« Bush Lied, Blair Lied ... NOT | Main | No Torture? No Chance! / Keine Folter? Keine Chance! »

Comments

The next thing you know, there will be 2 million Afghans returning home!!!!!

As for regime change, this wasn't a Bushitler secret plan written in
a Texican Mein Kampf - it has been the official policy of the
United States Government, put forth by President Clinton in February 1998.

The comparison between Iraq and Kosovo is highly disingenous. There was no "genocide" in Kosovo, and if anything, Hussein's human rights record was far worse than Milosevic's. Yet in Kosovo the German government found it acceptable to use force without UN sanction, whereas in Iraq it denounced the US intervention in the strongest terms. I'm amazed that the Greens (and the current SPD/Green government) aren't called on this obvious inconsistency more often. After Kosovo, how can anyone take the German government's supposed reverence for the UN seriously?

Let's not forget about the millions of Afghan refugees who were supposed to freeze and starve as the result of the American war in Afghanistan.

Because most Germans forgot about it. I'm still waiting for a German filmmaker travelling abroad and telling the Americans how little Germans know and care about the world they live in. Or how few Germans are fluent in a foreign language. Or that a higher proportion of Americans are at the highest literacy level than Germans are. Or that a majority of Germans could not associate German federal state names with a given map of Germany. Or that a majority of German adolescents cannot name the last three German Chancellors. Or that many German highways have no speed limits ("German Mad Maxes") ...

One source of credit to the Germans, I didn't see their country prominently shown on the Saddam "Money-for-Saddam" payola list.

Otherwise, I find the 'bad Saddam/bad war' a difficult argument to retain.


Makiya:
"La France a refusé qu'on envoie des inspecteurs en Droits de l'Homme en Irak"

Where is the anger about that fact ?

Why France wants WMD-Inspectors in Iraq, but no Human Rights Inspectors ???

Ah, if Muslims kill Muslims, it's normal, killed by american is forbidden.

you can see the comment of the page:

http://www.proche-orient.info/xjournal_pol_int.php3?id_article=10482

for everyone who likes to read it and speaks French

Reality bites.

I have yet to read of any German (or French for that matter) publication admitting to the reality of Pre-War Iraq. Not only that Saddam was a saddistic killer but also that sanctions were being undermined by Russia, France and Germany (see oil for food). That the US and Britian were still patrolling the the No Fly zone to protect Kurds and Shiia in the South and that there were known terrorists living in Baghdad (Abu Nidel being one).

The US wanted the War? abso-f'ing-lutely. Thank God.

Two questions about this posting:
1. Why do you quote Christian Ströbele's remark that an attack on Iraq might cause "tens of thousands of deaths" as an example for "false predictions" of prominent Greens, when estimates of the number of casualties show that this may have been a correct prediction?
2. Why do you write: "The Greens point to 'more inspections' as the alternative road that should have been followed, but fail to mention how 'more inspections' would have accomplished anything after 12 years and 17 UN resolutions worth of failed inspections."? Didn't the US-inspectors actually find out that the largest part of Iraq's arsenal was being destroyed in the inspections between 1991 and 1998? And didn't we observe more cooperation from the regime when Hans Blix went into Iraq?

@ Anonymous

Answer to 1.: When you have the Greens themselves actually stating that the number of dead and wounded are not as high as they presumed that proves that they overestimated things to say the least. I can remember them predicting World War III and the entire conflict causing the entire Middle East to explode. The point is they were wrong, they exaggerated and they scared people on purpose for political gain. And no one is complaining about it now in the media. BTW, do you know how many people Saddam's regime killed both directly and indirectly? Go look that one up...

Answer to 2. One of the only reasons the inspections saw results in the mid-1990s is because of the defection of Hussein Kamel, a son-in-law of Saddam Hussein who gave inspectors useful leads on Saddam's WMD before he was brutally murdered by the Hussein regime upon his return to Iraq. And despite that, Saddam threw out the inspectors in 1998 and got away with it because the French, Chinese and Russians let him get away with it. The only thing the US could do was launch airstrikes. And your assertion that Saddam cooperated because Blix went to Iraq isn't even made by the Greens who now openly admit that military threats were essential to getting Saddam to cooperate.

It is interesting how the Greens continually revise their position to suit their political needs. Hopefully, most Germans can see through this cheap form of political opportunism.

