I do remember people were saying we should take Saddam out because he was A Very Bad Man, but Iraq was not painted as a direct threat to us until comparatively recently, surely?
All righty then. Since the US goes to war to put bad people away; I know a few bad people around my neighbourhood. Care to come and help me? I don't have oil though and my neighbours are not the OPEC countries...
Ok, so you don't like me and you won't help me. How about the very bad people in different African countries then? They have been at war with each other for decades. The armies steal rations meant for civilians. Millions die of starvation. The guerillas amputate the limbs of young people to make sure that they don't become a threat to their rule. Surely, that must quality for bad people... \
You are using it as a diversion to avoid the question....
Address the issue please.
Nick, you are diverting the thread from the topic at hand. You are bringing Clinton into the discussion but not even commenting on Bush and the war we just waged or the implications of the the link and quotes posted by ShawnJ.
Bill didn't go to war, Bush did. That's about the extent of your comparison.
OMG. The pride and denial is staggering. Just fekking get over it already; they screwed up, OK?? Is your name President Bush? Are you personally tarnished by admitting this man's mistakes and mistakes of his comrades?
So the only people who can't accept scenario (A) is some very strong anti-war types or hard core Dean supporters. Shawn obviously supports Dean and even mentions in the opening post that this would help Dean while implying it would damage Kerry, Edwards, and others.
So basically harm Clinton, Kerry, Edwards, and other Democrats to advance Dean.
To clarify, I think it will help Dean the most because of his unequivocal opposition to the war. He can grab this rather important story and use it to his advantage, saying he was right all along. I think the very nature of the report is beneficial to all Democrats, but perhaps less so for Kerry and Edwards because some may perceive (not saying it's a correct perception) that they flip-flopped or waffled their positions. So they may not utilize it as well as Dean for fear of criticism or other reasons.
But, yeah, I mean it bolsters the case against Bush for all Democrats, not just Dean.
Nick, you are diverting the thread from the topic at hand. You are bringing Clinton into the discussion but not even commenting on Bush and the war we just waged or the implications of the the link and quotes posted by ShawnJ.
Bill didn't go to war, Bush did. That's about the extent of your comparison.
I think I commented quite clearly. I said either Bush is presenting the same information as Clinton which would then equal bad information, or Bush is presenting a lie in which case Clinton, who held the same office and had access to the same information should have said that Bush was lying.
As always I don't just assume Bush or anyone just acts in a vacuum. I find it very humorous that people, for example will claim Dean a good guy for speaking out against the war before it began, but never question why Clinton, who obviously had much more experience and information never did.
I'm not trying to blame what Bush did on Clinton. Rather when a party, be it Democratic or Republican is portraying itself as someone who would act differently in the same scenario, I just look at what was done when they did encounter the same scenario.
I mean we can't say with certainty the Democrats would have acted dramatically different because so many of them voted for the war. The argument is that they didn't want to go against Bush, but how is it more convincing that they would want to go against Gore or even Clinton if they were advocating that view? When we see Clinton's actions we cannot say with certainty that he would not have done something different in Iraq.
When you claim to stand for something different, it has to be a clear difference. I don't see a clear difference between Clinton and Bush, although I will say I do see a clear difference between Dean and Bush.
I will gladly call someone on a loss of credibility. I have said Bush is not credible when it comes to restraining spending or controlling the budget. There have been many threads where I fully conceded this and even claimed that a fiscally conservative third party candidate could come up and fracture the base again in the next election if it appears another Bush type free spender is going to do well.
However when I check leftist claims about the right with regard to Iraq and other claims. There just are too many similarities for me to believe there would be a different course of action. I've posted many of them. Clinton acted without U.N. approval dealing with Bosnia. Clinton, as mentioned in this thread took action against perceived WOMD capabilities in Iraq and never claimed they didn't have them. Many Democrats voted to allow the president to act and also voted for the $87 billion afterwards.
The point is that Bush is the leadership that created this, this is totally true. But he didn't act in a vacuum, and his actions don't seem to contradict the information or tactics used by the previous president, who just happened to be a Democrat. So when someone claims hindsight, or that they, in the future would act dramatically different, I have to question it.
When you ask for me to critically rethink my position on an issue, understand that I don't stop or start just because it is Bush, but I also don't stop at the year 2000 or stop because of Clinton. I try to look at how it has been handed all along.
I think Bill was in a similar situation but acted very differently. What Bush did was absurd compared to Bill. To think they're responses were similar is strange to me.
To clarify, I think it will help Dean the most because of his unequivocal opposition to the war. He can grab this rather important story and use it to his advantage, saying he was right all along. I think the very nature of the report is beneficial to all Democrats, but perhaps less so for Kerry and Edwards because some may perceive (not saying it's a correct perception) that they flip-flopped or waffled their positions. So they may not utilize it as well as Dean for fear of criticism or other reasons.
But, yeah, I mean it bolsters the case against Bush for all Democrats, not just Dean.
I do think stories like this could psossibly help Dean a bit but not really. However I don't see Clark and Kerry polishing up their military credentials to prove they are solidly anti-war. I think they are doing so to show credibility in claiming a third path which of course we will never be able to know if they would have taken.
Dean will keep getting hit with scenarios about how Saddam would still be in power, how can you guarantee Osama would have been caught by now, etc. Kerry, Clark and Edwards will be largely immune from this because of their war votes, or actions related to it.
However Kerry and Clark are going to try to show that action was taken and would have been taken under them, but just a different and more appropriate action. It is still a very hard argument to make in my opinion, but it will still come off better than the perceived no action that Dean often gets hit with in questioning. (I didn't say it was justified, or true just that it happens)
I think to simplify this matter, it will come across very much like the many police brutality matters. People get very uncomfortable making judgement calls about when you have been hit or harmed, in claiming someone hit back too hard, exerted x% to much force which is now excessive, etc. People don't expect perfection when they are defending and lives are on the line if they fail.
I think that is very much how Iraq will play out, right or wrong, how it will come down in the minds of many. Basically Bush will probably be seen as fully justified by the right. (say 45%) The left will be having an argument between no action (Dean) and action but without excessive force (limited war, strikes plus sactions plus more inspections, etc.) which will not be as effective. I think that is why Bush often polls out around 55-60% on this issue most of the time. People go back and forth a bit about how hard you should hit back or whether we hit the right people, but the majority has bought into the Bush case and will likely forgive safe action in the face of bad data rather than endangering action taken with less than perfect data. (A sort of risk death while we get enough info to act type scenario)
My slightly different to the other thread point is: nobody seems to remotely care. This administration's integrity has finally jumped the shark and no-one gives a toss....
That's not a good sign.....
Oh I think they'll care. The election year is still young you know and I think this will be a major issue.
i wonder how powell feels (and felt at the time) about being the white house's b!tch for being the scapegoat in front of the UN. i had a feeling at the time that powell didn't believe the reports he was being asked to give to the UN, and i suspect he's feeling quite "used" these days.
that being said, i'd vote for powell over bush head-to-head any day of the week.
I mean we can't say with certainty the Democrats would have acted dramatically different because so many of them voted for the war. The argument is that they didn't want to go against Bush, but how is it more convincing that they would want to go against Gore or even Clinton if they were advocating that view? When we see Clinton's actions we cannot say with certainty that he would not have done something different in Iraq.
When you claim to stand for something different, it has to be a clear difference. I don't see a clear difference between Clinton and Bush, although I will say I do see a clear difference between Dean and Bush.
I defended you in a previous post, saying that Clinton and Blair did start a war with Iraq over WoMD and violating post-war agreements. However, I don't see how you can say that Clinton or Gore would have acted no differently than Bush if they had been president. The fact is, we know exactly what they would have done because they did it: They attacked sites of WMDs rather than going in ourselves to overthrow SH and install a new government. Nothing changed between 1998 and 2003. SH was still putting roadblocks up against inspections and all that. What changed was 9/11, and the argument that "hey some Arab guy with a name that sounds sorta like Osaddama attacked us" just fell in their laps. But nothing on the ground in Iraq changed between 1998 and 2003.
People go back and forth a bit about how hard you should hit back or whether we hit the right people, but the majority has bought into the Bush case and will likely forgive safe action in the face of bad data rather than endangering action taken with less than perfect data. (A sort of risk death while we get enough info to act type scenario)
Nick
Nick, the US went to Iraq for (1)oil and (2)to try and increase it's influence in the middle east -- something it has been failing to do for the past several decades. I don't see the US exiting Iraq anytime in the next decade now that it's "objective" of removing Saddam is more or less complete. Politicians will always use fear and doubt as instruments to get their subjects to fall in line.
