Their anti-war statements are coming home to roost:
Strong antiwar comments in recent days by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean have opened anew a party rift over Iraq, with some lawmakers warning that the leaders’ rhetorical blasts could harm efforts to win control of Congress next year.
Several Democrats joined President Bush yesterday in rebuking Dean’s declaration to a San Antonio radio station Monday that “the idea that we’re going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong.”
The critics said that comment could reinforce popular perceptions that the party is weak on military matters and divert attention from the president’s growing political problems on the war and other issues. “Dean’s take on Iraq makes even less sense than the scream in Iowa: Both are uninformed and unhelpful,” said Rep. Jim Marshall (D-Ga.), recalling Dean’s famous election-night roar after stumbling in Iowa during his 2004 presidential bid.
Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.) and Rep. Steny H. Hoyer (Md.), the second-ranking House Democratic leader, have told colleagues that Pelosi’s recent endorsement of a speedy withdrawal, combined with her claim that more than half of House Democrats support her position, could backfire on the party, congressional sources said.
Of course they fear a backlash- running around telling the country we should immediately withdraw, that we have no chance of winning, and that we are ‘terrorizing’ innocent Iraqis generally does not engender the public with positive feelings, particularly during wartime.
They really are in a tough position- they want to oppose (they are the opposition party, after all), and some of them do actually oppose the war, but their problem is they have been so clearly political throughout the entire process that they now have no way out of their predicament. They, in essence, painted themselves into this corner, which is why you hear them making all sorts of lame attempts to extricate themselves from the mess. Each week, they trot out a new strategery. “They cherry-picked the intelligence” was followed with “Bush lied” which was followed with “I didn’t have acces to all the intel” which was followed by “I voted to authorize force, not to go to war” which was followed by “They put the vote close to the elections so I couldn’t vote my conscience” and so on and so on.
With each new excuse, my assessment of the majority of Democrats decreases, and my opinions of the true anti-war left (see Kucinich, Dennis) increases. They at least believe in something, as wrong as I think their position might be. And, quite frankly, as loathesome as I find much of the Republican party, these transparent and awkward attempts to gain politically (notwithstanding the impact on the war effort) makes me think less of the Democrats and their leadership with each passing day.
Lines
I’m sure its the democratic plan to keep you voting Republican.
Look, no one has yet to explain how we can “win” in Iraq to a sufficient point where I can believe that we can extract ourselves from Iraq and claim victory. No one has offered hard measurable data that would prove we are on the right path to any sort of victory, or even a marginal “eh, we’re out and its great”. When the country is forever on the edge of civil war, when Iran and other radical states are greedily licking their lips over the idea of spreading their influence into Iraq the moment we leave, we can never claim victory and extract our troops.
Victory was when Saddam was captured. Now its just an unending quagmire of political creation, but you want to blame Democrats for that quagmire. Have you noticed that Democrats have no power, no ability to change anything, and when they do try to create policy, its amended and forced on the public like a plague, all by the Republican’s in power? Come on, stop blaming the other party and take some damn responsibility for what an unbalanced government has done in all of our names.
MI
Morning Everyone.
I know I’m on the other side and all so I should call you names or something, but, eh, I mostly agree. Although a Republican criticizing Democrats for politicizing the war is reallyfuckingfunny, so there’s that.
Anderson
Cole is right that the Dems need to agree on a position and stick to it. I just don’t think we can destroy a country and then pick up our toys and go home.
What the Dems *should* be doing is offering to bring competence to the war, and illustrating how little competence Bush has had.
neil
That’s OK. If “these politicians are acting politically” is the best reason you can find to vote against them then I imagine you’re not too far from giving in.
I would like to hear some sort of rational attempt at an explanation for why and how Democrats have politicized Iraq more (or more to the nation’s detriment) than Republicans have. This seems to be one of those things that everyone just takes for granted, and I can’t see why. The fact that Republicans have used Iraq to win two elections seems to tip the scales for me.
Al Maviva
C’mon John, Runaway Howard et al are just being patriotic. Besides, everybody knows, you kill 2,000 Americans, and we’re beat. Whipped. Finished.
Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any (minimal) price, bear any burden (so long as it isn’t hard), meet any hardship (so long as it isn’t burdensome), support any friend (unless we have to ante up), oppose any foe (as long as opposition can be expressed as “most strong condemnation, or maybe divestiture), to assure the survival and the success of liberty (but only if it doesn’t cost any U.S. lives or money, because nothing is worth that…)
Y’know, I’m a hardass about a handful of policy and moral beliefs that I hold, but I don’t vote Republican because I like the bastards. They are politicians, and by definition, politics is unprincipled and the current crop of R’s is no exception. In other words, I could be convinced to vote for somebody else, and would on defense issues. But the Democrat leadership (coming off that 403-3 vote on the Murtha resolution) can’t even stick to a principled position, much less articulate the rationale for what they are saying, or even try to give the appearance that they understand the problem, or are taking the question seriously. The debate should be over whether we need to be trying to push transformative change in the middle east and south asia to clean up the post-colonial mess left by Europe (and whether it’s feasible), or whether general isolationism coupled with law enforcement methods and occasional tactical military strikes will keep us sufficiently secure. Instead the debate is between the inarticulate and dumb party with few ideas and little courage, who think that it’s all about the pork; and the gutless party with no idea and no ideas, who think that even a single drop of American blood or a single penny from the fisc is too much.
We yell at each other about the country’s leadership here all the time but the fact is both parties are f***ing us rather badly.
M.A.
I don’t quite understand why the Democrats being divided on Iraq is supposed to be so bad. It’s a tough issue and nobody knows how to do about it, precisely because the war is essentially unwinnable in its current form (i.e. Dean is being pilloried for telling the truth). The damning thing is that the Republicans are united on Iraq in the service of a position (“we’ll stay until we win, without clearly defining what winning is”) that makes no damn sense whatsoever.
Lines
I would say the fact that the Democrats havn’t solidified on single message about Iraq is actually a good thing. Disagreement would force debate and eventually a consensus on what should be done. A debate that included Conservatives and Liberals from all over the spectrum would be the best chance that the plan would be at least satisfactory, if not successful.
But you see, Republicans have shut the Democrats down from any sort of input into the handing of this fiasco. They have only themselves to blame, and if they can’t take the shots from the gallery, they should shut the hell up and go home. If they can’t encourage debate, they arn’t the party to vote for.
Single message parties are dangerous. They only tell you what they want you to hear, they use misleading statements to take you into an illegal invasion, and then they form an impeneratable wall of resistance when people try to find out the truth.
Democrats are, at the very least, more open than the Republicans, and thats something I will always support.
MI
Lines brings up a great point, and it’s really the only thing that bugs me about John’s views regarding Democrats and the war. Taking democrats to task on Iraq is like those homeland security commercials that told us people who smoke weed fund Al Qaeda. I mean, talk about missing the elephant in the room…slight pun intended.
M.A.
slightlybad
Amen, Brother Maviva, amen.
Steve S
Ohwell. What’s our alternative?
support President Asshat’s “Stay the Course” rhetoric?
You know, John, it’d be nice if just every once in a while you showed a little “out of the box” thinking, instead of repeating conventional wisdom bullshit.
BIRDZILLA
Howard Dean OPEN MOTH INSERT FOOT i hope he likes the taste of toe jam
MI
Lines brings up another great point. It’s good, healthy even, that democrats don’t have a singular message about Iraq. Democrats DON’T have a singular message about Iraq. Ask Paul Hackett, Wes Clark and John Murtha what to do about Iraq, and you’re going to get three different answers. Democrats realize we’re in a pinch over there, and we’re trying to figure out what our best options are. Which, for my money, is a lot better than burying our heads in the sand and “staying the course”.
Blue Neponset
How will it backfire? What do the Dems have to lose?
What I think is going to backfire is the Republicans jumping up and down about what Howard Dean has to say. Most people, including me, don’t give a shit what Howard Dean thinks. I do however want to know what Dubya and the Republican controlled Congress are planning on doing to do to get us out of Iraq as soon as possible. I would also like to know what to expect in Iraq during the next couple of years. I would also like to know how Bush and the Congress plan to get health care costs under control.
It has become clear to me that the only thing the Repubs no how to do is run for office.
SomeCallMeTim
I’m not sure what Dean mean. I’d guess that no honest assesment of circumstances in Iraq and here will allow us to get to point previously defined as winning by the Administration (even after redefinition and redefinition). We’re not going to have a non-repressive government in Iraq unless we have actual civil war. We’re not going to be able to keep Iraq together in one piece. We’re not going to leave the Iraqis with a peaceful, well-ordered country. So let’s stop pretending we’re going to get there (i.e., win). Let’s figure out what we can do, and what we’re willing to do, and do it. But the Administration’s stated goals (esp. those stated prior to or early in the war) are off the table. Let’s admit it and move on.
I love the guy, but he sometimes speaks as if he’s going to have an immediate chance to rebut misimpressions, and it kills us.
MI
And by the way, now that a majority of Americans more or less agree with Dean, at least regarding Iraq, doesn’t that kind of nullify using his views regarding Iraq as an albatross for democrats?
It reminds me of one of atrios’ funniest lines when a new poll comes out saying x number of Americans believe the president mislead us about Iraq, and he says, “65% of Americans are now in Michael Moore territory”.
