It's Over

The WMD seekers in Iraq have given up and gone home. In case you were still wondering.

Comments

[cdunlea]

They're all going to Syria in a couple of months to look there (see next thread).

Too good to pass up...

[fyodor]

Bush has expressed disappointment that no weapons or weapons programs were found

Darn the luck!!

[J1]

Wow. Now the U.S. will have to go home, becuase, IIRC, WMD were the ONLY reason given for the invasion.

J1

[drf]

oh! grand!

where were they? did the butler actually do it?

cd: your comment and the syria blowing on this page can make one wonder.............

[Evan Williams]

J1:

Oh, yeah, there was some half-assed "we's a-gonna spread democracy round the globe at the point of a gun, starting by 'liberating' them Iraqi ragheads" excuse that they tacked on there when the WMD angle didn't look promising.

I mean, look at it from their point of view: they were all gung-ho about the war, so why let some little detail like "complete and absolute lack of evidence to support your justification" stand in your way? Heck, all you gotta do is change your justification in mid-stroke, and the half-witted joe-sixpacks back home will all just conveniently forget about that first failed excuse.

For example, the police get a search warrant for your house on the assumption that you have a meth lab in the basement. But when they break in and find no evidence, they suddenly change direction, and instead claim that their search was justified because the rise/run ratio on your basement stairs violated local building codes, and that that was the reason for their bust all along.

Pretty sweet deal for them, especially when they get away with it.

[J1]

Evan Williams

They did not change justifications. They gave many, BEFORE the invasion.

To use your metaphor, the police got a warrant for having meth, AND illegal weaponry AND Child Porn AND Parole violations, but found out that the meth lab wasn't there.

You may not agree with their reasons, but please don't insult our intelligence with that "the administration changed its reasons midstream" nonsense.

J1

[joe]

J1, all of the other reasons given were predicated on the WMDs. Saddam's a terrible ruler. He gassed his own people. He invaded other countries. Conclusion: we can't allow a dictator like that to threaten us with WMDs.

[anon]

Evan Williams,

How's this for evidence:

Saddam had WMD in 1991. The UN resolved that he was required to turn them over for destruction, or provide proof that they had been destroyed. He failed to satisfy that requirement.

Apparently, your suggested response to this is: "eh, nevermind."

[fyodor]

What joe said.

Take away the threat of WMD's, and there's really no believable or acceptable justification for the invasion, at all. Now, notice I said "threat," and I'm willing to acknowledge that in lieu of invasion there was still some possibility that Saddam could someday in the future have started producing WMD's. Whether that future potentiality justified our invasion, I'd rather not argue about right now. What I am arguing right now is that the claimed threat of WMD's was essential for justifying the war, regardless of whether there were other reasons cited.

[Neil Lindsey]

Evan:

As amazing as it may seem Joe six-pack thinks that we DID find WMD in Iraq.

[joe]

Actually, fyodor, there WERE genuine, legitimate reasons for the invasion. They just weren't the ones we were given.

The democratic revolution it would surely inspire across the Muslim world. The reduction in anti-Americanism as we removed troops from Saudi Arabia. The end of a long, expensive, politically damaging, indefinite military commitment (enforcement of the no fly/no drive zones, the blockade). The removal of a threat to the security of Israel. Prventing terrorists from being recruited and trained in Iraq.

As you may have noticed, these haven't exactly panned out either.

[drf]

... and joe, if you remember from back when, slippery pete or laz or one of the neocons (RC, perhaps) used your above-stated "justification" as what "every intelligent person knows" as the *real* reasons.

and what anon said: we'll nevermind your post 🙂

*chuckle*

[joe]

Yes, drf, the Bushie/neocon line on that went from "get out your tinfoil hat" to "of course, everyone knows that" in about 10 minutes.

[Phil]

Apparently, your suggested response to this is: "eh, nevermind."

Actually, the suggested response was "keep the inspectors in." You remember them. The inspectors who said, "Yep, they're all gone." And who were, apparently, right. Oh well, what's a few thousand dead Americans and Iraqis just to show up those lousy egghead inspectors?

[R C Dean]

I thought I heard my name being taken in vain.

I still think that, given our strategic options, going on the offensive in the Mideast was the best of a bad lot, but that's another discussion, I suppose.

Once you decide to go on the offensive, then Iraq is by far the best place to start. Not only was invading Iraq perfectly legal (all those UN declarations, violations of armistice conditions, US Congressional action approving the use of force, etc.), it gave us the best strategic footprint, took out a major supporter of the terror networks (pour encourager les autres, doncha know), and had as good a chance as any of turning into a decent country.

[Les]

"Apparently, your suggested response to this is: "eh, nevermind.""

It's poor form to so ridiculously exaggerate your opponents' position to the point that it becomes an obvious strawman.

Of the people arguing against invasion, who, exactly, said we should ignore the possibility that Hussein had WMD's? Most people who were against invading supported continued inspections.

To me, the main point of a lack of WMD's is that when we invaded, Bush said that there was "no doubt" that Hussein had WMD's. Now, Bush, being proudly ignorant of current and world events, might have actually believed that (unlike Cheney, who'd received reports expressing doubt of WMD's, making our VP a documented liar). But it was, nonetheless, a falsehood upon which he based this continually incompetent venture.

[deron]

I kind of feel that old Hans Blix is owed an apology for the basic innuendo campaign that portrayed him as totally incompetent.

The war is what it is, and people never really needed much of a reason other than their gut to support it.

I continue with my initial assessment. Our Iraq policy was unworkable to begin with, and Iraq was the perfect place for the Bush Doctrine to die an early deserved death. The burden of proof for attacking anyone else will now return to the high level it merits.

[Tim Cavanaugh]

Hey, who's this lukewarm hawk who's posting as "RC Dean"? What have you done with the fire and brimstone original?

[rst]

Bush said that there was "no doubt" that Hussein had WMD's.

The EU had the following to say about Iraq and WMDs in February 2003:

"Baghdad should have no illusions: it must disarm and cooperate immediately and fully. Iraq has a final opportunity to resolve the crisis peacefully.

"The Iraqi regime alone will be responsible for the consequences if it continues to flout the will of the international community and does not take this last chance."

From the unanimously passed U.N. resolution 1441:

Recognizing the threat Iraq's non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,

and

UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to be provided by Iraq the names of all personnel currently and formerly associated with Iraq's chemical, biological, nuclear, and ballistic missile programmes and the associated research, development, and production facilities;

I wonder whether you could explain why the verb "disarm" was used throughout, or why UNMOVIC and IAEA would require names of personnel currently associated with WMD programs.

What about any of the diplomatic language preceding the resumption of hostilities in Iraq would lead you to believe that the certainty of WMD presence in Iraq was unique to the Bush Administration?

[a]

When is Bush going to send Powell or Rumsfeld (Mr. "We know where they are[WMDs]. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.") to the UN to apologize to the UN staff, France, Germany, etc?

[rst]

I kind of feel that old Hans Blix is owed an apology for the basic innuendo campaign that portrayed him as totally incompetent.

Blix didn't need a campaign to portray him as incompetent. He does an excellent job of that all by himself.

to the UN to apologize to the UN staff, France, Germany, etc?

Apologize for what? We do not owe them shit. Except maybe our International Credibility Club membership dues.

[Jennifer]

Now, now, considering this administration's history of high standards, accountability and respect for the truth, I'm sure the ones responsible for this travesty will find their reputations irrevocably tarnished and their careers over.

Right?

[anon the second]

He failed to satisfy that requirement.

In hingsight, what could have Saddam done to both satisfy that requirement and prevent war? If somehow he had proof of WMD destruction and presented it, would it been accepted as credible evidence?

And why is it that some posters cite UN and EU statements as credible in this thread but complete bullshit in others?

[rst]

Right?

When in history has any administration actually respected truth and accountability?

Why this fascination with pretending that the dishonesty and corruption that is the hallmark of every government on the planet is actually a unique creation of this administration?

It's politics, Jennifer. There is no such thing as accountability or truth in politics. That's why the word is "politic" + "s".

[rst]

UN and EU statements as credible

Who said they were credible? Judging from current events it would seem that they were in fact not. Their credibility is irrelevant; what matters is that the certainty with which such statements on WMD were made was not unique to the Bush Administration.

[Les]

What about any of the diplomatic language preceding the resumption of hostilities in Iraq would lead you to believe that the certainty of WMD presence in Iraq was unique to the Bush Administration?

What about any of my language would lead you to believe that I thought the certainty of WMD presence in Iraq was unique to the Bush administration?

When it's pointed out that senior members of the Bush administration said things that they knew at the time were untrue (Cheney knew there was doubt in the intelligence community as they'd reported their doubts to him; Rice was told that those aluminum tubes weren't for nuclear purposes before she told the American people that that's all they could be used for), I don't think it's reasonable to point fingers at the EU or UN and say, "Well, they thought Hussein had WMD's, too!"

The fact that two notoriously incompetent organizations came to the same conclusions as the Bush administration isn't much of an excuse. I don't know whether or not UN and EU officials were given reports expressing doubts regarding Iraq's WMD's. But we do know for a fact that our leaders were given such reports and then pretended that they weren't.

It seems to me that we should insist that the people we know to have lied about the certainty of WMD's take responsibility for their actions instead of pointing fingers at organizations that don't represent us. Call me old-fashioned, but I believe strongly in the concept of personal responsibility. It's a shame that no one in the Bush administration does.

[joe]

"Blix didn't need a campaign to portray him as incompetent. He does an excellent job of that all by himself."

Why, the silly old goat was convinced there weren't any WMDs in Iraq! How incompetent.

[anon]

Les,

This is not an exaggeration of my opponents position, ridiculous or otherwise. The UN's resolution required that Saddam prove he didn't have WMDs. When my opponent suggests that the UN abandon this requirement, and send inspectors into Iraq to search the country exhaustively in order to determine for themselves that Iraq has no WMDs, "eh, nevermind" is an accurate characterization of his position.

"Of the people arguing against invasion, who, exactly, said we should ignore the possibility that Hussein had WMD's?"

. . . says the pot to the kettle. It is not necessary that my opponent say we should ignore the possibility that Hussein had WMD's for my characterization of their position to be correct. It is only necessary that they suggest we relieve Saddam of the burden of proof, which is precisely what they did.

[anon]

And as for Hans Blix, I agree that it is unfair to characterize him as incompetent. He was given an impossible task, even if Iraq did have WMDs. A three car garage volume of material is not difficult to hide and shuffle around in an area the size of California.

[c]

which "three car garage volume of material" are we talking about again? the imaginary one?

note that imaginary ones are especially easy to hide

[Les]

Anon,

Who has suggested that Hussein didn't have to prove that he didn't have WMD's? Wouldn't you describe inspections as a process of proving that there were no WMD's? What other way is there to demonstrate a lack of WMD's besides allowing in inspectors? If the inspectors themselves were satisfied with their progress, how is it that Hussein was not in the process of proving that he didn't have WMD's?

[Les]

That should have read:

Who suggested that Hussein shouldn't have to prove that he didn't have WMD's?

[rst]

When it's pointed out that senior members of the Bush administration said things that they knew at the time were untrue

It has not been "pointed out," accusations have been made.

Cheney knew there was doubt in the intelligence community as they'd reported their doubts to him

Are you referring to the same intelligence community that dropped the ball leading up to 9/11? Intelligence reports don't lay out data and conclusions like a recipe for chocolate cake, Les. Doubt is part of any report, because nothing in the realm of our comprehension exists with 100% certainty.

Rice was told that those aluminum tubes weren't for nuclear purposes before she told the American people that that's all they could be used for

The findings were not so absolute as you claim. What was found was that the dimensions of the tubes themselves were inconsistent with centrifuge equipment known to have been used by Iraq before the first gulf war. ISIS described the tubes as "dual-use."

The two significant problems with the conclusion that the tubes could not have been used for HEU are that 1) it presumes that the Al Furat project (which sought to build Zippe-type centrifuges) died when IAEA took down the German facility on the Euphrates and 2) that the only centrifuges available at the time to Hussein were the Beams-type. With only slight modifications the tubes Hussein was after could easily be used in Zippe-type centrifuges. And given that they matched up to dimensions for tubes meant for short range surface-to-surface missiles built by Iraq in the mid-80s, they had the plausible deniability of "dual-use". Given Hussein's repeated desire to establish a nuclear program, it would be hopelessly naieve to think he would not attempt that avenue.

The fact that two notoriously incompetent organizations came to the same conclusions as the Bush administration isn't much of an excuse

But the fact remains that the diplomatic stance of every U.N. member state was that Iraq definitely had WMD. Was it only our intelligence community that "knew" there were no WMD in Iraq? Did France, Germany, Russia and China know as well, but chose instead to maintain the opposite stance so as to continue the oil-for-bribes program for as long as possible? Did Hussein try to import the dual-use tubes for one use, or the other?

The world may never know.

Why, the silly old goat was convinced there weren't any WMDs in Iraq!

That is not known to be the case, joe.

[Al]

Hans Blix isn't incompetent. He is quite savvy to manage that Oil-for-Food scandal for so long.

Saddam had/has WMD. It could be some or a lot, and they could be anywhere in or around Iraq, and only those completely removed from reality would insist otherwise. Now before anyone starts throwing around the usual "neocon" charges around, even the mere possession of some bins of nasty substances wasn't enough to invade and occupy a country in the worst insane-asylum region on the planet. Invasion was only necessary in an immediate and imminent threat.

Evan... "ragheads"? Please don't tell me you believe that leftie-PC garbage about how every skirmish started by the US has a racist motive to it. Race card playing is soooo yesterday.

[rst]

Saddam had/has WMD.

Saddam had WMD. Now all that bitch has is a court date.

[Les]

Doubt is part of any report, because nothing in the realm of our comprehension exists with 100% certainty.

Like I said, Cheney lied. 🙂

I've said this many times before, but I'll say it again. If some of the experts working for you say that "A" is true and some say that there's not enough evidence to say that "A" is true and you go on to tell everyone that "there is no doubt that 'A' is true," you have lied, because there most certainly IS doubt. That's exactly what Cheney did.

Are you referring to the same intelligence community that dropped the ball leading up to 9/11?

They dropped it no more than the Bush administration who, despite grave warnings, had zero meetings on Al Quaeda until September of 01, and who described a report of Bin Laden's desire to crash planes into skyscrapers as "historical." You can't pick and choose who screwed up the most in a situation where EVERYBODY screwed up. Your selective blaming indicates a loyalty which is not conducive to critical thought.

ISIS described the tubes as "dual-use."

Thank you for demonstrating that when Rice described the tubes as "really only suited for nuclear weapons programs," she was lying.

It's a mystery to me why the incompetence and dishonesty of the UN is so much more important to some Americans than the incompetency and dishonesty of their own, elected government.

[Jennifer]

According to the Nuremburg Laws or something, isn't it illegal to invade another country on false pretenses?

[cdunlea]

Saddam had/has WMD

Well, where are they? Why are the US inspectors leaving? Rummy said he knew exactly where they are--not were--are. Your assertion is no more credible than if you claim you know where Atlantis is/was. Failure to prove a positive assertion means that, for all intents and purposes, your assertion is false. Repetition does not make it so.

[rst]

you have lied, because there most certainly IS doubt.

That is only true if you believe the ones who claim there is not enough evidence to support "A". If you do not believe that to be the case, then you have no reason to put stock in their doubts.

Your selective blaming indicates a loyalty which is not conducive to critical thought.

You are incorrect. I pass blame around. But I do not specifically blame Cheney for not having faith in the intelligence industry vis-a-vis what the world had come to accept as conventional wisdom -- that Hussein had WMD and wanted more. So far the segment of the intelligence industry that claims there are no WMD in Iraq has not been vindicated.

Thank you for demonstrating that when Rice described the tubes as "really only suited for nuclear weapons programs," she was lying.

It depends on how you read it. Such is politics. Bad Condi, no chitlins for you.

Thank you for demonstrating that when you described the tubes as not being suitable for HEU use at all, you were lying.

[Les]

That is only true if you believe the ones who claim there is not enough evidence to support "A". If you do not believe that to be the case, then you have no reason to put stock in their doubts.

"There is no doubt," does not mean "I have no doubt." If he had said the latter, I wouldn't accuse him of lying.

So far the segment of the intelligence industry that claims there are no WMD in Iraq has not been vindicated.

Who has made that claim? They have only claimed that there is no evidence that there are weapons in Iraq and on that score, they have not been disproven. Certainly the segment of the intelligence industry that claims there are WMD in Iraq has not been vindicated, despite its having "no doubts."

Thank you for demonstrating that when you described the tubes as not being suitable for HEU use at all, you were lying.

I was basing my opinion on what I'd read. Rice was basing her opinion on what her husband...I mean boss wanted her opinion to be, despite what she'd read. I've often said that Bush hasn't lied as often as some believe because he's willfully and proudly ignorant, so that when he says things like "Sadaam wouldn't let the inspectors in," he probably believes it.

Can you read the following NY Times excerpt and tell me that Rice didn't lie? I mean, with a straight face.

First, in size and material, the tubes were very different from those Iraq had used in its centrifuge prototypes before the first gulf war. Those models used tubes that were nearly twice as wide and made of exotic materials that performed far better than aluminum. "Aluminum was a huge step backwards,'' Dr. Wood recalled.

In fact, the team could find no centrifuge machines "deployed in a production environment'' that used such narrow tubes. Their walls were three times too thick for "favorable use'' in a centrifuge, the team wrote. They were also anodized, meaning they had a special coating to protect them from weather. Anodized tubes, the team pointed out, are "not consistent'' with a uranium centrifuge because the coating can produce bad reactions with uranium gas.

In other words, if [pseudonymous rookie CIA analyst] Joe and his Winpac colleagues were right, it meant that Iraq had chosen to forsake years of promising centrifuge work and instead start from scratch, with inferior material built to less-than-optimal dimensions.

The Energy Department experts did not think this made much sense. They concluded that using the tubes in centrifuges "is credible but unlikely, and a rocket production is the much more likely end use for these tubes.'' Similar conclusions were being reached by Britain's intelligence service and experts at the International Atomic Energy Agency, a United Nations body.

Unlike Joe, experts at the international agency had worked with Zippe centrifuges, and they spent hours with him explaining why they believed his analysis was flawed. They pointed out errors in his calculations. They noted design discrepancies. They also sent reports challenging the centrifuge claim to American government experts through the embassy in Vienna, a senior official said.

Likewise, Britain's experts believed the tubes would need "substantial re-engineering'' to work in centrifuges, according to Britain's review of its prewar intelligence. Their experts found it "paradoxical'' that Iraq would order such finely crafted tubes only to radically rebuild each one for a centrifuge. Yes, it was theoretically possible, but as an Energy Department analyst later told Senate investigators, it was also theoretically possible to "turn your new Yugo into a Cadillac.''

[rst]

According to the Nuremburg Laws or something, isn't it illegal to invade another country on false pretenses?

Go read UNSCR 678: 2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the foregoing resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;

Given that the U.N. declared Iraq in material breach of 1441 (and the daisy chain to come before), the language in (2) makes it clear that Member States were authorized to act in concert with Kuwait to ensure the implementation of the resolutions. The language is vague, and the methodology was not addressed, so I doubt that you'll find recourse in any kind of international tribunal setting.

Well, where are they?

Who knows? Hussein kept UNMOVIC out of country for so long, there is no further reliable means to determine what happened to the program or materials. That's ok, because the whole WMD program in Iraq never really existed, it was just an evil Zionist conspiracy, as Rick Barton will no doubt soon "prove" for us.

[Les]

Hussein kept UNMOVIC out of country for so long, there is no further reliable means to determine what happened to the program or materials.

Is the Duelfer Report not reliable? If not, why not?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12115-2004Oct6.html

[Jennifer]

Even when the government itself has given up the charade of looking, apologists are still insisting that we were justified in invading Iraq to get rid of those oh-so-dangerous WMDs, and even now bringing up all this proof that Saddam really WAS a threat. Thank God we invaded, else I'd be wearing a radioactive burka now, or some such garbage.

Seriously, do you guys agree with the President when he uses the word 'realist' as a pejorative?

[Jennifer]

Go read UNSCR 678: 2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the foregoing resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area

I see your point, rst. Except for the parts about "Member States," "co-operating with the Government of Kuwait," and "restore international peace and security in the area," that clearly describes our little Iraq adventure to a 't'.

[Rick Barton]

Saddam never had any WMD that posed any threat to this country and there is no evidence that he was in possesion of any WMD for years before our government's attack on Iraq

Our government's war on Iraq was inexcusable because Iraq posed no credible threat to our security. A credible threat is the only legitimate reason for war. A "threat" from Iraq was concocted via duplicity (phony WMD and "connections" "evidence") by the neocons as a pretext for this war that they had long advocated as being something beneficial to the Israeli state.

[gaius marius]

now, ms jennifer. the un had to be saved from itself, you know. they're lazy over there. even bad. it's a lost cause, and we're better off scrapping it, but by golly -- those resolutions were important!

in the words of a very funny kazakh, "And may George W Bush drink the blood of every man, woman and child in Iraq!"

[gaius marius]

A credible threat is the only legitimate reason for war.

something about "clear and present danger" just never really applied to iraq, did it, mr barton? which is why mr blair invented 45-minute threats.

oh, i know, the delusional will pop a vein at my heresy, yelling about how saddam could've destroyed us all at any minute in some convoluted al-qaeda conspiracy theory -- but they're about as well grounded in reality as the sturmabtielung at the moment. the real irony is the blatant, baldfaced lying that is excused in uninspected truckloads now by the former clinton-lied hyperventilators.

now we're stuck with a trotskyite holy war that it going to shit so completely that we're talking about bombing syria and installing death squads, with no solution that we can accept. meanwhile, al-qaeda gains recruits and credibility and time as osama hides in some pakistani outback.

so what do we do?

[gaius marius]

The WMD seekers in Iraq have given up and gone home. In case you were still wondering.

in other news, OJ is still looking for the real killer. 🙁

[Rick Barton]

gaius marius,

I say bring our government home from Iraq before the neocons fabricate and an "emergency" rationalization to attack Syria.

Remember how we got here. Remember the propaganda campaign carried out by the Pentagon lie factory called the "Office of Special Plans" (OSP), created by Wolfowitz's command and presided over by Douglas Feith. It was this lie factory that was used to rationalize the invasion of Iraq. Needing to come up with the required "proof" of nonexistent Iraqi WMD and "links" to Osama bin Laden, the neocons bypassed the U.S. intelligence community and built up their own parallel agency to churn out the "right" answers.

[Jennifer]

You know something weird? This whole discussion reminds me of the slumber parties I went to when I was twelve years old.

Y'know, gaius and all others here, I am going to assume that you guys are all honest gentlemen who have no idea what goes on at preteen-girl slumber parties, so I'll tell you here that there's always a part where the girls discuss guys they have crushes on, and then set about proving to themselves that said guys like them in return. The evidence usually goes like this:

"When Danny saw me before school he said 'Hi, Jennifer' instead of just, 'Hi.' I think that's significant, don't you?" "Ooh, yes, and you know that look Brian gets sometimes? Well, that's totally the look he had when he asked to borrow my pen!"

Most girls outgrow this gradually when they're fourteen or fifteen, I suppose; I outgrew it at twelve, in an instant, and remember the exact moment when it suddenly hit me (why it did at that moment, I do not know): Either he likes me or he doesn't, and none of this crap we say here will make any difference.

And then I felt very grown-up, looking at my friends all telling each other how a raised eyebrow or a slump of the shoulders meant that yes, he almost certainly did like them.

Of course the folks who STILL make excuses for the WMDs at this point are far more sophisticated than we were back then (and hopefully less likely to have a life's ambition of a polygamous marriage with three-fifths of Duran Duran), but I'm picking up the same sad-in-retrospect undertone.

Also when we deluded ourselves, the consequences weren't so dire.

[cdunlea]

I what you mean, Jennifer... I remember those slumber parties, where the girls would giggle and munch popcorn while telling their secrets. Boy, was my sister pissed when she caught me eavesdropping on them.

[Rick Barton]

It seems that something we can take away from this tragic episode is that it is yet another example of certain wisdom that libertarians and conservatives brought to us long ago:

You can't and shouldn't trust government.

[pragmatist]

Hans baby did complain a day or two about Saddam not being exactly, clearly, cooperative. Saddam was playing bluff (was that Saddam Hussien or Saddam Insane?).

All the intelligence communities in the world (along with their mothers, and their pre-teen sisters) said Saddam just-might-probably have WMD's. That claim alone, disputable as it may be, isn't damning. What is damning:

1) It was chem and bio weapons that Saddam supposedly had ready to fly. Nukes were pretty much thought to be in the wings (at least, what I read about it all). It's really hard to kill lots of people fast with chem and bio weapons. ICBM nukes I'd be afraid of. Chem and bio warheads? Saddam couldn't hurt us too bad IF he had them, before we could knock the crap out of him in response.

Point: chem and bio weapons simply don't rate as imminent WMD threat.

Oh but I fergitted -- you could load up one of them thar terrerist types, and do a number on America.

2) Bush/Blair et al told us they were soooo sure they knew what was in Iraq and where. They simply didn't state it like an intelligence report, complete with "there is a a degree of speculation" undertones. Because that would not have constituted a clear enough imminent threat either.

So who knows why they did it. I'd rate all our theories about why, as no more certain than the intelligence about Iraq's WMD's.

[Rick Barton]

pragmatist,

I think that the evidence as to why they did it overwhelmingly indicates that the main motivators behind the Iraq war were the neocons acting on behalf of the Israeli government, or at least what they thought was good for the Israeli government. And I think that they will make an effort to get our government to go after Syria next. Remember that Wolfowitz actually pounded the table for going after Iraq right after 9/11 instead of Afghanistan! Wolfowitz was one of the authors, with a number of neocon biggies of, A Clean Break, a 1996 policy advisory written for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The advisory advocated the elimination of Saddam Hussein as a primary goal. Baghdad was depicted as the lynch pin in the undermining of both Iran and Syria for the good of the Israeli State. After A Clean Break the neocons started a campaign to put forth those goals laid for the Israeli government as something America must do in its own interest. Fabrication and exaggeration of Saddam's WMD capacity were part of this campaign.

