What’s German for “If you’re in a hole, stop digging?”
MedienKritik, which is sort of like a German equivalent of Brent Bozell’s Media Research Center (except that no one there looks like a cross between Youppi and Dr. Zaius as far as we know) opens a new chapter in the war on straw: critiquing articles published in the German press in 1998:
It is fascinating to note with what level of alarm and dread SPIEGEL warned of Saddam’s “horror potential.” There was no attempt made whatsoever to deny the fact that Iraq possessed an “enormous arsenal of chemical weapons,” and had a project to “build an atomic bomb.”
We’re assuming the author of that piece speaks German, so surely he noticed that the article from Der Spiegel recounts the post-1991 UN inspections that documented Iraq’s pre-Gulf War “WMD related program activities.” We don’t know why an attempt should have been made to discount the importance of these. We certainly haven’t come across too many people who deny that Saddam did possess and did use WMD. At issue is whether Iraq had anything resembling actual weapons or a meaningful capacity to produce them before the war.
MedienKritik keeps on digging however:
The SPON [Spiegel Online] article further detailed that UN weapon’s inspectors had concluded:
“Saddam was just another 18 months away, the IAEO estimates, from producing the fissile material for the atom bomb. (?) According to Western estimates, Baghdad paid 10 billion dollars in its attempt to become the first Arab nuclear power.”
The conclusion is from 1998… about the situation in 1991:
By the time of Desert Storm in 1991, Iraq had a robust, covert nuclear weapon program, with a completed though untested nuclear weapon design. Baghdad was perhaps one to three years away from building a nuclear weapon at the onset of the war.
Or:
No credible evidence of massive rebuilding of biological and chemical facilities dismantled under U.N. inspection during the 90’s.
Or:
U.N. inspectors say that prior to the Persian Gulf war, Iraq may have been only 12 to 18 months away from producing its first nuclear bomb — not several years away, as many people had previously thought. [Emphasis added]
Rather than look at the Spiegel’s 1998 articles, one might wonder how Colin Powell’s 2003 presentation to the UN can stand the test of time:
He also has been busy trying to maintain the other key parts of his nuclear program, particularly his cadre of key nuclear scientists. It is noteworthy that over the last 18 months Saddam Hussein has paid increasing personal attention to Iraq’s top nuclear scientists, a group that the government-controlled press calls openly his “nuclear mujaheddin.” He regularly exhorts them and praises their progress. Progress toward what end? [Cue scary music]
Or President Bush’s assertions:
I would remind you that when the inspectors first went into Iraq and were denied ? finally denied access [in 1998], a report came out of the Atomic ? the IAEA that they were six months away from developing a weapon.
Which is odd, given that:
“There’s never been a report like that issued from this agency,” Mark Gwozdecky, the IAEA’s chief spokesman, said yesterday in a telephone interview from the agency’s headquarters in Vienna, Austria.
But the real scandal according to MedienKritik?
The weapons programs he once pursued have been forgotten. The hundreds of thousands murdered by his regime are in the process of being forgotten.
A web site that obsesses about the Spiegel should remember the 13-page feature the magazine published last summer documenting the horrors of the Hussein regime. Or?
Now all we hear from SPON and other German media is that Bush and Blair exaggerated, “sexed-up” and downright lied when it came to Saddam?s WMD.
Well, if that is so, wasn’t SPIEGEL dramatically overstating the danger in 1998?
One would do well to read the article (copied here) which spends much time on chronicling the results of the inspections that took place in Iraq and their results. [A main finding being that much of Iraq’s pre-war arsenal was supplied in part by German firms.] Whether the tone is “alarmist” we’ll let you decide. MedienKritik’s [MK] main complaint, however, reminds us of our earlier The Real Scandal Pronouncement Game. MK is not upset that the Bush’s administration claims about Iraq’s weapons have not been vindicated, they’re upset that the German media are now pointing this out. If you can’t see why it was impossible to be certain of Iraq’s WMD arsenal in 1998 compared to 2003 and 2004, you really need a new hobby. Spiegel quotes Clinton administration sources and Richard Butler about Iraq’s then alleged weapons and weapons programs. As we said above however, the article’s main focus is on the results of the inspections up to 1998, showing what Iraq had prior to the Gulf War.
And the conclusion?
The questions I have to ask in all of this are: Should we have waited until Saddam developed weapons capable of killing millions before acting in a post 9-11 world? Does anyone doubt he would have restarted his weapons program had he been given the chance? Can the US continue to rely on the European model of so-called multilateral diplomacy in a world full of ruthless terrorists and dictators? [Emphasis added]
Wow, it’s like reading a White House Press Briefing transcript, or what the 101st Keyboard Brigadiers have been writing for some time already:
Should we have waited until Saddam got scientists who would have actually made the weapons he wanted? link
Should we have waited until Saddam had these weapons in his hands for all to see? link
Should we have waited until Saddam was more dangerous and more powerful and then gone to war with him? link
Why should we have waited until Saddam gassed an insatallation, or built a coalition with Terrorists, or developed and used a Nuke? link
My point was this, should we have waited until Saddam committed the same atrocities as Hitler until we did something about it? link
Should we have waited until Saddam actually had uranium? or would that not have been “imminent” enough for you??? link
[Collect your own “should we haves?”]
As for how dictators should be handled, looks like there’s a bit of “old Europe” in Bush after all:
BUSH ADMINISTRATION OFFERS NORTH KOREA INCENTIVES TO DISARM
Well, we will work to take steps to ease their political and economic isolation. So there would be — what you would see would be some provisional or temporary proposals that would only lead to lasting benefit after North Korea dismantles its nuclear programs. So there would be some provisional or temporary efforts of that nature. –Scott McClellan
Fixed typo, thanks to Frederick from BeatBushBlog.
It’s weird how the right seems not to (or at least pretends not to) understand the concept of time. It’s as though I came up with some accounts of Dubya boozing it up years ago and used them to prove that he is presently an alcoholic. btw, the last word in your piece should be “McClellan,” not “McLellan,” no?
When one Googles for “Scott McLellan” “press secretary” Google, while finding 478 hits, rejoins Did you mean to search for: “Scott Mcclellan” “press secretary”
Should we have waited until Saddam had a functional Moon-base, and could attack us from space? Well? Should we?
Should we have waited until Saddam had a mind-control laser that could turn our leaders into corrupt amoral warmongering torturers? Oh, wait…
Now that you’ve added the “C” in front of the first “L” in “McLellan,” surely you want to make the “L” lower case? (I tried to e-mail you this, but was unable to for some reason.)
As for how dictators should be handled, looks like there’s a bit of “old Europe” in Bush after all:
BUSH ADMINISTRATION OFFERS NORTH KOREA INCENTIVES TO DISARM
Well, we will work to take steps to ease their political and economic isolation. So there would be — what you would see would be some provisional or temporary proposals that would only lead to lasting benefit after North Korea dismantles its nuclear programs. So there would be some provisional or temporary efforts of that nature. –Scott McClellan
You make my point for me. With North Korea, a country which (because it was protected for so long by its Chinese and Soviet allies) has been allowed to develop nukes and WMD, it is too late to act militarily, because acting would mean the deaths of millions in Korea and elsewhere. So the only remaining option is “containment.” This is not some brilliant new form of Euro-diplomacy, it is simply the only viable option. That translates into years if not decades more of suffering under the most oppressive dictatorship for the North Korean people, 150,000+ of whom are currently sitting in prison camps for “political” crimes. We only know that because we have satellite images of the gulags. There are likely thousands more faceless victims who we will never know about…
Just to clarify the point of my article. I was not trying to prove Saddam had WMDs post-1998. As I clearly state in my article (a part you conveniently forgot to quote) even SPIEGEL had no hard evidence in 1998 that Iraq had more than a few “rockets.” Yet they were alarmist about Iraq’s WMDs “made in Germany” back in 1998, a tone they radically changed when Bush got serious about removing Saddam in mid-2002.
Let’s also not forget that European intelligence services (including the German BND) were also convinced up until shortly before the war that Saddam had not given up on his WMD programs. He never fully cooperated with weapons inspectors which led many to the logical conclusion that he had something to hide.
A web site that obsesses about the Spiegel should remember the 13-page feature the magazine published last summer documenting the horrors of the Hussein regime. Or?
Yes, and it is interesting to note that Spiegel published that after the war and not before it. The fact that you have to go back a year to find such an article is telling in and of itself. Here you also fail to inform your readers that there are literally dozens of Spiegel articles downplaying the danger of the Saddam regime and bashing the US for every article which documents Saddam’s mass murder. Our main objective is not to defend Bush, but to call for more objectivity and balance in the German media. My article was entirely consistent with that aim.
MK is not upset that the Bush’s administration claims about Iraq’s weapons have not been vindicated, they’re upset that the German media are now pointing this out.
Not at all, we are simply pointing out the disingenuous double-standard applied by the German media when it comes to the USA and Bush. When it suits them to be alarmist about Iraq and WMD, they do it, when it suits them to downplay the danger of Iraq and WMD they do that, regardless of the reality on the ground. And as far as “Bush’s claims” go, it seems that the intelligence community in the US and Europe carries most of the blame there, not Bush, unless you are bent on bashing the President that is. But I guess the evidence is of little interest to you…
Again, when dealing with an uncooperative dictator with Saddam’s history of mass-murder, WMDs (whether in 1991, 1998 or 2003, it is beside the point) and non-cooperation with UN weapons inspectors, would it have been wise for us to pursue a path of ineffective inspections and appeasement? My answer is “no.” Your answer seems to be “yes.” You are clearly unable to deal with the question(s) I pose and so you resort to the time-tested leftist method of “guilt-by-association.” According to you, the questions I pose are “like reading a White House Press Briefing transcript, or what the 101st Keyboard Brigadiers have been writing for some time already.” Does that make the questions illegitimate…or does that simply mean that you can’t deal with them and are trying to smear me?
I’m sure there were plenty of people downplaying the dangers of Hitler back in the mid-1930s, pointing out that he wrote those nasty things about how bad the Jews were in Mein Kampf back in 1923 and certainly was a changed man and wanted nothing more than peace and to be let out from under the oppressive weapons restrictions placed on Germany.
No, we shouldn’t give people like Saddam the benefit of the doubt, not with his past and not in a world full of WMDs and terrorists. What would have come after inspections and sanctions? Could we really have contained Saddam and prevented him from re-acquiring WMDs? At what cost, to both the people of Iraq and to those imposing the sanctions for the coming years and decades?
I think that the recent Libyan decision to give up WMDs speaks volumes as to the effectiveness of our Iraq policy. I doubt that Mr. Qaddafi would have taken such a bold step had we decided to implement the “European” model of diplomacy with Iraq.
With North Korea, a country which (because it was protected for so long by its Chinese and Soviet allies) has been allowed to develop nukes and WMD, it is too late to act militarily
Given what the US has to do to keep a sufficient number of troops in Iraq, I doubt military intervention there, even if it were ‘possible’ would be a viable option for some time. You’re right that containment isn’t some “European notion” — but when it had to do with Iraq it was ridiculed as “appeasement.” At least now you’re using the correct terminology.
Yet they were alarmist about Iraq’s WMDs “made in Germany” back in 1998
We don’t agree the tone was alarmist — and many of the “made in Germany/TUEV approved” arms described were those used in the Gulf War.
were also convinced up until shortly before the war that Saddam had not given up on his WMD programs
We think those to be held responsible are those who argued a war was justified on the intelligence they had.
Yes, and it is interesting to note that Spiegel published that after the war and not before it.
Yeah, it’s amazing Spiegel couldn’t get access to the archives of the Hussein regime until after it was defeated. Will wonders ever cease?
And as far as “Bush’s claims” go, it seems that the intelligence community in the US and Europe carries most of the blame there, not Bush, unless you are bent on bashing the President that is. But I guess the evidence is of little interest to you…
Why do you say that? Almost no WMD have been found, and you say the evidence is of no interest to us?
whether in 1991, 1998 or 2003, it is beside the point
Should the US attack Germany now, just to be safe? It has a history of wars of aggression, whether in 1914, 1939, it is beside the point?
would it have been wise for us to pursue a path of ineffective inspections and appeasement?
How were the inspections ineffective? Can you offer a list of weapons Saddam was able to produce post-1991? And here you go again substituting appeasement for containment.
You are clearly unable to deal with the question(s) I pose and so you resort to the time-tested leftist method of “guilt-by-association.” […] I’m sure there were plenty of people downplaying the dangers of Hitler back in the mid-1930s
Leftist method of guilt by association? What was it Cheney said again? It’s not guilt by association btw, more like stupidity by association. September 11 doesn’t mean (to us) that you have to go around and attack anything that might conceivably possibly perhaps one day who knows mushroom cloud mobile labs who knows so let’s be sure and send in over 100,000 troops and spend $200bn.
I think that the recent Libyan decision to give up WMDs speaks volumes as to the effectiveness of our Iraq policy.
So you’re willing to trust Qaddafi? You are a man of high standards.
PS: You forgot to answer Satan luvvs Repugs’ question:
Should we have waited until Saddam had a functional Moon-base, and could attack us from space? Well? Should we?
We still think Bozell looks like the catch-can man on the number 23 car (see comments on earlier post of yours you linked to).
whether in 1991, 1998 or 2003, it is beside the point. (…) Should the US attack Germany now, just to be safe? It has a history of wars of aggression, whether in 1914, 1939, it is beside the point?
As far as I can tell, Germany has a different government entirely today than it did in 1939 or 1914…could one say that about Iraq in 1991, 1998 or early 2003? Just to jog your historic memory, Saddam continuously ruled Iraq from 1979 to 2003. I think it is pretty insulting to the German people to compare their current system to that of the Nazis in 1939 or the Kaiser in 1914 for that matter. And you claim I don’t respect the Europeans…?
You’re right that containment isn’t some “European notion” — but when it had to do with Iraq it was ridiculed as “appeasement.”
Containment was tried for 12 long years with Saddam and co. from 1991 to 2003. The results were a disaster by all accounts. Not only did Saddam’s regime murder thousands in this time span, but thousands more died under the weight of sanctions of disease and starvation (also in part because Saddam skimmed off resources from the oil-for-food program.) Just compare the numbers, Saddam’s government spent 16 million dollars on national health care in 2002 as compared to the 950 million being spent by donor nations (with the lion’s share coming from the USA and the UK) on Iraqi national health care this year.
On top of that, Saddam never fully cooperated with weapons inspectors as demanded by the international community in over a dozen UN resolutions. Sadly, nations such as France, Russia and China never really were serious about containing Iraq and chose to let Saddam get away with declaring UNSCOM inspections dead in late 1998 despite efforts of the US government (including military strikes) to the contrary.
Yeah, it’s amazing Spiegel couldn’t get access to the archives of the Hussein regime until after it was defeated. Will wonders ever cease?
Oh…ok, so Spiegel needed to wait until the war was over to have access to Saddam’s “archives” to know that he was a mass murderer… Come on, that is about the weakest argument I’ve ever heard…I guess the 3 to 4 million Iraqi refugees who fled under Saddam (about 20% of the entire nation’s population) were just spontaneously leaving the country.
So you’re willing to trust Qaddafi? You are a man of high standards.
I never said I did trust him, but it is clear that his attitude (especially regarding terrorism and WMD) has substantially changed as a result of the Iraq war, that was my point all along.
It is clear that you are poorly informed on not only the Euro-media, but on basic history as well. Sounds like you need to check out Davids Medienkritik more often!
I think it is pretty insulting to the German people to compare their current system to that of the Nazis in 1939 or the Kaiser in 1914 for that matter.
Oh Ray, don’t play dumb and pretend you don’t know sarcasm when you see it.
And you claim I don’t respect the Europeans…?
Where did we say this?
Containment was tried for 12 long years with Saddam and co. from 1991 to 2003. The results were a disaster by all accounts.
The humanitarian cost is undeniable. At issue is whether Saddam was a threat to the US. We say he wasn’t.
Oh…ok, so Spiegel needed to wait until the war was over to have access to Saddam’s “archives” to know that he was a mass murderer…
Where did we argue that? You wondered why the article appeared after the war — simply because such a feature was made possible by previously unavailable documents. You know, news.
I never said I did trust him, but it is clear that his attitude (especially regarding terrorism and WMD) has substantially changed as a result of the Iraq war, that was my point all along.
Nothing shows a changed attitude like planning to have Crown Prince Abdullah whacked.
It is clear that you are poorly informed on not only the Euro-media, but on basic history as well. Sounds like you need to check out Davids Medienkritik more often!
Oh Ray, how will we ever be able to discuss things with you if you insist on being so clever!
It’s “Wer sich in einem Loch befindet, sollte aufhoeren zu graben!”