Maybe Bush didn't lie after all...

[Hayabusa Rider]

Maybe he and Co. just deceived everyone, including themselves.

So much for learning from history


The truth wouldn't work, so they came up with something clearer than truth.

 

[glenn1]

Maybe he and Co. just deceived everyone, including themselves.

The only problem with this is that no one really disputed the central thesis which gives rise to this line of inquiry, namely that Saddam had WMD. There wasn't really any scientific method way to prove or disprove that he did or didn't apart from him cooperating in the process. And since the previous evidence indicated he did, it's somewhat reasonable to see how without new evidence to the contrary, the old evidence would be seen to still "prove" that Saddam still had WMD.

To put it another way, when everyone in the Western world thought the earth was the center of the solar system/universe (rather than the sun), was it a sin of error or malice on the part of the people who believed that to theorize about how the sun revolved around the earth rather than vice versa? Especially since they didn't have evidence to show them to the contrary, at least until Galileo came along?

 

[Moonbeam]

Given enough fear and enough ambition and you can see anything.

There were a lot of people in this country who wanted war. They made us into murderers of innocent Iraqi civilians. Even today in his speach Bush refered to the iraqis as terrorists. That was not Iraq.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: glenn1

Maybe he and Co. just deceived everyone, including themselves.

The only problem with this is that no one really disputed the central thesis which gives rise to this line of inquiry, namely that Saddam had WMD. There wasn't really any scientific method way to prove or disprove that he did or didn't apart from him cooperating in the process. And since the previous evidence indicated he did, it's somewhat reasonable to see how without new evidence to the contrary, the old evidence would be seen to still "prove" that Saddam still had WMD.

To put it another way, when everyone in the Western world thought the earth was the center of the solar system/universe (rather than the sun), was it a sin of error or malice on the part of the people who believed that to theorize about how the sun revolved around the earth rather than vice versa? Especially since they didn't have evidence to show them to the contrary, at least until Galileo came along?

The CIA and State department certainly questioned it, at least before Tenet and Rumsfeld got ahold of them. No one really disputed the '60's scenario either. Let's go with Galileo for a minute though. Was it sin or malice that the Catholic Church refused to check Galileo's claim before trying and convicting him in advance? They didn't get a pass although they believed in something "clearer than truth".

We went to war. Doing so when you have no idea if it is warranted was wrong. I have no scientific way to determine if you are guilty or not of a crime. Even more I have no interest in doing so. I KNOW you did "it". Perhaps your family would forgive me my peccadillo if I eliminated you as a threat?

 

[glenn1]

The CIA and State department certainly questioned it, at least before Tenet and Rumsfeld got ahold of them.

I think you may be misstating things. The CIA and State Department never questioned the conclusion that Iraq had WMD, they only question (both past and present tense) the strength of the evidence of it. I don't remember anyone but Iraq claiming that Iraq had no WMD.

I have no scientific way to determine if you are guilty or not of a crime. Even more I have no interest in doing so.

That's why we have a trial by jury, with defense and prosecution presenting their best possible case with the evidence available and with their most persuasive arguments. In this case, the jury was the American people, there can be no question that both sides had the chance to make their case, and the jury's verdict was that Saddam had WMD. Case closed.

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: glenn1

Maybe he and Co. just deceived everyone, including themselves.

To put it another way, when everyone in the Western world thought the earth was the center of the solar system/universe (rather than the sun), was it a sin of error or malice on the part of the people who believed that to theorize about how the sun revolved around the earth rather than vice versa? Especially since they didn't have evidence to show them to the contrary, at least until Galileo came along?

However, no matter what theory turns out to be true with cosmic bodies revolving around one or the other no one would've died in vain. So much cannot be said if it turns out Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz are raving lunatics.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: glenn1

Maybe he and Co. just deceived everyone, including themselves.

The only problem with this is that no one really disputed the central thesis which gives rise to this line of inquiry, namely that Saddam had WMD. There wasn't really any scientific method way to prove or disprove that he did or didn't apart from him cooperating in the process. And since the previous evidence indicated he did, it's somewhat reasonable to see how without new evidence to the contrary, the old evidence would be seen to still "prove" that Saddam still had WMD.

To put it another way, when everyone in the Western world thought the earth was the center of the solar system/universe (rather than the sun), was it a sin of error or malice on the part of the people who believed that to theorize about how the sun revolved around the earth rather than vice versa? Especially since they didn't have evidence to show them to the contrary, at least until Galileo came along?

I'm not following you. Are you saying the following...?

We know he had them in years past.
We have no new evidence that he still has them.
Therefore the only logical conclusion is that, not only does he still have them, but that he's an imminent threat to the USA.

 

[HappyGamer2]

people will write/rationalize anything to get Bush off the hook, can't admit they are or maybe wrong

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: glenn1

The CIA and State department certainly questioned it, at least before Tenet and Rumsfeld got ahold of them.

I think you may be misstating things. The CIA and State Department never questioned the conclusion that Iraq had WMD, they only question (both past and present tense) the strength of the evidence of it. I don't remember anyone but Iraq claiming that Iraq had no WMD.

I have no scientific way to determine if you are guilty or not of a crime. Even more I have no interest in doing so.

That's why we have a trial by jury, with defense and prosecution presenting their best possible case with the evidence available and with their most persuasive arguments. In this case, the jury was the American people, there can be no question that both sides had the chance to make their case, and the jury's verdict was that Saddam had WMD. Case closed.

What the CIA questioned was if there was a credible threat of WMD's in Iraq, and if there was any reasonable basis for war on those grounds. Did they guarantee there was not one thimbleful of VX in the whole country? No they did not. The conclusion by a great many senior analysts was no. Saddam was not a serious threat. Their input was discarded. It did not fit in with he philosophy of the administration.


As far as trial by jury, there has been more than just that form of american justice. Where Bush hails from there is the time honored tradition of lynching. There was no credible evidence for measures dictated by Bush, but like a lynching being confused by the facts is a detriment. If the American public participated in it, then they didnt hold the rope, but sure were part of the posse. I think that is why most Americans don't want to know what happened, but defend Bush in spite of the fact that he said he had evidence, then could not produce. If they find him guilty, they find themselves willing accessories. Those americans have blood on their hands, like the Japanese did when they bombed Pearl Harbor. Like the Japanese, they will avoid taking blame for it.

 

[Phuz]

I doubt it. Either that or I've greatly overestimated the cabilities of intelligence and espionage.

 

[glenn1]

I'm not following you. Are you saying the following...?

We know he had them in years past.
We have no new evidence that he still has them.
Therefore the only logical conclusion is that, not only does he still have them, but that he's an imminent threat to the USA.

No, your conclusion is incorrect and i didn't state that. My logical reasoning would be:

We know he had them in years past.
We have no new evidence whether he still had them or not.
We gave him a method to demonstrate he no longer possessed them, but he refused to comply.
We can fairly deduce that if he had no WMD, he would offer proof of this, as it would not serve his self-interest to not offer proof.
Therefore the only logical conclusions are that either:

A. Presuming that Saddam was acting in his own self-interest, is that he still had them.
B. Presuming he was not acting in his own self-interest, that he did not have them yet did not offer proof of this.
C. Presuming that he was acting in his own self-interest, Saddam believed he did have WMD and was mistaken, therefore acted in a fashion which would lead an impartial outside observer to believe Conclusion A.

I allow you to make your own judgement as to which of these situations is correct. Option C, although IMHO least likely, is possible because he likely did not have the technical expertise to understand the workings of WMD. His scientists could have been actively leading him to believe that a WMD program was in place when in fact they were lying to him all along, trying to appease his desire for WMD yet realizing that he was too dangerous to actually possess them. Whomever was put in charge of a WMD program may have similarly mislead Saddam that an active WMD program was in place while they were skimming the funds for their own purposes.

You falsely infer my conclusion to be "he's an imminent threat to the USA," which i asserted nowhere or at any time. That's an entirely seperate issue IMHO, and a valid one to discuss, but that's not what i thought this thread was discussing.

 

[Gaard]

Ok, I was thinking you shared the incorrect logic that other members here have...that lack of evidence to the contrary is proof of somethings existence.

