I am happy for the Iraqis that they no longer live under Saddam and are on the path to democracy. However, I would have much preferred a president who could have been honest about this issue. The thousands of US young men and women, who have sacrificed or will sacrifice their lives and limbs, deserved to know the truth about the rationale for war IN ADVANCE. First it was a preemptive strike in the face of an imminent WMD threat, then it became "we're fighting the war over there so we won't have to fight it here" --like terrorist can't do two things at once. Now it's the theoretical notion that democracy in Iraq will spread to other Middle Eastern countries and that this will make us all safe from terrorism.

Well Richard Clark's piece in the NY Times exposes this fallacy (or should that be fantasy).

-----
February 6, 2005, www.nytimes.com

THE SECURITY ADVISER

No Returns
By RICHARD A. CLARKE

Last month, the self-appointed head of Al Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, railed against ''this evil principle of democracy'' and said he would send his fighters to kill people who tried to vote. Days before, in Washington, President Bush delivered an inaugural address focused almost exclusively on promoting democracy, which he portrayed as an antidote for ''our vulnerability.'' His theory was that ''resentment and tyranny'' simmer in undemocratic nations, breeding violent ideologies that will ''cross the most defended borders'' to pose a ''mortal threat.''

Given these statements by Zarqawi and Bush, Americans might well conclude that Al Qaeda's primary aim is preventing democracy. Following the president's theory, they might assume terrorism cannot grow in democracies and that the best way to deal with it is to create more democracies. Unfortunately, both beliefs may be mistaken.

Zarqawi and his followers do oppose democracy in Iraq, but they do so partly because they believe that the continuing electoral process (a constitutional referendum is planned for October of this year and a national election for December) is an American imposition. In this they are joined by the many Iraqis who simply want an occupying army to leave. In addition, Zarqawi's group seeks support from the Sunni Arab minority, which in any democratic process will lose power as compared with what it had in the decades of Baath Party rule.

Beyond Iraq, in the greater Muslim world, opposing democracy is not uppermost in the mind of Al Qaeda or the larger jihadist network. (In Saudi Arabia, for example, Al Qaeda wants the monarchy replaced by a more democratic government.) Radical Islamists are ultimately seeking to create something orthogonal to our model of democracy. They are fighting to create a theocracy or, in their vernacular, a caliphate (a divinely inspired government administered by a caliph as Allah's viceroy on earth). They are also seeking to evict American influence from nations with a Muslim majority (or even, as in Iraq, a Muslim minority, given their view that Shiites are, as Zarqawi put it, part of a ''wicked sect'' and not true Muslims). In pursuing these goals, today's loosely affiliated Islamic terrorist groups are part of a trend dating back to at least 1928, when the Muslim Brotherhood was founded to promote Islam and fight colonialism.

This trend hasn't abated with the spread of democracy. In Indonesia, which just achieved its third democratic transfer of power since Suharto's rule ended in 1998, the jihadist movement is growing stronger, as it is in other Asian democracies. In Algeria, free elections in 1990 and 1991 resulted in victories for those who advocated a jihadist theocracy. Throughout Western Europe, the jihadists are becoming deeply rooted among disaffected Muslim youth. Free elections, in short, have not dimmed the desire of jihadists to create a caliphate.

Even without jihadists, Western democracies have hardly been immune to terrorism. The Irish Republican Army, the Baader-Meinhof gang of Germany and the Red Brigades of Italy all developed in democracies. Indeed, in the United States, the largest terrorist attack before Sept. 11 was conducted in Oklahoma by fully enfranchised American citizens.

Thus, it is not the lack of democracy that produced jihadist movements, nor will the creation of democracies quell them. To the extent that President Bush's new policy is turned into action, the jihadists may well take it as further provocative American meddling, similar to the reaction to the president's earlier attempt at reform in the region, the Greater Middle East Initiative, which was dead on arrival.

