The Saddam WMD tapes: smoking gun or cap pistol?
The WMD tapes story that aired last night contained no smoking gun. In fact, as presented on Nightline, it was almost a nonevent. Sandwiched between Dick Cheney's hunting accident and another feature, the story was given short shrift.
So, how are we to evaluate whether the tapes have any meaning or not? The people behind the release of the tapes--a former weapons inspector named Bill Tierney and attorney John Loftus--have both been labeled as having a few skeletons in the closet.
Loftus's official bio, found on the website of the group with which he's affiliated ("The Intelligence Summit"), seems on the up and up. But then again, so did Ramsey Clark's--for a while. A quick Googling of Loftus reveals only vague charges of sketchiness from various critics on the left (if you have something more specific, please let me know).
As for Bill Tierney, the situation is similar, although there's a bit more to go on there. He's been fingered as a demonstrator on the right during the Schiavo affair (oh, no![/sarcasm off]), and as a believer in his own ESP. His biography seems otherwise rather impressive, but that doesn't really tell us much about the man.
So I'll just stick to what I heard on Nightline. Brief though the presentation was, it indicated the following (assuming the tapes are authentic, which they so far appear to be):
(1) Saddam had the will, determination, and ability to reconstitute his WMD programs, just as the Duelfer Report alleged.
(2) Saddam had the will, determination, and ability to deceive the weapons inspectors.
Most reports on these tapes are short, and emphasize the fact that they contain no information about events immediately prior to the Iraq War. That is certainly true. Nightline indicated (without being extremely precise on the matter) that the tapes were made mainly during the mid-90s. And this very short Newsweek piece emphasizes the age of the tapes. However, the Intelligence Summit website states that the tapes continue into the year 2000, which certainly would make some of them far more relevant to the question of later events.
I will be interested in knowing whether there is anything further these tapes will end up revealing. According to the Intelligence Summit website, there will be an unveiling and discussion this coming Saturday. But don't expect that event to be covered by the MSM in any more depth than the original Swift Vets' news conference was.
I have no idea how this will pan out. It may wind up like so many previous WMD "smoking guns"--a cap pistol.
But if all that the tapes ever reveal is what was shown on Nightline last evening, I think they still tend to bolster the WMD argument rather than negate it. Certainly, they substantiate the Duelfer report's conclusions about the dangers of the fact that Saddam could easily reconstitute his weapons programs.
For me, this is actually enough. For me, the combination of the human rights benefits of liberating (yes, I do still use that word) the Iraqi people from Saddam's violent and tyrannical regime, coupled with his clear intent to restart his weapons programs as soon as his European friends helped the sanctions to be lifted, coupled with his clear violations of UN resolutions and inspections, were enough to justify the invasion.
But hey, that's just me--and after all, what would you expect? I'm a neocon.
posted by neo-neocon @ 1:23 PM
68 comments
68 Comments:
The stated reason of the Bush administration's case for war presented to the United Nations by Colin Powell was that Saddam Hussein posed an imminent threat to the USA based upon mobile chemical labs which turned out to be empty. I'm sure you remember the mushroom cloud talk and this is the main reason why a majority of America supported the invasion of Iraq, they thought a nuke was coming and thought Saddam and Al-Qaeda were working on this together. This gets to the heart of the argument: If you believe we should invade tyrannical regimes (Bush wants to end tyranny) based on assumptions and guesstimates on their WMD capability then the Bush doctrine is your document. Believe me, the humanitarian argument was an afterthought in Bush's mind.
I guess this is old hat but I think in 2006 most people now just remember things the way they want. I'm a democrat who didn't vote for Bush, but the notion that the republicans were constantly trying to convince everybody that al-qaeda was working with Saddam is not true. The idea was that Saddam hates us, is obviously hiding something, and would have good reason to sell al-qaeda weapons, which I'm sure he would. The reason the UN inspectors were in Iraq in the first place was to keep him from doing that and EVERYBODY thought he had weapons, not just the US. If we based our opinion on "guesstimates" then the whole world was guilty. If the UN just did their job, things would have been different.
As the Iran having a nuclear weapon possibility has become more a reality, why does anyone with half a brain not think the western world would be facing the same crisis with Iraq had Saddam not been removed from power. Frankly, I can't see it any other way especially with what we now know about the oil for food scandal.
greg wirth is right
The Duelfer Report concluded that although Saddam had the "intent" to obtain WMD, he had not started a major program to produce them when the invasion occurred.
Intent without even a first step to translate that intent into action, that's where Saddam was when we invaded.
Not even close to enough for some of us. If we had been in the dictator removal business, right-and-left-wing dictators both, the administration's humanitarian afterthought might have gained more acceptance. But we weren't, from South America to the ME. The installation of the dictatorial Shah and his secret police in Iran is a case in point.
The release of the second wave of Abu Ghraib pictures makes it even harder to talk of humanitarian motives. Even if a quite small number of our troops was involved, the images erase percentages and "a few rotten apples in the barrel" defenses. Even if true.
Bush needed to do something with a "victory" attachable to it after 9-11. That is understandable.
Bad choice. Stupid lies.
Weakens our war against the Isamofascist threat immeasurably. And that is lamentable.
As I have said before, it takes considerably more effort to refute a lie than to lie.
Thus, the liars eventually gain the field.
However, I've had some coffee, so here goes one:
Greg. The threat was not "imminent" and Bush said we had to act before it was imminent.
You know it. I know it. Everybody knows it and you ought to think what kind of impression you make when you tell people something they know better than.
Ditto the nuke issue. He was/would have been working on it, given the time and the free flow of money when the sanctions were removed--which so many were trying to have done.
Try again when people are tired.
Motor 1560
Still squirting drivel and fascist fantasies. Actually, closer to Maoist fantasies. Disagree with the regime, and off to the reeducation farm, is it? ("Find something constructive for you to do." Yikes. )
"That was then this is now," you write.
Let me guess. You write for Hallmark Cards?
Or, you're a stable hand. That's why the preoccupation with shoveling manure.
But, in the spirit of e pluribus unum, good health to you.
Imminent threat, shmimminent threat.
What DID Bush say:
1. Before the UN, Sept. 12, 2002
"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of these weapons."
2. Radio address, Oct. 6, 2002
"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstructing its nuclear wepons program."
3. SOTU, Jan 28, 2003
"...no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised..."
Right. Note the verbe tenses: "has stockpiled," "is rebuilding," "continues to possess."
Evidence? No doubt? Has stockpiled?
At least with Iran, we won't have to put up with this BS. They are doing something.
Hey erasmus,
You lay the quotes down but provide no links so the readers can see for themselves. Tssk, tssk, if your intent is to persuade that’s not good practice.
BTW, what do you think Saddam did with the gas manufacturing facilities, gas delivery systems & nerve gas he used to murder the Kurds? Where did it all go? Or is it your contention that it was never there in the first place?
About Iran: You don’t seem to follow the standard anti-warrior line that Iran wants nuclear capability merely to generate electricity(“At least with Iran, we won't have to put up with this BS. They are doing something.”) That’s to your credit, if I’m reading you correctly. But wait! Where’s the proof! The US has no proof(that a real anti-warrior would accept) that Iran is up to anything. Shouldn’t we just let it go? After all, the Iranian’s own public pronouncements are all to the effect that they are not trying to develop WMD.
Motor 1560
1.Got the reference, that's why the stable...Never mind.
2. A "long war," should we really engage Islamofascism, yes.
3. "Spartan state?" But the whole point of consumer capitalism is comfort. Better nuke 'em to shorten that war.
4. What's this bit about "you and yours?" Since you know squat about me, what are you talking about?
5. Get thee to a voting booth doesn't make it as a "play on words." There has to be some connection to/deviation from the original. That's why "play" on words. But you are trying.
By the way, I'm probably as old or older than you, so I'll miss the delights of Amerika under Generalissimo Bush IV. What you got in mind?
Natter is good, even from nabobs.
Intent without even a first step to translate that intent into action, that's where Saddam was when we invaded.
You know, the people who say that only do so because nobody's life is depending upon their judgement. So if they are wrong, they can always blame someone else. If they are right, then they can still blame someone else. If these people were already deciding things in matters of policy, they would have gotten it quite wrong more times than not. And the consequences for their position being wrong, is a lot more terrible than the consequence of the Bush admin being wrong, if in fact they were in wrong in anything at all.
