Terms Of Surrender

The NY Times delivers the terms upon which they will accept the surrender of the Republican Party:

To have the sober conversation about the war in Iraq that America badly needs, it is vital to acknowledge three facts:

The war has nothing to do with Sept. 11. Saddam Hussein was a sworn enemy of Washington, but there was no Iraq-Qaeda axis, no connection between Saddam Hussein and the terrorist attacks on the United States.

...The war has not made the world, or this nation, safer from terrorism. The breeding grounds for terrorists used to be Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia; now Iraq has become one. Of all the justifications for invading Iraq that the administration juggled in the beginning, the only one that has held up over time is the desire to create a democratic nation that could help stabilize the Middle East.

...If the war is going according to plan, someone needs to rethink the plan.

The first two points are eminently rebuttable by anyone with a few spare moments, but that does not currently include me.  Maybe we can try a Wikitorial, LA Times style, in the comments.

Reaction at Memeorandum.

Comments

[Jor]

This is going to be hilarious. Let me suggest, we stick to the present tense, i.e., with what we know now, what does the war have to do with 9/11 or what is the Iraq-Al Queda connection. Given what we know today.

[John Thacker]

Dear Jor,

You refer to two utterly different things. The war most certainly has to do with 9/11. That is certainly so without an Iraq-Al Qaeda connection. It doesn't take all that nuanced a worldview to see that that could be possible.

For example, 9/11 could:
1) Make us realize that the dictatorships in the Middle East are causing a long-term security problem for us, and that we need to establish democracy;
2) Make us realize that Bin Laden and others had long cited our troops in Saudi Arabia as a provocation towards Islam and cause for the 9/11 attack. Those troops were there to protect against Saddam's Iraq, and they have all been withdrawn. There were strong reasons-- approved of by the UN-- to have those troops there, protecting the "no-fly zones" in Iraq.
3) Make us realize that the Wahabist strain of Islam promulgated by the Saudis is a large problem for us, and that the Saudis are a dangerously fundamentalist nation that we should not be allied with. Only by removing Saddam as a threat could be alter the geopolitical and economic balance of the Middle East to remove the various reasons that the Saudis have been our allies. Even though Realists of both parties still talk of the Saudis as our allies, removing Saddam was an important precursor to dumping them as an ally.
4) Make us realize that Bin Laden's comments about people following a strong horse rather than a weak one meant that we needed to send a message that we were strong-- Saddam had long triumphed about his "victory" over the Americans, and Al Qaeda had long used in their recruiting the "truth" that Americans were not willing to finish the job, and would cut and run if there were losses. As the declared enemy of the USA-- and violator of the peace-- Saddam was an obvious target.
5) Make us realize that with Al Qaeda as an enemy, we needed to reduce the number of active enemy governments in the world, and Iraq was an easy target.
6) Make us realize that we were better off with terrorists blowing themselves up in Iraq (and thus disillusioning Iraqis and other Middle Easterners about their intentions) than in the US.
7) Make us realize that supporting dictators in the Middle East for years had bred well-deserved resentment against us, and that we should support democracy instead.

There are many reasons why 9/11 could and did cause a rethink in foreign policy. Absolutely no Al Qaeda connection with Saddam is necessary in order for there to be a connection between the decision to overthrow him and 9/11. Surely you can at least admit the possibility of such reasoning, yes?

[Steven J.]

CIA review finds no evidence Saddam had ties to Islamic terrorists

By WARREN P. STROBEL, JONATHAN S. LANDAY and JOHN WALCOTT

Knight Ridder Newspapers
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/9836114.htm
WASHINGTON - A new CIA assessment undercuts the White House's claim that Saddam Hussein maintained ties to al-Qaida, saying there's no conclusive evidence that the regime harbored Osama bin Laden associate Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
The CIA review, which U.S. officials said Monday was requested some months ago by Vice President Dick Cheney, is the latest assessment that calls into question one of President Bush's key justifications for last year's U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.
The new assessment follows the independent Sept. 11 commission's finding that there was no "collaborative
relationship" between the former Iraqi regime and bin Laden's terrorist network.
"The evidence is that Saddam never gave Zarqawi anything," another U.S. official said.
There's no dispute that al-Zarqawi spent time in Iraq before the U.S. invasion, but virtually all that time was in a portion of northeastern Iraq that wasn't under Saddam's control.
Some officials believe that Saddam's secular regime kept an eye on al-Zarqawi, an Islamic extremist, but didn't actively assist him.
Al-Zarqawi 's ties to al-Qaida are in dispute. While he clearly shares much of al-Qaida's violent ideology and ran an al-Qaida camp in Afghanistan, the Jordanian has his own organization, acts independently and hasn't sworn fealty to bin Laden.

[Steven J.]

Iraq May Be Prime Place for Training of Militants, C.I.A. Report Concludes
By DOUGLAS JEHL
Published: June 22, 2005
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/22/international/middleeast/22intel.html

WASHINGTON, June 21 - A new classified assessment by the Central Intelligence Agency says Iraq may prove to be an even more effective training ground for Islamic extremists than Afghanistan was in Al Qaeda's early days, because it is serving as a real-world laboratory for urban combat.
The officials said it made clear that the war was likely to produce a dangerous legacy by dispersing to other countries Iraqi and foreign combatants more adept and better organized than they were before the conflict.
They said the assessment had argued that Iraq, since the American invasion of 2003, had in many ways assumed the role played by Afghanistan during the rise of Al Qaeda during the 1980's and 1990's, as a magnet and a proving ground for Islamic extremists from Saudi Arabia and other Islamic countries.

[BumperStickerist]

Jor -

Hindsight is 20/20, which is why hind are notoriously difficult animals to hunt.

[Tom Maguire]

OK, good job by John Thacker on point (1). This is not a "War on Osama", it is a war on terror; Saddam was connected to other terror groups, and was a huge part of the instability of the Middle East - in addition to the points made by JT, folks may also recall that sanctions, purportedly killing 5,000 Iraqi babies a month, were near the top of the list for "Why they hate us" (The US support for Israel in the West Bank was number 1.)

And the mission is not to punish 9/11, it is to prevent the next 9/11.

(I could use a better link on Saddam's connection to other terrorists, but it was widely reported that he paid bonuses to suicide bombers in Israel)

And I love the Knight-Ridder headline - a report debunking a Saddam/Qaeda connection becomes "CIA review finds no evidence Saddam had ties to Islamic terrorists".

So, might we look to Jor to acknowledge that Osama is not the only terrorist in the world?

On point (2), are we safer, how would the Times know that we are not? I'll concede that we don't know, and that we may not be, if they concede that they don't know, and that maybe we are.

We have Libya, Syria, and Lebanon, on the one hand.

And we have no idea what the world would look like if Saddam were still in it and flouting sanctions, running Oil for Food, and who knows what else.

Steve J provides a helpful link in that regard. From the 6/22 "training ground" report in the Times [permalink]:

The assessment said the central role played by Iraq meant that, for now, most potential terrorists were likely to focus their energies on attacking American forces there, rather than carrying out attacks elsewhere, the officials said. But the officials said Saudi Arabia, Jordan and other countries would soon have to contend with militants who leave Iraq equipped with considerable experience and training.

So for now, terrorists are distracted in Iraq. And if they leave in a box, they won't be a problem later. Why does the Times dismiss that?

[Mick Wright]

This one is a year old, but it's a place to start. It's interesting that the Times now acknowledges that there were multiple reasons for the war in Iraq, other than existing WMD programs (which, ahem, we found in Iraq).

[Veeshir]

I don't feel like rebutting the Times but I will translate.
Our side has lost the arguments and the elections so far, but we still want you to surrender and admit we're right and we'll go from there.

The Times works at too low a threshold for facts for me to take them seriously anymore.

[JPT]

The NYT is stuck in the 90's. The war is not about finding out who is personally responsible for 9/11, indicting them, and then negotiating with countries that harbor them - police actions. It's about shattering the worldview that 9/11 type of attacks can be risked by ANY terrorist group with no more than the concern that they may be indicted in the target country. The extension to this is the cold realization that in order for the US and the countries with common realizations to succeed, any and all countries that provide aid and comfort to terrorists or terrorism - AlQ or any other - either truely repudiate those ties or become military targets. That is the US policy that was fully laid out a month after 9/11. There are geopolitical realities that determine the strategy in fighting the overall war as pointed out above...Saudi Arabia could not be placed high on the list no matter what the provocation until their oil clout could be neutralized.

If Saudi Arabia had been first on the list, terrorists would have poured into the country just as they have Iraq and just as they started to in the limited time available in Afghanistan - remember all the Pakistani 'freedom fighters' pouring over the borders one way and then back the other a lot quicker. At some point though, Saudi Arabia will face US demands that Wahabi influence on terrorism ends or face the consequences.

