Blair's new tack: WMDs invisible

[daveNYC]

If you can figure a way to take out either of those countries without losing Afghanistan or Iraq, I'd love to hear it.  That's probably the worst thing about the Iraq invasion, we're there for the long term, and while we're there, we don't have the resources available to easily deal with other threats.

[personman]

Bruce I agree with you on your other points.  But on this...

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.

The Bush administration told us and used those exact words.  Colin Powell's testimony to the UN is widely perceived as the event that most polarized American opinion to support the invasion.  It certainly is what pushed me from tepid opposition for invasion to full support.

Here is a quote from the transcript available on the White House's website:

The gravity of this moment is matched by the gravity of the threat that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction pose to the world. Let me now turn to those deadly weapons programs and describe why they are real and present dangers to the region and to the world.
U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell
February 5, 2003

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030205-1.html

It is of course tempting to fall back on the "but everyone thought it was so" argument.  But the problem is that we were given itemized lists of what was known to be stockpiled and even more detailed lists identifying specific delivery systems.

Most affirmatively:

Ladies and gentlemen, these are not assertions. These are facts, corroborated by many sources, some of them sources of the intelligence services of other countries.
U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell
February 5, 2003

It's also tempting to seize on Powell's qualification that the "real and present danger" was mainly to the region and more nebulously to the world.  But Powell, during this same presentation, builds a very elaborate scenario of Iraq's relationships with many terrorist groups (something since downgraded to "contacts and meetings").  He tells us this:

The support that (inaudible) describes included Iraq offering chemical or biological weapons training for two Al Qaida associates beginning in December 2000. He says that a militant known as Abu Abdula Al-Iraqi (ph) had been sent to Iraq several times between 1997 and 2000 for help in acquiring poisons and gases. Abdula Al-Iraqi (ph) characterized the relationship he forged with Iraqi officials as successful.
U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell
February 5, 2003

Emphasis mine.

Powell's speech was less speculative, but he reinforced information Bush told us several months before Powell's fateful presentation to the UN.

We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States. And, of course, sophisticated delivery systems aren't required for a chemical or biological attack; all that might be required are a small container and one terrorist or Iraqi intelligence operative to deliver it.
U.S. President George Bush
Ocotber 7, 2002

Again off the White House website:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html

Real and present danger, hard facts, detailing exactly what and exactly how, risk to our shores.  At a time when we were still sweeping debris off ground zero.

It was compelling argument to me.  And it was all wrong.  On every point.

[SirBruce]

Bruce I agree with you on your other points.  But on this...

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.

The Bush administration told us and used those exact words.  Colin Powell's testimony to the UN is widely perceived as the event that most polarized American opinion to support the invasion.  It certainly is what pushed me from tepid opposition for invasion to full support.

That's fine, but Colin Powell never said what you think he said.

Let me now turn to those deadly weapons programs and describe why they are real and present dangers to the region and to the world.
U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell
February 5, 2003

"Real and present danger" doesn't mean "immediate, pressing danger" the way you said.  A man with a gun to your head is an "immediate, pressing danger"; a man who wants to kill trying to break into your house who you think might have a weapon is a "real and present danger".  Note also that these phrases, legally speaking, apply only to what the person actually thought in their mind, not the actual facts; e.g. killing someone who is waving a toy gun at you which you think is real.

Ladies and gentlemen, these are not assertions. These are facts, corroborated by many sources, some of them sources of the intelligence services of other countries.
U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell
February 5, 2003

And much of what he said was.  Some of it wasn't.  But that is the fault of the intelligence services, not Mr. Powell intentionally lying.  But this is off-topic.

The support that (inaudible) describes included Iraq offering chemical or biological weapons training for two Al Qaida associates beginning in December 2000. He says that a militant known as Abu Abdula Al-Iraqi (ph) had been sent to Iraq several times between 1997 and 2000 for help in acquiring poisons and gases. Abdula Al-Iraqi (ph) characterized the relationship he forged with Iraqi officials as successful.
U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell
February 5, 2003

Emphasis mine.

And... what's your point?  What does this have to do with whether or not you were told there was a an immediate, pressing danger?

We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States. And, of course, sophisticated delivery systems aren't required for a chemical or biological attack; all that might be required are a small container and one terrorist or Iraqi intelligence operative to deliver it.
U.S. President George Bush
Ocotber 7, 2002

Again off the White House website:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html

Real and present danger, hard facts, detailing exactly what and exactly how, risk to our shores.  At a time when we were still sweeping debris off ground zero.

Yes, I never denied that facts were given.  But again, there's nothing here about an immediate, pressing danger.  And I don't know how you would have concluded that, when much of the rest of the media at the time was filled with discussion of Bush's new doctrine of pre-emption, which was specifically about attacking countries who were menacing us BEFORE they were able to carry out an attack.  My guess is your mind has become colored in hindsight by your political ideology.

