2
   

Before the war

 
 
paull
 
Reply Thu 22 Jun, 2006 10:21 am
Quote:
The Worst of Intentions
What Saddam's Iraq was up to.
by Daniel McKivergan
07/01/2005 12:00:00 AM


"I WOULD ALSO ARGUE that if Saddam Hussein were left in power, weapons of mass destruction or no, he would be now, if he were in power, trying to acquire those weapons and use them. Eventually the sanctions were eroding," said Sen. John McCain on Fox News following the president's speech Tuesday at Fort Bragg. The senator was responding to critics, such as Rep. Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Ted Kennedy, who opposed the decision to remove Hussein from power in 2003, and those like vice presidential candidate John Edwards, who is now apparently not sure if we should have toppled him. But the president and Sen. McCain believe otherwise. Furthermore, beyond the consequences of a Saddam still in power, the Arizona senator maintains that it's also important to "recall the facts as we knew them in March 2003."

On March 18, 2003, the day before ground forces entered Iraq, the president confronted a broad range of concerns regarding Saddam's weapons programs, his connections to terrorist organizations, his history of aggressive behavior, his use of poison gas, and his failure to comply with the 1991 Gulf War cease-fire agreement and subsequent U.N. resolutions.

American intelligence and other foreign governments concluded at the time that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction. Senior Clinton administration officials stated that the regime possessed stockpiles. Saddam has "stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country," declared former Vice President Al Gore on September 23, 2002. And even a month after the invasion Defense Secretary William Cohen believed we would find weapons: "I am convinced that he has them. I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out. I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons. We will find them."

On top of this were the findings contained in detailed U.N. reports. For example, on March 6, 2003, the United Nations issued a report on Iraq's "Unresolved Disarmament Issues." It stated that the "long list" of "unaccounted for" WMD-related material catalogued in December of 1998--the month inspections ended in Iraq--and beyond were still "unaccounted for." The list included: up to 3.9 tons of VX nerve agent (though inspectors believed Iraq had enough VX precursors to produce 200 tons of the agent and suspected that VX had been "weaponized"); 6,526 aerial chemical bombs; 550 mustard gas shells; 2,062 tons of Mustard precursors; 15,000 chemical munitions; 8,445 liters of anthrax; growth media that could have produced "3,000 - 11,000 litres of botulinum toxin, 6,000 - 16,000 litres of anthrax, up to 5,600 litres of Clostridium perfringens, and a significant quantity of an unknown bacterial agent." Moreover, Iraq was obligated to account for this material by providing "verifiable evidence" that it had, in fact, destroyed its proscribed materials.

The same report noted "a surge of activity in the missile technology field in the past four years" and that while 817 of the 819 Scud missiles Iraq had imported had been accounted for, inspectors did not know the number of missiles Iraq had indigenously produced or still possessed. Similarly, while inspectors had accounted for 73 of Iraq's 75 declared "special" warheads, doubts remained that Iraqi officials were truthful about how many had actually been manufactured. It acknowledged that inspectors had found a handful of 122mm chemical rocket warheads but noted that this discovery may only be the "tip of the iceberg" since several thousand, in the inspectors' judgment, were still unaccounted for. It also stated that no underground chemical facilities had been found but added that such facilities may exist given the size of Iraq and that future inspections in this area would have to rely on "specific intelligence." Finally, the report declared that there appears to be no "choke points" to prevent Iraq from producing anthrax at the same level it did before 1991, that large-scale Iraqi production of botulinum toxin "could be rapidly commenced," and that given Iraq's history of concealment, "it cannot be excluded that it has retained some capability with regard to VX."

But what about the claim made by the president and Sen. McCain that Saddam never gave up his desire for weapons of mass destruction and would have produced them again? Well, in October 2003, U.S. inspection chief David Kay told Congress that the Saddam's regime "maintained programs and activities, and they certainly had the intentions at a point to resume their programs. So there was a lot they wanted to hide because it showed what they were doing was illegal." And in September 2004 then-Iraq Survey Group head Charles Duelfer issued a report which cited many violations of the sanctions regime and concluded that "Saddam pursued a strategy to maintain a capability to return to WMD production after sanctions were lifted by preserving assets and expertise. In addition to preserve capability, we have clear evidence of his intent to resume WMD production as soon as sanctions were lifted." Duelfer continued:

As UN sanctions eroded there was a concomitant expansion of activities that could support full WMD reactivation. He directed that ballistic missile work continue that would support long-range missile development. Virtually no senior Iraqi believed that Saddam had forsaken WMD forever. Evidence suggests that, as resources became available and the constraints of sanctions decayed, there was a direct expansion of activity that would have the effect of supporting future WMD reconstitution.

