06-30-2003, 01:36 PM
For 12 years, known programs were not dismantled to the UN Security Sanctions satisfaction.
After 1441, nothing changed.
Why would anyone conclude that the programs did not continue to exist when absence of their having been curtailed or dismantled, was not in compliance with a reasonably straightforward U.N. process?
If there was nothing to hide, why the shell game? Why the obstrucionism?
Now, that logic train and the rhetoric regarding "proof" are a good point of departure for a discussion of "what was the immediacy of threat," but I think there are some points being missed:
1. RL is not TV. Some things take a bit longer than others
2. At this point, it matters not, except insofar as the internal process in the US: was there or was there not fraudulent evidence presented to Congress? In 1441, the UN agreed about the fact of material breach, what was not agreed was what to do about it.
3. Had Congress not authorized force . . . we would not be having this discussion. So, it really does boil down to: what was presented to Congress that got support? Was it "overstatement of threat" or not, and was there fraud perpretrated. And what, in Prime Minister Blairs case, did the MI folks have for him that convinced him?
Beyond that, it is certainly "Overcome by Events."
My preferred outcome is someone calling to task the Congresses of the past 30 years and their relentless assault on the US intelligence community (erosion from within) that has emphasized machines and de emphasized people. Gee, many of those folks are gone, and the damage was done, and has been done, ages ago. No accountability for negligence.
Congress whines about an intelligence failure. The intelligence failure was right there on the floor of Congress, when they and, among others, WJ Clinton decided that with the Cold War over, there would be less of a need for Intelligence. Many of us at the time bellowed, in vain, pointing out that "When the world is changing, you need more intelligence, not less!"
And I can promise you that no one will hold Congress accountable. A pity, multiparty myopia. Or was it willful blindness?
The Oedipal Congress of the 1970's, 1980's, 1990's: poking out one's eyes to avoid seeing evil?
After 1441, nothing changed.
Why would anyone conclude that the programs did not continue to exist when absence of their having been curtailed or dismantled, was not in compliance with a reasonably straightforward U.N. process?
If there was nothing to hide, why the shell game? Why the obstrucionism?
Now, that logic train and the rhetoric regarding "proof" are a good point of departure for a discussion of "what was the immediacy of threat," but I think there are some points being missed:
1. RL is not TV. Some things take a bit longer than others
2. At this point, it matters not, except insofar as the internal process in the US: was there or was there not fraudulent evidence presented to Congress? In 1441, the UN agreed about the fact of material breach, what was not agreed was what to do about it.
3. Had Congress not authorized force . . . we would not be having this discussion. So, it really does boil down to: what was presented to Congress that got support? Was it "overstatement of threat" or not, and was there fraud perpretrated. And what, in Prime Minister Blairs case, did the MI folks have for him that convinced him?
Beyond that, it is certainly "Overcome by Events."
My preferred outcome is someone calling to task the Congresses of the past 30 years and their relentless assault on the US intelligence community (erosion from within) that has emphasized machines and de emphasized people. Gee, many of those folks are gone, and the damage was done, and has been done, ages ago. No accountability for negligence.
Congress whines about an intelligence failure. The intelligence failure was right there on the floor of Congress, when they and, among others, WJ Clinton decided that with the Cold War over, there would be less of a need for Intelligence. Many of us at the time bellowed, in vain, pointing out that "When the world is changing, you need more intelligence, not less!"
And I can promise you that no one will hold Congress accountable. A pity, multiparty myopia. Or was it willful blindness?
The Oedipal Congress of the 1970's, 1980's, 1990's: poking out one's eyes to avoid seeing evil?
Cry 'Havoc' and let slip the Men 'O War!
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete