“…even Blix reported…”
May we take that to imply that Blix is somewhere between sympathetic and in cahoots?
No, I think he just was too trusting of Saddam’s “inspector handlers”, especially at the end. He was probably closer than he knew, several times, to some real finds.
The Anthrax and other goodies have been missing a number of years now. I suspect they are out of the country or buried.
December, may I ask what your qualifications are to make such a statement? Specifically, what degrees do you hold in the chemical and biological fields, and with what methods of detection are you familiar? With what procedures to generate WMDs are you familiar?
Blix said no such thing. He said WMDs were unaccounted for, but specifically stressed each and every time that that was no evidence they still existed. WMDs were there in the early 90s. The Iraqis claim they destroyed what the inspectors did not destroy. They suggested methods to test their words, but the US did not allow the tests to be conducted, but rather went to war. As such, there is neither evidence that the Iraqis said the truth, nor that they lied. There is no evidence that there are WMDs, and there is no evidence there are no WMDs. And even finding WMDs now doesn’t change the fact that there was no proof of any WMDs existing at the onset of war.
And I think you neither know what and whom Blix trusted, nor what he actually said.
Of course I don’t KNOW these things. I used think and suspect for that reason.
Blix “acknowleged the previous inspection reports”, then, rather than saying WMD’s existed, when he said they were unaccounted for. Sorry for my sloppiness.
“There was no proof, at the onset…”. but if we do find that proof, then the action was needed. If not we may never know.
One thing I do know, if Saddam and the inspections had been allowed to go on indefinitely, and a horriffic terror event happened here again, resulting from training, or materials traced back to Iraq, the fingers would be pointing. The shouts would be that the administration did not do enough to protect us, and “what did they know, and when did they know it?” would again surface, loudly.
It’s a tough job, that President thing.
So what did they know, and when did they know it ? Condoleeza’s angling for strike three with her disingenuos remarks.
“Nitpick: The UN inspectors weren’t kicked out. They left voluntarily after Iraq complained about (and proved the presence of) Israeli and American spies hiding among the inspectors.”
Correct. This myth that they were kicked out has made its way everywhere including all of the major media sources. Its no wonder everyone thinks they were kicked out when its hammered into your head again and again and again:
The U.N. orders its weapons inspectors to leave Iraq after the chief inspector reports Baghdad is not fully cooperating with them.
– Sheila MacVicar, ABC World News This Morning, 12/16/98
To bolster its claim, Iraq let reporters see one laboratory U.N. inspectors once visited before they were kicked out four years ago.
–John McWethy, ABC World News Tonight, 8/12/02
The Iraq story boiled over last night when the chief U.N. weapons inspector, Richard Butler, said that Iraq had not fully cooperated with inspectors and–as they had promised to do. As a result, the U.N. ordered its inspectors to leave Iraq this morning
–Katie Couric, NBC’s Today, 12/16/98/
As Washington debates when and how to attack Iraq, a surprise offer from Baghdad. It is ready to talk about re-admitting U.N. weapons inspectors after kicking them out four years ago.
–Maurice DuBois, NBC’s Saturday Today, 8/3/02
The chief U.N. weapons inspector ordered his monitors to leave Baghdad today after saying that Iraq had once again reneged on its promise to cooperate–a report that renewed the threat of U.S. and British airstrikes.
–AP, 12/16/98
Information on Iraq’s programs has been spotty since Saddam expelled U.N. weapons inspectors in 1998.
–AP, 9/7/02
Immediately after submitting his report on Baghdad’s noncompliance, Butler ordered his inspectors to leave Iraq.
–Los Angeles Times, 12/17/98
It is not known whether Iraq has rebuilt clandestine nuclear facilities since U.N. inspectors were forced out in 1998, but the report said the regime lacks nuclear material for a bomb and the capability to make weapons.
–Los Angeles Times, 9/10/02
The United Nations once again has ordered its weapons inspectors out of Iraq. Today’s evacuation follows a new warning from chief weapons inspector Richard Butler accusing Iraq of once again failing to cooperate with the inspectors. The United States and Britain repeatedly have warned that Iraq’s failure to cooperate with the inspectors could lead to air strikes.
