Have your views changed on WMD?

[Bjorn]

How can that be true? Donald Rumsfeld himself said this, 10 months ago:

We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.

Do you mean he was just guessing? Or even ......?

By the way, as a navigator I appreciate his precise directions: East, west, south and north somewhat .... My captain would have made me walk the plank!

 

[Bjorn]

....... and Colin Powell said this:

Here you see 15 munitions bunkers in yellow and red outlines. The four that are in red squares represent active chemical munitions bunkers.

How do I know that? How can I say that? Let me give you a closer look. Look at the image on the left. On the left is a close-up of one of the four chemical bunkers. The two arrows indicate the presence of sure signs that the bunkers are storing chemical munitions.

I saw the pictures on TV. I repeat my question: Couldn't we have kept on taking pictures to keep an eye on these WMDs - if sure signs were visible even from space?

I mean, of course, if what he said was true.

 

[rikzilla]

Just want to revisit this for a minute. For Rik and others that believe that the ends justify the means, you should be aware by now how difficult it is to maintain law and order in Iraq. There are crazies of every faction and fairly well armed. One way to do this is to brutally put down every bit of opposition. If your sole aim is maintaining order, then one would have to argue that Saddam was doing a much better job than the coalition forces are doing. He was very much into the "ends justify the means" school of thought.

That's a pretty big "if" Tricky. If there was actually a "sole aim" it would surely be easier and neater to accomplish than the complex raft of political, military, economic, and social aims that are being attempted in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Also, you are misrepresenting what I said about the "ends and means". First off; "The ends don't justify the means." is nothing more than a trite saying. A saying that is parrotted by many people without really thinking about what they are saying. It really doesn't take much imagination to come up with a situation in which one can agree that certain ends do justify certain means. Secondly, what I actually said was that sometimes the ends do justify the means. Sometimes even a crime can be a reasonable act. Each circumstance must be judged upon it's own merit. That's why we have courts and judges. If a starving man steals a loaf of bread and is brought before the law, in most cases he would/should be forgiven. In this simple case it's easy to see that the ends do justify the means. How 'bout needle exchanges? The ends; lower rates of HIV infection, are always used as justification for the means; providing drug paraphanalia to people using illegal drugs.

I'm sure you are right about Saddam. I have no doubt that he thought his ends would justify his means. Were the world actually run by the gutless UN, he'd have been right. Tyranny must never be appeased,...it's a lesson that history will teach us over and over again if only we listen. Saddam's means resulted in his end...in a hole in the ground. His ends obviously justify nothing, unless you are saying he meant to end up that way?

Saddam must not have been much of a student of history, if he were perhaps he'd have known that brutal dictators often end up in front of firing squads. "Sic Semper Tyrannis"

-z

 

[rikzilla]

Hey rik,
You claim that there is "no proof that GWB did not believe there to be WMD's in Iraq." OK, let's assume that you're correct and that GWB actually thought Iraq had WMDs.

Not just GWB, but the key Democrats and Clinton admin members thought so too.

Also, let's review what many liberals thought about the UN sanctions against Iraq prior to 9/11:

DENIS HALLIDAY, former head of the Oil-For-Food program in Iraq, on why he resigned:
"The sanctions were failing in the purposes they were set up for back in 1990-91. They weren't leading to disarmament and, second, the cost of sanctions was unacceptable, killing 6,000 - 7,000 children a month. Sustaining a level of malnutrition of about 30% for children under five leads to physical and mental problems. It's incompatible with the UN Charter, with the Convention on Human Rights, and probably with many other international agreements. I just i found that impossible to accept as the head of the UN in Iraq; if you've got a i leadership which you can't communicate or have a dialogue with and that doesn't seem to want to conform to the standards that the UN is trying to establish, i does that empower the Security Council to kill a refugee, or to sustain malnutrition? I don't think so. Killing 6,000 kids a month is like a declaration of war. I don't think the Security Council is empowered to do that just because they don't like Saddam; just because he is a son of a bitch does not mean that we have to be the same." [Middle East International, Nov 13, 1998]