"Didn't the US-inspectors actually find out that the largest part of Iraq's arsenal was being destroyed in the inspections between 1991 and 1998? And didn't we observe more cooperation from the regime when Hans Blix went into Iraq?"

Want some cake?

(...) In 1999, a senior Iraqi "trade" delegation went to Niger. Uranium accounts for 75 percent of Niger's exports. The rest is goats, cowpeas and onions. So who sends senior trade missions to Niger? Maybe Saddam dispatched his Baathist big shots all the way to the dusty capital of Niamy because he had a sudden yen for goat and onion stew with a side order of black-eyed peas, and Major Wanke, the then-president, had offered him a great three-for-one deal. (...)

Major Wanke's prime minister, among others, told Ambassador Wilson that he believed Iraq wanted yellowcake. And Ambassador Wilson told the CIA. And the CIA's report agreed with the British and the Europeans that "Iraq was attempting to procure uranium from Africa." (...)

Saddam wanted yellowcake for one reason: to strike at his neighbors in the region, and beyond that at Britain, America and his other enemies. In other words, he wanted the uranium in order to kill you."

Bill Clinton remembers clearly

In his own words:

"(...) it’s clear in our country according to our own Senate, the Intelligence was not what it should have been. But at the time nearly everybody thought there was probably a stock of chemical and biological weapons there and it was vulnerable to falling into the wrong hands, either by design or by corruption within Saddam’s regime. And essentially the French and the Germans said we still don’t care."

@ Ray D.:
ad 1: My point was that Ströbele's prediction has not been proven to be wrong, but that there is a lot of evidence that it was correct.
And I know that Saddam's pack of murderers killed thousands of people every year, but the question is, wether war is the right method to stop such things.
ad 2: I know about Hussein Kamel. According to Rolf Ekeus his testimony "added some additional confirmation" to what the inspectors already suspected. What Bush said about that in his speech before the United Nation's General Assembly was a lie! And, BTW: Hussein Kamel also said that all WMDs were destroyed in 1991 (of course: this was not enough to stop the inspections).
And yes, the military pressure was helpful for bringing the inspectors back into Iraq. But after that Saddam began to cooperate, didn't he?
@ Yours Digitally: Actually it's your article that is lying. You should read this very fine piece by David Corn on Joe Wilson.

"Saturday, July 17, 2004

The fifth authority.

The media is losing credibility among audience and this is happening so fast and it is a huge mistake.
I want to say to the media: by continuing like this you’re taking the dictators and terrorists’ side and you’re feeding their arrogance when you say "We were wrong when we went to Iraq" or "Iraq was better off before the war and Iraqis and the world are suffering because of the war" and you’re using the failure to find the Iraqi WMDs and the casualties among Iraqi civilians as a weapon in this media war."

Read more here:

http://www.iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/


A little objection:
The claims: "We were wrong when we went to Iraq." and "Iraq was better off before the war and Iraqis and the world are suffering because of the war." don't play in the same league. And - with all due respect to this blogger - just because some media commentators express a negative opinion about the war, they are not "taking the dictators and terrorists’ side". I think both the WMD-issue and the issue of Iraqi casualties deserve public discussion.

Anonymous,

"I think both the WMD-issue and the issue of Iraqi casualties deserve public discussion."

You don't think these issues have been discussed publicly?

You seemed very concerned about iraqi casualties caused by the war. As you and all of us should be. I wonder how concerned you were about the hundreds of thousands of iraqi casualties caused by Saddam and his wars? Do do they deserve discussion?

Your desire to discuss the WMD and casualties is an attempt to obfuscate.

Prior to the invasion of Iraq the Kurds had set up an atonomous state under the protection of the US and Britian via the No Fly Zone. The Shia in the south were being protected in a similar fashion. Saddam harbored and paid terrorists and attempted to buy uranium from Niger. The ME was ripe with nuclear weapon's proliferation via the scientist from Pakistan, Mr. Khan (see Libia, Iran and North Korea). The UN sanctions were being systematically undermined by US allies. Prior to 9/11 these allies had continually called for the lifting of sanctions. The inspection were a means by which US allies perpetuated a UN program (oil for food) that benefited them both economically and politically.

