I guess this story made so small a splash that some of my commenters are completely ignorant of it: the New York Times revealed two weeks ago that Saddam was less than a year away from having nuclear weapons.
Among the dozens of documents in English were Iraqi reports written in the 1990s and in 2002 for United Nations inspectors in charge of making sure Iraq had abandoned its unconventional arms programs after the Persian Gulf war. Experts say that at the time, Mr. Hussein’s scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away.
Of course the NYT has framed this as a hit-piece against President Bush, but the fact of the matter is that these documents completely vindicate the pre-war claims about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. As Power Line says, Bush just can't win with the media, but don't let the paper's partisanship blind you to the bare facts of the matter.
The defining characteristic of partisan attacks on President Bush has been their unthinking and indiscriminate nature. For example, Bush is to blame for not halting the development of nukes by Iran and North Korea, but he's also to blame for toppling Saddam Hussein due in part to his concern that Saddam was interested in and capable of developing nukes. Critics point to Iran's rise as evidence that Bush misplaced his focus on Iraq, but they don't consider how Saddam would have reacted to Iranian nuclear progress.The New York Times now has carried unthinking Bush-bashing to a point beyond caricature. Today, as Tiger Hawk notes, it quotes with apparent approval "experts" who say that Saddam was as little as a year away from building an atom bomb. The Times does so in order to show that the Bush administration acted recklessly when it published captured Iraqi documents that describe that country's WMD programs, because those documents might be used by another country in furtherance of building WMD.
Did the Times just say that Saddam's Iraq was a year away from building a nuclear weapon? I guess so. Good thing Saddam's no longer in power.
So, just in case anyone missed it the second time through:
According to the New York Times, when we invaded Iraq Saddam Hussein was less than a year away from having nuclear weapons.
No, not quite. Pre-war claims were that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD and that they were ready to go against us or anyone else. Those claims were simply not true.
Mark: Quit moving the goal posts and playing semantic games that aren't even worth refuting. The facts are established. QED.
MW: True or false; the claims were that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD. True.
Saddam didn't have stockpiles of WMD: true.
These documents don't vindicate those claims.
Mark: You're acting as if "stockpile" is a magic word, as if Saddam having a few nukes isn't a "stockpile" and is therefore undangerous. It's ridiculous. You can't win that argument. (Hint: that's what I meant by "semantic games".)
Mark: "Saddam didn't have stockpiles of WMD: true."
False. Saddam had plenty of chemical weapons, and some biological ones. He shipped them to Syria just before the invasion. It's bizarre to assume that Saddam was smart enough to run a country, yet somehow too stupid to figure out how to get rid of his WMDs during the run-up to the invasion.
"the claims were that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD" Actually that statement in itself is factually inaccurate. Prior to the invasion intellegence agencies around the world witht he best information available to them believe Saddam had stockpiles of WMDs. Beyond that it shows that he mainained the information to quickly produce nuclear weapons, but of course he woudn't of done the same for WMDs.
Beyond that the "didn't have stockpiles of WMDs" well Georges Sada disagrees with you.
MW: Having one or two nukes wasn't what was being claimed. The claim was that Saddam was "less than a year away from having nuclear weapons". The difference is between having some and being close to having some. I also never brought the whether-Saddam-is/was-dangerous part of the discussion into this. That's *your* contribution, not mine.
BB: Prove it.
tP: Most of your post makes no sense. Of course the pre-war intelligence showed there to be stockpiles of WMD, but as we all know.. the pre-war intelligence was mostly wrong.
Iraq likely didn't ship WMD to Syria
"Iraq likely didn't ship WMD to Syria"
Georges Sada disagrees.
Mark, you ought to read past the headline:
>>"ISG judged that it was unlikely that an official transfer of WMD material from Iraq to Syria took place," the report said.
The group also said it had been unable to complete its investigation because of security concerns and couldn't rule out an "unofficial" transfer of material.>>
I'm also amused at how effortlessly you change standards of proof. I say that he moved them, and you demand proof, knowing full well that there is plenty of evidence for the claim. It would only take you seconds of Googling to find the name Georges Sada, to learn that he was a general in the Iraqi air force, and to learn that he has written a book on the topic. But that isn't enough, because it doesn't meet the special standard of proof that you apply to facts that you don't like. Strangely, nothing ever seems to meet that standard.
But then you found a Washington Post headline that you liked. It distorted the content of an article that probably itself distorted the content of a government report. And on the basis of that one headline, you consider yourself to have decisively won the argument.
Honestly, Mark, I keep wanting to take you seriously. But you make it so difficult.
BB: Read further past what you quoted:
""It is worth noting that even if ISG had been able to fully examine all the leads it possessed, it is unlikely that conclusive information would have been found," the report said."
