From "Threatening Storm" to "Who me?"

[chet]

http://discover.npr.org/rundowns/segment.jhtml?wfId=1274223

[Jack]

You have to remember, America is now being run like a gigantic, sloppy corporation. We were being "proactive" and eliminating the threat of the third-world country before they actually become a threat.

If you don't like that explanation, the Republicans have a checklist that will provide a good reason to kick Middle-eastern booty:

1- Saddam is Hitler. He must be stopped.
2- In Iraq, weapons of mass destruction are more common than sand.
3- The people of Iraq secretly want us to invade
4- Saddam is in league with terrorists
5- It would really piss off the French
6- Saddam is in league with Satan
7- Saddam is Satan
8- It would really piss off the liberal peaceniks
9- Who do those towel-heads think they are?

Of course, as we move down the progression, it becomes vitriol... only because vitriol needs no evidence.

[Joe O'Malley]

I'm still wondering if we're hedging ourselves into a Pax Americana situation. We've already threatened both the Syrians and Iranians since occupying Iraq.

It doesn't make me any more confident that we are planning to remove our troops from South Korea. That would almost seem to indicate a stance of consolidation, with the Middle East becoming a new (and very threatened) potential "protectorate."

I know, there's probablt a gozillion reasons why this would never happen, but given the right provocation, I'm not convinced that it couldn't.

[DrCrypt]

When did we announce our intention of pulling out of South Korea? Last I heard we were just pulling back from the demilitarized zone near the North/South Korea border (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/east/06/05/korea.usa/index.html). In other words, we don't want to make the totally crazy North Koreans antsy and do something stupid in their desperation. But we're still only 37 miles away.

I just can not believe that America would respond to North Korea's threats by pulling their entire force out of the region. And, in fact, I can't find anything on CNN.com to support this assertion... even articles dated today about Korea only mention the pull back from the demilitarized zone. Are you usually so cavalier about supporting the likelihood of a neo-Pax-Americana with completely fabricated facts?

As for the Pollack thing, anyone have a transcript? For some reason, it keeps on giving me an error when I try to listen to it.

[Jason Lutes]

I didn't buy the pro-war line of everyone who was holding his book up as justification, but I have respect for that guy. Especially for agreeing to do that interview.

That this and the lack of a substantiated link between Hussein and Al Qaeda are all over the mainstream media right now is more than a little disturbing, but at least it's getting coverage. Right up there with the woman who killed her boyfriend with a high-heeled shoe and speculation about the final season of Sex and the City.

Although I relish watching the Shrub fumble his way through a response to these issues, it sickens me to think of how many people I talked to, in the service and out, who thought of the war as "payback for September 11th." The way the administration and the media fostered that fiction and its Cleveist implications that dark-skinned people the world over are plotting the downfall of the Holy American Empire was both deeply depressing and utterly enraging.

[Jason McCullough]

Crypt, a bunch of Bush guys have been trial-ballooning a partial or full troops pullout from Korea.

[DrCrypt]

Yeah, whatever. I mean, I find the leap from "pulling troops out of South Korea" to "Pax Americana" pretty ridiculous to begin with even if it was substantiated, as opposed to just one more wavelength of contradictory chatter people always hear in the static of idunnowhatfucksgoinon. The CNN article I cited mentions that Rumsfield is talking about global redeployment to emphasize smaller, more efficient teams of armed forces working at greater distances. That's interesting, but I'll believe any of this talking head brainstorming when I see it start to happen and officially announced by the Pentagon.

[Sean Tudor]

Did the U.S. ever need a reason to oust Saddam ? I don't think so. Personally I think the U.S. was fully justified invading Iraq without the need to make up stories about WMD's, Al Qaeda, etc. etc.

Saddam already proved he was a monster after Gulf War I and subsequent years of brutal rule against his own population.

[ydejin]

I'm wondering if the proposed pull-out/pullback in South Korea is actually a move to confront North Korea. With our troops in artillery range of the border, we can't perform a limited military strike on North Korea, since they will almost certainly retaliate by shelling our bases on the South Korean border. If our troops are out of artillery range, we can perform bombing or special forces operations on North Korean nuclear sites and the North Koreans will have much more limited options for response. They can strike back at the South Koreans including artillery bombardment of civilians in Seoul, but they won't be able to strike directly at the US, without triggering a full-scale war.

I view the proposed move as (1) Bush payback to the South Koreans because they have not given the administration the support it wants and (2) yet another opportunity for the administration to try to get another country to behave by overt threats as with Iran and Syria (I assume we'll start making military threats to the North Koreans as soon as our troops are out of North Korea's range).

[DavidCPA]

Did the U.S. ever need a reason to oust Saddam ? I don't think so. Personally I think the U.S. was fully justified invading Iraq without the need to make up stories about WMD's, Al Qaeda, etc. etc.

Saddam already proved he was a monster after Gulf War I and subsequent years of brutal rule against his own population.

Good for you Sean. I agree that mass murderers should pay for their crimes. The only problem is that there is a long list of worthy candidates and murky issues about getting involved in other country's internal affairs. The Bush administration knew this and sold us the al Quada and WMD bill of goods to go to war. If they wanted to invade Iraq for humanitarian reasons, they had many opportunities to say so, but did not. When you lie about things that put American, British and Austrailian soldiers in harm's way, there is a price to pay. Bush is finding that out now. It may not prevent him from being re-elected but it does cast some shadows over his presidency to date.

-DavidCPA

[Jason McCullough]

Here (http://www.post-gazette.com/World/20030214koreaamoveworld6p6.asp):

Showing a readiness to readjust one of the cornerstones of U.S. military policy in South Korea, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld told Congress yesterday that he might consider withdrawing some of the 37,000 U.S. troops stationed in South Korea.

Here (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/03/07/wkor07.xml):

The United States is contemplating the withdrawal of its forces from South Korea amid growing resentment at American troops there, the defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, said yesterday.

Mr Rumsfeld said the changes were being discussed at Seoul's request, as part of a review of America's global network of Cold War garrisons.

"I suspect we'll end up making some adjustments there," Mr Rumsfeld said. "Whether the forces would come home or move farther south on the peninsula, or move to some neighbouring area are the kinds of things that are being sorted out."

Rumsfeld's lie that it was at SK's request is pretty funny.

Here (http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-bandow010603.asp):

Alliances exist to serve a purpose. Yet in Korea the means has become an end. America pays the bill but gains no benefit from doing so. Indeed, it is finding ingratitude replacing appreciation.

Washington's military presence is no longer necessary to protect the South. The troops play no role in constraining China, since no administration is likely to be foolish enough to embark upon a ground war with Beijing, or, even less plausibly, Japan, which is about as likely as the Philippines to again run amok throughout East Asia.

Google's full of 'em.

What's driving this is that SK doesn't want to be aggressive with NK, and that's pissed off the Bushies so much they're threatening to completely withdraw. An unflattering analogy would be if Reagan had threatened to pull out of NATO if he didn't get Pershings deployed in Europe.

[Bub, Andrew]

I didn't buy the pro-war line of everyone who was holding his book up as justification, but I have respect for that guy. Especially for agreeing to do that interview.

Really the Threatening Storm is about the options. A large portion of the book concerns the history of the region, Saddam's history and analysis of his (frightening) behavior, and discussion of human rights abuses. He discusses WMD in length but, as he notes in the interview, he wasn't claiming an imminent threat. The bulk of his argument, and to me the most convincing, was when he described in detail why deterrence wouldn't work, why Containment was breaking down, how countries were actively subverting the sanctions, how Saddam was making millions from smuggling, and how war was really the only way to end this 12 year problem once and for all. The stuff about how this was something Clinton had on the table for 8 years helped convince me this wasn't a Republican war at all. He convinced me we couldn't go on letting the status quo be exploited by nations like Iran, Syria, France, Germany, Russia, and Jordan. We couldn't afford to keep a deterring army in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia just in case Saddam decides to make a power grab again. And that it was time to lance the boil. Along the way he convinced me Iraq had WMD and that Saddam was bent on acquiring more power and eventually a nuclear program.

Out of all that, only one thing has been put into question. It looks like Saddam didn't have WMD.

