NY Times story confirms mobile weapons labs as WMD.
"The Bush administration yesterday made public its assessment of two mysterious trailers found in Iraq, calling them mobile units to produce deadly germs and the strongest evidence yet that Saddam Hussein had been hiding a program to prepare for biological warfare..."
Okey doke. We've seen this numerous times in the past too. Then it turns out to have been something else. I certainly hope something turns up. It will make me feel a lot better.
Mark H.,
The NYT story doesn't confirm the weapons lab theory. The story states as follows:
"Both [the CIA/DoD report and the press briefing] conceded that there were inconsistencies in the evidence and a lack of hard proof, like the presence of pathogens in trailer gear. The officials acknowledged that they had discovered neither biological agents nor evidence that the equipment had ever been used to make germ weapons.
"Moreover, they said the trailer's hardware presented no direct evidence of weapons use. The best evidence of that, they said, was the trailers' close resemblance to prewar descriptions of mobile germ plants given by Iraqi sources.
"A technical assessment alone 'would not lead you intuitively and logically to biological warfare,' an official said of the trailers."
It's bothersome that critics of the Iraq strategy have no perspective on things. We were in Japan and Germany for years before those countries were left to operate on their own again. Iraq is more difficult, but it doesn't help matters that people with the attention-span less than a 15 second commercial seem to be harping about why there's no success there yet. That kind of rabid attention to an unrealistic goal makes it difficult to take ANY of their concerns seriously until a chance has been made for the current policy to unfold. And that goes especially for people who claim to have figured it all out and can see the end results of what's going to happen years from now. Please. Give me a break.
Even more, those who claim that they're not "deaf, dumb, and blind" seem to ignore points that defeat their hyperventating arguments, like the fact that Syria and Iran are rattling in their cages now and are more likely to accept US demands. Who's fooling themselves here? I think it's asinine to think that one can divine the future consequences of this policy so early on.
And the alternative? What would these critics have us do now? Leave, immediately? That would guarantee failure. Continue with the operation, in the best hope of the future? Well, that's what we're doing now. Is there something else that they have proposed? No, they have not.
Pro-war people "shout down the questions" because these people have little perspective, and because the critics have no answers themselves. It is annoying to have to deal with that sort of thing over and over, which is why my patience on these sort of "questions" is worn thin. And since they have no answers, and their concerns seem premature, I think it's a fair matter to conclude that most if not all are antiwar sore losers. But no one's asking anyone to dismiss Just War - just to realize that the gague of post-war analysis is far too early to be written, and should not be swayed by overly shrill letters that offer nothing but cynicism. If anything, I'm surprised that anyone on this blog would be so swayed by such an argument that places a heavy emphasis on immediate material success. Someone here has lost their perspective.
I was a reluctant opponent of the war, always having been a fan of nonviolence and a near-pacifist if not an outright pacifist. I, as Mark describes in his post, thought that applying just war theory strictly and honestly here led one to reluctant opposition, although there's room for debate on that point.
However, the reason for the "reluctant" part of my opposition was the realization of how serious the plight of people in Iraq was. I understand there are thugs all around the world, but this was no run-of-the-mill petty dictator. Whatever the situation in Iraq is now, we know there are not prisons full of children. We know the government there isn't engaging in the kinds of brutal torture and rape that it was before the war. We know that for the most part the state-of-the-art dictatorial infrastructure of secret police and mass executions are dismantled.
I, like Mark, am troubled that we haven't found much in the way of WMD. I'm troubled by the precedent set for pre-emptive war. I'm saddened at the death and destruction caused by the war. But I think we also ought not ignore outright what's been gained, and while the "humanitarian" case was probably not the foremost one for our government, it was high on the priority list of Tony Blair and was definitely a consideration for many ordinary Americans like me.
It seems to me the proper response for people who opposed the war and people who supported it is to focus on making sure we're doing all we can to make the lives of Iraqi people better. I know there's an important place for evaluating our (collective) actions with the war, but in cases like Mark's correspondent, it seems to me that's done to the exclusion of working on exactly the issues the reader claims to care about. Does this reader really suppose blasting the Bush Administration and all those nasty "conservatives" is a great step in convincing the people in power in our government to do better in Iraq or Afghanistan?
Bobbert,
The just war rationale for the war was that Iraq was a threat to the US such that the US had to invade. It is disturbing that we do not seem to have evidence of the threat even after the war has been fought and won. If we don't have evidence now, how could we honestly claim to have had evidence this past St. Joseph's Day or before?
Bill, I'm not sure what you're asking for. Please restate it, if you would.
Mark,
I nearly snapped my darn neck at this one:
Since one of the criteria of Just War is "Will the outcome be better than if the war had not been fought?" a prudent person would appear to be justified in doing post-game analyses to discover if that question is being answered in the affirmative.
— Are you kidding me? Are you serious about this one? I can't even respond to it; I'm simply flabbergasted. Why don't we let the Iraqis dig up all the mangled dead bodies and get some distance from the torture techniques that Uday learned on the Internet and let those who've never even been able to dream about making up their own minds (i.e., all Iraqis in their mid-20s and below) get used to the idea before we declare that they are turning into another Iran (a nation that, by the way, the younger generation is in the process of changing for the better). And even then, let's keep in mind that Just War doctrine does not require the "legitimate" authority to be able to see into the future.
And then there's this:
So far, it has accomplished nothing in getting rid of the declared threat: WMDs because we aren't finding them.
— Demonstrably false: Saddam Hussein's regime will never have the opportunity to use these, or anything else that we haven't discovered yet.
And perhaps you'll point to this and say, "Toldya so":
What bothers me is that some of the pro-war types wish to shout down the questions.
— Well, just maybe, Mark, if you admitted that reasonable people could have had additional justifications for war to the only one that you'll accept, then "pro-war types" would see some room for discussion with you. You aren't asking questions — you're declaring possible pieces of evidence as the entire case. What responses do you want from the average citizen supporter of the war? 'Cause this is about the best that can be reasonably expected: "Yep, there are important questions that have important answers still pending." Of course, to this, I would add, regarding WMDs, "I'm satisfied that Hussein was untrustworthy and that he was doing stuff that he oughtn't have been," and regarding the future of Iraq, "We'll see... when it's been more than a matter of weeks."
The only way your phrasing of the "questions" makes sense is by narrowing the field of discussion specifically and completely to WMDs, then fully removing one half of the WMD threat (the dangerous — now non-existent — regime) from consideration, and then setting the bar for evidence for the other half at some vague level that is only characterized by being "higher than we've reached." And your tone has been adversarial —
[Here's what should have been the ending to that previous post of mine.]
And your tone has been adversarial — not "just asking" — on this since the war ended.
(You'll excuse me, too, if I'm skeptical that Western media reports the good and bad in Iraq with anything even remotely resembling the appropriate perspective.)
Justin:
Yes, I'm aware that Hussein's regime was murderous, much like many other regimes we haven't gone to war with. Our original reason for going to war was that there were allegedly bushels of WMDs everywhere ("Just you wait!") was the refrain from the pro-war people who were sure we'd find them by the bushel and show what a boob the Holy Father was.
