Amy, did you read this?

Because I find it incredible that "German intelligence officials" - whoever that is - spoke to The Los Angeles Times without official notice, and that Senator Carl Levin was the only recipient of a DIA report three years old.

It just doesn't wash.

Journalism is NOT the reporting of what other journalists say. That's how the issue gets muddied so that those who commit crimes in the mishandling of evidence get away with it!

You - and others - might think that what gets written in newspapers becomes "fact" automatically. What really happens is that information control changes public opinion outside of due process, and this is not a search for the truth, but another struggle for power.

Radwaste, did YOU read this? Because nowhere does it say that Carl Levin was the only recipient of a three year old DIA report. It only says he released it. It doesn't say if he's the only person to receive it, or even when he received it. Only that he released it, which means only that it happened to fall into his hands, not saying when, how or who else.

Also, what "official notice" to non-American intelligence officials need to speak to the Los Angeles Times? Enquiring minds want to know.

What I'm noticing of late is that Republicans seem to be divided into two camps. Those who are big enough to admit, "You know what? Bush really did lie to get us in this war? He really is as dishonest as Democrats claim." Even Ann Coulter, the personification of dishonesty, is conceding that much.

Then there are these diehard Bush supporters, who would just rather eat broken glass than admit Bush is easily the most mendacious president since Nixon (and probably surpassing him).

Ah, the smell of Watergate is in the air.

Golly, if everyone just hated George Bush a little harder, and held their breath and turned blue and got REALLY anal, everything would work out!...

...You might think. If you believed in magical thinking, as so many at the NYT seem to do.

There's no doubt that Bush manipulated data in order to push his agenda. (Rhetoric, they call that.) Nonetheless: Did anyone you ever met including your own lonesome self think that the only --or perhaps even main-- reason we invaded Iraq was WMDs? Did you ever, ever, ever meet anyone who was scared about them, at least as scared as Powell wanted us to be?

No. Nobody had much faith in the intelligence agencies at that point (Feb 2003). We supported the war for other reasons. See Q from the LAT this weekend:

http://www.alwayson-network.com/printpage.php?id=P12913_0_1_0_C

PS- Dowd's book isn't selling. She had a large photo of herself in her sixth decade of life sitting on a barstool wearing fishnets and crimson fuckme pumps published across the globe to achieve sales of less than 13,000 units. In a few months, menopause will be complete, thoughtful reflection will commence, and her shame will burn without terminus.

Next!

I loathe the Democrats, too, but mainly for being such morons.

Patrick, please -- do some thinking!

This "slam-dunk evidence" was yet so easy to conceal, so tightly held that not one person in Congress was able to bring it up, until the magician Senator Levin says, "Oh! Here it is!"

And no, you jumped to the wrong conclusion about my use of the term, "official notice". What I mean is easy to understand: Five "senior German intelligence officials" decided it was in someone's best interest for them to skip everyone and go chat up the LA Times? Whose? What's their reward? Do you think that's the place to go with "intelligence" information? Do you think the five officials took it upon themselves to travel across the ocean, directly to the Times? What are you smoking?

There you go again, Rad. Always reading into things when you don't have the facts. Who said the intelligence officials decided to go chat up the L.A. Times? It sounds to me like some enterprising journalist decided to take the initiative.

Also, Rad -- this is going to hurt you, I realize -- but just because you happen to doubt something, or don't understand the hows or whys right away, it doesn't mean it's not true. Simply put, your doubts are insufficient to discredit something.

Also Crid, the answers to your questions in your third paragraph are yes, and yes. As a matter of fact, I heard people discussing it at the polls during the last election.

And that's really more of a response than your long-since-gotten-old crybabyism deserves. "You just HATE BUSH! Boo-hoo..."

I don't dispute that many Democrats loathe Bush. I loathe him, too, and I'm not a Democrat. Maybe someday, you'll ask yourself why Bush is so despised, instead of forwarding this nutty idea that somehow, Democrats just decided to loathe this good Christian, and upstanding fair leader of this great land.

