« Exclusive- SF murder charges dismissed | Main | TFFS- NFL Week 4 »
Saddam asked to take WMD info into exile
Bush lied about WMDs so we could invade Iraq and steal their oil, that is pretty much gospel here in the Mad City. The problem I always had with it was if we were lying then why didn't we plant some to be found? I realize they think W is a fool, but if you are gonna cheat the system, then plant a few chem or bio weapons and voila. Now we have a leak of a Spanish transcript from W's meeting with Aznar, which has been used to imply that W was hellbent on war no matter what. Well Jose Guardia does a full translation and it actually shows just how hard we were working to avoid war, while maintaining the realistic view that Saddam was not likely to comply. He also notes this important tidbit.
Several areas of interest emerge in this memo, but perhaps the most interesting is this part concerning negotiations being conducted with Saddam. Bush told Aznar:
“The Egyptians are talking with Saddam Hussein. It seems he has hinted he’d be willing to leave if he’s allowed to take 1 billion dollars and all the information on WMDs.”
All the information on WMDs? What would that imply to Bush and to Aznar? And this was coming from Egyptian Intelligence in direct communication with Saddam. Wouldn’t the normal person assume from that that Saddam had WMDs or at the very least was seriously engaged in creating them? Why would he wish to preserve this information if he didn’t have any forbidden weapons programs is something that war critics should reconcile. I guess all the people who are trumpeting this leak will now stop saying that Bush lied and mislead us on the WMD issue. Can’t have it both ways. But I won’t hold my breath.
The billion dollars is interesting but the request to take all information on WMD's is fascinating. If Saddam had no weapons or programs then what was he asking for here? What reason could he have for making this request if he didn't have some naughty stuff either plans or parts? That right there is a stronger piece of evidence saying we had to take him out than anything else I have heard. He had many opportunities to destroy the stockpiles he had in a verifiable fashion and he refused. He was asking if he could take his plans and precursors with him into exile. Any President faced with that information would be duty bound to act on it and irresponsible if he did not.
Well even if the left is unable to believe Saddam had WMDs he believed it. I wonder where all that WMD info he was going to take with is now? Hmmmmm.
September 29, 2007 • Permalink
• Technorati Links
Technorati Tags:
Comments
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/2819/22019022
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Saddam asked to take WMD info into exile:
Uncle Jimbo - What frustrates me most about the discussion of Saddam's WMDs is when the Left conveniently refuses to discuss the fact that Saddam had his programs intact and was intending to start them up full-bore again after bribing the United Nations to remove sanctions. That little factoid never seems to get discussed by either the Left nor the Right when they debate the "we found no WMD" talking point of the Left.
People don't seem to want to discuss what we would be facing right now had we not taken out the Saddam Hussein regime. That reality would be a Saddam Hussein who had legitimacy from the United Nations and had them in his back pocket through the Oil-for-Food bribes and who would be going full steam ahead in producing WMDs and then using his connections with al Qaeda and Hamas and other terrorist groups to attack his enemies - including the United States and our interests overseas and our allies across the world.
So there were two primary reasons for the invasion and overthrow of Saddam:
(1) Find and destroy his illegal (per United Nations resolutions) WMD caches
(2) Stop and prevent his WMD programs from going forward and preventing him from passing them on to terrorist groups
People seem to forget that we are no longer fighting warfare between countries and nation states. Instead, we are fighting wars with proxy groups such as al Qaeda, Hezb'Allah, Hamas and other Islamic terrorist groups which are supported and financed by Syria, Iran, "Palestine" and other Islamic nations.
Posted by: MICHAEL in MI | September 29, 2007 at 03:04 PM
The left has consistently overshot on this one.
Crafty Rove/Cheney/Bush brought down WTC towers, cruise missled the Pentagon after only 9 months on the job.
They planted evidence, lied etc about WMD's.... but then were too stupid to actually plant actual WMD evidence in Iraq.
This shows the contempt the left has for the military. The military is made up of men and women who would not stand for this type of behavior. No way Bush could plant piles of WMD evidence without someone in the military blowing the whistle.
So the left just keeps on saying "Lied and Dumb" but holding onto this belief that at one point BushCo was smart enough to pull off 9/11 and get away with it.
Seriously, any operators good enough to pull off 9/11 with no leaks have to have been good enough to plant North Korean nuclear material once the military controlled Iraq...
anyway, the intellectual dishonesty and duplicity of the left is disheartening.
Some advice to the left.
Just say Bush is an asshole cowboy who plunged impetuously into war after events of 9-11 and then mismanaged the hell out of the war we didn't need pissing away lives and billions. Then stop running mouth. Nod sagely if you must do anything at all.
Repeat.
Anything more is overkill.
Posted by: SteveG | September 29, 2007 at 04:14 PM
Q: "I wonder where all that WMD info he was going to take with is now?"
A: Syria! Israel recently took out something construed to be an atomic installation of some sort in Syria which was attributed to North Korea. However, the Russians transported, under diplomatic immunity, a whole lot of something out of Iraq to Syria in a huge caravan of some fifty + trucks in the immediate hours before the coalition commenced the war in Iraq. What Israel bombed may have been a continuation of what was sent from Iraq into Syria and to which North Korea was now a continuation contributor.
The discussion of WMD is always that there were no WMD! This ludicrous statement flies in the face of history for Saddam used them against the Kurds killing thousands and also against the Iranians during the Iran-Iraq War. So at the very least it was never a question of not having WMD but rather whether he still had WMD. The memo highlights the fact that it was a current and not simply an historic issue. That they might well have been sent to Syria is a logical guess.
Posted by: JE | September 29, 2007 at 04:23 PM
I found that PJM article last night and posted it to The Victory Caucus' front page. This is important.
Posted by: Miss Ladybug | September 29, 2007 at 04:46 PM
JE - Let's also not forget that huge terrorist attack that was foiled in Jordan in 2003 or 2004 I believe? The authorities stated there was enough WMD to cause hundreds of thousands of deaths. There was speculation that the WMD came from Saddam's Iraq or Syria (via Iraq).
Posted by: MICHAEL in MI | September 29, 2007 at 04:50 PM
Let's try to focus on the facts as we know them. This meeting occurred about 3 weeks before Bush invaded Iraq. Whatever he thought he knew about Saddam was the result of someone reading him his PDBs in the morning, which, in turn, were drafted by a CIA deputy director, who received his information from CIA analysts working with bad intel. The CIA has acknowledged this. Multiple independent reports have come to the same conclusion.
So for Bush to say that Saddam wanted one billion dollars and his WMD info (whatever that means), probably came from the same flawed intel that led Bush to say this two days before the invasion:
"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised...."
In other words, the Spanish transcript means nothing, and doesn't change the FACT that, contrary to the above statement, Iraq possessed NO WMDs. End of story.
Posted by: Jeffrey Carr | September 29, 2007 at 07:25 PM
Just some speculation on my part here:
Go with the assumption that Saddam didn't have any actual remaining WMDs-that he overstated what he had when he signed the cease fire in 1991, and what was verified destroyed was all he actually had. But he maintained the fiction that he still had some that he was hiding, for his own reasons-to intimidate Iran, the Kurds, Shia, whomever, for example.
This kind of deception would not be out of character for Saddam. Remember, in 1991, all of his commanders thought the guy to his left or right had the chemical weapons.
But what he did have was the info from his research labs. If he could get out of Iraq with that info, there would be two positives for him:
1-it would embarrass the Bush administration if nothing was found. This has happened anyway, because we didn't even find whatever data it was he wanted to take with him.
2-the data would be of value to others, especially al-Qaeda. Even if Saddam got out of the country with $1 billion, he had to figure that at some point, any government put in place by the US would try to come after that money (much as the Philipines have gone after Marcos' $$), so he'd want to have something of value as a fall back.
Posted by: Heartless Libertarian | September 29, 2007 at 07:41 PM
Jeffrey Carr: "In other words, the Spanish transcript means nothing, and doesn't change the FACT that, contrary to the above statement, Iraq possessed NO WMDs. End of story".
