CIA Boss: Iraq Not Called Imminent Threat

"Neither did the president ever call it an imminent threat"

===

Exactly. Bush said that we shouldn't wait, until it becomes an imminent threat, and he was right.

Now that the intelligence is in question and the evidence has yet to be found, it is legitimate and necessary to conduct some investigation.

Certainly, and I have agreed with this numerous times, here on this very thread.

It's just that this has nothing to do with the pretext for war becoming "slim". Hint: if we acted on our best intel, and the war seemed warranted, that's enough. The fact that the intel may turn out to be wrong doesn't retroactively convert the war into having been the wrong decision.

But I am saying that these presentations of our own and British intelligence were important to domestic support

Again, by this point (early 2003) "domestic support" didn't mean jack. He got approval in October 2002, period.

these presentations of our own and British intelligence were important to ... and to recruiting a coalition.

Evidently, they were not. The effort to "recruit a coalition" mostly failed. We got neither France nor Germany nor Russia nor Belgium nor any of various other nation-states, let alone a UNSC "resolution" about it all, which perhaps we could have hoped for; it was mostly us, Britain, Australia, and.. oh, let's say Poland. The Powell stuff was an effort to get *additional* countries and the diplomatic cover of a UNSC resolution, and it failed. So in a way I don't even know why weren't talking about this; I mean, even if his presentation was a load of crap IT FAILED ANYWAY, so what's to complain about?

And we've yet to prove what the intelligence claimed.

Be more specific. What did the intelligence "claim" to Congress, which influenced Congress's vote, that we have yet to prove.

I'll give you one example: the Iraq offshore drone/chemical weapons plot. This is something we know that our intel told to congresspeople and (probably) influenced the vote: "we think Iraq is working on the capability of delivering CW/BW to our shores via drones launched from boats..".

Now, here's the point, is there any reason to doubt the veracity of this? Not so far. Let me know if one comes up.

It's true that we would like to know to what extent our intel was right about this. But even if they were wrong, that still doesn't mean the war-vote was wrong, if that was really our best info.

Of course, we should also remember that everyone (including France and Germany) actually believed Saddam had such weapons because they kept voting the sanctions and inspections at the U.N. just like everyone else.

Well, in some cases there may be other explanations for those votes... like that they were profiting by violating the sanctions, and by administering the "oil for food" program... but who knows ;-)

Before they get done with this, you may realize that it is important. Legality is not everything in policy. Broad popular support is needed.

Polls have consistently showed over a long time scale that 70% give or take support the Iraq war (although this can bounce around with good or bad news of course). What's your point?

You seem to be raising a spectre here that there may come a time when we need to deal with (say) Syria militarily, and the public will withold their support. Two points: (1) if we really NEED to deal with Syria, the President (whoever that is) is completely empowered to do so, without asking Congress. (2) on the other hand, if we had said to ourselves, "let's not deal with Iraq, because France etc doesn't like it, and thus it may ruin our credibility if we need to deal with, say, Syria", this is a circular and self-defeating argument, because when Syria does come along, the same argument will be equally applicable. The argument "let's refrain from doing the unpopular in case we need to do something unpopular in the future" swallows its own tail like Ouroboros.

If you can't do something unpopular now "because we may need to do so in the future", the problem is that when that future does come, you likely won't be able to do the unpopular thing then, either.

But I've already made this point; perhaps I'm just not explaining it all that well.

It would solve a lot of upcoming nonsense if we could just find enough WMD for a dozen warheads (maybe 10-20 gallons?) or pin a direct involvement with al-Qaeda and 9/11 directly on Saddam.

Course it would. Hell if we could pin the '89 San Francisco earthquake and some soccer riots on him, that'd be even better. No argument here.... (*eye roll*)

>> I notice they only focus on a very small part of the speech.

Completely removes the context, doesn't it? Of course this isn't intentional. The press would never want to make President Bush look like a liar. Follow this line of thought. Kerry says, the rest of the democrats say, and the press says that Bush said Iraq posed an imminent threat. (That is lie number one - Bush never did) Now Tenet says that Iraq never posed an imminent threat. This makes Bush a liar. Never fear, liberals don't have the ability to be more sophisticated than this. Their little minds are not capable - so little, that this entire story is all that a feable minded liberal can recall. I have more faith in Americans than that.

It's just that this has nothing to do with the pretext for war becoming "slim". Hint: if we acted on our best intel, and the war seemed warranted, that's enough. The fact that the intel may turn out to be wrong doesn't retroactively convert the war into having been the wrong decision.

I've noticed the shift in emphasis from 'Saddam is a danger' to 'Saddam was a horrible mass murderer and our invasion was justified to liberate the Iraqis'. So you may feel no need to change justification for war. But it's not so clear that BushCo is so confident. Read the full text of his speech today. He is not taking the position you are.

And please don't tell me he's talking in 'code'. It undermines the basis for any confidence we might have in politics. If we assume, as some do, that Bush is really saying or doing something other than what he actually says or does, then voting is a fool's errand. I still assume that words and actions mean something and must coincide in a consistent way in order for me to have confidence.

I'll give you one example: the Iraq offshore drone/chemical weapons plot. This is something we know that our intel told to congresspeople and (probably) influenced the vote: "we think Iraq is working on the capability of delivering CW/BW to our shores via drones launched from boats..".

Now, here's the point, is there any reason to doubt the veracity of this? Not so far. Let me know if one comes up.

I recall the three mysterious ships at sea, supposedly involved in something nefarious. And nothing ever came of those either. I never even heard anyone say that we sank them. Yet, there were many reports in the media who were saying they got it from the military.

I think those three ships were the ships who were supposed to launch drones from off our shores or to blow up in our harbors. I don't think the media made that stuff up or the military would have corrected them.

It turns out a lot of this stuff had no substance. I think we should know why. I see that we are in considerable agreement on that at least.

You're saying you don't doubt these ships existed and suggest that I should believe it too. But you have no proof. I'm saying "Where's the proof? Why can't you show us the ships?" And I'm right. Those ships did not escape our satellites. If we sunk them in those waters, we would be able to excavate the wrecks to find the WMD. If we captured them, we would not reveal any intel sources by proving our allegations against Saddam. Besides, if they had found such terror ships, there would be such blaring announcements of it from the White House that even the chipmunks and squirrels would know we had found WMD or something like it in Saddam's terror navy.

Evidently, they were not. The effort to "recruit a coalition" mostly failed. We got neither France nor Germany nor Russia nor Belgium nor any of various other nation-states, let alone a UNSC "resolution" about it all, ...

In fact, we recruited a coalition almost as broad as the one in GW I. I doubt we could have recruited so many of Europe's parliamentary governments to support us without the U.N. charade. And not without the already existing resolutions against Saddam.

Well, I don't intend to re-argue the whole U.N. debacle.

You seem to be raising a spectre here that there may come a time when we need to deal with (say) Syria militarily, and the public will withold their support. Two points: (1) if we really NEED to deal with Syria, the President (whoever that is) is completely empowered to do so, without asking Congress. (2) on the other hand, if we had said to ourselves, "let's not deal with Iraq, because France etc doesn't like it, and thus it may ruin our credibility if we need to deal with, say, Syria", this is a circular and self-defeating argument, because when Syria does come along, the same argument will be equally applicable. The argument "let's refrain from doing the unpopular in case we need to do something unpopular in the future" swallows its own tail like Ouroboros.

No, I didn't really say either of those. I am saying we need to know what went wrong so we can fix it. Otherwise, the Congress will not trust Bush (or a successor) if he comes with the same kind of evidence again from the CIA to prove the need to move against Iran or North Korea or Syria. We must find out what happened and fix it. And our coalition partners are owed some explanation, I think.

As far as fallout from the intel failure, I would expect the first casualty of all this will be a lack of confidence in the administration that will lead to a gutting of most provisions of the Patriot Act. Not merely the provisions that will sunset next year but a broader re-examination of the entire Act.

We may also see the fall of Blair and possibly Berlesconi because they trusted us more than their populations thought was justified. And their voters were overwhelmingly against war in Iraq. So that is also at stake and raises the need for a full and proper accounting of the intel which led to war.

I've noticed the shift in emphasis from 'Saddam is a danger' to 'Saddam was a horrible mass murderer and our invasion was justified to liberate the Iraqis'.

Who have you noticed shifting the emphasis in this way? Certainly not me. I've never used that second argument there.

So you may feel no need to change justification for war.

Right, I don't, but not because of the straw-man thing you've set up there, above.

But it's not so clear that BushCo is so confident. Read the full text of his speech today. He is not taking the position you are.

As would be his right, I guess. Although I'm not sure how you can say Bush isn't taking the position "I am" when you appear not to understand the position I'm taking (or at least, you're mischaracterizing it). Again, I've never used an argument like "Iraq war was justified to liberate Iraqians".

I can't find and am too lazy to seek out the full text of Bush's speech, I found only this link, but I can say that I have very little problem with this:

"We had a choice," Bush said. "Either take the word of a madman or take action to defend the American people. Faced with that choice, I will defend America every time."

It meshes very nicely with what I have been saying to you. So which is the part exactly where you think his position contradicts mine?

And please don't tell me he's talking in 'code'.

Ok I won't. Not sure how any of this is relevant since you're comparing some speech of Bush's to something you're PRETENDING I said.

[i mention drones and you slightly change the subject] I recall the three mysterious ships at sea, supposedly involved in something nefarious. And nothing ever came of those either.

As far as you know. Anyway, this is a tangent, not related to my original point. You do this a lot.

I think those three ships were the ships who were supposed to launch drones from off our shores or to blow up in our harbors.

Could be, I guess. Well wouldn't that provide some evidence that this particular intel given to Congress was accurate then? I guess you have to abandon that earlier claim about none of the intel being proven correct (if you really believe this)....

It turns out a lot of this stuff [intel given to Congress which influenced their vote] had no substance.

Like what? You haven't given any examples, quite the contrary. I mentioned one piece of intel given to Congress which influenced their vote (=a drones from boats plan) and here you are giving me a reason to believe this intel, not disbelieve it.

You're saying you don't doubt these ships existed and suggest that I should believe it too.

Hold on here, WHAT? What ships?

I mentioned a story that: Iraq was working on a plan to deliver drones from (some) boats. All I am saying is that we have no reason to doubt this story (do we?)

YOU are the one who brought up these three particular ships and have identified them as being the selfsame boats as from the plan in that story. I don't know that you are correct, nor do I claim so. Nor do I know otherwise. But you are confusing matters by pretending I "claimed that these ships existed". These particular ships may or may not have existed but that has no bearing on the drones/boats plan story per se.

But you have no proof.

"no proof" of WHAT? I'm not making any positive claims in the first place. This is disorienting, you put words in my mouth and then accuse me of having no proof to say them.. what the heck?

I'm saying "Where's the proof? Why can't you show us the ships?" And I'm right.

What ships??? sheesh. What am I missing here?

If we sunk them in those waters, we would be able to excavate the wrecks to find the WMD.

You're still talking about those three ships which YOU (not me) think are the ships that Iraq would have used to launch a drone attack according to their alleged plan? Ok, but YOU (not me) are the one who is assuming that those ships in particular were namely the Iraq-drone ships from the plan. That's YOUR theory, not mine, so why on earth should my statements stand or fall on whatever was or wasn't on those ships. Argh this is so frustrating.

If we captured them, we would not reveal any intel sources by proving our allegations against Saddam.

Um, "those three ships in particular were going to be used to launch a drone attack" was NEVER an allegation we made against Saddam. This is all a theory you've invented. It may be correct, but if it's not then whatever was or wasn't on those 3 ships doesn't prove diddly squat one way or the other. Don't you understand that?

Analogy: If I say "Saddam has a Doomsday Device", and you say "my theory is that Saddam's Doomsday Device, if he has one, is located in Warehouse 7", and then we check Warehouse 7 and find no Doomsday Device, that doesn't prove I'm wrong - it proves you're wrong, and nothing else.

Besides, if they had found such terror ships,

Sigh. Again: What terror ships? Show me where I claimed "Saddam has terror ships". Or that Congress was told "Saddam has terror ships", influencing there vote. Maybe the problem here is that you don't know the difference between a PLAN which involves ships, and the SHIPS themselves?

I have a plan to go to the store and buy some chewing gum later tonight. I can't SHOW you the chewing gum or PROVE that the chewing gum "exists", because I don't have it yet. (basically it's in some store somewhere, right now, but I don't even know which store, let alone which pack.) Does this mean my plan "doesn't exist", that it's a "lie" to say I have such a plan, and that I will not be chewing any gum later tonight? Think about it, take all the time you need, use a calculator if necessary....

[UN/Powell failure] In fact, we recruited a coalition almost as broad as the one in GW I.

You know what I mean; we didn't recruit the "coalition" we were trying to recruit, and we didn't get UN cover for it. (Nor did we get base usage rights from Turkey....) There are many things we set out to get by going to the UN, and failed. So even if Powell "lied", the "lies" failed. Big deal.

I doubt we could have recruited so many of Europe's parliamentary governments to support us without the U.N. charade.

Uh, if it was such a charade, how could it have convinced anybody. You can't have it both ways.

Anyway it's simply chronologically incorrect to suggest that our allies (which primarily means Britain) weren't with us "until" we went to the UN and Powell gave his little talk. In the (most important) case of Britain: they were with us but they wanted us to perform a charade at the UN. This is not the same thing as saying that they joined us "because" we went to the UN; and more to the point, that doesn't mean that they were "convinced" by our "lies" at the UN... actually it rather means that they didn't really *care* what we said at the UN, as long as we said *something* to give Tony Blair some cover.

I am saying we need to know what went wrong so we can fix it.

I agree with that, of course (as I've said numerous times in this thread). You've made certain other assertions and claims in this thread, of course (else I wouldn't have argued with anything).

Otherwise, the Congress will not trust Bush (or a successor) if he comes with the same kind of evidence again from the CIA to prove the need to move against Iran or North Korea or Syria.

Again, if we NEED to move against Iran or North Korea or Syria, he won't NEED to ask Congress's permission, he can and will JUST DO IT. So in this sense your fears are wholly unwarranted. Don't worry! The President has plenty of power to bomb people to smithereens if he really needs to. ;-)

I agree that if there comes a case where we don't-quite-"need" to do it, but just "want" to or think it would be strategically wise to do so, then it will be more difficult. C'est la vie. You're saying that the "war of choice" (to borrow a tired, silly phrase from the left.. for lack of a better phrase) in Iraq made future "war of choices" more difficult. Yeah, I guess so! I have factored that in. Haven't you?

So. freakin'. what. Yes, the 2003 "war of choice" in Iraq paved a difficult path for a (say) 2005 "war of choice" against Syria. That's the breaks. That's part of the cost. I agree with the point, I just don't think it's all that persuasive about anything. (except of course obvious stuff like "it would be good to find WMD", which no one is denying...)

We could, I suppose, have said to ourselves: "That cost is too high. Let's not do the 'war of choice' against Iraq-2003. Let's "save it up" for Syria-2005." And then come 2005 there would be a debate over THAT. People like me would be saying "go for it". People on the left, and perhaps you, would be saying "no! the cost is too high, if we use up the 'war of choice' on Syria-2005, what happens if we need it for North Korea-2007???"

Um, at some point I gotta just think "use it or lose it". Like I said, the "but this will make it more difficult later" argument ALWAYS APPLIES in these "war of choice" situations. If there never comes a time when we say "the hell with it, let's do it *anyway*", then effectively it becomes an inductive argument for NEVER fighting such wars. And I cannot accept the ramifications of such an argument. Effectively, it's the same attempt at dodgeball as the argument "why are we going after Saddam when Dictator_X is just as bad?", which of course - if we ever DID try to go after Dictator_X - would automatically morph into "why are we going after Dictator_X when Dictator_Y is just as bad?", and then ad infinitum.

Sometimes the argument "we shouldn't attack X if we're not attacking Y" is really just a stealth way of saying "we shouldn't attack anybody", if you follow through with the logic. Similarly, the argument you seem to be flirting with (correct me if I'm wrong) is "we shouldn't do an unpopular 'war of choice' with 'the world' against us and with less than solid 'proof' (etc), because it will make *future* 'wars of choice' more difficult", and my point here is that this argument is really just a stealth way of saying "no wars of choice ever", if you follow through with the logic.

I'm in awe at the sheer massiveness of your post! It dwarfs even my typing endurance. And I'm no slouch. I'll try to address your points. But quoting your remarks without my previous quotes makes it a little hard to follow.

Who have you noticed shifting the emphasis in this way? Certainly not me. I've never used that second argument there.

The switch from the emphasis on the justification for war as Saddam posing a 'gathering threat' and the mention of WMD to the newer one that focuses on Saddam the butcher has actually been growing for quite a while. What I saw today in Bush's speech was an almost complete abandonment of the prior claims on WMD and a 'gathering threat' and a shift to the emphasis on Saddam the butcher. And his concluding points could be condensed as follows: if in doubt of the danger posed by a known enemy, I will attack and protect our country. This was my impression of it. These are, IMO, the new 'talking points'. And it coincides with Bush's agreement to have an independent commission look into this. Bush's agreement was merely a courtesy. I believe Congress would have investigated against his most vehement opposition. Just my opinion.

If you didn't see his speech today, you need to see it for yourself before you deny that there has been any change. I really noticed it. And I think his appearance on Russert's program will be on the offensive to press his new position home and make the most convincing case for it.

Again, I've never used an argument like "Iraq war was justified to liberate Iraqians".

Okay. But the shifting justification for war does not actually validate your position either, does it? You check his speech and see if you detect a different tone in it. Given the Dim responses to it (which I predicted even as he gave the speech to a receptive crowd), I'd say that I'm right about this. But we will see.

"We had a choice," Bush said. "Either take the word of a madman or take action to defend the American people. Faced with that choice, I will defend America every time."

Yes, but this omits the long list (at least a dozen items) in which justification was offered based on the plight of the Iraqis. Dude, you need to hear it all for yourself.

What I'm saying is not something I've said before today and you can check my posting history on that. This is something new in the dialogue about Iraq.

As far as the 'code' thing, I've almost come to expect people to justify things by saying he's speaking in code or being politically wily. An example would be when he campaigns in favor of AWB renewal and then tells Dims last year that he'll sign it if they pass it, that this is some 'code' or a master strategy to defeat AWB. Well, I think that when Tom DeLay said it was DOA, that was it. And I credit Tom DeLay. That way, at least I don't have to have the Secret Code Book to decipher all the 'code'.

As far as you know. Anyway, this is a tangent, not related to my original point. You do this a lot.

What do you mean? You brought up the supposed threat of WMD attack via these ships launching WMD attacks on American soil or foreign interests. I mentioned that there were three ships that were supposedly identified, in the first days of the war, but that nothing ever came of it. You did not establish anything. And I did not post tangentially but actually refuted your point. You have no other possible evidence of the 'terror navy'. I'm not switching the subject, you're choosing to believe rumor that goes around and seem indignant that any proof should be required to support the allegations.

Like what? You haven't given any examples, quite the contrary. I mentioned one piece of intel given to Congress which influenced their vote (=a drones from boats plan) and here you are giving me a reason to believe this intel, not disbelieve it.

The 'gathering threat' of WMD from Iraq. The information presented at the U.N. You are in deep denial here. Those presentations had a purpose: to convince others to join in the war against Saddam. Now you want to pretend that it never mattered at all.

We have a commander-in-chief according to the Constitution but he is not a dictator and he is answerable to Congress as well as the people. This was the Founders' design.

You're still talking about those three ships which YOU (not me) think are the ships that Iraq would have used to launch a drone attack according to their alleged plan?

You're suggesting that Iraqi ocean-going freighters, relatively few in number, cannot be found or that we are to incompetent to find them. I don't believe it. Actually, I don't believe they ever existed and this was just some spook gossip that leaked out. The entire story has no credibility.

As far as drones, yes, there were some initial tests of a long-range drone. But no one has demonstrated a capacity to hit the U.S. Israel, yes. But Saddam's long-range missiles would have been able to do that too. So the whole drone thing will in due course be a bust. Good grief, amateur enthusiasts in America and Europe have built their own cross-Atlantic drones and flown endurance/speed trials on them. So this is not too high tech. And nothing Saddam had remotely approached the sophistication of our military drones.

Enough droning.

You know what I mean; we didn't recruit the "coalition" we were trying to recruit, and we didn't get UN cover for it. (Nor did we get base usage rights from Turkey....) There are many things we set out to get by going to the UN, and failed. So even if Powell "lied", the "lies" failed. Big deal.

If you wish to believe that Britain and Spain and Italy and New Europe supported us all on George Bush's word of honor and were not at all persuaded by the intel we offered to support our arguments, then that is your choice. I can't imagine on what basis they would have justified their actions to support us to their own voters (an emerging problem). But feel free to create an explanation.

I agree that if there comes a case where we don't-quite-"need" to do it, but just "want" to or think it would be strategically wise to do so, then it will be more difficult. C'est la vie.

Then you're satisfied that Bush should be so hobbled in pursuit of his policy of military pre-emption? Well, I consider that a very isolated and short-sighted view. You can congratulate yourself on your wisdom but I think the upcoming investigation will quickly reveal that you are virtually alone in that view.

Um, at some point I gotta just think "use it or lose it". Like I said, the "but this will make it more difficult later" argument ALWAYS APPLIES in these "war of choice" situations. If there never comes a time when we say "the hell with it, let's do it *anyway*", then effectively it becomes an inductive argument for NEVER fighting such wars. And I cannot accept the ramifications of such an argument. Effectively, it's the same attempt at dodgeball as the argument "why are we going after Saddam when Dictator_X is just as bad?", which of course - if we ever DID try to go after Dictator_X - would automatically morph into "why are we going after Dictator_X when Dictator_Y is just as bad?", and then ad infinitum.

I would say this is a separate argument that you're bringing in. I'm not saying this. I don't think I've ever said it. I have considered it and reject it though.

The only merit it might have in the present political situation is that no one, not even the Coalition of Weasels, ever thought that Saddam had no WMD or illegal programs forbidden by truce. So we get a few points for that. Whether that actually saves our allies like Blair from their domestic opposition from the voters or intraparty machinations remains to be seen. I would suggest it will scorch Blair's chances at the EU presidency. And that would have been a considerable advantage if the EU creates a powerful executive in the next few years.

Similarly, the argument you seem to be flirting with (correct me if I'm wrong) is "we shouldn't do an unpopular 'war of choice' with 'the world' against us and with less than solid 'proof' (etc), because it will make *future* 'wars of choice' more difficult", and my point here is that this argument is really just a stealth way of saying "no wars of choice ever", if you follow through with the logic.

I am not saying 'no wars ever'. I am saying that when we say we have reliable intel that we will find proof of something to justify toppling a sovereign nation, we'd better produce it. The failure to do so raises questions about intel and the executive branch and undermines the Congress's ability to trust the executive and the people's trust in the government overall. It becomes more difficult for allied leaders to support us domestically, making it more likely we might have to go it alone in a future conflict.

Neither did the president ever call it an imminent threat

Correct you are, it was McClellan who used that term (along with one other aide I believe) but if you listen to the Rats they would make you think that the President uttered those words.

Thanks for posting these links...Bookmarking...

And Pakistan, our ally, just pardoned the sell-out scientist. We haven't said a word of objection to their harboring and pardoning of a known arms proliferator to the officially declared terrorist states of Iran, Libya, and North Korea.

Oh, come now. Surely it's clear what's going on here. A deal was made, and doubtless we (The United States) signed off on it: Pardon of Khan, and coverup of Paki government involvement, in exchange for full disclosure of the nuclear poliferation network. An very good deal, IMHO, and probably necessary to acheive full cooperation from those involved and get the most detailed intelligence.

Are you telling me you would NOT have agreed to this deal if you were POTUS?

The switch from the emphasis on the justification for war as Saddam posing a 'gathering threat' and the mention of WMD to the newer one that focuses on Saddam the butcher has actually been growing for quite a while. What I saw today in Bush's speech was an almost complete abandonment of the prior claims on WMD and a 'gathering threat' and a shift to the emphasis on Saddam the butcher.

This may be true as a matter of PR. As for me, I still maintain that nothing we have learned disproves the idea that the Hussein regime was a "gathering threat". There's no reason for him to keep saying "Saddam was a gathering threat" because (1) he got the war and (2) Saddam clearly no longer is. :)

And his concluding points could be condensed as follows: if in doubt of the danger posed by a known enemy, I will attack and protect our country. This was my impression of it. These are, IMO, the new 'talking points'.

Actually, I had always thought this was a big part of the basis for the war, from the very beginning.

the plight of the Iraqis. Dude, you need to hear it all for yourself.

I have no doubt that Bush listed a lot of things pertaining to the plight of the Iraqians and how that plight has now been lessened. I see nothing wrong with him touting positive effects of a policy which he has implemented; that's just politics. If what you're saying is that these statements somehow now prove that we engaged in the war for the purpose of causing those effects, I disagree. Again: ask Congress why they voted for that resolution. "the plight of the Iraqians" had little to do with it.

You brought up the supposed threat of WMD attack via these ships

Not "these" ships. I brought up a plan, which Congress was apparently told about. You're the one who connected that plan to these ships. You may indeed be right, but if you're wrong, don't blame me.

You did not establish anything. And I did not post tangentially but actually refuted your point.

Sure I did, I established that Congress was told that Iraq had this capability and plan to hit us from the sea using drones launched from ships. That intel may be right or wrong, and it's something to check either way.

But you didn't refute it at all. What you did was to ASSUME that the ships in question which would have been used for such a plan MUST HAVE BEEN these 3 ships which made the news a while back, and then (I guess) concluded that because THESE ships were not revealed to have contained drones + WMD, then therefore the PLAN ITSELF must not have existed.

Do you understand how illogical that is yet?

You have no other possible evidence of the 'terror navy'.

I never said there WAS a terror navy. All I said that there was a plan/capability for such a thing. In fact, not even that; I just said that our intel told Congress that there was such a plan. Our intel may have been wrong on that, but as of yet, they have not been disproven, and we do have the circumstantial evidence of the drone found by Blix which lends credence to (not "proves", but lends credence to) the story. Understand now? You're probably just assuming I'm saying much more than I'm actually saying here. Sorry if I'm not being clear.

you're choosing to believe rumor that goes around

Holy cow where do you get that? I don't know if that story is true or not, it's something to check.

indignant that any proof should be required to support the allegations.

No, what makes me indignant is when such things get called "lies" for no reason.

if you have a reason to call the drone/sea attack story a lie, let's hear it!

The 'gathering threat' of WMD from Iraq.

You don't think there was a gathering threat of WMD from Iraq? This is easily proved actually. Just take into account (1) Saddam's intentions, (2) Saddam's oil wealth, and (3) the geopolitical momentum in favor of eliminating the sanctions. Then, do the math.

The information presented at the U.N.

I thought it was clear that I didn't care much one way or the other about the info presented at the UN because (1) that was a sales pitch to foreigners which failed anyway, and (2) as for us, our representatives in Congress had already approved the war, we were going to do it either way.

Those presentations had a purpose: to convince others to join in the war against Saddam. Now you want to pretend that it never mattered at all.

No, of course it mattered. It also failed. *shrug*

We have a commander-in-chief according to the Constitution but he is not a dictator and he is answerable to Congress as well as the people. This was the Founders' design.

bizarro non sequitur alert

Shall I just nod my head?

You're suggesting that Iraqi ocean-going freighters, relatively few in number, cannot be found or that we are to incompetent to find them.

Wrongo. I didn't mention any Iraqi ocean-going freighters at the first place. Where do you get this. Sheesh

Actually, I don't believe they ever existed and this was just some spook gossip that leaked out.

You seem to misunderstand the story to begin with. It was never claimed that Iraq HAD "ocean-going freighters" sailing around the seas. that was not the story as I understand it.

[drones] But no one has demonstrated a capacity to hit the U.S. Israel, yes.

You mention if they are launched from Iraq? No, guess not. (Neither could a suitcase nuke thrown from Iraq by a six-foot man reach the US.) But that wasn't the story either. Again, the story was that they could be launched from off our shores. (and before you say it, Iraq doesn't have to *OWN* that boat and have it sailing around the seas *NOW*, or *EVER*, for this story to be true. People can buy things, rent things. or sneak things onto other things. or give stuff to people with those things. and so forth. You're not even *trying* to think about this are you?)

So the whole drone thing will in due course be a bust.

Well, lemme know when you've got a solid reason for saying so. I've got an open mind either way.

Good grief, amateur enthusiasts in America and Europe have built their own cross-Atlantic drones and flown endurance/speed trials on them.

That's swell.

So this is not too high tech.

who said it was? "not high tech" == "not deadly"?

And nothing Saddam had remotely approached the sophistication of our military drones.

That's good to know.

If you wish to believe that Britain and Spain and Italy and New Europe supported us all on George Bush's word of honor and were not at all persuaded by the intel we offered to support our arguments, then that is your choice.

Actually this is an interesting issue because I don't really *know* or understand why Blair, in particular, went so far out on a limb to join our war. I assume all these countries had their motives, but for the record, no I don't really think they had much to do with those countries being "persuaded" by our intel.

Our intel, even if it was all lies, was all about what Saddam was gonna do TO US. What the hell does Spain care about that? If you're Spain, and you see our Iraq intel, even if you "believe" it, that still doesn't militate towards the idea that you should join the US's war against Iraq.

