Well that was quick.
Btw, what do you think of this piece comparing Bush with Kennedy (in a bad way)?

http://www.independent.org/tii/news/030307Higgs.html

The forged evidence was only one piece of many. I don't believe the Bush Administration knowingly lied about the evidence. In fact, the article says that the IAEA specifically did not blame the US or the UK for the documentation. It was a mistake in intelligence - a costly and stupid mistake, but when you deal with the volume of information that US intelligence services does, some things will slip through. (And I still fail to see why the Iraqis would use those alumninum tubes for missiles - why pay for such high quality alumninum when they're going to be used for rockets? I've yet to see any explanation that explains why the Iraqis would act in that matter.)

Still, no matter what, when all is said and done, Saddam Hussein will be out of power. That in itself is a good thing. I think the amount of casualties we'll see in this war will be a lot less than the number of people Saddam could kill if we left him in power for even one more year. I damn near positive we will find a highly developed biological and chemical weapons program, and I'm fairly sure that we will be very shocked at how far Iraq had come in developing nuclear weapons. We will definitely see a system of torture and oppression that will shock the world with its inhumanity.

Sean-Paul, I applaud your thought process and deliberate consideration on this issue. There seems to be a lot of it going around, and not just in Blogistan. The New York Times is now opposed to the Iraq invasion.

It appears to me that as more and more realize that this whole exercise is about extending American influence -- call it empire, hegemony, or what you will -- and nothing else, more and more reasonable people are jumping off the bandwagon. Americans don't go on wars of conquest.

We on the Barricades salute you, not for coming over to "our side," but for thoughtful consideration and analysis. And for recognizing the truth.

DavidByron, Interesting article on the Kennedys. I took the opposite view in a speech about the cuban missile crisis I gave to my daughter's school last october.
The kennedy boys were reckless for sure, but when it came to a pinch they backed off ww iii.

Sean-paul, I'm glad you changed your mind. It is difficult to fathom the mendacity and incompetence of the Busheviks. But there it is. No one can doubt it anymore.

The default position for evaluating Bush should be, should always have been, that he is lying through his teeth and he doesn't know what he's doing. I assure you, he has only begun to lie. He is quite capable of telling the world that there were no US Iraqi casualties except those that Saddam killed with Iraqi soldiers dressed up as Americans. If fact, they've already leaked a story implying that.

Bush is a liar. About everything.

I've been opposed all along, and am now reduced to praying that the war is as swift as they promise, both for our troops' sake and for that of the civilians. And I hope I'm wrong, but I am among those who believe that the defiance and arrogance with which our leaders are waging this war could ignite a much, much longer war than they bargained for - especially if we continue to send hypocritical messages about who our "friends" (Saudi Arabia, etc.) are.

I saw it coming, Sean-Paul...*sigh*
I think for quite some time, you've subconsciencely leaned into 'anti'war camp, but needed more catalyst. Although, I think you found it in other blogegrs more so, than in Bush...
So be it, I am still hawkish, but I am glad you have resolved that internal conflict, the I sensed in you.

On my part, I guess I'll have to find some reasonable, not VRWC, bloggers in support for war to keep this discussion balanced...

Any of you out there I dont't know about, please stand tall! I'd love to read your blogs. Any of you out there, that I am enjoying currently, e.g. Jay Reding, M.Harden, etc.-keep up the good work.

i'm ready admit if i'm wrong. i find it hard to believe that bush would slit his own throat just to settle a vendetta. the loony left was wrong about afghanistan and they are wrong about iraq.

I agree with the Agonist completely now.

I agree with the Agonist completely now.

It takes a big man to admit he changed his mind. You are a big man, Agonist.

Jay Reding - and if you are incorrect and America kill another 100,000 Iraqi soldiers with a large percentage of civilians... why those that undertake this war may be remembered as war criminals. I grant that if you are right, then invasion may be a suitable response, but evidence comes before conviction and punishment.

If you dug up America you will find huge cachets of weapons of mass destruction. If Bush is just as mad as Saddam, and the Right have not proven that Bush is at all sane (the man is an ex-cocaine addict and alcoholic who realistically could revisit that territory and all that saves us from that is his fervent born-again Christianity), America could be described as a significant threat also. We take a lot on faith and when that is shattered with lies... well I kind of see Sean-Paul's point.

