I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
Ugh, horrible football metaphor, and head-fake is more of a basketball thing.
James Taranto:
Where's the Outrage?
"A short conflict that used fewer missiles, sparked fewer oil field fires and created fewer refugees than anticipated produced a lower-than-expected financial cost for the major combat in Iraq," USA Today reports. The U.S. government puts the cost at "just less than the $62.6 billion Congress approved in March as emergency funding for Operation Iraqi Freedom."
As this March CNN/Money report notes, opponents of Iraq's liberation had much higher estimates of the cost of war. House Democrats said $93 billion, and William Nordhaus, a Yale professor, said the price could be as high as $1.92 trillion (he inflated his figure by including "rebuilding costs and impact of oil, economy").
This wasn't the only thing war opponents told us during the prewar debate that turned out not to be true. They said the U.S. would suffer thousands of casualties. They said ordinary Iraqis would resent American "invaders" rather than welcome them as liberators. They said the "Arab street" would rise up in outrage. They said Iraq's liberation would set off a new wave of terrorism. They said the war would be a "quagmire"--a line today's London Guardian is peddling, though even the New York Times carries an article--albeit on the op-ed page--noting that "things really aren't that bad" in Iraq.
Some war foes even said--get this!--that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and would use them on American troops. Well pardon us for asking, but if Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, where are they?
It's possible that this was all just a massive failure of intelligence, but we can't help suspecting that war opponents knew better and deliberately misled the public in an effort to establish a pretext for keeping a mass-murdering dictator in power. In either case, they now face a yawning credibility gap. The American people deserve nothing less than a full congressional investigation into the false claims of antiwar politicians, scholars, journalists and activists. If they lied to us about Iraq, how can we ever trust them to talk us out of future wars?
Yeah, I like Josh on this topic, too, but it's unfortunate that he lets his elitism take over sometimes as in...
"If he wants to have it out with that minority of yahoos who claim that the US cooked up all the claims about WMD to get into Iraq and snatch away the country's oil, that's his choice."
Translation: Josh wants it known among the Washington,DC in-crowd whose attention and approval he craves, that his thinking is definitely "inside the beltway" and would never stray off into what the masses out there might have concocted.
Anyone with a "no blood for oil" button had better keep out of the discussion -- this is for elites only.
Let me close that tag for ya. 
I think Josh Marshall overlooked something, which was that while the world suspected he kept stuff back, virtually all the evidence that he had real amounts of anything came from the US. Through the Bush administration.
We had the only real pipes into Iraq, save maybe for Isreal. And we said he had metric tons of the stuff.
Suspecting he had some left wasn't anything unusual. After all, while most of it was verifiably destroyed, a good amount wasn't. Lacking verification, it was pretty common to assume he still had something. However, what Bush sold to the rest of the world wasn't an assumption that Saddam had some fraction of his original capacity left, but that Saddam had more stuff, was more dangerous, and hadn't been disarmed even a trifle. Heck, according to them, he was rearming.
If the rest of the world believed the same thing, it was on the basis of US intel and no one else's. And the intel on massive stockpiles started coming out around September of 2001....
These guys are playing Calvin Ball and moving the goalposts after the fact. Very few people before the war argued that there weren't WMDs. The French and Germans and virtually every other foreign country that opposed us didn't. What they DID argue was whether the threat was IMMINENT and whether the inspectors should be allowed to complete their work. To ignore the "IMMINENT THREAT" argument and pretend that something else was being argued is duplicitous at the extreme.
This whole episode illustrates the moral bankruptcy of Bush's "pre-emptive war" doctrine where we can invade a sovereign country, slaughter thousands of innocent civilians and then attempt to come up with marketable and shifting reasonings for the invasion after the fact. It's no wonder the rest of the world hate's Bush's and our guts
The American people deserve nothing less than a full congressional investigation into the false claims of antiwar politicians, scholars, journalists and activists. If they lied to us about Iraq, how can we ever trust them to talk us out of future wars?
Poor Walter Scheisskopf....getting mocked by an idiot and neitehr of them realize it.
neitehr=neither
Walter, you may be the dumbest person who's ever inhabited these boards - and that's saying a lot.
Let me see if I get this strait, Walt, you want to impeach the critics of war, who so far have been proven right, and let Shrub a Dub continue to lie his way into Emperor-hood? And what do you get out of this? Do they let you polish Massa's boots? Is Crisco Johnny going to let you hold his anointin' oil when he becomes Lord High Sharif? Or do you just have rotten eggs where your brain should be?
Kagan quotes vast numbers of people who had similar impressions of Hussein's alleged weapons.
There's a lot of "strong evidence" and "it is likely" and "we think."
Which is fine.
The problem is, not one of these people claimed to know the specific type, quantity, and location of these chemical and biological weapons. And none of these people ordered the illegal invasion of another country.
