Iraqi WMD's non-existence still confounding some buggers!
POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Friday, September 14, 2007 17:16
VIEWED: 19028
PAGE 10 of 27
Quote:Wait for what? Iraq had the UNSC in its pocket. It led weapons’ inspectors around by their ears for a decade. The truth is that weapons inspectors in Iraq never had any credibility in the eyes of the administration. But that’s not evidence that there were no WMDs in Iraq – it’s just evidence that the administration didn’t trust the UN to find them, which quick frankly, I can’t blame them, given the UN's track record in Iraq.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:Not all all. I had to ask myself- and you should too- why, with Blix so near the finish line and no evidence whatsoever that Saddam had missiles that could reach us... what was so terribly urgent that invasion couldn't wait for another three months?
Most of Rue’s and Signym argument is based on cynicism and mistrust.
one important detail... turns out the UN / embargo was effective after all; Iraq in fact had destroyed the bulk of their weapons. You now speak of 'trust',etc. Keeping in mind that Iraq had a very hostile neighbor, Sadam played his hand to keep Iraq worried enough to not invade them; this isn't exactly an irrational possition given I doubht much of anyone in the world would come to Iraq's aid in such an event. Sadam underestimated one of two things:
1) US's ability to conduct effective intelligence.
2) Bush's determination to invade regardless.
I personally believe it was #2 that was his undoing more so than 1.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I've been pondering this a bit; and have decided I'm personally at my 'sum up' point for where this discussion has been going.
Consider this analogy: Person A, B and C. A lives across the street from B & C. A sees B fiddling around with something that looks like a grenade launcher vaguely aimed at C's place. There's a long history of trouble and threats amongst the three; and C is suspected of occasionally stealing B's stuff, and they are 'fighting' over where a property line should be drawn. B & C have each eternally sworn to see the other sent to hell first. Person A, knowing that grenade launcher could hit his house, shoots and kills person B. Many of the neighbors are variously pleased or not over the passing of B, and many think the action justified. It turns out, when the cops show up, that the grenade launcher was really a pipe and drill bit; and the rest of the drilling rig is in the house ready to be setup. Now, had that -really- been a grenade launcher, A probably could have gotten off with a self-defense plea. But he was, however justifiably, wrong. In all likely hood, he's going to go away for man-slaughter or some reduced charge.
Much in the same way, the only fig leaf Bush had going into Iraq was the WMD. This is something he -had- to be right about. He was wrong; perhaps with good reason; but he was in fact wrong. This is a case where, all excuses aside, this leaves Bush liable, at least morally, possibly legally. I believe that the question is not was Bush in the wrong, but which crime is he guilty of: Knowing that the WMD but trying to leave himself plausible denial ability. Or just 'wrong', and being guilty of the 'manslaughter' equivalent. I believe he should be removed from office, and in any case once out of office, could be subjected to international judgment. Of course, I'm not going to hold my breath on this one... looks like Bush is going to get another free pass on his 'oops'.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Fletch2- the liquid anthrax that Saddam was a "bulk" form.
Quote:
Consequently, it was also never explained that Iraq had been "fundamentally disarmed" by UN inspectors, in the words of former UNSCOM inspector Scott Ritter, with "90-95% of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capability…verifiably eliminated". It was never revealed to the American public by the Bush administration that even had Iraq managed to maintain "stockpiles" of the anthrax it had produced, it had a shelf life which would have rendered it useless many years prior. Iraq, Ritter explained, produced only "liquid bulk anthrax", which "even under ideal storage conditions, germinates in three years, becoming useless."
Y'all should read this:
www.yirmeyahureview.com/articles/iraq_anthrax.htm
ALSO, FLECTH2-The wiki article that you link to is NOT REPEAT NOT liquid anthrax. They refer to anthrax spores which are a dry powder. When they refer to a "brown aerosol" they're referring to a POWDERED aerosol.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Actually, I think it was more likely that the UN destroyed the bulk of Iraq’s WMDs, but this is irrelevant. The UN conducted weapons’ inspections so poorly and was so willing to appease Saddam instead of enforcing UN Chapter 7 Resolutions that they could not be trusted. The UN didn’t even trust themselves. The UN had no idea what WMDs Saddam had – they couldn’t verify it because weapons’ inspectors were so heavily chained by politics and the UNSC was so totally ineffective in dealing with Iraq. You can’t say that they UN was effective after all, when they were totally clueless about how effective they were. The US intelligence was bad and the UN had lost control of the political situation in Iraq – following 9/ll both the US and the UK found this to be understandably alarming.
Originally posted by leadb:
one important detail... turns out the UN / embargo was effective after all; Iraq in fact had destroyed the bulk of their weapons.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:The you should have paid closer attention to THIS inspection team. Harassment from Saddam and tepid support from the UN did not prevent these guys from fulfilling their mission. Also under pressure from the USA and with the inducement of oil contracts Iraq was allowing access to every place that the inspectors chose to go, including Presidential Palaces.
Wait for what? Iraq had the UNSC in its pocket. It led weapons’ inspectors around by their ears for a decade. The truth is that weapons inspectors in Iraq never had any credibility in the eyes of the administration. But that’s not evidence that there were no WMDs in Iraq – it’s just evidence that the administration didn’t trust the UN to find them, which quick frankly, I can’t blame them, given the UN's track record in Iraq.
