You're as bad as you paint Cheney to be. To wit - 'the question is not "were there links?"-- it's "were there links of a sort to justify an invasion?"' Why isn't the question something like: "Were the links, when coupled with myriad other areas of concern, of a sort to justify an invasion?"
Also, 1. is irrefutable, while 2 is merely an opinion, so of course no 'single parsing of links' makes both true. Consider:
1. Iraq had links with al Qaeda
2. al Qaeda has already hit the US once, and is actively seeking to do it again
3. Thus Iraq should be invaded
See how removing the opinion statement out and replacing it with a factual statement changes the intrepretation slightly?
In other words, you are carefully selecting your words in an attempt to deceive the reader in order to sway them towards your opinion on the matter. Quit being a 'dick'.
Mr./Ms. No, your 3 only follows if the "links" in your 1 are robust. But the robustness of the links is what's at issue. If Cheney meant "links" in the sense of "met with a few times," then nothing follows. If he meant "links" in the sense of "coordinated with," then he made a false statement. They're now claiming that he meant the former, thinner sense. But then, why say things like (slight paraphrase) "Saddam is a patron of terror, he has long standing ties to Al Qaeda." He clearly intends to imply a robust sense, while claiming, when asked, that he intended the thin sense. That's deceptive. He's a Dick. (That last point you pretty much have to give me.)
Was anyone deceived by these deceptions? I myself read all Cheney's statements in much the same way as Dr. No, above: Saddam is a low life, has contacts with Al Queda, lets err on the side of regime change. [Off topic, I "heard" the WMD arguments the same way: he wants 'em, we don't want him to get 'em, so let's not let the smoking gun be a mushroom cloud.] Did you perceive the administrations statement of the Al Queda link differently, ogged? Or did the 'deceptive' readings of the Al Queda link (e.g., Saddam is at this moment orchestrating Al Queda atttacks with his godson, Bin Laden) gain wide public credence? I don't know the answer to this latter question, but if 90% of the US public thought Saddam and Osama were working together, and this was why they supported the invasion, that would count to em as evidence of being deceived.
did the 'deceptive' readings of the Al Queda link (e.g., Saddam is at this moment orchestrating Al Queda atttacks with his godson, Bin Laden) gain wide public credence?
Ok, that's bad. I'd love to see a time course on this -- like when did this belief start, when did it spike, etc -- but the default view would be, bad, bad, bad.
I'm going to rewatch the third quarter of the Piston's clincher again...
ogged - Define 'robust'. And it's not just that the links are robust. There were other factors at play with regard to the decision to invade Iraq. baa describes some above. Another factor to consider the Middle East is at the heart of the threat we face from radical Islam. We needed a base of operations from which we could launch quick strikes (remember, we have shifted to a lighter, more agile force structure) in that region. So the 'links' were just one in a set of issues regarding the war on terror - added together, invasion follows. This is why I am taking issue with your focus on this particular statement.
baa - I parsed those statements very similar to yours. Given my background I tend to support preventive action measures, so I am willing to cut the Administration some slack and not harp on the subleties of the language and words selected.
I do disagree with you however, on determining a causal connection between Cheney's statements and the poll cited above. At least in the sense that there was an overt attempt to deceive. I suspect that those numbers simply reflect a large populace not very nuanced in geo-political realities, further amplified by the "sound bite" mentality on the part of the mass media.
No -- It could easily be as you say. Perhaps had we invaded North Korea a majority would have link ed Kim to 9-11. That's an interpretation of events I'd prefer to be true, and my remark about a "time course" of the poll was a gesture in that direction. Cheney's wasn't really on the bully-pulpet, and his remarks may be largely unrelated to the concluisons the public drew.
Still, it's bad when a majority of Americans believe things that are false at the same time that the adminsitration was saying things that a) were careless/vague/misleading and b) pointed in the direction of that falsehood. I don't think Cheney needs to make the case against his own position, but it still is ugly that while he was talking a bit loosely (and we'll both admit this, right?) lots of Americans were coming to wrong conclusions.
