I realize that this was on Fox News which is hardly "fair and balanced" but I heard about this interview on the radio driving in this morning and a lot of the info surprised me. Here are a couple of excerpts.
quote: SNOW: One of the things that you found, for instance, is the Mukhabarat, the secret service, in fact had a vigorous weapons program of its own. Tell us about it.
KAY: Well, we have found right now — and we're still finding them — over two dozen laboratories that were hidden in the Iraqi intelligence service, the Mukhabarat, were not declared to the U.N., had prohibited equipment, and carried on activities that should have been declared.
Now, at the minimum, they kept alive Iraq's capability to produce both biological and chemical weapons. We found assassination tools. So we know that, in fact, they had a prohibited intent to them.
SNOW: You also talk about reference strains of biological agents. What does that mean?
KAY: Well, that's one of the most fascinating stories. An Iraqi scientist in 1993 hid in his own refrigerator reference strains for — active strains, actually would've — were still active when we found them — Botulinum toxin, one of the most toxic elements known.
He was also asked to hide others, including anthrax. After a couple of days, he turned them back because he said they were too dangerous; he had small children in the house.
This is typical. We now have three cases in which scientists have come forward with equipment, technology, diagrams, documents and, in this case, actual weapons material, reference strains and Botulinum toxin, that they were told to hide and that the U.N. didn't find.
SNOW: You believe that there are similar strains perhaps throughout Iraq right now?
KAY: We're actively searching for at least one more cache of weapons — of strains that we know exists.
SNOW: This is a cache that had been referred to by a scientist. The first bit of information paid off; you're still looking for the second one?
KAY: Exactly.
SNOW: And the second one is a large cache.
KAY: It's much larger. It contains anthrax, and that's one reason we're actively interested in getting it.
SNOW: Now, you also talk about new research on biological capable agents, such as Brucella, Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever, Ricin and Naflotoxin (ph).
KAY: That's exactly right, and that's the things I'm surprised no one has paid attention to.
The new strains they're working on, including Congo-Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever, are something that should have been reported to the U.N. In fact, all of the work should have been reported. It was not reported.
This is activities, prohibited activities they've carried on. And this continued right up to 2003 in these four cases, unreported, undiscovered.
quote: KAY: Well, the rocket propellants are really an interesting story I'm surprised no one has picked up on. We have Iraqis now telling us that they continued, until 2001 or early 2002, to be capable of mixing and preparing Scud missile fuel.
Scud missile fuel is only useful in Scud missiles, no other class of missiles that Iraq has. And yet Iraq declared that it got rid of all of its Scud missiles in the early 1990s. Why would you continue to produce Scud missile fuel if you didn't have Scuds? We're looking for the Scuds.
I don't know what do ya'll think?
AJ
Posted by T. Analog Kid (Member # 381) on :
I think that people need to remember that absence of a "smoking gun" does not equate to absence of evidence and that people also need to remember that Iraq was tasked with *proving* not that it had no weapons, which is admittedly a very difficult thing to do, but that they had properly destroyed and disposed of what they were known to have, which is, in fact, quite easy. The fact that no smoking gun has been found is actually indicative that there are fairly destructive quantities of Nerve Gas and other agents still unaccounted for and that is at least as scary as the lack of accountability of former soviet nukes. That they have circumstantial evidence that Iraq in fact continued with its programs, smoking gun or no, is actually enough cause to justify what Bush did. I'd like to go back and see who it was that set the expectations that we would find huge piles of weapons just laying around stockpiled, but I'm honestly too tired and don't really care because, even if we found them exactly like that, anti-bushites would come along and claim that we planted them and this was still all a huge set up to give Haliburton business.
In short, this more than settles my mind but I doubt it goes very far to convince anyone who wasn't already on board.
<edited for grammar and spelling>
[ October 06, 2003, 04:33 PM: Message edited by: T. Analog Kid ]
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Where did we get the idea that we would find masses of WMD stockpiled?
From the administration.
There were quotes thrown out that said, "He has them and we know where they are." and "He has then and can use them with 45 minutes notice." and "He is an imminent threat to the region and to our country."
We were led to believe that Hussein had WMD ready to throw at Isreal, Tehran, Mecca and other places of importance.
Did Hussein need to be removed? Yes. Did he break the rules that would allow us to invade? Yes. Was this war neccesary? Yes.
Did it have to be this year? No. Could it have waited for the economy to recover? Yes Could it have waited for our troops to recover from the war in Afghanistan? Yes. Could it have waited for other nations to join us in carrying on this war, and its price tag? Yes.
All this evidence shows that Hussein was waiting for after the embargo was over to think about restarting his programs. He was not an immediate threat.
So why did we invade in April? Was it because the 9/11 hysteria and its resulting patriotic fervor was still high? I do not know Was it because the administration wanted to up its approval rating while the economy was suffering? I do not know Was it beacuse the Army convinced the President it could easily win the war, but nobody considered the costs of winning the peace? I do not know.
That is why we are mad at the administration?
Not because we invaded Iraq and removed a dangerous man from power he abused.
But because why we did it when we did it was not why we were told. Either someone lied to the President and he believed them, or we were lied to.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote: The fact that no smoking gun has been found is actually indicative that there are fairly destructive quantities of Nerve Gas and other agents still unaccounted for
??? TaK, this makes little sense to me.
Dan, your position is similar to mine, more to follow.
Posted by T. Analog Kid (Member # 381) on :
quote:But because why we did it when we did it was not why we were told. Either someone lied to the President and he believed them, or we were lied to.
See? it has to be a *lie*. No one could have reasonably overestimated capabilities. No one could have been trying to prevent another 9/11. For damn sure no one could have been responding to the avalanche of critics who saw OH SO CLEARLY AFTER THE FACT that 9/11 was going to happen and how Bush must have been in on it because it was otherwise all preventable.
