62 Comments

1. Clio:

Can I just take a moment to plead with Judith Miller NOT to throw her life away for a profession that is halfway down the toilet anyway??!! Please.

I suppose the NYTimes justifies its pitiful AND slanted coverage (”the food here is terrible…yes, and such small portions”) by pointing to oped columnists like Safire and Brooks. WHatever. Here in Chicago we have a “leading” rag that gives us an editorial blasting the UN and its members for wrongdoing which readers are still waiting for the news staff to cover AT ALL. Yesterday: a two paragraph throwaway piece buried on the center-left side of page A6 with a grossly misleading headline.

People can’t understand a subject if the press they rely on for 90% of their information won’t report on it.

Really Judy. Don’t go down for these people. They don’t deserve it.

Oct 9, 2004 - 10:39 am 2. thibaud:

Simply laughable, and also totally predictable. When NPR deigned to mention this story Thursday, whom do they interview? France;s ambassador to the US. What’s Ambassador Levitte’s line? “The suggestion that France was bribed is outrageous! There were Americans who took vouchers as well!” What’s the NYT angle today? There were Americans who took vouchers as well!

EARTH TO BILL KELLER: The whole point of the Oil For Fraud scandal is that French and Russian government policy toward Saddam was motivated by a desire for massive economic rewards, both via sweetheart deals for their “national champion” oil companies (TotalFinaElf’s W Qurna deal, most egregiously) and for Chirac and Putin’s personal associates. And these deals were in violation of the sanctions that Chirac and Putin’s governments, as UNSC members, were pledged to uphold! This is fraud, money-laundering, sanctions-breaking and influence-peddling by the governments of France and Russia.

As to the US oil majors receiving vouchers: so what? As I’ve pointed out a hundred times, every oil company on the planet was in favor of ending sanctions because they wanted to do business with Saddam. XOM, ChevTex, ConocoPhilips: all of them were on record as urging Congress to lift sanctions. This indeed was “blood for oil”: the blood of Saddam’s victims in exchange for lucrative oil deals for the oil majors.

This was the OPPOSTITE of what the US government, both under Clinton and under Bush, favored! The policies advocated by oilmen who couldn’t care less about Saddam’s slaughterhouse (after all, the oil majors do a vast business with hideous regimes all over the planet) were rejected by Congress.

So the clear, obvious inference is that for the French and Russian governments, commercial considerations outweighed legal and moral obligations. For the US congress and for both the Bush and Clinton administrations, the reverse is true.

Shame on NPR. Shame on Bill Keller and the NYT.

This is outrageous, disgusting spin.

Oct 9, 2004 - 11:50 am 3. LifeTrek:

The media is desperate to recapture it’s glory days — the days when they could bring down a President and defeat a country.

They made Kerry a hero now they want to make him President.

Media Contradictions

David

Oct 9, 2004 - 11:57 am 4. David Thomson:

ìMajor American oil companies and a Texas oil investor were among those …î

The New York Times is a truly corrupt newspaper. They apparently are even trying to imply that George Bushís Texas friends are the primary beneficiaries from the oil for food program. How much lower can this rag sink?

I have been listening off and on to the Democratic spin masters this morning on TV. They seem to want to focus on domestic issues. Almost certainly, the polling indicates that John Kerry loses if he talks about defense issues. I am convinced that President Bush won the debate last night—in regards to what really matters. It was only the latter part of the evening which helped Senator Kerry. This is when the debate revolved around domestic issues. A Democratic candidate unfortunately (and unfairly, but thatís another story) has the edge when these matter are discussed. This explains why some claim the debate was either a tie or a modest victory for Kerry. But that doesnít mean anything. Only Iraq and terrorism will be on the minds of the swing voters on election day. Thatís why the president should easily win reelection.

Oct 9, 2004 - 12:02 pm 5. IceCold:

Extremely well put, thibaud. You nailed it exactly. And BTW, though I might be wrong, you even understated the case WRT US oil companies. The 661 program, of course, allowed the sale and export of Iraqi oil, under what was supposed to be tight oversight. In fact, I believe, US majors were the largest customers of the approved Iraqi exports. There was no inherent scandal in participating in the 661 program — recall the proceeds were supposed to be directed towards legitimate needs. Unless the US firms received the kick-back vouchers, or winked at the over-loading of tankers that was one key source of Saddam’s cash, there is no impropriety, per se. I think ….

Roger, you’re “under-outraged” about this. It perfectly illustrates the unserious, utterly tendentious “reporting” that now fills the NYT (not to mention other formerly semi-reliable info sources). One of the biggest stories — period — in decades is simply ignored, until it can’t be, and then it’s presented in a preposterously distorted way to suggest that it’s a non-political financial scandal soiling many reputations. Ridiculous.

But, as I’ve commented here before, I think it’s a big analytical error to attribute French and Russian strategy on Iraq to UNSCAM cash-flow alone. French/Russian efforts to spring Iraq from its box were consistent with pre-existing commercial and strategic interests — and the payoff (literally) for an end to sanctions would have dwarfed any UNSCAM revenues (though most of it would have been allocated through more transparent, normal commercial channels). UNSCAM was consistent with and additional to French/Russian policies on Iraq. We might even say that Saddam wasted UNSCAM resources on two effective allies who were already on board for his basic strategy.

In a sense, Bush under-states the case when he notes that Iraq was “gaming the system” with sanctions to pursue its goals. Entirely apart from UNSCAM, France and Russia fought to “liberate” a sanctioned Iraqi regime from the get-go, without regard to Iraq behavior. Their policies were outrageous, but legal. UNSCAM was outrageous, but illegal. But those who rely on the NYT and its ilk for their info are mostly unaware of both scandals.

Oct 9, 2004 - 12:09 pm 6. cirby:

…and the American oilman (while donating to both major parties), is predominantly a supporter of Democratic politicians…

I wonder why the NYT didn’t mention that?

Oct 9, 2004 - 12:20 pm 7. Terrye:

Roger;

Look at this way, they can’t ignore it anymore. Like the swifties and the chart this does not change the facts. Once this thing starts to come out more and more people will hear about it and far more of them will be watching Fox than will be reading NYT. The WSJ is the paper to go for this anyway, they broke the story.

It has always been known that there were people from all over the world involved in this. The point is the UN failed to do its job.

And I think the food for oil program was gravy. The real intent for the Europeans all along was to end sanctions and start selling weapons to Saddam and buying oil from Saddam.

Oct 9, 2004 - 12:39 pm 8. Mark Poling:

There’s an even less charitable explanation than that the NYTimes is simply campaigning against Bush. It’s that the MSM in this country thinks only the US matters. They just can’t see the US as being anything other than the root of all news.

