WMD is a Doublethink term.
It's easy to say, has a catchy rhythm. It's really scary. We don't know what these weapons are, but they're massive and they're destructive! WMD is extremely vague, so you have a hard time pinning down exactly what it is that's making you nervous, kinda like the fnords. We already have appropriate language: Nuclear, Biological, Chemical weapons. If you really need an acronym, how about NBC? I believe that acronym was at least once used by the US military for just that purpose.
For the facts on what Iraq had, read the Key Findings of the Duelfer report , that is to say, the official, post-invasion report based on the investigation conducted by the CIA:
My condensed synopsis: Saddam wanted desperately to resume NBC weapon production, but he couldn't as long as the UN sanctions were in place. He WAS using the Oil For Food program to circumvent some of the sanctions, but it wasn't enough for him to begin production. He had some naughty missiles (i.e. with ranges in excess of 150 km). But no NBC weapons. Hardly an "imminent threat."
For the facts on what US intelligence believed the situation to be before the invasion, check out the Key Findings of a report by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Then browse a little here.
While the exact status of what the intelligence community believed at the time is uncertain, note the reports of pressure from Bush. Without the administration ACTUALLY telling the intelligence analysts what conclusion to reach, most of them felt a considerable amount of pressure to "prove" Iraq had illegal weapons that presented an imminent threat.
Conclusions: Iraq was not an imminent threat. Diplomatic options had not been exhausted. Bush wanted the war for reasons of his own.
For the facts on what Iraq had, read the Key Findings of the Duelfer report , that is to say, the official, post-invasion report based on the investigation conducted by the CIA:
My condensed synopsis: Saddam wanted desperately to resume NBC weapon production, but he couldn't as long as the UN sanctions were in place. He WAS using the Oil For Food program to circumvent some of the sanctions, but it wasn't enough for him to begin production. He had some naughty missiles (i.e. with ranges in excess of 150 km). But no NBC weapons. Hardly an "imminent threat."
For the facts on what US intelligence believed the situation to be before the invasion, check out the Key Findings of a report by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Then browse a little here.
While the exact status of what the intelligence community believed at the time is uncertain, note the reports of pressure from Bush. Without the administration ACTUALLY telling the intelligence analysts what conclusion to reach, most of them felt a considerable amount of pressure to "prove" Iraq had illegal weapons that presented an imminent threat.
Conclusions: Iraq was not an imminent threat. Diplomatic options had not been exhausted. Bush wanted the war for reasons of his own.
posted by PuzzledPatriot at 11/13/2004 01:04:00 AM
5 Comments:
Obviously you're not a believer in "the cockroach theory", Puzzled. Ever tried to get rid of cockroaches in your house, only to have them run and proliferate at your next door neighbors and come back in bigger numbers?
In order to go after terrorists where they hide, as even Kerry supported, you need the cooperation of the state *where* they hide. Terrorist-run regimes aren't apt to issue that permission. Nor are they likely to cooperate with valuable intel.
Keep in mind all of al Qaeda are terrorists, but not all terrorists are al Qaeda. But all are surely an "imminent threat" to the western world, and have been forming bonds amongst themselves for common goals since the middle 90s.
Saddam himself was a terrorist. His $s to Hamas, Hezbolla and other anti-Israel extremists is well documented - as is his quest for WMD's.
Also well known is that Saddam's Iraq was a revolving door state for al Qaeda, or any anti-western terrorist in need. Lest ye forget, the first WTC bomber entered the US on an Iraqi passport, but he wasn't an Iraqi. Sanctions never prevented Saddam from turning a blind eye.
Zarqawi was not only active in northern Iraq prior to Afghanistan and our entry into Baghdad, but was still functioning as an organized cell leader from his hospital bed in Baghdad after his wounds in Afghanistan... again prior to our arrival in March 2003.
There's that cockroach theory again... hit 'em with a can of Raid and if they don't die, they scatter and regroup in friendlier digs.
As to the much overrated WMD's.. they were diplomatic strategy. WMD's were *the* common ground for a UN coalition. We did that first, remember, as promised. It was the singlemost important factor that could have served as the foundation for the much desired international action... and also the issue most easily presented to a less than informed world public (inre terrorist cells in general)
Little did we know that too many of the G7 were making beaucoup bucks with the Oil for Food programme, and would never lift a finger to remove Saddam.
Thus, while you may wish to believe WMDs were the sole purpose for military action in Iraq, I do not. I look at the larger pictures, and it was merely the most palatable and saleable fact, based on all the world's common intelligence.
Nor do I believe American Presidents use the lives of our troops to exact personal revenge. While I may not have been a fan of Clinton or Kerry, neither of them - nor Bush - strike me as being that shallow and callous, devoid of respect for life.
We are not a terrorist regime. We have safeguards in place with the balance of powers... all of which agreed that military action could be necessary. We have term limits (except for those losers in Congress). And we have accountability... so much so that it has often crippled many an administration thru history.
