Well, yes. Obviously. Now tell me: how was attacking Iraq supposed to increase the security of the United States again?
Posted by DeLong at July 21, 2003 07:44 AM | TrackBackOct. Report Said Defeated Hussein Would Be Threat (washingtonpost.com): ...Last fall, the administration repeatedly warned in public of the danger that an unprovoked Iraqi President Saddam Hussein might give chemical or biological weapons to terrorists.
"Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists," President Bush said in Cincinnati on Oct. 7. "Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints." But declassified portions of a still-secret National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) released Friday by the White House show that at the time of the president's speech the U.S. intelligence community judged that possibility to be unlikely. In fact, the NIE, which began circulating Oct. 2, shows the intelligence services were much more worried that Hussein might give weapons to al Qaeda terrorists if he were facing death or capture and his government was collapsing after a military attack by the United States.
"Saddam, if sufficiently desperate, might decide that only an organization such as al Qaeda, . . . already engaged in a life-or-death struggle against the United States, could perpetrate the type of terrorist attack that he would hope to conduct," one key judgment of the estimate said. It went on to say that Hussein might decide to take the "extreme step" of assisting al Qaeda in a terrorist attack against the United States if it "would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him."...
One of the judgments was that Hussein "appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or [chemical or biological weapons] against the United States fearing that exposure of Iraqi involvement would provide Washington a stronger case for making war." Another judgment was that Iraq would "probably" attempt a clandestine attack against the United States, as mentioned by Bush -- not on "any given day" as the president said Oct. 7, but only "if Baghdad feared an attack that threatened the survival of the regime were imminent or unavoidable."
Today the situation is changed. Hussein is alive but in hiding, and his alleged stocks of chemical or biological weapons or agents have not been found. Meanwhile, the president and other leaders have yet to mention publicly the intelligence assessment that Hussein may be a potentially bigger threat now than before the United States attacked. In fact, Bush, in his May 1 speech from the deck of the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, appeared to take just the opposite position. "We have removed an ally of al Qaeda," Bush said. "No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime."
cnn.com poll right now:
Is President Bush doing a good job?
GO!
www.cnn.com
Posted by: jim on July 21, 2003 08:25 AMWeren't all these arguments in circulation prior to the war? Does this mean intelligence agency folks were signaling like mad that they were being used on broad basis? Or does it mean that lefties independently did a better job of assessing the world that war-mongers?
That is one of the really grinding things about the war and the debate surrounding it. If you weren't too busy thumping the war drum to pay attention, you could pretty easily foresee all the problems that we now have, and see through the roulette wheel of "reasons" for war from war apologists. Just couldn't stop 'em.
Posted by: K Harris on July 21, 2003 08:42 AMPublished on Sunday, July 20, 2003 by the Baltimore Sun
A War Critic Returns to the Spotlight
by Robert Little
Scott Ritter watched the televised war unfold like everyone else, and writhed with anxiety as Americans in chemical suits rumbled toward the unknown treacheries of outer Baghdad. For one of the few times that he has ever acknowledged, Ritter started to wonder if maybe he was wrong.
The former United Nations weapons inspector had spent the previous seven months touring newsrooms and universities around the United States and the world to argue that Iraq was not a threat, and that it almost certainly did not possess meaningful quantities of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.
Unlike other pre-war commentators, Ritter had inspected Iraq's weapons sites himself and interviewed the country's scientists and government leaders. He began that tour, he says, because he was certain that the Bush administration was lying about Iraq's weapons potential, to justify what he sees as an illegal war.
Yet, as soldiers plowed toward Baghdad last March, Ritter imagined Iraqi troops air-bursting a chemical warhead over their heads, killing Americans and proving Bush right.
"Given the forcefulness of the Bush administration's assertions," Ritter wrote in his new book, which began arriving in stores last week, and repeated in a recent interview, "I had gnawing doubts."
Today Ritter has rarely seemed more right. The former U.S. Marine, whose stature as an authority on Iraqi weapons was seemingly shattered before the war by various claims that he was a turncoat, a spy or a criminal, has begun a re-emergence of sorts, bolstered by the Bush administration's persisting failure to prove him wrong. A man widely dismissed as a traitor when he gave a speech in Baghdad to say the United States was "on the verge of making a historical mistake," is getting calls again from reporters and speech schedulers, as the search for Iraq's weapons stockpile plods on.
"Everything I said in that speech in Baghdad has been shown to be dead-on accurate, and it will stay that way because that's what it was - the truth," said Ritter, 42, in a telephone interview from his home outside Albany, N.Y.
"We staggered collectively into this war without scrutinizing the evidence, without being harshly critical of the case that the Bush administration was presenting, and now we're finding out - surprise, surprise - that it's all based on a lie.
"A lot of people ask if I feel vindicated, but that question assumes this is about me. It's not. It's about the credibility of the United States. And that's one of the great tragedies of all this..."
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0721-03.htm
Inspectors Call U.S. Tips 'Garbage'
Feb. 20, 2003
(CBS) While diplomatic maneuvering continues over Turkish bases and a new United Nations resolution, inside Iraq, U.N. arms inspectors are privately complaining about the quality of U.S. intelligence and accusing the United States of sending them on wild-goose chases.
CBS News Correspondent Mark Phillips reports the U.N. has been taking a precise inventory of Iraq's al-Samoud 2 missile arsenal, determining how many there are and where they are.
