October 26, 2005 by lonbud
2000
2000 American troops have died in Iraq.
As wars go, that’s a pretty paltry number for a conflict two years running. Some will say it’s a small, and necessary sacrifice to make for wiping terrorism from the face of the earth and re-engineering Arab society in the Middle East to make the world safe — and profitable — for democracy and capitalism. Others will disagree.
It will be a long time before the jury returns a verdict on our efforts to eradicate terrorism and remake Arab culture, so I thought it might be good to pause and reflect on a few of the certainties related to the nice round number of American dead so far in the defining endeavor of George W. Bush’s presidency.
It is clear, now, the vast majority of everything the President and his administration’s cheerleaders had to say during the run-up to the war was either untrue, or was disingenuously twisted to make the threat posed by Saddam Hussein — and his connection to the Al Quaeda terrorists who attacked the U.S. on September 11, 2001 — appear more immediate and potentially devastating than it actually was.
The justifications being presented now for the sacrifice made by these 2000 American soldiers — that their deaths are necessary for the remaking of the Middle East — were uncategorically disavowed prior to the war by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and by the President himself, among others.
This war was not supposed to be about nation building. It was about finding weapons of mass destruction and preventing Saddam from launching an imminent attack against Israel or the United States. When we remember these 2000 dead soldiers we must not forget Condoleeza Rice’s now infamous quote putting the proximity of the danger of a nuclear attack from Saddam Hussein at 30 minutes!
So, yes, all that went before the war has now been called into question; everything that may flow in its wake remains cloudy at best.
What, then, can we say with certainty the deaths of these 2000 soldiers represent?
2000 lives cut short in their prime.
2000 mothers and fathers who will grieve for their lost children to the end of their days.
2000 families shattered, forever wounded by the absence of perhaps their bravest members.
2000 smiles that will never again shine for a spouse or a child, a friend or a neighbor.
2000 strong, courageous people who can no longer be employed to meet the challenges we face in our own communities.
2000 hopes and dreams that will never be fulfilled.
2000 things that can never be put into words or be made to make sense by cloaking them in the American flag.
If Iraq and the entire Middle East were to overnight become transformed into a billion blue jean wearing, Pepsi drinking, fast-food craving, celebrity seeking sports junkies, the cost in American lives would still be too high.
Given that any remaking of the Middle East is many years away from bearing any kind of discernable fruit in the marketplace for global security, it seems clear the eventual cost is bound to make today’s price tag look like a bargain.
Michael Herdegen - October 26, 2005 @ 10:22 pm
If Iraq and the entire Middle East were to overnight become transformed into a billion blue jean wearing, Pepsi drinking, fast-food craving, celebrity seeking sports junkies, the cost in American lives would still be too high.
I disagree.
2,000 is also only 1 death per 150,000 Americans. More people die in any given month due to traffic accidents, than American servicemembers have perished during a 31-month-long war in Iraq.
In fact, a lot more than 2,000 Americans die of breast cancer alone every year.
Have you served in any branch of the American military ?
I’m just curious, I don’t ask to seek rhetorical advantage.
I put in eight years of active duty in the U.S. Army, including six months in Arabia and Iraq during Desert Storm in ’90 – ’91.
I have an ancestor, Abner Hathaway, who fought in the Revolutionary Army.
Both of my grandfathers served in WW II, one in the Army and one in the Navy. The grandfather in the Navy went on to retire from the Navy Reserves.
My mother was an Army lifer. One of her brothers was an Air Force Reserve lifer. (The other was a lifelong hippie who still lives in Canada, where he moved to avoid being drafted during the Vietnam era, making his living [such as it is] playing folk and bluegrass music).
My parents had six children.
Four of them have served in the U.S. Army, including one who’s a Drill Sergeant right now, and another one is a U.S. Navy lifer, doing another tour in Iraq, after having done a tour in Afghanistan inbetween.
So, we have definitely done our time, and we’ve put ourselves in harm’s way, in part because we believe in service to others, and in the rightness of the American way of life.
Perhaps you wouldn’t understand that viewpoint, or might disagree, but…
Humans are mortal. None of us are going to get out alive.
Since that’s so, a death with honor – a choice by the strong to protect the weak – is not a bad way to go.
Given my environment and backround, you can believe me when I tell you that although few of those 2,000 fatalities were happy to die, they were all volunteers*, and most of them believed strongly in what we’re trying to accomplish in Iraq, and the Middle East in general.
They were proud of what we’ve done, and willing to stand in harm’s way, to risk paying the ultimate price, to liberate the Iraqi people from a brutal and ruthless dictator.
It’s what we do.
We kick rump, take names, and free the oppressed.
NONE of the active armed services are having any problems with meeting re-enlistment quotas. In fact, they are all several thousand re-enlistments over their goals.
2,000 servicemembers dead is regrettable, but we take those risks willingly.
Most American servicemembers would rather die on their feet, than live on their knees, and that’s exactly the opposite philosophy from those who would prefer to co-exist with evil, rather than dirty their hands and risk bloodying their noses.
Nothing of lasting worth was ever accomplished by those who hold the latter view, although it’s fairly widespread among the fat and soft of the American peoples.
* Doubly volunteers, since not only did they sign up on their own, but no firing squad awaits them if they refuse to go.
If anyone fears that a tour in Iraq will be their death warrant, they can choose a few years in prison instead.
Or, if they’re smart, they’ll become “disabled” or “mentally ill” for awhile.
lonbud - October 26, 2005 @ 11:48 pm
I appreciate your willingness to share your background here, Michael, and I respect and honor the service and sacrifices you and members of your family have made for this country, just as I respect and honor all those who serve in our armed forces.
I have not served in any branch of the military, though I hope my service as a teacher in various endeavors and my work as a volunteer in community outreach projects through the years has contributed in some meaningful way to the rightness of the American way of life.
Unfortunately, this is not Abner Hathaway’s war. It’s not the war your grandfathers fought in either; not even close. It’s not even the war you served during, when at least we had the honor and challenge of coming to the defense of an “ally” under attack.
Only because you don’t mention him at all, I’m curious: what was your father’s position vis a vis the armed forces?
I recognize the frame of mind you seem to have from my experience in organized sports. Great accomplishments flow to a group of people trained to kick rump and take names when its individual members are each willing to risk paying the ultimate price for victory. I think sports is a fine place for that approach to life and would recommend participation in sports to everyone.
It’s not a matter, in the end, of preferring to co-exist with evil. As if preference were even a relevant option.
Evil is not to be defeated by anything evil, it must be matched by something good. Balance in all things is the path to the prosperity you are writing about on a different thread here.
I don’t guess I’ll be the one to change your view of the military, its purposes or effects, but I believe the tell is in your refusal to believe your uncle has any sort of a worthwhile life as a musician.
Tam O’Tellico - October 27, 2005 @ 7:02 am
Since this has become a confessional…
I come from a long line of poor folks who served in a number of wars. They lost lives, legs, hearts and minds in conflicts, some of which were noble causes, some not so noble. For example, I have kin who fought on both sides of the Civil War — I wonder, Michael, as much as I admire their courage, I can’t rationalize that their sacrifices were equal. To do so is tantamount to arguing that God was on both sides.
As for me, I did not volunteer to serve in Viet Nam; Selective Service called twice, and I was rejected twice — the last time in 1968 at the height of Tet. That’s what happens when your motorcyce makes hard contact with a ’57 Buick. I was lucky I guess; I was able to duck my “duty”. On cold rainy days or a long flight of stairs, I do feel less than fortunate, however.
But I don’t want to let fate excuse me from answering the question I didn’t have to answer in the Sixties. Odds are I would not have served if I had been drafted. I suspect I would have become a Canadian folksinger, too. Why?
Because I believed and still believe Viet Nam was not a Just War — it was not even good politics. My reasons for that belief are far too long and complicated to repeat here save that the “Brinkmanship” of Dulles still strikes me as little better than the “Red Menace” of McCarthy. Certainly, it cost a lot more lives.
I’m no fan of Communism — though Christians ought to be made to confront the very real argument made for it in the New Testament (see loaves and fishes, etc). But a fair reading of history makes it plain that Ho Chi Minh was far more a Nationalist than a Communist. There is no question he mad repeated overtures to the U.S. that were rejected, mostly on ideological grounds.
I believe Ho could have become a ally; instead he became an enemy. Certainly, Viet Nam today has become another link in the American economic chain. I’m afraid the sad truth is that Michelin and Nike exerted far more influence on politics in that part of the world than either the French or American armies.
But enough of that debate for now. Let me try to keep this brief (at least for me).
Though I did not go to war, I lost close friends and family in Viet Nam. I would never question their courage, but I must question whether their sacrifice was in a good cause else what was the point of their sacrifice?
In the same way, I am duty-bound to question whether the sacrifice of these mostly poor-boy volunteers in this war is in a good cause. If the cause is increasing America’s security by increasing our stature and influence in the Middle East, than my answer is no.
Now we must daily confront Santayana’s dictum that “those who do not learn from the past are condemned to repeat it”. Now we are engaged in another protracted war for dubious ideological reasons — unless one chooses to assert that this war is really about oil.
For me, the parallels between Viet Nam and Iraq are beyond ironic. We are once again engaged in a far-flung war in a divided country; we are once again led by a President who never knew war himself, a paranoid President obsessive about secrecy, a President whose second term has been consumed by a conspiracy; we are once again confronted with a Press co-opted by executive fervor and favor, a press which has at long last begun to awaken from its long sleepwalk.
Most sad of all, we are once again a nation not united, but divided by war.
Paul Burke - October 27, 2005 @ 10:19 am
I love this thread. You men are bright, thoughtful, courageous and giving and good citizens. Abner Hathaway, both sides of the Civil War… fantastic! As a minor history buff my respect to your lineage is second to none. It is us who choose to write and talk among each other that sow the seeds of rancor or understanding. The idea of the Jeffersonian “good citizen” is aptly on display. It is us who go out of our way to live lives beyond the generalizations that make a difference in this world. Why couldn’t W. have just said Saddam’s a loose canon he gassed the Kurds we’re going in? The disingenuous lies, the overblown statements have spoiled lives and careers and our standing as a principled Nation. We just look like oil glutens. To feel that lies can accomplish anything good is fool hardy. Oh I know honesty is all out of fashion, but time and time again in my life I have seen unnecessary lying ruin business deals left and right let alone lives and relationships.
It seems juvenile to say lying is no good. But for some reason a sign of adulthood has been the ability to lie, cover up, and mislead to serve your own self interest and elevated to an art form. But whatever short term advantage is gained is lost when the lie becomes known. Clinton got busted for it, and George W. is going to get busted for it. Simple good sense; Our politicians need to be as stand up as the servicemen and women they rely on to fulfill their agendas. We went into the former Yugoslavia under the right pretenses and we have the court in Hague cleaning up the war crimes, and I’m already getting mail to vacation in Croatia.
It might really be as simple as honesty, integrity and courage to stand up for what is right. The things that we all know are right, inherently on our own. The details of gay marriage (equal protection under the law) and abortion (the separation of church and state), or the death penalty (a nation that preaches killing is wrong shouldn’t be sponsoring killing) these types of issues used as political footballs should be left up to the States and the votes of their citizens. However, giving inordinate wealth back to the wealthy and cutting off those less fortunate well there are no excuses. Sound business sense does not tolerate corruption or egregious misappropriations of funds. Pigs at the trough are not noble citizens, and certainly not what Jefferson had in mind. I’m serious you are the hope of the world. Impacts not discernable to the naked eye go forth. Thoughts like ripples in the water multiply.
Faith and Hope are living things.
Michael Herdegen - October 28, 2005 @ 3:09 pm
lonbud:
My father was not, and still isn’t, much of a fan of the U.S. military.
Like many others who came of age during the Vietnam era, his base concept of the military is of conscription, bad decisions, and that they’re an Imperialist club that America uses to beat concessions out of other nations with.
However, he accepts that it’s a valid career choice.
He just doesn’t have a “warrior mentality”, and thus has more fears for his children’s safety than they do themselves, since they see what they’re doing as necessary, and he sees it as unnecessary.
That’s mostly what I was trying to convey with my first post, that the 2,000 deaths were mostly of people who knew what they were getting into, and accepted that the risks were worth the objective.
Some people, my father included, (who’s a BIG opponent of the war), would mourn the deaths as a needless tragedy.
Others, including myself, see them as heroic, people choosing to put themselves at mortal risk to accomplish what must be done – like fire-fighters rushing into a burning building.
