Semi-Daily Journal

The most interesting of these in my view was Buckley's. I thought its premise was a bit silly as it is really all too easy for a Republican to trust a GOP President against all the evidence. Witness how long it took some GOP Congressmen in 1974 to doubt Nixon on Watergate. But Buckley wrote in a style that his more junior staff at NRO should review carefully. No blatant lies, no shrill partisan attacks. I have always felt sorry from Mr. Buckley in the way that the junior staff has turned his publication into a pathetic rag. It is time they pay more attention to the man who gave then their start.

Posted by: Hal McClure on June 6, 2003 04:45 PM

At least Buckley is willing to own up to the fact that he "doesn't like" the conclusion that the Bushies are liars. The rest are just in flat out denial.

Posted by: Alan on June 6, 2003 05:04 PM

"At least Buckley is willing to own up to the fact that he "doesn't like" the conclusion that the Bushies are liars. The rest are just in flat out denial."

OK, a little pop quiz, to test who is in denial.

This is a quote, from January 2003:

Iraq "must be made to account for the thousands of tons of chemical precursors, the thousands of liters of biological warfare agents, the thousands of missing chemical munitions, the unaccounted-for Scud missiles, and the weaponized VX poison that the United Nations has itself declared missing."

Were the people who wrote this:

a) liars,

b) insane, or

c) former members of the Clinton Administration, with special expertise on Iraq and the Middle East?

Posted by: Mark Bahner on June 6, 2003 05:35 PM

A Quiz for Mark Bahner:

Is saying being "made to account for" the same as saying "we know he has the weapons?"

Posted by: Rob on June 6, 2003 05:40 PM

Oh, and another quote to test about denial:

Regarding the Al Shifa plant in Khartoum, Sudan, in August 1998:

"The plant was involved in chemical weapons production."

Part 1. Was the man who said that:

a) a liar,

b) simply mistaken, or

c) correct?

Part 2. Explain your answer.

Posted by: Mark Bahner on June 6, 2003 05:44 PM

Is saying being "made to account for" the same as saying "we know he has the weapons?"

Yes, I think saying "being made to account for" means that the authors thought they knew, at the time they wrote the piece (again, January 2003) that Saddam Hussein definitely had "thousands of tons of chemical weapons precursors, the thousands of liters of biological warfare agents, the thousands of missing chemical munitions, the unaccounted-for Scud missiles, and the weaponized VX poison..."

Do you think that Saddam Hussein ever did "account for" the "thousands of tons of chemical weapons precursors, the thousands of liters of biological warfare agents, the thousands of missing chemical munitions, the unaccounted-for Scud missiles, and the weaponized VX poison..."?

Posted by: Mark Bahner on June 6, 2003 05:52 PM

Another pop quiz.

When someone starts criticizing the Bush administration and you attempt to bring up things said by other people (who are not in the administration), are you:

(a) trying to change the subject

(b) engaging in false moral equivalence

(c) justifying dishonesty by claiming other
believed in the claims, or

(d) all of the above?

Posted by: nameless on June 6, 2003 05:59 PM

A clarification:

I think that "must be made to account for" means that the authors definitely thought they knew that Saddam Hussein had those weapons at some point.

Now, given the fact that Saddam Hussein submitted his "account" on DECEMBER 7, 2002...or one month BEFORE the authors wrote the piece (which was published January 23, 2003, as I recall)...

...that leads me to believe that the authors were saying that Saddam Hussein had NOT "accounted for" the weapons they KNEW he had.

Posted by: Mark Bahner on June 6, 2003 06:02 PM

Mark Bahner is right that occasionally the Clinton administration made mistakes. However, conservative commentators and the mainstream media have been harping on all of Clinton's faults, real and supposed, for the last 10 years ad nauseum. The point of this discussion, as I understand it, is not to digress into a Rush Limbaugh-esque 'Clinton did it', but rather to address the relevant facts that even conservative commentators are pointing out that the Bush administration may not have had such convincing evidence of WMD before launching an all-out war against a sovereign nation.

Simply pointing out that everyone makes mistakes once is a while is ridiculous in this case. After all, everyone makes mistakes, so maybe what Hitler and Stalin did were excusable as well...

Posted by: non economist on June 6, 2003 06:03 PM

ok Mark I'll take you on.

First, in Sudan, we did not have UN inspectors on the ground who had full access to any site we wanted to send them to. We had one piece of bad intelligence. The Clinton Administration, in a period in which the United States had been attacked a few days earlier, acted rashly, but they didn't have the same opportunities to act deliberately as Bush did in Iraq.

Second, you didn't provide a link for your quote, but there is no doubt that Bush/Rumsfeld et. al. had much better access to intelligence in January 2003 than any former Clinton administration official did. The Clinton folks had to assume that the Bushies would lie about such serious matters.

