Crap! Did Powell Get the Wrong Speech? No.

[Doug]

Der Spiegel interviews the former chief of the CIA's Europe division, Tyler Drumheller, who was involved in the intelligence gathering when Bush was intent on invading Iraq.

==============
Drumheller:...The administration wanted to make the case for war with Iraq. They needed a tangible thing, they needed the German stuff. They couldn't go to war based just on the fact that they wanted to change the Middle East. They needed to have something threatening to which they were reacting.


SPIEGEL: The German government was convinced that "Curveball" [a questionable source used by the Bush administration] would not be used in the now famous presentation that then US Secretary of State Colin Powell gave in 2003 before the United Nations Security Council.

Drumheller: I had assured my German friends that it wouldn't be in the speech. I really thought that I had put it to bed. I had warned the CIA deputy John McLaughlin that this case could be fabricated. The night before the speech, then CIA director George Tenet called me at home. I said: "Hey Boss, be careful with that German report. It's supposed to be taken out. There are a lot of problems with that." He said: "Yeah, yeah. Right. Dont worry about that."

SPIEGEL: But it turned out to be the centerpiece in Powell's presentation -- and nobody had told him about the doubts.

Drumheller: I turned on the TV in my office, and there it was. So the first thing I thought, having worked in the government all my life, was that we probably gave Powell the wrong speech. We checked our files and found out that they had just ignored it.
SPIEGEL: So the White House just ignored the fact that the whole story might have been untrue?

Drumheller: The policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming and they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy. Right before the war, I said to a very senior CIA officer: "You guys must have something else," because you always think it's the CIA. "There is some secret thing I don`t know." He said: "No. But when we get to Baghdad, we are going to find warehouses full of stuff. Nobody is going to remember all of this."

Read the rest here.

[Hogeye]

So an obvious conclusion is: The government, and its "intelligence" division, is not to be trusted. The rulers will ignore any intelligence they choose, according to their interest/agenda. The State has no moral legitimacy, and should be disbanded.

But of course this is no surprise. What is surprising is that, despite all the evidence, some people still think the State is legitimate, and despite all incentives, reformable. Shades of virgin birth.

[Doug]

So an obvious conclusion is: The government, and its "intelligence" division, is not to be trusted. The rulers will ignore any intelligence they choose, according to their interest/agenda. The State has no moral legitimacy, and should be disbanded.

DOUG
a. Presidents are not rulers. They can be impeached, convicted, and even jailed without first having to initiate a rebellion (as in France).
b. It does not follow that some Presidents are immoral that therefore the whole system should be scrapped. Flawed as it is, it is still better than anarchy, which would lead to the conquering of the U.S. in pretty short order.

[Hogeye]

a. Presidents are not rulers.

Wrong. The definition of ruler: "a person who rules or commands." The president of the US State is the supreme ruler of the US State. Obviously. It doesn't matter that a ruler may be deposed in any of various methods.

b. It does not follow that some Presidents are immoral that therefore the whole system should be scrapped.

Correct; it takes an objective institutional analysis of the State to come to the anarchist position. It is the statist apologists who think that it is simply a matter of personnel, and if you get "your guy" into power things will be all wonderfulness. The anarchist position is that it's the incentives, stupid! Whoever rises in the political hierarchy of power will tend to be corrupted. Acton's aphorism - you know: "Power tends to corrupt;absolute power corrupts absolutely."

The funny thing is that many statists are perfectly adept at institutional analysis when it comes to mega-corporations, but fail miserably in applying the same principles to the institution of State. Rulers tend to be good power-mongers just as CEOs tend to be good money-makers. Rulers sell privilege to cronies and special interests ignoring the costs diverted to the public, just as CEOs sell products to consumers ignoring the costs of externalities.

...anarchy, which would lead to the conquering of the U.S. in pretty short order.

Quite a tall claim. Especially considering that most of the anti-US animosity was caused by statist military intervention. And that various places, even today, do not have a standing army and are not invaded. The fact is that, if freedom of trade is maintained, invasion is unlikely. Just who do you think would invade North America??? BTW, the existence of a State makes takeover easier - cf Vichy France.

[Doug]

a. Presidents are not rulers.

