Iraq: Well, Hindsight is Always 20/20 ...

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
The true test of loyalty is not whether you follow someone when you know they are right, but what you do when you believe them to be wrong.

I find him an honourable man. There is no shame in arguing as hard as you can against the prevailing notion, and then being overrruled. His duty is to support the president, and to argue against the president, when he believes the president is wrong. But there always comes a time, when even if they overrule your decision, you have to go along with the decision to the best of your ability.

I can see Powell serving to the end of his term, and then saying to Bush, thank you for the opportunity, but I have had enough. I have fulfilled my duty, and you can ask nothing more.

The Japanese Samurai had still the by far most honorous way out of this dilemma.
If faced with either doing an dishonourable deed at the will of their master, or disobeying their master, they could always commit Seppuku.
AFAIK in this case in Form of a Kanshi (Seppuku s admonisment to the Lord for his Behavior).
So they wouldn´t loose face by doing a dishonourable deed, nor would they disgrace themselves for not folowing their Lords Orders.

But yes, leaving Bushs Service as son as his term runs out wuld be the best thing, Powell can do.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

So you believe that we should not try to encourage democratic governments around the world? You would prefer thriving, Islamic fundamentalisms?

The Problem is that now,
after the Conquest of Iraq, the country stands nearer to the Islamic Fundamentalism, than it did underb the reign of Sadam Hussein

[Proteus_MST]

As for Saddams WMDs:

I think Saddam made everyone believe that his country still had WMDs because he feared his enemys, outside of Iraqb as well as Inside of Iraq.
Both could be kept at bay with the fear of WMDs, those from outside of Iraq could be prevented from invading Iraq, which probably would have been successful, if you think about the Condition, Saddams Army was in, and the enemy from the inside could be prevented from overthrowing the Government.

[Ned]

Gatekeeper, and it is downright unfair for you to say that Powell and others in administration were lying about the intelligence. This assumes they knew that the intelligence was bad when even Dr. Kay says just the opposite.

[Barinthus]

According to Arianna Huffington's book How to Overthrow the Government, resigning from the office is the ulimate expression of protest and dissent that a politican can make. While this wasn't a resignation, the announcement by Powell that he will not serve with Bush should he win the elections comes close.

[Patroklos]

I think Saddam made everyone believe that his country still had WMDs because he feared his enemys, outside of Iraqb as well as Inside of Iraq.
Both could be kept at bay with the fear of WMDs, those from outside of Iraq could be prevented from invading Iraq, which probably would have been successful, if you think about the Condition, Saddams Army was in, and the enemy from the inside could be prevented from overthrowing the Government.

Exactly

He wanted us to think he had WMD so we would be afraid to attack him (as well as defend himself agains internal enemeis), but not for us to be able to PROVE that he had them so we wouldn't have the suppot to attack. He was feeding information and wthholding it in an effort to be ambiguous.

Anyone think that isn't a thin line to walk on?

He obviously screwed up because American intel took his rouse as proof. Granted, they were obviously operating under their own biased, and everyone will see what they want to when presented with ambiguity. Apolytoners should completely understand operating under biased .

[GePap]

On the notion that Saddam wanted us to think he had them, hence his fault:

1. Our intelliegence did not come from Saddam- we had other ways of independetly verifying the infromation, no matter what Saddam wanted people to think: form day one of this dabte there were people who doubted the validity of the intelliegence about Iraqi WMD's. Those people were basically correct- no matter what the regime wanted to say.

2. Even if you accept the premise that becuase Saddam wanted us to believe he had WMD's we should have and thus, no problem: manya rgued, like myself, that EVEN IF Iraq had the WMD claimed, he was not a threat-people can go dig up thrads , every time I explain why people simply ignore it, so I am tired of rewriting it.

[Gatekeeper]

Originally posted by Ned
Gatekeeper, and it is downright unfair for you to say that Powell and others in administration were lying about the intelligence. This assumes they knew that the intelligence was bad when even Dr. Kay says just the opposite.

The focus of my post — my ramblings, more accurately — was more or less a self-examination following the revelations of Kay ("We were wrong") amid the almost daily increase in dead and wounded, the poor intelligence, the alleged tensions rising among Iraqi factions (thus increasing the risk of civil war), the letter to al-Qaida from that Jordanian pleading for help from the group and numerous other things over the past year and half or so.

I thought I posted my thoughts in a fair manner, and stand by them.

Now, touching on Saddam's delusions of WMD ... it's apparently true he thought he had WMD, postured about it, and never thought that his underlings might be feeding him lines of bullsh*t. But why is it that our military was capable of phoning Iraqi military officers in *their* homes up to and during the war, convincing them (or not) to lay down their arms, but our intelligence apparatus couldn't phone scientists, et al., and find out whether the rumors of WMD were true? You'd think some of them would have squeeked, what with a 100,000 U.S. troops on the Iraqi border and Saddam's time coming to an end. It worked in some cases for the military (i.e. pressure tactics).

Look, I'm not a spook. But if we're going to limit debate to only those with actual experience, I guess we can close the books on freedom of expression in the United States. I've read over and over again that the U.S. has focused too much on "hands-off" intelligence gathering (i.e. satellites, gee-whiz technology) at the expense of human intelligence (HUMINT) or, worse, relying on the likes of Ahmed Chalabi as the main source of anti-Saddam information. Then you have Rumsfeld setting up his own "Office of Special Planning" w/i the Pentagon to circumvent less-than-favorable information from the CIA and other agencies (info that apparently painted Iraq as less threatening than first imagined). The OSP channeled Rumsfeld what he mostly wanted to hear, from what I understand.

Ah, heck. I'm rambling again. Gotta go. Work and exercise beckons.

Gatekeeper

[Sava]

It wasn't just "hindsight".... people like fmr. weapons inspector Scott Ritter said Iraq had nothing before the war... the International Atomic Energy thingamajig said the same thing... so did Hans Blix... but all the dopes made fun of them when in reality, they were right.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by The diplomat
No stockpile has been found but:
1) We have proven that Saddam had the production means to build a stockpile.

No, he had the nkoweldge capacity to restart a program, but would have had to rebuild the facilities, which would have been noticed.

2) We have found evidence of WMD in small quantitities.

Not one bit of WMD has yet been found, with the exception of a handful of empty rockets burried under ten years of bird crap.

3) We have proven a link with Al Queda.

Not a single credible link has yet been found.

I don't know what media you're watching, but it's time to switch.

[Ramo]

I don't think that it really was the administration's fault regarding the whole WMD issue. We didn't have the proper intelligence for various reasons, which is certainly a problem, but an understandable one. I (and y'all know how much opposed the war and this gov't) personally thought WMD's would turn up, even months
after the occupation started.

The problem has always been the Saddam-al Qaeda connection that Shrub et al. have clearly been deceptive about, and are still deceptive about, and really is what makes Iraq's WMD's a genuine security issue in the first place.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
Gatekeeper, and it is downright unfair for you to say that Powell and others in administration were lying about the intelligence. This assumes they knew that the intelligence was bad when even Dr. Kay says just the opposite.

Kay is lying.

[Gibsie]

What I really liked was how we kept hearing how, as an example of how devious and evil Saddam is, he wouldn't let the inspectors into his palace, and how he must be hiding huge stockpiles of WMD's in them... and then when Baghdad fell, the troops weren't ordered to lift a single finger to stop the populace from looting these palaces which had been previously touted as being Saddam's secret WMD warehouses. Yup, the admin certainly had a lot of faith in what they'd been saying all along there

[curtsibling]

I hear the WMD is on Mars.

That's where Dubby is going to look next.

[Ben Kenobi]

You can't enforce democracy. You need a tradition of civil society and a strong middle class.

I agree, and would have preferred the support of the administration to forces within Iraq, rather than outside intervention. But what is done is done, and we have to make the best out of what we got.

[Patroklos]

Actually they did lift many fingers, with triggers behind them, to stop the looting of Palaces and Museums so that the heritage of the country would not disappear into the black market.

Try again.