Boyd

At a moment when so many war supporters are left mewling the half-truth "...but everyone thought Saddam had WMD, Miniter's use of the Big Lie is almost refreshing, in a darkly comic kinda way.

Any DB, props to you for the straight-line about Bush just not being good at communicating, and that's why we don't all know about the WMD that really really were there. Pure comedy gold! Not that the GOP controlled Congress, and Rush, Fox, and every other media outlet in the country would have jumped all over legit WMD findings, right?

Great stuff, keep it coming!

So what really happened, EC? The Bush team was plotting to overthrow Sadaam since '98 and 9/11 gave them the excuse? Sadaam never used chemical weapons to kill 100,000 Kurds? Sadaam never had any interest in acquiring nuclear weapons? It would have been against Sadaam's ethics to cooperate with Al Qaeda against the West?

Here's a link to an article that contains the quote, and mentions several other opportunities where the administration could have mentioned information such as these finds, yet did not:

http://www.public-action.com/911/no-wmd-sdut/

I find it inconceivable that a party that has a veritable army of talking points pushers would not have let us repeatedly hear about this info if it was remotely legitimate. I suppose it's possible, but in an era of Rush and Hannity I find it highly unlikely.

Perhaps they aren't effective in the sense that they can't always convince people in the truth, validity or sensibility of their message, but my point is that they are perfectly capable of the basic act of getting their talking points out there, and I think it's telling that these items haven't been circulating.

I'd be interested to hear more details about these claims though. None of those items would happen to be material that was under IAEA seal before the war, would they?

"I have heard these claims over the last couple of years and I think they 'technically' rise to the leve of WMD."

Again, I'd like more info to evaluate that. What's the "technical" definition of WMD? Where exactly were these things found? What's the source for his info?

"Let's say you're the president ... What do you do?"

No offense, but that's sort of begging the question that that's how it went down, and that the administration wasn't cherry picking intelligence to try to build the case they wanted. There have been many reports of officials in the administration looking for an excuse to go after Saddam, and I can't say that I'm inclined to give Bush and his people the benefit of the doubt.

EC, might the military buildup include an ultimatum or two and perhaps a UN Security Council Resolution possibly passing 15-0 demanding full access for inspectors?

PS, here's an article from the WP on the 1500 gallons of chemical weapons.

U.S. troops raiding a warehouse in the northern city of Mosul uncovered a suspected chemical weapons factory containing 1,500 gallons of chemicals believed destined for attacks on U.S. and Iraqi forces and civilians, military officials said Saturday.

Monday's early morning raid found 11 precursor agents, "some of them quite dangerous by themselves," a military spokesman, Lt. Col. Steven A. Boylan, said in Baghdad.

Materials found in a warehouse in Mosul could yield an agent capable of "lingering hazards" for those exposed to it, according to a U.S. military spokesman. He said the lab was relatively new, dating from some time after the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Combined, the chemicals would yield an agent capable of "lingering hazards" for those exposed to it, Boylan said. The likely targets would have been "coalition and Iraqi security forces, and Iraqi civilians," partly because the chemicals would be difficult to keep from spreading over a wide area, he said.

PS, here's an article from the AP on the 17 chemical warheads.

Terrorists may have been close to obtaining munitions containing the deadly nerve agent cyclosarin that Polish soldiers recovered last month in Iraq, the head of Poland's military intelligence said Friday.

Polish troops had been searching for munitions as part of their regular mission in south-central Iraq when they were told by an informant in May that terrorists had made a bid to buy the chemical weapons, which date back to Saddam Hussein's war with Iran in the 1980s, Gen. Marek Dukaczewski told reporters in Warsaw.

"We were mortified by the information that terrorists were looking for these warheads and offered $5,000 apiece," Dukaczewski said. "An attack with such weapons would be hard to imagine. All of our activity was accelerated at appropriating these warheads."

Some seal:

In April 2003, just days after the statue of Hussein in Baghdad was pulled down, a U.S. Marine engineering company took a close look at Tuwaitha, which is 30 miles south of Baghdad. There they found guards had abandoned their posts and looters were roaming the giant facility. At one storage building, which later was found to hold radioactive samples used in research, the radiation levels were too high to enter safely, although the entrance door stood wide open.

A month later, the Pentagon rejected suggestions that U.N. inspectors be allowed to reenter Iraq but agreed the IAEA experts could return to secure the uranium that had been under its seal for years.

