Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditNew "Downing Street" memos keep popping up. In recent days, several confidential memos written by senior officials in Tony Blair's government in March 2002 have garnered attention. (AfterDowningStreet.org has all of them posted.) These records--first obtained by Michael Smith, a British journalist formerly working at the Daily Telegraph and now with the Sunday Times of London--provide more evidence that Bush's case for war was less than convincing for his number-one ally. They also illustrate the hubris that drove Blair in his wartime partnership with George W. Bush.
The first and now infamous Downing Street memo chronicled a high-level briefing for Blair that occurred in July 2002, during which the head of British intelligence said Bush was already committed to war and intelligence and facts were being "fixed around the policy" and during which Foreign Minister Jack Straw reported the WMD case for war was "thin." (See my previous column on the memo.) Months before this secret meeting, British officials were already sharing similar sentiments among themselves (not with the public, of course). In a March 22, 2002, memo for Straw, Peter Ricketts, political director of Britain's foreign service, noted that "even the best survey of Iraq's WMD programmes will not show much advance in recent years on the nuclear, missile or [chemical weapons/biological weapons] fronts." He also reported that the "US scrambling to establish a link between Iraq and Al Aaida [sic] is so far frankly unconvincing."
A March 8, 2002, options paper prepared by Blair's national security aides noted that Iraq's nuclear weapons program was "effectively frozen," its missile program "severely restricted," and its chemical and biological weapons programs "hindered." Saddam Hussein, it reported, "has not succeeded in seriously threatening his neighbors." This paper also said the intelligence on Iraq's supposed WMD program was "poor." It noted that there was no "recent evidence" of Iraqi ties to al Qaeda.
All of this contradicts what Bush told Americans before the invasion of Iraq. He and his aides claimed that Iraq had reconstituted its nuclear weapons program, that Hussein was producing and stockpiling biological and chemical weapons, that Baghdad was in cahoots with al Qaeda, and that the intelligence obtained by the United States and other governments (presumably including the Brits) left "no doubt" that Iraq posed a direct WMD threat to the United States.
The British memos are further evidence that Bush overstated the main reasons for the war. They also show that his key line of defense is bunk. When confronted with questions about the lack of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Bush and his allies have consistently pointed to bad intelligence. But the previously released Downing Street memos and the new ones indicate that the Brits--who had access to the prewar intelligence--saw that the WMD case (based on that intelligence) was, as Jack Straw observed, weak. One might ask, why did they have such a different take than the one Bush shared with the public?
******
Don't forget about DAVID CORN's BLOG at www.davidcorn.com. Read recent postings on The Washington Post almost accusing Bush of lying and on Corn's recent Deep Throat scoop.
*******
These memos demonstrate that the issue is not whether Bush was unwittingly duped by bad intelligence. (Bad, George Tenet, bad.) No, Bush tried to sell lousy--or "thin"--intelligence as the basis for the war he desired. According to the new documents, the Brits saw through this. But they did not share their informed perspective with the British or American public. Instead, they went along for the ride.
Why did Blair join with Bush? Probably for several reasons. The memos do show the Blair gang was worried about Saddam Hussein and WMDs, despite realizing Bush was hyping the threat. But the Ricketts' memo suggests Blair saddled up with Bush partly so he could steer the American president. In this memo--entitled "Advice for the Prime Minister"--Ricketts wrote:
By sharing Bush's broad objective, the Prime Minister can help shape how it is defined, and the approach to achieving it. In the process he can bring home to Bush some of the realities which will be less evident from Washington. He can help Bush make good decisions by telling him things his own machine probably isn't.
Ricketts was essentially saying that Bush was not fully attached to reality and that his "own machine" was not providing him all the necessary information. What a harsh indictment of a partner-in-war. Ricketts feared that Bush consequently would make rotten decisions about the war in Iraq. But, Ricketts noted, Blair could be a positive influence by spelling out "the realities" for Bush. Blair, though, could only do that if he was with the program. This is a chilling passage. It illuminates the arrogance of the Blairites. Because they knew better than the not-fully-informed president, they assumed they could nudge Bush in the appropriate direction. But they were signing up for a war led by a man whom they believed was not in sync with reality and who could not be trusted to wage war properly on his own.
What hubris on the part of the Blair team. Feeling superior to Bush, they felt they would be the tail that would wag the dog. But Blair ended up with a war based on a "thin" claim that has yielded an enormous mess. And the fellow in charge of finding a way out of this jam is a guy whose "own machine" keeps reality from him.
Conservatives, some editors in the establishment media, and even the usually smart columnist Michael Kinsley have dismissed the significance and newsworthiness of the Downing Street memos. But these documents afford the public a more extensive view of the misrepresentations Bush deployed to grease the way to war. And they illustrate the serious doubts the Brits had concerning the lead arguments for war and concerning the man who was making those arguments. If only the Downing Street documents could be augmented by a similar set of Pennsylvania Avenue memos.
*******************
IT REMAINS RELEVANT, ALAS. SO DON'T FORGET ABOUT DAVID CORN'S BOOK, The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception (Crown Publishers). A NEW YORK TIMES BESTSELLER! An UPDATED and EXPANDED EDITION is AVAILABLE in PAPERBACK. The Washington Post says, "This is a fierce polemic, but it is based on an immense amount of research.... [I]t does present a serious case for the president's partisans to answer.... Readers can hardly avoid drawing...troubling conclusions from Corn's painstaking indictment." The Los Angeles Times says, "David Corn's The Lies of George W. Bush is as hard-hitting an attack as has been leveled against the current president. He compares what Bush said with the known facts of a given situation and ends up making a persuasive case." The Library Journal says, "Corn chronicles to devastating effect the lies, falsehoods, and misrepresentations.... Corn has painstakingly unearthed a bill of particulars against the president that is as damaging as it is thorough." And GEORGE W. BUSH SAYS, "I'd like to tell you I've read [ The Lies of George W. Bush], but that'd be a lie."
For more information and a sample, go to www.davidcorn.com. And see his WEBLOG there.
Share this article
David Corn
Washington--a city of denials, spin, and political calculations. They may speak English there, but most citizens still need an interpreter to understand its ways and meanings. DAVID CORN, the Washington editor of The Nation magazine, has spent years analyzing the policies and pursuing the lies that spew out of the nation's capital. He is a novelist, biographer, and television and radio commentator who is able to both decipher and scrutinize Washington.
In his dispatches, he takes on the day-by-day political and policy battles under way in the Capitol, the White House, the think tanks, and the television studios. With an informed, unconventional perspective, he holds the politicians, policymakers and pundits accountable and reports the important facts and views that go uncovered elsewhere.
Check out David Corn's latest book, (co-written with Michael Isikoff and now available in paperback), Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War (Crown Publishers). For information, visit his personal blog at davidcorn.com.
Photo Credit: Michael Lorenzini
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
As Lord North said of the failing British conquest of its American colonies:
"Ill success rendering it at length unpopular, the people began to cry out for peace."
The winds of popularity (how I hate that word sometimes) have shifted against the once-popular Vengeance and Retribution Operation -- euphemistically called a "war" -- that America launched with such gleeful fanfare against some Arabs (the people of Iraq will do, thank you) in March of 2003. The cakewalk conquest just had to start in the spring, as President Bush and his administration kept saying, so that we could end it all quickly, have the flower-strewn "liberator" parades, and then return our courageous Crusaders home before the heat of summer set in. In this fantastic scenario, our valiant Visigoths would "shock and awe" their victims into hapless submission, mop up a few "dead-enders," set up a corporate-mercenary "gold rush," and then head back home to resume their proper role as background props for "commander-in-chief" corporate war-pork campaign contributions. As Exhibit A we submit the now-notorious (and wildly premature) action-figure-jump-suit photo-op on the aircraft carrier flight deck: the one that uncritically went out over the airwaves for immediate release into Republican Party television campaign commercials. Yes, Crimestoppers, this "popular" war stuff really happened.
Now, though, with our tired and traumatized troops mired in their third hot summer of deployment to the Iraqi and Afghan deserts, the fun has gone out of the vengeance -- especially since the designated recipients of if have started exacting some -- actually, quite a bit -- of their own. "Ill sucess" indeed.
Even the Democratic Party "leadership" in Congress has begun to catch on -- even Representative Nancy Pelosi! The "grass roots," of course, caught on long ago, but no one wanted to listen to us. We got the message to just cough up the money and then stand aside while the "real" professionals took over, saddled us with pro-war candidates we couldn't stomach, and lost us yet another election that they should have won in a rout. If the "real professionals" couldn't toss out an unpopular, incompetent President over his unpopular and ruinous war -- like last November -- then what claim can they possibly have to the mantle of "leadership?" I hereby and humbly answer my own rhetorical question by stating that they have none. Representative Pelosi, though, has apparently stumbled out of her Congressional cave into the blinding light of day, and if present trends continue, may soon (one can only hope) clearly see what the entire world already recognizes: namely, that this needless war in Iraq must end now before any more "ill success" renders it so catastrophically unpopular that the American people will cry out for not just "peace" but "regime change" at home, as well.
Posted by mrmurry at 06/17/2005 @ 10:16am
I think most reporters, including Mr. Corn, have missed the main significance of the Downing Street Memo, which I outline in the piece below:
http://www.voicesofreason.info/2005/06/real-significance-of-downing-street.html
Thaks, Jason
Posted by J.S. at 06/17/2005 @ 1:44pm
The Downing Street Memos Stand for Dishonesty: the Left's
It is capitalizing on the different perception of the word "fixed" in American and British English.
The author of the memo, Richard Dearlove said, Bush was committed to war and intelligence and facts were being -
Our understanding of the word "fixed," in that context implies manipulated and monkeyed with, the way a horse is doped or a jockey is bribed in a fixed horse race.
But Dearlove meant the word to say, the facts and the intelligence were being nailed down, brought into focus, placed solidly around the issue, not that the books were being cooked.
David Corn knows that, yet he is counting on that sinister meaning to be assumed. Pretty crumby.
Posted by nacl at 06/17/2005 @ 4:30pm
Strange that this is quoted {." Saddam Hussein, it reported, "has not succeeded in seriously threatening his neighbors." This paper also said the intelligence on Iraq's supposed WMD program was "poor." It noted that there was no "recent evidence" of Iraqi ties to al Qaeda.} British spell "neighbors" correctly as "NEIGHBOURS"
Posted by fodders at 06/17/2005 @ 5:57pm
Do you deny that if the Downing Street memo did not say - intelligence and facts were being "fixed around the policy" it would not have raised an eyebrow?
It has raised eyebrows because the word "fixed" is being misunderstood. The idea that facts and intelligence were "fixed" sounds nefarious. It suggests the memo writer was accusing the administration of cooking the books.
Don't sidle off into obfuscation about a quagmire and occupation and neocons. Deal with the fact that the word, fixed is being misunderstood and that confusion is what the Downing Street Memo hullabaloo is all about.
Posted by nacl at 06/17/2005 @ 6:02pm
NACL:
You really are one naive individual!
You know it is a dam shame that this feckless leader of ours, and his poodle got us into this senseless quagmire in Iraq now isn't it? Where over 1,700 brave men and woman have perished needlessly and the thousands who'll be maimed for the rest of their lives. For what!
Tell me NACL, why didn't Dearlove merely say: That intelligence and facts were being gathered? To state that the intelligence and facts were being "fixed" around a policy sort of insinuates that both the intelligence, and the facts, were in a shambles! Wouldn't you agree? Hence the word fixed. Or don't you understand?
Lastly NACL, were you one the people who purchased the George Bush (non) action figures? Tell me, the A.W.O.L. patch, was it sold separately?
Ciao,
Munich
Posted by Munich at 06/17/2005 @ 10:30pm
"C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."
Sounds as if some instruction in reading comprehension is in order. Notice the word "but" prefacing the sentence in question. This suggests a conclusion that is at odds with the previous statement. Contrary to NaCL's assertion, it does not even require that the reader take as the primary meaning that intelligence was being manipulated for eyebrows to be raised. No, let us grant a little charity here; this is still a damning statement, for it says outright that the policy came first; the facts were only incidental; furthermore, only acceptable facts were permitted.
Posted by DMc at 06/18/2005 @ 12:49am
With all the recently surfacing documents from "across the pond", I decided to take a look at what Our President was actually saying [whitehouse.gov] in the fall of 2002.
Read 'em and weep, my friends, my countrymen and women.
I think the banner at the top, reading "Iraq: Denial and Deception" is unusually appropriate.
Posted by FeithHealer at 06/18/2005 @ 12:49am
Some good and long-overdue discussion has come about because of the leaked British documents in question. As well, and in an obvious attempt to dilute such necessary discussion, the usual sewers of stinking spin have come pouring out of the American regime and its camp-following apologists in the Pet Press. The discussion should of course continue and we can do little about the Party Line sewage except hold our collective noses against the propaganda's stench. Still, I think an additional -- and much more important -- point needs making here: namely, that the American public will normally discredit any and all truths that it doesn't wish to face; and the worst and ugliest truths usually appear in the mirror. To put it bluntly:
America wanted to bash some Arabs after 9/11 and really didn't care which Arabs it bashed as long as the target of opportunity couldn't do any real bashing back -- that meant Saddam Hussein. Any other Arab state outside Afghanistan could probably do a little bashing of its own, economically if not militarily, so that pretty much brought all considerations of vengeance for 9/11 back to Saddam Hussein and the hapless people of Iraq. I think I've stated the true, religious, and racially bigoted case here.
Again, in the months preceding the events of 9/11/2001, the then-newly-installed Bush administration calmly and confidently proclaimed Saddam Hussein "no threat" to America or its interests. Those who remember watching television news at the time, or those who missed the pronouncements but saw the publicly available film footage of them replayed in Michael Moore's film "Fahrenheit 9/11," can still vividly picture Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice serenely making declarations of national safety from anything the bombed, sanctioned, and inspected Saddam Hussein might wish (in his wildest dreams) to do to America -- true statements then and true statements now.
The successful 9/11 attacks on America by 19 unarmed Arab men, however, while changing nothing regarding Saddam Hussein and his lack of threatening capabilities, did completely change the Party Line coming out of the Bush administration. Almost immediately after 9/11, Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice, along with every other visible regime spokesperson from President Bush on down, began whipping up -- with the cheerful and compliant aid of the usual suck-up sycophant stenograpers (i.e., "journalists" and "pundits") -- public hysteria over the newly-discovered (i.e., "manufactured," "fabricated") "threat" to America posed by Saddam Hussein. Yet -- and here comes the main point again -- the American public swallowed the 180-degree flip-flop in Bush administration pronouncements without blinking a collective eye. Why the pandemic -- and on cue -- stupidity?
The leaked British memos here under discussion do offer a timely insight into the propaganda dilemma faced by the Bush and Blair administrations as they sought to "prepare public opinion" (i.e., "stampede the mob") into "supporting" (i.e., "spinelessly acquiescencing in the face of") precipitate military action against a non-threatening sovereign state with no discernible connection to the events of 9/11/2001. Yet, no matter what the Downing Street Memo and related documents tell us about the obvious regime propaganda problem, we must honestly remember that the 19 unarmed Arab attackers of America came almost exclusively from Saudi Arabia -- and not a single one of them came from Iraq. Neither American nor British "intelligence" ever discovered a connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11; and in fact the stubborn refusal of the real world to supply facts on demand to the contrary prompted the Bush administration to create another, special, "intelligence" operation within the War Department, run by one Douglas Feith, whom General Tommy Franks called "the stupidest fucking man on the face of the earth." What a guy to have in charge of your short-order "intelligence," eh? So can we please, once and for all, put aside the long-ludicrous presumption that America under the second Bush administration has or had any regard or use for "the facts." President George W. Bush, as he so insultingly put it to American Congressmen charged with "authorizing" (i.e., "giving or withholding permission for") America's resort to war: "I want your vote. I'm not going to debate it with you." There you have it, Crimestoppers. Take it or take it.
As Blaise Pascal once said: "No one ever does evil quite so cheerfully or completely as when he does it from religious conviction;" and under the current one-party, Bush-led regime in America, Pascal's description of cheerful, complete, and religious "evil doing" certainly does fit the ongoing devastation in Iraq. So, again, what does the technical issue of just another propaganda problem -- although a consequential one -- have to do with why naked propaganda works so effortlessly and repeatedly in America?
Despite massive, coordinated "preparation of the public" propaganda operations (which the "Downing Street" documentation mainly addresses), the Bush and Blair administrations finally managed no better a sales job than to baldly assert that, in any event, President Bush had decided to go ahead with his invasion of Iraq and the world could either go along or get out of the way. Any American citizen alive and sentient at the time will remember this consciously-created mood of national hysteria -- and the equally cold-eyed international skepticism that greeted it -- quite clearly and un-hysterically. Members of the hung-over mob, of course, will not now wish to confront their own primal thirst for atavistic vengeance and excessive consumption of the bald-faced lies that fed and encouraged it. Here we have the main point again about what Francis Bacon called "delight in deceiving and aptness to be deceived, imposture and credulity; which, although they appear to be of a diverse nature, the one seeming to proceed of cunning and the other of simplicity, yet certainly they do for the most part concur." To fool someone requires a ready fool willing to cooperate.