Discovering that the al-Samoud 2 has been flying too far in tests has been one of the inspectors' major successes. But the missile has only been exceeding its 93-mile limit by about 15 miles and that, the Iraqis say, is because it isn't yet loaded down with its guidance system. The al-Samoud 2 is not the 800-mile-plus range missile that Secretary of State Colin Powell insists Iraq is developing.
In fact, the U.S. claim that Iraq is developing missiles that could hit its neighbors – or U.S. troops in the region, or even Israel – is just one of the claims coming from Washington that inspectors here are finding increasingly unbelievable. The inspectors have become so frustrated trying to chase down unspecific or ambiguous U.S. leads that they've begun to express that anger privately in no uncertain terms.
U.N. sources have told CBS News that American tips have lead to one dead end after another...
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/18/iraq/main537096.shtml
Star Witness on Iraq Said Weapons Were Destroyed
Bombshell revelation from a defector cited by White House and press
February 27, 2003
On February 24, Newsweek broke what may be the biggest story of the Iraq crisis. In a revelation that "raises questions about whether the WMD [weapons of mass destruction] stockpiles attributed to Iraq still exist," the magazine's issue dated March 3 reported that the Iraqi weapons chief who defected from the regime in 1995 told U.N. inspectors that Iraq had destroyed its entire stockpile of chemical and biological weapons and banned missiles, as Iraq claims.
Until now, Gen. Hussein Kamel, who was killed shortly after returning to Iraq in 1996, was best known for his role in exposing Iraq's deceptions about how far its pre-Gulf War biological weapons programs had advanced. But Newsweek's John Barry-- who has covered Iraqi weapons inspections for more than a decade-- obtained the transcript of Kamel's 1995 debriefing by officials from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the U.N. inspections team known as UNSCOM.
Inspectors were told "that after the Gulf War, Iraq destroyed all its chemical and biological weapons stocks and the missiles to deliver them," Barry wrote. All that remained ere "hidden blueprints, computer disks, microfiches" and production molds. The weapons were destroyed secretly, in order to hide their existence from inspectors, in the hopes of someday resuming production after inspections had finished. The CIA and MI6 were told the same story, Barry reported, and "a military aide who defected with Kamel... backed Kamel's assertions about the destruction of WMD stocks..."
http://www.fair.org/press-releases/kamel.html
UK nuclear evidence a fake
British intelligence claims that Saddam Hussein has been trying to import uranium for a nuclear bomb are unfounded, according to UN nuclear inspectors
Ian Traynor Saturday March 8, 2003 The Guardian
British intelligence claims that Saddam Hussein has been trying to import uranium for a nuclear bomb are unfounded and based on deliberately fabricated evidence, according to an investigation by the UN nuclear inspectors in Iraq.
The chief nuclear inspector for Iraq, Mohammed El Baradei, yesterday flatly contradicted Downing Street's and British intelligence's claims of attempted uranium smuggling by Iraq and said that the documents used to substantitate the British claim were "not authentic".
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/story/0,11538,910129,00.html
Frustrated, U.S. Arms Team to Leave Iraq:
Task Force Unable To Find Any Weapons
By Barton Gellman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, May 11, 2003; Page A01
BAGHDAD -- The group directing all known U.S. search efforts for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq is winding down operations without finding proof that President Saddam Hussein kept clandestine stocks of outlawed arms, according to participants.
The 75th Exploitation Task Force, as the group is formally known, has been described from the start as the principal component of the U.S. plan to discover and display forbidden Iraqi weapons. The group's departure, expected next month, marks a milestone in frustration for a major declared objective of the war.
Leaders of Task Force 75's diverse staff -- biologists, chemists, arms treaty enforcers, nuclear operators, computer and document experts, and special forces troops -- arrived with high hopes of early success. They said they expected to find what Secretary of State Colin L. Powell described at the U.N. Security Council on Feb. 5 -- hundreds of tons of biological and chemical agents, missiles and rockets to deliver the agents, and evidence of an ongoing program to build a nuclear bomb.
Scores of fruitless missions broke that confidence..."
No problem. Tony Blair supports America, as long as we provide almost all of the troops and pay almost all of the costs. Then, there is Italy, Spain, Japan, Australia.... Front line troops? Nah. Money for war and occupation? Nah.
Posted by: arthur on July 21, 2003 09:13 AMThe Times is hesitating on the shore, but the Post has crossed the Rubicon. They're burning political capital on all sides, but they smell blood. They smell another Watergate.
I think you can do all that without mixing metaphors. Anyway, that's my take. Just read the Post.
The Office of Strategic Influence Is Gone, But Are Its Programs In Place?
November 27, 2002
The Federation of American Scientists has pointed to a startling revelation by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld that mainstream media have missed: In remarks during a recent press briefing, Rumsfeld suggested that though the controversial Office of Strategic Influence (OSI) no longer exists in name, its programs are still being carried out (FAS Secrecy News, 11/27/02,
http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/2002/11/112702.html
).
The OSI came under scrutiny last February, when the New York Times reported (2/19/02) that the new Pentagon group was “developing plans to provide news items, possibly even false ones, to foreign media organizations.” The news was met with outrage, and within a week the Pentagon had closed down the OSI, saying that negative attention had damaged the office’s reputation so much “that it could not operate effectively" (AP, 2/26/02).
The plan was troubling for many reasons: It was profoundly undemocratic; it would have put journalists’ lives at risk by involving them in Pentagon disinformation; and it’s almost certain that any large-scale disinformation campaign directed at the foreign press would have led, sooner or later, to a falsified story being picked up by U.S. media. (See Extra! Update 4/02, "Behind the Pentagon's Propaganda Plan.")
At the time, Rumsfeld claimed that he had “never even seen the charter for the office,” but Thomas Timmes, the OSI’s assistant for operations, said that Rumsfeld had been briefed on its goals “at least twice” and had “given his general support” (New York Times, 2/25/02).
Now, in remarks made at a November 18 media briefing, Rumsfeld has suggested that though the exposure of OSI's plans forced the Pentagon to close the office, they certainly haven't given up on its work. According to a transcript on the Department of Defense website, Rumsfeld told reporters:
"And then there was the Office of Strategic Influence. You may recall that. And 'oh my goodness gracious isn't that terrible, Henny Penny the sky is going to fall.' I went down that next day and said fine, if you want to savage this thing fine I'll give you the corpse. There's the name. You can have the name, but I'm gonna keep doing every single thing that needs to be done and I have."
A search of the Nexis database indicates that no major U.S. media outlets-- no national broadcast television news shows, no major U.S. newspapers, no wire services or major magazines-- have reported Rumsfeld's remarks.
Rumsfeld's comments seem all the more alarming in light of analysis presented by William Arkin in a recent Los Angeles Times opinion column (11/24/02), in which he argues that Rumsfeld is redesigning the U.S. military to make "information warfare" central to its functions.
This new policy, says Arkin, increasingly "blurs or even erases the boundaries between factual information and news, on the one hand, and public relations, propaganda and psychological warfare, on the other." Arkin adds that "while the policy ostensibly targets foreign enemies, its most likely victim will be the American electorate."
It is essential that media follow up this story, particularly now, as the country faces a possible war with Iraq and reporters rely even more heavily than usual on Pentagon information.
To read the full transcript of Rumsfeld's remarks, see:
http://www.dod.gov/news/Nov2002/t11212002_t1118sd2.html
To read William Arkin's Los Angeles Times article:
(Link expires December 1.)
http://www.fair.org/press-releases/osi-followup.html
Posted by: Mike on July 21, 2003 09:21 AMMeanwhile from the home front, as reported in the NYT:
["This report shows that we have only begun to scratch the surface with respect to the Justice Department's disregard of constitutional rights and civil liberties," Mr. Conyers said in a statement. "I commend the inspector general for having the courage and independence to highlight the degree to which the administration's war on terror has misfired and harmed innocent victims with no ties to terror whatsoever.`]
I was talking to some (highly educated - Harvard scholars to be precise) Muslim immigrants over the week-end and they had also noticed that of all Muslim immigrants that had had to proceed to special INS registation, one nationality was bizzarely excluded, you know Saudis. They also recalled, incidentally, that 11 of the highjackers were from Saudi Arabia.
I fell so much safer with this Administration on watch... You know, since they hate us because of our freedom, it makes sense to shed all our freedoms! That way they can't hate us anymore, duh.
The real question to me has become: why do they (i.e. this Administration's war camp) hate America(ns) so much???
>K Harris at July 21, 2003 08:42 AM
>"Weren't all these arguments in circulation prior to the war? ....Or does it mean that lefties independently did a better job of assessing the world that war-mongers?
>...If you weren't too busy thumping the war drum to pay attention, you could pretty easily foresee all the problems that we now have, and see through the roulette wheel of "reasons" for war from war apologists. Just couldn't stop 'em."
Published on Monday, July 21, 2003 by the Washington Post
Greens Want Candidate in 2004
- At Party Meeting, Most Rule Out Supporting a Democrat
by Brian Faler
The Green Party emerged from a national meeting over the weekend increasingly certain that it will run a presidential candidate in next year's election, all but settling a debate within the group over how it should approach the 2004 contest.
There were no formal votes or announcements on the issue. Instead, party activists said, the question was largely answered during two long strategy sessions held Friday night.
Both were closed to the news media. But participants said the discussions came to at least a symbolic close when they were asked to stand in different parts of the room depending on how they felt about the presidential race.
Those who wanted a presidential candidate who would run the strongest possible campaign were asked to stand in one area. Those who wanted someone who would run only in areas where electoral votes would not be pulled from the Democratic presidential candidate stood in another. Those who wanted to skip the race altogether and, instead, support the Democratic candidate stood in yet another.
The unusual exercise was intended to help participants visualize where the highly decentralized and often fractious party stood, literally and figuratively, on the issue.
The overwhelming majority of those present supported joining the race, according to several participants.
"I think people were happily surprised that Greens feel they're more on the same page than they may have believed that they were leading up to this conference," said Ross Mirkarimi, a spokesman for the California Green Party who attended the conference. "This is a very strong litmus test -- that people want to see a Green Party candidate for president."
The debate has been simmering for months -- in conference calls, e-mail exchanges, dueling Web sites and newspaper pages, and also in the gilded hallways of the Mayflower, the Washington hotel where the party held its annual convention.
The meeting was ostensibly held to decide a battery of mundane, internal matters such as committee assignments. But it was also the last time the party officials, delegates and activists would meet before next year's presidential convention, where they will formally decide on the race.
Some have maintained the Greens should skip the race and support the Democratic candidate in the hopes of unseating President Bush. "Bush is a serious threat to your country and the planet -- a much greater threat than any Gore-like Democrat," wrote Jason Salzman and Aaron Toso on their Web site, repentantnadervoter.com. Both were supporters of Green Party candidate Ralph Nader in 2000.
Most, however, said the party should join the race. Many said they believe there is still little difference between the major parties -- one activist tagging them "Republicrats and Demopublicans."
Others complained the Democratic Party is too weak-willed to adequately oppose Bush's agenda. Others said Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (Ohio), the only Democratic presidential candidate who has much support among the Greens, is unlikely to win his party's nomination...."
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0721-07.htm
>Jean-Philippe Stijns at July 21, 2003 09:21 AM
>"...The real question to me has become: why do they (i.e. this Administration's war camp) hate America(ns) so much???
(Fundamentally ;?)
Televangelist urges "prayer offensive" against US Supreme Court
Tue Jul 15, 5:38 PM ET
NEW YORK (AFP) - Prominent US televangelist Pat Robertson launched a "prayer offensive" against the Supreme Court on Tuesday, urging his supporters to pray for the removal of three sitting justices...."
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20030715/ts_alt_afp/us_justice_prayer_1
Anti-Muslim Rage in U.S. Hurts Others Too
31 minutes ago
By Greg Frost
NEW BEDFORD, Mass. (Reuters) - "Go back to Iraq!" the young men shouted as they beat and kicked the pizza delivery man in the face, breaking his jaw in three places.
They bound his thin body with rope, stuffed a sock in his mouth to muffle his screams for help and used the back of his neck as an ashtray. They stuffed him into the trunk of a car, where he managed to set himself free -- only to be stabbed.
But the victim of this Massachusetts attack was neither a Muslim nor an Iraqi but a Hindu from the central Indian city of Indore. He tried to make this clear to his assailants but his entreaties fell on ignorant ears...."
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030721/lf_nm/crime_hate_dc_2
The REST of 'em don't "hate" us--exactly.
They just want all of our money, our houses, our first born male sons and, of course, our labor: for free....
"Weren't all these arguments in circulation prior to the war?"
When the President of the United States says we are in immediate danger, you just have to go along. He knows things we don't, and there isn't time to argue.
I'd like to bring up a different point than the manipulation of intelligence and exxageration of the threat. Do you remember the fear? Stories of smallpox, constant terrorism alerts, even instructions on what to do if there is a nuclear explosion near you. The public was terrified!
But look at the difference now. When all information points to GREATER threats - al-Queda regrouping, the WMD missing, the military stretched to the limit, and especially North Korea - the government has pulled BACK on the fear. I think this points pretty clearly to an intentional manipulation of the public's emotions leading up to the election and then the war, and I think this is an even worse betrayal of the leadership position than manipulating the information.
Posted by: Dave Johnson on July 21, 2003 09:57 AMThe plan was to install our own puppet, Chalabi, as new dictator of Iraq and he would give franchises to US oil interests in return for investments in the Iraqi economy. The Iraqis were supposed to welcome Chalabi and show their gratitude to the US for getting rid of Saddam for them. The Iraqis would be our new friends and allies in the ME leading to the democratization of Iran and Syria and pressuring the Saudis to withdraw support from Wahhabis. Unfortunately, the dream ended and we are wide awake.
Posted by: bakho on July 21, 2003 10:04 AMMike - The very long posts make it very difficult to follow the comments. Would a portion or web address be enough? Thanks.
Posted by: emma on July 21, 2003 10:06 AMDuct tape and plastic sheeting--it did well in focus groups.
Posted by: Michael Robinson on July 21, 2003 10:11 AMWhy is the BBC under attack for questioning Tony Blair on the rationale for going to war? Tony Blair lied and lied and lied on the WMDs treat from Iraq. The BBC helped us understand the lies. Now, will the BBC be damaged?
If Tony Blair is the most trusted of world leaders, are we ever in trouble.
>emma at July 21, 2003 10:06 AM
>Mike - The very long posts make it very difficult to follow the comments. Would a portion or web address be enough? Thanks.
Emma - Everything I posted (except for the thing about Rumsfeld's scheme) WAS a "portion".
If you're having trouble keeping up, MY advice to YOU is: Slow down.
Oh. And you're welcome.
Posted by: Mike on July 21, 2003 10:30 AMEmma
That is Tony - I copied my WMDs evidence form a California doctoral thesis posted on the internet" - Blair
Posted by: rjay on July 21, 2003 10:33 AM>Dave Johnson at July 21, 2003 09:57 AM
>"When the President of the United States says we are in immediate danger, you just have to go along. He knows things we don't, and there isn't time to argue...."
Unh hunh. THIS president* "knows things" NOBODY "knows". He "knows things" nobody but him even BELIEVES. He EVEN "knows things" that NEVER happened....
"...Q So even though there has been some question about the intelligence -- the intelligence community knowing beforehand that perhaps it wasn't, you still believe that when you gave it --
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the speech that I gave was cleared by the CIA. And, look, the thing that's important to realize is that we're constantly gathering data. Subsequent to the speech, the CIA had some doubts. But when I gave the -- when they talked about the speech and when they looked at the speech, it was cleared. Otherwise, I wouldn't have put it in the speech. I'm not interested in talking about intelligence unless it's cleared by the CIA. And as Director Tenet said, it was cleared by the CIA.
The larger point is, and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in...."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/07/20030714-3.html
"Just got back from lunch with the Wall Street Journal opinion page, which goes so far to call for the Brits to drop BBC to privatization for questioning Blair, all while dismissing the uranium scandal as "half-baked." On the opposite page, it praises our geo-political stategy, and three letters praising Bush for acting against the immediate threat."
Posted by: A Friend on July 21, 2003 11:06 AMIn midst of a logorrheic series of spams, Mike includes the following text:
"A search of the Nexis database indicates that no major U.S. media outlets-- no national broadcast television news shows, no major U.S. newspapers, no wire services or major magazines-- have reported Rumsfeld's remarks. "
This is not true. I recall seeing or hearing about the "Henny Penny" remark about the time it happened, and recall the statement that he'd give up the name but not the function.
Posted by: Jon H on July 21, 2003 11:47 AMHey, vote in today's CNN poll, if you haven't already. get your friends and family to vote too. Looks like the right is trying frantically to arm-wrestle this one down.
www.cnn.com
Poll: Is President Bush doing a good job?
(scroll down & to the right)
Posted by: jim on July 21, 2003 11:49 AMMike,
Um, so we did know all those things before hand? Ick.
I'm not sure Dave Johnson's view is at odds with yours. Rather, I think he is making the point that we all understood when it was going on and that will be thrown into question in the future. When the President said there is a threat, he got a great deal of slack from the public. The quality of evidence required was low. Now that the little boy has cried "wolf" and there was no wolf, we might put the nation at risk waiting for proof when a real wolf comes along. This is among several terrible results of telling whoppers to sell a war.
Posted by: K Harris on July 21, 2003 11:59 AMWe should be concerned about the strain on the military that can result from about 150,000 troops in a dangerously pressured environment for an indefinite period.
Posted by: lise on July 21, 2003 12:10 PMSince May 1:
American casualties 93
British casualties 10
Well, no, obviously.
The problem with CIA assessments is that the CIA is terminally incompetent. They predicted the persistence of the Soviet Bloc just months before the Berlin Wall fell, they failed to penetrate Al Qaeda with humint, despite Johnny Walker's apparent ease in so doing. This report might or might not be accurate.
Flip a coin. Better odds.
Posted by: sweetums on July 21, 2003 01:29 PMWell, no, obviously.
The problem with CIA assessments is that the CIA is terminally incompetent. They predicted the persistence of the Soviet Bloc just months before the Berlin Wall fell, they failed to penetrate Al Qaeda with humint, despite Johnny Walker's apparent ease in so doing. This report might or might not be accurate.
Flip a coin. Better odds.
Posted by: sweetums on July 21, 2003 01:34 PMWell, no, obviously.
The problem with CIA assessments is that the CIA is terminally incompetent. They predicted the persistence of the Soviet Bloc just months before the Berlin Wall fell, they failed to penetrate Al Qaeda with humint, despite Johnny Walker's apparent ease in so doing. This report might or might not be accurate.
Flip a coin. Better odds.
Posted by: sweetums on July 21, 2003 01:39 PMJim writes:
> cnn.com poll right now:
>
> Is President Bush doing a good job?
>
>GO!
I'd say don't bother. Such self-selected polls are truly useless, and people who rely on them are just *asking* to get poked in the eye.
In this case, you don't need the made-up polls to see that Bush is really, really beginning to lose his grip on the mainstream polls. So check out the front page of:
I quote:
"Bush Job Performance Slips to 53% Positive, 46% Negative; More Voters (47%) Say It's Time for Someone New Than Say He Deserves Re-election; Two-in-Three Say it Makes No Difference if WMDs Are Never Found, According to Newest Zogby America Poll..." [7/18 poll]
The "negative" number should be absolutely frightening to anybody in the administration, and the positive number is now (a smidgen) lower than his pre-war 2003 low, and just 3% higher than his pre-9/11 reading. In other words, the party is truly over. Bush has essentially completely lost his once invincible 9/11 bump, and lost the Iraq bump up inside of 4 months. The Zogby poll has a greater "negative" reading than any poll and always has, but the other polls have and probably will track the same trend if not the same numbers.
Another interesting point here is that the public seems to be saying that their assessment of Bush is now *independent* of whether WMD are ever found. You could argue that this is incoherent, but depending on a coherent view from the public in your re-election bid is never a very smart idea.
But do read the Zogby poll results. They might not predict November 2004, but they really should be freaking somebody out in the White House.
Posted by: Jonathan King on July 21, 2003 03:02 PMThe public assessment of Iraq is that Mr. Bush declared the war over, the Iraqis were supposed to welcome our troops with flowers but instead our boys are stuck in the heat of Iraq indefinately, they are killing soldiers every day, the infrastructure is just a mess, there is no political stability and Mr. Bush shows no signs of having an exit strategy. To tell the boys they are coming home and then tell them too bad is bad policy. This is not what Mr. Bush promised. The soldiers are not happy, the people are not happy, the Iraqis are not happy, the Democrats are not happy and Mr. Bush is not happy.
No matter how we get out from here, Iraq will be seen as a bad idea by most people. The footage of fighter George landing on a carrier is worse than useless. It is a reminder of the broken promise and failed policy.
Toast.
You can almost stick a fork in it.
Posted by: bakho on July 21, 2003 07:50 PMI read the story, and my main problem with it is that it appears to treat a possible scenario from the report as an actual CIA assessment. It seems logical that an intelligence report would move through all possible scenarios, including ones that say how an invasion of Iraq could possibly make us less secure, at least in the short-run. But nothing in the actual text cited by the reporter indicates that the CIA actually concludes that this is the likely outcome of an Iraq invasion.
For instance, the report lays out one possibility that clearly did not come to pass, that Iraq would mount a cladestine terrorist operation "if Baghdad feared an attack that threatened the survival of the regime were imminent or unavoidable." Even while the fall of Baghdad was imminent and taking place, there wasn't a clandestine attack against the US.
As a result, it looks like a reporter has been spinning a single possibility scenario from an entire report to favor an anti-Bush spin, and De Long has gone with it because it confirms his biases. Maybe there's a case that Bush pushed a distorted interpretation of the intelligence, but you don't do that case any favors by doing the same.
Posted by: Keith on July 21, 2003 09:56 PM>Jon H on July 21, 2003 11:47 AM
>"In midst of a logorrheic series of spams, Mike includes the following text:...
Remember this too Jon..
>> K Harris on July 21, 2003 11:59 AM
>"Um, so we did know all those things before hand? Ick....
...because it's about to get worse.
What "we" did KNOW and what "we" did SAY and what "we" did DO and WHY (especially when it comes the activities of major league "players" in Washington AND on Wall Street) is usually a mystery to just about EVERYBODY else in the country.
"Remember" THIS Jon?
"...The intelligence official said that Russia and China both would increase proliferation, including "selling countermeasures for sure" to such nations as North Korea, Iran, Iraq and Syria..."
And this:
"...Arms control specialists have expressed strong concern that the missile defense system as designed would be incapable of overcoming relatively cheap and easy-to-deploy countermeasures, such as clusters of decoys..."
And this:
"...Moreover, the report warns that the missile defense shield would not protect Americans against what the official called "more accurate, more reliable and much cheaper" ways of delivering chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. These include ship-launched missiles, suitcase bombs and other covert means..."
A smart guy like you could probably just skim the rest of this message and proceed immediately to hammering the messenger. Or you could just pretend not to notice. Or understand. Or care--about matters like "increasing the security of the United States", I mean....
Published on Friday, May 19, 2000 in the Los Angeles Times
Secret U.S. Report Says Missile Defense Plan Poses Global Peril
by Bob Drogin and Tyler Marshall
WASHINGTON--The U.S. intelligence community is writing a secret report warning the Clinton administration that construction of a national missile defense could trigger a wave of destabilizing events around the world and possibly endanger relations with European allies, a U.S. intelligence official said Thursday.
The new National Intelligence Estimate will sketch an unsettling series of political and military ripple effects from the proposed U.S. deployment that would include a sharp buildup of strategic and medium-range nuclear missiles by China, India and Pakistan and the further spread of missile technology in the Middle East.
A supplement to the highly classified report will also note that the threat of attack from North Korea has eased since last fall, when Pyongyang effectively froze its ballistic-missile testing program in response to U.S. overtures.
Outside critics have long argued that the proposed national missile defense could backfire and actually diminish national security and global stability. But the CIA-led analysis and updated threat assessment are the first official evaluation of how the system could generate new threats.
The administration has pledged to decide this fall whether to proceed with an initial base of 100 "interceptor" missiles in Alaska, backed by ground-based phased radar stations and satellite-based infrared sensors, in a system designed to shield the continental United States from a limited missile attack.
Proponents of the system argue that North Korea, Iran or Iraq may threaten U.S. territory with intercontinental ballistic missiles someday. Critics argue that the threat is exaggerated, that the antimissile technology is unproved and that deployment would undermine crucial arms control and nonproliferation regimes.
CIA analysts believe that Russia would accept U.S. arguments that no system could protect against the number of missiles Moscow could launch and that its deterrent thus would be preserved. But China has only 20 CSS-4 intercontinental ballistic missiles in vulnerable silos, and the analysts say that, after a U.S. deployment, Beijing would conclude that it had lost its deterrent force--and act accordingly.
"We can tell the Russians that [the missile defense] won't affect the viability of their deterrent force," the intelligence official said. "I don't know how we can say that to the Chinese with a straight face."
If the U.S. system is built, the CIA believes, China would install multiple independent nuclear warheads on its missiles for the first time in an effort to overwhelm any missile shield. Beijing has possessed the technology for more than a decade but has not used it so far.
In addition, Beijing is deemed likely to build several dozen mobile truck-based DF-31 missiles, which it first tested last year, to create a more survivable force. It also is likely to add such countermeasures as booster fragmentation, low-power jammers, chaff and simple decoys to confuse or evade U.S. interceptors.
The intelligence official said that Russia and China both would increase proliferation, including "selling countermeasures for sure" to such nations as North Korea, Iran, Iraq and Syria.
Moreover, the official said, India is deemed likely to increase its nuclear missile force if it detects a sharp buildup by China, its neighbor and longtime rival. That, in turn, likely would spur Pakistan, India's archenemy, to increase its own nuclear strike force, the official said.
Former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft called such a scenario "plausible" and expressed concern about its possible implications.
"We ought to think whether we want the Chinese to change their very minimalist strategy," he said in a telephone interview. "I'm not sure what the answer is, but this is certainly one of the possible consequences that, in a sense, is more serious than the Russian reaction might be."
The Likelihood of a Domino Effect
Other specialists said that, while it is likely China would move to increase its intercontinental ballistic missile arsenal--now thought to be about 20 strong--it is questionable whether India and Pakistan would follow suit.
"China has had a strategic capability for a long time relative to India, and India has hardly gone on a missile arms race to counter it," noted John E. Peters, an arms control specialist at Rand Corp., a Santa Monica-based think tank.