If there isn’t a US involvement angle, it doesn’t exist.

Question: Anybody read any follow-up on the Beslan school massacre lately?

Question: How many times did you read about the Sudan, versus how many for TANG?

The world exists outside of Manhattan and Washington. But to read the NYTimes, you wouldn’t think it mattered much.

Oct 9, 2004 - 1:15 pm 9. someone:

Judith “tip off the terrorists” Miller? Surprise, susprise.

Oct 9, 2004 - 1:19 pm 10. Dean Esmay:

Do you think that at some point the people working at the NYT will grow enough introspection to notice just how much of a laughingstock they’re becoming?

Oct 9, 2004 - 1:29 pm 11. thibaud:

Folks, this is an outrageous MSM spin job that must not go unchallenged. Please email NYT Editor Bill Keller at:

executive-editor@nytimes.com

and copy Nick Kristof, who’s somewhat reasonable and open to criticism, as well:

nicholas@nytimes.com

Oct 9, 2004 - 1:29 pm 12. thibaud:

IceCold,

French/Russian efforts to spring Iraq from its box were consistent with pre-existing commercial and strategic interests — and the payoff (literally) for an end to sanctions would have dwarfed any UNSCAM revenues

Bingo. TotalFinaElf’s deal was for exclusive rights to develop the W Qurna oilfields that contain 1/3 of all of Iraq’s proven reserves, or 20 BILLION BARRELS!

Of course, no oil company, certainly not TFE, is large enough to handle such a project by itself, and certainly a consortium would have been formed, but this is by any measure the biggest deal of the last twenty years. I’m not an oil analyst but if one can expect a 5% return on sales over the life of the deal, at an average price of, oh, let’s say $30 per barrel this deal equates to 5% X $30/bbl X 20B bbl = $30 billion.

A $30 billion deal for a nation with only a $1.5 trillion dollar economy?! That’s breathtaking. OF COURSE France was bribed by Saddam. Ditto for LUKoil’s nation (and Russia’s economy is about 1/4 the size of France’s). Talk about a “coalition of the bribed”!

France and Russia were determined to spring Saddam from the containment box that sanctions (plus no-fly zones and, for a while, inspections) had put him in. In short, by the time TotalFinaElf signed the W Qurna deal (Nov ‘02), sanctions had collapsed.

In other words, containment was collapsing, leaving the only reamining alternatives as a) doing business with Saddam (the oilmen’s preferred option); and b) overthrowing him by force.

It is simply outrageous that this, the crucial angle of the story, is being buried by the MSM.

Oct 9, 2004 - 1:43 pm 13. David R. Block:

The NYT has not been living up to its motto for some time now. One might think that “truth in advertising” would lead to the discontinuation of the obviously false motto.

Wait a minute, Democrats are unencumbered by the need to tell the truth, so never mind.

Oct 9, 2004 - 2:46 pm 14. Cecil Turner:

Thibaud nailed it. The Oil-for-food bribery influenced politicians to vote for lifting sanctions and emboldened a dictator to circumvent them. (And the issue, as the initial reason for the sanctions, is entirely about weapons and aggression, not merely graft). For obvious reasons, the American (and British) participation was at most a sideline. It was specifically to counter US and UK enforcement efforts that Saddam began the bribery scheme in the first place.

There’s a good argument to be made that by encouraging Saddam, those nations made the resulting war inevitable. And to some degree, more deadly. It certainly would have cost more lives if their plan to protect Saddam and his weapons programs had worked. The money and oil on various individuals’ and companies’ hands is shameful, and they deserve censure. But the blood is far more egregious, and we shouldn’t pretend any moral equivalence.

Oct 9, 2004 - 2:48 pm 15. Jamie Irons:

Stunning op-ed by David Brooks at NYT The Report That Nails Saddam.

Jamie Irons

(Forgive me if this has been cited elsewhere; can’t follow every comment today as I’m working.)

Oct 9, 2004 - 3:20 pm 16. flenser:

OT, but very interesing.

Latest Rasmussen polls have Kerry 49%, Bush 45%, in New York. NY is (was) the state most solidly for Kerry. Given the way poll numbers are jumping around, this could be an aberration. Still, if Kerry is really starting to slip in NY, then he is done for.

They also have NJ for Kerry, by only 49% – 46%.

Time foe Bush to spend a little money in Jersey?

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/New%20York_Fall%202004.htm

Oct 9, 2004 - 3:49 pm 17. flenser:

Oops. That poll is dated September 20. They have not come out with one since then. Still interesting though.

Oct 9, 2004 - 3:55 pm 18. rls:

Heh,

Didn’t most of these transactions happen during the Clinton Administration? How is this going to jump up and bite anyone in the Bush Administration?

Oct 9, 2004 - 3:55 pm 19. David Thomson:

ìLatest Rasmussen polls have Kerry 49%, Bush 45%, in New York.ì

ìThey also have NJ for Kerry, by only 49% – 46%.î

I was so stunned by these figures that I made sure to double check them at Rasmussenís website. Itís a good thing that I have a healthy heart or I might be in an ambulance on my way to the emergency ward. In no way shape or form, did I ever expect this to occur. Could Rasmussen be in error? Is something wrong with his polling methodology? Are these results too good to be true? I might have to get good and drunk tonight.

The Kerry campaign is in deep trouble if Rasmussen is indeed accurate. Iím not sure if President Bush should spend precious time and money in New York and New Jersey—but the Democratic nominee has no other choice but to do so. Kerryís people must be horrified. I am not a paid subscriber to Rasmussenís polling data. Would anyone know if the war on terror is the deciding issue for those polled? I seriously doubt if domestic matters are responsible for Bushís strong showing.

Oct 9, 2004 - 4:12 pm 20. richard mcenroe:

The latest Rasmussen Poll Bush 50% Kerry 46%

Oct 9, 2004 - 4:15 pm 21. IceCold:

Thibaud: no, sir, YOU nailed it (first, anyway). My copy of Timmerman’s book is lent to a hockey team-mate, so I can’t check it, but I believe Timmerman saw the actual TFE-Iraq deal documents on the W. Qurna super-giant field.

I can’t recall the numbers, but I do recall that it wasn’t so much the exclusive rights (which as you note would end up being consortium-ized, anyway), but the % profit that TFE would be granted — it was a number never before seen in the history of international oil deals since the game started with “Mr 10%” Gulbenkian and his deals in Baku in the early 20th century. This, Timerman noted, was the flashing red light: it was a gigantic carrot dangled just beyond the end of sanctions. I think the numbers were even higher than you guesstimated, but your point stands — it would have been an almost unbelievable windfall for France.

Cecil Turner: you said it perfectly. Your statement is one I’ve made to several friends in the last year, as part of educating them on the whole background to the UNSC shenanigans and the basis of French and Russian policy.

The outrage didn’t start in March 2003 — for more than a decade, France and Russia (others too, but they were the main players) literally feasted (as we know now, both on and under the table) on goodies while leaving the US/UK to shoulder the entire financial and diplomatic costs of containment, and of course the full burden of coming to the rescue should Iraq again roll the dice and pull some stupid aggression. This, of course, comes as a stunning revelation to the average educated, smart, NPR-listening, NYT-reading person who thinks “multilateralism” actually means something. Indolence combined with the ignorance that comes from living in the MSM bubble produces horrifyingly uninformed, clueless “smart” people.

Oct 9, 2004 - 4:43 pm 22. IceCold:

WRT polling numbers in NY/NJ ….

Edwards spent a few days in NJ last week. As someone noted on some website, “THAT probably wasn’t in the post-convention campaign plan”.

It’s not dispositive, but suggestive when candidates spend time in what should be their rock-solid states. I’m not sure, but I don’t think you’ll see Dubya in too many southern states in the next month. Today I heard him on CSPAN at an event in Minnesota. I dunno, but I think this tells us something, and it isn’t good for Kerry.

George Bush seems to play both his counter-terror wars AND his political campaigns as “away games”. Heh ….

Oct 9, 2004 - 4:49 pm 23. Rick Ballard:

IceCold,

Kerry’s people are going to be plotting how to set up a triple jump right up to the moment when Karl Rove whispers “check mate”.

I still don’t think that there is time before the election to actually unfold the UNSCAM scandal in a manner that the majority will understand but I am heartened to see it show up in the formerly first rate papers.

Oct 9, 2004 - 5:14 pm 24. rumblestrip:

Re: TotalFinaElf

The French (Canadian) Connection or How to Explain Canadian Foreign Policy post 9/11.

Former Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien’s daughter is married to Andre Demarais who is Co-CEO of Power Corp. Andre’s father is Paul Demarais who founded Power Corp. Power Corp.,through a series of contolling interests in various holding companies, is TotalFinaElf’s largest shareholder. Paul Demarais Jr., Andre’s brother, sits on the TotalFinaElf board.

Isn’t there A foul odour here?

Additionally, current Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin used to be an executive with Power Corp. In what many have described as a sweetheart deal, Paul Demarais Sr. sold Canada Steamship Lines, which it wholly owned, to Martin for a fraction of its actual value, instantly making Paul Martin rich.

It helps to know that, for all intents and purposes, Canada is a one-party (Liberal) state and that the PM of Canada has almost unlimited power. He appoints all (that’s ALL as in ALL) Cabinet Ministers, Judges, Senators, heads of Crown Coporations, heads of Commissions, etc., etc. If you can influence the Prime Minister, you have unimpeded influence over both domestic and foreign policy.

Welcome to Canada: the incorruptible Socialist paradise: The Right Honorable Pierre Elliot Trudeau, founding father.

It’s all so bloody French, isn’t it?

For those interested, google Judi McLeod: Oil for Food scandal, May 17/04 or Judi McLeod: Canada sends anti-American UN Ambassador To Paris, Sept 4/04.

Oct 9, 2004 - 5:19 pm 25. Swopa:

The Times deigned to cover this scandal once in my recollection during that time. Why now? . . . The presence of Judith Miller in the by-line is sad but, alas, explainable.

Actually, a 30-second search of the NY Times website shows that Judith Miller has been writing on this subject since early June.

Nice fact-checking, Roger.

Oct 9, 2004 - 5:38 pm 26. tioedong:

Yup. I just posted about this on my blog. Stealing from kids with diarrhea is not a big deal. And it’s not as if no one knew about it back then:

“…IraqÔøΩs oil revenue is held in foreign bank accounts, controlled by the UN. In the five years to 2002, Iraq earned US$37.3bn. But the first call on those funds is not tackling the scourge of diarrhoea. It is paying for IraqÔøΩs war reparations, the UNÔøΩs administrative costs, and the UN Oil-for-Food programme. The needs of the water and sanitation system and the electricity that powers it ÔøΩ let alone education ÔøΩ come a poor second…”

http://www.oxfam.org.uk/what_we_do/issues/conflict_disasters/iraq_disaster.htm

But the real issue is not that millions suffered due to corruption of the UN, the real issue is political neutrality:

http://www.thelancet.com/journal/vol364/iss9442/full/llan.364.9442.review_and_opinion.30932.1

“Learning from Iraq In a Viewpoint this week, Frederick Burkle and Eric Noji, criticise humanitarian relief efforts in Iraq led by the US Department of Defense. They conclude that if the US Department of Defense insists on involvement with humanitarian assistance, it must improve relations with international relief organisations and respect their need to remain neutral in times of conflict.”

Yup. Let’s hear it for humanitarian assistance and international relief organizations who didn’t take sides back then, but publically take sides against the coalition troops and the new Iraqi govenment now…

Oct 9, 2004 - 5:40 pm 27. Clio:

Bingo Rick Ballard! Indeed, the stranglehold of the majors on the UNSCAM story is working. I asked my brother (who reads only the Chicago Tribune) if he believed sanctions were working in Iraq. “Absolutely.” Yes, Saddam was in a box, hurting only Iraqis. No threat to anyone.

I told him he needed to expand his reading matter. He replied that he would no longer talk to me until November 3rd. I suspect, however, that if things turn out as I like, he won’t be around the house at Christmas either.

Oct 9, 2004 - 5:45 pm 28. Syl:

Kerry bitches that the sanctions were working and if they were in danger of failing well then one uses diplomacy to keep them in place. That’s what diplomacy is for.

::rolling eyes::

Krauthammer said (on tv, no link) that each year by the end of the ’90’s France and Russia were watering down the sanctions by changing them bit by bit. Clinton knew about it but could only shrug.

If Clinton could only shrug, what would the unproven diplomatic genius of Kerry be able do? His only recourse would be to bribe France, Russia, and China even more.

Yep. That would work. How many firehouses in America would that amount of bribery close?

Another thought. We know in hindsight that Saddam had no stockpiles of WMD (according to Duelfer). So everyone thinks that the inspectors would, if given enough time, discover that.

Wrong.

Saddam needed Iran to believe he was armed and dangerous. The inspections were doomed.

That was Saddam’s plan.

Now it all makes sense. I never thought we’d know the answer so soon, but we do.

Saddam’s deception was necessary to keep Iran at bay, thus he could never ever let it be known he didn’t have wmd. Even the people closest to him didn’t know! Thus no matter how long the inspectors wandered cluelessly around, Saddam would deceive them too.

