Leaked BBC Memo

May 7, 2005 10:08 AM

Leaked BBC Memo from 2002 shows that Bush asked UK to find some justification for going to war with Iraq. Despite a "WMD capability [that] was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran". The memo says they need "a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would help with the legal justification for the use of force." In other words, all those people who said the US/UK were just making it up to go to war were right. Anyone surprised this isn't getting any US news coverage?
posted by Brockstar (93 comments total)

More US focused link:
from the Seattle Times
posted by Brockstar at 10:10 AM on May 7, 2005

Is this different from last week's memo?
posted by meehawl at 10:16 AM on May 7, 2005

The problem is that criticizing the US government seems to be unpatriotic and boders on treason (that's how I see it in the attitudes of the Republicans).

There really isn't anything that we, as Americans can do, except bitch about it (and not elect a Republican in office again).

Plus, the religious right won't pay attention to this and still say that the war was justified.
posted by C17H19NO3 at 10:17 AM on May 7, 2005

(Unrelated)

Really the only good Bush.
posted by C17H19NO3 at 10:21 AM on May 7, 2005

Anyone surprised this isn't getting any US news coverage?
Not surprised any more, sadly. What passes for journalism is pathetic.
posted by amberglow at 10:23 AM on May 7, 2005

Is this different from last week's memo?

I don't think so (even if that link to the earlier post seems to like to crash my browser, so I can't check for sure.)

Here's the actual story on the memo. No, it wasn't covered much at all in the U.S. And apparently the British voters didn't care either.

the point is that after that meeting we decided to go back to the UN and give him a last chance.

Heh. Translation: "the point is that after that meeting we decided to go along with the Bush administration's plan and use a premise of Saddam's violating another U.N. resolution to give us the impetus to invade." Or somethinig like that.
posted by mrgrimm at 10:45 AM on May 7, 2005

The Seattle newspapers (as linked above) seem to be doing OK at reporting this sort of story. The judge's dismissal of Lynndie England's "I acted alone, really!" plea, for example, was on the front page of at least one of our major dailies, as was the government's new godawful biometric ID card scheme.

Of course, Seattle is kind of lefty, where by "kind of lefty" I mean "a lot of people here don't think it's such a good idea to build massive prison camps and ship people there with no trial, or to start wars with no visible justification, etc.".
posted by hattifattener at 10:47 AM on May 7, 2005

Three polls published on Sunday give Labour a vote share of between 36% and 39%.

I don't know about you guys, but I think Labour's gonna do all right. They'll lose some seats, but Blair will certainly stay in power.

"Dissemble" is a great verb to describe Blair's actions.
posted by mrgrimm at 10:47 AM on May 7, 2005

But, but, we went to war to give Iraq the Gift of Democracy! Nobody said we went to war because of WMDs.
posted by orthogonality at 10:55 AM on May 7, 2005

Is this different from last week's memo?

Yes, this is apparently referring to the same document discussed last week (the minutes of a Downing Street meeting).

Full text here.
posted by gubo at 10:56 AM on May 7, 2005

Er, I meant no, not yes.
posted by gubo at 10:58 AM on May 7, 2005

"If WMDs are not found in Iraq, and in large quantity (or at least objective evidence that they were destroyed), then, in terms of American politics, the war was a sham, and the President should be indicted. — posted by ParisParamus at 11:57 AM EST on April 29"
posted by AlexReynolds at 11:03 AM on May 7, 2005

The memo just isn't a smoking gun. The only thing really surprising is: 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.

What does "fixed" mean? Does it mean finagled to say what Bush needed to justify an invasion as liberal bloggers have implied? Perhaps. However, it could also mean that the present intelligence was not yet adequate and that the final pieces were being gathered. Certainly, that is what Bushco will argue. Since no one can prove otherwise, no smoking gun. Even if it were the smoking gun what can you do? The election is over and the GOP controlled legislative branch will never impeach him.
posted by caddis at 11:10 AM on May 7, 2005

AlexReynolds writes " 'If WMDs are not found in Iraq, and in large quantity (or at least objective evidence that they were destroyed), then, in terms of American politics, the war was a sham, and the President should be indicted.' — posted by ParisParamus at 11:57 AM EST on April 29""

"Well, we had an accountability moment, and that's called the 2004 election. — President George W. Bush, 15 January 2005
posted by orthogonality at 11:12 AM on May 7, 2005

One of the few times Bush was right.
posted by caddis at 11:15 AM on May 7, 2005

By that I mean the people just didn't care about or want to believe the lies, the missteps, the lack of WMDs, the mounting insurgency, whatever. They are just afraid of terrorists and they want some terrorists killed. The fact that it may not actually reduce terrorists attacks against them is another one of the messy details they don't really want to consider. So Bush was right; that was the only accounting he would be held to and he was nevertheless re-elected. Any further accounting will have to wait, most likely, until the war is long over.
posted by caddis at 11:21 AM on May 7, 2005

Bush wanted to oust Saddam Hussein from the start, as payback for the first Gulf War. We allegedly won the first Gulf War, but the guy was still in power. That's not a win. That's a political standoff. Shrub's real reason for getting in there was to finish what his father started. We all knew that before Clinton left office, so anyone who claims surprise now is either pigheaded or their head's been in the sand for the past decade.

I've never wanted Bush in office for that very reason, as well as others. I can't argue that Saddam didn't deserve to be ousted. The man was killing his own people. His own flesh and blood. I can't say unequivocably that Bush was wrong in doing what he did. However, I still believe violence doesn't do anything but create more problems, and the ramifications of the second attack on Iraq have yet to be fully felt. The next several years are gonna have a lot of "accountability moments" in them. Personally I'm dreading the whole horrid thing. "It's absolutely ghastly."

God help me if people start quoting crap I've spouted in here in the past. I've said some wacky stuff in MeFi over the years. To think it could come back to haunt me is also dreadful ghastly. I plan to hide behind ParisParamus when the revolution comes, because I'm allergic to bullets.
posted by ZachsMind at 11:23 AM on May 7, 2005

It may be a repost but, you know, I don't think you can hear about this too much. I'm actually surprised how little attention it has received to date. It may simply confirm what everyone thought but, my god, they admit the war was inevitable, that the case was thin, that they were working on the assumption that the UK would help in military action and that they had to find a way to spin it politically.
posted by digiboy at 11:31 AM on May 7, 2005

apparently the British voters didn't care either.

I'm not sure that this memo adds much to what people in the UK believed as to Blair's war already. And the war certainly played a major part in the election campaign, more or less forcing Blair to bring Brown into the centre of the campaign, and make signals to the effect that if you voted Labour, you'd have a new PM in next to no time.