Put yourselves in the shoes of ordinary Iraqi citizens and judge if they are better off now than they were under Saddam. I am sure they love rationed fuel being sold at 2$ a gallon as opposed to unlimited 5cents a gallon before. Fuel is something all cultures can corelate to; that's why I chose that as an example. People in the country have lost their livelihood, their safety and their dignity. You sit in the comfort of your home and forgive yourselves for killing the wrong people for the wrong reasons.
Every dog has its day. The world is not a better place for our children as a result of these actions.
Now, it's worth noting that Kay was careful to say "large-scale" throughout this interview. But even so, the takeaway from his remarks is fairly stunning:
He's stepping down because, essentially, he feels the administration is not really serious about looking for WMD at this point. This is basically an admission that no one in the administration thinks there's anything to be found. If they did, there's no way they would allow the inspection program to wind down like this.
There was no nuclear program to speak of. "There had been some restart of activities, but they were rudimentary."
There was no serious chemical or biological weapons development in the 90s. Not just after 1995, not just after 2001, but at no time in the entire last decade. And yet the world's intelligence services were apparently (shawn's emphasis: i imply intent) fooled for that entire time.
The search is pretty much complete and there's not much chance we're going to find anything more. "I think we have found probably 85 percent of what we're going to find."
I defended you in a previous post, saying that Clinton and Blair did start a war with Iraq over WoMD and violating post-war agreements. However, I don't see how you can say that Clinton or Gore would have acted no differently than Bush if they had been president. The fact is, we know exactly what they would have done because they did it: They attacked sites of WMDs rather than going in ourselves to overthrow SH and install a new government. Nothing changed between 1998 and 2003. SH was still putting roadblocks up against inspections and all that. What changed was 9/11, and the argument that "hey some Arab guy with a name that sounds sorta like Osaddama attacked us" just fell in their laps. But nothing on the ground in Iraq changed between 1998 and 2003.
I'm glad that whether you disagree or agree with me, you do it thoughtfully BRussell.
My contention about the lack of difference is based on a couple of issues. First I think they would have simply said they would have acted differently. I've tried to locate a sort of Gore timeline with regard to opposition on the war, and if he made it clear before the war, that he thought there were no WOMD, then I will gladly change my tune there. However I've not seen any statements from Clinton before the war that indicated he would have taken a different path.
In fact I've read items like this in the past. Larry Elder
Likewise I also said in my post to Shawn, that Bush will probably sit at between 55-60% approval in this because even with no WOMD there was no information to prove Bush wrong regarding them before action was taken. As I mentioned Clinton is the prime source for someone who has sat in the seat, had seen the information and most credible for a different scenario. Yet he has not been especially critical even after the war let alone before it, when he would be the most credible in terms of politics and elections.
I've complained before that the biggest western issue in understanding the Middle East is that they have not moved on to nation-state status. They are essentually still large tribes. It strikes me as very easy to understand how one tribe can help another even when a nation would not. This is why an Osama Bin Laden can attack his own country with terrorist attacks and why Saddam can callously kill his own people. We are talking about tribal alliances within countries that will take no official position on those tribes. That is why we were and are attacking the Taliban instead of necessarily claiming it was the country they resided in.
So you may lump it under nation-state status and think Bush foolish and wrong in his actions. I'm not claiming that everyone would support my view or that under the understanding of purely nations and governments, your view is entirely wrong. But with the understanding that these are just very large tribes operating within borders or sometimes through borders that don't even follow the tribes lands, leaders, etc. It is much easier to understand the threat that was posed after 9/11.
I remember many articles speculating on Bush having to handle the possibility that various tribes from Iran and Turkey who were Islamnic would come in and attempt to claim tribal lands and peoples after the fall of Saddam. Here is an example. Kurd claims
Another concern was simply that these tribes, some of which operate almost in entire autonomy, would attempt to carve up Iraq into their own nations. I seem to remember Turkey making some northern claims. The Kurds wanting their own nation and the southern Shiites possible doing the same with fear that Iranian Shiites would come to assist.
At any rate the tribal view makes the terrorism threats after 9/11 much more credible in my view. I'm not going to attempt to change your view on it. I just doubt Clinton wouldn't have followed the very hard lesson learned when Western leaders apply Western thoughts and boundries to Middle Eastern tribes and terrorists.
