Bush lied, people died...

[Rodchester]

"It's funny also to think that once democracy takes roots (if it does) in the Middle East then we may be faced with potential economic competitors just as Germany and Japan posed the same dilemma."

 

Now that's not such a bad dilemma though....

[Stonehead]

"So, this is what the world is actually like? Governments will always deceive or manipulate the people. Right, for their own good."

 

The heart of darkness.....

 

I've been going through that Hamlet moment of existential crisis where I see the world for what it is. The underlying reality underneath the facade. The dropping of the veil as it were...

[Peter_Puget]

Rod here is a serious question: In a world of uncertainty we are necessarily making decisions under calculations of probability. Using the Shah as an example how do you go about concluding that installing the Shah was a fuck-up.

[erf]

"One could say that stability is still the goal, but instead of short-term fixes (dictators) they are now looking long-term by using democracy to create stability"

 

Like in Azerbaijan?

 

Widespread Arrests, Torture and Beatings Follow Fraudulent Elections

 

Human Rights Watch expressed disappointment about the often muted and contradictory messages expressed by foreign governments and election-monitoring missions in the aftermath of the presidential election. For example, the U.S. government initially congratulated Ilham Aliev on his victory, then offered a statement of concern about the abuses, and ultimately resorted to silence about the situation during U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s visit to Azerbaijan in December.

 

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/01/23/azerba6992.htm

 

or in Uzbekistan?

http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/rights/articles/eav011403.shtml

 

or in Afghanistan?

http://www.hrw.org/press/2003/07/afghan072903.htm

 

or is it Columbia?

Colombia: Flawed Certification Squanders U.S. Leverage

U.S. Aid Released Despite Evidence of Colombia’s Failure to Meet Conditions

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/01/23/colomb6990.htm

 

or Pakistan? etc ...

 

We said actions, not words. Are you sure you understand the difference?

[Jim]

The question of uncertainty is defense issues is always a valid concern. Unfortunately it's not applicable to the Bushie situation - this is the tact the administration is taking to pull the light off the real question that should be asked.

 

Why did the administration cherry-pick bits and pieces of analyis, use false information, and bury the caveats that the analysists had produced, all to conduct a PR campaign for their adventure. It wasn't like they used the informtion to reach a conclusion. They already had a conclusion and were trying, wildly, to justify it. That's why their explanations are falling apart the Shrub's handlers thought it necessary to go on Meet the (lameo)Press.

[erf]

"And intel was wrong then too"

 

Trying to give a pass to Bush by insinuating that bad intel was the problem .... but noooo, you are no cheerleader. War is peace

[Rodchester]

Rod here is a serious question: In a world of uncertainty we are necessarily making decisions under calculations of probability. Using the Shah as an example how do you go about concluding that installing the Shah was a fuck-up.

 

Well keep in mind this is an opnion from a Bush cheerleader

 

I think in hindsight it is easy to say that supporting the Shah and installing him in power was an error. In hindsight. We are paying the price for the error to this day and will continue to pay for, what I will guess to be, another 25 years. But that is Hindsight. Was there really another option? At the time most said there wasn't. Did they rellay explore other options? I'm not versed in the decision enough to comment. Did we benefit, sure, for a time we received some stability in the region and Iran served as a check to Soviet influence in the region.

 

Thae nature of intel is that you go with probabilities and some gut-feel as well as historical patterns. Its not a perfect science. Its not exact. Its often said that intel is what we believe to be true and evidence is what we can prove.

 

ERF:

 

Are you actually comparing Uzbekistan, Azerbajan, and the like to Iraq?

 

You have to be kidding. When did we invade Columbia? Oh, I guess this is going to segway into the war on drugs...

 

I'm just some naive Bush Cheerleader...

[Jim]

Ah, get used to this line of reasoning because you're going to hear it as a steady drumbeat until November. The intel was imperfect - we did the best we could under uncertain circumstances, then throw in a reference to 911 and a country at war, wave flag, fade out.

 

What a bunch of crap. There's numerous articles written by investigative reports (New Yorker, Harpers, NYT,WA Post) that has thoroughly discreted the administration claims that the intel was bad. The administration made the decision long ago as to what they were going to do and tried (and failed) to get the intel to justify it.

[erf]

Are you playing stupid?

 

You said: "One could say that stability is still the goal, but instead of short-term fixes (dictators) they are now looking long-term by using democracy to create stability"

 

I'll make the 'simple simon assumption' that you understand the meaning of what you wrote. Sooo, in the countries mentioned, are we promoting democracy or are we supporting dictatorships/repressive governments for the sake of our policy goals?

 

You have now both stated that the Iraq mess is due to bad intel, and that it was wrong to think that Bush's intent was not to further democracy in Iraq. I am sure that Bush loves non-cheerleaders like you.

[mattp]

Rodchester,

 

My father is a professor who taught American foreign Relations at the University of Michigan for forty years, and he served for many years on a committee reviewing classified archives proposed for declassification and he has had an opportunity to learn a great deal about the history of American foreign interventions. Partisan views aside, he once offered this general principal:

 

The history of American foreign intervention is a history of mistakes and unforseen consequences. The number of instance where we propped up some failing leader or inserted a new government somehwere or declined to do so and things turned out the way we expected them to is nearly zero.

 

This is not a critique of one policy or another, it is merely a general statement. And I take the implication to be that we need to be VERY cautious and that very careful analysis of all available intelligence information should be undetaken before we commit to a certain policy -- whether we are making hurried decisions in the middle of a "war on terrorism" or looking ahead toward Southeast Asia in the year 2020. I agree with you that we will have to "wait and see" what happens in Iraq, but many of us do not believe our leaders were cautious enough in their rush to war last Spring.

[Rodchester]

Ah, get used to this line of reasoning because you're going to hear it as a steady drumbeat until November."

 

No doubt about that...but you'll hear two distinct drum beats.

 

1) The intel was imperfect - we did the best we could under uncertain circumstances, then throw in a reference to 911 and a country at war, wave flag, fade out.

 

2) The administration made the decision long ago as to what they were going to do and tried (and failed) to get the intel to justify it. Read: Lies, lies, lies.

 

Each side will put forth its version resulting in a very partisan bi-polar view. Each will be skewed and neither completely accurate.

 

I'm just one of those guys that generally falls in the middle, listening to each side with a large grain of salt. To some, that grain of salt means I'm not on their team and such I must be on the other team.

 

But I still like to watch and I like beer too.

 

Edited February 11, 2004 by Rodchester

[erf]

"I am not partisan, I am objective, I am in the middle"

 

"And intel was wrong then too"

 

"One could say that stability is still the goal, but instead of short-term fixes (dictators) they are now looking long-term by using democracy to create stability"

 

"to paint Bush's intentions to hopefully one day bring some form of democracy to the region as evil is, well, let's just say an interesting brush stroke"

 

You crack me up!

[Rodchester]

Rodchester,

 

My father is a professor who taught American foreign Relations at the University of Michigan for forty years, and he served for many years on a committee reviewing classified archives proposed for declassification and he has had an opportunity to learn a great deal about the history of American foreign interventions. Partisan views aside, he once offered this general principal:

 

The history of American foreign intervention is a history of mistakes and unforseen consequences. The number of instance where we propped up some failing leader or inserted a new government somehwere or declined to do so and things turned out the way we expected them to is nearly zero.

 

This is not a critique of one policy or another, it is merely a general statement. And I take the implication to be that we need to be VERY cautious and that very careful analysis of all available intelligence information should be undetaken before we commit to a certain policy -- whether we are making hurried decisions in the middle of a "war on terrorism" or looking ahead toward Southeast Asia in the year 2020. I agree with you that we will have to "wait and see" what happens in Iraq, but many of us do not believe our leaders were cautious enough in their rush to war last Spring.

 

MattP:

 

You'll get little if any disagreement from me on your father's view/assessment. As I have stated previously, it was a bad policy, or more accurately stated: stability CAN be a good policy but the methodology of supporting dictators in order to achieve the policy is bad (because it doesn't work AND its goes against democratic ideals).

 

Most of my comments here have focused on the attacks against me because I have stated that I’ll take the Bushies at face value on the democracy issue until the either get it right and carry through with it, or fail.

 

Did we act to quickly? We can’t answer that question now, its simply to quick to arrive at such a judgment.

 

Lets have a beer sometime in Ballard MattP. I wouldn't mind discussing some legal business issues with you as well.

[Jim]

This is always a good ploy. If Bush says the world is flat then most of the meadia headlines would be "Opinions vary on earth geometry".

 

There is no valid opinion on this. Only the facts. OK, lets take one. The Nigerian connection regarding selling of "yellow cake" uranium. The administration had sent their envoy to Africa a year earlier to check it out. He found out it was a fake document and reports back to the US. Then, 5 months later, Bush uses in the state of the union address. The envoy is astonished and writes an Op-Ed piece in the NYT saying, no-no, that's not what we said. Then the Bushies leak word that his wife is an undercover agent for the CIA, as vengeance.

 

So - this was not bad intel. It was a lie plain and simple. And you can easily go down the list just like this with 99% of the admins justifications.

[Rodchester]

Jim:

 

For the most part my positions in this thread relate to the democracy issue, for the most part.

 

On the intel being incorrect versus lies. There are two seperate issues.

 

1) Lies.

 

Whatever you want to call them, there is little doubt that the Bushies twisted the living shit out of some intel. Your example of the yellow cake is one that it appears to have been twisted. Keep in mind though, the Italians came to the Bushies after the US envoy arrived at his conclusions and challenged the earlier conclusions. I think the Brits may have done the same?

 

Is this a good enough basis? Maybe, maybe not. I'm not privy to all of the info. I am VERY disturbed by the release of the name of the agent.

 

2) Being wrong.

 

Every Western Intelligence agency and that of Jordan opening admits that they believed that Sadam had a stockpile of Chemical weapons. Most believed that he had some form of a Bio warfare program, though many disagreed on the type and the existence of actual biomaterials in stock. Few believed that he had an active Nuke program, but many feared that it was a dormant program that could be reconstituted quickly. Almost every, if not every, Intel agency believed these things and reported them to their governments. Most at the UN agreed on some level that Chemical weapons existed. Some individual weapons experts and inspectors doubted the extent of the chemical weapons. However, the agencies agreed they existed.

 

Now we are fairly certain that they did not. Did Saddm dupe the west? Was Saddam duped by his own scientists? We don’t know how exactly, but the intel was wrong.

 

Edited February 11, 2004 by Rodchester

[Peter_Puget]

Looking backwards it is very tempting to see certain decisions as errors; however, operating under uncertain probabilities it is very difficult to say with certainty an error in decision making was made. The fact that bad things happened because one path is not evidence that the decision to follow that path was incorrect.

 

 

Of all the actors in the Iraq situation the only one who could reduce uncertainty was Iraq. That it continuously chose not to do so forced the US position. Despite all the "untruths" of the Bush camp this one fact is inescapable and itself provides a sufficient argument for the Iraq invasion.

 

PP

[Rodchester]

Are you playing stupid?

 

You said: "One could say that stability is still the goal, but instead of short-term fixes (dictators) they are now looking long-term by using democracy to create stability"

 

I'll make the 'simple simon assumption' that you understand the meaning of what you wrote. Sooo, in the countries mentioned, are we promoting democracy or are we supporting dictatorships/repressive governments for the sake of our policy goals?

 

You have now both stated that the Iraq mess is due to bad intel, and that it was wrong to think that Bush's intent was not to further democracy in Iraq. I am sure that Bush loves non-cheerleaders like you.

 

"One could say that stability is still the goal, but instead of short-term fixes (dictators) they are now looking long-term by using democracy to create stability"

 

Note the use of the word "could." This is putting an observation out there. It doesn't take a position at all. I think it is fairly obviously, sorry if you didn't get it, that this was a discussion about Iraq and the chances for democracy eventually taking hold and promoting stability. Are you saying that the US is supporting a dictator in Iraq? I wasn't referring to another countries. I thought that was obvious.

 

 

"You have now both stated that the Iraq mess is due to bad intel"

 

When and where did I say that it is amess due to bad intel? Misrepresentation?

 

All that I said was the intel was wrong. Actually I recall that that was even only an imlication. How do you get that this caused Iraq to be a mess? Iraq is a mess for many reasons, which I have not previously, nor do I now comment on.

 

"it was wrong to think that Bush's intent was not to further democracy in Iraq"

 

Misrepresentations? All that I said was that democracy was a "stated intent" of the Bushies and that I will give them a chance to fail or suceed.

 

Twist away...are you a Bush advisor?

Edited February 11, 2004 by Rodchester

[HRoark]

The ultimate question is this: Has any of this come closer to a decision on who you would rather bang, J.Lo or Britney?

[sk]

The ultimate question is this: Has any of this come closer to a decision on who you would rather bang, J.Lo or Britney?

JLo she is way more sexy

[chucK]

Of all the actors in the Iraq situation the only one who could reduce uncertainty was Iraq. That it continuously chose not to do so forced the US position. Despite all the "untruths" of the Bush camp this one fact is inescapable and itself provides a sufficient argument for the Iraq invasion.

 

"I would rather die on my feet than live on my knees!" An oft lauded statement of heroism is now a justification for invasion.

[Rodchester]

The ultimate question is this: Has any of this come closer to a decision on who you would rather bang, J.Lo or Britney?

 

Hmmm probably Brittney...can I do Rudi Baktiar (SP?)instead. Mmmm Rudi.

[Stonehead]

Is there a third option?

 

How about a two-fer?

[Rodchester]

Is there a third option?

 

How about a two-fer?

 

Two at a time, sure, then I'm really in the middle!

[Jopa]

Looking backwards it is very tempting to see certain decisions as errors

It is more than tempting; it is called critical reflection, and it is the only tool we have to learn from past mistakes.

 

The fact that bad things happened because one path is not evidence that the decision to follow that path was incorrect.

Yes, it is.

 

That it continuously chose not to do so forced the US position. Despite all the "untruths" of the Bush camp this one fact is inescapable and itself provides a sufficient argument for the Iraq invasion.

Did you say forced? You are a true riot. Please enlighten everyone on how the U.S. was forced to murder human beings. And please spare the "Iraq is now liberated" bull shit sound bite.

[Jim]

Jim:

 

For the most part my positions in this thread relate to the democracy issue, for the most part.

 

On the intel being incorrect versus lies. There are two seperate issues.

 

1) Lies.

 

Whatever you want to call them, there is little doubt that the Bushies twisted the living shit out of some intel. Your example of the yellow cake is one that it appears to have been twisted. Keep in mind though, the Italians came to the Bushies after the US envoy arrived at his conclusions and challenged the earlier conclusions. I think the Brits may have done the same?

 

Is this a good enough basis? Maybe, maybe not. I'm not privy to all of the info. I am VERY disturbed by the release of the name of the agent.

 

2) Being wrong.

 

Every Western Intelligence agency and that of Jordan opening admits that they believed that Sadam had a stockpile of Chemical weapons. Most believed that he had some form of a Bio warfare program, though many disagreed on the type and the existence of actual biomaterials in stock. Few believed that he had an active Nuke program, but many feared that it was a dormant program that could be reconstituted quickly. Almost every, if not every, Intel agency believed these things and reported them to their governments. Most at the UN agreed on some level that Chemical weapons existed. Some individual weapons experts and inspectors doubted the extent of the chemical weapons. However, the agencies agreed they existed.

 

Now we are fairly certain that they did not. Did Saddm dupe the west? Was Saddam duped by his own scientists? We don’t know how exactly, but the intel was wrong.

 

I understand what you are trying to say, but I would respectfully disagree. It was not that the intel was wrong. Most of it was twisted and stripped of the caveats that the intel folks insisted go along with it. These were ignored for justification. You can discuss why Saddam should be booted out for a number of human rights issues or whatever, but that was not what was sold to the public, and now the admin is changing their tune and pointing in all directions as to why they went in.

 

What they should be held accountable for is what they clearly stated was their justification for starting the war. If WMDs were not the reason then they should have stated the real reason and let the nation have a true democratic discussion about it.