The "Big Impact" Plan for Iraqi WMDs

[ElvisL1ves]

“Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.” (Dick Cheney, August 26, 2002).

“Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.” (George W. Bush, September 12, 2002).

“If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world.” (Ari Fleischer, December 2, 2002).

“We know for a fact that there are weapons there.” (Ari Fleischer, January 9, 2003).

“Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.” (George W. Bush, January 28, 2003).

“We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more.” (Colin Powell, February 5, 2003).

“We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons - the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.” (George Bush February 8, 2003).

“So has the strategic decision been made to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction by the leadership in Baghdad? I think our judgment has to be clearly not.” (Colin Powell, March 8, 2003).

“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.” (George Bush, March 18, 2003).

“We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad.” (Donald Rumsfeld, March 30, 2003).

“At this point we have found substantial evidence of an intent of senior level Iraqi officials, including Saddam, to continue production at some future point in time of weapons of mass destruction. We have not found yet, and I’m sure you know this, otherwise you would know it earlier, we have not found at this point, actual weapons.” (David Kay, chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq, October 3, 2003)

Compilation from the 10/6 edition. Eventually even the strongest denial must give way to reality. The only issue is how foolish the denier is willing to look beforehand.

[Mr.Svinlesha]

Scylla:

I revived this thread because I hoped we would have the opportunity to engage in a non-partisan debate. That’s not to say that I don’t have a position on the issue, obviously: like most others here, I think we’ve been lied to. But I’m willing to listen openly to any contrary arguments you wish to present.

I kinda thought this thread was a good example of the sort of discussion you requested, at least between Sam and myself. Leaving aside those potshots from the galleries that Sam found – not without some justification – to be irritatingly provocative, he and I had an honest, in-depth debate over a controversial piece of evidence presented by the administration in favor of war. We discussed matters of fact. That’s why I decided to revive the thing.

So far, however, you’re not giving me much to go on here. I’ve already provided some of my initial response to Kay’s report, both above and in the BBQ thread that sparked this one. Have you no substantive reply? What do you find in Kay’s report that supports the administration’s case prior to the war? Can you make a link for me between the things the administration claimed then that Kay’s report has subsequently verified? Because I honestly can’t see them.

To me, this ISG report is a little like a scene out of Get Smart:
Maxwell: He’s got tons of biological and chemical weapons, a substantial nuclear weapons program, he’s six months away from building his own bomb, and he has unmanned drone aircraft that can strike the US.

::skeptical silence::

Max: No? Well…would you believe 5 pounds of chemical reagents, a dozen nuclear scientists in hiding, and a prohibited missile system?

::skeptical silence::

Max: No? Well…would you believe an elderly one-legged lady with a BS in physics, plans for a missile system, a vial of botulinum bacteria and a really vicious poodle named Abagail?

::skeptical silence::
Thus, in a recent speech in Milwalkee, Bush said:

** “The report states that Saddam Hussein’s regime had a clandestine network of biological laboratories, a live strain of deadly agent botulinum, sophisticated concealment efforts and advanced design work on prohibited longer-range missiles,” Bush said.**

And I’m asking myself now, is that what this was all about? A couple of laboratories, some illicit missile research, and one vial of a ubiquitously common strain of bacteria? What about the “mushroom cloud?” What about the 25000 liters of anthrax? The 38000 liters of botulinum toxin? The active nuclear research program? The chemical shells, filled and ready to strike London in 45 minutes?

Seriously, this is absurd. You’re a intelligent man; do I really have to spell this all out for you? Or will you merely respond to these objections by accusing me of “Bushhate”?

On preview: thanks for the list, Elvis.

[Merijeek]

*Originally posted by Scylla *
**That accusations are cheap and easy. **

Sure are. Now go back to all the, umm, what’s the word I’m looking for? Accusations. That’s it.

Go back to all the accusations before the war.

