WMD in Iraq: Bush and Clinton

[Freakshow]

I am curious to hear the thoughts of others on this subject.

It is apparent that the Clinton administration also thought Iraq had WMD. There is a well-known list of quotes from Clinton and members of his administration on this. Here is a link to some of them:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

Bush said there were WMD in Iraq. We now know that there weren't any. There are two possibilities here:
1: Bush knew there were no WMD in Iraq, and deliberately lied about it.
2: Bush believed there were WMD in Iraq, and thought he was telling the truth when he said so.

For those of you that think that Bush knew there were no WMD in Iraq...what do you think of the statements of the Clinton administration? Were they deliberately lying, as well? Or was there a difference in the intelligence reports delivered to the administrations, so that Clinton believed there were WMD, but Bush knew there weren't?

Note that I am not try to defend Bush, or the war. I am not trying to say "Well Clinton lied too, so it's okay!" I am not actually posting this at all about Bush and Clinton. I am posting this because I am interested in what other people think about the situation.

Please also note that I am not talking about whether or not the war was justified. Let's stay on topic here. The "Clinton is a better guy, because he didn't go to war over WMD, and Bush did" argument is not what this post is about. You can start a new thread on that, if you like. :)

Disclaimer: I was in favor of the Iraq war. The reason I was in favor of it was in fact due to the fact that the Bush administration was not the only group of people saying Iraq had WMD. The Clinton administration's words had a lot of weight in my decision making. Now that we know there were no WMD, I believe the war was a mistake. That is part of being a good critical thinker: when new information becomes available, you can change your stance on something.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by Freakshow
Bush said there were WMD in Iraq. We now know that there weren't any. There are two possibilities here:
1: Bush knew there were no WMD in Iraq, and deliberately lied about it.
2: Bush believed there were WMD in Iraq, and thought he was telling the truth when he said so.


Never exclude the middle in a logical debate.

1.001 through 1.999 Bush had some degree of evidence that Sadam had some degree of WMD in Iraq.

If this is meant purely as a political debate, please resume as originally written.

[Freakshow]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
Never exclude the middle in a logical debate.

1.001 through 1.999 Bush had some degree of evidence that Sadam had some degree of WMD in Iraq.

If this is meant purely as a political debate, please resume as originally written.

This is purely a political debate. :D

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
1.001 through 1.999 Bush had some degree of evidence that Sadam had some degree of WMD in Iraq.
May I suggest a rewording?

1.5-ish: Bush was unsure and took a best guess.

I don't know if that guess being based on evidence or preference really makes a difference anymore. Both Clinton and Bush metaphorically gambled on the WMD intelligence and crapped out. Clinton wagered small (a couple of bombs and an aspirin factory). Bush wagered much bigger. (A little too big, imho.)

[corplinx]

Saddam Hussein had unaccounted for WMD stockpiles. As it turns out, there were most likely destroyed after UN weapon inspection teams were pulled out of Iraq back in 1998.

As far as we knew at the time, he still had them.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by corplinx
Saddam Hussein had unaccounted for WMD stockpiles. As it turns out, there were most likely destroyed after UN weapon inspection teams were pulled out of Iraq back in 1998. ???

I was under the impression that the UN weapon inspection teams weren't finding anything, but my memory sucks so I could have that totally backwards. What are you basing this on?

[Hutch]

If it's a political discussion, and especially one where you are trying to read the mindsets of two widely different personalities, you enter the realm of speculation.....which doesn't bother me in the slightest...:D ;) :p

I think Clinton, on the preponderance of evidence presented to him by the intelligence agencies, felt that Saddam probably had WMD's, but that the policy of containment and sanctions plus US aircraft overflights and survellience was sufficient enough that Saddam would not present a risk to the United States and his neighbors, knowing the consequences. Therefore the policy begun by Daddy Bush was continued by Clinton and into the early part of Shrub's term.

I think Bush, on the preponderance of evidence presented to him by the intelligence agencies, felt that Saddam probably had WMDs. But to win over the American public, who had widely accepted and supported the invasion of Afghanistan (after all, that's where the 9-11 terrorists had been based out of) but were wary of other foreign interventions (as the American people have been for most of our history), Bush had to CONVINCE the people there were WMD's, CONVINCE enough of the Congress that there was a clear and present threat, CONVINCE enough of the World to give the veneer of a coalition.....

So Bush LET HIMSELF BE CONVINCED that there were WMD.s, no matter what caveats or probablities were in the intelligence provided. It was the only way to 'sell' the conflict to a solid majority of Americans and Congress-folks

IMHO, I don't think Bush had to make a really long step from "probably" to "convinced" in his mind. More likely a short shuffle forward.

Beaming out to coach Girls soccer now......

[Unabogie]

Hi All,

First time post.

Aside from the obvious proof of lies being that no weapons were ever found, here are my thoughts on how to make the case that they knew they were lying.

One of the revelations of the Downing Street Memos, is that they say that Saddam Huseein had not stepped up his WMD programs, and was contained by the sanctions program, but rather the administration's tolerance is what changed. So the "facts were being fixed around the policy".

But at the time, the Administration knew they couldn't make that case. So they used terms like "growing threat", and "reconstituting nuclear weapons" to convey that Iraq was stepping up their programs, which they knew to be untrue.

Now, why is the existence of new "programs" important? Because Scott Rittter says that those weapons break down after five years, so any weapons created prior to 1998 would be "useless goo". Was there evidence of new programs? No, and the DSM's confirm this.

Furthermore, Rumsfeld said "we know where the weapons are. They're in the area of Bagdhad and Tikrit" which was also a lie, because they have never presented any evidence for that claim, and no weapons were ever found, despite our complete control of Iraq.

I'd say the most telling evidence that they knew they were lying was the order given to the soldiers, prior to advancing on Bagdhad, to remove their chem suits. This is days after Bush went on TV and claimed Saddam had given an order to use "the very weapons the dictator claims he does not have". How can they have evidence of an order to use chemical weapons and then subsequently give an order for soldiers to remove their suits, unless they knew there were no such weapons?

Reminds me of the scene in Close Encounters, where our hero, after being told to leave the area because of a toxic cloud, sees people walking around without masks and realizes there's no gas in the area. It's common sense.

Lastly, when Joe Wilson began leaking info to reporters about the Niger uranium claims, the response from the WH was not to create a dossier on Niger and uranium, but a dossier on Wilson and his wife.

To me, the evidence is clear. They knew there were no weapons, and used deception create a case for a war they wanted to engage in for other reasons.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Upchurch
???

I was under the impression that the UN weapon inspection teams weren't finding anything, but my memory sucks so I could have that totally backwards. What are you basing this on?

He's right. There were chemical weapons stockpiles whose existence at the end of the first gulf war was documented, and which the Iraqis said they destroyed. But they never produced good documentation or evidence to the UN weapons inspectors that these stockpiles were destroyed rather than hidden. The inspectors never found any stockpiles, but they also never found solid proof of the Iraqi claims, which was a rather unsatisfying position to be in. Those unaccounted-for stockpiles were one of the main reasons inspectors were still there.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by Unabogie
Hi All,

First time post.

Aside from the obvious proof of lies being that no weapons were ever found,

that's where I stopped. Try harder next time.

eta: sorry. The reason I stopped is the difference between proof and evidence. 'tis evidence, to be sure. Proof? surely not.

[Freakshow]

Originally posted by Unabogie
Hi All,

First time post.

Aside from the obvious proof of lies being that no weapons were ever found, here are my thoughts on how to make the case that they knew they were lying.

One of the revelations of the Downing Street Memos, is that they say that Saddam Huseein had not stepped up his WMD programs, and was contained by the sanctions program, but rather the administration's tolerance is what changed. So the "facts were being fixed around the policy".

But at the time, the Administration knew they couldn't make that case. So they used terms like "growing threat", and "reconstituting nuclear weapons" to convey that Iraq was stepping up their programs, which they knew to be untrue.

Now, why is the existence of new "programs" important? Because Scott Rittter says that those weapons break down after five years, so any weapons created prior to 1998 would be "useless goo". Was there evidence of new programs? No, and the DSM's confirm this.

Furthermore, Rumsfeld said "we know where the weapons are. They're in the area of Bagdhad and Tikrit" which was also a lie, because they have never presented any evidence for that claim, and no weapons were ever found, despite our complete control of Iraq.

I'd say the most telling evidence that they knew they were lying was the order given to the soldiers, prior to advancing on Bagdhad, to remove their chem suits. This is days after Bush went on TV and claimed Saddam had given an order to use "the very weapons the dictator claims he does not have". How can they have evidence of an order to use chemical weapons and then subsequently give an order for soldiers to remove their suits, unless they knew there were no such weapons?

Reminds me of the scene in Close Encounters, where our hero, after being told to leave the area because of a toxic cloud, sees people walking around without masks and realizes there's no gas in the area. It's common sense.

Lastly, when Joe Wilson began leaking info to reporters about the Niger uranium claims, the response from the WH was not to create a dossier on Niger and uranium, but a dossier on Wilson and his wife.

To me, the evidence is clear. They knew there were no weapons, and used deception create a case for a war they wanted to engage in for other reasons.

So do you also believe that Clinton and his administration knew Iraq had no WMD?

[Unabogie]

Originally posted by Freakshow
So do you also believe that Clinton and his administration knew Iraq had no WMD?

No, the record is clear that there was no activity from 1998 on. Which meant that by 2003, any weapons that were there prior to 1998, were by then useless.

Again, if Bush had evidence of an order to use WMD's on the advancing American army, why did the army then tell the soldiers to remove their chem suits?

If the DSM's state that Saddam had not changed his status, why did the administration talk of "growing danger"?

Those are cases of lying.

[Unabogie]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
that's where I stopped. Try harder next time.

eta: sorry. The reason I stopped is the difference between proof and evidence. 'tis evidence, to be sure. Proof? surely not.

Well, I'm sure that your policy of stopping after three sentences is good for something, but I'm not entirely sure that that something could be fairly called a discussion.

I'll consider that a data point about you.

[Rob Lister]

Unabogie starts off well. His first and second post to a skeptic forum lacked logic but he made both in the political forum.

I applaud. Not a novice. Strikes me as a Noomer.

[SezMe]

Originally posted by Hutch
If it's a political discussion, and especially one where you are trying to read the mindsets of two widely different personalities, you enter the realm of speculation.....which doesn't bother me in the slightest...:D ;) :p

I think Clinton, on the preponderance of evidence presented to him by the intelligence agencies, felt that Saddam probably had WMD's, but that the policy of containment and sanctions plus US aircraft overflights and survellience was sufficient enough that Saddam would not present a risk to the United States and his neighbors, knowing the consequences. Therefore the policy begun by Daddy Bush was continued by Clinton and into the early part of Shrub's term.

I think Bush, on the preponderance of evidence presented to him by the intelligence agencies, felt that Saddam probably had WMDs. But to win over the American public, who had widely accepted and supported the invasion of Afghanistan (after all, that's where the 9-11 terrorists had been based out of) but were wary of other foreign interventions (as the American people have been for most of our history), Bush had to CONVINCE the people there were WMD's, CONVINCE enough of the Congress that there was a clear and present threat, CONVINCE enough of the World to give the veneer of a coalition.....

So Bush LET HIMSELF BE CONVINCED that there were WMD.s, no matter what caveats or probablities were in the intelligence provided. It was the only way to 'sell' the conflict to a solid majority of Americans and Congress-folks

IMHO, I don't think Bush had to make a really long step from "probably" to "convinced" in his mind. More likely a short shuffle forward.
I think Hutch is about right.

[Unabogie]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
Unabogie starts off well. His first and second post to a skeptic forum lacked logic but he made both in the political forum.

I applaud. Not a novice. Strikes me as a Noomer.

Well, I'm not sure how I could have started off any better, short of posting something you agree with wholeheartedly.

And it's precisely because I do consider myself a skeptic, that I was skeptical of the administration's claims.

After all, they said "take it on faith that we have proof of WMD's. We'd like to show you, but you know, national security and all. Maybe later."

In the end, we're left with a lack of WMD's, which, as Bush was the affirmative claimant, was his burden to prove, not mine. So since he failed to prove such weapons existed, then by default he was lying. He claimed he had proof, yet he showed as much proof as Sylvia Brown.

But now we have more evidence. We have memos which state that Iraq had not been producing new weapons. We have a smear campaign against whistleblowers. We have former officials, like Richard Clark and Paul O'Neil, claiming that Iraq was on the docket from day one. In my mind this suggests a willing lie.

Not sure what more you want from me, as you failed to answer any one my actual points.

[Ed]

A telling point, to me, is that the director of the CIA, who helmed the largest intellegance disaster in the history of the United States, was allowed to stay on 1 1/2 year after and then was awarded the medal of Freedom.

That suggests to me that Mr. Bush wanted a war and that he played his part. Otherwise, there is no explaining how he was not lynched.

n.b. This is starting out very politely, I trust, though, that we can get to the mindless vituperation on page 3.

[Freakshow]

Originally posted by Unabogie
No, the record is clear that there was no activity from 1998 on. Which meant that by 2003, any weapons that were there prior to 1998, were by then useless.

Again, if Bush had evidence of an order to use WMD's on the advancing American army, why did the army then tell the soldiers to remove their chem suits?

If the DSM's state that Saddam had not changed his status, why did the administration talk of "growing danger"?

Those are cases of lying.

So are you saying that the Bush administration received new intelligence information that the Clinton administration didn't have? And that this information gave such an indication as to make the Bush administration come to a different conclusion than the Clinton administration?

