Another WMD Thread

[corplinx]

I am dismayed by the current tone of the media and even people on this board concerning WMD and WMD production/storage in Iraq.

1. al-samoud, they were making them in violation before the war was even started
Global Sceurity on Al Samoud

I think al samoud missiles demonstrate that Iraq was not intent on complying with disarmament.

2. mobile weapon labs, they have them, these were also part of the much maligned powell presentation and it turns out he was right
the evil foxnews on weapon labs

Now, it appears as if the trailers found so far were not being used but being prepared to be used (one was still being finished apparently). The intelligence that said the Iraqis had mobile labs was correct. The guardian has reported that one of the trucks had been scrubbed with bleach which I haven't found corroboration of. Whatever the trucks were involved in, the fruition of that plan has been foiled.

3. Dr. Germ has been captured. She created weapons grade anthrax for Iraq. One has to wonder what her current functions in that government were.

Alright, we have now established from Al Samoud that Iraq could not be trusted to skirt or deceive concerning banned weapons. We know that the Iraqis either had something bio-weapon related planned or in the works. Dr. Germ is but one of many Iraqi scientists who worked on old bioweapon programs and was still active in Iraq. We know our intelligence isn't all bunk like some proclaim since the mobile labs turned out to be true.

Not only that, we haven't gone about founding evidence of weapons with a lot of tact according to the Washington Post.

Now, what has me steamed is people wailing about not finding _anything_ yet and accussing the administration for backpedaling for using WMD as a sound bite. Mind you, these current wailers are the same people who said the war would result in massive american casualties, they said the war would be long, they said we were "bogged down" after a week of war. "They" have made a load of claims that have turned out to be false. Right now I am more willing to wait and see than to fall in with the malcontents who have been wrong at every turn.

 

[iain]

You're right that those of us who were always anti-war can be expected, perhaps unfairly, to talk up the failure to find WMDs.

What I find more interesting is how pro-war people like Rumsfeld and, in the UK, Jack Straw, are now suggesting that WMDs may never be found and may have been destroyed before the war. Many people in the UK who supported the war are now starting to question that support.

No-one is saying that WMDs never existed. What people are looking for is a reason to justify putting the lives of British, US and other soldiers on the line; not to mention the huge cost of the war and the many thousands of Iraqi deaths.

The justification for the war, from Bush and Blair, was that Hussein had weapons which presented a real threat to the west and that war was the best way to deal with that threat. This is the claim they are now being asked to back up.

 

[Ed]

Now, what has me steamed is people wailing about not finding _anything_ yet and accussing the administration for backpedaling for using WMD as a sound bite.

Excuse me. Please do not minimize it by saying "sound bite". WMD's WERE the reason for going to war. Did you watch/hear any of Bush's speeches? What was the refrain? He lied about the underlieing rationale for committing the USA to a war.

 

[Tricky]

Although I was against the invasion, I fully expected for the US to find some WMDs. I had argued from the very beginning that although Iraq probably had some WMDs, there were not enough them or a big enough delivery system to make them a threat to the US or even Europe.

The fact that we have not found any glaringly obvious WMDs is a surprise to me, but it underscores what I already believed: that this war was unnecessary.

I keep hearing stories from war apologists about how so-and-so has been captured and says that WMDs existed. Why in the world, then, can't these knowledgable sources lead us to the evidence?

I keep hearing the stories of how the mobile weapons labs were used or were planned to be used, but still not one single molecule or cell of WMDs is found. Finally, the apologists have realized that if the trucks were found scrubbed, then that would indicate Iraq complied with the demand to destroy the WMDs, so now, if Corplinx is correct, the apologists are retrofitting their story to say that the trucks were under construction, not scrubbed.

So far, it has been the warhawks who have been shown to be wrong at every turn. They still refuse to show any of the pre-war evidence, even though there are no sources to be compromised any more. They could instantly stop all these "sound bites" by showing us some of this pre-war evidence, but they do not do so. I can only think of one reason why they would not.

