April 24, 2003
Judith And All That
All right, so her colleauges have administered to Judith Miller a good old-fashioned spanking over the journalistic ethics of her "wacky-assed" New York Times piece purporting to have shewn that Iraq destroyed its illicit weapons just prior to the war.
Good enough. But what if the claims of Iraqi chicanery were true? Some obvious conclusions would follow. But alas, the obvious related next-questions are not being asked.
As discussed previously, recently destroyed (or recently shipped-to-Syria) weapons would be indicative of a recently operating weapons programme and facilities -- which could not have on a moment's notice been hidden, destroyed, or trucked out-of-country. So now we've found the "silver bullet", where the fuck is the gun?
Curiously, neither is anybody questioning the source and timing of the "revelations". That is to say, why wasn't the U.S. intelligence apparatus, which had made such a dramatic display of being able to detect weapons production and movements, able to detect their subsequent destruction and/or transshipment?
Even more bizarre, though, is the story's implication that the new "findings" justify the Bush Administration having undertaken the war. The war, we'll remember, was -- according to the Administration -- necessary because the Administration had obtained proof that Iraq was not disarming. Now the Administration would have us believe that Iraq did disarm before the war was initiated! (Yes, it would also prove that Saddam had been lying all along. But his late-as-it-was disarming would nevertheless have obviated the need for a war to "disarm" him.) And let's not have any whining that the Administration didn't know 'til now that the weapons had been destroyed: if it knew that he hadn't been disarming, it surely would have known when he had disarmed. In hyping this "story", the Administration is shooting its own argument in the foot (gee, there's a first) -- yet everybody's acting as if it's doing the opposite. "Wacky-assed", indeed.
Finally, how about let's take a deep breath and ponder the logic of such an action? Why the shit would Saddam begin destroying weapons days before the war (even if not within the T-minus-48-hour period, he was well aware that the writing was on the wall weeks before the war's initiation) and not fucking tell anybody? That would have been "classic" Saddam behaviour, as defined by Bush and Blair: drop a bombshell at the latest possible hour, pushing the deadline back yet again. But in not telling anybody, he'd be hoping that, what, he could weather out the initial storm in a cave somewhere, then be allowed back into power after having been vindicated? But even if that had been his plan, why wait until days before the war? He'd been planning all along to use them during the war, but got cold feet right at the end, there? Please, people.
Update: The Blair Administration agrees with this blog's analysis of the "recently-destroyed theory", maintaining that, "We know that his regime has had WMD and there is a lot of work going on to discover its whereabouts. If Saddam was destroying his WMD capacity or had destroyed it, it is not unreasonable to think he might have told the inspectors."
This puts him in contradiction with some segments of the Bush Administration, and, along with his claims that doubters will be "eating some of" their words, has set him up for a major fall if weapons are not found. Blair, like his friends in the U.S., remains "absolutely convinced and confident about the case on weapons of mass destruction." But, also like his friends in the U.S., offers no evidence to support his convictions.
Posted by Eddie Tews at April 24, 2003 11:06 PM
Comments
Eddie, Pardon my absence of late. I didn't want you to think you had silenced your critics, I think we have just grown tired of wasting words on you. We constantly shoot your sad arguments full of holes, yet you keep coming back with more and more of the same old crap. I have quickly skimmed over your last two responses, and can state that they are as unimpressive as usual, so I will not respond to them here. I want to make one point and then ask you a question which I'm sure you will not satisfactorily answer. First, my point: you decided, long before the first shot was fired in this war, that you were against the war, no matter what. The problem with this line of thinking is that at no stage did you try to clear your head of preconceived biases and consider all aspects of the issue before deciding on your stance. This is what I have done and I'm sure that Frank Rizzo guy did as well. What you have done is the equivalent being a juror and deciding on guilty or innocent before hearing the case, and then later deciding which bits of testimony or evidence you will allow to support your decision. Your line of thinking is completely ass backwards. If you should choose to answer the question I am about to ask you, we will all see this. The question is: how would YOU, Eddie Tews, with your great mind and noble heart, have handled this situation, but making sure that we accomplished our objectives (i.e. the disarmament of Iraq)? I am guessing that you will either say we should have done nothing at all, or that we should have given Saddam an infinite amount of time for inspections, though this would have meant that he could have continued working on his weapons and hiding them, putting our country at risk. Knowing this, please give one answer however you see fit, and then give another answer that ASSUMES you have seen top secret, classified informatin that convinces you that Saddam Hussein did in fact have WMD and would have convinced you to do something. I ask this because no one wants to hear you cop out by saying Iraq never had anything to begin with. You have done nothing but criticize the Bush administration since the get-go, as though you yourself had a better way of doing things. So, Eddie, put up or shut up time. Let's hear it. -- Posted by: Bill Whitlock on April 26, 2003 05:00 PM
I never know where to begin with regard to Bill's comments, and I'm still not entirely convinced they aren't an extremely subtle form of parody. So I can't imagine trying to address them point by point, but the idea that one should reserve judgement on the rightness or wrongness of a war until *after* the first shots have been fired ... well, yeehaw! That is one of the wildest, zaniest things I've ever heard. I am in awe. Party with me, Bill Whitlock! -- Posted by: Brian Huddell on April 26, 2003 08:18 PM
Who cares? If Sadaam did not want to be invaded and forcibly removed from power, then he shoul dhave provided documentation that proved he no longer had weapons of mass destruction.