Editor's Note, Jan. 23, 2004: It was announced today that David Kay is being replaced by Charles Duelfer a top Iraq weapons inspector during UNSCOM's efforts from 1992 to 2000. Earlier this month, Duelfer told NBC News that he doubted biological and chemical weapons would be found in Iraq.
? He's stepping down because, essentially, he feels the administration is not really serious about looking for WMD at this point. This is basically an admission that no one in the administration thinks there's anything to be found. If they did, there's no way they would allow the inspection program to wind down like this.
Is the search winding down now? I had the impression, that, at least officially, the search is still on in full swing, just with a change in leadership.
However, I don't see how you can say that Clinton or Gore would have acted no differently than Bush if they had been president.
In fact we kknow they would have acted differently, since there would not have been the same group of ideologues deciding that they wanted to reshape the middle east.
Anyway, UNMOVIC provided a wealth of info that really boosted our knoweldge of Iraqi WMD.
OK, I merged the two threads about this topic. One referred to David Kay's conclusions about no WMDs existing, and other other referred to Colin Powell's (essentially) same statement to the public. Since the topic is the same, I put them together though the sources are different.
ShawnJ's Kay thread was here first, so technically, segovious deferred to Shawn. Just in case someone is keeping track.
No sane government would end the search this year. If you end the search you are admitting there wasn´t anything there and they are not willing to say that before 2005.
This is not a critic of the administration. Anyone, including Carter and Kucinich would have done the same had they been in Bush shoes if their advisors had more than two braincells.
watching that episode and seeing Kay spin pro-WMD before and try to spin maybe-WMD during makes his admission of no-WMD now a more convincing revelation.
Judge for yourself through the transcripts and forum Q&A.
Watch for it when the episode rebroadcasts, or once it goes online.
Powell confirming no WMD seems more of a restatement of his paper throwing state of mind pre-UN.
CBC and PBS both covered Kay's comments, and both noted that Duelfer made the same "almost no chance of ever finding WMD" quote on camera.
Blair is already getting new heat over these admissions to the No-WMD truth.
Comments
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
I do remember people were saying we should take Saddam out because he was A Very Bad Man, but Iraq was not painted as a direct threat to us until comparatively recently, surely?
All righty then. Since the US goes to war to put bad people away; I know a few bad people around my neighbourhood. Care to come and help me? I don't have oil though and my neighbours are not the OPEC countries...
Ok, so you don't like me and you won't help me. How about the very bad people in different African countries then? They have been at war with each other for decades. The armies steal rations meant for civilians. Millions die of starvation. The guerillas amputate the limbs of young people to make sure that they don't become a threat to their rule. Surely, that must quality for bad people...
Originally posted by trumptman
You are using it as a diversion to avoid the question....
Address the issue please.
Nick, you are diverting the thread from the topic at hand. You are bringing Clinton into the discussion but not even commenting on Bush and the war we just waged or the implications of the the link and quotes posted by ShawnJ.
Bill didn't go to war, Bush did. That's about the extent of your comparison.
Originally posted by Scott
Which he knows now not back then.
OMG. The pride and denial is staggering. Just fekking get over it already; they screwed up, OK?? Is your name President Bush? Are you personally tarnished by admitting this man's mistakes and mistakes of his comrades?
Jeezus. Talk about turning off your brain....
Originally posted by trumptman
So the only people who can't accept scenario (A) is some very strong anti-war types or hard core Dean supporters. Shawn obviously supports Dean and even mentions in the opening post that this would help Dean while implying it would damage Kerry, Edwards, and others.
So basically harm Clinton, Kerry, Edwards, and other Democrats to advance Dean.
To clarify, I think it will help Dean the most because of his unequivocal opposition to the war. He can grab this rather important story and use it to his advantage, saying he was right all along. I think the very nature of the report is beneficial to all Democrats, but perhaps less so for Kerry and Edwards because some may perceive (not saying it's a correct perception) that they flip-flopped or waffled their positions. So they may not utilize it as well as Dean for fear of criticism or other reasons.
But, yeah, I mean it bolsters the case against Bush for all Democrats, not just Dean.