Few WANT to do it – it just needs doing, and they’ve stepped forward.
Almost every member of the U.S. military would be glad to get out, if by unilaterally refusing to fight America could end war. Soldiers DO NOT love war, for the most part.
However, there are still people in positions of power who don’t care about anyone but themselves, who seek to advance their situation through the power of the sword.
Some of those people are in very powerful societies, such as the late unlamented USSR.
When all nations are democracies, then we’ll be able to lay down our weapons – but we’ll still have to keep them close at hand.
My feelings for my uncle don’t stem from his avoidance of military service, or because he’s a musician, nor do I feel that he’s had a worthless life.
What he is, is a very talented, bright, funny guy – who has depended his entire life on his parents (into his 50s !), sister, girlfriends, or the Canadian gov’t to make ends meet.
He’s… Shiftless. Lazy. Something.
He’s taken advantage of, at most, 50% of his potential, and at this point he ain’t gonna change.
I mainly mention him to illustrate that despite our history of military service, my family isn’t a “martial” family.
We don’t pretend that we live in a service academy, nor do we hang pictures of tanks on the living room walls, and we don’t show up at formal affairs in our dress uniforms.
Evil is not to be defeated by anything evil, it must be matched by something good.
Force isn’t inherently good or evil, it’s just a tool.
Good defeats evil not by matching a carrot against a stick, but by offering a carrot along with the stick, vs. evil’s “stick only” approach.
All of the hand-wringing in the world didn’t bring down the oppressive and violently misogynist Taliban, it was laid low by American bombs and bullets that took human life, often mistakenly.
Out of that horror emerged a greater good, and again, it must be noted that WE DID NOT WANT to engage in life-taking – the Taliban refused to deal in any currency but lead.
Ideas, politics, morality… All of the “soft power” of the mind was as nothing to them, they cared only about the “hard power” of the tangible.
Tam O’Tellico:
Yes, the war IS about oil – but not the childish version of “seizing it for an Imperial power”.
It’s about access, not physical control, and about what the profits from oil will go towards funding.
If there were little oil in the Middle East, we wouldn’t be over there, guaranteed.
I also agree that the Iraqi pacification, (yes, the phrase is my little provocation and joke), was not the BEST course of action, although I believe that it was a GOOD course of action.
I would much rather have seen the $ 300 billion go towards developing alternative energy sources, such as biodiesel and shale oil.
There are ONE TRILLION barrels of oil locked in shale under the Rockies, and Shell Oil can get it out for $ 30/bbl – if they and others are allowed to do so.
If America were to fully meet her energy needs through domestic production, along with Canadian and Mexican oil, then we could bid good riddance to the dysfunctional and flea-bitten Middle East, and once we stopped meddling over there, the radicals in the region would turn back to internal power politics.
But, if the democracy project works out, it’ll be better for them than if the U.S. just ignored them, so the Iraqi war is more noble than just writing them off, which is what my favorite strategy boils down to.
Paul Burke:
It is us who go out of our way to live lives beyond the generalizations that make a difference in this world.
That is the key to paradise on Earth, and I wish that more people felt compelled to live beyond the moment.
lonbud - October 29, 2005 @ 5:20 pm
Michael:
It will come as no suprise to you, I’m sure, that I tend to agree with your father about the military and its purposes. Your uncle, too, sounds like the kind of guy I would enjoy hanging out with, which is not to say I wouldn’t enjoy hanging out with you, neccessarily. I just imagine you and I would be always at each other, incredulous that we could view the same world so differently.
Force isn’t inherently good or evil, it’s just a tool.
I’ll accept that proposition. In the case of the war in Iraq, what we’ve got are a bunch of people with no idea how to use the tools at hand wielding them in the most irresponsible, unthinking, devastating manner imaginable.
If, as you are willing to admit, the Iraq war is about access, as opposed to control of the oil, the the war is even more pointless than its detractors would brand it. As Paul Volker’s report on the UN oil for food program makes clear, Saddam wasn’t exactly restricting access to Iraq’s oil. His corruption is another matter entirely, and by itself no justification for the waste of American lives and resources we’ve been forced to endure.
Michael Herdegen - October 30, 2005 @ 12:44 am
It’s not about access to Iraqi oil only.
Saddam threatened the ability of the entire Middle East to produce oil, including super-producer Arabia, whose primary oil fields, like Kuwait’s, are near the Iraqi border.
Also, Iraq could have made shipping in the Persian Gulf dicey, as Iran did during the Iraq/Iran war in the 80s.
I also disagree about the moral validity of taking out Saddam.
Ignoring, for the moment, the very real barriers of domestic and international political considerations, I was all for using the U.S. military to take out Saddam, and the Taliban, in 2000.
They weren’t run-of-the-mill oppressive dictatorships, they were among the worst of the worst.
Among living dictators still in power, only Kim Jung Il eclipses them for grief caused – he’s as bad as both of them put together.
Even Quaddaffi, Arafat, Chavez, Castro, and Marcos are/were better than Saddam or the Taliban.
Also, if you want to get into Volker’s UN report, don’t you agree that it makes clear that war was the ONLY option for removing Saddam ?
If the UN hadn’t been so corrupt, then Saddam might have been forced to step aside, or even overthrown by his own power base.
But, since the UN allowed Saddam and the Iraqi elite to profit, the sanctions ended up killing between 250,000 – 500,000 ordinary Iraqis, mostly children, for NO GAIN WHATSOEVER, not to mention the staggering human cost of tens of millions of lives put on hold, as promising students couldn’t attend college, businesses weren’t started, etc.
It’s as if the beat cops are taking bribes from drug dealers – the only other choice, if drug dealing is to be stopped, is for private citizens to form vigilante groups.
Except, in this case, it’s as if the City Council gave their blessing to the groups, since the UN Security Council voted to authorize U.S. action vs. Iraq.
lonbud - October 30, 2005 @ 1:52 am
I’d like to push the pause button on this debate, Michael, and remind you and everyone else who’s willing to leap down the rabbit hole of access to Middle East oil and/or the establishment of a beach head for the democratic makeover of Islamic society: we went to war because Saddam had weapons of mass destruction he could unleash in 30 minutes!
And that, as we now know, was a crock of sh*t.
Bush and his entire command and control administration ought to be rung up on charges of treason and malfeasance for that reason alone, without regard to any of the other bullsh*t about whether or not democracy may one day flower in the Middle East, or whether Saddam was better or worse than Marcos, or Pol Pot, or Idi Amin, or any other tin pot dictator we never did anything about.
Can we assume, based on the logic of your post, you believe we ought to attack North Korea to depose its Dear Leader?
And no, I don’t agree Volker’s report justifies our having attacked Iraq to get rid of Saddam.
Your logic here is highly suspect.
In one breath you say Volker’s report makes clear that war was the ONLY option for removing Saddam, yet in the very next you allow that if the UN hadn’t been so corrupt, then Saddam might have been forced to step aside, or even overthrown by his own power base.
Volker’s report is a clear call for reform of the UN — a far less expensive, and less destructive task than starting a war — but that BushCo has no interest in whatsoever, because it would mean legitimizing the UN as an institution, which does not fit with Cheney, Wolfowitz, & Rumsfeld’s hegemonic ambitions.
Your cops/bribes/drug dealers analogy is flimsy, too. If the cops are corrupt, you reform the police department; you don’t form private vigilante groups.
What century are you living in, anyway?
Michael Herdegen - October 30, 2005 @ 5:06 am
I’d like to […] remind you and everyone else who’s willing to leap down the rabbit hole of access to Middle East oil and/or the establishment of a beach head for the democratic makeover of Islamic society: we went to war because Saddam had weapons of mass destruction he could unleash in 30 minutes!
No, that was the central point of selling the war to the American public, but it was never the only rational given, either to U.S. citizens or to the UN.
Further, as you well know, deposing Saddam was the point of the war, with the hope that we could install democracy a strong secondary consideration, regardless of what the sales pitch focused on.
And that, as we now know, was a crock of sh*t.
Yes, AS WE NOW KNOW.
Before we invaded, EVERY SINGLE INTEL AGENCY on Earth, including those of nations that didn’t want to do it, such as France and Russia, believed that Iraq had WMD, and Saddam did NOTHING to persuade us that he did not.
Hans Blix reported to the UN Security Council that Iraqi officials were being obstructive and less than forthcoming, (and this from a guy who didn’t want America to invade), and his weapons inspectors found stuff that was supposed to be destroyed in ’98, as well as equipment and materials that Iraq was banned from possessing, under the ’91 ceasefire agreement.
If, as the person at whom the buck stops, you would conclude from all of that that the wisest course of action is to assume that Saddam DID NOT have WMD, you’d be in incompetence and malfeasance territory.
…whether Saddam was better or worse than Marcos, or Pol Pot, or Idi Amin, or any other tin pot dictator we never did anything about.
Saddam was better than Pol Pot, but so was Hitler, so that’s a pretty low bar.
If you’re going to argue that since we don’t take down every evil dictator, we should never take down any, you’re going to both get into bed with Pat Buchanan, and have a very hard time squaring that position with incarcerating criminals.
After all, we don’t catch or prosecute all criminals, either, even when they’re well-known to be doing illegal things.
Can we assume, based on the logic of your post, you believe we ought to attack North Korea to depose its Dear Leader?
Yes.
However, that’s a moral position, and not a practical one, since potentially hundreds of thousands of people in Seoul would be killed during or after our attack.
Therefore, we won’t do it until or unless Kim Jung Il actually attacks someone, regardless of how many North Koreans die due to Dear Leader’s insanity and incompetence, or what the dangers are from NoKo nukes and missile tech getting distributed.
Volker’s report is a clear call for reform of the UN — a far less expensive, and less destructive task than starting a war — but that BushCo has no interest in whatsoever…
Then what was Bolton’s appointment about ?
Further, Volker’s report has caused Kofi Annan to commit to reform, which he had previously been resisting: Annan pledges reform of UN management structures.
Still, I recommend that you review the history of the speed and results of organizational reforms.
Reform might be less expensive and less destructive than war, but it’s also far less effective.
The CIA, LAPD, IRS, and INS, for example, have all been the target of attempted reforms in the past, but none have become paragons of virtue and effectiveness.
Therefore, it’s make war now, and hope that the UN will be better in the future – but no breath-holding.
What century are you living in, anyway?
That’s actually a great question.
I was just thinking about that.
It seems to me that many people who are upset about current events have a psychological anchoring concept of some mythical Paradise where all decisions are made with only the greater good in mind, where all information is known, where all actions are effective, no mistakes are made, and no surprises occur.
Thus, they’re irritated, annoyed, or even outraged by everyday deceit, self-dealing, delusional decision-making, or just plain ol’ incompetence.
They’re also upset by correct decisions that go sour due to unforeseen variables, or low-probability events that occur anyway.
For instance, Pres. Bush low-balled the cost estimates for his Medicare prescription drug plan, and hurricane Katrina did only slightly worse-than-normal hurricane damage – until some shoddily-constructed levees in New Orleans were breached.
Those disappoint me, but neither enrages me.
After all, Bush may ultimately prove to be close on the cost figures, even though the current estimates are higher, and it’s possible that we’ll find that the NO dikes were’t so much knowingly constructed to sub-standard, but perhaps more just badly designed.
My anchoring psychological concept is the 19th century, before the Age of Technology.
When I evaluate a situation or paradigm, I compare it to both all of human history, and to near-recent human history, as well as to a decision-making standard of “reasonableness”.
Are the actions of those in charge more corrupt than has been usual in the past ?
Are they making stupid decisions, or are they making reasonable decisions that aren’t working out ?
Do we have a better standard of living than we did in the past ?
Are we living longer ?
If we’re doing worse now than at some recent point in the past, is it a temporary set-back ?
Is the long-term trend still positive ?
There certainly are nations and societies whose answers to those questions would be negative or troubling, but in America, nothing is substantially worse than it used to be, and many things are better.
It ain’t Paradise yet, but it beats a poke in the eye with a sharp stick.
lonbud - October 30, 2005 @ 2:17 pm
No, that was the central point of selling the war to the American public, but it was never the only rational given, either to U.S. citizens or to the UN.
How quickly you forget, Michael. Plenty in the US and throughout the world threw up the “we’re just going after the oil” and “we want to engage in nation building” criticisms during the run-up to war, and the Bush administration flatly denied such were any part of the rationale.
Colin Powell and George Bush both went to the UN and talked only about WMD and the imminent threat Saddam posed to Israel and the United States.