But most important, between January 2003 and March 2003, UN weapon inspectors scoured Iraq for weapons. They found nothing -- not because the inspections were fruitless but because there was nothing to find. They repeatedly characterized the leads provided by the US as garbage. I had a conversation with one of my National Review reading friends in March who told me that there was no way we could risk a mushroom cloud in Manhattan. I told him that the UN inspectors were positive that Iraq had no nuclear weapons, and he ridiculed me. "El Baradei has no credibility ... he just wants to avoid a war." The inverse -- that Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld were lying because they wanted a war just couldn't fit into his head. I'm sure it can't fit into yours either. But you can't point to anyone else. They were the ones touting the "classified intelligence reports" Each one of them said there was "no doubt" that Iraq had WMD. Those "no doubt" statements were clearly lies.

Posted by: pj on June 6, 2003 06:42 PM

ok Mark I'll take you on.

First, in Sudan, we did not have UN inspectors on the ground who had full access to any site we wanted to send them to. We had one piece of bad intelligence. The Clinton Administration, in a period in which the United States had been attacked a few days earlier, acted rashly, but they didn't have the same opportunities to act deliberately as Bush did in Iraq.

Second, you didn't provide a link for your quote, but there is no doubt that Bush/Rumsfeld et. al. had much better access to intelligence in January 2003 than any former Clinton administration official did. The Clinton folks had to assume that the Bushies would lie about such serious matters.

But most important, between January 2003 and March 2003, UN weapon inspectors scoured Iraq for weapons. They found nothing -- not because the inspections were fruitless but because there was nothing to find. They repeatedly characterized the leads provided by the US as garbage. I had a conversation with one of my National Review reading friends in March who told me that there was no way we could risk a mushroom cloud in Manhattan. I told him that the UN inspectors were positive that Iraq had no nuclear weapons, and he ridiculed me. "El Baradei has no credibility ... he just wants to avoid a war." The inverse -- that Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld were lying because they wanted a war just couldn't fit into his head. I'm sure it can't fit into yours either. But you can't point to anyone else. They were the ones touting the "classified intelligence reports" Each one of them said there was "no doubt" that Iraq had WMD. Those "no doubt" statements were clearly lies.

Posted by: pj on June 6, 2003 06:42 PM

I am most concerned about the Bush administration's obvious lie about the existence of prohibited Husseins in Iraq. Iraq has been scoured for Saddam, Uday and Qusay class Husseins since the war ended but not a trace of Husseins have been found. Nor have UN diplomats been allowed into Iraq to talk to any potentially existing Husseins.

Instead the administration has offered us feeble examples of "palaces " where the Husseins were alleged to have lived; questionable eyewitness reports from defecting Iraqis who claimed to have firsthand knowledge of a Hussein. Iraqi reports of fake Saddams have been recklessly discounted by this administration in their quest for a war for oil.

As we know, this war was justified by the Bush administration that claimed to have ironclad proof that Iraq had Saddam Hussein. Well, the war has been over for months and there is not a scintilla of evidence that Saddam or any other Hussein ever existed

I demand an investigation !

Posted by: mark safranski on June 6, 2003 08:48 PM

I am most concerned about the Bush administration's obvious lie about the existence of prohibited Husseins in Iraq. Iraq has been scoured for Saddam, Uday and Qusay class Husseins since the war ended but not a trace of Husseins have been found. Nor have UN diplomats been allowed into Iraq to talk to any potentially existing Husseins.

Instead the administration has offered us feeble examples of "palaces " where the Husseins were alleged to have lived; questionable eyewitness reports from defecting Iraqis who claimed to have firsthand knowledge of a Hussein. Iraqi reports of fake Saddams have been recklessly discounted by this administration in their quest for a war for oil.

As we know, this war was justified by the Bush administration that claimed to have ironclad proof that Iraq had Saddam Hussein. Well, the war has been over for months and there is not a scintilla of evidence that Saddam or any other Hussein ever existed

I demand an investigation !

Posted by: mark safranski on June 6, 2003 08:50 PM

I am most concerned about the Bush administration's obvious lie about the existence of prohibited Husseins in Iraq. Iraq has been scoured for Saddam, Uday and Qusay class Husseins since the war ended but not a trace of Husseins have been found. Nor have UN diplomats been allowed into Iraq to talk to any potentially existing Husseins.

Instead the administration has offered us feeble examples of "palaces " where the Husseins were alleged to have lived; questionable eyewitness reports from defecting Iraqis who claimed to have firsthand knowledge of a Hussein. Iraqi reports of fake Saddams have been recklessly discounted by this administration in their quest for a war for oil.

As we know, this war was justified by the Bush administration that claimed to have ironclad proof that Iraq had Saddam Hussein. Well, the war has been over for months and there is not a scintilla of evidence that Saddam or any other Hussein ever existed

I demand an investigation !

Posted by: mark safranski on June 6, 2003 08:51 PM

"ok Mark I'll take you on."