People shouldn't mouth off about stuff that has consequences that they don't really care to take responsibility for. it's a side effect of free speech, that you will have 10 people mouthing off irresponsibly for every one person actually in power and taking things into account.
They don't know what Saddam was doing, because nobody knows what is going on in a police state. To act as if they do know, is a pretty safe lie, because only by stealing the credit from the doer and the risk taker, can they say for sure that Saddam had no plans to make a weapon.
The only thing that weakens our defense against Islamofascists is people that don't understand that the United States appeal and propaganda techniques that work on our targeted Arab audience does not work and is not intended for Western audiences. People in the West, should not presume that just because they are demoralized at their own media's demoralizing attempts and manipulation of Abu Ghraib, that this relates to the morale of the rest of the world that are awaiting American liberation and help.
I know it's a hard thing to take on a perspective in another culture's view, but it really is necessary if people want to talk about with any credibility on persuasion and images.
The fact that people living in the decadent west cares more about themselves and their selfish short lived interests, does not mean that that is the only thing of matter the Bush admin should care about in tailoring their messages.
off to the reeducation farm, is it?
If that means going to GitMo, sign me up. I want my 3 hallal meals, exercise, pool, prayer arrows, bible, and doughnuts too.
I'm still curious, why do people, you and Greg, for instance, continue to shoot your own credibility in the foot by parroting the "imminent" claim?
Google Big Lie and Gobbels.
3. "Spartan state?" But the whole point of consumer capitalism is comfort. Better nuke 'em to shorten that war.
The purpose of America isn't to consume the products of capitalism or comfort.
It is to produce the premier fighting force in the history of the world and the premier civilization so that the premier fighting force has a purpose in its existence and something of a reward to go back to.
Most people are civilians, but they don't understand that war and peace are in symbiosis.vm
grackle
1. I found the statements in papers by googling. Easy.
2. I'm not an anti-warrior, but don't like stupid battles fought under a phony flag without advancing the cause: stopping attacks against the West from Islam.
3. There's plenty of proof, admissions in fact, of what the Iranians are doing. Again, drop the ant-warrior bit--boring and not applicable.
I once asked an IDF officer how come the Syrians had lost around 80 planes in the Bekka Valley to O on the Israeli side. "They flew stupid," he said.
Against Islamofascism, I want us to fight smart, and I happen to think the way Iraq was invaded was stupid. And I think it will make the coming battles harder and finding a sound strategy more cumbersome.
Ymarsakar
1. "If that means going to GitMo, sign me up." Can we help? Letter of recommendation? Collect contributions for travel? I stand by.
2. The purpose of America is to produce, in addition to the premier fighting force," "the premier civilization."
Oh. And you have in mind something akin to what example(s) from history? Or, something quite new? An Ueberstaat, perhaps? What would it be like to live in this "premier civilization?" By what criteria would it be governed and what forces would shape its culture?
This is not necessarily an essay question. Good shorter answers will be considered.
Evidence? No doubt? Has stockpiled?
At least with Iran, we won't have to put up with this BS. They are doing something.
The false confidence of arrogant folks with vice and folly.
Look. I know that Aristotelian virtues have gone out of fashion in today's "consumer" benefits, but when speaking about decisions that command the loyalty and the lives of countless innocents, one must meet at least the minimum standards of integrity and character.
Whether Iran is doing something or not doing something, doesn't matter. Whether Iran was an imminent threat or not, does not matter.
The only thing that matters to a virtuous human being, with a strong foundational character and a streamlined integrity, is whether that person is willing to take the risks and the rewards, in making a decision about Iraq and Iran.
The virtuous human, the strong of character, and the honest in judgement, already has taken into effect the various consequences to his actions and have accepted it. That is why they do not regret their decisions after the fact, because they have already analyzed the various choices available, and chosen the best choice with the best chances of a good consequence.
Unlike the stringent puritans, good men and women do not require that an end result occur that is exactly in accordance with someone's predictions or warnings. Those are for charlattans and propagandists, people who manipulate, fabricate, and distort reality, not the ones that has the duty of safeguarding the reality that American citizens live in, the ones like the President.
To relate this to the present, is very easy. If for example, someone were to support Erasmu's positions and policies on Iran, and this ends up motivating and causing Iran to destroy an Iraqi or an American or a Central European city, would that someone blame Erasmus? A stringent puritan, someone that cannot tolerate folly, mistake, and the human condition, would of course blame the originator of the policy for the consequences of the DECISIONS HE TOOK. This is called killing the messenger, and many Divinely Inspired Monarchs chose to do so for personal pleasure, satisfaction, and basically shame.
The people who try to rewrite the history about Iraq and American Foreign Policy are not strong men and women. Regardless of the skill in which they refabricate reality, regardless of the persuasiveness or lack there of of their arguments, these men and women use hindsight solely for one reason.
And that reason is simply that they understand that when they made the decision about Iraq, they did not think it through.
Therefore they regret their actions. But that does not mean their decisions are the fault of Bush.
Something motivates them to keep arguing about the war, after it has occured, while it is still being faught. Maybe cause they got nothing better to do, maybe they understand that once a path is chosen, their role in the drama is of limited duration and worth.
Perhaps the threat to their self-importance, and their role in the grand tragedy of the United States and the underdogs of the world, is a loss they cannot contemplate. And so they criticize Bush, his actions, his speeches, his words in the past and present.
Why?
Because they cannot do the same for their own. They are not strong enough to look within themselves and see the enemy reflected in the mirror.
Know thyself and know thy enemy, because you are the other and the other is you.
War being symbiotic with peace, tend to create that confusion and fusion between those fighting for peace and those fighting for peace of another kind.
To retranslate into Republican terms, you could say that Bush critics lack a sense of self-responsibility, a sense of decisiveness, and the ability to accept the consequences of their own actions, regardless of the fault, the harm, or the benefits.
Those who are incapable of leading, those who are afraid to make decisions that leave people alive and dead, are only left with criticizing the real leaders.
What else is there for them to do?
But the whole point of consumer capitalism is comfort.
If this is the reality they live in, then what else is there for them to do except to consume the comforts of capitalism? Which includes, mouthing off about stuff that you can't change, but that it makes you feel good to spout off about.
An Ueberstaat, perhaps?
Don't you know that we who call ourselves Americans are the inheritors of the Roman Empire, the Spartans at the Battle of Thermopylae, the Prussian military war machine, the English system of limitations, virtues, and laws, the Athenian system of free speech and government, the Roman system of alliances and provinces and Senate vs Plebeians, and last but not least, the Sword and the Chrysanthemum of the Japanese Empire?
You might want to reread your history, it might fill in some blanks.
But if you don't understand the human motivations, the love and compassion of men for the ones they protect, then you cannot truly understand the religion of war and the religion of peace.
Erasmus says: If we had been in the dictator removal business, right-and-left-wing dictators both, the administration's humanitarian afterthought might have gained more acceptance. But we weren't, from South America to the ME. The installation of the dictatorial Shah and his secret police in Iran is a case in point.
Actually the Shah you refer to, Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, was enthroned by the British & the Russians during WW2 because his father, Reza Khan, was a Nazi sympathizer.
I’m wondering: Do you think the present regime in Iran has any of those “secret police” organizations you detest so much?
And a hypothetical for you: What about the Communist movement in Iran that the Shah suppressed? If they had taken over Iran, do you think Communists would have had any “secret police” organizations?
Just curious erasmus, just trying to figure out what you believe.
Erasmus says: There's plenty of proof, admissions in fact, of what the Iranians are doing. Again, drop the ant-warrior bit--boring and not applicable.
About the “proof” & “admissions”: I hate to be bothering you with details but could you please provide some links? I get nothing applicable when I Google.
About dropping the “anti-warrior bit”: I’m for the war in Iraq & therefore a ‘pro-warrior’. You are against the Iraq war & therefore I will call you an ‘anti-warrior’. I must insist on continuing the use of these terms because they are soooo fitting. But if you change your mind about the Iraq war just let me know & I’ll gladly switch you to the ‘pro-warrior’ column.
The purpose of America isn't to consume the products of capitalism or comfort.
It is to produce the premier fighting force in the history of the world and the premier civilization so that the premier fighting force has a purpose in its existence and something of a reward to go back to.
Err... what lines did you read that in between? :P
Err... what lines did you read that in between? :P
That's just original wisdom and original thought. Those things are not derived from reading what other people write, but in thinking upon your values and your goals, and understanding just how you see the world and what you see it as.
