POL: Is the media responsible for generating these deaths?

[Dutch]

Protests Spread in Afghanistan; 8 Killed

By STEPHEN GRAHAM
Associated Press Writer

http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AFGHAN_US_PROTESTS?SITE=LASHT&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2005-05-13-12-26-03

This protest has happened BECAUSE of a Newsweek story that was generated with inciteful quotes from a Guantanomo Bay Lawyer. The inciting of Afghans was not predictable. But the stories sources, so far, have not been able to substantiate any of their claims of Quran desecration. The military flat out says it didn't happen.

If nothing else, I think the media should take some sort of cultural sensitivities course before throwing out stories that are aimed to upset (and thus make people buy their work).

I am with Jon Stewart on this one, I think the news media playing the "He Said, She Said" ritual is causing more trouble than it's worth.

[st.cronin]

I've been following this story fairly closely, and I think the violence that took place in Afghanistan was probably unrelated to the news story - I think it was mostly just coincidence, and one taken advantage of by certain folks. It's actually pretty amazing that the allegations *haven't* led to more protests/violence/etc.

[Flasch186]

Protests Spread in Afghanistan; 8 Killed

By STEPHEN GRAHAM
Associated Press Writer

http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AFGHAN_US_PROTESTS?SITE=LASHT&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2005-05-13-12-26-03

This protest has happened BECAUSE of a Newsweek story that was generated with inciteful quotes from a Guantanomo Bay Lawyer. The inciting of Afghans was not predictable. But the stories sources, so far, have not been able to substantiate any of their claims of Quran desecration. The military flat out says it didn't happen.

If nothing else, I think the media should take some sort of cultural sensitivities course before throwing out stories that are aimed to upset (and thus make people buy their work).

I am with Jon Stewart on this one, I think the news media playing the "He Said, She Said" ritual is causing more trouble than it's worth.



i think where we differ is you say the violence is caused by the newsstory while I say it it is happening because our interrogators are acting like a bunch of fucking clowns. BTW, the military saying it didnt happen - lot o credibility earned means no one believes you. They denied Abu Ghraib too until the pictures came out. par for the course.

Do your job, do it right, walk the talk and everyone and everything will be fine...in the end.

[Dutch]

I've been following this story fairly closely, and I think the violence that took place in Afghanistan was probably unrelated to the news story - I think it was mostly just coincidence, and one taken advantage of by certain folks. It's actually pretty amazing that the allegations *haven't* led to more protests/violence/etc.

I heard that too, but this is the first paragraph off of the newswire.

KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) -- Security forces opened fire and protesters stoned government and relief agency buildings as clashes in four Afghan cities left at least eight people dead Friday amid growing anti-American sentiment over the alleged desecration of Islam's holy book at Guantanamo Bay.

[st.cronin]

The international media is obviously making a connection - there may be one, for sure, but I think something else is going on.

[Dutch]

I say it it is happening because our interrogators are acting like a bunch of fucking clowns.

That's what the anti-war media tells you, anyway.

[NoMyths]

Yes. It is the report of abuses, rather than the actual abuses, that actually cause riots. If the abuses hadn't actually occurred, they would have been invented by the media to serve the same purpose. It's never actually the fault of the abusers who leave their actions to be reported. Heck, it's unpatriotic for the media to tell the truth about those abuses...they should simply keep quiet about them for the sake of our national image.

[rexallllsc]

Yes. It is the report of abuses, rather than the actual abuses, that actually cause riots. If the abuses hadn't actually occurred, they would have been invented by the media to serve the same purpose. It's never actually the fault of the abusers who leave their actions to be reported. Heck, it's unpatriotic for the media to tell the truth about those abuses...they should simply keep quiet about them for the sake of our national image.

Why do you hate our freedom?

[NoMyths]

Why do you hate our freedom?I dig repression and bad clothes.

[yabanci]

[B].... The military flat out says it didn't happen......

yeah, this sure is a flat out, clear cut, absolute, no way it possibly could have happened denial. Glad they cleared that up.

The Department of Defense is investigating the allegation and "they take such allegations very seriously," he said, but did indicate when the investigation would be completed. "...We will not tolerate any disrespect for the holy Koran," he added.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had also urged Muslims on Thursday to resist calls for violence, saying U.S. military authorities were investigating the Koran allegations and calling disrespect to the holy book "abhorrent to us all."


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/13/AR2005051300301.html

[Dutch]

I am not saying it didn't happen. I am asking if people are dying because Newsweek was reporting alledged abuses as "abuses" as interpreted by the Afghan protestor's.

If it turns out to be true, I'm sure Newsweek journalists will sleep easy over those deaths, but if it's a trumped up story by one of the detainee's lawyers...those people are still dead.

[NoMyths]

I am not saying it didn't happen. I am asking if people are dying because Newsweek was reporting alledged abuses as "abuses" as interpreted by the Afghan protestor's.

If it turns out to be true, I'm sure Newsweek journalists will sleep easy over those deaths, but if it's a trumped up story by one of the detainee's lawyers...those people are still dead.So it's either Newsweek's fault or the detainee's lawyers. No chance whatsoever it's the military's.

Glad you were able to clear that up for us. Keep accomplishing the mission!

[Dutch]

So it's either Newsweek's fault or the detainee's lawyers. No chance whatsoever it's the military's.

Glad you were able to clear that up for us. Keep accomplishing the mission!

I think the media is very good at what they do. But they need to be held accountable due to the immense ammount of power they wield.

I guess if I say it two or three times it has better effect. If the military did something wrong, that's one thing, and they should be held accountable. But for journalist's to write stories based on what the detainee's lawyer says he says is looking for trouble. And they got it with the deaths of 8 people that they reported in the follow-up article (as it turned out).

I wonder if they didn't just haphazardly "create" their own news headlines.

[NoMyths]

I guess if I say it two or three times it has better effect. If the military did something wrong, that's one thing, and they should be held accountable. But for journalist's to write stories based on what the detainee's lawyer says he says is looking for trouble. And they got it with the deaths of 8 people that they reported in the follow-up article (as it turned out).But you don't want them held accountable, Dutch. It takes more than one article to illustrate a pattern of abuse. And not to report one side of the story (the detainees') is just bad reporting. Not to mention that it's only relatively recently that detainees were even allowed lawyers...one of those unconstitutional things that has been been ignored even after the Supreme Court ruling. "Your" side was on the side of wrong. Now that the detainees are getting their side of the story told, you seem not only on the wrong side again but willing to be there. And that is not only a politically suspect position, but an ethically suspect one as well.

We have to be willing to take responsibility for our errors as well as our successes. Of course the errors are going to be bigger news than the successes...but that just increases the efforts spent in minimizing abuses, which is a positive outcome.

[Dutch]

But you don't want them held accountable, Dutch. It takes more than one article to illustrate a pattern of abuse. And not to report one side of the story (the detainees') is just bad reporting. Not to mention that it's only relatively recently that detainees were even allowed lawyers...one of those unconstitutional things that has been been ignored even after the Supreme Court ruling. "Your" side was on the side of wrong. Now that the detainees are getting their side of the story told, you seem not only on the wrong side again but willing to be there. And that is not only a politically suspect position, but an ethically suspect one as well.

We have to be willing to take responsibility for our errors as well as our successes. Of course the errors are going to be bigger news than the successes...but that just increases the efforts spent in minimizing abuses, which is a positive outcome.

IRT not being accountable. If you think the military hasn't taken a huge toll in bad PR you are fooling yourself. I think the entire military felt extremely accountable for those scumbags in Abu Graib. We felt very accountable in friendly fire incidents and accidental/negligent bombing of the Canadien troops in Afghanistan. We work so hard to be perfect, but things go wrong. There are bad people out there in the military, but reporters can't just go around making us look bad first and then giving us a one liner at the bottom of page 44 when it's proven the lawyer was just telling you whatever his client wanted you to hear. Hell, because of the enormity of the military we will make ourselves look bad with time all on our own, just fine, thank you very much.

But now, when we don't have anything going wrong, protestor's take to the streets en mass to protest the evil US military for something that may prove to be completely unsubstantiated. And at least 8 people have died because of it. They won't retake the streets in mass to sing our praises if the story is proven false, that's for sure.

So, you are correct, I don't want the military to be held accountable for this incident unless it's proven factual. But the bottom line is that we already have been held accountable in lost ground in Afghanistan with their flag burning protests. A lot of blood sweat and tears by troops in Afghanistan will have to be reaccomplished. But you don't really care because you are not on "my side."

[NoMyths]

But you don't really care because you are not on "my side."Oh, I care. Especially as how most of the concerns I've had for years have been proven accurate time after time as this era evolves.

[gstelmack]

Yes. It is the report of abuses, rather than the actual abuses, that actually cause riots. If the abuses hadn't actually occurred, they would have been invented by the media to serve the same purpose. It's never actually the fault of the abusers who leave their actions to be reported. Heck, it's unpatriotic for the media to tell the truth about those abuses...they should simply keep quiet about them for the sake of our national image.
If there is truth to report, I hope the media does so. But right now there is no proof that there was any sort of abuse of the Koran. My beef is that if one person makes a claim, the media is all over it without looking for anything to substantiate the claim. And this causes harm all over the place. Wendy's is STILL trying to recover from what turned out to be a false claim of a finger found in a bowl of Chili.

And as far as the media inventing stories, I'll point out the infamous "let's put rockets in the fuel tank to make sure the truck blows up" incident, and the 60 Minutes use of fabricated documents to back up an anti-Bush story.

So, is there anything besides an allegation to back up this Koran story? Or did the media once again just find something that would sell papers?

I for one hope the media keeps digging into Guantanomo Bay and keeps the government on its toes. But posting unsubstantiated rumor is not good journalism.

[yabanci]

....But for journalist's to write stories based on what the detainee's lawyer says he says is looking for trouble. ....

Where do you get the idea that this is coming from some detainee's lawyer? If you read the actual article, it seems pretty clear that it's coming from a source familiar with the investigation and that this is more than just an allegation:

Gitmo: SouthCom Showdown
Newsweek

May 9 issue - Investigators probing interrogation abuses at the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay have confirmed some infractions alleged in internal FBI e-mails that surfaced late last year. Among the previously unreported cases, sources tell NEWSWEEK: interrogators, in an attempt to rattle suspects, flushed a Qur'an down a toilet and led a detainee around with a collar and dog leash. An Army spokesman confirms that 10 Gitmo interrogators have already been disciplined for mistreating prisoners, including one woman who took off her top, rubbed her finger through a detainee's hair and sat on the detainee's lap. (New details of sexual abuse—including an instance in which a female interrogator allegedly wiped her red-stained hand on a detainee's face, telling him it was her menstrual blood—are also in a new book to be published this week by a former Gitmo translator.)

These findings, expected in an upcoming report by the U.S. Southern Command in Miami, could put former Gitmo commander Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller in the hot seat. Two months ago a more senior general, Air Force Lt. Gen. Randall Schmidt, was placed in charge of the SouthCom probe, in part, so Miller could be questioned. The FBI e-mails indicate that FBI agents quarreled repeatedly with military commanders, including Miller and his predecessor, retired Gen. Michael Dunleavy, over the military's more aggressive techniques. "Both agreed the bureau has their way of doing business and DOD has their marching orders from the SecDef," one e-mail stated, referring to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Sources familiar with the SouthCom probe say investigators didn't find that Miller authorized abusive treatment. But given the complaints that were being raised, sources say, the report will provoke questions about whether Miller should have known what was happening—and acted to try to prevent it. An Army spokesman declined to comment.

