The New York Times on Iraq, Reasons and WOMD

[PeterSibley]

Matters of Emphasis
By PAUL KRUGMAN

e were not lying," a Bush administration official told ABC News. "But it was just a matter of emphasis." The official was referring to the way the administration hyped the threat that Saddam Hussein posed to the United States. According to the ABC report, the real reason for the war was that the administration "wanted to make a statement." And why Iraq? "Officials acknowledge that Saddam had all the requirements to make him, from their standpoint, the perfect target."

A British newspaper, The Independent, reports that "intelligence agencies on both sides of the Atlantic were furious that briefings they gave political leaders were distorted in the rush to war." One "high-level source" told the paper that "they ignored intelligence assessments which said Iraq was not a threat."

Sure enough, we have yet to find any weapons of mass destruction. It's hard to believe that we won't eventually find some poison gas or crude biological weapons. But those aren't true W.M.D.'s, the sort of weapons that can make a small, poor country a threat to the greatest power the world has ever known. Remember that President Bush made his case for war by warning of a "mushroom cloud." Clearly, Iraq didn't have anything like that — and Mr. Bush must have known that it didn't.

Does it matter that we were misled into war? Some people say that it doesn't: we won, and the Iraqi people have been freed. But we ought to ask some hard questions — not just about Iraq, but about ourselves.

First, why is our compassion so selective? In 2001 the World Health Organization — the same organization we now count on to protect us from SARS — called for a program to fight infectious diseases in poor countries, arguing that it would save the lives of millions of people every year. The U.S. share of the expenses would have been about $10 billion per year — a small fraction of what we will spend on war and occupation. Yet the Bush administration contemptuously dismissed the proposal.

Or consider one of America's first major postwar acts of diplomacy: blocking a plan to send U.N. peacekeepers to Ivory Coast (a former French colony) to enforce a truce in a vicious civil war. The U.S. complains that it will cost too much. And that must be true — we wouldn't let innocent people die just to spite the French, would we?

So it seems that our deep concern for the Iraqi people doesn't extend to suffering people elsewhere. I guess it's just a matter of emphasis. A cynic might point out, however, that saving lives peacefully doesn't offer any occasion to stage a victory parade.

Meanwhile, aren't the leaders of a democratic nation supposed to tell their citizens the truth?

One wonders whether most of the public will ever learn that the original case for war has turned out to be false. In fact, my guess is that most Americans believe that we have found W.M.D.'s. Each potential find gets blaring coverage on TV; how many people catch the later announcement — if it is ever announced — that it was a false alarm? It's a pattern of misinformation that recapitulates the way the war was sold in the first place. Each administration charge against Iraq received prominent coverage; the subsequent debunking did not.

Did the news media feel that it was unpatriotic to question the administration's credibility? Some strange things certainly happened. For example, in September Mr. Bush cited an International Atomic Energy Agency report that he said showed that Saddam was only months from having nuclear weapons. "I don't know what more evidence we need," he said. In fact, the report said no such thing — and for a few hours the lead story on MSNBC's Web site bore the headline "White House: Bush Misstated Report on Iraq." Then the story vanished — not just from the top of the page, but from the site.

Thanks to this pattern of loud assertions and muted or suppressed retractions, the American public probably believes that we went to war to avert an immediate threat — just as it believes that Saddam had something to do with Sept. 11.

Now it's true that the war removed an evil tyrant. But a democracy's decisions, right or wrong, are supposed to take place with the informed consent of its citizens. That didn't happen this time. And we are a democracy — aren't we?

[km gresham]

"A Bush administration official"

[NormMessinger]

Stan to the rescue. Please tell us it isn't so.

[Garrett Lowell]

So what this guy's saying is that the media dropped the ball, at least on the misinformation side.

[martin schulz]

Originally posted by martin schulz:
Watching the news I get the feeling the question of the womds always follows the same pattern.
1. somebody hysterically points out that wmds in form of white powder, amunition in schools or some sort of missiles has been found
2. the media jumps at it with almost the same depth of information " from unconfirmed sources we have heard that...white powder, amunition in schools or some sort of missiles have been found
3. the war moves on, the media gets other things to chew on
4. it has been a week since the last womd-news. The last womd-discovery has neither be confirmed nor denied.
5. back to 1

But going though that pattern again and again everybody gets the feeling that there has to be something. This will go on for a while unless there will definetely be a confirmed finding, or the war is finally won, the discussion about building up Iraq gets into focus and people eventually don't care about those womds anymore.

[Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )]

Yes, this is exactly what I have been saying all along. Yippee we won - where is WMD ?? Where is Sadam ?? MOST IMPORTANT TO ME IS WHERE IS OSSAMA ???? Anyone remember him ??? Tall guy, beard, Islamic extremist if I recall - its been so long my mind goes fuzzy, his followers attacked this country a few years ago

[Gresham CA]

It's an OPINION PIECE! We all know what opinions are like! Show me some facts and numbers, before I get worked up on either side of the fence.

edited for fat fingers

[ 04-29-2003, 09:41 AM: Message edited by: Gresham CA ]

[Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )]

This is an OPINION forum - I happen to share my OPINION with the article and with Martin's assessment.

Ya want facts;
1) NO WMD
2) NO SADAM
3) NO OSSAMA

[ 04-29-2003, 09:43 AM: Message edited by: Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson ) ]

[km gresham]

I just want somebody to tell me what "A Bush administration official" is. A clerk? Secretary of Defense? A custodian? I don't give much credence to unnamed sources.

[km gresham]

My post disappeared!

Edited Never mind - it's there now.

[ 04-29-2003, 09:47 AM: Message edited by: km gresham ]

[Gresham CA]

Joe,

I just said I wasn't going to get worked up. What ever became of your bridge problem. You can answer private if you care just so we don't highjack this thread.

[Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )]

Originally posted by km gresham:
I just want somebody to tell me what "A Bush administration official" is. A clerk? Secretary of Defense? A custodian? I don't give much credence to unnamed sources.Who cares - I'm least concerned with trying to uncover a specific sources identity, to me that was the least important part of the article. Karen your attacking the messenger to ovoid the message, which is Bush called for this war to avoid the MUSHROOM CLOUD of WMD. NO Mushroom or even truffle WMD has been found yet. Sadam has not been found yet - and I'm still looking for the playing card with Ossama'a picture on it
:confused:

[High C]

Originally posted by Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson ):
Yes, this is exactly what I have been saying all along. Yippee we won - where is WMD ?? Where is Sadam ?? MOST IMPORTANT TO ME IS WHERE IS OSSAMA ???? Anyone remember him ??? Tall guy, beard, Islamic extremist if I recall - its been so long my mind goes fuzzy, his followers attacked this country a few years agoThere is reason to believe that both OBL and Hussein are dead. All the phony tapes that were produced for the both of them. We never found Hitler, either.

[Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )]

OK if there dead prove it to me. Come on NASA can find a 3 cm bolt in a swamp in TX someone should be able to get me a hair sample. Or do we live the mystery forever?

PS: Bridge still in litigation steam level is too low now to make any further trouble

[NormMessinger]

" We never found Hitler, either."

Right. We didn't. The Russians did.

[PatCox]

Yes we did find Hitler, the russians took pictures of their troops with his half-burned body outside the bunker; his remains were buried againat a secret location by the russians so they wouldn't become a shrine for the nazis.

[Gresham CA]

Joe you need to settle down or you're gonna get the drizzles. :D

edited to add

OK if there dead prove it to me. Come on NASA can find a 3 cm bolt in a swamp in TX someone should be able to get me a hair sample. Now you sound like me Joe. No opinions just hard facts.

[ 04-29-2003, 10:13 AM: Message edited by: Gresham CA ]

[km gresham]

:D

[Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )]

Originally posted by Gresham CA:
Joe you need to settle down or you're gonna get the drizzles. :D Charles, I'm cool. Just a bit annoying when people start to mock and make a play to undermined the source of a common knowledge article. Its a little annoying ploy. Ohh lets bring down the validity of the source in order to bring down the known fact that the war was a sham on the American people from the get go. I have said this before Sadam was a ruthless dictator and his people deserved to be free of him , Im glad we accomplished that. But our motives were never all that altruistic. I'm still looking for the MUSHROOM BOOM WMD, How about a few more aluminum tubes or the very SIGNIFICANT Alqueda (sp) Iraq connection. SHOW ME THE FACTS AND SOURCES ON THAT?

[High C]

Originally posted by PatCox:
Yes we did find Hitler, the russians took pictures of their troops with his half-burned body outside the bunker; his remains were buried againat a secret location by the russians so they wouldn't become a shrine for the nazis.History has questions about this theory. They're not sure.

