|
|
April 25, 2003
Iraqi scientists told to hide materials
IRAQI scientists claim they were ordered to destroy bacteria and equipment and hide more in their homes before visits by United Nations weapons inspectors ahead of the war. Posted By Blue Goldfish Cafe at April 25, 2003 09:50 AM | TrackBack Was it the French or Russians giving them the info ? I expect Aziz will spill the beans quite soon. Posted by: Ted D at April 25, 2003 10:02 AMIt sure would be nice to get enough dirt on France and Russia to suspend them off the UN security council. Posted by: Bart at April 25, 2003 10:10 AMBang-up job, UNMOVIC. Someon should tell me again that Iraq had nothing to hide. Telling people to destroy things that might look suspicious is of course not indicative of Iraq's having any illegal weapons programs, I guess. It's indicative of something, I'm not sure what--but Saddam SAID there were no illegal wepons in Iraq and that's coming straight from the top, after all... Too bad we couldn't have had UNSCOM in there. Oh, that's right, Saddam kicked them out because they turned up VX decomposition products on pieces of Iraqi warheads. Not that they had any illegal weapons or anything--they just didn't feel like cooperating any more, I suppose. Apparently this covered materials that were otherwise not prohibited, including things like laboratory specimens used in biology labs and hospitals. Read more carefully next time. I don't know if people above read the article? This is an exact repeat of the miller story from the NYTimes. Same event, same place. The research being conducted was totally allowed. So they worried it would be seen wrong. Given that common pesticides were claimed to be chemical weapons by the US forces, this is a non story. Posted by: Thoren at April 25, 2003 10:54 AMThe US hasn't claimed that pesticides were chemical weapons. Posted by: Robin Roberts at April 25, 2003 11:18 AMRight, the reporters claimed that pesticides were chemical weapons. Posted by: Angus at April 25, 2003 11:26 AMWe-e-llll -- we did sortalike. We found all sorts of alleged "decomposition products" that spokesdroids On The Scene made Chemical Weapons noises about, but they turned out to be orgahophosphate pesticide residue in every single case. Embedded reporters carried breathless reports from here and there, including that utterly wonderful report from a USMC CPT of rockers "loaded and ready to fire" that tested positive for CWs. There was this little problem, however.... In Viet Nam, we used to hose down the ammunition bunker nearby with pesticides about once/month or so. The indigenous cockroach population found such bunkers a sort of condominium, and inhabited it by the tens of thousands, so it seemed at the time. We used an organophosphate-based insect spray. I read the label -- such sprays are one of the few that are effective against the roaches. I would guess that had the testing technology available now also been available then, our ammunition would have tested positive in precisely the same way! One after the other -- all the Suspected CW or WMD sites have conclusively proven the existence of bug spray! I am Not making this up. Allegations of "precursor chemicals" were found to be the same thing -- bug spray, in every single case thus far. The whole BW, CW and WMD phrase has been so over-used in the reporting that one can scarce pick up a paper or see a teeveenooze program and not hear it. But a proper skeptic will simply say "Wait and see what comes up" and watch the clueless attempt once again to reinvigorate American Jitters on the issue. As of 0800PDT today, the WMD Found scorecard remains blank. CentCom still has no organized plan to search any sites, and is waiting for Unanticipated Developments, which means they are hoping that some Iraqi will come through the door and show them Something. The lure is a US$200,000 reward. Thus far, no takers. Meanwhile, Dubya has reiterated his assertion and confidence that WMDs Will Be Found. Consider that a Direct Order. Posted by: Don at April 25, 2003 11:28 AM
In truth, plenty of evidence of Saddam's WMD program has been (and continues to be) uncovered by the US inspectors. Indeed, even Hapless Hans and his team found evidence of banned weapons. The Security Council did not deny the evidence was there; instead, the argument a few months ago was whether the Iraqis were cooperating and if war was justified right away. But Don and Those Who Know the Truth ignore all of this previous evidence. Only 1000-gallon containers of Sarin with "This is the real stuff -- Saddam Hussein" hand-written on it in Arabic will convince them of Iraq's WMD program. Nevertheless, when such items are eventually found (as Iraq's unknown nuclear materials were discovered after the first Gulf War), Don and Those Who Know the Truth will then claim that the evidence is Too Obvious -- it must have been planted on orders from the Malevolent Rummy. You see, this is not about WMDs, or the war, or Saddam Hussein. This is about the bitter opponents of America and Bush searching for something, ANYTHING, to discredit their hated rivals. Once they lose the WMD argument, they will revert to something else. Count on it. Posted by: Kevin at April 25, 2003 12:14 PMThe point of the story is that the Iraqi's seem to have had advance knowledge of inspections. Posted by: Jrm at April 25, 2003 12:33 PMI agree that the point is the advance knowledge of inspections. Forget whatever they did/do have for a minute. The hints (to be kind) of corruption in the UN just keeps-a-comin'. Posted by: Gail at April 25, 2003 12:46 PMKevin, Being against this war does not make me Anti-American. The patriotism angle has been explored before and many men with bigger balls then Bush should not have their patriotism questioned. There are many veterans who have had this