1

Unless you dropped your moral compass off the side of a swift boat in Cambodia, it’s easy to see that the world is safer because we secured the one WMD that truly mattered: Saddam Hussein.

Nice.

2

Unless you dropped your moral compass off the side of a swift boat in Cambodia, it’s easy to see that the world is safer because we secured the one WMD that truly mattered: Saddam Hussein.

Nice.

3

But to the rank-and-file it is still about WMDs. They've not been told of the materials found or anything else.

It's also about the neoconservative agenda which is an association that we as evangelicals need to re-evaluate.

Collin

Some thoughts on neoconservativism:
http://evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com/2006/06/weve-been-had-thoughts-on.html

4

Woo hoo! Let's do Korea next...no, wait...Iran, then Korea.

5

You left out one salient detail. According to Fox News, the weapons were manufactured before 1991 and were in unusable condition. They may have been unusable since the first Gulf War. No one disputes that Saddam had chemical weapons prior to Gulf War I. We know he used them on the Kurds and Iranians. What is disputed is whether Saddam had WMD or the capability to produce them after GWI and the sanctions had crippled Iraq.

So, your interpretaion of this announcement appears to be largely spin. No evidence has been presented that Saddam had usable WMD in the lead-up to the more recent invasion or that the Bush administrations assertions were correct.

While it is certain that Saddam cannot produce any more WMD, any calculation of benefits of his removal must also consider the effects of replacing him with the insurgency and Al Qaeda. If you believe that Saddam did have usable WMD in 2000, then the most reasonable assumption is that they are now in the hands of the insurgency or Syria. Saddam's primary interest was to remain in power, and he had restricted his use of WMD to gassing his own people or his neighbors. Al Qaeda has shown willingness to attack us. Add that into your calculation of the benefits of removing Saddam.

6

Nick,

You left out one salient detail. According to Fox News, the weapons were manufactured before 1991 and were in unusable condition.

Unusable condition? Did you read that part that said:

* The purity of the agent inside the munitions depends on many factors, including the manufacturing process, potential additives, and environmental storage conditions. While agents degrade over time, chemical warfare agents remain hazardous and potentially lethal.

They may not have been state-of-the-art munitions, but they are far from harmless. The shell found in 2004 contained a 40 percent concentration of sarin. By contrast the purity of the sarin used in the Tokyo subway attack was only 30 percent.

What is disputed is whether Saddam had WMD or the capability to produce them after GWI and the sanctions had crippled Iraq.

That’s not disputed either – at least by anyone who has been paying attention over the past few years.

Read the transcript of David Kay’ report on the activities of the Iraq Survey Group. Kay was the top weapons inspector when the report came out in October 2003.

What have we found and what have we not found in the first 3 months of our work?

We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002. The discovery of these deliberate concealment efforts have come about both through the admissions of Iraqi scientists and officials concerning information they deliberately withheld and through physical evidence of equipment and activities that ISG has discovered that should have been declared to the UN.

[snip]

With regard to biological warfare activities, which has been one of our two initial areas of focus, ISG teams are uncovering significant information -- including research and development of BW-applicable organisms, the involvement of Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) in possible BW activities, and deliberate concealment activities. All of this suggests Iraq after 1996 further compartmentalized its program and focused on maintaining smaller, covert capabilities that could be activated quickly to surge the production of BW agents.

Everyone who missed it three years ago should read that report now.

So, your interpretaion of this announcement appears to be largely spin. No evidence has been presented that Saddam had usable WMD in the lead-up to the more recent invasion or that the Bush administrations assertions were correct.

Apparently you missed the entire point of my post. As all the reports that have come out of Iraq have shown, once the sanctions were lifted Saddam could have had massive stockpiles of chemical weapons within a matter of months.

While it is certain that Saddam cannot produce any more WMD, any calculation of benefits of his removal must also consider the effects of replacing him with the insurgency and Al Qaeda.

There is simply no comparison. The death toll alone has been reduced dramatically since the fall of Saddam. Remember the 400,000 children who died of malnutrition in Iraq? Do you think that is happening now?

Also, do you really think that the insurgency is a long term problem? Sure if we are as cowardly as John Kerry wants us to be then it would turn out badly. But do you seriously believe that Al Qaeda will win?

If you believe that Saddam did have usable WMD in 2000, then the most reasonable assumption is that they are now in the hands of the insurgency or Syria. Saddam's primary interest was to remain in power, and he had restricted his use of WMD to gassing his own people or his neighbors. Al Qaeda has shown willingness to attack us. Add that into your calculation of the benefits of removing Saddam.

So your argument is that rather than attempting to take away WMDs from a madman who has expressed his desire to use them and could make more, we should have let him keep them so that no one else gets them?

Saddam's primary interest was to remain in power…

It’s time to let go of this tired old argument. If Saddam’s primary interest was staying in power then he would have done more to stay in power. If he had fully cooperated then he would still be in power.

7

If a madman possesses a pound of nerve agent he is a threat.

That's why Republicans must go.

In case you didn't know, making nerve gas has been a pretty trivial exercise for over 70 years to someone with about 3 credits more chemistry (to be exact: organic chemistry) than I took in college.

Santorum, as usual, as well as Hewitt, was full of it. "Degraded" is the operative weasel word there. "Degraded" means "doesn't work." "Not a threat."

The world is a more dangerous place because Bush chose to invade Iraq rather than confront his buddies the Saudis.

The world is a more dangerous place because too many Republicans refused to put their butts where their mouths were.

8

They may not have been state-of-the-art munitions, but they are far from harmless. The shell found in 2004 contained a 40 percent concentration of sarin. By contrast the purity of the sarin used in the Tokyo subway attack was only 30 percent.

All weapons are harmful by definition. A WMD, though, needs to keep the M(ass) as much as the W and D. The Tokyo subway was probably the the best method to disperse such weak concentration of sarin and then it produced 17 critical injuries and 37 severe ones plus 12 dead. If the sarin was dispersed by the explosion of an airborn shell the effects probably would have been much less dramatic...especially against troops with chemical weapon gear.

Compre this to a conventional shell packed with high explosives. If you set that off in a subway in rush hour you'd probably achieve scores of deaths quite, possibly more than 100 casualties. Likewise a military commander would probably rather use shells of conventional high explosives than degraded 'WMD' sarin shells.

I do agree that Saddam's regime wanted too and probably would have began WMD production if it was given a chance. As Christopher Hitchens has pointed out, the sanctions regime was weakening and losing support around the world (even the Bush administration, pre-9/11 briefly floated the idea of dropping the sanctions and returning to more normalized relations with Iraq). At the same time Saddam's Iraq of 2000 was not Saddam's Iraq of 1985. The regime was unstable and a weaponized Iraq imploding as Saddam's rule collapsed due to either ill health or internal rivals could have caused a lot more trouble than the insurgency currently is.

However, WMD was a core argument used by the Bush administration for invading. We all know if they had found hundreds of secret weapons after the invasion the Republicans on this list would be jumping up and down yelling 'told you so'. Not "well its good we found them but that wasn't why we invaded".

There is simply no comparison. The death toll alone has been reduced dramatically since the fall of Saddam. Remember the 400,000 children who died of malnutrition in Iraq? Do you think that is happening now?

Not simple indeed, I have my doubts it happened then!

So your argument is that rather than attempting to take away WMDs from a madman who has expressed his desire to use them and could make more, we should have let him keep them so that no one else gets them?

On the contrary, Saddam seemed like a pretty rational tyrant who made some miscalculations (such as thinking he could have gotten away with invading Kuwait). Al Qaeda's men in Iraq on the other hand seem like true madmen who seem to kill even their fellow Muslims often for the sake of killing in itself.

It’s time to let go of this tired old argument. If Saddam’s primary interest was staying in power then he would have done more to stay in power. If he had fully cooperated then he would still be in power.

Ohhh ok, so it wasn't about 400,000 children after all. If Saddam was just a bit more open to the inspectors Joe's President would have let them continue starving. Nice :)

9

Redefining WMDs so as to include Saddam Hussein is brilliant; it's Orwellian, but brilliant.

The fundamental problem is that the Bush administration claims were far grander than something along the lines of "let's eliminate the bad guy."

On Sunday, March 16th, 2003, Dick Cheney asserted on Meet the Press that he believed that Saddam Hussein possessed "reconstituted nuclear weapons." What was sold to the United States was a doomsday scenario. A reconstituted nuclear weapons REALLY IS the stuff of a McGuffin plot. That's why we went to war. Straight out of Dick Cheney's mouth.

And the Bush administration, it must be clear by now, exaggerated the threat. It's dishonest to blame skeptical individuals NOW and say, "can't you see, WMDs is really about capacity and intent to use. It's not about what a madman may or may not possess. If you knew more about technology, you'd understand that." Baloney. We were sold on stockpiles of chemical, biological, and nuclear-type devices. But that's now what we got.

The Bush administration was completely and totally wrong about the presence of WMDs in Iraq. We thought that the threat to national security rested in a a madman who currently possessed a variety of biological, chemical, and reconstituted nuclear weapons, lied about it, and was apparently a genius at hiding it. But that was simply not the case.

If you're ok with going to war, a war which costs 1,200 Iraqi civilian deaths a month (which is, proportionally, a 9/11 for Iraq *every week*), simply because Saddam Hussein may have somehow developed weapons in the future without anyone knowing about it, well, I guess I can't really argue with that.

