Er……….obviously not. I mean……….er……….what?

Have you learnt nothing?

soru

People on the right and left want some deus ex machina to save Iraq, but we have., collectively, come to a simple conclusion:

Iraq is not worth dying for. Not for the warmongers on the right or the liberal hawks on the left.

It’s bad the soldiers are trapped there, but we have made it their problem, No one is willingly going to join them, and 5,000 have deserted so far.

When you ask liberal hawks to enlist, they are offended by the question.

When you ask conservatives to enlist, they are offended by the question.

And America’s parents are NOT sending their kids to die in Iraq if they can, at all, help it. No one blows up IED’s at Wal Mart.

We have a volunteer army with fewer and fewer volunteers, and people reenlisting only to save their friends. There is a time limit to their ability to be in combat. They cannot serve forever. They will have to be replaced. And fewer and fewer are willing to replace them,

What I want people to do is be honest.

If you will not serve in Iraq, and no one you know will serve, stop expecting someone else to do what you will not.

Therefore, it is time to stop calling for more troops, or the US to make Iraq safe. We cannot do this and even Americans are refusing to join the fight. It is time to look at your actions and realize, that despite your ideals, you oppose continuing this war. In practical terms, you have decided that this war is not worth your life or anyone you know. And million of Americans have joined you in this decision.

So, with this fact evident, it is time to call for US troops to withdraw from Iraq. Not save it, not add more boots on the ground. You have already voted by your actions. It is time that you match it with your words.’

http://stevegilliard.blogspot.com/2005/06/honest-conversation.html

The US and the UK did not have enough troops to pacify Iraq in the beginning, and now they are running out of troops in an absolute sense. Moreover as Chuck Hagel has had the nerve to point out, the US/UK are losing the war.

There is only one way to win the war: for all the pro-warriors to get up out of the armchairs, put aside the remote, and join up. If they genuinely believe in what they say, if they genuinely want to conquer Iraq, then let them pick up a gun and fight. If they don’t they are hypocrites and liars.

And it’s as simple as that.

I owe you an apology.

I was actually taking you seriously up until that last post. Sorry about that. Won’t happen again.

Generally, when someone quotes passages from a book, it’s because

a) they own it

and

b) they’ve read it.

I own ” Endgame,” have read it in its entirety, and refer to it frequently. It has proven to be an invaluable example of the hypocrisy exhibited by many on the subject of Iraq’s WMD.

Have you read it Jon? And may I ask, what explanation from Ritter are you alluding to? I’ve spent hours online looking. I must have missed it. Maybe you can fill me in.

The fact is, he has provided no plausible explanation or excuse for his astoundingly contradictory positions. On the rare occasions when he was confronted during interviews, he would stubbornly deny that he had ever been inconsistent in his statements on Iraq and WMD. The closest he has ever come to even a pathetic rationalization of his antics was a claim that his earlier alarmist statements represented his official UN inspector persona. Interesting, that, since he wrote “Endgame,” after he had resigned from UNSCOM.

And yes, I will ” feel free to believe whatever (I) want to believe about the second source or anything else.”

That belief happens to be that we don’t know what the other intelligence is. We only know that it is has been judged plausible by two separate government commissions (one of whom you attempted to use to suggest the opposite).

The additional intelligence may be rubbish, but until it’s revealed, I’ll leave open the possibility that it isn’t. You see, I don’t have your gift for knowing it’s rubbish, without knowing what it is. But then again, you’re also able to determine people haven’t read certain books, so I shouldn’t be surprised.

You’re free to believe whatever you want to believe about the second source or anything else. Go to town.

Regarding Ritter, why don’t you read what he’s said about Endgame? Or go ahead and read Endgame itself, which I must say I doubt you have. I don’t have anything in particular to add to what he’s said himself, and I have no intention of arguing with you about it.

And now, I really am through discussing this.

I had a look at the Intelligence and Security Committee Report chaired by Taylor. The report doesn’t claim that the Italian summaries constitute the evidence for the Niger uranium claim.

Here is the relevant passage:

93.” The SIS stated that the documents did not affect its judgment of its second source and consequently the SIS continues to believe that the Iraqis were attempting to negotiate the purchase of uranium from Niger. We have questioned the SIS about the basis of its judgement and conclude that it is reasonable. ”

The second source is most likely the French intelligence, for which approval to release specifics was never granted.

Still nothing to say about Ritter? I’m disappointed. The nuclear stuff was bad enough, but you should see what he said about Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons. It’s enough to make even a neo-con blush.

Well, it was the conclusion of the September, 2003 parliamentary committee report chaired by Ann Taylor. You can call that presumptuous if you’d like.

And with this, even my energy for discussing this subject is exhausted. But if you’d like to make it your life’s work to lobby the British government to release the extraordinarily convincing information on this subject they have heretofore kept secret, then go with God.

Jon:

Has anyone seen what the Italian summaries actually say? It’s presumptuous to claim the September 2002 dossier is based on summaries of the forged documents, until we know the specific content of the summaries.

The stories run by the Financial Times indicate there was other intelligence, independent of the forgeries, revealing Iraqi interest in Niger uranium. Moreover, some of this intelligence pre-dates when the forgeries were produced. The Blair government has suggested, if not come right out and stated, that the intelligence used to back its dossier uranium claims is based on intelligence provided to it by France, not the Italian summaries.