-Michael Isikoff and John Barry


http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7693014/site/newsweek/

[Dutch]

I for one hope the media keeps digging into Guantanomo Bay and keeps the government on its toes. But posting unsubstantiated rumor is not good journalism.

Thank you!

[Dutch]

Where do you get the idea that this is coming from some detainee's lawyer? If you read the actual article, it seems pretty clear that it's coming from a source familiar with the investigation and that this is more than just an allegation:



http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7693014/site/newsweek/

Well, that doesn't really help much. Unidentified sources is the other big problem the media has with credibility these days. (I am not sure where I read or heard about detainee's lawyers being the one's suggesting such things.)

Myers said the only incident recorded in the prison logs was of a detainee tearing pages from a Quran and using them in an attempt to block a toilet as a protest, and even that incident, he said, was unconfirmed.

"It's a log entry that has to be confirmed," he said. "There are several log entries that show that the Quran may have been moved and detainees became irritated about it, but never an incident where it was thrown in the toilet."

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice also addressed the issue in an appearance before a Senate subcommittee Thursday.

"Disrespect for the Holy Quran is not now, nor has it ever been, nor will it ever be, tolerated by the United States. We honor the sacred books of all the world's great religions. Disrespect for the Holy Quran is abhorrent to us all. ...

"Our military authorities are investigating these allegations fully. If they are proven true, we will take appropriate action. ... Guaranteeing religious rights is of great personal importance to the president and to me."

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/05/13/afghan.protests/index.html

[JPhillips]

On a different note, do you think the line soldiers are going to get sold out again ala Abu Ghraib?

And for those who are/haved served, does it bother you when superiors get off by blaming the lower ranking soldiers? I'd love to hear one commanding officer say, "They were my people, so I'm responsible."

[clintl]

Well, that doesn't really help much. Unidentified sources is the other big problem the media has with credibility these days.

We got rid of a corrupt president largely because of an unidentified source who turned out to be completely accurate, and countless other scandals exposed by them.

[JPhillips]

clintl: I'm actually with Dutch on this. The single unidentified source is killing journalism. Remember tat Ben Bradley made Woodward and Bernstien verify everything through a second source. They were only allowed to go to print when two sources confirmed a story.

[Dutch]

On a different note, do you think the line soldiers are going to get sold out again ala Abu Ghraib?

There was a full investigation by a lot of people. Were they all in on it? Why haven't any broken ranks to come forth with this conspiracy? Again, the media is doing a horrible job of helping the military image. If anything, they let rediculous items like this linger...for their own monetary benefit, largely.

[JPhillips]

Dutch: What about their immediate superiors at Abu Ghraib? Do you honestly believe that no officer knew what was going on? And if they didn't shouldn't they be punished for dereliction of duty? I won't get into an argument of whether this goes to Rumsfeld or not, but the armed forces seem to be making a habit out of punishing line soldiers and letting officers go free. At the end of the day too much of that is bad for morale and unit cohesion.

[Chubby]

Again, the media is doing a horrible job of helping the military image.
Since when is this the media's job?

[Dutch]

clintl: I'm actually with Dutch on this. The single unidentified source is killing journalism. Remember tat Ben Bradley made Woodward and Bernstien verify everything through a second source. They were only allowed to go to print when two sources confirmed a story.

That is two times in one day I have been very aggressive with my stance and the expected opposition has agreed with my opinion. That's very strange. But I'll take it, even if it's just one small agreement with so many more to debate. :)

[JPhillips]

Dutch: I would guess we both have a very similar outllok on the media. Our difference is that you believe it all stems from liberal bias and I believe it all stems from a money-driven, lazy, and self-obsessed press corp.

[Dutch]

Dutch: What about their immediate superiors at Abu Ghraib? Do you honestly believe that no officer knew what was going on? And if they didn't shouldn't they be punished for dereliction of duty? I won't get into an argument of whether this goes to Rumsfeld or not, but the armed forces seem to be making a habit out of punishing line soldiers and letting officers go free. At the end of the day too much of that is bad for morale and unit cohesion.

I think a Colonel is being investigated right now and a General was busted down to colonel and forced to retire. That's a pretty big deal since most corrupt generals are usually just asked to retire at their present rank and then move on to great corporate positions for double or triple their salary.

[Dutch]

Since when is this the media's job?

Sorry Chubby, that definately came out wrong. They are doing a great job of making the military look like shit. ;)

[Chubby]

Sorry Chubby, that definately came out wrong. They are doing a great job of making the military look like shit. ;)
I don't think it came out wrong, I think it pretty well sums up your position. The basis of this thread is based on "Again, the media is doing a horrible job of helping the military image." According to you, we should run everything through the GOP censor to make sure it's kosher before printing it because if it disagrees then it was written by a terrorist...

[Dutch]

Dutch: I would guess we both have a very similar outllok on the media. Our difference is that you believe it all stems from liberal bias and I believe it all stems from a money-driven, lazy, and self-obsessed press corp.

I believe it's both. Just like I would not argue with you that FoxNews has a conservative bias and is money-driven, lazy, and self-obsessed. :)

[Dutch]

I don't think it came out wrong, I think it pretty well sums up your position. The basis of this thread is based on "Again, the media is doing a horrible job of helping the military image." According to you, we should run everything through the GOP censor to make sure it's kosher before printing it because if it disagrees then it was written by a terrorist...

I disagree with what you say. You can't make up my position for me, Chubby. Sorry.

[clintl]

clintl: I'm actually with Dutch on this. The single unidentified source is killing journalism. Remember tat Ben Bradley made Woodward and Bernstien verify everything through a second source. They were only allowed to go to print when two sources confirmed a story.

That I'll agree with. But not that unidentified sources are necessarily a bad thing in and of themselves if you can corroborate the information they supply.

[Chubby]

I disagree with what you say. You can't make up my position for me, Chubby. Sorry.
You stated it, I quoted it. Sorry, it's not made up. The blame is the media's not the military's. This has been a repeated position of yours.

[Dutch]

You stated it, I quoted it. Sorry, it's not made up. The blame is the media's not the military's. This has been a repeated position of yours.

Oh, I see, I thought you said something about me wanted GOP censor's or some such blather.

In any event, I don't think the media is 100% to blame, but in this particular case, there lust for getting out a controversial story, regardless of whether or not it was substantiated, cost 15 Afghan lives (it's gone up since this thread was stared....apparently.)

[NoMyths]

In any event, I don't think the media is 100% to blame, but in this particular case, there lust for getting out a controversial story, regardless of whether or not it was substantiated, cost 15 Afghan lives (it's gone up since this thread was stared....apparently.)And according to estimates, the government's lust for protecting us from Iraq's WMD has cost at least 21,000 Iraqi civilians' lives, at least 15 of which were probably preventable. If we're assigning blame for needless lives lost, I'm not sure that the media is the right place to begin.

[Dutch]

And according to estimates, the government's lust for protecting us from Iraq's WMD has cost at least 21,000 Iraqi civilians' lives, at least 15 of which were probably preventable. If we're assigning blame for needless lives lost, I'm not sure that the media is the right place to begin.

What was the estimated dead annually because of the UN Sanctions, again?Hell, I'd venture to say we will have saved millions of lives when it's all said an done. No need to thank President Bush, though, or the military.

[NoMyths]

What was the estimated dead annually because of the UN Sanctions, again?Hell, I'd venture to say we will have saved millions of lives when it's all said an done. No need to thank President Bush, though, or the military.If millions of lives have been saved by this war and its related fallout, then I don't see why you're quibbling over assigning blame for 15 deaths. Unless, of course, you want to address the point I raised instead of taking the conversation in a different direction.

[gstelmack]

I don't think it came out wrong, I think it pretty well sums up your position. The basis of this thread is based on "Again, the media is doing a horrible job of helping the military image." According to you, we should run everything through the GOP censor to make sure it's kosher before printing it because if it disagrees then it was written by a terrorist...
How about "the media is trashing the military's image needlessly with no corroborating evidence to back up their charges"? As stated earlier, I expect the media to trash someone when they have good evidence for it, but the media likes to ruin lives on little to no support for their stories just to sell some papers or advertising time...

[Flasch186]

And just like we wanted Rumsfeld fired, the Editor and at least the writers should be fired!! What's good for the goose....is good for the gander.




Newsweek Apologizes; Afghans Want Action

By STEPHEN GRAHAM, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 37 minutes ago

KABUL, Afghanistan - Muslims in
Afghanistan gave Washington three days to offer a response to a Newsweek story that claimed the Islamic holy book was desecrated at the U.S. prison in Guantanamo Bay, but the magazine apologized Sunday for the report, which prompted deadly riots across Afghanistan last week.
ADVERTISEMENT
click here

Reaction across the Islamic world has been strong, with daily demonstrations since the May 9 story came out. At least 15 people died in Afghanistan after protests broke out Tuesday following the report that interrogators at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, placed Qurans in washrooms to unsettle suspects, and in one case "flushed a holy book down the toilet."

Many of the 520 inmates at Guantanamo are Muslims arrested during the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan. In both Afghanistan and Pakistan, insults to the Quran and Islam's prophet, Muhammad, are regarded as blasphemy and punishable by death.

"The American soldiers are known for disrespect to other religions. They do not take care of the sanctity of other religions," Qazi Hussain Ahmed, the Pakistani chief of a coalition of radical Islamic groups, said Sunday.

Ahmed's comments came a day after Pakistan's President Gen. Pervez Musharraf and Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz, both allies of Washington, demanded an investigation and punishment for those behind the reported desecration of the Quran.

In Afghanistan, Islamic scholars and tribal elders called for the punishment of anyone found to have abused the Quran, said Maulawi Abdul Wali Arshad, head of the religious affairs department in Badakhshan province.

Arshad and the provincial police chief said the scholars met in Faizabad, 310 miles northeast of the capital, Kabul, and demanded a "reaction" from U.S. authorities within three days.

But Newsweek apologized in an editor's note for Monday's edition and said they were re-examining the allegations.

"We regret that we got any part of our story wrong, and extend our sympathies to victims of the violence and to the U.S. soldiers caught in its midst," Newsweek Editor Mark Whitaker wrote.

Newsweek's source later said he was unsure about the origin of the Quran allegation, and a top
Pentagon spokesman told the magazine that the military "had investigated other desecration charges by detainees and found them 'not credible.'"

Meanwhile,
President Bush's national security adviser said Sunday the allegation was being investigated "vigorously."

"If it turns out to be true, obviously we will take action against those responsible,
Stephen Hadley said in an interview for CNN's "Late Edition."

Ahmed, the religious leader in Pakistan, said Islamic groups in Pakistan, Egypt, Malaysia, Britain and Turkey would hold protests on May 27 against the alleged desecration.

Lebanon's most senior Shiite Muslim cleric on Sunday said the reported desecration of the Quran is part of an American campaign aimed at disrespecting and smearing Islam.

Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah urged Muslims and international human rights organizations "to raise their voices loudly against the American behavior, which is hostile to Islam and Muslims."

In a statement faxed to The Associated Press, Fadlallah called the alleged desecration a "brutal" form of torture.

"This act is not an individual act carried out by an American soldier, but rather it is part of the American behavior of intellectual and psychological education in disrespecting Islam and smearing its image in the souls of Americans," Fadlallah said.