The war was being fought for many years before 9/11. We didn't declare the war so much as recognize the inevitable and finally respond proactively. The only way we can win the war is to make what I think is the correct assumption that the people in the countries we are fighting now and maybe will fight in the future are not the enemy, but their governments and its policies are. We are banking on the fact the given a chance, those peoples will repudiate both their governments and its policies.

[creepy dude]

"And the mission is not to punish 9/11, it is to prevent the next 9/11"

TM-you've made this point before-but why don't you think the best way to prevent the next 9/11 is to capture/kill the individuals responsible for the first one?

The CIA now says it has an excellent idea where Osama-bin-forgotten is. Ok-what do you think the guy is doing in his spare time? Unless you have some classified info that he is not planning another 9-11, perhaps even with terrorists already inside the U.S., then please go have a cocktail on the patio of reality immediately.

This large scale "War on Terror" is going to be as effective in preventing the next 9-11 as the "War on Drugs" was in keeping drugs out of the hands of all the teenagers who took drugs for the first time last night.

BTW-what are our plans to prevent the next Oklahoma City?

[the english guy]

There's a plan?

[Hank Bower]

The New York Times informs us that in order to “have the sober conversation about the war in Iraq that America badly needs, it is vital to acknowledge three facts.” It then sets out three “facts” that everyone must accept as undebatable. However the “facts” are actually tendentious opinions which constitute important aspects of the debate rather than settled facts over which no one could differ.

First, the Times asserts that the "war has nothing to do with Sept. 11. Saddam Hussein was a sworn enemy of
Washington, but there was no Iraq-Qaeda axis, no connection between Saddam Hussein and the terrorist attacks on the United States."

As much as the Times pontificates regarding a lack of relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence found the “most problematic area of contact between Iraq and al-Qaida were the reports of training in the use of non-conventional weapons, specifically chemical and biological weapons.” (p. 346) Although the Committee found no attempts by Saddam Hussein to use Al Qaeda in conducting terrorist attacks, it found a conclusion by CIA that he might “employ terrorists with a global reach - al-Qaida - to conduct terrorist attacks in the event of war, was reasonable.” (p. 348)

The Times may believe that the contacts were not sufficient to justify military action against Iraq. Reasonable minds may differ over such conclusions of policy. However, to suggest that no contact between Iraq and Al Qaeda constitutes a “fact” about which no one can differ is patently false.

I have a question for the Times and others. Many people attacked President Bush, Secretary of State Rice and others for their “failures” in not preventing September 11 in light of intelligence of possible future attacks in the US. What would have been their reaction if the President had left Saddam in power and an attack occurred from the sanctuary of Iraq? Would the intelligence showing connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda that they now denigrate suddenly have become so massive that no reasonable person could have missed? I suspect so.

In fact, the Times' attitude toward contacts between Saddam and Al Qaeda supports Karl Rove's statement that liberals approach the war on terror from a legalistic standpoint. The Times will accept the existence of such contacts only based upon evidence that would convict Saddam beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law based on all of the rules of evidence.

Furthermore, the “Downing Street Memos” suggest very strongly that “If 11 September had not happened, it is doubtful that the US would now be considering military action against Iraq.” (Straw to PM dated 25 March 2002) While this merely represents the conclusion of the British Foreign Secretary, it provides an important insight into the possible thinking of the American administration at the time. One may also contend that 11 September should not have impacted American decision making. However, to contend, as the Times does that the “war has nothing to do with Sept. 11” constitutes an unassailable “fact” simply cannot be supported.

The Times offers “The war has not made the world, or this nation, safer from terrorism” as its second unassailable “fact.” How can anyone reasonably argue that a conclusion that the world is safer or less safe as a result of the war constitutes a fact? Certainly, terrorists are attracted to Iraq to kill innocent Iraqis; no one can deny that. However, that does not answer the question. It merely assumes facts not in evidence and that can never be known - that those individuals would not have turned to terrorism had the US not invaded Iraq.

In fact, with Iraq as a safe haven for terrorists, those individuals might have received training and gone to the US or Europe to conduct their bombing attacks rather than doing so in Iraq. We cannot know that they would have, but the Times cannot know that they would not have. This constitutes a matter of opinion over which reasonable people may differ rather than a fact beyond dispute.

The third “fact” seems to be that “If the war is going according to plan, someone needs to rethink the plan.” This tendentious statement merely seems to provide an opportunity for the Times to take a shot at Secretary Rumsfeld.

The Times correctly recognizes the need for sober debate over the war in Iraq. Unfortunately, it attempts to short circuit that debate by arbitrarily decreeing very contentious issues as being unassailable “facts” that cannot be discussed. A fair reading of the editorial suggests that it merely provides cover for yet another attack on the administration rather than attempting to encourage a fair discussion of the war in Iraq.

Increasingly, it becomes obvious that one need no longer read New York Times editorials. One need only look at the talking points of the Democratic Party to know what positions the editorial page of the New York Times will take and what direction its new pages will slant.

[JPT]

"...the best way to prevent the next 9/11 is to capture/kill the individuals responsible for the first one?"

No. That is the police action philosophy. It failed for almost 30 years. The best way to prevent the next 9/11 is to change the equation on terrorism entirely. You make it a given that terrorism elicits a response against the individuals AND any country that aids, abets, supports, funds, or shelters terrorists. You remove the infrastructure that allows terrorism to achieve international tactical success.

The world went - call it 20 years assuming that the first decade of terrorism was poorly understood - dealing with terrorism piecemeal in police actions. They may have been successful locally, and even utterly destroyed some terrorist organizations, but never addressed the international infrastructure.

Saddam openly subsidized suicide bombers in Palestine. That in and of itself put him squarely on the wrong side of US policy after 9/11. I am not saying that that gave him the position on the strategic list that he enjoyed, but it made it inevitable that his regime was doomed as long as the current US policy stays in place.

People, google and READ the speech Bush gave about 4 weeks after 9/11. He laid out a US policy in that speech that he has not deviated from. If you have listened to him in the years after, he is still committed to it. Do not confuse geopolitical realities or overall strategy for modification of that policy. Most importantly, in that policy speech he not only defined and opned he concept of who the enemy was, he stressed that this would be a long war to achieve those ends.

Just as Hezbollah would be crippled without Iran, AlQ would be crippled without Saudi Arabia. AlQ had less combat power and had killed less people than Hezbollah in 2001. The Taliban would not have been a priority in the war except for the fact that they openly harbored AlQ. Bush did what he should have in that instance given public pressure concerning AlQ, but Afghanistan was less a threat than Syria, Iran, or Iraq in the overall strategy. It was only the forementioned geopolicual realities that didn't number Saudi Arabia as one of the 'Axis of Evil'. Lots of clowns think that is a trite phrase, but it's not. It's the uncomfortable to some truth.

[Duke of DeLand]

& Further Hank Bower, while the conservatives have such stellar voices as Dean, Pelosi, Kennedy, et al giving out with their screams, cries, and dead arguements... The NYT, utilizing such positions, will continue its slide into irrelevance!

I believe, as some have already suggested, that we, the less-than-vocal conservatives, should just sit smuggly and allow them to rant and rave.

It only helps our cause!

Duke

[John Blake]

Quite right... Fort Sumter was not about threats to American unity, most certainly Lincoln should not have used the assault as an excuse to mount a vengeful crusade against innocent Southern cotton-growers, whose only sin was to exploit black slaves in defense of their homeland against imperialist Yankee industrialists.

How can anyone with a straight face look a railroad baron, a titan of Wall Street finance, in the eye and say: We are battling secession to save the Union. In fact, in absolute verifiable fact, the "money changers" and mill-owners have incited this great Civil War to aggrandize our bucolic, peaceful, Confederate brethren-- strip them of their livlihood, eliminate them from competition, impose the North's phoney ideals of Life and Liberty in a region incapable of understanding any such things.

We call upon all right-thinking advocates not in thrall to Bankers, Railroads, Dark Satanic Mills, to stand against Herr Lincoln and his Yankee power-grabs; to resist Union aggression by all means available; and to make known the idealism, the gentle justice of our Glorious Cause, which supplies black slaves with a better, happier, more prosperous identity than any nostalgic appeals to their African heritage or to Thomas Jefferson's rantings can provide.

[Black Jack]

To have the sober conversation about the war in Iraq that America badly needs, it is vital to acknowledge three facts:

Democrats, Liberals, Progressives and their coconspirators in the MSM have used the War on Terror to attack George Bush, the US military, and the Republican Party. The disgusting display of hatred, virulent anti-Americanism, and the rush to calumny have so angered the American public that few leftists are likely to ever again gain important public office.

The War on Terror has made the United States and the world a much safer place. The Clinton administration ignored the threat and allowed International Terrorism to grow unchecked. Before George Bush attacked the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein in Iraq, those places were breeding grounds for terrorism and oppression. The terrorist organization Al Qaeda recruits and trains terrorists worldwide. They must be attacked and killed if civilization is to endure. This war can be won, however, it can be lost if cowards, traitors, or Democrats are allowed to determine policy.

