As can easily be seen by anyone who can read the British document, the conclusion that intelligence was being fixed around the policy was C's opinion (whoever C was), rather than acknowledged fact, and this contention was subsequently dispelled by an investigastion conducted by the US Congress.
The US spent a year pursuing the UN route, which is a year more than Clinton did before he went into Bosnia Herzegovina and carpet-bombed swaths of Kosovo in order to stop a despot metasticizing in the very underbelly of Europe, complete with their own concentration camps, and whom the Europeans showed no desire to counter (in effect, doing their job for them - the job that they were shirking in their own back yard), and had come to the conclusion that, due to their ties to Saddam, that the French would veto any UNSC resolution calling for the forcible enforcement of 17 UN sanctions - and in fact, subsequent investigations, fueled by documents discovered in Baghdad and verified by means of other sources, such as bank and oil voucher transfer records, clearly demonstrate that pivotal sections of the French government's upper echelon (including cabinet-level ministers and Canadian relatives of Jacques Chirac), as well as several high-ranking UN officials (for instance, Kojo Annan, UN Secretary-General Kofi's son), had been bought off with kickbacks from money Saddam skimmed off the UN-administered Oil-for-Food program, as well as with redeemable vouchers for massive quantities of Iraqi oil (George Galloway's wife got a bunch of these). Compounding these inducements were the billions in oil contracts that had been signed between Saddam and French corporate oil giant TotalFinaELF (France's largest oil company); they would gladly trade blood for oil, as long as it was the blood of Iraqis whom Saddam murdered, and otherwise displaced when he committed ecocide, destroying the entire habitat of the Marsh Arabs, to make it easier for the French oil giant to drill. Once the French had publicly announced that, no matter WHAT Saddam did (even, I suppose, cooperating with aliens in de-terraforming the planet), that they would veto any such resolution, the UN had been thoroughly corrupted by the very sort of despot they were supposed to be policing, and it would have been futile to continue with them. At least the French demonstrated enough integrity to remain bribed.
Just google Claudia Rosett, who should receive a Pulitzer for her investigations into these matters, and you will have rapid access to proof of these contentions, and much more UN corruption and grime besides.
There should indeed have been more planning for post-conquest administration and rebuilding in Iraq, but in the three years since Saddam's army was defeated, no large concentrations of enemy troops exist, they flee from direct engagement against US forces, and are reduced to terror bombings, which kill far more Iraqis than they do Coalition soldiers, and progressively alienate the Iraqi populace from them. They are being progressively swept out of the western desert bordering Syria, and the ratlines via which foreign jihadis have infiltrated are being progressively rolled up. An election for a provisional government under which to draft an Iraqi constitution was held, with 59% of eligible Iraqis voting in the face of 334 polling station attacks; the subsequent ratification of that constitution saw 64% of eligible Iraqis voting in the face of less than 20 such attacks (these voting percentages are higher than those in the US, where there are no such gauntlets to run), and approving that constitution with 83% of the vote, and the election of the first governent under their new constitution will be held next month. Not bad for three years. The US announced this timetable early on, and has kept within six months of it since 2002, when it was introduced.
Saddam had threatened his neighbors (Iran, Kuwait) in the past and most assuredly would have done so in the future once the UN sanctions were broken (and bribed European and UN officials were amenable to same); as to the weapons; there are still massive amounts of them unaccounted for, and, as has been reported in the Duelfer report (a source document which I'll wager Hermit never includes on his list, along with the 2002 Congressional study which found no atempt by the US government to an any way tamper with either intelligence flowing to them or with the analysts who were producing it), Saddam planned to reconstitute his nuclear program under his atomic scientists, which he fondly called his nuclear mujaheddin, as soon as became practicable. We still don't know what those truck convoys which US spy satellites spotted moving out of Iraq through Syria into Lebanon's Hizbullah-controlled Bekaa Valley during several successive nights in the weeks before the US action began were transporting, but we do know where the three huge patches of earth which was disturbed after, but not before, the trucks arrived there, lie. And, of course, there is the matter of those exotic explosives stored at the Al QaQaa munitions dump; explosives which were typically used as nuclear triggers, and the fact that Joseph Wilson (of Valerie Plame fame) was told by the minister of Niger during his fact-finding mission there that the Iraqis had sought uranium yellowcake from their country (although no yellowcake had been shipped), reported as much during his CIA debriefing, and then turned around and lied about it (and in the pages of the New York Times, after the CIA neglected to get him too sign a secrecy agreement) when he joined the Kerry campaign as a senior advisor.
