Blair's new tack: WMDs invisible

[SirBruce]

Somalia has a national army?  They've improved.

The problem I have with your view on world security is that it could lead to the use of military force against a huge number of countries, and our military is having troubles enough with Afghanistan and Iraq.

No, not at all.  I've told you already, my position isn't that we should invade such countries immediately, or even that we'd have to.  Obviously if our military is stretched too thin, we couldn't meet the fourth condition.  So yeah, the fact we're busy in Iraq, Afghanistan, and South Korea right now pretty much means no more invasions for a few years.  But that doesn't mean we can't bring other efforts to bear on such countries.

I feel that terrorism is best dealt with as a policing problem.

You and John Kerry agree.  Yakuza is first on your list, then? :)

Bruce

[UD_Delt]

There has NEVER BEEN any CONCLUSIVE evidence that Saddam Hussein funded OR harbored the terrorists who have attacked us directly. NEVER.

Sounds like you just want to play a semantics game with this sentence. What constitutes proof? Who is us? What is directly?

But you're right, there is no proof that Saddam ever funded anyone to assassinate me and I'm pretty sure there's no proof that he payed anyone to assisinate you either. Other than maybe one or two people, that probably applies to everyone who posts on this board.


Edit:

To add some substance:

In 1993, a certain Mr. Yasin helped mix the chemicals for the bomb at the World Trade Center and then skipped to Iraq, where he remained a guest of the state until the overthrow of Saddam

Saddam provided a safe haven for Abu Abbas (leader of the hijacking of the ship Achille Lauro and the murder of the elderly American passenger Leon Klinghoffer), for Abu Nidal, and for the 1993 World Trade Center bombmaker, Abdul Rahman Yasin. By law, Saddam therefore was an accessory to the murders. Saddam order his police to murder former American President George Bush when he visited Kuwait City in 1993; they attempted to do so, but failed. In 1991, he ordered his agents to murder the American Ambassador to the Philippines and, separately, to murder the employees of the U.S. Information Service in Manila; they tried, but failed.

Iraqi intelligence documents from 1992 list Osama bin Laden as an Iraqi intelligence asset. Numerous sources have reported a 1993 nonaggression pact between Iraq and al Qaeda. The former deputy director of Iraqi intelligence now in U.S. custody says that bin Laden asked the Iraqi regime for arms and training in a face-to-face meeting in 1994. Senior al Qaeda leader Abu Hajer al Iraqi met with Iraqi intelligence officials in 1995. The National Security Agency intercepted telephone conversations between al Qaeda-supported Sudanese military officials and the head of Iraq's chemical weapons program in 1996. Al Qaeda sent Abu Abdallah al Iraqi to Iraq for help with weapons of mass destruction in 1997. An indictment from the Clinton-era Justice Department cited Iraqi assistance on al Qaeda "weapons development" in 1998. A senior Clinton administration counterterrorism official told the Washington Post that the U.S. government was "sure" Iraq had supported al Qaeda chemical weapons programs in 1999. An Iraqi working closely with the Iraqi embassy in Kuala Lumpur was photographed with September 11 hijacker Khalid al Mihdhar en route to a planning meeting for the bombing of the USS Cole and the September 11 attacks in 2000. Satellite photographs showed al Qaeda members in 2001 traveling en masse to a compound in northern Iraq financed, in part, by the Iraqi regime. Abu Musab al Zarqawi, senior al Qaeda associate, operated openly in Baghdad and received medical attention at a regime-supported hospital in 2002. Documents discovered in postwar Iraq in 2003 reveal that Saddam's regime harbored and supported Abdul Rahman Yasin, an Iraqi who mixed the chemicals for the 1993 World Trade Center attack...

All quotes borrowed from http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm

[SirBruce]

2. Is actively trying to obtain or develop weapons of mass destruction


snip...

3. Funding and harboring terrorism.

I realize I'm an America-hating terrorist-loving bastard for actually disagreeing with what our President has said, but this is plain wrong.

