So, where are(were) those WMDs?

[Ashock]

True, but the fact is that the pro-war people first started the rumor that all Saddam's WMD's were transported to other countries. What now happened, (the missing radioactive material and high explosives) is indeed something else, and happened during the american occupation.

[right][snapback]58693[/snapback][/right]

Actually, all the missing explosives (the ones that are officially accepted as missing) were moved *before* the war began.



-A

[salvelinus]

Actually, all the missing explosives (the ones that are officially accepted as missing) were moved *before* the war began.
-A
[right][snapback]58794[/snapback][/right]

And the source for that was who? Donald Rumsfeld?

This story from ABC contradicts that statement.

Sal

[Ashock]

And the source for that was who? Donald Rumsfeld?

This story from ABC contradicts that statement.

Sal
[right][snapback]58797[/snapback][/right]

Since when is the network news more accurate than a high level official of an administration? Oh I forgot, since Dan Rather proved it beyond a reasonable doubt. Silly me, what was I thinking....



-A

[Minionman]

I can't believe someone actually started another Iraq war topic, considering all the other political threads have gone in that direction and the points have been argued over several times.

[Chaerophon]

Since when is the network news more accurate than a high level official of an administration? Oh I forgot, since Dan Rather proved it beyond a reasonable doubt. Silly me, what was I thinking....
-A
[right][snapback]58872[/snapback][/right]

First of all, the article makes several seemingly salient points that have yet to be officially addressed by the administration.

Second; I'm not sure that either is "more accurate" than the other. It depends on the official, the news network, and, most importantly, THE INFORMATION. Since we can't be sure of either source, it would seem prudent to partially reserve judgment while waiting for the picture to become clearer. So far, the ABC has at least got my attention in that it appears to refer to PROOF of the fact. Rather than having to rely on their word, they have at least backed it up with a theory.

Dan Rather has nothing to do with it. As I hope you're aware, politicians and bureaucrats, themselves, aren't always pillars of integrity - particularly when there is an election less than a week away. Of course, I could always drag in the "absolute proof" of the Iraqi weapons program as 'proof' that the administration is lying in much the same way in which you decided to include Dan Rather; as a deliberate misdirection.

Nah... I think I'll take the high road and wait for the facts. When the administration addresses these claims, I'll evaluate their response. Until then...

[Occhidiangela]

Of course, I could always drag in the "absolute proof" of  the Iraqi weapons program as 'proof' that the administration is lying in much the same way  in which you decided to include Dan Rather; as a deliberate misdirection. 
[right][snapback]58923[/snapback][/right]

When I have looked at how the Iraqi's working on those programs mislead Saddam, or so some reports say, and our own weapons procurement shennanigans, for example the A-12 or the Comanche, where claims are made that are not backed up by performance, I start to see how certain elements of our security apparatus were able to, basically, talk themselves into believing what seemed most acceptable to them.

"A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."

Lie, jest, or simple myopia, the premise of a resurgent set of WMD programs appear to have fooled a hell of a lot more than a few spooks at Langley. Fooled me, based on the crap he kept pulling on the UN dudes.

I for one am not convinced that Pres Bush lied so much as believed something that was not as well supported by facts as he thought it was, and acted on it. That the soundbyte campaign leaned so heavily on the WMD issue to drum up support for the war is something he is going to have to live with forever: in some circles, his credibility cannot be restored, period.

Similarly, Secretary Powell lost quite a bit of street cred. Not to mention any number of our Senators, and quite a few of our Allies' leaders.

Occhi

[eppie]

Lie, jest, or simple myopia, the premise of a resurgent set of WMD programs appear to have fooled a hell of a lot more than a few spooks at Langley.  Fooled me, based on the crap he kept pulling on the UN dudes.

I for one am not convinced that Pres Bush lied so much as believed something that was not as well supported by facts as he thought it was, and acted on it.  That the soundbyte campaign leaned so heavily on the WMD issue to drum up support for the war is something he is going to have to live with forever:  in some circles, his credibility cannot be restored, period.

Similarly, Secretary Powell lost quite a bit of street cred.  Not to mention any number of our Senators, and quite a few of our Allies' leaders.

Occhi
[right][snapback]59174[/snapback][/right]

OOh please don't start again. Apparantly the evidence was not strong enough that more than 50 % of the people did not believe it in the first place.

