Families of soldiers condemn Bush's war

Vince Brannigan wrote in message ...
Fred J. McCall wrote:
Vince Brannigan wrote:

:It's the country's war when Bush produces the WMDs he promised

Jesus Christ, Vince, what are you smoking THIS weekend? Were you
frightened by a bush when you were very young, or what? That's the
only excuse I can find for your unreasoned venom, since you're old
enough to not be behaving like a 13 year old.

:lest we forget....

Yeah, lest we forget, EVERYONE believed he had such weapons, including
the French, the Russians, and even Saddam himself, apparently. Now
it's suddenly all Bush's fault.

Get a clue....


People "believed" it because el Busho said it was so. It wasnt so.

Whjat we dont knwo yet is whether Busho was lying or delusional

Vkince, you should be the absolute *last* person to be hurling about
accusations that anyone is "delusional".

Brooks



Vince

Kevin Brooks wrote:


People "believed" it because el Busho said it was so. It wasnt so.

Whjat we dont knwo yet is whether Busho was lying or delusional

Vkince, you should be the absolute *last* person to be hurling about
accusations that anyone is "delusional".

I'm not the leader of the most powerful country on earth . sending the nation into war.

The Economist

October 4, 2003 U.S. Edition

SECTION: LEADER

LENGTH: 1243 words

HEADLINE: Wielders of mass deception? - Wielders of mass deception?

BODY:
THE road to war with Iraq was paved with arguments, good and bad. Among the many good ones were
Saddam Hussein's serial invasion of his neighbours, his neglect and murder of his own people, and his
recidivist disregard for the umpteen UN resolutions passed in the hope of domesticating him. But
there were some less good arguments advanced by the governments that ousted him. George Bush and Tony
Blair, it now appears, exaggerated the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD). This
is not just a negligible footnote in the history of Iraq's conquest and reconstruction--so much
propaganda under the bridge. In the eyes of the world, especially the Arab world, the flimsiness of
some of the claims about Mr Hussein's arsenal has helped to make a legitimate conflict seem
otherwise. It also risks making the danger posed by WMD seem more rhetorical and less real than it
is, and may jeopardise future efforts to deal with that danger, especially any that involve acting
pre-emptively. Ultimately, weaknesses in the Anglo-American case risk damaging the limited trust that
Britons and Americans place in their leaders. They may also have more tangible political
consequences. Mr Bush's popularity has been hit by the costs and complications of the post-war
occupation, but thus far Mr Blair has faced more flak over his case for war. As the presidential
election approaches, and more light is shone into both Mr Bush's case and the way the White House
dealt with its critics, the balance of political risk may well change.

The good, the bad and the exaggerated

Mr Bush and Mr Blair, remember, were only supporting witnesses in the argument that Mr Hussein
coveted and probably retained WMD. The main evidence came from the UN weapons inspectors, aided and
abetted by Mr Hussein himself. Those with the inclination and stamina--of whom, before the war, there
were few--can immerse themselves in more than a decade's worth of reports that detail Iraq's WMD
history. Despite brazen efforts to obstruct them, in the 1990s the inspectors uncovered, among other
things, Iraq's biological-weapons programmes. The shenanigans continued when the inspectors returned
to the country in 2002. As well as acting guilty right until the end, Mr Hussein had used WMD in the
past. Very few people believed that he had given them up of his own accord. The Economist was not
among them.

But the inspectors' findings were too arcane to be turned into soundbites. And in the end, they
amounted to a set of alarming questions about what Mr Hussein might be hiding, rather than firm
statements. So Mr Blair and Mr Bush levelled some accusations of their own, based on what their spies
told them ()see page 24. America, for instance, made frightening allegations about the progress of a
Saddamite nuclear bomb, and Iraq's links to al-Qaeda. Both governments had other reasons for wanting
to change Iraq's regime, which, in the weapons' absence, they are now busily stressing; but the case
they made to the world was firmly anchored in the WMD threat.