Ekim
The Democrats in Congress have been craven since Bush was elected. Tom DeLay and his ilk have run all over them. I only hope that when we gain the majority in 2006 someone will find some backbone and actually lead. My only hope for the presidency is a governor; I can’t think of any Democrat in Congress who deserves to be president.
neil
It seems like fearing a backlash is causing worse problems for the party than a backlash itself. I mean, why did the Democrats lose the last election? Because of Howard Dean shooting his mouth off about the war, or because Bush managed to successfully portray the Democrats as not having any idea what to do about Iraq? And why was he able to portray them as such? Because you’re not allowed to say one damn thing about the war rather than “Bush is a proud and brilliant leader” without these dem hawks running out and talking shit about you.
Steve S
Generally I think the problem is actually Democrats like Lieberman who are running around saying “Look, if we don’t support this war we’re going to lose politically.” Well boo hoo, that shit doesn’t smell any better in the outhouse.
I don’t give a fuck about politics. Politics is not about winning elections, it’s about making this country fucking better. Dean’s right. We can’t win in Iraq. The question we need to answer now is how do we lose the least.
What I have no respect for are Republicans who aren’t asking these questions. About the only intelligent one out there is Chuck Hagel from Nebraska. Everyone else is nothing but a dittohead.
Stay the course. Victory is right around the corner. All we got to do is kill another 100 of their #2 guys. blah blah blah.
Give me a fucking plan for Victory, shit or get off the pot.
Perry Como
I think it’s important to note that the Democrats got us into this war and now the Democrats are dropping the ball on how to handle the war. The Democrats are not offering us any clear strategy nor laying out any goals. If the Democrats don’t get their act together soon, they may lose power.
If the Republicans were in charge, things would be different.
neil
Rereading the post, I noticed that John actually said these transparent and awkward attempts to gain politically makes me think less of the Democrats and their leadership with each passing day.
Which makes perfect sense. John prefers obscured, clandestine, effective attempts to gain politically. (And honesty is not an issue). That’s why he voted for Bush.
neil
By the way, here’s why we won’t win in Iraq in 3 easy sentences.
We won’t achieve our mission in Iraq if they don’t have free and open elections.
We won’t achieve our mission in Iraq if an anti-American party gains the mantle of power.
You can’t be a viable political force in Iraq without being anti-American.
Therefore, we cannot achieve our mission in Iraq. We lost already. It’s Bush’s fault. It’s time to get out before we waste any more blood and treasure on denial of the obvious.
Pb
MI, heh, yes, beat me to it.
John Cole,
Don’t worry man, they’re still in their “last throes”. No doubt Cheney will win this thing any day now, by staying the course for victory in Iraq the way they have for the past two years. Just keep clapping.
docG
Steve S says:
Um, how do you make changes if you don’t win?
Jorge
Luckily, 2006 is an election about districts and regions and not necessarily about a unified message for the White House. I don’t buy into the belief that the Democrats have to become either the Republicans of 1994 or the Republicans of 2002 in order to win back Congress. I believe that individual Democrats will do better by appealing to their constituents while at the same time tying their Republican opponents to the corruption of the Delays etc.
What the Democrats will need for 2008 is a candidate that not only has a clear vision for our entire foreign policy but that will address issues like health care, pensions, inflation etc at home. Conventional wisdom has Hillary winning the nomination but I think that by 2008 most of America will be sick to death of all of the Reps, Senators and Bush administration politicians of both parties from the 2004 period. We won’t want to see hair one of Delay, Frist, Leiberman, McCain, Clinton etc. The past 4 years have been toxic and people’s BS capacity is running low.
Governors from both parties will appeal to the people because they’ll be running as outsiders and be bringing an optimism and vitality to the race. I can’t speak to the Republicans but I can see Warner and Richardson both doing very well against the well funded Senator from New York. And heck, had it not been for his brother having been POTUS I think Jeb would have had a heck of a shot in 2008. The contrast between Jeb and GW during a hurricane is incredible. I always joke that we know that the poop is going to hit the fan when during a hurricane press conference Jeb says, “Now I want to say something to our Spanish speaking audience” and busts out with the best Spanish I’ve ever heard a white American speak.
Norton
Plame is doing great! She has retired and the Basque seperatists have said goodby. Its too bad they confused the Italian opeerations officer for the Sapnish ones, who Plame already paid for working with her and Wilson, but people do trade…………
As far as the war; We got the CIA never liked WMD school or Rice.
Cyrus
I disagree with a lot of this post, especially your assessment of the Democrats, but that was well put. (Also, to your question of whether we should try to transform the Middle East and whether we can, I’d add the question of how we should.)
Lines
If we ever make the attempt to call the mess’o’potamia a “victory”, will that not enable future attempts to nation build by either party when polling figures are down and you need a boost? Why stop nation building with Iraq? lets make it part of our national policy that we’re going to remake the world in the image we want.
A moderate success while licking our wounds and lamenting about the poor choices made in Iraq may serve as a future reminder that this type of policy isn’t good for America. I’d rather have Democrats lamenting about failure rather than believing this is something they can attempt when they get in a Dubya Slump.
demimondian
Cole:
What if the “war effort” is, itself, detracting from the conflict which this country needed to be fighting? We are (allegedly) engaged in a war to resist terrorism.
I think the evidence that the current Administration concocted a fraudulent dossier to terrify the public into a war in Iraq is conclusive at this point. Democracy only works when there’s time for debate, and the Administration ran an extremely skilled propaganda campaign, which included the intentional dissemination of false statements, to make sure that there was no time for debate. (And, yes, I do know what the word propaganda means, and, yes, I’m using it consciously.)
Worse, though, it looks like they did it for purely political reasons: the real WOT was going badly, and they needed someplace where they could win a battle in order to retain control over the House of Representatives. If you want to complain about mendacity, John, you really are being hypocritical to not start by complaining about that. Any sins that Jay Rockefeller may have committed pale before that.
Jason Van Steenwyk
I think you’re all arguing from false premises.
It has not been established that “we can’t win in Iraq.” Indeed, looking back over the last couple of votes overthere – one resounding success followed by another even more resounding electoral success, and a clear indication that the insurgency simply does not have the combat power to substantially disrupt even a one day nationwide event, nor does it have the combat power to materially depress turnout.
I would argue that in the vast majority of the country, the anti-insurgency campaign has already been won.
The ramp up of the Iraqi security forces is now exponentially faster than it was a year ago. Why? Because now battle-seasoned Iraqi NCOs are training their own soldiers. The training infrastructure is in place to support the development of a professional NCO corps. And gains are no longer temporary. After a city is cleared, we have the capability to garrison it with Iraqi security forces and make our gains permanent.
This is a substantial improvement from the state of affairs just one year ago. And the resulting security will enable democratic reforms to take root even in formerly disputed towns.
The Democrats lack operational perspective here. There is no reason why the Iraqi forces cannot continue to develop. Indeed, there is every reason to believe that Iraqi forces are developing and strengthening faster than the number of insurgents.
Check out Bill Roggio’s flash demonstration of the operarations along the Syrian border. Watch the red dots turn to blue. That’s the key to the whole operation.
It doesn’t mean bad things won’t continue to happen. But the progress in Iraq is real. The insurgent’s cause is pretty much hopeless at this point, provided the US doesn’t abandon the Iraqis prematurely, before the Iraqi NCO corps and their staffs at brigade level are fully developed.
The moojies don’t stand a chance.
Vladi G
Bush just brought up the fly paper strategy again in his speech. My question is, if we “win” and withdraw the troops from Iraq and bring them home, won’t we then be fighting the terrorists here? I thought that’s why we were over there? Do they really think that we can all anti-US terrorism in a couple of years?
And about that strategy, on the one hand, we’re apparently bringing peace and prosperity to the Iraqi people. On the other, we’re fighting a war on their soil to protect the United States, 10,000 miles away. I know that if gang from the South Side showed up in my apartment and said “We’re here to protect you, but also, we’re fighting other gangs here so that we don’t have to fight them on our turf” I’d say “thank you, but please leave.”
John, how do you square those rationales with the concept of “winning”? Why do no Republicans or hawks ever answer that questions without changing the subject?
Which is it? Are we bringing them peace, or are we using their turf for our gang war?
Steve
Al Maviva struck me as a smart guy, but if he actually believes there was a vote on the Murtha Resolution, I guess I was mistaken.
If the House Republicans actually believed that a vote on the genuine Murtha Resolution would be a political boon for them, they’d bring it to the floor in a heartbeat.
The bottom line is that the outcome in Iraq will be decided by facts and reality, not by what any politician of either party says. If Iraq defies all odds and becomes a shining success story, the Democrats will look like idiots, and the Republicans will undoubtedly be rewarded at the polls. So why wouldn’t any Republican just sit back and let this happy outcome occur? Why ratchet up the rhetorical pressure in an attempt to scare the Dems off the anti-war position?
The answer is that they don’t genuinely believe things will work out in Iraq. They try to claim that obviously we’re winning, the insurgency is in its last throes, etc., but it’s just a brave face. The reason they try to shout down the Democrats is because they’re afraid the anti-war folks will be proven right by the facts on the ground. The Republican establishment would be much, much happier with a bunch of mushy-middle Daschle types.
If Iraq is the same or worse this time next year, more and more people will realize that Dean and the others who oppose this war have been telling them the truth all along. The Republicans will be left with nothing but the laughable argument that we were doing fine before the traitorous Dems undermined morale, and no one is going to buy it.
Make no mistake, the Republicans fear nothing more than full-throated opposition on the war, because it stakes their electoral future on actual, real-world success in Iraq. If that doesn’t happen, even folks like John, who appears congenitally unable to believe that Democrats are motivated by anything but politics, are going to realize their choice is between the party that took the right position for political reasons and the party that took the wrong position for political reasons.
SomeCallMeTim
Apparently, Anne Applebaum also hates America. She has up an editorial addressing the same issues raised by Dean.
Cyrus
The only reason the insurgency seems to have died down is the fact that they’ve gone mainstream. And while in a sense that’s the point of democracy, the new Iraqi government voicing support for the insurgents is not what we had in mind. If the new Iraqi government winds up as anti-American as Iran, I’m not going to call that a victory even if actual guerilla warfare has diminished.
demimondian
Jason Van Steenwyck:
I question your evaluation of the two votes, and I suspect that the longer term evidence will show otherwise. However, even granting you that point…you’re still wrong.
In order to win in Iraq, we must leave the country with a functional government which is no more inimical to our interests than Hussein’s was. Currently, there are two alternatives: Iraq as a failed state — which I think both of us would consider a failure to meet war aims — or Iraq as a democracy. However likely or unlikely the former is, I put it to you that any democratically elected Iraqi government will necessarily be more inimical to US interests — and more effectively so — than its predecessor.
Recall that, objectively, Hussein’s government had no weapons of mass destruction, and was going bankrupt as the efficiency of the Iraqi oil industry fell. The popular parties in Iraq are broadly pro-Iranian, not secular, and not pro-Western. If we leave a stable democracy, we leave behind a stable democracy which is theocratic and closely allied with an emerging nuclear power. That will provide Iran with a buffer state, and grant it complete and total control over Strait of Hormuz, as well as a direct pathway through which to threaten the Dahran oil fields.
Tell me again why allowing an enemy nuclear power direct military access to the major source of the world’s energy supplies can be, in any way, consistent with America’s national interests?
Steve S
You yell a lot.
One thing I learned from the Roberts memos, is that Republicans are deathly afraid of being branded as uncaring bastards. As such, they respond by capitulating to criticism.
Steve S
No Jason. It is you who keeps arguing false premises.
Steve S
They don’t think they’re going to win.
Remember. The Republicans promised the American people that we would be greeted by flowers and candies and dancing in the streets.
That hasn’t happened. Their attempts to blame this failure on a lack of a proper flower market in Baghdad hasn’t been selling real well with the American people.
So now they’re like the little kid stomping his feet and holding his breath hoping mommy will buy him some candy.
Jack Roy
Jeez, John, the Kerry “terrorizing” quote meme is patent horseshit. Would have expected better from you, frankly.
Robert Chavez
I feel that I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that Dean is not changing his position on the war now that most Americans disapprove of it. Dean was always anti-war, and in fact, based his campaign on it(his campaign position was “Afghanistan: right, Iraq:wrong”. Say what you will about the man, but he’s being consistant. So why is he in a different camp than Kucinich, John?
Steve
Of course al-Qaeda is not going to “win” in Iraq. They never were. Do people like Jason understand that al-Qaeda is different from the insurgency?
DougJ
Jason, these are the same chuckleheads that believe the theory of evolution has been firmly established!
John S.
I’ve had enough of all this bullshit. Amazing that some people were able to predict this toxic – and ultimately defeatist – political environment that we live in:
George Washington was absolutely correct in his assessment of a political landscape based on a two-party system. Thank you Republicans and Democrats for causing the death of public liberty in pursuit of power.
This is not the America that our founding fathers envisioned. Such a place no longer exists, except in the fantasies of those that think they are honoring the wishes of our founders by doing the exact opposite of what they had intended.
Jason Van Steenwyk
>
Nah. We’re not going to have to enforce no-fly zones, nor are we going to have to keep a sword pointed at the new government’s neck to keep it from nuclear and chemical proliferation.
Our war aims are achieved simply by denying Iraq as a possible source for WMD technology to Al Qaeda. Note that it is not neccessary for Saddam to possess large stockpiles of WMD on hand in order to pose a threat in this way. All he had to do was provide technical assistance, which he had.
Recall that, objectively, you’re wrong.
Chemical weapons have been used against US troops in Iraq on at least two occasions. Saddam was caught with 12 chemical variants of 122mm rockets in January 2003, in violation of the terms of the cease fire. The Polish army has recovered a dozen or so more chemical munitions since then.
Moreover, Saddam had 1.77 tons of uranium on hand. He had already exploded a dirty bomb in 1987, and therefore obviously had the capability of making another one with the uranium he already had.
So while we have not found the large stockpiles we expected, the claim that Saddam did not have WMD is false. And even then, you cannot rule out a mass transfer of WMD over the Syrian border anyway.
At any rate, both the Kay and Duelfer reports found that Saddam had continued his WMD-related “program activities” with the intent of reformulating his WMD stocks once the international heat was off.
So even under the most charitable analysis, your argument rings hollow.
Steve S.
Actually, Steve, I was there. That’s precisely what happened. And I won’t let you perpetuate the lie that it didn’t without challenging it as an eyewitness to the event.
docG
Wow! Two thousand Americans killed by excessive dancing and bad gastric reactions to Iraqi candy!
DougJ
Not to mention the fact that *he attacked us on September 11*.
Tractarian
It would be nice if those actually were our war aims, but according to the president’s latest speech, we haven’t achieved “victory” in Iraq until it is a functional, stable democracy that is a cooperative partner in the war on terror.
The point of calling the Iraq War “unwinnable” seems to be that “denying Iraq as a possible source for WMD technology to Al Qaeda” was impossible without turning Iraq into a failed state teeming with new terrorists. But I tend to disagree with that. I think with proper execution – including clear objectives from the outset and adherence to the Powell Doctrine – we could have gotten rid of Saddam without much of this mess. So I wouldn’t call the war “unwinnable” but the Bush team has put us in a situation where “victory” will cost us a lot more than anyone would have been willing to give.
Lines
Jason Van Steenwyk says:
Judy Miller was there as well, the woman who pushed the war to America as a grand adventure. Where is the film of the confetti and flowers littering the roads in front of our advancing troops?
How about the statue party? Where thousands of Iraqi’s showed up, except it was only a handful of Chalabi followers with really narrow filmwork?
Jason, you seem to be the one lying. The embeds over there were never against the military and would have been all too happy to show the flowers and candy. Sounds like your imagination is getting the better of you.
demimondian
Jason:
No instance of chemical agent usage has been confirmed in the open press, as far as I can tell, despite my looking. So far, all usage claims that I have seen have been withdrawn. I’d be interested to see your sources for confirmed usage.
Cite to the BBC or Reuters, please. That’s a claim I’ve never heard before. (Yes, I’m tying your hands here. If what you say is true, those two press orgs would have reported it — a dirty bomb would have posed a threat to Europe.)
Darrell
You didn’t look very hard , did you?
Lines
And unfortunately, the UN documentation spelled this out, very plainly: “the whole thing was a failure”.
After that huge failure, all plans for a dirty bomb appear to have been scrapped.
Next talking point to debunk: “empty banned WMD shells” were found. Of course, those were in abandoned bunkers, essentially forgotten since the 80’s, according to military research on them.
Keep it up, Jason. Would you like to somehow show even a minor little small bit of proof of your Syria accusation?
Darrell
I believe anyone watching the news saw a number of instances in which our troops were greeted with flowers. Not universal, but still quite a few instances. Talk about liars, Lines is trying to re-write history claiming there were no flowers given to our troops when they entered Iraq
demimondian
Actually, I did. Every one of the tests in question was a failure. Iraq gave up on the program prior to Gulf War 1.
So, I stand by my demand for evidence that Hussein had exploded a dirty bomb in 1987.
Darrell
Israeli intelligence claims he did. And doing so would be entirely consistent with Saddam’s past behavior of extreme deception. Anyone going to these extraordinary lengths to conceal and deceive.. nah, kindly Saddam, with all the advance warning, never would have hidden WMDs in Syria, especially with that illegal pipeline sending oil from Iraq to Syria and all..
Krista
Ah yes, Darrell and the broadest brush in the universe. I just love it when you call someone a liar when it turns out that their statement may only have been 90% accurate.
So if there were quite a few instances of troops being greeted with flowers, would you say it’s true that the troops were greeted by the Iraqis as liberators? Or would the opposite be true, due to the amount of American troops killed due to the insurgency?
I think that the point is that the government, when selling this war, was overly simplistic and optimistic, and led many to believe that the only resistance would be from Saddam and his troops, and that the Iraqi people would smilingly help the Americans in their fight. And as we know, that’s not the case, is it?
Jorge
Darrel –
Did you read your links? These are the same folks who said Saddam had functional nukes. Has there been any substantiation to this claim since the invasion? Plus, did the test happen in 1987, 1988 or 1999? Depeding on which account you read there are different dates.
“Uzi Mahnaimi and Tom Walker February 25, 2001 The Ottawa Citizen SECTION: NEWS, Pg. A6 HEADLINE: Iraq tested nuclear bomb, scientists say: Ex-Iraqi workers claim Saddam has stockpiled nuclear weapons //VT2002acsln
Disturbing new evidence has emerged about Saddam Hussein’s nuclear arsenal as tension rises in the Middle East over an increasingly aggressive Iraq.