happen to them because of this and it is not right. I do not see how the Bush Admin can question patriotism when their own is questionable, i.e., their respective histories.... After 9/11 the world was on the side of America. Everyone was on the same page and wanted to help stamp out the evil that occured. All that was needed was some elightened leadership from the White House, but now after the leadership of Bush the world is split, the U.S. is becoming more and more a police state, and democracy and free speech are fading. Posted by: Eli at April 25, 2003 01:27 PM"Everyone was on the same page and wanted to help stamp out the evil that occured. " Bullshit. There was dancing in the streets in several countries, and preaching from a number of other countries, including France, about how we pretty much got what we deserved. "but now after the leadership of Bush the world is split," Bullshit again. George Bush, by demanding real commitments and real action in the war on terror, has simply made apparent who really is our ally, and who is not. The French and the Russians are not and have not been our friends in any meaningful sense for decades. The war has simply made it obvious. "the U.S. is becoming more and more a police state," In some respects, yes, I'll give you that. "and democracy and free speech are fading." I haven't noticed anyone arrested for exercising their First Amendment rights, and I haven't heard of any elections being cancelled. Posted by: T. Hartin at April 25, 2003 01:53 PM
I don't recall questioning your patriotism. It must be a sensitive point for you, though. However, I don't remember the Left getting as lathered about Willy's blatant draft-dodging, as they do about Bush's Nat'l Guard service. You may have been opposed to the war, and for perfectly logical reasons. You seem to be a reasonable person. But it might be a good idea to ask yourself why you were REALLY opposed to the war. Was it because you felt the US was doing the wrong thing, or was it because the war helped Bush politically? For most of the Anti-War Left in America, the answer is the latter. Posted by: Kevin at April 25, 2003 01:56 PMWhy am I anti-war...because there were alternatives, because I question Bush's personal reasons four ousting Saddam.... Will it give him any political advantage...not really probably hurt him... Btw...Bush's Nat'l Guard Service was basically a draft dodge...if you look at what plane he flew and how he got a commission. Amazing what a name can do for you.... Posted by: Mike at April 25, 2003 02:04 PMKevin, First, I apologize for my horrific spelling of the word for, (last two posts were hurried) Secondly, I voted for Bush my bias against him is IMHO a violated trust between the Commander In Chief, the American People and the U.S. Military. I smell something fishy here and do not see this "we are so in danger we have to push the button threat" However, the N. Korea crisis is getting there, as stated before God Help Us all with that one under this current admin.... Posted by: Mike at April 25, 2003 02:14 PM"The US hasn't claimed that pesticides were chemical weapons." No dog in this fight but that is wrong. Many of the pesticide sites were ones the US named before the war as WMD sites. Where we are looking and finding pesticides is mostly from our own "WMD" list. That is not a "media" list, it is a US pentagon and intelligence list. Moreover, military spokesmen have used the term "smoking gun" for the sites which later turned out to be pesticide. Numerous troops on camera refered to several of the pesticide sites as "chemical weapons." I specifically recall Major Ross Coffman (3ID), who comes from my home town, giving an interview calling one of the later determined to be pesticide sites, "a for the war here, always been, but the wmd easter hunt is not impressing me. Posted by: OldNavy at April 25, 2003 02:18 PMOldNavy, Easter Hunt would give it more credit than it is due. From the looks of things it looks like our government has no clue where any of this stuff is... Quite a contrasting position from that taken by the U.S. during U.N. talks.....? Interesting... Posted by: Mike at April 25, 2003 02:31 PMOld Navy it depends on who the "U.S" is. (I sound like Clinton) If you include every single member including a reservest from podunk Iowa then yes, it is obvious somebody let their mouth get a head of them. If you are talking Centcom or the Petagon no such statements have been made. Many of the statements you made about the "smoking gun" also including the words "may be the..." As for your Major with the 3rd ID, I am not sure the context but I'd bet he used that words "may be." Even if he did not, he was just getting a head of the facts. It is not like his word would ever be taken in the world community at large. He may wear a uniform and all but when it comes to representing the U.S. on declaing WMD he ain't a representative of the U.S. make sense? Paul And I wonder what Don et all will do when we find WMD. Will they REALLY claim they are planeted? That would make them look like the whack jobs we know they are. Posted by: Paul at April 25, 2003 02:57 PMPaul,
