For The Historical Record

by hilzoy

From the Independent (UK), news of a leaked British government memo:

"A damning minute leaked to a Sunday newspaper reveals that in July 2002, a few weeks after meeting George Bush at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, Mr Blair summoned his closest aides for what amounted to a council of war. The minute reveals the head of British intelligence reported that President Bush had firmly made up his mind to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein, adding that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy". (...)

The minute records that the Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, had warned that the case against Saddam was "thin". He suggested that the Iraqi dictator should be forced into a corner by demanding the return of the UN weapons inspectors: if he refused, or the inspectors found WMD, there would be good cause for war.

The Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith who took part in the meeting warned then that "the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action". But the Prime Minister countered that "regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD". "

From the actual memo:

"C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August. (...)

The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.

The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change."

Several points from this memo are worth noting. First, it reports that Bush had decided to go to war with Iraq by July 2002, and would be briefed on military plans early in August. The Iraq War Resolution was not passed until October. Second, C (the head of MI6) notes even then that "there was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action." And we know how that turned out. Third, Jack Straw (the Foreign Secretary) describes the case for war as "thin", and the British Attorney General thought that its legality was problematic. (Another leaked UK memo notes that "the US government took a different view of international law from Britain or virtually any other country.") Fourth, the grounds for war considered at this time do not include democracy promotion. That is not so much as mentioned.

But to me the most damning part of the memo is the claim that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." To construct the best possible policy, you need the most accurate possible intelligence, and the clearest grasp of the facts. Your policy should fit them, not vice versa.

Comments

[bob mcmanus]

History has favored President Polk, and considers Mr Lincoln's outrage at being lied into war a partisan curiousity.

On the other hand, there is enough other evidence for history to determine that this Bush is America's first truly evil President.

Blair remains an open question for me. It may never be openly shown what incredible atrocities his alliance with Bush managed to prevent.

[Katherine]

Gee, ya think?

I suppose I should feel vindicated, but really--all of this has been completely freaking obvious for a long, long time to anyone who would allow themselves to believe it. Those that won't allow themselves to believe it, still won't and probably never will. Why should they? In American politics these days, all you need is an argument that a lot of people are willing to repeat, as often and at as high a volume as possible. It doesn't have to be an argument that is "good" or "consistent" or "true" or "bears any relationship to established facts" or "makes sense" or "actually responds to what your opponents are saying"--in fact, it doesn't even help very much. What you're saying matters less than the fact that your lips are moving.

[Waffle]

Hah! 2002?!!

Try 1999-2000.

The action orders for this war were written as soon as Cheney picked his cabinet.

[Anarch]

The action orders for this war were written as soon as Cheney picked his cabinet.

Let's be careful to distinguish between verified facts and unconfirmed speculations.

[dmbeaster]

It's worth remembering that the October, 2002, resolution, so often erroneously billed these days as a vote for the war, was not sold by Bush at that time as such. It was billed as authorization to threaten force re the WMD issue, and that war would follow only if absolutely necessary.

From Bush's 10/7/02 Cincinnati speech:

I have asked Congress to authorize the use of America's military, if it proves necessary, to enforce U.N. Security Council demands. Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable. The resolution will tell the United Nations, and all nations, that America speaks with one voice and is determined to make the demands of the civilized world mean something. Congress will also be sending a message to the dictator in Iraq: that his only chance -- his only choice is full compliance, and the time remaining for that choice is limited. (emphasis added)

In other words, the entire policy, including the authorization, was a lie and a cynical manipulation to justify a war that was already inevitable no matter what.

But as Katherine says, all that mattered was that the lips were moving.

Or as the old joke goes, how can you tell when the Bush folks are lying?

[Freder Frederson]

How come no one mentioned this in the MSM. Oh yeah, that woman in Georgia skipped out on her wedding. That is much more important.

[Jackmormon]

A bitter vindication. Especially coming on top of today's grim NYT Magazine article about the Salvadorean turn the counter-insurgency is now taking.

[John Thullen]

Nothing to add; Hilzoy and McManus sum it up.

But I want to mention something which seems to not be connected to this issue, or rather only connected by the similarity in means (lying and deflection) used to accomplish much larger ends than appear on the surface.

The coming vote on destroying the estate tax will lead to many, many more of the estates of the middle class being subjected to capital gains taxes, with onerous requirements for establishing cost basis , etc.