Scott Ritter described what they would do:
They would communicate in the hotel room by writing.
THEY decided on the target
They would only pass around a WRITTEN target time and location on inspection AM, as they were standing by their vehicles.
They would split up into 4-5 groups, and drive randomly around, only converging on a target at the last moment
They would bust down the door
They assumed they had FIVE MINUTES to do an inspection until critical info was "sanitized"
When they burst in, their team consisted of computer experts, biologists, chemists, missile experts, security, and the like. They would split up and grab computers and documents and samples and anything else that could provide info, and take it with them for later examination
It was a very aggressive search, guided by past experience, satellite and reconnaissance photos, and CIA (and other intelligence agency) concerns. (Don't forget that some of the folks in the inspection teams were - in addition to their official duties and training- also CIA officers.) SO, for example, if photos showed a lot of trucks parked at a particular facility that might be dual-use, they would converge their. So this wasn't a hand-waving kind of inspection. but this kind of detail was not presented to Americans by mainstream media.
BTW- Rue and I both do inspections and audits. I'm asked frequently to review data and reports, and I also do internal audits and I'm pretty damn good at it. I think I have an appreciation for "might haves" and "maybes" because I encounter them rather frequently in my line of work, which is (at times) forensic auditing.
Sometimes you have to be quiet and just let the data speak to you without imposing your fears of hopes on it. I don't know how else to describe the concept. I watched the situation develop with Iraq and I let the data speak to me. And what it said was This is a setup
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Alarming yes; sufficient justification for invasion, no; not without finding the weapons after the invasion.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:Quote:Actually, I think it was more likely that the UN destroyed the bulk of Iraq’s WMDs, but this is irrelevant. The UN conducted weapons’ inspections so poorly and was so willing to appease Saddam instead of enforcing UN Chapter 7 Resolutions that they could not be trusted. The UN didn’t even trust themselves. The UN had no idea what WMDs Saddam had – they couldn’t verify it because weapons’ inspectors were so heavily chained by politics and the UNSC was so totally ineffective in dealing with Iraq. You can’t say that they UN was effective after all, when they were totally clueless about how effective they were. The US intelligence was bad and the UN had lost control of the political situation in Iraq – following 9/ll both the US and the UK found this to be understandably alarming.
Originally posted by leadb:
one important detail... turns out the UN / embargo was effective after all; Iraq in fact had destroyed the bulk of their weapons.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:That may have been the case. But if it was the case, it was only so because the US and the UK had an invasion force at Iraq’s doorstep, not because the UN or Saddam had changed their colors. At that point, it was a little too late for Saddam to play nice or for the UN to act professionally. If the US and the UK had withdrawn their forces from Kuwait it would have been yet another political victory for Saddam and probably made this round of weapons’ inspectors even bigger fools then the last one. The US and the UK can’t keep their troops in Kuwait indefinitely, and there was no guarantee that weapons inspectors would be done any time soon. But neither the US nor the UK trusted the UN to deal with the situation anymore – and that trust had vanished long before Blix came on the scene. The truth is that neither the US nor the UK were going to happy with the UN handling this, and they insisted upon doing it the old fashion way with or without the UN. And while I might not like the idea of going to war with Iraq, I can’t sit here and tell you that I had any confidence in the UN’s ability to handle Iraq anymore either – so I can’t really say I had a better option.
Originally posted by SignyM:
The you should have paid closer attention to THIS inspection team. Harassment from Saddam and tepid support from the UN did not prevent these guys from fulfilling their mission. Also under pressure from the USA and with the inducement of oil contracts Iraq was allowing access to every place that the inspectors chose to go, including Presidential Palaces.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:So it would have been sufficient justification if we had found WMD in Iraq? But since we had no way of knowing one way or another if there were WMDs in Iraq, your sufficient justification is based on a wholly unknowable quantity. If a cop shoots a person whom he reasonably thinks is wielding a gun and whom he has every reason to believe is an armed criminal threatening his person, which later turns out to be a kid with a toy, is the shooting sufficiently justified?
Originally posted by leadb:
Alarming yes; sufficient justification for invasion, no; not without finding the weapons after the invasion.
That’s not a good analogy though because Iraq was never a kid with a toy. A better analogy might be that the perpetrator later turns out to be a criminal with a knife.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:It would merit a full investigation; and the officer should either be charged with a crime or cleared of fault. Feel free to initiate the investigation against Bush at any time.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:Quote:So it would have been sufficient justification if we had found WMD in Iraq? But since we had no way of knowing one way or another if there were WMDs in Iraq, your sufficient justification is based on a wholly unknowable quantity. If a cop shoots a person whom he reasonably thinks is wielding a gun and whom he has every reason to believe is an armed criminal threatening his person, which later turns out to be a kid with a toy, is the shooting sufficiently justified?
Originally posted by leadb:
Alarming yes; sufficient justification for invasion, no; not without finding the weapons after the invasion.
Edit: Key word "full". In the case of a police officer, he will typically be removed from 'street duty' until this is resolved; and IA has all of the 'power'. Bush has not cooperated with reviews to date, using executive powers to ensure key information is not revealed. Bush has had plenty of power during reviews to date and has prevented any sort of 'full' investigation.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You’re evading the question, so I assume that you see my point.
Originally posted by leadb:
It would merit a full investigation; and the officer should either be charged with a crime or cleared of fault. Feel free to initiate the investigation against Bush at any time.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME