Presidential commission report on Iraq

[Asterix]

The president's commission released it's final report today, and it wasn't good. They described US intelligence as "dead wrong", "worthless and misleading", and the daily briefings given to the president as "disastrously one-sided". Just in case anyone had any doubts. Most interesting is that the most critical chapter, not available for public release, was especially critical of the inadequacy of intelligence about North Korea and Iran. Hopefully this will all give GW pause before he decides to jump in again.

[Drunken Master]

Shocked am I - shocked!

[onthebottom]

The WMD Scandal that Wasn’t
Bipartisan bad news.

Rich Lowry

The commission studying the intelligence failures that produced disastrously flawed estimates of Iraq's weapons-of-mass-destruction capabilities has finally produced its report, and it's devastating. Not just for U.S. intelligence, which is portrayed as hapless and bungling, but for Bush critics who have vested so much in the argument that Bush officials pressured intelligence agencies to support the case for war.

New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd is the epitome of this school of thought. The very morning the report was released she wrote that "political pressure was the father of conveniently botched intelligence," and fingered Dick Cheney as the lead culprit. Cut to Page 50 of the WMD report: "The Commission found no evidence of political pressure to influence the Intelligence Community's prewar assessments of Iraq's weapons programs."

Bush critics have focused on the erroneous intelligence around Iraq's nuclear capabilities. Suddenly — or so the conspiracy theory goes — the CIA and others began to say what President Bush wanted to hear about Saddam Hussein and nukes in 2002. But the crucial shift away from the belief that Saddam had no active nuclear program came in early 2001, back when Bush was essentially maintaining President Clinton's Iraq policy. That's when we learned that Saddam was attempting to acquire aluminum tubes that could be used for conventional rockets, or — much worse — for gas centrifuges for enriching uranium.

Various intelligence agencies disagree about the purpose of the tubes. The CIA and others argued that they were for uranium enrichment and that, therefore, Saddam was reconstituting his nuclear program. The Department of Energy thought the tubes were unlikely to be used in centrifuges. But even it concluded from other evidence that Saddam had a renewed nuclear program. Only the State Department dissented from the conclusion in the notorious October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate that Baghdad had a program, but cautiously: "[the evidence] indicates, at most, a limited Iraqi nuclear reconstitution effort."

On biological weapons (BW), there was a shift from saying that Iraq might have bioweapons to concluding that it definitely did. The dark influence of Cheney? No. The change began in 2000, when President Clinton was still in office. It was based on information from a (totally dishonest, as it turns out) source code-named Curveball. That year, the National Intelligence Estimate was updated to say: "New information suggests that Baghdad has expanded its offensive BW program by establishing a large-scale, redundant and concealed BW agent production capability."

If there was a fundamental problem in how policymakers and intelligence officials interacted, it was that policymakers, again and again, were not made aware of the thinness and questionable reliability of much of the information about Iraq. In other words, intelligence agencies poorly served Bush, Cheney, and the rest of the hawks, not the other way around.

On the one hand, it is understandable that the intel was so fouled up. We assumed that Saddam had the worst intentions. If he wasn't cooperating with the United Nations, he must have been developing something nasty. The report, over and over, says that these assumptions — crucial to all the analysis — had "a powerful air of common sense" and were "not unreasonable." On the other hand, there were so many frank factual errors and sloppy practices in all this that former CIA head George Tenet should have his recently awarded Presidential Medal of Freedom revoked.

In its recommendations, the WMD commission makes some nods toward decentralization. This after Congress rushed to "reform" intelligence last year by centralizing it. If we undo that reform and pass another, will intelligence be doubly effective because it will have been "reformed" twice? Bureaucratic shuffling is beside the point. What is most important — and the WMD report usefully emphasizes this — is that we get more agents on the ground and that the people running U.S. intelligence be more imaginative and risk-taking.

That's not easy. Would that the problem really were just getting Dick Cheney to butt out.

OTB

[oldjones]

Who is Rich Lowry and for whom does he write? Where can I read this for myself? I know it's hard keeping up the basic rules you learned in school, but without proper attribution, no one can give credence to quoted material.

Other than the finding that the intelligence supplied to the President was entirely erroneous, the only part of the Commission's finding Mr. Lowry talks about, appears to be: "The Commission found no evidence of political pressure to influence the Intelligence Community's prewar assessments of Iraq's weapons programs." The rest of the article appears to be his opinions on matters other than the Commission.

I'm not sure why you say his opinions have anything to do with the President lying. The facts remain as obvious as they have always been to all but GeorgeII and his cabal: Saddam hadn't had any WMDs for years. There was no need for a war.

Don't trust spies, they lie for money.

[WoodPeckr]

Here's the dope on Rich:

http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry.asp

Upon further reflection the article may be an 'April Fool's Day' joke!

The WMD Scandal that Wasn’t...???? ....indeed.....so it was just a myth eehh... :rolleyes:

[langeweile]

On this site there is a link to the actual report as well.

[onthebottom]

Who is Rich Lowry and for whom does he write? Where can I read this for myself? I know it's hard keeping up the basic rules you learned in school, but without proper attribution, no one can give credence to quoted material.

I think Pecker answered this question, any reason you have to be such a prick?



Other than the finding that the intelligence supplied to the President was entirely erroneous, the only part of the Commission's finding Mr. Lowry talks about, appears to be: "The Commission found no evidence of political pressure to influence the Intelligence Community's prewar assessments of Iraq's weapons programs." The rest of the article appears to be his opinions on matters other than the Commission.

Which was the whole point of Bush lied vs Bush was wrong.




I'm not sure why you say his opinions have anything to do with the President lying. The facts remain as obvious as they have always been to all but GeorgeII and his cabal: Saddam hadn't had any WMDs for years. There was no need for a war.

Don't trust spies, they lie for money.

Because lying is knowingly saying something that is wrong. One would think you'd remember that from school.

OTB

[oldjones]

I think Pecker answered this question, any reason you have to be such a prick? 'Scuse me, WoodPekr certainly did answer. After I asked. Am I a prick for asking then?


Which was the whole point of Bush lied vs Bush was wrong.Duh Bush was lying vs. Bush was wrong was settled long ago. Like most government commissions, this one's the last to be heard from. What in my post gives you any reason think that was my issue? The article was cited as if it gave new, factual information. Turned out to be yet another partisan opinion piece I could do without, and that's what the excerpt you posted says.


Because lying is knowingly saying something that is wrong. One would think you'd remember that from school.

OTB Again, where did I say the GeorgeII lied? Not what I care about; being wrong when so many others were right is maybe worse. But I was asking about this guy Lowry's opinions and why I should take them as proof of anything.

So far I've gotten nothing but potty-mouthed abuse for asking. Why do you guys have so much trouble dealing with facts?

[irlandais9000]

I'll say it though - Bush lied. Not that Rich Lowry would ever admit that, he is a well known partisan hack.

This commission is just another attempt by Bush to deflect blame from himself, where it belongs, onto our intelligence agencies.

The intelligence before the war was mixed. Note the information from Ambassador Wilson on the Nigeria WMD connection - which Bush chose to ignore because it didn't fit his desired result. Ironically, Bush supporters deride their opponents for advocating "junk science", when Bush is the worst perpetrator of using selective information.

[oldjones]

Not that anyone cares about my personal opinions, but I think worse than lying is being so blinkered and or stupid—I'm in no position to sort that out—as to ignore the stated, proven conclusions of the guys on the ground, tasked with getting the truth in favour of the shaded, nuanced, suppositions and hypotheses of intelligence reports. I tend to despise conspiracy theories like Michael Moore's proposition in 9/11 but the willful blindness and incompetence that got America into Iraq and continues to botch the aftermath is so egregious, it's hard not to credit some dark plot and hidden purpose. I suppose there may be such, but I'd be far more certain that we can trust these guys to screw it up than fearful they might succeed.

It's just a bitter shame so many innocent Iraqis and Americans have to die for it. Surely we could hope for better from the nation that has given us The Bachelorette.

[Asterix]

It never struck me that Bush was outright lying to the public about Iraq, lying to himself perhaps. Bush, and especially Cheney and Rumsfeld, made the mistake of all mistakes; first coming to the conclusion to go to war with Iraq and then waiting for information to come in to confirm that decision. George Tenet happily obliged. If Bush is guilty of anything, it is being extraordinarily gullible. Before the final go ahead to go to war, Bush pointedly asked Tenet if he was sure Iraq had WMD. Tenet replied that "it's a slam dunk, Mr. President". When that didn't quite satisfy Bush, Tenet stood up, raised his hands above his head and repeated, "Mr. President, it's a slam dunk". Good enough for GW. In a just world, George Tenet would be in jail for his role in all this.

[Drunken Master]

Anyone who thinks that this massive foul-up in intelligence gathering, which somehow serendipitously confirmed exactly what the President wanted it to confirm, without a hint of dissent, occured independently of influence from those determined to justify a war within Iraq, and that there was simply a magical coincidence between thousands of intelligence "mistakes" and the cant of White House hawks...is...is...um, is a very trusting individual.

[Truncador]

Intelligence, schmintelligence. The Iraq war was a smashing success, an entire nation was liberated from Fascist despotism and set on the road to freedom, France was humbled, and a watershed moment in the history of the State reached. So Saddam didn't have anything. Have, schmave. From the start I always thought that the whole thing about WMDs should best be regarded as a sort of legal fiction or conceptual tool, and that whether or not they existed is really besides the point.

[Asterix]

From the start I always thought that the whole thing about WMDs should best be regarded as a sort of legal fiction or conceptual tool, and that whether or not they existed is really besides the point.


Really. Do you honestly believe that Bush would have been able to win the support of the American people, congress, and Great Britain had he not been so determined in making the case for Iraq having WMD? Without it there is no way Bush could have sold the idea of going to war.

[Truncador]

Really. Do you honestly believe that Bush would have been able to win the support of the American people, congress, and Great Britain had he not been so determined in making the case for Iraq having WMD? Without it there is no way Bush could have sold the idea of going to war.

That's sort of what I had in mind in saying that WMDs served as a useful theoretical fiction. The notion served as a way to translate the rather abstract agendas and goals of the State into terms that mass publics could easily grasp and support.

[Drunken Master]

Intelligence, schmintelligence. The Iraq war was a smashing success, an entire nation was liberated from Fascist despotism and set on the road to freedom, France was humbled, and a watershed moment in the history of the State reached. So Saddam didn't have anything. Have, schmave. From the start I always thought that the whole thing about WMDs should best be regarded as a sort of legal fiction or conceptual tool, and that whether or not they existed is really besides the point.

I'm sure that's of enormous comfort to 1500+ American families who lost members defending their country from a legal fiction. Perhaps your note should be included in their machine-written condolence letters.

I have rarely been as disgusted with a post. You Straussians are real pieces of work...

[Truncador]

I'm sure that's of enormous comfort to 1500+ American families who lost members defending their country from a legal fiction. Perhaps your note should be included in their machine-written condolence letters.

I have rarely been as disgusted with a post. You Straussians are real pieces of work...

Spare us the crocodile tears, please. It strikes me that the Left, not the "Straussians" (whoever they are), are the ones who insist that American troops give their lives for nothing when they aren't actually accusing them of committing atrocities, acting as the dragoons of imperialism, and otherwise doing everything they can to drag their names and honour through the dirt. To do justice to the memory and honour of a fallen volunteer is to recognize that he faithfully served as the right arm of his Commander-in-Chief in whatever the latter ordered him to do.

Moving right along, I've never read a work of Strauss' in my life and don't plan on doing so soon. The term, "Straussian", seems to me to have the exact same signification that the term "Marxist" used to have on the Right, namely an accusation of membership in some imagined sinister qabal of theoreticians of pure Evil.

[Truncador]

I can't think of anything more disturbing than asking a young man/woman to die for a lie and only a truly evil mind would come up with that.


Well, in spite of your opposition the people of Iraq are no longer subject to being put in plastic shredders and iron maidens at will, and the world is safe from a dangerous Fascist mental case. Evil indeed :rolleyes:

Saddam didn't have weapons of mass destruction- he was one. To say that the State "lied" about Saddam is about as accurate as calling people liars for saying that the sun rises in the East, which strictly speaking isn't "true" either.

