Amanda and I on WMDs

(Amanda) I've been reading your correspondence back and forth between you and your friend and I'm so sorry that you've been so woefully misinformed.  You must watch Fox News or something??  If you need enlightenment, let me know...:)

I don't think anyone would dispute that Saddam was a bad man. That's not what is at issue. What the issue is, is that we were lead to believe that he was an imminent and immediate threat to the US, which has been proven completely false. No WMD, no chemical or biological weapons, no nuclear weapons, no ties to terrorism, just nothing. We were lied to plain and simple and they just keep lying and people just keep believing. When are the people going to get tired of this and say, "hey what gives?" I think that many people just can't face the reality of how corrupt the government of the United States is so they'd just rather bury their heads in the sand and blindly follow this idiot wherever he may lead us. As a side note, I think the Democrats are just as corrupt as the Republicans. 

(JM) First, the "proof" that Saddam is or was not a threat to the U.S.....you have this in your possession? Please enthrall me with your sources. Everyone, including Clinton himself, admits that Saddam did have WMDs in his possession. The question not answered by 19 U.N. resolutions is...where did they go? Some evidence points to their being dumped in the Euphrates River, other says they were smuggled into Syria. If he did not have them, then why did he refuse to cooperate with the world. If he did have them, then was he not a constant threat? Did he not fund terrorist organizations opposed to the U.S.? You claim "no ties to terrorism"- shall we compare sources? See, here is the problem with those opposed to the Bush plan: they are too certain of their guess work. In other words, which side is it better to err on? Is it better to pretend Saddam was not a threat, be wrong, and thus end up fighting on our own soil? Or is it better to assume the worst, be prepared, and at least have the option of choosing where to fight? Liberals are too sure of their uncertainty. Their hatred for Bush blinds them to the REAL threat. Don't succumb to partisan ideology because it can be delusional. 
 
If you wish to compare corruption of governments, then you are going to be hard pressed to find one less corrupt than the U.S. I know not where this self-loathing of home and country derives, but it does seem to be fashionable these days, and certainly passe'. Lastly, be careful with the name calling- it is the libs who are supposed to be compassionate, remember?

I'll take a handwritten memo over Newsweek any day. A lot of fluff about a "senior Bush administration official", "federal authorities", "officials in Washington".....how about a name? Sound like bunk to me; however, the White House source was impressive. Could it be that Bush is bidding his time until all of the evidence is in? I certainly wouldn't want to jump the gun on this issue.
 
I will respond to your other email as soon as I can, but you said so many preposterous and erroneous things, that I scarcely know where to begin!
 
(Amanda) Subject: RE: proof of ties http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030131-23.html

One question for you. Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?

THE PRESIDENT: I can't make that claim.

THE PRIME MINISTER: That answers your question. The one thing I would say, however, is I've absolutely no doubt at all that unless we deal with both of these threats, they will come together in a deadly form. Because, you know, what do we know after September the 11th? We know that these terrorists networks would use any means they can to cause maximum death and destruction. And we know also that they will do whatever they can to acquire the most deadly weaponry they can. And that's why it's important to deal with these issues together.
 
(JM) I have decided to systematically address all points that you made in the chronology in which you made them- so here it goes…

You say he had WMDs “probably in the distant past”. When I hear that term I think of the Greeks and Romans, not the year 1998. My original question remains unaddressed- what became of them? Do you think Saddam dismantled them out of the goodness of his heart? If they were unaccounted for, then it is prudent to assume that he still has them. Like I said, libs are too sure of their guesswork, and, what is worse, they are too trusting of ruthless monarchs (and equally mistrustful of a Republican). I was not aware that we have “continuously” bombed Iraq for the past 10 years, but if we had, then Clinton is to blame, is he not?

The U.N. inspectors were nothing more than keystone cops, and despite their bungling Saddam still kicked them out- rather uncooperative in my book. You mention other countries, namely U.S. allies, who have also violated U.N. resolutions. I would think that it would be prudent, as with all things, to deal with the worst case first and, since they are allies anyway, worry about lesser cases later. Otherwise, Bush would then be criticized for spreading our forces too thin, right? I personally hold the U.N. in very low esteem, and consider it an irrelevant and ineffectual organization.

You “loathe” Bush, that is clear, and see his policies as “dangerous”. What I see as infinitely more dangerous is the liberal frame of mind that says we ought to inexhaustibly appease ruthless dictators, which invariably will do nothing more than encourage violence against us. What so many Americans do not realize is that we are perceived as weak for this very reason, and thus vulnerable. These leaders know that we cannot stomach even the minutest of causalities, and will pull out of conflict if public opinion turns out of favor with the war, despite how many billions of dollars have already been spent on the endeavor. If you want to point to something truly dangerous, then all you have to do is look at the ramifications that resulted from the Toricelli Principle. Now that was truly stupid and disastrous. Your call for police work against a crime versus military action against an act of war is so ridiculous that I hardly feel a response is merited (as if Saddam would have cooperated with police action- is that for real?).

I have to admit that I am a bit bewildered by your thesis that there is a “role of cooperation in the survival of the fittest.” Please explain further for I am truly intrigued. So you blame the 1998 bombing of Iraq on the “neo-conservatives”? Do you assign any blame to Clinton? The non-partisan claim you have made is waning in my mind.

You have devised a rather elaborate conspiracy theory that claims that Bush “exploited” 9-11 for his own purposes. Tell me, what should he have done? Better yet, if you were the President, what would your response to 9-11 have been? Also, again, I need elaboration on this “agenda of American supremacy” theory. You say Bush is leading us in a “dangerous direction”. I say that Clinton put us there, and Bush is doing the only thing that he can. Consider this: a bully picks on a kid who may even be bigger than he himself, but the kid never fights back. Now tell me, will this inaction dissuade the little bully, or will it encourage him, and others like him, to not only continue bullying, but augment it?! Whether the utopians like it or not, the periodic show of force works, and sends a message that must be sent. Libya has now begun voluntarily dismantling its WMD program, and Iran is now opening up to inspections. Does anyone honestly doubt that this was because of the present state of Saddam Hussein? C’mon, let’s use our heads and get in the game here!

You allude to something that makes me curious. Unless I am mistaken, you are implying that by trying to maintain it’s military supremacy, the U.S. is doing a bad thing. Is that correct, and, if so, then why? Who should have it then? I know, no one, right? Perhaps things were better during the Cold War when there were two super powers. No nation in the history of earth has ever been as righteous with their military as the United States has. Yes, our past is not unalloyed, but whose is? Shall we compare the use of military force throughout history, and see where the U.S.'s policy lies? Do I have to actually point out that we are far more ethical than all of the other major powers of history? Sure, we are presently occupying Iraq temporarily until we can get them on their feet, but we are not taking over anyone or anything in the traditional sense of military conquest.

What do you feel are “the actual principles and requirements of freedom and democracy”, and what do you feel Bush’s are? When Bush mentions the endurance of freedom, of course he implies our freedom in that claim as well, but what reason do you have to believe that this man is honestly not interested in freedom for others? Does loathing of him cause you to see him as a despot? It has always been my contention that emotion clouds judgment, and who would disagree?

You make an assertion that in a free society the masses determine what freedom and democracy are on an individual basis. Please explain further because this sounds suspiciously like anarchy to me. Besides, why wouldn’t people wish to follow America’s lead? Are we not the best national example of personal freedom and liberties for its citizens? Are we not still a beacon to the oppressed in every corner of the globe? If not, then why are people sacrificing their fortunes and lives just to make it to our shores? We are perceived a the “Great Satan” by a large number of Middle Easterners because, since the age of about two, they have been brainwashed with propaganda to believe that the horrid state of their lives is the result of the West, and not the despicable despots who keep all of the money of the nation for themselves while their people starve. Many of these citizens are illiterate, uneducated, and totally duped- of course they hate us.

Terrorists may never totally disappear, but they may be dissuaded after witnessing the demise of Saddam and his regime. They certainly will not desist if we continue to appease them. This is pure human nature, and common sense. We are already at risk in a dangerous world. Bush is letting it be known that we will not be pushed around. What policy would have been more effective than the one currently being used by the Bush administration? Perhaps if we said “pretty please” to the monarchical monsters, or if we let the U.N. handle things, perhaps we could send Jesse Jackson over there to negotiate peace, wait- I know!- we could beg our back-stabbing allies (who have selfish interests and personal investments with Iraq) to take care of it and look out for us. I too have sympathy for innocent victims, particularly those of 9-11.

Lastly, you claim to be an independent thinker and are very proud of this “novel” type of thinking. I too pride myself for this attribute, and presume many others do as well (so much for novelty). What I don’t understand is why one cannot be a liberal or conservative, or whatever, and still be an independent thinker? It is the ideologues who are the true dopes. What is so wrong with labels anyway? I see them as a practical way of categorizing things. Sure, they do not represent a complete picture, but this is implicit and silly to have to point out. Incidentally, “independent thinker” is also a label, is it not?

Well, I would just like to thank you again for engaging me. It seems so few of us have the ability to make cogent arguments in favor of our stances. So many, it seems, believe things wholeheartedly, and positively cannot articulate why. This is what happens when the heart does the brain's job. How we feel about something is a foolish way to derive an opinion. Opinions ought to be logical, rational, and, above all, educated. I hold little esteem for uneducated opinions, and regard them as immaterial. Wouldn't you agree?

(Amanda) Seriously, how do you defend this??  

Less than a year after declaring there was "no doubt the Iraqi regime continues to possess the most lethal weapons ever devised," President Bush and the White House began to openly "back away from its WMD assertions today." The New York Times reported, "White House officials are no longer asserting that stockpiles of banned weapons would eventually be found" after their weapons inspector, David Kay said he "doesn't think [WMD] existed"
after the 1991 Gulf War.

The backtracking is reverberating throughout the Bush administration. While Secretary of State Colin Powell told the United Nations last year that "our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent," he said this weekend that it could actually be "zero tons." Powell told the United Nations in 2003 that Iraq "can produce anthrax," that it might "have produced 25,000 liters" and
showed a video of an Iraqi plane that dumping "2,000 liters of simulated anthrax" as proof, but he now says they might have produced no anthrax at all.

Similarly, Vice President Dick Cheney, said before the war, "there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction...to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us," but now says the war was about Iraq's "efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction." The vice president also cited a classified report his own Administration has labeled "inaccurate" as the "best source" of proof that Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda were linked.

In response, the Administration is beginning to blame the intelligence community for the WMD fiasco, and planning an internal "review of prewar intelligence."

Administration ally Kay concurred, arguing "I think the intelligence community owes the president [an apoogy] rather than the president owing the American people." Despite Mr. Kay's assertions, experts who knew the record of U.N. inspections knew that finding no WMD "was always
a strong possibility...but Bush administration officials never acknowledged it."

Earlier reporting found that senior Administration officials deliberately "bypassed the government's customary procedures for vetting intelligence," and the White House set up a separate intelligence apparatus, the "Office of Special Plans," to "cherry-pick intelligence that supported its pre-existing position and ignoring all the rest." For example, the president's well-known declaration in last year's State of the Union, asserting that Iraq "sought
significant quantities of uranium from Africa," remained despite CIA demands to remove such allegations from his speech.