As far as the UN inspectors go, they were prevented from performing their duties at every turn. They were prevented from going to areas until the areas were cleared, they were denied requested documents, and they had incriminating documents which they had managed to obtain stolen from them by the Iraqis. South Africa and, surprisingly, Libya are two examples of WMD disarmament cooperation and teansparency; Nothing could be further from their frank and forthright behavior than that of Saddam's Iraq.
Re:Comments on source documents
« Reply #1 on: 2005-11-22 14:34:55 »
[Hermit 2005] This NeoConArtist's propaganda was refuted the first time around. We can dig through the archives to refute it again if anyone needs it. Some examples can be seen in the Source Document thread, reply 5 dated at 2003-09-02:
[Hermit 2003] So, are those who voted that the US represents the greatest threat to world peace in 2003 correct? Are we going to have a war with Iraq? The last two paragraphs of the Washington Post article might provide a clue. "Only later did it become clear that the president already had made up his mind. In July, the State Department's director of policy planning, Richard N. Haass, held a regular meeting with Rice and asked whether they should talk about the pros and cons of confronting Iraq. "Don't bother, Rice replied: The president has made a decision."
[Hermit 2005] And this at the time when our NeoConTroglodite is asserting (no sign of research or evidence) that the US was trying for "peace" and when the US was actively working to prevent and preempt the UN inspectorate while already engaged in a documented illegal air war against Iraq (See the memo as well as Re:Acknowledging the disaster, Reply #6 on: 2005-11-22).
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
To fallaciously claim that something has already been refuted is a nonsubstitute for actually refuting it, but that is the best that Hermit can do. Not one of the facts I presented above were addressed - mainly because they are indeed facts, and as such, are not amenable to rhetorical dissolution. Instead he continues to indulge his vomitous habits of pairing ad hominem (Drooling Dees, NeoConTroglodite, etc.) with antisemitism (the preverbial and dreaded World-Controlling Jewish Cabal). Perhaps he should journey to the Hermit Kingdom, where inconvenient facts are more easily cast aside and the Dear Leader's perspective is more efficiently imposed. Of course, another purpose of his is to append a post to this thread, so people would go directly to it, rather than reading the facts which I posted above. I would urge people to circumvent this subterfuge, by indeed reading them.
Once the troops were moved into forward position, the die regarding intervention in Iraq was indeed cast, absent a remarkable, genuine, complete (and not forthcoming) capitulation to all UN resolutions on the part of Saddam Hussein. If the US had withdrawn its troops after deploying them, this would have been a signal to both Saddam and the UN that the US lacked the resolve to back up with military force its insistence that Saddam change his course; this would have resulted in the further crumbling of UN sanctions, and Saddam aggressively ramping up his pursuit of WMD's via reinvigorated weapons programs - eventualities which it would have been disastrous to allow.
Re:Comments on source documents
« Reply #3 on: 2005-11-23 14:54:29 »
[Hermit] Due to extensive use of color in this reply, this post is probably better viewed in the trash on the BBS than in email. Click here and read reply 3 to navigate straight to it.
[Hermit] I will mark Mr Dees' latest missive as follows: "putative insults" in red, "editorializing" in green, "unsubstantiated opinion" in purple, and respond to anything left behind. I suspect that this might be a short job. Let's see.
[Joe Dees/Salamantis] To fallaciously claim that something has already been refured is a nonsubstitute for actually refuting it, but that is the best that Hermit can do.Not one of the facts I presented above were addressed
[Hermit] This is, of course, false. As seems usual these days, Mr Dees provided much opinion (most wrong and what wasn't wrong, slanted), some speculation (biased) and few facts (carefully cherrypicked). And this is not merely an opinion, it is supportable. Lets take just one alleged fact (cherrypicked, but I try not to establish universal absolutes and can't resist playing with them when my opponent does) to prove that Mr Dees is wrong again as usual.
