Your Weekend "Must-Read"

The blogosphere will be buzzing about "Skewed Intelligence Data in March to War in Iraq", by Timesmen Jeff Gerth, David Barstow, and William J. Broad. The lead:

In 2002, at a crucial juncture on the path to war, senior members of the Bush administration gave a series of speeches and interviews in which they asserted that Saddam Hussein was rebuilding his nuclear weapons program.

In a speech to veterans that August, Vice President Dick Cheney said Mr. Hussein could have an atomic bomb "fairly soon." The next month, Mr. Cheney told a group of Wyoming Republicans the United States had "irrefutable evidence" - thousands of tubes made of high-strength aluminum, tubes that the Bush administration said were destined for clandestine Iraqi uranium centrifuges, before some were seized at the behest of the United States.

The tubes quickly became a critical exhibit in the administration's brief against Iraq. As the only physical evidence the United States could brandish of Mr. Hussein's revived nuclear ambitions, they gave credibility to the apocalyptic imagery invoked by President Bush and his advisers. The tubes were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs," Condoleezza Rice, the president's national security adviser, asserted on CNN on Sept. 8, 2002. "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

Before Ms. Rice made those remarks, though, she was aware that the government's foremost nuclear experts had concluded that the tubes were most likely not for nuclear weapons at all, an examination by The New York Times has found. Months before, her staff had been told that these experts, at the Energy Department, believed the tubes were probably intended for small artillery rockets....

Cheney, Rice and Powell look terrible; Edwards and Kerry look derelict; Bush barely appears, but seems to be unplugged.

So, is this a hit piece, or is there real news here? Dems who insisted that the "16 Words" were the entire case against Saddam will no doubt be howling about this story. However, I will need time I currently lack to judge how far this reporting takes us beyond the Senate Intelligence Report and this Washington Post story from August 2003 (yes, over a year ago, but it might have been torn from the front pages of tomorrow's NY Times!)

Interestingly, the story stops with Mr. Powell's presentation to the UN in early 2003; the IAEA put the aluminum tubes to rest in their March 7 presentation to the UN.

They also quote Diane Feinstein to support the premise that the nuclear evidence was a key to the case against Saddam; she was an intriguing choice, since she later wrote (in her addendum to the Senate Intelligence Report, p. 483):

"I think it is clear that there was not an ongoing nuclear program. In August of 2002, prior to the vote in the Senate on the authorization to go to war, I spent a day in Vienna at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The IAEA is the agency that runs nuclear inspections; they saw no signs of a nuclear program in Iraq. The IAEA convinced me that there was no on-going nuclear program in Iraq. The intelligence reporting on a possible Iraqi nuclear program did not have an impact on me, because I did not believe it was correct."

Folks who will be shocked to learn that the Administration hyped the case against Saddam will be shocked by this. Folks who viewed Saddam as a long term problem may feel differently.

Comments

[ed]

Hmmmm.

About those aluminum tubes.

The primary criteria for determining that those tubes weren't for a nuclear program enriching centrifuge was that the tube walls were too thin. The question I have is:

Did Saddam's nuclear scientists know that?

The reason I'm wondering is because of a recent interview given by one of Saddam's scientists who stated that they didn't know how to build a centrifuge when they went ahead and built one. So while experienced nuclear weapon scientists might already know that those tubes weren't optimal for building centrifuges, could Saddam's scientists have made a mistake?

This isn't beyond the realm of possibility. It's not like Saddam's scientists had any practical knowledge of building a nuclear weapon. They were trying to cobble together the pieces and parts available from public, and not so public, information sources. Additionally they were trying to get parts built overseas to bypass the sanctions.

Additionally it doesn't seem entirely impossible that those tubes could have been destined for a centrifuge even though they weren't optimal. Getting a large shipment of optimal aluminum tubes might have sent up a red flag while ordered slightly different ones wouldn't.

*shrug* I think we should all keep an open mind about this stuff. Some people have a tendency to underestimate the ingenuity of others

[abb1]

Just another nail into their coffin. Another proof that they lied the country into war. Nothing shocking, indeed - nothing more than what reasonable people would expect from their government.

[Hrubec]

Actually, this is pretty old news to anyone that has been following the Bush administration's pattern of misrepresentations and cherrypicking. It's time now perhaps for the rest of the country to begin to understand just how disrespectfully they've been led down the garden path by a group of unprincipled neocons who always cared more about their own geopolitcal agenda than they did about the lives and futures of the American people.

I like the timing just a few days before the VP debate. I'm 100% sure that Edwards will know exactly how to use this bit of ammunition - which has the extraordinarily useful value of being TRUE. One of Darth Cheney's problems is going to be that he's used his office to inspire fear in the country using just this kind of distortions and (as in his incessant Saddam/9-11 connections) outright LIES.

Man, the momentum does seem to have shifted. Ain't it sweet?

But I see you guys are still going on and on about Kerry's "rice in the butt". Gee, wonder why the American people won't be giving a shit about that? Possibly because on Thursday night they were all exposed to the fact that their country is in the hands of a man who just may be functionally retarded? I watched the debate with a 13 year old kid who knew more about our current foreign policy than poor addled Georgie.

Debate by debate, poll by poll, Republican diehards had better get the Pepto Bismol ready for that sickening feeling of the American people waking up to reality.

See ya. Wouldn't want to be ya.

[susan]

Hrubec

If you state that Bush mislead the nation regarding Saddam's threats then you MUST acknowledge Kerry also mislead the nation.

You keep ignoring the fact that Kerry had the same intelligence information as Bush, even stated as far back as 1997 that Saddam was a threat which needed to be removed.

Anyway, Bush has the foresight to recgonize the evil nature of this Islamic Jihadist war, Kerry wants to once again divert Americans back on the United Nation's magic bus. Kerry's 'global test' policy has already been tried since the Carter adminstration and is a proven failure.

By the way, do you ever leave your myopic hate box?

[Hrubec]

Susan, are you prepared to admit that George Bush, and NOT John Kerry, is the President? Is he not the one who bears the responsibility for using the power entrusted to him by Congress to lead this nation into, in the words of Patrick Buchanan, "a clash of civilizations it was in our vital interest as a nation to avoid"?

Also, regarding the "global test": Did you watch the debate, or are you relying on Republican sound bites to form your opinions? If you listen to the entire sentence, Kerry said that by "global test", he meant ensuring to the American people that their sacrifices were being made in the service of a worthy, and necessary, cause. Kerry has never advocated during his entire Senate career any type of international veto over US affairs. However, during the debate, Bush DID in fact advocate abdicating our role with respect to North Korea's nuclear program to the CHINESE. It is quite strange that Republicans who so fear French influence in our government are so comfortable with the concept of Chinese influence - China, our number one competitor for global power in the coming decade! Remarkable.

As for myopia, I don't think any Republican who still advocates for this Presidency can claim to be free of that.

As for hate, did you watch the Republican convention?

I noticed in the debate that when Bush is deprived of an audience which has signed loyalty oaths, when his every sentence isn't punctuated by cheers and applause, and when he is not free to mock and ridicule with the arrogance of a schoolyard bully, he's remarkably inarticulate, ineffective and ...just, well, damn embarrasing to his country.

[Cecil Turner]

"Is he not the one who bears the responsibility for using the power entrusted to him by Congress . . ."

Ah, guess I better reread the Constitution. Because all this time I thought Congress had the power "To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal . . ." and apparently it's just a matter of entrusting the President with the power to lead us into it. That sure explains the "I would have voted for the authority" line Mr Kerry thinks is responsive.

"Kerry has never advocated during his entire Senate career any type of international veto . . ."