Securing the oil supply and feathering democracy’s nest in Iraq were only embraced as “legitimate” reasons for being there after it became clear the WMDs were a chimera.
And as to what I, as the person at whom the buck theoretically stops, would have done in the face of intel uncertainty over Saddam’s possession of WMD — I would have let Blix and the weapons inspectors do their jobs.
I resent, too, your implication that Dubya has ever carried himself in a leadership capacity as the person at whom the buck stops. Flows through maybe; but he has never been one to take responsibility for the failure of his leadership — he can’t even think of any mistakes he’s ever made!
Bolton’s appointment to the UN was about deligitimizing the institution, not reforming it. BushCo has no use for the UN, and by appointing a psychotic, ham-fisted ideologue to represent the US, he can keep it in at least enough disarray that it can’t pose much of an obstacle to his plans for reordering the pieces on the global chessboard.
Thanks for copping to your shoot-first-ask-questions-later philosophy; at least we know where you stand with repspect to diplomacy and international relations.
It seems to me that many people who are upset about current events have a psychological anchoring concept of some mythical Paradise where all decisions are made with only the greater good in mind, where all information is known, where all actions are effective, no mistakes are made, and no surprises occur.
Thus, they’re irritated, annoyed, or even outraged by everyday deceit, self-dealing, delusional decision-making, or just plain ol’ incompetence.
They’re also upset by correct decisions that go sour due to unforeseen variables, or low-probability events that occur anyway.
I don’t think that’s a particularly charitable description of the state of affairs, but it gets close enough to the crux of the bisquit:
The motivating imperative of humanity is a return to Paradise, and I don’t see any problem with supporting and encouraging those who are willing to make the ultimate sacrifices to get there.
However, as a practical matter, we don’t have to anchor our psychological concepts in Paradise to realize how dangerous, incompetent, corrupt, and hypocritical our current leadership is.
And while I personally share your mooring in the 19th century, I do so enlightened by the things we’ve learned about ourselves and our environment in the interim. Thus, I am irritated, annoyed, and even outraged by everyday deceit, self-dealing, delusional decision-making, and just plain ol’ incompetence.
Those who deign to lead ought to be held to the highest standards, and in this day and age, there is simply no excuse for permitting any of those things you so blithely accept as par for the course.
Let George Bush go back to his beloved, godforsaken Prarie Chapel and from there bankrupt oil companies and swindle investors to his heart’s content.
But divest him of the keys to the kingdom and give them to someone else at whom the buck will stop, who will make decisions with the greater good in mind, using known information to further policies that will conserve the earth’s environment and resources and effect true compassion for the least among us.
At least then, the rest of us can feel better about the inevitable unforseen consequences that will arise and low-probability events that may occur anyway.
Just because ours is the best culture and standard of living in human history — which I’ll only grant for purposes of making the point — doesn’t mean we should be satisfied, or that we should abandon the quest for something better.
Michael Herdegen - October 31, 2005 @ 12:20 am
Whose culture is/was best ?
Whose standard of living is/was better ?
And, is there any legitimate chance of America becoming like whomever you respect ?
Remember, we’re a large nation, with a very diverse population, which causes a lot of friction.
America is like Switzerland, (only MUCH larger), not like Sweden.
lonbud - October 31, 2005 @ 12:59 am
You mean because of the money and the repressed nature, or what?
Michael Herdegen - October 31, 2005 @ 6:26 am
Ha !
Tam O’Tellico - October 31, 2005 @ 7:06 am
Michael,
I admire your courage for hanging out in this crowd, and as always, I am in agreement with much that you say. In this case, however, I find lonbud’s assessment far closer to my reality.
Those who doubt this reality may argue that this President truly believed Saddam Hussein possessed WMD, or even that Saddam was in league with Al Qaeda. But under our system, it is not enough for the President to believe. In a nation which prides itself on following the letter and the spirit of the law, the President must prove a threat “beyond a reasonable doubt” before asking our young men and women to make the ultimate sacrifice.
Instead, this President discouraged reasonable doubt (that seems to always be the case with those who prefer belief to evidence). Instead, this President imperially reversed a policy more or less in place since James Monroe, a policy based on defense not pre-emption. Instead, this President stifled debate and labeled as traitors those who dared question his policy of Pax Americana. Instead, this President lied and exaggerated and encouraged duplicity and skullduggery. Instead, this President aided and abetted a conspiracy under which experts or agents who disagreed were silenced or fired, or even worse, exposed by leaking state secrets to incestuous lackeys in the media.
Supporters of this President should prepare themselves. If the sins of Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton rise to “high crimes and misdemeanors” worthy of impeachment, the sins of this President, if ever they see the light of day, will not go unpunished.
Michael Herdegen - October 31, 2005 @ 11:03 pm
Speaking strictly from a legal standpoint, and ignoring moral and political considerations, the President doesn’t have to prove anything at all before ordering military action.
Constitutionally, the President is as a dictator when it comes to INITIATING military action, (N.B. initiating), and even the War Powers Act doesn’t kick in for thirty days.
If Bush wanted to launch cruise missiles at France and Cuba, all he has to do is pick up the phone.
Legally, there’s no stopping him.
lonbud - November 1, 2005 @ 12:17 am
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution clearly grants Congress the sole authority to declare War, and vests in the Congress authority to govern “such part of [the Army, Navy, and states’ Militias] as may be called into the Service of the United States.”
Article II, Section 2, which makes the President Commander in Chief of the Army, Navy, and Militias of the several states, stipulates that he becomes so only when such forces are called into the actual Service of the United States.
The Constitution is silent on the question of initiating military action, though any reasonable reading of the document ought to conclude it is Congress’ call on when to employ the Army, Navy, or states’ Militias in the Service of the United States. It is only thereafter the President’s duty to act as their Commander in Chief.
The War Powers Resolution was enacted in 1973 over the objections of then-President Richard Nixon to clarify the President’s responsibilities in the event the armed forces of the United States are ever introduced into hostilities absent a congressional declaration of war, and its provisions actually “kick in” in sixty, not thirty days.
I’m not sure what legal or constitutional ground you think you stand on in making such an irresponsible pronouncement, Michael, but the question is by no means as settled as you purport it to be, and the predominance of legal scholarship is decidedly at odds with your position.
Constitutionally, there is no authority to even use the words President of the United States and “dictator” in the same sentence.
Tam O’Tellico - November 1, 2005 @ 10:10 am
lonbud,
You should be our Supreme Court nominee — you have correctly interpreted both the letter and spirit of the applicable consitutional law regarding war powers.
Of course, Michael is correct that the cloudy Constitution is subject to other interpretations. Then there’s Jackson’s infamous (and possibly falsely attributed) response to the Supreme Court “Marshall has made his ruling; now let him enforce it.” Not sure I want to see that precedent pursued.
I suspect that once we are extracted from our current quagmire, there will be a great deal of pressure to resolve the semantic debates surrounding a President’s power to commit troops to combat. Simply calling a war a police action, an incursion, a terrorist attack or by some other euphemistic canard does little to justify such an abuse of authority as our undeclared war on Iraq.
On a lighter note, this is a slight revision of a piece sent me:
Once upon a time in Eternity, God went missing for a week. When he returned, the archangel Michael inquired, “Where have you been?”
God sighed with satisfaction, “I’ve created a Universe.” Michael, puzzled, asked, “What’s that?” “It’s billions and billion of stars and even more planets,” replied God. “Would you like to see my crowning touch?” “Sure”, said Michael.
God pointed proudly downward through the clouds.
“I call it Earth, a place of balance. For example, northern Europe is a place of great opportunity and wealth, while southern Europe is poor. I have a continent of mostly white people balanced by a continent of mostly black people. One continent is extremely hot, while another is extremely cold and covered in ice.”
Michael was obviously impressed with God’s great vision and wanted to learn more. “I see a place filled with beautiful mountains, rivers and forests. What’s it called?”
“Ah,” said God, admiring his handiwork, “that’s the state of Washington where people are handsome, modest, intelligent, and humorous. They’re sociable, hard-working, high-achieving, and known throughout the Earth as diplomats and lovers of peace.”
Michael gasped in wonder and admiration, but then asked, “But what about balance, God? You said there would be balance.”
A look of chagrin passed across the Creator’s countenance. “Yes, there is that, Michael. That’s why I had to make the other Washington.”
Michael Herdegen - November 1, 2005 @ 1:23 pm
lonbud:
You believe that Congress has to authorize the President to give orders to the military ?
That the POTUS is only Commander in Chief if Congress allows him to be ?
That is an impressively myopic reading of the Constitution, since it’s DIRECTLY contradicted by the the actual conduct of every President since the Constitution was adopted.
That’s a rather large body of precedent, wouldn’t you say ?
For instance, Teddy Roosevelt: He wanted to send the American Fleet on a ’round-the-world tour to demonstrate strength. Congress appropriated only half of the money necessary. Roosevelt sent the Navy anyway, saying (something like) “I am sending them half way around the world, I’ll let congress worry about how to get them back.”
Shouldn’t Congress have overriden that decision ?
IF, that is, they possessed the authority to do so – which they do not.
When did Clinton ask Congress for permission to launch cruise missiles against Afghanistan and the Sudan, and with what resolution did Congress authorize it ?
Michael Herdegen - November 1, 2005 @ 2:06 pm
Tam O’Tellico:
…such an abuse of authority as our undeclared war on Iraq.
You’re kidding, right ?
Congress passing the Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq means nothing ?
If Bush were violating the Constitution or applicable American law, don’t you think that Kerry just might have brought that up during the ’04 campaign ?
Michael Herdegen - November 1, 2005 @ 3:51 pm
lonbud:
[A]s to what I […] would have done in the face of intel uncertainty over Saddam’s possession of WMD — I would have let Blix and the weapons inspectors do their jobs.
Thanks for copping to your shoot-first-ask-questions-later philosophy; at least we know where you stand with respect to diplomacy and international relations.
27 JANUARY 2003: AN UPDATE ON INSPECTION by Dr. Hans Blix :
So…
Sixty days after beginning the weapons inspections that the UN Security Council had made clear were Iraq’s “last chance”, Dr. Blix had found that Iraq:
* Did not accept that they must cooperate with the weapons inspectors
* Would not guarantee that they wouldn’t attempt to shoot down a surveillance plane conducting searches for prohibited items
* Organized gov’t sponsored mass protests against the inspections, and harrassed the inspectors
* Refused to provide many documents related to prohibited weapons programmes, and those that were provided were largely copies of previously-submitted docs
* Lied about how much VX nerve agent was produced, and when, and about the quality and weaponization of it, and 1,000 tonnes of VX nerve gas are missing !!
* Continued to work on producing mustard gas
* Lied about how much anthrax they had produced, and could not account for its whereabouts
* Continued to produce warheads designed to deliver poisonous gasses and biological agents
* Developed larger, more powerful, longer-ranged rockets, both in contravention of the ’91 cease-fire agreement and a letter from the UN specifically forbidding such development
* Was actively intimidating persons who might provide useful information to the UN weapons inspectors
In what universe is the above regarded as abiding by the terms of the peace agreement, or cooperation with the weapons inspectors ?
In point of fact, the UN and the U.S. Congress had authorized America to effect changes, if the weapons inspections were unsuccessful, and Dr. Blix worked with Iraq for sixty days, and came back to report that Iraq was unwilling to abide by the terms of the peace agreements.
lonbud, WE DID EXACTLY WHAT YOU ASKED BE DONE.
You’re just not accepting that Saddam failed the test that you proposed.
Michael Herdegen - November 1, 2005 @ 4:12 pm
Tam O’Tellico:
Those who doubt this reality may argue that this President truly believed Saddam Hussein possessed WMD…
I’ve been thinking about that, and it occurs to me that this is a case of people demanding an absurd and impossible level of perfection, the Godlike omniscience that I referred to in a previous post.
What should Bush have believed about Iraq ?
If the President can’t believe his own gov’t agencies, then who SHOULD he trust ?
The CIA provides “on the one hand, on the other hand” reports, so to say that Bush should have been convinced that Iraq had no WMD because the CIA wasn’t sure is foolish – the CIA often provides “best available” info, with everyone knowing that it’s not complete or definitive.
That info was widely believed.
As I mentioned before, EVERY INTEL AGENCY ON EARTH believed the same, and even Iraqi Army units believed that other Army units had chemical weapons, even though they did not.
Pres. Bill Clinton, Sen. John Kerry, and Sen. Ted Kennedy all made speeches about how bad it was that Iraq had WMD, and that something should be done about it.