He’d swear he didn’t have wmd, and be outraged at all the UN resolutions, yet act suspicious. And if the inspectors started feeling like, well, Saddam is really okay, Saddam would ‘let’ them find something. A rocket here, a vial there. And that would keep the inspectors guessing. Quite clever actually.

But on the other hand, Saddam wanted the sanctions gone. France, Russia, and China were his means of doing that.

So the sanctions would be so watered down eventually they’d be meaningless or mostly so.

I don’t know if Saddam had a specific plan for his endgame though, or if he was simply waiting for the right conditions. At some point he would want the sanctions lifted totally, yet still be able to pose a credible threat to Iran.

Oct 9, 2004 - 6:18 pm 29. Syl:

BTW, before the war my Joe claimed that Saddam was just pretending to have WMD to scare Iran.

I just scoffed at him.

Joe was right. I mean he nailed it.

Yes, I reminded him of his analysis and I apologized.

I’m so nice.

Oct 9, 2004 - 6:24 pm 30. Charlie (Colorado):

Hell, we’ve already seen the way this is supposed to play out. “mogwai” was saying just a few days ago that “some names were redacted. Who? Hint: Cheney.” We’re supposed to think “Texas oil men -> Bush and Cheney”.

Even though the one named is actually an active Democrat.

It’s part of the displacement and projection thing again: I really think in order to cope with their own actions, the moonbats are fighting to displace them all to Bush and the Republicans.

Oct 9, 2004 - 6:26 pm 31. Rick Ballard:

Clio,

I often wonder if j-school consists of watching an endless loop of a Sesame Street type production of ‘How a Meme Becomes a Trope’. Or, I suppose the students might be spending their time reading ‘Animal Farm’ and ‘1984′ as instruction guides on how to create an alternative reality. Perhaps a day will come when truth in advertising laws require j-schools to identify their degree as a BA in political propaganda.

Oh well, tomorrow morning 2.5 million people with more money than brains will receive their weekly dose of very carefully designed reality and 3 weeks from now the vast majority of those 2.5 million will wake up wondering how the rest of us could be so simple minded. Long may they live in blissfully ignorant powerlessness.

Oct 9, 2004 - 6:30 pm 32. thibaud:

Swopa,

Actually, a 30-second search of the NY Times website shows that Judith Miller has been writing on this subject since early June.

And Claudia Rosette (writing for the WSJ) was all over this story for nearly a year before the Times thought they could resist no longer.

Where was the Times on this in 2003? Why did they wait until a few months ago– that is, over a year– to pick it up? And why are they trying to spin it as merely a financial scandal now?

The argument that the Times is covering this fairly, thoroughly and accurately does not hold up. This is a grave disservice to the public that gives the lie to the NYT’s claim to be the paper of record. The NYT is a lifestyle guide, nothing more.

Oct 9, 2004 - 7:26 pm 33. heather:

My congratulations to rumblestrip, for a fine description as to why Canada is not one of the coalition of the “bribed and the coerced.” We are such a nice bunch of people up here, it is hard to realize how corrupt and undemocratic our government is. But indeed, it is plausible that the reason – the best explanation – for Canada’s anti American stance is Chretien’s personal relationship to Power Corp and therefore TotalFina Elf.

Also, since Trudeau, there has been an increasing French Canadian influence on our government policies – and Quebec has never been interested in maintaining a viable defense – Canada almost broke up in WWI AND in WWII over Quebec’s anger at Canada’s involvement in those wars.

Canada is really and truly disgusting.

Oct 9, 2004 - 8:09 pm 34. heather:

However, the Aussies are coming through for the Anglosphere!!! I was so RELIEVED when I learned of the results of their election.

Excellent!

Oct 9, 2004 - 8:11 pm 35. Matteo:

Folks, as a blogger I’m primarily a linker and not a thinker, but I think I’ve done a couple of kick-ass “think pieces” today. Please come and see!

http://cartagodelenda.blogspot.com/2004/10/attack-ad-id-like-to-see.html

http://cartagodelenda.blogspot.com/2004/10/bush-got-game.html

Oct 9, 2004 - 8:43 pm 36. JK Ribera:

Thibuad, I believe Mr. Simon already linked the Miller article referred to by Mr. Swapo. I think that was Miller’s only disucssion of Oil-to-Food until now. So I guess that’s not much, is it?

Oct 9, 2004 - 9:05 pm 37. Terrye:

Syl:

I heard that this report states there are no wmd in Iraq today and probably have not been for some time.

I have a question: What happened to them?

Hans Blix said that there were wmd that could not be accounted for and therefor there was a presumption that Saddam had them hidden somewhere. So far as I know they found no evidence of the detruction of the weapons. So what does that mean? Was Hans wrong all along?

I also read that Saddam was in material breach of 1441 because of the programs and other nilitary equipment that was found as well as his refusal to even acknowledge certain human rights issues much less deal with them.

So even if the wmd stockpiles were not there Saddam was guilty of breaking the cease fire, he was in material breach of the UN Mandatory Resolution and he was brazenly scamming the oil for food program.

Amazing.

But I still like to know that there was not any VX buried in Syria or Lebabnon or someplace.

Oct 9, 2004 - 9:20 pm 38. WichitaBoy:

Terrye,

Excellent question.

So far as I know, and I’d be happy to be corrected here, we have only five pieces of evidence in this puzzle:

1) Debka’s assertion that they’re buried in Syria,

2) The movement of chemical weapons from Syria into Jordan for a massive attack which was foiled,

3) The Migs which were unearthed underneath the desert sands of Iraq,

4) The VX-laced warheads which were found and nobody knew existed,

5) The chemical weapons shipped into Sudan from Syria and used by the Syrians on the Christian victims.

Oct 9, 2004 - 9:50 pm 39. rastajenk:

When all else fails, the peevish peace punks can always stick their fingers in their ears, stamp their feet, and repeat, “Halliburton! Halliburton! Halliburton!” over and over and over.

Oct 10, 2004 - 3:18 am 40. Buddy Larsen:

You’re right to try to define the underlying behavioral trait that will unify what it is that has gone wrong with so incredibly many of our media mavens whose stock-in-trade has always so obviously been nothing less fragile than affection and bequeathals of credibility from the hoi-polloi.

There’s gotta be some utility in labeling things, otherwise the cliche wouldn’t exist. Your “Habit” is good, but how about an adjective, how about “overweening”, which everybody uses, but which I just looked up on Blue Dog, to see described as a blend of “unrestrained emotions” and “arrogant presumptuousness”. How apt can it get?