So far, not too many bushels. Hardly even a peck. So pro-war folks have shifted to "Operation Iraqi Freedom" and made out that the real purpose of the war was to liberate suffering Iraqis.
It wasn't. The purpose was American security. Sorry to be all realpolitik on you, but it was. And *from the standpoint of American security*, it's a live question as to whether we're really on the road to improvement if Iraq is going to take its "enduring freedom" in order to get in touch with the Foaming Bronze Age Fanaticism that gave us 9/11.
A-freekin'-men, Mr. Katz. You, sir, have the proper perspective on things.
The justice of the war stands or falls on the imminent threat of WMD proliferation. Period. Every single other rationale is irrelevant. Why? Because they weren't given as the reason for war, and they could be solved another way.
So the question now remains who lied to who. Its obvious the pentagon OSP lied to the NSC and White House, the Pres. and VP lied to the public and UN when they said they had such conclusive evidence that WMD possession and imminent threat of proliferation was a fact. Of course many people, including Catholics (and I would say the Vatican) pointed this out before the war--so claiming the "intelligence was faulty" "we didn't know", just wont float--for anyone. So did Catholic supporters of Bush lie to war objectors before the war--and why? And did they lie about and misrepresent the Pope's opposition to the war.
Unfortunately, those are the serious questions that remain to be answered. The President's prudential authority cannot be deconstructed to allow for the construal of a tin of anthtrax locked in a basement somewhere as an imminent threat justifying preemptive action. This was pointed out at the time, and everyone had plenty of opportunity before the war to stop, ask serious questions (including questions of our President). So who lied to who?
Justin,
Isn't the threat posed by Iraqi WMDs the only relevant causus belli to consider in determining whether or not the invasion was just? If not, what are the other relevant considerations?
I think that the reasons giving for the war were really kind of stupid on the part of the adminstation. I think that you have to 'pick your battles' in the sense of we cannot possibly be everywhere where some tin pot dictator is causing trouble.
The gulf IS a very important part of the world. I think we all know why it is imortant (oil) but that is not the reason the war was a good idea. Saddam is not like a mugubee (sp?) type of person...he had wealth, he had an army, he had bountiful natural resources and he demonstrated that he was willing to take foolish risks to further his aims. Saddam did at one time have a very ambitious nuclear program and did have actually use his chemical arsenal. if those programs were halted, he could have easily have proven it.
Mark, you are correct about the hunt for the WMD's however. Given the press about the intel reports and everything else, we should have found something by now. HOWEVER........it is a big country and these guys were pretty good at keeping those things safe from bombs and inspectors. Also, we are still operating in a fairly hostile environment.
Finally, how many allied occuption soldiers were killed or shot at in Germany/Japan after WWII? I don't know....that'd be interesting to see. Also, I think the fact that we destroyed a regime w/o destroying the country may be wonderful in a certain sense (sparing lives, property, etc) but in a sense, maybe not so good because that sense of total defeat may not ever set in on some of the crazies over there. Consider, we dropped two big bombs on Japan. after that, they KNEW that they had been defeated. Maybe some of the rogues in iraq don't feel that way?
Pax Christi
Bobbert,
Before the war, Bush talked about "stockpiles" of Iraqi WMDs. After the war, no "stockpiles" have been found or accounted for. Moreover, the US did not attempt to secure any of the locations where these "stockpiles" allegedly were, which raises the suspicion that maybe the US never expected to find "stockpiles" in Iraq. If there is no evidence of "stockpiles" now (and none turns up) and if the US never acted in manner consistent with an honest belief that the "stockpiles" ever existed, wouldn't it be fair to conclude that Bush's talk of "stockpiles" before the war was a dishonest pretext?
The problem with Justin's position is that it does not comply with the catechism. That's all Mark is saying...that's not controversial at all. The basis for the war was imminent use of weapons of mass destruction. I didn't believe they existed to such a level that I could support the war, but Mark Shea and poeple like Mike Ptrick did. The disagreement is not about what the Catechism teaches. It teachs that only a few wars can meet the jsut war criteria and only those which are defenseive and when the damage inflicted by the agressor is "lasting grave and certain." The only disagreement was whether the weapons of mass destruction were immediately about to be used so as to cause lasting frave and certain damage. That much is prudential. waging war for regime change is not recognized as just under Catholic teaching. Hopefully, Mark and Mike will be proven right and I will be proven wrong, but to date there hasn't been any evidence to meet the just war criteria for starting a war.
There's always the requirement to "win the peace," whcih can take a lot of time, but Mark asks a good question; "What happens when, in free elections, the Iraquis elect a shiite theocratic anti western state?"
Mike Petrick! Sorry, Mike for poor poof reeding
Bill, I wouldn't view the rush to Baghdad and its subsequent inability to secure suspected stockpiles as evidence of some kind of sinister pretext (for what, by the way?).
Apparrently, to critics it seems more likely that the President of the United State, Colin Powell, the intelligence agencies of both the United States and Britian, and numerous other principals, directly lied to the people in a "dishonest pretext" for.... what? Or is it more likely that given the information we had at the time, with Iraq's constant open threats to actually use WMDs, and their prior history of using them against the Kurds, also with the UN Inspectors still unable to account for them... that there was an honest belief that they were there. And in fact, they most likely are - as Iraqis got sick from radiation poisioning from looting of certain sites, and we continue to find evidence of their WMD program (confirming yesterday their clandestine manufacturing facilities on trucks).
It seems that critics holding onto Just War would have nothing less than the actual use of WMD against us first before we attack. If that is what the doctrine has become, then it is suicide. Oh no, critics say - that's not what it means! But in reality, there is no other alternative, because no one can know to a certainty that even if a state has WMDs, if they will be an imminent threat. And given the nature of 21st century war, with proxies and shadowy alliances using highly dangerous weapons, the meaning of "imminent" either has stretched or has no practical meaning anymore. Just War, like the Constitution, is not a suicide pact.
Bobbert deploys the sophistries devised before the war to obscure the fact that the WMD evidence was not produced. We are now increasingly certain that it was not produced because it could not be produced--because it did not exist. There was no danger to intelligence assets. . . that prevented the demonstration of a WMD threat. How do we know this? Because the nature of the threat descibed before the War (stockpiles. . .) and the certitude of that knowledge (absolute. . . ) are now impossible.
al, don't put words in my mouth. To all reasonable people, Hussein acted as if he had WMDs. He explicitly threatened to use them, he used them in the past, he was willing to undergo billions of dollars in lost revenue via sanctions, he kicked out the inspectors in 1998 and only grudgingly accepted them again because of the threat of force, and was willing to be the paraiah of the international community for over 10 years because of the threat of WMDs.
If this is sophistry, then what is reality? Why didn't Saddam just come forward with the evidence of their destruction? Why go through all the aforementioned trouble? The rational calculation based on the information was that they were there. And they probably still ARE there, as we are daily learning.
Do you have anything to say about the suicide pact, by the way?