It all smacks of this idiocy behind the rationale of why the terrorist attacks of 9/11 occurred: "They just hate us for our freedoms." Uh, no. That's not why they did it. But of course, if I go any further, I'd be accused of being on the terrorists' side and hating America.

> As a matter of fact, I heard
> people discussing it at
> the polls during the last
> election.

People were talking about this in your polling place?

Besides, the point is that WMDs were not the pivotal rhetoric that made the war happen. We're talking about February 2003, not October 2004. People weren't paralyzed with fear that Saddam was about to drop nerve gas into Tel Aviv. To the extent that they were concerned about, it was because Democrats had been talking about WMDs with the same certainty as administration officials.

This is what makes the chatter from Dems in recent months so infantile. They squeal with glee like pepsi-addled schoolgirls at every precious memo, as if when they finally scream *BUSH LIED* just one more time, people will just have to listen and Dubya will simply walk away with his chin down.

Knowing that Frank Rich has his panties in a bunch makes his arguments less plausible per se. In these years, democracy has been given purchase in a slippery and critical corner of the globe for a tragic --but remarkably slight-- cost of free people's blood. Even if it tumbles again into dictatorship and religious fanaticism, and it fucking well might, we can be proud of being the nation that took the chance to make it happen. It's historic, it's noble, and it happens to be working. Frank Rich thinks it happened because American voters were tricked with clever words. He thinks that little of people, and that much of "P.R. operations".

But WMD's aren't how the war was sold. And voters remember. Sane men and women knew in February 2003 that information was sketchy... This is why we allowed the troops to go in. If we'd known with certainty that they'd be facing WMDs, some of us would have demanded something besides ground invasion. But it was a risk, and soldiers are asked to accept risk.

> ...Democrats just decided
> to loathe this good
> Christian...

Dems are the party of opposition; we want and expect opposition. They've just been doing a shitty job of it.

> Uh, no. That's not why
> they did it.

This is going to be good!

> But of course, if I go
> any further...

Don't chicken out on us, Patrick. Have some faith in your insight. Why do you think 9/11 happened?

Frank: "The cover-up is failing, however."

Patrick: "Ah, the smell of Watergate is in the air."

Whether it's war, race, or abortion, Dems are OBSESSED with refighting the battles of their tender youth, when both moral nuance and heavy lifiting had been handled by others, leaving nothing but glorious victory. Maybe this is why Dems are such snots; they don't understand why it's not all falling into place they it did when their Dads and Big Brothers were in the arena. While growing up I heard always that Republicans wanted to carry us back into the bitter past. In this respect left and right are nowadays peas in a pod.

Apart from the specifics of this particular mess, there is a more general question. Should the US or the UN or anyone at all intervene in another country when serious crimes like "ethnic cleansing" (how I hate that phrase) are taking place? Examples abound: the Lord's Resistance Army; Robert Mugabe; Darfur.

One line of argument is that it's no-one else's business so no-one should get involved. That's the non-interventionist approach. I find it hard to take, especially if the victims are asking for help.

Another line of argument is that although people should intervene, practical difficulties rule it out. (I have an answer for that, but it's for another post.)

A third line is that we (whoever "we" are) should just exploit whatever other countries and peoples we can for our own benefit. Nobody explicitly argues this line, but it's the effect of many current policies. It's not non-interventionist, but it's not very moral.

The thing about the present mess in Iraq and Afghanistan is that it makes interventionism much harder to argue in the future, because it has been tainted. That bugs me.

"There you go again, Rad. Always reading into things when you don't have the facts. Who said the intelligence officials decided to go chat up the L.A. Times? It sounds to me like some enterprising journalist decided to take the initiative.

Also, Rad -- this is going to hurt you, I realize -- but just because you happen to doubt something, or don't understand the hows or whys right away, it doesn't mean it's not true. Simply put, your doubts are insufficient to discredit something."

Wow. Patrick: leave the projection to the professionals!

The burden of proof is always on the affiant. Further, I have ample reason to be skeptical of the claims made in this article. Do you really think reporters at the LA Times can get "German intelligence" personnel off by their lonesome, and that there are no rewards for this other than the "warm fuzzy"?

You want Mr. Bush gone so badly you can taste it; that's fine, even though you probably can't name a likely replacement with better behavior because of the way the process works. However, if you just applaud with glee every time something like this gets published, your just jerking those knees. You'll hurt yourself.

Want to work on bringing down the Bush administration and keep your wits and reasoning powers - such as they are? Look for the action around El Cenizo when he was governor. Use that.

Norman: nicely said. I wonder: how many people who think we should get out of Iraq admire Nelson Mandela, and/or think Mr. Mugabe is doing a nice job?

If you hate the phrase "ethnic cleansing" so much, why not call it what it is: Genocide.

And Rad, exactly, the burden of proof is on the affiant. You're the one who insists that there is no way the LA Times could have "chatted up" the German intelligence officials. Therefore, it falls to you to PROVE they're lying. You hear anything from German Intelligence officials insisting that they never said this and never spoke to LA Times reporters? No? Then guess what...

Rad, I'm not sure what point you're making - you think people who oppose the U.S. being in Iraq are therefore supportive of a Mugabe? Or if you oppose one invasion that means you are required to oppose interventions in other parts of the world?

My main objection to the Iraq invasion was that there was no good reason for overthrowing this particular despot as opposed to the myriad of other choices available. No reason unless you count strategic oil reserves, making Daddy proud by finishing what he started, and the popular appeal of going after Arabs post 9/11, of course.

And there's the added bonus of the diversionary tactic - ever since the decision to invade (excuse me, "liberate") was announced, no one seems to focus on the fact that bin Laden is still at large, al Quaeda is still planting bombs, and significant Middle Eastern regimes (that we are cozily in bed with) are facilitating all of it.

Putting aside completely the issue of WMD evidence, invading Iraq was supposed to be a linchpin in the Bush administration's "war on terrorism." Yet Iraq now provides the perfect training ground for terrorists, as well as additional fuel for America-bashers, as a direct consequence of our actions.

Bush's approach makes me want to print up a t-shirt with something like: "My president went to war on terrorism, and all I got was this lousy t-shirt, a color-coded alert system, and another layer of bureaucracy."

> there was no good reason for
> overthrowing this particular
> despot as opposed to the myriad
> of other choices available.

1. The United States had particular responsibilities to Iraq on account of our historical misconduct within their borders and without.

2. The takedown of Saddam has exemplary potential by both geography and history.

> unless you count strategic
> oil reserves

3. These are hardly a trivial consideration.

> that bin Laden is still at large,

And impotent.

> al Quaeda is still planting bombs.

Where? Not here.

> and significant Middle Eastern
> regimes (that we are cozily
> in bed with) are facilitating
> all of it.

The bed's not so cozy anymore... Expat voters in Tripoli and Damascus were lining up to vote in the Iraqi elections, and all the locals could do was watch. Do you think this made the host regimes feel "cozy"? March 10th, 2003 was one of history's great moments of testicular discomfort for tyrants worldwide.

> Putting aside completely the
> issue of WMD evidence,

An unneccesary courtesy, but thanks.

> invading Iraq was supposed to
> be a linchpin in the Bush
> administration's "war on
> terrorism."

Supposed to be?

> Yet Iraq now provides the
> perfect training ground for
> terrorists,

Do you think that it wasn't when Saddam ruled?

> as well as additional fuel for
> America-bashers, as a direct
> consequence of our actions.

After 9/11, some of us were less receptive to worries that we might hurt someone's feelings. Patience with dictatorial, oppressive regimes had proven to be something that would eventually bite us on the ass. The whinning of wealthy but militarily undiciplined nations, all of whom seemed to thrive under the umbrella of our own still-smoldering Pentagon, did not seem like such a great worry anymore.

And Patrick, Dan Rather tried that same burden-of-proof swapperoo with his bogus 'guard memos. It didn't do his case --or his career-- any good.

My main objection to the Iraq invasion was that there was no good reason for overthrowing this particular despot as opposed to the myriad of other choices available. - Melissa


Melissa - do you mean we could have chosen a different despot or a different method of dealing with him? Who or what in particular would you not have objected to? And why?

al Quaeda is still planting bombs.

Where? Not here.

Not yet.

Is this dull cynicism, or pre-emptive snark? Someday there'll be another attack on US soil, though the source looks less certain nowadays. Perhaps you had a plan after 9/11 for how we could have been made perfectly safe evermore. Wish you'd spoken up back then. But these four years have been TREMENDOUSLY quiet stateside... It would have been hard to believe in October 2001.

When people whine that "Osama is still OUT THERE!", what exactly do they mean? Do they think that 9/11 happened because of the darkness in one guy's heart, and not a boil-over of social forces that had been cooking for decades? What exactly did people want us to have happen? Were we supposed to invade Pakistan too?

>Do you think that it wasn't when Saddam ruled?

Don't you?

Dictators don't generally allow the creation of a rival army, since the defining characteristic of a dictator is the complete monopolization on the use of force/power. You'll remember that Zarqawi never got closer to Baghdad than Kurdistan (which Saddam didn't control) while Saddam ruled with an iron fist.

This is by far the most important part of this article:

"...the "few credible reports" of Iraq-Al Qaeda contacts actually involved efforts by Saddam to monitor or infiltrate Islamic terrorist groups, which he regarded as adversaries of his secular regime."

Why were we so stupid to think that Saddam's secular regime, that supressed the free excercise of Islam (remember when the free Iraqis were so happy to finally be celebrating that banned Islamic holiday where they hit each other over the head with swords and bleed all over the place?), would be aligned in any way with an organization whose initial grievance statement included the complaint that the US has propped up secular regimes in the Arab world that suppress the free excercise of Islam. What nation other than Saddamite Iraq fits this bill? Is there any other Arab country that shut the crazies up? Where were all the terrorists Saddam supposedly trained when planes needed crashing, the Cole needed bombing or the Bali discotheques needed burned?

> Yet Iraq now provides the
> perfect training ground for
> terrorists,

>>Do you think that it wasn't when Saddam ruled?

No, actually, it was not - that's what the whole WMD argument was about - that Saddam was poised to attack other countries. This has now it's been revealed as poor intelligence at best, a fraud on the U.S. and allies at worst.

Saddam was primarily concerned with brutalizing his own people (Kurds, Shiites, anyone supporting democracy), annexing neighboring countries (Kuwait), and robbing the country blind (food for oil manipulation). I'm not sure whether his treatment of his own people would qualify as terrorism by most definition, but now that the WMD myth has been debunked, there is no evidence Saddam supported, assisted or perpetrated any "export terrorism."

After 9/11, some of us were less receptive to worries that we might hurt someone's feelings. Patience with dictatorial, oppressive regimes had proven to be something that would eventually bite us on the ass. The whinning of wealthy but militarily undiciplined nations, all of whom seemed to thrive under the umbrella of our own still-smoldering Pentagon, did not seem like such a great worry anymore.

And yet we continue to have infinite patience with dictatorial, oppressive regimes whenever it suits our current interests (strategic, economic and otherwise). Countries like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan spring to mind.

>Putting aside completely the
> issue of WMD evidence,

>>An unneccesary courtesy, but thanks.

Courtesy? Hell no - just focusing the discussion elsewhere. Apparently you aren't used to conventions of debate and logic - putting aside a given issue does not equate to conceding a position regarding that issue.

>>Melissa - do you mean we could have chosen a different despot or a different method of dealing with him? Who or what in particular would you not have objected to? And why?

I meant that if our primary objective is overthrowing repressive regimes and trying to seed democracies, then we should have some methods for analyzing such decisions, so we can prioritize and place our resources most appropriately.

Bush clearly didn't weigh whether we should invade Sudan or Iraq or Zimbabwe or Myanmar (just to mention a few candidates). But if the stated objective is to be believed, then surely all despotic regimes should be on the table, so to speak.

Understand I'm not saying I agree with this objective - only that there is a more logical and appropriate way to achieve it.

Melissa-

Fair enough. I have heard people argue against any particular intervention on the grounds that there are lots of other places we don't intervene. That just leads to complete inactivity, like the centipede who couldn't decide which leg to move first. Clearly that's not your position!

I wasn't too bothered about the motivation for choosing Iraq; it seemed to me to be better to choose Iraq than choose no-one, which was the only alternative on offer -- the UN having sat on its hands for 12 years. Saddam was a nasty piece of work and we would be better off with him out of power and a genuine democracy in his place. The fact that gangs of murderous fundamentalists have moved in doesn't change that, but may make it impossible to achieve.

Melissa-

Fair enough. I have heard people argue against any particular intervention on the grounds that there are lots of other places we don't intervene. That just leads to complete inactivity, like the centipede who couldn't decide which leg to move first. Clearly that's not your position!

I wasn't too bothered about the motivation for choosing Iraq; it seemed to me to be better to choose Iraq than choose no-one, which was the only alternative on offer -- the UN having sat on its hands for 12 years. Saddam was a nasty piece of work and everyone would be better off with him out of power and a genuine democracy in his place. The fact that gangs of murderous fundamentalists have moved in doesn't change that, but may make it impossible to achieve.

> Saddam was primarily concerned
> with brutalizing his own
> people (Kurds...

I'll write your favorite charity a check for $2500 if you look a Kurd in the eye and tell him that he's one of "Saddam's Own People"... $5K if he's bereaved. But only if he doesn't blacken your eyes in reply.

> there is no evidence Saddam
> supported, assisted or
> perpetrated any "export
> terrorism."

Export? It's a transnational, bidirectional violation. Hence these words on 9/11: "We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them."

Notorious mercenary terrorist Abu Nadal found haven in Iraq repeatedly. Saddam welcomed and sheltered Abu Abbas, the Achille Lauro mastermind. It's efficient to quote Hitchens, who notes "that Abdul Rahman Yasin, who mixed the chemicals for the World Trade Center attack in 1993, subsequently sought and found refuge in Baghdad; that Dr. Mahdi Obeidi, Saddam's senior physicist, was able to lead American soldiers to nuclear centrifuge parts and a blueprint for a complete centrifuge (the crown jewel of nuclear physics) buried on the orders of Qusay Hussein; that Saddam's agents were in Damascus as late as February 2003, negotiating to purchase missiles off the shelf from North Korea; [and] Rolf Ekeus, the great Swedish socialist who founded the inspection process in Iraq after 1991, has told me for the record that he was offered a $2 million bribe in a face-to-face meeting with Tariq Aziz." (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/995phqjw.asp)

> And yet we continue to have
> infinite patience with
> dictatorial...

Who exactly were you thinking of? Are you personally so very eager to surrender the moral shield of reapolitik? Welcome aboard, sister. Do you think Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are pleased with how events have played out? There've been more bombings in Riyadh than in NYC in recent years. Don't you think Musharraf and Qaddafi and Assad and Mubarak are feeling the squeeze nowadays? I admire Bush's rhetoric that we'll no longer put up with convenient dictators, and I agree with you: This should be the standard for all our relationships.

> we should have some methods
> for analyzing such decisions

We do. Again, this takedown has demonstrative beauty.

> there is a more logical and
> appropriate way to achieve it.

Will you tell us what it is?

> Why were we so stupid to think
> that Saddam's secular regime...

You seem to argue that because Iraq wasn't the most odious theocracy (though Saddam had trended that direction since the '91 war), we needn't have worried about him.

>You seem to argue that because Iraq wasn't the most odious theocracy (though Saddam had trended that direction since the '91 war), we needn't have worried about him.

Come again? Trended in a theocratic direction? Saddam? That's got to be a joke.

Most odious theocracy? Iraq wasn't even close to theocracy, so I guess it couldn't have been the most odious theocracy because of the noun, not the adjective.

I'm arguing that in a post-9/11 world (to use Cheney's vernacular), when there are Muslim extremists who can and will stike our interests, knocking out a complete bastard who as completely suppresses those beliefs for his own reasons should have been about dead last on our list of things to do. In fact, I would have supported the idea of regime change and finishing our business a lot more before the WTC thing than I did after.

This war was sold to the American public solely on two counts:
1) Saddam has weapons of mass destruction
2) Saddam hates us so much that he may give them to al Qaeda, whom he's buddied up with.

The first one should have been suspect, but it wasn't, and I don't blame the administration for that. I don't blame the administration for thinking he had mustard gas. The idea that he would dismantle his chemical weapons, tell no one and refuse to let inspectors do their job is just not something anyone would believe.

The second one is the one that the Administration is blameworthy for and, to me, the article we're commenting on is only stating the obvious. Al Qaeda objected to American support to Arab dictators who suppress Islam. Saddam was the only such dictator. Al Qaeda was a threat to Saddam's power. Saddam is a totalitarian. Why would he help a sworn enemy? It's so obviously an unanswerable question that Bush's people either knew this 2nd supposition was false and lied, or they are the stupidest Bastards on the planet, in which case they should all resign. There's no third choice.

On the bright side, it looks like Zalmay Kalilzhad may just know what he's doing. It's a shame that it took us two years to put someone there who knows about the region.

> Trended in a theocratic direction?
> Saddam? That's got to be a joke.

"According to Souaiaia, after the eight-year Iraq-Iran war, which was a conflict between nations – Persian and pan-Arab – Hussein realized that he needed to “spice up” his platform, and began promoting not only pan-Arab nationalism, but also Islamic religion."

http://courses.washington.edu/com361/Iraq/religion/saddam_political.html

"During the 1990s, the regime also went beyond its earlier comparisons of Hussein with Ali, going so far as to use expressions evoking the Iraqi leader's presumed ties to, or likeness with, Prophet Muhammad himself... By then, perhaps only messianic and eschatological rhetoric could impart any logic and hope to the senseless and cruel world into which the regime had plunged the country. Whether, when and how Iraq overcomes this legacy will undoubtedly have a profound impact on the region as a whole."

http://www.mepc.org/public_asp/journal_vol6/9810_denoeux.asp

> This war was sold to the
> American public solely
> on two counts:

This is a boldfaced lie. The audacity of this tranparent misrepresentation is almost admirable; the desperation is beyond pathetic. I've been down this alley on Amy's blog 50 times, but just once more, consider these words from the New York Times on the eve of the invasion (2/27/03): "President Bush sketched an expansive vision last night of what he expects to accomplish by a war in Iraq. Instead of focusing on eliminating weapons of mass destruction, or reducing the threat of terror to the United States, Mr. Bush talked about establishing a 'free and peaceful Iraq' that would serve as a 'dramatic and inspiring example' to the entire Arab and Muslim world, provide a stabilizing influence in the Middle East and even help end the Arab-Israeli conflict. The idea of turning Iraq into a model democracy in the Arab world is one some members of the administration have been discussing for a long time."

>Hussein with Ali, going so far as to use expressions evoking the Iraqi leader's presumed ties to, or likeness with, Prophet Muhammad himself

So what you're saying is that calling myself Jesus would mean that I'm promoting Christianity?

>This is a boldfaced lie

Look at the date on your citation. There's no more selling to be done once you have your buyer's money.

>Instead of focusing on eliminating weapons of mass destruction, or reducing the threat of terror to the United States, Mr. Bush talked about establishing a 'free and peaceful Iraq' that would serve as a 'dramatic and inspiring example'

Your quotation seems surprised by this talk on the 'eve of invasion' about 'inspiring examples' when the author clearly expected to hear about WMDs and al Qaeda links.

Why would your author expect that if my point is a 'boldfaced lie?'

> So what you're saying...

...is that in the last ten years of his regime, Saddam had found value in cloaking his wretchedness in vestments of faith, howsoever insincerely.

> There's no more selling
> to be done...

You don't think a groundswell of public resistance in February would have stopped the invasion?

> Why would your author
> expect that if my point
> is a 'boldfaced lie?

Because he's an editor for the New York Times. It's a liberal newspaper. They publish it in New York City. You must have heard about it.

Who, who, who do you know who was crippled by fear of WMDs? Yes, Bush mentioned them, repeatedly. So did others. He pushed the point more than he should have, as was evident even then (though during the invasion, many of us were glad not to be hearing about gassed troops.) Bush's adversaries now insanely insist that WMDs were the only reason we went there. Insulting the voters cost them the presidential election of 2004 BUT THEY'RE SO FUCKED UP THAT THEY'RE STILL DOING IT. It's grotesque.

Listen, I'm a lifelong registered Democrat. Bush is a mediocre President, and he and his team pushed the rhetoric too far. Worse I think, they did so unncessarily: The better reasoning in support of invasion prevailed. It coulds been done this without pushing the WMD angle.

But the Left is lying to us about an important decision that we came to just a short time ago. When they say, as you do, that it was ALL ABOUT WMDs, most of us think back to early 2003 and go huh? Were we reading the same papers? Were we listening to the same people? Or are Bush's opponents taking the darkest possible view of human nature (as they so often do in these years) and assuming that we weren't paying attention when we decided to take and risk lives?

Lefties lie to us about what we just had for lunch, even though we're still burping. Do you think they'll be trusted with dinner?

This stack is getting stale, so let me drop two more quick ones:

1. Why didn't Saddam simply comply with the inspections requirements? After all, that was the law: It was not incumbent upon us to prove he had weapons, he was required to prove that he did not. He barely pretended to try. Why? Did he even know what was going on with weapons in his country? Were they claimed by thieves as his regime collapsed?

2. How did the intelligence agencies come through this without having their prestige devastated and their budgets slashed? Wouldn't you rather have more money for armor on Humvees than for intelligence at this point?

You: Why didn't Saddam simply comply with the inspections requirements? After all, that was the law

Me (three or four posts back): (the WMD angle should have been suspect) but it wasn't, and I don't blame the administration for that. The idea that he would dismantle his chemical weapons, tell no one and refuse to let inspectors do their job is just not something anyone would believe

I'll reiterate that I believe completely that it never crossed the administration's minds that Saddam would destroy his stockpiles and then fail to comply with inspectors. That's just preposterous and no one should have believed it. Even though it ended up being true.

My problem is with this al Qaeda link, and the suggestion that he would give chemical weapons to a common enemy. I didn't believe this in 2002 and I don't believe it now. Saddam would never do anything knowing it would be more threatening to him and his power than it would be for the US. No dictator would. This illogical supposition is what makes the administration either liars or stupid.

>When they say, as you do, that it was ALL ABOUT WMDs, most of us think back to early 2003 and go huh?

I firmly remember talking to a landscaper before the Iraq war. I don't remember his exact words, but they were something along the lines of "We're going to war again, but I guess we have to get back at those sons of bitches before they attack us again with those WMDs."

You have to remember that most people don't follow politics closely. While I remember Perle and Wolfowitz talking about regime change, Israeli safety and democracy in the Arabian Peninsula back in the Spring and Summer of 2002, all I can remember coming from Bush's or Cheney's mouth in the fall and winter was WMD, WMD, he'll give them to the enemy, there is a link, etc. etc. Most people are only going to hear the latter. Remember that absurd percentage of people who believed Saddam bombed us on 9/11?

No one should say that we went to war because of WMDs. But to deny that that argument and a purported al Qaeda link is what the overwhelming majority of people (especially the kind of people whom Democrats loathe yet claim to represent and Republican pickpocket, yet claim eternal brotherhood) believed we went to war for is either inaccurate memory or shows narrowness in the type of people with whom you discussed this at the time.

>You don't think a groundswell of public resistance in February would have stopped the invasion?

Hell no.

>Listen, I'm a lifelong registered Democrat.

Interesting, I consider myself a Libertarian, but will doubtessly ever be registered as anything other than my current 'Republican' registration.

> (three or four posts back):

Don't be snippy.

> (the WMD angle should
> have been suspect)

Why? The UN resolutions were crystalline, as was Saddam's failure to respond.

> Even though it ended
> up being true.

You don't know this. "Dispersed" seems more likely than "destroyed the stockpiles." He failed to account for them as required, and thus suffered the sanction. So far so good, right?

> My problem is with this
> al Qaeda link.

To my ear, the link was never intolerably literal. Our approach to that corner of the globe had failed, and it was time for something new. Bush proposed that we demand capitalist democracy of Iraq, the same system that had ennobled our own country. (And Germany, and Japan....)

> Saddam was the only
> such dictator.

As established above, by 1994 this was less the case, and he'd certainly earned his anti-American bonafides.

> Why would he help a
> sworn enemy?

Hitchens has used the analogy of a Hitler/Stalin pact. It's a corner of the world where allegiances are practical above all else. In December 1990 Saddam sent his shiniest fighter jets to Iran for safekeeping, which would have been unthinkable just weeks earlier. Do you suppose he ever got them back? Others were literally buried underground. Saddam was a somewhat irrational agent; he was not therefore more trustworthy.

> You have to remember that
> most people don't follow
> politics closely.

My Spidey sense tingles...

> Hell no.

Arrrgh! You're one of Frank Rich's pod people! I imagine you hanging out with him at a college party. Everyone else is out in the living room lining up sex for the football weekend, but you guys are in the kitchen, smoking menthol cigarettes and sneering. "People are pawns, man. They're all just prisoners of the information they get. 'Sheeple,' I call 'em!"

To wit:

> or shows narrowness in the
> type of people with whom
> you discussed this at the time.

I never heard anyone, not even a gardener, complain that Saddam made 9/11 happen. Iraq was symptomatic of a bigger problem, and a good place to initiate correction. So we're underway.
Some prefer to think voters were deceived by clever words rather than inspired by worthwhile risk.

Condescension of that magnitude brings disappointment. Ask Kerry!

>Why? The UN resolutions were crystalline, as was Saddam's failure to respond.

Uh, the fact that WMDs were in Saddam's arsenal should have been suspect because they weren't, not because there was an indication that they weren't. If you'll look more closely, I said I find Bush blameless, though unquestionably incorrect. You seem to be arguing that Saddam did have large chemical stockpiles. Uh, he didn't.

>Hitchens has used the analogy of a Hitler/Stalin pact.

And Saddam, being such a faithful student/worshipper of Stalin, would have recognized how well that pact worked for his idol

>I never heard anyone, not even a gardener, complain that Saddam made 9/11 happen

Aren't we elite. I did.

>You don't know this. "Dispersed" seems more likely than "destroyed the stockpiles

Are you honestly suggesting that Saddam released his mustard gas on the Kurds in the late 90s without any Kurd knowing or complaining about it? Look, Saddam didn't have chemical weapons. Saddam didn't have nukes. Accept the truth and work from it instead of trying to change the goddamned subject to some stupid genocide conspiracy theory with no victims.

>To my ear, the link was never intolerably literal. Our approach to that corner of the globe had failed, and it was time for something new.

Selective ear, then.

>Arrrgh! You're one of Frank Rich's pod people!

Don't know who that is, but you seem to think I'm a hippy. I'd rather fuck the prom queen than smoke a bowl with Queensryche. I don't know if that applies.

I'm fucking wasted. I'll do better tomorrow.

Exhaustion overwhelming... Mustn't fear repetition... Onward....

> You seem to be arguing that
> Saddam did have large chemical
> stockpiles.

No, only that he failed to prove that he didn't as required by the UN, and that leaders of every political strip on three or four continents were arguing that he did pose a threat.

> Accept the truth and work
> from it instead of trying
> to change the goddamned
> subject to some stupid
> genocide conspiracy theory

Great! Understood. So next time Clinton, Pelosi, Kennedy, Hillary, Gore, Cohen, Waxman, Byrd, Lieberman, Albright, Feinstein, Daschle, Gephardt, Graham and Chirac try to warn me about something like Saddam, I can ignore them because it's conspriracy, right? How do you imagine the subject is being changed? We thought Saddam had weapons. Turns out he probably didn't. He CERTAINLY doesn't today.

> Aren't we elite.

This condescension is the core complaint with Rich... He's obsessed with the opinions of third parties and the information they trade: 'If the little people could just be told what to think, damnit, everything would be OK!'

Seriously, dude, "Genocide conspiracy"?

Rafael Nadal-best player in history

Miranda