The US, UN & Iraq III

Joe - Okay, I just skimmed his citations, and none suggests in any way that I can see that the administration lied about WMDs. Can you cite the phrase, sentence, paragraph or whatever that you believe states this?

Or are you making a leap from "they were wrong" to "they lied" and then complaining that I refuse to follow?

We're waiting .

While you wait ...

Your Rights: Use 'Em or Lose 'Em

By Rachel Neumann, AlterNet
May 30, 2003

When I was growing up, there was a popular bumper sticker, seen mostly on the back of old VW vans that said: "What if there was a war and nobody came?"

I am reminded of that bumper sticker now, in light of this administration's unprecedented attack on civil liberties. What if our basic rights were taken away and no one noticed? What if our system of checks and balances was destroyed and everyone remained convinced it was happening to someone else?

Under current legislation, if you are "suspected" of terrorist activity, you can be picked up and held indefinitely, without charges and without access to a lawyer. If your loved ones call to find out where you are or if you are okay, they will be told nothing. After all, to disclose your whereabouts would infringe on your right to privacy. Don't bother clutching your passport to your chest; this law applies to all U.S. citizens.

And, if currently proposed legislation - PATRIOT Act II - passes, you may no longer even be a citizen. Under PATRIOT II, if you attend a legal protest sponsored by an organization the government has listed as "terrorist," you may be deported and your citizenship revoked. This is true even if you are only suspected of terrorist activity and nothing has been proven. More specifically, according to FindLaw's Anita Ramasastry, a U.S. citizen may be expatriated "if, with the intent to relinquish his nationality, he becomes a member of, or provides material support to, a group that the United Stated has designated as a 'terrorist organization.'"


http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16014

checking the times beween post leads me to the conclusion that Scrat is not interested in truth, just arguing

Scrat. You are parsing words. On the administrations justification for war with Iraq, they said Saddam had tons of WMD's; whether they were wrong or lied still resulted in thousands dead and billions spent on this war. If they were "wrong," tell that to the dead and their families. c.i.

Has the U.S. (or any other government for that matter) EVER entered a war in which the government fully disclosed its intentions before the conflict and for which the great majority of the people were united and in agreement??? The short answer is no.

Certainly not the RRevolutionary war- too many Tories.

Not the Mexican War - did Americans fully grasp the purpose behind our transport of an Army by sea to Vera Cruz to retrace Cortez' path to Mexico? The conflict in Texas was in the popular mind and Fremont was already at work in California, but did the popular understanding grasp the seizure of Arizona and New Mexico as well ?

Not the Civil War. It took three years of bloody fighting and a particularly bloody victory at Sharpesville (Anteitum) for Lincoln to acknowledge that the real issue was and always had been (properly) the abolition of slavery. This was proceeded by his numerous affirmations that the ONLY war aim was the preservation of the uunion

Not WWI, "The war to end wars". Wilson duped the public about his clear intent to enter the war, campaigning on a slogan of"He kept us out of war", all the while knowing the opposite was his intent. Then he duped the credulous populations of both America and central and southern Europe with his 14 points, most of which were promptly abandoned at Versailles. He, in turn was duped by Clemenceau and lloyd George who set the stage for WWII.

Not WWII - we know now that Roosevelt was planning our entry into that war while he was campaigning on a neutrality platform in 1940. We had an undeclared naval war going on with Germany for over a year prior to Pearl Harbor, we even lost a couple of destroyers in engagements with the Germans in 1940. Some still argue that Roosevelt knew about Japan's intent to attack Pearl Harbor.

We may have stumbled into the Korean war in part because of a careless declaration by the Truman administration that Korea was not part of our vital interests in Asia. Vietnam is well known and doesn't bear repeating except to note that by 1963 we were deep into the conflict and the the manipulation of the government in the South, and no comprehensive description of our war aims had been given to the American people.

Similar stories could be told about the entries of other democracies into their wars during the last two centuries. Britain & France in the Crimea; the French intervention in Mexico; Britain in the Boer War, and so on.

By what realistic standard does Setanta declare that this administration has failed to live up to historical norms in its conduct of the Iraqi intervention? How does he KNOW that, "the people of this nation supported ... this war based on two and only two significant contentions...". How does he KNOW what were the real motivations of the principal figures in the administration? Can he read into men's souls??

I don't mean to suggest there was no duplicity on the part of the administration in this affair. Rather that it has been at least as good as others in similar situations, and that most of its critics, Setanta here included, don't themselves come close to the standard they apply to others.

I'd say it's far more indicative of the fact that the truth, as he sees it, is not the same as how you see it.

I also posit that commenst such as yours are counterproductive and seeki to define truth through your eyes.

If he doesn't capitulate to your opinion it does not mean he doesn't seek the truth.

simply that he disagrees with you.

I disagree with him all the time. Such is life. Why waste time checking the timing of his posts to try to ascribe some bad characteristic to him? That's just petty.

george, Past historical lies are still lies. They are not justified to win the approval of the American people - yesterday, today, or tomorrow. c.i.

cicerone,

True enough. However, if one is advocating a standard of disclosure and candor that has almost never been met in human history, it is, at best, disingenuous to fail to acknowledge that.

It seems only reasonable to expect those who so blithely pass sweeping judgements about the inner motives and intent of political figures to have some knowledge and understanding of both the relevant comparative facts of history, and some recognition of the limits of their ability to truly know the truths behind their allegations.

CI - If your doctor suggests a medication because he thinks it will help you, but instead it kills you, did he lie?

It's fine with me if you see no difference, but I do. There are those who argue that since Vince Foster worked with Clinton and died under strange circumstances you must conclude that foul play was involved. I am not among them, because I do not tend to make that kind of unproven, unsupported leap; the kind that bias-driven people make.

That's the kind of leap you make when you argue that if they were wrong it is the same thing as lying; and while you and others here are welcome to set your standards for proof, knowledge and discourse as low as you choose, I will likewise set mine as I see fit.

If the intelligence turns out to be wrong, you are welcome to argue that the war was unjustified, welcome to argue that they are buffoons, but I do not think you have justification based solely on what you have shown to argue that they knew otherwise and intentionally misled the public regarding WMDs. If anyone has evidence to support that theory, I'm pretty sure you know how to copy and paste. Otherwise, don't expect me to suddenly claim to believe what you have failed to demonstrate is true.

You've been saying this for a while about a certain member.

Is not the same true of the attempts to state in stark terms what Saddam's intent was? And how other nations are evil and such? You seem, to me, to be applying this VERY selectively.

Read: if someone questions America's motives you say they can't possibly know while I suspect you do not have a problem with other nation's in the "axis of evil" having their intention stated in absolute terms.

Thus far I have seen, on these boards and in this thread too, intention stated in absolute terms about:

France (that it's commercial interests that drove their opposition to war say the mind readers)
Iraq (that Saddam had ever intention of producing WMDs and using them against the US).

I could go on forever but it really seems to me that your only qualm with ascribing intent thus far is that ill intent was ascribed to people you admire.

Correction:

Not "your only qualm" but rather "your most qualmy qualm" :-)

I mean that you ahve a valid point but seem to apply it selectively.

This administration has built a house of cards - it is falling down. The inability to see the "emporer wears no clothes" is not a fault of those that see it and report it - but the logic here is of making the seeing at fault seems a bit odd! Then to turn around and say - well everyone does it, I don't allow this logic from my children either.