You probably will not find that anywhere else. Because ideas are in the end, more than the sum of the words and facts used to construct it.
If Justin is asking bout the first paragraph he quoted, in addition to the second, then he should Erasmus comments.
Ymarsakar
1. Now I do think GitMo is a fine idea.
2. There, you can ponder such crimes against thought as "The only thing that matters to a virtuous person..." and other passages which would have gotten you a D in Philosophy 101 years ago, a C in our age of grade inflation.
3. The little recital of who "we Americans" are the inheritors of might produce gales of laughter, derisive mostly, at Oxford and Cambridge and in the dankest pub in Ireland. Do you ever get out?
Have you had a conversation, or tried to have one, with people on a street in St. Louis or Columbus, OH?
Ah, I won't be disturbing you in your bubble again. As far as reading goes, do try it.
Your post is the closest thing to the parody of a NPR program: "All Things Considered, but None Understood."
1. Now I do think GitMo is a fine idea.
When do you want to tryout for the fascist club then? Seeing as you're appearing very warm to the idea of gulags at the moment.
Perhaps different opinions are not as tolerated by you as you might like to believe, or might like others to believe.
and other passages which would have gotten you a D in Philosophy 101 years ago, a C in our age of grade inflation.
Liberal arts college don't teach logic 101, or if they do, it's the logic of brainwashing.
3. The little recital of who "we Americans" are the inheritors of might produce gales of laughter, derisive mostly, at Oxford and Cambridge and in the dankest pub in Ireland. Do you ever get out?
Do you ever get out? Because you obviously don't understand a simple sentence, even though your disagreement is patently clear. Even with that, you are unable to construct a rational counter-argument.
Like I said, liberal arts colleges don't teach logic 101, that would be counter-productive given the brainwashing curriculum.
Your post is the closest thing to the parody of a NPR program: "All Things Considered, but None Understood."
You believe that you so understand America and American strategic goals, and that George W. Bush does not. Yet your understanding of a simple descriptive character of the history and foundations of the greatest nation on Earth, is a juvenile, incomplete, and utterly self-aggrandizing insult.
I really hope you can sleep at night, with the thousands that your policies and lack of judgement would have killed, if you were the President of the United States. Because if you cannot even understand the traditions and the sacrifice that has built this nation up to what it is, then I am most assuredly confident that your ignorance is plenty enough to tear this nation down in the face of our Islamic enemies.
Your brevity and lack of elaboration, are a sign of a lack of understanding and debate skills. The ability to write down your thoughts in paragraph form, is a prerequisite to written communication.
You should stick with attacking motor 1560, because if you keep applying attack strategies to me, I will eventually see your pattern and find something out you would rather I didn't.
Just fair warning considering what happened last time.
grackle
Isn't it so that both British MI6 and the CIA helped to overthrow Iran's prime minister, Mossadegh, in 1953, until the Shah himself had to depart?
No, no secret police, whether in red or black, neither Stalinist nor Fascist thugs.
Is Iraq a sort of litmus test for determinig if you're a warrior or anti-warrior? Was Korea? Vietnam? Is every war the same as such a determinant?
Unlike Ymarsakar, thoughtful people don't say "it doesn't matter" to such questions or issues. Debates may not effect the decisions, but they could. And that does matter. At least, to some of us who actually have read history and philosophy and are not full of bloated certainties.
Cheers.
Is Iraq a sort of litmus test for determinig if you're a warrior or anti-warrior?
Do you even understand what it means to be a warrior?
Is every war the same as such a determinant?
Unlike Ymarsakar, thoughtful people don't say "it doesn't matter"
Well, you know, you might feel a lot better if you said, "it doesn't matter if you call me an anti-warrior or warrior".
But if you want to take things seriously all the time, be my guest, just be sure you can back up your artillery with some kind of substantive ground force.
Thoughtful people could actually come up for a reason why people shouldn't say it doesn't matter, thoughtless people concerned with Absolute Truth tend to state things and then not back it up with anything except Faerie Gold.
Debates may not effect the decisions, but they could.
If we could go back in time, sure it could.
full of bloated certainties.
Yes, it is those bloated certainties of utter righteousness and always being right, that gets you in the end.
Ymarsakar
You wrote, at 6:31 pm:
"Because ideas are in the end, more than the sum of the words and facts used to construct it."
1. Yes, in your case, lots of gas.
2. But no grammar. There should be a comma after "are." And you seem never to have heard of a thing called subject-verb agreement. The last word of your sentence should be "them," not "it." Your subject in this little blovation was "ideas."
Get thee to a community college and a remedial composition course.
Good luck.
And thus erasmus graciously concedes the debate.
Justin:
Debate? Entering Y's prose is like wading into jello.
The subject, for a brief and shining moment, was our invasion of Iraq.
If you want to pick a subject or return to the original one, swell. Have a go at it. People will respond.
Erasmus asks: Isn't it so that both British MI6 and the CIA helped to overthrow Iran's prime minister, Mossadegh, in 1953, until the Shah himself had to depart?
Yes. Mossadegh(a Communist) nationalized the Iranian oil industry & never compensated US companies for the theft of their property. I would hope that any US administration would get a little disturbed at such a thing. Nationalization of industry is fine with me but compensate US companies for their losses.
Mossadegh also became aligned with the Soviets – a Communist Soviet-style government was on its way. Not a good thing in my opinion & in the opinion of the US administration of the time. I’m glad Mossadegh was booted out – a Communist state in the Middle East at the height of the Cold War would be the last thing a dedicated anti-Communist such as myself would want. The Soviet Union fell partly because ballsy US administrations of the past took such actions.
No, no secret police, whether in red or black, neither Stalinist nor Fascist thugs.
Does that mean that you think the present Iranian regime has no secret police? Does it mean that you believe a hypothetical Iranian Communist regime during the Cold War would have had no secret police? I hate to be a pest but could you please be more specific & less obtuse. It’s difficult to determine your meaning in the sentence above.
Is Iraq a sort of litmus test for determining if you're a warrior or anti-warrior? Was Korea? Vietnam? Is every war the same as such a determinant?
Your opinion on the current Iraq war determines whether I call you pro or anti. I’m not really interested in your opinion on Korea or Vietnam. Current wars are my only determinant for the term. BTW, I don’t use the term, “warrior.” Pro-warrior & anti-warrior are the terms I use.
BTW, the readers are still waiting for links to that “proof” & those “admissions” you say the Iranians have been making about their nuclear program. You didn’t forget, did you?
And I hate to bring it up but some readers may still be waiting for your opinion on what you think Saddam did with the gas manufacturing facilities, gas delivery systems & nerve gas he used to murder the Kurds? You know, like where did it all go? Or is it your contention that it was never there in the first place?
cheers
You are naive if you think this administration did not push the imminent threat angle to the public, how else would they have gone along with this? It was clear by the presentation to the UN by Powell. He basically said: we have to act now, here's why. All the american people heard for months was talk of uranium enrichment, development of weapons Cheney stating he has the weapons, Condi Rice and the president saying we wouldn't want any mushroom clouds etc. This was not a case made to the American people on the grounds of just liberation and freedom for the Iraqi people, which is why still to this day much of the country still has no running water and electricity. Start thinking about this country and our obligation to the citizens of this country who are:
not working.
have no health insurance
still living in trailers seven months after a major disaster.
having their calls intercepted
shown images (Abu-Gharib)that make military men weep for their country
veterans who have had their pensions and services cut
exposed to drug cartels crossing the mexican border because we can't secure them
seeing corporate welfare stay the same while school lunches are cut, child support enforcement gutted, student loans sacrificed
Is this the country guys fought and died for? The Bill of Rights spat on, the Constitution ignored, the president declaring himself above the law as long as there is a WOT (forever).
Well, the thing is you see, I was trying to tell Justin that the idea was my idea, not the "ideas" I was refering to in an abstract way. So while it may appear "it" was supposed to refer to the "ideas", I was not using "it" to refer to the abstract "ideas" I had written before the comma, but rather the "it" refers to the concrete idea I was discussing as an over-arching aspect in the discussion.
It does reflect my thinking quite accurately. While I'm game for more grammer lessons, can you like fix your number 2 starting thesis sentence? Cause it looks like a fragment. And while I'm understandable of mismashes that reflect true thought, I am not so tolerant of mishmashes of the English language that make you sound like a broken record.
It's one thing to do that to speed up the pace, but it is not like you got much to say that needs speeding up. Beyond the necessary superficial qualities that is.
The subject, for a brief and shining moment, was our invasion of Iraq.
The subject was whether you could string a coherent and logical counter-argument as to why you think my list of American historical foundations and ancestry connections would be laughed off by your Ivory Tower friends and associates.
I think you need someone to keep your secretariat notes for you, if you can't multitask well enough for this assignment.
Your subject in this little blovation was "ideas."
Do you understand what meta-reading comprehension is? It means to comprehend a person's throughts through the grammer and vocabulary he uses, without respect to rules that don't accurately portray a user's personal writing style.
Oh, and yes, I am speaking of Grammer, the town, not grammar. I don't do grammar.
Erasmus still has not answered what he thinks victory is in Iraq or what he thinks being a warrior is. For things that so upset him, it is kind of hard to talk to a person that won't describe what he is so jacked up about.
The Soviet Union fell partly because ballsy US administrations of the past took such actions.
What about the blood guilt that was caused by those US administrations? How are you going to repay Erasmus for the blood guilt others fighting in your cause, in order to protect Erasmus, accrued?
grackle
1. Yes, every Communist regime I read about (and saw in action in the DDR, the German Democratic Republic) had a secret police. Now what? I detest secret police forces. My relatives were taken away by them, first by the Fascists, then by the Communists. What specifics do you want or need?
2. OK, as far as Iraq is concerned, I'm not for this war.
3. I never brought up the "facilities" saddam used to gas the Kurds. How do I know what he did with them? They haven't been found, right. So? Could be he destroyed them. Could be he gave them to the Syrian dentist-dictator (what a combo for sadism) as a present. Could be our bombing demolished them. This is your issue, primarily, not mine. When we invaded, what did he have that could threaten neighbors or the USA? I never found out. Did you?
4. Please google the Iranian nuclear stuff yourself. Available from the International Commission, in our papers and journals. What is it you're doubting? That they have a nuclear development program"? How they will use it?
I'm not sure what you want to get at. A distinction betwen Iraq and Iran? What do you think it is? Should we bomb, invade, both, neither? And why?
5. Why is this pr-/anto warrior thing so important to you? Is it a dividing line in American society? If so, since when?
I served half a century ago in the draft army in an Armored Division. It was an important experience for me, having until then been exposed only to East Coast life and people.
I did not then sense this division, if that's what this may mean to you.
how else would they have gone along with this?
Uh, maybe cause the Americans are bloodthirsty guys and gals that need someone to kill? Best defense is a good offense...
He basically said: we have to act now, here's why.
Like I said before, if it wasn't for Tony Blair, we wouldn't have gone to the UN, and Powell wouldn't have said what he said. But since you probably wanted us to go to the UN, i'm not exactly sure how you feel satisfied with this Catch 22 you created for us.
which is why still to this day much of the country still has no running water and electricity.
This is like, different from New Orleans or California?
Start thinking about this country and our obligation to the citizens of this country who are:
Can you guys get rid of the isolationists we sent over, cause we just found out that they multiply like lemmings.
not working.
We heard that in the Great Depression before WWII, too.
still living in trailers seven months after a major disaster.
And this is like, different from Iraq?
I think Iraq and the United States share more than we realize. We got to show some solidarity and get rid of the racism.
shown images (Abu-Gharib)that make military men weep for their country
Men don't cry when they get stabbed in the back by the woman they are trying to protect. I am unsure what they would do, but crying ain't one of them.
Is this the country guys fought and died for?
Well, let me check the map.... oh ya, ya, right, this is the country. Is there another country you're thinking of?
the Constitution ignored
Woah, woah here, you mean someone torched the New York Times building and executed everyone in there including the UN bureacrats in the UN building? Woah, that's sick.... Let's have a party, why didn't you tell us this before? Let's get it OOONNN. Man, too bad this didn't happen before New Years.
the president declaring himself above the law as long as there is a WOT (forever).
Wait, wait. It's Cheney that is above the law, get your frigging facts straight.
Ymarsakar
It is revealing you finally got to the "blood guilt" stuff.
I won't respond to anything you post from now on. Others may want to help you.
erasmus said...
Imminent threat, shmimminent threat.
What DID Bush say:
1. Before the UN, Sept. 12, 2002
"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of these weapons."
2. Radio address, Oct. 6, 2002
"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstructing its nuclear wepons program."
...
1. I found the statements in papers by googling. Easy.
...
If you want to pick a subject or return to the original one, swell. Have a go at it. People will respond.
Well, the first comment doesnt appear in Bush's address to the UN. It was in the radio address of October 5th. Seems you are trying to create a different meaning by quoting only a portion of a sentence. In context, I would assume he is refering to the stockpiles of bio weapons that his son in law ratted him out on mid 90s. In context-
"The regime is guilty of beginning two wars. It has a horrible history of striking without warning. In defiance of pledges to the United Nations, Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021005.html
And your second quote doesnt appear in the radio address of
Oct 5. I cant find a radio address from Oct 6. Googling the quote produces no search results with or without the spelling error.
Nothing from his UN address seems to be even close to the quote.
Ya sloppy, or pushin disinfo?
MARK
1. Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons. " Bush, 9-12-02
2. "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." Bush, 3-18-03.
"We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so." Bush, 5-3-03
4. "They may have had time to destroy them, and I don't know the answer." Rumsfeld, 5-27-03
Who does?
Wow, the fear of finally finding that smoking gun has driven erasmus foaming nuts. Pity, for a while before the Nightline presentation he almost seemed willing to listen to reason.
He still hasn't told anyone how we could have verified that Saddam no longer had WMDs by any means short of a military invasion. Even Hans Blix kept saying Saddam wouldn't let his inspectors operate freely right up until OIF started.
"The purpose of America is to produce, in addition to the premier fighting force," "the premier civilization."
Oh. And you have in mind something akin to what example(s) from history? Or, something quite new? An Ueberstaat, perhaps? What would it be like to live in this "premier civilization?" By what criteria would it be governed and what forces would shape its culture?
This is not necessarily an essay question. Good shorter answers will be considered." -Erasmus
Like living in America today, perhaps? As you do I presume, and have no intention of going elsewhere that might have greener grass...
Short enough?
As for Mr. Wirth's first post, no comment on the new tapes? If they are authentic, do they alter the evaluation of the Bush admin and their approach to Iraq? What if they had boatloads of similar, indirect evidence of deception, WMD and threatening attitudes toward the United States? Does that matter, or is it all either you have a smoking gun, or you do not? Rice brought up the Mushroom Cloud to make the point that being wrong about your position had profound consequences if we were wrong- far more profound than being wrong about WMD...but you seem not to have understood that.
Anon
Calm down. Why is it up to me to tell anyone how we could have verified if Saddam had the weapons? I listened when W and Powell and Cheney told us he had them. Then, they weren't there anymore.
Now what? We've got millions of Muslims who want to rule Europe and damage our economy and harm our citizens. And now, we do what?
Why don't YOU tell us?
Not every American who thinks the war in Iraq is not a step forward toward winning the war against Islamofascism is an enemy. Somehow, this remains the prevailing sentiment here.
Let me put it this way: if I had been drafted to fight in Vietnam (my MOS was sniper, years earlier), I might have thought the war was stupid, but I would have gone and sniped.
BUT, in America, "Die Gedanken sind frei." (get the translation, if you need to)
Or so I hope, even for self-proclaimed warriors.
douglas
Did I say anything nasty or unplesant about living in America today? Y brought up the "premier civilization," and I wondered what, if anything, he had in mind.
Which are the "premier civilizations" in the world today? Are we the only one? Is France one too, or Germany or the UK?
Debate? Entering Y's prose is like wading into jello.
The subject, for a brief and shining moment, was our invasion of Iraq.
Attacking someone's grammar is all well and good, but it can indicate one of two things, depending on when you play the card. If you've refuted all your opponent’s arguments, this serves as a nice reminder that you're ahead (what I call "spiking the ball in the end zone"). When you have not done so, insulting your opponent’s grammar suggests you've already given up hope of winning the debate, and are hoping to get in a few last jabs as a consolation prize for your bruised ego
As "you're an idiot" is a refutation to exactly nothing, you did the latter of the two. That was my point in full; although it's partly become obsolete in the time I was in class.