[km gresham]

Joe, I just am not sure that when a reporter doesn't name a source - or at least call them "a highly placed Bush administration official" there is much to base a story on.

Better than saying "this is my opinion, folks", but not much.

He didn't have to quote this "official" for his opinion to be valid. Unless he thought it would give him some kind of "unbiased" cover for stating his opinion.

At least the Independent had a "high level source" ;)

[High C]

Originally posted by Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson ):
OK if there dead prove it to me. Come on NASA can find a 3 cm bolt in a swamp in TX someone should be able to get me a hair sample. Or do we live the mystery forever?

PS: Bridge still in litigation steam level is too low now to make any further troubleShow me evidence that either one of them is alive. And you better not use any unnamed sources. ;)

[Gresham CA]

Joe,

I would venture a guess that niether you,I nor the media has but a small fraction of the "facts". Knowing that I am content to let history decide if it was a just war or if we were lied to. In the meantime, I will use my "opinion" to dertermine how I vote in the future.

I also reserve the right to "get the drizzles" over worrying how to fix the floors in my dinghy! Much more important and something that I have control over.

[Chris Coose]

The people of the world were sold a bill of goods that was about to evoke unknown and dire consequences. Say, SH did have a huge store of WMD's and he intended to unleash them as a final act? It appears that our intelligence regarding this (WMDs) motive for invasion was lousy, if non-existant.
Gladly, there appears there were none rather than an underestimate. But it sure raises questions of integrity about our warrior leaders.
It is not good enough to proclaim that SH himself is a WMD. The dubbya was specific in his proclamations. There should be some accounting.

[Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )]

Originally posted by km gresham:
Joe, I just am not sure that when a reporter doesn't name a source - or at least call them "a highly placed Bush administration official" there is much to base a story on.

Better than saying "this is my opinion, folks", but not much.

He didn't have to quote this "official" for his opinion to be valid. Unless he thought it would give him some kind of "unbiased" cover for stating his opinion.

At least the Independent had a "high level source" ;) Geeze Karen ya have been around the block a few times haven't ya ? You know hat reporters don't name confidential sources by name. Where were you bitchen and moaning when Powel was spouting off about sources -
High level Iraqi officials with known WMD knowledge or playing those tapes of HIGH LEVEL SOURCES talking about WMD yadd yadda yadda ya never question THOSE sources do ya ?

[High C]

Originally posted by Chris Coose:
The people of the world were sold a bill of goods that was about to evoke unknown and dire consequences. Say, SH did have a huge store of WMD's and he intended to unleash them as a final act? It appears that our intelligence regarding this (WMDs) motive for invasion was lousy, if non-existant.
Gladly, there appears there were none rather than an underestimate. But it sure raises questions of integrity about our warrior leaders.
It is not good enough to proclaim that SH himself is a WMD. The dubbya was specific in his proclamations. There should be some accounting.Iraq was required by unanimous vote of the UN Security Council, resolution 1441, to prove that it had destroyed its WMDs. Instead of doing so, it played a shell game with the UN. The UN failed to enforce 1441. We did it for them.

The rest of this talk is just cavitation.

[Bruce Hooke]

So many things have happened to confirm the basic point of this article that I don't think it makes any difference at all that we can't put names on the sources quoted in this particular article. To say otherwise is IMHO a red herring. (Remember, it was largely unnamed sources that exposed the corruption in the Nixon administration.)

Time after time, the Bush administration has been shown to have mis-represented the facts of the matter, and they have failed to find any serious WMD let alone even the smallest sign of nuclear weapons.

Furthermore, it takes no unnamed sources to show that we have failed time after time to do things that are not glamorous but that would help poor and suffering people in many countries around the world. Heck, even in Afghanistan many experts are saying that we are not spending anywhere near enough money to really put that country back on it's feet. So, it is looking more and more likely that having won the war there we will let the country slide back into chaos because we don't want to spend the money it would take to really deal with the problems. It would seems that a little tax cut for the rich is more important to the current administration.

[Chris Coose]

The rest of this talk is just cavitation. Not to me.
Decent evidence would prove the dubbya not to be the lying sack of s**t his predessors were.

[High C]

Originally posted by Chris Coose:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />The rest of this talk is just cavitation. Not to me.
Decent evidence would prove the dubbya not to be the lying sack of s**t his predessors were.</font>[/QUOTE]And here we see what the cavitation is all about. It's about politics, about Bush. It's Democrats searching for an issue to run on. Democrats are in big trouble, partly because Bush is an honest, decent guy, and stands in stark contrast to our last Democrat President. They are desperate to paint Bush to be the same sort of dishonorable character that Clinton was and is.