According to two former senior scientists in the Iraqi nuclear program, corroborated by a former aide to Saddam Hussein’s son Uday, Iraq carried out a successful nuclear test before the Gulf War and now has a nuclear stockpile.
The scientists say Saddam Hussein carried out a nuclear test in September 1989 deep beneath Lake Rezzaza, southwest of Baghdad. The blast was undetected because it was relatively small — about equal to the Hiroshima bomb, but muffled.
Over the past decade, despite UN inspections, Saddam Hussein has carried out further tests and now has several bombs stored in a bunker under the Hamrin mountains north of Baghdad, they say. Their claims challenge the consensus among the U.S., British and Israeli intelligence services that Saddam Hussein does not have sufficient enriched uranium or plutonium to fulfil his ambition of developing a nuclear bomb. ”
IRAQI DEFECTORS CONFIRM IRAQ HAS NUCLEAR WEAPONS
JESSICA BERRY January 28, 2001, SUNDAY TELEGRAPH(LONDON) SECTION: Pg. 27 HEADLINE: Saddam has made two atomic bombs, says Iraqi defector Fresh evidence alarms security experts //VT2002acsln
SADDAM Hussein has two fully operational nuclear bombs and is working to construct others, an Iraqi defector has told The Sunday Telegraph.
The defector, a military engineer who fled Iraq a year after United Nations arms inspectors left the country, says he helped to oversee the completion of the weapons programme. He is currently in hiding in Europe.
International nuclear officials are investigating his evidence, which contradicts recent reports that the Iraqi dictator’s plans were still at a preparatory stage. Saddam’s efforts to build atomic weapons were delayed by the UN Special Commission (Unscom) inspectors who were forced to leave in November 1998, but scientists resumed the work immediately after their departure.
According to the defector, who cannot be named for security reasons, bombs are being built in Hemrin in north-eastern Iraq, near the Iranian border. “There are at least two nuclear bombs which are ready for use,” he said last week. “Before the UN inspectors came, there were 47 factories involved in the project. Now there are 64.”
skip
Kerry used the word terrorize in much the same clumsy way that Bush used the word crusade. Neither meant what their foes claimed he did. Does even John dispute this?
Inept word use won’t detirmine the next election, events on the ground will. Even in the skilled employ of Karl Rove, word gotcha games won’t win the peace–the latter being the only thing that can rescue this disgraced Administration.
Darrell
“Failure” does not mean he did not explode a dirty bomb, he most certainly did. It only means that that radiation levels were not substantial enough to accomplish his grisly objectives, especially compared to the weaponized chems he had available at that time. So the project was shelved. He still had the know-how to continue, and the fact that he tried speaks to intent.
demimondian
Oh, and Darrell? The attempt he made used irradiated zircomium oxide. Uranium, being pyrophoric, doesn’t disperse effectively when broadcast in particulate form, not to mention being hardly radioactive at all. That’s why we don’t worry about using spent uranium in anti-armor projectiles.
demimondian
No — failure means failure. A dirty bomb that doesn’t disperse radiation is just an expensive explosive device.
Darrell
Dishonest as hell analogy as Kerry went into specifics on what he meant – US soldiers terrorizing Iraqi civilians, very similar to his Winter soldier testimony smearing the troops.
Darrell
Who says it didn’t disperse any radiation? You pulled that out of ass didn’t you?
Darrell
One of the reasons Saddam shelved the dirty bomb, was because it was dangerous to work with. That flies in the face of your assertion that the radioactive particles from impurities in zirconium oxide are “hardly radioactive at all”. Any evidence to back up that assertion?
Lines
Good job queering the thread, Darrell.
The UN report basically said the resulting spread of radiation was so small that it was ineffective. You’re quibbling about how great of a failure a failure was. Great way to use those magnificent debating skills.
I don’t seen liberals dragging out the Crusade word to use against Bush at every opportunity, so why drag out the Winter soldier testimony, except to distract from the main point of the thread? If you can’t debate without branching into random tangents, then go away. Your constant queering is getting old.
Darrell
You did that yourself Lines, back when you lied your f*cking ass off claiming that our troops were never greeted with flowers by Iraqis, calling Jason a “liar” for pointing out that he saw first hand the flowers. Everyone following the news at that time saw pics and film coverage of troops greeted with flowers. It may not have been universal, but it wasn’t so uncommon either
Jorge
Darrel,
I work in TV news. If you can’t Google up a shot of the troops being greeted with flowers, give me a day and time and I’ll look through our archives to see what I can find. And since we are being so ridiculously myopic and literal, the picture/video must be specifically of flowers – a marine getting a fern from an Iraqi child won’t cut i. We need to completely reduce the conversation about whether Cheney’s assessment about how Iraqi’s would perceive the US invasion to a simple contest in which a photograph of one Iraqi – be they Shiite, Kurd or Sunni – greeting US troops with flowers will settle the debate. And once that is settled then obviously the Iraq situation will become crystal clear for everyone.
SeesThroughIt
Well, I guess an IED could be considered a flower….
Lines
As someone tried to explain above, the usage of “flowers” is conceptual and is an analogy to being greeted as liberators by the general public. Jason took it as literal, as did you, and basically tried to prove his point by yelling.
But your attack on me for pointing out you’ve queered the thread is an excellent example of your intolerance and your poorly developed debate skills.
Your constant inability to use even the slightest bit of humor, the fact that you constantly don’t “get it”, and your readiness to quote misleading statements, if not blatently misquote others gets old.
Darrell
Are you suggesting that in 2003, there were not quite a few pics of our troops being greeted with flowers. Because if that’s what you’re asserting, then you’re simply not being honest.
Cheney’s assessment is another subject for debate. I responded to Lines, who called Jason, who was a soldier in Iraq at that time, a “liar” for claiming our troops were ever greeted with flowers. Kurds were ecstatic that we were there, Shiites were glad to be freed from underneath Saddam’s Sunni jackboot. That’s 80% of the country.
As for rosy scenarios, I’ll dig out the quotes if you want.. there were some in the administration who had overly optimistic assumptions, but there were plenty of others who told us from the get-go that Iraq would be a long hard fight. Cherry-picking “greeted with roses” quotes doesn’t change the fact that many others in the administration, most importantly Bush himself, warned of a long hard fight.
Darrell
I get it now… calling Jason a “liar” for telling you what he saw first hand in Iraq was only a joke now, right? You really have witty sense of humor Lines.. but don’t quit your day job just yet
Jason Van Steenwyk
Well, I don’t worry about it, because Lines simply doesn’t have the standing or stature to call me a liar.
I pretty much regard him with the same seriousness with which I regard a three-year-old throwing a tantrum.
Demimondian: There are other sources, obviously, but the account I was familiar with was the iraqwatch.org account, which was the source material, it appears, for MSM accounts.
On April 29th, 2001, the New York Times ran an article by William J. Broad titled “Documents Reveal 1987 Bomb Test by Iraq.”
And no, you don’t get to cherry pick the news sources I cite or restrict me to the BBC or al-Reuters. Nice try, though.
Face it: You got served. :-)
Jorge
I am awaiting pictures, Darrell. If you are going to call me dishonest then you have to prove me wrong. It wouldn’t be hard if you are right – one pictue of just one Iraqi greeting just one coalition troop with a flower. But no ferns. And definitely no cactus. Just flowers. A rose would really make the point but I’d settle for a daisy.
Jorge
I am awaiting pictures, Darrell. If you are going to call me dishonest then you have to prove me wrong. It wouldn’t be hard if you are right – one pictue of just one Iraqi greeting just one coalition troop with a flower. But no ferns. And definitely no cactus. Just flowers. A rose would really make the point but I’d settle for a daisy.
demimondian
The UN report said so, Darrell.
(And, no, I won’t let you tantrum me into yelling back. I don’t really care if I change your mind or not — you’re beyond redemption. I do, however, care that mistakes be responded to.)
demimondian
I know of those documents. I’m asking you to back up your stronger statement, that he built a dirty bomb.
There’s a nice distinction there: if he tried to build one and gave up *because he could not do so*, it explains why the Uranium in his arsenal was not a WMD threat. (Well, that and the fact that it wouldn’t be of any use anyway. :))
demimondian
But, yes, I got served. Nicely done.
Darrell
I can’t find any using google. Does that mean there were not plenty at that time? I saw them, you did too. You’d admit it if you were more honest..
If you are going to assert, as it appears you are doing, that such pics and reports of Iraqis giving flowers to our troops ‘never’ existed, and you’re in the news business.. then yes, you are in fact dishonest as hell
Jorge
Jason,
It really should not be difficult to find some post invasion verification of your claims. My guess is that Lake Rezzaza would have been checked out post invasion. Any and all claims that I find about the dirty bombs are all pre war and cite a BBC report and a NYT report.
The claims was made after the weapons inspectors left in 1988 but before the 2003 invasion. Hey, you might have some post 2003 verification that I just haven’t seen. All I know is that there are conflicting stories about a supposed test – a NY times piece about a supposed UN source cited by a group called the Wisconsion Project on Nucler arms control say it was in 1987. And a more detailed BBC account from someone identified as “Leone” who clais to have worked on the bomb and that it was detonated in 1989.
Jason Van Steenwyk
demimondian:
Well, you have to do a little digging into the more obscure news services, like major dailies and the Associated Press.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2004/05/17/international1027EDT0555.DTL&type=printable
By the way, you just got served. :-)
You’ve got to get better at this, dude.
Jorge
So Darrell,
You can’t find any proof to your claims but you’re calling me a liar? And what I said was that I remember the statue but I don’t remember the flowers. So, if you are going to make a claim and call people liars if they disagree with you then you need to show proof. Right now, I don’t believe you. That doesn’t mean I think you are lying. It means that with out solid evidence I won’t take your claim as being truth of an event I did not personally witness. A lesson your side should have learned back in 2003.
Darrell
Oh, and UNSCOM documents
demimondian
So I do. :)
However, that also supports my thesis better than yours: it appears that the shell used in the IED was a left over from GWI, which had been tagged for destruction, then lost.
Jorge
Jason,
You are playing a game of “tag” and not having a real debate on the issues. It is very easy to take someone making blanket generalities and then slam them. I am currently doing it to Darrell. But anyone who has ever argued anything from sports to politics on the internet knows that winning such points don’t actually prove any points and often prove the opposite. The very fact that the only claim you could find was of one shell that was very old and used as a roadside bomb by unnamed insurgents illustrates two points – 1) the unnamed insurgents are willing to use chemical weapons and 2) since 2003 there has been one case of one shell with chemical agents being used agaisnt US troops.
That’s why we went to war? Because in a country of with over 20 million people one group of unidentified insurgents had one old shell that could barely do any harm. So, the mushroom cloud in Manhattan was actually a tiny puff of smoke in Iraq?
TallDave
I think people are being too hard on Dean. He probably just misspoke. What the Democratic National Chairman really meant to say was
Jorge
Darrell –
That is a different claim than the one about Lake Lazeera in 1989 but seems to be the one the Wisconsin group was talking about. Thanks for clarifying.
By the way – that is why I ask questions and for proof.
Anderson
When do we get to hear from Larry’s other brother Darrell?
TallDave
Really, the whole question of whether Saddam actually had WMD in March 2003 is irrelevant. We aren’t omniscient, and aren’t required to be.
We know he had WMD before. He was obligated under the cease-fire to destroy them, prove he didn’t have them anymore, and give up future ambitions of acquiring them. No one, not even France, claimed he was making an honest attempt to fulfill those obligations. Post-invasion, the Kay report found he was keeping the ability to produce them hidden from inspectors. So either we invaded, or we’d never know for sure what was going on until there was a mushroom cloud in Tel Aviv or New York, and even then we might not be able to trace the weapons.
Steve
The mushroom cloud hath returned! The true believers soldier on.
John S.
Condi would be proud.
AKA STATE
DOUGJ:
HOW MANY TIMES DOES BUSH HAVE TO SAY THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT SADDAM WAS INVOLVED IN 9/11 BEFORE YOU ARE WILLING TO LET GO OF THAT OVERLY MASTICATED BONE??? BESIDES YOU ARE DENYING HIM THE ONLY DEFINITE AND VERIFIABLE TRANSFORMATION IN IRAQ HE HAS ACCOMPLISHED. HE HAS CHANGED THE ONLY MIDDLE EAST COUNTRY WITH NO TERRORISTS TO THE CENTER AND MAJOR RECRUITING AREA IN THE MIDDLE EAST.
IF YOU REMEMBER IRAN & IRAQ FOUGHT A BLOODY 7 YEAR WAR TO ACCOMPLISH 3 THINGS:
1. OVERTHROW SADDAM
2. NEUTRALIZE HIS WMD & ATTEMPTS AT NUCLEAR DEVELOPMENT
3. ESTABLISH A SHIITE MAJORITY GOVERNMENT.
WELL DANG NOW DOESN’T THAT SOUND FAMILIAR?? IRANIANS WERE UNABLE BUT THE USOFA COULD DO THE JOB. SO HOW ABOUT DECLARING VICTORY, PRESENT A BILL (A LA KUWAIT)TO IRAN AND ALL GO HOME.
Darrell
Because Saddam never would have given any nasty weapons, weapons technology, and/or intelligence to terrorists trying to attack us. How preposterous! Everyone knows Saddam was merely a kindly old gentlemen who meant us no harm. Only the ‘true believers’ think differently.
demimondian
SInce I’m the one being beaten up, I sort of feel that I need to defend Jason here.
The question that needs to be answered is “Did Hussein have a viable WMD program?” He’s made a series of claims, which are true, in support of the thesis that the Iraqi government did have such a program. I’ll grant the individual claims, but not that they support the thesis. Each of the incidents in question is either (a) known and irrelevant, or (b) actually evidence to the contrary.
I’m interested in convincing him that this war is currently unwinnable. I don’t know that it was unwinnable from the get go, although I, personally, think that the US could have won. (For the purposes of this discussion, I don’t particularly care whether we should have gone to war originally. At the time the war started, I believed we should fight it, and that’s the only view I expect to be held to account for.) What I am arguing is that we will not achieve our war aims in any conceivable outcome of the current situation.
The key question for that is “How much worse would an Iranian-allied Iraq be than the Hussein-governed Iraq that preceded the war?” I am arguing that Hussein was completely emasculated by the sanctions, and that the damage to his infrastructure was so extensive that their inevitable lifting would have posed no real threat.
ppGaz
So, the Democrats are in a “tough position.”
Luckily, bloggers have no accountability, and are free to dodge the issues as they see fit.
Isn’t that how it works, or did I miss something?
bennett
I am no expert, by any means, but I do remember reading quite a bit of information regarding Saddam’s chemical arsenal. Perhaps one of the incidents of chemical attack Jason speaks of was the shell terrorists attempted to turn into an IED. The shell was of a kind that Saddam was known to be testing, in which the chemical components were mixed in-flight, but kept separate while being stored in the shell. Supposedly all these types of shells were fired in testing, and the question, as far as I have seen is still open as to where it came from. With that said, the very existance of the shells in the bunker was a violation of UN resolutions, and the cease-fire agreement from GW1. The inspecters were there to watch those things be destroyed, not to find them. Second, Saddam’s arsenal was not as advanced as those of the US or USSR, in that the actual chemical agents were not stored in the shells themselves, but rather were mixed and added shortly before their usage due to the inherant instability of the chemical agents. So finding only empty shells in now way proves that the chemicals themselves did not exist and were not moved elsewhere.
demimondian
Well, actually, yes — it is preposterous. That’s one of the few things that is quite clear from all this. Hussein had no alliance to any of the terror groups in the middle east. Mostly, he payed lip service to the Palestinian groups by paying off the families of suicide bombers. He had no allegiance to the jihadis, and they, in turn, loathed and despised him.
ppGaz
Two things. One, again I must say, is anyone in here seriously trying to “convince” anyone of anything? Collossal waste of time IYAM.
Two, was the war theoretically unwinnable from the get go? Hard to say, but I’d guess …. not. In other words, doable if it had been done correctly.
However, that bus got off several exits ago. The potatoheads were in charge, and have fucked it up.
No matter what plan you put in place now, you still have the same potatoheads in charge. I guess I’ve been involved in large projects for too long to think that you can recast failed project with the same leadership and get a different result.
neil
Darrell, perhaps you could photoshop up a fake but accurate picture of Iraqi children greeting American soldiers with flowers?
Steve
The classic low-IQ Darrell strawman. When someone points out that there was no evidence that Saddam had a nuclear program, respond with “oh, so you think Saddam was a saint!” Hardly. I just don’t think he had a nuclear program, and when there’s no evidence he has a nuclear program, it’s irresponsible for people like Cheney and Rice to go around talking about mushroom clouds.
Zifnab
Well, that’s the crux Dave. We don’t know. The moment your intelligence agency and the intelligence agencies of several other major world powers fuck up that hard, you start having to question a little bit of everything.
The CIA is not required to be omniscent, it’s just expected to be. We wouldn’t invest billions of dollars on hundreds of field agents, covert locations, spy sattelites, and James Bond technology if we just wanted them to give it the old college try. When asked, “Does country X have nukes?” we require a “Yes” “No” or “We definately don’t know yet” answer, and we expect it to be right 100% of the time.
But you’re right, whether or not Saddam had WMDs in 2003 isn’t really the issue here. The issue here is whether a sitting President should have the authority to single-handedly toss common sense and national security to the wind when he wants to wage a war to win himself some elections. And whether a GOP lead Congress kicked open the door to let Bush cowboy his way into the worst quagmire since Vietnam.
Darrell
Saddam had well documented ties and support to different terrorist organizations, INCLUDING al Queda. Not only were there numerous high level meetings between Iraqi intelligence and Al queda (including meetings w/bin Laden himself), Saddam and Al queda had been collaborating on a joint weapons development program since the mid-90’s
Saddam sheltered and supported with government offices Abu Nidal, one of the world’s most wanted terrorists, he sheltered one of the ’93 WTC bombers then there’s the Salman Pak terrorist training camp, etc, etc. But it’s all “quite clear” that Saddam had no alliances with terrorist groups, right? Incredible the willful ignorance of so many on the left.
Orogeny
This “did anyone throw flowers” thing is getting ridiculous. Of course there were some Iraqis who were thrilled that the US invaded. Here’s a picture: http://www.brandonblog.com/blog5.jpg.
The important point is that Cheney/Bush led the American people to believe that the vast majority of the Iraqis wanted us to invade their country, that the invasion and it’s aftermath would be a “cakewalk.” Not necessarily a lie, more of an indication of how delusional the folks in the Bush administration really are.
demimondian
Actually, yes, we do. The evidence for the use of poison gasses during the Iran/Iraq war is incontrovertible.
demimondian
Sorry, Darrell, no dice. That’s discredited.
Face it, guy, you’re owned. :)
Darrell
No evidence? Is that what they told you to believe over at DKOS? From the Duelfer Report Key findings:
Only the ‘true believers’ like Duelfer could believe such a thing, right? How preposterous that Saddam might provide WMDs or weapons technology to terrorists. Saddam was only a misunderstood kindly old gentlemen who just wanted to get along. Pay no mind to any of his terrorist connections, past development and use of WMDs and the current networks of ‘dual use’ facilities. Nothing to see here folks, no problems or danger
Darrell
show evidence that Al queda/Saddam ties are ‘discredited’ or consider yourself owned. You’ve had your ass spanked on this thread by the facts
Jorge
Orogeny – Yes, it was ridiculous. But thank you for taking the time to post the picture of the flower and soldiers. And yet as you hint the flower issue really doesn’t shed any light on the issue of how the Iraqi’s welcomed us or how they feel about us now.
Darrell
That’s what I said too, but Jorge persisted because he’s dishonest as hell. As you rightly point out, “of course” there were flowers, we all saw them
Some in the administration were overly optimistic no doubt. Now will you be honest enought to admit that there were many others in the Bush administration, including Bush himself, who warned us of a long hard fight?
Jorge
Darrell – You are citing a report written by the administration that basically says, “Saddam didn’t have the weapons or factories we said he had but we know that in his hearts of hearts he really, really wanted WMD’s and any day now we’re sure he would have started his programs we just know it” as proof? So basically, we went to war not because Saddam had WMD’s or even because it was logisitically possible for him to restart his programs but because the administration is of the opinion that Saddam wanted to restart his programs?
Lines
Wooo! We have a winner. Someone finally provided proof of a flower, therefore making Jason Van Schizo less of a liar. Good job!
I’ve been served! Oh, no, whatever shall I do?
Jorge
You know Darrell, my feelings are beginning to get hurt by you calling me a liar. By the way, would you point out were I lied about the flowers? Near as I can tell, I asked you to provide proof because I didn’t recall seeing pictures of flowers. And by the way – your logic is flawed. If I believed that there in fact had been flowers why would I so adamantly ask for proof?
Darrell
Jorge, I cited a well regarded report which documented Iraqi intelligence papers, interviews with scientists, and the network of dual-use labs (also noted by Kay) and other evidence. We know Saddam was trying to conceal his program, he had done so numerous times in the past. The evidence is clear that he could have rebuilt much of his WMD stockpiles in months. And concealment and deceit is ENTIRELY consistent with the type of person Saddam was. Why don’t you just admit it?
Based on your comment, are you suggesting it was not completely “logistically possible” for Saddam to have quickly reconstituted his WMD programs. I honestly want to know how far out on a limb you people will go to justify your absurd statements.
Darrell
As noted by Orogeny above, ‘of course’ there were flowers given to our troops. Like him, I don’t believe for one second that you “didn’t recall” seeing such pictures, especially if you work in TV as you claim.
Lines
Did Bush or any of the immediate administration ever make a prediction in a public speech that the war might not be a cakewalk? I don’t think any of them did in public until after the war started on the ground, because by then it would have been too late for people to suggest caution, they had their little war.
Jason Van Steenwyk
The suggestion that we’re just playing a game of rhetorical “tag” is well-taken. There is a certain gamesmanship that occurs on boards like this. Kinda like spiking the ball in the endzone.
But there’s a larger point to be made in so doing: That neither side is really operating with a full set of facts.
Using the Iraq war as an example, the antiwar side too often makes their arguments as though Saddam did not have WMD technologies (he did), did not have WMD (he did – just not in the quantities we thought), that it was the Iranians and not Saddam that attacked Halabja (Ibrahim Azzat Al Duri himself copped to the attack, and threatened the Kurds saying “we are ready to repeat the operation.”), and that there were no terrorists in Iraq before the invasion (there were) and that Saddam had zero links to Al Qaeda (the 9/11 commissioners found a bunch of links.)
But they argue as though these facts have not been established, over and over again.
Too many on the pro war side, according to polls, are still under the assumption that Saddam was behind 9/11 (he wasn’t), or that the majority of the Iraqi insurgents are foreign fighters (think 10-15 percent or so). And carry on their argument as if those rumors haven’t been roundly discredited, too.
Both sides are guilty of it. Be it abortion, the tax code, Teri Schiavo, Koufax v. Whitey Ford, selection bias is part of human nature.
To the extent a grievous factual error can be pointed out and snuffed out, then doing so has rhetorical value.
Steve
A report that says Saddam “aspired” to have a nuclear program is now considered evidence that he had a nuclear program. Like I said, the true believers soldier on.
Think about the silly liberals who believe the 60 Minutes memos were real and Dan Rather was unfairly scapegoated. Think about how stupid you believe those people to be. When it comes to WMD and prewar intelligence, dude, those people are you!
Orogeny
Lines, I wasn’t in any way defending Jason. Jeebus, we’re talking about a guy who is still trying to claim Saddam had a WMD arsenal!
Jorge, I wasn’t hinting…thats exactly what I meant. The fact that a few Iraqis were happy about the invasion says nothing about the way a lot of people were misled by Bush & his minions about what the overall reaction of the Iraqis would be to a foreign invasion.
Darrell, I don’t recall any real emphasis by the Cheney/Bush folks about how difficult the war would be BEFORE the invasion. After the fact, when the shitstorm had really hit, they started that kind of talk to cover their asses.
Lines
Wow, are there unicorns, hippogriffs and other idiots that believe this bullshit with such conviction in your little world, Darrell? Lets see, the only centrifuge found was buried in a scientist’s rose garden. Most dual use equipment was locked behind UN seals that were unbroken, and there is no proof that they had the precursors for any biologicals.
I understand you have your convictions, but your argument is lacking basic facts, Darrell. You dictate this stuff as if it really happened, when all evidence contradicts you.
No, I never saw pictures of flowers before. I was wrong, thats why we debate and discuss. Unfortunately, you arn’t the one to provide the proof, you’re only the one mouthing off about it like a little jackass.
Lines
Orogeny: Actually, I’m congratulating you on finding the picture. I really do appreciate having factual evidence at hand, and I have no problem with being proved wrong. In fact, my stance that water-carrying embeds may not have been as pro-war as I thought has been changed.
I never intended for you to feel slighted by what I wrote, I apologize.
Pb
I can understand the confusion–actually, we were greeted with flowers in Afghanistan.
Jason Van Steenwyk
Lines:
Mature.
Lines
On Halajaba:
And this differs from the American air strikes in Baghdad, how? Oh, conventional explosives vs. biologicals. Sorry, dead is dead. It is also backed up by CIA and FBI reports that the chemical weapons were being used by the Iranians as well.
No, Jason, you’re reaching. You’re grasping at tiny straws and calling it a haybale. The links outlined by the 9/11 committee were improbably and have been argued into questionable status.
But I congratulate you on attempting to debate in a more civilized manner. Its much better than the queering of Darrell.
MAX HATS
Idiocy, or zen?
Lines
Jason Van Steenwyk:
So making fun of you for using such a lame comment is immature? Whatever.
John S.
Incidentally, nobody with a maturity level above Britney Spears would tell someone “You got served!”.
Jason Van Steenwyk
Lines,
Feel free to continue equating the US military with Saddam’s chemical strike on Halabja (and by extention, the Anfal campaign).
I’ll just chalk up entry number 887 in the Big Book of Why Democrats Lose Elections.
Krista
Q: Where do you get mothballs?
A: Well, first you open their tiny little legs…
Lines
5000 dead in Halajaba during an actual war vs. the inadvisable invasion of a nation with little to no offensive capabilities killing well over 5000 innocent civilians in a close quarters city?
Wow, I can feel the elections slipping away from me as I type.
Lines
Oh, and Jason, for using the strawman that I’m attacking the US Military for the Baghdad innocent death toll, Fuck you and the horse you rode in on. I’m going after the administration that made the insane choice of invading a nation that offered little resistance and wasn’t even a threat to it’s immediate neighbors. You twisted it, like every other asshole rightwinger, to support your stance that the left hates the military, doing not only yourself a huge disservice, but the actual military that you are attempting to defend.
aop
What Al Maviva said. I come down on the isolationism, law enforcement and tactical strikes side, but I think the bulk of Al’s post is spot on. There needs to be a real, adult discussion about this stuff, instead of the cheap partisan point-scoring that currently passes for policy debate.
TallDave
I think it’s sort of funny that people debate this issue as though ANYONE thinks Saddam had reformed and would never have pursued WMD again, esp. once the crumbling sanctions regime collapsed entirely.
If left in power, sooner or later he was going to get them, along with long-range missiles to deliver them, paid for with those trillions in oil.
jaime
Is that the Minority Report argument? Prosecute the crime even before the intent is commited?
Darrell
As if
1) Saddam not already violated his terms of surrender countless times over a 12 year period, and violation of terms of surrender = full justification to resume hostilities in any book
and
2) Saddam didn’t already have a long history of development and concealment of WMD programs.
Davebo
Well, that statement applies to a lot of world leaders today. Isn’t it obvious that, Chavez for instance, will eventually get WMD’s and the delivery systems (read 40′ containers) to get them onto US soil?
Or what about the countries that already have both the weapons and delivery systems? Shouldn’t we go ahead and invade France, the UK, China and Russia (and Israel) now?
Jason Van Steenwyk
Call me crazy, but I think the best time to invade is when they will “offer little resistance.”
Much better to do it now than after Saddam reconstitutes his WMD programs, as Hans Blix and Duelfer both expected he would do at the first opportunity.
Thanks for the laugh line about Saddam being no threat to his neighbors. He only attacked three of them, plus Israel.
Duh.
Lines
Yeah, 1991 was just yesterday. When was the last time Iraq was a credible threat to anyone? Oh yeah, 1991.
Darrell
Read the speeches. Pres Bush Feb. 2003
Bush on the eve of invading Iraq:
I’m sure I can dig up much more.. but I think this is enough for now to refute the idea that Bush never warned of long and difficult war before invasion. He most certainly did. There were several others in the administration who did the same as I recall
MAX HATS
Yeah, real strong country he had over there.
I for one was terrified of a country that couldn’t feed itself, was perpetually on the brink of civil war, mired hopelessly in corruption at all levels and had roughly the transport capacity of Zimbabwe.
You know what else scares me? Squirrels. They got those real beady eyes like their just waiting.
Oh, oh, but I forget. He had REMOTE CONTROL AIRCRAFT in a hanger somewhere. We got there just in time to prevent those “trillions” you speak so credulously of from being used to build some sort of radio controlled airborne recharger fleet that could get those things to California.
I mean, Saddam was a MADMAN! He would do ANYTHING to destroy us! And Iraq had the MOST ARTILLERY PEICES IN THE WORLD and oh god, I’m laughing just typing this out. I can’t believe you actually fell for that tripe.
Look, while we’re trying to at least make rhetorical noise in the direction of honesty, let’s admit the biggest bastion of war support before the fact was plain and simple “they got us on Sept 11, now let’s get them” with the absolute minimum of winking and nudging made to make clear who “them” meant.
Darrell
Chavez for instance, will eventually get WMD’s and the delivery systems (read 40’ containers) to get them onto US soil?
yes of course, Chavez has such a long history of developing and using WMDs.. just like Saddam. And Chavez had been violating terms of surrender for 12 years like.. oh, wait
MAX HATS
Yes, clearly a reference to a multi-year guerrilla war situation within the borders of Iraq.
Do you guys buy goggles somewhere or something?
Lines
Darrell, how about some quotes while there was still time to debate the issue? You know, before they started covering their asses when they realized they had made it seem like an overnight jaunt into the backyard, instead of the possible guerrilla war that was the likely future?
MAX HATS
Well after Chavez’s long history of attacking the United States, his long, well-established pattern of co-operating with Al-Qeada, and his record of developing weapons capable of hitting America. . .
Wait, wait. That was completely insane.
demimondian
Sorry, Jason, I really think that the claim of cooperation between Al Qaeda and Iraq doesn’t stand up. Here’s a good summary of the 9-11 commission’s report, which I read as saying Al Qaeda worked to destroy Hussein, then tried to get him to shelter them after GW1. Hussein turned a cold shoulder to them.
Steve S
Ok. You’re Crazy.
I mean, sure. Hitler invaded Poland because they offered little resistance. But that’s not why we invade countries. We do it because they are a threat.
That was a nice excuse before we found out that he had not, and had no plans to.
Yeah, 15 years ago.
We should probably invade Germany again too. They once attacked all of their neighbors, and you never know, they might plan to do it again in the future. Better to be safe than sorry.
Thanks for the laugh, Jason Van Stupid.
Steve S
It’s come out recently that the ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda was that Saddam Hussein didn’t trust them and was trying to figure out a way to infiltrate them so he could spy on what they were doing.
Now to use John Cole’s apologist excuses… Technically Bush never lied about this. They only claimed there were ties between the two groups. He just conveniently left out that there are also ties between our CIA and Al Qaeda of the same nature… i.e. spying on them.
Is Jason Van Stupid trying to pass this off? That shit is so old, it doesn’t even stink.
Jason Van Steenwyk
Calling me “Jason Van Stupid” is what passes for discourse here?
You should be ashamed of yourselves. Go on back to the mudpuddles, kids. The grownups are busy.
Orogeny
Darrell, we’re talking about two different things. At the time of the invasion, Cheney/Bush had indeed made the case that Saddam was a real badass…a modern day Hitler with an arsenal of hideous WMD, drones that could deliver said WMD to the US, possible nukes and a reconstituted army. It was part of the sales pitch. “It’s not going to be easy” refers to ousting Saddam. But, when Dick Cheney said: “Now, I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators”, he was talking about AFTER we kicked out Saddam. There was never any pre-invasion talk about a long-term occupation, with thousand of dead and wounded American troops. I had lots of arguments with pro-Bush, pro-invasion folks before the war (I’m an officer in a Harley Owners Group chapter in Alabama, so I know LOTS of those kind of people), and not one of them ever said anything to indicate that they thought that the war was gonna be anything other than “kill Saddam and come home.”
demimondian
Cites, please.
Jason isn’t really trying to pass this off, Darrell is. Jason’s just pointing out that there were contacts, which is technically true. The problem with those “contacts” is that they didn’t lead to any cooperation, and certainly posed no threat of proliferation.
Jason Van Steenwyk
Well, if you’re holding your most scintillating conversations about the war with the fellows at the local Harley Owner’s Club, then that might be part of your problem right there.
Davebo
Gee Jason, you don’t think Doctors, Lawyers, CPA’s, Pilots, Dentists, etc. are good people to talk politics with?
Davebo
Irony of ironies.
Juan Cole sees it a bit differently than John Cole.
A snip.
Read the rest. He makes a good case that the Bush Plan and the Dean Plan aren’t that different.
http://www.juancole.com/2005/12/dean-v.html
Orogeny
Jason,
Sorry, man, but I’ve got to ask. Are you really that fucking stupid? The demographic for a Harley Owners Group is probabloy as diverse as you will get in any organization in America….doctors, lawyers, teachers, construction workers. I’m just a poor dumb geochemist, but they even let me in.
Darrell
That CNN account pointedly ignores several quotes from the co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission which clarify the links unequivacably. Let’s let Lee Hamilton, Democratic Vice chair of the 9/11 commission spell it out:
Source
Here’s Dem Lee Hamilton again on Hardball reinforcing the fact that there were in fact connections between Al queda and Saddam:
The problem with leftists like demimondian is that they repeat their discreditied BS as if it’s truth. demimondian has been smacked down with the facts several times on this thread, but you can bet he will continue on, undeterred, repeating the same discreditied claims over and over again claiming that it’s “quite clear” that Saddam had no links with terrorist, an willfully ignorant assertaion. Jason made a good observation above, which is so true when it comes to the left
demimondian is a classic example of this
Darrell
Orogeny wrote:
No we’re not. After being proven wrong, you’re now trying to change the subject. Here is what you wrote:
When I provided direct verbatim quotes from Bush speeches which refuted that claim of yours, in which Bush clearly warned us it would be a long hard fight, you now try to change the subject.
Darrell
More willful ignorance. Incredible
Steve S
Stupid is as stupid does.
If you’re acting stupid and spewing shit that’s been debunked as fact, then you ought to be ashamed of yourself.
Davebo
The problem with those “contacts” is that they didn’t lead to any cooperation
The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no “collaborative relationship” between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration’s main justifications for the war in Iraq.
Along with the contention that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other top administration officials have often asserted that there were extensive ties between Hussein’s government and Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network; earlier this year, Cheney said evidence of a link was “overwhelming.”
But the report of the commission’s staff, based on its access to all relevant classified information, said that there had been contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda but no cooperation. In yesterday’s hearing of the panel, formally known as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, a senior FBI official and a senior CIA analyst concurred with the finding.
Indeed
Steve
Did someone really drop by this thread to say “you got served” and then proceed to chide OTHER people for making juvenile comebacks? It’s like a parody of Internet trolling.
Neo
Backlash .. you must be kidding.
The districting of the House now has so many “safe seats” (mostly through bipartisan collusion) that it would take Howard Dean serving up UBL on a platter to make any change in the House > 10 seats .. QED Repubs hold House.
Steve S
Yes, because Hussein was trying to infiltrate Al Qaeda.
I can’t believe you’re still trying to claim this connection was anything else.
demimondian
Darrell, you’re a pissant. I know you don’t realize that, and, frankly, I don’t expect you to do so. I’ve answered the facts that came up — and I’ve refuted the lies.
Are you such an attention-starved child that you have to resort to name calling to get the reinforcement you need? You can look around, and read intense disagreements going on between people here, and also realize that the people in question keeping those disagreements in perspective. You choose not to follow their example. Why not?
demimondian
You’re taking his snark out of context. He’d just nailed me, quite effectively, and he was teasing me about it. I’d like to think that I’m man enough to take the abuse in the spirit in which it was intended.
Darrell
As the 9/11 commission vice chairs have clearly explained, there was no collaborative relationship with regards to 9/11. But they went to lengths to explain there was lots of other cooperation between Iraq and Al queda. Unless you have citations contradicting this, and you provided none, it appears that the Clinton Justice Dept’s assessment still stands:
Darrell
You haven’t answered jack shit. Doubt me? re-read this thread
demimondian
Actually, the citations I provided did demonstrate this. The testimony in the Senate was that although there had been contacts, there had been no cooperation.