-Joe, who wonders at which point such wriggling will cause one’s neck to snap…

[Mtgman]

*Originally posted by Weird With Words *
**I don’t find it hard to believe that Bush is a decent, nice, and basically honest guy. In fact, I find it pretty easy to believe. I think he loves his wife, doesn’t hate any particular race, and genuinely believes that the children are our future. What’s more, I think he really believed that we needed to invade Iraq. But here’s the catcher, I don’t think he believed we needed to do it for the reasons he presented. I’m not sure why he wanted to do it, but I’m pretty sure he thought it was a good reason.

There were a lot of pieces of blatantly false evidence coming out of the administration, all of which were presented with the utmost confidence and conviction. Too many to be an accident, in my book.

I tend to think he honestly felt we had to invade. I think he thought that the reason was good enough to lie to the American people, for their own good, and quite possibly – he believed – for the good of the world. I believe, that he believed, that his reason was solid, righteous, and worth whatever lives it might cost. The only problem is, it wasn’t the reason he gave us, sold us, and all but rammed down our throat.

Only history will tell whether or not he was right, and even then it will probably be a subject of vigorous debate. But in this time, in this place, he is wrong. For one reason and one reason only. A democracy cannot run on the good intentions of one man. It can only run on that purest of fuels: good, honest information.

The leader must use honesty in leadership, and the people must use honest information in making an informed decision: To follow? Or not?

To review: I think very few people actually hate Bush, probably no more than hate Clinton. But either way it’s irrelevant. It’s not Bush the man I’m concerned with, it’s Bush the name. It’s Bush the leader. And Bush the leader is quite possibly the worst leader this country has ever had. **

Why am I having flashbacks to the Illuminatus trilogy?

[The President] was harassed, but still he spoke with authority. He was, in fact, characteristic of the best type of dominant male in the world at this time. He was fifty-five years old, tough, shrewd, unburdened by the complicated ethical ambiguities which puzzle intellectuals, and had long ago decided that the world was a mean son-of-a-bitch in which only the most cunning and ruthless can survive. He was also as kind as was possible for one holding that ultra-Darwinian philosophy; and he genuinely loved children and dogs, unless they were on the site of something that had to be bombed in the National Interest. He still retained some sense of humor, despite the burdens of his almost godly office, and, although he had been impotent with his wife for nearly ten years now, he generally achieved orgasm in the mouth of a skilled prostitute within 1.5 minutes. He took amphetamine pep pills to keep going on his grueling twenty-hour day, with the result that his vision of the world was somewhat skewed in a paranoid direction, and he took tranquilizers to keep from worrying too much, with the result that his detachment sometimes bordered on the schizophrenic; but most of the time his innate shrewdness gave him a fingernail grip on reality. In short, he was much like the rulers of Russia and China.

Art imitating life? Life imitating art? Who knows.

Enjoy,
Steven

[Mr.Svinlesha]

Mtgman:

The whole trilogy! On the net! Blessed be, blessed be!

Hail Eris, Mt!

And thanks!

[Mtgman]

Yep, indexed with hyperlinks and on one page which makes for easy searching(for instance, I recalled this quote and was able to search for “skilled prostitute” and find it almost immediately). Very handy stuff.

All hail Discordia

Enjoy,
Steven

[PatriotX]

The trilogy does that a LOT.

[PatriotX]

The trilogy does that a LOT.
Simon W. Moon KSC

[Mr.Svinlesha]

You see! You see there! I knew there was a reason I liked you, Simon!

Svinlesha nDelavesha, Blue Bear Cabal, KSFSTP, at your service.

Oh, and by the way, another discrepancy:

** Any actual WMD weapons or material is likely to be small in relation to the total conventional armaments footprint and difficult to near impossible to identify with normal search procedures. It is important to keep in mind that even the bulkiest materials we are searching for, in the quantities we would expect to find, can be concealed in spaces not much larger than a two car garage…**

The above is quoted from Kay’s ISG report. Compare the following, taken from the pre-war NIE (National Intelligence Estimate):

Although we have little specific information on Iraq’s CW stockpile, Saddam probably has stocked at least 100 metric tons (MT) and possibly as much as 500 MT of CW agents–much of it added in the last year.