I'm not sure that's entirely comforting, since he doesn't appear to have done much of anything in his entire Senate career. (Including taking responsibility for his votes.)

[Hrubec]

Aside from exposing Iran-Contra, obtaining extended benefits for Agent Orange victims, passing the cops bill and working to normalize relations with Vietnam in order to obtain a full accounting of MIA/POWs...and aside from steadfastly advocating for environmental protections, womens & victim's rights, veteran's benefits, protections for the working man against corporate greed...yeah, not much of a Senate record. I understand these aren't your priorities, Cecil, but then you don't represent all of America, do you? Kerry hasn't been the kind of egotist that needed his name slapped on every bill he advocated for. He's always been more of a day to day worker. All those years he's been plugging away, most of them while Georgie was drilling dry wells and wasting taxpayer money to ruin baseball teams. Hell, he was already working for the public good back when Georgie was still puking in parked cars.

Let's face facts. You Repubs have had the White House, the Senate, the House of Representatives and the Supreme Court in your hot little hands now for four years. You can't blame anyone else for the ditch our country's been driven into...because your guys did it. All of it.

Yes, Congress does declare war. In a perfect world. In fact, the last time this Congressional power was used correctly was in the declaration of WWII. I don't think Congress should have given this President the power they did. I think they - all of the Senators - abdicated their Constitutional responsibility. But at the time we were in the thrall of 9/11 trauma. They trusted a maniac with our national security. They made a mistake. But he will always bear the full responsibilty. They didn't TELL him to go to war. They empowered him to make the responsible choice. He is the one who let our country down. And he can't palm off any of the blame for the catastrophic failures to plan for the peace or to develop an exit strategy. Your boys blew this whole thing - Big Time.

Just like he let his followers down Thursday night. You all need to realize you've been backing a weak little spoiled rich boy who never had to work a day in his life, who thrives on politics because he's got an ego the size of Uranus and who has allowed himself to become a pampered brat in an ivory tower. He thinks he's king. He's finding out we don't have kings here in the USA. A third grade history textbook might be useful for him.

[TM]

Actually, I think the debate between Cheney and Edwards will be a laugh riot if the aluminum tubes comes up. I say that based on this from the story:

Mr. Kerry's running mate, Senator John Edwards, served on the Intelligence Committee, which gave him ample opportunity to ask hard questions. But in voting to authorize war, Mr. Edwards expressed no uncertainty about the principal evidence of Mr. Hussein's alleged nuclear program.

"We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons," Mr. Edwards said then.

If Edwards broaches this, Cheney can simply turn to the camera and ask "Who do you want to vote for, America - the liar, or the dupe?"

[TM]

From Hrubec:

Also, regarding the "global test": Did you watch the debate, or are you relying on Republican sound bites to form your opinions? If you listen to the entire sentence, Kerry said that by "global test", he meant ensuring to the American people that their sacrifices were being made in the service of a worthy, and necessary, cause. Kerry has never advocated during his entire Senate career any type of international veto over US affairs.

I am gloomily resigned to the insufferable sneering from our visitors from the left, but could they please try to upgrade the quality of their misinformation? Here is the debate transcript:

KERRY: The president always has the right, and always has had the right, for preemptive strike. That was a great doctrine throughout the Cold War. And it was always one of the things we argued about with respect to arms control.

No president, though all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.

But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.

That last clause is probably what makes it a "global", rather than a "domestic" test.

As best I can summarize this - the US always has the right to act alone, as long as it passes the global test and can prove to the world that it is acting appropriately.

I don't know what that means, but it seems to mean that we can not act if we fail the global test. However, the more likely meaning is that Kerry was simply flapping his lips, and it meant nothing.

But he sure looked Presidential up there!

Hal Holbrooke tried to explain:

Seeking to rebut Mr. Bush's characterization of Mr. Kerry's stance on pre-emptive war, Richard C. Holbrooke, a former ambassador to the United Nations who is a foreign policy adviser to Mr. Kerry, told reporters on a conference call that Mr. Bush's statements were a "clear-cut misrepresentation."

"Who in his right mind" would not want the support of the American people and allies around the world for pre-emptive action, Mr. Holbrooke asked.

Who, indeed? But the question, which Mr. Holbrooke skillfully eluded (with the help of a dozing press corps) is, what happens if the world is not convinced of the need for action, but the President and the US are? What if we fail the global test?

[Cecil Turner]

"Bush DID in fact advocate abdicating our role with respect to North Korea's nuclear program to the CHINESE."

That statement is strategically clueless to the point it appears a short history lesson is in order.

North Korea invaded the south on June 25, 1950. The UN Security Council (minus the USSR, who boycotted), demanded North Korea withdraw north of the 38th parallel. They ignored the resolution, and the US led a UN force to repel them. The invasion was initially successful, driving ROK and UN forces to a small perimeter around Pusan. In September, the 1st Marine Division landed at Inchon, UN forces broke out of the Pusan perimeter, and the North Korean Army was routed. On October 25, the Chinese launched their first offensive, and subsequently invaded in great strength. Their offesnsive was initially successful, then stalled near the original border. On July 27, 1953, the United States, North Korea and China signed an armistice, acknowledging the military stalemate. Technically we are still at war.

Nobody with half a clue has any doubt which side the PRC is on. But they also happen have significant leverage with the DPRK. And we have huge leverage with the PRC (starting with ~$100 bil worth of trade imbalance)--and none with the DPRK. So while 3-way talks can be successful (we lean on the PRC, they lean on the DPRK), US-DPRK bilateral negotiations amount to giving away the store and hoping for gratitude . . . just like Jimmy Carter did. Involving the PRC in negotiations isn't "abdicating our role," it's acknowledging the basic fact that they're involved. And anyone too clueless to see that is unqualified to be CinC.

[Hrubec]

Kudos, TM. You're right. However, the quote perfectly bears out my point. He feels the President must be prepared to explain his actions to the American people (something Mr. Bush doesn't deign to do honestly - ever) as well as be able to justify these actions in the eyes of the international community.

I think one of the profound instances where the left and the right diverge is that the right assumes that the United States possesses a moral superiority that the rest of mankind is lacking, whereas the left assumes that all human beings basically are cut from the same cloth by our creator and desire the same basic things - namely, those inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. When Jefferson wrote these words he apportioned them to ALL men, not those born within our borders. He also demanded that nations must have a "decent respect for the opinion of mankind."

Now, just because all people want the same things doesn't mean they will all have equal access to enlightened governance. As a nation therefore we need to retain the right to act in our own interests when necessary, even in the very rare cases when we cannot obtain the agreement of the international community. What Kerry was saying was that, once action has been taken, it should be possible RETROACTIVELY to explain it to the international community. This will be possible if indeed the action was taken correctly, with due reflection and proper planning. The reason Bush can not justify our actions in Iraq now, the reason we are on our way to becoming an outcast nation at a time when China is positioned to consume our position as a world leader, is because he did NOT take action in this way.

There is no benefit to our nation in acting without attention or respect to the interests or concerns of other free nations. That is what Bush has done. That is why I met an Irish couple recently who told me with great sadness that their country now hates the US - this from a place that always held us in the highest affection, that shares our values and that has always looked up to us. Bush has disgraced our nation in the eyes of the world precisely because he has made it clear that he has NO decent respect for the opinion of mankind. And by so doing, he has shown he also has no decent respect for the principles of the founding fathers who penned that phrase.

Clearly you understand what Kerry was saying. You still want your "team" to win and are willing to dissemble his meaning and play semantic tricks on your less intelligent Repubs. But this isn't a sports match. This is the future of our country. Wanting to keep this debilitated man as the faux "president" so that his neocon puppet meisters can continue to promote their selfish agenda is not patriotism. It is the opposite.