As Americans gradually learn of the details as their parents and grandparents die, there will arise massive hatred of the federal government and continous, rancorous tax revolts, which will then be seized by the current government-hating Republican Party (exempt yourselves at will, at least on the internet) to call for the eradication of all taxes on capital and a massive shift of taxes to income. The inevitable result will be financial catastrophe for our government which, along with decisions by an activist Republican judiciary in the coming years, will lead to the total dissolution of the New Deal.

Sounds awful, doesn't it? I'm going to call it evil, as well.

But rather than fighting it, I'm going to join up and declare my utter hatred for the Federal government and all of its programs. I wish its total and immediate destruction. I'll lose everything, including most retirement and programs keeping family members alive, but today's Republican ideology will triumph, as God wills.

[praktike]

"all of this has been completely freaking obvious for a long, long time to anyone who would allow themselves to believe it."

true.

[Opus]

"all of this has been completely freaking obvious for a long, long time to anyone who would allow themselves to believe it."

Yup. And we've been told by folks on the other side that we only felt this way because we "hated" the people involved and that was clouding our judgment. Or that this is the way things go, and we -- average citizens -- aren't meant to know what happens or what's involved. Or that these reports are just the work of the liberal media.

Yeah. Right.

[hilzoy]

Opus: exactly. It has been obvious forever. But since every so often we get accused of being distorted by our irrational hatred of Bush (which I personally would not be aware of having if people who don't know me didn't point it out), I thought: why not post it for everyone to see?

[Opus]

Hence, the title. Very nice!

[Anarch]

And we've been told by folks on the other side that we only felt this way because we "hated" the people involved and that was clouding our judgment.

And I'm sure they'll be by any minute to apologize to us for that. Yup. Uh-huh.

[CaseyL]

Nah. They'll remind us that Clinton lied about a blow job. Or claim we're better off without Saddam Hussein in power. Or that Democrats pay too much attention to Michael Moore. Or -

Look! Homosexuals! Abortion! Tax cuts!

- change the subject altogether.

[Opus]

Is there anyone blogging out there who has said, "I still agree with the ends, but based on what is known, I don't agree with the means"? Is there anyone who is glad Bushco invaded, but wishes that they'd done it without the deception? If we heard from such a person, would we let it go at that?

To clarify, I'm not talking about the people who supported the invasion but think the post-war has been a mess -- I'm talking about anyone who would do it all over again, but would want it done above board,

To further clarify, I'm not any of those people. I'm with the group that knew then, and knows now what was right and what was wrong. So there. :-)

[cleek]

truly, they are all honorable men.

[bob mcmanus]

"I'm talking about anyone who would do it all over again, but would want it done above board"

I do not like Iran becoming a nuclear power, and our Saudi enemies (tho they are Bush's friends, which is interesting) receiving the monstrous windfall profits that will not be used in any manner beneficial to the US.
These two events were completely predictable.

I am on record as wanting a much wider war, much more ambitious, sold much more openly. The most effective rhetorical tool for such a large mobilization would have been the nationality of the hijackers, and the sources of their funding, and much of the origin of their ideology. Declaring war on family Saud would have been, umm, consequential. Iraq & Iran would have been a campaigns in a much larger war.

I understand I speak of unleashing horror. Y'all can be grateful I wasn't President. However, as President, I wouldn't been able if I wanted to use 9/11 as a tool of a fifty-year WoT/hegemonic campaign, and as a means of destroying liberal society permanently at home. I am afraid we are at the very beginning of a long very dark age. WWII level committments and unity would have made much of the Bush domestic agenda impossible.

Historians will need to judge whether the optimal choice was no war, a half-assed war, or total war.

Sorry for the length, I felt a need to take responsibility for previous positions.

[CaseyL]

Some of the Democrats who supported the war have said something along those lines, Opus.

But with attacks in Iraq numbering 25 per day; government officials being assassinated; the economy still moribund and the infrastructure still not working; the highways still unsecured; the danger of civil war still around; the government still debating on how to structure itself (and Achmed Chalabi now the Oil Minister - how's that for a laugh?) ... I'm not quite sure what there is to be "glad anyway" about.

[felixrayman]

It's kind of interesting that none of the "pro-life" usuals have deigned to comment as of yet. Some lives are worth more than others, I presume.

[2shoes]

Apparently...you are all moonbats.

[hilzoy]

Flap, flap; flutter, flutter.

[bob mcmanus]

"The Iraqi Conflict was all about one thing, American Security, nothing less nothing more." ...Timmy

Timmy has flogging this horse for years. (Hey, Timmy, there aren't many of us opposed in general to "American Security"...just thought I would let you know.) Is this a perfect example of "begging the question?" How is "American Security" defined, what best serves it, etc. I guess if you have to ask....