(JM) Before I address the article, I would like to point out that during the early goings, many of the present Democratic Presidential candidates (i.e., Clark, Dean, Kerry, etc.) supported the war because they too admitted that Saddam had W.M.D.s. The point is, if they were mistaken due to a lack of poor info, or whatever, then why can't Bush have been mistaken also? Why is he the mastermind behind a major conspiracy? Everyone, including the leaders of several other nations, believed that Saddam had W.M.D.s. Was it because Bush mislead them? No, more likely it was because, at one point, Saddam's regime did (and probably still does) have them, and Saddam himself would not cooperate with the inspectors. Besides, recently some stockpiles were found. Perhaps not the smoking gun we were looking for, but evidence none-the-less. Now, as for this article...

Consider the source first of all- The New York Times! Could there be a more liberally biased paper in the world?! Show me anywhere in this article where the author makes the point that I just did- many Democrats as well were making the same claim about W.M.D.s and thus supported the war initially, although they are now backtracking as well. However, this is not mentioned- curious. I reiterate an earlier point: would it have been better to give this ruthless monarch the benefit of the doubt (even though he never did deny having W.M.D.s), or would it be more prudent to assume the worst and, after umptine resolutions and being given the middle finger, go in to remove him? How any clear thinking person can argue with the decision to attack Iraq based on this line of reasoning is befuddling. Please show where my rationale is misguided.

(Amanda) It really doesn't matter what the previous administrations or others thought, they didn't act on it.  Bush did.  So Bush takes the fall.  I think he (not him personally, he's too stupid) and his cronies cherry picked the intel.  The point is, we DID NOT need to rush to this war.  Obviously weapons inspections were working (as evidenced by the lack of WMD).  Of course he didn't say he didn't have any, that was his only leverage.  As for the New York Times, I don't understand all this hollaring about liberal media, I think none of them are liberal, especially when I see the articles on the 10th page instead of the front like they should be. 

(JM) First, I was referring to the present Democratic nominees for President of the United States. I never made any mention of previous administrations. Do you read with your heart (i.e., emotionally) or your brain (i.e., rationally, logically, intellectually)?
 
Second, where does this belief in Bush's lack of intelligence come from? I realize that S.N.L, and the liberal media that you resist acknowledging poke fun at him all of the time, but what has he done that is so stupid? Do you remember when Clinton mistook the Declaration of Independence for the Gettysburg Address! How about the time that Gore could not distinguish a statue of Washington from Jefferson! Now that is profoundly stupid, especially for a sitting President, or VP. For the leader of our nation to have no sense of history of that nation is amazingly ignorant. Show me the equivalent buffoonery in Bush.
 
Third, what do you define as rushing? From what I remember it took a long time before the war got under way. Shall we compare our timetables?
 
Fourth, and this is amazingly illogical in my opinion, how does the lack of evidence PROVE that the inspections were working? If you smell smoke in your kids room, but cannot find the cigarette, then will you walk away if the child says that "it must not exist since you cannot find it!" You must elaborate on the labrynthian pattern of your thinking here because the logic alludes me. Also, what leverage of Saddam's are we speaking of? I would think his best play would be to just admit that he did not have any W.M.D.s, and thus allow the inspectors to come and go as they please without restrictions, such as a mandatory heads-up on where they would soon be inspecting- I always found that fascinating as well.
 
Fifth, and most important, if you would allow me, and if you are as independently/open minded as you profess, then I would like to give you a source or two that may convince you that a liberal media bias not only exists but runs rampant in America today. Are you willing?

Bushisms?! Really now, you must quit reading these wacko websites and go for primary literature. This site is obviously a haven for Bush-haters.
 
I reiterate:
"It goes without saying -- or should -- that the Bush administration was not alone in worrying about Saddam's WMDs. Former Vice President Al Gore, for example, noted during a speech in September 2002: "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Gore was and is highly critical of Bush's foreign policy, but he didn't doubt for a moment that Saddam was equipped with deadly chemical and biological agents. Nor did Bill Clinton, the United Nations, or even Jacques Chirac.

