Where O Where are the WMDs?

[Midnight Son]

Well, uh, the thing it is...

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=533&e=1&u=/ap/20031004/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_weapons_hunt

Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) may have possessed weapons of mass destruction and hid them, the chief U.S. weapons inspector says. Or the Iraqi dictator may have had the weapons and moved them outside the country just before the war. Or perhaps Saddam never had them at all, and just bluffed to appear strong.

"We have about five to six working hypotheses that we routinely — actually every Saturday afternoon — review as to how our data is fitting ... We don't actually have a favorite," Kay told reporters.

Well, at least we didn't go to war over this and get our soldiers killed....

[Mark Asher]

Yeah, it would be funny if we didn't have our people being killed over there and it wasn't costing us hundreds of billions.

[Midnight Son]

I guess that, maybe, it was just another Boosh lie? I could be wrong, of course.

[Desslock]

In other news, Saddam Hussein also apparently never existed

[Jason McCullough]

At this point I wouldn't be surprised.

[Sharpe]

Just so we understand what's going on here, here is a site with some good before and after quotes on WMDs:

http://www.beltwaybandit.blogspot.com/2003_09_28_beltwaybandit_archive.html#106521338092 055682

To me that's pretty unequivocal on the issue of the adminsitrations credibility.

Dan

[Bullhajj]

In other news, Saddam Hussein also apparently never existed

You mean the threat he posed never existed. Glad to see you've come around to right-thinking! See, there is always hope.

[Brad Grenz]

In other news, Saddam Hussein also apparently never existed

You mean the threat he posed never existed. Glad to see you've come around to right-thinking! See, there is always hope.

Since it apparently flew right over your head, I think you should know Desslock was making a joke about us not being ble to find him either. Get it?

[Linoleum]

Read the Kay report (www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2003/david_kay_10022003.html) in its entirety. And start discussion from there, much more to chew on.

[Bullhajj]

In other news, Saddam Hussein also apparently never existed

You mean the threat he posed never existed. Glad to see you've come around to right-thinking! See, there is always hope.

Since it apparently flew right over your head, I think you should know Desslock was making a joke about us not being ble to find him either. Get it?

In other news, Brad Grenz humor also apparently never existed.

[Sharpe]

The list of quotes is just too good IMO to ignore. Here they are:


NUCLEAR WEAPONS

CLAIM: “Evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program…Iraq could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year.” - President Bush, 10/7/02

CLAIM: “[Saddam] is actively pursuing nuclear weapons at this time.”- VP Cheney, 3/24/02

CLAIM: “We believe Saddam has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.” - VP Cheney, 3/16/03 [NOTE - Cheney later said he mispoke and meant to say "nuclear weapon *programs* - even so... ]

CLAIM: “We do know that [Saddam] is actively pursuing a nuclear weapon.”- National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 9/10/02

CLAIM: “Iraqis were actively trying to pursue a nuclear weapons program.” - National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 7/11/03

THE KAY REPORT: “We have not uncovered evidence that Iraq undertook significant post-1998 steps to actually build nuclear weapons or produce fissile material.”
- Bush Administration Weapons Inspector David Kay, 10/2/03

MOBILE BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS LAB

CLAIM: “We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories.”
-President Bush, on locating the mobile biological weapons labs, 5/29/03

CLAIM: “We know where the [WMD] are.” - Don Rumsfeld, 3/30/03

CLAIM: “Iraq has at least seven mobile factories for the production of biological agents - equipment mounted on trucks and rails to evade discovery.” –President Bush, 2/8/03

CLAIM: “I’m absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We’re just getting it now.” - Colin Powell, 5/4/03

THE KAY REPORT: “We have not yet been able to corroborate the existence of a mobile BW production effort. Technical limitations would prevent any of these processes from being ideally suited to these trailers.”
- Bush Administration Weapons Inspector David Kay, 10/2/03

CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL CAPABILITY

CLAIM: “There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more…Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough agent to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets.” – Colin Powell, 2/5/03

