Rachel Maddow Clings to Baathist Party Line That 'Saddam Wasn't Pursuing' WMD
Not to worry, Baghdad Bob, MSNBC's got your back.
Criticizing former president George W. Bush's newly released memoir, "Decision Points," Maddow said this on her cable show Monday night (video below page break) --
In his new book, Mr. Bush says "removing Saddam from power was the right decision." Why was it the right decision? Mr. Bush says, "for all the difficulties that followed, America is safer without a homicidal dictator pursuing WMD." (Maddow repeats this for emphasis) A homicidal dictator pursuing weapons of mass destruction. Saddam Hussein was not pursuing weapons of mass destruction. Do we really still have to go over this? As David Corn and Michael Isikoff pointed out today, authors of the book "Hubris" about the leadup to the war, Mr. Bush himself appointed Charles Duelfer and the Iraq Study Group to study this issue once and for all and settle it. They reported six years ago in 2004 that Saddam not only did not have those weapons, he did not have programs to make those weapons, he did not have anyone working on making those weapons. Saddam wasn't pursuing WMDs and we invaded anyway. It is proven, it is empirically known, it is settled, it's in black and white, it's true!
As can be seen at 0:38 in the video, an excerpt from the Duelfer report was shown while Maddow stated the remarks above, the excerpt shown as a breakout quote. The excerpt read as follows --
The former Regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions. Neither was there an identifiable group of WMD policy makers or planners separate from Saddam.
Here is the same paragraph -- in its entirety -- from the report's key findings in the section titled "Regime Strategic Intent" --
The former Regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions. Neither was there an identifiable group of WMD policy makers or planners separate from Saddam. Instead, his lieutenants understood WMD revival was his goal from their long association with Saddam and his infrequent, but firm, verbal comments and directions to them. (emphasis added)
At risk of stating the obvious, Saddam could never have reached "his goal" without, uh, "pursuing" it.
That Maddow cited so little of the Duelfer report comes as no surprise, given that so much of it contradicts her Woodstock-nation delusions. More excerpts (with emphasis added) --
Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq's WMD capability -- which was essentially destroyed in 1991 -- after sanctions were removed and Iraq's economy stabilized, but probably with a different mix of capabilities to that which previously existed. Saddam aspired to develop a nuclear capability -- in an incremental fashion, irrespective of international pressure and the resulting economic risks -- but he intended to focus on ballistic missile and tactical chemical warfare (CW) capabilities. (key findings, "Regime Strategic Intent")
Iraq Survey Group (ISG) judges that events in the 1980s and early 1990s shaped Saddam's belief in the value of WMD. In Saddam's view, WMD helped to save the Regime multiple times. He believed that during the Iran-Iraq war chemical weapons had halted Iranian ground offensives and that ballistic missile attacks on Tehran had broken its political will. Similarly, during Desert Storm, Saddam believed WMD had deterred Coalition Forces from pressing their attack beyond the goal of freeing Kuwait. WMD had even played a role in crushing the Shi'a revolt in the south following the 1991 cease-fire. (key findings, "Regime Strategic Intent")
Throughout the 1990s and up to OIF (March 2003), Saddam focused on one set of objectives: the survival of himself, his Regime, and his legacy. To secure these objectives, Saddam needed to exploit Iraqi oil assets, to portray a strong military capability to deter internal and external threats, and to foster his image as as Arab leader. Saddam recognized that the reconstitution of Iraqi WMD enhanced both his security and his image. Consequently, Saddam needed to end UN-imposed sanctions to fulfill his goals. (key findings, "Regime Finance and Procurement")
Iraq's decisions in 1996 to accept the Oil-For-Food program (OFF) and later in 1998 to cease cooperation with UNSCOM and IAEA spurred a period of increased activity in delivery systems development. The pace of ongoing missile programs accelerated, and the Regime authorized its scientists to design missiles with ranges in excess of 150 km that, if developed, would have been clear violations of UNSCR 687. (key findings, "Delivery Systems")
ISG uncovered Iraqi plans or designs for three long-range ballistic missiles with ranges from 400 to 1,000 km and for a 1,000-km-range cruise missile, although none of these systems progressed to production and only one reportedly passed the design phase. ISG assesses that these plans demonstrate Saddam's continuing desire -- up to the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) -- for a long-range delivery capability. (key findings, "Delivery Systems")
