September 17, 2004

• It almost certainly won't affect the coming polls, since most people who were paying attention already knew there were no WMDs, and those that weren't, or who are conservative supporters, won't change their minds anyway.
• Playing devil's advocate for a moment, I think it's definitely possible to argue otherwise. Whenever this sort of report or quote comes to light, everyone argues that everyone's already made up their minds, but no one's going to change their mind on a single piece of evidence. The real question is, does this particular information put someone's outrage quotient over the top? How many people will see this particular story and think, "You know, I keep reading about how the justification for war has been undermined, and how it's a quagmire with no resolution in sight, and every day I believe it more and more. Perhaps sticking with the devil you know isn't the way to go this year." I mean, the other stance doesn't really give the American people a whole lot of credit, does it? And despite all evidence to the contrary, I don't want to believe that just yet.
• "..I don't want to believe that.." Well, this is the crucial point, isn't it? Despite all evidence to the contrary, you don't want to believe a certain thing. The people who support Prez Bush/PM Howard don't want to believe that their favorites weren't telling the truth/weren't competent/ethical/what-have-you, for a whole host of psychological factors, whatever the evidence to the contrary. This is the phenomenon we are dealing with, here. People want to be right, at almost any cost, it seems to me. The same psychology compelling you to take an optimistic view for the potential of this report is ironically the same cause of its lack of impact on people who have already taken a certain partisan position.
• Newsfilter
• Pfft. We didn't claim that they had stockpiles of WMDs. We claimed that they had Weapons of Mass Destruction Related Activities and Programs. You know, like Hot Plutonium (lots of fun) and Pin the Mustard Gas on Uday. Stockpiles... Next thing you're going to claim that we claimed that they were a threat to us.
• Charles Duelfer is a partisan elitist commie democrat. And he has an illegitimate black baby, and his wife is an undercover agent for the CIA. So his "opinion" obviously can't be trusted.
• But they say there were signs that fallen Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had dormant programs he hoped to revive at a later time, according to people familiar with the findings. and As Duelfer puts the finishing touches on his report, he concludes Saddam had intentions of restarting weapons programs at some point, after suspicion and inspections from the international community waned. and It will also add more evidence and flesh out Kay's October findings. Then, Kay said the Iraq Survey Group had only uncovered limited evidence of secret chemical and biological weapons programs, but he found substantial evidence of an Iraqi push to boost the range of its ballistic missiles beyond prohibited ranges. All I'm saying is this indicates that pre-war intelligence was partially right, and that Saddam posed a future threat. Just because no stockpiles have or will be found doesn't mean the baby has to be thrown out with the bathwater. Most voters realize this. They are at least moderately aware of the issues, of the failures in intelligence, and the subsequent findings that indicate that Saddam had nearly everyone fooled.
• OK, regarding WMD: it was not entirely out of the pale of comprehension, at the time, to believe that Saddam had WMD. He'd had them and used them before; he'd had significant programs in place to develop them before; he'd stated that he was developing them and working on going nuclear; during the run-up to Gulf War 2, he intimated, to the UN and to the US, that he had them and was willing to use them; he fiddled with UN inspectors constantly, moving them here and there, denying them access to a variety of places; several Iraqi ex-pats had said he had them; satellite intel suggested he had them and was producing more. So while in hindsight it seems so painfully obvious that Iraq couldn't possibly have any WMD? Before the US invaded, it seemed likely that they *did* - not the least part of which, imo, was Saddam himself hinting that he did. And even today there is the question of Syria, who could easily have served as a repository for some WMD stockpiles (although I personally don't believe Syria is that stupid). So, yes, this conservative is willing to admit that, in all likelihood, Saddam was talking out of his ass and did not have WMD, Bush believed he did or believe he could find something that looked like WMD and felt that this aspect was a good cornerstone of a war marketing campaign, and both of them got caught in the soup. But it is the worst sort of Monday morning qb'ing to imagine that the idea is - an was - total poop. Second, the threat to US. Granted, I am of the opinion that, as far as revenge for 9/11 goes, we should have either stopped at Afghanistan or (eyes narrow) gone after Saudi Arabia. However (and I thought Stratfor had a very well thought on paper on this during the run-up) there were and are solid reasons for conquering Iraq. Many cite the