Bobbert,
I don't think that it is a problem that the US merely failed to secure WMDs, but rather that the US didn't even seem to try to secure them. Strange, since the likelihood of al Qaeda-types coming into possession of Iraqi WMDs would seem to be greater during the post-war chaos than it was with Saddam in charge of Iraq. Keeping WMDs out of the hands of OBL was supposed to be the rationale for the war; it was the way in which Iraq was allegedly threatening us. However, if there never was a threat, then the purported justification was pretextual. For purposes of a just war analysis, it doesn't matter if that pretext was to fight a war for oil, Israel, empire, stabilization the dollar or something else. If the actual reason for the war was not really to protect the US, the invasion would not satisfy just war criteria.
As for the "information we had at the time", there were numerous news stories before the war about the politicization of intelligence and the pressure put upon the CIA to come up with evidence. It was because the CIA wasn't producing the desired results from the Administration's perspective that the DoD started doing its own intelligence assessments. As a result the US touted things like Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Niger as a basis for invasion, even though the allegation was based on obviously forged documentation.
Maybe Bush's assessment of the threat was the result of a good-faith mistake. (Indeed, I'm still open to the possibility that it may have even been correct.) Right now, however, it appears that it may not have been.
Al,
Are you on record saying Iraq had no WMD before the war?
Tell us what the "real" motivation for the war was, since you appear to have this all figured out.
How does one act as if one has WMD's. Looking around furtively? Suspicious lumps in pockets?
This is all OSP nonsense. Rephrase the question from "prove that he does have WMD's" to "assume that he does till overwhelming evidence proves other wise." Well I don't think anyones going to be buying that paradigm shift anymore. . .
Saddam said he destoyed 'em, the defector said he destroyed 'em, he didn't use 'em and we can't find 'em. I think pretty much everybody is through giving Rummy and Wolfie the benefit of the doubt. . . Shinseki was right. . . Beers was right. . . and yet we're still supposed to believe the indignant protestations of accuracy on this. Please.
And on the bleating of "suicide pact", it's the equavalent of a teenager whining that their parents want to lock them up in a convent if the parents object to their fornicating. The argument is about whether Iraq constituted any danger to the US. The evidence is the yet to be found WMD's. You can't take that as proven middle term for the just war syllogism, if that's the very subject under debate. . .
JCL,
It is and was the burden of the war proponents to show that the war was just. The default position is peace. It is enough for peaceniks to point out that the case in favor of war has not been made. They are under no obligation to make an affirmative showing that war should be avoided. They don't have to show that Iraq was free of WMDs or what the real motivation for the war was.
As for the real reason for that War: Saddam was a bad and generally intractable guy who tended to complicate matters in the middle east.
Kathleen Parker puts it well:
Was the threat of WMD a ruse to justify an otherwise unjustifiable attack on another country? Anyone who seriously asks this question won't take "no" for an answer.
This is why, Mark, I've fallen simply to saying, "the war is done, so what now?" Take the above commenters:
Al: Every single other rationale is irrelevant. Why? Because they weren't given as the reason for war, and they could be solved another way.
— I had to laugh at this. Before the war, the biggest complaint (including by our host, here) was that there were too many various arguments. There were actually three major justifications given (in addition to myriad lesser ones, like oil): WMDs, terrorism, human rights. Whatever you think of each of those, they were indeed "given."
Which leads us to Bill: Isn't the threat posed by Iraqi WMDs the only relevant causus belli to consider in determining whether or not the invasion was just?
— We went through this too extensively before the war, and I'm not going to do it again. The fact of the matter is that there were additional reasons. At the time (as I recall), you emphasized the terrorist angle because it seemed, at the time, to leave the most room for your anti-war conclusion. Now, somehow, WMDs are the only "relevant" point. (I really wish Mark hadn't lost all of those comments...)
Which relates to Mr. McFaul's declaration that WMDs were the only criterion relevant to the Catechism. This overlooks the (unresolved) argument before the war — here, on my blog, and on many others — that this is simply not true, especially once you throw in the modern realities of terrorism (and their weapons on 9/11). I'm not going to get embroiled in this again because no minds are going to change (and, frankly, I'm beginning to feel like Mark is manipulating his readers to take up these arguments), but I will leave this, from CCC 2304 as my last word (unless somebody makes an argument that I haven't grown weary of):
Peace is not merely the absence of war, and it is not limited to maintaining a balance of powers between adversaries. Peace cannot be attained on earth without safeguarding the goods of persons, free communication among men, respect for the dignity of persons and peoples, and the assiduous practice of fraternity.
With this as the definition, the U.S.A. furthered the cause of peace in the world.
Justin,
Striking the pose!
Although you do not deign to provide a straight answer to my question about what you consider to be a just cause for the war, I think I'm right to conclude from your post that you assert three: WMDs, terrorism and human rights.
Of course, it was terrorism that made any Iraqi WMDs a threat. Without terrorism, the "stockpiles" of Iraqi WMDs posed no threat to the US (alleged Iraqi drones notwithstanding), since Iraq is 10,000 miles away from the US and had no other way of attacking us.
As for human rights, I, too, wish Mark's comments section was archived. I recall that you did not seem to contest before the war that the alleged concern for the Kurds was cynical and insincere. Back then, you preferred to speculate about how the Iraqis were responsible for 9/11 (Atta-in-Prague, etc.) A hypothetical justification, even if legitimate, is irrelevant, if it was not an actual motive.
What we're left with is the threat (via terrorism) of Iraqi WMDs. This was always the issue and I don't know why you say I'm somehow shifting ground. If there were no significant WMDs, they could not have been a threat to the US to justify invasion. Likewise, with the terrorist link. To date, both prongs semm to be wanting. If there was no threat, the war was not just.
Justin,
That's a fib. Say it again and it'll be a lie. Bush was very careful (at his "no matter what the whip count" whopper press conference), as was Cheney, as were the Catholic apologists for the war to say that the operative defense for the war was WMD. Its the only possible actionable cause (threatened imminent aggression).
I'm afraid you just don't get it. . .
I'm ready to vote. Has the debate concluded?
If not, I'm calling for the question.
FWIW, if you can find the threads, the haloscan comments are all still attached. Ain't no archivin' around here.
The War Party is a hoot. If WMDs or a connection between Al Queda, Iraq and 9/11 don't work (and these were the only official rationales offered by "legitimate authority"), why then there is "safeguarding the goods of persons, free communication among men, respect for the dignity of persons and peoples, and the assiduous practice of fraternity" to stand in the gap!
Jeez "al," who are you, Maureen Dowd? You sound exactly like her. I'm surprised to find such open contempt and cynicism on a Catholic blog. Sorry to say, but I don't think a rational conversation is possible with you.
One note - before September 11, the Bush administration considered "smart sanctions" on Iraq, lifting them to a degree. After September 11th, the policy implications of being wrong on threat assessments changed drastically. This invasion did not happen in a vacuum, al.
Bobbert,
Unfortunately, that cynicism was born of hard experience. I used to be a Bush voter, and First Things reader. . . As for the contempt--no its just pity. For the deceived and the deceivers. Tell me, does not calling a lie a lie make you ingenuous or just credulous.