[Freakshow]

Originally posted by Ed
A telling point, to me, is that the director of the CIA, who helmed the largest intellegance disaster in the history of the United States, was allowed to stay on 1 1/2 year after and then was awarded the medal of Freedom.

That suggests to me that Mr. Bush wanted a war and that he played his part. Otherwise, there is no explaining how he was not lynched.

You aren't addressing the subject of the thread. Both the Clinton and Bush administrations said Iraq had WMD. Do you think they both thought Iraq had WMD? Do you think they both knew Iraq didn't? Or do you think that Clinton thought they did, but Bush thought they didn't?

[Unabogie]

Originally posted by Freakshow
So are you saying that the Bush administration received new intelligence information that the Clinton administration didn't have? And that this information gave such an indication as to make the Bush administration come to a different conclusion than the Clinton administration?

No, the best chronologies I've seen state that post Gulf War, the inspections regime had destroyed about 90% of those weapons. In 1998, Clinton bombed sites that in which Iraq was refusing inspection, and by some estimates, destroyed the remaining stockpiles. In 1999, Dick Cheney himself was arguing for a lifting of sanctions so Halliburton could start doing business there. In 2000, Colin Powell was saying that Iraq was "contained". By 2003, nothing had changed, as per the DSM's, except US policy. Iraq had not begun any new construction, nor created any new weapons. Any weapons he had hidden, would have degraded.

My opinion is that Bush and his administration knew all these facts and lied about them. They talked of a new, growing, reconsituted Iraq, and that just wasn't true.

[Freakshow]

Originally posted by Unabogie
No, the best chronologies I've seen state that post Gulf War, the inspections regime had destroyed about 90% of those weapons. In 1998, Clinton bombed sites that in which Iraq was refusing inspection, and by some estimates, destroyed the remaining stockpiles. In 1999, Dick Cheney himself was arguing for a lifting of sanctions so Halliburton could start doing business there. In 2000, Colin Powell was saying that Iraq was "contained". By 2003, nothing had changed, as per the DSM's, except US policy. Iraq had not begun any new construction, nor created any new weapons. Any weapons he had hidden, would have degraded.

My opinion is that Bush and his administration knew all these facts and lied about them. They talked of a new, growing, reconsituted Iraq, and that just wasn't true.

Interesting. Thanks for your replies. Getting different perspectives like this is why I started the thread.

[Unabogie]

Here's Colin Powell, in 2001, on Iraq's WMD's.

We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq...

I think that by this time, all the weapons had been destroyed, and Iraq had not begun any new development.

One must ask, where is all the proof that Bush claimed he would present after the war? They said they had solid proof. We now know all they had was Ahmed Chalabi.

White House spokesman Ari Fleischer (news - web sites) declined to say what evidence the administration has on Saddam's weapons, but said the
United States will provide intelligence to United Nations inspectors.

"The president of the United States and the secretary of Defense would not assert as plainly and bluntly as they have that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction if it was not true, and if they did not have a solid basis for saying it," Fleischer said. "The Iraqi government has proved time and time again to deceive, to mislead and to lie."

Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz told ABC News that "we don't have weapons of mass destruction. We don't have chemical, biological or nuclear weaponry, but we have equipment which was defined as dual use."

Fleischer responded: "That statement is just as false as statements that Iraq made in the late '90s when they said they had no weapons of mass destruction, when it was found they indeed did. There is no basis to that."

Well, who ends up looking more truthful here?

[Hutch]

Originally posted by SezMe
I think Hutch is about right.


I may have to add that to my sig. :D :D :D


Owe ya one sometime, SezMe. Either a compliment or a beer, depending on (1) your posts or (2) your attendance at TAM4

[SezMe]

Originally posted by Hutch
I may have to add that to my sig. :D :D :D


Owe ya one sometime, SezMe. Either a compliment or a beer, depending on (1) your posts or (2) your attendance at TAM4
Hutch is right. Hutch is right. Repeat as needed. Gawd, I'm a beer whore.

[SezMe]

Unabogie, using quotes to support your position is good. Not providing links so we can check on you, verify context, etc. is highly recommended.

[Unabogie]

Originally posted by SezMe
Unabogie, using quotes to support your position is good. Not providing links so we can check on you, verify context, etc. is highly recommended.

Oops. You're right.

Here they are:

FIRST LINK (http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm)

SECOND LINK (http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.religion.islam/browse_thread/thread/5fe0bb433a37009f/d0af445375976429?lnk=st&q=wmd+proof+solid&rnum=2&hl=en#d0af445375976429)

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Freakshow
I am curious to hear the thoughts of others on this subject.

It is apparent that the Clinton administration also thought Iraq had WMD. There is a well-known list of quotes from Clinton and members of his administration on this. Here is a link to some of them:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

Bush said there were WMD in Iraq. We now know that there weren't any. There are two possibilities here:
1: Bush knew there were no WMD in Iraq, and deliberately lied about it.
2: Bush believed there were WMD in Iraq, and thought he was telling the truth when he said so.

For those of you that think that Bush knew there were no WMD in Iraq...what do you think of the statements of the Clinton administration? Were they deliberately lying, as well? Or was there a difference in the intelligence reports delivered to the administrations, so that Clinton believed there were WMD, but Bush knew there weren't?

Note that I am not try to defend Bush, or the war. I am not trying to say "Well Clinton lied too, so it's okay!" I am not actually posting this at all about Bush and Clinton. I am posting this because I am interested in what other people think about the situation.

Please also note that I am not talking about whether or not the war was justified. Let's stay on topic here. The "Clinton is a better guy, because he didn't go to war over WMD, and Bush did" argument is not what this post is about. You can start a new thread on that, if you like. :)

Disclaimer: I was in favor of the Iraq war. The reason I was in favor of it was in fact due to the fact that the Bush administration was not the only group of people saying Iraq had WMD. The Clinton administration's words had a lot of weight in my decision making. Now that we know there were no WMD, I believe the war was a mistake. That is part of being a good critical thinker: when new information becomes available, you can change your stance on something.

Could there be a third option where Bush believed there were WMD in Iraq and used some questionable data to make a political appeal for a war to remove Saddam?

With all of the political flak that GW has been the recipient of, don't you think that if anyone could actually prove that "Bush lied", they would have done so by now?

Clinton wanted to remove Saddam and so did most of the Democrat senators during Clinton's time as president. That is an undisputable fact. So what?

To me, Saddam's current status of WMD was a minor issue. Propaganda in favor of war was to be expected, ...duh. Saddam had already done more than enough in the last 20 years to earn himself a hole to hide in.

There's a thread I started somewhere buried in this forum where we explored the whole "did Bush lie" issue. The people on the left say "Bush lied" and the people on the right say "no he didn't". I doubt this thread will end differently.

Before you go too far in believing that Saddam was not a threat because he was not an immediate or imminent threat to the US, consider that according to the U.N., there is now a big question as to how much of what type of material was removed from Iraq known WMD sites before, during and after the war itself. It is clear from this and from David Kay's report that Saddam intended to resume production of WMD as soon as possible and was bribing as many UN members (via oil-for-food kickbacks) as he could to achieve that goal. In the meantime, Saddam was bluffing about the status of his WMD in order to keep Iran from invading Iraq.

U.N.: Weapons equipment missing in Iraq (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8080407)

I could be convinced that the greatest failure of the Bush administration was in not securing these known WMD production sites immediately following the war.

[Freakshow]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
Clinton wanted to remove Saddam and so did most of the Democrat senators during Clinton's time as president. That is an undisputable fact. So what?

My point is to hear the opinions of the "Bush lied" crowd, to ask them if they also think Clinton deliberately lied, or if they think that Clinton actually believed there were WMD in Iraq. If there is a difference (they think Buch deliberately lied, they think Clinton actually believed there were WMD), I would like to hear the explanation for the discrepancy.

There were a couple posts earlier that provided an interesting perspective and some interesting information. That is the sort of thing I am after. I am interested in the views and perspectives of people that have this view (Bush lied, Clinton thought he was telling the truth) on the matter.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Freakshow
My point is to hear the opinions of the "Bush lied" crowd, to ask them if they also think Clinton deliberately lied, or if they think that Clinton actually believed there were WMD in Iraq. If there is a difference (they think Buch deliberately lied, they think Clinton actually believed there were WMD), I would like to hear the explanation for the discrepancy.
Good luck with that. Expect the goal posts to change every few yards. The opposition clings with the myopic assertion that "Bush lied", then if you say "either Bush lied or he did not, prove that he did or accept that we do not know or that he may not have lied" you get the response "false dichotomy / dilemna".

There were a couple posts earlier that provided an interesting perspective and some interesting information. That is the sort of thing I am after. I am interested in the views and perspectives of people that have this view (Bush lied, Clinton thought he was telling the truth) on the matter.
What's so interesting about someone who holds tight to an unproven assumption? Going to write another book on the mental disorder called liberalism? (joke: I am no fan of Mike Savage) :D

link to my old thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=51312)

[Freakshow]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
Good luck with that. Expect the goal posts to change every few yards. The opposition clings with the myopic assertion that "Bush lied", then if you say "either Bush lied or he did not, prove that he did or accept that we do not know or that he may not have lied" you get the response "false dichotomy / dilemna".


What's so interesting about someone who holds tight to an unproven assumption? Going to write another book on the mental disorder called liberalism? (joke: I am no fan of Mike Savage) :D

link to my old thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=51312)

:D

I often find it interesting to hear the views of my fellow citizens. Since we do live in a democratic republic, and my fellow citizens do vote, it is interesting to know what they are thinking sometimes. :)

[tofu]

Originally posted by Unabogie
Rumsfeld said "we know where the weapons are. They're in the area of Bagdhad and Tikrit" which was also a lie,

Let me just see if I've got this straight. This was all a dastardly plan, right from the beginning. They knew all along that there were no WMDs, but rather than do the smart thing and say something like, "yeah those WMD's are in cargo containers and Saddam moves them around every day. We may never ever find them but look, it's in everyone's best interest to make sure that Saddam no longer controls them." Because, if this is all a big lie, then they knew all along that they wouldn't find WMDs (because WMDs didn't exist). So, rather than say something like that, which then makes everyone understand when no WMDs are found, they were dumb enough to claim (falsely) that they knew exactly where the things were? That's what you're suggesting??

And when Bush and co. were formulating this diabolical plan, and Rummy says, "hey I've got a great idea, I'm going to walk out into this press conference and claim that I know where the WMDs are! Won't that be great?" But there was no one in the room with a double-digit IQ and a high-school education, who could say, "whoa, bad idea. If you claim you know where they are, then people are going to expect you to actually find them."

that's how you think this went down?

[Unabogie]

Originally posted by tofu
Let me just see if I've got this straight. This was all a dastardly plan, right from the beginning. They knew all along that there were no WMDs, but rather than do the smart thing and say something like, "yeah those WMD's are in cargo containers and Saddam moves them around every day. We may never ever find them but look, it's in everyone's best interest to make sure that Saddam no longer controls them." Because, if this is all a big lie, then they knew all along that they wouldn't find WMDs (because WMDs didn't exist). So, rather than say something like that, which then makes everyone understand when no WMDs are found, they were dumb enough to claim (falsely) that they knew exactly where the things were? That's what you're suggesting??

And when Bush and co. were formulating this diabolical plan, and Rummy says, "hey I've got a great idea, I'm going to walk out into this press conference and claim that I know where the WMDs are! Won't that be great?" But there was no one in the room with a double-digit IQ and a high-school education, who could say, "whoa, bad idea. If you claim you know where they are, then people are going to expect you to actually find them."

that's how you think this went down?

I never said it was a good plan. This bunch made all kinds of tactical errors, based on their arrogance and stubborness. It's not for me to answer WHY they lied, just to point at that they DID lie. Their biggest tactical error was to assume that the free pass they got post 9-11 would continue indefinitely.

And it worked for a time. No one questioned their rationale until well after the invasion. At the time, reporters just parroted that line that the WMD's were in Bagdhad and Bush's approval rating was up around 75%. He got re-elected based on this war.

http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval.htm

But, like the Iraq war itself, this illustrates how poorly this bunch takes into account anything but short-term gain.

Once again:

How can they have evidence of an order to use chemical weapons and then subsequently give an order for soldiers to remove their chemical suits, unless they knew there were no such weapons?

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Upchurch
???

I was under the impression that the UN weapon inspection teams weren't finding anything, but my memory sucks so I could have that totally backwards. What are you basing this on?

You are thinking of the 2002 UN weapon inspectors. I am talking about the original inspections pre-Bush.

Someone else suggested that Clinton bombed the sites where the weapons were, however Iraqi's have said they destroyed the remaining stockpiles after the inspectors had left.

[tofu]

Originally posted by Unabogie
It's not for me to answer WHY they lied, just to point at that they DID lie.

I didn't ask you why they lied. I just pointed out where your argument doesn't hold water. Here is an analogy to what has just happened between you and me:

person a: the earth is flat
person b (me): well, if it's flat then how do you explain a foucault pendulum?
person a: It's not for me to explain away these things, I just point out that the earth is flat.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Unabogie
I never said it was a good plan. This bunch made all kinds of tactical errors, based on their arrogance and stubborness. It's not for me to answer WHY they lied, just to point at that they DID lie.

Yes, you do, at least inasmuch as it supports the goal of making a good case for the assertion that they lied. Your original "aside from the obvious proof of lies being that no weapons were ever found" is not proof that they lied, at least at first. They could have been lied to; they could have been incompetent and/or stupid; they could have had intelligence from incompetent and/or stupid sources.

