Iraq reports "Terrorists" seize imaginary WMD's?

[Cool Beans]

http://news.yahoo.com/iraq-says-terr...214329015.html

[Fly Rod]

can not be true....according to Spence and the rest of the left Irag had no weapons of mass destruction....about the year 1988 saddam wiped out a Kurd village with the same type of gas...I guess that wiping out a village of women and children was not mass destruction....perhaps noted as only a few died...what is 10,000 people

[Cool Beans]

Soon enough Spence will clarify this completely to us,
then we can copy paste it to the U.N. and the news reporters so they can get their story straight

[spence]

Anybody actually read the article?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[buckman]

Yes .. "The last major report by U.N. inspectors on the status of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program was released about a year after the experts left in March 2003. It states that Bunker 13 contained 2,500 sarin-filled 122-mm chemical rockets produced and filled before 1991, and about 180 tons of sodium cyanide, "a very toxic chemical and a precursor for the warfare agent tabun."
But this is a bombed out facility . Still interesting that al Qaeda is willing to risk lives to secure it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

Still interesting that al Qaeda is willing to risk lives to secure it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

ISIS is half PR firm. The stuff isn't likely to help them kill anyone (perhaps themselves) but it's great to freak out the Internets.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

ISIS is half PR firm.

What's the other half?

The stuff isn't likely

So there is a possibility? Especially in a universe where there are no absolutes?

to help them kill anyone (perhaps themselves)

Uh . . . so them is missing the protective gene that anyone else possesses?

but it's great to freak out the Internets.

-spence

Is the AP an Internet freak?

[Swimmer]

Someone should tell them its a condiment great on tabouli.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Is the AP an Internet freak?

The AP is reporting the news. How the Internets respond to the news is a different thing.

The OP referred to "imaginary WMD's". If the UN knew about this and didn't see a significant threat and multiple US investigations knew about this and didn't see a significant threat...how could these represent valid WMD's?

Were these the WMD's used to justify the Iraq war? Is that what Beans is saying?

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

The AP is reporting the news. How the Internets respond to the news is a different thing.

The reporters for the AP report "the news" they select to report. There's a lot of "news" the AP does not report. As far as responding to what they do report, it often starts with how the AP reporters respond to their own reports--that is, what they leave out, in what way they present what they report , and hidden spin such as choice of words which give certain shades of meaning. A great deal of reportage is what has traditionally been called "slanting" the news. How anyone responds to "news" reports depends on their own slanted views, the information they have which is not included in the reports, and how they can use the reports to further agendas they may have. Add to all this, the errors, incompetence, and twisted facts (lies) in many "reports," the responses to them can be so varied, and full of the same lack of "objectivity" that AP "reports" and internet "responses" may not be so different in nature.

The OP referred to "imaginary WMD's". If the UN knew about this and didn't see a significant threat and multiple US investigations knew about this and didn't see a significant threat...how could these represent valid WMD's?

What the UN "knows" is full of even more agenda driven slanting, and willful lack of information than the AP. Its "investigations" are not worth the trust its willing accomplices and the uninformed people of the world give it. What it sees as no significant threat often transforms into wars, and genocides. Its political decisions are always colored by opposing parties with different agendas. That it, or some national security agency, considers that it would be difficult to use the materials for WMD's inspires the question "what difficulty do the terrorists not try to overcome?" Don't they take whatever small opportunity, whatever inch they are given, to expand their influence and spread terror? Didn't the U.S. government at one time consider Al Qaeda to be reduced to insignificance? That the Middle East no longer needed U.S. muscle to push back terrorism, that leading from behind would lead to the reduction and even demise of "radical" Islam? And to a restoration of respect for the US and its influence?

The Middle East is in flames. Respect for and influence of the US there and in much of the rest of the world is at a low point.

Didn't our State Dept. consider Benghazi secure and not a hotbed of terrorism and Al Qaeda on the run and no threat there . . . before the attacks on our diplomatic mission.

On what basis are we to have faith in "multiple US investigations"?

Were these the WMD's used to justify the Iraq war? Is that what Beans is saying?

-spence

I don't know. I was just yanking your chain.

[Cool Beans]

Originally Posted by spence

The AP is reporting the news. How the Internets respond to the news is a different thing.

The OP referred to "imaginary WMD's". If the UN knew about this and didn't see a significant threat and multiple US investigations knew about this and didn't see a significant threat...how could these represent valid WMD's?

Were these the WMD's used to justify the Iraq war? Is that what Beans is saying?

-spence

I was saying is if they are not viable weapons then why were they being guarded?

Why did the "rebels" risk lives to take the bunker?

And why is it being reported as news? If they captured an empty bunker?

Since all 3 of those things hapened I tend to believe there must have been at least some of those weapons that were useable, or the damaged oned were since replaced by viable weapons, which would now be in the hands of the "rebels".

In other news: "Rebel forces capture Little Tommy's tree house that was built on the site where a ammunitions building "USED" to be".

[spence]

Originally Posted by Cool Beans

I was saying is if they are not viable weapons then why were they being guarded?

Why did the "rebels" risk lives to take the bunker?

And why is it being reported as news? If they captured an empty bunker?

Since all 3 of those things hapened I tend to believe there must have been at least some of those weapons that were useable, or the damaged oned were since replaced by viable weapons, which would now be in the hands of the "rebels".

In other news: "Rebel forces capture Little Tommy's tree house that was built on the site where a ammunitions building "USED" to be".

The Iraqi government has a legal responsibility to dispose of the old munitions. I'm sure it's still toxic stuff but according to the inspectors can't function as intended and poses a much less significant risk.

I don't think ISIS is really concerned with lives. There's a military facility so they take it. Was it even really defended? Doesn't sound like it.

Don't you think if these were known and viable weapons they would have been used to show Saddam DID have WMD as the Bush Administration claimed?

-spence

[detbuch]

So Saddam Hussein DID have a stockpile of WMDs and they actually were found:

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articl...-found-in-iraq

But NY Times says they were not the ones Bush was talking about--but wait:

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/352462.php

And:

http://www.westernjournalism.com/bom...ushs-iraq-war/

And:

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/66766

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by detbuch

So Saddam Hussein DID have a stockpile of WMDs and they actually were found:

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articl...-found-in-iraq

But NY Times says they were not the ones Bush was talking about--but wait:

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/352462.php

And:

http://www.westernjournalism.com/bom...ushs-iraq-war/

And:

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/66766

You Moron

[Nebe]

see the desperation in them spence?

[iamskippy]

Originally Posted by Cool Beans

In other news: "Rebel forces capture Little Tommy's tree house that was built on the site where a ammunitions building "USED" to be".

Just launched my coffee.... Next up ketchup causes cancer is lab rats film at 11.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

Don't you think if these were known and viable weapons they would have been used to show Saddam DID have WMD as the Bush Administration claimed?

-spence

I think it is been proven over and over again that President Bush was an honorable man. He did what he thought was best for the country. I believe he took the hit on the WMDs knowing that in the end the truth would come out.
I know you're an expert on lying and truth, as you can clearly define Pres. Obama's lies as being good for us and with purpose. I'm sure then you can then come up with a plausible argument as to why President Bush would not have jumped on the campaign trail during his presidency and claimed there were weapons of WMDs Unlike the current president, it wasn't all about him .
Don't be surprised if WMDs become the excuse for sending ground troops in now . Pres. Obama is going to be looking for one and you will be riding his coattails and calling it brilliant.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

So Saddam Hussein DID have a stockpile of WMDs and they actually were found:

The author clearly points out these were unusable munitions as as was already made clear in every investigation in Iraq. We've known this since 2007.

The author also specifically mentions a reason to keep chemical related injuries and the number of old rounds quiet was to minimize the spotlight on a lack of justification.

That's actually the enlightening part of the story. Our people were getting hurt from old WMD we helped Saddam produce and they didn't get proper treatment because it would have embarrassed our government.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

The author clearly points out these were unusable munitions as as was already made clear in every investigation in Iraq. We've known this since 2007.

The redacted intelligence documents that the author cites states that some of the munitions were still usable in the manner for which they were produced. Of the 420 CW munitions found from April 2009 to March 2011, 27 were still viable. Since about 5000 to date have now been found, if the ratio of usable to unusable of the above numbers applied, then over 300 would be viable.

But whether they were viable in the way they were intended to function or not, they were viable as sources of chemicals to be used in other destructive ways. The author clearly admits that. He says "old Iraq chemical munitions often remained dangerous when repurposed for local attacks in makeshift bombs as insurgents did starting by 2004. And, as he says, "These encounters carry worrisome implications now that the Islamic State, a Qaeda splinter group, control much of the territory where the weapons were found."

And, if they had been found at the outset of the search by the military and before that by the UN inspectors, would the corrosion have been even less and the number of "viable" weapons even greater? Saddam did not reveal, as required, their existence or whereabouts. Weren't "stockpiles" whether of old or active production one of the reasons for invasion? The author brushes aside any intention to hide the stockpiles by suggesting that Saddam's regime had misplaced or forgotten them. But, if true, is that less of a danger? A mad, quixotic, erratic monster forgetfully and callously losing horrific weapons strewn about his land? Should such a man be allowed to rule a country and in a manner which not only threatened his own people, but his neighbors, and ultimately the safety of the US? Or was he not so erratic, and knew his weapons were hidden and where they were, and, as "everybody" surmised, that when he survived scrutiny, he would resume his ways and continue with new or revived programs of WMDs?

If those weapons had been found at the outset, before the narrative that there were no WMDs had been thoroughly implanted, would the invasion have been justified?

The author also specifically mentions a reason to keep chemical related injuries and the number of old rounds quiet was to minimize the spotlight on a lack of justification.

That is a seemingly plausible conjecture. But a conjecture none-the-less. It does not take into account the "context," as you like to say, of the time. The narrative that there were no WMDs, and that supposedly being the only reason for the invasion, was firmly implanted in the minds of the majority of the people. And it was the narrative which the left, and the mostly leftist mainstream media, were counting on for victory in coming elections. It was a narrative which could absolve the Democrats who initially supported the war (and who had an opposite narrative before the war, and before Bush had said anything, that there WERE WMDs) by claiming that Bush misled them and thereby hanging the albatross totally around the neck of Bush and his administration. It was a heavy albatross, and, according to party operatives such as, and mainly, Karl Rove, it was more expedient to "let sleeping dogs lie" and "move forward." It was, probably rightly, perceived that the Democrat reversal narrative of no WMDs was too important to them and the majority of the mainstream press to let go, and the fight would be a losing one since minds were made up and spin would rule the day. That spin is and was supported by NY Times articles, even such as the one in question here. There were other, even more important reasons, right or wrong, for the invasion. But those are assiduously avoided in leftist and its mainstream discussions. It is only to be accepted, in their view, that an active weapons program would have been the only reason for the war--not even an interrupted program to be resumed when the dust settled.

And the "keeping quiet" stuff--is that supposed to imply a cover-up?
The finds were not covered up. They were known, and neither the Bush administration nor the Democrats talked about it. Both had reasons not to do so. Bush didn't want to spit into the wind, and the Dems didn't want any possibility of a crack in their hopefully winning narrative.

That's actually the enlightening part of the story. Our people were getting hurt from old WMD we helped Saddam produce and they didn't get proper treatment because it would have embarrassed our government.

It is a little enlightening, in that respect. But it could have been more so if written in a different way. In a way of placing the spotlight directly on our injured troops not getting the proper medical treatment rather than going on about implied cover-ups and whether the WMDs were the ones that were being searched for, or the cause of the war being solely a search for an active weapons program, and so on.

As far as embarrassing our government--if an active weapons program had been found, wouldn't our government have been as embarrassed? Wouldn't it have been just as culpable in the first instance of supposedly providing Saddam stuff he needed?

That's more of the shifty "journalism" or, more aptly, rhetorical method of implication without substantiation. The reasons for aid to Saddam were in the category of realpolitik, which, I assume, both the "left" and the "right" in our political spectrum embrace. And even at that, the aid was far more minimal than is being suggested here. And the shiftiness is enhanced by interchanging the words "government, military, the West." One is never really sure to whom the author of the Times article is exactly referring when he uses those words. He doesn't give exact names and definitions. The pentagon is part of the government, but it is not THE government. The United States is part of The West, but The West is not the United States, nor the United States Government.
All were, presumably, giving aid to Saddam, as all give aid to those who may be opposed to their current enemies. And in the murky world of changing alliances, one who was recently an ally or an enemy of my enemy, is now my enemy.

I really, didn't want to continue this discussion--it takes too much effort and too much of my time which I could spend on necessary and pleasurable things. But some little annoying bug kept worrying at my peace of mind. What is the connection between this piece of pie discussion and the fundamental reason for it?

Bush, Obama, the Dems and the Repubs, left and right, conservative and liberal--they all are part of the same yin and yang, and its hard to separate responsibility for this or that. They often, if not usually, both contribute to a problem in their separate way, and exacerbate it when they "bi-partisanly" cooperate to "solve" it.

What we have here is not only "the failure to communicate" portrayed in the movie Cool Hand Luke, but the failure to even realize what it all is really about.

What we wind up discussing and criticizing or supporting are various "narratives." Which narrative on Benghazi, or the IRS gate, or this or that "gate" do you support or contradict? Each narrative purports to claim a truth. Maybe, from a relativistic point of view, each rightly has that claim. But that would be, relativistic as Spence is, not pragmatic, as I'm sure, Spence would like it to be.

What is the "pragmatic" and true war that is being fought, in our country and in the rest of the world? In all instances, from my perspective (another Spencist conditional prerogative), it is the eternal war between the collective and the individual.

Where does truth reside in its clearest form--in the individual or the collective? Where is communication most precise, between individuals or within a collective? Where are truths, communication, meaning, most muddied and rendered moot--in the individual interactions or in the dictates of the collective?

In the unsullied and, to some, naïve view of my youth, there should be no government secrets. There should be no fear that if what the government does is exposed, it could have dire consequences in terms of national security or otherwise. I was convinced later (never entirely) that some things needed to be secret, or they would not be effective, that our security would be threatened. I am becoming less convinced and more than wary that such is so. I am more of the mind that we should be totally open and powerful enough to protect that honesty and uphold our free and honest way of life. If we are threatened we should be ready and strong enough to destroy those who threaten us, and not indulge in secret maneuvers, but let it be known by action that we will not tolerate threats or attacks. That we will summarily repel them with whatever violence, or open diplomacy, that is required.

The most pragmatic way to achieve such an open, honest state with the necessary power to protect itself, is to be peopled by strong, productive individuals who believe in such a state.

If not, if we must be clandestine, if there must be levels of bureaucracy, each with their private missions and secret or unknown ways, and separate from the people and their planned class structures, and an overriding command and control system of governance, then, of course it requires a bee hive, collective mentality and system.

And we must be educated into believing in such a system. And we will be forever, or as long as we exist as such a system, embroiled in confused international as well as national escapades which must be justified or covered up with narratives. And "journalists" of various stripes will dissect those narratives with further slanted narratives which hope to uphold or destroy opposing narratives.

Groups, parties, even individuals, have always disagreed and argued. The arguments can lead to agreements if honesty is employed, and there is a common basis for existence and government.

But within the eternal war between the collective and the individual there can either be no common ground, or the common ground must provide each with the space to exist. Between the two, the individual is potentially the weakest and most in need of protection from the other.

How does this relate to the found WMDs? Go back to the events and arguments before and see what "narratives" are spun and must be protected. What are the truths? What are the secrets? What do those narratives and secrets mean to us, as individuals, or as a collective society?

If we cannot have an agreement on something as simple as whether something exists or not, if we must spin narratives about what something is--why is that so? Is it that we are so caught up in tangled systems, various group thinks and agendas, that we have lost sight of who we are as individuals and are no longer capable of seeing through the fustercluck? That we need guidance through the maze of competing narratives? That we need "experts" appointed by those who know better than us what is necessary, and we are too insignificant and weak to matter or even have an unschooled opinion?

It seems that the battle between collectivism and the individual has certainly gone toward the victory of the former.

[detbuch]

Interesting article re this thread:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/car...ghdad-airport/

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Interesting article re this thread:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/car...ghdad-airport/

An important data point the author omits is that the yellowcake when found the UN seals were still intact.

Regarding "If we cannot have an agreement on something as simple as whether something exists or not" does get to the root of the issue. The problem is people want to assume "it" means some element of WMD when "it" really means sufficient threat to justify war as was plainly put before the American people.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

An important data point the author omits is that the yellowcake when found the UN seals were still intact.

That would have no bearing on what the article was about. It was an introductory bona fides of the author's on the ground experience. And, though it was not evidence of an active program, it was evidence of stock that could be used later. which segues into the rest, and meat, of the article

The 5000 WMDs referred to in the NYT article were evidence of weapons hidden and could be used after the sanctions were lifted. Saddam might not have known how viable they would be, nor how many, if any, could be un-interred post sanctions and added to a reconstituted program. He must surely have known about their existence and where they were, but did not, as required, disclose them. Even the Duelfer report, though it did not find evidence of an active program, concluded that Saddam would most likely continue his WMD programs after the sanctions were lifted.

