There is an obvious but strangely approved tendancy evident in the Bush administration's tactics regarding our involvement in the Middle East, and that is a remarkably phlegmatic attitude towards explaining it's actions. So why do i raise this now? because I am amazed and outraged that we continue to overlook the entire process with blythe historical revisionism, and buy continue to buy into arguments we once considered as insufficient as thw world still does. I have hope for this country, but it lessesns as each day passes without public outcry against what we have done in the name of freedom, and as Bus and co. cast their eyes towards beginning the process all over again elsewhere... Let us reconsider the war from the before perspective, as opposed to the after. The reasons for the war, Bush et al told us, the UN, and the world in general, were connections to the 9-11 terrorists, an ongoing an imminently active nuclear arms program, a massive stockpile of chemical agents and other weapons of mass destruction, the fact that the people of Iraq were begging for us to save them, and the fact that Saddam Hussein was a very, very bad man. Now these arguments, most of them, took some time to get off the ground, both at home and abroad. We at first disbelieved the 9-11 connection, and the leaders and peoples of the world asked us to produce the evidence of this connection we claimed to have, but said that we could not reveal for security reasons. The rest of the world remined unwilling to take our word for it, and at first it was unsuccessfull in the United States as well. No evidence was ever produced. The imminent nuclear program was also cited without evidence, but probably due to the very fear such a threat produces, this got people in the US to sit up in alarm. Agains the rest of the world asked for proof...agains, we declined to produce it, save reading statemts aloud at press conferences and at the UN which later proved to be false or based on false information. The rest of the world remained unimpressed, but at home, despite the egg on collective faces regarding what little 'proof' we had produced, Americans began to believe. Once the nuke argument was raised, approval for involvment and support for the president both began to spike upwards. After the uranium scandal, the argument made a subtel shift away from direct claims about imminent nukes ( although it was never recanted) towards other WMDs. Once again the world asked for proof...and the Un inspectors asked for time...and we denied both. We repeated statemtns of fact over and over again, and interestingly the American people proved virtually alone in their willingness to take that as good enough. Among the arguments raised was that we know he has them because we gave him some and there is no record of their destruction. That the Iraqi people were awaiting our arrival with open arms and baited breath was cited ad nauseum, and statemnts from Iraqis who had chosen to leave iraq to live in the united States was offered as evidence that that was a universal feeling, except possbibly for Hussein and his cronies. And finally the tales of Hussein's bloody reign were given far more press than when he worked for us, or than were the accounts of the bloody reigns of others among our current allies. When this inconsistency was mentioned, supporters invariably pointed to the other reasons, nukes, WMD, 91-11, as reasons why this particular tyrant needed to be removed at this particular time. World skeptisim, which we had originally matched was now looked upon with scorn, When they would not take ou word for the 9-11 connections...or the WMD...pr the nukes...we called them everything from traitors to liars, jealous, petty, and ill-informed. This last bit was of particular significance, as one of the greatest reasons Americans were willing to take our own word over that of most other world leaders was our superior intelligence, and the supposition that we wouldn't act without knowing beyond a doubt that our claims were true, even if we couldn't make that evidence readily available. At the same time, in an odd twist, US belief that Iraq was behind 9-11 shot upwards during this period despite no new 'evidence', real, or fabricated, being produced. Now, the war being over and done with...the value of cosmopolitan justice in dust, and our relations with other nations at an all time low, we look back on the reasons for the war with a conveneintly half closed eye. The nuke thing has largley been dismissed now, at least as any kind of imminent threat worth waging war over...the WMD trail is remarkably cold...the 9-11 connection remains mythical...the people have hardly accepted us with universal warmth, although considering the tyrant they lived under before, there has been dsome outpourings of gratitude from some quarters... ..so we are really left with what a bad guy Saddam Hussein was. Now there is no argument with this...he was a very,very bad man. But the same arguments against that alone as a pretext for war, let alone globaly rejected war, remain in effect: Why him? Why him now, as opposed to when we funded and supplied him? In short, why Iraq? This at a time when a lot more evidence for the 'conspiracy theories', like Haliburton's profiting from the war, the US not allowing any other form of government saving a copy of their own to develop in the resulting 'freedom', etc..exists than for any of the other pre-war pretexts... Now was it enough of a reason? Clearly we didn't think so before, and neither did the administration. Even proponants on here would site this argument as only a back drop to the other more pressing reasons; our security, revenge for 9-11, etc...and often with colorfull images of us standing on a pile of glowing rubble regretting our inaction if we didn't get involved. The world never thought so either, but it has since been revealed that, like Haliburton, etc., some of the countries opposed had contingents within those countries which might benefit from the situation in iraq, and as such it is supposed that this explains the reluctance to agree with the US's actions, otives, or justifications among the global population, comprising hundreds of states in no way connected with these companies, and also including many nations which previously supported the Gulf War. That, too, has proven a good enough argument for the American people. But this should not have caught us off guard...think back to Afghanistan. Remember why we went in originally? To destroy Al Queada...the stuff about women's veils, theocracies, and the Taliban came up after the initial argument, and like this one remains in play long after the 1st argument has proven negligable. This tendancy to make a series of claims and site a series of threats, to demand global acceptace of the facts as we see them without allowing them to see them themselves, and to shift the argument onve the facts prve false while maintaining a public sense of our own superiority on these matters would be impressive as a study in real politique, but has frightening connotations in a society founded on freedom and justice. We demanded an explanation before the war as to why the world didn't take our word and trust our better judgement/intelligence...and it would seem that with every passing day we are getting that explanation...but sadly, it not being the one we want to hear, we are largely ignoring it. We prefer to keep our faith in the arguments our leaders give us...even as it becomes apparant that they are built on foundations as solid as the shifting sands of the Middle Eastern deserts, with or without oil...
