lifeofwylie

If you do not read anything in my blog except this, Please take the time to read this. As usual, I wish I had written this one!

Urban Legends About the Iraq War

Urban Legend: The Bush Administration in general, and the Vice President and his office in particular, pressured the Central Intelligence Agency to exaggerate evidence that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction.

Reality: Here is the verdict of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence’s bipartisan Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq: “The Committee did not find any evidence that intelligence analysts changed their judgments as a result of political pressure, altered or produced intelligence products to conform with administration policy, or that anyone even attempted to coerce, influence, or pressure analysts to do so. When asked whether analysts were pressured in any way to alter their assessments or make their judgments conform with administration policies on Iraq’s WMD programs, not a single analyst answered ‘yes.’”

Urban Legend: The President and his administration intentionally misled the country into war with Iraq—and the “16 words” that appeared in the 2003 State of the Union are the best proof of it. In the words of Senator Ted Kennedy, “The gross abuse of intelligence was on full display in the President’s State of the Union…when he spoke the now infamous 16 words: ‘The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.’… As we all now know, that allegation was false….”

Reality: On July 14, 2004—after a nearly half-year investigation—a special panel reported to the British Parliament that British intelligence had indeed concluded that Saddam Hussein was seeking to buy uranium from Africa. The Review of Intelligence on Weapons of Mass Destruction, chaired by Lord Butler, summarized: “It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999. The British government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium…. The statement in President Bush’s State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that ‘The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa’ was well-founded.”

In the U.S., the Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq revealed that the CIA considered it important that the Nigerian officials admitted that the Iraqi delegation had traveled there in 1999, and that the Nigerian Prime Minister believed the Iraqis were interested in purchasing uranium, because this provided some confirmation of foreign government service reporting.” The Select Committee on Intelligence also noted that the CIA reviewed and cleared the President’s State of the Union address....

Urban Legend: Helping democracy take root in Iraq was a postwar rationalization by the Bush administration; it was an argument that was not made prior to going to war. In the words of a November 13, 2003 New York Times editorial, “The White House recently began shifting its case for the Iraq war from the embarrassing unconventional weapons issue to the lofty vision of creating an exemplary democracy in Iraq.”

Reality: The President argued the importance of democracy taking root in Iraq before the war began. A February 27, 2003 New York Times editorial shatters the very myth the paper was perpetrating just nine months later: “President Bush sketched an expansive vision last night [in an American Enterprise Institute speech] of what he expects to accomplish by a war in Iraq. Instead of focusing on eliminating weapons of mass destruction, or reducing the threat of terror to the United States, Mr. Bush talked about establishing a ‘free and peaceful Iraq’ that would serve as a ‘dramatic and inspiring example’ to the entire Arab and Muslim world, provide a stabilizing influence in the Middle East, and even help end the Arab-Israeli conflict. The idea of turning Iraq into a model democracy in the Arab world is one some members of the administration have been discussing for a long time.” President Bush’s 2002 State of the Union made the same case….

Urban Legend: Saddam Hussein posed no threat. In the words of former Senator Max Cleland, “Iraq was no threat. We now know that. There are no weapons of mass destruction, no nuclear weapons programs, no ties to al-Qaeda. We now know that.”

Reality: Upon his return from Iraq, weapons inspector David Kay, head of the Iraq Survey Group, said in Senate testimony: “I think the world is far safer with the disappearance and the removal of Saddam Hussein…. I actually think this may be one of those cases where it was even more dangerous than we thought…. After 1998, it became a regime that was totally corrupt…. And in a world where we know others are seeking WMD, the likelihood at some point in the future of a seller and a buyer meeting up would have made that a far more dangerous country.”
Dr. Kay’s report noted that, “We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002.” He concluded, “Saddam, at least as judged by those scientists and other insiders who worked in his military-industrial programs, had not given up his aspirations and intentions to continue to acquire weapons of mass destruction…. Saddam intended to resume these programs whenever the external restrictions were removed. Several of these officials acknowledge receiving inquiries since 2000 from Saddam or his sons about how long it would take to restart CW [chemical weapons] production.”

Urban Legend: There were no links between al-Qaeda and Iraq.

Reality: The 9/11 Commission Report indicates that a senior Iraqi intelligence officer met with Osama bin Laden in Sudan in late 1994 or early 1995 and that contacts continued after bin Laden relocated in Afghanistan. Iraq harbored senior members of a terrorist network led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, an al-Qaeda associate. CIA Director George Tenet told the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (in a 10/7/02 letter), “We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda going back a decade.” Senator Hillary Clinton stated on October 10, 2002 that Saddam “has given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaeda members.” The Clinton administration tied Iraq to al-Qaeda back in 1998, arguing that Saddam Hussein had provided technical assistance in the construction of an al-Qaeda chemical plant in Sudan….