Please don't mistake my tone, Dan, I like and respect you a lot and I probably sound much more bitter than I mean to, but there is an incredibly simplistic and demanding view of the intelligence game in the outside world and, while I know little enough of it, I *do* know that those people work damned hard to pull together *unbelieveable* amounts of information and try to put it in a coherent context and then ultimately have to offer a best guess that is going to get administrations, careers, and most importantly *real people* paraded throught the streets, either with medals on top of a float or in flag draped-caskets. The world stage is not nearly so simple and obvious as Achilles and Peter arguing over who will become Hegemon.
I'm not going to argue with you about what the adminstration said, but I have observed many times the "experts" saying what they think what someone said means. I recall when everybody was talking about how Hans Blix's report was going to be no help at all to Bush's cause and all the news channels were running stories about how Blix's report was going to be the nail in Bush's coffin, except for "unfair" Fox, who said "let's wait till the report comes out," and, lo and behold, it was a scathing denunciation of the Hussein regime and its obfuscation of the facts surrounding their responsibiolity for the WMDs. I *did* enjoy watching the pundits vigorously wiping the egg from their faces on that one, but they seem to have forgotten their lesson.
Or again, everytime there was a slight halt in the remarkably easy drive (not to take anything away from the men carrying it out, merely speaking strategically, here) on Baghdad, we had all kinds of experts saying that "this is huge... this is not going according to plan" when they didn't know what the plan was. Of course, when it was all over and we had taken over an entire country with the loss of around 100 lives and something on the order of 1/3 of those to friendly fire (and 1/6 of them coming from *one* incident). Operation Iraqi Freedom was a remarkable military achievement, but to listen to the commentators, we scraped through by the skin of our teeth, and I still meet people who carry this impression.
So I think there's ample evidence that things are not quite as bad or desperate as they seem. If the Bush administration is making a mistake in Iraq, it is in caring too much for it's own political ass to ignore the nonsense being bandied about and just do what they have to do.
But, you know, I'm just another commentator and probably less qualified than most of the people I just trashed. So, take my words with the appropriate salt.
[ October 06, 2003, 05:34 PM: Message edited by: T. Analog Kid ]
Posted by T. Analog Kid (Member # 381) on :
Morbo,
It's quite simple.
The Iraqis had known quantities of several chemical agents. They were tasked with destroying them and documenting their destruction.
They did not do that.
We haven't found those agents either.
That means they are unaccounted for... and could be flopping around out in who knows where...
Maybe they destroyed some and smuggled some out.
Maybe they are buried somewhere against a return to power.
Maybe they are buried somewhere with the intent to use them to return to power.
Maybe they *are* destroyed.
But we have no way of knowning whether they are destroyed. If we find them, at least we know where they are. The longer we don't find them,. the more nervous I get that someone actually went through the trouble of hiding them, carefully. As referenced in an earlier post, we are talking about the equivalent of twenty or so 55-gallon drums.
Imagine that they are buried, scattered freely over New Mexico and everyone who hid them is dead, killed by men loyal to Dick Cheney. How easy is it going to be to find them?
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
yeah but the fact that they had bottulism and anthrax in private refrigerators all over the place that the inspectors couldn't find seems pretty damning to me. I mean the small quantities they are talking about could still kill a good chunk of a city!
AJ
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
All last year we heard reports that President Bush was over riding his intelligence departments, the CIA, the NSA, etc, because he had proof that Hussein was building WMD. What was this proof? Iraqi refugee's who sought positions of power in the new Iraq. They told President Bush and VP Cheney exactly what they wanted to hear.
They told them about the Nuclear plans of Hussein, even going so far as to forge the documents.
When this forgery, and the unreliability of the refugees was brought to the Presidents attention, he ignored those facts in favor of what he wanted, an Al-Queda link to Iraq as grounds for invasion.
THis article is only one of many I remember from a year ago, and they have proven the CIA correct and the administration, not.
Now either this means that the President was duped by these Iraqi wannabe rulers, or that he used them and their evidence to invade Iraq for his own purposes.
Either way is not what I want in a president.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Cheney and the admin in general is desperate to find WMD evidence, did you mean men loyal to Saddam, TaK?
TaK, I understand what your quote means now with the additional explanations. There is a lot that is unaccounted for. Additional scenarios that are being bandied about in the press:
Saddam was bluffing, 90%+ of his weapons programs were dismantled by UNSCOM inspectors.
Saddam had an active disinformation campaign as part of his bluff, with planted defectors babbling about imaginary programs. This might have some truth to it, in which case I would have sympathy for the Bush administrations unfounded (as of yet) pre-war WMD claims. US intelligence could have honestly overestimated Iraqi capabilities and WMD stores because of active disinformation.
Bad accounting of weapons, components, chemical etc. is responsible for some discrepency. I believe Blix has supported this view, not positive.
As many have pointed out, this was a corrupt, evil regime from top to bottom. Some have suggested that scientists and administrators actively deceived Saddam about weapons programs. This would not surprise me one bit.
Scientists, captured general officers and others are lying and exaggerating to help themselves after the collapse of the Saddam regime.
I never had any doubt the US military would beat the Iraqis, though the campaign went even better than I had hoped or believed possible. The problems are long term: US credibility and legitimacy, winning the peace, establishing the first Arab democracy, enflaming Islamic fundamentalism, friction within NATO, the weakening of the UN as a credible world organization, and the war on terror in general, to name some of the biggest.
[ October 06, 2003, 05:43 PM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by T. Analog Kid (Member # 381) on :
we heard reports...
we also heard reports that there were weapons spotted, that the advances were stalled and falling apart, that Blix was going to blast Bush in the UN, and that there was no evidence of any kind of WMD use or storage in Iraq.
We heard how many reports that Uday and Qusay and Chemical Ali had been killed?
While we finally did get Uday and Qusay, the rest of those reports appear to have been pure hogwash.
My recommendation is that, until someone official is willing to put their name (and, therefore, career) on a statement "I saw X happen," don't trust what you read. Un-named sources, quite often, simply don't know what they are talking about, or worse yet, are spin doctors for one side or the other.