There has NEVER BEEN any CONCLUSIVE evidence that Saddam Hussein funded OR harbored the terrorists who have attacked us directly. NEVER. The closest thing to funding terrorism that could ever be pinned on Hussein was his payment to the families of PALESTINIAN suicide bombers, who have never attacked American possessions directly. I am in no way condoning the Palestinian suicde bomber fucknuts, but get your fucking facts straight.

Speaking of getting facts straight, where did I say he funded or harbored terrorists who attacked us directly?  I listed that under "in addition" and never said it was terrorism against us.  Your words are carefully picked to ignore other activities such as the assassination attempt against former President Bush, or Iraq letting out of a Kuwaiti prison in 1990 17 terrorists who were convicted of helping with the bombing the US Embassy and other targets in Kuwait in 1983, or Iraq's funding and harboring of PLF, ANO, and MEK.

Secondly, in regards to #2, Saddam's own people who would have been in charge of developing said WMD's have ALL stated that there WAS no chemical weapons program in place in Iraq after 1996, except for the one Saddam imagined in his head. Hussein was being actively misled by his people, and again, there was and is no conclusive evidence that such a weapons program EVER had anything approachable actionable materials after 1996.

Even if good scientists were preventing him from obtaining them, he was still TRYING to obtain them.  And you are the one declaring the materials after 1996 not "actionable", which is an opinion, not a fact.  Heck, even Clinton doesn't agree with you there.

Bruce

[Big Gulp]

As long as he is actually on the run.  I don't know if he is or not.

Just speculation on my part, but I believe he joined the choir invisible in Tora Bora.  Failing that, he's probably in Pakistan.

But no, the most likely thing is that he's gone on to meet his 72 virgins.

[Big Gulp]

Meanwhile the raping and the pillaging goes on in the Sudan and elsewhere.

What a coinkidink, France just shot down the US and UK's attempt to place sanctions on Sudan to get the killings to stop.

“In Darfur, it would be better to help the Sudanese get over the crisis so their country is pacified rather than sanctions which would push them back to their misdeeds of old,” junior Foreign Minister Renaud Muselier told French radio.

France led opposition to US moves at the UN over Iraq. As was the case in Iraq, it also has significant oil interests in Sudan.[/b]

It would appear that France has never really had a problem with blood for oil, non?  But you just keep on promoting France's approval as the be-all, end-all of political legitimacy when in reality their policies are venal to the fucking core.

[HaemishM]

You focus on France as if they are the only ones who opposed US action in Iraq. They aren't. There's also Germany, Russia, China, and others. That includes Syria, but they shouldn't count since they have harbored more terrorists than Yasser Arafat and Iraq combined.

[Big Gulp]

You focus on France as if they are the only ones who opposed US action in Iraq. They aren't. There's also Germany, Russia, China, and others.

Actually, no, I focused on France in that instance because they've vetoed our attempt to sanction SUDAN, not Iraq.  Coincidentally, France also appears to have substantially lucrative contracts with the Arab Muslims whom are currently butchering the black Christians and animists to the south.  Kind of like how they had lucrative deals going with the Hussein regime.  Connect the dots, beeyotch.

Are you telling me that you don't see any connection between France, Russia, and Germany making a metric ton of cash out of Oil for Food and their obstructionist stances?

[HaemishM]

Oh sure, I see the connection. My god, it's not like it isn't written in fucking neon letters on the walls of the UN.

But them making votes in their own self-interest is different from the US... how exactly? Because their self-interest doesn't dovetail with ours?

[Big Gulp]

But them making votes in their own self-interest is different from the US... how exactly? Because their self-interest doesn't dovetail with ours?

You make it seem as though we only vote to enrich ourselves, which is definitely not the case.  We throw away more money than any other country on earth in foreign aid to countries that actively hate us.  Besides which, if all we gave a fuck about was making money why would we have invaded Iraq in '91?  If the bottom line was all we were watching then why would we have attacked?  Shit, Saddam would have been quite content to sell us oil all day long.

