Tonight is the State of the Union. Thursday night belongs to Frontline as they investigate the failure of the Bush administration's hunt for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. You may recall, it was the alleged possession of WMD by Saddam Hussein that became the primary reason for going to war almost a year ago.
For the past seven months, the Iraq Survey Group — a special coalition military and intelligence unit headed by Dr. David Kay — has been scouring Iraq for some trace of the illicit weapons and weapons programs that virtually everyone (even Jacques Chirac) believed Saddam Hussein was hiding. But so far, Kay and his team have found no conclusive evidence to back up the pre-war claims.
This week, in "Chasing Saddam's Weapons," Thursday, Jan. 22 at 9pm on PBS (check local listings), BBC reporter Jane Corbin, who has covered the issue of Saddam's weapons for more than a decade, offers an unprecedented inside look at the hunt for Iraq's alleged WMD. With exclusive access to top-secret locations and key officials — including David Kay — Corbin tells the story of the Iraq Survey Group's frustrating and mostly fruitless search since last spring, and reveals new details about what the ISG has, and has not, uncovered.
Five-hundred Americans have lost their lives in search of WMD. Countless thousands of Iraqi's lost their lives defending WMD. Australia, Poland, Italy, Spain,and other countries have lost soldiers and statesmen in search for WMD. Even the Japanese have mobilized their military, for the first time since World War II, in support of this war of WMD. Keep this in mind as you watch President Bush paint roses and peaches about our future and our progress.
Join the fray by reading through and commenting at the end.
If you hurry, you can get a "SotU Scorecard" from www.tompaine.com ... fill it out as Shrub gives the SotU, and then log the results at tompaine.com ... I printed out a couple for me and the wife to keep score with tonight. This should be fun!
Only "today's" attitude of instant gratification wants WMD found YESTERDAY. Here's what I propose, I will leave a several hundred buckets, all of them have with test-tubes filled with good-ole clear water -- somewhere in California.... yep - I'll choose the random locations from anywhere in that entire state's 156,000 square miles (roughly equivalent to . Your task: find it. Tomorrow by 9PM PST. Let me know when you've got it.
As far as the 500 Americans who lost their lives in "search of WMD", what about the 75,000 per year murdered by drunken asshats on our roads IN OUR NATION? OR - what about the 450,000 INJURED from that same self-centered act?
No one seems to comment about that. No one seems to want to address the fact the brave people who join the military do so without a gun pointed at their heads and KNOW darn well that they may end up in a situation as some are deployed into currently. But, your sister, brother, mom or dad, aunt/uncle, cousin, WIFE or HUSBAND or you own little kids are being MURDERED day after day after day because people would rather whine about WMD and totally IGNORE the problems here at home.
Let the politicians and the military worry about their crap; WE need to fix what WE the people have the power to fix here at home.
Have a nice day. :)
The number 500 is just a wee bit higher than the number of soldiers the US army lost in the first 4 years of the Vietnam campaign, or so I read. Sad.
Ubique, If you're going to go off like that then let's at least compare apples to apples.
Take military grade biochemical weaponry, of the type Bush said Iraq had stockpiles of (stockpiles!), and go hide them in California. Hell let's go further and make it Texas.
Give me the United States military machine, including special forces, satellite imagery, intel from the CIA, NSA and Lord knows what else we've got. And add the intelligence network and military might of Great Britain, because we can't forget our number one coalition partner.
Let me round up all your family and their extended family. Add your friends, their friends and family. And give me all the people you work or go to school with along their family and friends.
And give me access to every bank record, personal journal, computer files, and other miscellaneous documentation written by or written about/for you.
Now, let me have all of this for ten months, about the same length of time this war has been going on. Throw in a lot of interrogation, a few multi-million dollar rewards, and the threat of being sent to the south of Cuba and yeah I think I, along with the might of the United States Military, I think we could find your smug buckets of WMD.
