For years, I've thought and thought about how one might go about holding the media accountable for their dastardly deeds such as the smearing of Alaskan Senator Ted Stephens, or Dan Rather's Memogate, the pre-election smearing of George Bush.
The problem is, even mention the notion of constraints on the media and quite literally everyone goes berserk. Kim Jong Il himself comes out and distances himself from your foolish and clumsy comments! So I'm not proposing anything that might threaten the independent media.
But the media prints a never ending stream of fallacious stories. Something needs to be done! Is there a better option?
I'm not certain, but there might be. Someone in the business could probably shed a lot of light on the topic. Here's my proposal:
Companies like VeriSign, Inc. and Thawte are what are known as "certificate authorities". Suppose some internet company, say MeAndYou, Inc. decides to start selling on the web. The result, MeAndYou.com. In order to accept credit card and other payments, and to ensure customers their site is a safe place to do business, they're going to need to purchase a digital certificate. It's just a file they install on their web server that makes it possible to talk to their web server over a secure (encrypted) conversation. But it's more than that. Each cryptographic key uses a unique key/cipher combination that no one else on earth is using. So long as they don't give out their server key file, no one can listen in on credit card purchases between a customer's browser and their web site.
But VeriSign won't give a server certificate to just anyone. They'll first do research into the background of the company. VeriSign's good name is at stake, should their trusted company do something immoral. When they allow some company to use a VeriSign-issued certificate, they are saying that "you can trust MeAndYou.com because we trust MeAndYou.com!" Company personnel records must be submitted, background checks are done, and criminal activity is probed. Once the lengthy and expensive process is complete, the certificate is issued and on day 1, MeAndYou.com is in business with the VeriSign stamp of approval on their website. The server certificate that MeAndYou.com is a child certificate of a VeriSign "root certificate" that must already be installed on a customer's browser, often called something like "DST Root CA X2" (an actual certificate from Digital Signature Trust, another Certificate Authority (CA)).
You know that little yellow lock on the bottom right hand of your browser? When it's locked, it means that you are talking securely to a server with a trusted certificate over an encrypted connection. A red alert denotes that something is wrong with this site's certificate. It might be expired or completely invalid. Or you might not posses the Root Certificate from which this site derives it's “chain-of-trust” authority.
Now, I'm sorry for the long (hopefully not useless) technical discussion. The point is to understand where the idea comes from and how it might work. No such organization, as I am about to describe, exists to date.
Imagine that the LA Times and Wall Street Journal subscribed to a private-sector service, let's say Trust-o-Media (TOM for short). Before the LA Times could publish a story, they would be contractually required to submit their story, as well as a bibliography of fact-to-source mappings showing that their story is, in fact, supported by actual living, breathing sources. TOM looks over their article and sees that all the facts stated seem to have a corresponding source. None of the content is extremely controversial, so they immediately turn around and issue the story a 9.0 out of 10 rating. No delay in publication. In time, news organizations would come to start printing even before their certification comes back because the system would keep their reporters honest, something with which the big news papers seem to constantly struggle. In other words, "While there is some opinion weeded into this story, the basic facts of the story are all sourced and referenced to our satisfaction. Contact information has been provided for all sources, and while we (TOM) have not contacted any of them, there does not appear to be any pseudo names or untraceable sources referenced in this story." Sources such as "deep-throat" would not be accepted. Any such submissions would result in a deduction of 5 or more points. The LA Times would be forced to rescind the publication of that story, find other sources, or disclose to their media-trust organization the identification of deep throat.
When stories of great interest, overturning accepted dogmas or of a potentially damaging nature either to someone's reputation, livelihood, or well-being, only multiple sources would meet the criteria set down by the Standard Media Trust Consortium, a W3C-like standards body that attempts to regulate the Rules of Rating so a story submitted to multiple media trust organization would result in a similar rating. Spoof stories would occasionally be submitted by the SMTC to several Media Trust organizations and their ratings would be internally reviewed once it was revealed that the story was a spoof. This would keep the Media Trust organizations honest, competitive, and non-complicit with the news organizations that subscribe to them. Findings of fairness would be made public on a quarterly basis. But in the end, greater claims require greater proof. We might even be able to get back to a 3+ source story in time!
Trust-o-Media is also bound by the contract. Since the LA Times submitted their story sources to only one media trust organization, they'll know, in the event anyone leaks it, where the leak originated. TOM, under severe criminal and civil penalties, agrees never to publish or reveal the story sources submitted by the LA Times. Never with an asterisk! This ensures the independence, and freedom of the media.
In the past decade, a pattern of leaking sensitive national security intelligence to the media has emerged at the Pentagon as well as congressional members and staffers. Also in the past few years, self-serving reporters have gone to jail rather than reveal their sources because they know that's the worst anyone will do to them; and they'll be heroes in the media when they emerge from their exile. Using a media trust authority would take out of the hands of a reporter the decision of whether his story endangered national security and should be prosecuted. This would make reporters much more submissive to the needs and safety of their fellow countrymen, a badly needed character trait in today's media. Meanwhile, TOM would only reveal sources after the LA Times failed to fund the court defense to keep those sources private. So long as the LA Times continues to fund the court challenges and the challenges don't run dry, the media trust authority would keep those sources safe and private.
Under normal circumstances, a well-catalogued bibliography would suffice to get a story a high 8+ rating. But suppose a 3rd party takes exception to the story. Perhaps their business is hurt or their personal character is assailed? Would they have any recourse? Yes. If they can raise the funds or pay for it themselves, they can go directly to the Media Trust Authority and challenge the veracity of any one fact or the entire basis for any story. Since the StoryTrust ID is published at the top of every story, a company could go directly to TOM and pay him $10,000 to track down the sources for a particular story and re-rate the story based on a more detailed investigation. Again, greatest care would be required on the part of the Media Trust Authority not to reveal any sources even after their investigation is complete. This would add an additional threat to reporters and media organizations. There would be the ever-present threat of forced-retraction or public ridicule when a 9.0 story is reduced to a 0.5 story because the sources didn't check out. Additionally, quarterly-updated numbers would be made available on all reporters and news agencies. A record would follow a reporter for his entire life, even if he switches news organizations ten times. This is because the Standard Media Trust Consortium would see to it that ratings would be similar for all news outlets. Scores would be transferable to the next Media Trust Authority using a standard ratings representation.
All these mechanisms would be even easier to put in place for online media organizations. Standard tools could be made available to organizations wishing to either switch Media Trust Authorities or subscribe to multiple authorities. There need not be any vendor lock in.
All photos would be screened for likely fraud such as the world famous Iranian multiple rocket launch or the Reuters fallacious Israeli-Hezbollah war photos seeming to indict Israel for bogus atrocities.
Nothing would convince the papers and magazines to pay for the overhead of a Media Trust Authority except readers requesting it and refusing to subscribe to any paper that won't use one. If an organization won't submit to being "kept honest", then what does that say about them?
Now I don't have the sway or resources to affect any sort of change in the media. I'm just one guy who can accept that these things demands of a free society can't be reconciled. My hope is that someone with some clout might grab hold of the idea and make something of it. "An informed citizenry is the bulwark of democracy". At a time when the founding fathers are being quoted with refreshing frequency, these words of Thomas Jefferson seem pointed and vital to our continued adherence to the Judeo Christian ethic that has historically shaped our public conscience and moral fiber. I believe that if America is to survive as a nation rather than a slave to world opinion and bleeding edge voyeurism, then we need to be able to trust more of what we read in print, on the internet, and on the screen. Honesty and truth need to be the pursuits of the people, not just the marketing slogans of the main stream media.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
List of Justifications for the Iraq War
I write this, not with an axe to grind, but truly bewildered at how short a memory most Americans seem to have. Myself being an American, I was acutely aware of the case for the war as we rolled towards actual combat. I wanted to state here the reasons I heard from the president as justifications for the Iraq war. It seems that America has forgotten that there were quite a number of different justifications given for the war pre-invasion, but the only two that seem to have survived post-war criticism are:
1) Iraq had and was pursuing WMD.
2) There was a link between Iraq and Al-Quaida and/or Terrorist organizations.
Do you all feel that this is an accurate presentation of today's discourse?
The problem is that this short list, is only a subset of the extent of justifications that was given for the Iraq war by the President (Bush) and his administration. The full list certainly includes the two stated above. I heard those from the President's own lips and do not deny that they were given. But to that list I would add these that were definitely given pre-invasion by the Administration and the President:
3) Saddam is a destabilizing force in the region. By invading/attacking Turkey, the Kurdish within Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia (during the 1st gulf war, and quickly repelled by US forces, remember the turrets turned around backwards until the last minute?), and Israel, Saddam has forced the surrounding countries to take a defensive posture towards their neighbors. The proliferation of more sophisticated and powerful weapons so long as you had a neighbor like Saddam.