Justin:
There was no debate. There can be no debate with Y. He puts out long, gassy essays that you can't wrap a thought or response around. It's verbiage.
But if you poke at him just a little, he comes back with stuff like "blood guilt."
If you're aching to debate, pick a topic and start. Somebody will respond and then you can keep score, something you seem to like doing. Enjoy.
Dr. Motor 1560
Gee, thanks, and in much, much less than the usual 50 minutes.
But now, back to training my gun on "my fellow citizens," as Bezuhov claimed at 10:19.
Care to analyze that?
There can be no debate with Y.
Well, if you had learned something from Neo's propaganda post, you might have picked up some strategies that could have dinted my armor. But all you got was a bunch of questions about what "victory means". That isn't nearly powerful enough either factually, psychologically, or terminally.
You got to get like that death star ray, powerful enough to destroy planets.
People do get uncomfortable when they start arguing with me, cause unlike other people, I don't become frustrated and hence spiteful, I just look at their thinking, copy it, and then reverse engineer it for my own purposes. Sometimes I put a virus here or there, and they go crazy, but still. That fun doesn't have anything to do with the real mainframe and cpu comp structs.
Use them and lose.
Naw, we can still use them, we just can't kill a lot of people with it.
Force packages will be custom designed for particular situations and will be very un-traditional. Q.v., Sec. State's proposals to reform the State Department.
What he means is that we are cooking up the phoenix program, but until 3,000,000 Americans die, the Phoenix Program stays dead and unborn.
If he doesn't mean that, I'll say it for him.
It is revealing you finally got to the "blood guilt" stuff.
I already did a post on that. Where were you? Wait, don't answer, I think I know.
Others may want to help you.
Hey, I'm not the guy saying America is in deep crack jack straits here. Realize that people, it's important.
It's especially important if you die and meet God, cause I want him to know that I'm 110% behind America. Just in case he wasn't paying attention the first time.
People that can't win arguments with me, usually stop.
people I can't win arguments with, usually ends up with 50000X triple long posts.
They're still with us, they just have their guns trained on their fellow citizens.
Already told her that ; )
And stop insulting propagandists or those interested in the art of propaganda, you will chase them away by saying Erasmus is a propagandist. He isn't. He isn't nearly good enough at psych ops.
People who believe in propaganda, are by definition, not propagandists. They are true believers, there is a freaking difference. It's kinda hard telling them apart cause... well, they like say the same things.
I listened when W and Powell and Cheney told us he had them.
See, See!?
Propagandists don't believe anything they are told by the government... anything, without double checking and using critical analysis.
I think Erasmus heard, believed, then found he should not have believed.
This is why making one's own judgements is sooo much superior than relying on the government to do your thinking for you.
Then, they weren't there anymore.
Omg. It's like, they are there when they say so, but when they disappear and they don't say so, then there is a problem. Hilariii ous.
This is like peekaboo. Here we are, no we disappeared, we come back.
Why don't YOU tell us?
I think all of us now understand what happened the last time someone told Erasmus something.
Somehow, this remains the prevailing sentiment here.
I don't think America is lucky enough to have you as an enemy.
Are we the only one? Is France one too, or Germany or the UK?
Everyone knows America is not only the most powerful nation in the history of the world, but that we are the greatest nation in the history of the world as well. A lot of people will deny it, but they know deep down that that is the truth.
France sucks, they got race riots, they can't do shat.
Germany releases terroists for hostages. Very nice, that sure makes them great.
And the UK are 1/3rd of the way into Dhimmitude, slaves of the Arabs, wearing headscarves and crackola like that. Not exactly good news for the citizens of the UK.
Everyone knows it, except the anti-Americans.
America is so great, everyone is our enemy.
There's always something about America people don't like. Even me, I can't believe America let the UN in NY. What do we have nukes around for if we can't even tell the UN to move somewhere else?
He puts out long, gassy essays that you can't wrap a thought or response around.
Oh. My. God.
I must have almost perfected my mysterious mind puzzling powers of precognition and telepathetic suggestion.
I must keep working on it, for I shall have the ultimate power in no time!!!
Or not.
But if you poke at him just a little, he comes back with stuff like "blood guilt."
When I quote Bezuhov, and ask him a question, I don't think Erasmus deserves to think I'm talking to him. Maybe he does, but that's just rude to think everyone is talking about you all the time.
I think the discussion results were predictable, don't you?
It's always predictable when WMDs vs Propaganda.
Few arguments in the propaganda thread. Lots of arguments in the WMD thread.
Propaganda is a future tool, very important. WMD is old and stale and not important.
Since many of the constructs and arguments have already been laid for WMDs in people's minds, sort of like the political mind of a guerrila warfare insurgency, there will always be the predictable response.
The propaganda thread is new, something not covered in the memo. So people have to actually think about it, and like new stuff, not a lot of things to be said.
I'm digging this up cause it is fun.
Know thyself and know thy enemy, because you are the other and the other is you.
An Ueberstaat, perhaps?
Don't you know that we who call ourselves Americans are the inheritors of the Roman Empire, the Spartans at the Battle of Thermopylae, the Prussian military war machine, the English system of limitations, virtues, and laws, the Athenian system of free speech and government, the Roman system of alliances and provinces and Senate vs Plebeians, and last but not least, the Sword and the Chrysanthemum of the Japanese Empire?
3. The little recital of who "we Americans" are the inheritors of might produce gales of laughter, derisive mostly, at Oxford and Cambridge and in the dankest pub in Ireland. Do you ever get out?
Debate? Entering Y's prose is like wading into jello.
The subject, for a brief and shining moment, was our invasion of Iraq.
hehe, oxford. I think that place is on my nuke list, definitely on the terroist's nuke list. They are too annoying for either side.
1. Yes, in your case, lots of gas.
The subject, for a brief and shining moment, was our invasion of Iraq.
I see, I see. the subject is obviously gas, gales, and Ueberstaats.
Erasmus still has not answered what he thinks victory is in Iraq or what he thinks being a warrior is. For things that so upset him, it is kind of hard to talk to a person that won't describe what he is so jacked up about.
That's about all the gems I could find.
"Calm down. Why is it up to me to tell anyone how we could have verified if Saddam had the weapons?"
Because you're the one claiming OIF was unjustified. The burden of proof is on you to show that there was another, non-military, way to force Saddam to comply with the inspectors' requirements.
Otherwise, you may consider that reason enough for OIF.
Erasmus:
"Did I say anything nasty or unplesant about living in America today? Y brought up the "premier civilization," and I wondered what, if anything, he had in mind."
I don't believe I was claiming that you did. I was merely indicating that people vote with their asses on that one, and yours, along with many others are here. Many of which were once in Cuba, or Vietnam, or Lebanon, or Iran... and are now here. My mothers family from China, My wife's family from Hungary... I don't see too many people leaving the U.S., even those who threaten to when someone becomes president that they don't like (I'm not implicating you here, for the record). It's pretty clear, is it not, that we ARE the premier civilization. Would you even posit an argument that there is competition for the title?
"Which are the "premier civilizations" in the world today? Are we the only one? Is France one too, or Germany or the UK?"
You're not serious, are you? They don't even have true freedom of speech, much less can they claim to be the 'premier civilization', though the French would try. I don't think 6 weeks vacation a year makes one the premier civilization. Neither does insuring your own demise in two generations by not breeding, and importing a hostile culture.
You might want to pick your fights elsewhere- I wasn't looking for one.
Just curious, there are Sniper MOS in Armored divisions?
LET'S get back to erasmus claims of Bush B.S.:
[intro]At 3:48 PM, February 16, 2006, erasmus said...
Imminent threat, shmimminent threat.
What DID Bush say [w/three examples]:
1. Before the UN, Sept. 12, 2002
"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of these weapons."
2. Radio address, Oct. 6, 2002
"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstructing its nuclear wepons program."
3. SOTU, Jan 28, 2003
"...no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised..."
[conclusion:]
Right. Note the verbe tenses: "has stockpiled," "is rebuilding," "continues to possess."
Evidence? No doubt? Has stockpiled?
At least with Iran, we won't have to put up with this BS.
- - - - - - - - - -
As to point 3, there is no doubt that Saddam attempted to "conceal" activities and manufactured products he wasn't allowed to possess or conceal, whether under UN resolution or under treaty with the US at the conclusion of the First Gulf War.