Michael O'Hanlin, who tracks the missile defense issue at the Brookings Institution, a nonpartisan think tank in Washington, argued that, however dramatic it may sound, a domino-style nuclear arms buildup would be a lesser threat to the United States than China's potential willingness to develop and sell missile defense countermeasures to countries like North Korea. Arms control specialists have expressed strong concern that the missile defense system as designed would be incapable of overcoming relatively cheap and easy-to-deploy countermeasures, such as clusters of decoys.
"If they do that, it could defeat the entire purpose of the national missile defense," O'Hanlin said. "That is the scenario that's very important."
Further afield, the intelligence official who outlined the report said, America's allies in Europe and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization could be angered if the United States is seen to be walling itself off from its allies with an antimissile shield.
N. Korea's Test Program Frozen
The updated threat assessment notes that North Korea has frozen its program to test an intercontinental ballistic missile--the Taepo-Dong 2--since the administration proposed relaxing economic and diplomatic sanctions last year.
The missile still could be tested on short notice, the official said, and related tests of the system's electronics, pumps, tanks and other equipment are still going on.
CIA analysts, who warned last year that Iran may try to test an intercontinental ballistic missile by 2010, have detected little progress in Tehran's program. "We're not seeing some of the things we expected," the official said. "We're not seeing the threat advance."
The White House requested the intelligence estimate as part of its decision-making review.
The analysis, to be delivered next month, presents two different scenarios of how other nations are likely to react to a U.S. deployment.
The first is based on the premise that Russia agrees to U.S. demands to amend the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty of 1972 to allow a missile shield. The second assesses the effect if Russia refuses and Washington simply abandons the arms control process, as many Republicans have demanded.
At the moment, Russia and China are the only potential adversaries capable of hitting the United States with nuclear missiles. Russia has about 1,000 strategic missiles and 4,500 warheads.
The report pointedly declines to describe North Korea and other hostile states as "rogue" nations, since the argot suggests that their leaders are irrational.
"The term rogue state almost predisposes you in favor of" the missile defense system, the intelligence official said.
Moreover, the report warns that the missile defense shield would not protect Americans against what the official called "more accurate, more reliable and much cheaper" ways of delivering chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. These include ship-launched missiles, suitcase bombs and other covert means.
"The joke here is, if you want to bring a nuclear weapon into the United States, just hide it in some drugs," the official said.
Copyright 2000 Los Angeles Times
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/051900-02.htm
Posted by: Mike on July 22, 2003 01:22 AMAnd Jon, while I'm here and while the "subtext" of almost every(really big)thing that happens these days is about ignorance and/or oil and/or security and/or what SOME people will do to "control" it, YOU might want to pretend not to notice THESE items too...
THE END OF CHEAP OIL
by Colin J. Campbell and Jean H. Laherrčre,
Scientific American, March 1998
9/11 Attack Investigators Complain About Hindrances
Bush team is dragging its feet on access to papers and is cowing witnesses, they say.
July 9, 2003
By Greg Miller, Times Staff Writer
WASHINGTON — Leaders of a federal commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks complained Tuesday that the Bush administration has been too slow to provide access to key documents and is intimidating witnesses by insisting that CIA and FBI "minders" attend sensitive interviews....
July 19, 2003, 12:12AM
U.S. tallied up assets well before war
Documents list Cheney group's activities
By DAVID IVANOVICH
Copyright 2003 Houston Chronicle Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON -- The energy task force led by Vice President Dick Cheney was examining maps of Iraq's oil assets in March 2001, two years before the United States led an invasion to oust Saddam Hussein, newly released documents show..."
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/business/2001799
A TIMELINE OF OIL AND VIOLENCE: AFGHANISTAN
http://www.ringnebula.com/Oil/Timeline.htm
Global Warming
Higher temperatures threaten dangerous consequences: drought, disease, floods, lost ecosystems. And from sweltering heat to rising seas, global warming's effects have already begun. But solutions are in sight. We know where most heat-trapping gases come from..."
http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/
Energy. There's no shortage of renewable energy resources. North Dakota has enough wind to supply 35% of the total U.S. electricity demand. The sunlight falling on the United States in one day contains more than twice the energy we consume in an entire year. Fast-growing plants and other self-renewing resources awaiting the right technologies for harvesting. Continued research will ensure that these technologies are efficient, reliable and affordable.
Economy. In 2000, America imported more than half its oil at a cost of $109 billion, according to the Energy Information Administration (EIA). New energy technologies based on indigenous, self-renewing resources will help keep these dollars at home to strengthen the economy and create new jobs. A 2001 World Wildlife Fund study estimates that energy efficiency policies and renewable energy resource development could result in 1.3 million new jobs by 2020.
Environment. The EIA estimates that in 2000, 81% of all U.S. greenhouse gases were carbon dioxide emissions from energy-related sources. Clean energy sources such as sunlight and wind can be harnessed to produce electricity, process heat, fuel and valuable chemicals with little, if any, pollution. Sunlight also can be harnessed for tasks such as cleaning up contaminated soil and groundwater...
http://www.nrel.gov/ataglance.html
Our Ten Point Plan for Energy Freedom
http://www.apolloalliance.org/
Posted by: Mike on July 22, 2003 02:12 AMGo Mike, Go!
Posted by: JM on July 22, 2003 08:08 AMhere, little trollywolly, let me chuck you under the chin.