[Schmidty]

Oh, I care. Especially as how most of the concerns I've had for years have been proven accurate time after time as this era evolves.

I read as far as this quote, then remember that your quote is what's important in America today. "My concerns".

Bleh, I love the people of this country on an individual basis, but I am despise Liberals and Republicans more and more everyday. You will be the fall of our nation.

[Arles]

To those comparing this Newsweek episode with Bush and WMD, you are missing a key point. If Newsweek had 4-5 verified sources (some in the military) that all corroborated the same story and ran with it, I think it would be a much different situation. The problem is that Newsweek used only one source and never asked for (or received) the "evidence" this source referenced in his charge.

This would be akin to the US going to war with Iraq because one CIA agent thought he saw a WMD weapon in a satellite photo over Iraq - but couldn't prove it when pushed. Bush's claim that Iraq had WMD was backed up by the FBI and CIA of two administrations, much of the UN, UK intelligence, Russian intelligence, Israeli information and the UN's own weapons removal documentation.

There's no parallel between that level of corroboration by independent groups and what Newsweek used for its story.

[MrBigglesworth]

To those comparing this Newsweek episode with Bush and WMD, you are missing a key point.
I think a key point that you are missing is that there was a lot of differing intelligence on Iraq, and it was not the 'slam dunk' that you and I were told it was.

The funny thing is, what this report alleges we did is no worse than some of the things that we know for a fact we did in Abu Ghraib and other places.

[st.cronin]

The funny thing is, what this report alleges we did is no worse than some of the things that we know for a fact we did in Abu Ghraib and other places.

That is why I think what happened in Afghanistan goes beyond the Newsweek article. Newsweek is responsible for bad journalism, but it seems preposterous to blame the article for these deaths.

[MrBigglesworth]

That is why I think what happened in Afghanistan goes beyond the Newsweek article. Newsweek is responsible for bad journalism, but it seems preposterous to blame the article for these deaths.
You mentioned before that you were following the story closely, it's my understanding that some of these protests were going on BEFORE the Newsweek story broke, is that true?

[st.cronin]

You mentioned before that you were following the story closely, it's my understanding that some of these protests were going on BEFORE the Newsweek story broke, is that true?

Yes, plus I can't find any evidence that the story was even a story in Afghanistan, or anywhere in the Arab world. Al-jazeera apparently didn't pick it up at all.

[st.cronin]

Dola

The story really isn't a story at this point; there's not much to follow. Newsweek put out a story that nobody really noticed (or maybe believed), then took it back.

[CamEdwards]

Dola

The story really isn't a story at this point; there's not much to follow. Newsweek put out a story that nobody really noticed (or maybe believed), then took it back.

Maybe nobody in the United States, but then again, that's not where the riots took place.


Pakistan dismissed on Tuesday as inadequate an apology and retraction by the Newsweek magazine of a report that U.S. interrogators at Guantanamo Bay had desecrated the Koran.

The report in the magazine's May 9 issue sparked protests across the Muslim world, from Afghanistan, where 16 people were killed and more than 100 injured, to Pakistan, India, Indonesia and Gaza.

"The apology and retraction are not enough," Information Minister Sheikh Rashid Ahmed told Reuters.

"They should understand the sentiments of Muslims and think 101 times before publishing news which hurt feelings of Muslims."

The magazine retracted the story on Monday...

Qazi Hussain Ahmed, head of a hardline six-party Islamic alliance in Pakistan, said Newsweek's retraction was unlikely to cool tempers in the Muslim world.

"Whatever magazine has done now is under pressure (from the U.S. government)," he said. "It has not denied what it has reported and many people freed from Guantanamo Bay have narrated the same thing."



In Saudi Arabia, the country's top religious authority Tuesday condemned the alleged desecration and urged an investigation into the report.

Grand Mufti Adul-Aziz al-Sheik issued his statement a day after Newsweek retracted its report, saying a full inquiry still should be launched "to alleviate the sorrow that befell Muslims."

"We condemn and denounce this criminal act against Muslims' most sacred item," al-Sheik said.



The State Department, moving to undo damage it says was caused by a Newsweek article alleging U.S. desecration of the Quran, the Muslim holy book, is telling its embassies to spread the word abroad that America respects all religious faiths.


In a two-page cable sent Monday night to all U.S. diplomatic posts, the department told the ambassadors to inform host governments and local media that Newsweek had retracted its report that investigators found evidence interrogators at the U.S. naval prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, desecrated the Quran.


I think it's fair to say this is having an effect on our relations with other countries.

More troubling to me though is Newsweek's apparent devil-may-care attitude about this. I agree with JPhillips and Dutch to a large degree. The suits care about making money, and all too often the reporters care about "their" message (which is fine in my book, as long as they'd admit they're trying to sell their opinion right along with the facts).

The arrogance shown by Newsweek, CBS, and the media in general (Rather getting a Peabody award yesterday and will be the keynote speaker for the Investigative Reporters and Editors convention next month) show me that the media's not really interested in holding themselves accountable for their mistakes. Heck, read the Mitch Albom thread for confirmation of that.

[MrBigglesworth]

More troubling to me though is Newsweek's apparent devil-may-care attitude about this.
Didn't they retract the story? What more needs to be done here?

The arrogance ...show me that the media's not really interested in holding themselves accountable for their mistakes.
Aren't these the same complaints that people have about Bush administration?

[Crapshoot]

What was the estimated dead annually because of the UN Sanctions, again?Hell, I'd venture to say we will have saved millions of lives when it's all said an done. No need to thank President Bush, though, or the military.

Roffle. The UN sanctions you didn't want to come down ? Dutch, btw- the guy who broke this story is the guy who broke the Lewinsky story - and is also the author of Uncovering Clinton - http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0609603930/103-9875322-5804645?v=glance
Hardly some left-wing anti-military type. Of course, you seem to believe that its the media's job to maintain the military's image in some way.

[flere-imsaho]

Well, that doesn't really help much. Unidentified sources is the other big problem the media has with credibility these days. (I am not sure where I read or heard about detainee's lawyers being the one's suggesting such things.)

Here's a litmus test: how do you feel about Bob Novak?

[CamEdwards]

Aren't these the same complaints that people have about Bush administration?

Of course in four years you'll be rid of the Bush administration. The same can't be said for the media.

[flere-imsaho]

Of course in four years you'll be rid of the Bush administration. The same can't be said for the media.

We'll still be in Iraq, though.

[NoMyths]

Of course in four years you'll be rid of the Bush administration. The same can't be said for the media.I always get tickled when the media refer to themselves in the third person. :p

[st.cronin]

We'll still be in Iraq, though.

And Germany, and Japan, and South Korea, and Kuwait, and probably Kosovo...

[flere-imsaho]

To those comparing this Newsweek episode with Bush and WMD, you are missing a key point. If Newsweek had 4-5 verified sources (some in the military) that all corroborated the same story and ran with it, I think it would be a much different situation. The problem is that Newsweek used only one source and never asked for (or received) the "evidence" this source referenced in his charge.

This would be akin to the US going to war with Iraq because one CIA agent thought he saw a WMD weapon in a satellite photo over Iraq - but couldn't prove it when pushed. Bush's claim that Iraq had WMD was backed up by the FBI and CIA of two administrations, much of the UN, UK intelligence, Russian intelligence, Israeli information and the UN's own weapons removal documentation.

There's no parallel between that level of corroboration by independent groups and what Newsweek used for its story.

Har Har. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040405-2.html)


QUESTION: Does it concern the President that the primary source for the intelligence on the mobile biological weapons labs was a guy that U.S. intelligence never even interviewed?

MCCLELLAN: Well, again, all these issues will be looked
at as part of a broad review by the independent commission
that the President appointed… But it's important
that we look at what we learn on the ground and compare that
with what we believed prior to going into Iraq.

[CamEdwards]

I always get tickled when the media refer to themselves in the third person. :p

Cam Edwards is a member of the media, but Cam Edwards is not a member of the Mainstream Elite Media. Cam Edwards has done his time there, thank you very much.

[Arles]

So, flere, all the statements by Russia, England, the UN themselves (on being unable to account for weapons), info from Clinton's administration, the FBI and CIA all are disregarded because you found one piece of a 1000-piece puzzle that could be questioned?

Give me break. I laugh my ass off when I read people saying how "obvious" it was that Saddam was no threat and had no WMD when those same people were screaming for action on the issue when Clinton was president. Just looks at comments by nearly every mainstream democratic congressman from 98 to 03.

In my judgment, the Security Council should authorize a strong U.N. military response that will materially damage, if not totally destroy, as much as possible of the suspected infrastructure for developing and manufacturing weapons of mass destruction, as well as key military command and control nodes. Saddam Hussein should pay a grave price, in a currency that he understands and values, for his unacceptable behavior.

This should not be a strike consisting only of a handful of cruise missiles hitting isolated targets primarily of presumed symbolic value.
The most critical challenge for American Policy is forging, and implementing, a new strategy of containment - a strategy directed not against a particular nation or ideology, but against a more diffuse danger - the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction. It is commonplace to speak of 'defining moments.' But it is clear that Iraq's intransigence over U.N. inspections presents just such a moment. If the world cannot summon the will to act decisively against the ambitions of the world's most dangerous dictator to attain the world's most dangerous weapons, then there is little prospect that the international community can unify against less obvious threats.

We look forward to receiving the President's recommendations with regard to the need to use force to contain, if not destroy, Iraq's capability to produce weapons of mass destruction.

The only way we're going to get rid of Saddam Hussein is we're going to end up having to start it alone - start it alone - and it's going to require guys like you in uniform to be back on foot in the desert taking Saddam down.
Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.
We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.
We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.
The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons
We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.
There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.
In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.
[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...

QUESTION: Does it concern the President that the primary source for the intelligence on the mobile biological weapons labs was a guy that U.S. intelligence never even interviewed?

MCCLELLAN: Well, again, all these issues will be looked
at as part of a broad review by the independent commission
that the President appointed… But it's important
that we look at what we learn on the ground and compare that
with what we believed prior to going into Iraq.
That must have been one influentional guy...

[MrBigglesworth]

So, flere, all the statements by Russia, England, the UN themselves (on being unable to account for weapons), info from Clinton's administration, the FBI and CIA all are disregarded because you found one piece of a 1000-piece puzzle that could be questioned?

Give me break. I laugh my ass off when I read people saying how "obvious" it was that Saddam was no threat and had no WMD when those same people were screaming for action on the issue when Clinton was president. Just looks at comments by nearly every mainstream democratic congressman from 98 to 03.
I suppose you are right, looking back it is incredible that anyone would ever trust them. But at the time the we all just assumed that the president would be up front and honest with the American people. Seems quaint now, doesn't it?

[st.cronin]

I suppose you are right, looking back it is incredible that anyone would ever trust them. But at the time the we all just assumed that the president would be up front and honest with the American people. Seems quaint now, doesn't it?

Your point is obscured by your curious style. Could you restate what you mean in plain english?

[MrBigglesworth]

Your point is obscured by your curious style. Could you restate what you mean in plain english?
The executive branch controls the intelligence gathering apparatus of the government. As such, they can control what makes it out of the CIA et al. In the case of Iraq, there are mountains of evidence that suggest that they manipulated the data, ignored dissenting views, and/or pressured analysts to come up with reports with predetermined conclusions. This filtered info was then used to sell the war to the people.

