dots connected

August 4, 2004 8:59 AM

Making the case for a smoking gun: All the dots connected, and where'd all these dots come from anyway? inthesetimes.com does a great job of pulling from many diverse resources to debunk the "everyone thought he had WMD" arguement, and washingtontimes.com gives an excellent refresher on pre 9/11 Iraq strategy. "The Doctrine of pre-emption becomes inoperable without unimpeachable intelligence accepted by all as the coin of the realm."
posted by y6y6y6 (35 comments total)

Damn it. Now the freaking link's going up and down....... And it really did a good job of pooling information.
posted by y6y6y6 at 9:12 AM on August 4, 2004

Wow - that the Washington Times is giving space to this sort of argument just sort of blows me away. I actually had a die-hard neocon type admit to me the other day: "Iraq is a pile of shit."

Even the right is backing away from this mess.

But, did the fourth graf of the Times piece seem gratuitous - as if it were shoehorned in there after the fact, possibly not by the author himself but by an ideologically-motivated editor?

President Bush made clear Sunday the U.S. was justified in toppling Saddam irrespective of elusive WMDs.
posted by kgasmart at 9:24 AM on August 4, 2004

That is a really neat tying-up of all the loose threads. Lots of great links to credible sources throughout. I especially like one of the comments - about how GWB has essentially issued his own mea culpa, saying recently that "Knowing what I know now, I'd still have invaded Iraq." So, going back in his magic time machine, he'd have to make the case for invasion again, without being able to use WMD threats or Al Qaeda linkage.
posted by kokogiak at 9:27 AM on August 4, 2004

The thing that struck me from the Washington times piece was this:

"The liberation of Iraq, in the neocon scenario, would be followed by a democratic Iraq that would quickly recognize Israel. This, in turn, would "snowball" through the region, bringing democracy from Syria to Egypt and to the sheikhdoms, emirates and monarchies of the Gulf. All these new democracies would then embrace Israel and hitch their backward economies to the Jewish state's advanced technology. And Israel could at long last lower its guard and look forward to a generation of peace. That was the vision."

I think this is a fairly reasonable non-partisan distillation of the Bush administration's mindset before 9/11.

But it's also about the dumbest thing I've ever heard. It sounds to me strikingly similar to the Soviet's thinking that the world would embrace communism once they understood how wonderful the Soviet version was. Which they'd have to be shown by force. How reasonable.

Our leaders really are this stupid.
posted by y6y6y6 at 9:44 AM on August 4, 2004

I threw a mirrored version of the first piece, "They Knew" (inthesetimes.com's 'all the dots connected' link from main post) up onto my site, for readability until they can get their servers stabilized. Here
posted by kokogiak at 9:48 AM on August 4, 2004

I was thinking about doing that myself. Thanks.
posted by y6y6y6 at 9:50 AM on August 4, 2004

The author of the Washington Times piece has another interesting article.

"The September 11 commission found troubling new evidence Iran was closer to al Qaeda than was Iraq. More importantly, and through no fault of its own, the commission missed the biggest prize of all: Former Pakistani intelligence officers knew beforehand all about the September 11 attacks."
posted by homunculus at 10:18 AM on August 4, 2004

I felt all along it was fairly obvious Bush never believed there were WMDs. I also find the "group think" excuse laughable.

To believe the group think argument I need to believe:
1. WMD evidence was never questioned (it was, over and over again - remember Powell's satellite images of a building with some trucks driving around it?)
2. The CIA cannot read / does not know how to properly identify real intelligence (I find this really unlikely - any college grad would have realized that none of the info they had amounted to anything.
3. The evidence was beyond reproach, because Bush had no other reasons for invading Iraq (right...)

Finally, someone has the guts to simply question some of this. Where is our media - why do we not bother to even ask the simplest questions anymore?
posted by xammerboy at 10:25 AM on August 4, 2004

Bush's exact statement about 'knowing what I know now' and Iraq, from here

Q Yes, sir. Mr. President, would you say -- can you say what you regard as the model for this National Intelligence Director? Is it the Fed, would it be the Joint Chiefs of Staff? And in what way would this new structure prevent the kind of intelligence failings that preceded the war in Iraq with respect to weapons, difficulty of the opposition faced, and those sorts of things?

THE PRESIDENT: Not like the Fed. More like the Joint Chiefs, because the Joint Chiefs have got a -- even though not a part of the chain of command, they are affected by the chain of command.

And the second part of the -- oh, why would this -- listen, let me talk about the intelligence in Iraq. First of all, we all thought we would find stockpiles of weapons. We may still find weapons. We haven't found them yet. Every person standing up here would say, gosh, we thought it was going to be different, as did the Congress, by the way, members of both parties, and the United Nations. But what we do know is that Saddam Hussein had the capability of making weapons.