Everyone who went out to meet the electors agrees that Blair was extremely unpopular, and that Iraq played a large part in his unpopularity. Although the inner circle is still trying to spin this as largely a concern of the chattering classes, and that 'ordinary folks' were more up-in-arms over bread-and-butter issues, it looks very much as if there was a massive and popular rejection of the war in Iraq.
posted by TimothyMason at 11:32 AM on May 7, 2005

"If WMDs are not found in Iraq, and in large quantity (or at least objective evidence that they were destroyed), then, in terms of American politics, the war was a sham, and the President should be indicted. — posted by ParisParamus at 11:57 AM EST on April 29"

Yea, how IS that working out ?
posted by rough ashlar at 11:49 AM on May 7, 2005

ZachsMind - the whole "finish what daddy started" meme is absurd and naive. Did he plan to go back to Iraq? You bet. We went to Iraq because they've got oil, and because controlling Iraq is a solid step towards the ultimate goal of controlling the Middle East - ostensibly to "give the gift of democracy," but realistically to make lots of insider money, to control greater quantities of the world's dwindling fossil fuels, and if by chance, we happen to stir the pot in the meantime and keep those hardine Qutb islamists pissed at us, all the better justification for whatever new draconian Fatherland Security initiative we need to sneak through congress in the dead of night, as a rider to a bill for the protection of orphans from tiger attacks, or something equally unrelated.
posted by stenseng at 12:27 PM on May 7, 2005

I can't argue that Saddam didn't deserve to be ousted. The man was killing his own people.

I never really understood the emotional rhetoric of this talking point that was repeated ad nauseum by the pro-invasion bunch in the months leading up to the ground war phase.

Why is it that a distinction is made between "his" people and (presumably) people owned by someone else? I've read tedious analyses of the villages that were gassed, and their relative sovereignty at that monent in time, and people arguing that there were either under Iraqi, Iranian, or unilaterally independent sovereignty. Like that made a whole lot of difference to the people being gassed! Would Saddam have been less terrible is he had been killing someone else's people? Was that why the US and Europe looked on as the Iran-Iraq war killed several million people, pausing only to sell chemical, biological, and military weapons any of the sides willing to pay? Why the undue focus on only a single horrible incident out of a multitude of horrifying acts in a war that left Iran only second after Japan in terms of the numbers of people killed and wounded by weapons of mass destruction?

So why is it that exterminating your "own" people in historical terms doesn't usually get you into the warfare record books (think of the terrible tallies of deaths attributed to Hitler (external!) versus, say, Mao or Stalin (internal!)). Hitler is usually seen as a greater monster than either of these, despite his piddlingly little absolute numbers, because most of the deaths he caused were external to Germany proper while they focussed on internal social psychopathy.

Finally, in absolute terms, how many deaths in Iraq resulted as a direct consequence of 1st-order intentional actions by Saddam and his thugs, versus those massive increases in child mortality resulting as a consequence of the UN-directed sanctions seige of Iraq? And can a simple calculus of deaths, and their "ownership" as mediated through the concept of sovereignty, really generate any meaningful conclusions?

Given the fact that those mortality deaths resulted from the continued resistance of Saddam to compliance with UN resolutions, coupled with a particularly resolute and effective enforcement regime sponsored by the US, the UK, and France, who committed the greater evil? Saddam, by refusing to surrender his imperial ambitions? The UN administration, by continuing the sanctions even when it became obvious they would not dislodge Saddam from power? Or the Coalition, by failing for years to mount a ground invasion of Iraq and hence bring an end to the sanctions regime? Or the Coalition, for choosing to focus so much of their not inconsiderable talents and diplomatic expertise and military assets on maintaining the rigidity of the sanctions regime for so many years, even as other so-called sanctions regimes throughout the world (either extant or proposed) have proved so porous and ineffectual or complete non-starters? Or finally the Coalition, for choosing to finally invade Iraq with ground forces, bringing an immediate end to the sanctions regime at the cost of several tens of thousands (possibly increasing to six figures given some estimates) of Iraqi lives?

In the end I arrive back at this phrase: killing his own people. It sounds good, but what does it mean, really?
posted by meehawl at 12:34 PM on May 7, 2005

88 MEMBERS OF CONGRESS CALL FOR IMMEDIATE ANSWERS ABOUT SECRET BUSH/BLAIR PRE-WAR DEAL
posted by amberglow at 12:57 PM on May 7, 2005

This story reminds me that Captain Obvious is always on the lookout!
posted by clevershark at 1:04 PM on May 7, 2005

ZachsMind writes "The man was killing his own people."

George W. Bush signed off on 152 executions during his tenure as governor of Texas.
posted by clevershark at 1:06 PM on May 7, 2005

"If WMDs are not found in Iraq, and in large quantity..."

Oh come on now, it's hardly fair to throw PP's own words right back to him, is it? ;-)
posted by clevershark at 1:09 PM on May 7, 2005

The more or less total lack of opposition to the war inside the establishment continues to hold.

This makes me wonder if the "war on the cheap" strategy isn't partly directed at keeping elite opinion from dividing over the war. It's a plain fact that there is less disagreement in higher political circles than at the grassroots.

During the Vietnam war, the turning point came with the Tet Offensive. A military defeat and a political victory for the VC / NVA, it fractured the unanimity among American opinion leaders. Previously, they had whistled past the graveyard.

But until elite opinion forms an anti-war faction, no news from the past is going to have much influence on either elite or public opinion.

If and when such a split occurs at the top, then historical information will become more influential, just as the Pentagon Papers only mattered once there was an elite political faction that thought it could gain (or not lose) power by opposing the war.

But for now, grassroots opinion (as sharply divided as it is) will not have much influence on the political establishment.
posted by warbaby at 1:16 PM on May 7, 2005

warbaby writes " This makes me wonder if the 'war on the cheap' strategy..."

Well, the war may have been fought on the cheap initially -- as in, with too few forces on the ground to be able to secure the country, as we have all seen -- but just this past week Congress approved yet another $80 billion for it... it's not quite so cheap now. It's still early in the year too; there will probably be more funds allocated for the war in 2005.
posted by clevershark at 1:25 PM on May 7, 2005

To think that the threat the Iraqi regime posed, or the good that was done by removing it, can be measured in WMDs is simplistic.
posted by koeselitz at 1:29 PM on May 7, 2005

And the ends justify the means, right koeselitz?
posted by Balisong at 1:42 PM on May 7, 2005

Can it be measured by the number civilians killed as a result of military action?
posted by clevershark at 1:52 PM on May 7, 2005

Normally, I would rant about this being a double post, but given that I made the initial post, and the American press widely ignored the story, I'd say it's definitely worth repeating, especially because of the recent developments.

"88 MEMBERS OF CONGRESS CALL FOR IMMEDIATE ANSWERS ABOUT SECRET BUSH/BLAIR PRE-WAR DEAL"

As I said last week when the memo was leaked:
"So, what are you doing about it? Have you contacted your paper / congressperson yet? Have you talked to your friends and family about this matter yet? For those of you who haven't, you deserve the kind of future you're helping to build."

I would re-emphasize the need to talk to your congressional representatives, encouraging them to get answers to these questions and thanking those who signed off on the call for answers. I would contact your local newspaper. Point them towards the Knight-Ridder article and the congressional petition, and ask them *WHEN* -- not whether -- they will report on this emurging story. Link to the story on your blog... again. Talk to your friends and family... again. Encourage them to take action too.

Unless, of course, you want your president to routinely lie to both you and your elected representatives about the most serious of matters.

To paraphrase the Republicans during the Clinton administration:
"It's not the war, it's the lies."
posted by insomnia_lj at 2:17 PM on May 7, 2005

To think that the threat the Iraqi regime posed..

And what threat exactly was it?
posted by c13 at 2:37 PM on May 7, 2005

And the ends justify the means, right koeselitz?
posted by Balisong

thats right Balisong, don't give them an inch.
they don't deserve any breathing room on this debate, and they should be made to know it.
posted by nola at 3:15 PM on May 7, 2005

Balisong: "And the ends justify the means, right koeselitz?"

See, people keep throwing that in my face, but I don't really know what it means. If people are indignant that I'm willing to kill a few in order to save many, then their problem is with political regimes in general, not with me; if you're a pacifist, you don't need some little memo as evidence that war is wrong. So what exactly are you saying?

Lives were saved by the war in Iraq. Yes, I know, it's hard to understand geopolitical currents and major movements and religious positions and all of those things, but it's what has to be discussed in order to decide whether an action was beneficial.

clevershark: "Can it be measured by the number civilians killed as a result of military action?"

Yes. That's why the war is right. Although, since the U.S. hasn't left yet, and since this is an act that will shape the middle east for at least a century to come, you can't possibly have statistics on this yet. I only offer my educated guess.

On preview:

nola: "thats right Balisong, don't give them an inch. they don't deserve any breathing room on this debate, and they should be made to know it."

Oh. So maybe you can explain: what does "the ends don't justify the means" mean, anyway? If someone isn't willing to do anything to bring about justice, the world will never be better. If your point is that you can't get justice by doing injustice, I agree; that's just stupid and contradictory. Do you mean something else by this?

c13: "And what threat exactly was it?"

It was destroying the lives of millions of people. Any possible world peace now rests on the ability of Muslims the world over to gain respect and to govern themselves. The fact that the west allowed a brutal dictatorship to remain in Iraq for so long was a clear, undeniable sign to every Muslim on the face of the planet that the west, and especially the United States, sponsored hatred and terrorism. It was a really good reason for the people of the middle east, upon whom the state of the world in the immediate future turns, to keep becoming terrorists.
posted by koeselitz at 3:29 PM on May 7, 2005

koeselitz writes " Yes. That's why the war is right."

Somehow I don't think you read my previous comment correctly. Are you saying that somehow the war is made right by the thousands of civilian Iraqi casualties of military action since 2003? That's the most insanely bizarre justification for war I've ever seen.

Even the most conservative estimate of the Iraqi civilian casualties relating to the war put the number at something like 5 times the body count of 9/11.
posted by clevershark at 3:44 PM on May 7, 2005

this is an act that will shape the middle east for at least a century to come

Oh come now you're verging into typical US exceptionalism there. I would think that the *creation* and evolution of Iraq/Jordan/Kuwait/Israel/UAE by the Brits (1920-1950) out of the rubble of the Ottoman Empire under the original aegis of the League of Nations using the British Mandate was the defining political bing bang of that region. The Brits were there for generations, and in some senses never really left. The other notable events were the successful Jewish Revolution in Israel and the Islamic Revolution in Iran. By contrast, the US occupation has barely begun, is lightweight and demonstrates no meaningful control of the terrain, population, or political landscape, is so far strictly localized, and in character resembles more a police or peacekeeping action than a general war. There has been no attempt to reshape national borders or to unify or recharacterise the national political structures across ethnic boundaries. The casualties have been slight (relative to earlier conflicts in that region) and have not decimated enture cohorts of the population. In the end it is all sound and fury, signifying nothing.
posted by meehawl at 3:48 PM on May 7, 2005

clevershark: "Even the most conservative estimate of the Iraqi civilian casualties relating to the war put the number at something like 5 times the body count of 9/11."

It doesn't seem like it's yet possible to compare that with the numbers of how many people would've died if we hadn't invaded; I'd be interested in seeing anything you've got, but I read just this morning that they're still investigating this stuff. Furthermore, strict comparison of civilian bodycounts in a single country, I think, would be a far too limited measure.

In general, though, Iraq might indeed be better now than it was before we invaded. I'm inclined to think so. And even if it's not, it seems to me that it soon will be better than it had a chance to before.

meehawl: "Oh come now you're verging into typical US exceptionalism there."

Agreed. I didn't mean to indicate that the U.S. has done a hugely magnanimous deed here; I only mean to point out that any major event in the middle east now will shape the world for years to come. And I think the middle east is currently in a much more important position than it's been in for hundreds of years.
posted by koeselitz at 4:01 PM on May 7, 2005

It isn't a BBC memo. The BBC have nothing to do with it.
posted by nthdegx at 4:07 PM on May 7, 2005

It doesn't seem like it's yet possible to compare that with the numbers of how many people would've died if we hadn't invaded


Who would have died if we hadn't invaded? and how can you compare a guess as to what might have happened to the horror images of what has happened due to the invasion?
posted by ScotchLynx at 4:37 PM on May 7, 2005

Saddam tortured and killed people every day. This is common knowledge, isn't it? And, though it's debateable, it seems to me that living under his regime was worse than living in Iraq at this moment.

"Horror images" mean very little in the grand scheme. You can't take a photograph of a whole country.
posted by koeselitz at 5:04 PM on May 7, 2005

koeselit your logic is flawed to put it nicely.

you said on another thread about this same topic, (paraphrasing) legality doesn't matter, nor does public opinion. what is that other than law and democracy?
so you believe that pushing law and democracy aside for the time being is right, as long as it results in law and democracy at some point. ergo "the ends justify the means"

if it is ok to kill 4 people because they may, or may not kill 8 people at some point in time. then we could just as easily say its justified to kill everyone. incase they through some means happen to kill a greater sum than what is currently available. if you hold to your original point that, killing people to keep people from killing people, is ok. if not what did you mean cause i'm not getting it.

you don't know that we prevented anything, anymore than i know that we didn't, so the only thing we do know is that some people are dead and we killed them.
posted by nola at 5:07 PM on May 7, 2005

So...