Richard,
"The kennedy boys were reckless for sure, but when it came to a pinch they backed off ww iii"

What did you think about this recent news story about the Soviet sub officer who single-handedly prevented ww3 by voting "no" to a nuclear strike when his nuclear submarine got too close to US depth charges?

My impression is that the Kennedy's didn't back off WW3, but went hell-for-leather towards it and got lucky. But there's so many conflicting versions about what was going on...

Nicolas: Unlike Saddam Hussein, if Bush went off the deep end, he's no dictator. He would quickly be removed.

I'm becoming more and more convinced that the majority of the anti-war movement doesn't care about Iraq per se - this is all based in a very personal vendetta against President Bush.

Jay: there's no doubt that some anti-war folks are opposed because Bush is the one pushing the policy, just as I'm quite certain that if this policy was being pushed by a Liberal, Conservatives would be having fits...the outrage wouldn't even be comperable. Any argument to the contrary is laughable.

That said, like Agonist, I'm about 3/4's off the fence...although not totally. I've accepted the continuing lies in the sense that they have to lie to the world to acheive what they really want. I've never bought the human rights argument. I've never bought that SH can't be effectively contained. I've never bought that SH would ever use WMD unless and until we placed him in a position where his survival is threatened.

What interests me most is the cold strategic ends to the neocon's goals, and the liklihood of acheiving them. Given the incompetent way this has been handled so far, I have little hope in the long term.

There's little doubt in my mind that we will find evidence that SH has WMD. He's certainly been placed in a position where he loses nothing by using them on our men and women. Even is he doesn't have them, we'll be more then happy to invent whatever we need to 'prove' to the world our case....just as we've been doing all along. There's no doubt that they'll be many scenes of joyous Iraqi's waving American flags that will be distributed by the truckload by our PR firms.

But eventually I'm afraid the lies will catch up with us. Resentment will grow, as will the ability of demagogues to feed anti-American rage.

I hope I'm wrong, and you can crow all you want when we 'win'...but I maintain that it may take 30 years to assess what we've 'won', and at what cost.

As a general comment, it is good for the rest of the world to see that we have a debate about this, that we are not war crazed imperial conquerors, that some of us are not comfortable with our current position in the world, or the immense power we wield. Ultimately,if we are wrong, democracy is self-healing and self correcting. WE, the American people, not our leadership, not George Bush, will get it right.

"For those of you on the Right who are constantly braying about Sadaam's atrocities I ask you this: where were you when Bush 41 could have solved Bosnia? Where were you when Sadaam committed genocide?

Nowhere."

Please do some research before making these claims. Many neoconservatives supported action in Bosnia, and supported more forceful action when we did decide to move. They also led the charge calling for Bush41 to finish the job the first time, and in fact have been publicly bitter about that ever since.

So kindly stick the faux "ain't I virtuous and you're not" moralism where the sun don't shine.

As for the allies... who do you mean? The USA has allies, just not the French or Germans. Well, it's pretty clear the French never had the slightest intention of removing Saddam or addressing this issue, which is completely consistent with their record since 1991 to help Saddam and weaken any sanctions or containment offered. What magic wand have you got that would change this? And if you've got it, why didn’t Democrats use it from 1992-2000? The onus is on YOU to make the case, against a considerable body of evidence, that something else was possible.

The other thing you might want to consider is your definitions of success. The real world does not require perfection.

If we invade and Saddam is dead, and the chemical and biological programs are ended, that's success. If there's a nuclear program we shut down too, that's a bonus. If the next ruler of Iraq doesn't run torture assembly lines or gas lots of people, that's positive. If full fledged working democracy breaks out, that's a bonus. We're going to try, hard, to bring that about for all kinds of good reasons - and we should keep the pressure on for that goal. But that's not the key criterion. We can still be said to have succeeded in real and important ways if Iraq stumbles along that road. Certainly enough that arguing Saddam should still be alive instead can be seen for the tendentious foolishness it would be.

If we removed Saddam and installed another military dictator, it would be an improvement and I'd acknowledge it as such. Of course, Winds of Change.NET would start much coverage of something called "Kurdistan" shortly thereafter, and push for a transition toward real liberty. Neocons would be bitter about another Bush selling out to the State Department again, but based on experiences in Latin America and elsewhere we'd also have some confidence in eventual victory. Besides, the concept that "root causes" means addressing the lack of freedom in the Arab world has quietly been part of neocon philosophy for several years now. We're not about to give it up now.

It's called "push hard, take any improvements, and apply more pressure from there." It's how real politics works. Judgements of success or failure need to take that into account too.

Well, God bless Jean-Paul.

After 9-11 (I famously was there, at Church and Barclay, watching from the 16th floor), I was pissed as all hell that Bush was hemming and hawing about taking out Saddam.

Once it became clear that the following summer that the whole thing with Saddam had NOTHING to do with 9-11, or defending our nation, or making the world safe from WMDs (look at NOrth Korea!!!), or even helping the Iraqi people (who his Dad sold out in the first place) but with re-taking the senate, Bush could go to hell. He was going to kill AMerican servicemen to be able to have a better margin of legislators to pass more tax cuts.

Well, actually, that's still the plan, eh?

talking dog: No, it isn't.

Do you honestly think that Bush is callous enough to send 250,000 American servicemen to Iraq for a bloody tax cut? That all of this is about nothing but politics?

Please.

You saw the destruction of the WTC up close. Imagine what it would be like if that had been an attack with a weapon of mass destruction. Imagine that kind of carnage with no chance to react - no hour of time to evacuate before all hell breaks loose.

We cannot wait for that to happen before we ask. We don't have the benefit of seeing troops amass at the border or having any advance warning. We live in a world where an attack could happen at any time and in any place.

Iraq's weapons of mass destruction could too easily fall into the wrong hands, either intentionally or not. If that happens, the chances for millions of casulaties becomes too great to bear.

That's why we must go to war - because the alternatives either leave the threat undealt with, or leave Hussein in power. Neither is acceptable, and the only alternative that will end this threat with any degree of finality is through military action.

Jay: the problem with your post is that it's all about reactionary thinking to fear. You've worked yerself into a lather, convinced by the rhetoric that SH is Hitler reborn. Such comparisons, as evil as he is, are nonsense.

But I'll grant you that fear is one hell of a motivator. The question is, will you be really justified in sleeping better for the rest of your days if we eliminate SH?

I don't think that this is gonna help us feel safe, at least not in the long term, but I'll be happy is I'm wrong.

I don't think political "truth" lies solely with Democrats or Republicans, so I'm leery of self-proclaimed "pundits" (on either side) who try to sell me their partisan talking points. Though I'm (generally speaking) a 'leftie,' I understood and supported the hunt for & the crushing of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Iraq is so obviously something else - and wrong, imho - that there's nothing left to say that hasn't been said a thousand times already.
People who don't think for themselves are happy to yell and hoot and blabber on and on in the blogosphere, as if it were all a game and there are "winners."
I think I've grown from reading thoughtful columns and blogs from "the other side," and don't really have much time for those who don't.
Kudos (again) to you, Sean-Paul. And to folks with reasoned, independently-formed convictions -on either side.

Maybe a little history for a beddy-bye story to take us off into the land of peaceful slumber...

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1988.htm

"Do you honestly think that Bush is callous enough to send 250,000 American servicemen to Iraq for a bloody tax cut?"

Duh. Of course he is. He'd do it in one second. You don't get to be president of the USA if you have any sense of morals or conscience. Even a mobster would have more compassion for human life. But that isn't anything specific to Bush. Political leaders have always taken decisions that slaughter millions. It's like an insanity. Recall Albright's famous statement about Iraqi children.

Actually this is an interesting piece by / about Robert McNamara thinking back to Vietnam and essentially outing himself as a war criminal.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4416703,00.html

"Robert McNamara, Defence Secretary to JFK and LBJ, talks about his crucial role in the Cuban Missile Crisis and says that his experience in the Vietnam War convinced him of the need for an international criminal court. Even if it could mean his own record coming under scrutiny."

"What did you think about this recent news story about the Soviet sub officer who single-handedly prevented ww3 by voting "no" to a nuclear strike when his nuclear submarine got too close to US depth charges?"

What does this have to do with the missile crisis?

"My impression is that the Kennedy's didn't back off WW3, but went hell-for-leather towards it and got lucky. But there's so many conflicting versions about what was going on..."

Read the Kennedy Tapes. Yes, they were lucky, very lucky. But also they bent over backwards not to get into a nuclear war.

Well, they don't call you the Agonist for nothing! Of course, I respect your position, founded as it is in honest conviction.

Allow me, however, to indulge in a little attempt at oratory, if for no other reason than to attempt to persuade you back to the better point of view.

Shall these last twelve years mean nothing? What is your response to the nearly twenty Security Council resolutions that the Iraqis have persistently defied? If the US and the UK back down now, how do you propose to stop the onslaught of terrorism that will come as terrorists become more emboldened than ever?

Now that the US and UK have antagonized Iraq over these twelve years, why should France, which has nothing to fear from its business partner Iraq, have the right to stop us from protecting our own citizens?

The US and the UK have no way of sealing their borders. If your policy was implemented, Saddam Hussein would have nuclear weapons within a few years time. How then would you propose to deal with him?

There was a problem with the intelligence relating to one item of thousands of items on the agenda for Iraqi disarmament. Are you prepared to say that that matters more than the tons upon tons of biological and chemical weapons stores of Saddam Hussein? Are you prepared to say that Iraq's record of expansionism and support for terrorism mean nothing/

Why should international law mean so much when applied against the US and the UK, and so little when applied against Iraq?

A week ago, a man was interviewed on a cable channel, MSNBC. He told the story of how he was a political prisoner of Saddam's for 22 days. It wasn't a big deal he said. He told of how he was tortured for 3 of those days--punched and kicked repeatedly. That wasn't a big deal either, he said. He told how the only thing that really got to him was the sound that the children from the next room made. Their parents were in for questioning. The Iraqi secret police were using electric drills to put holes in the kids' bones. Their cries were the only thing that really affected him.

If he does that to his own country's children, what would he do to his enemies, including Americans, had he the chance?

Sean-Paul, you're a friend of mine. I respect your opinion. As a friend, I just felt the need to try to persuade you. That's all.

DavidByron,

That is absolutely the single most cynical view of humanity I have ever heard, although I think that a majority of antiwarriors share it with you. Would you consider yourself anarchistic? Nihilistic? Because that is your line of reasoning.

Obviously, blind faith in our leadership is never a good idea.

Neither is blind distrust.

Choose neither.

Sean-Paul,

I admire your openmindedness. I think I mentioned that to you before.

What if we find no nuclear weapons, but rather find the remnants of an active nuclear program?

What if we find a large stockpile of chemical weapons and their delivery mechanisms?

What if we find biological weapons, like smallpox, as well as a plan for aerosol dispersal?

What if we find mass graves?

What if we find children or women in torture chambers?

What if we find no evidence of a connection with al Qaeda, but rather evidence of a link to some other terrorist organization with deep US or French roots?

True, Saddam is no Hitler. He's more like Stalin. Nonetheless, how ruthless does a dictator really have to be before he justifies armed removal? Do you recall that, before 1942, most Americans viewed Hitler as an ambitious dictator, not as the most dangerous man who ever lived?

Rip Rowan

"Neither is blind distrust."

Blind? Hardly. You're just naive.

I don't know if I can respond to a thread this old or not, but I just wanted to respond to Rip Rowan's question of "How ruthless does a dictator really have to be before he justifies armed removal?"

I'd just like to say that moral rationalizations like this, to me, seem dangerous. Their logical extension results in conclusions supporting the position of removing a good number of governments in Africa and elsewhere (which perhaps wouldn't be a bad thing, but where is the line between helping others and imposing one's morals (and culture?) on others whether they like it or not?)

Taking the moral high-ground is fine when you can do so without fear of extinction (literally or philosophicaly). But if another party is hitting below the belt one best adapt or get knocked out of the fight for survival.

So perhaps a question to consider is to what extent was Saddam hitting the US below the belt? Not very much, in my opinion. No one cries when one bacteria colony invades another one and or even kills it off. As nations compete for natural resources, power, and influence, are they so different save for the scale of the violence they carry out, and the variety of methods by which they compete (cold-war, hot-war, general trickery)?

Just some thoughts. I'm not dispassionate as my thoughts may make me sound. Perhaps I'm being a bit of a devil's advocate.

Cheers.