idea of freeing an oppressed people and introducing democracy to the Middle East, which are laudable examples and valid in themselves but not quite enough to justify the huge volumes and men and material sent; there is the blood-for-oil argument, and Iraq is a significant producer, but I don't believe that's could be the whole of it either - Iraq's reserves are draining like the rest of the middle east's, and we have several other friendlier options - Canada, Venezuela, Russia, even Saudi - for acquiring more to make up for what we'd lose from Iraq. But I think (and this was the Stratfor contention) that, if you suppose (rightly, I believe) that the way to defeat Islamic terror is not to hunt the terrorists individually but to deny them their historical sources of support and succor, then putting a large US military presence in Iraq - centrally located, considered the largest military power, moderately secular - you can *threaten* all the other traditional sourecs of terror in the Mideast. It's a variation of the Gauntlet in Glove idea - if you are a state that supports terror, and you have the world's most effective army on your doorstep backed by an administration that's willing to use it, and that administration comes to you and says, "you know, we'd really like you guys to back off on that whole supporting terroris thing..." (followed by the sound of a cocking mechanism), that you are going to seriously consider whether or not you want to stay in the terror-support business. And that, when taken with all the other reasons, I think, is a valid reason for conquering Iraq. Whether they are capable of succeeding in this, however, is eminently debatable. Philosophically, I think the idea is sound.
• I heart Fes's well-thought out opinions.
• "All I'm saying is this indicates that pre-war intelligence was partially right.." According to Duelfer. Christ, the pro-war folks must *really* be desperate if they are clinging to even the careful wording of a diplomat's negative report in order to support their position! What intellectual bankruptcy. Intelligence was 'partly right', eh? Well, apart from all the important assertions that actually motivated Congress to support the war, the ones that turned out to be complete lies. You know, that Saddam's regime was an imminent, actual threat to the United States, & that he was involved with those who enacted the 9-11 atrocities (these were both knowing lies). The motivating factor was not that he was thinking about getting his chemical shit together again.. one day. It was that he was, right now, a super threat. Without these claims (Bush stated he had definitive proof that Hussein was up to all this.. proof that has evaporated) then the war on Iraq was not legal, even under United States law. This thinking resembles Bush's insane justifications in the Sawyer interview, "what's the difference?" There's a fucking huge difference, & if one can't see it, one is clearly not equipped to deal with the enormity of these issues, & their impact. Their reality. An obscene amount of innocent human beings died for these insane lies, people who would be alive under Saddam's admittedly oppressive dictatorship. But alive & oppressed is better than dead, & the Iraqis were responsible for making that choice, not you or I or Bush. "Just because no stockpiles have or will be found doesn't mean the baby has to be thrown out with the bathwater." This is not a rational stance. It is simply a justification by those who cannot bring themselves to look at the cold facts of the matter. Those who urged war against Saddam were opposed by many, many in the world community who exposed the illogic of their propositions & the paucity, nay, fiction of their 'evidence'. Meanwhile, regimes who actually *did* have real WMDs, nuclear & otherwise, were ignored by the same political forces urging attack on Iraq. In the face of all this, the ridiculous claims that 'it wasn't all a waste' or that 'there might still be something found' fall very, very flat. Whatever Saddam thought he might do, or dreamed of doing, is irrelevant. He was contained. His military 'might' was insignificant & had remained so since the 'first' Gulf War. His regime was under stringent sanctions & he faced complex searches from the UN (Blix was right all along, of course). There is no reasonable way that he could ever have again posed a threat, under such conditions. There were still ongoing strikes by the West on military targets in his country, for god's sake. This sort of claim is full of shit, & totally ignores recent history. It's pure spin. Shameful. "Most voters realize this." I would like to know what evidence you base this conclusion upon, other than hope. Until relatively recently, up to 70% of polled Americans thought that Saddam Hussein was directly involved in the 9-11 atrocities. And you put faith in the electorate's ability to appraise themselves of the actual facts? This is like fairy-land thinking. It's almost delusional in the face of clearly provable fact. I'm not saying the public are morons (although this could be argued), but that in the face of a bombardment of misrepresentation by the administration, filtered thru a barely critical media, they had not the data by which to derive an informed opinion.
• Louis Menand had an interesting piece in the New Yorker last month about the psychology of voters. It's quite depressing--essentially, very few people understand the issues and even fewer can relate them to a candidate. Elections, in this light, are not a terribly accurate measure of the will of the people--if the people can even be said to have a will. In any case, I very much doubt that this will affect the American election at all.
• Without these claims (Bush stated he had definitive proof that Hussein was up to all this.. proof that has evaporated) then the war on Iraq was not legal, even under United States law. I'm not sure that's the case; admittedly, I am not an expert on the law of declaring war, but I'm not sure that the administration or congress is required to make a legitimate case to start a war; they are just required to make that case to the American people or suffer the condequences. Whether initiating a war on demonstrably false evidence is against international law may be a different story, but I don't think it is that, either. A sovereign nation can declare war on another, so far as I know, for any reason at any time they see fit. There are consequences to that action, but I don't think that it's illegal is one of them. Admittedly, again, I could be wrong, but I don't see it as an assumed point. There's a fucking huge difference, & if one can't see it, one is clearly not equipped to deal with the enormity of these issues, & their impact. That is a matter of opinion, not a point of fact. It's also mildly insulting, to those of us on the right who *do* think about these things. But alive & oppressed is better than dead, & the Iraqis were responsible for making that choice, not you or I or Bush. The difficulties of the Iraqi people deciding to overthrow a tyrannical, violent dictator with an active and apparently highly effective secret police are legion. Had the US not gone into Iraq, the likelihood is that Saddam would still be in power, with all that entails. I don't think there was any organized resistance to Saddam, save for perhaps amongst the Kurds, who were rather powerless to do something about it and very likely to stay that way. (continued...)
• This is not a rational stance. It is simply a justification by those who cannot bring themselves to look at the cold facts of the matter. The fact that someone disagrees with you does not *automatically* make them mentally and morally retarded, Nostril :) The weapons could have been destroyed by a Saddam on the eve of the war, or five, ten years before, or they could (admittedly, this is unlikely) be unfound or stockpiled in Syria. Or, like you say, they could have been simply a smokescreen. No definitive proof exists, so we can all only make assumptions based on evidence and Occam's Razor. The likelihood seems to be that they were gone long before the US arrived, but the *idea* that he had them, held widely before the war, is not entirely invalid, for the reasons I state above. Whatever Saddam thought he might do, or dreamed of doing, is irrelevant. He was contained. His military 'might' was insignificant & had remained so since the 'first' Gulf War. His regime was under stringent sanctions & he faced complex searches from the UN (Blix was right all along, of course). There is no reasonable way that he could ever have again posed a threat, under such conditions. There were still ongoing strikes by the West on military targets in his country, for god's sake. Those are excellent points. I reiterate: I think that the administration felt the Stratfor supposition was too complex and long-term for most of the American people to grasp, so they ginned up what they thought was a reasonable and far simpler selling point: WMD-->imminent threat. It is my *hope* that this was the case, for if it isn't, the charges made by Bush's detractors become that much more compelling. That hope, however, is tinged with the obvious lack of forethought with which the aftermath of the war has been handled, and the rather haphazard manner in which military oversight is being handled (I was as shocked and dismayed as any of Bush's most virulent critics at the activities at Abu Ghraib, and continue to hope that those who did those things are severely and publicly punished - personally, I would not be averse to seeing them stand trial in the Hague, if that was demanded). In light of that, I am more likely to cite incompetence, rather than malevolence, in the handling of Iraq, which perhaps has even less justification considering the seriousness of the issue.
• However (and I thought Stratfor had a very well thought on paper on this during the run-up) there were and are solid reasons for conquering Iraq. pssssst, fes didn't you get the memo? We didn't 'conquer' Iraq, we liberated the Iraqi people from a sadistic tyrant.
• "I'm not sure that the administration or congress is required to make a legitimate case to start a war.." If that were so, US would have joined Britain in WW2 sooner. The President requires Congressional authorization for use of force, anywhere. This was why Bush & Co. worked very hard to establish Hussein's imminent threat to the US, & his connection to Al Qaeda. It was on the strength of Bush's strident claims & bogus evidence presented by Powell et al (satellite photographs, Niger yellowcake documents) that Congress gave this authorisation. The President was required to prove these claims. In the letter that engaged the authorization, Bush claimed to have this proof. This was a lie. He could not have had such proof. If he did, we would know where the "WMD stockpiles" are. If he could prove that Iraq was connected with Al Qaeda, he most certainly already would have done so. If one considers this letter from the President to be fraudulent, the war in Iraq was illegal under US law, as I understand it. Thus, Bush, etc. argue that they were mislead by bad intelligence data, & are not responsible, but how laughable that is. "A sovereign nation can declare war ... for any reason at any time they see fit." And who makes the decision? How? Do you ask yourself this? An individual makes the decision? WHO "is" the sovereign nation? The head of that nation? In fact the central reason for the existance of the Constitution of the United States is a repudiation of this very idea! The Founding Fathers didn't want another nation where the power to declare war, or pass totalitarian decrees of any kind, were placed upon the head of one man. That was what they were trying to get away from! So.. no. "It's also mildly insulting... us on the right who *do* think about these things." Those on the Right can shut the fuck up & take the criticism like human beings with spines. They were wrong, totally wrong, demonstrably wrong, & their errors lead to real human cost. This is unconscionable & the least anyone should be worried about is offending a few Righties who were concerned about the toll, because they still supported the illegal, unethical, immoral war against Iraq. Fuck them. There's children's entrails strewed around the streets of Iraq, I don't give two shits about being rude to the bleeding hearts of the Right. Where were they last year? Too bad! "The difficulties of the Iraqi people ..to overthrow a tyrannical, violent dictator with an active and apparently highly effective secret police are legion." Irrelevant! It was their problem, & their responsibility (& their right) to do something about it. It wasn't up to the US to make a unilateral decision to 'save' Iraq, & it wasn't the reason given for the war. Does the US plough into Africa, Korea, or Turkey? Chechnya? The US is not the police force of the world. The oaths servicefolk make when they sign up is to protect the United States & its people - not serve as a kind of mortal League of Justice to whack any baddy in the world. This is another vainglorious & wrongheaded argument. Sad that the Iraqi people were oppressed... terrible! But that's why we have the UN. If the UN had decreed the war necessary, different deal. But the UN inspectors weren't even allowed to complete their jobs... "I don't think there was any organized resistance to Saddam.." Whaaaat? Wrong again. "..fact that someone disagrees with you does not *automatically* make them mentally and morally retarded.." Don't try that shit with me. If you identify yourself with those I vaguely credit with ethical bankruptcy, then "thou sayest it". I'm not interested in gaining the upper hand in a pissing contest, I'm angry about lies & war crimes.
• Points conceeded on the possible illegality of the Congressional approval of the Iraq War and the 'right' of the Iraqi people to overthrow Hussein. As for the rest, well, they are not so much arguments as they are charges, I've stated my opinion and I still hold it, and there is little I can say to assuage your anger, so I will respectfully withdraw at this point.
• What Nostrildamus said- every word- all of it! Thanks for saving me the trouble of writing it all out myself. What amount of evidence does it take for people to admit they were wrong? Does the truth matter so little anymore?
• According to Duelfer. Nice. Rationalizing your opinions by selecting which pieces of Duefler's report you want to believe, and ignoring or poo-pooing the rest. Talk about ethically bankrupt. Those of us on the Right who supported (and still support) the war have admitted the mistakes and errors in judgment and intelligence. The difference between us, Nostril, is that we are still able to see the reasons why such arguments were made in the first place, and why they were compelling. Your arrogance in assuming we are simply blindly following what is now considered faulty evidence has no place in reasoned discussion.
• Its all liberal lies. George Bush loves me / this I know / 'Cuz Ann Coulter tells me so.
• f8xmulder: I totally agree. PNAC R0X0RZ!
• Fes brought up the oil for blood thing and f8xy thinks I was in the no oil for blood crowd. The truth of the matter is that America needs oil. I think the bigger factor is not Iraq's oil production, but China and India becoming bigger users of crude oil. As those countries economies grow we are talking about over 2 billion people that are gonna starting using automobiles more. When there's a greater demand for a product the cost goes up. Short answer is gas prices will get far worse. There is no silver lining (unless you're a member of OPEC).
• "Rationalizing your opinions by selecting which pieces of Duefler's report you want to believe, and ignoring or poo-pooing the rest." Pot. Kettle. Black. Deufler's report is negative. "No stockpiles". That Saddam 'may' have been intending to restart bio-chem programs once sanctions were lifted is not even relevant! That Saddam 'may' have posed a threat in the future is an argument to ignorance; saying that it could be true simply because it hasn't been proven false. I don't want to speculate why you cling to this. The only fact of relevance is that the war was instigated not on Hussein's possible intentions at some nebulous point in the future, but on his current abilities. "Those of us on the Right who supported (and still support) the war have admitted the mistakes and errors in judgment and intelligence." Where? When? Post proof or retract! When the admissions make headline news & all the flag-waving supporters of Bush's illegal war stand up, admit their errors & stop being cowardly little self-justifiying assholes -- it still won't make a difference. Why? Because the issues of right & wrong don't matter anymore in regard to the individual supporters of Bush's corrupt regime. These supporters were all played like rubes by Bush's organisation. Bush's administration relied on their very ignorance and credulity to achieve their aims. These supporters mean nothing, either way - their opinions rendered moot by their own inability to grasp the complex reality resulting from Bush's actions. All of which were forseen & predicted by the 'liberal' & 'left wing' nasties the Right so virulently detest. Tribally, they define themselves by that which they oppose, in absence of any real stance of substance, which is why they cannot admit error, for fear of their identity being subsumed. Jokes on them: too late! "..we are still able to see the reasons why such arguments were made in the first place, and why they were compelling." 'Compelling' is subjective. It denotes being swayed by convincing data. No two groups of individuals will be 'compelled' by the same information, unless that information is unquestionably authentic and affecting to all emotionally functioning human beings (such as footage of the suffering of innocent children during war - the images of the poor victims of Beslan spring to mind). Unless the viewers turn away & refuse to look at such footage, of course, or are prevented from seeing it. You're not allowed to see the coffins of the beloved dead, you're not allowed to see the wounded. How can you even take such a haughty stance? Seeing that the 'evidence' the majority of the Iraq war supporters based their stances upon were bogus, fake & totally inaccurate - the intensity of their belief in such data does not erase their errant fuckheadery, in my view. The fact that they are intractible even today in the face of what we know and see is not surprising. It's basically denial. "Your arrogance in assuming we are simply blindly following what is now considered faulty evidence has no place in reasoned discussion." Oh, such artifice! If I have stated something in error, then prove it wrong. Such an accusation is meaningless. All evidence supports the assertion that 'you' are blindly following faulty evidence. All indicators are that 'you' are vainly clutching at straws, even now, to save face. That's all it amounts to. Reasoned discussion requires use of *reason*, not just sophistry. Meanwhile you're not arrogant at all, assuming that there still could be a chance that your stance could be proven right, are you? There is not an atom of arrogance in in that, is there? I don't know how you can live with yourself, posting such tripe.
• Oh, such artifice! If I have stated something in error, then prove it wrong. Such an accusation is meaningless. All evidence supports the assertion that 'you' are blindly following faulty evidence. All indicators are that 'you' are vainly clutching at straws, even now, to save face. That's all it amounts to. Reasoned discussion requires use of *reason*, not just sophistry. Meanwhile you're not arrogant at all, assuming that there still could be a chance that your stance could be proven right, are you? There is not an atom of arrogance in in that, is there? I don't know how you can live with yourself, posting such tripe. Sounds like the Dan Rather Defense.