Yes, the documents in question do show, as many have noted, that the Blair team thought they might possibly influence President Bush by signing on to his premeditated "regime change" project in Iraq and in so doing perhaps protect their own exposure to possible war-crimes charges after the predictable, bloody mess that wars always cause and leave behind. True, indeed, as far as consideration of international law might affect the British who have some regard for it; but the Bush administration, for its part, has made it abundantly clear from the outset -- as it continues to do today -- that it holds in contempt any notion of international law and refuses to even consider conforming to any of its dictates. In the end, then, America has really only to decide if it wants to go on "taking it or taking it" from its hyper-militarized, imperial regime or whether America wants to know the ugly truths about itself and its government, the better to form the basis for making real and informed choices about its future.
I do not want to minimize the significance of the Downing Street Memos as documentary evidience which could -- and should -- lead to civil and criminal law suits, Grand Jury depositions, discovery, sworn testimony, and eventually the truth about America's swaggering lurch into ill-considered war in Iraq -- with swift and appropriate justice meted out to all those responsible. I wish for all this discovery and justice to happen, yes. I wish even more, however, for an end to America's willful, credulous gawking at contrived television images of politicians "walking" and "pointing" (as media advisor Mark McKinnon likes to say); or "learning to move" on aircraft-carrier flight decks in some jump-suited, primeval "commanding authority" (as the drama-critic pundit David Broder likes to swoon); or just the ubiquitous "posing" that American leaders do instead of persuading the public through the use of facts and reason. What sort of American, anyway, wants and waits for "commandments?" What sort of American longs for a television picture to "lead" him? What sort of American forces his children to recite a daily Pledge of Subservience Loyalty Oath Cum School Prayer? What sort of American, anyway, prefers to blindly "follow" rather than go his own way in freedom?
I apologize for the length of this posting; but for those who read it all the way through, I say "thank you." America needs help right now, and only fearlessly truth-seeking Americans can provide it.
Posted by mrmurry at 06/18/2005 @ 03:00am
My, we all have so much to say... ... I say keep shouting it, from the rooftops.
Bottom Line? They Lied. They Knew they were Lying. People Died. We need accountability. Now. Not in the history books. Now.
Keep talking everyone.
DAYS [daysbreak.blogspot.com]
Posted by that days guy at 06/18/2005 @ 03:35am
Memos Show British Concern Over Iraq Plans: From AP
Is this enough proof?
When Prime Minister Tony Blair's chief foreign policy adviser dined with Condoleezza Rice six months after Sept. 11, the then-U.S. national security adviser DIDN'T WANT TO DISCUSS Osama bin Laden or al-Qaida. She wanted to talk about "regime change" in Iraq, setting the stage for the U.S.-led invasion more than a year later.
So! Why didn't Chris Matthews asked Ms. Rice this last week when he interviewed her? Again, Matthews simply let Ms. Rice put her own spin on the memos. This is why the mendacity continues.
Ciao,
Munich
Posted by Munich at 06/18/2005 @ 12:56pm
NACL claimed:
"It is capitalizing on the different perception of the word "fixed" in American and British English...Our understanding of the word "fixed," in that context implies manipulated and monkeyed with, the way a horse is doped or a jockey is bribed in a fixed horse race.
But Dearlove meant the word to say, the facts and the intelligence were being nailed down, brought into focus, placed solidly around the issue, not that the books were being cooked."
Well, hello from across the pond and may I commend you on some high semantical silliness. As someone who finds himself using British English on a daily basis and therefore feel in a position to claim at least a passing expertise in it, I'm *sorry* to inform you that the word 'fixed' commonly holds all of the same negative connotations to us Brits as you point out it holds in the American vernacular.
I'd align it most closely with 'rigged', though I do like your 'monkeyed with'.
If Dearlove tried to justify his comment with the 'defence' you've provided him above in this country we'd simply laugh...although he is seen as somewhat of a comical figure already.
Posted by Azathoth at 06/18/2005 @ 4:49pm
It is always good to encounter an expert.
But note, I did not deny that "a fixed race" is understood as a rigged race in Britain. Sure, that useage is neither strange or unusual in the UK. But the other useage is equally common. That is the point.
Whereas in the USA it is not. When facts are here declared, "fixed" the meaning is no less unambiguous than when Los Vegas gambling or a prize fight is denounced as fixed. Fixed facts in America are manipulated, finessed, or tailored to produce a particular outcome.
But not necessarily in Britain. The English note-taker who summarized that Downing Street discussion most certainly meant by fixed, nailed down, brought into focus. He was recording C as saying, the Americans were marshaling the hard facts and intelligence that will nail down the need for their policy.
Posted by nacl at 06/18/2005 @ 8:22pm
You are in a sweat over the success the Iraq invasion has already achieved. The chance that that may continue and succeed in giving the region its first honest and decent Arab regime is causing you serious alarm. Hence you spit and sputter.
Tell me Munich, why don't you use the tropes and formulations I'm partial to?
We and the Brits have long been separated by the barrier of a common language. That explains why some Americans now think they see a smoking gun in facts and intelligence being, "fixed around the policy".
But it does not explain your witless malice.
Posted by nacl at 06/18/2005 @ 8:36pm
However qualified you think you are to teach reading comprehension, your real penchant is for confused and contrived composition.
That you think the conjunction, but, in that summary supports let alone clarifies anything is a measure of your talent. The policy of regime change was not isolated from the threat of terrorism and WMD. (BTW, if we are going to be talmudic, my hunch is that that But was meant as a Both by whoever wrote or dictated those minutes.)
There is nothing new or damning in the news that in July 2002 the US was preparing an invasion force and nailing down the justifications for resorting to force, because it doubted the UN's efforts to yet effect a breakthrough, after 11 years of failure.
Posted by nacl at 06/18/2005 @ 8:43pm
The Queen's loyal subject, Mr. Dearlove, now looks about as credible as George "Slam Dunk" Tenet or Douglas "just call me fucking stupid" Feith. So, can we please stop using the now-meaningless euphemism, "intelligence," in connection with anything related to the British and American governments?
Posted by mrmurry at 06/18/2005 @ 8:44pm
NACL
But note, I did not deny that "a fixed race" is understood as a rigged race in Britain. Sure, that useage is neither strange or unusual in the UK. But the other useage is equally common. That is the point.
You may have had a point if the sentence in question had been something simple such as the intelligence has been fixed, yes in British English this is clearly open to two very different interpretations, but not so fixed around the policy. Even taking the most charitable interpretation of the intended meaning of 'fixed' there is simply no way of reading it without coming to the conclusion that either the intelligence was being 'monkeyed with' or at the very least cherry picked to suit the policy and I'd like to see you find anyone from this country who would read it otherwise (who aren't currently members of our current government or prominent civil servants).
Posted by Azathoth at 06/18/2005 @ 8:44pm
Your head has been monkeyed with. Don't pretend that an objective reading of that memo by an Englishmen has Dearlove saying, the Americans are contriving the facts and the intelligence.
Posted by nacl at 06/18/2005 @ 8:55pm
Your head has been monkeyed with. Don't pretend that an objective reading of that memo by an Englishmen has Dearlove saying, the Americans are contriving the facts and the intelligence.
God forbid.
I'm a Scotsman.
Posted by Azathoth at 06/18/2005 @ 9:02pm
blockquote>
The bottom line is that there was a ferocious fascist regime in Baghdad. Its sport teams feared for their lives when they lost. It amputated the tongues of its critics and put 300,000 of its citizens into mass graves, according to HRW and the UN. And all the intelligence agencies, including those of France and Russia, believed Saddam retained WMD.
The American Left took its stand on the side of that regime. So too the most ferocious elements of the radical right and left and Islamists: anti-Semites all. That is where the Left made its bed. It agitated and groaned on behalf of a govt of mass killers.
It turned openly fascist. That is what the history books will say. The Left stood up for an indisputable fascist regime. And deep inside that crowd of crazies and terrorists and American haters and Israel loathers, whooping it up with the worst of them, was the intelligent, and humane and progressive magazine, The Nation.
Far worse mistake than when it took up with Stalin, the American Left has now sided against the US with tongue amputating Baathists. It has made its final mistake. That is how history books will view these recent events.
That is the dread beginning to drone in your ears. Which explains all this moralizing and scratching after memos even as Iraqis are scratching into the dirt of mass graves.
Posted by nacl at 06/18/2005 @ 9:25pm
The original article by David Corn, "The Latest Downing Street Memos", and the accompanying "blogs", are all very interesting. They are all also total B.S. You people do not understand that the Iraq war was necessary and justified, so here goes an attempt to explain it to you.
The Iraq war was not just about WMDs, or a response to September 11. It was because of a whole range of issues. It was part of the overall war on terrorism, and it was conducted to deal with real threats that existed at the time, were going to exist in the future, and to stop Saddam's torture of his people, to stop death, misery and human suffering.
The WMDs- It is a matter of public record that WMDs existed. The weapons inspectors were dismantling them in the 90's, and when they left Iraq in 1998, it is a matter of public record that significant quantities of them were unaccounted for. We are not talking about battleships and tanks, we are talking about stuff that can be easily moved or hid, especially in light of the fact that no inspectors were in Iraq for four years. Everybody in the world agreed that Iraq was a threat and prominent Democrats (the party in office at the time) are on record as saying that threats existed and Saddam may need to be removed by force. Now, after the war, no WMDs are found, so you people just take off and declare that they don't exist, they never existed, and it was all a George W. Bush lie, all with NO concern whatsoever as to what happened to things that are a matter of public record to have existed. You can have the luxury of playing Monday Morning quarterback, but a President of the United States can not just sit around, especially in a post September 11 world, and not deal with real threats to the country. Don't forget, if we had no war, if we had the peace you people craved, and then down the road large quantities of people died in a U.S. city due to an anthrax attack, you would have been the first to crucify President Bush for letting it happen!
The future threats and the future WMDs- After the war, we now know for sure that Saddam was a future threat that needed to be stopped. The Kay report, which came out the February after the war, totally vindicated the President and Prime Minister in the actions that they took. We know, from this report, that the weapons programs were in a stage where they could be resurrected again at a future date. Saddam was biding his time until the heat was off, and then, once this was the case, he was going to begin making WMDs again. We know this from people that were captured and confessed, or came forward and confessed, who had worked in Saddam's weapons programs. If we had the peace you people demanded, we would never had known this, those people would still be on the job for Saddam. And the heat would have eventually been off, because, after all if we have found no WMDs now certainly Hans Blix would have found none before the war, and eventually he and others would have declared Saddam free of WMDs. The international pressure would have been to declare the case closed, the problem solved, and that would have been the end of that. Anything said after that about Saddam being a threat would have fallen on deaf ears.
And-- about that Kay report-- it highlights a pattern of behavior by you people where you tend to take information out of context or selectively "cherry pick" or obsess about points supporting your beliefs (or that you think support your beliefs) while ignoring others that do not. When the report came out, Matthew Rothschild, of The Progressive Magazine, (a magazine no doubt very familiar to a lot of you) had a comment on his website as to how the Kay report said there were no trailers in Iraq in contradiction to what Colin Powell said at the U.N. before the war. Thus, this proved (in his mind) that President Bush was a liar and he made a comment along the lines that "once fooled, shame on you, twice fooled shame on me". The big problem here is that this was one paragraph out of an 11-page report, the entire rest of which proved that what George W. Bush and Tony Blair did was right. At that point, a reasonable person would have to ask, what is Mr. Rothschild's problem here? Is he functionally illiterate in that he read the report and didn't understand it? Or did he understand it and is simply and crassly promoting an agenda? Behavior such as this completely and totally dilutes, weakens, and invalidates the actions of those on the left in regard to this issue.
The threat of terror in general- No "smoking gun" has been found linking Saddam to September 11. However, the war in Iraq and the war on terror in general is not just in response to September 11, September 11 was simply the "straw that broke the camel's back". It became obvious at that point that something needed to be done. Terror had existed for years and nothing significant was ever done about it. And Saddam was definitely a major force for instability and terror in the region. And every now and then you people proclaim that it's been proven that there was no link- yet I've seen information about ties between Iraq and Al-Queda. You people will never agree- but the jury is still out on that one.
Saddam's torture of his people- This one fascinates me- You people are utterly silent on this issue. In all the liberal rantings and ravings and pre and post war crucification of George W. Bush, this subject literally never comes up. It is rare to see a liberal in any way even comment on this issue, much less have any credible plan as to how they would have stopped it. Yet, liberals in many ways never tire of telling us that they are the fighters of oppression and fighters against injustice and every four years at election time people are told they should hitch their wagon to some Democrat star (whether it be one who "feels our pain" or has a stack of plans) who will slay all the dragons and right all the wrongs. The silence of those on the left who portray themselves in this manner on the issue of Saddam's torture of his people is DEAFINING.
The Downing Street Memo- This, of course, is the main subject of this series of blogs, and you people think you have found some kind of proof and "smoking gun" that will take President Bush down. The problem is, when one reads the Downing Street memo, one sees that there is nothing incriminating there! One part of the memo says " It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. ". Well, duh! -- no kidding! -- It was blatantly obvious that a military intervention was going to be necessary. Saddam thwarted international will for over 11 years, all attempts to get him to comply with any and all resolutions were met with failure. All while his people suffered under the sanctions - because Saddam let them suffer while he financed several opulent presidential palaces (besides what we now know about the "Oil for Food" program!). It was also blatantly obvious that some people in the international community, France in particular, were never going to agree to a war in Iraq. You people portray France and Jacques Chirac as great promoters of peace -- in total ignorance of the fact that France was acting in it's own national self interest. France had a strong trading relationship with Iraq and Jacques Chirac had been a strong friend of Saddam in the past. Senator Daschle wailed and moaned on the Senate floor about the "failure of diplomacy" but the only "successful" diplomacy would have been if we had caved in to France. And had we caved in to France, there would have been peace, and Saddam would be in power to this day manufacturing WMDs and torturing his people. You people can come up with all kinds of "evidence" and "facts" but the fact is- a matter of public record-- that in spite of the obvious we continued to try to go the U.N. route to placate the international community and those wanting to give it one more chance. As I mentioned before, you can not just dither around forever. The U.N. has proven itself to be totally ineffective in dealing with large scale human suffering that is precipitated by the actions of tyrants, whether it be Rwanda or what's happening in the Sudan now or the Iraq issue. People suffer and die while U.N. diplomats bat their gums at each other with endless talk and dialogue giving diplomacy and peace every chance.
The situation in Iraq now-- You people get on the soapbox and condemn President Bush and Prime Minister Blair as war criminals because of the deaths of the soldiers and of Iraqi people as a result of the war-- as though if only we had not conducted "imperialist, illegal war for Haliburton and Iraqi oil" then everything would be wonderful and pristine and there would be no suffering and death. And then, of course, the proclamation is made that we angered the Islamic world and caused the insurgents to attack us. Your head is in the sand on this one, big time. The insurgents and those attacking us now have always hated us-- and we would have been fighting them eventually anyway, and with much greater loss and consequence. The suffering and death and human misery would have been far greater if we had not taken action now. We are only 60-70 years removed in history from a similar example- World War II. When Germany began building up in violation of the Treaty of Versailles, Winston Churchill warned the world what was happening and suggested action be taken. No, the world said, we have to have peace, Germany is no threat, we have no right to attack Germany, etc. etc. Some people even opined that there was nothing to the rumors and stories of Jews being persecuted in Germany, that those stories were made up by hawks looking for a reason to start the war. And then the ultimate glory by those advocating peace-- Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain went to the Nazis and gave them the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia, which they said was all they wanted. The UK and the world were relieved! We had achieved "Peace in Our Time"! Whew, all the problems were solved!!! BOY, THAT WORKED GREAT, DIDN'T IT!!! Yet, you people don't seem capable of learning lessons from history.
Why then, do you people believe the way you do? Some of us understand why the war was necessary, and the larger issues involved. Some of us understand that no one was lied to, no one was misled, not by President Bush or by Prime Minister Blair. Some of us understand that no wrong or injustice occurred and that the world is fortunate that these two men had the guts to take the action to alleviate human misery and suffering with the thanks being a never ending condemnation by those of your beliefs. You people persist in a continual effort of strident opposition and hate. You portray yourselves as opposing injustice and wrong and needless death, yet the reality is you are simply acting out on the basis of your partisan beliefs. How else to explain no fury and condemnation of the wars in Bosnia and Kosovo, during the Clinton administration? Why was there no MoveOn.org, no International A.N.S.W.E.R (act now to stop war and end racism!), no war protestors in San Francisco vomiting and defecating for peace (it sounds bizarre but it really happened!) during the efforts in Kosovo and Bosnia. If war and death are wrong, then they are wrong-- but I guess not-- I guess it's justified if the president is a Democrat. Point-counterpoint, you people would immediately say that Republicans hated Bill Clinton, but that just makes my point, not weakens it. Your opposition to the Iraq war and George W. Bush is based on your partisan beliefs, not on legitimate moral beliefs. And there was no massive Republican opposition to Kosovo and Bosnia, as I remember it, no Republican Senators looking for an "exit strategy" 10 minutes after the troops were on the ground, no Republicans proclaiming we were involved in another Vietnam 10 minutes after the troops were on the ground. The only thing I remember was some opinion on talk radio that Clinton took military action to get the nation's attention off of his ethical shortcomings. That's it. But this issue goes beyond just a Republican-Democrat or Left-Right issue. There's more to it. You people are intoxicated with a blind hatred of President Bush that goes beyond anything I have ever seen directed towards a politician in this country, Democrat or Republican, in my lifetime. I am 51 years old, and I have paid attention to current events even when I was a kid, and nobody has ever been on the receiving end of what you people throw up at Mr. Bush. It must be the 2000 election. You do not understand the rule of law in this country, you do not understand the role of the judiciary in this country-- ACCORDING TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION-- and most of you will no doubt go to your graves spreading the lie that the election was "stolen", that the President was "selected not elected", that the Supreme Court "anointed" Mr. Bush as president, etc. etc. The election in Florida was close, and recounts took place. We reached a point where Florida election law indicated an end to that process. The Florida Supreme Court tried to allow them to continue. However, if the law calls for an end to the recounts, and since the courts' CONSTITUTIONAL responsibility is to rule on a case based on what the law says - and NOT make law from the bench, then the proper ruling is for the recounts to stop. That's it- and the U.S. Supreme Court properly stepped in and overturned the Florida court's ruling. You don't just keep recounting ballots till kingdom come, despite what the law says, because one side demands it, citing election irregularities that to this day have never been proven, and probably never will. Now, as free citizens in a free country, there is no obligation for you to support President Bush. There is no law that says you have to be the least bit pleased with the outcome of that election. However, I would think that there would be some obligation for citizens to understand how their government works, what is and is not in the Constitution, what the rule of law is. Yet you people absolutely do not. I bring this up, although it is off the subject of the original blog, because it clearly plays a part in your behavior. There is nothing George W. Bush has ever said or done, or ever will, that will pass muster with you people. You see what you want to see, you believe what you want to believe, you obsess about some things while selectively ignoring other things, you manufacture all kinds of "points" to try and prove your beliefs while ignoring the real issues, and thus your "blogs" are exposed for what they really are- sanctimony, hypocrisy, lies, ignorance, partisanship and just plain B.S.
Posted by sjchermak at 06/18/2005 @ 11:38pm
NACL:
Not only are you a naive individual, but a very ignorant one at that!
300,000 of Iraqi citizens were put into mass graves, it was terrible, however the same thing is happening right this very moment in Darfur. Over a million people, driven from their homes, now face death from starvation and disease as the Government and militias attempt to prevent humanitarian aid from reaching them. The same forces have destroyed the people of Darfur's villages and crops, and poisoned their water supplies, and they continue to murder, rape and terrorize.
The situation in Darfur is dire and we havent heard a dam thing from the mouth of this so called leader of ours now have we? He's done nothing!
So don't give me this song and dance about genocide in Iraq when it continues today in Darfur! It is the same in North Korea, Kim Jong Il is starving thousands upon thousand of his own people and what has Bush done!
And invading Iraq, it wasn't about the deaths of innocent people, or that Saddam Hussein is an evil man, it is about oil, greed and hegemony. They aren't building permanent military bases in Iraq for the fun of it!
Wake up NACL!
p.s. And stop coping and pasting everyones posts. It is rather childish.
Posted by Munich at 06/18/2005 @ 11:57pm
My Dear SJCHERMAK,
I read your entire post twice, just to make certain I was reading it correctly. Now that I have done so, I can only say that your entire presentation reeks of neo-con thoughts and pipedreams. I can't even begin to argue point-by-point with you, because everything you said has been refuted over and over again by people more accomplished with the written word than I. One point I do want to make is that you cheapen your entire dissertation and show the level of your intolerance by your insistance on referring to those of us who disagree with your ideas as "you people." Those two words say it all as far as I'm concerned.
Posted by zasu at 06/19/2005 @ 02:38am
Alright, let's say, Egypt and South Africa, after the US and Britain veto resolutions for UN action in Darfur, unilaterally come to the defense of those refugees. Their armies march into Khartoum, close down the Sudanese police state and install a popularly elected govt. That creates jubilation but also ignites a smoldering janjeweed insurgency.
At the same time millions of American neocons protest that regime change. They make no brief for the ovethrown Sudanese thugs, but they groan over the immorality and illegality of an action which effectively ended Sudanese helicopter gunships and janjaweed killing and ethnically cleansing the blacks of Darfur. They cheer on the janjaweed insurgency and hope the Egyptian and South African occupation which is keeping alive the nascent democratic regime, is driven out.
How would you judge that?
Posted by nacl at 06/19/2005 @ 03:17am
NaCl's lame defense is just that, and safely to be ignored. SJChermak, with whom I strongly disagree, nonetheless makes several salient points, but misses the "big picture". As something of an aside, I would note that if she/he's been paying attention to public affairs since childhood, and thinks Bush is the most vilified of presidents, she/he must have slept through the entire Clinton administration's eight years!! But that's neither here nor there.
SJChermak's points about the evils of Saddam's regime are certainly well taken, and for the purposes of her/his argument seem to support the central point: that the US/UK-engineered war of regime change is justified. What SJChermak seems to miss, however, are two most critical points: 1) the Congress, not Mr. Bush, has the sole constitutional authority to declare war, which it has not done so far; and 2) the adventure was not undertaken for the published reasons, which were WMDs, then rescuing the Iraqis from evil Saddam, then "freedom and democracy", etc., etc., ad nauseum. One needs only to review the objectives outlined by Project for the New American Century, Bush's National Defense Posture Review, various statements out of AIPAC, the Israeli press, the ADL & AJC, and books by Richard Clarke, Paul O'Neill, and Bob Woodward to discern that the neocons and Bush had no such high-blown motives as freeing the Iraqis from Saddam or making the world safe from terrorism and WMDs. So Bush misled both the Congress and the nation to launch an illegal and immoral war. While Saddam surely led an evil regime, his is/was not the only one in the world. It is only with the most self-righteous imperial arrogance that one might argue that it is the responsibility of the United States to remove all evil from the world, and make it safe for corporate, crony capitalism!
Plain and simple, the motivations were corporatist/hegemonic, and in service to the aims of the Zionists/Likudniks who control Israel's government...a sort of "twofer". Clearly, in terms of energy supplies, control of Middle Eastern oil reserves is of enormous strategic importance to those who are a) interested in world dominance; and b) are heavily invested in energy sources focused on fossil fuels, e. g., oil & natural gas. By controlling Iraqi oil reserves, and erecting a significant military presence in that strategically located country, and in Afghanistan, the US is in a position to control ALL Middle Eastern oil reserves. It will also be strategically placed (with at least 14 permanent military installations now under construction in Iraq) to exert controlling influence on oil and gas production throughout Africa, as well.
With China's and India's burgeoning demands for petroleum, and China's and Saudi Arabia's control of a huge portion of US debt, what better way to balance off the vulnerability that causes than to be in a position to cut off China's oil supplies, manage India's drain of the supply, and forestall any notions the Saudis might develop to apply leverage? While Russia and some of the former SSR's remain "wild cards", the militarists obviously believe they can be intimidated should they show any inclination to challenge US hegemony.
The Israeli Zionists have an obvious interest in having the US take out or neutralize as many of its Middle Eastern enemies as possible, without them having to expend a single soldier. It is unarguable that the Likud government of Ariel Sharon has egged on the Bush Administration to make war on Iraq, and probably Iran and Syria as well, having the US serve as Israel's proxy in this regard. It is no accident that Mossad and other IDF personnel are clandestinely participating in the Iraqi operation, as well as in Afghanistan, often passing themselves off as Arabs.
As to the constitutionality of Bush's anointment to the Presidency in 2000 by the US Supreme Court, SJChermak's argument falls flat. She/he asserts that the Florida Supreme Court ruled in contravention of Florida law to continue the recounts, and that it was necessary for the US Supremes to "save the day" by overruling the Florida court. Unless SJChermak can cite the precise provision in Florida law that substantiates that assertion, I remain unconvinced. Gore campaign attorneys made a strategic error by appealing to the US Supremes in the first place, no question. But the rationale offered by the US Supremes' majority for its ruling has nothing to do with the Constitution. That unsigned ruling stated that "Bush would incur irreparable harm" if the recount continued. It said nothing about the Florida Supreme Court having ruled in either an illegal or unconstitutional manner, nor did it say anything about "saving the nation from the uncertainty" of the recount! So it wasn't a constitutional issue. It was an unprecedented, partisan insertion of the power of the US Supreme Court into a political situation...and it probably was itself unconstitutional.
Neither I nor, do I believe for one minute, most who oppose Bush are "intoxicated with hatred". Certainly, Bush and his ilk, in my opinion, are not worth the expenditure of energy such hatred would require. Nor do I accept that opposition to BushCo is unpatriotic, or anti-American, or subversive, or any of those epithets thrown at those of us who oppose his administration and its policies, both foreign and domestic. SJChermak reveals, I think, the weakness of her/his position, by ending with ad hominem attacks on those who disagree, labeling us as "sanctimonious, hypocritical, ignorant, partisan liars". And, I think, BushCo has a monopoly franchise on hypocrisy, so there wouldn't be any of that left over for the rest of us.
Posted by bobwalters at 06/19/2005 @ 03:18am
NACL:
Its sport teams feared for their lives when they lost
Indeed, but half the Iraqi national football (soccer to you) team, once tortured by Uday have admitted to attacking U.S troops...what does that tell you?
The American Left took its stand on the side of that regime. So too the most ferocious elements of the radical right and left and Islamists: anti-Semites all. That is where the Left made its bed. It agitated and groaned on behalf of a govt of mass killers.
We get the same blowhard, logic mauling absurdity spouted over here, thankfully though those promulgating such hogwash are increasingly being forced to the lunatic fringes of either the Blairite loyalist or Conservative rebel (the British Conservatives originaly supported the war but now openly accuse Blair of lying).
How exactly feeling furiously incensed at being misled intentionaly by the Bush/Blair coalition equates to supporting Saddam is quite beyond me, other than through the convoluted path of facile pseudo-logic of the desperate and dishonest.
And how such flagrantly simplistic, chest thumping, farcical rhetoric gains any credence or gravitas in the U.S is constantly a source of bemusement and some (head shaking) amusement over here.
Heh, George Galloway is on TV as I type, now there's a real rhetoritician.
Posted by Azathoth at 06/19/2005 @ 04:41am
Two comments:
"BobWalters" claims I must have been asleep during the eight years of the Clinton administration. I can assure him I was wide awake, and even voted for Mr. Clinton the first time (A big mistake I now regret). He came in for an immense amount of criticism from Conservatives but I stand by my original statement- Anything levied at Mr. Clinton paled in comparison to the vitriol and hate I see expressed towards President Bush.
Outside of my posting, "Munich" takes "NACL" to task about Iraq by bringing up the mess occurring in Darfur. Munich, just what exactly do you propose we do? We ARE doing what those on the left ("Zasu" says I'm wrong for using the words "you people") proclaim should be done! We are letting the U.N. handle it, thus our actions are passing the "global test"!. This is apparently the way to go, despite the fact that people are suffering and dying as a result. The only other alternative would be a military intervention, and can you imagine the firestorm of controversy that would create! The left in this country would go utterly beserk. Any increases in the defense budget needed to make it possible would also be condemned. And other world nations don't have the wherewithal to make a significant contribution to a military effort, either. According to those on the left, the Western European nations "have their priorities right" and thus they have the cradle to grave welfare states that liberals crave and adore. This leaves no money to have a military of any substance to either defend themselves should that be necessary or to meaningfully contribute where needed. So, the question goes back to "Munich"--- just exactly what do YOU propose we do?
Posted by sjchermak at 06/19/2005 @ 11:22am
The Downing Street memo is undeniable proof that through lies and deceit, the president of our country invented the stage for his war.
Through these immoral, illegal avenues he sold his personal agenda to Congress and the people.
It's my contention that GW Bush was planning his war on Iraq long before he set foot in the Oval Office. He was hell-bent to have his revenge against Saddam Hussein.
For one man's personal agenda the deaths of American youth is climbing towards two thousand while innocent Iraqi deaths are uncountable. This places Bush in the category with Hussein and Hitler: mass murderers.
Yes, I cannot deny that I detest GW Bush. Primarily for the damage he'd done to our beloved country and the people. He has been the most ruinous chief executive of my lifetime, from robbing from the poor to give to the rich, catering to his special interest groups who have outsourced our good jobs and left Americans hanging, lack of action on the medical crisis we face and performing as though the people were deaf, dumb and blind. His war on Iraq has put a dark blight on our country that will remain perhaps as long as the country itself remains.
If there were ever a cause for impeachment, now is the time. Congress must act. They can no longer back away nor in any sense excuse the horror brought upon us by Bush. Bush and every member of his cabinet must be ousted from ever taking part in our governmental system. They are all criminals and those are the people we build jails for.
Posted by uglyduckling at 06/19/2005 @ 11:45am
Hello Zero
within the already warped view of the world in which only two positions can exist, only one of them is "right", morally, and that pole is totally "right". The other pole, necessarily, totalistically encompasses wrong, or evil. This is a matter of faith-based reasoning; the already warped binary thinking is exacerbated by theological intolerance of one of the poles in question.
While I agree, of course, which much of your post I wouldn't blame this entirely on 'faith based reasoning' (though I must say I'm delighted to be over here in secular Europe observing from a distance the current absurdities occurring as the U.S tries to drag itself back to the middle ages it never had), from experience I'd have to say such simplistic black and white 'thinking' can occur for a multitude of reasons...I'd include amongst these intellectual redundance, selfish self interest, cowardice, dishonesty, desperation...nothing particularly appealing. Blair has had to increasingly fall back on it as time has gone on and it simply doesn't wash with the British public. Why many Americans seem more comfortable with it is not for me to say.
Posted by Azathoth at 06/19/2005 @ 1:55pm
Where one side side tears out the tongues of its critics, kills its own citizens by the hundreds of thousands, initiates aggressive wars that leave at least 750,000 corpses (Iraqis and Iranians), threatens to turn a neighbor into a sheet of flame, gives bonuses to suicide bombers - while the other side spends blood and treasure on behalf of a democratic govt - there the situation is black and white. There yammering about unsophisticated thinking is disgusting.
Seldom is the right and wrong of a matter ever so patent. It was not in Yugoslavia, it certainly was not in Vietnam. It wasn't in WWI.
It was in WWII. There too an, are you with us or against us, was legitimate. (Although the Left only realized that when Russia was attacked).
No one today denies, WWII was a black and white matter. So too is Iraq.
The Left has always pointed to a wicked opponent, the radical Right. It was never ashamed of a lack of ambiguity. It rarely thought denouncing fascists was unsophisticated. Now it does.
Now we discover, the radical Left and Right on the same side. Now we see them manifesting the same reflexes and penchants. The Socialist in National Socialist Workers Party was not just opportunistic word play. Iraq shows us totalitarians, anti democratic, fanatic, ferociously aggressive and deeply anti-Semitic. The Left stands there.
Chirping about unsophisticated black and white thinking is a poor joke, it is sad and shameful.
Posted by nacl at 06/19/2005 @ 3:57pm
Zero,
I'm not sure 9/11 is the reason, it simply focused what was already there. I recently read a story written in 1971 about politics in New York which frankly could have been written yesterday...the same simple sloganeering, the same cheap abuse thrown from both sides...'you're attacking our liberal freedoms'...'you're traitors who hate america'...yada yada yada...nothing seems to have changed in 30 years never mind since 9/11. Obviously a nationalistic outcry was both understandable and inevitable but as far as the level of 'debate' in and about politics I see as an outsider it seems to have very little effect other than to have, perhaps, sharpened and hardened the extremes.
Posted by Azathoth at 06/19/2005 @ 4:21pm
NACL:
Where one side side tears out the tongues of its critics, kills its own citizens by the hundreds of thousands, initiates aggressive wars that leave at least 750,000 corpses (Iraqis and Iranians), threatens to turn a neighbor into a sheet of flame, gives bonuses to suicide bombers - while the other side spends blood and treasure on behalf of a democratic govt - there the situation is black and white. There yammering about unsophisticated thinking is disgusting.
Well, thanks again for a further demonstration.
Your country protected and helped install Saddam Hussein as a dictator then supported him in his war with Iran, while simultaneously selling arms to the Iranians to fund the terrorist Contras. Yet now wants to (according to you) altruistically expend it's 'blood and treasure' on behalf of an Iraqi democracy, while carrying on a fight against 'terrorism'.
You see this as black and white?
Posted by Azathoth at 06/19/2005 @ 4:46pm
You are misinformed.
Iraq's govt of General Kassem, installed after the murder of Iraq's royal family in 1959, was overthrown in 1963. Thereupon Saddam, a Baath assassin on the lamb in Cairo, hurried home. But the new regime swiftly turned on the Baath and threw many of its members into jail, including Saddam who got 2 years. Had the US influence with the new govt that would have been a strange way to support its protege.
Saddam was not America's boy and whatever influence the US had in Iraq ended in 1967 when the two countries broke diplomatic relations. A year thereafter the Baath came to power and Saddam soon made his way up the party hierarchy. If anyone had anything to do with this rise, if he was ever anyone's protege, it was the KGB and of its station chief, ambassador Primakov. He remained Saddam's friend into the 1990s. The Baath, a socialist and pan-Arab party was anathema to the US in any case. It was the Soviet's creature. Hence Iraq fell into the Soviet camp and fielded Russian tanks, planes, artillery. Iraq's officers learned their business in Soviet war academies not at Fort McNair. Iraq's scientists and technicians were trained in Leningrad laboratories, not in Cambridge. What Iraq did not get from the Soviets it got from China and also from France and Germany, especially in the way of c/b warfare labs and a nuclear reactor. Only the US sold Saddam nothing. She alone had a law forbidding arms sales to Iraq, a law violated once, which produced an embarrassing trial.
It was only in November 1984 that US/Iraq diplomatic relations resumed, because Iran threatened to overrun the Gulf's oil fields. Even then US help involved mainly satellite intelligence. By 1990 a Swedish govt survey found that less than 1% of the arms in Iraq's arsenal had a US provenance.
You brandish the Contragate weapons sold Iran, not Iraq, as though they confirm your lies and distortions. They were part of an effort to win the release of US hostages in Lebanon.
You tar the US with calumny and defamation to distract from and justify your fascism. It won't work. To think that John Paul Jones was a Scot.
Posted by nacl at 06/19/2005 @ 6:17pm
I think it's evident that a nerve has been touched here. Can you smell the fear? I can.
It will be fun watching all of these guys wriggle around in denial (or deliberate obfusication).
Posted by FeithHealer at 06/19/2005 @ 11:55pm
Rumsfeld was in Iraq in December of 1983 to talk to Hussein about the use of chemical weapons against Iran. Ronald Reagan said that his administration did not trade weapons or anything else for hostages.
Posted by first58s at 06/20/2005 @ 12:08am
Addendum to my post of 6/19/05:
Because I detest GW BUsh, doesn't mean that I detest all republicans. I am unenrolled and a swing voter. The one I consider to be best for my country gets my vote.
Then too, Blair couldn't have been more right when he questioned Bush's mental ability to set-up and execute his war on Iraq. I have long questioned his sanity and believe his ego is so enormously explosive that it forbids accurate logic and reason.
What sane president would sell America to China and Saudi Arabia?
Posted by uglyduckling at 06/20/2005 @ 10:27am
Rubbish.
Poison gas was already resorted to by Iraq two months into the war. She chemically bombed Susangard in November 1980. Many other such attacks followed. The Iranians soon retaliated in kind.
The Iranians also used human wave attacks. Those were enormously costly but effective. By 1983 Iraq's army was beginning to teeter. There was a real possibility of an Iranian breakthrough into the Gulf. The danger loomed that Ayatollah Khomeini, for whom the US was the Great Satan and who had held 52 American diplomats hostage for 444 days, would gain control of the Gulf's oil fields. America's economic jugular would be in his hands.
At that point Reagan sent Rumsfeld to talk to Baghdad. That would lead to the restoration of diplomatic relations in Nov '84 and to military help. It consisted mainly of sharing satellite intelligence. With it the Iraqis were able to anticipate and blunt Iranian attacks. US help was meant to prevent an Iranian breakthrough, and it did only that.
Posted by nacl at 06/20/2005 @ 2:53pm
NACL:
You are missing the point, which is that the American people were lied to about the reasons behind our government's decision to go to war.
The various interpretations of the word "fixed" are irrelevant. Perhaps the more important word is "around." I don't "fix" any beliefs or arguments "around" something unless or until that core consideration is solid. Whichever definition of "fixed" you use, the presence of the word "around" still indicates the centrality of the core belief, which is already held--in this case, before all the evidence was examined.
Anyway, the Downing Street memos are only the latest evidence of Bush's predisposition to go to war in Iraq. Your greater point is that the war itself is justified on humanitarian grounds and in the spirit of international justice and safety. I could (almost) accept that argument, except that it wasn't the one that was made by the administration. If the cause is justified, the rationale for that cause does not need to be fabricated, twisted, or otherwise manipulated.
In general, NaCl, I think you should be more careful in how you portray the left's opposition to this war. We have not had a truly progressive president in decades, if ever, and certainly not a progressive foreign policy. Our core beliefs are not represented at all by the foreign policy decisions our presidents have made, so it's kind of tough to argue that "the American Left took its stance on the side of that regime." We (the US, left or right)are purely in a reactive posture to the entire Middle East. If the left disapproves of our government's handling of foreign affairs, it is not a result of siding with a despot--it is because we are not sure that our government is taking the proper approach. The ends do not justify the means; nor do our best-laid plans ensure success.
We had many opportunites to use our soft power to disable Saddam's regime. We even helped foment a rebellion that we then turned our backs on. It's kind of hard to portray our current military actions as justified when we did not exhaust all of our diplomatic and economic options.
SJCHERMAK:
I disagree vehemently with George W. Bush, but I do not hate him. I disagree with him because we interpret our faith and the role of our country differently, and I feel he is dangerously misguided. Do not misinterpret frustration as hate. Please understand also that some of us who speak out strongly against Bush do so because he does not listen to our concerns, and the partisan coattail-riders around him do their best to portray dissent as unpatriotic and evil, not because of hatred. In a democracy, an administration should not close ranks around an embattled politician or policy, but that is increasingly what happens in this adminstration. You're right, the controversy surrounding the 2000 election didn't help, but neither has the insipidly spineless media or the administration's own truth-mangling. In short, I'm sorry if the vitriol turns you off--I understand your reaction, but a controversial president is going to receive that kind of response. If we did nothing, our sin would be much greater.
Posted by jkoyon at 06/20/2005 @ 2:57pm
Yours is the mantra of people who prefer to believe, the true reasons for the war was to steal the oil, or to help the Jews, or to avenge Bush 41, or to enrich Chaney's friends, or to humiliate the Arabs, or to realize a neocon new world order, etc. In short, to promote your lies you call the administration, liars.
Certainly by July 2002, if not earlier, that predisposition existed; and why not? It was high time. It was necessary for the US to assert herself. It would have been dangerous not to.
My greater point is that it was necessary to seize and wring the neck of the most representative, most dangerous and most contumacious of the many murderous police states that thought the US (and her non-proliferation effort) could be outflanked, could be tricked, could be shattered. Saddam had become the Saladin of that crowd. He was their exemplar, also of the world's pro-Soviet remnants, and of the radical right (Austria's Haider was his good friend). Iraq, was the most forward of the hyenas snapping at America.
My point is that the Left, should have been happy that one of the greatest human rights violators had been defanged, instead of tearing its hair out over the "injustice" that befell Saddam.
The US and her foreigh policy is not the exclusive instrument of Progressives. The Progressives never wanted to fight Stalin or his heirs. They are to this day in mourning over the fall of the Soviet Union. For that matter, they did not want to fight Hitler, until after Russia was attacked.
Yes, America followed a foreign policy Progressives mainly opposed. As a result Europe and Japan are today free and prosperous. Eastern Europe has joined the EU and NATO. The states of the former Yugoslavia are today at peace. The Pacific rim has moved from autocracy and squalor to democracy and prosperity. China is being finessed out of her Mao suit. And for the first time there is a chance that a democratic and dhealthy Iraq can be achieved with a potential of transforming the entire Middle East.
That Progressive values were not served by any of that, does not speak well for your core beliefs.
Posted by nacl at 06/20/2005 @ 5:22pm
Unfortunately, unless the Democratic Party can win a clear majority in both the House and the Senate next go-around, the facts and the lies surrounding the prelude to the Iraq war will not only never be given the real investigation they deserve, but the probable criminality involved will forever go unpunished. The democratic leadership had better stop boxing and start slugging. The time for style over substance is definitely over.
Posted by D1od1o at 06/20/2005 @ 7:52pm
Runsfeld did meet with Hussein in December 1983. This web site should clear up any doubts: www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82. That is Rumsfeld in the picture, that is Hussein in the picture, and it is dated December 20, 1983.
Posted by first58s at 06/20/2005 @ 9:09pm
You are insisting on a point everyone knows and which is not in dispute. I even referred to it in my 2:53pm riposte to you.
Posted by nacl at 06/20/2005 @ 9:48pm
NaCl, Uncle Sam wants you [goarmy.com].
Posted by FeithHealer at 06/21/2005 @ 02:11am
Last night David Gregory filled in for Hardballs Chris Matthew's and had an exclusive with Michael Smith, who broke the story of the highly confidential Downing Street memo for The Sunday Times of London. I find it rather odd that Matthews wasn't there for this exclusive.
An excerpt:
SMITH: First of all, it says very clearly and in these terms, not--is not me making this up. It's what it actually says is the document, is that the prime minister agreed, when he went to the Crawford summit in April 2002, he agreed to back military action to achieve regime change. Now, that, actually, at that stage, was something illegal for the British prime minister to agree.
But, by extension, of course, if Mr. Blair agreed it, he's agreeing it with Mr. Bush. It then says in that document it is necessary to create the conditions to make military action legal, because regime change per se is illegal under international law.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8301757/
Posted by Munich at 06/21/2005 @ 5:27pm
Many of us oppose the continuing (and apparently interminable) decimation of American and Iraqi lives in Iraq. Many of us want the insanity to cease, and we want it to cease because its continuance harms America and its national interests. We need make no apologies for wishing harm to our country to cease.
Nevertheless, since our calls for military withdrawal from Iraq place us in opposition to the policies of the current American regime, we will have to expect virulent ad hominem attacks on us and our patriotism from those who support that regime whatever it says or does. Those who hated former President Bill Clinton for his pathetic sexual dalliances (because they could find no better reason for hating him -- and needed none) now find any criticism of President Bush's failed policies abhorrent. I guess we "liberals" will just have to learn to live with the sting. As for myself, I always try to keep this sort of thing in perspective by recalling a conversation between Humphrey Bogart and Peter Lorre in the movie "Casablanca."
Lorre (the "conservative"): "You despise me, don't you, Rick?"
Bogart (the "liberal"): "If I gave you any thought, I might."
Something like that. America should withdraw its military forces from Iraq for reasons wholly unrelated to the pathetic career of George W. Bush. The wheels of justice will have to deal with him at some later date. For now, the issue involves withdrawing American military forces from Iraq for their own sake and the sake of the Iraqi people who will then form whatever sort of governmnent they want. America should withdraw militarily (but stay engaged in other, more positive ways) because the longer our military forces stay in Iraq, the more of them die or become deranged. As one who served in a similar debacle long ago, I can state categorically that this stage of our military's disintegration comes accompanied by "fraggings," "murders," and other unexplainable "friendly fire" incidents -- many of which we have already started reading about in the press. Cheap heroin addiction (see nearby Afghanistan) also begins to play a part in the Army's devolution at this stage of a hopeless quagmire. Some may not care what happens to America's military forces, and I for one would like to see them greatly reduced because of their wasteful expense and redundant irrelevancy to matters of true national security. Still, I don't want to see that reduction happen this way: through brutal, bloody attrition.
Doing nothing (i.e., "staying the curse") may look attractive to the current American regime -- by which I mean the three branches of government and the two major political parties -- but that choice (and doing nothing does constitute a choice) leads only to military withdrawal in the form of collapse and rout. I really don't want to see another panicked helicopter exit from the roof of our local embassy. Exiting rationally, in good order, to more defensible and effective deployments will only help America and its military. Thumb-twiddling and wishful thinking will not suffice any longer. They have served as American foreign policy for far too many years already.
Posted by mrmurry at 06/21/2005 @ 11:09pm
Do you represent a delegation, or is it just yourself in your BVDs, punching tiny keys with thick fingers? Or are you saying, you are not too sure of yourself? Therefore all that platitudinizing in the name of a multitudinous chin, eh?
Oh, I do not doubt that you are one of a multitude. All of you are tremendously humane. You are conscience racked. The deaths in Iraq keep you awake.
As they did when the Baath was in charge, when hundreds of thousands of Shia were being slaughtered, when thousands of Kurds were gassed in Halabja, when hundreds of Kuwaitis were dragged into Baghdad cellars, from which they never emerged. You were also in agony back then, just like now. Of course you were, you noblemen.
Saddam's police state was unrivaled in its murderous way, except for North Korea. Naturally it was abhorrent to you. It anguished you. You could not stand America's "thumb twiddling" and wishful thinking. Isn't that right? You supported the ejction of that lowlife. You were so relieved.
Or am I wrong? Can it be that you are you are pompous and presumptuous bag of hot air?
You are certainly presumptuous. I thought Clinton, in the overall, a good president. His zipper problem did not bother me. I would have voted for him for a third term.
And I'm far from pleased with this administration. But its Iraq policy is clearly right and responsible, however risky. It may not succeed, but it is an important and noble effort. It is worth trying.
It is characters like you, goose stepping behind facile baton twirlers, and imagining yourselves, independent thinkers, who are ridiculous.
Posted by nacl at 06/22/2005 @ 07:05am
No,it is you,NACL, who is a pompous bag of hot air. If you think Bush's war is so great, ENLIST!
Posted by philbq at 06/22/2005 @ 08:09am
NaCl:
Yours is the mantra
Actually, I don't have a "mantra." I was just making an argument. The fact that you read that argument and immediately decided to deride me and ascribe to me beliefs you wish I had has nothing to do with me.
of people who prefer to believe, the true reasons for the war was to steal the oil, or to help the Jews, or to avenge Bush 41, or to enrich Chaney's friends, or to humiliate the Arabs, or to realize a neocon new world order, etc.
I said none of that. I said the reason we went to war was not the reason given by our leaders.
In short, to promote your lies you call the administration, liars.
What "lie" am I promoting? Those you just made up for me?
My point is that the Left, should have been happy that one of the greatest human rights violators had been defanged, instead of tearing its hair out over the "injustice" that befell Saddam.
I know of no one who doesn't feel that Saddam was evil. I also don't know of anyone who is tearing their hair out over "injustice" towards Saddam. I only hear defenders of the war claiming their opponents make such statements. I certainly didn't.
The US and her foreigh policy is not the exclusive instrument of Progressives.
Exactly. My point was that American foreign policy has never been singularly representative of progressive values, and therefore the argument that America's "progressive" foreign policies have failed (and always will) is speculative and illogical.
They are to this day in mourning over the fall of the Soviet Union.
Untrue. Again, I said nothing of the sort.
The states of the former Yugoslavia are today at peace. The Pacific rim has moved from autocracy and squalor to democracy and prosperity. China is being finessed out of her Mao suit. And for the first time there is a chance that a democratic and dhealthy Iraq can be achieved with a potential of transforming the entire Middle East.
All debatable points, my friend. Peace in the former Yugoslavia? A rise from squalor in the Pacific rim? A democratic and healthy Iraq? I'm afraid I have to ask again what purpose this diatribe serves, other than attempting to show your supposed understanding of my beliefs.
That Progressive values were not served by any of that, does not speak well for your core beliefs.
You are uniquely unqualified to discuss my beliefs. Your derisiveness is unnecessary. I'm not trying to be your enemy or attack you, just debate you openly. My "core beliefs" can survive that exchange.
Posted by jkoyon at 06/29/2005 @ 10:29am
Enough of this whimpering.
And my riposte was, people with your point of view insist that the administration's reasons for going to war were lies, because they want to establish their pet explanation as the true reasons, which in my opinion are the true lies.
But anyway, why not spit out the reason you think Bush decided on war?
You deny the howling and yelling and spitting in the year leading up to the war? You don't think that fuss was on behalf of Saddam? That was not an attempt to keep him in power? Do you think all that marching, polemicizing and protesting was about the price of pistachios?
I said you have no birthright to a "progressive" US foreign policy. Moreover progressives have in the past, as now, shown a penchant for tolerating tyrants. Formerly that was Stalin. That such policies don't deserve to prevail is my opinion, but it is not a speculation or illogical.
Finally, if you don't know that the Left yet bitterly regrets the collapse of the Soviet Union then you are very naive. But perhaps that is it. Perhaps you are a naive lamb and it is a mistake to hold you responsible for your words.
Posted by nacl at 07/02/2005 @ 08:46am