October 08, 2004
The Last Word
Printable Version | [eMail this article!] |It's all over the news - The Iraq Survey Group (a CIA operation) has issued its final report on WMD presence and capability. You can access the Key Findings section at FindLaw pdf report link or the UTJ report link. FindLaw also has links to the three volumes of the full report. This report is over 1,000 pages total. I would urge folks to download the report. I have downloaded the full report, but am storing it offline because it takes up almost a third of my website disk space - yes it is that big. The findings, as I'm sure you have heard is that there were no WMD; no plans for WMD; no capability for WMD. In other words, no imminent threat and no reason to invade Iraq. Of course Bush is still defending the war and the removal of Hussein.
OK, I have been building up for a rant on this for a long time - this is the rant.
If I hear one more time that "The world is better off without Saddam Hussein in Power" I do believe I will S C R E A M. That is a totally specious comment and totally off the issue. The world would be "better off" with a number of people "no longer in power." The US did not invade and remove them.
Let's visit a little history shall we? The Bush administration case to the world and to the US public was that Iraq was an imminent threat that could strike us directly or through terrorists at will. We were told the administration have undeniable proof of Hussein's possession of WMD - including the threat of nuclear attack ("the next smoking gun may be a mushroom cloud'). We were told that he had nuclear, chemical and biological warfare capability - this was part of the State of the Union address by Bush himself, and endlessly parroted by administration representatives. In other words, according to Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Powell, Wolfowitz ad nauseum, the was not ONE doubt that Hussein had the capability and the means to strike the US. (While I never believed this line, many in the US did - enough that the administration could move ahead with their plans.)
Bush claims he acted with the will of the United Nations and the international community. He did not. The evidence presented by Colin Powell to the UN did not convince them that Hussein was an immediate threat. They did not see the evidence as conclusive. Rather than face a veto by the UN Security Council, the US withdrew the petition from the table and invaded without UN support.
The US was not given authority by the UN to enforce Resolution 1451 by invading Iraq. In fact, it was the consensus that Hussein was largely cooperating with weapons inspectors. Meanwhile, the Bush Administration was demeaning those same inspectors. When the US went into Iraq and could not go directly to these WMD that they knew the exact location of, we were told that the search would take time - time that the US was not willing to give the UN inspectors. In fact, when the chief US weapons inspector David Kaye gave his report to Congress in January 2004, the Bush administration downplayed the whole issue and said they needed "more time" to complete their search. (David Kaye resigned his post as head of the Iraq Survey Group, and said that he had found virtually nothing to support the administration's claims of Iraqi threat (Chief US inspector admits Iraq had no WMD stockpiles).
Well they have had "more time" and what has been shown is that there was no there there.
So now we hear that we have "liberated" the people of Iraq. Well, not exactly as they are under a US occupation which does not exactly make them "free."
We are told the Iraqi people are "better off" without Hussein in power. Possibly, but I imagine that depends on how you define "better off."
We are told that we (the US) are safer because Saddam Hussein is no longer in power. That too is debatable since it is clear that he represented no threat to the US. Further, we have created a anti-US magnet in Iraq (much like Afghanistan), and the violence is spilling over all around (Egypt, Pakistan, India, Spain, Indonesia ...). And, as we are constantly reminded there are imminent threats to the US (or is that just fear tactics). In fact, today (10/07/04) the U.S. alerted schools and colleges of a possible terrorist threat.
It is a campaign season, and I have heard numerous times that if Kerry had been President, Saddam Hussein would still be in power. This claim calls on a belief in all the other bull crap above. If Bush had not rushed into the war, and had let the UN inspectors do the job that he turned over to the Iraq Survey Group, they would have found the same thing without all the death and destruction.
In the last Presidential debate, Bush said that Kerry had seen the same reports that he had seen in deciding on the threat presented by Iraq. Well now there is a telling statement since it is already been made pretty clear that the intelligence was "spun" and "cherry picked" to support the case the administration wanted to make. All that such a comment implies is "Nanner, Nanner, Nanner! We fooled you!"
So let's get real shall we?
1. There was no evidence that was credible. The claims by the administration that they had incontrovertible proof of the threat Hussein posed was an outright lie. Like other things, they "believed," and this is an administration where the very word "belief" connotes religious belief - which needs no earthly evidence. So their "belief" required no further "evidence." It was just "fact."
