Ex-CENTCOM No. 2: Intel Showed Iraq Smuggled Out WMDs

Secondly the story about WMDs being shipped to Syria is unfalsifiable.

No it is not. It can, at least in principle, be established what was on the trucks in question. It is not inconceivable.

Anyway, so what if these claims *were* unfalsifiable? We are not advancing a scientific theory here. We are trying to decide what to believe. If I tell you I went to the supermarket this morning that's basically "unfalsifiable" from your point of view, does that mean you doubt me?

He does not need to worry about his claim being disproven because it is not possible to disprove that claim no matter if it is true or not.

Uh, you're ignoring the details here. The details are the he says that INTELLIGENCE INDICATES those shipments contained WMD. Either intelligence indicates that or it does not. In principle (say 75 years from now) we could learn the content of that intelligence and if it merely says "Abdul thinks watermelons are tasty" we'd know that this guys claim was false...

As to other military guys coming forward and saying "Uh, that's a lie" as perverse as it sounds that would probably boost sales.

Well so why hasn't it happened?

If the story were true, don't you think other military guys would be saying, "Why yes, I have access to the same information and it is true"? How come Bush hasn't said "We know for a fact that some of those weapons went into Syria, Lebanon and Iran." Don't you think Bush has access to the same information? If Bush has a sound national security reason to not say that, why doesn't that same reason apply to the ex-CENTCOM No. 2?

I don't know the answers to any of these questions but the fact remains that we have on the table a reason to think those shipments contained WMD (=this guy's statements) and no reason whatsoever to think otherwise (i.e. that the guy invented this).

I do not agree that being the ex-CENTCOM No. 2 assures that he had access to information that would allow him to determine, with certainty that WMDS were shipped to Syria.

I was just saying that he has more info in this regard than you or I do. He's saying the shipments contained WMD. You're saying you doubt this statement, and you don't have a reason worth a damn to doubt it, but you do.

Satellite and aerial recon photos would not be able to tell what was inside the vehicles.

That's interesting. Apparently this guy is talking about intelligence not exclusively derived from satellite and aerial recon photos.

Our human WMD intel from within pre-invasion Iraq has proven to be terrible.

You have no reason in this case to think that the intel he's basing this on is bad. As you have complained elsewhere in this post, you have *no idea* what intel he's basing it on, to think it good or bad either way.

Add to that the possibility of disinformation or deliberate misdirection. Should there at least be some consideration that Iraq had engaged in a subterfuge to lead us away from where the WMDs were really hidden?

It's a possibility but this guy says intelligence indicates this shipment contained WMD. One possibility is that he is lying (that's your position, even though you don't have a reason worth a damn to think so). Another is that he's not. If he's not, then those shipments contained WMD, which would be a weird form of "subterfuge" on Iraq's part.

So how could he possibly know that for a fact?

I don't know. He has not elaborated on the nature of the intelligence. Nevertheless he is either lying or he is not. Your position is that he is lying. You are accusing this man of lying.

You might be inclined to say that I'm accusing him of being a liar.

I'm not "inclined" and it's not merely something I'm "saying". You are, by definition, accusing this man you don't know of being a liar. That's simply a fact.

Of course it is impossible for Iraq to move something it didn't even have at that time and there has been ample reason from early 2003 to the present to conclude that it was unlikely Iraq had WMDs.

That's a darn sloppy statement. We all know for a fact that "Iraq had WMDs" is true. We have FOUND objects fitting the definition of "WMD"; you might recall the chemical shells discovered this summer. THOSE ARE WMDs by definition so "it was unlikely Iraq had WMDs" is flat out false. The question is not whether they "had WMDs" (they DID, this is INDISPUTABLE), the question is how much and of what kind.

You are correct that they could not have moved what they did not possess. One surmises that whatever this guy is saying was being moved, was something they possessed.

I would also add (side note) that the conclusions of Duelfer and all other "inspectors" who made "reports" about this matter are, presumably, based on going to Iraq and looking for objects in Iraq. A conclusion based on this "inspection" of Iraq that "Iraq didn't have X" is less than worthless if X was moved to fricking Syria.

Then there is Duelfer's argument that it can be very hard to find the weapons so first you look for the factories. No factories, no weapons.

Things can be imported. Factory in Libya (or wherever) -> create object to sell to Iraq -> it gets to Iraq -> Iraq ships it to Syria on war's eve. This is a possibility. In which case "no factories in Iraq" doesn't mean squat.

I really cannot emphasize this enough: objects can be moved. Much of the boneheaded media discussion of these matters seems to be predicated on the notion that objects simply cannot be moved. It's bizarre.

So could these be pre-1991 weapons Saddam Hussein kept hidden all this time? Aside from mustard gas, Iraq's pre-1991 chemical weapons are short lived. I'm not worried if Saddam Hussein shipped truckloads of duds across the border.

What "you" are "worried" about is of no relevance here. We are discussing this man's claims. Either those claims are true or they are not. If they are true then Iraq shipped some items fitting the definition of "WMD" over the border. Whether or not that "worries" you is a completely separate, autobiographical matter about which frankly I don't give a rat's ass. The reality of what was in those shipments is not affected one way or another by how much you "worry" about them.

It is certainly feasible that Iraq had secret reference strains of anthrax, botullinum or plague bacteria.

It's worse than that. Iraq had a known stockpile of anthrax which they never accounted for or demonstrated the destruction of. The most (in fact the ONLY) reasonable assumption under that circumstance is that said anthrax still exists. Where? We don't know.

You might recall however that our nation was attack using anthrax in late 2001.

The first two are commonly found in soil around the world, literally as common as dirt, and the latter is ...

Hmm once again you're launching into an irrelevancy. Trying to establish a claim that we shouldn't "worry" about those shipments or those type of WMD, I suppose. Do you understand that that is a separate issue from what was in those shipments (i.e. the veracity of the claims of this man, whose name I've by now forgotten BTW) or don't you?

So it hardly matters is Saddam Hussein had those or not.

If "it hardly matters" then why are you arguing? I'll decide what I think "matters" in my opinion, just as you're entitled to yours, thank you very much.

But we are discussing a claim of a factual event: that Iraq shipped items which are "WMD" at such and such time. Either this happened or it did not. Whether you would "worry" about it DOESN'T MATTER. Whether it "matters" according to whatever criteria DOESN'T MATTER. We're trying to figure out *whether it happened*. What you're bringing up now is simply a separate discussion.

I'll allow as it was possible that Saddam Hussein might have been delusional enough to ship duds to Syria along with bacteria that were already to be found literally lying on the ground in Syria. But if that is what he sent that is hardly a matter of concern.

