Originally Posted By DlandDug >>... the weapons inspectors had unprecedented access to Iraq before the war.<< I seem to recall that the Iraqis placed many obstructions in the way of the inspectors. But don't take my word for it, Here are the words of Hans Blix. (Please note that these reports were filed while the inspections were taking place, not after the invasion. All excerpts are derived from <a href="http://www.unmovic.org/" target="_blank">http://www.unmovic.org/</a> Click on "Selected Security Council Briefings.") In a briefing before the UN Security Council on December 19, 2002, Blix reported: >>Access to sites has been prompt and assistance on the sites expeditious. It seems probable that a general instruction has been issued not in any way to delay or impede inspection of the kind of sites we have gone to so far. This is welcome and it is to be hoped that such an instruction will extend to all sites we may wish to inspect in the future, regardless of location, character and timing.<< But he then goes on to say: >>Criticism has been voiced by the Iraqi side regarding some inspections: The inspection of a presidential site took place without problems - after a minor delay in access. However, it was subsequently stated from the Iraqi side that the inspection was unjustified and that the inspectors could not have looked for weapons of mass destruction, as they did not wear protective gear. Clearly, we do not need to justify any of our selections of sites and one does not need protective gear to look for documents or computer files. Some sites were inspected last Friday - the Muslim day of rest. In one of them, the Iraqi staff were absent and a number of doors inside locked, with no keys available. The Iraqi side offered to break the doors open - while videotaping the event. However, they agreed with a suggestion that the doors in question could be sealed overnight and the offices inspected the next morning. Clearly, we have the right to undertake inspections at any time, night or day, whether on weekdays or religious holidays. We intend to exercise this right - not to harass - but to demonstrate that just as there are no sanctuaries in space there are no sanctuaries in time.<< Here is another interesting (and contemporaneous) observation made by Blix: >>During the period 1991-1998, Iraq submitted many declarations called full, final and complete. Regrettably, much in these declarations proved inaccurate or incomplete or was unsupported or contradicted by evidence. In such cases, no confidence can arise that proscribed programmes or items have been eliminated.<< Here are excerpts from Blix's report of January 9, 2003: >>n their very active media exposure, Iraqi officials have sought to construe the prompt access, which has been given to inspection teams and the fact that no weapons of mass destruction or other proscribed items have been found, as confirmation of their assertion that there are no weapons of mass destruction or other proscribed items in Iraq. The matter is not, of course, that simple. The absence of 'smoking guns' and the prompt access which we have had so far and which is most welcome, is no guarantee that prohibited stocks or activities could not exist at other sites, whether above ground, underground or in mobile units.<< (An aside: I hope all of you are as amused as I at Blix's use of careful diplomatic language in characterizing these things.) Blix is fairly clear here: >>Let me conclude: the prompt access/open doors policy that has been pursued so far by Iraq vis-Ã -vis the inspectors is an indispensable element of transparency in a process that aims at securing disarmament by peaceful means. However, prompt access is by no means sufficient to give confidence that nothing is hidden in a large country with an earlier record of avoiding disclosures. Iraq is very familiar with the fact that only declarations supported by evidence, will give confidence about the elimination of weapons. In this respect we have not so far made progress.<< In this respect we have not so far made progress. Got that? Blix reported the following in a Joint statement from Baghdad on January 20, 2003: >>Access has been obtained to all sites. This will continue. The Iraqi side will encourage persons to accept access also to private sites.<< Yet we are told repeatedly that the "rapid build up" to war precluded the inspection of much of Iraq. Or is it that Iraq was cooperating fully, and the "rapid build up" to war was unnecessary? I guess it depends on whatever retro-history is being fashioned at the moment... In his Briefing to the UN Security Council of January 27, 2003, even Blix was unable to provide the following with a diplomatic fig leaf: >>As we know, the twin operation 'declare and verify', which was prescribed in resolution 687 (1991), too often turned into a game of 'hide and seek'. Rather than just verifying declarations and supporting evidence, the two inspecting organizations found themselves engaged in efforts to map the weapons programmes and to search for evidence through inspections, interviews, seminars, inquiries with suppliers and intelligence organizations. As a result, the disarmament phase was not completed in the short time expected. Sanctions remained and took a severe toll until Iraq accepted the Oil for Food Programme and the gradual development of that programme mitigated the effects of the sanctions.