Downing Street Downer?
Does this latest NY Times story (buried in Section A) quash the hopes of our friends on the left, who hold out hopes that the Downing Street memo will blow the lid off the Bush cover-up and reveal the sordid truth about his reckless, shameless march to war?
You're kidding, right? The dream will never die! For a flavor of the passion surrounding the Downing Street memo, try these two folks commenting on Michael Kinsley's piece. [For a vigorous trouncing, check this.]
Let's excerpt the lead from the latest Times piece:
Prewar British Memo Says War Decision Wasn't Made
WASHINGTON, June 12 - A memorandum written by Prime Minister Tony Blair's cabinet office in late July 2002 explicitly states that the Bush administration had made "no political decisions" to invade Iraq, but that American military planning for the possibility was advanced. The memo also said American planning, in the eyes of Mr. Blair's aides, was "virtually silent" on the problems of a postwar occupation.
Now, here is the Sunday WaPo story on the same memo - Walter Pincus focuses on the lack of post-war planning and skips over the "no political decision" issue. Are they even reading the same memo?
Well, here is the memo itself, as presented by the Times of London (how long this link will last is anyone guess, but the extended excerpt below may be helpful).
FWIW, the NY Times lead quote seems to come from point 6 in the memo:
6. Although no political decisions have been taken, US military planners have drafted options for the US Government to undertake an invasion of Iraq.
Hmm. Leading with that seems like an uncharacteristic stretch by the Times. Well might one ask, que pasa?
Memo below.
The paper, produced by the Cabinet Office on July 21, 2002, is incomplete because the last page is missing. The following is a transcript rather than the original document in order to protect the source.
PERSONAL SECRET UK EYES ONLY
IRAQ: CONDITIONS FOR MILITARY ACTION (A Note by Officials)
Summary
Ministers are invited to:
(1) Note the latest position on US military planning and timescales for possible action.
(2) Agree that the objective of any military action should be a stable and law-abiding Iraq, within present borders, co-operating with the international community, no longer posing a threat to its neighbours or international security, and abiding by its international obligations on WMD.
(3) Agree to engage the US on the need to set military plans within a realistic political strategy, which includes identifying the succession to Saddam Hussein and creating the conditions necessary to justify government military action, which might include an ultimatum for the return of UN weapons inspectors to Iraq. This should include a call from the Prime Minister to President Bush ahead of the briefing of US military plans to the President on 4 August.
(4) Note the potentially long lead times involved in equipping UK Armed Forces to undertake operations in the Iraqi theatre and agree that the MOD should bring forward proposals for the procurement of Urgent Operational Requirements under cover of the lessons learned from Afghanistan and the outcome of SR2002.
(5) Agree to the establishment of an ad hoc group of officials under Cabinet Office Chairmanship to consider the development of an information campaign to be agreed with the US.
Introduction
1. The US Government's military planning for action against Iraq is proceeding apace. But, as yet, it lacks a political framework. In particular, little thought has been given to creating the political conditions for military action, or the aftermath and how to shape it.
2. When the Prime Minister discussed Iraq with President Bush at Crawford in April he said that the UK would support military action to bring about regime change, provided that certain conditions were met: efforts had been made to construct a coalition/shape public opinion, the Israel-Palestine Crisis was quiescent, and the options for action to eliminate Iraq's WMD through the UN weapons inspectors had been exhausted.
3. We need now to reinforce this message and to encourage the US Government to place its military planning within a political framework, partly to forestall the risk that military action is precipitated in an unplanned way by, for example, an incident in the No Fly Zones. This is particularly important for the UK because it is necessary to create the conditions in which we could legally support military action. Otherwise we face the real danger that the US will commit themselves to a course of action which we would find very difficult to support.
4. In order to fulfil the conditions set out by the Prime Minister for UK support for military action against Iraq, certain preparations need to be made, and other considerations taken into account. This note sets them out in a form which can be adapted for use with the US Government. Depending on US intentions, a decision in principle may be needed soon on whether and in what form the UK takes part in military action.
5. Our objective should be a stable and law-abiding Iraq, within present borders, co-operating with the international community, no longer posing a threat to its neighbours or to international security, and abiding by its international obligations on WMD. It seems unlikely that this could be achieved while the current Iraqi regime remains in power. US military planning unambiguously takes as its objective the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime, followed by elimination if Iraqi WMD. It is however, by no means certain, in the view of UK officials, that one would necessarily follow from the other. Even if regime change is a necessary condition for controlling Iraqi WMD, it is certainly not a sufficient one.
US Military Planning
6. Although no political decisions have been taken, US military planners have drafted options for the US Government to undertake an invasion of Iraq. In a 'Running Start', military action could begin as early as November of this year, with no overt military build-up. Air strikes and support for opposition groups in Iraq would lead initially to small-scale land operations, with further land forces deploying sequentially, ultimately overwhelming Iraqi forces and leading to the collapse of the Iraqi regime. A 'Generated Start' would involve a longer build-up before any military action were taken, as early as January 2003. US military plans include no specifics on the strategic context either before or after the campaign. Currently the preference appears to be for the 'Running Start'. CDS will be ready to brief Ministers in more detail.
7. US plans assume, as a minimum, the use of British bases in Cyprus and Diego Garcia. This means that legal base issues would arise virtually whatever option Ministers choose with regard to UK participation.
The Viability of the Plans
8. The Chiefs of Staff have discussed the viability of US military plans. Their initial view is that there are a number of questions which would have to be answered before they could assess whether the plans are sound. Notably these include the realism of the 'Running Start', the extent to which the plans are proof against Iraqi counter-attack using chemical or biological weapons and the robustness of US assumptions about the bases and about Iraqi (un)willingness to fight.
UK Military Contribution
9. The UK's ability to contribute forces depends on the details of the US military planning and the time available to prepare and deploy them. The MOD is examining how the UK might contribute to US-led action. The options range from deployment of a Division (ie Gulf War sized contribution plus naval and air forces) to making available bases. It is already clear that the UK could not generate a Division in time for an operation in January 2003, unless publicly visible decisions were taken very soon. Maritime and air forces could be deployed in time, provided adequate basing arrangements could be made. The lead times involved in preparing for UK military involvement include the procurement of Urgent Operational Requirements, for which there is no financial provision.
The Conditions Necessary for Military Action
10. Aside from the existence of a viable military plan we consider the following conditions necessary for military action and UK participation: justification/legal base; an international coalition; a quiescent Israel/Palestine; a positive risk/benefit assessment; and the preparation of domestic opinion.
