Posted by
timothy
on from the absence-of-evidence dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Severalnewsoutlets are reporting that the United States has officially ended the The Iraq Survey Group's search for WMDs. Prior to the war, WMDs were named as a justification for a 'preemptive' invasion."
I'm sure we'll get a lot of war/Bush supporters here that pop up with all sorts of justifications now, but look, the justifications given over and over by Bush and his crew was that they (the wmds) were either there, or that Saddam had the capability to either make them, or get them from someone else.
Not only are they apparently not there (notwithstanding the "Syrian conspiracy theory" and such), a conclusion backed by three reports (Kay, 9/11, Duelfer) and this, the justification cannot be changed now just because it was wrong in the first place (in other words, you can't come back and respond to this news story by saying "but we liberated the iraqis" - yes, we did, but that wasn't the justification given for war, so it's a topic for a different discussion). Bush and his pals didn't say "we're going in because Saddam is an evil wicked little man who mistreats his people" in anything more than the most superficial manner. He did it by evoking images (well, that was more Cheney's job, actually) of an Iraq-backed attack spready doom across the continental United States and saying he knew something we didn't about all this.
Well, he was wrong. You can either sit and make stupid excuses and try to say "well, it doesn't matter because of..", but the fact is, this administration was wrong.
Responsible people would now stand up and explain what happened and what they plan to do about the fallout caused by their error. Irresponsible people, or people who were lying in the first place, will come back and try to change the subject or sweep it under the rug.
I'd like to think that the United States is a responsible nation, but with the way this has been addressed by this administration - attempting to shake its head and say no, really, we were right even though almost nothing we said before the war was true - and the way it's unlikely about to be addressed here, I have serious doubts that this country is currently anything close to responsible.
That's fine though. Keep it up. We'll see how long the rest of the world puts up with us if our trustworthiness turns into a chronic, glaring problem. You can only stay a superpower for so long when you rely on the rest of the world for your way of life and you're not willing to change it when you can't rely on the world anymore. Bring out the "woo woo! america is teh r0xx0rz!" crap instead of admitting you're wrong. We'll see just how well that works in the long run.
(on an unrelated note, why did this disappear from the frontpage...?)
-- Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
Oh and destroying the entire bug planet was right?
Re:Great...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
No, the media spin given over and over was that WMD was the reason America attacked Iraq.
Conjecture. Bush and his administration have gone on record numerous times, in some cases going so far as to claim they actually knew where the weapons were, to say that the justification for invasion was, in fact, WMDs.
The report stated that Saddam had a complete bioweapons infrastructure in place and ready to ramp up to full production within a 6 month period
WHICH report? In fact, provide the page number, because I want to see the exact text, in context.
Knowing now just how rotten and corrupt the oil for food program was, it was only a short matter of time before Saddam was once again cranking out bioweapons.
Pure conjecture. No basis in fact. In addition, you're suggesting that you are psychic by making a statement of fact about something which never happened when you come to the conclusion at the end.
Now, would you rather get the mad man out of there before he was making them or only after they were stockpiled?
The false dillema fallacy. Not only have you have not proven they would ever have been stockpiled, you fail to consider a large number of legitimate options such as the forceful reinstatement of weapons inspectors.
You also criticize Bush because he didn't do enough to prevent 9/11.
Straw man. I haven't said that. Even if I had said it, it would still be immaterial.
Probably in the same breath you attack him for pre-emptively preventing Saddam from hitting this country.
You have not proven this would happen.
I suggest a good duct tape around the temples to prevent your head exploding from the cognitive dissonance.
Concluded strong with a nice argumentum ad hominem.
Needless to say, you have not even begun to convince me, and you're argument needs some serious work.
~TxMxP
Re:Great...
by
h4x0r-3l337
·
· Score: 4, Informative
the justifications given over and over by Bush and his crew was that they (the wmds) were either there, or that Saddam had the capability to either make them, or get them from someone else
bull-shit. The Bush administration flat out said that he had WMD. They claimed to have proof. At some point they even claimed they had found them. None of that turned out to be true.
Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction - Dick Cheney, Speech to VFW National Convention, Aug. 26, 2002
We know for a fact that there are weapons there. -
Ari Fleischer, Press Briefing, Jan. 9, 2003
Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. - George W. Bush, Address to the Nation, March 17, 2003
There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. - Gen. Tommy Franks,
Press Conference, March 22, 2003
We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat. - Donald Rumsfeld, ABC Interview, March 30, 2003
We found the weapons of mass destruction - George W. Bush, Polish TV Interview, May 29, 2003
I thought about writing a long list to document where Bush or a member his administration said that we had to go to war with Iraq because of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. This was about protecting America, right?
Iraq even allowed the weapons inspectors in to prove they didn't have anything. Remember how the Bush administration mocked the U.N. weapons inspectors whose search turned up nothing? Remember the ultimatum that Bush gave Iraq -- disarm within 72 hours or else? And Fox News gleefully put a countdown clock on the screen? Remember the forged documents--not the ones from CBS; the ones supposedly from Nigeria saying that Iraq tried to acquire fissionable material? Remember the aluminum tubes?
Remember how reasonable, rational people said there was no proof Iraq had WMDs? Remember how millions of people all over the world protested this war before it started? Remember when scores of diplomats resigned from the U.S. Foreign Service because of these false claims of WMDs? John Brady Kiesling wrote in his resignation letter, "We have not seen such systematic distortion of intelligence, such systematic manipulation of the American people, since the war in Vietnam."
However, I think I speak for nearly 50% of the country when I say that my head exploded from the incredible sense of "I told you so." I'm not happy to be right -- I'm sad for our country and what it turned into.
And to all the Conservatives who say, "The weapons of mass destruction may not be found, but hey Iraq is now a peaceful democracy, so it was worth it," I respond with, "The ends do not justify the means."
-- Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
Re:The ends
by
GOD_ALMIGHTY
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
The justification for invading was that Iraq presented a threat. Not finding WMD or any programs proves that the invasion was unnecessary for dealing with the threat. The only reason people were still debating over whether or not he had WMD were Conservative pundits going on crap intelligence from "heroes in error" like Chalibi and the Iraqi National Congress.
No intelligence organization actually believed Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the US or it's allies. They knew that his capabilities were so reduced and that the existing programs had managed to cripple his ability reinstate any WMD programs. Whether or not he intended to honor the cease-fire or any other treaty in the future was irrelevant. We don't invade countries based on such flimsy rationales. The question to invade was based on the nature and level of threat that Saddam in power posed. Rational and reasonable people argued that it was a dumb idea, that the nature and level of threat would not be improved by invasion, especially one as incompetent as the Bush Administration managed to provide.
Your attempt to equivocate Saddam's future intentions with the evidence is part of the intellectual dishonesty and weakness that got us into this mess. You are also attempting to equivocate the claim that Bush thought Iraq had WMD with the claim that Bush thought invading was going to help the situation. The first claim is simply an over-simplification of the second. The fact that you have chosen to attack the first, rather than the second, undermines the credibility of your reasoning.
Personally, I dislike George Bush, because I hate tyranny and totalitarianism. Bush is like Plato, he uses the language of the Open Society to promote the Closed one. His ends justify his means and his idea of Justice is a social ideal, not an individualists one. The pattern of rewarding loyalty to his own power and treating disloyalty as the ultimate crime is also one of Plato's ideals of Justice. I don't need any bogus reasons to dislike Bush, I've got plenty of rational ones based on the historical record.
BTW, perhaps all of your reading can actually provide a meaning to the phrase "WMD-related program activities". I want to make sure my next hobby isn't a cause for invasion -- so far I've been lucky with the fake oil well in the front yard.
-- Arrogance is Confidence which lacks integrity. -- me
Surprising some were not faked
by
justanyone
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
It has surprised me that WMD were not faked by CIA / DIA / etc. (insert random agency name here). Getting a hold of some generic sarin, anthrax, botulinin, chlorine gas, etc. would be easy for any U.S. agency determined to do so. Placing it in a couple of buried shipping containers in the desert that we 'accidentally' discovered the location to would have been very easy.