On this Henry Miller-ish site you have made here, some weeks past on this same subject (Which since then has suffered even several more major detonations) you mentioned that atonement was in order. Something from Miller is that vice and virtue are inseperably wedded and it’s perverse to regard the one without the other (relativism with spine, freedom with purpose: a direction!).

So, forgiveness and another chance is in order, but if there is no cost to them, then we have made their relativist point, and they ratchet up even in disgrace (temporary, that is). Atonement, real atonement–not the hee-hee on the TV.

Why shouldn’t that dozen or so top media chiefs–the red-handed ones plus their sweating-in-the-shadows partners in crime, drop the pampered agonistes pose and go on safari? An Africa devotional, there to spend a year applying their vast publicity power to help humans in dire suffering? Dan Rather a year in Riyadh dogging the Saudis to hold elections! Mary Mapes on the JanjaWeed! Judith Miller on Nigerian Aids babies!

Atone, regain careers, attain true value (recant artifice), and ska-ROO Kerry and the waste-makers. Let him move to Havana. Write textbooks for the last of the boomer commie profs. Ink for the river Styx. Empire for Theresa’s gold. Relief for six billion souls. Air let into the party of Truman and Moynihan–and the mood stylings of the authentic JFK.

But the public service the big three nets and the big two Times now do, the greater public does not want done, so it is not a service at all, it is rather (!) a dis-service, in fact an attack, and a damn serious one, too.

So they fear we are misled by the president’s rose-clored glasses? But that rose world offers hope, if they will let critical mass rise to the task. Besides, even they know their boy is blind, and that as his seeing-eye dogs they are crapping everywhere the world is trying to live.

Enough, enough, enough of all that.

Oct 10, 2004 - 4:14 am 41. Buddy Larsen:

Truman and Moynihan and Zell Miller, Bud, you stupid, never-get-it-done-with-one-call, numbskull.

Oct 10, 2004 - 4:34 am 42. Syl:

Terrye and WichitaBoy

Well with biologicals, there’s no big deal about storage. One vial in one refrigerator somewhere will do. The biologicals are the scariest in that they’re almost impossible to detect. Work on them as well as storage can be hidden easily.

Chemical has the problem of storage and delivery system. Both of which are detectable.

Nuclear is probably the easiest to detect if you’re looking. Until everything goes underground.

As for what happened to the stuff Blix knew Saddam had, wasn’t some of it because of what Saddam had told them in the past?

I seem to remember making statements such as ‘So where is all this anthrax? Saddam even told us he had it.’ Heh. He sure did.

As for Saddam’s chemical weapons, he could very well have destroyed them canister by canister. Just a bit at a time so nobody would suspect. The stuff probably was spread out all over Iraq. He could have told people at one site that some of the stuff was moving elsewhere for strategic purposes, then after it was picked up it was destroyed. Then the guys who destroyed it were killed.

Saddam would be safe. It would be impossible for inspectors to stumble on something. Saddam could say he destroyed them, yet refuse to show proof, and keep the suspicion game going.

Oct 10, 2004 - 5:06 am 43. Syl:

Buddy

I like your idea for how these MSM reporters should atone. But I don’t think it would work. I still have memories of Dan Rather in Afghanistan…what did it teach him?

There is a true difference in worldview at work here and the only solution I see is for the MSM to come out in public and state their biases.

That is not an excuse to become partisan or water down attempts at objectivity, but a simple statement of which way they slant.

Some of them still believe they don’t have any bias but I think that is slowly changing. Jane Hall on Newswatch said the fallout from the Dan Rather memogate mess will play out in unexpected ways. It’s too soon to know what will happen.

Certainly not before the election. We just have to trust in the innate wisdom of the American public to choose the right leader when crunch time comes.

Bush is doing two things that the MSM and Democrats are terrified of. He’s changing/has changed the status quo in the world and his economic policies are anathema to their government as mama approach. Four more years of Bush will make it infinitely harder for, say Hillary, to implement the ideas she believes in.

I think Hillary is in a panic that Bush might win. That’s why I think all this talk of the Clintons really wanting Kerry to lose is bunk.

We know how the Democrats project, and increasing noise about an October Surprise has me convinced _they_ have an October Surprise…and I think it is Bill coming out in the last week to endorse and campaign for Kerry.

I think Kerry would be so weak as a president, and dangerous to boot, that Hillary would have no trouble running against him in 2008.

If DC is still around.

Oct 10, 2004 - 5:47 am 44. PeterUK:

The Buried Truth,a review by Christopher Hitchens,The Slate,of a book,”The Bomb in My Garden”,written by Saddam Husseins chief nuclear physicist Dr Mahdi Obeidi.

Qusai Hussein order Dr Obeidi to bury components of a centrifuge in his garden,Dr Obeidi was questioned by weapons inspectors but never divulged the truth.

Why is so much credence put on Hans Blix and why is his involvement regarded as disinterested? He was after all a creature of the UN,which regards itself as the sole legitimate source of power.A UN which is eligible for a Nobel Prize in corruption.

It is now plain that the UN and certain members of the Security Council had a vested interest in keeping Hussein in power and coalition forces out of Iraq,the status quo suited them just fine.

The US and the UK were expending treasure and sooner or later blood to maintain the No Fly Zones,whilst this sleazy lot were lining their pockets

Oct 10, 2004 - 5:52 am 45. Mike:

Terrye, Wichita Boy, Syl:

I want to read the ISG report, or at least the portions that are to be made public, to see if Duelfer provides any compelling evidence to explain the overwhelming evidence that Saddam had retained chemical and biological agents from the time frame of the first Gulf War. Because if Duelfer doesn’t provide something believable to explain what happened to Iraq’s Anthrax and VX nerve agent, then he can join the rest of the naysayers who couldn’t do so either.

It’s the digging done by the UN inspectors from 1991 to 1998 that laid out a case for Iraq’s continued possession of Anthrax and VX. The anti-Bush crowd has successfully created the impression that his administration alone provided the evidence that Iraq still had WMD, in the run up to war. This is completely untrue.

There needs to be a separation between what the Bush administration put forth as proof, and that which the UN inspectors uncovered. While the two overlap in many instances, much of the Bush administration’s intelligence was separate, and I don’t quarrel with the conclusion that most of it was wrong. Much of it seemed dubious at the time it was presented.

An example of overlap in what the UN inspectors and the Bush administration were both saying can be found in Colin Powell’s speech to the UN prior to war. Powell spoke about Iraqi experiments on Iraqi political prisoners and criminals, using biological agents. Powell claimed the experiments had occurred in 1995. They were designed to test the potency and shelf life of Iraq’s bio-agents. All the prisoners died.

Well, Scott Ritter’s first book, the 1999 publication ” Endgame,” (the one in which he tells the truth about Iraq’s WMD capabilities, before he decided to go work for Saddam’s regime) makes the exact same claim as Powell, but goes into detail as to how the intelligence came to light.