Given Iraq's investments in technology and infrastructure improvements, an effective procurement network, skilled scientists, and designs already on the books for longer range missiles, ISG assesses that Saddam clearly intended to reconstitute long-range delivery systems and that the systems potentially were for WMD. (key findings, "Delivery Systems")
ISG uncovered information that the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) maintained throughout 1991 to 2003 a set of undeclared covert laboratories to research and test various chemicals and poisons, primarily for intelligence operations. (key findings, "Chemical")
Iraq attempted to balance competing desires to appear to cooperate with the UN and have sanctions lifted, and to preserve the ability to eventually reconstitute its weapons of mass destruction. ("Cooperating with UNSCOM While Preserving WMD")
The Regime made a token effort to comply with the disarmament process, but the Iraqis never intended to meet the spirit of the UNSC's resolutions. Outward acts of compliance belied a covert desire to resume WMD activities. Several senior officials also either inferred or heard Saddam say that he reserved the right to resume WMD research after sanctions. ("Looking Ahead to Resume WMD programs")
The quick end to Saddam's Regime brought a similarly rapid end to its pursuit of sanctions relief, a goal it had been palpably close to achieving. ("Miscalculation, 2002-2003")
A former IIS officer claimed that the M16 directorate had a plan to produce and weaponize nitrogen mustard in rifle grenades, and a plan to bottle Sarin and sulfur mustard in perfume sprayers and medicine bottles which they could ship to the United States and Europe. The source claimed they could not implement the plan because chemicals to produce the CW agents were unavailable. ("Iraq's Chemical Warfare Program -- Annex A")
Efforts leading to the Duelfer report's findings took place in exceedingly difficult circumstances -- a country engulfed in violent conflict. "In fact, combined with the chaos of the war and the widespread looting in the immediate aftermath of the conflict," according to report's Scope Note, "it resulted in the loss of a great amount of potentially valuable information and material for constructing a full picture of Iraqi WMD capabilities. Sites were looted. Documents were either ignored or collected haphazardly or burned by either the Regime or Coalition forces."
Conditions in Iraq were so dangerous that two soldiers on the study group team, Sgt. Sherwood R. Baker and Sgt. Lawrence A. Rourkey, were killed on April 26, 2004 when an explosion destroyed a facility being inspected. "ISG teams have been shot at many times with some serious injuries," according to the report's Scope Notes. "Many armored cars have been destroyed in attacks."
Furthermore, in an 84-page addenda released in March 2005, the Iraqi Study Group stated that while "it was unlikely that an official transfer of WMD material from Iraq to Syria took place," the ISG "was unable to rule out the unofficial movement of WMD-related materials."
The Duelfer report also does not settle "once and for all" the controversy over Iraqi WMD, as Maddow claimed. "This will not be the last word on the Iraqi experience with WMD," the reports states in its Acknowledgements.
As she does every time Maddow criticizes Bush's decision to oust Saddam by force, she doesn't say what should have been done instead.
Would Maddow prefer that Saddam were still in control of a totalitarian regime in the most volatile region of the world, with not one but two sons to succeed him?
Would Maddow prefer that UN sanctions against Iraq were still in place, the ones that critics alleged were killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children every year, and which ended after the US-led invasion?
Would Maddow prefer that American soldiers were still stationed en masse in Saudi Arabia, because of the ongoing threat posed by Saddam after Iraq was expelled from Kuwait? A decade ago, infidel troops in the land of Muhammad was al Qaeda's single biggest grievance against the West. Just as UN sanctions against Iraq ended after Saddam was toppled, so did the US military presence on the Saudi peninsula.
In other words, would Maddow prefer circumstances as they existed in the Middle East before 9/11 -- that led to the attack?
- Jack Coleman's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Hey Mad COW
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Thu, 11/11/2010 - 9:41pm.
The world thought he did have WMD so shut your pie hole. And the empirical evidence of that would be the lack of fecal odors in the air.
yep
Submitted by donabernathy on Thu, 11/11/2010 - 9:49pm.
Booooooosh did it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cwqh4wQPoQk
roflmao
I would post a link....
Submitted by NeoKong on Thu, 11/11/2010 - 10:09pm.
But we have all seen it so many times.
The YouTube video of every single Democrat in leadership today bemoaning Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass distraction.
Saddam himself was a weapon of mass destruction. There is a reason no one watches her show. It sucks.
Authority
Submitted by KC Mulville on Thu, 11/11/2010 - 11:02pm.
If you use Duelfer as the authority, but you skip over his words that undermine your take on the situation, then you're just a flat-out liar.