"Only ground forces can remove Saddam and his regime from power and open the way for a new post-Saddam Iraq." PNAC founder Kristol wrote in a 1997 report. Kristol's Weekly Standard magazine is owned by News Corp. Chairman Rupert Murdoch, who also owns the Fox News

http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/011604Leopold/011604leopold.html

One of PNAC's first goals when it was founded in 1997 was to urge Congress and the Clinton administration to support regime change in Iraq. This was before Rumsfeld was approached by the group.

The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) sent this letter to President Clinton in January of 1998:

http://themoderntribune.com/letter_to_clinton_1998_war_on_iraq_project_new_american_century.htm

It's signed by Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, William Kristol, James Woolsey, Robert Kagan, Elliott Abrams and others. The letter argues for aggression against Iraq. They lobbied both Clinton and Gingrich to remove former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein from power using military force and indict him as a "war criminal."

Unsatisfied with Clinton's response, Rumsfield, Wolfowitz, Kristol and others from the Project for the New American Century wrote another letter on May 29, 1998, to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Senate Republican Majority Leader Trent Lott:

"U.S. policy should have as its explicit goal removing Saddam Hussein's regime from power..."

http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/022003Leopold/022003leopold.html

Note also that the propaganda campaign for the Iraq war was carried out by the Pentagon "Office of Special Plans" (OSP), created by Wolfowitz's command and presided over by Douglas Feith. This is the same Douglas Feith whose office is involved in the current Pentagon -Israeli government-AIPAC spy scandal.

Speaking of spying, note that Richard Perle, the man at the nexus of so many neo-con "pro-democracy" organizations that have a long history of advocating an attack on Iraq, back in 1970, while working for Sen. "Scoop" Jackson's office was caught on a NSA wiretap giving classified information to the Israeli Embassy.

See also:

"Whose War? A neoconservative clique seeks to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America's interest." (This makes a very solid case)

http://www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html

[Rick Barton]

Sorry about the little typo at the end. Some day I will learn to use that Preview button!

[pragmatist]

Rick, looks like you're up the curve on this one and I'm not. Anyway, this talk about Syria (even if it is just noise) was the last straw for me. I'm now in the camp of "bring our soldiers home asap". We cannot trust our emporer. I'm not sure we can even influence him, beyond joining the "no more war chorus".

I'm not inherently against war, just against stupid unnecessary war. [sigh] Looks like being a No-War advocate is probably the only option that might get anywhere.

Y'all went and changed my mind... What's the rational, humane way to exit? Whatcha gonna do now, Mr Ricochett? Forget it. The emporer is not only naked, he's deaf.

[Jennifer]

Actually, Rick, based on some reading I've done these past few weeks, I'm convinced Iraq had nothing to do with Israel, or W.'s desire to show up his daddy, or misplaced 9-11 fears or any such thing; I think it's because the US wanted to shore up the petrodollar, whereas Saddam was planning to sell his oil for petro-euros.

But such talk would get me dismissed as paranoid by the ones who STILL insist that the WMDs are there.

Cdunlea-
Shame on you for eavesdropping, but in your defense, I'll wager you didn't use your sister's talk as a justification for pre-emptively invading the home of the guy in question and forcing him to marry her. Sad to think that when you were still an immature, eavesdropping little boy you STILL behaved with more decorum than the folks in charge these days.

[gaius marius]

"bring our soldiers home asap"

amen, mr pragmatist. worthy of your name.

there is decidedly the threat of civil war if we leave -- but by staying, i don't believe we can or will stop it.

if we don't leave, we stupidly expand the war to syria and probably in time iran -- giving yet more fuel, more legitimacy and more battleground for the muslim insurgency against western proxy rule.

i'm concluding too that, if its come to death squads and bombing syria, we have to come home -- come what may.

[gaius marius]

"Whose War? A neoconservative clique seeks to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America's interest."

fwiw, mr barton -- while i agree that this is an element in the neocon proceedings -- there is something broader which the neocons (wittingly or not) took advantage of: american hubris.

america is powerful -- but, in its perception of many americans, it is near to god. for whatever historiological reasons, we have lost the good sense of self-limitation and modesty. indeed, i think the dominant narrative among the ultranationalist right (the "red-staters", as it were, reductively) is promethean and romantic.

this enables ridiculous plans with no possibility of intended outcome -- like "recasting the mideast in our own image" -- to seem achievable, or even desirable.

it is also anathema to a form of government which relies on moderation of ambition and circumspection in debate to function.

[trollwhousedtoreadthesecomment]

Quick summary of above (and many recent threads); Jennifer needs friends & in her desperation has turned Hit & Run into Oprah.

[joe]

I'd just like to point out that, under Bill Clinton, the United States eliminated the threat posed by the Iraqi WMD program, disrupted numerous 9/11 scale terror attacks against the United States, and actually improved both out standing in the Arab world, and the readiness and effectiveness of our armed forces.

Does anyone else remember the discover of the crude chem weapons lab in Falluja by the Marines? Imagine that - before the war, there were zero (0) operative WMD facilities in Iraq, and as a consequence of the invasion, WMD once again were being manufactured.

Funny. Not "ha ha" funny, or even "strange" funny. More like "100,000 people dead for no reason" funny.

[rst]

Is the Duelfer Report not reliable?

It is, but the report makes very clear that its scope was limited to even less than that of UNMOVIC inspections; it could not access a majority of the sites historically associated with WMD; the program had no consistent expertise as analysts worked very short terms to the end that the IGC administrator himself was the only person present from beginning to end; most intelligence came from long-time "higher-ups," who by virtue of their involvement had every reason to lie, etc.

I trust it is an accurate assessment of what the IGC was actually able to see, but by no means would I call the report an accurate assessment of Iraq as a whole, or even unto its greatest part, w.r.t. WMD.

But such talk would get me dismissed as paranoid

Not paranoid, merely myopic.

Imagine that - before the war, there were zero (0) operative WMD facilities in Iraq

And you know this because...UNMOVIC said so?

[pragmatist]

I'd like to think Michael Young is right in today's new one, that "...the situation can yet be salvaged..." I tried for a long time to believe that. But when I saw the guerilla tactics come in a big way, combined with the new idea of bombing Syria, well that was it for me. I have no faith that our leaders are capable of it.

Here's to hoping they make me eat crow for this prediction, because Michael is right -- if we don't turn Iraq into something better than before, then it really will all have been a complete waste.