4) To restore confidence in the UN Security Council's authority and will to act after issuing 19 Security Council Resolutions, each of which supposedly carried with it the threat of military-backed enforcement. Smaller and less-powerful states were starting to flout the threats of the UN. They believed that the UN would never act since states like Iraq were concrete proof that you can defy them with impunity. As a permanent member of the UN Security Council, founding member and chief financier of the UN generally, it fell to the US to act when others were unwilling. This action could only bolster the Security Council's ability to enforce order without war in the future. All enforcement must carry the real threat of conflict or the people that need to listen most closely will be least likely to do so.
5) Saddam was a tyrant to his own people. The reputed existence of torture-chambers, atrocities committed by Saddam and his two sons were well established. Even video was available showing summary executions during "loyalty" sessions with top government and military officials.
6) The enforcement of the Northern and Southern No-Fly Zones by US and British fighter jets. In fact, our Air Forces were being painted and fired upon by Iraqi anti-aircraft batteries on an average once per week for ten years after the invasion. In combat zones, painting (locking on) enemy planes has long been recognized as an act of aggression, let alone actually firing. Innocent people were dying an an attempt to enforce these no-fly zones. Allies determined that they could not stay forever, but that Saddam's actions showed defiance and aggression in line with his past actions. It was deemed accurate that Saddam would certainly re-invade the Kurds in the North and Shiites in the South if the no-fly zones were abolished. We were in a permanent catch 22. The only way to resolve this was a change of power in Iraq.
7) The expulsion of UN Weapons Inspectors, which violated the terms of the cease-fire agreement between allied and Iraqi forces after the first Gulf War, and served to strengthen the resolve and suspicion of the five top intelligence agencies in the world that Saddam was indeed hiding a clandestine weapons program.
I believe that points 3 through 7 were all valid points. The only ones contested are the first two. I believe that the contested nature of the first two points is why they are the only ones ever stated for the invasion. Keeping in mind that over 90 percent of Congress and Americans as a whole supported the war pre-invasion, in large because of the additional reasons stated above, let me present a few things that I know to be true in support of the first two points:
1) Iraq had and was pursuing WMD.
--At least two mobile weapons labs were discovered and captured during the invasion.
--Over 5,000 chemical weapons were discovered in various sized caches all around the country. Nearly all of them were buried and marked at the location or on captured maps. While critics minimize this point saying that none of these were post '91 manufacture, this was never an exclusion criteria stated by anyone before the invasion. Saddam claimed to have destroyed ALL of these weapons in the years after the first Gulf War. Each one of these artillery shells was capable of killing everyone in a small village (hundreds).
--550 Tons of yellow cake Uranium was moved from Iraq to Canada in 2008. This was stated as the "last remnants of Saddam's nuclear program." While Bush was allowing himself to be filleted for a non-existent nuclear program, and denounced by the likes of Valerie Plame and her husband for supposedly making up the story about Saddam's agents working out secret Uranium deals with Nigerian cooperatives, it now seems apparent that not only was Bush right, but that he valued the secrecy of the security operation more than his personal political ratings.
--Extensive documentation has been uncovered in Iraq that military officials were lying to Saddam about how many and what types of biological and chemical weapons they had stockpiled. In uncovered documents, it is clear that Saddam was under the false impression that their illicit arms stockpiles far exceeded their actual quantities and capabilities.
--At least one Iraqi General and personal confidant of Saddam, George Sadas, of the Iraqi Air Force, has gone on record stating that he observed a secret program to move weapons to Syria using gutted-out civilian airliners to avoid suspicion and snooping by foreign intelligence.
--Multiple defectors over several years, including Saddam's son-in-law claimed that Saddam was actively pursuing WMD.
--Every credible foreign intelligence organization in the world agreed that Saddam was running a clandestine WMD program. These conclusions were NOT based upon US planted evidence as some critics have suggested. They were their own conclusions based upon their own sources of information. Even the UN's intelligence service reached this conclusion.
2) There was a link between Iraq and Al-Quaeda and/or Terrorist organizations.
--It was widely reported by mainstream media that Saddam was paying the family of suicide bombers in Palestine as compensation for their sons who bombed Israel. The sum was stated to be $25,000 per bomber, which is a huge amount to a Palestinian.
--Documents and testimony have confirmed that there was a "gentleman's agreement" between Al Quaida and Saddam that they won't mess with each other so long as the other party also not commit acts of aggression against them. This is the very definition of "state-sponsored terrorism".