Originally posted by bunge
Nick, you are diverting the thread from the topic at hand. You are bringing Clinton into the discussion but not even commenting on Bush and the war we just waged or the implications of the the link and quotes posted by ShawnJ.
Bill didn't go to war, Bush did. That's about the extent of your comparison.
I think I commented quite clearly. I said either Bush is presenting the same information as Clinton which would then equal bad information, or Bush is presenting a lie in which case Clinton, who held the same office and had access to the same information should have said that Bush was lying.
As always I don't just assume Bush or anyone just acts in a vacuum. I find it very humorous that people, for example will claim Dean a good guy for speaking out against the war before it began, but never question why Clinton, who obviously had much more experience and information never did.
I'm not trying to blame what Bush did on Clinton. Rather when a party, be it Democratic or Republican is portraying itself as someone who would act differently in the same scenario, I just look at what was done when they did encounter the same scenario.
I mean we can't say with certainty the Democrats would have acted dramatically different because so many of them voted for the war. The argument is that they didn't want to go against Bush, but how is it more convincing that they would want to go against Gore or even Clinton if they were advocating that view? When we see Clinton's actions we cannot say with certainty that he would not have done something different in Iraq.
When you claim to stand for something different, it has to be a clear difference. I don't see a clear difference between Clinton and Bush, although I will say I do see a clear difference between Dean and Bush.
I will gladly call someone on a loss of credibility. I have said Bush is not credible when it comes to restraining spending or controlling the budget. There have been many threads where I fully conceded this and even claimed that a fiscally conservative third party candidate could come up and fracture the base again in the next election if it appears another Bush type free spender is going to do well.
However when I check leftist claims about the right with regard to Iraq and other claims. There just are too many similarities for me to believe there would be a different course of action. I've posted many of them. Clinton acted without U.N. approval dealing with Bosnia. Clinton, as mentioned in this thread took action against perceived WOMD capabilities in Iraq and never claimed they didn't have them. Many Democrats voted to allow the president to act and also voted for the $87 billion afterwards.
The point is that Bush is the leadership that created this, this is totally true. But he didn't act in a vacuum, and his actions don't seem to contradict the information or tactics used by the previous president, who just happened to be a Democrat. So when someone claims hindsight, or that they, in the future would act dramatically different, I have to question it.
Take a look at this for example.
Commondreams.org
When you ask for me to critically rethink my position on an issue, understand that I don't stop or start just because it is Bush, but I also don't stop at the year 2000 or stop because of Clinton. I try to look at how it has been handed all along.
Nick
Perhaps in one hundred years the Bush admin will discover something ...
Originally posted by trumptman
I think I commented quite clearly.
Our posting overlapped.
I think Bill was in a similar situation but acted very differently. What Bush did was absurd compared to Bill. To think they're responses were similar is strange to me.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
To clarify, I think it will help Dean the most because of his unequivocal opposition to the war. He can grab this rather important story and use it to his advantage, saying he was right all along. I think the very nature of the report is beneficial to all Democrats, but perhaps less so for Kerry and Edwards because some may perceive (not saying it's a correct perception) that they flip-flopped or waffled their positions. So they may not utilize it as well as Dean for fear of criticism or other reasons.
But, yeah, I mean it bolsters the case against Bush for all Democrats, not just Dean.
I do think stories like this could psossibly help Dean a bit but not really. However I don't see Clark and Kerry polishing up their military credentials to prove they are solidly anti-war. I think they are doing so to show credibility in claiming a third path which of course we will never be able to know if they would have taken.
Dean will keep getting hit with scenarios about how Saddam would still be in power, how can you guarantee Osama would have been caught by now, etc. Kerry, Clark and Edwards will be largely immune from this because of their war votes, or actions related to it.
However Kerry and Clark are going to try to show that action was taken and would have been taken under them, but just a different and more appropriate action. It is still a very hard argument to make in my opinion, but it will still come off better than the perceived no action that Dean often gets hit with in questioning. (I didn't say it was justified, or true just that it happens)
I think to simplify this matter, it will come across very much like the many police brutality matters. People get very uncomfortable making judgement calls about when you have been hit or harmed, in claiming someone hit back too hard, exerted x% to much force which is now excessive, etc. People don't expect perfection when they are defending and lives are on the line if they fail.
