'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." 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

He most likely is going to vote for a candidate that shares his concerns and ideals. That is not the same as 'taking your ball and going home.'
I will do the same and if you Republicans want my vote you had better run a candidate for which I can vote. If you don't care to do that, don't come whining to me if you lose.
How many more votes are you going to throw away with your whiny scare tactics? REPUBLICANS lost the Perot election because they didn't care about all the people that voted for him. REPUBLICANS did not think the Perot vote was important and we all paid the price for that mistake. But it WAS THE REPUBLICANS MISTAKE and it could very well happen again. Trying to blame the voters when they are only offered a really poor choice is not going to fly forever.

[VRWCmember]

It was only after the "police action" commenced that they suddenly connected Iraq to terrorists.

Either you haven't been paying attention or you have selective memory. The connections of terrorists to Iraq go back well before the invasion. From the Iraqi financing of suicide bombers, to the known presence in Iraq of Al Qaeda operatives, to several other pre-war connections, the relationship between Iraq and terrorist training and activities has been well established.

[sheltonmac]

If you don't see what our victory in Iraq is going to do for and to Saudi Arabia, I feel sorry for you.

If you don't see what our ongoing meddling in the affairs of sovereign nations is going to do for and to America, I feel sorry for the country.

[Amelia]

I will do the same and if you Republicans want my vote you had better run a candidate for which I can vote. If you don't care to do that, don't come whining to me if you lose.

Maybe you know the answer to my question then: who is a TRUE conservative who can appeal to the voters, and who would be able to enact a conservative agenda?

Who would you vote for? (And does that person have a snowball's chance in hell of winning?)

Do you have any suggestions?

[John O]

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?

Where did I say that I advocated it? I merely mentioned that it was an achievable strategem if it was deemed necessary.

I will add the capitals of the rest of the countries on earth and every other city of greater than 50K if that will make you feel better.

America first. Everyone else is capable of being categorized as an enemy and seeing them disappear wouldn't bother me too much (of course I'd greatly prefer that they become Christian first but that choice is in their hands already)

I believe that islam as a religion is on a par with the human sacrificing branch of satanism and should be outlawed. It is inconsistent with the values upon which this country was founded

[Amelia]

Still waiting to hear who an electable true conservative might be......

[mathluv]

I would really like to see a rational line of thought on how he could have been so stupid...

We are talking about dims here. They only deal with feelings., not anything rational.

[justshe]

You are correct. I took your sentence:

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]

as an advocation.

How does the Constitution, specifically the 1st Amendment, support your statement re: American citizens of 1) Arab descent....and/or 2)those who practice Islam as a religion:

Everyone else is capable of being categorized as an enemy and seeing them disappear wouldn't bother me too much (of course I'd greatly prefer that they become Christian first but that choice is in their hands already)

You are willing to ignore the Constitution to achieve your statements?

[ChadGore]

Re: . . intelligence misjudgment of Gulf War II?

It was . . that the 50,000 elite soldiers of Saddam's well-trained, well-equipped Special Republican Guard would put up a fierce battle for Baghdad.

Bzzzzt ! Wrong ! It was Saddom shills, and anti-war zealots, who predicted a "river of blood" and a "quagmire" that would bog down the US military.

These were the same people who wrongfully predicted "tens of thousands of US bodybags" in Kabul. Bush and Blair had confidence in their military the whole way through, and, to their credit, never waivered or went wobbly dispite overwhelming presure.

To quote Rummy: "Never have so many been so wrong about so much."

[desertcry]

Shame on you!!!!!!!! I see why you cry in the desert Now I'm sure you are a liberal ultra left democrat. You took my bait! Only leftist democrat can show hatred as you do. Like John the Baptist, my cry is not out of despiration or helplessness, it's a cry in the wilderness to expose ultra liberal democrats like you, who spew their hatred in FR. Your cloaking device no longer works.

[desertcry]

Amelia, you may have to wait a very long time, atleast until hillary gains enough courage to throw her hat in the ring.

[poet]

Sit back, take a deep breath and relax. Now, doesn't that feel better?

Don't forget to take your medication. Depression is a hellish thing.

FReegards

[poet]

No sense of humour Amelia? Sheesh. Take your medicine.

[poet]

'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?"

Are you serious? Are you saying you want to sleep thru the takeover and loss of yopur freedom and liberty rather than being made aware before their power is consolidated and it becomes too late to do anything about it?

To answer your question Hell no!

[desertcry]

Sit back, take a deep........ Too late, the hood is off!

[Amelia]

No sense of humour? You didn't notice that my reply rhymes?

[gitmo]

Give 'em rope. Let 'em run with it.

[Scenic Sounds]

Well, I understood Amelia to be suggesting that the rate of change is a factor to be considered, particularly if we're interested in altering the course of that change?

Do you really disagree with her about that?

[Amelia]

Are you saying you want to sleep thru the takeover and loss of yopur freedom and liberty rather than being made aware before their power is consolidated and it becomes too late to do anything about it?

Scenic is correct, that's not what I said at all.

I'm saying that if both cars are headed down the slippery slope, I'd prefer to be in the one traveling at the slower speed, in hopes of retaining and/or regaining some control.

An alternative would be great, if there were one. Perot might have had a chance in 1992, had he not begun all the wacky conspiracy stuff.

My question is, do you have in mind someone who could run as a true conservative, and have a chance of winning?

[justshe]

2nd Request: You said you would find this link and answer my question. And before you attempt to be helpful, I don't take any medication.

---

To: poet

"I suppose you all know that Judges Estrada and Owens being pushed by Bush are the same two nominated by clinton?"

---

Do you have a source/link for this assertion?

Additionally, who, in your opinion, is a viable candidate for the Presidency in 2004? By viable, I mean has a chance to win.

36 posted on 06/02/2003 9:08 AM PDT by justshe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

---

To: justshe

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

FReegards

43 posted on 06/02/2003 9:23 AM PDT by poet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]