The point of the Article is that what was found was evidence of one of the reasons for the invasion. The Democrats changed their minds on what the justification was. They discounted all the reasons except one--an "active" WMD program. The actual reasons were well beyond that, most importantly that Saddam would, unless stopped, active program or not, develop WMDs and threaten us and his neighbors.

And, the reason that the Bush administration did not mention them when the NYT WMDs where found, even beyond what I mentioned in my post above this, is exactly the same as the reason the yellowcake stock was not mentioned till it was beyond the reach of terrorists. Admitting WMDs or materials needed to build them existed in various parts of the country would be an invitation to the bad guys to search for and exploit them.

Regarding "If we cannot have an agreement on something as simple as whether something exists or not" does get to the root of the issue. The problem is people want to assume "it" means some element of WMD when "it" really means sufficient threat to justify war as was plainly put before the American people.

When opposing "narratives" are concocted for political reasons the "it" becomes sufficiently muddied. And the people become consumers of the slickest spin. And they "believe" the politicians or media they normally support. Bush plainly put forth a justification for the war which both "sides" agreed to. Then . . . they didn't. And political hell was loosed upon us. The "center," which you so much admire, could not hold. Oh well, politics as usual.

[spence]

You're just engaging in the same spin the Right used after the justification for war started falling apart. He was a really bad guy, he'd used WMD in the past, he wanted to restart programs after sanctions were lowered etc...etc... all true but not what was presented to the American people.

They claimed Saddam had active programs and was collaborating with al Qaeda. Both items have been dis-proven within an acceptable margin.

Could legacy munitions still be used for improvised devices? Perhaps. Could they also blow up the Mosul Dam or unleash a toxic mess by emptying a refinery into the water system. Sure...anything is possible.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

You're just engaging in the same spin the Right used after the justification for war started falling apart. He was a really bad guy, he'd used WMD in the past, he wanted to restart programs after sanctions were lowered etc...etc... all true but not what was presented to the American people.

I am engaging in the same spin used by "the Right" before the war started. The first two you cite, that "he was a really bad guy, he'd used WMD in the past were actually mentioned, in so many words, in the Iraq War Resolution rationale including multiple other reasons for the invasion in the Iraq War Resolution:

The October 2002, U.S. congress Iraq War Resolution cited many factors to justify the use of military force against Iraq:
Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 ceasefire agreement, including interference with U.N. weapons inspectors.
Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."
Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."
Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".
Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt on former President George H. W. Bush and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.
Members of Al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq.
Iraq's "continuing to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
Iraq paid bounty to families of suicide bombers.
The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, including the September 11th, 2001 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them.
The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.
The governments in Turkey, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia feared Saddam and wanted him removed from power.
Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.

And your third "spin,"--"he wanted to restart programs after sanctions were lowered,"--would certainly qualify "within an acceptable margin," as a substitute reason if weapons were not found. Even David Kay who conceded they were wrong about the existence of major stockpiles or about an active program to produce them said that other ISG discoveries made in the search made Iraq's aims "more dangerous" than believed before the invasion. Is the acknowledgement that he would reconstitute his WMD programs after sanctions were lifted not a "justification" for the war if THE only supposed reason was the active existence of the programs. Wouldn't maintaining the capability to restart the programs if he wasn't stopped be a reason, or would it be better to wait till he restarted his plans and developed new weapons, at a possibly more conducive time when a "war monger" no longer occupied the White House?

And, regime change, mentioned in the War Resolution, was a very definite and major reason for the war. Even Bill Clinton called for regime change in Iraq. Though he stopped short of advocating war, he thought it was critical to remove Saddam.

They claimed Saddam had active programs and was collaborating with al Qaeda. Both items have been dis-proven within an acceptable margin.

Acceptable to whom? Obviously not a unanimous acceptance or disproof. Just as it is obviously not within an acceptable margin, nor a proof, for you that the NYT article disproved the Kay and Duelfer conclusion that major stockpiles of weapons no longer existed. That they were greatly degraded from performing their intended use does not discount that Saddam did not, as required, disclose their existence. He was as guilty of that as he was of making it difficult for inspectors to do their job, and for orders to Iraqi personnel to conceal from inspectors plans for maintaining capabilities to restart WMD programs.

Could legacy munitions still be used for improvised devices? Perhaps. Could they also blow up the Mosul Dam or unleash a toxic mess by emptying a refinery into the water system. Sure...anything is possible.

The fact is, they existed. Some, maybe several, were still "viable." The spin, or "narratives," either way create, if not a fog of war, a fog of politics. Was the war "justified"? As in most cases of war, it seems to be a matter of opinion. Is there even more "justification" for a war because of the current situation with the proliferation of terrorist groups creating havoc, death, and threats to us? That also seems to be a matter of opinion. And various "narratives" are busily being spun to justify the pro and con. I'm not as confident in any of the answers as you seem to be.

But politics go on. As in the congressional "investigations" into the reasons for the Iraq war, current ones into the Benghazzi fiasco also find "no evidence" of wrong doing. It is amazing how both sides huff and puff with conjectures and proofs how the other side is culpable of really bad stuff but they eventually, behind the screen of "investigation," eventually exonerate each other, blaming system failure or underling incompetence. But the bad taste and suspicion, even outright belief, that the miscreants were really guilty remains.

Actually, they most likely were guilty of "something." And in most cases, the real or most important transgression is not acknowledged. Probably because both parties are guilty of it. The growth of government power over the rest of us and the erosion of the Constitution, for instance.

[detbuch]

So, Spence . . . since you think the Bush war in Iraq was unjustified, and since one of the major reasons for the war was regime change, do you think that Hillary's support for violent regime change in Libya and Syria is justified? Was Qaddafi, and is Assad, more "dangerous" to the US than Saddam was? Is the present destabilization in the Middle East aided by our support for these overthrows a better thing than the destabilization caused by the overthrow of Saddam--a destabilization that was lessoned by winning the war with a re-stabilization of Iraq being gained--until Obama completely pulled us out?

Is our present involvement with various so-called "moderate" rebels and insurgents in the cause of removing Assad justified? Are we justified in air strikes against ISIS? Is our present form of war without boots on the ground a more justified war than the Iraq war? Is Hillary a more "justified" candidate for POTUS than Bush was?

How say you?

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

But politics go on. As in the congressional "investigations" into the reasons for the Iraq war, current ones into the Benghazzi fiasco also find "no evidence" of wrong doing.

The Senate investigation found numerous cases of gross exaggeration and repeated public statements by top Administration officials that simply weren't based on accepted intelligence. Isn't that wrong? Further the Pentagon's own Inspector General found the actions of the OSP under Rumsfeld's direction -- to stovepipe contrary raw intel to the Administration -- to be inappropriate. Isn't inappropriate behavior wrong?

Even better, remember the Lawrence Franklin scandal? Good lord, here we have the Pentagon sanctioning meetings with Iran, Israeli spies...so much great stuff in the very same group making up their own intelligence to fit the facts around the policy.

Nothing wrong about that.

Contrasted with Benghazi where the issues were found to be systemic communication failures.

Apples and oranges.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

So, Spence . . . since you think the Bush war in Iraq was unjustified, and since one of the major reasons for the war was regime change, do you think that Hillary's support for violent regime change in Libya and Syria is justified?

They're different situations. In both Libya and Syria you had active civil wars and substantial loss of civilian life. The actions in Libya were led by the EU and permitted under UN Resolutions.

Not that life under Saddam was great for everyone but it was somewhat stable and didn't pose any immediate threat to the US.

Was Qaddafi, and is Assad, more "dangerous" to the US than Saddam was? Is the present destabilization in the Middle East aided by our support for these overthrows a better thing than the destabilization caused by the overthrow of Saddam--a destabilization that was lessoned by winning the war with a re-stabilization of Iraq being gained--until Obama completely pulled us out?

The civil wars in Libya and Syria have to be put in context of a post Saddam Iraq so they really can't be compared 1 to 1.

Was Iraq really stable when we left or did both Bush and Obama policy (primarily Bush) encourage a false sense of stability by enabling Shiite rule?

Is our present involvement with various so-called "moderate" rebels and insurgents in the cause of removing Assad justified? Are we justified in air strikes against ISIS? Is our present form of war without boots on the ground a more justified war than the Iraq war? Is Hillary a more "justified" candidate for POTUS than Bush was?

I think it's justified as counter-terrorism but there's clearly a slippery slope. Today it's certainly not anything near the scale of the Iraq war nor are objectives at all similar.