–Bob Edwards, NPR, 12/16/98
If he has secret weapons, he’s had four years since he kicked out the inspectors to hide all of them.
–Daniel Schorr, NPR, 8/3/02
This is the second time in a month that UNSCOM has pulled out in the face of a possible U.S.-led attack. But this time there may be no turning back. Weapons inspectors packed up their personal belongings and loaded up equipment at U.N. headquarters after a predawn evacuation order. In a matter of hours, they were gone, more than 120 of them headed for a flight to Bahrain.
–Jane Arraf, CNN, 12/16/98
What Mr. Bush is being urged to do by many advisers is focus on the simple fact that Saddam Hussein signed a piece of paper at the end of the Persian Gulf War, promising that the United Nations could have unfettered weapons inspections in Iraq. It has now been several years since those inspectors were kicked out.
–John King, CNN, 8/18/02
Russian Ambassador Sergei Lavrov criticized Butler for evacuating inspectors from Iraq Wednesday morning without seeking permission from the Security Council.
–USA Today, 12/17/98
Saddam expelled U.N. weapons inspectors in 1998, accusing some of being U.S. spies.
–USA Today, 9/4/02
But the most recent irritant was Mr. Butler’s quick withdrawal from Iraq on Wednesday of all his inspectors and those of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which monitors Iraqi nuclear programs, without Security Council permission. Mr. Butler acted after a telephone call from Peter Burleigh, the American representative to the United Nations, and a discussion with Secretary General Kofi Annan, who had also spoken to Mr. Burleigh.
–New York Times, 12/18/98
America’s goal should be to ensure that Iraq is disarmed of all unconventional weapons… To thwart this goal, Baghdad expelled United Nations arms inspectors four years ago.
–New York Times editorial, 8/3/02
Butler ordered his inspectors to evacuate Baghdad, in anticipation of a military attack, on Tuesday night–at a time when most members of the Security Council had yet to receive his report.
–Washington Post, 12/18/98
Since 1998, when U.N. inspectors were expelled, Iraq has almost certainly been working to build more chemical and biological weapons,
–Washington Post editorial, 8/4/02
Butler abruptly pulled all of his inspectors out of Iraq shortly after handing Annan a report yesterday afternoon on Baghdad’s continued failure to cooperate with UNSCOM, the agency that searches for Iraq’s prohibited weapons of mass destruction.
– Newsday, 12/17/98
The reason Hussein gave was that the U.N. inspectors’ work was completed years ago, before he kicked them out in 1998, and they dismantled whatever weapons they found. That’s disingenuous.
–Newsday editorial, 8/14/02
Well, since we’re playing, “Who’s got the best quotes”…
From Right Wing News
Yep. That evidence of WMD was all concocted by the Bush administration, alright.
Okay, if it wasn’t concocted, where are they?
Simple question. No answer so far.
They were also trained in the US how to steer large jets into larger buildings. Does that make the US complicit?
actually I found Nick’s quotes interesting. They aren’t all mouthpieces for the party line, there is more to that story.
So I looked around for 1998 headlines, and my conclusion is: everyone is correct no matter what they say. Saddam stopped cooperating with inspections four or five times, the UN “evacuated” its staff twice or so…Richard Butler left Baghdad three times. In his above quotes we have someone saying (in December '98) that the inspectors left town twice within a month. And I have a cite here from August '98 that says due to Saddam’s refusal to work with inspectors, Butler “promptly left Baghdad.”
Some of the above quotes about the inspectors leaving (again) are dated 12/16, the day before Clinton launched airstrikes.
I just don’t see a huge point to be made with this. Saddam was as much to blame then as anybody; he didn’t technically kick them out but that was the effect.