In 1997, the UN inspectors had been inspecting a Bagdhad premises. They caught two Iraqi officials beetling out a rear door with a load of documents. A literally physical tug of war ensued between them and the inspectors, with the inspectors winning. The confiscated documents were comprehensive records of these 1995 bio-agent experiments.

This directly undermines Duelfer’s claim, and the claims of many others post-regime change, that Iraq had destroyed its bio weapons in 1991. These claims do not stand the test of reason. We know from the UN inspections that Iraq lied in its initial declarations in 1991 about even having a bio-weapons program. It took the UN four long years to prove and unravel the enormous bio-weapons program Iraq actually had. When finally confronted, Iraq replied ” Yup, guilty, you caught us, but we destroyed every speck of agent we produced, and we did it back in 1991. Why lie about something that we destroyed anyway? Because.”

But the question of Iraq’s bio-weapons stocks goes even further. Anthrax is the ultimate bio-agent, the most problematic and deadly to defence against. When finally forced to admit its lie on ever having made bio-agents, the UN discovered, through extensive investigations, that Iraq was very likely lying about how much Anthrax it had produced. The UN concluded Iraq was definitely lying about the facilities used to produce its Anthrax. Iraq claimed only one facility had been involved in making Anthrax, the UN found others.

This was key, because there was absolutely nothing to gain in lying about this. These facilities were all destroyed or in the process of being dismantled under UN order. The finding corroborated the fact that Iraq had produced far more Anthrax than it admitted. There can only be one logical reason for this; Iraq sought to retain Anthrax stocks while misleading the UN into believing it had destroyed all it had made. Small wonder that UNSCOM, in its final inspection report in 1999, stated it had ” no confidence ” that Iraq no longer possessed biological agents. Funny, we’ve never seen that statement in the NY Times or any of the other Bush bashing media.

The same scenario as Anthrax was played out on the VX nerve agent question. Like Anthrax, VX is the king of its WMD category, chemical weapons. Iraq denied in its initial 1991 declaration that it had made VX agent except in tiny lab amounts, and the program had been a failure.

As in the case of Anthrax, it took the UN four year, 1995, to prove Iraq lied about its VX program. Iraq eventually admitted it had produced VX, approximately 3 tons, but just like the anthrax, it had been destroyed in 1991.

Iraq continued to state in 1995, that even though it had lied about producing VX in mass quantity, the program had still been a failure. UNMOVIC, the UN inspection body that replaced UNSCOM, stated in its 2003 ” Cluster Document” two weeks before the invasion, that it ” made no sense ” for Iraq to have lied about the existence of a program (VX) that it itself had deemed to have been a failure. Moreover, the UN estimates Iraq had the VX precursors to produce 50 to 100 tons of VX, and the precursors were never accounted for in a manner that could be accepted and believed.

The issue of storage and shelf life is a canard put forth by Ritter, and was played up big time by the useful idiots. The UNMOVIC Cluster Document pointed out that even if Iraq hadn’t managed to perfect the means to dry Anthrax, THE LIQUID ANTHRAX THEY ACKNOWLEDGED PRODUCING COULD STILL HAVE BEEN VIABLE AT THE TIME OF REGIME CHANGE. The fact is, even Ritter believed (in 1999, of course, and has to this day never provided reasons for his flip-flop) that Iraq had succeeded in drying Anthrax. In dried form, Anthrax has a virtually unlimited shelf life. As for VX, as Wichita Boy mentioned, Iraq lied about weaponizing VX, and laboratory tests (by the U.S, lab anyway) revealed traces of stabilizer on excavated war head fragments.

Iraq denied stabilizing the VX it had lied about producing. There is strong reason to believe they were lying. If stabilized, VX can be stored for decades. What amazed me about the claim from the anti-war side that Iraq’s VX would have been rendered inert long before 2003, was the fact that the U.S. is still struggling to safely destroy its own huge arsenal of VX! All of this stuff was produced in the 60’s and 70’s, using 50’s and 60’s technology, and the agent is still deadly today! Why did nobody call Ritter and his fellow truth twisters on this????

The evidence overwhelmingly points to Saddam deciding to keep stocks of his most desirable and useful agents, Anthrax and VX. Duelfer himself concludes that Saddam believed these agents had saved his regime on several occasions.

The fact that these agents were not found after regime change means nothing. Once Saddam realized regime change was imminent, any WMD stocks left became a huge liability, unable to affect the military outcome if used, and a complete vindication of the Americans for ousting him if they were found.

The only logical option for Saddam was to dump this stuff into a hole, using only his most trusted fanatics to do so. But just like the absence of reason used by those to explain away Anthrax and VX, we’re seeing a complete lack of logic and reason in denying the possibility that Saddam had destroyed his remaing WMD on the eve of invasion.

Not finding something Saddam did not want the coalition to find shouldn’t surprise anyone. It’s akin to a police officer getting solid information that Joe Blow has a basement full of stolen property. But instead of getting a search warrant that day and executing it, the officer spends months going around town telling everyone that Joe Blow has stolen property in his basement, and he’s coming for it. Moreover, he tells Joe Blow personally that he’s coming. When the officer finally executes the warrant months later, why should he be surprised to find nothing but a smirking Joe Blow?

The whole question of whether Saddam still possessed WMD at the time of regime change comes down to two criteria: evidence and human nature. All of Duelfer’s predecessors have ignored and/or disregarded the damning evidence uncovered by the UN as it relates to VX and Anthrax.

Even more inexcusable, they have deliberately excluded human nature from the equation. When people have something to hide, they lie. When they can’t hide what they’ve lied about any longer, they get rid of it.

I haven’t read the Duelfer report, so maybe he has answered the questions I have, in which case then yeah, I would concede Saddam had been disarmed long ago. But if his report is simply more David Kay, or more of the Leftist think tank papers published since regime change, then no, I haven’t been convinced, and concede nothing, because really, there isn’t anything to concede.

In the aftermath of the failure to find any WMD in Iraq, the anti-regime change critics claimed that governments and intelligence agencies had all fallen victim to a “group think” consensus that Saddam had to be lying about his WMD capabilities. It appears we’ve now fallen victim to a similar group think, that Saddam had disarmed long ago as he claimed. However, unlike the ” group think ” that believed Saddam was lying, the group think that now vindicates Saddam is not based on logic and reason, but on the suppression of logic and reason. I can understand why the anti-Bush revisionist Left has propagated this group think. What I can’t understand is why virtually everyone has bought it.

Oct 10, 2004 - 5:56 am 46. Buddy Larsen:

“…if DC is still around” gaaaahhhh….days on end on edge yet ahead.