[Jennifer]

rst-
So do you think our government was premature in giving up the search? I mean, it's only been 22 months.

[Neil]

Jennifer:

I understand that Iraqi oil sales were transacted in euros since about a year before the war began. I, too, have suspected that this was one of the reasons for the war. On the other hand, I think Bush is among those who, in spite of official comments supporting a strong dollar, believes that the US trade deficit will be reduced with a weaker dollar.

[Jennifer]

Neil-
Maybe, but there's a HUGE difference between a 'weak' dollar and a 'worthless' one. I think the latter was what this whole misadventure was trying to avoid. For all the reading I do on current events, I'd never even HEARD of the petrodollar until just recently, and discovered it purely by accident.

[gaius marius]

I think Bush is among those who, in spite of official comments supporting a strong dollar, believes that the US trade deficit will be reduced with a weaker dollar.

tbh, mr neil, i think it's the only option left them. when a nation becomes the greatest debtor of any age, when its people are personally indebted as few societies ever are, inflationary policy becomes the most-palatable horseman.

[rst]

So do you think our government was premature in giving up the search?

They didn't have a good chance of finding any in the first place, and any they'd have found more than ten minutes into the resumption of war would have been immediately written off as a plant anyway.

I mean, it's only been 22 months.

No, it's been about 167 months.

By the way... Except for the parts about "Member States," "co-operating with the Government of Kuwait," and "restore international peace and security in the area," that clearly describes our little Iraq adventure to a 't'.

The coalition, including Kuwait, was made of member states. The restoration of peace and security, that's a a work in progress. The U.N. hoped to accomplish it by starving Iraqis with one hand while with the other enabling Hussein to simultaneously hide military financing, sell oil contracts for cash to appropriately connected individuals, and make plans to reconstitute his WMD programs after he fooled the U.N. into dropping the sanctions.

Did you want to wait around and find out whether he was going to pull it off? Should we perhaps have given Hussein three or four more "last chances" to provide the level of transparency that has been demanded for the past 12 years?

OJ is still looking for the real killer

Given the lack of evidence against O.J., I thought you'd be in agreement with the verdict, gm. Surely you're not a fan of tossing the accused in prison simply because his or her blood was allegedly discovered at the scene, are you?

when its people are personally indebted as few societies ever are

Our society is one of consumption. We buy big ticket items and in some places pay living wages to part-time custodians. We don't live frugally, nor should we have to. In order to facilitate consumption we finance. This is ok, gm. It does not speak to some broader human failing that we go into debt to buy a house or a car, and then want a TV and an MP3 player for both, too.

[rst]

to actually answer your question, I think the government should continue searching, but we shouldn't have expected anything consequential to come of it in the first place. The best locating it could have provided you is peace of mind, or something to debate about as to whether it's real or a plant, or perhaps for those whose support for the war hinged on WMD, the ability to sleep at night, and for others still, a milestone indicating the time to come was nearer.

Regardless, the Iraqis are going to kill Hussein. Because for their part, the Iraqis don't give a shit whether we find WMD. That was always the rest of the world's beef, not theirs.

[Les]

rst,

How about a deal? I'll accept the possibility that Iraq had WMD's (or should that be W'sMD?) just prior to the invasion (I'm still not convinced despite your excellent arguments, but you've made me think about it) and you can accept the possibility that when Condaleeza Rice said that those aluminum tubes could only be used for nuclear purposes, despite the fact that none of the experts she asked said that was the case, she was lying.

I've said before that it's possible that our invasion of Iraq was the right thing to do for many reasons, but that the people who did it were unworthy of the task.

[joe]

"Imagine that - before the war, there were zero (0) operative WMD facilities in Iraq

And you know this because...UNMOVIC said so?"

I know this because everyone is a position to know has said so. UNMOVIC. The Duelfer Report. Hans Blix. Scott Ritter. The Survey Team.

You're in dead ender territory here, rst, arguing that a negative can't be absolutely proven in order to pretend your positive assertion hasn't been disproven.

[gaius marius]

In order to facilitate consumption we finance. This is ok, gm. It does not speak to some broader human failing that we go into debt to buy a house or a car, and then want a TV and an MP3 player for both, too.

indeed, it doesn't. i don't have the medieval aversion to usury.

but there's borrowing -- and then there's living beyond one's means for extended periods.

wait a few years, mr rst. the financial disaster that awaits us is far from unprecedented, but it will change your conception of the goodness of debt.

Surely you're not a fan of tossing the accused in prison simply because his or her blood was allegedly discovered at the scene, are you?

lol -- that's a hoot, mr rst! you don't seriously believe that, do you? you're joking, of course. you're not? oh dear... this explains much.

conditional probability. this goes exactly back to the social security thread -- people are horrid disseminators of risk and probability information.

the probability that oj is innocent of killing nicole (her name?) is conditional on

-- his blood at the crime scene
-- the victim's blood was on his clothes
-- he has a history of abusing her
-- nicole was his wife

now forget the first three for a moment. nicole was murdered with her boyfriend and oj was her ex-husband. the odds on that single fact alone that oj didn't do it are about 1-3.

just using the last two -- nicole was murdered, oj was her ex-husband and oj had abused her in the past -- the odds that oj is innocent are higher than 5-1.

circumstantial? yes. but consider:

in combination with his blood being discovered at the crime scene, those odds quickly go to better than a million to one.

then, in combination with the victim's blood on his clothing, those odds get orders of magnitude longer -- several hundreds of millions to one.

with just these four facts, he is guilty far beyond any doubt. everything else -- all the theatrics, all the bloody gloving, all the rongoldmaning -- was a ridiculous traveshamockery.

the case stands as perhaps the greatest modern example of the irrational silliness of man and the ease with which a crowd can be deluded from any aspect of the truth by propaganda, belief and animal passion.

[rst]

I think some of this debate is the product of one popular anti-war delusion that anyone who supported the war in Iraq must be a neocon Bush voter.

The Duelfer Report.

Dude, I read the Duelfer Report. Yes, I skipped large sections, but the report makes it very clear -- almost expressly in the introduction, but indirectly throughout, especially when talking about procurement practices -- that under no circumstances can their report be interpreted as claiming that there are no WMD facilities in Iraq.

And one of the greater issues surrounding Iraqi WMD was that the Blix and Ritter teams were not given full access to sites, were often hampered in their investigation, shuffled around or outright kicked out of country, and knew full well that half the people they were interviewing were lying to them.

And you want me to take this as proof that Iraq had 0 remaining WMD capacity after having one of the world's more advanced bio programs only 8 years previous?