After the results of the 2002/2003 UN weapons inspections headed by Hans Blix, how could any reasonable person decide that Iraq DID NOT have WMD – Blix said that Iraq had all of the appearances of a nation with WMD, and they wouldn’t cooperate with attempts to prove otherwise.
So, Bush should know better than other high-ranking members of the U.S. gov’t, (including a former President), his own intel agencies, other nations’ intel agencies, the UN weapons inspection teams, and even the Iraqi Army itself ???
If he had lived up to that standard, he wouldn’t have needed to order an invasion using the American military, he could have personally smited the evil-doing Saddam.
lonbud - November 1, 2005 @ 6:29 pm
Fine, Michael.
Saddam was a bad man. A very, very bad man. A liar, a thief, a snake. He was warned, and he paid the price for being a jerk.
George W. Bush did what any reasonable imperialist would have done in his shoes, and now we’ve laid the foundation for WalMart to one day serve the bargain-price yearnings of greater Mecca.
I mean, honestly, what is everyone so frickin’ up in arms about?
lonbud - November 1, 2005 @ 6:52 pm
As to your reading of the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution of 1973: both are clear as to where power and authority are vested; the latter is clear as to the legal responsibilities of the President in the case where U.S. armed forces are introduced into hostilities absent a declaration of War by Congress.
In re: Teddy Roo, Bubba, and all the other POTUSes — If there is a stop sign out at the junction of HWY 61 and the turn-off to Devil’s Pass, and every Copperhead Road bootlegger in the past umpteen generations has run that stop sign for years uncounted, is it legal to fail to come to a complete stop at that instersection?
This little debate should become particularly germane in the context of the upcoming consideration of Sam Alito for appointment to the Supreme Court. He is, after all, supposed to be a strict constructionist, is he not?
Tam O’Tellico - November 1, 2005 @ 8:21 pm
Michael,
You are shaky ground here on two counts.
First, Bud is absolutely correct that the power to declare war is solely vested with Congress — that’s what Conservatives like to call strict constructionism. On the other hand, you are correct in saying (charging might be a better word) that the law has been routinely violated by many previous Presidents. Whether as a practical matter that is good or bad largely depends on whether we have a good or bad President. I think I’ve made my opinion clear in this case.
As for Bush’s belief about WMD, I think you’ve missed my point again. Yes, all Presidents receive conflicting opinions — though I suspect this one receives far fewer than most. And yes, a President must ultimately decide what course of action to pursue in spite of conflicting opinions. In some instances, that requires only a minimum standard based on “the preponderance of evidence” — say whether to continue Daylight Saving Time or not.
But when it comes to war, the standard must be higher, and I say it ought to be the legal standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt”. What Iraqi troops believed, what the Israeli’s believed, what some in the CIA believed, even what Clinton or Kerry or Bush believed was not good enough to justify going to war. In my book, that requires at least some real evidence.
In this case, there simply was no credible evidence to support the belief of Bush and his hawks, there were only suspicions. But there was contrary evidence from weapons inspectors on the ground, evidence that was ignored far too easily, there was evidence that argued strongly against aluminum tubes and Niger yellow-cake, evidence that was contaminated by a smear campaign designed to silence the few who dared to disagree with this administration’s beliefs, evidence offered in hopes of preventing the very folly we are now engaged in.
Just who was involved in that smear campaign will, hopefully, ond day be decided in our courts. Fortunately for Scootere, Citizen A and others, the standard by which they will be judged is “beyond a reasonable doubt.” In a perfect world, these felons would be judged by the very standards by which they destroy others — say by the South Carolina 2000 campaign or Swift Boat “standards”.
By engaging in a suspect war for suspect reasons, I believe this President with this war has created an environment in which future President’s ability to wage war will be greatly reduced. Certainly, future President’s will have to offer some real proof before being handed a blank check by Congress. And maybe, just maybe, future President’s will have to appeal to Congress to declare war before plnging us into war. Maybe that’s a good thing; maybe if we are to remain a nation of laws, we should insist that even our President comply with those laws.
Michael Herdegen - November 2, 2005 @ 3:45 am
Saddam was a very, very bad man. He was warned, and he paid the price for being a jerk.
I mean, honestly, what is everyone so frickin’ up in arms about?
Yeah, that’s pretty much my take.
Reasonable people can disagree about whether America should have invaded and occupied Iraq, and whether it’ll be a long-run net good.
NO reasonable, sane person can claim that Bush knew, or should have known, that few WMD would be found in Iraq, or that the invasion of Iraq was “illegal”, or that the domestic and international diplomatic and political agreement of the relevant parties was not given (those of the UN Security Council and of the U.S. Congress), or that Saddam wasn’t given every opportunity to peacefully step down or to cooperate with the UN weapons inspectors, or that the UN weapons inspectors didn’t find ample evidence that Iraq not only hadn’t given up their prohibited weapons, they’d actually PRODUCED MORE.
We “gave peace a chance” for TWELVE YEARS, and Saddam used that time and grace to smuggle oil, extract kickbacks, and bribe and corrupt UN officials, instead of getting rid of his military contraband.
George W. Bush did what any reasonable imperialist would have done in his shoes, and now we’ve laid the foundation for WalMart to one day serve the bargain-price yearnings of greater Mecca.
Why shouldn’t Middle Eastern Arabs enjoy a first-world standard of living ?
Your Bush-hatred blinds you to the abhorrent implications of what you’re writing – that YOU would like it better if THEY suffered under a homicidal tyrant, with no opportunity to effect political change, and no economic opportunities to better themselves – all of the basics that YOU get to take for granted.
It’s only the pretentious and squanderous that sneer at Wal~Mart; the poor know that Wal~Mart is the difference between living in reasonable comfort and living in squalor, and the compassionate know that Wal~Mart is the difference between making a decent living and fighting over scraps of food for a million Chinese workers.
Some would say “Forget the Chinese, they ain’t kin to us”, but I say that if the richest nation that humans have EVER seen can’t see fit to toss a few scraps to the least among us, (and make no mistake, the entire annual total of American imports of Chinese consumer goods amount to pocket change to the U.S. economy), then we’d truly deserve the scorn and contempt of the world.
If there is a stop sign out at the junction of HWY 61 and the turn-off to Devil’s Pass, and every Copperhead Road bootlegger in the past umpteen generations has run that stop sign for years uncounted, is it legal to fail to come to a complete stop at that instersection?
Yes, if the cops have been sitting at the side of the road watching all of those people blow past the stop sign for years.
They cannot let 100 people go through unmolested, and then stop Jane Q. Public for doing the same.
The bottom line is that the Constitution isn’t “clear as to where power and authority are vested”.
The President can’t take America to war if Congress objects, but he has some “wiggle room”, to allow him latitude to make decisions as the head of the armed forces.
There’s no bright line that divides Congressional authority from Presidential, with respect to the military; it’a a continuum.
That’s why there’s contention surrounding the issue.
In this case, there simply was no credible evidence to support the belief of Bush and his hawks, there were only suspicions. But there was contrary evidence from weapons inspectors on the ground…
You’d better re-read that lengthy excerpt from Dr. Blix’s report to the UN Security Council, or follow the link to the source doc.
* Iraq had produced prohibited warheads, to mount on prohibited rockets, with both the warheads and rockets being designed and produced after kicking out the UN weapons inspectors in ’98.
* Iraq had LARGE quantities of VX nerve gas and anthrax that were unaccounted for, and Iraq refused to release documents surrounding the manufacture and disposal of either.
* Iraq threatened to shoot down a surveillance plane that the UN weapons inspectors wanted to use to hunt for WMD
How do you get “reasonable doubt” from those circumstances ?
The missiles were sitting right there, the nerve gas was missing, and the threats were in writing.
It’s open and shut.
I also doubt that you want to re-open the “Swift Boat” can of worms.
Lt. Kerry did many brave things, and Sen. Kerry has some good qualities, but Kerry didn’t do everything that he claimed that he did, nor did he do some other things in the way that he claimed.
That, too, is well documented, both from Lt. Kerry’s testimony before Congress, and from Sen. Kerry’s remarks on the Senate floor over the years.
Tam O’Tellico - November 2, 2005 @ 4:20 pm
Michael,
You may retroactively justify this war on many grounds, not the least of which is that Saddam would have been another Hitler had he the power — that of course entails a gigantic if. But those were not the reasons given for this war, and I am still waiting to see the “slam-dunk evidence” which we were told was the reason for this war.
This is not second-guessing, my friend; it’s not just that there are no WMD — there is still no evidence that compelled us to act so rashly. And we now know even more clearly that the evidence to the contrary was scuttled by those whose beliefs outweighed their senses.
In fact, there is far more evidence that justifies attacking North Korea — though I wouldn’t recommend that policy at the moment.
And if the standard is intent, at this present moment there are any number of two-bit dictators who wish us harm and who would not hesitate a moment to do so if they thought they could get away with it. But if you are proposing that we have to eradicate them all to protect ourselves, you are opening a Pandora’s box that bring us continuous war for the remainder of this century — should our species last that long.
lonbud - November 2, 2005 @ 10:06 pm
Continuous war is exactly what the ruling cabal intends, Tam O. It not only drives America’s economy, it distracts and cowers the general public from the more niggling details of our commonweal’s erosion.
Tam O’Tellico - November 3, 2005 @ 6:11 am
Bud,
I have to disagree. I don’t believe this administration is looking forward to another war. Perversely enough, that is the main reason this war has been such a disaster. Our failure to effectively execute the “peace” in Iraq has dispirited our leaders, our troops and our citizens. Not everyone, but a great and growing majority will now be much more reluctant to engage in even a necessary war (see the aftermath of Viet Nam for the relevant history lessons). And it is undeniable that we have emboldened our enemies.
It wasn’t supposed to be like this. No, you may recall this was supposed to be a war of roses strewn in our path by welcoming Iraqis. Any possibility of that happening died with the decision to fight the war on the cheap — thank you Cheney and Rumsfeld.
That was only one more delusion of an administration that truly believed its own rhetoric and expected this war would be a cakewalk, and that after its glorious execution, the rest of the world’s petty dictators would come crawling to our castle for an audience with the Naked Emporer and the Prince of Darkness. Remember that rosy scenario?
That is the problem with putting our fate in the hands of True Believers, a notion that most traditional Conservatives would readily agree with. What they, and I suspect a large portion of the disenchanted electorate, have discovered is that the result is equally disastrous regardless whethere the True Believers come from the Far Left or the Far Right.
Yes, the war keeps us distracted from concentating on the mess we’re in, but so does Katrina/Rita/FEMA, Libby/Rove/Cheney, DeLay//Frist/Abramof, and none of these are welcome distractions for this administration. Fact is, Bush has blown all his “political capital” and bankrupted his administration just like he bankrupted most of his previous endeavors — with cronyism and other tell-tale signs of “misundermanagement”.
As a result, Bush is not a lame duck, he’s a ruptured duck.
lonbud - November 3, 2005 @ 9:44 am
Tam O, I wish I shared your assessment of the public’s unwillingness to accept a continuation of the administration’s misundermanagement of its affairs.
I believe that not only are our “leaders” not dispirited by events in Iraq and at home, they aren’t even chastened — we can expect more of the same out of Mr. Bush’s White House, and that of the next Republican president as well.
As I have mentioned before, it’s going to take millions of people in the streets — and quite possibly a good deal of blood in them as well — before the present course gets altered.
We are well into the “bread and circuses” phase of the Empire.
Tam O’Tellico - November 3, 2005 @ 2:31 pm
Bud,
Having lived through most of this before, I can assure you that even the masses can only be fooled for so long. Witness Bush’s poll numbers:
“According to the latest survey from the American Research Group… 36% of Americans approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president and 58% disapprove. When it comes to Bush’s handling of the economy, 33% approve and 62% disapprove. Among Americans registered to vote, 38% approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president and 56% disapprove, and 36% approve of the way Bush is handling the economy and 60% disapprove. For a little perspective, recall that Richard Nixon’s approval rating in the summer of 1973 (when the Watergate scandal was in full swing) was 39%.”
I can assure you a 30-something approval rating is unheard of for a President during war-time. I can also assure that the decline and fall of Richard Nixon was accompanied by some serious soul-searching on the part of many of those who supported him.
Remember also that John Kerry, a not particularly attractive candidate, received more votes than any Presidential candidate in history other than Bush 2004. Not that I can prove it, but I would be shocked if a rerun of the 2004 election didn’t reverse the totals — even with Diebold counting the votes
That’s how bad things have gotten for Bush — and there’s more to come. Take Karl Rove — please!
Once again, Karl Rove has pulled a Harry Houdini. But if anyone thinks Le Affaire de Plame is over, they’re sadly mistaken. Even if Libby takes one for the team – and the odds of that are no better than 50-50 since he is subject to some fairly serious jail time – the Plame Affair isn’t likely to end there.
Rove’s narrow temporary escape wasn’t magic, it was legal mathematics – proving intent was much too difficult, while proving perjury was much too easy. The simple truth is that Prosecutor Fitzgerald got his man and decided to let someone else worry about the rest of the gang that couldn’t think straight. Fitzgerald took the practical course, expecting or hoping that the investigation would continue, and that the rats might now be frightened enough to start leaping from the sinking ship and squealing as they depart. Call it John Dean Syndrome.
Another problem for this administration is that now every reporter with dreams of becoming the next Bob Woodward has been transformed from a lap-puppy to a howling hound hot on the trail of fresh blood. Someone is likely to get their chance, since decent folks (and there are bound to be some even in this administration) who’ve been embarrassed by this regime now feel free to engage in some much-needed political blood-letting. The operative phrase in Washington is changing from “suffering in silence” to “speaking in defiance”. Call it Deep Throat Syndrome.
Frankly, I think Dick Cheney is even more vulnerable than Rove. While Rove remains Bush’s best buddy, the Washington grapevine is suggesting that Bush and Cheney are not even speaking. This is hardly unexpected since Bush is always looking for a scapegoat, and Cheney has certainly misled a pliable and unprepared Bush into a thicket of thorns. Cheney should beware the Ides of March, methinks.
But for the moment, concerned citizens will have to be satisfied with Rove v. Wait. While Fitzgerald’s expediency might buy Rove et al a temporary reprieve, there is no joy in Mudville – it’s only a matter of time until the next gavel falls. What then?
Well, more heads will roll – perhaps even heads of state. Bush’s best chance of preventing that is some sort of blanket pardon. But that means the legal proceedings will have to be dragged-out till near the end of his second term. A blanket pardon in the interim could likely buy Bush impeachment anyway, especially if the mid-term elections reflect the thorough disgust voters are expressing in the polls.
So what’s the moral of this sordid story? With friends like Rove, who needs enemies?
As for you, my fatalistic friend, I’m not certain whether you despair of the revolution or welcome it. If you welcome it, I would remind you that history does not provide many examples of successful civil wars. Hell, in Tennessee as in much of the South they’re still fighting the last one.
Better that we all exchange words and ideas rather than bullets and prisoners.
Michael Herdegen - November 3, 2005 @ 2:49 pm
And it is undeniable that we have emboldened our enemies.
Could you provide some examples ?
In Afghanistan, we’re slaughtering the Taliban, who continue to be foolish enough to leave their safe bases in Pakistan and be lured into conventional open-field battles with U.S. forces, who surround and contain the Talib raiders, then crush them with air power.
The Iraqi pacification action resulted in:
Libya giving up their WMD programmes, including a nuclear programme that was years further along than anyone suspected; Egypt held free-and-fair elections (not strongly contested elections, but anyone could enter the race, a big change); Syria was forced to leave Lebanon; and Assad is being assailed not only by the U.S., but also strongly by the UN.
None of those things would have occurred without the shockingly quick fall of Saddam.
Iran’s nuclear programme well pre-dates the latest U.S. invasion of Iraq, so that doesn’t factor in.
Where do you see any “emboldening” ?
The Iraqi terrorists and insurgents continue to be a thorny problem, but they’ve FAILED to win the hearts & minds of the average Iraqi.
The political elections and constitutional referendum were successful, and many of the Sunni factions have decided that being part of the process is wiser than trying to stop it.
We are well into the “bread and circuses” phase of the Empire.
Respectfully – not even close.
We’re in an expansionistic phase of Empire, having vanquished our only possible competition, the USSR.
Now we’re working on assimilating the Middle East, to make them our worker drones and consumo-bots, or as one with my worldview might put it, to establish democracy and capitalism.
Michael Herdegen - November 3, 2005 @ 3:00 pm
Tam O’Tellico:
Please keep in mind that people may be disappointed with someone, without being inclined to vote for the opposition.
A low approval number provides an opening for Dems, but it’s only an opportunity, not spearing fish in a barrel.
If Bush gets impeached, I’ll buy you the best dinner that you’ve ever eaten, accomplished via gift certificate for the establishment of your choice.
The chance of that occurring, based on public knowledge of the Bush admin, even if someone broke the law by identifying Plame, (and they did not), is 0%.
There would have to be some revelation of acts that have been heretofore secret, a rather unlikely event.
Tam O’Tellico - November 3, 2005 @ 5:54 pm
Michael,
Of course, the grounds for impeachment will have to be “some revelation of acts that have been heretofore secret” else the proceedings would have begun already. Stay tuned.
You’re also correct that it would be exceedingly difficult to prove Bush or Cheney knowingly lied about WMD. Still — a jury of his peers might like to see Bush’s evidence for the outrageous claims he made in his State of the Union address in January, 2003. Bush stated categorically that Iraq was in possession of 26,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin, 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent, mobile biological weapons labs, uranium from Niger for use in Iraq’s advanced nuclear weapons program and of course those dreaded aluminum tubes.
Had there been any credible evidence to support such specificity that might have been a cause for the war – even if none of it turned out to be true. But there was no evidence.
A jury might well wonder how so much “stuff” could be misunderestimated. A good prosecutor might well ask how Bush arrived at such specificity, and absent any proof of such claims, a prosecutor might even make the case that such misrepresentation constituted fraud. And to prove that fraud was afoot, he might point the jury to the White House website which, incredible as it seems, continues to detail all these WMD claims even to this day. Don’t believe it? You can look it up.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/nationalsecurity/disarm.html.
But WMD isn’t the problem; it’s the Plame Affair. And if your position is that neither Official B or Official C knew anything about the smearing of Joe Wilson and the outing of Valerie Plame Wilson, or that they never discussed any of this with their closest friends and advisers, or that they didn’t know anything about the cover-up – well, that strikes me as far more preposterous than my assertion that they may yet be impeached. The best you can possibly hope for is that they maintain plausible deniability.
I’m not saying Bush will be impeached, I’m saying that if revelations in the Plame affair lead to what would not be an unlikely event for many of us — that “senior administration officials” condoned or were aware of and did nothing (let alone aided and abetted) in the outing of a CIA operative, or (even more likely) that they aided in the cover-up of those events by impeding the investigation — those senior administration officials are subject to criminal prosecution and impeachment.
Trust me, if the 2006 elections swing either the house or senate to the Democrats, the fat will definitely be in the fire. In that event, the Plame Affair will make Watergate look like a tea party. If you don’t think so, look what the Republicans did to Clinton over lying about fellatio. Unlike the Republicans and Watergate, the Dems only need short-term memory.
Michael Herdegen - November 4, 2005 @ 11:22 am
[I]t would be exceedingly difficult to prove Bush or Cheney knowingly lied about WMD. Still — a jury of his peers might like to see Bush’s evidence for the outrageous claims he made in his State of the Union address in January, 2003. Bush stated categorically that Iraq was in possession of 26,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin, 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent, mobile biological weapons labs, uranium from Niger for use in Iraq’s advanced nuclear weapons program and of course those dreaded aluminum tubes.
You are aware, of course, that you’re claiming that Bush managed to corrupt the UN weapons inspection teams, since they made THE EXACT SAME “outrageous claims” about Iraqi WMD, after 60 days of inspections.
Was Dr. Hans Blix “lying” ?
You may page up this thread to read excerpts from Blix’s late Jan. ’03 report to the UN Security Council, or go to the source doc here:
27 JANUARY 2003: AN UPDATE ON INSPECTION by Dr. Hans Blix.
Dr. Blix reported that Iraq lied about how much VX nerve agent was produced, and when, and about the quality and weaponization of it, and would not account for 6,500 bombs’ worth of nerve gas.
They also lied about how much anthrax they had produced, and would not account for its whereabouts.
They also had continued to produce mustard gas, and they also had continued to produce warheads designed to deliver poisonous gasses and biological agents
They also had developed larger, more powerful, longer-ranged rockets since ’98, which was not only in direct violation of their agreements, but also raises the question of why a nation that was supposedly disarming itself of unconventional weapons, a nation that was suffering under a draconian regime of sanctions imposed due to its failure to disarm in a timely manner, would spend scarce money on a missile development programme ?
Further, Wilson reported that he’d found out that in ’99, (after Iraq had kicked the first UN weapons inspection teams out of the country), an Iraqi delegation had visited Niger.
From the CIA World Factbook:
Niger is one of the poorest countries in the world, a landlocked Sub-Saharan nation, whose economy centers on subsistence crops, livestock, and some of the world’s largest uranium deposits.
Exports – commodities: Uranium ore, livestock, cowpeas, onions.
What were the Iraqis doing in Niger ?
Arranging for the purchase of some onions ?
I will not re-visit this topic with you, until and unless you address the above points, because your current position, that Had there been any credible evidence to support such specificity that might have been a cause for the war – even if none of it turned out to be true. But there was no evidence – is frankly delusional.
[I]f your position is that neither Official B or Official C knew anything about the smearing of Joe Wilson and the outing of Valerie Plame Wilson, or that they never discussed any of this with their closest friends and advisers, or that they didn’t know anything about the cover-up…
My position is that Plame was not a covert agent at the time that her name was published, nor had she been one recently enough prior to that for releasing her name to be a criminal act.
Think about it: Plame reports to work every day at CIA headquarters, and sends her husband on an overt mission for the CIA.
Are those actions typical of a covert agent ?
Only if they desire to be killed or imprisoned.
[L]ook what the Republicans did to Clinton over lying about fellatio.
Are you unaware that Clinton committed the crimes of perjury, and obstruction of justice ?
(The same crimes that Libby is being charged with).
Or is your position simply that once one becomes powerful enough, one is above the petty laws that govern the rabble ?
If it is, you have some justification, since had Clinton not been the POTUS, he would have gone to jail, in addition to the punishment that he actually received, of having his law license suspended.
Tam O’Tellico - November 4, 2005 @ 4:57 pm
Source of Forged Niger-Iraq Uranium Documents Identified
By Elaine Sciolino and Elisabetta Povoledo
The New York Times
Friday 04 November 2005
Rome – Italy’s spymaster identified an Italian occasional spy named Rocco Martino on Thursday as the disseminator of forged documents that described efforts by Iraq to buy uranium ore from Niger for a nuclear weapons program, three lawmakers said Thursday.
The spymaster, Gen. Nicolò Pollari, director of the Italian military intelligence agency known as Sismi, disclosed that Mr. Martino was the source of the forged documents in closed-door testimony to a parliamentary committee that oversees secret services, the lawmakers said.
Senator Massimo Brutti, a member of the committee, told reporters that Italian intelligence had warned Washington in early 2003 that the Niger-Iraq documents were false. The information about Iraq’s desire to acquire the ore, known as yellowcake, was used by the Bush administration to help justify the invasion of Iraq, notably by President Bush in his State of the Union address in January 2003.
There had long been doubts within the United States intelligence community about the authenticity of the yellowcake documents, and references to it had been deleted from other presentations given at the time. Stephen J. Hadley, then the deputy national security adviser and now the national security adviser, took responsibility for including the faulty information in Mr. Bush’s State of the Union address.
Michael Herdegen - November 5, 2005 @ 12:18 am
Tam O’Tellico:
OK.
Now, what of the nerve gas ?
The mustard gas ?
The anthrax ?
The NBC warheads ?
The too-large, too-powerful missiles ?
Tam O’Tellico - November 5, 2005 @ 10:04 am
[L]ook what the Republicans did to Clinton over lying about fellatio.
Are you unaware that Clinton committed the crimes of perjury, and obstruction of justice ?
Okay, Michael, let’s flog poor old Bill Clinton again and distract ourselves from the subject at hand — it’s a typical PavRovian response to trouble.
Since we’re talking about legal matters here, I think it’s fair to suggest that lying and perjury can be used interchangably, at least for purposes of discussion. A fair reading of my post should make clear that I was not acquitting Clinton of the charges against him. If not, let me be perfectly clear.
Yes, Clinton lied (committed perjury) to cover-up a blow job, and no doubt that was a crime for which he should have received punishment in the form of censure. I for one would have liked to see him sent to jail for his lies and deceit save for the harm that would have brought to the office. But I was willing to settle for a public humiliation that was the functional equivalent of the colonial stocks. That should have been sufficient to humble a too proud man and to dicourage him and other from repeating that behavior (unfortunatley, Clinton’s humiliation seems to have had no preventitive effect on the principals or principles of this administration).
Instead, vindictive Republicans still nursing Watergate wounds after all these years chose to elevate an embarassment to high crimes and misdemeanors. No reasonable person would argue that a lie (perjury) about this matter rose to that level, but there were damn few reasonable people pursuing Clinton’s impeachment. In my view their ardor was not cooled by common sense or common decency, but by Larry Flynt’s million-dollar bounty on their own hedonistic hides. In Washington, hypocrisy knows no bounds.
So what’t the point of this rehash? There are two important distinctions that reasonable people ought to keep in mind — distinctions that could make the Plame Affair not only more damaging than the Fellatio Follies, but conceivably even more damaging than Watergate.
As far as I’m aware, a blow job in the White House is not a crime no matter how poorly performed. Certainly, there was no victim except for the American public, some of whom suffered shattered illusions about the man and the office, and some of whom suffered the indignity of knowing they had re-elected a man morally unfit to hold our nation’s highest office. That included a lot of Conservatives who voted for Clinton simply because he “showed them the money.”
But embarassing as all that may be, none of that was a crime. Or to put it in legal terms, the activity which precipitated the lie (perjury) was not in and of itself a criminal act. And even though there was a a precipitate crime in Watergate, it involved political dirty tricks, not national security. But apparently some high adminstration officials can’t distinguish between political dirty tricks and national security.
The present matter involves the deliberate outing of a covert CIA agent, an act that involves potentially serious international consequences. And let us not split hairs about Plame’s level of activity. That is a red herring, and you know it — the applicable law makes no such distinction.
The first question that ought to be and yet may be answered in a court of law is whether that act was committed and secondarily whether it was deliberate. If that can be proven, it is a felony with a substantial penalty. Therefore, in this case, unlike the Clinton case, there may have been a very real crime which precipitated the cover-up.
So let no one imagine that the Clinton Affair and the Plame Affair are of equal import. And even though the matter immediately before the courts does involve a cover-up and perjury and obstruction of justice, the fact remains that the Plame Affair, if followed to its logical conclusion and if proven, clearly rises to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors. Of course that is a big “if”. And in the meantime, the potential exists for further obstruction of justice and perjury if suspicions about Rove and Cheney and possibly even Bush turn out to be true.
But even if these suspicions can never be proven in court, the case may be moot. These questions have already been asked and answered in the court of public opinion, thus Bush’s foundering poll numbers.
Tam O’Tellico - November 5, 2005 @ 10:18 am
November 5th, 2005 at 12:18 am
Tam O’Tellico:
OK.
Now, what of the nerve gas ?
The mustard gas ?
The anthrax ?
The NBC warheads ?
The too-large, too-powerful missiles ?
Michael,
Please don’t expect me to fall for that ruse, Ari Fleischer already tried that. It’s not my responsibility to prove these things don’t exist. That’s the responsiblity of those who started this war with flimsy or manufactured evidence. If they can’t prove it now that we “control” Iraq, they should admit they were wrong and suffer the consequences of their folly. Instead, this bunch just invents another excuse for the war. Guess they figure it’s harder to hit a moving target.
The real question to be answered is this:
Mr. Bush, where’s the beef?
Tam O’Tellico - November 5, 2005 @ 10:46 am
T: “And it is undeniable that we have emboldened our enemies.”
M: “Could you provide some examples ?”
Michael, you’re being disingenous to talk about the Taliban, when you know perfectly will I’m talking about the reality on the ground in Iraq. You want examples? I’d say the fact that taking the highway from the Green Zone to the Baghdad airport is little more than running the gauntlet; I’d say that the Green Zone being the only place in all of Iraq that Americans are reasonably safe with the possible exception of the Kurdish north which ironically is controlled not by the Americans but by the Kurds; I’d say these are all too vivid examples of an emboldened enemy.
Once again, all this is verly likely a consequence of trying to fight a far-flung war on the cheap. There is no guarantee that 200,000 troops would have prevented the insurgency. But 100,000 troops guaranteed there would be one. And that is not hindsight, that is the foresight of General Shineski, the man disgraced for daring to tell truth to power.
This administration has either been ignorant, incompetent or insincere about this war from the beginning, summarily dismissing those like Paul O’Neill and others who laid out the economic realities beforehand. Thus when the administration “guessed” the war would cost $78 billion, its own expert advised them it would exceed $200 billion. Then he, too, was dismissed for not “toeing the line”.
Whatever your personal opinion of the need for this war or the effectiveness of its prosecution, it astounds me that someone of your intelligence can’t see that this administration has proven to be at least incompetent, and what is far more likely, duplicitious both as to the reasons for and the realities of this war.
Michael Herdegen - November 5, 2005 @ 10:07 pm
Okay, Michael, let’s flog poor old Bill Clinton again and distract ourselves from the subject at hand — it’s a typical PavRovian response to trouble.
Since YOU brought it up, are you asserting that you typically use a PavRovian response, or simply acknowledging that your position is in trouble ?
Clinton’s legal problems didn’t center around Monica Lewinsky, but around Paula Jones, and it was while attempting to shield himself from responsibility in that matter that Clinton committed the crimes for which he was impeached.
Lewinsky’s sexual favors were not the instigating event, it was Clinton’s bizarrely crude manner with the distaff sex.
Therefore, focusing on a blow job misses the point entirely, although you seem ready to toss Slick Willy overboard anyhow.
No crime appears to have been committed in the Plame Affair, and the court of public opinion is all you’re likely to get, so enjoy Bush’s low approval ratings while you can, don’t wait for some better hypothetical future vindication or satisfaction.
It’s not my responsibility to prove these things don’t exist. That’s the responsiblity of those who started this war with flimsy or manufactured evidence.
No, it’s not your responsiblity, nor does it need to be done.
Dr. Hans Blix and the UN weapons inspection teams already proved that they exist.
I was just seeing if you could bring yourself to face reality, but you don’t yet seem ready.
I’d say the fact that taking the highway from the Green Zone to the Baghdad airport is little more than running the gauntlet; I’d say that the Green Zone being the only place in all of Iraq that Americans are reasonably safe with the possible exception of the Kurdish north which ironically is controlled not by the Americans but by the Kurds; I’d say these are all too vivid examples of an emboldened enemy.
So, should there come a time when the highway to the Baghdad Airport is safe, you’d conclude that America’s enemies are no longer emboldened ?
The problem with those examples is that they’re temporary, tactical, and local.
I’m more interested in any examples that you might be able to provide which are long-term, wide-spread, and serious.
The Sunni Triangle and the Iraqi insurgents, while unpleasant, aren’t going to make a lick of difference in the world, in the long run, and so they’re noisy but moot.
We could very easily make the highway safe, by limiting access to only those who pass security checks, by demolishing all of the homes and buildings within 100 meters of the road, and by ’round-the-clock patrols.
We don’t do so because the highway is actually fairly safe, (just less so than many other parts of Iraq and Baghdad), and because it would create extreme hardship and ill-will, and why do it if we’re leaving soon anyhow ?
You’re wrong about the Green Zone, by the way, it’s not the only safe spot for Americans in Iraq, it the safest spot for Americans in the Sunni Triangle, which comprises less than a third of Iraq.
As you note, the north is safe, and as you fail to note, so is the south.
Why is it, do you think, that the Kurds control the north ?
Perhaps it’s not because only the Kurds can guarantee American safety, it’s because the area has been calm enough for America to turn control over to the Kurds.
Your interpretation of the situation is exactly backwards – it’s not safe due to Kurdish control, it’s under Kurdish control because it’s safe.
[I]t astounds me that someone of your intelligence can’t see that this administration has proven to be at least incompetent, and what is far more likely, duplicitious both as to the reasons for and the realities of this war.
That’s because it’s not a problem of intelligence, it’s a problem of wisdom, or of emotion, or of faith, as you prefer.
lonbud, for instance, has some need to believe that Bush was completely and totally responsible for 9/11, and in fact he believes that the Bush admin may have known that it was going to happen, and let it – kind of like the canard about WW II, that Roosevelt knew about the attack on Pearl in advance, but allowed the Japanese to destroy America’s Pacific Fleet to gain a casus belli.
In both cases, since there are much cheaper and more effective ways to achieve whatever it is that the conspiracy theorists believe that Bush and Roosevelt wanted to achieve, one would assume that a simple mention of those alternative ways would be enough to cause a lightbulb to flicker on, but no.
No amount of facts, reason, or logic will sway londud and his fellow believers, because they have some underlying psychological or emotional need to believe that the person at the top of American society is all-knowing, all-powerful, and thus all-responsible for purposely allowing bad things to happen.
Similarly, you won’t accept the UN’s intel findings, even though you could knock on the illegal rockets, to prove that they’re real, read the Iraqi documents which prove that they made more, better, and missing VX nerve gas, visit the sites at which they prepared mustard gas and anthrax, and talk to the Iraqi officers who believed that the Iraqi Army had access to WMD – just not their unit.
Despite all of that real, physical stuff, you for some reason MUST believe that Bush knew that we wouldn’t find the missing WMD, that Bush knew better than ANY INTEL ORG IN THE ENTIRE WORLD – the exact same need to believe in a Divine President that lonbud has.
Maybe that’s why you’re so angry with Bush.
He didn’t just let you down, he betrayed you – in your mind, at least.
(Or so it appears).
Why not apply the same nuanced evaluation to Bush, that you can apply to Cliinton ?
Having said that, I agree that the Iraqi pacification was not the #1 best way to approach the problem of a dysfunctional Middle East, and I also agree that the post-war plan was garbage.
What I do NOT agree with are the propositions that the Iraqi war cannot result in a net good, (especially given that it ALREADY HAS), or that either the military or social situations in Iraq are hopeless, or getting worse.
Tam O’Tellico - November 6, 2005 @ 7:51 am
Once more into the breach —
First and least-most, as to the testimony of Iraqis about what weapons other Iraqis may have possessed which you have now offered twice as “proof”, that is nothing more than hearsay at best. However, it is telling that those offering testimony didn’t claim to have any such weapons.
My point is simple — I don’t believe the evidence that was available was sufficient to initiate a pre-emptive war. For me the question remains, why would reasonable men risk war and all that entails on such evidence?
That goes to motive, and yes, you’re quite correct, I distrust the motives of the President and most especially the motives of the Vice-President who had far too much influence — influence which seems to have waned considerably, thank God. I can’t even begin to comprehend Cheney’s motives — nor can many of his oldest and dearest friends.
Neither you nor I can ever know what Bush believed about WMD before the war, so that discussion is utterly pointless. However, I think we can assume something about the motives and tactics of this administration from the simple fact that the same WMD “facts” continue to be posted on the White House website.
You are quite wrong about one thing — I take no delight in seeing my predictions and those of others far more informed come to pass in Iraq. I had desperately hoped to be proven wrong. I continue to hold to the desperate hope that we will find a way to salvage some good out of what I consider one of the most ill-advised foreign policy moves in American history.
If by some miracle, this policy leads to stability in the Mideast, if it encourages democracy there — and here, if it strikes fear of us in Islamic fundamentalists, in short, if it makes the world a better, safer place, I will confess my error gladly and salute this President and move him from the bottom to the top of my list.
Meanwhile, I shall try to get through Hell with this snowball.
Tam O’Tellico - November 6, 2005 @ 10:34 pm
The Bush administration has now retired the Dubyaous Distinction Award and the Leap of Blind Faith laurels as well. This is more of the “evidence” that sent us to war. If you can’t take the time to read the whole article — and you should — this is the paragraph which grabbed my attention because it is exactly what I pleaded with people to understand when this administration offered the Osama/Saddam connection as an excuse for the Iraq war. But this shouldn’t have been news to anyone since this is exactly why Bush I didn’t take out Saddam:
“Saddam’s regime is intensely secular and is wary of Islamic revolutionary movements,” the D.I.A. report said in one of two declassified paragraphs. “Moreover, Baghdad is unlikely to provide assistance to a group it cannot control.”
Report Warned Bush Team about Intelligence Doubts
By Douglas Jehl
The New York Times
Sunday 06 November 2005
Washington – A top member of Al Qaeda in American custody was identified as a likely fabricator months before the Bush administration began to use his statements as the foundation for its claims that Iraq trained Al Qaeda members to use biological and chemical weapons, according to newly declassified portions of a Defense Intelligence Agency document.
The document, an intelligence report from February 2002, said it was probable that the prisoner, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, “was intentionally misleading the debriefers” in making claims about Iraqi support for Al Qaeda’s work with illicit weapons.
The document provides the earliest and strongest indication of doubts voiced by American intelligence agencies about Mr. Libi’s credibility. Without mentioning him by name, President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Colin L. Powell, then secretary of state, and other administration officials repeatedly cited Mr. Libi’s information as “credible” evidence that Iraq was training Al Qaeda members in the use of explosives and illicit weapons.
Among the first and most prominent assertions was one by Mr. Bush, who said in a major speech in Cincinnati in October 2002 that “we’ve learned that Iraq has trained Al Qaeda members in bomb making and poisons and gases.”
The newly declassified portions of the document were made available by Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Mr. Levin said the new evidence of early doubts about Mr. Libi’s statements dramatized what he called the Bush administration’s misuse of prewar intelligence to try to justify the war in Iraq. That is an issue that Mr. Levin and other Senate Democrats have been seeking to emphasize, in part by calling attention to the fact that the Republican-led Senate intelligence committee has yet to deliver a promised report, first sought more than two years ago, on the use of prewar intelligence.
An administration official declined to comment on the D.I.A. report on Mr. Libi. But Senate Republicans, put on the defensive when Democrats forced a closed session of the Senate this week to discuss the issue, have been arguing that Republicans were not alone in making prewar assertions about Iraq, illicit weapons and terrorism that have since been discredited.
Mr. Libi, who was captured in Pakistan at the end of 2001, recanted his claims in January 2004. That prompted the C.I.A., a month later, to recall all intelligence reports based on his statements, a fact recorded in a footnote to the report issued by the Sept. 11 commission.
Mr. Libi was not alone among intelligence sources later determined to have been fabricating accounts. Among others, an Iraqi exile whose code name was Curveball was the primary source for what proved to be false information about Iraq and mobile biological weapons labs. And American military officials cultivated ties with Ahmad Chalabi, the head of the Iraqi National Congress, an exile group, who has been accused of feeding the Pentagon misleading information in urging war.
The report issued by the Senate intelligence committee in July 2004 questioned whether some versions of intelligence report prepared by the C.I.A. in late 2002 and early 2003 raised sufficient questions about the reliability of Mr. Libi’s claims.
But neither that report nor another issued by the Sept. 11 commission made any reference to the existence of the earlier and more skeptical 2002 report by the D.I.A., which supplies intelligence to military commanders and national security policy makers. As an official intelligence report, labeled DITSUM No. 044-02, the document would have circulated widely within the government, and it would have been available to the C.I.A., the White House, the Pentagon and other agencies. It remains unclear whether the D.I.A. document was provided to the Senate panel.
In outlining reasons for its skepticism, the D.I.A. report noted that Mr. Libi’s claims lacked specific details about the Iraqis involved, the illicit weapons used and the location where the training was to have taken place.
“It is possible he does not know any further details; it is more likely this individual is intentionally misleading the debriefers,” the February 2002 report said. “Ibn al-Shaykh has been undergoing debriefs for several weeks and may be describing scenarios to the debriefers that he knows will retain their interest.”
Mr. Powell relied heavily on accounts provided by Mr. Libi for his speech to the United Nations Security Council on Feb. 5, 2003, saying that he was tracing “the story of a senior terrorist operative telling how Iraq provided training in these weapons to Al Qaeda.”
At the time of Mr. Powell’s speech, an unclassified statement by the C.I.A. described the reporting, now known to have been from Mr. Libi, as “credible.” But Mr. Levin said he had learned that a classified C.I.A. assessment at the time stated “the source was not in a position to know if any training had taken place.”
In an interview on Friday, Mr. Levin also called attention to a portion of the D.I.A. report that expressed skepticism about the idea of close collaboration between Iraq and Al Qaeda, an idea that was never substantiated by American intelligence but was a pillar of the administration’s prewar claims.
“Saddam’s regime is intensely secular and is wary of Islamic revolutionary movements,” the D.I.A. report said in one of two declassified paragraphs. “Moreover, Baghdad is unlikely to provide assistance to a group it cannot control.”
The request to declassify the two paragraphs was made on Oct. 18 by Mr. Levin and Senator John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, the top Democrat on the Senate intelligence committee. In an Oct. 26 response, Kathleen P. Turner, chief of the D.I.A.’s office for Congressional affairs, said the agency “can find no reason for it to remain classified.”
At the time of his capture, Mr. Libi was the most senior Qaeda official in American custody. The D.I.A. document gave no indication of where he was being held, or what interrogation methods were used on him.
Mr. Libi remains in custody, apparently at Guant√°;namo Bay, Cuba, where he was sent in 2003, according to government officials.
The Senate intelligence committee is scheduled to meet beginning next week to review draft reports prepared as part of a long-postponed “Phase II” of the panel’s review of prewar intelligence on Iraq. At separate briefings for reporters on Friday, Republicans staff members said the writing had long been under way, while Senate Democrats on the committee claimed credit for reinvigorating the process, by forcing the closed session. They said that already nearly complete is a look at whether prewar intelligence accurately predicted the potential for an anti-American insurgency.
Other areas of focus include the role played by the Iraqi National Congress, that of the Pentagon in shaping intelligence assessments, and an examination of whether public statements about Iraq by members of the Bush and Clinton administrations, as well as members of Congress, were substantiated by intelligence available at the time.
Tam O’Tellico - November 6, 2005 @ 10:42 pm
P.S. I hope this helps explain why I question not only the statements, but the motives of this administration. It appears that millions more Americans are beginning to feel the same way.
Michael Herdegen - November 7, 2005 @ 1:43 am
First and least-most, as to the testimony of Iraqis about what weapons other Iraqis may have possessed which you have now offered twice as “proof”, that is nothing more than hearsay at best.
It isn’t proof that Saddam had WMD, it’s proof that a reasonable person could believe that Saddam had WMD.
Saddam’s own Army officers believed that Iraq had WMD, and Saddam did nothing to convince the UN weapons inspectors, or the UN Security Council, that he did not – quite the opposite, he refused to account for the WMD that we KNEW that he had.
[T]his shouldn’t have been news to anyone since this is exactly why Bush I didn’t take out Saddam…
Bush the Elder didn’t take out Saddam for a number of complex reasons, but the official policy of the U.S. gov’t since ’91, including the Bush I admin, eight years of the Clinton admin, and until ’03, was that Saddam should be removed from power in Iraq, so it’s silly to argue that Bush the Elder thought that Saddam would be a stabilizing influence in the region – we gave up that hope when Saddam invaded Kuwait.
G.H.W. Bush just hoped that someone other than the U.S. would do for Saddam.
Mr. Libi, who was captured in Pakistan at the end of 2001, recanted his claims in January 2004.
In other words, AFTER the invasion. Fat lot of good it did then.
The report issued by the Senate intelligence committee in July 2004 questioned whether some versions of intelligence report prepared by the C.I.A. in late 2002 and early 2003 raised sufficient questions about the reliability of Mr. Libi’s claims.
So, senior admin officials thought that they were getting the straight dope.
In outlining reasons for its skepticism, the D.I.A. report noted that Mr. Libi’s claims lacked specific details about the Iraqis involved, the illicit weapons used and the location where the training was to have taken place.
“It is possible he does not know any further details; it is more likely this individual is intentionally misleading the debriefers,” the February 2002 report said.
At the time of his capture, Mr. Libi was the most senior Qaeda official in American custody.
So, we have the most senior al Qaeda operative currently in custody telling us that Iraq was helping al Qaeda out, and we were already well aware that Saddam was heavily involved in helping Palestinian terrorists.
The al Qaeda guy can’t give specific details, but maybe he just doesn’t know any.
Would any prudent leader decide that s/he’ll dismiss the claims out of hand ?
Remember, this was immediately after 9/11, when viewing shaky intel with a complacent eye led to at least TWO missed opportunities to stop the terror plot, which killed 3,000 people and caused a trillion dollars worth of damage to the U.S. economy.
Much of the criticism of the Clinton and Bush admins surrounding 9/11 has to do with not following up on sketchy intel; but you’re saying that such a policy should have been continued AFTER 9/11 ?
I continue to hold to the desperate hope that we will find a way to salvage some good out of what I consider one of the most ill-advised foreign policy moves in American history.
Your hopes have been fulfilled.
As I wrote earlier, the Iraqi pacification has directly resulted in:
Libya giving up their WMD programmes, including a nuclear programme that was years further along than anyone suspected; Egypt held free-and-fair elections (not strongly contested elections, but anyone could enter the race, a big change); Syria was forced to leave Lebanon; and Assad is being assailed not only by the U.S., but also strongly by the UN.
As for the motives of the Bush admin, simple: They wanted Saddam out, and were prepared to go to war to accomplish that.
But first, the Bush admin brought to bear the full pressure of the UN, hoping that Saddam would step down voluntarily, and go into exile.
Saddam, for whatever reason, didn’t get the hint, and made things worse for himself with his intransigence and belligerence.
While it’s clear that the Bush admin put the best spin on things to sell the war to the American public, it’s also clear that they weren’t making stuff up out of whole cloth.
Saddam had used WMD several times before, against the Iranians and Iraqi Shi’ites; Saddam’s own brother-in-law defected and told us that Saddam was trying to get his hands on nukes, before (oddly) going back to Iraq, where he was shortly thereafter executed; all of the intel agencies on Earth were reporting to their gov’ts that Saddam likely had WMD; and the ’02 – ’03 UN weapons inspections confirmed that not only did the inspections in the 90s NOT get rid of all of Iraq’s prohibited weapons, Saddam was actually MAKING MORE, and better, despite the punishing sanctions that were killing tens of thousands of ordinary Iraqis per year.
You’ve made it clear that despite the overwhelming evidence, you would not have invaded Iraq, had it had been up to you.
I don’t believe that Al Gore, Jr. would have, either, which is a minor reason why I’m glad that Bush managed to steal the ’00 elections.
(I wouldn’t have, either, but I would have taken actions designed to crush Iraq, [and Iran], and possibly stepped up covert operations to kill Saddam).
Tam O’Tellico - November 7, 2005 @ 10:43 am
M: “I don’t believe that Al Gore, Jr. would have, either, which is a minor reason why I’m glad that Bush managed to steal the ‘00 elections.”
M: “(I wouldn’t have, either, but I would have taken actions designed to crush Iraq, [and Iran], and possibly stepped up covert operations to kill Saddam).”
These two statements seem to be in direct conflict, but believe me I understand — any reasonable person ought to have conflicting views in regard to all this. That’s why those who brooked no conflicting views and made their “slam dunk” pronouncements scare the excrement out of me.
I am shocked at your admission that Bush stole the 2000 election. I lived in Florida for 25 years, and I know something about the politics that put Katherine the Incompetent (the press is conspiring to make me look ugly) in a position of authority. Tthe worst thing to come out of that whole sordid episode (besides W’s victory) was the over-reaching of the Supreme Court — talk about judicial excess! Where are states rights when we need ’em?
M: “You’ve made it clear that despite the overwhelming evidence, you would not have invaded Iraq, had it been up to you.”
Nice try, but I have not seen any overwhelming evidence — what we were fed was overwhelming suspicion. I mean that quite literally — fear created a state of mind which overwhelmed people’s senses. That’s how it is with paranoia — and I might add that such paranoia is one of the principle aims of terrorism.
I repeat — if these weapons existed, where are they now? The only refuge left for purveyors of WMD Theory is that this stuff is buried under desert sands. It’s either that or admit they were duped by second-rate forgeries and self-serving confessions. Well, I laugh at the first excuse and weep at the second.
You and I appear to be in agreement about one thing — in regard to removing Saddam, a few million well-placed dollars and one well-placed ten-cent bullet would have been far more efficient than a far-flung war.
But whether that would have made the world safer for democracy is open to argument. And despite “official U.S. policy” regarding the overthrow of Saddam, I think Bush I and his inner circle believed that bad as Saddam was, what followed his overthrow was likely to be worse (see Iran for a recent historical example).
It appears that view has been vindicated by the present reality. Certainly that view is prescient compared to the foolish notions of Cheney and the Neocon-artists’ that we would be welcomed in Iraq as liberators and that our path would be strewn with roses.
The WMD Theory strikes me as being a lot like Intelligent Design Theory — a set of beliefs in search of even a meager scrap of hard evidence. In both cases, there is none and yet that does nothing to change fettered minds about the existence of the “supernatural”. In short, belief counts more than evidence — even if you’re proven wrong.
That is the essence of the problem with Bush and his rabid supporters — they seem to think there is virtue in being sincerely wrong.
Tam O’Tellico - November 7, 2005 @ 3:52 pm
Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement
verbatim excerpt
3. I have been advised that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling of classified information by me could cause damage or irreparable injury to the United States or could be used to advantage by a foreign nation. I hereby agree that I will never divulge classified information to anyone unless:(a) I have officially verified that the recipient has been properly authorized by the United States Government to receive it; or (b) I have been given prior written notice or authorization from the United States Government Department or Agency (hereinafter Department or Agency) responsible for the classification of the information or last granting me a security clearance that such disclosure is permitted. I understand that if I am uncertain about the classification status of information, I am required to confirm from an authorized official that the information is unclassified before I may disclose it, except to a person as provided in (a) or (b), above. I further understand that I am obligated to comply with laws and regulations that prohibit the unauthorized disclosure of classified information.
4. I have been advised that any breach of this Agreement may result in the termination of any security clearances I hold; removal from any position of special confidence and trust requiring such clearances; or the termination of my employment or other relationships with the Departments or Agencies that granted my security clearance or clearances. In addition, I have been advised that any unauthorized disclosure of classified information by me may constitute a violation, or violations, of
United States criminal laws, including the provisions of Sections 641, 793, 794, 798, *952 and 1924, Title 18, United States Code, * the provisions of Section 783(b), Title 50, United States Code, and the provisions of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982. I recognize that nothing in this Agreement constitutes a waiver by the United States of the right to
prosecute me for any statutory violation.
Tam O’Tellico - November 7, 2005 @ 4:11 pm
REP. HENRY A. WAXMAN
RANKING MINORITY MEMBER
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
JULY 15, 2005
Fact Sheet
Karl Rove’s Nondisclosure Agreement
Today, news reports revealed that Karl Rove, the White House Deputy Chief of Staff and the President’s top political advisor, confirmed the identity of covert CIA official Valerie Plame Wilson with Robert Novak on July 8, 2003, six days before Mr. Novak published the information in a nationally syndicated column. These new disclosures have obvious relevance to the criminal investigation of Patrick Fitzgerald, the Special Counsel who is investigating whether Mr. Rove violated a criminal statute by revealing Ms. Wilson’s identity as a covert CIA official.
Independent of the relevance these new disclosures have to Mr. Fitzgerald’s investigation, they also have significant implications for: (1) whether Mr. Rove violated his obligations under his “Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement” and (2) whether the White House violated its obligations under Executive Order 12958. Under the nondisclosure agreement and the executive order, Mr. Rove would be subject to the loss of his security clearance or dismissal even for “negligently” disclosing Ms. Wilson’s identity.
Executive Order 12958 governs how federal employees are awarded security clearances in order to obtain access to classified information. It was last updated by President George W. Bush on March 25, 2003, although it has existed in some form since the Truman era.
The executive order applies to any entity within the executive branch that comes into possession of classified information, including the White House. It requires employees to undergo a criminal background check, obtain training on how to protect classified information, and sign a “Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement,” also known as a SF-312, promising not to reveal classified information. The nondisclosure agreement signed by White House officials such as Mr. Rove states: “I will never divulge classified information to anyone” who is not authorized to receive it.
Mr. Rove, through his attorney, has raised the implication that there is a distinction between releasing classified information to someone not authorized to receive it and confirming classified information from someone not authorized to have it. In fact, there is no such distinction under the nondisclosure agreement Mr. Rove signed.
One of the most basic rules of safeguarding classified information is that an official who has signed a nondisclosure agreement cannot confirm classified information obtained by a reporter. In fact, this obligation is highlighted in the briefing booklet that new security clearance recipients receive when they sign their nondisclosure agreements:
“Before … confirming the accuracy of what appears in the public source, the signer of the SF 312 must confirm through an authorized official that the information has, in fact, been declassified. If it has not … confirmation of its accuracy is also an unauthorized disclosure.”
Mr. Rove’s attorney has implied that if Mr. Rove learned Ms. Wilson’s identity and occupation from a reporter, this somehow makes a difference in what he can say about the information. This is inaccurate. The executive order states:
“Classified information shall not be declassified automatically as a result of any unauthorized disclosure of identical or similar information.”
Mr. Rove was not at liberty to repeat classified information he may have learned from a reporter. Instead, he had an affirmative obligation to determine whether the information had been declassified before repeating it. The briefing booklet is explicit on this point:
“before disseminating the information elsewhere … the signer of the SF 312 must confirm through an authorized official that the information has, in fact, been declassified.”
Mr. Rove’s attorney has also implied that Mr. Rove’s conduct should be at issue only if he intentionally or knowingly disclosed Ms. Wilson’s covert status. In fact, the nondisclosure agreement and the executive order require sanctions against security clearance holders who “knowingly, willfully, or negligently” disclose classified information. The sanctions for such a breach include “reprimand, suspension without pay, removal, termination of classification authority, loss or denial of access to classified information, or other sanctions.”
Under the executive order, the White House has an affirmative obligation to investigate and take remedial action separate and apart from any ongoing criminal investigation. The executive order specifically provides that when a breach occurs, each agency must “take appropriate and prompt corrective action.”
This includes a determination of whether individual employees improperly disseminated or obtained access to classified information. The executive order further provides that sanctions for violations are not optional. The executive order expressly provides:
“Officers and employees of the United States Government … shall be subject to appropriate sanctions if they knowingly, willfully, or negligently … disclose to unauthorized persons information properly classified.”
There is no evidence that the White House complied with these requirements.
Michael Herdegen - November 7, 2005 @ 8:23 pm
I repeat — if these weapons existed, where are they now?
Yes, that is by far the most important question surrounding Iraqi WMD.
Nice try, but I have not seen any overwhelming evidence…
…they were duped by second-rate forgeries and self-serving confessions.
That is a stunning indictment of the UN weapons inspectors, and begs the question: If we cannot trust the UN to properly execute arms inspections and reductions, aren’t we FORCED to act unilaterally ?
But of course, I jest.
That is to say, yes, the U.S. are often forced to act, when others cannot or won’t, but in this case the UN did do its job. As I have repeated OVER and OVER, the UN weapons inspectors DID FIND prohibited weapons, weapons systems, weapons research, and WMD programmes, as well as evidence that Iraq was concealing already manufactured WMD, which Iraq REFUSED to turn over.
There is your “overwhelming evidence”, and you’ve yet to address Dr. Blix’s report to the UN Security Council, despite repeated invitations to do so.
I understand, of course, why you cannot bring yourself to grips with it, but in the absence of such, it disappoints me that you continue to insist that Iraq was as pure as the driven snow.
It makes it that much more ironic that you would post: “that does nothing to change fettered minds”, regarding the evidence.
The fact that we didn’t find the missing VX, mustard gas, and anthrax does NOT mean that they never existed, and that Bush knew such; we can prove just the opposite.
Therefore, “where are they ?” is the most burning question that I have about the former Saddam regime.
[D]espite “official U.S. policy” regarding the overthrow of Saddam, I think Bush I and his inner circle believed that bad as Saddam was, what followed his overthrow was likely to be worse […]
It appears that view has been vindicated by the present reality.
Well, no.
It’s true that whether the world will be safer for democracy in the long run is open to argument, but until and unless things begin to deteriorate, you cannot call a democratically-elected government, operating under a popularly-ratified constitution, as “worse” than living under an oppressive, capricious, sadistic tyrant that you yourself would be willing to have assassinated.
Also, once again you fail to address the list of positive actions in the Middle East and Northern Africa that stem directly from the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
That is the essence of the problem with Bush and his rabid supporters — they seem to think there is virtue in being sincerely wrong.
Yes, zealots of any stripe tend to be tedious, and to make poor rulers or leaders.
However, although some of Bush’s ardent supporters fall into that category, Bush himself is far more pragmatic than you seem to give him credit for. He’s not one to fall on his sword, to prove a point.
Regarding the difference between Gore’s Iraqi policy and mine – I don’t think that Gore would have done much of anything, that he would have simply continued the Clinton admin’s policy of low-level harassment; whereas I would have stepped up the military pressure, but stopped short of war.
However, if my energy policy had become a reality, Iraq would have been COMPLETELY crushed economically, and I have no doubt that millions of Iraqis would have perished of malnutrition or disease, since my policies would have been far worse for Iraq than the UN sanctions.
Bush’s war is actually MORE MERCIFUL than my actions would have been, long-term, assuming that I could have gotten the policies through Congress.
I am shocked at your admission that Bush stole the 2000 election.
I used “steal” as shorthand for a very complex situation.
Gore won more popular votes nationally, and it seems reasonably clear that the intent of Florida voters was to give the election to Gore.
However, they failed to properly execute, through no fault of Bush, (any Bush), or of Katherine Harris.
Since the rules of being elected President are clear, Bush won on a technicality, although Gore was (slightly) more popular.
The worst thing to come out of that whole sordid episode (besides W’s victory) was the over-reaching of the Supreme Court — talk about judicial excess!
That’s a myth.
All the SCOTUS did was vote to follow the letter of Florida law – which wouldn’t have been necessary if the Florida Supreme Court had done its job properly.
If you want to castigate any court, the Florida Supreme Court is far more deserving of your scorn.
Where are states rights when we need ‘em?
What makes you think that if the SCOTUS had ruled in Gore’s favor, that Florida would have gone to Gore ?
The Florida Legislature appoints Florida’s Electoral College electors, and they were prepared to send Bush-voting electors if the Florida vote-counting wasn’t finished in time.
If “states’ rights” had carried the day, then you’d simply have a different villain to blame for Bush’s victory – the FL Legislature, instead of the SCOTUS.
In any case, at the end of the day, despite the fact that a lot of Buchanan voters had probably intended to vote for Gore, once all of the votes were officially counted, (and recounted, and re-recounted by various media organizations), no count came out in Gore’s favor.
The SCOTUS ruling that the Florida election-law time limits must be observed didn’t change anything.
The truncated recount gave the election to Bush, and the full media recounts, hanging chads and all, also gave the election to Bush.
Tam O’Tellico - November 8, 2005 @ 8:17 am
Although many of your points are well-taken, this one is beneath you:
M: “it disappoints me that you continue to insist that Iraq was as pure as the driven snow.”
I’m quite satisfied that nothing I’ve said here supports that canard. Meanwhile, you seem to be insisting that Bush, Cheney, et al are “pure as the driven snow”.
Well, I agree — this is a snow job. This White House has dumped a hundred-year blizzard on America, and it looks like a long, cold winter what with this administration attempting to perpetrate a whiteout (blackout) in Iraq and a whiteout (whitewash) of the Plame Affair.
But even with the machinations of Rove and Cheney, it appears that it may be the White House that will not be able to weather the storm. Come Spring, these snowjobs will turn into hurricanes — Hurricane Tom (DeLay), Hurricane Bill (Frist), Hurrricane Scooter (Libbby) and most damaging of all, the political equivalent of Katrina, Hurricane Jack (Abramoff).
While it may not be fair to blame the President for all of this bad weather, we can certainly hold him responsible for the change in the political climate. A sign was posted on the front door of this White House that said “Open for Business – ordinary citizens need not apply”. The greatest “accomplishments” of this administration to date are tax-cuts for the rich and no-bid contracts for Cheney and Company.
The machinery of war is squealing like a pig, and the palms of carpetbaggers and sleazebags are dripping with grease and ill-gotten gelt. The nexus connecting all this greed, graft and corruption to the White House has yet to be found, but it will be — eventually, it always is.
And as the great American philosopher Robert Zimmerman put it so succinctly – “you don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.”
Conservatives better beware. I predict a cold and rainy Spring, a long, hot Summer and a precipitous Fall.
Tam O’Tellico - November 8, 2005 @ 8:33 am
Words of Wisdom from a Real Texas Cowboy
“President Bush is kinda like a ‘post turtle’. Driving down a country road, sometimes you come across a fence post with a turtle sittin’ on top, that’s a post turtle. There’s three things you know about a post turtle, you know he doesn’t belong there, you know he didn’t get up there by himself, and you know he doesn’t know what to do while he’s up there. On top of all that, you got to stop whatever it is your doin’ to try and help the dumb bastard get down!”