Six months and a war later, the American-led post-war inspectors were expected to tell Congress this
week that Mr Hussein's missile programmes and procurement efforts did indeed breach UN resolutions,
and offer other proof of his duplicity. Yet no actual WMD have come to light, let alone the
terrifying arsenal the world was led to expect. Even many who opposed the war are shocked and awed by
this, especially by the apparent absence of the chemical weapons Mr Hussein was widely believed to
have retained. Like inquisitors condemning a witch, some argue that this failure to find very much
simply confirms Mr Hussein's cunning. That is not good enough. By adding their own,
intelligence-based allegations to those of the UN's inspectors, Messrs Bush and Blair shifted part of
the burden of proof from Mr Hussein to themselves. Their own worst enemies

Two questions are raised by the elusiveness of the WMD. The first concerns Saddam. Why, if he had so
little to hide, did he subject his country to all those years of sanctions and bombings, and finally
to the war that dislodged him? One explanation is that Mr Hussein intentionally created uncertainty
about his arsenal: adversaries might be deterred, while his guilt could never be categorically
proven. This strategy may have extended to the issue of fake orders to his commanders to unleash
chemical weapons, in the hope that they would be overheard and deter the invasion. Or this
self-proclaimed heir of Saladin and
Nebuchadnezzar may have been unwilling to face the shame of submitting to the UN, and did not give a
fig about what his machismo cost his people. Or, as can be the fate of dictators, Mr Hussein's
minions may have led him to believe that he had a bigger punch, and more to hide, than he actually
did. When war was on his doorstep, they may have been too cowed to tell him the truth.

The second question concerns the governments of Britain and America: why did they make some claims
that now look exaggerated? Did the spies get it wrong, or did the politicians lie about what the
spies told them? Unless more intelligence is declassified (and it should be), it is hard to make a
definitive judgment; but parliamentary and congressional probes, and a British public inquiry,
enable an interim one. Both were culpable. The spies erred and the politicians exaggerated.

Iraq was, in spook parlance, a "hard target". Reliable, on-the-ground intelligence was hard to come
by, as is inevitable in a country where minor disloyalty was punishable by death, or worse. But that
doesn't get the politicians off the hook. Intelligence, like those UN reports, tends to deal in
subjunctives: it often speaks of what might or could be going on rather than what definitely is.
Politicians, on the other hand, prefer indicatives or imperatives. What in some cases began as
nuanced reports became much more certain; and while both Mr Bush and Mr Blair often spoke, quite
reasonably, of future dangers and of possible threats, they sought as well to grab the attention
through more specific claims. It also seems possible that some dated intelligence was used to portray
a current menace. In the case of the al-Qaeda connection, Mr Bush's team wilfully over-interpreted
the little proof they had. This impression of cavalier behaviour, especially on the part of the
Americans, may yet be dispelled--either by a fuller disclosure of the intelligence, or by further
discoveries in Iraq. Indeed, it would be astonishing if no such discoveries were made. But judging by
the way some British and American officials have been playing down expectations--sliding from
talking about actual weapons to discussing weapons programmes and plans--they are not overly
optimistic. Even if some WMD are found, many of the specific Anglo-American claims seem unlikely to
be vindicated.

The response of some cynics is that governments are always economical with the actualite, especially
when selling a controversial policy--and the Iraq war, a war of choice, fought in spite of much of
the world's disapproval, was an especially hard sell. The reverse is true: the standards of accuracy
and sobriety should have been all the more scrupulous because of the controversy, and because so many
lives were at stake. The war, we still think, was justified. But in making the case for it, Mr Bush
and Mr Blair did not play straight with their people.
October 3, 2003




Vince

In message , Leslie Swartz
writes
Vince:

- What about the 30 or so 55 gal drums of Lewisite?

Which were found when and where?

- What about the mobile chem labs?

You mean the canvas-sided trailers that might be mobile WME factories...
or might be mobile hydrogen generators?

