The Washington Post reports that the Iraqi WMD program was strong on paper, but not much on substance. This will surely be spun by others, so let me be the first: Pre-war, all available evidence and all intelligence estimates (including those by war opponents, such as France and Germany) indicated the existence of Iraqi WMDs. It is true that one could find a few holes in the evidence — one always can in such matters. But, given the pre-war evidence and intelligence, the only reasonable position for a responsible leader to take on Iraq was that it did possess WMDs, and was a threat.*
The Washington Post article does not disturb this essential truth, which should be remembered when angry cries of “Bush lied, people died” again arise (as they surely will).
Turning to the war against terror, Bird Dog provides a useful round up of terrorism-related news over at Tacitus. Go read it and, while you’re there, catch one of Tacitus’s classic honor and goodness think pieces.
Now, if I can only figure out in which category I should put this post . . . .
von
*Of course, the magnitude of that threat, as well as what to do about it, were open to debate.
Specialization is for insects. Try posting nearly everything under “General”.
Pre-war, all available evidence and all intelligence estimates (including those by war opponents, such as France and Germany) indicated the existence of Iraqi WMDs.
Actually, no. Scott Ritter and several others pointed out – and were ignored – that there was no evidence for WMD in Iraq – certainly not the mass stockpiles that Bush & Co were dreaming up as a legal figleaf for invading Iraq. If you mean that no nation (except of course for Iraq itself) claimed that Iraq had no WMD, that’s nearer the truth: and a responsible leader would have acknowledged the scantiness and poor quality of evidence, and refused to wage an aggressive war on such flimsy grounds.
Bush lied: people died. It’s not just a slogan, it’s the truth.
And the problem with that post of Tacitus’s is that when I contrast it to his vitrolic abuse of Rachel Corrie, who also died bravely for a cause she believed in, and his mockery of her grieving family, attempting to carry on the cause, I cannot respect it.
I respect and condole with Tacitus’s personal grief at a loss of a friend. But if Tacitus wishes such high-minded posts as the one you linked to be taken seriously, he needs to reflect that his own actions have not followed through on his claimed principles: he has failed to respect someone who died bravely for a worthy cause, that of defending homes against unjust attack. Instead, he has vilified Rachel Corrie and the organisation she worked for, and mocked her family.
I do not approve of the war in Iraq: it is illegal, it was badly carried out, and it was the wrong thing to do. This does not mean I wish to mock Tacitus’s grief for his friend who died, nor any of the people who have been killed by the Iraqi invasion, on either side. Tacitus does not show the same respect to others, and therefore does not deserve for himself, though I do sincerely pity him and feel for his loss: treat every man after his deserts, and who shall scape whipping?
I wouldn’t post this in response to Tacitus’s post: I am posting it in response to your praise of it, which equally ignores Tacitus’s abuse of others who felt the grief he feels now.
Scott Ritter and several others pointed out – and were ignored – that there was no evidence for WMD in Iraq – certainly not the mass stockpiles that Bush & Co were dreaming up as a legal figleaf for invading Iraq.
It’s true that Scott Ritter believed, pre-war, that there was no evidence that Iraqi was trying to reconstitute its WMD program, although he did not give Iraq a clean bill of health. Ritter’s belief on WMDs (i.e., the lack thereof) was largely based on Ritter’s supposition that sanctions were effectively deterring Saddam:
(September 20, 2002, Time Magazine Story.) At the time, of course, Ritter was not a member of the intelligence apparatus, was not involved in the search for WMDs, and did not address the intelligence and evidence put forward by the Bush and Blair administrations. Moreover, his thesis was based on a mere supposition, and one to which no national intelligence service subscribed.
It is well beyond my ken how Bush’s, Blair’s, Schroeder’s, et al.’s preference for their intelligence services over Scott Ritter translates into “they lied.” But, to the extent that my post’s wording could be interpreted as overly broad, consider the foregoing an addendum.
And the problem with that post of Tacitus’s is that when I contrast it to his vitrolic abuse of Rachel Corrie, who also died bravely for a cause she believed in, and his mockery of her grieving family, attempting to carry on the cause, I cannot respect it.