Again that's an autobiographical statement. You've now made it clear what concerns you and what doesn't. In any event you've conceded the plausibility of the actual claim being made so I don't know why on earth you would doubt it. (Especially since it "doesn't matter" to you anyway.)

Over and above all of this, whenever somone says I know something for a fact, but declines to say how he knows it, that pegs my bullshit meter.

I see. So you think he's lying (even though you have no counter evidence to what he's saying whatsoever). Understood.

What reason could he have for not stating his sources, if they were not classified?

I don't know. I don't know any more than you from reading this article. As it stands we have on the table the ex-CENTCOM No. 2 making a claim that X occurred. You're saying it didn't occur, so you think he's lying. I'm saying the most reasonable thing is to provisionally accept what he's saying lacking reason to disbelieve it. That's about where we stand.

I think lots of people lie about important matters that affect geopolitics and national defense every day.

Sure so do I. If you think this guy's lying TELL ME WHY. If you have a real reason of course.

My actual reason for supposing that he is lying is that he doesn't name his sources.

That's a dumb reason. You're entitled to think he's lying of course but this is not a persuasive argument to disbelieve his claim. He may have any number of rational reasons not to name his sources. Heck maybe he names his sources in his book (have you read it?)

Just to be clear, I'm not here saying that I'm 100% certain his claims are true. Just that I see no rational reason to doubt them. There is nothing implausible about the content of his claims. There is no solid counter evidence to what he's saying. So what's the problem. Again, the most reasonable surmise is to provisionally accept the claim lacking reason to disbelieve it.

And you HAVE NO actual reason to disbelieve it.

Can you suggest a scenario in which it is OK for him to give us this info but not OK to give us his sources AND also not OK for the Bush administration to officially give us the same info?

I don't know. I am not very familiar with the intelligence procedures to be honest. Guesses:

-It's ok for him to tell us this because it's a vague, broad conclusion?

-It's not ok for him to give us his sources because there is an ongoing relationship and this would expose them?

-Maybe it is ok for him to give us his sources but he just didn't wanna?

-Maybe he does after all, but they are in the *book*, they didn't come out in this article because that's a detail?

Who knows? I do not presume to know the inner motivations of an ex-CENTCOM no 2. All I know is that he claims to know for a fact that WMD were moved. I see no reason on earth to doubt this could be true, I have no information on the table which contradicts his claim - and neither do you.

As for the Bush admin "officially" giving us info, what on earth would that even mean? How does one "officially" give info? I'm sure whatever that means Bush could "officially" give us this info. The fact that he hasn't doesn't mean as much as you think it does.

Maybe he just doesn't see the point? Who knows?

Besides, what sense does it make for Saddam Hussein to ship out his most fearsom weapons on the eve of an invasion?

You'd have to ask him that. Sorry but when person A says person B did X, "what sense would it make for person B to do X" is not proof that person A is lying. Saddam was a complicated man, I assume he had his reasons. Guesses,

-he didn't think the invasion would go through (he thought his bribery of France etc would win the day)?

-he knew the invasion would happen, and succeed, and wanted to deprive the US of a propaganda coup?

-he had a plan to defeat the US *post* invasion via insurgency, so would want the WMD *later*?

To a greater or lesser extent, all of these things seem to be, in fact, consistent with the reality. And any one of them could be a motive for Saddam to ship the weapons out. But really, I don't know.

All I know is this guy says it happened, and I see no reason on earth to doubt it.

If we invaded Iraq because Iraq had WMDs

For the record, I don't think we invaded Iraq "because Iraq had WMDs", but for a list of reasons on which "WMDs" (more likely, "WMD potential") was an item. But that's just my opinion. Just explaining why I might not be able to answer your question well, here, since I don't buy your premise...

is that not a good reason for Syria, Iran, and Lebanon to refuse them?

Why yes, perhaps it is. Perhaps they should have refused them, or exercised more control over which WMD mogul secretly accepted them, or whatever is the case. Seemingly they did not however. Pretty dumb of them if you ask me, but then again I think lots of things done by the Syrian and Iranian regimes are dumb. What are you gonna do?

Sorry if I had a hard time getting back in the swing of this conversation but after all, my comment to you *was* quite a while ago, I'd forgotten this thread entirely...

The basic fact remains that this guy has made a claim and you are calling him a liar, based on nothing. That's where we stand. Let me know if/when anything new surfaces which could add to that state of affairs.

Best,

The claim that the vehicles in question contained WMDs
is unfalsifiable. Can you tell me how it could be
falsified?

For the sake of argument suppose I do doubt
that you were at the supermarket this morning. That
story could be falsified in several ways. Eyewitnesses
could tell me you were somewhere else. Despite the
logical adhomition about the absence of evidence not
being evidence of absence, if the store had good
security cameras the absence of your image on the tape
could prove you were not there. It could turn out that
the supermarket had caught fire last night and was
closed this morning. If in addition you claim you
bought something I could check at the store to see if
any of those items were sold.

A failure to falsify your story would not prove it,
though there would be other ways to prove it, e.g.
the security cameras. And the evidence I used to
falsify it could be wrong. But at least it _is_
falsifiable. There are lots of ways the "I was at
the supermarket this morning" hypothesis can
be falsified. Can you show us _one_ way to falsify
the "WMDs were shipped to Syria et al" hypothesis?

Sure somebody could give an interview and say "I loaded
those trucks and they were full of chickens." but that
won't go very far to impugn the exCENTCOM #2, will it?
If you cannot imagine something that COULD impugn his
story it is, as a practical matter, unfalsifiable, is
it not?

You wrote: "Anyway, so what if these claims
*were* unfalsifiable? " I already answered that question

and the reader is encouraged to confirm this by reviewing
the preceding postings. Indeed, after I explained the
significance to you you wrote: "Uh, you're ignoring the
details here. The details are the he says that
INTELLIGENCE INDICATES those shipments contained WMD.
Either intelligence indicates that or it does not. In
principle (say 75 years from now) we could learn the
content of that intelligence..."

No, I'm not ignoring that, I observe that his proof that
what he says is true, is something else that he says is
true. That's like saying you know there is a heaven
because God told you so. It takes a leap of faith to
suppose that the intelligence to which he refers even
exists. He's using one unfalsifiable as the basis for
the other. Not impressive. Even if the intelligence
exists, to presume a simple dichotomy is a stretch.
If nothing else, we should all know by now that intel
is often, perhaps even usually, ambiguous.