- What about the Rycin?

Ricin. Some evidence of ricin manufacture turned up in a UK house (it's
not that hard to do) but I don't recall any significant Iraqi program
being discovered.

- What about the Botulinum?

How much, how weaponised?

- What about the anthrax cultures?

Is this the culture that a scientist was told to hide in his
refrigerator in 1991?

- What about the residuals at various dumping sites?

What about them? Any recent activity?

How much "evidence of WMD;" or, more to the point, "evidence of WMD
programs" is enough for you?

Enough to suggest that there was a significant threat of weaponised,
deployable agents.

We know he used to have a WME program; ask an Iranian veteran, ask a
Kurd. We know a lot of it was captured or destroyed post-1991 and more
destroyed in 1998. What we don't know with certainty is (a) how much he
actually had, (b) how much was lost or destroyed, (c) how much the
Iraqis disposed of themselves.


In six months of occupation, with unlimited access, and many key
decisionmakers and scientists in custody, we haven't found any
deployable weapons, nor any means to produce them in a useful timescale.



--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

"Leslie Swartz" wrote in message ...
Vince:

- What about the 30 or so 55 gal drums of Lewisite?
- What about the mobile chem labs?
- What about the Rycin?
- What about the Botulinum?
- What about the anthrax cultures?
- What about the residuals at various dumping sites?

How much "evidence of WMD;" or, more to the point, "evidence of WMD
programs" is enough for you?

Steve Swartz

You are forgetting that Vkince and his ilk only consider it a WMD
program if they can point to a physical and truly massive stockpile of
active agents already in a weaponized state. That approach makes it so
much easier for them to continue to bash Bush and the US. And BTW: you
can add the development of the tactical ballistic missiles that
exceeded the range allowed per the resolutions/cease fire agreement in
your list as well.

Brooks



"Vince Brannigan" wrote in message
...


Fred J. McCall wrote:
Vince Brannigan wrote:

:It's the country's war when Bush produces the WMDs he promised

Jesus Christ, Vince, what are you smoking THIS weekend? Were you
frightened by a bush when you were very young, or what? That's the
only excuse I can find for your unreasoned venom, since you're old
enough to not be behaving like a 13 year old.

:lest we forget....

Yeah, lest we forget, EVERYONE believed he had such weapons, including
the French, the Russians, and even Saddam himself, apparently. Now
it's suddenly all Bush's fault.

Get a clue....


People "believed" it because el Busho said it was so. It wasnt so.

Whjat we dont knwo yet is whether Busho was lying or delusional


Vince

Vince Brannigan wrote:
[....]
People "believed" it because el Busho said it was so. It wasnt so.

Whjat we dont knwo yet is whether Busho was lying or delusional

Now, Vince, that is falling prey to your own political mindset.
Not everything is reducable to such politically naive pandering.

In reality, a very large portion of the people who paid
attention to the Iraqi WMD threat from the early through
mid and late 1990s all agreed that it was likely that Iraq
still had hidden some materials and had obviously hidden
large amounts of information. Many of us believed that
from 1991 and 1992, long before G W Bush had run for
Governor in Texas much less for president.

There were large, known gaps in the information provided
UNSCOM and then UNMOVIC, and in the information they were
able to take during inspections. Some of those were gaps
where it appears in retrospect that the Iraqis truly had
just destroyed records and they're gone; interviews with
the participants on the Iraqi side, done post-Iraqi
Freedom, indicate that a lot of them claim that's what
happened. But they weren't allowed to fully disclose the
details prior to Iraqi Freedom and nobody believed them,
not the US, UNMOVIC, the UN Security Council, France,
Russia, etc.

It appears likely that the reason they weren't allowed to
fully disclose them, and that the Iraqi government didn't
cooperate with the inspections regime fully at any point,
was that Iraq followed a conscious strategy of both
disarming (at least functionally, though some bits and
pieces were left and were discovered throughout the 1990s)
and maintaining a large scale deception program to maintain
a deterrent belief in their neighbors' (and internal
minorities and dissidents) minds as to whether they were
really completely disarmed or not.

