Rice: no dice

Condoleezza Rice says she won't be running for veep.

Of course, they always say that. (For example...) But in Condi's case, I tend to actually believe it.

Speaking of potential vice presidential runningmates, today I stumbled upon this Obama veepstakes post from Marc Ambinder. It's a week old, but it's interesting. Just keep scrolling through the comments.

Comments

[Condor]

I'm curious if leading a country to war with intelligence that she later admitted was entirely flawed had anything to do with this. Probably not.

[Andrew]

"Entirely flawed"? That's putting it a tad too strongly, methinks. Not to mention, your comment tends to put a lot of singular focus on Rice for that, when there were many other names involved in "leading a country to war" -- Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Powell, Blair, and so forth.

[Dave]

I had high hopes for a McCain-Rice ticket. Despite her Iraq "tarnish," Condi is an intelligent, articulate, clever and personable woman who would have balanced all of McCain's supposed weaknesses. She also has a sense of policy gravitas that would serve as a nice tonic for Obama's idealistic fluff; if anyone can make an intelligent case to the American people for staying the course in Iraq, it's her. I really hope she reconsiders.

[Condor]

Maybe "Entirely Flawed" is too strong. They did, as far as I recall, correctly locate Iraq in the Middle East.

As for the "it's not so bad because we were all wrong" line, I'm sure Obama would have been happy to confront that one, were Rice the VP candidate.

[Alasdair]

Condor - it will be interesting to learn, in the next 30 years, where the WMDs that Iraq *used* to possess actually went ...

Were they destroyed by Saddam ? Were they sent to Syria ? Were they buried/hidden somewhere in Iraq ?

The CW has it that they were not to be found in Iraq at the time of the invasion of Gulf War II ... and, as yet, as far as I know, no-one can say where they went, definitively ...

[gahrie]

I assume Condor, being as intellectually honest as he is, is including President Clinton and his administration in his condemnation, since they too were convinced that Hussien had WMDs.

[Mad Max, Esquire]

Alasdair-

Why do you find it so hard to believe the UN Inspectors who were there in the 1990s and Saddam's own son-in-law (who Saddam eventually killed) and Saddam's own confession to an FBI interrogator that the WMD were all destroyed after the first Gulf War?

Instead you choose to believe "curveball" who was a mentally ill "source" who the Germans didn't believe was reliable, forged documents from Niger and this Chalibi character who has been convicted of fraud by the Jordanians.

Let's look at this logically. Since 1991, the US had complete control of the air space over Iraq. Our jets flew missions over the country every day for 10 years. We had U2 planes flying over the country. We had satellites over the country. How the HELL do you propose Iraq moved WMD into Syria without us seeing it? Or buried it somewhere in the desert without us seeing it?

[Condor]

"I assume Condor, being as intellectually honest as he is, is including President Clinton and his administration in his condemnation, since they too were convinced that Hussien had WMDs."

This falls under the "it's not so bad because we were all wrong" line, which I already mentioned.

[Andrew]

Condor and Mad Max, I appreciate your candid concession that, the reliability of sources like "curveball" and Chalabi" aside, just about everyone in the intelligence and international communities was convinced Saddam still had some WMDs hidden somewhere before we invaded Iraq. Although I have zero interest in jumpstarting what must be the 45,357,992nd argument about the Iraq war and WMDs on this blog, I'd like you to at least acknowledge a couple more facts:

1. When Dubya was entering office in 2001, support for the Iraq oil embargo was dropping, and allies like Turkey and Jordan, plus UN Security Council members like France and Russia, were openly violating the Oil-for-Food program rules. Because of these facts, it was widely expected that the UN Security Council would not support continuing sanctions for much longer -- 9/11 and WMD concerns be damned.

2. While Ba'ath government officials have admitted that they lied about Iraq's WMD programs to Saddam to save their own hide, Saddam and his circle of confidants have all admitted openly that they had every intention of restarting their WMD programs as soon as sanctions were dropped because they continued to fear Iran as a legitimate threat to their regime.