CLAIM: “[Saddam has] amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of biological weapons, including Anthrax, botulism, toxins and possibly smallpox. He's amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons, including VX, Sarin and mustard gas.” --Don Rumsfeld, 9/19/02

CLAIM: “Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.” –Vice President Cheney, 8/26/02

CLAIM: “The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons…And according to the British government, the Iraqi regime could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes.” –President Bush, 9/26/02

CLAIM: “Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.” –President Bush, 1/28/03

CLAIM: “His regime has large, unaccounted-for stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons -- including VX, sarin, cyclosarin and mustard gas; anthrax, botulism, and possibly smallpox -- and he has an active program to acquire and develop nuclear weapons.” – Don Rumsfeld, 1/20/03

THE KAY REPORT: “Iraq did not have a large, ongoing, centrally controlled chemical weapons program after 1991… Iraq's large-scale capability to develop, produce, and fill new CW munitions was reduced - if not entirely destroyed - during Operations Desert Storm and Desert Fox, 13 years of UN sanctions and UN inspections.”
- Bush Administration Weapons Inspector David Kay, 10/2/03

I don't believe any reasonable reading of these quotes, even using the most technical lawyer-like parsing of phrasing, is consistent with the actual findings in Iraq. The quotes continually say things like "Saddam *has* weapons", "Saddams is *actively* pursuing weapons" etc. Also the administration likes to use firm decisive statements like "There is no doubt" or "There can be no doubt." Well, it turns out that there IS plenty of doubt. We simply didnt find any evidence that Saddam actually did have stockpiles of these weapons - all the evidence thus far is that they were destroyed following 1991 and 1998. As for "active" pursuit of programs, sure Saddam *wanted* to have weapons but his active program basically consisted of a bunch of scientists hiding junk under their flowerbeds and waiting for the international attention to subside.

Bottom line: the administration repeatedly and forcefully said Saddam was an *imminent* threat to use WMDs or give them to terrorists. And the evidence is that although he was an evil bastard who *wanted* to be able to do that, he had no capability whatsoever to do it, and his programs were in a shambles, with no imminent potential to create weapons.

The actual justification for the war is moot now b/c we are already in Iraq. What's NOT moot to me is that our Commander in Chief and his crew overstated a threat, took factual positions not supported by facts on issues of national security, and IMO overstated and manipulated the evidence to force the country into war. I have a problem with that. A big one. We need to do what's right in Iraq and try to get a functioning government in place and stablize the region. But we also need to take the administration to task for misusing the public trust.

My solution: vote for Clark in 2004. Bush can join his father (and whipping boy Jimmy Carter) on the list of ignominious "one termers".

Dan

[graller]

I am with you on that one Dan - except on whether Clark is the man but Bush....he needs to be gone.

[Robert Sharp]

What I still find odd is that Bush is still saying he did the right thing and for the reasons that he originally gave (before the war). I'm not sure why he is trying to stick to that story.

On the radio I heard him admit that they have not yet found the WMDs, and yet there is clear evidence that Saddam was an immediate threat the U.S. What does that even mean? What exactly WAS the threat and what is this evidence? Was he talking bad about my momma?

[Mark Asher]

What I still find odd is that Bush is still saying he did the right thing and for the reasons that he originally gave (before the war). I'm not sure why he is trying to stick to that story.

Because to say otherwise would be to admit either 1) he was wrong or 2) he was feeding the American people a crock of shit. He's not about to do either.

[bmulligan]

ditto,

then theres the dillema of what to do about the countries that actually are making nuclear weapons (Iran,N.Korea). And the hypocracy of dealing with them, but invading Iraq.

[Bullhajj]

ditto,

then theres the dillema of what to do about the countries that actually are making nuclear weapons (Iran,N.Korea). And the hypocracy of dealing with them, but invading Iraq.

Jesus, I agree with bmulligan. That's messed up.

[XPav]

Look what we found!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47562-2003Oct5.html

Kay's discovery of one vial of a reference strain of botulinum toxin that an Iraqi scientist had stored in his refrigerator in 1993 at his government's request was described by Bush on Friday as a piece of evidence that Iraq was prepared to have prohibited biological weapons.

[Kalle]

An Iraqi scientist has kept a lethal strain of bacteria stored in his refrgerator for ten years!

"Honey, there's no milk in that blue bottle in the fridge, did you forget to go shopping? Oooh, I'm not feeling good..."

[Midnight Son]

Clearly the scientist's refrigerator was part of a larger network of "terror" refrigerators spread across the mideast. As we speak, commando teams are targeting fridges in the area. :wink:

[theblackw0lf]

This guy says it better then I can

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48562-2003Oct5.html

The Iraq Survey Group headed by David Kay has now made an interim report. Ironically, this group has inherited the obligation previously levied by the United Nations upon Saddam Hussein -- namely, to credibly and verifiably detail Iraq's program of weapons of mass destruction to a skeptical international audience.




The group has had far more access and resources than the U.N. inspectors under Hans Blix and it has been in Iraq longer. How is it faring and what does the interim report tell us? Particularly, does the absence of a major weapons discovery mean that U.N. inspections were working and the war was unnecessary?

Kay states that while no ready-to-use weapons have been found, Iraq is a big country and many depots and other locations are yet to be inspected. However, the Kay report does list evidence of continuing research and development (though not production) in each weapon category. It also describes activities and equipment that Iraq failed to declare to the United Nations and that were not discovered by the inspectors.

Future reports will have to show in verifiable detail the extent of these prohibited programs, but these findings will not greatly surprise experienced U.N. inspectors. Hussein had long differentiated between retaining weapons and sustaining the capability to produce weapons. Experience has also shown that Iraq tended to pursue whatever relevant research was allowed or was deemed undetectable.

The apparent absence of existing weapons stocks, therefore, does not mean Hussein did not pose a WMD threat. In fact, fragments of evidence in Kay's report about ongoing biological weapons research suggest that Hussein may have had a quick "break-out" capacity to threaten his neighbors and, indeed, the United States with biological agents (possibly including infectious agents).

But clearly this is not the immediate threat many assumed before the war. Large stocks of chemical and biological munitions have not been found. The WMD threat appears to have been longer term. Assuming this finding does not change, it will be very important for the Iraq Survey Group to establish when all agents and weapons were eliminated. It will also be important to analyze why the picture Secretary of State Colin Powell presented to the Security Council in February was so far off the mark.

Future reports will also have to demonstrate what facts about the Iraq WMD program the U.N. teams missed and how Hussein's regime acted to thwart the efforts of the United Nations. This latter issue is vital. Kay makes mention of the Iraqi concealment and deception as one reason why he has found so little. The first U.N. inspection team (UNSCOM) pursued a controversial program to investigate what we termed the Iraqi concealment mechanism. The goal was to show how the enormous resources of Iraq's security and intelligence apparatus undermined the inspection teams. We accumulated evidence that presidential secretary Abed Hamid Mahmoud, now in U.S. custody, directed a government-wide effort to contain inspection activity. This included penetrating the U.N. inspection teams and even obtaining assistance from other prominent countries to fend off the inspectors. Conducting surprise inspections had become almost impossible.

The Iraq Survey Group should now have access to the records and participants of the former regime. Future reports must provide a clear description of the Iraqi system for containing inspector activity. This is necessary to inform judgments about the effectiveness of the U.N. inspections. The argument is made that if no weapons were found in Iraq, then maybe the U.N. inspection process was successfully containing Hussein and, therefore, the war was unnecessary.

This will be proven wrong if the Iraq Survey Group can show that Hussein could outlast and outwit the efforts of the Security Council to keep him from ever obtaining WMD. While the inspection system may have appeared to be successful at a given point, it was not sustainable and eventually the U.N. Security Council would lose focus. Kay's group needs to document the strategy that Hussein's regime was pursuing to counter and erode the U.N. disarmament measures.