Liberals who are anti-war often refuse to acknowledge
the existence of a long and quite detailed history of
investigations and evidence which quite credibly would
lead an independent thinker to conclude that Iraq was
in fact hiding a real program. Hans Blix spent many
years convinced there was in fact something there,
though he changed his mind before the war when it
appeared that his conclusions might be used to justfiy
the war, which he didn't want to happen.

It is probably true that the majority of the population
didn't care one way or the other until Bush put forwards
his belief and made a point of it. It is a grossly
misinformed lie that nobody had education and belief on
the issue prior to then, and that nobody agreed with the
conclusion prior to then.

The implications of Saddam Hussein's deception program having
been successful in fooling those of us (including in the US
government, and outside) who thought the threat was real,
are a serious problem. We did not have good enough solid enough
intelligence on what was really happening. But the problem
was clearly a very hard one: penetrating a program in a hostile
warlike country, in which the leadership had committed itself
to maintaining a deception as a matter of national urgent
priority, and was willing to kill and torture to help cover
up what it was really doing.

In the end, Saddam could have ended the deception at any point
since 1991 and, after a reasonably short verification program,
ended the sanctions and the threats of ongoing violence and
war which eventually escalated to the US invasion. He chose
not to comply materially until the US had already given up on
peaceful options and committed to launch the war. That decision
and the consequences lie on his head.

Knowing what we knew pre-war, the conclusion that he was
still hiding a WMD program was well supported and reasonable.
Not universally agreed with, but well supported and reasonable.
And at least largely wrong, as we now know.


-george william herbert

Kevin Brooks wrote:
"Leslie Swartz" wrote in message ...

Vince:

- What about the 30 or so 55 gal drums of Lewisite?
- What about the mobile chem labs?
- What about the Rycin?
- What about the Botulinum?
- What about the anthrax cultures?
- What about the residuals at various dumping sites?

How much "evidence of WMD;" or, more to the point, "evidence of WMD
programs" is enough for you?

Steve Swartz


You are forgetting that Vkince and his ilk only consider it a WMD
program if they can point to a physical and truly massive stockpile of
active agents already in a weaponized state. That approach makes it so
much easier for them to continue to bash Bush and the US. And BTW: you
can add the development of the tactical ballistic missiles that
exceeded the range allowed per the resolutions/cease fire agreement in
your list as well.

I'll take a single solitary weapon ready for use.

one, just one

not a chemist with a Ph.D. who might be able to make one in 5 years

we've got lots of them at maryland

1 single battle ready WMD

Then all those Americans and others did not die in vain.

got one?

Call when you find

One singular sensation
Every little step it takes.
One
thrilling combination
Every move that it makes.
One wmd and suddenly nobody else will do;

You know you'll never be lonely with you know who.

One moment in its presence
And you can forget the rest.
For the wmd is second best
To none,
Son.
Ooooh! Sigh! Give it your attention.
Do...I...really have to mention?
its the One?

Got "one" ?

Look the families in the eye on veterans day and show them the WMD their
loved ones died for

Vince

George William Herbert wrote:
Vince Brannigan wrote:

[....]

Knowing what we knew pre-war, the conclusion that he was
still hiding a WMD program was well supported and reasonable.
Not universally agreed with, but well supported and reasonable.
And at least largely wrong, as we now know.


-george william herbert


ole busho gambled and lost. unfortuantely the lives that were
lost were not his campaign supporters.

Vince

I'll take a single solitary weapon ready for use.

one, just one

NO, you still wouldnt be satisfied, you and others would say it was one of ours
and that it was planted to support the presidents claims. You and many others
won't be satisfied that there were WMD and programs to develop them until some
radical muslim extremist parks one in your back yeard and sets it off,, Oh i
forget,, htat would be the presidents fault also.

