Will WMDs be as big as Watergate?

[Sam_Stone]

Sterra:

That’s a selective parsing for an article that open, in bold, with:

**Blair dismisses Iraq weapons doubts

Tony Blair says he stands “totally” by the case he made for removing Saddam Hussein in the run-up to war against Iraq.
**

[Sofa_King]

Playing out a little more rope to hang us, eh? Wha’ choo talkin’ 'bout, Willis? Help me out with the possibilities other than these:

Bush might have been incompetent. Say there was, to take Dick Cheney at his literal word, a reconstituted nuclear weapon in Iraq, or any other weapons of mass destruction for that matter. Where is the broken arrow, dude? Where’s the effing bomb? Because if we don’t have it and can’t find it, that means someone else probably does. The chances that nobody knows where they are is slim. The chances that somebody knows where they are and doesn’t like us is significantly higher than slim. The chances that the person who randomly stumbles across it–and doesn’t like us–increases every day that they are not found.

It’s a complete failure to achieve the objective. And if, by some chance, the dangers of those weapons do become evident in, say, Detroit, then it becomes a total catastrophe.

Or he might have lied. Chances are nobody cares as we cascade through the media-whoring cavalcade of gay marriages and abortion, because even though it might have been criminal, it wasn’t political enough to impeach. Disgusting. In the meantime, foreign nations temporarily place our credibility in the shitter and request an expensive show of faith to get back on the A-List. See incompetence above.

Or, we might “find” them. But now the Administration’s credibility is in question because they fed bullshit to Congress. Any evidence is going to be either microscopically investigated or brashly withheld. Either way, the shroud of doubt clouds the issue, and while Americans may choose to believe it, every psycho-ass wannabe Che is going to be able to say to his wide-eyed disciples, “why should we believe them?” See incompetence above.

So give me the rest of the possibilities.

This is turning into an incident which may have historic consequences. Unlike lying about a blow job to a grand jury, this little mishap has serious, dangerous global consequences.

[PatriotX]

*Originally posted by Sam Stone *
**I still think all this talk is premature. There’s still something afoot here.

The Bushies may just be playing out enough rope to let a few people hang themselves. Or perhaps they have evidence they can’t release because it would compromise an ongoing operation or something.
**

This is something that I’ve voiced before. I just couldn’t decide when would be the optimal time for finding the banned weapons. March maybe? Or perhaps June? But no later. Much sooner and you risk having the public’s attention span peak too soon.
I mean if there is a big stink about not finding them and then voila! there they are, it’ll really make the Bush Admin look like the vindicated victim as well as the victor. Can’t beat that combo with a stick. Rove is a smarty-pants, ya know.

I think it’s smart of the Rove team to push the issue away from the threat to the US to the banned WMD. Banned WMD can be found. A hypothetical threat, well…

*Originally posted by Kimstu *
**I don’t think the question of scandal rests on the question of whether there are any Iraqi WMD whatsoever; the more crucial point is whether the Administration was justified in spreading alarm about severe and imminent danger from Iraqi WMD.

I just did not think a convincing case had been made that any Iraqi weapons posed such a catastrophic threat to us that we needed to invade them immediately to protect ourselves.

And that’s still an extremely important issue, even if some sort of WMD do turn up eventually.
**

Posts like this help me shake the Winston Smith feelings, (for a bit anyway).

[Sterra]

*Originally posted by Sam Stone *
**Sterra:

That’s a selective parsing for an article that open, in bold, with: **

He still stands for the case he made as far as intelligence goes. However, he specifically does not say that he thinks that we will find WMDs.

[Sam_Stone]

Here’s an interesting article:

Basis for Arms Claims Affirmed

Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said the senators had received information “of highest classification” that would lead people to “clearly come to the conclusion that these weapons did exist, that they were in the hands of those who could use them, and thank God they weren’t used.”

Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, said the lawmakers heard of “breakthrough pieces of information that I hope in the near future will be very positive news” during their meeting with David Kay, a former U.N. inspector in Iraq recently appointed to coordinate the U.S. weapons search.

[Squink]

Yes Sam, but we’ve been hearing an endless drone of this sort of story since the president’s self-admittedly misleading state of the union speech. It’s long past time these rumormongers put up or shut up.

[Squink]

Yes Sam, but we’ve been hearing an endless drone of this sort of story since the president’s self-admittedly misleading state of the union speech. It’s long past time these rumormongers put up or shut up.

[Sam_Stone]

I actually agree with that.

[PatriotX]

Basis for Arms Claims Affirmed
Administration critics have said Bush and his top aides exaggerated the intelligence they received on Hussein’s weapons, and the imminent threat that the Iraqi leader might give them to terrorists. The Kerr study does not deal with that issue, but it was discussed yesterday at a news conference held by Republican and Democratic senators who had just returned from several days in Iraq.
[/quote]

This is about how the CIA’s version of things has been vetted. Not the Bush Admin’s.

[PatriotX]

A bit of Dowdification perhaps?

[PatriotX]

Jonbodner,
I did a little checking. The maximum capacity of a Uhaul is about 3.25 English tons. So to fit the 500 metric tons you’d actually need more than 150 Uhauls.
I’m guessing that you really meant big-rigs which will hold closer to 50 english tons. That would take only about 10 to 15 big-rigs to transport the variuos banned WMD.