The Bush administration appears committed to developing a full picture of the Iraqi weapons program, even if it turns out to be less than was forecast. This task in Iraq, like so many others, is made much more difficult because of early mistakes. Key sites were left unsecured and looters destroyed much evidence. Tons of documents were collected haphazardly, and now they have to be sorted out by experts and linguists -- an extremely time-consuming process.

Finally, the Iraqis who are most knowledgeable have been living in fear of arrest by the Americans or death from various internal Iraqi threats. Most of the WMD program leaders have spent the summer in jail. The second-tier scientists and engineers fear the night when U.S. military surround their homes and take them away to face an unknown future. They do not find much incentive to cooperate.

Kay appears to be making necessary course corrections, and a full verifiable description of Hussein's programs and policies should be forthcoming. It will have to be meticulous. There are many very knowledgeable people in the audience, including U.N. inspectors and former Iraqi officials, who will ultimately pass judgment on its veracity.

[Jason McCullough]

In other news, the goal posts are now located at the 50 yard line.

[Kalle]

In other news, the goal posts are now located at the 50 yard line.

In the immortal words of Manuel:

"que?"

[Jason McCullough]

You Swedes with your lack of American football references!

[graller]

In other words we only have to prove there was an intent to deceive the UN inspectors and that Hussein was working to circumvent inspection and maintain a facade of WMD production. Although the Bush league has been swearing for a year that Saddam was sitting with his finger on the trigger of WMD Armegeddon we now only need to accomplish the above to justify our warmongering ways.

[Bub, Andrew]

In other news, the goal posts are now located at the 50 yard line.

In the immortal words of Manuel:

"que?"

Translated to Soccer:
"In other news, the goalie has been drugged and the Fullbacks removed."

[Midnight Son]

In other words, Dubya's bat is corked.

[bmulligan]

I just can't reconcile the situation in my mind that Saddam was 'fronting' WMD production. Why wouldn't he just open the doors, let the scientists and their families conduct private interviews and be done with it. He'd still be in power, hed' still have his billions, and he could still torture his own people at will.....If it were me, I'd let the inspectors do whatever the fuck they wanted , then be rid of them once and for all.

Why tempt the threat of invasion if you're really innocent? I mean, I understand the saving face aspect of the culture(along with the Israelis), but couldn't you see past it for a while to save your own skin, your own power ? Somethings still smells rotten in the state of Denmark.

[Midnight Son]

I wonder if we are ever going to capture or kill those two fucks Osama and Saddam?

[Jason McCullough]

The most plausible theory I've seen floated is that none of Saddam's researchers were going to risk his wrath by telling him that his programs were demolished. "Why, yes, we're still working on nukes!"

[Bub, Andrew]

Why tempt the threat of invasion if you're really innocent? I mean, I understand the saving face aspect of the culture(along with the Israelis), but couldn't you see past it for a while to save your own skin, your own power ?

The best theories I've read are his fear of his neighbors:
Iran, the Kurds, and another Shiite uprising. Saddam's history of power has a lot of near misses in it. His chem weapons were the one thing that really scared the crap out of, well, Iran for one thing.

That and I think he really didn't believe the invasion would happen until it was too late.

[Bub, Andrew]

The most plausible theory I've seen floated is that none of Saddam's researchers were going to risk his wrath by telling him that his programs were demolished. "Why, yes, we're still working on nukes!"

You considered this plausible?
Maybe, but from what I've read, Qusay would have had to be in on that ruse.

[bmulligan]

I guess I understand the keeping neighbors fearful theory, but if he just cooperated fully, and somebody attacked him, he could petition for US aid, and we would have been practically obligated to help him drive out any attackers. Like the 'mouse that roared'

[Bub, Andrew]

I don't think he thinks like that. He'd never believe the US would help him if he was attacked. I mean, it was pretty clear to the world he were expecting his own people to kill him post Desert Storm. If anything he'd believe we'd stand back and wait for Saddam to be overthrown, then we'd step in and demand the attacker leave or face us.

[XPav]

That and I think he really didn't believe the invasion would happen until it was too late.

Probably because he didn't read the news and only listened to what his advisors told him.

[bmulligan]

well, if you told Saddam something he didn't want to hear, you probably never got a second chance.