Looking back on it, we can see how naive we all were thinking that everything was on the up and up. But you can't fault the people who were misled while giving a free pass to the misleaders. You have to blame the people that were in charge of the information.

[st.cronin]

Well, I suppose you can discredit the US intelligence that way, but how do you explain how so many other countries, with their own intelligence agencies, basically agreed with us?

[rkmsuf]

Well, I suppose you can discredit the US intelligence that way, but how do you explain how so many other countries, with their own intelligence agencies, basically agreed with us?

Oh they'll explain it. Folks on that side of the ledger have all the answers.

[MrBigglesworth]

Well, I suppose you can discredit the US intelligence that way, but how do you explain how so many other countries, with their own intelligence agencies, basically agreed with us?
They had intelligence that suggested that Saddam had WMD's, but to them (France, Germany, etc) and their people it was not strong enough to warrant starting a war of aggression. And you can not argue the fact that they were right and we were wrong.

[gstelmack]

The executive branch controls the intelligence gathering apparatus of the government. As such, they can control what makes it out of the CIA et al. In the case of Iraq, there are mountains of evidence that suggest that they manipulated the data, ignored dissenting views, and/or pressured analysts to come up with reports with predetermined conclusions. This filtered info was then used to sell the war to the people.

Looking back on it, we can see how naive we all were thinking that everything was on the up and up. But you can't fault the people who were misled while giving a free pass to the misleaders. You have to blame the people that were in charge of the information.
So, did Clinton do the exact same thing, since he thought Saddam's WMD program was a huge menace?

[MrBigglesworth]

So, did Clinton do the exact same thing, since he thought Saddam's WMD program was a huge menace?
No, Clinton did not invade and occupy Iraq. Obviously, the Clinton administration was correct in their analyzation of the data, in that Iraq was not the grave and imminent threat that the Bush administration made it out to be.

[flere-imsaho]

So, flere, all the statements by Russia, England, the UN themselves (on being unable to account for weapons), info from Clinton's administration, the FBI and CIA all are disregarded because you found one piece of a 1000-piece puzzle that could be questioned?

Give it a rest, Arles. I was pointing out one quick example (and there are more), of the Administration taking crap intelligence, failing to do due diligence, and running with it. I did this as a counterpoint to your post (which I quoted in its entirety for context). You really need to stop extrapolating my arguments, for goodness' sake.

Give me break. I laugh my ass off when I read people saying how "obvious" it was that Saddam was no threat and had no WMD when those same people were screaming for action on the issue when Clinton was president. Just looks at comments by nearly every mainstream democratic congressman from 98 to 03.

It is to laugh. When I make a comprehensive list of Administration officials and other prominent Republicans saying Saddam was not worth an invasion, you guys accuse me of cherry-picking. Yet here you are, cherry-picking some rhetoric from scattered Democrats.

Which way do you want it? I've got reports from the State Department and the Defense Intelligence Agency from 2002 that say Saddam wasn't a threat. Does that make you laugh your ass off?

That must have been one influentional guy...

What, like Jeff Gannon?

[flere-imsaho]

Well, I suppose you can discredit the US intelligence that way, but how do you explain how so many other countries, with their own intelligence agencies, basically agreed with us?

Actions speak louder than words. How many joined the coalition? How many asked for further review by the IAEA? If you want to take the rhetoric of political leaders at face value, then you're missing an awful lot in the world of politics.

[st.cronin]

Actions speak louder than words. How many joined the coalition?

Over 20 countries actually sent troops to invade.

[Arles]

Give it a rest, Arles. I was pointing out one quick example (and there are more), of the Administration taking crap intelligence, failing to do due diligence, and running with it.
The problem with your example (or parallel) is that there wasn't just one piece of Intel that led Bush to attack Saddam. There were over 10 years of data and actions, supported in validity by nearly every intelligence agency in the world. There is a difference there.

Remember, when the US went into Iraq, the argument wasn't whether or not Saddam possessed WMD or deserved to be removed, it was whether the US should use force to do so. It was only months and months after the military action that everyone started to use hindsight to say how silly it was for the US to think Saddam had WMD or was a threat - often when it was politically expedient for them to do so.

When I make a comprehensive list of Administration officials and other prominent Republicans saying Saddam was not worth an invasion, you guys accuse me of cherry-picking.
I'd be interested in some quotes from 98 to when we deployed saying that. Those seem to be a rare find.

Yet here you are, cherry-picking some rhetoric from scattered Democrats.
I'd be interested in seeing quotes from each of those listed above from 98 to when we deployed stating what a bad idea it would be to enter Iraq. It shouldn't be hard to find if I was just "cherry-picking".

[JPhillips]

Arles: I am actually for getting rid of Saddam for reasons not dealing with WMD, but when you say:

It was only months and months after the military action that everyone started to use hindsight to say how silly it was for the US to think Saddam had WMD or was a threat

the facts don't back you up. Take this recently revealed British memo from months before the war began.

The secret Downing Street memo



SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY



DAVID MANNING
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195 /02

cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell

IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY

Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.

This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.

John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August.

The two broad US options were:

(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).

(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.

The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:

(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.

(ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.

(iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.

The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.

The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.


The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.

On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.

For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.

The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN.

John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real.

The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush.

Conclusions:

(a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action. But we needed a fuller picture of US planning before we could take any firm decisions. CDS should tell the US military that we were considering a range of options.

(b) The Prime Minister would revert on the question of whether funds could be spent in preparation for this operation.

(c) CDS would send the Prime Minister full details of the proposed military campaign and possible UK contributions by the end of the week.


(d) The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the background on the UN inspectors, and discreetly work up the ultimatum to Saddam.

He would also send the Prime Minister advice on the positions of countries in the region especially Turkey, and of the key EU member states.

(e) John Scarlett would send the Prime Minister a full intelligence update.

(f) We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal advisers.

(I have written separately to commission this follow-up work.)


MATTHEW RYCROFT

(Rycroft was a Downing Street foreign policy aide)

Even our closest allies were not convinced that the case was clear for attacking Saddam. They also point out quite clearly that the US government was massaging the intelligence to help it sell the war. There seems more and more evidence that the US government had less information than they claim that Saddam had vast stockpiles of WMD. I would still like Rumsfeld to answer for his saying he knew right where the WMD were.

This, in a broad sense, is why the admin is losing support for the war. The American public feel less and less sure that they have been given all the facts on the war. Americans will support a just struggle for as long as it takes, but if they feel manipulated or lied to they will begin to abandon the cause no matter how just the outcome may be.

Bush, IMO, has made a tremendous mistake in not leveling with the American public from the beginning.

[MrBigglesworth]

The problem with your example (or parallel) is that there wasn't just one piece of Intel that led Bush to attack Saddam. There were over 10 years of data and actions, supported in validity by nearly every intelligence agency in the world. There is a difference there.

Remember, when the US went into Iraq, the argument wasn't whether or not Saddam possessed WMD...
If that is the case and not revisionist history, then why did Colin Powell have to go to the UN and do his little song and dance about all of the WMD's that were in Iraq? I think in this country we took it for granted that Saddam had WMD's, and that all goes back to the manipulated intelligence that was given to us.

[Arles]

The point is (and the quotes from both sides from the period of 1998 to early 2002 back this up) that both the Clinton and Bush intelligence groups, as well as much of the world's intelligence made a very compelling case for Saddam having WMD and being a world threat. That's why, all the way up to February of 2002, current critics like Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Rockafeller, Ted Kennedy, Al Gore, Robert Byrd, John Kerry and even Bob Graham were very comfortable with the idea that Saddam had WMD and was a threat. Again, read the comments above - most were made in the early 2002 timeframe.

Now, were there some memos or information here or there that might not have helped the case for WMD? I'm sure there were. But the point was everyone from Clinton to Bush to the aforementioned senators looked at the intelligence (over 70% collected under Clinton) and felt a vast majority of it made a compelling case for Saddam being a threat with WMD. This cannot be refuted (and has not) by citing comments by these leaders who are now critics. If you took a time machine back to Jan and Feb of 2002, you would find that 80-90% of the US House and Senate was supportive of the idea of going to war with Iraq. It was only once we didn't find WMD for 3-4 months that the tune changed.

As to the Powell issue, his main role was to convince the UN that force was needed to remove Saddam and end the threat he posed. It was NOT an attempt to convince the UN that Saddam was a threat or still possessed weapons. That was agreed upon by everyone in the UN resolution passed a few months earlier.

I will certainly admit that aspects of this Iraq war have not gone as well as some had hoped. And I'm sure that there are things Bush and Co. would have done differently if they had it to do over again. But to act like there was this massive swelling of doubt in the US House or Senate on the issue of going to Iraq back in Feb of 2002 is complete revisionist history. And to act like somehow Bush "cooked the books" on intelligence in Iraq to convince all of these long-term senators that Iraq was the right move is also revisionist as much of the information cited was gathered by Clinton between the years of 1997 and 2000.

If people want to criticize the way the war was handled - I think that's fair. But for congressmen and major leaders to act as if they would not have gone to war in Feb of 2002 or that Bush "duped them all" by citing intelligence by Clinton is disingenuous at best, and closer to dishonest given their stance and the facts at the time.

[MrBigglesworth]

But the point was everyone from Clinton to Bush to the aforementioned senators looked at the intelligence (over 70% collected under Clinton) and felt a vast majority of it made a compelling case for Saddam being a threat with WMD.
Firstly, a 'compelling case' isn't a high enough standard for war. Secondly, I thought Iraq had WMD's too. But I only knew what the administration wanted me to know. It would be like blaming the Kansas students that they didn't know about evolution, when in fact it is the fault of the school board for not letting them know about it. Under Clinton, the intelligence was not dire enough to constitute a real and imminent threat. Suddenly under Bush (even though you claim that 70% of the intelligence was collected under Clinton) we need to go to war in Iraq or we will all die.

As to the Powell issue, his main role was to convince the UN that force was needed to remove Saddam and end the threat he posed. It was NOT an attempt to convince the UN that Saddam was a threat or still possessed weapons. That was agreed upon by everyone in the UN resolution passed a few months earlier.
That's complete revisionist history. I remember watching the speech, and he was showing pictures of supposed chemical weapons labs, nuclear sites, etc.

And to act like somehow Bush "cooked the books" on intelligence in Iraq to convince all of these long-term senators that Iraq was the right move is also revisionist as much of the information cited was gathered by Clinton between the years of 1997 and 2000.
What about the British memo? What about Richard Pearl? What about his own treasury secretary? And countless others? Is that all a vast left wing conspiracy? Or is your point that the Bush administration was just dumber than the Clinton administration, since on the same intelligence they came up with a different interpretation and were completely wrong?

[-Mojo Jojo-]

That's complete revisionist history. I remember watching the speech, and he was showing pictures of supposed chemical weapons labs, nuclear sites, etc.


The point of the Powell presentation was that support needed to be rebuilt because reality had eroded much of the U.S. case against Iraq. The pre-war inspections are easily forgotten now, but they were awfully important at the time. And Hans Blix had spent three months combing the country and found absolutely nothing. Even after the U.S. had become upset with his team and with Iraq's required disclosure document in December '02 and promised to show Blix exactly where the weapons were (which we claimed to know), he came up with nothing. It became a bit difficult to believe the administration's claims at the point, and the support they had when they got the first Security Council resolution in Nov. '02 had dried up. Powell, being the only member of the administration who was well-liked and respected internationally, was their trump card to try and get support for a second resolution to authorize military force. His performance (and the evidence he provided) was panned, and the administration decided to not even bring the matter to a vote because they knew they would lose.

