Have your views changed on WMD?

[LFTKBS]

I realise this is a bump, but what backyard uranium enrichment equipment?

The ones corplinx made up.

 

[clk]

The only thing that has surprised me was the backyard uranium enrichment equipment. It made me wonder how many other buried caches of WMD related materials are out there that Saddam was waiting to unearth after inspectors had declared Iraq WMD-free and thus ended sanctions.

Ah, so Saddam buried all of those weapons and then he was going to dig out those weapons once sanctions ended, huh? Surely Saddam made documents that showed where all of these WMDs were hidden, right? Surely people had to bury these WMDs, and they would know where they were, right? Where are all of these people and documents? Maybe Saddam burned all the documents and killed all the people, so he is the only one who knows where the weapons are

 

[fishbob]

I realise this is a bump, but what backyard uranium enrichment equipment?

I seem to recall that a specialized centrifuge was found buried in the garden of an Iraqi scientist. In the news photo it looked sort of like a rusty blender.

 

[shecky]

I was pretty skeptical of the US claims all along, but wouldn't be surprised is some small quantities of WMDs had been found. My biggest surprise really has been that it's been such a bust.

 

[davefoc]

Right now, except for the backyard nuclear enrichment equipment I don't know of any unequivocal evidence of WMD or their means of production.

And the backyard nuclear enrichment equipment is arguably equivocal evidence. Supposedly of the three types of WMD, (nudlear, biological and chemical) nuclear is the most difficult to hide because it requires large industrial sized production equipment and large numbers of people to produce. So the fact that there hasn't been anything resembling nuclear weapon production facilities found suggests strongly that they didn't exist.

At this point, it looks highly likely that intentionally or not the Bush administration grossly misrepresented the facts concerning WMD in Iraq. This is very sad. We have lost credibility throughout the world and may or may not have made Iraq a better place to live for its citizens. Certainly we didn't do much for the ones killed and injured in the war.

One thing that is not clear is in the end will the world be better off because of the war. Just because the administration's main justification was false does not necessarily prove that the war will do more harm than good.

As to my own views before and after concerning the WMD this is one generally conservative fellow that thinks the liberal posters here have it exactly right. I expected that there would be some evidence of WMD or WMD production facilities that could serve to provide at least plausible deniability for the administration. It now appears that their WMD story stands as completely and unarguably false and that surprises me.

 

[Dorian Gray]

I thought they would find WMDs in the same way that John Edward gets 'hits' while cold reading - claiming that anything close counted as a WMD.

I was right. They found practically nothing.

 

[The Don]

Trouble is that there looks to be no fall-out from the WMD fiasco. GWB will probably be re-elected because he's the presidunce and because (from this distance) invading Iraq for whatever reason is retrospectively applied seems very popular.

Because of the effective propoganda, in many people's minds September 11th, Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein are irrevocably linked. There is a feeling that the invasion of Iraq was worthwhile just to depose Saddam Hussein.

Anyway, we're not likely to give him the country back now going "Oops, sorry about that".

I'm still suprised we didn't plant a large cache of WMD somewhere in Iraq though.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

I'm still suprised we didn't plant a large cache of WMD somewhere in Iraq though.

You are too cynical. They aren't due to found until the end of October.



Seriously I never believed that Iraq had huge piles of "WDM" sitting around, however given what we knew of his history for chemical weapons etc. I am however surprised so little evidence has been found.

I do wonder if there is any truth in the claim that his many minions told him and the rest of the military leaders that they were producing them, when in fact they weren’t (and couldn’t). I can imagine that Saddam would not have taken kindly to being told "we can't produce them".

 

[Hexxenhammer]

I do wonder if there is any truth in the claim that his many minions told him and the rest of the military leaders that they were producing them, when in fact they weren’t (and couldn’t). I can imagine that Saddam would not have taken kindly to being told "we can't produce them".

I think this is most likely. The regime says to the scientists and engineers, "Make us nukes! Make us chem and bio weapons!" So the engineers and scientists go and draw up plans that they can't do anything with because they have no materials.

 

[pgwenthold]

I do wonder if there is any truth in the claim that his many minions told him and the rest of the military leaders that they were producing them, when in fact they weren’t (and couldn’t). I can imagine that Saddam would not have taken kindly to being told "we can't produce them".

But remember, the case for WMD was not really based on anything that was happening at the present time. With the weapons inspectors' work, it was pretty unlikely that there wasn't anything active. The only case for WMD came from the fact they had at one time X amount of WMD, and we have only accounted for Y, so they must have X - Y left. That's it.

The minions that we did interview claimed that the remaining stuff had been destroyed right after Gulf War I, but that it basically had not been documented. Of course, the admin didn't like that answer and insisted that we export Iraqi scientists and their families so that they could interview them under conditions where they didn't feel threatened.

This was all pretty much known before we attacked, and I think it was the widespread sentiment. Of course, we staked our case on the word of a defector, who clearly had no love for Saddam. So we accepted his info and discounted everything contrary to it.

 

[Darat]

But remember, the case for WMD was not really based on anything that was happening at the present time. With the weapons inspectors' work, it was pretty unlikely that there wasn't anything active. The only case for WMD came from the fact they had at one time X amount of WMD, and we have only accounted for Y, so they must have X - Y left. That's it.

