🚀 go-pugleaf

'You Lied to Us' By WILLIAM SAFIRE NYTimes June 2, 2003

WS "Quick � what was the biggest intelligence misjudgment of Gulf War 
II?"

That there was an immediate threat to the security of the United States 
and American business interests at home and abroad.

WS "It was the nearly unanimous opinion of the intelligence community, 
backed by the U.S. and British military, that the 50,000 elite soldiers 
of Saddam's well-trained, well-equipped Special Republican Guard would 
put up a fierce battle for Baghdad."

Which is more or less true, and totally irrelevent to the discussion as 
to whether lying took place in the arguments to justify invasion.

WS "Our military plan was based on this cautious assessment. That 
presumption of a bloody, last-ditch defense was also the basis for 
objections to the war: in street fighting, opponents argued, coalition 
casualties would be horrific, and tens of thousands of civilians would be 
sacrificed."

Simply prudent military strategy. A military strategy based on 'least 
resistance' would be simply absurd on the face of it and would not stand.  
Our military leaders are not stupid.

WS "Happily, our best assessment was mistaken. Saddam's supposed diehards 
cut and ran. Though Baghdad's power and water were cut off, civilians 
were spared and our losses were even fewer than in Gulf War I. "

Again a totally irrelevent set of circumstances and results after the 
fact.

WS "What if our planners had believed Kurdish leaders who predicted that 
Saddam's super-loyalists would quickly collapse? We would have sent fewer 
combat troops and more engineers, civilian administrators and military 
police. But the C.I.A. and the Pentagon had no way of being certain that 
the information about the Republican Guard's poor morale and weak 
discipline provided by Kurds and Iraqi opposition leaders was accurate. "

What if they had?  Once more the same debate 101 tactic as the previous 
statements.  An irrelevent to the issue statement.

WS "With thousands of lives at stake, optimism was not an option. 
Sensibly, we based our strategy on the greater likelihood of fierce 
resistance. That decision was as right when made as it was mistaken in 
retrospect. "

See all answers supra.

WS "Turn now to the charge heard ever more stridently that U.S. and 
British leaders, in their eagerness to overthrow Saddam and to turn the 
tide of terror in the Middle East, "hyped" the intelligence that Iraq 
possessed germ and poison-gas weapons. "

Finally!  A return to the point of discussion.

WS ""Hype" means "exaggerate." As used by those who were prepared to let 
Saddam remain in power, it is prelude to a harsh accusation: "You lied to 
us. You pretended to have evidence that you never had; you twisted 
dubious intelligence to suit your imperialistic ends, so we were morally 
right and you were morally wrong.""

An implicit acceptance that such 'hype' did in fact occur.  Arguing that 
some other factors or results are more or less important does not address 
the truth or falsity of the question ' Was the intelligence info 'hyped' 
or politicized?'.

WS "Never mind the mass graves now being unearthed of an estimated 
300,000 victims, which together with the million deaths in his wars make 
Saddam the biggest mass murderer of Muslims in all history. Never mind 
his undisputed financing of suicide bombers and harboring of terrorists, 
from Al Qaeda's Abu Musaab al-Zarqawi to the veteran killer Abu Nidal 
(the only "suicide" with three bullets in his head, dispatched in Baghdad 
probably because he knew too much.) "

Correct!  never mind the mass graves or any other facts that later turned 
up, they are again irrelevent and Safire is using them only as a 'Red 
Herring'.  However, it does bring up the germane question, " That if our 
intelligence was sufficient to give grounds for Powells' presentation to 
the UN, why then didn't that same intelligence indicate the genocide?  
And why were those mass murders, mass graves, and mass tortures brought 
to the fore front in support of invasion?"

WS "And never mind our discovery of two mobile laboratories designed to 
produce biological and chemical agents capable of causing mass hysteria 
and death in any city in the world. Future discoveries will be dismissed 
as "dual use" or planted by us. "

Two, two paltry semi-trailers, well scrubbed and possibly looted, that 
'might, just might have been used to produce deadly microbes?  How pray 
tell does one launch a 40 ton semi-trailer in 45 minutes or less 
notification to do so?  Illegal?  Contraband forbidden under UN 
sanctions, most assuredly, but a WMD?  Hardly!