We kno whe had them, look at the UNSCOM website, it details a pretty big list of unaccounted WMD's.
So where did they go? Why did't Sadaam tell us?
We enforced resolution 1440, and the world is a little be better off for it. -- Posted by: Jay on April 27, 2003 07:29 AM
I think it's safe to say that our good friend "Brian Huddell" has completely missed the point of my post. Surprising? No. lol -- Posted by: Bill Whitlock on April 27, 2003 11:22 AM
I didn't go anywhere near the "point" of "Bill Whitlock"'s post (btw, what's up with the quotes around my name? You think anybody would go to the trouble of making up a name as dull as that?). I couldn't care less about the point of the post (I'll summarize it in 4 words: "if not war, what?" See, I read the whole thing). Instead, I wanted to celebrate the rare beauty of his suggestion that Eddie should be criticized for opposing the war "long before the first shot was fired". That's one I had not seen before, and I couldn't bear the thought of it slipping away unnoticed. I wanna get crazy with you, Bill Whitlock! -- Posted by: Brian Huddell on April 27, 2003 02:40 PM
My point had nothing to do with the timing of Eddie's decision, but with his means of arriving at it. this is the point you missed. I was saying that no matter what evidence we had against Iraq, none of it would have been good enough for Eddie and those who think like him, because, as Frank Rizzo said in an earlier post, his motive isn't truly peace, but simply to complain. Guys like Eddie care nothing about what it truly takes to maintain peace in our world, and they care nothing for the FACT that sometimes, in order to ensure peace, nations will have to fight each other and people will have to die. This is unfortunate, but is an undeniable reality of our human existence. Anyone who ever says "We will never support war" is giving the enemy free reign to do whatever it wants because it knows it will never have to actually have its resolve tested. The U.S. doesn't subscribe to that philosophy. We're a country of action and believe in holding people accountable.
All Eddie really wants to do is COMPLAIN so he can get noticed and hopefully fool a few idiots into thinking he's an intelligent person. His whole world view revolves around his ego and his need to feel revered. Guys like Eddie have big egos because they think they're incredibly intelligent and feel that the only way they can demonstrate this intelligence is to go against the grain, to speak out against the government because the government is controlling "the masses" with their propaganda, and guys like Eddie are just too smart to buy into said propaganda. Their superior intellect quickly identifies all the falsehoods being disseminated by our government everyday. Since they're so much smarter than the rest of us, they feel it is their duty to create websites like Eddie's so they can inform the rest of us who aren't smart enough to figure things out on our own and who simply eat whatever the government spoon feeds us. Guys like Eddie feel that they are SOOOO unique and that the only way they can make themselves heard or noticed in this world with 6 billion people is to decide that they will oppose the government in whatever it tries to do (the government's motives are irrelevent, Eddie will be against them, whatever they are, no matter what).
If you don't believe that this is really Eddie's modus operandi, ask yourself why Eddie has "CAPITALISM FUCK OFF NOW" in big bold letters on his homepage. Capitalism has proven to be the most efficient form of economy in the history of the world, but that, of course, isn't good enough for Eddie because it satisfies the rest of the intelligent world, and anything that satisfies the masses must be flawed. I guess Eddie is a socialist or a communist, though the world has seen first hand how those governments fare in the long run. Never mind that the U.S. has the strongest and freest economy in the world! Eddie has a better way! Never mind that many companies started in America have caught on in the rest of the world! This isn't because there is demand for it, oh no! It is because the U.S. is forcing its evil seed on the world! We are FORCING people around the world to watch the NBA, watch movies, eat Big Macs and drink Coca-Cola! Never mind that tons and tons of immigrants from around the world come to the U.S. every year so they can start a business of their own or simply get a job and live free so they can have a chance at life! Eddie has a better way! Never mind that our country, though far from perfect, is still the greatest, most free nation in the history of the world! Never mind that here you are free to pursue your dreams as long as you "live and let live". Eddie has a better way! Never mind that every government institution in this country is offset by a form of checks and balances (which would include our free press)! Eddie has a better way! Never mind that our leaders are elected by the people! Eddie has a better way! Our whole country is just one long string of fuck-ups, one right after another!