OK. I thought this was a discussion, but what the heck. ;-)

"First, in Sudan, we did not have UN inspectors on the ground who had full access to any site we wanted to send them to. We had one piece of bad intelligence. The Clinton Administration, in a period in which the United States had been attacked a few days earlier, acted rashly, but they didn't have the same opportunities to act deliberately as Bush did in Iraq."

You can't "take me on" if you don't have the honesty/courage to answer my questions. (I promise I'll answer any of YOUR questions, as best I understand them.)

I had a quiz about a quote on Iraq, and a quiz about a quote on Sudan. Which answer do you think is correct about each quote? (And why, for the question about Sudan.)

If you don't have the courage and/or honesty to give me answers to my questions, I don't think you've done a very good job taking me on.

Posted by: Mark Bahner on June 6, 2003 09:37 PM

"Another pop quiz."

OK...the answer to that pop quiz is "e"...NONE of the above.

a) It's not "changing the subject" to discuss what other people said outside the Bush Adminstration, when trying to evaluate whether the Bush Adminstration is lying,

b) There's certainly no "false moral equivalence" involved when asking questions about Iraq...that's the same subject. There COULD be "false moral equivalence" when talking about Al Shifa...but I don't think there is, at all. BOTH situations involved a President ordering a military attack.

c) I don't even understand c...I think you left out a word or two, and

d) Is definitely not right, since I don't agree with a), b), or c).

Now, I hope you'll honestly answer EITHER of my quiz questions. I don't think you will, though...anyone who posts as "Nameless" doesn't have much courage, and/or isn't very honest, in my opinion.

Posted by: Mark Bahner on June 6, 2003 09:53 PM

mark, you carefully constructed questions are nothing but an attempt to change the subject.

Yes, absolutely, it was not irrational to believe that saddam had chemical and biological agents.

Now that we've established that, let's actually try to look at the real question.

In making the solution to make war upon iraq and commit the united states to a long-term democracy-building project in the postwar environment, did the bush administration proceeed from a premise that iraq was more dangerous than it was and seek information that reinforced that presumption?

No one outside of the intelligence distribution networks in washington can pretend to answer that question for sure, but the fact is, the clinton administration position on wmds is only marginally more relevant than mine (i thought, for the record, that the iraqis had some chemical and biological materials, and i didn't think they were worth making war over).

The fact is, it's not hard to know the answer to the real question, because intell folks are leaking right and left, as they have no interest in playing out the victim role that they are being fitted out for. The Bush folks believed the evidence (largely from defector circles around Chalabai) that they wanted to believe.

it has turned out to be wrong in every major area: in the "cakewalk" premise, in the "flowers for liberators" premise, in the "refugee" premise, in the "services should continue" premise, and, of course, the "wmd" premise.

Now maybe, mark and others, you think this was merely prudent risk assessment by the bush administration.

or maybe you think that saddam was a bad guy and we were justified in throwing him out and rebuilding the country.

or maybe you think that we had to start somewhere to begin to introduce a new factor into the middle east equation, and saddam was easily the scummiest guy available, so let's go after him and who cares why.

but please don't pretend that the fact that clinton and clinton folks believed there were wmds justifies the bush administration's behavior. that dog just won't hunt.

Posted by: howard on June 6, 2003 09:55 PM

"It's not "changing the subject" to discuss what other people said outside the Bush Adminstration, when trying to evaluate whether the Bush Adminstration is lying."

Bzzt. Sorry, the answer is "a." You changed the subject. What Clinton knew regarding Sudan in 1998 has no relevance to Bush's decision to go to war. Likewise, what anyone outside the administration -- who does not have access to classified intelligence -- thought about Iraq's capacities has no relevance to whether Bush is lying.

You failed. ("C" was a close second.)

"anyone who posts as "Nameless" doesn't have much courage, and/or isn't very honest, in my opinion."

I am simply devestated by the put down. Boo hoo.

Posted by: nameless on June 6, 2003 10:09 PM

"mark, you carefully constructed questions are nothing but an attempt to change the subject."

So, in other words, you don't have the courage or honesty to actually answer the questions?

"Yes, absolutely, it was not irrational to believe that saddam had chemical and biological agents."

"it has turned out to be wrong in every major area: in the "cakewalk" premise,"

The word "cakewalk" was used by Ken Adelman, who is most definitely not a member of the Bush Administration. Dick Cheney (who IS a member of the Bush Administration) said that the war would be over in "a matter of weeks, not months." And guess what...he was completely correct! (The man is a friggin' genius! ;-))

If it was "not irrational to believe that Saddam had chemical and biological agents"...then I assume you are ruling out answers "a" and "b" of my first question?

So you think the answer is, "c) former members of the Clinton Administration, with special expertise on Iraq and the Middle East?"

Is that your final answer?

Well, if it is...you win! Yes, two former members of the Clinton Administration wrote, in the New York Times, in January (the 23rd, I think) of this year that Iraq "must be made to account for the thousands of tons of chemical precursors, the thousands of liters of biological warfare agents, the thousands of missing chemical munitions, the unaccounted-for Scud missiles, and the weaponized VX poison that the United Nations has itself declared missing."

"Now that we've established that, let's actually try to look at the real question."

That WAS the "real question!" The question was whether the Bush Adminstration was "lying" when it said that Saddam Hussein possessed chemical and biological weapons (aka, "weapons of mass destruction").

"In making the solution to make war upon iraq and commit the united states to a long-term democracy-building project in the postwar environment, did the bush administration proceeed from a premise that iraq was more dangerous than it was and seek information that reinforced that presumption?"

THAT is a completely bizarre question!

You're asking if the "Bush administration proceed(ed) from a premise that Iraq was more dangerous than it was..." But that leaves open the possibility that the Bush Adminstration could also have UNDERestimated the "true" Iraq threat. And the only way to know for sure would be AFTER the invasion and occupation!

So even if the answer to your question turned out to be "yes"...WITH 20/20 HINDSIGHT (big deal, anybody can answer the question, after peeking at the answer book)...what about the possibility that they would not have invaded, and Saddam Hussein HAD all the weapons that even CLINTON ADMINSTRATION people said Saddam Hussein had...or even much, much more?

"...in the "flowers for liberators" premise,..."

*I've* seen at least one photo of an Iraqi child giving a U.S. soldier a flower. And didn't you see the Iraqi man waving the American flag, on Saddam's statue in Baghdad, right before it was toppled? What about all the "thumbs up" signs given all along the route from Um Qasr to Baghdad?

"...in the "refugee" premise,..."

The only "refugee premise" I know about was the completely WRONG guess, prior to the war, that it would cause 100s of thousands, or even more than 1 million refugees.

"...in the "services should continue" premise,..."

WHO, in the Bush Administration, said, "services should continue"? I can easily imagine that someone would say, "Electricity and water won't be deliberately targeted"...because they weren't! But the military actually thought Saddam Hussein was going to blow up some hydroelectric dams...so they'd be crazy to think "services should continue."

"...the "wmd" premise."

They--along with EVERYONE (including Clinton Adminstration officials with knowledge of Iraq)--thought there were WMD. So far, they've found two trailers for which the most plausible explanation is that the trailers would produce biological weapons. But Iraq is a country the size of California...it may take quite a while to find anything else...especially if the stuff is buried, or was burned or otherwise destroyed (e.g., bleach poured into biological solutions).

"Now maybe, mark and others, you think this was merely prudent risk assessment by the bush administration."

I think the Bush Adminstration should not have gone to war without a Congressional declaration of war. Since Bush didn't get such a declaration of war, I think he should be impeached and removed from office. But I also think that virtually NONE of the gutless lawbreakers in the Congress (and that most definitely includes Democrats) will do that.

"...or maybe you think that saddam was a bad guy..."

I don't THINK that...I KNOW that, as much as I know virtually anything.

"...and we were justified in throwing him out..."

I don't consider unelected dictators to have any legitimacy at all. So I think ANYONE is justified in throwing them out.

"...but please don't pretend that the fact that clinton and clinton folks believed there were wmds justifies the bush administration's behavior. that dog just won't hunt..."

Maybe it doesn't hunt for YOU. If the Congress had voted a Declaration of War against Iraq, ***I*** would have been quite satisfied to have Bush go in and take out Saddam Hussein. The fact that even Clinton Adminstration officials, as late as January 2003, thought Saddam Hussein had lots and lots of chemical and biological weapons shows, to me, just how nearly universal the perceived threat was.

If a majority of Congress had thought the threat was enough for a Declaration of War, that satisfies ME, as a citizen. Also getting rid of a totalitarian, genocidal dictator, makes it even better.

Posted by: Mark Bahner on June 6, 2003 11:00 PM

"Bzzt. Sorry, the answer is "a." You changed the subject. What Clinton knew regarding Sudan in 1998 has no relevance to Bush's decision to go to war."

I'll concede that what Clinton did regarding Sudan didn't have relevance to Bush's decision to go to war. But I put in THAT question, because of Alan's comment that, "the rest (of Republicans) are just flat out in denial." I wanted to explore further just how many people were in denial.

"Likewise, what anyone outside the administration -- who does not have access to classified intelligence -- thought about Iraq's capacities has no relevance to whether Bush is lying."

No, that's complete BS. Writing that would mean that YOU (and I, and the 99% of Americans who DON'T have access to those classified documents) also could have absolutely no valid opinion about whether Saddam Hussein probably had, or probably didn't have, WMD.

So if you really think that only people who had access to classified documents can have informed valid opinions, you've rendered all discussion of the matter completely useless.

Posted by: Mark Bahner on June 6, 2003 11:15 PM

Mark: please explain why the entire world thinks bush is lying. Are we right and the world is crazy?

Posted by: rumfEld on June 7, 2003 01:20 AM

Mark

Who said this?