By the way, do you have any thoughts on the problems that people like Ritter create for the case that Bush lied about Iraq’s WMD status?

JLW:

“Pre-war Iraq was well stocked in yellowcake. There was no need for it to purchase any more—even if it were operating a secret nuclear program. Which it wasn’t.”

Iraq’s yellowcake was under IAEA seal, and had been since the end of Gulf War 1. Even during the period where no UN weapons inspections occurred (late 1998-late 2002), Iraq still allowed the IAEA to regularly inspect Iraq’s sealed yellowcake to ensure none had been removed. Tampering with the seals would have been the equivalent of Saddam placing an “ Attack Me “ sign on his own back.

As a result, this uranium was of no use to Saddam whatsoever. If Saddam had decided to covertly resume work to build even a crude nuclear weapon, he would have needed to acquire suitable uranium from somewhere other than Iraq.

If nothing comes up for a couple of years, I’ll do the same to some relevant cause.

soru

Our President: Stupid or Evil?

President Bush to reporters yesterday:[June 20, 2005]

Q Mr. President, many in Europe are worrying that with the fight against terrorism the commitment of the United States to human rights is not as big as it used to be—that is not only to do with Guantanamo, but also with the secret prisons where the CIA holds terror suspects. My question is, what will happen to these people who are held in these secret prisons by the CIA? Will they ever see a judge? Or is your thinking that with some terror suspects, the rule of law should not apply or does not have to have applied.

PRESIDENT BUSH: First of all, I appreciate that question, and I understand we—those of us who espouse freedom have an obligation, and those who espouse human rights have an obligation to live that to those—live up to those words. And I believe we are, in Guantanamo. I mean, after all, there’s 24 hour inspections by the International Red Cross. You’re welcome to go down yourself—maybe you have—and taking a look at the conditions. I urge members of our press corps to go down to Guantanamo and see how they’re treated and to see—and to see—and to look at the facts. That’s all I ask people to do. There have been, I think, about 800 or so that have been detained there. These are people picked up off the battlefield in Afghanistan. They weren’t wearing uniforms, they weren’t state sponsored, but they were there to kill.

And so the fundamental question facing our government was, what do you do with these people? And so we said that they don’t apply under the Geneva Convention, but they’ll be treated in accord with the Geneva Convention.

And so I would urge you to go down and take a look at Guantanamo. About 200 or so have been released back to their countries. There needs to be a way forward on the other 500 that are there. We’re now waiting for a federal court to decide whether or not they can be tried in a military court, where they’ll have rights, of course, or in the civilian courts. We’re just waiting for our judicial process to move—to move the process along.

Make no mistake, however, that many of those folks being detained—in humane conditions, I might add—are dangerous people. Some have been released to their previous countries, and they got out and they went on to the battlefield again. And I have an obligation, as do all of us who are holding office, to protect our people. That’s a solemn obligation we all have. And I believe we’re meeting that obligation in a humane way.

As well, as we’ve got some in custody—Khalid Shaykh Muhammad is a classic example, the mastermind of the September the 11th attack that killed over 3,000 of our citizens. And he is being detained because we think he could possibly give us information that might not only protect us, but protect citizens in Europe. And at some point in time, he’ll be dealt with, but right now, we think it’s best that he be—he be kept in custody.

We want to learn as much as we can in this new kind of war about the intention, and about the methods, and about how these people operate. And they’re dangerous, and they’re still around, and they’ll kill in a moment’s notice.

In the long run, the best way to protect ourselves is to spread freedom and human rights and democracy. And—but if you’ve got questions about Guantanamo, I seriously suggest you go down there and take a look. And—seriously, take an objective look as to how these folks are treated, and what has happened to them in the past, and when the courts make the decision they make, we’ll act accordingly.

Thank you. I appreciate that. Thank you all very much for coming.

[Balkan writes]
As a matter of fact, reporters—and many others too—have taken a look at what has been going on at Guantanamo, aided by information from the FBI … And yet the President keeps insisting that we are treating our prisoners consistent with democracy, human rights, and the rule of law.

Two questions come to mind. First, does the President actually believe what he is saying? If so, then he is being willfully blind to the evidence. The second is whether he indeed does know what is going on but believes that he can continue with the status quo and that the American public and the rest of the world won’t pay attention or hold him accountable. If so, then his repeated announcements that nothing wrong is happening at Guantanamo are not only cynical, but deeply immoral.

Which word, then, best describes our President, the leader of the free world, the self-proclaimed champion of democracy, human rights, and the rule of law? Stupid or evil?

My only disagreement with Balkin is that willful blindness isn’t stupidity. It can be evil, depending on what one is being willfully blind to. I also do not believe ANY person should be characterized as evil. But Bush is pursuing an evil course of action, by perpetrating the torture, and by misleading those inclined to accept his assertions about what has happened and what is happening not only in Guantanamo, but in other sites known and unknown.

To paraphrase Mark Danner in the article to which I linked at #107 above, “What are we going to do with this?”

Walter Mondale, first presidential debate, Oct.7, 1984

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/debatingourdestiny/84debates/1prez1.html