compliance.  This lack of consequence 
only strengthened Saddam's resolve to obstruct the process.

In my opinion, that's a very dangerous precident to set.  What's the point of 
setting up a system of rules if there are no consequences for not adhering them?

Do you honestly believe the UN Security Council would have forced Iraq into 
compliance?

> > I think the Administration needs to 'fess-up.  Explain why the
> intelligence
> > analysts came to the conclusions they did.  Come up with a plan for making
> our
> > intelligence agencies better.
> 
> Oh, nice way to toe the party line. Shift the blame to the intelligence
> agencies.  

I'm not toeing anyone's party line.  Nor have I assigned any blame.  I think 
you and I are seeking the same thing...identify the problem WRT to our 
intelligence gathering/analysis/reporting and fix it!

> I think they need to 'fess up as well -- but not for the same reasons.
> The administration cherry-picked intelligence reports to make a case for
> a war they'd already decided on. Our intelligence could be better, but
> the Bush administration ignored any evidence that did not support the
> conclusion they had already reached -- that we were going to invade
> Iraq.

Were they "cherry-picking" or were they looking at the body of evidence, the 
information available at a given time, and coming to a worst-case scenario type 
conclusion?
  
> > I don't buy the notion that this news proves that the Bush Administration
> was
> > lying about WMD in Iraq.  Why would they lie about such a thing, knowing
> full
> > well that everyone would be chomping at the bit to see these stockpiles of
> WMD
> > at the conclusion of the war?
> 
> Ever heard the expression "it's better to ask forgiveness than
> permission"? 
> 
> They lied about it because they had already decided they wanted to go to
> war with Iraq -- what the hell could we do afterwards when it's proved
> that they're wrong? Un-invade Iraq? I don't think so. 
> 
> Randy -- you seem like a person who knows a bit about world history and
> U.S. politics. That being the case, you should be well-aware that it's
> standard operating procedure to lie to the public about what the
> government is doing. Why you seem to think this is any different is
> beyond me -- except that you don't want to admit to being wrong about
> supporting the war in the first place. 

No, it isn't that I don't want to admit to being wrong about supporting the war 
in the first place.  In fact, I'll state again that I believe I was right for 
supporting the war.

I do agree, however, with your assessment that it's standard operating 
procedure to lie to the public about what the government is doing.  Undstanding 
that, a citizen is faced with three choices:

1. Never believe anything comming from the government, because we all know it's 
standard operating procedure for the government to lie to the public about what 
it is doing.

2. Always believe the government, despite the fact that it's standard operating 
procedure for the government to lie to the public about what it is doing.

3. Pick and choose when to believe the government and when not to believe the 
government.

I think it's safe to assume that *most* people do #3.  And many factors (like 
their system of values and ethics, religious beliefs, cultural/ethnic morals, 
level of education, etc.) affect the outcome.  It could be said that these 
factors blend together to become the basis of each individual's inherent bias.

I'm a Christian, I'm white, I grew up in a small rural community way down 
south, my family was/is middle class, I'm a registered voter unaffiliated with 
any political party, I'm a gun owner, I have a BS in Environmental Science, and 
an MBA.  Yes, my politics lean right, but I have a strong libertarian streak.  

The end result is, when presented with all the arguments, rhetoric, and 
evidence (or lack-thereof) for and against the war in Iraq, I chose to support 
the Bush Administration's position rather than that of France, or Germany, or 
the anti-war crowd(s), or Hans Blix and the UN Security Council.

That was my choice.  I stand by it.

-- 
Allons Rouler!

Randy
http://www.arabie.org/