To tell to all those people (like me) that before the war were sure there were no WMDs (just because we believed the impartial and objective UN, and not the not so impartial Bush (or as you say Saddam), that it was all the foult of Saddam because he pretended to have WMDs (because he enjoyed having his country attacked or something) makes Bush a sore loser.
I hope that now that he is reelected he will finally speak the truth. Having different opinions on a (whatever) matter, followed by the proof you were wrong, and than start blaming it on other people is playground politics.

[jahcs]

Members of the UN, including the Secretary-General, admitted that Iraq was non-compliant with resolution 1441. France, Germany, and Russia issued a statement in which they would not allow a resolution to pass authorising the use of force -- under a UN banner. In the statement they also stated "We firmly call for the Iraqi authorities to co-operate more actively with the inspectors to fully disarm their country. These inspections cannot continue indefinitely." They also request that deadlines be set for compliance. The date of this statement is 05 MAR 03

Iraq was not in compliance with UN resolutions 687 and 1441. The draft presented by Spain, the UK, and the US on 07 MAR 03 gives a deadline of 17 MAR 03 to comply with resolution 1441 or face "serious consequences" as stated in resolution 1441.

Resolution 1441, among other items, deals with WMDs, WMD reporting, WMD destruction, WMD support systems, WMD programs, WMD delivery systems, and long range weapons.

The deadline came and went.

Right or wrong, a coalition of nations, led by the US, determined that the use of force and the removal of Sadam would be the most effective solution. Now we are trying to put the pieces back together. I sincerly hope that this is not a case of Humpty Dumpty syndrome.

Whether WMDs were there or not Iraq was not in compliance with resolutions 687 and 1441. And it appears that the UN and Iraq were not in compliance with much of the Oil for Food program either. We will have to wait and see the results of the investigations and indictments.

[Occhidiangela]

OOh please don't start again. Apparantly the evidence was not strong enough that more than 50 % of the people did not believe it in the first place.

To tell to all those people (like me) that before the war were sure there were no WMDs (just because we believed the impartial and objective UN, and not the not so impartial Bush (or as you say Saddam), that it was all the foult of Saddam because he pretended to have WMDs (because he enjoyed having his country attacked or something) makes Bush a sore loser.
I hope that now that he is reelected he will finally speak the truth. Having different opinions on a (whatever) matter, followed by the proof you were wrong, and than start blaming it on other people is playground politics.
[right][snapback]59183[/snapback][/right]

Eppie, I share you desire, that we get the truth from our political leadership. Truth is one of the hardest things to get from any politician, eh?

Occhi

[--Pete]

Hi,

Has four years of Bush and sound bites made us all stupid????? Are we all operating at the two neuron level of the media clowns???

The issue was WEAPONS OF ****MASS**** DESTRUCTION, not a few tons of conventional effing explosives. Missing or not.

Now, I understand the glamor guys and gals in the media 'of the idiots, by the idiots, and for the idiots' being unable to distinguish between the two. And I understand, given Sturgeon's Law, how the bulk of the population of the USA and world might be fooled. But I thought the LL was a bastion of intelligence and rationality. Am I wrong?

--Pete

[ShadowHM]

  But I thought the LL was a bastion of intelligence and rationality.  Am I wrong?

--Pete
[right][snapback]59220[/snapback][/right]

Going by the evidence in recent threads, I fear that for once, you were wrong. :unsure:

[Occhidiangela]

Hi,
Has four years of Bush and sound bites made us all stupid?????  Are we all operating at the two neuron level of the media clowns???

The issue was WEAPONS OF ****MASS**** DESTRUCTION, not a few tons of conventional effing explosives.  Missing or not.

Now, I understand the glamor guys and gals in the media 'of the idiots, by the idiots, and for the idiots' being unable to distinguish between the two.  And I understand, given Sturgeon's Law, how the bulk of the population of the USA and world might be fooled.  But I thought the LL was a bastion of intelligence and rationality.  Am I wrong?
--Pete
[right][snapback]59220[/snapback][/right]

Pete, that was one of the reasons.

What bothers me the most is the evidence that there was considerable self delusion. It bothers me almost as much as the inability of the American Public, and the Media, to think in or beyond 5-10 year time horizons when considering security problems. Yes, I risk heading toward a Minority Report sort of scenario in that regard, but given the risk of resurrected programs of WMD, how long does one wait?

Nip it in the bud?

It's an option, though not the only option.

What burns a lot of us is that we believed literally in the image of "WMD's in large quantities ready for use shortly" not programs working to stay in development while dodging UN clowns, and found that image to be, whether due to absence or a clever hiding of the evidence, a mirage. Mr Duelfer makes sobering points.