Moral equivalence, ie, the US and Iraq are the same. FYI, a organophosphate pesticide plant in the US does NOT have the same significance as one found in Iraq. The US is arguably the most free, open society in the world. It has openly admitted to having chemical weapons and is currently destroying said weapons in an open, internationally-supervised manner. It has renounced the use of chemical WMDs and has signed international treaties to that effect. Saddams' Iraq, OTOH, was repressed by one of the most brutal, corrupt, and vicious dictatorships in world history. For years it refused to cooperate with international weapons inspectors, not only impeding the process but eventually defying the UN and kicking them out. It refused to sign the Chemical Weapons Treaty. Worst of all, Saddam gassed his own citizens as well as Iranian troops. So which would you think would be involved in illegal chemical weapons production: A Dow chemical plant in Jersey City, or a clandestine "pesticide" factory near Tikrit? Your answer will reveal alot about your worldview. Posted by: Kevin at April 25, 2003 03:36 PMPaul, People noting this are not all shills or apologists for Saddam. Our country takes a big step in a very different directions if our legal case for the war turns out to be holow. Do we know now it is hollow? No. But we also know either our intelligence was garbage or politicized. And before you turn red, please recall our own history which has been rife with garbage intelligence (tactical and strategic) as well as generourus political coloring. As far as the statements on the ground by high ranking officers, some specialists some not, I am just pointing out they have been made. Sure they are conditional but they are also premature. has the media fanned this? Yes. I think Fox for example made some incredibly sensationalist assertions about WMD "discoveries." But one has to ask were they making these mistakes in a vacuum? Most of the news is leaked on background by the same political or military officials who speak on the record. Make no mistake, I am 100% behind Bush. It is also too early to say the WMD assertions were bunk, but it is not to early to start speculating on the possiblity we were wrong, why we might have been, and the (excuse the pun) fallout. In future our country is going to be making assertions of WMD against other nations adn we will need international support. We are not going to be holding up a few petri dishes of strep, some pesticide, and statements of some Iraqi scientists who want to get a visa and live the Bay Watch life as "proof." As far as I am concerned to have read about the discovery of fully weaponized rockets, and then to see our guys removing their gear while crossing the famous chemical "red line" made me think we don't believe it ourselves. Posted by: old navy at April 25, 2003 03:43 PMfor Paul: What will I do? I will examine whatever Evidence is "found" as carefully as I can derive it from several sources, I will wait a reasonable amount of time to ensure the First Report is not incorrect, I will doublecheck what is publicly known with what I can glean from others closer to the discussion than I or anyone here, and I'll carefully consider the means by which the Proof was handled. Then, and Only then, will I be prepared to decide what to believe and what not to believe. What I will assuredly Not do early on is believe it if I hear it on Faux News, on talk radio, or from the Coalition of the Clueless that hangs out on the Net. No question about it -- I am a skeptic. I come by it honestly, both from Personal Experience and by later developments -- e.g. Iran-Contra. Now y'all, otoh, don't need Proof or Evidence at all. Y'all have already bought off on the entirety of the whole thing without requiring either, and are continuing to assert as Present Reality what really is best consigned to The Presently Indeterminate Future. Frankly, I like my position better. It just makes more sense to me. YMMV, and apparently does. Meanwhile, allow me to point you in the direction of what is a Real-Time Spin presently occurring: (The Blog has carried most of this information in separate accounts on separate days previously. You can confirm the discussion at your leisure.) Long about a week or ten days ago, several WB accounts started noting that the administration was under increasing Political Pressure to find WMDs. News media were starting to ask Uncomfortable Questions, mostly of the form: Are there any WMDs? If there aren't, why were you saying you Knew of them previously as a justification for the war? There are some salient information points worth reviewing: * There were, at the start of the war, about 3k Chemical Weapons Exploitation Team personnel tasked solely with finding WMDs. * There were a non-specific number of folks from an otherwise unneeded Artillery Regiment added to that total. * There was a small retinue of Czech CW experts in the area. * There was The List of Suspect WMD Sites. The precise number of sites on that list varied with the time of the discussion. It was variously reported as several dozen, around 300, around 400 and most recently about a thousand. * The list was prioritized, and sites with what US Intelligence considered had the highest priority of having WMDs of any kind were at the top. (Information on several dozen of those sites had been provided to UNMOVIC prior to the attack. The sites came from the same list, apparently.) * From day One of the attack through our entry past the (dread) Red Ring, there was not a CentCom briefing that did not discuss CW and WMD "possible uses" and such. Nothing Specific was ever discussed at the time, save for noting ongoing investigations of reported sites. (Interested persons are welcome to check back on the WB for the specifics. It's not as though they weren't (a) reported as Proof, (b) reported as Possible, and (c) downgraded as Nothing, seriatum in each and every case.) * Meanwhile, the Political Pressure to find WMDs got somewhat larger. Those observations are not opinion -- they are Fact and may be checked on information available hereon. OK -- the administration and the Pentagon had some decisions to take, and the first one was to increase the WMD-finding effort. So: * There was a report of another thousand troops being shipped from CONUS to Iraq to aid in the search. * Another report had an additional 500 troops coming from Oz, again with that specific mission. * The US$200,000 reward/bribe was promulgated all over