We might find out if Saddam had ties to 9-11 now

[SEF]

sfrench, the reason for the war is because of all the lies from Saddam the last 12 years. The WMD was only put into such focus to try to get the backing of the UN and the international community. We are finally doing what we should have done 12 years ago.

The official reason has changed many times since the war started. I believe now we were "saving the Iraqi people". I agree about why the WMDs were put out front. I agree we should of done it 12 years ago if we were going to do it.

None of this changes my point.

[fansince62]

sfrench...now we're getting somewhere........I now know that you have understanding into the process.........a few points:

1) you have built a case that doesn't square with how others view events. there is, of course, always room for disagreement.

2) you have, to borrow Kurp's idea, implied intent. This hasn't been established. You don't know if Bush knowingly lied. You don't know how the internal intelligence vetting process unfolded. You don't know what interactions occured with other (foreign) intelligence agencies. i'm not attacking you. just making some reasonable assertions. feel free to correct me.

3) You posit an advocacy position for war that isn't quite as others remember it - though it is needed for the linear logic you are supporting. The war wasn't conducted because of a nuclear threat - right or wrong - alone; and it wasn't presented on those grounds. It wasn't based on one sentence in a State of the Union Address. Other WMD matters were presented, as were moral, anti-terrorist and strategic grounds. others are trying to rewrite history. we will go round and round on this one since it's critical to the argument being advanced by some.

4) since you asked in a previous post - I have been there many times myself. i have been privy to a lot of information since 9/11 (including direct CINC support and other sources), perhaps which you have not seen, and hence have a different pov. we can agree to disagree. you will understand that I cannot speak to everything - unfairly I concede.

5) you have no factual basis whatsoever for asserting that, absent the nuclear concern, Americans in general would not have supported the war. The assertion also happens to fly in the face of polling data that asked precisely the same question after the nuclear datapoints (and WMDs for that matter) were brought into question.

as for my mode of inter-cyber conversation...well.....it's worse than some and better than others. you are not immune yourself from loaded language that throws your objectivity into doubt from time to time. apologies for any unintended (or intended) insults.

TEG...geeez almighty...go back and read the posts....the "threatening" question was what any have done since 9/11 or OIF...and it was directed at those claiming that they cared greatly. also, it doesn't follow ineluctably that military participation is the only route. and conservatives don't care...so that relieves them of any need to respond, right?

and now I will return to the ground kicking and screaming!!!

[fansince62]

sfrench....the nuclear thread does add an interesting set of thoughts....what is the level of proof? what is the appropriate risk analysis when dealing with WMDs? are these issues to be treated separately or in the larger operational/strategic conntext in which they are located? how does one distinguish intent from glowing in the dark proof? when is the appropriate moment to start worrying?

I don't intend to respond to your answer(s). just seeking out your thinking on this.

[Guest Matt Kyriacou]

Originally posted by The Evil Genius

So Tarhog...fansince...you guys going to call out and question your fellow conservatives here on the board too? I mean..the ones who haven't served..I mean...what's their qualifications for espousing on the military and its war plans.

Yeah...I didn't think so.

Just curious whom you might be referring to?

[Kilmer17]

Before the war began, the left and the elite left media kept complaining that the administration kept stating different reasons for going to war. The said one day Bush would say it's about WMDs, then about humanitarian reasons,, then about terror ties, then about revenge for trying to kill Bush41, then the all popular oil charges.

Now that (shock) it WAS about more than one thing, the left wants to argue that too.

[The Evil Genius]

Originally posted by Matt Kyriacou

Just curious whom you might be referring to?

Matt,

I am referring to whoever hasnt served. To serve, you meet fansince and Tarhog's qualifications for espousing on military actions & matters...or did I read that wrong?

[SEF]

1) you have built a case that doesn't square with how others view events. there is, of course, always room for disagreement.

Absolutely.

2) you have, to borrow Kurp's idea, implied intent. This hasn't been established. You don't know if Bush knowingly lied. You don't know how the internal intelligence vetting process unfolded. You don't know what interactions occured with other (foreign) intelligence agencies. i'm not attacking you. just making some reasonable assertions. feel free to correct me.

The White House is saying today that they were told the information was bad but they felt that attributing it to the British covered them... So, it's a moot point now. But, reports have been coming for weeks about how long this information was available. Long before the SOTU. So, I guess one could conclude they were inept or dishonest. But when coupled with the other falsehoods they have told about the nuclear program it was clear to me.

3) You posit an advocacy position for war that isn't quite as others remember it - though it is needed for the linear logic you are supporting. The war wasn't conducted because of a nuclear threat - right or wrong - alone; and it wasn't presented on those grounds. It wasn't based on one sentence in a State of the Union Address. Other WMD matters were presented, as were moral, anti-terrorist and strategic grounds. others are trying to rewrite history. we will go round and round on this one since it's critical to the argument being advanced by some.

The logic that he lied? Sure, other reasons were given. I think I've acknowledged that fact. I'll go back and look. Here's what I remember. Bush said, "I would remind you that when the inspectors first went into Iraq and were denied -- finally denied access, a report came out of the Atomic -- the IAEA [international Atomic Energy Agency], that they were six months away from developing a [nuclear] weapon. I don't know what more evidence we need."

link This report, of course, never existed. Miss Rice saying, "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud". Mr. Cheney saying they were reconstituting their nuclear weapons. The president's claim about the aluminum rods, which have been broadly discounted (and yet remain on the White House web site). The Niger fiasco. No, it wasn't the only excuse but it is definitely the one most people can relate to. And for that reason the most effective one. It put us, although thousands of miles away, in danger. And they were dishonest about it.

5) you have no factual basis whatsoever for asserting that, absent the nuclear concern, Americans in general would not have supported the war. The assertion also happens to fly in the face of polling data that asked precisely the same question after the nuclear datapoints (and WMDs for that matter) were brought into question.

I'll concede this point although I feel that the nuclear threat was by far the most compelling argument for war. I'll have to pass on the polling data, though. I've seen polls that the majority believe Iraqis flew the 9-11 planes and that we have found WMDs. And that Ben Affleck is the sexiest man alive. My wife doesn't even buy that one.

as for my mode of inter-cyber conversation...well.....it's worse than some and better than others. you are not immune yourself from loaded language that throws your objectivity into doubt from time to time. apologies for any unintended (or intended) insults.

Guilty. Although I do try. Mostly. I'm definitely polite when people are polite to me and don't try to play me. I always enjoy an honest, open debate. There is something to learn from almost everyone. I'm sure we'll find an opportunity to be nasty to eachother again real soon.

and now I will return to the ground kicking and screaming!!!

Wear a helmet.

:laugh:

As to your other post. In this particular case we had UN inspectors in country who were nuclear weapons experts. We didn't let them do their jobs. We didn't take them seriously. We dismissed what they said and we gave them no time.

[SEF]

Now that (shock) it WAS about more than one thing, the left wants to argue that too.

I'm trying to figure out your logic. Are you saying that since the admin has stated many different reasons that it's okay if they were dishonest about one of them. And it shouldn't be discussed?

[Larry]

you have no factual basis whatsoever for asserting that, absent the nuclear concern, Americans in general would not have supported the war.

How about the Administration's own statement, that WMDs were simply the reason they chose to push, because that was the reason that worked politically. (I believe that was Cheney, on Face the Nation about a month ago, when asked why weapons hadn't been found. The same interview where he said one of the real reasons was getting our bases out of Saudi and into Iraq.)

This administration has said that they're not worried about nothing being found (yet), because the war wasn't about weapons. (That a political decision was made to use them as an excuse to get support for the "real" reasons.)

(And I don't necissarily have a problem with that. I believe that, in the real world, there almost never is simply one reason for a war. (Desert Storm may have been an exception.) You can claim that Lincoln used slavery as a reason to "sell" the Civil War to the north, because he didn't think he could get the people to support a war whose real purpose was to prevent the Union from splitting.)

[Tarhog]

Sfrench,

You are missing my point (perhaps my invective - I openly admitted upfront that many of these posts make my blood boil - obscured my primary argument). I'm not arguing that I am qualified to ascertain what Hussein did and did not have and what the Administration did and did not know. I believe I acknowledged I (despite my military and intelligence experience) am NOT qualified to make concrete determinations on those questions. My point was that if I am not qualified, than certainly others arguing stridently (and believe me, many of you are strident) cannot know for certain what transpired. You may believe Fan and I are unwilling to turn an introspective eye on this topic and accept 'the truth', but you would be wrong. Neither of us are stupid. We have doubts/questions/concerns of our own. I have never said anyone here does not have the right to call the President whatever they like. Knock yourself out. But as Fan effectively pointed out, you aren't just stating our intell was flawed/incomplete and that perhaps Iraqi weapons stores and programs were exaggerated, you're saying the President knowingly and willfully lied. You paint me as intellectually dishonest because I set up a 'strawman' (I'll prefer to interpret that as meaning you can't answer the question 'what qualifies YOU or anyone else here to authoritatively claim Iraq had no WMDs?'), while at the same time pretending you know what was in the hearts and minds of the Bush Administration. Many here are willing to spill blood to defend Kobe Bryant's good name, yet can't bring themselves to give their own government and President the benefit of the doubt. If I felt all of this hullabaloo was about our Intelligence Community and how to cleanup whatever deficiencies and shortcomings actually exist, I'd have no problem with it. But its politically driven, and I expect even you would acknowledge that. Unlike some here, I supported President Clinton, if not his methods, when he felt the need to use force as a foreign policy tool. I'd be making the same arguments in defense of President Clinton were he the one to have made these arguments and pushed us towards war with Iraq.

The bottom line is that none of us is qualified to presently ascertain or KNOW if the core argument put forth by the President and his folks was essentially correct or not. None of us. I'm just one poster of thousands here. And of course you have the right to argue whatever you like. But it would be refreshing to hear you and others show a little humility and acknowledge your arguments are merely opinions, based largely on incomplete information, conjecture, and assumptions. Just like mine are.

Finally, let me say I respect your ability to argue a point intelligentlyand coherently. We'll have to agree to differ here.

[Tarhog]

Originally posted by The Evil Genius

So Tarhog...fansince...you guys going to call out and question your fellow conservatives here on the board too? I mean..the ones who haven't served..I mean...what's their qualifications for espousing on the military and its war plans.

Yeah...I didn't think so.

TEG,

Again, thats not the argument I made. I liken it to those Sunday evening coaches here who tell us all about what Spurrier 'should have done', while folks like Utah (who've actually got some life experience that allows them to understand the intricacies and nuances of the game) shake their head in wonderment. Perhaps it was obnoxious to list some of my credentials. Apologies. Does my experience/background make my opinion more valid? Probably. Does it give me the right to claim I know what all of the facts are? NO. You'll note I've never once authoritatively stated what was what in Iraq. I've consistently said 'We won't know for a long while what happened to Iraq's WMD's' and I've been honest regarding my belief that they had boatloads of the stuff in the recent past. But I've not argued as some all knowing Deity and I certainly don't have the prescient abilities of some hear to read minds and know the hearts of officials throughout our government.

PS TEG - I still dig you and your Captain American sig man.

[SEF]

Tarhog-

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I have no problem with people disagreeing with me. It wouldn't be very interesting if there was total agreement. The problem I had was that you stated that I said they never had chem/bio weapons and then preceded to pound me about how I could know. I never said any such thing. I didn't feel the need to defend a statement I never made. And statements made by others aren't my responsibility just because I'm a Democrat. I'm glad (and surprised) they haven't found any and I'm glad they didn't use them on our troops. That was my biggest fear for the soldiers we sent over.

But...

I still maintain that the president and his cabinet have lied about the nuclear capabilities of Iraq. The events of today have confirmed that in the Niger case they knowingly lied in the SOTU speech. They continue to lie about the aluminum rods even though it's been discounted many times. Even our own intelligence agencies don't buy it. They lied when they said that Iraq had reconstituted their nuclear program. Obviously. They lied when they said the Iraqis were 6 months away from having nuclear capabilities.

I do respect your opinion and look forward to locking horns with you again.

As far as Fan goes, I don't know, he gets a little... sometimes.

[Tarhog]

Originally posted by sfrench

Tarhog-

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I have no problem with people disagreeing with me. It wouldn't be very interesting if there was total agreement. The problem I had was that you stated that I said they never had chem/bio weapons and then preceded to pound me about how I could know. I never said any such thing. I didn't feel the need to defend a statement I never made. And statements made by others aren't my responsibility just because I'm a Democrat. I'm glad (and surprised) they haven't found any and I'm glad they didn't use them on our troops. That was my biggest fear for the soldiers we sent over.

But...

I still maintain that the president and his cabinet have lied about the nuclear capabilities of Iraq. The events of today have confirmed that in the Niger case they knowingly lied in the SOTU speech. They continue to lie about the aluminum rods even though it's been discounted many times. Even our own intelligence agencies don't buy it. They lied when they said that Iraq had reconstituted their nuclear program. Obviously. They lied when they said the Iraqis were 6 months away from having nuclear capabilities.

I do respect your opinion and look forward to locking horns with you again.

As far as Fan goes, I don't know, he gets a little... sometimes.

Apologies if I mistated your position. Thats the unfortunate thing about highly charged issues such as this one, we all get polarized. I am pained by the backstepping thats going on. I believe Rumsfeld spoke the truth the other day when he essentially said it wasn't our knowledge of the weapons Iraq possessed, nor their impending use that drove us to war. It was the possibility of an aggressive totalitarian regime exporting such weapons to 3rd parties who in turn could use them on us that was the true motivating consideration. Its ironic that the very arguments under scrutiny today only were made because Bush sought to mollify his opponents and go the UN route. That approach required us to demonstrate up front what Iraq had, at a time when we lacked the intell assets to know for sure. In the meantime, we gave them 6 months to make it all disappear. That was a mistake. I think reasonable assessors (many leading Democrats) would confess they know Hussein had serious stockpiles of chem weapons, and that they're probably buried in a big hole somewhere in the Iraqi desert or in Syria and beyond by now. What I truly and respectfully disagree with is that the argument to go to war was driven by purposeful and conscious lies. There is rock-solid intell. There is reliable intell. And then there is shaky intell. The nature of intell (which I'm sure you understand based on your experience) is that you NEVER know which is which until you're on the ground. The President did what we all do when we try to convince one another of something. He focused on facts (as he knew them) that supported his case, and downplayed those that didn't. Clearly some of those facts were erroneous and thats very unfortunate. But it doesn't constitute an intentional effort to mislead the American people. That some of the intelligence proved to be erroneous doesn't necessarily mean the core arguments (that Iraq possessed large stores of chem/bio weapons and had the means to disperse them to hostile groups) are invalid or false. I take some comfort in the belief that time will tell. Most of the uproar over this is the usual media feeding frenzy, as the vultures set in look for some rotting flesh (and if they don't see any, they're more than willing to give some folks a nudge over the cliff edge). Ultimately this war will be judged by what occurs in Iraq over the next 10 years, not whether the President uttered some inaccuracies in a State of the Union address.

[SEF]

Tarhog-

I agree this war may be ultimately judged by some in 10 years. The world is judging it real time. The lead up to the war is being judged now. We're there. There's nothing we can do about that now except the best job we can to make things right. So far, that has been pretty shakey but hopefully it will get better. I do believe the longer we stay the worse it will be for our security. Retention and recruiting are going to take a huge hit if deployment in Iraq is the reality of joining the military. It seems that every soldier I talk to is taking the ETS route.

As far as the lies go, I guess we just have to disagree. It seems so obvious to me and after the events of yesterday I don't see how the Niger lie isn't as clear as the lies about the aluminum tubes and the made up nuclear assessments.

Tenet says the CIA signed off after the wording was changed by the White House to attribute the forged report to the British. So, they felt they could include the known bogus info and if they blamed the British, they were covered.

Lie:

1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive

2 : to create a false or misleading impression

Like I said, I guess we'll just have to disagree.

On another note. Given your NBC background, what kind of potency would the chem/bio stores have if they were in fact left over from the first gulf war and hidden from the inspectors then, as some have suggested.

[Tarhog]

depends a lot on how they are stored s....

extreme heat would take a toll (and judging from pics of their conventional weapons storage system - not much more than sheds and bunkers - I'd suspect whatever they have isn't properly maintained). But you're still talking some nasty nasty stuff.

btw...your second 'lie' definition would also cover 'politics' in the dictionary.

On another note, I suspect we're doing some serious covert work in Syria to try and conclusively determine whether some suspicions that a lot of Iraq's known prior stores went over the border.

[SEF]

Tarhog-

Not good. That's why I'm kinda glad our guys haven't found any. I definitely don't want it to get in the wrong hands but I have had this serious feeling of dread about our guys being exposed to it. I'm sure the NBC professionals would be okay but my experience with NBC training is that most treated as a mandatory pain in the butt and didn't take it seriously. Hopefully that has changed since I got out.

Thanks for the info. Oh, and that second definition is Merriam-Websters, not mine.

[fansince62]

sfrench....

the first and real objective has been accomplished: to tone down the rhetoric and mudslinging on all sides....no small amount of credit is due to you for standing up and calling out for some (geeez this hurts)........adult bahavior......

what prompts an angry retort at times (not calling you out)?

1) generalizations that have no empirical backing

2) assertions about intent and personal character that have no grounding in fact or personal knowledge (whether it be about politicians or other members of this board). can't deny that in moments of frustration/anger I haven't used the same techniques myself.

3) from a distance......the opposition viewpoints seem largely destructive. there is very little that is value-adding. this is a dynamic that started a long time ago - without finger wagging who is responsible - but is only worsening. this appears to motivate a lot of the discussion on this board and in society generally. I believe the next election is only going to exacerbate matters - no matter who wins.

as small personal compass points:

1) I do not feel particularly aligned with Bush or any other advocacy position. I'm looking at the "big picture". We can disagree on ends and facts, but I would like to make an observation: understandably, points-of-view are adopted (based on summary information in the papers/internet/tv, etc) that only reflect details that rise to the surface. Over that last 6 years I have seen information - a thusand discrete little details - that never rise to the level of exposure but nevertheless draw a very different picture, at least in my mind, as to what is going on in the world.

2) one last note, and I can't speak for Tar and others (or you since I don't know what your experience set has been), but once you see the torture chambers; once you feel the terror of chop chop block; once you see the gutted tanks, pock marked desert, and shelled out buildings; once you actually speak to the folks who have been tortured; once you meet fellow patriots who have been tortured in Iraqi cells....it changes you permanently.

3) Color me a fool - as you will - but I have yet to hear a strategic plan from differing points-of-view as to what the long-term strategy is. I have never been as concerned as others about the nuclear weapon matter. That is stumble I'm willing to tolerate iot accomplish much larger objectives in that part of the world. NOw, to answer the expected fulisade - true, the military (preemptive or otherwise) is not the solution in every instance. but it is part of the equation and it has changed the equation in the ME permanently. a case can be made that diplomacy in and of itself will never work. that the most effective strategy muct combine diplomacy with the sword.

4) we will have to agree to disagree on the efficacy of the UN and the arms inspection teams. those of us who have worked with the UN in Bosnia, the ME and elsewhere have a very different point-of-view on its effectiveness (note that my position does not rule out coalition and bilateral partnerships). the inspection teams had years to uncover evidence - the not enough time argument simply doesn't sit well with many of us (again, another point none of us will agree on). let's not blithely accept that there is a unified thought process from the team itself on what it could accomplish. my observation is that for every Blix, there have been inspectors who point out that Hussein manipulated the data; hid much of the evidence; utilized his police forces to mollify information flow; intimidated inspectors (tails; infra-red targeting beams; omni-present political operatives at interviews, etc). the team itself has been highly politicized - one has to flip a coin almost from the beginning in deciding whom to trust.

side note: admitting that I have only given this thread a cursory read this morning. no one has answereed my question vis WMDs: what is the standard for risk analysis? when is it too late? what is the standard for prudential action?

[Tarhog]

Fan,

Feel free to speak for me anytime