"I thought - my God, if this is the best intelligence they have and we find nothing, what about the rest?"

a. A leftwing pundit who has no understanding of the way Arab madmen like Saddam operate?

b. An armchair general who hasn't been to Iraq in 13 years and has no right to criticize Glorious Leader.

c. Hans Blix, an experienced WMD specialist who prior to Gulf War 2 based his expectations on the existence of WMDs on the basis that plutocrats in Washington and London weren't bald-faced liars? A fact that became harder and harder to ignore as inspections continued?

Bush and Blair scr***d the pooch on this one.

Posted by: patrick on June 7, 2003 04:01 AM

Political arguments in the form of multiple choice questions are:

a) charming and refreshing--demonstrating the clever and admirable rhetorical skill of the teacher/writer.

b) a clumsy method of trying to define/control an argument, sure to be resented by the miscreants one is debating.

c) certain to result in long, annoyed refutations in the form of more multiple-choice bullcorn.

d) inferior to the clear, direct articulation of one's own perspective and analysis.

Answers will not be graded. Class dismissed.

Posted by: ntb on June 7, 2003 06:12 AM

I don't think "whoops, turns out Bush was completely wrong on Iraq being a threat, but he didn't lie" is much of an improvement.

Posted by: Jason McCullough on June 7, 2003 06:27 AM

My own opinion is that Bush and today's GOP are, at best, extremists and that the backlash is building. The smell of fraud coming of these guys is unbelievable. The reality is that people accept that politicians will be manipulative and even corrupt to a certain degree. But these guys are con-men and have overreached to the level of crimes. That includes their assurances (not Clinton's, nor my Aunt Edna's...) of the presence and threat of vast stores of WMD. They didn't just exaggerate or haplessly believe a ne'er-do-well CIA (whose analysts actually advised against invading if you recall).

This is their second international war in two years. I, for one, do NOT feel safer as a result of their actions and evident incompetence. The next 9/11 is being quietly planned, while these cowboys use the U.S. military and treasury to act out their John Wayne blitzkreigs in the Muslim world. Insane.

It feels to me like America is at the crossroads of HeeHaw and the Godfather trilogy, Fredo's playing Rambo and nobody can take the matches and gasoline away from the frat boys. Meanwhile, they've just forced every middle-class taxpayer to buy Enron stock with a credit card. And we're finally choking on the BCCI--Mujahadeen--MuslimPuppetRegime club sandwich the neo-cons fed us in the 80s. God preserve us from the enemies the neo-cons have made for our nation.

BushCo does not have a mandate for what it is doing. It may be WMD humble-pie or it may be some of their other frauds, but eventually the feel-good-trust-me music is going to stop, and Americans will not be happy when they connect the crooked dots.

Posted by: ntb on June 7, 2003 08:10 AM

Mark

Let's get to the point. Both Bush and Cheney made speeches in which they said there was "no doubt" that Iraq had WMD. The intelligence reports recently released had no hard evidence of WMD -- just speculation that it was likely that Iraq could have such weapons. So Bush and Cheney both stood before the American people and lied to them about the quality of the information that we had about Iraq WMD. There was doubt.

Posted by: pj on June 7, 2003 09:17 AM

"What Clinton knew regarding Sudan in 1998 has no relevance to Bush's decision to go to war"

I've heard several Democratic commentators make the (valid) point that Bush's war was fought with Clinton's military -- that is, that the short years in which Bush have been in office are insufficient to develop new doctrine, weapons, or structure, and that therefore Bush is and must be relying on the decisions of Clinton.

I have NEVER heard anyone claim that Bush's decision must have been made using Clinton's
intelligence. (so to speak). And yet, isn't
that necessarily true, just as it is true about
the military? The background of Iraq's history,intentions, acquistions over the past decade and capabilities over the next decade were slowly and consistantly developed from the
Bush-I era, thru the Clinton era, and on into the
Powell/Rumsfeld era (stipulating for the sake of this discussion that Bush II has no intelligence of his own...)

I think Clinton's evaluation of the data available to him MUST be considered relevant to
the current discussion.

Posted by: Melcher on June 7, 2003 09:37 AM

My sense has been that we wished to decisively show nations that adopt a hostile stance to the United States that they are most vulnerable. We can not allow any country to be a direct threat.

Afghanistan and Iraq were object lessons that hopefully will not have to be repeated. The threats represented by both governments were indirect but real for both countries were havens for world terrorists.

The President and Prime Minister should have made this argument forcefully.

Posted by: bill on June 7, 2003 09:50 AM

mark, you managed to misread virtually everything that i wrote, but in the interests of not turning this into a vitriolic flame war, let me try to restate it as simply as possible:

Lots of reasonable people thought that Saddam had WMDs, but "lots of reasonable people" didn't have access to the most current intelligence. Only the Bush administration did.

So what everyone else though isn't worthy of discussion, only what the Bush administration thought and how they came to think it.

And it's not hard to understand what the Bush Administration thought and did: they believed the worst, and asserted it as fact.

And most of the worst came from the defector community, who have been proven wrong about everything presumption they made.

And, of course, we didn't go to war based on what Clinton officials believed, which is the dog that won't hunt, and to which your answer responded not at all.

I hope that's clearer and not as subject to your misreading.

Posted by: howard on June 7, 2003 10:04 AM

Either American and British intelligence was fearfully wrong or we were never told why the war was necessary. The constant pressure by America and Britain on Iraq appears to have prevented an accumulation of WMDs. The pressure could have been kept up for however long it took to undo the vicious government.

Obviously too, Iraq had been progressively for a decade.

Posted by: arthur on June 7, 2003 10:25 AM

Hal McClure writes,

"I have always felt sorry from Mr. Buckley in the way that the junior staff has turned his publication into a pathetic rag. It is time they pay more attention to the man who gave then their start."

I agree about the pathetic rag part, but why the sympathy for Buckley? Was he powerless to prevent this; is he powerless to change it?

Posted by: Bernard Yomtov on June 7, 2003 12:02 PM

Hmm... no one has any quibbles about classifying Nicholas Kristof as a neocon?

Posted by: Julian Elson on June 7, 2003 12:17 PM

Slightly longer Max Boot: you won't believe another argument that this guy was stupid enough to put in the permanent record. Listen to this incredibly Orwellian argument by Max Boot. This is mind boggling:

"It is indeed puzzling that U.S. forces haven't found more evidence of WMD, but this hardly shows that Bush and Blair lied. It does show how imperfect our intelligence about Iraq was, which actually makes the case for preventive war that much stronger."

So according to this evil Orwellian lying sack of shit, the fact that our intelligence was imperfect actually STRENGTHENED the case for war.

Unfuckingbelievable. I must say however, that I am truly impressed. This is quite a feat of self delusion. Forget about right and wrong, you have to admire the sheer, breathtaking ability to twist anything at all into support for one's case.

These people are pathological liars.

Posted by: The Fool on June 7, 2003 12:58 PM

William Buckley was an arch foe of civil rights in America. Radical-right is radical-right, and William Buckley is and was radical-right. Phooey.

Posted by: arthur on June 7, 2003 01:17 PM

Brad. I think your post unintetnionally suggests that Nicholas Kristof is a neoconservative. Which he's obviously not.

Posted by: Bobby on June 7, 2003 04:28 PM

Mark Bahmer: You have assumed that everyone here is a Clinton loyalist, which I absolutely am not, and that once you have succeeding in diverting a criticism of Bush to Clinton or some other Democrat, you've won the argument.

But there are substantive issues here, believe it or not. How many WMD did Saddam have, where are they now, and did we go to war under false pretenses? Everyone should care about these issues, regardless of party, and if "both parties are equally wrong", that makes things worse, not better. The problem does not disappear.

People wonder why I repeatedly test the bounds of civility in my responses to trolls. Your post should make it clear enough. To trolls every issue is purely partisan, and "The Democrats are just as bad" is a solution -- rather than a worse problem. (The same was done with Enron; since Democrats were implicated too, nothing could be done, and the country was worse off).

Brad, Matt, and Kevin disagree with me, and they're the masters of their respective blogs, but do we need these yapping little dogs?

Posted by: zizka on June 8, 2003 10:17 AM

"Mark: please explain why the entire world thinks bush is lying."

First, you provide the statement(s) Bush made that you (or "the world"...whatever that means)consider to be "lying"...then maybe we can discuss them.

Posted by: Mark Bahner on June 8, 2003 12:34 PM

"Mark: Who said this? "I thought - my God, if this is the best intelligence they have and we find nothing, what about the rest?'"

My guess would be "c," the daffy Hans Blix, who also said THIS:

"You have the instances like the global warming convention, the Kyoto protocol, when the U.S. went its own way. I regret it. To me the question of the environment is more ominous than that of peace and war. We will have regional conflicts and use of force, but world conflicts I do not believe will happen any longer. But the environment, that is a creeping danger. I'm more worried about global warming than I am of any major military conflict.'"

Perhaps the utterly clueless Mr. Blix should tell that to the families of the estimated 1+ million killed in the civil war in the Congo?

Or perhaps to the families of the estimated 500,000 to 1+ million killed in the 8 years of war between Iran and Iraq.

I have a suggestion for Mr. Blix regarding global warming: Before you say anything about it, Mr. Blix, qualify it with, "Well, I have absolutely no knowledge in this area, but..."

Posted by: Mark Bahner on June 8, 2003 12:43 PM

"Lots of reasonable people thought that Saddam had WMDs, but "lots of reasonable people" didn't have access to the most current intelligence. Only the Bush administration did."

"The most current intelligence" isn't particularly relevant. When Saddam Hussein kicked the U.N. inspectors out of Iraq in 1998, virtually everyone (including, as I noted, the U.N., and members of the Clinton Administration with expertise on Iraq and the Middle East) agreed that Saddam Hussein had chemical and biological weapons.

Now, since the U.N., and at least parts of the Clinton Adminstration, "knew" Saddam Hussein had chemical and biological weapons in 1998, the question is, when, if ever, did Saddam Hussein get rid of theose weapons?

To my knowledge, no one has ever "accounted for" those weapons...with the exception that the U.S. has found to trailers whose most logical purpose would be to create (more) biological weapons.

Posted by: Mark Bahner on June 8, 2003 12:55 PM

"Let's get to the point. Both Bush and Cheney made speeches in which they said there was "no doubt" that Iraq had WMD."

Yes, and I'll bet you can't show me a single district attorney (i.e., prosecutor) who ever said, "I'm prosecuting this person, even though there is some doubt about whether this person is guilty."

But prosecutors prosecute completely innocent people--and even convict them--with a distressing (to me) percentage of frequency.

That does NOT mean that presecutors are liars. That means prosecutors make mistakes. (Now, sometimes prosecutors *do* lie. Sometimes they *know* the people they are going after haven't committed the crime which they are prosecuting. Such prosecutors are definitely doing a bad thing.)

The LESSON to learn from prosecutors who prosecute innocent people is that JURIES should always make the final judgement. The analogy here is that the U.S. should NEVER let a president--of ANY party--go to war without a Congressional Declaration of War.

Posted by: Mark Bahner on June 8, 2003 01:15 PM

"But there are substantive issues here, believe it or not. How many WMD did Saddam have, where are they now, and did we go to war under false pretenses?"

There's a much more substantial issue than any of those at stake...that's the issue of the U.S. repeatedly engaging in "wars" without first having declarations of war from the Congress.

But I don't thinks it's very likely that either Democrats or Republicans (politicians or private citizens) have the wisdom and courage to make sure that no U.S. president ever goes to war again, without first obtaining a Congressional Declaration of War. (And I mean Declaration of WAR. Not "appropriate force," or any other unconstitutional nonsense.)

P.S. My last name is spelled Bahner, not Bahmer.

Posted by: Mark Bahner on June 8, 2003 01:44 PM

Mark (BahNer)-

I write to strongly support your suggestion that no U.S. President be allowed to start or enter a "War" without a formal declaration from Congress.

We use the word "war" so trivially today that we forget that real war involves killing people, destroying civilizations, subjecting our troops to death and injury, both psychic and physical as well as using resources that might be better allocated. This does not mean that we should never go to war but that to me war is fairly serious business...an opinion you seem to share.

While I think this "war" was a ludicrous charade based in large part on information that was at best misleading, I recognize that serious people could disagree and I do not claim to have all the facts, just those available in the press.

Wouldn't it have been so much better if there had in fact been a serious debate?

Somene said democracies don't go to war against each other. Presumably Hitler managed to disprove this maxim and certainly Iraq was no democracy. I don't compare GWB to Hitler(he's not smart enough for one), but it is hard to avoid the comparison of our Congress to the Reichstag or the treatment of principaled opposition by many in favor of war as tantamount to treason as all too reminiscent of a past we would not like to repeat.

The reality is that the reasons given for the war have (so far) proved to be bogus and I see no reason to believe this will change.(Nothing would give me greater pleasure than to be proven wrong.) Indeed, I believed them to be bogus from the beginning simply by following the news reports, so I thought the invasion to be a bad idea. But there was no serious challange in Congress. Were the members simply misled or fundamentally irresponsible? I don't know.

At this point, there are two things that we should do if we wish to think of ourselves as a nation worthy of moral respect:

First, we must commit those resources necessary to give Iraq a shot at becoming an open society that values human dignity. We have done the "war", right or wrong, and we have the responsibility to put our money where our mouth has been.

Second, we need to critically access how we got here. I don't know where that elusive truth lies, but we should do our best to find out and the facts on the ground do not obviously support the reasons that were presented for war.

I do not have a lot of confidence we will do either. Afghanastan does not provide a good example for the former and the members of Congres (in either party but especially the Democrats) show no courage to press the latter. The media seems more interested in fixating on the latest kidnapping or murder than such trivialities as war.

I am curious. Do you support allocating the resources to give Iraq a fighting chance? Do you support trying to find out whether the Congress and the public were misled and if so why?

I have no idea whether there was really intentional misdirection or whether intelligence or its interpretation was just inept. However, it certainly appears to me that this matter is worth at least the same intensity of scrutiny as a failed real estate deal and a sexual encounter.

Who knows, maybe we will find the equivalent of a stained dress. I would prefer we do not, but would feel much better if we had looked hard.

Posted by: Sam Taylor on June 8, 2003 08:46 PM

"We use the word "war" so trivially today that we forget that real war involves killing people,..."

I don't think we forget that, but we don't think of the true awfulness much.

"...destroying civilizations,..."

I don't agree that modern war necessarily involves that. As Christopher Hitchens says, I think we bombed Afghanistan (or at least Kabul) partially OUT of the Stoneage. (Civil war and the Taliban were responsible for destroying civilization in Afghanistan.)

