FAN-tastic Boston Globe Article

[Maeve_Mari]

The truth about Iraq
October 8, 2004

EVERYONE WAS fooled. Everyone deceived everyone else. These are instructive conclusions from the long-awaited report by the CIA's chief weapons investigator for Iraq, Charles Duelfer, who described the findings of his Iraq Survey Group in Senate testimony Wednesday.

Duelfer's definitive judgment that Saddam Hussein had abandoned his chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs in the early 1990s will, justifiably, influence the public's perceptions of President Bush's wisdom, competence, and truthfulness. But the report should also serve as a powerful lesson about the need for sound intelligence. This means understanding not only the capabilities but also the intentions of a figure such as Saddam.

In the midst of a presidential campaign, President Bush might be expected to insist, as he did yesterday, that Duelfer's findings in no way invalidated his war policy or the certainty he and Vice President Cheney expressed about Saddam having stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons.

Duelfer found that Saddam did not want to admit he no longer had chemical and biological weapons because he believed he could deter his enemy, Iran, by maintaining the illusion he still had the mustard and nerve gas he had used against Iranian troops in the 1980s. His own generals were left to believe Iraq had chemical weapons until shortly before the American invasion of March 2003.

Saddam fooled his generals, the Iranians, and the Americans -- who used that deception as their primary justification for toppling him from power. As he has done so often at crucial junctures, Saddam misread the outside world and his own situation. He and his close aides told US interrogators that he believed chemical weapons had not only saved him from defeat in his war with Iran but also from being overthrown by US forces in 1991. And remembering how Ronald Reagan's administration had collaborated with him during his war with Iran, Saddam assumed that Washington would once again want to cooperate with his secular regime against Iran and other fundamentalist threats.

What should be unnerving to Americans contemplating Duelfer's disclosures is the symmetry between Saddam's miscalculations and Bush's. Saddam could persist in the cocoon of his own delusions because he did not listen to opposing views and was loath to take advice from foreign leaders. Bush's own unchecked impulse to believe what he wanted to believe allowed him to be fooled about Saddam's weapons, the force levels needed to stabilize Iraq, the cost of not stopping postwar looting, and the ease of nation-building in Iraq.

Saddam deceived the world, and Bush deceived himself.

The 'maxed message" here is that when you are wrong, you are not right. And it is time to change the way you deal with the situation!

[Westley]

Round of applause!

[Taomagicdragon]

now ain't that somethin? Good thing I'm an independant

[JAnthony]

Is it really that hard to see the anti-Bush slant in this pseudo-analysis? The article itself says "Everyone was fooled." But it also claims Bush was dishonest, unwise, and incompetent for believing what "everyone" believed and following the advice of the majority of experienced intelligence experts, both here and abroad. Was the President supposed to be superhumanly clairvoyant, to be able to see right through a world consensus and call Saddam's bluff?

If Bush had spoken up at the time and said, "Saddam doesn't have WMD's. He's just bluffing," the same two-faced critics would have screamed that he was crazy! Even Kerry and Edwards talked about the danger that Saddam posed and said he needed to be removed.

And Saddam wasn't being delusional - playing the WMD card obviously had worked for him before, so he was only following a winning strategy.

And finally, the "advice from foreign leaders" has been shown to be tainted by the corruption of the oil-for-food scandal. France and other countries that opposed us have no principals to argue from - they were only in it for the money.

Anyone who continues to deliberately distort and slant what happened has no credibility and is only helping our enemies by undermining the sincere and determined efforts to protect all of us from Islamist scum and vicious dictators.

[achilleus]

Anyone who continues to deliberately distort and slant what happened has no credibility and is only helping our enemies by undermining the sincere and determined efforts to protect all of us from Islamist scum and vicious dictators.

I see the slant in the article, but I have to say:

Isn't Bush currently distorting and slanting what happened? Doesn't that mean he has no credibility and is helping our enemies by undermining the sincere and determined efforts to protect all of us from Islamist scum and vicious dictators

I mean, why can't Bush and his administration take the report, say we made a mistake, and then look at how to fix the problem? Honestly, the administration is so busy trying to convince everyone that Iraq is going great, and that they were a threat, that they are ignoring the real threat. Keeping us safe. This stubborness has damaged the world wide support we should have for stopping terrorism.

Remember, confidence does not equal competence, and patriotism is not blindly following the current administration.

[telkanuru]

Line Kerry must use tonight:

"Have you no common decency, sir?"

[JAnthony]

I mean, why can't Bush and his administration take the report, say we made a mistake, and then look at how to fix the problem? Honestly, the administration is so busy trying to convince everyone that Iraq is going great, and that they were a threat, that they are ignoring the real threat. Keeping us safe. This stubborness has damaged the world wide support we should have for stopping terrorism.

First, Bush has admitted the intelligence was mistaken and is working on fixing it. Can you honestly fault him for making a decision that was supported by all the available evidence at the time? Given that evidence and the circumstances, the decision was not a mistake - it was an agonizing choice made after 12 years of failed diplomacy, failed inspections, and failed humanitarian intervention (oil for food), followed by months of further diplomacy blocked by arrogant countries who were in bed with Saddam and had no gratitude for past generosity. After 9/11, it was not enough to "contain" Saddam in a situation where he could still pass WMD materials and/or knowledge to terrorists who would not hesitate to attack us with them. He defied all attempts to verify his compliance and had to be forced to do so.