I mean I bet Jayson Blair had defenders like these. He'd be on his way to becoming a Walter Duranty. Too bad he didn't study under Strauss.
I hear ya Bill, it's just that before the war everybody seemed to accept he had WMDs, it was their threat to the U.S. that was the issue. Now many, including Al, seem to frame it as an "existence" issue since the beginning.
al, don't be so certain that the evil you see in others isn't a reflection of your own ill will. My suggestion before you go accusing Bush and Tony Blair of deceiving the world: remove that gigantic rotting plank from your own eyeball.
Bobbert,
Wow. George W. Bush lies on national tv before an audience of millions and I'm the hypocrite. Sure I've told a couple in my day and repented of it, but no one died because I lied. What's the difference between Bill Clinton lying about having "sexual relations with that woman" and GWB lying about the whip count and our certitude of Iraqs WMD stockpiles?
Oh sorry. Jesus died because I lied. But no one else. Not that I know of.
If Bush did in fact lie, then of course it's a sin. But like I said, I'm astonished that a person on a Catholic weblog would be so quick to conclude that is the case (it's an opinion shared by a lot of questionable people, to put it mildly). Your cynicism on these matters is hardly a virtue. And if history proves is all wrong, then we'll take the lesson to heart. But I don't think that will be the case, and your certainty of this in the face of better explanations that don't reek of insane conspiracy theories is why I said I don't think we can have a rational conversation.
Hey everyone!
Iraq is a very big country and the evidence one way or another has yet to be unearthed. Okay? let's all keep that in mind please!
also, has anyone even considered the remote possiblity that the guys that would use these things pretty much figured that IF they used them, then they would (with no doubt!) be killed? Also, have we considered that very early on, the intel inside of iraq completely broke down? The iraq's used a doctrine similar to the old soviet model which involved getting your orders from on high and following them. finally, in terms of combat effectiveness, the wmd's saddam did have would never have been effective against the US military. I think it is maybe getting a little late, but c'mon people! being skeptical is fine; being cynical ins't.
Pax Christi
al,
Does the Catechism represent the entire body of Catholic thinking on the justness of wars, or is it just an accurate summary. For example, has Augustine's example of "massing or building armies" been repudiated? If not, then wouldn't the combination of (i) evidence (even if not proof) of WMD, (ii) the refusal to substantiate the destruction of admitted WMDs, and (iii) the undisputed recent use of such WMDs on Kurds, Iranians and Iraqis present an analogous circumstance?
What really interests me, however, is the morality of the following hypothetical: Let's say the Administration correctly viewed Saddam to be a certain danger to his own people and his immediate neighbors, but knew that this danger, regardless how grave, would not motivate Americans to intervene. So let's say the Administration exaggerated the imminence of the danger to America in order to secure the political support to take Saddam out. I would assume that this deception would be morally objectionable. But does it necessarily render the war itself morally objectionable?
Furthermore, what is the duty of a Catholic who disagrees with the stated Administration rationale, but believes that armed intervention is justified for other reasons? My understanding is that the Holy See's statements pretty much expressed the view that the public case made for the war by the Administration was inadequate. But does this necessarily render the war immoral?
Finally, I have to say I am troubled by any doctrine that would not have allowed the French to exert force to prevent Hitler from re-arming the Rhineland in violation of the Treaty of Versailles. Such a doctrine seems to be incompatable with the realities of the human condition, something that has always been a strong point in Catholic moral teaching. Fifty million dead is a high price to pay for a strict application of "imminence."
I (along with Christopher Hitchens) now agree with the prewar position of Hans Blix: let's give the inspections more time.
Ok Bobbert, there's no if about it: Bush Lied.
Question: If the resolution looks like it will be defeated at the security council, will the US still call for a vote?
GWB: No Matter WHAT THE WHIP COUNT IS, WERE CALLING FOR THE VOTE.
Was the vote called? Did I miss it?
There has been something bothering me about the Just War Theory discussion as it applies to the Iraq War for several months now and I just couldn't put my finger on it until now:
All of the elements of the just war theory are predicated on the *reasonable belief* of the legitimate authority. In other words, to put it bluntly, the reality of what occurs after the decision to go to war is made is, in a certain sense, irrelevant. The only question that matters is whether President Bush held a reasonable and true belief that the war was necessary to keep the peace. Continued debate on the issue is misplaced and irrelevant. The only questions that matter now have to do with what is the proper course to take and policy to institute in order to deal with the current situation at hand.
Mike Petrik,
I made my (semi-silly)post before seeing yours.
Yours is eloquent and intelligent. Thank you.
JCL,
I think what everybody (or most people) accepted before the war that it was possible that Saddam had some quantity of WMDs. However, there was no evidence that any quantity of Iraqi WMDs was significant or that any Iraqi WMDs constituted a threat. Saddam, of course, denied any WMDs existed (as one would expect him to do), but there were also UN weapons inspectors roaming the country to impede expansion of any WMD program. Further, if US intelligence was able to locate any of the "winnebagos of death" WMD production facilities, it would seem to have been a simple matter to destroy them via limited air strikes. It was not as if Iraq was in much of a position to protest. In short, there was no reason why an invasion of Iraq was required for US defense. The comparison was drawn between Iraq, whose government was loathed by al Qaeda, and Pakistan, which actually admitted to having WMDs and whose government included elements that were quite friendly to various strains of militant Islamic. The US profferred no credible explanation why Iraq had to be invaded, but why Pakistan could be dealt with via diplomacy. Again, war proponents needed to do more than show that Iraqi WMDs existed, but the existence of WMDs is a necessary element of their case. Existence was an issue from the beginning, but there were other holes in the pro-war argument as well.
Bill,
"The US profferred no credible explanation why Iraq had to be invaded, but why Pakistan could be dealt with via diplomacy."
How about the fact that Pakistan hadn't invaded another country in the past 20 years? How (significantly) cooperative they had been in rounding up Al-Quaeda? That they were an ally in the war in Afghanistan? I don't think the administration really had to do much convincing for most people to believe that Iraq and Pakistan are completely different animals.
Catherine
al,
Oh please. Saying you're calling for a vote, and then not calling it because it was obvious the French would veto it, verses deliberately falsifying evidence that Iraq had WMDs and lying about it to the world, is entirely different. The "no if about it" depends on WHAT THE LIE WAS ABOUT. Lying about calling a vote, or lying about fake evidence for an invasion with another sinister reason? Sheesh.... such distinctions have little effect on conspiracy theorists. Assuming it was a bold-faced lie on the vote, and not some political tactical statement, then what difference does that make? What if he lied about the vote, but was telling the truth about WMDs? Does that mean anything to you at all?