And let me just say this to you: Knowing what I know today, we still would have gone on into Iraq. We still would have gone to make our country more secure. He had the capability of making weapons. He had terrorist ties. The decision I made was the right decision. The world is better off without Saddam Hussein in power. And I find it interesting, in the political process, that some say, well, I voted for the intelligence, and now they won't say whether or not it was the right decision to take Saddam Hussein out. It's the right decision, and the world is better off for it.

emphasis added
posted by kokogiak at 10:40 AM on August 4, 2004

"the coin of the realm!" I'll have to remember that one.
posted by mcsweetie at 11:32 AM on August 4, 2004

Arnaud, de Borchgrave, with a number of different hats and here cited for Why We really went to War, is or was editor of the Washington Times. The Washington Times is owned wholly by Rev. Moon. Now turn to my recently posted lin, just below this one, and you will see that in Fact Moon seems to be responsible for getting submarines to North Korea--incidentally, that is where Moon is from...
posted by Postroad at 11:37 AM on August 4, 2004

debunk the "everyone thought he had WMD" arguement

Did Clinton and Kerry think it?
posted by callmejay at 11:45 AM on August 4, 2004

Has it ever crossed your mind *why* the major spokesman for the John Kerry campaign hasn't made a stir about the supposed lack of WMDs in Iraq?
First of all, it might be because we have found WMDs out the wazoo, then have promptly turned around and denied that they are WMDs.

The US invaded Iraq under the auspices of UNSC 1441 and its predecessors. The US asserted that those existing resolutions gave the US the right to enter Iraq "to search for WMDs", and to "prevent the Iraqis from interfering in the search for WMDs."

AND THIS MEANS that the US can STAY in Iraq ONLY as long as it is "searching for WMDs" *and* "no Iraqis are interfering with the search process."

If the US *finds* WMDs, then it must invite the IAEA and UNMOVIC to *prove* that those are indeed WMDs, and this opens the door to UN intervention in Iraq, which would require an additional UNSC resolution for the US to stay in Iraq, and then only under UN command and auspices.

Remember that UNMOVIC certified that both the Iraqis were "not in compliance" with UNSC 1441, *and* that they would not guarantee the safety of anyone searching for WMDs in Iraq, thus UNMOVIC had to leave.

If the US certifies that there are *no* WMDs in Iraq, then it must leave immediately.

So, among the TONS of WMDs the US has found in Iraq, such as 55 gallon drums full of nerve agent "pesticide" stored at an arms depot, and even nuclear tipped missiles stored in a special concrete bunker deep enough to evade surface radiation detection, THE US HAS FOUND NOTHING.

Nope, the US will continue to "search", and will continue to "not find" WMDs. Even the vast quantities of WMDs that *any* industrial nation *must* have for use in its industries and hospitals.

So time and time again we must be greeted by posters who are unaware of these facts, who will continue to bombard us with accusations such as "there were not WMDs in Iraq", which is patently false.
posted by kablam at 11:47 AM on August 4, 2004

kablam, let me get this straight. Are you saying that:
- the current US Administration was correct about there being WMDs, and they continue to be correct about that. There are indeed WMDs
- but they are officially claiming there are "no WMDs", (making themselves out to be either liars or fools for claiming there were WMDs in the first place) - all in order to prevent the UN from becoming more involved which might compromise how the ongoing occupation is conducted?

Is that your statement? If so, I fail to see how that's a better situation than if there truly were no WMDs at all. Both scenarios involve some pretty nasty deception, it seems.
posted by kokogiak at 12:04 PM on August 4, 2004

I think kablam is arguing that the continuing failure to find WMD's conclusively proves that they are there. Conversely, only the discovery of Iraqi WMD's could finally prove that Saddam never, in fact, built any.
posted by octobersurprise at 12:33 PM on August 4, 2004

"to make our country more secure"
...except it's not.

"He had the capability of making weapons."
...except he didn't.

"He had terrorist ties."
...except he didn't.

"The decision I made was the right decision."
...except it wasn't.

"The world is better off without Saddam Hussein in power."
...except it isn't.

"It's the right decision, and the world is better off for it. "
See above.

Lies, lies and more lies. Impeachment's too good for the bastard.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 12:34 PM on August 4, 2004

"So time and time again we must be greeted by posters who are unaware of these facts, who will continue to bombard us with accusations such as "there were not WMDs in Iraq", which is patently false."

No Kablam. It is we who again must listen to your nonsense. The drums of nerve gas were nowhere near the amount or potency the President suggested were in Iraq.
posted by xammerboy at 12:40 PM on August 4, 2004

Even the vast quantities of WMDs that *any* industrial nation *must* have for use in its industries and hospitals.

I think you're confused as to what "WMD" means (clue: the W is for weapons).
posted by reklaw at 12:40 PM on August 4, 2004

Jesus Kablam, who wears the tinfoil hats round here?
posted by niceness at 12:43 PM on August 4, 2004

The mental gymnastics that Bush fans are doing these days!
posted by sonofsamiam at 12:45 PM on August 4, 2004

"Did Clinton and Kerry think it?"

Yes. That's the point. Bush was the one who asked for the full intel dump on WMD/AQ. When it came back negative he whitewashed it.

Clinton had no reason to care whether Saddam had WMD, because we had him contained, friendless, and powerless. Kerry had no reason to think that Bush would take on a lie of such audacity.

Almost all of us thought it, but Bush was the one who knew it wasn't true.
posted by y6y6y6 at 12:49 PM on August 4, 2004

kablam must have sprained his brain with that last outburst!
posted by five fresh fish at 1:17 PM on August 4, 2004

I think kablam is arguing that the continuing failure to find WMD's conclusively proves that they are there. Conversely, only the discovery of Iraqi WMD's could finally prove that Saddam never, in fact, built any.

exactly. the monty pythonization of the bush administration and its defenders continues....
posted by lord_wolf at 1:36 PM on August 4, 2004

what kablam didn't tell you about was the super-soldier program that was being tested out in iraq that had to be covered up. the super-soldier, code-named "p1" eliminated most of the iraqi resistance so the u.s. is faking attacks to keep the success of the super-soldier quiet!
posted by fuq at 1:54 PM on August 4, 2004

Stop dissing kablam. Have none of you even considered the obvious fact that Saddam Hussein, and the whole Iraq war, are just American-generated CGI productions designed to fool the public into thinking we're doing something? Once they got away with the moon mission fakery they figured they could do anything.
posted by soyjoy at 2:32 PM on August 4, 2004

we have found WMDs out the wazoo, then have promptly turned around and denied that they are WMDs.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

the TONS of WMDs the US has found in Iraq, such as 55 gallon drums full of nerve agent "pesticide" stored at an arms depot, and even nuclear tipped missiles stored in a special concrete bunker deep enough to evade surface radiation detection

HEEEE HEE HE HE HE HE HE HE HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

WMDs that *any* industrial nation *must* have for use in its industries and hospitals.

HOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHO!

we must be greeted by posters who are unaware of these facts, who will continue to bombard us with accusations such as "there were not WMDs in Iraq", which is patently false.

KABLAM! WE DID NOT HAVE SEX WITH THAT WOMAN, BECAUSE IF WE HAD SEX WITH THAT WOMAN, WE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE SEX WITH THAT WOMAN. BESIDES, IT ALL DEPENDS ON HOW YOU DEFINE 'IT'. KABLAM! THERE'S A STAIN ON YOUR BLUE DRESS, KABLAM!

WAR IS PEACE! HATE IS LOVE! OATMEAL IS BRAINS!
posted by quonsar at 2:39 PM on August 4, 2004

soyjoy: No, Bush is actually a Gnostic master who is demonstrating to the whole of humanity the truth that the world is an illusion. The Matrix didn't take, I guess.
posted by sonofsamiam at 2:40 PM on August 4, 2004

it's weird, but within two paragraphs of kablam's post, I knew that he was him! or him was he...er, I knew that he was who he was.

and furthermore, I recognized quonsar's post like two replies into it! I've hanging around this crazy web site too long. I've also yet to post anything of relevance to this thread! sorry.
posted by mcsweetie at 3:36 PM on August 4, 2004

kablam, rather than join the pile-on here (much as I would love to do so), I would simply request a factual verification of your interpretation of current events. What is your evidence? Your argument sounds logically plausible ... if you ignore all the empirical evidence to the contrary. So please silence the hooting by offering us something tangible in support of your position ... anything? Anything at all?

(ps, I know your not likely to read this at this point, kablam, but I am asking sincerely.)
posted by Wulfgar! at 4:12 PM on August 4, 2004

I have corrected the Great Kablam on this particular WMD point more than once in the past:

The phrase "weapons of mass destruction," then, obscures more than it clarifies. It lumps together a category of truly terrible weapons (atomic bombs) with two other categories that are either less dangerous than conventional weapons (chemical arms) or largely an unknown quantity (biological agents). This conflation, moreover, muddies the American rationale for military action against Iraq. That rationale should be to prevent Saddam from acquiring atomic weapons. This alone is reason to go to war...

Yet in debates about Iraq, and about global terrorism, everything that isn't a bullet or shell is lumped together under the rubric of "weapons of mass destruction"... Endlessly referring to "weapons of mass destruction" in this way distracts us from focusing on the one weapon we can be certain causes mass destruction: the atomic bomb.

That's from a reprint of 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' Meaningless--an article first run in the October 27, 2002 issue of the New Republic now mirrored at Why-War.com.

Chemical weapons precursors do not provide any military threat to the US--else we would be invading the Home and Garden departments of Walmarts, Lowes and Home Depots everywhere at this very minute...
posted by y2karl at 4:18 PM on August 4, 2004

And so kablam becomes a mockery of his own self. What a shame!
posted by five fresh fish at 6:10 PM on August 4, 2004

Wow. I nearly skipped reading this thread because I thought it would be same old arguments I've read a hundred times before. Could I have been more wrong?
posted by Zetetics at 6:30 PM on August 4, 2004

I've also yet to post anything of relevance to this thread! sorry.

Sorry? I thought you were braggin', like the rest of us.
posted by soyjoy at 6:40 PM on August 4, 2004

Wulfgar said:

"Your argument sounds logically plausible ... if you ignore all the empirical evidence to the contrary. "

I love that. I'm going to put that on a bumpersticker and stick it on my car.
posted by geekhorde at 9:00 PM on August 4, 2004

this thread is funny
posted by mr.marx at 12:46 AM on August 5, 2004