Karl Rove exonerated

[ceo_esq]

[Post deleted; JamesDillon already made the point.]

 

[Apollyon]

This is a political ploy designed to buttress support for the war and give the impression that the administration was honest in it's prewar fear mongering about the imminent danger of Saddam's WMD's.

I was always under the impression that Saddam was not supposed to be in possession of WMDs, period, regardless of what his intent with them was. If he had them, and it now appears he did, it sure gives a bit more credibility to the Bush admin claims.

I'm not a Bush supporter whatsoever and I despise Santorum with a passion, but this report deserves an unbiased look sans the pre-release spin from both sides that's already been ongoing.

 

[Tony]

I'm not a Bush supporter whatsoever and I despise Santorum with a passion, but this report deserves an unbiased look sans the pre-release spin from both sides that's already been ongoing.

I agree. I initially approached the report with an open, unbiased mind. But it slowly became apparent that this was a political maneuver.

 

[Rob Lister]

Slowly?

 

[mamapajamas]

Appolyon is right. This story needs to be looked at very carefully... and without rhetoric from either side.

UN Security Council Resolution 687, the Gulf War Cease Fire Agreement, stated that Saddam had to destroy his WMDs under the supervision of a UN delegation to be decided later (at the time UNSCR 687 was written... in other words, the weapons inspectors). This was a primary term in the Cease Fire... which was, after all, a cease fire and not a peace treaty.

Today I heard a repeat of the lame comment of two years or so back that perhaps Saddam destroyed the majoritiy of the WMDs unilaterally. If he did so, that was a violation of UNSCR 687, and a reason to invade Iraq in and of itself. However, he would have known that, and to do so would have been incredibly stupid. Saddam is sociopathic, not stupid.

It now appears that he did NOT destroy them, but in fact hid them as has been claimed all along. So where does that leave us?

And Tony... it doesn't matter, in the end, whether it is a political maneuver or not. If it is the truth, it is the truth. If it isn't true, it isn't. A hundred years from now, no one will care whether it was a "maneuver" or not.

This story needs to be looked at VERY carefully to find out what the truth is. And I'm speaking as someone from the opposite side of the spectrum on this issue from Appolyon... IMHO, the Iraq invasion should have started in 1991 at the first cease fire violation. As things actually are, however, we need facts, not speculations.

 

[Apollyon]

I agree. I initially approached the report with an open, unbiased mind. But it slowly became apparent that this was a political maneuver.

Pretty much anything a politician does, by definition, can be classified as a political maneuver. Whether it's considered a good one or a bad one depends on what political ideal you side with.

Ultimately though, the question boils down to - Was Saddam supposed to be in possession of WMDs? The answer is plainly - No. After 12+ years there's just no excuse, especially if it's pre-1991 WMDs, because his regime claimed to have destroyed them all.

No rationalization or excuse stands up to that essential fact, particularly considering the quantities that have been reportedly uncovered.

 

[peptoabysmal]

Ok. It still presented no new information. Not only that but:

It is new information. Previously, the story was that there were two or three chemical shells found, one having been turned into an IED. Now hundreds have been found. They are laced in with conventional munitions in the many ammo dumps that make up the landscape of Iraq. They prove that Saddam did try to hide them from inspectors (and they are still where he had them hidden). There is debate about whether or not the weapons are still lethal. Feel free to open one up and find out.

This is a political ploy designed to buttress support for the war and give the impression that the administration was honest in it's prewar fear mongering about the imminent danger of Saddam's WMD's.

...

I agree, it is politically motivated. Too bad we don't have news services that dig up these stories and have to rely on politically motivated releases to find out the information. Investigative reporting is dead.

The media has spent months of time on the Plame affair and anything else that has any possibility of showing the Bush administration in a bad light.

More WMD's found in Iraq? Eh... put it on page D10 next to the obituaries, but only if we don't have a hemorrhoid cream ad to fill the spot.

 

[mamapajamas]

Pretty much anything a politician does, by definition, can be classified as a political maneuver. Whether it's considered a good one or a bad one depends on what political ideal you side with.

Excellent observation. There are a lot of cynics out there on both sides who would have it that their own side does altruistic things, and the other side does "political maneuvers". Your definition of a political maneuver is concise and exactly right. Politics is whatever a politician does, good, bad, or indifferent.

Ultimately though, the question boils down to - Was Saddam supposed to be in possession of WMDs? The answer is plainly - No. After 12+ years there's just no excuse, especially if it's pre-1991 WMDs, because his regime claimed to have destroyed them all.

No rationalization or excuse stands up to that essential fact, particularly considering the quantities that have been reportedly uncovered.

Also excellent, particularly this part, "especially if it's pre-1991 WMDs, because his regime claimed to have destroyed them all". This is precisely the crux of the matter, and no amount of attempting to minimize what was found helps anything advance toward truth. Saddam had WMDs he was not supposed to have. Period.

 

[gnome]

Also excellent, particularly this part, "especially if it's pre-1991 WMDs, because his regime claimed to have destroyed them all". This is precisely the crux of the matter, and no amount of attempting to minimize what was found helps anything advance toward truth. Saddam had WMDs he was not supposed to have. Period.

I thought the crux of the matter was whether Iraq was an imminent danger to the US. Possession of some old, unusable chemical weapons doesn't really seem to fit the bill. Yes, it's justification for some kind of action... but it doesn't explain why we had to jump into it while we were still dealing with Afghanistan.

 

[Apollyon]

I thought the crux of the matter was whether Iraq was an imminent danger to the US. Possession of some old, unusable chemical weapons doesn't really seem to fit the bill. Yes, it's justification for some kind of action... but it doesn't explain why we had to jump into it while we were still dealing with Afghanistan.

I think the phrase that was bandied about was "imminent threat?"

Here's the best treatment I've found on that particular claim:

http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20031103.html

 

[fuelair]

To clarify one above item - no one, I hope, has been thinking that Sodomite Hussain never had WMDs - that is not rationally debatable. Strong evidence has demonstrated that he moved materials to Syria a few years back. Problem was (and I will not hide this - as much as I loathe George Bush and much of what he and his puppeteers actually believe) his continuous refusal to bend over and accept inspectors made it impossible to verify whether he still had them or not and therefore he HAD to be taken out. I do not disagree with what was done in Iraq - only how it was done - all active military bases/locations and guarded palaces should have been molten before troops entered (that is only a partiAL LIST).

 

[SezMe]

Problem was (and I will not hide this - as much as I loathe George Bush and much of what he and his puppeteers actually believe) his continuous refusal to bend over and accept inspectors made it impossible to verify whether he still had them or not and therefore he HAD to be taken out.

Huh? Blix was refused entry into Iraq? News to me.

 

[Apollyon]

Huh? Blix was refused entry into Iraq? News to me.

Blix was operating with an anti-war agenda when he should have remained nuetral in the matter for the job he was doing. It's hard to accept Blix's determination, which still assessed that Iraq was in breach of the UN resolutions, to properly do the job when he made that agenda public.

 

[fuelair]

Blix was not refused

Huh? Blix was refused entry into Iraq? News to me.

entry into Iraq, he/they were not allowed to act as inspectors---- the inspectors were not allowed free, total, unfettered, unscheduled access into all places they wished to check. I keep forgetting that we frequently waste time on these sites putting in more words than necessary to avoid this kind of thing (translation: Soddomite let people called inspectors in, he did not allow them to function as inspectors ergo he did not accept inspectors.)

 

[Skeptic]

You mean ... demand that he should be put on trial?

That would be a bad idea for most of them, since if they are to be treated like criminals, then most of them are surely guilty of shooting at, or killing, US soliders, and thus of assault or murder. But I discussed all this in detail in "The Geneva Convention" thread.

In reality, the same people who demand the Gitmo prisoners be "put on trial" would go apes**t over every conviction. What they REALLY want is the people in Gitmo either released without trial or tried and acquitted. Whenever the US does release someone from Gitmo, they scream to high heaven how the release proves his total innocence, and listen in rapt attention to his claims of "mistreatment" and "torture".

So I want THAT treatment for Rove, please. First, scream loudly how the lack of prosecution is absolute evidence of his total moral innocence; then, scream even louder how any claim from him (if he made it) of being "mistreated" by the media or investigating reporters in any way is absolute proof of the fascist-like use of torture by the US mainstream media against its enemies.

Why, after all, should Rove be treated with less courtesy and concern than Al Quaeda people?

 

[Skeptic]

We're not talking about whether he committed a crime; we're talking about whether he undermined national security.

Since when is "unermining national security", even if Rove did it, something the left wing considers to be a bad thing?

Almost invariably, when somebody claims this or that reporter or source undermind national security, it is dismissed by the press as merely an "attempt to cover up", or being "an attack on the freedom of the press", etc., etc., and the reporter or source who did the undermining (if they did) are considered as heroes.

Karl Rove, if he undermined national security, should be your hero for that, not someone you blame.

 

[JamesDillon]

Since when is "unermining national security", even if Rove did it, something the left wing considers to be a bad thing?

I was responding to BPSCG's argument that only members of the "unhinged left" believe that Rove's actions undermined national security at all. Attempts to deflect that question aside, I still haven't heard an adequate explanation of how the actions that Rove is on record admitting to do not undermine national security.

Karl Rove, if he undermined national security, should be your hero for that, not someone you blame.

Yes, that's exactly right. I hate national security, because I hate America. I can't wait until the Great Satan is impaled on the righteous sword of jihad. All Hail Allah, and His earthly representative Usama bin-Laden.

 

[Skeptic]

Yes, that's exactly right. I hate national security, because I hate America.

Well, "hate" is is too strong a word.

When the press is only violating national security in a way that might, say, kill soldiers, or make terorrist attacks easier, than this is a price worth paying for freedom of the press, and one should not curb "freedom of speech".

A few dead among the masses are surely a worthy price to pay for a career-advancing front-page story, after all--I mean, *cough* *cough*, for "bravely protecting the freedom of the press against the creeping fascism of a govenrment which uses national security as a coverup for its misdeeds" (or the equivalent).

When, however, national security is violated (according to the press) to embarras a journalist--that is, to cause REAL damage to a FULL human being--then the damage hurting national security is suddenly incalculable, and people should be more careful. Suddenly "freedom of speech" should be more careful before revealiing state secrets.

And the media just can't figure out why the rest of the populace doesn't simply agree that their lives are less important than journalists' careers: why they don't see that it's fine to violate national security if the costs might merely be a few dead nobodies, but an horrific crime if the result is an embarrasment to a celebrity journalist. I mean, isn't that obvious, for crying out loud?

 

[SezMe]

Blix was operating with an anti-war agenda when he should have remained nuetral in the matter for the job he was doing. It's hard to accept Blix's determination, which still assessed that Iraq was in breach of the UN resolutions, to properly do the job when he made that agenda public.

A total nonsequitur to the point I made.

 

[SezMe]

I keep forgetting that we frequently waste time on these sites putting in more words than necessary to avoid this kind of thing (translation: Soddomite let people called inspectors in, he did not allow them to function as inspectors ergo he did not accept inspectors.)

Wrong. On contentious issues such as this, clear, precise writing is a must. Over in, say, humor, is isn't. So stop making excuses for you erroneous post and your disinterest in making specific points.