David, regarding your second article about the 1500 gallons of chemical weapons, your own quote shows its irrelevance to any pre-invasion WMD claims:

"He said the lab was relatively new, dating from some time after the invasion of Iraq in 2003."

Surely you're not claiming that we needed to invade to disarm Saddam of weapons that weren't even there yet?

PS, if the lab was new and was established after an invasion, doesn't that lend credibility to the argument that Sadaam could quickly and easily reconstitute his WMD programs as soon as he succeeded in getting rid of inspectors permanently?

David, the article is dated August 2005. That means that it could have taken up to two years to set up. I'm certainly no expert in setting up chemical warfare labs, but that doesn't sound all that quick to me. Additionally, considering how loose Iraq's borders are, and the amount of time between the invasion and the discovery, the materials used there could have easily come from outside Iraq. I don't see this as lending any credibility to your argument.

David asks: "EC, might the military buildup include an ultimatum or two and perhaps a UN Security Council Resolution possibly passing 15-0 demanding full access for inspectors?"

Yes, and when the weapons inspectors don't find any weapons, you don't pull them out and lie to the American people that they were not allowed in to begin with.

Bush: "And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in." Liar.

Roch, you're either weak and you continue to let Sadaam jerk you around or you're not.

Our current position and support for the war has no bearing on whether Iraq had WMDs when we invaded.

I fail to see how this is true given the cries of Bush lied. This absolutely undermines our resolve for the current conflict and potential future conflicts.

I've said repeatedly that what we found wasn't what we expected. However, Sadaam was still a bad dude who, I don't think this is much of a reach, would have supported terrorists against the US with WMD. Given the money he was getting in the oil-for-food deal, he had major resources to devote to this cause.

It's unfair to an extent, but what's the reality? If it was up to you Sadaam would still be in power.

Just because we disagree on the ultimate goal and the best means to acheive that goal does not mean that I'm on his side. You'll get no argument from me that he was a "bad dude". But in my opinion, taking him out in the manner we did has made us less safe, and has weakened us in the process. You seem to think that removing Saddam from power is a goal that trumps all other goals. I disagree, and I'm disappointed to see that the discussion has headed off in the direction of ad hominems.

PS, come on, it was not an attack, it was entertainment. The ultimate goal, as I see it, is to establish a democracy in the Middle East. Removing Sadaam was a necessary step. He wasn't going anywhere without military intervention and he wasn't going to allow unlimited access for eternity. He was trying to outlast us. When he did, how safe would you feel? Especially given the supporters he had at the UN.

What about this 'Pearl Harber' statement of fact is of note? Is it not true that change doesn't happen in this country until something major happens? What do you think? They planned 9/11 as an excuse to attack Iraq?

So where's the evidence that Sadaam was allowing inspectors in except right before the war when the troops were already on their way?

Another comment on the value of the IAEA seal mentioned previously with respect to the uranium that had been found. Is this not the same IAEA that has been conducting the sham negotiations in Iran, that is effectively placing us at undue risk? Don't we feel good about their approaches?

President Bush made a speech today in which he strongly defended his choice to invade Iraq.

It would have been an opportune moment to point out that we really have found WMD.

But he did not, because we have not.

You have tacitly admitted as much in the comment thread by attempting to move the goalposts on defining WMD, and by changing arguments to "we needed to invade anyway."

But that does not change the fact that you have posted a falsehood on your site, and that you allow it to remain, uncorrected.

One of my conservative beliefs is that there is such a thing as truth, and that, as DP Moynihan said, we are entitled to our own opinions but not our own facts.

I'll go with a general definition: what nobody in the Bush administration is claiming we found in Iraq.

You want to play Clintonesque games on the definition, fine, have at it.

But that won't change the fact that WMD as defined by this administration in making its case for war have not been found.

That's not a "media myth." It's the truth.

David, this is tiresome. You make assertions and ask questions and when those assertions are proven false or the questions answered with something that doesn't fit your preconceived notions, you just ignore them and switch to, "But what about this..." It's like having an argument with an eight year-old. The facts, and your responses to them, speak for themselves.

I don't know Ed. How different would perceptions be if news reports instead of saying "No WMD were found in Iraq..." were saying "Except for 1500 gallons of chemical weapons, sarin gas, radioactive material and cyclosarin, no WMD were found in Iraq..."

Here is Bush's statement from your link earlier:

The larger point is, and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in.

What was he talking about? Lying that there were no inspectors at all on the ground or the fact that Saddam wasn't allowing access?

EC, you brought up the media with "That's not a "media myth."" My comment was in response to that.