[Drunken Master]

You may not have read Strauss, but your bloated animadiversions on the "State", your antiquated notions of leftism, and your utter contempt for the "masses", who apparently need to be lied to and manipulated for their own good, are torn right from his pages. A Straussian you surely are, even if you didn't know it.

Let me ask you a simple question - if the Iraqi War was so implicitly noble and just, why was a "legal fiction" necessary to con people into dying for it in the first place?

[Asterix]

Saddam didn't have weapons of mass destruction- he was one. To say that the State "lied" about Saddam is about as accurate as calling people liars for saying that the sun rises in the East, which strictly speaking isn't "true" either.

Nice try. Certainly many people had to lie to many more people who should have known better, for the version fed to the public before the war to be so diametrically opposed to the truth. What I find especially galling is that the adminstration was so fervent in their conviction of Iraq having WMD, repeatedly saying there was no doubt. To try and compare this to a figure of speech such as "the sun rises in the east", is meaningless.

[Truncador]

the adminstration was so fervent in their conviction of Iraq having WMD, repeatedly saying there was no doubt. To try and compare this to a figure of speech such as "the sun rises in the east", is meaningless.

The problem here is that the American State has always had a sort of neurotic fear of the doctrine of reasons of State (which many wrongly associate with despotism); they thus won't admit they practice it, even to themselves, and wind up convincing themselves about all sorts of things.


By DrunkenMaster: You may not have read Strauss, but your bloated animadiversions on the "State", your antiquated notions of leftism, and your utter contempt for the "masses", who apparently need to be lied to and manipulated for their own good, are torn right from his pages. A Straussian you surely are, even if you didn't know it.

Let me ask you a simple question - if the Iraqi War was so implicitly noble and just, why was a "legal fiction" necessary to con people into dying for it in the first place?


First, let's set the record straight as to who has contempt for the masses, once and for all. The Left (especially in Canada) holds, as articles of faith, that the masses are too homicidal to be trusted with guns, too feeble to take care of their own retirement or pay their own medical bills, too dumb to avoid being seduced by advertising, and that people who watch NASCAR, drink domestic beer, and go to church are too ignorant and barbaric to participate in politics in any other capacity than assenting to allow a self-styled gentry to speak on their behalf. Meanwhile, it's been made unambiguously clear that the "Straussian" Pres. Bush, and not the pseudo-bluebloods of Massachussetts and California, embodies the will of the masses.

But this is a digression. The fiction of WMDs is much more than a device for translating between the abstract, impartial, long term goals and agendas of the State and the somewhat more concrete, short-term, and self-interested goals of the "common man". At the decision-making level itself, it helped to mediate between the abstractions of ivory-tower theory about security and the concrete, real world of political action. It helps decision-makers get their bearings and formulate a course of action where the abstract theories of the New American Century are unable to, in exactly the same way that the assumption, "the sun rises in the East and sets in the West", while not exactly true, does a better job of helping a lost traveller find his way out the woods than the scientific model of the trajectory of planets around the sun would.

[WoodPeckr]

Well, in spite of your opposition the people of Iraq are no longer subject to being put in plastic shredders and iron maidens at will, and the world is safe from a dangerous Fascist mental case. Evil indeed

From the looks of things,
with the ongoing Iraq prison scandals,
even incidents in Afghanistan,
what is presently going on at 'Gitmo prison camp' in Cuba
and with the Bush policy of 'rendition' (letting other 'friendly countries' do the torturing for the USA),
it's beginning to look like the Bush/Cheney neocons have taken over Saddam's past role and functions.... :rolleyes:

More unfolds on these scandals as the Bushies continue the Whitewash of them:

Army Whitewashes Deaths of Iraq Prisoners

Pentagon Greenlights Murder

By Nicole Colson

04/02/05 - -Chicago, Illinois. Getting with murder. There's no other way to describe the Pentagon's announcement that it is refusing to prosecute any of the 17 U.S. soldiers who contributed to the deaths of three prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2003 and 2004. The decision is against the recommendations of the Army's own investigators.

In one case, soldiers at a U.S. base in Al Asad admitted to assaulting an Iraqi prisoner, at one point lifting him to his feet by holding a baton to his throat. He later died from his injuries.

Army investigators recommended that 11 soldiers from the Fifth Special Forces Group and the Third Armored Cavalry Regiment face charges in that case. But the accused soldiers' commander "decided that the soldiers were justified in using force against the Iraqi because he was being aggressive and misbehaving," reported ABC News.

The case is not an isolated one. According to recent reports, at least 28 suspected or confirmed homicides of detainees in U.S. custody took place in Iraq and Afghanistan between August 2002 and November 2004. Yet so far, just three dozen soldiers have been charged with crimes in connection with these homicides--many of them for minor offenses.

The message is clear. Despite the rhetoric about "liberation" and "democracy," Washington's standard operating procedure in the "war on terror" has been the use of torture and terror against any Iraqis or Afghans identified as resisting U.S. rule.

The disclosure of the number of homicides of prisoners in U.S. custody comes at the same time as new revelations about abuse suffered by Iraqi detainees.

According to U.S. Army documents released last week, U.S. troops in Mosul tortured Iraqi prisoners--but none ever faced a court-martial over the abuse. According to the Army's own investigation, Iraqi detainees were hit with water bottles, had sandbags placed over their heads, were forced to exercise until they collapsed and were deprived of sleep.

"The detainees would get so scared, they would piss themselves," one soldier told an investigator. Yet the Army claims it was unable to determine which guards were at fault--so none ever were punished.

With some 70,000 Iraqis and Afghans held in detention by U.S. forces since 2001, the scale of abuse is undoubtedly greater than what is known.

Meanwhile, the military recently announced that Petty Officer 3rd Class Pablo Paredes--a war resister who refused to ship out to the Persian Gulf last year--will face a special court-martial for refusing to fight. "I'd rather do military prison time than six months of dirty work for a war that I and many others do not support," he told the San Diego Union Tribune last year.

Like with the Abu Ghraib torture scandal, the Bush administration will blame a few "bad apples" for the torture and murder of Iraqis. But the blame for these atrocities goes to the top.