George W. Bush did both of these things, which puts him on the hook for proving his claims.
Intresting post. Too bad headfakes are in basketball, not football.
Fuck this shit.
The consequence for this lie is simple: 200 dead Americans, 66 killed after we seized Baghdad.
You can spin or bullshit this any way you want, but American troops are in the shit, every day and their bosses think Saddam's behind it. Which is wishful thinking at best.
Kagan and his daddy can bullshit with their theories and Marshall can asskiss his way into the Beltway kool kids klub, but at the end of the day, real people, Iraqi and American are dying.
Any argument on WMD boils down to that simple issue. How many Americans are we going to get killed to make Iraq safe.
Cronkite, you’re priceless. Am I supposed to be swayed by Taranto’s column or surprised that the WSJ editorial page supports the Bush line? This argument is so infantile – if you were against this war, for whatever reason, you supported Saddam Hussein. Never mind that no one on this board or any other forum ever said that SH was not a monster. Forget it, I’m tired of having to write this.
“They said the U.S. would suffer thousands of casualties.” If this week’s casualty numbers are any indication, that number is only a few months away.
“They said ordinary Iraqis would resent American "invaders" rather than welcome them as liberators.” See above.
“They said the "Arab street" would rise up in outrage.” This hasn’t happened?
“They said Iraq's liberation would set off a new wave of terrorism.” Check.
“They said the war would be a "quagmire.” Well, it certainly isn’t “mission accomplished” yet is it?
“Well pardon us for asking, but if Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, where are they?” Excellent question.
Daniel,
You can head fake in football, but you better watch the hips to catch the move
Walter Cronkite,
Why are you implying that because some opponents of the Iraqi war believed Saddam had WMDs that they are somehow responsible for the lie?
"This wasn't the only thing war opponents told us during the prewar debate that turned out not to be true. They said the U.S. would suffer thousands of casualties."
>>>Thankfully our military suffered casualties only in the hundreds. Innocent Iraqis died by the thousands, but since they're not ours, well, who cares how many died in order to be liberated? And of course the numbers are smaller than if Saddam had remained in power,and on and on...
"They said ordinary Iraqis would resent American "invaders" rather than welcome them as liberators."
>>>I don't know what you read, but every day I read how much the American occupation is hated.
"They said the "Arab street" would rise up in outrage. They said Iraq's liberation would set off a new wave of terrorism."
>>>Saudi Arabia? Or weren't enough people killed to call that terrorism?
"They said the war would be a "quagmire"--a line today's London Guardian is peddling, though even the New York Times carries an article--albeit on the op-ed page--noting that 'things really aren't that bad' in Iraq."
>>>I believe the NYTimes article was written by a pro-Busher so his opinion is somewhat slanted. And didn't you tell me just yesterday that the NYTimes was not a reliable source of information? Yes, you did. So do you really mean the NYTimes is reliable only when it is slanted your way. Tsk, tsk.
>>>Also, we may not be in a "quagmire" but it's feeling awfully swampy at this point. General Seneshi (can't remember how to spell his name) notwithstanding.
President Bush told the American people and the rest of the world that Saddam posed an imminent threat to the lives of the American people. That we faced a catastrophe worse than what happened on 9/11 and that threat was so perilous that we could no longer wait for the UN inspectors to continue the search for WMDs. Period. Forget the rubbish about war opponents' theories on WMDs.
Let's use the KISS principle here:
Saddam's WMDs=reason to go to war.
No WMDs (after looking for 2 months)=lie to get US into war.
As others above have pointed out, so what if many, many, many people said Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, the major point and difference here is... what ACTIONS they took to deal with this.
BUSH and Blair are the only ones who felt the threat was so IMMINENT that they sent over 150,000 troops to wage war against the country preemptively.
None of the others actually did that.
Once again the old adage
ACTIONS speak louder than words seems appropriate here!
The House Democrats estimate of $93 billion looks to be low.
Supporters of this war now expect to be there for a number of years, at least that's what they're telling us.
If the US government cost is indeed $62.6 billion in just several weeks, then the Democrats' estimate is the much closer one.
Plus, as I remember, most of us said.
'Hey, I wouldn't doubt that he has WMD, in fact I would be willing to bet he does. What you still haven't done Mr. Bush is demonstrate how he is any sort of serious threat to the U.S.'
Hence the real focus must stay on not whether any WMD's exist, but the process the Bush admin undertook to put together a case built on lies and fraudulent intelligence.
Remember Ronald Reagan?
The same criminals that pulled the gippers strings are pulling sock puppets strings.
Q. Admin that produced the most convicts?
A. Reagans. (all lower level creeps. expect the same from sock puppet.)
Surely you mean Blix, not Blitz.