Uh, yeah. You brought it back up in this comment. My bad. Written.

Thanks for your concern. When I want my credibility back I'll come over to your site and agree with a few posts.

Roch, as you can see from many of my posts, I am not Bush's biggest supporter. I will criticize him when it's due.

Discounting the hyperbole that is Bush lied, we have a major problem. Either intelligence was right and Iraq weapons were there in some quantity and were moved or intelligence was wrong. Along with intelligence was wrong, I will grant that it could have been misinterpreted or misused. We have something to learn from this. Intelligence is more vital in the fight against terror than it was in the Cold War. We need to get it right and we need to use it correctly.

I won't grant that anti-war folks were branded as traitors. I will grant that pressure was intense in this country to support the war. That's part of the political equation just like the pressure is intense now on Bush over the slowness in defeating insurgents.

Going camping now with son 1. Be back tomorrow. Thanks for commenting. Thanks for the discussion. I learned several things.

"Those that have expressed disagreement with this post have not necessarily accounted for the meaning of what the author reported on the evidence of WMD's in Iraq."

Joe, maybe you missed my posts, but I did in fact begin to do this very thing. The first two examples don't really support the original claims -- the uranium because it was already known about and under seal (regardless of your opinion of the efficacy of the seal itself -- we certainly did not go to war because of publicly known and accounted for materials), and the 1500 gallons of chemicals because they were a recent development and there's no evidence that they originated in Iraq. So to say that no one has addressed those original claims is erroneous.

"But I think we all need to try to refrain from personalizing the discussion. Let's discuss the issues-- not each other."

I hope that you're including David in this statement as well, for his comment about us being on the side of a tyrant. He says it's not an attack, but rather entertainment, but that's a cop out to think you can say whatever you want about someone and then laugh it off as a joke when you're called on it. An honest discussion needs sincerity from both sides.

"While you had discussed two of the examples of WMD evidence, there were others. So my statement was not erroneous."

There were four examples that David linked to, so I actually addressed half of them. But if that's not enough to keep you from saying that no one addressed the claims, then let's look at the other two.

Regarding the warheads with the alleged cyclosarin: According to a story in the Washington Post, further testing showed that there were no chemicals present. So this example doesn't support any WMD claims after all.

The sarin shell is the closest thing you've got to WMD, and even that is really up in the air without more information. According to an article by Scott Ritter, there's a good possibility that the shell may have simply been a dud dating from before the first Iraq war. At any rate, it's a sad state of affairs if this single shell is being trumpeted as the justification for invading Iraq or for continued assertions that Iraq has WMD.

"I found five bulleted items in David's initial post."

My, but aren't you nit-picky?! ;) He only provided links for four of them -- I'm not going to attempt to address something without a specific reference to start from, in the interest of making sure that I'm addressing the right thing. Come on, work with me here!

"With respect to the Washington Post article, by my reading it seems to be saying that traces of sarin were found."

Traces were found on two other munitions, but those traces were very deteriorated. An important point to remember is that it is known that Saddam did indeed have chemical weapons at one point. As such, I think it is a stretch to say that deteriorated traces of a chemical agent are evidence supporting "the premise that Saddam had WMD programs and had developed certain capabilities". At best, they are evidence that there were chemical weapons in Iraq at some point, but we already knew that, and that isn't one of the justifications given for the war.

I honestly don't think such a flimsy finding can legitimately lead to the conclusion that there were programs underway. Imagine if you had a party one weekend and served some beer to your friends. The next day, you go away for the week, leaving your kids in charge of the house. Upon returning, you find a small drop of dried up liquid on the kitchen floor that smells like beer. Do you accuse your kids of having a party while you were away?

"I am not sure how much credence we can give to Scott Ritter."

That's just a vague ad hominem, Joe. Address the arguments, not the man. He lays out the reasons why the sarin shell can't be considered evidence of a recent WMD program without more information to back up such claims. Disagree? Explain why.

"Again, we simply cannot know at this point what may have been moved."

That, however, isn't evidence that there was anything to be moved. Also, note that if that's true, it supports my rebuttal of the 1500 gallons of chemicals that were found in the recently-set-up lab -- there's plenty of time and opportunity for them to have come from outside. You can't have it both ways.

"To counteract such assertions, I am glad that the limited evidence of WMD's was found, and that this gentleman wrote this book."

The closer we look at the examples given, the more limited the "evidence" seems to be.

I'm back. Had a great time. Cold last night.