You again asked why no one with access to that same
intelligence hasn't come forward to dispute it? I
think you'll find that people who REALLY have access
to intelligence are not allowed to release it to engage
in pissing contests in the media. Just a guess on my
part. OTOH, a retiree who really had access to
intelligence and who releases non-information
about nonexistent intelligence has no need to worry
about breaking the law, compromising sources, or
losing his nonjob. But he can make money hand-over
first doing it.

Besides, lets not forget the alternative that he
is simply wrong, instead of lying.

As I said before I don't see how he _could_ know
this for a fact, and no one has come up with a
hypothetical that stands up.

When I asked:

"So how could he possibly know that for a fact?"

You replied:

"I don't know. He has not elaborated on
the nature of the intelligence. Nevertheless he is
either lying or he is not. Your position is that he
is lying. You are accusing this man of lying."

And I had also said:

"You might be inclined to say that I'm accusing him
of being a liar."

And your comment was:

"I'm not "inclined" and it's not merely something I'm "saying". You are, by definition, accusing this man you don't know of being a liar. That's simply a fact. "

This is rather like shooting ducks in a barrel.

You know for a fact that I offered an alternative
explanation. Again, the reader is encouraged to
verify this by reading the preceding articles.

While you extensively quoted me, you neglected
to quote what I said about it being possible that
General DeLong simply has a weak standard for what
it means to know something for a fact. You may now
be inclined to say I am calling you a liar. That,
I decline to dispute.

It is true that I do not completely quote you either.
There are a variety of reasons why I omit some of
what you wrote. I may not dispute it, I may think
it was so absurd as to not require rebuttal, I may
think it unnecessary to use your words to establish
the context of my remarks, I may feel some of what
you wrote is redundant and so on. If you find that
I have selectively edited your remarks so that a false
impression of your opinions has been created, I
apologize in advance. How's that for slippery?

You went on to write:

"We all know for a fact that "Iraq had WMDs" is true. We have FOUND objects fitting the definition of "WMD"; you
might recall the chemical shells discovered this summer.
THOSE ARE WMDs by definition so "it was unlikely Iraq had WMDs" is flat out false."

Thank you for raising this issue. First of all, I think
you are referring to one (1) binary sarin shell and one
(1) mustard shell used in an IED and abandoned on a
medium strip this Spring, respectively. If I am mistaken,
I welcome more information to clarify the matter.

Iraq used chemical shells and bombs during the
Iraq-Iran war, against the Kurds, and one presumes also
at test ranges. During and after WWII American munitions
sometimes had a failure rate as high as 20% with perhaps
10% failing to explode on impact. It is reasonable to
suppose a similar rate of failure for Iraqi munitions
and I kinda doubt that they were particularly careful
about collecting the unexploded munitions after the
war. That a shell didn't detonate on impact in the
dessert doesn't mean it won't explode when rigged as
an IED. So don't you think it likely that insurgents
combing old battlefields or test ranges looking for
undetonated shells might sometimes happen upon a
chemical shell? They look the same and the IEDs being
used in Iraq typically are made without disassembling the shell.

A more complete explanation was published in the Christian
Science Monitor, May 21, 2004:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0521/p09s01-coop.html

Putting aside the sublety of whether or not impotent WMDs
really are WMDs I agree that whether or nor there were
WMDs shipped out of Iraq is a separate issue from whether
or not they were anything to worry about. If the story is
true it remains true even if the WMDs were 'expired'.
However, the story itself, while true, would be a lot less
important as a national security issue, no? regardless,
It presents an opportunity to digress to more bitter
disagreements over more important issues.

Regarding biologicals you wrote (in part):

"It's worse than that. Iraq had a known stockpile of
anthrax which they never accounted for ...

You might recall however that our nation was attack using
anthrax in late 2001. "

I would like to learn more about that Iraqi anthrax.
Can you provide a reference with sufficient specificity
that folks can locate it?

Regarding the US anthrax attacks, the particular strain
used was identified (by the US Government) as originating
at Ft Dietrich, MD. Another thing that pegs my BS meter
is anyone claiming that national security rules for what
he is or is not allowed to release are such and such.

So like yourself, I cannot say with any certainty what
he is or is not allowed to release. I must rely on
reasonableness. You seem to rely heavily on the argument
that Gen DeLong should be believed unless there is hard
evidence to refute him. Back in 1973 I implicitly trusted
Richard Nixon to be honest and ethical on all issues of
importance. I try not to repeat that mistake.

You wrote:

"As for the Bush admin "officially" giving us info,
what on earth would that even mean? How does one "officially" give info? I'm sure whatever that means
Bush could "officially" give us this info."

Press releases and press conferences come to mind. "

Another claim you make repeatedly in various forms is:

" The basic fact remains that this guy has made a
claim and you are calling him a liar, based on
nothing."

That is simply false to fact. I have provided several
reasons to doubt the story, primarily focused on the
fundamental question of internal consistency and
reasonableness: How could someone know something
'for a fact', be allowed to tell us what he knows,
and yet be unable or prohibited from
telling us how he knows.

Your rebuttal primarily relies on speculation for
which YOU have no evidence either (e.g. he didn't
need factories to make WMDs he could have bought
them from Libya.)" Sure, and the Romulans could
have beamed them up to hide them on a cloaked starship
too.

Now I will reiterate and clarify that I do not
'know for a fact' that Gen DeLong lied and I should have
made that clear when you first iplied that I did.

As I wrote before it is also possible that he has a weak
notion of what it means to 'know something for a fact'.
I'll allow as the story may also be true, but consider
that less likely than the first two for the reasons I
wrote.

As to reading his book, how about if you read it
and get back to us on what he says? Or perhaps I'll
wait for the movie to come out.

BTW, your use of italics looks cool. How do you do
italics when you post?

AFAICT the last time you replied to me was only a couple
of days ago. Perhaps this link will help:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1227664/posts?q=1&&page=51

--

FF

The claim that the vehicles in question contained WMDs is unfalsifiable. Can you tell me how it could be falsified?

Guy steps forward, says he was the driver, says it was just some TVs they were smuggling since they saw an opportunity to make a buck while Saddam was distracted with that whole war thing, and takes a Nightline reporter to the warehouse where the TVs now are. Or whatever. Depending on how reliable you think the testimony of that Guy is, you could end up considering the claim falsified. It's conceivable.

Another way is, Suppose this Ex-CENTCOM No.2 (lemme just call him EC#2) later fills in details of his story (maybe this is in his book?) and reveals that the shipments he's talking about, according to him, occured on such and such date. Then sat. photos are examined and for that entire date no convoys are visible for the entire 24 hours, it's a barren, unused road with no or just scattered traffic (small cars). Would be a pretty good way to falsify what he's saying (at the very least he's got the date wrong).