[Cecil Turner]

"I don't think Congress should have given this President the power they did. I think they - all of the Senators - abdicated their Constitutional responsibility."

I agree. An open-ended Joint Force Resolution is unseemly, and bad policy. But it's even more unseemly for Senators (or their supporters) to subsequently claim they have no responsibility for the outcome. They do. For those who feel the Iraq war is a mistake, pointing fingers at the President is perfectly appropriate. Pretending Congress doesn't share the blame is not.

[Hrubec]

I agree Cecil that the Senators bear a degree of responsibilty. Are you claiming that they bear the SAME degree of responsibility as the President who made the final decision to actually commit troops without adequate planning or an exit strategy, and without even attempting to assemble a meaningful coalition? If I give you a gun, am I responsible if you kill your wife with it? Perhaps if I knew you to be a psychopath with a vendetta when I gave you the gun. But I suspect that isn't your argument with respect to Bush v. the Senators.

As for your N. Korea explanation, I apologize for not following it. Kerry is advocating both bilateral and multinational negotiations. How is that "giving away the store and hoping for gratitude"? I'd honestly appreciate an explanation of that. Because I always learned to keep your friends close and your enemies closer and therefore can not understand how leaving our future in the hands of another nation, a nation who is absolutely our primary competitor for global influence in the world today, serves our national interest. What am I missing?

[Hrubec]

I agree Cecil that the Senators bear a degree of responsibilty. Are you claiming that they bear the SAME degree of responsibility as the President who made the final decision to actually commit troops without adequate planning or an exit strategy, and without even attempting to assemble a meaningful coalition? If I give you a gun, am I responsible if you kill your wife with it? Perhaps if I knew you to be a psychopath with a vendetta when I gave you the gun. But I suspect that isn't your argument with respect to Bush v. the Senators.

As for your N. Korea explanation, I apologize for not following it. Kerry is advocating both bilateral and multinational negotiations. How is that "giving away the store and hoping for gratitude"? I'd honestly appreciate an explanation of that. Because I always learned to keep your friends close and your enemies closer and therefore can not understand how leaving our future in the hands of another nation, a nation who is absolutely our primary competitor for global influence in the world today, serves our national interest. What am I missing?

[Brian]

Tell me, do John Edwards and the other SSIC members take an active part in the intelligence gathering and presentation, like the CIA and other agencies do, or do they take more of a backseat role?

[capt joe]

The country with the only degree of control or influence is China. Not having China part of the discussions would achieve nothing. China provide diplomatic and financial support for the North Koreans that no one else including the south is willing to do. the surest way for China to reign in the North is for the US to agree that perhaps it would be best if Japan, South Korea and taiwan were to have their own nuclear program. The North issues would be settled in a day if that was on the table.

South Korea has no influence whatsoever over North Korea. They hope against hope that thier sunshine policy will make Noth Korea like them. North Korea Juche philosophy virtually guarantees that they will view this as weakness and act accordingly. How else can you explain the continuing targeted assassinations by the north korea govt against members of the south K govt (the airliner carrying 1/3 of the south korean cabinet) and defectors. The kidnappings of south korean citizens thoughtout the world.

China views North Korea as it's wild pit bull ready to unlease at a moment's notice. It is in China's best interest to keep the situation as it is. As such, they will use any excuse to stay out or withdraw from multilateral discussions.

If and when China decides to invade taiwan, what do you think they will do about North Korea? An outbreak of war in the Koreas would be a great way to tie down US forces while they achieve strategic advantage and history taking out Taiwanese defenses. Once China had a foothold throughout Taiwan, the US would have to accept the "facts on the ground" and accede defeat.

What could both an extra set of bilateral talks accomplish that multilateral talks not do? You will have to make a valid argument for that other than "because that is what Bush is doing".

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

"Kerry is advocating both bilateral and multinational negotiations. How is that 'giving away the store and hoping for gratitude'? I'd honestly appreciate an explanation of that."

Geo. W. Bush gave you that explanation in Thursday debate.

[Cecil Turner]

"Are you claiming that they bear the SAME degree of responsibility as the President . . . "?

No (except maybe if you consider Congress as a whole). But then, I think it was a good idea, so I'm apportioning credit, rather than blame. (It's also not a central issue to my mind, since a rather large majority supported it at the time.)

"If I give you a gun, am I responsible if you kill your wife with it?"

Now this is where it becomes a central issue. If Senator Kerry votes for a war resolution, and subsequently characterizes it as a disaster, whilst never proposing a reasonable alternative plan, he can only be described as "incoherent." And that's a disqualifier for a prospective President. I'll freely admit there may be other reasonable courses of action . . . but so far the Senator hasn't described one.

"What am I missing?"

Not much actually . . . you're about 2/3 of the way there. The important thing to remember is that the DPRK and PRC are not our friends--which you clearly understand. The next point is that we have no leverage with the DPRK (a military showdown short of nuclear annihilation would be ineffective, we have no significant trade to cut off, and we've already cut all aid). OTOH, we've got significant trade with the PRC (which they depend on far more than we do), and we can cause them no end of headaches diplomatically. It's also not in their interest to have nukes in the DPRK (for many reasons, including the likelihood it will eventually spark similar programs in the ROK, Japan, etc.)

The PRC doesn't want to sit down to talks with us and the DPRK, because they know we'll lean on them. The DPRK doesn't want to sit down to talks with us and the PRC, because they know the PRC will lean on them. But we do want to make them both sit down to talks, and we can.

But if we start bilateral talks, both countries have every incentive to drag their feet on the multilaterals, and they will (and they are the world's foremost experts at inscrutable foot-dragging). Meanwhile, political pressure will drive US negotiators to progress, which will only be possible through the bilateral talks. Sound smart? Cuz it isn't.

[Hrubec]

Kerry isn't advocating keeping China out of the discussions. He said that clearly the other night - though it's painfully clear that whatever he says the Repubs will continue to pretend they only heard what they find useful for a soundbite to mock in a quickie ad. (Their disrespect for the intelligence of the American people is one of their most disgraceful attributes.)

What does an extra set of bilateral talks accomplish? It puts us inside the process. It gives us access to better information. It allows us to exert influence. China indeed WANTS us to negotiate with N Korea.

The xenophobia of the right wing in this country is one of their most bizarre traits. They demonstrate flagrant disregard for the basic humanity of other countries (even flouting Geneva Conventions that we track civilian casualties) while piously explaining that they seek only to export liberty at the barrel of their guns. They don't respect the need for international cooperation, even mock the concept at their rallies, but expect to be respected as the leader of the free world nonetheless.

What the neocons have wrought is unsustainable. Even they will not be able to sustain it, as their crackpot ideology has been thoroughly discredited. But we are in a deep hole. We need a new President to get us out. I'm sorry you guys hate Kerry so much. Unless the Bushies have Osama in a cage someplace waiting to bring him out on Election Eve, I do believe you will have to start getting used to the idea.

If he wasn't before, now Bush has become intellectually flabby. He can not explain his record to the American people, and he will not be able to sustain his broad platitudes, fear mongering and misrepresentations of Kerry's record for 30 more days. The people are seeing Kerry now without the media screen. All the blather about his war record has become moot. They saw with their own eyes on Thursday night a man with courage and intellect going up against a very small, cowardly man who did not even have enough respect for his own people to prepare himself for a nationally televised debate.

[Brian]

"And that's a disqualifier for a prospective President. I'll freely admit there may be other reasonable courses of action . . . but so far the Senator hasn't described one."