Wrong. The definition of ruler: "a person who rules or commands." The president of the US State is the supreme ruler of the US State. Obviously. It doesn't matter that a ruler may be deposed in any of various methods.

DOUG
Bush does not have ruling power, he has executive power that can be overridden.

Random House unabridged:
Ruler: 1. a person who rules or governs; sovereign.

Bush is not sovereign. He governs, but so do governors of states, and they are not rulers.

b. It does not follow that some Presidents are immoral that therefore the whole system should be scrapped.

Correct; it takes an objective institutional analysis of the State to come to the anarchist position...

And etc.

...anarchy, which would lead to the conquering of the U.S. in pretty short order.

Quite a tall claim. Especially considering that most of the anti-US animosity was caused by statist military intervention. And that various places, even today, do not have a standing army and are not invaded. The fact is that, if freedom of trade is maintained, invasion is unlikely. Just who do you think would invade North America??? BTW, the existence of a State makes takeover easier - cf Vichy France.

DOUG
If you think that the U.S. disbanding its national army would make the U.S. LESS vulnerable to attack, you're unable to see the obvious, and I do mean obvious.

Freedom of trade as protection? Why trade when you can just take?

[Hogeye]

Random House unabridged:
Ruler: 1. a person who rules or governs; sovereign.

He [Bush] governs, but so do governors of states ...

Therefore, by definition, both Bush and governors of states are rulers, being persons who govern. Thanks for admitting that. I suggest that you use the more accurate and descriptive term "rulers" when descibing your political masters.

If you think that the U.S. disbanding its national army would make the U.S. LESS vulnerable to attack, you're unable to see the obvious...

Let's see: The 911 terrorists were motivated by revenge for past US intervention and bases in the Middle East. So in that case the existence of the US State's national army had perverse consequences. Vietnam, Korea, and virtually all post WWII US interventions (and assassinations) have alienated many and created security risks. I think that it's pretty clear that the US military has, on the whole, created more risk.

Note that no monopoly State army does not mean no defense. Beware the fallacy of government solipotence!

Praxeologically and historically, trade has been negatively correllated with war. Countries with healthy levels of trade rarely go to war. Conversely, cutting off trade is generally a prelude or trigger to war. You shouldn't underestimate the relationship of free trade to peace.

[Doug]

Random House unabridged:
Ruler: 1. a person who rules or governs; sovereign.

He [Bush] governs, but so do governors of states ...

Therefore, by definition, both Bush and governors of states are rulers, being persons who govern. Thanks for admitting that. I suggest that you use the more accurate and descriptive term "rulers" when descibing your political masters.

DOUG
So on your simplistic definition, the mayor of Fayetteville rules Fayetteville. Reductio ad absurdum. QED. Thanks for the sitting duck I just shot.

If you think that the U.S. disbanding its national army would make the U.S. LESS vulnerable to attack, you're unable to see the obvious...

Let's see: The 911 terrorists were motivated by revenge for past US intervention and bases in the Middle East. So in that case the existence of the US State's national army had perverse consequences. Vietnam, Korea, and virtually all post WWII US interventions (and assassinations) have alienated many and created security risks. I think that it's pretty clear that the US military has, on the whole, created more risk.

Just because in one instance U.S. policy abroad made people mad enough to attack us does not mean that if we had no U.S. policy no one would attack us.

Did Poland cause Hitler to attack? Hitler invaded and occupied Denmark and Norway, among other places. His rationale was that he wanted to unify all German-speaking people as well as (supposedly) defend them against harm. It is folly to suppose that countries act rationally when it comes to invasion and war.

Note that no monopoly State army does not mean no defense. Beware the fallacy of government solipotence!

Beware the stupid idea that small private armies can replace a large national military-industrial complex.

Praxeologically and historically, trade has been negatively correllated with war. Countries with healthy levels of trade rarely go to war. Conversely, cutting off trade is generally a prelude or trigger to war. You shouldn't underestimate the relationship of free trade to peace.

So your reasoning would suggest that countries Hitler invaded were at a trade disadvantage. England had poor trade? (Hitler wanted to conquer it too.) Show evidence that trade-healthy countries rarely go to war. And remember that trade-poor countries sometimes attack the healthy ones to get their economic boost. Your whole theory is absurd. If a country is doing very well, and another one is not, but the poor one has a huge army, does this not increase the chances that the poor one will want to go to war?