Plus, as I remember, most of us said.
'Hey, I wouldn't doubt that he has WMD, in fact I would be willing to bet he does. What you still haven't done Mr. Bush is demonstrate how he is any sort of serious threat to the U.S.'
Hence the real focus must stay on not whether any WMD's exist, but the process the Bush admin undertook to put together a case built on lies and fraudulent intelligence.
Watch for Bush to play the Ollie North card as 2004 nears, claiming that his over-aggressive sense of "America first" self-protection caused him to act based more on rumor and speculation than hard facts. I'll bet we'll be hearing that tune more and more.
BTW, wide receivers head fake all the time in order to fool cornerbacks into turning toward the throw too early. It is more of a basketball term tho.
Saddam's WMDs=reason to go to war.
No WMDs (after looking for 2 months)=lie to get US into war.
Sorry. Let's keep it a little more complicated than that. BushCo lied when it claimed that Saddam is an imminent threat because it had no proof that he had WMDs and was developing nukes.
libertas -
Plus, as I remember, most of us said.
'Hey, I wouldn't doubt that he has WMD, in fact I would be willing to bet he does. What you still haven't done Mr. Bush is demonstrate how he is any sort of serious threat to the U.S.'
I believe your statement above indicates where people on the Left disconnected, and remain disconnected, with Americans in the political "middle". I believe most of the political "middle" of America, after 9/11, wanted their government to be proactive in removing threats. They percieve Bush's actions in Iraq as an example of being proactive. I think many Americans do not want us to take chances on experiencing another 9/11. They want the government to try to connect the dots ahead of time, and prevent another 9/11 from happening. You may disagree with the logic, but I think that part of the reason you don't see Americans angry about the failure to find WMDs is that they are glad the government sought to remove Hussein before he could threaten us.
Preview of unelected drunken frauds "I didn't do it speech"
http://www.historychannel.com/sp.../
speech_240.ram
I like how he uses the words 'probably' or 'we believe' as a statement of fact that those liberals/democrats are saying Iraq had WMD.
In contrast to the comments from the Bush cabal who said there was 'no doubt', ' 100% guarantee', 'assured', etc, etc, etc, that Iraq had WMD.
Saying 'probably' simply means the person is reacting not on absolute faith in the facts known, but gut instinct.
This is not enough to wage war where innocent people and our own would die.
Such a nonchalant attitude about risking the lives of people's sons and daughters other than their own simply shows how hypocritical these people are when they claim they're pro-life.
Sometimes I wonder why we bother?
Aren't we fast approaching the cuttoff point where talking stops and use of the guillotine begins?
Be well.
MYOB'
Two things can be simultaneously true:
1) Many Democrats agreed that Hussein possessed WMD and posed an imminent threat to US security...and
2) The Bush administration lied about it...
Just as...
1)Many Republicans agreed that the North Vietnamese attacked the US in August 1964...and
2)The Johnson administration lied about it...
Is there something new here?
I love how a prediction of an outcome - among many possible outcomes is condsidered a lie but a statement such as "We know that Iraq has an active nuclear weapons program" or "We are certain Iraq has WMDs" is considered an "intelligence failure".
What is worse is that his article is bullshit in the extreme.
"A short conflict that used fewer missiles"
We used more ordinance in Gulfwar 2 than in the first gulf war. I did not here anyone give an estimate to how many missiles we would fire.
"sparked fewer oil field fires and created fewer refugees than anticipated "
Luckily. Now if we could only get the power and water supplies to stay on, that would be great. It is a good thing Saddam gave his citizens a few months supply of food before the war began.
"just less than the $62.6 billion"
Quite a bargain, as of right now - how much will it cost after 3 years of occupation?
"They said the U.S. would suffer thousands of casualties"
We are averaging about 1 new death a day - and most antiwar advocates thought it would take months for the Iraqis to start to turn on the Americans.
"ordinary Iraqis would resent American "invaders" rather than welcome them as liberators"
Falluja, anyone? Mosul? Basra? The only overiding feeling the Iraqis had was fear. After the fear some were ambivilant, some have been resentful, some are fighting Americans right now. But I guess since the news has stopped covering Iraq - just like Afghanistan, it will slip down the memory hole.
"They said the "Arab street" would rise up in outrage"
They did and are continuing to do so. Massive antiAmerican demonstrations occurred in Egypt, Pakistan, Turkey, etc. Anti-American sentiment is way up - and as the recent bombings in Morrocco, Israel, and Saudi Arabia demonstrate, terrorism is far from vanquished.
"They said Iraq's liberation would set off a new wave of terrorism."
Talk about counting your chickens before they hatch. I certainly feel safer - especially since the ports are still unsecure and we have the largest open border in the world to our north. I really hope that this nitwit is proven to be correct in this, but what I've read does not bode well - especially if America comes doen on the Pro-Israel side of their new round of crackdowns.
"They said the war would be a "quagmire"--a line today's London Guardian is peddling"
quag·mire
1. Land with a soft muddy surface.
2. A difficult or precarious situation; a predicament.
Since Iraq can hardly be called a soft muddy place ( well maybe the swamps in the south ) I would have to agree with the Guardian's definition. We have a massive military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, nation builidng going on in each country, clerics that are angling for a theocracy, Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden leading an underground that is well financed, we told the Iraqis that we are running the show for the next few years
Iraqis cannot go out at night, soldiers are dying weekly, the water and power still do not work, and we have senior members of the current administration making threats against Iran and North Korea.
This certainly seem like a difficult or precarious situation to me.
"things really aren't that bad"
Ah, George Ward is an objective voice in the situation. George Ward, former coordinator for humanitarian assistance in the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance for Iraq, is head of the training program at the United States Institute of Peace. He has no vested interestin in saying that Iraq is doing just fine and dandy after the war, does he?
"Well pardon us for asking, but if Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, where are they"
I like the argumentative 180 here. You peopl are about as geniune as a 3 dollar bill. If Iraq had WMDs they would have used them on U.S. troops. But chemical and bio weapons are not a reason to start a war. The only real WMD anybody was concerned about was a nuclear weapon - and we all knew that Iraq did not have that.
But since they never used any of the chemical weapons ( even though Bush told us that Saddam had ordered the weapons to be givent to the troops ) you have to wonder if he had any. If he never had any, then there was no imminent threat - and the Inspections should have continued.
If you think it is okay to invade becuase of humanitarian abuses, the WHY ARE WE GIVING AID AND SUPPORT TO UZBEKISTAN?!?!?! Karimov's regime boiled political dissidents. i guess that makes them a great ally, right? What about Saudi Arabia - whose executioner regularly chops off hands for theft? I guess we support their rape rooms, too. What about Kuwait? Wahat about Quatar? What about Turkey?
Moral relativism at it's finest.
"establish a pretext for keeping a mass-murdering dictator in power"
You mean like when Reagan/Bush gave bio and chemical weapons to Iraq in the 80s? You mean like when we turned our back and looked the other way when Saddam gassed the Kurds in Halabja?
"they now face a yawning credibility gap"
Hehehe. Talk about cognitive dissonance.
"The American people deserve nothing less than a full congressional investigation into the false claims of antiwar politicians, scholars, journalists and activists."
I agree. Since they have the power to... uh... hmmm... oh yeah... make us think twice about going to war - they obviously used their powers to... um... well, to make us enjoy a good war less. Now that that is settled, what is happening with the Laci Peterson case?
You may disagree with the logic, but I think that part of the reason you don't see Americans angry about the failure to find WMDs is that they are glad the government sought to remove Hussein before he could threaten us.
Erik, the problem there is that assumes he was a threat (to us), now or in the future. As for the now, the investigation continues. As for the future, that's a pretty slippery slope, considering how alliances shift over time. (India could be a threat to us in the future). There's an assumption that absent invasion, NOW, there was NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE --that he would be a threat to us. But what was that assumption based on? You say, "Maybe they perceive the war as proactive." But proactive to what? Its proactive to put fertilizer on my lawn, but not on my driveway. I think the real disconnect is between the reasons many of the war supporters supported the war, and the actual reality "on the ground."
I still want to know -- if they're not lying -- why we're seeing such complacency from the White House.
If the intelligence apparatus of the US misled them so grievously, they're clearly a danger to US national security, and many heads should be rolling. Yet the White House doesn't seem concerned.
If the intelligence community was right and the WMD are missing, why don't we have tens of thousands of people on the ground in Iraq trying to make sure that they're not making their way to al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, or the like?
But all we get is reassurances that "we'll find"...something. It just doesn't seem to add up.
Rep. Jane Harmon (D-Calif.), ranking minority member of the House intelligence panel, said she is not just concerned about justifying previous intelligence. She said on CNN that if weapons of mass destruction were buried somewhere, "someone knows where that is, Saddam Hussein and his sons may still be alive, and the major moral underpinning of our war, to prevent him from using [weapons of mass destruction] against American interests and Iraqi citizens, may still be out there."
Someone needs to have a talk with Ms. Harmon. It doesn't sound like she is getting the latest liberal spin points.
Keep flailing folks!
Andy X... "WMD Then and Now"
6.13 4:20pm just so you know I'm not ducking the question...
Go get Wolfie. At least GHWB didn't shit on international relations and shred the constitution quite as much as the dauphant.