Very few are buying it.

[Chris Coose]

Nothing desperate here.

The dubbya either lied or he didn't. Pretty simple. It may become an issue in the next election, as it should.

[ishmael]

My God, they're still skirmishing over there. As I've said before, Saddam and his evil henchmen built scores of bunkers and tunnels over the last two decades. Being as clever as the next, why does everyone assume that their hiding places should be immediately found? And if not, it is conclusive proof of Bush's perfidy? Truly amazing. Have a little patience.

When they do find the evidence, most who are calling a Bush a liar will say he's lying again, so, really, what is the point of this exercise?

[Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )]

Being as clever as the next, why does everyone assume that their hiding places should be immediately found?Ish are you saying our intelligence is faulty because I was under the impression from Powel's UN speech is we knew where and how they were hiding it? :rolleyes: Trust me Ish they aint gonna find MUSHROOM WMD and they aint gonna find the Ace of Spades. :rolleyes:

[Chris Coose]

Ish,
Don't you think an act as important as a pre-emptive invasion of a country should be based on solid truth?

I heard Bill O'Reiley last night, asking the same questions and with a willingness to wait for this evidence.

How long should we wait to be retrospective? This WMD motive/ threat was the cornerstone for tossing the UN inspectors. It should be scrutinized. In the end SH is gone and Iraquis may enjoy a less fearful destiny but does it justify the means, if the means was lies?

As an old timer friend used to say," It don't look good in the write-up."

[km gresham]

I prefer unnamed sources to always be "high level sources" :D It's just a prejudice I have against "low level sources" (which you NEVER see used) and just "regular sources". tongue.gif

Come to think of it, why do the reporters never quote "low level sources"? What do they have against those lower levels?

[ 04-29-2003, 11:47 AM: Message edited by: km gresham ]

[Bruce G]

A more pressing issue now is not the WOMD, it is the question: have we created something that will be more dangerous than Saddam? Will Iraq's Sheite population become another Iran. It is amazing to see them up and yelling at American's to get out. Where was their bravado when Saddam was in power-- thank you USA for giving us the right to assemble and freedom of speech.

Not trying to hyjack, just pondering the notion.

[Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )]

Time to play Stan :D

FALLUJA, Iraq (April 29) - U.S. troops shot dead at least 13 Iraqis and wounded 75 when protesters marched on a school the soldiers have occupied and demanded they get out of Iraq, doctors and witnesses said on Tuesday.

Residents said the troops shot at unarmed protesters but the U.S. military said its soldiers had merely retaliated after coming under fire when the crowd of about 200 people approached the school in Falluja, 30 miles west of Baghdad.

A company -- 100 or so soldiers -- from the 82nd Airborne Division were using the school as a barracks, officers said.

The shooting outraged local people who welcomed the removal of the hated Saddam Hussein by U.S.-led forces but now want the American forces to leave. Coming on top of other incidents, it may fuel anti-American sentiment elsewhere in Iraq.

"They are stealing our oil and they are slaughtering our people," said Shuker Abdullah Hamid, a cousin of one of the victims, venting the fury felt by many residents.

U.S. helicopters hovered overhead as angry mourners buried the dead on Tuesday. The white walls of houses near the school were pock-marked by bullets, bullet-riddled and wrecked cars stood by the roadside and traces of blood marked the ground.

Soldiers inside the school, braced for trouble from Saddam loyalists on the dictator's birthday, seemed to have unleashed a hail of heavy fire on the crowd in the darkened street outside in response to what officers said was incoming rifle fire.

"Our soul and our blood we will sacrifice to you martyrs," hundreds of mourners chanted as they carried at least four simple wooden coffins shoulder-high through the town.

Ahmed Ghanim al-Ali, director of Falluja general hospital, said at least 13 people had been killed. His staff had treated 75 wounded, mostly hit by bullets or shrapnel.

"Now, all preachers of Falluja mosques and all youths ... are organizing martyr operations against the American occupiers," said a man cloaked in white, using the term often used to describe suicide attacks in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

There have been a few isolated suicide attacks at military checkpoints, and U.S. troops killed at least seven Iraqis during a violent demonstration in the northern city of Mosul on April 15. But most anti-American protests have ended peacefully.