Iraq for Some Iraqi to come forward and provide us with a lead to Any site that might have WMDs on it. OK -- so part of the effort was to Try Harder. That makes perfect sense when Nothing has been found, and that fact is becoming embarassing. But: Coupled with the Try Harder effort, a simultaneous effort was instituted to downgrade the WMD Expectation Syndrome. So: * CentCom started making official noises confirming that WMDs had not been found at any site thus far. * LTG McKiernan (I think I have his name spelled correctly -- it sometimes goes by The Crawlers before I can get to it) made a couple of points in a CentCom briefing, to wit: - No WMDs had been found anywhere. And now -- The Spin: Clearly, the Try Harder regimen does not compute when compared with the Downgrade The Expectations effort. From a military standpoint, the two efforts are on their face, mutually exclusive. Unless we are supposed to believe that the US and Oz are sending in additional troops whose mission when on the ground will be Not to do the searches from The List that CentCom says they are not doing. That requires a complete suspension of belief. It's been several days, and there's been no word that the additional troops are not being sent, or that the flights are being turned around en route and sent back home. Either of those is possible, but neither has been reported. While that observation is not entirely dispositive, still the last information available was that they were on the way. Further information may change that. Waiting is. We also don't have specific information about regimental-size withdrawals of on-the-ground combat units, so we can assume the artillery regiment is still in place as well. One could suggest that Maybe they have been tasked with some Civic Action duties, but that doesn't seem realistic. So, simultaneously (1) we are enlarging the number of troops in-country tasked with searching for WMDs while (2) a 3-star at CentCom is saying we are not going to be doing any more searches from The List. Now, *there's* a Spin! Finely crafted, well done, and floating in well under the perceptual radar of the public. Give CentCom credit for that one. This one will be Just Fascinating to watch as it plays out. Posted by: Don at April 25, 2003 03:48 PMThe UN investigations team was co-chaired by an Arab and there were a lot of Arabs on staff. One of the UN inspectors was probably a spy for Saddam. Posted by: jim at April 25, 2003 04:17 PM"One of the UN inspectors was probably a spy" No spies in our own inspectors? you also miss the point, even this supposed "find" isn't WMD or forbidden. Posted by: jules at April 25, 2003 04:27 PMDon (Seriously, nice post) hey Dad 'er' Don I knew you could straighten us kid's out Posted by: commander at April 25, 2003 04:36 PM"Let me pose this question. How long is a reasonable amout of time for finding or not finding WMD? I percieve many in the debate feel the time has already gone past. Others, including myself, feel another chunk of time is well within expectations, and is more real world." Not addressed to me but I will take a stab. a good chunk of time more is warrented. No apologies needed for toppling Saddam or giving the WMD's another six months But it is also not too early to posit the question of what it means if we don't find serious WMD, and what it would mean to our credibillty, given that in the world ahead WMD will be a problem in many places and we will need allies who can trust us to counter it with diplomatic, economic and military pressure. It is also not too early to ask why/how we gave a forged document to the UN in front of the largest UN television audience ever. Powell was put in the position of holding up that nigerian nuclear material receipt...and that forgery came from a party highly interested in this war. Posted by: old navy at April 25, 2003 04:51 PMThere are two timelines wrt WMDs worth discussing, and each has to do with our own administration's credibility on the issue. One has already been determined, and the second remains to be determined: * Did we Know before the war of the existence of WMDs in Iraq, when we were asserting it as Fact and a rationale for the invasion? No. If we don't Know it now, we could not have Known it then. That timeline is ended, and the discussion finished. Whatever else we were claiming, that claim has no basis in Fact. It's not as though there's any longer a question about it. * We came into Iraq believing we Would find them, in their hundreds or thousands, and materials in the hundreds or thousands of tons. Have we found Any? No. Which is not to say we Might not in the future, but to date, it is simply a Fact that we Have Not. That discussion is ongoing. Now, how much longer Into The Future should we wait? As long as it takes, apparently. What other choice do we have? We either Will or Will Not find any, and there are Future Outcomes associated with the means by which either of those two potentials are realized. The margin of credibility is narrow, whichever way it goes. Meanwhile, hie thineself over to Reuters and pick up one of their latest dispatches, wherein it is said that the administration now says that WMDs "may" have been destroyed on the even of invasion to avoid detection. But there's that Weasel Word "may" popping up once again in this discussion, in precisely the same fashion it has popped up earlier. Return now to those halcyon Days of Supposed Certainty just six weeks ago and review the discussion as of that time: Iraq *has* WMDs. later Iraq "may" have WMDs. Then in rapid succession: * Iraq may employ WMDs in a First Strike against rear areas of Coalition forces. * Iraq may use WMDs as the forces attack. * Iraq may employ WMDs within the Red Ring. * Iraq may use CWs in the Battle of Baghdad. * Iraq may have hidden WMDs in mobile trailers. * Iraq may have put WMDs on ships in the Persian Gulf. * Iraq may have WMDs hidden in caves. * Iraq may have them buried under a concrete wall at a girl's school. Fingers are getting tired, but you get the idea. * OK, today Iraq may have destroyed them just prior to the attack. Now read what the Pentagon and administration flaks are Really saying: We do Not now Know and never have Known whether there were WMDs in Iraq when we were making these assertions. And as of 1400 PDT *today* we still know essentially Nothing about them. All we *ever* say is that something "may" have happened. That's simply too damned easy to take seriously. It's been pretty much this way since before the attack, and it hasn't changed tone or content since that time. When *we* assert something As A Fact, we ought not to be trying to outdo the Iraqi information minister! We either provide Proof of it when we assert it, or we fess up about our lack of specific knowledge. There just ain't no in-between about it, seems to me. We're supposed to be better than the Iraqi information minister. Folks out there are supposed to take what we say Seriously, and be prepared to act on it. Including that most serious of national decisions -- Going To War! Who Knows what "may" happen? As of today, we don't really know, do we? It's worth a ponder, doncha think? Posted by: Don at April 25, 2003 05:07 PM"...that forgery came from a party highly interested in this war." Re: Timeline Also, Old Navy, as I look out 6 months, October puts us into the heart of the political "fund raising" season, so I think realistically the pain of an expired credibility timeline kicks in earlier. .. or the economy has to get much better quickly ... also a 50/50 proposition at best. Posted by: Capsu78 at April 25, 2003 05:34 PM
In fact, the post would be quite convincing if one only looked at events since March 19, 2003. In that context, it does indeed appear that the US government is desperately trying to create a case for WMDs in Iraq, where none exists. But then, one would have to ignore alot of what occurred before Operation Iraqi Freedom. One would have to ignore the fact that everyone on the UN Security Council, including France, Russia and China, believed that Saddam still had WMDs and had not destroyed them all. One would have to ignore the fact that said Security Council Members were so convinced of Saddam's WMD program that they UNANIMOUSLY voted last November to order him to cooperate and let in UN weapons inspectors back in to verify the destruction of the WMDs. One would have to ignore the fact that virtually all western intelligence agencies agreed that Saddam had a covert WMD program. One would have to ignore the fact that Hapless Hans Blix and his team of investigators found no evidence that Saddam had destroyed any significant amount of the WMDs that he was known to have possessed back in 1992. One would have to ignore the fact that Saddam kicked out the UN weapons inspectors back in 1998, partly because they had become too efficient at finding things. One would have to ignore the fact that Saddam had four years to revamp and conceal his WMD plan without having any inspectors around to find out what he was doing. One would have to ignore the fact that President Clinton, yes, Bill Clinton, said back in 1998 that Saddam had not disarmed and that the US needed to use military force to make him comply with the UN resolutions. One would have to ignore the fact that neither the US nor UN had any idea of the size of Saddam's nuclear weapons program until nearly 2 years after the first Gulf War ended. One would have to ignore the fact that the official in charge of Iraq's covert nuclear program, Saddam's son-in-law, defected to the West in 1995 and provided eyewitness testimony of the existence of said program. One would have to ignore the fact that Saddam lured him back to Iraq with false assurances of forgiveness, and then promptly executed him as an example to all. One would have to ignore the dozens of other Iraqi officials who have defected and provided information similar to the son-in-law, but had the better sense to not return to Iraq. One would have to ignore the fact that Iraq, since the beginning of the inspection process in 1991, has consistenly lied, delayed, impeded, obstructed, and flouted the UN weapons inspection process, despite 18 UN Security Council resolutions ordering them to comply and disarm. Indeed, one would have to ignore that Saddam Hussein and his regime was one of the most barbaric, evil, and repressive regimes in history, a government that not only lied to the UN, but to the whole world, as well as themselves, up to the point when the US tanks were rumbling into Baghdad. I have noticed that people who ignore inconvenient facts like this, and focus exclusively on alleged American misdeeds, are the same kind of people who ignore the fact that the Soviet Union and Communist China massacred millions of their own citizens. Indeed, they will perversely criticize the US, but give a bloody totalitarian dictatorship a pass. These are the same people who actually believed that the Iraqis loved Saddam, who actually believed that the US was targeting civilians, who actually believed that we were entering a quagmire that would never end, who actually believed that America would lose the war (Scott Ritter, anyone?). I don't know when the "smoking gun" that we are all waiting for will appear. Heck, I can't even say for sure that we will find it. But I do know history, and I have seen what Saddam has done for the past 12 years. I also have seen that some of what Saddam did is even worse than what the Iraqi exiles said he did. So I'm willing to believe the Bush Administration when they say that the WMDs are there. Not only because they have been right on most things about Iraq