Bombs Away

New at Reason: Ron Bailey continues the search for Iraq's WMDs. (Or should that be WsMD?)

Comments

[Kevin Carson]

So it's all the intelligence people's fault, and Bush and his cronies were just the passive victims of bad information from below (snorts in derision)? You think Feith and the Office of Special Plans might enter the picture somewhere, huh?

[alma hadayn]

Ron Bailey says: "And nobody now doubts that Saddam Hussein had made some efforts toward manufacturing some WMDs after the first Gulf War."

I doubt it (I'm not saying it's impossible, just that there hasn't been any evidence of it.) Bailey links to an Op-Ed piece by Colin Powell, who is not exactly Mr. Credibility on this issue.

I have read Kay's report, and it is heavy on rhetoric and light on evidence. His examples of "WMD-related program activities" seem all to fall into one of the following 3 categories:

(i)Attempts to retain elements of pre-Gulf War infrastructure
(ii)Concealing illegal substances which "could" be used in the R&D of WMD
(iii)Attempts to acquire missile technology for ranges in excess of what the UN permitted.

Even these examples tend to be on a rather trivial scale, but at any rate none of these constitute evidence that Iraq made "efforts toward manufacturing some WMDs after the first Gulf."

Kay claims that Iraqi intelligence was involved in WMD acctivities but does not provide any evidence to back this up. He also claims to have discovered cladestine "laboratories and facilities", which he speculates were for a bioweapons program, but again fails to provide evidence for that conjecture.

If anyone is aware of other evidence, I'd be much obliged if you share.

[sam]

"Doubtless the world is a better place now that Saddam Hussein is no longer torturing his people."

Is the world a better place, Ron? A similar statement was once said about the fall of Soviet communism. Now we are spending quite a bit of money keeping track of the underfunded and unsecured Russian WMD arsenal, tracking where the former scientists have gone and whom they work for, and even proposing buying some of the WMD stock from Russia to dispose of it.

Sure, its nice to see the fall of a ruthless dictator and the world is a better place for Iraqi's. However, some Al Queda sympathizing Iraqi's now are free from Saddam's grip to act on their impulses, some of them maybe even having something to do with the supposedly missing WMDs.

Where I believe we are making progress, I am quite reserved over the triumphalist pandering that the world is much safer now that Saddam is out of power. Maybe that puts me into the "right war, wrong time" camp.

[Brian]

(Or should that be WsMD?)

No, now it's WMD-RPAs.

[steve]

Nicely said Ron. This has been an issue that I've wondered about ever since the fall of Hussein. And the pressure to answer this question increases with each passing day that does not include a WMD discovery.

How did so many people come to believe that Saddam and Iraq were such a credible WMD threat? Bush I, Clinton, Albright, Gore, Blair, Putin, Chirac, Schroeder, etc, etc are all on record verifying that the "intelligence" indicated the presence of WMD and the drive toward development of nuclear weaponry.

Whether they were with us or against us on the policy of removing Saddam, the arguments were about approach (with or without the UN, France, etc) or the action (war) or the timing (now or later).

This is a colossal intelligence failure that is getting no serious attention. Worse than that, it damages the credibility of all current intelligence claims.

[Shannon Love]

That evil stupid Bush!

Just because Saddam had successfully hid a large nuclear program as well as chemical and biological weapons programs from both the UN Inspectors and world intelligence community for nearly four years (91-95) even with inspectors crawling all over the country, Bush stupidly assumed he could do it again when there were no inspectors at all in the country (98-02). What a moron!

Just because Saddam gave every sign of having and pursing WMDs and just because he vigorously resisted all efforts to prove he didn't save under pain of immediate invasion, Bush concluded he did in fact have the weapons. What an idiot!

In the future, we should ground our policy on the premise that if we cannot prove in a court of law that a similar government has WMDs we should act as if they don't. We should assume that they will never make a hair-brained decision to use them. Most importantly, we should never act until we have absolute, concrete evidence that the threat is really, really imminent?