Mike,
Certainly the Catechism enumerates the Binding aspects of Just War doctrine. Just compare it to the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia. The Encyclopedia
Now of course lying a country into war is never just. Yet Bush had no need to do any such thing. He'd already been given permission to deal with any aggression, either by proxy--through terrorists, or by Iraq itself. All he had to do was make the case that any aggressive intent was there, and that it was imminent and sufficiently dangerous to require preemptive action. And he attempted to with the WMD/Terrorist link (which I still dispute is sufficient anyway, short of documented intent). This is the Bush Administration's criterion, not mine. If it fails on their own, dubious criterion, then it most certainly fails on the rigorous tests of "Last Resort" "Immanent" and "Certain." Those are in everybody's definition. So whether it be massing armies or massively destuctive weapons--there has to actually be some.
But you see, Bobbert, it is you that is claiming Bush is truthful about the existence of the imminent threat WMD's, in the face of the lack of evidence (both before and after the war) to the contrary, and it is I who is cynical for asserting he could possibly lie about it. But he did lie about the vote--and it was important--becuase if the Security Council had vetoed it then the notion we were enforcing 1441 was gone, and we have to go on the legality of asserting our self defense rights under article 51.
And what's all this conspiracy mumbo jumbo? There was a conspiracy, it is very well known now, and whether Bush was a dupe of the neocons, or a willing accomplice is a debate only about whether he's stupid, grossly negligent or complicit. This isn't some 5 subscriber newsletter conspiracy account--its the New York Times, LA Times, Boston Globe, New Yorker--basically every major publication except those owned by Rupert Murdoch and Conrad Black.
Cynical? Conspiracy theorist? I don't know who you think these curse words are convincing. It ain't morning in america anymore, and the "second shooter's" picture is all over the NYTimes front page. . .
Mike actually deserves a direct response to his question. Augustine's Just war doctrine is not the same as what is set out in the Catechism. Catholic teaching on this subject has evolved.
That why Cardinal Ratzinger can say:
"The Holy Father's judgment is also convincing from the rational point of view: There were not sufficient reasons to unleash a war against Iraq. To say nothing of the fact that, given the new weapons that make possible destructions that go beyond the combatant groups, today we should be asking ourselves if it is still licit to admit the very existence of a "just war."
The Church is teaching that there are very few instacnes of a "just war
Now I also have a tough time if the doctrine didn't allow the French to oppose German occupying the Rhineland. At some point, maybe not then, the threat was imminent (certainly no later than Chechoslovakia).
Catherine,
As for invading others, Iraq invaded Kuwait in the midst of what appeared to be a legitimate grievance about Kuwaiti oil-drilling practices and asserted a colorable historical claim to the area with the apparent approval of the US ambassador. Iraq has not attempted to invade anyone else since that time, despite the fraululent claims by the US government that Iraq was massing troops along the Saudi border shortly thereafter. India would dispute your assertion that Pakistan has not invaded anyone in 20 years, given the ongoing hostilities in Kashmir.
As far as al Qaeda, the military dictator of Pakistan was very supportive of US efforts in Afghanistan. However, the Pakistani intelligence agency is indisputably al Qaeda-friendly. (Hmm, how was it that OBL and Mullah Omar managed to vanish? Is their mail being forwarded to Kashmir?) Remember, too, that the Pakistanis were the "animals" that shipped nuclear technology to that other charter member of the Axis of Evil, North Korea. Of course, this was information that Bush concealed from Congress until after he got his use of force resolution passed.
Still think an invasion of Iraq was necessary?
Joseph,
Please explain the discrepancy between St. Augustine and the Catechism. I find none.
Re Joseph McFaul's comment above:
It does seem to me that this Pontificate is edging closer and closer to making pacifism the official position of the Catholic Church. That certainly seems to be the spirit in the air around Rome these days.
When it officially comes, some will hail it, others (like me) will decry it.
It will be a repeat of what they did with the doctrine on capital punishment.
Catherine, I would assume that you would want to check that with the government of India, which has been accusing Pakistan of that in Kashmir (along with a number of other things), for decades.
Bill and C Muncey,
If a UN vote was so important to the invasion of Iraq, why does it merit no mention that the UN hasn't voted on any "resolutions" about Kashmir? Yes, I know that Pakistan and India have issues, but they go back before Kashmir, I believe. All I was saying in my original post was that Pakistan can't be used as an example of a country that we need to invade for the same reasons we invaded Iraq. I'm not trying to get into the mudslinging on this thread, just to make the point that Pakistan has behaved quite differently than Iraq, especially with regard to the US, so using it to say "that's why we shouldn't have invaded Iraq" is a bit disingenuous in my opinion.
Catherine
Oh, and just a thought or two for those who are hoping for results from a longer search.
There was no doubt that Iraq had chemical weapons during the 1991 war -- because we were, literally, tripping over them, starting the week after the cease fire in 1991. Consider that one of the main suspects in Gulf War Syndrome is chemical agents inadvertently released during destrucion of Iraqi munitions -- destructions that were carried starting 10 days after the cease fire.
We were repeatedly assured that there was, without doubt, tons of the stuff, weaponized, deployed and ready to go. This time, when you consider distances, and that they were on home ground, the Iraqi army main force units (the ones with the artillery used by the Iraqis to deploy chemical weapons) collapsed faster than in 1991. If they had the materials when we claimed they had, they did not have time to destroy them without a trace.
(For those of you who have been keeping up with CBW issues, you would already know that completely destroying this kind of stuff is difficult and dangerous -- that's why we ship it off to an atoll in the middle of the south Pacific for chemical neutalization and incineration.)
If the Iraqi military had these weapons, in the quantities and forms that we claimed, we simply would know by now -- which is probably one good reason why the military has already withdrawn their own search teams.
Catherine,
In what manner has Iraq been hostile to the US? As it turns out, they even took good care of Little Jessi Lynch. What more do you want them to do? Pakistan, on the other hand, gave nuclear technology to North Korea. My point is not to advocate in favor of an invasion of Pakistan. Rather, it is to show that, overblown rhetoric and fantastic claims aside, the US did not demonstrate why an invasion of Iraq was necessary, when it recognized that an invasion of Pakistan was not.
Bill,
It's after five, and I really don't have the time to detail Iraq's offenses. I was just making the point that Iraq and Pakistan are different, just like Iraq and North Korea are different. None of the countries is perfect, but there is much more reason to be concerned about Iraq than about Pakistan. Have a great night.
Catherine
If Hussein had indeed destroyed all of his WMD, why did he not simply provide the required documentation of this to the UN, as was asked?
Joseph,
Thank you for your response. If you are correct it seems to me that Catholic teaching is likely to evolve further.
Question: Given the horrible civilian casualties of WWII (prior to Hiroshima) was that war unjust? The Holy Father's *purported* claim that wars are increasingly difficult to justify because "new weapons make possible destructions that go beyond the combatant groups" seems to me to be utterly fantastic in light of history. No war in modern history was as surgically fought as Iraq. While perhaps ignored by popular media it is widely understood that the civilian casualties of modern combat have been enormous. Pick any 20th century battle and study it. The civilian casualties at Okinawa alone were breathtaking. Prior to the 20th century civilians just died of disease and starvation due to a war's economic consequences. The most recent development of modern weaponry actually mitigate against Cardinal R's point.