So, to quote Maddow herself: "It is proven, it is empirically known, it is settled, it's in black and white, it's true!" Maddow is a liar.
Jon Stewart
Submitted by KC Mulville on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 1:40am.
Did you see that Maddow conducted an hour-long interview with Jon Stewart? The bulk of it was a prosecutor-style case against Bush's memoir.
To a comedian.
Who didn't buy her argument.
Hilarious.
Tell Rachel
Submitted by TC Lynch on Thu, 11/11/2010 - 11:11pm.
she should take a gander at the Wikileaks Iraq document dump: http://bit.ly/bu27RY
It might not have been factory-scale operations, but it was an ongoing thing.
That's Maddow for you
Submitted by ProudAmerican58 on Thu, 11/11/2010 - 11:59pm.
Lying through omission. She's been doing it for years. Which is why I know never to believe anything that comes out of her mouth.
Or as one of my favorite NB posters always says: "NEVER EVER TRUST A LIBERAL!"
So <ul>What Was 550 tons</ul> of Uranium For?
Submitted by Avitar on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 3:08am.
This is the problem with Bush being too "classy."
Bush rook 550 tons of uranium out of Iraq and sent it to a Canadian processing company to be turned into reactor fuel. With enrichment the same uranium would have made about 700 nuclear 'devices" (triggers for fusion war heads or fuel for a breeder reactor to produce Plutonium or dirty bomb irridating charges.) There are also things I would not talk about,
If you do not limit WMD ti just nuclear devices Then the six biological agents are plenty scary then the Chemical agents that Iraq's "Chemmical Ali"' just poured from helicopters whould have qualified in Hitler's book as WMDs. And that is the point, Hussain was prepared to do and had done things that Hitler wouldn't do..
The only WMD he really was not working on was Small Pox.
So <ul>What Was 550 tons</ul> of Uranium For?
Submitted by Avitar on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 3:09am.
This is the problem with Bush being too "classy."
Bush took 550 tones of Uranium out of Iraq and sent it to a Canadian processing company to be turned into reactor fuel. With enrichment the same Uranium would have mad about 700 nuclear 'Devices" (triggers for Fusion war heads or fuel for a breeder reactor to produce Plutonium or dirty bomb irridating charges.) There are also things I would not talk about,
If you do not limit WMD ti just nuclear devices Then the six biological agents are plenty scary then the Chemical agents that they just poured from helicopters whould have qualified in Hitler's book as WMDs. And that is the point that Hussain was prepared to do and had done things that Hitler wouldn't do is the whole point.
The only WMD he really was not working on was Small Pox.
So <ul>What Was 550 tons</ul> of Uranium For?
Submitted by Avitar on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 3:19am.
This is the problem with Bush being too "classy."
Bush took 550 tons of uranium out of Iraq and sent it to a Canadian processing company to be turned into reactor fuel. With enrichment the same uranium would have made about 700 nuclear 'Devices" (triggers for Fusion war heads or fuel for a breeder reactor to produce Plutonium or dirty bomb irridating charges.) There are also things I would not talk about,
If you do not limit WMD to just nuclear devices Then Iraq's six biological agents are plenty scary. The chemical agents that Iraq's Chemical Ali just poured from helicopters whould have qualified in Hitler's book as WMDs. The point was that Hussain was prepared to do and had done things that Hitler wouldn't do.
The only WMD he really was not working on was Small Pox.
Damn. Saddam had nukes all along - said Sen Carl Levin
Submitted by Gary Hall on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 3:50am.
Maddow: ...They reported six years ago in 2004 that Saddam not only did not have those weapons, he did not have programs to make those weapons, he did not have anyone working on making those weapons.
Wow, they reported in the year 2004. Even if "they" reported it correctly, and Jack, here, has clearly shown that they did not, can we consider why President Bush, in March of 2003, might have had an entirely different view?
Hey - let's start with Democratic Senator Carl Levin.. you know, the one that sits on the Senate Intelligence Committee. How did he fell about WMD's - how about nukes - in 2005. 2005? Did I skip ahead, instead of going back in time? Yep:
'Hardball with Chris Matthews' Nov. 7, 2005
Senator Carl Levin (D) of Michigan, a member of the Intelligence Committee
- look there was plenty of evidence that Saddam had nuclear weapons, by the way. That is not in dispute. There is plenty of evidence of that.