After 9/11 the continuation of this situation was for the US untenable. The WMD issues was the legalese argument the Bush administration made to satisfy "allies" at the UN. "Regime Change" had been the stated and congressionally approved policy of the Clinton administration.

Was war the only means by which the world and Iraq could have rid itself of Saddam? Taking into consideration all of the existing circumstances the answer is yes.

I think both the WMD-issue and the issue of Iraqi casualties deserve public discussion.

I agree entirely. The problem is these are practically the only things (the negatives) being discussed in the German media when it comes to Iraq. There is no balance. Many other people have recognized the same problem.

And yes, the military pressure was helpful for bringing the inspectors back into Iraq. But after that Saddam began to cooperate, didn't he?

Saddam only cooperated to a minimal extent, and he only did so to buy time and to try to save his own hide while trying to divide the Western nations. He never fully cooperated with weapons inspectors as demanded in UN resolution 1441. He only did what he thought necessary to survive in power.

How long was the US supposed to keep the threat of force in place, for another 12 years? Who would have paid for it? We know that, even if Saddam had no actual WMD (which is not conclusively proven), that he maintained the plans for a WMD program (which Hussein Kamel confirmed) in the hope that the international community would eventually give up on and lose interest in inspections. He almost succeeded with the help of the European left, but fortunately Bush was determined not to let him get away with it (despite the massive divisions his actions caused.)

Unfortunately, calling dictators "an urgent question" as the Greens have done is not an actual adequate means of dealing with the very real threat posed to the world by autocratic tyrants.

"You don't think these issues have been discussed publicly?"

They were discussed publicly and the discussion should be continued. I just made an objection against the article Gabi has posted.

"I wonder how concerned you were about the hundreds of thousands of iraqi casualties caused by Saddam and his wars? Do they deserve discussion?"

Yes, they do.

"Saddam harbored and paid terrorists and attempted to buy uranium from Niger."

In my reply to "Yours Digitally" I already provided a link to an excellent article on the Niger-issue.

"'Regime Change' had been the stated and congressionally approved policy of the Clinton administration."

I know. But not necessarily by war. Bill Clinton has repeatedly stated that he, if he had been in Bush's place, wouldn't have gone to war before the end of the inspections.

"Was war the only means by which the world and Iraq could have rid itself of Saddam? Taking into consideration all of the existing circumstances the answer is yes."

That's your opinion. I am closer to the Green's position in that point and, therefore, still have my doubts on that.

"The problem is these are practically the only things (the negatives) being discussed in the German media when it comes to Iraq."

I don't think the situation is so bad. There is a clear Anti-Bush-tendency in the German media, but I've also seen Iraqis saying how they were tortured before the war or pictures of Iraqis who were happy about the liberation on German television.

"Saddam only cooperated to a minimal extent, and he only did so to buy time and to try to save his own hide while trying to divide the Western nations. He never fully cooperated with weapons inspectors as demanded in UN resolution 1441. He only did what he thought necessary to survive in power."

Now I need an explanation why Hans Blix, as the head of the inspection teams, said in his opinion they were "on a good way" in 2003.

"We know that, even if Saddam had no actual WMD (which is not conclusively proven), that he maintained the plans for a WMD program (which Hussein Kamel confirmed) in the hope that the international community would eventually give up on and lose interest in inspections."

You still think they might find an "actual WMD" in Iraq? However, the intentions of Saddam Hussein would hardly have been enough to justify a war.

"He almost succeeded with the help of the European left, but fortunately Bush was determined not to let him get away with it."

OK, let's assume that Bush and his adminstration was right: It was impossible to keep Saddam's ambitions under control without waging a war. Let's assume their intelligence showed that Saddam was probably already building WMDs. Then why did two prominent members of the government make this remarks?

Anonymous,

"That's your opinion. I am closer to the Green's position in that point and, therefore, still have my doubts on that."

You have your doubts and you always will. What I am suggesting is that your doubts are a way of obfuscating reality. Focusing on the WMD and casualties issues is a way of not acknowledging the political realities that existed and continue to exist in the US, EU, ME and the UN.

Voicing your doubts without context is pointless and my post was only an attempt at providing it.

You need to re-think your position on the Niger issue. Joe Wilson has been largely discredited. See todays edition of both NYT and WaPo.

