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,