Yes, where are Iraq's WMD? We all know it now, Hussein's Iraq did not possess chemical and biological weapons and had only aspirations for a nuclear program. There was nothing.

To others that was unthinklable. Saddam was too evil to do that. With no findings of WMD in Iraq by US troops there was a need to uphold the illusion - and it was found.

Some crackpots thought the russians took Saddam's WMD (http://www.blogsforbush.com/mt/archives/002680.html). Others were more modest and suggested Syria must have taken them (http://www.instapundit.com/archives/013698.php) *

No arguments could shatter that belief. Neither that Saddam would for that have to give up control over his silver bullet, which would mean to expend money for a weapon - to not only not have it anymore but not control it too. I too didn't matter that Syria had chemical weapons of their own. Or that Syria had would be foolish to function as Saddam's toxic waste dump, let alone that there would be a severe political burden in case of discovery - after all Syria was acting as the US reliable and trusty torture proxy and did about everything to play nice with Washington.

Now the absurd attempts to rationalise that Saddam did have WMD but only cunningly hid them should come to an overdue end.

The US Iraq Survey Group issued a report concluding that no iraqi WMD were moved to Syria (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/25/AR2005042501554_pf.html). The final report in full can be found here (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/duelfer/index.html) .

* or, even more absurd, to Saddam's mortal enemy, Iran ...

[ April 30, 2005, 09:35: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

Oh, come now, WMD is so 2003. You must have missed the talking points memo, Ragusa. The current reason we went into Iraq is democracy. And by the way, it's not private accounts; it's personal accounts. Keep up with the times, dude.

:shake: It's so very I-told-you-so (http://www.sorcerers.net/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?/topic/20/631.html#000009), too :shake: As far as I'm concerned that's about the best part of the report :p

*shrug*

I said all along, or near enough, that the administration was BSing quite a bit. Still can't say I regret the toppling of the regime, though.

Still can't say I regret the toppling of the regime, though. But that's the point behind what Ragusa is saying. Yes, the idea of bringing democracy to the long oppressed Iraqi people (may possibly) be a more noble goal. But the problem is that's the BS reason. That's not why we went in there in the first place. What's better (or worse depending upon your point of view) is that even though Bush and Company did everything in their power to screw up the whole Iraq thing, they may actually pull this off.

even though Bush and Company did everything in their power to screw up the whole Iraq thing, they may actually pull this off. Agreed.

I think, ultimately, I am going to look at this pragmatically -- will the overall good to the region justify the credibility hit the US is taking because no one who has an ounce of common sense believes anything our government says about this?

George and co. can say what they want, but they sold everyone a bill of goods to force the war. Maybe they got bad info (yeah, right), but their job is to have good info before committing troops to a conflict.

I certainly hope that the end result is positive and that it overcomes the harm to our reputation. Only time will tell.

I agree with you dmc. If, 10 or 20 years from now, we see Iraq as the first domino to fall in bringing democracy and (hopefully) stability to the Middle East, we would be able to somewhat justify our actions as the ends justify the means. However, if Iraq degenerates into civil war and the government crumbles, it's going to be hard to save face.

The lies coolly spread before the war, the abuse and threats dealt anyone who opposed Bush, and the war itself are, in my opinion, not the main reputation issue for the US. Sure, back then they fanned the heat of latent enmity many already held for the US. A perfect chance to have ones opinion/prejudice about America reassured so to say.
Still, I feel anger towards the US would have dissipated quickly after some time, especially since Hussein wasnt exactly popular. Only a few little stains would have remained, and who would have really cared for them when there are so many others to enjoy.
Wars are waged because there are interests to do so, like consolidating and securing power, not to help a people in need. Propaganda and deceit are also a part of war. Its not nice but everyone would have gotten over it. Eventually.

What truly harms the image of the States is Guantanamo, Abu Graib, the stories we hear coming from Syria and Afghanistan. Random arrests, humilation, torture, people dying while in custody of the US army?
No matter how the Iraq situation plays out - this will leave behind a fantastic bad taste in everyones mouth.

But that's the point behind what Ragusa is saying. Yes, the idea of bringing democracy to the long oppressed Iraqi people (may possibly) be a more noble goal. But the problem is that's the BS reason. That's not why we went in there in the first place. Granted. Thing is, even though the "liberate the poor oppressed masses and bring them the ballot box!" line is a byproduct of the real motivation of our administration, it's still reason enough for me to support the invasion.

