The Mudcat Café TM
Thread #58380 Message #926572
Posted By: Teribus
05-Apr-03 - 03:51 AM
Thread Name: BS: Where are the WMDs?
Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
MGOH,
""I believe that he will order their use when he decides that all is lost"
After all that was always the official American policy during the Cold War - "second-strike capacity" was the term used."
During the "cold-war" the term used was "second-strike capability" and it's purpose was to deter a pre-emptive strike - nothing whatsoever to do with a "when all is lost scenario", in fact in that scenario, if you have a "second-strike capability", your logical step would be to get in contact with those who launched the first attack and invite them to surrender on the premise that you have lost everything while they still have everything to lose - the doctrine was called "mutually assured destruction" - it was effective - it worked.
What CarolC presents as, "Other lies about this action in Iraq:", on examination, not lies at all, take a look at them and clearly identified reasons can be found for the changes in emphasis.
1. Regime Change:
"They said "We're not looking for regime change. We just want Saddam to dissarm." Then they said that nothing short of regime change would suffice."
The first statement regarding disarmament was what Resolution 1441 was about. Saddam Hussein and the Ba'athist Regime were to be given one last chance to disarm and honour its obligations to the UN.
Saddam Hussein and the Ba'athist Regime, however, did not take that last opportunity. The international community still require the disarmament of Iraq, undertaken in a manner that can be verified beyond doubt. If those in power in Iraq won't comply with that requirement, then it is logical that that regime must be replaced with one that will co-operate with the international community. Now that is not a lie, the change has been brought about by changing circumstances (In this case the Iraqi Regime saying we invite the inspectors back and will co-operate with them fully - then not following through with that commitment).
2. Weapons of Mass Destruction & Liberation
"They said, "This is about weapons of mass destruction." Then they said it's about liberating the Iraqi people."
Both are mentioned in previous UN Security Council Resolutions dating back to 1991. At no point has the American Administration ever changed its stance on either. Have they ever said, "This is no longer about WMD it is now about liberating the Iraqi people" - I don't believe they have - Again where is the lie?
3. Saddam Hussein/Al Qaeda Links
"They lied about having proof of a connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, when they had no proof at all."
At the time they believed through their intelligence sources that a link existed, that people senior in Al Qaeda had contacts in Baghdad. That senior Al Qaeda figures had been in Iraq is not in dispute - the reasons for them being there was subject to the wrong evaluation. But that was what it was - poor, or highly speculative evaluation - Not a lie, because at the time that is what was believed to be the case. The threat lay not in the existing linkage, but the potential that that link was in the process of being formed.
4. Iraqi-Niger Uranium Cake
"The lie about the documents from Niger (which turned out to have been forged) are a big part of the case the Bush administration used to convince Congress to pass legislation allowing Bush to attack Iraq."
As with the above, another case of poorly handled information on the part of the intelligence community, although that might be being awfully unfair to some members of the US intelligence services, as reports exist that some analysists were unhappy about the way this information burst into the public domain. To make this a lie, it would have to be proved that the CIA (or who ever) deliberately started rumours about Iraqi approaches to the Government of Niger regarding sales of Uranium Cake years ago. That Saddam Hussein has been interested in a nuclear weapons programme cannot be disputed, this interest has been well documented over the past 25 years. You would then have to prove that members of the current American Administration knew that these documents were forgeries prior to presenting them to the public. I do not think such proof exists on either count.
Without that lie, there are serious questions about whether or not he would have gotten that authorization from Congress.