[Squink]

From Capitol Hill Blue

An intelligence consultant who was present at two White House briefings where the uranium report was discussed confirmed that the President was told the intelligence was questionable and that his national security advisors urged him not to include the claim in his State of the Union address.

“The report had already been discredited,” said Terrance J. Wilkinson, a CIA advisor present at two White House briefings. “This point was clearly made when the President was in the room during at least two of the briefings.”

Bush’s response was anger, Wilkinson said.

“He said_that if the current operatives working for the CIA couldn’t_prove the story was true, then the agency had better find some who could,” Wilkinson said. “He said he knew the story was true and so would the world after American troops secured the country.”_

I wonder if Wilkinson would care to repeat that statement under oath.

[JonBodner]

*Originally posted by vibrotronica *
**Jon, here is the original cite:

From Ha’aretz, June 26. 2003:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=310788&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

Not that you would believe it if the angel Gabriel came down from heaven and wrote it in 10-foot letters of fire, but there you go. I am curious to see what you and december think was actually said, though. **

Thanks for digging up the quote. See, that’s a source that I trust more than people who think that the Holocaust didn’t happen.

And I’ll let you know what I believe, thank you very much. First of all, I don’t believe in the angel Gabriel. Secondly, based on the source, I think the quote is probably real. I don’t know if the Bush administration has denied it. Bush has stated before that he thinks that divine providence made him president in 2000, so it’s not like religious pronouncements from Bush aren’t believable. I just didn’t trust the first-provided source for the quote.

I also have a suspicion that there is a good-sized intersection between people who have a viceral hatred for Bush and people who have a viceral hatred for religion, so quotes like this are just fuel for the fire.

[JonBodner]

*Originally posted by SimonX *
**Jonbodner,

I’m guessing that you really meant big-rigs which will hold closer to 50 english tons. That would take only about 10 to 15 big-rigs to transport the variuos banned WMD. **

Thanks. I was thinking of Big Rigs (the Triple-trailers that you sometimes see on interstate highways, although they might have been banned already), and I can’t for the life of me find the web site where I first saw someone measure the size of presumed Iraqi WMD in big rig units. All I could find was that the anthrax would fit in a U-Haul, so I took back my claim.

[PatriotX]

The volume of the anthrax would easily fit into a Uhaul. however, the weight would not. Assuming that liquid anthrtax has a density half as much as water or more, then it would take at least two trailers to accomodate the wieght, (not counting the weight of the specialized containers for dangerous biological material).

But, I don’t think that these are the numbers for banned WMDs that Saddam was supposed to have so much as they are for the potentials of what he could’ve had made.
Presumably, the actual numbers would be less than the ptential numbers.

[PatriotX]

Ummm… not Uhaul trailers, but their largest sized trucks. oops.

[ElvisL1ves]

None of which have yet shown up, btw, despite an intensive search and heavy reward money. What would Occam say?

Back to the OP: As I understood it then, Johnson (and to some degree Nixon) fell because of their conduct of the war, not because of Tonkin Gulf. The constant stream of body bags, the promising lives ended and families shattered, and for no clear and achievable goal, was what turned public opinion against him. If that’s still going on next year, that’ll be the cause of Bush’s downfall, not the pretexts he used.

The psychology of it may be that people will excuse him for anything they signed onto emotionally themselves, in this case going to war, but can comfortably blame him for the details they never signed onto.

[RickJay]

To follow up on that, I don’t think the Tonkin Gulf incident being a lie was even understood in 1969-1973. In fact, I would wager that a great many more Americans are aware of the Bush administration’s lies around Gulf War 2.0 than were aware of the Tonkin Gulf lie in, say, 1972.

[DrDeth]

Fact one- after Gulf War One- SH did have a LOT of WMD. Confirmed by UN Inspectors then. The Iraqi ambassador to the UN claimed they were destroyed- and you can’t 'destroy" what never existed. So- AT ONE TIME, THEY DID EXIST.

Fact 2- during the second round of inspections, some decade later; Blix could not find any (other than a few traces, and some illegal “non-WMD”)- but he also said that SH had no credible evidence that the WMD had been destroyed.

Fact 3- SH did not use them against us.

Fact 4- We can’t find much. A few traces, some labs.

So- what happened to them? You have 4 options:

1. Destroyed post Blix/Post GWB Ultimatum.
2. Hidden really well
3. Moved to Syria or else where
4. Destroyed Pre-Blix.

Note that there is no option 5 “they never existed” or Option 6 “gremlins took them”- we won’t go into wild fantasies.

#1 does not make sense- they would have been evidence- and WHY?

I think it was a combo of 2 & 3.

4. Doesn’t make too much sense to me, either. Since the sanctions were costing SH billions, why not either destroythem publicly, with UN in hand, or keep good records of the destruction. And- why THEN?

[Chance_the_Gardener]

why not either destroythem publicly, with UN in hand, or keep good records of the destruction[?]—DrDeth

Why not destroy them publicly? Well, if it appears to his neighbors and Iraq’s insurgents that Iraq has these weapons, they’ll be far more likely to fear Saddam, and he has a little more clout in the world. It was a trick, kind of like the Strategic Defense Initiative was a trick. Neither existed, but they sure provided some nice bluster for those who lied about them. (Yes, yes, the United States never claimed to have developed SDI, but the way it convinced the Soviet Union that such a system was imminently possible did give the lie some power.)

Saddam, Reagan: liars or ruseurs de guerre? That’s a whole 'nother question…