TROOPS SAY THEY WERE FIRED AT

U.S. Central Command in Qatar said soldiers in Falluja had shot at gunmen who fired at them with AK-47 assault rifles.

"The unit exercised its inherent right to self-defense and returned fire," war headquarters said in statement.

Lieutenant Christopher Hart of the 82nd Airborne Division, whose unit is occupying the school, said troops used smoke to try to disperse the chanting crowd. They opened fire only when two men carrying AK-47s suddenly came from behind the crowd on a motorcycle and started shooting at the school, he said.

"They had AK-47s and, as they drove by, they opened up on the near side of this building here," he said, pointing to a corner of the school where some windows were smashed. There was little other obvious sign of damage to the school.

Hart said some people in the crowd also fired at the troops.

Lieutenant Colonel Eric Nantz, speaking at the school, said his men had been on the lookout for trouble from die-hard Saddam supporters as Monday was the vanished dictator's 66th birthday.

What Nantz described as "celebratory firing" accompanied a crowd which was first dispersed from outside a U.S. base in the center of town by an American show of force. When the crowd reformed at the school, however, shots were aimed at the troops.

"There were a lot of people who were armed and who were throwing rocks. How is a U.S. soldier to tell the difference between a rock and a grenade?" Nantz said.

At least one witness said the troops had fired automatic weapons, including .50 caliber heavy machineguns.

Another, who was wounded, said in hospital that the crowd had chanted: "The Americans are the enemies of God."

A local Sunni Muslim cleric, Kamal Shaker Mahmoud, said the protesters had asked the troops to leave the school so that lessons could resume there now the war is over.

"It was a peaceful demonstration. They did not have any weapons," he said. "We are asking the Americans to leave Iraq."

Murhij Rashid, 52, pointed to a grave where gravediggers were throwing dry earth on top and kicking up dust. His 18-year-old son Hussein had just been buried. "There was a demonstration but he did not have any weapon," he said.

Some residents said some of the dead may not have been taking part in the protest. Salah Abdullah Hamid said his 36-year-old cousin was an innocent bystander.

"He was not part of the protest. He did not have a weapon. He was killed by American bullets," he said.

Asked why the troops had fired, he replied: "We don't know. No one knows why...We want the Americans to leave our country completely. We are a Muslim country."

Mahmoud Fawzi Hamdan, 33, said one man, 32-year-old Waleed Saleh Abdel-Latif, was shot dead as he opened the gate to his house for his brother to drive in and two women in the house were hit by bullets but survived.

04/29/03 10:15 ET

Copyright 2003 Reuters Limited.

[PatCox]

Well, BruceG, before the war I used to point out that the worst thing we could do in Iraq is institute a democracy, becasue the majority of Iraqis are shia and basically they would be likely to institute a shiite moslem government like Iran's. I guess I was just a liberal with my head in the sand.

Christ, the whole reason we supported and armed saddam all those years was because we liked the way he kept the Shiites down and gassed the Iranians.

Where were they before we got rid of saddam? Now you blame the victim for being oppressed, Bruce; they were the ones being killed, tortured and oppressed before.

Now we face the daunting task of installing a government that will continue to oppress them, and somehow find a way to call it a democracy.

(I love how Rumsfeld said the other day that the Iraqis will choose their government, but they will not be allowed to choose a theocratic government. They have the freedom to choose what we want them to choose.)

[Chris Coose]

These people are asking for a government of self-determination, as the dubbya promised.
I'm believing they are about to have a rude awakening to the limits and exceptions that come with the "promise".

[Sam F]

A different POV from a different NY Times writer...
Like him, I find the partisan inspired bickering on all sides falls rather flat in the face of what Saddam has wrought: cold blooded mass murder.

The Meaning of a Skull
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

Friday's Times carried a front-page picture of a skull, with a group of Iraqis gathered around it. The skull was of a political prisoner from Saddam Hussein's regime, and the grieving Iraqis were relatives who had exhumed it from a graveyard filled with other victims of Saddam's torture. Just under the picture was an article about President Bush vowing that weapons of mass destruction will be found in Iraq, as he promised.