Damn. (yes, pronounced with 3 or 4 syllables)
And, we know how much they all respect and cower before President Clinton. How did he feel about whether or not Saddam had the damn WMDs and what we should be up to. No.. not before the Iraq invasion by Bush; rather right smack in the summer of 2003, when it was getting pretty ugly over there:
July 22, 2003 Former President Bill Clinton
“Let me tell you what I know. When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for. That is, at the end of the first Gulf War, we knew what he had.”...........
”I think the main thing I want to say to you is, people can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks.... of biological and chemical weapons.”
Yep.. right smack there on Larry King Live. And Larry didn't like it one bit. Neither did the rest of the national main stream media. You know, not a single one of them invited Bill Clinton on their shows after that so that we might all hear that again, and put this insanity aside - this conspiracy by the national media - to promote their hate speech.
Damn.
Oh, and that nice pretty little fella from down south there a bit, Senator John Edwards. The left sure used to love and honor him a good bit. Heck, they even thought they had a friend in Johnny (Johnny with the wandering Jon Jon it turns out). So, how'd he fell about those WMD's?
Russert, Tim - Meet the Press, October 10, 2004, synopsis
Edwards Supports The President On The War In Iraq? Even Russert Is Confused! RUSSERT: “I think what confuses people, Senator, is that there seems to be a difference in rhetoric and emphasis. Back in October of 2002, you voted to authorize the country to go to war. In fact, you said this about Saddam: ‘I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country.’ ‘The most serious and imminent threat to our country.’ And you underscored it by saying this:”
EDWARDS (on video): “I think Iraq and Saddam Hussein present the most serious and most imminent threat.”
RUSSERT: “Most serious and imminent threat. Were you just dead wrong?”
EDWARDS: “No, I think Saddam Hussein was a very serious threat. I stand by that, and that’s why we stand behind our vote on the resolution.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 10/10/04)
Damn
So let's look to someone high up there in the Defense Department. Oh, here's a goodie; Clinton's ole Secretary of Defense. So what did Cohen have to say during the long hot summer of 2003?
“I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out."-- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003
Does President Bush even know he has so many friends? One thing is for sure; the national media had this little conspiracy thing going on - you know, to make sure that the American people did know a damn thing about what the facts were. After all, what's more important to the MSM?
(;~/ gary
"They reported six years ago
Submitted by ckc1227 on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 4:33am.
"They reported six years ago in 2004 that Saddam not only did not have those weapons, he did not have programs to make those weapons, he did not have anyone working on making those weapons. Saddam wasn't pursuing WMDs and we invaded anyway."
So, Bush should have consulted this report released in 2004 before invading in 2003? Gotcha. And they say Bush is the idiot, lol.
gary...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 5:02am.
You are attempting to debunk an argument nobody is making. Yes, it was "thought" by numerous persons of note in both parties and throughout our intelligence community that Saddam had WMDs. Now, the nuclear issue was of paramount importance because it is highly doubtful public opinion could have been galvanized for a pre-emptive invasion over mere evidence of some unaccounted biological and chemical stockpiles. After all, Rumsfeld had courted Saddam long after the latter had used--and was known to have used--chemical weapons against the Iranians and later the Kurds.
The 550 tons of uranium alluded to on this thread was not some recent and startling discovery. That cache had been known about for a decade and had been under the explicit control of the IIAA.
The impetus for invasion--as such related to a convincing case being made to the Ameican citizenry--rested firmly on the twin claims of Al Qaeda-Iraqi 9/11 collaboration and Saddam's potential nuclear capability. You can toss right out the window issues of oil, Bush avenging his dad, Saddam being a really bad guy--gassing the Kurds, torturing his political opponents, paying bounties, shooting at aircraft in no-fly zones, having missiles whose range was just beyond what was allowable. The casi belli in the eyes of a skittish public were Al Qaeda and the Bomb. Nothing more. Nothing less.
And the more the intelligence and investigative pursuit of those two issues developed, the less certain it became that either constituted the basis of an extant, viable threat. The inspectors, despite some early unaccommodation, had begun making subtantial progress in filling in the gaps of the WMD picture in Iraq. What was thought to be there, simply wasn't there. But they had more work to do, and they should have been permitted to complete it. Unfortunately, the Bush administration was by that stage--indeed long before that stage--firmly locked on a war trajectory. Saddam could and should have been put in a box and covert support given to his many opponents inside Iraq, while we finished the job in Afghanistan-- where the real monsters of 9/11 resided. Bin Laden and Al Qaeda could have and should have been liquidated once and for all, and then we could have turned our attention to Mr. Hussein if necessary. As Abe Lincoln remarked during the Civil War when an incident with Great Britain almost erupted into hostilities between that nation and the US: "One war at a time...one war at a time."