George Bush and Dick Cheney, who waged a war based on manufactured evidence of "weapons of mass destruction." Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who refused to allow detainees rights under the Geneva Conventions. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who literally wrote the memo on how to get away with torture. These are the real war criminals.

Copyright: Nicole Colson - http://www.selvesandothers.org/view569.html

[Mcluhan]

Well, in spite of your opposition the people of Iraq are no longer subject to being put in plastic shredders and iron maidens at will, and the world is safe from a dangerous Fascist mental case. Evil indeed :rolleyes:

Saddam didn't have weapons of mass destruction- he was one. To say that the State "lied" about Saddam is about as accurate as calling people liars for saying that the sun rises in the East, which strictly speaking isn't "true" either.

What’s missing from this debate is historical perspective and some bits of realism. From 1970 forward, Iraq under went a remarkable transformation under the Ba’ath party. The country’s oil revenue, began to realise true market values and was put to work in building roads, utilities, hospitals and modern educational facilities. Much of this transformation occurred under Saddam. Iraq evolved from an economically backward corrupt pro communist regime into the most modern of Arab nations surpassing Egypt in its level of public infrastructure and the growth of the middle class. Saddam imposed a literacy programme - failure to attend was punishable by three years in jail. UNESCO gave him an award as a result. Schools, roads, public housing and one of the best public-health systems in the Middle East were developed by this evil draconian dictator who emulated Stalin.

Not only did the CIA assit putting him into power but during this period of time the West had ongoing murky mutually benificial under the table relations with Saddam. In particular the West supported him with weapons and so did the Saudi and other oil rich nations because of their fear of an Islamic revolution, Khomeini style. Bush senior and Rummy led the way with arms and chemical deals.

Arguing about how great it is that the US went into Iraq for noble reasons, like the hogwash of spreading democracy, and how much better off Iraq is today is very patriotic and it all sounds good but let’s not ignore why they really went in and how much better off Iraq is not today.

[enjoyall]

Intelligence, schmintelligence. The Iraq war was a smashing success, an entire nation was liberated from Fascist despotism and set on the road to freedom, France was humbled, and a watershed moment in the history of the State reached. So Saddam didn't have anything. Have, schmave. From the start I always thought that the whole thing about WMDs should best be regarded as a sort of legal fiction or conceptual tool, and that whether or not they existed is really besides the point.


Originally Posted by Truncador on another thread
It's way too early to proclaim the end of history. Many countries where democratic values are underdeveloped will go through the stage of Fascism first (China almost certainly among them), or regress back into it (as is seemingly the case in Venezuela right now).

"As a matter of policy, the State should not turn democracy into a fetish. In particular, it can be disastrous to prematurely relax social controls in places where there exist irrational popular movements led by charismatic Hercules figures. Look at what happened to Weimar Germany. Additionally, the State should adopt a policy of pre-emptive execution of demagogues before they're in any position to heroically lead their people off a cliff and plunge the world into war."

If you justify the fooling of the public by politicians. The "Hercules figures" (Bush?) may very well "regress back into Fascism... and plunge the world into war."

[Drunken Master]

First, let's set the record straight as to who has contempt for the masses, once and for all. The Left (especially in Canada) holds, as articles of faith, that the masses are too homicidal to be trusted with guns, too feeble to take care of their own retirement or pay their own medical bills, too dumb to avoid being seduced by advertising, and that people who watch NASCAR, drink domestic beer, and go to church are too ignorant and barbaric to participate in politics in any other capacity than assenting to allow a self-styled gentry to speak on their behalf. Meanwhile, it's been made unambiguously clear that the "Straussian" Pres. Bush, and not the pseudo-bluebloods of Massachussetts and California, embodies the will of the masses.



There was plenty of ambiguity in a 52% percent mandate, I think. The infamous "liberal elite" has a surprisingly large membership - just barely under half of the voting population of the States, apparently...

I, for one, don't think people are too feeble to pay for their own medical bills or retirement. I do, however, think that some people are too POOR to do so. But I suppose we should allow some people to suffer without the aid of "The State", so long as they can rejoice in the affirmation of their individuality. That should keep them healthy and warm at night. Since you're fond of finding religious formulas behind secular structures, perhaps we should remind them that suffering is good for the soul, and that if they were really one of God's Elect they would have had more success in life...

It never, ever ceases to amaze me how easy it is to tout the virtues of self-reliance on a full stomach, in a dry, heated room...

[Peeping Tom]

Never before has a poster so greatly vindicated the position he sought to attack. Yes, you are allowed to, and other things as far as the father decides the child can be trusted. Owned.




Contrary to what you seem to belive, we are allowed to own guns (as I do).

[Drunken Master]

Never before has a poster so greatly vindicated the position he sought to attack. Yes, you are allowed to, and other things as far as the father decides the child can be trusted. Owned.

Never before has a poster declared such a ridiculous victory. Is the state also being paternalistic in disallowing you to own Anthrax? Or weapons grade plutonium? Or forbidding you to feed your 3-year-old whiskey? Pwned.

[Asterix]

But this is a digression. The fiction of WMDs is much more than a device for translating between the abstract, impartial, long term goals and agendas of the State and the somewhat more concrete, short-term, and self-interested goals of the "common man". At the decision-making level itself, it helped to mediate between the abstractions of ivory-tower theory about security and the concrete, real world of political action. It helps decision-makers get their bearings and formulate a course of action where the abstract theories of the New American Century are unable to, in exactly the same way that the assumption, "the sun rises in the East and sets in the West", while not exactly true, does a better job of helping a lost traveller find his way out the woods than the scientific model of the trajectory of planets around the sun would.

If we could dispense with your analogy, as it really doesn't apply. We have chosen to describe the sun rising in the east as an agreed upon convenience of language. Doing so does not alter the true nature of it's existence. By contrast, the Bush administration was trying to give credence and validity to something that didn't even exist.

The rest of your post seems to be a rather drawn out description of how states use manipulated information, half truths, and outright lies in order to achieve a certain long reaching goal, and to get the public to go along. In other words, propaganda. If you feel more comfortable calling it "legal fiction", go right ahead.

It would be naive to think all governments don't engage in some sort of propaganda, especially in times of war. Usually it takes the form of demonizing whomever we see as a threat, using slogans like "evil empire" or "axis of evil" to make our point, or as was popular in past wars with racial slurs, "Japs", "Huns" or "Chinks". Governments can also be expected to withhold certain information from the public or give incomplete versions of the truth, if the release would pose a direct risk to the country. The difference in Iraq is that the administration made up it's mind to get involved militarily, and then collected and disseminated totally fabricated information to back up a preordained decision. Johnson used the same type of fabrication with Tonkin Gulf, in order to escalate the Viet Nam war. Still, I can't recall any US administration in recent memory that spent as much effort and energy to sell a war based on a complete fallacy. Whether George Bush actually believed it or not, does not ultimately make it any less a lie.

[Truncador]

What’s missing from this debate is historical perspective and some bits of realism. From 1970 forward, Iraq under went a remarkable transformation under the Ba’ath party. The country’s oil revenue, began to realise true market values and was put to work in building roads, utilities, hospitals and modern educational facilities. Much of this transformation occurred under Saddam. Iraq evolved from an economically backward corrupt pro communist regime into the most modern of Arab nations surpassing Egypt in its level of public infrastructure and the growth of the middle class. Saddam imposed a literacy programme - failure to attend was punishable by three years in jail. UNESCO gave him an award as a result. Schools, roads, public housing and one of the best public-health systems in the Middle East were developed by this evil draconian dictator who emulated Stalin.

Fascist government is a sign that a society is in the course of modernization, and such governments tend to have an impressive track record when it comes to rapid development of infrastructure and productive forces. Furthermore, nobody succeeds in ruling a country for along time without at least some consent on the part of the governed, and your typical Fascist dictator usually is serious about helping his people. Evil is never absolute in politics. The problem with Fascism is that, by its very nature, it has an ugly side that is at once unbelievably brutal and absolutely suicidal, and which always shows itself sooner or later in two ways: murderous repression of real or imagined enemies of the State; and picking fights with either the UK or USA (or both). That's why they've gotta go, and better sooner than later.


If you justify the fooling of the public by politicians. The "Hercules figures" (Bush?) may very well "regress back into Fascism... and plunge the world into war."

I think it's about as likely as a human being spontaneously turning into an ape. There is no social, cultural, or ideological basis in America that could possibly give rise to Fascism. And Bush, who looks like a chimp and stammers when he speaks, is about as far from a charismatic champion as it gets.


Dear Dick Head...your ignorance and narrow point of view requires that we look at you with amused compassion. And feel sorry for someone that is obviously missing out on so much the world has to offer because you don't bother to open your ears and close your mouth.

:rolleyes:



But I suppose we should allow some people to suffer without the aid of "The State", so long as they can rejoice in the affirmation of their individuality. That should keep them healthy and warm at night. Since you're fond of finding religious formulas behind secular structures, perhaps we should remind them that suffering is good for the soul

Nah, there's already a secular formula, one that's widely quoted by various patriotic groups. It goes something like: "Better to starve a free man, than be well-fed as a slave".


The rest of your post seems to be a rather drawn out description of how states use manipulated information, half truths, and outright lies in order to achieve a certain long reaching goal, and to get the public to go along. In other words, propaganda. If you feel more comfortable calling it "legal fiction", go right ahead.

I think that, at the very least, it should be distinguished from such pieces of propaganda as Enver Hoxha telling the Albanians that they had the highest standard of living in the world, or Hitler telling the Germans that Jewish bankers would destroy the white race unless he was given supreme power. Let's face it, Saddam wasn't the world's nicest guy, he did use chemical weapons against his enemies, and in all honesty it's quite surprising that he wasn't sitting on some pile of WMDs or other.

[irlandais9000]

That's sort of what I had in mind in saying that WMDs served as a useful theoretical fiction. The notion served as a way to translate the rather abstract agendas and goals of the State into terms that mass publics could easily grasp and support.

Yup, nothing like lying to the uneducated masses about the reason for a war, huh????

[Drunken Master]

Nah, there's already a secular formula, one that's widely quoted by various patriotic groups. It goes something like: "Better to starve a free man, than be well-fed as a slave".


Prove your patriotic credentials: Starve someone today!

To equate medicare with slavery is, well, a form of offensive silliness not seen on this board lo these many months...seems I'm leaving at an inopportune time.

Will somebody please try to ensure the smacktards don't take over in my absence? That would be great. :D

[Asterix]

To equate medicare with slavery is, well, a form of offensive silliness not seen on this board lo these many months...seems I'm leaving at an inopportune time.


Yep. So you can't get yourself a bloody laptop to take with you?

[Drunken Master]

Yep. So you can't get yourself a bloody laptop to take with you?

Alas, no.

Com'on. You guys will be fine. Courage, as another unjustly hounded liberal once said. ;)

[Truncador]

To equate medicare with slavery is, well, a form of offensive silliness not seen on this board lo these many months...seems I'm leaving at an inopportune time.

Maybe in your absence you could spend an idle moment or two meditating on the nature of paternal domination and how that differs from freedom, instead of just sneering. I'll get you started: If a person is denied the right to self-help where his own preservation is concerned, and forced to become completely dependent, in life and weal, on some authority (itself sustained by the fruits of his own labour, by which he would otherwise be self-sufficient) that claims to be duty-bound to take care of him- but could just as easily decide to let him perish- is that person "free" yes or no?


Will somebody please try to ensure the smacktards don't take over in my absence? That would be great.

A vast Straussian conspiracy is gonna Borg this place up so good that all the pics of women in people's sig lines will look like either Anne Coulter or Ayn Rand :cool:

[Drunken Master]

Maybe in your absence you could spend an idle moment or two meditating on the nature of paternal domination and how that differs from freedom, instead of just sneering. I'll get you started: If a person is denied the right to self-help where his own preservation is concerned, and forced to become completely dependent, in life and weal, on some authority (itself sustained by the fruits of his own labour, by which he would otherwise be self-sufficient) that claims to be duty-bound to take care of him- but could just as easily decide to let him perish- is that person "free" yes or no?

Once again I don't know whether to laugh or cry - or sneer. Not having to pay for heart surgery that would save my life and which I couldn't afford anyway - I assure you, no part of that makes me any less free. To conceive otherwise is - well, a really remarkable feat.


A vast Straussian conspiracy is gonna Borg this place up so good that all the pics of women in people's sig lines will look like either Anne Coulter or Ayn Rand :cool:

Ah, so it's Ayn Rand, is it. You know, even if you haven't read him, I'd go with Strauss - if you say his name at the very least you won't have endure the howls of laughter you no doubt have to endure every time you say Rand's name. Someone who manages to be both the worst novelist and the worst "philosopher" ("Objectivism" - good Lord almighty on a hot cross bun) of the 20th century - well again, that's a remarkable feat.

[Truncador]

Not having to pay for heart surgery that would save my life and which I couldn't afford anyway
It's just as well, since under the Health Act you wouldn't be permitted to pay for it. And if the cash-strapped system put you on a waiting list for three years, or just told you- as they've been known to do- to literally just fark off and die, the chances are pretty good that you would, since unless you were really rich there wouldn't be a thing you could do about it.

Maybe you're right in a certain sense to say this doesn't compromise your freedom, though. The Stoics said that death is a type of freedom- from slavery that is...


Ah, so it's Ayn Rand, is it.
Wrong again...

[onthebottom]

I'm not sure which is worse. An administration that uses political pressure to get its way, or one that is shortsighted, stupid, ignorant and willing to gamble 100,000 lives on a chance.

Sorry, but I don't buy that the administration did not know exactly what it was doing or why. What has fallen apart is the justification or reason to go to war illegally. The Emperor has no clothes. So he is naked, tough tittie, he is still the Emperor.

The Administration knowingly went to war for bullshit reasons, knowing damn well that once in that the population would forgive them if the bullshit was found out.

Nice rant but it seems the recent commission findings would disagree with you.

OTB

[oldjones]

Never before has a poster declared such a ridiculous victory. Is the state also being paternalistic in disallowing you to own Anthrax? Or weapons grade plutonium? Or forbidding you to feed your 3-year-old whiskey? Pwned. Or requiring a criminal record check, or a license, to exercise your second amendment right? Court says? Not an infringement.
Frankly, who cares if it is paternalistic except misbegotten machismo-besotted moroms? Fathering is good. God help us all if we so disconnect from that paternal authority that the only remedy's a gun. That's truly childish, in a Columbine kinda way, don't ya think.

[oldjones]

Nice rant but it seems the recent commission findings would disagree with you.

OTB Not at all. The Commission said the intelligence the country had paid so much to get was entirely erroneous. It said nothing about the wisdom, or stupidity, of relying on it while ignoring the other available evidence.

[langeweile]

Maybe in your absence you could spend an idle moment or two meditating on the nature of paternal domination and how that differs from freedom, instead of just sneering. I'll get you started: If a person is denied the right to self-help where his own preservation is concerned, and forced to become completely dependent, in life and weal, on some authority (itself sustained by the fruits of his own labour, by which he would otherwise be self-sufficient) that claims to be duty-bound to take care of him- but could just as easily decide to let him perish- is that person "free" yes or no

Well said!
I wish I had the brains to be so articulate! :mad:

[onthebottom]

Not at all. The Commission said the intelligence the country had paid so much to get was entirely erroneous. It said nothing about the wisdom, or stupidity, of relying on it while ignoring the other available evidence.

So, what, you want the POTUS to dismiss the CIA and go with the web blogs? Geez.

OTB

[Truncador]

Frankly, who cares if it is paternalistic except misbegotten machismo-besotted moroms? Fathering is good. God help us all if we so disconnect from that paternal authority that the only remedy's a gun. That's truly childish, in a Columbine kinda way, don't ya think.

May God (the Father) save us from the horrors that historically came with asserting a right to arms and disconnecting from paternal authority: the right of the people to choose its leaders, speak freely on all subjects, the separation of Church and State, limits on the power of the State in general, equality of races, classes, and sexes.

[17th century Royalist] It's rumored that there are some among the Crown's children who actually dare think of themselves as men, even as equals of their King; surely such anarchy and wickedness is proof of the bloodlust they harbour not only against the fatherly care of their Regent, but against their brethren as well. [/17th century Royalist]

[oldjones]

So, what, you want the POTUS to dismiss the CIA and go with the web blogs? Geez.

OTBWell gosh, what about trained experienced inspectors on the ground? As compared to CIA guys in Foggy Bottom trying to figure out if they can trust the translators iterpreting the sigint. Mighta been a start.

Never trust men you're paying to lie.

[oldjones]

May God (the Father) save us from the horrors that historically came with asserting a right to arms and disconnecting from paternal authority: the right of the people to choose its leaders, speak freely on all subjects, the separation of Church and State, limits on the power of the State in general, equality of races, classes, and sexes.

[17th century Royalist] It's rumored that there are some among the Crown's children who actually dare think of themselves as men, even as equals of their King; surely such anarchy and wickedness is proof of the bloodlust they harbour not only against the fatherly care of their Regent, but against their brethren as well. [/17th century Royalist]Sorry Truncador I know you went to some trouble finding that XVII century quotation, but my poor minority-OS browser couldn't render the royalist HTML tags with which you so kindly bracketed it. I'm sure it must look awsomely regal in the browser-that-we-do-not-name. Are there trumpet flourishes? Nice to know I'm not entirely alone, if we stretch the frame of reference a few centuries. Someone else, sometime, thought paternal wasn't such a bad word.

But didn't the right to bear arms come after the cod-smugglers and rum-runners "disconnected from paternal authority"? I thought they had managed their rebellion rather successfully without it. On the other hand, the regicides of the almost as famous French rebellion never saw a need to enshrine such a right, though they were certainly far more radical in their political and social reforms than the Founding Fathers. Metric System indeed! Good old Paternal System forever!

PS: Just because I take cheap shots at them doesn't mean I don't have a great deal of respect for the huge accomplishments of those early Amercans. The country they founded has given much good to the world since then and the western branch of what we so smugly call civilization is all the richer for it. We seem however not to agree just how much richer we are in balance and precisely where in the river these benefits are to be found. And I'll definitely forgoe the arms-bearing; swimming in the river of civilization's hard enough already.