Saddam stonewalled any full accounting of banned material, generated a legitimate causus bellus.
Now as to whether or not Saddam still possessed such material leading up to the 2003 war - this is still disputed, but appears unlikely as per the Deulfer Report. yet until and unless such materials appear and are accounted for, no one can athoritatively say what happened.
Judgement? - leaning "OK," but mixed.
Consider now claim 2, Iraq is reconstituting a nuclear program. As with President Clinton, it depends on the meaning of is - but in a very public way.
Did Bush mean "'is' right now?" That month? or in recent years? If the judgement of the SSIC and Lord Butler commission means anything, Saddam was trying to acquire uranium to do so in 1998-9 period.
If three years is too long to say "Saddam is" - then we simply must disaggree. With his persistence can anyone seriously suggest this means we ought to say "Saddam was" trying to do so, but not in 2002?
This judgement strikes me as unserious in any post 9/11 political environment.
Finally, as to number 1, that Saddam "has" WMD and "is rebuilding" such programs. One can parse the latter term; all he needed was for trade sanctions to be lifted, and post-OFF scandal news, we know he did - we know he believed the US would never go to war because he had China and France on the UNSC on his stolen payroll.
In fact, these same arguments were rehearsed by Clinton in 1998 when the US threatened Saddam with war, too. I challend all above skeptic to read any of the released intel review reports and then say "Bush lied!"
On balance, Bush got the judgement of the situation right. The onus is on the context droppers like erasmus to convince people with the perspective of history otherwise, and these three quotes simply don't make your case.
The best I'll agree is that erasmus has raised issues about details of what Bush said.
As for what Bush really intended to do through the War against Saddam, I thought in January of 2003, when Fouad Ajami wrote about it in detail in "Foreign Affairs, that all the WMD talk was really about timing. The real goal was and still is about promoting Middle East transformation toward adjustment with modernity and peace with the rest of the world. (Oddly, this fact was most clearly and consisely articulated in the Hindustan Times that February - not in the US press, although Michale Barone came the closest here.)
But Bush couldn't gain the cooperation of allies by announcing such a radical goal, one bound to fofend Muslim states whose help we needed. Remember Turkey's role in blocking US plans to invade Iraq from the north? After all, the GWOT is really about the reactionay Islamic doctrine of Jihad that drives ME terrorism - the "unofficial sixth Pillar of Islam," as Dr. Walid Phares puts it. But "war on terror" is a useful euphemism, and lacking a serious party of opposition, America won't overty debate who our enemies really are and why we are in conflict with them, as Al Gore's stupidity amply demonstrates. The Left is the "useful idiot" of terrorists.
Therefore, Bush only spoke publicly about democratization once in the few weeks before hostilities commenced in March. And when PM Tony Blair spoke to the US Congress with the ringing words of Liberty for the ME, in an almost not covered speech late July of 2003, the reality of Iraq's democratization could be finally spoken. Bush porceede to do just that in August.
Bush's project gets Jihadism turned inward, forcing Muslim's to debate what autocracies and totalitarian states otherwise prevent, and creates room for Muslim's to struggle with modernity. This buys time for them to create favorable preconditions for population explosion, literacy explosion (ergo Jihadism will grow among the masses of young unemplyed men), and inevitable globalization to take hold.
Without this bold step, even Kerry advisor Graham Alison believes nuclear terrorism on US soil is inevitable. Democratization buys time because it takes a lot of work and time. But will it be enough? No one really knows. But a "Hail Mary" pass really is a game strategy when you're putting points up on the board late in a scoreless game.
I say, answering nuke terrorism at home in the US with our own against Islam is too terrible to contemplate. Therefore I'm thankful for Bush - and I'm thankful to the soldiers I meet in Colorado from Ft. Carson and the Air Force Academy. And like neo-neocon, I used to be an isolationist peace-nik.
I see no seriousness from the likes of erasmus except "gotcha" moments. That's simply not enough for most Americans.
1. There has been a great deal of talk here about warriors and the warrior spirit, linking both to our invasion of Iraq and to the supporters and non-supporters of that invasion here at home.
2. Now, those who claim to be warriors, or at least understand the spirit of warriors, talk a nice game, but are any of you in on the action? If you're young enough, why aren't you in Iraq? We need people there, I understand. If you're too old, are you helping returning vets, perhaps reading to those blinded or assisting with rehab?
3.uspect that quite a few of the self-proclaimed warriors here are what the Germans used to call "Maulsoldaten," soldiers of the mouth. Today, perhaps keyboard warriors might describe it.
I HAVE NOT HEARD ONE WORD FROM THEM ABOUT THE CARNAGE OVER THERE OR THE HEALING HERE AT HOME.
So, I suspect we are dealing, certainly in some cases, with WARRIORS IN THEIR OWN MINDS, if nowhere else.
4. It does not do much good to link criticism of the invasion with ant-or-un-Americanism.
5. Orson's recent post deserves the time for a thorough and thoughtful reply. I hope we can get to that.
Someone asked if armored divisions have snipers. Yes, the armored infantry units did, in my case in the 4th Armored, in Fort Hood.
Correction to #3 above
I suspect...
Erasmus answers me with: Yes, every Communist regime I read about (and saw in action in the DDR, the German Democratic Republic) had a secret police. Now what? I detest secret police forces. My relatives were taken away by them, first by the Fascists, then by the Communists. What specifics do you want or need?
I think this clarification has given me the specifics I need, thanks. Actually, I was wondering about this that you posted:
“If we had been in the dictator removal business, right-and-left-wing dictators both, the administration's humanitarian afterthought might have gained more acceptance. But we weren't, from South America to the ME. The installation of the dictatorial Shah and his secret police in Iran is a case in point.”
My question stems from your apparent preference for the secret police of the two alternatives to the Shah: a western-hating theocracy, as in the present, or a Communist regime, if Mossadegh had stayed as Prime Minister. Both types of regimes would be assured of a secret police force. So if the Shah’s secret police is “a case in point” of your disgust with US foreign policy, then it becomes obvious that at least part of your viewpoint on US foreign policy is invalid due to that inconsistency. I wanted to highlight that contradiction for the readers.
Erasmus protests: I never brought up the "facilities" Saddam used to gas the Kurds. How do I know what he did with them? They haven't been found, right. So? Could be he destroyed them. Could be he gave them to the Syrian dentist-dictator (what a combo for sadism) as a present. Could be our bombing demolished them. This is your issue, primarily, not mine. When we invaded, what did he have that could threaten neighbors or the USA?
But isn’t it also your issue? The last sentence in the above quote makes it clear that you base part of your opposition to the war because no WMD has yet been found in Iraq & because of that Saddam must be deemed as harmless & undeserving of his toppling. I’m not surprised since this is the main tenet of most anti-warrior rhetoric I read. However, Saddam did have WMD & used it on the Kurds & Iranians. Anti-warriors like to forget that because it raises certain doubts. Facilities & systems to produce such weapons are solid, material things. Where did they go? Listen to the tapes that ran on Nightline. It’s obvious that Saddam’s underlings were ready to draw everything together & reconstitute all their WMD programs at a moment’s notice, just as soon as their buddies in the UN lifted the heat. Saddam is even heard casually speculating about nuclear or chemical WMD being set off in American cities. Not that any good anti-warrior would ever believe Saddam would do such a thing, right?
Erasmus: I never found out[what happened to the WMD stockpiles]. Did you?
Nope, no one has ever found out what happened to the WMD stockpiles. When Saddam was kicked out of Kuwait he was allowed to continue his regime on the condition that he account for the WMD stockpiles he was known to possess. He never did. Doesn’t that bother any of you anti-warriors at all?
Erasmus implores: Please Google the Iranian nuclear stuff yourself. Available from the International Commission, in our papers and journals. What is it you're doubting? That they have a nuclear development program"? How they will use it? I'm not sure what you want to get at. A distinction between Iraq and Iran? What do you think it is?
What I’m doubting is that any Iranian leader has ever publicly admitted, as you claim, the intent to develop a nuclear weapon. In your words: There's plenty of proof, admissions in fact, of what the Iranians are doing. If I had to bet I would put my money on ‘no proof.’ It’s really up to you to prove otherwise because you made the assertion – perhaps a bit hastily, eh?
I also see an inconsistency in that anti-warriors are always screaming about “proof” in regards to Saddam, yet proof seems not to be important in regards to Iran. Double standards abound in anti-warriorland.