Eric,
If you are correct about the moderates, than it would be imperative to them that we have a president whose judgement we can trust to make those type of decisions. Bush's decisions to get us into this unnecessary war and occupation show that he can't make these decisions. If there had been a real danger, he would be lauded for being a hero, but it seems to be increasingly clear that Bush was wrong, whether by intention or mistake.
The incompetance in his handling of foreign affairs, including this pre-emptive invasion, should give any moderate pause.
If the intelligence community was right and the WMD are missing, why don't we have tens of thousands of people on the ground in Iraq trying to make sure that they're not making their way to al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, or the like?
-- Mike Jones
The military is too busy protecting the Iraqi National Museum after the liberal whining about a couple of old cracked vases being looted by museum staff.
Flail! Flail! Flail!
Cap 'n Dunsel -
the problem there is that assumes he was a threat (to us), now or in the future. As for the now, the investigation continues. As for the future, that's a pretty slippery slope, considering how alliances shift over time.
The intent of my post was to speak to where I think, surrounding the Iraq war, there is a disconnect between the political "middle" of America and the political "left". I think there is room for honorable debate about whether or not the Iraq war was a "good" war or not. My point, however, is that I think the political "middle" of America wanted Bush to be proactive in the face of ambiguity, not reactive. That is my best guess as to why there has not been more outrage over the failure to find WMDs. And let me emphasize that it is a guess on my part.
The military is too busy protecting the Iraqi National Museum after the liberal whining about a couple of old cracked vases being looted by museum staff.
O god PNAC, that's one of the stupidest statements I've ever seen.
Flail is right.
In regards to Mr. Cronkite's comment above:
"This wasn't the only thing war opponents told us during the prewar debate that turned out not to be true. They said the U.S. would suffer thousands of casualties."
Anti-war pundits weren't the only ones saying this. The generals were saying it too!
They worried what door to door fighting in Bagdad would do to the American public's resolve when they saw how heavily the Republican Guard were bunkering down and heavy losses followed?
There were reports that hundreds of thousands of the Guards best troops were in Bagdad along with the bulk of their armor and artilary.
But what happened instead?
The fight for Bagdad turns out to be the shortest fight of nearly all the cities in Iraq.
And what about the most strategic point of the whole city, the Airport? It turns out to be the easiest to take?
And what did they see when they got there?
According to some interviews with the troops who were there, they found 'minor' resistence, almost nothing along the lines of any real defense of what was supposed to be the heart of the city.
But this is not all, the same thing happened everywhere else.
The only cities that were ever taken this fast, with so little loss on the attackers part, were Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
It's as if they all decided 'not' to fight?
But if they surrendered, why weren't we told this?
If they were all killed, why weren't we given an indication of the body count? Were talking hundreds of thousands here!
If they were all captured, why weren't we told this as well? This would prevent the need to make up a body count excuse and be good PR like it was in GW1.
There were some middle eastern newspapers, as well as talk on some European news sites that claimed the Republican guard leadership had made a deal to offer token resistence of the city in exchange for money, freedom in the west, and/or positions of leadership in the post Sadam Iraqi defense forces and government.
This last suggestion cannot be proven with facts, but it sure got a lot of press in the middle east, and even by some pundits here in the states.
But the facts are, the outcome of the fight for Bagdad does not match up with anything but the obvious notion that Karl Rove knew a big body count would hurt Bush in 04', and decided it was better to bribe these scumbags with money and positions.
There may not be any hardcore proof, but then again neither was there any such hardcore proof on WMD either.
And the questions I gave above about the outcome of the fight for Bagdad still remain unasked and unanswered.
I wonder how many people bothered swallow their pride in our nation's armed forces to notice this?
Be well.
MYOB'
Derek G. -
If you are correct about the moderates, than it would be imperative to them that we have a president whose judgement we can trust to make those type of decisions.
True.
Bush's decisions to get us into this unnecessary war and occupation show that he can't make these decisions. If there had been a real danger, he would be lauded for being a hero, but it seems to be increasingly clear that Bush was wrong, whether by intention or mistake.
I don't think the American political "middle" agrees with your assessment. As news comes out about children's prisons and mass graves for children, I think the political "middle" of America sees Hussein as crazier and more evil than they had previously imagined. If I'm right, then for those people it's not a stretch to believe that Hussein would continue to pursue a nuclear weapons program and that he was too dangerous to be allowed to obtain one. I don't think you will easily convince the political "middle" that Saddam would not get his hands on nuclear weapons if we left him in power for a few more years. So, I don't think your analysis holds up.
It's just my opinion. I don't have polls to back it up.
well, just look at the 'gravitas' of 'w'. he is in the news playing on a high tech scooter. like a twenty something. and the middle east is in flames, the troops are in danger in afghanistanski, and iraq is a real daily horror show. so the gov. says dont bother to vote 'w' is a shoe in 04. oh, twilight empire.......