I suggest to you, who places all the eggs in the WMD basket, that the jury is still out on the reality of their existance. You will not be able to close that book for some time to come.
i.e. few wish to pursue what was in the parade of convoys to Syria and Lebanon in the months prior to our arrival in Baghdad.
What we do know is this. Saddam removed weapons before we got there, bypassed IAEA seals on weapons caches, and his nuclear scientists are being harbored in Syria - along with their disks of information on his nuclear programs.
Much will be uncovered later in your lifetime, Puzzled. Mysteries are not solved in a day and I propose we have only begun to scratch the surface.
I, for one, prefer to have our more rash Presidents held in check by some careful consideration. I mean, really. What was the urgency here? This President's Daddy had beaten up Hussein's forces pretty thoroughly in the early 90's, and the UN sanctions had pretty clearly kept him bottled up for the next dozen years. So what changed IN IRAQ that suddenly made it so all-fired important that we go back in there RIGHT NOW? The answer is: Nothing. The only thing that changed was opinion in America, not the situation in Iraq. The only thing I remember being different was that the UN was actually permitted to send inspectors back into the country again, so the situation was actually a little better right then, rather than being any worse.
Doesn't that smack of our Administration taking advantage of an unrelated situation to pursue something they were already wanting to do? You basically admit that when you suggest that the posturing they did amounts to a sales pitch to our allies, so don't try to deny it now. In fact, your whole contention here is not to refute the idea that there was some lying involved, but to say that it was somehow for a greater good. Perhaps the "checks and balances" you claim were upheld when Congress authorized the use of force are just a formality, and the President can work around them by any means necessary, such as providing bad information, in your opinion. I guess it's OK for the President to lie to Congress, lie to our allies, and lie to the American people he serves, as long as you think there's a perfectly good reason to go to war that's not "saleable". See, what you're saying there is that the American people, and our Congressmen, would make the "wrong" decision if we knew all the facts, but we'll make the "right" decision if we're misled in the "right" direction. That's pretty much the opposite of Democracy.
Sorry, my friend, but I think we're in charge here, and we deserve to get some honest answers before we make up our minds. If the guy we put in charge of collecting that information proceeds to hide it from us, and put up a propaganda blitz to convince us of something else, we need to replace him with somebody who will actually work for us.
But that's just my opinion.
-- The Green Man
For me, the Crest of the Wave of Irritation in the Ocean of Annoying (and just downright upsetting) Things That Have Happened Because of Sept. 11th, is all the really uninformed people who think they know how to beat terrorists.
I mean, they're just following the example set by our Glorious Insect Overlords, but still.
The funniest thing here is that MH has provided the countermetaphore themselves:
Yeah, MH, ever try to get rid of cockroaches? It's basically impossible, yes? You can squish every cockroach you see, which doesn't take care of the underlying problem. Or, you can try to take care of them large-scale, which only creates more cockroaches in the world (and is really bad for the environment).
The best thing you can do to keep cockroaches from bothering you is to keep your house neat and clean. Then, cockroaches are not motivated to swarm to you. Will you occasionally have to deal with a cockroach or two anyway? Yes, because that's life and that's just how cockroaches are.
(I'd extend, but I think it's pretty obvious where I'm headed with this.)
I agree in large measure with GuruRae, but I'd like to extend the metaphor to hornets. Cockroaches come when you leave food out and don't clean. Hornets occasionally sting you on their own, because they THINK you are in their way or trying to harm them. If you go poke a hornets nest with a stick, expect to be stung repeatedly. If you want to avoid getting stung, move calmly out of the way. Sometimes they build a nest on your front porch, and you have no choice but to spray them. But for the most part, hornets nest in the woods and don't sting you unless you poke their nest with a stick.
Enough metaphors. I'm afraid I'm much more cynical than MH about Presidents. In my opinion, Nixon DID sacrifice human lives for electability, Clinton tried to with Albania, and Bush senior tried to with his abortive second round with Iraq. Now, mind you, I'm a firm believer that no one is evil in their own mind. Each of these people probably felt that the ends justified the means.
I believe in looking at the facts and drawing reasoned conclusions. MH, I have heard the rumors about the illegal weapons being moved to Syria, etc. Do you have sources you could share? I have done my best to back up my conclusions with facts whenever possible. The Duelfer report found reports of the activities you described not credible. If you feel I have drawn the wrong conclusion please explain. If you have other sources of information, please share.
Just want a little more clarification, MH. You appear to grant that Bush lied about Iraq's illegal weapons program, but that this was justified. The basis of this second argument seems to be that he was harboring terrorists. Do you have an argument as to why diplomatic options had been exhausted?
You also seem to grant my argument that Oil For Food circumventions were not sufficient for Iraq to restart illegal weapons production, yet you then invoke OFF as a justification for war. Please clarify.
Post a Comment
<< Home