Erasmus asks me: Should we bomb[Iran], invade, both, neither? And why?
Right now the administration wants to pursue a diplomatic approach. In light of Iranian pronouncements & other behavior I think all concerned have little faith it will work but it must be pursued or anti-warriors will later accuse the administration of bad faith – as they do now with Iraq. Personally I think the administration is probably stalling for time until Iraq is on its feet & able to defend & police itself before attempting an Iran solution that looks more imminent with each passing month.
I don’t want Iran to have the bomb & I want my government to use any means necessary to prevent it. Why? For one of the same reasons I supported the toppling of Saddam: The Iranians would not hesitate for a moment in providing WMD to the nearest terrorist organization. You know it & I know it.
What I don’t want to happen is for the Russians to be trusted to provide ‘safe’ nuclear materials to the Iranians. It seems to me that trusting the Russians to do so would be a recipe for a nuclear WMD in Iran. I’m hoping the administration isn’t serious about such a deal.
If Iran manages to develop the bomb the options become potentially much more deadly than if we stop it beforehand.
Erasmus asks: Why is this pro/anti warrior thing so important to you? Is it a dividing line in American society? If so, since when?
Pro-warrior & anti-warrior are convenient & descriptive terms; they have no other importance for me. Since you ask I will confide I do think there is a “dividing line” of sorts in society. The Democratic Party, liberals & lefties have painted themselves in a corner in that they will not support any war conducted by a Republican President. They are just too partisan to do so.
Most, if cornered, will say they would go to war if America was invaded but such an open, direct attack is unlikely. That means that as far as these groups are concerned any tin pot despot can do just about anything they want to US citizens, corporations, allies & soldiers overseas & wage war in America by proxy, using the terrorists. Indeed, that’s what had been happening for a number of years, culminating in 9/11.
And these wrongheaded groups provide aid to the terrorists by revealing secret counter-terrorism efforts like the NSA program & trying to gut the Patriot Act. I think their tactics are very dangerous. If, as Saddam speculated on the tapes, WMD attacks are ever carried off in American cities they might then realize their error but it would be too late to stop the real carnage. If that were to happen a lot of people would die, many, many more than have died so far. I would think that Iran & Syria would suffer heavily in the ensuing response since, aside from Saddam, over the years their leaders have used terrorists the most. Proof of the type to needed to satisfy the current batch of anti-warriors would be a quaint nicety no longer considered even remotely important.
Erasmus is seeing spirits, now.
"I see dead people..."
"Me too, man! That weed was some good shit! Where you get it?"
And you say you hate lefties?
You have no idea how much you are like them.
Rigid, humorless, unwilling or unable to look at two sides of an issue, demanding total adherence to your vision or selection of facts.
On the lefty blogs, suggesting that we need to wage war against Islamofascism is heresy. Liking the military is utterly unacceptable. Saying anything good about America is immediately ridiculed and rejected.Conservatives are fascists.
On conservative blogs, proposing that the war in Iraq might not be a sound strategy in fighting Islamofascism is heresy. Criticising anything about America is immediately ridiculed and rejected. Liberals or social democrats are traitors.
Same shit, different flavors.
Motor 1560
1. Yes, they handed me a sniperscope in ca. 5th week of advanced infantry basic and made me a sniper.
2. Your first paragraph show that you are one tough fella.
3. "We are all clueless dweebs."
12th century German saying.
correction to above
"shows"
Motor 1560
By the way, when I mentioned "healing" at home, I was talking about going to a Vet Hospital and helping those back from Iraq with missing limbs or blinded from an explosion.
Guess I am "clueless."
"Is it not the case that the great majority of our country's most skilled propagandists are directing their own propaganda"
Well, the thing is, the way I see it, there aren't a lot of real propagandists in the MSM. But that doesn't mean they don't produce propaganda however. A propagandist, in my view, is someone that has something he wants to accomplish and basically does not care if what he says is a lie or the truth, so long as it is effective. Dick Morris, perhaps Clinton, Hillary, those might ascend to the title of propagandists. Some propagandists prefer honest to lying, true, because some people believe that truth is more effective than a bunch of lies. Shrugs.
The MSM seems bound and deteremined to believe in their own propaganda, so the propaganda originators are very low. The terroists produce the propaganda in Iraq and the media reports on it, those kind of situations.
The MSM actually believe they are "moderate", that they reflect middle America and mainstream America, they actually believe that they are serving the public interest in ignoring Kartoonistan and focusing on Cheney Gate.
Those propagandists are well within their rights to do so, the question is, given the target rich environment, why do they?
It seems apparent that Erasmus and the MSM really believe what they are saying. They have no reason not to do so. They don't listen to their Republican counter-parts, for various reasons. And their own side is being purged, as you can see in Neo's case, so they can't be convinced by their own side either.
and also, how to get their guns onto the enemy?
You simply have to engineer a betrayal, ala Hitler vs Stalin. If you can get, for example, enough reporters killed in Iraq, perhaps the media will start to hate and will start to turn their guns from Bush, who they still hate.
What President Bush can do to turn the media's guns on the enemy, is to manipulate the media via human nature. The media, regardless of their faults, are still human. All human beings have weaknesses, sometimes in commonality. Clinton's strategy of media management was quite good actually, was not surprising given the fact that Dick Morris was his advisor back then. Another thing you could do is to hire Dick Morris as Bush's PR grand dame of strategy, it would help a lot. Rove is over-rated, he has good strategy, but the tactics of media baiting and taking advantage of human nature, is a Dick Morris specialty.
There are things that can be done, but since Bush won't do them, nothing's going to change. The internet bloggers will still have to fight a guerrila war against the MSM. Using hit and run tactics, because we are weaker and less powerful than the MSM guys. Bush won't bring in the heavy artillery, the mobile assault tank platoons, or the heavy tactical nuclear bombardments. Without those heavy weapons, the infantry can only wage an insurgency.
The question is, can America outlast Bush's presidency or is something going to happen to shatter our guerrila warfare?
I HAVE NOT HEARD ONE WORD FROM THEM ABOUT THE CARNAGE OVER THERE OR THE HEALING HERE AT HOME.
In reference to the people here.
In the end, there is no need to use wounded soldiers as a crutch to support sound reasoning or as a tripod to MG my opponent.
As for not hearing about the healing at home, perhaps you haven't been paying attention.
Healing the Brave
it is no wonder you don't hear about the carnage with this,
Carnage
Personally I think the administration is probably stalling for time until Iraq is on its feet &
I think the Admin should have stalled for time, in order to arm Iraq and Afghanistan with nuclear weapons, to the teeth. THen have THEM deal with Iran. Iran is stalling because they want nukes or already have one and are awaiting a delivery system. We need to play the same game, except in a mirror way. That is the only thing that will work. I have nothing against bombing people, but bombing people Do. Not. Work. for long. Iran is prepared for bombs, to win against Iran, we must do the Shock and Awe, except it ain't gonna be no CNN operation.
Iran is afraid of another Fallujah, but they are convinced we won't travel across the border to do a Tehran on them.... and perhaps they are right, if our media succedes.
There has been a lot of crap thrown around in the last thrity years, especially by the left, regarding this program.
What does that have to do with what I said though?
Are you or are you not in favor of another Phoenix Program should America take heavy civilian casualties? That's the real point that is.
It'd help if you just gave me the most pertinent facts you think I am ignorant of or you think is important, but you've only just told me to read a book and haven't told me your reasons.
Rigid, humorless, unwilling
Who's humorless?
or unable to look at two sides of an issue
I have so many sides of the issue in my head, that if I didn't spell out the names of the people involved, I would be confused as to who the voices were that are in my head.
Criticising anything about America is immediately ridiculed and rejected.
Who's ridiculing my criticisms concerning Bush, the State Department, and the UN building? I'm offended by the criticisms of my anti-Bush comments.
To answer a greg wirth line, that Iraq has no electricity.
I think everyone needs to understand that when you take a Soviet inspired and WWII era electrical system, add in total annihilation increased wages, and modern appliances, you get what is known as "trouble" in Elec Eng parlance. And you have to "shoot" the "trouble".
There are too many "loads" on the circuit.
This tends to either suck so much energy no one else has it, or it causes damage to the electrical infrastructure.
If people paid attention to what was going on in Iraq, they would understand that no electricity is a GOOD THING, it means PEOPLE ARE BUYING STUFF LIKE AMERICANS.