Jesurgislac, surely you don’t argue that mere “belief in a cause” itself elevates the believer to Sainthood. Hitler believed in a cause; Stalin believed in a cause; Castro believes in a cause; Pol Pot believed in a cause; Gandhi believed in a cause; Christ believed in a cause; Bush believes in a cause; the Buddha believed in a cause; ad naseum. Are each of them worthy of equivalent respect? What cause you believe in matters, even in this post-postmodern age.
I, too, found Tacitus’s entry on Corrie to be meanspirited and poorly thought-out. But this doesn’t mean that Corrie was deserving of particular respect or admiration for her beliefs. Her passing should have gone unremarked-upon, and her family spared further pain. She died as a naive footsoldier in the service of an ignoble cause.
This was the same Barton Gellman who bollixed the reporting on Kay’s interim report last fall. His bias then betrayed an anti-war-in-Iraq agenda. Gellman may be right that there are no WMDs. Or not. We’re not gonna know for a while. Gellman had interviews with many folks for his piece, but apparently had no conservations with the head of the Iraq Survey Group, David Kay. Why?
At the time, of course, Ritter was not a member of the intelligence apparatus, was not involved in the search for WMDs, and did not address the intelligence and evidence put forward by the Bush and Blair administrations.
How can one address what was not put forward? You may remember that the Bush administration, when challenged to present whatever they had to back up their allegations, largely refused to do so on various grounds, ranging from the sensitivity of the intel to the concern that Saddam would just move things around. This did not stop them from making countless allegations about Iraq’s WMD capabilities that have since proven to be /demonstrably false/.
Those two words are worthy of bold and caps, but I don’t like to shout, so I’ll say them again: demonstrably false.
You are making the same mistake that the media and those who voted for the Iraq war made: you are conflating the Bush administration’s /allegations/ with actual /intel/. You are giving them the benefit of the doubt that what they said was fact, and that is not a wise thing to do, given their track record.
The administration made many, many allegations about Iraq’s WMD capabilities. The few occasions on which they offered data to back up their assertions have been unequivocally embarrassing, such as the “bio-weapons trailer” that turned out to be nothing of the sort.
Demonstrably false.
She died as a naive footsoldier in the service of an ignoble cause.
This strikes me as just as mean-spirited. How is it an “ignoble cause” to try to stop bulldozers from arbitrarily demolishing a family’s home–a home built on land that the family in question owns? Do you have some specific information which in your mind justifies the demolition? If so, I invite you to share it with the rest of us.
Do you have some specific information which in your mind justifies the demolition?
IDF was not demolishing houses that day. They looking for tunnels used by terrorists to transport weapons and personnel. Corrie’s death was a supreme waste.
Corrie’s death was a supreme waste.
At least we can all agree on that.
I share Jesurgislac’s call for some parity in honoring the dead. Unless they were war criminals, in my book, everyone’s death deserves to be discussed with respect. Even with war criminals, gloating over someone’s death reveals a smallness that’s ugly any way you look at it.
Now, if I can only figure out in which category I should put this post . . .
Useful, objective commentary is the first thing that comes to my mind.
I find myself mostly in agreement with Edward. I find no reason to celebrate death in general, especially when it’s a futile gesture.
That said, I don’t think she deserves any sort of honor. Other than from her family and friends, who may cherish her as someone they loved. As a complete stranger to her, I can’t summon much in the way of feeling-of-loss. More in the way of sadness that she just threw her life away.
Slarti, one may disagree on the degree of honor that someone’s death merits. To my mind, US soldiers fighting in Iraq are throwing away their lives for an ignoble cause: but they believe (or so I sincerely hope) that they are fighting for a noble cause. Equally, I do not object to those who believe that the foreign civilians who risk their lives defending Palestinian civilians are wasting their lives. That is a matter of politics: I think US soldiers in Iraq shouldn’t be there, you may think that US civilians in the Occupied Territories shouldn’t be there.
But grief for lost kin and lost friends is something to be respected, not mocked. We can agree on that, at least.
Courage in protecting the innocent – which is what Rachel Corrie and her colleagues were doing in the Occupied Territories, and what I hope many US soldiers believe is what they’re doing in Iraq – is a worthy cause, not an ignoble one, even when you believe it is misdirected – as I do in Iraq, as Tacitus does in the Occupied Territories.
As for people like Bird Dog who like to repeat back what the IDF senior staffers claim as if it were truth – well, there’s nothing to be done about them, so I guess we do nothing.
As has been repeatedly pointed out, Jesurgislac, what Rachel Corrie died protecting was a tunnel entrance. The rest, I’m not going to argue with you.
As for people like Bird Dog who like to repeat back what the IDF senior staffers claim as if it were truth – well, there’s nothing to be done about them, so I guess we do nothing.
The smears just keep rolling. You have devolved to pathetic, Jes. What a sad story.
As has been repeatedly pointed out, Jesurgislac, what Rachel Corrie died protecting was a tunnel entrance.
Read the facts, Slarti. Contemporary reports mention that IDF claimed afterwards that they were demolishing Palestinian homes because they were searching for tunnels. (They never claimed they found any.) They had to say something – an unarmed American citizen had just been violently killed by an Israel soldier. The usual claim of “accident” might not have gone down too well. So instead of saying “these were standard administrative (or punitive) demolitions” they said they were searching for tunnels.
Even positing that they really were demolishing Palestinian homes in the hope of finding tunnels used by terrorists, it is not true that Rachel Corrie died defending a tunnel: the tunnels the IDF were supposedly searching for were not there. The IDF never claimed to have found the tunnels.
Bird Dog, if you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen.
I analogize pre-war intelligence to a case where the cop or prosecutor knows the guy is guilty*, so he fudges the evidence. Not a good idea because credibility matters; and because it is not morally acceptable for a government to mislead its people into war. Not new either, of course.
*I realize, and I hope everone knows I realize, that Saddam was guilty of plenty of things–I’m talking specifically about possession of WMDs.
And on Rachel Corrie, I agree almost exactly with Slarti and von.
“*Of course, the magnitude of that threat, as well as what to do about it, were open to debate.”
Aw, Von, ya buried the lede.
They had to say something – an unarmed American citizen had just been violently killed by an Israel soldier.
Ah, a casual poisoning of the well. Of course, Israelis are inherently evil and liars to boot, so no excuses should be needed.
Bird Dog, if you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen.
I can take the heat just fine, Jes, thank you. When you smear, I will call you on it.
Ah, a casual poisoning of the well. Of course, Israelis are inherently evil and liars to boot, so no excuses should be needed.
I don’t think all Irishmen are reckless drunks, but when one gets drunk, I’ll call him drunk, and not worry that I’m sliming my own ethnicity.
I don’t think all blacks are gang members, but if one is a member of a gang, I’m not going to let racial sensitivity keep me from calling him one.
I don’t think all Republicans are fascists, but when one spouts fascist rhetoric, I’m not going to let civil discourse keep me from saying so.
I don’t think all Muslims are terrorists, but when one blows up a bus full of kids, I’ll call him a terrorist despite the whining of the apologists on the extreme fringe left.
I don’t think all Israelis are murderous war criminals, but when one commits murder or human rights violations, I refuse to let the threat of being erroneously tarred as anti-Semitic stop me from calling a murderer a murderer.
It blows my mind how many people engage in the intellectually dishonest practice of trying to blunt legitimate criticism of given members of a race/religion with specific examples by falling back on the “Oh, it’s /that/ old stereotype” dismissal.
To extend Catsy’s words, I don’t think all pro-Palestinian peace activists are terrorist sympathizers, but when ISM harbors, protects and sympathizes with terrorist groups, I refuse to let the threat of being erroneously tarred as a partisan bigot stop me from calling a pro-terrorist group a pro-terrorist group.
Yeah, I hate that too.
Dammit, BD, you would have to wedge your comment in before mine. Well, I guess I’ll have to be more specific.
Catsy, I’m very sorry you had to waste all those words on jumping to conclusions. You might want to read what I said, compare it to your examples, and see if there’s not some difference that jumps out at you.