• Clam out, unclench, whatever.
• Pot. Kettle. Black. Nein. I've cited Duefler's arguments that support my thesis WHILE acknowledging his other assertions (eg. that WMD are unlikely to be found in Iraq). There is no kettle here, and I know for sure there's no pot. You're far too un-mellow to be smoking that stuff. Deufler's report is negative. "No stockpiles". That Saddam 'may' have been intending to restart bio-chem programs once sanctions were lifted is not even relevant! That Saddam 'may' have posed a threat in the future is an argument to ignorance; saying that it could be true simply because it hasn't been proven false. I don't want to speculate why you cling to this. The fact that Saddam even had bio-chem programs to restart is HIGHLY relevant. Or were they for making mixed drinks? Follow this chain of logic, please: Saddam had, at SOME point in the past, bio-chemical weapons programs. Intelligence at the time of the beginning of the war suggested they were still active and that Saddam was hiding them. That data also suggests that Saddam posed a threat in the future - couching it in terms of 'may' is a safeguard against rash indictments. Saddam had a demonstrated willingness to use chemical weapons in the past, it is not at all unreasonable to assume he would one day use them in the future. This is not an argument to ignorance, it is simply taking available data and pursuing it to its logical ends. I'm sorry you're too enraged to see this point. The only fact of relevance is that the war was instigated not on Hussein's possible intentions at some nebulous point in the future, but on his current abilities. Wrong, as demonstrated above. Where? When? Post proof or retract! proof When the admissions make headline news & all the flag-waving supporters of Bush's illegal war stand up, admit their errors & stop being cowardly little self-justifiying assholes -- it still won't make a difference. Blah blah blah. Jokes on them: too late! At least we're civil.
• 'Compelling' is subjective. It denotes being swayed by convincing data. No two groups of individuals will be 'compelled' by the same information, unless that information is unquestionably authentic and affecting to all emotionally functioning human beings (such as footage of the suffering of innocent children during war - the images of the poor victims of Beslan spring to mind). Unless the viewers turn away & refuse to look at such footage, of course, or are prevented from seeing it. You're not allowed to see the coffins of the beloved dead, you're not allowed to see the wounded. How can you even take such a haughty stance? There was plenty of unquestionably authentic footage of the suffering of Iraqi citizens under Saddam. Are you implying you turned away? Seeing that the 'evidence' the majority of the Iraq war supporters based their stances upon were bogus, fake & totally inaccurate - the intensity of their belief in such data does not erase their errant fuckheadery, in my view. The fact that they are intractible even today in the face of what we know and see is not surprising. It's basically denial. That says a lot about what you think supporters of the Iraq war based their stances on. My reasons were threefold, only one of which was the evidence suggesting Saddam was in possession of WMD. Others who support the war have similar stances. Oh, such artifice! If I have stated something in error, then prove it wrong. Such an accusation is meaningless. Okay: We on the Right are not blindly following what is now considered faulty evidence. We are following an entire stream of conscious reasons to support the war, only one of which was WMD. How's that? All evidence supports the assertion that 'you' are blindly following faulty evidence. All indicators are that 'you' are vainly clutching at straws, even now, to save face. That's all it amounts to. Reasoned discussion requires use of *reason*, not just sophistry. No, all your 'evidence' suggests that. Because you've blinded yourself to any other possibilities. All indicators are that 'you' are an arrogant, uncivilized brute who has little patience for opinions considered and supported on multiple levels. As to sophistry, a little of that is exactly what is needed right now. Reason does not answer all questions, despite your belief to the contrary. Meanwhile you're not arrogant at all, assuming that there still could be a chance that your stance could be proven right, are you? There is not an atom of arrogance in in that, is there? I don't know how you can live with yourself, posting such tripe. If this was ever about me being proven right then sure, it would be arrogance. But that's not what this is about. That's irrelevant to this discussion and the debate over whether the war was legal or not.