Likewise, why did we get involved in the Balkans?  Unlike the EU, we had no national interest in that clusterfuck of a region, it was a purely humanitarian mission.  Somalia?  Why'd we get involved there?

We have our problems, and we definitely act on self-interest quite often, but on the filthy lucre whore scale, we don't even come close to touching France.

[daveNYC]

It would appear that France has never really had a problem with blood for oil, non?

I just wish France were the only country that made that trade.

The Sudan is a situation that would be helped by the addition of US troops.  Specifically, US troops guarding the Chad border in order to smack the shit out of any militias that cross over for some raping and pillaging.

[Roac]

All quotes borrowed from http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm

And totally out of all relevant context.  People who are happy with Saddam being gone, or whose goal is to support the outsting of that dictator and our invasion, will find enough argument to back up their view, especially when that view is bogged down in the legalese minded view of "break rule, get punnished".  

The situation in the Middle East is a far cry from what it is in the west; failure to take that into account will lead to bad decisions, at least if you're trying to decide what the "best" decision is.  To logically decide upon any best course of action, you have to take into account all factors available.

The first one to come to mind is the rule of hospitality; it is very, very important to that society.  Ever read the Bible?  The sins of Soddom and Gomorrah were violations of hospitality, not sexuality - if they had clubbed people for fun instead of raping them the outcome would've been the same.  It's hard for westerners to grasp how important this rule is; to be inhospitable to someone in the desert is likely to sentence them to death, leaving the sin of inhospitality not far off from murder.  The Saudis got in trouble with the west over this one a few months back.

Another one is the social climate.  Much as we bemoan it, there is only so much a government can do; a lot of the people support anti-American activities, violent or otherwise.  These governments are suck.  If they crack down on American violence (or its attitude), then they are being dictatorial (our own government has been supporting French anger, and although not on the same level, neither are we so innocent), not to mention putting their own lives in danger.  Indeed, much conventional wisdom is that the west (US in particular) has corrupted the government and taken (or is taking) their ideals away from fundamental Islamic tenants.  Siding with anything American is a risky business to be in.  

For that matter, so is moving against fundamental Islam in almost any respect.  Government officials who would like to crack down on terrorists must tread lightly, because these groups hide behind the mask of religion.  While a minority of Middle Easterners are the whacko-Jihaddists we have come to hate, a vast majority support Islam.  Moving against the Jihaddists risks the popular view that you are also moving against Islam (and a conneciton that Bin Ladin and kin are trying very, very hard to create in the public mind).  

In short, you've got a bunch of governments sitting on a powder keg, and they're not about to light it under their own feet.  The US can threaten all it likes, but they know that the threat of capture at the hands of pissed off terrorists is much more real, and much more horrible than anything the US might do.  They'd rather we be pissed off at them than the locals.  Paying attention to what happened in Iraq after the US took over?  That's the keg gone off - something other governments are taking great pains to prevent on their own turf.  

None of this is to excuse what goes on, but it needs to be kept in perspective.  There's a limit to what can be done.  What's worse, a lot of that limit is our own doing - we have been meddling in governments over there, and propping up people who have oppressed the people (to include Saddam), which is one of the things that's pissed them off against us to start with.  They typical, short sighted, and extremely stupid / uneducated stance for a westerner is to threaten, and then bomb them until they comply without any respect for their situation.  It's like reading a history book in high school, where "conflict breaks out" every few pages without ever giving cause (God forbid we might be the cause).  It's expected that "conflict breaks out" and then "we clean it up", usually with force, and people are left scratching their head when stuff isn't fixed.  That's about when we pull out due to souring public oppinion.