 

[glenn1]

Ok, I was thinking you shared the incorrect logic that other members here have...that lack of evidence to the contrary is proof of somethings existence.

No, not at all. And even if we could answer the WMD question affirmatively one way or the other, that doesn't make the seperate decision of what to do with this knowledge any clearer. Given any three of the possible scenarios i outlined, i can think of multiple defensible courses of action for any of them, and military action would be a potential solution to any of the three. Notice i didn't state that it was the preferred solution, but a legitimate solution nonetheless. I'll leave it for others to debate the merits of that question.

 

[Moonbeam]

We've know since PNAC what the Bush administration's intentions were for Iraq. End of story.

 

[Fenixgoon]

There's one thing I'd like to mention.. regardless of WMD, Saddam was never in compliance with United Nations Resolution 1441, which stated he had to disarm and could not possess missiles with a range longer than 150km (90 miles). In addition, Iraqi scientist Mahdi Obeidi buried centrifuges and other important materials (by order of Saddam) so that Hussein would be able to jumpstart a nuclear program in the future. The materials recovered were believed to save hundreds of millions (in terms of cost) and several years of research. I think this presents a clear intent for Saddam to rebuild his nuclear program. If the world ignored him for a couple of more years, he might have been able to pull it off. We defeated him in 1991 and "imposed" resolution 1441. No one ever bothered to check on him again (until now).

Edit: Oh, I also forgot. Concering the mobile labs discovered in Iraq, I believe it is a plausible theory to say that Saddam's regime could have possibly destroyed evidence and cleaned the labs in order to make the United States look foolish in its search for the presence of WMD (chemical, biological, or nuclear). Here's the link about the centrifuge being buried http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/06/26/sprj.irq.centrifuge/index.html

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon
There's one thing I'd like to mention.. regardless of WMD, Saddam was never in compliance with United Nations Resolution 1441, which stated he had to disarm and could not possess missiles with a range longer than 150km (90 miles). In addition, Iraqi scientist Mahdi Obeidi buried centrifuges and other important materials (by order of Saddam) so that Hussein would be able to jumpstart a nuclear program in the future. The materials recovered were believed to save hundreds of millions (in terms of cost) and several years of research. I think this presents a clear intent for Saddam to rebuild his nuclear program. If the world ignored him for a couple of more years, he might have been able to pull it off. We defeated him in 1991 and "imposed" resolution 1441. No one ever bothered to check on him again (until now).

Edit: Oh, I also forgot. Concering the mobile labs discovered in Iraq, I believe it is a plausible theory to say that Saddam's regime could have possibly destroyed evidence and cleaned the labs in order to make the United States look foolish in its search for the presence of WMD (chemical, biological, or nuclear). Here's the link about the centrifuge being buried http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/06/26/sprj.irq.centrifuge/index.html[/q

So what it boils down to is you're saying the war was justified because of Saddam did not fully comply with a UN resolution and he was trying to build a nuclear bomb? Well right now I'm thinking about a country which had 65 UN resolutions against it, and another 30 which would've been passed if not for United States' veto. This country already made many nuclear bombs, under no authority and without the consent of the United States. In fact, they kept their project hidden from the US for many years and when asked about the facilities producing these weapons, they told us it was nuclear research for 'peaceful purposes'. Now, why don't we invade these guys?

For your reading pleasure:
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/
http://www.musalman.com/news/musalman-UN%20resolutions%20against%20Israel.htm

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

1) We know he had them in years past.
2) We have no new evidence whether he still had them or not.
3) We gave him a method to demonstrate he no longer possessed them, but he refused to comply.
4) We can fairly deduce that if he had no WMD, he would offer proof of this, as it would not serve his self-interest to not offer proof.
5) Therefore the only logical conclusions are that either:

Actually what you meant to say was . . . "therefore to the best of my limited knowledge which I acknowledge is woefully inadequate to answer the question with any reasonable degree of certainty . . ."