[Joe Dees/Salamantis] As can easily be seen by anyone who can read the British document, the conclusion that intelligence was being fixed around the policy was C's opinion (whoever C was), rather than acknowledged fact, and this contention was subsequently dispelled by an investigastion conducted by the US Congress.
[Hermit] C is the Director of SIS (MI6) Foreign Intelligence Service. The position is traditionally anonymous and letter designated. At the time of the memorandum it was held by Sir Richard Dearlove, an SIS professional with 40 years seniority. The equivalent position in the US would have been George Tenet, Head of the CIA. Note that this means that the statements on intelligence are not supposition but fact, as the SIS was tasked with working with the USA and that would have been under C's direction. Trivial googling - or looking at any of the references I provided you, would have enabled you to speak from knowledge and avoided making an ass of yourself. Here are all the "playas."
[Hermit] As repeatedly shown, most recently in the referenced "Re:Acknowledging the disaster, Reply #6 on: 2005-11-22" thread, Judge Laurence H. Silberman, the Chairman of Bush's commission on weapons of mass destruction (not intelligence, but given it is the only related completed commission I presume it is the "investigation" you are refering to) has stated, "Our executive order did not direct us to deal with the use of intelligence by policymakers, and all of us were agreed that that was not part of our inquiry." The only committee investigating intelligence use in this matter in Congress is the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence - which has not yet finished its inquiry into whether officials mischaracterized intelligence by omitting caveats and dissenting opinions - nevermind issued an opinion. Needless to say, it appears as if it is not the Democrats holding up its self-serving progress.
[Hermit] So I refered directly to previous posts which dealt with at least one of the putative "facts" (more accurately denoted as a fallacious argumentative opinion), thus "addressing" "one of the facts" Mr Dees trailed through the mud "presented above". And so, Mr Dees is proved to be wrong yet again! As usual.
[Joe Dees/Salamantis] - mainly because they are indeed facts, and as such, are not amenable to rhetorical dissolution.
[Hermit] Is Mr Dees correct? Or is Mr Dees bloviating again?
[Joe Dees/Salamantis] Instead he continues to indulge his vomitous habits of pairing ad hominem (Drooling Dees, NeoConTroglodite, etc.) with antisemitism (the preverbial and dreaded World-Controlling Jewish Cabal). Perhaps he should journey to the Hermit Kingdom, where inconvenient facts are more easily cast aside and the Dear Leader's perspective is more efficiently imposed.
[Hermit] I should ignore this, seeing where it is buried, but I think that Mr Dees might really believe that some of what he is spewing has a foundation in fact. So, let me attempt, yet again, to squeeze a few observations into his dribble of consciousness.
[Hermit] Citing the Washingtonpost speculating that the Israelis have effectively taken over US foreign policy is not "antisemitism". Even had I stated here (which I didn't): that it was blatantly illegal for the UN to have established the state of Israel; that the only competitor Israel has for engaging in proscribed activities (read war crimes) is the US; that Israel is demonstrably acting in a genocidal fashion against the Palestians; and even that her reign is brutal, her actions tyranical and our attitude toward her an embarrassment is not anti-semitic. Although, unlike Mr Dees' assertions mine are all supportable. The point is that just because a state has attempted to insulate itself from criticism by commingling state, language, race and religion does not mean that criticism of that state is either racism or bigotry. And apropos of something, the Palestinians, Syrians, Iraqi and Lebanese (inter alia) have a much better claim to being "semites" than the typical Israeli (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semites).
[Joe Dees/Salamantis] Of course, another purpose of his is to append a post to this thread, so people would go directly to it, rather than reading the facts which I posted above. I would urge people to circumvent this subterfuge, by indeed reading them.
[Hermit] Multiply invalid because Mr Dees is speculating (and getting it wrong) about my motives. I am quite aware that few people are bothering with any of these threads any more, and that most of those who do are here to see what - if anything - I have to say. But as the argument is apparently interminable, and Mr Dees is unable to frame his broken replies outside of a Faux TV script, I urge people not to bother reading either Mr Dees or myself on this subject.
