shotbanner.jpeg

December 31, 2005

I Bet Halliburton Paid For It

The Chicago Tribune does the unthinkable: questions the left's talking points about Bush's case for war in Iraq.

On Nov. 20, the Tribune began an inquest: We set out to assess the Bush administration's arguments for war in Iraq. We have weighed each of those nine arguments against the findings of subsequent official investigations by the 9/11 Commission, the Senate Intelligence Committee and others. We predicted that this exercise would distress the smug and self-assured--those who have unquestioningly supported, or opposed, this war.

The matrix below summarizes findings from the resulting nine editorials. We have tried to bring order to a national debate that has flared for almost three years. Our intent was to help Tribune readers judge the case for war--based not on who shouts loudest, but on what actually was said and what happened.

The whole thing is worth reading.

Especially interesting is this part on their conclusions about Bush's "WMD" case:

There was no need for the administration to rely on risky intelligence to chronicle many of Iraq's other sins. In putting so much emphasis on illicit weaponry, the White House advanced its most provocative, least verifiable case for war when others would have sufficed.
This synchs up nicely with Berg's Law about Liberal Iraq Commentary:
No liberal commentator is capable of addressing more than one of the President's justifications for the War in Iraq at a time; to do so would introduce a context in which their argument can not survive
Anyway, read the whole ChiTrib piece. It's excellent, no matter what side of the debate you're on.

Posted by Mitch at December 31, 2005 07:51 AM | TrackBack
Comments

I wish just one war critic, be it Brent Scowcroft, John Murtha, Howard Dean, or Michael Moore, would attempt to put forth a cogent counter-factual history wherein leaving the Baathists in control of Iraq for several more decades would have better served the interests of the United States. They don't, of course, because such an effort would entail a realistic examination of the status quo ante, which would, in turn, expose their yelping in all it's mostly pointless banality.

Posted by: Will Allen at December 31, 2005 10:51 AM

"There was no need for the administration to rely on risky intelligence to chronicle many of Iraq's other sins. In putting so much emphasis on illicit weaponry, the White House advanced its most provocative, least verifiable case for war when others would have sufficed."
This is exactly right. Bush put the emphasis where he did because that was the only way he possibly get the UN's blessing for regime change. Without the UN's blessing Blair would be open to criticism that he backed not the UN Security Council's interests, but America's.
I believe this policy was was promoted by Bush Sr. & Colin Powell. For obvious reasons they will never be criticized by this administration.

Posted by: Terry at December 31, 2005 04:21 PM

Interesting.

First. The worthlessness and incompetence of our foreign intelligence is proved again and again. Have they ever got anything right?

Second.

If the administration had gone to the Congress with the other information - leaving aside the spy nonsense, which looks to be proved nonsense by some very cursory verification - and asked for a declaration of war, they wouldn't have got it.

Third.

If removing Saddam was worth the effort - and the military effort to attain that was quick and relatively cheap, as these things go - it doesn't follow that we have any further responsibility whatever. If we had disbanded the Iraqi army - or it disbanded itself - and went home, it seems likely that the Shiite militias with Iranian backing would have replaced Saddam. After years of leaking blood and spending billions we have arrived at the same point. Unless....we are somehow going to have a continuing role in Iraqi politics. If so, what of Iraqi democracy? Vichy democracy, I calls it.

Fourth.

What happened to the good old conservative America-first position? Why are conservatives weeping over the sufferings of these miserable wogs? The whole region produces no literature worth reading, no inventions, no technology, no exports save oil and dates, no army that could stand up to the Estonians, no terrorists that can murder anyone without blowing themselves up. Now we're about reforming the whole miserable lot of them.

Posted by: bobbythehat at January 1, 2006 06:00 PM

"I wish just one war critic, be it Brent Scowcroft, John Murtha, Howard Dean, or Michael Moore, would attempt to put forth a cogent counter-factual history wherein leaving the Baathists in control of Iraq for several more decades would have better served the interests of the United States."

Another ridiculous strawman arguement.

Posted by: Doug at January 1, 2006 06:56 PM

Another ridiculous strawman arguement.

Posted by Doug at January 1, 2006 06:56 PM

It wasn't an argument.

Posted by: Kermit at January 2, 2006 07:58 AM

It wasn't an argument.

Posted by Kermit at January 2, 2006 07:58 AM


Yes Kermit. It was and since I can't seem to find any record of these critics suggesting that we leave the Baathists in control for several more decades, it is another pathetic strawman offering.

Posted by: Doug at January 2, 2006 08:43 AM

I have to disagree, Doug. Will was asking for a prediction which is not an argument. Since not invading would have left Baath in place, it's not an uneasonable request. Now there is one less verifiably hostile nation in the world.
As one Iraqi so eloquently put it:

"Anybody who doesn't appreciate what America has done and President Bush, let them go to hell!"
-- Iraqi voter Betty Devisha.

I think the point was it's always eaier to criticize than create viable options. Let me put on my Ron Rosenbaum cliche hat and say that the toothpaste is out of the tube.

Posted by: Kermit at January 2, 2006 09:30 AM

Kermit, that's bullsh*t and you know it.

Will has drawn his own conclusion that the Baathists in Iraq would continue to be in power for several more decades had we not invaded and he is rhetorically asking that Brent Scowcroft, John Murtha, Howard Dean, or Michael Moore present an argument for why this scenario is favorable to the US's interests.

That my friend is a strawman argument - not a prediction.

Posted by: Doug at January 2, 2006 04:27 PM

Doug -- It is not bullsh*t, and YOU know it.
The anti-war left would have left Saddam in power, but "contained." Not one anti-war advocate advanced an alternative plan that would have led to the removal of Saddam and his thugocracy in either the short or the long term. He was getting richer by the day, thanks to oil for food. Powerful fellow travelers were lobbying for the imminent removal of sanctions. When we implored the Iraqis themselves to rise up but failed -- in shameful capitulation to our multi-lateral "coalition" -- to actively help them, Saddam crushed them with brutality worthy of Stalin and Mao.
What could possibly have happened in the next decade that would result in Saddam/Qusay/similar Tikriti Ba'athist Nutbag not being in power? No legitimate answer to that question = no strawman argument by Will.
Of course it calls for speculation and conjecture. So, speculate away (with bonus points for humor & creativity for any plans involving the UN, EU or any similarly impotent debating body): How would Saddam and the Ba'athist have been removed from power without a US invasion? If you can't think of a way, then we must agree that he would have remained in power. We must further agree that the anti-war left, in opposing the only possible method of removing Saddam, therefore preferred for Saddam to remain in power. It follows therefore that the anti-war left believes that we would be safer & better off with Saddam in power. The question is: Why?

Posted by: chriss at January 3, 2006 12:14 AM

"What could possibly have happened in the next decade that would result in Saddam/Qusay/similar Tikriti Ba'athist Nutbag not being in power?"

Further proof that the right suffers from a serious deficit of creativity.

Iraq had severe sanctions against them but it wasn't effective because the oil for food program... Who, in addition to Hussein were profiting from the trade in Iraqi oil??? Who Chriss...?

What would have happened if the O-F-F program were cut OR at the very least, monitored so internationals - including American corporations couldn't profit from the program?

And if memory serves me correctly, the weapons inspectors were beginning to declare that Iraq most likely DID NOT have weapons.

If you can't use your imagination and conceive of the multitude of possibitities that existed ONCE IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THERE WERE NO WMD'S, then I hardly think I need to waste my time with you.

Posted by: Doug at January 3, 2006 09:36 AM

Kermit,

So, by your statement, our foriegn policy is predicated (and should be) upon getting rid of hostile governments at our whim, as long as they are despotic, or apparently in the case of Venezuala, even when they are not. This is normally referred to as imperialism, replacing an unfavorable government with a favorable one.

The next argument the right makes is that "wait NO, we mean non-democratic governments which are hostile" yet we abide many despotic governments, including those which are hostile, as long as they have a credible ability to defend themselves (N.Korea, Iran), and as well, we gladly abide despotic governments as long as they are friendly (Saudi Arabia, China, Egypt). Seemingly, our moves in the Middle EAst amount to the removal of one government because we didn't like it, replacing it with another very likely to become despotic, and using that to coerce nearby despots into cooperation. This is NOT the institution of democracy, it's the reinforcement of totatalitarianism, as long as they play ball.

Related to that:

There was a release (News organization suppressed by Mitch) that Terror attacks in 2005 totalled 2880 --


Last year in April, there was a story (which Bush attempted to supress) from the National Counter-terrorism Center, stating non-US Military related attacks were 198, and global attacks were up 900% from 2003. I've read that about 80% of the attacks in Iraq are on non-US targets meaning we saw an escalation of about 1100% from 2003 to 2004 in attacks.

Given that figure, sure doesn't seem like being in Iraq is helping us win the "(unendable) war on (a word) terror," and further, when contrasted against Mitch's absurd (isn't really a strong enough word) prediction made last summer that the war in Iraq would largely be over within a year (so that means by August 2006), it sure seems the war in Iraq also isn't being won, in its last throws, or even moving toward peace after the elections.

This is of course precisely because Tin-Ear simply had no conception, nor did his advisors, of the horrendously difficult task it represents to keep the Sunni's from kililng the Shiites (out of greed/desire to restore their dominance) or the Shiites from killing the Sunnis (out of vengence). This is spiraling out of control into civil war, a civil war we can't stop because if we try to prevent the Shiites from being repressive (what we are currently doing), it gives liberty to the Saddamists, and if we fail to prevent Shiite repression, we allow a pro-Iranian theocracy (a decidely UNFRIENDLY theocracy) to take over.

Since they never appeared to really care about democracy, but rather intimidation and military bases, the whole "promote peace/democracy vision" thing was buloney from the start - and since they appear bound and determined to withdraw our forces, Iraq ready or not (that's a nice approach btw, accuse your opposition of treason for suggesting a timeline, then go ahead and establish a timeline even when your own stated goals aren't being met) anyway, all it appears we have is one despot replacing another, with no positive impact on the war on terror (quite the contrary), and the only solution in Iraq is to allow the Shiites to brutalize and subjegate the Sunnis.

Nice plan, but George the Greater had it right, removing Saddam, no matter how attractive on paper, merely leads to MUCH larger problems.

PB

Posted by: pb at January 5, 2006 03:17 PM

Thanks!!! furniture Very nice site.I enjoy being here.

Posted by: furniture at July 7, 2006 09:26 AM

Thanks!!! furniture Very nice site.I enjoy being here.

Posted by: furniture at July 7, 2006 09:33 AM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?
hi