If the Pentagon had no evidence......Where did President Bush get his information

[Sho-nuff]

www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-06-06-iraq-intel_x.htm

Pentagon reported no reliable evidence of Iraqi chemical weapons

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Pentagon's intelligence agency had no hard evidence of Iraqi chemical weapons last fall but believed Iraq had a program in place to produce them, the agency's chief said Friday.

The assessment suggests a higher degree of uncertainty about the immediacy of an Iraqi threat — at least with regard to one portion of its banned weapons programs — than the Bush administration indicated publicly in building its case for disarming Iraq, with force if necessary.

Two months after the major fighting in Iraq ended, the United States has yet to find any chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, although it did find two trailers it judged to be mobile laboratories for producing bioweapons.

The absence so far of a "smoking gun" has raised questions about the quality of U.S. intelligence before the war and whether the administration exaggerated the urgency of an Iraqi threat.

Vice Adm. Lowell Jacoby, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, discussed the matter at a Capitol Hill news conference Friday as the administration scrambled to respond to news reports about excerpts from a September 2002 DIA report on facilities and other pieces of Iraq's arms-building infrastructure.

Jacoby said his agency concurred in an intelligence community consensus last fall that Iraq had a program for weapons of mass destruction. But the DIA was unable to pinpoint any locations.

"We could not specifically pin down individual facilities operating as part of the weapons of mass destruction program, specifically the chemical warfare portion," Jacoby said at a joint news conference with Sen. John Warner, R-Va., and Stephen Cambone, the Pentagon's intelligence chief.

They spoke after the Senate Armed Services Committee met privately with Jacoby, Cambone and an unidentified CIA representative to discuss prewar intelligence on Iraq's weapons programs.

At the White House, visiting Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Durao Barroso told reporters that President Bush told him Friday he has "full confidence in the intelligence reports he received about the possession of weapons of mass destruction by the former Iraqi authorities."

The administration began building its case against Iraq last August in a series of speeches by Vice President Dick Cheney. "There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction," Cheney told a Veterans of Foreign Wars convention on Aug. 26. "There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies and against us."

In September Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld joined in.

"We do know that the Iraqi regime has chemical and biological weapons," Rumsfeld told the House Armed Services Committee on Sept. 18. "His regime has amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons — including VX, sarin, cyclosarin and mustard gas."

In his description of the still-classified DIA report, Jacoby drew a distinction between the level of certainty about Iraq's pursuit of weapons and the existence of actual chemical weapons.

"As of 2002, in September, we could not reliably pin down — for somebody who was doing contingency planning — specific facilities, locations or production that was under way at a specific location at that point in time," he said.

The report "is not in any way intended to portray the fact that we had any doubts that such a program existed," he said.

Rumsfeld recently raised the possibility that Iraq destroyed such weapons before the war started March 20. He also has said he believes some remain and will be discovered when U.S. search teams find knowledgeable Iraqis who are willing to disclose the locations.

In making its case for invading Iraq, the administration also argued that Iraq was seeking to develop nuclear weapons and that it might provide mass-killing weapons to terrorists.

On Friday, a small team of United Nations nuclear experts arrived in Baghdad to begin a damage assessment at Iraq's largest nuclear facility, known as Tuwaitha. It was left unguarded by American and allied troops during the early days of the war and was pillaged by villagers.

The arrival of the team — whose members are not weapons inspectors — marked the first time since the Iraq war began that representatives from the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency returned to the country. The agency had long monitored Iraq's nuclear program.

The DIA's analysis is just one piece of an intelligence mosaic that Rumsfeld and other senior administration officials could consider in making their own assessment of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons capability. Congress is reviewing the prewar intelligence to determine whether the administration overplayed the weapons threat in order to justify toppling the Iraqi government.

[Art]

Maybe from Bill Clinton who said they had such weapons in 1998 when they kicked inspectors out .

Iraq has had years to hide and scatter what they need to hide and scatter. No one seriously believes they voluntarily destroyed what the whole world knew they had in 1998 and that they did so without maintaining any records or recollection as to the method or place of disposal.

Please don't fall into the trap of simply questioning what is impossible to question. Iraq had banned weapons. Iraq kicked inspectors out and the world knew they had banned weapons. Every Democrat in Congress and the one in the White House were on record acknowledging the obvious truth to the banned weapons held by Iraq.

At no point have they destroyed them. They are problably in Syria and other places. But, it simply seems to be a faulty position to take to believe Iraq disposed of weapons when there were no inspectors that they spent years hiding from inspectors when there were.

[@DCGoldPants]

Clock it at around 13 min.

Blame Clinton!

[TheKurp]

Originally posted by Art

At no point have they destroyed them. They are problably in Syria and other places. But, it simply seems to be a faulty position to take to believe Iraq disposed of weapons when there were no inspectors that they spent years hiding from inspectors when there were.

Let's say we accept this as true (which I don't, but nor do I accept it as false).

What was the threat to the U.S.? I've read article after article that details how difficult it is to weaponize chemicals for mass destruction. Iraq's missles had a peak range of what, a little over 100 miles? So let's say they were in bed with al Qaeda and decided to supply them with the chemical and biological agents. How would they weaponize them? If any of the middle east militant groups had access to these agents and had a way to deliver them to cause mass fatalities, wouldn't they have used them by now?

And let's say that these chemical and biological weapons did make it out of Iraq's borders. Then what did the war accomplish?

[Art]

Kurp,

For my reply you have to remember I largely supported the war on very different grounds than anyone else or than many others at least. I don't believe we have the right or duty to go to war to remove evil regimes. If we did then we'd be doing little else. While it was a nice bonus to remove this regime, doing it on humanitarian grounds is something I can't believe the right is latching on to.

Hell, even McCain was bending over defending the action in Iraq on moral grounds. I also never really cared about the banned weapons Iraq had. While those weapons certainly could have gotten into the hands of terrorists who could have smuggled them here and deployed them at least to limited effect -- hell as you saw a handful of Anthrax letters in the U.S. mail was a stunning thing for the country -- I never really felt the "danger" was there.

Now, that is a rationale to support war. If you believe there is a possibility that these weapons could have been used against us, then that IS a reason to have gone to war. And those would be the public reasons I'd have had for supporting it.

My real reason for supporting the war was a two-fold one. First, I wanted a permanent base in the Middle East to conduct operations and that would get us out of Saudi Arabia. Which leads us to reason number two. That region is full of nations that just need a good a$$ kicking or a good faith belief one is coming to them.

Iraq was chief among them. Here's a nation that lost an earlier war and didn't have the common courtesy to abide by the terms of its own surrender. It was not a sovereign nation and we had the authority to give it what it was begging for for years. That was a serious beating. Now, we're in the region. Now if we talk to Syria or Jordan or anywhere else in the region they know we are in place and available to punch them in the nose.

Hell, we've already seen the benefit. We got Jordan and the Palestinians and Israel sitting down together for pictures. We're going to have to conduct future operations in this region as well. Starting with Iraq gave us an easy target of a nation we had the duty to pacify after watching it flaunt its surrender at us. Any future action will be far more directly related to terrorism and will be a much easier sell.

[TheKurp]

Originally posted by Art

Kurp,

For my reply you have to remember I largely supported the war on very different grounds than anyone else or than many others at least. I don't believe we have the right or duty to go to war to remove evil regimes. If we did then we'd be doing little else. While it was a nice bonus to remove this regime, doing it on humanitarian grounds is something I can't believe the right is latching on to.

First Redman, now you. I might even begin to like you guys.

Hell, even McCain was bending over defending the action in Iraq on moral grounds. I also never really cared about the banned weapons Iraq had. While those weapons certainly could have gotten into the hands of terrorists who could have smuggled them here and deployed them at least to limited effect -- hell as you saw a handful of Anthrax letters in the U.S. mail was a stunning thing for the country -- I never really felt the "danger" was there.

Agreed. I think the WMD capability was overblown. Kind of like SARS. The danger of dying from the flu is still far greater than dying from SARS.