[graller]

Also - your a dictator who believes in cult of personality leadership. How's it look if you bend over and let the local bully ram one up your butt. You don't have much sovereignity if you let this happen. And I don't think he though Bush would ignore world opinion to the extent he did.

[Mark Asher]

I just can't reconcile the situation in my mind that Saddam was 'fronting' WMD production. Why wouldn't he just open the doors, let the scientists and their families conduct private interviews and be done with it. He'd still be in power, hed' still have his billions, and he could still torture his own people at will.....If it were me, I'd let the inspectors do whatever the fuck they wanted , then be rid of them once and for all.

Why tempt the threat of invasion if you're really innocent? I mean, I understand the saving face aspect of the culture(along with the Israelis), but couldn't you see past it for a while to save your own skin, your own power ? Somethings still smells rotten in the state of Denmark.

Once we started moving troops over, there didn't seem to be any options for Saddam other than to remove himself from power. I think that was the only out Bush was giving him.

Bush decided to oust Saddam and I don't think there was anything Saddam could do about that. Letting the inspections increase thousandfold wouldn't have stopped Bush.

[Guido Jones]

From what I've read about Saddam -

1. He came up with his own theories on the way the world worked - often it lead to harsh lessons (he made statements before the first gulf war that the US would run out of Aircraft Bombs after the first week...)

2. His advisors would give him information to reinforce his preconceptions for fear of contradicting him. Contradicting him often lead to bad things.

3. Saddam had Qusay's brother tortured for a incident where he badly injured/killed someone (saw it on the History channel, I forgot the details now). I'm sure Qusay had no problem lying to his father.

4. He was a megolomaniac. He thought he was destined to go do down in history as a great leader and the person who reunited the Middle East. He changed the text books in Iraq to call him Saladin II. Any though of him losing power or showing weakness was unthinkable and impossible to him.

[Bub, Andrew]

3. Saddam had Qusay's brother tortured for a incident where he badly injured/killed someone (saw it on the History channel, I forgot the details now). I'm sure Qusay had no problem lying to his father.


Uday murdered a friend of Saddam's at a party with an AK-47. Uday was briefly exiled for this and there was a suspicious assassination attempt on Uday when he returned. Suspicious because (as I remember the story from that Atlantic article written by Bowden):
1. The attacker was never caught.
2. The attacker aimed for the knees with a gun.
3. The attack happened just about 200 feet from the Iraqi Secret Police headquarters headed up by Qusay.

Saddam reportedly visited Uday in the hospital and lectured him at length about loyalty.

Uday was always a hothead, Qusay was always in his father's good graces. I doubt he'd lie to his dad simply because 1. he knew the consequences, 2. he was fully invested with his father's regime.

[Guido Jones]

That's actually not the one I'm thinking about - I've heard of a different version of the one you're talkinga bout though where it was multiple attackers riddling his car with bullets and him barely escaping with his life.

The one I was referring to was he was actually tortured by one of Saddam's police forces, but I can't remember all the details now.

As to the exact relationship between Qusay and his Father - I don't know the full dynamics of it, and it's a moot point now anyway. I do think given Saddam's usual predisposition to not taking advice I could see Qusay lying to him about things.

[Bub, Andrew]

Maybe, but still McCullough's post about the WMD being destroyed years ago and them all lying to Saddam about it doesn't sound likely... does it?

[Guido Jones]

Heh no.

[Jason McCullough]

Beats me, I can't come up with a better explanation. It's hard to believe, but the other ones are even more so (he gave it to Syria!)

Oh, can I point out that expecting Saddam to be rational/not insane/make the slightest bit of sense has a history of turning out badly?

[XPav]

Despots this century (Hitler, Mussolini, Idi Amin, et al) haven't exactly had a stellar track record of doing things that made a lot of sense.

[Bub, Andrew]

Beats me, I can't come up with a better explanation. It's hard to believe, but the other ones are even more so (he gave it to Syria!)

Um... What about the more obvious theory that he destroyed the WMD and then bluffed that he still had them to keep his neighbors and enemies in check? I know you've maintained that Chemical Weapons are useless before Jason, but there's ample evidence that the Kurds, Shiites, and Iranians disagree with you.

[Jason McCullough]

Well, how come everyone thought he had stuff until those 1998 airstrikes? The timeline appears to be:

1) At the start of the Gulf War, Iraq had chemical stockpiles, 23 long-range missiles, and a nuclear program.
2) Following the Gulf War, we got rid of the chemical stockpiles, missiles, and most of the nuclear program.
3) We blew up the last of it in 1998.

[Bub, Andrew]

We knew he had it after the Gulf War and I didn't the inspectors find something just before they were pulled out in 1998? I guess the rest of it was disposed of after that (I've never read that it was destroyed in our putative strikes). Since Saddam disposed of it without telling anyone... why does it surprise you that people still thought he had them in 2003?

[Jason McCullough]

The inspectors and CIA didn't think he had them, more or less. The CIA said they couldn't find anything and the inspectors were off engaged in a recordkeeping snipe hunt.

It looks like the only "insiders" convinced Saddam had all this were the civilians at the Pentagon. Even Pollack didn't think we'd find much evidence; his reasoning was based on him eventually becoming a threat again/long-term unsustainability of the sanctions.

[Daniel Morris]

At last, a cogent analysis of the Kay report and its mischaracterization by the press:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/977281.asp?0cv=KB10

In a briefing with reporters, Kay told how the Iraqis had paid the North Koreans $10 million for delivery of long-range No Dong missiles and upgraded technology. That deal continued when the U.N. inspectors were back in Iraq and Saddam was facing his last, last chance under yet another tough-worded Security Council resolution. The only comforting part of the story is that the North Koreans stiffed the Iraqis, saying they were under too much American scrutiny to deliver.

There are many people inside and outside the Bush administration who believe the case for war in Iraq was over-hyped. Yet what Kay shows, in under-hyped terms, is an overall pattern of threatening and illegal behavior by Saddam Hussein. He also shows that the U.N. inspectors—inspite of their earlier success—were never going to uncover everything...

Given time, Saddam would surely have built the arsenal he desired for so long...We can debate the how and the when. But it was only a matter of time before the balance tipped away from the U.N. and towards the use of force.

[Dirt]

They're swimming around in Cheney's head.

[XPav]

At last, a cogent analysis of the Kay report and its mischaracterization by the press:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/977281.asp?0cv=KB10

In a briefing with reporters, Kay told how the Iraqis had paid the North Koreans $10 million for delivery of long-range No Dong missiles and upgraded technology. That deal continued when the U.N. inspectors were back in Iraq and Saddam was facing his last, last chance under yet another tough-worded Security Council resolution. The only comforting part of the story is that the North Koreans stiffed the Iraqis, saying they were under too much American scrutiny to deliver.
No Dong missiles are like Scuds or Tomahawks -- they don't scream WMD. You can mount conventional explosives, or if you have the technology (which Iraq probably didn't have), weaponize biological or chemical weapons and put them on it.

Its was an attempted breach of arms sanctions, but its not related to WMD really.

From your link:

Kay finds that a mixture of war and the U.N. managed to stop any “large” chemical weapons program. “Information found to date suggests that Iraq’s large-scale capability to develop, produce, and fill new [chemical weapons] munitions was reduced—if not entirely destroyed—during Operations Desert Storm and Desert Fox, 13 years of UN sanctions and U.N. inspections,”

Sanctions and the current course of action was working just fine. Saddam was trying to get around the rules. He had no success at all. Bush took the US to war on trumped up charges and warning of an imminent threat. There was no such thing, and that article you linked to explains that.