? preferably with piles of bodies just to maintain our moral credibility.

[Mark Anderson]

I think a major problem is that the intelligence, politicians, public, etc. relied heavily on the fact that Hussein was giving the weapons inspectors the run-around. I'm pretty sure Hussein was trying to have his cake and eat it: Pretend their were weapons as a deterrent, but abe able to prove their weren't any if the inspectors come a knockin. I think (and most would) that this was a mistake and further proof that Hussein was paranoid at best and completely insane at worst. So Bush tells the public that Hussein is crazy and will give WsMD to any terroist who asks while expecting him to act rationally when it comes to the hiding of weapons. Bush and Co. simply took the evidence that helped thier cause and buried the rest. Yes, their should be an intelligence investigation right after Bush, Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld, Powell, and Wolfawitz are arrested. That's only way to prevent this from happening again.

[alma hadayn]

The administration repeatedly insisted that it knew for a fact that Iraq still had WMD, which was false- it is now plain that it did not know for a fact that Iraq had them.

What on earth Saddam Hussein's history have to do with this?

[Warren]

"I, like tens of millions of my fellow Americans, was persuaded by Secretary of State Colin Powell's presentation on Iraq's WMD capabilities at the United Nations last February."

Then I say you, and all those tens of millions, are too stupid to vote. That presentation convinced me, and hundreds of millions of non-Americans, that Iraq possessed no such capabilities. After all, the best evidence the administration came come up with was along the lines of; "Many people who hate Saddam, and would like nothing better than to have the US come in and take him out, have said he's making WMD, conspiring with terrorists and oh yeah rendering the fat of Christian babies for the candles that adorn his dinner table." I don't see how anyone found that convincing unless they were bent on bombing to begin with.

[Jean Bart]

Steve,

Chirac never said to my knowledge that Iraq had WMD programs; he did think it was a possibility. But those are two different things.

Shannon Love,

Thanks for the straw man; they are not as tasty as red herring, but I was hungry. 🙂

[Andrew]

The real WMD-argument for the invasion of Iraq was Hussein's dmonstrated pre-occupation with acquiring WMD, his iron determination to frustrate inspections, and the fact that the inevitable collapse of sanctions would empower him to pursue his dementia free from any real constraints. Add that the "deterrence and containment" model is sketchy when the regime involved is headed up by a guy who could easily be seen as mentally unstable.

All of these are facts available to anyone cogniscent of the problem at all...and facts not in dispute. The intellegence Bush and Blair received (or anyone else) could not REASSURE them that the immediate danger was minimal-- and, of course, supplied no reassurance at all regarding a post-sanctions future.

[alma hadayn]

Instead of rearguing the case for war, let's talk about what our government actually said. If these were all just honest mistakes, it would be nice to know what caused them. (quotes courtesy of billmon.org)

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.-Dick Cheney 08/26/2002

There is already a mountain of evidence that Saddam Hussein is gathering weapons for the purpose of using them. And adding additional information is like adding a foot to Mount Everest.-Ari Fleischer 09/06/2002

Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons. -George Bush 09/12/2002

The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons...After eleven years during which we have tried containment, sanctions, inspections, even selected military action, the end result is that Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more. And he is moving ever closer to developing a nuclear weapon. -George Bush 10/07/2002

Iraq, despite UN sanctions, maintains an aggressive program to rebuild the infrastructure for its nuclear, chemical, biological, and missile programs. In each instance, Iraq?s procurement agents are actively working to obtain both weapons-specific and dual-use materials and technologies critical to their rebuilding and expansion efforts, using front companies and whatever illicit means are at hand. -John Bolton 11/01/2002

The president of the United States and the secretary of defense would not assert as plainly and bluntly as they have that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction if it was not true, and if they did not have a solid basis for saying it -Ari Fleischer 12/04/2002

We know for a fact that there are weapons there.-Ari Fleischer 01/09/2003

There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more. Colin Powell 02/05/2003

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 03/17/2003

Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly -Ari Fleischer 03/21/2003

We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat. -Donald Rumsfeld 03/30/2003

[steve]

alma, you forgot a few:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
-President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
-President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
-Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
-Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D! , CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
-Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."
-Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

[Shannon Love]

Can someone give me an example of what kind of intelligence would have comprised evidence that Saddam did not have WMDs?