In sum, I will gladly suffer any and all potshots you want to dish about the invasion and our poor intelligence and the apparent fact that there were no WMDs, so long as you continue to acknowledge those above three facts: 1. Everyone thought Saddam had WMDs; 2. The sanctions were losing global support and being openly violated and undermined; 3. Saddam had every intention of restarting his WMD programs once the sanctions ended. Even acknowledging all these facts, if you can still somehow manage to maintain your level of scorn for those of us who supported (and still support) the Iraq war, then please, by all means, I welcome your ridiculous attacks.

[Mad Max, Esquire]

Andrew-

1. Not everyone thought Saddam had WMD. The members of the UN inspection team that were on the ground in the 1990s did not believe Saddam had sufficient WMD to pose a threat to anyone. The intelligence sources being used by the British and the Germans were curveball, Chalabi and, yes, the forged Niger document neo-cons like yourself still refuse to acknowledge was doctored.

2. Yes, the UN sanctions were being violated. What was Saddam doing with the money? Building WMD? No. Building palaces and buying Viagra. The restrictions could have been loosened for the benefit of the Iraqi people while blocking Saddam's access to technologies that would help with WMD development.

3. Libya and N. Korea had/have WMD programs even with sanctions in place. Your argument that we needed to invade because the UN sanctions were weakening is just poorly thought out.

There are many other efforts the U.S. could have put in place to prevent Saddam from getting nukes, especially after 9/11, that wouldn't require the U.S. invading and occupying Iraq.

Now answer me these questions, Andrew.

1. How long do we stay in Iraq? Five years? Ten Years? 100 Years?

2. How do we pay for it? We are spending $5 billion a month in Iraq. Al Qaeda is spending, what, $50K? How long do we keep that level of spending up before the United States is bankrupt like the Soviet Union? Do we keep borrowing from "our friends" the Chinese? "our friends" the Saudis?

3. Our military is over-extended and is getting dangerously close to coming apart at the seams. How do we respond to potential threats posed by Iran? By China? By Pakistan? By reinstating the draft? By borrowing more money from China? By using spitballs because our equipment is rusting in the Iraqi desert?

Please answer those "ridiculous" questions. I would love to hear your great wisdom.

[gahrie]

Mad Max:

How about we stay in Iraq for 60 plus years? It seems to have worked out pretty well for us and the Germans, Japanese and South Koreans.

[David K.]

hmm let's see

Korea: they wanted us their, it was a multinational UN effort
Japan: they actually posed a threat and after the war accepted us as legitimate occupiers. Little/no insurgency.
Germany: also a threat. Also accepted us as legitimate occupiers

As opposed to Iraq who were not a threat and want us to leave. We are facing an insurgency and helping al Qaeda recruit terrorists.
the Iraqis dislike al Qaeda as well as us. They don't want EITHER of us there. Once we leave support for al Qaeda dries up and violence goes down. Want proof? All you need to do is look at Basra. The Brits pulled out the Iraqis took over and violence went down.

Our troops need to come home. Germany, Japan, Korea, our troops weren't dying on a daily basis there this long after the wars started. Why? Because those situations were NOTHING like Iraq.

[Joe Mama]

Not everyone thought Saddam had WMD.

No, just all these people.

[Joe Mama]

Once we leave support for al Qaeda dries up and violence goes down. Want proof? All you need to do is look at Basra. The Brits pulled out the Iraqis took over and violence went down.

Really?

[gahrie]

I think you need to study the occupation of Germany again. There was opposition to our presence, and incidents of what we would now call terrorism against our forces.

The Japanese obeyed their emperor and did not resist us.

A sizable percentage of South Koreans has been protesting the US presence in South Korea since the 1950's. Again there have been acts of violence against American soldiers.

Most of the people in Iraq welcome our presence, and want us to stay until a stable society has been established. This took decades in both Germany and Japan.

[Andrew]

The members of the UN inspection team that were on the ground in the 1990s did not believe Saddam had sufficient WMD to pose a threat to anyone.

In other words, the UN inspection team believed there were some WMDs still being hidden, strengthening my point that pretty much everybody thought Saddam had WMDs.

The intelligence sources being used by the British and the Germans were curveball, Chalabi and, yes, the forged Niger document neo-cons like yourself still refuse to acknowledge was doctored.

Look idiot, can you read? In my very first sentence in my original comment, I acknowledged "curveball" and Chalabi as dubious sources, but I am not here to argue the legitimacy of various sources, I was pointing out that almost everyone in the world thought Saddam had WMDs -- it was not just some concoction of Bush and the evil neocons. Your rebuttal citing the Niger docs and "curveball" is a total non-sequitur.

Yes, the UN sanctions were being violated. What was Saddam doing with the money? Building WMD? No. Building palaces and buying Viagra.

Again, total idiotic non-sequitur of a response.

The restrictions could have been loosened for the benefit of the Iraqi people while blocking Saddam's access to technologies that would help with WMD development.

So the sanctions are lifted, the air patrols end, Saddam barricades the inspectors, we have no idea what's going on inside the country... and we're going to block Saddam from accessing these WMD technologies how? Presumably the same way we kept Qaddafi from getting Libya pretty darn close to having nukes.... Oh, wait!

Libya and N. Korea had/have WMD programs even with sanctions in place. Your argument that we needed to invade because the UN sanctions were weakening is just poorly thought out.

Ah, Libya, glad you brought that up. Funny how that invasion of Iraq got Qaddafi awfully interested in giving up his nuclear program, no? In any case, the logic was never, "The UN sanctions were weakening, therefore we must invade now!" Did you really gain your "Esquire" title throwing out such strawman arguments? Look, I'll allow the contention that the Iraq war was not a great idea and has done a lot of harm (even though I still disagree), but your game theory response of an alternative solution really ought to be more developed and supported than "We could have just blocked technologies Saddam would need to build his WMDs", never-minding the fact that A. everyone thought at that time that Saddam already had well-developed WMD programs in hiding, and B. we never would have been able to determine Saddam didn't truly have those WMDs had we not gone to war. So please, put a little more genuine thought into your "had-we-not-gone-to-war-with-Iraq" scenarios.

1. How long do we stay in Iraq? Five years? Ten Years? 100 Years?

Long enough to stand up an Iraqi government that A. won't succumb to Iranian subversion, and B. is strong enough to keep al-Qaeda or any other Islamist group from developing a stronghold like existed under the Taliban in Afghanistan, or even what we currently are dealing with in Waziristan.

2. How do we pay for it? We are spending $5 billion a month in Iraq. Al Qaeda is spending, what, $50K? How long do we keep that level of spending up before the United States is bankrupt like the Soviet Union? Do we keep borrowing from "our friends" the Chinese? "our friends" the Saudis?

$5 billion a month is chump change in a $10 trillion economy. There are plenty of other areas we can cut back spending on. I even wouldn't oppose a special war tax on oil or something, though that would never fly politically. Really, the Saudis and Chinese have nothing to do with any fiscal woes we have -- real or perceived.

3. Our military is over-extended and is getting dangerously close to coming apart at the seams. How do we respond to potential threats posed by Iran? By China? By Pakistan? By reinstating the draft? By borrowing more money from China? By using spitballs because our equipment is rusting in the Iraqi desert?

There are a whole bunch of false presuppositions in this series of questions. Our army is less overstretched than it was a couple years ago. I say we respond to Iran by bombing Tehran until there are no more mullahs. We respond by China by maintaining our technological edge in defense. Pakistan is a complicated situation that can't be answered in a pithy one-liner, but I think the recent election was a step in the right direction. And the rest of your questions are even dumber than the ones I just answered, so I'm going to ignore them.

[Condor]

"I say we respond to Iran by bombing Tehran until there are no more mullahs. We respond by China by maintaining our technological edge in defense. Pakistan is a complicated situation that can't be answered in a pithy one-liner"

I love how your foreign policy distinction between complicated and uncomplicated situations hangs on whether or not the answer can be given in one line.

So, Pakistan is complicated. Yet both Iran and China are uncomplicated. Iran requires "bombing Tehran until there are no more mullahs." China requires "maintaining our technological edge in defense."

What is this, Dr. Seuss' guide to foreign policy?

[Andrew]

What is this, Dr. Seuss' guide to foreign policy?

I'm not that creative.

I could go into much more detailed substantiation for each of those three positions above, but really, I get tired of repeating myself when my logic has been laid out previously and repeatedly on this blog in earlier occasions. I made the statements above to answer the questions I was asked, not to lay out a detailed case to defend. So you disagree? Bollocks for you then, I don't really care.