2. al Qaeda has already hit the US once, and is actively seeking to do it again
3. Thus Iraq should be invaded
See how removing the opinion statement out and replacing it with a factual statement changes the intrepretation slightly?
There are two problems with this. Ogged has done a great job at addressing the first one. The second is that #1 is misleading. Iraq had scant ties to AQ, it has not been proven that Saddam had ties to AQ. Moreover, Iraq is far from the only country with ties to AQ. Hell, under these loose definitions of what constitutes a "link" or a "tie,", we can include Spain, France, Germany, the US, and I believe, Canada. Maybe we should invade and occupy ourselves?
As far as your "geo-political" reasoning goes, abotu having a station in Iraq to help control the ME, that's going so well right now isn't it? Fucking brilliant, it was. After this fiasco, the other ME countries know,
1. Our intelligence services don't really know that much, and they have less to fear than they thought.
2. It's unlikely we'll be able to garner international support against another ME state.
3. Even if we wanted to, we don't have the troops to deploy, and won't for years.
4. Anti-Americanism has increased. Leaders are less free to be friendly towards America, while anti-America parties have been strengthened.
It was such a brilliant geo-political strategy, however did it go wrong?
I'm not sure I follow your NK comment. Surely, NK would be a far sight harder to invade. Not too mention they are also far more isolated than Iraq.
I'm not sure he was talking 'loosely'. Though I freely admit that this Administration's penchant for actually saying very little tends to get them in trouble. Meaning they make so few statements, that when one is misinterpreted, they are very slow (if at all) to issue clarifications/corrections.
Ogg has not done a great job of anything as yet. Second, define "scant". Third, Iraq is not Saddam and Saddam is not Iraq. We know agents of al Qaeda and high level officers in Saddam's regime were in contact. We know are finding out that Russian intelligence believed Saddam to be planning terrorist attacks post 9-11. So now we have:
1. Iraq had links with al Qaeda
2. al Qaeda has already hit the US once, and is actively seeking to do it again
3. Saddam is believed to be planning attacks
4. Thus Iraq should be invaded
Add in the other factors I (and baa) allude to above and 4 becomes an increasingly reasonable conclusion.
Your comments regarding Spain, et. al. are so silly as to not warrant a response.
Actually, in terms of military execution - it was fucking brilliant. Occupation has been pretty damned tough, to be sure. And nobody ever said that this whole thing would be easy. Given today's recent revelations regarding Iran's nuclear ambitions, I'd say the case for a ME launching point is pretty compelling. Now, on to your points:
1. Yes our intelligence services have gotten quite a bit wrong. No one is denying that. Perhaps 'they' should fear that more seeing as we're not above military action on such 'bad' intelligence.
2. We couldn't even garner support past Afghanistan! What's your point?
3. I said a base for quick strikes (e.g. 20 or so Army Rangers), not a full scale invasion. Oh say, to blow up a uranium processing plant nearby.
4. Enh. The US always will be disliked for who and what we are. I'm not all that concerned about it. We'll be fine.
We know agents of al Qaeda and high level officers in Saddam's regime were in contact.
We also know some of the highest level officers in Iraq were lying to Saddam about what was going on in his own country.
And nobody ever said that this whole thing would be easy.
gee, no one except Rumsfeld and this whole administration. And it's not like they repeatedly told this to the American people.
Second, define "scant".
Scant: adj. scant-er scant-est
1. Barely sufficient
2. Falling short of a specific measure.
3. Inadequately supplied, shot.
I hope that helps you.
As to your updated 1,2,3,4 - there are only two reasons why 2 would have anything to do with 3 or 4. Either Iraq is acting in cooperation with AQ, something I don't believe anyone is claliming anymore, or attacking Iraq will be a significant blow to AQ, something I don't thin anyone credible has every claimed. In short, 2 doesn't belong in a list of reasons to attack Iraq.
3 and 4 are reasons, and 1 could be just a little "extra" tossed in, but, it alone is not a reason, as I demonstrated in the above post. And I won't argue 3 or 4, as they aren't the present issue.
Your next 1,2,3,4.