Its sort of silly to look at the assertions and accusations made about WMD's in the period between '98-'02 when there were no inspectors. We had the opportunity to put all of the intelligence gathered during that period to the test after the November resolution, and it failed the test badly. It was clear by Feb. '03 that we didn't know what we thought we knew. It was still uncertain whether or not Saddam had WMD's (and the conventional wisdom was that he did), but it was obvious that our intelligence was not as good as we had thought it was. This gave a lot of other countries pause when it came to invasion. The Bush administration obviously didn't care.

[Glengoyne]

....Or is your point that the Bush administration was just dumber than the Clinton administration, since on the same intelligence they came up with a different interpretation and were completely wrong? This is the same Clinton Administration that recommended changing the U.S. policy on Iraq to one of Regime Change? The same Administration that claimed that Iraqi WMDs were a danger to the world?

How exactly did they come to a different interpretation?

Also Hans Blix, mentioned in your other post(ooops not your post actually), in Jan or February before the invasion said he didn't know that the Iraqis had WMDs, but he also said that in his assessment the Iraqis hadn't even come to the fundamental conclusion that they needed to disarm. That isn't the same thing as saying that he didn't believe they had WMDs.

[sachmo71]

no

[Arles]

Firstly, a 'compelling case' isn't a high enough standard for war. Secondly, I thought Iraq had WMD's too. But I only knew what the administration wanted me to know. It would be like blaming the Kansas students that they didn't know about evolution, when in fact it is the fault of the school board for not letting them know about it. Under Clinton, the intelligence was not dire enough to constitute a real and imminent threat. Suddenly under Bush (even though you claim that 70% of the intelligence was collected under Clinton) we need to go to war in Iraq or we will all die.
Clinton stated that Iraq needed regime change and had Monica not occurred, he very well could have started military activity in Iraq. The reasons he didn't were two-fold:

1. There was not enough public desire to remove Saddam because the public wasn't all that wary of terrorism.
2. Because of Monica and the other issues, Clinton did not have enough political capital to spend to start a war. The republicans would have blasted him for "Wag the dog" and the democrats were trying to distance themselves from him.

The reason the US didn't attack Iraq was not because we didn't have the info to support an attack, it was because Clinton was a lame-duck president and 9/11 hadn't happened. But, if you look at Clinton's rhetoric, it's clear he favored some form of military action against Iraq. He just didn't have the capital to make it happen.

That's complete revisionist history. I remember watching the speech, and he was showing pictures of supposed chemical weapons labs, nuclear sites, etc.
Those were satellite photos taken in September and October of the prior year. Saddam was given 6 months from when those were first shown to when the US made its first attack to shutdown and hide that stuff. Even the biggest mouth-breathing dictator is going to remove/hide that stuff once it was made public.

What about the British memo? What about Richard Pearl? What about his own treasury secretary? And countless others? Is that all a vast left wing conspiracy? Or is your point that the Bush administration was just dumber than the Clinton administration, since on the same intelligence they came up with a different interpretation and were completely wrong?
Here's a question, why didn't anyone hear one whisper of this information prior to the US going to war with Iraq? Why didn't Pearl come out and decry the effort? Why weren't democratic senators shoving the British memo and other information in our face?

The reason was simple, there was overwhelming evidence in support of the need for a regime change in Iraq. It was only once we didn't find WMD and people started going through every piece of information with a fine-tooth comb looking for reasons we shouldn't have gone to war - that all this surfaced. At the time, for every "British memo" or silent Richard Pearl, there were 50 pieces of information implicating Saddam.

It is akin to putting one of the league's top closers in the ninth with the bases loaded and one out - up a run. The crowd cheers and everyone chants his name thinking he is going to win it. Then, he allows a run and the game goes into extra innings - thereby prompting fans to now say how they should have known Closer X had a 5.00 ERA in Evening games on Monday and the manager should have instead went with the setup man.

Everything you cite was uncovered with 20-20 hindsight by people looking to cover their asses after the entire intelligence agency (under both Clinton and Bush) and most of the world said it was a slam dunk for Saddam to possess WMD.

The problem is that no one wants to think that world just didn't act fast enough to stop Saddam from hiding his weapons (remember the 6 month leadup through the UN?) or that the data we uncovered from 1997 to 2002 could have been innaccurate. No, we want to think that Bush and his evil chronies concocted all these fake documents, threw the wool over every intelligence agency in the world and took us to war for Oil and his daddy.

That makes us sleep better because the fix is easy - Just throw out the evil republicans. The other situation (we had bad Intel or didn't go to war quick enough) is a much scarier situation for many people because there is no simple solution - even though it is significantly more probable.

[Dutch]

The point is (and the quotes from both sides from the period of 1998 to early 2002 back this up) that both the Clinton and Bush intelligence groups, as well as much of the world's intelligence made a very compelling case for Saddam having WMD and being a world threat. That's why, all the way up to February of 2002, current critics like Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Rockafeller, Ted Kennedy, Al Gore, Robert Byrd, John Kerry and even Bob Graham were very comfortable with the idea that Saddam had WMD and was a threat. Again, read the comments above - most were made in the early 2002 timeframe.

Now, were there some memos or information here or there that might not have helped the case for WMD? I'm sure there were. But the point was everyone from Clinton to Bush to the aforementioned senators looked at the intelligence (over 70% collected under Clinton) and felt a vast majority of it made a compelling case for Saddam being a threat with WMD. This cannot be refuted (and has not) by citing comments by these leaders who are now critics. If you took a time machine back to Jan and Feb of 2002, you would find that 80-90% of the US House and Senate was supportive of the idea of going to war with Iraq. It was only once we didn't find WMD for 3-4 months that the tune changed.

As to the Powell issue, his main role was to convince the UN that force was needed to remove Saddam and end the threat he posed. It was NOT an attempt to convince the UN that Saddam was a threat or still possessed weapons. That was agreed upon by everyone in the UN resolution passed a few months earlier.

I will certainly admit that aspects of this Iraq war have not gone as well as some had hoped. And I'm sure that there are things Bush and Co. would have done differently if they had it to do over again. But to act like there was this massive swelling of doubt in the US House or Senate on the issue of going to Iraq back in Feb of 2002 is complete revisionist history. And to act like somehow Bush "cooked the books" on intelligence in Iraq to convince all of these long-term senators that Iraq was the right move is also revisionist as much of the information cited was gathered by Clinton between the years of 1997 and 2000.

If people want to criticize the way the war was handled - I think that's fair. But for congressmen and major leaders to act as if they would not have gone to war in Feb of 2002 or that Bush "duped them all" by citing intelligence by Clinton is disingenuous at best, and closer to dishonest given their stance and the facts at the time.

Well said.

[flere-imsaho]

I'd be interested in some quotes from 98 to when we deployed saying that. Those seem to be a rare find.

I'd be interested in seeing quotes from each of those listed above from 98 to when we deployed stating what a bad idea it would be to enter Iraq. It shouldn't be hard to find if I was just "cherry-picking".

Don't be obtuse: they're well-represented in our previous arguments on this subject.

[flere-imsaho]

This is the same Clinton Administration that recommended changing the U.S. policy on Iraq to one of Regime Change? The same Administration that claimed that Iraqi WMDs were a danger to the world?

The same Administration that used such rhetoric to give new impetus to a U.N. inspection regime that, we know now, effectively ended Hussein's WMD programs.

You assume that Clinton meant to go to war. I suggest you take a look at what he actually did.

[flere-imsaho]

Clinton stated that Iraq needed regime change and had Monica not occurred, he very well could have started military activity in Iraq.

If you can believe this, why can't you believe that Bush decided to use the impetus from 9/11 (compared to the Monica anti-impetus) to achieve an end he & his cronies had been hoping to bring about since he was elected?

Here's a question, why didn't anyone hear one whisper of this information prior to the US going to war with Iraq? Why didn't Pearl come out and decry the effort? Why weren't democratic senators shoving the British memo and other information in our face?

1. The same media you & Dutch decry drowned out any dissention in 2002 so they could get their profitable war.

2. You won't see many quotes from Democrats in 2002 because of this little thing called the mid-term elections. Evidence after the fact shows that the Administration timed their run-up so as to make this difficult for Democrats seeking re-election.

That makes us sleep better because the fix is easy - Just throw out the evil republicans. The other situation (we had bad Intel or didn't go to war quick enough) is a much scarier situation for many people because there is no simple solution - even though it is significantly more probable.

Says you. I think us being placed in a situation where we spend $3 in Iraq for every $1 we spend on Homeland Security, combined with the new training ground we've provided for Al-Qaida, combined with the hotbed of sectarian violence we've just dropped in the Middle East, is plenty enough reason for us to not sleep well at night.

[Arles]

Don't be obtuse: they're well-represented in our previous arguments on this subject.
Please cite some then. I haven't seen anycomments from the democratic leadership criticising the decision to go to war in the timeframe of 1998 to early 2002 yet. But, I could very well have missed them.

[Arles]

1. The same media you & Dutch decry drowned out any dissention in 2002 so they could get their profitable war.
Enormous reach number 1. The reason you didn't hear anything from the media is that there were no credible dissenters. All it would have taken was one of Ted Kennedy, Joe Biden, Al Gore or John Kerry to criticize the decision and it would have been front page material. Yet, no one did. These 10-15 year veterans of international politics must have been snowed by that dumb cowboy from Texas on this issue, right?

2. You won't see many quotes from Democrats in 2002 because of this little thing called the mid-term elections. Evidence after the fact shows that the Administration timed their run-up so as to make this difficult for Democrats seeking re-election.
Give me a break, Hillary Clinton or Ted Kennedy probably would have went up 10 points in their states had they legitimately questioned the war. The reason they didn't was there was no legitimate criticism that could have been made at the time and most believed it was indeed the right thing to do. But, again, don't believe me, believe their own comments leading up to March of 2002.

Says you. I think us being placed in a situation where we spend $3 in Iraq for every $1 we spend on Homeland Security, combined with the new training ground we've provided for Al-Qaida, combined with the hotbed of sectarian violence we've just dropped in the Middle East, is plenty enough reason for us to not sleep well at night.
As opposed to that stable Middle East that existed before? Whether or not you choose to believe, Al Qaeda is not allowed to find safe harbor by the governments of Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Syria for the first time since the group's inception.

But, again, the point you keep dodging is where was this "compelling case" against the war back in early 2002 when the decision was made? I keep looking through comments by everyone from Biden to Kerry to Gore and even the kooks like Byrd and Graham. Yet, to a person, all agreed with the decision to go to war. Seems like an odd thing given how "obvious" it was that we should not have gone to war with Saddam.

[MrBigglesworth]

This is the same Clinton Administration that recommended changing the U.S. policy on Iraq to one of Regime Change? The same Administration that claimed that Iraqi WMDs were a danger to the world?

How exactly did they come to a different interpretation?
Recommending regime change and going to war to do it are completely different things. I recommend regime change in North Korea, but invading to do it is insane.

[MrBigglesworth]

Clinton stated that Iraq needed regime change and had Monica not occurred, he very well could have started military activity in Iraq. The reasons he didn't were two-fold:

1. There was not enough public desire to remove Saddam because the public wasn't all that wary of terrorism.
2. Because of Monica and the other issues, Clinton did not have enough political capital to spend to start a war. The republicans would have blasted him for "Wag the dog" and the democrats were trying to distance themselves from him.

The reason the US didn't attack Iraq was not because we didn't have the info to support an attack, it was because Clinton was a lame-duck president and 9/11 hadn't happened. But, if you look at Clinton's rhetoric, it's clear he favored some form of military action against Iraq. He just didn't have the capital to make it happen.
That's all complete conjecture based on...well, nothing, really.

Those were satellite photos taken in September and October of the prior year. Saddam was given 6 months from when those were first shown to when the US made its first attack to shutdown and hide that stuff. Even the biggest mouth-breathing dictator is going to remove/hide that stuff once it was made public...The problem is that no one wants to think that world just didn't act fast enough to stop Saddam from hiding his weapons (remember the 6 month leadup through the UN?)
That is all complete conjecture based on nothing.

Why weren't democratic senators shoving the British memo and other information in our face?
The memo just came out a month ago.

Everything you cite was uncovered with 20-20 hindsight by people looking to cover their asses after the entire intelligence agency (under both Clinton and Bush) and most of the world said it was a slam dunk for Saddam to possess WMD.
I think you are thinking of 1990. That is when most of the world agreed with us, a hundred countries sent troops, and the UN voted to authorize war. This time, most of the world thought we were assholes, a couple minor countries sent token forces, and the UN laughed in our face.

That makes us sleep better because the fix is easy - Just throw out the evil republicans. The other situation (we had bad Intel or didn't go to war quick enough) is a much scarier situation for many people because there is no simple solution - even though it is significantly more probable.
If you discredit everyone that isn't a neocon, then I suppose there is no evidence that the Bush administration acted inappropriately and you could say that it is more probable that they made an honest mistake.

[flere-imsaho]

Please cite some then. I haven't seen anycomments from the democratic leadership criticising the decision to go to war in the timeframe of 1998 to early 2002 yet. But, I could very well have missed them.

Huh? Go back and read this thread, Arles.

You said you had quotes from "mainstream Democrats" (talking about needing to go to war) and posted them.

I said I had quotes from Administration officials (talking about Saddam not being a threat, in late 2001 and early 2002, no less), which I've posted in previous threads.

Now you want me to post quotes from democratic leadership?

I've heard of diverting the argument, before, but you've raised this to a new level.

[st.cronin]

Huh? Go back and read this thread, Arles.

You said you had quotes from "mainstream Democrats" (talking about needing to go to war) and posted them.

I said I had quotes from Administration officials (talking about Saddam not being a threat, in late 2001 and early 2002, no less), which I've posted in previous threads.

Now you want me to post quotes from democratic leadership?

I've heard of diverting the argument, before, but you've raised this to a new level.

Flere, I honestly thought you were talking about Dems, too.

[flere-imsaho]

Enormous reach number 1. The reason you didn't hear anything from the media is that there were no credible dissenters.

OK, but I don't want to hear you or Dutch complaining about the media blowing things out of proportion for their own profit again.

Also, to you, who is a "credible dissenter"? I have this sneaking suspicion that no Democrat can be one.

All it would have taken was one of Ted Kennedy, Joe Biden, Al Gore or John Kerry to criticize the decision and it would have been front page material. Yet, no one did. These 10-15 year veterans of international politics must have been snowed by that dumb cowboy from Texas on this issue, right?

You know, here's the problem with your quotes (which you haven't even dug up yourself, but have pulled from a conservative chain-email):

All of the quotes listed above are substantially correct reproductions of statements made by various Democratic leaders regarding Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's acquisition or possession of weapons of mass destruction. However, some of the quotes are truncated, and context is provided for none of them — several of these quotes were offered in the course of statements that clearly indicated the speaker was decidedly against unilateral military intervention in Iraq by the U.S. Moreover, several of the quotes offered antedate the four nights of airstrikes unleashed against Iraq by U.S. and British forces during Operation Desert Fox in December 1998, after which Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen and Gen. Henry H. Shelton (chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) announced the action had been successful in "degrad[ing] Saddam Hussein's ability to deliver chemical, biological and nuclear weapons."

Source & full analysis of each quote here. (http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp)

Give me a break, Hillary Clinton or Ted Kennedy probably would have went up 10 points in their states had they legitimately questioned the war.

Give me a break.

1. Hillary Clinton, Senator from a state that was the main target of 9/11 and still had serious "kill the towelheads" issues, would gain 10 points by questioning the war?

2. You skewering Ted Kennedy in an effort to attack my arguments is like me using someone like Wayne Allard against you.

3. What's "legitimately questioned"? Again, I get the impression you'll not accept any dissent from any Democrat.

As opposed to that stable Middle East that existed before? Whether or not you choose to believe, Al Qaeda is not allowed to find safe harbor by the governments of Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Syria for the first time since the group's inception.

Let's be honest, the only government that allowed Al Qaeda safe harbor before 9/11 and doesn't now was Afghanistan (a military action I continue to support). Support for Al Qaeda in various other states (but not explicitly by the states themselves) continues. In fact, the U.S. invasion of Iraq has helped recruitment.

My main point, however, which you've ignored, is a geopolitical one. The Middle East, as you note, is not a stable place. As a result of our actions, we're looking at an Iraq which is simmering with sectarian violence issues, and may possibly dissolve into years of sectarian war. This will certainly spill over into other states, and will have ramifications upon the region for years and years.

[flere-imsaho]

Flere, I honestly thought you were talking about Dems, too.

I don't know what I can do to be more clear. The posts in question are very clear about whom I am speaking.

[Arles]

Flere, if you think that democrats that now opposed the war were very vocal in their dissent prior to the US entering Iraq, then we will just have to agree to disagree. Again, there was barely a whisper (if even a whisper) against the decision to go to war by the democratic leadership when the decision was actually being made. All of the "evidence" cited now against the decision to go to war has been uncovered well after the decision was made.

This idea that it was clear that there was no reason to invade Iraq prior to the US making that decision is complete revisionist history. It's that simple.

[st.cronin]

OK, but I don't want to hear you or Dutch complaining about the media blowing things out of proportion for their own profit again.

Also, to you, who is a "credible dissenter"? I have this sneaking suspicion that no Democrat can be one.



You know, here's the problem with your quotes (which you haven't even dug up yourself, but have pulled from a conservative chain-email):



Source & full analysis of each quote here. (http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp)



Give me a break.

1. Hillary Clinton, Senator from a state that was the main target of 9/11 and still had serious "kill the towelheads" issues, would gain 10 points by questioning the war?

2. You skewering Ted Kennedy in an effort to attack my arguments is like me using someone like Wayne Allard against you.

3. What's "legitimately questioned"? Again, I get the impression you'll not accept any dissent from any Democrat.



Let's be honest, the only government that allowed Al Qaeda safe harbor before 9/11 and doesn't now was Afghanistan (a military action I continue to support). Support for Al Qaeda in various other states (but not explicitly by the states themselves) continues. In fact, the U.S. invasion of Iraq has helped recruitment.

My main point, however, which you've ignored, is a geopolitical one. The Middle East, as you note, is not a stable place. As a result of our actions, we're looking at an Iraq which is simmering with sectarian violence issues, and may possibly dissolve into years of sectarian war. This will certainly spill over into other states, and will have ramifications upon the region for years and years.

I'll take this one.

Point, New York City was probably the single region in the US most vehemently opposed to action in Iraq. I doubt Hillary can do anything to affect her popularity, so I come down in the middle on this one - you're both making a silly point.

Point, support for al-Qaeda has definitely dried up pretty much everywhere. There is still activity (lots of it in Iraq), there is still recruitment - but our actions in Afghanistan + Iraq has hurt al-Qaeda. I suppose your argument that Afghanistan hurt al-Qaeda and Iraq helped al-Qaeda has a certain plausibility - but on the other hand, there is a definite advantage in taking the fight with al-Qaeda to foreign shores, rather than waiting to stop them here.

Point, the Middle East is NOT a stable place, which was part of the theoretical basis for invasion of Iraq even PRE-9/11. Flere, you absolutely can't predict the future, so to suggest that Iraq will descend into years of sectarian violence which will spill over into other countries is laughably absurd, particularly once you realize that the US troop levels in Iraq today are pretty much a permanent fixture for the next generation.

Point, the invasion of Iraq was NOT unilateral - to describe it as such is a LIE. It was supported by U.N. resolutions, 20 different countries sent troops, 30 different countries provided air space or bases or other logistical support ... there is no sense in which it could have been described as unilateral.

[flere-imsaho]

Flere, if you think that democrats that now opposed the war were very vocal in their dissent prior to the US entering Iraq, then we will just have to agree to disagree.

Again, I'm not saying that. You are saying that I said that.

This idea that it was clear that there was no reason to invade Iraq prior to the US making that decision is complete revisionist history. It's that simple.

No sufficient reason. Again, please refrain from re-stating my argument for me.

[flere-imsaho]

Point, support for al-Qaeda has definitely dried up pretty much everywhere. There is still activity (lots of it in Iraq), there is still recruitment - but our actions in Afghanistan + Iraq has hurt al-Qaeda. I suppose your argument that Afghanistan hurt al-Qaeda and Iraq helped al-Qaeda has a certain plausibility - but on the other hand, there is a definite advantage in taking the fight with al-Qaeda to foreign shores, rather than waiting to stop them here.

Suspected Al-Qaeda attacks post-9/11, a partial list:

2002 (April): Explosion at historic synagogue in Tunisia left 21 dead, including 14 German tourists.
2002 (May): Car exploded outside hotel in Karachi, Pakistan, killing 14, including 11 French citizens.
2002 (June): Bomb exploded outside American consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, killing 12.
2002 (Oct.): Boat crashed into oil tanker off Yemen coast, killing one.
2002 (Oct.): Nightclub bombings in Bali, Indonesia, killed 202, mostly Australian citizens.
2002 (Nov.): Suicide attack on a hotel in Mombasa, Kenya, killed 16.
2003 (May): Suicide bombers killed 34, including 8 Americans, at housing compounds for Westerners in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
2003 (May): Four bombs killed 33 people targeting Jewish, Spanish, and Belgian sites in Casablanca, Morocco.
2003 (Aug.): Suicide car-bomb killed 12, injured 150 at Marriott Hotel in Jakarta, Indonesia.
2003 (Nov.): Explosions rocked a Riyadh, Saudi Arabia housing compound, killing 17.
2003 (Nov.): Suicide car-bombers simultaneously attacked two synagogues in Istanbul, Turkey, killing 25 and injuring hundreds.
2003 (Nov.): Truck bombs detonated at London bank and British consulate in Istanbul, Turkey, killing 26.
2004 (March): Ten terrorists bombs exploded almost simultaneously during the morning rush hour in Madrid, Spain, killing 202 and injuring more than 1,400.
2004 (May): Terrorists attacked Saudi oil company offices in Khobar, Saudi Arabia, killing 22.
2004 (June): Terrorists kidnapped and executed American Paul Johnson, Jr., in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
2004 (Sept.): Car bomb outside the Australian embassy in Jakarta, Indonesia, killed nine.
2004 (Dec.): Terrorists enter the U.S. Consulate in Jiddah, Saudi Arabia, killing nine (including 4 attackers).

Point, the Middle East is NOT a stable place, which was part of the theoretical basis for invasion of Iraq even PRE-9/11. Flere, you absolutely can't predict the future, so to suggest that Iraq will descend into years of sectarian violence which will spill over into other countries is laughably absurd, particularly once you realize that the US troop levels in Iraq today are pretty much a permanent fixture for the next generation.

