Post-Powell's Address: "Smoking Gun" Redux

Great Debates
81

You know, that is EXACTLY the argument that people used to oppose the U.S. going to war against Hitler. Leaving the Japanese out of it, would you have supported the U.S. going to war to liberate Europe from Hitler?

The anti-war position is now starting to remind me of assassination conspiracy theorists. You nitpick at single points of evidence (does ‘evacuate’ mean ‘evacuate’?) while ignoring the BIG PICTURE, which is that there isn’t just one piece of evidence here - there is a body of corroborating evidence.

If there were just satellite photos, or just a few phone intercepts, or just the word of a few defectors, then maybe it makes sense to be skeptical of the individual sources.

But when a defector says, “There’s a chemical plant in a bunker at xxx”, and you aim a satellite at that location and see a hidden facility, AND you intercept phone calls where commanders tell their subordinates to move things, AND you have purchase records for material consistent with the weapons that are there, AND you have other countries like Israel and Australia providing corroborating intelligence, THEN a rational, reasonable person will look at the totality of the evidence and conclude that it is a very, very difficult to explain it all away as anything but what it appears to be - a very large, covert program to systematically hide and manufacture weapons of mass destruction.

As Joe Biden said today, “If I took this evidence to a jury, I’d get an easy conviction.”

And how do you explain conversations like this, from Powell’s presentation:

And don’t forget that this isn’t ALL of the evidence. Probably not even the best evidence - the best stuff probably comes from human intelligence on the ground, and releasing it would be a death sentence. That’s why the direct evidence offered today was satellite and voice intercept.

Before, you guys were saying that the administration had no hard evidence. They said they did. Today, they proved it. AND, they said that they still have much more that is too sensitive to release.

Tony Blair is risking his job because he’s seen the evidence, and believe the case is strong enough.

Colin Powell, who was against the first Gulf War and an ardent dove in this administration, strongly backs war.

Hell, even Diane Feinstein switched sides today and said Powell’s presentation convinced her.

I predict that when we see new polls, you’ll see a majority of Americans supporting war even without the U.N., and a high proportion (greater than 80%) will support it with a U.N. resolution.

You anti-war guys are becoming increasingly marginalized, and your arguments are becoming increasingly hollow and confusing.

82

London_Calling Said:

Where do you get this from? I follow the Israeli press, and they’ve been screaming about the danger from Saddam for years. Support for a war against Saddam has phenomenal support in Israel. Israeli intelligence has been providing information to the U.S.

If they are keeping quiet about it, no doubt it’s because the U.S. thinks that Israeli involvement will hurt the U.S.'s attempts to pick up Arab support in the Gulf.

But here’s some links for you:

We Knew It All Along, Says Israel

Mossad Sneaks Top Saddam Bodyguard out of Iraq

This last article is fascinating. Abu Hamdi Mahmoud was Saddam’s senior bodyguard, and he and his ENTIRE FAMILY were recently smuggled out of Iraq by Israeli intelligence. That means Israel has a well developed, entrenched intelligence infrastructure working inside Iraq, with access to people at the highest levels of the government.

People have been asking why Powell waited so long to release the information he did - this is part of the reason why. Until Israel could get Mahmoud out of the country, he and his family would be dead if any intelligence he offered leaked out, and with him would go the proof.

How many other people have been spilling the beans? People who haven’t been smuggled out of the country?

I don’t believe that any honest, intelligent person can look at the totality of this evidence and conclude anything other than:

  1. The original declaration Iraq made was a total joke. Is there anyone who still believes that this thing was legitimate? That’s a material breach.

  2. Iraq CLEARLY has many different weapons of mass destruction, and delivery systems including unmanned aircraft and rockets. That’s a material breach.

83

By the way, the Bodyguard Israel smuggled out of Iraq brought some startling information with him which, if verified, is very troubling:

  1. Saddam’s underground weapons caches are in bunkers that were built by Chinese engineers. That would explain China’s reluctance for an invasion - it may turn out to be very embarrassing to them.

  2. Saddam has more SCUD missiles - provided by North Korea. If North Korea is smuggling missiles to Iraq, it could also be smuggling Plutonium. Now that we can no longer track North Korea’s plutonium, this is an incredibly dangerous hazard, and is just one more reason why the world can no longer rely on containment.

Another argument the anti-war folks have been using is that ‘containment works’. Well, it clearly doesn’t. It looks like Saddam has built a pretty sophisticated infrastructure right under the U.N.'s nose, has smuggled in missiles, and God know what else. Clearly, the status quo is unacceptable.

84

Ahh, I’m beginning to see where this might not be all bad…
I’m disappointed. Given the build up to the public presentation of evidence by Colin Powell, I was waiting for the big finish. You know, actual physical evidence, perhaps gleaned from a raid by an un-named ally’s special forces, rather thana couple of photo-shopped sat photos and a somewhat scratchy tape recording. You gotta believe that the SAS or some group like that could get a UN inspector into Iraq to where the damned WMDs were stored; hell, send Geraldo and a CNN crew as well.

I was hoping to hear something that I could believe. I didn’t, which may be a flaw in my own character, in that I’m not sure how trustworthy the Bush (well, Cheney/Rumsfeld) regime is compared to the Hussein regime.

A very cynical firend of mine is convinced that the real purpose of the UN debacle is so that Bush the Younger can, in one fell swoop:[ul]
[li]Demonstrate that the UN is of no value[/li][li]Invade Iraq anyway[/li][li]Use the coalition of allies to form a New World Order, with the USA in the driving seat[/li][li]declare a major victory in the “War on Terror”[/li][li]get re-elected, with Tony Blair as his new VP[/li][/ul]

Anyway, none of this matters. Do you want to start a pool as to when the invasion will start?

85

In that case, the plan has already backfired. Blix has been helpful in documenting Iraq’s creative compliance. Better to have a place to go make our case and let every other nation respond.

86

March 15, 2003

87

As of right now the Iraqi News Agency has no comment.

88

Good God! With all the intelligent, skilled diplomats and military experts that have made contributions to this forum, I’m amazed the UN hasn’t gotten your identities and called upon you to settle all disagreements. Why, you folks have the potential to create peace upon the world. WARNING! If anyone wants to acquire any intelligent information–this definitely isn’t the place!! :smack: :stuck_out_tongue:

89

Put down the sarcannon and step away from the computer.

90

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Scruff *
A very cynical firend of mine is convinced that the real purpose of the UN debacle is so that Bush the Younger can, in one fell swoop:[list]
[li]Demonstrate that the UN is of no value[/li][li]Invade Iraq anyway[/li][li]Use the coalition of allies to form a New World Order, with the USA in the driving seat/[/li][/QUOTE]

If that’s the plan, or even the attitude, it’s already failed. The war is firmly placed now as a UN matter of The World vs. Iraq, not a question of US self-defense. The rationale for the war is now the enforcement of the UN’s will, and if the UN does not call for war, then the previously-stated rationales become blatant lies in the public mind (both domestically and worldwide). Even now, the majority of Americans oppose going into a full-scale war without the UN.

The countries that would be counted upon to form this coalition largely are the members of the Security Council. If Bush can’t get their diplomatic support, he can’t count on their military support either.

91

At the new moon on March 3.

92

I may not have been clear enough that I was trying to spin this Bush’s direction as far as I could out of fairness, before concluding he’s wrong anyway. That is why the disconnect.

The real reasons are, you’ll admit, a little murky at best. That one hasn’t even been raised in public lately by an administration that has run all kinds of flags up the pole.

[quoteIt is true now, and it was true before 9/11.[/quote]

Something else that has been true all along is that Saddam has been effectively contained, and not an imminent threat to anyone outside of his own zone of control in central Iraq. Yes, he’s been a problem, but fairly far down the list.