It was compelling argument to me.  And it was all wrong.  On every point.

If that's your argument, then you have a different argument than the one you said before.  Now you're argument is not that you were told there was an immediate, pressing danger, but rather you were told there was a danger for reasons which turned out not to be true.  And that's a very valid point.  The good news here is that Congress has found that there was no intentional deception on the part of the administration, the CIA director responsible has resigned, and Iraq was liberated anyway for many other very good reasons, even if you didn't think those reasons were enough motive for war.

Bruce

[SirBruce]

If you can figure a way to take out either of those countries without losing Afghanistan or Iraq, I'd love to hear it.  That's probably the worst thing about the Iraq invasion, we're there for the long term, and while we're there, we don't have the resources available to easily deal with other threats.

So you support more spending on the military, then, at the expense of social programs?

Bruce

[WayAbvPar]

"Real and present danger" doesn't mean "immediate, pressing danger"

Jesus fucking Christ. Spare us the spin doctoring. Do you really believe the bullshit you are spouting, or is this all an intellectual masturbatory exercise in devil's advocacy?

[daveNYC]

If you can figure a way to take out either of those countries without losing Afghanistan or Iraq, I'd love to hear it.  That's probably the worst thing about the Iraq invasion, we're there for the long term, and while we're there, we don't have the resources available to easily deal with other threats.

So you support more spending on the military, then, at the expense of social programs?

Bruce

At the expense of tax cuts actually, although shifting existing defense funding around will help some.  Operations like Iraq and the like require warm bodies, and right now we don't have many to spare.  I wasn't a supporter of the Iraq campaign, but now that we're there, we aren't leaving for at least two years (just a guess).  That's a lot of money down the drain, and we won't be able to make up for it by just cutting the ever so evil social programs.  Of course, raising taxes won't get us the cash either, but that is the situation that Bush & Co. have stuck us with; a huge ongoing expense, and not enough money to pay for it.  Don't even get me started on the bill from entitlements.

[SirBruce]

"Real and present danger" doesn't mean "immediate, pressing danger"

Jesus fucking Christ. Spare us the spin doctoring. Do you really believe the bullshit you are spouting, or is this all an intellectual masturbatory exercise in devil's advocacy?

No spin doctoring here.  We take foreign policy doctrine very seriously... don't you?

I'm sorry Powell used words that were too big for you to understand.  Perhaps that's why he's in office and you're not.

Bruce

[SirBruce]

At the expense of tax cuts actually, although shifting existing defense funding around will help some.  Operations like Iraq and the like require warm bodies, and right now we don't have many to spare.  I wasn't a supporter of the Iraq campaign, but now that we're there, we aren't leaving for at least two years (just a guess).  That's a lot of money down the drain, and we won't be able to make up for it by just cutting the ever so evil social programs.  Of course, raising taxes won't get us the cash either, but that is the situation that Bush & Co. have stuck us with; a huge ongoing expense, and not enough money to pay for it.  Don't even get me started on the bill from entitlements.

But you just said that taxes won't get us the cash either, so... what's your alternative?

And your logic is spurious.  A war with another country... the "other threats" as you said... would cost the same or possibly even more than our war in Iraq.

No, it sounds to be like you're just Bush-bashing.  Another war with another enemy still requires money.  So you can't lament the cost of this war, or claim some magical money solution in another war that's not available in this one.

Bruce

[daveNYC]

"Real and present danger" doesn't mean "immediate, pressing danger"

Jesus fucking Christ. Spare us the spin doctoring. Do you really believe the bullshit you are spouting, or is this all an intellectual masturbatory exercise in devil's advocacy?

No spin doctoring here.  We take foreign policy doctrine very seriously... don't you?

I'm sorry Powell used words that were too big for you to understand.  Perhaps that's why he's in office and you're not.

Bruce

Sorry, that's just as much bullshit as arguing the definition of 'sex' or 'is' or whatever the fuck semantics 4 teh win Clinton did.  Just because it avoids the phrase "clear and present danger" doesn't mean that wasn't the message being conveyed.  I'm not a fan of a future where major policy decisions are defended on the basis of lawyerly hair splitting, are you?

[SirBruce]

Sorry, that's just as much bullshit as arguing the definition of 'sex' or 'is' or whatever the fuck semantics 4 teh win Clinton did.  Just because it avoids the phrase "clear and present danger" doesn't mean that wasn't the message being conveyed.  I'm not a fan of a future where major policy decisions are defended on the basis of lawyerly hair splitting, are you?

The fact remains you got the wrong message.  There's no hair-splitting going on here.  Simply your confusion.

