Can we say FOR CERTAIN there are no WMDs? Well . . . almost.

[skip fox]

Nothing's for certain, but the 'logical reasons' the conservatives trot out to 'prove' the weapons exist or existed are weak, whereas the practical logic of the current situation suggests (STRONGLY) that WMDs do not exist in Iraq and did not exist in Iraq during America's build-up to the war in 2002.

Conservatives' "reasons" for the existence of WMDs:

1. We know Saddam had WMDs (circa early 1990s) and he never gave us proof of their destruction. No rational person would subject his country to potential attack if the reason for the attack did not exist. (Note: these are the same people who call Saddam a madman.) This argument is moderately compelling, but ignores many other reasons Saddam would not want to prove that he had destroyed his WMDs like saving face (his prestige in standing up to the US was extraordinarily important to him) or like not signalling potential enemies (like Iran) that he had only conventional weapons with which to defend his country.



Practical reasons indicating the absence of WMDs:

1. He didn't use them when attacked, even when his back was against the wall. This is a strong argument and is only countered with: "He mistakenly hid the WMDs in such a way they were not quickly accessible," or "He was worried about what the US would do in retaliation." Perhaps. But on the face of it, this reason for the non-existence of the WMDs is AT LEAST as compelling as the only reason for their existence.

2. We captured damned near the entire deck of cards and nobody has yet pointed out the whereabouts of current WMDs (the closest we came was a scientist who pointed to his backyard with decade's old equipment beneath a rosebush). As desperate as we are to find and proclaim the existence of WMDs or a viable program for their devrlopment, we have threatened, cajoled, injected (truth serum), and made promises (of immunity, of save havens with houses for their families in other countries) to every high-level (and many low-level) prisoners in an attempt to have them point out the weapons' location. Although far from reluctant (note how the prisoners have quickly given up colleagues and Saddam's other minions), none have pointed out WMDs. This reason seems far more compelling than the sole reason the conservatives use to 'prove' the existence of such weapons.



Only one argument gives me the slightest pause: That we (Lay & Co.) have already discovered WMDs but are carefully cataloging them and making sue of their proofs before going public.

BUT . . . would an administration that touted two mobile helium labs as WMDs in a speech in France (W. himself) even as their use was still in doubt, be cautious or concerned about the niceties of accuracy before announncing what they have been so desparate to announce for over 4 months now? I really doubt it.



So . . . Although we can't say for certain, I think we can safely bet that no Iraqi WMDs will ever be discovered. In other words: "This one ain't comin' back to bite us in the butt."

[sandnsea]

1. Probably not, but one thing is for sure

They didn't know anything existed before they invaded, they lied about that. If they had known of a location, they would have secured it to keep those weapons from being used on our troops.

The fact that they didn't even secure the IAEA nuclear location, is an extreme dereliction on the part of Rumsfeld and Franks, in my opinion.

But let's let Bush off the hook and keep harping on who did and didn't vote for the war!!!

[skip fox]

2. Good point!

We gotta keep it front and center. Damn straight.

This war is bankrupting us financially and in terms of international crediblity. To give Bush a pass on this, would be like saying Hitler had a little thing against the Jews, but guaging from the times, we shouldn't hold that against him.

Part of what I'm suggesting, is that we can go full bore on this and not worry about getting bit with it (when they discover WMDs) later.

[Terwilliger]

3. I'll say for certain: The "WMD" issue was a ruse

Saddam had nothing that really threatened anyone that we didn't know about. This whole thing has been a crime against humanity.

[ElementaryPenguin]

10. Right on, T! Very succinctly put!

eom

[Don_G]

4. Iraq Has Them

The Amazing Kreskin verified Dimbo's allegations on national television.

[skip fox]

7. Geez. Well . . . I guess that shoots the hell outta my theory!

:toast:

[Ein]

5. They are going to 'find' some.

Mark my words. They are going to plant them.

[teknomanzer]

14. They won't dare try to plant them...

Someone mentioned before that every country in the world is anticipating such a move and would love to catch the US red handed trying to pull this kind of sh*t. You think we have no prestige now... what do you think will happen if Bush gets caught trying to do that.

Besides that, Bush no longer needs to make the case for an action that has already been implemented. Also, half the American public could give less of shit whether Saddam had weapons or not. They believe he was a bad evil man, and helped to plot the attacks of September 11.

[AP]

6. Another possibility. They're all in Saudia Arabia

And Bush won't touch them, and maybe the Saudis don't like Bush all that much either. Or maybe one faction of Saudis is helping hussein, while another faction has bush in their pocket, so it's a triangulation thing.

In any event, it was the Saudis who gave Hussein millions of dollars to start a nuclear program (it's all in The Best Democracy Money Could Buy), so you think that they'd probably want to take possession of whatever their money was invested in.

[skip fox]

8. Interesting . . .

:toast:

[AP]

11. I think, if you read The Best Democracy Money Can Buy, this

is a possibility that Pallast's observations suggest (although Pallast doesn't take his analysis this far).