As far as I'm concerned, we do not need to find any weapons of mass destruction to justify this war. That skull, and the thousands more that will be unearthed, are enough for me. Mr. Bush doesn't owe the world any explanation for missing chemical weapons (even if it turns out that the White House hyped this issue). It is clear that in ending Saddam's tyranny, a huge human engine for mass destruction has been broken. The thing about Saddam's reign is that when you look at that skull, you don't even know what period it came from — his suppression of the Kurds or the Shiites, his insane wars with Iran and Kuwait, or just his daily brutality.

Whether you were for or against this war, whether you preferred that the war be done with the U.N.'s approval or without it, you have to feel good that right has triumphed over wrong. America did the right thing here. It toppled one of the most evil regimes on the face of the earth, and I don't think we know even a fraction of how deep that evil went. Fair-minded people have to acknowledge that. Who cares if we now find some buried barrels of poison? Do they carry more moral weight than those buried skulls? No way.

So why isn't everyone celebrating this triumph? Why is there still an undertow out there, a holding back of jubilation? There are several explanations. For me, it has to do with the nature of Iraq and the Middle East. You always have this worry that in the Middle East, fighting evil is like holding back the desert. The minute you fight off one evil, three others blow in to take its place.

You always worry that maybe these countries are not real states, but are simply collections of tribes that can be controlled only with a fist, and the only options are an evil iron fist or a softer, more benign one. No sooner is Saddam gone than up pops a group of Shiite clerics demanding that Iraq be turned into another Iran. So as much as I believe we did good and right in toppling Saddam, I will whoop it up only when the Iraqi people are really free — not free just to loot or to protest against us, but free to praise us out loud, free to speak their minds in any direction, because they have built a government and rule of law that can accommodate pluralism and stand in the way of evil returning.

I also think many Democrats are reluctant to celebrate because they fear — with good reason — that President Bush will be empowered by this war victory, that he and Karl Rove will use that power to drive through a radical conservative agenda that Democrats fear is erasing separations between church and state, depriving government of the tax funds it needs to maintain decent social and educational programs, and despoiling the environment. Sure, Democrats argue, we did right in Iraq, but if it will only lead to more wrong at home, how good can you feel?

And when you look at the way war critics — from the Dixie Chicks to Tom Daschle — have been savaged by conservatives, it feels as if some people want to use this war to create a multiparty democracy in Iraq and a one-party state in America.

France and Russia refuse to acknowledge that any good was done in Iraq because if America's war ends justify its unilateral means, their power will be further diminished.

The Arab world refuses to acknowledge any good from this war, because many Arab regimes have features in common with Saddam's, and if getting rid of him was good, so would be getting rid of them. And Arab intellectuals and the Arab League won't acknowledge any good having been done in Iraq by America, because it only reminds them that they should have taken care of this problem themselves — and didn't.

Bottom line: We can get rid of the sculptures of Saddam with one tug, but our job is to build a regime in Iraq that won't produce any more battered human skulls. That will be a huge task, which will need many helpers. The challenge for the Arabs, France and Russia is to get over the fact that Mr. Bush did something good, and roll up their sleeves to help make it last. And the challenge for Mr. Bush is to not take the good thing he has done and cast it in an ideological framework that will make people resent it — at home and abroad.

[Chris Coose]

U.S. troops shot dead at least 13 Iraqis and wounded 75 when protesters marched on a school the soldiers have occupied and demanded they get out of Iraq, doctors and witnesses said on Tuesday.

Bottom line: We can get rid of the sculptures of Saddam with one tug, but our job is to build a regime in Iraq that won't produce any more battered human skulls.

[Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )]

I'm thinking of changing my name to VnatS ( get it StanV backwards ;) ) Look Karen An unnamed senior administration official again I wonder if its the same guy ;)

Bush wrong to use pretext as excuse to invade Iraq
By James Bamford
As the Bush administration raises prospects of war with Iraq, USA TODAY asked experts to explore critical military, diplomatic and political factors involved and the possible consequences. This is part of that occasional series.

Vice President Cheney's speech this week showed that the administration has no new evidence to support its claim that Iraq poses an immediate threat to the United States. Instead, Cheney used standard, vague terms: "no doubt" Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction or will acquire nuclear weapons "fairly soon." The administration also points to the possible presence of fleeing al-Qaeda members in northern Iraq, perhaps of senior rank. But it has difficulty tying them directly to Saddam because the area is largely under the control of Kurdish opposition leader Jallal Tallabani, who has worked with the Bush administration against Saddam.