@ Stacy:
You're accusing me of "not acknowledging the political realities". I, of course, don't think so: You didn't make any point that would have been justification enough for a war.
Ad Niger: Did you read David Corn's piece? It dissects the accusations against Ambassador Wilson. And please note that none of the reports could prove that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Niger.

If I remember well the International Red Cross planned for about a million Iraqi refugees in Jordan. Refugee camps were set up in the middle of the desert. That was a hush hush operation, so you could hardly speak of propaganda.

I guess the Greens are not to blame to think of a "worst case scenario". They weren't the only one. Had Saddam actually been that dangerous as he was painted (speaking of using WMD), this scenario would hardly have been exaggerated.

A Catch 22, sort of.

Anonymous,

Regarding Wilson:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/337paflu.asp

Tell me, were Bosnia and Kosovo "just" wars?

Stacy,

"Tell me, were Bosnia and Kosovo 'just' wars?"

Hm... You expect me to answer "yes", don't you? This is a classical fallacy: You try to argue against a position which is based on solid arguments. To discredit it, you ask a person who supports that position wether it also supports a position which, in your opinion, is equivalent. (One of the most awful examples is the classical argument of religious fundamentalists: "You are for gay marriage. Are you also for marriages with animals?") The answer is always the same: "Even if the consequence of supporting position A would be that you should support position B, it just means that I am inconsequent, not that I am wrong. I don't believe I am inconsequent, though."
Ray D., as you know, has adressed the issue in a current posting. His argument (and, I assume, your argument): "Saddam murdered at least 200,000 people, Milosevic 'only' 12,000. Therefore a humanitary intervention against Saddam was justified." The problem is that you are comparing things that should not be compared. The so-called "ethnic cleansing"-campaign lasted years, while Saddam killed 200,000 people in the two decades he was in power. The most brutal actions of the regime happened in the past, but people like, say, Donald Rumsfeld failed to do anything about it. How much people were killed in the Kosovo war? According to this article we have the following estimates:
NATO flew 38,000 combat missions over Kosovo. Yugoslavia claimed these attacks caused between 1,200 and 5,700 civilian casualties. Human Rights Watch claims a total of only 500 civilian deaths occurred in 90 separate incidents. NATO acknowledged killing at most 1,500 civilians. ... There were up to 5000 military casualties according to NATO estimates, while the official Serbian figure is around 1000.
That means that 2,500-10,700 people were killed. And in Iraq war? If you have read the Wikipedia-article you know that the number of 40,000 civilian casualties is a realistic estimate, while we can only speculate about the number of Iraqi soldiers killed (the lowest estimate was 5.000, the highest 45,000).

Let's come back to the Niger-issue: Your article makes the following points:
1. Joe Wilson claimed he had debunked the claims about Niger, but he hasn't.
2. Joe Wilson didn't know about the forged documents that "proved" the deal. He lied about that.
3. Wilson's trip to Niger was not reported to the vice president. He tried to decept the public.
4. Wilson downplayed the role of his wife.
5. Democrats prevented the committee from making certain conclusions about Wilson in its report.
6. Wilson's letter to the Intelligence Committee "is mainly notable for what it does not mention".
I begin with no. 6: Wilson's letter adresses not only the accusation that he was sent to Niger due to nepotism, although the reader is left with that impression. It adresses several accusations Roberts and the two other Senators made and which are repeated in this article, although not all of them.
No. 5: Even if the Democrats did so, the report also concludes that there was no political pressure on secret services, though Senator Rockefeller and other Democrats opposed that view.
No. 4: I think David Corn's article says everything about that charge. BTW: I can't believe that the article's author still is able to write this after reading Mr. Wilsons letter.
No. 3: Seemingly the vice president was indeed not briefed (I haven't got enough time to check that, I am just trusting the article). The only problem is that the article tries to prove that Wilson lied. Their evidence, if you read the article just one time, seems to be convincing. The only problem is that most quotes that the author uses to make his case are no direct, but indirect quotes. Journalists often misunderstand a person or quote out of context. The only direct quote this guy is using to prove the vice-president-point is this:
Records of his trip, he wrote in the Times, "should include" a "specific answer from the agency to the office of the vice president (this may have been delivered orally)." Wilson had "every confidence that the answer I provided was circulated to the appropriate officials within our government." Well, that depends on the meaning of appropriate. It certainly didn't get circulated to the vice president.
Do you notice something? Wilson said that Mr. Cheney should have received a report. That's not the same as saying that he has definitely read the report.
No. 2: Once again, the article uses indirect quotes, rather than direct quotes, to prove that Joe Wilson is a liar. Let's look what Joe Wilson has written in his letter to the committee:
Second conclusion: "Rather than speaking publicly about his actual experiences during his inquiry of the Niger issue, the former ambassador seems to have included information he learned from press accounts and from his beliefs about how the Intelligence Community would have or should have handled the information he provided."
This conclusion states that I told the committee staff that I "may have become confused about my own recollection after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported that the names and dates on the documents were not correct." At the time that I was asked that question, I was not afforded the opportunity to review the articles to which the staff was referring. I have now done so.
On March 7, 2003, the director general of the IAEA reported to the U.N. Security Council that the documents that had been given to him were "not authentic." His deputy, Jacques Baute, was even more direct, pointing out that the forgeries were so obvious that a quick Google search would have exposed their flaws. A State Department spokesman was quoted the next day as saying about the forgeries, "We fell for it." From that time on the details surrounding the documents became public knowledge and were widely reported. I was not the source of information regarding the forensic analysis of the documents in question; the IAEA was.
The first time I spoke publicly about the Niger issue was in response to the State Department's disclaimer. On CNN a few days later, in response to a question, I replied that I believed the U.S. government knew more about the issue than the State Department spokesman had let on and that he had misspoken. I did not speak of my trip.
My first public statement was in my article of July 6 published in the New York Times, written only after it became apparent that the administration was not going to deal with the Niger question unless it was forced to. I wrote the article because I believed then, and I believe now, that it was important to correct the record on the statement in the president's State of the Union address which lent credence to the charge that Iraq was actively reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. I believed that the record should reflect the facts as the U.S. government had known them for over a year. The contents of my article do not appear in the body of the report and it is not quoted in the "additional comments." In that article, I state clearly that "as for the actual memorandum, I never saw it. But news accounts have pointed out that the documents had glaring errors -- they were signed, for example, by officials who were no longer in government -- and were probably forged. (And then there's the fact that Niger formally denied the charges.)"
The first time I actually saw what were represented as the documents was when Andrea Mitchell, the NBC correspondent, handed them to me in an interview on July 21. I was not wearing my glasses and could not read them. I have to this day not read them. I would have absolutely no reason to claim to have done so. My mission was to look into whether such a transaction took place or could take place. It had not and could not. By definition that makes the documents bogus.

No 1: And, once again, many indirect quotes, but no direct quote. Unfortunately for Matthew Continetti, Wilson in his letter quotes his own op-ed article in the NYT: That he had "a small role in the effort to verify information about Africa's suspected link to Iraq's nonconventional weapons programs". And, furthermore:
After it became public that there were then-Ambassador to Niger Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick's report and the report from a four-star Marine Corps general, Carleton Fulford, in the files of the U.S. government, I went to great lengths to point out that mine was but one of three reports on the subject. I never claimed to have "debunked" the allegation that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa. I claimed only that the transaction described in the documents that turned out to be forgeries could not have occurred and did not occur.
And, to make a last point, even the Weekly Standard admits that "Wilson did say he was skeptical about claims of an Iraq-Niger uranium deal" after travelling to Niger.

"Actually it's your article that is lying. You should read this very fine piece by David Corn on Joe Wilson."

Actually, you're being an idiot for believing anything David Corn writes.

Here's a free advise. Next time you place your bet on a single card you better omit terms like "fine" as in "... this very fine piece by ...". It makes your evidence look even more suspicious.

William Safire from the New York Times, hardly a member of the vast right-wing conspiracy, weighs in:

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

— George W. Bush, State of the Union address, Jan. 28, 2003

Those were "the 16 words" in a momentous message to a joint session of Congress that were pounced on by the wrong-war left to become the simple centerpiece of its angry accusation that "Bush lied to us" — or, as John Kerry more delicately puts it — "misled" us into thinking that Saddam's Iraq posed a danger to the U.S.

The he-lied-to-us charge was led by Joseph Wilson, a former diplomat sent in early 2002 by the C.I.A. to Niger to check out reports by several European intelligence services that Iraq had secretly tried to buy that African nation's only major export, "yellowcake" uranium ore.