Here's my belief: We do know Saddam had WMD after the Gulf War because Inspectors found evidence of it in 1992. This is why the sanctions weren't lifted on schedule. I now think Saddam destroyed them in secret, probably recently, because he was hoping to thwart the inspectors and he feared Bush's agenda. This is out of Saddam's character, he seems more likely to want to keep and use them, but I think he really believed his best hope was to lie low and hope the US would be thwarted by the UN. And then later, he could rebuild them. So, why didn't Saddam disclose he had actually complied and finally rid Iraq of WMD? Pollack describes in detail Saddam's internal weaknesses and rampant paranoia. One of them is appearing weak before his enemies within Iraq and outside. Bio/Chem WMD was his best deterrant against Iran because, no matter how much Jason McCullough believes that they're harmless, the Iranian's are scared to death of them. So are the Kurds and the Shi'a. Saddam was caught in a Catch-22. Can't keep WMD for fear of the US, can't disclose they're gone because of internal and neighboring threats.

But yeah, Bush clearly ignored warnings about the veracity of his WMD info. Pollack got fooled it seems, but he didn't have all the info and his error was in good faith. Bush's was not, apparently.

[XPav]

USFK is scheduled for a major round of upgrades. Longbow Apaches, JDAMs, PAC-3s and UAVs are all in the cards. This makes the forces in South Korea more deadly. This will of course, cause the North Koreans to publish more "agressive running-dog imperialist" news in their 'newspaper' (http://www.kcna.co.jp/index-e.htm).

USFK will rotate the new Stryker Brigades through Korea, and preposition a heavy armored brigade in ships off the coast. Together with the pull back of forces from the DMZ, this makes the US forces more mobile, rather than tying them into static positions. This also has the side-effect of making USFK much easier to deploy outside of Korea should the need arise.

So, in short:

1) US forces in Korea to become more deadly, not less
2) North Koreans should be more worried, not less, because now its even easier to invade North Korea
3) Any sort of impliciation that Bush is 'punishing' the South Koreans doesn't really make any sense.

[Jason McCullough]

Pollack's entire argument turned on the inevitability of WMD with Saddam. If that was wrong, what else is?

[Bub, Andrew]

Pollack's entire argument turned on the inevitability of WMD with Saddam. If that was wrong, what else is?

Well, I don't think you're opening sentence is true Jason. Bush's argument turned on it, Pollack's didn't. Did you read the book?

[Jason McCullough]

It was the direct justification Bush used for invading now; Pollack used it as the direct justification for getting rid of Saddam eventually.

I'd summarize the interview as "that fuckhead Rumsfeld used my argument and then kicked it to the curb like a $2 whore."

Edited direct object problems for benefit of picky writers.

[Bub, Andrew]

You lost me. Starting with "Is it?"
Is what? How does that apply to my post? Your summary makes me think you not only failed to to read the book Jason (making your argument about as solid as Brian Koontz riffing on Adaptation), but you didn't listen to the interview either.

It was the direct justification Bush used for invading now; Pollack used it as the direct justification for getting rid of Saddam eventually.

Bush = Yes. Pollack used that and a hell of a lot more as justification for eventual invasion.

[TomChick]

Brian Koontz saw Adaptation.

Also, I have to ask: is it?

-Tom

[Bub, Andrew]

Brian Koontz saw Adaptation.


Given that it's Brian Koontz, the analogy still works.

[Dirt]

I think Texas should secede from the Union and take Bush with them.

[Jonathan Blow]

Rumsfeld's lie that it was at SK's request is pretty funny.

Having lived in South Korea for a total of 6 weeks last year, I can tell you they are extremely unhappy about American troop presence in the country. They are constantly asking the US to reduce their involvement in SK. They reason they are "asking" is because in turn for the USA's involvement in the Korean War, they signed a "bend me over and fuck me in the ass for all eternity" agreement with this country.

[Rywill]

Rumsfeld's lie that it was at SK's request is pretty funny.

Having lived in South Korea for a total of 6 weeks last year, I can tell you they are extremely unhappy about American troop presence in the country. They are constantly asking the US to reduce their involvement in SK. They reason they are "asking" is because in turn for the USA's involvement in the Korean War, they signed a "bend me over and fuck me in the ass for all eternity" agreement with this country.

In other words:

Rumsfeld's lie that it was at SK's request is pretty funny.

Is it?

[Jason McCullough]

I want to see documentation that Korea requested us to leave. I know the public is unhappy, but this is the first I've heard of the government saying it.

[Brad Grenz]

I think I remember it going this way. Public hated America's continued presense. Administration say, "fine, we'll look at pulling out". SK government freaks and begs US to stay cause they'd prefer spooning with the US to anal rape at the hands of the NK.

[XPav]

I want to see documentation that Korea requested us to leave. I know the public is unhappy, but this is the first I've heard of the government saying it.
Its a love-hate relationship. Also, I think that some politicians like having the US around to kick around for domestic PR.

Not to say that there aren't things about the US-Korean relationship that are slightly aggravating. I mean, during war, the US gets to command the whole shebang. Sure, in the late 50s that made a lot of sense, but South Korea has come a long way since then.

[ydejin]

I think I remember it going this way. Public hated America's continued presense. Administration say, "fine, we'll look at pulling out". SK government freaks and begs US to stay cause they'd prefer spooning with the US to anal rape at the hands of the NK.

Yeah, that's pretty much how I remember it going too, although Brad put a bit more colorfully than I probably would have. :)

[Supertanker]

There were news stories (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2003-06-05-korea_x.htm) a few days ago explaining that the US was shifting troops out of bases on the DMZ and in Seoul to new bases farther south. The troops are still staying in Korea, though.

[Joe O'Malley]

edited. I'm having trouble with the quotation whirlagig today.

[Joe O'Malley]

Crypt wrote:
"And, in fact, I can't find anything on CNN.com to support this assertion... even articles dated today about Korea only mention the pull back from the demilitarized zone. Are you usually so cavalier about supporting the likelihood of a neo-Pax-Americana with completely fabricated facts?"

Don't be an ass, Crypt. Just because you haven't heard a thing does not mean it is fabricated or fantasy. There is considerable talk about moving US forces out of several countries that have displayed what DoD reps have called "an ungrateful attitude" towards the presence of US troops. South Korea was mentioned because of recent escalating tensions there against US troops.

If you aren't going to be fully informed at least have the sense not to bray about it.[/quote]

[Jason McCullough]

For reference, part of the reason the Koreans are pissed is that by "being aggressive with NK" the US means "start another war up there rather than negotiate." There was a scary amount of airstrike talk coming out of Washington last year.

[john black]

We've had too many of the recent Presidents lying to us. Heck, Clinton was impeached for lying about a stupid affair. Lying to get the USA to go to war is far worse than lying about an affair (even if it was under oath), IMHO. We still might find WMD. If we don't then Bush should be thrown out of office.

[Squirrel Killer]

We still might find WMD. If we don't then Bush should be thrown out of office.

This just goes to show that it's fair to say that Bush's hope to "end the politics of personal destruction" has failed.

[Jason McCullough]

Yeah, Bush's admeisters comparing Daschle to Saddam showed how honest he was about that.

[Squirrel Killer]

Yeah, Bush's admeisters comparing Daschle to Saddam showed how honest he was about that.

Cite please? (Not argumentative, I'm curious as to exactly who said it.)

It's not as like that was the first personal attack during Bush's administration (on either the left or the right), it wasn't even the 1,001st. But we're also not even talking about ad hominem attacks. A call for impeachement is certainly more personally destructive than calling names.

And why exactly? Becuase Bush, relying on necessarily imperfect data (due to Saddam's refusal to live up to the terms of the cease-fire), felt that there was enough non-compliance to warrant action. He brought his evidence to the Congress. Congress agreed with him. He brought his evidence to the UN. The UN agreed with him, as shown in Resolution 1441, which stated that Saddam had WMD. Indeed, the action item that Saddam was given in 1441 was not, "Show us you don't have WMD" it was "Show us you've destroyed or are destroying your WMD." He failed to live up to the cease-fire and the subsequent UN resolutions.

Bush acted on his best information, and action was approved by both the Congress and the UN. (Although some previous supporters later changed their mind.) Even if his data was "spun", his opponent's "spun" the data their way as well.

And for this (following the rules and presenting his best case), people want him impeached? I don't care if they're liberals, Democrats, or Bush-haters, keep it up because you're close to making the Rush-ites Clinton-haters look good by comparison.

[Jason McCullough]

Here (http://www.msnbc.com/news/654184.asp?cp1=1), among other places. Rove had his fingers in that ad.

I don't want Bush impeached (unless it can be shown he knowingly lied to Congress; if that isn't criteria, I'm not sure what is), I just want him out of office.