[ddoumeche]

22. Cynical

Maybe someone in Langley is working hard to build them, because he outsourced the task to India or China. Let him time.

[Junkdrawer]

9. What if Saddam cut a deal?

So he has a choice: Use what ever he had and face certain death - OR - secretly negotiate a deal where he goes into quiet exile and tells BushCo where the weapons are. BushCo waits for maximum political benefit before revealing the finds.

Not saying this is my best guess, but it (or something like it) is a possibility. There was a fairly credible story that some of the top generals took such a deal.

[skip fox]

12. Yes, of course, the wait for 'maximum possible political benefit' argument

--and, I understand, junkdrawer, that you're putting it out there in the interest of being thorough--of covering all the bases. But when I remember Bush's speech in France touting those two trailors as proof, or all the gloating when the rosebush was dug up, etc., etc., and the shrill tone strongly suggests they ain't got shit or we would have heard about it. If they really had anything, there certainly wouldn't be all this backpedalling from Weapons of Mass Destruction, to Programs to Develop Weapons of Mass Destruction, to (only today) 'Well, Saddam was collecting and harboring scientists who could have created a program to develop Weapons of Mass Destruction':

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=97642

The only position supported by all the information we have to date points to the absence of WMDs.

[Junkdrawer]

15. My guess is that if they were waiting, we'll know in the next month...

or two. By then all the Dem. candidates will have taken a position. Of course the best timing would be to wait until an antiwar candidate is chosen, then announce the "finds", but that would look too much like a set-up. Then again, nobody have ever called these guys on any of their obvious political timing of war announcements.

[skip fox]

18. What about the continual backpedaling?

Yes, I see. But I'm trying to look at all the 'evidence' we have, and I find only one conclusion consistent with aALL the information: no WMDs.

Gotta go, but it's been fun discussing this.

I just think if we look at it entire we'll see that we can more aggressively hold the administration to account. I don't think there's much to worry about.

On edit, hee's the item on today's backpedaling:

<http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/wire/sns-ap-iraq-us-bolton,0,6603517.story?coll=sns-ap-world-headlines>

PARIS -- The U.S.-led invasion of Iraq was justified in part because Saddam Hussein retained scientists capable of building
nuclear weapons, Washington's top arms control official said Thursday.

In an interview with The Associated Press, John Bolton, undersecretary of state for arms control, said that whether Saddam's
regime actually possessed weapons of mass destruction "isn't really the issue."

"The issue I think has been the capability that Iraq sought to have ... WMD programs," Bolton said at the U.S. Embassy in
Paris.

Bolton said that Saddam kept "a coterie" of scientists he was preserving for the day when he could build nuclear weapons
unhindered by international constraints.



If we had found WMDs or actually thought we would find some in the future, would Bolton have said this??? And the 'this' is part of a pattern.

[teknomanzer]

17. You forgot the most recent lie...

Saddam sent out spies to mislead us about WMD.

[jfxgillis]

13. Skip. Sorry, there's at least one error.

This:

"This is a strong argument and is only countered with: "He mistakenly hid the WMDs in such a way they were not quickly accessible," or "He was worried about what the US would do in retaliation."

is wrong.

To have used WMDs at any time before the war was irretreivably lost would have completely vindicated his adversary's justification. If his plan was to drag things out and hope for a diplomatic rescue after a stalemate, which would have been his most rational alternative in the days before the shooting started, using WMDs would have DEMOLISHED Arab League/Russian/French attempts to negotuiate a ceasefire. To use them after the point where the war was irretrivably lost (assuming that point has been reached) precludes the use of WMDs almost by definition, since the command/control and other infrastructure would presumably have fallen to the enemy.

For the record, my bet is on finding a much smaller (obviously) but still operational WMD reserve than Bush indicated pre-war. Maybe a building the size of a garage with a a few dozen nerve-gas shell.

[skip fox]

16. Possibly, but that still does not stand up to

the "fact" that no Iraqi (given all the prisoners we have) has helped us locate any WMDs. Surely they're not as allusive as Saddam. They are stationary and MANY would have had to know of their whereabouts. With the inducements and threats that the prisoners have been given . . . well, I've already made that case.

[jfxgillis]

19. First of all ...

... You addressed an argument to a specfic point, and I addressed my rebuttal to that specfic point. Your surrebuttal addresses another point. The fact that WMDs were not used cannot support even a negative inference, let alone a positive inference with respect to the existence or not of WMDs.

The other point you make is also something of a negative inference. Since we have not yet captured Saddam OR HIS PERSONAL ENTOURAGE, the opposite inference--that we haven't captured the WMD biggies yet--is just as valid as the inference that we have and that what they haven't said increases the liklihood of no WMDs.

FYI, this is almost the EXACT RECIPROCAL of the line of argument Camhi and I have been tormenting each other with over at the board we frequent. Laugh. Not that I'm hypocrite, just that my position lies pretty much at the mid-point between "WMDs" and "No WMDs."