[alma hadayn]

Most of your quotes do not state unequivocally that the speaker knows for a fact that Iraq at that moment possessed WMD, while mine all do.

But your point that Democrats were complicit in the misrepresentation is well taken.

At any rate, saying that some Democrats also did it is not a defense as far as I'm concerned. The President should be held responsible for what he says, especially when what he said led to a war.

[joe]

Shannon,

The equipment to make them showing obvious signs of long-term disuse. Check.

The facilities used to make them being inactive, or not rebuilt after being destroyed in Operation Desert Fox, the first Gulf War, or the inspection teams' activities during the 1990s. Check.

No imports of materials and equipment necessary to maintain existing arsenals. Check.

Howzat?

[steve]

I'm not trying to defend what was said and argued as the premise for the war. Instead I'm trying to show that lots of people in power believed that Saddam was a threat, in some cases imminently so, and that WMD were the crux of that threat.

Now, they are the leaders (Executive and Legislative) and therefore responsible for the data that they used to convince us to go to war. I would like to see them examine and document how that came to be, to determine who was responsible for the errors, and to punish them.

I would like to know what our leaders guilty of? Misrepresenting the data? Believing poorly gathered or weakly constructed data? Outright lying? Group think? Laziness?

Of course, if WMD turn up in Iraq or Syria or wherever (having come from Iraq) then we'll have to have a different discussion - but I'm not holding my breath.

[Les]

I don't know what kind of intelligence information the Clinton administration and other Democrats were receiving. If someone can show that they were being told that it was only possible but not entirely verifiable that Hussein had WMDs while they told the general public that they KNEW he had WMDs, then one must conclude that senior members of the Clinton administration and other Democrats were lying.

But then EVERYBODY knows that there were plenty of liars in the Clinton adminstration (everybody except, of course, Democratic loyalists).

Since we know for a fact that senior members of the Bush administration were being told that it was only possible but not entirely verifiable that Hussein had WMDs while they told the general public that they KNEW he had WMDs, then one must conclude that senior members of the Bush administration were lying.

Everybody except, of course, Republican loyalists.

[Fresh Blood 2004]

Between the posts that Steve and alma have written, it is clear that some intelligence officials and many democrats and republicans need to be fired. Try voting libertarian, independent, hell, even greens, in 2004 to make a point!

[anon]

Fresh,

I agree, I want throw out every politician who ever expressed certainty when any evidence existed that might be contrary to their expressed position.

Oops, I just got rid of everyone, everywhere! Silly me. In fact, I just threw myself out, and everyone else on this blog! Sorry, folks...

[Les]

anon,

That's a not-very-clever way to try to excuse people who said blatently dishonest things.

You may feel comfortable shrugging your shoulders when our leaders lie to us, renaming misinformation as "opinion," but I think we should expect a little more.

[thoreau]

Les-

A good libertarian should be skeptical of politicians, unless the politicians lied to promote a war in Iraq. Then we should just accept that it was a good outcome and not raise any questions about our leaders. After all, they are our leaders, and good libertarians don't question leaders who assure us that what they're doing is in the interests of fatherland security...um, I mean, homeland security.

[Les]

Everything I've read indicates that the most of the intelligence folks did their job at least honestly, providing reports that described the relative liklihoods of WMD's and working ties to Al Quaeda (ranging from somewhat likely to not at all). If anyone has info to the contrary, I'd honestly appreciate a link.

The important people who are blatently guilty of spreading disinformation (that is, being told "possibly" by the intelligence community and turning that into "definitely" for the public at large) are Cheney, Rice, and Powell. I'd be more impressed if Bush fired them. But I don't think he'll be instructed to do that.

[anon]

Les et al,

If my post was none too clever, perhaps it was an attempt to counteract the too-clever-by-half parsing here. Let me try to up the clever quotient here:

* Rant On *

Renegade Iraqi Scientist: "Now that I'm free from Saddam, I can finally tell what I know. Saddam has X WMDs, and he has them at Y location."

Al Gore: "We know Saddam has secretly stored WMDs throughout his country"

Robert Byrd: "We are confident Saddam retains some stockpiles and is on a crash program"

Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Powell: "We know Saddam has X and has them at Y"

Libertarian Blog: "Gore et al were misinformed by bad intelligence. Bush et al are LIARS!"

Anon: "Asserting on imperfect information that Bush et al are liars for making assertions on imperfect information? Hmmm..."

And how, you ask, can I accuse you of asserting on imperfect information. Please remember, these are all possibilities:

A. There are WMDs, still hidden in Iraq
B. There are WMDs, spirited away to Syria or Iran
C. There were no WMDs; Saddam's scientists fooled Saddam
D. There were no WMDs; Saddam fooled the intelligence communities of Britain, France, Germany, U.S., etc
E. There were no WMDs; intelligence communities misinformed the president and congress
F. There were no WMDs; Bush et al are LIARS

Prove to me (with no assertions based on imperfect information, mind you) that A. through E. are false. Then I'll jump on the F. bandwagon...

* Rant Off *

[anon]

Just to be clear on my own position, I THINK the following are true:

1. We needed to shit-hammer somebody, to get the world's attention and convince them we can be dangerous too (a la Tony Soprano: "You may not love me, but you will respect me!").

2. Iraq was close enough to the center of gravity, and we thought we had 10 good reasons for doing it.

3. We had an intelligence failure of massive proportions, so it turns out we only had 9 good reasons for doing it.

4. We need to up our intelligence game; so far Bush et al show no signs of doing that. Boo, Bush!

5. The aforementioned shit-hammering, combined with intercept of Libyan nuclear weapon components, seems to have gotten Khadafi's attention. Yea, Bush!

6. North Korea just wants to trade sane behavior for food and money. No need to provoke a war, negotiations may work. Yea, Bush!

7. A small fraction of the Patriot act is unconscionable, but the rest is good, so let's fix the bad and keep the good. Boo, Yea, Bush!

8. I don't know who was misinformed and who lied. The majority of world leaders (including possibly Saddam himself) thought Saddam had WMDs, right here, right now. They now appear to be wrong. Boo, everyone!

9. In 10 years, I suspect (and hope) we'll be saying (a la Reagan v. Soviet Union), "thank goodness we stood up to the bastards!" In about 20 years, the demographics of the Middle East will be much less 20-29 years of age, so they should mellow out quite a bit by, say, 2020 or so.

10. Focus on nanotechnology; that's where the fun'll be, anyway. In the long view, the Middle East is a passing distraction; they will eventually get their shit together...

[joe]

It's interesting, steve, to compare the Democratic quotes to the Republican ones. The Democrats contain words like "programs," "capabilities," "seeking," "developing," and "capacity." While the Republican quotes contain phrases like "We know where they are," "Saddam Hussein has biological weapons," "possesses and produces" (present tense), "the weapons are there," and "continues to possess and conceal." See the difference?

Now, however, Bush is back to "WMD related program activities," which is a lot closer to what the Democrats were saying, and is quite a ways awat from his previous assertions of certainty about the existance of actual weapons.

[Gamber Jenifer Lee]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 148.223.52.81
URL: http://preteen-sex.info
DATE: 05/20/2004 08:22:35
Everything is true to someone.