[Jackmormon]

Bob, I can understand the seriousness of your position. If the US is so dependant on MidEast oil, and if the US is to consider itself responsible for improving the world, then your desire to unleash a general US campaign in the region can be justified as rational, if logistically implausible. I'm not convinced that it's ethical, however.

The leftist academics around my campus spend most of their time worrying about modernization. They desparately want developing nations to arrive at more transparent, democratic ways of doing business and governing, but they are aware that former colonies face adverse conditions: tribal societies, corrupt elites, nascent infrastuctures. The academics quickest to use the word "backwards" are the Marxist historians, and it can sometimes be bracing because it's so often invoked with sympathy rather than condemnation. The problem for these historians is: Given the horrors of European modernization (from environmental pollution to the great wars), can we hope to help developing countries avoid some of our errors? I think that the jury is still out on this question, although I tend, in my pessemistic moments, to believe that there are some problems that only time and misery can solve.

The anti-globalization movement, which was diverse, even schizophrenic, might have been the first intellectual current to understand the factors of resentment that would spawn 9-11. I know that my years of reading Le Monde Diplomatique and Liberation prepared me far better for terrorism in the US than reading the Economist and the Wall Street Journal did for my father. The movement has been effectively marginalized and subsumed under the general problem of terrorism, but some of its insights are worth retaining: Thomas Friedman might experience globalization as a net good, but traditional societies fear the change that the new economy brings and feel exploited by these different economic relationships that involves very foreign and new ways of structuring time, eating, boundaries, place, property, and identity. Some feelings of exploitation are justified, some are more atmospheric and vague.

But smashing through with armies the problem of how best to modernize these "backwards" countries seems to me to be a crude response. It has always seemed so to me. The US is not, after all, the agent of History. We can hope, but insisting on and implementing agreeable changes in other cultures' history has always seemed to me to be not only an intolerable arrogance but an unrealistic asumption of power to effect change. Is it intolerably cynical to believe that cultural and institutional change tends to happen slowly? perhaps more slowly than the business cycle?

[Nell]

In the spirit of Anarch's request for verified facts:

Beginning in June 2002, the U.S. carried out a systematic campaign of air attacks to destroy Iraqi anti-aircraft, communications and command facilities, under cover of the ongoing (and NOT UN-authorized) enforcement of the "no-fly zones". This campaign was so successful that there was no need to precede the ground invasion in March 2003 with extensive air bombing as had been done in Gulf War I. (The "Shock and Awe" bombing was restricted to Baghdad and was of a completely different character.)

There were scattered tiny U.S. press reports of the "stepped-up patrols" of the no-fly zones between July and January 2003, usually in the form of Iraqi complaints of civilian deaths (there were hundreds) and U.S. denials or refusals to comment; occasionally the U.S. would justify the attacks by saying their planes had been fired on. I saved every one of these I encountered, having been convinced since January 2001 that a U.S. invasion of Iraq was inevitable. But in July 2003, my feeble clip collection became redundant, when the New York Times published a report on analysis of the air assault campaign, called 'Southern Focus', by the officer who commanded it.*

This story got remarkably little attention considering that it was confirmation quite soon after the invasion that the war had not only been planned but underway long before the Congressional resolution.

This administration has long since forfeited the right to be given the benefit of the doubt on any matter whatsoever, as far as I'm concerned.

*Lacking a link, here's the first half of that story as it appeared in the Intl Herald Tribune:

How U.S. softened Iraq's defenses

Michael R. Gordon NYT
Monday, July 21, 2003

Airstrikes starting in mid-2002 laid the foundation for war

LAS VEGAS U.S. air war commanders carried out a comprehensive plan to disrupt Iraq's military command and control system before the Iraq war, according to an internal briefing on the conflict by the senior allied air war commander.

Known as Southern Focus, the plan called for attacks on the network of fiber-optic cable that Saddam Hussein's government used to transmit military communications, as well as airstrikes on key command centers, radars and other important military assets.

The strikes, which were conducted from mid-2002 into the first few months of 2003, were justified publicly at the time as a reaction to Iraqi violations of a no-flight zone that the United States and Britain established in southern Iraq.

But Lieutenant General Michael Moseley, the chief allied war commander, said the attacks also had laid the foundations for the military campaign against the Baghdad government.

Indeed, one reason it was possible for the allies to begin the ground campaign to topple Saddam without preceding it with an extensive array of airstrikes was that 606 bombs had been dropped on 391 carefully selected targets under the plan, Moseley said.