so far, but because their critics have been so wrong, not only in a factual sense, but in a moral sense as well. Only a person with a distorted sense of right and wrong would believe Saddam Hussein over George Bush. Posted by: Kevin at April 25, 2003 05:53 PMKevin, Let me raise this question to you... If we went in to protect this country against Iraqi WMDs... and they still are not accounted for then are we any safer? We must account for these weapons.. I do not believe Saddam obviously but until the U.S. provides solid evidence I will not believe the U.S. government either. Blind faith is dangerous, especially with power players like those in the Bush Admin. Futhermore, if Iraq can hide/destroy all these weapons at their will w/o our knowledge, then we are not safe at all anyway. If our intel fails us in this manner, how can we be confident that we know the locatons of WMDs around the world in general? It seems to me that if they can eliminate this "huge and looming threat of WMDs they had" under our noses, which they have done so far...then we have a long way to go in this "war on terror" Posted by: Mike at April 25, 2003 06:16 PMIt looks like Don is trying to outpost everyone :P Posted by: Rug at April 25, 2003 06:30 PM* I would not suggest that we have a cache of WMDs in hand, and are simply playing Clever with it. I don't believe we could keep that secret if we had it, and I don't believe if we had it there would be any advantage in trying to leak it at some later time. That whole scenario simply strains credulity well past any reasonable bounds. * The decision to Go To War was, best as I can figure, made well before Any of this stuff came to the fore. The Wolfowitz paper on the subject was first promulgated in 1992 or thereabouts, I first read it in circa 1996 or 1997 when I got a copy of it from a congresscritter's staff, it went public in 1998, and became Revealed Doctrine in 2002, sometime in Mid-Year, nearly as can be figured. If you follow the fundamentals of the discussion, the only decision ever made was to Go To War. The discussion of the several rationales used to justify it came later -- WMDs, terrorism link, regime change and the liberation of the Iraqis, whether they wanted it or not. The Wolfowitz paper did not consider the Reasons for going to war -- it mostly discussed the Outcomes of doing so. Once Wolfowitz was in a policy-making position in the Pentagon, war was inevitable. (In point of fact, I started saying on the amUsenet in several discussions that we Would go to war regardless of anything else sometime late last year. The administration always did give that as the fundamental, when it was noted that support or no support, WMDs or no WMDs, Saddam stepping down or not stepping down, UN approval or no UN approval, 1441 or no 1441 -- we were always going to invade.) And that was the end of the discussion. The buildup always did continue, there was no consideration ever of pulling the troops back once they were in place, and the war was always going to happen, no matter what. It gives me no particular pleasure to have called that shot -- but seems as though it hit the mark square on. * As for believing Saddam over George Bush, allow me to suggest that believing Neither across the board on every single issue is also an entirely defensible position as well. One does not have to choose one or the other, after all. * Nevertheless, when discussing WMDs, there is a salient observation worth considering: There are no Facts wrt the existence of WMDs the administration has provided, nor are there any it can now provide, nor is the Pentagon actively seeking any -- unless they really are, and are trying to be clever about it. Res ipso loquitur. And yet the True Believers persist, without anything other than their Faith to sustain them. That's religion -- not public policy. Posted by: Don at April 25, 2003 06:35 PM
Except your religion is the one where America is the Axis of Evil, where the assurances of a brutal, ruthless, cruel, lying dictator are more reliable than the word of the duly elected leader of the freest nation on earth. Interesting. Posted by: Kevin at April 25, 2003 07:37 PM
I agree that it is wise to look at things with a skeptical eye. I also agree that we need to account for all WMDs if possible, especially now in light of what we have found about Saddam's terrorist connections. I also agree that IF our intelligence agencies and those of our allies (remember, we weren't the only ones to suspect WMD production in Iraq) are completely wrong, then it would be a screw-up of epic proportions. BUT, what I cannot comprehend is the willful ignorance of many Bush/America critics, especially in light of all the supporting evidence that has been accumulated over the past 12 years. In my opinion, this is not done in some high-minded pursuit of the truth, but for purely ideological reasons. I also find it hideous that some would COMPLETELY IGNORE the behavior of the Iraqi regime over the past 20 years, and especially over the past 12 years, simply for the purpose of discrediting the US. I will say it again: No amount of WMD will convince these people. When the evidence surfaces, their arguments will change. They will make up all sorts of new arguments, finding all sorts of sinister motives in what in reality is practical contingency planning. You need to ask yourself Mike: Is the US REALLY that evil, that they would plan a war without any justification, or plant WMDs in order to cover themselves? Do you REALLY think Saddam Hussein was telling the truth all those years? This is my final post on the subject. Partly because the weekend is here and I have better things to do, and partly because there is nothing more I can say that will convince these people. Their hatred of America is indeed a religion. Posted by: Kevin at April 25, 2003 08:07 PMfor Mike and Kevin: Projecting what you believe someone is saying into what someone is really saying is a mental health issue. But it gets worse when you assert something that simply wan't said at all. I do not believe Saddam over Bush. I am skeptical of what both of them say, without something with which to back it up. To quote the words of St Ronald: Trust. But verify. It has application beyond an international treaty, and it's a useful stance when dealing with any official statement, regardless of the source. The topic doesn't matter. Posted by: Don at April 25, 2003 08:15 PMKevin, "...that forgery came from a party highly interested in this war." Israel actually for Mark: * Just prior to the invasion, Saddam told the UN to send the inspectors back in, to discuss a broader inspection regime. The US rejected the idea out of hand. * Nothing has been found, and there's a whole lot more personnel on the ground with a freer access to anywhere in Iraq and anyone to whom they might wish to talk. * The "coalition" turns out to have been essentially the US, Britain, Australia and a couple of dozen folks each from Spain and Poland. The Bulgarian support seems to have gone bad when their Lada developed engine trouble somewhere in the Ukraine en route. Now for myself, I'm awaiting the Victory Parade in Trinidad-Tobago. But the five-member Real Coalition always was in place. * If you don't choose to believe your President, then you're as unAmerican as the wingnuts are trying to describe folks who have even the slightest doubt. Dubya always said that he was going to invade -- alone if that's how it worked out -- with or without evidence, UN support, anyone else in the "coalition" or any other involvement anywhere. He was always simply going to do it. He said it, and he meant it. I always believed he meant it, surely. Posted by: Don at April 26, 2003 03:49 PMDon, of course Saddam invited discussions of a broader inspection regime. He's always done that. Every time, he'd go back on it, start cheating on things, deny access to "sovereignty sites".... He'd been doing it for twelve years and it worked. Why wouldn't he do it again? Of cpourse, you've never explained why he cheated so often if he had no WMD to hide. You've never indicated which of the twelve Full Final and Complete Declarations contains the true state of Iraq's WMD program, and why you think so. Maybe it's time you answered those questions. I gave you my Middle East peace plan, btw. Posted by: Gabriel Hanna at April 27, 2003 03:24 AMYou keep asking why Saddam acted as he did? Who knows the mind of a paranoid? You don't, I don't and interestingly enough, neither does the US Intelligence community. But that's not a particularly important question. An Important Question is -- Was there Proof of WMDs before we invaded? The answer was and remains to this day -- No. There was not. We invaded in a guess, a surmise, a possibility. But never the CAPD we were asserting at the time. Still, the invasion is all but over, and the WMDs in their hundreds and thousands and the materials in their massive tonnage that were just supposed to be All Over The Place -- where are they. Where are the Mobile Labs? Where are the five ships in the Persian Gulf? Where are the rockets "loaded and ready to fire?" Where are the caves full of biological warfare materials? No one knows. Feredamshur you don't, CentCom doesn't and neither, just at the moment, does anyone else. Every single time one of these "reports" comes wandering out, you start asserting that This Time we have the Smoking Gun. Have you been right -- even once? Before the invasion, we were asserting that any Plan to extend the UN inspections a couple of weeks or a couple of months was simply giving Saddam too much time. What do we hear now? Why, it will take weeks, months and perhaps even a year to find anything! What was the hurry back then? Was it worth the cost we paid and will be paying into the indefinite future? These Iraqis who would instantly welcome us with Open Arms as Liberators once we started driving down their streets. Where are the cheering throngs? The idea that Iraqis would be left to self-determine the future of their country is all very interesting. Yet We flew in Chalabi and his 700-man personal army and armed them, and now the blog notes that "the Pentagon" is sending in Iraqi exiles to run the country. Rationalize these two disparate assertions, if you would -- not to me, but to the Iraqis. They're the ones need to hear it. Apparently "certain kinds" of Iraqi self-determination won't be allowed, so says Rumsfeld. We're going to be out of Iraq in 3 months, said one of The Generals a few weeks ago. Then it was six. Then it was a year or more. Then the spinmeisters started floating the trial balloon that "nation-building" could take five years or more. The more things change.... We have a record of "nation-building" just a few countries over. How do *you* think it's going.? I read that our old enemies, al Qaeda itself, are re-organizing there, gaining strength, and noting to the Afghans that their "liberation" hasn't gained them much. But then, they have heroin, not oil -- though the heroin is flowing freely from the area once again. Does our performance there make you feel all optimistic in Iraq? Those come to my mind as Far More Important Matters than trying to resolve assertions on paper with realities on the ground in Iraq. YMMV. I outlined elsewhere our response to Anything Iraq said befoire the invasion wrt its WMD programs. It didn't matter what they said -- we said they were lying. We didn't have any Proof of that response, and still don't. We just said they were lying and let it go at that. When Iraq agreed to destroy the al Samoud missiles, not because they could fly beyond the prohibited range, but