Rummy!

[Inquartata]

Oh, yeah-forgot about that one. 8-)
Honestly, though, I think the real problem is that he wasn't our bad man anymore. He wasn't very nice 30 years ago when the US backed his play for power.

Perhaps you imagine that Bush was in charge then?

We change Chief Executives every 4 to 8 years---often we change philosophies as well. It is true that other countries, which are ruled by one man or family for decades, sometimes expect a continuity of policy which our system cannot deliver given those conditions. But the expectations are unrealistic, and it not really legitimate to blame either a given Administration or the nation as a whole for actions taken 30 years ago by quite another, under quite another set of circumstances and other imperatives, is it? Otherwise we ought to be blaming current problems in the UK on Scandinavia and Normandy...

[Philistine]

We do not know this. We are told only that "they were obtained", and we have no way to verify this, much less the accuracy or completeness of any version thus "obtained".

If I say to you "It has been learned from sources in the Kerry campaign that Kerry is having a homosexual affair with one of his staffers", have I a right to expect credulity from you without verification? It seems that this is the standard many media organs expect to exercise. They expect that their stories will be taken as true on their say-so alone...but with each new revelation of reporters inventing stories, sources and the like, my faith in that standard weakens.

Except that the administration has acknowledged the existence of the memos and salient identifying information about them--e.g. name, date, title, author.

The actual memos (linked to above) match this information exactly. In no case can I recall where such leaked government documents--which have been admitted, identified and leaked copies posted online--have turned out to be false or forgeries. Indeed, dozens of times in the past couple of years, they've turned out to be correct.

Unlike some story--there is a tangible document whose existence is not acknowledged. Have you seen examples where this has not turned out correctly?

--Philistine

[daeceg]

You forgot one: defense of the US. Whether one believed it or not, the opinion that Iraq posed a threat to the safety of the nation was a viable one, albeit it seems to have turned out to have been incorrect or overstated. Self-defense supersedes UN control----the UN itself conceds as much.

Inq-I'll grant you that Bush may have made his decisions on inaccurate information. But one problem I have is that it appears to me that he was unwilling to listen to information that was contrary. The UN weapons inspectors found no weapons (Hans Blix, etc.) The CIA said there were no weapons. The defecting former head of the weapons programs said there were no weapons.
The CIA investigated the people who said there were weapons (Chalabi et. al.) and found their reports untrustworthy. The Defense Intelligence Agency picks up the guys the CIA dismisses and uses those claims to justify their position. Now, the men at the Pentagon who are in charge already have a plan drawn up to invade Iraq and remove Hussein from power (from back after the first Gulf War)...

Doesn't this strike you as just a little suspicious?

[daeceg]

Perhaps you imagine that Bush was in charge then?

We change Chief Executives every 4 to 8 years---often we change philosophies as well. It is true that other countries, which are ruled by one man or family for decades, sometimes expect a continuity of policy which our system cannot deliver given those conditions. But the expectations are unrealistic, and it not really legitimate to blame either a given Administration or the nation as a whole for actions taken 30 years ago by quite another, under quite another set of circumstances and other imperatives, is it? Otherwise we ought to be blaming current problems in the UK on Scandinavia and Normandy...

I know Bush wasn't in charge then, and I don't blame him for putting Hussein in power. (for encouraging the unrest in Haiti by failing to back Aristide, yeah-that he can take the blame for). I don't even blame Bush I (though his role in the Bay of Pigs is rather intruiging, and I do blame him for Noriega). I don't blame his grandfather for the financial connections with the Nazis.

Honestly, this is the one problem I have with my general anti-war stance. I feel the US has contributed to a lot of messes in the world, and that we should try to fix them. Hussein was one of those mistakes. So was the Shah of Iran. So was Pinochet, Noriega, and a bunch of other strongmen around the world. Taking Hussein out on humanitarian grounds is a generally good thing. I shed no tears for him or his sons. But it does set a troubling precedent, and I don't think the people in charge adequately prepared for the fallout of the decision to go to war. I think that due to lack of planning, the innocents in Iraq are needlessly suffering (but I think the economic sanctions were pretty horrendous, too.)

But instead we get all these Bush-hit reasons. We act in violation of international law, and against the will of the world community. Iraq was never, and has never been a serious threat to the United States. But are we really going to commit ourselves to intervention on humanitarian reasons? I remember the uproar when Clinton went into Yugoslavia and Haiti. (and to a smaller extent when Bush I took us into Somalia).

[Inquartata]

Except that the administration has acknowledged the existence of the memos and salient identifying information about them--e.g. name, date, title, author.

So, contining with my hypothetical above:

"The Kerry campaign today confirmed that one of its staffers is gay."

Does this confirm my allegation?

[Inquartata]

Inq-I'll grant you that Bush may have made his decisions on inaccurate information. But one problem I have is that it appears to me that he was unwilling to listen to information that was contrary.

Rather like Michael Moore, eh?

But seriously, upon what do you base your assessment that he was "unwilling to listen, rather than, say, that the caveats and disclaimers were considered less reliable, or were few and disjointed, or even never managed to get into his briefings?

My problem is not with identifying dysfunctions in the operation of the White House, or even with the view that politicians try to further their agendas by hook or by crook. My problem is with the tendency of some to opt for the most unflattering of several possibilities as the default, that is, whichever motive or action makes the Administration or the President look worst automatically becomes what must have happened. This without any real foundation in fact, at least so far. And worse still is the certainty that this sort of warped decision-making is going to have praxeological consequences: many people are not only going to believe the worst-case explanations for the actions of the White House but they are going to argue, persuade, work, contribute and vote on that basis as well...

And make movies.

The UN weapons inspectors found no weapons (Hans Blix, etc.)

Yet.

It strikes me as paradoxical that those who were in favor of letting the inspections drag on kept saying "They've only had a few years to do their work, let's be patient" began shouting that we were unable to find any weapons within weeks of the beginning of the war and have continued doing so ever since. As though the inspectors ( who, if you believe Scott Ritter, had full and unlimited access to Iraq and weren't obstructed at all, really ) warranted patience, but the US team ought to have begun making discoveries before they got off the plane, despite being shot at and worrying about IEDs and so forth...

The CIA said there were no weapons.

This is a new one on me. Unless Tenet's book has come out already or something.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_...ct_2002.htm#01

The defecting former head of the weapons programs said there were no weapons.

Defecting from where to where? To whom are you referring?

The CIA investigated the people who said there were weapons (Chalabi et. al.) and found their reports untrustworthy.

No, the CIA never trusted Chalabi. They had been at odds for years, and he was never one of their main sources, much less he only one. It was the Pentagon whose darling he was. Yet the CIAs intelligence assessments leading up to the war still gave credence to the WMD views, based on multiple and independent sources of information. I mean, remember Tenet's famous "slam dunk" comment?

The Defense Intelligence Agency picks up the guys the CIA dismisses and uses those claims to justify their position.

And if the Pentagon had been the ONLY source of war-justifying intel your conclusions would be much more supportable...

Now, the men at the Pentagon who are in charge already have a plan drawn up to invade Iraq and remove Hussein from power (from back after the first Gulf War)...

Doesn't this strike you as just a little suspicious?

Not if you know the Pentagon. I suspect they have a plan drawn up to invade North Korea, Taiwan, and maybe even Mexico, too. It's called "contingency planning", and they cover all sorts of scenarios, including many of remote likelihood of ever occurring. That they had one on Iraq, given the Gulf War, does not surprise me at all...

[Schiavona]

Not if you know the Pentagon. I suspect they have a plan drawn up to invade North Korea, Taiwan, and maybe even Mexico, too. It's called "contingency planning", and they cover all sorts of scenarios, including many of remote likelihood of ever occurring. That they had one on Iraq, given the Gulf War, does not surprise me at all...

I knew a fencer who ended up in MI at the Pentagon, he said they had contingency plans for invasion from space...............

[Inquartata]

(for encouraging the unrest in Haiti by failing to back Aristide, yeah-that he can take the blame for).

Hang on, I thought it was your opinion that the US ought not be propping up or emboldening tyrants or nascent dictators by its actions?

I don't think the people in charge adequately prepared for the fallout of the decision to go to war. I think that due to lack of planning, the innocents in Iraq are needlessly suffering (but I think the economic sanctions were pretty horrendous, too.)

There's an old military aphorism: "No plan survives contact with the enemy".

For my part, I suspect that the whole Iraq thing, aftermath as well as war, was probably planned to a fare-thee-well, but as they always do circumstances threw monkey wrenches into them. I don't blame the Bush Administrations for the course of events in Iraq, or attribute it to "lack of planning", any more than I fault the Carter Administration for the failure of the hostage rescue mission on the same grounds. Both were simply examples of the best laid plans o' mice and men going agley, AFAIK.

Of course, if one has a predisposition to dislike and distrust someone the more charitable possibilities do tend to be discarded out of hand....

Iraq was never, and has never been a serious threat to the United States.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

[Philistine]

So, contining with my hypothetical above:

"The Kerry campaign today confirmed that one of its staffers is gay."

Does this confirm my allegation?

Well--if John Kerry (or the staffer) were in a hearing before congress, under oath, and were asked: "We have media reports of pictures showing you having a homsexual liason with a staffer. Will you produce those pictures to us?"

And his response was "No. I will not produce those pictures. They are private." Then yes. I would say that would confirm the allegation.

As a clarification--are you contending that there is insufficient information to conclude that the "torture" memos linked to above exist, or are you just making a blanket statement that generally press reports should be looked at sceptically?

While I agree that anonymous leaks are not the most reliable indicators--when the existence of items is confirmed during sworn testimony by high members of the administration--I would say that the existence of the item cannot reasonably be denied.

--Philistine

[Inquartata]

As a clarification--are you contending that there is insufficient information to conclude that the "torture" memos linked to above exist, or are you just making a blanket statement that generally press reports should be looked at sceptically?

The two are not unrelated. Thus far we have been given some confirmation that memos exist, but as to their scope and nature we have only the media reports. I'd like to see either (a) an official, perhaps even if redacted, version compared to the alleged one published*, or (b) a substantially identical version obtained independently by two or more unrelated news agencies---ie, not versions published in the NYT and the CST but both gotten from UPI...

*Like this ( which appears to satisfy my request, even if I don't necessarily draw the same conclusions as others therefrom ).

While I agree that anonymous leaks are not the most reliable indicators--when the existence of items is confirmed during sworn testimony by high members of the administration--I would say that the existence of the item cannot reasonably be denied.

Existence is one thing, it is content which matters. In your example above, what if Kerry were asked about photos purported by a newspaper to demonstrate something which they did not, but the photographs also showed other things he would rather not get out? Like his running-mate selection, say, or a chart of his campaign contributors, or a precis of his strategy, or what have you? And he then refused to produce the photos on those grounds. Should we then proceed on the assumption that he's covering up, that the paper's conclusion is true or likely to be true, and his motives are of the worst?

Anyway, the point seems moot now in light of the release of at least some of the memos. But the general priciple remains: I am doubly cautious about accepting a single news "scoop" on its face any more...

[daeceg]

It strikes me as paradoxical that those who were in favor of letting the inspections drag on kept saying "They've only had a few years to do their work, let's be patient" began shouting that we were unable to find any weapons within weeks of the beginning of the war and have continued doing so ever since. As though the inspectors ( who, if you believe Scott Ritter, had full and unlimited access to Iraq and weren't obstructed at all, really ) warranted patience, but the US team ought to have begun making discoveries before they got off the plane, despite being shot at and worrying about IEDs and so forth...

Well, the commander of the Marine Expeditionary Force said there were no WMDs...
Bush, Powell, and Blair all said they knew were the weapons were. Powell and Bush said it would be a matter of days before the weapons were found.

As to the weapons inspections themselves:
I think things were bungled in the beginning. The inspectors should have had an AC-130 gunship orbiting overhead when they went knocking. If they weren't allowed into a facility, then give 10 minutes to evacuate the building and open up with the miniguns in the Spectre. But we didn't do that.
Now, when Blix was there-backed with a credible threat of force-Hussein actually did open up. Hussein destroyed the missiles he was building. But it appears to me Bush got impatient right when it seemed diplomacy was finally starting to work.

And now it seems that, if anything, this war has decreased our security in the world. Al-Qaeda wasn't a significant presence in Iraq before the war, but they are certainly showing up now....<sigh>

By the way, Inq-do you read Foreign Policy magazine? (gasp-the flaming liberal actually subscribes to a right-leaning publication! will the wonders never cease?) Great article in there by Rubert Hutchings:"X+ 9/11: Everything I needed to know about fighting terrorism I learned from George F. Kennan." I'll type it out for you, if you like.