Joe Wilson - They ALL Misquoted Me!

Appearing on Paula Zahn, Joe Wilson continued to blame the press corps for his problems with misleading information, as noted in the Senate report:

ZAHN: I want you to respond to that very specific allegation in the addendum to the Senate report, which basically says that your public comments not only are incorrect, but have no basis in fact.

WILSON: Well, I'm not exactly sure what public comments they're referring to. If they're referring to leaks or sources, unidentified government sources in articles that appeared before my article in "The New York Times" appeared, those are either misquotes or misattributions if they're attributed to me.

The Weekly Standard has the roster of misquotes and misattributions from the NY Times, the Washington Post, and the New Republic:

Nick Kristof, NY Times, May 6, 2003:

I'm told by a person involved in the Niger caper that more than a year ago the vice president's office asked for an investigation of the uranium deal, so a former U.S. ambassador to Africa was dispatched to Niger. In February 2002, according to someone present at the meetings, that envoy reported to the C.I.A. and State Department that the information was unequivocally wrong and that the documents had been forged.

The envoy reported, for example, that a Niger minister whose signature was on one of the documents had in fact been out of office for more than a decade.

WRONG!

Walter Pincus, Washington Post, June 12, 2003:

...the CIA in early February 2002 dispatched a retired U.S. ambassador to the country to investigate the claims, according to the senior U.S. officials and the former government official, who is familiar with the event. The sources spoke on condition of anonymity and on condition that the name of the former ambassador not be disclosed.

During his trip, the CIA's envoy spoke with the president of Niger and other Niger officials mentioned as being involved in the Iraqi effort, some of whose signatures purportedly appeared on the documents.

After returning to the United States, the envoy reported to the CIA that the uranium-purchase story was false, the sources said. Among the envoy's conclusions was that the documents may have been forged because the "dates were wrong and the names were wrong," the former U.S. government official said.

He never said it!

Spencer Ackerman and John B. Judis, TNR, "The First Casualty", June 30, 2003:

Cheney had given the information to the CIA, which in turn asked a prominent diplomat, who had served as ambassador to three African countries, to investigate. He returned after a visit to Niger in February 2002 and reported to the State Department and the CIA that the documents were forgeries. The CIA circulated the ambassador's report to the vice president's office, the ambassador confirms to TNR.

Misattributed!

Gentlemen, your readership is deeply concerned about this allegation that you (yes, ALL of you!) engage in substandard journalism. Must we reminisce about Jayson Blair and Stephen Glass, or can we rely on you to address this?

NY Times Public Editor Daniel Okrent: public (at) nytimes.com

Washington Post ombudsman Michael Getler: [email protected]

Walter Pincus: [email protected]

The New Republic (Online): [email protected]

MORE: Recent ridicule here, and excerpts from Wilson's slightly less convincing explanation to the Senate investigators here. I am especially concerned that the New Republic just can't shake their old problem.

UPDATE: Nobody makes noise like the Howler, who rips Paula Zahn, and hammers Joe Wilson.

A quick note - I think Bob Somerby underestimates the political significance of the involvement of Wilson's wife, for which we will pass the torch to Jonah Goldberg.

Comments

[ParseThis]

Clearly he's referring to the Senate report findings. The reporters didn't misquote him. He misquoted him. Joe's ego took over and SuperJoe was leaping to tall conclusions. He had some new information and formed some associations between that and his firsthand knowledge. Memories are funny that way.

[Cecil Turner]

I'd note his memory improved (slightly) when he had to sign his own name to the story.

[Timmy the Wonder Dog]

As it is already been established that Joe lied, the issue now is what was "SuperJoe" trying to accomplish with those lies.

[Mitch H.]

I have to wonder if this wasn't Wilson fronting for various active CIA operatives who couldn't be quoted in public. Alternatively, were the reporters in question reporting quotes from said various active CIA operatives as if they came from Wilson because *they* wanted to get around the fact that said operatives couldn't be named, and they didn't want to use anonymous sourcing.

Either way, it stinks.

[Dacotti]

Nah, the lying liar is just lying to cover up his lies.

[R C Dean]

WTF is his answer supposed to mean? Its one long non sequitur that adds up to nothing at all.

[Don Williams]

What I find bemusing is that President Bush violated UN Charter Article 51 and attacked a country which posed no imminent threat to the USA, contrary to the most basic rule of international law. 10,000+ Iragi civilians are dead as a result. 800+ US soldiers are dead and 20,000+ returned to the US with wounds of varying severity, including loss of arms and legs.

The claims of the President and his administration --that Hussein possessed significant amounts of WMDs and that Hussein had major ties to Al Qaeda --have been shown to be false. Has not Wilson's warning to us been shown to be true ? I.e., was Bush not being dishonest with the American people when he claimed Hussein was trying to acquire African uranium after investigation by the CIA had shown that there was little evidence of the attempt and little to no likelihood of such an attempt ever succeeding?

Yet the right wing hopes that if it can cast doubt on nitpicking details in Wilson's testimony -- and if it can rant and yell loudly enough -- the USA voters will not notice that President Bush is a war criminal and a far bigger liar than Wilson. Or that the citizens will notice that Bush's Feb 2003 Budget projects a 2008 federal debt that is $3.8 Trillion higher than what he forecast only 3 years ago.

In my opinion, this ongoing tirade by Instapundit,etc shows how Republicans are bald-faced liars -- intent on deceiving the country, on diverting its attention with hysterical rants about trival details, and on misleading people by concealing major facts -- while averting their eyes from the fact that President Bush is a war criminal.

All this so that they can get more tax cuts while dumping the huge costs of Bush's empire -- costs borne in unemployment, in blood, and in loss of life savings -- off onto the common people of this country. It seems to me that some right wing pundits are far bigger enemies to American citizens than is Al Qaeda.

[Gary E. Hill]

There is a dirty little game being played by CIA operatives that has as its final chapter that Bush is defeated in November; maybe this is payback to 41 since he was CIA for a brief stint; more likely we have embedded bureaucrats protecting their turf. This misinformation game is old hat to Arabia but this Wilson matter seems to be the tip of a very big iceberg; think about aluminum tubes, the trouble Blair stepped into, Clarke, all the anonymous quotes, and the fact the WMD are missing; key might be to factor in that 2 billion is missing and we are not even talking Kofigate. Good news is that Cheney and 43 are up to this fight and this might explain in part the sustained attack on Cheney.

[J_Crater]

I'd say that the next move is up to the NYT, WaPo, and TNR to respond to Joe Wilson claims. Was or wasn't Joe Wilson the "person involved," "former government official," or the "prominent diplomat" ?
If Nick Kristof, Walter Pincus, Spencer Ackerman and John B. Judis enjoy being spun like a top by Joe Wilson, then mum is the word. On the other hand, if they seek the truth and, Joe Wilson is the source, they owe it to their readers to come clean.

[James Stephenson]

Actually Don,

Wilson himself has said that Iraq was probably trying to buy uranium. Do you think he was doing that to build a powerplant. I know those Iraqi Winters can be tough, but I do not think Iraq has need for a Nuclear powerplant.

Or what of those Bio-Chemists with valid Bio pre-cursors in their homes. Were these there just for the hell of it?

What of Putin saying that his Intelligence Agencies had information stating Saddam was looking to strike the American Continent with Terrorist strikes? I guess that could be construed as no threat.

What of Saddam trying to kill an Ex-President? I guess that could be construed as no threat.

Were we going to keep sanctions on him and his family forever? Were we?

Now we have Libya giving up their stockpiles and shining a very bright light on an illegal trade of Nuclear secrets. We have Iran with troops on her east and west. We have troops out of SA. And that was a root cause for 14 of the 19 hijackers. I know the left loves root causes.

So tell me brainiac, how do you change a region that has been living in the 12th century over night?

[JorgjXMcKie]

Seems like a lot of selective memory is going around. Iraq was attacked pursuant to more than a dozen UN Resolutions and violations of a Truce in a UN-backed war that never ended. No Article 51 problems here, unless you want to argue "what the meaning of is, is."

Bush never claimed imminent threat. Learn to read or learn to listen, or, preferably, both.

List one prominent politician who, prior to March 2003 publicly claimed not to believe that Iraw didn't have WMD. (Hint: there is *one* that I've managed to find, and he had no listeners at all. It wasn't Hans Blix.)

Finally, how about the tens of thousands of Iraqi and others who are *not* dead because Hussein was removed? At least be honest and admit you'd prefer the murdering despot to the current situation and that you don't giev a fat rat's *ss about Iraqis.

Idiotarianism at its best.

[JorgjXMcKie]

And, oh, yeah. Hussein *was* trying to get uranium from Africa. (It also helps to alter that stereotype of internationally ignorant Americans if you look at a map and realize that Niger [never mentioned by Bush] is only a small part of a large continent, Africa.) Bush didn't lie. You and his csritics seem to have no problem with not only lying but becoming obdurate in the face of evidence.

[Don Williams]

What is the bottom line to all this tumult?
a) Wilson disputed Novak's assertion that he was sent to Africa at the recommendation of his wife?
So what? Why is this nitpicking detail important? Wilson almost certainly was not cleared to see CIA internal memos -- including those from his wife to her bosses. Plus if his wife wasn't in the managerial chain of command, then wasn't the decision to send Wilson made by others, not by her? But again, notice the tactic -- an enormous tumult and uproar being made over a trival detail while ignoring the major facts.
b) Regarding the Butler report, the bottom line seems to be that MI6 now says they had another report --which in hindsight appears to be bollocks --and they can't give us farther information because --very conveniently --this is all so secret.

Several things to note: 1) MI6 has never hesitated to lie on behalf of Queen and country -they're proud of it 2) Whenever Bush says "shit", junior partner Tony Blair squats and makes grunting noises 3) MI6 has never hesitated to lead the USA down the garden path if they saw value in it --- In "A Man Called Intrepid", William Stephenson gloated how British operatives
mounted operations against anti-war US leaders like John L Lewis of the United Mine Workers. Stephenson also gloated over how the UK --afraid that the US would focus on the Japanese after Pearl Harbor -- conned Adolf Hitler into believing that the USA was about to attack Germany in order to provoke Hitler into declaring war on the US. 4) When CIA is asked to confirm British assertions about IRaq and African uranium, there is only an embarrassed silence 5) Magistrate Butler continues to earn his lifetime sinecure by defending the British government. Even he notes that much of what Blair told the British people prior to war was bullshit -- but then exonerates Blair on the grounds that Blair is not a liar, but merely a fool.

[Mahatma]

No Don, you are the fool. Nothing you have asserted has not been rebuked. You lost every rgument you just made yet you still want to believe falsehoods. You are a fool.

Given the outrageous conduct of Kofi Anan and the United Nations, they are more culpable for the Iraq war than any other party. The sanctions regime might have worked if Kofi and the UN were not utterly corrupt to the core.

I realize that this kind of factual evidence means nothing to you Don, you are but a fool. You will believe lies rather than learn truth. Believe away you fool!

[Paul Zrimsek]

Regarding the Butler report, the bottom line seems to be that MI6 now says they had another report --which in hindsight appears to be bollocks --and they can't give us farther information because --very conveniently --this is all so secret.

Well, yes, Don, intelligence does have this annoying tendency to be secret. The Butler commission has been sadly remiss in providing armchair analysts with the classified information they need to second-guess its findings without sounding like blowhards. Perhaps Sandy Berger's got something that would help.

[thibaud]

Don,

Care to tell us your preferred solution to the nightmare state that Saddam and his charming sons presided over?

We had nothing but bad options regarding Iraq.
Doing business with Saddam, as Chirac and TotalFinaElf did (in violation of the sanctions) in Nov 2002, was truly "blood for oil." Overthrowing Saddam--the official policy of the US during the Clinton administration-- could nto be achieved by a coup, leaving invasion as the only way to realize this aim.

Finally, the sanctions were a grotesque failure, both morally, allowing Saddam to starve or deny medicine to and thereby kill thousands of Iraqis every MONTH, and strategically. As the revelations of Oil-for-Fraud indicate, Saddam with the help of his pimps in Paris and Moscow and Geneva was violating the sanctions easily. At some point, either he or his even more psychopathic sons would have found WMD through their Dubai/Russian/French connections.

Bush's war made good on Clinton's commitment. He ended the sanctions charade and liberated a nation from the slaughterhouse that was Saddam's Iraq.

[Don Williams]

To answer James Stephenson:
a) Re "Wilson himself has said that Iraq was probably trying to buy uranium."
Noooo. What Wilson said was that an Iraqi envoy's offer to expand trade ties with Niger could be interpreted as a veiled feeler -- the start of an attempt to buy uranium. Wilson also noted that the attempt (if it was that) went nowhere and was not likely to go anywhere in the future.

b) Re the commennt "Or what of those Bio-Chemists with valid Bio pre-cursors in their homes. Were these there just for the hell of it?"

What actually was found was a culture of a weak strain of botulinism -- the common food poisoning germ. The particular strain found has uses in making vaccines for animals.

Which really means nothing. There are millions of American homes whose refrigerators have cultures of a more deadly strain. Yet we do not accuse college fraternities of "harboring pre-cursors for bio-warfare." Because we know making such claims would be over-hyped bullshit.

I exchanged letters with Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit over this matter after he made a big deal of the culture in the IRaqi scientists home fridge. I included citations with references to support the above info. Reynolds acknowledged my points but made no real attempt to enlightened the Instapundit readers he had confused with his posts. This is one reason why I think right wing bloggers are more interested in dishonestly manipulating their readers opinions --on on playing on their fears -- with partial information and selective withholding of information ==rather than providing an honest discussion of public affairs by presenting " the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." Nazi Goebbals would grin at some of their progaganda tactics.

[Ron Nord]

First Mr. Wilson and now of all people, Samuel [Sandy] Berger. Both of these men are aspirants to high positions in the Kerry administration. One a liar and the other a "pants" stuffer. What next can occur in the Kerry madhouse. Mr. Wilson making money with book deal's and movie options; was Mr. Berger securing background for his book by stuffing secrets in his jockey shorts. We have a country to run in time of war, we really don't need the dissension that the Democrats are causing by lies and "borrowing" of secret documents.

[Don Williams]

Hussein killed a lot of Kurds, Shites, and Iranians in the 1980s -- probably more than the number of Indians we killed subduing the West but less than the number of Japanese women and children we burned alive in WWII with Curtis LeMays firebombing attacks on Japanese cities and the two atomic bombs dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

What I don't understand is why Don Rumsfeld was shaking Hussein's hand in the 1980s when the bulk of the people were being killed. Or why George H BUsh's ambassador, April Gillespie, told Hussein that the US would not object if he invaded Kuwait.

It's also strange that Bush launched his attack after Hussein had been largely quiet for the past 5 years. After all, Bush's invasion has killed over 10,000+ Iraqi civilians the last time I checked (Rumsfeld refuses to give the numbers ) -- more than Hussein has killed in the past few years.

Plus maybe some of the Bushian apologists here could explain why Hussein did not refine any of the tons of yellowcake he already possessed in Baghad?

For extra credit, maybe they could explain why Bush repeatedly used that vague misleading term "Weapons of Mass Destruction" --instead of talking about specific chemical, biological or nuclear capabilities possessed by Hussein.

It seems to me that repeated rants about "WMD" is a lawyer's trick -- one that let Bush scare the hell out of the American voters before the war yet give Bush a way out when his mythical threat failed to appear. It let him go from talking about nuclear "mushroom clouds" to pointing to a weak sample of the common food poisoning germ and saying == see ,that's what I was really talking about --you and the media misunderstood me.

[Don Williams]

Re JorquiMcKey's comment: "List one prominent politician who, prior to March 2003 publicly claimed not to believe that Iraw didn't have WMD."

What I recall is several members of the Congressional Intelligence Committees --Bob Graham, Nancy Pelosi, and Diane Feinstein -- saying prior to the COngressional vote on Iraq that they had seen no evidence that Hussein was an imminent threat. WHen Tim Russert asked Richard Perle about this on Meet the Press, Perle asserted that those members of the Intelligence Committees didn't have all the information.

Maybe that fat pig Perle --who has been strangely absent in the past few months -- could come back on Meet the Press and explain what the missing information justifying war was. Especially since that information appears to have escaped the notice of the 150,000 US soldiers searching Iraq and the 9/11 Commission staff reviewing tens of thousands of pages of classified documents.

[TM]

Don, you are getting close to a Godwin's Law situation with the Goebbels comment.

Secondly, this, from an earlier Don comment:

Wilson disputed Novak's assertion that he was sent to Africa at the recommendation of his wife?
So what? Why is this nitpicking detail important?

Please. The Dem spin from day one that it could only have been a thuggish act of revenge, or an attempt to intimidate other possible whistleblowers.

If his wife really *was(* involved, it makes him look less like an impartial, respected former Ambassador, and more like someone who is in be with the CIA.

And since the CIA was less worried about Saddam and nukes than the DIA, the CIA connection mattered.

That is NOT a reason to deliberately out a known covert agent. But it may be a non-thuggish explanation for why they thought she was part of the story.

Now, for a fellow so well informed on so many other points, Don, I am surprised you didn't know that. It's not a new argument.

[thibaud]

Don,

We sided with Stalin vs Hitler and then we confronted Stalin and his successors throughout the Cold War--remember? Is it really so hard to see why we (and every other major nation) sided with Saddam against the mullahs during the 1980s?

Please try arguing in good faith. I put forward a basic question to you-- *the* question of questions-- and you haven't yet attempted to answer it. Again, there were three and only three options vis-a-vis Saddam Uday & Qusay: either lift the sanctions and do business with them (the oilmen's preferred approach); continue the sanctions and the hot-and-cold limited war that enforcing the no-fly zone entailed; or overthrow him.

Which option did you prefer, and why did you find it preferable to the other two?

IMO, each option was unattractive, even horrific, but it seems to me that the first and second would inevitably end up with a WMD-armed Uday-Qusay nightmare regime. Given their psychopathic nature and the facts that 1) Nidal and Zarqawi were sheltered by Uday-Qusay's father in Iraq 2) as Richard Clarke says, very forcefully, in his book, Saddam's agents were very active in places like E Africa and were developing ties to Al Qaeda, it seems to me that the least bad option was to overthrow Saddam.

And that could only have been done by US troops. There's no way that TotalFinElf and LUKoil's pimps in the Kremlin and the ELysee Palace would ever participate in overthrowing their most lucrative client on the planet.

That's my good-faith assessment. Yours?

[Michael McBride]

Don,

On October 9 of 1998, while a member of the Committee on Armed Services, Dianne Feinstein and other members sent a letter to President Clinton saying that they doubt that Saddam would take heed of Resolution 1194, which condemned Saddam's interference with the UNSCOM and IAEA inspections. They went on further, though, and told Clinton: "We urge you... to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction program."

Fourteen Democrats signed this letter, including Carl Levin (currently a memeber of the intelligence oversight committee), John Kerry, Bob Kerrey, and Tom Daschle.

Dianne Feinstein knew about Saddam's determination in developing a viable WMD program, and she had seen WMDs used against the Kurds in prior years. She identified Saddam as a threat in 1998, and since there was no action taken by the Baathists nor any intelligence to indicate that this had changed, you must ask yourself why she suddenly is claiming that Saddam posed no threat?

It's amazing considering that not one politician is claiming that they saw proof indicating that Saddam was NOT a threat. The democrats are simply trying to undermine the intelligence reports indicating that he is a threat in the hopes of confusing people like you, Don, into believing that Saddam was not a danger to America. But the fact is that Saddam has been a gathering threat since the end of the first Gulf War and continued to be a threat until Bush had the courage to stand up to him.

Don't believe me? Well, try reading some quotes from Carl Levin, John Kerry, and others from the late 1990s and the early 2000s in regards to Iraq and WMDs - they all considered Saddam a WMD pursuing maniac.

[Max]

Hey Don,

More distressing, the Left, tens of thousands of times, has used the media to claim that "Bush lied" in the State of the Union speech where he said Iraq attempted to acquire uranium from Africa. The "proof" backing these claims is Joe Wilson and his now discredited report, along with Moore-esque suspicions of a conspiracy.

Anti-Bush activists have expanded from that to say the Bush Administration, in an illegal fit of pique, outed Wilson's wife to put pressure on him.

I note the absence of any drive toward impeachment, despite these allegations: if Bush was a private citizen, he could file some lovely libel and slander lawsuits. For that reason alone, the Left should fight to keep him for four more years. :-)

There's nothing to be gained by defending the misrepresentations and outright falsehoods of the Left here. They're intellectually and morally vacant on the question of Iraq, and your insistence on trotting out refuted arguments supported by disgraced political operatives does you no service.

[Darwin Finch]

You're ALL MISSING THE POINT.

Here is The POINT:

Saddam's was the ONLY government on the planet to OPENLY CELEBRATE 9/11, calling it "just the beginning of a GREATER REVENGE."

He had UNACCOUNTED FOR WMDs based on UN REPORTS.

He HAD TO GO. Wanna ARGUE in his favor? Huh, boys?

[HH]

Somerby, though in strong denial about the implications of the Plame revelations, dissects the Zahn interview and Wilson's claims.

Also check out Opinionjournal.com for the WSJ editorial today.

[sym]

"In my opinion, this ongoing tirade by Instapundit,etc shows how Republicans are bald-faced liars "

In my opinion, this shows how the right-wing hawks haven't had any good news about their war or President in a long long time. If they were able to gloat about the actual war on Iraq (or Bush's poll numbers), they'd have stopped caring about Wilson weeks ago. No wonder they hang on to the chinks in the credibility of a single Bush opponent and never let it go.

[HH]

WSJ

[sym]

Thibaud, we could have invaded Iraq after making a great case, finding some real evidence, and building international support. During the years it took to do all that fun stuff, troops could have been attacking current threats to America rather than worrying about dubious future threats. They could have consolidated our gains in Afghanistan while scouring the Pakistani border looking for Al-Qaeda.

While the sanction regime was horrendous for ordinary Iraquis (and I hate to be the one that says this, but they're not really our problem), it was effective in keeping Saddam WMD-free. The War on Iraq was a war of choice, and wars of choice should be fought under optimum conditions. We didn't do so, and we're reaping the rewards.

[HH]

"No wonder they hang on to the chinks in the credibility of a single Bush opponent"

Make that THE Bush opponent who has been fully embraced by the OTHER Bush opponent, Kerry (unlike Richard Clarke and Michael Moore, for example... so for that reason, it makes his credibility more important), who led the charge to an investigation of the Bush administration based on claims of a "political hit," (not to mention "frog marching") claims which now look to be bogus.

[Mike N.]

The whole idea that "Bush lied!" is one that doesn't pass the common sense test.
To believe so one would have to believe that all those around him, including those of a different mind,were also lied to but because of Bush's mastery of the art of comunication and persuasion, they all bought into his lies. A complete absurdity!

Or, Bush sat down at one of his cabinet meetings and said "Let's lie to the American people." And they all agreed! Another absurdity!

There is I think,an uglier reason for all the Bush lied rants: A man who has been a thief all his life, will suspect everyone else of wanting to steal from him. As soon as he feels threatened
he'll scream THEIF! And so it goes with liars.

[Buster]

Don't be too hard on Joe. He had all the right quotes written out, but Sandy Berger shoved them into his socks and split.

[HotJavaJack]

Don,

You truly are bewildered and confused. The COALITION (amazingly similar in composition to the D-Day invasion forces) did indeed kill thousands of Iraqi fighters. Your claim that "10,000+ Iragi [sic] civilians are dead as a result" is unsupported by FACT (we've all seen the hysterical claims).

Your post also mentions "a country which posed no imminent threat." Do we really need to have the "imminent threat" refresher course? The Administration went to war as a pre-emptive measure and NEVER characterized the situation as an imminent threat. Congress (even Kerry--before he voted against it...) authorized this action based on Saddam's track record and LONG-HELD and globally-accepted understanding of his capabilities (touted in speeches by the previous Administration) AND the UN's inability to enforce its own resolutions.

As for your characterization that the right is trying to cast doubt on "nitpicking details in Wilson's testimony," you just don't get it--the man LIED. It isn't spin or nitpicking details when the entire basis for HIS claims are based on outright, bald-faced LIES.

The FACTS speak for themselves if you put aside the hysterical hyperventilation long enough to truly understand them.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

"a) Re 'Wilson himself has said that Iraq was probably trying to buy uranium.'
Noooo. What Wilson said was that an Iraqi envoy's offer to expand trade ties with Niger could be interpreted as a veiled feeler -- the start of an attempt to buy uranium."

Hmm. Where is it in the rule book that the start of an attempt isn't part of an attempt?

Also, I suggest Don avoid reading what's at this url:

http://www.johnkerry.com/honesty/la_times.html

Especially this part:

"There is now no incentive for Hussein to comply with the inspectors or to refrain from using weapons of mass destruction to defend himself if the United States comes after him.

"And he will use them; we should be under no illusion about that."

(For the bad guessers in the audience, that's what Joe Wilson believed in Feb. 2003)

[Cecil Turner]

I notice a couple of softballs nobody bothered with.

"Plus maybe some of the Bushian apologists here could explain why Hussein did not refine any of the tons of yellowcake he already possessed in Baghad? "

Because it was being monitored by the IAEA. It's a bit hard to have a secret nuke program with international inspectors crawling all over your raw materials.

"For extra credit, maybe they could explain why Bush repeatedly used that vague misleading term "Weapons of Mass Destruction" --instead of talking about specific chemical, biological or nuclear capabilities . . . "

Because the "vague misleading term" is what Iraq and the international community agreed to in the Gulf War cease-fire agreement (where Saddam promised complete disclosure of WMD and missile "programmes" and to dismantle them). It was reiterated in UNSC resolution 1441:

"Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction . . ."

[IceCold]

TM, I take it you were being acidly sarcastic in your reference to Don being well-informed. But just before anyone stops shaking their heads, recall that the nonsense he links together with bad reasoning is repeated in the mainstream media daily. How many times did the NYT have to correct themselves on the "imminent threat" idiocy -- and how could this have ever occurred, even once? The papers are STILL misrepresenting the whole Wilson thing, if they discuss it at all. So Don's silly bait-and-switch with non-facts and fallacious reasoning isn't limited to uninformed, unthinking web surfers.

And Cecil, you're right but you vastly understate the case re uranium processing. Precisely what you imply is unlikely -- illicit nuclear-weapons related uranium work -- was going on literally under the noses of the IAEA (man on the job: Hans Blix) at Tuwaitha prior to Gulf War I. Some individual inspectors sensed something amiss and made a scene about it, but HQ in Vienna would have none of it. It doesn't appear that anything was happening with the uranium this time -- but we have to await the ISG's final report for even a glimpse of a good guess as to what actually was happening re nukes (so many records destroyed, and people silenced by bullets or intimidation, that the ISG will hardly close the book on many pertinent questions, in all likelihood).

Meanwhile, of course, the whole world's intel community significantly misunderestimated Iraq's nuke program, but all were saved by the last war. Another war against Iraq fought almost entirely by US forces, opposed by most Democratic senators, second- and triple-guessed to death before and after, and predicted to usher in a variety of millennial catastrophes. Hmmm, sounds familiar.

[Cecil Turner]

IceCold,

re: illicit nuclear-weapons related uranium work

That's so, but before the Gulf War we had no real legal basis to insist Iraq not develop nukes (NNPT having been violated so many times it's unenforceable). Afterward, we had something of an international mandate and the occasional army on the border to credibly threaten enforcement action. IMO, they couldn't have gotten away with it post-687.

[Madi]

I submit the following links for useful information. The first two refute the claims of the Farenheit 911 movie, point by point. Since Don's comments match those made in the movie, I think it appropriate as a refutation. I would like to point out that the site this comes from, worldthreats.com, is run by professional geopolitical analysts whose job it is to study politics. The first link is written by a moderate, the second is written (I believe) by a conservative.

Farenheit 9/11 (Don't forget to read page two)

Animal House

This third link shows the futility of arguing with people like Don, because as far as they're concerned, the President can do no right.

Double Bind

Sometimes, you gotta lead a horse by the nose. Other times, you gotta realize the horse is dead.

[TM]

Other times, you have to be clear what part of the horse you are dealing with.

[Now, that is not right].

[BradDad]

It is sad to see Democrats so willingly embrace any explanation and accusation premised upon the President, Vice-President, SecDef, National Security Advisor, etc. being, essentially, traitors.

After 9/11, that American policy would be to resolve any doubts in favor of American security is hardly scandalous - yet the Left apparently believes it is.

I can accept that Clinton, et al. did nothing of substance about terrorism because they believed the cost of acting more forcefully exceeded the benefit to be attained. 9/11 obviously showed the error of this thinking, but I can at least grant that their errors were made in good faith.

Even though so many of the accusations made today are so obviously in bad faith.

Don, you're a wonderful practicioner of the latter - your bad faith in all of this is overwhelming.

You know what you're saying isn't true.

What's more, you know that we know that you know what you're saying isn't true - yet you say it anyway.

Is political victory really that important to you?

[Don Williams]

1) Several posters have dismissed my statement re 10,000+ Iraqi civilian deaths. I think this shows the unthinking ignorance of Bush supporters -- they make no attempt to research a fact but rather try to shout it down because it criticizes "their team". Which shows how much interest they have in the truth.

2) THis source lists Iraqi DEATHS at between
11,000 and 14,000 : http://www.iraqbodycount.net/bodycount.htm

3) The Associated Press did a partial snapshot during one month of war in spring of 2003 and found at least 3240 IRaqi civilians had been killed by US military action.

4) Rumsfeld and Bush refuse to answer the question.

5) Plus we have 900 US soldiers killed so far.

6) What I hate about Republican chickenhawks --who, like their President , never get within 500 miles of an active battlefield -- is that their stupid aggression and whoring for special interests bring disaster, death, and poverty to the average American citizens. I hate them for trying to conceal their whoring for special interests by trying to wrap their agendas in the US flag.

7) Bush did not invade IRaq -- and arouse the hatred of 1 billion Muslims against the US -- because Iraq was a threat to the US. The idea is idiotic --on a scale of military power, the US ranks somewhere around 3000 and Irag somewhere around 89.

Rather Bush attacked Iraq because Hussein was seen as a threat to Israel by Sharon -- and Bush is well aware that 2 Israeli billionaires rank among the 5 largest political donors in US politics. Bush knows that the Democratic Party is largely funded by multimillionaire supporters of Israel. People like Haim Saban --who gave $12 million to the Democrats in 2002, including $7 million for the new DNC headquarters. The leaders at Saban's Middle East Policy program at the Brookings Institute clamored for Hussein to be taken out months before the war.

Bush has been falling over himself to suck up to such donors because their support not only strengthens the Republicans but also weakens the Democrats. Bush is courting
People like S Daniel Abraham -- the Slimfast magnate -- who destroyed Howard Dean's campaign with a barrage of negative TV ads in IOWA after Dean told Joe Lieberman that the US needed to be more evenhanded on the Israeli-Palestian issue.

That is why Bush is inflicting such harm on the US --dragging us into an unnecessary and unjustified war with Islam by whoring for the Israelis.

After Sept 11, Bush was asked why the attacked occurred. He lied and said "we" had done nothing to provoke the attack. In reality, Bin Ladin told the US in several TV interviews in 1998 that US one-sided support for Israeli aggression against muslims was one of three reasons for jihad. In a Nov 2001 interview with Pakistani Dawn newspaper, Bin Ladin reiterated that the Sept 11 attack was driven by US support for Israeli aggression. US business magazines show that Sharon bombed Palestinians with US-made F16 fighters in spring of 2001, that Bush halted State Department protests over Sharon's use of F16s, and that Bush responded to Arab compliants about Sharon's behavior by selling Sharon 53 more F16s in June 2001, several months before the Sept 11 attack. When a leader of Hamas suggested a truce, Sharon responded by using the F16s to bomb (in nighttime) an apartment in Gaza --One of the most heavily populated places on earth. 9 children died in that attack and well over 100 adults were badly injured.

Beside those whose loyalty lies with Israel, not with the US, and the defense contractors , let us mention the third special interest: Big Oil.

I'm sure Houston will make highly profitable contracts with Iraqi PM and long time CIA puppet Allawi --just as soon as the CIA and Karl Rove rig the Iraqi elections. Just as Cheney is using the "War on terror" to construct a chain of US military bases in Central Asia to protect the Billion dollars that Houston is investing to exploit the huge Caspian Sea oil deposits.
(Cheney spent much of his time in the 1990s lobbying for US government support of oil companies in that area --necessary lest Russia, China, and Iran resist Houston's looting of the area.)

The fact that Fox News, OReilly, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, etc never mention these special interests --and the disaster they are bringing onto American-- shows , in my opinion, that they are a pack of lying prostitutes,more interested in promoting the interests of wealthy patrons with deceitful propaganda than in advocating the national interest.

[TM]

I think this shows the unthinking ignorance of Bush supporters -- they make no attempt to research a fact but rather try to shout it down because it criticizes "their team". Which shows how much interest they have in the truth.

It may just show how much, or little, interest thay have in your diatribes.

Have they run into a bandwidth problem at the Daily Kos, or something?

[Nate]

Several posters have dismissed my statement re 10,000+ Iraqi civilian deaths.

It is a sad fact of life that the citizenry (be it German, Russian, Afghan, or Iraqi) always ends up getting the bill for their madmen leaders' meglomania. 'Twas ever thus, and 'twill ever be. You make a curious omission in judgement, though, when you choose not to mention that never in the recorded history of warfare has an army taken the pains (at the expense of their own lives) that the Coalition forces took to avoid civilian casualties. Any other army in history would've killed a million Iraqis on its way to Saddam's palace, and would've killed hundreds of thousands more had Fallujah-style "insurgencies" been dared in the aftermath of such slaughter(which they almost certainly would NOT have).

While the Iraqbodycount site has been both trashed and defended many times (their methodology is cloudy at best), I'll grant that many innocent Iraqi citizens have been killed.

Now, will YOU have the courage to grant that in the long run, many MORE Iraqis lives will have been SAVED (not to mention the Iraqis LIBERATED from Saddam and Sons oppression) by the actions of the coalition? WHO said that the Killer Sanctions (and the related Oil-for-Fraud Program) were killing 6000 Iraqi kids per month!

The left is willing to double- and treble-count civilian casualties, but they utterly dismiss lives saved and freed. They can't bear to admit that George Bush has saved lives -- it's as though such a thought would throw their belief system into a China Syndrome of bewilderment that their heads would melt down to their Birkenstocks. I didn't learn much in algebra, but I learned that if you only examine one side of the equation, you never get the correct solution.

It seems as though the Bush-haters prefer to believe (or pretend to believe until Election Day) that pre-war Iraq was a happy fairyland of prosperity and peace before the evil US-led Coalition got there. Basing your war analysis on one key delusion is no way to run a political philosophy.

If I tended towards arrogance, I might say, to paraphrase:

I think this shows the unthinking ignorance of the Anti-Bush Mob -- they make no attempt to research a fact but rather try to only examine the negative because it weakly vindicates "their team". Which shows how much interest they have in the truth.

Bush did not invade IRaq -- and arouse the hatred of 1 billion Muslims against the US

I'll allow the bogus "statistic" for now... OK, you'll have to explain why a "billion" Muslims would hate us for liberating the majority Shi'ite Muslims from a Secularist who was the biggest Muslim-killer on the planet. It's like Jews hating the Allies for overthrowing Hitler.

[madi]

Don I will respond point by point for you.

1) 10,000+ Iraqi deaths is a large number and every single loss of life is a travesty. It is an unfortunate fact that in war, there are always casualties. It is an unfortunate fact that in war, there will always be casualties. This is why there were several UNSC Resolutions that attempted to converse (in the language of peace) with Saddam Hussein. He chose not to listen. He chose the path of war. After Sept. 11, 2001, the US chose overwhelmingly that we were no longer willing to allow for retaliatory action but rather we would follow pre-emptive action. Saddam had WMDs (according to all 5 permanent members of the UNSC) which he was ordered to destroy. He could not, no WOULD not reveal what he had done with them. Therefore, action was needed. Peaceful action didn't work, so we were left with no choice but war. If you read the link I posted earlier, there are several reasons behind why Iraq had to sabilized under a non-totalitarian rule. One of them was the large number of Iraqis that Saddam and his regime were killing on a daily basis. 10,000+ lives over one year is still less than what was happening while Saddam was in power.

2)From the website you linked to:
"This includes civilian deaths resulting from the breakdown in law and order, and deaths due to inadequate health care or sanitation."
I'm wondering (because it doesn't mention on that site) how many of those deaths were related to inadequate health care or sanitation, both of which were caused by Saddam Hussein. The Coalition has put in place clean water, hospitals and adequate food facilities to remedy the inadequacies of Saddam's reign. Yes, we are responsible for the breakdown in law and order. I will not refute that. But I'm betting that 10,000+ number will be a lot lower when the health care and sanitation deaths are removed.

3) The Associated Press couldn't have done more than a month because the war didn't last long enough. Did the Associated Press mention how many of those were being used as human shields by Saddam's forces? Did the Associated Press mention how many German civilians died in a given month of war in WWII? As I said earlier, it is an unfortunate fact that civilian casualties happen in war. The number would have been much higher had our military not taken extreme measures to prevent it from being so.

4) Which question?

5) 900 US dead in a battlefield where we removed from power the 5th largest army in the world, then had to deal with insurgents and terrorist attacks is a number to be proud of. Again, it could have been much higher.

6) I was active duty military for 5 years. I was not in a war zone, but I nevertheless have been shot at in the line of duty. You? Name for me the Democrat who hasn't whored out for special interests. For every one you name, I'll give you the name of a Republican.

7) Evidently you haven't been watching CNN. Iraq had the 5th largest standing army in the world when we invaded. In fact, we were outnumbered when we went in. Iraq was not a military threat to us. If they were, we would have sent in many more soldiers. Iraq was a threat to the security of the US because of Saddam's numerous speeches where he promised death to the US and Americans. Iraq was a threat because that same man had WMDs that he wouldn't account for. Iraq was a threat because that same man had contact with terrorist organizations, specifically Hezbollah and Al Queda, as the Sept 11 commission has proven. So, to capsulate, Saddam promised to kill Americans, had weapons he could do it with, and contacts with people who would be willing to deliver them. Gee, sounds like a threat to me. Or did you enjoy the sights on Sept 11, 2001?

If Houston is getting such control over Iraq's oil, why haven't my oil prices gone down? Again, read the links I posted earlier; in there it says clearly that anyone who claims that the war was over oil is not aware of the situation.

Or did you "make no attempt to research a fact but rather try to shout it down because it criticizes" your point?

[thibaud]

Sym,

"Thibaud, we could have invaded Iraq after making a great case, finding some real evidence, and building international support."

Agree that the case was badly made and relied on the weakest and haziest of the several pillars of evidence available, ie WMD. Should have focused less on WMD and more on Saddam's violation of UN sanctions (see the Democratic foreign policy adviser Stephen Sestanovich's interesting comparison of Saddam and the Ukrainian PM re compliance with WMD destruction mandated by the UN). Also Saddam's terror ties + his threat to his people and to the region.

As to international support, I don't fully agree, at least regarding France and Russia. Saddam was Chirac and Putin's best client. They and plenty of other French and Russian politicos pimped for Saddam, helping him launder money and receiving contracts and kickbacks in return. The TotalFinaElf deal to develop 20 BILLION bbl of W Qurna crude was the most notorious but far from the only one of these rank deals.

However, we should have been successful in persuading the Turks and maybe Jordan, perhaps the Saudis, to take our side. At a minimum this would have split the Arab world into pro- and anti-US, therefore pro- and anti-reform, factions; at a maximum it could have helped reduce the chaos and loss of American life in postwar Iraq by hastening the arrival of a new regime after Saddam's fall. The failure to bring along Turkey, Saudio and Jordan IMO was of far greater consequence than the failure to bring along the French, Germans and Russians.

"During the years it took to do all that fun stuff, troops could have been attacking current threats to America rather than worrying about dubious future threats.

Saddam and his sons were a threat. And right now the greatest threat to our security, in all likelihood, comes from the mullahs in Iran and the AQ they're sheltering now. If you're arguing in good faith, then by your logic we should have been (and should be now) applying military pressure against the mullahs.

"They could have consolidated our gains in Afghanistan while scouring the Pakistani border looking for Al-Qaeda."

Agreed that the Bush admin has dropped the ball in Afghan. Needs many more troops and much more attention. But this doesn't necessarily invalidate the Iraq war. And again, if you're serious when you say we should go after "current threats", then you have to place Iran at or close to top of the list.

"While the sanction regime was horrendous for ordinary Iraquis (and I hate to be the one that says this, but they're not really our problem), it was effective in keeping Saddam WMD-free."

I don't agree that we can assume this. We know that the sanctions were massively and widely flouted by Saddam and his pimps in Paris, Moscow, Geneva, Dubai and elsewhere--that he spirited out of the country at least $10 BILLION, and that some of that money flowed to terrorist groups. If he could violate the sanctions so wasily, and with the eager assistance of leading Security Council members, then why would he not be able, at some future point, to gain access to WMD technology and materials? Have you ever been to Russia? Do you seriously think that a Russian regime that's run by the FSB and that we know received hundreds of millions in Oil-for-Fraud kickbacks would be vigilant in ensuring that none of Russia's massive stocks of N-B-C weapons ended up in Iraq? If so, what makes you so sure of this?

"The War on Iraq was a war of choice, and wars of choice should be fought under optimum conditions. We didn't do so, and we're reaping the rewards."

This is probably your strongest argument (see argument above about importance of the key middle eastern "swing" nations, Turkey, Jordan, Saudi).

But keep in mind that the choice made by the Bush admin was by no means a light or easy one. I believe that the Clintonites--not Gore necessarily but Clinton, Albright, Clarke et al-- may well have made the same choice had they been confronted with a post-9/11 world. Regime change in Iraq was Clinton's commitment; Bush made good on that promise.

I supported Clinton and I supported Bush. I find it very hard to support John Kerry this time around. I'd like to see a competent and hawkish Democrat who can build the alliances that matter--with Turkey and the Arabs, not France and Germany-- and then aggressively ensure our security.

Iran is the test. I don't see much to be optimistic about regarding either candidate's policy, or I should say, non-policy, regarding Iran.

Regards,
thibaud

[Don Williams]

To respond to some of the above comments:

1) Re Nate's comment: "I'll allow the bogus "statistic" for now... OK, you'll have to explain why a "billion"
Muslims would hate us for liberating the majority Shi'ite Muslims from a Secularist who was the
biggest Muslim-killer on the planet."
--------
a)Yet I don't see Arab nations --or even our European allies in Nato --cheering the US invasion. Baghad
has several million people --so why weren't there huge crowd cheering when the US military moved into
the city?? The only thing I recall is a group of US Marines using heavy equipment to topple a statue of Hussein--
plus a hundred or so Iraqis milling around like a bunch of paid Hollywood extras. What have we seen since
other than a sullen acceptance of the US occupation? What has the "restoration of soverignty" been but
a group of puppets --installed by the US military at the point of a gun -- deciding that Iraq's interim government
would be --surprise --themselves.
b) Maybe the deep suspicion of US government motives is based on past Middle Eastern history --in which puppet
dictators installed/supported by the US or British governments have allowed UK and US oil companies to steal
the people's birthright in exchange for military support, sales of advanced weapons, and a cut of the profits.
Why is it that the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait are among the few nations which will not provide income distribution
data to the World Bank? How much oil profits have trickled down to the common people of those countries in decades that
the House of Bush has dealt with the House of Saud? When has anyone seen Dick Cheney preaching the joys of democracy
in UAE, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Azerbaijan or Kazakhstan? Why has the US government allowed Vanelli Inc -- the subsidary
of massive defence contractor Northrop -- to supply mercenaries to the Saudi "National Guard" --aka the Saudi
Gestapo --for decades? Do you see the US news media mentioning this to their readers when Al Qaeda bombed Vanelli's
Saudi headquarters last year?
c) Anyone recall the US overthrowing lawfully elected Iran Prime Minister Mossadagh in the 1950s and installing the Shah? Anyone
recall the US government propping the Shah up for decades while he let US oil companies loot Iran's reserves and while his Savak
tortured and killed thousands of Iranians?
d) Anyone wonder that Al Qaeda cells have been found in Indonesia and the Phillipines? Recall how the US installed Suharto
in the 1960s and gave him a list of 100,000 people to kill --I believe the final toll was greater than 500,000. Recall how the US then supported
Suharto over the next several decades while Suharto's family stole everything not nailed down --plunging the Indonesian people into deep poverty?
Anyone recall the US government following a similar policy with Marcos in the Phillipines?
e) As part of his "service" to Houston oil companies during his reign at Halliburton, Dick Cheney served on the Kazakhstan Energy Advisory Board. Later, VP Cheney urged Cabinet officers in the Bush Administration to pursue close ties with Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan. Anyone recall Bush preaching the joys of democracy to the corrupt oil dictators of Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan?

[Don Williams]

1) Could the Bush supporters here explain why they keep citing UN resolutions as justification for Bush's invasion of Iraq?

None of the Resolutions sanctioned Bush's invasion of Iraq. In fact, Bush could not get UN support for the invasion.

Isn't it two-faced hypocrisy to claim that Hussein was not fully complying with UN resolutions when President Bush has broken the most fundamental rule in international law -- has invaded and conquered a country which posed no significant threat to the USA.

UN CHarter Article 51 allows military action only if a nation is under attack --or faces an "imminent threat" of an attack.

Bush partisans have repeatedly argued that Bush did not say that the US was facing an "imminent threat". Which really means that Bush partisans are saying that Bush is a war criminal.

Isn't it also hypocritical for the Bush Administration to attack Hussein for having nonexistent "Weapons of Mass Destruction" --but to say nothing while Israel develops 80+ nuclear warheads? And to veto any UN attempts to censor Sharon's aggression?

[Nate]

Baghad
has several million people --so why weren't there huge crowd cheering when the US military moved into
the city?? The only thing I recall is a group of US Marines using heavy equipment to topple a statue of Hussein--
plus a hundred or so Iraqis milling around like a bunch of paid Hollywood extras.

Proof that we all see what we want to see, to some extent. I saw jubilant Iraqis that day. I read about jubilant Iraqis during the haj. I read about how, by a 2-to-1 margin, Iraqis say their lives are better since the invasion.

Yes, Baghdad has several million people, outnumbering our forces there by many, many times. As one soldier said, if they all hate the troops like some anti-Bushies would have you believe, they could expel our troops by force in one afternoon.

I note that you didn't answer the question as to why kicking out the world's biggest Muslim-killer would incite "billions" of Muslims to "hate" us. At best, you only suggested that the hatred was there all along. Care to give it another shot?

Could the Bush supporters here explain why they keep citing UN resolutions as justification for Bush's invasion of Iraq?

None of the Resolutions sanctioned Bush's invasion of Iraq. In fact, Bush could not get UN support for the invasion.

It is the height of naivete (I won't dare say you are being simply intellectually dishonest) to suggest that the UNSC nations didn't give the US the OK to attack because the case wasn't proven, or because the Resolutions didn't provide for force, or because the Russians just love peace SO DAMN MUCH (ask Chechnya about that!).

You and I and everyone who pays the slightest attention all know why the Russians, the French, the Chinese (#1, #2, and #3 on the list of arms suppliers to Saddam), and the Germans (whom the G2 Bulletin said provided the bulk of WMD-program materials to Saddam) played the obstruction game before the war. Cash. Dinero. Bribes. Remuneration. Free oil contracts. BILLIONS owed to them by Saddam that would never be paid by a new government.

Just admit that, for Old Europe, money talked and UN "Security" concerns walked. No amount of sweet-talk, fawning and John-Kerry-moon-eyes were going to get the UNSC's hands (and wrists and elbows) out of Saddam's pockets.

Let's all be adults and stop pretending.

[Reg]

Re: International Law and OIF

Hey, DW. Ask and you shall receive!

Below is the legal justification by the UK attorney general, Lord Goldsmith. Some international law types disagree with it; some agree.

However, I think most would agree that it is a stronger brief than either Kosovo, Desert Fox, or for that matter the Northern and Southern No-Fly zones in Iraq. All three of which had NO explicit UN approval. So when you start filling up that "war criminal" jail build enough cells for just about every political/military leader in NATO.

Now, Lord Goldsmith, the court will hear from you!

"Authority to use force against Iraq exists from the combined effect of resolutions 678, 687 and 1441. All of these resolutions were adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter which allows the use of force for the express purpose of restoring international peace and security:

1. In resolution 678 the Security Council authorised force against Iraq, to eject it from Kuwait and to restore peace and security in the area.

2. In resolution 687, which set out the ceasefire conditions after Operation Desert Storm, the Security Council imposed continuing obligations on Iraq to eliminate its weapons of mass destruction in order to restore international peace and security in the area. Resolution 687 suspended but did not terminate the authority to use force under resolution 678.

3. A material breach of resolution 687 revives the authority to use force under resolution 678.

4. In resolution 1441 the Security Council determined that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of resolution 687, because it has not fully complied with its obligations to disarm under that resolution.

5. The Security Council in resolution 1441 gave Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" and warned Iraq of the "serious consequences" if it did not.

6. The Security Council also decided in resolution 1441 that, if Iraq failed at any time to comply with and cooperate fully in the implementation of resolution 1441, that would constitute a further material breach.

7. It is plain that Iraq has failed so to comply and therefore Iraq was at the time of resolution 1441 and continues to be in material breach.

8. Thus, the authority to use force under resolution 678 has revived and so continues today.

9. Resolution 1441 would in terms have provided that a further decision of the Security Council to sanction force was required if that had been intended. Thus, all that resolution 1441 requires is reporting to and discussion by the Security Council of Iraq's failures, but not an express further decision to authorise force.

[Nate]

While Lord Goldsmith spells it out, it only takes common sense to condone use of force in Iraq. What has happened to every country since the beginning of time that has willfully broken the ceasefire provisions of a war they have lost? Did they get a stern talking-to?

Ceasefires are arguably the noblest of diplomatic agreements. These agreements have saved countless lives. If they are allowed to be routinely broken, logic dictates that eventually, they will stop being offered. Wars will become last-man-standing affairs with death tolls that dwarf anything we've seen.

[Don Williams]

1) I'm getting dizzy from the "cognitive dissonance" within the arguments of Bush supporters. On the one hand, they assert --when it is convenient -- that the UN is a gang of corrupt assholes to be viewed with contempt:

"You and I and everyone who pays the slightest attention all know why the Russians, the French, the Chinese (#1, #2, and #3 on the list of arms suppliers to Saddam), and the Germans (whom the G2 Bulletin said provided the bulk of WMD-program materials to Saddam) played the obstruction game before the war. Cash. Dinero. Bribes."

2) Yet at the same time, they assert that Bush's actions were justified by a convoluted reading of resolutions passed by that gang of corrupt assholes about 13 years ago.

3) Yet they KNOW that the UN would NOT have approved a motion for the invasion of Iraq last spring.

Goldsmith's sophistry merely shows the historical propensity of British magistrates to use baldfaced deceit and dishonesty to support the British government. It shows British magistrates' belief that the law is a tool for controlling and oppressing the weak --not something which the strong must obey.

After the devastation of World War II, the US and other powers joined in creating a partnership for peace -- a partnership in which the community of nations asserted that there were laws governing nations and that aggressors would face the united might of those determined to secure peace and justice. Now Bush and Blair has shown that that is all a crock of shit -- that the US is ruled by a gang of psychopathic liars who feel that they are above any law. That the most powerful superpower on earth will commit any act merely to pander to wealthy special interests.

3) What does this mean for US citizens? For one thing, it tells the other nations of the world that they are morons if they do not immediately make massive , covert efforts to acquire nuclear and biological weapons.

It tells nuclear-armed France, powerful Germany, Russia, and China that they had better form a covert alliance to fight an amoral nuclear superpower determined to conquer the world.

It tells them that they better support terrorists and the terrorists acquistion of nuclear weapons -- because the US will only grow stronger over time as it seizes more and more of the world's resources -- i.e., the oil reservoirs of the Caspian Sea, Iraq, and the Iran.

The only way to halt Bush's drive to world domination is with a covert nuclear strike on the Houston oil refineries or Silicon Valley -- a strike that will greatly cripple the US economy, greatly weaken it's military capability in the longer run, and which cannot be traced back to the originators.

It tells the other major powers and the Arab nations that they would be fools to help the Bush hunt down Al Qaeda-- especially if Al Qaeda diverts US interest long enough to allow the other nations to build up their military power and to acquire WMDs.

Iraq was a trival military power -- the alliance that Bush aggression is creating will be far more dangerous and powerful.

4) You cannot shit on the rest of the world without provoking a response --as Sept 11 showed. Any stupid bully who drags us into a long expensive war with the rest of the world simply to pander to special interests is an enemy of the American people.

I do not oppose defense of the continental US-- anyone who makes an unprovoked attack on us here should be turned into ashes --radioactive ashes if need be. But Bush's aggression overseas is bankrupting us, provides no benefit to the common citizen, and is hurting,not helping, national security.

[Nate]

We have gone miles off-topic here, and I, for one, apologize.

I'm getting dizzy from the "cognitive dissonance" within the arguments of Bush supporters. On the one hand, they assert --when it is convenient -- that the UN is a gang of corrupt assholes to be viewed with contempt. Yet at the same time, they assert that Bush's actions were justified by a convoluted reading of resolutions passed by that gang of corrupt assholes about 13 years ago.

No need to get dizzy, friend, because there is no cognitive dissonance in those two statements.

Yes, the UN has proven itself to be stuffed full-to-overflowing with hypocritical, corrupt assholes. Would you care to deny that EVERYTHING the UN has done in regards to Iraq since 1991 was done with one goal: to fatten their pockets? I thought not.

However, we do not derive our justification to invade Iraq FROM those assholes. The Resolutions are only cited to assert that EVEN THESE CORRUPT ASSHOLES, who had their arms elbow-deep into Saddam's baksheesh-pocket, have to grant us the right to enforce the ceasefire of Gulf War I.

Your argument of dissonance might be acceptable if anyone were arguing the following:

The UN are corrupt and have no authority.
The UN ORDERED the Coalition to invade Iraq.

But no one is making that argument.

Yet they KNOW that the UN would NOT have approved a motion for the invasion of Iraq last spring.

Of course not -- not with billions of dollars at stake. Fr/Germ/Russ/China would've let a million more Iraqi citizens die and let Saddam have nuclear weapons before they lost one nickle. What a noble bunch...

a partnership in which the community of nations asserted that there were laws governing nations and that aggressors would face the united might of those determined to secure peace and justice. Now Bush and Blair has shown that that is all a crock of shit

Before you blame the ENFORCERS of the UN Resolutions and the Gulf War ceasefire for the breakdown in the LAW-ENFORCEMENT aspect of the UN (a highly laughable notion), I guess a fair question to you would be: Why on earth do you cling to this notion that the UN still serves its original purpose, despite all the evidence to the contrary? Have you had your head in the sand? Have you not heard of the bribery and the looting of the Oil-For-French-Built-Palaces money while Iraqi citizens (whom the UN designed Oil-For-Food measures to preserve) died by the thousands?

How naive do you have to be to still "respect the badge" of the lawman who has clearly been found to be dirty? It's like blaming Elliot Ness for not falling into line with the rest of the crooked cops. The US/UK did not turn its back on the law with regards to Iraq -- the UN did.

that the US is ruled by a gang of psychopathic liars who feel that they are above any law.

How DARE the US/UK commit such an atrocious act as to free Iraqi citizens from a homocidal lunatic dictator who refused to verifiably disarm his WMD! The NERVE of them!

Iraqi citizens, by a two-to-one margin, say that they are better off since the invasion (and that poll was BEFORE the handover of power). So before you get together your class-action suit on behalf of the harmed parties, perhaps you can tell us who those harmed parties are. Uday? Saddam? The Fedayeen? The UNSC bribe-takers and arms-dealers? You can tell a lot about a man by the company he keeps, I suppose.

So if you want to argue that the Coalition acted not-so-nicely toward the dictator and his minions, I'll accept that as a badge of honor. If you want to characterize freeing Iraq and ousting a dangerous, anti-US dictator as "psychopathic," then I'll you try and rationalize that in your own soul.

That the most powerful superpower on earth will commit any act merely to pander to wealthy special interests.

I categorically deny that the Iraq War has much to do with "pandering to wealthy special interests," but I know that the Leftists/Socialists will never miss a chance to try and turn this into a class-warfare issue. They've been doing it since WWII, and I know they will never stop. I know the far left would rather have 10 Saddams with nukes than to have one US company make a dime from stopping them getting nukes.

It tells nuclear-armed France, powerful Germany, Russia, and China that they had better form a covert alliance to fight an amoral nuclear superpower determined to conquer the world.

Unlike you, those countries are well-aware that we caught them with their hands in Saddam's pockets. They well-know who was acting in accordance with the rule of law and who was acting to preserve their illegal oil and weapons deals. They are just grateful that Bush hasn't opened and closed every statement he's made on the subject of Iraq with the entire litany of bribes, free Iraqi oil contracts, and UN oil-for-food swindles.

To suggest that EVEN THEY they think they have some moral high ground with regards to Iraq is to call them all delusional.

It tells them that they better support terrorists and the terrorists acquistion of nuclear weapons -- because the US will only grow stronger over time as it seizes more and more of the world's resources

Seizing resources... do even the far lefties still believe this one?

And don't you think that it MIGHT occur to the "world" that maybe supporting terrorists with nukes because of some vague assumption of a future US resource-grab (which might, what, raise prices?) would be a little like blowing up the entire neighborhood because one neighbor left his Christmas lights up too long? Maybe you really do think that Chirac and Schroeder are delusional...

You are really in full-on, whacked-out Doomsday-scenario-mode, eh?

Any stupid bully who drags us into simply to pander to special interests is an enemy of the American people.

"A long expensive war with the rest of the world?" Nothing like pre-supposing the worst-case scenario! Yes, if this causes World War 3, then it was an error. Of course, it won't cause World War 3, because there is nothing for anyone to gain by it.

[TheOutsider]

Details, details, details. The Bill of Rights was created after the Constitution not just to protect the individual from a power government, but also to protect the individual from a powerful majority. The key here is tone, people. This administration has consistently put the rights of businesses over their employees or the consumers that buy their products. They have consistently threatened, sensored, or fired anyone who spoke negatively about them or disagreed with them in public. They have consistently chosen politics over scientific evidence.

They do not believe they answer to the american people, congress, the international community, or the law. They are interested in one thintg: consolidating power. And that is why they must not get four more years. Let us not forget that they are supposed to be representing the whole of the American people. However they, their De-Lovely congress croonies and their Fair and Balanced media supporters do nothing of the sort.

There is no open debate. There is no comprimise. There is no inclusion. Do you really believe that you can alienate have the country, much less have the world with a sneering narcissism and not expect there to be repercussions? The these guys let a democrat into their circle, choose open debate over secrecy, choose compromise with their opponents over slander, choose chairity over war, choose hope over fear, choose the citizen over the corporation, choose to take the consequences for their actions instead of re-writing history-- then, they will be a government of the people, by the people and for the people.

Until then the Bush Administration must accept the truth that they have indeed changed the tone in Washington, indeed in the country. They are alienating an ever-growing population of individuals, an that is what this election is about. Not 16 words, not flip-flopping, not terror levels. Sadly, it's a lot more difficult to listen to those who also disagree with you and unite both sides to a common good. I don't think they're up to it, much less have any interest in doing it. It's much easier to fear change and smeer your opponents. I fear these tactics will work again in November.

[TheOutsider]

pardon the typos above... I'm taking a break from an all-nighter

[bill o'rites]

To those who would claim that Bush never said Saddam was an imminent threat:
"Today the world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq"
Source: President Bush Speaks to Atlantic Youth Council, CNN (11/20/2002).
The dictionary defines urgent as "compelling immediate action".
Over 800 American (and who know how many Iraqi) lives) later, are we REALLY going to have a Clintonian parsing of the word urgent?
As for the comment that we supported Saddam against Iran much like we supported Stalin against Hitler, this ignores the fact that we also traded arms for hostaged with Iran. I'm no historian, but I don't recall the US arming Hitler while we supported Stalin. And if Bush is such a "straight talker" and is from the party of "personal responsiblilty", why is it that he never once during the run up to the Iraq war had the guts to admit that we had no problem arming and doing business with this muderous, torturing, WMD using despot when it suited our needs?
And speaking of Stalin, containment worked against the Soviets (and saved us from the distruction of the world as we know it), so why not Saddam? The only good reason to not continue containment would be if he were an imminent threat, but W never said that, right? Meanwhile, truly imminent threats against us (Al Qaeda, N. Korea, loose nukes throughout the former USSR and the world) are not getting anywhere near the proper attention they need while we spend billions and have 140,000 troops in Iraq, doing the very nation-building that W supposedly is against (gee, I'm so glad that he sticks to his "core convictions"!).

[Jesus]

I think the real question is why is your fly open bill?