I think that is very much how Iraq will play out, right or wrong, how it will come down in the minds of many. Basically Bush will probably be seen as fully justified by the right. (say 45%) The left will be having an argument between no action (Dean) and action but without excessive force (limited war, strikes plus sactions plus more inspections, etc.) which will not be as effective. I think that is why Bush often polls out around 55-60% on this issue most of the time. People go back and forth a bit about how hard you should hit back or whether we hit the right people, but the majority has bought into the Bush case and will likely forgive safe action in the face of bad data rather than endangering action taken with less than perfect data. (A sort of risk death while we get enough info to act type scenario)
Nick
Originally posted by segovius
Yes, I know it's a duplicate thread (feel free to merge) but this is intended to be about the apparent confirmation of Kay's claim by Powell.
BBC Breaking News
My slightly different to the other thread point is: nobody seems to remotely care. This administration's integrity has finally jumped the shark and no-one gives a toss....
That's not a good sign.....
Oh I think they'll care. The election year is still young you know and I think this will be a major issue.
For instance read this part of the article
-----------------------------------------------------------
" Less than a year ago, Mr Powell warned the United Nations Security Council about the danger from Iraq's weapons. "
-----------------------------------------------------------
Merge my thread into yours!
that being said, i'd vote for powell over bush head-to-head any day of the week.
Originally posted by trumptman
I mean we can't say with certainty the Democrats would have acted dramatically different because so many of them voted for the war. The argument is that they didn't want to go against Bush, but how is it more convincing that they would want to go against Gore or even Clinton if they were advocating that view? When we see Clinton's actions we cannot say with certainty that he would not have done something different in Iraq.
When you claim to stand for something different, it has to be a clear difference. I don't see a clear difference between Clinton and Bush, although I will say I do see a clear difference between Dean and Bush.
I defended you in a previous post, saying that Clinton and Blair did start a war with Iraq over WoMD and violating post-war agreements. However, I don't see how you can say that Clinton or Gore would have acted no differently than Bush if they had been president. The fact is, we know exactly what they would have done because they did it: They attacked sites of WMDs rather than going in ourselves to overthrow SH and install a new government. Nothing changed between 1998 and 2003. SH was still putting roadblocks up against inspections and all that. What changed was 9/11, and the argument that "hey some Arab guy with a name that sounds sorta like Osaddama attacked us" just fell in their laps. But nothing on the ground in Iraq changed between 1998 and 2003.
Originally posted by trumptman
People go back and forth a bit about how hard you should hit back or whether we hit the right people, but the majority has bought into the Bush case and will likely forgive safe action in the face of bad data rather than endangering action taken with less than perfect data. (A sort of risk death while we get enough info to act type scenario)
Nick
Nick, the US went to Iraq for (1)oil and (2)to try and increase it's influence in the middle east -- something it has been failing to do for the past several decades. I don't see the US exiting Iraq anytime in the next decade now that it's "objective" of removing Saddam is more or less complete. Politicians will always use fear and doubt as instruments to get their subjects to fall in line.
Put yourselves in the shoes of ordinary Iraqi citizens and judge if they are better off now than they were under Saddam. I am sure they love rationed fuel being sold at 2$ a gallon as opposed to unlimited 5cents a gallon before. Fuel is something all cultures can corelate to; that's why I chose that as an example. People in the country have lost their livelihood, their safety and their dignity. You sit in the comfort of your home and forgive yourselves for killing the wrong people for the wrong reasons.
Every dog has its day. The world is not a better place for our children as a result of these actions.
Now, it's worth noting that Kay was careful to say "large-scale" throughout this interview. But even so, the takeaway from his remarks is fairly stunning:
Originally posted by BRussell
I defended you in a previous post, saying that Clinton and Blair did start a war with Iraq over WoMD and violating post-war agreements. However, I don't see how you can say that Clinton or Gore would have acted no differently than Bush if they had been president. The fact is, we know exactly what they would have done because they did it: They attacked sites of WMDs rather than going in ourselves to overthrow SH and install a new government. Nothing changed between 1998 and 2003. SH was still putting roadblocks up against inspections and all that. What changed was 9/11, and the argument that "hey some Arab guy with a name that sounds sorta like Osaddama attacked us" just fell in their laps. But nothing on the ground in Iraq changed between 1998 and 2003.
I'm glad that whether you disagree or agree with me, you do it thoughtfully BRussell.