Personally, I think this is an important issue, and I was thinking of devoting an entire thread to Squink’s link. In short, Rep. Henry Waxman has been asking questions recently about the forged documents that Bush used to claim that Iraq was getting materials for a nuke from Niger. Based on the info Waxman has put together, it’s hard for me to believe that of all the high-level people involved in the WMD issue (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc.) surely at least one knew that they were using forged documents to make their case. I think it’s high time we figured out, as Squink puts it, what did they know, and when did they know it.
Here’s another link:
http://www.thenation.com/outrage/index.mhtml?bid=6
And here’s Waxman’s page on the issue:
http://www.house.gov/reform/min/inves_admin/admin_nuclear_evidence.htm
**
But what do they actually say?
““The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow.” – Bill Clinton in 1998”
1998? The question is whether he had them in 2002! Why are you bringing up so many quotes from Democrats that are 5 years out of date?
““What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad’s regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs.” – Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002”
Potential threat? (You mean as opposed to the actual threat posed by brutal dictatorships like Pakistan?) “may lead to think that”?
Remember the relevant distinction:
Bush and Blair: Iraq has WMD’s. They’re in Iraq right now, ready to go. They could hit the US or its allies in 45 minutes. We must invade NOW to stop this immediate threat.
Other folks: Maybe Iraq has WMD’s, but we aren’t sure enough about it to justify an invasion.
As for the rest, all I have to ask is, did they have access to the same briefings as Bush, Cheney, et al.? Or were they getting the doctored intelligence reports that said Iraq was getting uranium from Niger?
The relevant question here isn’t “who thought Iraq had WMD’s, and who didn’t.” The relevant question is, did Bush or any other high-level Cabinet member knowingly use falsified information? If you can show me that Robert Byrd knew that the evidence was shaky at the time he was talking about Iraqi WMD’s, then let’s hear it.
And, last but not least, do you have an actual cite for any of this? Because regnad kcin provided cites for his quotes.
Almost all of those quotes can be verified by just copying them and pasting them into Google. For example, here are Chirac’s comments:
Here’s the full context of Chirac’s comment:
Rickjay said:
Exactly right. I don’t have an answer. I am waiting for evidence. I would support hearings to determine what happened if WMD are not found.
But the amount of stuff we’re looking for is relatively small. As i read today, the amount of anthrax Saddam was suspected of having would fill about 20 55 gallon drums. Those could be anywhere. They could have been moved by Saddam loyalists so no one but them knew where they are. Others have suggested that Saddam converted his program into a clandestine manufacturing capability and destroyed the weapons themselves because they could be reconstructed on short notice. That’s no less dangerous.
I honestly don’t know. I’m as surprised as you that nothing has been found so far. And even though I think the war was just and I’m extremely glad it happened, if I find out that the Bush administration intentionally misled the American people I would expect heads to roll.
But right now, that theory doesn’t stand up, because we have so many other people outside of the administration agreeing with them. That WMD were in Iraq was CLEARLY the consensus of the intelligence community. Clinton believed it. James Woolsey, who was CIA director under Clinton, is one of the strongest Iraq hawks around. Clinton said he supported Bush’s actions in every detail. He has no reason to say that unless he believed it.
So as of this time, I would have to say that we may yet discover intelligence failures and systemic problems leading to a flawed conclusion, but I don’t think we’ll find that the Bush Administration lied.
This is an extremely important point where sloppiness suggests agenda.
Sorry, but you’re wrong. No proof at the time of action=no case. And even the existence of weapons in and of itself does not mean action was needed. International law requires a clear and present danger to world peace, not paranoid fantasies of what might happen in the future.
Sorry, but propaganda lies were never a valid casus bellum. Your argumentation could be used 1:1 to justify the German assault on Poland in 1939. There WAS NO terror event in the US that was traced back to Iraq. As such, there is no way such an event could happen again. The connections were nonexistant and deliberate distortions of fact. You completely ignore that the US had full international support to go after the perpetrators of 9/11. The US had international opposition to attack a sovereign country without provocation and attack in violation of international law and in defiance of the UN charter. The Hussein regime might have been a murderous dictatorship, but the larger defiance of international law and the act of aggression is flat on the shoulders of the US.
I think your definition of lies is apologist whitewashing. Whether the WMDs exist or not is irrelevant to the question of whether they lied. What is relevant is whether the arguments used were knowingly false. Not just in a general fashion, but in a specific fashion. Whether the WMDs exist or not is irrelevant to whether there was proof or not. The evidence presented was concocted to almost 100%. That was known even before the onset of war. The satellite data was misrepresented. Outdated photos were shown that predated the first stint of inspections. And the intelligence data was KNOWN to be seriously flawed on the basis of the inspectors failing to find anything of any relevance at any site they were led to by the data. Not to mention, the models for actual parts of the WMD program presented by Powell were considered scientifically unsound and unrealistic by experts in the field.
They lied. Face it. I know it is tough to have to acknowledge you were being had, but whether or not WMDs exist is irrelevant to that question.
It really boils down to this:
We were told countless times that WMD existed. We were told this information was given to us by our own intelligence. This information has turned out to be false.
Either 1) the intelligence was altered by those presenting the information to the public, in which case the Bush administration needs to take responsibility, or 2) the information was altered by the US intelligence agencies, in which case those responsible must be found and duly punished, or 3) our intelligence agencies are woefully incompetent, in which case serious sweeping changes must be made before future action can be justified by intelligence it has gathered.
One of these three has to happen.
Sam, I don’t mean to be picky about the details, but what you’re saying is not literally true. The claims of the U.S. government were not that Iraq had X litres of anthrax, but that Iraq possessed chemical and biological weapons - both anthrax and poison gas, mustard and VX. Chemical weapons deployed in shell or rocket form AREN’T that small or easy to hide, there’s bem hundreds or thousands of them. Divvy a few tons of mustard gas up amoing artillery shells and you have a very substantial amount of chemical weapons, which even in the Iraqi army would be plainly labelled as such and would require the delivery systems to be slightly modified.
If these weapons were deployed and ready to use - as claimed by both the U.S. and British governments - they could not just be whisked off to the world’s best hiding places, given the speed of the coalition invasion and disorganziation of the Iraqi army.
I’d be more inclined to hand out benefit of the doubt here if the ONLY problem was that the shit’s missing. But that’s far from being the only problem. The real problem is that we’ve now caught the U.S. in several gigantic lies about this whole mess - African Uranium, anyone? - not to mention a rather desperate looking spin job, and perhaps most significanty, the fact that the U.S. is refusing to explain just what all the solid evidence was they had before the war stated.
I mean, if they could produce some awfully good-lookin’ evidence and say “Well, this is what we had before the war and it sure looked convincing to us,” then I would personally be inclined to believe they really did think the goods were there, as would a lot of people. At that point you could at least say it was an intelligence failure and not an outright lie, and intelligence failures happen as often as intelligence successes.
But that isn’t happening. Instead the administration is not providing all this super duper evidence, but IS floating a variety of trial balloons, such as We Were Just Overemphasizing the WMD, It Was All About The Iraqi People, and We Just Wanted To Get Out of Saudi Arabia. You’ve been around as long as I have and you’re a smart guy, so surely you must recognize the Government Bupkus Two-Step that Washington is so obviously going through.
Well, Sam, we’ve ALREADY found they lied, unless you believe December’s hilarious tale about the uranium story being planted by the French. But as to the “Greater lie” being the case or not, I have to be honest in saying I think it’s probably largely true. the fact that many were convinced Iraq still had WMD does not preclude dishonesty on the part of the Bush administration in exagerrating the threat or lying about having irrefutable evidence. Of course, it’s going to be hard to sort out where the lying ended and the groupthink began, so maybe I’m underestimating the government’s ability to convince itself of what it wants to hear.
Here is an interesting Op-Ed article in the NY Times about the Nigerian uranium fiasco. Some excerpts:
If you ask me, he’s giving Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, Wolfowitz et al. too much leeway, too much the benefit of the doubt. Looks like there was some flat-out lying going on, not merely some pussy-footed “deceiving themselves.”