I think the "politics of personal destruction" thing was invented by Hillary in response to all the personal attacks aimed at her and Bill. Calling their health care plan stupid, communist, whatever is one thing; calling *them* stupid communist traitors is another.

Politics has always been like this, of course, but it's pretty funny the way Bush was able to dodge all the bad questions about his drunkenness and possible history of cocaine use by claiming he'd moved beyond politics based on that sort of thing. Rigggggggght.

[Squirrel Killer]

Here (http://www.msnbc.com/news/654184.asp?cp1=1), among other places. Rove had his fingers in that ad.

Thanks. I would note that the ad in question is independent enough of the administration that there's more than just "plausible deniability" but I don't want to start an argument on that point.

I don't want Bush impeached (unless it can be shown he knowingly lied to Congress; if that isn't criteria, I'm not sure what is), I just want him out of office.

While you aren't arguing for his impeachment, assorted others are. I'm just saying that such calls just because we do or don't find WMD increase the amount of "politics of personal destruction." If I were "The Left", I'd be careful in this regard. It seems too much like revenge.

[Squirrel Killer]

...it's pretty funny the way Bush was able to dodge all the bad questions about his drunkenness and possible history of cocaine use by claiming he'd moved beyond politics based on that sort of thing.

The funny thing is, I think the country (excepting of course the radicals on both sides) has largely moved beyond politics of past personal decisions, especially when it's something like drinking or drug use. I'm not saying that a recovered crack whore or a Rastafarian wouldn't have a problem, but Bill's pot usage was a non-issue, and Dub's cocaine use and DUI were largely given a blind eye.

[Jason McCullough]

I'm not sure; Clinton took an incredible amount of media heat for the pot thing. His Republican predecessor got....well, nothing, really. We'll see in a few more cycles.

[TomChick]

I'm not sure; Clinton took an incredible amount of media heat for the pot thing.

The heat wasn't for his pot use, it was for his artless dodging with the 'I didn't inhale' comment.

-Tom

[Jason McCullough]

I find it hard to believe that if he flatly denied or admitted it they would have backed off.

[Bullhajj]

Out of all that, only one thing has been put into question. It looks like Saddam didn't have WMD.

This is like that old joke: "But other then that, what did you think of the play Mrs Lincoln?"

I expect a little more from a guy who claims to be an expert on Iraq. While I acknowledge Pollack didn't want to move as fast as this administration moved, I think it's incredibly lame that he is now willing to admit his argument is only as good as the evidence of other, apparently less competent, analyists. From what I read, the threat of Iraq and WMD was a huge part of his argument. I mean, why even worry over deterrence if there are no WMD?

Did you really read the book, Andrew? I seem to remember you saying you only skimmed it.

[Bub, Andrew]

Is it?

I read it cover to cover Tim. And I posted earlier that there's a lot more in it than WMD. Pollack based his info on lesser analysts, yes, of course he did. He based it on unclassified documents from the CIA, the UN Weapons Inspectors, the UN Security Council, etc., Hans Blix believed it was likely Iraq was hiding WMD. It isn't fair to characterize Pollack as a warmonger fabricating evidence and now being proven wrong. Most of his argument is based on Saddam's past irrational behavior. The fact that he hid his WMD programs, the fact that he rebuilt soon after dismantling, the fact that he had gotten really good at subverting all the International pressure against him, and his analysis that the sanctions were breaking down. From his argument I genuinely feared what an unfettered Saddam would do, would create, and the evidence he used to bring me, and others, to that conclusion, remains untouched by an apparent lack of WMD in Iraq currently.

What's disturbing is the newly unclassified documents the Bush administration acted upon. How they apparently exaggerated it to sell the war here and abroad. That's where the doubts come from. Pollack didn't have access to those docs and further, his book was published almost a year earlier.

Read this. It's from Fareed Zakaria. It details some of what Pollack was talking about and begs the question(s)... "Where are the WMD we knew Saddam had prior to this war?" and "If he destroyed them, why didn't he tell us", and "if he didn't, where are they?"

http://www.msnbc.com/news/923752.asp

By the way, to further show how divergent Pollack is from Rumsfeld here's a quote: "The idea that Saddam can directly threaten the US with his WMD, even his longer range Al-Samoud missiles, is ludicrous."

EDIT to add some info and fix a typo.

[Rywill]

I think it's incredibly lame that he is now willing to admit his argument is only as good as the evidence of other, apparently less competent, analyists.
What did you think he was going on? First-hand knowledge from his own Splinter Cell-esque infiltration of Iraq?

From what I read, the threat of Iraq and WMD was a huge part of his argument.
I didn't think that was his argument at all (for the record, I read it cover-to-cover as well). Pollack was pretty dismissive of Saddam's bio and chemical WMD programs, just as he outright dismissed any ties to al Qaeda. His big focus was on Saddam's nuclear WMD program, which Pollack admitted he wasn't sure (and nobody was sure) how far along it was. He was alarmed about it because last time we thought the nuke program was nowhere, a scientist defected and said it was a lot farther along than we had thought.

Basically what it came down to was, there was good reason to think Saddam was moving along his nuke program--everyone figured 3-5 years for him to get a bomb or two. Saddam himself refused to disclose what was going on with it or what had happened to it, despite massive international pressure. So between the alternatives of not doing anything and hoping Saddam was unable or unwilling to get nukes (despite our best estimates), or going in and taking him out, we should take him out.

If we never find chemical or bioweapons in Iraq, that's not going to make any difference to Pollack's argument. If we somehow discover that Saddam had actually decided not to pursue nukes, or was unable to pursue nukes (and it's way too early to come to any conclusions yet), that would affect Pollack's argument in the sense that if we had known then what we know now, we might decide to do things differently--but that doesn't mean that it wasn't a good decision when made. Last night I folded five cards into my poker hand and then the girl next to me got dealt the card that would have filled my straight. Too bad, but it doesn't mean I did the wrong thing at the time.

Again, though, if Bush had access to better or different information and hid it, or if he lied about how strong the information he had was, that's a terrible thing, even if going into Iraq was still the right thing to do.

[Jason McCullough]

If Iraq degenerates into an Angola-style mess, and it turns out Saddam didn't have crud for a nuke program and no hope of getting one, it may look really bad.

Zakaria's "Team B" comparision is dead on.

[Jack]

Republican congress + Republican senate + Republican (uh, "conservative") Supreme Court justices = No nasty legal entanglements for Bush. Even if he gets a hummer from an intern.

He broke records raising funds in the last election, and since the rich are significantly richer now, he'll break records again this time around. I predict he'll win by a landslide as long as he sounds folksy enough to make the blue-collar people think he's too dopey to rip them off.

Oh, wait. I forgot. I'm $100 richer this year because of the tax cut. Gee, I can buy that pair of sneakers I always wanted... if I save up. Who cares about a google-zillion deficit? Do what Nixon did: Print more money!

A little tangent there. Sorry.

[Bullhajj]

What did you think he was going on? First-hand knowledge from his own Splinter Cell-esque infiltration of Iraq?

Pollack is an ex-CIA expert on Iraq from the Clinton administration; this lent his opinion and argument much of its credibility. When the experts miss the mark this broadly, they need to be held accountable. I say it's lame for him to backpeddle now because, well, it is.

Pollack was pretty dismissive of Saddam's bio and chemical WMD programs, just as he outright dismissed any ties to al Qaeda.

I will also give Pollack credit for not concerning himself too much with chem and bio weapons and his dismissal of al-Queda ties. This is where he sets himself apart from the current administation in my book.

His big focus was on Saddam's nuclear WMD program, which Pollack admitted he wasn't sure (and nobody was sure) how far along it was.

Correct about Pollack's focus on the danger of an Iraqi nuclear program. However, I read Polack’s main point as Saddam having nuclear weapons would be an intolerable situation since there would be no way to deter him (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20D14FE39590C728EDDAB0894DB4044 82). The fact that no evidence of nuclear weapons has been found is clearly pretty damning to his argument. As I said earlier, without the nuclear weapons Iraq is a paper tiger; why worry about how to deter--much less invade--a paper tiger?

[steve]

He broke records raising funds in the last election, and since the rich are significantly richer now, he'll break records again this time around. I predict he'll win by a landslide as long as he sounds folksy enough to make the blue-collar people think he's too dopey to rip them off.
There is an article in the new Newsweek about this. He's already started, and already has a warchest over $200 million, I believe. They're laughing about how the new laws on "soft money" is hurting Democrats more than Republicans. Apparently, you can join some "special" Republican club if you can get a bunch of people to donate $2000 and bring over $200K to the table, which is how they're able to get around the soft money laws.