As for Saddam trying to kill Bush:  good for him.  Bush is a valid military target, and we've attempted the same a few times, and conspired about it quite a few more.  Americans need to pull their heads out of the clouds - war is hell.  People die, seeing as that's generally why you go to war to start with (to kill people).  High value targets are, well, high value - that's why you target them.  Bush and Saddam are just the King for each side in the chess game.  Of course you want to take them out.  Stop with the Special Pleading for moral justification already.

[Big Gulp]

As for Saddam trying to kill Bush:  good for him.  Bush is a valid military target, and we've attempted the same a few times, and conspired about it quite a few more.

How is attempting to murder an ex-president (and yes, he was ex at the time) valid targetting?  Clinton sure as shit didn't think it was...  But hey, if it's fair game then why don't we have death squads gunning for Gorbachev, or digging up the remains of DeGaulle for a bit of "piss on the corpse"?

You then go on to tell Americans to take their heads out of the clouds.  Physician, heal thyself.

[eldaec]

You make it seem as though we only vote to enrich ourselves, which is definitely not the case.  We throw away more money than any other country on earth in foreign aid to countries that actively hate us.  

Actually, point of order, on a proportion of GDP measure (which most would argue is the only reasonable measure) this is a real long fucking way from being true. Japan, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, and the Netherlands, are about the only nations who can claim to be near the UN agreed goal of 0.7%.

In 2001 (the only figures I can rustle up without expending actual effort) the US spent $39 per capita on foreign aid. Denmark spent $302, Norway $299 Sweden $177, UK $78, France $72.

It's also worth considering that the biggest recipient *by far* of US aid is Israel. And they certainly don't hate the US.

Also, the US (and the UK) have historically been just as good as the French at being small minded and self interested when it comes to UN votes.

[Big Gulp]

Actually, point of order, on a proportion of GDP measure (which most would argue is the only reasonable measure) this is a real long fucking way from being true. Japan, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, and the Netherlands, are about the only nations who can claim to be near the UN agreed goal of 0.7%.

I'm not talking about UN money (Even in that case, I'd tell the rest of the world to suck it down, we're the UN's army.  You start fielding a military that can function as something besides an adjunct to US forces and then we can talk), I'm talking just about money we throw to governments around the world regardless of the UN; the 2 billion a year we give to Egypt, etc.

[eldaec]

I'm not talking about UN money either.

I'm talking about actual money you have, that you give, to other nations.

[Tebonas]

Last I checked there are UN soldiers from many countries, of course those are police troops and not full fledged invasion forces. Its your preferred pasttime to invade other countries to get your way, not theirs. Add to that that most US development money aims to prepare those countries to buy US goods, your help is self-serving at best. Funneling government money abroad to help your own economy. Or, keeping stratetically important military partners in company line (How about that military base we want in your country, need a credit?).

Which is acceptable, its your money after all. But don't try to mount the high horse then, that looks ridiculous knowing the facts.

[Arthur_Parker]

I'm not talking about UN money (Even in that case, I'd tell the rest of the world to suck it down, we're the UN's army.  You start fielding a military that can function as something besides an adjunct to US forces and then we can talk), I'm talking just about money we throw to governments around the world regardless of the UN; the 2 billion a year we give to Egypt, etc.

The UK is not the power it once was due to American requirements for lend-lease in WWII, bringing the British Empire to an end was part of the deal.  Despite that, there have been times when the UK has acted without direct US support, but the success of those largely depends on if the US wants to interfere (because they want to pay 2 billion a year) or not.

There's an interesting viewpoint on the so called special relationship between the USA and UK here

So we either have closer ties with a French-German influenced Europe or the US, I personally prefer the US even considering with the occasional charming "Suck it down" comment.

[Tebonas]

Europe knows GB prefers that, with telling our encryption secrets to your US buddies and all that....

[eldaec]

hijack4tehwin!

But the US-UK thing is overplayed.

The US and UK just happen to agree a fuck of a lot. If we didn't the UK would just sit around and sulk like the French the whole time.

And that mostly comes from Anglo-Saxon culture, and lack of community memory of what getting invaded is like, as a result neither are espeicially afraid of wars.

Anglo-Saxon culture has always centred around getting on and getting shit done on an immeadite and individual level. This compares with Franco-Germanic culture where the academic elegance of the solution and the political respect of all parties gets more of an airing. I'm simplifying and generalising horribly, but it's what Napoleon meant when he called the British a nation of shopkeepers, and it's the reason in EU matters the French have always seen economic matters as mundane (why their political elite saw the single currency as relatively trivial matter) and issues of grand political gesture like foreign ministers and presidents being much more critical (the British go the other way).

Vive la difference.

[Big Gulp]

The UK is not the power it once was due to American requirements for lend-lease in WWII, bringing the British Empire to an end was part of the deal.

I didn't include the UK in my sweeping generalization.  You guys still pretty much have a global reach and can still deploy your own people without too much US aid (Hi, Canada!).  I fully understand that nations that aren't as large as the US can't field equivalent militaries to the US.  The UK pulls it's weight, unlike a lot of other NATO members (Hi, Canada!).

And I'll echo Eldeac's sentiments; we're just more individualistic than Europeans.  I don't believe government is the solution, and I do not want to abdicate the choice of how I conduct my affairs to a body of bureaucrats.  I tend to think that the slide to statism is inevitable, with the UK sadly going faster than we are, but we're on our way too.

[daveNYC]

The UK pulls it's weight, unlike a lot of other NATO members (Hi, Canada!).

I'm sorry, maybe we should have installed our early warning radar systems in fucking Minnesota then.

[Mesozoic]

The UK pulls it's weight, unlike a lot of other NATO members (Hi, Canada!).

What a weird comment.  What are you basing this on?  Remember that the Canadian population is around 32 million, compared to the USA's 293 million.

[Arthur_Parker]

I imagine their close connections to France and the friendly fire incident in Afghanistan have a lot to do with their current level of involvement.

[Ironwood]

Invading Iraq will probably cost Blair his job,

Rot.

Invading Iraq will cost Blair a couple of seats to the lib dems, and probably an amount of political capital required with his own backbenchers to do anything useful in terms of public sector reform.

If that.

You display deep ignorance of the internal workings of the Labour Party.  He has already lost his job.  He may, or may not, get his Lordship, but one way or another Gordon is going to take over for the next election.

And this, specifically, has been over the war.

It is already happening.

[ArtificialKid]

The blunt truth is that American and Britains were lied to about Iraq. You can make whatever claims you want but we were. I'll be sickened if Bush is reelected becuase it will only confirm my fears that the American people are a bunch of sheep these days.

Yes, we were lied to, but not by Bush:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html
(reg required, I'll post some juicy bits)

Wilson's assertions -- both about what he found in Niger and what the Bush administration did with the information -- were undermined yesterday in a bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report.

The panel found that Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts. And contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address.

The report also said Wilson provided misleading information to The Washington Post last June. He said then that he concluded the Niger intelligence was based on documents that had clearly been forged because "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong."

"Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the 'dates were wrong and the names were wrong' when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports," the Senate panel said. Wilson told the panel he may have been confused and may have "misspoken" to reporters. The documents -- purported sales agreements between Niger and Iraq -- were not in U.S. hands until eight months after Wilson made his trip to Niger.

The bi-partisan report was also highly critical of the CIA.

[Daeven]

And I'm certain all that Uranium they recently pulled from Iraq was merely a DU round cleanup operation, instead of removing poscribed material under 1441

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/7/6/230805.shtml

An amusing quote from the article:

The quantity of nuclear material, stored at the al-Tuwaitha research complex southeast of Baghdad, was probably enough to give Saddam Hussein the capacity to produce at least one atomic bomb, according to a physicist with the Federation of American Scientists quoted by the Associated Press.