But, given the pre-war evidence and intelligence, the only reasonable position for a responsible leader to take on Iraq was that it did possess WMDs, and was a threat.
From the article:
The most significant point in Amin’s letter, U.S. and European experts said, is his unambiguous report that Iraq destroyed its entire inventory of biological weapons. Amin reminded Qusay Hussein of the government’s claim that it possessed no such arms after 1990, then wrote that in truth “destruction of the biological weapons agents took place in the summer of 1991.”
It was those weapons to which Secretary of State Colin L. Powell referred in the Security Council on Feb. 5 when he said, for example, that Iraq still had an estimated 8,500 to 25,000 liters of anthrax bacteria.
Some things Amin’s letter did not say may also be meaningful. If Iraq had succeeded in spray-drying anthrax spores to extend their life and lethality, that would have been among the most important secrets of its wide-ranging weapons program. The letter did not speak of it. The letter also enumerated Baghdad’s nuclear secrets, but mentioned nothing to suggest Iraq manufactured unknown parts of an “implosion device” to detonate uranium.
Okay, it’s one defector’s report. But it’s not true to say that the only reasonable position to take was that Iraq had significant quantities of WMD.
Bird Dog-
Gellman … apparently had no conservations with the head of the Iraq Survey Group, David Kay. Why?
From the article:
Kay and his spokesman, who report to Director of Central Intelligence George J. Tenet, declined to be interviewed.
Glad to be of help.
it is not morally acceptable for a government to mislead its people into war
This would be a good thread. I’ve been saying this for months, but conservatives keep bringing up that the ends justify the means.
Personally, I don’t think that’s the case here or in any war…the population has a right (in my opinion) to support or oppose a war on the real issues at stake.
Thanks, Mithras, guess I missed that. After Gellman’s last go-round with Kay (or non go-round), I can see why Kay & Co. would pass on talking to the reporter. Note Kay’s and Meekin’s letters to the WA Post.
Wow, and I thought opposing counsel (whom I’ve been fighting with all morning and afternoon) was a pitbull.
“*Of course, the magnitude of that threat, as well as what to do about it, were open to debate.”
Aw, Von, ya buried the lede.
I wanted to see if I could get agreement on a starting point, Harley — that, pre-war, Bush was right to believe that Iraq likely had WMDs. I’m comfortable with people looking at the evidence and say, “nahh, that wasn’t worth doing.” But I don’t understand the viewpoint that we somehow had foreknowledge that Iraq didn’t have a substantial WMD capability (which is a big reason why I’m not a Dean fan).
How is it an “ignoble cause” to try to stop bulldozers from arbitrarily demolishing a family’s home–a home built on land that the family in question owns? Do you have some specific information which in your mind justifies the demolition?
The IDF was searching for tunnels used by Palestinian terrorists, as Bird Dog notes. Such tunnels had been widely used by Palestinian terrorists in the past in order to smuggle weapons, bombs, people, etc. from Egypt. Corrie had to know of this fact, had also to know why the IDF was acting as it did, and knew further of the possible consequences of standing between opposing forces in a war zone. She also had to know the purpose of the IDF’s mission was not merely to demolish homes, but to root out terrorists — murders, thugs, and other ne’erdowells. (BTW, I’ve seen conflicting reports on whether tunnels were actually found, although none — on either side — from what I’d consider a credible source.)
Contemporary reports mention that IDF claimed afterwards that they were demolishing Palestinian homes because they were searching for tunnels.
It wasn’t after the fact, Jes: the existence of tunnels was the reason that the IDF acted.
By the way, Catsy, I happen to believe that much of what the IDF and Israeli right does is profoundly counterproductive. But let’s not lose sight of the fact that Israel’s a democracy under near-constant attack by terrorists who would like nothing better than to see the every Jew exterminated.* The IDF was pursuing a known and rational policy in a war zone. It has admitted its mistake and apologized.
if you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen.
The last time I heard this kind of claim, it was by an LGF poster in reference to LGF. Let’s not make the same mistake, and confuse heat with light. (For reference, ad homs don’t add light.)
von
*Traits that are not shared by the Palestinian authority.
von, and I think I’ve mentioned this elsewhere, one of the things that has emerged from the Hutton Inquiry over here in the UK is that British Intelligence was not sure about the quality of its information on Iraqi WMD.
I think I’m right in saying that, myself included, the majority of anti-war protestors in the UK who were not just blanket anti-war were against this war because (amongst other reasons) Saddam Hussein did not present a threat to those who chose to invade Iraq.
The IDF was searching for tunnels used by Palestinian terrorists, as Bird Dog notes. Such tunnels had been widely used by Palestinian terrorists in the past in order to smuggle weapons, bombs, people, etc. from Egypt.
And yet, the IDF have been unable to show that there were such tunnels underneath the Palestinian homes they demolished.
Corrie had to know of this fact, had also to know why the IDF was acting as it did, and knew further of the possible consequences of standing between opposing forces in a war zone.
Yes: and soldiers know the possible consequences of joining the military. Does this mean we should regard dead soldiers with indifference, because after all, they knew they could be killed?
She also had to know the purpose of the IDF’s mission was not merely to demolish homes, but to root out terrorists — murders, thugs, and other ne’erdowells.
Which collective punishment is illegal under the relevant Geneva Convention, and acting to prevent a war crime is again, not an ignoble cause.
If the police break into my apartment searching for crack cocaine, the fact that crack cocaine exists and is a serious urban problem is not a valid defense if (1) I don’t have crack cocaine in my apartment and never have had and (2) they kill my neighbour when she tries to stop them breaking my door down.
Using civilians as shields for combatants is itself a violation of the Geneva Convention, Jes. Also using mosques as weapons caches. And if it’s illegal for Israel to mow over some houses, how much more illegal is it for Palestinians to target Israeli citizens?
A cite on the tunnel story resolution would be nice, too.
And if it’s illegal for Israel to mow over some houses, how much more illegal is it for Palestinians to target Israeli citizens?
Am I to understand it is your contention that one war crime justifies another in retaliation?
A cite on the tunnel story resolution would be nice, too.
It’s going to be difficult or impossible to find one that will satisfy both of us–any authoritative facts are going to come either from the Israeli government or the Palestinians. I apologize in advance for needing to cite Al Jazeerah here, but I tried searching on the Jerusalem Post for balance and they want to charge you for access to their archives.
Stay of Execution for Corrie Home
Former member of the Jerusalem Municipal Council Meir Margalit said the Israeli Court has frozen the demolition order to give the Israeli army time to explain why they must demolish this house.
“This is standard procedure. It does not mean the house is safe,” said Margalit. “We know from experience that chances are small because the army now takes this house as something personal. They cannot allow it to stay.”
A spokeswoman for the Israeli occupation administration told Aljazeera.net that unwelcome publicity over the incident was not the reason for delaying the demolition.
“Two weeks is a standard period for considering legal appeals, it should not be taken to mean that the pressure on Israel will prevent it carrying out the law. The house was built illegally – without a licence,” said the Civil Authority source.
Emphases mine. If you are willing to take the quotes from Israeli sources as being accurate, this appears to have /nothing whatsoever/ to do with there being tunnels or weapons caches–it’s because they claim the house was built without a license.
Shawamrah applied for a building permit four times to build a home on land he had bought outright but each time he was refused for a different reason.
The Civil Administration ruled that Shawamrah had not filled in the right forms. Then he was told the area was listed as an “agricultural zone”. Next the land was “too steep” and finally his plot was deemed “too near” an Israeli highway.
I spent about an hour searching, and was unable to find any references in any media outlet that specifically link the home Rachel was defending with one suspected of holding tunnels or weapons. All the references seem to be to the Israeli government’s campaign /in general/ against such tunnels along the border with Egypt.
What I suspect is happening here is that Rachel Corrie’s story is being conflated with that of British cameraman James Miller, who was killed in an actual combat zone where Israeli troops uncovered a tunnel used by terror organizations. The tunnel issue comes up in almost every story about him, and since Rachel Corrie is usually mentioned in stories about him as “another” foreigner killed by the Israelis, I think people are mistakenly associating the two.
To the best of my discerning, there appears to be no truth at all to the Corrie/tunnel story.
Could be, Catsy. Lots of conclusions based on little or no fact all around, on this one.
von, and I think I’ve mentioned this elsewhere, one of the things that has emerged from the Hutton Inquiry over here in the UK is that British Intelligence was not sure about the quality of its information on Iraqi WMD.
Not to be too trite, James Casey, but intelligence services are never sure about the quality of their information until events prove it either true or false.
And, again, Jes, the IDF was not inflicting group punishment, it was searching for tunnels, which everyone concedes (which I presume includes you) have been extensively used by terrorists in Gaza.
If the police break into my apartment searching for crack cocaine, the fact that crack cocaine exists and is a serious urban problem is not a valid defense if (1) I don’t have crack cocaine in my apartment and never have had and (2) they kill my neighbour when she tries to stop them breaking my door down.
If the neighbor physically tried to stop the police, yes, it’s very likely that the police would have a valid defense.
To the best of my discerning, there appears to be no truth at all to the Corrie/tunnel story.
C’mon, Catsy, you’ll at least concede that the IDF says that they were searching for tunnels with respect to Corrie, right? (Even Jes concedes as much.) So, at a minimum, there are conflicting reports, right?
This isn’t a question of conflating.
C’mon, Catsy, you’ll at least concede that the IDF says that they were searching for tunnels with respect to Corrie, right? (Even Jes concedes as much.) So, at a minimum, there are conflicting reports, right?
I have been completely unable to find any news reports from any outlet–Jewish, UK, American, or Palestinian–in which the IDF claims it was searching for tunnels when it demolished Bait Arabiya. If you could link to one with an actual quote from an IDF or Israeli official, I’d appreciate it. So far the only quotes I’ve been able to find from Israeli officials are the ones in the Al Jazeerah article, which seem to make it a matter of zoning and licensing.
Catsy,
Here’s a story on Corrie and where she stayed. The Stranger is a left-wing alternative Seattle weekly. They’re so left, they’re beyond PC. The house in the al Jazeera piece does NOT look like the house she was defending or living in. The piece also confirms that the IDF was searching for tunnels on the day of her death.
I have no idea what relationship Corrie had with that house in the al Jazeera article except that it was dedicated to her memory.
Thanks Bird Dog.
I can confirm The Stranger* as a reputable (as these things go) alternative weekly in Seattle. Its most famous export is Dan Savage, the sex advice columnist.
von
*One of these days I gotta link The Stranger’s alcohol survey — it’s absolutely hilarious.
Catsy, also take a look at this article from Indymedia UK, a typically pro-Palestinian outfit: http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2003/06/273396.html
I know The Stranger very well, as a matter of fact–I lived in Seattle for most of my life up until this last fall. The Stranger is usually to the left of /me/, although I don’t often take much of what’s written in it too seriously. This article, though, looks good.
And it’s very interesting. At the very least, it paints a different picture than I’ve seen anywhere else. In this, the Israeli functionary Eli spoke with claims that the bulldozer was there trying to sniff out explosives, and that they didn’t know Rachel was there–that she didn’t make herself visible.
The latter, at least, we know to be absolutely false. There are a number of photographs of the incident, and they all show her making herself extremely visible to the bulldozer driver. There is no credibility to the claim that he didn’t know where she was and couldn’t see her.
The former is going to have to join one of those things we may never know. Were the Israelis looking for explosives? For tunnels? Or were they there to demolish the house?
No good answer yet.
Lots of photographs, but not of the actual incident. Here’s a little juxtaposition of photos, etc. Other photos of Rachel-with-dozer occurred on other occasions and with different dozers. There are indeed things we’ll probably never know about the incident. One thing that no one has reported is the results of her autopsy. Lots of reported promises, no reported results.
Correction: …not a lot of the actual incident.
I was going to say–I remember seeing a rather graphic and bloody photo series that showed her confrontation with that specific bulldozer, before–and after.
I think this is the photo story you were thinking of, Catsy. The two side-by-side pictures of Corrie and the bulldozers show different dozers.
BTW, born and raised in West Seattle.