Regarding your specific article... I point you again to the post 9-11 world and ask, given two estimates of a threat, do you want a president to go with the most dangerous (safe in reality) one or the least dangerous (politically safe) one?
What would you be saying if the President had held off, waiting for a greater Coalition and there had been a chemical attack on the US... and three years later it surfaced that they came from Iraq? Would you not skewer him for not taking the warnings from people (the way he is being skewered now for failing to take note of the warnings about 9-11?).
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:What would you be saying if the President had held off, waiting for a greater Coalition and there had been a chemical attack on the US... and three years later it surfaced that they came from Iraq? Would you not skewer him for not taking the warnings from people (the way he is being skewered now for failing to take note of the warnings about 9-11?).
That is hardly a fair compaison since those who are condemning Bush for failing to take note of warning about 9-11 are rarely if ever saying that Bush should have started a war with Afganistan or Saudi Arabia to prevent the attacks. By and large they are skewering Bush for not taking simple precautions such as putting the US air defense on alert status, implementing the anti-terrorism plan drawn up by the Clinton administration, sustained surveylence of suspects, deportations, and appropriate changes to airlines hijacking guidelines.
Bush would have us believe that our only options were to attack Iraq or do nothing at all -- that itself was the big lie. There are hundreds of things we could have done besides invade Iraq. While it is true that we cannot guarantee that any other option would have been effective at reducing the terrorist threat, invading Iraq hasn't exactly been effective in that regard either.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
I'm just curious, no matter what side you support how can you believe Blix? He's switched sides so many times I've lost track.
Dan, my problem with waiting another year is that we would have given Saddam even more time to move his weapons. He would also be one year closer to acheiving nuclear capability. He definitely did have a nuclear weapons program even if he wasn't that close...yet. The time factor is what actually makes me worried that we waited too long. Who knows, maybe if we had gone in in January we might have found everything and Iraq would already have free elections. I doubt this, but I find this much more likely than there were no WMDs. I also don't think that the UN was ever willing to get on board, in fact we might have lost Blair because of the mack of support from the British population and his own Labour Party.
[ October 06, 2003, 08:27 PM: Message edited by: newfoundlogic ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I'm just curious, no matter what side you support how can you believe Blix? He's switched sides so many times I've lost track.
I'm just curious. Have you actually read any of Blix's reports or are you simply relying on the media's strip quoting. I have read those reports and as best I can tell, Blix has never been on any "side" but the side of truth. His reports and his tone are very consistent. His story changes only as new data is collected and the changes are always consistent with the information that has been added. The same thing can certainly not be said about any member of the Bush administration.
All the evidence the Bushies have produced to "prove" that Hussein had an on going nuclear weapons program has been proven to be forged. If it is so certain that he had one, why isn't there any valid evidence for it?
All I can say is its a darn good thing that the US military has all those weapons under control right now. It sure made the war worth it all.
Not!
If there were any WMDs left in Iraq last fall, chances are far far greater that they are in the hands of terrorists today than they would have been if Bush hadn't declared them target number one and gone in for the kill. Its a really good thing that Bush was lying about the WMDs or we'd have them raining down on our heads.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
By the way, in case you didn't know. A vial of Botulium Toxin is not a weapon of mass distruction and cannot be used to make a weapon of mass destruct.
This is a sample of the toxic chemical made by the Botulism bacteria but unlike a sample of the bacteria it can not be used to make more of the toxin. It is a very potent toxin, but a vial of it isn't enough to kill more than a couple people. Its a dangerous thing to have around but it is not a WMD nor evidence of a program to make them.
One of my collaborators and I have done some work on censors for detecting bacterial toxins. She has anthrox toxin in her refrigerator. When the anthrax attacks were going on, she was contacted by the FBI and then immediately told she had nothing of concern. If anthrax toxin isn't a concern -- why is Botulinium toxin?
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
One week Blix says the Iraqis are cooperating fully and the next he says they're being denied acsess to key sites. One week he says there are no traces of any WMD and the next week he'll say the Iraqis are missing large quantites of this a lot of that and WMDs are being hidden. He has shown absolutely no consistency in his reports whatsoever.
The Iraqis definitely had a nuclear weapon program going on, definitely. The only issue was how close they were to getting the bomb. There was one defector who definitely the head of the Iraqi nuclear weapons program and who definitely wasn't lying. The Uranium claim is still upheld by British intelligence. The only questions are about how close they were. Were political defectors lying about how close Iraq was? Did they lie about amounts? Other questions. But there was definitely a program and there definitely would have been weapons in Saddam's hands had Israelis not taken out a FRENCH built reacor.
Posted by T. Analog Kid (Member # 381) on :
quote:If there were any WMDs left in Iraq last fall, chances are far far greater that they are in the hands of terrorists today than they would have been if Bush hadn't declared them target number one and gone in for the kill. Its a really good thing that Bush was lying about the WMDs or we'd have them raining down on our heads.
This is an unsupported assertion and, in fact, can't be shown as anything other than your conjecture (excepting of course, that you might produce other people who share your conjecture). I happen to think that it is a load of horse hockey, for whatever that may be worth.
As for your preceeding list of things for which to skewer Bush:
quote: not taking simple precautions such as putting the US air defense on alert status, implementing the anti-terrorism plan drawn up by the Clinton administration, sustained surveylence of suspects, deportations, and appropriate changes to airlines hijacking guidelines.
Assuming that these are all true, exactly what would doing this have accomplished? Would you have gunned down those jetliners on the assumption their intent was to suicide crash based on a couple of bits of intelligence? Should we gun down every hijacked aircraft now? At what point should we have known that *those particular* hijacked aircraft were meant to be crashed into buildings, in your estimation? (and, BTW, my amatuer but fairly expert opinion on the air defense issues leads me to believe this whole take is fairly ignorant of the issues of air intercept and defense. When people start running around asserting that F-16s were stationed at Andrews AFB and capable of Mach 3, I just throw up my hands and suggest a little light reading-- Jane's All the World's Aircraft.)