Georges Sada's claims are contradicted by the Duelfer Report. Does this result in a "decisive winning of the argument", as you accuse me of making? No, it doesn't.. but it does make substantially more gray a matter that you asserted was black-and-white.
FYI, what I provided was a headline from CNN, not the Washington Post.
Don't worry, Ben, you taking me seriously is something I neither need nor particularly care about.
Mark: This is exactly what I was telling Mannish about before... the persistent drumbeat of lies and negativism that came from the left are responsible for the public sentiment against the war in Iraq. Even now, when the NYT itself implicitly admits that it was wrong for all those years about the lack of WMD in Iraq, they bury it so no one notices and people like you just keep on message with no regard for reality.
MW: You'd be sorely mistaken if you think the public sentiment against the war in Iraq that resulted in the particulars of the recent election was based on the WMD situation.. or even that this latest development will shift favor back to Bush and the neo-conservatives. The public isn't really concerned about whether or not invading Iraq was the right thing to do.. they're concerned with how poorly it's been handled by Bush and Rumsfeld.. and they're concerned about everything that's happened (and not gone well, I might add) long since "WMD" fell out of most people's discussions about Iraq.
I have no regard for reality? How about yourself: "almost having nuclear weapons" is not "having nuclear weapons" or "stockpiles of WMD ready to go against the US".
Mark: The issue of not finding WMD has been brought up over and over again in the media. It has been one of John Stewart's favorite topics to poke fun at for years. I know that it matters to some people. Why would you claim it didn't affect the recent elections?
DD: Because, at this point, the reasons for which the invasion were predicated by the Bush administration are immaterial in terms of what is really the source of public opinion on the issue. If, for the sake of argument, the administration's reasons turned out to be perfectly vindicated.. the public would still be quite upset with how things have been handled and how they're going.
And again Mark moves the goalposts. Remember a few years ago, when the liberal line was that military victory was impossible in Afghanistan? Then it was impossible in Iraq. Then Iraqi elections were never going to happen. Then it was the WMDs and Niger yellowcake.
Now suddenly all that is forgotten, and the only liberal complaint is about the mishandling of the war. Liberal history always begins yesterday. Like every step before, we get this latest one as a constant drumbeat with no specifics: WHY is it a mishandled war? The only people I find who talk specifics invariably come to the conclusion that it has been a completely painless war by any historical standard. It's only a failed war if you don't know anything about war.
If there's a problem with the Iraq situation, then it's similar to Korea and Vietnam: We don't have the stomach to chase the enemy back to where he lives. We aren't fighting Iraqis in Iraq. We're fighting Iranians in Iraq. And the main reason that we aren't about to invade Iran right now is that the liberals are so keen to see us defeated, and they've worked the past several years to sap our resolve.
So now the whine du jour is that Iraq isn't being handled right, whatever that means. But the whiners are the same people who make success impossible.
You want success in Iraq? Great. Let's invade Iran. Today. Before they nuke us. What? You don't like that? Then quit whining and explain what you think we ought to do, aside from hiding under our bedsheets and hoping that the scary men go away.
BB: If you think complaints about how the war is being handled are exclusively a "liberal" thing, you're totally wrong. It wasn't liberals who were the only people at the polls on Nov. 7. I'd be impressed if there were that many liberals in America.
A majority of America is not pleased with the Bush administration's handling of the war. Deal with it.
Mark: But that's the whole point! The majority of Americans aren't liberal, but the leftists hold so many levers of power that they've hoodwinked the American public into believing that we're losing a war that we're actually winning in a stunningly effective manner! Why aren't Americans pleased with the way the war is going? Because leftists have set up imaginary and unrealistic goals, constantly shifting, that are impossible to meet and then they whine and complain when they aren't met. Duh! History will show, as it does now with the Vietnam War, that Iraq was lost when leftists undermined American power from within.
MW: How exactly would you say we're "winning" in Iraq, let alone in a "stunningly effective manner"? By what measurement are you making that assessment?
- Violence, sectarian or otherwise, remainns as much a problem in exactly the same areas.
- The Iraqi "government" is neither powerfful nor relevant at this point.
If we're "winning" the war in a "stunningly effective manner", why would Bush push Rumsfeld out and even talk about being open to new ideas? Bush is many things, but self-assured is definitely a big one. For him to even entertain the idea of changing the strategy suggests that even he realizes that we're not "winning" in a "stunningly effective manner".
What I think most people are upset about is the reassurances the administration made, from the moment the insurgency became a problem right up until the elections earlier this month, reassurances that things are improving, that the elections in Iraq will be what breaks the back of the insurgency, that the insurgency is in its last throes, etc. These reassurances have *never* proven to be what actually happened. Combine that with Bush's broken record of "stay the course" even though the course we're on isn't working and you have all the explanation you need for this month's election results.