George, we do not agree usually, but in many of these examples you have presented, i might not accept all the detail you would present, but i would not quibble on the basic issue of the honesty of those to whom you refer. This does not lead me to the same conclusions as you seem to have reached. As for this:



. . . you probably ought not to pass such judgments on me, absent a specific knowledge of whether or not i can, and whether or not i have applied an historical perspective to this consideration of contemporary events. I have never speculated on motive, without either in the post in question, or in several previous posts, presented my thoughts as just that speculation. The specific post to which you refer is the one in which i have said that Bush and Company presented two reasons, and two reasons only to justify this pre-emptive war, and i'll stick with that statement. Any reference of mine to their probable motives, in which i do not frame this as spectulation, is a product of having speculated on that head so often in these fora to have felt it was unnecessary to reiterate that character for my remarks. If i have unintentionally mislead you, you have my apologies, but no admission that i've been disingenuous with you. I happen to respect you as one of the conservative members here in whose honesty i have confidence. I am convinced that you believe what you say, and absent evidence to the contrary, will continue to believe that. I would appreciate the courtesy on your part to assume that i'm being honest with you.

The conclusion i draw from the lessons of the history of our nation at war is that Presidents who dissemble in these matters get busted for it in the media, and very often, subsequently at the polls. The deceit, or putative deceit of past Presidents does not excuse the current office-holder, nor will i consider it an exculpation of any future occupant of that office. So, in a separate post, i'll tell you in detail what i know to be the history of war and the Presidency.

george and Scrat, If any government goes to war without having solid proof of what they claim as their justification for war, it's no better than a lie. Being wrong in making such an important decision to put people into war which kills thousands of innocent lives and spending billions may be justified in your eys, but it's not in mine. Ooops, we made a mistake, is not an option. It would have been much better not to start this war, let the UN Inspectors do their jobs to find any WMD's if any existed, and keep Saddam in check. We would have prevented thousands of deaths and billions spent on a gamble. Intelligence, thus far, is an oxymoron. Even if they find anything, it won't bring back the dead, nor the billions spent that could have been used more wisely. FYI, I was always against this war with Iraq. As for my doctor prescribing medication, I always have it checked with my brother, wife, newphew and/or niece - all physicians, except my wife is a RN. Where's your logic? As for Foster, I never came to the conclusion you state; why attach such rediculous conclusions on somebody you don't even know? That says more about you than it does about me. c.i.

I understand the you feel that way.

a
Craven, excuse me, I make an obsevation and state an opinion based on that observation then you call me petty and accuse me of bullying people into acceptng my point of view?
Could you substantiate your allegations please?

Craven, Interesting points.

However I didn't ever claim to know Saddam's intent. I did say that he had demonstrated a certain ruthlessness in starting wars of conquest with his two neighbors and in brutally suppressing uprisings within his borders by both Kurds and Shiites. I added that if the embargo was to end his potential for mischief would be much increased by the oil billions that would then become available to him, and that this was a plausible cause for grave concern on our part. I believe that is an entirely reasonable view.

I don't suggest that those who are certain that the intent of our political leaders is wrong and immoral are themselves in the grip of wrong intent. I merely point out that (1) they cannot be certain of that which they insist is certainly true, and (2) that their sweeping judgements do not stand up to an analysis of comparative events in history.

I don't presume to know what are the aims of the leaders of France and other nations that have opposed us. I do note that spokesmen for the French government have repeatedly expressed their intent to recreate a multipolar world to limit the otherwise unfettered power of the United States. I note that their actions have been generally consistent with that precept, and that their success in this endeavor is not in the interests of the United States.

We are, all of us, in this much like the blind men trying to figure out if what is before us is an elephant or a giraffe. The available evidence points in certain directions but it is inconclusive. Knowledge of animal anatomy is very useful in guiding our judgements. Those who loudly proclaim they know the answer with certainty should be tested for their knowledge and understanding. We should not stop examining the evidence before us and should beware of hasty prejudgements.

I do believe that the weight of the evidence suggests that the Bush administration is pursuing a strategic course that will give us good prospects for dealing effectively with the tangle of serious security issues before us. I have not yet seen a better alternative put forward. (History sadly does not reveal its alternatives to us.) I don't see much that is useful in the shrill denunciations we have seen here of late. Worse for ATK they tend to kill the dialogue.

Deep breaths, everybody.

Paul Wolfowitz explains why the US went to war with Iraq: http://able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=8017&start=30
It sounds like a PR job more than truth and ethics. c.i.