"We are in the process of destroying an entire society. It is as simple and terrifying as that. It is illegal and immoral." [the Independent, Oct 15, 1998]

UN FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION on the effects of sanctions
"For Baghdad, a highly advanced urban society, the prevalence of underweight children (29%) has increased to a level comparable with children from Ghana (27%) and Mali (31%). For stunting, prevalence rates are similar to estimates from Sri Lanka (28%) and the Congo (27%). Furthermore, the prevalence of wasting in Baghdad is comparable with estimates from Madagascar (12%) and Myanmar [Burma] (11%). The prevalence of severe wasting is comparable to data from northern Sudan (2.3%). In contrast, 1991 estimates of malnutrition from Baghdad were comparable with estimates from Kuwait (12% for stunting, 6% for underweight, and 3% for wasting)."
"The nutritional status of children in southern and northern Iraq is likely to be even worse than reported in Baghdad." [Technical Cooperation Programme: Evaluation of Food and Nutrition Situation in Iraq, 1995]


MADELEINE ALBRIGHT, former US ambassador to the United Nations, in an interview with Leslie Stahl on 60 Minutes
Stahl: "We have heard that a half a million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. Is the price worth it?"
Albright: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price - we think the price is worth it."

6 to 7 thousand children a month! It's obvious to me why liberals were arguing against sanctions back then, yet now they argue against the war by saying that the sanctions were working...in the same breath they dare to decry the innocent dead....when the very thing they say was working was also killing 6 to 7 thousand children per month, every month,...for an undefined period of time. 10 years more? 84,000 dead kids. 20 years? 168,000 dead kids. More? When do you suppose Saddam would have died? Would things have really been different when Uday or Qusay took over? Then their kids? How many dead children could be laid upon the altar of the UN sanctions?

Now, wouldn't you agree that the 9/11 attacks, coupled with the failure of our intelligence agencies to find out that Iraq did not have WMDs before the war resulted in the two largest intelligence failures in the last several decades?

Yes.

And that these two failures led to 3,000 US civilian deaths and a war that killed 10,000 Iraqis along with 500 US soldiers?

Two very seperate outcomes, but yes those things can be successfully argued.

Why aren't you faulting Bush for not revamping the country's entire intelligence network?

What makes you think that that is an appropriate response? Sounds knee-jerk to me. Have you ever heard the old saying that involves baby and bath water?

Has he done anything at all to insure that these mistakes don't happen again?

Yes, actually he has. The Patriot Act enables law enforcement to act more aggressively in search of terrorists. The WOT was launched and has resulted in over two thirds of the known Al Qaeda commanders either killed or captured. The creation of the Homeland Security Department ensures the cross-connection of databases of the various state, local, and federal agencies that make up said department. That's without me actually researching your question on the internet. You should know this stuff.

I think that Bush hasn't done anything because he knew there were no WMDs. He picked selective evidence that said Iraq had WMDs while ignoring other intelligence so that he could go to war with Iraq.

What you think has been demonstrated to be insufficient. Instead of the word "think", you should start using the word "believe"...because it's obvious to me that you are not thinking. The very sin of "selective evidence" that you accuse Bush of, is one you are comitting yourself.

-z

 

[clk]

Also, let's review what many liberals thought about the UN sanctions against Iraq prior to 9/11: {snip}

I'm not sure why this is relevant, but OK....

What makes you think that that is an appropriate response? Sounds knee-jerk to me.

Really? You yourself agreed that the two intelligence failures resulted in "3,000 US civilian deaths and a war that killed 10,000 Iraqis along with 500 US soldiers". Now don't you think something should be done? I don't think the problem will be fixed by "tweaking" the intelligence platform. When there are failures of this magnitude, there exists a very serious problem.

The Patriot Act enables law enforcement to act more aggressively in search of terrorists.

How is the Patriot Act going to help the CIA determine whether a foreign country is an actual threat to the US?

The creation of the Homeland Security Department ensures the cross-connection of databases of the various state, local, and federal agencies that make up said department.

Again, how is the Homeland Security Dept. going to help the CIA determine whether a foreign country is a threat to the US?

The Patriot Act and the Homeland Security Department deal with the possibility of terrorists that have infiltrated the US. As I've said before, the two failures were intelligence related. That is why the CIA and other intelligence agencies need to be reformed. If there is a terrorist in Saudi Arabia that is plotting to, say, blow up 12 international airliners simultaneously (they tried to do this before), how is the Patriot Act going to stop him? We need intelligence to stop someone like him. Is there anything that the Homeland Security Department can do? Suppose that we believe Syria to possess WMDs. Who are we going to believe now? The CIA? They were wrong about Iraq.

 

[rikzilla]

I'm not sure why this is relevant, but OK....

It's relevant because without the coalition's action it would still be on-going. You brought up the numbers, 10,000 Iraqis and 500 US soldiers. Those were not 100% innocent Iraqis. It was quite literally a small price to pay to stop a 6 to 7,000 yearly total of innocents killed by UN sanctions. Now listen again closely, not by the Iraqi regime itself, but by UN sanctions! Now the liberal position was demonstrablly to cease sanctions and let Saddam be Saddam. Now however, the liberal chorus says that "sanctions were working"! Well, what is it? Were the sanctions:

"We are in the process of destroying an entire society. It is as simple and terrifying as that. It is illegal and immoral." [the Independent, Oct 15, 1998]

or was it:

Said Chris Kujawa of Minneapolis: "I don't want to see violence in Iraq. I think it's unnecessary. I think the sanctions are working. I think the war is about oil and not about the weapons inspections."

There was a dichotomy at work here...either we kept sanctions in place in order to reign in the military ambitions of Saddam in the region, or we went in and removed him by force. Liberals have been vocal in opposition to sanctions for good reason, but have no plans to stop Saddam from attacking his neighbors or the Kurds. The only reason some of them began saying "The sanctions are working" was because they found the status quo preferable to hot war. I don't. Because in ending Saddam's regime
you put an end to the need for sanctions, and the ability of his regime to add to those nbrs. Now there is a static number used to describe Saddam's victims. It's high, but it's static. Had we not invaded that number would remain dynamic. The war, as bad as it was, will save many more lives in the end than it will take.

Really? You yourself agreed that the two intelligence failures resulted in "3,000 US civilian deaths and a war that killed 10,000 Iraqis along with 500 US soldiers". Now don't you think something should be done? I don't think the problem will be fixed by "tweaking" the intelligence platform. When there are failures of this magnitude, there exists a very serious problem.

Well, you mentioned two different things. One (the dead from 9/11) are in a domestic arena...and the changes brought by the homeland security department will address that particular breakdown.

How is the Patriot Act going to help the CIA determine whether a foreign country is an actual threat to the US?

You are mixing up domestic and international exigencies. The intelligence breakdown on Iraq has to do more with the CIA reliance on technology than human assets. I don't think CIA needs to be majorly changed, it merely needs more agents recruited that can do more direct and dangerous cloak and dagger stuff.

Again, how is the Homeland Security Dept. going to help the CIA determine whether a foreign country is a threat to the US?

Again, it has no direct role in telling CIA how to do it's job. These groups are meant to compliment each other in many different ways. Again, more recruitment of talented and well placed agents may be all it takes to get better intel assessments.

The Patriot Act and the Homeland Security Department deal with the possibility of terrorists that have infiltrated the US. As I've said before, the two failures were intelligence related. That is why the CIA and other intelligence agencies need to be reformed.

Okay...why don't you spell out what you'd do? Explain to us all how you would make America safe if you were the Prez.