President Bush's democracy-promotion policy will be appropriate and laudable at the right time in the right nations, but it is not the cure for terrorism and may divert us from efforts needed to rout Al Qaeda and reduce our vulnerabilities at home. The president is right that resentment is growing and that it is breeding terrorism, but it is chiefly resentment of us, not of the absence of democracy. The 9/11 Commission had a proposal similar to the president's, but more on point: a battle of ideas to persuade more Muslims that jihadist terrorism is a perversion of Islam. Most Middle East experts agree, however, that any American hand in the battle of ideas will, for now, be counterproductive. For many in the Islamic world, the United States is still associated with such acts as having made the 250,000 person city of Falluja uninhabitable. Because of the enormous resentment of the United States government in the Islamic world, documented in numerous opinion polls, we will have to look to nongovernmental organizations and other nations to lead the battle of ideas.

movements than anyone on this board.  Thanks for putting this up.

I agree with what he says: democracy won't make terrorism go away.  I think alot of what Clarke and others say is that terrorism really has its seeds in anti-west sentiments, and manifests itself in "anti-democracy" which is really anti-western organized and occupied democracy.

I consider myself more of a realist than idealist, as many "neocons" are characterized.  One of the reasons I've been more supportive of the war is that I do believe that a more pluralistic government that provides more economic opportunities for people, which might not only shrink the portion of "disenfranchised" but also perhaps make economics more important than tribal/religious considerations that often are the organizing principle for terrorism.

I know this is just today's version of The Lexus and the Olve Tree," but its what I think is really true.

The problem is the Bush Regime is not providing for a more pluralistic government in Iraq (or in the US for that matter).

The Sunni have beem almost totally disenfranchised by the Bush Regime in Iraq.

And really now, the Bush War on Iraq was never about providing democracy or government or freedom in any respct to Iraqi people. It was always about power and greed.

I don't think Bush has as much control over events in Iraq as you indicate above. (The type & timing of the Elections were compelled by the Shia, specifically Sistani.) The last thing the Bush Administration wants is to have 20% of the population (Sunni Arabs) disenfranchised. If Iraq erupts into civil war and creates more instability in the region it will be close to impossible to put a positive spin on this adventure. In the long run the Kurds desire for secession probably presents the greatest threat.  

A significant portion of the Sunni Arab leaders may have elected not to participate in the elections/post-Saddam government because their capacity to disrupt provides greater leverage for concessions/power than their minority status.

I do agree that prominent Baathists have been disenfranchised. Other Baathists were ostracized at the start of the occupation but have been accepted/re-hired because of both the need for educated/skilled workers and a desire not to disenfranchise.

-- Modified on 2/8/2005 8:33:40 AM

-- Modified on 2/8/2005 9:16:32 AM

You wrote:

"The Sunni have beem almost totally disenfranchised by the Bush Regime in Iraq."

According to dictionary.com:
"disenfranchise - v : deprive of voting rights [syn: disfranchise] [ant: enfranchise]"

"disfranchise - To deprive of a privilege, an immunity, or a right of citizenship, especially the right to vote; disenfranchise. v : deprive of voting rights [syn: disenfranchise] [ant: enfranchise]"

Seems to me that the Iraqi's were just "enfranchised" the end of January. Quite a few were rather proud of the "inked finger".

Aside from your recurring habit of shooting your mouth off without facts to substantiate your claims, prove that "the Bush Regime" deliberately prohibited Iraqi's from voting.

Or are you suggesting that the insurrgents who kept threatening dire consequnces are really CIA operatives on the Bush payroll.

Perhaps that is your latest black helicopter theory?  There really are no insurrgents or terrorists in Iraq. Al Zarqawi (however the hell it's spelled) is, in reality, a true NeoCon plant, and all the killings and other mayhem are carefully orchestrated so Bush can award huge contracts to Haliburton for Cheney?

What a story, where's Michael Moore? This would be GREAT material for his next movie.

In the beginning it was all WMD and only WMD? The reasons have been changed by the Bush Regime? Are you sure about this?

Here are your remedial reading assignments for the day. More will follow if necessary. Go… read slowly and pay close attention to the words.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/bliraqreshouse.htm

http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/libera.htm

RLTW

Monday, January 31, 2005
ÈÓã Çááå ÇáÑÍãä ÇáÑÍíã

Greetings friends,

What we have witnessed is something amazing. I am an Iraqi and a Baghdadi and should know, and deep down in my heart I knew; yet I must admit that I did not expect all this. The common Iraqi citizen has taken all by surprise, including those of us who are indigenous to this land.

It was expected that relatively secure areas in the South and North were going to see heavy turnout. Yet Baghdad; subjected to a terrorist and intimidation campaign of unprecedented scale and cruelty; Baghdad, deprived of electricity, fuel and lately even water( which is more dangerous than anything else); Baghdad, that lacks security, where the citizens face mortal danger every moment of their daily life; Baghdad, where life has almost ground to a standstill; that citizens of this Baghdad should line up at polling stations braving very real dangers, with mortars raining down and scores of suicide bombers sent out to blow up people, and moreover that many even brought their children: this Baghdad was a revelation even to Baghdadis.

There were amazing scenes; not very likely to seen anywhere else. There were acts of heroism. Abdul Amir Kadhim, saw a man whom he suspected to be a suicide bomber, he threw himself on the man before he could get to the waiting line of people; and sure there was an explosion and this young man gave his life to save the others. Prime Minister Allawi paid tribute to this heroism. At one station there was a suicide attack and several people fell; when people of the neighborhood heard of this, the waiting line suddenly swelled to three times in size; people rushed out of their homes and came running to wait in line; it was their way to express their defiance and anger at this crime. The examples of bravery and courage are too numerous to recount. People took courage from each other, as people came out others watched and did not want to be left out. It was something incredible to watch. Yes this was a historic day, a day to remember until our dying day. With one stroke, in a single day, the silent majority spoke and answered all the pundits and doubters, and those who spoke on their behalf. Yet we have been telling you this all along; we have been telling you ever since this blogging movement started. Do you now see that we were not representing minority views, that we were not some CIA agents trying to make propaganda?

I find it difficult right know to write coherently; I just want to convey to you some of the tremendous feelings overwhelming my soul now.

As for some of the Arab scum and other detractors, they are appearing on TV screens looking like they have just swallowed a cockroach, or perhaps had some awful lizard creeping up their backsides; They fidget, they try hard to find some words, some way to get round this, to belittle, twist to distort facts; but it is not easy, not easy when the entire world, the entire humanity are watching intently this incredible event.

Finally, we heard the speech of President Bush Loud and clear. He, and the American people and their British and other valiant allies have much to do with this event. All I can say is that this man has all the essential traits of character that distinguishes the great men of history; the insistence and utter conviction and the perseverance and steadfastness in the face of all doubters and detractors. This was no ordinary election, and it was not simply to elect a constituent assembly. It was the answer of the people, what they really thought about the liberation, what they really thought of the ideas preached by the president. This was a message by the Iraqi people to the American people and their great president. It was the heart of Iraq answering the heart of America that voted to give the President the mandate to finish the task; it was the answer that the common people of Iraq gave by braving danger and exposing their life and that of their children and families to death, this was their way to make their voice heard.

Well, thank you Mr. President, we heard you; and I am sure you also heard us.

Peace be upon you all and the mercy of Allah and his blessings.

In selling the need for war the Bush Administration did place a great deal of emphasis on WMD. Remember the 2003 State of the Union Address?  

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html

What you perceive as anti-west is actually fear of modernity.

It has been like that for 500 years. Religlous fundamentalism is rampant on both sides of the Atlantic now. Both in the ME and in the White House.

Bush is also afraid of modernity, as as the Saudis, Israelis, Iranians, and Pakistanis.

When the Luddites get their heads out of their asses and relaize the world isn't a mere 10,000 years old, that the earth revolves around the sun, and that humans should have rights and corporations should have NO rights, then terrorism may be reduced.

Wow, I really admire your courage in posting that BS. Now for a dose of reality.

"Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;"

--The consensus (unless perhaps you are the type to believe the world really is 10,000 years old) is that there was no connection between Iraq and 9/11 or Al Qaida.

"Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces"

--No WMD (this should be obvious by now).

"Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction..."

--Again, no link to Al Qaida and no WMD.

"Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations..."

---No link between Iraq and Bin Laden. Thanks for reminding us of the utterly false pretenses of this war in the first place.

No need to cite the Clinton document; his foreign policy acumen is such that he would have never invaded Iraq without allies or a plan (if at all).

-- Modified on 2/8/2005 12:38:56 PM

Just a reminder of how Bush/Cheney lied and manipulated the WMD intelligence to sell the war. (Too long to fit in one post.)
-------

Bush Certainty On Iraq Arms Went Beyond Analysts' Views

By Dana Priest and Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, June 7, 2003; Page A01

During the weeks last fall before critical votes in Congress and the United Nations on going to war in Iraq, senior administration officials, including President Bush, expressed certainty in public that Iraq possessed chemical and biological weapons, even though U.S. intelligence agencies were reporting they had no direct evidence that such weapons existed.

In an example of the tenor of the administration's statements at the time, the president said in the Rose Garden on Sept. 26 that "the Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons. The Iraqi regime is building the facilities necessary to make more biological and chemical weapons."

But a Defense Intelligence Agency report on chemical weapons, widely distributed to administration policymakers around the time of the president's speech, stated there was "no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing or stockpiling chemical weapons or whether Iraq has or will establish its chemical agent production facilities."

The disparities between the conviction with which administration officials portrayed the threat posed by Iraq in their public statements and documents, and the more qualified reporting on the issue by intelligence agencies in classified reports, are at the heart of a burgeoning controversy in Congress and within the intelligence community over the U.S. rationale for going to war. The failure of the United States to uncover any proscribed weapons eight weeks after the end of the war is fueling sentiment among some Democrats on Capitol Hill and some intelligence analysts that the administration may have exaggerated the threat posed by Iraq.

The White House yesterday defended the administration's prewar claims. "We continue to have confidence in our statements about Iraq's possession of chemical and biological weapons," spokesman Ari Fleischer said. He added that "the precise location of where Iraq had chemical and biological weapons was never clear, but the fact they had it was never in doubt, based on a reading of the intelligence."

The controversy over the administration's handling of the Iraq intelligence continued, however, as two senior defense intelligence officials discussed the issue behind closed doors with members of the Senate Armed Services Committee. The officials, Adm. Lowell Jacoby, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, and Stephen Cambone, undersecretary of defense for intelligence, were asked by reporters afterward about the classified Defense Intelligence Agency report on Iraq's chemical weapons.

"What we're saying is that as of 2002 in September, we could not reliably pin down, for somebody who was doing contingency planning, specific facilities, locations or production that was underway at a specific location at that point in time," Jacoby said.

The existence of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) document was reported in this week's U.S. News and World Report. The administration declassified a summary page of the document last night.

The report said that "although we lack any direct information, Iraq probably possesses chemical agent in chemical munitions" and "probably possesses bulk chemical stockpiles, primarily containing precursors, but that also could consist of some mustard agent and VX," a deadly nerve agent.

As the administration built its case for war last fall, some policymakers used caveats in describing Iraq's weapons holdings that mirrored the caution built into the DIA and other intelligence reports. In early September, for example, Bush used words such as "likely" or "suggests" in making the case that Iraq had a covert weapons program. But many of the president's speeches, as well as statements by Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, went without caveats.

Among those concerned by the discrepancy is Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.), the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, who routinely asked at committee meetings on Iraq whether officials were certain they would find weapons of mass destruction if the United States toppled the Iraqi government. Warner's committee and the Senate and House intelligence committees are deciding whether to launch an independent investigation of the administration's handling of Iraqi intelligence by their staffs. The CIA is already conducting an internal probe.

Cheney kicked off the administration's campaign to win congressional and U.N. support for military action in a speech on Aug. 26 to the Veterans of Foreign Wars in Nashville. "Simply stated," Cheney said, "there's no doubt that [Iraqi President] Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction."

(continued in the next post)

-- Modified on 2/8/2005 3:47:41 PM

(Continued below
-----------)

Before his Rose Garden statement in late September, Bush had used more measured language about Iraq's chemical weapons program, in line with the Defense Intelligence Agency conclusion.

At the United Nations on Sept. 12, when he urged the world body to join the United States in confronting Iraq, Bush said that previous U.N. inspections revealed "that Iraq likely maintains stockpiles of VX, mustard and other chemical agents."