The first two items are a given to which everyone agrees. The third is a non sequitur. The process agreed to by the UN was not the same process executed by the US/UK. Furthermore, it wasn't that Saddam refused to comply per se but that compliance did not meet predetermined conclusions . . . ie Saddam has WMD so if he doesn't provide evidence of WMD clearly he must be hiding WMD. Your fourth item makes the tragic flaw of presuming that there's no good reason to bluff having WMD. Such a supposition is logical only in the context of a world power willing to execute extrajudicial (violations of treaties, domestic and international law) actions against countries that cannot conclusively prove they lack WMD. The neighborhood bully's best weapon is the bluff. The threat of WMD is just as useful as a powerful military and ruthless secret police in keeping domestic opponents (Kurds, Shi'ites, Sunnis with a conscience) in line. Not to mention a credible nuclear deterrence would have kept US troops out of the theater.

Your exercise is quite common. Human logic is a powerful tool arguably Mother Nature's greatest gift but it fails us horribly when we work backwards from conclusions in search of evidence b/c 1) we are biased towards evidence that is consistent with the conclusion, 2) contradictory evidence that is "seen" will be explained away which by extension appears to strengthen our predetermined conclusion, 3) missing information is less relevant once we have collected sufficient evidence to feel confident in our conclusions.

It's still possible for one of your options A, B, or C to be correct . . . they just aren't necessarily the most likely out of all possible options. In constructing your conclusions you automatically chose whatever you believe and then included one or two other plausible but seemingly less credible alternatives. Logic often fails in this task.

Bush is not an inherently deep thinker . . . b/c by definition you must be deliberate and entertain often contradictory outcomes evolving from the same scenario. The WH wanted an excuse to invade . . . so they constructed a paradigm (impending WMD) and superimposed it on an otherwise unsavory character (Saddam). The subsequent course of action becomes self-evident as a function of human logic despite the lack of supporting detail.

 

[glenn1]

Your fourth item makes the tragic flaw of presuming that there's no good reason to bluff having WMD.

Oh yes, i can see where having his regime crippled by sanctions for a dozen years and eventually toppled by the American military served his self-interest so much better than bluffing that he had WMD in order to keep the Kurds in line. That makes perfect sense.

Not to mention a credible nuclear deterrence would have kept US troops out of the theater.

But you're positing that he was bluffing that he had a credible nuclear deterence, and in any event it didn't keep U.S. troops out of the theater, so your point is absurd on its face on both counts.

It's still possible for one of your options A, B, or C to be correct . . . they just aren't necessarily the most likely out of all possible options. In constructing your conclusions you automatically chose whatever you believe and then included one or two other plausible but seemingly less credible alternatives. Logic often fails in this task.

Well then, feel free to offer your alternative options D, E, ..... I'd be happy to hear what YOU consider the most likely option to be also.

 

[tcsenter]

Well right now I'm thinking about a country which had 65 UN resolutions against it, and another 30 which would've been passed if not for United States' veto.

Really? Israel has 65 UN resolutions against it? Hmm, perhaps you could provide some kind of documentation for these 'UN resolutions'? Preferrably from the UN itself, not a pro-Islamic website, please. Thanks a bunch.

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Well right now I'm thinking about a country which had 65 UN resolutions against it, and another 30 which would've been passed if not for United States' veto.

Really? Israel has 65 UN resolutions against it? Hmm, perhaps you could provide some kind of documentation for these 'UN resolutions'? Preferrably from the UN itself, not a pro-Islamic website, please. Thanks a bunch.

Too lazy to do a search on the web?

http://www.jewsagainsttheoccupation.org

this isn't hard to find

 

[lozina]

Also, you may browse the archives at http://www.un.org/documents/scres.htm. Or maybe they are pro-Islamic too. :Q

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: tcsenter
Hmm, perhaps you could provide some kind of documentation for these 'UN resolutions'? Preferrably from the UN itself, not a pro-Islamic website, please. Thanks a bunch.

And maybe we should always discredit information coming out of CNN and New York Times and stop posting them in this forum when it comes to Iraq, because they are American based and therefore should be inherently be pro-American and thus have a biased opinion. Right?

 

[Moonbeam]

1) We know he had them in years past. (I know I was told that)
2) We have no new evidence whether he still had them or not. ((I am not privy to what we know. 'We' don't know this at all.
3) We gave him a method to demonstrate he no longer possessed them, but he refused to comply. (We assume he was told and that he did not. We actually know what we've been told.)
4) We can fairly deduce that if he had no WMD, he would offer proof of this, as it would not serve his self-interest to not offer proof.(We know nothing and can fairly decude nothing from nothing)
5) Therefore the only logical conclusions are that eitherWe think we have sufficient information to be logical. We don't really know much at all)

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Oh yes, i can see where having his regime crippled by sanctions for a dozen years and eventually toppled by the American military served his self-interest so much better than bluffing that he had WMD in order to keep the Kurds in line. That makes perfect sense.

Wolfowitz stated clearly the reason the US had to intervene militarily was the inability to crush the regime by economic and political means. Saddam's core of support would have endured many more years of sanctions while the Iraqis suffered. You cannot take the outcome (American walkover) as proof that Saddam wasn't bluffing. Even a masterful plan to defend Baghdad would have merely delayed the inevitable American "victory" by weeks possibly a month or so longer. After two and a half decades of dealing with US regimes (including shaking hands with his archnemesis Rummy) Saddam assumed he would wait out yet another administration. Who knows . . . if Saddam hadn't taken a shot at Bush, the Greater . . . Bush, the Lesser might have given him a pass.

But you're positing that he was bluffing that he had a credible nuclear deterence, and in any event it didn't keep U.S. troops out of the theater, so your point is absurd on its face on both counts.

No I'm positing there's not necessarily a benefit (given the world's lackluster motivation to attack Iraq) to conclusively proving the absence of a credible future nuclear deterrence. Cheney/Rummy/Wolfie circled the globe touting the power (and potential power) of Saddam . . . I bet he got a 4 inch woody every night as the Bush admin polished his knob to the world press. There was nothing but circumstantial evidence for the chem/bio weapons and pure speculation with regards to nukes. Hence, Saddam took US soundbites and made apocalytical references to what we would face if we invaded Iraq. My point still stands . . . just b/c the bluff didn't work doesn't mean it didn't happen. Saddam's failure was the poor calculus with regards to his opponent. Bush made the decision to invade in 2001. Saddam needed real deterrence (ala. NK nukes) not a hypothetical one.

Well then, feel free to offer your alternative options D, E, ..... I'd be happy to hear what YOU consider the most likely option to be also.

I already gave you some. My point is that more information is necessary to reach credible conclusions. The most likely option is one based on best available evidence and a minimum of speculation. My alternatives . . . which could easily go into the double letter alphabet . . . require just as much speculation as yours despite the fact they encompass more concrete facts. The real option likely lies within such a set but the best course would be to collect further information NOT act on inadequate information.

 

[tcsenter]

Too lazy to do a search on the web?

http://www.jewsagainsttheoccupation.org

this isn't hard to find

lol! When I asked for UN sources, not pro-Islamic sources, I presumed you were intelligent enough to figure that included other polemic political sources, such as anti-US or pro-Palestinian. Sorry, my mistake, won't happen again.

Not that I trust Pro-Palestinian sources to accurately summarize the thrust of UN Resolutions any more than Pro-Islamic, but it will do.

Notice anything different about the wording of these Resolutions compared with those imposed against Iraq?

"condemns Israel"

"recommends Israel"

"urges Israel to comply"

"censures Israel for"

"urges Israel"

"calls on Israel"

"deplores Israel's"

Every single one is a statement of "recommendation" or "condemnation". They carry no weight of law, no authority whatsoever. They are merely resolutions expressing some "opinion" of the United Nations.

There is a difference between a resolution which expresses some opinion and a resolution which imposes a mandate and carries the force of international law. The resolutions against Iraq imposed a mandate and carry the force of international law. The resolutions against Israel impose no mandate and amount to nothing more than a statement expressing some 'opinion' of the UN.

The United State Congress passes resolutions all the time, expressing an 'opinion' or 'sentiment' of the Congress, but have absolutely no authority or force of law.

Do you understand the difference between "we feel it would be a good idea for you to do this" and "you will do this or else"? Further, many of the UN resolutions Israel has already complied with, such as withdrawing from Lebanon, and most express some 'opinion' about an action of Israel that already occurred in the past and therefore Israel couldn't be in 'violation' of.