If there is a terrorist in Saudi Arabia that is plotting to, say, blow up 12 international airliners simultaneously (they tried to do this before), how is the Patriot Act going to stop him? We need intelligence to stop someone like him. Is there anything that the Homeland Security Department can do? Suppose that we believe Syria to possess WMDs. Who are we going to believe now? The CIA? They were wrong about Iraq.

So you are saying that if someone is wrong about one thing they are automatically wrong about everything else? That is illogical, and known as the "Poison Well Fallacy". Do you seriously believe we should scrap the strategy of the Patriot Act because it doesn't do 100% of what we need it to do? By the same token, We have a border patrol, but illegal aliens still get in, so let's scrap the porder patrol??

-z

 

[clk]

It's relevant because without the coalition's action it would still be on-going. You brought up the numbers, 10,000 Iraqis and 500 US soldiers. Those were not 100% innocent Iraqis. It was quite literally a small price to pay to stop a 6 to 7,000 yearly total of innocents killed by UN sanctions. Now listen again closely, not by the Iraqi regime itself, but by UN sanctions! Now the liberal position was demonstrablly to cease sanctions and let Saddam be Saddam. Now however, the liberal chorus says that "sanctions were working"! Well, what is it? Were the sanctions:

There was a dichotomy at work here...either we kept sanctions in place in order to reign in the military ambitions of Saddam in the region, or we went in and removed him by force. Liberals have been vocal in opposition to sanctions for good reason, but have no plans to stop Saddam from attacking his neighbors or the Kurds. The only reason some of them began saying "The sanctions are working" was because they found the status quo preferable to hot war. I don't. Because in ending Saddam's regime
you put an end to the need for sanctions, and the ability of his regime to add to those nbrs. Now there is a static number used to describe Saddam's victims. It's high, but it's static. Had we not invaded that number would remain dynamic. The war, as bad as it was, will save many more lives in the end than it will take.

I still don't see how this is relevant to the US intelligence failures. However, I find it interesting that this war is about the Iraqis, all of a sudden. I thought we went to war because Saddam supposedly had WMDs and he was going to use them against us?

Well, you mentioned two different things. One (the dead from 9/11) are in a domestic arena...and the changes brought by the homeland security department will address that particular breakdown.

You are mixing up domestic and international exigencies. The intelligence breakdown on Iraq has to do more with the CIA reliance on technology than human assets. I don't think CIA needs to be majorly changed, it merely needs more agents recruited that can do more direct and dangerous cloak and dagger stuff.

Again, it has no direct role in telling CIA how to do it's job. These groups are meant to compliment each other in many different ways. Again, more recruitment of talented and well placed agents may be all it takes to get better intel assessments.

I'm not mixing up domestic and international exigencies. All I'm saying is this: 9/11, and the CIA's false assessment of Iraq's WMD programs were two very large failures. The intelligence agencies failed at their job. That is why they need to be reformed. The Homeland Security Act and Patriot Act may have helped on the domestic front. But again, the problem is with intelligence. We need to reform the intelligence agencies.

Okay...why don't you spell out what you'd do? Explain to us all how you would make America safe if you were the Prez.

Remember....this entire debate is functioning on the presumption that GWB really believed that Iraq had WMDs. That was your opinion, if I'm not mistaken. As I said before, I think that Bush took very selective evidence that said Iraq had WMDs, while ignoring evidence to the contrary. So if that is the case, then the intelligence community does not need to be reformed, because they did their jobs. Bush only picked out what he needed and used it to build the case against Iraq.

So you are saying that if someone is wrong about one thing they are automatically wrong about everything else?

Nope, never said that.

Do you seriously believe we should scrap the strategy of the Patriot Act because it doesn't do 100% of what we need it to do?

Nope, didn't say that either.
I asked you what Bush had done to reform the intelligence agencies. You pointed to the Patriot Act and the Homeland Security Dept. I merely stated that those two were not reforms of the intelligence agencies. I never stated that the Patriot Act should be scrapped. I never stated that it should be kept, either.