Here's a big old Democrat slow curve...

[dd74]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/08/sprj.nirq.wmd.report/index.html

Question: will they connect & hit a home run?

[tabs]

How many times do I have to say it....the WMD thing was only to sell the war to the American people...WMD's had nothing to do with the real reasons why we invaded Irak.

Notice Kadhifi Duck is giving up his Nuc's, Iran is letting inspectors in, and Syria is singing a different song....It's all about GEO POLITICS, we put all the bad guys on notice that we will take them out, notice where IRak is located, right in the heart of the Mid East, and US troops are right on the Borders of Syria, Iran, and Saudi. Let's get real people what they tell you and the truth of the matter are always not the same thing!

Bin Laden wanted the USA outa the MId East so what did we do we increased our presence...we are gona put a Wally World on every corner in the Mid East.

[dd74]

Yes, Tabs, that's a highly sophisticated and intellectual argument you have. Even so, a lie is a lie, and the administration lied no matter what they intended. That's what this shows here. They forced their hand and eventually lied.

In as far as "selling the Americans," on securing the region, getting rid of dictators and what not is not nearly as tangible as dead soldiers and nothing in the way of results of why we began the Iraq campaign in the first place.

News agencies are chomping at the bit for the stuff that's in the above link. Problem is the emasculated Democratic candidates don't have the ability to turn this into something positive for their '04 cause. At least as of today they don't. Let's wait until the news reports tonight...

[Aurel]

It is precisely lies of this nature that fuel conspiracy theories, and it becomes more and more difficult to sort out what is truth from what is manipulation of the public opinion. The whole problem becomes how far to push the conspiracy theory, because it is now obvious that there was a conspiracy to go to war against Iraq. So what else is there that we are not suposed to know ? No wonder why people come up with crazy theories...

Aurel

[dd74]

Well, I'm not going to get into conspiracies. All that does is belie deductive reasoning and raises fantasy. How we got to where we are - what was not found - however, is very deductive.















edit: "are"

[Overpaid Slacker]

Oh. Great. This canard again.
Bush's statement in the State of the Union address was that "The dictator of Iraq is not disarming; to the contrary, he is deceiving." The ISG report (which had access to much more than the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, which in a mind-bending stretch of bullshyte CNN calls "nonpartisan") tells a different story from the CEIP soundbite: "There are no large stockpiles of weapons. There hasn't actually been a find of a single weapon, a single weapons agent, nothing like the programs that the administration believe existed."
[aside: Quick quiz -- how "large" a "stockpile" of Sarin or botulism (in cubic space) would I need to kill, say the entire population of Chicago?]

The ISG team (including several former UN inspectors) found that Iraqi officials had engaged in "deliberate dispersal and destruction of material and documentation related to weapons programs" before, during and after the war.
The ISG reported that it found proof that WMD suplies and facilities had been concealed from UN inspectors, including "a clandestine network of laboratories and safe houses . . . that contained equipment . . . suitable for continuing" chemical and biological warfare research. It found "a prison laboratory complex, possibly used in human testing of BW agents, that Iraqi officials . . . were explicitly ordered not to declare to the UN. ISG inspectors received from an Iraqi scientist a "vial of live C. botulinum Okra B" -- a precursor of botulism toxin, perhaps the deadliest toxin known.
The report quoted an Iraqi chemical weapons official who reported that the Iraqi facilities could have produced weaponized mustard gas in two months and Sarin within 24 months, and that only the US movement against Saddam had dismantled missiles with ranges of up to 600 miles -- much more than the 90-mile range Iraq was allowed.
The ISG's bottom line -- "We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002.
Strangely, when the ISG's findings were reported to us in October of '03, they were related as the Kay report (the head of the Iraq Survey Group). In an inexplicable bit of selective reporting, Tom Brokaw relayed none of the foregoing from the ISG report, but the following: "the man in charge of finding those weapons in Iraq, David Kay, went before Congress and said so far he has come up dry: no weapons, no mobile labs, no nuclear weapons or even an advanced program." OK, there's lying involved (as in deliberate mischaracterization of what you know/believe to be the truth) but it's not W.

Tabs' black helicopters aside, it's fairly settled that the intelligence communities of the US, the UK, France, Germany, Spain, et al. believed that Saddam had WMD. Was each and every one of these intelligence agencies deceived by the reports coming out of Iraq (the scientists that perhaps were lying to Saddam, telling him weapons programs were further along than they were?) perhaps. But it's plain that even those agencies beyond the reach of Hitler/Bush believed Saddam had WMDs or the capacity to make them in short order.

The use of this belief as a "selling point" for the war is no more nefarious than using the other beliefs -- he'd gassed his own people, hadn't lived up to numerous other UN resolutions, supported terrorism, etc.

No time to edit right now, so forgive spelling/grammar errors.
JP

[tabs]

Theres no conspiracy there, just Wolfowitz and Rumsfield at the confrence table saying Sadam has got to go, and heres why and heres how we can get the American people on board. When they sell U cereal they tell you how good it is but fail to mention the sugar in it. Is that a conspiracy. It was easier to tell you WMD's than explain the Geo-political reasons...which a lot of people wouldn't understand. The oposition party would play poitics and nothing would get done.

The USA is out to change the face of the Mid East...Saddam was the first and easiest choich. It shows America means business, with regard to the ME and elsewhere, it puts US troops in a central location, it gets rid of a bad guy and puts the others on notice, it gets rid of a destabilizing agent, oil prices can stabilize as ONE result. All those things are pluses. The war on Terrorism is a multifaceted war, getting rid of Saddam is like cleaning out the house so you can redecorate, and you can't redecorate until you clean house. The US Govt has realized it can no longer sit idlily by and let Muslim Fundlementalists operate, for to do so would be to put ourselves at great peril. The wests very survival depends on eliminating the threat.

I would say most information is on a need to know basis...Gore Vidal has said that since 1948 the USA has been a National Security State. If U knew the whole truth you probably wouldn't go to sleep at night.

For instance we now have learned that what the government was most afraid of was a Dirty Bomb..that they still have the people and trucks ready to go in event something happens along those lines. And LVwas one of the key places they were concerned about. They even found a radium filled device in a storage locker in LV, they immediately notified the President. It turned out after investigation that a homeless person found it, it was an old radiological medical implant used in treating cancer.

[Aurel]

He obviously did not have anything significant, otherwise he would have used it last winter. Now, if you cannot admit that simple fact and want to call WMD the water and suger that can be used to grow bacteria too, that is fine with me. Anything that triggers people fear and that they do not understand anyways can be called WMD...you just have to have a guy with a white coat talk about it. Here, in my lab, I have loads of potential WMDs...How about a bottle of sodium cyanide ? Boooh ! Did I scare you ?

Aurel

[BlueSkyJaunte]

Originally posted by Aurel
He obviously did not have anything significant, otherwise he would have used it last winter.

You're talking about the "Lion of Baghdad" who was found hiding in a hole, covered in his own filth.

[dd74]

Originally posted by tabs
It was easier to tell you WMD's than explain the Geo-political reasons...which a lot of people wouldn't understand. The oposition party would play poitics and nothing would get done.

So you're saying our administration knows what's good for us, and that our true success is we've elected an administration smarter than we are?

BTW: there really is no opposing party. Might as well cancel Iowa and New Hampshire.

[CamB]

Well, what you say is all fine slacker, but it still doesn't really make me see why there was any urgency in invading Iraq. Powell's quote in that article doesn't help:

But Powell noted that Iraq used chemical weapons in the Iraq-Iran war and on the Kurds in the 1980s and had the chance to come clean about its programs to the international community through the '90s.

"It's a fact," he said.

He said there was a "solid case" from U.N. inspectors and other officials that the Saddam Hussein regime "was a danger we had to worry about."

But which UN inspectors? Certainly not the chief ones - Blix was rabidly anti-invasion.

Pretty much all the evidence uncovered thus far suggests that, as a worst case scenario, that there was potentially a danger. Not an imminent threat.

[dd74]

[aside: Quick quiz -- how "large" a "stockpile" of Sarin or botulism (in cubic space) would I need to kill, say the entire population of Chicago?]

Interesting thought. I imagine you're saying this stockpile would be small. Okay, if it's so small, how does anyone know it's there/not there/or ever was there? Granted, it's a crap shoot to find it, and it would be horrible if any exists in Iraq. The way to find it, if it does exist, is through a steady stream of "good intelligence," not assumptions and conjecture as was the case.

What needs to be done now is to think of WMDs in intangible terms. Threat level risings and scary news reports are WMDs, in a way.

[Aurel]

You're talking about the "Lion of Baghdad" who was found hiding in a hole, covered in his own filth.

There is actually a strong possiblity that this capture was staged, that he was put in this hole and covered with filth to destroy his image in the arab world. It is even possible that he was not captured by the americans, but handed by the kurds who struck a deal with the US.
Here are my sources:
Statements by senator McDermott
Sunday Herald article
Aljizeera

Yep, I like conspiracy theories...

Aurel

[Overpaid Slacker]

Aurel -
To my knowledge, (1) you've never used any WMDs against anybody; (2) wouldn't sell them to anybody; and (3) aren't in flagrant violation of a score of UN resolutions telling you to get rid of them and to dismantle your ability to generate them.
I doubt, given the circumstances, that Saladin would even have had the chance to use WMDs -- what we've found out is that France was assuring him that they'd stall the bejesus out of us and that he could expect a campaign waged similar to the Gulf War -- weeks of bombing before ground troops moved in, during which time he could either get his shizznit out of Iraq or use WMDs (which I, personally doubt he would've done, but that's just MHO).

EDIT --
I think Saddam's "capture" might've been staged, but not for PR reasons or petty bullshyte. I think it'd be done for tactical/intelligence reasons. When we get OBL, for example, if word hasn't gotten out about his capture and we can get information out of him in the first couple of days then it's still good information that we can use to get other bad guys. Once they know he's caught - that he's burned - they'll scatter and disappear and then the intel from him is much less useful, if not useless. So I think there's a good chance we had Saddam for a while before we announced we had him. But we sure as shyte didn't grow that beard on him.


CamB -
You're sort of making my point. Blix was very anti-anything that would emasculate (or rather, reveal the already extant emasculation of) the UN and, coincidentally, make him just another peon again. Yet Blix was the only guy that ever got a microphone. Hmmm.... why? Well, I don't think it's all media this one time -- if an inspector had come out and made public statements to the effect that Iraq had WMD, was making WMD, etc. (1) it'd have been a huge embarassment for the UN and the Weasels, so it'd be a tough thing to do; (2) the nationality of the inspector would've been a huge political lever (he's Australian? they like the US, he must be a pawn!); and (3) that inspector would wind up dead or PNG'd if he stayed in Iraq very long after making such a statement. The ISG had many of the UN inspectors in its ranks (I confess I don't know how many, but by most accounts, they featured prominently) and they've come out with their {first} report as I quoted earlier.
Why not move when we did? What would've satisfied you? Auckland as a fireball? Montreal? Tel Aviv? If Saddam had simply not invaded a neighbor, never allowed any meaningful inspections and kept on doing whatever he was doing, there would *never* have been any "urgency" (at least in the general public's collective mind) about taking him down. Cam, he *needed* killin' (so to speak). Ask any non-Baathist Iraqi whether there was any urgency.
Very few people in my experience who lean on the "why not wait?" horn ever have a threshhold that would have been enough (w/o millions having been killed and essentially a due process-type public catharsis to prove beyond any possible doubt that the perps actually did it -- though we really deserved it and should look to root causes, blah blah blah). Perhaps you're the exception. Too many are the "prove it to me and I still won't believe it" crowd.