(...) But when word leaked about (...) fake documents — which were not the basis of the previous reporting by our allies — Wilson launched his publicity campaign, acting as if he had known earlier about the forgeries. The Senate reports that in his misleading anonymous leak to The Washington Post, "He said he may have misspoken . . . he said he may have become confused about his own recollection. . . ." The subsequent firestorm caused the White House to retreat prematurely with: "the sixteen words did not rise to the level of inclusion in the State of the Union address."

That apology was a mistake; Bush had spoken the plain truth. Did Saddam seek uranium from Africa, evidence of his continuing illegal interest in a nuclear weapon? Here is Lord Butler's nonpartisan panel, which closely examined the basis of the British intelligence:

". . . we conclude that the statement in President Bush's State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that `The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa' was well-founded."

But we all know that yellowcake in the hands of Saddam still means he poses no real threat to anyone. Actually, I think that even Saddam sitting on top of the World Trade Ce... oh, wait, that's gone ... ok, sitting on top of the Empire State Building with a nuke in one hand and the detonator in the other hand would still not satisfy the anti-war crowd because, "But he did not push the button! How do you know he'd done it? Innocent until proven guilty! We must stand by this principle even when facing such a cruel, old man! You don't want to rob him of his human rights, do you? This is the burden of our civilized nation, under all circumstances we must not abandon our values even when our enemies don't have any!"

Anonymous,

I got one more round left, so here you are.

"The most brutal actions of the regime happened in the past, but people like, say, Donald Rumsfeld failed to do anything about it."

... while people like, say, John Forbes Kerry already announced they won't do anything about, say, Iran in the future. But I got your drift. "Because Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld is to blame for everything."

"If you have read the Wikipedia-article you know that ..."

Wikipedia sure is the no. 1 source for unadultered hard facts regarding politics. Geez, I vividly remember endless discussions whether Palestinian terror should be categorized as such over there at Wikipedia, with moderators and admins seriously suggesting that it were Ok only if there was an Israeli terror counterpart. Sure those guys will never let their agenda come in the way when it's about collecting information.

"Wilson's letter adresses not only the accusation that he was sent to Niger due to nepotism, although the reader is left with that impression."

Apart from your blather we know that Wilson was sent to Niger due to nepotism.

"Even if the Democrats did so, the report also concludes that there was no political pressure on secret services, though Senator Rockefeller and other Democrats opposed that view."

Sure we want to give them the benefit of the doubt. Just as we do everday to Bush and his cabinet, right? Talking about double standards.

"I think David Corn's article says everything about that charge. BTW: I can't believe that the article's author still is able to write this after reading Mr. Wilsons letter."

Mr. Wilson's letter did not refute a single accusation, neither did Mr. Corn's article. What's the deal about your endless quotes from him? Repeating a lie will not turn it into a truth. Ah, I know - it's about a greater truth, right?

The fact is that Bush did not lie, while the one person who claimed Bush were lying did lie. All of which concerning one and the same matter.

"The only problem is that the article tries to prove that Wilson lied ... yadda ... yadda ... Do you notice something? Wilson said that Mr. Cheney should have received a report. That's not the same as saying that he has definitely read the report."

Somehow that tactic reminds me of someone whose name I forgot. A fat unshaved American filmmaker who makes wild allegations while rowing back with stuff like, "No, that's not what I said! I did no say I want to kill Bush!, I said I saw a movie about some dude who killed another one for good reasons, and the dead guys name rhymed with Bush!"

Ironically enough, in another post you had written, "You didn't make any point that would have been justification enough for a war.", while some posts below you state that, "while Saddam killed 200,000 people in the two decades he was in power".

I always wondered how you guys could bend your mind in such a way. Marvelous. You are not simply anti-war. You are on the other side.