Mark, you seem to assume that a year or two after a properly managed invasion and occupation, Iraq would be a land of fuzzy bunnies, chirping bluebirds, and Iraqis of all religions and ethnicities gathering together on hillsides to sing about teach the world to sing in perfect harmony.
I never expected that. What I expected---and what I got---was improvement. In pre-invasion Iraq, Saddam was operating rape rooms, running people through plastic shredders, attempting to produce WMDs, and gassing Kurds by the thousands.
Have you forgotten already what a monster the man was? He's gone now, and I think that's great. We've freed millions of people from an unimaginably brutal dictatorship, we've established a staging base for future military operations in the region, and in time we may have a stable government to help us.
You say that violence remains a problem, as if that's some shocking revelation. Yes, of course violence remains a problem. It's a problem in Detroit, too, DC, New York, and Los Angeles. NEWS FLASH: Peole are committing acts of violence towards each other, just as they have since before the dawn of civilization.
And it's silly to pretend as if Bush's failure to meet some imaginary standard is the source of all the whining. Maybe history started yesterday for you, but I remember the past several years. The liberals have always been whining and predicting doom, since before we invaded Afghanistan. Each time they've been completely wrong, and each time they haven't shown the slightest shame about it.
The simple fact is that the liberals want America defeated and humiliated on the battlefield, and they'll say anything at all to accomplish that goal. They complain about a lack of progress, then do everything they can to encourage and assist the enemy, including broadcasting enemy propaganda and leaking military secrets. If we're losing in Iraq, then you shouldn't be complaining about it. You should be cheering about it! Mission accomplished!
BB: Ahh, I see.. you've played the expectations game in a way where those expectations have already been met. Sorry, the rest of the world has the bar set a bit higher. Removing Saddam isn't enough. Removing a horrible dictator and avoiding chaos demands something to fill the vacuum. What's filling that vacuum now? An impotent government and our enemies; a government that depends on us and enemies energized by our presence. How can that be considered a satisfactory replacement for Saddam?
It's quite laughable for you to compare Iraq's violence to that of major American cities. I don't recall suicide bombers, roadside bombs, grenades, and machine gun fire ever making trouble in Detroit, Los Angeles, and New York.
History? Ha! History is littered with information that we didn't use or simply ignored as we marched into Iraq and removed Saddam. A few things we could've benefited from understanding:
- Lessons from other American wars that innvolved guerrilla warfare and insurgencies; playing a glorified game of whack-a-mole by killing insurgents in a certain area, leaving, and having to come back to the same area and repeat the process isn't going to end an insurgency.
- Lessons from Bush '41 and his invasion oof Iraq; you don't remove Saddam without considering what will take his place and what you'd really be getting into.
- The complete history of Iraq; the key soocial and religious differences and how sharply and bitterly adhered to they are by its population. How would these forces play out once Saddam was removed?
Neo-conservatives have been wrong about many things in Iraq, from the "Mission Accomplished" banner, to the "dead-enders", to the "elections will bring an end to the violence" and "Iraqi officials won't be too allied with Iran".. and each time they haven't shown the slightest shame about it.
"you've played the expectations game in a way where those expectations have already been met. Sorry, the rest of the world has the bar set a bit higher. Removing Saddam isn't enough."
It must be nice to feel that you have the moral authority to do nothing while telling those who are doing something that they aren't doing enough. Have you considered a job at the United Nations?
Go tell the families of these people that it was a mistake to depose Saddam, because, while they may be happier now than they were then, their happiness isn't up to your fuzzy-bunny-and-bluebird standard, so you wish that rape rooms and plastic shredders were still in operation.
BB: Doing something that isn't working very well is hardly something to be applauded.
Spare me your bleeding-heart scare tactics and stop accusing me of supporting things that I don't support. *You* don't get to speak authoritatively about what *I* want.
And if anyone has a "fuzzy-bunny-and-bluebird standard", it was Bush and Rumsfeld.. who sold us all on their belief that we'd be welcome as liberators in Iraq with nothing short of a ticker tape parade.. and who refused to even entertain the notion of changing strategies until Nov. 8.
BB: You're wrong about liberals wanting us to lose the war. Liberals want us to win the war. Liberals want to end poverty, disease, and injustice. Liberals stand for change, for the better, and soon. And, they have real verifiable plans to make it happen for real people.
Who are the people who will benefit, you ask? Of course, they are the little guys, the minorities, the squeaky wheels--the complainers--who will benefit. Liberal philosophy works for some people.
So, what's wrong with liberal policies? The principles of applied liberal thought can be understood in the context of economics. And, for that reason, I would point you to the short excellent book, "Economics in One Lesson" by Henry Hazlitt. Take a look at the first chapter of the book, which apparently is now available online.
Actually, if you only read one section, I would point you to Section 2: The Broken Window. Incidentally, the illustration begins with "A young hoodlum..."
