Comments on: serious human rights abuses which would undermine an otherwise successful military campaign, and our reputation internationally

serious human rights abuses which would undermine an otherwise successful military campaign, and our reputation internationally

amberglow — Wed, 17 Aug 2005 19:06:12 -0800

In case the Downing Street Papers weren't enough: US State Dept. documents from the National Security Archive, obtained thru a Freedom of Information Act: State Department experts warned CENTCOM before Iraq war about lack of plans for post-war Iraq security, Planning for post-Saddam regime change began as early as October 2001, and ...They provide detail on each of the working groups and give the starting date for planning as October 2001. Entire sections of a Powerpoint presentation the State Department prepared on November 1, 2002 -- including those covering "What We Have Learned So Far" and "Implications for the Real Future of Iraq" -- have been censored as still-classified information. ... (PDFS)

By: amberglow

amberglow — Wed, 17 Aug 2005 19:19:40 -0800

tons more Govt. docs here, covering Iraq, intelligence, and WMDs.

By: wakko

wakko — Wed, 17 Aug 2005 19:36:47 -0800

This is my surprised face.

By: freebird

freebird — Wed, 17 Aug 2005 19:51:58 -0800

Powerpoint presentations on War and Regime Change epitomize the Pre-Futurist Context to me.

By: TechnoLustLuddite

TechnoLustLuddite — Wed, 17 Aug 2005 19:54:03 -0800

wait a minute, government censored PDFs? this sounds familiar..... Anyone try the copy-and-paste trick?

By: ahimsakid

ahimsakid — Wed, 17 Aug 2005 19:54:43 -0800

Thank you Amberglow . . . good stuff if not a total surprise.

By: marxchivist

marxchivist — Wed, 17 Aug 2005 20:01:06 -0800

Thanks for the post amberglow. I don't know what it is going to take for enough people to realize that Bush & Co. totally trumped up the reasons for this war and then went and fucked it up. I'm hoping that that Karl Rove leak deal or Cindy Sheehan's protest might start the ball rolling to get Bush and the other murderers out of the White House and into prison where they belong, but I just doubt it. *sighs*

By: amberglow

amberglow — Wed, 17 Aug 2005 20:02:50 -0800

can you do that trick with xeroxes? i wasn't able to.

By: TechnoLustLuddite

TechnoLustLuddite — Wed, 17 Aug 2005 20:12:54 -0800

d'oh! i just installed acrobat to find that they are indeed xeroxes..

By: matteo

matteo — Wed, 17 Aug 2005 20:35:58 -0800

it's clearly Clinton's fault, somehow.

By: clevershark

clevershark — Wed, 17 Aug 2005 20:38:41 -0800

Actually the Administration's plans for Iraq vastly predate even 9/11 (although that latter was a convenient excuse to get the ball rolling). It was telling that in a 60 Minute interview about the Camp David meetings immediately following 9/11 Condi Rice said "When we went to Camp David to talk about the retaliation, the map we spread on the table was a map of Afghanistan. Iraq was put on the back burner." Thus clearly Iraq was on the front burner before.

By: rdr

rdr — Wed, 17 Aug 2005 20:40:10 -0800

I'm sorry. Why do we need government documents to confirm the obvious? If you invade a country, you're going to encounter resistance. Sadam's regime was a horror show but that doesn't mean the Iraqis are going to welcome your with open arms, invite you to sell their oil to pay for your invasion, or remake themselves into the compliant subjects you wish they were. How can this be a surpise?

By: VulcanMike

VulcanMike — Wed, 17 Aug 2005 20:42:13 -0800

Because you can't impeach someone without government documents!

By: amberglow

amberglow — Wed, 17 Aug 2005 20:42:39 -0800

We need government documents to prove that what people were saying all along is actually true, and all the sliming and smearing of everyone who said so was wrong and false and evil. And for the historical record.

By: matteo

matteo — Wed, 17 Aug 2005 20:45:42 -0800

you can't impeach someone without government documents! even more important, you also can't impeach someone without a solid, disciplined, tough-as-nails House of Representatives majority

By: rdr

rdr — Wed, 17 Aug 2005 20:49:07 -0800

s/supise/surprise/ s/your/you/ I haven't been able to type coherent english for the last few days.

By: Balisong

Balisong — Wed, 17 Aug 2005 21:09:51 -0800

Color me vibratingly surprized.

By: 517

517 — Wed, 17 Aug 2005 21:12:44 -0800

Can anyone image a realistic scenario under which GWB gets impeached or even censured? It just won't happen because things are much worse off than anyone will even speculate on. The whole Iraq thing is a symptom of the disease, not the disease itself. In a few decades GWB will be remebered as Regan is today.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Wed, 17 Aug 2005 21:16:06 -0800

517: that's why these docs are important--to correct the record. It's not Fox News that determines how presidents are remembered--it's historians.

By: justgary

justgary — Wed, 17 Aug 2005 23:02:51 -0800

In a few decades GWB will be remebered as Regan is today.

By: bardic

bardic — Thu, 18 Aug 2005 02:53:14 -0800

Americans are always right.

By: alumshubby

alumshubby — Thu, 18 Aug 2005 03:33:29 -0800

When do the impeachment hearings start?

By: rhymer

rhymer — Thu, 18 Aug 2005 03:42:05 -0800

I'm sure you're right justgary. There's an interesting question here. Some nations - America and France, for instance, seem to have a default position of respect and deference for their national leader - although the whole Clinton thing represents something of an aberation. Others - the UK, Australia, etc. - seem to question their leaders' every motive and take every opportunity to deride them. I wonder if this is because both France and the US directly elect their leaders? Or perhaps it's just a facet of national character. In the long term, I'm not sure that either is ideal. Although right now, I'd argue that the US electorate needs cynicism more than the Brits and Aussies need respect and deference.

By: salmacis

salmacis — Thu, 18 Aug 2005 04:09:36 -0800

Brits and Aussies need "respect and deference"? Bollocks to that. Remember, political leaders work for you, not the other way round. It's an extremely unhealthy environment when politicians (of all ideologies) are not kept under a tight leash.

By: jfuller

jfuller — Thu, 18 Aug 2005 04:12:53 -0800

> When do the impeachment hearings start? When we get a solid, disciplined, tough-as-nails House of Representatives majority of matteos and amberglows. Until then, look for the muddling-through to proceed more or less as it has up to this point.

By: juiceCake

juiceCake — Thu, 18 Aug 2005 04:38:50 -0800

The neocon's 'spread democracy around the world' plans remind me of Japan's Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere iniative. Both in merit and in gut wrenching disgust.

By: alumshubby

alumshubby — Thu, 18 Aug 2005 05:23:38 -0800

If there won't be any impeachments, I'll just have to console myself that history is gonna rake these guys over the coals. Or maybe not; I used to say the same thing about Reagan, but justgary's link really slapped me upside the head.

By: cleardawn

cleardawn — Thu, 18 Aug 2005 05:34:41 -0800

You can't talk a gorilla into sharing his banana. No matter how much evidence there is proving that Bush is an evil, lying mass murderer (and wasn't it always obvious, even in 2000?), the Republicans will continue to support him, just as they'll continue to support their baseball team, even when the team loses. For Republicans, that's simply the level of thinking they have. There is no ability to self-criticize there. They see self-criticism as weakness, as "flip-flopping". Loyalty is strength. And since they control most of the media, and get to write the school textbooks, and also control the electronic voting machines, it's a problem. I think the only way to get rid of Bush (and/or his appointed successors) at this point is going to be through a violent military coup, which, of course, will probably lead to an even worse regime than Bush's. And it won't happen until the army starts losing wars -- meaning thousands of casualties per day, rather than per year as at present -- and that won't happen until the money and oil starts to run out. I'd give it 10 years.

By: vhsiv

vhsiv — Thu, 18 Aug 2005 05:49:30 -0800

> but justgary's link really slapped me upside the head. No FDR, no Kennedy, no Johnson, no Eisenhower. The sole barometer of the poll seems to have been people who are still using AOL in 2005— a sample of complacent, computer-averse folks, who are paying $21+/mo. for dial-up service or piggyback on their broadband accounts, when there are many cheaper and better alternatives.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Thu, 18 Aug 2005 05:53:10 -0800

cleardawn, when we're fighting China, and losing, i bet.

By: Floydd

Floydd — Thu, 18 Aug 2005 06:23:28 -0800

justgary's link was about an internet poll, therefore not worth the paper it was printed on.

By: cleardawn

cleardawn — Thu, 18 Aug 2005 07:40:16 -0800

Fighting China, perhaps. China might attack Taiwan, and the US might wade in. But that's not really Bush's style - he prefers to attack defenceless enemies. The problem being, as in Iraq, his lack of judgement as to just how "defenceless" they turn out to be. And since he can never actually win any of his wars (that's been a problem with all modern wars of occupation), he has to start new ones frequently, to provide "victory" news stories, to push the "defeat" stories off the front pages. As the attack on Afghanistan covered up the failure to defend against 9/11, so the attack on Iraq covered up the failure to capture Bin Laden and eliminate the Taliban. And so the forthcoming air strikes on Iran will cover up the continuing failure in Iraq. And so it goes on, with the deaths-per-day figure steadily increasing, until enough of the senior generals in the US military finally decide that it's time to ring the changes. Of course, I hope I'm proved wrong. It's always possible that the guys running Diebold might decide to pull a double-switch at the next election - especially if Bush is so far behind in the polls that nobody will believe he won. Or even that some Republican senators might become unhappy with the situation and agree to an impeachment. Both of those are extremely long shots, but we have to live in hope.

By: cleardawn

cleardawn — Thu, 18 Aug 2005 07:44:03 -0800

Correction: When I say "Bush", I mean "Bush or Bush's appointed successor."

By: justgary

justgary — Thu, 18 Aug 2005 09:30:33 -0800

The sole barometer of the poll seems to have been people who are still using AOL in 2005— a sample of complacent, computer-averse folks, who are paying $21+/mo. for dial-up service or piggyback on their broadband accounts, when there are many cheaper and better alternatives. All part of public opinion, and all with opinions just as valid as yours, all part of how reagin is remembered today, if you could step down from that horse you're on. justgary's link was about an internet poll, therefore not worth the paper it was printed on. posted by Floydd Nonsense. Are we so transparent that we simply throw out anything we disagree with? I could post a thousand links contradicting 517's idea that the Reagin name is looked down on (I know, conservative link, throw it out also, right?). You can put your head in a hole if you want, cover your ears and eyes, pretend the grapes are sour, but reagin's legacy in the real world is nothing like that on metafilter. Amberglow's right. Fox news doesn't decide bush's or reagin's legacy. Nor does metafilter. Surround yourself with like thinking individuals and your views on opinion are going to be skewed. Sure, the poll is a joke in many ways, but it more than proves 517's comment doesn't construe what he thought it did.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Thu, 18 Aug 2005 10:07:05 -0800

... reagin's legacy in the real world... Here's one of his legacies for the world of 2005: Fred Kaplan: Reagan Was Responsible for the Rise of Osama bin Laden -- Earlier this week, I cited recently declassified documents to show that Ronald Reagan did indeed play a major role in ending the Cold War. Now it's time to note that a similar set of documents shows that Reagan also played a major role in bringing on the terrorist war that followed—specifically, in abetting the rise of Osama Bin Laden. ...

By: Vetinari

Vetinari — Thu, 18 Aug 2005 10:33:54 -0800

reagin's legacy in the real world /Rea?g[ai]n/'s legacy in the real world is so based upon a misremembered alternate reality that nobody can even spell his name correctly anymore.

By: esquire

esquire — Thu, 18 Aug 2005 10:36:40 -0800

Thank you, Amberglow. I was just about to criticize the government for not having plans in place to overthrow Saddam Hussein earlier -- given his support for terrorism, his conspiracy to kill a former U.S. President, and his human rights atrocities. Thanks to the documents you uncovered, I feel safer and more confident in the capabilities of the Administration.

By: justgary

justgary — Thu, 18 Aug 2005 10:50:16 -0800

Here's one of his legacies for the world of 2005 Yep, we could go on all day amberglow. The world is full of opinions. The trick is to ignore those you disagree with, right?

By: 517

517 — Thu, 18 Aug 2005 11:15:13 -0800

...517's idea that the Reagin name is looked down on... Just to be clear, I meant that Reagan is remembered as a great leader, when in reality he did more to screw over the common man than anyone else in a very long time.

By: fenriq

fenriq — Thu, 18 Aug 2005 12:17:57 -0800

Hmm, this has got to be someone else's fault. Hasn't Bush reached his limit for the year by now? Is that why he's on vacation? And hiding from a middle aged mother?

By: Floydd

Floydd — Thu, 18 Aug 2005 13:39:17 -0800

Yep, we could go on all day amberglow. The world is full of opinions. The trick is to ignore those you disagree with, right? posted by justgary I'm sorry...what??? (I kid! I kid! Thanks for the Reagan only "near great" link, justgary) To continue the derail: Reagan's Liberal Legacy.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Fri, 19 Aug 2005 17:01:56 -0800

Floydd, that's a great article--thanks. What is astonishing (altho not really anymore, given Bush's complete detachment from reality) is that the same conservatives who were lambasting Reagan then for those "liberal" moves are now canonizing him. justgary, i only ignore you because you're an insulting troll. but thanks for thinking of me hon.