Yeah, it's not like the Democratic Party leadership in Congress didn't make every bit as big a deal about it as POTUS Clinton or POTUS Bush did, either. Or that the UN didn't make a big deal out of them. Or all the European powers.
It's just sad to see a werid creep get more credibility. And continues to point to questions about our intelligence gathering abilities over the last 10 years.
The problem is that too many people are trying to place blame and make accusations to gain political clout, and too few people are actually looking into how it became the case that dozens of US and world leaders came to rely on faulty information to protect us from international conflict. I opposed the war, but now that the war has been fought and millions of people freed from an evil dictator (and if I were a consequentialist, that would likely be enough reason for me to switch sides. Alas, I'm not.), I'm less interested in figuring out who we can punish for whatever mistakes were made and/or lies were told (because we don't really know which), and more interested in figuring out how this happened and how to prevent it.
Something is still missing, however. We know that Iraw had WMDs at some point, since they used them. We know they had some after the gulf war and that is why the sanctions were put in place and inspectors allowed in to witness their desturciton.
If Saddam did, indeed, get rid of all of the WMDs and stop trying to produce more, then why did he keep it secret? Why eject the inspectors? Why did he not tell the UN and get the sanctions lifted? Why not let inspectors come and look at anything in his country as a final attempt to prevent a US attack?
I'm not saying that we will find WMDs, I don't know, but you have to admit there are some questions that we just don't have a logical answer for. So the real question is. What don't we know? IF WMDs aren't the answer for those questions what else is?
I'm waiting until the end of September to start doling out apologies or giving guys like Ritter the satisfaction of saying that they were right. All indicators are pointing to a massive info dump in September that should clarify much of the WMD debate.
And, anyway, since my own arguments for the war weren't based solely (or even mostly) on these weapons, I won't feel so bad if they are never found. It wouldn't invalidate the exercise in the least. Now, if we fail to capitalize on this situation to make real and lasting changes in the Middle East, we will have failed dramatically.
If they believe Saddam was disarmed of those weapons before the departure of the inspectors in 1998, then they must agree with the views of well-known anti-war activist and prophet of Baathist military victory Scott Ritter, and disagree with the judgements of ... er, Scott Ritter, writing in The New Republic in 1998 immediately after leaving UNSCOM, the UN inspections agency (link requires subscription):
"Iraq has kept its entire nuclear weapons infrastructure intact through dual-use companies that allow the nuclear-design teams to conduct vital research and practical work on related technologies and materials. Iraq still has components (high explosive lenses, initiators, and neutron generators) for up to four nuclear devices minus the fissile core (highly enriched uranium or plutonium), as well as the means to produce these. Iraq has retained an operational long-range ballistic missile force that includes approximately four mobile launchers and a dozen missiles. And, under the guise of a permitted short-range missile program, Iraq has developed the technology and production means necessary for the rapid reconstitution of long-range ballistic missile production."
guys, Dont worry about apologising to Scott Ritter - he probably will never tell us, why he changed his position on Saddam's WMDs so dramatically. Also, it seems so illogical- why did Saddam hinder the inspection regime and the inspectors, if he had absolutely nothing to hide? one might say, that he did it to save face, and not appear to have caved in to the UN, the US etc. But, seeing that Saddam's primary motive in anything he did was to perpetuate his regime and stay in power, why did he resist, when he knew tha the Coalition of the willing were coming to kick his behind, and throw him off his throne? Something just doesnt make sense - and i bet you there are reasons why Scott Ritter went from the position he held in 1998 to becoming an apologist for Saddam.
By the way, when will Scott Ritter apologize for being so dramatically and utterly wrong about the progress of the war. As I recall, he thought that we were going to get our asses handed to him.
Look, even if we do eventually find WMDs, it doesn't change the fact that we were told earlier this year that the administration already had proof that Iraq had WMDs. They clearly did not posess such proof then, unless you want to argue that they somehow lost it between then and now. And I consider that intelligence failure to be something worth investigating, not because I want to punish anyone, but because i want to make sure that our national security decisions are not made based on false intel.
Let's see, Clinton lied about sex and got impeached. Bush lied about WMD and U.S. soldiers are dying almost everyday, and he raises over a quarter of a BILLION dollars for the next campaign. Hmmmmmm. Something ain't right here. Something stinks bad.
Ara and Tim- I'm (usually) a dem, and I don't like Bush very much, but this is pointless. Our intel was clearly wrong on several points, and in all likelihood the administration did stretch it's case, but that's what politicians do. If you want to blame anyone, blame the lily-livered congress who voted almost unanimously to hand over the reigns. Its called 'checks-and-balances', and they completely shirked their duty.
The intel was RIGHT. What was done with it was WRONG. Or rather, how the higher-ups chose to interpret the intelligence was skewed. If the intel was wrong, why did Sectretary Powell omit certain sections that Bush happened to include?
Guess what? Presidents can lie you know?
Tim,
You can call it lying, others can call it exaggerating, but in the end it becomes just another piece of propaganda that distracts from the real story.
I can't believe what you people are saying. Would you rather Saddam had remained in power? We've invaded Iraq, the cocksuckers gone. All that's important now is getting Iraq back on it's feet and keeping the terrorists and the Islamic Fundemantilists from tearing that country apart. If we pull out now, the country's going collapse and many people will die because of it. But all you liberals out there can do is rant on and on about world peace and all that other bullshit. Wake up!! world peace is a dream, a fantasy. We live in the real world, a world where people kill eachother and screw eachother over wether or not the US government is involved. If we elect a Democratic Canditate, it will usher in a new era of isolationism. You all remember isolationism. It means turning you back on the world while it falls to shit. Its what would have kept us out of two worlds and let the Nazi's take over Europe. Well I for one will not live in a world where the only superpower doesn't give a shit while dictators do whatever hell they want and commit random acts of genocide on the innocent.
Yeah, well....
....who cares, right?
Right? I mean it's not like POTUS made a big deal about WMD and stuff...
Yeah, it's not like the Democratic Party leadership in Congress didn't make every bit as big a deal about it as POTUS Clinton or POTUS Bush did, either. Or that the UN didn't make a big deal out of them. Or all the European powers.
It's just sad to see a werid creep get more credibility. And continues to point to questions about our intelligence gathering abilities over the last 10 years.
The problem is that too many people are trying to place blame and make accusations to gain political clout, and too few people are actually looking into how it became the case that dozens of US and world leaders came to rely on faulty information to protect us from international conflict. I opposed the war, but now that the war has been fought and millions of people freed from an evil dictator (and if I were a consequentialist, that would likely be enough reason for me to switch sides. Alas, I'm not.), I'm less interested in figuring out who we can punish for whatever mistakes were made and/or lies were told (because we don't really know which), and more interested in figuring out how this happened and how to prevent it.
Something is still missing, however. We know that Iraw had WMDs at some point, since they used them. We know they had some after the gulf war and that is why the sanctions were put in place and inspectors allowed in to witness their desturciton.
If Saddam did, indeed, get rid of all of the WMDs and stop trying to produce more, then why did he keep it secret? Why eject the inspectors? Why did he not tell the UN and get the sanctions lifted? Why not let inspectors come and look at anything in his country as a final attempt to prevent a US attack?
I'm not saying that we will find WMDs, I don't know, but you have to admit there are some questions that we just don't have a logical answer for. So the real question is. What don't we know? IF WMDs aren't the answer for those questions what else is?
I'm waiting until the end of September to start doling out apologies or giving guys like Ritter the satisfaction of saying that they were right. All indicators are pointing to a massive info dump in September that should clarify much of the WMD debate.
And, anyway, since my own arguments for the war weren't based solely (or even mostly) on these weapons, I won't feel so bad if they are never found. It wouldn't invalidate the exercise in the least. Now, if we fail to capitalize on this situation to make real and lasting changes in the Middle East, we will have failed dramatically.
While you're at it, you might want to suggest that Ritter apologize to himself.
From Oliver Kamm's site
guys, Dont worry about apologising to Scott Ritter - he probably will never tell us, why he changed his position on Saddam's WMDs so dramatically. Also, it seems so illogical- why did Saddam hinder the inspection regime and the inspectors, if he had absolutely nothing to hide? one might say, that he did it to save face, and not appear to have caved in to the UN, the US etc. But, seeing that Saddam's primary motive in anything he did was to perpetuate his regime and stay in power, why did he resist, when he knew tha the Coalition of the willing were coming to kick his behind, and throw him off his throne? Something just doesnt make sense - and i bet you there are reasons why Scott Ritter went from the position he held in 1998 to becoming an apologist for Saddam.
By the way, when will Scott Ritter apologize for being so dramatically and utterly wrong about the progress of the war. As I recall, he thought that we were going to get our asses handed to him.
Look, even if we do eventually find WMDs, it doesn't change the fact that we were told earlier this year that the administration already had proof that Iraq had WMDs. They clearly did not posess such proof then, unless you want to argue that they somehow lost it between then and now. And I consider that intelligence failure to be something worth investigating, not because I want to punish anyone, but because i want to make sure that our national security decisions are not made based on false intel.
Let's see, Clinton lied about sex and got impeached. Bush lied about WMD and U.S. soldiers are dying almost everyday, and he raises over a quarter of a BILLION dollars for the next campaign. Hmmmmmm. Something ain't right here. Something stinks bad.
Tim the Soldier
Amy:
I want to punish someone.
I'm sure you do, Ara. Which is why your side is likely to do very poorly in the 2004 election, and even if it does well, will regret it.
Ara and Tim- I'm (usually) a dem, and I don't like Bush very much, but this is pointless. Our intel was clearly wrong on several points, and in all likelihood the administration did stretch it's case, but that's what politicians do. If you want to blame anyone, blame the lily-livered congress who voted almost unanimously to hand over the reigns. Its called 'checks-and-balances', and they completely shirked their duty.
patrick,
The intel was RIGHT. What was done with it was WRONG. Or rather, how the higher-ups chose to interpret the intelligence was skewed. If the intel was wrong, why did Sectretary Powell omit certain sections that Bush happened to include?
Guess what? Presidents can lie you know?
Tim the Soldier
Tim,
You can call it lying, others can call it exaggerating, but in the end it becomes just another piece of propaganda that distracts from the real story.
I can't believe what you people are saying. Would you rather Saddam had remained in power? We've invaded Iraq, the cocksuckers gone. All that's important now is getting Iraq back on it's feet and keeping the terrorists and the Islamic Fundemantilists from tearing that country apart. If we pull out now, the country's going collapse and many people will die because of it. But all you liberals out there can do is rant on and on about world peace and all that other bullshit. Wake up!! world peace is a dream, a fantasy. We live in the real world, a world where people kill eachother and screw eachother over wether or not the US government is involved. If we elect a Democratic Canditate, it will usher in a new era of isolationism. You all remember isolationism. It means turning you back on the world while it falls to shit. Its what would have kept us out of two worlds and let the Nazi's take over Europe. Well I for one will not live in a world where the only superpower doesn't give a shit while dictators do whatever hell they want and commit random acts of genocide on the innocent.