They'll get back to the museum later. The Iraq-Turkey pipeline keeps blowing itself up
http://asia.reuters.com/
newsArti...storyID=2927115
O god PNAC, that's one of the stupidest statements I've ever seen.
Wow! That's high praise from someone at your expertise in stupidity. Thanks!
Flail! Flail! Flail!
The first principle in military affairs is the objective: What were we fighting for? I dunno what democratic decision the Wall Street Journal witnessed, but the one in Congress focused on an imminent threat to the United States posed by a dictator with weapons of mass destruction.
No less a hawk (and military professional) than Maxwell Taylor observed that the great mistake the United States made in Vietnam was changing our objective right in the middle -- we had supported Diem, until we decided we didn't support him, personally, anymore.
That's the great danger in W's lies about WMD -- it isn't so much that he lied to US (which ought to be an impeachable offense, but can't), as that he's changing his objective in the middle of the commitment.
It is much easier to start a war, than to end one.
"Rep. Jane Harmon (D-Calif.), ranking minority member of the House intelligence panel, said she is not just concerned about justifying previous intelligence. She said on CNN that if weapons of mass destruction were buried somewhere, "someone knows where that is, Saddam Hussein and his sons may still be alive, and the major moral underpinning of our war, to prevent him from using [weapons of mass destruction] against American interests and Iraqi citizens, may still be out there."
"Someone needs to have a talk with Ms. Harmon. It doesn't sound like she is getting the latest liberal spin points."
"...if weapons of mass..."
"...Saddam Hussein and his sons may still..."
"...may still be out there."
if, may, if, may, if may--not the same as Bush saying we KNOW he has weapons of mass destructions--not the same as Rumsfeld saying we KNOW they're buried near Tikrit, etc., etc.
Harmon doesn't sound as certain as Bush and Rumsfeld did.
The reason we see these lists of quotes from Democrats and other assorted liberals being trotted out is not to impugn the credibility of these people, but to combat the notion that similar quotes from the Bush team constitute "lies." A lie is the purposeful statement of a falsehood, and unless and until someone can show that anyone knew for a fact that Saddam didn't have WMDs, none of these quotes are lies. They're just wrong. And that's why there is now an inquiry into how our intelligence could have been so wrong (although I know the folks here would have liked to have seen a full-blown public investigation).
Erik's right, though, about "erring on the side of caution." One of the Bush team's arguments was that, in an era of international terrorism and readily-available (and hard to spot) WMDs, the idea of "imminent threat" needs to be rethought. Of course, you can't go to war on the mere suspicion of weapons, but as everyone seems to keep forgetting, WE KNEW HE HAD THEM! As recently as 1998 he had lots and lots of chemical and biological stocks and active weapons programs, only a portion of which were verifiably destroyed or even accounted for. And (as I've argued ad naseum, although to general disagreement here), when you combine this uncertainty with everything else we knew about Saddam's regime, the correct course of action was clear.
As for the consequences of the war, the jury's still way out. But so far the results in terms of (1) expense, (2) casualties, (3) terrorism, (4) Iraqi reaction, and (5) general Muslim reaction have been nowhere near as negative as the war's most strident opponent's predicted. I mean, really, people talked about how there would be coups in Jordan and Pakistan, and more terrorist spectaculars a la 9/11. Instead we have a few protests in Cairo and a few dozen people killed in Saudi Arabia. Now who's moving the goalposts here?
FLASHBACK:
The televised hearings, which stretched over two months, exposed McCarthy to the American public as a reckless and excessive tyrant who never produced proper documentation for a single one of his charges. On December 2, 1954, the Senate voted to censure him. By his death from alcoholism in 1957, McCarthy's influence in American society and government was negligible. However, many of the hundreds of innocent officials and civilians whose reputations had been destroyed by McCarthy and his unlawful accusations never recovered.
Eric,
I think as long as there is a limited cost at home (economy the same or improving, limited american casualties, Iraq getting rebuilt, no terrorist activities on american soil), you are correct. The moderates will not look any deeper than the surface.
However, if any of the above do start to break down, than people will start questioning this president. And when they do, the answer that the guy was an "evil-doer" is not going to be enough. There has to be some type of evidence there was a real threat to us in order to justify the cost (economic, social, the lives of our military, domestic security) of this action.
That being said, I really don't see a scenario in which by November 2004 there will be a strong economy and the situation in Iraq will be good.
PNAC, high priest of the Temple of Limbaugh's Ass-Boil.
"Flail! Flail! Flail!"
He can't even get his quotes right--it's "Fly! Fly!"
FLASHBACK:
Tauzin's Claim Of Ignorance
Forbes - Dan Ackman, 06.20.01, 2:40 PM ET
NEW YORK - If it were possible for you to run yourself over with a Ford Explorer, W.J. "Billy" Tauzin would have done it yesterday
....