I think Eddie's "better way" is to put him in charge. Yes, I think that would do us some good. Let Eddie be the Dictator of the U.S. so he can get in bed with his buddy Saddam. Since the combined intellect of our entire government can't stack up to Eddie's alone (which Eddie MUST feel is the case by virtue of his continued criticism on this website), I am fully ready to support a campaign to do away with our system of government and put Eddie in charge. Eddie, do us a favor and appoint yourself Dictator. Surely, all of us sheep whom you have striven to free from our mental handcuffs would support you and thank you! The world would thank you for being rid of The Great Satan!
What Eddie and those who would agree with him fail to realize is that when you have the best minds in the country working together to resolve situations like this war, the best option will eventually reveal itself in the process of examining all the variables and all the different scenarios, possible courses of action, and possible outcomes. Whatever solution is finally decided upon will not be perfect and will not please everyone. But our government must look out for our nation's best interests. That is its job. If it comes down to an "us or them" decision, we must look out for ourselves. This war is a classic "us or them." If the U.S. was as evil as Eddie would have you believe, we would just remove Saddam and walk away, leaving Iraq to fend for itself. But instead, we spend billions upon billions of our own dollars to feed the Iraqi people and help get their country back on its feet again, just like we did with Japan and West Germany (note: look at those countries now). Also, living in a safer world is a pretty nice ancillary benefit, many would argue. But not Eddie! People like Eddie, since they like to think of themselves as so smart, disregard this simply because it is what our government chose to do--nevermind that it was our best option. Eddie and his cohorts would rather put our country in harm's way than defend it if defending it meant being proactive and hurting someone else. Eddie needs to realize that this is simply the way the world works. It is imperfect and you can NEVER please everyone, though Eddie would spend his life arguing that you could. This is why I told Eddie to put up or shut up. When he fails to come up with a realistic solution, I'm hoping the rest of you will realize that all he ever wanted to do was complain because he is safely wrapped in his blanket of "not having to actually solve the problem or come up with solutions himself". Yes, it's very easy to criticize when you have zero responsibility but quite a bit harder to actually do the job. I would also hope that it would make Eddie himself realize that there is no perfect solution to the problem, though he would have you believe he could come up with one.
Eddie, your entire bitchy little website makes no effort to solve the problem or come up with a better solution. All you do is complain about the aspects of this war that fall into the category of not being able to please everyone. Your ideas are trite and your means of arriving at them are rote by now. All you mean to do is complain. If you didn't have this war to complain about, you'd find something else. Guys like you are a complete joke to those intelligent people in the world who approach every problem they face with an open mind and try to formulate a realistic solution, whereas you simply decide you want to go against the grain regardless of the issue simply to get yourself noticed and kid yourself into thinking you're so unique or intelligent.
You know what Eddie? You are unique! Just like everybody else...
p.s. hey Eddie, just to satisfy the morbid curiosity of those who visit this website, why don't you tell us a little personal info about yourself? Where you're from, where you live, age, race, sexual preference, religious affiliation, level of education, occupation, etc. Anything interesting that would help us to better understand where you're coming from. A picture would be nice, too. I'm hoping I could have it printed onto some toilet paper to make going to the bathroom more of an event! -- Posted by: Bill Whitlock on April 27, 2003 04:38 PM
Not that I'll be missed but this is my last response to Bill Whitlock. He's constructed this fantasy of who Eddie is, his "real" motivations and beliefs, and he does it in an extremely ugly (and freakishly verbose) manner. It's uncomfortably personal, and certainly beside the point of this blog, at least as I see it. You can agree or disagree with Mr. Whitlock's political views all you want, but you have to ask yourself what special powers he used in developing his psychological profile of the blogger. Anyway it's shit, it's no fun and it's not nice. I'm not going to play. -- Posted by: Brian Huddell on April 27, 2003 06:26 PM
Response to Jay: • While Blix had hoped for more "proactive" compliance, he said that he needed some more months to determine whether the unaccounted-for WMDs were still in existence or not, and has since railed at the U.S. for undercutting UNMOVIC's work. • 1441 would not have passed had it authorised the use of force. Even the U.S., in attempting to gain passage of a second resolution, recognised this.
