Anon,
I dare you to be more specific about what you allege is my "amazing take on Iraq."
One sufficient reason for the Iraq war was stated by the Congress in their declaration of war on Iraq, October 16, 2002:
Congress wrote:
(10) Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
One sufficient reason for the Iraq war was stated by the Congress in their declaration of war on Iraq, October 16, 2002:
Congress wrote:
(11) Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;
It is irrelevant that the Congress, or any other branch of our government on October 16, 2002, whether mistakenly or otherwise, thought or pretended additional reasons necessary.
It is highly relevant that our military as predicted did in fact encounter and destroy major sanctuaries of al-Qaeda and Saddamist terrorists in Iraq within the first four weeks of our invasion of Iraq.
It is also highly relevant that al-Qaeda from other countries joined with the dethroned Saddamists in Iraq in an effort to regain their lost power and to preserve Iraq as a sanctuary for both al-Qaeda and Saddamists.
It is significant that 70% of the eligible voters of Iraq want to be governed by a democracy and not by totalitarian gangsters like the Saddamists and al-Qaeda..
Assume there were in October 2001, more than two countries that were merely allowing sanctuary to members of the same terrorist organization that declared war against the USA (i.e., al-Qaeda).
We would have to recognize at least three realities:
(1) Allowing terrorists sanctuaries abets the training and the growth of the terrorist population.
(2) We were not capable of simultaneously invading all of these countries and successfully removing all of their governments in order to permanently disallow terrorist sanctuaries in them;
(3) Deciding to not invade any of these countries was suicidal for our country, since there is no effective way for us to defend our borders or our communities against terrorists except to exterminate the terrorists where they are created and/or allowed sanctuary.
The issue then reduces to the question of which country should we have invaded first in order to remove its government and end its allowance of sanctuaries for terrorists.
We picked Afghanistan in October 2001, because it was perceived by us to be the biggest and most immediate threat to us by allowing sanctuary to the most terrorists, and coincidentally was also perceived by us to be the easiest to conquer.
But then to our surprise, many of the terrorists in Afghanistan fled to the other countries. By March 2003, we observed that the growth of the terrorist sanctuaries in Iraq exceeded such growth in the other countries. So we invaded Iraq in March 2003 for that reason among others, and also for thinking it will be easier to conquer than any of the other countries.
To our dismay, we discover after removing Iraq's government that we underestimated the difficulty of conquering Iraq.
We persisted nonetheless with the expectation that:
(A) If we persevere to eventual victory in Iraq, we will intimidate the other countries to cease allowing sanctuary to the terrorist organization;
(B) Failure to persevere, will be suicidal for our country.
Your argument here is fallacious.
Suppose we correctly identified ten countries all of which were merely allowing sanctuary to members of the same terrorist organization that declared war against the USA. We would have to recognize at least two realities:
(1) We were not capable of simultaneously invading all ten and successfully removing all ten of their governments in order to permanently destroy those terrorist sanctuaries;
(2) Deciding to not invade any of these countries was suicidal for our country, since there is no effective way for us to defend our borders or our communities against terrorists except to exterminate the terrorists where they are created.
The argument then reduces to the question of which one shall we invade first and remove its government. We pick country A, because it is perceived by us to be the biggest and most immediate threat to us by allowing sanctuary to the most such terrorists, and coincidentally was also perceived by us to be the easiest to conquer.
But then to our surprise, many of the terrorists in A flee to the other nine countries. We observe that the growth of the terrorist sanctuary in I exceeds such growth in the remaining eight countries. So we invade I for that reason and also for thinking it will be easier to conquer than any of the remaining eight. To our dismay, we discover we underestimated the difficulty of conquering I. We persist nonetheless with the expectation that:
(1) If we persevere to eventual victory in I, we will intimidate the other eight countries to cease allowing sanctuary to the terrorist organization;
(2) If we do not persevere, it will be suicidal for our country.