Yours Digitally:
You say that the war was justified because Saddam Hussein killed 200,000 people in 20 years. And you say that Wikipedia is no credible source, because you (seemingly) think it was somehow left-left-wing.
Now, let's assume that the war has killed as much people as Saddam would have killed in, say, 8 years. For you it may be easy (or not?), but please try to understand that some other people can't so easily adopt the view that such a war was justified. The problem with your Wikpedia-point is that the article provides sources for all those numbers. And, in my judgement, those sources are credible.
Now, nobody denys that Saddam murdered (at least) 200,000 people. That means that the average number of people murdered per year was around 10,000. The problem is that this number was lower in the last years of Saddam's regime. Perhaps around 5,000. That means that the war killed at least as much innocent people as Saddam would have murdered in 9 years.
Now I come back to the alleged uranium deal in Niger. The article on "Justoneminute" firstly condemns David Corn for saying in his article there would have been nothing wrong with Wilson's wife recommending him for the trip while he "is grimly familiar with Mr. Wilson's many denials of this point". That's a cheapshot. Corn wrote in the same paragraph: "But because Wilson is on record saying it did not happen this way, the question is whether he has been truthful."
It continues, after quoting a sentence from the Senate report that, I admit, Mr. Corn shouldn't have let out of the picture: "Ms. Plame wrote a memo, and the next day wheels were turning. How was that overlooked here?" Hm... Imagine you would work for the CIA and look desperately for someone to check your information on Niger. Now you see a memo mentioning someone with good contacts in Africa. What do you do? Exactly.
In response to David Corn's statement that it is all not "a slam-dunk case against Wilson" the blogger says this was "not a perjury trial, either - the bar is lower in the court of public opinion". That's a very interesting remark. Is the role of Wilson's wife really so important? No. It's just an attempt to discredit him. It's just about public opinion, it has defnitely nothing to do with the really important questions about Niger.
Those questions are discussed here by quoting a few sentences from Wilson's book and, after that, claiming that he lied. However, they just show that Wilson might have overestimated how much meaning his report really had.
Finally your blogger makes a last attempt to attack Corn by replying to his point that "the leak is a subject that, for some odd reason, has escaped the attention of Roberts' investigators". He says: "The leak investigation is important, but it is separate." But two questions that were on the table were wether the White House sat pressure on intelligence analysts and wether they were or are maybe afraid to tell the truth about some things. The leak investigation is clearly related to both questions.
But let's come back to the issue wether Bush and members of his government had sufficient evidence to believe what they said about Niger. The Senate report points out that the USA's intelligence community received reports from foreign secret services that indeed indicated that Iraq sought uranium from Niger. The INR judged them as "highly suspect", CIA and DIA said these things were "possible". The vice president, after expressing his interest in the reports, was briefed that the information lacked "crucial details" and that some of it contradicted reporting from the U.S. Embassy in Niamey: "U.S. diplomats say the French Government-led consortium... maintains complete control over uranium mining and yellowcake production." So Mr.Cheney was clearly informed about the intelligence community's caveats. After Ambassador Wilson had traveled to Niger both the INR and the U.S. Embassy saw his results as a corroboration of their sceptical position. David Corn correctly points out that, although you can clearly not make the case that the Bushies lied when they denied that they knew about Wilson's journey any more.
The problem is that there are still legitimate questions about the way the administration has portrayed the information. For example, how was Dick Cheney able to say on August 26, 2002: "We now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons." To repeat it, the secret services told him about their caveats! And, seemingly, the evidence they had was so weak that the CIA concluded on June 17, 2003: "Since learning that the Iraq-Niger uranium deal was based on false documents earlier this spring, we no longer believe that there is sufficient other reporting to conclude that Iraq pursued uranium from abroad."
A very convincing justfication for the Iraq war, indeed!

"You say that the war was justified because Saddam Hussein killed 200,000 people in 20 years."

No. I was connecting the dots you presented.

"And you say that Wikipedia is no credible source, because you (seemingly) think it was somehow left-left-wing."

No, I don't think Wikipedia is left-left-wing. (While I do think that you believe I'm right-right-wing because I smashed your beloved Wikipedia.) I think the people of Wikipedia have a strong agenda which gets in the way of factual reporting.

As for the rest of your post, I didn't bother to read it as you've already proven that you're not anti-war but you've taken sides for terrorists and mass-murderers.

As for the rest of your post, I didn't bother to read it as you've already proven that you're not anti-war but you've taken sides for terrorists and mass-murderers.

That's nonsense, and you know that.
Just because someone disagrees with you and Mr. Bush on the way how to fight terrorists and mass-murderers he doesn't take their sides.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Our Mission

The Debate

Blog powered by Typepad

May 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31