Response to Bill: • Rather convenient, is it not, that you have "grown tired of wasting words" on addressing this blog's arguments, yet spend hundreds of words engaging in irrelevant psychoanalysis? • Do not your charges of "fitting the facts to the desired conclusion" seem hypocritical in light of your strategy of issuing ad hominem attacks in lieu of addressing this blog's arguments? (Arguments, it might be added, that are referenced with buttloads of links.) • Read to the bottom of "Crippled Inside" to see how I think Saddam ought to have been dealt with. And maybe in future try reading posts before commenting upon them. • As 90% of the world's population was opposed to the war, taking an anti-war position can hardly be considered "against the grain". As 14 bajillion people maintain blogs, adding one more to the fray can hardly make one feel "unique". • You haven't brought forward any evidence "against Iraq" (whatever that's supposed to mean), and have ignored requests to include your e-mail addresses in comments so that I or others might extend the lines of communication. As mentioned, I want to discuss this issue with those who disagree with me, but don't think a blog's comment form is the appropriate forum. So, again, what is it that you are afraid of? • How if you e-mail me a picture of yourself nekkid? If I like what I see, then I'll perhaps take you up on your request for "a little personal info" about myself. -- Posted by: Eddie Tews on April 28, 2003 02:35 PM
* I told you Eddie, I'm done arguing with you about your politics because it's like talking to a brick wall. Hopefully this will be my last ever response on this board, but I'm sure you will make another asinine display and present it as gospel, which I will not be able to let pass without jumping on. We'll see.
* Your "buttloads of links" I have frequently perused. They are usually from completely biased sources, sources you misinterpret to fit your point of view, sources that are a complete JOKE (e.g. citing statements made by junior enlisted personnel as though they are representative of the U.S.'s view) or sources that have no authority in the situation whatsoever (e.g. you citing Amnesty sources or the Red Cross who say "please stop using cluster bombs because they kill people" when talking about interpretting the Geneva Conventions). All those links did was affirm that there are lots of people like you who don't know what they're talking about and would be better served by another hobby or line of work. I guess you're saying that if you're wrong en masse, it makes you right. Wrong!
* I refuse to give you my email address because I'm not stupid. If you disagree with something I say, I would argue that this forum is the BEST kind for discussion. That way, others can see both our points of view and are free to respond. What good would it do to have these discussions privately? I have no doubt that the real reason you want my email is so you can forward it out to your idiotic buddies or networks who would inundate my inbox with crap. No thanks, Eddie.
* As for your 90% (which is inflated) and against the grain thing...I clearly stated that you were anti-government, and since (I'm assuming) you're an American (or at least you portend to be with your incessant attacks on the American government), AND considering that roughly 70% of the American people are FOR the war, this WOULD in fact make you the minority IN THE U.S. This matters because it is the U.S. that you are constantly criticizing, not "the rest of the world". So yes, you ARE going against the grain. It is unfortunate that the rest of the world, including some of our allies, are not with us on this, but they have that luxury. They have the luxury of not being A#1 in terrorist states' and terrorist networks' crosshairs. We did what we had to do.
* I think you need to look up the definition of 'ad hominem', because none of my "attacks" have been. They were based on REASON, whereas yours were based on the desire to complain.
* As for your "solution" at the end of "Crippled Inside"...uh, you're joking, right? THAT'S your solution?! Pfffff! I'm gonna go laugh for the next ten minutes...okay I'm back, sides hurt. Yes, let's just pull out of the entire region and let the Iraqi people disarm Saddam! I mean, since we keep "flooding the region with arms" (though funny that the Iraqis always seem to show up with AK-47s and Soviet-era T-series tanks...hmmmm), we are supplying Saddam's regime with the weapons it needs to surpress its people! As for your incredibly idiotic view about U.S. sanctions...of course they were directed at Saddam's regime and not at the Iraqi people, you dumb fuck. The problem is that in a place where a dictator has absolute power, whatever is taken from the government by sanctions is in turn taken from the people by the government. Can't you see that Saddam is going to get his, no matter what, as long as he is in power? He builds palace after palace while his people starve. He doesn't care. Don't you understand that his people are absolutely powerless to oppose him? And your feeble-minded solution is to "let the people disarm him"? Are you joking? How is it possible to be so fucking stupid?! Oh, also, don't look now, but you used the term "admirable" to describe Saddam's regime. Way to go, shit head.
