'You Lied to Us'

New York Times ^ | 6/02/03 | William Safire

[kattracks]

ASHINGTON

Quick — what was the biggest intelligence misjudgment of Gulf War II?

It was the nearly unanimous opinion of the intelligence community, backed by the U.S. and British military, that the 50,000 elite soldiers of Saddam's well-trained, well-equipped Special Republican Guard would put up a fierce battle for Baghdad.

Our military plan was based on this cautious assessment. That presumption of a bloody, last-ditch defense was also the basis for objections to the war: in street fighting, opponents argued, coalition casualties would be horrific, and tens of thousands of civilians would be sacrificed.

Happily, our best assessment was mistaken. Saddam's supposed diehards cut and ran. Though Baghdad's power and water were cut off, civilians were spared and our losses were even fewer than in Gulf War I.

What if our planners had believed Kurdish leaders who predicted that Saddam's super-loyalists would quickly collapse? We would have sent fewer combat troops and more engineers, civilian administrators and military police. But the C.I.A. and the Pentagon had no way of being certain that the information about the Republican Guard's poor morale and weak discipline provided by Kurds and Iraqi opposition leaders was accurate.

With thousands of lives at stake, optimism was not an option. Sensibly, we based our strategy on the greater likelihood of fierce resistance. That decision was as right when made as it was mistaken in retrospect.

Turn now to the charge heard ever more stridently that U.S. and British leaders, in their eagerness to overthrow Saddam and to turn the tide of terror in the Middle East, "hyped" the intelligence that Iraq possessed germ and poison-gas weapons.

"Hype" means "exaggerate." As used by those who were prepared to let Saddam remain in power, it is prelude to a harsh accusation: "You lied to us. You pretended to have evidence that you never had; you twisted dubious intelligence to suit your imperialistic ends, so we were morally right and you were morally wrong."

Never mind the mass graves now being unearthed of an estimated 300,000 victims, which together with the million deaths in his wars make Saddam the biggest mass murderer of Muslims in all history. Never mind his undisputed financing of suicide bombers and harboring of terrorists, from Al Qaeda's Abu Musaab al-Zarqawi to the veteran killer Abu Nidal (the only "suicide" with three bullets in his head, dispatched in Baghdad probably because he knew too much.)

And never mind our discovery of two mobile laboratories designed to produce biological and chemical agents capable of causing mass hysteria and death in any city in the world. Future discoveries will be dismissed as "dual use" or planted by us.

No; the opponents of this genocidal maniac's removal now accuse President Bush and Prime Minister Blair of a colossal hoax. Because Saddam didn't use germs or gas on our troops, they say, that proves Iraq never had them. If we cannot find them right away, they don't exist. They believe Saddam sacrificed tens of billions in oil revenues for no reason at all.

A strong majority of Americans believe he did have a dangerous program running, as he did before. Long before the C.I.A. dispatched agents to northern Iraq, Kurdish sources were quoted in this space about terrorist operations of Ansar al-Islam, whose 600 members included about 150 "Afghan Arabs" trained by Al Qaeda; after our belated bombing, some escaped to Iran.

As reassured Iraqi technicians and nurses come forward and as Baathist war criminals seek to save their skins, we will learn much more about Saddam's terrorist connections and his weaponry. It took seven years to catch the Olympic bombing suspect in North Carolina and 18 years to catch the Unabomber; the location of Saddam and Osama bin Laden won't remain a mystery forever.

In the meantime, as the crowd that bitterly resents America's mission to root out the sources of terror whips up its intelligence-hoax hype, remember the wise "mistake" we made in overestimating the fighting spirit of Saddam's uniformed bully-boys.

When weighing the murky evidence of an aggressive tyranny's weapons, President Bush and Prime Minister Blair were obliged to take no chances. The burden on proof was on Saddam. By his contempt, he invited invasion; by its response, the coalition established the credibility of its resolve. There was no "intelligence hoax." 

[poet]

"so, which 3rd place loser gets your wasted vote?"

Firstly, I consider "the lesser of two evils" (a manner of speech only) a wasted vote.

Secondly, if I don't see a third party with a well rounded agenda and not just a single issue to campaign upon, I will not vote for President, but, I will vote for other offices.

[desertcry]

A very good analogy. Iraq is as large as California and it does not required much space to hide Bio-Chem WMD capable of killing a million Americans.

[poet]

I'm doing a search to find it for you.

FReegards

[Redleg Duke]

"Is it possible that one of the reasons for invading Iraq was a personal payback by Bush to punish saddam for attempting to assassinate his father 10/11 years ago."

Still repeating this juvenial crap, eh kiddo? Fortunately, the President of the United States is above that and eliminated this regieme for valid, geo-political reasons.

Your continued mantra of Republicans being Democrat-lites is as empty-headed as the rest of your tirade.

"Poet, my ass!"

[billbears]

Saddam offered $10,000 to the families of suicide bombers, Hamas and Islamic Jihad "martyrs", to encourage and finance them.

So did the Saudis, and I imagine in some way still do. Are we going to invade them next? Oh, I forgot, they're our 'ally'

[desertcry]

Save your breath, POET is a left coast democrat, a Bush and America hater.

[Amelia]

Excuse my cynicism, but a lot of what you're saying sounds just like the lines my liberal relatives spout.

Assuming you are sincere in your conservatism, which nationally known conservative figure do you think has any chance of winning a national election, and implementing a true conservative agenda?

[billbears]

US troops are leaving Saudi Arabia. We have a new base in the middle east now.

Oh but wait. I thought th armed forces of this nation of states was just 'freeing' the Iraqi people, not setting up a dependent state from which we have even another base which will suck more tax dollars out of our pockets

The Saudi government is under great pressure to reform. We don't need them as allies any more. Their support for terrorism will continue to become more and more of a liability for them, and soon they will have to choose - either stop, or get stomped.

Curious isn't it, that Saudi involvement in terrorism has been going on for much longer and much more in depth than anything the Iraqis have done, yet as our 'ally' we can afford to let the Saudis make the decision theirselves about terror at some unnamed future time. Hmmmmm, what about the 'war on terror'?

[poet]

"Poet, my ass!""

Ouch, I'm hurt to the core.

Redleg Duke,
thinks I'm a mook,
as a poet, he says I'm lame,
I'll never be the same,
the tears are falling, I'm going to cry,
he's picking on me, why, oh, why?
he doesn't like my political stand,
he thinks I'm crass,
he ends his tirade with,
Poet, my ass
Ouch

FReegards

[poet]

"Save your breath, POET is a left coast democrat, a Bush and America hater."

Say what? Give me some of that stuff you're smoking. Can't handle differences of opinion, huh? Someome questions your savior (Bush) and he or she is a democrat, Bush and America hater? Shame on you!!!!!!!!!!!!

I can see why you cry in the desert.

[justshe]

Would you please answer the question I asked you re: a viable candidate....and it was again asked of you by another poster in post #48.

[Redleg Duke]

LOL!

Save that for the next one who disagrees with you.

[Amelia]

They are all real dems regardless of the D or R. The main diff is that the dems would slap us in the face all at once with their big government schemes while the Rs will stroke our faces with piece meal implementation of big government. kind of like putting us to sleep and when we wake up we say wha' happened"?
--------------
Secondly, if I don't see a third party with a well rounded agenda and not just a single issue to campaign upon, I will not vote for President, but, I will vote for other offices.

You seem to be ignoring my question about an electable conservative who could accomplish something, so I'll ask a different question.

Conceding your point that both parties are moving toward socialism, albeit the GOP is moving more slowly, aren't we better off at least going with the party that won't do it as quickly, rather than voting third party and thereby (inadvertently perhaps) aiding and abetting the faster move to socialism?

[billbears]

Don't you see that taking out Saddam was a blow against the Saudis as well as against the terror machine as a whole? You can't fight all the badguys at once.

Nope, don't see that at all. What I do see so far is a trumped up weapons charge and a lame link to terrorist groups that may or may not exist. Much different than the strong ties to terrorist groups the Saudis had and still have

[Amelia]

as a poet, he says I'm lame,

hmmmmm....

If that's the best you can do,
I think so too.

[my_pointy_head_is_sharp]

I suspect neither Bush or Blair have really gambled their futures away here.

Blair certainly took a big risk, because he is about to be brought up on war crimes before the International Criminal Court (ICC). As is Tommy Franks. Bush is exempt, because the US is not a signatory to the ICC treaty. At one time we were (Clinton signed it into law). But in May of 2002 Bush unsigned the US. So Bush won't be brought up on charges. Blair definitely took the bigger risk.

[John O]

You have to take the long view here. The war on terrorism is a war on islam as all islamics are terrorists.

Saudi Arabia is the heart of islam, if we attack it first it will rouse the rest of the islamokazis all at once. We can however peal away countries one at a time, as Ann Coulter says " Invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity"

Lets get a few of the outlying dominoes falling and the rest will fall by themselves. Even islamics want to be free.

When the time is right, or if it is required, we can nuke mecca and medina (and every arab capital and city of more than 50K) at our whim. We don't have to hurry.

[justshe]

"The war on terrorism is a war on islam as all islamics are terrorists."

I notice you advocate nuking all arab cities of 50K or more. What is your solution for arabs/islamists living in the United States? Especially those who are American citizens?