All that said, I continue to be very uncertain about the war's justness. Bush's case may have been plausible, but there is some reason to believe that it was contrived. That said, when I read about the torture chambers, people shredders and Uday's access to anyone's 14 year old daughter, all my moral instincts tell me we did the right thing even if for the wrong reasons or for reasons masked by pretext.
Excuse me Catherine, but what about UNSC resolutions 38, 39, 47, 51 (all 194
, 80 (1950), 91 (1951), 96, 98 (both 1952), 122 , 123, 126 (all 1957), 209, 210, 211, 214, 215 (all 1965), 303, 307 (both 1971)? In the first quarter century of the UN, Kashmir was one of the hot issues. The main reason that you don't see much after that is the legal accession of Kashmir to India and the lack of open warfare in the area (but lots of terrorism in recent years, much of it considered Pakistani sponsored.)
Stupid automatic smiley -- 
Many of the comments are far too cynical and are based on too little evidence.
Both George Bush and Colin Powell appear to be honest. Although it is too soon to tell, they may have been wrong, but I see no reason to believe they lied, or intentionally mislead the American public.
Bill writes:
I recall that you did not seem to contest before the war that the alleged concern for the Kurds was cynical and insincere. Back then, you preferred to speculate about how the Iraqis were responsible for 9/11 (Atta-in-Prague, etc.) A hypothetical justification, even if legitimate, is irrelevant, if it was not an actual motive.
Not true. I, personally, "went on record" supporting regime change on the basis of Hussein's treatment of his own nation and baseline danger to the world back in December 2001. I know there are those who think it not very Catholic of me to support a limited war (and this war was nothing if not limited) to remove Hussein's regime for the "unjust" motives of saving children from torture and avoiding renewed Iraqi "genocide initiatives," but there you go.
As for a certain degree of diplomatic and political maneuvering on the administration's part: it would be suicidal to conduct international relations by adhering to a level of diplomatic fair-play that hostile nations (e.g., France) refuse to reciprocate. I hereby resolve not to take seriously anybody who argues that Uday ought to still be prowling Baghdad's playgrounds and wedding chapels (or whatever they call 'em there) simply because our President ought to have adhered to a promise that he made during a question/answer session to seek a vote that was subsequently proven pointless by a nation (again, France) seeking to extend Hussein's window of opportunity to hide and disperse weapons and equipment that he very possibly acquired from those nations that would have foiled the vote.
Mark: Ok, I've ignored many of these bloggings on this subject but I must get this out before I burst: you're wrong and a doo-doo head. Nanny-nanny, ppphhfft! There, all better. Move along now, nothing to see...
John:
I know you are, but what am I?
It's interesting to note that former Ambassador to Iraq Joseph Wilson, who opposed the war, expected many WMD to be found and is surprised that they haven't been turning up.
For more on Wilson, see:
http://varenius.blogspot.com/
200...e.html#88169529
...and one of these days a summary of his followup lecture, where he made this comment, will be showing up on my blog.
I am surprised my many of the comments here, particularly those who believe George Bush lied. Gimme a break.
The following are good thoughts on the subject:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/arc...ives/
003497.php
Cardinal Ratzinger said:
"..today we should be asking ourselves if it is still licit to admit the very existence of a "just war.""
He is right and 100% in line with what the Catechism says. If you read the Catechism carefully it does **NOT** say there is any such thing as a "just war". It simply lists the reasons for legitimate defense (2309) and adds in small type a historical note :-
"These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine"."
All the Catechism talks about is a "so called just war doctrine". It does not even admit there are any "just wars".
The problem with the very concept of "just wars" is that every agressor always thinks his attack is just. We would be better to use the phrase the catechism itself uses "legitimate defense by military force".
Read 2309 very carefuly. It begins "the damage inflicted by the agressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain".
What "damage" was Iraq inflicting on the USA (or anyone else)? None. Therefore the very first condition of 2309 was never met. And 2309 requires **ALL** its conditions to be met if the war is to be just.
You don't even need to prove the existance of WMD's. Lots of nations have WMD's. The US has more than anyone. Mere possesion of WMD's is **NOT** justification of a premptive war.
This argument is **VERY IMPORTANT** for world peace because the planet is full of countries which hate each other, fear the other will attack, and which posses WMDs. India and Pakistan are a good example. Each fears the other will attack first. They have nuclear weapons. Would one be justified in attacking the other because they fear the enemies WMDs? Of course not, which is why we must stamp very firmly on the head of this serpant called "premptive war".
It was experience of premptive strikes that led the United Nations to rule them out. People still remembered the premptive strike at Pearl Harbour (Japan claimed the US was about to attack it), the premptive strike by Germany in WWI Belgium (Germany claimed Britain would attck it through Belgium), and the premptive strike by Hitler against Russia (he claimed the Russians were massing troops on the border about to attack).
I am not an "absolute pacifist" in the sense of denying the right of nations to every use of military force for defense. My own country recently sent troops to East Timor, a deployment under UN mandate which fully meet the Catechism 2309 conditions for legitimate defense by military force and which I supported.
God Bless
As a Catholic, aren't you required to support wars that liberate poor, suffering people?? Don't you want more wars which would help tortured ones under cruel dictators?
Cardinal Ratzinger said:
"..today we should be asking ourselves if it is still licit to admit the very existence of a "just war.""
When and in what context did he say this?
"These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine"."
All the Catechism talks about is a "so called just war doctrine".
No, it talks about the "traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine." Nothing more -or less.
It does not even admit there are any "just wars".
Nor does it deny that there are "just wars".
Eva,
Doea this mean you would support a war against the US to stop abortion? At last count we've had something like 40 million people legally executed in this country, as Democrats ask for more abortions and Republicans focus on tax cuts.
Justin,
As honorable as your intentions may have been in 2001, the point to remember is that your intentions are irrelevant to the issue at hand. It is not your intentions that matter, but rather the intentions of the US government. This was not Justin's invasion, but rather the US invasion. It is the US government's concern with human rights as a causus belli that I refer to as "cyncal and insincere". I had thought that it was beyond serious dispute that the US beef with Saddam had nothing to do with the way he treated the Kurds or Shiites or with Uday's courting rituals. Supposedly, we went to war because Iraq was an immanent threat to our security. That is the claim that still needs to be substantiated.
Once again. Bill writes:
I recall that you did not seem to contest before the war that the alleged concern for the Kurds was cynical and insincere. Back then, you preferred to speculate about how the Iraqis were responsible for 9/11 (Atta-in-Prague, etc.) A hypothetical justification, even if legitimate, is irrelevant, if it was not an actual motive.
That "you" does not refer to the administration.
But put that aside, and let's run with this: are you saying, Bill, that it would have been just had Bush's intention been primarily to free the people of Iraq from Hussein's evil?
Justin,
*You* did not contest that any *Administration* concern was cynical and insincere. What is so difficult to understand about that?