Justification
11. US views of international law vary from that of the UK and the international community. Regime change per se is not a proper basis for military action under international law. But regime change could result from action that is otherwise lawful. We would regard the use of force against Iraq, or any other state, as lawful if exercised in the right of individual or collective self-defence, if carried out to avert an overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe, or authorised by the UN Security Council. A detailed consideration of the legal issues, prepared earlier this year, is at Annex A. The legal position would depend on the precise circumstances at the time. Legal bases for an invasion of Iraq are in principle conceivable in both the first two instances but would be difficult to establish because of, for example, the tests of immediacy and proportionality. Further legal advice would be needed on this point.
12. This leaves the route under the UNSC resolutions on weapons inspectors. Kofi Annan has held three rounds of meetings with Iraq in an attempt to persuade them to admit the UN weapons inspectors. These have made no substantive progress; the Iraqis are deliberately obfuscating. Annan has downgraded the dialogue but more pointless talks are possible. We need to persuade the UN and the international community that this situation cannot be allowed to continue ad infinitum. We need to set a deadline, leading to an ultimatum. It would be preferable to obtain backing of a UNSCR for any ultimatum and early work would be necessary to explore with Kofi Annan and the Russians, in particular, the scope for achieving this.
13. In practice, facing pressure of military action, Saddam is likely to admit weapons inspectors as a means of forestalling it. But once admitted, he would not allow them to operate freely. UNMOVIC (the successor to UNSCOM) will take at least six months after entering Iraq to establish the monitoring and verification system under Resolution 1284 necessary to assess whether Iraq is meeting its obligations. Hence, even if UN inspectors gained access today, by January 2003 they would at best only just be completing setting up. It is possible that they will encounter Iraqi obstruction during this period, but this more likely when they are fully operational.
14. It is just possible that an ultimatum could be cast in terms which Saddam would reject (because he is unwilling to accept unfettered access) and which would not be regarded as unreasonable by the international community. However, failing that (or an Iraqi attack) we would be most unlikely to achieve a legal base for military action by January 2003.
An International Coalition
15. An international coalition is necessary to provide a military platform and desirable for political purposes.
16. US military planning assumes that the US would be allowed to use bases in Kuwait (air and ground forces), Jordan, in the Gulf (air and naval forces) and UK territory (Diego Garcia and our bases in Cyprus). The plans assume that Saudi Arabia would withhold co-operation except granting military over-flights. On the assumption that military action would involve operations in the Kurdish area in the North of Iraq, the use of bases in Turkey would also be necessary.
17. In the absence of UN authorisation, there will be problems in securing the support of NATO and EU partners. Australia would be likely to participate on the same basis as the UK. France might be prepared to take part if she saw military action as inevitable. Russia and China, seeking to improve their US relations, might set aside their misgivings if sufficient attention were paid to their legal and economic concerns. Probably the best we could expect from the region would be neutrality. The US is likely to restrain Israel from taking part in military action. In practice, much of the international community would find it difficult to stand in the way of the determined course of the US hegemon. However, the greater the international support, the greater the prospects of success.
A Quiescent Israel-Palestine
18. The Israeli re-occupation of the West Bank has dampened Palestinian violence for the time being but is unsustainable in the long-term and stoking more trouble for the future. The Bush speech was at best a half step forward. We are using the Palestinian reform agenda to make progress, including a resumption of political negotiations. The Americans are talking of a ministerial conference in November or later. Real progress towards a viable Palestinian state is the best way to undercut Palestinian extremists and reduce Arab antipathy to military action against Saddam Hussein. However, another upsurge of Palestinian/Israeli violence is highly likely. The co-incidence of such an upsurge with the preparations for military action against Iraq cannot be ruled out. Indeed Saddam would use continuing violence in the Occupied Territories to bolster popular Arab support for his regime.
Benefits/Risks
19. Even with a legal base and a viable military plan, we would still need to ensure that the benefits of action outweigh the risks. In particular, we need to be sure that the outcome of the military action would match our objective as set out in paragraph 5 above. A post-war occupation of Iraq could lead to a protracted and costly nation-building exercise. As already made clear, the US military plans are virtually silent on this point. Washington could look to us to share a disproportionate share of the burden. Further work is required to define more precisely the means by which the desired endstate would be created, in particular what form of Government might replace Saddam Hussein's regime and the timescale within which it would be possible to identify a successor. We must also consider in greater detail the impact of military action on other UK interests in the region.
Domestic Opinion
20. Time will be required to prepare public opinion in the UK that it is necessary to take military action against Saddam Hussein. There would also need to be a substantial effort to secure the support of Parliament. An information campaign will be needed which has to be closely related to an overseas information campaign designed to influence Saddam Hussein, the Islamic World and the wider international community. This will need to give full coverage to the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, including his WMD, and the legal justification for action.
Timescales
21. Although the US military could act against Iraq as soon as November, we judge that a military campaign is unlikely to start until January 2003, if only because of the time it will take to reach consensus in Washington. That said, we judge that for climactic reasons, military action would need to start by January 2003, unless action were deferred until the following autumn.
22. As this paper makes clear, even this timescale would present problems. This means that:
(a) We need to influence US consideration of the military plans before President Bush is briefed on 4 August, through contacts betweens the Prime Minister and the President and at other levels;
[LAST PAGE MISSING]
Just read the DSM (they're online) in conjunction with these statements:
Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.
-- George W. Bush, President
Address to the Nation, 3/17/2003
There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. And . . . as this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them.
-- General Tommy Franks, Commander in Chief, Central Command
Press Conference, 3/22/2003
One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites.
-- Victoria Clarke, Pentagon Spokeswoman
Press Briefing, 3/22/2003
We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.
-- Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
ABC Interview, 3/30/2003
But make no mistake -- as I said earlier -- we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about.
-- Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
Press Briefing, 4/10/2003
Posted by: martin | June 13, 2005 at 04:44 PM
TM, you've apparently made no effort to explore the relationship between these two documents (as far as I can tell neither did Sanger), so let me help you out.
The briefing paper which includes the words "no political decisions have been taken" was written as a "briefing paper, for participants at a meeting of Blair’s inner circle on July 23, 2002." It was "produced by the Cabinet Office" on 7/21/02 (link). The author(s) is unknown. The paper presumably reflects the views of certain cabinet staff at the time it was written. There is no indication of the basis for those views (at least with regard to the statement "no political decisions have been taken").
The DSM was written as minutes to a top-level meeting which occurred on 7/23/02. The author of the minutes is not anonymous, and the person who said "military action was now seen as inevitable" is also not anonymous. That statement was made by Dearlove, head of UK foreign intelligence, based on his "recent talks in Washington," presumably with his US counterparts.