That’s an original, Syl, that Hil wants Kerry in because it’d be easier to bump a withered 65 yr old than face a powerfully successful BushII heir.

That would account for asome things that don’t add fully up otherwise, fer sher.

Per that long post above, no wonder i thought of the word ‘overweening”, I reread Roger’s lead, and the word is right there. Chagrin for breakfast!

Oct 10, 2004 - 6:39 am 47. Syl:

Mike

You’re absolutely correct about the UN statements vs US intelligence. I wish more people would understand that.

But, in any case, it seems simple to me in hindsight. The answer to all the ‘why did Saddam lie about…’ is contained in

“As in the case of Anthrax, it took the UN four year, 1995, to prove Iraq lied about its VX program. ”

The lies simply bought time.

Every suspicious statement by Saddam led to years of inspections to find the ‘truth’. Then there’d be more lies and more years.

I have no problem believing that Saddam had several facilities when stating he only had one. Let the inspectors discover the other ones espcially if it took them a lot of time to do so. Saddam had enough money for them all and the more there were, the more it looked like he had manufactured even more than he stated. That was fine with Saddam.

His programs remained intact. There simply is no proof that Saddam ever created stockpiles after ‘91. He had the technology but didn’t want the inspectors to ever stumble on actual stockpiles. The suspicion of having made them was enough.

The reason I’ve bought into it is Occam’s Razor, I guess. This new revelation really does simplify matters. And I can buy into it because to me it doesn’t change the validity of removing Saddam. The programs were still there and Saddam would have become the threat we already thought he was the more the sanctions unraveled.

Enough was enough after 9/11. After years of diddling with the UN, if Saddam didn’t come clean we were going in. He didn’t, we did.

Terrorist ties, Saddam’s history of using wmd, the oppression and murder of his own people, his animosity toward the U.S., violation of the ceasefire agreement almost daily, the necessity of putting teeth behind U.N. resolutions in this dangerous new world we found ourselves in.

And the war was stated to be pre-emptive, not against an imminent threat. I didn’t believe Saddam had nuclear capability. Stockpiles of chemical weapons were a danger to our troops (not an imminent threat to America). But I did personally worry about vials of biologicals being handed over to terrorists sooner rather than later. In that sense, to me, we didn’t move fast enough. But ‘rush to war’ is nonsense. The inspectors were doomed to failure as I stated above.

Bush laid out several reasons for going to war in his SOTU and there were several reasons stated for regime change in the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. Bush only emphasized WMD because he thought that was the easiest and most compelling case to make. In hindsight I still think Bush did and said the right things because of what we knew at the time.

And for those that imply Bush didn’t listen to voices telling him Saddam had no WMD, the truth is those voices were lying if they stated ‘no WMD’ as fact. NOBODY except Saddam knew for sure he didn’t have stockpiles. So anyone who claimed they knew, didn’t. It was opinion. Bush listened to everyone’s opinions and made his choice.

Oct 10, 2004 - 6:55 am 48. Terrye:

Mike, Syl and Wichita:

Maybe some day we will really know the truth but it seems to me that if a drug dealer can figure out he needs to flush the dope then Saddam can do the same. ie, get rid of the weapons and wait for cops to go away.

Bush went to the UN on 9/12 to get Resolution 1441 and did not give the order to invade for another 6 months. You can bury and burn a lot of stuff in that amount of time.

I understand that Saddam wanted to scare the Iranians but at the same time keep the US off his back. But I just don’t get why he would actually destroy the weapons.

Why not sell them? Why not spirit them away until the coast is clear and then start making new weapons? If the weapons program [aside from nuclear] could be entirely up and running in less than two years why not ship the weapons to some deserving dictator and make more later?

But if you were going to do that why not comply and get the US off your back? The only thing I can think of is that Saddam sent the stockpiles out of the country, kept the programs themselves but did not comply because the food for oil scam was lucrative enough that he did not feel compelled to do so and yet it maintained enough ambiguity in regards to weapons to keep the mullahs at bay.

The crazy son of a bitch brought this on himself. It is not Bush’s fault. And the UN only complicated rather than resolved the situation.

Oct 10, 2004 - 7:25 am 49. asher:

More brilliant analysis from the local “news”paper …

Oregonian: Vote Kerry

Bush’s term in office has been marked by two major failures. One is his conduct of the war in Iraq. …

We believe the White House’s policy-makers approached the war with preconceived notions about success based on what the president later called “just guessing.” They brushed aside warnings and contrary opinions. They chose ideology over expertise. This arrogance led to a series of military, political and diplomatic blunders and, we believe, resulted in the unnecessary deaths of many brave Americans. …

… on the international front, Kerry understands something that Bush does not: Our nation’s experience shows that strong international alliances are vital to erecting a bulwark against aggression, tyranny and terrorism. …

Foreign leaders may well understand that their long-term interests lie in sticking with the United States. But Bush has made it politically impossible for them to do so. Kerry has some chance of rebuilding the international alliances that Bush and his people have shattered.

Oct 10, 2004 - 7:28 am 50. Buddy Larsen:

Asher, with all due respect, what do you mean, EXACTLY, when you say ‘they chose ideology over expertise’?

I ask, because I’m like you, I’m certain of my own Great Gaseous Pronouncements, too, and I say that ‘Bush chose expertise over ideology’.

I know I’m right, too! Just like you know you’re right!

But I have circumstantial evidence: Because the ideologues would’ve ignored you Stockholm Syndromers, and the war would’ve been fought bigger, faster, harsher, and likely be over now (to the benfit of all, including the enemy), had not this election and you folks’ inability to construct simple syllogisms not made it politically desirable to stay always near the wobble-line.

That’s how your tribe of Assertion People hurt the nation.

Oct 10, 2004 - 7:48 am 51. Buddy Larsen:

And tell me about the ’shattered international alliances’, too, please. Does UNSCAM mean anything to you? Do you follow the news?

Oct 10, 2004 - 7:58 am 52. Jeff M:

The NYT article names all of the Americans who received vouchers except the most important one: Marc Rich.

From Captain Ed:

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/

“One of the most prolific purchasers of the oil was Swiss-based Glencore run by one-time fugitive American financier Marc Rich, which the report alleges paid over $3.2 million in kickbacks to the Iraqi government. Rich, formerly wanted for tax-evasion was pardoned by President Clinton in his last days in office.

The report says that the company denies any inappropriate deals.”

I wonder if “President Pardon” would like to address the possiblity that illicit “Oil for Food” profits funded Senator Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Clinton Library through contributions to both by Denise Rich?

Oct 10, 2004 - 8:08 am 53. Rick Ballard:

Actually reading a provided link often leads to an understanding as to why particular sections have been lifted for emphasis.

Asher, the Oregon Dog Trainer’s support for Kerry isn’t really a surprise is it? The stupidity of their rationale is right in line with what I would expect (although I must admit to having read the paper only from picking it off the seats in the terminal).

Oct 10, 2004 - 8:16 am 54. Buddy Larsen:

Yes, Jeff M, tell Asher about Marc Rich…and how Clinton “explained” his last-minute pardon by erecting an anti-Semite straw man.

Oct 10, 2004 - 8:53 am 55. richard mcenroe:

Syl ó I’m not sure I buy into that.

I don’t think Hillary would want to be President of the country John Kerry would leave her. Too many tough choices, too many problems mismanaged or ignored for four long years. Too much responsibility. The Clintons didn’t get where they are today by facing up to real choices.

Oct 10, 2004 - 8:55 am 56. Jamie Irons:

Having read everybody’s explanations for what may have happened with/ to Saddam’s WMDs, and being impressed by the grasp of the arcane facts involved, I am still persuaded that the David Brooks NYT (!!!) OpEd I cited in my comment above provides a most persuasive explanation for many of the puzzles involved. Most of what he offers doesn’t contradict much of what has been put forth here, but his account has the advantage (to a mind swayed by coherent narratives based on personal psychology, however pathological) of narrative economy and consistency.

Jamie Irons

Oct 10, 2004 - 9:20 am 57. Jeff M:

Apologies:

The link to Captain Ed above should have been this one:

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/002720.php#comments

The quote cited above:

“One of the most prolific purchasers of the oil was Swiss-based Glencore run by one-time fugitive American financier Marc Rich, which the report alleges paid over $3.2 million in kickbacks to the Iraqi government. Rich, formerly wanted for tax-evasion was pardoned by President Clinton in his last days in office.

The report says that the company denies any inappropriate deals.”

comes from an article at Foxnews.com:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134787,00.html

Oct 10, 2004 - 9:23 am 58. Terrye:

jamie:

I read that oped and I think it is quite possible that he is right. We just can’t be sure, not yet anyway.

But as far as the partisans are concerned they should all stop and think about who the presdient was in 1992 before they get all huffy.

Oct 10, 2004 - 11:08 am 59. Mike:

Terrye:

“But I just don’t get why he would actually destroy the weapons.

Why not sell them? Why not spirit them away until the coast is clear and then start making new weapons? If the weapons program [aside from nuclear] could be entirely up and running in less than two years why not ship the weapons to some deserving dictator and make more later?”

It’s certainly always a possibility that Saddam sold rather than destroyed his WMD. I don’t think this likely occurred, so great would the risk be that this would be discovered at some point later, and completely vindicate the Americans and British for invading.

Saddam knew he couldn’t deny the coalition their military victory. He knew he couldn’t prevent his elimination from power. He did however, have the means to deny the coalition a victory in the forum of world opinion, by denying the coalition the means to prove they were justified in implementing regime change. The means for this was the destruction of all remaining WMD stocks and production assets, at some point before regime change commenced.

In my view, the most believable scenario is Saddam simply didn’t want to part with his most valuable WMD stocks in 1991, (Anthrax and VX) and elected to try and conceal them, while declaring and destroying those WMD agents of lesser value, and those that he couldn’t deny having, because of their earlier use. It’s important to note that Iraq had never used bio-weapons against Iran, so had some plausible case to make to the UN in 1991 when saying he didn’t have them. The same goes for VX. It wasn’t used against Iran, although apparently now Duelfer says Iraq did launch 3 VX warheads during that war, but no one, including Iran, knew it at the time.

Saddam realized in 1991 he was going to have a hell of time, in the aftermath of the 1st Gulf War and sanctions, in getting new growth media for the Anthrax, and new precursors for the VX. I believe this was paramount in motivating him to keep what he had already made, while feigning compliance by declaring and giving up the less valuable chemical weapons such as Sarin and Tabun.

Oct 10, 2004 - 12:39 pm 60. PeterUK:

There is every possibility that Saddam Hussein simply lost control,there were ant number of weird and wonderful armament projects still going on in the Third Reich at the end of WWII.

It took decades after the war to catalogue them all,some of them useful to the Allies never surfaced publically.

It may not fit the news cycle but it will be years before the full extent of Iraqs arms developments emerges

Oct 10, 2004 - 3:38 pm 61. Terrye:

Peter and Mike:

Peter, I have to agree, I think it will be years before we know it all. I heard last year that several Chinese got ill while cleaning out an old warehouse. It turns out some old drums were full of blister agent left behind by the Japanese.

Mike, if Saddam wanted to prove Britain and the US wrong for invading, why would he deliberately place himself in material breach of 1441? The resolution did not only apply to stockpiles.

I think they should have justified the invasion on the issue of noncompliance and humanitarian reasons as well as Saddam’s open support for terrorism.

But I think it was inevitable. Sooner or later Saddam was going to have to be dealt with, he was not going to have it any other way.

Oct 10, 2004 - 4:03 pm 62. Mike:

Terrye:

Sorry it took me so long to answer you, just finished up a long shift at work. You asked,

“Mike, if Saddam wanted to prove Britain and the US wrong for invading, why would he deliberately place himself in material breach of 1441? The resolution did not only apply to stockpiles.”

There was nothing Saddam could do about the perception that he was in material breach of 1441, because he was in breach, and had been in breach of every UN resolution passed since 1991.

The resolution (1441), like other resolutions, “did not only apply to stockpiles,” as you say, but Saddam realized that nothing else mattered but the stockpiles. Saddam had also gone a long way to defusing the impact of being in material breach by allowing UNMOVIC into Iraq for renewed inspections. The fact that they had no hope of finding in 3 1/2 months what UNSCOM couldn’t find in 7 years has been buried in anti-Bush spin.

The widespread support to keep Saddam from being ousted proved that technical breaches meant little in the PR battle prior to invasion. Hell, the Left had already made it clear before regime change that any WMD stocks found afterward were going to be treated as American planted evidence. Still, finding stocks of actual chemical and biological weapons in Iraq after ousting Saddam would definitely have vindicated Bush and Blair, regardless of the conspiracy cries of planted WMD. Saddam realized that the actual WMD stocks were everything. Denying them to Bush and Blair was his only means of ruining them politically.

Regardless of whether he succeeds (and it’s looking more and more like he won’t), I don’t think the question of Iraq’s WMD could have played out any more to Saddam’s liking than it has. Saddam simply made sure there would be no actual WMD left in Iraq after regime change, and let the Bush hating media do the rest.

Oct 11, 2004 - 5:35 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: