The Hits Keep On Comin'

the hit's the hit's the hitttt''''ssss

I plead early morning sleepiness.

Incidentally, in the spirit of this message, I got the latest issue of Atlantic Monthly in the mail today. The cover contents:

Blind Into Baghdad
Spies, Lies, and Weapons: What Went Wrong by Kenneth M. Pollack
How Post-War Planning Bit the Dust by James Fallows

Should be a fun read, look for it to hit the web in a few weeks, or run out and pick up a copy.

I must have missed it. Where did this administration call Iraq an imminent threat? I do remember GWB saying at least once that "we can't wait until the threat is imminent".

Before 9/11 nobody told me that bin Laden was an imminent threat either.

Golly, I'm so out of the loop.

rjk

Bush said there were WMD. Bush said they would be used against us if we didn't stop it. Bush lied. I understand this is difficult for you to grasp after the many months of programming you've been subjected to, but Bush lied. Whether he said an actual phrase is not the issue. The issue is that everything he told us to take us to war in Iraq has turned out to be false. If you want to be a dupe, feel free, but the American public is waking from its slumber and isn't happy.

The last administration also told us that Saddam had WMD. The UN said the same.

Did you believe them?

Did they lie?

rjk

Yes, I believed that Saddam had WMD. Yes the previous administration thought that Saddam had WMD. So did the UN. They didn't lie.

Did they flush our international prestige and alliances and take us into a unilateral war based on badly (or perhaps criminally) interpreted evidence?

Did Bush?

I'm guessing I won't get an answer.

Also, before you make assumptions about my thoughts on the war, you might want to read back a bit. I supported the invasion on the basis of the evidence that was presented by Colin Powell to the UN. I even supported the moral basis for war based on liberating the Iraqi people.

The only the I didn't approve of was the unilateral rush towards war leaving behind all pretense of international cooperation.

Anyone who did support the war based on what the Administration told us should be equally as upset.

"Yes,.... Yes .... So did the UN. They didn't lie."

By this I assume you mean that Bush knew there was no WMD and still went ahead with the war. Therefore he did lie. I don't think that's the case. He was informed by our intelligence services and others that Saddam had WMD and was involved in 9/11. The intelligence services of Great Britain and Poland still stand by these evaluations. I also think that he did and was. We have pretty good evidence that Iraqi's and Iraq were involved in the first World Trade Center attack. Which brings us to the next question.

"Did they flush... unilateral war ...(or perhaps criminally) interpreted evidence?"

"Did Bush?"

The Clinton attack on Iraq only included the British. If the inclusion of some 30 nations (including Australia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Poland, Spain and the United Kingdom) is considered unilateral than so was the previous administrations. Clinton was certainly better liked in Europe than Bush. Anecdotally, I've spent some time in Europe in the last year and my feeling is that they are alarmed (and jealous?) of our military power and capitalist economy. They felt that Clinton would never really use the power and he never presented himself a staunch capitalist. They were much more comfortable with him. With the fall of the Soviet Union there is not now a need to be as friendly with the US. In fact they think that the new threat to old Europe is the US.

Has the prestige of France fallen in the US? If wine sales mean anything then yes. Does Chirac care? He cares about the wine sales. Is prestige an important issue when it comes to security and advancing freedom on this scale? No.

"I'm guessing I won't get an answer."

I'm sorry it's so lengthy.

"Also, ...thoughts on the war, you might want to read back a bit."

I apologize for not checking out earlier posts but I've only been reading the blog regularly for a couple of months.

"I supported ... Colin Powell to the UN.... I even supported the moral basis for war based on liberating the Iraqi people."

"The only the I didn't approve of was the unilateral rush towards war leaving behind all pretense of international cooperation."

"Anyone who did support the war based on what the Administration told us should be equally as upset."

Multilateralism including France and Germany, in a situation like this, would have been nice but for me was not necessary. Every day we waited made things worse. Worse for the people of Iraq, it's threatened neighbors and all of the people in the Mideast who were subjugated by dictators in the name of Islam. Those dictators are now watching what is happening very carefully. We are already seeing some minor changes.

I did not feel that it was a rush. 17 UN resolutions over the course of years was enough. The buildup and international intrigue as we attempted to convince others took months but seemed to take forever. Some of those nations were doing lucrative business with Iraq and, we know now, would never have agreed with our actions.

This is way too long for a comment. I'm sorry. These issues are very complex.

rjk

"By this I assume you mean that Bush knew there was no WMD and still went ahead with the war. Therefore he did lie. I don't think that's the case. He was informed by our intelligence services and others that Saddam had WMD and was involved in 9/11. "

Bush told us that they had proof. They did not have proof. It's easy to blame the intelligence community, but the fact is is that it was Bush's call to act on specious intelligence, which incidentally was plucked, under or un-analyzed, from raw intelligence by Doug Feith's Office of Special Projects. Feel free to read the CEIP report I posted earlier this week for a nice breakdown of this manipulation.

As regards France and Germany being included in multilateralism, I do agree. And back when France made their stand on the security council and said no to invasion, I called them on it for making a dangerous situation worse . But they didn't make Bush invade. They didn't make him push forward towards unilateral invasion .

Bush made several severe errors in judgment, and for that he must pay.

He made the case for invasion as self-defense against an imminent threat. It wasn't true, regardless of what he was told by intelligence. While I laud the potential humanitarian accomplishments of removing Saddam, the manner in which Bush flipped off the world, has made, and will continue to make it very difficult, if not impossible, for him to get the help he desperately needs to stabilize Iraq, potentially dooming any chance for success. As someone who seems to have supported the humanitarian goals of the war, you should be equally upset.

In the end, the only consolation is that this gigantic fuck-up will get Bush drummed out of office (along with his many other gigantic fuck-ups). The world will eventually realize it is in their best interest to clean up the gigantic mess Bush made, and will find a more receptive Administration, Wesley Clark's, at 1600 Pennsylvania to work with.

"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option."

Some case based on imminence. I can't believe people are still having this argument.

Spies, Lies, and Weapons: What Went Wrong by Kenneth M. Pollack

This, however, is interesting. I think Pollack is an interesting, capable guy. Word!

Grabes, focus on the doltish lack of post-war planning for Iraq, not this specious and unwinnable argument about deception! With the former, you certainly have a point.

"We are already seeing some minor changes."

Kestrel,

"Minor" changes? I think you are understating. Libya and what has and continues to happen in Iran are not minor developments.

John, I am focusing on the poor planning. And so should you, at the top of your lungs, instead of complaining about people *also* complaining about deception.

There is no question there was a complete lack of planning, as well as deception, including deception over a lack of planning.

Why is there no lengthy magazine-length article on Guanubian on this topic?

Incidentally, what "is happening" in Iran is exactly what has been happening for the past few years - increasing dissatisfaction with the clerical regime, unless you are somehow giving Bush credit for triggering an earthquake.

Libya, if it came about as a result of Iraq is a nice result, but immaterial to poor planning for a post-war Iraq or incompetent intelligence analysis by the Administration.

My comment about Libya and Iran is not meant to defend Bush against your spurious accusation of deception, nor your correct accusation of shoddy planning. It is merely a sidebar for Kestrel.

There is no lengthy diatribe on guanubian, yes. Probably there should be. It is the major area in which I was wrong, pre-war.

Also, stop with the "rush to war" cliche!!!

Had you know before hand the extent of the poor planning would you have been as supportive?

I still would have been 100% committed to seeing it happen, but I probably would have advocated waiting a few months.

And thats all I, and most reasonable people are saying. Bush, in choosing not to, has greatly increased the chances of failure for no good reason but political points. People should be very angry about this.

Usually I would admire the courage it takes to demonstrate the honesty displayed 3 posts up. However, in surrounding the confession with a flaccid cop-out and a petty demand, original expectations were met, almost; I'm wondering why the Saudis' elections weren't tossed in for the hell of it, or for a "sidebar."

Here ya go, I must have accidentally intercepted JPP's daily mind-control programming from the satellites:
"O'Neill is just a bitter-ol', dishonest, has-been of a failure, now venting his spleen against Bush in the usual venues. No wonder Reuters likes him. I'll bet he gets a lot of invites to CNN, PBS, and NPR as well."

What was the "flaccid cop-out"? And the demand for accuracy is hardly petty.

" Bush told us that they had proof. They did not have proof. ... Feel free to read the CEIP report I posted earlier this week for a nice breakdown of this manipulation."

I not only think that they had proof but we had proof. A number of escaped Iraqi scientists told us that Saddam was working on WMD. My guess is that he did not use all his gas on his own people in '88. He ran the UN in circles for years. Seems like a lot of energy spent to just be an irritant. I think he was hiding something.

For the most part the CEIP report (which I just read, and I can think of better reading material during dinner and I hope we're talking Carnagie because I found it on their site) is more of the same. Its premise is that we need more inspections but this time we won't be so nice. It asks for a lot (and a lot from the US) but does not commit to doing anything if the going gets rough. A real Show Of Force. I think Saddam would have called their bluff. Then what? Even more coercive inspections?

"Spies, Lies... Pollack This, however, is interesting. I think Pollack is an interesting, capable guy."

John-Paul - So do I but in this case a little disingenuous. For a number of years he has been saying that the Mideast is a powder keg with it's current brand of Islamic-terrorism. But he is never at the point that anyone should actually take action.

"John, I am focusing on the poor planning. And so should you,
Had you know before hand the extent of the poor planning would you have been as supportive?"

"I still would have been 100% committed to seeing it happen, but I probably would have advocated waiting a few months."

So would I. I would have probably advanced it a few months. Possibly discovered WMD.

I'm currently reading An Army At Dawn by Rick Atkinson. There's over 500 pages of poor planing and disaster and about 100 pages of things going right. That's what frequently happens in war. You should have a plan and you should always be ready to change the plan.

Curious, thanks for letting me offer my opinion. I haven't even read your more recent posts. I'll do that and then I've got a new fly rod blank to wrap.

rjk

"But he is never at the point that anyone should actually take action."

Kestrel,

But Pollack wrote "The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq". Am I misinterpreting your comment as criticism of Pollack's unwillingness to advocate action?