Michael..if you click through to the powerline blog, you'll note that even they have noted that the statement in question is pretty vague as to what it means. Is it Iraqi experts that thought they were close to building a bomb or was it UN experts or whom? And are they referring to the early 90s or 2002 when he was close according to these (as yet undefined) experts. If the meaning of that line is as you interpret it, it would contradict pretty much everything thats been written about Saddam at any time by anybody. Before the war, even the Administration wasn't claiming that Saddam was that close to nukes.
Don't you think some other semi-credible news source would have picked up on this if it were true? And remember experts thought Saddam had stockpiles of WMDs, we saw how wrong that was. (and please don't give me this line..even Bush and Cheney have even admitted there were no WMDs).
David, I'm not sure how you think that Hazlitt's book is the application of liberal thought, at least as we use the word 'liberal' in modern politics. I see as more an application of conservative economic thought. But let's not get too far from Michael's post.
David: "You're wrong about liberals wanting us to lose the war. Liberals want us to win the war."
Then why are they broadcasting enemy propaganda? Why are they revealing the methods by which the government tries to find the terrorists? Why are they so fond of announcing to the world that the war is hopeless and we're sure to lose? Why are they so fond of demonizing our soldiers, and so quick to assume assume the worst about everything our military does? Why do the terrorists use liberal talking points in their English-language broadcasts?
If liberals want us to win the war, then why do so many of them want us to pull out of Iraq immediately, thereby allowing millions of Iraqis to again come under the iron heel of dictatorship, and thereby showing the world what a faithless ally the United States is?
David: "Liberals stand for change, for the better, and soon. And, they have real verifiable plans to make it happen for real people.
Who are the people who will benefit, you ask?"
No, I don't ask that. I ask: What are these magical plans, exactly? Because every liberal plan I've heard has already been tried unsuccessfully for years in several countries. Liberalism has been tried over and over, and it simply doesn't work.
I am too puzzled by the mention Hazlitt's book to show liberal policies. The economic policies he advocated are the polar opposite of those advocated the mordern liberals in the country. Unless of course its a case of illustrating hypocrisy.
BB: If you'd read the page in Hazlitt's book beginning with "A young hoodlum..." and interpret it as "A young liberal..." then you would see that we already agree on most points.
What has happened is that, in your attempts to villainize liberals, you have painted a picture of one who plans carefully instead of one who exerts power now to satisfy current complaints with little regard for the future. (We would agree, I think, that Republican fiscal policy has become liberal in recent years, because they have been handing out borrowed money.)
Anyhow, to answer your questions... The vast majority of liberals, who are not Islamofascists, want the US to win the war on terror. They don't want terrorists running all over the west any more than you do. However, I agree with you that they don't have a consistent rational plan.
Their plan does not need to be discussed because it follows the same general pattern most of the time. Here is how it works with respect to classified documents, for example. A liberal hears about an actual documented flaw in a grand Republican plan. The document is classified for good reasons. The liberal decides to release a classified document because he wants to expose injustice to the public light. He does not ask why the document was classified. He does not weigh the future effect of exposing the information now, or the possibility that exposing the information itself could be unjust or outside his authority. He thinks, "I am exposing injustice now. I am taking action. This feels right."
Why would liberals want to pull out of Iraq? It's simple: A whole lot of people will feel an immediate benefit. Iraqis will dance in the streets the next day. Troops will come home for Christmas. Heck, even the terrorists will be happy and will probably stop blowing themselves up for a few days. Imagine world peace, man. It's a wonderful idea, right up until the looting starts.
David, I think that I might halfway understand you. But your example about Hazlitt doesn't put the liberal in the role of the hoodlum, but in the role of the people claiming that the damage is an economic benefit, because they're looking only at the obvious short-term effects.
So I think that we actually agree on just about everything. The only difference is that you can see the world from their childlike perspective. I could do that back when I was in school and around liberals all the time. Now I can only think of the many thousands of Iraqis who will die if they get their way, just as so many South Vietnamese died when they got their way back in 1974.
TP: The "Lesson" of "Economics in One Lesson" is stated in Section 1, and illustrated by an example of liberal fallacy in Section 2. I hope neither Hazlitt or MW will mind if I paste the sections here.
BB: Oops, I didn't see your last comment before I posted. Maybe we can agree that liberal thought encompasses the hoodlum and the onlookers.
MW: Sorry I took things off topic. Want to start a new topic? :-)
Being that Hazlitt is dead, he probably didn't mind.
Aside from that in reference to my comment, my inital read was that you were citing Hazlitt's book in support of liberal polices, which contracdicted with my reading of it (and some of his other books) that seemed to debunk the common modern liberal economic policies (which are now more modeled on statist/colelctivist/socialist/comuunist thought)