And for the record, I did not say the war would result in massive casualties. I knew the American military might would cut through Iraqi defenses like a hot knife through butter, especially since they had destroyed most of their weapons. I did say that the peace would be harder to win than the war. Judged by the continuing resistance and the wishes of the locals for us to leave, I'd say my predictions were not too far off.

 

[iain]

They could instantly stop all these "sound bites" by showing us some of this pre-war evidence, but they do not do so. I can only think of one reason why they would not.

And that reason is...

They realise that we would not understand the evidence properly and don't want to confuse us with all those technical words.

 

[Tricky]

And that reason is...

They realise that we would not understand the evidence properly and don't want to confuse us with all those technical words.

We might understand technical words. Don't misunderestimate us.

 

[Cain]

Bush warned that if we do not unleash an army of soldiers on Baghdad then we'll need to unleash any army of doctors, fire-fighters and volunteers on a major American city because of the imminent attack. Forty-five minutes from Britain?

On the Al-Samoud missile: tests conducted by the weapon's inspectors were performed without warheads or guidance chips, which would have reduced their range.

From what I've read there has been no direct evidence that the alleged mobile weapons labs were producing W.M.D. We just can't find "any other possible use."

We went to war on account of the claims similar to the following:

The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax -- enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin -- enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hadn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents.

Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

Bush's State of the Union Address-

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html

Were you seriously afraid of Iraq? The populations of Kuwait and Iran were less fearful, even though he invaded the former and conducted a border with the latter that resulted in over a million lives lost. More than half of Americans believed Saddam played a direct role in the 9/11 attacks (Rumsfeld said he was going to present "bullet-proof evidence", but never did).

Even I'm surprised that we haven't really found anything.

The British Press has been much more aggressive on this issue than anything we've seen in America. Professors write articles for papers with titles like "The lies that led us into war ..." (see the London Independent, Glen Rangwala)

 

[Agammamon]

Like Tricky, I too expected to find something, just not anything that could be construed as a real threat and I am actually quite shocked and surprised that we haven't found anything (the two truck were classifed as MWL because the investigators couldn't at the time figure out what else they might be used for. Not exactly a positive confirmation).
But from the beginning the Bush administration has been making logically inconsistent claims that iraq was simutaneously a huge threat to the US and that an invasion would be a pushover. I guess that being half-right ain't half-bad.

 

[corplinx]

Re: Re: Another WMD Thread

Excuse me. Please do not minimize it by saying "sound bite". WMD's WERE the reason for going to war. Did you watch/hear any of Bush's speeches? What was the refrain? He lied about the underlieing rationale for committing the USA to a war.

[edited because I was totally incorrect]

 

[corplinx]

if Corplinx is correct, the apologists are retrofitting their story to say that the trucks were under construction, not scrubbed.

One report from reuters said that one of the trailers was not fully constructed. A guardian piece said that one truck appeared to have been scrubbed with bleach.

Im not sure this is retrofitting. Reuters and the Guardian aren't exactly big pro-war propaganda machines.

I am still suprised we knew they had these labs. People were angry that Powell showed a computer generated picture of what the labs might look like to the UN.

As for WMD, we have found banned apparatus but no actual agents. I'll probably wait a few months before assuming none will be found.

 

[corplinx]

Let me just say this. In 1999 there were supposedly 38k liters of anthrax in Iraq. Does anyone believe the same Saddam who was building mobile labs to evade inspectors and cruise missles, the same Saddam who was building banned long range missiles, the same Saddam who previous inspectors claimed bugged their rooms to hide things in advance; do you believe he destroyed them on his own without being forced?

I am more willing to trust Bush/Rumsfeld than Saddam Hussein. The only wrench in the works is the confession by captured iraqis that the wmd stockpiles were torched after the 48 hour warning was given. I find this suspect though since they should then be able to tell us where they were torched and then we should still find evidence.

I think being negative about finding WMD isn't logical extension of Iraq's past and may result in the naysayers getting pie on their own faces versus Bush who they are currently claiming has it on his.

We may not find wmd though. Its entirely possible.

 

[Tricky]

One report from reuters said that one of the trailers was not fully constructed. A guardian piece said that one truck appeared to have been scrubbed with bleach.