Considering the flak he is getting post 9-11, can you imagine the uproar if Bush started deporting Muslims based on a few unconnected FBI reports and a couple of letters from field agents? You want more evidence than you have currently and yet you blame him for not acting when there was exactly one line vaguely hinting at 9-11 that actually reached his desk as part of an extremely large *daily* intelligence briefing?
Can you imagine the uproar over expanded surveillance if he started that then, with that limited a reason? And you say people critical of Bush now would not be leading that charge? I *know* you aren't that naive.
Regarding appropriate changes to Airline guidelines, wasn't it almost a year before they decided on what, exactly, they were going to do... under the urgency and need to act that immediately followed 9-11? And isn't it still a matter of controversy? Being visibly hispanic, I am often mistaken for a middle-easterner and have yet to fly without being detained for an individual search, even when in the company of a uniformed Air Force officer. This is called profiling and it sure as hell happens and it sure as hell is a controversy, again, even in the aftermath. How much more fuss would have been raised before 9-11? Would it even have been possible to put those policies in place?
This
quote:invading Iraq hasn't exactly been effective in that regard either.
statement is, at best, unprovable. There haven't been any successful terrorist attacks on the United States since 9-11-01. Outside of the ongoing war in Israel, the only one I can think of worldwide is the bombing of the UN building in Iraq. That's hardly the explosion of terrorist activity you seem to imply.
Posted by T. Analog Kid (Member # 381) on :
Rabbit, perhaps on the importance of the Botulinum Toxin, perhaps you should ask Mr. Kay:
quote: KAY: Well, that's one of the most fascinating stories. An Iraqi scientist in 1993 hid in his own refrigerator reference strains for — active strains, actually would've — were still active when we found them — Botulinum toxin, one of the most toxic elements known.
He was also asked to hide others, including anthrax. After a couple of days, he turned them back because he said they were too dangerous; he had small children in the house.
This is typical. We now have three cases in which scientists have come forward with equipment, technology, diagrams, documents and, in this case, actual weapons material, reference strains and Botulinum toxin, that they were told to hide and that the U.N. didn't find.
SNOW: You believe that there are similar strains perhaps throughout Iraq right now?
KAY: We're actively searching for at least one more cache of weapons — of strains that we know exists.
SNOW: This is a cache that had been referred to by a scientist. The first bit of information paid off; you're still looking for the second one?
KAY: Exactly.
SNOW: And the second one is a large cache.
KAY: It's much larger. It contains anthrax, and that's one reason we're actively interested in getting it.
[ October 06, 2003, 11:53 PM: Message edited by: T. Analog Kid ]
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
Actually, Bush's actions have to evlauted by two separate standards.
First, did Bush sufficiently justify the Iraq war to the world at large, specifically, the UN?
Second, and more importantly, did Bush justify the Iraq war to the Americans.
First, I agree with TAK and NFL that Iraq was in violation of UN guidelines and therefore Bush had a very strong case for war. However, having a strong case does not necessarily mean you have the right to bypass the system. Can Ron Goldman's parents take the law into their own hands and kill OJ Simpson just because they are 100% sure that the courts screwed up?
On the other hand, the UN is not exactly an impartial international tribunal; UN members are often more interested in self interest and political gain than fostering the greater good. As the last remaining superpower, I sympathize with the argument that sometimes, America must act alone. Therefore, I tend to believe that Bush has fulfilled his obligation to the international community at large.
However, Bush has failed to justify the war to Americans. It is undeniable that Bush clearly focused on WMDs and Al Queda links to rally Americans to his banner. His administration clearly described the threat as imminent and created such a sense of urgency and fervor that anyone who disagreed with the war was branded unpatriotic.
Bush should have told the truth. "Look, Iraq has been flouting UN guideline for years. Under the post-911 climate, America simply cannot allow this type of behavior to continue. We made a mistake not finishing Iraq off before, we don't want to make the same mistake twice."
Of course, such a argument would've rallied much less support. But at least it would've been honest.
Posted by T. Analog Kid (Member # 381) on :
I submit that Bush *did* make that argument as well. I heard him make it on national TV.
I also return to my previous statement regarding the WMDs: They will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to find and the harder they are to find, the more likely it is that they were hidden in an organized manner designed to make them recoverable.
If they were destroyed, there should be someone able to show us that. There has not been any hint that such a person exists. Again-- proving you never had something is unreasonably difficult, proving you destroyed something you are known to have had is quite easy-- you show someone the remains.
I know Bush made many emphatic statements to the effect that we *would* find the WMDs. Has anyone seen a statement wherein Bush (or any administration member) gives a timeframe for it? I ask out of ignorance because I haven't and am again curious as to *who* set the expectations where they are...
[ October 07, 2003, 10:55 AM: Message edited by: T. Analog Kid ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Rabbit, my impression from the quotes above was that it was the actual bacteria "strains" that were still alive in said refrigerator, not just vials of toxin. He also discusses looking for more "strains" so im thinking it is bacterial cultures and not the toxin.
I agree with you that if it was just a vial of the toxin it isn't quite as serious. But people in countries not in good standing with the UN shouldn't have that stuff just lying around in their home refrigerators anyway.
AJ
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Kay said on the Sunday morning news shows his investigation will be complete after 6-12 months (and $600 million dollars.)
Bush did not make the case for millions of Americans and people around the war. And much of it was based on erroneous intelligence. This is a fact.
You are making many unwarranted assumptions about the WMDs and the hunt for them, TaK. Kay himself claims to be looking into many different hypothoses regarding the existence of WMDs or WMD programs and what happened to them befor, during and after the war. The idea that they were transhipped to other countries has already been disproven to a large extent.
I don't see things as black-and-white as I did this summer, because of all the possible scenarios I pointed out in my bulleted list above. Try to keep an open mind.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
>> "Look, Iraq has been flouting UN guideline for years. Under the post-911 climate, America simply cannot allow this type of behavior to continue. We made a mistake not finishing Iraq off before, we don't want to make the same mistake twice." <<
This argument is honest, sure. But it's hardly persuasive to anyone who doesn't live in America. The other argument -- that Iraq could have posed some sort of imminent threat to America in light of 9/11 -- is also far less likely to persuade non-Americans. I got the impression, though, that the Bush Administration didn't really care about that. They wanted a significant portion of the American populace behind the war, and worked to that end. For instance, Colin Powell's presentation to the UN utterly failed to persuade anyone who didn't already agree with the Administration's line on Iraq. I feel like that presentation was really made for the American people, and that Powell knew no non-Americans would be persuaded.
>> But people in countries not in good standing with the UN shouldn't have that stuff just lying around in their home refrigerators anyway. <<
Sure, but lots of people outside America don't think it's America's mandate to enforce that view, and I in particular have a huge problem with enforcing it preemptively. Iraq has set a very, very dangerous precedent -- consider the recent Israeli incursion into Syria.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
My point was not at all regarding whether the US should or shouldn't have invaded.
It had everything to do with the culture of deception in Iraq with regards to the UN. If those same bacterial cultures were sitting in a university lab refrigerator, in any country and not illicitly hidden I wouldn't have nearly the problem with it.
Whether this culture of deception was deep enough to merit invading, I'm still not sure. But it does seem like evidence has been found on a LOT of stuff that Sadaam should have reported to the UN. If he had actually been truly trying to comply they wouldn't have had this floating around in random home refrigerators.
AJ
Posted by T. Analog Kid (Member # 381) on :
What unwarranted assumptions am I making?
I tried to clearly differentiate between what is fact and what is my fear in my statements. I apologize for not doing so clearly in my last post. My fear is that they have been hidden in an organized manner designed for recovery.
As time goes on and they aren't found, the likelihood that this is what happened increases, along with the likelihood that they actually destroyed them. the likelihood that they merely left them abandoned where they were stored decreases with each passing day. As you said, there are many possibilities being investigated.
If I read you right, Mr. Kay has stated that it may be another year before he is ready to report on the state of Iraq's WMDs. I suggest that those of you maintaining that America was not justified and that there was no imminent threat wait until Kay makes his full report. As you say, Morbo, keep that mind open.
Edit to add: Thank you for using the term "erroneous intelligence". Also, by saying that "much" was based on erroneous intelligence, you *do* imply that a decent portion of it wasn't, too...
Further add: I am not trying to say that Bush has been proven right, I'm saying that it is far to early to *judge* Bush for the ramirifications of this war. The state of Iraqi WMDs, the recovery of Iraq as a nation, the effect this war will have on global politics and global terrorism are all things that we DO NOT YET know and can only hypothesize about at the moment. It is this rush to judgement, this demanding of immediate results, this incredible short-sightedness which is American society's greatest weakness and was my greatest fear from the second Bush announced the War on Terrorism-- america has the stomach for it, but not the patience to see it through. Like Sherlock Holmes with the violin, it's not an immediate smashing success, therefore, we discard it... unfortunately, as with that violin, I fear we will be compelled to keep picking it up over and over again if we do not have the fortitude and patience to wait for progress.
[ October 07, 2003, 11:12 AM: Message edited by: T. Analog Kid ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I wonder if the media planned to highlight the importance of WMDs because it is an ill defined term. Personally, I think Uday and Qusay qualified as WMDs, in terms of being tools used to kill a lot of people.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I suggest that those of you maintaining that America was not justified and that there was no imminent threat wait until Kay makes his full report."
On the Daily Show last night, Jon Stewart made a joke pointing out that, when it's all said and done, the administration is now asking us to give the inspectors more time. Kind of ironic, really. Posted by msquared (Member # 4484) on :
Tom
The difference is that our imspectors have access to anything we want. Do you belive that the UN inspectors would have found any of what ours have found, if they had had to follow the rules Saddam was making them follow?
I think Saddam was mainly bluffing and Bush called his hand. Saddam did not think Bush would do it and paid the price. Now Saddam is being shown as having a weak hand when he bluffed a better hand.
msquared
Posted by T. Analog Kid (Member # 381) on :
I got a good chuckle out of that, Tom.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote: I think Saddam was mainly bluffing and Bush called his hand. Saddam did not think Bush would do it and paid the price. Now Saddam is being shown as having a weak hand when he bluffed a better hand
msquared. In the last few weeks this has become my suspicion as well, in which case I am willing to cut Bush more slack than I was months ago. If Saddam was actively putting out disinformation about WMDs when he had few or none and only inchoherent programs, Bush and the administration bear much less responsibility for the war than I previously gave to them. If Saddam bluffed and Bush called a weak hand, Saddam bears the brunt of the war and his own downfall. Sad that he may have bluffed to prevent war, but that is speculation. TaK, I'll get back to you later, ok?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:One week Blix says the Iraqis are cooperating fully and the next he says they're being denied acsess to key sites. One week he says there are no traces of any WMD and the next week he'll say the Iraqis are missing large quantites of this a lot of that and WMDs are being hidden. He has shown absolutely no consistency in his reports whatsoever.
Blix has never said (1)that the Iraqis were cooperating, or (2) that WMDs are being hidden. He has pretty much always been saying Iraq showed good but not complete cooperation, that Iraq had some violations and missing information/equipment, that they had found no weapons of mass destruction and no smoking gun, and that they had needed more time. Which report of his said anything contradictory to this?
quote:The difference is that our imspectors have access to anything we want. Do you belive that the UN inspectors would have found any of what ours have found, if they had had to follow the rules Saddam was making them follow?
Yes, but if the inspectors had to follow more strict rules regarding searching, why did we give them less time rather than more before declaring the search complete?
The truth is we didn't care about having complete inspections. We didn't care about giving Saddam a fair trial before attacking. That's why we didn't give them more time - because we already knew we were going to attack, regardless of what the inspectors found. We were just hoping to find something to justify it.
That's the heart of the problem we face right now. Before the war I asked you all if it was okay to not assume Iraq was innocent until proven guilty. Some, those more along Bush's lines of thinking, replied that in cases like this it was guilty until proven innocent - that it was on Saddam to prove himself innocent. Well, there is a reason why we have that innocent until proven guilty thing. That reason is because, if we don't do it, we often end up punishing innocent people. That's what happened here. We put the responsibility on Iraq to prove its own innocence and ended up invading a country that did not have what it was accused of having, and we look quite foolish for doing so. Unfortunately our only option now is to live with our decision. You certainly couldn't fault other countries if they didn't trust us in the future.
[ October 07, 2003, 12:45 PM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
No one other than me appears to be bothered by the botullism and antrax bacteria in scientists home refrigerators.
Now maybe I'm just a lab junkie, after all I work in one. But the non-interest in this actual mention of the bacteria in the refrigerator exhibited by the rest of you blows me away. The amount of trouble that any US company or university would get in for letting this stuff get away from them and into private refrigerators would be horrific. (Though it does happen and gets hushed up.) We haven't found an "intact" smoking gun, but it appears that we have most of the pieces to one.
I still don't know if this means we should have invaded or not. But, I sure as heck don't think the UN inspectors would have found this stuff in the climate before the invasion no matter how much time they had. They weren't allowed to go barging into private homes!
AJ
Posted by msquared (Member # 4484) on :
Tres,
NO amount of time would have led the UN inspectors to find what was there. Saddam was leading the UN along like he has for years.
Saddam was not some innocent accused of something. He was the equivelent of a convicted felon on parol. He violated parol, several times. The parol officer, the UN, did not have the balls to put him back, so the cop did, that would be us.
Not a great analogy, but it will do. At the end of GWI Saddam signed an agreement saying that he would do certain things and that he would prove to the world and the UN that he abided by those agreements. When it came time for him to put up or shut up, he shut up. We did not have to prove guilt, he was already guilty, by his own admission, and in the eyes of the world. The fact that several countries around the world wanted to over look this fact, it is still a fact.
msquared
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:The Iraqis definitely had a nuclear weapon program going on, definitely.
I'm sorry but I have yet to see any evidence supporting this claim. If the Bush administration has solid evidence, why did they use evidence which was known to be forged to support it? iIf you know of any solid evidence to support this claim, please direct me to it.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote: Botulinum toxin is the most poisonous substance known.6-7 A single gram of crystalline toxin, evenly dispersed and inhaled, would kill more than 1 million people, although technical factors would make such dissemination difficult. The basis of the phenomenal potency of botulinum toxin is enzymatic; the toxin is a zinc proteinase that cleaves 1 or more of the fusion proteins by which neuronal vesicles release acetylcholine into the neuromuscular junction.8
I guess I am outraged that more people aren't outraged by this. I don't care about a nuclear program, isn't this bad enough? Technical factors might make desemination difficult but if you put enough brilliant minds in the same room they will come up with a solution to that minor problem eventually.
AJ
(edited for amplification)
[ October 07, 2003, 01:02 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
The way I read the evidence so far, and I admit this is not the complete picture, is that:
Saddaam Hussein liked the idea of being a terror to his neighbors and his own people. The Gassing of the Khurds was an impressive feat and the threat that gas gave him halted rebellion in its tracks. As such, Hussein never denied a WMD program.
However, with UN Inspectors and a fairly powerful blockade going on, he was not actively producing weapons. He was, however, keeping his key people and important seeds of the program alive.
Such seeds as a vial of Toxin or Strains of Antrax.
It was easier for him to work on building up his missiles. These big, phallic symbols of his power would scare his people, his neighbors, but while breaching the agreement, were not an obvious threat to the west.
He then went back to starving his people, mass murder, and killing his sons-in-law as he deemed appropriate.
There were no changes to this over the past few years.
After 9/11 the Bush administration decided, quite early, to target Iraq.
Why is unclear. Bias against any "Arab" with WMD potential? An enemy we already had troops stationed near? I disagree that it was Oil, or finishing Dad's job.
However, the people of the US were told that Iraq was the next target for the war on terrorism. The reasons it was chosen was not to be questioned. President Bush had proof and we were asked to trust him.
I did.
I posted here that WMD in Iraq were a given.
I believed my President that Iraq was a threat to his neighbors.
I believed that our intelligence people knew where those WMD were stockpiled, and we would dig them out in a few weeks after the war started and show them off.
I feel betrayed.
A vial or two of Toxin and plans to rebuild a WMD project sometime in the future are not the same as a imminent threat.
I trusted the President when he asked me too, and I fear he misused that trust.
I am not saying that President Bush lied to us, with their drawings of mobile chem units and threats of tons of nerve agent. However, he had done nothing to win back trust that the lack of evidence has produced.
Finally, people keep going on about, "Since 9/11" and "The atmosphere of 9/11". 9/11 is not the issue. Iraq did not change after 9/11. Iraq was in no way involved in those attacks. The US is in no way more vulnerable to terrorist attacks, using WMD or Jet Planes, than it was before 9/11. 9/11 was not the start of the terrorist war on the US. It was just the first time a lot of people, including apparently the President, decided to take notice of it.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I'm not blown away by the botulinum in much the same way that I'm not blown away by sarin. Sarin is ridiculously easy to synthesize, and all of the ingredients are common "household" chemicals with various other uses. Pretty much anyone can make it. Sarin in the hands of Saddam Hussein scares me about as much as sarin in the hands of dozens of other heads of state. The only difference between Hussein and, say, Musharaf is that Musharaf is "allowed" to have those sorts of things, which to me is utterly meaningless.
Essentially, why was America so determined to be scared of Iraq, as opposed to being scared of the numerous other despotic regimes that possess similar weapons and the capacity to deploy them, unlike Hussein's? That's why I say this is a dangerous precedent. But then, I was also opposed to the first Gulf War and to the subsequent sanctions, so it's hardly surprising that I opposed this war as well.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
Rabbit,
Also, I would say that the FBI thought it was of no concern in that particular investigation. Meaning that by the very nature of what your friend had, it could not have been part of the anthrax attacks. It did not mean that it is not a dangerous substance.
I hate it. I just hate everything that is happening, but I'm still not convinced that the world would actually have been better off if we had not invaded Iraq.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:The parol officer, the UN, did not have the balls to put him back, so the cop did, that would be us.
That just what the cop claims to defend himself. In reality what happened is the parol officer found no evidence for the latest offense, and so demanded more investigation before convicting him. But the officer ignored the lack of evidence and put him back in jail anyway, and even executed him, on the grounds that he was guilty until proven innocent. Furthermore, in the end, the accused turned out to be innocent of the most recent charges. So, the cop's argument becomes "well, we should have never released him after that earlier bad stuff anyway, so it's still okay."
Is it not clear than in any civilized society, such a cop would be fired on the spot?
Posted by msquared (Member # 4484) on :
Tres,
No, Saddam did not live up to his parol. He did not account for his whereabouts. He did not let us inspect his house or his car after he had agreed to. He stonewalled. He divereted attention. He blustered. He threatened. All things that would bust a parol. We said empty out your pockets and he didn't. That is enough to bust parol. He was REQUIRED, by international agreement, to let the inspectors in everywhere at any time for any reason. He lost GWI. GWI was supported by the majority of the world. We had UN backing. He sued for peace and agreed to our conditions. He never lived fully up to those conditions. That violates the parol. He then shows no proof that he had gotten rid of all the guns he had. Proof he was required to supply. When the cop shows up at the door, he threatens to blow the cop away. He threatens to blow up the neighbors. He threatens to kill all the cops. Was he bluffing? All of our past history says he wasn't. He thought he could bluff his way out. He was wrong.
msquared
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Someone pointed out on the Sunday morning talking head circuit, I think it was on ABC, that Iraq denied they had WMDs or programs. We essentially said, sure you do, you're lying, and invaded. Now N. Korea claims to have a uranium enrichment program and we say no, you don't, you're lying. Odd.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Classified intelligence can be used, manipulated, spun, managed, discounted, leaked and counter-leaked and just generally twisted to fit all kinds of different goals and agendas. Publicly released classified info or summaries of same must always be taken with many spoonfuls of salt.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
The cop can give all of that as an excuse if he wants, msquared, but he still gets fired in the end, because cops don't get to decide who lived up to their parole. The parole officer does.
Posted by T. Analog Kid (Member # 381) on :
We had documentation of Iraq's WMDs from the firat Gulf War, obtained from THEM. We knew they were there. Whatever else is true, for the Iraqis to say that they never had them was a blatant lie.
AJ, I've been leaving the biotoxin mostly alone because you seem to be handling that well.
[edit: the following in response to Dan]
Iraq publically stated that it would rpovide money to the families of those who died in terrorist attacks. While I don't think that this is the entire reason (I do think there are a number of reasons Iraq was targeted early on, some of them merely politically pragmatic) that Iraq was attacked, it definitely *does* link them to terroist activity, which includes the 9/11 attacks.
They are also relevant to the state of the nation. I brought up "since 9-11" mostly to counter Rabbit's assertions that all of this should have been done before 9-11: we've had a hard enough time implementing these procedures post-9-11... to do them pre-9-11, with nothing more than a couple of unconnected reports to go on, would have brought the wrath of nearly the entire public on Bush and company.
[ October 07, 2003, 02:26 PM: Message edited by: T. Analog Kid ]
Posted by msquared (Member # 4484) on :
TAK,
You are right. If you see the left calling Bush a Nazi now, can you imagine what they would be saying if he tried to do what he is doing with out the truth of 9/11?
msquared
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote: brought up "since 9-11" mostly to counter Rabbit's assertions that all of this should have been done before 9-11: we've had a hard enough time implementing these procedures post-9-11... to do them pre-9-11, with nothing more than a couple of unconnected reports to go on,
You need to learn your facts. Prior to 9/11 there had been two attacks on US embassy's and one on the US navy. The National Security team (under Clinton) had developed a plan for combating and containing terrorism which was not implemented by the Bush administration. The failure to implement this plan was not due to public opposition. The Bush administration didn't even attempt to implement the plan. Until 9/11, the Bush administration was completely ignoring international terrorism despite credible reports that such an attack was coming. The Bush administration is not being cricized because they failed to take drastic measures prior to 9/11. They are being criticized because they failed to take any measures, including those which had already been researched, planned and approved.
Posted by T. Analog Kid (Member # 381) on :
So, in short, you are blaming Bush for not implementing the previous administration's policies? I gave up on that topic from a few weeks ago for reasons I aluded to in my first response to you in this thread.
But, more to the issue at hand, that was only one of a list of things you posted...and my point is salient towards the other items on that list.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:They will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to find and the harder they are to find, the more likely it is that they were hidden in an organized manner designed to make them recoverable.
Tak, my apologies. I reread your posts and this was the best I could come up with. Your *one* main assumption is that Saddam actually had effective WMD and/or effective programs for same. This is unproven at best, according to Kay himself. Another possibility is they are difficult to nail down because they don't exist, or not in any militarily useful quantities. There could still be enough for terrorists though. See my list of scenarios above.
Vials of botulism toxin and unaccounted for nerve gas are scary, but not as much as former Soviet Union nukes floating around. Personally, I'm surprised there has been no nukes set off in anger since 1945 in Japan. I bet there will be one used before 2010, somewhere.
I have softened my position from this summer, when I came down hard on the Bush administration for spinning intelligence and making a weak case for preemptive attack, specifically for claiming a viable Iraqi nuclear program and "imminent danger to America." While there was some spinning going on, I feel Saddam may have more to answer for than I did this summer, especially if he actively tried to decieve us about nonexistant programs through counter-intellligence while publicly claiming he had none. I am trying to keep a more open mind, but the administrations claims are (to be generous) "unproven" in my mind.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
TaK, Hussein, to boost his own standing as the poor whipping boy of the west, and dedicate pan-arab rightful leader, offered to give money to the Palestinean suicide bombers.
That is a far cry from being involved in the 9/11 attacks.
President Bush has stated publicly and in no questionable terms that Hussein and Iraq were in no way connected to 9/11.
However, his donations to the Palestenian Suicide Bombers families is one of the many things that makes Sadaam Hussein a bad man.
And, since others in the government of Saudi Arabia made similar contributions, why haven't we invaded there?
Saudi Arabia is also a toletarian run state that treat there women almost as bad as the Taliban, and financially as well as spiritually back Al-QUeda.
Face it, the cost of the war and reconstruction of Iraq hurts this country far more than it hurts any Terrorist organization, accept that it stops them from getting their hands on Husseins WMD tech. (and we pick off those idiots who come running from around the world to target our soldiers in Iraq).
If Hussein has no WMD Tech to give to the terrorists, than this distraction--in the War on Terrorism--was a mistake.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Outside of the ongoing war in Israel, the only one I can think of worldwide is the bombing of the UN building in Iraq. That's hardly the explosion of terrorist activity you seem to imply.
Al-queada was behind the Bali nightclub bombing that killed 183 people in Oct. 2002. There have been other terrorist attacks ouside Israel, this was the biggest. An important Shi'ii cleric was killed via a massive car-bomb in Iraq just weeks ago. CNN on Bali bombing.Wash. Times Bali story Posted by T. Analog Kid (Member # 381) on :
Thanks Morbo... always happy to have my ignorance remedied.
Dan, I would agree that if there is no WMD tech to give the terrorists, then the war in Iraq has been a distraction *and* a mistake. I still maintain it has its uses, especially as a message to (and possibly a warm up for) North Korea... but would agree that it was probably a mistake, given that there is no weapons tech to be passed on. But to assume that statement to be true this early in the game is to prejudge. In fact, it's even wrong to assume it's true if we never find that tech, that cache... but from Kays preliminary statements, I am hopeful that won't be the case.
*Am* I reading that statement right: it will be another 6 mos to a year before Kay is done? or was he saying that the total time spent on the project will be 6 mos. to a year when he is done?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I still maintain it has its uses, especially as a message to (and possibly a warm up for) North Korea
Do you have any idea how morally bankrupt that statement is? The idea that it was OK to kill thousands of innocent people in order to intimidate North Korea is so far outside the bounds of any ethical or moral philosophy that it makes my head spin.
This is the way bullies behave.
[ October 07, 2003, 04:22 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
I believe Kay said in interviews Sunday approx. 9 months from now, I hedged with 6-12 months. The $600 million is accurate, it is the Bush administration funding request to congress to complete the WMD search.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I agree that the ending of Hussein's rule is a good thing. I believe that the war could lead to good things for the Iraqi people, and possibly the people of the entire region. Further, with our stance after the Gulf War, it was almost politically inevitable.
As I stated, in the context of the "War on Terrorism" however, it appears, so far, to have been a major waste of US resources.
There is one reason that Hussein was a threat compared to most of the other dictators and cruel inhuman mad men that run countries from Burmah to Liberia (he's trying to call in his dictatorship now). Hussein proved through his history that he was an aggressive dictator. He sought conquest, not his own little patch of the world to smite and torture.
He invaded Iran. He invaded Kuwait. He threatened Saudi Arabia. He threatened Isreal. He wanted not to be the supreme leader of Iraq, but of the entire Islamic World. The Ba'ath party is an Islamic Unity party.
Perhaps this is why people thought he had to go. Its a shame no one has ever brought it up as a reason to invade.
Posted by T. Analog Kid (Member # 381) on :
Rabbit,
even mistakes can have good effects. You treat it as if I was saying that was a justification for this instead of saying (as I did) that it was a useful side effect.
I totaled my car a month ago. This was, all in all, a very bad thing due to a misperception on my part (because of the sun's reflections, I couldn't see and consequently ran a red light). People were mildly injured, some of them could easily have been injured severely or killed. Am I morally bankrupt for pointing out that my new car is both better and has a lower monthly payment than my previous one?
Posted by T. Analog Kid (Member # 381) on :
Dan, it was repeatedly brought up as a reason to invade. By people here and at least once by the administration. People ask "why didn't Bush say that?" but he did. I remember hearing it. Again, just because the WMDs got all the play does *not* mean the argument was never made-- it just wasn't focused on...
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
TAK, If you went up to the person who was injured in the accident and said gee I'm sorry but look on the bright side, I've got a nice new car now -- it would be morally bankrupt.
Posted by T. Analog Kid (Member # 381) on :
Have I rubbed someone's nose in something in that fashion? if so, I apologize. It was certainly not my intent...
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
You probably haven't rubbed anyones nose in it. I just found your analogy to be poor.
The reason I found your original statement morally bankrupt was that I find diplomacy by intimidation to utterly immoral. The way I see it, it is as if the biggest strongest kid in school gets in a fight and breaks some little guys leg. Then he says, well it was bad of me to break the kids leg but on the bright side now everyone in the school will do anything I ask.
Posted by T. Analog Kid (Member # 381) on :
No, but when there are two bullies and you beat the living $h17 out of one and look to the other; it's common that all you have to do to ensure he behaves is ask "next?"
Unless you feel it is more moral to simply beat both of them up?
The unfortunate truth is that sometimes bullies have to be taught the meaning of fear, and a pacifist simply cannot do that. The playground of the world has no teacher or prinicpal's office.
Edit: what I was getting at is if the kid who's leg he broke was swaggering around and threatening people... maybe the broken leg is the unfortunate outcome of a good intention.
[ October 07, 2003, 10:35 PM: Message edited by: T. Analog Kid ]
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
See my list of scenarios above.