There are other conceivable scenarios but I don't wanna waste any more time thinking them up for you.

[supermarket example] A failure to falsify your story would not prove it,

And notice I have never said that EC#2's story is "proved", just that the most reasonable thing at this point is to provisionally accept it until it is *disproved* in some way. Which is has not been.

Anyway, the point of my supermarket example was not that it's literally impossible for you to falsify it, just that it's impossible for you to falsify it based on any information to which you can plausibly gain access. You simply don't have enough info about me or my claim, and will never get it, in order to do the leg-work of tracking down counterevidence.

The same is true of EC#2's story. We have his testimony and we can choose to ignore it, provisionally accept it, or disbelieve it. You've chosen the latter, for no good reason that you can explain.

Can you show us _one_ way to falsify the "WMDs were shipped to Syria et al" hypothesis?

Asked, and answered.

And I reiterate my point that "falsifiability" as such is not the gold standard that you think it is on this matter. We are trying to decide what to believe, as laypeople examining faraway news events about strangers. Not what scientific theory to publish or whether to convict someone. The standard you seem to implicitly abide by is inappropriate in this context.

Sure somebody could give an interview and say "I loaded those trucks and they were full of chickens." but that won't go very far to impugn the exCENTCOM #2, will it?

Depends on how much you trust that guy! If he could back the story up, seemed trustworthy, no ulterior motives, it sure could! Also perhaps you would trust that guy more than I would, or vice versa... we would all have to make up our mind. Who knows? You and I could wind up with different conclusions about which testimony is more reliable.

We've already seen an example of this, you have decided that EC#2 is lying while I have not. There's nothing unusual here.

If you cannot imagine something that COULD impugn his story it is, as a practical matter, unfalsifiable, is it not?

Again, I can imagine something that could impugn the story, so it is falsifiable. And again, I wouldn't even care if you could demonstrate that it's "not falsifiable".

it being possible that General DeLong simply has a weak standard for what it means to know something for a fact.

Ok then so let's stipulate here that EC#2 has a weak standard for knowing something for a fact. Let's say that "I know for a fact" was his shorthand for "I know with at least 85% certainty".

That would still be an interesting thing to learn, that intelligence exists leading to 85% certainty that WMDs were shipped. I'd still be interested to hear it, and I'd probably be inclined to accept "WMDs were shipped" as a provisional truth about what happened unless/until shown some actual reason to disbelieve it.

You, I suppose, are standing there and saying "well if he's only 85% certain then I *disbelieve* it!" Which is, frankly, bizarre.

[....yadda...] First of all, I think you are referring to one (1) binary sarin shell and one (1) mustard shell used in an IED and abandoned on a medium strip this Spring, respectively. If I am mistaken, I welcome more information to clarify the matter.

My recollection is that we've found some dozen+ CW/BW (probably mostly/all CW) shells. I am too lazy to dig up said articles. If you wish to believe that the number of things found is only one(1)+one(1) = 2 that's no skin of my nose. Two objects fitting the definition of "WMD", 12 such objects, a zillion such objects... in any event as long as this number is greater than one, it follows that "There were no WMD in Iraq" is a FALSE statement and "There were WMD in Iraq" is a TRUE statement.

You might complain that that's a boneheaded standard then. Well I agree. That's why what I'm saying to you is, considering "whether there were WMD?" to be a binary either/or question is asinine, the real question is *how much* and *what kind*, which we still don't know.

But since you brought it up, we *do* know - for a fact - that There Were WMD In Iraq, so you cannot say that There Were Not, I will not let you get away with that.

[history Iraq-Iran war etc. deleted]

Nevertheless. None of that stuff matters to the particular claim "Iraq had no WMD" which is FALSE.

I agree that whether or nor there were WMDs shipped out of Iraq is a separate issue from whether or not they were anything to worry about.

Good this moots much of what you spent time typing.

However, the story itself, while true, would be a lot less important as a national security issue, no?

Who's discussing whether it's "important as a national security issue"? Your position here is that it's NOT TRUE. If you want to slyly shift to "well if it IS true it's N.I.A.A.N.S.I." then be my guest but I'm going to have to insist that you actually perform the "Conceding that it could be true" step. You have not.

I would like to learn more about that Iraqi anthrax. Can you provide a reference with sufficient specificity that folks can locate it?

I'm not sure exactly what you're asking me, try this looks official:

Anthrax - Iraq declared producing nearly 8,500 liters but denied its ability to produce dry agent. UN inspectors believe Iraq may have produced 26,000 liters and can produce dry agent.

In particular Iraq declared some amount of anthrax, but never gave it or demonstrated its destruction. And UN inspectors (who we all now believe were more right than wrong correct?) think the capability was much more.

According to everything I've read, Iraq along with the US, USSR and perhaps a couple others was one of the only nations known to have had an advanced weaponized anthrax program. We do not know what they did with the results but we have no reason to think that either it somehow went poof or that Saddam said "hey this'll be fun: let's destroy it but not tell anyone". It would be insane to proceed upon either assumption in fact. Maybe this will help you understand where I'm coming from here.

Regarding the US anthrax attacks, the particular strain used was identified (by the US Government) as originating at Ft Dietrich, MD.

The anthrax sent to Daschle's office for example was different. It was "aerosolized" (or something). I am not an expert on these matters and please understand that I am not here saying to you "I definitely believe that this anthrax was from Iraq." I was trying to place it in context of why one might be interested in that anthrax.

You seem to rely heavily on the argument that Gen DeLong should be believed unless there is hard evidence to refute him.

Not "believed", just "not disbelieved". You are actively disbelieving him. I am, as I have said all along (you didn't notice), taking the position that it's reasonable to provisionally accept his claim. There is literally no reason on the table to think the claim untrue or implausible, and it's bizarre that things have got to the point where some people seem to think "the Iraq regime had nasty stuff and moved it on war's eve" is somehow like claiming to have seen Martians.

Back in 1973 I implicitly trusted Richard Nixon to be honest and ethical on all issues of importance. I try not to repeat that mistake.

Not sure what one thing has to do with the other. AFAIK the guy we're talking about is not even a politician. What agenda do you think he could have here? You've made many assumptions, up to and including that he supports President Bush politically. You don't know that.

Press releases and press conferences come to mind.

I see. So the argument is, this claim is doubtworthy because if it were true then the Bush administration would center a press conference around it.