What I assume is that they all had self-serving, geopolitical, and/or "carrot" motives for joining our war. I appreciate their help but no, I do not think that these countries sent their young soldiers to fight and die in Iraq out of a geniune, sincere concern for the safety of the American people. (I do not think any the less of them for it; all I'm saying is taht these countries all have legitimate interests of their own. In Tony Blair's case especially, however, it's hard to imagine what that may have been... the "he wanted to restrain the US by joining it, rather than fighting it" theory is appealing but less than wholly persuasive to me.. *shrug*)

I can't imagine on what basis they would have justified their actions to support us to their own voters (an emerging problem). But feel free to create an explanation.

No, you're right, I can't imagine either, and as you've pointed out in some cases they may suffer politically for it. Seriously: I truly was flabbergasted by the fact that Tony Blair (in particular) was so willing to risk it all to join our war. I still do not understand to this day what may have motivated him.

['war of choice' harder next time] Then you're satisfied that Bush should be so hobbled in pursuit of his policy of military pre-emption?

What I'm saying is that is that this "getting hobbled" effect was bound to happen at some point, following his pursuit of this policy. Because the first time he does it, even if it hadn't been Iraq-2003 but rather Syria-2005, it was going to be (by the very nature of "pre-emption") controversial, and he would risk getting "hobbled". To bemoan this fact is to say he never should pursue the pre-emption policy at all. That may be what you believe, but not I. So a belief that "pre-emption" can and ought to be pursued at times, entails a belief that this "hobbled" thing is not really something to agonize over too much, because there's not much way around it (other than "never pre-empt" and "never fight wars France doesn't want us to"). Understand?

You can congratulate yourself on your wisdom but I think the upcoming investigation will quickly reveal that you are virtually alone in that view.

Weird. An "investigation", whatever worthwhile things it may find, can't really (even in theory) "prove I'm alone" in the view that pre-emption is sometimes worth it. Do you mis-speak or do I mis-understand or both?

[if dictator X why not Y] I would say this is a separate argument that you're bringing in.

Yes, it is. You are correct. I was making something called an "analogy" to bring out and highlight certain salient characteristics of the argument which you were making. Sorry if it was too confusing.

I am saying that when we say we have reliable intel that we will find proof of something to justify toppling a sovereign nation, we'd better produce it.

There's no way to "find" "proof" of the fact that we thought Saddam was a 'gathering threat'. In fact the statement is its own proof. ;-)

The failure to do so raises questions about intel and the executive branch

stated and granted, numerous times

and undermines the Congress's ability to trust the executive and the people's trust in the government overall.

when did this trust you speak of actually exist? ;-)

It becomes more difficult for allied leaders to support us domestically, making it more likely we might have to go it alone in a future conflict.

Yes it does. That is the lay of the land.

Oh, come now. Surely it's clear what's going on here. A deal was made, and doubtless we (The United States) signed off on it: Pardon of Khan, and coverup of Paki government involvement, in exchange for full disclosure of the nuclear poliferation network. An very good deal, IMHO, and probably necessary to acheive full cooperation from those involved and get the most detailed intelligence.

You guys just make this stuff up out of some fantasy world. Not a shred of evidence, just some dream of us swaggering about the world, people bowing down to us and following our every wish.

I don't imagine for a second that we were consulted on this. We need fully Paki cooperation to hunt Osama and al-Qaeda so they just did exactly what they wanted. And once the pardon was issued, it can't be rescinded. Fait accompli.

I'll skip answering the merely argumentive remarks or those that I consider to be fantasy without basis:

Not "these" ships. I brought up a plan, which Congress was apparently told about. You're the one who connected that plan to these ships. You may indeed be right, but if you're wrong, don't blame me.

So, now you have a choice:

If they are the three ships and at sea or in harbor, why haven't our satellites and navy found them?
If they were not the three ships at sea, then where are they?
Or was it all just faulty intel, like everything else has turned out to be so far, and the ships never did exist?

You're about the first person I've heard bring up the 'terror navy' in about six months. No one else is talking about them. No one wants to talk about them. And yet, they seem to rise to a level of somehow being the primary threat that Iraq posed to us. It simply does not seem rational.

But let's return to that Senate briefing:

Nelson, D-Tallahassee, said about 75 senators got that news during a classified briefing before last October's congressional vote authorizing the use of force to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Nelson voted in favor of using military force.

...

Nelson said the senators were told Iraq had both biological and chemical weapons, notably anthrax, and it could deliver them to cities along the Eastern seaboard via unmanned aerial vehicles, commonly known as drones. "They have not found anything that resembles an UAV that has that capability," Nelson said.

So we can readily see that your own article refutes you. That in fact it demonstrates that no evidence for the WMD strike capacity exists.

I never said there WAS a terror navy. All I said that there was a plan/capability for such a thing. In fact, not even that; I just said that our intel told Congress that there was such a plan. Our intel may have been wrong on that, but as of yet, they have not been disproven, and we do have the circumstantial evidence of the drone found by Blix which lends credence to (not "proves", but lends credence to) the story. Understand now? You're probably just assuming I'm saying much more than I'm actually saying here. Sorry if I'm not being clear.

So Iraq had a plan/capability (whatever that may mean). But no, it's only a plan. Well, actually intel thinks there's a plan for which no evidence is presented. But the plan is supported by Hans Blix (of all people) with "circumstantial evidence". That "evidence", as I said earlier, indicated no more than a testing of a capability to strike at Israel or other neighbors. No evidence whatsoever of a capability or plan to hit America.

No, what makes me indignant is when such things get called "lies" for no reason. if you have a reason to call the drone/sea attack story a lie, let's hear it!

I'm saying there is no proof for the assertion. If the assertion was correct, there will be proof. Or there will be proof that evidence was destroyed. Competence was not a particularly strong feature of Hussein's Iraq except when it came to killing people, mostly its own citizens.

Wrongo. I didn't mention any Iraqi ocean-going freighters at the first place. Where do you get this. Sheesh

From the news at the time of the war. For that matter, try reading your own linked article. They mention it too.

For the remainder, your remarks about why our allies chose to join our coalition or why it is important to fix our intel and provide credibility and trust as a basis for future wars is so out of touch, IMO, that I am content to let you believe it. Or to manufacture any explanation you fancy.

I don't imagine for a second that we were consulted on this.

Whatever. It was what we wanted in any case. We don't want Khan tried any more than the Pakis do. It would destabilize Pakistan, giving the fanatic fist shakers all to much opportunity to prattle on about their "Islamic bomb". Khan publicly apologizing and humbling himself is much better than putting him on trial and making him a defiant martyr for the homicidal islamists on the public side, and his cooperation in exposing the proliferation network is much better than beating it out of him or dragging it out in court over months, and in the end getting less complete information.

I just don't understand why you have a problem with this. Damn, it's a freakin breakthrough.

WTF are you talking about? There's no "degrees" of imminentness. It's like being pregnant, something either is or it isn't "imminent".

Do a google search of the phrase "more imminent" and you will see that, indeed, there are degrees of imminence. You are getting hysterical over the use of a word the definition of which you fail to understand.

It's just that this has nothing to do with the pretext for war becoming "slim". Hint: if we acted on our best intel, and the war seemed warranted, that's enough. The fact that the intel may turn out to be wrong doesn't retroactively convert the war into having been the wrong decision.

This can't be stated enough - it was the right decision, and should have happened years ago (we shouldn't have stopped in '91, but hindsight is always accurate).

Most of us here have a problem trusting any politician 100% (which is why we are Conservatives) and even though we know the war is right, this still undermines their credibility among the voting public. Taking it further/higher, if your the USA, you can't just go up in front of the world and say "we are going to finish this war that started over a decade ago, and this is why we are doing so" and then have those reasons turn out to be poor reasons. It undermines your credibility with your allies, because they get beaten up in the press and in the court of public opinion as well, and they won't be so hot to join us in the future.

I think there are really two questions to be answered :

1)Did we get bad intelligence data, and was it verified in any manner.

2)If we got the right intelligence data (that WMDs were sent to other countries or had ceased to exist/be produced before 2003), then why did we use this as a basis for the war.

The absence of WMDs is not going to change my mind as far as whether the ending of the war was justified. I know that the world is a little bit safer (and it helped, along with the threat of Al Queda, to bring Libya around). It won't be that safe in regards to terrorism from that part of the world, until the Saudi question is answered, but it is still safer, nonetheless.

If they are the three ships and at sea or in harbor, why haven't our satellites and navy found them?

you tell me - you're the one who brought up "the three ships". I have only vague memories of these ship incidents.

If they were not the three ships at sea, then where are they?

Where are WHAT? no one ever said that the ships to be used in such a plan exist and are in Iraq's possession now. Think back to my gum example, if I have a plan that involves buying gum and then chewing it, does the fact that I don't have the gum NOW prove that I don't have that PLAN? are you going to ask "where is the gum??" Hell if I know, in some store somewhere!

Or was it all just faulty intel, like everything else has turned out to be so far, and the ships never did exist?

the intel didn't CLAIM the ships "exist"!!! I've explained this to you five times in many different ways, are you just being intentionally obtuse?

You're about the first person I've heard bring up the 'terror navy' in about six months.

I didn't bring up any 'terror navy'. I brought up the story leaked by that Florida Senator as having been told to him in a secret committee. You're the one who has (mistakenly) identified the two things. Also, it's simply impossible that I'm the first person to bring it up in "six months". The damn story only came out in December. Are you sure you're not totally confused about what I'm talking about? go read the link.

And yet, they seem to rise to a level of somehow being the primary threat that Iraq posed to us. It simply does not seem rational.

You are COMPLETELY misunderstanding my intent here. I brought up the drone/anthrax threat because (listen close) it is AN EXAMPLE of something which we KNOW (1) our intel told Congress and (2) (probably) influenced their vote. I'm not saying it was the "primary threat" at all, OR EVEN THAT I NECESSARILY BELIEVE IT WAS TRUE. I'm just using it as a concrete example (because we have few) of a prewar-intel story which NEEDS CHECKING OUT either way.

More to the point I am bringing it up as an example of something you would want to (and, have to) DEBUNK if you wanted to claim that the war-intel was faulty! I'm trying to help you here for crying out loud! I'm saying "you want some intel to check out and build a case that the war was based on faulty intel? HERE'S AN EXAMPLE, now go to it!" I'm sorry that I may not have explained this very well but on the other hand it does seem at times that you are being intentionally obtuse about it.

["not found anything.."] So we can readily see that your own article refutes you.

(1) in context (context is usually important) that quote refers to a UAV with the capability of reaching the US *FROM IRAQ*. I've already conceded we haven't found proof of such capability, remember? (2) sorry but "we haven't found anything proving X" doesn't "refute" X anyway

That in fact it demonstrates that no evidence for the WMD strike capacity exists.

No, it demonstrates that Senator Nelson knows of no such evidence. Unless Senator Nelson is omniscient this is not proof of a lack of existence of such evidence.

That "evidence", as I said earlier, indicated no more than a testing of a capability to strike at Israel or other neighbors. No evidence whatsoever of a capability or plan to hit America.

Actually, "capability to strike at Israel or other neighbors" and "capability to hit the US from a boat offshore" are the SAME THING. It's DISTANCE which matters, not something else. If I make a model plane and test it and show that it can travel 1000 meters NORTH it's reasonable to assume it can also travel 1000 meters SOUTH. You can't say "but you've only shown it can travel north, not south", that's idiotic. Yet here you are saying "those drones can only go to Israel!" Correction: they can go the DISTANCE REQUIRED to get to Israel. That doesn't mean they can "only" go to Israel.

I'm saying there is no proof for the assertion.

Then you're lying. There may or may not be proof for the assertion but you don't know either way. There may also be proof against the assertion but you know of none and have offered none, other than illogic based on a complete (or intentional) misunderstanding of what the assertion actually is.

If the assertion was correct, there will be proof. Or there will be proof that evidence was destroyed.

Perhaps but you & I may not know of this proof or have access to it. Who are you? Who am I?

Competence was not a particularly strong feature of Hussein's Iraq except when it came to killing people, mostly its own citizens.

but you already explained that this stuff ain't high tech.

[Iraq's ocean-going freighters] From the news at the time of the war.

Lots of things were in the news at the time of the war. That doesn't mean they are connected to the intel leaked by Senator Nelson. YOU have made that connection HERE, remember?

For that matter, try reading your own linked article. They mention it too.

you mean this? "[Pike, a guy who runs a think tank] said it wasn't out of the question for Iraq to have secretly acquired a tramp steamer"

give me a break. Mr. Pike, a private citizen saying in a news story "it's not out of the question Iraq's acquired a tramp steamer" is NOT the same thing as our INTELLIGENCE saying to Congress "Iraq has a fleet of ocean-bound freighters". are you seriously this confused or just pretending?

Do a google search of the phrase "more imminent" and you will see that, indeed, there are degrees of imminence.

Sorry but definitions do not come from Google. Google searches will obtain positive hits for lots of bogus phrases. As an example I suggest you try searching for the phrase "pr0n warez" or something.

You are getting hysterical over the use of a word the definition of which you fail to understand.

imminent: "hanging threateningly over one's head"

Either something's hanging threateningly over your head, or it's not. Once something's hanging threateningly over your head, it's hanging threateningly over your head. Or: once something's imminent, it's imminent. If you want to capture the idea of something being more "threatening" than another, you would say "it's imminent AND more threatening", not that it's "more imminent".

Once something's imminent, it's imminent.

Anyway, Bush never said Iraq was imminent. Some people are obsessed with arguing that he did, for some reason. I think they think "imminent" is a magic word. Once you can just prove that Bush really DID say "imminent" then PRESTO, you win all arguments. Or something. *yawn* Anyway, keep fighting the good fight...

No, it demonstrates that Senator Nelson knows of no such evidence. Unless Senator Nelson is omniscient this is not proof of a lack of existence of such evidence.

You demonstrate why you would never be allowed to sit on a jury. You have a considerable misunderstanding about the nature of alleging and proving guilt and the very nature of evidence and its use.

In fact, you turn it on its head, insisting that we must believe all allegations until we prove the perpetrator is/was innocent.

I'm done with discussing it. Believe what you will. But do not think anyone in the government will adopt your standard of 'evidence', now or ever.

Anyway, Bush never said Iraq was imminent. Some people are obsessed with arguing that he did, for some reason. I think they think "imminent" is a magic word. Once you can just prove that Bush really DID say "imminent" then PRESTO, you win all arguments. Or something.

Bush did not say 'imminent' as is being bandied about. That will not be the basis of the Dims' accusations. For the real propaganda strategy from Kerry's camp, look here:

Statement from John Kerry on CIA Director George Tenet’s Speech at Georgetown University

Read it carefully, like a lawyer. Everyone else missed the real Kerry accusation, I think.

I’ve never doubted Saddam’s intentions of building an arsenal of WMD’s or that he had them in the past. We know he used chemicals on the Kurds, and on Iran.

Chemical weapons require facilities to build them. Not something easily hidden or produced, without chemicals being detected , personnel and the laboratories to produce them, and bunkers to store them, etc. They also require fairly sophisticated weaponry, to fire them SAFELY

21st Century Warfare Issues

“ Binary Chemical Weapons :
Binary chemical weapons mix two, separate, relatively non-toxic chemicals in flight to create a toxic chemical agent. When the weapon is fired, a disk between the canisters ruptures, and the two components react in flight to produce the toxic chemical.”

Biological agents however, are different, and all that is required is a basic biology laboratory. The lab can also be dual use, for medicine, and research, making for plausible deniabilty.
Also, unlike chemicals, biological agents are very difficult to detect and identify.

The following website has some very interesting articles, especially on the history of biological warfare, going back to the Romans:

The Biological Weapon: A Poor Nation’s Weapon of Mass Destruction

However, I at this point, believe the following is what happened:

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/battle/chp8.html

“Saddam’s representatives have since admitted to the United Nations inspectors that they had a sizable cache of anthrax and botulism agents, but they claim to have destroyed it to avoid having germs spread over the Iraqi countryside by allied bombing attacks.”…

…“The United States was challenged not only with how to protect the military forces but how to preempt the use of Saddam’s biological warfare arsenal. Plans for force protection included protective equipment and vaccinations against probable biological warfare threats. (41)

In addition, planners were challenged to determine a mechanism to destroy the biological warfare stockpiles before Saddam could deploy them. Dropping a precision-guided bomb on the suspected storage bunkers would have been easy enough. The real challenge was destroying the viability or utility of the biological weapons without spreading the agents and causing massive collateral damage in terms of human lives. The military was simply not prepared for this eventuality.

Several tests were conducted over a very short time to try to find the right kind of enhanced munitions or bomb that would render the biological warfare agent unusable to the Iraqis and not release lethal agents into the atmosphere. The crash program was not fruitful.

However, in the effort, computer modeling showed that the design of the suspected biological weapons storage bunkers offered a bombing approach that might inhibit the release of the agents. In the eleventh hour, this concept detailing specific fusing, type of bomb, and angle of attack was telephoned to the Central Command CENTCOM planners in Riyadh. (42)

All suspected bunkers were attacked, and there was no confirmed collateral damage as a result of released biological agent. There was, however, one unconfirmed news report of several incidents of illness and death in Iraqi guards after the coalition bombed a biological warfare facility in Baghdad." (43)

Besides the actual hazardous substances, the production facilities, byproducts of production, personnel, etc have not been found. I believe our forces took out the biological warfare facility in Baghdad, in the Gulf War. After some of Saddams guys got sick and died they destroyed the rest, because they got a taste of it, themselves.

Was Saddam still an imminent threat? Yes, absolutely, IMO. He was actively supporting terrorism.

However, did Iraq still have large stockpiles of bio/ chem agents? Probably not, and it seems to me, that Tenet is partially responsible for allowing this to mistaken reason for taking out Saddam. Trying to find stockpiles of WMD's has become a distraction from the actual threat that Saddam actually posed:

SADDAM IN 'TERROR TAPE' (British tape)

Cyanide Salt Block Found in Iraq