10

Joe:
Remember the 400,000 children who died of malnutrition in Iraq? Do you think that is happening now?

Yes, and I seem to recall conservative commentators arguing that the numbers weren't that high. Is that 400,000 for the entire 10 years after the first Gulf War? If so, how does the death rate (per month or per year) compare to the death rate now?

Also, do you really think that the insurgency is a long term problem? Sure if we are as cowardly as John Kerry wants us to be then it would turn out badly. But do you seriously believe that Al Qaeda will win?

Define "long term" and "win." Will Al Qaeda conquer Iraq? Obviously not. Could the insurgency prevent stable government in Iraq for a very long time? That seems likely, no matter how brave US soldiers are. Could Iraq end up in a civil war or as a failed state like Somalia? Seems not unlikely.

Most Iraqis agree that the US cannot leave now, and I tend to agree with the "You break it, you bought it" philosophy. However, that is irrelevant to the subject of your original post. With regard to WMD and Saddam, the question is not whether the US should stay in Iraq now, but whether we should have invaded in the first place

So your argument is that rather than attempting to take away WMDs from a madman who has expressed his desire to use them and could make more, we should have let him keep them so that no one else gets them?

No my argument is that the possibility should be considered in the calculation of benefits. We should certainly consider whether the attempt to take them away may put them in the hands of someone more likely to use them on us.

Madman is a vague term. Saddam is certainly a murderous sociopath, but he is clearly not totally irrational. Note that he did use chemical weapons against the Kurds, but he did not use them against the US in GW I. That suggests rational calculation and a desire to stay in power.

It’s time to let go of this tired old argument. If Saddam’s primary interest was staying in power then he would have done more to stay in power.

Saddam managed to stay in power for over twenty years, through numerous coup attempts and several wars. Clearly, he was primarily interested in remaining in power. That he miscalculated at the end does not indicate otherwise.

I don't think I'm suggesting anything particularly controversial when I suggest that there may be reasons why it is better to leave a murderous dictator in power for the time being. The Bush administration has clearly made that decision with Kim Il Jong. If there is some imperative to remove all such threats, then we should invade North Korea immediately. If, on the other hand, it is possible to weigh benefits and threats of such action, then it is legitimate to question whether in the case of Iraq, the cure was worse than the disease.

11

Marco Baloney. We were sold on stockpiles of chemical, biological, and nuclear-type devices. But that's now what we got.y. We were sold on stockpiles of chemical, biological, and nuclear-type devices. But that's now what we got.

So you’re saying that Bush is to blame for the claims that their were large stockpiles of WMDs? If that’s the case then why does the Congressional authorization to use force against Iraq say:

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Apparently, someone took some whiteout and changed “Bush” to “international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors.”

Nick Yes, and I seem to recall conservative commentators arguing that the numbers weren't that high.

I don’t doubt that. Too many conservatives defended the unjust and harmful system of sanctions. You don’t punish a country for the acts of their dictator. You punish him.

Is that 400,000 for the entire 10 years after the first Gulf War?

As I recall, that was just for a five year period.
If so, how does the death rate (per month or per year) compare to the death rate now?
The overall death rate has steadily declined since 2000. And the violent death rate for Iraqis is lower than it is in Washington, D.C.

Define "long term" and "win."

Our lifetimes and terrorist attacks that are on par with previous generations (e.g., comparable to the Cold War years).

Will Al Qaeda conquer Iraq? Obviously not. Could the insurgency prevent stable government in Iraq for a very long time? That seems likely, no matter how brave US soldiers are. Could Iraq end up in a civil war or as a failed state like Somalia? Seems not unlikely.

Well, there is something we agree on.

With regard to WMD and Saddam, the question is not whether the US should stay in Iraq now, but whether we should have invaded in the first place.

Personally, I think you can take out the whole WMD issue and we still should have invaded. H.J.RES.114 has plenty of reasons that have nothing to do with WMDs.

No my argument is that the possibility should be considered in the calculation of benefits. We should certainly consider whether the attempt to take them away may put them in the hands of someone more likely to use them on us.

I’ll agree with that. In fact, that was a major concern of me and my fellow Marines prior to the invasion. After all, we were the ones that they were going to be used on. I still think that is a concern but that shouldn’t be the primary reason not to disarm Saddam. You don’t refuse to disarm a gunman simply because he might give the gun to someone else who is dangerous.

Madman is a vague term. Saddam is certainly a murderous sociopath, but he is clearly not totally irrational.

Totally irrational? Probably not. But he’s also not the rational game-theorist that many people made him out to be. I think his problem is equal parts hubris and stupidity.

Note that he did use chemical weapons against the Kurds, but he did not use them against the US in GW I. That suggests rational calculation and a desire to stay in power.

I can’t remember the source, but I recall hearing that Saddam did want to use chemical weapons against troops in GW I but that his generals were afraid of what would happen to them if they did.

12

Our lifetimes and terrorist attacks that are on par with previous generations (e.g., comparable to the Cold War years).

Oh, very long term then. In that case no, I don't think the insurgency is a long term problem. But considered over that long a time span, Saddam probably wasn't a long term problem either. Heck, the Soviet Union barely lasted one lifetime.

If Al Qaeda winning is defined in terms of terrorist attacks at the same frequency as in the 1970s, then I think that the war is either neutral or a net benefit to Al Qaeda. International police work like that which uncovered the cell in Canada, is more likely than military invasions to defeat Al Qaeda. The only exception might be where Al Qaeda forms a quasi-state as in Afghanistan, but that wasn't the case with Iraq. Iraq's ties to Al Qaeda were tenuous before the US invasion

Personally, I think you can take out the whole WMD issue and we still should have invaded. H.J.RES.114 has plenty of reasons that have nothing to do with WMDs.

As far as I can see, the only parts of H.J.RES 114 that have nothing to do with WMD refer to establishing democracy in Iraq and Iraq's support for terrorism. Neither seem sufficient to warrant an invasion and all the unintended consequences that inevitably follow. Libya, according to the Bush administration, has been been weaned off state sponsored terrorism without an invasion, and fostering democracy is not typically pursued by invasion.

I think attacking corruption in the UN Oil for Food program while continuing to isolate Saddam and maintaining the no fly zones to protect the Kurds would have minimized the threat to the US and reduced the harm to the Iraqi people. Perhaps the situation would have changed later, but there was no immediate need to invade.

I can’t remember the source, but I recall hearing that Saddam did want to use chemical weapons against troops in GW I but that his generals were afraid of what would happen to them if they did.

Then we should probably consider the regime as a whole rather than referring to Saddam alone as WMD. The failure to use chemical weapons against the US in GW I indicates either inability or unwillingness based on rational calculation. So, in the leadup to the second war, we had reason to believe that Saddam's WMD were not an immediate threat to the US. In retrospect, the regime's failure to use them in the second GW supports that idea. Either Saddam's government was still unwilling to use them against the US, even in the face of imminent defeat, or they wanted to use them but were incapable. In either case, the discovery of pre-1991 vintage sarin does nothing to support the case for the war.

13

Unless the sanctions, which harmed the Iraqi people more than they did the country’s dictator, were left in place indefinitely, Saddam would have retained the ability to produce more WMDs. That ability made him not only a danger in the region but a threat to America's security.

Alternate titles for the post: United States: international thought police. Or, We Had to Invade Iraq Not Because Saddam Had WMDs, But Because He Didn't.

14

Joe is right that while the WMD’s are an important issue, Saddam's regime and its support for terrorist was the main one. The main rationale for the war was that after September 11, we realized we could no longer afford to wait for threats to reach a critical degree. The terrorists inflicted tremendous damage and casualties, and we were very fortunate they weren’t using chemical, biological, or nuclear devices.

Furthermore, while we will never be able to eliminate terrorism altogether, we can combat the support these terrorists get from states that see them as an opportunity to strike at enemies without being held responsible. Saddam Hussein was a supporter and promoter of terrorists, and he had shown in the past the desire to obtain and use weapons of mass destruction, which meant it was very likely that terrorists could then be supplied with these weapons.

The man was given 14 months to simply comply with the agreements he had already made to demonstrate that he had destroyed his previous weapons, and was not pursuing any more. He refused to demonstrate that. The U.S. could no longer tolerate that risk, and so we removed him, like we had warned him for 14 months ahead of time. That's the reason we went to war. Whether he had the weapons or not (and it now appears he did), he refused to verify that, and instead behaved as a threat. Along side of that, there are a number of possible benefits. If we can establish a free society in Iraq, it could go a long way to bringing about a more peaceful situation throughout the middle east. It would certainly make life vastly better for the Iraqis. Those weren't the reasons we went to war, but they’re desirable goals that are possible now due to the war.

By those arguments, should we also remove Iran and North Korea? Not yet. One thing that made the Iraq war a reasonable choice was that it was easier for us to take them. If forced to attack Iran or North Korea, it would be more difficult. We would win, but the costs would be higher. If they push us to that point, we may still have to do it, but we'd prefer not to have to resort to such ends. That being said, the removal of both of those governments would be very good things for their countries, for us, and for the world in general, but we're limited by what is necessary, and what is feasible.

15

Joe, with all due respect, don't be stupid.

Even you must know that you can't compare an entire COUNTRY to a densely populated urban area. Just because the United States hasn't managed to screw over every square inch of Iraq isn't a cause of celebration. Don't break out the champagne bottles yet.

The violent death rate in Baghdad is 95 people out of 1000. THREE times the current rate in D.C. And according to the Brookings Institute, that number is probably UNDERREPORTED because of quick and private funerals. That's an ENORMOUS gulf between Baghdad and Washington D.C.

1,200 Iraqis die every month because of the civil war we started. That's 9/11, proportionally speaking, every week.

Oh, and my claim about what the Bush administration said about WMDs stands. Just because the Bush administration was incredibly wrong doesn't preclude Congress, intelligence, etc. from ALSO being wrong.

But, sadly, there was a thought not too long ago that the buck stopped with the Executive branch. But taking responsibility for massive screw-ups is apparently out of style.

16

Great post. Exactly right. Trackbacks seem to be broken, by the way.

Link

17

Oh, and my claim about what the Bush administration said about WMDs stands. Just because the Bush administration was incredibly wrong doesn't preclude Congress, intelligence, etc. from ALSO being wrong.

Let's think about this a moment. If the Administration says they have WMD and then Congress says they have WMD....then how exactly does Congress know they have WMD? It seems to me, in most cases, Congress is pretty much limited to what information they can get out of the administration. They might be able to hold hearings and call on experts who are independent of the admin. but it still seems to me in a case like this any judgements by Congress will rely mostly on what they get from the Executive Branch.

18

Iraq did not attack the US on 9/11.

Our focus should have remained on Afghanistan. Capturing or killing Bid Laden should have remained the priority. So why, exactly, did we gear up and invade Iraq?

Because Saddam was a threat? The worst threat? An immediate, ticking-bomb kind of threat? I don't think anyone has been able to make that case, and we know for fact that our CIA was unable to make the case. We know that Bush was very unhappy that the CIA couldn't establish the necessity to attack Iraq, and eventually he and Cheney began to distort what information we did have in order to present a falsified case for urgency. Eventually, poor Colin Powell was sent to the UN for that sad display of flip charts and fuzzy satellite photos.

Joe, our position toward war should be consistent: It's the last, final option when all other options have been pursued, when there's nothing left except anhiliation. Something like Pearl Harbor happens? No choice left. But that ought to be our standard.

I reject the Bush (rather, Cheney) standard as expressed in the "One-percent Doctrine" whereby suspicion must be acted upon as if it were certainty. So now we're in this thing. Will some good come from it? Maybe. Libya rolling over was one result. But will this be worth it?

Sorry, but I really don't give a damn about the Iraqis. Watched 'em duke it out with the Iranians and I didn't have a dog in that fight. These are violent people living in violent cultures and the best one can hope for is that they stay busy squabbling amongst ourselves. I wasn't waking up every morning dreaming of a free Iraq whose citizens would run around with ink-stained fingers. That kind of thought never, ever crossed my mind at any point in my life. Somehow, they sold you on that bill of goods.

The Murtha Plan gets a lot of Pentagon support - war strategists take it as it was presented; remember that it sets no timetable nor does it disengage us from the conflict. Rather, it moves our troops out of the crossfire and eliminates whatever violence and resistance stems from our presence as an occupying force. We keep a large mobile force, heavy on air-power, right across the border and we step in if absolutely necessary.

That sounds like a plan. It strikes me as more attractive that the current one, which consists of Bush stamping his foot and refusing to look at the evidence in front of his face. We need a change in strategy.

19

Will some good come from it? Maybe. Libya rolling over was one result. But will this be worth it?

Libya has been cited as a good result but Libya was moving to normalize itself before 9/11. Whatever the impact of Iraq was it's a bit unfair for Bushies to claim their Iraq policy entitles them to credit for Libya. One negative cost to this whole adventure is that what appears to be a precedent for the US invading another nation with no real provakation (or a legalistic case that feels improvised to the point that it could just as easily have been jerry rigged for any other country) is that it creates a bad set of new rules for WMD.

To put it another way the Iraq war certainly feels like it was optional. The first Gulf War might have been technically optional but it didn't feel that way considering the precedent it would have set not to have outed Iraq from Kuwait. This isn't just to critics but people like Bill O'Reilly who supported the war.

Iran and N.Korea seem to have learned that Iraqs downfall was that it really didn't have WMD (or didn't have WMD that would have made a difference). They now see completition of WMD programs as insurance against any US invasion.

20

Many Americans, however, still suffer from the delusion that the only way that Saddam could have been a significant threat was for him to have possessed stockpiles of WMDs.

Gee, that wouldn't have anything at all to do with the expectations set by administration rhetoric, would it? Naahhhh. Good thing the smoking gun wasn't a mushroom cloud. (Well, it might be, but it might come from next door...)

21

I'm not sure what is meant by tepid news coverage.
I counted well over a thousand tradition outlets in an news aggregator at least picking up a wire story. This certainly has received international coverage.

My first question is this.
If this WMD find is so utterly important to the debate, why was this released by Rick Santorum - who is 18 points down in his election race and dodging scandal?

Question: If this is as critical to credibility as stated, why wasn't this information passed to the US public and to the world from the highest levels of government in a joint media conference with the UK?

Question: Why were degraded pre-1991 canisters the topic of a Santorum news conference yesterday?

Question: How long had this information been declassified? I believe I read two months, but I stand to be corrected.

Question: What is the timing about and who benefits from Santorum doing the 'releasing'?

Question: Were more degraded mustard gas cannisters found in Iraq than are currently stockpiled in the US?

Mustard Gas in the US
Edgewood Maryland -1621 tons (neutralized 2005)
Unexploded cannisters remain in the Edgewood area, not deemed risks to the public during ongoing detection and removal (14 pound cannisters)
Deseret Utah - 1696 tons
Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana, Utah, and Oregon mustard gas storage sites
Kentucky and Colorado storage and dispoal sites

11 ocean disposal sites are maintained by the US off the coasts - amount of 26 types of chemical weapons unknown
Prior to the 1972 dumping regulations 64 million tons of chemical weapons were thrown into the ocean off the coasts of the US

CIA report 1989 - Iraq destroyed 40 tons of Sarin. Due to chemical composition of Iraqi development of Sarin it's self life is shorter than many other manufacturers of WMD due to impure precursors. (two weeks)

In 2004 a 155 mm shell containing several litres of binary percursors for sarin was released by Iraqi insurgents against US forces.
Two US soldiers were treated for early exposure.
Reports say it is not clear if the binary agents failed or the chemicals had degraded with age.

22

The statement that all of Iraq's WMD's were produced before the 1st Iraq War may well be true, but it's a refutation of history to believe that the 1st Iraq War ended Saddam's WMD programs. Here is a section from the Iraq timeline at http://www.mideastweb.org/iraqtimeline.htm

August 7-8 1995 Two of Saddam Hussein’s sons-in-law, Lt. Gen. Hussein Kamil (former director of Iraq's Military Industrialization Establishment, in charge of WMD program) and Saddam Kamil defect to Jordan with Saddam's daughters; Hussein Kamil takes crates of documents revealing past concealment of WMD capacities, and provides these to UNSCOM. Iraq responds by revealing a major store of documents that showed that Iraq had begun an unsuccessful crash programme to develop a nuclear bomb (20Aug).
August 20, 1995 Under pressure, Iraq reveals a major store of documents that showed that Iraq had begun an unsuccessful crash program to develop a nuclear bomb.
Feb 23, 1996 Iraqi defectors Hussein and Saddam Kamil are shunned by Iraqi opposition groups, and agree to return to Iraq, where they are promptly assassinated.

An honest reading of the Iraq timeline does not show a Saddam safely boxed in; rather it shows that after the 1st Iraq War Saddam exerted his dictatorial power within Iraq ruthlessly without extra-national consequences, and that he struggled constantly, with marginal but significant success, against the international sanctions that crippled his ability to make war on his neighbors.

23

if this news is truly meaningful, wouldn't pres. bush himself be giving the news conference? since the hostilities have already ended, he could declare an end to wmd.
as to safety, neal bortz made the point this past week that, if we pull out now, western civilization itself may be in jeapardy. if that is true, we seem to be far less safe now than before.

24

Well, not to anger everyone, but this dialog equates to two trained parrots sqawking at each other. Not much here I have not heard on either NPR or Fox.

I am a Bush voter x 2. I remember Bush debating Gore and stating (about Kosovo) "we should not be in the business of nation building." What are we doing in Iraq?

I heard Colin Powel's speech to the U.N. trying to persuade the world that our information was accurate. All obfuscation aside, this was terribly wrong! Joe, we need more than decaying munitions to prove eminent threat. Don't we?

Americans will suffer in the world for this mistake. Can our word be trusted now? I am one who believes it was an honest mistake. One that has damaged U.S. credibility around the world. Muslims already distrust the west.

So what do we do now? We can not show weakness now. I believe that Iraqi success equals American success. We are now intrinsically tied to each other. Libs should not confuse communism with radical Islam.

We must be just and transparent when at fault. Saddam was NOT the goal of the U.S. intervention on the behalf of the U.N. I resent revisionism when attempted by conservatives as much as liberals. Yes I am glad the butcher was taken down. Now should we go after all tyrants?