Does that mean that we should actually THANK the 9-11 hijackers for giving us the motivation/incentive/justification for invading Iraq and saving so many future lives?

In fact, if we hadn't sold Saddam the supplies needed to kill his people in the first place, we wouldn't have had someone to save the "future people" from.

It's now clear to me that there is a long-standing been plan to save the "future people", and that this administration is much more clever than they're letting on...

The only thing I wonder now is how far back this plan goes! It's mind-boggling to consider really.
posted by numlok at 5:09 PM on May 7, 2005

p.s. i mean subverting law and democracy in the U.S. and in the U.N. not in Iraq.
posted by nola at 5:09 PM on May 7, 2005

sorry... "long-standing plan"
posted by numlok at 5:10 PM on May 7, 2005

it seems to me that living under his regime was worse than living in Iraq at this moment.

It seems to me that unless you are an Iraqi who experienced life during both the State-sponsored violence of the Saddamist era and the anarchic, unpredictable violence of the current era, that your estimation is of limited applicability. The pattern of violence has changed.

During the Saddamist era the violence was directed at certain ethnicities, and against specific political factions. It was predictable and monotonously terrifying, as violence within draconian regimes often is. Also, conscription forced many into vicious conflict against similarly conscripted Iranians. During the current era, the State has withered and become less authoritarian, and violence seems to have become more distributed, random, and unpredictable within the country. It's an open question as to whether the "average" Iraqi now feels more or less anxious concerning their personal safety of the safety of their family or friends, as compared to life during the Saddamist era. The unsettling and voyeuristic popularity of Terrorism in the Grip of Justice within Iraq seems to me to indicate a coarsening of the humane sensibilities within the country that comes from a recent, prolonged exposure to traumatic violence. iraq seems to have moved from having a single set of psychotic thugs raping and torturing the populace to having many dozens of well-armed, mutually antagonistic gangs of psychotic thugs raping and torturing the population.

I recommend reading some Iraqi blogs to get a sense of what people think. I have seen them display a wide range of opinions, ranging from the one you seem to hold to ones diametrically opposed and pining for the old regime.
posted by meehawl at 5:20 PM on May 7, 2005

the entire idea of preemptive war is evil. its the kind of thing the nazi were executed for after the war.

to fight in defense of something is noble , to strike someone because you fear them is cowardice, and if you don't know unAmerican. (watch a cowboy film from the 40s)
posted by nola at 5:20 PM on May 7, 2005

the last post should be read *tongue in cheek*
posted by nola at 5:24 PM on May 7, 2005

the part about cowboy films
posted by nola at 5:25 PM on May 7, 2005

The fact that the west allowed a brutal dictatorship to remain in Iraq for so long was a clear, undeniable sign to every Muslim on the face of the planet that the west, and especially the United States, sponsored hatred and terrorism. It was a really good reason for the people of the middle east, upon whom the state of the world in the immediate future turns, to keep becoming terrorists.

Riiight. US sponsored hatred and terrorism by not bombing the shit out of a country. That's why they hated us before we invaded and that's why they love us now. And all those IEDs they put on the roads are just for fireworks, much like the mortars and 7.62x39 bullets and the RPG-7 rounds. We just think they are at war with us, in reality they're just celebrating the demise of a brutal dictator.

Saddam tortured and killed people every day. This is common knowledge, isn't it?
I don't know, dude. I wasn't there myself. I only heard about it on the news, together with reports about the WMDs he had stockpiled and was about to launch at US.

And why is the US military is working so hard to find and count Saddam's victims, while officially not counting the current civilian and insurgent dead?
posted by c13 at 5:31 PM on May 7, 2005

nola: "you said on another thread about this same topic, (paraphrasing) legality doesn't matter, nor does public opinion. what is that other than law and democracy? so you believe that pushing law and democracy aside for the time being is right, as long as it results in law and democracy at some point. ergo 'the ends justify the means'"

"Law" is aimed at justice. Justice, one could say, is the spirit of the law; it's whole point we have law. Where there is no justice, the spirit of law is dead, and therefore there is no law either. When the law runs against justice, it must be changed to reflect justice by any means necessary. These means must, of course, be just; else we wouldn't be making the laws reflect justice.

To give an example: city council X passes a law that taxes mexican immigrants unfairly. Rather than saying, "it's the law, and we must live by it," people must change the law to make it just. So: people vote on a referendum annuling the unjust tax.

As is apparent from my example, "democracy" is a system created to manage changes to the laws and keep them generally fair. But it only works because people are usually smart enough to save their own hides. Public opinion and justice only coincide because of this selfishness; and there are huge blind spots where the majority is simply wrong.

"if it is ok to kill 4 people because they may, or may not kill 8 people at some point in time. then we could just as easily say its justified to kill everyone. in case they through some means happen to kill a greater sum than what is currently available. if you hold to your original point that, killing people to keep people from killing people, is ok. if not what did you mean cause i'm not getting it.

you don't know that we prevented anything, anymore than i know that we didn't, so the only thing we do know is that some people are dead and we killed them"

The horrifying and terrible thing about political thought is that it means contemplating trading one life for another and, as you say, "killing people to keep people from killing people." For example, it means looking at the Germans in 1941 from the US and saying, "although they haven't posed any threat to us yet, and although it could be doubted that they'll ever pose a threat to us, it's important to fight against them."

But there's no way out of thinking things through. There are consequences to every action, even inaction. It would be nice if the United States could withdraw from every place it's involved in the globe, wash its hands of the whole business, and rest satisfied that it's not responsible for any bloodshed that occurs in the future. That's not possible any more.

On preview:

nola: "the entire idea of preemptive war is evil. its the kind of thing the nazi were executed for after the war. to fight in defense of something is noble , to strike someone because you fear them is cowardice, and if you don't know unAmerican.."

Reread my posts. I'm saying this: we saved lives by going into Iraq, maybe not our lives, but lives. To strike somebody to save lives isn't cowardice; it's justice. And strikes aren't pre-emptive if a dictatorship has been brutal for decades.

c13: "Riiight. US sponsored hatred and terrorism by not bombing the shit out of a country."

We never 'bombed the shit out of' Iraq. The strikes have, in general, been limited. Furthermore, our policy so far has been to sponsor the least bloodthirsty tyrant we could find in the region, hoping that he'll keep the rest in check. That wasn't working, and I for one am glad we abandoned such a course of action.

meehawl: You give good information. I've been poking around at a lot of those blogs, and I agree; there's a pretty big range in the point of view. But I think optimism is somewhat justified, and I think the war is defensible. I stand by my conviction that the middle east is in the center of the world right now.

And I've posted way too much here. I'm becoming a regular Ethereal Bligh. Enough. Sorry about the space-hogging, everybody.
posted by koeselitz at 5:47 PM on May 7, 2005

[I am an HTML tag FOOL!]
posted by koeselitz at 5:52 PM on May 7, 2005

For example, it means looking at the Germans in 1941

You know Germany declared war on the US, not the other way around?

"We must make clear to the Germans that the wrong for which their fallen leaders are on trial is not that they lost the war, but that they started it. And we must not allow ourselves to be drawn into a trial of the causes of the war, for our position is that no grievances or policies will justify resort to aggressive war. It is utterly renounced and condemned as an instrument of policy."

We never 'bombed the shit out of' Iraq.

Iraq was under aerial seige for years before the final ground invasion phase. In the last eight months of 2001, US and British pilots have fired 1,100 missiles against 359 targets in Iraq. In October 1999 American officials were telling the Wall Street Journal they would soon be running out of targets. "We're down to the last outhouse," they admitted. By the end of the year, the Anglo-US airforces had flown more than 6,000 sorties, and dropped 1,800 bombs on Iraq. By early 2001, the bombing of Iraq had lasted longer than the US invasion of Vietnam.
posted by meehawl at 5:55 PM on May 7, 2005

meehawl: "The casualties have been slight (relative to earlier conflicts in that region) and have not decimated enture cohorts of the population."
posted by koeselitz at 6:00 PM on May 7, 2005

That is to say, strikes that last a long, long time can be limited, too. And I know that Germany declared war on us. But that didn't mean there weren't a lot of people in the US who thought we shouldn't fight him, even if he did attack us, which wasn't really very likely at that moment, considering the fact that his hands were pretty full. Anyhoo, it was only an example. There are others, if you'd like them.
posted by koeselitz at 6:04 PM on May 7, 2005

For example, it means looking at the Germans in 1941 from the US and saying, "although they haven't posed any threat to us yet, and although it could be doubted that they'll ever pose a threat to us, it's important to fight against them."

No, it does not. Germany declared war against the US.
It helps to know history when talking about it.

On preview: And I know that Germany declared war on us. But that didn't mean there weren't a lot of people in the US who thought we shouldn't fight him, even if he did attack us, which wasn't really very likely at that moment, considering the fact that his hands were pretty full.

What the hell does this mean?
posted by c13 at 6:10 PM on May 7, 2005

Anyhoo, it was only an example.

You spoke a lot about Law, and Justice. My example referenced a principle of aggressive/preemptive war as contrary to established international law. The condemnation of the leaders of Nazi Germany was based primarily on their reliance on pre-emptive war as doctrine, seeing as how genocide had not yet been enumerated as an international crime.

strikes aren't pre-emptive if a dictatorship has been brutal for decades.

So that's why the US intervened in Sudan, in Angola, in East Timor, and in Tibet?

War is justified, it seems, as long as there is oil. Which is all to do with realpolitik, and very little with Justice.

And as for my "slight" quote, that should be seen in the context of the Iran-Iraq War, effectively a proxy war sustained and amplified by Western and Soviet aid to Saddam against Iran. Had this aid not been forthcoming, the war would have been resolved much earlier and with much less gross casualties. Also, Iraq would not have ended up in hock to Kuwait for so many billions, and thus been so tempted to annex the country and abrogate the debt.
posted by meehawl at 6:20 PM on May 7, 2005

koeselitz you keep missing the point.
and i'm tired of making it.

. . .But that didn't mean there weren't a lot of people in the US who thought we shouldn't fight him, even if he did attack us . . .

beside the point all together.

the point is , if you only follow the rule of law when it suits you whats the point of the law ? and if you push forward with out support , democratic U.S. support, and democratic U.N. support, whats the point of democracy.

you say that law and democracy are flawed. no argument here. but you propose instead benevolent totalitarianism?

if not ? what checks and balances do you propose? what checks and balances would make a better system than democratic law?
posted by nola at 6:25 PM on May 7, 2005

koeselitz, the nature of the argument against Iraq is such that it cannot be dispelled by simply arguging that the Iraq war, overall, was beneficial. You seem to realize this, and apparently (correct me if i'm wrong) insist that these beneficial actions justify themselves and thus the United States not only made the correct decision, it made the right one, in the moral sense.

The trouble with your argument is of course, that looming spectre of moral relativism. Other posters correctly point out that you are denying the intrinsic value of the rule of law, etc. To take your (flawed) Germany analogy, what if Germany decided it would be in the world's best interest to be controlled by the Fuhrer? Perhaps it would create world piece (with an iron fist) and minimize fatalities. Imagine if we were all under German rule now and indeed, global violence and terrorism were much lower in this alternate existence than they are now.

Do the ends still justify the means?
posted by mek at 7:14 PM on May 7, 2005

"This isn't a BBC memo..."
Indeed. It's a secret British government memo that includes statements from the head of British intelligence saying that "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" by the Bush administration, and that the Bush administration already viewed war as "inevitable".

Most disturbingly, it also indicates that there were also "strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran."

Ultimately, this matter is about the Bush administration lying to, failing to fully disclose information to, and intentionally misleading Congress and the American people. In several cases, this secret memo indicates likely perjury before Congress by senior Bush administration officials, but it's not an indictment of whether the invasion and occupation of Iraq was right or wrong.
posted by insomnia_lj at 7:19 PM on May 7, 2005

Interesting to draw comparisons to Germany and WWII.

Remember that we weren't in ANY hurry to get involved in "Europe's war" despite the seemingly clear implications that doing so would have saved many lives in the long run.

That's not why we did it then, and it's not why we're doing it now.

Thinking the US rolls out the war machine for humanitarian and altruistic reasons is incredibly naive.
posted by numlok at 7:23 PM on May 7, 2005

amberglow writes "88 MEMBERS OF CONGRESS CALL FOR IMMEDIATE ANSWERS ABOUT SECRET BUSH/BLAIR PRE-WAR DEAL"

And I'll bet all the signatories are Democrats (except maybe those kooks Bernie Sanders and Ron Paul). What does that tell you?

No Republican signatures? It's just one party thinking in partisan lock-step, is what that tells you!

So STFU lib'ruls.
posted by orthogonality at 7:44 PM on May 7, 2005

the signers are here (i don't recognize some of the names so maybe they're the Repubs?)
posted by amberglow at 7:48 PM on May 7, 2005

" The casualties have been slight (relative to earlier conflicts in that region)..."