[Hogeye]

Yes, the mayor of Fayetteville is a petty ruler.

Not having an imperial military making enemies all over the world would reduce the chances of attack. No one said it would guarantee no one attacks.

Years ago, armies lined up against each other like sitting ducks. Like you, Doug, they thought guerrilla warfare was "stupid idea" and didn't work. Nowadays most of us know better. We've seen large statist armies overcome by local guerrillas in various places.

Hogeye> Praxeologically and historically, trade has been negatively correllated with war. Countries with healthy levels of trade rarely go to war. Conversely, cutting off trade is generally a prelude or trigger to war. You shouldn't underestimate the relationship of free trade to peace.

Doug> So your reasoning would suggest that countries Hitler invaded were at a trade disadvantage. England had poor trade?

No, you clearly misunderstand. Countries whose people trade with each other are unlikely to go to war. Conversely, when such trade is prevented, the liklihood of war increases. England (and France) did not have a lot of trade with Germany before WWII. On the contrary, England and France were looting Germany with "reparations" from the grossly unfair and unworkable Versailles Treaty. England's and France's treatment of Germany as a slave state rather than a trading partner led to the conditions that allowed Hitler to come to power and start a war.

Another good example from WWII of lack of trade leading to war is the US enactment of trade barriers against Japan, which (among other things) induced them to attack Pearl Harbor. FDR's plot to get the US into an unpopular war worked.

The praxeological reasons that trade is good for peace are that, since trade is a win-win situation (both parties perceive a benefit ex ante), there is an automatic constituency to continue such gains. Also, due to the inevitable cultural exchange, there is more understanding and empathy for people in the country you're trading with. It's harder for the State to demonize and dehumanize them.

"When good don't cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat

[Doug]

Yes, the mayor of Fayetteville is a petty ruler.

Well, that is sure a silly statement. I don't think it makes any sense to say that someone rules Fayetteville, Arkansas. That's absurd.

No, you clearly misunderstand. Countries whose people trade with each other are unlikely to go to war.

OK, so you are shifting your position. So your claim is:

Countries whose people trade with each other are unlikely to go to war.

OK, now support your claim.

Also, if I can cite an example of two countries that had good trade relations yet still went to war, you would admit you are incorrect?

[Dardedar]

One howler Doug may have missed:

...anarchy, which would lead to the conquering of the U.S. in pretty short order.

HOGEYE
Quite a tall claim. Especially considering that most of the anti-US animosity was caused by statist military intervention. And that various places, even today, do not have a standing army and are not invaded.

DAR
Name them. Name some (or one) of these "various place" that do not have a standing army OR an equivalent defense via the standing army of a neighbor. Of course considering the context (Doug was talking about the US) you cannot name a single country, remotely comparable to the US, that doesn't have a standing army.

D.

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

I have to chime in on this one. The U.S. enacted trade barriers with Japan prior to WWII after Japan attacked China and was in the process of attacking other Asian nation-states in an attempt to peacefully resolve the situation. Japan wanted access to petroleum (among other things) without worrying about paying market rate for it (sound familiar?) and knew the only way they could get control of Asian oil was to take the U.S. and British Pacific Fleets out of the equation. They misjudged many things (including the ability of their embassadors to translate the orders telling them to cut diplomatic ties to the U.S. BEFORE the attack on Pearl Harbor naval base, and the average American's response to the attack) but they didn't hit us in response to trade barriers.

[Dardedar]

Yes, the mayor of Fayetteville is a petty ruler.

DAR
Was "the mayor of Fayetteville" a "petty ruler" when Hogeye's mom was mayor?

D.

[Hogeye]

Costa Rica is my favorite example. No standing army was written into their constitution of 1949. Jefferson would be proud. The result: the wealthiest, healthiest, most literate country in Central America. No death squads like Guatemala or El Salvador, since there's no army for the US School of the Americas to "train." Eco-tourism center of the world. Never had property grabs aka land reform. Expat favorite and tax haven. Both coasts are largely de-facto anarchist enclaves. Billy Bob sez check it out!

Barbara admits that the US imposed trade barriers on Japan, preventing them from buying natural resources, and that they shortly thereafter attacked Pearl Harbor. Yet she won't admit a connection. Hmmm.

Yes, Darrel - all mayors are rulers. My mother, e.g., was responsible for property confiscation (without even paying takings) when she was mayor - the "sign ordinance." Anyone who taxes or regulates by aggression is a ruler so long as they remain in power.

[Dardedar]

Costa Rica is my favorite example.

DAR
And it seems your only example.

[Hogeye]

Here's Wikipedia's List of countries without armed forces. There are 25 of them, ranging from Iceland (no standing army since 1869) to Tuvalu. Panama abolished its army in 1990. Actually, I didn't realize that there were that many.

[Dardedar]

Panama abolished its army in 1990. Actually, I didn't realize that there were that many.

DAR
Here is what was asked for:

"DAR
Name them. Name some (or one) of these "various place" that do not have a standing army OR an equivalent defense via the standing army of a neighbor. Of course considering the context (Doug was talking about the US) you cannot name a single country, remotely comparable to the US, that doesn't have a standing army."

That still stands. Costa Rica is a tiny country and with 4+ million people only about half the population of the city of Baghdad. I am pleasantly surprised that they can make it without a standing army. The rest of the countries on that list are either so tiny by probably can't afford anything, or they have arrangments to make use of other standing armies. If you read the list carefully would see this. Sample of the list in question:

Andorra Defense of the country is the responsibility of France or Spain.

Dominica Defense is the responsibility of the Regional Security System.

Grenada Defense is the responsibility of the Regional Security System.

Haiti Disbanded in June, 1995, but rebels have demanded its re-establishment. The National Police maintains some military units.

Iceland No standing army since 1869, but is a member of NATO. There is a defense agreement with the U.S., which maintained a military base in the country from 1951 until September 2006. Iceland is not completely without armed forces as it maintains Expeditionary military peacekeeping forces, Air Defence System, Coast Guard, Police as well as a Special Police forces.

Kiribati The only forces permitted are the police and the coast guard. [note: population about 90,000 AND they'll be under water soon.)

Liechtenstein Abolished their army in 1868 because it was too costly. Army did only exist in times of war. Protected by the Swiss army since then.

Marshall Islands Defense is the responsibility of the United States.

DAR
Etc. That's from the top working down the list, minus Costa Rica. The rest are similar. It would be misleading to pretend that these countries are comparable to the US or living without the aid and defense of "standing armies."

[quote]Expat favorite and tax haven. Both coasts are largely de-facto anarchist enclaves. [/quote]

DAR
So fat cats from the US, parasitically suck money from the US and hide it away in Costa Rica. Can anarchists not make it on their own without having a big successful socialist country (comparatively) to leech off of? The US per capita GDP is about four times that of Costa Rica.

D.

[Dardedar]

DAR
Thank goodness the Dem's won congress and can start unpacking this sordid mess now rather than later:

***
The Build-a-War Workshop
The New York Times | Editorial

Saturday 10 February 2007

It took far too long, but a report by the Pentagon inspector general has finally confirmed that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's do-it-yourself intelligence office cooked up a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda to help justify an unjustifiable war.

The report said the team headed by Douglas Feith, under secretary of defense for policy, developed "alternative" assessments of intelligence on Iraq that contradicted the intelligence community and drew conclusions "that were not supported by the available intelligence." Mr. Feith certainly knew the Central Intelligence Agency would cry foul, so he hid his findings from the C.I.A. Then Vice President Dick Cheney used them as proof of cloak-and-dagger meetings that never happened, long-term conspiracies between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden that didn't exist, and - most unforgivable - "possible Iraqi coordination" on the 9/11 attacks, which no serious intelligence analyst believed.

The inspector general did not recommend criminal charges against Mr. Feith because Mr. Rumsfeld or his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, approved their subordinate's "inappropriate" operations. The renegade intelligence buff said he was relieved.

We're sure he was. But there is no comfort in knowing that his dirty work was approved by his bosses. All that does is add to evidence that the Bush administration knowingly and repeatedly misled Americans about the intelligence on Iraq.

the rest...