http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A17707-2003Oct25?language=printer
Who were the people arguing he didn’t have a program last year? The Nation crowd?
Reading that article (I’m a journalism geek, and when the Post runs a story like that I get goosebumps) my first thought is this:
George Tenet isn’t going to be quite as willing to fall on his sword this time around. The placement of this story sure sounds like Tenet–or senior elements of the CIA–are going to go to war with the White House. As the Administration tries to pawn the lack of WMD and other picture postcards off on “intelligence failures”, look for The Agency to present documentation that the intelligence was provided, and ignored. The Sy Hersch article from last week is just the first salvo in this.
Yeah, that’s what TPM’s been talking like. Need more popcorn.
Strictly anecdotal, but my restaurant and bar are right down the road from Langley, and quite a few of our regulars are Agency or ex-Agency (yeah, right; suuuuuuuure they are…) Anyway, when I chat with them, I definitely hear a clear and vocal anger and frustration with 1600 Pennsylvania.
You’re right, time to pop some popcorn, sit back, and watch the fireworks.
Great quote from that article:
By and large, our judgment is that sanctions have been pretty good, or the sanctions effort, to prevent the import of components," he said. In the realm of nuclear proliferation, he said, "I guess there’s more fertile ground in North Korea or Iran.
Can we presume you advocate the simultaneous invasions of NK and Iran?
Can we presume you advocate the simultaneous invasions of NK and Iran?[/quote]
Considering the quote, I don’t see why you would.
But since the much maligned Iraqi sanctions turn out to be an effective means of preventing that country from acquiring a nuclear weapons program, maybe we should consider sanctions for these other countries.
I seem to remember you taking a pretty strong stand on the ineffectiveness of the Iraqi sanctions, Brad. What do you make of this report?
Who else do we have sanctions against? Let me just smoke a Cuban cigar while I think it over…
Sanctions had some effectiveness, perhaps, but it’s at the expense of a nation’s entire population, and it doesn’t solve anything. It only perpetuates the status quo. You can’t have sanctions that go on indefinitely, and just how much longer were the Iraqi sanctions going to last? As we’re so often told they cause civilians to suffer unduely while having no effect on a regime’s ability to build palaces and torture anyone who happens to be inside their little sand box. The Europeans and most of the rest of the world didn’t care to see them continue. I don’t know how you can argue they were an effective solution when there was a good chance they’d just fall apart in a couple years. What’s your grand solution then? All of a sudden we don’t have anything left between such a regime and their nuclear ambitions.
And as I’ve so often pointed out, there are considerations beyond preventing some rogue nation from getting nukes that make intervention the moral course of action.
If you want to argue sanctions are immoral and a bad long-run approach, fine. But they sure kept him from getting anything threatening, in constrast to hawkish statements.
And in contrast to Dove concessions, people who thought he did have scary shit and didn’t think that mattered. But like I’ve said many times, I’m not here to defend Bush PR. My reasons for supporting the war are my own.
Sanctions had some effectiveness, perhaps, but it’s at the expense of a nation’s entire population, and it doesn’t solve anything. It only perpetuates the status quo. You can’t have sanctions that go on indefinitely, and just how much longer were the Iraqi sanctions going to last? As we’re so often told they cause civilians to suffer unduely while having no effect on a regime’s ability to build palaces and torture anyone who happens to be inside their little sand box. The Europeans and most of the rest of the world didn’t care to see them continue. I don’t know how you can argue they were an effective solution when there was a good chance they’d just fall apart in a couple years. What’s your grand solution then? All of a sudden we don’t have anything left between such a regime and their nuclear ambitions.
And as I’ve so often pointed out, there are considerations beyond preventing some rogue nation from getting nukes that make intervention the moral course of action.[/quote]
What’s the moral course of action you support for our own poor and needy in the U.S.? You’re not in favor of cutting back on social spending, are you?
Do these poor and needy people have a right to vote? Are they being ethnically cleansed by the application of chemical weapons? Are the secret police kicking down their doors, torturing them and raping the women in their family in front of them for criticizing the government?
Arguably, they are at a disadvantage. Does the child who grows up in poverty have an equal chance to succeed compared to the child who grows up with wealth? Is it wrong to use social spending, and taxation, to level the playing field a bit (knowing that the playing field of course isn’t anywhere close to being leveled)?
But forget that – my point is if the Iraqi people don’t want to rise up and help themselves, why should we step in and spend hundreds of billions of dollars and shed our own blood to do so? There are millions upon millions of them. Did the Iranians need the U.S. to overthrow the despotic Shah? I don’t think so. If the Iraqis didn’t want to depose Saddam, why should we intervene?
Isn’t the real point is that this was an afterthough in the war of propaganda? Call me a cynic but it’s hard for me to really believe in the altuistic motives your or my government has proclaimed for this action.
Agreed. I’ve been seeing a lot of articles lately that seem they could be traced back to the CIA. Stories about Bush’s team creating their own intelligence, ignoring caveats and warnings, etc, etc. It all seemed to kick into high gear after the CIA leaked their demands for an investigation on the Plume outing. I’m no insider, but I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that the White House’s intentional outing of a CIA operative was the final straw. Things seem reeeeeeally hostile right now.
Exactly.
Kicking down doors? Ever heard of racial profiling? Of Rampart? Of over 100,000 police brutality complaints following the LA Riots that George Bush senior (and Clinton) did nothing about?
Don’t you know that 911 is a joke in their town?!?
Bah, tell 'em Chuck!
One million bottlebags count ‘em
Think they can bounce the ounce
And it get ‘em
Yo black spend 288 million
Sittin’ there waitin’ for the fizz
And don’t know what the fuck it is
An oh lemme tell you ‘bout shorty
He about seventeen lookin’ like 40
Treats his 40 dog better than his g
When he gets a big b o t t l e
Oh he loves tha liquor
But look watch shorty get sicker…
Edit for brevity
It’s hard to watch elected representatives tasked with running the country and the well-being of its constituents enter into a “lets see whose is bigger” contest. Especially when the results are:
Winner: 1/3 of an inch
Loser: 1/5 of an inch