[DaveC]

Are you all stating a preference that Saddam Hussein remain in power? If not, please provide an alternative course of action.

I personally am encouraged by the spread of freedom and aspirations for freedom in the Middle East.

[Nell]

Jackmormon, thank you for the tip on the NYTMagazine article on Iraq's version of the Atlacatl battalion. It gives me a queasy spinning sensation of history repeating itself.

Any doubts about why the current strategy was called the 'Salvador option' were dispelled by learning that Col. James Steele is the chief American advisor to the 'elite' unit profiled in the article. Col. Steele is a strutting Special Forces commander, a living Terry Southern parody (right down to his name) who was a regular feature of embassy briefings for American delegations in San Salvador during the 1980s. He's a lying s.o.b. whose whole career has been spent overseeing assassination and torture while disarming reporters with his straightforwardness.

Be sure to read the whole article.

[DaveC]

I'm going to join up and declare my utter hatred for the Federal government and all of its programs.

Seconded, excepting the military and the national park system.

[DaveC]

The US is not, after all, the agent of History

Well certainly, tribalism, rather than a nation build on ideas and ideals, has certainly been the prime moving factor in almost all of history. So you may have a point there.

But I think that this is changing.

[Nell]

Dave C.: Yes, I am stating that the price of overthrowing Saddam Hussein is not worth the result: tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians dead, 1590 American soldiers killed, 12,000 wounded (many with seriously disabling injuries), and those totals continuing to pile up with no end in sight.

U.S. credibility in the toilet, hatred of Americans up sharply almost everywhere in the world and at stratospheric levels in the Arab public.

Serious degradation of the armed forces -- people and equipment being used up beyond replacement levels, grunts being held accountable for abuses while command responsibility goes out the window, morale dropping each time another unit rotates back into the quagmire.

A billion dollars being pissed away every week and no end in sight.

And something it's hard to put a price on: two-thirds of the American public, including the men and women serving in Iraq, knowing we were lied to. I've got aspirations for freedom of my own, but I'm not terribly encouraged about their prospects.

[DaveC]

Bush is America's first truly evil President.

Compared to:

Slobodan Milosevic
Saddam Hussein
Yassar Arafat
Kim Jung Il
Robert Mugabe
Rafsanjani
Fidel Castro
Mommar Kaddafi

I know I'm setting the bar a little low here, but I have actually seen a lot of Bush= types of statements, and think that even if he is the most evil president ever, the fact that he is sincerely, if aggressively, championing freedom for all people outweighs the downsides.

[DaveC]

Yes, I am stating that the price of overthrowing Saddam Hussein is not worth the result

If you accept both the figures that 500,000 Iraqis died (in 10 years) from sanctions and that 100,000 have died from the war (in 2 years) then statistically the difference in human suffering pre and post war has been a wash.

Interestingly both of the estimated numbers were from parties opposed to US policy. I am sceptical of both numbers.

[CharleyCarp]

"Compared to:

Slobodan Milosevic
Saddam Hussein
Yassar Arafat
Kim Jung Il
Robert Mugabe
Rafsanjani
Fidel Castro
Mommar Kaddafi"

None of these guys, so far as I know, has ever been President of the United States. Their evil, then, does nothing to disprove the assertion that our current evil president is the first.

You know, you folks need to decide whether you're in favor of relativism or not. Either Ann Coulter is beyond the pale because she calls people who love their country (but disagree with her about strategy) traitors, or she's OK because you can point to someone "worse." Either Justice Owen is unsuitable for the federal bench because she doesn't follow statutory schemes that she doesn't like, or she's OK because Justice Blackmun was even worse about this. Either it's wrong (and illegal) for CIA agents to torture some schmoe who's accused of having been one of the drivers for bin Laden, or it's OK because Zarqawi would behead Bremer's driver. Let's just call this the Charlie Manson Rule. Anyone arrested for simple assault, or even a murder, ought to be able to get off by arguing that Charlie Manson was worse.

I don't think the current President is evil. That said, I'm not sure I could think less of him. Except in comparison to the people Dave C lists, or to DeLay and Cheney.

As for Iraqi deaths, for those pre-war you have mixed responsibility: obviously, Saddam's choices about how to spend the money he did have were abysmal. On the other hand, we're certainly responsible for creating a system where he had the choices to make that he did. Could the sanctions regime have been made "smarter" and thus less burdensome on people at the bottom of the ladder? Maybe, or maybe not. Those deaths were more feature than bug of our policy: we were hoping that sooner or later some Iraqi general would get disgusted enough to stage a coup. We're certainly responsible for the deaths that occurred as a result of the war, and fog of war. And, I would say, we share responsibility for the deaths caused by the chaos we unleashed, and the insurgency directed at our occupation. Could we have acted in ways that would have lessed both? I think so.