Jim

Vince Brannigan wrote:
George William Herbert wrote:
Vince Brannigan wrote:
[....]
Knowing what we knew pre-war, the conclusion that he was
still hiding a WMD program was well supported and reasonable.
Not universally agreed with, but well supported and reasonable.
And at least largely wrong, as we now know.

ole busho gambled and lost. unfortuantely the lives that were
lost were not his campaign supporters.

You are failing to move beyond your own political prejudices.

It's perfectly reasonable to debate the point whether the
state of knowledge when the US went from vague threats to
escalating ultimatums justified a prompt war. That debate
was valid and quite fruitful, then and now.

It's not reasonable, at all, to debate whether the preponderance
of information available to the west indicated at least some
concealed program and at least some concealed information in
Iraq at that time. Nobody who has ever seriously looked at
that question, regardless of their opinions on the first
question, has ever come away with a coherent case to the
contrary of that conclusion.

You are conflating the two questions. Because you are
ideologically biased against the outcome of the first question.

I know you know you're doing it; unlike questions of law or
engineering where you clearly know that you're qualified to
answer (even if some judgement / opinion calls may be disagreed
with by other professionals), on this issue you have rarely
posted more than a one or two sentence ideological snap.

The question is whether you can rise above your preconception
on this question to study enough about it to be able to
speak with authority, as opposed to just blind raging
opinion as you do now.

Fortunately, education on this point is rather easy,
if somewhat tedious: The UNSCOM and UNMOVIC reports are all
online thanks to the UN. A few websites, a few books from
the library (Hamza's, Butler's... that's an acceptable
start at least) plus actually reading the whole UNSCOM/
UNMOVIC report history at least once usually is an adequate
first pass. Unfortunately typically over a week's work:
UNSCOM and UNMOVIC reports are voluminous, and they
reported at least once a quarter since 1991...

Also:
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Iraq/index.html
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Iraq/IraqRefs.html
http://www.cns.miis.edu/research/iraq/index.htm
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/index.html
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/deception.htm


-george william herbert

Vince Brannigan wrote in message ...
Kevin Brooks wrote:
"Leslie Swartz" wrote in message ...

Vince:

- What about the 30 or so 55 gal drums of Lewisite?
- What about the mobile chem labs?
- What about the Rycin?
- What about the Botulinum?
- What about the anthrax cultures?
- What about the residuals at various dumping sites?

How much "evidence of WMD;" or, more to the point, "evidence of WMD
programs" is enough for you?

Steve Swartz


You are forgetting that Vkince and his ilk only consider it a WMD
program if they can point to a physical and truly massive stockpile of
active agents already in a weaponized state. That approach makes it so
much easier for them to continue to bash Bush and the US. And BTW: you
can add the development of the tactical ballistic missiles that
exceeded the range allowed per the resolutions/cease fire agreement in
your list as well.

I'll take a single solitary weapon ready for use.

Those missiles?


one, just one

That's one, just one...so now you agree they were in violation?

snip repetitive rants


Got "one" ?

Look the families in the eye on veterans day and show them the WMD their
loved ones died for

You overly sanctimonious son of a bitch. You are without a doubt the
last individual in this country who should look any veteran "in the
eye" on *any* day of the year, with your self-serving 'I didn't serve
because it was inconvenient, and I don't like to take orders'
bull****. You have done nothing but scorn the efforts and sacrifices
of those who did serve, and those who died, from before the time this
operation even started. I rarely descend to the level of actually
cussing out a slimy, yellow bellied little cretin such as yourself,
but you are singularly deserving of every bit of contempt I can
scrounge up. Feel free to (again) invite me up for a personal review
of these comments--the last time you did that you quickly
backscrabbled into the "but if you do show up, I'll file suit" crap
when it came time for the rubber to meet the road, so I have no doubt
any renewed sense of backbone you might dredge up will once again
prove to be a merely transient gesture on your part. What a sad little
excuse for a man you are.

Brooks


Vince