Second, "world wide support" is a joke and a fiction. The countries who understand that freedom must be guarded by strength - they supported us, and they were able to do so because they were not in Saddam's pocket. Most of the United Nations members are corrupt dictatorships or corrupt republics that were being bribed by Saddam. They did not and never will support us, no matter how well Kerry kisses up.

And finally, as for keeping us safe, there has not been a single attack on our soil since 9/11. The administration may not be perfect, and may not be doing every single thing we wish it would, but the results speak for themselves.

I don't agree with Bush on everything. I wish he had a accepted a smaller tax cut and a smaller Medicare prescription drug benefit. Like most politicians, he continues to dodge the time bomb of Social Security and other exploding benefits for the elderly.

But he clearly sees - where Kerry doesn't - that Islamic fascism is the most dangerous threat we've faced since Nazism. These people want to kill or dominate the entire world and subject it to the worst kind of ignorant, superstitious "laws" and oppression. It's going to be an ugly, long fight where many mistakes will be made, whether admitted or not. But we don't have any other choice but to fight, unless we're prepared to let free democratic societies die off and let the barbarians take us into the darkness.

[achilleus]

First, Bush has admitted the intelligence was mistaken and is working on fixing it.

He and his administration kinda did that this week, after how long?
Even then with the latest report definitively saying that Iraq was no threat, the administration tried to spin it to 'Well they would've been.' So I'm not sure they really accept the fact that they were wrong.

That's distortion that is taking the focus off limiting terrorism to save Bush's ***.

Can you honestly fault him for making a decision that was supported by all the available evidence at the time? Given that evidence and the circumstances, the decision was not a mistake - it was an agonizing choice made after 12 years of failed diplomacy, failed inspections, and failed humanitarian intervention (oil for food), followed by months of further diplomacy blocked by arrogant countries who were in bed with Saddam and had no gratitude for past generosity. After 9/11, it was not enough to "contain" Saddam in a situation where he could still pass WMD materials and/or knowledge to terrorists who would not hesitate to attack us with them. He defied all attempts to verify his compliance and had to be forced to do so.

There was plenty of evidence that Saddam had no weapons and was a threat only to his own people. Bush's administration ignored it seeing what they wanted to see. He used his judgement, and it was wrong.

Second, "world wide support" is a joke and a fiction. The countries who understand that freedom must be guarded by strength - they supported us, and they were able to do so because they were not in Saddam's pocket. Most of the United Nations members are corrupt dictatorships or corrupt republics that were being bribed by Saddam. They did not and never will support us, no matter how well Kerry kisses up.

Right, and all the countries that supported the war on Iraq did it for humanitarian reasons. Politics, favors, and $ played no part, right? And the US had no financial reasons to invade? And Bush didn't have a score to settle? That's naive thinking. It's all give and take. That's politics.

And finally, as for keeping us safe, there has not been a single attack on our soil since 9/11. The administration may not be perfect, and may not be doing every single thing we wish it would, but the results speak for themselves.

Could be that they are still planning an even bigger attack. These things take some time. While were expending all our energy in Iraq, with our chemical plants unprotected they could be hatching their plot right now.

I don't agree with Bush on everything. I wish he had a accepted a smaller tax cut and a smaller Medicare prescription drug benefit. Like most politicians, he continues to dodge the time bomb of Social Security and other exploding benefits for the elderly.

But he clearly sees - where Kerry doesn't - that Islamic fascism is the most dangerous threat we've faced since Nazism. These people want to kill or dominate the entire world and subject it to the worst kind of ignorant, superstitious "laws" and oppression. It's going to be an ugly, long fight where many mistakes will be made, whether admitted or not. But we don't have any other choice but to fight, unless we're prepared to let free democratic societies die off and let the barbarians take us into the darkness.

I believe that Kerry sees that terrorists are dangerous threat that must be stopped. I just think Kerry realizes that it won't be accomplished through forcing our agenda thoughtlessly on other countries.

Don't forget, Iraq didn't attack us on 9/11. Al Qaida did. There are no ties. Al Qaida still is causing terrorism, and their numbers are growing as our troops in Iraq are viewed as an occupying force.

[Inquartata]

why can't Bush and his administration take the report, say we made a mistake, and then look at how to fix the problem?

Come, now! With the election around the corner, and the race this tight?

You know as well as I what the opposition would do with such an admission. It'd turn it into yet another weapon. The world of politics is not the one we inhabit, where doing this would be considered admirable candour and accepted as a sign of humility. There it would be seen as a sign of weakness and a mistake to be exploited ruthlessly in campaign advertising and stump criticisms, suitably spun of course...

[telkanuru]

The election wouldn't have been just around the corner, and the race not as tight if he had just admitted its mistake when it was first known. They are in a fire of their own building.

[Maeve_Mari]

Come, now! With the election around the corner, and the race this tight?

You know as well as I what the opposition would do with such an admission. It'd turn it into yet another weapon. The world of politics is not the one we inhabit, where doing this would be considered admirable candour and accepted as a sign of humility. There it would be seen as a sign of weakness and a mistake to be exploited ruthlessly in campaign advertising and stump criticisms, suitably spun of course...

Your observation's correct here, Inq. If he were to face up to the situation, in light of the campaign the R's are running this year, Bush would have to call himself a "flipper-flopper!"

His steadfastness seems to be grounded on one decision regardless of progress or outcome. We all know that making the tough decisions is not cowardice. It's too bad that it's come to this. Thousands of young men and women are going to have to die to maintain his bravado.

[Inquartata]

There was plenty of evidence that Saddam had no weapons and was a threat only to his own people. Bush's administration ignored it seeing what they wanted to see.

And you know this how, again? You've seen all this plentiful evidence, have you? Or are you simply echoing the pundits who trumpet that it's so, based on the famous "undisclosed sources"? Or channeling Michael Moore?

And you even know what Bush et al. saw and that they "ignored" some! Truly, your omniscience is most impressive!

I often envy you True Believers your utter certainty about things. I expect it's quite comforting knowing that you cannot possibly be mistaken...

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

And the reason for having this in the Water Cooler, rather than in the Politics 2004 folder, is?

Another thing - I would find it more interesting if people here would cover the topic "why do those who think differently than me do that" more, and the topic "I am right, and they are wrong" less. OTOH, I have not be perfect in that respect myself.

Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[Rogue]

Congrtatulations to all the Bush haters on perfect hindsight!

Maybe we should let Sadam loose?

[jeff]

Peter is right on "wrong place"

Inq and Rogue miss the point that the Administration claimed to "know" proof of WMD, which turned out to be false, while UN and US resources on the ground claimed, with far more accuracy that the WMD were not. Since the presence of an immediate WMD threat was one leg of the reason to invade Iraq (and has been shown false, eg: via last week's report), and the other being a connection to Bin Laden and Al Qaeda (ditto), it shows that the Administration's causes for going to war were wrong. Burden of proof for initiating a war that has resulted in the deaths of thousands belong to the Administration; admission of mistake would too, if they were capable of such honesty. Not to mention the many, many reports, cited on this board ad nauseum, that the Administration "juiced" the evidence by exaggerating the parts they liked and ignoring the parts that contradicted what they wanted to do.

Rogue - if ending Saddam's regime to liberate Iraq from him was cited as the reason to go to war, then I would have no reason to complain. He was a monster who terrorised his own people, and we've ended his regime. But, GWB was dismissive of "nation building" as a candidate, and demanded regime change on the basis of the non-existant WMD and connection to September 11. He only started down the "we did this to liberte the Iraqi people" line when the wells turned out to be dry.

[Inquartata]

Yes, the many, many reports from "unnamed sources", or people with axes to grind. Very probative, I am sure.

Now, you take this latest report. It's based on an exhaustive analysis of thousands of documents recovered in Iraq. Given the parameters of the analysis, it could not help but come to the conclusions it did.

However...how many months did the Hussein government have prior to the invasion? Is it possible that perhaps, maybe, possibly, someone thought to destroy the incriminating documents, if any existed? And yet, there's still such certainty that these reports couldn't be flawed or incomplete. That the intelligence pre-war could have been entirely wrong is acceptable, but that intelligence post-war must be infallible...

Nor has the theory that there were WMDs in Iraq been "shown false". It has only been shown that none have been found, which is not quite the same thing.

[jeff]

Unnamed only because I'm not taking the trouble to name them all, not because they're anonymous. Start with letter B for Blix, if you like, and work your way down the list. As far as the documentation, it's not merely absence of incriminating documents, it's documentation of desire, but inability to have WMD. Now we have access to what's left of the Baath regimes records - that's a good basis of good intel. The Republicans haven't tried to discredit the quality of the analysis - I don't see why you should.

Once again, burden of proof belongs to the side that clamored for invasion, rather than saying "we may yet find them". Even the administration has backed away from that excuse. Maybe we'll find Judge Crater and Amelia Earhart, for that matter. It's not what the Administration eagerly portrayed on the eve of the invasion. The WMD haven't been found to exist. GWB would have some pithy remark about how you can't run away from the record.

[telkanuru]

Would you rather be an unnamed source or have your spouse outed as a covert CIA member for speaking out against the administration?

[Rogue]

Would you rather be an unnamed source or have your spouse outed as a covert CIA member for speaking out against the administration?

[Inquartata]

The election wouldn't have been just around the corner, and the race not as tight if he had just admitted its mistake when it was first known. They are in a fire of their own building.

And yet the end result would have been the same. Already the opposition has this constant hue and cry of "incompetence" and "wrong war" going. Imagine the crescendo that would have reached had Bush actually yielded to the calls to "admit that he was wrong".

It may happen if Bush gets re-elected, but even then I wouldn't count on it. Just as Kerry has his illusions that he's "always had one consistent position" on everything, so too I'm sure Bush has his...