In the coming weeks, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Reform will be releasing another report related to its investigation of the U.N.'s Oil-for-Food program. It should shed much more light on Saddam's efforts to undermine the sanctions regime and on what role governments played in "eroding" the very same sanctions they voted to enforce in numerous U.N. Security Council resolutions.


http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/783pliue.asp
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 2 • Views: 1,431 • Replies: 28
No top replies

 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jun, 2006 11:48 am
And this is important why?
0 Replies
 
freedom4free
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jun, 2006 12:48 pm
This war is illegal. President Bush lied to the US Congress when he sent his letter of transmittal activating the Congressional Authorization for the use of force in Iraq.

The Congressional authorization included two requirements. First, that the use of force in Iraq was to punish the perpetrators of 9-11. Second, that Iraq be proven to be in defiance of United Nations resolutions by being in possession of banned weapons of mass destruction.

In his March 18, 2003 letter of transmittal, President Bush claimed to have proof satisfying both requirements. In hindsight, clearly he did not and could not. Iraq was not defying the United Nations, and Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11.

The Congressional Authorization for the use of force in Iraq was not and is not legally in effect.

The war is illegal.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jun, 2006 02:18 pm
If Bush lied, why didn't he just have some special ops guys bury some WMD's and "discover" them? Surely that would have been much easier then believing the evidence presented.
0 Replies
 
Fedral
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jun, 2006 02:44 pm
They HAVE found them McG, it's just that people refuse to accept the proof that is laid out before them. The Liberals wouldn't acknowlege the existence of Iraqi WMD's unless Saddam himself was found setting off a 100 megaton nuke in New York and every news channel, and they STILL wouldn't believe it until it was shown on BBC and Al Jazera.


Report: Hundreds of WMDs Found in IraqhereFOX News' Jim Angle and Sharon Kehnemui Liss contributed to this report.

LINK
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jun, 2006 03:05 pm
Geez, Fedral, it must be pretty bleak for conservatives when they have to rely on Rick "Frothy Mixture" Santorum for support of their WMD claims. But, as the story itself notes: "The weapons are thought to be manufactured before 1991 so they would not be proof of an ongoing WMD program in the 1990s." More to the point, these weapons were not functional, as this exchange demonstrates:
    Santorum: I'll show you the classified documents right here... Colmes: It's Alan Colmes. Senator, the Iraq Survey Group, uhh, let me go to the Duelfer Report-says Iraq did not have the weapons our intelligence believed were there. And Jim Angle who reported this for Fox News-quotes a defense official who says [b]these were pre-1991 weapons that could not have been fired as designed because they already been degraded[/b]. And the official went on to say that they are-these are not the WMD's this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had-and not the WMD's for which this country went to war. So the chest beating that the Republicans are doing tonight thinking this is a justification is not confirmed by the defense department. Santorum: Well, ahh, I'd like to know who that is. The fact of the matter is I'll wait and see what the actual Defense Department formally says or more importantly what the administration formally says. This report...

Which makes this little bit of spin from the completely deluded Fred Barnes so laughable:
    Perhaps, the administration just, they think they weathered the debate over WMD being found there immediately and don't want to return to it again because things are otherwise going better for them, and then, I think, there's mindless resistance to releasing any classified documents from Iraq," Barnes said.

Or maybe the administration knows that it wouldn't be able to convince the American people that a bunch of pre-Desert Storm duds posed an imminent threat to the nation's security in 2003.
0 Replies
 
Fedral
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jun, 2006 03:24 pm
Joe, degraded does not mean safe.

Sarin that has degraded does not turn to Coca Cola after several years. It is STILL one of the most deadly chemicals concocted by the fiendish mind of man. It just means that it doesn't aerosolize as easily when it has degraded and it goes from needing say 10 parts per million to 50 parts per million to kill you.

Either way, we couldn't have known the condition of these weapons that Saddam wasn't supposed to have and claimed he DIDN'T have unless we were allowed to search for them which Saddam kept blocking in violation of the treaty he signed.
0 Replies
 
freedom4free
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jun, 2006 03:36 pm
Joe, it gets even worse.

A correspondent from the same "fair and balanced" news network actually made the claim that the Bush administration has deliberately covered-up this story so that it wouldn't "trash members of the security council": Russia, China, and France.

As if the U.S. hasn't gone out of it's way to "trash" the U.N. before.

I wonder if John Bolton agreess with Faux News' claim. :wink:

Funny how they've yet to mention how these weapons were obtained. They just prefer to let the Santorum spout off his fallacious trash so that he can gain a few points in the public opinion polls.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jun, 2006 03:48 pm
Fedral wrote:
Joe, degraded does not mean safe.

True, and it's also true that there's a lot of ordinance from World War I lying around that's also pretty dangerous. But that doesn't mean they're an imminent threat to national security.

Fedral wrote:
Sarin that has degraded does not turn to Coca Cola after several years. It is STILL one of the most deadly chemicals concocted by the fiendish mind of man. It just means that it doesn't aerosolize as easily when it has degraded and it goes from needing say 10 parts per million to 50 parts per million to kill you.

A degraded missile doesn't pose a threat to America if it can't hit America. These weapons only posed a danger to Americans after US troops invaded and occupied Iraq.

Fedral wrote:
Either way, we couldn't have known the condition of these weapons that Saddam wasn't supposed to have and claimed he DIDN'T have unless we were allowed to search for them which Saddam kept blocking in violation of the treaty he signed.

The UN had inspectors in Iraq that the US, in effect, had to kick out before the invasion. And all post-invasion investigations confirm that the UN inspectors had a far more accurate picture regarding the state of the Iraqi WMD program than the Bush administration did. The notion, then, that we had no other choice but to invade because inspections weren't working is little more than a sick myth.
0 Replies
 
Fedral
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jun, 2006 03:51 pm
Noted on various more conservative sites in reference to the above article:

Expect one or more of the following Liberal responses to the WMD article:

1) Santorum is in trouble with his electorate so he did this to help his reelection
2) George Bush deliberately withheld this information to make the donks look bad. If he did that would be a pretty smart thing to do, especially for a man they all claim is dumber than a box of rocks.
3) The US planted them there
4) These are old items and don't count
5) 500? Is that the best you can do?
6) This is a trick by Bush. He is also holding bin Laden and will pretend to capture him just before the next election
0 Replies
 
yitwail
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jun, 2006 03:55 pm
here's the Washington Post's debunking of this story:

Quote:
The lawmakers pointed to an unclassified summary from a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center regarding 500 chemical munitions shells that had been buried near the Iranian border, and then long forgotten, by Iraqi troops during their eight-year war with Iran, which ended in 1988.

The U.S. military announced in 2004 in Iraq that several crates of the old shells had been uncovered and that they contained a blister agent that was no longer active. Neither the military nor the White House nor the CIA considered the shells to be evidence of what was alleged by the Bush administration to be a current Iraqi program to make chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.

Last night, intelligence officials reaffirmed that the shells were old and were not the suspected weapons of mass destruction sought in Iraq after the 2003 invasion.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/21/AR2006062101837.html

looks like Santorum & Hoekstra might be overplaying their hand a tad.
0 Replies
 
freedom4free
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jun, 2006 03:58 pm
Fedral

http://www.summerwindmotel.net/images/sheep.gif

Laughing
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jun, 2006 04:15 pm
freedom4free wrote:
This war is illegal.

And, of course, most of the wars in modern history were undertaken only when authorized by international bodies and treaties.


freedom4free wrote:
President Bush lied to the US Congress when he sent his letter of transmittal activating the Congressional Authorization for the use of force in Iraq.

President Bush was no more a liar than someone who says that a coin toss may come up heads, when it ultimately turns out to come up tails.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jun, 2006 08:09 am
Fedral wrote:
Noted on various more conservative sites in reference to the above article:

Expect one or more of the following Liberal responses to the WMD article:

1) Santorum is in trouble with his electorate so he did this to help his reelection
2) George Bush deliberately withheld this information to make the donks look bad. If he did that would be a pretty smart thing to do, especially for a man they all claim is dumber than a box of rocks.
3) The US planted them there
4) These are old items and don't count
5) 500? Is that the best you can do?
6) This is a trick by Bush. He is also holding bin Laden and will pretend to capture him just before the next election

Expect one or more of the following conservative responses to the revelations that these "WMDs" were old duds left over from the Iran-Iraq war:

1) Well, we didn't go to war because of the WMDs anyway, so it's not important;
2) La la la la la I can't hear you!
3) Iraq is a big country: the real WMDs could be hidden anywhere;
4) Actually, they're in Syria;
5) Why do liberals hate America?
6) We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Jun, 2006 07:31 pm
When it became clear that the Administration was, publicly, limiting their rational for invasion to the presence of WMDs in Iraq, I thought it a big mistake born of cynicism about the ability of the American people to comprehend anything more sophisticated than personal threat.

Now that I see so many people unable to consider the war in any context other than the failed search for WMDs, I have to admit that maybe the Administration's cynicism was justified.
0 Replies
 
yitwail
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Jun, 2006 09:25 pm
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
When it became clear that the Administration was, publicly, limiting their rational for invasion to the presence of WMDs in Iraq, I thought it a big mistake born of cynicism about the ability of the American people to comprehend anything more sophisticated than personal threat.

Now that I see so many people unable to consider the war in any context other than the failed search for WMDs, I have to admit that maybe the Administration's cynicism was justified.


so you're saying that if the administration had told the people the real reason for invading Iraq, they would have balked, and so WMD & links to Al Qaeda were hyped as a pretext?
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Jun, 2006 10:17 pm
yitwail wrote:
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
When it became clear that the Administration was, publicly, limiting their rational for invasion to the presence of WMDs in Iraq, I thought it a big mistake born of cynicism about the ability of the American people to comprehend anything more sophisticated than personal threat.

Now that I see so many people unable to consider the war in any context other than the failed search for WMDs, I have to admit that maybe the Administration's cynicism was justified.


so you're saying that if the administration had told the people the real reason for invading Iraq, they would have balked, and so WMD & links to Al Qaeda were hyped as a pretext?


WMDs in the possession of Saddam was a real reason for invading Iraq, it just wasn't the only one, and, frankly, it wasn't the most compelling one either.

It was the one reason that might be expected to generate personal fear in the average American however.

At the time I did not believe that if the Adminstration had provided the full reasoning for invasion to the American people they would not have balked.

Let's be clear, there was no sinister and secret reason for invading. The real reasons were not that W wanted to smack Saddam for trying to kill his Pop, or that the Oil-meisters paid him to invade the country.

The full range of reasons was not even kept secret. Anyone who cared to would have learned the reasons from Adminstration spokespeople as well as supporters in various media outlets. Sadly, only a very small portion of our society actually care to remain current on what is happening in the world.

Arguably, the majority of Americans tend to form their opinions based on headlines and sound-bytes as well as the one or two sentence summaries provided by their friends and families who do read the papers or watch the News. It seems clear that this was the belief of the Administration, and they were willing to bet it all on the one of several reasons that had the biggest punch in a headline or sound-byte: Saddam has WMDS which he could use on us or provide to terrorists who would use them on us. The line about the "smoking gun" being a mushroom cloud over Baltimore was superb PR.

Of course there were other reasons:

1) Saddam was a brutal dictator who tortured and murdered thousands of his citizens, and had megalomaniacal desires to rule the region.
2) The Middle East is the source of our economy's life blood - oil, and of the gravest threat to our way of life - Islamo fascism. We need something very close to a western democracy in the Middle East to offer the angry and oppressed an alternative to radical Islam.
3) There was evidence that there were, at least, budding connections between Saddam and al-Qiada

#2 is the best reason for invading Iraq, but it is cerebral in nature, not visceral, and the Administration, apparently, believed they needed a visceral reason to engage the support of Americans.

#1 is visceral, but it appears the Administration didn't want to try and count on the altruistic spirit of the American people. Notice however that when WMDs proved to be problematic, the Administration almost immediately changed gears and trumpeted about how Saddam was such a bad guy and the Iraqi people deserved our help. Yes, they did, but so do a lot of people in the world, and it is legitimate to ask why the Iraqis but not the Sudanese? (Just as it was a legitimate to ask why the Serbian muslims but not Rwandans - funny though how this question was so seldomly asked). Personally, I'm all for intervention in any place where there is massive suffering, but that is clearly not a widely held position on either the Left or the Right.

Taken together, these four reasons, to my mind, provide a compelling justification for invasion, but they do take some small degree of thought to appreciate. Apparently the Administration didn't trust the American people to exercise even this small degree of thought and instead counted on them reacting viscerally: Fear of WMDs. It appears that they got a not entirely unexpected bonus of a visceral sense of revenge for 9/11.

I think that if the Adminstration had explained the full set of reasons for invading Iraq, the American people would not have balked, and when one of these reasons (WMDs) unexpectedly proved to be inaccurate there would not have been a sense that they had been snookered.

The point made in my prior post is that my faith in the American people may not be justified and what I considered cynicism on the part of the Administration might have been realism, because now that WMDs have not proven to be an accurate reason for invading, many of the people who formerly supported the war are unable to think beyond what they were told in headlines and sound-bytes, and the people who formerly did not support the war are having success with making the absence of WMDs an effective headline and sound-byte means of persuasion to their position.
0 Replies
 
rabel22
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Jun, 2006 03:26 pm
I dent like being lied too. Not by Bush, not by Clinton, not by anyone in government, and not by you no matter how you try to spin it as justified. If they cant be truthful than they shouldn't be in government. We should be in Afganistan trying to destroy the taliban instead of Iraq where we are making it stronger by the day in both Iraq and Afganistan.
0 Replies
 
yitwail
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Jun, 2006 03:53 pm
you're becoming quite Machiavellian, Finn. the house of Bush or PNAC might be able to use you.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Jun, 2006 04:07 pm
They are using him.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Before the war
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/17/2024 at 01:58:03