Here's something else. The inspectors were only allowed back in under threat of attack in November 2002 after being absent for four years.

1998 31 October - Iraq ends cooperation with UN Special Commission to Oversee the Destruction of Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction (Unscom).

2002 November - UN weapons inspectors return to Iraq backed by a UN resolution which threatens serious consequences if Iraq is in "material breach" of its terms.

In January there were reports that Saddam was not cooperating fully. In March he stepped up his efforts, however, by then the decision had been made to go in.

Ed stated earlier on this thread that instead of going to war he'd have continued with the military build up to force Saddam to accept inspectors. This is a legitimate point of view. However, that Bush decided to invade and call Saddam's bluff is a strategic and tactical call. You might disagree, but it's a far cry from Bush lied.

PS, as for WMD and your quotes above, this from the BBC link earlier in this comment:

1998 16-19 December - After UN staff are evacuated from Baghdad, the USA and UK launch a bombing campaign, "Operation Desert Fox", to destroy Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programmes.

Who was in power in the US December 1998?

Joe wrote: "I am not sure how much credence we can give to Scott Ritter."

Oh, geez. One of the few guys who had it right before the war, and he's still being marginalized.

David wrote: "In January there were reports that Saddam was not cooperating fully. In March he stepped up his efforts, however, by then the decision had been made to go in."

And thus you remind us of another example of Bush lying to America. Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia was informed of the decision to go to war in January of 2003 (ahead of the Secretary of State Colin Powell and by being shown information classified as "Top Secret No Foreigners"). Other information such as the Downing Street Memo and Richard Clark confirm that the decision to go to war with Iraq was made even before then, if not just days after 9/11.

And yet, on March 6, 2003, Bush said at a White House press conference: "I've not made up our mind about military action. [sic] Hopefully, this can be done peacefully...” and in a March 8, 2002 radio address: "“We are doing everything we can to avoid war in Iraq."

Liar.

So much to address, PotatoStew and Roch.

I first want to note that if you go back to the Human Events article to which David linked, it states that the five examples given were only a partial list of the pieces of evidence uncovered in Iraq of WMD activity.

I had read the Ritter article. I have several problems with it. He relates a scenario in which the shell could merely represent a vestige of a dated past. Fine. He does not have the ability to test that possibility, or prove it scientifically. So he is floating a hypothesis.

Second, I had difficulty separating what he was writing from his allegiance to the UN process-- particularly in view of the way he concluded the article. But the UN process, the IAEA, and other multilateral agencies only have bite to the extent that member nations are willing to back up their expectations with force. So we are left with game-playing-- previously in Iraq, currently in Iran. Ritter was implicitly in favor of relying on the UN process, but like most of us, he was enthralled with the importance of his own job, and did not see the larger picture-- the many other reasons it was appropriate to take out Saddam.

The statements provided from administration stop well short of making a cogent argument for the imminent threat of WMD's. They were trying to create a sense of urgency, however. I would argue this is a bigger difference than you suggest. Telling the American people that Saddam was imminently getting ready to hit us with a nuclear weapon would have been indefensible.

The Washington Post article describes how insurgents and foreign terrorists were trying to procure the chemical warheads that had been found. It states that Saddam had the wherewithal and the expertise at his disposal to make these operative, and that the insurgents and foreign terrorists were attempting to tap this expertise. It also describes rockets equipped for chemical warfare that had been previously found by UN inspectors, and that other rockets more recently found were purchased by the Poles.

The vote to authorize military action was made in the autumn of 2002. At that time, the Democrats in Congress had the responsibility to fulfill its oversight responsibilities. They had the opportunity to use the filibuster, as they have on judicial nominations, but they elected not to do so.

The borders separating Iraq from Syria and Iran are porous. We have not been able to seal these borders even with a significant military presence in the country. It is not inconceivable that these borders could have been more porous during the period of late 2002/early 2003 with a more limited, sporadic UN presence. There is an awful lot that we do not know regarding the events of the last 5-7 years in Iraq.

But it will all come out, and we will know, in another 10-20 years.

Roch, I think we have to presume Roch had some plans for the enriched and unenriched uranium that was in his possession. Again-- if the Newsmax article was correct, 500 tons, enough for 142 nuclear bombs.

I do not interpret Cheney or Rumsfeld's statements to be a clarion call that a nuclear attack was imminent. I do interpret them as an expression of extreme concern and a call for action in the near future. A statement was made in August of 2002, yet military action was not commenced until the following spring.