It can, and that is a possible explanation for Bush’s thought processes (although on the extreme of the range of possibility IMHO). There’s one ass that can be kicked, and it can even make sense to do it if one is sufficiently optimistic about the consequences and the responsibilities it would tie the US into.

Nice list of more-severe problem countries there. It’s noticeable, though, that the only “solutions” you place next to any of them are strictly military ones. If the only tool you know how to use is a hammer, you see every problem as a nail, right? It also means, assuming the leaders of those countries read Bush the same way, that their own survival depends on getting their own nukes as a deterrent against American attacks. Is that really the response you’d like them to see? Do you have any plausible course of action to offer against any of the countries you’ve identified, if wading in and kicking their foreign asses is not an option?

[quiote]And, here’s the most important bit: Not a single one of those other nations - not a single nation in the world, other than Iraq - is in violation of UNSC resolutions set in place to negotiate a cease-fire.
[/quote]

Please. You really think Bush truly gives a flying fuck at a rolling doughnut about the UN? Why? The war discussion is in the UN solely because Powell was able to convince him that he’d get less resistance and more support for doing what he had already decided to do if he marketed it as The World against Iraq instead of Make Poppy and Uncle Donald and Uncle Colin Proud of Me. Do you really forget all that earlier talk about unilateral military action and “we’ll be glad for their help but we’re doing it anyway”?

Now we’re faced with the real possibility of the US taking unilateral action against the UN’s will in the cause of enforcing a UN resolution. The absurdity of that must be apparent even to Bush, and may even be a deterrent. Gotta hand it to Powell’s skill playing a weak political hand; by playing the hawk and demarginalizing himself he may have prevented a lot of us from being killed in the war by the weapons Saddam has only used on enemies, and later by radicalized anti-imperialists in the region over the next few generations.

Meanwhile, let’s try harder to find Osama and destroy Al-Qaeda. Priorities, ya know.

93

I agree with Squink. I was going to say the same thing. Give or take a couple of days.

94

Originally posted by Beagle in response to my question of what vital national interest of the US is sufficiently threatened by Saddam in justify committing US treasure and troop to a war:

**"I think it is for a number of reasons: not control over but security of oil, the Gulf War cease fire terms, biological weapons, chemical weapons, a nuclear program, long-range missile program, drone / ROV program, brutality, torture, daddy, missiles at Israel, Kuwaiti Scorched Oil Policy, the super gun, etc.

"I don’t think having many reasons for doing something is a bad thing.
“…UN Security Council credibility, recurring fights in the “no-fly” zones, absurd persistent resistance to inspections, democracy, terrorism, make up for abandoning the anti-Saddam resistance after Gulf War I…”**

You have given all sorts of reasons to think that Saddam is a bad person and his government is no better, but only one, at that pretty tenuous, that even starts to look like a vital national interest–security of oil supply. The other stuff, especially “daddy, missiles at Israel, Kuwaiti Scorched Oil Policy, super gun” is history, not clear and present danger. As for internal repression, we have climbed in bed with plenty of other governments that follow the same practice; in fact there is an ex-USMC LTC who is making a pretty good living because he pulled back the sheets and laid a mint on the pillow for one of those trysts.

By the same token, is it a vital national interest of the US to guarantee the credibility of the Security Counsel? Do we go to war because Saddam violates the No-fly zones or do we just shoot up the Iraqi air craft (military or civilian) that trespass? Same with the weapons inspections–we are to go to war because Saddam has finessed stuff we didn’t want to happen in the first place and which we said would never be effective anyway?

Democracy? If we are out to make the world safe for democracy then why aren’t we rattling our saber at Saudi Arabia and Pakistan? That seems to leave us with redemption for Bush the Elder walking away from the Anti-Saddam insurrection in 1991. That’s pretty feeble.

Terrorism, what terrorism? Osama has boys there? Where? In the North, the Kurdish area where the CID is operating ?

We are left then with the security of Arabian oil fields. If that were true don’t you think that the French and Germans would have a somewhat different out look on this little adventure?

Remember, I take it as a given that Saddam has chemical and biological weapons and wants to have nukes. If those were real concerns I would expect the Israelis to be running strike missions on a daily basis.

Come on, Beagle, tell me what are the vital national interests which Saddam clearly and presently endangers.

95

Well, here is the first result of Powell’s speech:

You guys who are still against the war are getting increasingly isolated. Even Ted Kennedy is now changing his tune to just asking for an exit strategy.

And what is the direct threat to us? Well, Powell showed evidence today of facilities being used to train terrorists how to make chemical weapons and explosives. Apparently, the guys captured in London with the Sarin gas are connected to this. Iraq has Sarin.

Powell also showed video of Iraqi fighters rigged with biological warfare spray systems. If Iraq suddenly scrambled 50 fighters and heads them towards other cities or troop concentrations, are you confident that the U.S. will be able to shoot them all down?

Powell also showed models of Iraqi UAVs that were being built to deliver CBN payloads anywhere in the Middle East, or even parts of Southern Europe.

And this is only part of the evidence the U.S. has. Maybe not even the best part.

96

This is an unfair standard. It dismisses the whole inspections with “serious consequences” for non-complinace that we are discussing here.

“Clearly and presently endangers”

This is not the issue in the whole Iraqi dog-and-pony shell game we have been playing for 12 years. “Smoking gun” is not the same thing as “brandishing a loaded gun.” I think “clearly and presently endangers” goes way beyond anything I have to prove.

Notice, I’m not saying we should invade tomorrow. I hesitate to guess when we might invade. In fact, I’m considering how much longer we should give the inspectors. I am interested in seeing how the whole Powell address will change the process, and Iraq is not going anywhere. Given the possibilities in a war like this, it is hard not to have some serious concerns about the worst case scenarios.

But, Iraq is not going to cooperate and the troops are deploying.

97

“It looks like Saddam has built a pretty sophisticated infrastructure right under the U.N.'s nose, has smuggled in missiles, and God know what else. Clearly, the status quo is unacceptable.”
Hardly. During 1991-98 the UN inspectors succeeded in destroying large quantities of Iraqi weapons and missiles as well as most of its nuclear facilities. Obviously when the inspectors were no longer on the ground they couldn’t continue this and Iraq probably rebuilt some of its weapons. Now that the inspectors are back there is no reason to believe that Iraq can’t be contained successfully again.

Invasion on the other hand won’t produce disarmamaent in any meaningful sense since:
a)Iraq will either use its weapons or pass them on to terrorists.
b)After the war some of the weapons will find their way to the black market since the US won’t be able to find all of them.

Invasion makes it more likely that terrorists will get their hands on Iraqi biological and chemical weapons. That is reason enough to not invade.

98

Here’s a link to the State Department Web Site, which now has all the support materials online. Apparently, there was more detail than in the presentation, and the U.S. was handing out CD-ROMs full of supplemental material to all the delegates.

99

Weaker, and Cuba had as much right to host whatever weapons they liked, just as Turkey was hosting US nukes on the borders of the USSR at the time, so the comparison is irrelevant.

100

Again, and again, and again, I see this fundamental (and probably deliberate) misunderstanding of what it is that inspectors actually do. They don’t “destroy” jack shit–they use evidence provided by Iraq to confirm that Baghdad itself has destroyed the weapons in compliance with its international obligations. As Secretary Powell has demonstrated, Iraq is not keeping up its end of the inspections process. They are in material breach.

:rolleyes: Ya think? Especially since it was Iraq who kicked out the inspectors in the first place?

Also, you say that country “probably” rebuilt “some” of its weapons. Just how many teaspoonfuls of VX gas, ricin, or anthrax constitute “some”? How much would you like to encounter on the subway going to work this morning?

Aside from logic, current facts, and history, you mean? You must be reading from the same prepared notes that France and Germany had ready in response to Powell, before Powell even gave his presentation.

And what would Iraq do with those weapons if we just left poor Saddam alone? Ask yourself: why does Saddam want to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, even at the expense of isolating his regime and living under sanctions?