25

Joe,

There are always at least two sides to every story. To be fair, you should also mention the response of the Pentagon

Officials: U.S. didn’t find WMDs, despite claims
Comments are response to claims by GOP senators
NBC News and news services

Updated: 10:04 p.m. ET June 22, 2006
WASHINGTON - Senior U.S. intelligence officials said Thursday they have no evidence that Iraq produced chemical weapons after the 1991 Gulf War, despite recent reports from media outlets and Republican lawmakers.

Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania and Rep. Peter Hoekstra of Michigan on Wednesday pointed to a newly declassified report that says coalition forces have found 500 munitions in Iraq that contained degraded sarin or mustard nerve agents.

They cited the report in an attempt to counter criticism by Democrats who say the decision to go to war was a mistake.

But defense officials said Thursday that the weapons were not considered likely to be dangerous because of their age, which they determined to be pre-1991.

Pentagon officials told NBC News that the munitions are the same kind of ordnance the U.S. military has been gathering in Iraq for the past several years, and "not the WMD we were looking for when we went in this time."

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the issue.

"We were able to determine that [the missile] is, in fact, degraded and ... is consistent with what we would expect from finding a munition that was dated back to pre-Gulf War," an intelligence official told NBC. "However, even in the degraded state, our assessment is that they could pose an up-to-lethal hazard if used in attacks against coalition forces."

26

Something very, very simple that was missed here.
**************************************
a) Saddam Hussein had them *when* they were potent.
b) Saddam Hussein had them *when* the inspections found none.
c) Saddam Hussein had them *hidden*.

Three cheers for the UN inspectors! :)

Collin

http://evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com/2006/06/lies-and-lying-liars-who-tell-them.html

27

Errr...

a. They were not potent, not even a WMD (remember MASS is essential when talking about WMD)

b. It isn't clear whether or not these weapons had been found.

c. These do not appear hidden but rather forgotten about. The purpose of hiding something is to use it again sometime in the future. Leaving something to rot is not hiding it.

Three cheers for Collin, he shows himself to be a loyal little GOPer willing to swallow just about anything served to him.

28

Before I confuse Collin, I mean it isn't clear whether or not these weapons had not already been found and accounted for by previous inspections etc. Iraq had areas where there were known WMD or materials that had been inventoried by inspectors and under control.

For example, there was the uranium that was under seal until the mass looting that happened after the war. The seals were borken and buckets were carried away with radioactive uranium. Sadly many people who carried it away might have just wanted buckets and didn't care about the 'dirt' inside of them and as a result have put themselves at risk for cancer and other health problems. Hopefully no terrorist groups realized they could have grabbed tons of radioactive 'dirt' that would make a potent dirty bomb.

29

"Unless you dropped your moral compass off the side of a swift boat in Cambodia..." Any soldier in Iraq today, and who someday runs for President, should realize that his service to his country will not only mean nothing, but may actually hurt him.

30

"I am a Bush voter x 2."

Fool me once, shame on... you. Fool me twice... we won't get fooled again.

Brian, I totally reject the notion that our viability as the most powerful nation on the planet, our role as the sole superpower is utterly contingent on what happens in a dusty, wretched little mideastern country. That strikes me as absurd.

Fact of the matter is, we could just pack up and go. Tomorrow. "Bye, guys. Good luck!" And from what the mideastern scholars are saying, this would probably be a very good thing. The biggest joke going is that if we left, chaos would ensue.

What do you call what's going on over there right now? A hootenanny? Looks like full-blown civil war to me. Once you take us out of the equation, it's very likely things would calm down, and fast. But you know what? I could care less. It's their country, not ours.

Oh, what's that? We'd "lose the respect of the world?" Hate to say it, but we already have. Remember how stupid the Russians looked when the Afghans were slapping them around? Everybody's laughing at us, now. And the torture an' civil liberties rollbacks and spying and lying and stuff isn't earning us anybody's respect. It makes us look stupid. Dumb, mean, and stupid.

Really.

Go to any country abroad and ask somebody walking down the street, "Hey, what do you think of America? Land of the free? Home of the brave?" According to recent surveys that more or less did exactly this, you'd get answers like, "I think America is the greatest threat facing the planet - far, far more dangerous than Al Qaeda."

The smart thing is for us to stop wasting lives and money over there - especially now, with our economy teetering on the brink.

31

"Our economy teetering on the brink"???

32

"Our economy teetering on the brink"???

Too off-topic to explain, my friend. Has to do with China and Saudi Arabia financing our deficit spending and a sustained devaluation of the US dollar. Add in the lowest per-capita savings rate of any developed nation and rising interest rates, inflation, and continued job destruction and loss of manufacturing, offshoring of capital and industry, and the gutting of the IT sector, and the result is referred to by economists with the technical expression: "a royal goat-screw."

33

Certainly I was presumptive on the hidden part.
Thanks for the correction.
But that they were present and not previously located by UN inspectors, let's wait for a refutation of the report in that regard.

Read my blog. I'm not a simple Bushie.

http://evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com/

Collin

34

Joe:

A good post. You are right that the issue of an irresponsible regime in charge of a dangerous technical capability is a vital -- and much ignored question. [North Korea and Iran, the other two links in the Axis of Evil, are underscoring the point just now . . .]

Further to this, the renewal of major hostilities in the Gulf in 2003 was due to persistent material breach of armistice conditions, across a broad spectrum. [One would have thought the French would have learned that lesson in the 1930s . . .]

I also think that we should reflect on the following remarks on this matter, by Kevin McCullough after an on-air discussion with Mr Santorum:

By now much of the nation has finally heard the truth: George Bush never lied about weapons of mass destruction. By now most of America is realizing that the president, who has been pummeled mercilessly on the fact that such weapons were missing, is deserving of public apologies . . . .

The New York Times, which has run hundreds of stories in the last two years on the global war on terror and attempted to reiterate on its news and editorial pages that the president lied to the American people – remained completely silent on the issue the day following the discovery. The Boston Globe committed all of two paragraphs. The Washington Post five. Yet combined these newspapers used thousands of paragraphs with huge, large font headlines to say again and again that President Bush had lied.

When I asked Sen. Santorum the real meaning of it all as it related to the American position prior to the liberation of Iraq, he responded quite simply: "It meant that Secretary of State Powell told the truth when he went before the United Nations Security Council."

As I have reported previously, we've had firsthand knowledge that some of the weapons were removed from Iraq via outfitted 747 and 727 jets to Damascus. Gen. Georges Sada testified to as much on my show (hear the audio). But at that, there was always a suspicion that not all of the weapons had been able to be moved. I believe the president firmly believed that they would in fact be uncovered by the respective United Nations inspection teams. But let's face it – the last U.N. inspections team that actually found what it was looking for was immediately kicked out.

The announcement by Santorum also pointed out something else of keen importance. The declassified version of the report indicates that there are many more weapons likely to be found even yet in Iraq.

I am prepared to bet, though, that the root problem of the fallacy of the closed and hostile mind will yet again prevail, as you hinted at: The Senator shouldn’t be too surprised. While his intentions are noble, most reasonable people have stopped trying to change people's minds about the way based on finding “stockpiles” of WMDs.

Such a hostile and closed-minded atmosphere is exactly what Socrates, Plato and Aristotle -- as well as Thucidides -- spoke of as they observed the collapse of Athenan Democracy and power.

It is time to think again, soberly:

since one way to undermine the persuasive force of evidence is to inappropriately create doubt that it sufficiently warrants a conclusion, he also identified a commonly encountered skeptical fallacy, as noted above -- but which he did not specifically name. Now, the fallacy works by demanding an inappropriate degree of warrant for ideas or claims one is inclined to reject [the better to reject them while still seeming "objective" in one's own eyes]. So, we may profitably and descriptively term the fallacy: Selective Hyperskepticism.

For, as Aristotle warned in his The Rhetoric, Book I, Ch. 2:

Of the modes of persuasion furnished by the spoken word there are three kinds. The first kind depends on the personal character of the speaker [ethos]; the second on putting the audience into a certain frame of mind [pathos]; the third on the proof, or apparent proof, provided by the words of the speech itself [logos]. Persuasion is achieved by the speaker's personal character when the speech is so spoken as to make us think him credible . . . Secondly, persuasion may come through the hearers, when the speech stirs their emotions. Our judgements when we are pleased and friendly are not the same as when we are pained and hostile . . . Thirdly, persuasion is effected through the speech itself when we have proved a truth or an apparent truth by means of the persuasive arguments suitable to the case in question . . . .

The closed, propaganda-driven, hostile mind is how democracies commit suicide.

Sadly, I have seen much evidence of that in the comments on this blog over the past year or so; evidence that strongly shows that the evolutionary materialist, relativist mindset that prevails in Western culture among the intelligentsia, is on a road to ruin.

+++++++++++++++

Grace, open our eyes and soften our hearts to penitence

before it is too late

Gordon

35

Speaking of selective credulity, even Fox News and the Department of Defense are now rejecting Santorum's claims. You pulled the trigger a bit fast on this one, Joe, just like the liberals who embraced the Bush military service document before it came under suspicion. People like to think that they backed the right horse, so they seize upon any evidence, no matter how faulty or suspect, that tends to confirm their beliefs or choices.

36

Speaking of selective credulity, even Fox News and the Department of Defense are now rejecting Santorum's claims.

Fox News is reporting and the DoD are supporting Santorum's claims. There is no rejection there.