Um, I don't know that and neither do you. We are not in Bush's inner circle and do not know what political calculations they make or what motivates them. Holding a press conference specifically to highlight this general's claim may be the furthest thing from their desires.

-maybe they just don't want to open that can of worms? (a "we found WMD" press release generates a media frenzy trying to prove "no they didn't" for the next week - who needs it?)

-maybe they want to keep what they think/know about Syria on the down-low?

I don't presume to know the motives and calculations of these faraway politicians as much as you do. Everyone seems to assume that George Bush must necessarily be sort of desperate to grasp onto any story bolstering "we found WMD". Maybe he's blase about it? Maybe he's pretty secure he's gonna get re-elected and doesn't think he needs to extend himself on these things? Who knows?

This is not at all a reason to consider EC#2's claim debunked.

I have provided several reasons to doubt the story,

Ok my mistake I suppose. Perhaps you have provided several reasons but no good ones. If I did not always include the word "good" or equivalent, I apologize for the omission.

yet be unable or prohibited from telling us how he knows.

You know neither that he's "unable" or "prohibited". He could be perfectly able, but just didn't wanna. Or did, in the book. Or did, but it didn't make the interview. You don't know.

Your rebuttal primarily relies on speculation for which YOU have no evidence either

Agreed. I have no evidence other than this man's testimony (and some ragged memories of "convoy" news stories in early '03). What we are discussing stands, or falls, on how trustworthy one finds this man's testimony. You think he's lying, I don't make this assumption. That's about where we stand, yes.

Now I will reiterate and clarify that I do not 'know for a fact' that Gen DeLong lied

Hmm well good. So then what's your point here? We've got testimony from a guy, take it or leave it, I guess you're saying you doubt it, which is your right, although you don't seem to have any good reasons for doing so. I find it interesting, I see no reason to doubt it, it sounds plausible and consistent with other things we have heard, and so I will provisionally accept "WMDs were shipped" as a likely truth but certainly keep an eye on the story.

Got a problem w/any of that?

BTW, your use of italics looks cool. How do you do italics when you post?

Surround any text with < i > on the left side (i.e. at the beginning) and then < / i > on the right side (at the end). (Remove the spaces when you do this; I had to space those symbols so you could see them.)

AFAICT the last time you replied to me was only a couple of days ago.

You're probably right. It's just that depending on one's FR-posting frequency (I'd been posting a lot lately), a couple days' gap in a conversation can seem like an eternity. This is totally my problem, I was just trying to explain :-)

best,

Thanks for the help with italics. I'll try it out.

Before we get too far I reject the concepts of 'provisionally believe' and provisional truth. In my view those are worse than imposing a false dichotomy on a problem, being more akin to the impositions of a false 'monotomy.'

Another way is, Suppose this Ex-CENTCOM No.2 (lemme just call him EC#2)

Assuming you are reading and posting from the freerepublic bulletin board you can scroll to the top of the page for his name.

later fills in details of his story

I agree that he can (and perhaps has in his book) offer a story with the specificity needed to be falsifiable. What we have before us here on this bulletin board lacks that specificity.

Anyway, the point of my supermarket example was not that it's literally impossible for you to falsify it, just that it's impossible for you to falsify it based on any information to which you can plausibly gain access.<\i>

Excellent point, equally applicable to General DeLong's statement.

... "falsifiability" as such is not the gold standard that you think ... The standard you seem to implicitly abide by is inappropriate in this context.

"Falsifiability" is not a standard, it is a characteristic.

I agree that one can be too dependent on logic but it looks to me that you suggest that we should abandon logic altogether. When an assertion is, as a practical matter, unfalsifiable one should not suspend disbelief simply because hard evidence to falsify it is lacking.

On a tangential note I suspect you overestimate the capabilities (e.g. 24 hour coverage, penetration of camouflage etc) of satellite recon.

We clearly disagree on the issue of whether absent other information, one should believe or not believe a statement from authority.

Since you didn't understand what I had to say about Nixon the first time around let me make one thing perfectly clear: Nixon taught me to question authority.

Other things I have learned from experience, relevant to the issue at hand include:

1) When an authority says "I know X for a fact." that authority usually lacks hard evidence for X, indeed usually X is false. That authority may genuinely believe X, but belief is not knowing.

2) An authority who has hard evidence for X usually cites that evidence immediately INSTEAD of saying X is known as a fact.

So, absent any other information I regard the statement "I know X for a fact." to be an indicator of falseness.

My observation has been that "I know X for a fact" is almost always a bluff, or a statement of an article of faith.

Supposing General Foo says "We have determined that the probability of X is 85%, therefore we know X for a fact." I certainly will not suppose that there is an 85% probability of X, I will suppose that General Foo is unreliable. In particular, I would doubt that he could be trusted (in terms of either honesty or competency) to accurately state the probability of X.

This more or less leads us to the issue of diligence:

My recollection is that we've found some dozen+ CW/BW (probably mostly/all CW) shells. I am too lazy to dig up said articles.

If that fuzzy recollection that you are too lazy to confirm is your basis for saying:

"We all know for a fact that "Iraq had WMDs" is true. We have FOUND objects fitting the definition of "WMD";

Then I daresay you have a weak standard for knowing something for a fact. Notwithstanding, I agree that we know for a fact that Iraq had WMDs. We know that at the very least there were undetonated chemical shells left uncollected on old battlefields.

I'll add to that, my fuzzy recollection unsupported by even a lazy attempt at confirmation, that some empty chemical shells were found and that UNMOVIC had collected some mustard shells (possibly declared by Iraq) that were still awaiting disposal when the invasion began.

But since you brought it up, we *do* know - for a fact - that There Were WMD In Iraq, so you cannot say that There Were Not, I will not let you get away with that.<\i>

As you know, I did not write that there were no WMD in Iraq and you could only make it appear that I did if you were to take something I did write very badly out of context. And I will not let you get away with that, so there!

Additionally, I do not let anyone, especially not my own straw men, get away with advancing the notion that long-expired chemical shells and reference strains of common bacteria are matters of concern.

Who's discussing whether it's "important as a national security issue"?

I am. Odd, that you didn't pick up on that.

I think that it is a more important issue than the one which sparked this, er, discussion so I thought I'd slip that in.

I'm going to have to insist that you actually perform the "Conceding that it could be true" step. You have not.

Evidently you weren't paying attention.