Not so.

Fatalies in 1973 Arab-Israeli War: Approximately 15,000.
Fatalities in the First Gulf War: Approximately 25,000.

The only other modern conflict in that region of the world with greater casualties would be the Iran-Iraq war, which lasted almost nine years and killed approximately 375,000 Iraqis.

In comparison, approximately 140,000 Iraqis have died as a result of the war in just the last 27 months. This is based upon the Lancet's conservative estimate of approximately 100,000 Iraqi dead as of late August, 2004, with an additional estimate of approximately 40,000 dead in the 8 months following the Lancet report. This additional estimate is also conservative, in that it includes the coalition assault upon Fallujah and several other major Iraqi cities, as well as a continuation of problems with sewage, sanitation, and medical services.

It has been pointed out that even the Lancet report is a likely underestimation of the actual figures, but for those who question their findings, you might be interested in an article from the July 1 edition of the New England Journal of Medicine, in which military doctors interviewed soldiers returning from Iraq. They found that 14 percent of the ground forces in the army had killed a non-combatant and 28 percent of returning Marines had killed a non-combatant. If you run the numbers on their research, you come up with a figure that is entirely consistant with that of the Lancet report... unless, of course, you think our soldiers were lying.

Based on a current estimate of 140,000 Iraqi dead, the rate of Iraqi deaths per year is actually 165% greater than that of the Iran-Iraq war.

These estimates should be of no surprise. They match wonderfully with the estimates that Medact made before the war, whcih indicated the potential for between 50,000 and 261,000 deaths in the Iraq conflict -- more if a civil war broke out.

The casualties . . . have not decimated enture cohorts of the population."

The Lancet report also indicates that Iraqis have died disproportionately in Sunni regions of Iraq -- it is safe to assume that Sunni losses have been approximately 110,000 dead out of an population of 5,000,000, or a fatality rate of approximately 2.2 percent, with even greater losses in regions such as Fallujah or Baghdad. Total Sunni casualties -- which include wounded -- would be closer to 9% of the Sunni population, or about 450,000 people.
posted by insomnia_lj at 7:56 PM on May 7, 2005

"No Republican signatures? It's just one party thinking in partisan lock-step, is what that tells you!"

Heh heh... Apparently Republicans are known to break party lines?

Also, how about: Democrats "lock step"/ Republicans "goose step"?
posted by numlok at 8:03 PM on May 7, 2005

I wonder if this will get any coverage here: (i'm betting not) Captured Al-Qaeda kingpin is case of ‘mistaken identity’ (yet again, btw)
posted by amberglow at 8:43 PM on May 7, 2005

What a surprise!
posted by ArunK at 8:47 PM on May 7, 2005

IMPEACH BUSH NOW!
posted by ParisParamus at 9:07 PM on May 7, 2005

the wingnuts are already calling the british memo a fraud--they're insane. Facts are stubborn things.
posted by amberglow at 9:10 PM on May 7, 2005

What was that, Paris? Just a little louder...;)
posted by Balisong at 9:16 PM on May 7, 2005

Saddam tortured and killed people every day. This is common knowledge, isn't it?

not really. every day? I need a link.
posted by mcsweetie at 11:03 PM on May 7, 2005

Captured Al-Qaeda kingpin is case of ‘mistaken identity’

Oh for fuck's sake. The administration doesn't even try to disguise its contempt for the public. Next thing you know, we'll find out the guy is an actor hired to play the part of an Al-Queda kingpin.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:15 PM on May 7, 2005

It occurs to me that it's time to start a grassroots media dissemination campaign. I think we here on MeFi are particularly well-informed, intelligent people. We seem to be a good bit ahead of the curve when it comes to what's going on. Certainly we know the truth looooong before the majority of the public does; hell, there are still people wandering about thinking Iraqi terrorists blew up the WTC towers.

Articles like the one amberglow linked to ("mistaken identity") should be printed out and posted at work and on any public bulletin boards you would normally pass during the day. The public needs to be informed, and it seems unlikely that they'll be informed by the conventional media.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:20 PM on May 7, 2005

"Saddam tortured and killed people every day. This is common knowledge, isn't it?"

Not necessarily everyday. Saddam's regime routinely tortured and killed people, certainly... and in the wake of the Shii'ite uprising of the early 90's, he reportedly killed in the neighborhood of 200,000 people... but that was over a decade before Bush Jr. invaded Iraq.

It should be noted that Saddam had every legal right under international law to put down the Shi'ite revolt. Infact, Bush Sr., after encouraging the Iraqis to revolt, allowed Saddam's helicopters to violate the "no fly zone" and take part in putting down the insurrection.

We hate Saddam for killing rebellious Shi'ites and for supposedly gassing rebellious Kurds during the Iran-Iraq war, but when the Russians slaughter 230,000 Chechens, they're partners in the war against terror...
posted by insomnia_lj at 11:28 PM on May 7, 2005

IMPEACH BUSH NOW!
posted by ParisParamus at 12:07 AM EST on May 8 [!]
posted by AlexReynolds at 12:33 AM on May 8, 2005

"George W. Bush signed off on 152 executions during his tenure as governor of Texas."

Yet another reason why I didn't vote for him as president. Or governor, for that matter. Lot of good it did. My vote and a few bucks might get you coffee at Starbucks. Our present system of government is a farce.

Sometimes the end justifies the means and sometimes it doesn't. It all depends on who's doing the 'justifying.' There's "the end justifies the means" and there's "history is written by the victors" and there's "a rolling stone gathers no moss" and a couple hundred thousand of those blasted adages out there, they should all be shot. The old adage itself "the end justifies the means" is about as valuable as any other old adage, meaning it'll get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks about as fast as my vote would.

And about halfway down the thread, it deteriorates into "jane you ignorant slut" variants. Par for the course in MeFi I suppose. All your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter. Not. I'm going to bed. As usual, I hope the world will still be here when I wake up.
posted by ZachsMind at 1:49 AM on May 8, 2005

which lasted almost nine years and killed approximately 375,000 Iraqis.

And at least a million Iranians. And injured another million. concentrated within specific age cohorts. Which was my point - maybe you missed my use of "cohort". The current violence within Iraq is distributed surprisingly evenly across the demographics. One of your countrymen (and I apologise if I have mistaken you for a USian) made a typical remark concerning US exceptionalism wrt the region. I maintain that, given the scope of the US occupation and its limited relative lethality, it resembles more a sordid police action than 'an event that will decide the fate of the region for a century or so'.