[Kevin Donoghue]

If you accept both the figures that 500,000 Iraqis died (in 10 years) from sanctions and that 100,000 have died from the war (in 2 years) then statistically the difference in human suffering pre and post war has been a wash.

The strength of the study by Roberts et al (the source for the 100,000 figure) is that it generates estimates for both pre- and post-war mortality in a consistent way. This is a much more sensible approach than comparing 10-year and 2-year figures obtained in quite different ways. There is hardly any doubt that the risk of death has risen sharply.

[John Thullen]

Ah, but Dave C., there shall be no exceptions.

This conservative "exceptionalism" of yours is touching, but it would require taxing me for your needs.

In the world of deeply held ideology you have envisioned for all of us, this won't be possible.

My convictions and my principles are adamantine. They shall not be violated.

[lily]

It isn't at all clear that our invasion had the effect of promoting freedom in a general way in the Middle East. No one has provided a single fact, for example, demonstrating a cause/effect relationship between Saddam's fall and the withdrawal of the Syrian troops. Pro-democracy movements have existed in the Middle East for many years. They tend to be anti-American, partly because of our support for Isreal and partly because of our historic support for undemocratic regimes. In Egypt the leader of the democracy movement is quoted in a newspaper sited by Abu Aardvard as saying that one of the primary goals of the movement is to disconnect Egyptian foreign policy from American influence. Our invasion is viewed negatively by the majorities in every Middle Eastern country except Isreal as determined by a poll sited by Abu A. The majority of Jordanians consider our invasion to be an act of terrorism. Given this reaction to our invasion, it doesn't make sense to conclude that our behavior is causing an outburst of democratic reform. Our behavior is causing an outburst of anti-American feeling and promoting feelings of nationalism. This fuels support for terrorists in the hearts of some people and also fuels support for anti-American reform movements which may promote democratic reforms but do so within the context of anti-American feeling. It is a mistake to underestimate the effect of the Abu Graib prison photos, the TV images of civilian bombing victims, and the sight of Iraqi men being forced to kneel or lie down in the dirt at the point of American guns. This all may be viewed by some
Americans as unfortunate but acceptable, but the evidence is that the Arab world is not so dismissive. Even within Iraq itself recent polls show that over sixty percent of the poll responders want American troops out now.
Gettin rid of Saddam has probably diminished, rather than increasede our influence in the Middle EAst. After all, we now can do nothing about Iran. And it was France, working through the UN (with our agreement) that gave the Syrians the final push to withdraw their troops.

[Jesurgislac]

DaveC: Interestingly both of the estimated numbers were from parties opposed to US policy.

The estimate of 100 000 Iraqis dead by violence in the 18 months since the US invasion of Iraq was carried out by The Lancet. It is news to me that The Lancet is a "party opposed to US policy". I was under the strong impression - mistaken, no doubt - that The Lancet was, and had been for 180 years, an independent voice in worldwide medical research. Your definition of "party" must, I think, be substantially different from mine, if you include independent scientific journals under that definition.

[bob mcmanus]

"I'm not convinced that it's ethical, however."

Me neither. Have no doubts that I wrestle with these questions, if only as hypotheticals with some real world applications, every day. In 2002 I vastly overestimated the dangers of further terrorist attacks. I underestimated the complexity of ME politics and economics and religion. Still do, tho probably less than than the right (there are very active anti-Assad bloggers writing out of Damascus;Syria is neither Sweden or Soviet Russia).

I do not think I overestimated the difficulty of reform. There are good things happening in Qatar and Lebanon, I have hope for Iraq but in the key states of Egypt, Jordan, SA, Iran I see very little progress or hope. Egypt a fine example of the durability of a one party state that broadly distributes pork to elites.

And as we pass Hubbert's Peak I see utter catastrophe arising from that area. We maybe, maybe have fifty years.
.....
I would also like to say that I have some strong prejudices and bias. I was born around 1950, and grew up in an era of America that was massively militarized and in a constant state of war, cold or hot.....and was also one of the most deeply liberal and progressive in our history. Not perfect, but the trend line from 1950-70 was straight up. You talked of killing Social Security in front of somebody who landed at Normandy or fought in Korea and you would have been laughed at.

Now maybe coincidence or externalities like the weakness of the rest of the world. Maybe not. But it is something I think about constantly.

[Kevin Donoghue]

The estimate of 100 000 Iraqis dead by violence in the 18 months since the US invasion of Iraq was carried out by The Lancet.

The Lancet published the study, it did not organise the survey or analyse the data. (AFAIK it never does.) The paper is the responsibility of the authors: Les Roberts, Riyadh Lafta, Richard Garfield, Jamal Khudhairi and Gilbert Burnham. Of course the Lancet requires peer review, which in this case was rapid but very thorough – despite all the publicity nobody has found a flaw of any consequence.

Also, it is not true to say that the estimated 100,000 excess deaths were all due to violence – deaths from other causes also rose. Violence was the main cause of the increase in mortality, and most violent deaths were caused by heavy weaponry. The 100,000 figure is conservative since it is obtained by excluding the worst cluster found by the survey.

[DaveC]

I think a lot of peoples' take on the US efforts to remove enemies and grow freedom in the Middle East is influenced by what our media see fit to print. Now last Wednesday, the day when Iraq added some Sunni ministers to its government, The Chicago Tribune printed about 7 stories regarding events in Iraq. All of them save one, were overwhelmingly negative about the prospects. The one that was somewhat supportive of our efforts, talk radio in Iraq and the beginnings of free speech there, led the first paragraph with complaints and rumors that some Iraqis expressed.

But what struck me was the single story about current events in Lebanon:

Page 3

After 29 years, Syria pulls out of Lebanon
By Hassan M. Fattah

RIYAQ, Lebanon
The last of Syria's troops left Lebanon on Tuesday after a bittersweet ceremony just a few miles from the border, ending a military presence that for much of the last 29 years helped Syria control Lebanon and confront Israel through proxy militias.

But the real kicker was the accompanying Photo caption:

Syrian soldiers head home on Tuesday, Before they left, Lebanon's army commander thanked the troops for their sacrifices.

***

Let me share with you part of what I wrote to the Trib, fat lot of good it did:

Now to get at what I think is the problem with the Trib's coverage of recent events, I will present my understanding of the background of events in Lebanon leading to the Syrian pullout. Let me preface this to
say that to the best of my knowledge the population of Lebanon is around 3.5 million souls.

After the bombing assassination of a popular political figure, a spontaneous demonstration of 100,000-200,000 people marched in the streets in support of Lebanon's independence and an end to its occupation by Syrian military and intelligence units.

A few days later, a counter-demonstration organized by Hezbollah brought into the streets approximately 500,000 people in support of the continuing occupation by, or as the article states, "presence" of the
Syrians.

In response to the strong showing by Hezbollah, another demonstration resulted in about 2,000,000 people in the streets demanding independence. Check my math, but with almost all of Lebanon's adult population marching in the streets to show their preferences, one way or another, it appears that about 80% of the Lebanese wanted the Syrians to leave.

This was not mentioned in the Tribune article that essentially expressed sympathy to, and thanks to the Syrian military presence in Lebanon.

Sure, I believe that the facts in the article were, strictly speaking, correct. Yes it is true that there are some Lebanese siding with Syria, but you see, the Tribune, printing this article presents the 20% as virtuous. They ignore the 80% who yearn for freedom and independence.

.

So what does this have to do with the Trib's coverage of Iraq?

It's the numbers again. At least 80% of Iraqis hated Saddam Hussein's Baathist dictatorship. Yet most of the news articles stress the victimhood of the 15-20% of the Iraqi population who were in league with the Baathists or the tiny minority of Shiites who want to establish an Iranian type of theocracy. By the way, from what I read elsewhere, about 90% of Iranians are opposed to continuing the rule of the mullahs in their own country.

These numbers represent the vast majority of young people in the Middle east who want the freedom and opportunities that we Americans take for granted. The mainstream press and network television in the US do
not support these people and their aspirations. Instead, they attempt to find fault with the US military and US government because, frankly it is easier, and panders to our parochial political and entertainment interests.

[Catsy]

The mainstream press and network television in the US do not support these people and their aspirations.

Not that I'm accepting the truth of this nonsense, but to paraphrase you: so what does this have to do with the fact that the Bush administration and countless Republicans lied to get us into a war, and continue to lie about it despite it being a fait accompli?

You seem to be content with the end justifying the means here. I think that's utterly despicable, but it would at least be nice if Bush and the rest of the GOP would be as honest about it.