As the link Sharp posted above said:

NUCLEAR WEAPONS

CLAIM: “Evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program…Iraq could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year.” - President Bush, 10/7/02

CLAIM: “[Saddam] is actively pursuing nuclear weapons at this time.”- VP Cheney, 3/24/02

CLAIM: “We believe Saddam has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.” - VP Cheney, 3/16/03

CLAIM: “We do know that [Saddam] is actively pursuing a nuclear weapon.”- National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 9/10/02

CLAIM: “Iraqis were actively trying to pursue a nuclear weapons program.” - National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 7/11/03

THE KAY REPORT: “We have not uncovered evidence that Iraq undertook significant post-1998 steps to actually build nuclear weapons or produce fissile material.”
- Bush Administration Weapons Inspector David Kay, 10/2/03

MOBILE BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS LAB

CLAIM: “We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories.”
-President Bush, on locating the mobile biological weapons labs, 5/29/03

CLAIM: “We know where the [WMD] are.” - Don Rumsfeld, 3/30/03

CLAIM: “Iraq has at least seven mobile factories for the production of biological agents - equipment mounted on trucks and rails to evade discovery.” –President Bush, 2/8/03

CLAIM: “I’m absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We’re just getting it now.” - Colin Powell, 5/4/03

THE KAY REPORT: “We have not yet been able to corroborate the existence of a mobile BW production effort. Technical limitations would prevent any of these processes from being ideally suited to these trailers.”
- Bush Administration Weapons Inspector David Kay, 10/2/03

CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL CAPABILITY

CLAIM: “There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more…Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough agent to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets.” – Colin Powell, 2/5/03

CLAIM: “[Saddam has] amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of biological weapons, including Anthrax, botulism, toxins and possibly smallpox. He's amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons, including VX, Sarin and mustard gas.” --Don Rumsfeld, 9/19/02

CLAIM: “Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.” –Vice President Cheney, 8/26/02

CLAIM: “The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons…And according to the British government, the Iraqi regime could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes.” –President Bush, 9/26/02

CLAIM: “Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.” –President Bush, 1/28/03

CLAIM: “His regime has large, unaccounted-for stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons -- including VX, sarin, cyclosarin and mustard gas; anthrax, botulism, and possibly smallpox -- and he has an active program to acquire and develop nuclear weapons.” – Don Rumsfeld, 1/20/03

THE KAY REPORT: “Iraq did not have a large, ongoing, centrally controlled chemical weapons program after 1991… Iraq's large-scale capability to develop, produce, and fill new CW munitions was reduced - if not entirely destroyed - during Operations Desert Storm and Desert Fox, 13 years of UN sanctions and UN inspections.”
- Bush Administration Weapons Inspector David Kay, 10/2/03

[Jason McCullough]

Daniel, good luck finding a Democrat saying that Saddam *isn't* blocking weapons inspectors, or *doesn't* have aspirations to someday be a royal ass again.

What the Kay report doesn't show is:

1) Saddam possessing WMD.
2) Saddam possessing a means of producing WMD in a reasonable time frame.
3) That the sanctions weren't working.

In other words, every national security rational Bush used to sell the war is wrong.

[Rywill]

Those arguments are correct only if you assume that the sanctions could effectively be continued at the level we had in the 90's. Most pro-war folks didn't consider that feasible; the expense (financially and politically) of continually conducting troop build-ups, plus the increasingly flagrant violations by other countries (France, China, Russia, etc.) showed that the status quo simply could not continue. It was a choice between invasion or letting Saddam build what he could with the minimal restrictions we could keep in place.

You may argue that in fact sanctions were not falling apart. I would disagree, but in any case that's a separate question. The point I'm making is that the logic often espoused here--"Saddam had no current functioning WMD program; therefore, the sanctions were sufficient"--does not necessarily follow, because it includes an implied premise ("And the sanctions would continue working the same way forever") that is not necessarily true. That premise needs to be supported if the "We should've stuck with sanctions" view is going to win out. Maybe there are good arguments, but I certainly haven't seen them.

You may also argue that even if sanctions were falling apart, Bush still vastly overstated Iraq's current capabilities. I agree, although I would note that that doesn't mean that the true facts, or the true facts then known, didn't show the need for an invasion. That doesn't excuse Bush lying about it, but if the question is just "Was invasion the right decision?," whether Bush lied or not is irrelevant.