But on Sept. 26, as the campaign to win congressional and U.N. Security Council approval for military action intensified, the president told congressional leaders Iraq "possesses" such weapons. On the same day, Rumsfeld told reporters that Iraq has "active development programs for those weapons, and has weaponized chemical and biological weapons."

On Oct. 1, the CIA released a "white paper" on Iraq's weapons programs derived from a broader, classified National Intelligence Estimate that had been sent to the White House and shared with members of Congress in briefings.

Among the "Key Judgments" in the first two pages of the National Intelligence Estimate that were meant to summarize the details that followed were statements in the white paper that "Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons," and "Baghdad has begun renewed production of chemical warfare agents, probably including mustard, sarin, cyclosarin and VX."

However, the more detailed backup material later in the document did not support those assessments. The intelligence paper contained more qualified language, stating, for example, that "gaps in Iraqi accounting and current production capabilities strongly suggest Iraq has the ability to produce chemical warfare agents within its chemical industry." It also said Iraq "has the ability to produce chemical warfare agents" -- a softer formulation than the summary section of the document, which said that Iraq "has begun" producing the agents.

On Oct. 7, Bush  echoed without qualification the white paper's "key judgment" conclusion when he said that Iraq "possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons." He went on to say, "Saddam Hussein has chosen to build and keep these weapons despite international sanctions, U.N. demands, and isolation from the civilized world."

Asked about the president's comments on the Iraq intelligence yesterday, Fleischer said: "Intelligence comes in the form of a mosaic. The president's description of the complete picture resulted from an interagency process in which every statement was vetted and approved by each agency."

A senior administration official, who consulted with analysts familiar with the white paper, said the document's judgments "were a bit more categorical" than  later statements "but the overall burden of the evidence pointed to that conclusion." He added that the president's statements were "based on the preponderance of the evidence" as he and policymakers saw it.

Throughout the run-up to war, according to senior intelligence officials, intelligence agencies had no direct evidence such as photographs or stolen Iraqi documents to support a firm conclusion about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. They said the case was circumstantial, largely because U.N. weapons inspectors had left Iraq in 1998, shutting off the last bit of direct knowledge available to the United States.  Inspectors returned last November and remained in Iraq until March.

Some officials have said privately that, while they could influence the content of intelligence documents, they had no control over what administration policymakers said in interpreting the material.

-- Modified on 2/8/2005 12:39:30 PM

Yes, that's correct the they put a great deal of emphasis on WMD. Too much, in my opinion. But the claim that it was all WMD and only WMD in the beginning, and that only later did other reasons come forth is a lie. Let's stick to facts.

RLTW

"There is also evidence that around this time Bin Ladin sent out a number of feelers to the Iraqi regime, offering some cooperation. None are reported to have received a significant response. According to one report, Saddam Hussein's efforts at this time to rebuild relations with the Saudis and other Middle Eastern regimes led him to stay clear of Bin Ladin."

"In mid-1998, the situation reversed; it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative. In March 1998, after Bin Ladin's public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin's Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In 1998, Iraq was under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large air attacks in December."

"Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides' hatred of the United States."

And your man Richard Clarke's views?

"Clarke was nervous about such a mission because he continued to fear that Bin Ladin might leave for someplace less accessible. He wrote Deputy National Security Advisor Donald Kerrick that one reliable source reported Bin Ladin's having met with Iraqi officials, who "may have offered him asylum." Other intelligence sources said that some Taliban leaders, though not Mullah Omar, had urged Bin Ladin to go to Iraq. If Bin Ladin actually moved to Iraq, wrote Clarke, his network would be at Saddam Hussein's service, and it would be "virtually impossible" to find him. Better to get Bin Ladin in Afghanistan, Clarke declared."

"Armed with that knowledge, old wily Usama will likely boogie to Baghdad," Richard Clarke wrote in a February 11, 1999 e-mail to Berger.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

RLTW

Last time I checked, nation building is not exactly what I'd call a turnkey process.

There's no doubt in my mind that we shouldn't have bankrupted our country fighting these wars, but at least the elections are a step in the right direction in terms of cleaning up the mess.

Saddam's removal had nothing to do with WMDs, that much is clear. It had everything to do with political expediency and that small fact he was sitting on a veritable shitload of oil (I use that vernacular so the folks in the red states can understand better).