In article 61: Iraq had a known stockpile of anthrax which they never accounted for or demonstrated the destruction of. The most (in fact the ONLY) reasonable assumption under that circumstance is that said anthrax still exists. Where? We don't know.

and now: I'm not sure exactly what you're asking me, try this looks official:

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/rls/19723.htm

It looks official to me too. Let's address the content in the manner Nixon taught me.

He did not file a full, complete, and accurate declaration of his weapons to the UN and has not cooperated fully with UN inspections.

According to a UNMOVIC representative, perhaps Dr Blix himself, the Iraqi declaration was not to be made public because to do so would "be intensely embarrassing to the corporations who had provided material to Iraq in contravention of the sanctions." I'm sure I'm misquoting but to the best of my recollection that is an accurate paraphrasal. So the statement about a "full, complete, and accurate declaration " is, wait for it, unfalsifiable.

"...has not cooperated fully with UN inspections" is falsified by the IAEA and UNMOVIC reports to the United Nations.

Anthrax - Iraq declared producing nearly 8,500 liters but denied its ability to produce dry agent. UN inspectors believe Iraq may have produced 26,000 liters and can produce dry agent.

"May have produced" is a far cry from "Iraq had a known stockpile" of anthrax. Now, we cannot directly verify what Iraq declared because we do not have access to the declaration. But we do have access to the IAEA, UNMOVIC and many UNSCOM reports. They are online at www.un.org and www.fas.org and maybe other places. (Note tagline below) So all we have to do to verify that is to read the report the State Department is referring to. Hmm, I don't see any footnotes or references on that webpage. I guess that to falsify that statement we'd have to read all of them. Do you suppose that is a coincidence?

Note also the State Department web page is silent on the issue of accounting for the 8,500 liters that were ostensibly declared. Maybe we should go check out those UN reports, eh? So I direct your attention to

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/Bx27.htm

a report to the UN made a month before the State department webpage was last updated. Dr Blix confirms for us that Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 litres of this [anthrax, FF] biological warfare agent, but also goes on to say which it states it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991. Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction.

As to how much anthrax Iraq could have made Blix tells us 5,000 liters. Let's keep in mind that the State Department is NOT presenting their own independent assessment. They cite the UN as their source and the UN gives us a different figure.

Now check out the column on the right side of that page under the bold red header: IRAQ WEAPONS FACTS.

Anthrax: Iraq declared 8,500 liters; the UN estimated 26,000

That's another distortion, beyond what they say out there in the middle of the page. The UN did not estimate that Iraq produced 26,000 liters of undeclared anthrax, the UN estimated that Iraq could have produced 5,000 liters of undeclared anthrax.

And I didn't see anywhere that the UN had determined that Iraq could have produced dry agent.
So, you certainly do not know for fact that Iraq had an unaccounted for stockpile of anthrax. Nor with 85% probability either, I daresay.

You know that there is evidence that Iraq could have had an unaccounted for stockpile of anthrax if their accounting was false. I am loathe to believe that Iraq would have unilaterally destroyed a stockpile of useable anthrax, but if Iraq, as claimed, had been unable to create a dry agent the anthrax would have rapidly become unuseable. It is not hard to believe that Iraq may have unilaterally flushed 8,500 liters of worthless glop back in 1991. The UNMOVIC reports have many claims by Iraq, with little evidence, regarding the unilateral destruction of small numbers of munitions which failed to meet quality standards and therein lie many of what Blix diplomatically referred to as discrepencies. Yet the claims on their face are credible. I agree that it would be _prudent_ to beleive the anthrax still exists. As to the only reasonable conclusion, not so sure.

Notwithstanding your exaggerations of what you know for a fact, I assure you that I have more confidence in the UN, the US Dept of State, General DeLong and in you than in Saddam Hussein. But none of you get a free ride.

--

FF

Before we get too far I reject the concepts of 'provisionally believe' and provisional truth.

I don't see how you can. You provisionally accept that you won't get smashed by a car else you would never step outside your door. More relevant example, suppose you had tuned into the radio for 30 seconds on election night 2000. Depending on when you did this you could have heard some stranger announcer say "Gore won Florida". Or, "Bush won Florida". Either thing, you would have provisionally believed: if your buddy had asked you What did the radio say, you'd have said "well apparently Gore [Bush resp.] won Florida". This despite the fact that the strange radio voice didn't "prove" it to you in any way, and indeed, one of them proved to have been wrong. But you'd have believed the wrong thing, until proven otherwise.

Seems to me this is the *normal* state of affairs when people pay attention to this thing we call "the news". The strange voice tells us X happened (monsoon in Bangladesh, crazy woman cut off her husband's ----, etc.) and we provisionally believe it, even though we (rarely) have anything resembling "proof". Sometimes we end up provisionally believing something that turns out to be wrong, but big deal, most people can deal with it. Can you?

Assuming you are reading and posting from the freerepublic bulletin board you can scroll to the top of the page for his name.

Well one thing's for sure you win the dry, withering sarcasm competition.

But thanks. Yes I understand his name is there, and other assorted things, I'm really trying to type this as fast as I can to dispense with this tiresome exchange.

[don't have enough info to be able to falsify example] Excellent point, equally applicable to General DeLong's statement.

Right so we're agreed we have a statement about which we know too little to make these kinds of judgments. Yet you've decided that it's not true, I haven't. That's about where we stand.

"Falsifiability" is not a standard, it is a characteristic.

Falsifiability is a characteristic, Deciding to disbelieve something unless Falsifiable is a standard.

I agree that one can be too dependent on logic but it looks to me that you suggest that we should abandon logic altogether.

Well you're wrong. Again, where we stand: you disbelieve it, I don't. The latter does NOT mean that I BELIEVE it; I can only surmise that you confuse the two notions of "not disbelieving" and "believing". Stop.

When an assertion is, as a practical matter, unfalsifiable one should not suspend disbelief

But who's suspending disbelief? Think more.

On a tangential note I suspect you overestimate the capabilities (e.g. 24 hour coverage, penetration of camouflage etc) of satellite recon.

No. I was discussing the falsifiability which depends on things that can be done in principle. In principle we could have geosynchronous sat. coverage etc etc etc. The fact that we probably don't in practice has no bearing on that.

We clearly disagree on the issue of whether absent other information, one should believe or not believe a statement from authority.

The real problem is that you don't understand what I'm saying. I don't "believe" it in the first place, I just don't disbelieve it, as you do.

Nixon taught me to question authority.

Fascinating autobiographical statement again. So let me summarize, you disbelieve this guy's claim because of something Nixon did?

LOGIC!

So, absent any other information I regard the statement "I know X for a fact." to be an indicator of falseness.

Heh. Ok weird. That's your deal.