Saddam had WMD because he used them in Northern Iraq and against the Iranians. All the Western Intel Agencies believed he had them as a current matter when we went into Iraq. Saddam gave every indication that he had them and as Michael in MI indicates there is the Jordan situation in 2003-4. Likewise, this memo Jimbo writes about is significant unless you can dispute or refute the other historic evidence as well as it. What is the FACT that you refer to so unequivocally? List the events/points which prove your point. Such as Saddam/Iraq was not responsible for the use of WMD against the Kurds and Iranians - giving the alternative responsible party. Tell us, if he was responsible for these horrors, when afterward that he got rid of the WMD - these kind of FACTS. Because unless you can state he NEVER had them, or when he got rid of them, you do not have the end of the story! Thank-you for your assistance in this matter.
Posted by: JE | September 29, 2007 at 07:54 PM
When I read the article, I got the impression that the Egyptians were acting as a kind of go-between, being a fellow Arab nation, and the Egyptians passed that information along, not that it was part of some kind of intelligence intercept. So I don't buy someone saying that part of the conversation came from that notorious "faulty intelligence". I think all the WMD materiel was secreted out of Iraq into Syria - we have those satellite images of the big truck convoy going into Syria just before the bombing started, along with the men who were the "regular" border guards saying they were ordered away from posts while that same convoy passed, and that Iraqi air force general who said he flew several missions from Iraq to Syria with WMDs on board. Every nation in the world believed he had it, and so did Clinton when he was in office. Bush give them "faulty intelligence", too??
Posted by: Miss Ladybug | September 29, 2007 at 08:27 PM
Would it be anticlimatic to point out that George Bush doesn't know Anything out side of the Singular belief Shared by Every Major Intelligence Agency on the Face of the Earth being in Agreement in many years up to the Iraq Invasion that Saddammo Had, Had Used, and Was Actively Involved in the Development of WMD Programsincluding Bio (Most Dangerous btw) and Nuklar.
Yeah, guess so.
Posted by: Cincinnati_Bob | September 29, 2007 at 08:37 PM
Jeffery Carr. My post above is the kind of post that makes anyone with a brain say 'Unlce'. Unless, like most of the Bush bashers I have ever met in person or cyberspace, they have some personal axe to grind. GWB won't let me marry my same sex partner.(Dems won't either and it's not a White House issue anysay) GWB won't let the stem cell research continue. (GWB won't let federal taxpayer money pour into this abortion of an idea. Pun Intended. Why does federal money have to pour into it? If it has merit why won't Venture Capitalists fund the thing like they do myriads of other Biotech nonsense out there in wall street land.??)
So, which one are you? What is your issue? Because surely you aren't going to make a stand on the concept that George W Bush should have known the real WMD deal in Iraq over and above ALL the Intelligence Agencies on the Face of the Earth and told them to go to hell because HE knew Saddammo Didn't Have Any!. Are you? Jeff??
Posted by: Cincinnati_Bob | September 29, 2007 at 09:05 PM
Actually that'd be uncle, rather than unlce. (Just giving you an avenue of attack ya know. Spelling error!)
Posted by: Cincinnati_Bob | September 29, 2007 at 09:06 PM
For those of you who, astoundingly, still don't know that Saddam had no WMDs prior to our invasion, here are two reports to read:
"Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the DCI on Iraq's WMD".
https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/iraq_wmd_2004/index.html
This report concluded that Saddam did not possess stockpiles of illicit weapons at the time of the U.S. invasion in March 2003 and had not begun any program to produce them. Iraq's WMD program was essentially destroyed in 1991 and Saddam ended Iraq's nuclear program after the 1991 Gulf War.
Also, read the Report of the Select Committee on Intelligence on the U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/iraq.html
Posted by: Jeffrey Carr | September 29, 2007 at 09:39 PM
See Mr. Carr. The thing is, resolution 1441 and the Joint Authorization resolution to Use Military Action Against the Ba'ath government simply contradict the false claim that we had went in there for Weapons Of Mass Destruction.
In fact, we had went into Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein and his military because he failed to comply with the three ultimatums we had given him before we set foot in Iraq. First came the ultimatum that proposed he let the IAEA and U.N. inspectors back into his country peacefully and if he didn't then the Congress would authorize military action against him which they had done so in October of 2002. Then came another one a month after the authorization was passed telling him to provide proof that he had destroyed all the WMD's the U.N. told him to after the first Gulf War(this is from U.N. Resolution 1441). Then came a final ultimatum, which he was given days to finally comply with inspections or leave his seat of power in Iraq of face a peace keeping force of the U.S. military and it's allies.
In the end of it all, 14 months have gone by and the United States was still trying to get Hussein to comply peacefully. He had failed to meet any of the demands presented to him from the ultimatums. Bush used military force nearly a half a year after being authorized to do so by the Congress. Congress authorized military action on Hussein in October of 2002, the military acted on March of 2003. Hands down, Bush wasn't trying to wage war with Iraq. He wanted more time for compliance while being told by his colleagues and advisors that we were waiting too long to act on Hussein. For a fact, believing otherwise would require(as Hillary puts it), "a suspension of the will of disbelief".
Posted by: Seal-In-The-Makin' | September 29, 2007 at 11:02 PM
Seal-in-the-makin' - Here's the link to the transcript of Bush's speech on Mar 17, 2003 where he specifically points to Saddam's WMDs:
"intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people."
Here's the full transcipt:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/17/sprj.irq.bush.transcript/
But for a bigger and more complete picture of the entirety of the cluster-f&@k that is the Bush Administration's mis-management of this debacle in Iraq and Afghanistan, see the timeline published by Mother Jones here:
http://www.motherjones.com/bush_war_timeline/
When historians write the record of incompetence and corruption that has permeated the Bush presidency from 9/11 through Katrina and Iraq, I shudder to think how future generations will judge the American people, both Republicans and Democrats, who put him into office TWICE.
Posted by: Jeffrey Carr | September 30, 2007 at 12:58 AM
I've taken a good look at the Syrian WMD infrastructure not only from FAS, GlobalSecurity, IAEA, and other organizations, but also at the report of a reporter who risked life to get out of Syria to tell about the sites he had seen. What is impressive is that the reporter put on the map a couple of sites unmentioned by the normal organizations, and one was clearly an underground bunker complex only recognizable in 3D imagery overlay. That last has high veracity and the report on the al-Baida site is interesting as it is the theoretical repository of Saddam's WMD equipment. Also there was Ray Robison's report on the nuclear scientists gathering in or around al-Hasaka and the reportings from FAS on a nuclear research facility in Deir Zzor. That last is findable, but difficult via imagery. Suffice it to say that Syria has more than enough space to add equipment and components from Saddam's regime. Also the head of NIMA (now NGA) reported on the truck convoys leaving Iraq, and on the ground reports post-conflict has found a few truckers saying they basically drove up to Deir Zzor, left the trailers behind and headed back to Iraq.
The idea that all of the dual-use equipment was destroyed contradicts the early reports by the first UN arms control groups that said the contrary. Saddam's own meager accounting also points out that operation equipment continued to exist in Iraq. Trying to pin down the destruction of the equipment on the intervening years requires proof of destruction. It is possible that it was destroyed, but absent demonstrable indicators and given the ability of Saddam to utilize his Nation's own terrain (like with the buried jet fighters) and the size and scope of Iraq requires absolute proof that destruction took place.
On Saddam wanting his WMD 'information', as it is phrased, that is highly telling as it indicates a willingness to part with equipment, but an unwillingness to part with plans, system schematics and contacts for procurement of equipment and supplies. The first two are the result of decades of work, the last the means to bring it back, and quickly, wherever Saddam could find a willing partner. The next door neighbor of Egypt comes to mind: Libya. Also realize that the willing exit of Saddam would leave his Ba'ath party intact and let him name a successor, most likely one of his sons. As we have seen the tribal affiliations run deep in Iraq and Saddam outside of Iraq is not necessarily a Saddam without influence inside Iraq. Saddam in Libya and one of his sons in control in Iraq would have let the equipment be taken then, once UN sanctions were gone, started up the entire thing again using Libya as a go-between. Somehow a 2005-06 'triumphal return of Saddam' would have given many in the US to decry whoever was President on 'not removing this fiend when we had a chance'.
Somehow this world with Iran and Syria pre-occupied in Iraq and Libya sidelined from WMDs looks much better than one with Iran, Syria, Iraq, and Libya all progressing towards a robust WMD infrastructure. And Iraq would be free to re-build its conventional arsenal with trade sanctions removed. Wars to hold tyrants accountable to their agreements and punish the Nation of that tyrant are bad, but they are not the worst wars of all.
In any event: where is the equipment? If destroyed *someone* will know what happened to it, as this stuff would have to be moved by truck/rail to someplace for disposal. We have reports of anonymous loads of stuff heading to Syria, some of which may be the gold and money reserves, but that is two or three trucks at most and a couple of those (one with about $1 B in cash and another with $500 M in gold) found in Iraq. Some of the factory sites have been cleaned prior to the invasion, scrubbed by professionals and dual-use equipment gone yet the floor mounting points still visible. Building intact, surrounding equipment intact, just some equipment *removed* and the place cleaned. Also a couple of sites with thousands of gallons of pesticide in underground bunkers near factories, just sealed and left behind. A strange thing to have, large numbers of barrels of pesticide not sitting in agricultural warehouses, but underground in the desert near a chemical facility. Destruction leaves evidence and witnesses... find the witnesses and you will have a lead to the evidence. And if they are in a mass grave, then you know they were killed for their knowledge. That the WMD system in Iraq was dysfunctional, of that there is no doubt with bribes and non-work and make-work galore. Yet there was something there, as the Kurds can attest to, and Ansar al-Islam announced it had chemical weapons training from Saddam just in the lead-up to the war and that was a special operation to go into rugged terrain and take them out when fighting started. So where is the equipment?
Posted by: ajacksonian | September 30, 2007 at 06:18 AM
Starting my sunday morn news gathering and always starting here,I remmembered an article about the WMD program saddam had and there was proof positive.Then I remmembered where it was and low and behold they were showing it again.Check out" spectator.co.uk"Dave Gaubatz writes about I FOUND SADDAMS WMD BUNKERS a must read for the non- believers.
Posted by: referman | September 30, 2007 at 08:56 AM
Gee Jeff, your command of the English language is pretty ambiguous. Just like Saddam's nonexistent WMD programs. Methinks you need a refresher in ambiguity, son. Here are the key findings of just the CW portion of the report you cited. While it clearly says Iraq likely destroyed their stockpiles of chemical weapons after the 1991 war, it also pretty clearly says they continued to acquire dual use equipment illegally, continued to test CW agents, and continued to believe they had their own program and had a desire to acquire them covertly. If I had just lost 3000 friends and neighbors in the attacks on 9-11, I might be a little more reticent to believe Saddam than to believe my own intel and the intel of my Arab friends.
But then again, those who lost their lives on 9-11 probably weren't really friends or neighbors to you. Just "little Eichman's" who deserved what they got, eh?
Lets all read the CW key findings and judge for ourselves whether Saddam was honest when he answered "I don't know, the dog ate it" to the UN's question on where his Chemical Weapons homework was:
Key Findings [ISG means Iraq Study Group]
Saddam never abandoned his intentions to resume a CW effort when sanctions were lifted and conditions were judged favorable:
* Saddam and many Iraqis regarded CW as a proven weapon against an enemy’s superior numerical strength, a weapon that had saved the nation at least once already—during the Iran-Iraq war—and contributed to deterring the Coalition in 1991 from advancing to Baghdad.
While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad’s desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered.
* The scale of the Iraqi conventional munitions stockpile, among other factors, precluded an examination of the entire stockpile; however, ISG inspected sites judged most likely associated with possible storage or deployment of chemical weapons. [my notes-- and over 500 unloaded but illegal chemical munitions shells, and over 17 loaded chemical weapons shells have been found in Iraq to date. Guess that means words like "NO WMD have been found" are technically incorrect, eh? Subsunk, standing by.]
Iraq’s CW program was crippled by the Gulf war and the legitimate chemical industry, which suffered under sanctions, only began to recover in the mid-1990s. Subsequent changes in the management of key military and civilian organizations, followed by an influx of funding and resources, provided Iraq with the ability to reinvigorate its industrial base.
* Poor policies and management in the early 1990s left the Military Industrial Commission (MIC) financially unsound and in a state of almost complete disarray.
* Saddam implemented a number of changes to the Regime’s organizational and programmatic structures after the departure of Husayn Kamil.
* Iraq’s acceptance of the Oil-for-Food (OFF) program was the foundation of Iraq’s economic recovery and sparked a flow of illicitly diverted funds that could be applied to projects for Iraq’s chemical industry.
The way Iraq organized its chemical industry after the mid-1990s allowed it to conserve the knowledge-base needed to restart a CW program, conduct a modest amount of dual-use research, and partially recover from the decline of its production capability caused by the effects of the Gulf war and UN-sponsored destruction and sanctions. Iraq implemented a rigorous and formalized system of nationwide research and production of chemicals, but ISG will not be able to resolve whether Iraq intended the system to underpin any CW-related efforts.
* The Regime employed a cadre of trained and experienced researchers, production managers, and weaponization experts from the former CW program.
* Iraq began implementing a range of indigenous chemical production projects in 1995 and 1996. Many of these projects, while not weapons-related, were designed to improve Iraq’s infrastructure, which would have enhanced Iraq’s ability to produce CW agents if the scaled-up production processes were implemented.
* Iraq had an effective system for the procurement of items that Iraq was not allowed to acquire due to sanctions. ISG found no evidence that this system was used to acquire precursor chemicals in bulk; however documents indicate that dual-use laboratory equipment and chemicals were acquired through this system. [acquisition of which was illegal under the cease fire agreement and UN resolutions. Subsunk, still standing by.]
Iraq constructed a number of new plants starting in the mid-1990s that enhanced its chemical infrastructure, although its overall industry had not fully recovered from the effects of sanctions, and had not regained pre-1991 technical sophistication or production capabilities prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF).
* ISG did not discover chemical process or production units configured to produce key precursors or CW agents. However, site visits and debriefs revealed that Iraq maintained its ability for reconfiguring and ‘making-do’ with available equipment as substitutes for sanctioned items.
* ISG judges, based on available chemicals, infrastructure, and scientist debriefings, that Iraq at OIF probably had a capability to produce large quantities of sulfur mustard within three to six months.
* A former nerve agent expert indicated that Iraq retained the capability to produce nerve agent in significant quantities within two years, given the import of required phosphorous precursors. However, we have no credible indications that Iraq acquired or attempted to acquire large quantities of these chemicals through its existing procurement networks for sanctioned items.
In addition to new investment in its industry, Iraq was able to monitor the location and use of all existing dual-use process equipment. This provided Iraq the ability to rapidly reallocate key equipment for proscribed activities, if required by the Regime.
* One effect of UN monitoring was to implement a national level control system for important dual-use process plants.
Iraq’s historical ability to implement simple solutions to weaponization challenges allowed Iraq to retain the capability to weaponize CW agent when the need arose. Because of the risk of discovery and consequences for ending UN sanctions, Iraq would have significantly jeopardized its chances of having sanctions lifted or no longer enforced if the UN or foreign entity had discovered that Iraq had undertaken any weaponization activities.
* ISG has uncovered hardware at a few military depots, which suggests that Iraq may have prototyped experimental CW rounds. The available evidence is insufficient to determine the nature of the effort or the timeframe of activities.
* Iraq could indigenously produce a range of conventional munitions, throughout the 1990s, many of which had previously been adapted for filling with CW agent. However, ISG has found ambiguous evidence of weaponization activities.
Saddam’s Leadership Defense Plan consisted of a tactical doctrine taught to all Iraqi officers and included the concept of a “red-line” or last line of defense. However, ISG has no information that the plan ever included a trigger for CW use.
* Despite reported high-level discussions about the use of chemical weapons in the defense of Iraq, information acquired after OIF does not confirm the inclusion of CW in Iraq’s tactical planning for OIF. We believe these were mostly theoretical discussions and do not imply the existence of undiscovered CW munitions.
Discussions concerning WMD, particularly leading up to OIF, would have been highly compartmentalized within the Regime. ISG found no credible evidence that any field elements knew about plans for CW use during Operation Iraqi Freedom.
* Uday—head of the Fedayeen Saddam—attempted to obtain chemical weapons for use during OIF, according to reporting, but ISG found no evidence that Iraq ever came into possession of any CW weapons.
ISG uncovered information that the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) maintained throughout 1991 to 2003 a set of undeclared covert laboratories to research and test various chemicals and poisons, primarily for intelligence operations. The network of laboratories could have provided an ideal, compartmented platform from which to continue CW agent R&D or small-scale production efforts, but we have no indications this was planned. (See Annex A.)
* ISG has no evidence that IIS Directorate of Criminology (M16) scientists were producing CW or BW agents in these laboratories. However, sources indicate that M16 was planning to produce several CW agents including sulfur mustard, nitrogen mustard, and Sarin.
* Exploitations of IIS laboratories, safe houses, and disposal sites revealed no evidence of CW-related research or production, however many of these sites were either sanitized by the Regime or looted prior to OIF. Interviews with key IIS officials within and outside of M16 yielded very little information about the IIS’ activities in this area.
* The existence, function, and purpose of the laboratories were never declared to the UN.
* The IIS program included the use of human subjects for testing purposes.
ISG investigated a series of key pre-OIF indicators involving the possible movement and storage of chemical weapons, focusing on 11 major depots assessed to have possible links to CW. A review of documents, interviews, available reporting, and site exploitations revealed alternate, plausible explanations for activities noted prior to OIF which, at the time, were believed to be CW-related.
* ISG investigated pre-OIF activities at Musayyib Ammunition Storage Depot—the storage site that was judged to have the strongest link to CW. An extensive investigation of the facility revealed that there was no CW activity, unlike previously assessed.
So, Jeff. When everyone else dies and you become President, we will be able to point at you and say you would have erred on the side of America being attacked and significantly harmed before you would have done anything to stop the attack which could have killed a few hundred thousand American friends and neighbors. I guess that makes you a genius.... or a moron. Which is it?
Subsunk
Posted by: Subsunk | September 30, 2007 at 11:49 AM
"When historians write the record of incompetence and corruption that has permeated the Bush presidency from 9/11 through Katrina and Iraq, I shudder to think how future generations will judge the American people"--J. Carr
That's one of the basic differences between liberals and conservatives. Liberals run around worrying about what the rest of the world, now and in the future, might think of us. Conservatives just do the dirty work of protecting the American people and if other countries don't appreciate that, they're welcome to succumb to radical Islam without our help.
Historians will paint a much fairer and clearer picture of Bush than the current left-wing media does. Of course, thousands more infidels will have to die along the way, but Bush was absolutely right to remove Hussein and history will reflect that accordingly.
Posted by: The Exorcist | September 30, 2007 at 11:49 AM
Jeff. Your CIA report is dated Sept, 2004. It therefore does not support your points.
But what else is new.
Posted by: Cincinnati_Bob | September 30, 2007 at 12:41 PM
Mr. Carr, that quote you had provided by Bush was absolutely accurate. The intelligence agencies of our country and our friends most certainly did say that Hussein tried to revamp a WMD program. In fact, most of those same allies still stand by those allegations including the ones who told us Saddam tried to acquire unconventional payload illegaly despite not supporting his removal from power. At the same time, he doesn't say these kinds of things by choice. The presidency just like the military doesn't have freedom of speech. The Congress approved the declassification of that information and the president had a job to deliver it to he public for their own ears.
Also, Bush will not be blamed for the chaotic Iraqi iconoclasm. Not by historians or future generations. However, the Congress members all across the political spectrum from the middle, right, and left will most certainly recieve most of the blame. After all, they did fail to uphold their Article One Section Eight obligations which state that they are to regulate, make, and enforce laws regarding capture lands and waters.
Of course, I feel they have only done a partial effort with that job. They seem to have no problem with more of our soldiers dying since they can politicize the tragedy for their advantage in the next election. I am thinking this is why they had exposed the weak spots in the armor our troops wear and which areas have the most vulnerability to take advantage of. It bought them some of the one-upsmanship they have been salivating for. Of course, some of them are trying to cut funding to soldiers since all the money that goes to buying troops food, water, gear, and medicine won't go to the raises they constantly write themselves. Too bad we can not cut the funding to Congress, eh?
Posted by: Seal-In-The-Makin' | September 30, 2007 at 12:48 PM
Anyone who has ever used intelligence knows that individual reports are unreliable. One should compile multiple sources, if possible, by different means. Eye witness accounts, photos, communications intercepts, satellite and aircraft reconnaissance images taken together build a case with high probability, but never certainty. In the intel world, if it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, it's (probably) a duck.
There are always conflicts between these data, requiring the user to weigh the potential consequences of action. What if we act on false information? What if we fail to act? Would action expose our intelligence sources or collection methods and do greater harm than would the actual threat? How long might we afford to wait before taking action? Do not oversimplify the problem.
We went into Iraq because
1. Saddam had active chemical, biological and nuclear programs. He bought off a confrontation with the UN by making deals with Russia, France and China and by bribing UN officials, but he underestimated the American reaction after 9/11.
a. Saddam had stockpiles of nerve agents and had actually used them on Iran and his own Kurdish population. We had overhead imagery of the occupied storage facilities, guards in HAZMAT suits and decontamination vehicles. Before we could reach these areas, Saddam had the stockpiles moved to Syria. There is some evidence that the Iraqis deployed chemical weapons against coalition forces, however, although we all saw chemical detection alarms go off, I know of no confirmed incident. Our response to a chemical weapon would be nuclear.
b. Saddam was actively working on biological warfare agents although there was little evidence of more than a research project. His inner circle included a female biochemist Dr. Rihab Rashida Taha, who was arrested during the occupation and released uncharged after two years. While there were pre-war stories about Saddam's biological warfare experiments at Abu Ghrub, I know of no proof of these allegations. Biological weapons are notoriously difficult to handle safely.
c. Saddam was pursuing yellow cake in Niger as confirmed by Joe Wilson. Saddam's envoys had offered a "special trade relationship" to the government of Niger. The only Niger export of interest to Iraq was uranium hexafloride. The fake messages were an attempt by Iraq to discredit intelligence services who might later make these claims. Iraq's chief nuclear scientist, Khidhir Abdul Abas Hamza, escaped Iraq in 1994 through Kurdistan and holed up in Tripoli before he defected in 1995 and exposed Saddam's plans. This defection was nearly botched by the CIA, who had no idea who Hamza was when he called from Libya. The CIA finally granted him refugee status.
d. Saddam had delivery systems - artillery shells, rockets, ballistic missiles, aircraft and drones - capable of targeting US forces and our allies in the theater. These WMD capabilities may also be delivered by terrorists in a non-conventional manner. Chemical weapons are often developed as binary agents - two benign chemicals which, when mixed, become lethal. A suicide bomber could dump the two agents into a building air conditioning system and kill everyone inside. Weaponizing a biological agent was probably beyond the capabilities of the Iraqis, but use by a terrorist (e.g., anthrax letters) was present in the minds of US decision makers. During the Gulf War, Iraqi Scuds hit Israel and Saudi Arabia. UN resolutions passed after 1991, including some that restricted missile ranges, were routinely violated.
2. Iraqi under Saddam was a police state fashioned on Nazi Germany. His government controlled communications and transportation. If you travelled abroad, your family stayed in Iraq. Owning a GSM cell phone could get you executed. Before expelling the UN inspectors, the Iraqis placed restrictions on them. If Saddam had no WMD program, why would he suffer a decade of UN sanctions to conceal a non-program?
3. Saddam had twice invaded his neighbors' countries.
a. In 1980, he invaded Iran seizing an oil field and resulting in a war that killed 1,000,000 people. Scuds with poison gas and high explosives impacted as far as Teheran. Iranians sent out children into Iraqi mind fields armed with plastic keys to heaven. The eight year war degenerated into a static fight more like WWI than a modern conflict. It squandered billions and devastated both countries.
b. In 1991, he announced that Kuwait was a province of Iraq, invaded and occupied the country. Our forces attacked from Saudi Arabia into Kuwait and Iraq, driving his forces out and liberating Kuwait in 100 hours. When the coalition air forces finished with Iraq, their troops were surrendering to CNN crews. Unfortunately, the coalition's Arab members would not support a drive into Baghdad to finish the job.
4. As a condition of ending of hostilities, Saddam agreed to destroy his chemical, biological and nuclear weapons capabilities and to open his facilities to UN inspectors. As others have pointed out, he failed to abide by this agreement. The UN passes 16 resolutions directing Iraqi compliance, all of which he ignored. The Russians, Chinese and French, all trading secretly with Iraq in violations of sanctions, blocked Security Council action. Had Bush not acted, we would be watching dozens of additional resolution ignored. Inaction was not an option.
5. Unlike Bill Clinton, who attacked everywhere to distract from his personal irresponsibility, George W. Bush obtained from Congress an authority to use force resolution from a bipartisan majority in both houses. He directed the forces attack and remove the Saddam regime. A coalition of 31 nations contributed to the success of Iraqi Freedom. Saddam's WMD were not found in significant quantities, but that does not prove they never existed.
Bush was forced to attacked Iraq. It was the only responsible action. Of course, I do not expect a liberals to understand the concept of responsible action.
Arch
Posted by: Arch | September 30, 2007 at 01:00 PM
Sorry about the length of my above comment.
Arch
Posted by: Arch | September 30, 2007 at 01:05 PM
Subsunk, I've been called a lot of things, but "ambiguous" isn't usually one of them. What part of "No Weapons of Mass Destruction" don't you get, "son"? (Sorry to throw in that "son" bit, but it's just so damm condescending, isn't it?)
Let's review what you pulled out of Duelfer's report, albeit in a more concise way:
1. "While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991."
And Subunk? That addresses your question to me about the old chemical munitions shells that have been found. Old munitions does not equal "continuing to create WMDs" in any rational person's mind.
2. "Iraq had an effective system for the procurement of items that Iraq was not allowed to acquire due to sanctions. ISG found no evidence that this system was used to acquire precursor chemicals in bulk; however documents indicate that dual-use laboratory equipment and chemicals were acquired through this system." [acquisition of which was illegal under the cease fire agreement and UN resolutions. Subsunk, still standing by.]
Subsunk - Nobody disputed Saddam's violations or attempt to violate U.N. resolutions, but it's NOT a Casus Belli for a unilateral military invasion by the U.S., nor was it ever used as such by Bush. It WAS, however, a reason for the U.N. to act multi-laterally against Iraq which they were in the process of doing.
3. "ISG did not discover chemical process or production units configured to produce key precursors or CW agents." That Iraq could re-invigorate this program within a matter of months or a few years IS NOT THE SAME AS "Iraq continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised" (President Bush, 3/17/03)
4. "information acquired after OIF (Operation Iraqi Freedom) does not confirm the inclusion of CW in Iraq’s tactical planning for OIF. We believe these were mostly theoretical discussions and do not imply the existence of undiscovered CW munitions."
5. "Uday—head of the Fedayeen Saddam—attempted to obtain chemical weapons for use during OIF, according to reporting, but ISG found no evidence that Iraq ever came into possession of any CW weapons."
The relevant parts in these quotes so far, Subsunk, are those related to evidence found (which is none). Of course, Saddam would have done more if he were allowed to. That's why sanctions were in effect, and obviously from the evidence found, sanctions were working.
The rest of your selected quotes, which I'm not going to cut and paste in order to save space, continue the same pattern, i.e., "no evidence found". And in this country, and the rest of the civilized world, we're supposed to follow the evidence, not invent it or theorize about it.
Finally, as a veteran and a patriot, I resent you trying to make this argument personal. I'm telling you this out of respect for your service and the fact that you're a regular contributor to this forum. You should know that good people can disagree on certain things and still be honorable patriotic citizens. I generally don't respond to some of the rabid posters who frequently do that on this and other forums, but I'm doing it in your case because you ought to know better.
Jeffrey, out.
Posted by: Jeffrey Carr | September 30, 2007 at 01:26 PM
Arch, since you seem to believe that you have compiled the available evidence and came to a different conclusion than both the Iraq Study Group and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, I think that it's your duty as a citizen to send your proof directly to the Office of the Director for National Intelligence. Clearly, you have succeeded where they have failed. I'm sure that they'll welcome you with open arms, and perhaps you may even be appointed the new DNI by President Bush (P.S. you should probably cc Bush in your letter to the DNI).
Posted by: Jeffrey Carr | September 30, 2007 at 01:32 PM
Jeffrey Carr wrote:
What part of "No Weapons of Mass Destruction" don't you get...
we're supposed to follow the evidence, not invent it or theorize about it.
Saddam's Iraqis weren't leaving evidence around to be found, they were actively destroying it and 'sanatizing' sites:
The headquarters building contained several chemical and biological laboratories, but apparent sanitization efforts of the site make the purpose of the laboratories difficult to determine from exploitation data alone.
A family that moved into the former M16 headquarters building said that after the coalition’s primary visit to the facility in April, IIS personnel returned to pick up several items including computers and equipment. Sanitization efforts may have continued, because the team that returned to the site found burnt documents in October 2003.
Chpt 5 Link
Posted by: liontooth | September 30, 2007 at 02:54 PM
3. "ISG did not discover chemical process or production units configured to produce key precursors or CW agents." That Iraq could re-invigorate this program within a matter of months or a few years IS NOT THE SAME AS "Iraq continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised" (President Bush, 3/17/03)
In a practical sense, Jeffrey, it IS the same ... to say otherwise is simply straining gnats (which BTW is a hallmark symptom of BDS).
If you had your way, all Saddam would have had to do was pass a weapons inspection or two ... add to that the effects of corruption in the UN from Oil-For-Food ... and he could have not only gotten sanctions lifted, but facilitate the removal of both the inspectors and the American military from the region ...
... then restart those programs without ANYONE looking over his shoulder, until he actually used them to kill thousands.
And faster than you think.
You exhibit the symptoms of classic Leftist incompetence and corruption (of judgment) ... looking for ANY way to avoid going to war today, even if it means risking far more death and destruction tomorrow.
All the containment, inspections, and sanctions in the world are nowhere near as effective as the CREDIBLE and DECISIVE confrontation of tyranny, when it comes to protecting life, liberty, and peace ... because the latter, when taken to completion, ENDS the threat.
You and your fellow-travelers only THINK you have found "a better way".
History speaks otherwise.
Posted by: Rich Casebolt | September 30, 2007 at 03:40 PM
Jeffrey Carr wrote:
When historians write the record of incompetence and corruption that has permeated the Bush presidency from 9/11 through Katrina and Iraq, I shudder to think how future generations will judge the American people,
The same way that historians view 11 months after the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor, FDR invades French North Africa?
AND
Let's recall what the Clinton Administration said in 1998 regarding Iraq producing VX:
The United States also claims it had other evidence linking the plant with chemical weapons production. That evidence includes links between officials at the facility in Sudan and an Iraqi official who has been labeled by U.S. intelligence as "the father of Iraq's chemical weapons program."
Iraq link to Chemical Weapon Factory
Posted by: liontooth | September 30, 2007 at 03:44 PM
Besides ... our actions in Iraq were justified, WMD or no WMD, in the simplest of terms -- as I pointed out to another of your fellow-travelers in 20th-century incompetence.
The link also illustrates how, as I said above, "history speaks otherwise".
Posted by: Rich Casebolt | September 30, 2007 at 03:46 PM
"In a practical sense, Jeffrey, it IS the same ... to say otherwise is simply straining gnats"
No, Rich. Let's say that guns were outlawed in your city. If you don't own a gun, but you have the money to buy one, and the desire to buy one, are the police entitled to obtain a No-Knock warrant, swarm your house with overwhelming force, shackle you hand and foot, and drag you off to jail?
I guess according to you, they are, since you think the difference between possession and intent is "straining at gnats".
And by the way, Rich. Are you under the age of 39 and a currently serving member of the U.S. Armed Forces? If you are, stay safe and God bless you. If you aren't, why not?
Posted by: Jeffrey Carr | September 30, 2007 at 04:07 PM
Jeffrey ... don't even try to play the chickenhawk card.
Not everyone who is needed to materially support this war effort, wears The Uniform.
In fact, our nation is better served by many of the "chickenhawks" staying right where they're at, to preserve the economic and technological base that backs up those called to wear That Uniform.
Posted by: Rich Casebolt | September 30, 2007 at 04:13 PM
Now to the primary point ...
Jeffrey, your comparison is apples-and-oranges.
The protection of my person from the unreasonable search and seizure that you describe is codified into our laws, to protect citizens from government.
Not one government from another.
And Saddam was the government of Iraq.
Not he elected, checked-and-balanced leader our President is. He had ABSOLUTE control.
The day he took over and established his absolute rule, his Miranda rights were GONE.
The day he used that absolute power to violate an Iraqi's rights to life and liberty, he became a threat to CIVILIZATION ... not just his own people, but us as well.
The day he tried to expand that power beyond Iraq's borders ... directly and/or through terrorist surrogates ... he became a threat that could no longer be ignored.
An even bigger threat than that posed by a few dozen guys from Afghanistan in mid-2001 ... and I surmise that, had we known what we learned on 11 Sept 2001 about those few dozen a little earlier, you would have had no problem with a decisive, preemptive attack to defeat them?
Only because thick-headed, arrogant, useful idiots like you believed that, if we made enough Rules to govern behavior, we could neutralize such threats without actually getting our hands dirty ... or make moral judgments about how other nations govern themselves ... by removing tyrants from power, did we let him stay around long enough to do the damage he did ... and lend his support to others who still damage our civilization.
It is YOU and your ilk, that created this mess, by your INACTION in years past.
If you really were the Best and Brightest, you would have known better ... and worried more about facilitating rights-respecting governance in places like Iraq and Iran, and less about the appearance of "imperialism".
Your lack of foresight speaks to an "incompetence" that reduces the errors of this Administration to near-insignificance.
Problem is, you are more afraid of someone making a moral judgment with words, than you are of someone making another kind of moral judgment ...
... by applying bullets, knives, planes, and bombs against your person, to impose their totalitarian rule over you.
Posted by: Rich Casebolt | September 30, 2007 at 04:30 PM
BTW, there is one other valuable service the "chickenhawks" perform.
They stand against the domestic insurgency, who would return this nation to the folly of the 20th-century conventional wisdom "liberally" illustrated in this thread ... effectively impeding and/or undoing the good work our Men and Women are doing in-theater ... Men and Women whose ability to express their viewpoint in the public discourse is limited by the UCMJ.
Having all the "chickenhawks" over there ... would leave the Foxes of Folly guarding the political henhouse.
Not wise.
Posted by: Rich Casebolt | September 30, 2007 at 04:42 PM
Rich, I'm not calling you a Chickenhawk. I'm merely asking you why, since you're such an ardent supporter of the war, and of going to war with the slimmest of grounds, ... why you haven't enlisted?
It's true that there are many ways to serve your country, besides enlisting, but here you are posting on a MilBlog, yelling "Charge" with none of your own skin on the line, so it does kind of beg the question.
Nevertheless, I'm happy to take you at your word that you're serving your country in a different way. What way would that be? Is it that you're employed and pay your taxes, a percentage of which goes to fund the war? Well, so do members of your hated Left. In that respect, you're no different then they are.
Is it that you work in a field that contributes to the war effort or the GWOT? If so, please share the good news.
Is it because you've raised children who are now serving in Iraq? I'm guessing that's not it.
Or do you imagine that you're serving your country by spending your free time online engaging in verbal bouts with people that you don't know (but are quick to judge), and imagining that all those words that you spew are actually making one iota of difference in the real world?
Be honest now, Rich. That's it, isn't it?
Posted by: Jeffrey Carr | September 30, 2007 at 05:04 PM
Apparently, Jeffrey, you think words can make a difference ... you're here repeatedly, aren't you?
Well, So do I.
**********************************
First -- understand that, in this war ... more so than in the past ... there is a lot of civilian skin on the line, that is not associated with a Blue or Gold Star.
Many of my neighbors learned that firsthand, a little while before I got here. They share the deepest parts of a big, collective wound in our skin, about an hour or so west of where I am typing this.
You would know it as Ground Zero.
**********************************
As for me, think of me as a high-tech version of Rosie the Riveter.
Five (sometimes six) days a week I apply my 24 years of electronics-engineering experience to the design of advanced power-management equipment that is used by our warfighters.
I can continue to do this ... or I can go in-theater, where this old grandfather would likely be unable to avoid, if "offered", a cameo role in an Al Quada snuff video ... and NEEDLESSLY put Men and Women at greater risk in an effort to find me before its climax.
As for being quick to judge ... my judgment is based on 48 years of life, including many years seeing those who are supposedly "better" and "brighter" than I treat totalitarian dictator and rights-respecting democrat with the same deference ... even as the suffering and death mounted at the hands of the former, and started leaking out beyond their borders.
Let me give you a snap judgment:
Leftist worldview = status quo, leading to the events of 11 September 2001 ... and its sequels.
Cowboy diplomacy = 50 million liberated and hope for peace in the MidEast ...
... added to the hundreds of millions liberated, the end of SAC on 24/7 high alert, and the many, many nuclear warheads decommissioned, as a result of the confrontation of tyranny by another President who was also vilified by your fellow-travelers in arrogant folly.
BTW, those decommissioned warheads include those that once sat all around the farms of two of my great-uncles in western Missouri.
I guess they had skin in the game, too.
Posted by: Rich Casebolt | September 30, 2007 at 05:32 PM
Fell free to fix the tag in the link, Men of Blackfive.
(why does this always happen to me?)
Posted by: Rich Casebolt | September 30, 2007 at 05:33 PM
Jeffrey Carr wrote:
and of going to war with the slimmest of grounds, ... why you haven't enlisted?
You just can't be talking about Iraq.
SECURITY COUNCIL 7 MARCH 2003
Hans Blix:
Against this background, the question is now asked whether Iraq has cooperated "immediately, unconditionally and actively" with UNMOVIC, as is required under paragraph 9 of resolution 1441 (2002).
t is obvious that, while the numerous initiatives, which are now taken by the Iraqi side with a view to resolving some long-standing open disarmament issues, can be seen as "active", or even "proactive", these initiatives 3-4 months into the new resolution cannot be said to constitute "immediate" cooperation. Nor do they necessarily cover all areas of relevance.
http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusnewsiraq.asp?NewsID=414&sID=6
Posted by: liontooth | September 30, 2007 at 06:03 PM
Thanks for the response, Rich. I lived in Manhattan for six years and I never knew that there were military aircraft manufacturing plants within an hour's drive of the city. No wonder each jet sells for a few hundred million dollars.
While I do post here from time to time, it's not often. It's a bit tiring fending off so much venom.
Regarding 9/11, a Republican President and a Republican Congress were in charge when it happened; the actual attack was planned and financed by Osama bin Laden, with many of the participants hailing from Saudi Arabia, where the Bush family and the entire U.S. Oil industry has lots of connections. Then there was the bungling of our law enforcement and intelligence agencies thanks to their stove-piped data warehouses, not to mention out-right ineptitude.
So where, I'm wondering, are the "Leftists" to blame?
Finally, you'll forgive me for not confronting you on your "50 million liberated" remark. That's just too outrageous a position to tackle, even for me.
Posted by: Jeffrey Carr | September 30, 2007 at 06:04 PM
Liontooth, the proper response, and the one favored by a majority of U.N. nations, would be to increase sanctions and military oversight on a multi-lateral basis. War should the last option, not the middle option, nor the first option.
Posted by: Jeffrey Carr | September 30, 2007 at 06:13 PM
Jeffrey Carr:
and the one favored by a majority of U.N. nations, would be to increase sanctions and military oversight on a multi-lateral basis.
That's what happened for 12 years. So when that doesn't work, then what? More sanctions? Hussein didn't comply, and never intended to comply (see my links posted above).
Do you actually think that if the invasion was pushed back until September of 2003, Hussein would have complied?
So the Bush mistake was in not waiting 6 months, or pursuing the issue to begin with?
Posted by: liontooth | September 30, 2007 at 07:07 PM
Old Jeff apparently feels only those in the military should be allowed to support a war. Course, unless Jeff is in the military that also means he's not allowed to de-support it. Who wants to bet he won't understand.
Outside of that it's just the same old 'Damn the facts, full speed ahead' nonsense. Take it away folks, but you'll see that this cyber-vampire won't go away even with wooden stakes. One thing I hate is to be tasked by idiots, and so for me, Jeff can believe what he wants.
Posted by: Cincinnati_Bob | September 30, 2007 at 07:59 PM
Liontooth, unfortunately a multi-lateral enforcement of UN sanctions hadn't been in effect for 12 years. Only a partially supported enforcement, led by the U.S., and that's in-sufficient. Bush's mistake was (1) that he surrounded himself with yes men and didn't listen to, or seek out the advice of contrarians, and (2), that he should have worked to get the full cooperation of the U.N. member nations in enforcing those sanctions against Iraq. That would have made all the difference.
Posted by: Jeffrey Carr | September 30, 2007 at 09:35 PM
There is one thing that I think I agree with Jeff Carr on. That happens to be the response he had made telling one of the bloggers on this thread who was presenting evidence on Iraq's WMD. He made the suggestion of sending the discoveries to a government official. Smashing idea, Jeff! Really, that's a great one.
Man, last time a soldier who saw WMD's in Iraq asked a Congressman "why they kept on saying there were no WMD's in Iraq", the Congressman choked and chose to hope to another topic. Just ask Wade Zirkle from Vets For Freedom, a couple of his servicemen from his VFF organization was at the townhall meeting where this incident took place.
Just funny to the extremes. I think the Congressman was John Murtha. This saddens me because he was an honorable Marine who chose not to listen to the Marines equally as honorable as he was during his time as a leatherneck.
Posted by: Seal-In-The-Makin' | September 30, 2007 at 09:55 PM
(My apologies to all for the length of this post ... but this is an educational opportunity that IMO needs to be seized upon.)
So where, I'm wondering, are the "Leftists" to blame?
Well, let me 'splain it to you, Jeffrey:
Regarding 9/11, a Republican President and a Republican Congress were in charge when it happened;
The groundwork for the attack was laid well before 20 January 2001. The previous Administration had already been subjected to attacks by AQ ... where was their response? Had they responded with resolve and decisiveness, this could have been nipped in the bud.
the actual attack was planned and financed by Osama bin Laden, with many of the participants hailing from Saudi Arabia, where the Bush family and the entire U.S. Oil industry has lots of connections.
Now you're moving onto the thin ice of the Truther and "War for Oil" narratives.
Understand that there is another, implemented scenario of how greedy men exploited Iraqi oil. Had the President shared their greed, he would have been hip-deep in Oil-For-Food with them ... and possibly even set himself up for a Nobel because of his ability to "avoid war" while fleecing the Iraqi people ... while letting Saddam continue bleeding the Iraqi people.
Also keep in mind that Saddam's primary oil customers were European ... the French companies ELF and Total come to mind. It is far more plausible that oil was the impetus for OPPOSITION to the war, than it is for its support ...
... which also speaks to your assertion that the President should have done more to assure full cooperation. Cooperation is a two-way street ... and your good faith could have been exploited by those who view diplomacy as "war by other means" ... or at the least, see dragging America down through realpolitik as a way to lift their own fortunes up.
If that was the case, then what was the President supposed to do, if he was going to live up to his Constitutional mandate to protect this nation from threats foreign and domestic? Ask "pretty please with Light Sweet Crude on top"?
Then there was the bungling of our law enforcement and intelligence agencies thanks to their stove-piped data warehouses, not to mention out-right ineptitude.
Can you say Jamie Gorelick? That Clintonista put up the famous "wall" that keep the CIA and FBI from comparing notes.
But she is only a symptom of larger problems.
1> The view of terrorism as a law-enforcement issue ... and therefore subject to the rules of evidence, Miranda rights, and limiting the response to only those directly responsible for the perpetration of a specific terror "incident" ... instead of viewing it as an act of war and responding to it as such.
2> The view that, if enough Rules are made that sanction or proscribe specific behaviors, it is prudent to leave those with a history of brutal and/or duplicitous behavior in positions of power ... and even treating such dictators with the same deference as the elected, checked-and-balanced leaders of rights-respecting democracies.
Or in other words, we can have peace without getting in the dirty business of making the moral judgement that a despot has "become Destructive to these Ends" as described in the first section of our Declaration of Independence ... and acting to remove that despot by violating his soverignity and nabbing his/her sorry arse before he can do any more damage.
Unfortunately, the Law of Jurassic Park applies here ... Life finds a way. Leave those who hold disdain for your life and liberty unmolested (even if "contained") long enough, and they will find away around your containment and Rules to impose their will upon the unwilling.
3> The view that a strong America is the greater enemy to peace, than the totalitarian thugs and fanatics of the Middle East. This view is expressed in the sustained effort to emasculate of the CIA over the years, at the hands of prominent Leftist Demorats ... and other imprudent actions in the name of "protecting civil liberties", including the Gorelick Wall, that served to tie down America like Gulliver when it came to dealing with these enemies.
4> The idea that "any negotiation is better than none" ... contributing to the folly of {2} above, as well as always demanding "one more negotiation ... one more dialogue" in the face of a stubborn ... or duplicitous ... enemy who flaunts the Rules and folds/spindles/mutilates your trust -- buying themselves more time to plan and plot to skirt the Rules, get The Bomb and use it to try and change the Rules, or just go ahead and attack you at a point that will leave you too weak to enforce the Rules.
These four fundamental problems compose much of what I call "20th Century Conventional Wisdom" ... and are positions that have been repeatedly and emphatically advocated as preferred courses of action by the political Left, here and abroad.
Leaders -- both Left and Right -- bought into these ideas, because on their surface they appear compassionate, fair-minded, and capable of promoting peace.
In practice, they have been anything but ... they have maintained a lethal status quo for MILLIONS on this planet, with no end in sight ...
... until those infrequent moments when a true leader is put into the Oval Office, focuses more on protecting life and liberty than on a mindless adherence to the Rules ... and starts confronting those who hold a disdain for your and my life and liberty, with the CREDIBLE threat of the direct, expeditious, resolute, and DECISIVE use of American military force.
When that happens ...
... he is stridently denounced as a "warmongering, imperialst cowboy" ... a "tool of Corporate America" ... and other fodder for ANSWER's signs ...
... even as his actions facilitate the liberation of millions, facilitate the conditions for sustainable peace ... and sometimes even reduce nuclear-arms stockpiles in real terms.
My "50 million liberated" remark is hardly outrageous. Your fellow-travelers thought Reagan's response to the Soviet Union was just as outrageous ... and they were wrong.
George W. Bush is now proving you wrong as well ... because the Iraqis are not only coming to our side and cooperating among themselves to create the conditions for a sustainable peace ... they aren't buying your "War For Oil" propaganda anymore, either.
Now, they might think that our government can be incompetent ... but that is because they are now also seeing the Congressional circus that threatens to leave them in the lurch ...
... just as they were left in 1991, when another President deferred to sensational media coverage that might have made us look brutal, along with pressure to not exceed his UN and/or Arab Street mandates ... in other words, the applicable Rules as supported by our Best and Brightest of the political Left ...
... and leave the Butcher of Baghdad in place to kill 30,000 of their brothers.
Just as our lack of a timely response to the brutality of the Shah, then his Islamofascist successors ... in the name of "respecting" an "ally" or the illegitimate soverignty of a repressive state, for the sake of "peace" ... led to Iran becoming the premier supporter of terrorism on the planet.
Where did 20th-century conventional wisdom fail us?
A> Technology and prosperity have shrunk the world to the point that even minor nations can wreak havoc upon our civilization ... with no warning. We can no longer count on either the oceans to protect America from harm ... or the formation of the "storm clouds of war" to warn us when harm is headed our way.
B> It is insufficient to expect restraints upon specific behaviors to assure the peace ... (thug) life WILL find a way. The character, moral basis, and history of a regime must be part of 21st-century threat assessment ... and so must the fundamental structure of governance that a regime operates under; in particular, the presence or absence of adequate checks-and-balances to prevent a nation from being hijacked and exploited to further a totalitarian agenda.
C> We cannot avoid moral judgement ... and ACTING upon that judgment ... if we are going to maintain conditions for a sustainable peace. Totalitarians must be treated as the pariahs they are ... and neither they, nor their assertions, nor their promisesshould be granted a moral equivalence to the rights-respecting nations of the world.
Dealing with these problems and failings means repudiating much of the policies and views promoted over the last five decades or so by the political Left ... for these problems and failings exist precisely because we implemented those policies and views.
Thus endth the lesson.
Posted by: Rich Casebolt | September 30, 2007 at 11:22 PM
Posted by: Miss Ladybug | September 30, 2007 at 11:42 PM
Jeffrey Carr wrote:
that he should have worked to get the full cooperation of the U.N. member nations in enforcing those sanctions against Iraq. That would have made all the difference.
In July of 2001 The Bush Administration had tried to do exactly what you proposed. link
The Russians along with other Security Council members opposed it.
In the fall of 2002 resolution 1441 WAS passed which required that Iraq had to cooperate "immediately, unconditionally and actively" with UNMOVIC. Blix testified in March of 2003 this had NOT happened. The evidence shows Hussein's regime was destroying and sanitizing their wmd programs. So again I ask, was Bush supposed to wait? Until September of 2003?
It wasn't up to the UN to find weapons. It was Iraq's responsibility to account for its wmd and disarm. That was the basis of the cease-fire ending the Gulf War in 2001.
Posted by: liontooth | October 01, 2007 at 12:40 AM
If anyone wonders "how would the Arab/Muslim world have viewed increased sanctions on Iraq" in 2003:
More than 600,000 Iraqi children have died due to lack of food and medicine and as a result of the unjustifiable aggression (sanction) imposed on Iraq and its nation. The children of Iraq are our children. You, the USA, together with the Saudi regime are responsible for the shedding of the blood of these innocent children. Due to all of that, what ever treaty you have with our country is now null and void.
Osama bin Laden August, 1996.
"Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places."
link
Posted by: liontooth | October 01, 2007 at 01:08 AM
Jeffrey Carr:
So you do not think Saddam had a nuclear, chemical or biological weapons program? Every intelligence agency on the planet was tricked by the great Saddam? Bill Clinton was wrong? Saddam's nuclear scientist, Hamza, was a fraud? Joe Wilson was wrong? All those Kurds and Iranians who died suddenly and painfully just caught the flu? Doctor Germ - was she on his staff because he likes women with dark facial hair?
You doubt that Saddam was a threat to his neighbors? The war with Iran was a fake, done in Hollywood? All those missing Kuwaitis just checked out and went to Club Med? The oil fires and deliberate oil slicks were just done to drive up the price of oil?
After Desert Storm Saddam blocked the inspectors as a practical joke? The Russians on the team weren't tipping him off where they were going?
What would you have done? Probably nothing.
Miss Ladybug is absolutely right. The UN was never going to act against Saddam and waiting would serve only two ends - more risk of a WMD attack and more hardship for the people of Iraq. The United States is free to act in its own defense if we perceive a threat to national security and that is exactly what we did.
The frightening part of this argument is that you seem to favor endless delay to taking action. That notion is dangerous. We are in a war today with forces bent on our destruction. Talking to enraged islamists is not an effective solution.
Arch
Posted by: Arch | October 01, 2007 at 05:40 AM
Really???? Not a case for Casus Belli? After 12 years of violations, what is a case for Casus Belli??? And for sanctions, pray tell how the additional sanctions regime was occurring. As so many others have posted here, the UN passed NO new resolutions calling for additional sanctions or military action against Saddam because..... they were more concerned with making money than they were with saving lives. They would rather lift the sanctions on Iraq and gain money for their illegal or immoral contracts to provide WMD equipment to Saddam than they cared about Iraqis living under Saddam's oppression or neighboring Muslims living under threat of Saddam's WMD programs.
No evidence cuts both ways Jeffy boy. Since the report says they didn't find any evidence of manufacturing of stockpiles of WMD after 1996 we can assume Saddam didn't make more, but do we really know for sure??? It just means there is no evidence found that he did. And we can also say the same for the quotes which identify the facts that he intended to continue his programs after sanctions were broken, he continued to test and research and acquire dual use equipment for his programs during the sanctions (for what humanitarian purpose I might ask, and you might excuse), and then during the invasion, he or Uday wanted to acquire them for use in combat. What part of nefarious intent are you ignoring??? Just because you ignored the quotes which said he continued research, sought weapons during the war, and illegally procured dual use equipment, doesn't mean he was innocent as the Tooth Fairy.
I do know better. I know better about gathering and using intel to safeguard the country than you do. If you choose to err on the side of an enemy's intentions, then you have no business claiming expertise in safeguarding the country's best interests. If you believe that accepting an enemy's intentions to continue WMD programs when possible then you obviously belong in the Foreign Service of the State Dept, not the US military.
I sincerely agree that reasonable men can disagree over courses of action and results and still be honorable patriotic citizens. I'm sure you feel you are a patriot. I'm also sure you feel this war was totally mishandled and that was because of evil intentions of George W Bush and the arrogance of his advisors, and the nefarious intentions of oil companies in America who do nothing more than pull oil out of the ground, refine it and sell it to folks who need it, to make a NORMAL buck. Is there any business in America which legally makes a dollar in your opinion?
However, I am free to disagree with you. I am free to call you misguided, even if patriotic, and I am free to feel that folks like you, who undermine your own government unless it is run by someone you voted for, are by definition, unpatriotic. If Billy Clinton had ordered me to attack Timbuktu because he gave a lawful order to do so, I damn sure would have carried it out and done my best to make it work. "Patriots" who selectively choose which order to follow, and which President's policies are correct, are not true patriots.
I merely claim that your use of ambiguity to make a case against W because you don't share his respect for law and for the lives of Americans over foreign agents and terrorists doesn't give you any special expertise in military affairs or honor in your intentions. And I am free to do so.
As for personal attacks, if you don't like being called son or boy, then quit acting like one. And remember opinions are like assholes. Everybody's got one and they all stink.
Subsunk out.
Posted by: Subsunk | October 01, 2007 at 09:47 AM
Well ya know Subsunk, you got three kinds of people in this world.... lol - and I think ya all been talking to one of the ones from the Film Actors Guild.
Honestly, you could post 8 by 10 glossies with a paragraph on the back a each one, and Jeff is just gonna continue on his merry path...
Jeff, lemme know how you like socialism, cause it's coming pretty quick now and you folks are beggin for it. And let us know how talking to barbarians works out too. Well, actually don't; we've seen that movie many times and we know how that stuff works.
But if you wanna drop back and let us know you were wrong, why we might see our way into letting you take a prize from the 2nd shelf.
Posted by: Cincinnati_Bob | October 01, 2007 at 08:42 PM