* I hope the rest of your readership realizes that you craftily attempted to dodge my challenge about a REALISTIC solution, not a completely kindergarten level, know-nothing one like the one you offerred. Let's pretend for a moment that your previously discussed "solution" would work sometime in the next 10 million years. I also asked you to present a solution under the assumption that you were privy to the intelligence (i.e. Top Secret, classified info) that the Bush administration is, AND that that info convinced you that Saddam's regime did in fact currently possess WMD, which is clearly a threat to our nation. Basically, you HAD to do SOMETHING; you could not sit back and ride it out indefinitely like you would like to do. So again, we're waiting to hear your brilliant plan, Eddie.
* Incidentally, isn't it funny that you present yourself as a guy who is smarter than the combined intellect of our government (because you can clearly see how stupid our government's plans are), yet your "solution" is not only completely unrealistic, but arriving at it required about as much intelligence and understanding of the situation as one would expect a kindergarten student to possess? -- Posted by: Bill Whitlock on April 28, 2003 08:17 PM
oh I forgot to add this:
I guess your request for a picture of me "nekkid" answers my question about your sexual orientation, but we're still curious about the rest of you. -- Posted by: Bill (again) on April 28, 2003 08:26 PM
Bill,
I have an idea about something to "do" about proloferation:
1)Not destroy the UN 2)Argue for enforcing UN resolutions across the board (that includes Israel) before saying it justifies war 3)Support the Syrian backed resolution that the Middle East be a zone free of WMD (we won't because Bush thinks Israel somehow has a right to chem bio and nuc weapons) and strenghthen the UN 4)Not pursue "usable nucs" which leads to prolif 5)Not pull out of the nuclear test ban treaty so that we can pursue usable nucs 6)Take our nucs off high alert 7)Quit developing chemical weapons 8)Engage in diplomacy (not talking to N Korea is not the way to pursue a diplomatic solution) 9)Not pull out of the ABM treaty 10)Reign in arms sales (including ours) etc.
You will dismiss this faith in international institutions as niave I assume but I dismiss your idea that we can reshape the middle east as niave. Watch as Iraq launches an intifada against the occupation; watch as we kill thousands and thousands more; watch as we eventually pull out (probably some years later after expanding the war to Syria and Iran) without accomplishing anything.
Plus, it doesn't actually look like Iraq was developing WMD. And Hans Blix thought that he could disarm Iraq whether they wanted to cooperate or not. But maybe Scott Ritter already did that. I'm glad killing thousands of people in one of the poorest countries on earth makes you feel safer though. -- Posted by: ted on April 29, 2003 02:06 PM
I don't have time for much comment, but I actually agree with many (not all) of your points 1-10 above. There is definitely some hypocrisy in U.S. foreign policy, especially with regards to Israel, which is a big part of the reason "they" hate us. However, your points are long-term goals and I don't think any of those items mentioned would have helped in the situation with Saddam. There is a word frequently tossed around that we like to use to describe people who don't agree with us, but Saddam truly is, and that word is "crazy." The guy is nuts and would have done anything to stay in power, no matter who or how many he had to kill. Anyone willing to kill members of his own family surely isn't going to care about his population. The man was evil and needed to be removed. There's no denying that.
Also, to your comment about Blix thinking he could have disarmed Iraq, I would say: so? Who's to say Blix is so much smarter than our government? Blix says he could do it, we said it couldn't be done without force. Just because Blix says it doesn't mean it was truly possible. I mean, did you ever consider that maybe he's wrong? I, for one, disagree with him, as did our government. But the world will never know if Blix was right or not because we've chosen a different course of action, so speculating is moot. -- Posted by: Bill Whitlock on April 30, 2003 10:09 AM
Saddam, you ask. 1)We put him in power 2)We sold him the weapons 3)We made excuses for him as he used them (including when he used them against the Kurds)
To deal with Saddam's wmd we could have not done those three things.
Yes, Saddam is crazy. But so was Reagan. Rumsfeld doesn't seem to have his shit together either; he wants to pull out of the test ban treaty to make mini-nucs. He calls the usable nucs. He also is trying to force a very big war on us. I mean on them.
You will say that they are not that crazy, but why is it that we only assume brown people are too crazy for these weapons? Why?
Would you be OK with Syria launching a war to disarm Israel? Why not?
Think about it. I'll check back for your answer. -- Posted by: ted on May 1, 2003 05:48 PM