"...subjecting our troops to death and injury,..."

I don't agree we forget that.

"...as well as using resources that might be better allocated."

I definitely agree, there. And I also think wars and post-wars can be done in ways that better allocate resources.

"This does not mean that we should never go to war but that to me war is fairly serious business...an opinion you seem to share."

Definitely. There are perhaps one to three U.S. wars I think were justified in the last hundred years (WWII, possibly Afghanistan, possibly WWI).

"Wouldn't it have been so much better if there had in fact been a serious debate?"

My point is that the primary place for "serious debate" is in Congress (and even among Congresspeople in private). It is Congress that is charged with declaring, or not declaring, war.

I'm not ruling out the importance of debate among the public, but I think it's entirely appropriate for much of that debate to go on AFTER the fact.

Basically, whoever represents you in Congress (Representative and Senators) should be who you hold responsible for doing the right thing, regarding any military action. This includes, if you think the President violated the Constitution (which he most certainly did in Iraq, and even in Afghanistan) demanding that your Congressional representatives impeach him and remove him from office. Of course, if they voted FOR the sham "war" declaration, they're not going to care about your demand. So THOSE people, you should vote out of office...if you consider the war in Iraq to be one of the most important decisions they've made in the 2 years or 6 years of their terms.

"First, we must commit those resources necessary to give Iraq a shot at becoming an open society that values human dignity. We have done the "war", right or wrong, and we have the responsibility to put our money where our mouth has been."

I agree that we should give them a SHOT. But I don't think that need take very long. In fact, if I were Bush or a member of Congress, I would push for a debate within Congress on the appropriate time of occupation. And I'd leave, no matter what, when that time passed. Further, in no case do I think it should be more than.......ummmmmm....5 years. Probably less than half that.

I think we need to set up LOCAL democracies, that have term limits on the order of MONTHS. Get LOCAL people, and local LEADERS, used to people being voted both in and out of office.

Further, if I were Bush or a member of Congress, I would propose that WE right the Constitution of Iraq, with the resulting Constitution to be ratified on the basis of a national referendum...a direct vote of The People of Iraq. (Then, of course, the Constitution would have an amendment procedure, such that it could be changed.)

I don't think we should let Iraqi "leaders"--even elected leaders, let alone unelected leaders--develop the Iraqi Constitution.

In fact, I've actually pretty much fleshed out an Iraqi Constitution, by myself. :-) :-)

It's essentially the U.S. Constitution, with some changes:

1) Term limits of 12 consecutive years for Representatives (of provinces) and Senators, with a 6 year "time-out" before they could serve again. Term limits of 18 years for Supreme Court judges; further, the 9 members of the Supreme Court would be nominated every 2 years, such that each President got at least 2 nominations. The Presidents would be limited to two 4-year terms, like the U.S.

2) I would protect the *individual* right to keep and bear arms COMPLETELY at from federal infringement, but at the provincial level would allow removal of that right, upon conviction of a violent felony, in a trial by jury.

3) I would add an amendment that requires every Iraqi citizen to get an annual royalty check from oil and gas revenues, modeled on the State of Alaska's royalty system.

4) I would rewrite the Powers of Congress section to make it clear that Congress could NOT do anything at all deemed to "regulate commerce" or "promote general welfare." I did that by rewriting the "regulate commerce" phrase to, "make commerce regular, including preventing provinces from impeding commerce." And I took the "general welfare" clause out completely, so that there is just an actual list of items in Article I, Section 8 of the Iraq Constitution. (I also removed the Postal Service. :-))

5) I would cap FEDERAL spending at 15% of GDP, except in times of war. (But with the rewriting in Article I, Section 8, there's really no realistic way of the federal spending ever getting that high in times of peace.)

6) I rewrote the presidential power to say that presidents can't wage war without first obtaining a Congressional declaration of war.

7) I included an amendment forbidding the requirement for women to wear any type of clothing, and forbidding requiring men to have any type of facial hair.

"I am curious. Do you support allocating the resources to give Iraq a fighting chance?"

Like I say, I would absolutely cap the maximum time of occupation (and make that time clear to the world). In that time, I would authorize...ummmmm $5 billion per year in direct wages to Iraqis. So the total DIRECT payments to Iraqis would be $10-25 billion...and probably closer to $10 billion.

The most valuable things we can give Iraq are: 1) Some intensive experience with democracy...voting people into and out of office, and 2) a written Constitution, such that, IF THE GOVERNMENT FOLLOWS IT, all the liberties we have in the U.S. are protected.

"Do you support trying to find out whether the Congress and the public were misled and if so why?"

The Congress has an absolute duty to find out whether or not it was misled. I think citizens should be interested, too.

But I think it's much more important to scream at Congress that they should never, never, never again let a president commit an act of war without a prior clear and unequivocal Congressional Declaration of War (including specification of the names of the governments which may be attacked).

Posted by: Mark Bahner on June 9, 2003 04:38 PM

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?