[Joe Dees/Salamantis] Once the troops were moved into forward position, the die regarding intervention in Iraq was indeed cast, absent a remarkable, genuine, complete (and not forthcoming) capitulation to all UN resolutions on the part of Saddam Hussein. If the US had withdrawn its troops after deploying them, this would have been a signal to both Saddam and the UN that the US lacked the resolve to back up with military force its insistence that Saddam change his course; this would have resulted in the further crumbling of UN sanctions, and Saddam aggressively ramping up his pursuit of WMD's via reinvigorated weapons programs - eventualities which it would have been disastrous to allow.
[Hermit] Where a meaning might glimmer through this turgid porridge, I see not one external supporting reference - and numbers of instances of debating fallacy, not least of which is the slippery slope in this last piece. This makes it unnecessary to respond to invalidate the assertions. Like most NeoConArtist ramblings, they are autoinvalidating.
[Hermit] Scoping the post-colorization document, I see that I was correct. There was, once again and as usual, nothing calling for a response. So why did I waste any time on it at all? Perhaps it may have some education value to somebody.
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
First off, the instance in which hermit claims to refute my point ends up supporting it. The source of the opinion (and opinion it is) is a British government official, giving his estimation of internal US intelligence processes, to which he was not privy, and not a US official making statements confirming same. In fact, the subsequent Congressional investigation debunked this opinion, by asking the horses' mouths - each and every one of the analysts themselves - and they without exception testifiedunder congressional oath that they were never pressured ti slant their intelligence in any way whatsoever; not by agenda-driven choice of the items which were taken into account in their analysis, and not by coloring their conclusuins in directions unsupported by the evidence which they considered. I suppose that the US octopus had its tentacles wrapped around the throats of the British, French, Russian and Italian clandestine services also, because their conclusions concurred with those of the US analysts. The use of intelligence by policy makers is to take it at its word and to act in ways that would be logically indicated by it - nothing more, and nothing less. This was precisely what was done by the Bush administration in the case of this intellgence information. I hasten to add that the rest of the report is not included in the ideologically cherry-picked 'source documents', nor is the Duelfer report, which clearly stated that Saddam intended to continue and accelerate his pursuit of WMD's once US troops stood down and UN sanctions crumbled (an eventuality he had paid officials in both the UN and in UNSC countries to assure, as Claudia Rosset has discovered).
In hermit's inverted world, it is a slander against him for me to copy and paste his ad hominem attacks on me; I merely note this in passing, as a telling factoid that should tell those who register it something about the source of such inversions.
BTW: here is the Merriam-Webster definition of anti-Semitism; I note that hermit's attempted counter-definition is a nonstandard, deviant, propagandistic and self-serving variant-via -inversion:
Main Entry: an·ti-Sem·i·tism Pronunciation: "an-ti-'se-m&-"ti-z&m, "an-"tI- Function: noun : hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group - an·ti-Se·mit·ic /-s&-'mi-tik/ adjective - an·ti-Sem·ite /-'se-"mIt/ noun
For More Information on "anti-Semitism" go to Britannica.com
And of course he dismisses the section on what would have happened ahd US troops stood down after assuming forward positions, not because it was dismissable, as he strives to contend, but because he was unable to refute it; I therefore reproduce it below:Once the troops were moved into forward position, the die regarding intervention in Iraq was indeed cast, absent a remarkable, genuine, complete (and not forthcoming) capitulation to all UN resolutions on the part of Saddam Hussein. If the US had withdrawn its troops after deploying them, this would have been a signal to both Saddam and the UN that the US lacked the resolve to back up with military force its insistence that Saddam change his course; this would have resulted in the further crumbling of UN sanctions, and Saddam aggressively ramping up his pursuit of WMD's via reinvigorated weapons programs - eventualities which it would have been disastrous to allow.
I also re-recommend the perusal of the post of mine preceding the one from which this section came, that is, the one at the top of this page. hermit has not managed to refute that lengthy post, either, and is most likely hoping that it will be forgotton - but I will not allow this to happen.
All the pretty rainbow colors in the world do not a defensible contention make - and neither does the text which they frame. Let hermit retreat to flash and style; I will stand with facts and substance.
Author
Logged