As for your hypothetical, yes, as a general matter I would be open to considering a war to protect human rights to be just. Without considering all the nuances, my understanding is that an oppressed group has the right to rise up and defend itself from oppressors, even if the oppressors govern that group. If the group has the right to defend itself, it seems reasonable that it can enlist the help of foreigners and foreign governments to defend itself. If the foreign government can justly be enlisted by the oppressed group, it again seems reasonable that the foreign government can justly come to the defense of the oppressed group, provided the motive of the foreign government was just.
I believe that an invasion of Rwanda to prevent genocide would have been just. I believe that the Irish support for the Nationalists in the Spanish civil war was just. However, we seem to be going off on a tangent. You aren't seriously proposing that Operation Iraqi Freedom was really about human rights, are you?
I hear you, Bill, but I'm not sure that it is as simple as you suggest. I submit that our assistance to Britain in fighting Nazi Germany was justifiable regardless of FDR's motives, which were likely not exactly pure when viewed through the lens of retrospection. I know, I know, Germany declared war on us (very stupid thing to do), but frankly I doubt that this affects the just war calculus all that much. FDR knew that Germany had no aggressive designs on us; among other things he just wanted to take out Hitler -- the war declaration was his warrant. Similarly, Bush probably relied on Saddam's failure to abide by truce terms as his warrant for doing what he really wanted to do anyway. All that said I don't see why the morality of the war itself or my support of it must be judged solely by the always murky motives of a president. I supported the war because I believed that (i) Saddam likely had WMDs that would inevitably fall into the hands of people who would use them against us or other innocents, (ii) regime change would reduce the misery inflicted on tens of thousands of Iraqis and Kurds, and (iii) Saddam was in chronic violation of the truce and it is very important that truce terms be enforced if we are going to avoid "wars to the death" in the future. If the Administration exaggerated the risks associated with (i) I don't think that would have changed my ultimate judgment.
The actions of each person must be judged, among other things, by reference to his motives, of course. But assessing the morality of collective action is much more complicated, I think, than just examining the motives of any one person, including the president of the United States.
Mike,
This isn't about the motive of one individual. Why did we invade Iraq? The public debate (such as it was) consisted of representations by the Administration that war was necessary as a matter of US self defense. This wasn't merely the rationalization of the president as an individual. This was the basis for the US action here. The Congress ceded its authority to declare war to the president (whether constitutionally or not) because it was told that there was an immanent threat. The Pope (among others) looked at the purported justification and found it woefully lacking, because the US never actually demonstrated the existence of any threat, but rather made unsupported claims, some of which were demonstrably false. Now, Wolfowitz in an article in an upcomong Vanity Fair comes close to admitting that there self-defense argument was a ruse all along. The "collective action" at issue here was, as now seems increasingly likely, premised on a lie. Make out a case, if you can, that the US relied on a just cause to invade Iraq. Otherwise, how can you claim the war was just?
Mike,
If your objection to the just war doctrine in the catechism is its "novelty", most certainly the line of reasoning you advance is novel in the worst sense of the term. To those sophisticates who would manipulate and dissemble, Jesus says "let your yea be yea and your nea be nea"
Bill,
I suggest you refresh your memory about the President's U.N. speech at the beginning of the debate. Here's where he begins "making the case" against Iraq:
In one place -- in one regime -- we find all these dangers, in their most lethal and aggressive forms, exactly the kind of aggressive threat the United Nations was born to confront.
Twelve years ago, Iraq invaded Kuwait without provocation. And the regime's forces were poised to continue their march to seize other countries and their resources. Had Saddam Hussein been appeased instead of stopped, he would have endangered the peace and stability of the world. Yet this aggression was stopped -- by the might of coalition forces and the will of the United Nations.
To suspend hostilities, to spare himself, Iraq's dictator accepted a series of commitments. The terms were clear, to him and to all. And he agreed to prove he is complying with every one of those obligations.
He has proven instead only his contempt for the United Nations, and for all his pledges. By breaking every pledge -- by his deceptions, and by his cruelties -- Saddam Hussein has made the case against himself.
In 1991, Security Council Resolution 688 demanded that the Iraqi regime cease at once the repression of its own people, including the systematic repression of minorities -- which the Council said, threatened international peace and security in the region. This demand goes ignored.
And so on. Now, I know --- I know --- this will be cast as only lipservice, but it seems to me that one can assume much to be wrong when one feels at liberty to discount inconvenient statements as lipservice and then pretend that even the lipservice was never given.
The form that the administration's argument took was dictated by the objections being made, just as the form of my argument with you justifiably concentrated on areas in which there was room for discussion between us. I supported the war for a variety of reasons, most of which the administration listed, as well. Had the administration made a case in such a way as to correspond to your last response to me (e.g., on the basis purely of human rights), it would have trampled right into those objectors arguing against a "U.S. Crusade" or "the U.S. as judge, jury, and executioner." This includes nations acting according to their own designs as well as anti-war groups that began organizing to restrain the U.S. the weekend after September 11.
I submit that a just war is just regardless of the individual motives required to spur relevant parties to act. I further submit that I trust not only our President's judgment, but also his intentions. You apparently do not. It seems to me (of course) that you've got even less substantive evidence to prove your case in that respect.
Yet, while neither of us can know the President's heart, the actions resulting
[oops. here's the end.]
Yet, while neither of us can know the President's heart, the actions resulting from the assumptions and logic to which I've subscribed have freed a nation. You've fallen to arguing that our leaders deceived everybody into doing the right thing... except, of course, those few sages, such as the Pope... and you.
(Incidentally, nobody has successfully argued that it is within the Vatican's realm of competence to judge intelligence information, nor did the Vatican present its position in such a way as to suggest that further information about the existence of WMDs, alone, would have sufficed to change its judgment.)
-------------
Al,
It's been "yea" all along, buddy. Me, I'm a simpleton. It takes a "sophisticate" to comprehend how the freedom of children is objectionable because self-interested nations and arrogant poseurs forced a Christian President to twist and turn, dodging rhetorical bullets, in order to do what was obviously right.
Justin:
I take it, then, that you repudiate Rush Limbaugh's ridicule of the Clintonian habit of turning the military into "Meals on Wheels" and regard it as our duty, henceforth, to send troops into any part of the world where "the children" are being oppressed and we can feasibly defeat the regime in power? Should we start with Somalia? We can take 'em.
Mark,
I'd have to hear the entirety of Rush's argument, but if his contention is that the U.S. should never use its military power principally to end nightmarish reigns, then yes, I disagree.
I'll give you another "yes": I think we ought to be doing more to oppose other regimes --- in all the myriad ways it is possible to do so, including limited military efforts where feasible. Of course, it isn't as simple a matter as dispersing our troops into the world to overthrow the thugs, for three reasons:
1) The global diplomatic stage is such that even the obviously evil regime of Saddam Hussein required some bucking of the internationalistas and now requires a precedent proving that we are not after an "empire."
2) The circumstances required for Just War are such that multiple conditions must be met, including the exhaustion of non-military means. Nothing was going to remove Hussein but war, and he had made it abundantly clear that he had no intention of changing his ways.
3) Even the United States can only do so much, and such endeavors include a significant degree of clean-up.