Clinton's foreign policy credentials would certainly be much stronger than Bush's at the start of their first term. But, Bush could look into people's souls.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

Clinton's foreign policy credentials would certainly be much stronger than Bush's at the start of their first term.

Yes, think of the courage and credentials it took for Clinton to bomb the aspirin factory and kill the janitor.
Geez, Clinton and the Mrs. are both old stale news.

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Yes, think of the courage and credentials it took for Clinton to bomb the aspirin factory and kill the janitor.
Geez, Clinton and the Mrs. are both old stale news.

I was speaking of Hillary. As for old news, you're likely going to see a lot more of them soon

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

They're different situations. In both Libya and Syria you had active civil wars and substantial loss of civilian life.

A difference between those "active" civil wars and the simmering one in Iraq (in which there was substantial loss of civilian life) is that the Iraqi anti-government "rebels" had no significant power to make the war "active." The "rebels" in Syria and Libya, however, are aided with support and weapons by us and others. You could say that the silent "rebels," or oppressed victims, in Iraq were aided by the US and others to be free of the Saddamist shackles and to gain a supposedly democratic form of government. Which is supposedly what our aims are for helping the "rebels" in Syria and Lebanon.

The actions in Libya were led by the EU and permitted under UN Resolutions.

I recall you once saying we were the leader in the UN. Certainly, we are a major part of it. So, unless we made a formal objection in the UN, we permitted the actions (as well as actually supporting them) in Libya.

Not that life under Saddam was great for everyone but it was somewhat stable and didn't pose any immediate threat to the US.

They were "somewhat" stable, in Western perspective, because Saddam was being, or attempted to be so, stabilized by various sanctions and controls as well as supposed "inspections." It was understood, beneath the veneer of temporary control, that he would revert to his old ways and become "active" again, including with his WMD programs, when the controls were lifted. And he was, by far, more aggressive in terrorisms and wars than Assad or Qaddafi.

The civil wars in Libya and Syria have to be put in context of a post Saddam Iraq so they really can't be compared 1 to 1.

The comparison of two different entities cannot be 1 to 1 and don't have to be in order to see significant similarities. And the wars in Libya and Syria don't "have to be put in context of a post Saddam Iraq." The similarities I am exploring are with a Saddam Iraq, not a post Saddam Iraq. The main similarity being the forcing of regime change.

Was Iraq really stable when we left or did both Bush and Obama policy (primarily Bush) encourage a false sense of stability by enabling Shiite rule?

Was Iraq "really stable" before Bush invaded it, or was a "false sense of stability" encouraged by pseudo UN control?
And was Iraq more stable when we left than it was before we invaded, considering the formation of a democratic system of government which, if fostered, would allow all parties to participate? Certainly, you would contradict yourself if you claim Iraq was "somewhat" stable under Saddam's Baathist rule but couldn't be just as "somewhat" stable under Shiite rule? Probably even more stable since Saddam's was a minority rule. At any rate, the fledgling "democracy" had to be nourished and developed over time to become part of Iraqi culture. Abandoning it too soon would leave the newborn to the wolves.

I think it's justified as counter-terrorism but there's clearly a slippery slope. Today it's certainly not anything near the scale of the Iraq war nor are objectives at all similar.

The scale of our involvement is similar, but the size is much smaller, especially in number of troops on the ground. Actually, the scale is larger, since we are involved over much larger territory and numbers of states and cultures. As far as counter-terrorism goes, that was one of the "justifications" for the Iraq invasion. Of course, it was later characterized as actually influencing more terrorism. Which is a head-scratcher since our involvement now supposedly isn't supposed to foster more terrorism. Just sounds like political hypocrisy to justify doing what you previously opposed.

Clinton's foreign policy credentials would certainly be much stronger than Bush's at the start of their first term. But, Bush could look into people's souls.

That she had foreign policy "experience" doesn't make her credentials strong. Her failure in Benghazzi, regardless of the left's insistence that nothing of damaging note accrued to her there, was certainly not a "strong" credential. Nor could much else she did be credits to other than a mediocre, or less, tour of duty. This article from The Nation scores what her own progressives think of her accomplishments as Sec. State:

http://www.thenation.com/blog/180020...ilitarist-2016

The article also notes how she approved of using force to create regime change. Which was my main comparison to her and Bush.