Mike - The length of your posts is most abusive. No matter, we all simply skip them.
Posted by: Jen on July 22, 2003 09:11 AMIf it was so "obvious", why didn't it happen?
The only thing obvious is that predictions made by anybody (including intelligence agencies) are never very reliable.
>Jen at July 22, 2003 09:11 AM
>"Mike - The length of your posts is most abusive. No matter, we all simply skip them."
Unh hunh.
(Say "hi" to those frogs in your pocket for me, Jen. Those ARE frogs. AREN'T they ;?)
Posted by: Mike on July 22, 2003 11:58 AMBrad, please do something about Mike's off-topic extracts. Folks are trying to read your threads. Sure we can scroll down, but this is simple trolling.
Posted by: John Isbell on July 22, 2003 12:18 PM>Stefan Sharkansky at July 22, 2003 11:02 AM
>"If it was so "obvious", why didn't it happen? The only thing obvious is that predictions made by anybody (including intelligence agencies) are never very reliable."
(Is there an echo in here ;?)
>"...Unh hunh. That's the Cheneyesque Rumsfeldian line we're ALL familiar with by now.
>That's why Cheney spent so much time at Langley looking over people's shoulders and that's why Rummy says he ditched the best estimates of his $multi-billion in-house professional intelligence analysts for a top-notch, off the books, shoe-string outfit:
>Rumsfeld's personal spy ring
>The defense secretary couldn't count on the CIA or the State Department to provide a pretext for war in Iraq. So he created a new agency that would tell him what he wanted to hear.
>- - - - - - - - - - - -
>By Eric Boehlert
>July 16, 2003 | During last fall's feverish ramp up to war with Iraq, the Pentagon created an unusual in-house shop to monitor Saddam Hussein's links with terrorists and his allegedly sprawling arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. With direct access to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's office and the White House, the influential group helped lay out, both to administration officials and to the press, an array of chilling, almost too-good-to-be-true examples of why Saddam posed an immediate threat to America.
>Six months later, with controversy mounting over the administration's handling of war intelligence, the small, secretive cell inside the Pentagon is drawing closer scrutiny and may soon be the subject of a congressional inquiry to determine whether it manipulated and politicized key intelligence and botched planning for post-war Iraq.
>"The concern is they were in the cherry-picking business," says U.S. Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Calif., a member of the House Armed Services Committee. "Cherry-picking half-truths and rumors and only highlighting pieces of information that bolstered the administration's case for war."
>The Pentagon's innocuously named Office of Special Plans served as a unique, hand-picked group of hawkish defense officials who worked outside regular intelligence channels. According to the Department of Defense, the group was first created in the aftermath of Sept. 11 to supplement the war on terrorism...
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/07/16/intelligence/index_np.html
>Speaking of "special plans" "outside of regular channels":
>The Office of Strategic Influence Is Gone, But Are Its Programs In Place?
>November 27, 2002
>The Federation of American Scientists has pointed to a startling revelation by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld that mainstream media have missed: In remarks during a recent press briefing, Rumsfeld suggested that though the controversial Office of Strategic Influence (OSI) no longer exists in name, its programs are still being carried out (FAS Secrecy News, 11/27/02,
http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/2002/11/112702.html )....
>Mike on July 20, 2003 05:40 PM
http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2003_archives/001792.html
Posted by: Mike on July 22, 2003 12:30 PM>John Isbell at July 22, 2003 12:18 PM
>"Brad, please do something about Mike's off-topic extracts. Folks are trying to read your threads..."
"Off topic", John?
"Folks", John?
"Folks" like you? "Folks" who would rather not have the pristine "threads" frayed by facts presented by "folks" like me?
You're a real sport, John.
(And I don't mean that in a BAD way. Really. Trust me ;-)
Posted by: Mike on July 22, 2003 12:42 PMYour "bombshell" story says: "The weapons were destroyed secretly, in order to hide their existence from inspectors, in the hopes of someday resuming production after inspections had finished. The CIA and MI6 were told the same story, Barry reported, and "a military aide who defected with Kamel... backed Kamel's assertions about the destruction of WMD stocks.""
That's why we invaded Iraq. Because the minute we left Saddam alone he would start to rebuild his WMD program. He was obligated under 18 UNSC Chapter 7 resolutions
http://paxety.com/Archive/20030225UNresolutions.html
to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the UN that he had disarmed, which he never did. (And if he did destroy all the weapons, why didn't he?)
What part of this do you not understand? It's in your own report.
(Brad, you're a smart guy - why is your comment section one of the looniest in the blog world?)
Posted by: Yehudit on July 24, 2003 11:10 PMYour "bombshell" story says: "The weapons were destroyed secretly, in order to hide their existence from inspectors, in the hopes of someday resuming production after inspections had finished. The CIA and MI6 were told the same story, Barry reported, and "a military aide who defected with Kamel... backed Kamel's assertions about the destruction of WMD stocks.""
That's why we invaded Iraq. Because the minute we left Saddam alone he would start to rebuild his WMD program. He was obligated under 18 UNSC Chapter 7 resolutions
http://paxety.com/Archive/20030225UNresolutions.html
to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the UN that he had disarmed, which he never did. (And if he did destroy all the weapons, why didn't he?)
What part of this do you not understand? It's in your own report.
(Brad, you're a smart guy - why is your comment section one of the looniest in the blog world?)
Posted by: Yehudit on July 24, 2003 11:11 PM