It would be laughably absurd if it wasn't a common thread throughout the history of the Middle East. It is incomprehensible to me that people can fail to recognize this.

I'm also stunned that you expect U.S. troop levels to remain at their present level in Iraq for a generation. Do you really think the U.S. will keep itself at such a strategic disadvantage for the forseeable future?

Point, the invasion of Iraq was NOT unilateral - to describe it as such is a LIE. It was supported by U.N. resolutions, 20 different countries sent troops, 30 different countries provided air space or bases or other logistical support ... there is no sense in which it could have been described as unilateral.

When did I call it unilateral? Like Arles, you are framing my argument for me, and getting it wrong. Please try again.

[Arles]

Again, I'm not saying that. You are saying that I said that.

No sufficient reason. Again, please refrain from re-stating my argument for me.
So, just to be clear. Your argument is that despite the fact that there was little to no opposition to the idea of going to war with Iraq when the decision was being made, there was never sufficient reason to go into Iraq?

All this despite the fact that many of these democratic senators currently harping on the administration for making the wrong decision in going to war had access to the same intel as the president and didn't say a peep against the decision at the time. You would think, if there wasn't sufficient reason to go to war, that someone like Biden, Kerry or even Ted Kennedy would have come out in direct opposition to stop what they knew would be an "illegal war for oil".

Yet, all we got was silence...that is, until the US didn't find massive stocks of WMD by month 4.

[st.cronin]

When did I call it unilateral? Like Arles, you are framing my argument for me, and getting it wrong. Please try again.

Sorry if I misread you - I could swear somebody said unilateral in this thread, I thought it was you.

[st.cronin]

Dola

I may have been confuzzled - I read a really stupid editorial this am which accused Bush and Rice of 'destroying the Iraqi nation.' Anyway, never mind...

[flere-imsaho]

So, just to be clear. Your argument is that despite the fact that there was little to no opposition to the idea of going to war with Iraq when the decision was being made, there was never sufficient reason to go into Iraq?

Nope. Two arguments here, anyway (actually, responses). With regard to your claim that Democrats were either silent on the issue or were in support of military action, there were, in fact, many Democrats opposed to the Iraq War, particularly the way it was prosecuted by the Bush Administration. Key to their arguments was that the U.S. shouldn't go in without full U.N. support (which really means without support from the "major" world players, which I'll designate as the G7 + Russia). Many of the Democrats you quote as for the war fall into this category, which can be readily seen if you expand the above quotes you give into their full context, which is exactly what the link I provided does.

As to your second argument, that there existed no evidence to support such an anti-War stance (an anti-War stance based on evidence, as opposed to principle), I've pointed out that several government agencies, including the State Department's intelligence agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency, gave advice to the Administration that Iraq wasn't an immediate threat.

[flere-imsaho]

Sorry if I misread you - I could swear somebody said unilateral in this thread, I thought it was you.

No problem. I've probably mischaracterized your position by mistake at some point as well, probably pre-coffee.... ;)

[-Mojo Jojo-]

All this despite the fact that many of these democratic senators currently harping on the administration for making the wrong decision in going to war had access to the same intel as the president and didn't say a peep against the decision at the time.

Didn't say a peep? I think the comments of Senator Russ Feingold at the time of the war authorization vote are representative of many Democrats:


Both in terms of the justifications for an invasion and in terms of the mission and the plan for the invasion, Mr. President, the Administration's arguments just don't add up. They don't add up to a coherent basis for a new major war in the middle of our current challenging fight against the terrorism of al Qaeda and related organizations. Therefore, I cannot support the resolution for the use of force before us.

But, Mr. President, I am increasingly troubled by the seemingly shifting justifications for an invasion at this time. My colleagues, I'm not suggesting there has to be only one justification for such a dramatic action. But when the Administration moves back and forth from one argument to another, I think it undercuts the credibility of the case and the belief in its urgency. I believe that this practice of shifting justifications has much to do with the troubling phenomenon of many Americans questioning the Administration's motives in insisting on action at this particular time.

What am I talking about? I'm talking about the spectacle of the President and senior Administration officials citing a purported connection to al Qaeda one day, weapons of mass destruction the next day, Saddam Hussein's treatment of his own people on another day, and then on some days the issue of Kuwaiti prisoners of war.

Mr. President, for some of these, we may well be willing to send some 250,000 Americans in harm's way. For others, frankly, probably not. These litanies of various justifications -- whether the original draft resolution, the new White House resolution, or regrettably throughout the President's speech in Cincinnati -- in my view set the bar for an alternative to a U.S. invasion so high that, Mr. President, I'm afraid it almost locks in -- it almost requires -- a potentially extreme and reckless solution to these problems.

I am especially troubled by these shifting justifications because I and most Americans strongly support the President on the use of force in response to the attacks on September 11, 2001. I voted for Senate Joint Resolution 23, the use of force resolution, to go after al Qaeda and the Taliban and those associated with the tragedies of September 11. And I strongly support military actions pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 23.

But the relentless attempt to link 9-11 and the issue of Iraq has been disappointing to me for months, culminating in the President's singularly unpersuasive attempt in Cincinnati to interweave 9-11 and Iraq, to make the American people believe that there are no important differences between the perpetrators of 9-11 and Iraq.

Mr. President, I've reviewed the intermittent efforts to suggest a connection of 9-11 and Saddam Hussein or suggest the possibility that such a connection has developed since 9-11. Let me be very clear. If in fact there was a connection in planning together for the 9-11 attack by Saddam Hussein or his agents and the perpetrators of 9-11 and al Qaeda, I've already voted for military action. I have no objection.

But if it is not, if this is premised on some case that has supposedly been made with regard to a subsequent coalition between al Qaeda and the Iraqi government, I think the President has got to do better. He's got to do better than the shoddy piecing together of flimsy evidence that contradicts the very briefings we've received by various agencies, Mr. President.

I'm not hearing the same things at the briefings that I'm hearing from the President's top officials. In fact, on March 11 of this year, Vice President Cheney, following a meeting with Tony Blair, raised fears of weapons of mass destruction falling into the hands of terrorists. He said, "We have to be concerned about the potential" -- potential -- "marriage, if you will, between a terrorist organization like al Qaeda and those who hold or are proliferating knowledge about weapons of mass destruction." So in March, it was a potential marriage.

Then the Vice-President said, on September 8, without evidence -- and no evidence has been given since that time -- that there are "credible but unconfirmed" intelligence reports that 9-11 ringleader Mohammed Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence official several months before 9-11. We've seen no proof of that.

And finally then, the Secretary of Defense follows on September 27 of this year and says, "There is bulletproof evidence of Iraqi links to al Qaeda, including the recent presence of senior al Qaeda members in Baghdad." I don't know where this comes from, Mr. President. This so-called potential marriage in March is beginning to sound like a 25th wedding anniversary at this point.

The facts just aren't there, or at least they have not been presented to me in the situations where they should have been presented to me as an elected Member of this body. In other words, the Administration appears to use 9-11 and the language of terrorism and the connection to Iraq too loosely, almost like a bootstrap.

Mr. President, I'm especially dismayed at the weak response to the potential drain on our military capability and resources in our fight against terrorism if we go forward with this invasion at this time. The Administration likes to quickly say, whenever asked whether we can do this and fight the war against terrorism, they just simply say, "we can do both." There's no proof, there's no real assurance of this. I find these answers glib, at best.

In any event, I oppose this resolution because of the continuing unanswered questions, including the very important questions about what the mission is here, what the nature of the operation will be, what will happen concerning weapons of mass destruction in Iraq as the attack proceeds and afterward, and what the plan is after the attack is over. In effect, Mr. President, we're being asked to vote on something that is unclear. We don't have answers to these questions. We're being asked to vote on something that is almost unknowable in terms of the information we've been given.


Mr. President, we need an honest assessment of the commitment required of America. If the right way to address this threat is through internationally-supported military action in Iraq and Saddam Hussein's regime falls, we will need to take action to ensure stability in Iraq. This could be very costly and time consuming, could involve the occupation -- the occupation, Mr. President, of a Middle Eastern country. Now, this is not a small matter. The American occupation of a Middle Eastern country. Consider the regional implications of that scenario, the unrest in moderate states that calls for action against American interests, the difficulty of bringing stability to Iraq so we can extricate ourselves in the midst of regional turmoil. Mr. President, we need much more information about how we propose to proceed so that we can weigh the costs and benefits to our national security.

So, Mr. President, I believe that to date the Administration has failed to answer the key questions to justify the invasion of Iraq at this time. Yes, September 11 raises the emotional stakes and raises legitimate new questions. This makes the President's request understandable, but it doesn't make it wise.

I am concerned that the President is pushing us into a mistaken and counterproductive course of action. Instead of this war being crucial on the war on terrorism, I fear it could have the opposite effect.

And so this moment -- in which we are responsible for assessing the threat before us, the appropriate response, and the potential costs and consequences of military action -- this moment is of grave importance. Yet there is something hollow in our efforts. In all of the Administration's public statements, its presentations to Congress, and its exhortations for action, Congress is urged to provide this authority and approve the use of our awesome military power in Iraq without knowing much at all about what we intend to do with it.

We are about to make one of the weightiest decisions of our time within a context of confused justifications and vague proposals. We are urged, Mr. President, to get on board and bring the American people with us, but we don't know where the ship is sailing.

[Arles]

I stated:

All this despite the fact that many of these democratic senators currently harping on the administration for making the wrong decision in going to war had access to the same intel as the president and didn't say a peep against the decision at the time.
I'll give you Feingold, he was against the war all the way back in April of 2002. But, remember, his stance was simply that war isn't the best option to deal with Saddam - similar to what the UN was stating. Nowhere did Feingold or any of the others state they did not believe Saddam had WMD. In fact, he admitted as much in one of the quotes you posted:
what the nature of the operation will be, what will happen concerning weapons of mass destruction in Iraq as the attack proceeds and afterward, and what the plan is after the attack is over.
Feingold's stance was about the use of war to remove a dictator like Saddam who had WMD, but not a clearly defined direct tie-in to Al Qaeda. He didn't feel that a war was needed in that case given what we were working on in Afghanistan. Had we found 1000 tons of WMD in Iraq, his point would have still remained.

And, for people that believed Saddam should not have been removed even if he had 1000 tons of WMD, I would think Feingold was a nice option at the time. But, if you felt the WMD issue was enough to go to war with Iraq over (not to mention the human rights and harboring issues), then there was nothing that Feingold could have done to sway you. That's why more in the DNC didn't follow his lead.

[flere-imsaho]

Back to the original topic, I read with interest today's column by David Brooks, who I believe is the only real conservative columnist writing for the New York Times. I'll paste it in full here for those who don't want to register but here's the link. (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/19/opinion/19brooks.html?ei=5070&en=091cfd80c6cdcd99&ex=1116648000&pagewanted=print)


May 19, 2005
Bashing Newsweek
By DAVID BROOKS

Maybe it won't be so bad being cut off from the blogosphere. I look around the Web these days and find that Newsweek's retracted atrocity story has sent everybody into cloud-cuckoo-land. Every faction up and down the political spectrum has used the magazine's blunder as a chance to open fire on its favorite targets, turning this into a fevered hunting season for the straw men.

