Wolfowitz has a big mouth

[lord of the mark]

credit where credit is due

kudos to the guardian for publishing the correction.

No kudos to those here who continued to defend the distortion after it was pointed out.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


there were several reasons to go to war, liberation was one.

I think the admin made a serious mistake in not emphasizing the liberation aspect more. I think there are many elements in the admin that are not comfortable with the neo-Wilsonian aspects of the Wolfie worldview, for a number of reasons. I never said this admin was perfect on foreign pol - it aint.

I agree there were several reasons for the war (and I always stated that oil was not one fo them), but the fact is that by making WMD's the most significant by far basis for this war this admin. was distorting the truth. It was also working to undermine the UN and other international bodies. All those man-power and resource limitations you state are more than enough to show that the Wolfi view that the US ad UK and a few other hanger's on are enough to change the world radically is not very well thought out. It was Wilson who wanted to create a League of nations: undermining the UN and other international bodies is certainly NOT Wilsonian.

The fact is that lying about Iraq's WMD's will undermine trust in the US and its motives (further,as trust is already low), and perhaps also help undermine our efforts in Iraq itself. The means fo trumping up WMD's may very well undermine the very ends the admin. now claims made that means necessary. And the fact is that supporters of the war do themselves a great diservice by ignoring that and spinning it away.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


I agree there were several reasons for the war (and I always stated that oil was not one fo them), but the fact is that by making WMD's the most significant by far basis for this war this admin. was distorting the truth. It was also working to undermine the UN and other international bodies. All those man-power and resource limitations you state are more than enough to show that the Wolfi view that the US ad UK and a few other hanger's on are enough to change the world radically is not very well thought out. It was Wilson who wanted to create a League of nations: undermining the UN and other international bodies is certainly NOT Wilsonian.

The fact is that lying about Iraq's WMD's will undermine trust in the US and its motives (further,as trust is already low), and perhaps also help undermine our efforts in Iraq itself. The means fo trumping up WMD's may very well undermine the very ends the admin. now claims made that means necessary. And the fact is that supporters of the war do themselves a great diservice by ignoring that and spinning it away.

I do see no evidence we lied about WMD. For example there is a brouhaha now about Blairs statement that iraq had weapons ready to launch in 45 minutes. It turns out that intell came from an active iraqi officer "a senior figure" in the regime. Maybe high level folks INSIDE iraq lied to get of hated Saddam. Or maybe it was true, and we will yet see the evidence.

In any case we certainly did not undermine the UN - we acted under UNSC 1441, and there was no minimum quantity under 1441. The bioweapons labs alone, now confirmed, put Saddam in violation of 1441. More will be coming out soon I expect.

In any case, the UN as it has worked out is not a Wilsonian body, it is not a working and active league of democracies. Wilson was a multilateralist, but he was also the UR-democratic peace theorist.

As for the constraints - i said there are constraints to pursuing another war NOW. I did NOT say we're not capable of transforming the Middle East. We ARE doing that in Iraq. We are withdrawing troops from Saudi. We see the beginnings of discussion of reform in Saudi. We see the beginnings of peace process between Israel and the Pals. We see ferment in Iran.

And no, we should not do this with just the US and UK alone. It is good that a UN res was passed on Iraq, that the UN and member states will participate. I do not think that is opposed to Wolfies vision at all. And i think we strongly support what the UN and EU are doing in Congo. Partly due to distortion, partly due to real differences between the Wolfie worldview and the Rummy and Cheney worldviews, the image of US policy is far more unilateralist than Wolfies actual vision.

[lord of the mark]

from the financial times

"Whitehall officials in two departments said last night the evidence of the 45-minute capability had come from a serving Iraqi officer with a record for providing reliable data over years. Intelligence sought to find a second source for the information and was unable to do so. However, the JIC was prepared to rely on a single source because the official was a senior figure in Mr Hussein's regime, not a defector. The information was analysed by Britain's Joint Intelligence Committee and immediately distributed to some cabinet ministers at the end of August, a few weeks before the compilation of the government's WMD dossier. Mr Blair remained confident that chemical and biological weapons would be found in Iraq, saying that the Iraq Survey Group - made up of 1,400 UK, US and Australian officials - were only now starting their work. "

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
I do see no evidence we lied about WMD. For example there is a brouhaha now about Blairs statement that iraq had weapons ready to launch in 45 minutes. It turns out that intell came from an active iraqi officer "a senior figure" in the regime. Maybe high level folks INSIDE iraq lied to get of hated Saddam. Or maybe it was true, and we will yet see the evidence.

How trusting of you.... as for evidence, it is the high lack of evidence that is the problem for the WMD claims. There werre plenty of high ranking Iraqis wo said they ddin;t have any WMD's ready to launch. Why belive one set and not another? Come on.

In any case we certainly did not undermine the UN - we acted under UNSC 1441, and there was no minimum quantity under 1441. The bioweapons labs alone, now confirmed, put Saddam in violation of 1441. More will be coming out soon I expect.

The bioweapons labs are not confirmed. The trailers found, in thier current form, are not capable of actually producing bioweapons, and no traces of anythign were found. All the CIA claims is that they believe, given what they have seen, that the only plasible explination is that these parts of trailers would be part of bio-weapons labs. Given how much of the CIA''s claims have panned out, heathy skepticism is the word of the day. as for resolution 1441, who's job was it to declare Iraq in breach? unilateral members? If the Us velieved that 1441 was enough, why the whole things about a second resolution? And whay all the declarations that the UN ahd failed afterwards?

As for the constraints - i said there are constraints to pursuing another war NOW. I did NOT say we're not capable of transforming the Middle East. We ARE doing that in Iraq. We are withdrawing troops from Saudi. We see the beginnings of discussion of reform in Saudi. We see the beginnings of peace process between Israel and the Pals. We see ferment in Iran.

We are certainly changing the ME, but for the better or worse, that has yet to be seen, no? The saudis were talking about internal reform in private well before Iraq, Bush could have pushed the Road Map, which was written lat year, without any invasion of Iraq, and forment in Iran has been going on since 1999, well before Iraq. And only if we do well can Iraq really become an excuse for toehrs to act around it.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


How trusting of you.... as for evidence, it is the high lack of evidence that is the problem for the WMD claims. There werre plenty of high ranking Iraqis wo said they ddin;t have any WMD's ready to launch. Why belive one set and not another? Come on.


lotm - difference between public statements and private intell from a reliable source. Come on.

In any case we certainly did not undermine the UN - we acted under UNSC 1441, and there was no minimum quantity under 1441. The bioweapons labs alone, now confirmed, put Saddam in violation of 1441. More will be coming out soon I expect.

The bioweapons labs are not confirmed. The trailers found, in thier current form, are not capable of actually producing bioweapons, and no traces of anythign were found. All the CIA claims is that they believe, given what they have seen, that the only plasible explination is that these parts of trailers would be part of bio-weapons labs.


LOTM - havent heard theyre not capable, merely that no weapons were found.

Given how much of the CIA''s claims have panned out, heathy skepticism is the word of the day. as for resolution 1441, who's job was it to declare Iraq in breach? unilateral members? If the Us velieved that 1441 was enough, why the whole things about a second resolution? And whay all the declarations that the UN ahd failed afterwards?

the res said there would be serious consequences and DID NOT state that anyone, either blix or the UNSC was required to declare breach. It was assumed that if breach became clear, the UNSC would declare it. It was also, apparently, assumed by France that Saddam would get cold feet and would comply. By issuing a false and inadequate declaration in December, Saddam was clearly in breach, before Blix even set foot in Iraq. at that point the French stopped talking about whether Iraq was in breach, but rather about the best way to deal with it. Thus ignoring the clear language of 1441.

As for the constraints - i said there are constraints to pursuing another war NOW. I did NOT say we're not capable of transforming the Middle East. We ARE doing that in Iraq. We are withdrawing troops from Saudi. We see the beginnings of discussion of reform in Saudi. We see the beginnings of peace process between Israel and the Pals. We see ferment in Iran.

We are certainly changing the ME, but for the better or worse, that has yet to be seen, no? The saudis were talking about internal reform in private well before Iraq, Bush could have pushed the Road Map, which was written lat year, without any invasion of Iraq, and forment in Iran has been going on since 1999, well before Iraq. And only if we do well can Iraq really become an excuse for toehrs to act around it.

Ive seen quotes indicating much more serious discussions in saudi since the war - dont have the quotes handy, sorry. And i dont think the road map would have gone anywhere before the war - not with the Israelis, certainly, who have always connected their security problem in the west bank with the larger question of the eastern front, and probably not with the pals, who did not put Abu mazen into place till after the war.

However you are correct that really major change depends on how we do in Iraq.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
I do see no evidence we lied about WMD. For example there is a brouhaha now about Blairs statement that iraq had weapons ready to launch in 45 minutes.

Remember, it's for the NBC camp to show us that they are right, not for us to beat down an unsubstantiated assertion.

Originally posted by lord of the mark
It turns out that intell came from an active iraqi officer "a senior figure" in the regime. Maybe high level folks INSIDE iraq lied to get of hated Saddam. Or maybe it was true, and we will yet see the evidence.

In one fell swoop, then, this puts all US/UK intelligence into doubt. In fact, this puts the competence of CIA and MI6 into doubt. Failing to double check assertions before presenting them as facts?

Another thing. Before the war, people coming the pro-war faction kept harping on what such-and-such Iraqi detector said. It's time that they eat their own shoes.

[Victor Galis]

Well it's been very obvious from the beginning that Bush was going to go to war regardless of what Saddam had, claimed, or would do. Ever since the talk of war first started, Bush's tone and his demands made it quite clear that he didn't intend for them to be "satisfied" in time to avert war.

[Mr. President]

Bush should have pushed the terrorism angle.

1) Show the evidence that Saddam supports terrorism. There's plenty - he pays suicide bomber families, had the Achille Lauro guy in his capital, etc.

2) Tell him, "Clean it up or I'll clean you up." Everyone might not have rolled their eyes immediately, since Saddam was a military government, and people might believe he could actually kill terrorists more than they believe he could get rid of weapons he may not have had.

Terrorism was probably the more pressing security threat to America anyway, rather than Saddam's sarin slingshot.