The fact that this was not done says to me: * maybe some was found but they can't talk about it (doubtful); * most of the people in the U.S. armed forces are basically ethical (encouraging); * no one thought of faking it (highly doubtful); * there are too many checks and balances within the agency structures to allow a fake to succeed (highly likely).
The checks-balances scenario is this: CIA decides to fake it. 1. They create the agent/material, bury it, fake up docs, release info about it, "find" it, make news. 2. FBI decides, Hey, let's test it and figure out where it really came from and how it was made. 3. UN / Brits request samples to test, start interviewing all their people about the subject and get nothing or actual denials. 4. FBI figures out this isn't genuine and points fingers, or: 5. ATF decides to test it independently, or: 6. Secret service / Treasury tests it independently, or: 7. GAO / Congressional subcommittee asks lots of questions, or: 8. UN figures it out, points fingers, or: 9. Iraq former-regime muckety-mucks say, "hey, wait, we didn't do that... it's cool, but we didn't do it."
Just some thoughts. I like having multiple levels of power structures all competing for the truth. The whole CIA reorg bill concentrates power too much in my opinion. It'll allow for this kind of potential fakery to succeed.
Lying by understatement: an object lesson.
by
manyoso
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
"Iraq Survey Group's search for WMDs. Prior to the war, WMDs were named as a justification for a 'preemptive' invasion."
Prior to the war, WMDs were named as the justification for a 'preemptive' invasion.
After the war and during the war, when WMDs were not being found,... not so much.
SO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Your post says you are angry, but then you sigh and heave and -- inevitably -- you give up, shut up, and go on with your life. Your opposition to the war consists of posting on Slashdot about it, in a section that nobody reads.
LOOK IN THE FUCKING MIRROR! YOU ARE THE PROBLEM! If you want people to be outraged, then BE OUTRAGED YOURSELF and DO SOMETHING WITH THAT ANGER. There are still anti-war speeches taking place -- go and listen to one. Go take part in a rally, hell, START a rally yourself. Get your friends and neighbors to go, and be an ACTIVE citizen, instead of someone who sits back, complains, and votes democrat. Write editorials, get in touch with the public, and get people to channel their own anger with yours.
You talk about the election being 50/50. Well guess what, buddy: BOTH MAJOR CANDIDATES SUPPORTED THE WAR. You think voting for them sent any kind of message? The democrats are the ones that gave Bush the power in the first place. The democrats are the ones that still won't take a stand against it. Why are YOU content to vote for a party that you don't agree with on this incredibly important issue??
Now is the time to start acting, not yet another four years from now when it's too late to change anything. Look up your local Green Party and become an active member of it.
It's worth several hours of my weekend to protest the war and go to political meetings. I don't understand when you say you're too busy watching sitcoms and playing World of Warcraft.
That's below even your low standards.
by
khasim
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Why not just read his State of the Union address where he outlines the case instead of cherry picking?
Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction. For the next 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, even while inspectors were in his country. Nothing to date has restrained him from his pursuit of these weapons -- not economic sanctions, not isolation from the civilized world, not even cruise missile strikes on his military facilities.
Looks like you're wrong.
WMD Report
That took about 15 seconds in Google.
The ORIGINAL question was "WHICH report? In fact, provide the page number, because I want to see the exact text, in context.
You failed to do so. You presented a link to a CNN story about the report, not to a specific quote in the report. You can't do that because the report does not say what you claim it says.
Inspectors were shown over a 9 year period to be ineffective. Define the level of force to be used in your forceful reinstatement.
"UN sanctions curbed Saddam's ability to import weapons, technology, and expertise into Iraq. Sanctions also limited his ability to finance his military, intelligence, and security forces to deal with his perceived and real external threats."
And since we know Saddam had a bioweapons program ready to ramp up at a moment's notice and was more than eager to get back into the business, only a fool would think he wasn't working to bring down the entire sanctions from within the U.N.
Again, the actual report contradicts your claims. "In practical terms, with the destruction of the Al Hakam facility, Iraq abandoned its ambition to obtain advanced BW weapons quickly. ISG found no direct evidence that Iraq, after 1996, had plans for a new BW program or was conducting BW-specifi c work for military purposes. Indeed, from the mid-1990s, despite evidence of continuing interest in nuclear and chemical weapons, there appears to be a complete absence of discussion or even interest in BW at the Presidential level."