The real sufficient reasons for the war were stated by the Congress October 16, 2002:
It is irrelevant that the Congress, or any other branch of our government, at the time mistakenly or otherwise, thought or pretended other reasons primary. It is highly relevant that our military as predicted did in fact encounter and destroy major sanctuaries of al Qaeda in Iraq within the first month of our invasion of Iraq. It is also highly relevant that al Qaeda from other countries joined with the dethroned Saddamists in Iraq in an effort to regain their lost power and to preserve Iraq as a sanctuary for al Qaeda. It is significant that 70% of the eligible voters of Iraq want to be governed by a democracy and not by totalitarian gangsters.
Yes, the war is costing us billions. It would have cost us many more billions if we simply allowed ourselves to be conquered by al Qaeda and the Saddamists?[/color]
Conquered? How can Al Qaeda conquer America? You really make me wonder as to how far and wide your belief in the Bush administration and the mythical boogeyman of Islam can go.
ican711nm wrote:Terrorism is a tactic employed by our enemy. We are at war with our enemy and not our enemy's tactic. History has shown that given the will and ability to persevere, one can defeat one's enemies regardless of their tactics.
History has shown that conquering/invading armies rarely if ever succeeded in holding their grip over their conquered terroritories and history is replete with such examples. You again misconstrue the word terror, thinking that it is some sort of army, or institution, when in reality, it is a tactic, and I refer the reader up top to where the bulk of this was addressed.
...
You began with a claim, that my argument was fallacious, but you failed to propose exactly how it was fallacious.
I think my explanation quoted again below was sufficient description of exactly how your argument then and now is fallacious. I provided two valid, independent and individually sufficient reasons Congress gave October 16, 200, in its declaration of war against Iraq, for invading Iraq and replacing its government with a government that would not allow sanctuary to terrorists (i.e., people like al-Qaeda who intentionally kill -- murder --civilians).
Here's a copy of the first such reason that I posted.
ican711nm wrote:One sufficient reason for the Iraq war was stated by the Congress in their declaration of war on Iraq, October 16, 2002:
Congress wrote:(10) Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
Here's a copy of the second such reason that I posted.
ican711nm wrote:One sufficient reason for the Iraq war was stated by the Congress in their declaration of war on Iraq, October 16, 2002:
Congress wrote:(11) Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;
Then I posted the following.
ican711nm wrote:It is irrelevant that the Congress, or any other branch of our government on October 16, 2002, whether mistakenly or otherwise, thought or pretended additional reasons necessary.
It is highly relevant that our military as predicted did in fact encounter and destroy major sanctuaries of al-Qaeda and Saddamist terrorists in Iraq within the first four weeks of our invasion of Iraq.
It is also highly relevant that al-Qaeda from other countries joined with the dethroned Saddamists in Iraq in an effort to regain their lost power and to preserve Iraq as a sanctuary for both al-Qaeda and Saddamists.
It is significant that 70% of the eligible voters of Iraq want to be governed by a democracy and not by totalitarian gangsters like the Saddamists and al-Qaeda.
In its October 16, 2002 resolution Congress gave 23 reasons for authorizing the President to order an invasion of Iraq if in the President's judgment that were necessary. Imagine, if you like that the other 21 (i.e., 23 - 2) reasons Congress gave were all lies. That doesn't change the true facts of why we were required by our own enlightened self-interest to invade Iraq.
There were nonetheless two valid, independent and individually sufficient reasons for the USA to invade Iraq and to replace its government with a government that would not allow sanctuary for terrorists (e.g., al-Qaeda).
The points I raised were regarding the lies that were used to market and sell the war to the American public by the Bush administration. You addressed nothing I raised ...
Those 21 lies or falsities or mistakes or biases or whatever Congress stated 10/16/2002, were and are shown to be irrelevant.
Of course, it's all too convenient to call only acts engaged in by the other side as 'terrorism' and those people as 'terrorists', since it would tarnish the image of America to be associated with that.
