WMDs and true believers
There are those who remain convinced that prewar intelligence was not incorrect--that Saddam was still cranking out WMDs prior to the war, and that these weapons are hidden somewhere and could be found if a proper search were ever to be mounted.
And, according to this NY Times article, this group is not limited to fringe-y lunatics. Those espousing the view, and who are still trying actively engage an effective search, include such figures as:
...retired Air Force lieutenant general, Thomas G. McInerney, a commentator on the Fox News Channel who has broadcast that weapons are in three places in Syria and one in Lebanon, moved there with Russian help on the eve of the war.
"I firmly believe that, and everything I learn makes my belief firmer," said Mr. McInerney, who retired in 1994. "I'm amazed that the mainstream media hasn't picked this up."
Also among the weapons hunters is Duane R. Clarridge, a long-retired officer of the Central Intelligence Agency who said he thought that the weapons had been moved to Sudan by ship.
"And we think we know which ship," Mr. Clarridge said in a recent interview.
Are these guys the equivalent, on the right, of those who believe that 9/11 was planned and orchestrated by Bush (the latter of whom, by the way, are not shy about spamming me to tell me so, day after livelong day)?
No; McInerney and Clarridge seem more rooted in realistic possibilities, although I have come to believe that the probability of their being correct at this point is 10% or less (and probably much less, at that).
But the task of ascertaining whether any post-1991 WMDs are still kicking around somewhere is a difficult one. How can one prove whether something purported to be hidden does or does not exist?
The only way the issue could be absolutely resolved is by either of these two things occurring:
(1) A post-1991 WMD cache is found; or
(2) Every inch of the earth, including underground to a reasonable depth, is searched and found to be empty of post-1991 WMDs.
Since #2 is not possible, the possibility of #1 remains, although the likelihood of its occurrence shrinks over time.
When a person is heavily invested in a particular thing being true, it is ordinarily very difficult to give up the idea that it is so. This is the case whether the believer is on the left or on the right. In my opinion, those in the middle are less likely to be so firmly anchored to their beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence, for the simple reason that their identities are not so deeply and rigidly tied to them in the first place.
posted by neo-neocon @ 12:50 PM
17 comments
17 Comments:
I like WMDs. But I like winning more.
according to this NY Times article, this group is not limited to fringe-y lunatics
Including the NYT itself: "The United Nations has determined that Saddam Hussein shipped weapons of mass destruction components as well as medium-range ballistic missiles before, during and after the U.S.-led war against Iraq in 2003".
article abstract: "Demetrius Perricos, acting head of United Nations inspectors office, tells Security Council that equipment and material that could have been used to produce banned weapons and long-range missiles have been emptied from Iraqi sites since war started and shipped abroad; says many of items bear tags placed on them by UN inspectors as suspect dual-use materials; cites discovery of engines from banned missile in scrap yards in Netherlands and Jordan"
Certainly there were WMD in Iraq - as has been reported, and buried deep inside, gobs of written stories. It is a lie to say "There were no WMD in Iraq."
So, we're arguing (and sloganizing) about degree:
How big a threat were the WMD which were there? And how big a threat was Saddam?
Its an argument our nation actually ought to be having, as it will impact our national response to future instances of threat. However, we should have this national discussion in a serious fashion. "There were no WMD" is a simplification which rises to the level of a lie. Those who speak this lie are unserious, dangerous persons.
I am touchy about the whole "in the middle" thing. There is grace and righteousness in not letting one's emotions cloud one's clear-eyed judgment. We can be gracefully righteous from the left, the middle, or the right. Or we can be less gracefully righteous from the left, the middle, or the right. I know "moderates" who walk in clouds of self-generated smug which are toxic to all bystanders. Neo, you did not exactly slander me for being on the right. But, since I'm touchy, I nevertheless leapt to over-react in my own defense!
From the things I have seen reported in many sources, usually buried but there, I think that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq just prior to our invasion. Based on things that were found and how they were concealed, I think that there are probably WMDs buried or otherwise concealed within Iraq with the rest transported out of the country to other like-minded countries--Iran, Syria, maybe the Sudan.
I noticed that the UN weapons inspectors were much less that diligent in their searches and I also think that an extremely diligent search will eventually turn up more caches of weapons than the recent one found.
However, if such weapons are found in Iraq, you can count on those who oppose the war and who hate President Bush and his administration to find ways to discount any such find. Unless there are very many weapons found, small numbers of WMDs will be discounted because of their small numbers. Or, they will be discounted because they were not manufactured just prior to our invasion; they were old and, therefore, they somehow don't count. Or they will be characterized as a small exception to an otherwise fruitless search. Or, perhaps their authenticity will in some way be doubted by , say, Hans Blix or Scott Ritter. Or, in the final fall back position, they will be denounced as a plant by the U.S. I think the list of possible reasons for denial is practically endless.
I don't suscribe to the notion that 500 mustard gas shells are not WMD, though 500 Sarin shells would be more so. Saddam used mustard gas against the Kurds and what would zaqawri have done with them if he could of possessed them? I'm reminded of the Larry King show a few years back when Clinton was a guest and said, "We knew he had them (WMD) in 98'." It is interesting and coincidental (?) that they were found shortly before the Senate vote on troop withdrawal. Everyone seems to forget the Sarin round that went off near Fallujah a year ago or so. It's about like cops going into a felon's home, finding shotgun shells and calling them meaningless because a shotgun has not been found.
Proud Neocon mentions global warming. Michelle Malkin has quite a Hot Air video on that topic, worth seeing, though many here probably already have.
When I close my eyes, everyone goes away.A tree falling in the forest doesnt make any sound unless I hear it.
So "those in the middle" are not "paricularly invested" in anything being necessarily 'true".What a pathetic, if easily defensible,position.In other words,"Ill never be really wrong, because Ill never take a real position."
PS. Oil, military bases, markets
Moderation is not for the true believers. Except if you are a true believer in the United States Constitution, like me, that is.
I found a good VDH piece detailing Iraq and WMDs. Well, it isn't really about WMDs.
The U.N. has simply ceased to be the liberal, Western-inspired utopian body that arose from the ashes of World War II with the promise that reasonable, civilized nations could adjudicate differences rather than killing each other over perceived grievances. Instead, it is a mobocracy, where majority votes reflect a passive-aggressive stance toward the United States — guiltily desiring our money and support, while still eager for a televised forum in high-profile New York to pose and showcase its cheap, easy defiance of America
All this hysteria and unrest should come as no surprise given the ambition of our endeavor, which is no less than a war of civilization to end both terrorism and the culture and politics that foster it. Still, let us ignore the self-interest of contemporary parties and reflect on the very scope of American audacity. In little more than three weeks, and coming on the heels of an amazing victory in Afghanistan, the American military defeated the worst fascist in the Middle East. Surrounded by enemies, and forced simultaneously to conduct the war against terrorism in dozens of countries and restore calm on the West Bank, the United States nevertheless sought to create consensual government and order under legal auspices in weeks — rather than the decades that were necessary in Japan and Germany, where elections took years and soldiers remain posted still. The real story is not that the news from Iraq is sometimes discouraging and depressing, but that it so often not — and that after two major-theater wars we have lost fewer people than on that disastrous day in Beirut 20 years ago, and less than 10 percent of the number that perished on September 11.
You should read it from the top down, really. As much as it seems like it is talking about right now, this was written in 2003. Prescience is not a time limited quantity.
Loss
Neo, I think you're making an error in restricting the question to "post-1991" WMD. Significant caches of pre-1991 WMD, plus the well-known dual-use facilities, ought to be enough. They're certainly enough to prove a violation of resolution 687 and the cease fire.
How many here have given any thought to the timing of this "news"?
On 19 June, WaPo "leaks" the cable from Khaliljad to his boss pointing out that "tjhings aren't quite as you think they are in Iraq..."
On 22 June a "newly de-classified document..." is released.
Who is the only person who can "de-classify" documents like that?
When was it declassified? Probably on 21 June.
Bad news management!
So probligo's position is that if Bush declassifies something, that is deception. If Bush keeps things secret, that's deception too.
What's a catch 22 again?
Y, are you really that stupid?
What Bush declassifies is not the point.
But then someone who believes the Warqawi memo, but not the Khaliljad cable, would only read WMD for his confirmation biases to be running full blast, huh!
Y, it is called "damage control".
Sally, You follow your path, along with Y and all of the other believers...
Saudi Arabia is certainly a problem, but it is an ostensible ally as opposed to an overt enemy, it helps attack terrorists as opposed to aiding them,...
This is a different Saudi Arabia is it?
Perhaps that reflects the fact that, between the two publics, the U.S.-Saudi relationship today is colored by mutual disdain as well as mutual dependency. Ordinary Americans and Saudis alike recognize that the alliance that FDR and Abdul Aziz forged aboard the Quincy is in serious trouble. Saudis fume about Guantanamo Bay, Israel and the invasion of Iraq; Americans fume about individual Saudis' funding for al-Qaeda and the Saudi suicide bombers who keep crashing into our troops in Baghdad, apparently funded by $3-a-gallon gasoline. The two governments, however, are loath to address this deterioration of public attitudes too openly, and since they have yet to discover a plausible alternative to their long union, the old ship just rocks along, however queasy its passengers may feel.
Y, are you really that stupid?
Prob
Ymar isn't stupid, but Ymir is.
Y, it is called "damage control".
Prob
Does that mean you're going nuclear?
How come a country with such a government is an ally of the freedom-loving current administration in the USA?
Because the United States has not YET begun to Empire build and spread death to all those who disobey the God given rights of humanity.
Examples: Pinochet in Chile, Suharto in Indonesia, Marcos in Phillipines, the Saudi monarchy, and many others...
Again,Chares' catch 22 is that if you support dictators that is bad, if you topple dictators and tyrannical regimes like Iraq, that is bad. Good for everyone, always bad for America.
Even now, in Iraq: wouldn't it make sense simply to hold a national referendum and ask ordinary Iraqis to vote on whether the US should leave Iraq?
People like Charles don't know how to solve problems. The problem of how to bring democracy to a country involves more blood and treasure than just a pre-emptive strike and then leaving. They are not willing to shed the blood and the treasure to forever fight tyranny, thus their guilt forces them to hobble the efforts of those who are willing. Do they really believe that democracy will come if only they can get the US out, like they did with Vietnam? Sad, but of course they won't be the one paying for the price of their actions.
The question they ask about "why don't you let them decide" is answered with a plain rejoinder. The United States does not determine Good, Fairness, and Justice by majority rules. Their socialistic, tyranny through the masses, populistic policies will be an utter disaster.
Charlemagne: "This is a very unfortunate state of affairs and which is why the US is not going to be in position to call for democratization in these countries any time soon."
So why do we get hassled for not attempting the 'impossible' by you guys? It will indeed take a while. most things of value do.
yes
Post a Comment
<< Home