1. I am so unsurprised you said this. But consider the real lesson they probably will derive from such behavior on the part of the US - it doesn't matter what they do, they might be damned if they do, damned if they don't. The "crazy man" strategy might prove useful sometimes, but at the same time, you can't be a "crazy man" and try carrot-and-stick strategy. If they aren't certain they can gain US favor, why even try?
2. But the reason we couldn't gain support is because of Iraq. And it is very possible that in the future we will fail to gain support because of Iraq. Of course, Bush's overall 'we're not a team player" policy attitude hasn't helped.
3. Oh yeah, we'll just go blow nation's plants up. It's not like we need overwhelming strength to backup that little task force. Not at all. They'll never retaliate because....? Go send those rangers to blow up a plant in Iran. See what happens.
4. Well, that makes you a fool. AQ is successful because the US is hated. As long as we don't care what people think and we'll just satisfy our own desires anyway, we're playing an age-old game. The harsher we react, the more resistance and trouble we stir up. We'll never win by acting like a despot. No one has ever succeede at this game. And it's certain that the US doesn't have a chance at it.
No -- Just to clarify, the NK comment was just a rirff on your large "populace not very nuanced in geo-political realities" comment. Had we, contrary to fact, invaded a non-Iraq villainocracy, perhaps 80% of americans would have attributed 9-11 to the head villain of the country we invaded.
I do think, though, you're a bit quick to dismiss the criticism of the administration's communication style. Those less "on wavelength" with th arguments simply heard a different story than you or I did. No doubt some of that comes from those trynig to slam the administraion in retrospect. But some of it comes from the White House being slippery.
Great post. I've linked to it over on my site.
Posted by freakgirl | Link to this comment | 06-17-04 11:25 AM
You're as bad as you paint Cheney to be. To wit - 'the question is not "were there links?"-- it's "were there links of a sort to justify an invasion?"' Why isn't the question something like: "Were the links, when coupled with myriad other areas of concern, of a sort to justify an invasion?"
Also, 1. is irrefutable, while 2 is merely an opinion, so of course no 'single parsing of links' makes both true. Consider:
1. Iraq had links with al Qaeda
2. al Qaeda has already hit the US once, and is actively seeking to do it again
3. Thus Iraq should be invaded
See how removing the opinion statement out and replacing it with a factual statement changes the intrepretation slightly?
In other words, you are carefully selecting your words in an attempt to deceive the reader in order to sway them towards your opinion on the matter. Quit being a 'dick'.
Posted by No | Link to this comment | 06-17-04 1:49 PM
Mr./Ms. No, your 3 only follows if the "links" in your 1 are robust. But the robustness of the links is what's at issue. If Cheney meant "links" in the sense of "met with a few times," then nothing follows. If he meant "links" in the sense of "coordinated with," then he made a false statement. They're now claiming that he meant the former, thinner sense. But then, why say things like (slight paraphrase) "Saddam is a patron of terror, he has long standing ties to Al Qaeda." He clearly intends to imply a robust sense, while claiming, when asked, that he intended the thin sense. That's deceptive. He's a Dick. (That last point you pretty much have to give me.)
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 06-17-04 2:47 PM
Was anyone deceived by these deceptions? I myself read all Cheney's statements in much the same way as Dr. No, above: Saddam is a low life, has contacts with Al Queda, lets err on the side of regime change. [Off topic, I "heard" the WMD arguments the same way: he wants 'em, we don't want him to get 'em, so let's not let the smoking gun be a mushroom cloud.] Did you perceive the administrations statement of the Al Queda link differently, ogged? Or did the 'deceptive' readings of the Al Queda link (e.g., Saddam is at this moment orchestrating Al Queda atttacks with his godson, Bin Laden) gain wide public credence? I don't know the answer to this latter question, but if 90% of the US public thought Saddam and Osama were working together, and this was why they supported the invasion, that would count to em as evidence of being deceived.
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 06-17-04 4:09 PM
did the 'deceptive' readings of the Al Queda link (e.g., Saddam is at this moment orchestrating Al Queda atttacks with his godson, Bin Laden) gain wide public credence?