0 is a big number, joe. Be careful where you use it.

she was lying

Yes, like I said, bad Condi. I have never used Rice's statements to support my position on the tube controversy (I didn't see the broadcast); my position is based on the fact that the tubes sought provided both the outward illusion of "dual-use" while simultaneously, after modification, would be suitable for use in the Zippe-type centrifuges Hussein had long desired to build. So I reject Condi's statement as quickly as I reject the notion that the tubes could not have been used in that fashion. And you wanted me to react to that very notion, as if the "truth" was the exact opposite of what Rice said. Rice and the White House were advised by the CIA that based on some "non-empirical" factors (the kind of factors upon which most intel is built), the tubes would only be used in HEU production. How that became, the tubes could only be used in HEU production, who knows. Probably borne of the same stupidity -- or dishonesty -- that would have you believe they could not have been used in that fashion.

[rst]

you don't seriously believe that, do you?

I think you think I think O.J. was innocent. Divorce yourself for the moment from the silly notion that a conviction by a jury means that a person is factually guilty, whereas not a conviction by a jury means that a person is factually not guilty.

with just these four facts, he is guilty far beyond any doubt.

Beyond any doubt of yours. Your "facts," as they are presented, however, do not suffice. The evidence -- which carries slightly more weight in a court of law then your theory -- did not bear the case. While O.J. may very well have killed his ex-wife and Mr. Goldman, California was unable to prosecute the case sufficiently. Their evidence was 100% circumstantial. Finding a reasonable doubt therefore was trivial. Yes, O.J. could have won himself an Oscar for the glove routine. But if it was smoke and mirrors, it worked.

And although the evidence, being purely circumstantial, could not support a conviction, you nevertheless think justice was not done, and you'd rather O.J. was rotting in prison for life by virtue of nothing more than your theory, half of which is based on your assessment of human behavior (she was his ex-wife and he allegedly used to beat her up...no word on whether she returned the favor on that front).

I think some of the people who hang their war hopes on the WMD argument think similarly. I've been a supporter of regime change for far too long to hang it on the WMD rhetoric.

[gaius marius]

this is such a 1997 argument, but...

Beyond any doubt of yours.

no, beyond any doubt that could ever be construed as "reasonable". if those four facts are admitted, then he is guilty. everything else is semantic, and you're a fool if you've been fooled by it. (no shame in foolishness, however -- it's quite human.)

Their evidence was 100% circumstantial. Finding a reasonable doubt therefore was trivial.

wrong, because

And although the evidence, being purely circumstantial, could not support a conviction,

is wrong.

my point is that circumstantial evidence in this damning combination is as good as -- indeed, maybe better than -- the jury witnessing the crime. moreover -- and to your point -- circumstantial evidence is absolutely a basis of valid conviction under american law and the fourteenth amendment. google some case law, if you don't believe me.

it is perfectly right and decent to convict on such evidence as this, which is undoubtable by any reasonable person, and every judge in the united states would have and should have convicted him.

unfortunately, 12 idiots didn't.

Divorce yourself for the moment from the silly notion that a conviction by a jury means that a person is factually guilty, whereas not a conviction by a jury means that a person is factually not guilty.

the former is a silly notion, mr rst -- but so is the latter. i personally think that jury convictions have only a small correlation with actual events, and most of the time are instead the product of the madness of crowds.

you'd rather O.J. was rotting in prison for life by virtue of nothing more than your theory, half of which is based on your assessment of human behavior

what? when did i mention my "opinion" of oj, or any "theory"? i don't have an opinion of the man, and i presented four exclusive and admitted facts that convict him.

what do you think you mean by "theory", mr rst?

[Les]

my position is based on the fact that the tubes sought provided both the outward illusion of "dual-use" while simultaneously, after modification, would be suitable for use in the Zippe-type centrifuges Hussein had long desired to build.

The Energy Department concluded that using the tubes in centrifuges "is credible but unlikely, and a rocket production is the much more likely end use for these tubes.'' Similar conclusions were being reached by Britain's intelligence service and experts at the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Rice and the White House were advised by the CIA that based on some "non-empirical" factors (the kind of factors upon which most intel is built), the tubes would only be used in HEU production.

And earlier you said:

Are you referring to the same intelligence community that dropped the ball leading up to 9/11?

Hmmm...

How that became, the tubes could only be used in HEU production, who knows. Probably borne of the same stupidity -- or dishonesty -- that would have you believe they could not have been used in that fashion.

Well, that's not very nice. I'm either stupid or dishonest to repeat the findings of the Energy Department and other experts?

From the NYT article:

Britain's experts believed the tubes would need "substantial re-engineering'' to work in centrifuges, according to Britain's review of its prewar intelligence. Their experts found it "paradoxical'' that Iraq would order such finely crafted tubes only to radically rebuild each one for a centrifuge. Yes, it was theoretically possible, but as an Energy Department analyst later told Senate investigators, it was also theoretically possible to "turn your new Yugo into a Cadillac.'

Are those guys stupid or dishonest to have come to that conclusion?

Do you think that the people you describe above as stupid or dishonest should be trusted to wage war?

[gaius marius]

mr les -- he's rationalizing oj. what more need you know about his attachment to the objective world? can we be shocked that he's rationalizing wmd when he rationalizes that?

i have to admit, i now see mr rst in an entirely different and yet less flattering intellectual light than i did.

[rst]

Regardless of what it means in your mind, guilt here means guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, GM. No case law can override that principle, no matter how large of an evidentiary orgy is presented. There is nothing unreasonable about doubting that the mere presence of evidence at a crime scene combined with a pre-existing relationship (which at best makes O.J. a suspect) directly indicates guilt. Must a jurist presume benevolence and competence in police crime scene processing, even when evidence to the contrary is presented? Must a jurist presume that historical allegations of spousal abuse are sufficient to make someone a likely murderer? Your system requires such considerations in order for your four "facts" to indicate that O.J. was factually guilty.

the former is a silly notion, mr rst -- but so is the latter.

The latter? They're equally silly. That was the point -- the jury decision, either way, does not necessarily represent the facts of the event.

what do you think you mean by "theory", mr rst?

I don't think I mean anything. I mean your theory that O.J. killed his ex-wife. While it is a potentially valid conclusion (I also think O.J. killed his ex-wife), based on valid observations, your expectation that such thin reasoning could be a basis for conviction in a court of law is utter nonsense. Jurisprudence is all about the semantics, GM. If you were unaware of that, then you need to read some case law.

it is perfectly right and decent to convict on such evidence as this

Maybe in China.