It seems plausible to me that Bush could have believed that Iraq had chemical weapons. Bush believes many things that are wrong, including that the jury is still out on evolution. He's flat-out wrong about this, and all the evidence shows that he's wrong, but he believes it anyway.

How can they have evidence of an order to use chemical weapons and then subsequently give an order for soldiers to remove their chemical suits, unless they knew there were no such weapons?

That's better, but the government isn't a monolith. It's entirely possible that the military commanders did not believe that there was a significant risk of a chemical attack, but that Bush wasn't paying much attention to the military commanders.

[SezMe]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
With all of the political flak that GW has been the recipient of, don't you think that if anyone could actually prove that "Bush lied", they would have done so by now?
Yes. I think it is an unattainable "proof" for several reasons. In addition to reviewing all the public records, you would probably have to wade through a small mountain of confidential material and interview a city of officials. In the end, you would still be left with a judgement call, one that could go different ways depending on who was making the call.

[Unabogie]

Originally posted by epepke
Yes, you do, at least inasmuch as it supports the goal of making a good case for the assertion that they lied. Your original "aside from the obvious proof of lies being that no weapons were ever found" is not proof that they lied, at least at first. They could have been lied to; they could have been incompetent and/or stupid; they could have had intelligence from incompetent and/or stupid sources.

It seems plausible to me that Bush could have believed that Iraq had chemical weapons. Bush believes many things that are wrong, including that the jury is still out on evolution. He's flat-out wrong about this, and all the evidence shows that he's wrong, but he believes it anyway.



That's better, but the government isn't a monolith. It's entirely possible that the military commanders did not believe that there was a significant risk of a chemical attack, but that Bush wasn't paying much attention to the military commanders.

But there's other, circumstantial evidence as well.

1. The US pulled out the UN inspectors before they finished their inspections. This suggests that they were afraid no weapons would be found, since the ultimate support for their plans would have been the UN finding the weapons instead of them.

2. After the invasion, they refused to allow the UN inspectors in to help with the search. This suggests that they did not think they would find any weapons.

3. They relied on forged documents. The British dossier was plagiarized from a grad school paper or something. Reliable intel would not need such phony buttressing.

4. The Downing Street Memos state that they were "fixing" the intelligence because the "case was thin". This suggests they knew they had no proof.

5. The Bushies claimed that they had "solid proof" of those weapons, but could not reveal that proof until after the invasion. Two years later, they have not revealed anything, even though it would have served them greatly to do so. This suggests they were lying about the "secret evidence" they claimed to have.


Also, it calls for a bit of Occam's Razor. Is it more likely that our entire intel system, and Saddam himself, got fooled and that this bunch were honestly just acting on solid info, even though BEFORE the war all signs pointed to their lying, or is it more likely that they were just lying?

I think if they had had proof of WMD, they would have laid it all out, because that would have helped them. The fact that they didn't, and went out of their way to spread lies and obstruct the truth, would, if this were a criminal court, suggest "knowledge of guilt".

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Unabogie
1. The US pulled out the UN inspectors before they finished their inspections. This suggests that they were afraid no weapons would be found, since the ultimate support for their plans would have been the UN finding the weapons instead of them. ??? While this is ONE possibility there are others. Oh... when are you referring to?

2. After the invasion, they refused to allow the UN inspectors in to help with the search. This suggests that they did not think they would find any weapons. Again, perhaps. Perhaps they didn't have much confidence in the UN and they were disappointed in the actions of the UN. If this were so damning as you suggest then why didn't the US manufacture the evidence? What good did prohibiting the UN inspectors do them? It didn't stop the facts from getting out?

3. They relied on forged documents. The British dossier was plagiarized from a grad school paper or something. Reliable intel would not need such phony buttressing. I don't know how much they knew about the documents being forged but even so it is possible to frame a guilty person. Happens all of the time.

4. The Downing Street Memos state that they were "fixing" the intelligence because the "case was thin". This suggests they knew they had no proof. Actually it suggests that the "case was thin".

5. The Bushies claimed that they had "solid proof" of those weapons, but could not reveal that proof until after the invasion. Two years later, they have not revealed anything, even though it would have served them greatly to do so. This suggests they were lying about the "secret evidence" they claimed to have. No, it suggests that they were wrong.

Also, it calls for a bit of Occam's Razor. Is it more likely that our entire intel system, and Saddam himself, got fooled and that this bunch were honestly just acting on solid info, even though BEFORE the war all signs pointed to their lying, or is it more likely that they were just lying? I don't accept the leading statements.

I think if they had had proof of WMD, they would have laid it all out, because that would have helped them. The fact that they didn't, and went out of their way to spread lies and obstruct the truth, would, if this were a criminal court, suggest "knowledge of guilt". Intelligence is often flawed. Look at how man times we tried to bomb Saddam and missed. You don't quite understand inteligence. This is not to say that there Bush and company are not due critisism. They are. However there was certainly contradictory intelligence. I think Bush et al went with the evidence that supported their world view. Pretty damning in and of itself but not what you want to force us all to accept with logical fallacy.

[Freakshow]

Originally posted by Unabogie
No, the best chronologies I've seen state that post Gulf War, the inspections regime had destroyed about 90% of those weapons. In 1998, Clinton bombed sites that in which Iraq was refusing inspection, and by some estimates, destroyed the remaining stockpiles. In 1999, Dick Cheney himself was arguing for a lifting of sanctions so Halliburton could start doing business there. In 2000, Colin Powell was saying that Iraq was "contained". By 2003, nothing had changed, as per the DSM's, except US policy. Iraq had not begun any new construction, nor created any new weapons. Any weapons he had hidden, would have degraded.

My opinion is that Bush and his administration knew all these facts and lied about them. They talked of a new, growing, reconsituted Iraq, and that just wasn't true.

Take a look again at the link I included in the original post. Many of those quotes were made after 1998. Some were as recent as 2002. Comments?

Edited to put in a couple of good examples:
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

[Freakshow]

Originally posted by Unabogie
Also, it calls for a bit of Occam's Razor. Is it more likely that our entire intel system, and Saddam himself, got fooled and that this bunch were honestly just acting on solid info, even though BEFORE the war all signs pointed to their lying, or is it more likely that they were just lying?

If the Clinton administration would have said "We don't think he has WMD", then I would say you are right. But with the Clinton administration also saying Iraq had WMD (and check the post I just made, this was being said by the Clinton administration and other non-"Bushies" after 1998), then I think the simplest explanation is: the intelligence was wrong.

[Unabogie]

Originally posted by Freakshow
If the Clinton administration would have said "We don't think he has WMD", then I would say you are right. But with the Clinton administration also saying Iraq had WMD (and check the post I just made, this was being said by the Clinton administration and other non-"Bushies" after 1998), then I think the simplest explanation is: the intelligence was wrong.

So, the intelligence was wrong, the Bushies were wrong, the Clintons were wrong, and the only ones who had a clue were the far left wackos?

I'd give it another take: post 9-11, Democrats made a conscious decision to appear strong on defense, lest Karl Rove smear them as weak on "Terror". Don't forget, Al Gore DID call BS in the WMD's before the invasion. Scott Ritter, ex-UN inspector, called BS. But the Clinton's, for politcal reasons, did not.

I've never been a fan of theirs, for this very reason. My guess is that it was a callous and calculated decision to lay back and "let Bush hang himself". I won't judge how that's working out, because many anti-war types see the late oppostion as being a weak position to argue from, and I agree.

I'll grant you that the Clinton's and other Democrats echoed the party line. I just think none of them really believed it. You know, just like almost everything else politicians claim.

[Freakshow]

Originally posted by Unabogie
So, the intelligence was wrong, the Bushies were wrong, the Clintons were wrong, and the only ones who had a clue were the far left wackos?

Being right doesn't mean that someone is right due to careful thought. I saw a letter in the paper before the Iraq war that said "I don't believe Iraq has any WMD, and if any are found after the war, I will believe that the US planted them there."

Does that sound like someone who had some special ability to think and reason beyond everyone else, with this ability giving them a special insight into the non-existence of WMD in Iraq? Or does that sound like a far left wacko who got lucky with a guess?


I'll grant you that the Clinton's and other Democrats echoed the party line. I just think none of them really believed it. You know, just like almost everything else politicians claim.
Where is your evidence for that? This is a forum for sceptics, after all. :)

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Unabogie
But there's other, circumstantial evidence as well.

1. The US pulled out the UN inspectors before they finished their inspections. This suggests that they were afraid no weapons would be found, since the ultimate support for their plans would have been the UN finding the weapons instead of them.
No. UNMOVIC withdrew from Iraq in anticipation of the war. U.N. to withdraw Iraq inspectors (http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/17/sprj.irq.kuwait.un/)

2. After the invasion, they refused to allow the UN inspectors in to help with the search. This suggests that they did not think they would find any weapons.

Or that they were worried about providing security for the inspectors.

3. They relied on forged documents. The British dossier was plagiarized from a grad school paper or something. Reliable intel would not need such phony buttressing.

Bush's "16 Words" on Iraq & Uranium: He May Have Been Wrong But He Wasn't Lying (http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html)

4. The Downing Street Memos state that they were "fixing" the intelligence because the "case was thin". This suggests they knew they had no proof.

No. This is the opinion of Sir Richard Dearlove... *and* ... the authenticity of the Downing Street Memo cannot be confirmed because the journalist re-typed the memo on an old typewriter and destroyed the original.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downing_Street_memo A typed replica of the memo was printed in The Sunday Times on 1 May 2005. To protect the source who provided him with the classified memorandum, the Sunday Times journalist who acquired it retyped its contents (using an old-fashioned typewriter rather than a computer) and destroyed his copy of the original. The retyping process certainly opens up the possibility of errors or mischief.

5. The Bushies claimed that they had "solid proof" of those weapons, but could not reveal that proof until after the invasion. Two years later, they have not revealed anything, even though it would have served them greatly to do so. This suggests they were lying about the "secret evidence" they claimed to have.
Could you point me to where the "Bushies" said this? Are you talking about Rumsfeld's comment regarding classified information?

Also, it calls for a bit of Occam's Razor. Is it more likely that our entire intel system, and Saddam himself, got fooled and that this bunch were honestly just acting on solid info, even though BEFORE the war all signs pointed to their lying, or is it more likely that they were just lying?
Another theory is that Saddam was promoting this falsehood (that he had lots of WMD) as a means to keep Iran from invading Iraq.

I think if they had had proof of WMD, they would have laid it all out, because that would have helped them. The fact that they didn't, and went out of their way to spread lies and obstruct the truth, would, if this were a criminal court, suggest "knowledge of guilt".
And now the UN is concerned that the materials used to produce the non-existant WMD might have been exported out of Iraq. U.N.: Weapons Material Missing (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,158470,00.html)

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Freakshow
I am curious to hear the thoughts of others on this subject.

It is apparent that the Clinton administration also thought Iraq had WMD. There is a well-known list of quotes from Clinton and members of his administration on this. Here is a link to some of them:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

Bush said there were WMD in Iraq. We now know that there weren't any. There are two possibilities here:
1: Bush knew there were no WMD in Iraq, and deliberately lied about it.
2: Bush believed there were WMD in Iraq, and thought he was telling the truth when he said so.

For those of you that think that Bush knew there were no WMD in Iraq...what do you think of the statements of the Clinton administration? Were they deliberately lying, as well? Or was there a difference in the intelligence reports delivered to the administrations, so that Clinton believed there were WMD, but Bush knew there weren't?

Note that I am not try to defend Bush, or the war. I am not trying to say "Well Clinton lied too, so it's okay!" I am not actually posting this at all about Bush and Clinton. I am posting this because I am interested in what other people think about the situation.

Please also note that I am not talking about whether or not the war was justified. Let's stay on topic here. The "Clinton is a better guy, because he didn't go to war over WMD, and Bush did" argument is not what this post is about. You can start a new thread on that, if you like. :)

Disclaimer: I was in favor of the Iraq war. The reason I was in favor of it was in fact due to the fact that the Bush administration was not the only group of people saying Iraq had WMD. The Clinton administration's words had a lot of weight in my decision making. Now that we know there were no WMD, I believe the war was a mistake. That is part of being a good critical thinker: when new information becomes available, you can change your stance on something.

Sorry for coming to the party late, but I vote with "2"!

To specify, when Bush responded to the Iraq War Resolution (which required him to make a case for war, if he wanted war) Bush said:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021016-1.html

President Signs Iraq Resolution

October 16, 2002

...

With this resolution, Congress has now authorized the use of force. I have not ordered the use of force. I hope the use of force will not become necessary. Yet, confronting the threat posed by Iraq is necessary, by whatever means that requires. Either the Iraqi regime will give up its weapons of mass destruction, or, for the sake of peace, the United States will lead a global coalition to disarm that regime. If any doubt our nation's resolve, our determination, they would be unwise to test it.

The Iraqi regime is a serious and growing threat to peace. On the commands of a dictator, the regime is armed with biological and chemical weapons, possesses ballistic missiles, promotes international terror and seeks nuclear weapons. The same dictator has a history of mass murder, striking other nations without warning; of intense hatred for America; and of contempt for the demands of the civilized world.

...

Like the members of Congress here today, I've carefully weighed the human cost of every option before us. If we go into battle, as a last resort, we will confront an enemy capable of irrational miscalculations, capable of terrible deeds. As the Commander-in-Chief, I know the risks to our country. I'm fully responsible to the young men and women in uniform who may face these risks. Yet those risks only increase with time. And the costs could be immeasurably higher in years to come.

...

It is pretty clear that Bush had already decided that Iraq did have WMDs, supported terrorism, and that Iraq was a imminent threat to the USA. This was later amplified by the numerous "facts" presented by Colin Powell said at the one UN meeting, but that is a tad off topic.

Anyway, it has now been clearly determined that in spite of the all of the forceful language that was being used by Bush, and all of the other pro-war types, before the war concerning WMDs that all of this talk was based on assumptions they had made about Iraq and not the facts about Iraq.

To wit:

www.wmd.gov

From the cover letter in the "The Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction" report:

...

The Intelligence Community needs to be pushed. It will not do its best unless it is pressed by policymakers-sometimes to the point of discomfort. Analysts must be pressed to explain how much they don't know; the collection agencies must be pressed to explain why they don't have better information on key topics. While policymakers must be prepared to credit intelligence that doesn't fit their preferences, no important intelligence assessment should be accepted without sharp questioning that forces the community to explain exactly how it came to that assessment and what alternatives might also be true. This is not "politicization"; it is a necessary part of the intelligence process. And in the end, it is the key to getting the best from an Intelligence Community that, at its best, knows how to do astonishing things.

...

For me, it really comes down to the question was Bush a smart liar about the WMD issue or a dumb executive who readily accepted what his staff told him about the WMD issue?

Well since Bush does not even bother to read the newspapers, I sincerly doubt that he has the critical thinking skills that are needed to pick out the separate bits of data presented to him and then put them into a cohesive picture that can be used to formulate a rational national policy.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Freakshow
Being right doesn't mean that someone is right due to careful thought. I saw a letter in the paper before the Iraq war that said "I don't believe Iraq has any WMD, and if any are found after the war, I will believe that the US planted them there."

Does that sound like someone who had some special ability to think and reason beyond everyone else, with this ability giving them a special insight into the non-existence of WMD in Iraq? Or does that sound like a far left wacko who got lucky with a guess?


Where is your evidence for that? This is a forum for sceptics, after all. :)

Intelligence officers from the US, Great Britain and Australia all thought Saddam probably had something up his sleeve, but nothing that warranted an invasion, billions of dollars, many thousands lives lost etc.

The speech by Powell to the UN was the sealer that the case was no good. The evidence was pathetic, 'chemical decontamination units' were just ordinary, everyday fire trucks, for example. Bush and Co. just gambled that they would find something somewhere. They gambled, and they lost, but not nearly as badly as the taxpayers who financed the gamble to the tune of, at a guess, upwards of 1 trillion dollars, and the people who have lost their lives.

CBS news report on US intelligence officers being incredulous at the speech.



CBS) In February, Secretary of State Colin Powell made a surprising admission.

He told The Washington Post that he doesn't know whether he would have recommended the invasion of Iraq if he had been told at the time that there were no stockpiles of banned weapons.

Powell said that when he made the case for war before the United Nations one year ago, he used evidence that reflected the best judgments of the intelligence agencies.

But long before the war started, there was plenty of doubt among intelligence analysts about Saddam's weapons.

One analyst, Greg Thielmann, told Correspondent Scott Pelley last October that key evidence cited by the administration was misrepresented to the public.

Thielmann should know. He had been in charge of analyzing the Iraqi weapons threat for Powell's own intelligence bureau. “I had a couple of initial reactions. Then I had a more mature reaction,� says Thielmann, commenting on Powell's presentation to the United Nations last February.

“I think my conclusion now is that it's probably one of the low points in his long, distinguished service to the nation."

Thielmann was a foreign service officer for 25 years. His last job at the State Department was acting director of the Office of Strategic Proliferation and Military Affairs, which was responsible for analyzing the Iraqi weapons threat.

He and his staff had the highest security clearances, and saw virtually everything – whether it came into the CIA or the Defense Department.

Thielmann was admired at the State Department. One high-ranking official called him honorable, knowledgeable, and very experienced. Thielmann had planned to retire just four months before Powell’s big moment before the U.N. Security Council.

On Feb. 5, 2003, Secretary Powell presented evidence against Saddam:
“The gravity of this moment is matched by the gravity of the threat that Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction pose to the world."

At the time, Thielmann says that Iraq didn't pose an imminent threat to the U.S.: “I think it didn't even constitute an imminent threat to its neighbors at the time we went to war.�

And Thielmann says that's what the intelligence really showed. For example, he points to the evidence behind Powell’s charge that Iraq was importing aluminum tubes to use in a program to build nuclear weapons.

Powell said: “Saddam Hussein is determined to get his hands on a nuclear bomb. He is so determined that he has made repeated covert attempts to acquire high-specification aluminum tubes from 11 different countries even after inspections resumed.�

“This is one of the most disturbing parts of Secretary Powell's speech for us,� says Thielmann.

Intelligence agents intercepted the tubes in 2001, and the CIA said they were parts for a centrifuge to enrich uranium -- fuel for an atom bomb. But Thielmann wasn’t so sure.

Experts at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the scientists who enriched uranium for American bombs, advised that the tubes were all wrong for a bomb program. At about the same time, Thielmann’s office was working on another explanation. It turned out the tubes' dimensions perfectly matched an Iraqi conventional rocket.

“The aluminum was exactly, I think, what the Iraqis wanted for artillery,� recalls Thielmann, who says he sent that word up to the Secretary of State months before. Houston Wood was a consultant who worked on the Oak Ridge analysis of the tubes. He watched Powell’s speech, too.

“I guess I was angry, that’s the best way to describe my emotions. I was angry at that,� says Wood, who is among the world’s authorities on uranium enrichment by centrifuge. He found the tubes couldn’t be what the CIA thought they were. They were too heavy, three times too thick and certain to leak.

"Wasn't going to work. They would have failed," says Wood, who reached that conclusion back in 2001.

Thielmann reported to Secretary Powell’s office that they were confident the tubes were not for a nuclear program. Then, about a year later, when the administration was building a case for war, the tubes were resurrected on the front page of The New York Times.

“I thought when I read that there must be some other tubes that people were talking about. I just was flabbergasted that people were still pushing that those might be centrifuges,� says Wood.

The New York Times reported that senior administration officials insisted the tubes were for an atom-bomb program.

“Science was not pushing this forward. Scientists had made their determination, their evaluation, and now we didn’t know what was happening,� says Wood.

In his U.N. speech, Secretary Powell acknowledged there was disagreement about the tubes, but he said most experts agreed with the nuclear theory.

“There is controversy about what these tubes are for. Most U.S. experts think they are intended to serve as rotors in centrifuges used to enrich uranium,� said Powell.

“Most experts are located at Oak Ridge and that was not the position there,� says Wood, who claims he doesn’t know anyone in academia or foreign government who would disagree with his appraisal. “I don’t know a single one anywhere.�

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/14/60II/main577975.shtml



In Australia, what did the intelligence used to justify the war amount to?



"Sooner or later someone has got to stand up in this country and admit they got it wrong, starting with the prime minister and the foreign minister and sooner or later we have got to say yeah there was a serious intelligence failure." Mr Wilkie, a senior analyst with the Office of National Assessment, quit in March last year and went to the media, claiming intelligence on Iraq's WMD programs did not justify going to war.

The Flood report found actual Iraq intelligence filled just five-and-a-half pages and was thin, ambiguous and incomplete.



Five and a half pages. Clearly, it was not what you would start a war with, unless you had something else in mind.

http://theage.com.au/articles/2004/07/23/1090464832312.html

Rod Barton, an Australian intelligence officer

http://randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=52731




ROD BARTON: I felt annoyed about this because it did bring down the downfall of UNSCOM. We weren't making much progress, it's true, but while we were there, we were preventing Iraq really from doing anything significant. Once we left, then who knows what was happening?

LIZ JACKSON: Well, as it turns out, not much.

ROD BARTON: As it turns out, not much. Well, a lot of people believed, of course, just the opposite.

LIZ JACKSON: And that belief itself?

ROD BARTON: Well, that belief itself probably led to the war in 2003.

DICK CHENEY, US VICE-PRESIDENT (26 AUGUST 2002): Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussain now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our enemies, and against us.

GEORGE W. BUSH, US PRESIDENT, 12 MARCH 2002: Inaction is not an option.

LIZ JACKSON: By 2003, as the United States talked up the threat from Iraq, Rod Barton was quietly working as the special advisor to the UN's Chief Weapons Inspector Hans Blix. Few people were aware that an Australian was at the heart of the intelligence assessments as to whether Iraq was complying with the UN's call to disarm. Rod Barton helped Hans Blix write the crucial reports for the Security Council on whether there were grounds to back America's call for a pre-emptive war.

HANS BLIX, UN CHIEF WEAPONS INSPECTOR (27 JANUARY 2003): These reports do not contend that weapons of mass destruction remain in Iraq, but nor do they exclude that possibility.

ROD BARTON: I would write the sort of more technical aspects of those presentations of the Security Council, and he would write the more political aspects, and then we'd exchange notes. In fact, he said, you know, "You show me yours, and I'll show you mine" - so he had a good sense of humour.

LIZ JACKSON: During that period of time that you were working with Hans Blix, did you feel that there was a possibility that war could be avoided?

ROD BARTON: My belief at that stage was that war was inevitable. Inspections may delay the war, may put it off, but I didn't see how we, as inspectors, could resolve the issues that the United States wanted to be resolved.

LIZ JACKSON: So how did you feel writing reports for Hans Blix to deliver to the Security Council of the United Nations if you felt that whatever you said, war was going to happen.

ROD BARTON: I thought it was rather futile.

LIZ JACKSON: In early January 2003, before Australia officially committed to war, our intelligence agencies prepared an assessment on WMD for Prime Minister John Howard. It was classified secret - for Australian eyes only. A draft of the sections on chemical and biological weapons were driven round to Rod Barton's home in Canberra, for his expert assessment.

ROD BARTON: My belief was that they had a few weapons retained from 1991, which will be ageing weapons of limited use. Were they a threat? Well, they may have been of minor threat to their neighbours, because don't forget they didn't really have the delivery systems then, they didn't have an air force. They may have been a minor threat to their neighbours, but a threat to the United States or the UK or Australia? No.

LIZ JACKSON: And did you give the assessment that you've just given me?

ROD BARTON: Yes, that's the advice I gave.

LIZ JACKSON: No capacity to deliver?

ROD BARTON: Yes. I mean, what countries do with this advice is up to them.

LIZ JACKSON: Who exactly asked you for that advice?

ROD BARTON: I don't want to go into who talked to me about this, no.

LIZ JACKSON: Fair enough. But in terms of countries; the United States and Australia?

ROD BARTON: Yes, both countries asked me for views. Don't forget, I had all this intelligence background from before, so I know I provided my views, for what they were worth.

JOHN HOWARD, PRIME MINISTER, (ARCHIVE) 3 OCTOBER 2003: We had clear intelligence assessments that Iraq had a weapons of mass destruction capability. That was unambiguous.

TONY BLAIR, (ARCHIVE) 24 SEPTEMBER 2002: He has existing and active military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons which could be activated within 45 minutes, including against his own Shia population.



Confusion, uncertainty, etc. And how does it come out of the mouths of the politicians justifying war, unambiguous justification for a war.

David Kelly, suicided because the stress of it all became too much, he knew that the intelligence had been 'sexed up'.



LIZ JACKSON: Rod Barton asked his former UNSCOM colleague, Dr David Kelly, where the 45-minute claim had come from. This was the same David Kelly later named as the source of a BBC story that the British had sexed-up their intelligence reports.

ROD BARTON: David Kelly came to New York quite often. Of course, he was not working for the UN. He was working for the British Government as their senior scientific advisor on this, on these matters, and I remember having dinner with him in a pub, an Irish pub in New York, and I challenged him. I said, you know "What's this nonsense about this 45?". I said "Why did you write this, David?", knowing full well David would not have written about the 45 minutes, and he was quite embarrassed and he said "Oh well, some people put in what they want to put in".

LIZ JACKSON: That's the way he just put it to you: "some people put in what they want to put in". Did you know what he meant by that?

ROD BARTON: I sort of gathered that. Well, I knew that he hadn't written it and I just left it there because he was clearly uncomfortable talking about it, and embarrassed by it. Clearly he didn't believe this 45 minutes claim himself.

LIZ JACKSON: What's your view about the way he was treated by the British Government?

ROD BARTON: Oh, atrociously and, of course, that led to his suicide, and I do believe it was suicide - led to his suicide later.

LIZ JACKSON: Given your disillusionment in a way with the whole process, and the point of the whole process, what drew you back to Iraq in the post-war period to look for weapons again?

ROD BARTON: Well, I was asked by the Americans to help join their investigation and, in fact, I was actually asked while I was still in New York working for Blix. And he said "Well, how do you feel about it?", and I said "Well". I didn't think that the UN was going to be able to get back into Iraq for a long, long time, not doing these sort of investigation, and I said I would like to know the answers, and I would rather it was the UN doing it, but realistically it's not going to happen that way, and I would join with the Americans and do the investigations, and that's what I did.

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT, 3 MAY 2003: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended in the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.

[Dan Beaird]

Originally posted by Unabogie
No, the record is clear that there was no activity from 1998 on. Which meant that by 2003, any weapons that were there prior to 1998, were by then useless...
Do you realize there are still signs in parts of France that warn people not to roll in the grass for fear of burns from mustard gas used 90 years ago? Some of this stuff is really volatile, some of it is extremely stable and persistant.

I make a point in another thread that WMD's have been found in Iraq. I won't go into it in detail again, but I will ask people who are saying that no WMD's were found to please let me know exactly how many WMD's is equal to no WMD's.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Dan Beaird

Do you realize there are still signs in parts of France that warn people not to roll in the grass for fear of burns from mustard gas used 90 years ago? Some of this stuff is really volatile, some of it is extremely stable and persistant.

I make a point in another thread that WMD's have been found in Iraq. I won't go into it in detail again, but I will ask people who are saying that no WMD's were found to please let me know exactly how many WMD's is equal to no WMD's. [/B]

Some of it is, some of it isn't. I think the message I was getting was that the stuff Saddam was using wasn't chemically stable, especially since his stocks were poor quality to start with.

[demon]

Dan,
I'm not going to waste too much time arguing with you on a point that has now been established with such clarity that even congenital idiots and liars like Bush and Blair have been forced to concede it. Instead I'll address myself to three points alone, in order to demonstrate that you are simply wrong.

The most authoritative statement on Iraq WMD comes from the final Duelfer report. I have highlighted in places for clarity. It concluded the following:

"Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq’s WMD capability —***which was essentially destroyed in 1991***— after sanctions were removed and Iraq’s economy stabilized, but probably with a different mix of capabilities to that which previously existed."

"Saddam’s primary goal from 1991 to 2003 was to have UN sanctions lifted, while maintaining the security of the Regime. He sought to balance the need to cooperate with UN inspections—to gain support for lifting sanctions—with his intention to preserve Iraq’s intellectual capital for WMD with a minimum of foreign intrusiveness and loss of face. Indeed, this remained the goal to the end of the Regime, ***as the starting of any WMD program,conspicuous or otherwise,risked undoing the progress achieved in eroding sanctions and jeopardizing a political end to the embargo and international monitoring."***

"The former Regime had ***no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions.*** Neither was there an identifiable group of WMD policy makers or planners separate from Saddam. Instead, his lieutenants understood WMD revival was his goal from their long association with Saddam and his infrequent, but firm, verbal comments and directions to them."

Let's also contrast these two statements. This first one is a direct quote from Dick Cheney:

‘We know that he’s been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.’ (Interview with US Vice-President Dick Cheney, NBC, ‘Meet the Press,’ 16th March 2003, quoted in Walter Pincus ‘Bush Faced Dwindling Data on Iraq Nuclear Bid’, Washington Post, 16th July 2003; Page A01, viewable at http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A616222003Jul15?language=printer ).

And this is from Duelfer:

"Saddam Hussein ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the Gulf war. ISG found ***no evidence*** to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program."

Nor does your contention that a few old binary shells justifies slaughtering 100,000+ people. You can scrape the bottom of that barrel as much as you like but, again, as Duelfer states:

"While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter,..."

"In practical terms, with the destruction of the Al Hakam facility, Iraq abandoned its ambition to obtain advanced BW weapons quickly. ISG found no direct evidence that Iraq, after 1996, had plans for a new BW program or was conducting BW-specifi c work for military purposes. Indeed, from the mid-1990s, despite evidence of continuing interest in nuclear and chemical weapons, there appears to be a complete absence of discussion or even interest in BW at the Presidential level."

These are all direct quotes from the Duelfer Report's summary of key findings, which you can read here: http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Comp_Report_Key_Findings.pdf The key quote is the one I began with - Iraq's WMD was essentially destroyed in 1991. What was left, as Scott Ritter and others have concluded, was destroyed by UNSCOM.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Dan Beaird

Do you realize there are still signs in parts of France that warn people not to roll in the grass for fear of burns from mustard gas used 90 years ago? Some of this stuff is really volatile, some of it is extremely stable and persistant.

I make a point in another thread that WMD's have been found in Iraq. I won't go into it in detail again, but I will ask people who are saying that no WMD's were found to please let me know exactly how many WMD's is equal to no WMD's.

Dan Beaird:

Please provide some details regarding these WMDs that have been found in Iraq. I sure would like to know about them.

Thanks much!

[Dan Beaird]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Some of it is, some of it isn't. I think the message I was getting was that the stuff Saddam was using wasn't chemically stable, especially since his stocks were poor quality to start with.
So you're saying Iraq couldn't produce mustard gas up to WWI quality standards?

And does poor quality WMD's equal no WMD's?

[Dan Beaird]

Originally posted by demon
Dan,
I'm not going to waste too much time arguing with you on a point that has now been established with such clarity that even congenital idiots and liars like Bush and Blair have been forced to concede it. Instead I'll address myself to three points alone, in order to demonstrate that you are simply wrong...

It looks like you have wasted your time because your post plainly admits that some WMD's were found in Iraq. It seems a logical conclusion for me to reach when faced with people screaming no WMD's that there are congenital idiots and liars outside the Whitehouse and #10 and they are apparently in charge of telling everyone how many WMD's were found in Iraq.

Even if no WMD's were found it is still a dishonest argument against the war. Under the terms of the ceasefire at the end of the first Gulf war Iraq was to disarm and dismantle all WMD's and allow unfettered access to international inspection teams to verify this. What cooperation the Hussein regime offered was grudging at best and often withdrawn at the whim of the dictator in violation of the letter of the agreement. Now I'll admit that different people may reach different conclusions when deciding if Saddam fulfilled the letter of the agreement.

Do I think Iraq had a significant WMD capability? No, I don't. I don't think they moved them to Syria or Iran, I think they destroyed them. But the point is that nobody knew that prior to the war and it was not Bush's Blair's or anybody's responsibility to show the state of their WMD's but Iraq's.

I'm still asking the question though, please answer: how many WMD's does it take to make no WMD's?

[Freakshow]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Intelligence officers from the US, Great Britain and Australia all thought Saddam probably had something up his sleeve, but nothing that warranted an invasion, billions of dollars, many thousands lives lost etc.

I realize it may have been deliberate on your part, but you totally ignored one of the criteria in the OP. :)

"Please also note that I am not talking about whether or not the war was justified. Let's stay on topic here. The "Clinton is a better guy, because he didn't go to war over WMD, and Bush did" argument is not what this post is about. You can start a new thread on that, if you like."
:)

The point here is...do you believe that Bush KNEW that Iraq had no WMD? When he was selling this war on the basis of WMD, do you think he was thinking to himself "I know they have no WMD, and I know this is BS, but I want this war."

If you believe that, what is your explanation for the Clinton administration's statements regarding Iraq and WMD? Were they deliberately lying, too? If they were not, and if they actually believed there were WMD in Iraq...then what changed? Note the link in the OP. Some of the statements were made relatively soon before the Iraq war. They were not all made in 1998 and before, as one poster had stated.

My opinion on this was posted earlier in the thread: I think they both looked at the same flawed intelligence, and both came to the same flawed conclusion.

[Dan Beaird]

Originally posted by Crossbow
Dan Beaird:

Please provide some details regarding these WMDs that have been found in Iraq. I sure would like to know about them.

Thanks much!
You can look in this thread:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1871025641#post1871025641

Although the evidence part of it doesn't show up till about here:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1871025957#post1871025957

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Freakshow
I realize it may have been deliberate on your part, but you totally ignored one of the criteria in the OP. :)

"Please also note that I am not talking about whether or not the war was justified. Let's stay on topic here. The "Clinton is a better guy, because he didn't go to war over WMD, and Bush did" argument is not what this post is about. You can start a new thread on that, if you like."
:)

The point here is...do you believe that Bush KNEW that Iraq had no WMD? When he was selling this war on the basis of WMD, do you think he was thinking to himself "I know they have no WMD, and I know this is BS, but I want this war."

If you believe that, what is your explanation for the Clinton administration's statements regarding Iraq and WMD? Were they deliberately lying, too? If they were not, and if they actually believed there were WMD in Iraq...then what changed? Note the link in the OP. Some of the statements were made relatively soon before the Iraq war. They were not all made in 1998 and before, as one poster had stated.

My opinion on this was posted earlier in the thread: I think they both looked at the same flawed intelligence, and both came to the same flawed conclusion.

As I already said, intelligence officers around the world knew the case was weak, but all assumed Saddam had something lying around. Bush gambled that it was a going to be easy to stitch him up with something. He was wrong.

[Freakshow]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
As I already said, intelligence officers around the world knew the case was weak, but all assumed Saddam had something lying around. Bush gambled that it was a going to be easy to stitch him up with something. He was wrong.

I can't believe I am about to say this, but...
I agree with you, 100%
:)

[hazyandconfused]

Originally posted by Dan Beaird
You can look in this thread:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1871025641#post1871025641

Although the evidence part of it doesn't show up till about here:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1871025957#post1871025957

I hate to butt in, but did you read the "yellowcake from Nigeria" link before you posted it? I'm going to assume you did not...

Anyway, if you read your own articles, these seem to be a few isolated incidents in which traces or small amounts of relics from the Iran-Iraq war are being recycled, or found by insurgents. It almost makes me wonder if these are some of the weapons coming from Iran -- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/09/AR2005080900798.html

Regardless, it seems the insurgents aren't even really aware of what they are using. Possibly, the insurgents are harmed more by the close handling of the weapons, than our soldiers were by the detonation. I think if they knew they had chemical weapons of "mass destruction" laying around, they would not hesitate to use them in a more useful manner. They're not getting much of a bang out of these chemically dissipated weapons. If they had a stockpile, then they would use them ruthlessly and deliberately in high population areas. These seem like random, regular instances in which they might have just as easily put IED's in a dead cow n.

So, do you think these isolated incidences were really worth years of war, thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of US dollars? With no end in sight?

Keep in mind that the inspections WERE taking place and only ended because we weren't finding anything and were building up to an imminent war.

Sorry, but I don't see anything to indicate weapons of MASS destruction.

To answer a previous question, it would take one device capable of killing many (hundreds of) people (on purpose) to qualify as a WMD.

EDIT: I said a WMD would need to kill hundreds of people. I guess you could consider that an airplane, but harboring a Boeing isn't against any laws. Just another reason, why that is such a stupid term. Anything can be made into a WMD if you have enough explosives with it.

But to clarify, a few random traces of chemicals on relics from another war do not qualify. There was nothing massive in their explosion.

[Dan Beaird]

Originally posted by hazyandconfused
I hate to butt in, but did you read the "yellowcake from Nigeria" link before you posted it? I'm going to assume you did not...
That assumption would be wrong. It's okay, if you read on you'll see that you're not the only person who needed to be reminded that there is such a thing as humor.

Anyway, if you read your own articles, these seem to be a few isolated incidents in which traces or small amounts of relics from the Iran-Iraq war are being recycled, or found by insurgents. It almost makes me wonder if these are some of the weapons coming from Iran --(URL Deleted)
It's an interesting theory and may even be true. Oh, and to get back on my pet hobby horse here: so a few isolated incidents of WMD's in Iraq is the same as no WMD's? Is that right? If they're old, or poorly maintained or forgotten about or have a handwritten sign saying this is not a weapon of mass destruction they just go into that bucket that says no WMD's were found in Iraq. I think that along with Bill Clinton's definition of is we could add the word none to the revisionist dictionary. Perhaps with a definition of something like: any quantity of an item we wish to ignore.

Regardless, it seems the insurgents aren't even really aware of what they are using...
That's really convulted thinking. We didn't invade Iraq to make sure the insurgents that didn't exist yet had no WMD's.

So, do you think these isolated incidences were really worth years of war, thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of US dollars? With no end in sight?
The decision of if the war is worth the expenditure of blood and treasure is one best left to the future when they can look back on it with a somewhat dispassioned view. I think that it is possible that the war will be worth the cost. As far as no end in site, well it depends on how far ahead you choose to look. A cursory examination of the history of insurgencies will give you plenty of examples of how it is all likely to pan out considering various scenarios.

Keep in mind that the inspections WERE taking place and only ended because we weren't finding anything and were building up to an imminent war.
Correction: Inspections were taking place when and where Saddam wanted them to take place. Think of a man on the street seen with a gun 15 minutes ago. He faces the arresting police officer with one hand behind his back and says he hasn't got a gun...the police officer says "show me the other hand" so he puts the hand he had out front behind his back then shows the other hand. Does the policeman conclude the man has no gun and lets him go? This tactic didn't work for me in kindergarten, why the hell should it work for Saddam? The Iraqi reluctance to allow unhindered investigations were part of the reasons for the build up to war.

Sorry, but I don't see anything to indicate weapons of MASS destruction.
Sorry the definition of a weapon of mass destruction cannot be twisted to suit your whim. Any nuclear, chemical or biological weapon is a weapon of mass destruction.

To answer a previous question, it would take one device capable of killing many (hundreds of) people (on purpose) to qualify as a WMD.
See above. That's not the definition of WMD.

EDIT: I said a WMD would need to kill hundreds of people. I guess you could consider that an airplane, but harboring a Boeing isn't against any laws. Just another reason, why that is such a stupid term. Anything can be made into a WMD if you have enough explosives with it.
You're really trying to stretch a flawed point. We don't have to point at Boeing to see the United States WMD stockpile.

But to clarify, a few random traces of chemicals on relics from another war do not qualify. There was nothing massive in their explosion.
But to clarify, we didn't find a few random traces of chemicals on relics, we found some complete chemical weapons along with indicators and facilities that can lead to the conclusion that other weapons exist and that Iraq had the capability to create more.

If the argument is going to be "Well they didn't find anything I would consider a WMD", then there really isn't a place to go with this conversation.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Dan Beaird
You can look in this thread:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1871025641#post1871025641

Although the evidence part of it doesn't show up till about here:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1871025957#post1871025957

Er, thanks.

But did you actually read these articles?

I did and found that they do not support your claim about these weapons being some sort of dire national threat that has been worth the killing of tens of thousands and the spending of hundreds of billions of dollars.

Anyway, here is what I found about this evidence you have found to justify your position.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36632

Nuke 'yellowcake' from Iraq found?

A shipment of scrap steel believed to be from Iraq contains radioactive material known as yellowcake, according to a recycling company in the Netherlands.

…

Radioactive scrap metal eh? Gee whiz that was close. If Iraq had hundreds of billion of tons of this stuff along with the technology to seperate the scrap metal and all of the other stuff from the U235 then they may have been able to collect enough material to make a bomb.

Of course, such an effort would have been readily noticed by an inspection program that Bush was too smart to permit.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3722255.stm

'Nerve gas bomb' explodes in Iraq

An artillery shell containing a small amount of the nerve gas sarin has exploded in Iraq.

…

One artillery shell hardly makes for a WMD.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120268,00.html

Tests Confirm Sarin in Iraqi Artillery Shell

…

However, a senior coalition source has told the BBC the round does not signal the discovery of weapons of mass destruction or the escalation of insurgent activity.

He said the round dated back to the Iran-Iraq war and coalition officials were not sure whether the fighters even knew what it contained.

Some experts suggested that the two shells, which were unmarked, date back to the first Persian Gulf War. The mustard gas shell may have been one of 550 projectiles that Saddam failed to account for in his weapons declaration shortly before Operation Iraqi Freedom began. Iraq also failed to account for 450 aerial bombs containing mustard gas.
It's not clear if enemy fighters simply found an old stockpile of weapons, or if they even knew what was inside.

…

Now, the artillery shells are over ten years old and buried in the sand. This is hardly a national threat.

Mustard gas found by Iraq weapon hunters

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1120720,00.html

…

However, the find of a small amount of mortar shells is unlikely to satisfy a growing chorus of criticism that the much-touted weapons of mass destruction either never existed or were destroyed years ago. The Danish team has found only 36 mortar rounds buried in desert about 45 miles from Al Amarah, a southern town. But it added that up to a 100 more could still be hidden at the location. The rounds were in plastic bags and some were leaking. It seems they had been buried for at least 10 years.

...

Wow oh wow! Now there is 36 mortar shells too. Of course these are just as old and forgotten as the others so that hardly makes them a national threat.

http://www.uncoveror.com/niger.htm

YELLOW CAKE FROM NIGER FOUND IN IRAQ

When President Bush said the sixteen infamous words, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa", people were terrified, and most supported going to war. He was referring to a document originally obtained from Italian intelligence, which purported that Hussein had purchased a grade of enriched uranium commonly referred to as "yellow cake" from the African nation of Niger. Former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, had traveled to Africa, and had warned the CIA that the document was a forgery. The CIA told the state department, and they told the White House. It was obvious that the claim simply did not belong in the State of the Union speech. Everyone under the sun but Bush himself was eventually blamed for the gaffe by White House spokesman, and media pundits. The source of the President's claim in his State of the Union Address has now been positively identified, according to White House aide Jeffery Mathers. It was not the Niger document from Italy at all, but a photograph.

...

I really find it telling that you did not read this account and actually look at the photograph the author referred to.

[demon]

Dan Beaird:
"It looks like you have wasted your time because your post plainly admits that some WMD's were found in Iraq. It seems a logical conclusion for me to reach when faced with people screaming no WMD's that there are congenital idiots and liars outside the Whitehouse and #10 and they are apparently in charge of telling everyone how many WMD's were found in Iraq..."


I said I wasn`t going to waste much of my time with this but I can`t help but reply...

Iraq had no WMD -a handful of old abandoned binary chemical shells (which if I recall were found to be empty of the binary agents anyway) DO NOT count -as the Duelfer report MAKES CLEAR. A few remnants were always expected to exist -probably unaccounted for by the regime itself since such things are hard to keep track of when your government has been bombed. To quote the former chief weapons inspector:
“As a former UN inspector, I'm also familiar with the level of disarmament achieved concerning Iraq's banned WMD. And during my time in Iraq, 95 percent of the WMD produced by Iraq were verifiably accounted for. But I've always contended that Iraq is a WMD archaeological site, and that if one digs long enough, vestiges of these past WMD programs will be uncovered. Determining whether the discovery of the sarin artillery shell represents such an archaeological discovery, or is part of Saddam Hussein's alleged stockpile of WMD, rests with a full forensic exam of the shell.� (Scott Ritter, “Iraq Sarin Shell is not Part of a Secret Cache� Christian Science Monitor, 21st May 2004 http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0521-06.htm )


If you want to delude yourself that a few remnants justify slaughtering tens of thousands, that really is your problem.

As for Saddam's record of cooperation; you're right, it was far from perfect. However, it should be clear to anyone that the US did not want Iraq to be able to prove itself disarmed. That is why the US consistently undermined UNSCOM, rebuffed further advances from Iraq during the late 90s and early 2000s.

This is a key point: Iraqi cooperation, especially in the last couple of years of inspections was actually rather good. Iraq did indeed withdraw cooperation from the UN Weapons Inspectors (UNSCOM) in 1998 and the inspection regime did collapse. The reasons for this, however, were not reported until 1999 in the New York Times front-page report of January 7, which reported that “United States officials said today that American spies had worked undercover on teams of United Nations arms inspectors� and that, in the words of UN weapon inspector Scott Ritter this had “undermined the inspectors�.


"What [head of Unscom] Richard Butler did last week with the inspections was a set-up. This was designed to generate a conflict that would justify a bombing." Ritter said US government sources had told him three weeks earlier that "the two considerations on the horizon were Ramadan and impeachment… If you dig around, you'll find out why Richard Butler yesterday ran to the phone four times. He was talking to his [US] National Security adviser. They were telling him to sharpen the language in his report to justify the bombing… Based on the same facts he [Butler] could have said, There were something like 300 inspections [in recent weeks] and we encountered difficulties in five.'" (Ritter, Washington Post, 17 December 1998)

"American espionage in Iraq, under cover of United Nations weapons inspections, went far beyond the search for banned arms and was carried out without the knowledge of the UN leadership, it was reported yesterday. An investigation by the Washington Post found that CIA engineers working as UN technicians installed antennae in equipment belonging to the UN Special Commission (Unscom) to eavesdrop on the Iraqi military." (Julian Borger, 'UN "kept in dark" about US spying in Iraq', The Guardian, March 3, 1999)

"International disarray over Iraq deepened last night after United States officials acknowledged that American spies participated in the work of United Nations weapons inspectors tracking down Baghdad's weapons of mass destruction... [T]he admission that US intelligence agencies provided information and technology to the UN Special Commission, Unscom, confirmed long-standing suspicions in Baghdad and appeared to knock another nail into Unscom's coffin." (Mark Tran and Ian Black, 'UN spies scandal grows, American officials admit Iraqi data aided air strikes', The Guardian, January 8, 1999)

This continued after the death of UNSCOM, which, according to Richard Butler, became the effective policy objective of the US (p. 288 of his memoirs) For example, the Washington Post also reported on April 15th 2002 of the concerns of ‘Wolfowitz and his civilian colleagues in the Pentagon that new inspections - or protracted negotiations over them - could torpedo their plans for military action to remove Hussein from power.’ Colin Powell confirmed that ‘US policy is that, regardless of what the inspectors do, the people of Iraq and the people of the region would be better off with a different regime in Baghdad. The United States reserves its option to do whatever it believes might be appropriate to see if there can be a regime change.’ (Quoted in the Guardian, May 6th 2002) Time magazine made it explicit on the 13th of May 2002, quoting a ‘top Senate foreign policy aide’ who said that ‘The White House’s biggest fear is that the UN weapons inspectors will be allowed to go in.’

Why should Saddam have cooperated when he knew that the US was out to get him anyway and, more to the point, why should Iraq as a whole have cooperated when the US made it clear that they would still invade even if they got rid of Saddam? And let's not trouble ourselves with the notion that the US was concerned that the UN's Resolutions will be enforced: the US happily violates UN Resolutions and massively supports a serial violator of international law. The idea that "12 years is too long to wait" is ludicrous hypocrisy when the US has been helping Israel violate Resolutions for 38 years.

The US also consistently undermined and impeded UNMOVIC -even in the last days when they made it clear that they had found no weapons, that cooperation was increasing and that they only needed a few months more to verify that Iraq was disarmed. And this is the bottom line -the inspectors wanted more time and believed they were making progress. The vast majority of the Security Council believed that sufficient progress was being made to avoid the need to kill people yet the US and UK violated the law and went in. After originally acknowledging that a second resolution would be needed to authorize force (that 1441 contained "no automaticity") they did it anyway. The US deliberately smeared Blix as incompetent, undermined UNMOVICs reports, witheld their supposed intelligence (in violation of Resolution 1441) and even seized Iraq's declaration -which was supposed to be submitted to the UN. In a nutshell, American (and UK) bad faith and manipulation was massive.


Why? Because Iraqi cooperation was increasing and if they didn't do it then, in a couple of months it would have become clear to the wider world that Iraq was defenceless (something most governments already knew). It should be obvious that nothing Iraq did could have avoided the invasion because the invasion was the goal.

As for your statement that "nobody knew" that Iraq had no WMD you really do need to read my posts. Both Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice DID know and said so. Or try this,

"When I left Iraq in 1998... the infrastructure and facilities had been 100% eliminated. There's no doubt about that. All of their instruments and facilities had been destroyed. The weapons design facility had been destroyed. The production equipment had been hunted down and destroyed. And we had in place means to monitor - both from vehicles and from the air - the gamma rays that accompany attempts to enrich uranium or plutonium. We never found anything." (Scott Ritter in Ritter and William Rivers Pitt, War on Iraq, 2002 p.26)

Iraq had no WMD and the US knew this long before the invasion because they SAID SO. These are indisputable facts. If you want to continue saying that WMD have been found, I suggest your write to Charles Duelfer or the Iraq Survey group and explain why you disagree with them. If you want to persist in stating that the US did not know Iraq had no WMD before the invasion, I suggestion you write to Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell and ask them to explain why they stated in 2001 that Iraq had NO WMDS.

Personally, I suggest that you move on to something else, altogther: you can't win against the facts.

[Crossbow]

Well said demon!

Thanks much!

:)

[Dan Beaird]

Originally posted by Crossbow
Er, thanks.
But did you actually read these articles?
Yes
I did and found that they do not support your claim about these weapons being some sort of dire national threat that has been worth the killing of tens of thousands and the spending of hundreds of billions of dollars.
That's not my claim. My claim is that WMD's have been found in Iraq and that the people who claim that no WMD's have been found are, by definition, worse liars than they claim dubya to be.
Radioactive scrap metal eh?
Actually the article indicates that about 5 pounds of yellowcake ore was recovered off the scrap. This is something that should merely ask us to question how it got there. The ore is not evidence of a WMD. It is evidence that they may have been ramping up their nuclear program.
Of course, such an effort would have been readily noticed by an inspection program that Bush was too smart to permit.
I beg your pardon, but what inspection program did Bush not permit? I think I'm missing something. At the 11th hour the U.S. Government warned international groups out of Iraq since hostilities were on the horizon, but prior to that I'm unaware of any official interference. Care to fill me in please?
One artillery shell hardly makes for a WMD.
One artillery shell filled with nerve agent makes a WMD. Any nuclear, chemical or biological weapon is by definition a WMD. You may say it is only one WMD, but then you must face the question of how 1 is equal to 0 (on the assumption you make the argument no WMD's were found).
However, a senior coalition source has told the BBC the round does not signal the discovery of weapons of mass destruction or the escalation of insurgent activity.
I would contend that anyone arguing a nerve agent weapon is not a WMD is factually incorrect. You can take the position that little WMD's are not as bad as big ones, but the position that they are not WMD's is not correct.
He said the round dated back to the Iran-Iraq war and coalition officials were not sure whether the fighters even knew what it contained.
And so we come to the argument that old WMD's don't count, or they don't count if the people who they were taken from don't know what they are.
However, the find of a small amount of mortar shells is unlikely to satisfy a growing chorus of criticism that the much-touted weapons of mass destruction either never existed or were destroyed years ago.
If they never existed or were destroyed years ago, then where exactly did these come from again? Were they destroyed or did they never exist? Maybe dubya had Rummy sneak in late at night and hide them there.
Wow oh wow! Now there is 36 mortar shells too. Of course these are just as old and forgotten as the others so that hardly makes them a national threat.
Again, my contention isn't that these were a major threat, merely that WMD's have been found in Iraq as well as indications that they had the capability for creating more. The people calling dubya a liar are not saying "No significant quantities of functional, modern, powerful WMD's were found in Iraq". They are saying no WMD's were found in Iraq and that is obviously a bigger lie than Bush is accused of telling.
YELLOW CAKE FROM NIGER FOUND IN IRAQ

I really find it telling that you did not read this account and actually look at the photograph the author referred to.
And I really find it telling that you also need jokes explained to you. I should have held out and found the Martha Stewart one so some of you way-too-damn-serious folks would have a little better chance of at least seeing the contrails of the joke as it zoomed over your heads.

[Dan Beaird]

Originally posted by demon
I said I wasn`t going to waste much of my time with this but I can`t help but reply...
Iraq had no WMD -a handful of old abandoned binary chemical shells (which if I recall were found to be empty of the binary agents anyway) DO NOT count -as the Duelfer report MAKES CLEAR.
Your recollection is incorrect, I believe at least 3 binary nerve agent shells were found fully charged if I recall right. I don't recall exactly where but I understand a large number of empty binary bombs and artillery shells were found. I've read the Duelfer report and I pretty much agree with it, although I don't remember the part that said a few old weapons didn't count, merely that finding some weapons is not necessarily evidence of active WMD capability or intent to stockpile. I don't think anyone in their right mind would ever say a nerve agent weapon didn't count.

If you want to delude yourself that a few remnants justify slaughtering tens of thousands, that really is your problem.
Strawman. That's not my argument. I am merely saying you and every other person who says no WMD's were found is a bigger liar than you accuse dubya of being. I'm just tired of hearing that same damn lie.

As for Saddam's record of cooperation; you're right, it was far from perfect. However, it should be clear to anyone that the US did not want Iraq to be able to prove itself disarmed. That is why the US consistently undermined UNSCOM, rebuffed further advances from Iraq during the late 90s and early 2000s. My opinion at the time was that UNSCOM was unwilling to stand up to Iraq and enforce the terms of the ceasefire. I think there was a general leaning of two US administrations in that same direction which probably lead to the stupid decisions to run our own half-assed intelligence operations inside a UN mission. I could be misremembering things here I admit. I'll try and look back at this part ok?

This is a key point:...
Yeah, I remember that too. I remember thinking what an idiot move to pull. I'd say that's pretty much all valid criticism, although New York Times spin isn't my favorite flavor.

Why should Saddam have cooperated when he knew that the US was out to get him anyway...
Because if he didn't we'd kick his butt. I know that's the same reason bullies might use to collect milk money in grade school, but that is ultimately how it all works.

The US also consistently undermined and impeded UNMOVIC -
And Blix directly blamed Iraq for not allowing UNMOVIC in to continue inspections. There's really enough blame for everyone:
Hans Blix, the Executive Chairman of the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), said UN inspectors would have cleared Iraq’s name from all suspicions had it allowed them to go back in. "If Iraq had had effective inspections and cooperated with UNMOVIC since 1999, then it might not have been subject to the suspicions based in the media which it is being subjected to now," Blis told Kuna in an interview late on Thursday.
Iraq Would Need UNMOVIC To Clear Its Name From All Suspicions - Blix (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/unmovic/2001/1207blix.htm)

Why? Because Iraqi cooperation was increasing...
Iraqi cooperation went through more swings than a school for fat kids. Patience does tend to wear thin after so many years of on again-off again cooperation. This is rather off topic for my actual position so I'll leave it there.
As for your statement that "nobody knew" that Iraq had no WMD you really do need to read my posts. Both Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice DID know and said so. Or try this...
Frankly I trust Scott Ritter about as far as I could spit a rat. In fact this statement is demonstrably false since the Al Tuwaitha facility held not only 500 tons of yellowcake, but the tools for enrichment throughout the period under UN seal. All Saddam had to do was get a pair of bolt cutters from Sears and he was back in the A-bomb business.

Iraq had no WMD...
There it is again! How many WMD's did Iraq have again kids? Let's count! No amount of evidence will change this from being a lie unless you prove, somehow, that the weapons of mass destruction found do not exist.
Personally, I suggest that you move on to something else, altogether: you can't win against the facts.
I'm thinking of moving on from this because I'm tired of talking about it to people who won't admit to the simple truth that WMD's have been found in Iraq. I'd be happy to entertain all sorts of discussion about how they are insignificant if we could just get rid of the no WMD's lie.

I know we disagree, but I appreciate your patience in explaining your view of things.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Dan Beaird

Yes

Well you may have read the articles, but you have a rather poor understanding of them: details to follow.

That's not my claim. My claim is that WMD's have been found in Iraq and that the people who claim that no WMD's have been found are, by definition, worse liars than they claim dubya to be.

Well if that is the case, then I guess that Dubya has been lying twice now because even the Bush Administration has admitted that no WMDs have been found in Iraq.

Actually the article indicates that about 5 pounds of yellowcake ore was recovered off the scrap. This is something that should merely ask us to question how it got there. The ore is not evidence of a WMD. It is evidence that they may have been ramping up their nuclear program.

Actually, the article does not say anything of the sort, so please read the article again and this time read it carefully.

I beg your pardon, but what inspection program did Bush not permit? I think I'm missing something. At the 11th hour the U.S. Government warned international groups out of Iraq since hostilities were on the horizon, but prior to that I'm unaware of any interference. Care to fill me in please?

Yes you are missing something because Bush refused to allow the IAEA inspectors finish their work before the war.

One artillery shell filled with nerve agent makes a WMD. Any nuclear, chemical or biological weapon is by definition a WMD. You may say it is only one WMD, but then you must face the question of how 1 is equal to 0 (on the assumption you make the argument no WMD's were found).

I am sorry, but that rationale is really stupid! Your definition of a WMD is so broad , so vast, and so over-reaching that it would be impossible to make any sort of cogent national policy of it.

I would contend that anyone arguing a nerve agent weapon is not a WMD is factually incorrect. You can take the position that little WMD's are not as bad as big ones, but the position that they are not WMD's is not correct.

Again you are wrong! Flea collars contain nerve agents so by your definition there are millions of four legged WMDs here in the USA.

And so we come to the argument that old WMD's don't count, or they don't count if the people who they were taken from don't know what they are.

If they never existed or were destroyed years ago, then where exactly did these come from again? Were they destroyed or did they never exist? Maybe dubya had Rummy sneak in late at night and hide them there.

Again, I have to ask you to pay attention to the facts of the situation.
These WMDs you refer to were:
1) at least 10 years old,
2) not even know of by the Iraq military,
3) not deployed,
4) were stashed so deep and so well that they were not know of.

This sort of thing is not entirely unusual. Heck, in Europe they still find bombs, mines, and explosives from the First and Second World Wars. Gee whiz, even in my life I have done, or helped, with many inventory projects and have never had a 100% accounting of everything because invariably there will always be a few things missing or lost.

Futhermore, it may have been possible to find them given a good inspection program or at the very least, such a program would have insured that these weapons remain unavailable.


Again, my contention isn't that these were a major threat, merely that WMD's have been found in Iraq as well as indications that they had the capability for creating more. The people calling dubya a liar are not saying "No significant quantities of functional, modern, powerful WMD's were found in Iraq". They are saying no WMD's were found in Iraq and that is obviously a bigger lie than Bush is accused of telling.

Well your definition of WMD is so broad that any number of things could fit it so I still fail to see how you can call these people liars. I suppose that it is a good thing for your that you can make such accusations from the safety of your computer.


And I really find it telling that you also need jokes explained to you. I should have held out and found the Martha Stewart one so some of you way-too-damn-serious folks would have a little better chance of at least seeing the contrails of the joke as it zoomed over your heads.

Quite true, I did not see your humor. When you go on calling people liars, nuclear weapons, and talking about Iraqi WMDs it does make it a tad difficult for me to understand your jokes. Perhaps you will be so kind as be a bit more explict about such things in the future.

[Dan Beaird]

Originally posted by Crossbow
Well if that is the case, then I guess that Dubya has been lying twice now because even the Bush Administration has admitted that no WMDs have been found in Iraq.

So you're saying that they were lying when they said there were WMD's in Iraq and now you're saying they're lying when they say they weren't. You just can't lose this argument!

Actually, the article does not say anything of the sort, so please read the article again and this time read it carefully.

Look here, same story a little more information:
IAEA confirms yellowcake found in Rotterdam likely from Iraq (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-01-16-netherlands_x.htm)

Fleming said the agency will compare the chemical composition of the sample to other samples of ore taken from Iraq's al-Qaim mine, which was bombed in 1991 and dismantled in 1996-97.

She estimated that the Rotterdam sample contained around 5 pounds of uranium oxide.


Yes you are missing something because Bush refused to allow the IAEA inspectors finish their work before the war.

As hostilities approached the Administration warned international groups to leave. This is not the same thing as refusing to allow anything. There is no reason to believe that the teams which had not been able to complete their job in 10 years might complete it any time inside the next 10 or even the next 100.
I am sorry, but that rationale is really stupid! Your definition of a WMD is so broad , so vast, and so over-reaching that it would be impossible to make any sort of cogent national policy of it.
Sorry you don't like the definition. Would you prefer a different one? Here's one from dictionary.com:

1 entry found for weapon of mass destruction.
weapon of mass destruction

n : a weapon that kills or injures civilian as well as military personnel (nuclear and chemical and biological weapons)

All nuclear, chemical and biological weapons are WMD's. Care to provide something backing your position aside from simple assertion?
Again you are wrong! Flea collars contain nerve agents so by your definition there are millions of four legged WMDs here in the USA.
I think I mention in other posts how it is extremely easy to confuse chemical weapons with industrial and agricultural chemicals. Sadly they don't distribute flea and tick spray in binary artillery rounds or you'd have a good argument there.
Again, I have to ask you to pay attention to the facts of the situation.
These WMDs you refer to were:
1) at least 10 years old,
2) not even know of by the Iraq military,
3) not deployed,
4) were stashed so deep and so well that they were not know of.
Which WMD's were these again? The ones that there were none of? Frankly every one of those statements is an assumption (some of them reasonable, some not so reasonable) about the nature of the weapons. When a criminal has a gun it is wise not to assume that it is kept only for decoration.

This sort of thing is not entirely unusual. Heck, in Europe they still find bombs, mines, and explosives from the First and Second World Wars. Gee whiz, even in my life I have done, or helped, with many inventory projects and have never had a 100% accounting of everything because invariably there will always be a few things missing or lost.
I won't argue with that statement, however the assumption that every WMD found in Iraq is a relic of past evil deeds is just that, an assumption.

Futhermore, it may have been possible to find them given a good inspection program or at the very least, such a program would have insured that these weapons remain unavailable.
I don't think that anybody on this planet has shown the ability to run a good inspection program and there seems to be no end of people who are willing to throw up obstacles in front of anyone who tries.


Well your definition of WMD is so broad that any number of things could fit it so I still fail to see how you can call these people liars. I suppose that it is a good thing for your that you can make such accusations from the safety of your computer.
My definition of WMD is the one that I've worked with since I first started learning about these things and the working definition my government has used since practically the start of the cold war. Can you find another official definition that disagrees with mine? Here's a quote that should lay to rest this issue:
The Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention
Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction

The State Parties to This Convention
...
Convinced of the importance and urgency of eliminating from the arsenals of States, through effective measures, such dangerous weapons of mass destruction as those using chemical or bacteriological (biological) agents.
The Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (http://projects.sipri.se/cbw/docs/bw-btwc-text.html)

See, I know what these weapons are capable of. Do you?


Quite true, I did not see your humor. When you go on calling people liars, nuclear weapons, and talking about Iraqi WMDs it does make it a tad difficult for me to understand your jokes. Perhaps you will be so kind as be a bit more explict about such things in the future.
Hmmm...a picture of a cake mix box and you didn't get it. I'm sorry, but it seems that if I'm going to be explicit enough for you to understand the humor I'll lose the rest of my audience. Just laugh when everybody else does and you'll fit right in.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Upchurch
???

I was under the impression that the UN weapon inspection teams weren't finding anything, but my memory sucks so I could have that totally backwards. What are you basing this on?

Scott Ritter's first book "EndGame" spoke of Iraqi assertions that they had unilaterally destroyed proscribed weapon stockpiles. The UNSCOM inspecters were shown a lot of debris; but they were unable to verify that these were actually the remains of weapons which were destroyed. The unilateral nature of the destruction made it unquantifiable.

In short UNSCOM had major doubts that this had happened as the Iraqis said. They found it somewhat ridiculous/suspicious that Iraq would be so stupid as to destroy weapons in an unverifiable way.

Stupid yes; but bureaucratic snafus have happened before! Perhaps the Iraqis were telling the truth?? At the time though it looked like Saddam was selling UNSCOM the Brooklyn Bridge.

-z

[demon]

I think the debate about WMD in Iraq leads some people to be deliberately obtuse.
A handful of pre-Gulf War I shells DO NOT constitute WMD in any sense. No one ever doubted that in Iraq one would find a few remnants of 80s production but that is all they are: remnants. I will quote Duelfer again:
"While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter,..."

After the war, many of these decaying caches were lost to everyone, including the Iraq regime. In any case, they were battlefield munitions, left over and abandoned. To argue that they are WMD is nothing but a desperate attempt to avoid a truth that even Bush and Blair have accepted.

The bottom line, which cannot be avoided, is simple. Iraq’s WMD capacity was, to quote Duelfer "essentially destroyed in 1991". That is the simple truth, which is now accepted by all but the most dogmatic and dishonest, even Fox News.

"Report: No Iraq WMDs Made After '91
Thursday, October 07, 2004

“WASHINGTON — The chief U.S. arms inspector in Iraq has found no evidence of weapons of mass destruction production by Saddam Hussein's regime after 1991."(http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134625,00.html )

Tony Blair:

“…I have had to accept that the evidence now shows that there were not stockpiles of actual weapons ready to deploy…� (Guardian Thursday October 7, 2004)

George Bush:

"Iraq did not have the weapons that our intelligence believed were there..." (quoted, in AP, "Bush, Cheney admit Iraq had no WMD, take new tack" October 8, 2004 http://www.public-action.com/911/no-wmd-sdut/)

Charles Duelfer:

"I still do not expect that militarily significant WMD stocks are hidden in Iraq." ( quoted Newshour with Jim Lehrer, October 7th 2004 at www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec04/wmd_10-7 )

Fox News, Tony Blair, George Bush and Charles Duelfer have all accepted the truth; it’s really is time that others did as well. If people want to persist in arguing that WMD were found in Iraq in the face of the basic facts then debate seems pointless. If they really do feel their case is so strong then they need to contact the Iraq Survey Group and explain to them why they think they are wrong. I mean that seriously,...and I`d love to know how you get on.

[demon]

Some other points pertinent to this issue.

On the not knowing what weapons programmes Iraq had etc etc etc we often hear the name Kamel Hussein, the defector, and how he informed us of the extent of Saddams programmes.

However, cursory glance at the record shows this to be entirely untrue. In fact, Iraq admitted before the UN the extent of such programmes when confronted with all the evidence presented by UNSCOM. This admission, made before the UN, is a documented fact. Kamel defected after this and told us nothing we didn't already know.

Moreover, he also testified that all biological and chemical materials and agents still existing after the first Gulf War were destroyed. As head of Iraq's weapons programmes he was the person that gave the order. Only, of course, our beloved leaders and those still interested in defending the Iraq invasion (with its subsequent slaughter and serious escalation of terrorism), didn't tell us about this part of Kamel's evidence - they merely misrepresented a part of what he said and ignored the inconvenient bits, typically.

All this has been ably and comprehensively documented by Glen Rangwala, political science lecturer at Cambridge and an Iraq analyst.
http://traprockpeace.org/glen_rangwala_index.html

Anyone who had the good fortune to read the reports he was putting out in the run up to war knew then that almost all the claims made by Bush and Blair were rubbish. The fact that Blair has never - not once - been challenged by the mainstream media over his misrepresentation of the Kamel Hussein story is instructive. It was such an easily proven lie. All one had to do was read the UNSCOM reports to know that Blair inverted the chronology of when we knew about Iraq's offensive biological programmes in order to discredit the inspection process. And the bastard's never been challenged on it by the likes of the UK`s so called "rottweiler" journalist Paxman in the UK and all the other pathetic excuses for journalists.

Rangwala, (you may recall, was the man who exposed the "dodgy dossier" - within about 24 hours, as I remember), debunked just about every claim made by Washington and London. And he did it, primarily, by merely contrasting the claims being made and the UN reports. You will see that Bush and Blair misrepresented just about everything the inspectors had said. So, for instance, it was claimed that the inspectors had said that Iraq had perfected drying techniques for biological agents - the importance of this being that had they not such techniques available then almost all of the outstanding agents we were told about would have been useless years ago. In fact, the UN reports stated they had no evidence that Iraq had perfected such techniques.

Another example would be where Blair would say "the inspectors have stated that Saddam hasn't accounted for his weapons"' Sounds unambiguous enough, right ? In fact it's a total misrepresentation. What Blair never explained was the precise meaning of the term "accounted for" in the UN reports. It referred to the attempts made to verify disposal of outstanding biological agents. So, for instance, we were told that Iraq had 1.5 tonnes of vx nerve agent "unaccounted for". Leaving aside the not trivial fact that UNSCOM had established that this was manufactured by a method resulting in an agent usable for 2 - 8 weeks, the inspectors nonetheless required evidence that Iraq disposed of this material as they claimed. To this end, Iraqi scientists took the UNSCOM team to sites where disposal had taken place, and by taking soil samples etc, the inspectors were able to verify that indeed vx had been disposed of. In fact, UNSCOM reports state that wide scale, unilateral disposal of materials did take place. The problem was that they couldn't quantify exactly how much, and so any potential discrepancy was deemed "unaccounted for"'. That is the provenance of the term from the UN reports - in other words, it referred to agents long since useless, of which much, if not all, was destroyed, but it couldn't be ascertained exactly. And there was people thinking it meant weapons we knew existed but Saddam was hiding from us. Is anyone beginning to glimpse how misled they had been and how some people are still trying to mislead you?

As to Kamel Hussein ordering all such materials disposed of, that is known from a leaked UNSCOM document - Kamel's de-briefing - and was reported by Seymour Hersch. It became public on the eve of war, but hey, I guess the warmongers must of missed that one, eh ? Ironically, the Duelfer report stated in it's final conclusions that it was likely that indeed Iraq did dispose of all outstanding materials, as claimed, after the first Gulf War.

For anyone still in doubt I suggest you follow the link provided and do some serious reading...it gives the lie to many of the myths that still circulate, myths that led many a warmonger and many a well meaning bystander to believe the US/UK version of events and unfortunately supply sustinance to those deluded (and still deluded), over the role of the UNSC and it`s resolutions in the run up to the invasion.


I`ve always wondered why Blair and the rest, if they had such compelling evidence of Saddam`s threat and WMD, did they have to rely on a plagiarized PHD thesis from twelve years ago (praised by Colin Powell in front of the UN as exquisitely detailed), and why, after months of pressing, was the British Government forced to concede that the weapons, supposedly launchable in 45 minutes, which were the headline of the September dossier, were only battlefield munitions and hence not the threat claimed.

From the excellent Glen Rangwala:

quote:
Plagiarism: British Intelligence Iraq Dossier Relied on Recycled Academic Articles
by Glen Rangwala

June 25, 2005
Global Research. Published in February 2003 - 2003-02-19


Powell, in his presentation to the Security Council on February 5, 2003, sought to reinforce his argument by referring to a recently released British report. He said
“I would call my colleagues' attention to the fine paper that the United Kingdom distributed . . . which describes in exquisite detail Iraqi deception activities.�

Powell was referring to "Iraq Its Infrastructure Of Concealment, Deception And Intimidation", published on January 30, 2003. The Downing Street authors state they drew "upon a number of sources, including intelligence material" (p.1, first sentence). In fact, they copied material from at least three different authors and gave no credit to them. Indeed, they plagiarized, directly cutting and pasting or near quoting.

A close textual analysis suggests that the UK authors had little access to first-hand intelligence sources and instead based their work on academic papers, which they selectively distorted. Some of the papers used were considerably out of date. This leads the reader to wonder about the reliability and veracity of the Downing Street document.

Please read comments by Glen Rangwala, lecturer in politics at Cambridge University who has analyzed the document in revealing detail:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The three primary plagiarism sources:
Ibrahim al-Marashi, "Iraq's Security and Intelligence Network: A Guide and Analysis", Middle East Review of International Affairs, September 2002, http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2002/issue3/jv6n3a1.html Rangwala contacted al-Marashi. According to Rangwala, "al-Marashi [is] a postgraduate student at the Monterey Institute of International Studies. He has confirmed to me that his permission was not sought; in fact, he didn't even know about the British document until I mentioned it to him. "

Ken Gause, "Can the Iraqi Security Apparatus save Saddam?", Jane's Intelligence Review, November 2002, pp.8-13.

Sean Boyne, "Inside Iraq's Security Network, Part One," Jane's Intelligence Review, Vol. 9, No. 7 (July 1997), and No. 8 (August 1997)

At least one secondary source of plagiarism is:

Anthony H. Cordesman, "Key Targets in Iraq", February 1998, http://www.csis.org/stratassessment...raq_targets.pdf

Marashi's typographical errors and anomalous uses of grammar are incorporated into the Downing Street document. For example, on p.13, the British dossier incorporates a misplaced comma:

"Saddam appointed, Sabir 'Abd al-'Aziz al-Duri as head".

Likewise, Marashi's piece also states:

"Saddam appointed, Sabir 'Abd al-'Aziz al-Duri as head"..

The fact that the texts of these three authors are copied directly results in a proliferation of different transliterations (eg different spellings of Ba'th, depending on which author is being copied).

There are two types of changes incorporated into the British document.

Firstly, numbers are increased or are rounded up. So, for example, the section on "Fedayeen Saddam" (pp.15-16) is directly copied from Boyne, almost word for word. The only substantive difference is that Boyne estimates the personnel of the organisation to be 18,000-40,000 (Gause similarly estimates 10-40,000). The British dossier instead writes "30,000 to 40,000". A similar bumping up of figures occurs with the description of the Directorate of Military Intelligence.

The second type of change in the British dossier is that it replaces particular words to make the claim sound stronger. So, for example, most of p.9 on the functions of the Mukhabarat is copied directly from Marashi's article, except that when Marashi writes of its role in:

"monitoring foreign embassies in Iraq" this becomes in the British dossier: "spying on foreign embassies in Iraq". Similarly, on that same page, whilst Marashi writes of the Mukhabarat: "aiding opposition groups in hostile regimes" - the British dossier renders this as: "supporting terrorist organisations in hostile regimes".

Further examples from the section on "Fedayeen Saddam" include how a reference to how, in Boyne's original text, its personnel are

"recruited from regions loyal to Saddam", referring to their original grouping as "some 10,000-15,000 'bullies and country bumpkins.'"

becomes in the British government's text a reference to how its personnel are:

"press ganged from regions known to be loyal to Saddam" ... "some 10,000-15,000 bullies."

A reference to the "country bumpkins" might not have had the rhetorical effect that the British government was aiming for.

Finally, there is one serious substantive mistake in the British text, in that it muddles up Boyne's description of General Security (al-Amn al-Amm), and places it in its section on p.14 of Military Security (al-Amn al-Askari). The result is complete confusion: it starts on p.14 by relating how Military Security was created in 1992 (in a piece copied from Marashi), then goes onto talk about the movement of its headquarters - in 1990 (in a piece copied from Boyne on the activities of General Security). The result is that it gets the description of the Military Security Service wholly wrong, claiming that its head is Taha al-Ahbabi (whilst really he was head of General Security in 1997; Military Security was headed by Thabet Khalil).

Apart from the obvious criticism that the British government has plagiarised texts without acknowledgement, passing them off as the work of its intelligence services, there are two further serious problems. Firstly, it indicates that the UK at least really does not have any independent sources of information on Iraq's internal politics - they just draw upon publicly available data. Thus any further claims to information based on "intelligence data" must be treated with even more scepticism.

Secondly, the information presented as being an accurate statement of the current state of Iraq's security organisations may not be anything of the sort. Marashi - the real and unwitting author of much of the document has as his primary source the documents captured in 1991 for the Iraq Research and Documentation Project. His own focus is the activities of Iraq's intelligence agencies in Kuwait, Aug90-Jan91 - this is the subject of his thesis. As a result, the information presented as relevant to how Iraqi agencies are currently engaged with Unmovic is 12 years old.

For reference, here are a few other summary comments on the British document.

Official authors are (in Word Properties) P. Hamill, J. Pratt, A. Blackshaw, and M. Khan.

p.1 is the summary.

pp.2-5 are a repetition of Blix's comments to the Security Council on the difficulties they were encountering, with further claims about the activities of al-Mukhabarat. These are not backed up, eg the claim that car crashes are organised to prevent the speedy arrival of inspectors.

p.6 is a simplified version of Marashi's diagram at: http://cns.miis.edu/research/iraq/pdfs/iraqint.pdf

p.7 is copied (top) from Gause (on the Presidential Secretariat), and (middle and bottom) from Boyne (on the National Security Council).

p.8 is entirely copied from Boyne (on the National Security Council).......................

......................Iraq - its infrastructure of concealment,
deception and intimidation
http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/page1470.asp

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?...5&articleId=513

[demon]

Dan Beaird:
"Your recollection is incorrect, I believe at least 3 binary nerve agent shells were found fully charged if I recall right. I don't recall exactly where but I understand a large number of empty binary bombs and artillery shells were found."

"And they don't count if we think that Saddam forgot about them."




I don't like to kick a person when they're down but some people don't learn otherwise. I have highlighted a couple of points for anyone who might struggle.

quote:
Sarin Shells Made Before 1991 War
United Press International

The 155-mm shells containing sarin gas that exploded in Iraq May 17 were manufactured before 1991, a senior U.S. official said Wednesday. That was a pre-Gulf War shell, ***a different category than the weapons being sought by the Iraq Survey Group,*** Brig. Gen. David Rodriguez, the joint staff deputy director for operations, told a Pentagon news briefing.

The artillery shells were rigged to explode as a roadside bomb but failed to detonate. Apparently unknown to the bomber, the shells did not contain explosives but two liquid chemicals that were meant to mix and create sarin, a deadly nerve agent.

U.S. Army soldiers found the shells and detonated them in place, releasing a small amount of sarin gas that sickened them.

Rodriguez said the sarin shells were the only ones of their kind found yet.

It's the only two we've seen the entire time, said Rodriguez.

An artillery shell bearing traces of mustard gas was discovered in Baghdad, Knight-Ridder reported May 7."

***Neither find is being offered as evidence of Saddam Hussein's alleged illegal weapons programs, one of the prime reasons offered by the Bush administration for the March 2003 invasion and war.***

Saddam's forces used both sarin and mustard gas against Kurds in Halabja in the 1980s.
http://www.wokr13.tv/news/national/story.aspx?content_id=83E2BD4A-5F1C-4E84-9166-4E3A8E847643


I hope this is now fully clear to you Dan.

NO WMD.

Incidently, your statement that:
"All nuclear, chemical or biological weapon is by definition a WMD."

is wrong. If it were correct, then Mace and pepper spray would be WMD...they are not. So would the infamous poison-tipped umbrellas of the Bulgarian secret service.