Many of my friends on the right have decided that the Newsweek episode exposes the rotten core of the liberal media. Dennis Prager, who is intelligent 99 percent of the time, writes, "Newsweek is directly responsible for the deaths of innocents and for damaging America." Countless conservatives say the folks at Newsweek were quick to believe the atrocity tales because they share the left-wing, post-Vietnam mentality. On his influential blog, Austin Bay writes that the coastal media "presume the worst about the U.S. military - always make that presumption."

Excuse me, guys, but this is craziness. I used to write for Newsweek. I know Mike Isikoff and the editors. And I know about liberals in the media. The people who run Newsweek are not a bunch of Noam Chomskys with laptops. Not even close. Whatever might have been the cause of their mistakes, liberalism had nothing to do with it.

Meanwhile, the left side of the blogosphere has erupted with fury over the possibility that American interrogators might not have flushed a Koran down the toilet. The Nation and leftish Web sites are in a frenzy to prove that the story is probably true even if Newsweek is retracting it.

This, too, is unhinged. Would it be illegal for more people on the left to actually be happy that a story slurring Americans may turn out to be unproven? Could there be a few more liberals willing to admit that prisoners routinely lie about their treatment? (Do we expect them to say their time in captivity wasn't so bad?)

Then I click my mouse over to the transcripts of administration statements and I can't believe what I'm seeing. We're in the middle of an ideological war against people who want to destroy us, and what have the most powerful people on earth become? Whining media bashers. They're attacking Newsweek while bending over backward to show sensitivity to the Afghans who just went on a murderous rampage.

Talk about the bigotry of low expectations.

Maybe we should all focus on what's important. Newsweek's little item was seized and exploited by America's enemies in a way that was characteristically cynical, delusional and fascistic.

The people who seized upon this item, like the radical clerics in Afghanistan, are cynical in the way they manipulate episodes like this to whip up hatred and so magnify their own standing.

At the same time, they believe everything that could be alleged about America - and more. They've spent so many years inhabiting a delusional mental landscape filled with conspiracy theories and paranoia that you could drill deep into their minds without ever touching reality.

Finally, they are strategically ruthless. Jeffrey Goldberg of The New Yorker, who has spent years reporting on extremists, says they use manufactured spasms of hatred to desensitize their followers. After followers spend a few years living through rabid riots and vicious sermons, killing an American or a Jew or even a fellow Muslim seems no more consequential than killing a mosquito. That's how suicide bombers are made.

The rioters are the real enemy, not Newsweek and not the American soldiers serving as prison guards. Just to restore some proper perspective, let me quote a snippet from a sermon delivered by Sheik Ibrahim Mudeiris, which ran last weekend on the Palestinian Authority's official TV station:

"The day will come when we will rule America. The day will come when we will rule Britain and the entire world - except for the Jews. The Jews will not enjoy a life of tranquillity under our rule because they are treacherous by nature, as they have been throughout history. The day will come when everything will be relieved of the Jews - even the stones and trees which were harmed by them. Listen to the Prophet Muhammad, who tells you about the evil end that awaits Jews. The stones and trees will want the Muslims to finish off every Jew."

These are the extremists, the real enemy. Let's keep our eye on the ball.

[Arles]

Excellent column, and one I agree with. I think newsweek acted a little carelessly (not out of politics but because the story was sexy), but I don't fault them for what happened in Afghanistan. I think the one thing it does show is how tolerant Americans are. When Jesus is defaced in some sculpture or the Bible is attacked you don't see Christians riot in the streets. You don't see American jewish groups burning buildings when the numerous anti-semetic statements and actions are made in Europe and the Middle East. Finally, You didn't see American muslims riot in the streets when Newsweek released this story.

This is a fanatic enemy and offering them a scapegoat of Newsweek is not the answer. But I do not think it is too much to ask for a major media organization to do its due diligence when dealing with something that obviously politically sensitive. I certainly wouldn't expect them to run with a flamatory story about the DNC or RNC with such little verification. So, I see no reason why they should do the same to the military. But, again, these acts in the Middle East should not be put entirely on Newsweek's shoulders.

[Glengoyne]

HEY I love it when someone calls a spade a spade.

I think he's right on target, the real evildoers here were those who reacted to the story, not those who wrote it.

[flere-imsaho]

Yeah, I thought it was interesting too. For the record, I agree with both of your followups, Arles & Glengoyne.

[gstelmack]

And I'm amazed at the number of people that think it's okay for the media to just make stuff up. Blaming them for the Afghan deaths is definitely over the top, but why does the media continue to get away with publishing stories like this?

[Arles]

And I'm amazed at the number of people that think it's okay for the media to just make stuff up. Blaming them for the Afghan deaths is definitely over the top, but why does the media continue to get away with publishing stories like this?
But is the media really "getting away with it"? CBS just announced it's cancelling 60 Minutes Wednesday because of poor viewing following the Rather scandle. In the past two weeks, Newsweek has been under heavy fire and I would be surprised if they didn't face some sort of backlash from a subscription standpoint.

I certainly think Newsweek should have received some backlash for its out of character cavalier attitude towards what could be verified in this story. But I don't think it needs to go to the level of blaming Newsweek for these deaths or implementing some kind of serious criminal charge. The point is that I think Newsweek has learned its lesson and used a "muligan" of sorts. If they do a similar thing in the near future, they could really face a public wrath.

In the end, the consumers can control the fate of the media. I just don't think it warranted to go beyond what has already happened in this case.

[MrBigglesworth]

...why does the media continue to get away with publishing stories like this?
The Newsweek 'scandal' is not bad at all. They had a source that said that the Koran flushing incident would be in an upcoming FBI report, so they reported that it would be in an upcoming FBI report. They did their own policing and found it that it wasn't going to be in it, so they retracted that statement on their own volition. Compare that to any one of the hundreds of blatant lies that go out on the conservative airwaves every day that are never retracted.

I can't believe people are more horrified by the media attempting to do its job than they are at the barbarous actions being done in their name.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I can't believe people are more horrified by the media attempting to do its job than they are at the barbarous actions being done in their name.

Well, if you believe that job is doing something to harm the nation ... well, I guess that means they get to hang a "Mission Accomplished" banner to.

[gstelmack]

The Newsweek 'scandal' is not bad at all. They had a source that said that the Koran flushing incident would be in an upcoming FBI report, so they reported that it would be in an upcoming FBI report. They did their own policing and found it that it wasn't going to be in it, so they retracted that statement on their own volition. Compare that to any one of the hundreds of blatant lies that go out on the conservative airwaves every day that are never retracted.
This isn't a left/right thing. I don't listen to most of those conservative airwaves (nor "Air America") either. It's reached a point where I have a hard time believing almost anything said by any of the media sources until I see it mentioned in many places. And even then it's difficult when they all are using the same original source bit.

As for the Newsweek 'scandal' not being bad, they should have policed it in the first place. The print media has a long history of blasting headlines all over the front page, and then printing the retractions way in the back somewhere. It's not a practice I've ever been fond of, and it comes after the damage has been done. The media never makes the same effort with the retraction that they did telling the story in the first place.

[JonInMiddleGA]

The media never makes the same effort with the retraction that they did telling the story in the first place.

Not to mention the amount of effort put into making up the story in the first place. The telling of it sometimes pales in comparison.

[MrBigglesworth]

Well, if you believe that job is doing something to harm the nation ... well, I guess that means they get to hang a "Mission Accomplished" banner to.
What job? You mean 'help' the nation? I believe in the first amendment and do not think that a free press harm's the nation.

[JonInMiddleGA]

What job? You mean 'help' the nation? I believe in the first amendment and do not think that a free press harm's the nation.

Depends on the way it is exercised, specifically whether it is exercised with any judgement, reason, or values.

[MrBigglesworth]

As for the Newsweek 'scandal' not being bad, they should have policed it in the first place.
It would be impossible to verify with 100% accuracy every story before it runs. News outlets then are forced to make their best judgement on whether something is true or not. Most of the time they get it right, sometimes they get it wrong, and they get it wrong on both sides. The Swift Boat people were in the media forever, as was the meme that 'Al Gore said he invented the Internet'.

[MrBigglesworth]

Depends on the way it is exercised, specifically whether it is exercised with any judgement, reason, or values.
I am assuming you are going to tell me that the MSM has no judgement, reason, or values?

[MrBigglesworth]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/20/international/asia/20abuse.html?hp&ex=1116561600&en=8701738ac057aebe&ei=5094&partner=homepage
The prisoner, a slight, 22-year-old taxi driver known only as Dilawar, was hauled from his cell at the detention center in Bagram, Afghanistan, at around 2 a.m. to answer questions about a rocket attack on an American base. When he arrived in the interrogation room, an interpreter who was present said, his legs were bouncing uncontrollably in the plastic chair and his hands were numb. He had been chained by the wrists to the top of his cell for much of the previous four days. . . .

At the interrogators' behest, a guard tried to force the young man to his knees. But his legs, which had been pummeled by guards for several days, could no longer bend. An interrogator told Mr. Dilawar that he could see a doctor after they finished with him. When he was finally sent back to his cell, though, the guards were instructed only to chain the prisoner back to the ceiling. . . .

Several hours passed before an emergency room doctor finally saw Mr. Dilawar. By then he was dead, his body beginning to stiffen. It would be many months before Army investigators learned a final horrific detail: Most of the interrogators had believed Mr. Dilawar was an innocent man who simply drove his taxi past the American base at the wrong time.
At least that Koran flushing story is inaccurate though, right? Damn MSM, reporting this type of stuff withing reason or values, don't they know we have a war to win?

[JonInMiddleGA]

... don't they know we have a war to win?

Bingo Biggy, now you're starting to get it.

There's very little on my list of concerns lower than this sort of thing. I'm utterly & completely comfortable with 100 of these (let's run with the theory that this was wrong-place/wrong-time) as long as they get the right 1 in the process.

[MrBigglesworth]

Bingo Biggy, now you're starting to get it.

There's very little on my list of concerns lower than this sort of thing. I'm utterly & completely comfortable with 100 of these (let's run with the theory that this was wrong-place/wrong-time) as long as they get the right 1 in the process.
Sorry for playing stereotypes, but are you a big Christian? Because we are doing what the Romans did to Christ, and I was wondering how the religious right squares that in their head.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Sorry for playing stereotypes, but are you a big Christian? Because we are doing what the Romans did to Christ, and I was wondering how the religious right squares that in their head.

Suffice to say that my religion and my politics aren't co-joined at the hip. That'd be pretty much impossible since I'm a pro-choicer ;)

(I'll go ahead & try to save you an obvious question -- I'm a staunch pro-choicer and advocate of abortion-on-demand-as-long-as-you-can-pay-for-it, but it isn't as influential on my voting as other issues)

[yabanci]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/20/international/asia/20abuse.html?hp&ex=1116561600&en=8701738ac057aebe&ei=5094&partner=homepage

At least that Koran flushing story is inaccurate though, right? Damn MSM, reporting this type of stuff withing reason or values, don't they know we have a war to win?

regarding the NY Times piece, this is why nobody believes the americans. Lies, lies, and more lies:

Military spokesmen maintained that both men had died of natural causes, even after military coroners had ruled the deaths homicides. Two months after those autopsies, the American commander in Afghanistan, then-Lt. Gen. Daniel K. McNeill, said he had no indication that abuse by soldiers had contributed to the two deaths. The methods used at Bagram, he said, were "in accordance with what is generally accepted as interrogation techniques."