Bruce

[daveNYC]

The only thing I'm confused about is if you're head is in the sand or up your ass.

[CmdrSlack]

"Real and present danger" doesn't mean "immediate, pressing danger"

Jesus fucking Christ. Spare us the spin doctoring. Do you really believe the bullshit you are spouting, or is this all an intellectual masturbatory exercise in devil's advocacy?

No spin doctoring here.  We take foreign policy doctrine very seriously... don't you?

I'm sorry Powell used words that were too big for you to understand.  Perhaps that's why he's in office and you're not.

Bruce

Bruce, you're wrong or at least very susceptible to spin.  "Real and present danger" means immediate.  In another context, it's the same thing as an assault in tort law.  At criminal law, assault = attempted battery.  In tort, assault = immediate apprehension of an offensive contact.  Real and present danger = immediate apprehension.  We had to go in because there was an immediate threat.  Hell, equate the administration's argument in support of the war to the affirmative defense of self-defense and you'll see how "real and present" = immediate.

Even if you try to re-spin the phrase, all of your spin doesn't change the fact that a likely majority of people who supported the war interpreted "real and present" as being immediate.  When you couple "real and present" with a time-is-of-the-essence scenario, you imply immediacy.  

Oh, also, since you like to point out logical fallacies when argumentitively convenient, your above statement also contains an appeal to authority and perhaps an appeal to ridicule.

[Dark Vengeance]

You guys could save a lot of time and bullshit by simply pointing out that the administration had a sense of urgency regarding the war in Iraq. Which it did, otherwise we would have accepted further delays for weapons inspections, etc.

Some of this urgency was prompted by our own intelligence reports, others supported by intel reports provided by other countires....including a warning from Russia that Iraq may have been planning a terrorist attack on American soil.

There was a real and present danger based on the available information. John Kerry recently cited that his vote in support of the war was "the correct decision based on the information available to us at the time".

But keep going, blabbing on about the semantics of Colin Powell's comments to the UN.

Bring the noise.
Cheers...............

[daveNYC]

...including a warning from Russia that Iraq may have been planning a terrorist attack on American soil.

I'm sure that Putin is laughing his ass off at us as we speak.

[SirBruce]

Bruce, you're wrong or at least very susceptible to spin.  "Real and present danger" means immediate.  In another context, it's the same thing as an assault in tort law.  At criminal law, assault = attempted battery.  In tort, assault = immediate apprehension of an offensive contact.  Real and present danger = immediate apprehension.  We had to go in because there was an immediate threat.  Hell, equate the administration's argument in support of the war to the affirmative defense of self-defense and you'll see how "real and present" = immediate.

Sorry CmdrSlack, but my lawyer says you're wrong.  Have you passed your bar exam yet?

Even if you try to re-spin the phrase, all of your spin doesn't change the fact that a likely majority of people who supported the war interpreted "real and present" as being immediate.  When you couple "real and present" with a time-is-of-the-essence scenario, you imply immediacy.  

The fact the majority of people supported the war for the wrong reason is irrelevant.  To me right and wrong depend on facts, not the opinion of the majority.

Oh, also, since you like to point out logical fallacies when argumentitively convenient, your above statement also contains an appeal to authority and perhaps an appeal to ridicule.

Yes, since I already had a sound logical argument, I deflect a fallacious attack with another fallacious attack.  I am quite comfortable with that, as it does nothing to detract from the real argument.

Bruce

[SirBruce]

You guys could save a lot of time and bullshit by simply pointing out that the administration had a sense of urgency regarding the war in Iraq. Which it did, otherwise we would have accepted further delays for weapons inspections, etc.

That's a red herring.  Iraq had, after all, already been subject to multiple resolutions and years of "delays" while we attempted to solve the problem through other means.  By your logic, no one can ever do ANYTHING that's not a response to an immediate stimulus, which pretty much defeats the purpose of even having such a distinction in the first place.

There was a real and present danger based on the available information. John Kerry recently cited that his vote in support of the war was "the correct decision based on the information available to us at the time".

Yes, I never denied there was believed to be a real and present danger.  I denied the President told him that there was an immediate, pressing danger.

Bruce

[Tebonas]

See, if right and wrong depended on facts, then your current government would be wrong. The best you can say is that you believe they erred in good faith because they didn't know all facts. Your opinion is they did the best they could. Others think they didn't. Those contrary opinions come from the same facts (filterted through your different perceptions of course).

At its core, politics is opinion, not much else. And in a democracy its the opinion of the majority. Right and wrong are no political absolutes, and they surely are not in diplomatic circles.

The worst person is the one who believes he is only influenced by facts. That is a person who doesn't even know how his own brain works. A dangerous bunch.