[StandWatie]

20. it's a stupid theory

What the hell would they want with a few old VX shells. "Vindication" doesn't mean shit, you could maybe believe that Saddam was stupid enough to think that Bush ever entertained notions of not attacking Iraq (He wasn't and sad as much over and over). For what possible reason would they retain a weapons program and just make little tiny bits of mostly useless unconventional weapons while they let the tanks fall apart?

[jfxgillis]

21. No, your response is a stupid theory

My theory, for example, RELIES on the fact that Saddam expected Bush to attack.

If Saddam's best chance lay in holding off the invaders in a stalemate, followed by a "political" solution, i.e., third-party-inspired ceasefire arrangements, NOTHING would more totally destroy the feasability of that than to vindicate Bush's justification by using WMDs.

As for your second point, why does any autocrat keep a small, tight and highly advanced reserve about his person?

[StandWatie]

23. what point is there in making small amounts?

Maybe you don't grok this but it's actually more expensive to make small lots of VX or Sarin or Anthrax. Especially the biologicals, you need to keep culturing and producing or they die. This stuff has a limited shelf life.

[jfxgillis]

24. One reason would be--

--as I implied before, for protection of the PERSON of the autocrat.

Another reason might be, it only takes a small amount actually used to intimidate a much larger population. In the '80s, Saddam didn't wipe out the Kurdish region, he used a small amount on a village or two, a few thousand people at most, then relied on fear of a repeat as a means of control.

Thirdly, rightly or wrongly, players at the bloody game of international strategy like to keep a trump card in their hand, even if they don't know quite how it might someday be played. Put yourself in Saddam's place: "Do I want to strip myself utterly bare of this implement or do I want to eliminate only as much as is required not to provoke the world into toppling me?" Why would he choose a when b had the same effect and allowed him a fraction more ability?

[StandWatie]

26. it's no trump card

It's ludicrous, his enemies would have been US troops equiped with MOP gear.

This is the last gasp of imaginative horseshit to justify the fact that you were absolutely certain these weapons programs continued to function because denying that means that the government lies and has lied outrageously since 1991.

[skip fox]

25. No, no, my argument was that the totality of the evidence

suggests one conclusion: No WMDs.

And central to that is the current backpedaling which indicates the admin. was not holding back information on WMDs to use at a politically opportune moment and that we're not getting squat from the Iraqi prisoners. That, COUPLED with all else, indicates what I had concluded. I believe the only position consistent with all of the evidence is that Iraq did not have WMDs when we attacked.

Now, of course as these posts went further, he might have kept small samples and tucked them away somewhere where only he and a few others (not even his top scientists and generals???) knew . . . or he could have had everyone killed who had a hand in the hiding. But that seems tenuous . . . Wouldn't someone have talked by now? Especially since we caught the head of the former chemical weapons program et al.

[skip fox]

27. And this in today . . .

Britain and the US have combined to come up with entirely new explanations of why they went to war in
Iraq as inspectors on the ground prepare to report that there are no weapons of mass destruction there.

The "current and serious" threat of Iraq's WMD was the reason Tony Blair gave for going to war, but last
week the Prime Minister delivered a justification which did not mention the weapons at all. On the same
day John Bolton, US Under-Secretary of State for arms control, said that whether Saddam Hussein's
regime actually possessed WMD "isn't really the issue".

The 1,400-strong Iraq Survey Group, sent out in May to begin an intensive hunt for the elusive weapons,
is expected to report this week that it has found no WMD hardware, nor even any sign of active
programmes. The inspectors, headed by David Kay, a close associate of President George Bush, are likely
to say the only evidence it has found is that the Iraqi government had retained a group of scientists who
had the expertise to restart the weapons programme at any time.

Foreshadowing the report, Mr Bolton said the issue was not weapons, or actual programmes, but "the
capability that Iraq sought to have ... WMD programmes". Saddam, he claimed, kept "a coterie" of
scientists he was preserving for the day when he could build nuclear weapons unhindered by
international constraints. "Whether he possessed them today or four years ago isn't really the issue," he
said. "As long as that regime was in power, it was determined to get nuclear, chemical and biological
weapons one way or another. Until that regime was removed from power, that threat remained - that
was the purpose of the military action."

more…
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=441051

[Uzybone]

28. Yes we can

and for informed people to be speculating at this point in time on whether or not there are WMDs in Iraq shows why Bush was able to con the public into believeing him. If people who know the facts are still hemming and hawing, how about those who get thier info from the propaganda cable channels? They have not found WMDs becasue there were NO WMDs, we are giving them too much credit to think they have serious people over there cataloging the WMDS, the point you made about the balloon filling labs is very precise. They will yell to high hell once they found WMDs in any capacity (yes even one damn vial). Especially since his favorable ratings on 9/10/03 will be around where they were on 9/10/01.