'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]

I heard it on the radio 2 weeks ago, unfortunately, I can't recall the station, however, I'll try to confirm the report.

As for your second question, A Constitutional conservative can never be elected in this country. The power brokers along with the power families would never allow that to happen. As long as the seniority system is in effect, a few people will control this country, in addition, as long as our school systems are controlled from washington, the kids will be propagandizes rather being taught. Multiculturism has Balkanized this country. Once a country loses it's identity, it's only a matter of time. Yes, we have a great military and we also have a great number of so-called victims.

Bottom line, it doesn't matter who's in power because they will all betray us. They will spend our tax dollars, increase their own salaries, bribe nations to go along with us, allow criminals to walk the streets and the beat goes on. I'm fed up with their lies, duplicity and deceit.

[John O]

john o->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)

you-> 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:

(snip)

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

I included my entire statement from the previous post. Note "America first." If the subject islamics are Citizens then we are somewhat stuck with them. They have every right to be here that I have. If they are not citizens then deport them immediately. (Of course this applies to all illegals and other undesirable non-citizens also)

As I stated previously islam is inconsistent with the ideals that this nation was founded upon and should be outlawed. They can then choose their country or their cult and act accordingly. They'd be better off opening their eyes and accepting the God of their father Abraham anyway.

Human sacrificing satanism is illegal in this country. Ammendment one bars the Government from relgulating religion but not from regulating certain behaviors (human sacrifice etc) and the courts have set certain criteria to be defined as a religion vice a cult. Islam is a cult and deserves no protection under the law.

[tsomer]

Please tell me how the "dem lites" differ from the real dems other than they spend at a slightly difference pace than the real dems.

That "slightly different pace" amounts to billions.

Sure they're far from the best, but they're a vast improvement over what we had before, and would have but for the (remaining) integrity of our laws. Imagine Madeline Albright at State, Janet Reno or one of her lackeys at the Justice department, and Algore as commander-in-chief.

Don't make the 'best' the enemy of the 'good.' (Was it Voltaire said that?)

[justshe]

I shall await your source. I honestly don't think it exists...or else the person you heard saying it on the radio was wrong.

Think about it logically. IF Clinton had nominated either Esdtrada or Owens, we would have heard about it LONG AND LOUD from the Republicans during the nomination debates, pointing out the hypocrisy of the Dems on that point. I have watched those debates from the Senate. Nary a word.

As to your answer to my question re: a viable candidate, and your stance that all is lost....you, apparently, are looking at a lifetime of bitterness.

You can either get involved, at the GOP grassroots level to try and work for change, or you can spend all of your time 'sharing' that bitterness with people (here and in real life), and accomplishing nothing. Meaningful action, or futile (by your own words) reaction.

[justshe]

~~Islam is a cult and deserves no protection under the law.~~~

And that is where we disagree. Some people who practice their religion do illegal things under the guise of their religion. That is true with any religion.

Prosecute the wrong-doers....not the religion. But I think we will continue to disagree on that point.

[kkindt]

The Culture of Disbelief: How American Law and Politics Trivialize Religious Devotion
Author: Stephen L. Carter
Format: Hardcover
Publication Date: 1993

This book deals so well with the attitude you describe here I thought I'd share the title. I listened to Stephen Carter recently on NPR radio - suprized he was put on - excellent new book he has out also - forgot its title.

[John O]

Some people who practice their religion do illegal things under the guise of their religion. That is true with any religion.

Prosecute the wrong-doers....not the religion.

The problem is that islam COMMANDS its followers to do the illegal.

Every atrocity that was done by a Christian in the name of Christianity was done in violation of the Bible.
Every atrocity that was done by an islamic in the name of islam was done at the command of the koran

The islamic religion is a criminal cult. It cannot be reformed without totally rewriting the koran (and the related writings which I seem to remember are called the hadith)