Having said that, I did vote against Bush's second term--I can support the invasion, but the BS makes it impossible to support him.

Now, if he'd said from the start, "Yeah, like, this dude is bad, m'kay, so we're going to kill him and free some people," it might be a different story. Then again, it might not; the war sure as hell isn't the only thing our admin has BSed about.

What I'm really curious about is how this is going to be described in the US history textbooks. Any bets that the pretext of imaginary WMD used to rally public support for the invasion won't even be mentioned? I imagine the American children will just learn that President Bush Junior liberated Iraq from the clutches of the bad, bad terrorists and brought peace and democracy to them, which was his one and only goal in the Iraq war... Khm, sorry, getting into the fairy-tale material here, but as I said, I'm really curious about it. I'll ask someone in the US in 10 years what children are being taught about this Iraq war (if anything, that is). Should be interesting.

That's the (sort of) funny thing: Bush and Co are trapped in their democracy rhetoric now, cause that's the only reason they've given that has any chance of standing up. WMD? Apparently not. Breaking OPEC's back? LOL. So now all the old school conservatives, who used to say "who cares how these countries govern themselves as long as they do business," now have to push free elections everywhere, even on old allies like the Saudis. And I don't buy the charge that the new Iraqi gov't is a US puppet; the US might twist a few arms now and then, but if the new gov't says "time for you to go," Bush and Co will have no choice but to leave. They're just too invested in their democracy rhetoric, and they know it.

Of course, I'd still like to see more public attention to this administration's habit of blatently stretching the facts to suit their ideology...

this dude is bad, m'kayMr. Mackey for President! And Mr. Hat for VP, m'kay?

Tal, the American education system seems to run along these lines (or at least, it does in my area):

Grades 1-6: You learn that the USA is the hero
Grades 7-8: You learn that the USA is the villain.
Grades 9-12: You learn that everything you've learned so far is trash, and they start US history all over again, contradicting much of what you've already learned. Much confusion results.
College (grades 13-16+): See above


...So it'll depend on what grade the person you ask remembers most clearly ;)

And I don't buy the charge that the new Iraqi gov't is a US puppet; the US might twist a few arms now and then, but if the new gov't says "time for you to go," Bush and Co will have no choice but to leave. Ultimately, IMO, the US will shell out a lot of bucks to whomever gets the levers of power in Iraq. I'm almost certain that we will have a military presence there for some years to come. But the high price tag will be paid for by the US taxpayer (yes, screwed again). The Bushies believe that money can buy everything (and personally they are proof of this notion). And when it comes to a poor nation like Iraq, that is desparate for the most basic essentials, those in power will take the money.

Well, with that memo that appeared in the British press (the one about the US government fitting the CIA "data" to their claims - if it is believable, and I wouldn't be surprised) things do seem to have taken a nice turn.
As for the new Iraqi government... I wonder what would happen if the coalition was told to leave as soon as possible. Any guesses, people?

Sadly, Tal, I'm afraid the revisionist view will depend greatly on what happens in the next couple of years in Iraq. I foresee one of two scenarios:

1. Democratic Iraq becomes stable and a justification for the pre-emptive war policy. This is troubling because it gives a precedent and a shield for more of the same, despite being the better outcome for Iraq. It gets repeated in Middle Eastern History classes in the US as the reason and the justification for military action and Bush & Co. end up as visionaries - rather than incompetent or greedy - because it's how everyone who wins a war ends up.

2. Democratic Iraq disintegrates and is pointed to as an inherent failure of the Middle East, or is somehow blamed on Islam, Arabs or left-wing undermining of the "noble" approach of democracy-by-force. It either ends up like the legend of the "stab in the back" in post-WW1 Germany (a certainty if Murdoch has his way with the facts), used to reinforce the notion that America and Americans are superior or somehow blessed/different because they can make it work, or is simply consigned to a five-minute discussion in American Political History when discussing the 2004 election.

Either way, there's an up side and a down side. Unfortunately, the people who have the greatest control over which version of history we get have a vested interest in promoting the one which paints the US as the last best hope for mankind, and in which any failure of democracy can only be blamed on ingracious, inferior, unenlightened people.

Pardon my cynicism... too many people still believe Saddam had a hand in 9/11 for me to be optimistic.

I agree completely. How history will paint the Bush presidency is yet to be determined, and the final grade won't come when he leaves office in January, 2009. I think the final grade of Bush's handling of the Iraq War (and similarly what happens with Social Security) won't be known for another 10 years.