[rst]

a rocket production is the much more likely end use for these tubes

That conclusion was based on the observation that the tubes were of the same size as Iraq used to order for some surface-to-surface missiles (I've been searching for which exactly, but haven't been able to find them yet) during the 80's. Certainly a valid theory, but no more compelling than the minor adjustments (not extensive at all...zee Germans, who coincidentally helped the Zippe model proliferate throughout the Middle East, and Brits taught the Iraqis quite a bit about putting together HEU facilities, including machining the rotors and rescaling operations) that would have to be made to the tubes to make them appropriate for their other use.

I'm either stupid or dishonest to repeat the findings of the Energy Department and other experts?

No, I'm referring to the people who came to the conclusion that the tubes could not be used in that capacity. You believed it because it allegedly came from the mouths of experts, but that wasn't the actual expert opinion.

Hmmm...

Yeah dude, they're fools. So I'm not ready to nail Condi up to a cross quite yet.

Are those guys stupid or dishonest to have come to that conclusion?

That's not the conclusion that you suggest however. You suggest that somewhere a valid conclusion was drawn that the tubes could not have that application. As to the conclusion as written, they're scientists; they see no reason why Iraq would have ordered equipment that didn't fit their Beame-type centrifuges. They don't say it's impossible, they just can't figure out why Iraq would have done it that way were the centrifuges their intended use. It was "paradoxical" because it seemed to be uneconomical.

Now think like a head of state who's walking on eggshells, using every trick in the book to hide his military expenditures from the U.N. so that he can get rid of the sanctions AND continue his WMD programs afterwards. He knows he wants the Zippe-type centrifuges - they're smaller, easier, and work with dual-use tubes that can be easily machined to fit the rotors. Why would he order equipment the IAEA would have said, "yes, this is for use in a Beame-type centrifuge"? It would have been the end of him.

[gaius marius]

maybe in china

maybe in the united states -- i mean the real one, not the one you apparently imagine to exist.

Must a jurist presume benevolence and competence in police crime scene processing, even when evidence to the contrary is presented? Must a jurist presume that historical allegations of spousal abuse are sufficient to make someone a likely murderer? Your system requires such considerations in order for your four "facts" to indicate that O.J. was factually guilty.

mr rst, your easy fallibility before improbable conspiracy theories is entirely typical -- but is not rational or sensible.

a jurist must presume competence when incompetence is not demonstrated -- and it wasn't, not by the longest of long long long shots. a great show was put on -- but that's all it was.

and yes, frankly, a jurist must consider that the probability that the husband is a very likely suspect because all prior experience indicates it. this for the same reason that dna evidence should be believed. enumeration by experience yields probabilities; probabilities conditional on each other yield near-certainty.

let us take the opposite approach and assume that the validity of prior experience should not be assumed. is the glove there? does the bronco exist? is oj there? does marcia clark truly exist? (descartes, anyone?)

this is a fool's game. experience leads us to believe that the glove is there, that marcia exists, that videotape recounts seen events, and that 3 in 10 women murdered are killed by an former or current intimate partner, and that error in repeated typing of dna to a match is several millions to one. these are things which we know from experience, and their validity is useful and material.

mr rst, you're a very foolish person indeed if you imagine that circumstantial evidence cannot build a case as solid as one built on direct evidence when it is of sufficient quantity and quality. i don't know what more can be said about it. if you want to dream paranoid fantasies about the LAPD, that's up to you. they're certainly capapble of framing people. when there's a shred of evidence regarding such a scheme, you let me know.

[Les]

Why would he order equipment the IAEA would have said, "yes, this is for use in a Beame-type centrifuge"? It would have been the end of him.

I see your point. And I know that the tubes could have been used for centrifuges. I think our main disagreement is the way Ms. Rice erred when she said they could "only" be used for centrifuges. You think she was stupid. I think she deliberately dishonest. She has a pattern of being both, so maybe we should flip a coin.

[rst]

mr rst, you're a very foolish person indeed if you imagine that circumstantial evidence cannot build a case as solid as one built on direct evidence when it is of sufficient quantity and quality.

I believe it can build a solid case. But I do not believe that the O.J. case is of the prototype you describe, lacking quantity and quality, nor do I believe that such a case in any situation is impervious to reasonable doubt. At issue is whether counsel for the defense can find and elucidate that reasonable doubt. They did so, and did so well, from the glove show, to the Mark Fuhrman routine, and right on down to the EDTA song and dance. It was California's task to take the "reasonable" out of the doubt, or move to suppress, and it was they who dropped the ball, not the jury.

I suppose it would make your head pop if I suggested that O.J.'s blood on the scene is circumstantial evidence that it was planted there.

Let me repeat this for you in the hopes you will one day understand what I am arguing: I think O.J. killed his wife. I gather you are an intelligent individual so you will one day understand the difference between the facts of an event, our meaningless opinions on the event, and the satisfaction of a process designed to establish the facts of said event with as great an accuracy as possible.

and yes, frankly, a jurist must consider that the probability that the husband is a very likely suspect

No, frankly, a jurist is not in the position to consider suspects...that is the job of the police. A jurist is charged with the task of evaluating the state's evidence against an individual who has been accused of a crime to determine whether the evidence in total is sufficient to convict that person of having committed that crime. Had Kato all of the sudden become a suspect halfway through the case, that jury would not at any point have been empowered to convict Kato. By the time the jury meets O.J., he is not a suspect, he is THE accused. While the history between O.J. and Nicole is sufficient to establish his status as a suspect, it is insufficient to establish guilt.

enumeration by experience yields probabilities; probabilities conditional on each other yield near-certainty.

Except your four "facts" don't make a prima facie case. Moreover, a jury does not convict based on experience, as it is extraneous to the facts of the case, nor on probability, since correlation factors between seemingly related probabilities, especially those drawn from experience, are entirely subjective.

[gaius marius]

I suppose it would make your head pop if I suggested that O.J.'s blood on the scene is circumstantial evidence that it was planted there.

no, it wouldn't, mr rst. but it would boggle my mind that you think -- despite zero evidence -- this is a possibility reasonable enough to unseat the conditional probabilities of actual evidence.

all evidence is falsifiable. i don't trust the police abjectly -- i think they set out to wrongly convict people from time to time. but, in the particularity of this case, do you really think such a thing is plausible?

difference between the facts of an event, our meaningless opinions on the event, and the satisfaction of a process designed to establish the facts of said event with as great an accuracy as possible.

i see the difference in that quite clearly. i don't see how that makes material your tinhat conspiracy theorizing.

you say oj is guilty -- but cast aspersion on his trial because 1) it was evidenced circumstantially and 2) the evidence could have been manufactured. that is not an argument. it would be -- if you 3) had convincing evidence of an LAPD frameup. but you don't.

so what is your point? that you don't think the cops are ever ethical? that we should cynically dismiss all convictions that rely on circumstantial evidence? or simply to demonstrate a capacity for sophistry?