Without convincing evidence of imminent danger, administration officials have been dusting off old cases that hint at Iraqi plots and conspiracies, but are unsupported by facts. Many worry that such incidents will be exploited as pretexts to justify pre-emptive strikes. The Navy, for instance, is considering changing the status of a pilot shot down over Iraq during the Gulf War from missing in action to captured. But, given no known physical evidence to support that possibility nor any new facts, some see this as one more cynical political pretext for invasion.

Bush administration officials also have been reviving the old story that Sept. 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta met in the Czech Republic capital of Prague with an Iraqi agent five months before the attacks — a possible link between Iraq and al-Qaeda. An unnamed senior administration official told the Los Angeles Times that evidence of such a meeting "holds up." A federal law enforcement official, the Times reported, said the FBI has been reviewing Atta's records with "renewed vigor" for a possible link to Iraq. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld recently added at a news conference that Iraq "had a relationship" with al-Qaeda.

But senior U.S. intelligence officials have discounted the meeting. "We ran down literally hundreds of thousands of leads and checked every record we could get our hands on," said FBI Director Robert Mueller. The records revealed that Atta was in Virginia Beach during the time he supposedly met the Iraqi in Prague.

While the administration is under increasing pressure to make its case for invasion, using as pretexts supposed instances such as these carries grave dangers. The past holds lessons about pretext and making the right — and wrong — decisions.

One of the most outrageous uses of pretext took place during the Kennedy administration after the failed Bay of Pigs operation, in which the CIA wrongly underestimated the amount of internal support for Fidel Castro.

With the CIA out of the picture, the Joint Chiefs of Staff saw a grand opportunity for the military to launch an all-out war against Cuba. But they needed a pretext. The answer was Operation Northwoods: The Joint Chiefs would secretly launch a war of terror on the U.S. public — then blame it on Castro.

According to long-hidden top-secret documents I obtained from the National Archives, Operation Northwoods called for innocent people to be shot on U.S. streets; for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk; for waves of terrorism in Washington, Miami and elsewhere. Using phony evidence to blame Castro, the Joint Chiefs would get their needed pretext.

Each member of the Joint Chiefs signed off on the plan. Then the chairman hand-carried it to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara — who promptly rejected it.

Two years later, U.S. generals were looking for another pretext to go to war, this time in Vietnam. In the summer of 1964, President Lyndon Johnson sought to escalate U.S. involvement in Vietnam's civil war. The decision was made to launch hit-and-run attacks against coastal North Vietnamese targets while a slow-moving destroyer, the USS Maddox, sat just off the shore in international waters. Knowing the North Vietnamese would associate the nearby warship with the attacks, the Pentagon likely hoped to provoke a retaliatory strike against the vessel — the perfect pretext for a declaration of war.

Indeed, North Vietnamese patrol boats fired torpedoes at the ship — but missed. The Maddox sailed safely away. McNamara ordered the largely useless coastal attacks to continue and sent the ship back to its original dangerous position.

Two nights after the first attack, the USS C. Turner Joy, escorting the Maddox, sent messages to Washington indicating the ship was under attack. It was later found that no such attack took place; the messages were blamed on nervous crewmembers and radar "ghost images." But it was the excuse Johnson and McNamara sought. They pressed Congress for a declaration of war. Captured by the moment's hysteria, Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. An incident that never took place became the pretext for expanding a war that would claim the lives of more than 50,000 Americans as well as a million-plus Vietnamese.

"Many of the people who were associated with the war were looking for any excuse to initiate bombing," recalled George Ball, at the time a State undersecretary. "The sending of a destroyer up the Tonkin Gulf was primarily for provocation. ... There was a feeling that if the destroyer got into some trouble, that it would provide the provocation we needed."

History is layered with the bodies of those who have died when someone mistakes zealotry for patriotism and pretext for truth. If the Bush administration does embark on a bloody war in the Middle East, it should be based on certainty, not pretext.

James Bamford, author of Body of Secrets: Anatomy of the Ultra-Secret National Security Agency, is a member of USA TODAY's board of contributors.

[Sam F]

Originally posted by Chris Coose:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> U.S. troops shot dead at least 13 Iraqis and wounded 75 when protesters marched on a school the soldiers have occupied and demanded they get out of Iraq, doctors and witnesses said on Tuesday.

Bottom line: We can get rid of the sculptures of Saddam with one tug, but our job is to build a regime in Iraq that won't produce any more battered human skulls. </font>[/QUOTE]The sad thing is that so many see moral equivalence in a soldier’s self-defense when fired upon vs. Saddam’s henchmen stuffing screaming people in industrial shredders.