This war is going according to plan. Prior to the invasion of Iraq, Al Qaeda was hidden in training camps around the world. Now, they are largely congregated in one place where our military can confront them directly. No longer do the terrorists have the option to pick the country and populations they wish to attack. The terrorists are either n Iraq, or on the way there, where our troops can find and kill the bloodthirsty vermin.

[JPT]

Black Jack,

The only bone I would pick with what you say is whether Clinton Administartion ignored the threat. The rest I agree with.

Clinton did not ignore the threat. What he did do was address it as a law enforcement issue the same way it had been addressed for decades all over the world. The only country that addressed it differently to any great extent was Israel. Because of their international isolation, their success was overtly limited, though I believe they actually survived over the years only because of it.

The NYT, Moveon, Moore's crowd, and all the other power centers who make hay tunneling such a narrow interpretation of Iraq do so for reasons that have nothing to do with the war. I believe that they willfully distort the greatest debate of our time by framing the invasion of Iraq as a standalone without integrating it into the US policy as a whole. These are not stupid people. They are framing their arguments this way because they cannot sustain them against the US policy as a whole. I would have far less despite for anyone of them were they to frame their arguments in oppostion to the US policy. They don't and never would because their goals really have nothing to do with the WoT.

[Ron Hardin]

WFBuckley laid it out on 9/14/2001 http://www.nationalreview.com/buckley/buckley091401.shtml though since then Buckley, owing to neurons flaking out with age, has reversed himself. His readers have not.

Modern weapons are too dangerous for terrorist groups to thrive anywhere. Henceforth, the US will no longer coinhabit the globe with 11th century governments.

[Cecil Turner]

As much as the Times pontificates regarding a lack of relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda . . .

At least they're consistent. The Times has been telling the same story, with the same slant, since 2003. (It's got its own little section over at TimesWatch). The evolution of reporting on the 911 Commission is instructive: First they tell us there's "no connection," then they admit there is, then misrepresent statements of the Committee Chairs, and then misstate the final report. They do finally manage to find the "collaborative operational relationship" phrase, and report it in a correction (to a Levin-sponsored hit-piece on Feith):

Describing contacts between the two as less significant than portrayed by the Bush administration, the commission said it had seen "no evidence" that the contacts "ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship."

The distance between that and "no connection" is substantial enough to discredit the point.

[brightwinger]

My Dad taught if I was ever surrounded by a gang intending to do me harm, to go after the worst bully first.

The reason is this. There's a chance the other gang members will stand by. If you go after a weaker gang member, you can count on the worst one kickng your butt while you're distracted.

Now picture Saddam's behavior if we had gone after some other country first. Yup, he'd be lobbing scuds with chemicals in them into the third party's country night and day.

The is NO victory against Islamic terrorism with Saddam or his sons in power. And his country had to be the first to go.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

Christopher Hitchins in Slate, March 29, 2004:

-----------quote------------
The Benjamin-Simon book [The Age of Sacred Terror] contains a long account of the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993 and also a stern defense of Clinton's decision in August 1998 to hit the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Sudan with cruise missiles. What is interesting is the strong Iraqi footprint that is to be found in both episodes. Abdul Rahman Yasin, one of the makers of the bomb that exploded at the World Trade Center, was picked up by the FBI, questioned, and incredibly enough released pending further interrogation as a "cooperative witness." He went straight to Amman and thence to Baghdad, where he remained under Saddam Hussein's protection until last year. As [Richard] Clarke told the Sept. 11 commission last week: "The Iraqi government didn't cooperate in turning him over and gave him sanctuary, as it did give sanctuary to other terrorists." That's putting it mildly, when you recall that Abu Nidal's organization was a wing of the Baath Party, and that the late Abu Abbas of Klinghoffer fame was traveling on an Iraqi diplomatic passport. But, hold on a moment—doesn't every smart person know that there's no connection between Saddam Hussein and the world of terror?

Ah, we meant to say no connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden. Well, in that case, how do you explain the conviction, shared by Clarke and Benjamin and Simon, that Iraq was behind Bin Laden's deadly operation in Sudan? The Age of Sacred Terror justifies the Clinton strike on Khartoum on the grounds that "Iraqi weapons-scientists" were linked to Bin Laden's factory and that the suggestive chemical EMPTA, detected at the site, was used only by Iraq to make VX nerve gas. At the time, Clarke defended the bombing in almost the same words, telling the press that he was "sure" that "intelligence existed linking bin Laden to Al Shifa's current and past operators, the Iraqi nerve gas experts and the National Islamic Front in Sudan." The U.N. arms inspector upon whom all three relied at the time, for corroborating evidence implicating Saddam, was a man who has since become famous: David Kay.

....whatever the forensic truth about the factory may have been, the Clinton administration clearly regarded it as a front for Iraq/al-Qaida cooperation. ....

The second raid that week, on an al-Qaida base in Afghanistan, missed Bin Laden but did kill some officers of the Pakistani secret police, or Inter-Service Intelligence, who were in his camp. ....One of the crucial reasons for apathy and inaction, in both the Clinton and Bush administrations, was the fact that two of the prime movers in jihad sponsorship, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, were considered official "friends," not least by the American intelligence "community." An unnoticed benefit of regime change in Afghanistan and Iraq is the extent to which both the Pakistani and Saudi oligarchies have been "turned" and their wings clipped.
--------------endquote-------------

[Tim]

The NY Times, and its constituency of Liberals and others who hate America, are stupid in the extreme.

They believe if we simply appease Islamic-fascists and their terrorists, they'll simply leave us alone and go bother someone else. They think we aspire to be merely European.

As if we were as weak, fearful and stupid as they.

It's a nice dream I suppose, if you believe in fairy tales; but the real world calls upon us to aggressively ignore the advice of the NY Times and those who parrot that party line. They were wrong on Communism; they are wrong on terrorism; their way lies certain defeat, death and disaster for us. They are exemplars of the Order of Limp-Wristed, Knock-Kneed Bedwetters. The less we listen to them, and the more we mock them, so much the better for the Republic and for which we stand.

[max]

I think the nyt's editorial marks a turning point in the msm/dems/left's ongoing campaign to tear down President Bush, (and as a bonus, bring the United States down to the desired level of ineffectiveness).

The nyt and the left realize that their initial tactic - denigrating the military via Abu Ghraib and Gitmo (which tragically worked so well with Vietnam) - isn't working (breaking geek esq's 'heart'), and in fact is back-firing, so they've decided to 'move on' to a more broad-based assault on the decision to invade Iraq.

Unfortunately, in their desire to tear down President Bush, they can't resist framing the debate in such a way that there's no point in participating in it.

[Michael Pate]

1) There is absolutely no proof that Sept. 11 was not a joint Iraq-al Qaeda operation. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that it may have been.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,314700,00.html

2) Iraq was a breeding ground for terrorist organization ranging from Abu Nidal to Ansar al-Islam to Ramzi Yousef over the last 25 years.

http://www.israelforum.com/board/archive/index.php/t-2861.html

3) 73,000 were killed at Nagasaki. Fewer than 22,000 have died in all of Iraq.

http://www.csi.ad.jp/suzuhari-es/1000cranes/nagasaki/

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

When the Times figures out what the facts are, then it can make demands.

[Deean Esmay]

Saddam having ties to Al Qaeda in specific are questionable--we can't say for sure but the evidence supporting such a tie is tenuous. Saddam's ties to terrorism in general, however, were both considerable and well-documented.

These things go in cycles. Every few months there's some terrific news in Iraq and everyone who supported the liberation of Iraq from fascist tyranny is riding high. Then things get slow, the press reports nothing but bombings in Iraq, and eventually the fascist apologists start riding high with their talk of quagmire and failure and so on. This has been going on in 4-6 month cycles ever since the fall of Baghdad.

[gt]

Those that still think that the first two points are rebuttable are probably never going to chnage their mind no matter what.

But luckily most Americans are not so easily snookered.

[JPT]

The point/counterpoint has been illustrated beautifully the last few weeks.

On the one hand you had Durbin's statements about Gitmo and the NYTs silence on the ramifications. When you strip away all the dross and semantic triggers, what Durbin said was in essence that the US had no right running Gitmo at all. The logical extension is that the military had no right treating the prisoners as illegal combatants. Continue the logic...the illegal combatants are not, they are criminals. Ergo, they should be handled using police methods.

All Rove did was cut away the dross and semantic triggers in his very blunt statement and point out what Durbin said in simple language. He pointed out that Durbin's take on the WoT (without mentioning Durbin or his statement specifically) is the defining rationale for moveon, the NYT, Moore, etc etc - liberals in general and progressives in particular (paraphrasing here, but implicit in Rove's statement). The NYT reacted and played the story. All the power centers that he directly named and or indirectly referenced reacted as expected and revealed themselves as defined.

Durbin never really apologized. Why should he? What he said was false on it's face, but it was never his intent to illustrate anything be believed was true. All he said in the way of a poor conditional apology was that IF people (read military)were offended, well, that wasn't his intent.

Rove, read the administration, will not apologize conditionally or not. They are right on the face of it so why should they?

[JPT]

qt,

The first point does not require rebuttal. It is irrelevant.

The second point(s) is one of those negative proof situations. Since 9/11, there have been no terrorists attackes on US soil of any remotely comparable scope. Does this mean that the US policy in conducting the war is responsible for this happy state? Can't be proven. Does it mean that we are no safer? Well, this can't be proven either, but events of the last 3 years indicate don't remotely support the cointention at any rate.

The rest of the second point, at least the negative part, is that Iraq has become another breeding ground for terrorism. This underscores the underlying agenda of the NYT - 'breeding' is a patently untrue semantic trigger. I think that the NYT staff has a better command of the language than to mistake attracting for breeding. Iraq is attracting terrorists and there is plenty of local terrorist activity in about 1/5 of the country, but there is no indication that Iraq is breeding terrorists. The opposite is actually indicated. The Iraqi national groups involved in the terrorism of the last couple of years are looking for a way out and into the political process. I doubt they'd be doing this if they were increasing their ranks. The foreign terrorists in Iraq are being consequently isolated.

Nice try though.

[Jor]

You know how you guys always bitch about how the democrats don't really stand for anything? And there is some truth to that. If you guys applied that same reasoning to the convuluted rationalizations you've made up for this war -- you would realize it's is also pointless.

[Jor]

I must say, the fly-trap theory is cute. I'm surprised no one has found a way to twist some words from one of Bush's earlier speeches, to make it look like that was the intent all along. Of course, It would take some really special magic to make it fly with the Democracy part in Iraq.

Economic sanctions are obviously a useless weapons. And the fact that we've wound up killing 100k EXCESS Iraqis (more than saddam) in a year and change -- means we are already surpassing sanctions as a weapon with which to kill civilians. Hurray!

(I could use a better link on Saddam's connection to other terrorists, but it was widely reported that he paid bonuses to suicide bombers in Israel)

I could have sworn, a few threads ago, we were mocking a CIA officer for suggesting that Israel partly benefited from a war on Saddam. I believe he was called an anti-semite for suggesting the same thing. I must not have realized that Hammas was targetting NYC.

[BumperStickerist]

You'd need some numbers, Jor, to support the notion that we've killed more Iraqis than sanctions did. Hopefully those numbers aren't from the Lancet.

Also, counting up 'deaths attributable to sanctions' seems a dubious proposition since it's the army that starves last.

The Great Irony of Bush is that Bush's statements make sense when taken as a whole and they manage to be consistent over time. Really. I've been on enough other boards and followed this issue, not to a TM-like state of zen, but enough to know that Bush has been consistent with regard to Iraq.

Meanwhile, all you need to do is read Kerry's positions and statements about Iraq over time, or, worse, Edwards, to get a true sense of what playing politics with Iraq looks like.

I know, Karl Rove ~ mind control beams ~ et cetera, et cetera ... run up to the war, blahblahblah, but Bush has not said the things the Left accuses him of saying.

That tends to be a problem if the goal is to be reality-based.

[Jor]

BumperSticker, I would love to see a non-hacktacular discreditation of the Lancet Study. As I've actually corresponded with one of the people who worked on it, I'm aware that several people from the US military have actually approached the group about methodology, etc., but haven't really raised any objections.

[Assistant Village Idiot]

Jor, the Lancet/Johns Hopkins study, by its own claims, ends up with the result that there is a 95% chance that the number of dead in Iraq is between 8,000 and 188,000. I have no problem with that. Hell, I'll go out on a limb and say there's a 100% chance it's between 8K and 188K. The conclusion "It must be about halfway between the two," though tempting, is not warranted.

Not directed at Jor, BTW: The phrase "everyone knows..." is better translated "All the cool kids believe..."

[Steven J.]

"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

[Jor]

AVI, a very appropriate name, for a stunningly ignorant comment. IF you have not taken even a rudimentary highschool class on statistics, please refrain from trying to make statistical arguments.

In short, every number in a confidence interval doesn't have the same chance of coming up. The number in the middle is the most PROBABLE. By a shit load. These aren't exact numbers, but for all intents and purposes, but there is ike a 90% chance that 100k people died. And there is a 1% chance only 8k people died. And there is a 1% chance 200k people died.

[big dirigible]

The intellectual sleight-of-hand played by the Times is obvious enough - leave out enough adjectives so that the war on terrorism magically morphs into the war in Iraq in mid-sentence, then launch the ridiculous postulate that "the war" has nothing to do with the September 11 atrocities. One war does, one doesn't (directly), but the Times can claim that the one that does, doesn't. Crafty enough, but much too obvious to anyone who's paying attention. I can't credit the notion that it's not obvious to the Powers That Be at the Times, either. Which implies that this game of apples-and-oranges can only be strong evidence of malevolence and duplicity at the Times.

There's only so much that one can attribute to diversity of viewpoint, residual hippy-ism, or Bush Derangement Syndrome. There comes a point at which one has to realize that the Axis of Evil extends much further than we thought. All hyperbole aside - I'm afraid the Times really IS on the other side.

[Joe Mealyus]

"...it is vital to acknowledge three facts:"

There are differences of opinion about whether the first fact is actually a fact; but at least there's a defensible fact in there somewhere. But the second fact - "The war has not made the world, or this nation, safer from terrorism" - is unknowable. You can agree or disagree with it, but it's just a theory. If you acknowledge that statement (or its opposite) as a fact, I think it makes you a loony. And the third fact - the need to "rethink the plan" - I can understand why the NYT may think it's vital that we agree with it, but it also is not a fact, it's clearly just an opinion.

All this leads me to the supposition that like Krugman's "adult discussion," the NYT's idea of a "sober conversation" does not involve too much conversing....

[John in Tokyo]

The question of whether the war on terror, and its Iraq front, has made America safer is a trick question based on a fallacy. I cringed everytime I heard it debated during the election. As a hawk, I don't think for a moment that we are safer. People encourage people not to resist criminals and people who do are more likely to get hurt. We have incurred the wrath of the world's militant Islamists. In the end though, I consider fighting them now to be the only path that holds the promise of a future lasting peace.

[Cecil Turner]

"These aren't exact numbers, but for all intents and purposes, but there is ike a 90% chance that 100k people died."

Even if you assume a normal distribution (not warranted), if the 95% CI is between 8,000 and 194,000, the 90% Confidence Interval will be between ~ 20,000-175,000 (with the tradeoff of course, that the chance the actual value falls outside the range has risen to 10%).

For a more useful estimate (based on a much larger sample size), the UN Iraq Living Conditions Survey puts the interval at 18,000 to 29,000 (p.55 of the analytical report). Iraq Body Count puts the current interval between 22563 and 25560 (with a methodology that practically guarantees it'll be an overestimate) . . . all of which fall well within the Lancet's interval, and tend to discredit the 100,000 number.

[BumperStickerist]

StevenJ -

That quote proves the point. The Bush Regime had a justified belief that Iraq held WMDs prior to the invasion and ongoing into the the first months of the occupation. Also, it's worth reading that conference transcript to see that Bush has been, and remains consistent. Unless the preferred activity is quote mining.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/04/20030410-8.html

What's telling is the nature of the questions being asked of Fleischer three weeks into a war.

As to the Lancet study, a quick Google&Skim shows there are fundamental questions regarding methodology, not to mention the gob-smacking conclusion that, basically, every Iraqi civilian is doomed, they just don't know it yet. Others will deal with the statistics issues as technical matters, I'd just point out the unlikelihood that a soccer stadium's worth of civillians, women and children, were slaughtered by the US military and nobody's heard of it.

Unless we're going to use a rather loose definition for causal factors. For example, Philadelpiha newscasters attribute heat-related death to anybody who was sweating while they died.

If the argument for the 100,000 is that the were a power plant was disabled due to an airstrike, thus denying a village of airconditioning, little Omar perished, chalk one death up to the brutal US invasion, then, yeah, maybe we get to a 100,000. I'm assuming that Omar isn't a Marsh Arab or a member of a community that isn't Ba'athist friendly, though. Those groups seemed to have pretty high incidences of both morbidity and mortality.

I'd go with the IBC's <20,000 casualities, which is too high, but at or near the 'least bad' curve.

[Cecil Turner]

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence found the “most problematic area of contact between Iraq and al-Qaida were the reports of training in the use of non-conventional weapons, specifically chemical and biological weapons.”

This is the main point--and it speaks to "facts" one and two. The primary terrorist threat today is a biological agent (esp. anthrax) smuggled into major cities and dispersed. (As nuclear weapons proliferate, it will gradually shift to nukes placed in shipping containers and detonated on arrival in US ports.) The relative difficulty in smuggling and employing rockets, artillery pieces, sarin shells, or even nerve gas cannisters, makes those relatively remote. It was this threat the President referred to in the SOTU:

"Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known."

The amount needed is extremely modest. One kilogram, dispersed effectively over a major US city, could cause 123,000 deaths (according to a mathematical model). Hence the primary area of concern is biological . . . unfortunately it's also the hardest to track.

The threat was highlighted by the post-9/11 anthrax attacks. The indications of Al Qaeda involvement was sketchy (but the timing was certainly suggestive--and the FBI fixation on a domestic source is not convincing), but if it was, then the anthrax would've been provided by a "rogue state," and congressional hearings fingered Iraq as the most likely culprit:

Ms. HARRIS. As I said in my statement, there are three possible scenarios here. One is the rogue state scenario. And clearly Iraq would top, I think, everyone's list.
Mr. LANTOS. Would Iraq top your list also?
Dr. ALIBEK. Correct.
Mr. LANTOS. All three of you are in agreement that Iraq is the most likely source?
Ms. HARRIS. If it is, in fact, a deliberate effort by another state to inflict harm on the United States, then Iraq clearly had the most advanced biological weapons program outside of the former Soviet Union.

In an interview during the invasion, Alibek reminds us that the small-scale production requirements are modest:

Such a small amount, keep in mind that the people who did it could have very simple equipment and very simple procedures. There is no need for industrial equipment. It would be enough to have small equipment.

How that relates to the most worrisome aspect of Duelfer's report ought to be obvious:

The IIS had a series of laboratories that conducted biological work including research into BW agents for assassination purposes until the mid-1990s. ISG has not been able to establish the scope and nature of the work at these laboratories or determine whether any of the work was related to military development of BW agent.

It's also worth noting that he's least confident about that part of the report (from the transmittal "note"):

If there were to be a surprise in the future, it most likely would be in the biological weapons area, since the signature and facilities for these efforts are small compared to the other WMD types.

Which gets us into speculation about Atta meeting an IIS agent in Prague, Steven Hatfill's pond, and lots of other scenarios where the uncertainties overwhelm the sparse data. But if the anthrax letter attacks were from Al Qaeda (which is at least a possibility), then in my estimation it's analogous to the 1993 WTC attack: good basic concept . . . lousy operational execution. And if so, we definitely don't want to let them refine the attack plan . . . or the next 9/11 will be a lot worse than the last.

[JPT]

"These aren't exact numbers, but for all intents and purposes, but there is ike a 90% chance that 100k people died. And there is a 1% chance only 8k people died. And there is a 1% chance 200k people died."

Ah, no. Statistics don't work that way. AVI's analysis is correct based on bell curves and standard deviations. Jor's is not. I was going to get into confidence levels, sampling bias and it's effect on extrapolation in detail, but other's beat me to it. Suffice to say that the Lancet study has been a joke from the start. The military's studies were more rigorous in both collecting an unbiased and realistic sample and extrapolating from that sample.

[Paul Zrimsek]

Describing the 100,000 as people we killed would be seriously misleading even if the statistic were any good.

[Black Jack]

JTP:

Let's pick that one bone a bit. The spin that Clinton approached terrorism as a "legal issue" is widespread and often taken as a commonplace. Facts are offered to support the contention and reliable individuals pushed forward to vouch for it. There is some evidence and much window dressing to support the nostrum, However, it is, simply not so.

Clinton ignored and misidentified terrorist attacks so long as our troops were the target. Oh, he did make a few bellicose speeches where he puffed up his chest, wagged his finger, and promised retribution. But he did nothing of consequence. Later, after terrorists attacked civilians and US Embassies he used the incidents to justify cruise missile attacks on dubious targets to divert attention from his impeachment problems. But that in no way indicates a "law enforcement approach" to terrorism. It indicates malfeasance in office from a lying dunce caught red-handed trying desperately to divert attention from his own criminal misbehavior.

Both positions are supported by evidence. However, only one is correct, the other is only an impostor offered after the fact to help explain away Clinton's bloodstained dirty laundry.

[Steve Nichols]

"7) Make us realize that supporting dictators in the Middle East for years had bred well-deserved resentment against us, and that we should support democracy instead."
--------------------

Sounds like you're blaming American foreign policy for setting up conditions which motivated the 9/11 attacks.

Funny, Condoleeza Rice recently said pretty much the same thing.

When Susan Sontag and others made similar observations, they were reviled for it.

Bush and Cheney sold this war by conflating Iraq involvement in the 9/11 attacks. It was dishonest.

[boris]

Bush and Cheney sold this war by conflating Iraq involvement in the 9/11 attacks. It was dishonest.

Since Bush openly disclaimed Iraq involvement, this is what's dishonest.

A majority believed Saddam was involved because they were mad as hell and wanted a target for retribution. Blaming the administration for exploiting or not working harder to dispel that belief is sloppy thinking.

The adminstration waited 2 yrs, sought UN support, and stated multiple reasons for invading that had nothing to do with responsibiility for 911.

[Steve Nichols]

Oh please. The Bush administration conflated Iraq and 9/11 at every opportunity. That's the reason so many held and still falsely believe Saddam was involved in 9/11.

And BTW, the administration did not wait 2 years, and did not get UN permission for the invasion. A US general admitted the other day that we began an air attack on Iraq before Bush had congressional authorization for war.

Moreover, the UN decided to give inspections more time. Blix reported back twice in the weeks before the invasion noting he found no WMD and asking for a little more time to determine whether Saddam was telling the truth about disarming.

Bush ordered the invasion rather than have his war plans punctured by Blix and the inspections. War was a last resort--what a snort.

[boris]

Oh please. The Bush administration conflated Iraq and 9/11 at every opportunity. That's the reason so many held and still falsely believe Saddam was involved in 9/11.

People believed Saddam was involved the very day it happened before Bush or Cheney said a single word.

The word conflate does not apply. I know what you think you mean but it's the wrong word.

Iraq and 911 are connected: no 911, no invasion

That undeniable fact does not constitute deceit or conspiracy.

[Steve Nichols]

Definition: Conflate
Conflate
Verb
1. Mix together different elements; "The colors blend well"; "fuse the clutter of detail into a rich narrative"--A. Schlesinger.

http://www.websters-dictionary-online.org/definition/conflate

Conflate is the correct word, as anyone recognizes who has any memory of the massive propaganda campaign waged by Bush and Blair for public support of their misadventure in Iraq.

No 9/11, no Iraq? You're confusing necessary with sufficient causation. It's akin to saying, no Bush, no Iraq; or, no PNAC, no Iraq.

And a word on the terms of surrender. Simply admitting those three truths which should be obvious to anyone paying attention, the actual terms of surrender include impeachment and trial at the Hague for war crimes. Seeing Bush and his cronies swinging at the end of a rope in the Hague will do wonders to repair America's reputation and to prevent other miscreants from killing 10's of thousands of civilians in an illegal invasion.

Those are the terms of surrender.

[BumperStickerist]

Those are the terms of surrender.

Okay, now that you have the terms of surrender nailed down, Steve - here's what you need to do next:

First - get yourself a Missouri class battleship.

Second - Sail it into the Potomac river

Third - Anchor said battleship somewhere near D.C.

Fourth - wait for Bush&Co. to show up wearing tophat and tails

Fifth - Indicate to them where they need to sign the surrender agreement

Sixth - Make an announcement.

That should about do it.

Good luck, let us know how it all turns out.

[Steve Nichols]

Actually the proper procedure involves an inquiry into grounds for impeachment, a trial of impeachment, and then a recommendation to the Hague to convene trials for crimes against humanity regarding Bush and Blair.

As Justice Jackson told the Germans at Nuremberg, the crime was starting an illegal war of agression.

The British knew there were no grounds for invasion, as is well documented in the various Downing Street memoranda, the resignation of Elizabeth Wilmshurst, and the various machinations regarding British legal memoranda.

The only people who didn't doubt the propaganda were people who wanted to believe. For that they are at fault.

[boris]

No 911, no invasion.

911 created the conditions that made invasion contingent upon Saddam's compliance with US demands relative to the war on terror.

Sorry, that is not "mixing different elements"

Feigning incomprehension of the obvious for purposes of partisan rhetoric is not what one considers "paying attention".

[Pat]

Bush was not less concerned about past linkage between Saddam and Al Qaeda than he was about future co-operation. Bush was rightly concerned that Saddam would use a terrorist organization to launch a WMD attack on the US. Saddam, like Al Qaeda, was a sworn enemy of the US. Saddam financed and sheltered terrorists, including one of the architects of the first WTC bombing. Saddam had had an active nuclear weapons program and had used chemical weapons on Iran and his own people. Saddam had started two disastrous wars. It was essential to take him out sooner rather than later.

Imagine what damage Al Qaeda (or any other terrorist group) could have caused with a few kilograms of weaponized anthrax, an aerosol dispersal device and a few light aircraft. Saddam could have supplied the anthrax and no one would be the wiser.

In all the discussion about WMD, everyone forgets UNSC Resolution 1441. Saddam failed to comply with that resolution and that precipitated the war. Why did he not comply? What was he hiding?

Who thought Saddam had WMD. Here's a list (courtesy of Right Wing News):

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

[Steve Nichols]

"911 created the conditions that made invasion contingent upon Saddam's compliance with US demands relative to the war on terror."

Here's what Bush said in the 2003 State of the Union speech:

"If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm, for the safety of our people and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him."

Saddam truthfully declared that he had disarmed. Blix stated twice in the weeks before invasion that Iraq was cooperating with inspections and that in a few more months he would know for sure whether Iraq had disarmed.

Several weeks later Bush sent a letter to Congress swearing that further diplomatic action would not suffice to protect the U.S. from "international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."

Iraq did not it plan, authorize, committe or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

[boris]

Saddam truthfully declared

But refused to comply.

Iraq did not it plan, authorize, committe or aided [sic] the terrorists attacks

Neither did Afghanistan.

[Steve Nichols]

The proof that the administration's case was weak is that they hyped the WMD and 9/11 connections, rather than lay out the case for removing Saddam from power. The way it was done was blatantly dishonest.

The false excuse that Democrats believed Saddam had WMD is belied by the fact that Bush invaded rather than allow Blix time to complete his inspection. He knew he couldn't wait because Blix would find no WMD and the case for war would fail. See also the numerous people who denied that Saddam had WMD, including Rice and Powell.

It's not okay to allow the government to lie about the need for war. In fact, it's hard to imagine something being less okay.

Tie in the torture, the fact that we were waging an air war prior to congressional authorization, and you have a compelling case for impeachment and then trial on war crimes issues.

[Lurking Observer]

The air war, of course, was being waged consistent w/ enforcement of the "no-fly zones."

Somehow, Saddam shooting at the aircraft, painting them with radars, etc., is forgotten in Steve Nichols' recounting.

BTW, Saddam did not truthfully declare that he had disarmed. To have done so would have required providing evidence that he had disarmed. Rice, etc. noted that Hussein had done no such thing.

Instead, Saddam simply denied that he had any prohibited arms---in the same manner that he had denied that he had had any arms in the 1991-1992 period, before his in-laws provided the key evidence that he had, in fact, been developing biological weapons and had retained nuclear infrastructure.

[RS]

Mr. Nichols - Not that I for a moment accept anything you've said as proven, logical, or even rational, but tell you what:

tell us how, without the benefit of hindsight, you would have addressed the situation of Saddam and the question of his WMDs. You're the leader of the Free World in 2003 - how would you have handled it?

Or, you could tackle the question of just what the motives of Bush and Blair were in this alleged "war of aggression." What do you think they stood to gain?

Go to it, old fellow. Bowl us over with your grasp of statecraft!

[Steve Nichols]

Why not let Blix continue his inspections?

Bowl me over with a good reason. Both Rice and Powell had stated that sanctions had contained Saddam from obtaining WMD.

I'd have let Blix continue his inspections, no hindsight needed.

Regarding motives, there were several. They are laid out in part in the Downing Street Memoranda, in part in the Project for a New American Century, in part in the Strategy for Securing the Realm, and in part by the belief that fighting small wars helps win elections.

[Steve Nichols]

"The air war, of course, was being waged consistent w/ enforcement of the "no-fly zones.""

Wrong. The air war was not consistent with the enforcement of the no-fly zones. The air war was a massive campaign (over 21,000 sorties in 9 months) designed to prompt Saddam into war. That is not consistent with the purpose of the no-fly zones.

[Steve Nichols]

If I had been mistaken about: hundreds of tons of WMD, mobile biological weapons labs, UAV's capable of reaching our shores with chemical weapons, Iraq's being involved in 9/11, Iraq being a cakewalk that would pay for itself, yellowcake, aluminum tubes, and everything else Bush and his media supporters claimed but got wrong, then I would really have to stop and question my information sources.

But then I'm part of the reality-based community. We value accuracy in information as necessary to developing public policy.

[RS]

Mr. Nichols: Not bowled over yet, drat the luck, but keep trying. So you're arguing in favor of continued inspections as the sovereign remedy for the Saddam/WMD question, while positing that the motive for War in Iraq was a sinister plot to enhance the power of the United States and help the incumbent President win an upcoming election?

I mean, that is what you're saying, right? You contend that the inspections process overseen by Blix was adequate and sufficient to address the issue of WMDs? You genuinely believe that the Iraq War was about nothing more than advancing American hegemony and the electoral ambitions of George Bush?

You .... really .... believe this, don't you?

[RS]

Because, I mean, Mr. Nichols, you're part of the "reality-based community," right?

[Steve Nichols]

First, you avoided addressing why Blix should not have been allowed to complete his inspections, which would have saved a lot of lives and money and avoided this war.

Second, I gave a broad list of documents which are foreign policy statements of the current party in power, the understanding of the situation by the British, and that yes, Bush used the war for political gain.

If PNAC, or the New Strategy for Securing the Realm, or the understading of the Iraq situation outlined in the various Downing Street memoranda do not accurately reflect the thinking of the various groups, then I am making the mistake at taking the individuals in power at their words. But first you'll have to explain to me how those documents aren't accurate reflections of their thinking. Good luck.

And you doubt that Bush and Rove used Iraq for political gain. You really think that?

Not surprising that you bought the rest of the sale of bogus goods then.

[Steve Nichols]

First, you avoided addressing why Blix should not have been allowed to complete his inspections, which would have saved a lot of lives and money and avoided this war.

Second, I gave a broad list of documents which are foreign policy statements of the current party in power, the understanding of the situation by the British, and that yes, Bush used the war for political gain.

If PNAC, or the New Strategy for Securing the Realm, or the understading of the Iraq situation outlined in the various Downing Street memoranda do not accurately reflect the thinking of the various groups, then I am making the mistake at taking the individuals in power at their words. But first you'll have to explain to me how those documents aren't accurate reflections of their thinking. Good luck.

And you doubt that Bush and Rove used Iraq for political gain. You really think that?

Not surprising that you bought the rest of the sale of bogus goods then.

[Steve Nichols]

By Russ Baker

Two years before 9/11, candidate Bush was already talking privately about attacking Iraq, according to his former ghost writer

According to Herskowitz, who has authored more than 30 books, many of them jointly written autobiographies of famous Americans in politics, sports and media (including that of Reagan adviser Michael Deaver), Bush and his advisers were sold on the idea that it was difficult for a president to accomplish an electoral agenda without the record-high approval numbers that accompany successful if modest wars.

http://www.gnn.tv/articles/article.php?id=761

Either Baker, or Herskowitz are lying, or Bush and his advisors believed in gaining political advantage for war.

Once again, the only defense for Bush is that the media is lying. Amazing how often that happens.

So which is it, were Baker and Herskowitz lying? How can you be confident, given that everything else you bought from the administration about this war turned out false?

[RS]

Mr. Nichols: You're the fellow from the reality-based community. You're the one who marched on here issuing a diktat calling for the execution of President Bush and Prime Minister Blair as war criminals. Seems to me you're the one who has the burden of proof here.

Please demonstrate for the benefit of us lesser mortals how Blix's inspection process would have avoided a war. While you're at it, be sure to include the innumerable advantages, both for the Iraqi people, the Middle East, and the United States, of leaving Saddam in power.

I have to confess that I've read the documents you cited before, and don't quite find the same sinister import in them that you do, but doubtless it's my failing, not being reality-based and all. Nonetheless, overlook my shortcomings and illustrate to me exactly how you can be certain that Bush meant this war for nothing more than political gain.

Speaking of which, were there no other benefits to be derived from this "war of aggression" that you posit? Did the Coalition sign on simply to help Bush's chances in 2004?

Do you contend that Saddam was in no way a threat? I seem to remember him being a principal banker to suicide bombers in Israel, and playing host to Abu Nidal, but perhaps that was just Karl Rove selling me some more of those "bogus goods."

That Rove fellow - he's sneaky!

[spongeworthy]

First, you avoided addressing why Blix should not have been allowed to complete his inspections, which would have saved a lot of lives and money and avoided this war.

Becuase we had 125,000 soldiers sweating their asses off compelling Saddam to comply. Problem is, he had the assurance of the bought-and-paid for, the Axis of weasels telling him they'd never permit us to invade. So he chose not to comply.

Now, if you Don't Question My Patriotism types want to take a raft of that crap from tinpot shitheels like Saddam after the price of such suckitude came crashing down on September 11, well then go win an election on that platform. Don't run around telling everybody what a threat the guy was but when the time comes pussy out in front of the entire world. That was getting people killed.

[Steve Nichols]

The case for impeachment and war crimes trials is straightforward.

Bush engaged in an unauthorized air war against Saddam. That is a violation of the separation of powers in the Constitution.

Bush told Congress that further peaceful and diplomatic measures could not protect the U.S. from those who aided or planned 9/11. That was false, a lie to Congress. He planned and started war before the congressional authorization. Impeachment is necessary if we are going to redeem our national honor.

War Crimes. At least 20,000 Iraqi civilians have died as a result of this war. It was a war of aggression--Iraq was not an imminent threat to the U.S., as admitted in the various Downning Street memoranda, and in the observations of Rice and Powell. It was illegal under the U.N. Charter and under international law to which the U.S. took a lead in developing.

Now please tell me why Blix should not have been allowed to complete his inspections. Bush said war is a last resort, then why didn't he allow Blix to complete his inspections?

[Steve Nichols]

I see. So once Bush sent the troops to sweat off their asses in Kuwait, war was inevitable.

If true, that proves the lie that Bush wanted war as a last resort.

The bottom line is we liberals were correct in doubting every major claim made by the Bush administration and its supporters. For most people that would be a clue that our information and analyses were superior, accuracy being valuable. It's amazing to watch Bush supporters continue to flail despite having been so wrong.

[spongeworthy]

Is it your contention that Saddam was cooperating with the inspections? Can you provide a link that would back that up?

How is Congress going to impeach him when they voted for the war? What intelligence did Bush have that Congress did not have access to? How can Bush have lied to Congress when he saw the same intel they did?

How is a war illegal when one side has violated a cease-fire agreement?

The only thing straightforward about your case is the direction it should travel into the waste bun.

[RS]

Mr. Nichols: As a member of the reality-based community, you should acknowledge the reality that you haven't answered the questions I posed. For that matter, you still continue to parade assertions that you have yet to root in any sort of proof.

Once again, please demonstrate why you believe Hans Blix's inspection program was so effective, in particular in regard to its capacity to avert war.

Give us some reality-based proof that President Bush launched the war to help his chances in 2004.

Demonstrate how the matter would have been better resolved had Saddam been left in power.

And please, oh please, show us how Saddam was not a threat.

Let me leave it at that - Karl Rove is doing his utmost to make me type more, but no .... must.... resist ...
Soylent Green is ..... GAHHHHH!

[Steve Nichols]

"Nonetheless, overlook my shortcomings and illustrate to me exactly how you can be certain that Bush meant this war for nothing more than political gain."

If you can show me where I said that "Bush meant this war for nothing more than political gain", then you will force me into retracting that thought.

There were multiple reasons for the war, as I noted, and even gave some detail. Your posted questions ire either similiarly disingenuous or simply wrongheaded.

But once again, nothing you bought about this war turned out true. Nothing significant anyway. Sensible people would step back and do a major reexamination. I would if our situations were reversed, but then as you're aware, I'm part of the reality based community.

[Steve Nichols]

"Is it your contention that Saddam was cooperating with the inspections? Can you provide a link that would back that up?"

First, you may have noted that Kay and Duelfer reported that Saddam had in fact disarmed, as he said he did. That's good enough cooperation for anyone worried about his WMD>

Second, here's Blix reporting the the Security Council several weeks before the war:

Iraq has on the whole cooperated rather well so far with UNMOVIC in this field.

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/Bx27.htm

One can hardly avoid the impression that, after a period of somewhat reluctant cooperation, there has been an acceleration of initiatives from the Iraqi side since the end of January.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0303/S00110.htm

Yes, Iraq was cooperating with inspections.

[Steve Nichols]

"Once again, please demonstrate why you believe Hans Blix's inspection program was so effective, in particular in regard to its capacity to avert war."

As I quoted above, Bush said in the 2003 State of the Union speech that:

"If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm, for the safety of our people and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him."

In other words, disarming would have prevented war. If Blix determined that Saddam had disarmed, then if we take the president at his word, we would not have gone to war.

Did you really need to have this spelled out for you?

[RS]

Yep, Mr. Nichols, you're part of the reality-based community. Reality informs your observations and superior information infuses your words with withering impact.

Yep, reality-based. In my alternate reality, it seems like you're shifting position a wee bit here, and still dodging the questions asked.

But it's okay. Lay it on us, man .... speak truth to power! We'll protect you from the one known as Rove and his countless minions. Show us how your reality-based insights trump the intellects of 58 million Americans. Come into the light, Steve!

Or don't. Above all, however, please don't pause for a moment and consider just what you're outlining above says about you, and what's in your heart. Because you're reality-based! Information and analysis superior! Accuracy valuable! Bush and Blair and his cronies swinging at the end of a rope! Fight the power!

[Steve Nichols]

Give us some reality-based proof that President Bush launched the war to help his chances in 2004.

Demonstrate how the matter would have been better resolved had Saddam been left in power.

And please, oh please, show us how Saddam was not a threat.
-------------

First, I provided you with the Herskowitz quotes and asked whether you doubted them. You provided no response.

Second, $300 billion, 1750 living U.S. troops and thousands not maimed, 20,000+ living Iraqi civilians, a strategic snafu of historic proportions--those and other reason all militate in favor of leaving Saddam in power.

Third, show me where I claimed Saddam was not a threat. Was he a threat that required invading? Not if you listen to Powell or Rice, or if you believed Bush when he required disarmament as a way to avoid invasion.

[BumperStickerist]

Well, Steve, the moment 'reality' is defined as 'reading the document'we can then moved onto the topic of 'based' and 'community'.

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?

If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. (Applause.)
George Bush - State of the Union - 2003

It's quite instructive really.

[spongeworthy]

I see. So once Bush sent the troops to sweat off their asses in Kuwait, war was inevitable.

If true, that proves the lie that Bush wanted war as a last resort.

What shoes permit you to make such leaps? You are not here to discuss this, you are showing off for somebody, how you make the wingnuts leap through your hoops. I am not impressed.

Regime change was the goal. You seem to have dismissed that entire strategy, strategy your friends in France and Germany thwarted when they chose to take Saddam's money and assure him he'd be free to continue terrorizing his poeple. How very proud you all must be.

Your selected quotes are horseshit. Blix scurried around at the end playing peacemaker, but Blix was already on record as frustrated at Saddam's obstinance. He simply didn't want blood on his hands and finally scurried out of the way as it became apparent Saddam would not leave Iraq.

If you want to place blame for the deaths of servicemen and civilians, why don't you look to those who promised Saddam they'd prevent the U.S from ever enforcing 1441? If the U.N. resolution would not be enforced, why would Saddam pack his bags?

This war need not have happened, but the blood is not on the hands of those who spoke clearly and did what they said they would. It belongs on the hands of those who thought they could bend our will because they were so corrupt they could not believe we were not just as corrupt.

And you have not answered my questions about your idiotic impeachment case. How, again, do you propose Congress impeach the President for doing exactly what they authorized him to do? Are you speaking of some other kind of proceeding, where you and a couple of kids from your school hold a mock impeachment in your basement between Nestle's Toll house cookie breaks?

[boris]

Second, $300 billion, 1750 living U.S. troops and thousands not maimed, 20,000+ living Iraqi civilians, a strategic VICTORY of historic proportions

Trade for free Iraq, Afghanistan and the Lybian nuke program? You bet. Minimal cost for the military advantage in the war on terror.

[Steve Nichols]

I see. So once Bush sent the troops to sweat off their asses in Kuwait, war was inevitable.

If true, that proves the lie that Bush wanted war as a last resort.

"What shoes permit you to make such leaps?"
----------------

The original question was, 'Why couldn't we wait three months for Blix to complete his inspections, assuming Bush was truthful in saying war was a last resort.' (that's impeachable if he lied, BTW).

You responded: "Because we had 150,000 troops sweating in Kuwait.:"

To which I responded: "Then you're saying that war was inevitable once we sent the troops to Kuwait."

It's not a leap, but an inevitable conclusion from your reasoning.

As for the case for impeachment, Congress can impeach the president for lying about the need for a war, and for initiating the air war before he had authorization.

Congress gave Bush the power to go to war, if he made several findings, including that further diplmatic measures would not protect the U.S. against those who planned or aided in the 9/11 attacks. Bush made those findings despite Blix' asking for more time--and those findings were false.

Impeachment. Make the inquiry. If he's impeached, send him to stand trial for war crimes.

[RS]

Steve - you don't get it, do you? Let me put it in reality-based terms. Your arguments are specious, not to mention the fact that they've been refuted a thousand times over - see, for example, Victor Hanson, or take the time to actually read some of the posts above.

You've followed classic troll procedure:

make outrageous claim
provoke fights
when confronted, refuse to address questions raised
continually shift position, deny saying what actually was said a few posts earlier
assert superiority
demand that others disprove contentions you have yet to provide adequate proof for on your own

You're ... tiresome, Steve. I hoped that gently mocking you might help you to see that, but fun as it was, it didn't work.

My bad. You go on and have the last word in our small part of this exchange, as it's doubtless important to you. Make it reality-based. If you like, believe in your reality-based way that you've actually made a case here.

Or don't. It's all the same to me, though there may be others here who would feel differently.

[Steve Nichols]

I answered your questions. You're a liar.

[RS]

Yep, liar, answered my questions, reality-based. Um-hum. Anything else?

[spongeworthy]

The original question was, 'Why couldn't we wait three months for Blix to complete his inspections, assuming Bush was truthful in saying war was a last resort.' (that's impeachable if he lied, BTW).

Horseshit. How does a lie fall under "high crimes and misdemeanors"? I'm not conceding anybody lied here, but even if he had it's not impeachable.

And why should we wait three months? If the documentation Saddam was required to submit existed, he could produce it now, not jerk us around at huge expense in dollars and in respect. Like I said, if you patriots want to get yanked around by a shitheel like that, win an election on that platform.

Regime change is what was inevitable. It was Saddam that made the war inevitable.

Face it, you're not making any points that haven't been discredited time and time again. You produce no evidence except recycled and truncated quotes from The Nation. You don't respond to crucial questions about your case, and you believe insistence is the same as proof.

You offer no solutions except groveling to scumbags and Americans have lost patience with your brand of patriotism.

Run along and whip up some virgin coladas for your simpering weenie friends and leave global issues for those with the balls to see them through.

[Cecil Turner]

"First, you may have noted that Kay and Duelfer reported that Saddam had in fact disarmed, as he said he did."

Your definition of "disarmed" is a bit different from mine. In the first place, Duelfer made it clear that Saddam wanted to end sanctions . . . not permanently lose his WMD capability:

Saddam Husayn so dominated the Iraqi Regime that its strategic intent was his alone. He wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when sanctions were lifted.

In the second, Saddam failed to disclose or destroy the one critical area suitable for providing terrorists WMD capability:

The IIS had a series of laboratories that conducted biological work including research into BW agents for assassination purposes until the mid-1990s. ISG has not been able to establish the scope and nature of the work at these laboratories or determine whether any of the work was related to military development of BW agent.

• The security services operated a series of laboratories in the Baghdad area. Iraq should have declared these facilities and their equipment to the UN, but they did not. Neither the UN Special Commission (UNSCOM) nor the UN Monitoring, Verification, and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) were aware of their existence or inspected them.
• Some of the laboratories possessed equipment capable of supporting research into BW agents for military purposes, but ISG does not know whether this occurred although there is no evidence of it. The laboratories were probably the successors of the Al Salman facility, located three kilometers south of Salman Pak, which was destroyed in 1991, and they carried on many of the same activities, including forensic work.
• Under the aegis of the intelligence service, a secretive team developed assassination instruments using poisons or toxins for the Iraqi state. A small group of scientists, doctors and technicians conducted secret experiments on human beings, resulting in their deaths. The aim was probably the development of poisons, including ricin and afl atoxin to eliminate or debilitate the Regime’s opponents. It appears that testing on humans continued until the mid 1990s. There is no evidence to link these tests with the development of BW agents for military use.

[Steve Nichols]

"You don't respond to crucial questions about your case, and you believe insistence is the same as proof."

What crucial questions have I not answered?

And yes, lying to Congress about the need for war is definitely an impeachable offense. It's a high crime and misdemeanor.

Discredited statements? The irony is almost too much. 100's of tons of WMD, etc....

Here's one of the lights cited by one of your coreligionists:

The Politics of American Wars
Islamists have proved adept at winning liberal exemption from criticism.

http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200506240756.asp

Page me when the clowns at NRO get something correct. God, what a joke.

[Steve Nichols]

"Your definition of "disarmed" is a bit different from mine."

Yeah, my definition involved getting rid of the hundreds of tons of VX gas and other WMD, nuclear weapons, aluminum tubes for refining yellowcake uranium--you know, the stuff Bush and his staff absolutely positively promised Iraq had, and which they absolutely lacked.

This war wasn't sold on the basis of Saddam's desire to have WMD. It was sold on the dual notions that he was armed to the teeth and that he was somehow involved in al Qaeda and 9/11.

The propaganda campaign was disgustingly obvious. The only people who bought it, wanted to buy it.

[boris]

lying to Congress about the need for war is definitely an impeachable offense

Not when congress was telling the same lies, as quoted here and elsewhere. You are aware that Iraqi regime change was US policy as of 1998?

and that he was somehow involved in al Qaeda and 9/11.

Now who's lying. Bush specifically stated otherwise.

[BumperStickerist]

So, Steve, there've been two direct refutations of your 'points' by providing the links to the sources from which you mined your quotes.

At best, what we're dealing with is your recollection of the events leading up to the Iraq invasion supported only by *your* notion fo what is or isn't real.

And some notion you cling to of 'redeeming our national honor' ... I'd like to pause for a moment and square that concept with your claim that you're 'reality based' .... hmmmmmmmm ..... okay, it doesn't, no matter .. by having the Republican Congress impeach President Bush on the issue of agreed-upon intelligence and an in-hand authorization to use force.

The propaganda campaign is entirely of your doing here, Steve. Apparently, you bought it. I guess because you wanted to.

[Cecil Turner]

"Yeah, my definition involved getting rid of the hundreds of tons of VX gas and other WMD, nuclear weapons . . ."

Hundreds of tons of stuff that was no threat to the US . . . Bio was. And the claim was that Saddam was pursuing nuclear weapons, not that he had them.

"It was sold on the dual notions that he was armed to the teeth and that he was somehow involved in al Qaeda and 9/11."

ISTM it was sold on WMD (specifically bio and chem) and terrorism.

• Like:"Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known."
• Or: "Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists."

[creepy dude]

IOW it was sold on fear.

[creepy dude]

And didn't one of our best Presidents have something to say about that?

[Jor]

JPT -- that was a great refutation.

Cecil, IBC is bound to underestimate deaths, because it only counts deaths reported. Believe it or not, the media doesn't care about arabs dying. Even if they count some reports twice -- it still wouldn't matter.

In terms of the statistical point I was mkaing, you are mis-interpreting what I am saying 98k or 100k is the Maximum likelihood estimate. It has the greatest chance of being the correct point number. 8000 and 200,000 are on the tails of the confidence interval, they have the least chance of being accurate.

As far as the UN report -- it is a larger sample size, but there is no explanation for why they think they have a discrepency with Robert's estimate. I will enquire further into it.

[boris]

IOW it was sold on fear.

Fear wasn't the reason people had to jump out of the towers.

[Lurking Observer]

creepy dude:

That wouldn't be the same President who deliberately threw Americans into the line of fire without Congressional approval would it? And then lied about it in addresses to the nation, claiming that the destroyer had simply been attacked, w/o mentioning that it had been attacking U-boats? Prior to any declaration of war? (Google "Reuben James")

That wouldn't be the President who was elected on a platform that promised American mothers that their sons would fight in no foreign wars, yet as soon as the election was finished, was violating the Neutrality Acts that he signed by arming US merchant ships and otherwise starting an undeclared war with Germany would it?

I'm sure that wouldn't be the President who, against international law and US domestic law, authorized sales of arms, provisions of intelligence, and even ordered US forces to cooperate with a belligerent (CHOP line, hunt for the Bismarck, holding down German U-boats), would it?

Couldn't possibly be a President who met the head of one of the belligerent powers to plan joint strategy, months before Pearl Harbor, suggesting a deliberate effort to get us involved in a war, could it?

One wonders why such a President, having declared that we had nothing to fear but fear itself, would then go ahead and act in such a manner? Instead of explaining to the American people why we should either go to war openly, or instead keep out?

Is that the same President you had in mind, creepy?

[Lurking Observer]

And just to make it clear: FDR was right.

If the Constitution is not a suicide pact, similarly, the President in his position as guarantor of security at times has to make the hard choice of doing what's right and doing what's legal.

It is intellectually dishonest to suggest that somehow Presidents have not had to face this choice before, or worse, to suggest that it is "obviously" superior to obey the law, even if that will lead to disaster.

And it is simply ignorant to suggest that this is somehow a function of conservative or liberal, Democratic or Republican Presidents.

[creepy dude]

Well here's a hint, LO. I said "successful" so that rules out Bush.

But thanks for confirming my thesis that conservatives are running on nothing but their own naked terror nowadays.

[Cecil Turner]

"In terms of the statistical point I was mkaing, you are mis-interpreting what I am saying 98k or 100k is the Maximum likelihood estimate. It has the greatest chance of being the correct point number. 8000 and 200,000 are on the tails of the confidence interval, they have the least chance of being accurate."

Yes, a normal distribution has a hump in the middle (no kidding). However, this particular distribution is so flat that it's practically meaningless. The likelihood of any particular number in the distribution being correct is minimal. You mentioned 90%, I just pointed out that (using standard z-scores) you can make a pretty good estimate of the 90% CI from the 95% CI, and it still has a range of ~150,000. It also still includes the much more defensible range from the UN study.

[creepy dude]

Actually, I said "best" but whatever-you (don't) get the point.