Ultimately, the point with Iraq was that it lay at a juncture of multiple justifications — human rights, terrorism, WMDs, oil (i.e., the global economy), Iraq’s undermining of international norms (i.e., scoffing at signed agreements), and its positioning both geographically and with respect to pressuring other regimes and thereby facilitating progress without the need for further, more bloody, war. (I'm sure I've missed some.)
I think you pursued this line of thought before the war, Mark, and I think I replied that it didn't apply back then. You said something like: terrorism would require attacking Saudi Arabia; WMDs, North Korea; human rights, Somalia. All of these nations must be dealt with, but they are all unique and all lack aspects of the situation with Iraq, including a reasonable immediacy.
The bottom line is that, as a matter of moral justification, I don't, frankly, need much more than the human rights issue to be convinced of moral "justness." If the other Just War requirements (particularly chances of success and exhaustion of other possibilities) click into place along with practical (and essential) considerations, such as sufficient resources and support to follow through, then I say, "Let's roll."
Note: reading back, I see that I should clarify that, by "reasonable immediacy," I meant to suggest that the U.S.'s having a reasonable sense of immediacy was a factor in Iraq, not to imply that some of the other nations don't also have that factor.
al,
Gee, uh, thanks for the heads up. Now how about responding to the difficulties raised in my posts instead of just spitting our straw men arguments and ad hominem invective.
"Now, Wolfowitz in an article in an upcomong Vanity Fair comes close to admitting that there self-defense argument was a ruse all along."
Not quite Bill.
Go here to find the truth:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Co...02/
757wzfan.asp
Tom Connelly
Addendum:
Here's the URL of the transcript of the Wolfowitz interview:
http://www.defenselink.mil/
trans...secdef0223.html
Tom,
Thanks for the link. These comments of Wolfowitz's sound familiar (see above):
The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason, but . . . there have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. ... The third one by itself, as I think I said earlier, is a reason to help the Iraqis but it's not a reason to put American kids' lives at risk, certainly not on the scale we did it.
Mr. Wolfowitz and I may quibble over the justified degree and nature of that "help" (I don't see many options except the ousting of the leader, in this case), but it looks like we're on the same page.
Amazing thing is: I haven't even gotten my Vast Right Wing Conspiracy talking points memo, yet!
Justin,
From your excerpt of Bush's speech, I note that Bush misstates the genesis of the Gulf War: in fact, Iraq invaded Kuwait with provocation (a seeming genuine oil drilling dispute with Kuwait) and with the apparent advance approval of the US ambassador. More significantly, his comment about "Iraq's "forces were poised to continue their march to seize other countries and their resources" seems to be a reference to the lie of Bush I that Iraqi troops were massing on the Saudi border, set to seize the Saudi oil fields. This lie was instrumental in building support for the Gulf War among people who saw Iraq's invasion of Kuwait as not reason enough to get the US into a war. After the war, Bush I's claim was shown to be a lie, but, as tends to be the case with these things, nobody cared very much, since we won the war. Given the disparity between Bush II's rhetoric and the facts, perhaps it's not surprising that his speech wasn't convincing.
You think it is an error to consider Bush's talk of human rights merely lipservice, or as I've called it, cynical and insincere. But Bush's problem here is like that of David Duke when he was running for president. Duke's campaign speeches recited all these wonderful conservative ideas, but he dealt with his long career as head of the KKK by saying something like, "I don't support the KKK any more". There was no explanation of how he converted from being the head of a racist organization to being a genuine conservative stalwart. Certainly such a conversion is possible, but Duke never made it seem plausible. Hence, people concluded that he was a phony opportunist and every bit the racist he was as head of the KKK and his campaign went nowhere.
Likewise with Bush. Saddam was an ally of ours and was every bit the thug then as he was in 2002. However, the US didn't seem to mind very much at the time. Even with the notorious attack on the Kurds in the town of Halabja (which may or may not have actually happened), the US had all the information about the attack shortly thereafter, but was not interested in investigating it, because even assuming the worst, from a US perspective, it was no big deal. The US (indeed, even Don Rumsfeld) was implicated in Iraqi WMD attacks on Iran, but the US considered it no big deal. No big deal, that is, until recently, when you say Bush would have it that Iraqi human rights abuses provide a basis for the US to invade. However, the US has not attempted to explain the change of position on human rights or even acknowledged that its position on Iraq has changed. How can you consider such rhetoric anything but phony and insincere?
To briefly touch on some of your other points: The call to arms in the US was based on purported self defense. That was the reason why the US invaded. Appeals to the UN do not commit the US to war.
A comment I hear a lot from Bush supporters is that, "I trust him, he wouldn't deceive us". I don't under
A word limit. Who knew? I'll take the hint.
Bill,
Your response strikes me as indicative of the ways in which a little bit of twisting here, a little bit of spinning there, contributes to conspiratorial worldviews.
A few examples:
I researched this and thought I'd written about it, but I can't find the result (perhaps it was in a comment somewhere): the "proof" that there were no Iraqi troops on the Saudi border was (and only was) a photograph or two from somebody in Russia. Moreover (I recall this very specifically), descriptions of those "incriminating" photographs said that you could clearly see the U.S. planes at a Saudi airfield. Now, I don't know how close that airfield is to the border, but it seems to me that there's a whole lotta desert out there.
That's just for the record, Bill, because the following suggests that you've morphed into an apologist for Saddam Hussien and/or, at the very least, are beyond the point at which any arguments that I might present would be worth my time to make:
Even with the notorious attack on the Kurds in the town of Halabja (which may or may not have actually happened), the US had all the information about the attack shortly thereafter, but was not interested in investigating it, because even assuming the worst, from a US perspective, it was no big deal.
"may or may not have actually happened"? Huh? I've read too many reports from too many various sources to do more than shake my head at that. Next you'll be telling me that there aren't any U.S. troops in Baghdad.
Justin,
As you may recall, Jude Wanniski challenged the veracity of a celebrated Jeffrey Goldberg article in the New Yorker last year about the Halabja massacre, stating that there was no massacre at all, but rather that there were civilian casualties killed in fighting between Iraq and Iraq. Here's a link:
http://www.polyconomics.com/show...?
articleid=1967
Whether Goldberg or Wanniski is right, the fact remains that the US didn't really care much about the incident when it happened or for some time afterwards. That's part of the reason that I say US concern about Iraqi use of WMDs in the past rings hollow. (What about Rummy's implication in WMD use by Iraq against Iran -- isn't that something that, at a minimum, requires an explanation?)
As for the Iraqis on the Saudi border prior to the Gulf War, no satellite photos available show any evidence to support the US claim. Prior to the release of commercial satellite photos, which don't show any Iraqi troops, the US claimed that satellite photos showed Iraqi troops massing for attack. The US has never rebutted the charge that there never were Iraqi troops on the Saudi border and has never produced the satellite photos it claims to have relied on. Doesn't that seem fishy to you?
Oops. I meant to say that Wanniski attributed the casualties in Hallabja to fighting between Iraq and *Iran*.
Commenting by HaloScan