because If they were modified (which none of them had been) then they Might fly beyond the range *(none fired in the invasion did), what was Powell's response when about half of them were publicly destroyed? Remember what he said? He asserted that More Were Being Made at some Secret Assembly Site elsewhere. Did he Know that was true when he said it? No -- and in fact, no such site has been found and no recently-built missiles have been found either. What was That all about? Our "evidence" of biological weapons went fundamentally two ways: One -- that Iraq had previously made a bunch of toxins of various sorts. Iraq said they destroyed them. We said they were lying. But destroying such matters is a simple thing -- you put them into a Really Hot Oven and bake them for a while. What's left is a residue. Do we as of today have either the toxins or the residue? No -- we have Nothing. We just have Missing Paperwork -- the absence of which we assert is Proof that they weren't destroyed, and the presence of which we apparently were not prepared to accept. Two -- we said there were tons of "growth medium" unaccounted for. We know that such materials were not openly shipped into Iraq during the 90's for hospital and laboratory use -- they were on the prohibited list. But we also know that hospitals and labs did bacterial cultures during that time, so where were they getting the stuff from? Iraq said the material was not destroyed - it was Used. That's completely plausible -- even at the tonnages involved. We're Still saying that missing agar constitutes Proof of a BW program! It doesn't and never did. What happens to agar after it's used? It's flushed down a sink with Hot Water and the glassware washed in trisodium phosphate. When the UN inspectors said the "growth medium" was "unaccounted for" it was clear it was a paperwork matter -- and not proof of a BW program. As of today, it remains that and no more, regardless of how The Clueless try to spin it. If, as seems to be the case, we "find" some cache of CWs out there one way or another, but that "find" occurs without a third party observing and reporting on it, *regardless of what's found* there's going to be a problem. I have said that and Just that from the getgo in this discussion. We've set ourselves up for precisely this sort of problem, and if we're not Very Damned Careful how it's handled, it's going to result in a PR Blowback. Do I think we might try Something Underhanded in the matter? It's plausible that we would, as one of the future possibilities. Since the question continues to move toward the forefront of the discussion on the world stage, its importance increases commensurately over time. You didn't much care for it when I mentioned it early on, but back then you were convinced that something would be found Just Any Day Now. It wasn't. Here we are a month later, and we get these Reports of the same form as earlier. This time, however, the "find" is not happening near an embedded reporter with a camera. The US military controls it all and provides its own information. Might it be faked? Jeez, I dunno for certain, but that's just Got to be one of the possibilities worth considering. Or do you not remember Iran-Contra? If you don't, you should should revisit how that was handled, in a White House that was arguably somewhat less secretive than this one is. This ex ante idea that everything will go just one preferred way ex post seems silly. Your assertion seems to be that we should Just Trust our guys to Do The Right Thing across the board. Sorry -- I'm far too much of a skeptic to believe such nonsense any more. I last held that belief back in the early 60's, but learned important lessons over the ensuing years. The burden of Proof in this WMD discussion has now shifted. Prior to the attack, we were demanding that Iraq prove the unprovable negative -- that there were Not WMDs in Iraq. Now it is up to use to Prove that there were at the time. Because clearly, at the time we simply did not and could not prove any such thing. We sorta hoped we might find some after the invasion, and to hear our folks talk, we were Just Sure we would -- all over the place. Seems not to be the case today. At the moment, all of our fondest hopes seem now to be that (a) some Iraqi will lead us to something, and (b) that we stumble across something we can characterize as a WMD in a quantity large enough to have a press conference about. To date, that hasn't happened. But then, we're shipping in 1500 or so additional personnel, who are apparently going to do the searches that LTG McKiernan said just the other day in a CentCom briefing that we are Not doing. Resolve that discrepancy, if you would. But what happens in the future is going to be problematic altogether. How that's played by us will make a Huge difference in how it plays to the rest of the world. And contrary to what you might want to believe, how it plays to the rest of the world really is important. You just keep believing in Things Unseen, if you feel more comfortable doing that. I'm going to maintain a skeptical eye as things progress, and see how it goes. But the folks who will determine the outcome of all this aren't on this blog. Do try to keep that perspective -- it's important too.
Don, I have never once asserted that "we now have the smoking gun". Not once. Every single time a repot has come out, and I have commented on what was found, I have always said that it needs to be confirmed. I have often made the point You need to work on your reading comprehension. Quit attributing stuff to me that I don't say. I'm not your straw man. Go get your own. I pay you the courtesy of carefully reading your posts before I comment on them. Kindly extend the same courtesy to me. Posted by: Gabriel Hanna at April 27, 2003 06:14 PMPost a comment
|