--Eleven US Government Officials confirmed to the Weekly Standard that in the years immediately proceeding the Iraq invasion, that papers have been uncovered in Iraq proving that Saddam trained literally thousands of terrorists in camps all across Northern Iraq.
I realize that alot of this evidence has fallen from circulation in the largely liberal media, but some of us have not forgotten it. Just because it's no longer discussed, doesn't mean it's not true. Given the evidence and reasons stated above, which should look familiar to those who have followed the media as have over a long period of time, can America continue to blame President George Bush for deliberately misleading the nation and getting America into an "illegal" war?
1) Iraq had and was pursuing WMD.
2) There was a link between Iraq and Al-Quaida and/or Terrorist organizations.
Do you all feel that this is an accurate presentation of today's discourse?
The problem is that this short list, is only a subset of the extent of justifications that was given for the Iraq war by the President (Bush) and his administration. The full list certainly includes the two stated above. I heard those from the President's own lips and do not deny that they were given. But to that list I would add these that were definitely given pre-invasion by the Administration and the President:
3) Saddam is a destabilizing force in the region. By invading/attacking Turkey, the Kurdish within Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia (during the 1st gulf war, and quickly repelled by US forces, remember the turrets turned around backwards until the last minute?), and Israel, Saddam has forced the surrounding countries to take a defensive posture towards their neighbors. The proliferation of more sophisticated and powerful weapons so long as you had a neighbor like Saddam.
4) To restore confidence in the UN Security Council's authority and will to act after issuing 19 Security Council Resolutions, each of which supposedly carried with it the threat of military-backed enforcement. Smaller and less-powerful states were starting to flout the threats of the UN. They believed that the UN would never act since states like Iraq were concrete proof that you can defy them with impunity. As a permanent member of the UN Security Council, founding member and chief financier of the UN generally, it fell to the US to act when others were unwilling. This action could only bolster the Security Council's ability to enforce order without war in the future. All enforcement must carry the real threat of conflict or the people that need to listen most closely will be least likely to do so.
5) Saddam was a tyrant to his own people. The reputed existence of torture-chambers, atrocities committed by Saddam and his two sons were well established. Even video was available showing summary executions during "loyalty" sessions with top government and military officials.
6) The enforcement of the Northern and Southern No-Fly Zones by US and British fighter jets. In fact, our Air Forces were being painted and fired upon by Iraqi anti-aircraft batteries on an average once per week for ten years after the invasion. In combat zones, painting (locking on) enemy planes has long been recognized as an act of aggression, let alone actually firing. Innocent people were dying an an attempt to enforce these no-fly zones. Allies determined that they could not stay forever, but that Saddam's actions showed defiance and aggression in line with his past actions. It was deemed accurate that Saddam would certainly re-invade the Kurds in the North and Shiites in the South if the no-fly zones were abolished. We were in a permanent catch 22. The only way to resolve this was a change of power in Iraq.
7) The expulsion of UN Weapons Inspectors, which violated the terms of the cease-fire agreement between allied and Iraqi forces after the first Gulf War, and served to strengthen the resolve and suspicion of the five top intelligence agencies in the world that Saddam was indeed hiding a clandestine weapons program.
I believe that points 3 through 7 were all valid points. The only ones contested are the first two. I believe that the contested nature of the first two points is why they are the only ones ever stated for the invasion. Keeping in mind that over 90 percent of Congress and Americans as a whole supported the war pre-invasion, in large because of the additional reasons stated above, let me present a few things that I know to be true in support of the first two points:
1) Iraq had and was pursuing WMD.
--At least two mobile weapons labs were discovered and captured during the invasion.
--Over 5,000 chemical weapons were discovered in various sized caches all around the country. Nearly all of them were buried and marked at the location or on captured maps. While critics minimize this point saying that none of these were post '91 manufacture, this was never an exclusion criteria stated by anyone before the invasion. Saddam claimed to have destroyed ALL of these weapons in the years after the first Gulf War. Each one of these artillery shells was capable of killing everyone in a small village (hundreds).
--550 Tons of yellow cake Uranium was moved from Iraq to Canada in 2008. This was stated as the "last remnants of Saddam's nuclear program." While Bush was allowing himself to be filleted for a non-existent nuclear program, and denounced by the likes of Valerie Plame and her husband for supposedly making up the story about Saddam's agents working out secret Uranium deals with Nigerian cooperatives, it now seems apparent that not only was Bush right, but that he valued the secrecy of the security operation more than his personal political ratings.
--Extensive documentation has been uncovered in Iraq that military officials were lying to Saddam about how many and what types of biological and chemical weapons they had stockpiled. In uncovered documents, it is clear that Saddam was under the false impression that their illicit arms stockpiles far exceeded their actual quantities and capabilities.
--At least one Iraqi General and personal confidant of Saddam, George Sadas, of the Iraqi Air Force, has gone on record stating that he observed a secret program to move weapons to Syria using gutted-out civilian airliners to avoid suspicion and snooping by foreign intelligence.
--Multiple defectors over several years, including Saddam's son-in-law claimed that Saddam was actively pursuing WMD.
--Every credible foreign intelligence organization in the world agreed that Saddam was running a clandestine WMD program. These conclusions were NOT based upon US planted evidence as some critics have suggested. They were their own conclusions based upon their own sources of information. Even the UN's intelligence service reached this conclusion.
2) There was a link between Iraq and Al-Quaeda and/or Terrorist organizations.
--It was widely reported by mainstream media that Saddam was paying the family of suicide bombers in Palestine as compensation for their sons who bombed Israel. The sum was stated to be $25,000 per bomber, which is a huge amount to a Palestinian.
--Documents and testimony have confirmed that there was a "gentleman's agreement" between Al Quaida and Saddam that they won't mess with each other so long as the other party also not commit acts of aggression against them. This is the very definition of "state-sponsored terrorism".
--Eleven US Government Officials confirmed to the Weekly Standard that in the years immediately proceeding the Iraq invasion, that papers have been uncovered in Iraq proving that Saddam trained literally thousands of terrorists in camps all across Northern Iraq.
I realize that alot of this evidence has fallen from circulation in the largely liberal media, but some of us have not forgotten it. Just because it's no longer discussed, doesn't mean it's not true. Given the evidence and reasons stated above, which should look familiar to those who have followed the media as have over a long period of time, can America continue to blame President George Bush for deliberately misleading the nation and getting America into an "illegal" war?
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Congratulations Chavez!!!
I write this, not with an axe to grind, but truly bewildered at how short a memory most Americans seem to have. Myself being an American, I was acutely aware of the case for the war as we rolled towards actual combat. I wanted to state here the reasons I heard from the president as justifications for the Iraq war. It seems that America has forgotten that there were quite a number of different justifications given for the war pre-invasion, but the only two that seem to have survived post-war criticism are:
1) Iraq had and was pursuing WMD.
2) There was a link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda and/or Terrorist organizations.
Do you all feel that this is an accurate presentation of today's discourse?
The problem is that this short list, is only a subset of the extent of justifications that was given for the Iraq war by the President (Bush) and his administration. The full list certainly includes the two stated above. I heard those from the President's own lips and do not deny that they were given. But to that list I would add these that were definitely given pre-invasion by the Administration and the President:
3) Saddam is a destabilizing force in the region. By invading/attacking Turkey, the Kurdish within Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia (during the 1st gulf war, and quickly repelled by US forces, remember the turrets turned around backwards until the last minute?), and Israel, Saddam has forced the surrounding countries to take a defensive posture towards their neighbors. The proliferation of more sophisticated and powerful weapons was a necessary so long as you had a neighbor like Saddam.
4) To restore confidence in the UN Security Council's authority and will to act after issuing 19 Security Council Resolutions, each of which supposedly carried with it the threat of military-backed enforcement. Smaller and less-powerful states were starting to flout the threats of the UN. They believed that the UN would never act since states like Iraq were concrete proof that you can defy them with impunity. As a permanent member of the UN Security Council, founding member and chief financier of the UN generally, it fell to the US to act when others were unwilling. This action could only bolster the Security Council's ability to enforce order without war in the future. All enforcement must carry the real threat of conflict or the people that need to listen most closely will be least likely to do so.
5) Saddam was a tyrant to his own people. The reputed existence of torture-chambers, atrocities committed by Saddam and his two sons were well established. Even video was available showing summary executions during "loyalty" sessions with top government and military officials.
6) The enforcement of the Northern and Southern No-Fly Zones by US and British fighter jets. In fact, our Air Forces were being painted and fired upon by Iraqi anti-aircraft batteries on an average once per week for ten years after the invasion. In combat zones, painting (locking on) enemy planes has long been recognized as an act of aggression, let alone actually firing. Innocent people were dying an attempt to enforce these no-fly zones. Allies determined that they could not stay forever, but that Saddam's actions showed defiance and aggression in line with his past actions. It was deemed accurate that Saddam would certainly re-invade the Kurds in the North and Shiites in the South if the no-fly zones were abolished. We were in a permanent catch 22. The only way to resolve this was a change of power in Iraq.