[Rywill]

Tim: I basically agree with you--Pollack's focus was on Iraq and how they would be hell on earth if they got nukes. Contrary to what it sounds like you're asserting, Pollack (and everyone else) conceded that Iraq didn't have nukes at the time of the invasion. Nobody thought we were going to go into Iraq and recover half a dozen functioning nukes.

Given that everyone knew Iraq had no nukes, the only question was whether Iraq was likely or unlikely to get nukes eventually. Likely to get them = need to invade. Assuming you agree with me so far, our only disagreement is about whether Iraq was or was not likely to get nukes, left unmolested (i.e., if we didn't invade). Pollack thought they were, and FWIW I thought the same thing after reading his evidence and analysis. Again, I agree that if we find no evidence of a nuke program, that means we might have, in hindsight, not needed to invade, although I still maintain that there was no way to know that beforehand and so invasion was still the best decision based on the data we had. So I don't think it's damning to Pollack's argument.

Also, even if Saddam had no useful nuke program of his own, he was still dangerous because he wanted to get nukes and had lots of money. All it would take is one government (NK or Pakistan, for example) that was willing to sell him one, or one rogue military or government official or mercenary group who was willing to steal one and sell it to him. Russia, for example, is supposed to have very lax controls over its military hardware; I'm not so sure about China, either. I imagine (although I don't know enough about it) that those scenarios are way less likely than Saddam developing a nuke on his own, though.

[Bullhajj]

I read it cover to cover Tim.

Okay, maybe after you told me you skimmed it you then read it cover to cover. At any rate, I will concede that you have read the book. ;)

It isn't fair to characterize Pollack as a warmonger fabricating evidence and now being proven wrong.

And I haven't characterized Pollack this way. I do think as an ex-CIA anaylists on Iraq he is somewhat of an expert, and not just some guy running around clipping articles from the Times. As an expert, I expect more from him. When his main litmus for determining Iraq is a clear and present threat to the US is seemingly proved unfounded, I think he should take some lumps.

Most of his argument is based on Saddam's past irrational behavior. The fact that he hid his WMD programs, the fact that he rebuilt soon after dismantling, the fact that he had gotten really good at subverting all the International pressure against him, and his analysis that the sanctions were breaking down.

The description of how the sanctions were breaking down was good work and did impress me. However, I was appalled that he opened the book with what appeared to be an analogy that Saddam was very much like Hitler in '38. We've already discussed this in other threads, so I will not go back there. I thought there was a lot of hyperbole in his threat assesment. My assesement seems to be panning out, since we're finding no evidence of a nuclear program.

Read this. It's from Fareed Zakaria.

Interesting article. Thanks. Not sure what it has to do with Pollack's argument.

[Bullhajj]

Ok, Rywill, it sounds like we're pretty much in agreement about everything here except for that stuff about the danger Iraq posed and the need for a preemptive strike. ;)

While I will concede that Pollack made some good points and did not make the kind of poor arguments the current administration did, I still did not agree with his assessment of the situation. I found relying on defectors for information troubling. The lack of evidence from inspectors looking for nuclear programs was also troubling. Finally, I believe it was Pollack who was responsible for making the analogy between Saddam and Hitler which was the kind of emotional button pushing the current administration was very adept at and which I found very troubling.

Nobody thought we were going to go into Iraq and recover half a dozen functioning nukes.

Agreed. Although there were some folks who did try to use it to make their arguments for invasion of Iraq more terrifying (not Pollack ;).

[Rywill]

Nobody thought we were going to go into Iraq and recover half a dozen functioning nukes.

Agreed. Although there were some folks who did try to use it to make their arguments for invasion of Iraq more terrifying (not Pollack ;).

Don't make me come over there.

[Bub, Andrew]

Okay, maybe after you told me you skimmed it you then read it cover to cover. At any rate, I will concede that you have read the book. ;)


I'll give you $50 if you can find a post where I say I skimmed "The Threatening Storm."

Look, you seem to find a lot of things "troubling" there Tim. Personally, I can follow the logic that says if:
1. Saddam had WMD and multiple nascent nuclear programs in 1993 (fact)
2. inspectors found 6000 unlisted chemical warheads in 1998 (fact)
3. the inspectors have been gone since 1998 (fact)
4. And Saddam has done nothing to prove he's destroyed WMD or given up nukes (fact) at the extreme cost of his own economy and the bulk of his citizens. (fact)
5. And every single organization/expert agrees Saddam likely has WMD or is pursuing them (fact - including the inspectors, the UN, and the CIA)
6. (Then a bunch of defectors come over with wild tales that Saddam does have them/is pursuing them.)

Well, personally I can see how Pollack got duped into making that argument.

I don't know what you're talking about when you say Pollack got his info from The Times. He wrote his book in 2001 (published in 2002).

Lastly, Pollack doesn't compare Saddam to Hitler, at least not for much longer than the paragraph you read before hurling the book away from you and yelling "No!". He compares him to Stalin, but notes that Saddam doesn't have Stalin's self-restraint. The 100 pages or so he uses to make this case, by citing the ill-advised and simply bone-headed things Saddam has done in the past, makes a compelling case.


Read this. It's from Fareed Zakaria.

Interesting article. Thanks. Not sure what it has to do with Pollack's argument.

It mentions the 6000 chemical munitions the inspectors found in Iraq in 1998 that we had every reason to believe were still there in 2003. Saddam never proved they were destroyed as he was required to do.

[Bullhajj]

I'll give you $50 if you can find a post where I say I skimmed "The Threatening Storm."

It looks like I owe you an apology, Andrew. Here is the post (http://www.quartertothree.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=64912#64912) I was misremembering. It looks like you were advising me how to read it, but I read it that you were telling me how you had read the book.

It's the kind of book you can skip around in. I recommend reading the history of Iraq and Saddam portion, then maybe skipping ahead to the reasons against Detterence, containment, and covert ops. Then to the case for war. The other stuff is very interesting, but the chapters I mentioned will probably turn you all hawkish, whether you like it or not. But it's also jam packed with warnings about cautions that the Bush team has apparently completely ignored.

Well, personally I can see how Pollack got duped into making that argument.

Good for you, Andrew. I am sure Ken feels much better knowing you don't blame him for his faulty conclusion. God knows it must be hard to be an expert on any foreign country, even one that had been as inspected and poked through and with as much hard data as there had been with Iraq. We can only hope Ken doesn't turn his keen observer's eye to a country that's mired in secrecy and doesn’t have any UN inspectors giving him data like, say, for instance North Korea or Iran.

I don't know what you're talking about when you say Pollack got his info from The Times.

No, I'm the one who is not sure what you're talking about; I never said anything like that. Maybe you're talking about the link to the OP ED that Pollack wrote for the Times that basically summarized his argument for invading Iraq?

Lastly, Pollack doesn't compare Saddam to Hitler

I believe it's in the introduction, but I don't have the book handy. Go read it again. You'll see.

It mentions the 6000 chemical munitions the inspectors found in Iraq in 1998 that we had every reason to believe were still there in 2003. Saddam never proved they were destroyed as he was required to do.

You would be hard pressed to convince me these posed a credible threat to the US. Ah, extremely hard pressed considering we can't even find them.

[Bub, Andrew]

I am sure Ken feels much better knowing you don't blame him for his faulty conclusion. God knows it must be hard to be an expert on any foreign country, even one that had been as inspected and poked through and with as much hard data as there had been with Iraq.

Tim, seriously, how many times do I have to point out that Pollack's argument that Iraq had WMD comes not from Ken Pollack... but from the hard data, the inspectors, and from his being an expert on Iraq? It looks like Pollack might have been wrong (it's very possible Iraq had WMD at the time he wrote the book), but that means the UN was wrong, the CIA was wrong, the experts were wrong, the Inspectors were wrong, and Hans Blix was wrong.

You would be hard pressed to convince me these posed a credible threat to the US. Ah, extremely hard pressed considering we can't even find them.

I agree with you here. But then again The Threatening Storm never makes a case that Iraq is a direct threat to the US. It argues that the status quo (sanctions, inspectors, military presence in Kuwait) are all failing miserably and intolerable. Iraq is therefore a threat to US interests, UN interests, European interests, and particularly to the region itself (and he presents a lot of evidence that Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkey, and Kuwait all wanted Saddam ousted even if their people didn't). If you don't buy that argument as a case for war, so be it. That's where the disconnect lies.