So yes, that issue got undue weight in the information campaign, with the result that the better reasons, such as they were and are, have slowly faded from view in public discourse, and that the credibility of this White House, and I'd hazard any White House for the near term, has been damaged permanently. (I won't go into the body count at this time.)

We went, and must now try to polish a turd. Joy.

Might go back to fall of 2002 to June of 2003 and read the commentary on that score, here in the Lounge. But it's water under the bridge, and my prediction that the delta between asserted and found WMD program progress would evoke a significant, thorough, and useful Congressional action seems to have run afoul of events. Your observation earlier this year, that in time the energy behind the initial public outcry would fade, has held far closer to the actual state of play.

Misdirection?

What is missing in all this talk is who and what Saddam Hussein was as a political leader. Besides being an aggressor and a ruthless SOB, he was many other things.

A survivor. A clever man at playing other stronger nations off against one another. A true understander of power, to include political and military power. An egotist who envisioned himself the next Saladin. (IIRC, Saladin too was from Tikrit.) A dictator who could affort to play the long game. He could wait out an American president, he could use time as an ally. That risk, the he would wait out the tough guy and be able to wriggle out and re start his little programs to become a problem 5-10-15 years down stream had to be considered. If you wait until WMD are used, too late to solve your problem. Hence . . . pre emption. But there is still a lot more than meets the eye to the final decision.

Fidel is still around after 45 years. Saddam had only been around 30 years as head honcho. I am glad we took him out, but am uncomfortable at the price we are paying for it, since I am all too aware of the second line in my sig.

Occhi

[--Pete]

Hi Occhi,

Once again, we are going around in the best of circles ;)

The concept of invading Iraq while in the midst of a *real* war on terror (however mismanaged from the political end) need stronger support than "Saddam is an SOB". As I pointed out back then, if we're to remove SOBs from power, where do we draw the line?

That Saddam was nasty to his people is indisputable. Again, in how many countries has this been true? For that matter, in how many countries is that *still* true? I can think of a few.

That Saddam *might* someday pose a threat is true. And any JD (I believe 'youthful offender' is the PC phrase, but I can't keep up with that nonsense) can grow up to be a mass murderer (or even do so before 'growing up'). Preemptive 'punishment' is not only illegal according to our Constitution and the Geneva Convention, it is a fine way to generate fanatical enemies.

That Saddam was thumbing his nose at the UN is true. But that was the UN's problem and ours only within the confines of our cooperation with that body.

The *only* valid reason to overextend our forces, to further bankrupt the country, to alienate the Arab world as well as so many of our erstwhile allies, to split this country into (almost) armed camps would have been 'a clear and present danger' to us or our allies. The only such danger proposed was the WMD. The administration's claim that such existed, in spite of the renewed efforts of the UN inspectors, should have been established by intelligence that was nearly 100% certain. That it wasn't, that the administration pushed for a rapid deployment with imperfect (to be charitable) information when an additional few months would have clarified the question with nothing but Bush's reelection effort suffering is almost inexcusable. That they did so with no viable plan of occupation or exit strategy is totally inexcusable.

That Bush, the man who brags about his alliteracy (hey, a new word :) ), would do this is no surprise. Ignorance breeds mistakes. That all of his staff fell in line with him speaks of massive incompetence or ulterior motives.

Since the invasion, much smoke has been blown up our collective a**es about why we did it. 'Iraqi Freedom'. Bah. We had one reason and one only that was valid and legal by international convention to which we had bound ourselves. And it turns out that that reason is a lie.

--Pete

[Griselda]

Hi Pete,

I heard a rather informative interview with Richard Perle in which he said that he suspected that if the UN inspectors had completed their work, they would not have been able to produce evidence of WMD's. With a final report like that, there would have been pressure to lift sanctions. Without sanctions, Iraq could have restarted its WMD programs. So, according to Perle, the war had to be fought, and had to be fought then, to prevent Iraq from getting WMD's.

Needless to say I don't agree with his particular argument, but I also find it to be as close to a straight answer on "why" than I've heard anywhere else. I'll see if I can dig up a transcript.

[Ashock]

Hi,

Has four years of Bush and sound bites made us all stupid?????  Are we all operating at the two neuron level of the media clowns???

The issue was WEAPONS OF ****MASS**** DESTRUCTION, not a few tons of conventional effing explosives.  Missing or not.

Now, I understand the glamor guys and gals in the media 'of the idiots, by the idiots, and for the idiots' being unable to distinguish between the two.  And I understand, given Sturgeon's Law, how the bulk of the population of the USA and world might be fooled.  But I thought the LL was a bastion of intelligence and rationality.  Am I wrong?