I don't know where you get this idea of instant gratification from. We've been in Iraq for almost a year now without finding a trace, not even a hint or evidence of WMD.
We were lied too, get off your high-horse and admit it.
Classic response from the Dems tonight: applause at the mention of the PATRIOT act expiring; Teddy K. squirming in his seat and looking thoroughly disgusted; boos and catcalls at the admonition to make the tax cuts permanent.
The Dems in Congress are finally growing a collective pair.
Greg, you seem to have forgotten the attacks on our soldiers in your scenario. Wouldn't that make it at least a wee bit more difficult to scour that area?
Before the war, the administration knew the quantities of the WMD, down to the litre, they knew the location of it, they showed satellite photos of trucks carrying it, of buildings housing it.
They explicitly said that these very trucks, these very buildings, contain these specific WMDs in this specific quantity. They said that due to these terrible weapons which we know Saddam have in his possession, we cannot wait any longer, we cannot give weapons inspectors more time to search, we must act now, because Saddam poses a "immediate and direct threat". We must attack, right now, immediately.
How the hell were these not lies?
Many things were placed before us as facts. A military that couldn't defend Baghdad was proported to have capabilities to launch an attack on the UK in 45 minutes. This war was about taking on a direct threat until boots hit the soil. Suddenly the war was about liberating oppressed people. Strange case of doublethink, revisionist history, or whatever you want to call it. Yes we were lied to.
Sure, the attacks would slow down some progress but I can't think it would be so devastating to the entire operation, that nothing could be found by now. Especially when some of the biggest attacks have occurred near hotels and the entrances to our military bases. Two places the weapon(s) are likely not to be found.
As Thomas points out, that prior to this conflict President Bush said he knew where everything was located — It's just a matter of smoking them out and picking up the pieces. If that was the case, we should have had these weapons a long time ago, or at least traces of evidence of a WMD program.
In no way would I suggest that our men and women, from the US and other coalition countries) are doing a sloppy job in Iraq. I think they've been set up to loose this game of WMD hide and seek from the very beginning.
And to think how angry and pissed off this country was in the late 90's because President Clinton lied about having sex. My how times have changed.
Whoa, wait a second, WMD were not the only reason! Remember the always trusty Karl Rove told us there were connections to Bin Laden and there was an immediate threat.
Huh, what,.... that was a lie too!?
never mind.
Sheesh. U-Bisque, how can there be any doubt that we have been lied to? (Have you also forgotten the "yellowcake?") The fact is that our country was a victim of the old bait-and-switch. (Some of us knew it all along, but we all make mistakes.) The rationale for the war has been shifting like the sands of...whatever.
Yes, the world is a better place without Saddam in power. (Where is he anyway?) But I think it would also be a better place without George W. Bush in power, too.
I agree on that last paragraph, Beerzie, but I respectfully disagree with the premise that we were not justified in attacking Iraq.
I stand firm that this war was the right thing to do. Force works, and we're getting very good results (witness Iran & Libya). Granted, it's not me or my son/daughter out there getting their asses shot at. WMD stands as a perfect justifciation for the war.
You see, there's a reason everybody believed he had the weapons (the quote in the initial post says that even Chirac thought that Iraq had hidden WMD): Documented PROOF of this existed. All he had to do was document what HAPPENED to them. He never could and refused to do so. If he had destroyed them, why didn't he offer up proof of that FULLY KNOWING somebody (U.S., UN) was going to come calling for it eventually? The reason was that he was most likely planning something epic and horrible. Saddam Hussein stands solely responsible for this war. If he really wanted to avoid it, he could have done so simply by never kicking the weapons inspectors out in the first place.
In short, what I have to ask is what is the flip side of the WMD was a lie argument? That Saddam Hussein should have been trusted? That he's hadn't promised to bathe Israel in a "lake of fire." That he hadn't been responsible for murdering hundreds of thousands of his own citizens and actively invading his neighbors?