7) The expulsion of UN Weapons Inspectors, which violated the terms of the cease-fire agreement between allied and Iraqi forces after the first Gulf War, and served to strengthen the resolve and suspicion of the five top intelligence agencies in the world that Saddam was indeed hiding a clandestine weapons program.
I believe that points 3 through 7 were all valid points. The only ones contested are the first two. I believe that the contested nature of the first two points is why they are the only ones ever stated for the invasion. Keeping in mind that over 90 percent of Congress and Americans as a whole supported the war pre-invasion, in large because of the additional reasons stated above, let me present a few things that I know to be true in support of the first two points:
1) Iraq had and was pursuing WMD.
--At least two mobile weapons labs were discovered and captured during the invasion.
--Over 5,000 chemical weapons were discovered in various sized caches all around the country. Nearly all of them were buried and marked at the location or on captured maps. While critics minimize this point saying that none of these were post '91 manufacture, this was never an exclusion criteria stated by anyone before the invasion. Saddam claimed to have destroyed ALL of these weapons in the years after the first Gulf War. Each one of these artillery shells was capable of killing everyone in a small village (hundreds).
--550 Tons of yellow cake Uranium was moved from Iraq to Canada in 2008. This was stated as the "last remnants of Saddam's nuclear program." While Bush was allowing himself to be filleted for a non-existent nuclear program, and denounced by the likes of Valerie Plame and her husband for supposedly making up the story about Saddam's agents working out secret Uranium deals with Nigerian cooperatives, it now seems apparent that not only was Bush right, but that he valued the secrecy of the security operation more than his personal political ratings.
--Extensive documentation has been uncovered in Iraq that military officials were lying to Saddam about how many and what types of biological and chemical weapons they had stockpiled. In uncovered documents, it is clear that Saddam was under the false impression that their illicit arms stockpiles far exceeded their actual quantities and capabilities.
--At least one Iraqi General and personal confidant of Saddam, George Sadas, of the Iraqi Air Force, has gone on record stating that he observed a secret program to move weapons to Syria using gutted-out civilian airliners to avoid suspicion and snooping by foreign intelligence.
--Multiple defectors over several years, including Saddam's son-in-law claimed that Saddam was actively pursuing WMD.
--Every credible foreign intelligence organization in the world agreed that Saddam was running a clandestine WMD program. These conclusions were NOT based upon US planted evidence as some critics have suggested. They were their own conclusions based upon their own sources of information. Even the UN's intelligence service reached this conclusion.
--The IAEA and UN Weapons inspectors concluded on their own that satellite photos proved that chemical an biological weapons stockpiles that had been canistered, marked, sealed and placed in UN monitored, fenced holding yards, had been moved after weapons inspectors last visited these sites. This violated agreements between the Iraqi government and the UN. The logical conclusion was not that they moved these to destroy them, but that they moved these in order to hide them elsewhere, or even worse, to give them to less-reputable groups for use in ways that could not easily be traced back to the Iraqi government.
--In one case, an entire train of tanker cars filled with Anthrax was tagged by weapons inspectors before they were kicked out of the country.
--If there is some central facility where these weapons were taken to be destroyed, it has still yet to be discovered. One photo op video clip of a backhoe crushing a Scud missile chasse has been shown over and over in US media. This hardly constitutes evidence that Saddam had his chemical and biological weapons capabilities dismantled.
2) There was a link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda and/or Terrorist organizations.
--It was widely reported by mainstream media that Saddam was paying the family of suicide bombers in Palestine as compensation for their sons who bombed Israel. The sum was stated to be $25,000 per bomber, which is a huge amount to a Palestinian. This is the very definition of "state-sponsored terrorism".
--Documents and testimony have confirmed that there was a "gentleman's agreement" between Al Qaeda and Saddam that they won't mess with each other so long as the other party also agree not to commit acts of aggression against them.
--Eleven US Government Officials confirmed to the Weekly Standard that in the years immediately proceeding the Iraq invasion, that papers have been uncovered in Iraq proving that Saddam trained literally thousands of terrorists in camps all across Northern Iraq.
I realize that a lot of this evidence has fallen from circulation in the largely liberal media, but some of us have not forgotten it. Just because it's no longer discussed, doesn't mean it's not true. Given the evidence and reasons stated above, which should look familiar to those who have followed the media as I have over a long period of time, can America continue to blame President George Bush for "deliberately misleading" the nation and getting America into an "illegal" war?