[Anarch]

Are you all stating a preference that Saddam Hussein remain in power?

False dichotomy. Actually, "ganz falsch" dichotomy.

If not, please provide an alternative course of action.

Let's start by not having the President of the United States fix the intelligence and facts around the policy; by openly and honestly bringing the evidence to the people of the United States and to the world; by not dissembling and deceiving about what was known in order to ram a pre- (and ill-) conceived policy down our throats; and by having a plan for the aftermath of whatever course upon which we, as an informed nation, chose to embark.

[heh]

"It isn't at all clear that our invasion had the effect of promoting freedom in a general way in the Middle East."

Assad: "Please send this message: I am not Saddam Hussein. I want to cooperate."

Walid Jumblatt: "It's strange for me to say it, but this process of change has started because of the American invasion of Iraq. I was cynical about Iraq. But when I saw the Iraqi people voting three weeks ago, 8 million of them, it was the start of a new Arab world. The Syrian people, the Egyptian people, all say that something is changing. The Berlin Wall has fallen. We can see it."

[DaveC]

what does this have to do with the fact that the Bush administration and countless Republicans lied to get us into a war

It might help to read
Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

Pay especial attention to this section:

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1)," that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and "constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region," and that Congress, "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688";

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

[DaveC]

the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) was passed and signed into law under the Clinton administration, IIRC.

[Catsy]

It might help to read

Save the condescension. I'm well-read on the relevant texts, but I'm mystified as to what you think there is in them that refutes anything in the original post or what I said.

If all you have to offer is calumnies, false dichotomies, and poor attempts at deflection, there are a bevy of right-wing blogs that will accomodate the low bar you're setting.

[cleek]

the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) was passed and signed into law under the Clinton administration, IIRC

have you read that lately ? last time i looked, it didn't say anything like "build a phony WMD crisis in order to invade and occupy Iraq".

it's been a while since i last looked, though. so maybe the GOP revisioinists have corrected it to reflect the new reality since then.

[DaveC]

Iraq Liberation Act

It might help to read

The comment word processor put a line break because the hyperlink would not fit on the same line as the beginning words of the sentence.

What I meant was that some things become more clear when you read the actual resolution and law. I was providing the link to make it easier.

[DaveC]

The Iraq Liberation Act, passed unanimously by Congress and signed by President Clinton stated:

It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.

The 2002 Joint Resolution reiterated the findings that led the 1998 law and went further by authorizing the use of force in order to accomplish those ends.

Please read the Findings Section of the 1998 Act. I am trying to make absolutely clear that the Bush administration was not making up reasons after the fact.

Personally, I will also state that I voted for Clinton and voted for Bush and am OK with both of them.

[Anarch]

Well, the sound of all those apologies is deafening. Thanks, guys!

[DaveC]

Anarch, well at least you understand that I understand that they misunderstood the it might help to read line break misunderstanding.

In your case, Anarch, I figured that the crayon you are using as a stylus had messed up your Pocket PC. No hard feelings of course.

[Anarch]

Anarch, well at least you understand that I understand that they misunderstood the it might help to read line break misunderstanding.

I wasn't actually talking about your remarks at all; rather, I was referring to my 9:45pm post about all those people who said that "hatred" was clouding our judgment who would surely come by and apologize for all those calumnies.

[DaveC]

Oops, I guess I misunderstood you. Dammit I really hate you now, Anarch.

[Anarch]

hehe :)

[243]

DaveC If you accept both the figures that 500,000 Iraqis died (in 10 years) from sanctions and that 100,000 have died from the war (in 2 years) then statistically the difference in human suffering pre and post war has been a wash.

The 100,000 are excess deaths over and above the pre-existing rate steming from the sanctions: ...the researchers calculated that the death rate since the invasion had increased from 5 percent annually to 7.9 percent. That works out to an excess of about 100,000 deaths since the war... wapo

Despite ending sanctions, and toppling Hussein, it doesn't appear that we have had much favorable impact on general Iraqi wellbeing.

[DaveC]

I will agree that things are still very tough on Iraqis. What the toppling of the Baathist regime did give the Iraqis was hope and an opportunity to make a better life for themselves, which they did not have before. Previously, I pointed to posts by Husayn of democracyiniraq, Alaa of TheMessopotamian, and Omar, Muhammed and Ali of IraqTheModel to make this point.

Ultimately it is up to Iraqis to fulfill their own dreams for a better world. I realize that I was initially too optimistic about what would happen after Hussein was deposed. I am now much more optimistic that Iraq will rise from its ashes than, say, a year ago.
I believe also that the courage of Iraqis in the elections and the development of a government where there are competing interests have encouraged changes in Lebanon, Kryzygista, and possibly Syria, Iran and Palestine. If the new Iraq works, then they should be given all the credit in the world for making changes possible in other Middle Eastern countries that may indeed now be possible without the trauma that Iraq has suffered.

[DaveC]

Also, I must add that Anarch is probably beside himself with the anticipation of the beginning of the Water-Ski show team season, now that he as put the "sled" away. (am on dial-up right now so cannot browse for link). The Janesville Rock Aqua-Jays are a bunch of stuck up over-confident cheeseheads, and I must point out that the Wonder Lake, Illinois, ski team regularly goes up there and kicks ass. Aside to Edward_, I don't think New Yawk has ever had a ski team that has been even close to competative, and he is clueless about the real interactive human art that is epitomized in team skiing.

As for me, there is nothing so satisfying as going to the first Memorial Day show and watching the Human Pyramid come together, when the tiny 14 year old girl tries to clamber atop. Then the boat hits a big wave and the entire team gets a facial plant in the icy cold waters. That's entertainment, folks! Come to think of it, maybe even better is when the barefooters make their first attempt of the season to get up sans skis, and get a 100 yard power enema.

But I'll have to hand it to the cheeseheads, there ain't nothing like the House on the Rock. If you can't see it yourself, and are limited to second rate attractions like MOMA, you can get a hint of what it's like on the RoadsideAmerica web site.

[Anarch]

uhhhhh... yep, you totally got me there Dave. Me and the ski team, we're like this ->?<-.

[Except for the Human Pyramid faceplant. Ain't nuthin' like that there entertainment, folks!]

The House on the Rock is great, though. We've also got a ton of Frank Lloyd Wright things floating around Madison that are worth a look-see if you're ever in the area, and our Capitol ain't bad neither.

[DaveC]

Whats this ->?<- ??

You mean "tighter than a couple of Kentucky cousins in a hayloft" *

*Iowahawk mocking Dan Ratherisms, sorry, dial-up you know.

Off now, sent irate email to Extension 720, must listen.

[Jesurgislac]

DaveC: What the toppling of the Baathist regime did give the Iraqis was hope and an opportunity to make a better life for themselves, which they did not have before.

Assuming that they can rid themselves of the foreign military occupation, yes. Unfortunately, it appears Bush is against that idea: there are still permanent military bases planned (being built?) in Iraq, even though in the recent elections, all the winning parties had said they would endeavor to get the US occupation out of Iraq.

Ultimately it is up to Iraqis to fulfill their own dreams for a better world.

If they can get rid of the foreign military occupation, yes. The mandate for British troops runs out at the end of 2005: it rather depends on the results of the Thursday elections, but it seems unlikely at this point that it would be renewed. Berlusconi promised in the wake of the American killing of Nicola Calipari (and US military blocking of the Italian investigation) that he would review the presence of Italian troops.

And, if the Iraqis had any real political power at all, the American killing of an Iraqi brigadier, commanding the military forces allied with the occupation, ought to make Iraqis review American military presence in Iraq: especially as apparently the Pentagon's response to the shooting of Ismail Swayed al-Obeid was to pretend it never happened. But as currently Iraqis have no power to investigate and try offenders when Americans kill Iraqi civilians or Iraqi allied soldiers, I imagine that al-Obeid's death will remain as ignored as if he were any other Iraqi civilian shot to death by American soldiers.

There may be hope for a better world for Iraq. But it can't happen, as Iraqis are well aware, so long as the ultimate power in Iraq is the American military.

[DaveC]

If they can get rid of the foreign military occupation, yes

Using the same timetable that has proved to produce good results in Germany, Japan and South Korea, of course.

[Phil]

So, Dave, which country provides the analogous Soviet-style threat to Iraq that we will need to remain for decades to protect against? Since that's what your analogy presupposes. (You understand that, right?)

I mean, my family was stationed in Germany for several years in the mid-1970s, and I can assure you that the US military was in no way an "occupation force" at the time.

[DaveC]

Al Qaeda, which is an NGO, not a nation,(certainly Zarqawi ia an AQ agent) is not a threat because it is not a country? I disagree with that. I think that AQ, Hamas, Hezbollah, Jemaah Islamyyah, Islamic Jihad, etc represent real threats to the countries that they are attacking, be it Thailand, Phillipines, Lebanon, Iraq, Nigeria etc in a similar way that enemy nations have attacked the interests of freedom in the past.