The minions that we did interview claimed that the remaining stuff had been destroyed right after Gulf War I, but that it basically had not been documented. Of course, the admin didn't like that answer and insisted that we export Iraqi scientists and their families so that they could interview them under conditions where they didn't feel threatened.

This was all pretty much known before we attacked, and I think it was the widespread sentiment. Of course, we staked our case on the word of a defector, who clearly had no love for Saddam. So we accepted his info and discounted everything contrary to it.

Not going to disagree with you on the above.

But suppose, for instance, that the USA intelligence services had someone like the Iraqi PM feeding them information as well. And if he was being told along with Saddam that they did have WMDs being produced then the intelligence agencies could have been reporting back saying "there are reports on Saddam's desks stating that they are producing WMD".

Granted with many of the revelations that are coming out it seems unlikely this was the case.

I personally never understood why they used WMD as the reason for the attack.

 

[pgwenthold]

But suppose, for instance, that the USA intelligence services had someone like the Iraqi PM feeding them information as well. And if he was being told along with Saddam that they did have WMDs being produced then the intelligence agencies could have been reporting back saying "there are reports on Saddam's desks stating that they are producing WMD".

But if that were the case, why didn't Cheney go to the UN Sec Council and say, "We have information from a source inside the admininstration who has confirmed that they are currently producing WMDs," instead of showing us pictures of "buried WMDs" and making arguments based on what they had before Gulf War I?

Granted, it would have compromised the source somewhat, but it would have been far more convincing to the rest of the world.

 

[Darat]

But if that were the case, why didn't Cheney go to the UN Sec Council and say, "We have information from a source inside the admininstration who has confirmed that they are currently producing WMDs," instead of showing us pictures of "buried WMDs" and making arguments based on what they had before Gulf War I?

Granted, it would have compromised the source somewhat, but it would have been far more convincing to the rest of the world.

Well I suppose they could have presented this intelligence but "behind closed doors" and it still wasn't enough to persuade others. Plus we can't forget that not only the USA intelligence agencies would have been getting (or attempting to get) intelligence from Iraq. Perhaps the French intelligence services where saying "No the USA & UK have got it wrong" and the French government were telling the Russians and Chinese this.

Of course all this is just speculation; I suspect it will be decades at least before all the information is revealed of who, why and when.

 

[Jon_in_london]

I always thought that the intell services had loads of hidden info that they couldnt disclose as they had to protect their sources...

Umm... no. They knew just as little, or as much, as any old joe.

 

[Ed]

I honestly think that GWB lied all along on this.

However, I find it odd that nothing at all has been found. Nothing at all? It is almost as though there were a very careful housecleaning.

 

[rikzilla]

I honestly think that GWB lied all along on this.

However, I find it odd that nothing at all has been found. Nothing at all? It is almost as though there were a very careful housecleaning.

I also find it odd that so little has been found considering the testimony of Dr. Al Hamza, and the revelations of Hussein Kamal. Obviously there was a vigorous and well documented effort by Saddam Hussein to obtain all kinds of N, B and C weapons.

Back in the 80's the French and Germans were busy building Saddam Hussein a breeder reactor at Tulwaitha. Had it not been for the Israeli airstrike in '81 Saddam would have had his bomb long before Gulf War I.

Remember how the UN (including the USA) deplored that Israeli action?

How about Iraq's gassing of the Kurds?

"The world did nothing when Halabja took place. Saddam is still there. Who says he is not going to do it again?" said a Kurdish journalist.

GWB says he's not going to do it again. Without such a leader the above quoted Kurdish journalist's cynicism is more than justified.

The WMD issue has become the only way that the left can argue against such a successful war of liberation. Saddam is removed. His regime is dismembered. His victims are freed. In the beginning even the most optimistic of us thought that the casualty totals among coalition forces would be in the several thousands. Yet the total dead among US forces has been only 500 so far. While any dead at all constitutes a tragedy, the tragedy has been a very small one.

To those who predicted that Iraq would be Vietnam with sand this has come as an unpleasant surprise. But hey, they've got the WMD controversy don't they?

I suppose that if there had to be something that the coalition was wrong about in Iraq, the existence of WMD was the most fortuitous mistake to have made. Other than WMD the left has no issue. Saddam was a menace. His people are better off. The middle east is a bit safer and more stable. The terrorists have lost a sponsor-state.

-z

 

[ceptimus]

The WMD issue has become the only way that the left can argue against such a successful war of liberation.

You really are a champion at missing the bleeding obvious. The reason we keep bringing it up is that it was GWB's primary justification for the war.

 

[DavidJames]

"they've got the WMD controversy don't they?"

That's strawman and get's, within these brackets [], the response it deserves.

Would you care, at all, if the Bush administration purposely used the WMD issue as a smokescreen?

FWIW, that's the issue. Not your strawman.

 

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

GWB says he's not going to do it again. Without such a leader the above quoted Kurdish journalist's cynicism is more than justified.


-z

Bush's administration is getting quite cozy with a couple of regimes in Asia that have been criticized for alleged Human Rights violations. (Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan).

of particular note:

Uzbekistan

 

[ceptimus]

Don't forget Turkey and Saudi Arabia. Remember where the bulk of the 911 hijackers came from.