What is surprising in that a Congressional committee chairman would put information into the public domain and use those statements as the basis for questions at a highly publicized hearing, only to admit later he did not know the truth or meaning of that information.
I believe most of the political "middle" of America, after 9/11, wanted their government to be proactive in removing threats.
I think this is a correct assessment. However, you're wrong in thinking that most liberals don't share this desire.
The differences are between those who looked at the various bits of analysis and concluded Saddam Hussein was not a threat to us, and would not be for the foreseeable future, and those who were convinced (or connived into thinking) he was an immediate threat.
And please don't try the "gassed his own people!" line, since I haven't yet seen you advocate a US invasion of several African nations, the occupied Palestinian territories, North Korea, or Cuba.
But the facts are, the outcome of the fight for Bagdad does not match up with anything but the obvious notion that Karl Rove knew a big body count would hurt Bush in 04', and decided it was better to bribe these scumbags with money and positions.
Are there no lefties out there who will disown such an idiotic statement?
Wow, the only reason "Rove" won the war with so little bloodshed was so it would not harm the reelection chances of GW in 2004. This takes the cake...for today at least.
Unfortunately, the wingnuts are right: The US public believes that Iraq possessed WMDs, but are now unconcerned about their whereabouts.
Perhaps the British aren't as sanquine. Maybe they'll decide that unaccounted for WMDs may cause a problem in the future. Blair may be forced to answer a few probing questions (something that would be completely foreign to our leader).
When the British get some adequate answers, they may even decide to share them with us. I suppose, in the meantime, we'll just have to sit back and hope for the best.
No need to interrupt Fearless Leader's vacation with silly inquiries.
Ken Pollack on his prewar claim that Iraq's WMD posed a threat to the US:
"I mean, the point that I made on your show [last year] was a true point. That was the consensus of opinion among the intelligence community. It was hearing things like that that brought me to the conclusion that, you know, 'Boy, if this is the case, we've got to do something about this guy.' I think, you know, that is exactly the kind of thing that we're going to need to go back and look hard at the evidence that we were getting and those various intelligence services who were making those claims, I think, are going to need to go back and re-examine the methods they used. As I said, that was not me making that claim; that was me parroting the claims of so-called experts."
http://www.calpundit.com/archive...ves/
001408.html
No conspiracy here. Its simply a matter of everyone expecting the Bush administration to tell the truth.
FLASHBACK:
Another Gingrich theme in that campaign was moral leadership and family values. He drove the point home with an ad claiming that if Shapard were elected to Congress she would leave her husband, a local businessman, behind, while Gingrich would keep his family together. This issue was a subject of particular irony among the Shapard campaign staffers, where gossip about Gingrich's roving eye was widely believed and it was assumed that the Gingrich marriage was on the verge of breaking up.
...
Jackie Gingrich went to Washington with her newly elected husband, but she did not return for his second term. She says that Gingrich walked out on her in the spring of 1980. That fall, while she was in the hospital recovering from surgery for uterine cancer, he appeared at her bedside with a yellow legal pad outlining the details for their divorce. The next year, he married his current wife, Marianne Ginther, a small-town Ohio woman fifteen years younger than Jackie, who was then a personnel clerk with the Secret Service.
"You may disagree with the logic, but I think that part of the reason you don't see Americans angry about the failure to find WMDs is that they are glad the government sought to remove Hussein before he could threaten us."
This. Is truly frightening. "Popular support is for invading countries that don't like us before they can advance to a position where they actually pose a conceivable threat."
If this reasoning prevails, America is down the shitter.
You may disagree with the logic, but I think that part of the reason you don't see Americans angry about the failure to find WMDs is that they are glad the government sought to remove Hussein before he could threaten us.
Here's the problem with that: were middle-of-the-road Americans really terribly concerned with Saddam Hussein, er, ever? Before the run-up to this war, when was the last time he was even taken remotely seriously by the proverbial man in the street?
For what it's worth, I don't know anyone who gave much thought to Saddam Hussein after the first Gulf War. Even during that war, I don't remember anyone being too concerned that he would do anything to the US besides perhaps push up oil prices. (Maybe people were concerned he'd do something vile to Israel, but not to the US.)
Until this administration started making the case of imminent danger, Saddam Hussein was old news. Old news and a convenient whipping boy, for both parties, because he was an established, brand name villain. See, for example, the South Park movie.
(I should add that when I say "I don't know anyone who gave much thought to Saddam Hussein," I'm referring to the public, not to politicoes. I've seen that bipartisan list, and I don't care to see it again.)
Walter, PNAC, and Eric -- Trolls
The only thing worth reading was the 'middle America doesn't care' line. I will add '... for now, boys.'
Debate or be gone...
Or...
Please cut to the chase and just tell us you that you are right wingnuts trying out excuses for the people you go down for. If anything you say had any value you'd be on monopoly TV for the Corporate Masters you serve.
You don't even have the brains/guts to define just why we should believe the lives of our kids dying in Iraq are not being horribly wasted.
Your right wing talking points will not pull the wool over the eyes of anybody in this blog. The death toll over there is on you and your leadership until something good comes of this ungodly mess.
Also, your pap does not serve to tell us why the quagmire word is not already operative.
Unfortunately, for the wingnut side, the Iraqis have the initiative and they will continue to embarrass the 'Mission Accomplished' meme at will.
Unfortunately, there will be many greiving moms and dads before we get rid of the PNAC crowd and go back to minding our own affairs and the rule of law. And to think that the Taliban offered to turn Osama over to the Hague!
There is a tidal wave of revusion coming. Far out at sea a tidal wave is only a foot high, but when November 2004 arrives, it will be 200 feet high.
This coming election will be one of the nastiest in the history of the US -- I hope that when the Republicans lose, they will follow a tradition of over 200 years and turn over power without violating the Constitution anymore than they already have.
For what it's worth, I hate to see Erik (conservative) lumped in with Walter Cronkite and PNAC as a troll. I usually disagree with his points, but he DOES debate and not just spew nonsense like the others.
He didn't say he agrees with the 'middle' about wanting Bush to be proactive (though he may indeed agree).
Unfortunately, my gut tells me he's right about what the 'middle' wants -- which to me just says how hosed we are, if the great middle will settle for ANY proactive measures, rather than actually useful ones that don't screw up our relations with other countries that might actually net some gains in the War on Terrorism(TM).
"James Taranto"!!!
Excuse me but what a F___ing moron. The cost less then expect so then we shouldn't complain????
It would have cost us NOTHING if we had not gone to war under the pretext of WMD--AND the Calculator has NOT stop running yet since obviously the war (or the battle or the blood shed, whatever Rove what to call it) has not come to an end just because (larger than usual pickle or sock in my lower pant pocket) “dumbW” go out of airplane and said so. The end of hostilities in Iraq is clearly NOT over yet.
This war was not about liberation Mr. Taranto, potatoe head. It was about WMD and BUSH lying about this--Okay Mr. parasite and stupid moron Taranto! Geebus indeed.
What an idiot that Taranto guy is...
oops that should be:
(whatever Rove wants to call it) just in case I'm labeled a moron too.
Just throw that shit back in James Taranto face--Don't let them get away with SHIT like that.
BUSH LIED and Taranto makes extremely piss poor excuses. That isn't going to save Junior's skin.
karl -
For what it's worth, I hate to see Erik (conservative) lumped in with Walter Cronkite and PNAC as a troll. I usually disagree with his points, but he DOES debate and not just spew nonsense like the others.
He didn't say he agrees with the 'middle' about wanting Bush to be proactive (though he may indeed agree).
Thank you for seeing me as willing to debate. I am. Although time doesn't always allow me to finish my conversations here. You are right that I didn't say whether or not I agreed or disagreed with my hypothesis about what the "middle" of America thinks about Bush and the War on Iraq. So, for the record, I am glad that Bush was proactive for many of the reasons that Tom Friedman recently laid out in his controversial article about Iraq and the "reasons" we went to war. It wasn't a decision I came too lightly. If Iraq becomes a stable democracy over the next decade, then I believe the war will have brought greater safety to America for a whole host of reasons. I won't take the space to outline them here. If we f*** up the nation-building efforts in Iraq, then the war will only have been a tragedy (all wars are tragic, but there outcome can outweigh their costs). I'd like to respond in greater detail, but don't have time at the moment. Perhaps tomorrow.
"If Iraq becomes a stable democracy over the next decade, then I believe the war will have brought greater safety to America for a whole host of reasons."
Here is the problem in a nutshell. May of us on the anti-war side say what was happening in Afghanistan, see what is happening in occupied Israel, knew the history of Iraq, and knew the popular appeal of religious fundamentalism. We thought these would be forces that would be major, long-term hurdles toward a lasting democratic Iraq. The fact that Iraq's oila and industry are already being carved up for weastern business is not encouraging. The dialy uprisings and guerrilla attacks do little to move direct toward a greater degree of stability.
These things often go very badly for a very long time.
We thought that the American people would not have the stomach, heart, or wallet to see through an occupation or do it with the sensitivity required NOT to make the citizens into enemies.
This was one of my main reasons for opposing this war. I thought it was like diving into a deep pool wearing weights - while pulling another guy along.
Our international crediibilty has been damaged, and anti-American sentiment is on the rise around the world.
If the American public are too stupid to see reality - for the fantasy that attacking Iraq made us safer - then we are all truly doomed.
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
