Article

2004-07-11 Home Front: Politix

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Dan Darling 2004-07-11 4:11:28 AM|| || Front Page|| [1 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 The dots DID exist and they exist still. Intelligence is uncertainty and one must make JUDGEMENTS in conditions of uncertainty in situations like this. The Executive branch is the one with the decision authority in this case.

One could look at these dots and say "Naw. There is no ironclad proof that Iraq has anything now like they say, so let's drop the Sanctions and let Iraq be Iraq".

Alternatively, one could look at this and observe "Saddam has been our enemy for 2 decades, is involved with terrorists (exact extent unknown), has used WMD in the past, denies having WMD now, but acts as if he is hiding something. Post-9/11, we can't risk him working with terrorists for a uber-9/11 event. Period."

I am pleased W showed some cojones and went after Iraq.

I am apalled at 'the world's greatest deliberative body' would produce a report which neglect to mention anything about SENATE OVERSIGHT at it's obvious failure.

Posted by Brett_the_Quarkian 2004-07-11 6:56:21 PM|| 2004-07-11 6:56:21 PM|| Front Page Top

#2 Brett, Amen!
And yet a majority of these same senators voted for OIF based on these same reports they're discrediting now.
What worries me is that they'll use these "flawed reports" as "proof" not to take action in future against Iran, or Syria, or Soddy Arabia, or North Korea...even if the evidence of WMDs and links with Islamist terrorists are clearer and more obvious than Saddam's Iraq.
It's an attempt to defang and castrate the Bush Doctrine and it's made me furious for months!
(Why does noone mention the numerous--almost daily!--Iraqi violations of the No-fly zones, which was another rationale for OIF?)

Posted by Jen 2004-07-11 8:29:44 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-07-11 8:29:44 PM|| Front Page Top

#3 If I were a betting man, I would bet a lot that dots will start showing up in the coming months. I can't help coming back to that Lifson (sp?) piece about how good W is at poker. I have a feeling that there will be info coming out in the next few months that shows that the WMD and Iraq/al Qaeda intelligence wasn't really all that bad after all, and W will come out looking like the smart, decisive leader he is. To some extent, the interim Iraqi government is really being helpful in acknowledging that WMDs were taken out of the country before the war and that Syria and Iran have been sending in terrorists. The next few months may be realy fascinating. I really hope W has the strong hand he thinks he has.

Posted by Anonymous5701 2004-07-11 11:14:00 PM|| 2004-07-11 11:14:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 Anon, very solid comment. I agree. I have heard from a credible source (sorry, no link...but also no tinfoil hat)...that France and Russia were complicit in assisting Saddam remove the WMD's to Syria. This could come out at the right time. Regardless, it will be buried on P.26.

Posted by Remote Man 2004-07-11 11:28:51 PM|| 2004-07-11 11:28:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 Newsweek is surely the worst "news" organ outside Europe or the Third World (at least among magazines). This is a typical bit of their work. Note the know-nothing dramatic "intent on taking the nation to war" -- uh, actually, fellas, it was intent on removing a threat that couldn't be managed, deterred, or even accurately guauged. Like 10-yr olds, the Newsweek dimwits think that US leaders seek war itself, not objectives sometimes addressed by war.

Have not yet been able to read the Senate report, but it sounds like it's got a fundamental problem.

How do they know we (and everyone else) were wrong in the assessments? Don't you need to know the actual situation, in order to compare it to the intel estimate? Answer: yes. So what WAS the actual situation? How can the Senate start second-guessing the process when there's no side-by-side final score? Does their report rely on an early version of the Iraq Survey Group's final report? If not -- how can they possibly evaluate pre-war intel?

I personally am very skeptical of all the Syria stories -- but the point is that we don't know -- so how can most of the pre-war intel be judged flawed or incorrect?

Newsweek's breathless pushing of every stupid myth in the book also assumes that the congressional committees were powerless and voiceless at all stages of the process. Not. The committees can and do haul up all and sundry to defend any analytical product Congress wants to examine or challenge. If all the Dems (and a discouraging # of spineless or dim GOPers) now whining about the intel had wanted to, they could have challenged the per-war NIE and gotten into the weeds on it.

Posted by Verlaine 2004-07-12 12:03:35 AM|| 2004-07-12 12:03:35 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 The Anonymous5701 comment was from me, BTW. Don't know what happened to my info.

Posted by Tibor 2004-07-12 12:12:15 PM|| 2004-07-12 12:12:15 PM|| Front Page Top

01:47 Ebbavith Angereling7227
16:10 Anonymous5765
19:42 Alaska Paul
19:26 True German Ally
19:23 CrazyFool
18:43 Dan
14:45 Antiwar TROLL
12:12 Tibor
09:41 eLarson
03:16 FlameBait93268
00:32 Anonymous4617
00:10 Mark Espinola
00:03 Verlaine
00:03 Alaska Paul
00:01 Zenster
23:50 Jen
23:48 Zenster
23:48 Les Nessman
23:28 Remote Man
23:28 Pappy
23:24 Remote Man
23:14 Anonymous5701
22:57 Jen
22:55 Mike Sylwester