Comments

Beyond a reasonable doubt: the standard of proof for pre-emptive war — 105 Comments

1. Honesty?

   How can you say France, Russia and China were protecting Saddam for the money (our ally Australia made the most money off the oil for food program, btw)…and not talk about the tens of billions of dollars Bush’s cronies have made off the Iraq War?

2. Neo, please, stop reading and quoting hacks like McCarthy and Kristol and go to the source.

3. Does part of that “source” claim that Bush told us that the threat was imminent? Does any part of that “source” contradict Sadaam’s overt defiance of the cease fire? Does that “source” deny that even if Sadaam didn’t have WMD’s, he sure as hell acted like he did by playing games with the inspectors during the 1990’s? Does that “source” argue against the philosophical belief that it’s better to risk unnecessarily disarming Sadaam than allowing him to thumb his nose at the cease fire?

   In short, please tell us how that “source” contradicts Neo’s thesis? We already know that just about the entire damn world thought Sadaam had WMD’s, even though there was evidence that he didn’t. Had we not invaded, we would still be suspecting, Sadaam would be even more emboldened, we would be forever hoping he didn’t have WMD’s and wondering if an aggressive thug who had the motive to terrorize us had the ability to.

   By your standards of proof, we would never know one way or the other until it was too late.

   However, even if Bush were correct and Sadaam had WMD’s, I find it hard to believe that the left would support our mission as it is now. The situation in Iraq would be largely the same, and “now that we we’ve done our job and gotten the WMD’s, it’s time to get out of Iraq and back to the real war.”

   Whatever we should have done before the war has very little bearing on what we should do now. Democrats emphasize WMD’s simply because it makes Bush look bad so that they can pretend it has something to do with what we should do today.

   How is the “we should finish the job” vs. “phased withdrawal” debate changed in the slightest by pre-war intelligence?

4. Lucid post.

   Underneath its lucidity lies the truth that Americans do not recognize the primary threat we face from without, which is

   1) the melding of:
   fundamentalist Islam
   tribal cultures
   honor/shame societies;

   combined with

   2) emerging weapons technologies.

   Why do Americans not recognize the primary threat from without?

   Answer: Because we cannot openly discuss and analyze the primary threat we face without being labeled as bigots.

   This truth constitutes the primary threat from within.

   There are ancillary reasons we do not recognize the primary threat from without:

   1) it is a difficult threat to explain – especially as its tenets cannot be filtered through a Westernized set of standards and principles.
   2) we are blessed with a President for whom explaining constitutes an adventure.
   3) national understanding of the threat will lead to a loss of power by the media and the Dems, and therefore media and Dems actively work to prevent national understanding of the threat.
   4) for strategic reasons, it is believed an American President cannot stride to a microphone and pronounce that the melding of fundamentalist Islam, tribal cultures, and honor/shame societies constitute a threat to America. Even so, I would like to see it happen. Reagan called the U.S.S.R. an “evil empire.” I would like to see another American President speak the truth. GWB has the guts to do so, if only he had the wisdom.

5. And alphie, how can “the tens of billions of dollars Bush’s cronies have made off the Iraq War” worry you so much and not the money made by China, France, and Russia?

   Even if Bush made money corruptly because of the invasion, Oil-for-Food was far more corrupt in every sense of the word, but I doubt that bothers you in the slightest. That leads me to suspect that you are concerned with injustice only if perpetuated by Bush.

6. I’m worried, bunnies, because win, lose or draw in Iraq, the people deciding whether America stays there or not (and to invade Iraq in the first place) are getting rich…just as long as we stay there.

   In other words, I question their impartiality.

7. In short, please tell us how that “source” contradicts Neo’s thesis?

   If anyone would bother to just *click* on it and read it, they will find that out. It might have evidence to support both sides of the thesis, but either way in my opinion it carries much more weight than articles in the Weekly Standard.

   See especially the parts about Nukes, WMD, and the Iraq-Al-Qaeda link.

8. Do you not question the impartiality of those who would get rich if we leave? Russia, China, and Total would surely benefit, would they not?

9. I did click on it but don’t have time to read the whole thing at the moment. If it has any information pertinent to the discussion at hand (i.e. Neo’s thesis), then it would help forward your case to point out how it does that.

   And even if it’s Daffy Duck claiming that Sadaam flaunted the agreements of the cease fire, it would still be true.

10. Who exactly are the cronies that have made “tens of billions” of dollars?

11. There is a common mistake made in arguments regarding the validity of the decision to go to war in 2003. This mistake regards the often-confused terms “preemptive war” and “preventive war”.

    A preemptive war is one waged when a threat is imminent – that is, you are certain that an enemy not only has the intent and capability to attack you, but has made specific plans to attack and has positioned forces to do so. Just war theorists include preemptive war within the limits of just war because it is, in essence, a defensive move – just war theorists do not expect nations to be masochists and martyrs, and accept that they will act against a threat that will do them harm but has not done so yet.

    A preventive war is one waged before a threat even exists – that is, there exists some actor hostile to you and your interests, which lacks the capability to attack but may be developing it, and has no specific plans or pre-positioned forces to do so. Just war theorists do not include preventive war within the limits of just war because it is essentially indistinguishable from aggressive war. That is, Country X might covet Country Y’s land, declare that Country Y might, some day in the future, pose a threat to Country X, therefore warranting a preventive war that no one else should challenge or question.

    Bush, in the quote provided above, was arguing for a preventive war. He was arguing that we could not even wait for the threat to exist; it was enough that the threat might exist in the future to justify war.

    Those who argued against preventive war were not arguing that we shouldn’t go to war unless an American city was nuked, or even that we shouldn’t go to war unless the missiles were on the launchpads, waiting for a press of a button. They were arguing, instead, that we shouldn’t go to war – a highly costly endeavor in terms of lives, money, and prestige – if no threat even yet existed. Since war is so very, very costly, since it is such a serious undertaking, we had better be sure we choose this option only when we’re certain we need to do so.

    Few people would argue against defending their children from an imminent threat; many would argue against waging a costly war against a possible maybe someday not yet threat. To characterize the war’s opponents otherwise reflects either a deep insincerity, or a profound lack of understanding of other human beings. If the former, shame. If the latter, how exactly did you get credentialed as a therapist? The number of people who are so highly principled as to advocate against defensive action until an American city is nuked probably enough to fill a Quaker splinter faction’s village meeting hall.

    We set the burden of proof high in our courts to protect the potentially innocent. We set the burden of proof in matters of war to protect ourselves from hasty, impulsive decisions that could cost us greatly, not to protect people like Saddam from unfair mischaracterizations.

12. Anon;

    The threat existed; Saddam was firing on US and British jets almost daily; he had used WMD on his own people; he had broken UN resolutions, he was interfering with UN inspections. This is hardly the innocent behavior (“some actor hostile to you and your interests, which lacks the capability to attack but may be developing it, and has no specific plans or pre-positioned forces to do so”) your post would imply. Your argument is specious.

13. “They were arguing, instead, that we shouldn’t go to war – a highly costly endeavor in terms of lives, money, and prestige – if no threat even yet existed. Since war is so very, very costly, since it is such a serious undertaking, we had better be sure we choose this option only when we’re certain we need to do so.”

    This indicates a dispute of definitions of terms. Anti-war folks believed that “no threat existed,” pro-war folks argued that there was enough evidence of a threat to act on ithowever, believing that acting too soon presented less risk than acting too late.

    Considering the nature of today’s enemies and the weapons they could have at their disposal, I am inclined to believe that we will be probably be “certain we need to” counter a threat only after that threat has materialized, at which point we could have already lost millions of lives.

    How could we have been certain that Sadaam wasn’t developing WMD’s without the cooperation on his part that he repeatedly failed to offer? He gave every indication that he was hiding something. The Clinton administration also believed that Sadaam presented a threat (Operation Desert Fox)–Bush only decided to act on that threat more decisively.

    I’m not accusing (most) anti-war folks of not wishing to counter imminent threats–I’m accusing them of defining “imminent” too narrowly and deemphasizing the dangers of gathering threats in a nuclear age. We have to sift our way through contradictory evidence, and I see far less danger “in terms of lives, money, and prestige” in assuming tha thugs like Sadaam are up to no good than in waiting to be “certain.”

    That’s the fundamental difference between us, and it’s not a mischaracterization.

14. To me, the most interesting part of all this debate is the part that the “hack” Andrew McCarthy (whose NRO biography, incidentally, notes that he is “a former chief assistant U.S. attorney who led the 1995 terrorism prosecution against Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and eleven others” — some hack) writes about, but which gets essentially ignored. That is, what would the state of things be today if we had not gone to war? It’s impossible to know, of course. But it strikes me that if you think going to war was a horrible mistake, then you must implicitly believe that things would in fact be better today had we not gone to war. Personally, I just don’t see it. I think Saddam still in power, having faced down the US, and probably having achieved the removal of sanctions (support for which was fading fast 5 years ago), would have become a problem that we would have had to fight anyway. Barring Saddam’s premature death by natural causes, I just think we were inevitably going to have to fight him again eventually. (And even if he had died naturally, it’s perfectly plausible to believe that those lovely sons of his would have put us in the same situation.)

15. The democratic party is the more inclusive, because it wants equal opportunity terrorism.

    The problem is that world terrorism has focused on Iraq and Afghanistan recently.

    The democrats want the US to share in the terrorism and have a plan for exactly that. Declare defeat overseas and pull the troops home. Elect a democratic party run government and continue the work Clinton began in dismantling the military.

    Declare the US an equal opportunity terrorist domain and welcome all jihadists who had been dying in Iraq and Afghanistan, to come to the US to live and work as jihadists.

    A devastating plan as I’m sure you’ll agree.

16. Too many trolls on this one. Phooey.

17. Steven,

    A little math:

    U.S. Defense budget before 9/11 – $300 billion a year.
    U.S. Defense budget since 9/11 – around $600 billion a year.

    $300 billion x 5 years = an extra $1.5 tirllion on spent on defense.

    Cost of oil before we invaded Iraq – $18 a barrel.
    Cost of after we invaded Iraq – around $65 a barrel.

    America burns about 20 million barrels of oil a day,

    So an extra $940 million a day going to the oil companies.

    So we get an extra $1.5 trillion going to defense companies and an extra $1.5 trillion going to the oil companies…

    $3 trillion in all.

    I’m not saying the money is the only reason we invaded Iraq, but it sure is a powerful motive, don’t you agree?

18. “The notion of needing to act to deter threats before they become imminent is not a new one.”

    This, likewise, is either a misuse or a misunderstanding (or both!) of the term “deterrence.” To deter is either to develop an ability to retaliate overwhelmingly to an attack, discouraging a would-be attacker from attacking by virtue of the high costs he would in turn incur, OR to develop a defense so strong as to make an attack a pointless or costly exercise for an attacker.

    Threatening massive retaliation against Saddam if he developed and gave nuclear weapons to al Qaeda would have been deterrence. Building up a credible defense to a nuclear attack by al Qaeda armed by Saddam would have been deterrence. Invading and overthrowing Saddam – this was not deterrence.

19. ‘The threat existed; Saddam was firing on US and British jets almost daily; he had used WMD on his own people; he had broken UN resolutions, he was interfering with UN inspections. This is hardly the innocent behavior (”some actor hostile to you and your interests, which lacks the capability to attack but may be developing it, and has no specific plans or pre-positioned forces to do so”) your post would imply. Your argument is specious.’

    Saddam firing on US and British jets daily is certainly a bad thing, but hardly a threat so dire and immediate that it warranted an invasion and occupation. The case made by the Bush administration was that the threat of Saddam someday developing WMD and giving them to a terrorist group which might then use them against us was so high – maybe in the future possibly – as to warrant a preventive war. Nothing you listed, so far as I can tell, is as dire as the use of WMD on the US by terrorists.

20. “Anti-war folks believed that “no threat existed,” pro-war folks argued that there was enough evidence of a threat to act on ithowever, believing that acting too soon presented less risk than acting too late.”

    That’s strange, because the President himself was arguing that, though no threat yet existed, the danger of the possibility of a threat was enough to justify war.

21. “That’s strange, because the President himself was arguing that, though no threat yet existed, the danger of the possibility of a threat was enough to justify war.”

    Again, wrong. The President said that no “imminent” threat existed; not that no threat existed. Comprehension problem?

22. Alphie:

    No, I don’t agree. World War II cost a lot of money too. I don’t think money had anything to do with why we fought World War II. And I don’t think it had anything to do with why we fought this war.

    As for the oil companies, who owns them? They are publicly traded companies, whose stock is held in virtually every pension fund, 401k account, and mutual fund in America. Are tens of millions of Americans “cronies” of the president?

    Anyway, the rise in the price of oil has had less to do with the war and more to do with the strength of the global economy over the last few years, particularly the vastly increased demand from China.

23. Let me unpack the President’s statement:

    “Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent.”

    If some are saying that we must not act until the threat is imminent, then there is no imminent threat. We agree on that much.

    “If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late.”

    “To emerge” can either mean to come out of hiding or obscurity into the open, or to come into existence. Since, all else being equal, a hidden threat is worse than a threat in the open – as it is harder to defend against a threat about which you don’t even know – I do not believe the president was warning the country about a threat become less dangerous by emerging. Instead, I interpret his use of the word “emerge” to mean “come into existence” – that is, the president was warning about a potential future threat.

    Now, there was an argument to be made that the possibility of Saddam developing WMD and giving them to al-Qa’ida was so threatening as to warrant action. That’s the argument the president made. He couched it, either conveniently or cleverly, in rhetoric that blurred the line between a threat and the threat of a threat (hence the discussion here).

    But that’s not the argument you’re making. You’re making the argument that a threat existed and that the president said “there is a threat.” But what threat could there have been that was not imminent and had not yet even emerged?

24. China’s demand for oil is up a few percentage points over the past few years, Steven. Hardly justifies a 300+% increase in the price of oil.

    And if you want to drag up WWII, defense company execs back then took $1 a year in pay and the liberals instituted price controls and rationing.

    Why doesn’t the pro war crowd ever bring that up when they mention WWII, I wonder?

    Who knows what actually led to our win in WWII?

    Maybe naked greed is why we’re losing our current war?

25. Also overlooked is the fact that, though Rumsfeld and others claimed they knew exactly where the WMD in Iraq were, the inspections had failed to reveal any WMD.

    By the time the invasion jumped off it was clear that there was likely no WMD in Iraq.

    Therefore, Iraq could not have posed a threat even in the medium term to the US.

    If it was thought that there was, somehow, WMD that had not yet been found, then the inspections could have been allowed to continue. Bush lied repeatedly, stating that “Saddam would not let the inspectors in”. David Kay, cheif inspector, disagrees. Why lie?

    At any rate, given a functioning WMD inspection program, there was no need to invade. The standard for preemptive war cannot be that some nation somewhere may some day decide to do something to cause the US harm so we can invade any nation any time they look at us cross eyed.

    Come on now, what sort of precedent does that set? It seems to set the stage for worldwide lawlessness and perpetual war based on innuendo and flimsy belief – perhaps naked aggression masquerading as belief.

    The US is better than that, braver and freer and more just.

    The factthat Saddams troops shot at US jets in the no-fly zone is not an excuse for war; only an excuse to neutralize anti-aircraft batteries (lame as they may be – any US aircraft shot down?).

    The factthat 10 years ealier Saddam had gassed Kurds (who were fommenting civil war BTW) is not an excuse for an ill planned unlikley to succeed US invasion.

    There is little to no way for an Iraqi gas attack to be directed against the US. Tons of the material must be fired via artillery or airiel bombardment for there to be an effect worse than, say, a fuel fertilizer bomb. Does anyone seriously think that Saddam was going to establish a fire support base on Long Island from which he would fire barrages into NYC???????????

    Finally, unaswered is the cost/benefit analysis including costs like handing Iraq over to Iran friendly shiites in Saddams absence post invasion (which appears to be happening and should have an obvious result from before the beginning – hint it’s why we supported Saddam when he was gassing Kurds, etc).

    No. There is no excuse for this war. Though I fully supported the Afghanistan campaign and wish it had been executed properly.

26. Alphie:

    OK, since you apparently consider yourself capable of explaining why the price of oil moves the way it does, explain why it went from $11.25 at the end of November, 1998, to $33 at the end of October, 2000. A tripling of price, with Clinton as president, pre-9/11. Was Clinton enriching his cronies?

    What matters in the oil market is the balance between the global supply and the global demand. If global suppply is running at 80 million barrels per day, and global demand goes from 79 million barrels to 81 million barrels (not a big percentage increase), the price will rise dramatically.

27. Steven,

    I think that blip was blamed on instability in Russia, the world’s second largest oil exporter.

    I’m sure some of Clinton’s cronies profited from it somehow. He bailed his pals at LTCM out when they lost their shirts in Russia.

28. foxnews.comSteven wrote:

    “[Re McCarthy] (whose NRO biography, incidentally, notes that he is “a former chief assistant U.S. attorney who led the 1995 terrorism prosecution against Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and eleven others” – some hack)”

    “Hack” does not refer to his past activities or profession – bu rather to the fact that he is currently on NRO cranking out partisan opinion columns. And in one of them he tried to pass off as fact (the Iraq / Niger / Uranium connection) something that was clearly contradicted by the bi-partisan Senate Intelligence Committee report I linked to (but which is apparently too long for some to be bothered to read).

    But it strikes me that if you think going to war was a horrible mistake, then you must implicitly believe that things would in fact be better today had we not gone to war.”

    That’s not outside the realm of possibility, is it?
    Worldwide Terror Attacks Up By 25 Percent in 2006

29. Neo’s original question is what level of evidence is sufficient to justify a war?
    I submit that the question isn’t complete. What is necessary is to think hard about what happens, what is most likely to happen, if we don’t go to war.
    What Saddaam was doing up until the invasion is one thing. The subsequent reports of WMD hunting emphasized that the infrastructure for WMD remained, the will remained, the human capital remained, the money was starting to flow and the inspections regime was due to end.
    So, here’s a question. What if we were right for the wrong reason? Does that count? What if the WMD hunting reports said nothing that wasn’t already known about the capability of Iraq to build WMD capacity?

    What if we recall that WMD were only one of the reasons for going to war?

    What if we ask ourselves what the anti war people would say if the WMD had been discovered, or, perhaps, are discovered in Syria, as some intel has them? My guess is that the WMD are useful to the antiwar people solely because they haven’t been found. If they had been found, some other reason would have been ginned up.

    There is no way to put together hard and fast descriptions of the evidence necessary to justify going to war. One of the reasons is that the courtroom metaphor fails. It fails because we can’t see, except perhaps in Mafia trials, one side killing those trying to find out about the crime and the accused. We have no required discovery. CSI-style certainty will never be available.
    Each case is sui generis.

    One issue is that, presuming the situation is getting worse, the earlier we intervene, the lower the cost of fixing the thing. The liberal Christian churches, in light of the Balkan issues, put together the concept of humanitarian intervention. With some effort, you can get them to admit that, under certain circumstances, conditions for peace may have to be “imposed”, which is to say….um… ahhh, er, fight. They agree that early intervention is better. The problem with that is the threat–to the locals in case of humanitarian issues–is in no way imminent. The point is to get in ahead of imminence. Saves lives, cheaper all around. There goes sovereignty.
    So, using the criteria from humanitarian intervention, the earlier the better, which is to say, go with less evidence rather than waiting until things are so bad that we have all the evidence anybody could want.
    Now, these being liberal Christians, don’t expect them to back up these words. But they felt they had to say them.
    The concept of taking care of things early, which has a lot to recommend it except for the Peace of Westphalia, international law, the nationalism of the folks intervened upon, the reluctance of the intervening nation to start on something where the trouble is not obvious and several other things, could just as well apply to war. By this standard, we were very late. Dangerously, murderously, negligently late.

30. Richard Aubrey wrote:

    “The subsequent reports of WMD hunting emphasized that the infrastructure for WMD remained, the will remained, the human capital remained, the money was starting to flow and the inspections regime was due to end.”

    *sigh*

    Can no one find the time to read that report?

    Or maybe Richard you can point us to others (not on weeklystandard.com please), because on infrastructure this one states:

    – “The ISG found that Iraq ended its nuclear program in 1991 and that Iraq’s ability to reconstitute a nuclear weapons program prgressively declined after that date. The ISG found no evidence that Saddam Hussein attempted to restart the nuclear program, but did find that he took steps to retain the intellectual capital developed during the nuclear program. Nonetheless, that intellectual capital had decayed since the end of the nuclear program in 1991…”

    -“The ISG noted that would have faced great difficulty in re-establishing an effective [Biological Warfare] agent production capability.”

    – “Postwar inspections of sites suspected of having a [Chemical Weapons] role revealed that they were likely used for the production of non-CW dual use, and had a limited capability to restart the manufacture of CW.”

    – “The ISG found that at the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom, Iraq had not regained its pre-1991 technical or production capability.”

31. Unfortunately, the UN did not fully cooperate in its own behalf to enforce that law.

    That’s because the UN is a tool of entropy, not a weapon to help humanity progress, Neo.

    War is a serious thing, and should not be undertaken lightly. But not stopping a looming threat by a sworn enemy is another serious thing. Because we ultimately made the decision to go to war in Iraq, we know the consequences (so far) of that action. We can only guess at what the consequences would have been have been had we not gone to war there.

    David Weber again. Why? Because he gives you a basic rundown on human motivations, for both sides of the potential conflict. So, it’s not about Iraq, he doesn’t write about whether Iraq is this or that. No, he creates scenarios from which you read and then have to figure out for yourself what is going on. Therefore it helps you, me that is, think about what is going on, can be going on, and how that affects the greater war effort.

    These thought projects are important. Because how is a person going to decide whether war or not to war is the right decision, when they don’t even know how to make such a decision even if assuming they had access to the data?

    What we tend to hear, instead, are legalistic arguments about how it couldn’t be proven beyond a reasonable doubt whether Saddam (take your pick) had WMDs, could have built them after sanctions were removed, wanted to build them, might have used them if built, was allied with al Qaeda, was sympathetic to al Qaeda, was looking for uranium in Niger, and so on and so forth.

    The only thing that matters to me is, we went, we saw, and we killed him. Nothing else is all that important, except the fact that there are new enemies coming in and we need to kill those and their helpers (Iran/Syria).

    George Tenet’s new book and recent interviews are replete with language about whether or not something or other was proven or absolutely known. But I’ve not read a quote that deals with what standard of proof of dangerousness should be necessary to make real-world decisions about whether a government constituting a threat (especially a nuclear one) should be taken out.

    it used to be, Neo, that what determined a country’s ability to wage war or not was how good their military was, their funding, and their tax base (i.e parliamentary strings and population).

    Now a days it is about who has more lawyers. Nice.

    Here comes Iraq again (reading comments now). Fine, I have my own munitions to use here and now. I tend to think it is more powerful than Unk’s stuff, but I might be biased.

    WMDs, conspiracy, and logic

32. WMDs, conspiracy, and logic

    Left out a comma.

33. heritage.orgalphie,

    If Bush or anyone significant in his administration were getting rich from the war, that would most likely very quickly be public information. Nearly every reporter in the world would be drooling for a scoop like that – that’s eternal fame. It would be headlines across the world.

    Since that hasn’t happened, it’s up to you to prove your claim. Shifts in the price of oil won’t do. We need solid proof, like bank transaction records showing Bush is X million bucks richer today due to taking kickbacks from Y company, which got a major war contract. Have it?

    If all you’ve got is the price of oil, then that’s far less than Bush had about WMDs in Iraq in March, 2003, and not nearly enough to even indict.

    On the French, Chinese, and Russians being bought and paid for by Saddam, that wasn’t Oil-for-Palaces money (though they got their share of that as well). That was current trade levels and oil companies in the respective states getting multi-billion dollar oil contracts to develop fields in Iraq, all contingent upon sanctions being dropped and Saddam remaining in power.

    Heritage foundation summary (w/ source notes) of who would have benefitted from Saddam remaining in power (Hint: France, Germany, Russia, China)

34. Don’t know why in the world that URL got inserted at the top. Glitch in the commenting software?

35. Unknown Blogger,

    If you link a rather large report, it would be very helpful if you cite the page you want folks to check.

36. Thanks for that. I would ordinarily do so, but it is really the whole report that is relevant here. People can just read the conclusions in boldface.

    That URL stuck in there is indeed some sort of glitch in the commenting software.

37. Anon Y. Mous, quoting Bush:“If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late.”

    If ‘to emerge’ here means ‘to come into existence’, why would ‘all actions, all words, and all recriminations’ come too late? No, the meaning here of ‘suddenly emerge’ is probably ‘to manifest itself in an attack,’ or possibly to, for example, suddenly test a nuclear weapon, thereby deterring any attack.

38. Unknown Blogger,

    Yes, but it’s 151 pages, which is a bit much for a quick evening of debate.

    Also, as a post-war analysis, it’s not actually entirely relevant to what we knew in March, 2003. When looking at the decision to go to war, it’s essential to take into account what information was available to make decisions with, and to exclude what became known after the decisions were made and so could not have influenced the decision makers.

39. The Torricelli amendment would not allow the CIA to recruit as spies those that had human rights violations without approval from Langley. 1. Every member of Saddam’s inter circle was covered with blood and 2. Who in the field in their right mind would pass out that kind of information to the CIA bureaucracy? And who would spy at that level for us knowing that Washington had all the info on them? The Soviets found out about who we had in their country via American’s who sold out. That would certainly make an Iraqi spy feel secure!

40. Alfie – where in the world do you get the idea that the big run up in oil prices is all money that goes in the pockets of the oil companies? Actually, the bulk of that money ends up in the pockets of the oil producers, including sworn enemies like Saudi Arabia, Russia, and Venezuela. The oil companies earn a relatively tiny percentage of your cost of fuel.

41. Actually, Danny,

    Oil companies own rather large reserves of oil. How do you think Exxon managed to earn $39.5 billion in profits last year?

    If you look on page 25 of this rather large .pdf version of Exxon’s annual financial statement for last year:

    http://exxonmobil.com/Corporate/Files/Corporate/fo_2006.pdf

    you’ll see Exxon made a profit of $16.96 per barrel of oil.

    Kinda hard to do when oil is selling for $18 a barrel.

    Not hard at all when oil is selling for $65 a barrel.

42. All this legalistic and moralistic discussion makes no sense to me. In Manichean struggle of civilization and barbarity such considerations should have no place. It is too late already to ponder is a war “just” or “injust”: after 9/11 the only reasonable argument should focus on how to win it with minimal losses, and absolutely irrelevant was it preemptive, preventive or simply strategically sound agressive move. But until the public grasps this new reality, the whole historical context of debate would be totally distorted and no realistic proposal could emerge.

43. No norms and values of Enlightenment could survive if Islamofacsists were not destroyed and compelled to surrender. This is the goal that overweights all other considerations. Do we need to liberate, to drive into submission or simply to annihilate peoples infected by by this murderous ideology is a question of practicality, not of morality. Let us begin with the first option; if it turns out to be intractable, go to the second, and if it too turns out to be unpractical, settle on the third. I expect that GWOT would eventually evolve into a war of annihilation.

44. Aren’t Israelis gambling by not attacking Iran?

    911 is not even comparable to the threat Israel faces from a nuclear Iran. You would have to level most of the U.S. to make a fair comparison.

    Wouldn’t neocons have already attacked, based on what they believe about threat?

45. As for the oil companies, who owns them? They are publicly traded companies, whose stock is held in virtually every pension fund, 401k account, and mutual fund in America. Are tens of millions of Americans “cronies” of the president?

    “MM: A couple years ago there was a great deal of talk of the democratization of the stock market. Is that reflected in these figures, or was it an illusion?
    Wolff: I would say it was more of an illusion. What did happen is that the percentage of households with some ownership of stocks, including mutual funds and pension accounts like 401(k)s, did go up very dramatically over the last 20 years. In 1983, only 32 percent of households had some ownership of stock.

    By 2001, the share was 51 percent. So there has been much more widespread stock ownership, in terms of number of families.

    But a lot of these families have very small stakes in the stock market. In 2001, only 32 percent of households owned more than $10,000 of stock, and only 25 percent of households owned more than $25,000 worth of stock.

    So a lot of these new stock owners have had relatively small holdings of stock. There hasn’t been much dilution in the share of stock owned by the richest 1 or 10 percent. Stock ownership is still heavily concentrated among rich families. The richest 10 percent own 85 percent of all stock. ”

    Source: Multinational Monitor, May 2003,
    http://multinationalmonitor.org/mm2003/03may/may03interviewswolff.html

46. Alfie – where in the world do you get the idea that the big run up in oil prices is all money that goes in the pockets of the oil companies? Actually, the bulk of that money ends up in the pockets of the oil producers, including sworn enemies like Saudi Arabia, Russia, and Venezuela. The oil companies earn a relatively tiny percentage of your cost of fuel.

    CNN,
    October 28, 2005:

    “On Friday Chevron (Research) became the latest big oil company to report a jump in profits for the third quarter, a day after Exxon Mobil (Research), the nation’s biggest oil company, reported $9.9 billion in net earnings — the biggest corporate profit on record.

    “All told, the 19 oil and gas companies in the Standard & Poor’s 500 index that have reported so far have earned more than $20 billion excluding one-time charges and other items, up more than 50 percent from a year earlier, according to earnings tracker First Call. ”

    Source: CNNMoney.com,
    http://money.cnn.com/2005/10/28/news/economy/windfall_tax/

47. Hi –

    Alphie, the price of oil is determined by supply and demand, not merely supply and demand of unrefined crude, but supply and demand of the refined stuff that people actually buy.

    Prices are also driven by market psychology and the development of oil futures: when players in the market anticipate that oil will become more expensive, it contributes to the current price of oil.

    Now, the current upswing phase is based on three events: first and foremost the lack of refining capacity, second Hurricane Katrina and the closing down of a significant portion of US refining capacity and third increasing international demand.

    No one wants to have a refinery built near where they live, and no refinery has been built in the US for decades. Literally. Europe is not much better, and the only real expansion of refining capacity is in Asia, where the demand increase is strongest. Productivity in crackers has improved over time, making the need to build new crackers less pressing, but the fact remains that the refinery business is running at full capacity with little reserve capacity. The reason that no new capacity is being built is that environmental codes make it difficult at best to build (and lawsuits from eco-NGOs and NIMBY folks can add years to the planning process, even when they are ultimately frivolous and serve only to enrich the lawyers involved).

    Adding to this structural problem for the supply side of the oil business, the hurricane Katrina forced most of the refineries in and around Louisiana – a significant portion of US capacity – to pre-emptively close down in order to avoid severe storm damage while in operation, which would have led to massive problems. The plants involved were damaged, but since they were closed down the damage had no major side effects (like having a massive oil leak in the middle of a hurricane, spreading heavy oil slicks far inland, covering the ground: that’d have been massively worse than the damage from Katrina) and while repairs were fairly rapid, output was basically nil for several months.

    So we went through a massive reduction in the supply side for the good that people actually consume. Prices increased as a result. Has nothing to do with the decision to invade Iraq and depose SH.

    The reason prices continue to be so high is also that demand from Asian consumers has expanded very strongly, and that OPEC and the other suppliers are very, very good at manipulating volume in order to maximize their profits.

    Companies that drill, pump, transport, refine and transport once more to the end consumers make a percentage off the top that the consumer pays (duh). This is obviously more lucrative when you’ve bought the oil for $20 and can sell it when the price is $60.

    Oh, and China has gone from a net exporter to a very large net importer during the last several years. Makes all the difference.

48. msnbc.msn.com’Traders currently peg the risk premium at between $4 and $8 a barrel, but some estimates are higher. Last week, A.G. Edwards analyst Bruce Lanni calculated that, based on the levels of oil stockpiles, the “fair value” of oil was about $27 a barrel. At current prices, that translates to roughly an added $13 due to terrorism fears. That’s the highest level in 10 years, Lanni wrote in a research report.’

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4962032/ – That was back in 2004. Perhaps the risk premium has disappeared in the intervening years?

49. Unknown. The Manhattan Project only needed to be done once. After that, you just read the manual.
    The will and money and the people remained. Given money and no inspections, the capability could have been restarted immediately. This stuff doesn’t stand still.

50. weeklystandard.comBut Tenet do not deny links of Saddam with al-Qaeda. Moroover, the nature of these links is so egregious that this alone fully justifies US invasion. See
    http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/596texms.asp

51. “Moroover, the nature of these links is so egregious that this alone fully justifies US invasion.”

    And those links were all officially “debunked” in that report that I cited above that everyone complains is too long to read.

    Next time I get accused of touting “bumper stickers” I am going to bring this up! 🙂

52. guy in pajamas: There is indeed a small glitch in the commenting software that puts part of a URL at the beginning of a post. I have my technical advisor working on it, but it’s a work in progress.

53. I’ve read your blog for a few years now, but this is the first time I’ve ever commented. NN, I just want to say “Very, very well done.” You leave very little room for those who wish to engage in almost cartoonish analysis in judging those who carry the heavy responsibility of leading this nation during war, done solely for the purposes of indulging in cheap self-righteousness. Looking forward to continuing to read your well-reasoned thoughts.

54. UB:

    I would remind you that of the Democrat senators serving on the “source” of which you seem to be so enamored, only one (Wyden) held views against the war prior to our invasion. As for the others, here’s what they had to say before we went to war (isn’t 20-20 hindsight wonderful?):

    Russ Feingold:

    “I agree post-9/11, we face, as the President has said, a long and difficult fight against terrorism and we must be very patient and very vigilant and we must be ready to act and make some very serious sacrifices. And with regard to Iraq, I agree that Iraq presents a genuine threat, especially in the form of weapons of mass destruction: chemical, biological and potentially nuclear weapons. I agree that Saddam Hussein is exceptionally dangerous and brutal, if not uniquely so, as the President argues. And I agree, I support the concept of regime change. Saddam Hussein is one of several despots from the international community — whom the international community should condemn and isolate with the hope of new leadership in those nations. And, yes, I agree, if we do this Iraq invasion, I hope Saddam Hussein will actually be removed from power this time.
    And I agree, therefore, Mr. President, we cannot do nothing with regard to Saddam Hussein and Iraq. We must act. We must act with serious purpose and stop the weapons of mass destruction and stop Saddam Hussein. And I agree a return to the inspections regime of the past alone is not a serious, credible policy.”

    “Saddam Hussein possesses chemical, biological weapons, and if events are allowed to run their course, will someday possess nuclear weapons.”
    Sen. Evan Bayh (D.-Ind.), Intelligence member Statement, Oct. 3, 2002
    “I believe that Saddam Hussein rules by terror and has squirreled away stores of biological and chemical weapon.”
    Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D.-Calif.), Intelligence member Floor speech, Oct. 10, 2002
    “The people of the United States and the rest of the world are at risk as long as Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction. Last night, the President . . . made the most effective case to date that the risk of inaction is too great to bear.”
    Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D.-W.Va.)
    Vice Chairman of Intelligence Committee Statement, March 18,2003
    “For the last 12 years he’s [Saddam’s] ignored U.N. resolutions and embargoes while rebuilding his illegal chemical and biological weapons. … He is dangerous. I believe he needs to be disarmed.”
    Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D.-Md.), Intelligence member Floor speech, March 18, 2003

    “I believe if Saddam Hussein continues to refuse to meet his obligation to destroy his weapons of mass destruction and his prohibited missile delivery systems, that the United Nations should authorize member states to use military force to destroy those weapons and systems.”
    Sen. Carl Levin (D.-Mich.), then-chairman of Armed Services and member of Intelligence Floor speech, Oct. 9, 2002

55. Er, your point being what exactly? I made no argument regarding their past stances on the war.

    I was referring Neo to that source to correct this statement:

    “Tenet’s book states, for example, that there was plenty of “worrisome” evidence of connection and cooperation between Saddam and al Qaeda. But in his interview with “60 Minutes,” Tenet says the CIA couldn’t “verify” the connection. Similarly for evidence of Saddam’s Niger yellowcake efforts; as McCarthy says, it’s never been proven false and [is] most likely to be true, a situation he likens to “probable cause” for indictment.

    Both assertions, the Al Qaeda links and the Yellowcake, were decisively shown to be unsupported by postwar evidence (see the “Conclusions” beginning on pages 105 and 53 of the document, respectively.)

56. “Both assertions, the Al Qaeda links and the Yellowcake, were decisively shown to be unsupported by postwar evidence (see the “Conclusions” beginning on pages 105 and 53 of the document, respectively.)”

    And your point being what, exactly? The thesis of this thread is that we didn’t know then what we know now, and that the belief of nearly everyone (supported by my quote citations above) was that the invasion of Iraq was warranted–or that at least Saddam posed a threat that should have been taken seriously or dealt with in some decisive manner.

    It’s very easy to criticize, find fault, and harp on “what should have been done” based on knowledge gained after the fact. Yes, we should have known about Pearl Harbor, for instance (in fact, we did, and bungled that knowledge). But that knowledge, and the knowledge that we have about Iraq now wasn’t available beforehand.

    Shall we agree that we need to deal with the present? People can, and do, disagree on what should be the course going forward. But all this hooey about who knew what when is just so much distraction from the actual situation on the ground. For my part, withdrawal from Iraq is not the answer.

57. UB, you missed the point. It makes no difference that CIA could not verify the connection after invasion; the point is that when decision to go to war was done, existing intelligence was rather worrisome. As every intelligence, it was incomplete and contradictory. But this is the nature of paranoidal secretive regimes that we have every right to suppose the worst from them, and this makes their existence criminal per se.

58. OK, this should be very simple, I can’t see why it is so difficult:

    Neo was bolstering her “thesis” by citing McCarthy, who argued that the Niger/Iraq claim had never been disproven, and citing the Weekly Standard implying that Tenet was contradicting himself about Iraq/Al Qaeda links.

    I provided evidence from a Senate Committee report that these assertions are false.

    That’s it.

    As for “hooey” about who knew what when, let’s just all move forward, some people find accountability to be important, especially when the failure is as colossal as this one was.

    And when the time comes to make a similar case, the job will be easier if we have proved to ourselves (and yes, even to the world) that we have learned something as a result.

59. You do realize, UB, that the ISG is relying on “intelligence” generated by the very CIA that “failed” to provide “intelligence”, right?

    And if you understood the intelligence business at all, you’d understand why there was a failure. Without HUMINT (human intelligence, people on the ground, infiltrated into the governments, insurgencies, countries, etc. that you’re trying to spy on) all you can rely on is either signals intercepts or aerial (satellite) surveillance, which doesn’t necessarily tell you much. You can see trucks rolling down roads, stopping at bunkers, appearing to load and/or unload stuff, but you can’t tell what that stuff is, or whether or not a bunker is empty or full. You can hear telephone and radio conversations, but if the conversations are disinformation, how are you going to know without a person in the organization to tell you what’s really real?

    If you’re looking for “accountability”, look no further than the Clinton administration, that gutted and hamstrung our intelligence apparatus, to the point where it was both incompetent and non-functional.

60. Alfie said:
    you’ll see Exxon made a profit of $16.96 per barrel of oil.
    Kinda hard to do when oil is selling for $18 a barrel.

    I looked at the report. The number you cite is the earnings per barrel made by processing the barrel of oil into other product. This “profit” is not a function of the cost of a barrel but a function of the processing done to turn a barrel into useful product. What that number means to me is that Exxon Mobil was more efficient with their refining process than a lot of other companies. What you cite as an evil is actually a good – they get more sellable product out of a barrel of oil than do the competitors.

    What I see in the report is a company with about $377B sales and $310B expenses making about 10.3% profit after taxes and paying $6.68 per share giving the shareholders about 8.7% ROI.

    What I see in your posts is an attempt to tar Exxon by cherry picking numbers and complaining about record this and extravagant that. Your posts contain no financial analysis, only inflammatory rhetoric.

    Anyone who quotes raw profit numbers or any absolute number is being disingenuous. The numbers above are reasonable for any publicly traded business. Record profits are normally a function of record growth – not gouging. What do you want Exxon Mobil to do? Turn a loss? Provide less return to shareholders than you could get a a money market account? Go out of business? You demonstrated hate of business blinds you to the true financial facts.

61. Old Man Rick:

    “Anyone who quotes raw profit numbers or any absolute number is being disingenuous.”

    Agreed. Since the US government is experiencing record tax revenues, shouldn’t we indict it for “profiteering”?

    :^)

62. exxonmobil.comYou couldn’t be more wrong, oldman.

    I’m not trying to “tar” Exxon.

    In fact, I rather admire it as a well-run business.

    But that doesn’t mean Exxon’s interests line up exactly with America’s interests.

    Exxon owns around 35 billion barrels of oil.

    It’s not personal, it’s business.

    http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/About/reserves.asp

    So, it’s in Exxon’s interest to support any politician, foreign or domestic, who will say and do things to raise the value of their oil.

    Which usually means destabilizing the Middle East.

    Bush moving an extra aircraft carrier to the Gulf probably made Exxon a few billion bucks.

    A strike against Iran could possibly be worth a trillion dollars to them.

63. alphie:

    “A strike against Iran could possibly be worth a trillion dollars to them.”

    …and WTC #7 was the first time in history that fire has melted steel!

    Power to the people, man!

64. Security Council members France, Russia and China were bought and paid for in Oil-for-Food bribes.

    Full circle, stumbley?

    Believe any vile, moronic charge made against those who disagree with you?

    Assume anyone who agrees with you does so only because they’re smart and moral?

65. ***

    Stumbley wrote:

    “You do realize, UB, that the ISG is relying on “intelligence” generated by the very CIA that “failed” to provide “intelligence”, right?”

    Well if that were the case (which unsurprisingly, it isn’t)one would have to admit it was very big of them to so blatantly admit that so many of their earlier assessments were so tragically wrong.

    “If you’re looking for “accountability”, look no further than the Clinton administration, that gutted and hamstrung our intelligence apparatus, to the point where it was both incompetent and non-functional.”

    Funny how anything that went right during Clinton’s 8 years is credited to his predecessor, and everything that goes wrong in Bush’s is blames on Clinton. That’s politics I guess.

    Politics, but not necessarily reality. The White House and the Republican-controlled congress had plenty of time to investigate and make this case, but to my knowledge have neglected to do so. If you’d care to provide any legitmate sources for your assertion I’d be happy to review them. (Sorry, ABC Specials and Weekly Standard articles don’t count.)

66. The definition of “imminent” is not really that unclear. Not in my mind.

    “Terrorist actions” and intelligence about them was sufficient to extend that word to them at the time.

    The intelligence failure was to link Saddam “imminence” to terrorist “imminence”. Saddam firing at our planes (most of which he missed) is not a definition of “imminence”, though Saddam preparing to invade Kuwait would be. Saddam firing at our planes (and danger to pilots) is no more imminent than North Korea firing at troops in the DMZ. Which they do on occasion.

    If you can’t make the link from Saddam to the Cole bombing or 9/11, then we’re doing shoddy interpretaton of imminence.

    I’m prepared to be shown the light though.

67. All,

    Compare Alfie:

    “I’m not trying to “tar” Exxon.”

    “In fact, I rather admire it as a well-run business.”

    to –

    “It’s not personal, it’s business.”

    “Bush moving an extra aircraft carrier to the Gulf probably made Exxon a few billion bucks.”

    “I’m not saying the money is the only reason we invaded Iraq, but it sure is a powerful motive, don’t you agree?”

    “A strike against Iran could possibly be worth a trillion dollars to them.”

    “Kinda hard to do when oil is selling for $18 a barrel.
    Not hard at all when oil is selling for $65 a barrel.”

    “Maybe naked greed is why we’re losing our current war?”

    I call bullshit – Alfie is trying to convict based on innuendo, half truths, and out of context quotes. He is trying to imply that “big oil” is behind the war. He doesn’t want to believe that it has anything to do with a totalitarian ideology that has declared war on the modern liberal values. Not when he can blame it on the big business bogeyman.

    This is exactly the issue the Neo is addressing overall on her blog.

    Alfie epitomizes her opening sentence in this post:

    “I’ve long been puzzled by the need of the antiwar and/or anti-Bush factions to give Saddam the benefit of enormous doubt in the buildup to the Iraq War, and to give Bush and his administration none.”

    Let’s hear his rallying cry once again, “It’s all about oil!!!!!” (or the Coward’s Corollary – “I’m not saying it’s true, but I’m not saying it’s not true. You know it might be all about oil.”)

    OldManRick out – the only further purpose of this discussion is to serve as a bad example. Alfie – I grant you the last puerile word.

68. gwu.eduUB:

    Google Jamie Gorelick.

    None of the administrations since Kennedy’s are blameless. The Bay of Pigs was a CIA fiasco…and it’s been getting worse ever since. However, the decision to do away with HUMINT that didn’t fit the Clinton administration’s idea of “centralization” led to dissension among the ranks (see: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB46/document16.pdf).

    And Gorelick’s decision to put the “firewall” between agencies crippled our ability to share information, both of which led to failures to “connect the dots,” particularly with respect to 9/11 and al Qaeda.

69. He is trying to imply that “big oil” is behind the war.

    Behind it how, oldman?

    Meaning they supported the war?

    Or they pulled the strings on the right puppets to make it happen?

    I’d buy the first one, doubt the second one.

    Why is it so hard for the pro war crowd to just admit that some people are making a buck off the occupation of Iraq?

    To deny it is childish.

70. msnbc.msn.com***

    OldManRick – I haven’t been paying that much attention, so I may be mistaken, but I think Alphie’s point may not be that the war is “all about oil” but rather that there is really precious little downside to oil executives for supporting politicians who advocate for wars in the Middle East, the effect of which will be to drive up the cost of oil. The industry has experienced record profits lately:

    “By just about any measure, the past three years have produced one of the biggest cash gushers in the oil industry’s history. Since January of 2002, the price of crude has tripled, leaving oil producers awash in profits. During that period, the top 10 major public oil companies have sold some $1.5 trillion worth of crude, pocketing profits of more than $125 billion.”

    Not just revenues, but profits…

    Stumbley, I was getting grief here for posting a 150 page document, now I am expected to scour the internet looking for something to prove *your* assertion. No thanks. Until you come up with something, I consider it unsupported.

71. securityaffairs.orgUB:

    “It took three decades and the events of 9/11 for policymakers to realize the extent of the damage done. Both sides of the aisle have finally come to understand that the Church committee’s overextension of congressional authority created an environment of undue caution, bureaucratic paralysis and risk aversion in the intelligence community– collectively undermining the ability of America’s spies to perform at the level expected by Congress and the American people. Intelligence officials in the CIA and a dozen other intelligence agencies had become “cautious bureaucrats who avoid the risks that come with taking action, who fill out every form in triplicate [and put] the emphasis on audit rather than action.”3

    Lawmakers were further surprised to learn that, largely under the radar, the Clinton administration had resumed the crusade begun in the 1970s. According to journalist and Bush critic James Risen, by the time the Clinton White House had finished with the CIA, “Morale [had] plunged to new lows, and the agency became paralyzed by an aversion to high-risk espionage operations for fear they would lead to political flaps. Less willing to take big risks, the CIA was less able to recruit spies in dangerous places such as Iraq.”4

    This from: http://www.securityaffairs.org/issues/2007/12/wobensmith&smith.php

    I could provide more, but like you, I don’t want to “scour the Internet” to prove a point that probably won’t make any difference to you.