Check it out.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 06-17-04 4:33 PM
Ok, that's bad. I'd love to see a time course on this -- like when did this belief start, when did it spike, etc -- but the default view would be, bad, bad, bad.
I'm going to rewatch the third quarter of the Piston's clincher again...
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 06-17-04 5:45 PM
ogged - Define 'robust'. And it's not just that the links are robust. There were other factors at play with regard to the decision to invade Iraq. baa describes some above. Another factor to consider the Middle East is at the heart of the threat we face from radical Islam. We needed a base of operations from which we could launch quick strikes (remember, we have shifted to a lighter, more agile force structure) in that region. So the 'links' were just one in a set of issues regarding the war on terror - added together, invasion follows. This is why I am taking issue with your focus on this particular statement.
Posted by No | Link to this comment | 06-17-04 5:50 PM
baa - I parsed those statements very similar to yours. Given my background I tend to support preventive action measures, so I am willing to cut the Administration some slack and not harp on the subleties of the language and words selected.
I do disagree with you however, on determining a causal connection between Cheney's statements and the poll cited above. At least in the sense that there was an overt attempt to deceive. I suspect that those numbers simply reflect a large populace not very nuanced in geo-political realities, further amplified by the "sound bite" mentality on the part of the mass media.
Posted by No | Link to this comment | 06-17-04 5:56 PM
No -- It could easily be as you say. Perhaps had we invaded North Korea a majority would have link ed Kim to 9-11. That's an interpretation of events I'd prefer to be true, and my remark about a "time course" of the poll was a gesture in that direction. Cheney's wasn't really on the bully-pulpet, and his remarks may be largely unrelated to the concluisons the public drew.
Still, it's bad when a majority of Americans believe things that are false at the same time that the adminsitration was saying things that a) were careless/vague/misleading and b) pointed in the direction of that falsehood. I don't think Cheney needs to make the case against his own position, but it still is ugly that while he was talking a bit loosely (and we'll both admit this, right?) lots of Americans were coming to wrong conclusions.
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 06-17-04 8:57 PM
1. Iraq had links with al Qaeda
2. al Qaeda has already hit the US once, and is actively seeking to do it again
3. Thus Iraq should be invaded
See how removing the opinion statement out and replacing it with a factual statement changes the intrepretation slightly?
There are two problems with this. Ogged has done a great job at addressing the first one. The second is that #1 is misleading. Iraq had scant ties to AQ, it has not been proven that Saddam had ties to AQ. Moreover, Iraq is far from the only country with ties to AQ. Hell, under these loose definitions of what constitutes a "link" or a "tie,", we can include Spain, France, Germany, the US, and I believe, Canada. Maybe we should invade and occupy ourselves?
As far as your "geo-political" reasoning goes, abotu having a station in Iraq to help control the ME, that's going so well right now isn't it? Fucking brilliant, it was. After this fiasco, the other ME countries know,
1. Our intelligence services don't really know that much, and they have less to fear than they thought.
2. It's unlikely we'll be able to garner international support against another ME state.
3. Even if we wanted to, we don't have the troops to deploy, and won't for years.
4. Anti-Americanism has increased. Leaders are less free to be friendly towards America, while anti-America parties have been strengthened.
It was such a brilliant geo-political strategy, however did it go wrong?
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 06-18-04 12:27 AM
baa -
I'm not sure I follow your NK comment. Surely, NK would be a far sight harder to invade. Not too mention they are also far more isolated than Iraq.
I'm not sure he was talking 'loosely'. Though I freely admit that this Administration's penchant for actually saying very little tends to get them in trouble. Meaning they make so few statements, that when one is misinterpreted, they are very slow (if at all) to issue clarifications/corrections.
Posted by No | Link to this comment | 06-18-04 11:23 AM
Michael -
Ogg has not done a great job of anything as yet. Second, define "scant". Third, Iraq is not Saddam and Saddam is not Iraq. We know agents of al Qaeda and high level officers in Saddam's regime were in contact. We know are finding out that Russian intelligence believed Saddam to be planning terrorist attacks post 9-11. So now we have:
1. Iraq had links with al Qaeda
2. al Qaeda has already hit the US once, and is actively seeking to do it again
3. Saddam is believed to be planning attacks
4. Thus Iraq should be invaded
Add in the other factors I (and baa) allude to above and 4 becomes an increasingly reasonable conclusion.
Your comments regarding Spain, et. al. are so silly as to not warrant a response.
cont'd
Posted by No | Link to this comment | 06-18-04 11:32 AM
Actually, in terms of military execution - it was fucking brilliant. Occupation has been pretty damned tough, to be sure. And nobody ever said that this whole thing would be easy. Given today's recent revelations regarding Iran's nuclear ambitions, I'd say the case for a ME launching point is pretty compelling. Now, on to your points:
1. Yes our intelligence services have gotten quite a bit wrong. No one is denying that. Perhaps 'they' should fear that more seeing as we're not above military action on such 'bad' intelligence.
2. We couldn't even garner support past Afghanistan! What's your point?
3. I said a base for quick strikes (e.g. 20 or so Army Rangers), not a full scale invasion. Oh say, to blow up a uranium processing plant nearby.
4. Enh. The US always will be disliked for who and what we are. I'm not all that concerned about it. We'll be fine.
Posted by No | Link to this comment | 06-18-04 11:44 AM
We know agents of al Qaeda and high level officers in Saddam's regime were in contact.
We also know some of the highest level officers in Iraq were lying to Saddam about what was going on in his own country.
And nobody ever said that this whole thing would be easy.
gee, no one except Rumsfeld and this whole administration. And it's not like they repeatedly told this to the American people.
Second, define "scant".
Scant: adj. scant-er scant-est
1. Barely sufficient
2. Falling short of a specific measure.
3. Inadequately supplied, shot.
I hope that helps you.
As to your updated 1,2,3,4 - there are only two reasons why 2 would have anything to do with 3 or 4. Either Iraq is acting in cooperation with AQ, something I don't believe anyone is claliming anymore, or attacking Iraq will be a significant blow to AQ, something I don't thin anyone credible has every claimed. In short, 2 doesn't belong in a list of reasons to attack Iraq.
3 and 4 are reasons, and 1 could be just a little "extra" tossed in, but, it alone is not a reason, as I demonstrated in the above post. And I won't argue 3 or 4, as they aren't the present issue.
Your next 1,2,3,4.
1. I am so unsurprised you said this. But consider the real lesson they probably will derive from such behavior on the part of the US - it doesn't matter what they do, they might be damned if they do, damned if they don't. The "crazy man" strategy might prove useful sometimes, but at the same time, you can't be a "crazy man" and try carrot-and-stick strategy. If they aren't certain they can gain US favor, why even try?
2. But the reason we couldn't gain support is because of Iraq. And it is very possible that in the future we will fail to gain support because of Iraq. Of course, Bush's overall 'we're not a team player" policy attitude hasn't helped.
3. Oh yeah, we'll just go blow nation's plants up. It's not like we need overwhelming strength to backup that little task force. Not at all. They'll never retaliate because....? Go send those rangers to blow up a plant in Iran. See what happens.
4. Well, that makes you a fool. AQ is successful because the US is hated. As long as we don't care what people think and we'll just satisfy our own desires anyway, we're playing an age-old game. The harsher we react, the more resistance and trouble we stir up. We'll never win by acting like a despot. No one has ever succeede at this game. And it's certain that the US doesn't have a chance at it.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 06-18-04 1:28 PM
No -- Just to clarify, the NK comment was just a rirff on your large "populace not very nuanced in geo-political realities" comment. Had we, contrary to fact, invaded a non-Iraq villainocracy, perhaps 80% of americans would have attributed 9-11 to the head villain of the country we invaded.
I do think, though, you're a bit quick to dismiss the criticism of the administration's communication style. Those less "on wavelength" with th arguments simply heard a different story than you or I did. No doubt some of that comes from those trynig to slam the administraion in retrospect. But some of it comes from the White House being slippery.
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 06-18-04 3:54 PM