![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lederhosenAnd some recent newspaper reports:
A leaked DIA report from last September concluded that "There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons, or where Iraq has - or will - establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities."
Donald Rumsfeld to Congress, September 19th: "[Iraq has] amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons, including VX, sarin and mustard gas".
George W. Bush, presidential radio address, September 28: "The danger to our country is grave and growing. The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British Government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes."
Meanwhile, a former Iraqi intelligence officer has stated that Iraq did not have such weapons (and one has to wonder what he'd have to gain from being caught in a lie). According to him, UN sanctions and inspections crippled Iraq's WMD program, and Iraq was essentially waiting for the UN to go away before restarting production.
So, if this guy's to be believed, the sanctions and inspections were doing their job.
Oh, and analysts are now saying that the identification of those "mobile labs" might have been premature. Seems they lacked sterilisation equipment, and could have been used to produce hydrogen for weather balloons... which would explain why no attempt was made to conceal their workings from casual observers, as you'd expect with an illegal lab.
OK, I'm hereby officially abandoning my previously-held belief that Iraq did have significant amounts of nuclear/biological/chemical weapons as of the beginning of this war. Any of you reading this still believe they existed?
A leaked DIA report from last September concluded that "There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons, or where Iraq has - or will - establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities."
Donald Rumsfeld to Congress, September 19th: "[Iraq has] amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons, including VX, sarin and mustard gas".
George W. Bush, presidential radio address, September 28: "The danger to our country is grave and growing. The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British Government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes."
Meanwhile, a former Iraqi intelligence officer has stated that Iraq did not have such weapons (and one has to wonder what he'd have to gain from being caught in a lie). According to him, UN sanctions and inspections crippled Iraq's WMD program, and Iraq was essentially waiting for the UN to go away before restarting production.
So, if this guy's to be believed, the sanctions and inspections were doing their job.
Oh, and analysts are now saying that the identification of those "mobile labs" might have been premature. Seems they lacked sterilisation equipment, and could have been used to produce hydrogen for weather balloons... which would explain why no attempt was made to conceal their workings from casual observers, as you'd expect with an illegal lab.
OK, I'm hereby officially abandoning my previously-held belief that Iraq did have significant amounts of nuclear/biological/chemical weapons as of the beginning of this war. Any of you reading this still believe they existed?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-06-08 07:48 pm (UTC)By the evidence, it seems that there were not significant amounts of WMD in Iraq before the war.
And even more telling, is that the search is winding down.
As the tired old joke goes, we knew that he had WMD - we have the reciepts. But even if he did, they're shelf life is limited and would probably be useless by now.
Now for the question: were we deliberately lied too or was the data 'massaged' to please King George?
-m
King George
Date: 2003-06-08 08:10 pm (UTC)Re: King George
Date: 2003-06-08 08:56 pm (UTC)Re: King George
Date: 2003-06-08 10:09 pm (UTC)AFAIK, legally these have no weight since the federal laws override them, but they're certainly a rather pointed statement...
no subject
Date: 2003-06-08 10:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-06-09 01:53 am (UTC)(Of course, as I've pretty much always held that the WMD cause is the suitable-for-the-tender-ears-of-the-UN-general-public-and-other-children version of "Well, they *might* have WMD and certainly can't be trusted with them - how confident are you of continuously proving a negative?", this doesn't change my actual position at all...)
And one might wonder, at that, where the Iraqi intransigence and possession of chemical protection suits, chemical warfare manuals, etc. fit into this picture...
no subject
Date: 2003-06-09 03:57 am (UTC)How would you feel about deliberately distorting intelligence reports to fool the general public into believing there was solid evidence, supposing such behaviour had occurred?
I'm not fond of the "we had to lie to people because they're too dumb to know what's good for them" attitude. Either take that philosophy to its logical conclusion, i.e. a nondemocratic government where people are prevented from making their own decisions (let's stop them from drinking alcohol too, since people are obviously too dumb to know when to stop), or let the collective masses make informed choices and live, or die, with the consequences.
And one might wonder, at that, where the Iraqi intransigence and possession of chemical protection suits, chemical warfare manuals, etc. fit into this picture...
Both the USA and the UK possess chemical protection suits and chem-warfare manuals, too - these things have an obvious defensive use. Remember that chemical weapons have also been used against Iraq, during the 1980-88 war, and its relations with Iran have never really mended, so it's not hard to imagine them wanting a chemical defensive capability. (Come to that, they may have been paranoid enough to fear a US chemical attack.) Some may also have been leftovers from when Iraq did have a chemical warfare program - there's no obvious reason why they'd destroy the auxiliary stuff.
As for the other, I imagine both the UK and the USA would be rather sullen and unhelpful if one of their enemies wanted to poke around their military & governmental installations. Especially if said enemy had already given the impression that they intended to attack no matter how much cooperation they got, which is the message Bush was sending.
no subject
Date: 2003-06-09 12:28 pm (UTC)I'd feel pretty good about it, actually.
I'm not fond of the "we had to lie to people because they're too dumb to know what's good for them" attitude. Either take that philosophy to its logical conclusion, i.e. a nondemocratic government where people are prevented from making their own decisions (let's stop them from drinking alcohol too, since people are obviously too dumb to know when to stop), or let the collective masses make informed choices and live, or die, with the consequences.
As I'm sure you know - hell, as I'm sure everyone who's known me for more than a short time knows - I'm not exactly a great fan of democracy per se, nor particularly admiring of the intelligence or rationality of the average schmuck. If the 'informed' opinion of the collective masses is bloody stupid to the point of being actively dangerous, then screw the informed opinion of the collective masses.
And one might wonder, at that, where the Iraqi intransigence and possession of chemical protection suits, chemical warfare manuals, etc. fit into this picture...
Both the USA and the UK possess chemical protection suits and chem-warfare manuals, too - these things have an obvious defensive use.
The suits, granted. After gathering more information about the procedures under which such things are used, I retract my previous opinion concerning them. Wrong me, bad me, etc. Likewise, fair comment on the defensive capabilities.
Manuals concerning the deployment of chemical weapons issued to front-line units, on the other hand, especially considering Iraq's centralised command structure, strike me as another matter entirely...
As for the other, I imagine both the UK and the USA would be rather sullen and unhelpful if one of their enemies wanted to poke around their military & governmental installations. Especially if said enemy had already given the impression that they intended to attack no matter how much cooperation they got, which is the message Bush was sending.
Well, colour me unsympathetic, but that's what you get for being a terrorist-funding oppressive dictator.
no subject
Date: 2003-06-09 04:28 pm (UTC)I share Churchill's sentiments on democracy: its only selling point is the alternatives. Believe me, I get VERY frustrated by the idiocy of the average voter, but there are worse things than being run by idiots. Human nature being what it is, if you give governments carte blanche to deceive the public the inevitable result is that they'll use that power for their own interests.
Manuals concerning the deployment of chemical weapons issued to front-line units, on the other hand, especially considering Iraq's centralised command structure, strike me as another matter entirely...
I hadn't seen anything about the contents or date of these manuals, nor indeed confirmation that they were actually what they were supposed to be (given the number of 'chemical weapon' finds that have turned out not to be, you'll forgive me for wanting verification these days). Any specifics on these?
Well, colour me unsympathetic, but that's what you get for being a terrorist-funding oppressive dictator.
What, like Robert Mugabe?