In short, the indictment that you keep citing, which has nothing to do with the Clinton Justice Department, was wrong. That’s no big deal, as indictments are wrong all the time.
Darrell
Here’s one example
That ‘summary’ was flatly contradicted by verbatim clarification of the 9/11 commission vice chairs which were cited.
You never responded to this, you never refuted it. while lying your ass off that you “refuted the lies”. LOL
Darrell
That’s not what Democrat vice chair of the 9/11 commission says. He suggests the opposite, and you have yet to provide a source which specifically debunks the Clinton Justice dept. indictment. But you’re “refuting the lies”, right?
Darrell
Hello davebo, where is the citation which supports your claim
When in fact that statement, as clarified by the vice chairs of the commission, was in refernce ONLY to the 9/11 attacks. The problem with the left is that they throw out so many lies, it takes time to refute them. And if you don’t, they keep repeating it as if it’s the truth
demimondian
Cite, please.
Darrell
Already done on my 5:49pm post. Senate 9/11 commission vice chair Lee Hamilton explains this clearly for anyone who can read.
Now how about you citing specifically where you refuted the claim made by Clinton Justice Dept., vice-chairs of the 9/11 commission and others, that there was “no cooperation” between Al Queda and Saddam. That I would like to see. Contrary to what you said previously, nothing in the CNN link you provided refutes Lee Hamilton and others
Darrell
And there’s more.. 9/11 commission members John Lehman and Dem partisan hack Richard Ben-Veniste clarified that the sentence in the staff report about the lack of “collaborative relationship” between Iraq and Al Qaeda referred to collaboration in planning specific terrorist attacks against the United States. Lehman specifically said that there is substantial evidence that Iraqi intelligence and Al Qaeda members did collaborate on weapons development. Source
That pretty blows away the idiotic assertion that it was “clear” Saddam was not working with terorrists outside of paying suicide bombers. But keep on “refuting those lies” man.. you’re doing a great job
demimondian
Sorry, but that’s not true. The citation you gave there said nothing at all about cooperation.
Meanwhile, the testimony summaries — from a number of different sources — all reflect the claim that Hamilton said that there was no evidence of cooperation between Hussein and Al Qaeda. The staff report itself is unequivocal, and Hamilton’s carefully worded “retraction” was no such thing. The line you keep trotting out? It’s actually drawn from a white house talking points document.
ppGaz
Yep, he got that right, in view of the fact that he had no fucking idea on earth how to do accomplish it.
And doesn’t to this day.
Darrell
you are really dishonest, aren’t you? From the citation you reference, topic Al Queda/Saddam ties
Lehman’s quote in a following post
But it’s “clear” there were no ties between Saddam and terrorist organizations as you previously claimed, right? Reality based community my ass
Darrell
Hamilton said the exact opposite. See sourced quote from him above. Is this what you mean by “refuting the lies”. you’re a joke demimondian
John S.
Darrell-
You’re the eighth wonder of the fucking world. Right after Hamilton said this:
He said this:
In response to Matthews asking this:
In other words, he is asking Hamilton how we get people to understand there was no connection between Saddam Hussein and the attacks of 9/11.
So when someone says this:
And you go apocalyptic on them for being full of shit using Hamilton’s conversation with Matthews, you are either:
1. The biggest fucking idiot on the face of the Earth.
2. The most disingenuous asshole on the face of the Earth.
Pick one.
demimondian
Actually, John S., Darrell’s playing a far more subtle game than you realize. He’s trying to nit-pick on a careful statement, hoping that I’ll get distracted from my core thesis. After all, if there was no relationship wrt attacks on the US, then there was no threat of diversion of chemical weapons.
But that would have been no fun. It’s more fun to let him make a fool of himself.
Oh, and Darrell? Remember that the ultimate false way of confirming something is denying something more strongly than necessary. “I will admit that there’s no evidence supporting the claim that you repeatedly raped your best friend’s younger sister.” leads the audience to conclude that there’s evidence to support the victim having repeated raped the best friend’s older sister — or, perhaps, the best friend.
In this case, the Hamilton denials are very carefully phrased to lead an audience to infer that there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda without actually claiming that such a relationship existed. In that case, the staff report, which makes a far broader claim, is entirely consistent with the other claims. I’m standing on the staff report, which uncontrovertedly stated that there is no evidence of any cooperative relationship.
John S.
There’s nothing subtle about Darrell’s game. Like I said, there are only two options. I think it is safe to go with #2. It’s an over-the-top bit of hyperbole (clearly there are folks out there more disingenuous than Darrell), but it rings true enough.
Steve S
I’m saving this, and I’m going to post this same message to every thread that mentions Iraq, because I’m getting really fucking tired of the same debunked theories being put forth by Iraq war apologists.
Source
Kimmitt
I don’t think it’s fair not to include Dean in this category.
Jason Van Steenwyk
No, demimondian, one does not follow from the other. If it is true that Saddam and Al Qaeda were cooperating on weapons development – as the 9/11 commission specifically found “abundant evidence” for, you cannot then assume that Saddam can control Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda had already engaged in attacks on the U.S. Al Qaeda had already professed a willingness to use chemical and even nuclear weapons against the US.
I mean, now that we’ve established that AQ intended to aquire WMD, who ELSE do you think they were planning on using them against?
Come to think of it, who do you think SADDAM thought they would use them against? Hmmmm?
False. The staff report said that there was no evidence of a cooperative OPERATIONAL relationship with specific regard to attacks on the US, to include, of course, 9/11 (Yasin, somehow, notwithstanding).
The report specifically found that Saddam Hussein had a number of other connections with Al Qaeda, including “abundant evidence” of a cooperative relationship w/r/t weapons development.
See, for example, page 128:
I should point out that it was the CLINTON administration that came to the conclusion that Iraq and Al Qaeda were cooperating on weapons development. Said so right in the original indictment.
So did Clinton lie?
And what did Saddam Hussein give up in exchange for an agreement by AQ not to target him? Do you know?
demimondian
Jason — you should go read Murray Wass’s article in the National Journal. That’s not the only time I’ve been told this by people who might know — and, obviously, I have no special reason to know, or I wouldn’t be talking — but it’s the first published claim that the reason the President and the VP have been keeping mum on other connections is that the daily brief incidicates that Clinton and company were, in fact, wrong in the 1998 indictment; that, in fact, there was no evidence that AQ and Iraq were working together.
(Of course, Wass has a political bone to pick, and, therefore, is not entirely reliable. The other people who breathed that at me might all go back to a single source, and it could be fake. But I know the culture of leaks, and the fact that no leak has come out of “other evidence supporting a differet connection” is independent evidence in support of the claim that there really isn’t any such evidence. Still, take it through the lens of my bias, etc.)
Darrell
How is that in any way ‘disinguous’ of me. I have repeatedly stated that their is no solid evidence that Saddam was directly involved in 9/11 or other attacks on the US. If you don’t believe me, reread my posts above. I openly stipulated that point already. However, that Saddam was not directly involved in attacking the US in no way changes the long history of Saddam’s cooperation with terrorists organizations including an “abundant evidence” (verbatim from 9/11 commission) that Saddam cooperated with Al Queda on weapons development.
You lying jackasses on the other hand, are peddling outright lies that there was “no cooperative relationship” between Saddam and Al Queda and demimondian made the incredibly stupid and discredited assertion that “That’s one of the few things that is quite clear from all this. Hussein had no alliance to any of the terror groups in the middle east”
Yes, so many on the left really are that willfully ignorant. It’s takes a certain class of dishonest jackass to willfully ignore so many facts to the contrary
Darrell
Now followed by “Saddam never had terrorist ties, we were lied to about that”.
“abundant evidence” that Saddam cooperated with Al Queda on weapons development. And it’s not like such cooperation would be out of character for the sociopath. Terrorist Abu Nidal was sheltered and given a govt office in Iraq. Saddam similarly sheltered one of the 93 WTC bombers. The 93 WTC bombers entered on Iraqi passports. Such a surprise(!) that Saddam would also cooperate with Al Queda and other terrorist organizations who want to attack us.
That Saddam was not involved in 9/11 in no way changes the FACT that he had been cooperating with other terrorist organizations including Al queda for a number of years.
John S.
Yup, you truly are the eighth wonder of the world, Darrell.
That’s EXACTLY what Hamilton said in the link YOU provided, you fucking buffoon:
I’ve already spent too much time on your bullshit – a mistake I will not be repeating.
Jason Van Steenwyk
John S.
You’re in the wrong here. Both sides concede that there is no evidence of an operational tie with respect to attacks on the United States.
So you can stop waving that red herring around like the Confederate Battle Flag.
The 9/11 commission did, however, find a good deal of evidence that Saddam had a number of other connections to Al Qaeda – logistic, financial, training, operational, intelligence, car pools to soccer practice, etc., with Al Qaeda outside of planned attacks directly against the United States.
This has been repeatedly pointed out not just by the posters here, but by the 9/11 commissioners themselves in a series of public statements.
For you to keep clinging to the delusion that “No links to operational connections with reference to attacks on the United States” = “No links with Al Qaeda,” even after those links have been pointed out is intellectually dishonest.
More evidence has in fact come out since the 9/11 reports were published. We now know, for example, that Eamonn O’Zaghrahairaigh, the number 2 man and apparently the ranking Irishman in Al Qaeda, attended a conference in Iraq in 1999 specifically at the invitation of Ibrahim Izzat Al Duri, one of the top deputies of Saddam Hussein himself.