dd74 -
How do we know it was ever there? B/c he used them on his own people and against Iran. That's pretty much an undisputed matter of record.
analogy - I commit a crime - a bunch of violent crimes, let's say, against my family and neighbors - using hanguns. I serve my time and get out of jail (bear with me...). I can no longer legally possess a handgun (if any firearm). Nonetheless, I taunt people as though I've got a gun; threaten to shoot people; buy a lot of stuff that I could use to make guns in my basement, etc. Cops get a search warrant, based on probable cause, show up at my door and I tell 'em to screw. Well, you can look in the kitchen, but only the kitchen. Then I throw 'em out of my house. Come back tomorrow, I tell 'em and you can search the bathroom. Maybe. Now, they've got a search warrant, and they're entitled to search. I've got a colorful history of violent crimes commited with guns; I've been running my mouth off about owning guns, threatening people; buying gun precursors and refusing to allow the police to search* -- do you think the cops would be wrong in assuming I've got a gun or two? It's REAL easy for me to assuage their fears if I don't have a gun, but I refuse to.
* In this sense, police are not like the UN weapons inspectors. The UNWI were *not* on a scavenger hunt, which Saddam made it into (w/ UN complicity). UNWI don't go around w/ a map "looking" for contraband, but are more observers -- to witness and attest to the destruction of materials -- as they did in South Africa and former Soviet countries. Cops, OTOH, are on a "let's see if we can find something -- fingers crossed, now" mission.
I completely agree about good intelligence -- but it's wheat in the chaff, and you've got to separate it. Good intelligence found Saddam for us; good intelligence is still developing and I think the quality will improve.
OBL knows that fear is a WMD; so do our media buddies using it to erode our will to finish the job in Iraq and elsewhere (OK, that's a bit extreme).
I'll bet a nickel most of the WMD Saddam had are in Syria, in tact.

Back tomorrow. Missed you guys these past weeks. Even you, Aurel.

JP

[rcecale]

Well, Aurel,

Just because you ARE paranoid, that doesn't mean they're NOT out to get you...

Randy

[emcon5]

Originally posted by dd74
Interesting thought. I imagine you're saying this stockpile would be small. Okay, if it's so small, how does anyone know it's there/not there/or ever was there?

You could always ask these nice Kurdish people from Halabja about Iraq's chemical weapons, like mustard gas, and sarin, tabun and VX nerve agents:



They may not answer.

If you want to see the laundry list, go read the ranscript of Sec. Powell's U.N. presentation here.

Lots of people don't believe it was sufficent reason to go to war, but I have yet to see anyone refute anything Powell said.

Tom

[dd74]

Powell's been refuting (or waffling) as to what Powell has said, and did so last night on Nightline.

Bush has stepped away from WMDs entirely.

Show me more photos of dead Kurds, but there's still no proof of WMDs being in Iraq as of when we first invaded the country for that purpose. That's my point.

[dd74]

Powell's quote last week, I think to the UN (this comes from CNN):

"I have not seen smoking gun concrete evidence about the connection, but I think the possibility of some connections did exist and was prudent to consider them at the time that we did."

Sad he's lumped into this. I like him a lot as I do many of the other players in the administration for various reasons. Powell just seems ill-fitted.

Would I be surprised if this snowballs and Powell resigns? Hmmm...

[speeder]

I have to tell you, even as an anti-war person, I am surprised that he didn't have any chemical weapons. Or I should say, that it does not appear that he still possessed any banned weapons at this time. I am honestly surprised, as are most people, I think.

So why was I against invading Iraq, if in fact I did believe that he had banned weapons? I did not believe that he posed any threat to the U.S., especially w/ the inspectors having free reign of his country, including Presidential compounds, as they did in the beginning of '03.

I do not believe that Colin Powell would, or did, get up in front of the U.N. and lie. I have a ton of respect for him, including his intellect, and I would be very disappointed to find out that I am wrong about him. As for the neocon cabal that is really running policy in D.C., (Cheney/Wolfowitz/Perle/Rumsfeld/etc.), I've always known that they were lying about Iraq, (and most everything else). They're lower than whale ***** on the bottom of the ocean.

Yes, they lied about their certainty of Iraq's threat, (WMD), and cynically used 9/11 to manipulate public opinion in order to sell the invasion, but this is unfortunately old hat by now. The real issue is WTF do we do now, with soldiers dying by the day and billions a month going into a black hole that now threatens the world economy.

[dd74]

WTF do we do now? That's the next administration's problem...