[onthebottom]

Well gosh, what about trained experienced inspectors on the ground? As compared to CIA guys in Foggy Bottom trying to figure out if they can trust the translators iterpreting the sigint. Mighta been a start.

Never trust men you're paying to lie.

Don't be silly.

OTB

[Truncador]

but my poor minority-OS browser couldn't render the royalist HTML tags with which you so kindly bracketed it. I'm sure it must look awsomely regal in the browser-that-we-do-not-name. Are there trumpet flourishes?

If that treasonous browser of yours (doubtlessly invented by some ungodly warlock too proud to use the lawful and honest software of his fathers) refused to display the Royal trumpet flourishes, you must turn yourself in to the Governor General's office immediately so you can be boiled in oil for the offense of lese-majeste.

[oldjones]

Don't be silly.

OTB Silly's rather too mild a word to describe the folks who trusted "entirely erroneous'' intelligence rather than the entirely correct findings of the UN inspectors.

If you could trust them they wouldn't be spies, now would they?

[Peeping Tom]

Here's some of what the UN inspectors had to say:


Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 requires that
international economic sanctions remain in place until Iraq
discloses and destroys its weapons of mass destruction programs and
capabilities and undertakes unconditionally never to resume such
activities;
Whereas Resolution 687 established the United Nations Special Commission
on Iraq (UNSCOM) to uncover all aspects of Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction programs and tasked the Director-General of the
International Atomic Energy Agency to locate and remove or destroy
all nuclear weapons systems, subsystems or material from Iraq;
Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 715, adopted on
October 11, 1991, empowered UNSCOM to maintain a long-term
monitoring program to ensure Iraq's weapons of mass destruction
programs are dismantled and not restarted;
Whereas Iraq has consistently fought to hide the full extent of its
weapons programs, and has systematically made false declarations to
the Security Council and to UNSCOM regarding those programs, and has
systematically obstructed weapons inspections for seven years;
Whereas in June 1991, Iraqi forces fired on International Atomic Energy
Agency inspectors and otherwise obstructed and misled UNSCOM
inspectors, resulting in United Nations Security Council Resolution
707 which found Iraq to be in ``material breach'' of its obligations
under United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 for failing to
allow UNSCOM inspectors access to a site storing nuclear equipment;
Whereas in January and February of 1992, Iraq rejected plans to install
long-term monitoring equipment and cameras called for in United
Nations resolutions, resulting in a Security Council Presidential
Statement of February 19, 1992 which declared that Iraq was in
``continuing material breach'' of its obligations;
Whereas in February of 1992, Iraq continued to obstruct the installation
of monitoring equipment, and failed to comply with UNSCOM orders to
allow destruction of missiles and other proscribed weapons,
resulting in the Security Council Presidential Statement of February
28, 1992, which reiterated that Iraq was in ``continuing material
breach'' and noted a ``further material

[[Page 112 STAT. 1539]]

breach'' on account of Iraq's failure to allow destruction of
ballistic missile equipment;
Whereas on July 5, 1992, Iraq denied UNSCOM inspectors access to the
Iraqi Ministry of Agriculture, resulting in a Security Council
Presidential Statement of July 6, 1992, which declared that Iraq was
in ``material and unacceptable breach'' of its obligations under
United Nations resolutions;
Whereas in December of 1992 and January of 1993, Iraq violated the
southern no-fly zone, moved surface-to-air missiles into the no-fly
zone, raided a weapons depot in internationally recognized Kuwaiti
territory and denied landing rights to a plane carrying United
Nations weapons inspectors, resulting in a Security Council
Presidential Statement of January 8, 1993, which declared that Iraq
was in an ``unacceptable and material breach'' of its obligations
under United Nations resolutions;
Whereas in response to continued Iraqi defiance, a Security Council
Presidential Statement of January 11, 1993, reaffirmed the previous
finding of material breach, followed on January 13 and 18 by allied
air raids, and on January 17 with an allied missile attack on Iraqi
targets;
Whereas on June 10, 1993, Iraq prevented UNSCOM's installation of
cameras and monitoring equipment, resulting in a Security Council
Presidential Statement of June 18, 1993, declaring Iraq's refusal to
comply to be a ``material and unacceptable breach'';
Whereas on October 6, 1994, Iraq threatened to end cooperation with
weapons inspectors if sanctions were not ended, and one day later,
massed 10,000 troops within 30 miles of the Kuwaiti border,
resulting in United Nations Security Council Resolution 949
demanding Iraq's withdrawal from the Kuwaiti border area and renewal
of compliance with UNSCOM;
Whereas on April 10, 1995, UNSCOM reported to the Security Council that
Iraq had concealed its biological weapons program, and had failed to
account for 17 tons of biological weapons material resulting in the
Security Council's renewal of sanctions against Iraq;
Whereas on July 1, 1995, Iraq admitted to a full scale biological
weapons program, but denied weaponization of biological agents, and
subsequently threatened to end cooperation with UNSCOM resulting in
the Security Council's renewal of sanctions against Iraq;

[Peeping Tom]

Cont.


Whereas on March 8, 11, 14, and 15, 1996, Iraq again barred UNSCOM
inspectors from sites containing documents and weapons, in response
to which the Security Council issued a Presidential Statement
condemning ``clear violations by Iraq of previous Resolutions 687,
707, and 715'';
Whereas from June 11-15, 1996, Iraq repeatedly barred weapons inspectors
from military sites, in response to which the Security Council
adopted United Nations Security Council Resolution 1060, noting the
``clear violation on United Nations Security Council Resolutions
687, 707, and 715'' and in response to Iraq's continued violations,
issued a Presidential Statement detailing Iraq's ``gross violation
of obligations'';
Whereas in August 1996, Iraqi troops overran Irbil, in Iraqi Kurdistan,
employing more than 30,000 troops and Republican Guards, in response
to which the Security Council briefly suspended implementation on
United Nations Security Council Resolution 986, the United Nations
oil for food plan;

[[Page 112 STAT. 1540]]

Whereas in December 1996, Iraq prevented UNSCOM from removing 130 Scud
missile engines from Iraq for analysis, resulting in a Security
Council Presidential Statement which ``deplore[d]'' Iraq's refusal
to cooperate with UNSCOM;
Whereas on April 9, 1997, Iraq violated the no-fly zone in southern Iraq
and United Nations Security Council Resolution 670, banning
international flights, resulting in a Security Council statement
regretting Iraq's lack of ``specific consultation'' with the
Council;
Whereas on June 4 and 5, 1997 Iraqi officials on board UNSCOM aircraft
interfered with the controls and inspections, endangering inspectors
and obstructing the UNSCOM mission, resulting in a United Nations
Security Council Presidential Statement demanding Iraq end its
interference and on June 21, 1997, United Nations Security Council
Resolution 1115 threatened sanctions on Iraqi officials responsible
for these interferences;
Whereas on September 13, 1997, during an inspection mission, an Iraqi
official attacked UNSCOM officials engaged in photographing illegal
Iraqi activities, resulting in the October 23, 1997, adoption of
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1134 which threatened a
travel ban on Iraqi officials responsible for noncompliance with
United Nations resolutions;
Whereas on October 29, 1997, Iraq announced that it would no longer
allow American inspectors working with UNSCOM to conduct inspections
in Iraq, blocking UNSCOM teams containing Americans to conduct
inspections and threatening to shoot down United States U-2
surveillance flights in support of UNSCOM, resulting in a United
Nations Security Council Resolution 1137 on November 12, 1997, which
imposed the travel ban on Iraqi officials and threatened unspecified
``further measures'';
Whereas on November 13, 1997, Iraq expelled United States inspectors
from Iraq, leading to UNSCOM's decision to pull out its remaining
inspectors and resulting in a United Nations Security Council
Presidential Statement demanding Iraq revoke the expulsion;
Whereas on January 16, 1998, an UNSCOM team led by American Scott Ritter
was withdrawn from Iraq after being barred for three days by Iraq
from conducting inspections, resulting in the adoption of a United
Nations Security Council Presidential Statement deploring Iraq's
decision to bar the team as a clear violation of all applicable
resolutions;
Whereas <<NOTE: Saddam Hussein. Kofi Annan.>> despite clear agreement on
the part of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein with United Nations
General Kofi Annan to grant access to all sites, and fully cooperate
with UNSCOM, and the adoption on March 2, 1998, of United Nations
Security Council Resolution 1154, warning that any violation of the
agreement with Annan would have the ``severest consequences'' for
Iraq, Iraq has continued to actively conceal weapons and weapons
programs, provide misinformation and otherwise deny UNSCOM
inspectors access;
Whereas <<NOTE: Richard Butler.>> on June 24, 1998, UNSCOM Director
Richard Butler presented information to the United Nations Security
Council indicating clearly that Iraq, in direct contradiction to
information provided to UNSCOM, weaponized the nerve agent VX; and

[onthebottom]

Silly's rather too mild a word to describe the folks who trusted "entirely erroneous'' intelligence rather than the entirely correct findings of the UN inspectors.

If you could trust them they wouldn't be spies, now would they?

I'm trying to figure out if you're being a smart ass or if you're stupid enough to believe what you're posting........

OTB

[oldjones]

I'm trying to figure out if you're being a smart ass or if you're stupid enough to believe what you're posting........

OTB Do keep trying.

[WoodPeckr]

The GOP Whitewash on Iraq pre-war intelligence continues as GOP Senator Roberts appears to be blocking the "Phase Two" aspect of the previously promised investigation into how the U.S. intelligence community was "dead wrong" on Iraq.....of course this GOP obstruction/coverup was expected......:rolleyes:

....Senator Roberts and Senator Rockefeller decided that any investigation into how the Bush administration used this flawed intelligence – the so-called "Phase Two" of the Select Intelligence Committee's report – would wait until after the election was done. The need for "Phase Two" was underscored by the recent release of the Presidential Commission on Intelligence and WMD, which found that the U.S. intelligence community was "dead wrong" on Iraq. However, the chairman of that Commission noted that it wasn't in his mandate to investigate how the bad intelligence was used by policymakers. This is not surprising, given the fact that it was President Bush himself who set that mandate. But the Senate Select Intelligence Committee, charged with conducting appropriate oversight as a separate but equal branch of government, has no such limitations. In fact, to not go forward with the "Phase Two" investigation would represent a gross dereliction of duty on the part of those senators so charged.

But avoidance of responsibility to the American people, and to the American military – Marines included – seems to be what Senator Roberts is all about lately. On April 10, in an appearance on NBC News' Meet the Press, Roberts was as slippery as he was disingenuous when dealing with the issue of investigating how policymakers made use of the bad intelligence on Iraqi WMD. "I'm more than happy to finish this, and I want to finish it, but we have other things that we need to do," he said when asked about the "Phase Two" report. "I don't know what that accomplishes over the long term. I'm perfectly willing to do it, and that's what we agreed to do, and that door is still open … so we will get it done, but it seems to me that we ought to put it in some priority of order, and after we do get it done I think everybody's going to scratch their head and say, 'OK, well, that's fine. You know, let's go to the real issue.'"

The real issue is the over-1,550 American military personnel who have lost their lives based upon the decision to invade Iraq. The more than 11,000 wounded Americans. Tens of thousands of dead Iraqis. Every one of these tragic casualties represents a reason to ask the hard questions, and demand honest and complete answers. The men and women who are fighting in Iraq are doing so because they took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. As the chairman of the Senate Committee responsible for the oversight of one of the largest failures of intelligence in American history, Senator Roberts is walking point for everyone who has been touched by this war, combatant and noncombatant alike.

"Semper Fi," Senator. "Always Faithful." The words roll out easily; but faithful to what? You are the epitome of faithfulness to your party – less so to the Constitution, and still less so to our fellow Marines putting their lives on the line for a highly dubious purpose. If you continue to put loyalty to party above all else, and shirk your duty to the American people, then your motto should instead be "Semper Fraud," and you should be drummed out of the Corps.

link:
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/ritter.php?articleid=5537