Terrorists as the term was and is used by the Congress designates people like al-Qaeda who intentionally kill (i.e., murder) civilians.
...
Colin Powel stated that America should not go after Iraq because they had nothing to do with 9-11? I repeat there is no evidence, short of unsubstantiated assertions, that Iraq had ties to Al Qaeda. It's just that it's been regurgitated for so long by the media and the Bush administration, like the old adage says, you repeat a lie enough times and people will begin to believe it as true.
This is irrelevant. Iraq has not been shown to have abetted 9/11 and this was and is admitted by the Bush administration. Iraq has not been shown to have possessed ready-to-use WMD at the time we invaded Iraq and this was and is admitted by the Bush administration. But it has been shown by our military that terrorists (e.g., al-Qaeda) were in fact allowed sanctuary in Iraq prior to its invasion, just as they were in Afghanistan before its invasion. That is what is truly relevant. The fact that Colin Powell or anyone else once opined, or continues to opine, otherwise is interesting, but is nevertheless irrelevant.
...
Why is it irrelevant? If the supposed premises were lies, or not certain, and it cost the lives of innocent people, as well as billions in taxpayer money, why is it irrelevant? It matters every bit.
SOME of the premises were false, but what is relevant is that TWO were not false and are in fact true.
...
Conquered? How can Al Qaeda conquer America? You really make me wonder as to how far and wide your belief in the Bush administration and the mythical boogeyman of Islam can go.
You appear ignorant of the fact that al-Qaeda is a worldwide confederation of terrorists that has declared war on civilians, who have murdered civilians, who continue to murder civilians, and who threaten to continue to murder civilians in their self-declared quest to make the al-Qaeda religion (i.e., al-Qaeda's version of the Muslim religion) the only religion by exterminating all others. Read their declarations yourself: Their 1996 fatwah; their 1998 fatwah; their 2004 fatwah; their pamphlets; and letters among their leadership. On the otherhand, I will eagerly post here again copies of all these with their links, if you were to ask me to.
You seem to not understand the significance of the fact that less than two-dozen al-Qaeda terrorists murdered almost 3,000 civilians in America. In all cases of al-Qaeda's murder of civilians, less than two-dozen were required to perpetrate each of al-Qaeda's civilian mass murders throughout the world. You seem to be ignorant of the fact that 10,000 to 20,000 terrorists were trained by al-Qaeda in Afghanistan before its USA invasion. More than 1,000 terrorists were trained by al Qaeda in Iraq between December 2001 and the USA's invasion of Iraq March 2003 (this last based on the fact that al-Qaeda occupied a dozen villages in northeastern Iraq at the time of the USA invasion of Iraq).
ican711nm wrote:Terrorism is a tactic employed by our enemy. We are at war with our enemy and not our enemy's tactic. History has shown that given the will and ability to persevere, one can defeat one's enemies regardless of their tactics.
History has shown that conquering/invading armies rarely if ever succeeded in holding their grip over their conquered terroritories and history is replete with such examples.
...
We didn't hold our grip on Germany (WWI and WWII) or Japan (WWII) after we conquered them, but we did not intend to hold our grip on them anymore than we intend to hold our grip on Afghanistan and Iraq. In the cases of Germany and Japan, we intended, and did succeed in removing their governments and, about seven years later, did succeed in replacing those governments with democratic governments that have not thus far allowed sanctuary to terrorists.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060119/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_election_fraud
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates - An international assessment team on Thursday cited numerous violations and cases of fraud in Iraq's Dec. 15 parliamentary elections, but it did not question the final results.
The International Mission for Iraqi Elections, a 10-nation monitoring body led by Canada, recommended changes for future balloting but made no call for repeating any voting from the December election.
The results from the voting have not been announced, but are expected to show a large victory for Shiite parties. Sunni Arab leaders have denounced the voting, calling the results into question and urging a new vote.