Supposing General Foo says "We have determined that the probability of X is 85%, therefore we know X for a fact."

Of course, that's not what happened here, the 85% is a quote from me in response to some hypothetical you raised. For all you or I know he really does know it for a fact.

If that fuzzy recollection that you are too lazy to confirm is your basis for saying: "We all know for a fact that "Iraq had WMDs" is true. We have FOUND objects fitting the definition of "WMD"; Then I daresay you have a weak standard for knowing something for a fact.

Hmm. Apparently what you don't understand is that if my recollection is fuzzy on whether we've found 2 or 17 or 137 this has little relevance to the truth value of "Iraq had WMDs". As long as the number is BIGGER THAN ZERO - which we both agree it is - we're fine.

I'll add to that, my fuzzy recollection unsupported by even a lazy attempt at confirmation, that some empty chemical shells were found and that UNMOVIC had collected some mustard shells (possibly declared by Iraq) that were still awaiting disposal when the invasion began.

Thanks. Which AFAIK is the same thing I fuzzily-recollected, making me wonder why you argued in the first place...

As you know, I did not write that there were no WMD in Iraq and you could only make it appear that I did if you were to take something I did write very badly out of context.

Post #59: "there has been ample reason from early 2003 to the present to conclude that it was unlikely Iraq had WMDs." Unlikely (your assertion) seems pretty darn contradictory of Known for a fact (the truth).

Additionally, I do not let anyone, especially not my own straw men, get away with advancing the notion that long-expired chemical shells and reference strains of common bacteria are matters of concern.

What is and is not a matter of concern is a matter of opinion. As I've explained, I don't give a rat's ass about yours.

[I'm going to skip much of this part where you proceed to argue against the *link*, because, uh, I don't care. Specifically w/r to the issue of the 26000 vs 8500, let's just take the smaller number ok?]

[8500 liters anthrax] it states it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991. Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction.

Right. So the sane thing would be to presume that this anthrax was not destroyed until reason surfaces to think otherwise. Which was my point. Not sure why I brought it up, come to think of it...

So, you certainly do not know for fact that Iraq had an unaccounted for stockpile of anthrax.

The 8500 is unaccounted for.

I am loathe to believe that Iraq would have unilaterally destroyed a stockpile of useable anthrax

As am I, which is my point. I don't know what point you think I'm making but that was it.

[if no dry agent] It is not hard to believe that Iraq may have unilaterally flushed 8,500 liters of worthless glop back in 1991.

It is not hard to believe but it is not wise to assume.

I agree that it would be _prudent_ to beleive the anthrax still exists.

'sall I'm saying. Glad we agree

So, to bottom line it: You disbelieve EC#2's claims because of Richard Nixon. Just to be clear: All I'm saying is, I don't, nor is there any real reason to. The claims are unopposed by any other known facts at the moment and there is nothing AT ALL implausible about them. If you think there is, let me know. Best,

I can reject the concept of 'provisionally true' because I have no problem living with uncertainty.

Post #59: "there has been ample reason from early 2003 to the present to conclude that it was unlikely Iraq had WMDs." Unlikely (your assertion) seems pretty darn contradictory of Known for a fact (the truth).

You caught me oversimplifying. I should have written "tactically significant stocks of WMDs".

Lest it pass by unnoticed I think the discrepancy between what the US State Department attributes to the UN, and what the UN says for itself indicates deliberate deception as does the misleading marginal summary statement.

The existence of a stockpile of Iraqi anthrax is a separate fact from the accounting for that stockpile.

IF we know for a fact that there are 8,500 liters of Iraqi anthrax somewhere, and Iraq has not accounted for it then we know there is an unaccounted for stockpile of Iraqi anthrax. This implies that it is a fact that the anthrax exists though the accounting is absent.

but

IF we now for a fact only that Iraq declared it produced 8,500 liters of anthrax and has not adequately accounted for it then we know there may be an unaccounted for stockpile of Iraqi anthrax.

The unsubtle difference is the difference between is which implies certainty and may be which does not.

We do not know that there is a stockpile, we know that the accounting is inadequate to rule it out, and it would be unwise to trust Iraq on any such issues.

At this point I think I have already let you know everything I care to see you criticize.

Take care.

-- FF

I can reject the concept of 'provisionally true' because I have no problem living with uncertainty.

Then you will have no problem acknowledging that the claims here are unopposed by any contrary evidence, even though they haven't been "proven". We simply have uncertainty about this topic and that is (or, should be) ok with you, it's not a reason to go off accusing this man of lying half-cocked with no evidence.

You caught me oversimplifying. I should have written "tactically significant stocks of WMDs".

I see but I don't know why you would have written that either. Nothing significant hinges on whether Iraq possessed "tactically significant stocks of" WMD, nor was that even the issue under consideration at that point of our exchange. To imply that Iraq needed to have "tactically significant stocks of" WMD before [something-or-other] is to move the goalposts; to imply that according to prewar claims [something-or-other] hinged on Iraq's possesion of T.S.S.O.WMD is a straw-man.

We do not know that there is a stockpile, we know that the accounting is inadequate to rule it out, and it would be unwise to trust Iraq on any such issues.

Glad we agree.

Our only significant disagreement is about whether one should disbelieve EC#2's claims. I don't, you do. But as long as you understand there's a difference between Not Disbelieving (=my position) and Believing (=not my position), we're indeed probably done here.

Best,

it's not a reason to go off accusing this man of lying half-cocked with no evidence.

As you know, I haven't accused him of lying, I've said I think he's lying. Not the same, at least not for those of us who use the phrase "I think" (as opposed say, to "I know for a fact") when one has doubt.

Nothing significant hinges on whether Iraq possessed "tactically significant stocks of" WMD

I disagree. Tactically significant stockpiles of WMds are a significant threat to neighboring countries and invading armies. Unexploded munitions left uncollected on a battlefield are not. While that was not the issue we started discussing, the nature of the WMDs in Iraq became important when you brought up the _fact_ that Iraq did have WMDs in 2003--aside from which it is an important issue by itself.

--

FF

I think he's lying

Ok. Your opinion: duly noted.

[Nothing significant hinges on whether Iraq possessed "tactically significant stocks of" WMD] Tactically significant stockpiles of WMds are a significant threat to neighboring countries and invading armies. Unexploded munitions left uncollected on a battlefield are not.