I’m no Bush fan, but Iraq, for whatever mixed motives, has been rid of a great evil. There is a frightful and maybe impossible task ahead. The fact that so many in the US cannot see (or refuse to acknowledge from partisan motives) the difference between the two examples cited above, is alarming and does not bode well for our prospects of success.

[NormMessinger]

Perhaps we did the right (scratch that) correct thing in Iraq but for the wrong reasons. I think the reasons stated sure sounded contrived. Anyway if the invasion was the right thing we will not know it for sure for a long time.

[Chris Coose]

Sam, If you/yours can't/won't see the connectors in those two quotes we are really screwed.

We have the potential to become the "occupiers" in a matter of days if this thing isn't played with respect to the Iraquis.

This war is over. It is now time to clean up and get out.

[High C]

Originally posted by Chris Coose:
Sam, If you/yours can't/won't see the connectors in those two quotes we are really screwed.

We have the potential to become the "occupiers" in a matter of days if this thing isn't played with respect to the Iraquis.

This war is over. It is now time to clean up and get out.If we just bail out, they will eat each other alive. We have a moral obligation to see the birth of a new Iraqi government through. That's going to take time.

In the meanwhile, the Iraqis are going to have to realize that it's a very poor idea to fire on a group of soldiers. This is more Iraqi blood on Iraqi hands, not the hands of the soldiers who were defending themselves.

[Chris Coose]

This is more Iraqi blood on Iraqi hands, not the hands of the soldiers who were defending themselves.
The evidence on this and future killings will be as fogged as needed.
The details are not nearly as important as the infulence these incidences will have on the psyche of Iraquis.
We can sit back and make arrogant suggestions for the good of a people we hardly understand. These poor backward folks really need us to show them the light, Right?
Well if we have to kill them to do it, it won't work.

It doesn't matter whose hands today's blood is on. It is their blood that has been spilled and that is what matters to the occupied.

[High C]

Originally posted by Chris Coose:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />This is more Iraqi blood on Iraqi hands, not the hands of the soldiers who were defending themselves.
The evidence on this and future killings will be as fogged as needed.
The details are not nearly as important as the infulence these incidences will have on the psyche of Iraquis.
We can sit back and make arrogant suggestions for the good of a people we hardly understand. These poor backward folks really need us to show them the light, Right?
Well if we have to kill them to do it, it won't work.

It doesn't matter whose hands today's blood is on. It is their blood that has been spilled and that is what matters to the occupied.</font>[/QUOTE]So what would you suggest we do? Leave now? Stay and give our soldiers orders not to defend themselves against attack?

And don't kid yourself, backwards they most certainly are. The Arab region is centuries behind the rest of the world in many, many ways. They do need help. I don't care to be the one to withold it, the one to tell them, "you're on your own, Bub, bon chance".

[Sam F]

Originally posted by Chris Coose:

This war is over. It is now time to clean up and get out.In what way is this thinking different from the way the US handled Iraq earlier?

Support Saddam as a counter to Iran and get out.
Support the muhajadeen in Afghanistan against the USSR and get out.
Support Saddam as a counter to Islamic fanaticism and otherwise don’t interfere.
Support the Saudi Royals as a counter against Iraq/Iran and don't notice their total corruption.

“Getting out” has been tried and not only has failed miserably but caused no end of injustice to innocents and the “blowback” has been horrendous.

I don't like this situation any better than you do but no doubt for different reasons.
I’m on record as saying the US should cure its addiction to fossil fuels, export renewable energy technology and let the oil producing countries either eat sand or free themselves from the curse of a natural resource and fight over the spoils economy.
And that will happen… in my dreams. The capitalists will see beyond the next quarter’s financial statement too. Yeah, in my dreams…
Since that ain’t gonna happen, we’ll have to deal with the situation as it stands today.

The war, from a purely military perspective, was brilliantly executed.
My concern before the war and now is that the US doesn't have the mental horsepower in its leadership nor the moral clarity and stamina in it's population to pull this off.
But like it or not, we're stuck with it and we'd better make the best of it. Pulling out and leaving this mess behind to fester is arguably the worst thing possible.
My guess is, at a minimum, that the US will be in Iraq in one form or another for at least a generation and probably longer.
You may not like it and I definitely don't, but we have the tiger by the tail and can't let go until it's tamed or dead.