Imagine the following (hypothetical, although based on the text that's available) exchange at the meeting:
Dearlove says "I'm reporting on my recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD."
Someone else says "How can that be? Didn't you see the briefing paper, produced by the cabinet office staff for the purpose of preparing us for this meeting, which said that no political decisions have been taken by Bush?"
Dearlove says "Yes, I have seen the briefing paper. Are you listening? That's why I said there's been a perceptible _shift_ in attitude. That's why I said military action was _now_ seen as inevitable. That was then, this is now. I'm here to tell you things have changed. I'm being careful to speak up about this, and speak up clearly, because I don't want anyone to be misled by that statement in the briefing paper. That statement is no longer operative. My talks in Washington are _recent_, and with my senior-level counterparts, so therefore I'm in a position to know."
By the way, aside from the DSM being subsequent and therefore more up-to-date, it's logical to expect that minutes of a top-level meeting would be more candid and more accurate than a briefing memo by an unknown staffer who might be trying to make sure he didn't offend anyone.
Posted by: jukeboxgrad | June 13, 2005 at 08:03 PM
A well planned and conducted overthrown of Saddam's regime, one must say.
Cordially...
Posted by: Rick | June 13, 2005 at 08:57 PM
A well planned and conducted overthrown of Saddam's regime, one must say.
Cordially...
Posted by: Rick | June 13, 2005 at 08:57 PM
"overthrow," and damn the double!
Posted by: Rick | June 13, 2005 at 08:58 PM
"overthrow," and damn the double!
Posted by: Rick | June 13, 2005 at 08:58 PM
Which lying warmonger made the folowing statements?
Was it A) George W Bush B) Cheney C) Powell D) Wolfowitz E) Condi Rice
Once this stuff gets out, I'm sure it will below the lid off the Great Cover-Up.
Unlike South Africa, which decided on its own to eliminate its nuclear weapons and welcomed inspection as a means of creating confidence in its disarmament, Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance -- not even today -- of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace.
One of three important questions before us today is how much might remain undeclared and intact from before 1991; and, possibly, thereafter; the second question is what, if anything, was illegally produced or procured after 1998, when the inspectors left; and the third question is how it can be prevented that any weapons of mass destruction be produced or procured in the future.
For nearly three years, Iraq refused to accept any inspections by UNMOVIC. It was only after appeals by the Secretary-General and Arab States and pressure by the United States and other Member States, that Iraq declared on 16 September last year that it would again accept inspections without conditions.
Resolution 1441 was adopted on 8 November last year and emphatically reaffirmed the demand on Iraq to cooperate. It required this cooperation to be immediate, unconditional and active.
Paragraph 9 of resolution 1441 states that this cooperation shall be "active." It is not enough to open doors. Inspection is not a game of "catch as catch can."
Iraq has declared that it only produced VX on a pilot scale, just a few tons and that the quality was poor and the product unstable. Consequently, it was said, that the agent was never weaponized. Iraq said that the small quantity of agent remaining after the Gulf War was unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991.
There are also indications that the agent was weaponized. In addition, there are questions to be answered concerning the fate of the VX precursor chemicals, which Iraq states were lost during bombing in the Gulf War or were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq.
The document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tons. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for.
The discovery of a number of 122 mm chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at a storage depot 170 kilometers southwest of Baghdad was much publicized. This was a relatively new bunker and therefore the rockets must have been moved there in the past few years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions.
I might further mention that inspectors have found at another site a laboratory quantity of thiodiglycol, a mustard gas precursor.
Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 liters of this [anthrax], which it states it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991. Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction.
There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared, and that at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date. It might still exist. Either it should be found and be destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision or else convincing evidence should be produced to show that it was, indeed, destroyed in 1991.
Two projects in particular stand out. They are the development of a liquid-fueled missile named the Al Samoud 2, and a solid propellant missile, called the Al Fatah. Both missiles have been tested to a range in excess of the permitted range of 150 kilometers, with the Al Samoud 2 being tested to a maximum of 183 kilometers and the Al Fatah to 161 kilometers. Some of both types of missiles have already been provided to the Iraqi Armed Forces even though it is stated that they are still undergoing development.
"In addition, Iraq has refurbished its missile production infrastructure. In particular, Iraq reconstituted a number of casting chambers, which had previously been destroyed under UNSCOM supervision."
"Iraq also declared the recent import of chemicals used in propellants, test instrumentation and guidance and control systems. These items may well be for proscribed purposes. That is yet to be determined. What is clear is that they were illegally brought into Iraq, that is, Iraq or some company in Iraq, circumvented the restrictions imposed by various resolutions."
Posted by: flenser | June 13, 2005 at 09:37 PM
No takers yet?
To narrow it down, the above statements were made in January 2003, on the eve of war.
Posted by: Flenser | June 13, 2005 at 10:07 PM
Flenser:
Okay, John Kerry.
Second guess: Hillary Clinton.
SMG
Posted by: SteveMG | June 13, 2005 at 10:29 PM
Well, Google is my friend, and that is pretty funny.
As to the relationship between the two memos, now that I have actually read the "smoking gun" July 23rd memo, I see why no one in the MSM is impressed. Let me pull the highlights. From the OPENING sentences:
The JIC is the Brit Joint Intelligence Committee.
So, their spooks lead by saying military action looks to be the only way to achieve regime change.
Another Brit reports that in America, a similar sense is settling in:
I have no problem with "Military action was now seen as inevitable", since that is the Brit assessment as well.
The next bit, "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action", strikes me as a bizarre extrapolation, or a misleading summary.
I mean, did Bush really announce that nothing short of war would satisfy him? Saddam could not flee to a third country and flip the keys to Hans Blix on the way out?
I understand that Maureen Dowd thought only war could satisfy Rummy's war lust and W's relationship problems with his dad, but honestly - for the rest of us, the notion that a better summary would be "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through war if necessary..." is fine.
Later in the memo we see this:
Well, it that means "it seemed clear that Bush meant to see this through to a resolution, even if that required military action", again, fine.
Posted by: TM | June 13, 2005 at 10:55 PM
Ol' Hans 'Bloodthirsty' Blix.
How could he have lied to us like this? Clearly, the U.N. is in the thrall of the U.S.
Posted by: Les Nessman | June 13, 2005 at 11:45 PM
TM, the reason the MSM didn't cover this is because every news junkie already knows this -- its not news in that sense. When Daniel Drezner was deciding who to vote on, he would give a p value (from 0 to 1) for a candidate. 1 meaning absolute certainity, 0 meaning no chance for voting for that candidate. I think the overwhelming amount of evidence (too much to go through in one post) clearly indicates Bush had made up his mind before hand. I would say that with 90% certainty. If I had to put a p-value on the Bush administration negligentyly botched pre-war planning, I'd put that at 95%.