By "significant" obviously I meant issues such as, Whether the invasion should have happened, Whether Saddam was in violation of UN Resolution 1441, and like that. You know, the kinds of things that tend to be matters of controversy nowadays.

the nature of the WMDs in Iraq became important when you brought up the _fact_ that Iraq did have WMDs in 2003

Not really. "it was unlikely Iraq had WMDs", the statement I was rebutting, is false regardless of the nature of the WMDs in Iraq, as long as there were some (more than 1).

By "significant" obviously I meant issues such as, Whether the invasion should have happened, Whether Saddam was in violation of UN Resolution 1441, and like that.

I admit not having read the full text of resolution 1441 but I doubt that undetonated chemical munitions left uncollected on old battlefields and firing ranges were a violation of 1441. Even if so, said leftover duds would not IMHO, be a significant violation. They certainly did not justify the invasion.

--

FF

I admit not having read the full text of resolution 1441 but I doubt that undetonated chemical munitions left uncollected on old battlefields and firing ranges were a violation of 1441. Even if so, said leftover duds would not IMHO, be a significant violation

Resolution 1441 was known to have been violated the moment Blix found an undeclared drone, actually. It appeared in his report. You're right that whatever shells we have found may not have represented violations of 1441 but this does not hinge on whether they were "tactically significant" items but, whether they were UN-banned items according to whatever previous UN resolutions.

They certainly did not justify the invasion.

If whatever object's we're talking about were a violation of 1441, they did. If not, other violations existed, which did. This all presumes, btw, that one cares about whether the invasion was "justified" in the UN's eyes, which I don't. (I think the invasion was justified on grounds having nothing whatsoever to do with whether extant "WMD" existed in Iraq: in particular, even if none did.) So like I said, invasion-justification doesn't hinge on whether these objects were "tactically significant".

BTW interesting link for your perusal: Duelfer: 'A lot of material left Iraq and went to Syria' . The WMD-were-sent-to-Syria scenario just gets more and more implausible doesn't it?

Here's something that's definitely not falsifiable:

If you were following the story at the time, or for that matter if you still are, you know that the strain of anthrax used in the Fall 2001 attacks was developed at Ft Dietrich, Maryland.

For the benefit of readers who learned geography in Texas, Maryland is in the United States. The anthrax was American.

--

FF

The Ames strain of anthrax originated in America, yes, but that strain is available in at least two other countries that we know of, and God only knows who else has managed to steal it that we're not aware of. And anyone who believes that it couldn't possibly have been stolen is probably the type of person who believes everything he reads in the newspapers.

Sorry, but the government has absolutely no clue whatsoever who sent the anthrax or where it really came from. Nice try though.

I remain unconvinced that a failure to recover all chemical duds from old battlefields would be a violation of 1441.

I also do not agree that violations of UN resolutions, per se, whether substantive or not justified the invasion. I do not see why we should use our soldiers to enforce UN sanctions absent other compelling reasons.

I do not agree that stockpiles of Iraqi chemical or biological weapons would have justified invasion though I do agree that invasion increased the risk of proliferation of any of those weapons that might have been in Iraq at that time. Indeed I pointed this danger out before the invasion.

The _World Tribune_ has been caught misattributing its own false news to other sources before, see article 206 here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1151984/posts?q=1&&page=206#206

so if you are really interested in the Duelfer report I suggest you read it here:

http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/

Please do read the report, and not just the 194 page summary.

--

FF

BTTT

I remain unconvinced that a failure to recover all chemical duds from old battlefields would be a violation of 1441.

Fine by me, 1441 was violated on other grounds anyway.

I also do not agree that violations of UN resolutions, per se, whether substantive or not justified the invasion.

The War Powers act, passed by our Congress, authorized Bush to use the U.S. military to enforce all relevant UNSC resolutions. If Iraq was in violation of 1441, Bush was thus empowered.

Anyway it's funny that you find it necessary to argue against the idea that Iraq was in violation of 1441 if you don't think being in violation of 1441 matters anyway.

Now, for the record: I do not subscribe to the idea that a US war is justified, or not, depending on some UN resolution, of course, and I want to make sure I don't imply otherwise. IMHO we (through our Congress) decided upon war, and attempted to go through the UN (some might say *use* the UN) to partially deflect criticism / shore up support for that war. And, I'm all for that.

I do not see why we should use our soldiers to enforce UN sanctions absent other compelling reasons.

Me neither. Good thing we had other compelling reasons. The "hey we're just enforcing a UN resolution" thing was just a convenient loincloth, and I'm all for using the UN in that way when we can.

I do not agree that stockpiles of Iraqi chemical or biological weapons would have justified invasion

I didn't say that anyway so we don't disagree in that sense. (I think the invasion was justified regardless of, even absent, "stockpiles")

I do agree that invasion increased the risk of proliferation of any of those weapons that might have been in Iraq at that time.

I tend to agree too. Raiding a speak-easy is likely to send a few scramblers out into the back alley with whatever bottles they can grab, invading a country with illicit weapons is likely to move some of those weapons (and, any other valuable goods) to the black market. In neither case is that an argument not to do the thing, if that's what you meant.

Indeed I pointed this danger out before the invasion.

Yes I was aware of and understood this danger (and as I agreed with it, I would even say "likelihood") before the invasion as well. Let's both congratulate ourselves :)

The _World Tribune_ has been caught misattributing [...] Please do read the [Duelfer] report

Before I do, help me out, what am I looking for exactly?

Is it your assertion that Mr. Duelfer did not at an Oct. 6 Senate Armed Services hearing utter the words "A lot of materials left Iraq and went to Syria ... There was certainly a lot of traffic across the border points. We've got a lot of data to support that, including people discussing it. But whether in fact in any of these trucks there was WMD-related materials, I cannot say." ?

Let me know.

ping

Before I do [read the Duelfer report], help me out, what am I looking for exactly?>

The truth.

Attributed by _The World Tribune_ to Duelfer: There was certainly a lot of traffic across the border points. We've got a lot of data to support that, including people discussing it. But whether in fact in any of these trucks there was WMD-related materials, I cannot say." ?.

Note: "whether in fact...cannot say" Compare that to DeLong: "I do know for a fact..." Would you suppose that DeLong had access to intel that Duelfer did not? How come what one says he knew for a fact the other says he does not?

--

FF

Um look, I'm not sure what you're trying to argue against or why. Just for the record I didn't link that Duelfer article because I thought it proved EC#2's claims. It was just a heads-up. Clearly you're right that EC#2's claims are stronger than Duelfer's, and there's a reason for that, known to neither of us. I was just pointing to something out there which makes EC#2's claims plausible rather than implausible, which is how some people seem to treat notions such as "WMD were moved from Iraq to Syria", for reasons I will never figure out. Bye,