Okay, just to get that out of the way.
God damn. You neocons are complaining like little childern.
The good news that your dreams are coming down very soon.
LOL
All behold the wisdom of anon 8:03! I have no idea what (s)he's talking about, but it was surely very wise.
O brethren ponder
yon nest of neocons.
Yea, hear them complain
as little children.
Lo! See how their infidel
dreams come down.
lol
...okay... until he threw in that 'infidel' part, I thought he was a liberal. But now I'm not sure he isn't just kidding.
Anon does realize that we have 2.0 guns per Republican capital right?
Just making sure others don't do something they'd regret, like pissing off Muslims about their prophet.
I'm posting a reminder to Motor, that my questions still stand unasnwered.
Good morning, NeoNeocon. I'm on your comment pages for the first time. I had the pleasure of finding out about you from my good buddy the Anchoress. It looks like it will be a pleasure to hang around for a while.
But if all that the tapes ever reveal is what was shown on Nightline last evening, I think they still tend to bolster the WMD argument rather than negate it.
As I remember the argument, it was that the WMD's existed, not that Saddam would like to have them, which was quite self-evident. In fact the actual argument was that the WMD's must exist because Saddam clearly would like to have them. The fallacy of this should also have been self-evident.
I can state unequivocally that it was perfectly self-evident to me when the argument was made the first time.
It still does not appear to be so to my good Conservative friends, particularly when they say things like I have quoted above from you.
Without real, tangible WMD's, these tapes are simply a footnote to history and have been perfectly well covered in the news merely by being talked about at all.
To say that they "bolster" the original argument is ludicrous. Unless they lead to real WMD's, all they do is reiterate the faulty premise.
If anything in the tapes would lead to real, tangible WMD's, we would have found them long ago. George certainly looked hard enough for them, so hard, in fact, that he did as much to create the Iraqi insurgency, through neglect, as he did to liberate the Iraqis.
I like liberated Iraqis, too. But I think history [I know you like history] will say that if this was a victory, our hands were too small to hold it.
I am a Vietnam vet of 200+ combat missions over two years in the S E A theater, just so you all know
where I come from. I think most of you here have short or convenient memories. The main argument
for invading Iraq was that it had violated umpteen UN resolutions. Iraq was violating any number
of conditions it agreed to in order to get a cease-fire of GWI. Not a truce; not a surrender;
not a war-terminating peace treaty, a cease-fire. Among those resolutions and agreements was the
requirement to disarm and provide proof of same. Iraq may or may not have failed to disarm, but
it certainly failed to document. Claims of rush to war or that Iraq was successfully contained have
been shown to be pure bull bleep. Twelve years is no rush, and our friends and allies arguing so, like
Russia, France, Germany, China and the UN itself have all been shown to be on Saddam's payroll.
They undoubtedly would have continued to push for lifting the sanctions, sooner rather than later.
What then?
Now, we are in Iraq. Nearly three years down the road, many of you are still bleating, blathering
and bloviating about why we shouldn't be. Get over it! If you can't be part of the solution, you are
part of the problem. Lead, follow or get the hell out of the way.
As I remember the argument, it was that the WMD's existed, not that Saddam would like to have them, which was quite self-evident. In fact the actual argument was that the WMD's must exist because Saddam clearly would like to have them. The fallacy of this should also have been self-evident.
Hey Marshall, from the above quote it looks as though you have forgotten that Saddam gassed the Kurds & Iranians. What do you think Saddam did with the WMDs that he used to gas the Kurds?
“George certainly looked hard enough for them[WMD], so hard, in fact, that he did as much to create the Iraqi insurgency, through neglect, as he did to liberate the Iraqis.”
Typical anti-warrior rhetoric: America ‘created’ terrorists/Saddam/Stalin/Hitler/You Name It/, etc. & mean, bad America caused these nice folks to perform their murder & mayhem. I guess this goes over great on the liberal blogs.
We can all thank our lucky stars that folks that think like Marshall are not in charge.
One of the psychological benefits to a propaganda machine is that it tends to alleviate the stress that civilians face in wartime. A lot of civilians and former veterans, really want to do something and see successes, like Larry. There will always be problems to face, but it is much better for the war effort if the propaganda machine can get everyone in the nation to focus their frustrations upon the enemy, rather than themselves or their neighbors.
Like vector physics, if one angle is going north and the other is going south, they will cancel out each other's momentum. We would go nowhere basically. In war, you don't want to be going no while, you want to be moving, somewhere, even if you don't know where. Simply because mobility, in any direction, is better than hesitation and paralysis of action.
The President's job, through proper propaganda techniques, is to get the entire nation moving FORWARD in a unified and coordinated way. He does so through human nature, through the sadness, the losses, and the patriotism that all humans are capable of feeling.
A divided house cannot stand, simply because the gravity pulls it apart. I remember when the Democrats kept saying Bush was a divider, not a uniter. Bush should have told them that they wouldn't want him to be a uniter, because then everyone would agree with him and the media would stop propagandizing against his projects.
The way things stand now, most of our domestic propaganda apparatus in the form of blogs is actually used to counter-act OUR OWN PEOPLE.
This is not only inefficient, it is dangerous. Because the psychological health of our citizens require that we divert our frustrations and angst toward the enemy, but if we do not do so, we would disintegrate from within.
Bush wouldn't know how to create an insurgency in Iraq. I wish he did, because then he WOULD be a uniter, and the national effort would be directed in one direction. True, we might not agree with that direction, as I did not agree with Roosevelt's, but at least we would have leadership, at least someone would know what the hell they were doing in this war at the political level.
It does not do the morale of the American people to be left adrift, leadership, and responsible for our own actions in war. A military outfit would be similarly ineffective, if green. The good news is what the American people have faced many such wars and developed a couple of immunities.
Thus, why we haven't been attacked. For as much as our energies are unfocused, we have a lot of that energy. Even if ours are unfocused, the energies of the military are. Though even the military lacks some will and expertise in necessary fields of war.
The only question is, how long can we actually hold out before something breaks in our defense?
Our military cannot destroy the terroist plans in the Middle East forever, eventually one will succede. If not from the ME, then from the European Union, our "ally".
Anon:
That's the best you can do? "NEENER, NEENER, YOUR DREAMS ARE COMING DOWN, NYAAH, NYAAH!"
You really don't have any arguments, do you?
As for dreams. . . I suspect you're still sulking because your own dream of the great Marxist Utopia/Workers Paradise/Big Rock Candy Mountain never came to pass, and projecting your own frustration onto us. It's your dream that's dead, not ours.
He has Osama Bin Laden on his side, does that count as an argument?
Osama is more polite to Bush than some Democrats... ain't that funny.
I’ve been thinking about the puzzling fact that most of the archived tapes, captured hard drives & other material collected from the Saddam regime seem not to have been translated or otherwise investigated. It seems strange, considering the amount of fire received from anti-warriors in the US, that the administration would not be in a hurry to have this material analyzed.
One factor may be a lack of reliable personnel to translate & review. In the past an administration would have given it all to the CIA but considering the shape of the CIA these days I think any current administration would hesitate to turn these materials over to them. After all, this is the same CIA that when asked to investigate yellowcake sales in Niger sent a person known to be hostile to the administration. That was no accident or coincidence; the people who run the CIA leave little to chance.
Indeed, the CIA is a compromised, untrustworthy, politicized organization with an agenda of its own & can’t be trusted with sensitive tasks. Give routine duties to the CIA, jobs they can’t use to screw the Whitehouse. My believe is that the CIA will be gradually marginalized & de-funded out of existence & other organizations given the duties that would normally be CIA territory. Fifteen years from now the CIA may be only a memory.
Of course, any translators hired by the administration for the job would have to be thoroughly vetted & that takes time. I’ve read suggestions that the tapes be handed over to the blogs to be translated but sensitive material of this sort is better left ‘in house’. No one knows what is contained in this material; some of the information could be injurious to national security.
In recent years archived WW2 material has been released that has to do with Truman’s decision to drop the bomb:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/894mnyyl.asp
Code-named “Ultra” by the British & “Magic” by the US this material was withheld from public view until recent years because of the embarrassing fact that WW2 allies were secretly listened to in order to obtain the information even though they provide complete justification for Truman’s decision. Perhaps the administration has translated a goodly portion of the Saddam tapes & found something embarrassing to the US on them.
Post a Comment
<< Home