We sure as hell didn't take Iraq's word for it that Kuwait was slant drilling on them . . . . .. Good article. Soemthing to think about Rocket River
Macbeth supported the Afghani operation because of Mullah Omar's close ties to Osama, but he refuses to even acknowledge the following article. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...27.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/04/27/ixnewstop.html
Heath, given the string of lies, forgeries and so forth that have been employed to prove the assertions about wmd and Al Qaeda links can you come up with something beside an obscure newspaper article to support the wmd or Alqaeda rartionale for the war? The details of this "disovery" by the newspaper look fishy to me. See the follwoing in which the paper is involved along with the Christian Science Monitor in a controversy involving forged papers found in IraQ purporting to show an antiwar British MP on Sadam's payroll. So far the CSM has apologized for running the story based on the forged document. forgery
Glynch, I said it before, and this proves my point. I could show you, MacBeth, and the rest of your lefty friends a photo of Osama Bin Ladin carrying a suitcase nuke through downtown Baghdad, and you would say that was not enough proof. There is a definite link between Al Queda and the topple Iraqi regime. There are countless first hand accounts of contacts between the two groups, and a paper trail of some of their meetings. For the Left, which includes the majority of the press, this proof won't suffice though, because it makes their arguments against the war look irresponsible (to put it mildly).
I have always thought the intervention in Iraq was justified by two things: the likelihood that Saddam was pursuing WMDs and that he was a genocidal tyrant who needed to be removed. I don't think either of those things have changed. WMD: It seems most implausible that Saddam would spend a decade interfering with inspections if he WASN'T hiding a WMD program. Where it is now I can't say. Maybe Syria, maybe disassembled. Not sure. But considering inspections were the only thing sanctions hinged on, WHY would he obsfucate the process? That makes no sense to me. Genocide/Tyrant: Nobody contends he was legitimate, nor desirable. He has conclusively committed genocide, and massive human rights violations, and was likely to continue to do so. 'World opinion' has blithely stood by and allowed genocide to happen before: Germany, Rwanda, Bosnia among others, so not sure why we'd wait for that to happen again and again. Why now? Why not? Why let him continue to keep his boot on Iraqis throats? Why wait as more are murdered and imprisoned? In some cases we have allies with poor records, although I'm not certain their records are as bad as Saddams. But there is precedent for similar allies to reform and eventually democratize: Taiwan, S Korea, most all of Latin America. Saddam was unlikely to make such a transition. Nor, really, is it relevant whether or not we supported Saddam at one time. Should that inhibit us from removing him? No. Why would it? There is, as I have contended on many occasions, no proof of Iraqi-9/11 connections. But that really isn't necessary to justify intervention. I don't understand why some people think the government shouldn't have laid all their suspicions out on the table; 'here is a list of problems we're associating with Saddam.' 'We have intelligence that these things are ongoing.' Of the three major reasons for intervention cited (genocidal tyrant, WMD, Al Queda), the first is uncontested and absolutely true, the second is still in play, and only the third has been discarded. And it SHOULD be noted, that Saddam HAS been conclusively proven to be a sponsor of terrorism, just not Al Queda specifically. As for Afghanistan, I believe we went there and put a serious dent in Al Queda's capability. Correct me if I'm wrong about that, but I don't see any other nation-state's openly harboring Al Queda, do you? Relieving the oppression of the Taliban rule was a nice by-product of the intervention. Nothing wrong with that either. I will say I'm not a fan of Bush, or of his handling of foreign policy, but I could easily see supporting someone who took the same basic actions (intervene in Afghanistan & Iraq).
Hayes Street, the Czech intelligence agents who claim they ID'd Mohammed Atta (infamous Al Queda suicide pilot) in Prague meeting with an Iraqi diplomat in the months leading up to the WTC attacks stand by their initial story. The Left and their media allies can spin to their heart's content, but this point can not be dismissed. Now, even if you don't accept this story from the Czech Republic, we still must admit that given the British find detailed in the UK Telegraph article, the assertion from the Left that "there is no Al Queda/ Iraq connection" is misleading and easily disproven.
John, you know full well that there are numerous insider accounts from both american intelligence authorities and supposedly from al qaeda and iraqi captives that contradict your story. Indeed, your smoking gun documents from the Telegraph story (a washington times like paper that ran the story with the faked documents about the MP, apparently found at the same time, in the same place) have themselves been questioned. The fact that no major news organization, not even Fox, has touched this story in 3 months should tell you something, as does the fact that the Administration, like MacBeth, doesn't point to it to answer its critics. But anwyay, according to your one story, based on a reporter's eyewitness account, that has thus far received no official confirmation, or even unofficial comment from a "senior official" or any source whatsoever for two months, from a paper that has been shown in the past to have used faked documents allegedly found at the same time, in the same location, and in the face of a bevy of contrary evidence from all sides, the Iraq Al Qaeda connection is conclusively and easily proven? I'm glad you have everything so figured out. Maybe one day Fox News will tell you to jump off a bridge. EDIT: I was incorrect, the CS Monitor has withdrawn its Galloway story, the Telegraph has yet to do so, so they ahve not been shown to have used faked documents from the same time and place.....yet.
Your Czech story has already been shot down time and time again, by other Czech leaders, The U.S. intel agencies, other people who were in charge of the Czech intel officers, and evidence, which says that Atta wasn't there because he was known to be in the U.S. at the time the meeting supposedly took place. U.S. intel places him here, with no travel tickets, passport stamps, credit card usage, or anything else to prove he was elsewhere.
so you'll believe these few agents even while their own agency completely contradicts them??? the signs of a desperate man......
\ Actually, I was trying to set an example of humility that I see was lost on you. Oh well, next time I'lll just pretend like I'm right.
Well, not many on this board will accuse me of US bashing, lol. I remember this alleged meeting but it has been thoroughly hashed out and disproven. You don't do much in the way of defending US policy when you rely on spurious and probably fabricated evidence. It is simply inescapable that if there was a concrete connection between Iraq and Al Queda, the 'world community' would have had no alternative but to acquiesce to a US ass stomping mission in Iraq ala Afghanistan. Therefore there is no such concrete connection. And thanks, DD ...
Couldn't it be argued that, despite his efforts, the UN inspections etc., greatly hindered his ability to have a (credible) WMD program? I am not making this argument, just saying it seems an easy one to support - that the lack of discovery now could show that inspections were more successful than people thought...that Saddam hid info and fought it as much as he could but still proved unsuccessful. Personally, I would be shocked if he didn't have something...but at this point, who knows? In regards to your "genocide" argument, what about the ever-feared "slippery slope" rebuttal? Hee hee, I didn't read the opening post. I like reactions to MacBeth's posts better than the posts themselves. That isn't an insult, by the way MacB, so don't get all defensive/aggressive on me.
Don't you have some half-ass czech intelligence reports whose veracity you should be expounding upon, (you being an expert in the art of Eastern European intelligence gathering)? or an unverified Telegraph story that even the Bush or Blair administrations won't pick up, that you are passing off as definitive truth? Or is it just stick your head in the sand day for you?
Ditto. Nice to see someone forming a well reasoned opinion without being blinded by their love or hatred for Bush.
Possible. But if true the premise of your point would be that the sanctions/inspections worked better than people thought. That at least acknowledges the legitimacy of the logic that he more than likely did have an active WMD program. If our doctrine was to intervene whenever we were capable of removing a genocidal regime, I don't have a problem with it. There seems to be a consensus that genocide is wrong, and should be stopped. If the UN is incapable or unwilling to stop it, then why would we avoid stopping it to save an ineffective UN? That doesn't make much sense and forms are really strange policy circle. Besides, I don't have a problem pushing a universal rights agenda. If its true for us then it ought to be true for everyone else. I think it much more hypocritical to say 'these our inalienable rights for us, but not for everyone else.'