Now, that is a rationale to support war. If you believe there is a possibility that these weapons could have been used against us, then that IS a reason to have gone to war. And those would be the public reasons I'd have had for supporting it.

As of today, with what I've read, I'm inclined to believe that from a WMD perspective, Saddam was like a hornet's nest. As long as you left him alone he wasn't likely to use the chemical or biological weapons against the U.S.

My real reason for supporting the war was a two-fold one. First, I wanted a permanent base in the Middle East to conduct operations and that would get us out of Saudi Arabia. Which leads us to reason number two. That region is full of nations that just need a good a$$ kicking or a good faith belief one is coming to them.

What advantage is there in having a base in Iraq as opposed to Saudi Arabia? Other than of course if you control the country then you don't have to ask permission to launch military strikes.

Hell, we've already seen the benefit. We got Jordan and the Palestinians and Israel sitting down together for pictures. We're going to have to conduct future operations in this region as well. Starting with Iraq gave us an easy target of a nation we had the duty to pacify after watching it flaunt its surrender at us. Any future action will be far more directly related to terrorism and will be a much easier sell.

My question is, will that benefit translate into curbing the actions of Arab militants? I stated in another thread that I believe if you can get Arab nations to cease funding militant groups, then you limit their capacity for violence. So I suppose if the threat of an @ss kicking accomplishes that, I'd have to agree with your reasoning. Otherwise I see little benefit from coercing cooperation from Arab countries. Then of course there's the matter of Osama Bin Laden and his billions of dollars. The question is, is Osama willing to bankrupt himself for the cause? Up until now I think most of al Qaeda's budget relies on Osama's fund raising, and not his personal wealth.

[Art]

Kurp,

The advantage to being in Iraq versus Saudi Arabia is simply perception. Saudi Arabia is holy territory. It is simply not a place even normal Muslims like seeing Americans. While Iraq has a large Muslim population and has holy sites, the fact is, for the last 30-some years, the people of Iraq and the region have lived under brutality and repression. Simply having the ability to practice their beliefs freely is an improvement. And, since no terrorist groups took up the cause of these people during Saddam's regime, there's little chance any will be there to take up cause against us as with Saudi Arabia and the fact that our presence there is a key recruiting factor for fundamentalists.

This coupled with your statement that we won't have to ask permission to stage troops or launch missions gives us the type of free reign we need to carry out whatever we feel is necessary in this region. With hope we are far from done with what needs doing over there.

As for increasing terrorist recruitment, I still find that as big a stretch against action in the region coming from the left as I find embracing the war on humanitarian grounds as a cause of action coming from the right. Simply put, doing nothing as we've done for so long incited greater violence and increasing membership and fund raising for these groups.

Action on our part won't increase this. For too long these men really didn't feel there was any real consequence to their actions. We were a paper tiger. We'd never dare to strike them. They could grow in numbers and attack us knowing we'd do little in return. Now that we've decimated Bin Laden's organization and are willing to use extreme, deadly force to prevent actions against us, it may increase the amount of resentment against us in the region but it will decrease the numbers of people willing to fight for that resentment because now they know they're likely to be killed.

Essentially the point is these people respect little, but they understand and respect strength. They don't have to like us. They didn't before we did anything to make them hate us. So, they can hate us. Now, though, they'll think twice before provoking us. Or, at least that's so assuming our will is strong and we continue to do what's necessary.

[Glenn X]

Christopher Hitchens pointed out something I'd nearly forgotten about on MSNBC the other day. He recalled that Saddam Hussein's regime, before Hans Blix and UNMOVIC went into Iraq, disclosed to the U.N. that it had stores of anthrax and VX nerve gas. So where have these stores gone?

[fansince62]

GlennX...very nice...I had forgoten about that also...Hitchens is a very bright, articulate if somewhat strange bird...he is by no means a hawk or conservative. yet, much like friedman, he has been out front all along supporting the regime removal (friedman has on moral and strategic grounds; hitchens has on strategic grounds).

I happen to disagree with Art on his assessment of the moreal grounds; on the other hand, we are of one mind when it comes to the exercise of power in that part of the world as a signal that we will no longer tolerate attacks on American citizens or interests. Diplomacy and negotiation have not worked.

take note..."The Kurp"...can only make his case by restricting the debate to an arbitrarily constrained notion of security (direct threats).

[Glenn X]

As usual, fansince62, bingo.

[Art]

Al,

Don't get me wrong. I'm pleased to have improved the humanitarian situation in Iraq. I just think that for conservatives it is an improbable argument for us to make that going to war on humanitarian or moral grounds is justified. Simply put, we don't believe that's the case in general and we shouldn't allow ourselves to fall into the trap of justifying this war on grounds we would condemn other actions if taken for the same grounds.

Further, we can't allow ourselves to support purely humanitarian grounds for going to war because by necessary extension we would have no counter to the charges asking about other nations where we could improve the situation and why we've ignored them.

In my view it's better to stick to the facts as to why Iraq was justified. Those facts are that they had banned weapons by the OPEN acknowledgement of the U.N. and every Democratic leader in the U.S. in 1998. That Iraq was not a sovereign nation, but, in fact, was a nation living under terms of a surrender it refused to abide. That the flaunting of those terms coupled with the unflinching certainty among liberals and Democrats alike that he had potentially dangerous weapons is why we went to war.

Now, the bonus here was we toppled a terrible regime and improved the situation for the nation. That's just not enough to be satisfied with as justification. To my way of thinking the original justification is still the best rationale and it hides the real justification which was setting up a military base of operations in Iraq and the pure fact that Saddam and Iraq were just begging for an a$$ kicking for too long not to have taken them up on the offer .

[TheKurp]

FansSince62,

Okay, it's now 2:50 a.m. and from where I sit I've had a few grey goose and o.j.s', but I'm having trouble with your use of the word "arbitrary".

If you are going to commit American lives and sacrifice the same, shouldn't the threat be "direct"? Otherwise I view it as a gamble. A gamble where the odds play in favor or against an American soldier. Who knows?

I realize you are one of the proud few. I guess I'm having a hard time understanding why an American life should be jeopardized for an "indirect" threat. One that may or may not exist.

[aREDSKIN]

Taking care of Iraq is just the first salvo in a much wider geopolitical conflict. Iran is next. Not sure of the time but be patient it will happen. Either militarily or covertly but you can be assured Iran will be dealt with. If Militarily, it won't happen until Bush's 2nd term, sorry Libs. Russia/China continue's to provide the Iranians with the nuclear know how and components to build bombs. This is an intolerable position for the US given the recent past of the Mullahas in sponsoring terrorism. Saudia Arabia & Syria will be dealt with too unless they change their ways.

So justifying/rationalizing Iraq is really a red Herring. It's much wider than that. It's a first and necessary step to continue this assault on the radical terrorist mind set.

North Korea is a back burner issue being driven by Russia & China

in being antagonistic via proxy.

[TheKurp]

aRedskin,

It didn't take a country to bring down the World Trade Center. All told it took less than 30 people.

You can wage war on countries but you cannot stop fanatical militants from taking lives if they're hell bent on doing so.

Terrorism's effect is not so much the lives they take, but the psychological trauma they inflict on the masses.

Israel can strive to make the PA politically impotent, but they cannot stop the suicide bombers from terrorizing Israeli citizens.

At some point you need to address the motivation for terrorism, rather than exact military might over every country you deem as belonging to the axis of evil.

[Burgold]

aRedskin,

So, you think the phrase "crusade" was really meant then? We have taken the first step to a World War?

[aREDSKIN]

Kurp- address the motivation for terrorism,

I'd like to understand your take on this.

Well I'd submitt the recent, circa late 1970's wave of terrorism began with Khomeni (sp) regime. Iran used state sponsored terrorism as a means of political/cultural goals/ends. Once the effectivness of this strategy was established they exported this to other like minded groups, states, sects etc in the region.

Once you nuetrailze the "State" sponsorship of this MO you lessen the the probabilty of the easily influenced- ie dogmatic Islamists and their blind followers and lackeys- to perputuate their veil acts. So yes it does not take a " country" per se but the elimination of that mind set,which contaminates the entire region, is paramount.

Iranian Shia, Iraqi & Syrian Baathist, Saudi Wahabi rulers continually preach, to the believers, of the great evils of the Westand infidels. Their duplicity and brutal repression of their own populations should easily illuminate the need to neutrailize these regimes.

[Art]

Kurp,

I can't believe you don't understand how strong military pressure and action by the U.S. in any number of these countries won't immediately limit terrorism. The fact is the reason fundamentalists are able to take lives if they are hell bent on doing so is because nation-states like Iran and Syria give them a place to train, meet, grow and recruit. If you take that away under the threat of our immense power, you end up making these organizations shadows. You put them underground. You make everything they do more difficult. You make it impossible for them to operate openly.

This is why Al Qaeda is so impotent at the moment. Unable to project power and left for marginally impressive regional car bombings. They simply have no air to breathe and plan. Now, you're right, these men can STILL find ways to take lives. But, by limiting the ease of which they grow, you limit those strikes.

If anything, the actions taken against Al Qaeda PROVE we are less at risk to acts of terrorism through action than we proved to be through a decade of inaction. Israel, BTW, also could stop or at least begin to stop suicide bombers tomorrow. They lack the will to do so. Back when they had a policy of taking 10 lives for every Israeli killed (or something similar to what Hitler did during his reign), terrorism over there was much less of an issue.

When Israel kept the body count imbalanced in response to actions against its citzens, there was dramatically less action against its citizens. But, the fact of the matter is, you absolutely do not address the motiviation for the insanity in this equation, Kurp.

The motiviation for the insanity against Israel is the people there don't believe Israel should exists and they do believe Jews should die. You don't need to grasp the motivation. Israel has offered complete pull backs and total Palestinian states in the past. Rejected out of hand with the open sentiment that they have no right to exist period.

Fundamentalists believe the world should be united under a barbaric Muslim theocracy. You look at Bin Laden's group and the main reason for their growth was that infidels were on Saudi soil. That's pretty much it. You don't need to understand that motivation. What you need to do is kill it.

We have MUCH more to do. But, clearly, what we've already done has created a safer nation than prior to 9/11. We'll eventually get hit again, of course. Tomorow or in 10 years. When we stop bringing pressure and acting proactively we'll get hit again.

[fansince62]

Kurp...since I'm in a semi rational mode (i.e., not trying to piss anyone off) I'll answer. I don't buy the direct threat argument because I see our security as wound up in the greater panorama of economic, political and military relationships in that part of the world. My security is impacted by what happens between Israel and Palestine. My security is impacted if the Iranians develop nuclear weapons. My security is certainlky threatened if, as happened yesterday, some idiot Mullah asserts that 10 million American deaths from a nuclear weapon is acceptable. My security is impacted if Iraq attacks Saudi Arabia, impedes shipping lines in the Gulf, violates international agreements and thereby induces others to do so, funds terrorist organizations......I could name a dozen other linked events that impact our security. I'm not willing to wait for another catastrophic CONUS attack to proactively protect US citizens and security.

I believe you raised a theme weel over a year ago about American hegemonistic intentions. Wel,, quoitre frankly, if ever there was a time and place...this is the time, and the Middle East is the place. We need to pursue a dual track strategy of diplomacy and precision killing. reward those who compromise....exterminate those who terrorize.

Art.....I know what you mean...I guess I have seen too much of the *hit/horror in that part of the world not to feel deep down..."enough. this has got to stop."......

[NavyDave]

So those UN resolutions were based on faulty info?

The show playing every Sunday and wednesday (Butcher of Bahgdad) on the history channel were fabricated?

And the veterans with Desert storm symptoms?

Come on give me an answer.

I agree with Kurp on the direct threat issue-- not.

If we went your route then we should use our military on our borders to keep all refugees. immigrants and illegals out of our country because they arent our problem.

Or we can quell the threat to other regions before it spreads like a virus and make those countries nice enough for people to stay and make their countries a better place.