• We are following an entire stream of conscious reasons to support the war What are the other reasons? I would really appreciate a list of reasons that are still operative. TIA, etc.
• fuyugare, I will respond, but I've got to get going. I'm not sure when I'll get back to this before tomorrow. Sorry!
• Considering that every sane person on the planet had long ago correctly stated that Iraq had no WMDs, it's less than amusing to see a couple of yappy little Bush lapdogs still trying to maintain the illusion of a threat from Saddam Hussein. Wise up, kids: even your government officials (you remember them, they're the ones whose lies you swallowed in the first place) now admit that Iraq does not have WMDs or the capacity to create them, and the same was true going back many years. It's time to begin the process to indict these monsters for war crimes. How much improved the world would be with these most slippery slime incarcerated.
• fuyugare, sorry for the delayed response. My reasons for supporting the war in Iraq were not limited to the WMD argument, which was in my opinion, merely quantifiable (ie, could be proven), and had good evidence to support such a case. Democratizing Iraq to begin the process of sweeping political and social reforms in the Middle East was, to me, a long-term goal that could not easily be justified by invasion. The most humanitarian reasons for war, ie. taking out a ruthless and genocidal tyrant to prevent further depredations, was the "long-time-coming" reason. However, that was also not easily justifiable by invasion, since there are plenty of other murderous regimes still in play; who are we to decide which country we'll save and which we'll let alone? The combination of all the above, however, demonstrated an achievable AND justifiable means for invasion. Additionally, the prospect of rooting out terror where it has long been harboured (and I daresay festered) was attractive, even given the fact that Iraq wasn't directly involved in 9/11. I only bring that up because even though 9/11 was the pinnacle of terrorist activities, conflating it, our retaliation for it, and the Iraq war was/is a fallacy designed to distract from the true basis of the Iraq war, and has been used by luminaries like Michael Moore to prove that our involvement in Iraq is misplaced at best. 9/11 was not the sole or even primary raison d'etre for the war, so reasoning that assumes there must be a link between 9/11 and Iraq for war to be justified is already on the wrong track. Iraq was and is, of all the nations in the Middle East, the best positioned to be at the forefront of Middle East reform. It was mostly secular to begin with, which will help stabilize it as peace continues to become more prevalent there. It is in a geographically ideal location, and with our parallel mission in Afghanistan, and friendly Israel on the west coast, we effectively cut the Middle East in half. This will prove to be a major accessory when the need arises to begin convincing the mullahs of Iran to lighten up, or pressuring Saudi Arabia to cut off terrorist aid within that country. I understand this is all very neoconservative of me, and still might prove to be a "dangerous fantasy", but my confidence and optimism in the process is unshakeable, for if I have one quality that concerns this matter, it is patience. A successful invasion of Iraq also promised benefits to industry and science for that region. Economics would hopefully be equalized, and more funds spent on the country's infrastructure, where they were needed, instead of Saddam's palaces and houses for his sons and family. Whether my reasons are misguided or dead-on, they are by no means simple, linear, or one-sided. I've evaluated the risks of my opinions and have not found them wanting. I've tried to see both sides of the debate, but have come to the conclusion that the war in Iraq was the right move in the right time. Hope that helps, fuyugare.
• How the White House Embraced Disputed Arms Intelligence
• Ach, the truth is simply not in them. What is in them I would not care, at this time, to say. But I believe ye know exactly what substance I'm thinking of.
• It's officially over. The search for WMD in Iraq is over, nothing to see, move along.
• polychrome wins! (too bad I had money on the H-dogg) Okay all of you hawks who bought the WMD bullshit, please line up . . . Colin, you're first.
• Whew. I can stop holding my breath now. :(
• pete, hawks? I don't think I ever heard a national catch-phrase repeated as often as "weapons of mass destruction" by right, left and sundry. Need to hear some cool mash-ups with loops of newscasters repeating the phrase over "liar-liar"-themed tunes.