Urban Legend: President Bush and his administration wrongly tried to link Iraq and Saddam Hussein to the September 11 attacks. “President Bush should apologize to the American people” for this “plainly dishonest” effort, insists a New York Times editorial.

Reality: Neither President Bush nor any member of his foreign policy team has ever said Iraq was linked to the attacks of September 11. On September 17, 2003, for example, in response to a question from a reporter, President Bush said: “No, we’ve had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September 11.”

Urban Legend: President Bush has shown an “arrogant disrespect” for the United Nations on Iraq, according to Senator Ted Kennedy.

Reality: The administration devoted enormous time and energy to pass five separate U.N. Security Council Resolutions on Iraq, each by unanimous vote.... President Bush personally addressed the U.N. General Assembly in September 2002. The administration supported the work of Lakhdar Brahimi, the U.N. special envoy in Iraq, and a continued U.N. role in Iraq’s political transition.

Urban Legend: The President launched a “unilateral attack on Iraq,” to use the words of former Vermont Governor Howard Dean.

Reality: The coalition that liberated Iraq ranks among the largest war coalitions ever assembled. President Bush in his 2004 State of the Union address: “Some critics have said our duties in Iraq must be internationalized. This particular criticism is hard to explain to our partners in Britain, Australia, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand, Italy, Spain, Poland, Denmark, Hungary, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Romania, the Netherlands, Norway, El Salvador, and the 17 other countries that have committed troops to Iraq…. There is a difference, however, between leading a coalition of many nations, and submitting to the objections of a few. America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our country.”

Urban Legend: Flights out of the country for members of the bin Laden family were allowed before national airspace reopened on September 13, 2001; there was political intervention to facilitate the departure of the bin Laden family from America; and the FBI did not properly screen them before their departure.

Reality: Here are excerpts from The 9/11 Commission Report: “First, we found no evidence that any flights of Saudi nationals, domestic or international, took place before the reopening of national airspace on the morning of September 13, 2001. To the contrary, every flight we have identified occurred after national airspace reopened.

Second, we found no evidence of political intervention. We found no evidence that anyone at the White House above the level of Richard Clarke participated in a decision on the departure of Saudi nationals....

Third, we believe that the FBI conducted a satisfactory screening of Saudi nationals who left the United States on charter flights.... The FBI interviewed all persons of interest on these flights prior to their departures. They concluded that none of the passengers was connected to the 9/11 attacks and have since found no evidence to change that conclusion. Our own independent review of the Saudi nationals involved confirms that no one with known links to terrorism departed on these flights.”


Published in The Year the Democratic Party Sailed to New England October-November 2004

I wish I had writtem this one. Some original thinking about the U.S. abandoning the Iraqi Democracy:

Memo to Murtha
By Clifford D. May
Scripps Howard News Service
November 24, 2005 Before I say anything else, Congressman Murtha, let me thank you -- for your long public service in Washington and, before that, in Vietnam.

And let me commend you, too, for sparking an honest debate. Until now, what has passed for debate on Iraq has been mostly slander – for example, calling President Bush a liar and questioning his patriotism. Yes, questioning his patriotism: because anyone who would lie to get America into a war for reasons unrelated to national security would not be a patriot. He'd be a traitor.

I ask you, sir: Has such a vicious charge ever before been leveled at an American president in a time of war – or even a time of peace?

But you have not taken this low road. Instead, you have said you believe the war in Iraq “cannot be won” and that “it's time to bring the troops home.” This is a discussion worth having.
You also say that “80 per cent of Iraqis want us out.” I'm not sure where you got that figure but it's probably low. I'd guess that close to 100 percent of Iraqis – as well as 100% of Americans – would love to see U.S. troops heading home for the holidays. But some of us think it matters whether we leave Iraq after we've defeated our enemies – or whether we leave Iraq after having surrendered to our enemies.

When you suggest that planning for the war in Iraq was flawed, I think you have a point. American leaders, in the Pentagon and elsewhere, crafted an effective strategy for toppling Saddam Hussein. Once that mission was accomplished, however, they had only a vague idea about how to transform Iraq into a free, independent and self-reliant nation within a short period of time. Maybe that's because no one had ever attempted such a feat before.
Clearly, we should not fail again to plan adequately. So I would ask you about your plans for the aftermath of the defeat you say we must now accept. For example, it's obvious that if the U.S. military can't stand up to al-Qaeda in Iraq, the fledgling post-liberation Iraqi military won't have a prayer. That means we must plan for the possibility that al-Qaeda will come to power in part or all of Iraq. What, if anything would you propose to do in response to that?

Even if al-Qaeda only manages to shore up its positions in the Sunni areas of western Iraq, we must expect it will use that base to continue attacking Jordan and other countries in the region. Maybe we'd send advisors to help the Jordanian king? But help him do what exactly? Decide when the fight has become hopeless?

Also possible: The “Party of Return,” Baathists loyal to Saddam Hussein, could take over (maybe in some kind of de-facto coalition with al-Qaeda). They might even release Saddam from the jail where he has been awaiting trial (odd, isn't it, how trials, like wars, aren't as speedy as they used to be?) and restore him to power. What would we do in that case – ask the U.N. to re-start sanctions and the Oil-for-Food program?

The Shia of Iraq would turn to Iran's mullahs for protection against both al-Qaeda and the Baathists. To whom else could they turn? If what followed was an Iranian anschluss – annexation – of southern Iraq, will you have a plan to deal with that contingency?
Iraqis who “collaborated” with us would undoubtedly face execution – perhaps tens of thousands of would be killed for revenge or just to send a message. I guess Congress could offer a resolution condemning such behavior.

Thousands, perhaps millions of Iraqis would no doubt flee the country. Should the U.S. accept them as refugees? Or turn them away?

In many other countries where al-Qaeda has been applying pressure -- Bangladesh, Indonesia and Thailand to name just a few – three things would now be clear: (1) It is dangerous to be allied with the U.S.; (2) it is futile to resist al-Qaeda; and (3) bin Laden and Saddam were correct in predicting that if you bloody Americans, they will always turn tail and run.

As evidence they'd cite not only Iraq but Mogadishu and Beirut and, of course, Vietnam, where you served honorably. In truth, after that defeat – while millions of Southeast Asians suffered and died – Americans got on with their lives and we even went on to win the Cold War.

Is that the idea, Congressman? To cross our fingers and hope that our defeat in Iraq will follow the Vietnam pattern? Because if so, I have to say candidly, sir, that isn't much of a plan.
Clifford D. May, a former New York Times foreign correspondent, is the president of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies a policy institute focusing on terrorism.

Saddam Hussein was nothing like Hitler.

Suprizingly, many of the Iraqi's who disappeared under the Saadam's years are starting to emerge from hiding, some after decades of hiding and, boy, they sound an awful lot like Jews after the fall of Nazi Germany.

Oh yeah, Hiltler did not kill 260,000 plus of his own country men like Saddam did, so they are different.

Saddam's Iraq and Nazi Germany never did anyting to us. That must be the way they are the same. I mean, there were no Germans at Pearl Harbor and we did not declar war on Germany. Germany declared war on us 4 days after Pearl Harbor.

The only reason people do not accept the comparison of the evil of Hitler and the evil of Saddam is fear and shame. Saddam and Hitler were both evil men who needed to be stopped and any decent person can see that.

I hear it all the time in the media and from some of my friends. President Bush is a fool, a dolt, a moron. The insults fly much faster than any facts and the implication is always there: If you agree with "him" you must also be deficient. I must be a fool too because:

I believe that the United States is unquestionably a force for good in the world. I could site case after case but if you don't believe it, you will never listen.

I believe that people who serve in our military are responding to a higher calling to serve their country. I could list my facts but if you don't believe it, you will never listen.

I believe that ALL people want to live free, peaceful lives and the United States should help them. I could go through the argument but if you don't believe it, you will never listen.

I believe that there is evil in this world, that some views are plainly wrong, and that some ideas are worth the risk of life. I could try to explain it but if you don't believe it, you will never listen.

Yes, I am a fool. The war for the liberation of the people of Iraq is not "Mr. Bushes" alone, it is mine to. I hope I never "smarten up."

I saw a headline today that said "Iraq request exit date from U.S." As written below, I think exit strategies are the quickest way to lose, but in this "request" I seen a win for the President and our cause.

Iraq is a sovereign nation with an interim government. If they ask for an exit date, we should set one with them. Announce to the world that we will be leaving Iraq on date X as agreed to with the soverieng government of Democratic Iraq.

Make it know that when we leave the Iraqi people will be ready to defend their country from all enemies, foreign and domestic. Step up the war. Put more money into it. More troops. More everything.

What would be the outcome? Dis-armament of the Democrats, destruction of the foreign terrorist in Iraq, and the ultimate goal: a democratic, free and peaceful Iraq.

Game over.

I was quiet suprized to see this come out of Canada

November 20, 2005
American Crack-Up

By David Warren

I begin to understand why the Bush administration so hesitated to defend itself, from the wild charges being made against its Iraq policy. Commentators, at least on the Right, were pulling their hair in frustration. And even on the pro-Bush Left: Christopher Hitchens told me, the other evening, that the reason he goes to such provocative lengths to defend the U.S. President and his foreign policy is that the guy "doesn't seem to do it himself".

Mr. Hitchens, and Salman Rushdie, though the most famous, are incidentally far from the only supporters the Bush Doctrine has had on the Left. Nor, as Mr. Hitchens is also wont to explain, is President Bush short of enemies on the Old Right, from the Brent Scowcroft Beltway school of "realpolitik", to the isolationist heartland. The view that Americans had better leave tar-babies alone, and that "stability" is the only value they should pursue in the oil-bearing Middle East, is rife not only outside the government, but throughout State Department and CIA. Whereas Mr. Hitchens, who describes himself as "not necessarily not still a Marxist", applauds Bush and Blair for being "on the right side of history", carrying the torch of democracy and secular modernity to the world's most intransigent states.

Neither a Marxist, nor a neoconservative (whatever that means), but still a militant Tory, I don't believe in sides of history. It's just one gigantic palpitating mess beyond the possibility of human comprehension, but we try to make the best of it as we go along. Principles there are, and none are relative, but there is the frequent embarrassment of competing principles, and sorting through their hierarchy of the moment requires something like prudence or tact. From the beginning, a major and sometimes necessarily military effort to eliminate radical Islamism from the available pool of the world's ideological resources, has struck me as both prudent and wise. (It was ditto with Nazism and Communism.)

What I'm getting at here, is that the Bush Doctrine of physical intervention against the worst evils, while seeding democracy on Mesopotamia's irrigated plain, can be defended or attacked from several points of view. The doctrine's principal defence has lain with its author, however, and over the last few years, he has done a good job of keeping it to himself.

In the last week, both Mr. Bush and his vice president have, suddenly, counter-attacked their domestic opponents. They have called the Democrats on the floor of Congress for using facts and arguments against the U.S. intervention in Iraq which are neither true nor, strictly speaking, sane. Their idea that Mr. Bush dragged his unwilling country into war, by means of some fraudulent intelligence data, is absurd. He in fact made good on a Clinton administration policy (get rid of Saddam), and on the basis of pretty much the same murky intelligence we all had. Moreover, many of the same Democrats (and now, a couple of unhinging Republicans) who supported him every step of the way, now claim either they didn't, or they were fooled. Take your pick, either claim is false.

There are other issues clouding the political field; but in the main, the administration's current effort to call the Democrats' bluff has not caused the latter to crawl back into their holes. It has instead driven them further into cloud cuckooland, with the mainstream media chasing behind. It has resulted in a level of shrieking the like of which I cannot recall in the august Senate chamber. And this, perhaps, was the reason Messrs Bush and Cheney hesitated to try it on before. They thought, perhaps, that just "being presidential" might finally carry the day. Better, anyway, than provoking a kind of bipartisan nervous breakdown.

I look at this business from abroad. I note that polls now show the American isolationist impulse being triggered. On both Right and Left, something approaching half the electorate want to take their marbles and go home. For some unaccountable reason, Americans sometimes respond to being abused and slandered all over the world by turning in on themselves. And this, in the present unsettled state of the world in question, would be nearly the worst thing that could happen. It would leave all of America's allies -- corresponding very roughly to the side of the angels -- up a certain creek without a propulsive device.

The world has left the United States to do too much heavy lifting. It is an urgent matter for countries like Canada to stop mouthing off and heave ho.
Copyright 2005 Ottawa Citizen

The Washington Post reports that we have reach 2,083 American Service men and women dead in Iraq. It seems to me that whenever someone wants to make their negative position on Iraq "bullet proof" they quote the number of Americans dead. It is the social equivalent of accusing someone of being a racist so that whatever they say is meaningless. It is the worst kind of politics and social argument.

2,083 lives lost and everyone of them was important and the cause they died for was that important, too. They gave their lives so that others could be free. They gave their lives so that a free, democratic, peaceful, Arabic country could take hold. They gave their lives so that an evil, regressive, brutal ideology would not prevail. They gave their lives as volunteers on the right side of the greatest struggle in our life time.

I hope god blesses them and I wish people would stop using them.

 

Yesterday I was accused of some name calling in my blog. I must say that I try not to engage in such tactics. It is hard not to and I will tell you why.

It is hard because I come in contact everyday with people who make "pronouncements" of their "truth" without any specific facts to back them up, without any specific background to make them qualified to speak intelligently on the topic, without any specific education to understand what they are saying. They won't engage in any real discussion because they have nothing meaningful to contribute and their views wont hold up to any serious debate. But still they declare the truth with such disdain for others that decent people go quiet. They think the people are quiet because of the power of their intellect. In fact, the silence is from embarrassment for the fool who has just revealed themselves.

I try hard not to name call because I feel sorry for these people more than anything else.