It would have been well if George Bush had heeded Mr. Lincoln's sage advice.
Jer
With respect, I disagree
Submitted by KC Mulville on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 9:53am.
No. The ideas that people were persuaded by Saddam's involvement in 9/11 or that the administration was dog whistling about nuclear weapons are explanations that took hold long after the fact. I'm not going by what someone (or the media) says that everyone else was believing. I was there. I remember what I believed. I remember what the administration was saying, and what was going on at the time. I remember what persuaded me.
Another thing to remember as it happened at the time: the logic of going to war. No one said that the Taliban attacked us. We went after the Taliban because they "harbored" terrorists. (Does anyone have any doubt, even today, that Saddam harbored terrorists?) The argument that we should only have gone after al-Qaeda because they were the only ones to attack us on 9/11 is a myth. That idea only became popular during the 2004 presidential campaign. Until that campaign, the dominant attitude was that we were justified to attack any terrorists who threatened us, and anyone who was supporting them.
So I reject the meme that the Bush Administration was actively lying about their motives, because frankly, at the time, they didn't have to. They threw a lot of justifications out there, all of which contributed to a big picture. Trying to look back, pick out one motive and claim that they were lying with that one casus belli is not "history," because that isn't what happened.
KC...Bush, Iraq, and WMDs
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 10:25am.
It will be several hours at least before I can respond further to you and to the others who disagree with me. But I do want you [and them] to know that I am not now nor have I ever been in the 'Bush lied' camp or entertain even the most remote notion he deliberately misled anyone about WMDs or any other material issue in order to push us into a conflict which he knew to be unjustified or inappropriately promoted based upon available and consensus intelligence.
I think the policy decisions were suspect and susceptible to criticism for several reasons, none of which has anything to do with the bona fides of Bush's motives.
Jer
Fair enough
Submitted by KC Mulville on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 11:19am.
And let me say, as a person who studies philosophy (and epistemology, the study of knowledge), the whole notion of group-think fascinates me. My general theory is that the motives weren't evil, but they were susceptible to group-think.
Why would anyone study knowledge, philosophically? What's the practical value? Well, these are proofs positive of what happens when "knowledge" really isn't. Group-think is the perfect incentive to study philosophy. The 9/11 commission claimed that 9/11 happened mostly because of group-think. There's a good argument to be made that the Iraq War was all group-think.
I argue that the Iraq War was an example of group-think, but not everything they believed was all wrong. It just wasn't entirely correct, and unfortunately, the errors were about large and dangerous issues.
But I look forward to your response.
Well, KC...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 11/15/2010 - 3:09am.
My response is brief and to the point: Your next-to-last paragraph absolutely nails it.
Jer
Its all about waitin for his
Submitted by BD on Mon, 11/15/2010 - 9:17am.
Its all about waitin for his reponse?
Interesting...
You say Saddam should have been "put in a box"
Submitted by Jack Coleman on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 9:56am.
In other words, perpetuation of the pre-9/11 status quo in the Middle East -- sanctions against Iraq, hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqi children, no fly zones, and a massive American military presence in al Qaeda's sacred homeland.
What could possibly go wrong?
A box yes--but a very uncomfortable one...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 11/15/2010 - 2:16am.
I think a more appropriate and effective approach would have involved a general continuation of the post 9/11/2001 pre March 2003 strategy toward Iraq, of which the ostensible centerpiece was a comprehensive investigation/determination of WMD issues. That effort would be augmented by steadily ratcheting up the pressure on Saddam to comply unconditionally with all provisions of Resolution 1441 while pursuing further diplomatic efforts to culitivate stronger and unequivocal international opposition to the Baathist thugocracy ruling Iraq.
I would have also supported show-of-force demonstrations in the Persian Gulf as well as the deployment of several thousand troops in Kuwait to convince any doubters in Baghdad that our demands were non-negotiable and would be militarily imposed if politically rejected.
The risk that Saddam's stature would have been elevated in the region by his defiance of the West would have been offset by the greater liklihood that his gradual acquiescence to the demands [which in fact was occurring] would not only be seen as weak and feckless outside of Iraq but would also embolden his numerous opponents inside the country and thus provide an ideal and unique opportunity for regime destabilization--and the eventual toppling of Saddam--without the requirement of the massive military intervention for which the Bush administration opted.
And most important, it would have permitted the US to direct its principal focus--and sufficient military [and economic] assets--to the Afghan/Pakistani theater and complete the liquidation of Bin Laden, Al-Qaeda and its support base within the Taliban, after which Saddam could have still been dispatched, if necessary.
Jer
Jer: Once again you fail to
Submitted by BD on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 10:02am.
Jer:
Once again you fail to understand the ACTUAL history of what occurred.
Sixteen seperate rationale were put forth by the administration to support the argument that invasion was necessary as the formal presentations to both the UN and the Houses of Congress. THey extended from the fairly obvious "Saddam has targeted US aircraft securing the no fly zone" to the lesser "Saddam has supported terrorism in the past" and everything in between.
THE PRESS is the agency that boiled it down to a Simple WMD argument, likely because to provide all sixteen rationale would take longer than a 5 second soundbite each week. This claim of a failed cassis beli falls firmly at the feet of the press and those who supported such, not the administration.
There is incontrobertible evidence that Saddam had WMD programs. He even had weaponized binary rounds for his 152mm howitzers hidden about the country.. At last count we have found 500+ of these hidden in the dirt of Iraq and more will undoubtedly be found.
Saddam still had the teams to manufacture such on payroll and continueing research, development, but not acquitision and was just waiting out the end of sanctions to put them back to work. For those who work RDA, everyone realizes the Acquisition phase is the easiest and fastest.
So please refrain from making falcious arguments regarding the lead up to the war.
Regarding your position regarding "One war at a time". We are fighting only one war at a time. And you will find more gained by the US effort in Iraq than all the effort invested in Afghanistan for the next twenty years. You can try to debate this, but then you must be forced to answer the simple question of "What is the strategic center o f gravity in the war with Islamic Fascism."
Pre-9/11 status quo, or no pre-9/11 status quo?
Submitted by Jack Coleman on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 10:42am.
Any reason why you're dodging the question?
Jack...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 11:13am.
Any reason why you missed or ignored my initial explanatory remark in my response to KC? I had intended to just check in for ten minutes or so, and I've now been here for over three hours. I have a several things I need to attend to, and I'll be back later this afternoon.
Please bear with me.
Jer
edited to update. Excuse me Jack. To whom are you addressing the 'status quo' question? BD or me? I apologize if I misunderstood. Anyway, as I said, I'll be back later this PM.
Yes, that was to you, Jer
Submitted by Jack Coleman on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 12:00pm.
Understood that you can't respond until later, we'll pick it up then. Enjoying the give and take, thanks.
Good argument BD, and yes the
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 10:49am.
Good argument BD, and yes the press took the WMD and ran with it as did most of the world. However, WMD is a concept the public can rally around and that is most likely what sold it. I believe Saddam had WMD available and was working on more, he squirreled at lot of it to Syria and other neighbors.
Dan: Smething interesting
Submitted by BD on Sat, 11/13/2010 - 10:46am.
Dan:
Smething interesting to think about. The members of the left cannot themselves come up with a unified list of what they consider to be WMD. I have had lawyers from DC tell me that they only thing that should be considered a WMD is a 13KT nuke or greater. In this persons belief nothing else would have constituted an viable WMD threat.
I have also heard others talk about bio weapons as if they did not adequately constitute such, Also Chem weapons.
I have also had someone tell me that a train set to detonate with 13KT of conventional munitions would NOT be a WMD. Tell that to the citizens of Halfiax Nova Scotia...
I put it down to a lack of understanding of military affairs on the left.
BD...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 11:01am.
You asked the same COG question a year or so ago, and I answered it at that time. There is more than one center of gravity issue involved.
I made no fallacious arguments.. Please refrain from accusing me of doing so. You are free to disagree with my opinions and my reasoning, and I'll be more than happy to engage you on that turf.
Jer
Refresh my memory, what did
Submitted by BD on Sat, 11/13/2010 - 10:49am.
Refresh my memory, what did you believe what the Strategic Center of gravity of Islamic Fascism then? What do you believe now?
I will say you are making false statements if you continue to boil the issue down to WMD. It was not the case then and we cannot allow for that false argument to be made now.
BD...Center of Gravity
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 11/15/2010 - 3:06am.
Actually my recollection is that you were asking about the comparative Centers of Gravity in Vietnam and Afghanistan. I think I responded by asking from whose viewpoint were you posing the question. I don't remember any further exchanges on the topic, although it's possible there were. It would be nice if the archived comments had not been lost in the site redesign/changeover.
CoG of Islamic Fascism is a broad, multi-faceted phenomenon which really doesn't lend itself to a single, concise center-of-gravity application. With that in mind, I suppose "active or tacit support by adherents of Islam" is one, although not very specific, CoG.
What say you?
Again, I'm not making false statements about the Bush administration and Iraq. I am "boiling down" the issues to those which most resonated with the American public. I am not, and did not, suggest there were no other reasons on which pre-emptive military intervention could conceivably be based. I am suggesting that matters aside from the presence of WMDs--and [to a lesser extent] Saddam/Al Qaeda links--were of far less importance to most Americans, and that without a belief in their [WMDs] existence, public support for an invasion would have been seriously weakened.
Jer
Tooo broad by far. I say
Submitted by BD on Mon, 11/15/2010 - 9:32am.
Tooo broad by far.
I say the CoG for the current fight at the strateic level is the message of violent Jihad as put forth by the Islamo Fascists. It in itself causes the bad uys to gird up their loins and begin to march to the sound of the guns.
Which is why the wresting of Iraq from Saddam was sooo important. It allows us a centrally located line of communication entry point for the competing message of democracy.
I am suggesting that matters aside from the presence of WMDs--and [to a lesser extent] Saddam/Al Qaeda links--were of far less importance to most Americans, and that without a belief in their [WMDs] existence, public support for an invasion would have been seriously weakened.There is no logic in that.
BD, you may not find any
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 11/15/2010 - 11:08pm.
BD, you may not find any logic in my statement about WMDs [maybe it lacked clarity?], but the public opinion surveys consistently illustrate its accuracy.
I read somewhere that at the time of the commencement of hostilities in 2003, the center of gravity in Iraq was considered to be Saddam's ruling regime in Baghdad, the elimination of which would produce a natural flow of positive consequences aligned with our general and specific war aims (e.g. location and disposal of WMD's, removal of Saddam and his capacity for mischief inside and outside of Iraq, politcal stability and societal tranquility, a dependable ally in the mid-east, democratic government in Iraq which would also serve as a regional model for non-democratic Islamic nations, etc.). The best that can be said so far is that the results are mixed.
Jer
Ahhhhh, so we should base
Submitted by BD on Tue, 11/16/2010 - 8:31am.
Ahhhhh, so we should base policy on what is deemed politically correct by he population at large? Interesting.
In that case drag Charles Manson from his cell and immediately put a .380slug behind his ear because the population at large believes his mere breathing is offensize.
Regarding the center of gravity for Iraq, it is and was correctly placed. All of the intended consequnces you state did come true after Saddam's defeat. Remember, the enemy always gets a vote and THEY attempted to hit our Center of gravity which is the weak backbone of the american left.
They attempted to dislodge our support by killing whole masses of people, innocent and otherwise. Largely they were ineffective..
WHich gets us back to the question at hand. What do YOU believe is the cener of gravity of the war on Islamic Fascism? And how do you propose to impact them?
Well, gee BD, since you put
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 11/16/2010 - 9:35am.
Well, gee BD, since you put it that way...
I guess from our strategic vantage point [as defined by BD], success in any and every potential conflict boils down to stiffening the "weak backbone of the American left."
Jer
You are correct. As nearly
Submitted by BD on Tue, 11/16/2010 - 7:41pm.
You are correct. As nearly always is the case the US cannot be defeated materially, it must be defeated using other means.
Doea anyone doubt the US could have destroyed North Vietnam if allowed to use all weaponry and tactics and casualties were not an obstacle?
Does anyone doubt the US could have beaten back the Chicoms to the Yalu in 1953 if casualties were not an obstacle?
Habr Ghidr in Somalia?
Iran during Jimmuh Carters Administration?
When the US security is at stake the Center of Gravity is nearly ALWAYS dependant on the backbone of the American left.
invading Iraq
Submitted by Agnostic on Tue, 11/16/2010 - 8:11pm.
Not to reduce the decision to invade Iraq to much but one can not adequately discuss the various reasons of invading Iraq without looking at two of the simplist reasons. One, Iraq was a Muslim country strategically located in the ME which, through the actions of their dictator, the argument could be made to invade. Second, the geography allowed for not only the safest invasion route into the heart of the ME but also a potential for unification of sects afterward.
Concur.
Submitted by BD on Wed, 11/17/2010 - 9:35am.
Concur.
You read somewhere?
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 11/16/2010 - 8:39am.
Might I suggest these very specific legal documents as to why this nasty little critter needed to be gone.
PUBLIC LAW 105–338—OCT. 31, 1998
PUBLIC LAW 105–235—AUG. 14, 1998
PUBLIC LAW 107–243—OCT. 16, 2002
There is some good stuff in there on WMD's and Saddam Hussein's use and continued desire, ney hunger for more.
I read those.
Vet...
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 11/16/2010 - 9:25am.
The world is a better place without the murdering tyrant, Saddam Hussein. But just because war is justified doesn't make it wise. And I have always believed the timing of the commencement of the action to dispose of Saddam was ill-advised, the expectations regarding the aftermath of his ejection far too optimistic, and viable plans for dealing with less anticipated contingencies sorely lacking.
Jer
Dude?
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 11/16/2010 - 9:44am.
The war was justified. Oh sweet butter covered banana flavoreed mana dropping from heaven, it was justified. Do I seriously have to dive in to the documents from the only guys on the planet allowed to officially justify reasons for war by counting all the findings (12) and whereases (24 & 24) from the linked documents that showed beyond a shadow of a doubt the justifications for taking this nasty little critter out? Oh wait. I did.
Because it was so very very very justified, that makes it wise. Kinda like when Uncle Jer takes slugs off my beer when I am in the bathroom, if I don't address it and nip it in the bud, Uncle Jer will just continue leave Uncler Jer Germs on the lip of my mug. We will have to take it outside and pound on each other for a while until someone agrees someone is right. And yeah, Uncler Jer Germs are tasty. You won that one Old Man.
Vet Dude...
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 11/16/2010 - 9:52am.
When I say "just because war is justified..." it means I am acknowledging that the Iraqi invasion was in fact justified and authorized. I don't need to be convinced of what I've already conceded. But the justification for war--especially by application of the "Bush Doctrine"--could exist with respect to any number of nations. That doesn't make military intervention necessary or wise in each case however. That was my point, which, by the way, had never ruled out the potential for war in Iraq.
Jer
I was just saying I thought it wise.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 11/16/2010 - 12:18pm.
And long long long overdue.
For NB's Dem party hack
Submitted by Unsane on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 11:57am.
Sorry, Jer. You only show your Bush hatred and total hackery in clinging to party lines. The nuclear capability/WMDs were only part of the story. And not once do I recall anything other than the very weakest, most tenuous of links to al-Qaeda being mentioned.
Saddam broke the ceasefire once he decided to "paint" the fighters patrolling the no-fly zone. We could have resumed hostilities on that basis alone. The fact that you are clinging to the same tired talking points only demonstrates once again your commitment to hackery.
Try again. BD just shacked you in the worst way.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Actually, they found chemical
Submitted by Thoreau on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 8:00am.
Actually, they found chemical weapons in Iraq not 2 months ago. But not a whole lot of people covered it. Strange isn't it. The mass graves. Chemical weapons. Nothing.
I dont know what WMD means. That's the first problem. So if it means a weapon that kills masses of people and puts them in mass graves, I think we found that. If you just mean plutonium/uranium warheads, then no.
Maddow is scum. Let's not revisit it.
Rachel, you're a D-bag and you don't
Submitted by HockeyKid on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 8:57am.
know what you're talking about. Not. even. the. first. clue.
That is all.
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
Outstanding post, Mr. Coleman
Submitted by Arminius on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 9:24am.
Maddow is simply trying to rewrite history. A more detailed account of the actual record can be read at www.sinsofthehusband.com/wrh.pdf
Thank you, Arminius
Submitted by Jack Coleman on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 8:58pm.
... and for posting that link to "What Really Happened," I intend to read it
Thank you, Arminius
Submitted by Jack Coleman on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 8:58pm.
... and for posting that link to "What Really Happened," I intend to read it
"That's all folks".................
Submitted by Tomorama on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 10:37am.
There is one quote that I post on many sites and have done many times that shut liberals up as it is by someone that forgot more than they know, and ACTUALLY WOULD KNOW a "bit" about the subject:
"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003
There are thousands of quotes from the NOW cowardly Democrats that talked tough but later changed their tune, but this quote above SAYS IT ALL TO ME.
That quote has been repeated
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 11/15/2010 - 12:28am.
That quote has been repeated numerous times, but I have so far been unable to find a single link to the source. Cohen may very well have said it--and there are plenty of instances of Democrats expressing a belief in Saddam's harboring of WMDs--but what authority are you relying upon?
Jer
Well, they have been saying it since 2003 Jer
Submitted by Boudin on Mon, 11/15/2010 - 11:17pm.
He had the Wapo fooled