WS "No; the opponents of this genocidal maniac's removal now accuse 
President Bush and Prime Minister Blair of a colossal hoax. Because 
Saddam didn't use germs or gas on our troops, they say, that proves Iraq 
never had them. If we cannot find them right away, they don't exist. They 
believe Saddam sacrificed tens of billions in oil revenues for no reason 
at all."

No, it is not the supporters of Sadaam Hussein who are now questioning 
the veracity of those who argued for and led the invasion, it is those 
who supported that effort that are now the inquisitors.  It is one thing 
to accept and support an onerous act, it is quite another to accept being 
lied to about the acts justification.

WS "A strong majority of Americans believe he did have a dangerous 
program running, as he did before. Long before the C.I.A. dispatched 
agents to northern Iraq, Kurdish sources were quoted in this space about 
terrorist operations of Ansar al-Islam, whose 600 members included about 
150 "Afghan Arabs" trained by Al Qaeda; after our belated bombing, some 
escaped to Iran. "

The majority believes what the administration said, over and over again.  
It believes that they would not be lied too about something that would 
cost American lives.  If in fact the administration lied, and if in fact 
the American media actually present those facts in the same aggressive 
manner in which they presented the lies, then the majority will no longer 
believe.

WS "As reassured Iraqi technicians and nurses come forward and as 
Baathist war criminals seek to save their skins, we will learn much more 
about Saddam's terrorist connections and his weaponry. It took seven 
years to catch the Olympic bombing suspect in North Carolina and 18 years 
to catch the Unabomber; the location of Saddam and Osama bin Laden won't 
remain a mystery forever. "

With the strong likelyhood of achieving the same results as pre-war 
intelligence from defectors i.e. Partial truths and pure fantasies made 
up for personal gains.  Hard evidence in the form of the tons of nerve 
gas that were claimed to exist, a few dozen SCUD missiles with WMD 
capable warheads, or for that matter just a few unattached and empty 
warheads would add some credence.  Where are they?  Where are all the 
canisters of microbes?  Where is the fissionable material?  Only low 
grade trace amounts of nuclear material have ever shown up.  You can't 
simply hid a can of plutonium in the cupboard, or even in a cave.  
Detection is fairly easy even at great distances.

WS "In the meantime, as the crowd that bitterly resents America's mission 
to root out the sources of terror whips up its intelligence-hoax hype, 
remember the wise "mistake" we made in overestimating the fighting spirit 
of Saddam's uniformed bully-boys."

If the administration was interested in actually rooting out sources of 
terror it would be logical that they would concentrate on finding bin 
Laden and al Azhawri.  Even the one-eyed mullah Omar is still fighting 
and shooting at American soldiers.  If the administration wanted to root 
out terrorists it would invade the Western Pakistani provinces where 
these people are known to reside.  If the administration were interested 
in rootin out terrorism it would dry up the financial pipelines from 
Saudi Arabia.

WS "When weighing the murky evidence of an aggressive tyranny's weapons, 
President Bush and Prime Minister Blair were obliged to take no chances. 
The burden on proof was on Saddam. By his contempt, he invited invasion; 
by its response, the coalition established the credibility of its 
resolve. There was no "intelligence hoax."  "

Has Safire offered any proof other than disclaimer that no intelligence 
'hyping' or politicization occured?  No, he has not.  Yet the media is 
filled with former intelligence members stating that they never concluded 
or implied anything that would lead to the conclusions that were made by 
the politicians in the DoD and Whitehouse.  The media have carried 
stories of 'un-named' sources within the Intelligence agencies claiming 
that they believe or know that the DoD and Whitehouse did in fact 
politicize and 'hype' the intelligence data presented to them.  As Willy 
Nelson is quoted as saying to his wife when caught in 'flagrante 
dilecti' "Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?"

It's rather sad when a pulitzer prize winner cannot defend an issue with 
any more skill than a pail of 'red herrings' and simple disclaimers. 
Sadder that he would even attempt it I suppose.
-- 
~=Monte=~
The solution is both simple and cheap! Send pretzels to the Whitehouse.


-- 
~=Monte=~
The solution is both simple and cheap! Send pretzels to the Whitehouse.