So instead of playing clever litigous games, why not give us a guestimated synthesis in a number. So we have some idea how detached from the reality-based ommunnity you are :-P.
Posted by: Jor | June 14, 2005 at 12:25 AM
Hmmmm.
Still pushing this eh? While you're at it give us an update on the whole GannonGate thing will you?
Posted by: ed | June 14, 2005 at 01:24 AM
Now is the best time to place bets on the next target of liberal whining after Iraq recovers. The military will very likely be demonized by conceited anti-war crybabies (who by sheer coincidence I suppose, hate Bush/Republicans a lot).
Posted by: Josh | June 14, 2005 at 03:39 AM
"I think the overwhelming amount of evidence (too much to go through in one post) clearly indicates Bush had made up his mind before hand."
I don't see how that's different from TM's: Bush meant to see this through to a resolution, even if that required military action". Considering the 12 years of noncompliance with the GW I cease-fire (and various UN resolutions), and the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act, I also don't see anything wrong with his conclusion: "Fine."
Posted by: Cecil Turner | June 14, 2005 at 05:46 AM
Okay, Hans Blix.
Blix-Kerry-Clinton, the same person.
Ever see all three in the same room together?
I'm sure Jukeboxgrad can cite some links proving my conspiracy.
Like The Nation, which still believe Hiss is innocent and didn't see Stalin slaughtering 30 million assorted kulaks, Ukrainians et cetera but is certain the neocons falsified intelligence on Iraq.
SMG
Posted by: SteveMG | June 14, 2005 at 09:46 AM
Cecil:
Thanx for putting your finger on the problem.
What, exactly, had Bush already decided upon?
The Left seems to believe that Bush had decided upon going to war.
But the memoes (and the contemporary coverage) would suggest that Bush had already decided to get rid of Saddam Hussein.
There is a world of difference between the two. If Bush had decided to go to war, then it mattered little whether Saddam was there or not. His last minute resignation would not have resolved the issue.
Conversely, however, if the decision was to topple Saddam (as per the 1998 Iraqi liberation law and others), then a range of possible options existed. Of course, sanctions were clearly not working towards this end (and it was also clear then and even more now that Saddam was going to succeed in loosening them), and the cat-and-mouse attacks on no-fly-zone aircraft and US-UK responses wasn't doing it, either.
I suppose an assassination attempt could have been engineered, yet somehow, methinks that the Left would not be any happier with that (and killing Uday and Qusay would've been even more problematic).
I suppose the Left really has little problem w/ leaving Saddam in charge, with all that implies....
Posted by: Lurking Observer | June 14, 2005 at 10:22 AM
"Thanx for putting your finger on the problem."
I'd love to take credit, but I think Tom is the one who made the critical observation.
ISTM the memos are very useful for someone claiming UK foreign policy was a tail being wagged by the US dog--which is a common complaint amongst liberal Britons. Release on the eve of a UK election makes it clear that's the main motive of the leakers, and also tends to lessen its impact.
It is much less convincing when it comes to a third-hand reading of US policymakers' mindsets. In fact, the revelation that efforts to shape public opinion were undertaken as a condition of our UK allies is something of an excuse for "overselling" the intelligence data. (If one happens to feel that's an issue.)
Posted by: Cecil Turner | June 14, 2005 at 11:08 AM
TM, it's really quite adorable how sometimes you tell the truth despite yourself.
"Did Bush really announce that nothing short of war would satisfy him?"
Long before 9/11, Bush said "One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief ... if I have a chance to invade …. I’m not going to waste it." And "from the moment he took office, Bush has made noises about finishing the job his father started." (link)
So your sardonic question is, unintentionally, not far off the mark.
"Saddam could not flee to a third country and flip the keys to Hans Blix on the way out?"
There you go again, revealing the truth even though that's exactly the opposite of what you're trying to do. How amusing.
As far as I can tell, Saddam never offered to "flee to a third country," but there is reason to suspect that he offered a variety of other material concessions (link, link). Our apparent lack of interest in trying to solve the problem this way creates the impression that Bush was not really interested in disarmament, but rather was primarily interested in regime change via war. Trouble is, he kept suggesting the main purpose of regime change was disarmament (link, link).
Posted by: jukeboxgrad | June 14, 2005 at 12:11 PM
So, Dubya continues the policy of the previous administration (remember Maddie Albright's interview w/ Lesli Stahl? Where she made it clear she would keep the sanctions on?), and this is viewed as somehow inappropriate? What was the aim of those sanctions, if not to topple Saddam (as Albright indicated)?
Except that, simply keeping sanctions on wasn't succeeding at anything except making it look like the US was vindictive. Oh, and giving time for Saddam to bribe a coalition of the buyable into existence.
Posted by: Lurking Observer | June 14, 2005 at 12:33 PM
"Dubya continues the policy of the previous administration"
Wingnut strategy #14394. When all else fails, blame Clinton.
The policy of the previous administration was to achieve regime change via peaceful means, if at all possible, and to contain him until that time. This policy was a success.
"What was the aim of those sanctions, if not to topple Saddam"
See above.
"keeping sanctions on wasn't succeeding at anything except making it look like the US was vindictive."
Keeping sanctions on succeeded at preventing him from accumulating WMD. This despite the fact that folks like Cheney were perfectly happy to do business with him.
Posted by: jukeboxgrad | June 14, 2005 at 12:47 PM
Who's blaming Clinton, jukeboxgrad?
Is it "blame," when one is pointing out that the same policy is underway?
This is like saying that because Reagan continued the policies of Jimmy Carter and Richard Nixon and LBJ in committing to the defense of Europe, that we're "blaming" LBJ for Reagan's defense policies.
Since 1991, the US policy focus on Iraq were to:
1. Isolate him
2. Prevent him from developing WMDs
3. Get rid of him.
This was true under Bush-I, after the decision not to go to Baghdad, this was true under Clinton, this was true under Dubya. If you want to consider that "blame," feel free. Somehow, I don't think saying that Clinton continued Bush-I's policies can be considered "blame."
As for "peaceful," I take it that Clinton's Operation Desert Fox was a peaceful operation? Somehow, firing several hundred cruise missiles doesn't strike me as being all that peaceful. And that codicil that it must be peaceful must've escaped notice among the planners trying to take down Saddam as authorized by the '98 Iraq Liberation Act.