Even Saddam's own military officers believed there were stockpiles of illegal weapons. In its Page 1 story on Kay's findings, The New York Times noted that while "no Special Republican Guard units had chemical or biological weapons . . . all of the officers believed that some other Special Republican Guard unit had chemical weapons. `They all said they didn't have it, but they thought other units had it,' Dr. Kay said." For those of us who never believed that the case for toppling Saddam depended primarily on his possession of unconventional weapons, the fact that he no longer possessed them changes very little. The war was right and proper because Saddam was a homicidal dictator who ruled with staggering brutality, because he provided support to international terrorists, and because Ba'athist Iraq was a threat to its neighbors."

(Amanda) If countries are able to be attacked because others BELIEVE they're going to invade other countries, then where will that put the U.S.? We have the largest stockpile of weapons in the world as well as the most mobile armed forces. And, based on our international diplomatic techniques at this point, I believe we pose one hell of a risk to others. 

The FACT is, the president and his cronies told us we were going to war for a certain reason, that Iraq posed an imminent and immediate threat to the US.  Our intelligence may or may not be lacking.  We all know now (according to O'Neill) that bush wanted to go into Iraq since he had taken the oval office.  Doesn't it stand to reason that bush and company may have skewed the intelligence to given them, to present a favorable outcome?  The parents of the dead solders being brought back from Iraq were told their sons/daughters were needed to protect America's interest from WMD.  Now no such weapons exist.  Don't you think those people are owned an explanation?  an apology?   You can't give the lame argument that Saddam was a bad man, we all know that, there are several "bad" men in the world, we aren't out attacking them.

You harp on the resolutions, well what about the 88 other countries that are in violation of UN resolutions.  Why don't we go bomb Israel, they are in violation of quite a few.

If I know a guy is a millionaire and I don't see him for a while and again see him and he's driving a nice car, I assume he's still a millionaire.  Doesn't mean he is.  We can't go to wars on assumptions and circumstantial evidence.  Get your head out of bush's ass and see what's truly going on.  We should at least be SCREAMING for an INDEPENDENT inquiry, but I imagine that would embarrass bush and company quite a bit.

(JM) Can you kindly provide for me one example in our nation's history where we went to war as the aggressor? Also, what more could Bush have done diplomatically? He gave Saddam every chance to cooperate. Do we blame Saddam for being an ass? No! We blame Bush, of course. Again, I do not understand this "blame America first" crowd- just a bunch of spoiled brat idiots who, if they lived any where else in the world for about a year, would be on their hands and knees begging to come back to the U.S. I personally would tell them to "piss off!" The U.S., while not the Garden of Eden as so many utopians would like it to be, is still a beacon of light in a world of darkness. Read What's So Great About America? by Dinesh D'Souza and I guarantee it will alter your frame of mind.

Let me ask you this, if it was ever proven that Saddam had his hands on W.M.D.s, would you worry that he would use them? I mean, would you even be concerned...at all? Or are you so confident in the greatness of his benevolence over someone like...oh, let's say...Bush?

Your refusal to capitalize Bush's name only shows me how deep your bias goes and how absurd your claim of neutrality and independence is. Just like your utter refusal to read a column by Bill O'Reilly.

Concerning the other countries in violations of resolutions, how many do you feel are as dangerous as Iraq was? Should we honestly be concerned about Israel? Are they a threat to us? And, as for the countries that may actually pose a threat, how many are worse than Iraq was? How many of those dictators tried to kill the President of the U.S. A loyal American, despite his or her politics, would be affronted by such an attempt. Of course, an America hater would see that as no justifiable means to target Iraq. I agree that this alone would not suffice for a cause for war, but it certainly is a valid factor when assessing the threat that they pose.

I agree that there ought to be an independent inquiry, and the Bush administration's resistance does make me suspicious.  You have to read, or listen to, What's So Great About America? by Dinesh D'Souza.