Accusations have arisen that we weren't prepared for every facet of the war, and that is true. No army in the history of the world ever has been. Charges have arisen that we weren't prepared to "keep the peace", that's probably somewhat fair as well. We should invest in fewer weapons systems and more crystal balls, perhaps. But it's not as if the arm chair critics foretold exactly what might happen either. They just couldn't be blamed if things went badly. Charges that we fought this war for oil have now dropped off, but pervaded for years. Again, I'm waiting for that Iraqi oil. We have yet to take any oil from Iraq despite our vast investment in re-building their oil infrastructure. When the time to start exporting came due, the first thing Iraq did was go out seeking competitive bids. The Chinese have mostly benefited from those contracts.
Some have criticized the US for going to war for less than reasons of recent or imminent attack. The constant shooting at American aircraft during the ten year enforcement of the Northern and Southern no-fly zones aside, this has never been the "only" acceptable criteria for going to war. Most wars in history have been fought to achieve political objectives.
I remain a firm believer that the war in Iraq was justified and call on Americans to accept responsibility for the support they lent the President before the war. Realize that while might does not make right, neither does popularity, neither does consensus.
1) Iraq had and was pursuing WMD.
2) There was a link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda and/or Terrorist organizations.
Do you all feel that this is an accurate presentation of today's discourse?
The problem is that this short list, is only a subset of the extent of justifications that was given for the Iraq war by the President (Bush) and his administration. The full list certainly includes the two stated above. I heard those from the President's own lips and do not deny that they were given. But to that list I would add these that were definitely given pre-invasion by the Administration and the President:
3) Saddam is a destabilizing force in the region. By invading/attacking Turkey, the Kurdish within Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia (during the 1st gulf war, and quickly repelled by US forces, remember the turrets turned around backwards until the last minute?), and Israel, Saddam has forced the surrounding countries to take a defensive posture towards their neighbors. The proliferation of more sophisticated and powerful weapons was a necessary so long as you had a neighbor like Saddam.
4) To restore confidence in the UN Security Council's authority and will to act after issuing 19 Security Council Resolutions, each of which supposedly carried with it the threat of military-backed enforcement. Smaller and less-powerful states were starting to flout the threats of the UN. They believed that the UN would never act since states like Iraq were concrete proof that you can defy them with impunity. As a permanent member of the UN Security Council, founding member and chief financier of the UN generally, it fell to the US to act when others were unwilling. This action could only bolster the Security Council's ability to enforce order without war in the future. All enforcement must carry the real threat of conflict or the people that need to listen most closely will be least likely to do so.
5) Saddam was a tyrant to his own people. The reputed existence of torture-chambers, atrocities committed by Saddam and his two sons were well established. Even video was available showing summary executions during "loyalty" sessions with top government and military officials.
6) The enforcement of the Northern and Southern No-Fly Zones by US and British fighter jets. In fact, our Air Forces were being painted and fired upon by Iraqi anti-aircraft batteries on an average once per week for ten years after the invasion. In combat zones, painting (locking on) enemy planes has long been recognized as an act of aggression, let alone actually firing. Innocent people were dying an attempt to enforce these no-fly zones. Allies determined that they could not stay forever, but that Saddam's actions showed defiance and aggression in line with his past actions. It was deemed accurate that Saddam would certainly re-invade the Kurds in the North and Shiites in the South if the no-fly zones were abolished. We were in a permanent catch 22. The only way to resolve this was a change of power in Iraq.
7) The expulsion of UN Weapons Inspectors, which violated the terms of the cease-fire agreement between allied and Iraqi forces after the first Gulf War, and served to strengthen the resolve and suspicion of the five top intelligence agencies in the world that Saddam was indeed hiding a clandestine weapons program.
I believe that points 3 through 7 were all valid points. The only ones contested are the first two. I believe that the contested nature of the first two points is why they are the only ones ever stated for the invasion. Keeping in mind that over 90 percent of Congress and Americans as a whole supported the war pre-invasion, in large because of the additional reasons stated above, let me present a few things that I know to be true in support of the first two points:
1) Iraq had and was pursuing WMD.
--At least two mobile weapons labs were discovered and captured during the invasion.
--Over 5,000 chemical weapons were discovered in various sized caches all around the country. Nearly all of them were buried and marked at the location or on captured maps. While critics minimize this point saying that none of these were post '91 manufacture, this was never an exclusion criteria stated by anyone before the invasion. Saddam claimed to have destroyed ALL of these weapons in the years after the first Gulf War. Each one of these artillery shells was capable of killing everyone in a small village (hundreds).
--550 Tons of yellow cake Uranium was moved from Iraq to Canada in 2008. This was stated as the "last remnants of Saddam's nuclear program." While Bush was allowing himself to be filleted for a non-existent nuclear program, and denounced by the likes of Valerie Plame and her husband for supposedly making up the story about Saddam's agents working out secret Uranium deals with Nigerian cooperatives, it now seems apparent that not only was Bush right, but that he valued the secrecy of the security operation more than his personal political ratings.
--Extensive documentation has been uncovered in Iraq that military officials were lying to Saddam about how many and what types of biological and chemical weapons they had stockpiled. In uncovered documents, it is clear that Saddam was under the false impression that their illicit arms stockpiles far exceeded their actual quantities and capabilities.
--At least one Iraqi General and personal confidant of Saddam, George Sadas, of the Iraqi Air Force, has gone on record stating that he observed a secret program to move weapons to Syria using gutted-out civilian airliners to avoid suspicion and snooping by foreign intelligence.
--Multiple defectors over several years, including Saddam's son-in-law claimed that Saddam was actively pursuing WMD.
--Every credible foreign intelligence organization in the world agreed that Saddam was running a clandestine WMD program. These conclusions were NOT based upon US planted evidence as some critics have suggested. They were their own conclusions based upon their own sources of information. Even the UN's intelligence service reached this conclusion.
--The IAEA and UN Weapons inspectors concluded on their own that satellite photos proved that chemical an biological weapons stockpiles that had been canistered, marked, sealed and placed in UN monitored, fenced holding yards, had been moved after weapons inspectors last visited these sites. This violated agreements between the Iraqi government and the UN. The logical conclusion was not that they moved these to destroy them, but that they moved these in order to hide them elsewhere, or even worse, to give them to less-reputable groups for use in ways that could not easily be traced back to the Iraqi government.
--In one case, an entire train of tanker cars filled with Anthrax was tagged by weapons inspectors before they were kicked out of the country.
--If there is some central facility where these weapons were taken to be destroyed, it has still yet to be discovered. One photo op video clip of a backhoe crushing a Scud missile chasse has been shown over and over in US media. This hardly constitutes evidence that Saddam had his chemical and biological weapons capabilities dismantled.
2) There was a link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda and/or Terrorist organizations.
--It was widely reported by mainstream media that Saddam was paying the family of suicide bombers in Palestine as compensation for their sons who bombed Israel. The sum was stated to be $25,000 per bomber, which is a huge amount to a Palestinian. This is the very definition of "state-sponsored terrorism".
--Documents and testimony have confirmed that there was a "gentleman's agreement" between Al Qaeda and Saddam that they won't mess with each other so long as the other party also agree not to commit acts of aggression against them.
--Eleven US Government Officials confirmed to the Weekly Standard that in the years immediately proceeding the Iraq invasion, that papers have been uncovered in Iraq proving that Saddam trained literally thousands of terrorists in camps all across Northern Iraq.
I realize that a lot of this evidence has fallen from circulation in the largely liberal media, but some of us have not forgotten it. Just because it's no longer discussed, doesn't mean it's not true. Given the evidence and reasons stated above, which should look familiar to those who have followed the media as I have over a long period of time, can America continue to blame President George Bush for "deliberately misleading" the nation and getting America into an "illegal" war?
Accusations have arisen that we weren't prepared for every facet of the war, and that is true. No army in the history of the world ever has been. Charges have arisen that we weren't prepared to "keep the peace", that's probably somewhat fair as well. We should invest in fewer weapons systems and more crystal balls, perhaps. But it's not as if the arm chair critics foretold exactly what might happen either. They just couldn't be blamed if things went badly. Charges that we fought this war for oil have now dropped off, but pervaded for years. Again, I'm waiting for that Iraqi oil. We have yet to take any oil from Iraq despite our vast investment in re-building their oil infrastructure. When the time to start exporting came due, the first thing Iraq did was go out seeking competitive bids. The Chinese have mostly benefited from those contracts.
Some have criticized the US for going to war for less than reasons of recent or imminent attack. The constant shooting at American aircraft during the ten year enforcement of the Northern and Southern no-fly zones aside, this has never been the "only" acceptable criteria for going to war. Most wars in history have been fought to achieve political objectives.
I remain a firm believer that the war in Iraq was justified and call on Americans to accept responsibility for the support they lent the President before the war. Realize that while might does not make right, neither does popularity, neither does consensus.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