Now, before I go too far off the deep end, allow me to moderate myself a bit. I fully support the WHY of this war. But the WHY NOW I've never been able to fathom. I, and everyone I know who studies such matters for a living (Defense Policy Analysts, Weapons Systems Designers, Diplomatic Corps types) all agree that the war was going to happen eventually, because it was really an extension of, and the results of Iraq's breaking of the conditions of the cease fire from the First Gulf War. But why we had to do it before we'd resolved the situation in Afghanistan and when our government is already spending more money on war than (probably) since World War II is beyond me.
ANd that is why Bush must go. He had the right idea, but his execution of the idea was so muddled and shady that I can't trust him.
Furthermore, his domestic policies make me want to PUKE!
Sorry to invade your web space, but it's a great site!
A great deal depends on who you choose to believe... on either side.
My response to Scotty - So force works?
The fact that there have been more terrorist attacks, and people dying from them than ever before, since the US started this 'War On Terror' would tend to indicate that it doesn't work.
In fact quite the opposite.
When the average Iraqi says things were better under Saddam, you do have to wonder about the 'good' we are doing there.
Actually, terrorist attacks have increased in Iraq but decreased around the world since the beginning of the war in Afghanistan.
Ublique- while I understand & empathize with your "solve things at home first" argument....doesn't it seem a bit naive to think that we are far removed from the problems of the world? Perhaps you are just an optimist.Where I grew up- if the house next door caught on fire- there was a good chance that the house ajacent was in danger as well.
That's not to say you shouldn't stock the halls of your home with smoke detectors & extinguishers. Just be advised it won't stop an inferno in the event that your neighbor's fire spreads quickly.
WMD are... sexy. As long as they don't blow me up...
Actually, terrorist attacks have increased in Iraq but decreased around the world since the beginning of the war in Afghanistan.
Once the general public didn't buy their first reckoning, the Bush Administration change the toot of their horn and stated their initial reasoning for invading Iraq was to deliver liberation to the Iraqi people.
Okay.
If this is still valid intent, then what's the point of liberation when increased terrorist attacks in Iraq strip away the possibility to exercise that right when Iraqi lives are at a high risk of being permanently taken away?
Also, these continuous terrorist attacks may not occur on American soil, but U.S. soldiers are definately the main target.
Bush and the rest of the GOPpers are so appalling as to make one blow chunks.
That being said, I wonder if the real object of the exercise has been and is Iran. By using Saddam as the bête noir and causus belli, the US gets the US public to accept the cost of toting all that armor and hardware out to the Persian Gulf, where it has got the attention of the mad mullahs of Qom, who are in the final stages of their Manhattan Project.
Without the offing of Saddam, without the demonstrated capability of US military power on their borders, the Iranians would have nothing to hold them back, Saddam would still be in power, and Bashar and his Syrians would be openly funding Islamic extremists. What a wonderful scenario for an Iranian nuclear capability.
Of course, the Israelis will not accept this, and would do to the Iranians what they did to Saddam in the early 80's ? take out the nuclear infrastructure with their airpower.
This may yet come to pass.
america preaches about "democracy" yet feels no remorse when abducting rulers of other similarly elected leaders to install "democratic" leaders that THEY choose. sounds more like they are spreading dictatorship than democracy.
saddam hussein? yeah, bad guy. wouldn't want to come across him in the subway. on the other hand i wouldn't want to walk into his country with an assault rifle, picking off innocent villagers and bombing civilian buildings until i found him. real nice example america is setting for the world, isn't it?
unblique: at first i thought you might be president bush in disguise, defending yourself.. because your lack of rational thought reminded me of him.. on the other hand, if you were president bush you would have had to scan in pictures of your comments written in half-eaten crayons.
A few questions for the Bush-bashers... Why are the presence/existence of WMD the only valid reason for deposing Saddam Hiussein and liberating Iraq?
It's pretty common knowledge that Saddam killed thousands of Iraqis, Kurds, and indeed used WMD (Mustard gas) on them. Why are the children of Iraq worth less than those of the West? Thus I read this logic that without WMD there was no compelling reason to go to war.