Yep. Everything was fine and dandy in Iraq land. President Hussein was abiding by the cease fire nicely. It's all the evil BushHitler's fault.

[Ezdaar]

Bah that's only TWO TONS of uranium. That's nothing, barely even enough to make one bomb and have a bunch left over for some dirty bombs. Sheesh, call us when you find some real WMD like extended range ballistic missiles or ... hmm wait we already found those too.

[daveNYC]

There is a difference between two tons of uranium that's good enough for reactor fuel, and highly enriched uranium that can be used as a weapon.  Did we find any 'Made in Pakistan' centrifuges?

[Rasix]

So, has this information hit any real news sites?

[daveNYC]

So, has this information hit any real news sites?

I take it you didn't purchase the Reagan silver proof?

[WayAbvPar]

Newsmax Pundit-



Any place that considers that fucking jackass as anything other than a wart on the anus of society has exactly zero credibility.

[Daeven]

Oh No! My random link from Google isn't respected enough! And it has a picture of Regan on it! I have failed the WayAbvPar at al Appeal To Authority test! I must randomly google other links!

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/07/07/iraq.nuclear/
http://tvnz.co.nz/view/news_world_story_skin/434859%3fformat=html
http://www.indolink.com/displayArticleS.php?id=070704123434
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_9-7-2004_pg4_8
http://www.geo.tv/main_files/world.aspx?id=28443
http://www.gulf-daily-news.com/Story.asp?Article=86354&Sn=WORL&IssueID=27111
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32195-2004Jul6.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-07-07-iraq-uranium_x.htm
http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/holnus/003200407071858.htm

Way to fixate on a totally meaningless tanget. A winner is you.

[WayAbvPar]

Deep breath there, chief. First of all, that is Jerry Falwell, not Donald Regan. 2nd- you posted the link, not I. I just happened to follow the link and investigate the site, and found their list of pundits. I saw Fallwell's name and picture and thought it would good for a laugh.

[personman]

What offends me is that (a) we were told there was an immediate pressing danger within the US shores unless we invaded Iraq immediately, and (b) we didn't prosecute the war with full commitment.

All the other points are in my mind complete red herrings.  Mainly those red herring points seem to exist solely (herring? sole? ;) ) to fuel partisanship rather than objectively evaluate events.

Anyway, I haven't seen the Bush administration take responsibility for either point.

(B) is so demonstrably true that it alone is reason enough to discount the current administration's credentials as a protector of America's global interests.  I fail to see how a Kerry administration would be worse and given how the Bush election campaign has co-opted Kerry's stated platform (slim as it is) over the last four months I've grown firm in this conviction.

(A) came at a terrible opportunity cost.  There is so much we could have been doing that truly would have facilitated a better future.  Not that it was the wrong *thing* to do, but this was the wrong *time* to invade Iraq.  We'd have been far better off to curtail and contain other countries as we had Iraq.  Yes it was often humiliating and always frustrating when we had Iraq contained.  But by definition of Opportunity Cost the resources we had vested were a bargain and would have left us free to focus on the clearly more pressing dangers.

As angry as I have been that we never finished GW1 (even as I accept why), as sickened as I was by Hussein's brutality, as willing as I would have been at any future point to invade and clean up....  it is this miscalculation by the Bush/Blair administration and the incompetent way they prosecuted the war that I find unacceptable.

[SirBruce]

Who told you there was an immediate, pressing danger?  Because the President was telling you there wasn't an iminent danger, but a growing danger, one that we had to deal with BEFORE they could facilitate or launch WMD attacks against us.  Of course, you could ask why Iraq first and not Iran or North Korea.  The answer is because there was already plenty of other things Iraq was doing and world opinion was already against them.  Iran and North Korea have been showing some progress on the diplomatic fronts, so their ultimate end has yet to be played out.  Also, North Korea already has nukes, and South Korea is in the way.

Now, if Iran continues with its nuclear program, and if North Korea walks away from negotiations, they may be up next.

Bruce