72. Okay, Alfie and Unknown,

    One more time.

    Yes, Oil companies make money. Yes, some people are making a buck.

    What does that matter to this discussion?

    Like it or not, the GWOT is about how to deal with Islamic fascism. Like it or not, the War in Iraq was about how to deal with an indeterminate threat from a party that had shown hostile intent and previous possession and use of WMD. (If you tell me that you don’t believe he gassed the Kurds, check with Hitchens, further discussion is useless. )

    This post by neo was about risk analysis and threat assessment. It was about why you were willing to give Saddam the benefit of enormous doubt (but you immediately show you are extremely suspicious of Bush and big oil.)

    You like to throw in the “oil companies are getting rich because of this war” meme, spread innuendo about how they are happy because of the war, and then play the “I’m not saying they do but I’m not saying they don’t” game. Like I say, it’s the Coward’s Corollary. Either just come out and say “it’s all about oil” or accept that somebody is going to make money. I quoted Alfie when he went out of his way to spread this guilt by innuendo –
    I’m not saying the money is the only reason we invaded Iraq, but it sure is a powerful motive, don’t you agree?
    Bush moving an extra aircraft carrier to the Gulf probably made Exxon a few billion bucks.
    How the hell am I suppose to read those quotes except what about those “big bad oil companies”? There are no Newtonian single action-reaction choices; there will always be side effects. In classic conspiracy theorist mode, you are focusing on a side issue.

    I repeat “record profits” mean nothing. Inflation, growth, and competition mean that if you don’t have record profits every year, you are going out of business. Anytime you indulge yourself in the “record profits” call out, you are showing a basic ignorance of economics. It’s only purpose is sensationalism and innuendo. The fact that you chose to repeat it shows you still don’t understand.

    Like stumbly says
    Since the US government is experiencing record tax revenues, shouldn’t we indict it for “profiteering”?
    And we know they have been manipulating the tax codes to achieve this! Conspiracy!!!

    Given the current world situation, Exxon, who you have chosen to highlight, would lose market share if they didn’t behave as a responsible business. Do you want ELF or Shell to take over? Do you expect them to take a cut in profits and provide a lower ROI to investors? What do you want them to do about it, take vows of poverty?

    I fully realize that arguing with you is a pointless exercise. You are committed to your meme. You are committed to your distraction. There will probably be another post talking about record profits to show me how bad the oil companies are.

    I only offer this to the neutral reader. The record profits headline is pure sensationalism; the fact that oil companies are making money is distraction and guilt by innuendo. Look at the real issues.

73. Stumbley wrote:

    I could provide more, but like you, I don’t want to “scour the Internet” to prove a point that probably won’t make any difference to you.

    I suspect you wrote this because although you spent some time on it this was the best you could come up with and know it reads more like an Op Ed from the WSJ than a reasonable assessment. I especially loved this line:

    “With President Bush staking his credibility on these public claims [of Iranian influence in Iraq], the intelligence community owes him the empirical evidence necessary to justify his position to skeptical international observers.”

    Bush makes the claim, and the intelligence community “owes it to him” to find the evidence to “justify his position.” And this in a paper called “Reinvigorating Intelligence.”

74. OldManRick,

    It matters because money influences politics. But I do not argue that Bush and Cheney led us into war to get themselves and their friends rich on oil revenue.

    And though I have no proof, it seems plausible to me that the fact that there was no real downside (for them), and even a real upside, to the invasion probably had something to do with their willingness to advocate so strongly for it, without much internal debate.

    So when assessing claims of a threat, is it so unreasonable to consider who is making those claims?

75. The standard is credible threat.

    That is to say, plausible, believable. That’s it.

    And what is more important is that we are dealing with a threat, not an actual attack in progress.

    So the measure is, is the threat believable ?

    If a naked man with no gun threatens to shoot you, it’s just not believable.

    If the same man, is a close and trusted friend, and is holding a loaded gun in his hand and while smiling and laughing says “I’m gonna shoot you”. It’s still not believable.

    If a stranger with a gun in his hand says “I’m gonna shoot you” with a straight face, it’s believable.

    It’s not certain.
    It may not even be likely.
    It’s just believable.

    And frankly, anybody who issues a believable threat is responsible for whatever the response is, not the defender.

    The response to threat is nearly as important a component of effective self defence as response to actual attack.

    To put this in a more touchy-feely context, a woman who cowers and obeys whenever her brutal husband waves his fist in the air is already abused and victimized through intimidation.

    The same is true of nations.

    Saddam had succeeded in convincing the world that he might have nukes and might be ready to use them.

    The word was “might” — i.e. the threat was credible, that’s what the word “might” means in that context.

    So instead of cowering and crying like an abused wife, we smashed the bastard.

    To my eye the left displays the psychology of an abused wife toward the jihaddis, who, just by the way, are wife beaters.

76. Sorry about the execessive emphasis.

    I made a mistake in my HTML.

77. I’m all for accountability. I’d like some for the UN, for starters, for possibly half a million dead Iraqis because of a corrupt UN program. Then I’d like some accountability for all the massacres and genocides the UN didn’t stop so someone could make a buck, like the Sudan, right now.

    I’m all about accountability, UB. But you can’t hold someone accountable for what they didn’t know when they had to make the call. In fact, on page 9 of your report, it makes the explicit statement that excellent work can produce bad intel, and bad work can, by accident, produce good intel, and that the report is not about that, but rather is a comparison of what we knew before and after the invasion. As such, it’s irrelevant to what decision should have been made in March, 2003.

78. alphie,

    Someone always makes a buck, no matter what happens. Unless you can show solid evidence linking war profit to the administration, you’ve got little if anything.

    On the other hand, there’s quite a bit of evidence of high-ranking French, Russian, and UN officials taking bribes (in oil vouchers) from Saddam to pursue his agenda, and French, Chinese, and Russian oil companies certainly stood to make billions from helping Saddam.

79. So when assessing claims of a threat, is it so unreasonable to consider who is making those claims?

    No problem with that. Let’s honestly consider them.

    You need to re-read neocon’s post. At the time, most people believe Saddam had something. Most people and countries) believed he was hiding something. Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_disarmament_crisis_timeline_1997-2000
    and tell me people didn’t believe he was dangerous.

    Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_for_oil. Compared to your hypothetical that Bush’s oil buddies would benefit, there were significant people who benefited from having Saddam in power. Are you wiling to use this in your assessment of their claims?

    The funny thing is, at the time, the “no blood for oil” crowd was claiming that we were after cheap Iraq oil. The NBFO model was the cheap oil would keep the republicans in power. It’s nice to have a position that covers the spread both ways. If the price goes up, Bush is enriching his oil buddies; if the price goes down, he’s buying votes with cheap oil.

    Again, the point of Neocon’s post was that you are willing to give Saddam and his ilk a lot of benefit of the doubt. The Corollary is you can’t let go of how much money an oil company will make. You infer, with admittedly no proof, that this consideration could have been high in the war calculations of the president and his staff. You continue to use innuendo and the “plausibility of no downside” but you “do not argue that Bush and Cheney led us into war to get themselves and their friends rich on oil revenue” to put this meme into play. Your prejudices are obvious as are your whispering campaign tactics.

80. There are, as anyone can easily recognize, plenty of people in the world, and in the US, who have a settled and committed antagonism toward America’s national interest, American companies, even American citizens.

    The particular balance and mix of antagonisms varies of course from person to person and ideology to ideology.

    The no-blood-for-oil crowd, the anti-Haliburton enthusiasts and the rest are furious that American companies might have made some money off the conduct and/or aftermath of the war. And relations between members of the American gov’t and any aspect of those industries is particularly damning in their eyes.

    But think about it …
    * we get rid of Saddam,
    * we wreak havoc right in the heart of the mohammedan region of dominance,
    * we free the Iraqi people,
    * and some American companies make a few millions in the process, a good deal of which money is now in circulation in the American economy.

    Looks like a win win win to me. Doing well by doing good.

    * Getting rid of Saddam — good.
    * Wrecking havoc in the center of the mohammedan empire — good.
    * Freeing the Iraqi people — good.
    * American companies make money — good.

    What’s not to like here ?

    Hmmmmmm….. ?

    I have my own questions about the choice of Iraq as our second target, and about the conduct of the war itself and the “nation building” effort that followed. But killing Saddam, freeing the Iraqis, engaging the jihaddis on their home turf, and Americans making money in the process are not among them.

    The demand that Americans prove that their mothers are virgins and get a note from the Pope before moving our armies into action — in the teeth of a credible threat — is revealing of the mind-set and underlying logic of the people asserting that position, and should be taken as a clue about their intentions, outlook and values, rather than a rational argument, which it clearly cannot be.

    And it’s bad news.

    The further demand that Americans not derive any benefit in the process of defending themselves is just as revealing and even more damning.

81. Wouldn’t neocons have already attacked, based on what they believe about threat?

    Have you been paying attention to Israeli politics, Thinkaloud?

    Olmert “You’ll be surprised what I’m willing to give away for peace” is not a neo-con. Therefore his actions has nothing to do with preemption by the US.

82. Again, the point of Neocon’s post was that you are willing to give Saddam and his ilk a lot of benefit of the doubt.

    Perhaps I was. Let’s review the argument: Bush insisted Saddam had WMDs. Saddam had submitted a 12,000 page report which said Iraq had no WMDs.

    So, regardless of how we feel personally about either man, what does history show about who deserved the benefit of the doubt?

    The Corollary is you can’t let go of how much money an oil company will make. You infer, with admittedly no proof, that this consideration could have been high in the war calculations of the president and his staff. You continue to use innuendo and the “plausibility of no downside” but you “do not argue that Bush and Cheney led us into war to get themselves and their friends rich on oil revenue” to put this meme into play. Your prejudices are obvious as are your whispering campaign tactics.

    Listen, I don’t make a point of arguing that point. I think there were a lot of factors at play in their decision, the most legitimate of which was probably a genuine element of fear. I just popped in because I felt (rightly or wrongly) you were mis-representing Alphie’s point.

    But yes, I admit it, everyone has prejudices. When I hear former oil men talking about invading oil-rich countries, I think it makes sense to look long and hard at their arguments. Can you think of anything that has happened lately that would lead me to do otherwise?

83. A guy in pajamas wrote:

    I’m all about accountability, UB. But you can’t hold someone accountable for what they didn’t know when they had to make the call. In fact, on page 9 of your report, it makes the explicit statement that excellent work can produce bad intel, and bad work can, by accident, produce good intel, and that the report is not about that, but rather is a comparison of what we knew before and after the invasion. As such, it’s irrelevant to what decision should have been made in March, 2003.

    Somebody read it! Yay! Thanks.

    As for its relevance, some parts of it contain detailed discussion about flaws in the intelligence or doubts that weren’t communicated or downplayed.

    But [for the third time] I was posting it to refute Neo’s ongoing claims about the Iraq/Al Qaeda connection and the Iraq / Africa / Uranium connection, this report put both of those to rest unequivocally, but they continue to be spread.

84. UB:

    “this report put both of those to rest unequivocally”

    Here’s the summary of Iraq/Al Qaeda connections from the ISG: “The analysis was detailed, did not make definitive statements, and left the issue open to the consumer to decide what constituted a relationship.” p. 66.

    Hey, that’s about as unequivocal as it gets, huh? No “definitive statements” and “open to the consumer”. That’s definite, that is!

    And I’m so glad to know that the “Iraqi Embassy refused the offer” of “a Ugandan businessman to supply uranium” because “Iraq does not deal with those materials due to international sanctions.” (p. 26)

    ‘Cause we know that Iraq has always obeyed “international sanctions” and that the embassy would certainly be telling the truth in all of its documents.

    Furthermore, we still need to study 72% of the pages of captured documents (only 34 million of 120 million have been translated), which might shed more light on a number of these issues.

    Again, UB, you are flogging a dead horse. All of these “issues” that you claim are “unequivocally resolved” are things we only know about after the fact.

    Neo’s thesis still holds: Saddam was a bad guy; he dealt with bad guys; he was antithetical to the US; he wanted to harm us; he was actively seeking to do so, and would have reconstituted WMD programs as soon as sanctions were lifted (that’s in your “source”, btw); and as such would have been the threat that the administration cited as its reason for invasion.

85. When I hear former oil men talking about invading oil-rich countries, I think it makes sense to look long and hard at their arguments. Can you think of anything that has happened lately that would lead me to do otherwise?

    You, personally, are committed to the “business men are bad” meme. You will always look “long and hard” at anything Bush does. You’ve apparently looked “long and hard” and “though I have no proof” you continue with the “I think it makes sense to look” innuendo in every post.

    Back to Neocon’s original premise, you give us the “Saddam had submitted a 12,000 page report which said Iraq had no WMDs.” You don’t mention that, from Wikipedia, “UN weapons inspectors, the UN security council and the U.S. feel that this declaration fails to account for all of Iraq’s chemical and biological agents.” In fact, you don’t address the series of incidents in the Wikipedia article on the Iraqi Disarmament that strongly point to continued presence of WMD.

    From the Wikipedia article:
    
    An Iraqi military officer attacks an UNSCOM weapons inspector on board an UNSCOM helicopter while the inspector was attempting to take photographs of unauthorized movement of Iraqi vehicles inside a site designated for inspection.

    While waiting for access to a site, UNSCOM inspectors witness and videotape Iraqi guards moving files, burning documents, and dumping waste cans into a nearby river.

    UNSCOM inspects an Iraqi “food laboratory”. One of the inspectors, Dr. Diane Seaman, enters the building through the back door and catches several men running out with suitcases. The suitcases contained log books for the creation of illegal bacteria and chemicals. The letterhead comes from the president’s office and from the Special Security Office (SSO).
    An UNSCOM inspection team discovers a dump full of destroyed Iraqi missiles. Analysis of the missile parts proves that Iraq had made a weapon containing VX.
    

    Decisions are always made on the basis of flawed intelligence. Part of Neocon’s point in the post was that perfect intelligence is impossible.

    If Saddam had wanted to go clean, he could have easily followed the Muammar al-Gaddafi model. At that point I would have given him the benefit of the doubt. You will get the benefit of the doubt when you drop the “I have no proof but…” campaign. You look, you find nothing, you move on. The continued insistence on a connection without evidence is one of the hallmarks of conspiracy theorists.

86. Oldman,

    It’s quite hard to prove a negative.

    In political terms, Bush asked Saddam the old “when did you stop beating your wife?” question.

    If there was no imminent threat, that means there was plenty of time to gather better intelligence before invading.

    As there was no effort to gather better intelligence, the logical thing to assume is that Bush had other reasons for invading Iraq.

87. “the logical thing to assume is that Bush had other reasons for invading Iraq.”

    Oh, he did; about 22 “other reasons” as spelled out in the resolution that most of Congress authorized.

88. There were exactly two reasons given for invading Iraq in the AUMF, stumbley:

    (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

    (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

    Number one turned out to be wrong, and the U.N. didn’t authorize the invasion, so number two is N/A, unless you see America as some kind of stalker.

89. Stumbley wrote:
    Here’s the summary of Iraq/Al Qaeda connections from the ISG: “The analysis was detailed, did not make definitive statements, and left the issue open to the consumer to decide what constituted a relationship.” p. 66.

    Stumbley, those are the conclusions of the 2004 SSCI, not the conclusions of the 2006 report, those start on p. 105.

    Furthermore, we still need to study 72% of the pages of captured documents (only 34 million of 120 million have been translated), which might shed more light on a number of these issues.

    Only 34 million documents? Hope springs eternal, I guess…

    Again, UB, you are flogging a dead horse. All of these “issues” that you claim are “unequivocally resolved” are things we only know about after the fact.

    I guess you’re right, I’m certainly not going to try to make my very simple point a 4th time.

    Neo’s thesis still holds: Saddam was a bad guy; he dealt with bad guys; he was antithetical to the US; he wanted to harm us; he was actively seeking to do so, and would have reconstituted WMD programs as soon as sanctions were lifted (that’s in your “source”, btw); and as such would have been the threat that the administration cited as its reason for invasion.

    “he wanted to harm us; he was actively seeking to do so…”

    I’m not sure you can provide evidence that he was actively seeking to harm us. If so, there would be no discussion of the nature of the perceived threat.

    But I get your point. In other words, no matter what else anyone says, he was a bad guy in need of a good ol’ country ass whuppin’.

    A trillion dollar, open-ended ass whuppin’ that destroyed our credibility, divided our country, alienated us from our allies, increased the ranks of jihadis everywhere, and did not reduce our vulnerability to a terrorist attack by any measurable amount whatsoever.

    Ok fine, have it your way.

90. OldManRick:

    We can keep talking if you want, but can you do me a favor please and

    1. Stop accusing me of clinging to “memes.” I assume you are using the word to mean “beliefs,” as if no one else has them. To point out that one holds a particular belief does not advance the discussion. You should instead offer evidence that the belief is mistaken.

    2. Stop telling me things you supposedly know about me personally. Unless I have told you those things, you have no legitimate way of inferring them. We will be much more productive if we just focus on what I am saying. The next thing you know you will be accusing me of ranting about “Bush=Hitler” and “Freeing Tibet.”

    Now, to address your points:

    “You don’t mention that, from Wikipedia, “UN weapons inspectors, the UN security council and the U.S. feel that this declaration fails to account for all of Iraq’s chemical and biological agents.”

    I didn’t mention that because I don’t see how it was relevant to the point. You said “Again, the point of Neocon’s post was that you are willing to give Saddam and his ilk a lot of benefit of the doubt.

    How is what anyone thought about the declaration relevant to that point? How are actions the Iraqis took in 1997 (your cited wiki entries) relevant to that?

91. Alphie,

    Classic!! What impeccable conspiracy theory logic.

    As there was no effort to gather better intelligence,

    Because Bush didn’t choose your preferred course of action….

    the logical thing to assume is that Bush had other reasons for invading Iraq.

    It must be about something else. And you have thoughtfully provided us with the facts that oil companies are making more money to show that it must be about OIL!!!.

    You know, you haven’t even proved that the economic impact of invasion was higher crude oil prices. With the possibility of added Iraqi oil coming on line, I can make a decent argument that it would have lead to lower prices. You give Bush a lot of credit for economic prescience that he can predict which of his actions will optimize the oil company profits.

    As I see it, because Saddam made no unconditional effort to come clean, because he remained actively disrupting inspections, and because he was trying get the sanctions lifted, the best way to gather the better intelligence that you wanted was to invade and look under every rock.

    Of course, I own 13 shares of Chevron, so my judgment may be clouded by the $30 dividend check I get from them every quarter.

92. Unknown,

    you have no legitimate way of inferring them. We will be much more productive if we just focus on what I am saying.

    Sorry, I am not trying to project your thoughts but I am taking “what you are saying” to the conclusion you are trying to leave as innuendo.

    I see a “meme” as an idea you are trying to put into play to win your argument. The “meme” that you are floating is that Bush’s oil connections impacted his decision to invade. The Corollary to this meme is that a President without oil connections would not have invaded.

    You and Alfie are the ones bringing in the oil profits argument. The sentences and paragraphs you write to make your argument follow the construction – I have no proof… but I just want to note… I have no proof … but I’m going to remain suspicious. You don’t even have a decision tree that shows invasion leads to the highest oil company profits and yet you persist in your suspicion. So what am I left to deal with? A partial argument that you won’t commit to but won’t left go of.

    The reason the Wikipedia is relevant even from 1997, is that Saddam had established a pattern of behavior. It is in the context of that pattern of behavior that all intelligence was evaluated and decisions were made. I do not see anything changing that pattern of behavior like we saw with Muammar al-Gaddafi.

93. Hi OldManRick, thanks for explaining that to me in a reasonable fashion!

    However, I do wish to point out that your statement,

    “The Corollary to this meme is that a President without oil connections would not have invaded.”

    is false. One does not automatically follow from the other.

    In order for this to be true, the “meme” (god I hate that word) would have to have been “The President chose to invade Iraq because of his oil connections.”

    Can we agree with that?

    I can’t speak for Alph, but for me, I am not trying to “prove” anything, or making any “argument.” I was merely pointing out, as have said before,

    “When I hear former oil men talking about invading oil-rich countries, I think it makes sense to look long and hard at their arguments.

    Not an argument, just a statement of a little informal policy of mine, you can take it or leave it.

    Regards,
    UB

94. For some reason, the DOD and CIA were not releasing the docs captured in various places. Then, after some heat from the public, they started putting the docs out on the web. Little stuff. Ahmed wanted a day off to see his sick mother.
    Bigger stuff, bonuses for the engineers at the nerve gas factory.
    Then the NYT got a big story about how dumb the administration is. The admin out on the docs site a detailed plan with directions about how to build a nuke. Boy, is that Bush guy stupid. The NYT could confidently expect its readers to make nothing of the fact that the doc came from IRAQ. Just that Bush was stupid putting the thing on the ‘net.

95. When fools say, “I’m not making an ‘argument’, just a statement of a little informal policy of mine. You can take it or leave it”, you can bet we’ll leave it.

    Thanks for the permission, UB.

96. No one’s going to admit we went to war over oil even if we did, so unless there’s a smoking gun document or recordings, it’s pretty much conjecture.

    On the other hand, I sure as heck would be glad to get the hell out of the most turbulent unruly parts of the Middle East altogether and let the place rot. Let me emphasize: ROT. And if we have to fight islamofascism let’s fight it from the nearest westernized countries that already have a working democracy in place.

    I realize this is not realistic. Part of the monkey wrench is Israel.

97. The modern world runs on oil.

    Much of WWII was fought over oil, its production and control.

    Without plenty of oil we wouldn’t be typing our postings on nice plastic keyboards delivered to nice clean stores in buildings constructed with heavy motorized equipement by trucks running on oil.

    There’s nothing wrong with fighting over oil!

    We’d all be poor as dirt without it.

    The industialized west invented the technologies that use the oil, the technologies for extracting it from the ground, the methods of finding the stuff and the economies for trading it.

    The mohhamedan block has a strangle hold on the companies we depend on to provide the oil simply by sitting on top of our oil wells.

    And Venezuela is moving in the same thieving direction.

    Not fight for oil? Then why bother to fight for any of our property?

    Because I assure you, you would have damn little property without the oil.

98. “I’ve long been puzzled by the need of the antiwar and/or anti-Bush factions to give Saddam the benefit of enormous doubt in the buildup to the Iraq War, and to give Bush and his administration none”

    It’s stunning to me that someone as intelligent as you can be so far off the mark.

    Do you remember the support that the President received during the pre-war marketing campaign for the Iraq invasion?
    Do you remember Colin Powell’s address to the UN Security Council?
    Do you remember Phil Donahue’s show on MSNBC being cancelled for his anti-war positions?

    The country was behind the President, including the MSM, in a way that was unparallel.

    No, you are very wrong in your assertions about not giving the Bush Administration the benefit of doubt — very wrong.

    Americans turned against the war:

    A. When it became obvious that the White House ignored crucial evidence that WMD’s did not exist
    B. When the mismanagement of the war became painfully obvious and the White House continued to repeat the mantra “Stay the Course”

    These two elements turned the tide, not some sort of legal sympathy for Sadam.

99. I’ve had conversations regarding the current war in Iraq with a number of lefty friends. Given that Saddam Hussein was violating the sanctions regime and U.N resolutions, as well as firing on American and British planes in the “no-fly zones,” I think we were realistically only left with three options:

    1) Go to war.
    2) Continue with the policy of “containment.”
    3) Eliminate the sanctions regime and allow Saddam Hussein freedom of action.

    Option number two clearly wasn’t working. If you are on the right, the evidence for that is the oil-for-food scandal. If you are on the left, it was the reality that the sanctions were punishing the common people, not the elite. In fact, most of the far lefty organizations were putting their estimates at 100,000 people/year dying due to sanctions.

    I realize this is a bit simplistic but when I ask my lefty friends, “what other options did we have?” I’m met with blank stares. A few of them say, “we should have allowed the policy of containment to work,” but that policy wasn’t working. So we were in a bit of a situation. Neither the left, or the right, was in favor of maintaining the status-quo. The far left was in favor of ending the sanctions entirely. Regarding the attacks on our planes, most of the far left was against the no-fly zones as well. The right clearly felt differently. War was an option. So, we went to war. As far as conduct and planning I have my share of criticisms but I think war was the only choice we had left.

    Alphie wonders about the “tens of billions of dollars Bush’s cronies have made off the Iraq War.”

    Which of “Bush’s cronies” has made billions from the war? Who? Do you have any evidence?

    I am aware that Halliburton received no-bid contracts (definitely a bad thing) but how much of that money paid for equipment, salaries for contractors, and operations in Iraq and how much ended up in Cheney’s pockets?

    I realize some people insist that this war is about maintaining astronomical profits for oil companies and that these oil interests drive policy. I don’t think most policy makers–including Bushies, neocons, or whatever you want to call them–think that these high oil prices are in the interests of the United States. Yes, the CEOs of Exxon/Mobil and other companies are making a killing but countries like Venezuela and Iran are using oil wealth to increase their influence in South America and the Middle East. Russia’s power and influence have also increased. None of this is in the interest of the U.S.

    I also have a different understanding of the mentality of people in positions of power in these corporations. I think the CEOs of Exxon/Mobil and other oil companies want to make a profit for themselves and their shareholders, sure. But they also have an interest in maintaining a stable and predictable market in order to encourage investment. In that respect, it is not in their interest to have shocks to the market or for it to appear unstable. Think of it this way, when an oil rig is occupied in Nigeria, that may send the price of oil up, but it also contributes to a perception that investment in oil is extremely risky and you would be better off putting your money into some other endeavor.

    Old Man Rick writes:

    “The funny thing is, at the time, the “no blood for oil” crowd was claiming that we were after cheap Iraq oil.”

    That’s a great point.

    And to those who think that the almost daily attacks on U.S. and British planes by the Saddam Hussein regime were no big deal, these were direct violations of an international, multilateral, agreement that Saddam Hussein had signed. People seem to forget that. The entire UN Security Council should have backed whatever actions were necessary to curb Hussein’s belligerency. Instead, French, Russian and Chinese commercial interests prevented that.

100. Torq wrote:

     Americans turned against the war:

     A. When it became obvious that the White House ignored crucial evidence that WMD’s did not exist
     B. When the mismanagement of the war became painfully obvious and the White House continued to repeat the mantra “Stay the Course”

     These two elements turned the tide, not some sort of legal sympathy for Sadam.

     Excellent point Torq, but note Neo didn’t say “Americans,” she said the “anti-war / anti-Bush crowd.”

     To her, there was never any legitimate debate about whether or not the invasion was the right thing to do. If you were against it, you are either a pacifist, a “leftist” who habitually opposes any war the US fights, and those suffering from “Bush Derangement Syndrome.”

101. Stumbley wrote:

     When fools say, “I’m not making an ‘argument’, just a statement of a little informal policy of mine. You can take it or leave it”, you can bet we’ll leave it.

     Stumbley, I have gone out of my way to be polite and non-confrontational to you, and yet you resort to this type of name calling.

     I won’t stoop to the same level, but merely refer any poor soul who is still reading this to a fellow commenter’s remark to you: “You, sir, are an ass.”

102. Hey, thanks, UB. Fits in well with the rest of your remarks.

     :^)

103. Of course, I didn’t actually call you a fool, now did I? I simply quoted something you said, and said “when fools say something like this…” That’s kind of like saying, “I didn’t actually say that we went to war for oil, but when oil men talk about invading oil rich countries, it makes sense to question their motives….” and expecting people to think that you didn’t actually mean it, you know.

     Did I touch a nerve, poopsie?

104. Pingback:NAKED RUSSIAN SINGLE WOMAN Information Site.

105. Pingback:new england duck hunting

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>