The Bush administration are the one's who stretched WMD into a clear and present threat against the US. And that's why almost everyone posting here is agreeing on that. I see that Pollack has become some sort of whipping boy, and that really isn't fair. His book, his argument, is presented in good faith, earnestly, and without agenda. I don't feel like he lied to me, even if it turns out he may have been wrong about WMD. It still looks like he had every reason to believe he was right when he wrote it.

Back to your quote above....

6000 missing chem warheads....

You don't find it troubling that 6000 chem weapons (and there's no doubt these existed, inspectors saw them) are missing? What if they were sold to someone? There was an extensive smuggling pipeline going on, afterall. It's not inconcievable that Saddam got rid of them, rather than destroyed them.

[Bullhajj]

It looks like Pollack might have been wrong (it's very possible Iraq had WMD at the time he wrote the book), but that means the UN was wrong, the CIA was wrong, the experts were wrong, the Inspectors were wrong, and Hans Blix was wrong.

You didn't have to evaluate the data the way he did. There were plenty of people who looked at what Pollack saw and were still opposed to the war. You know this Andrew. Why act as if there was only one true opinion?

I see that Pollack has become some sort of whipping boy, and that really isn't fair. His book, his argument, is presented in good faith, earnestly, and without agenda.

Oh, come on Andrew. Without agenda? He very clearly made a case for invading Iraq.

I don't feel like he lied to me, even if it turns out he may have been wrong about WMD. It still looks like he had every reason to believe he was right when he wrote it.

As I said, I'm sure Ken is thrilled. Me, I want more from the so-called experts.

You don't find it troubling that 6000 chem weapons (and there's no doubt these existed, inspectors saw them) are missing?

Actually it says the inspectors found a document. Really. Go back and read the article. It says they found a document that incorrectly stated the number of bombs used in the Iraq-Iran war.

With the information that's given, all I can say for sure is this: Dr. Zakaria would clearly like me to believe this 5 year old document was good enough reason for a preemptive strike on Iraq. Considering the amounts of disinformation so far, I think it makes far more sense to be skeptical.

[antlers]

Let's assume Saddam did have biological and chemical weapons in vast quantities.

How come I don't feel safer now that the U.S. has invaded Iraq?

Oh yeah, it's because we don't have control of the WMD.

But Saddam is gone, so he doesn't have control of the WMD.

Who has control of the WMD? What the hell are they doing with them? Who's accountable if they get used?

Good thing we invaded Iraq and kept WMD from falling into the wrong hands

[Brad Grenz]

You didn't have to evaluate the data the way he did. There were plenty of people who looked at what Pollack saw and were still opposed to the war.

Yeah, nattering nincompoops like you with your heads in the sand who I now suspect must have been getting handjobs from Uday on the sly. If it's true that Iraq is completely empty that means that all the data everyone was working on was bad! You can't pretend in some revisionist display of divination that you knew for a fact all those reports were absolutely false. You, and people like you refused to support the war, for whatever reason, in spite of all the best intelligence in the world, include UN inspectors, etc. Pollack's conlusions weren't faulty, if he was wrong it was because everyone's data was bad. As has been pointed out many times this all probably could have been avoided if Saddam hadn't jerked everyone around all decade.

And even supposing Saddam had no nuclear program to speak of at the time of invasion, with the sanctions collapsing, France all hot to give Iraq a hummer, and given Saddam's access to an unlimited sum of money him obtaining nuclear weapons in his lifetime was still a possiblility, if not a probability. I know you guys are the kings of procrastination, but I'm not sorry we nipped this problem in the bud today. What does putting it off get us? A higher likelyhood that Saddam can get a nuke before we can stop him, and however many thousands or millions of Iraqis dead at his hands. Like I've said before, this was a win-win. You're so blinded by your need to be "right" you refuse to acknowledge the ramifications of you position.

I heard an interview with a reporter who had been in Iraq on NPR the other day. He had concluded from his impressions of the country Saddam had left behind that he was less a Stalin or Hitler, than a Tony Soprano. A sort of Mob boss who just happened to run a country. I can see his point, but my responce would be, "don't the feds try and take down organized criminals all the time?" This, in my opinion, is the core failure of the UN. It gives the appearance of some sort of international rule of law, but it doesn't really want anyone to go around enforcing it. Can you imagine if before a cop could get an arrest warrant for some drug lord he had to go to the city council and convince them of the suspect's guilt before the actual takedown could happen? And what if the councilors are in bed with the drug lord, or were the opposite political party from the cop and wanted to see him fail? Fucked up, huh? But that's how they were trying to make the UN function. You give a legislative subcommitee executive and judicial powers and watch it screech to a halt. What's worse is Saddam's assaults on human rights were done iopenly. Our cops can act if given probable cause. If they see some thugs beating a shopkeep on the street they can intervene immediately. They don't have to present a case to the state legislature and wait for a state-wide consensus and mandate.

My point? The UN is broken, needs major changes in order to fulfill the role it seems to want. And all you people should probably stop crying over spilt milk, cause it was spoiled anyway. Did the administration lie? Maybe, but it's a bit early to be making proclamations. We can reconvene in 6 months.

[Bullhajj]

Pollack's conlusions weren't faulty

Except for the fact that there we can't find any evidence of a nuclear program. But other than that, I'm with you Brad. As I said before, we can only hope Ken doesn't feel the need to unleash his mighty powers of detection on NK, Syria, or Iran.

[Jason McCullough]

Yeah, nattering nincompoops like you

Safire is on the phone. He wants his hack phrase back.

Marshall: (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/june0302.html#061203409am)

The president's defenders want to frame the argument like this: the president said there was WMD; his critics said there was WMD. If he's wrong, everybody was wrong. If there was a 'plot' to deceive the American people, as Kagan would have it, even the president's critics were in on the plot. So what kind of plot would that be?

This is just a head-fake with an advanced degree and it's deeply dishonest.

The public didn't get sold on this war because Saddam had nerve gas, or botulinum or even anthrax. True or not, a lot of people believed that. (I believed it -- and I still have a very hard time believing Saddam doesn't have chemical munitions stored somewhere.) The public got sold on the war because the administration argued consistently and vociferously that Saddam was on the brink of amassing far more fearsome weapons -- particularly nuclear weapons ("We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud") and that he had growing operational ties to terrorists to whom he might give these weapons or even some of his less threatening chemical agents.

It was fairly clear before the war that neither of those claims were true. Since the war it has become clearer by the day that they were almost certainly not true.

[Brad Grenz]

Except for the fact that there we can't find any evidence of a nuclear program. But other than that, I'm with you Brad. As I said before, we can only hope Ken doesn't feel the need to unleash his mighty powers of detection on NK, Syria, or Iran.

Holy fuck, for the last time, Ken didn't do the detecting. He deduced and infered and extrapolated based on other people's information. If that information was false, that it the fault of the sources, and Ken's arguments aren't proven invalid, but rather immaterial, because they pertain to a situation which did not apply here. Have you got that? Here's a simple hypothetical to illustrate the point. 1+1=2, right? Based on everything you know that would be the correct conclusion. But what if one day we find 1 doesn't equal 1 and + doesn't mean what we thought it meant. We would have been wrong about 1+1=2, but we would not have been wrong for thinking so.

[Bullhajj]

Here's a simple hypothetical to illustrate the point. 1+1=2, right? Based on everything you know that would be the correct conclusion. But what if one day we find 1 doesn't equal 1 and + doesn't mean what we thought it meant. We would have been wrong about 1+1=2, but we would not have been wrong for thinking so.

What do you think of those people before Galileo who thought the world was flat? Now argue forcefully for how they were simply men of their times, who did the best they could.

What about that doctor who put a heart of the wrong blood type in that little girl? It’s not his fault. He just had bad data!

I imagine Ken needs all the apologists he can find about now, so you go right ahead Brad. I'm not saying Ken is evil or anything; he's just not a very accurate analyst. He’s inept.

The bottom line is Mr Pollack sifted through the huge pile of information coming out of Iraq. Using his keen powers of observation, he was able to put together a very frightening picture of what we all could look forward to from Iraq. Too bad much of it seems to have been even way off base.

Lets just hope he doesn't feel the need to tackle a country that doesn’t' have as much information coming out of it. But I guess in your wacky world, less information would allow a more accurate analysis.

