Not everyone got it wrong on WMD

IHT ^ | 2-6-04 | scott ritter

[eagles]

WASHINGTON: 'We were all wrong," David Kay, the Bush administration's former top weapons sleuth in Iraq, recently told members of Congress after acknowledging that there were probably no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Kay insisted that the blame for the failure to find any such weapons lay with the U.S. intelligence community, which, according to Kay, provided inaccurate assessments.

[Restorer]

It was not illogical for GWB to think that Saddam had WMDs. Apparently Saddam thought he had WMDs, and even gave orders for their use during the war.

Ritter and the others he cites who claimed Saddam had no weapons did not base this belief on any real evidence. Their "proof" was a desire to prevent an invasion of Iraq. A defensible position, but a political one, not an intelligence analysis.

A classic example of political objective driving the analysis of the evidence, exactly what they accuse GWB of.

[Publius6961]

Am I the only conservative who's a bit disillusioned with the fact that the major objective for going to war with Iraq didn't pan out?

Probably.
You may be the only one, other than the dumbocrats and "progressives", to recall WMDs as the "major" objective of the war. As I recall, there were 7 or 8 items listed, and if any one was "major", it was your personal interpretation.

The rest of us don't have a comprehension problem, and we don't need to go off half-cocked based on an erroneous inference. I for one understood the measage clearly, as you, or anyone else who wishes to do so can go verify by playing back any and all speeches that George W. or his spokesmen made prior to the war: that we could not wait until WMDs became an imminent threat. Any sharp grammar school kid can understand from that the difference between an imminent threat and the prevention of a future potential.

If you misunderstood, that's your problem. Stop trying to share your tendency to misapprehension with the rest of us.

[Mark]

Am I the only conservative who's a bit disillusioned with the fact that the major objective for going to war with Iraq didn't pan out?

How much time do we have to find them? 5 minutes after we invaded? A week? 2 months?

[cripplecreek]

In my case i was originally opposed to going to war with iraq. one thing finally solidified my support. It was the newsclip of an iraqi man being dragged kicking and screaming from a UN vehicle by police as the UN workers stepped aside.

[tbpiper]

the major objective for going to war with Iraq didn't pan out

The 'major objective' was the destruction of Saddam's regime, which seems to have 'panned out' nicely.

[Maria S]

Excerpt from the KENNETH M. POLLACK article you referenced (and thanks for posting it...I had missed it):

"I later moved on to the National Security Council, where I served two tours, in 1995-1996 and 1999-2001. During the latter stint the intelligence community convinced me and the rest of the Clinton Administration that Saddam had reconstituted his WMD programs following the withdrawal of the UN inspectors, in 1998, and was only a matter of years away from having a nuclear weapon. In 2002 I wrote a book called Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq, in which I argued that because all our other options had failed, the United States would ultimately have to go to war to remove Saddam before he acquired a functioning nuclear weapon. Thus it was with more than a little interest that I pondered the question of why we didn't find in Iraq what we were so certain we would."

[dagnabbit]

The problem with posing an article from Ritter is that you're just going to get a lot of replies about Burger King and teen-aged girls, and less on the substance of his story. But while Ritter's appears to be dirtbag in his personal life, he's also probably correct that Saddam was "qualitatively" disarmed.

BUT (here's the second but), his being correct on that issue is also likely irrelevant, because with ample WMD research and development programs, and with a card-carrying America-hating loon like Saddam in charge, Iraq was a problem that couldn't be long tolerated in any post-9-11 War on Terror. Additionally, there was a very real need for an Arab Muslim state to go down post 9-11 and, frankly, Iraq was as good as any other (though I would have preferred Saudi Arabia). Already, the events in Iraq appear to have had a "clarifying" effect on the thinking of some in the region, with some real cooperation possibly now coming from Qaddafi and from the House of Saud.

The problem with media-ready WMD stockpiles not turning up is largely a PR problem for the administration. With an election looming, however, that doesn't make it any less a problem.

The real irony would be for Kerry to end up as President because of Iraq, only to be be sworn in thinking to himself "Damn I glad he got rid of Saddam"

[doc]

I said quite some time ago that when we did not find these huge "caches" of WMD that Bush was given misleading intelligence. The CIA was given misleading foreign intelligence and acted on it.
Now the mantra is, "well we got rid of a horrible dictator and the world is a better place". Can we not say that about 20 other countries in the world? How about North Korea? A country whose leader has threatened the US publicly with nuclear weapons. Oh, thats right we're going to handle that situation diplomatic channels.
How do you explain to the over 1,000 parents of the dead soldiers that we went to war on a false premise? How would you feel if you were one of those parents?
I recently read an AP article written by Mark Lavie entitled, "Ex-general faults Israel's view of threat posed by Irag". "The Israeli assessment may have been colored by politics, including a desire to see the Iraqi leader toppled, said Shlomo Brom, who was a senior Israeli military intelligence officer and is now a researcher with Israel's top strategic think tank." Brom went on to say "Israeli intellegence was a full partner with the United States and Great Britian in developing a false picture of Saddam Hussein"s weapons of mass destruction capability."
Bush's "blue ribbon" committee to uncover information about WMD is nothing but a sham. Their findings are not to be reported until 3/05, spare me. It should only take a week to root out where this BS intelligence came from. At that point heads should roll.
I find this news very disturbing. Sure makes you want to send your sons and daughters to be used as pawns in the shooting gallery we call Iraq.

[prairiebreeze]

thanks

[prairiebreeze]

Criminey. I'd forgotten about that clip. The ones that came out in the last couple of months showing men being pushed off building and having their tongues cut out ought to be enough to make a case too.

Problem was, of course, the UN supported Saddam for so long that most of the rest of the world didn't want to get rid of him. Too much invested dontchaknow.

Prairie

[Austin Willard Wright]

Panned out nicely? More than 100K troops overextended and tied down in a futile nation building operation, Shi'tes (who want domination) headling for a showdown with Kurds (who want autonomy or independence), 83 billion and more spending on nation building, enactment of Shari'a by the new interim authority, Americans killed at average of more than one per day? Don't think so.

[Joe_October]

If the Administration was wrong about WMD, what is the down side? A mad dictator was taken out for the other reasons cited CLEARLY. 24 million people are free. Hundreds of thousands of dead humans get some measure of justice. Other countries with mad men for leaders have to think twice and a third time when the US speaks. The UN even gets a modest amount of weight since it was their actions that started it.

If the Left is wrong and and there are weapons yet uncovered, what is the down side? Yea, a lot of dead people and terror. The US loses credibility with the world? (Make me laugh.)

Yea, I have no problem with being wrong. (Which I'm not.)

[sandlady]

I'm not disillusioned, but that's because I never thought his possession of these weapons was the issue. I was more impressed by his desire for them, and his proven willingness to use them.

Bingo!

[Joe_October]

You've just describe the average American city.

You forgot to mention that the sky was falling as well.

[MamaLucci]

The timing of Ritter's conversion from anti-Iraq to pro-Iraq is highly suspect.

[LS]

Ritter was wrong. The WMDs were there because RITTER SAID SO HIMSELF before he "turned." Japan said so, Russia said so, Clinton said so, the UN said so, Britain said so, Aus. said so, and Israel said so. ALL these organizations and people weren't wrong. The WMDs were most likely moved.

Again, I could bury two 50 gallon drums on a 100 acre farm if you gave me 3 months and you'd never find it.

[NutCrackerBoy]

We were surprised not to find the huge stockpiles. I am willing to assume for now that David Kay has a reasonable chance of being correct that what stockpiles there were, were not large by the time of the invasion. Otherwise, he probably would have found the "fingerprints" of their being moved or destroyed.

Nonetheless, Saddam was dangerous, and the coalition going to the military option and taking him down is a very successful step in the War on Terror. Saddam was not "just another dictator" - his actions in the Middle East, connections with and support of various terrorist groups, have been quelled. The difference in the dynamics there are vastly different and in our favor. We sent young men into harm's way to help make America safer and that is what they have done.

Libya is just one of the first dominos to fall.

[The Grammarian]

To say it didn't pan out is very premature.

Heh, I had some liberal friends (one of whom is my cousin) tell me that I was "naive" for thinking that the search isn't over yet in Iraq. (Who's the naive one? The one who waits before passing judgment, or the one who assumed that Big Media had the final say when it first reported on the 'lack' of WMD?)

[ApplegateRanch]

If by 'mystery ships' you are not referring to the song lyrics, I've been wondering the same thing. Where are those 'mystery ships'? Were any of the mysteries concerning them ever solved?

Another thing; doesn't anyone remember what Kay actually said, after saying that there are no weapons in Iraq? Seems I remember his next sentence being to the effect that, far from not existing, they had been removed, probably to Syria.

Like the UN resolutions violations that were the actual reason for going to war, most people only recall what the media tells them to remember.

Again: Where are those ships; whose were they; what was on them???

[maestro]

Correct!

Scary too.

:-(