2. There was no approval on any level from the UN for the action the US took. The US was not acting at the behest of the UN or the "global community." The "coalition" was never a power coalition. For example, Morocco's contribution was 2,000 monkeys to set lose in mine fields. Further, it has been evaporating. That coalition has been scattering since April with the withdrawal of Spain which took the powerhouse group of Dominican Republic, Honduras, El Salvador and Nicaragua with them. Britain is drawing down its forces, and arch ally Poland is pulling its troops home.
3. Iraq is not a nation at peace and gaining stability. The "insurgents" are increasingly Iraqi's citizens resisting what has become an increasingly deadly occupation and it is only now that the Pentagon Sets Steps to Retake Iraq Rebel Sites. Further, a national vote that excludes broad swaths of the population is not a democracy.
I truly wish that folks would wake up and realize that claims about "Hussein would still be in power" are based on a trembling foundation of misdirections, distortions, and shifting justifications. Unfortunately, people (and the corporate media) seem content to accept the validity of this claim.
Well, now I have ranted, and I wish I felt commensurately better for it.
Posted by rowan at October 8, 2004 09:17 PM | TrackBack | Printable Version | [eMail this article!] |??
Why all this business about UN inspections then? why the uproar about them being kicked out of Iraq? Why all the money spent on enforcing the no-fly zones for 10 years or so? And what really was going on with the UN oil for food program that appears to be a major scandal? Are there any connections here? Why did Bill Clinton, on Larry King Live about a year ago or so say, " We knew he (saddam) had them (WMD) in 98'" Why have a number of Dems and Repubs in the past 4-5 years made statements that saddam had or was seeking WMD? If Bush is so powerful, why didn't he stall the release of this report? Why did Congress authorize the use of force in Iraq? Why doesn't Congress stop the funding of the war? The hue and cry goes up, so why not just vote to end it?
Tongue clucking and chest thumping, well put up or shut up - cancel the check, Congress! If this is the biggest disaster to ever hit the planet, cut off the funding - it can be done. Why the worry about all the money being spent there? Would you keep going to a cafe and spending your hard earned money there if the food was rotten, the place was dirty and the waitress rude and unkempt? 800+ killed in action so far, so Congress, just end it. Kerry says he will pull the troops out but also suggests the job will be finished with help. Why wait? Does the world really need Iraqi oil? In light of a newspaper I just read reporting 50 some thousand christians and muslims killed in Nigeria over the past few years, and God knows how many Africans have been killed in Sudan the past few years, why worry about the Kurds, Shias and Sunnis killing each other after a fast exit of US and British forces? US forces made it to Baghdad in a couple of weeks during the invasion, with some heavy fighting, then they sure the hell could exit alot faster. Pack up and go home now then - I don't see a problem here, logistically. If US credibility was destroyed because of the invasion and occupation, then it will be instantly restored with a fast exit, and I mean an immediate drop-what-you-are-doing and head south move here - all men and high tech equipment and weapons packed up and whole convoys headed south to Kuwait in a matter of days. What's the problem with that? It is put up or shut up time, folks - no cake and frosting here.
The House just voted 400+ to 2 not to have a draft - what do you think the vote would really be to cut off the funding for the war? I got a hundred bucks says a vote to stop the funding would have about the same count as the draft vote - overwhelmingly NOT to cut off the money.
Posted by: goesh at October 8, 2004 05:12 AMWhy not indeed ! The "draft" was a hoax by the admission of Charlie Rangel, he was trying to make a point, and point I would agree with.
I also think you completely miss Rowan's point, but I am tired, don't feel well and will leave it at that.
Spookery At Its Finest:
Ann Bardach did an interview with the old Spook E. Howard Hunt - and over at MSN Slate is a synopsis of it, with commentary by some of the wags and serious contributors.
The interview is telling in many respects, namely in the frank manner which the old spy master relates his deeds of service. One may want to highlight the word "service" and ask a number of questions pertaining to all that unfolded via his hands, but anyway, he is near death and has nothing to risk by disclosing some of the cloak and dagger events that have transpired. It is worth reading.
The average Wal-Mart American may not want to really know what is done in the name of national security and national interests - there is much blood and the flow of it is equally dispersed on the hands of our Administrations over the years. We want security and we want to play by the rules - we want to be liked, to be the nice girl and guy. No, the average shop-til'-you-drop American cannot be comfortable with so much power vested in the hands of so few Spooks, but that is the case. How do you really regulate them when they can knife someone in the name of National Security, no questions asked?
Cut their money and sure enough, something bad happens and they throw it back in your face. Open up a Hearing and secrets can get divulged.
And this leads me back to the original post here - no WMD, failed intelligence, faulty intelligence. Or are we looking at something deeper and darker and even more nefarious here? Do we all get 'played' by a small community of intelligence agents? And I'm not trying to take the heat off Bush here either. I have known an operative in my time, a mid-level guy not calling all the shots, but in the know and in the thick of it so to speak. He told me that intelligence managers meet all the time with the 'enemy' to talk shop. One really wonders.........
Posted by: goesh at October 8, 2004 06:23 AMand speaking of withdrawals -
I seem to be monopolizing here, though nothing is stopping people from contributing, and Betty my wife is telling me I spend too much time on the PC, so I am backing off
Rangle's point helped Bush then - he shouldn't be wasting congressional time in this manner - just think of the money it cost and how it could have been spent on starving kids or missiles -
No, there will be no draft, Bill, but if Bush is elected old squids and jarheads are going to be recalled - pack your sea-bag, buddy........
Posted by: goesh at October 8, 2004 06:36 AMWhat about the 1998 explusion of the weapons inspectors? They evacuated after being warned that the US was going to attack Iraq (1998). Saddam Hussein did not expel them. See Why U.N. inspectors left Iraq--then and now, FAIR, 10/2002.
From FAIR:"The chief U.N. weapons inspector ordered his monitors to leave Baghdad today after saying that Iraq had once again reneged on its promise to cooperate--a report that renewed the threat of U.S. and British airstrikes."
AND (emphasis mine)
"But the most recent irritant was Mr. Butler's quick withdrawal from Iraq on Wednesday of all his inspectors and those of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which monitors Iraqi nuclear programs, without Security Council permission. Mr. Butler acted after a telephone call from Peter Burleigh, the American representative to the United Nations, and a discussion with Secretary General Kofi Annan, who had also spoken to Mr. Burleigh."
And the "No Fly Zones" were not sanctioned by the UN. See Iraqi no-fly zones (Wikipedia) or No-fly zones: The legal position (BBC 2/19/01)
From the BBC:" However, unlike the military campaign to expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait, the no-fly zones were not authorised by the UN and they are not specifically sanctioned by any Security Council resolution."
I pulled this source page together in the run up to invading Iraq - Lies and Truth - Leading Up to War on Iraq
Posted by: rowan at October 8, 2004 06:56 AMGoesh, I don't understand your long, undulating arguments above. The report said NO WMD's. It's as simple as that. Congresses authorization, and this is easily verified on the any number of websites, was merely to give the PRESIDENT the authority to employ force if he felt it was necessary--and this was passed in the wake of 9/11, with the implied idea that power would only be used to prevent another attack. I imagine there is more than one congressman that in hindsight regrets that order.
Congress doesn't stop funding the war because a huge mess has been wrought on the people of Iraq (as well as the people of the US), and it just might serve everyone if we clean it up before just unilaterally pulling up and bailing out. That kind of move should not be advocated while circumstances that exist there now remain. We couldn't do a bigger disservice to the people of Iraq and the US than leaving them in the disaster they are currently mired in. So much for the cheers and flowers.
Nigeria, Sudan, etc. are separate issues, worthy of discussion but off-topic.
And I don't for a minute believe this whole Iraqi charade is the result of "failed" or "faulty" intelligence. How convenient that intelligence turned out to be for the GOP agenda. Any conclusions reached via intelligence from an operative is, from what I understand from a friend in the FBI, is meticulously checked, cross-checked, and verified ad nauseum if a move like war is to be considered. This is not to say that mistakes aren't made, but people knew, long before the war, that Powell went to the UN with flawed data.
Our money gets wasted in myriad ways that are more useless than making a point about war and the draft. I'm comfortable with Rangle's decision.
Here's a list worth keeping track of - 10/08/04 Counterpunch, Weapons of Mass Destruction: Who Said What When
Posted by: rowan at October 9, 2004 12:03 AM