Warrik's WaPo article is ludicrous.
Immediately, the following question occurred to me:
1. Why a mobile hydrogen factory for weather balloons, instead of transporting tanks of hydrogen in regular trucks? Is that SOP?
2.The Jefferson team was 9 civilian scientists. The anonymous whistleblowers for the WaPo article were 6 government officials and weapons experts. So, why not the actual scientists; and by the article's own admission, some officials/experts who may not have even been there.
3. If the mobile labs were made for hydrogen production, could that have been a WMD application?
4. Seeing how this is a case of some opinions vs others, what would be your basis for believing just the ones that support your position?
5. Do you require that any one who makes a claim not 100% supported by 100% of the experts should apologize and accept defeat, or just your political opponents? Do all the Democrats who said Saddam had WMD also owe us an apology, given that they voted for Bush to intervene to disarm Saddam, and knowing full well that would be military intervention? Should they step down for making a mistake?
Some of the questions are rhetorical. If you do not find them addressed below, they were not meant for you to answer. Of course you may answer them, if you like. But before you do, you should ask them to yourself, with all gravity and honesty. They're good questions.
Any way, those were the questions that occurred off the top of my head, the easy ones that should have occurred to anyone with an open mind. As I commenced to investigating my questions, I found that someone else already addressed some, and had quite effectively debunked Warrik’s article. Please see SEIXON's post of 4/12/2006, Hydrogen Warfare. Endymion and I so enjoyed his site, we added him to the blogroll. I considered researching all his points before posting myself, but I barely have enough time to do what I already do. I checked out some of them, enough to satisfy my trust of the author. If my debaters wish to debunk this post, they can do so on their own. I can't do all their research for them. If they just disregard the post without due consideration, I’ll know this is not an honest debate.
So what it boils down to is this. Saddam has not been proven (as far as we can tell) to possess WMD at the time of the invasion. Neither has he been proven otherwise. There is evidence of WMD that is circumstantial, but compelling. The case for disregarding this evidence is weak given that such a position creates a burden of proof that hamstrings our ability to defend ourselves against devastating attacks.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
I am going to respond to this post because you claim to want an honest debate.
1. a) The London Observer, on June 15, 2003, citing British intelligence sources, reported that it was "likely that the units were designed to be used for hydrogen production to fill artillery balloons, part of a system originally sold to Saddam by Britain in 1987. b) ISG judged that the facilities were intended for use as hydrogen generators for Republican Guard artillery units for use with radio-sonde balloons. Although the equipment was poorly constructed, it would be consistent with the hydrogen generation process detailed in documents from the Al Kindi Company. Moreover, reports and other documents provided by high-ranking officials from Al Kindi, detailing milestones in the manufacture and testing of the trailers, are consistent with the reporting on their stage of construction. For more details on ISG's judgements of the discovered trailers, see the Annex in its 2004 Report.
2. You realize the technical report is still classified. WaPo did report, "'Within the first four hours,' said one team member, who like the others spoke on the condition he not be named, 'it was clear to everyone that these were not biological labs.'" If the administration is going to classify everything remotely connected to WMD you don't get to complain about anonymous sources.
3. Remember, honest debate not conspiracy theories. If it was designed to be used in such a manner, somebody would have figured that out by now.
4. This is NOT a case of some opinions against others, every technical expert agreed that it was useless for producing bioweapons.
5. Cheney, Bush, etc. all made the claims about WMD with absolute assurance. If they had simply said that most of the intelligence points towards WMD, nobody could have accused them afterwards of cherry picking the intelligence they wanted. Since they failed to qualify their remarks, they should apologize. If Democrats were misled by the administration, they should also apologize for believing the administration.
I don't know where you get the notion that I want defeat to occur. What they should do is stop thinking that "stay the course" is a legitimate strategy. When staying the course is precisely what has allowed the insurgency, sectarian violence, kidnappings, and daily bomb attacks to flourish.
I supported this war at the outset, even though there were some slight misgivings about leaving Afghanistan too quickly. After six months of an occupation that was clearly without direction, I got angry at the idiots in charge. Even the janitors at the State Department and CIA could have planned a better occupation than this.
I checked all 15 of the links under the Gateway Pundit heading and they all worked for me.
Maybe you're right. Bush is great, Cheney is great, Rummy is great and this whitehouse is the best ever. There have been no mistakes or lies. Can I have an A now:)
Stephen,
1. The weather balloon / artillery balloon is the same thing. The reason I didn’t address my own question here is because Seixon already did so, and very effectively. I looked up your Observer article. It is another iteration of the same content in the Guardian article that Seixon specifically named in his post. I checked the annex of the ISG report of 2004, and found nothing addressing the trailers specifically. You’ll have to be more specific, or provide a direct quote. Warrik’s article uses these quotes: “impractical for biological agent production," and "almost certainly designed and built for the generation of hydrogen". Words like “impractical”, and “almost certainly” lack the conviction I would have expected given the charges you’ve leveled. Did you read the Seixon link?
2. I do realize the report is still classified. But the scientists could have leaked just as easily as did the govnt. officials and weapons experts (who apparently above reproach). But they didn’t. None of Warrik’s informants were any of the actual scientists, and by Warrik’s own admission, some weren’t even on the team. I didn’t ever complain about the fact that they were anonymous (sometimes anonymity is necessary to protect truth-tellers), but while we’re on the subject, how does one defend oneself against anonymous sources in a case such as this? The official papers say one thing, anonymous sources say another. We have to take the word of this reporter that these sources even exist. Maybe they do, and what they say is true, but what they have provided us is nothing more that an unsubstantiated red flag. Furthermore, you have no idea what is classified, so it’s just drama to make quips like “everything remotely connected to WMD”.
3. I think it’s interesting that you think I’m the one engaged in conspiracy theory. You are defending anonymous, second hand statements, in an article that has been shown to be disingenuous at best. The opposing point of view is in the white papers, the official statements of all the teams, still officially backed by the DIA. Is it not your position that these unprovable statements trump the official statements, and thereby prove how those in power lie to protect their power? Sounds like classic conspiracy theory to me. Also, it is ridiculous to ever take the position on any topic that if it could be true some one would have figured it out, and you would know about it. Where info is classified, how do you know what has or has not “been figured out”?
4. There were three teams. The final team is the only one that has been suggested to be in consensus, and only by unverifiable sources. The official statement says otherwise.
5. There is no reason to apologize, since they have not been proven wrong. They have not been proven right, as I have said before, but the evidence remains compelling. Will you apologize if one day they’re proven right? And why should any one apologize for being misled? What is it with your obsession with apologies? An apology cannot change the fact that Saddam defied weapons inspections and sanctions, and those two facts alone justify the invasion. They came on strong about WMD, and that will have been a political error if we don’t find absolute proof. But not finding WMD after the fact does not change the conditions that existed at the time of the invasion. As I said before, an act of good faith does not require apology. Do you think politicians are sincere when they apologize? Good luck with that.
Where do you get the notion I have the notion “you” want defeat to occur? I think the Left in general would like to see the war fail, because it weakens Republicans politically, and thereby strengthens the Left. You said you don’t follow the Leftists in this attitude, and I took you at your word.
Stay the course is not a strategy. It is a mantra to discourage the idea that we should withdraw before Iraq is stabilized. You have yet to provide proof that the violence you described would not occur with the strategies you have yet to provide. You have yet to show me a war that was as neat and uncomplicated as you demand of this one. What do you define as “direction” in an occupation?
Last time I checked, the success of a war was determined by the winning of it. History looks back upon the mistakes made in war, and critiques our leaders, every one. But it does not declare failure, nor demand humble apology for falling short of perfection.
BYT,
I checked all 15 of the links under the Gateway Pundit heading and they all worked for me.
What’s that got to do with the price of tea in China?
You get an A for brevity, but an F for content.
I never said Bush and his admin. don’t make mistakes. I just don’t have the same disagreements with them that you do.
Endymion says that comments like this, that are just sarcastic and do nothing to advance the discussion, should be deleted. I like to leave them up, though, ‘cause next to this, I look like a freakin’ genius.
Do These Articles Make the Case Against Bush in Iraq? Part I
The topics of the next three posts are in response to three articles sent to me by my debater burtyoutires (BYT). He thinks he's exposed Bush, his cronies, and the war for the frauds he thinks they are. What I find in his arguments is a willingness to accept accusations as evidence of misconduct.
There would have been four articles to which I'm responding, but some of the addresses provided by BYT led to error pages. In the case of the WaPo article by Warrik, I was able to find it by googling the topic. I'm assuming it is the article to which BYT referred. There was also a BBC article, but the address didn't work, and BYT did not provide enough info for me to find what article he meant.
In your post, you said the links don't work. they work for me just fine. If there's a problem with something as easy as copy/pasting or clicking links, we can't really go any further.
Bush will start his pull out in Iraq. They've done all they said they would do and things are getting worse.
why I bring up your bad link post is that was the only thing living in reality.
BYT,
I set out to examine 4 articles for which YOU provided web addresses in YOUR COMMENTS. I could only do 3, because of addresses that didn't work. What this has to do 15 links at Gateway pundit, I don't know. Are you saying the links came from Gateway? Was I supposed to glean that from anything you provided in your comments? You really do write in a very unclear manner. You can pretend it's my fault that I don't understand, but I don't know who you think you're kidding. I did my best to find each article, and given that two addresses didn't work, I think I did a pretty good job. There is no need to take the position that we can't have a discussion if links don't work. I found one of the articles by googling the topic you identified plus the news agency in the address. I did my work in good faith. If you actually want me to read the info you provide, you'll have to try harder to make sure it works. It's just a matter of courtesy to make sure your addresses work, or provide extra info so they're locatable.
well, i guess the one bbc link didn't work. It did at the time. Your original response lead me to believe there were multiple links that didn't work and I didn't know which ones you were talking about.
You can criticize my writing style all you want. That's subjective. I keep my critics of other peoples style to myself because I didn't think that was important. I try and keep it short and to the point without alot of excess gargabe and big words to make people think I'm smart.
I think you understood the points I was making and if not there were many links (except for one) that backed up what I was saying.
I'm not in this to publish articles and I'm not a professional political writer and never said I wanted to be. The thing is, no one here is either. It's all subjective. Maybe they just passed me on through college and grad school, but I doubt it:)
I stand by what I have written and the evidence i've produced. If you have to criticize my writing style... well...so be it. If you have to delete posts, it probably isn't the first or last time things will be deleted. You still haven't changed my mind on this topic or come up with any evidence to prove this war wasn't anything but bogus. It also sounds as if I haven't changed your mind.
What worries me is your brood are missing alot of facts. For instance, you were unaware Wolfawitz (sp) said Iraq would pay for reconstruction or unaware the mobile bio labs were balloon fillers.
Why did it take a former CIA agent to confront rummy and call out his lies. (You saw this i'm sure). Why did it take a civilian to call rummy a fibber? Where is the press and why aren't they doing their job. This guy quoted rummy's lies back to him and rummy denied it.
We got saddam, liberated iraq, started a government, found no wmd. What else is there to do?
byt
Since I have no idea what Seixon's qualifications are, if any, I will assume he is as much an expert on this issue as the rest of us. The important thing for this story is that the third team was the only technically proficient team to inspect the trailers. If George Tenet really did tell Bush that the WMD angle was a "slam dunk" the pressure on the CIA to find WMD would have been enormous. The other teams were composed of analysts or officials who may have had limited knowledge about what to look for, but the third team knew the ins and outs of the basic processes and requirements. To view my source for the rebuttal of the WMD bioweapons story, including the initial intel, see this page. Be sure to follow the link inside the page to the annex, there is a chart showing all the deficiencies of the labs.
"Stay the course is not a strategy." Exactly. What we need is a strategy, and a proactive one that defines what victory is.
"You have yet to provide proof that the violence you described would not occur with the strategies you have yet to provide." I thought I provided that with the report on Nation Building. I have a few other things to add to that list so here goes: An official declaration of war through Congress, a draft, a 400,000 man army for the initial phase of the occupation, retaining what was left of the Iraqi Army, securing the border and rebuilding their infrastructure, giving the UN a prominent role in the diplomatic/political effort with security provided by the US, establishing an open judicial system with a competent police force, local elections held within the first year, national elections held in the second year. This would work because it worked in Kosovo, which was in the midst of a civil war when our intervention started.
I believe in winning a war, not spinning it or managing it like we are doing right now. Results on the ground matter, and it seems like the GOP is refusing to take responsibility or accountability for any of the chaos that is over there. If you place partisan concern for the GOP over the reputation of America, I would hope you might reconsider those loyalties.
i think we're getting off topic here.
I'd love to debate politics with you all, but I feel we're getting personal and not debating issues. This is typical of the way politics is right now. The country is very divided and we've been through a time when the norm is to throw insults at your opponent rather than discuss the issue. I'm guilty of this also and I apologize. The last thing I want to do is hurt someone's feelings or insult a friend with no ground to stand on myself.
so... I move we clean it up.
If you'd like, i'll write in a more formal fashion. I tend to write very casually and try and let my thoughts flow. I usually don't proofread and I may or may not capitalize and don't spellcheck....and really don't care to in a blog. If that's cool with you than great. If you have a problem understanding something I've written please bring the situation or topic to my attention. I'll give the same courtesy Blanket statements don't help the debate.
we're all here cause we are politically minded and enjoy debate. I feel as if I've. at times, gotten off topic and resulted to insults... which aren't cool and pretty much render any statement invalid. I'm not alone in this and I'm sure you'll agree with that.
Maybe we should model ourselves after Stephen as he seems to have it together.
what do you think?
btw, I'm currently researching the medicare drug program and wish to get into corruption in the house and senate. You know they're not in it for us, they're in it for special interest and big business. I feel this way about both parties. Hopefully not all of them are like this. You can see my findings at burnyourtires.blogspot.com (I hope the link works;)
byt
Post a Comment