<< He goes on to say: >>In December 1999 - after one year without inspections in Iraq - resolution 1284 (1999) was adopted by the Council with 4 abstentions... For nearly three years, Iraq refused to accept any inspections by UNMOVIC. It was only after appeals by the Secretary-General and Arab States and pressure by the United States and other Member States, that Iraq declared on 16 September last year that it would again accept inspections without conditions.<< And: >>I turn now to the key requirement of cooperation and Iraq's response to it. Cooperation might be said to relate to both substance and process. It would appear from our experience so far that Iraq has decided in principle to provide cooperation on process, notably access.<< (I love that phrase: "it would appear that Iraq has decided in principle...") More: >>Iraq has on the whole cooperated rather well so far with UNMOVIC in this field. The most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect and with one exception it has been prompt.<< But then: >>In this updating I am bound, however, to register some problems. Firstly, relating to two kinds of air operations. While we now have the technical capability to send a U-2 plane placed at our disposal for aerial imagery and for surveillance during inspections and have informed Iraq that we planned to do so, Iraq has refused to guarantee its safety, unless a number of conditions are fulfilled. As these conditions went beyond what is stipulated in resolution 1441 (2002) and what was practiced by UNSCOM and Iraq in the past, we note that Iraq is not so far complying with our request. I hope this attitude will change. Another air operation problem - which was solved during our recent talks in Baghdad - concerned the use of helicopters flying into the no-fly zones. Iraq had insisted on sending helicopters of their own to accompany ours. This would have raised a safety problem. The matter was solved by an offer on our part to take the accompanying Iraq minders in our helicopters to the sites, an arrangement that had been practiced by UNSCOM in the past. I am obliged to note some recent disturbing incidents and harassment. For instance, for some time farfetched allegations have been made publicly that questions posed by inspectors were of intelligence character. While I might not defend every question that inspectors might have asked, Iraq knows that they do not serve intelligence purposes and Iraq should not say so. On a number of occasions, demonstrations have taken place in front of our offices and at inspection sites. The other day, a sightseeing excursion by five inspectors to a mosque was followed by an unwarranted public outburst. The inspectors went without any UN insignia and were welcomed in the kind manner that is characteristic of the normal Iraqi attitude to foreigners. They took off their shoes and were taken around. They asked perfectly innocent questions and parted with the invitation to come again. Shortly thereafter, we receive protests from the Iraqi authorities about an unannounced inspection and about questions not relevant to weapons of mass destruction. Indeed, they were not. Demonstrations and outbursts of this kind are unlikely to occur in Iraq without initiative or encouragement from the authorities. We must ask ourselves what the motives may be for these events. They do not facilitate an already difficult job, in which we try to be effective, professional and, at the same time, correct. Where our Iraqi counterparts have some complaint they can take it up in a calmer and less unpleasant manner.<< On Iraqi cooperation, Blix had this to say: >>Paragraph 9 of resolution 1441 (2002) states that this cooperation shall be "active". It is not enough to open doors. Inspection is not a game of "catch as catch can". Rather, as I noted, it is a process of verification for the purpose of creating confidence. It is not built upon the premise of trust. Rather, it is designed to lead to trust, if there is both openness to the inspectors and action to present them with items to destroy or credible evidence about the absence of any such items.<< There is much more in the Briefings of February 14, March 7 and April 22. In all will be found language that can be excerpted to "prove" that Iraq was cooperating in an unprecedented manner. But taken in context, it is clear that this was not the case. I will leave with a comment, by Blix, from his Briefing of April 22, 2003. This was filed after the invasion was successfully prosecuted, and Blix had no need to honey his words: >>We used to deal with governmental authorities, which were suspected of wanting to retain and hide weapons of mass destruction. Seeking truthful information through interviews with scientists, administrators or engineers was, for example, always somewhat problematic, as the persons might be influenced by an awareness of what the brutal regime wanted them to say.<<
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>...there would be 2070 families who'd get to celebrate Christmas with their loved ones.<< Because 2070 Americans made the ultimate sacrifice (and one which was not forced upon them-- we do have an all volunteer military), millions in the Middle East may celebrate their freedom every day.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer It doesn't really sound like they were impeding the inspections from what you put there, DlandDug. From November 2002 until they were ordered to withdraw the day before the invasion, UNMOVIC inspected 411 sites. Some of these sites had been declared by Iraqi authorities, and some were inspected on no notice based on other information. In thier 13th quarterly report, they told the Security Council that "UNMOVIC did not find evidence of the continuation or resumption of programmes of weapons of mass destruction or significant quantities of proscribed items from before the adoption of resolution 687 (1991)" (<a href="http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/new/documents/quarterly_reports/s-2003-580.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovi c/new/documents/quarterly_reports/s-2003-580.pdf</a> page 4 item #8) The inspections were working, as was UNMOVIC and UN oversight - Saddam did not have WMDs or any WMD-related programs. In UNMOVICs report submitted on February 28th, the inspectors again noted that they had found no evidence that Saddam had any WMD programs. If you read pages 7 and 8 of this report, <a href="http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/new/documents/quarterly_reports/s-2003-232.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovi c/new/documents/quarterly_reports/s-2003-232.pdf</a>, you can see the UN inspectors mentioning a commission that Iraq set up to find proscribed munitions on their own territory - and the fact that they reported those findings to the UN inspectors. They were cooperating.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer I also found it interesting that when a cache of weapons or material that had been placed under UN seal in 1998 were still under seal and accounted for in 2002 when the inspectors returned.
Originally Posted By DlandDug Of course, Tom, you will see only that which supports your present view. That is why I took great pains to present such lengthy excerpts, If you wish to now believe that the weapons inspectors were enjoying unprecedented access, and that it was evident to all that there were no WMDs, you are entitled to your oipinion. All I ask is that it be backed up with some sort of contemporary evidence. (Two weeks ago you said: >>There was ample pre-war intelligence that said that Saddam's WMD programs were non-existent...<< I said >>I would be interested in seeing links to contemporaneous accounts that verify this.<< So far... nothing. But we have seen, and heard, many, many contemporaneous statements that are in fundamental agreement with the conclusion the Bush White House reached before the invasion.) (Oh-- the exchange was in this thread: <a href="http://mb.laughingplace.com/default.asp?WCI=MsgBoard&WCE=T-68930-P-6&Refresh=1116094138" target="_blank">http://mb.laughingplace.com/de fault.asp?WCI=MsgBoard&WCE=T-68930-P-6&Refresh=1116094138</a> Posts 59 and 60.)
Originally Posted By TomSawyer You just saw some contemporary evidence in post #23 - the report from UNMOVIC dated three weeks before the war that there was no evidence of WMD programs in Iraq.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Bush and company had been in Washington two years when the build up to the Iraqi war began, Some members of the Senate Intelligence Committee had been on the Hill for literally decades. To suggest that the Bush White House was able to filter everything they knew about Saddam retroactively is absurd on its face> Not really. Let's take the case of North Korea. Senators and other pols of both parties routinely talk about Kim in the harshest possible terms, as well they should, just as pols of both parties did about Saddam. They talk about how dangerous he is, how dangerous it is that he (probably? possibly?) has nukes and other weapons, how he's broken his promises in the past, etc. etc. (But notice how saying those things is NOT saying "we must invade and occupy that country." That's still the big leap.) Now let's say that Bush - no, wait, let's say it's his successor, so this doesn't become about Bush, and this successor could be Rep. or Dem. - decides that Kim has to go by any means necessary. So he goes to Congress and says "Look, you know this guy Kim who we all know is a really bad guy and who you all have denounced? You know he's been getting his hands on the worst weapons, right? Well, we've got intell that is now telling us that he's got missles pointed at Toyko and Los Angeles, and he could set them off in 45 minutes, and we really think he might be crazy enough to do it, and we need to take him out, and the only way to do that is by invasion." But what they DON'T tell Congress is that they have other intell saying "wait a minute... maybe he doesn't have this capability after all. He's definitely a bad guy and would probably do it if he could... but we don't think he can." If you only told Congress the former but not the latter, (or played up the former and dismissed the latter into footnotes) and you've had these Congresspeople looking all tough and denouncing Kim for years, AND the public has been properly frightened by what Kim might do by all the administration heavy hitters for months on end... might you gain authorization to invade? And might you be able to say after the fact "Hey, Mr. Opposite-party senator: you were talking about what a bad guy Kim was before I even got to the white house. You thought he could nuke us too. So we did nothing wrong."
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>You just saw some contemporary evidence in post #23 - the report from UNMOVIC dated three weeks before the war that there was no evidence of WMD programs in Iraq.<< To the contrary, you have presented only a part of this report-- and only that part which supports your contention. Hans Blix said the following in his oral introduction to the 13th Quarterly Report you cite: >>The first point, made in paragraph 8 of the report, is that the Commission has not at any time during the inspections in Iraq found evidence of the continuation or resumption of programmes of weapons of mass destruction or significant quantities of proscribed items – whether from pre-1991 or later. I leave aside the Al Samoud 2 missile system, which we concluded was proscribed. As I have noted before, this does not necessarily mean that such items could not exist. They might – there remain long lists of items unaccounted for – but it is not justified to jump to the conclusion that something exists just because it is unaccounted for<< <a href="http://www.unmovic.org/" target="_blank">http://www.unmovic.org/</a> What I am seeking here are any definitive statements from legitimate sources which say: There are no weapons of mass destruction. It is becoming increasingly clear that the weight of conventional wisdom was so heavily in favor of their existence, that claiming now that this was not the case essentially constitutes lying.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>It is becoming increasingly clear that the weight of conventional wisdom was so heavily in favor of their existence<< Conventional wisdom is often wrong - the people on the ground looking for them said repeatedly in every report that they didn't find any evidence whatsoever of a WMD program. That alone should have been enough to give us pause before launching the war.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>If you read pages 7 and 8 of this report...They were cooperating.<< Really? Read item 38 on page 7 and explain how they were cooperating. I am not denying that Iraq, when forced to do so, cooperated in a fashion. But I do not agree that contemporary accounts state that Iraq was eager to do whatever was necessary to aid the inspectors from the UN. Read Hans Blix own accounts if you find my opinion disagreeable.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>Let's take the case of North Korea.<< No, let's talk about invaders from Mars. The point where your analogy falls apart is this: >>But what they DON'T tell Congress is that they have other intell saying "wait a minute... maybe he doesn't have this capability after all. He's definitely a bad guy and would probably do it if he could... but we don't think he can."<< But this assumes that the White House holds all the intel, and that the Opposition Party Guy hasn't been paying attention for the last twenty years or so that he has been following developments on Mars (I mean Korea). The fact is that everyone knew that Saddam had WMDs in the past, everyone thought he had them on the eve of war, and everyone worried that he would use them.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>Conventional wisdom is often wrong...<< Yes indeed. But like it or not, it is often the driver of consensus. >> - the people on the ground looking for them said repeatedly in every report that they didn't find any evidence whatsoever of a WMD program.<< Again, the contemporary reports are available for all to read. No definitive statement was ever issued from a credible source that said there were no WMDs. It doesn't exist. >>That alone should have been enough to give us pause before launching the war.<< I would term the 18 months of debate, six months of inconclusive UN inspection, and numerous statements made in Congress "pause." (Of course, the statements made in Congress by representatives of both sides of the aisle were in essential agreement that Saddam was a credible threat.)
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>But I do not agree that contemporary accounts state that Iraq was eager to do whatever was necessary to aid the inspectors from the UN<< I'm not sure who you would be agreeing with since I never said they were eager. But they were giving the inspectors access to areas that they had never had access to before. The weapons inspections kept Saddam from running any WMD programs. Weapons stockpiles had been tagged and sealed and were still there, tagged and sealed, when the inspectors returned. In the few months after the inspectors returned in November 2002 and before the war began in March 2003, they conducted over 700 investigations of over 400 sites, including nearly 90 that had never been inspected before. They also oversaw the destruction of missles that were proscribed by UN resolutions. Other proscribed items - most dating back to pre-1991 - were found and were either destroyed or tagged to be destroyed. Even if intelligence agencies believed that Saddam had active WMDs and WMD programs, the inspection process was discovering that none existed. There was ZERO evidence that supported the conjectures from the intelligence agencies. Why the arbitrary deadline in March of 2003? Why stop the inspectors from looking?
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>I never said they were eager.<< My bad. You said it was unprecedented. My recall is that the inspectors were being hampered on a regular basis, and that the conventional wisdom was that while the evidence of WMDs was well hidden, it did exist. Regretably for the present group of historical revisionists, contemporary accounts support that view. It is very easy to look at what happened AFTER events to recast what was happening at the time. But it is wrong to confuse hindsight with real history.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer I said: "the people on the ground looking for them said repeatedly in every report that they didn't find any evidence whatsoever of a WMD program " To which DlandDug responded, "Again, the contemporary reports are available for all to read. No definitive statement was ever issued from a credible source that said there were no WMDs." WMD programs didn't exist. WMDs were still being searched for when the UN inspectors were forced to leave by the US. Your response doesn't disprove what I said.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>It is very easy to look at what happened AFTER events to recast what was happening at the time. But it is wrong to confuse hindsight with real history.<< It's just as wrong to confuse conventional wisdom with what was actually happening at the time.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 >>Let's take the case of North Korea.<< <No, let's talk about invaders from Mars.> Great. So you equate another country from Bush's own "axis of evil" with a tyrant for a leader with a fondness for WMD that's an obvious analogue for Iraq... with another planet with no known intelligent life forms. Rather like these discussion boards sometimes. <The point where your analogy falls apart is this: >>But what they DON'T tell Congress is that they have other intell saying "wait a minute... maybe he doesn't have this capability after all. He's definitely a bad guy and would probably do it if he could... but we don't think he can."<< But this assumes that the White House holds all the intel,> No, just the most recent intell. <and that the Opposition Party Guy hasn't been paying attention for the last twenty years or so that he has been following developments on Mars (I mean Korea).> If you read more carefully, you'd know what I'm saying is that Mr. OPG has been paying attention, has been denouncing Kim, etc. etc. He knows Kim's a bad guy. He knows he's got a taste for WMD. But he doesn't know he should be invaded. And then the admin. comes to Congress and says "here's the latest and greatest intell" and sells Congress on invasion - but doesn't give them ALL the new intell, or doesn't note the dissents, or relegates the dissents and caveats to footnotes. <The fact is that everyone knew that Saddam had WMDs in the past, everyone thought he had them on the eve of war, and everyone worried that he would use them.> But not everyone "knew" that therefore Iraq needed to be invaded and occupied, now did they? Besides, "know" isn't really the right word there anyway, is it? And IMO, invading and occupying a country requires the bar of "KNOW." Not "think." Not "pretty sure." Not "the other side of the aisle thinks so too." Not "most of the intell says this, and let's just minimize the dissents and go for it."
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Why are you guys arguing with Dug that Saddam should still be in power? Should we let him go since "Bush lied" and the war is "illegal"? How about focusing on WINNING instaed of rewriting history? Seems like our friends on the left won't be happy until we are totally humilited by the terrorists and Bush is blamed for the loss. Pathetic.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Why are you guys arguing with Dug that Saddam should still be in power?> Why are you arguing something no one is arguing?
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Dabob, if your arguing that the war was not needed and that Bush lied, then you are arguing that Saddam should still be in power. Why not just admit you were perfectly fine with him filling mass graves, invading other countries, using chemical weapons on innocent people, paying terrorists for suicide bombings, and having his two sons rape and murder whoever they wanted? Otherwise, why talk about how wrong Bush was to remove Saddam? So yes, you still want him there. You guys give great talking points to Saddams lawyers, you know that?