--Pete
[right][snapback]59220[/snapback][/right]

Pete, after having met you in person, what... 3 years ago? I decided that I like you. I do not argue with people I like (well, excluding my wife that is, heh). I argue with people I either dislike or am indifferent to. So, I hope you understand when I do not respond.


-A

[--Pete]

Hi,

Pete, after having met you in person, what... 3 years ago? I decided that I like you.[right][snapback]59244[/snapback][/right]

Thank you, and right back at you :) As an aside, hope you can make another of those trips soon, some fun was had by all.

I do not argue with people I like (well, excluding my wife that is, heh).[right][snapback]59244[/snapback][/right]

Then let us not argue, let us discuss. :) For I value your opinion and would like to sharpen or change my own on the basis of it. But if you prefer not to discuss controversial issues with friends, then so be it. I understand, and will respect your position.

--Pete

[smithy]

Hi,

Has four years of Bush and sound bites made us all stupid?????  Are we all operating at the two neuron level of the media clowns???

The issue was WEAPONS OF ****MASS**** DESTRUCTION, not a few tons of conventional effing explosives.  Missing or not.

Now, I understand the glamor guys and gals in the media 'of the idiots, by the idiots, and for the idiots' being unable to distinguish between the two.  And I understand, given Sturgeon's Law, how the bulk of the population of the USA and world might be fooled.  But I thought the LL was a bastion of intelligence and rationality.  Am I wrong?

--Pete
[right][snapback]59220[/snapback][/right]

How does one truly envision a "scorched" Earth?

We live in a world where it is entirely possible for mankind to eradicate most, if not all, life on this planet. I think most people can formulate some idea in their head of how bad it would be if countries and/or other groups starting launching nukes. So, when the President of your country states that this guy over there is getting these nasty weapons , it's reasonable to conclude, I think, that most people would agree it prudent to stop him from ever getting those weapons.

Assuming I understand what you are saying correctly, Iraq posessing or having the intent to produce WMD was reason enough to invade. Correct?

If so, I agree in that our focus in this "War against Terror...blah...blah...blah" should be on containing the spread of WMD including our own production. Of course, that is the one thing we failed to accomplish with the invasion of Iraq.

North Korea supposedly now has a couple of nukes. Iran is on their way to obtaining nukes. India and Pakistan... well who knows there. I consider nuclear weapons (and other WMD) to be the gravest threat humanity has faced.

This whole talk about "conventional" WMD is nothing but a charade to me.

Smithy

[Ashock]

Hi,
Thank you, and right back at you :)  As an aside, hope you can make another of those trips soon, some fun was had by all.
Then let us not argue, let us discuss.  :) For I value your opinion and would like to sharpen or change my own on the basis of it.  But if you prefer not to discuss controversial issues with friends, then so be it.  I understand, and will respect your position.

--Pete
[right][snapback]59245[/snapback][/right]

I'll tell you.... My main reason for posting that is simply that I got sick and tired to all the screaming and yelling about the "Bush's lies". I realise what WMD *really* means, and that that was not really it. My position on this whole thing is that I do not think that any of us mortals *really* know what *really* happened and that there very well could have been outside intervention with that whole debacle. As far as the russians.... see, I think that among the so-called civilized countries, both the French and the Russians are not just mostly self-serving (as most countries are), but completely self-serving. They both had secret and not so secret interests in seeing Iraq and S.H. remain where they are. However, the French have not had any cohones for at least 80 and possibly as much as 180 years, so they would not do anything openly threatening against the US. OTOH, while the Russians want to be on our good side for sure, they are still capable of doing whatever it takes to further their interests. So to summarize, my whole point is that we really do not know for sure. The actual tone of the post, is simply a bit of fun and games to needle some people, nothing more. Sometimes, when no one else is doing it, I like to amuse myself ;-)



-A

[Occhidiangela]

Hi Occhi,

Once again, we are going around in the best of circles ;)

The concept of invading Iraq while in the midst of a *real* war on terror (however mismanaged from the political end) need stronger support than "Saddam is an SOB".  As I pointed out back then, if we're to remove SOBs from power, where do we draw the line?

That Saddam was nasty to his people is indisputable.  Again, in how many countries has this been true?  For that matter, in how many countries is that *still* true?  I can think of a few.

That Saddam *might* someday pose a threat is true.  And any JD (I believe 'youthful offender' is the PC phrase, but I can't keep up with that nonsense) can grow up to be a mass murderer (or even do so before 'growing up').  Preemptive 'punishment' is not only illegal according to our Constitution and the Geneva Convention, it is a fine way to generate fanatical enemies.