[Jason McCullough]

I didn't include "sanctions will become politically untenable and we need a new policy" in that list because Bush didn't make that argument.

Hell, I agree with it. I agree that we needed a war to get rid of Saddam; I just didn't trust Bush to do it, seeing how he either lied through his teeth to us about the reasoning or was seriously, willfully "Team B" delusional in his assessment of the threat. Bush's argument was all imminent WMD threats with a dollop of human rights at the last minute. The only explanations for what was in his head are "you're too stupid to hear the real reasons, so here's some red meat" or "I have lots of delusions about Iraq and you should share them."

Whether Bush lied *was* important. I don't know about you, but if the President gives me a horseshit justification for a war I don't trust him to win it. Throw in destroying half our alliances and I just couldn't see it turning out well. I haven't been proven wrong yet; I hope I will be, but I can't say I'm confident of it.

Sanctions were apparently working to keep Saddam from building anything threatening, but the political and human cost of keeping them running was insufferable. That doesn't mean "tell the citizenry some lies, piss off the entire world, believe everything Chabali tells you, and invade with no post-war planning whatsoever" is a better alternative.

I've been reading Halberstam's The Best & The Brightest, and the parallels between the hawks of this administration and the hawks in Kennedy/LBJ/Nixon are just sickening. All along on Vietnam it was staring the civilians in the face that they were getting bad information from the military about Vietnam, but they just kept finding ways to excuse and believe it; they basically took all the responsibilites of the State department and handed them to Defense so they'd get the "right" answers. Everyone was telling the administration that Iraq didn't have any weapons, so they demanded and invented an entire new heirarchy to get "the real story" - the one they decided was a priori true - on Iraq. In both cases, they just flat-out overruled and suppressed the people who were telling them the truth, machine-gunning the messengers.

In both cases, bureaucratic stupidity, willful blindness, and worries about domestic politics led to decisionmaking based on totally wrong facts. It hasn't destroyed us in Iraq just yet, but I expect it to if we don't get these fools out of the White House.

[Mark Asher]

Given time, Saddam would surely have built the arsenal he desired for so long...We can debate the how and the when. But it was only a matter of time before the balance tipped away from the U.N. and towards the use of force.

I think that statement is a bunch of crap. There's no evidence that he would ever have been able to build a credible WMD program, and we could always have invaded later if he was on his way towards WMDs. It's not like we had the world's backing for this invasion so the time was ripe.

Bush and his staff overestimated the WMD threat that Saddam posed. I don't see how that can be argued otherwise at this point until new evidence turns up. Saddam may have been a ruthless bastard to his own people, but he wasn't much of a threat to the U.S., at least as far as WMDs go.

[Guido Jones]

Beats me, I can't come up with a better explanation. It's hard to believe, but the other ones are even more so (he gave it to Syria!)


The Syria thing isn't *that* insane - hell the Iraqi's tried to have most of their Combat Fighters escape to Iran during the the first Gulf War - and Iran is their sworn enemy.

I don't know if we'll ever find more evidence of WMD's - we might, we might not.

[Jason McCullough]

I think the Syria thing is insane because a) Syria would be commiting suicide; if Saddam sent a nuke program up there we'd beat the shit out of them and b) no one's presented a shred of evidence for it.

Saddam has a history of being insane and stupid, and Syria doesn't.

[XPav]

Speaking of no evidence....

BruceR brings up a good point (www.snappingturtle.net/flit/archives/2003_10_09.html#001166).

In other words, at what point, since 1998, did the Iraqis themselves, by their actions or words, deliberately contradict their official story that they had no banned weapons anymore? Not, mind you, did they act like jerks, or obstruct the UN in silly ways, or say something ambiguous on a satellite phone intercept. If you needed to prove that Iraq was actively contributing to the world's fuzziness on the weapons question, what would your evidence be? Cause I can't find anything yet in the old stories that contradicts them saying, "we got rid of the weapons, we have no weapons anymore, please lift the sanctions now."

[bago]

Other than that nasty 'proof' part of the sanctions.