Errors of Mass Destruction

National Review Online ^ | June 12, 2003 | Michael Novak

[WarrenC]

Some excellent points by Mr. Novak.

[JohnGalt]

I must have missed them.

The only point he made is the 'see, the NY Times and the Democrats and Saddam said their were WMDs too!'

He does not seem the least bit concerned that intelligence was either manipulated or just plain false as it made it way up the food chain and has not only embarrassed the President but added a taint of scandal.

[ex-snook]

[WarrenC]

Yeah, you must have missed them. And to think the President is embarrassed about our victory in Iraq takes a willful ignorance about the reality of the situation. As willful as your missing Novak's points.

[JohnGalt]

Please, enlighten me to his points then.

I detected only one meandering point: "Hans Blix, the UN, and the Democrats said Saddam possessed WMDs as well."

[JohnGalt]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect3.html

Not sure if you have seen this link, but the item dated 1995 should send off red flags. The defector in question, not named, is some guy named 'Kamal.' The thing of it is that he also said, in 1995, that Iraq had destroyed the very weapons he was referring to.

How did the CIA let the White House screw up so badly on its own web site?

[chichipow]

Link for Kamal and his reference to destroying what he spoke of?

[chichipow]

http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/congress/1998_r/980210t-fr.htm

An interesting read.

[chichipow]

From above link-

"A new approach to studying the Iraqi WMD programs was adopted in the aftermath of the "defection" of Lt.Gen. Hussein Kamal in the Summer of 1995. Originated as an audacious ploy to destroy the anti-Saddam movement from within, the "defection" went sour when Baghdad panicked over reports of contacts between Kamal and the CIA in Amman. Consequently, Baghdad was compelled to surrender to the UN large quantities of material Kamal might have divulged while in Amman. Consequently, Kamal and his brother were lured back to Baghdad where they were promptly assassinated. Meanwhile, the entire perception of the extent of the Iraqi WMD program had to be reevaluated. "

Seems as though the US and CIA suspected or had reason to think Kamal and what he stated was a 'ploy'. It is interesting though that they would use his admittion of WMD, but not his admittion that all he spoke of were destroyed. If the whole thing was bogus, why use any of it, unless they had intel that those weapons he said were destroyed were not.

[JohnGalt]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31303

Thanks for the link. Take a peak at this story and I'll see if I can track down the Newsweek story mentioned.

[mewzilla]

Did you ever read UN Res. 1441? Even the UN acknowleged that Saddamn had WMDs.

[JohnGalt]

The UN has no credibility, so why would you site them to help prove that Iraq actually had these WMDs?

[mewzilla]

Just damning them with their own words. Fitting, don't you think?

[JohnGalt]

Damning who--the accusers?

I should think that conservatives demand a higher standard than a Clinton defense.

There was clearly an intelligence failure; identify the incompetent government hacks who fooled multiple administrations, disgrace them, strip them of their pensions, and lets be happy there is less evil in the world, before this issue becomes a scandal that threatens re-election.

[mewzilla]

J.G., do you really think we went on just the info from the UN? We knew more than they did, yet they knew enough to acknowlege that Saddamn had WMDs. We knew it, the Brits knew it, the Frogs, the Germans, the Russians, the Chinese, the North Koreans...I'm worried about any that weren't destroyed before we gained control of Iraq. The prospect of the naysayers finding out they were wrong the hard way scares me to bits.

[JohnGalt]

You and I both have no idea what evidence Bush might have been privy to, but the fact that he stopped the troops at the border of Syria and Iran tells me he stopped trusting that Rummy in his ear.

Click on the White House link I provided; there is blatantly misleading at the least 'stuff.' I do not believe Bush lied us into a war the way Wilson, FDR, and Johnson did, but I do believe he made a decision to go to war on the belief that there were WMDs that could threaten the United States. They have not been found where they were suppose to be-- look at Powell's speech to the UN.

Taking a Hans Blix wait and see approach is one tactic, but I am not willing to risk a re-election over it.

[mewzilla]

Are you saying that Iraq had no WMDs?

[clevermom]

The WMB dilema is just a ploy--the UN and Bush detractors were willing to give its inspectors unlimited time to find the material and interrogate agencies involved in Iraq prior to the war; however, now that the war is winding down they are limiting the time the US has to "discover" these weapons. The additional time it took to implement 1441 by the UN did nothing but buy Saddam time to hide, destroy or sell whatever incriminating evidence there might have been. Remember, this man was smart enough to string along the whole world via the UN!

[norton]

Get over it!

We done good and we are continuing to do good despite anyone's effort to revise the script.

Come next election the public will select between a proactive and reasonably conservative administration and some democrat yahoo who still believes that we need to take orders from Brussels or Boston.

By the time we re-elect a president the world will have seen Islamic melt-down in Iran and economic stagnation in europe.

By the time we vote again iraq will be a better place although not a perfect place and not anyone's vacation choice.

So stop trying to prove that the current administration is not conservative enough (nor libertarian, tsk) and try convincing them to come closer to its roots.

I know it would hurt, but you might start with agitating for closed borders, we'd all appreciate that.

[JohnGalt]

WMD is Orwellian political speak so I have no idea and neither do you. Short of a nuclear warhead, nothing the troops find at this point will satisfy the level of hype the intelligence industry built up.

What I can plainly see is an intelligence failure that is threatening to become an issue. Novack's defense is silly and based on 'see, everyone else got it wrong.'