37

That post above by Raven explaining why our economy is "teetering on the brink" is so typical of liberals. Can't see the forest for the trees. He looks at "facts" about the US economy and supposes we're on the verge of collapse. Does he have any sense at all how stupid that sounds? Raven spouts off about the US economy on the brink without the slightest bit of embarrassment that five years from now New York City alone will still have a bigger gross domestic product than China.

I really don't understand why liberals choose to remain in the United States. There's lots of room in other countries, BECAUSE EVERYONE HAS LEFT THEM TO COME HERE!!

38

All:

First, thanks Eric and Lisa.

RR and others should kindly note above: Gen Georges Sada was 2nd in command Iraqi Air Force. His statements corroborate the Israeli intel assessment AT THE TIME that his was happening. [In short, the implication is that the long dragged out process of diplomacy gave SH opportunity to transfer some of the weapons to other hostile agents.]

This is not mere speculation.

Second, on the now usual turnabout accusation by Ryan and the like when their selective hyperskepticism is pointed out:

selective credulity

1] kindly note what is at stake in the issue of selectivbe hyperskepticism:

since one way to undermine the persuasive force of evidence is to inappropriately create doubt that it sufficiently warrants a conclusion, he also identified a commonly encountered skeptical fallacy, as noted above -- but which he did not specifically name. Now, the fallacy works by demanding an inappropriate degree of warrant for ideas or claims one is inclined to reject [the better to reject them while still seeming "objective" in one's own eyes]. So, we may profitably and descriptively term the fallacy: Selective Hyperskepticism.

2] The underlying point is, as Simon Greenleaf points out:

In the ordinary affairs of life we do not require nor expect demonstrative evidence, because it is inconsistent with the nature of matters of fact, and to insist on its production would be unreasonable and absurd . . . The error of the skeptic consists in pretending or supposing that there is a difference in the nature of things to be proved; and in demanding demonstrative evidence concerning things which are not susceptible of any other than moral evidence alone, and of which the utmost that can be said is, that there is no reasonable doubt about their truth . . . . A proposition of fact is proved, when its truth is established by competent and satisfactory evidence.

By competent evidence, is meant such as the nature of the thing to be proved requires; and by satisfactory evidence, is meant that amount of proof, which ordinarily satisfies an unprejudiced mind, beyond any reasonable doubt. . . . . If, therefore, the subject is a problem in mathematics, its truth is to be shown by the certainty of demonstrative evidence. But if it is a question of fact in human affairs, nothing more than moral evidence can be required, for this is the best evidence which, from the nature of the case, is attainable.

3] What I am objecting to in the above and in this note, is the insistence on that inconsistency, demanding an inappropriate degree of warrant not applied to cases one is inclined to accept. [And, underlying it, a refusal to engage the possibility that one's worldview is always in need of being subject to comparativre difficulties analysis.]

4] The telltale sign in the above that this is what we are dealing with is the trotting out by RR of a dismissive, turnabout propagandistic accusation phrase rather than a sober assessment of the actual substance put forth.

5] The essence of what I earlier pointed out is:

* an irresponsible regime in charge of a dangerous technical capability is a vital -- and much ignored question. [North Korea and Iran, the other two links in the Axis of Evil, are underscoring the point just now . . .] -- two indisputable cases in point supplied

* the renewal of major hostilities in the Gulf in 2003 was due to persistent material breach of armistice conditions, across a broad spectrum. -- this is of course an accurate use of the proper technical description of the basis on which hostilities were renewed in the Gulf in 2003.

* George Bush never lied about weapons of mass destruction -- Lying requires intentional deception, and the evidence long in hand indicates that neither Bush nor Blair materially distorted the consensus view of the major intelligence agencies on Iraq. Further to this, missiles and deliverable agents beyond the Armistice terms have long since been discovered, as well as infrastructure to develop and deploy nukes. The 500 Chem rounds spoken of by Mr Santorum through citing a redacted intel summary are simply a description of one chain of evidence on the matter.

* Secretary of State Powell told the truth when he went before the United Nations Security Council -- This directly follows from the above, for neither on intent nor on substance was Mr Powell in error.

* we've had firsthand knowledge that some of the weapons were removed from Iraq via outfitted 747 and 727 jets to Damascus. Gen. Georges Sada testified to as much on my show -- This has been discussed above.

* The declassified version of the report indicates that there are many more weapons likely to be found even yet in Iraq. -- Simply link to the scanned copy visible here.

6] Of course, one may dismiss such a cluster of evidence, but that is a triumph of the will and/or emotions over the intellect. That is precisely the point I made by noting as follows:

[GEM To Joe:] I am prepared to bet, though, that the root problem of the fallacy of the closed and hostile mind will yet again prevail, as you hinted at: The Senator shouldn’t be too surprised. While his intentions are noble, most reasonable people have stopped trying to change people's minds about the way based on finding “stockpiles” of WMDs.

Such a hostile and closed-minded atmosphere is exactly what Socrates, Plato and Aristotle -- as well as Thucidides -- spoke of as they observed the collapse of Athenian Democracy and power . . . . The closed, propaganda-driven, hostile mind is how democracies commit suicide.

Sadly, I have seen much evidence of that in the comments on this blog over the past year or so; evidence that strongly shows that the evolutionary materialist, relativist mindset that prevails in Western culture among the intelligentsia, is on a road to ruin.

7] Mr Ryan's poorly thought-through comment of June 24, 2006 07:07 AM, sadly, provides inadvertent warrant for this prediction and summary.

+++++++++++++

Grace, open our eyes to truth and soften our hearts to penitence

before it is too late.

Gordon

39

PS; The diagnosis is plain enough. What is the prognosis [on the assumption of "business as usual'],and what is the treatment regime that might prevent such an outcome?

PROGNOSIS: BAU will lead to disaster, and that is very close, as the case ogf VN shows, and as the near equipoise in the halls of power indicate. Indeed, UBL's mistake was to "misunderestimate" GWB -- as did I.

REGIME OF TREEATMENT:

(a) Local: B and others of his ilk first need to take stock of how they have been thinking and arguing. For that,the link on reason and belief above is a good place to start -- it is a part of my basic, small group leadership primer. Those on selective hyperskepticism and on the philospher's toolkit take the level up a step or two, to equip us for more serious reasoning in the real wrld, at the level of facts and logic, and on the undelrying worldviews issues. [The foirmer was developed to systematise observations from this recon-in force I have been conducting here over thepast soe months. The latter is from a curse for training Christian leaders at College level.]

(b) Wider levels: The easy way is to heed to esort of counsel on the way democracies commit suicide, and follow a re-orientation to reality such as the above. However, I have no confidence that absent crushing and immediately present disaster that forces a wake-up to reality -- millions dying half a world away will be denied as has already happened -- such a cure will be sought.

(C) The question therefore is whether God in his mercy will keep the disaster from being fatal. But since treh USA is busily and agrily turning away from God in its eleite culture, that brings us right back tot he core point:

17 You may say to yourself, "My power and the strength of my hands have produced this wealth for me." 18 But remember the LORD your God, for it is he who gives you the ability to produce wealth . . . .

DT 8:19 If you ever forget the LORD your God and follow other gods and worship and bow down to them, I testify against you today that you will surely be destroyed. 20 Like the nations the LORD destroyed before you, so you will be destroyed for not obeying the LORD your God.

Let us just say that in a contest between God and the USA, I have to bet on God.

PLEASE wake up and repent before it is too late and you bring disaster on your once great nation!

Grace.

Gordon

40

OOPS: Sorry, inadvertent cross-threaded post.

41

"Fox News is reporting and the DoD are supporting Santorum's claims. There is no rejection there."

Not exactly:

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/themix/37966/
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/21/dod-disavows-santorum/
http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/20060622_fox_news_santorum_wmd/

42

That post above by Raven explaining why our economy is "teetering on the brink" is so typical of liberals. Can't see the forest for the trees. He looks at "facts" about the US economy and supposes we're on the verge of collapse. Does he have any sense at all how stupid that sounds? Raven spouts off about the US economy on the brink without the slightest bit of embarrassment that five years from now New York City alone will still have a bigger gross domestic product than China.

I believe Republicans tried to claim that the economy was on the brink in the 1996 election despite record low unemployment, inflation and record high growth. A more accurate assessment is that the long term economy is on the brink while short term our economy is strong.

Indeed, Rob

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/21/dod-disavows-santorum/

Fox News’ Jim Angle contacted the Defense Department who quickly disavowed Santorum and Hoekstra’s claims. A Defense Department official told Angle flatly that the munitions hyped by Santorum and Hoekstra are “not the WMD’s for which this country went to war.”

AS I pointed out earlier, these are not even WMDs!

43

jd quippeth thusly: "That post above by Raven explaining why our economy is "teetering on the brink" is so typical of liberals. Can't see the forest for the trees."

I read something like this and I wonder what the writer has in mind. Surely, he must have an objective. Is it a point about the future prospects of the American economy? Possibly - but it doesn't appear likely. Rather, there are numerous clues embedded in the comment that suggest that the writer, instead of being concerned with what the state of our economic
situation might be - whether promising or worrisome - is more anxious to demonstrate a matter of group affiliation.