Simply put, the US does not have enough troops there to influence the territory meaningfully or to effect lasting change. To take an extrapolation, the UK government committed 25000 troops for decades to occupy and constrain a minimally restive population of around one million in Northern Ireland. And that was a relatively mild, simple 2-way ethnic strife. Scale those numbers up to Iraq and you're talking about 600000 troops for two decades. With only a quarter of those numbers the US did not initially occupy the cities and now finds itself bunkered down - just another faction (albeit possessed of lethal air and tactical resources). It cannot really effect meaningful change, or influence political affairs. It has not really occupied Iraq, it is is simply embedded there. It can only inflict arbitrary, counter-productive violence on limited segments on the population. Violence without direction and without any hope of achieving its stated goals.
posted by meehawl at 4:48 AM on May 8, 2005

nola: "you say that law and democracy are flawed. no argument here. but you propose instead benevolent totalitarianism?"

No. I propose careful and limited democracy, and constant thought about the nature of justice in this context to make sure we're doing the right thing. But it's a good question. Since you think democracy and law are flawed, what do you propose?

mek: "The trouble with your argument is of course, that looming spectre of moral relativism. Other posters correctly point out that you are denying the intrinsic value of the rule of law, etc."

Not true. I said, "'Law' is aimed at justice... Where there is no justice, the spirit of law is dead, and therefore there is no law either." To say that there's a unified good, one thing at which our actions should aim, isn't relativism. It's the opposite. And if the Fuhrer had, during WW2, somehow miraculously, as you propose, decided to take over the world while "minimizing fatalities." That means they would've stopped killing Jews and started acting benevolently. Yes, by then, even they would've been good. They were evil because they killed millions, not because their outfits looked funny or because they were powerful.

"Do the ends still justify the means?"

This phrase still makes no sense. What else could possibly justify the means? The means themselves? Then the means would be the ends. The definition of "ends" is "the goal in an action." Since that's the reason you do the action, it's the only thing that can justify the action.

I think you mean something like "injustice in the pursuit of justice is contradictory." If so, I agree.
posted by koeselitz at 8:06 AM on May 8, 2005

I think you mean something like "injustice in the pursuit of justice is contradictory." If so, I agree.

Let's move away from the Nazi analogy for a moment, which is verging into Godwin territory, and take the United States as an example. Now, this is a country that for its defenders stands as a beacon of liberty and is synonymous with the action of spreading democracy and human rights throughout the world. Yet its very existence is based on the relentless expulsion and genocide of the aboriginal inhabitants of its territories, it maintained its national integrity through draconian military coercion of its member states, and institutional and State-sponsored apartheid was a generally accepted situation throughout much of its political domain until the 1960s or so.

Do the ends justify the means here? If you'd asked someone on the Trail of Tears back in the 1830s whether their misery and death was "necessary" so that the United States could become an ennobling world power over a century later, I think their responses might have been largely negative.

The perception of whose ends justify what means is contingent on who and when you ask.
posted by meehawl at 8:32 AM on May 8, 2005

what system would you use to see that justice is done?
what frame work would be used, to insure everyone was doing the "just" thing? well first you would need a system of law, that would regulate, and restrain. (hold people back from striking, stealing, maiming, so on.)

next , in an endeavor to be truly just , it would seem you may seek a wide consensus of opinion, lets just say democratic rule. now you have a system. a system of democratic law.

not perfect. but sane, something to work with.
it only works if it is followed faithfully by everyone ruled by it.

it can only be supplanted, by anarchy, or tyranny. choose your path. you can ether share the rule of law with everyone, have no rule, or be ruled.
posted by nola at 9:04 AM on May 8, 2005

Now, this is a country that for its defenders stands as a beacon of liberty and is synonymous with the action of spreading democracy and human rights throughout the world.

I thought it was synonymous with black-ops overthrow of democratically-elected South American and South Pacific governments in the name of corporate interests.

You ever check out a list of countries that the USA has fucked over? It's appalling.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:38 AM on May 8, 2005

meehawl: I'm sorry if I sounded like one of 'america's defenders;' I don't mean to spout 'exceptionalism.' Those who do, wandering around blathering about how the United States is the most beautiful nation on earth bestowed with goodness and light, are misled, not least because they've failed to learn a lesson that those wiser who've come before (Will Faulkner and W. E. B. DuBois come to mind, but there are others) tried to teach us: our fathers and grandfathers made astronomically huge mistakes, mistakes that we have to learn to understand and deal with. Specifically, the dual legacy of slavery and mistreatment of native peoples is our own, and no amount of lovey-dovey 'america is nice' talk can wash that away. Nor is it even politically beneficial to forget this; it pays, instead, to remember these things and to teach our children about them. Read the stuff I said above to nola; I'll be the first one to satisfy you if it's criticisms of our modern democratic regime you're looking for.

But we're involved, like it or not, and we have to do what's right. I keep saying that I think more Americans die because of the war in Iraq, but that more foreign peoples live. I'm saying, in other words, that the U.S. owes it to the world to make some sacrifices, and that fighting in Iraq is a sacrifice. Do you believe me when I say that's what I think? Apparently not. You keep indicating that I'm actually operating under selfish motives. I think you're jumping to conclusions based on what you think my arguments 'sound like.'

The United States has had a policy of sponsoring the 'lesser of evils.' This meant, for example, partnering with Saddam against Iran. I think this policy is a holdover from days when it might have actually worked, like the 1800s. Now, it's anachronistic, and it needs to change. You asked above why we didn't get involved "in Sudan, in Angola, in East Timor, and in Tibet." That's a good question. I say, it's nice that we started now.

nola: "it can only be supplanted, by anarchy, or tyranny. choose your path. you can ether share the rule of law with everyone, have no rule, or be ruled."

I agree with you on almost everything you said here. Specifically, I think that democracy, as it's formulated by the constitution, provides good checks and balances to hold back the bad things about democratic society, like oppression of a minority by the majority.

But the question nowadays is this: when democracy probably would be good for a country, how do you bring it about? I think war is necessary at those moments when it would bring about more justice. Law becomes somewhat fluid during war; it almost disappears. But that period of lawlessness is necessary, sometimes, to bring about just law.

On preview:

five fresh fish: "You ever check out a list of countries that the USA has fucked over? It's appalling."

What exactly do you suggest we do about that?
posted by koeselitz at 10:04 AM on May 8, 2005

You can't impose Democracy on societies that never have had it--whether by war or any other means--especially when your methods are brutal and inherently undemocratic. Even kids know that.
posted by amberglow at 10:09 AM on May 8, 2005

amberglow: "You can't impose Democracy on societies that never have had it--whether by war or any other means..."

Which would mean that there are no democracies, since there's no way for it to come about.

"... especially when your methods are brutal and inherently undemocratic."

Agreed. Let's aim for "non-brutal and inherently democratic." I know it's been blundersome so far, and I don't attribute a great deal of competence to the U.S. state department, but I have a feeling everyone in the West underestimates the power of Islamic culture to create lasting institutions. I think the first act-- deposing a dictator-- might be enough, after all is said and done, to enable a lot of people to do a lot of good.

"Even kids know that."

It's not childish to consider carefully things which appear obvious at first. In fact, the childish thing to do is to assume that those things that appear obvious really are as simply as they look.
posted by koeselitz at 10:28 AM on May 8, 2005

five fresh fish:
You ever check out a list of countries that the USA has fucked over?

You ever check out the definition of irony?

Irony is a form of utterance that postulates a double audience, consisting of one party that hearing shall hear and shall not understand, and another party that, when more is meant than meets the ear, is aware, both of that "more" and of the outsider's incomprehension.

koeselitz:
I'm saying, in other words, that the U.S. owes it to the world to make some sacrifices, and that fighting in Iraq is a sacrifice. Do you believe me when I say that's what I think? Apparently not.

I do believe that you believe what you are saying. Just as I believe the honesty of much of the writings of the Victorian imperialists who honestly believed in the necessity of the White Man's Burden and their sacrificial destiny to bring christianity, civilization, free markets, and soap to the savages of the world. I think they proceed from the same impulse, and that they are destined to cost about the same, and to achieve about the same lasting results.

Take up the White Man's burden —
Send forth the best ye breed —

Go, bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives' need;

To wait, in heavy harness,
On fluttered folk and wild —

Your new-caught sullen peoples,
Half devil and half child.
posted by meehawl at 10:28 AM on May 8, 2005

... the power of Islamic culture to create lasting institutions. ...

See? you wrote it yourself. It's not the power of Western Democracies to impose anything; it's the power of Islamic culture to create lasting institutions, which may or may not be Democracies.
posted by amberglow at 10:40 AM on May 8, 2005

meehawl: "I think they proceed from the same impulse, and that they are destined to cost about the same, and to achieve about the same lasting results."

Hm. Maybe so. But know this: I think Islamic civilization is much more advanced than that of the West. They have known religious tolerance just as much as they've known brutality, and they have the tools to make it work. We in the west can't even comprehend the "savage" world we've turned our back on; they, on the other hand, survey all the options, from religious society to secular society, from care for justice to care for material wealth. I see that they're under the weight of useless leaders, but the moment a good one comes up, they can do a lot of really great things.

And it's not unrealistic to be grateful and hopeful about the deposition of Saddam Hussein from that perspective.

amberglow: "See? you wrote it yourself. It's not the power of Western Democracies to impose anything; it's the power of Islamic culture to create lasting institutions, which may or may not be Democracies."

Yes, I did. The possible preference of others for 'non-democratic' regimes isn't really worrisome unless you're a "westerner" dedicated to the spread of "western democratic" ideals to the exclusion of all others. I'm not. I have a feeling the Muslim way will be better than ours.
posted by koeselitz at 11:02 AM on May 8, 2005

"Do the ends still justify the means?"

This phrase still makes no sense. What else could possibly justify the means? The means themselves? Then the means would be the ends.

The question is not "Do ends justify means?" but "Do these ends justify these means?" It's assumed that the goal, the ends, are desirable. The tactics used to reach that goal are being questioned. If one attempts to reach a goal through methods that are universally acknowledged as benign and non-controversial, then the answer is yes, of course they do. If the methods of reaching the goal are not so clearly benign, however, the fulfillment of the goal may not be enough to justify the use of those methods.

Think about the question in relation to dropping the atomic bomb on Japan and the debate surrounding it.

It makes plenty of sense.
posted by ludwig_van at 1:18 PM on May 8, 2005

koeselitz: for starters, don't be pursuing black ops and aggressive military actions outside your borders. Become peacekeepers.
posted by five fresh fish at 1:52 PM on May 8, 2005

as i expected koeselitz has shifted the discussion away from his original position.

mainly, that even though the U.S. has clearly had its mind on seizing control of iraq oil, at the cost of billions in the first 2 years alone , and the cost of service men , and women, and the cost of Iraqi civilians, and security at home and abroad. even though this is clearly wrongly motivated and basically evil. that some good is going to come out if it , so we should just never mind.

keoselitz, you can save your breath. i'm done listening to this nonsense. you have now shifted gears into the worst kind of apologist drivel, that of american benign intent.
"well we did our best" "mistakes where made, but we tried" this is a lie, it may not be your lie keoselitz , you may have just bought into it, but it is a lie anyway.

the goal of nasa was to put a man on the moon, they did.
the goal of the U.S. was to expel natives from their own land they did.
the goal of franklin roosevelt was to stabilize the nation's economy and give it a shot in the arm with the "new deal",
he did.

when this nation sets goals it tends to carry them out rather well, this begs the question , when things go terribly wrong for many people under the watch of the U.S. what was the goal? did they really try to figure the human cost into their goals? did they? or did they just not care, were they just to busy with their own plan of world dominance to worry about the men and women in uniform? the answer is yes. its so oblivious it hurts.

until we start demanding the results we want out of our government , we will continue to get the results they choose to give us. washington must be made to understand , they serve at our pleasure. koeselitz if you're pleased with the job done then never mind, i won't say another word. if you like how they are handling iraq then i am truly out of arguments for you.
posted by nola at 2:38 PM on May 8, 2005

The ends justifying the means is about accountability. If one achieves meritorious goals then the nefarious means used to achieve them don't matter. Buy into that arguement and you are morally equal to every despot that ever lived. (Great piece in "1984" where O'Brien recounts Winston Smith saying he would throw acid in a child's face to further the resistance to Big Brother - it essentially annihilates his moral superiority arguement)
Perfectly appropriate to this issue as Bushco seems to have no interest in having accountability for their actions while their apologists argue that the Iraq war was somehow 'right'.

I like nola's questioning of the goal here - what was it? We heard so many. Regime change? Etc? Etc?
What then is Bushco's answer to this memo? I suspect it will be the same old: deny, attack the messenger, co-opt, distort, ignore, cycle we're used to.

Amazing how I still disagree with Paris....I don't think Bush should be impeached. He certainly should be investigated. If there enough evidence, then impeached.
posted by Smedleyman at 12:52 PM on May 9, 2005

It finally made it to CNN.com
posted by amberglow at 8:26 PM on May 11, 2005

and now it has rolled off the front page of cnn.com (although it can still be found under "politics." Still no coverage from the NYT or WP, but of all places the Washington Times is on it.
posted by caddis at 8:15 AM on May 12, 2005