So which is it – a two-car garage, or 500 metric tons? Or has Kay simply given up on trying to locate all that CW tonnage – and if so, why?

[David_Simmons]

*Originally posted by Mr. Svinlesha *
**Oh, and by the way, another discrepancy:The above is quoted from Kay’s ISG report. Compare the following, taken from the pre-war NIE (National Intelligence Estimate):So which is it – a two-car garage, or 500 metric tons? Or has Kay simply given up on trying to locate all that CW tonnage – and if so, why? **

It kills me to even semi-agree with Kay but a two car garage might not be all that far out of line. Some, but not outlandish.

500 metric tons of fresh water would fit in a building 15 ft. deep, 10 ft. high and 117 ft. wide. Maybe five 2-car garages. If the stuff is heavier than water then … but you can take it from there.

Kay’s huffing and puffing notwithstanding, I don’t think he’s going to find anything that will cause such a “big impact” as to blow we war critics out of the water.

[Scylla]

Svin:

So far, however, you’re not giving me much to go on here.

Sorry about that, I’ve been involved in real life and haven’t posted much except for quick comments. I haven’t had time to put a thesis together.

Sam and myself. Leaving aside those potshots from the galleries that Sam found – not without some justification – to be irritatingly provocative, he and I had an honest, in-depth debate over a controversial piece of evidence presented by the administration in favor of war. We discussed matters of fact. That’s why I decided to revive the thing.

Yeah, like I said, it’s usually a pleasure with you.

I realize there’s a dearth of Repbulicans/Conservatives willing to engage in debates recently. Sorry.

[Mtgman]

Purportedly the Iraqi’s simply mixed their chemical weapons in with their conventional weapons. So a warehouse which held a couple thousand tons of battlefield shells filled with conventional explosives would also contain, mixed in with no identifying documentation, shells filled with chemical agents. Ten sites out of 130 have been examined so far and no chemical-filled warheads have been found. From Kay’s Report -

For example, there are approximately 130 known Iraqi Ammunition Storage Points (ASP), many of which exceed 50 square miles in size and hold an estimated 600,000 tons of artillery shells, rockets, aviation bombs and other ordinance. Of these 130 ASPs, approximately 120 still remain unexamined.

As Iraqi practice was not to mark much of their chemical ordinance and to store it at the same ASPs that held conventional rounds, the size of the required search effort is enormous.

I gotta tell you I don’t think I buy this. I don’t think anyone just mixes their most potent weapons, not to mention tricky to use(remember, nerve gas can shift in the wind and has to be extremely carefully deployed to make sure you don’t end up wiping out your own troops or bystanders) in with their general artillery with no labeling or documentation. Accidentally lobbing a shell filled with Sarin when you were doing field maneuvers could be a big mess. Plus Chemical weapons have different storage and handling needs than conventional weapons. Chemical warheads are typically stored empty because of the corrosive effect of most chemical agents and the danger of leaks. The actual chemical agents are kept in a safehouse, typically in specially constructed tanks, and the warheads are filled before they are shipped to the battlefield, but storing them full is a disaster waiting to happen. When you’re messing around with something like Sarin(death in less than a minute from even trace amounts), it is just damn foolishness to have thousands of filled shells, which represents thousands of potential leaks, mixed in with your other armament and unlabeled.

I don’t buy it. Saddam was bad, Saddam was crazy, but Saddam wasn’t stupid. If he had them, I have grave doubts that he would have chosen to store them like this. I find it so doubtful that, until some are actually found in this type of arrangement, that I won’t believe people who tell me this is how it operated. It doesn’t hurt that the people who are trying to tell me that this is how Saddam stored his chemical weapons have already proved to be full of shit by representing a vial of a research strain of a common bacteria as a weapon of mass destruction. The botulinim toxin is produced by a different strain of the bacteria, then it has to be processed into the toxic gas. It takes a lot of bacteria to produce the toxin, which then has to be purified to be useful as a biological weapon. Plus, the bacteria has to be grown in a manner which forces them to create spores so they can effectively be spread. Here is a quick primer on how to convert BoTox into a biological agent

Clostridium botulinum, the bacteria which produces botulinum toxin, is a normal soil bacterium. You’ve probably ingested large quantities of it yourself, if you’ve ever eaten vegetables straight out of a garden without washing them thoroughly, or if you’ve ever eaten unfiltered honey. Live C. botulinum is used in undergraduate microbiology labs as a teaching tool…the live bacteria are not dangerous, are ubiquitous in nature, and are ubiquitous in microbiology labs around the globe–even those not hell-bent on the destruction of American liberty & whatnot.

If Kay said that large quantities of purified botulinum toxin had been found, that would be significant. It’s difficult to purify the toxin from the bacteria (which produce the toxin in exceedinly small amounts), and there’s no good reason to have lots of it. (Although it would not mean much if only small amounts of purified botulinum toxin were found anywhere–small amounts of the toxin are injected by doctors into patients for the treatment of chronic pain and wrinkles–that’s what BoTox is.)

For more info on this horrid, nasty bacteria, look at the FDA’s site on Clostridium botulinum. It should be noted that this bacteria is common and is the cause of the food poisioning known as “botulism”, of which there are somewhere between 10 and 30 outbreaks in the US each year. Some info on BoTox may be interesting too. Yep, tons of labs around the world have vials just like the one in that Iraqi scientist’s fridge. Who knows? Maybe he was out to sucker the US and brought a sample of a research strain to the authorities hoping to claim the $250,000 reward for leading them to evidence of WMD. In any case, I find this evidence as non-compelling as the evidence presented pre-war.

Enjoy,
Steven

[Scylla]

*Originally posted by David Simmons *
**He said in his State of The Union that British intelligence reported the attempted purchase of nuclear material in Africa. He either knew, or should have known as a responsible Chief Executive, that his own intelligence apparatus had serious doubts about this. This and other hightly exaggerated claims convinced the Congress to give him authority to go to war with Iraq only on his own say-so.

The claim that he didn’t lie because British intelligence has in fact made that claim is lying by splitting hairs for the purpose of evasion. The “fact” was obviously presented as true in order to influence Congress and the public.

If that isn’t lying it will have to do until something better comes along. In view of GW’s record that shouldn’t take long. **

I look at that and I understand why most Republicans have given up on these debates.

I seriously don’t know how to deal with such non-logic, and I’m worried because maybe it’s all you guys that are sane and me that’s crazy.

I’m not trying to be insulting but I feel like I am trying to communcate with aliens.

Tell me if this is right. Tell me that you agree with this, so that I will know that there’s hope that I can actually communicate:

Seeing as that what Bush said is actually described by you as being ture and accurate I am having difficulty in understanding how you also characterize it as a lie.

It seems to me rather a self-defeating argument. The fact that somebody else disagreed with the asessment which he properly attributed bears no change on the accuracy of his statement.

If it did, than if you knew I disagreed with a statement you were going to make and you made it anyway, you would be a liar.

It seems on the face of it, absurd.
Similarly, on the top of this page are a list of quotes who’s accuracy is in doubt, presented as evidence that Bush lied by Elvis. The most casual perusal of these (some even aren’t from Bush) reveals that they really don’t demonstrate any proof of bad faith or intent to fabricate.

This should also seem inherently obvious.

Similarly in the Fox News thread, I asked for a cite to support the statement that FOX repeatedly claimed that irrefutable evidence of Smoking guns and WMDs was found.

What I get instead is a link to articles like
“Trailer may have been used as chemical lab”
And then all this time I told how bad Bush was for jumping to conclusions with insufficient evidence, and that because of this I should vote Democrat. :dubious:

[ElvisL1ves]

Nope, our friend still is spending his time on hollow denunciations rather than fact-finding and reasoning. All he knows is that everyone who disagrees with him must be wrong.

Facts, amigo. Facts. They’re what we deal with here. We’ve put up. You have not. You know what that tells anyone reading this. You know what your options are. It’s up to you to pick one.

[Scylla]

Which of your quotes proves Bush lied?

[Merijeek]

*Originally posted by Mtgman *
Stuff snipped, all relevent

I think I’ve pulled some mental muscles recently…these gymnastics are starting to hurt.

US, British, and, presumably, Israeli intelligence sources can find with 100% certainty WMDs scattered all across Iraq. On these 150 huge ammunition dumps they managed to identify some very specific (remember, 100%) cases where they knew that there absolutely, positively WMDs.

They could identify these things from SPACE. Their on-ground assets were so good, so deep inside Iraq’s organizations that they couldn’t reveal their intelligence for fear of compromising those sources.

But now they can’t find them?

The whole “Well, the Iraqis were so clever, they didn’t even have them marked!”…

Either the Iraqis have invented a hellacious filing system that could very well give them domination over the whole universe (maybe their true WMD?), or Saddam was the kind of guy who kept all sorts of guns laying around the house…some loaded, some not.

Or, this latest theory is so feeble that the current administration has stopped even trying to come up with anything feasible.

-Joe, not always sure which ones are loaded…it’s a little game I play

[Merijeek]

You get 'em!

If you don’t like what they have to say, just keep asking for cites.

When they provide them, claim that they didn’t answer your question, and demand some more

Eventually, they’ll tire out. See, you only have to type one line. They have to do all that research, typing, cutting, pasting…

Eventually they’ll give up.

-Joe, don’t worry, you’ll get 'em!

[David_Simmons]

*Originally posted by Scylla *
** maybe it’s all you guys that are sane and me that’s crazy.
**

Bingo!

[jshore]

*Originally posted by Scylla *
Which of your quotes proves Bush lied?

Okay, so let’s say he didn’t lie and he really believed he knew with total assuredness something that was not true…so much so that he actually told Saddam “produce the weapons we know you have or we’ll get you.” (Not his exact words…which as I recall…had something to do with bringing all the weapons to a parking lot for the U.N. inspectors to see or some such thing.)

Do you really want a President who is so cock-sure about what he think he knows which is not in fact true that he is willing to make impossible demands on people (even if the person in question is a scumbag) and then go to war against a country when these demands are not met?!?

Also, it is not like the Administration didn’t already have a track-record of deciding what they want to do and then distorting the facts to justify their policy. (Whether or not they believe their own distortions is largely irrelevant in my view.) They were doing this long before the Iraq debacle. In fact, some of us were noting that Bush had zero credibility as part of our arguments against going to war. At least one person on the pro-war side asked me whether this means I believed Saddam Hussein over George Bush. I responded, roughly, that neither one had credibility so I really can’t believe either. And, that is why we simply had to go on the facts as best as we could determine them through the U.N. inspection program and such.

[PatriotX]

FWIW, Scylla, I certainly see your point about the quality of communication.
As to the accusations of lying:
I don’t think that a number of things that were said were lies. I call some of them “not-lies.” Technically correct[sup]li[/sup], but couched in misleading language.[/li]There was the bit about the UAVs striking the US with biological agents: Bush didn’t say that they could, he just said that he was ‘concerned’ about such a thing happenning.

The best candidate I’ve seen for beinga lie is Bush’s claim that a IAEA doc said Hussein was six months away from a nuke. There never was any such doc. The White House said that Bush had been “imprecise.” Because the charge of lying requires that the teller be aware that the statement is false it isn’t certain, or really demonstrable that Bush lied even in this instance. Maybe he was just fuddled, or misunderstood what he’d read?

What the people who accuse him of lying really should do is make the case that there has been a pattern of misleading but technically correct statements.
Bureaucrat 1.0: You are technically correct. The best kind of correct.