Let's Revisit the Issue of Iraq's WMDs, shall we?

[Yonivore]

The Democrats' political strategy, apparently, is to yammer about our intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction -- the world's intelligence, actually -- until next year's election. OK, it's a deal.

Dafydd ab Hugh sums up just a small part of what we know (I'm sorry if you lefties haven't been paying attention) about Saddam's weapons programs, and the weapons that his armed forces maintained prior to the 2003 invasion.

It is well known that the staggering extent of Saddam Hussein's WMD programs was only discovered after he lost the Gulf War. Iraqi chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons by the tens of thousands were unearthed (often literally) and destroyed by the coalition. Afterward (we have known this for some time from defectors), Hussein decided that Iraq would take a new tack in its never-ending quest for WMD: from then on, all of Iraq's programs were designed to be "dual use": each would have an ostensibly civilian purpose (pesticides, medical research, nuclear power generation) but could quickly -- in some cases within minutes -- be converted to military use.

Therefore, when looking for "stockpiles" of WMD, the Iraqi Survey Group (ISG) should have been looking, not for a warehouse full of s s pre-filled with sarin or mus gas or anthrax, but rather for the precursor components of such: s s and rockets built to accept such chemicals or biological agents in close proximity to the agents themselves... even if they're not actually loaded into the warhead yet.

A rocket that can accept toxic chemicals into its warhead near a 55-gallon drum of cyclosarin-based "pesticide" is a chemical weapon, and it should be defined as such.

At Karbala, U.S. troops stumbled upon 55-gallon drums of pesticides at what appeared to be a very large "agricultural supply" area, Hanson says. Some of the drums were stored in a "camouflaged bunker complex" that was shown to reporters - with unpleasant results. "More than a dozen soldiers, a Knight-Ridder reporter, a CNN cameraman, and two Iraqi POWs came down with symptoms consistent with exposure to a nerve agent," Hanson says. "But later ISG tests resulted in a proclamation of negative, end of story, nothing to see here, etc., and the earlier findings and injuries dissolved into nonexistence. Left unexplained is the small matter of the obvious pains taken to disguise the cache of ostensibly legitimate pesticides. One wonders about the advantage an agricultural-commodities business gains by securing drums of pesticide in camouflaged bunkers 6 feet underground. The 'agricultural site' was also colocated with a military ammunition dump - evidently nothing more than a coincidence in the eyes of the ISG."

That wasn't the only significant find by coalition troops of probable CW stockpiles, Hanson believes. Near the northern Iraqi town of Bai'ji, where Saddam had built a chemical-weapons plant known to the United States from nearly 12 years of inspections, elements of the 4th Infantry Division found 55-gallon drums containing a substance identified through mass spectrometry analysis as cyclosarin - a nerve agent. Nearby were surface-to-surface and surface-to-air missiles, gas masks and a mobile laboratory that could have been used to mix chemicals at the site. "Of course, later tests by the experts revealed that these were only the ubiquitous pesticides that everybody was turning up," Hanson says. "It seems Iraqi soldiers were obsessed with keeping ammo dumps insect-free, according to the reading of the evidence now enshrined by the conventional wisdom that 'no WMD stockpiles have been discovered.'"

I know...many of the Lefties in this forum will pretend this is the first time they've heard this or that it proves nothing...but, that's fine.

There is a great deal to be said on this subject, and most of it is already in the public domain. The fact is that the intelligence agencies' official consensus estimate expressed a high level of confidence that Saddam possessed both chemical and biological weapons. The U.N. didn't disagree, contrary to popular assumptions and Hans Blix's revisionist history. As has been repeatedly noted, the U.N.'s UNMOVIC reports emphasized the large quan ies of banned materials for which Iraq had failed to account.

This is a big topic, as is the subject of Iraq's many connections with al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. In my opinion, we should take up the Democrats' challenge: most Americans know all too little about the threats posed by Saddam's Iraq. Let's talk about those threats from now until November 2006.

Maybe the Democrats will make such a stink the MSM won't be able to ignore, any longer, the evidence of Saddam Hussein's WMD programs.

[JohnnyMarzetti]

You idiot!! Get your head out of Bush's ass for once and see the facts for what they were. Dumbya and his cronies cooked the books to get us into this war and you know it but just don't want to see that your beloved Dumbya is a lieing war monger who wanted to be known as the "War President" to save his daddy's reputation.

[Extra Stout]

You idiot!! Get your head out of Bush's ass for once and see the facts for what they were. Dumbya and his cronies cooked the books to get us into this war and you know it but just don't want to see that your beloved Dumbya is a lieing war monger who wanted to be known as the "War President" to save his daddy's reputation.

Did you actually write that, or did you just copy and paste from the "SimLiberal" program?

[Yonivore]

And, for those who put me in Nbadan's Camp (as a whacko conspiracist), consider this article from Today's Wall Street Journal provides yet another instance of a journalistic outsider -- Washington attorney Victoria Toensing -- pursuing the relevant facts in the underlying story: "Investigate the CIA" (subscription may be necessary for access to this column). Ms. Toensing puts me in mind of the little boy who pointed out that the emperor wore no clothes. Toensing outlines the facts hiding in plain sight that point to the real scandal the lamestream media have declined to cover or pursue:

• First: The CIA sent her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, to Niger on a sensitive mission regarding WMD. He was to determine whether Iraq had attempted to purchase yellowcake, an essential ingredient for nonconventional weapons. However, it was Ms. Plame, not Mr. Wilson, who was the WMD expert. Moreover, Mr. Wilson had no intelligence background, was never a senior person in Niger when he was in the State Department, and was opposed to the administration's Iraq policy. The assignment was given, according to the Senate Intelligence Committee, at Ms. Plame's suggestion.

• Second: Mr. Wilson was not required to sign a confidentiality agreement, a mandatory act for the rest of us who either carry out any similar CIA assignment or who represent CIA clients.

• Third: When he returned from Niger, Mr. Wilson was not required to write a report, but rather merely to provide an oral briefing. That information was not sent to the White House. If this mission to Niger were so important, wouldn't a competent intelligence agency want a thoughtful written assessment from the "missionary," if for no other reason than to establish a record to refute any subsequent misrepresentation of that assessment? Because it was the vice president who initially inquired about Niger and the yellowcake (although he had nothing to do with Mr. Wilson being sent), it is curious that neither his office nor the president's were privy to the fruits of Mr. Wilson's oral report.

• Fourth: Although Mr. Wilson did not have to write even one word for the agency that sent him on the mission at taxpayer's expense, over a year later he was permitted to tell all about this sensitive assignment in the New York Times. For the rest of us, writing about such an assignment would mean we'd have to bring our proposed op-ed before the CIA's Prepublication Review Board and spend countless hours arguing over every word to be published. Congressional oversight committees should want to know who at the CIA permitted the publication of the article, which, it has been reported, did not jibe with the thrust of Mr. Wilson's oral briefing. For starters, if the piece had been properly vetted at the CIA, someone should have known that the agency never briefed the vice president on the trip, as claimed by Mr. Wilson in his op-ed.

• Fifth: More important than the inaccuracies is the fact that, if the CIA truly, truly, truly had wanted Ms. Plame's iden y to be secret, it never would have permitted her spouse to write the op-ed. Did no one at Langley think that her iden y could be compromised if her spouse wrote a piece discussing a foreign mission about a volatile political issue that focused on her expertise? The obvious question a sophisticated journalist such as Mr. Novak asked after "Why did the CIA send Wilson?" was "Who is Wilson?" After being told by a still-unnamed administration source that Mr. Wilson's "wife" suggested him for the assignment, Mr. Novak went to Who's Who, which reveals "Valerie Plame" as Mr. Wilson's spouse.

• Sixth: CIA incompetence did not end there. When Mr. Novak called the agency to verify Ms. Plame's employment, it not only did so, but failed to go beyond the perfunctory request not to publish. Every experienced Washington journalist knows that when the CIA really does not want something public, there are serious requests from the top, usually the director. Only the press office talked to Mr. Novak.

• Seventh: Although high-ranking Justice Department officials are prohibited from political activity, the CIA had no problem permitting its deep cover or classified employee from making political contributions under the name "Wilson, Valerie E.," information publicly available at the FEC.

Toensing concludes:

The CIA conduct in this matter is either a brilliant covert action against the White House or inept intelligence tradecraft. It is up to Congress to decide which.

Only Stephen Hayes at the Weekly Standard and Clifford May at National Review have devoted any significant copy to this possible -- indeed, plausible -- angle to the Plame affair.

Seems the MSM would be interested in such CIA ineptness -- or conniving.

[ChumpDumper]

Show us the weapons.

[SA210]

You idiot!! Get your head out of Bush's ass for once and see the facts for what they were. Dumbya and his cronies cooked the books to get us into this war and you know it but just don't want to see that your beloved Dumbya is a lieing war monger who wanted to be known as the "War President" to save his daddy's reputation.

Dumbya,

[Oh, Gee!!]

Bush Stole The 2000 Elections!!! Omg!!!!!!!!

[JoeChalupa]

I'm not convinced about the WMD's in Iraq.

1. They have not been found.
2. I go by facts not theories.
3. I think for myself.
4. I'm not under any pressure by this administration to believe so.
5. I'm a left-wing liberal nut job.

[Yonivore]

Show us the weapons.

Why? You've been shown before and not believed...

[Marcus Bryant]

Show us the weapons.

I agree. The US should've given the Hussein regime the time to develop the weaponry.

[Yonivore]

Dumbya,

Wow! You are new to the group, aren't'cha?

[SA210]

Wow! You are new to the group, aren't'cha?

No, actually, I believed for a while that Gov. Bush was dumb.

[JohnnyMarzetti]

You are not alone...

PRESIDENT BUSH’S JOB APPROVAL
Approve
35%
Disapprove
57%

[ChumpDumper]

Why? You've been shown before and not believed...

Because they weren't the ones we were scared into believing were actually there, ready to be used on our mainland and troops. Saddam had two chances to use WMDs on us.

So keep your "reportedly"s and pre-precursor crap out of this. Just say they're in Syria and get that invasion over with. After a few more tens of thousands of deaths something is bound to show up.

[Yonivore]

You are not alone...

PRESIDENT BUSH’S JOB APPROVAL
Approve
35%
Disapprove
57%

Gee, at that rate, he'll never win a 3rd term!

[Yonivore]

Because they weren't the ones we were scared into believing were actually there, ready to be used on our mainland and troops. Saddam had two chances to use WMDs on us.

So keep your "reportedly"s and pre-precursor crap out of this. Just say they're in Syria and get that invasion over with. After a few more tens of thousands of deaths something is bound to show up.

So, which "ones" were you scared into believing were actually there? And, do you count all those Democrats and European leaders who also said he had WMD's among those who were doing the "scaring?"

[ChumpDumper]

So, which "ones" were you scared into believing were actually there?

The ones the administration was giving the locations of, skippy.

And, do you count all those Democrats and European leaders who also said he had WMD's among those who were doing the "scaring?"

Since they got the same skewed intel, yes.

I mean, you're saying they were all completely right, and then making excuses for their being wrong in the same breath saying everyone else was doing it.

Which is it?

[Yonivore]

The ones the administration was giving the locations of, skippy.Since they got the same skewed intel, yes.

A few weeks passed between then and when we reached those sites. You don't think it is possible Saddam Hussein hid, destroyed, or moved them?

I mean, you're saying they were all completely right, and then making excuses for their being wrong in the same breath saying everyone else was doing it.

Which is it?

First, I never said they were all completely right. I've consistently said that EVERYONE, from both parties, in Europe, and on the UN believed -- up until it became apparent that President Bush fully intended to make good on his promise to disarm Saddam Hussein -- that Iraq possessed these weapons.

Everyone. No one was saying (except Saddam Hussein) that he didn't have them.

Given that an investigation has concluded the Bush Administration didn't manipulate intelligence -- you'd be more inclined to place the mystery squarely where it belongs; on the back of Saddam Hussein. But, no, you'd rather defend a dictator than admit your partisan opponent was acting in good faith and in concert with your own party until, that is, the President actually did what Bill Clinton only threatened to do for years.

[ChumpDumper]

A few weeks passed between then and when we reached those sites. You don't think it is possible Saddam Hussein hid, destroyed, or moved them?

Then we had a horrible battle plan and failed miserably. We succeeded in making the world much less safe.

Given that an investigation

A completely impartial, nonpartisan one I'm sure.

But, no, you'd rather defend a dictator

Liar. Link my defense of Saddam. Now.

than admit your partisan opponent was acting in good faith

He wasn't. He felt he had to do something to show the US was strong. This was by far the easiest thing to do after Afghanistan. Only a few tens of thousands dead. No biggie.

[Marcus Bryant]

So the world is less safe because the US succeeded in taking out a regime that was bent on developing WMDs and was overtly friendly towards Islamic fundamentalist militants? Great.

[Yonivore]

Then we had a horrible battle plan and failed miserably. We succeeded in making the world much less safe.

Well, sometimes you choose between the best of two bad options.

A completely impartial, nonpartisan one I'm sure.

I think it was either the Kay, Duelfer, or bi-partisan Congressional Committee report that concluded such. I don't know, you tell me.

Anyway, if Bush lied -- what the were all those Democrats railing about since 1998?

[ChumpDumper]

Well, sometimes you choose between the best of two bad options.

Sometimes you simply up. Either that or they didn't care because they knew the weapons didn't exist. Those are the only choices here.

[Yonivore]

Sometimes you simply up. Either that or they didn't care because they knew the weapons didn't exist. Those are the only choices here.

Then everybody ed up. From the U.S. Congress to the U.N. to President Clinton and to all who were convinced that Saddam Hussein had WMD's and needed to be disarmed.

Agree to that, and your argument has merit. But, agree to that, and you've conceded that it was a understandable up.

[Yonivore]

So the world is less safe because the US succeeded in taking out a regime that was bent on developing WMDs and was overtly friendly towards Islamic fundamentalist militants? Great.

A valid point...but, not worth arguing so long as the ChumpDumpers of the world can't get past the idea that President Bush wasn't alone in his belief that Iraq had WMDs. In fact, I'd like to see ChumpDumper produce a major world figure who, before the invasion, didn't believe -- better yet, wasn't convinced -- that Saddam Hussein and Iraq had WMDs.

How 'bout it Chumpy, up for that challenge? And you can't pick anyone that was on Saddam's Oil-For-Food "payroll," okay?

[Marcus Bryant]

Look, Bush made a decision based on faulty intel, real intel about Hussein's desires to game the UN Security Council and yes, a belief that taking out Hussein was a step towards progress in the region and would be a plus in the war on Islamic militants. There is such a thing as making a responsible decision when given less than perfect information.

The alternative is to do nothing, sit on your thumbs and wait for yourself to be attacked yet again. Maybe next time they'll use the really big stuff instead of X-Acto knives.