Jesus, you guys slay me.

[Squirrel Killer]

What do you think of those people before Galileo who thought the world was flat? Now argue forcefully for how they were simply men of their times, who did the best they could.

Yes, they were men of their times. If the men used the evidence available to them, and came to the conclusion that the Earth is flat, how can anyone fault them for thinking so? The reason we make fun of the flat-earth proponents is that they ignore the new discoveries that prove the Earth is round. Do we fault ancient peoples because they didn't have NASA to prove there were nine planets in a solar system around the sun which is in the larger Milky Way galaxy?

What about that doctor who put a heart of the wrong blood type in that little girl? It’s not his fault. He just had bad data!

If the label on the blood says A+ and the blood inside is actually O-, then the fault lies not with the doctor, but with the moron who labeled the blood. If the girl swears she's A+, but is really O- (assuming that there's no time to check and no medical records to confirm) then the fault lies with the girl. If the doctor reads the chart or test that shows the girl is A+, but hooks her up to a blood supply that is labelled O-, then it's his fault. (I realize that you're talking about a specific case, but I'm talking more generally since I don't know the details of the case.)

I imagine Ken needs all the apologists he can find about now, so you go right ahead Brad. I'm not saying Ken is evil or anything; he's just not a very accurate analyst. He’s inept.

So even though all the data showed a Iraq that had WMD programs, he's inept for making conclusion based on that data?

With every test today shows that matter is made of molecules which are made of atoms which are made of yada yada yada. Your every expectation is based on that premise. But tomorrow, Dr. Smartypants develops a new test, and discovers that everything is actually made of cheese. Oil is rancid brie, gold is just swiss with a touch of cheddar, plastic is really just moldy guda, etc... Over the years his findings are analysised, tested, and verified. Everyone laughs at those who still think matter is made of silly atoms. Now, are you inept, today, for thinking that matter is made of atoms? No, just because your sources of information (ie everything and everybody) were wrong, doesn't make you stupid, silly, or inept.

The bottom line is Mr Pollack sifted through the huge pile of information coming out of Iraq. Using his keen powers of observation, he was able to put together a very frightening picture of what we all could look forward to from Iraq. Too bad much of it seems to have been even way off base.

Lets just hope he doesn't feel the need to tackle a country that doesn’t' have as much information coming out of it. But I guess in your wacky world, less information would allow a more accurate analysis.

Let's make this more personal. Suppose tomorrow, we find clear, incontrovertible WMD. Does that make you inept?

[Bullhajj]

People who claim to be experts need to be correct. And I love how--according to you--there was irrefutable evidence of nuclear programs. If the data was irrefutable, why haven't we found any physical evidence? The bottom line is he interpreted the data wrong. You can apologies for him all you want and that’s not going to change.

You can argue all you like about how if 1+1 didn’t really equal 2, or if doctors didn’t ever make mistakes. It means nothing. Here’s the bottom line:

1) 1+1=2
2) Doctors are held accountable for egregious errors
3) Ken Pollack did a poor analysis of the Iraqi situation.

[Bullhajj]

Let's make this more personal. Suppose tomorrow, we find clear, incontrovertible WMD. Does that make you inept?

Why should it? At best it means my opinon of Ken Pollack and many others may need to change.

To use your own words, "If the men used the evidence available to them, and came to the conclusion that the Earth is flat, how can anyone fault them for thinking so?" Read the news Squirrel Killer. That's the evidence available to you.

And always remember: "The reason we make fun of the flat-earth proponents is that they ignore the new discoveries that prove the Earth is round." Don't make me make fun of you.

[Jason McCullough]

We're probably not going to find anything, because apparently the US inspection teams have already checked everywhere (http://www.theolympian.com/home/news/20030610/frontpage/24787.shtml).

Fun game: what does this article (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/11/international/worldspecial/11ATTA.html) remind you of?

FALLUJA, Iraq, June 10 ? Since the American command quadrupled its military presence here last week, not a day has gone by without troops weathering an ambush, a rocket-propelled grenade attack, an assault with automatic weapons or a mine blast.

American forces are still not clear exactly who their opponent is. Enemy fighters they have killed have not carried identification, and local residents have provided only limited intelligence about who is behind the attacks.

But one thing is already clear. American forces seem to be battling a small but determined foe who has a primitive but effective command-and-control system that uses red, blue and white flares to signal the advance of American troops. The risk does not come from random potshots. The American forces are facing organized resistance that comes alive at night.

Korea? No, that's not it.....

[Rywill]

Yet another in Tim's long line of masterful attempts to dodge the issue. What everyone above was saying is that Pollack made a good judgment based on the data he had at the time. Even if later data emerges that contradicts him, nobody could be expected to predict the emergence of that unexpected data--even an expert on Iraq.

You keep conflating the data we had before with the data we had now--saying essentially that the data we had before couldn't have pointed to WMD because we haven't found any WMD by now. Even if we assume we will never find WMD, that syllogism doesn't admit the possibilities that (1) the data we had before was extremely misleading; or (2) the WMD were destroyed between the time we gathered the data and today.

You kind of glossed over most of the hypos presented, but do you in fact think that (for example) an ancient Greek who thought the earth was flat, or a doctor who hooked up blood marked "O-negative" to a patient, but then later turns out to have made a bad decision, is inept?

[Squirrel Killer]

People who claim to be experts need to be correct.

Experts are human, they are fallible. Data is, at some point, gathered by humans, therefore it's fallible. Tim, you must be an expert at something, right? Are you telling me you've never been wrong? Bullshit. There are situations where the experts, relying on the best information available, are wrong. Even when the best information is virtually an axiom. This doesn't mean that they're inept and unqualified to analyze future data, it means the data is wrong or incomplete.

And I love how--according to you--there was irrefutable evidence of nuclear programs. If the data was irrefutable, why haven't we found any physical evidence?

The bottom line is he interpreted the data wrong. You can apologies for him all you want and that’s not going to change.

1) According to me...nothing. Once again, you're misquoting someone. I said "Suppose tomorrow, we find clear, incontrovertible WMD. Does that make you inept?"
2) The world community (UN) took as given that Saddam had WMD. This wasn't some half-cocked assumption, there was evidence enough for just about everyone to say, "Yeah, he's got WMD."
3) A lot of Democrats seemed to think Iraq had WMD (http://www.rightwingnews.com/archives/week_2003_06_08.PHP#001026) (heavily biased source noted)
4) You're clouding the issue. The issue is can an expert be wrong, but not inept, due to faulty data.
5) If you ignore experts because they get it wrong once in a while, you're going to find youself without any experts to listen to.
6) If there really wasn't any WMD, why didn't Saddam just prove it?

You can argue all you like about how if 1+1 didn’t really equal 2, or if doctors didn’t ever make mistakes. It means nothing. Here’s the bottom line:

1) 1+1=2
2) Doctors are held accountable for egregious errors
3) Ken Pollack did a poor analysis of the Iraqi situation.

1) Tim, no one is saying 1+1 is not 2. We're saying that an expert who, based on the best data available, says "1+1=2", is not inept when it is later discovered that 1+1 actually equals 3.

2) Doctors are held accountable for their egregious errors. Yes, whoever said that they weren't?

3) Pollack took the best data available and determined that Iraq most likely had WMD. From what I've gathered, virtually any other expert would take a look at the same data and reach the same factual conclusion (that Iraq had WMD.) Maybe they wouldn't have come to the same policy conclusion to wage war, but the data supported the factual conclusion.

[Jason McCullough]

Yet another in Tim's long line of masterful attempts to dodge the issue. What everyone above was saying is that Pollack made a good judgment based on the data he had at the time. Even if later data emerges that contradicts him, nobody could be expected to predict the emergence of that unexpected data--even an expert on Iraq.

You keep conflating the data we had before with the data we had now--saying essentially that the data we had before couldn't have pointed to WMD because we haven't found any WMD by now. Even if we assume we will never find WMD, that syllogism doesn't admit the possibilities that (1) the data we had before was extremely misleading; or (2) the WMD were destroyed between the time we gathered the data and today.

You kind of glossed over most of the hypos presented, but do you in fact think that (for example) an ancient Greek who thought the earth was flat, or a doctor who hooked up blood marked "O-negative" to a patient, but then later turns out to have made a bad decision, is inept?