Posted by: Lurking Observer | June 14, 2005 at 01:05 PM
If Bush was really intent on war whether it was needed to bring about regime change or not, wasn't he taking a hell of a risk in issuing Saddam the famous 48-hour ultimatum?
Posted by: Paul Zrimsek | June 14, 2005 at 01:35 PM
"Who's blaming Clinton"
You are, when you suggest that Dubya's only finishing what Clinton started.
"firing several hundred cruise missiles doesn't strike me as being all that peaceful"
If you can't tell the difference between Clinton's cruise missiles and Dubya's "shock and awe," that's your problem.
By the way, I think the correct number is several dozen. Until you show me where you got "several hundred," I'll assume you're doing the usual exaggerating.
"wasn't he taking a hell of a risk in issuing Saddam the famous 48-hour ultimatum"
No. If Saddam had actually called, there are all sorts of ways Bush could have made sure he didn't happen to hear the phone ring. Not unlike the way various peace overtures seem to have been swept aside.
Posted by: jukeboxgrad | June 14, 2005 at 02:13 PM
jukeboxgrad:
Well, lessee, General Shelton sez that it was 300 TLAMs and 100 ALCMs.
300+100, check the hundreds column, yup, that'd be "hundreds of cruise missiles."
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/1998/98121915_tlt.html
And if finishing what Clinton was doing is considered blame, yer right, I'm "blaming" Clinton. Oddly, this was one area where I actually generally agreed w/ him, that we needed to get rid of Saddam. You wanna term that "blame," feel free.
And the main difference? Saddam is gone as of 2003. Saddam was not gone after firing "several hundred" cruise missiles and several hundred air sorties.
And the Iraqi children are no longer suffering under the sanctions regime.
Posted by: Lurking Observer | June 14, 2005 at 02:24 PM
Yes, I agree that we should have met the blood-thirsty murdering filth halfway on this. I mean, when you're involved in a global war on terror and you tell one of these shitheels to pack his bags and take his whelps with him, it makes perfect sense to come back and bargain with him, particularly if it means the shitheel stays in power. This will put the entire world on notice that nothing has changed, the US is a paper tiger. No doubt other Arab despots will just fall all over themselves trying to round up Islamo-loonies when they find out how reasonable we are.
Right?
Posted by: spongeworthy | June 14, 2005 at 02:40 PM
The ultimatum I was talking about, having been issued by the president of the US rather than the president of France, did not give Saddam 48 hours to make a phone call-- it gave him 48 hours to leave the country. So when the bad man turns up in front of a press conference in Damascus, how does Bush overlook that?
Posted by: Paul Zrimsek | June 14, 2005 at 02:52 PM
"300 TLAMs and 100 ALCMs"
Thanks for the citation.
"yer right, I'm 'blaming' Clinton"
One sure sign of how much trouble Bush is in is the way folks are working overtime to spread the blame around. Yes, it's true, lots of folks who should have known better (like most of the press and most of the Democratic party) went along for the ride. Does that let Bush off the hook? You wish.
"And the main difference? Saddam is gone as of 2003."
True. Trouble is, most folks think the price wasn't worth it, and that we're not safer as a result (link).
"This will put the entire world on notice that nothing has changed, the US is a paper tiger."
Instead, we've put the entire world on notice that the largest military in the history of the world somehow can't manage, after two years, to secure about 10 miles of road connecting Baghdad to the airport. No doubt this demonstration of our power (not) puts us in a stronger position to deal with the two other parts of the famous axis of evil, the two parts that are and were much more of a threat to us than Saddam ever was or would be.
As I said, most people think we would have been better off without this war. So much for Bush's man-date.
"The ultimatum I was talking about"
I understood which ultimatum you were talking about. My reference to a phone call was meant to be taken figuratively, not literally.
"when the bad man turns up in front of a press conference in Damascus, how does Bush overlook that?"
I think you're a bit naive. We can talk endlessly about hypothetical scenarios, and each one has an out for Bush. In your scenario, we would have hit him with a few TLAMs (or whatever) long before his motorcade got near the Baghdad airport (or near the Syrian border, for that matter). CNN: "War begins as Saddam is hit while on maneuvers to mobilize his troops."
Presumably you recall that the war started a bit early because we thought we suddenly had a chance to target him.
Posted by: jukeboxgrad | June 14, 2005 at 04:16 PM
Sponge, one more thing. Since you're so indignant about the idea that we might do business with "blood-thirsty murdering filth," let us know how you feel about this, this and this.
Posted by: jukeboxgrad | June 14, 2005 at 04:39 PM
"No doubt this demonstration of our power (not) puts us in a stronger position to deal with the two other parts of the famous axis of evil, the two parts that are and were much more of a threat to us than Saddam ever was or would be."
This is a fairly common argument, but it's also obviously wrong. Try to gin up a plan to invade Iran without first securing a staging area in Iraq. (Hint: it can't be done.) The DPRK threat is a separate issue, but not aimed predominantly at the US. In short, not a very persuasive argument.
BTW, the probability of hitting a motorcade with a TLAM is remote.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | June 14, 2005 at 04:50 PM
Whenever anyone claims that we "should" have gone after North Korea, I know that they're uttering complete and utter BS.
Go after North Korea? When Seoul, the main population center of South Korea, is within artillery range of the DMZ? When consideration of the use of force in 1994 were deep-sixed because of the fear of a "sea of flames"? When North Korea has most of its armed forces literally on the DMZ?
If any of these voices suggesting we "should" have gone after North Korea first had uttered such an opinion in 1994, I might be more inclined to believe them now. But they didn't, so I'm not.
Posted by: Lurking Observer | June 14, 2005 at 04:57 PM
juke
"The policy of the previous administration was to achieve regime change via peaceful means, if at all possible, and to contain him until that time. This policy was a success."
The previous admin (Clinton) achieved regime change? When?
(Oh, you mean when Bush took over instead of Gore. Gotcha.)
Posted by: Les Nessman | June 14, 2005 at 05:41 PM
Cecil & TM, the statements you've accepted are fine, but they lead to only one logical conclusion.
1. it seemed clear that Bush meant to see this through to a resolution, even if that required military action",
2. Regime Change
3. This must be done SOON/NOW
These three premises only leave one possible conclusion/choice. If I'm not mistaken, these are three preimises you both agree that Bush accepted in July 2002. There is only one solution -- WAR. The decision follows directly from accepting those three premises.
IF I told a friend, lets get something to eat at the food court. And he said, well what do they got over there? And I said, "Thai, Pizza, Chinese, MCD -- we can decide when we get there". Then when we get there, everythin g is closed, but the Thai place. Obviously, my friend didn't make the decision. There was only one choice.
Anyway, I told you my betting odds. IF God was gonna tell us tomorrow, what the truth was, I'd say its 10:1 Bush decided in '02.
Posted by: Jor | June 14, 2005 at 06:37 PM
"If I'm not mistaken, these are three preimises you both agree that Bush accepted in July 2002. There is only one solution -- WAR."
Or Saddam could have started complying with the GW cease fire/UN resolutions (if he'd acted promptly) or abdicated right up to the last minute. I'm not sure how many more years you think he needed, but acting as if this is some sort of moral failure on the part of the US is unconvincing at best.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | June 14, 2005 at 06:53 PM
It kills me to admit it, but my example of the 48-hour ultimatum was not all that well-chosen. I'd forgotten Ari Fleischer's statement that the troops would be going in no matter what; my recollections notwithstanding, the President hadn't said otherwise.
On the other hand, I'm cheered by Jor's acknowledgement that only military force would have gotten Saddam out of power-- something we spent months trying to drag out of John Kerry. Though it's not true that this necessarily meant war; there was good reason to believe, ex ante, that the credible threat of war might have done it as well. (Just not in the final 48 hours.)
Posted by: Paul Zrimsek | June 14, 2005 at 07:02 PM
"Try to gin up a plan to invade Iran without first securing a staging area in Iraq."
What a relief to finally find out why we're really there. The shifting rationales; makes my head spin. Only problem is, where do we get the troops? Maybe you'll be signing up to help out.
"The DPRK threat is a separate issue, but not aimed predominantly at the US."
Then I guess your guy was misleading us when he singled them out as part of the famous evil axis.
"BTW, the probability of hitting a motorcade with a TLAM is remote."
I thought by saying "or whatever" we could avoid the tangent into gratuitous milspeak. I should have known better.
"Go after North Korea?"
I realize in your world of binary thinking you either occupy a country or ignore it. Get a clue; there are other options. Look up "diplomacy" in the dictionary. Too bad that word isn't part of Bush's vocabulary, either.
"The previous admin (Clinton) achieved regime change?"
Nice job putting words in my mouth. Clinton achieved containment. The result was Saddam, finally, had no WMD. Maybe you haven't heard that news. Then again you might be confused because Bush said "we found the weapons of mass destruction."
"some sort of moral failure on the part of the US"
The central failure is that the threat Saddam represented was highly exaggerated, by folks who had him in their sights for many years, and who exploited 9/11 to do something they had been planning since long before 9/11. People are starting to figure this out, and that's reflected in the polls.
Posted by: jukeboxgrad | June 14, 2005 at 07:15 PM
"The shifting rationales; makes my head spin."
Rationales? What does that have to do with your clearly erroneous claim that invading Iraq gave us less leverage on Iran? "Shifting" indeed.
"Then I guess your guy was misleading us when he singled them out as part of the famous evil axis."
Are you suggesting that only a threat to the US can be "evil"? The DPRK is plenty problematic in the far east . . . they just don't have much that can reach the US.
"I thought by saying "or whatever" we could avoid the tangent into gratuitous milspeak. I should have known better."
When you're accusing others of being naive, followed by a completely unworkable conspiracy theory, you should expect to be called on it. Even with the "whatever."
"The central failure is that the threat Saddam represented was highly exaggerated . . ."
Compared to the flights of fancy you engage in regularly, the intelligence on Iraq was downright understated. And again, his failure for more than a decade to abide by a cease-fire, 17 chapter VII UN resolutions, and his manifest intent to continue when sanctions were lifted were the proximate cause of the conflict. Each is a perfectly valid casus belli . . . pick one.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | June 14, 2005 at 07:49 PM
"your clearly erroneous claim that invading Iraq gave us less leverage on Iran"
You're obviously entitled to your opinion (that by invading Iraq we now have more leverage over Iran), but maybe you'd like to offer some proof that it's more than just your opinion. You could start by explaining how our demonstrated inability to secure 10 miles of airport road has not signaled to Iran that we're in no position to take them on. You could also explain how the war has not proven that American troops on Muslim soil seem to inspire an apparently endless supply of suicide bombers (demonstrated by Rummy's admission today that Iraq is no safer than it was two years ago).
Speaking of providing proof to back up your statements, I notice the cat got your tongue after I proved you were wrong here.
"The DPRK is plenty problematic in the far east . . . they just don't have much that can reach the US."
As if Saddam did.
"the intelligence on Iraq was downright understated."
Interesting how you continue to make blanket statements on that subject, without even making a pretense of dealing with the proof I presented in the other thread I just mentioned.
"manifest intent to continue when sanctions were lifted"
I addressed this in the other thread, at 8:35 am. Not a peep out of you there lately. How tiresome that you repeat your same specious points as if answers haven't already been provided.
Posted by: jukeboxgrad | June 14, 2005 at 08:40 PM
". . . but maybe you'd like to offer some proof that it's more than just your opinion."
Maybe if you glanced at a map of the mideast and tried (as I suggested above) to figure a way to put military pressure on Iran, you'd note the only feasible staging area is Iraq. Or maybe you wouldn't. But I'd also note that you came up with the contention that Iraq made us less able to deal with Iran, so the burden of proof is yours.
"Speaking of providing proof to back up your statements . . ."
I'm not sure which of your novelettes on that thread you're referring to, but I think folks adequately addressed most of your points while I was otherwise engaged.
"I addressed this in the other thread, at 8:35 am."
So you did. Here's a response to that one as well then (cunningly hidden in the opening paragraph of the Duelfer Report):
(BTW, the VP's reference to "reconstituted nuclear weapons" in a live broadcast followed twice referring to reconstituted "programs," and was in direct response to a question about Saddam's nuclear "program"--it was was fairly obviously a case of misspeaking. (After all, how do you "reconstitute" a nuclear weapon?) And that point, as you noted, was taken directly from the NIE.Posted by: Cecil Turner | June 14, 2005 at 09:16 PM
CECIL: "this is some sort of moral failure on the part of the US is unconvincing at best."
"We know for a fact there are weapons there." - Ari Fleischer, Jan. 9, 2003
"But make no mistake -- as I said earlier -- we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about." -Ari Fleischer Press Briefing 4/10/03
No greater harm can be done than breaking the covenant of trust between the President and the people; between the three branches of our government; and between the country and the world.
CLOSING REMARKS OF THE HONORABLE HENRY J. HYDE
AT IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF WILLIAM J. CLINTON
JANUARY 16, 1999
http://www.sentryoveramerica.com/issue5p5hydeclose011699.html
TIME TO IMPEACH BUSH
Posted by: Steven J. | June 14, 2005 at 09:33 PM
""We know for a fact there are weapons there." - Ari Fleischer, Jan. 9, 2003"
And of course, he was right. Refer to the link to the Duelfer report above:
- "The most significant recovered munitions was a 152mm binary Sarin artillery projectile which insurgents had attempted to use as an improvised explosive device."
- "ISG has also recovered 155mm chemical rounds and 122mm artillery rockets which we judge came from abandoned Regime stocks."
More troubling are the biological agents, previously acknowledged, for which we have no good information.Posted by: Cecil Turner | June 14, 2005 at 09:54 PM
"We know for a fact there are weapons there." - Ari Fleischer, Jan. 9, 2003
And John Kerry made similar statements. And so did Gore, and Clinton (both of them), and Kennedy, and Daschle, and Gephardt and. . . .
What gets me in particular with the Left on this issue is they never seem to want to hold Kerry et al. to the same standard (as silly as it is) that they hold Bush.
If Bush lied, so did those folks. If Bush needs to be impeached, so do those folks.
Put up or shut up.
SMG
Posted by: SteveMG | June 14, 2005 at 10:16 PM
"If Bush needs to be impeached, so do those folks."
Figuratively speaking, of course. Members of Congress cannot be impeached.
But ethics charges can be brought against them.
SMG
Posted by: SteveMG | June 14, 2005 at 10:42 PM
direct quote from juke:"The policy of the previous administration was to achieve regime change ...This policy was a success."
later on, he regrets his words....
juke:"Nice job putting words in my mouth."
Yikes. This is the best the Bush-haters can do?
TM, does this troll pay you for using so much of your bandwidth? Perhaps he should get his own blog?
Posted by: Les Nessman | June 14, 2005 at 10:45 PM
"He wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction"
You're just repeating yourself, and not attempting to address how I responded to this in the other thread: the trouble with your argument is that Bush didn't promote the war by telling us that if sanctions ever ended, Saddam intended to use that opportunity to produce WMD. Bush promoted the war by suggesting, as if it were a proven and incontrovertible fact, that Saddam already had the imminent ability to place a mushroom cloud over Manhattan (and that was a lie).
"The VP's reference to 'reconstituted nuclear weapons' ... "
Nice job trying to assert that "nuclear weapons" means something other than "nuclear weapons." (This reminds me of when O'Neill's defenders explained that the words "in Cambodia," spoken to Nixon, didn't actually mean "in Cambodia.")
"After all, how do you 'reconstitute' a nuclear weapon?"
Good question, but I think you'd have to ask Cheney. Maybe it's something like "dissasembling."
"it was was fairly obviously a case of misspeaking"
If that's true, than please point out where he subsequently (in that program or at any other time) corrected himself, to avoid being misunderstood on this extremely important subject. As far as I can tell, he didn't correct himself until six months later, when Russert confronted him about it. This tends to create the impression that even if he did "only" misspeak, that he was perfectly happy to let people be misled in a direction he found politically useful. Otherwise, why not make a simple statement (in the next day or two) to correct the record?
"And of course, he was right"
So Duelfer found some old chemical shells, which were apparently so useless and obsolete that Saddam had "abandoned" them. And as far as you're concerned, this vindicates all the war-mongering hysteria, like Bush ominously invoking "the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud." Am I understanding you correctly?
"More troubling are the biological agents, previously acknowledged, for which we have no good information."
More rehashing of material that I addressed in the other thread. You're suggesting that stuff is still out there somewhere. If so, how come no one has used it against us there? Is it that the suicide bombers are squeamish about using illegal weapons?
"If Bush needs to be impeached, so do those folks."
I addressed this at 1:16 pm.
Les quotes me as follows: "The policy of the previous administration was to achieve regime change ...This policy was a success."
My original statement was: "The policy of the previous administration was to achieve regime change via peaceful means, if at all possible, and to contain him until that time. This policy was a success."
I think it would be hard to find a more dishonest use of an ellipsis.
Posted by: jukeboxgrad | June 14, 2005 at 11:20 PM
Jukeboxgrad:
Re Cheney's statement to Russert on Meet the Press.
Cheney corrected his mis-statement re reconstituting nuclear weapons versus nuclear weapons program that very day.
If you check the Washington Post the next day (Monday after the Sunday MTP), you'll see a story that quotes Cheney's staff as telling Russert that the V.P. meant "nuclear weapons program". Throughout the interview, Cheney referred to the "program". It was on two occasions that he said inadvertently said "nuclear weapons" and dropped the "program."
This is a non-issue. I can't believe you're repeating this silliness.
SMG
Posted by: SteveMG | June 14, 2005 at 11:57 PM
"Bush promoted the war by suggesting, as if it were a proven and incontrovertible fact, that Saddam already had the imminent ability to place a mushroom cloud over Manhattan (and that was a lie)."
Umm, no. What he said was:
Referring to Blix's assessment of missing anthrax, one kilogram of which, dropped over a major US city, could cause 123,000 deaths (according to a mathematical model). Prisoners at Guantanamo indicated Iraq trained Al Qaeda members, and that Al Qaeda was looking to Iraq for help with chemical/bio weapons. Considering the impossibility of tracking every 2.2 lb package entering the country, the threat was every bit as real as the Administration claimed."Good question, but I think you'd have to ask Cheney. Maybe it's something like 'dissasembling.'"
Puhleeze. Read the exchange. He has several references to Saddam's nuclear program:
Then, in response to: "And even though the International Atomic Energy Agency said he does not have a nuclear program, we disagree?"
In five references, on live national television, he leaves out the word "program" one time, and you're fixated on it. Give it up.
"So Duelfer found some old chemical shells . . ."
Which is pertinent only because some lefty was claiming he didn't. (Though that binary sarin shell wasn't all that old or ineffective.)
"You're suggesting that stuff is still out there somewhere."
I'm suggesting none of us, including you, know. And since we've already been on the receiving end of a bio attack for which we can't find the source, and the potential death toll for a successful attack is so devastating, I don't think it's too much of a stretch to claim it's a "threat."
Posted by: Cecil Turner | June 15, 2005 at 12:45 AM
"Cheney corrected his mis-statement re reconstituting nuclear weapons versus nuclear weapons program that very day."
Really?
"If you check the Washington Post the next day (Monday after the Sunday MTP), you'll see a story that quotes Cheney's staff ... "
Really? I took your advice, and all I could find was a story (Monday, 3/17/03) that quoted Cheney as saying "nuclear weapons."
Oddly enough, the next day (Tuesday 3/18/03) another story does the same thing. (This particular article points out that Cheney contradicted himself by also saying it was "only a matter of time before he acquires nuclear weapons," but the article carries no hint of any follow-up correction by Cheney that would reconcile this contradiction.)
The closest I could come to finding what you said I should find is a column from 5/20/03, entitled "Energy Policy Spurs Affirmative Action Debate." Buried at the bottom of this article is a reference to Cheney's remark, followed by this note: "aides later said Cheney was referring to Saddam Hussein's nuclear programs, not weapons."
Given that he was being misquoted practically on a daily basis, on such an important subject, at such a critical time, why is there no record (as far as I can tell) of Cheney speaking up about this until May? If Cheney informed the press promptly, and they continued to misquote him, why is there no earlier and/or clearer record of him complaining about this? Is it because he's reluctant to intimidate or offend the press? Was Mr. go-f***-yourself too genteel to make sure the press was not repeatedly misquoting him?
As I said, the circumstances create the impression that Cheney was perfectly happy to let people misunderstand him in this particular way, at this particular time.
Cecil seems to deny that Bush made a statement about a mushroom cloud. I already provided that citation.
"Al Qaeda was looking to Iraq for help with chemical/bio weapons"
Your link quotes Rice quoting unnamed detainees. Very solid. Surely none of these folks might have been motivated to tell interrogators what they surmised interrogators wanted to hear. Meanwhile, Powell said "I have not seen smoking-gun, concrete evidence about the connection [between Saddam and Al Qaeda]" (NYT, 1/9/04). I wonder why you and Rice are more impressed by those detainees than Powell was.
"I don't think it's too much of a stretch to claim it's a 'threat.'"
You're still dodging a simple question. You're suggesting Saddam had biological weapons. If so, what's your theory about why none of it has been used against us, especially in Iraq?
Another simple question you're dodging is whether you think a few old shells found by Duelfer represent vindication of all the hyperpole (e.g., "mushroom cloud") the administration used to whip up support for the war.
"he leaves out the word 'program' one time"
As I've explained, what's especially remarkable is not just that he would make a "mistake" like that (although that is in itself remarkable, given that unlike his boss Cheney has a history of constructing sentences carefully), but rather that he would stand by silently (as far as I can tell) while his mistake is quoted repeatedly. Odd behavior, unless he was actually quite delighted to see this particular message disseminated.
Posted by: jukeboxgrad | June 15, 2005 at 01:25 AM
"If so, what's your theory about why none of it has been used against us, especially in Iraq?"
Bio agents are relatively difficult to use against soldiers . . . they're hard to hit, have protective gear, etc. Both bio and chem tend to kill lots more civilians than soldiers (one of the reasons their use is outlawed). But again, bio was used against us, here in the US. And in a very object lesson on how difficult this stuff is to track, we still don't know where it came from.
"Another simple question you're dodging is whether you think a few old shells . . ."
Again, it's only pertinent when people want to claim there were no WMDs in Iraq. There were.
"Cecil seems to deny that Bush made a statement about a mushroom cloud. I already provided that citation."
You said Bush claimed "Saddam already had the imminent ability" . . . which is not quite the same thing as "We cannot wait for . . . " a mushroom cloud. His statement of the threat was unequivocal, and not nuclear:
And again, you fixated on an ancillary point."As I've explained, what's especially remarkable is not just that he would make a "mistake" like that . . ."
Nobody reading the whole interview could possibly come away with that conclusion. And again, what's a "reconstituted nuclear weapon"? Do you add water to an old weapon? Ludicrous. Eugene Volokh effectively dismantles that argument here. And sorry JBG, but this barrage of nonsense isn't interesting. Cheers.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | June 15, 2005 at 01:57 AM
"Bio agents are relatively difficult to use against soldiers"
In case you haven't noticed, the "insurgents" are killing mostly civilians. So if there were bio agents anywhere in Iraq, how is it that two years later they still haven't managed to find their way into the hands of these people who will obviously use any means at their disposal to wreak havoc?
"it's only pertinent when people want to claim there were no WMDs in Iraq. There were."
You're glossing over the extremely pertinent fact that what we were told was there is collosally out of proportion with what was actually found.
This is sort of like if I say "it never snows in Florida" and you say Liar! It did snow once in 1872!
"You said Bush claimed 'Saddam already had the imminent ability' . . . which is not quite the same thing as 'We cannot wait for . . . a mushroom cloud.'"
I think you're being obtuse if you don't grasp that "imminent" is a reasonable inference from "we cannot wait." And incidentally, by using the phrases "we cannot wait" and "mushroom cloud" in close proximity, I think Bush intentionally and successfully created the impression that Saddam had nukes ready to go. Obviously even the highly flawed NIE did not make this extreme claim.
"His statement of the threat was unequivocal, and not nuclear"
Please explain why you think anyone would interpret the phrase "mushroom cloud" as "not nuclear." I think the conventional understanding of the term is pretty obvious.
"Nobody reading the whole interview could possibly come away with that conclusion."
As you and Cheney are well-aware, the number of people who heard his selected quote ("nuclear weapons") is probably thousands of times greater than the number of people who read "the whole interview." Anyway, I notice you can't be bothered to address the simple question: why did Cheney apparently do so little to point out that he was being frequently and materially misquoted?
"what's a 'reconstituted nuclear weapon'?"
Since you're so interested in that particular question, here's an answer: a weapon Saddam created from old parts he obtained from disparate sources. I'm sure you could have thought of that on your own.
"Eugene Volokh effectively dismantles that argument"
Volokh does a good job of pointing out how frequently Cheney's remark was misquoted (or "misquoted," depending on your perspective). All the more reason to wonder why Cheney didn't speak up (or at least didn't speak up very early or very vigorously). It's interesting that Volokh seems unwilling to even consider this very obvious question. Likewise for you.
It's also quite fascinating to note that Volokh himself didn't speak up until 6/30/03 (and I'm not aware of any other similar columns prior to this date). Oddly enough, this is right around the time folks were starting to wonder why we weren't finding what we had been told would be found. This tends to create the impression that Volokh et al were perfectly content for Cheney's misstatement to continue to be disseminated, as long as there still seemed to be a chance that we might find something remotely approximating a nuclear weapon. Then Cheney could say Fooled you! I was right all along!
"this barrage of nonsense isn't interesting."
I'm surprised you don't want to stick around and explain why Powell said (2/24/01) "(Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction." This is especially interesting in light of the UK memo of 3/22/02 which says "even the best survey of Iraq's WMD programmes will not show much advance in recent years."
Posted by: jukeboxgrad | June 15, 2005 at 03:25 AM