War critics astonished as US hawk admits invasion was illegal

The Guardian ^ | 11/20/2003 | Oliver Burkeman and Julian Borger

[StriperSniper]

But actually there are good grounds to say that we DID have international law on our side. We had the UN mandate to do whatever it took to make Saddam behave. France may have vetoed further action,

Considering how nebulous 'International Law' is, a definitive 'right' and 'wrong' may be impossible for all to agree upon. Arguments can be made to support both(many) sides here. One side could be that the removal of Saddam was mandated by the original ceasefire agreement and France trying to block that would be in violation of 'International Law'.

Nearly every agenda can claim the high ground, and none can ever convince all.

[mr.pink]

Deception implies something much more sinister than simply being wrong or even having an agenda.

Apologies for the tardiness of this reply/explanation. Traveled over the Thanksgiving holiday and was reminded of this thread due to today's revelations re: Perle.

Perle lobbied for Boeing's tanker bid

 

But let's start with the word deception:

While buckhead (post #157) uses Black's Law Dictionary, p. 366, 5th Ed., (1979). to define "decption, I use Webster's dictionary for the same purpose and it includes:

synonyms DECEPTION, FRAUD, DOUBLE-DEALING, SUBTERFUGE, TRICKERY mean the acts or practices of one who deliberately deceives. DECEPTION may or may not imply blameworthiness, since it may suggest cheating or merely tactical resource <magicians are masters of deception>. FRAUD always implies guilt and often criminality in act or practice <indicted for fraud>. DOUBLE-DEALING suggests treachery or at least action contrary to a professed attitude <a go-between suspected of double-dealing>. SUBTERFUGE suggests the adoption of a stratagem or the telling of a lie in order to escape guilt or to gain an end <obtained the papers by subterfuge>. TRICKERY implies ingenious acts intended to dupe or cheat <resorted to trickery to gain their ends>.

As I'm sure you would agree that this forum is conversational and not a court of law, and I'll take Webster's over Blacks as appropriate for this environment. Webster's seems to give the word "deception" a bit more elbow room than either you or buckhead would prefer.

Here's my take on Perle and his deceptions:

Looking back on the build up to the Iraq war, one can't help to notice that Mr. Perle seemed to a take a tack that pushed for the war being an incredibly easy thing. Often derisively putting down the concerns of careeer military men at DOD who advised this would be no easy task. So confident his group was in their post war scenario, that no mind was paid to post war dangers....ignoring this important facet has cost many American lives.

Was soft selling the downside an intentional deception by Perle and his co-ideologues? I believe it was, as his group wanted this war to happen and by soft selling it's dangers it became an easier sell to the American people.

Was pushing the phoney baloney WMD intel, and the immenence of that threat a concious effort by the OSP boys? I believe it was, as in order to get thier war started they needed a riled up and frightened American populace. Once the Intel began to lose it's luster and unravel, their media mouthpieces went in full mode to pin it on Tenet (something the President obviously does not agree with).

So it is my opinion that Perle participated in:

-overselling the threat posed by Saddam and his hard to find WMDs, and very possibly intentionally supplying the President with false Intel. (And let's not forget how dismissive and insulting he was to the efforts of Hans Blix, the results of which Mr. Perle seems incapable of improving upon despite his high handed insults to the "Swede's" competence).

-undersold the the cost of winning the war (confidently suggesting 40,000 troops could do the job).

-willingly ignored and paid no mind to the post war occupation dangers. According to the Perle and the OSP boys, the Iraqis were supposed to be lining the streets cheering our forces as liberators, not sniping and bombing them.

Now it's of course one thing for hysterical goobers like Hannity and Limbuagh to be wrong in their pre-war & post war calculations, but it's quite another when an intelligent guy with a great information pipeline and a ton of power within the DOD is proven so wrong time and time again.

An honorable man would resign and seek a reclusive life, (in Mr. Perle's case his French chateau would probably prove itself quite comfortable). But he seems content to further his own demented agenda, and if that means undercutting President Bush...that's small potatoes to this sleazey man and his cohorts.

My point is that Perle is way too smart to be way so wrong. And I won't apologize for noticing that on matters he's been proven so wrong about, the unfortunate pursuit of the follyhe's schilled for tends to coincedently advances his perpetual war agenda while compounding America's problems and endangering American soldiers lives.

Perle's agenda is where Perle's only loyalty lies, he is no friend of this President and thankfully it seems Bush has realized this. Hell, even a reckless schmuck like Clinton was smart enough to, when approached by the Perle group in 96 offering political loyalty in exhcnage for pursuit for their perpetual war agenda, showed their sorry and duplicitous asses the door.

Hope you had a great Thanksgiving and I hope Mr. Perle's Turkey was dry, potatoes lumpy, bread stale and wine corked.

[americanbychoice]

poor headline. Somewhat twisted?

[evad]

"Hope you had a great Thanksgiving and I hope Mr. Perle's Turkey was dry, potatoes lumpy, bread stale and wine corked. "

Hey...welcome back.

We had some interesting discussion on the subject while you were gone.

I've bookmarked your reply for future review since it is lengthy and apparently you put a good bit of effort to it.

[mr.pink]

We had some interesting discussion on the subject while you were gone.

Yes, I noticed that....and it seems to have been a very good one (the sort that make this a great forum).

And I'm sorry for the length of my post....I normally don't like to do that as IMO it tends to remove the conversational element of a discussion.

[evad]

Well, having read your reply more than once I'm not sure where to begin...it's almost a thread unto itself.

DECEPTION may or may not imply blameworthiness, since it may suggest cheating or merely tactical resource, magicians are masters of deception

I guess first we'll get the definition thing out of the way by saying that IF Pearle is deceptive means 'like a magician' then it becomes a matter of word games as to what we were arguing/differing about.

Mr. Perle seemed to a take a tack that pushed for the war being an incredibly easy thing.

With all due respect I would have have to agree that it was, at least the first phase. The gloom and doomers were proven to be totally in error with their quagmire prophesies. And if you want to provide the most likely candidates for deception, those frauds would be number one in my book.

So confident his group was in their post war scenario, that no mind was paid to post war dangers..

No doubt they were, probably still are. They may have even been wrong but the problem I had was with the term deceptive, be it magical or not. I took it to mean that Pearle had intentionally misled by his actions and words in an attempt to effect some devious gain. If I misinterpreted your intent that's an easy enough thing to admit...So, did I misinterpret your intent?

Now, if you don't like the man for whatever reason, that's fine. I happen to disagree but that's what this forum is all about. Every time I have heard him speak I have always felt that he was dead on balls accurate.

[mr.pink]

Well, having read your reply more than once I'm not sure where to begin...it's almost a thread unto itself.

Yeah...again I'm sorry about the length of it and I always try to avoid doing that as I much prefer this forum at a conversational pace.

And I agree that defining the word "deception" shades our discussion depending on what definition one's using. I will say that using it within the confines of "Black's Law D" would really stifle the pizazz of this forum.

With all due respect I would have have to agree that it was, at least the first phase.

You are correct. However, it was not a 40,000 troops easy operation and the "quagmire" scenario (I do not use that term to describe the current situation) could very well still develope. I pray it does not. I would think you would have to agree that post war planning was extremely poor.

I took it to mean that Pearle had intentionally misled by his actions and words in an attempt to effect some devious gain.

IMO, that is what occurred, but not solely by Mr. Perle. Can I prove this...no, but non the less that is my gut feeling on the matter.

Every time I have heard him speak I have always felt that he was dead on balls accurate.


Every time I have heard him speak, I have always said to myself "he's one smart M-er F-er who argues his positions very, very impressively". To me, whether he bolstered his strong arguements with knowingly false information is the million dollar question.

Well I guess we're going to just disagree on the man...so be it. This forum would flat out suk if no one disagreed.

I appreciate the tone of our exhanges, promise never to drop another "thread unto itself" in your lap, and wish you and yours the happiest of holidays.

[Sci Fi Guy]

They're just not interested in international law, are they?" said Linda Hugl, a spokeswoman for the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, which launched a high court challenge to the war's legality last year. "It's only when the law suits them that they want to use it."

I guess that makes us just like those nations that support the International Courts.

[evad]

"he's one smart M-er F-er who argues his positions very, very impressively".

heh heh..I'll bet yer right on that one.

At any rate, I'll watch him a little more carefully in the future. If I see anything that changes my mind I'll let ya know.

I appreciate the tone of our exhanges, promise never to drop another "thread unto itself" in your lap, and wish you and yours the happiest of holidays.

"Live long and Prosper" mr.pink. Maybe we'll find something we can agree on besides the importance of civility in a future thread.

[evad]

I would think you would have to agree that post war planning was extremely poor.

I meant to comment on this because it's a very important point.

Whatever our post war planning was, if there was any, it definitely demands a re-think. If our leaders thought it was going to be a cake walk with all Iraquis treating us as welcomed liberators, well, that clearly hasn't happened. At least it hasn't happened in what is termed the Suni triangle.

We also, IMO, did not anticipate the infiltrating of all sorts across the borders on all sides of Iraq. I think this may have been our greatest underestimation. I think we thought that the Arab/muslim world would be so shocked and awed with us and our might that they would lay down and play dead.

Alas, that did not happen and if you want to say there was one great underestimation of the war in Iraq, that may have been it.

War is a fluid process. If we don't have the best plan then we best plan something else. I have offered my proposals in past threads as to what type approach should now be taken. Generally speaking it has been met with luke warm to cold response but one thing is for sure; our army is the best at what it does as long as it's breaking and killing on a massive scale. It is not trained to be occupiers.

We need a better plan now with troops that are skilled in the special ops arena. We need the Iraquis involved in their own defense. We cannot continue to expose ourselves as sitting ducks to be taken out by some low tech bomb or RPG.

hmm..it's amazing how lengthy a response can be to a single question so I guess I'll stop now..
ps..we don't need France, Germany or the UN.

[flying Elvis]

Reminds me of an Andrew Jackson quote, "John Marshall (the Supreme Court) has made his decision, now let him enforce it."

The World Court and any other body can scream all day long about their international laws, but when it comes down to it, they can't and won't enforce them.

[onehipdad]

I read the whole thing, and I don't think there's anything remotely astonishing about what Mr. Perle said. These folks are just easily astonished...guess that's what the real story here is.

Now, Michael Morris hitting two threes in less than a second to whoop Purdue tonight, that's what I call astonishing...

[evad]

Happy New Year back atcha and thanks for the update.

The link is giving a "no find" but I'll bet that thread was a real hummer.

I of course, concur whole heartedly with your view on proving deceit regarding Perle..or anyone else for that matter. Your comparison of Perle lied to Bush lied is also very apropos.

This theme of lying is actually "The RAT Strategy" I believe based on their success with the elder Bush. The "read my lips" smear campaign was so successful against daddy that they are trying relentlessly to pin one on junior. Of course it makes no difference if they lie hundreds, no thousands, of times themselves. They just need to pin that one lie on W and off we go again.

RAT politics is truly an ugly, ugly thing.

On that happy note, again, a Happy and Prosperous New Year to yas.

[JohnGalt]

You miss the point. Perle, under criminal investigation, left the reservation and staked a position contrary to the Bush Administration.

He Dixie Dick Perle should be looked at with suspicion.