DescentBB

Palzon, I think you just got your question answered...in spades

BD, well done sir! And I thought Dick Cheney was good at calmly and clearly putting things in perspective on this subject. You have just taken the prize with that last post. If you have no ties to a supreme court judge or Haliburton I think we can declare victory

De Rigueur wrote:(Hitler is the prime example of the failure of appeasement.)

And the Cold War is your prime counterexample.

Psst MehYam, perhaps you (as the thread-starter) should respond to the question I'm asking for the third time: why censure Bush for something Rumsfeld said?

Or, do you agree that moveon.org is completely overboard?

tyranny, imho this is no small point. to you and lothar i would submit that it wasn't the media like dan rather bandying around a vial of weapons grade material before the congress - it was the secretary of state Colin Powell for one. He was the one that stood there and proclaimed Iraq had "tons" of the stuff. it wasn't the media that made wmd the focus, it was the administration. also, from what i have heard and read, no one in the intelligence community was saying that the intel was strong enough to show that hussein was an immediate threat or threat to the point that immediate force was needed - especially to the extent that we would go in with or without our allies behind us.

my claim is that this was not lying but incompetence. to me this is along the same lines of how badly the atf and janet reno botched the whole waco thing. the standoff shouldnt have happened in the first place in waco. that was the governments fault for trying to apprehend koresh that way. but once the standoff began the government should have done what was necessary to get the innocents out safely. this is similar in that hussein really was contained.

the intel community is saying now that no iraq 9-11 connection was evident at any time. now kay is saying that even though he was confident iraq would be found to have wmd, there was no conclusive evidence at any time. the intel community is saying that they thought he had them because he had them in the past and weren't sure he destroyed them - hardly an imminent threat. according to kay he never intended to convey that immediate military response was needed. the administration could have presented a very rational, well thought argument for invading iraq and done it in a such a manner as to get our past allies on board. the point is there WAS no rush. and on the contrary, there was every reason in the long run to take time to present the whole thing properly to the nation and get our allies on board.

and now with revelations from this general clarke i think there are a lot of questions to be answered as to exactly what the adminstration was thinking when they made wmd the focus of their justfication for war.

the point is that this was a huge gaff as far as intel goes - and there is no two ways about that. no amount of hand waving can change the fact that the administration focused on wmd, said the danger was imminent and none of it turned out to be true. if it had been clinton in office when this happened this board would be lit up with posts from the largely conservative population here talking about what a mistake this was.

it matters to me that the reasons we claim justify invading someone are accurate. there were plenty of accurate reasons to invade iraq. but this administration gave us a crap reason as their main one. and so far the indications are that they should have known they were crap or did know they were crap. to me its almost worse if they're not liars but are incompetent.

Lothar wrote:I repeat my question based on the thread's original topic:

why censure Bush for something Rumsfeld said?

"Censure Bush" was the name associated to the linked video. After watching it, the site takes you to a petition form of some sort where you can write in about the censure.

The censuring is actually beside the point of the thread, so it was probably a poor title - although it sure got your attention.

index_html wrote:I think it's also worth noting that Iraq was trying to shoot down U.S. and British planes daily in the no-fly zones while we were protecting the Kurds in the north and Shi'ites in the south. The U.N. in all its wisdom, of course, didn't think that this overt aggression was a violation of any kind. Firing AAA must have taken a back seat to firing off checks to Swiss banks accounts.

Funny, these threads turn into long arguments about facts, when none of us know them for sure.... we don't know exactly what we're arguing for, just that we're arguing. Interesting.

In any case, to many of us the 'they have WMD' argument smelled fishy before the invasion, mostly because of the way it was presented - it smacked of being sold like a lemon of a used car, and there were 'facts' flying back and forth at the time that suggested the presence of WMD was debatable. And yet, the administration pushed onwards.... and the WMD argument sounds more fishy than ever. A circumstantial argument, to be sure, although unlike many of you I don't claim to have all the facts.

Furthermore, while the 'we need Saddam outa there' argument holds water, you have to agree (I think this is supportable by the agreed facts) that this was a side benefit tacked on to a post-mortem justification for the invasion.

I'd like to know what plans the administration has for ridding the world of the rest of it's despots.

Caught my attention because it's the thread title, video title, and it's restated at the end of the video. Once I hear it 3 times, I figure it's probably important enough to ask a question about, and to press to see if anybody actually had a good reason. Since you're not interested in defending it (and it's therefore an irrelevant point) I won't bother asking any more.

So, back to talking about possibly-failed intelligence...

there were 'facts' flying back and forth at the time that suggested the presence of WMD was debatable.

And there were UN resolutions that said Iraq had to *prove* they'd disposed of all of their WMD. Their presence being "debateable" already puts the Iraqi regime in a bad spot.

But, notice the idea that the presence was "debateable" didn't even surface until it became politically cool to oppose Bush. From 1992-2002, everyone was totally convinced Iraq had WMD -- and then Bush says he's going after Iraq and all of a sudden we're not all convinced. That seems pretty typical of the UN, actually...

Palzon, two things. You said:

...the administration could have presented a very rational, well thought argument for invading iraq and done it in a such a manner as to get our past allies on board. the point is there WAS no rush. and on the contrary, there was every reason in the long run to take time to present the whole thing properly to the nation and get our allies on board.

Yes, but no.
Take politics out of it and of course your dead on the money, however, as we now know, (and team Bush probably already knew) the U.N. Security council wasn't going to give anymore than they had because france and germany and russia all had their under the table deals with Saddam to protect.

[time for another goofy analogy]

I see the whole thing like a cop shooting Frankie the fleeing felon when he stops running, turns, and reaches into his pocket instead of raising his hands in surrender.
So now we find out he had a cell phone instead of a gun in his pocket. Well crap! Every cop on the beat, everyone in Frankie's nieghborhood, even most of Frankie's friends would have told you he was known to carry a .45 in that pocket.

You seem to want to frame it as the cop made up the story about Frankies gun toting habits.
It doesn't bother me that the cop wanted Frankie to reach in his pocket as long as I find out it was really Frankie the felon that got shot...I don't care if the cop taunted him or startled him into running.

I found another analogy that I thought was kind of funny that James Lileks wrote (Mon. 22nd):

--------------
Imagine if you woke from an operation and discovered that your tumor was gone. Youâ??d think: I suppose thatâ??s a good thing. But. You learned that the hospital might profit from the operation. You learned that the doctor who made the diagnosis had decided to ignore all the other doctors who believed the tumor could be discouraged if everyone protested the tumor in the strongest possible terms, and urged the tumor to relent. How would you feel? Youâ??d be mad. Youâ??d look up at the ceiling of your room and nurse your fury until you came to truly hate that butcher. And when he came by to see how you were doing, youâ??d have only one logical, sensible thing to say: YOU TOOK IT OUT FOR THE WRONG REASONS. PUT IT BACK!
---------------------
It's a great blog entry: http://www.lileks.com/bleats/archive/04 ... 32204.html

i like will's analogy better in terms of it actually being an analog for this situation. however, i don't think his argument applies to my argument for the following reason...

i'm not bothered that "frankie" was shot and killed. but here's where it gets tricky. i'm also not bothered because frankie was shot and killed for the wrong reason.

i'm bothered that the cop who shot frankie argued that we should shoot frankie for the wrong reason. a judgment in the heat of the moment is not the same as a reasoned argument. poor judgments in the heat of the moment are to be expected - like friendly fire where the damage is to frankie's neighbor, the nice little old lady. the cops in this scenario made a reasoned argument that was vitally flawed. that brings into question either their honesty or their competency at making reasoned arguments in the first place. this may sound like knit picking but it is not.

i'm bothered the cop was either dishonest or incompetent in his detective work. there is no question that frankie was a mother phucker who deserved to die - horribly. in fact, most of the neighborhood would have been willing to pass the hat to have frankie rubbed out for any number of reasons on which all would agree.

the problem is how do we trust the cops in the future if they botch something this badly when it would have been so easy to do it right?

Bold Deceiver wrote:

Zuruck wrote:I have a very simple question for you war beaters. Do you think that the US Govt. should be able to attack any country it wants, for whatever reason it wants? It's a very simple yes or no. I think no.

I have a very simple response for you cowardly, child-like, simplistic, naive pacifists: No.

By way of example, I would not support a war against another country on the basis that its name was spelled funny, or began with a "Z".

On the other hand, Zuruck, you have previously taken the position that no war by the U.S. is justified on any basis whatsoever, unless and until the United States is directly attacked.

In other words, President Zuruck would wait while enemy troops were massed at the border, enemy ships arrayed at the coastline, enemy insurgents internally scattered within, their fingers tensed on the triggers of their discrete WMD --- (edit) and still not authorize the use of force.(edit closed.) Do I misstate your position?

Perhaps you should revisit your conception of "idiot", instead.

BD

So I'm a cowardly pacifist because I don't think we should have the unilateral right to do whatever we want? Obviously I dont believe that no war is justified unless we are attacked directly because WWII was justifiable.

Ever notice how certain people use the term "unilateral" to mean "without the support of a few UN countries like France, Germany, and Russia, who were benefiting economically from not supporting us"? Unilateral action typically means one nation, not 30, but in this case we've somehow stretched the definition.

Oh, but those 30 nations were "coerced" right? What about the nations that faced threats that they wouldn't be allowed in the EU if they supported the US? Oh, but that's not coercion because uh... because if we admit it is, the whole argument falls apart.

What a joke.

Tell me, how many nations does it take to not be a "unilateral" action? Can you give me a specific list of what nations were involved here, as compared to what nations fought for the allies in WWII, and explain to me why Iraq2 was "unilateral" but WWII wasn't? Or does your position really come from the fact that you don't like Bush for other reasons?

Ok, I follow that Palzon but I don't remember Bush selling the WMD angle as the most important reason at first.
Yes he spoke of not waiting for the threat to become imminent because by then it would be too late but at that time the imminence wasn't just WMD's, it was allowing parties to participate in ANY endeavor on the scale of 9/11.

Shortly after that the congress agreed with him and voted in favor of war. He then went back to the U.N. and tried to get even more support... a bad move. I said so then, and in retrospect it's obviously a bad move because he went in and really laid it on thick (Powell and the anthrax vial etc.)

So back to the analogy:

I don't remember the cop trying to give us just the 'one' wrong reason when he asked for a warrant to arrest Frankie.
He outlined a list of reasons and scenarios including the fact that Frankie carried an illegal .45 in his pocket. The cop said if Frankie was left free to roam the streets he was sure to do us harm.
So when Frankie got gunned down and the .45 wasn't there it was not really a big deal in the context of a felon getting shot in a lawful arrest.
Not a big deal that is, until the cop mentioned he was running for the office of chief of police! Then all of a sudden half of the police force wanted to find something to discredit him with...

Zuruck wrote:

Bold Deceiver wrote:

Zuruck wrote:I have a very simple question for you war beaters. Do you think that the US Govt. should be able to attack any country it wants, for whatever reason it wants? It's a very simple yes or no. I think no.

I have a very simple response for you cowardly, child-like, simplistic, naive pacifists: No.

By way of example, I would not support a war against another country on the basis that its name was spelled funny, or began with a "Z".

On the other hand, Zuruck, you have previously taken the position that no war by the U.S. is justified on any basis whatsoever, unless and until the United States is directly attacked.

In other words, President Zuruck would wait while enemy troops were massed at the border, enemy ships arrayed at the coastline, enemy insurgents internally scattered within, their fingers tensed on the triggers of their discrete WMD --- (edit) and still not authorize the use of force.(edit closed.) Do I misstate your position?

Perhaps you should revisit your conception of "idiot", instead.

BD

So I'm a cowardly pacifist because I don't think we should have the unilateral right to do whatever we want? Obviously I dont believe that no war is justified unless we are attacked directly because WWII was justifiable.

Gee, is that what I said? M'gosh, must've been an editorial error. Sorry; I'll speak severely to the staff.

Tell you what. I'll retract my pejorative terms, if you'll retract your "warbeater" accusation. Sound good? Detente?

By the way, at the risk of having to be the one to point out your painfully obvious gaff, we were attacked directly in WWII. So you need to be a bit more clear about your position. Everywhere.

BD

Palzon wrote:my claim is that this was not lying but incompetence.

Say it with me, Palzon: "Desert Fox".

You're worse than John Kerry, with your sliding around. Sounds like your candidate, brotha.

As soon as you settle into a solid stand, let the rest of us know. By the way, did you vote for Gore in the last election? (I'll send you dollar if you tell me.)

BD

Palzon wrote:i'm bothered the cop was either dishonest or incompetent in his detective work.

You see, ladies and germs, it's that quick! The Flying Palzon is unconstrained by logical consistency or what we know as substance! I've said it once, and I'll say it again: You have to keep your eye on the pea under the cup, it's right there in the middle of ... NOOOO IT'S GONE ladies and germs and whose up for another round? All it costs you is a willing ear and sharp eye! Five gets you ten, ladies and germs . . . .

BD

edit: ok, BD? i utterly missed your reply to my post on the previous page. sorry about that. i still think you're misundertanding me i don't have time to reply to all that now. i was originally puzzled by your page 2 animosity but considering it probably seems i ignored you it is understandable. i won't neglect a reply, but it will have to wait.

i think Will has done an excellent job of arguing the other side. i understand his position and think it's the most sensible so far put forward. however, i still think it can only explain the administrations actions apologitically - as if to say, "Well, it doesn't matter that they were wrong, even if it was a major detail - in the end the right thing was done".

OK. In the end the right thing was done. I agree and wouldn't argue that point, nor have i. however, i doubt whether the end justifies the means. Will, to say the end justifies the means is overly apologetic given what is at stake. not to mention the moral questions raised by such a Consequentialist ethics. I fall closer to that Kantian camp that argues that the moral value of a behavior is in the axiom by which it is willed. General example: Helping a small child cross a busy street seems morally sound. But if the intent is not to safeguard the child, but abduct and molest the child, the character of that behavior cannot be judged as moral. Intent matters.

to all, I just think it is important how much they were wrong and and the degree to which their strategy was based around wrong information. is that such a scandalous suspicion that it could only be motivated by some nefarious liberal agenda? i am a liberal, but not in the perverted 20th-century-and-beyond usage. i am a liberal in the 19th century sense..."a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties [and] ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives". the term liberal is so distorted it's actually closer to what republicans claim to be than what democrats are.

i don't see this as a necessarily isolated event. i am concerned about the future if there's nothing done about such mistakes as this. i believe this is precisely where government must be held accountable. the object of government's design should not be to vault some "great man" into the position of power. the object should be, by design, such that the damage caused by a "bad man" be minimized. that's what checks and balances are all about. this is exactly the type of thing we should all take notice of.

now i'm not saying that Bush is either a great man or a bad man. and i'm not saying that i know for sure whether the truth was fabricated, exaggerated, or bungled. but i'm arguing two things 1. it was one of those three. 2. the question as to which is important.

i feel this is a modest argument and i am puzzled that it would threaten anyone here.

thank you, Will for taking my posts seriously. And again, sorry, BD for not seeing your earlier post. I will do my best to address your points tomorrow.