My contention about the lack of difference is based on a couple of issues. First I think they would have simply said they would have acted differently. I've tried to locate a sort of Gore timeline with regard to opposition on the war, and if he made it clear before the war, that he thought there were no WOMD, then I will gladly change my tune there. However I've not seen any statements from Clinton before the war that indicated he would have taken a different path.
In fact I've read items like this in the past. Larry Elder
Likewise I also said in my post to Shawn, that Bush will probably sit at between 55-60% approval in this because even with no WOMD there was no information to prove Bush wrong regarding them before action was taken. As I mentioned Clinton is the prime source for someone who has sat in the seat, had seen the information and most credible for a different scenario. Yet he has not been especially critical even after the war let alone before it, when he would be the most credible in terms of politics and elections.
I've complained before that the biggest western issue in understanding the Middle East is that they have not moved on to nation-state status. They are essentually still large tribes. It strikes me as very easy to understand how one tribe can help another even when a nation would not. This is why an Osama Bin Laden can attack his own country with terrorist attacks and why Saddam can callously kill his own people. We are talking about tribal alliances within countries that will take no official position on those tribes. That is why we were and are attacking the Taliban instead of necessarily claiming it was the country they resided in.
So you may lump it under nation-state status and think Bush foolish and wrong in his actions. I'm not claiming that everyone would support my view or that under the understanding of purely nations and governments, your view is entirely wrong. But with the understanding that these are just very large tribes operating within borders or sometimes through borders that don't even follow the tribes lands, leaders, etc. It is much easier to understand the threat that was posed after 9/11.
I remember many articles speculating on Bush having to handle the possibility that various tribes from Iran and Turkey who were Islamnic would come in and attempt to claim tribal lands and peoples after the fall of Saddam. Here is an example. Kurd claims
Another concern was simply that these tribes, some of which operate almost in entire autonomy, would attempt to carve up Iraq into their own nations. I seem to remember Turkey making some northern claims. The Kurds wanting their own nation and the southern Shiites possible doing the same with fear that Iranian Shiites would come to assist.
At any rate the tribal view makes the terrorism threats after 9/11 much more credible in my view. I'm not going to attempt to change your view on it. I just doubt Clinton wouldn't have followed the very hard lesson learned when Western leaders apply Western thoughts and boundries to Middle Eastern tribes and terrorists.
Nick
Originally posted by Powerdoc
However they put in charge an another guy who is very confident in the fact he will find WOMD.
I thought that Duelfer was skeptical that they would find anything. OK, found the link. I heard this on Frontline originally:
Quote from Frontline:
Editor's Note, Jan. 23, 2004: It was announced today that David Kay is being replaced by Charles Duelfer a top Iraq weapons inspector during UNSCOM's efforts from 1992 to 2000. Earlier this month, Duelfer told NBC News that he doubted biological and chemical weapons would be found in Iraq.
Quote from Kevin Drum:
? He's stepping down because, essentially, he feels the administration is not really serious about looking for WMD at this point. This is basically an admission that no one in the administration thinks there's anything to be found. If they did, there's no way they would allow the inspection program to wind down like this.
Is the search winding down now? I had the impression, that, at least officially, the search is still on in full swing, just with a change in leadership.
Originally posted by BRussell
However, I don't see how you can say that Clinton or Gore would have acted no differently than Bush if they had been president.
In fact we kknow they would have acted differently, since there would not have been the same group of ideologues deciding that they wanted to reshape the middle east.
Anyway, UNMOVIC provided a wealth of info that really boosted our knoweldge of Iraqi WMD.
ShawnJ's Kay thread was here first, so technically, segovious deferred to Shawn. Just in case someone is keeping track.
This is not a critic of the administration. Anyone, including Carter and Kucinich would have done the same had they been in Bush shoes if their advisors had more than two braincells.
watching that episode and seeing Kay spin pro-WMD before and try to spin maybe-WMD during makes his admission of no-WMD now a more convincing revelation.
Judge for yourself through the transcripts and forum Q&A.
Watch for it when the episode rebroadcasts, or once it goes online.
Powell confirming no WMD seems more of a restatement of his paper throwing state of mind pre-UN.
CBC and PBS both covered Kay's comments, and both noted that Duelfer made the same "almost no chance of ever finding WMD" quote on camera.
Blair is already getting new heat over these admissions to the No-WMD truth.