AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Kay reported in October that his team found "dozens of WMD-related program activities" that Iraq was required to reveal to U.N. inspectors but did not. However, he said he found no actual WMDs.

The study, a quarterly report on Iraq from U.N. inspectors, notes that the U.S. teams' inability to find any weapons after the war mirrors the experience of U.N. inspectors who searched there from November 2002 until March 2003.

Many Bush administration officials were harshly critical of the U.N. inspection efforts in the months before the war. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said in August 2002 that inspections "will be a sham."

The Bush administration also pointedly declined U.N. offers to help in the postwar weapons hunt, preferring instead to use U.S. inspectors and specialists from other coalition countries such as Britain and Australia.

But U.N. reports submitted to the Security Council before the war by Hans Blix, former chief U.N. arms inspector, and Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog agency, have been largely validated by U.S. weapons teams. The common findings:

Iraq's nuclear weapons program was dormant.

No evidence was found to suggest Iraq possessed chemical or biological weapons. U.N. officials believe the weapons were destroyed by U.N. inspectors or Iraqi officials in the years after the 1991 Gulf War.

Iraq was attempting to develop missiles capable of exceeding a U.N.-mandated limit of 93 miles.

Demetrius Perricos, the acting executive chairman of the U.N. inspection teams, said in an interview that the failure to find banned weapons in Iraq since the war undercuts administration criticism of the U.N.'s search before the war.

"You cannot say that only the Americans or the British or the Australians currently inspecting in Iraq are the clever inspectors - and the Americans and the British and the Australians that we had were not," he said

Blix has written a new book, "Disarming Iraq," about the events leading up to the war. During that period he was lambasted by both doves and hawks: by the former for failing to state unequivocally that Iraq had no WMDs, and by the latter for failing to find them. As he explained Wednesday night, part of the problem was that he himself had believed the weapons probably existed. "I'm not here to have gut feelings," he said. "But yes, in December 2002 I thought Saddam had weapons of mass destruction." Still, "the objective was to inspect effectively and to report objectively."

We are in Iraq, and must decide what we should or should not be doing now....there....at THIS time. So far the consensus of those who usually tilt right of center seems to be that you don't want to hand al Qaida or any other terrorists a victory, and do not want to abandon those Iraqis who have stood by us and have risked much to obtain their ability to govern themselves, and do not wish to give militant Islam a huge propaganda tool by leaving prematurely. Am I reading you right?

Given your distaste for reading anything of any length, Revel--your comment not mine--I suppose you didn't see that the transcript supported the shorter article. But here, let's reduce it to a soundbite in Blix's own words:

Actual that wasn't my comment; but I won't quibble about it. I actually read the entire transcript from start to finish; several times in fact.

Quote:

Blix has written a new book, "Disarming Iraq," about the events leading up to the war. During that period he was lambasted by both doves and hawks: by the former for failing to state unequivocally that Iraq had no WMDs, and by the latter for failing to find them. As he explained Wednesday night, part of the problem was that he himself had believed the weapons probably existed. "I'm not here to have gut feelings," he said. "But yes, in December 2002 I thought Saddam had weapons of mass destruction." Still, "the objective was to inspect effectively and to report objectively."

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/03/18_blix.shtml

Blix wanted more time for the inspections, but he thought the WMD was there.

Blix said the inspections were not about his gut feelings but what the inspections revealed; up to date of the time the Bush administration cut short the inspections; WMD in large quantities were not revealed and he reported it as such. By March 7, 2002 they still hadn't found them or found stockpiles of WMD rather. The inspections should have continued as he said in your very own link.

Quote:

There were about 700 inspections, and in no case did we find weapons of mass destruction," said Hans Blix, the Swedish diplomat called out of retirement to serve as the United Nations' chief weapons inspector from 2000 to 2003; from 1981 to 1997 he headed the International Atomic Energy Agency. "We went to sites [in Iraq] given to us by intelligence, and only in three cases did we find something" - a stash of nuclear documents, some Vulcan boosters, and several empty warheads for chemical weapons. More inspections were required to determine whether these findings were the "tip of the iceberg" or simply fragments remaining from that deadly iceberg's past destruction, Blix said he told the United Nations Security Council. However, his work in Iraq was cut short when the United States and the United Kingdom took disarmament into their own hands in March of last year.

Had they continued the inspections like Hans Blix wanted to they would have known that they were only fragments instead of Bush and Blair acting with a "severe lack of "critical thinking." Like I said several times in this dicussion; there was reason to let the inspections play out as they were successful at the time Bush cut it short.

Quote:

In the buildup to the war, Saddam Hussein and the Iraqis were cooperating with U.N. inspections, and in February 2003 had provided Blix's team with the names of hundreds of scientists to interview, individuals Saddam claimed had been involved in the destruction of banned weapons. Had the inspections been allowed to continue, Blix said, there would likely be a very different situation in Iraq today. As it was, America's pre-emptive, unilateral actions "have bred more terrorism there and elsewhere."

Now that's the last I want to deal with that issue on this thread. The evidence is clear that those who supported the invasion of of Iraq and many who didn't all thought that the WMD was there.

And back to the issue that IS important to an evaluation of Conservative principles:

We are in Iraq, and must decide what we should or should not be doing now....there....at THIS time. So far the consensus of those who usually tilt right of center seems to be that you don't want to hand al Qaida or any other terrorists a victory, and do not want to abandon those Iraqis who have stood by us and have risked much to obtain their ability to govern themselves, and do not wish to give militant Islam a huge propaganda tool by leaving prematurely. Am I reading you right?

A stark assessment of terrorism trends by American intelligence agencies has found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks.

March 24, 2008 Issue
Copyright © 2007 The American Conservative

Right at the End

William F. Buckley's last gift to conservatism may have been his opposition to the Iraq War.

by Jeffrey Hart

Soon after Bill Buckley died, William Kristol published a column called "The Indispensable Man" in the New York Times. He celebrated Buckley as the founder of the conservative movement, and his tone was not only celebratory but affectionate. And surely Kristol was right: Buckley was indispensable. Without his leadership there would have been no conservative movement. Yet at the end of his life, Buckley believed the movement he made had destroyed itself by supporting the war in Iraq.

The central foreign policy initiative of the Bush administration had two rationales: eliminating Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction and, by establishing democracy in Iraq, turning the country into a beacon of liberty in the Middle East. Both National Review and Kristol's Weekly Standard followed Bush on Iraq and continue to do so. But Kristol must have known that Buckley had grave doubts about the war.

Buckley published three syndicated columns about Iraq, all of which were reprinted in National Review. The first argued that it is doubtful that an effort "hugely greater in scale and more refined in conception" would produce the desired result. When no weapons of mass destruction were found, Buckley speculated that this rationale for the invasion, now discredited, would not matter if all ended well. But as the 2004 presidential election approached, he compared the evident quagmire to the French defeat by a brutal insurgency in Algeria.

In these pieces, Buckley diverged sharply from the generally optimistic view of Iraq taken by National Review. Kristol must have read these columns at the time but had perhaps forgotten them when he wrote his column about Buckley-or else dismissed them since the Weekly Standard still believes that the Iraq effort has been a success.

But the conviction hinted in the columns only hardened during the last year of Buckley's life, when he arrived at a tragic view of the Iraq War. He saw it as a disaster and thought that the conservative movement he had created had in effect committed intellectual suicide by failing to maintain critical distance from the Bush administration.

His entire life as a conservative leader lends authority to this judgment, which should stand as the final word of Mr. Conservative, so allow me to provide some impressions of Bill Buckley as I knew him...

If we aren't attentive, Bill Buckley's antiwar pronouncement, issued in an interview with the New York Times, could be relegated to a minor footnote in this week's news pages, whereas it really speaks volumes about the history of the last 50 years and the fall of American freedom in the push for perpetual war.

What he said, in his famously circuitous way, was this: "With the benefit of minute hindsight, Saddam Hussein wasn't the kind of extra-territorial menace that was assumed by the administration one year ago. If I knew then what I know now about what kind of situation we would be in, I would have opposed the war."
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/history-unthwarted.html

Diest TKO wrote:

The bottom line is that all claims were false about why we should go.

It doesn't not get any more basic than this. And yes, it's a big deal.

T
K
O

How can they have been false?
YOU said in a previous post...

Quote:

It's not that a country has to present a threat to the US, but there actions must be contained in their borders. It's the moment that they attempt land grab etc that it becomes a world interest to stop them

You also said...

Quote:

It doesn't have to be a threat to specifically the US, but it does have to be a legitimate threat.

Our govt considered Iraq to be a legitimate threat.
According to you, thats a good enough reason.
So, how can you now say it was false?

Quote:

If we aren't attentive, Bill Buckley's antiwar pronouncement, issued in an interview with the New York Times, could be relegated to a minor footnote in this week's news pages, whereas it really speaks volumes about the history of the last 50 years and the fall of American freedom in the push for perpetual war.

What he said, in his famously circuitous way, was this: "With the benefit of minute hindsight, Saddam Hussein wasn't the kind of extra-territorial menace that was assumed by the administration one year ago. If I knew then what I know now about what kind of situation we would be in, I would have opposed the war."
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/history-unthwarted.html

Opposition to the Iraqi War is no longer an issue to anybody but mushy minded partisan hacks. The decision to go to war was a bipartisan and multi-lateral decision made in 2003. Where was all the loud and constant outcry against it when it was being debated for those 12 long weeks in both Congress and the UN? It's really brave to be all indignant and self righteous now after the fact and after war weariness sets in, but to those willing to deal in the here and now, those beating the Bush's war drum look like those mushy minded, self righteous partisan hacks. And those who supported it initially either in principle or with their votes and now who condemn the action and pretend they had nothing to do with it are making themselves look like the HUGE hypocrites that they are. Wm Buckley, however, never claimed he didn't initially support the war effort.

There is room to criticize the execution of the war as obviously serious mistakes have been commtted and have been admitted. There is room to acknowledge that if we had known then what we know now, different choices/decisions would have been made. But harping on that and making it the focus does absolutely nothing in the way of achieving a best plan now while we still have boots on the ground in harm's way.

So assuming that nobody here qualifies for the more unattractive labels (cough), let's consider what the proper course of action is to take now, in 2008.

We discussed previously that one form of love is willingness to throw a rope to even your enemy who is drowning. It really doesn't matter if the drowning person doesn't like the color or quality of the rope or thought it was thrown too early or not early enough or wanted somebody else to throw him a rope. The act is not done because he loves you or approves of what you think or do. Love is doing the right thing anyway. It is not love however to throw the rope but not hold onto it or tie it to anything.

We've thrown a rope to the Iraqi people. What now? Let go? Or be willing to pull them to safety even if they don't love us and might even turn loose of the rope themselves?

If it is so bad that we leave, let the international community step in and convince us to stay or send their military.

Now in 2008, we leave (actually 2009).

If it is so bad that we leave, let the international community step in and convince us to stay or send their military. Otherwise, every second we stay we lose the "war on terror."

Done.

T
K
O

Over the past several months, confidence in the War on Terror has grown to the highest levels since the President was re-elected. The 47% who say the U.S. and its allies are winning is a sharp increase from the 33% who held that view at the beginning of 2007.

The 20% of voters who believe the terrorists are winning marks the lowest level of pessimism ever measured by this poll since tracking began in January 2004

Ticomaya wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

If it is so bad that we leave, let the international community step in and convince us to stay or send their military.

Who's that? Who are you referring to? Who is the "international community"?

Does it matter to you Tico? You'd put troll druel on any definition I would give you.

How about we start with the "coalition of freedom," and then we'll just see who jumps on after that.

Are you of the opinion that all the Iraqis are part of the warring factions? I think the evidence would show that the militants (mostly terrorist groups) are creating 99% of the problems but constitute a very small percentage of the general population.

Foreign militants make up only a small percentage of the insurgents fighting in Iraq, as little as 10 percent, according to US military and intelligence officials.

Diest TKO wrote:

Now in 2008, we leave (actually 2009).

If it is so bad that we leave, let the international community step in and convince us to stay or send their military. Otherwise, every second we stay we lose the "war on terror."

Done.

T
K
O

Actually this is a different point of view which is necessary if we are to have a discussion, but Tico is right. You need to explain it.

You say that if the international community doesn't sanction us being there and/or send in their military, we are losing the 'war on terror'? This needs some explanation.

Do you see a strong international consensus that thinks we should turn loose of that rope?

Do you think we should turn loose of the rope? Why?

Explain how this factors into losing the war on terror?

Quote:

Over the past several months, confidence in the War on Terror has grown to the highest levels since the President was re-elected. The 47% who say the U.S. and its allies are winning is a sharp increase from the 33% who held that view at the beginning of 2007.

The 20% of voters who believe the terrorists are winning marks the lowest level of pessimism ever measured by this poll since tracking began in January 2004

Rasmussen - America's Point of View

However, short-term optimism about the War has decreased over the past month. Compared to 38% last month, 33% now say the situation in Iraq will get better in the next six months. Still, this is the sixth consecutive month in which a plurality believes things are getting better in Iraq. Last July, voters believed things were getting worse by a two-to-one margin.

Long-term optimism has fallen slightly over the past month. Thirty-four percent (34%) of Likely Voters now say history will deem the U.S. mission in Iraq a success - a three-point decrease from last month. Nearly half (48%) say the mission will be considered a failure, which is a three point increase from last month. Forty percent (40%) of Likely Voters say the United States is safer today than it was before 9/11 while 43% say it is not.

Just 31% say Bush has done a good or excellent job handling the situation in Iraq. Nearly half (47%) disagree and give him a poor rating. A separate survey has consistently found that roughly six-out-of-ten Americans would like to see the troops brought home from Iraq within a year.

Quote:

Are you of the opinion that all the Iraqis are part of the warring factions? I think the evidence would show that the militants (mostly terrorist groups) are creating 99% of the problems but constitute a very small percentage of the general population.

Foreign terrorist only make up 10%; the rest are Iraqis who are fighting over power.

Quote:

Foreign militants make up only a small percentage of the insurgents fighting in Iraq, as little as 10 percent, according to US military and intelligence officials.

source

As for the militias, every party in Iraq has them including Maliki and the Kurds. Sometimes the militias are only ones providing services and security from other tribes militias. They are in fact supported by the population of the people they represent.

Iraq as a Militia War

So why not let them fight it out and settle into their own communities so to speak?

Foxfyre wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

Now in 2008, we leave (actually 2009).

If it is so bad that we leave, let the international community step in and convince us to stay or send their military. Otherwise, every second we stay we lose the "war on terror."

Done.

T
K
O

Actually this is a different point of view which is necessary if we are to have a discussion, but Tico is right. You need to explain it.

How about the international community consisting of any or all countries located on earth.

Foxfyre wrote:

You say that if the international community doesn't sanction us being there and/or send in their military, we are losing the 'war on terror'? This needs some explanation.

This is NOT what I said. I made no statment about sanctions. Revel put it well, we are being used as a crutch there. We are going to have to leave, and yes it will be ugly but it is unrealistic to believe that at any point in time our efforts are going to make Bagdad look like San Diego. We can't hold out for that. (And to think of all the Right-wing claims that the left is too idealistic ).

Foxfyre wrote:

Do you see a strong international consensus that thinks we should turn loose of that rope?

I see a strong tendancy to not want to touch Iraq with a 10ft pole. Iraq should have never been an American war.

Foxfyre wrote:

Do you think we should turn loose of the rope? Why?

I think we should leave, yes. Why? Because there is no sense to us being there.

Foxfyre wrote:

Explain how this factors into losing the war on terror?

We have contributed the efforts of radical terrorist groups by giving them a reason to fight back. We have destabalized the country and for what?

2,976 died in 9/11

4000+ have died in the last 5 years

For what? How am I any safer today? What happened to our civil liberties?

RIP habeas corpus

RIP due process

The war is bullshit.

Foxfyre wrote:

Quote:

Over the past several months, confidence in the War on Terror has grown to the highest levels since the President was re-elected. The 47% who say the U.S. and its allies are winning is a sharp increase from the 33% who held that view at the beginning of 2007.

The 20% of voters who believe the terrorists are winning marks the lowest level of pessimism ever measured by this poll since tracking began in January 2004

Rasmussen - America's Point of View

from your source....

Quote:

However, short-term optimism about the War has decreased over the past month. Compared to 38% last month, 33% now say the situation in Iraq will get better in the next six months. Still, this is the sixth consecutive month in which a plurality believes things are getting better in Iraq. Last July, voters believed things were getting worse by a two-to-one margin.

Long-term optimism has fallen slightly over the past month. Thirty-four percent (34%) of Likely Voters now say history will deem the U.S. mission in Iraq a success - a three-point decrease from last month. Nearly half (48%) say the mission will be considered a failure, which is a three point increase from last month. Forty percent (40%) of Likely Voters say the United States is safer today than it was before 9/11 while 43% say it is not.

Just 31% say Bush has done a good or excellent job handling the situation in Iraq. Nearly half (47%) disagree and give him a poor rating. A separate survey has consistently found that roughly six-out-of-ten Americans would like to see the troops brought home from Iraq within a year.

You were saying?

T
K
O