Palz, I think I gave a pretty fair response to your statement about incompetence -- essentially, that if Saddam really didn't have WMD, the entire world intelligence community (not just the Bush administration) handled the intel regarding Iraq's WMD with some level of incompetence. This is at least in part because Saddam intended for people to believe he had WMD at least up until Bush's push for war.

It wasn't until Bush wanted to act on what was essentially a consensus opinion that suddenly the consensus began to change -- "oh, maybe Iraq doesn't have WMD" came the cries of people who already disliked Bush. Now, I think your 3 possibilities (plus the fourth, "Saddam actually did have WMD") apply here -- the world intel community from 1992-2002 either exaggerated, fabricated, or misinterpreted the intel regarding Iraqi WMD (or else they were right.) Personally, I think the most likely cases are either that Saddam had some WMD programs (though perhaps not actual WMD), or that Saddam fooled the entire world into believing he did. The Bush administration simply acted upon that opinion.

Frankly, I think the reason the Bush administration didn't back off when the charges of "Saddam doesn't really have WMD" started to fly is what I said above -- it was *consensus* up until that time that Saddam did have such things. Think about that -- if you were in the White House preparing to declare war on a nation that everyone said had WMD, and all of a sudden a bunch of people who tend to be on the other end of the political spectrum from you (including many whose nations have extensive dealings with the aforementioned one) start telling you that nation doesn't have WMD, are you going to take them seriously? Or, are you going to view it as political grandstanding? Also, I'm pretty sure the Bush administration viewed the WMD issue more as icing on the cake than as core to the invasion, so when people sat there bickering about the icing, they really didn't give a damn. Sure, they'd argue back, but you're not going to convince the president to stop an invasion by arguing that one of the dozens of justifications for it "might" not be correct, and not touching the other justifications. This is exaggerated by the fact that many of those arguing the WMD "might" not exist were mostly people who either stood to benefit from Saddam remaining in power or stood to benefit from making Bush look bad. I don't fault him for not taking them seriously.

So yeah, provided the WMD programs don't *actually* exist (which is still not established), I'd say the administration most likely misinterpreted the intelligence they had -- and I don't blame them.

lothar, i agree with most of what you said. however, even if most of the world believed the intel only we and a few close allies acted on it. this to me does not suggest a conspiracy of bush haters. it raises concerns that the others who "believed" the intel, didn't believe it to the extent that they touted its merit the same way the bush administration did, with the exception of the british. i am not claiming to know the significance of all this. i'm just claiming that IT IS significant that it be investigated and the public informed.

i fully concede there is a 4th option (which i did mention) that iraq had the tons and tons of weps the US claimed he had. but like i said earlier, so far that seems highly implausible compared to the other three.

i think you have hit on something which, although not new, has not been brought up in this thread. and that is that hussein apparently had a deliberate program to disinform us into thinking that the did have the weapons. maybe it will turn out hussein was so successful at disinforming that we were more justified than any of us know. but either way, there was an intelligence failure.

again, i just think that looking into the intelligence failure is prudent and of vital importance. and on about the same par as that - the political mobilization for the war couldv'e been handled with much more finesse. is that so scandalously liberal of me? it's not like i'm asking for impeachment or even censure here, just answers.

Palzon wrote:hey, there's no need to get cheeky. try sticking to criticism of my argument.

Nice to hear from you.

That is criticism of your argument. Your argument is based on a false construct -- you seem to think that the answer to your professed angst over undiscovered WMD can only rest upon the three pillars of exaggeration, fabrication, or "misinterpretion". As noted ad nauseum throughout, I think this is incorrect.

To prop up your argument, you choose not to address the fact that (1) we know Iraq had WMD (not addressed by Palzon); (2) used WMD (not addressed by Palzon); (3) agreed to terms of surrender whereby it would disclose whereabouts of existing WMD and its manufacturing capability of same (not addressed by Palzon); (4) Clinton launched a major attack against Iraq largely because of its WMD (not addressed by Palzon); (5) the U.N. made specific findings of fact consistent with the perception of "this administration" regarding existing stockpiles of WMD (not addressed by Palzon); (6) the Congress authorized war against Iraq on the same basis (not addressed by Palzon); and so on ... and so on ... and so on.

Moreover, the Clinton administration had eight ( 8 ) years to assess this, and arrived at the same conclusion as "this administration".

In the three-pillar world, it is all about "this administration".

The three-pillar world is a warm, moist, cozy place. Within the three-pillar world, one need not deal with competing, plausible explanations, such as exportation, pre-war destruction, black-market transfers, as yet undiscovered hidden storage. Such explanations discomfort you, owing to your political leanings.

You speak of the philosophical complexities of morality and cite Kant as your reference point. However, when it comes to judgments made in the name of the art of intelligence, you would err on the side of sitting, waiting, and hoping that if it happens, it happens to somebody else in some other city.

You argue from premises that I do not accept. You do not respond to the strongest arguments against your position, which is an indication of self-perceived weakness in one's own position. I have tried to provide a few facts to support my own view of things. When and if you choose to do the same, I think we'll have a more constructive dialogue.

Thanks for responding.

BD

I don't see where you get the idea that it's "scandalously liberal" of you to ask the question. Is that something someone here said? No, it's not scandalously liberal to ask questions, thought it might be scandalously liberal to focus your questions in a particular way (which, typically, is the way bias plays out.) I don't know what biases you may or may not have, but I do know you're not asking all of the questions you could be, which is why I'm asking some questions as well...

I'm not suggesting there must have been a conspiracy of Bush haters -- I'm just suggesting that, since all of the "Iraq doesn't have WMD" statements I know about came after Bush began talking about war and came from people who stood to benefit from taking that position regardless of its truth, it was reasonable for Bush to not take them entirely seriously (even if they were right, and even if some of them were honest.) I have to admit, I had a pretty hard time taking those arguments seriously for the exact reasons I've given -- that they didn't come about until after Bush was pushing for war, that they broke with what was consensus opinion from 1992-2002, and that they came mostly from people who either (1) were still bitter about the Florida election or (2) were generally pretty far on the left end of the spectrum or (3) served to benefit from Saddam remaining in power.

It is significant that a number of nations believed the intel strongly enough to go to war, and that others believed it but not strongly enough to go to war -- though I don't think this is based so much on the strength of those nations beliefs about the intel as on those nations' beliefs about what justifies war and on those nations' beliefs about the costs and benefits of this war. That is, I don't think the French (who sent no troops) believed the WMD claim any less strongly than the Spanish (who sent troops) -- rather, I think the French and Spanish governments differed in terms of what they thought was a justified response, what they thought the potential consequences were, etc.

As for your statement that "only we and a few close allies acted on it", from what I understand, those "few" close allies with troops on the ground are:

Britain, Australia, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand, Italy, Spain, Poland, Denmark, Hungary, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Romania, the Netherlands, Norway, El Salvador, and 17 other countries

So, a fairly large number of nations actually felt the intelligence was strong enough to act upon. But, like I said, I don't think France or Germany or Russia's problem was that the evidence wasn't strong enough -- I think their problem was with the idea of pre-emptively attacking a nation, regardless of the strength of evidence. That is, even if Bush could've proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that Iraq had WMD they weren't allowed to, I don't think France, Germany, or Russia would've sent troops. The difference of opinion between the nations was not primarily based on the intelligence (I say for a third time) -- it was based on the question of whether we should respond to guys like Saddam by trying to contain them or by directly attacking them. Most of the complaints about "faulty intelligence" sounded to me very much like question-dodging -- people seemed to focus on that because they didn't want to answer the question of whether or not we should attack a rogue state with a violent leader before he attacks us.

I don't really want to get into this, but I can't resist commenting on this point.

Palzon wrote:i fully concede there is a 4th option (which i did mention) that iraq had the tons and tons of weps the US claimed he had. but like i said earlier, so far that seems highly implausible compared to the other three.

I find it quite amusing that you're willing to take seriously--as one of your three options--the possibility that evidence for going to war was fabricated by the current administration. The possibility implies that said administration is made up of very convincing liars who deliberately manipulated an entire global community into believing what they knew was false. They also evidently were dumb enough to think that they would get away with going to war on a premise they knew was false, and knew would become transparently false after the war. Either they have something more devious up their collective sleeve, or they just haven't yet gotten around to planting evidence to support the story, despite taking some political heat over the lack of WMD.

All that, you deem "plausible." So much so that you find "highly implausible" by comparison the possibility that Iraq's weapons--which it wasn't supposed to have, and would have gotten in big trouble for even leaking moderate proof of their existence--were so well hidden that we haven't found them yet.

Not that I'm necessarily making a plausability argument here. The above are (I acknowledge) caricatures of the respective viewpoints. I just find the relative plausability assignments quite amusing. And revealing.

Carry on...

*blinks*...BD is.. the... MAN! Besides Bash, I haven't seen anyone else stand so firm on the same opinions I've had about all this stuff and state them in such a way that they could NOT possibly be misunderstood while reading them.

Reading your posts here have been a breath of fresh air in regards to the situations in the middle east. You too Lothar

Didn't mean to get off topic but w00t! I don't have the stamina to voice my opinions about this type of stuff anymore. Just wanted to do a little more then post "w3rd"

Bold Deceiver wrote:
Conclusory. The entire post. You need to provide facts, not merely declare that your conclusions are facts.[/b]

Without evidence that the intel about WMD was correct, it is perfectly logical to posit that one of 4 things occurred (in no paticular order):

1. Fabrication
2. Exaggeration
3. Misinterpretation
4. Saddam has succeeded in destroying ALL substantial evidence that would have validated the intel.

I have never claimed to know which of the four possibilities is correct. I have never claimed to possess facts that would help me to determine conclusively which possibilty is correct. All i am claiming is that the intel has not been validated and that the intel was the argument most forcefully put forth by the administration. I am further arguing that IF the intel was wrong that this is relevant.

This is a truly modest claim if you think about it.

Bold Deceiver wrote:
In the face of overwhelming evidence that A) WMD did exist and was generously deployed by Hussein; B) the Congress, the U.N., and a number of other countries concluded that WMD existed, prior to the war, you offer nothing.

[/b]

My very concern is the fact that this "overwhelming evidence" has so far not been validated. This is precisely why I'm questioning the intel and the subsequent actions taken based on the intel. Regarding the various number of entities that "believed" the same intel, I regard them all equally responsible for the error. Yet only the US and the allies that participated in the invasion are accountable for that decision. Lothar take note: i doubt very much that any of those allies (except perhaps the UK) would have taken any action without the support and urging of the US. the fact that other nations participated doesn't mean much if you think of what they would have done had we not been the driving force.

In other words, France may have believed the intel, but they are not the ones that used it as justification for an invasion. Now, you may argue in an ad hoc manner that France had ulterior motives. This may be true. But it does not change the fact that the US still faces the above mentioned 4 options in terms of its own responsibility. One of the biggest misinterpretations you seem to be making of my argument is that I am drawing any conclusion at all other than that logic dictates one of the 4 options named above has occurred.

Palzon wrote: So, if we take the most benevolent view of what has occurred, say that the adminstration misinterpreted the intelligence it had gathered, should we be less concerned about this than if it was a deliberate lie?

Bold Deceiver wrote:What? Can you really be serious? You would rather have a lying President than faulty intelligence analysis? If the administration lied about the intelligence it gathered, had evidence that Hussein had destroyed Iraq's WMD stockpiles, and had evidence that Hussein had destroyed the means to manufacture them; but for some twisted, internal reason just refused to tell anyone about it -- well that's a damn sight more serious than screwing up the intelligence, doncha think?[/b]

You have missed my point here. I would rather think that the administration lied (perhaps with the best interest of the country at heart) to take down a known bad guy than that they are so incompetent that they might fail to perceive vital threats to our national security in the future. for example, i would rather believe they made up the Iraqi WMD than believe they should've prevented 9-11 but were too incompetent. before you launch into a tirade about this - i am not claiming either took place, only that white lies are better than terminal blindness.

Bold Deceiver wrote: I support finding out how and why our intelligence community was wrong -- if they were wrong. We need the best intelligence available, and the best analysis of that intelligence. This is one of the few points on which we agree.[/b]

If you agree on this point, then you have agreed with the whole purpose of my post in the first place. All i have been advocating here is that we get to the bottom of what went wrong.

Bold Deceiver wrote:
And the point of this remark is what, exactly? That the U.S. lost the moral right to invade Iraq? Is there a follow-up here, or is it just a "U.S.A. is Evil" remark? [/b]

No, my point was that all governments should be generally distrusted and that our government has certainly done things in the past which call into question our policy in the region. Bush, Sr. called Saddam "another Hitler", yet refused to invade Iraq in Gulf I. Why? It calls into question the true motives behind our actions at that time. I don't have time to address all the intracies of that. All I am trying to say with that is that it should not be a stretch that i would call our current motives into question. It is healthy to distrust one's government. read the founding fathers if you don't believe that.

Is Desert Fox a reference to Rommel? I'm not saying there's no significance just that i'm not sure where you're going with that.

Again, I'm not saying dishonesty occurred just that it was one of what i see as only 4 logical possibilities. If you see more than that let me know. As far as intellectual dishonesty, I think that's an unfair charge. the bottom line is that you seem to have way overestimated the scope of my argument, which is utterly modest.

As far as partisanship...

you'll find none here. i would say that most of the military/intelligence blunders of this century happened under Democratic administrations. i am all too happy and willing to point to a few as examples. here a historical diversion is relevant to demonstrate that i couldn't care less about partisan politics.

1. Pearl Harbor: In hindsight, we should have seen it coming. Even on the day of the attack there was ample evidence it was coming. In point of fact, the greater part of the naval hierarchy was shuffled out of power as a result. HOwever, i don't blame the Roosevelt administration for Pearl Harbor any more than i blame Bush II for 9-11. Hear that? I don't blame Bush for 9-11. In a democracy it is very often the case that the government's left hand knows not what its right hand does. Even if in hindsight we should have seen this coming, that does not mean that Bush is at fault for not taking more action ahead of time. So put that in your pipe and smoke it.

2. D-day at Normandy: Omaha beach was an intel disaster. OUr guys figured that carpet bombing the shore defenses would be sufficient to allow our troops a rapid advance inland with little resistance. we all know how that turned out.

3. the A-bomb: Turns out we didn't need to drop it. The Japaneses were just weeks away from surrender with or without the bomb. B-29 raids alone were doing the job. Truman should never have dropped those bombs. The intel was there, but no one wanted to believe it. drakona, there was no sanction of Truman's government for this unnecessary move.

4. bay of pigs: nuff said. No censure of Kennedy or the CIA followed.

5. Gulf of Tonkin: this one is highly relevant, and Drakona should again take notice. Latest i've read is that it never happened and there's a good chance the administration knew it was BS. so yeah, drakona, i believe that it is POSSIBLE that an administration could fabricate intel and believe they'd get away with it. LBJ got away with it.

and, Drakona, i'd like to add a few examples of other incidents where the government "got away with it". happens to be my best examples were during republican administrations.

1. the secret bombings of cambodia under Nixon. Nixon got away with watergate too, btw. He was good at getting away with stuff.
2. Iran Contra under Reagan. government got away with that easy.
3. while we're at it, Clinton got away with perjuring himself
4. Kennedy's administration got away with destabilizing cambodia resulting in the assassination of its leaders. Kennedy also got away with trying to assasinate Castro. This last example is arguable since i believe Castro had Kennedy killed. Maybe he didn't get away with it afterall.

so, yeah, Drakona, call me paranoid. But i worry that the government will try to get away with stuff. One last note to Drakona. so far, there is no evidence that iraq had even a fraction of the wmd we claim our intel showed and then destroyed/hid it. i'm not saying it's impossible. i'm just saying it's less plausible than the other 3 options. if evidence comes forth showing they had them and destroyed them, i'll admit i was wrong about this. however, until then, there is no more reason to think those wmd existed than there is to believe that aliens cause crop circles.

it's worth another moment to ponder this point. it's a situation analgous to agnosticism. just because i don't believe that God exists, does not mean that i believe there is no God. Just because i do not believe the WMD was there, does not mean that i believe it was never there. but until there is some evidence for its existence/destruction, there is no reason for me to believe it.

Lastly, BD, please note that my failing to post earlier was not an attempt to avoid addressing your points. i literally didn't see that post. my edit above was totally sincere. missing your post was my bad. there is no need to accuse me of intellectual dishonesty since i have every intention of addressing your objections. considering that i think you have misinterpreted the scope of my claims here i hope you will examine my position in a new light with the clarifications added here.

I'm sure i've left something out, especially since i wrote most of this between working. and it was a rough day. I have no doubt you'll remind me where i have forgotten to address some objection and i will be happy to address it then.

doh

ok, now i'll address specific objections neglected in my last post, which was written hastily at work.

Bold Deceiver wrote:
To prop up your argument, you choose not to address the fact that (1) we know Iraq had WMD (not addressed by Palzon)(2) used WMD (not addressed by Palzon); [/b]

i never denied that we know they had and used them at some point in time. however, the whole post IS addressing this issue. my whole post is about the fact that no evidence of ANY wmd has been found let alone the stockpiles suggested by our "intel". this is how i came up with the 4 possibilities in the first place. (1) and (2) were not addressed explicitly because i have never denied them and have implicitly acknowledged them. i have no problem agreeing with you that both (1) and (2) are fact. so there we are in agreement. However, i don't see that these facts are relevant to my current position. let me expound by analogy.

At some time in the past, there were dinosoars all over the planet. we never saw them destroyed. yet we have a lot of evidence they're gone. the fact that dinosoars once existed doesn't make it more likely that they still exist. and what's more, the absence of dinsoars now would seem to refute any scientist who held a theory that they currently exist. if the dinos are wmd and bush is the scientist, his theory would appear refuted (at least for the time being). and the prior existence of dinos has no bearing on the outcome of the most recent theory and the outcome of it being put to the test.

one last word here. if someone makes the claim: there are al qaeda agents somewhere in the world with wmd, this would be a hard claim to refute. because if some agent exists somewhere with some small amount of weapons it would be easy to miss him. but here we are talking about large stockpiles in a specific place in the world. i'm not saying there are no wmd in iraq, just that the fact that none were found doesn't mean this is only because they were hidden or destroyed. there are 3 other options

Bold Deceiver wrote:
(3)agreed to terms of surrender whereby it would disclose whereabouts of existing WMD and its manufacturing capability of same (not addressed by Palzon)[/b]

this was addressed. i have said over and over that we had every right to invade them on grounds other than that they possessed wmd, non-disclosure is one. i may not have named that specifically but i clearly stated they were out of compliance with un resolutions and that was sufficient for me, among other reasons as well.

Bold Deceiver wrote: (4) Clinton launched a major attack against Iraq largely because of its WMD (not addressed by Palzon);[/b]

eh? my understanding was that Clinton twice attacked Al Queda, but i could be mistaken. More to the point, i do not remember those Clinton attacks to be even remotely about wmd. One was for attemtping to assassinate Bush I. Two, was for the bombings of the African embassies. i would have to ask you to post specifics before i could address an issue where we are not in agreement about prelimary facts. correct me if i am wrong about this.

Bold Deceiver wrote: 5) the U.N. made specific findings of fact consistent with the perception of "this administration" regarding existing stockpiles of WMD (not addressed by Palzon); (6) the Congress authorized war against Iraq on the same basis (not addressed by Palzon); and so on ... and so on ... and so on.[/b]

if the congress supported war on the basis of faulty intel then they are equally responsible for my possibilities one through four. the UN did not invade on the basis of their belief even if we shared the same belief. however, the UN is just as responsible for the intel error and it is just as concerning that they were wrong as that we were.

Bold Deceiver wrote: Moreover, the Clinton administration had eight ( 8 ) years to assess this, and arrived at the same conclusion as "this administration".

In the three-pillar world, it is all about "this administration".

The three-pillar world is a warm, moist, cozy place. Within the three-pillar world, one need not deal with competing, plausible explanations, such as exportation, pre-war destruction, black-market transfers, as yet undiscovered hidden storage. Such explanations discomfort you, owing to your political leanings.[/b]

there are several issues here. 1. the intel error, 2. the decision to make it THE central cassus belli, 3. the invasion itself. it is hardly partisan of me here in that it was not any other administration who went to steps 2. and 3. the clinton adminstration was equally wrong about the intel. but they are not the ones that invaded based on the intel.

Bold Deceiver wrote: You speak of the philosophical complexities of morality and cite Kant as your reference point. However, when it comes to judgments made in the name of the art of intelligence, you would err on the side of sitting, waiting, and hoping that if it happens, it happens to somebody else in some other city.[/b]

you could not be more off the mark here. in fact, i am all for more pre-emptive invasions of those who would threaten democracy or tyrannize their own people. i just want them to be better executed operations. and i want them to be justified with more finesse in the theater of world politics.

Bold Deceiver wrote: You argue from premises that I do not accept. You do not respond to the strongest arguments against your position, which is an indication of self-perceived weakness in one's own position. [/b]

lastly, this remark is unfair since when you posted this i had already acknowledged missing your eariler post. again, sorry about that, but let's move on.

Be careful not to delcare anything "perfectly logical" unless you can actually demonstrate it axiomatically.

it is perfectly logical to posit that one of 4 things occurred (in no paticular order):

1. Fabrication
2. Exaggeration
3. Misinterpretation
4. Saddam has succeeded in destroying ALL substantial evidence that would have validated the intel.

Now that I've succeeded in making you increase your options from 3 to 4, perhaps you should take the time to come up with more possibilities yourself. There are definitely more than 4 possibilities, and careful thought and careful reasoning can only happen if you take the time to think about all possibilities, rather than sticking with those you prefer to believe and then only adding those forced upon you. A few more, in no particular order:

5) Saddam succeeded in HIDING the substantial evidence, and it has not yet been found
6) you yourself have misinterpreted something somewhere along the line (for example, Bush's statements about what WMD actually should exist)
7) Saddam stopped his weapons programs many years ago, but he himself fabricated evidence of their continuance
8) Saddam's cronies fabricated evidence for Saddam
9) some combination of the above

Also notice that originally, you said that *this administration* either fabricated, exaggerated, or misinterpreted -- but now additional possibilities have been opened to you, such as the possibility that everyone *else* misinterpreted things, or that Saddam fabricated evidence.

Take the time to think it through -- instead of declaring that it's "perfectly logical" to propose one of four things, take the time to determine some more of the hundreds of possibilities. Then build your argument accordingly.

Palzon wrote:Now, is it possible that between the time that intelligence was gathered and the end of the war when the USA gained access to search wherever they pleased, that Iraq managed to dispose of all evidence of such weapons, technology, and delivery systems? Sure it is possible. But to give such an assertion any degree of merit is to shave too closely with Ockham's Razor.

Lothar, First, the above quote is taken from my first post. I would hardly say you made me acknowledge it since i already had done so freely. Yet i am perfectly willing to admit that whether it is implausible or not, it is one of the "logical" possibilities. i will admit that in the post you quoted i intended to say "destroy or hide evidence" for possibility 4, but this is a minor point, and an unintentional error.

Second, i think the the other 3 possibilities i mention encompass (that is - are not exlusive of) the other possibilities you offer in this post. for example, if "Saddam and his cronies" made up info that we took for solid intel, this would still fall under a misinterpretation. i AM trying to boil this down to the most axiomatic points possible in everyday language.

As for me misinterpreting Bush's statements about what WMD should exist, none have been found. so even if i did misunderstand it, my miunderstanding isn't significant enough to be relevant considering that nothing at all has been found. so as long as the bush claims were that something was there, i'm doin alright on this point

otherwise, all of your additions to my possibilities fall under the extant 4 possibilities.

Bold Deceiver wrote: Two words: Desert Fox

Bold Deceiver wrote: (4) Clinton launched a major attack against Iraq largely because of its WMD (not addressed by Palzon);

Palzon wrote: Is Desert Fox a reference to Rommel? I'm not saying there's no significance just that i'm not sure where you're going with that.

Palzon wrote: eh? my understanding was that Clinton twice attacked Al Queda, but i could be mistaken. More to the point, i do not remember those Clinton attacks to be even remotely about wmd. One was for attemtping to assassinate Bush I. Two, was for the bombings of the African embassies. i would have to ask you to post specifics before i could address an issue where we are not in agreement about prelimary facts. correct me if i am wrong about this.

Hmm. I did post specifics, and ... you're wrong about this. See my post, supra, dated Sat Mar 20, 2004 2:26 pm. Here --

Bold Deceiver wrote: (4)Desert Fox: President William Jefferson Clinton Launched a Massive Attack Against Iraq to Strike WMD

"MISSION: To strike military and security targets in Iraq that contribute to Iraq's ability to produce, store, maintain and deliver weapons of mass destruction. "

"MISSION GOALS: To degrade Saddam Hussein's ability to make and to use weapons of mass destruction. To diminish Saddam Hussein's ability to wage war against his neighbors. To demonstrate to Saddam Hussein the consequences of violating international obligations."

See: Operation Desert Fox. http://www.defenselink.mil/specials/desert_fox/

"Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said. The Iraqi dictator has used these weapons against his neighbors and his own people, he said, and "left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again." (Emphases added.)

See: http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Dec1998 ... 12171.html

I'll try to give a response to your various postings soon. For now, I think it would be worth reading up on Desert Fox, which ended just prior to January, 1999. I provided a link. Then, prepare your answer to this question: If you contend that Iraq possessed WMD, and if you contend that Iraq no longer has WMD, when, in your view, did WMD cease to exist in Iraq?

Inquiring minds, and all that.

BD

OK. I gladly concede without even checking the links that part of the Clinton objective was based on the belief that Iraq definitely possessed WMD. I was either not aware or had forgotten. But, I trust that you would not make it up. I gladly concede that Clinton has as many questions to answer as Bush regarding flawed intel.

But it is only natural that i would be more interested in the role of the Bush administration at this time since it is the current administration in power. yes, I have an interest in seeing the Clinton administration answer for its role. But at this point it has no more influence over the future policy than the Millard Fillmore administration! So yeah, i'm focusing my interest on what the Bush administration has to answer for.

My "bias" is solely concern for the future. Questioning the role of Clinton's administration is important, yes, because even without being in power, its actions could be used in the future as justification, cited as precedent as it were. But the Bush administration wields the military and intelligence at this time. It is the one who can use it wisely or unwisely at this moment.

All governments are to be distrusted on some level. The jackass or the elephant is irrelevant.

"If you contend that Iraq possessed WMD, and if you contend that Iraq no longer has WMD, when, in your view, did WMD cease to exist in Iraq?" - BD

That is the question that is being ignored by the political left because it shakes the foundation of their case.
It exposes their true agenda as nothing more than election year mudslinging.
If they really are 'just concerned about finding out how we got the intel so wrong, so we don't fail again in the future' then they would definitely want to answer that question.

Any honest and rational exploration of that question however will only validate Bush's actions. After all, the goal of the inspections and the war was not to find WMD's, the goal was to keep Saddam from possesing them.

The justification for going after Saddam wasn't suspicion that he had WMD's, his possesion of them was a foregone conclusion. A conclusion that was reached by practically the whole world!
The justification was that he wouldn't give them up or show what happened to them and Bush didn't trick Saddam into refusing to comply.

Palzon, my last post wasn't intended to be a very serious argument. It's just commentary that what you find plausible depends a lot on how you already see the world. I am always amazed how many people find conspiracy-theory-ish stuff plausible when it comes to Bush, but I suppose that if one already believes (as many seem to) the president is at once a stupid person, a fantastic liar, and more evil than the devil himself, then a lot of ordinarly outlandish things become quite plausible. I just find that amusing, I guess.

Anyway, to do your work for you, here's how I see the logical structure of your post.

Premise 1: The Bush administration claimed they had evidence that Iraq had WMD.
Premise 2: They claimed that evidence was convincing enough that they could go to war over it.
Premise 3: Once the war was complete, and we waited a while, no WMD were found.
Premise 4: It is unlikely we would look so long and have so many friendly Iraqis around, and not find WMD if they existed.

So we have an apparent dissonance between claimed evidence and actual fact. There are three possibilities here:

1. The Bush administration had no evidence that Iraq had WMD.
2. The Bush administration had some, but not enough, evidence that Iraq had WMD.
3. The Bush administration had convincing evidence that Iraq had WMD.

The first possibility together with premise 1 is fabrication; the second, together with premise 2 is exaggeration, and the third is what you're calling misinterpretation.

Now, there's a slightly subtle point here--it's possible for possibility 2 to be the case, and still no exaggeration occur: if suggestive, but possibly faulty, evidence is still enough to go to war on. This remains a live possibility in light of the fact that Iraq was supposed to be clear and open about what weapons it did and didn't have.

Case 3 there is kind of a catch-all case, and if you're looking to explain why the evidence doesn't match reality, misinterpretation isn't a fair name, because you have to make assumptions about whose fault it was that the evidence didn't match reality. It's possible that the evidence really wasn't convincing, but the Bush administration misinterpreted it. Or it's possible that the evidence really was convincing, and was planted, accidental, or incomplete. Or other things.

In general, the conclusion of the argument seems to be, "Whatever happened, the Bush Administration did something wrong." That's certainly in dispute, and there are a number of ways out of that conclusion, outlined above.

Finally, some of the original premises are in dispute. Whether WMD was the reason for the war (premise 2), and whether the lack of WMD finding indicates the lack of their existence (premise 4), in particular.

In general, when one has a deductive argument from common premises, the conclusion of which isn't commonly accepted, it is worth taking a moment to consider whether the argument is really deductive and the premises really common.

Drakona wrote:In general, when one has a deductive argument from common premises, the conclusion of which isn't commonly accepted, it is worth taking a moment to consider whether the argument is really deductive and the premises really common.

This will start out sounding like a non-sequitur, but bear with me. I appreciate Palzon entering the fray, to help us all see the other side's perception of things. He's to be commended for scrappiness, if nothing else.

I also appreciate the kind words some of you have said about my posts. I don't mean to ignore them, but I am a little embarrassed about how to respond publicly. It is my own opinion, however, that I am largely outclassed in debate here by Drakona, and her last post is worth reading several times. I had to do so, because I wasn't smart enough to figure it out on the first run. My advice: If you see Drakona post, I recommend to all of you that you study it thoroughly.

Palzon -- I'm working late these days, but I'll come back to this by the weekend. In the meantime, I would be happy to see you respond to my last question re when the WMD disappeared.

Smiles,

BD

Heh, thanks, I appreciate that. Sorry about the difficult reading due to terseness--that's the result of trying bang out a post before breakfast. I don't have much time to write these days, either.

1) Kai you damn head flapper :0

2) Saddam averaged a kill rate at an average of 5000 of his own people per month.

My only regret is that we didn't go in years ago, and don't go in to more places with a murder record like that.

The middle east is a mess, always has been a mess, the US has not been good thing over there, but neither has any other power, or the folks from the middle east themselves. i.e. there is no good solution, and short term it will suck, but what was the alternative.

The biggest question to me is - if/since there were no WMD's why did they keep hassling the inspectors - why not let them sign off, get sanctions lifted etc... face the guy/gov of iraq was a dick

Sickone wrote:The biggest question to me is - if/since there were no WMD's why did they keep hassling the inspectors - why not let them sign off, get sanctions lifted etc... face the guy/gov of iraq was a dick

There you have it, and there it is Ladies and Gents. Nice to hear from you, Murph.

BD

Yes, Drakona is the only woman I've seen so far, in my experience, that can make you feel very humble very quickly in this community

Not only with her intelligence but her Descent skills as well. Too bad that was so long ago already...I do miss those days...

I'll always have that intense Nysa match during the clan war as a reminder that her bite can back up her bark I have a LOT of respect for her, especially since she is the only woman besides Sfuzzi to beat me in a game of which I'll gladly and shamelessly admit to

I respect her more for her very objective debate and discussion abilities here on the DBB. Hard to find anyone like her. Loth, if you read this you're a lucky man. I'm sure you don't need me to tell you that though

Palzon, Lothar, etc...

Keep in mind, that if Saddam and his cronies had faked info for some reason - that is not misinterpetation. It is lack of better intel.

Keep in mind that over the last decade or so Congress did a pretty good job of blinding our eyes in such places, crippling our intel. Now those that crippled covert ops/intel are standing around asking "How come we didn't know"

If you deal with vile people, you better have some vile people on your payroll... sad but true.


Let me just say - to all men and women who serve us and our country, whether it be armed forces, special forces, black ops, CIA, NSA, etc

Even if in a certain event I don't agree - I ALWAYS APPRECIATE WHAT THEY DO FOR US. The same respect and thanks goes to all those who went before them, and to the families of those who have given their lives.

I may be a dick, but I know my freedom was and is payed for with the courage, blood, and honor of others.

Trash Bush, trash Cliton, trash over seas policy, but in between take a moment to thank those who gave you the right to do so.

"And now . . . the end is near . . . and Pal must face, the final curtain . . . "

Palzon wrote:i never denied that we know [IRAQ] had [WMD] and used [WMD] at some point in time.

I think you'll agree it is the logical inference to make, when your conclusions are limited to presidential 1) exaggeration; 2) fabrication; 3) misinterpretation.

But good, we have factual agreement:

1) Iraq possessed WMD.

2) Iraq deployed WMD in the past.

Palzon wrote:let me expound by analogy.

I'm going to pass over your dinosaur analogy for now; let's just call it a serious error in judgment on your part, due to a long week at work.

Palzon wrote:[T]he fact that [no WMD] were found [in Iraq] doesn't mean this is only because they were hidden or destroyed. there are 3 other options

Well, actually, there are many other options. But we're happy to bring you out of the dark shadows of the three. (I think it's odd you would fail to list a transfer of WMD to another sovereign or group -- this is one of my own fears.)

Palzon wrote: Bold Deceiver said: (3)agreed to terms of surrender whereby it would disclose whereabouts of existing WMD and its manufacturing capability of same (not addressed by Palzon)

Palzon responded: "this was addressed. i have said over and over that we had every right to invade them on grounds other than that they possessed wmd . . . ."

What a strange way to rephrase my statement. Iraq surrendered under terms requiring disclosure of the whereabouts of existing WMD and their means of manufacture, OR evidence that Iraq's destroyed them.

The only grounds for invading them, "other than that they possessed WMD", is that they must have destroyed them but didn't disclose them. Alternatively, they could have sold them to terrorists, but that's not a possibility in your world.

So ... let me get this straight -- you assume Iraq destroyed everything, but refused to allow inspectors to so verify? For what possible reason? Because they enjoyed U.N. sanctions?

Maybe I'm missing something, but your take on this is just wacky. Maybe your perception is clouded by visions of Kerry dancing in your head.

Bold Deceiver wrote: (4) Clinton launched a major attack against Iraq largely because of its WMD (not addressed by Palzon);[/b]

You've changed your mind on this point, I see, by your other post.

Bold Deceiver wrote: 5) the U.N. made specific findings of fact consistent with the perception of "this administration" regarding existing stockpiles of WMD (not addressed by Palzon); (6) the Congress authorized war against Iraq on the same basis (not addressed by Palzon); and so on ... and so on ... and so on.[/b]

We appear to be in agreement here, although you now pledge that the U.N.'s failure to enforce its own resolution is . . . a better thing, in hindsight, than the U.S. invasion, even though you currently support the invasion notwithstanding a lack of WMD, which is still a bad thing . . . or is it a good thing now? I'm getting confused, Mr. Kerry, er ... Palzon.

Palzon wrote: am all for more pre-emptive invasions of those who would threaten democracy or tyrannize their own people. i just want them to be better executed operations. and i want them to be justified with more finesse in the theater of world politics.

I think, had you simply posted this statement, instead of insinuating fabrication and treachery against your own President, in a time of war, without any factual basis whatsoever, you would not have drawn my attention. Words matter.

To respond, I agree with point one, and I disagree with point two -- screw the "theater of world politics". Clinton, Bush I, and Reagan (to a lesser extent) are all guilty of trying to assuage the concerns of nervous neighbors. Except for strategic military relationships, it is largely unimportant and a yoke our own survival.

And now, it is time for your answer to the $64,000.00 question, Palzon:

Since you contend that Iraq possessed WMD, and since you contend that Iraq no longer possesses WMD, when, in your view, did WMD cease to exist in Iraq?

(Insert Final Question music from "Jeopardy" here)

BD

Drakona wrote:In general, the conclusion of the argument seems to be, "Whatever happened, the Bush Administration did something wrong." That's certainly in dispute, and there are a number of ways out of that conclusion, outlined above.

I see only one "way out" outlined in your post. That is, that if the administration had faulty intel (for whatever reason), or misinterpreted intel (for whatever reason) that war was still justified. but this is hardly a way out of the problem to which i am pointing. the intel was wrong. this is separate from how it was used. the mistaken intel is important.

nothing that you posted changes the fact that the intel was wrong. and although you say that it is a disputed fact that the administration claimed wmd as a reason for going to war, you post nothing to counter my claim that it was. honestly, i find the fact that you even claim this last point is in dispute...amusing.

serioulsy, this whole thread has a taken on a rediculous tone. it's as if the idea that the administration is fallible is totally unbearable and many of you are not prepared to admit even the slightest mistake on their part. all that i have stated here is that there was a mistake. I DO NOT claim that bush lied. only that lying is one logical possibility.

the administration made a mistake. no amount of hand waving here can change that. i for one, will not ignore the fact that a mistake occurred. I'm not trying to be unpatriotic or make the administration look bad. but also, i couldn't care less if it makes them look bad.

listen people, the only thing i'm suggesting here is that we investigate the mistake, get to the bottom of it, and take steps to prevent a similar mistake in the future. and anyone who sees this as anything but a rational and modest suggestion is the one who should have to answer claims of being a partisan zealot and intellectually dishonest, not me.

no one here has said a thing to controvert the fact that the administration presented intel saying that Iraq was currently in possession of WMD and that this made them an imminent threat. furthermore, the adminisration used this "threat" to justify a war.

there are really two issues here.

Point 1: the wrong intel.
Point 2: the intel being used to justify the war.

I'd like to see a serious argument here refuting 1 or 2. Bold Deceiver has so far seemed to accept these 2 points. no one here as posted anything to show 1 or 2 is false.

1 and 2 lead to some LOGICAL questions. first, questions about point 1. why was the intel that was presented wrong? was it wrong because the raw intel gathered was mistaken? was it wrong because the administration misinterpreted it? was it wrong because it was fabricated? wrong because it was exaggerated? lastly, wrong [only] because the evidence has been eliminated?

one diversion here. i used this statement broadly in an earlier post. i also indicated that this broad statement included a number of possibilities. it is immaterial to me HOW the evidence might have been eliminated. it might have been buried, sold, mailed through FEDEX, or shoved up their a$$es. if the evidence was eliminated it is not how it was that matters to my current argument. but it will be very important for another issue i will address next. even though i believed i indicated this clearly in earlier posts, for some reason you post rubbish like this:

Bold Deceiver wrote:Alternatively, they could have sold them to terrorists, but that's not a possibility in your world.

i implicitly included this in my argument. i made no mention of limitations on how the evidence was eliminated. and anyway, it has no bearing on my argument. it makes no difference in my context how the evidence was eliminated. since i have clearly indicated evidence elimation was possible, i would accept even the most outlandish means were possible. finding proof of this would be crucial, but what is more...LOOKING for evidence of what happened is essential. the fact that none of us knows the answer makes my argument all the more valid. it must be investigated because a mistake happened.

and now the real significance of this to those who argue in favor of possibility 4 (evidence of the intel has been eliminated)... if this occurred - it still amounts to an intel failure!!!

yep, that's right. if he had the weapons and we allowed him to stash them, sell them, bury them, or shove them up his a$$ this mean a serious break down in intel. and yet i am not even assailing the administration for this. in fact, i have not blamed them for this at all and have clearly stated that possiblity 4 is improbable relative to the other 3. but for those of you who think possibility 4 would absolve the administration of having phucked up, think again. possibility 4 would be the worst of all because it would mean the imminent threat is still out there!

BD, part of the reason you're so way off base here is that you assume too much about my motivation. i'm not voting for Kerry. I'm not even voting for a democrat. i see no difference between democrats and republicans. i couldn't care less who wins the election at this point because they're all completely the same. and the winner will certainly be Kerry or Bush. My take on that is that we're screwed either way. It's goin to hell in a handbasket and that's that. If you stop trying to argue against me as if I'm some bleeding heart democrat you'd be doing me a big favor. maybe i'd get more substance and less rhetoric about what a blind liberal i am.

finally, to the question you've been dying to have answered.

Bold Deceiver wrote:Since you contend that Iraq possessed WMD, and since you contend that Iraq no longer possesses WMD, when, in your view, did WMD cease to exist in Iraq?

Well, my answer is I don't know and I don't care. This question may be relevant for John Kerry (or some other bleeding heart liberal) to answer, but it isn't for me. It isn't, because i have no liberal agenda to besmirch the bush campaign or see a democrat reach office. i don't want either of them. my agenda is absolutely how i have presented it - a mistake happened in a crucial intel area and it can't be ignored.

to me your question about WHEN is utterly misguided. the only shred of relevance is pertinant only in an academic sense to determine the details of how the intel went wrong. there is zero significance to the question in terms of my argument here that it went wrong in the first place.

i never saw the intel. i never interpreted the intel. i never presented the intel to the american people. i never went to war over the intel. i have never taken a stance until now. there's no prior position for me to waffle from. i never had one.

it would appear from what i have seen and read that Hussein had wmd at one point. it would appear that he used them at one point. but WHEN he got rid of them has no bearing on my assertion that our intel about him was wrong. ok, so that leaves only the question of whether WHEN is relevant to how the intel was used. no, WHEN is not relevant. it is sufficient for my argument (and my concern) that the intel WAS wrong. WHEN it went wrong is academic and is only pertinent in the sense that knowing WHEN will give us the details of the intel error. But knowing WHEN cannot make it any less of an error.

the real questions are and always have been

1. why was the intel wrong?

and

2. should we be concerned about the false intel and how it was used?

i don't know the answer to question 1. i have never claimed to know it. i have posted here the logical possibilities of why it could have been wrong. and no one has yet to post a satisfactory refutation of this.

I know the answer to question 2. the answer is YES. we should all be concerned about an intelligence failure this substantial. future failures could result in further attacks on our nation or our allies. future failures could result in unnecessary casualties to american military personnel. future failures could result in collateral damage to civilian targets in enemy states. future failures could result in mistakenly attacking states that were not "guilty as charged".

Will, has been the one person here to truly put forth a rational argument that actually addresses my points. He essentially argued that at the end of the day, we did the right thing by taking down Hussein. I agree that taking him down is a good thing. still, the details of the intel failure must be explored and safeguards put in place to protect against future failures such as this.

Will's point is very much common sense. So is mine. Again my point is a modest one because it draws no conclusions about specifically who is to blame, or specifically what went wrong.

A mistake CLEARLY happened. The mistake should be investigated and we should safeguard against such mistakes in the future. No one here has said anything to refute this. some people are here seem to be in a big hurry to gloss over the mistake because it is distateful to them that the president for whom they voted made a mistake. well, sorry! the mistake happened. the mistake matters.

for the record, i meant it completely when i said:

"I am all for more pre-emptive invasions of those who would threaten democracy or tyrannize their own people. i just want them to be better executed operations. and i want them to be justified with more finesse in the theater of world politics.