Some of Iraq's 220,000 election workers were among those blamed for violating their code of conduct with "questionable or illegal practices," the report said.
Election officials received around 2,000 complaints that alleged ballot box stuffing and theft, tally sheet tampering, intimidation, violence, incorrect voter lists, ballot shortages, multiple voting, improper police and military conduct, campaigning within polling centers and violations of a pre-election ban on campaigning.
The report also said some Iraqi security forces voted on election day after casting ballots previously on an earlier day set aside for them.
Despite the problems, the mission said Iraqis should be commended for an election that operated smoothly under harsh circumstances.
"Despite these conditions, the people of Iraq have voted in numbers that would do credit to democracies in more settled parts of the world," the report said.
The mission gave no overall assessment on the likely integrity of the results, but said the elections' legal framework, institutions, and procedures were "designed to meet international standards."
The Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq, which oversaw the vote, investigated and resolved the most serious complaints, dismissing staff members or levying fines on those blamed for violations, the report said. Some violators were referred for criminal prosecution, it said.
The IECI also voided vote results from many polling stations where fraud was documented.
But the IECI did not have the means to investigate all complaints and did not probe "a large number." It also said additional fraud "in all probability" went undetected.
Haidar al-Obadi, senior adviser to Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari, said the government would not comment because "elections are an independent issue."
But speaking as an official of a political bloc, al-Obadi said the report "confirms the fairness of the elections. This is the principle thing, which proves that the election was fair. This is important."
"There are irregularities in elections anywhere in the world, but the irregularities that occurred in our election were individual violations and individual violations will not have any effect," he said. "But unfortunately there are some political blocs that slandered the process. This is unacceptable and illegal. They tried to drag the country into conflicts."
revel wrote:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060119/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_election_fraud
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates - An international assessment team on Thursday cited numerous violations and cases of fraud in Iraq's Dec. 15 parliamentary elections, but it did not question the final results.
The International Mission for Iraqi Elections, a 10-nation monitoring body led by Canada, recommended changes for future balloting but made no call for repeating any voting from the December election.
The results from the voting have not been announced, but are expected to show a large victory for Shiite parties. Sunni Arab leaders have denounced the voting, calling the results into question and urging a new vote.
Some of Iraq's 220,000 election workers were among those blamed for violating their code of conduct with "questionable or illegal practices," the report said.
Election officials received around 2,000 complaints that alleged ballot box stuffing and theft, tally sheet tampering, intimidation, violence, incorrect voter lists, ballot shortages, multiple voting, improper police and military conduct, campaigning within polling centers and violations of a pre-election ban on campaigning.
The report also said some Iraqi security forces voted on election day after casting ballots previously on an earlier day set aside for them.
Despite the problems, the mission said Iraqis should be commended for an election that operated smoothly under harsh circumstances.
"Despite these conditions, the people of Iraq have voted in numbers that would do credit to democracies in more settled parts of the world," the report said.
The mission gave no overall assessment on the likely integrity of the results, but said the elections' legal framework, institutions, and procedures were "designed to meet international standards."
The Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq, which oversaw the vote, investigated and resolved the most serious complaints, dismissing staff members or levying fines on those blamed for violations, the report said. Some violators were referred for criminal prosecution, it said.
The IECI also voided vote results from many polling stations where fraud was documented.
But the IECI did not have the means to investigate all complaints and did not probe "a large number." It also said additional fraud "in all probability" went undetected.
Haidar al-Obadi, senior adviser to Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari, said the government would not comment because "elections are an independent issue."
But speaking as an official of a political bloc, al-Obadi said the report "confirms the fairness of the elections. This is the principle thing, which proves that the election was fair. This is important."
"There are irregularities in elections anywhere in the world, but the irregularities that occurred in our election were individual violations and individual violations will not have any effect," he said. "But unfortunately there are some political blocs that slandered the process. This is unacceptable and illegal. They tried to drag the country into conflicts."
Well, how about that!
Men Intoxicated with Power and Courtiers Who Serve Them
By Ray McGovern
t r u t h o u t | Perspective
Saturday 14 January 2006
Individually, the new "dots" supplied by revelations about the Iraq war in James Risen's State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration are not very surprising. Collectively, though, they provide valuable insight into the peculiar way in which President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair prepared to launch an unprovoked war - shades of Germany and Quisling Austria two generations ago. Needed: power-intoxicated leaders, court functionaries to serve them, and obedient military leaders able to subordinate conscience to career requirements.
Risen's book throws new light on just how Bush and Blair led their countries into war. It is a case study of the pitfalls in marginalizing foreign policy bureaucracies in favor of sycophants one level down. That part of his book is as revealing as Risen's now-famous disclosures of illegal eavesdropping on Americans by the National Security Agency (NSA). Cumulatively, the "dots" furnished by Risen illuminate US-UK plotting and planning in 2002 - a year that will live in infamy.
Tête-à-Tête with Tenet
Risen fills in gaps regarding the urgent visit to Washington by the British intelligence chief, Richard Dearlove, and the meeting he had with Tenet on July 20, 2002. We already knew from the famous "Downing Street Minutes" published by London's Sunday Times on May 1, 2005 - official minutes taken at a July 23, 2002, meeting of Blair's top advisers - that Dearlove brought back word from Washington that Bush had decided to remove Saddam Hussein by force, and that the war would be "justified" by cooking up intelligence regarding weapons of mass destruction and warning that Iraq might give them to terrorists like the ones responsible for 9/11. While Tenet's name sat atop the list of usual suspects, we did not know for sure that it was he who provided this reassurance to the British, until one of Risen's CIA sources, who took part in the discussions with Dearlove, filled in that particular gap.
Risen's revelations add weight to the "Downing Street Minutes." These remain a pearl of great price, since they provide the smoking gun - documentary evidence that President George W. Bush, with Blair's acquiescence, had decided by mid-2002 to effect "regime change" by force on false pretenses. The minutes of the July 23 meeting leave no doubt that the president had decided to attack Iraq, even while saying in public that war would come only as a "last resort."
Dearlove is quoted as saying that Bush wanted to remove Saddam through military action "justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy [emphasis added]." But I have often wondered, why did Dearlove begin that sentence with the conjunction "But?"
Pregnant Conjunctions
Reference to the "conjunction" of terrorism and WMD is transparent. By the time the Downing Street minutes hit the front page of the Sunday Times, it had long since been clear that, for whatever reason, Blair had bought into Bush's plan to invade Iraq; that the plan included conjuring up the specter of a "mushroom cloud" to deceive Congress and Parliament into approving war; and that this would be achieved by pretending that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and might give them to terrorists. That "conjunction" is clear.
But what about the "But?" The answer to that becomes clearer elsewhere in the minutes, which quote Foreign Secretary Jack Straw daring to warn that the case was "thin." According to the minutes, Straw said that:
It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.
It was presumably at this point that Dearlove countered, "But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." Sadly, as is now well known, in the summer and fall of 2002 that is precisely what was done, with the full cooperation of American and British intelligence and invaluable help from the likes of the archdeacon of con-men, Ahmed Chalabi, and his stenographer, Judith Miller of the New York Times.
Marginalization of the Bureaucracy
Risen's revelations in State of War throw further light on the marginalization of Foreign Secretary Jack Straw and his US colleague, then-Secretary of State Colin Powell - and the institutions they headed - in the months leading up to the attack on Iraq. That they both had serious doubts about the justification for - indeed, the sanity of - launching war was clear even then to close observers.
Powell's misgivings became still more obvious in a book by BBC broadcaster James Naughtie published a year and a half ago. Naughtie quoted Powell describing the neo-conservatives in control of policy toward Iraq as "f___ing crazies." (At a reporter's suggestion that Powell use this sobriquet as a title for his memoirs, the then-secretary of state laughed uncontrollably.)
"Crazies" (with or without the preceding adjective) is an epithet in use for over 20 years to refer to Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, and other ideologues of the extreme right, at a time when they were deliberately restricted to mid-level positions in the Reagan and Bush administrations so they could not cause major trouble. The words escaped Powell's mouth during a telephone conversation with his counterpart Jack Straw during the run-up to the war, according to Naughtie.
Who Else Heard Powell's Colorful Language?
Powell's ideologue colleagues, of course, were only too well aware that the disdain was mutual - and they could not have been unaware of the moniker "crazies." Now that we know the extent of NSA's warrantless monitoring of US citizens, however, it seems altogether likely that conversations between Powell and Straw were among those intercepted - apparently unbeknownst to Powell, who insists he was told nothing of the widened tasks assigned to NSA by the president.
Although arch-ideologue and now US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton was then nominally subordinate to Powell while working at State, he was clearly Powell's ideological "minder." Bolton's requests (revealed at his confirmation hearings) for certain transcripts of NSA intercepts suggest he wanted to be able to bring hard copy to his neo-conservative colleagues in the White House to provide documentary proof of Powell's treachery. Small wonder that the administration refused to provide copies of the NSA documents Bolton requested to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, even though that eventually meant the Senate would not confirm Bolton as Ambassador to the UN and that he would have to be given an interim appointment.
And small wonder that Powell's contract was not renewed.
Risen to the Occasion
Risen's book throws intriguing light on the intrigue. We know from other leaked British official documents that Jack Straw was something of a thorn in the side of Blair's more war-prone advisers, and was regarded as a general nuisance for raising picayune matters like whether the war might violate international law. Here is an excerpt from a memo he wrote to Blair on March 25, 2002, before Blair visited Bush at Crawford and came home committed to support war:
There has been no credible evidence to link Iraq with UBL [Usama Bin Laden] and Al Qaida. Objectively, the threat from Iraq has not worsened as a result of 11 September.... regime change per se is no justification for military action ... A legal justification is a necessary but far from sufficient precondition for military action. We have also to answer the big question - what will this action achieve? There seems to be a larger hole in this than in anything.... Iraq has had NO [emphasis in original] history of democracy so no one has this habit or experience.
Straw and Powell just would not "get with the program." Small wonder that Blair and Bush decided to circumvent their chief foreign policy advisers and resort to more unquestioning loyalists like their intelligence chiefs.
Risen makes very clear is that Blair felt an urgent need for some kind of high-level, independent confirmation of what he was hearing on the telephone directly from Bush, and that both Straw and Powell were seen as flies in the ointment. CIA director Tenet, on the other hand, was very close to and loyal to the president. Better still, he enjoyed daily access to the president, had a perfect record for telling him what he wanted to hear, and knew the president's mind on Iraq. And the latter is what Blair wanted to know.
That explains Blair's urgent insistence that Dearlove sound out Tenet, in order to increase Blair's comfort level before he let himself get even more deeply involved in the Iraq adventure. And the garrulous Greek from Queens did not disappoint.
From the minutes recording Dearlove's July 23, 2002, report to Blair and his top twelve advisers, as well as from Risen's additional revelations, it is clear that "slam-dunk" Tenet gave the needed reassurances to Dearlove, with whom he spoke one-on-one for an hour and a half on July 20, 2002. The message was this: Blair need not worry. Nor need he pay any heed to naysayers or foot draggers like Straw and Powell. President Bush had decided for war, and the intelligence would be "fixed" to support that policy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in Washington, DC. He is on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, and has a chapter "Sham Dunk: Cooking Intelligence for the President" in Neo-CONNED Again!
(10) Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
(11) Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;
...
Your editing probably reveals how you arrive at your conclusions in general in this thread.