Note the use of the term "liberal" in jd's excoriation of yours truly. He's saying that I belong to a group of individuals who are "liberal," and that he, by postulation, is "conservative." Given that he's playing to the room, I gather that he assumes that he's representative of a majority of interlocutors and thus we can deconstruct his statement as being analogous to a scene in the movie, Invasion of the Bodysnatchers, in which a pod-person spots a real human being, and then opens its mouth and emits a high-pitched howling noise whilst pointing its finger. Its a cue to the group to go chase after this non-alien holdout.

"He looks at "facts" about the US economy and supposes we're on the verge of collapse."

Quite. There are "facts" that we can observe, discuss, ponder, and act upon - or ignore - as we please. Whether the person forwarding such facts is a "liberal" or a "conservative" should not, ipso facto, have any particular bearing upon the disposition of the facts themselves. That is, water is hot and dogs tend to bark regardless of your political sensibilities. The fact that I could be termed on the whole as representing a fairly socially liberal perspective does not, in any conceivable fashion, affect the truth of any fact pertaining to the health of the American economy.

"Does he have any sense at all how stupid that sounds?"

To you, jd, I imagine my remarks were utterly infuriating (though in making them I had no intention of causing you any particular discomfort whatsoever). After all, when you attend to Sean Hannity, he tells you every day that the American economy is the "strongest it's ever been," that "all economic indicators are going through the roof," and that "the only people who say otherwise are America-hating liberals." And you have come to believe this, and thus you act upon those beliefs. This is a remarkably dangerous development in American discourse, such that a dispassionate assessment of the economy becomes a referendum on the policies of the Bush White House.

"Raven spouts off about the US economy on the brink without the slightest bit of embarrassment that five years from now New York City alone will still have a bigger gross domestic product than China."

Oh my, now that is embarrassing - I'd forgotten all about GDP. The value of goods and services, per capita, between New York and China. Well there goes my theory! Levity aside, though, I've got a better test for the health of our economy: Your own eyes. If you've looked your local paper's employment listings, if you're paying attention to job prospects, the availability of benefits, pensions, and the entire social safety net, you may not have reasons to feel so optimistic. There's no reason why we have to create another Great Depression - and one that will probably pull the rest of the world along with us - we certainly have the opportunity to turn this thing around.

Yet, as long as we're subject to Executive and Legislative domination by Republican spendthrifts, we're increasingly bankrolling this current economy on the backs of our children and grandchildren who will be left holding the IOUs. Anybody who's ever had to plan a monthly budget knows that you have to match income to expenses, that you can't just keep running up the debt on credit cards indefinitely. That's why I contend that we are "teetering," which is a way of saying that the margin between health and crisis has drawn alarmingly narrow and the time left for readjustment has grown acutely short.

"I really don't understand why liberals choose to remain in the United States."

Ah, the old "love it or leave it," foot-stamping, hat-throwing, jingoistic expression of Norman Rockwell-esque pique at the strange fact that some people won't play the game right. I know, jd, I'm supposed to have faith that everything will turn out right, because we're winning in Iraq and the terrorists are on the run and history will view George Bush as the best gosh-darn President we've ever had! Now c'mon, everybody, let's put on a show!

It's a simple weltanschauung, and I'm sure you derive tremendous comfort from it. I'm going to keep listening to the Fed, though, and paying attention to those pesky "facts" and watching my investments carefully. But I'll tell you this - as an investor and a homeowner, I expect my elected representatives and the members of the civil service to do their jobs properly - I take a very dim view of mismanagement and incompetence and corruption, which is the very definition of the modern GOP.

44

Boonton wrote:

"I believe Republicans tried to claim that the economy was on the brink in the 1996 election despite record low unemployment, inflation and record high growth. A more accurate assessment is that the long term economy is on the brink while short term our economy is strong."

You wouldn't have any evidence to support your statement about Republicans, would you? I have my doubts.

But even if you could find some, conservatives at least knew in 1996 as well as now that the notion the economy is on the brink is more liberal flatulence. In 1992, the economy was the "worst in 50 years." Why should we expect anything different from the friends of Bill Clinton? It's the same old tired garbage. New suit, same bag o' bones.

45

This just in from NewsBusters . . .

Does The Pentagon Suffer From 'MSM's Alzheimer's'?
June 24, 2006 - 06:00.
David Gaubatz, an ex-intelligence officer, and former special investigator for The Pentagon, has been trying for three years to get the American weapons inspectors and the media to listen to his claims that no less than four sealed underground bunkers in southern Iraq are believed to contain stocks of chemical and biological weapons. h/t Antimedia:

According to Gaubatz "fresh" WMD were buried under the Euphrates River near Nasiriyah, in southern Iraq. He and other federal agents (civilians) identified, with the help of some local Iraqis who are now in the US (no doubt for their protection), four separate sites where WMD were buried, and to date no one has even bothered to check them. Charles Duelfer, according to Gaubatz, did a "substandard" job running the Iraqi Survey Group, the group tasked with tracking down Iraq's WMD.

So the question is, why does the Pentagon ignore repeated requests by one of their decorated ex-intelligence officers? The answer is simple: because it has developed a case of 'MSM's Alzheimer's' in the particular department that has the most to lose from this discovery, which would not only undermine their investigations, but have the Administration's wrath for calling off the search whilst still in possession of valuable information. From The New York Sun back in February, who carried out a telephone interview with Gaubatz, and were the only ones to run the story

Mr. Gaubatz's new disclosures shed doubt on the thoroughness of the Iraq Survey Group's search for the weapons of mass destruction that were one of the Bush administration's main reasons for the war. Two chief inspectors from the group, David Kay and Charles Duelfer, concluded that they could not find evidence of the promised stockpiles. Mr. Kay refused to be interviewed for this story and Mr. Duelfer did not return email. The CIA referred these questions to Mr. Duelfer.

The media of course is not interested, as it would not only pulverize their absolute favorite 'Bush Lied People Died' meme, but throw spotlight on a war hero, which is their least favorite of all combinations

David Gaubatz, a former member of the Air Force's Office of Special Investigations, was assigned to the Talill Air Base in Nasiriyah at the launch of Operation Iraqi Freedom. His job was to pick up any intelligence on the whereabouts of senior Baathists and weapons of mass destruction and then send the information to the American weapons inspectors gathering in Baghdad that would later become the Iraq Survey Group. For his intelligence work he received accolades and meritorious service medals in 2003 and prior years. Before the war he helped uncover a spy in the Saudi military. He also assisted with the rescue and repatriation to America of the family of Mohammed Rehaief, the Iraqi lawyer who helped save Private Jessica Lynch.

Mr. Gaubatz said he walked the streets of the largely Shiite city of Nasiriyah, interviewing local police, former senior civilian and military leaders in Saddam Hussein's regime, and local civilians.

Between March and July 2003, Mr. Gaubatz was taken by these sources to four locations - three in and around Nasiriyah and one near the port of Umm Qasr, where he was shown underground concrete bunkers with the tunnels leading to them deliberately flooded. In each case, he was told the facilities contained stocks of biological and chemical weapons, along with missiles whose range exceeded that mandated under U.N. sanctions. But because the facilities were sealed off with concrete walls, in some cases up to 5 feet thick, he did not get inside. He filed reports with photographs, exact grid coordinates, and testimony from multiple sources. And then he waited for the Iraq Survey Group to come to the sites. But in all but one case, they never arrived.[...]

"I have no doubts the sites were never exploited by ISG. We agents begged and begged for weeks and months to get ISG to respond to the sites with the proper equipment," Mr. Gaubatz said in a telephone interview. He returned to his wife and daughter in July 2003, and then wrote letters about the sites to more senior officials in military intelligence. But he said he never received any satisfactory response and says that to this day the sites have never been fully checked out.

It is a disgrace that a decorated ex-intelligence officer has to resort to acrobatics for three years to get the Pentagon and the media to listen. I guess it is a good thing that Karl Rove reads NewsBusters, he may get some intelligence he never knew he had.

46

Boonton wrote;

AS I pointed out earlier, these are not even WMDs!

We know they found Mustard Gas and Sarin gas in Iraq. You are claiming Mustard Gas and Sarin gas are not WMD. So let me ask you Boonton, who in the international community decides what is and what is not a WMD? How would they classify Mustard Gas and Sarin?

Rob Ryan links to;

Today, Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) and Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-MI) held a press conference and announced “we have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.” Santorum and Hoekstra are hyping a document that describes degraded, pre-1991 munitions that were already acknowledged by the White House’s Iraq Survey Group and dismissed.

If you hit the link attached to the line, "acknowledged by the White House's Iraq Survey Group and dismissed" you'll get the other link Rob Ryan provided but says the same thing and not a link to the Iraq Survey Group.

Here are the facts not in dispute:

Saddam Hussien had Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Saddam Hussien was attempting to make more Weapons of Mass Destruction.

In my job as an officer we are told we can shoot a person if they have three things. Means, opportunity and intent.

This is basically the debate we see happening in the country right now. Did Saddam Hussien have the means, the opportunity and the intent to use Weapons of Mass Destruction on the United States?

I pretty much assume that no one (Maybe crazy people like Cindy Sheehan, but no one serious) questions that Saddam Hussien had the intent.

So what it comes down to is did he have the means and the opportunity?