It appears that everyone who knew anything about Iraq thought he had a WMD program. They were wrong. Is your conclusion from this:

a) well, they did their best

or

b) jesus christ, our intelligence agencies are worse than useless

[Bub, Andrew]

Is this some sort of twisted half-full or half-empty question?

I'd answer A. Because I consider myself a realist (realistically no "intel" is going to be 100% factual). Therefore analysts are expected to make their "best guess" based on what we know to be true. FWIW I'd believe what the defectors said too.

[Jason McCullough]

One of the lessons would be that defectors tend not to tell the truth, wouldn't it? Chablai and company were apparently behind the most creative stories.

[Bullhajj]

What everyone above was saying is that Pollack made a good judgment based on the data he had at the time. Even if later data emerges that contradicts him, nobody could be expected to predict the emergence of that unexpected data--even an expert on Iraq.

My position is that Pollack didn't have to come to the conclusions he came to given the data he had. As I said, it wasn't as if he had irrefutable evidence of an Iraqi nuclear weapons program. He had defectors whose opinion he gave much weight. He had past evidence of a nuclear weapons program that had been dismantled. He had a terrifying psychological profile that swung on Saddam having access to nuclear weapons. What's being conflated? The current lack of physical evidence of a nuclear weapons program is merely proof his analysis was faulty. Edit: Moreover, I think the only reason so many people went for his argument was the psychological aftermath of 9/11. I will not be surprised if history records this as a sort of mass hysteria, where otherwise normal people were led to believe ridiculous claims.

I think it's funny you really claiming that the "data we had before was extremely misleading" as an excuse for an expert not being able to accurately assess the situation. What the hell is an expert opinion good for if it can't correctly assess misleading information? And the same goes for nuclear weapons program that had been rebuilt and then secretly destroyed. I would hope the experts know about that sort of thing.

And yes, doctors who make poor decisions that cost people their lives are, in fact, inept. Here's another analogy: You listen to a broker who advises you should invest all your money into various stocks. The stocks plummet and you lose 90% of your wealth. Do you just chalk it up to some glib "everyone makes mistakes" and give him the other 10%?

[Bub, Andrew]

One of the lessons would be that defectors tend not to tell the truth, wouldn't it? Chablai and company were apparently behind the most creative stories.

Excuse me. I meant I "would have believed" them, not that I'd believe them now. Still, it's difficult to expect an expert to flatly deny an eyewitness account, especially if what they're claiming plays into what the expert already sees as likely.

[Bullhajj]

Tim, you must be an expert at something, right? Are you telling me you've never been wrong?

I am an expert at some things. As you have correctly pointed out, I am occasionally wrong. Here’s the thing the. After listening to that interview at the beginning of this thread, I can say that the one apparent difference between me and Ken Pollack is this: when I am wrong, I take responsibility for it.

And I love how--according to you--there was irrefutable evidence of nuclear programs. If the data was irrefutable, why haven't we found any physical evidence?

The bottom line is he interpreted the data wrong. You can apologies for him all you want and that’s not going to change.

1) According to me...nothing. Once again, you're misquoting someone.

My point was that according to how you are arguing (Andrew and Rywill, too, for that matter), one would think there was irrefutable evidence of a nuclear weapons program prior to the writing of the book, but there wasn't. I would like the experts to be sure before they go off half cocked, thank you.

[Bullhajj]

Still, it's difficult to expect an expert to flatly deny an eyewitness account, especially if what they're claiming plays into what the expert already sees as likely.

Ah, but this is exactly when you most need an expert to be able to separate fact from fiction.

[Bub, Andrew]

Ah, but this is exactly when you most need an expert to be able to separate fact from fiction.

Of course the only expert equipped to do this--refute eyewitness accounts--would have been... Saddam Hussein. Tim I respect your idealism, but it's seriously out of control here. I can't see how any government or expert could make any decision by your standards.

After listening to that interview at the beginning of this thread, I can say that the one apparent difference between me and Ken Pollack is this: when I am wrong, I take responsibility for it.

Tim, I listened to it too and I felt he did take responsibility for it. The only difference between us, of course, is that I read the damn book! ;-)

[Bullhajj]

Of course the only expert equipped to do this--refute eyewitness accounts--would have been... Saddam Hussein. Tim I respect your idealism, but it's seriously out of control here. I can't see how any government or expert could make any decision by your standards.

And I respect your naiveté, Andrew. All I am asking for is a little less gulibility by the so-called experts. If that's idealism, so be it. I am just glad we ask our domestic police forces to be so idealistic. If I say I saw a goose that lays golden eggs, are you going to belive me? After all, I am an eyewitness. :)

After listening to that interview at the beginning of this thread, I can say that the one apparent difference between me and Ken Pollack is this: when I am wrong, I take responsibility for it.

Tim, I listened to it too and I felt he did take responsibility for it. The only difference between us, of course, is that I read the damn book! ;-)[/quote]

Touche. But seriously, what made you think he took responsibility for his mistakes. Did you hear him even admit to making one? I did not.

[Bub, Andrew]

And I respect your naiveté, Andrew.

That's funny. I wrote naiveté and then changed it to "idealism" in an effort to be nice. :roll: The golden egg analogy is just too ridiculous for me to respond to Tim. The domestic police example is interesting, because it works against you. The police need far less evidence than Pollack had to make an argument to a judge and obtain a search warrant. The police only need probable cause, afterall. And past behavior is probable cause. They can knock the door down with guns drawn.

you think he took responsibility for his mistakes. Did you hear him even admit to making one? I did not.

I said "took responsibility for it" meaning being wrong about WMD. You changed it to "responsibility for his mistakes." He didn't make any mistakes Tim. He did admit that for now it looks like he was wrong about the WMD.

[Bullhajj]

Sorry if naiveté hurt your feelings.

The goose was an attempt to lighten the mood. I just seems silly to believe someone has seen the thing you most want them to have seen just because they say they've seen it. Also, there is a big difference between search warrents and a preemptive strike (deadly force). My point is that it's common sense to doubt someone who has something to gain from lying to you.

[Bullhajj]

He didn't make any mistakes Tim.

Ken is really going to need folks like you in the months to come, Andrew.

[Squirrel Killer]

It appears that everyone who knew anything about Iraq thought he had a WMD program. They were wrong.

Can we expect a recantation if WMD themselves or proof of WMD programs are eventually found?

I can understand the inherent difficulty of proving a negative, but in a world where we're always learning more about practices in Stalinist USSR, Nazi Germany, Colonial American, and even pre-historic Mesopotamia, saying that Saddam absolutely didn't have WMD is a pretty bold statement (of course, with current data, saying that Saddam absolutely did have WMD, especially during the Gulf War II buildup, is a pretty bold statement.)

[Bub, Andrew]

He didn't make any mistakes Tim.

Ken is really going to need folks like you in the months to come, Andrew.

You mean people like me who bothered to read the book? Yeah, you're probably right about that Tim.

[Bullhajj]

You mean people who read the book before they begin attacking him? Yeah, you're probably right about that Tim.

I read it post invasion, but I read it. And I'm not so sure this is an attack either. After all, anyone can be inept at what they do. I am mainly appaled at all the apologists defending him.

Edit: I just read again what I quoted. You can begin attacking anytime you like, Andrew.

[Squirrel Killer]

And yes, doctors who make poor decisions that cost people their lives are, in fact, inept.

A doctor that won't trust the blood supply nor the patient's medical charts as to their blood type, requiring blood typing at every stage of the process is more inept than the doctor who hooks an A+ patient to a blood supply marked A+, but is really O-. Just because the doctor makes a lot of money doesn't mean he's automatically at fault.

Here's another analogy: You listen to a broker who advises you should invest all your money into various stocks. The stocks plummet and you lose 90% of your wealth. Do you just chalk it up to some glib "everyone makes mistakes" and give him the other 10%?

A broker who tells you to invest all your money into stocks is inept, period. Professional malpractice is not the same as incorrect forcasting.

This is getting stupid. You call an expert because you don't have complete knowledge. If you had perfect knowledge, you wouldn't need the expert. You don't need a mathematician to tell you 1+1=2 when it written all out, you need him to solve some complex formula. You don't need an engineer to build a birdhouse, you need him to build the Golden Gate Bridge. And you don't need an international relations expert when you know everything about a situation and how the various parties are going to react. You need him when all the facts aren't common knowledge and when the parties may be irrational. To ignore the expert because the data, which was commonly regarded as correct, was wrong is to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[Bullhajj]

To ignore the expert because the data, which was commonly regarded as correct, was wrong is to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

But if only we had ignored the expert! The whole point is that he sold himself as an expert and he was not ignored.

This is getting tiresome. Ken Pollack's main thrust was that Iraq was a threat becasue they were so close to nuclear weapons capability (as I read it). As it turns out, they really weren't that close to having nuclear weapons capability. If this is okay for you folks, so be it. I am of a different opinon. Unless you can come up with something new (or better than if 1+1=3--Now hear me out, Tim, we're just saying), I am going to let you folks have the last word.

I will say this, though: I will not bother with the next Ken Pollack epic, no matter what Eric says. :)

[Jason McCullough]

If we find a nuclear program - not a pissant batch of anthrax or some other useless thing - I'll say the invasion was a good idea.

[ydejin]

One of the lessons would be that defectors tend not to tell the truth, wouldn't it? Chablai and company were apparently behind the most creative stories.

Excuse me. I meant I "would have believed" them, not that I'd believe them now. Still, it's difficult to expect an expert to flatly deny an eyewitness account, especially if what they're claiming plays into what the expert already sees as likely.

Andrew, the problem I have is that most of the experts did not believe them. However the Bush administration insisted they were true. Here's a quote from Newsweek (http://www.msnbc.com/news/919753.asp) (although these stories have also been widely reported elsewhere).

Then came the defectors. Former Iraqi officials fleeing the regime told of underground bunkers and labs hiding vast stores of chemical and biological weapons and nuclear materials. The CIA, at first, was skeptical. Defectors in search of safe haven sometimes stretch or invent the facts. The true believers in the Bush administration, on the other hand, embraced the defectors and credited their stories. Many of the defectors were sent to the Americans by Ahmed Chalabi, the politically ambitious and controversial Iraqi exile. Chalabi’s chief patron is Richard Perle, the former Reagan Defense Department official and charter member of the so-called neocons, the hard-liners who occupy many top jobs in the Bush national-security establishment.


The CIA was especially wary of Chalabi, whom they regarded as a con man (Chalabi has been convicted of bank fraud in Jordan; he denies the charges). But rather than accept the CIA’s doubts, top officials in the Bush Defense Department set up their own team of intelligence analysts, a small but powerful shop now called the Office of Special Plans—and, half-jokingly, by its members, “the Cabal.”

The Bush administration had the end result they wanted and shaded the intelligence received from the CIA and other intelligence agencies to match their result. That's not bad intelligence, that's bad decision making and poor leadership. The famous Mohammed Atta connection is another example of the administration ignoring our own intelligence agencies because the agencies weren't telling them what they wanted to hear:

The Cabal was eager to find a link between Saddam and Al Qaeda, especially proof that Saddam played a role in the 9-11 attacks. The hard-liners at Defense seized on a report that Muhammad Atta, the chief hijacker, met in Prague in early April 2001 with an Iraqi intelligence official. Only one problem with that story, the FBI pointed out. Atta was traveling at the time between Florida and Virginia Beach, Va. (The bureau had his rental car and hotel receipts.)

Here's one that's truly pathetic (emphasis mine).

On the morning after Bush’s State of the Union address in January, Greg Thielmann, who had recently resigned from the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR)—whose duties included tracking Iraq’s WMD program—read the text in the newspaper. Bush had cited British intelligence reports that Saddam was trying to purchase “significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”
Thielmann was floored. “When I saw that, it really blew me away,” Thielmann told NEWSWEEK. Thielmann knew about the source of the allegation. The CIA had come up with some documents purporting to show Saddam had attempted to buy up to 500 tons of uranium oxide from the African country of Niger. INR had concluded that the purchases were implausible—and made that point clear to Powell’s office. As Thielmann read that the president had relied on these documents to report to the nation, he thought, “Not that stupid piece of garbage. My thought was, how did that get into the speech?” It later turned out that the documents were a forgery, and a crude one at that, peddled to the Italians by an entrepreneurial African diplomat. The Niger minister of Foreign Affairs whose name was on the letterhead had been out of office for more than 10 years. The most cursory checks would have exposed the fraud.


Yeah, I'm sure that did a lot for America's credibility.

Or what about when before the war General Erik Shinseki, the Chief of Staff of the Army, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that we needed "something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers" to control post war Iraq. He was publically rebuked by the Bush administration. They insisted that he was wrong. This is the Chief of Staff of the entire Army -- presumably he's a smart and competent guy -- but no, his view of the world didn't match the Bush administrations', so obviously he was wrong.

What's going on in Iraq now? Well, combined the US and the British have about 200,000 troops in Iraq. Hmmm, that seems like something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers. Maybe the Chief of Staff of the Army actually knew what he was talking about. Why didn't the Bush administration believe him? Because his expert view didn't match the way they thought the world worked.

Similarly, we have the whole "Bio weapons" trailer report. Here's a quote from the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/07/international/worldspecial/07TRAI.html) (underlines are mine):

In all, at least three teams of Western experts have now examined the trailers and evidence from them. While the first two groups to see the trailers were largely convinced that the vehicles were intended for the purpose of making germ agents, the third group of more senior analysts divided sharply over the function of the trailers, with several members expressing strong skepticism, some of the dissenters said.
"I have no great confidence that it's a fermenter," a senior analyst with long experience in unconventional arms said of a tank for multiplying seed germs into lethal swarms. The government's public report, he added, "was a rushed job and looks political."
The skeptical experts said the mobile plants lacked gear for steam sterilization, normally a prerequisite for any kind of biological production, peaceful or otherwise. Its lack of availability between production runs would threaten to let in germ contaminants, resulting in failed weapons.

Second, if this shortcoming were somehow circumvented, each unit would still produce only a relatively small amount of germ-laden liquid, which would have to undergo further processing at some other factory unit to make it concentrated and prepare it for use as a weapon.

Finally, they said, the trailers have no easy way for technicians to remove germ fluids from the processing tank.

Everytime we have an expert that disagrees with what Bush and company think is reality they get ignored. What is the point in our country having experts if the administration simply ignores them. I say we disband the entire CIA, FBI, and NSA and fire all military personnel above the rank of Major, because obviously Bush and company know more than they do, and because Bush and company seem to ignore their expert analysis at every turn anyway. In their place we will create a special aviary of trained parrots. These parrots will repeat everything that Bush, Rumsfield, Wolfowitz, or Cheney tells them. We can use the parrots' quotes next time the administration goes before Congress or the UN to verify the administration's claims. Getting rid of the CIA, FBI, and NSA will free up all manner of money which Bush can hand out with his next round of tax cuts.

[Brad Grenz]

If we find a nuclear program - not a pissant batch of anthrax or some other useless thing - I'll say the invasion was a good idea.

Would you stop interjecting? This thread is no longer about WMD in Iraq, it's about what an ass-hat Tim is being trying to lmislay blame using some perverted form of logic unkowable to anyone but him (though I actually think it's more likely he knows he's wrong, but continues the argument nonetheless in some misguided act of ass-hattedness).

What do you think of those people before Galileo who thought the world was flat? Now argue forcefully for how they were simply men of their times, who did the best they could.

First of all, I think you mean Columbus. And even if you did you'd be wrong because for anyone who wanted to know the truth the fact that the Earth was round had been proven mathmatically by Erastothenes in about 300 BC, and calculated it's circumference. Or maybe you were thinking about the heliocentric theory of the universe, which was actually developed by Copernicus. In either case you information is truely terrible, and reflects the quality of your argument against Pollack.

[Alan Dunkin]

Ken Pollack doesn't see himself as an expert, he is an expert. He might have gotten information wrong, or was using wrong or maybe even not having all of the information to make a statement, but that doesn't belittle the fact that he mostly knows his shit.

--- Alan

[Jason McCullough]

Forgive me for cluttering up your little star chamber, Brad.

[Jason McCullough]

Whoops! (http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,977853,00.html):

An official British investigation into two trailers found in northern Iraq has concluded they are not mobile germ warfare labs, as was claimed by Tony Blair and President George Bush, but were for the production of hydrogen to fill artillery balloons, as the Iraqis have continued to insist.

[Rywill]

I'm still all pro-war and everything, but I re-watched Wag the Dog today, and I can't help but think of Gulf War II.

Great movie, too--didn't get nearly enough kudos/attention, I think.

[XPav]

I remember seeing more than one car in Houston driving around with "WAG THE DOG" written on them when Clinton launched some cruise missiles during his impeachment trials.