Im not sure this is retrofitting. Reuters and the Guardian aren't exactly big pro-war propaganda machines.

I could be wrong about this. We've known about these trucks for some weeks, and to the best of my recollection, there was no mention in the original story about one of them being "not fully constructed". If Reuters and The Guardian were told this later, I'm sure they faithfully reported it.

I am still suprised we knew they had these labs. People were angry that Powell showed a computer generated picture of what the labs might look like to the UN.

I thought we had lots of evidence for this sort of thing, so I would have guessed (pre-war) that Powell would have satellite photos or some such thing to show the UN. I don't know why the UN would be angry, unless it was because they were being shown some artist's conception rather than real evidence.

As for WMD, we have found banned apparatus but no actual agents. I'll probably wait a few months before assuming none will be found.

I'm still expecting some to be found any day. I actually have to compliment the US for not already planting some, which would have certainly helped their case. Unless a tremendous cache is found, though, the US is going to have to bite the bullet and admit that they were wrong about Iraq being a threat. Or they could change their story and say that WMDs were never important anyway. Either way, it is a tremendous loss of credibility.

 

[Attrayant]

Error400: These Weapons of Mass Destruction cannot be displayed

 

[corplinx]

Unless a tremendous cache is found, though, the US is going to have to bite the bullet and admit that they were wrong about Iraq being a threat. Or they could change their story and say that WMDs were never important anyway. Either way, it is a tremendous loss of credibility.

Let me ask you a question that is plagueing me. How much WMD will be enough? We know we threw a wrench into production of future wmd. But how many grams of agents constitute a threat?

We consider 3k deaths a call to war, so would enough agents to kill 3k people be enough to justify a war with Iraq?

I'm not sure what the answers are. There are some people that will never be satisfied of course. There are other people who if we find staff on a toilet seat it will be enough.

 

[Tricky]

Let me ask you a question that is plagueing me. How much WMD will be enough? We know we threw a wrench into production of future wmd. But how many grams of agents constitute a threat?

We consider 3k deaths a call to war, so would enough agents to kill 3k people be enough to justify a war with Iraq?

I'm not sure what the answers are. There are some people that will never be satisfied of course. There are other people who if we find staff on a toilet seat it will be enough.

That's a legitimate question, and I have to honestly say at this point that I don't know. I consider finding a delivery system at least as finding the raw materials when it comes to proving that Iraq was a threat.

But actual volumes? Kill power? Those things could be (and probably will be) argued about forever. In general, though, I think we should find at least 10% of what the US claimed they "knew" Iraq had in order to prove our claim. If they claim they were destroyed, then we need solid evidence of this destruction including proof that it happened immediately before the war.

 

[Baker]

Re: Re: Another WMD Thread

Excuse me. Please do not minimize it by saying "sound bite". WMD's WERE the reason for going to war. Did you watch/hear any of Bush's speeches? What was the refrain? He lied about the underlieing rationale for committing the USA to a war.

Can you show where Bush claimed that WMD where absolutely the only reason for the war and nothing more?

We killed 100 or so of an al Qaeda group in northern Iraq in this recent go-around, that we've arrested that al Qaeda guy in Baghdad who was connected to this guy Zarqawi whom Powell spoke about in his U.N. presentation.

 

[corplinx]

Re: Re: Re: Another WMD Thread

Can you show where Bush claimed that WMD where absolutely the only reason for the war and nothing more?

I never liked the Bush admin focusing on wmd myself. My largest concern was Iraq's role in global terrorism. I think that if the Bush admin overplayed the threat of WMD that it is legitimate to call them on it.

However, I created this thread out of angst over people jumping the gun on the lack of WMD.

 

[Baker]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Another WMD Thread

I never liked the Bush admin focusing on wmd myself. My largest concern was Iraq's role in global terrorism. I think that if the Bush admin overplayed the threat of WMD that it is legitimate to call them on it.

However, I created this thread out of angst over people jumping the gun on the lack of WMD.

Yes, I can understand complaint that he overplayed the threat of WMD but I also understand the fear of some type of WMD being pasted to terrorist.

This is a quote from the State of the Union address

Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda.

Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.