Prior to 9/11 I think most people would agree that he was caged in Iraq through sanctions and unable to scratch his enemies let alone unleash any sort of harm on the scale of a war on us or anyone else for that matter. However, after 9/11 the question of opportunity became a little bit more dicey. Suddenly, all you needed were 20 fanatics who were willing to blow themselves up and you could cause considerable harm to a nation and its people. No longer was there any doubt that Saddam not only had the intent to harm us, but he now also had the opportunity to harm us.

So we really didn't bother discussing those two things, opportunity and intent, because everyone pretty much agrees that he had both.

What it came down to is means. And we are still debating that today.

Did he have the means to unleash WMD on the United States or his neighbors in the Middle East?

So, we find 500 shells of mustard gas in Iraq and those who argue he did not have the means must argue that these 500 shells are not the means. As Rob Ryan's links point out, these are "not the WMD’s for which this country went to war.”

For which I must respond, "Huh?"

Correct me if i'm wrong but if Saddam Hussien has WMD, he has WMD, right? I mean, are we looking for WMD marked with an X? Are we looking for WMD painted a particular color? It is absurd to find WMD in Iraq and then say, "But these aren't the ones we were talking about."

The administrations reasons for going to war were many but two of them that the media hyped were:

1) That Saddam Hussien was trying to reconstitute his WMD program

and

2) That Saddam Hussien had WMD that he did not dispose of as he had promised pursuant to our treaty after 1991.

Both of these claims by the administration have been proven true. But let us suppose for a moment that you don't care about any of that. Joe certainly didn't make this post based on WMD. He even says quite clearly,

Unless you dropped your moral compass off the side of a swift boat in Cambodia, it’s easy to see that the world is safer because we secured the one WMD that truly mattered: Saddam Hussein.

So let's suppose for just a moment that the Bush Administration hyped the WMD threat in order to prosecute a war and get the backing of the public. Could the claim still be made that Saddam Hussien had the means, the opportunity and the intent?

Yes.

If you are at all familiar with Project Harmony you will know that we have uncovered in Iraq thousands upon thousands of documents and audio recordings. These documents and recordings are hard evidence of both.

For example

Date 11 March 2001

To all the Units

Subject: Volunteer for Suicide Mission

The top secret letter 2205 of the Military Branch of Al Qadisya on 4/3/2001 announced by the top secret letter 246 from the Command of the military sector of Zi Kar on 8/3/2001 announced to us by the top secret letter 154 from the Command of Ali Military Division on 10/3/2001 we ask to provide that Division with the names of those who desire to volunteer for Suicide Mission to liberate Palestine and to strike American Interests and according what is shown below to please review and inform us.

Air Brigadier General

Abdel Magid Hammod Ali

Commander of Ali Bin Abi Taleb Air Force Base

Air Colonel

Mohamad Majid Mahdi.

We should be wiping sweat from our brow right now and saying, "Whew! Good thing we went in there and stopped that madman."

We know Saddam Hussien and his regime were supporters of terrorism (Paying $25,000 dollars to the families of Palistinian suicide bombers) and that they themselves had arranged for three terrorist training camps in Iraq:

The secret training took place primarily at three camps--in Samarra, Ramadi, and Salman Pak--and was directed by elite Iraqi military units. Interviews by U.S. government interrogators with Iraqi regime officials and military leaders corroborate the documentary evidence. Many of the fighters were drawn from terrorist groups in northern Africa with close ties to al Qaeda, chief among them Algeria's GSPC and the Sudanese Islamic Army. Some 2,000 terrorists were trained at these Iraqi camps each year from 1999 to 2002, putting the total number at or above 8,000. Intelligence officials believe that some of these terrorists returned to Iraq and are responsible for attacks against Americans and Iraqis. According to three officials with knowledge of the intelligence on Iraqi training camps, White House and National Security Council officials were briefed on these findings in May 2005; senior Defense Department officials subsequently received the same briefing.

The photographs and documents on Iraqi training camps come from a collection of some 2 million "exploitable items" captured in postwar Iraq and Afghanistan. They include handwritten notes, typed documents, audiotapes, videotapes, compact discs, floppy discs, and computer hard drives. Taken together, this collection could give U.S. intelligence officials and policymakers an inside look at the activities of the former Iraqi regime in the months and years before the Iraq war.

We know that they had a relationship with Osama Bin Laden;

2. The Comission of Reform and Advise

Lead by the Saudi Osama Bin Laden who belongs to a wealthy Saudi family with her roots go back to Hadramoot and connected strongly with the ruling family in Saudia, and he is one of the leaders of the Arab Afghan who volunteered for Jihad in Afghanistan, and after the expulsion of the Soviets he moved to stay in Sudan in the year 1992 after the arrival of the Islamists to power in Sudan.

And because of his stands against the Saudi Royal family because of the foreign presence inside it, the Saudi authorities made a decision to withdraw his Saudi citizenship, and we moved toward The Comission from our side and through the following:

Translation of page 5

A. During the visit of the Sudanese Dr. Abrahim Al Sanoosi to the country and his meeting with Mr. Uday Saddam Hussein on 13/12/1994 and with the presence of the respectful Sir the Director of the Apparatus he indicated that the opposition person Osama Bin Laden who is staying in Sudan and who was cautious and fears that he will be accused by his opponents that he became an agent for Iraq, is ready to meet with him in Sudan (The results of the meeting were written to the Honorable Presidency according to our letter 872 on 17/12/1994).

B. The approval of the Honorable Presidency was granted to meet with the opposition person Osama Bin Laden by the Apparatus according to letter 128 on 11/1/1995 (attachment 6) and the meting with him was completed by Mr. M.A ex-4th Directory in Sudan and with the presence of the Sudanese Dr. Abrahim AL Sanoosi on 19/2/1995 and a discussion occurred about his organization, and he requested the broadcasting of Sheikh Sleiman AL Awada (who has influence in Saudia and outside since he is a known and influential religious personality) and dedicate a program for them through the station directed inside the country and make joint operations against the forces of infidels in the land of Hijaz ( the Honorable Presidency has been notified with the details of the meeting according to our letter 370 in 4/3/1995 attachment 7).

Translation of page 6

C. The approval of Mr. President the Leader God protect him was granted to dedicate and program for them through the station directed and we leave to develop the relation and cooperation between the two sides what open in front of it in discussion and agreement through other cooperation doors. The Sudanese side was informed about the approval of the Honorable Presidency above through the representative of the respectful Sir the Director of the Apparatus our ambassador in Khartoom.

D. Due to the latest conditions in Sudan and accusing her harboring of supporting and harboring terrorism it was agreed with the opposition person the Saudi Osama Bin Laden to leave Sudan to another place where he left Khartoom in the month of July 1996 and the information indicate that he is Afghanistan at the present moment. There is stil relation with him through the Sudanese side and we work in the present moment to activate this relation with him through a new channel in light of the current place where he stays.

And there are several more documents showing the Saddam Hussien worked with the Taliban prior to the war, worked with Hamas to attack the United States, worked with "Arab Feedayeen" and trained them as terrorists and paid them, proof that they offered to give them regular soldier wages prior to the war, etc.

So as Joe said, Saddam Hussien was the WMD. It seems to me that the best a critic of the Bush Administration can get away with saying these days is, "But those weren't the weapons we were looking for." or something similar to that. In the end however, we should all count our lucky stars that we went into Iraq and removed Saddam Hussien before he was able to hit us with his means, opportunity and intent.

47

If you were President of Iraq and had one year and hundreds of billions of dollars at your disposal, do you think you could find a way to hide WMDs if you had to?

48

As Rob Ryan's links point out, these are "not the WMD’s for which this country went to war.”

For which I must respond, "Huh?"

Correct me if i'm wrong but if Saddam Hussien has WMD, he has WMD, right?

I believe he's referring to Colin Powell's speech before the U.N., where he asserted that Saddam had 16,500 liters of liquid anthrax, 6500 250-lb chemical warfare bombs, drone aircraft fitted to disperse chemical agents, and gas centrifuge plants for a nuclear program. Powell actually did mention 550 shells filled with mustard gas, so I guess we did get one of the WMDs we went to war for.

49

As Rob Ryan's links point out, these are "not the WMD’s for which this country went to war.”

For which I must respond, "Huh?"

Correct me if i'm wrong but if Saddam Hussien has WMD, he has WMD, right?

I believe he's referring to Colin Powell's speech before the U.N., where he asserted that Saddam had 16,500 liters of liquid anthrax, 6500 250-lb chemical warfare bombs, drone aircraft fitted to disperse chemical agents, and gas centrifuge plants for a nuclear program. Powell actually did mention 550 shells filled with mustard gas, so I guess we did get one of the WMDs we went to war for.

50

TM:

Excellent job. Would someone out there kindly account for hte cluster of evidence that points to SH's motive, means and opportunity?

BTW: it ws not just mustard that has been found -- the most effective overall gas weapon from WWI; but also Sarin.

I also have noted those who pointed out thatt here were suspicious large stocks of "insecticides" stored next to military facilities. nerve gases are in effect high end insecticides that work on people too, i.e. the organo metallo phosphates. [In fact Tabun anbd Sarin, the first, were discovered by German scientists working to develop insecticides -- they proved just plain too lethal for agricultural use. They were then promoted to use as weapons. Baygon, in the older formulation, notoriously, was basically tomned down nerve gas.]

E & L:

Great job too, except that you missed a key point:

pursuant to our treaty after 1991.

There never was a PEACE TREATY, only srmistice terms, which were continually violated in letter and spirit leading to continual lo-grade military operations with occasional spikes across the 12 years.

In thew 2002/3 situation, this reached a pitch where the sanctions regime was collapsing -- oil for bribes and terrorism etc [not food and medicine, Joe: which is why those 400,000 kids died] -- and it was evident that there was persistent material breach. So, they went in and got rid of the regime.

Properly so.

GEM

51

You wouldn't have any evidence to support your statement about Republicans, would you? I have my doubts.

I recall Bob Dole citing the record number of bankruptcies as evidence of a weak economy in the '96 campaign as well as the fact that many couples feel they have to both work to make ends meet.

We know they found Mustard Gas and Sarin gas in Iraq. You are claiming Mustard Gas and Sarin gas are not WMD. So let me ask you Boonton, who in the international community decides what is and what is not a WMD? How would they classify Mustard Gas and Sarin?

Again if words mean anything the M in WMD stands for Mass...meaning that these weapons must be capable of killing a large number of people. The low concentration was compared to the concentration used in the Japan subway attacks. Very good however the fact is despite being the optimal target for a sarin attack, the subway attacks were only able to kill relatively few people. In contrast, a conventional shell packed with high explosives would have been able to kill hundreds if set off on a packed Japanese subway car. If used as these weapons were intended, as artillary shells to be fired on enemy troops, they would almost certainly have been even less effective than the subway attacks were since the chemical would disperse in the open air (to say nothing of the fact that US troops at least would have chemical gear). In other words, these 'WMD's were weaker and less effective than their conventional counterparts.

I pretty much assume that no one (Maybe crazy people like Cindy Sheehan, but no one serious) questions that Saddam Hussien had the intent.

On the contrary, he specifically refrained from using them in the first Gulf War and even the second even though he literally had everything to lose in the second. In between it would have been quite easy to smuggle sarin or other deadly chemicals into the US by routing a shipping container through a friendly port. Or even more easy simply moneygram a few hundred to an agent and have him buy the chemicals in the US and make a weapon.

Correct me if i'm wrong but if Saddam Hussien has WMD, he has WMD, right? I mean, are we looking for WMD marked with an X? Are we looking for WMD painted a particular color? It is absurd to find WMD in Iraq and then say, "But these aren't the ones we were talking about."

Indeed non-functional weapons are not weapons. They might be dangerous. They are almost certainly a local environmental hazard, especially if they are leaking into the local groundwater but that sounds like it is about it.

2) That Saddam Hussien had WMD that he did not dispose of as he had promised pursuant to our treaty after 1991.

Even that is yet to be determined. WMD's don't have self destruct buttons. As I understand it Iraq had various stockpiles of weapons and other stuff that was under UN control. Provided the stuff was where it was supposed to be and in the process he would then be in compliance. For example, Saddam had large quantities of uranium that was kept in warehouses with UN seals on it. After the war looters broke into the warehouse and carried off plenty of buckets and such with what might have appeared to be dirt to them. I suspect that this pile was probably forgotten about and left rotting where it was.

So let's suppose for just a moment that the Bush Administration hyped the WMD threat in order to prosecute a war and get the backing of the public. Could the claim still be made that Saddam Hussien had the means, the opportunity and the intent?

This is more complicated, I'm more sympathetic to Christopher Hitchens analysis. I don't think Saddam had any WMD worth caring about. I suspect he thought he did. Why? Good news travels up and bad news doesn't, especially in an organization with such a heavy hand as Saddam's. I suspect scientists reported to the generals they were having great results in hiding and making WMDs, generals then exagerrated to their superiors and up the line. Ironically I wouldn't be surprised if Saddam ended up resisting the inspectors because he thought he had something worth hiding!

But the problem with containment was:

1. International support for the sanctions was weakening. Iraq was getting the upper hand with the PR campaign to depict them as cruel.

2. The sanctions actually made Saddam's position stronger. Yes Iraq had less money but now what little it got was fully in the hands of Saddam's gov't making it harder for any group inside Iraq to mount any type of challenge.

3. Saddam's regime was fundamentally unstable in the long run. At some point he would be gone by either death, old age or assassination. That would have meant civil war in Iraq that would make the current situtation look quite desirable.

This argument for the war, though, has next to nothing to do with WMDs. The focus on WMD's, though, can be fairly criticized as a distraction IMO.

52

H'mm:

And the ignoring of inconvenient evidence and facts goes on, and on and on . . .

All too revealingly . . .

Hewre's a clip worth a thought or two:

Friday, June 23, 2006

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MDQ1ZGRhMTBhNmQzZGI4ZTc3M2VhYmUzNjVjZmIyY2Y=

The Media and the War [Michael Ledeen]

I love Andy’s piece on the NYT today, and I wish others had advanced the argument, because it’s enormously important. Keller et al have confirmed yet again that they don’t care about national security, at least in this war (sorry, the current circumstances; they don’t think we’re at war). What they really want is the defeat of George W Bush, and the devil take the consequences.

They have forgotten that the terrorists love to behead journalists. But Daniel Pearl, well, it’s such a long time ago, you know...

The next point is: Who leaks? The answer is, enemies of the president’s policies leak. His supporters don’t. That basic rule helps understand both the background and the current state of play regarding the classified document that Hoekstra and Santorum are trying to get declassified. The media reaction is twofold: First, to pooh-pooh its significance (the kind of stuff I might find under my sink, the drooling Jane Harman says). Second, to ig nore it, to bury it in distant pages of the paper, to touch on it lightly in the evening news.

The NYT and its ilk pound their chests about the revelations of the successful search of financial data to catch terrorists. They declare they are acting because of the public’s right to know. But in the matter of WMDs found in Iraq, the public’s right to know is totally dissed. There is NO call for the declassification of that document, NO righteous indignation at Negroponte, Cambone and the others who quite improperly failed to inform Congressional oversight committees of the existence of this document, and are fighting its declassification and release, NO investigative action to discover why this information was suppressed, NO curiosity about how Hoekstra and Santorum found out it existed.

And above all , NO concern, despite the clear statement in the document itself, and despite the explicit statement from Rumsfeld yesterday, that these weapons are still out there, and constitute a very real threat to our soldiers.

These people are not acting like journalists at all. They are acting as a fourth branch of government, co-equal with the others. They arrogate to themselves the power to classify and declassify, to protect or reveal secrets and sources, as they see fit. Which is to say, according to their political ambitions.

They aren’t journalists at all, they’re pols. And they should be treated that way.

They are already treated with contempt by the American people; just look at the polls. But they are not yet being held accountable for their actions, as elected and appointed pols are. They should be. The other branches of government should fight them with every weapon in their arsenal, just as the ‘journalists’ wage war on the other three branches.

And we should demand they honor their calling, we should demand that the whole document be declassified and released, so that we can evaluate it ourselves, and decide how important it is or isn’t. Because we know that the fourth branch isn’t going to give us the facts, unless they fit their agenda.

Declassify the WMD document now. We’ll tell you what it means.

And while you’re at it, how about producing the other Iraq documents—the stuff from Saddam’s files—that you promised to give us? We haven’t seen much of that of late, have we? I wonder why...

Posted at 6:38 PM

GEM

53

The next point is: Who leaks? The answer is, enemies of the president’s policies leak. His supporters don’t.

Except when it came tothe Plame affair....

I love Andy’s piece on the NYT today, and I wish others had advanced the argument, because it’s enormously important. Keller et al have confirmed yet again that they don’t care about national security, at least in this war (sorry, the current circumstances; they don’t think we’re at war). What they really want is the defeat of George W Bush, and the devil take the consequences.

ahhh yes, if only the Bush administration had a record of truthfulness and competetance perhaps their protests might be taken more seriously. Conservatives should note that not only did the NYT publish the story about financial monitoring but so did the Washington Post and the WSJ. While the Post also received a request not to run the story the WSJ did not! Of course, the NYT being a liberal leaning paper the right loves to use it as a whipping boy and exploit 9/11 endless against it.

Of course the last time we had these accusations it was over the NSA wiretaps and that is a nice illustration of how this admin. uses national security. There the news was that the NSA had been wiretapping calls of US citizens. Now as a matter of course it is known that the NSA will monitor international calls (say between someone in Poland and someone in Serbia). How often no one really knows. The NSA is not supposed to touch calls inside the US...say when you call your mom or whatever. The wiretaps was when a US citizen had a phone call with someone the NSA thought might be a terrorist.

Now off the back Republicans said that liberals were defending the 'right' of Americans to talk to Al Qaeda...well not quite. Since no one knows who the NSA thinks is a terrorist there is no way to know whether or not an international call you made was monitored. We know from Gitmo that a lot of people this gov't intially described as the 'worst of the worst' have been quietly released without any charges against them. We know this administration ha a habit of crying wolf first and then quietly telling us months or years later what they thought was a wolf was just a rabbit.

Perhaps this is unavoidable. There's a huge amount of international traffic and there's plenty of people who are anti-American who are not terrorists so we probably have to live with the fact that the NSA and other agencies will get lots of false positives as they try to be proactive. Nonetheless, the idea that the gov't can willy nilly just listen in on phone calls of American citizens without a warrent is disturbing. Even more disturbing is the fact that there is no obvious check on abuse. The NSA doesn't tell you if they were listening to your calls, you'd never know. Even worse, if someone from the NSA decides to