So, in conclusion: #1. Saddam was not a nuclear threat to the US. #2. Saddam was not a chemical threat to the US. #3. Saddam was not a biological threat to the US. #4. Saddam was not a terrorist threat to the US.
Saddam was not a military threat to the US in any way, shape or form.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sure we'll get a lot of war/Bush supporters here that pop up with all sorts of justifications now, but look, the justifications given over and over by Bush and his crew was that they (the wmds) were either there, or that Saddam had the capability to either make them, or get them from someone else.
Not only are they apparently not there (notwithstanding the "Syrian conspiracy theory" and such), a conclusion backed by three reports (Kay, 9/11, Duelfer) and this, the justification cannot be changed now just because it was wrong in the first place (in other words, you can't come back and respond to this news story by saying "but we liberated the iraqis" - yes, we did, but that wasn't the justification given for war, so it's a topic for a different discussion). Bush and his pals didn't say "we're going in because Saddam is an evil wicked little man who mistreats his people" in anything more than the most superficial manner. He did it by evoking images (well, that was more Cheney's job, actually) of an Iraq-backed attack spready doom across the continental United States and saying he knew something we didn't about all this.
Well, he was wrong. You can either sit and make stupid excuses and try to say "well, it doesn't matter because of..", but the fact is, this administration was wrong.
Responsible people would now stand up and explain what happened and what they plan to do about the fallout caused by their error. Irresponsible people, or people who were lying in the first place, will come back and try to change the subject or sweep it under the rug.
I'd like to think that the United States is a responsible nation, but with the way this has been addressed by this administration - attempting to shake its head and say no, really, we were right even though almost nothing we said before the war was true - and the way it's unlikely about to be addressed here, I have serious doubts that this country is currently anything close to responsible.
That's fine though. Keep it up. We'll see how long the rest of the world puts up with us if our trustworthiness turns into a chronic, glaring problem. You can only stay a superpower for so long when you rely on the rest of the world for your way of life and you're not willing to change it when you can't rely on the world anymore. Bring out the "woo woo! america is teh r0xx0rz!" crap instead of admitting you're wrong. We'll see just how well that works in the long run.
(on an unrelated note, why did this disappear from the frontpage...?)
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
I thought about writing a long list to document where Bush or a member his administration said that we had to go to war with Iraq because of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. This was about protecting America, right?
Iraq even allowed the weapons inspectors in to prove they didn't have anything. Remember how the Bush administration mocked the U.N. weapons inspectors whose search turned up nothing? Remember the ultimatum that Bush gave Iraq -- disarm within 72 hours or else? And Fox News gleefully put a countdown clock on the screen? Remember the forged documents--not the ones from CBS; the ones supposedly from Nigeria saying that Iraq tried to acquire fissionable material? Remember the aluminum tubes?
Remember how reasonable, rational people said there was no proof Iraq had WMDs? Remember how millions of people all over the world protested this war before it started? Remember when scores of diplomats resigned from the U.S. Foreign Service because of these false claims of WMDs? John Brady Kiesling wrote in his resignation letter, "We have not seen such systematic distortion of intelligence, such systematic manipulation of the American people, since the war in Vietnam."
However, I think I speak for nearly 50% of the country when I say that my head exploded from the incredible sense of "I told you so." I'm not happy to be right -- I'm sad for our country and what it turned into.
And to all the Conservatives who say, "The weapons of mass destruction may not be found, but hey Iraq is now a peaceful democracy, so it was worth it," I respond with, "The ends do not justify the means."
Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
It has surprised me that WMD were not faked by CIA / DIA / etc. (insert random agency name here). Getting a hold of some generic sarin, anthrax, botulinin, chlorine gas, etc. would be easy for any U.S. agency determined to do so. Placing it in a couple of buried shipping containers in the desert that we 'accidentally' discovered the location to would have been very easy.
The fact that this was not done says to me:
* maybe some was found but they can't talk about it (doubtful);
* most of the people in the U.S. armed forces are basically ethical (encouraging);
* no one thought of faking it (highly doubtful);
* there are too many checks and balances within the agency structures to allow a fake to succeed (highly likely).
The checks-balances scenario is this: CIA decides to fake it.
1. They create the agent/material, bury it, fake up docs, release info about it, "find" it, make news.
2. FBI decides, Hey, let's test it and figure out where it really came from and how it was made.
3. UN / Brits request samples to test, start interviewing all their people about the subject and get nothing or actual denials.
4. FBI figures out this isn't genuine and points fingers, or:
5. ATF decides to test it independently, or:
6. Secret service / Treasury tests it independently, or:
7. GAO / Congressional subcommittee asks lots of questions, or:
8. UN figures it out, points fingers, or:
9. Iraq former-regime muckety-mucks say, "hey, wait, we didn't do that... it's cool, but we didn't do it."
Just some thoughts.
I like having multiple levels of power structures all competing for the truth. The whole CIA reorg bill concentrates power too much in my opinion. It'll allow for this kind of potential fakery to succeed.
-- Kevin
Unitarian Church: Freethinkers Congregate!
"Iraq Survey Group's search for WMDs. Prior to the war, WMDs were named as a justification for a 'preemptive' invasion."
... not so much.
Prior to the war, WMDs were named as the justification for a 'preemptive' invasion.
After the war and during the war, when WMDs were not being found,
Your post says you are angry, but then you sigh and heave and -- inevitably -- you give up, shut up, and go on with your life. Your opposition to the war consists of posting on Slashdot about it, in a section that nobody reads.
LOOK IN THE FUCKING MIRROR! YOU ARE THE PROBLEM! If you want people to be outraged, then BE OUTRAGED YOURSELF and DO SOMETHING WITH THAT ANGER. There are still anti-war speeches taking place -- go and listen to one. Go take part in a rally, hell, START a rally yourself. Get your friends and neighbors to go, and be an ACTIVE citizen, instead of someone who sits back, complains, and votes democrat. Write editorials, get in touch with the public, and get people to channel their own anger with yours.
You talk about the election being 50/50. Well guess what, buddy: BOTH MAJOR CANDIDATES SUPPORTED THE WAR. You think voting for them sent any kind of message? The democrats are the ones that gave Bush the power in the first place. The democrats are the ones that still won't take a stand against it. Why are YOU content to vote for a party that you don't agree with on this incredibly important issue??
Now is the time to start acting, not yet another four years from now when it's too late to change anything. Look up your local Green Party and become an active member of it.
It's worth several hours of my weekend to protest the war and go to political meetings. I don't understand when you say you're too busy watching sitcoms and playing World of Warcraft.
Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction. For the next 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, even while inspectors were in his country. Nothing to date has restrained him from his pursuit of these weapons -- not economic sanctions, not isolation from the civilized world, not even cruise missile strikes on his military facilities.
Looks like you're wrong.The ORIGINAL question was "WHICH report? In fact, provide the page number, because I want to see the exact text, in context.
You failed to do so. You presented a link to a CNN story about the report, not to a specific quote in the report. You can't do that because the report does not say what you claim it says.Actually, if you read the final report, it says that they were effective. http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/Comp
"UN sanctions curbed Saddam's ability to import weapons, technology, and expertise into Iraq. Sanctions also limited his ability to finance his military, intelligence, and security forces to deal with his perceived and real external threats."Again, the actual report contradicts your claims. "In practical terms, with the destruction of the Al Hakam facility, Iraq abandoned its ambition to obtain advanced BW weapons quickly. ISG found no direct evidence that Iraq, after 1996, had plans for a new BW program or was conducting BW-specifi c work for military purposes. Indeed, from the mid-1990s, despite evidence of continuing interest in nuclear and chemical weapons, there appears to be a complete absence of discussion or even interest in BW at the Presidential level."
So, in conclusion:
#1. Saddam was not a nuclear threat to the US.
#2. Saddam was not a chemical threat to the US.
#3. Saddam was not a biological threat to the US.
#4. Saddam was not a terrorist threat to the US.
Saddam was not a military threat to the US in any way, shape or form.