Do you honestly think that Bush has earned a second chance? He's been a disaster in just about every single possible way. Bush has dug us into quite a hole, and to be honest, I don't think anybody knows when are going to get out of it. Kerry probably doesn't have all the answers; I don't think anybody does. To quote a usually smart comedian/social commentator, "I'm not say that John Kerry has all the answers, but Bush has none, and he's cheating off of Dick Cheney's paper." The man could barely defend his own actions on Thursday night. Kerry hasn't proposed anything truly absurd, such as slashing the defense budget by 40%, so at the very least, he deserves a shot at trying to clean up Bush's mess.

[Brian]

"Their disrespect for the intelligence of the American people is one of their most disgraceful attributes."

To be honest, I respect them for how well they play the game, *even though I don't like the fact that they play the game a particular way.*

I equate this with nepotism in college or graduate admissions. Sure, it's not the best way to get in, but hell, I'll be damned if I am going to pass up an opportunity like that.

[Hrubec]

Cecil, I'm still digesting your reply, but you do realize that at this point there are no active multilateral talks either, right? So saying bilateral talks will slow down multilateral talks sounds kind of moot. I have read also that China has asked the US to enter negotiations. And how CAN we make them both sit down? That part is not explained in your answer. I just find the whole thing mystifying that Bush goes out on the campaign trail making FRANCE sound like the boogie man which the US must fear, while at the same time regarding China as a kind of trustworthy brother. What it really sounds like is that he can't be bothered with dealing with that problem, since he's got this real excitiin' liberty spreadin' war goin' on in I-raq. And golly, at least he talks to Vlodomir!

BTW, can anyone explain to me why Bush has such a trailer park accent when the rest of his family - including his Governor brother - all sound like what they are, Yankee aristocrats? Was he separated from his siblings and raised on a cowboy ranch? Oh no, that can't be it. He was East Coast prep schools all the way. It is such a mystery.

[TM]

Back, for a moment, on Kerry's "Global Test":

Clearly you understand what Kerry was saying.

Actually, I don't. I am guessing that the serious professionals in his Administration are ignoring his last little "global test" flourish, and doing their darndest to explain that he was just BSing up there.

OTOH, Kerry is always extolling the importance of alliances and multi-lateral actions, so maybe he actually meant something by it.

So since he is running for President, and everyone insists he did so well in the debate, I would kind of like to see him clarify that himself.

[Cecil Turner]

"Kerry isn't advocating keeping China out of the discussions."

The definition of "bilateral" suggests he's planning on keeping them out of those. And again, that isn't bright.

"I'm still digesting your reply, but you do realize that at this point there are no active multilateral talks either, right? "

Both the PRC and DPRK are hoping for a more sympathetic administration. For reasons that should be obvious, they'll drag their feet until after the election.

[Cecil Turner]

"Kerry probably doesn't have all the answers; I don't think anybody does. "

If he can't provide a proposal, or at least the inkling of one, I won't even consider him. (And I'd suggest I'm not the only one who feels this way.) Personally, I don't find the "Bush=Bad" case all that compelling. But even if it were, it's not enough.

[Tom Bowler]

"I think one of the profound instances where the left and the right diverge is that the right assumes that the United States possesses a moral superiority that the rest of mankind is lacking, whereas the left assumes that all human beings basically are cut from the same cloth by our creator and desire the same basic things..."

I think it would be more accurate to say that the left assumes that the left, from wherever in the world the left may be, possesses a moral superiority that the rest of mankind is lacking, and since the United States is not listing sufficiently to the left at the moment, the United States is morally lacking.

This argument about the "global test" is so much hair splitting. Kerry has said again and again we needed more allies, specifically France and Germany. France and Germany have said again and again they would send no troops to Iraq. Bottom line is that Kerry would submit to the effective veto if not an actual explicit veto of American action.

[Hrubec]

Tom, I'm familiar with the right wing perspective that the left considers itself morally superior to the right. From where I'm sitting, i don't see that and I, personally, do not feel that way at all. I have always found that politics are useless as a means of knowing a person's moral compass or sense of values, just as religious participation is useless in that regard. I personally many conservatives who are without doubt good, decent people with strong principles and ethics; likewise many liberals. What I don't understand about the conservative support for this president is that it flies in the face of conservatism - fiscally, internationally and domestically. He has EXPANDED the federal government. He caves in to every red state pork barrel lobbyist that so much as shakes his hand. He advocates more government interference in our private lives. He wishes to tamper with the Constitution. He advocates nation building as a foreign policy.

So I honestly can not understand why conservatives support the man, unless the reason is financial self interest and/or love of power. Neither reason qualifies as ethical, moral or principled.

I listened to a writer named David Horowitz the other day on the Sean Hannity show (unlike right wingers, I actively seek out exposure to opposing points of view) and heard him express the absurd notion that liberals actually seek to LOSE the war on terror, because they seek to have the USA punished, because they HATE the USA. I have heard a lot of bullshit on right wing channels, but this one almost enraged me to the point of having a car accident. That very evening I was at a Girl Scout event, coordinated by my daughter for her Gold Award, where the kids created personalized birthday cards and wrapped gifts for the Oct./Nov birthdays in the 5 companies - 350 men in all - that she is sponsoring. In two weeks, we will make care packages set into homemade stockiings for those same men, along with Christmas decorations made of natural materials from their home environments (Florida and upstate NY) . They must be shipped along with the donated lights and candy from local stores by Nov. 13.

I abhor this war. It never should have happened. But I know what John Kerry means when he says never confuse the war with the warrior. Although I loathe the Bush administration's whoring of our 9/11 tragedy, I will include homemade NY Yankees bookmarks in all the packages because I want those young men to be comforted by the knowledge that their sacrifices are appreciated. Intellectually, I believe they are there for a politically motivated criminal war. Emotionally, patriotically, I want them to be strong and have courage to get themselves home in one piece.

It really is time for the right wing to lay down the arms it holds against their liberal brethren. I came to this site first at the height of your gleeful smearing of John Kerry's war record. What you did here and elsewhere was very wrong. Democrats are patriots also who want what is best for our country. We aren't stupid or deluded. We differ with you only on policy - it would be well for all to remember that. Let us all hope Karl Rove and his minions lets our country have a truly free and fair election without shenanigans in Florida, Ohio or anywhere else.

[Tim]

LOU DOBBS MONEYLINE, January 30, 2003

ENSOR: Some in Congress who have seen the intelligence evidence are also skeptical, but U.S. intelligence officials are sticking to their guns based on the evidence they have, they insist, the tubes could, could have been intended for use to make bombs -- Lou.

DOBBS: David, the idea of these tubes being used for centrifuge or for rockets, what is the explanation then on the part of the former U.N. weapons inspectors you talked with for them having paid that premium, very high premium for these tubes and conducting this transaction in secret? Rockets -- tubes for the rockets would have been permitted under the sanctions; centrifuge in the uranium enrichment would not?

ENSOR: Well, these U.N. inspectors say that, in fact, under the rules Iraq would have had to go back to the U.N. and get permission to import the tubes even for use in missiles. And that maybe Iraq didn't want to ask since they have, in effect, kicked the inspectors out some years earlier. So it would still have to be the U.N. inspectors's belief a secret matter as far as Iraq is concerned. But there was a lot of secrecy say U.S. intelligence officials. More they believe and high-level interest, more they believe than was consistent than simply using these for conventional short range ground missiles.

DOBBS: In either case, in other words, a violation of the sanctions.

ENSOR: In either case, a violation of sanctions. But as will note it's a controversial issue how good the evidence is. And there some on Capitol Hill who have seen more of the evidence, people like Senator Biden, the Democrat, who argue the evidence is stronger that Iraq has an ongoing chemical and biological weapons program -- Lou.

DOBBS: Unfortunately, those are not attractive options from which to choose.

[Tom Bowler]

Hrubec, you don't think the left feel themselves to be morally superior on issues such as the environment? You mean you don't think conservatives want to trash the environment for a few bucks?

You abhor this war and believe it should never have happened, while I abhor this war I believe it must. Our difference is that you think it has nothing to do with the war on terror, while I think it has everything to do with the war on terror. Hussein harbored terrorists. He provided financial support for terrorist. He had them in his country and even murdered one of them, so it was plain he thought he could handle them. Contrary to what Kerry said in the debate, there were many contacts between Al Qaeda and Hussein. This was a conclusion of the 9/11 Commission.

Do you honestly think that Hussein was going to be in a box forever? Do you really believe he wasn't just biding his time? Would it be better for us to have put off the confrontation until your young daughter grows up? Should we have left it to her generation to take care of Uday and Qusay?

Bush was willing to make a decision. Kerry is not.

[Hrubec]

Tom, do you believe that this was the only means of disarming and neutralizing Saddam? How will we ever know that since we never tested what a constantly increasing degree of pressure and threat would have produced? Clearly he was all but disarmed, as the ease of our initial invasion proved. Was this the only way, the best way? Is it worth the loss of life, the thousands of boys without arms and legs laying up in Walter Reed?

Was Hussein the only Mideast dicatator harboring terrorists? None in Syria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran? It is hard to think other than that the neocons chose Iraq simply because of its impotence, without thought to the human consequence.

What about the funding, especially that from Saudi Arabia? Why did not the Bushies, with their near familial relations with that royal family, act to cut that down instantly?

It isn't possible to make the case that this administration took the ONLY and BEST course of action, nor the most comprehensive and effective strike at terrorism. Even if an Iraqi invasion was necessary, they could have delayed it with UN nonsense, keeping Saddam pinned down, for months or years while they finished the job in Afghanistan.

As for the environment, I know a hell of a lot of Conservative environmentalists who hold their nose voting Bush despite their rejection of his environmental policies. He is probably the worst president we've ever had environmentally. I guess it's like Catholics who vote for pro-choice Dems because they agree with them on all other issues. But yeah, the Repub environmental record, with its amoral corporate giveaways, its nest of foxes guarding our precious natural henhouses...yeah, pretty damn amoral. But I know that doesn't represent true conservatism - like so very much about this administration.

[Brian]

"If he can't provide a proposal, or at least the inkling of one, I won't even consider him."

He does have a proposal. The likeliness of these proposals is another question.

Then again - and I can't say this enough - Bush has severely limited the options of whomever is in control during the next four years. Kerry will be playing with a handicap because of what Bush has done.

[Cecil Turner]

"He does have a proposal. The likeliness of these proposals is another question."

Yeah, I know . . . He "would have voted for the authority." And we can expect sanctions on Iran some time in the future (or maybe the past). Sorry Brian, those are rationalizations, not proposals.

"Then again - and I can't say this enough - Bush has severely limited the options of whomever is in control during the next four years."

Yeah, particularly vis-a-vis Iran, now surrounded by US forces and a new defense agreement. Kerry'd have to retreat a long way before he could put his "tough" sanctions plan in effect.

[Hrubec]

Uh, Cecil, I know Repubs feel they should be immune to these questions, but what is Bush's plan exactly? I know we're "gunna stay th' course" and "do the hard work" and "spread liberty" and all that. But, like, how?

How will Bush handle the spread of the insurgency when he keeps insisting it's of foreign origin, and not what it is, a nationalistic guerilla war? I know they went into Samarra, and that all the people killed (according to US news coverage) were insurgents (no civiiians, or none we need worry about - them being the human trash we're bringing the great gift of liberty to) ... but isn't Samarra one of the cities that the CIA exile Allawi listed as one of those already under control and ready for elections?

What is Bush's plan for securing the untold ammount of arms, ammunition and radioactive materials discarded throughout Iraq by our army? How will he secure the borders and why hasn't he done so already? How will he handle if if the Southern provinces decide to secede or if civil war breaks out? How does he plan to train more Iraqi forces without getting them killed first? How does he plan to restore water, sewage treatment and electricity without the contractors being beheaded?

We're holding elections in January...Who are the candidates? Who will make the ballots? How many cities can we hold elections in? Who will ensure safety to the voters? I don't know about you, but as much as I honor my right to vote, if I thought my local polling place was likely to be carbombed, I'd probably skip it... How do we make these elections meaningful? Will the US be deciding who gets to run for office as well as deciding who gets to vote? And what is the US plan if they elect the likes of El Sadr?

You sound like just the willingness to use military force proves the rightness of one's plan. But the fact is this guy has no plan. Never did have a plan. Why is Kerry disqualified for not having a plan for fixing up the mess Bush created, when Bush doesn't have one either?????

I think you realize this is a situation without an easy answer. Kerry would be a fool to propose specific plans when at best he won't be President for three months. The situation there changes by the day. Your disqualifying him on that grounds is a straw man. It seems you just like the idea of military action and feel it is such a powerful force for good that it needs no justification at all. In fact justification indicates weakness. That is exactly how disasters like this get made.

[Cecil Turner]

"I know we're "gunna stay th' course" and "do the hard work" and "spread liberty" and all that. But, like, how?"

Well, the generic plan for Iraq is here:

There are five steps in our plan to help Iraq achieve democracy and freedom. We will hand over authority to a sovereign Iraqi government, help establish security, continue rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure, encourage more international support, and move toward a national election that will bring forward new leaders empowered by the Iraqi people.

Obviously the President doesn't get down to the ballot-making detail, nor should any American--it's the Iraqis' business. And I believe Sadr has recently agreed to disband his militia and join the political process. You apparently don't like that . . . I consider it a success story.

"You sound like just the willingness to use military force proves the rightness of one's plan. But the fact is this guy has no plan. Never did have a plan. "

I believe military force was required, so of course I prefer that decision. But having a different opinion wouldn't disqualify Senator Kerry. Not being able to say what he would have done, even in hindsight, does. Plan? He doesn't even know what he would have done. Sorry Hrubec, say what you like about the Administration's Iraq policy--and I don't agree with all of it--but compared to Kerry's endless equivocations, it's crystal blue persuasion.

[Brian]

"Sorry Brian, those are rationalizations, not proposals."

That's not true.

"Yeah, particularly vis-a-vis Iran, now surrounded by US forces and a new defense agreement. Kerry'd have to retreat a long way before he could put his "tough" sanctions plan in effect."

Ah, so going into Iraq was really a method of going after Iran? And please, stop trying to smear Kerry with made up positions.

[Hrubec]

Cecil, I'm starting to think you don't get any information outside of the right wing echo chamber. The plan you just delineated is almost identical to Kerry's stated plan. His has four points (does that make it lesser?) :

*Internationalize, because others must share the burden;
* Train Iraqis, because they must be responsible for their own security;
* Move forward with reconstruction because that's an important way to stop the spread of terror; and
* Help Iraqis achieve a viable government, because it is up to them to run their own country.

In the area of internationalizing the conflict, there are further details:

*Persuade NATO to make the security of Iraq one of its global missions and to deploy a portion of the force needed to secure and win the peace in Iraq.
* Convene a summit of the world's major powers as well as states in the region, and key Arab and Muslim nations, followed by a standing Contact Group to consult on the way forward, and press them to make good on the steps called for in UN Security Council Resolution 1546: providing troops; providing trainers for Iraq's security forces; providing a special brigade to protect the U.N. mission; and providing more financial assistance and real debt relief. Offer potential troop contributors specific and relatively low-risk but critical roles, such as training Iraqi security personnel and securing Iraq's borders.
* Give other countries a stake in Iraq's future by encouraging them to help develop Iraq's oil resources and by letting them bid on contracts instead of locking them out of the reconstruction process.

So let's be real here Cecil. Kerry does have a plan and it doesn't differ markedly on paper from Bush's. (In reality both are fantasies, but that's a different topic.) So what's your real beef? Do you fear internationalizing the conflict because you feel what's really at stake here is putting an American stamp on Iraq? Do you favor permanent military bases in Iraq as a launching pad for further military operations in the region? Do you believe American military force is the means by which the 21st century political landscape will be shaped? Do you see any potential problems with that - such as the fact that these multitudes of people might see their destinies through a rather different prism? Or do you see the US as a kind of Earth army amongst the Martians who we must dominate at all costs, and have every right to dominate?...Or do you just like war movies?

[ed]

Hmmmm.

"*Internationalize, because others must share the burden;
* Train Iraqis, because they must be responsible for their own security;
* Move forward with reconstruction because that's an important way to stop the spread of terror; and
* Help Iraqis achieve a viable government, because it is up to them to run their own country."

ROFL!

Because what Kerry is proposing is SOOOOOOO different from President Bush's plans. lol.

"*Persuade NATO to make the security of Iraq ..."

I leave you with this single thought. There are 1.45 million soldiers under arms under the aegis of NATO. 1.40 million of them are American.

Yeah. Bring NATO into Iraq. That's the ticket. That'll really make a difference. lol.

"* Convene a summit of the world's major powers as well as states in the region..."

hahahahaha! Because what we really need is a summit of non-Democratic nations to decide on how to democratize Iraq. ROFLMAO!

"* Give other countries a stake in Iraq's future by encouraging them to help develop Iraq's oil resources and by letting them bid on contracts instead of locking them out of the reconstruction process."

HAHAHAHAHA! Man you're killing me! The only restriction on contracts is that an American company must be the primary contractor. In case you don't have any idea what that means is that an American company contracts with the US government and then can farm out smaller contracts to anyone else, without restrictions. Which is why companies from all over the world are currently working in Iraq.

"So let's be real here Cecil. Kerry does have a plan and it doesn't differ markedly on paper from Bush's. "

YEAH MAN! That'll make me vote for Kerry. Either that or those funny pictures on http://www.footballfansfortruth.us. lol.

Man the rest of that paragraph is just beyond ridiculous. Sorry to say that but really. "Martians"?

Hrubec. You're as amusing as brian. Keep up the good work. I need a laugh and you're right there, providing the necessary service.

I salute you sir!

[Hrubec]

Ed, do you read opposing viewpoints, or just cherry pick them for things to mock - in that modern Republican way? I SAID it was just like Bush's plan. That was my entire point. You missed it. I also said that both plans, being the SAME, sounded equally unrealistic to me.

Bush's plan wants to "encourage international support". The biggest difference in Kerry's plan is that he lays out some ideas for doing so. Your own NATO information says that there are five million non American soldiers there. When did five million men become an insignificant number?

No, I don't expect Kerry's plan to work. And I don' t expect Bush's plan to work. I bow to better minds (not found here however) such as Tom Friedman who believes the Bush's consistently POLITICAL decisions in Iraq, at the cost of their purported goal to liberate and democratize, have created a situation where civil war and partition are far and away the most likely outcome. Yes, the neighboring nations are going to have to be involved, democratic or not. And no, Iraq will not be having free, fair elections that produce a George Washington like president. The chauvinism and arrogance of believing the US has any claim whatsoever over this region are all the explanation you need as to why we are loathed and despised beyond reason.

I remember when Republicans were considered the hardnosed pragmatists. Now they are lost in an ideological fairyland where they, like their cowardly leader, confuse adolescent mockery of their opponent with having a disciplined, principled, realistic plan of action. Sorry, there is no substitute, and the charnel house of Iraq is what results from such irresponsible immaturity when it's allowed to control the US government.

[ed]

Hmmmmm.

1. "Ed, do you read opposing viewpoints, or just cherry pick them for things to mock - in that modern Republican way? I SAID it was just like Bush's plan. That was my entire point. You missed it. I also said that both plans, being the SAME, sounded equally unrealistic to me."

I still think it's funny that Kerry's entire "plan" is "what that guys is doing. but better.". Fact is that Bush's plan is moving right along. Look at the 14-15 provinces that don't have hardly any violence in them at all. Look at Samarra. The simplicity of it all is effective because you cannot really have any of it without dealing with the foreign terrorists. Which is what's going on now.

2. "Bush's plan wants to "encourage international support". The biggest difference in Kerry's plan is that he lays out some ideas for doing so. Your own NATO information says that there are five million non American soldiers there. When did five million men become an insignificant number?"

OMG! ROFLMAO!!!!

"I leave you with this single thought. There are 1.45 million soldiers under arms under the aegis of NATO. 1.40 million of them are American."

1,450,000 = total NATO soldiers
-1,400,000 = American soldiers
----------
50,000 = non-American soldiers in NATO

That's right. 50k non-American soldiers in NATO. And most of them are totally crappy. The German soldiers are all conscripts on a two year forced enlistment. So far their participation in Afghanistan and Kosovo has been entirely underwhelming. The French soldiers aren't much better as exemplified by their utter incompetent display in The Ivory Coast where 4,500 paratroopers couldn't even effect a cease-fire.

Aside from France and Germany there aren't a whole lot of "NATO allies" that aren't already involved in Iraq. Belgium, Luxembourg and maybe a couple others. But I wouldn't rank their ability anywhere even near the middle of the scale. Don't even bother with Norway or Sweden. Norway has one of the few militaries in the world that is represented by a *union*. As for Sweden, it hasn't shown itself to be all that useful in any capacity.

Yeah. Let's get NATO soldiers in there. That'll do it.

3. "Tom Friedman who believes the Bush's consistently POLITICAL decisions in Iraq"

Yeah. Tom Friedman is the voice of reason. A columnist who couldn't even be bothered to write about the Oil For Food Program scandal. Yeah he's got real credibility.

The simple fact about Iraq is that perhaps Bush is having to play a political game. But that is what Iraq is, a political game. What was, and is, needed is the ability to play that political game with enough finesse to make real accomplishments possible.

Wasn't it just a year ago that every liberal was predicting a civil war? Has it happened yet? Have we seen a massive number of Iraqi insurgents? In the hundreds of thousands? In the millions? No?

What overheated nonsense. What a joy in moving goal posts eh?

Have you considered that every terrorist in Iraq is congregating in Fallujah? That the next step will be to cordon off Fallujah and squeeze it like a grape? That the serious violence has shown the Iraq people, first hand, that the alternative to democracy is brutual anarchy?

Nah. That would require skill and nuance right? Gotta wait for Kerry on that stuff. lol.

4. "The chauvinism and arrogance of believing the US has any claim whatsoever over this region are all the explanation you need as to why we are loathed and despised beyond reason."

'Cause we Americans are eeevvvvvvuuuuuuuaaaaalllll.

Yeah right. We want to own a piece of flyblown desert that reaches 130 degrees during the summertime, in the shade. Not.

If all America, and Bush, wanted was oil we could have made a deal with Saddam. He would have been overjoyed to deal with us. We could have demanded 1 million free barrels of oil per day, every day, for decades and Saddam would have signed on the dotted line.

We're there to make a change in the middle east. Not just to bring democracy to the Iraqi's but to prevent the real tragedy from happening. That if a muslim nation succeeds in detonating a nuke in an American city, then ALL of the muslim world is subject to death. If you don't think the American people wouldn't demand the utter destruction of the muslim world as a response, then you haven't read your history.

5. "I remember when Republicans were considered the hardnosed pragmatists."

We still are. Which is why Kerry is copying what Bush is doing.

6. "Sorry, there is no substitute, and the charnel house of Iraq is what results from such irresponsible immaturity when it's allowed to control the US government."

Charnel house? Oh my. Right now the crime rate in most of Iraq is lower than in South Africa, where a vehicle mounted **flamethrower** is legal for protection from car-jacking. Fewer people are dying in Iraq today than in the past 30 years.

Yeah. 'Cause that's a terrible thing brought on by us eeeeevvvvvvvuuuuuaaaaalllll Americans. How dare we bring liberty or democracy to anyone.

You are certainly amusing me more than brian. Keep up the good work.

[Cecil Turner]

"Ah, so going into Iraq was really a method of going after Iran?"

You keep conflating motives with results. You claimed we have fewer options now--which is at best strategically unlettered.

"And please, stop trying to smear Kerry with made up positions."

Brian, I'm getting a little tired of you accusing me of slander (or whatever "smear" means to you). I've fairly consistently stated that Senator Kerry doesn't have a position--or at least not one I can discern. If I wanted to "smear" him, I'd point to his idiotic story about the Green Beret hat, his self-contradictory war stories, or treasonous activities with the VVAW . . . and even those wouldn't be "smears," because they all happen to be true.

Hrubec: "Cecil, I'm starting to think you don't get any information outside of the right wing echo chamber."

Well, that one was taken from the White House web site. (They keep records of major policy speeches so folks can check 'em out, you know.)

If ya'all ever want a discussion on substance, I'd be happy to oblige. But this type of stuff bores me. Cheers.

[Slartibartfast]

I'm beginning to see now. Fact = product of right-wing echo chamber. So, you know, they are to be avoided at all costs.

[ed]

Hmmm.

The thing that amazes me about Iraq/Iran is the number of liberals who either don't know or don't care that Iraq really is the key to defeating Iran.

Iran is an unusual nation in that the population losses from the Iran-Iraq War, a sustained conflict that lasted about 10+ years, largely depopulated the male gender in Iran. More than half of Iran's population today is under the age of, I believe, 30 and have never experienced life outside of the one currently in Iran. So they've only experienced the corruption and incompetence of the Mad Mullahs, and desperately want a change.

Additionally 95% of Iran's population are Shia'a. the importance of this should not be underestimated as most of the holy sites are actually located in Iraq. One major holy site in Iran is Qom, but most of them are in cities such as Najaf, Samarra and others. One in particular is the Tomb of Ali which all Shiites are enjoined to visit at least once in their lifetimes.

So here we have a young Iranian population, who are already oriented towards a regieme change in Iran, looking towards a future democractic government. They're mostly Shia'a and so will visit Iraq sometime soon. A democratic Iraq, free, prosperous and stable, would give each and every Iranian a personal taste of both freedom and democracy. Instead of being something they'd read about, it would be something experienced personally.

The destructive effects of this, IMHO, cannot be underestimated. Which is why we invaded Iraq and not Iran. If we had invaded Iran then there's the probability that such a conflict would legitimize further the mullahcracy. But by invading Iraq we've setup a situation that will be corrosive to Iran's current government.

*shrug* a plan. go figure.

[Brian]

"You keep conflating motives with results. You claimed we have fewer options now--which is at best strategically unlettered."

I was speaking in reference to our options in Iraq.

"Brian, I'm getting a little tired of you accusing me of slander (or whatever "smear" means to you)."

Well, perhaps smear was too strong a word. In any event, your entire characterization of his position seemed to be a straw man.

"I've fairly consistently stated that Senator Kerry doesn't have a position--or at least not one I can discern."

Two things. First, mischaracterizing what he is going to do isn't good. Unfortunately, you seem to have done that consistantly. Try to stop doing that, Second, he does have a position, but when you apply different constants or qualifications, his position might chance. That's not unexpected.

[Cecil Turner]

"I was speaking in reference to our options in Iraq."

I can't read your mind. It was in response to my earlier point about "If Senator Kerry votes for a war resolution, and subsequently characterizes it as a disaster, whilst never proposing a reasonable alternative plan . . ." And yes, the effect on Iran is one of the factors weighing on the decison to go to war with Iraq.

"First, mischaracterizing what he is going to do isn't good."

It's also impossible, since nobody can figure out what he's going to do.

"Second, he does have a position, but when you apply different constants or qualifications, his position might chance. That's not unexpected."

He's been asked several times what he would have done leading up to the Iraq war. And specifically would he have gone to war with Iraq. He's been unresponsive each time. IMHO, his position ought to stop changing after the event.

[Brian]

"Bush has made a mess out of Iraq by removing Hussein, and by doing so allowing instability to spread?"

What don't you get?

"It's also impossible, since nobody can figure out what he's going to do."

That's just not true.

"He's been unresponsive each time. IMHO, his position ought to stop changing after the event."

The problem, I suspect, is that people are expecting one answer that will apply to whatever possible conditions are presented. At least that appears to be one of them.

[ed]

Hmmmm.

"The problem, I suspect, is that people are expecting one answer that will apply to whatever possible conditions are presented. At least that appears to be one of them."

That's pretty funny. Isn't that the same thing you're demanding of Bush? That his plan for Iraq take into consideration every possible, potential or actual event? And haven't you been hammering away at Bush because his plans couldn't possibly cover every such eventuality?

That's really funny.

Look. Kerry has been pretty incoherent on Iraq. Trying to defend that is pretty much a waste of time.

[Hrubec]

Ed, although you sound like a world class asshole, I am the one who made the math error (It was early.) though I clearly told you I don’t think the US is EVUL – I’m really not sure you wingnuts would be able to breathe if your preconceptions and bigotries were taken away. As for the rest of your drivel:

Ed:“that is what Iraq is, a political game. What was, and is, needed is the ability to play that political game with enough finesse to make real accomplishments possible.”

Bush is playing a political game with FINESSE? Was Abu Ghraib part of the Finesse? Going against his ground commanders both ordering US troops into and then out of Fallujah? The abandoned US arms used to supply insurgents. All finesse? Was not securing the country, not securing the borders, disbanding the police and army, destroying the infrastructure, not having a plan for an immediate change of government, getting all his info from bank criminal CIA stoolies …all that. More finesse?

Ed:"Have you considered that every terrorist in Iraq is congregating in Fallujah? That the next step will be to cordon off Fallujah and squeeze it like a grape? That the serious violence has shown the Iraq people, first hand, that the alternative to democracy is brutual anarchy?"

Wow, you’ve got some incredible insights into the minds of the people over there. When did you get back from Iraq? We’re showing them, huh? They’ll flock to our democracy because they realize – in between the bombing raids that kill their grandmothers and babies – that we represent the alternative to brutality. No way they’ll side with their own countrymen. I mean, we Americans wouldn’t do that if foreign occupiers came and bombed the shit out of our country, would we? And again, glad to see you alone recognize the strategic brilliance of the Fallujah operation. Even the wingiest of the nuts I speak to regard that one as a major – maybe THE major – tactical error we’ve made there. What exactly has been stopping us from implementing your grape squeezing plan? Why not do it now? Part of the finesse?

Ed:"We could have demanded 1 million free barrels of oil per day, every day, for decades and Saddam would have signed on the dotted line."

I think this is my favorite…BWAHHHHHH!!!!! Can you provide some proof for this insane remark please? He would have given us free oil? Wow. Just…. Wow. Proof now, not more wingnuttiness. Is this like how Cecil said we can MAKE N.Korea and China sit down together? The faith you guys place in our government reminds me of Dorothy on the Yellow Brick Road. And pay no attention to that man behind the curtain…I think his name is Cheney.

Ed:"That if a muslim nation succeeds in detonating a nuke in an American city, then ALL of the muslim world is subject to death. If you don't think the American people wouldn't demand the utter destruction of the muslim world as a response, then you haven't read your history."

So is this where you prove your humanitarian credentials? We’re just trying to save the Muslims from using atomic weapons on us because then we’d have to kill them. Another interesting twist I have never heard before. Mightn’t it be a good idea to look into some other ways of preventing nuclear terrorism? Like not leaving weapons grade materials all over Iraq? Like buying up the Russian stockpiles? Like securing our ports? … Nah, we’ll beat those Muslims into democratic submission, for their own good, and we’ll all sleep safe in our beddy byes forever. Do you guys ever even TRY to prove that this Iraqi adventure has made us safer from terrorism? Do you have ANY objective proof, or are you so accustomed to the echo chamber that you truly believe, like Bush does, that saying something makes it so?

Ed:"Fewer people are dying in Iraq today than in the past 30 years."

To borrow one of the right wing’s favorite phrases: Source, please? And please not something from World News Daily. I know Slartifarti feels like the only place facts emanate from is the right wing echo chamber but…incredibly enough, that isn’t true. Though I do love the condescending way you spew nonsense.

Is it your addiction to the fatheaded pillpopper that makes you all sound so condescending even when you're spewing nonsense?

You need to face one thing: Your guy fucked this up. He needs to get fired. That’s all there is to it. The best analogy I’ve heard about Iraq is that we have a wolf by the ears - - we can afford neither to hold on nor to let go. Kerry may be lying about his plan because he knows we’re headed for apportionment. But Bush (well not Bush but whoever is the real President right now) is lying about his plan because he (or whoever) knows this is only the first stage in a grand imperialist crusade. Which you guys are on board with apparently (Though probably not with your own necks or your own kids. Just guessing.), despite the fact it completely disgraces all the ideals upon which our nation was built.

Anyway, I can’t wait for Friday night. How ‘bout you guys? Do you think they can cure Bush’s wet brain by then? Do you think his phony ass trailer park accent will have gotten so thick even YOU guys won't be able to unnerstan' him? My son can't wait either. To him, Bush is better than South Park. We're gonna miss that little moron.

[Hrubec]

Oh my, ed, didn't see that last post before I posted mine. So you are one of those crackpot utopian neocons! I think the young men of Iran will love Iraq even more if we can make Big Rock Candy Mountains also and lots of roller coasters!

You guys are obviously living in a dream world. Muslims hate Americans, whether we like it or not, for reasons that feel very sane to them. Unless you're willing to deal with this reality, all your ideas will do is create more death. You're sitting on your white butt somewhere in the Southern USA pontificating about what is good for Arabs and how we can control their environment to reform them in the way that would be most beneficial to us. Have you even ever MET a Muslim? I can see why you love this Bush dude. You're as delusional as him.

Kerry has it right 100%. You can't fix a problem that you don't even know you have. Man, you rednecks are a sorry bunch. Thanks for the energy boost I need to keep working. We need to get you boys back to the ranch where you can write some of your fantasies down for entertainment purposes.

[Cecil Turner]

"You guys are obviously living in a dream world. Muslims hate Americans, whether we like it or not, for reasons that feel very sane to them."

Wow, that's deep. I guess we have to be sensitive to the concept that many (most?) Arabs think 9/11 was a Mossad plot? Sorry, Hrubec, I'll leave the irrational Vulcan mind-melding to guys like you. The short answer is their governments can stop supporting Islamist terrorists, or we'll change them. You and Chomsky can whine all day about how unfair it all is.

[MAC]

At the risk of putting a damper on the mudslinging, getting back to the subject of Iraq's procurement of Al. Tubes - Charles Duelfer (Dr. Kay's replacement @ ISG) had this to say about the entire nuclear program in his March 2004 Senate Testimony(notice comments about the aluminum tubes at end:
http://www.odci.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2004/tenet_testimony_03302004.html

Likewise, in the nuclear arena, the ISG has developed information that suggests Iraqi interest in preserving and expanding the knowledge needed to design and develop nuclear weapons.

One significant effort illustrating this was a high-speed rail gun program under the direction of two senior scientists associated with Iraq’s pre-1991 nuclear weapons program. Documents from this project show that the scientists were developing a rail gun designed to achieve speeds of 2-10 kilometers per second. The ostensible purpose for this research was development of an air defense gun, but these speeds are what are necessary to conduct experiments of metals compressing together at high speed as they do in a nuclear detonation. Scientists refer to these experiments as “equation of state” measurements.

Not only were these scientists developing a rail gun, but their laboratory also contained documents describing diagnostic techniques that are important for nuclear weapons experiments, such as flash x-ray radiography, laser velocimetry, and high-speed photography. Other documents found outside the laboratory described a high-voltage switch that can be used to detonate a nuclear weapon, laser detonation, nuclear fusion, radiation measurement, and radiation safety. These fields are certainly not related to air defense.

It is this combination of topics that makes us suspect this lab was intentionally focused on research applicable for nuclear weapons development.

We continued our efforts to determine if Iraq was seeking to develop technologies for a uranium enrichment capability. Iraq’s efforts to procure high tolerance aluminum tubes were examined. Ostensibly these tubes were for small rockets, but the manufacturing tolerances specified were much higher than would normally be required for this purpose. Technical reasons for the high tolerances were explained by a number of Iraqis associated with their acquisition, but there are still a number of discrepancies to examine with regard to these tubes. Again, we need to determine what these activities mean.

Just because the NYT postures and says it's "case closed - it's definitive" does not necessarily make it so. So what, even if the "experts" disagree and it's obviously still an open disagreement - no matter how the Times spins it. What should we have concluded given the context of everything else we knew at the time?

What about a "What-makes-sense" test. If you had to do a nuke program covertly and cheaply, you might have to scrap your previous centrifuge platforms for something more affordable and that was dual-use to get past sanctions/inspection regimes. "Look here! Mr. UN inspector we have made rockets with these aluminum tubes!, please don't look over there that's just our dental x-ray program". So we have an ambiguity about the use of the tubes which is only one element of proof of a reconstituted program, and post fact there is a preponderence of other evidence, including ISG findings (above) and the pursuit of yellowcake, a subject of a discredited attempt to discredit. See: Wilson, Joe: "How get foreign great pool side tea-sipping parties on the tax-payer's dime." Or just read the Butler report on yellowcake.
http://www.butlerreview.org.uk/

Is it worth the risk of being wrong, given the history of the regime, and given the outcome if the failure of intelligence is a slight overestimation rather than gross underestimation, say for example: intelligence community, especially the IAEA, on estimation of the nuclear programs of North Korea, India, Pakistan which can best be summed up by the phrase: "What was that loud noise?".

If we erred to the side of caution on this one, I think that was better than the other alternative, which was do nothing, let sanctions fall apart. Which is exactly what France, Germany and Russia were pressing for - normalization, or at least unverifiable sanctions resulting in big cash for participants. Ultimately this would have resulted in a Saddam Hussein regime that was unrestrained, freely pursuing WMD's and hosting a who's who of terrorist organizations, not to mention the continued mass slaughter of the Iraqi people.

Maybe Saddam Hussein was 10 years from having nukes maybe he was 5 years maybe he was one. When should we have acted, after the fact?

Maybe we should have had more summits and he would have surrendered.