That Saddam was thumbing his nose at the UN is true.  But that was the UN's problem and ours only within the confines of our cooperation with that body.

The *only* valid reason to overextend our forces, to further bankrupt the country, to alienate the Arab world as well as so many of our erstwhile allies, to split this country into (almost) armed camps would have been 'a clear and present danger' to us or our allies.  The only such danger proposed was the WMD.  The administration's claim that such existed, in spite of the renewed efforts of the UN inspectors, should have been established by intelligence that was nearly 100% certain.  That it wasn't, that the administration pushed for a rapid deployment with imperfect (to be charitable) information when an additional few months would have clarified the question with nothing but Bush's reelection effort suffering is almost inexcusable.  That they did so with no viable plan of occupation or exit strategy is totally inexcusable.

That Bush, the man who brags about his alliteracy (hey, a new word :) ), would do this is no surprise.  Ignorance breeds mistakes.  That all of his staff fell in line with him speaks of massive incompetence or ulterior motives.

Since the invasion, much smoke has been blown up our collective a**es about why we did it.  'Iraqi Freedom'.  Bah.  We had one reason and one only that was valid and legal by international convention to which we had bound ourselves.  And it turns out that that reason is a lie.

--Pete
[right][snapback]59242[/snapback][/right]

The only answer I have yet come up that fits all of the angles, which resembles what Gris posted, in re the "why now" puzzle, is, as I remarked a while back, the belief that 2004 would be lost to the Democrats and that they would not be able to sustain the political assault on the sanctions by our allies and newer, Russians, friends. UN mission would again dissolve, this time for good, and sanctions would be lifted, for good. And the Persian Gulf would return to a very unstable condition. Saddam, being a meglomaniac, or at least delusional in re his role in the Mid East, would still have a case of the a$$ in re the US. No telling what he would or would not do.

That an internal lack of confidence in the other party in the long term, if true, was a prime motivator to action is a scary prospect.

On a related note, a strong Iraq bothers Iran, who we still have no good feelings toward, being that they are state who sponsore anti US and anti Israel Islamic terrorism. No way to work a "deal?" All of a sudden, the mixed signals in 1990, July, jump out as an immense oversight.

So, the real hard question for the historian is: why did the US, after 1991, not work considerably harder to induce Saddam to comply and then rejoin "the light?" Were our diplomats to enamoured of the Saudi King?

Other than his vehement anti Israeli predilections, it might be that Saddam's too difficult to work with, and simply could not be trusted, nor any of his cabal. Of course, Warren Christopher would have been a good secretary of state, had he ever been alive. :P I won't comment on Aunt Bea.

Occhi

[Griselda]

Well I found the transcript, so I figured I should post it. Since I didn't say I'd edit it in, I'll have to use bad form and reply to myself. It was a good excuse to look it up, because I wanted to see how close my memory was to what he had actually said. In any case, I could only find an audio transcript, so I typed it up myself based on what I heard.

Richard Perle from Fresh Air- January 8, 2004

Perle: Intelligence is an uncertain business, always.  In the specific case of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, we knew that he had them, because he'd actually used them.  We knew that he had a substantial program for creating them, parts of which had been found and destroyed, other parts of which we couldn't be sure about.  We had the United Nations' accounts of quantities of weapons that had been produced but the destruction of which had never been accounted for.  And I suppose it will remain one of the great mysteries of modern history why Saddam Hussein, if he was in a position to document the destruction of those weapons, chose not to do so.

As for the future; will people trust us?  You know, at the end of the day, we know that Saddam was concealing things and he had programs, and a desire to resume the production of these weapons, that's even reported in the Washington Post in the story you're referring to.  So, the result of hoping for the best and doing nothing would almost certainly have been the eventual reestablishment of his weapons of mass destruction.  The question was one of timing.

Terry Gross: But, in the question of timing, you're talking about the eventual reestablishment of the programs.  That coud have been a year, two years, ten years, twenty years, but the United States didn't have the patience for the UN Weapons Inspections process to continue, which could have taken perhaps just a few more months.

Perle: Well, but there was no end in sight.  If you take the view that there was nothing to be found, then the UN certainly wasn't going to find anything.

Gross:  But then they could have said that there really are no weapons, and that perhaps we've-

Perle: Right, they would have said that we have not found weapons, and the sanctions would have been lifted, and do you think that Saddam would have refrained from trying to reconstitute that capability after that?  I don't think so.