As to the brouhaha caused by David Kay's testimony that 'we were all wrong' on Iraq's weapons, this is a dangerous road. By this logic, the fact that we have not thus far found huge weapons caches means that Saddam destroyed them all. Can this really be taken seriously? Does the absence of evidence indicate that something does not exist? When has Saddam EVER been trustworthy, or kept to treaties and agreements? He played the UN like a cheap fiddle, and are we now to believe that he suddenly saw the light? It is also worth noting that when speaking of chemical weapons, a little goes an awful long way. There seems to be some confusion with the mass in WMD. People seem to assume that there must bemassive amounts of these weapons. It doesn't take much antrax to klill and awful lot of people. The fact that there are no 'Keep Right For Anthrax Lab' signs doesn't mean chemical weapons do not still exist in Iraq. In short, Mr. Kays report, if it means anything at all, certainly doesn't mean that Iraq has no remaining WMD.
Matt. Do you really have to ask?
We went to war because President Bush told the world that Iraq posed a threat to the security of all freedom loving nations. His administration went on to show proof of an elaborate chemical and nuclear weapons program. And a good portion of the world said it wasn’t enough to go to war. And yeah that includes Secretary of State Colin Powell telling the United Nations that Saddam had massive amounts of WMD. Massive.
But we did anyway. We went to war over a series of lies starting with the big one given during the State of the Union address. Never in the beginning of pre-war rhetoric was liberation part of the equation. The key word for going to war was disarmament.
I don’t think anyone would protest that the largest positive outcome of Bush’s war has been the freedom of Iraq and its people. But what makes the children of Iraq so special? Why not take similar action to free the people of North Korea, China, and where ever people are oppressed?
We won’t go to war to save oppressed people because there’s no money in it. It’s not what we’re about. The US is not in the liberating business. We never have been, not even in World War II.
Matt we’re pissed off because we were lied to, not listened too, and a lot of people have died because of it.
You are correct, we went to war because, as the president said, Iraq posed a threat to all freedom loving nations. In fact, President Bill Clinton said as much too. Speaking at the Pentagon on Feb 17, 1998, Mr. Clinton noted the following:
"Now, let's imagine the future. What if he (Saddam) fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction.
And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal ... In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now--a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers, or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed."
Thus, far from being a fabrication, or a lie, it was a widely held belief throughout all levels of government, and across both parties. Democratic senator Joseph Biden was asked in late May by Chris Matthews on MSNBC whether he believed going into the war that Iraq possesed WMD and answered "Yes, I do". Was he lying too?
Finally, let's let David Kay who has lately become the poster child of those trying to discredit the president speak on this point: "It was reasonable to conclude that Iraq posed an imminent threat. What we learned during the inspection made Iraq a more dangerous place potentially than in fact we thought it was even before the war." (interview on NPR). If we went to war over a series of lies, it was the lies told by Iraq to the UN Inspection teams. The United States had and has solid reasons for our action in Iraq. Disarmament was the goal, (and it continues to be an ongoing process - Iraq is a big country, and they had a lot of advance notice in hiding their stuff), but liberation is a nice by-product. I could go on, but the crux is this: Iraq had huge (indeed, massive) stockpiles of weapons that were never accounted for. To trust that they simply destroyed them all is naive and dangerous.
As I recall, back in February 1998, President Clinton was trying to divert the worlds attention away from his hallway love affair with Monica Lewinsky. Iraq was merely a convenient pawn for this ploy and later that year Clinton blew the hell out of Iraq for four days during Operation Desert Fox.
You wrote, "If we went to war over a series of lies, it was the lies told by Iraq to the UN Inspection teams." Well I'm puzzled because as I recall, both Iraq and the UN Inspection teams said there were no WMD to be found. Nothing. Zip. Zilch. All the evidence used by the Bush Administration to make a case for war has all been shown to be a collection of exaggerations and lies.
It's possible that Bush was merely acting upon notes taken during the Clinton era, and used Iraq as a diversion to our horrible, horrible economy and half a trillion dollar budget deficit.
Maybe I can cite Iraq's WMD as the reason I'll be at home next week with a rare, seven day flu. If it works for the President of the United States the it should work for me.
So in your mind, the fact that Clinton was commiting adultery around this time is reason enough to believe that Saddam had cooperated with UN Inspectors?
If you recall, Operation Desert Fox had the net result that Saddam expelled all wepaons inspectors and that he was totally unmonitored for the next four years.
To say, as you do, that 'All the evidence used by the Bush Administration to make a case for war has all been shown to be a collection of exaggerations and lies.' is simply false. Weapons inspectors throughout the 1990's were unable to account for much of the WMD that Saddam admitted to having. In all his years of dealing with the U.N. inspections, Saddam showed himself to be anything but forthcoming and cooperative. I find it risible that you would trust this Iraqi government to tell the truth about their weapons. And no, the UN inspectors did not give Saddam a clean bill of health. In his March 6, 2003, report to the U.N. Security Council, Hans Blix reported that the declared stocks of anthrax and VX remained unaccounted for.
You don't comment on David Kay's admission that Iraq did pose an imminent threat, I assume because it doesn't fit with your version of events. Once again, failure at this point time to uncover large amounts of WMD does not mean 1) Iraq destroyed them all or 2) Iraq was not capable of producing more weapons in a short amount of time. I could go on to cite other statistics about weapons, but most likely, those who opposed the president's action (and as you may recall, that of many other nations) would not be convinced. They are simply unwilling to give any ground to the president or admit he was right in so acting. No accounting has ever been given for the known weapons programs of Iraq. Every responsible actor in this drama believes that Saddam would continue to build and develop WMD. Stopping him via the action we took was the prudent and responsible thing to do.
Is it, if not obvious, then very likely Saddam Hussein was bluffing when he stated he had a strong biological and chemical defense system in chance to give the impression and stall or scare threatening nations away? He was just saving his own ass, to stall or scare us away.
If he's as ruthless and mentally unbalanced as the Bush Administration say he is, then why wouldn't that still be on the long list of options? I don't know about those who use the "but, Saddam said so..." excuse, but I sure as he wouldn't have ignored such a theory.
This antiwar v. pro-war argument basically comes down to theology. When preemptive war is chosen, you have to be completely supported with sturdy, tangible evidence, not assumptions or worst-case scenarios. As the facts continue to be brought forward, the pro-war case weakens, proving hypotheses aren't the way to go.
Here is how Bush "cares" about weapons of mass destruction:
Defense Enterprise Fund (DEF) is a US Congress-financed program to convert former Russian producers of weapons of mass destruction (nuclear, biological chemical). DEF is a venture capital fund that was supposed to bring profit to the US Treasury. Yet, DEF lost its entire $67M grant in shady deals with Russian mafia figures, and its conversion mission has not been accomplished. The US Government knowingly and blatantly misrepresents DEF's operational results.
More information (including two Department of Defense Audits) is here
http://nuun-lugar.com/def/
Sorry, a typo in the link:
http://nunn-lugar.com/def/
Matt, by your logic, why didn't we invade North Korea instead of Irak?
Plus, looking at your link - this whole DEF was on Clinton's watch.
I may be missing something, but where did the President say that Iraq posed an imminent threat?
Ok, I'll tell you - in last years state of the union address, the president did not claim the threat from Saddam was imminent, but rather that we needed to address the danger before there was an imminent threat.
Instead of claiming imminence, here is what the president said:
Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.
Therefore, this whole business about lying and the chief rationale for the war as being WMD is a lot of rubbish. Both George Tenet and David Kay affirmed the fact that Iraq did indeed represent a threat, and one that was unknown. As Mr. Kay noted, it was reasonable to conclude that Iraq posed an imminent threat.