More common sense...from the right, of course

[stan v]

This man is smooth.


WMD In a Haystack

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, October 10, 2003; Page A27

Rolf Ekeus, living proof that not all Swedish arms inspectors are fools, may have been right.



Ekeus headed the U.N. inspection team that from 1991 to 1997 uncovered not just tons of chemical and biological weapons in Iraq but a massive secret nuclear weapons program as well. This after the other Swede, Hans Blix, then director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, had given Saddam Hussein a perfectly clean bill of health on being non-nuclear. Indeed, Iraq had a seat on the IAEA board of governors.

Ekeus theorizes that Hussein decided years ago that it was unwise to store mustard gas and other unstable and corrosive poisons in barrels, and also difficult to conceal them. Therefore, rather than store large stocks of weapons of mass destruction, he would adapt the program to retain an infrastructure (laboratories, equipment, trained scientists, detailed plans) that could "break out" and ramp up production when needed. The model is Japanese "just in time" manufacturing, where you save on inventory by making and delivering stuff in immediate response to orders. Except that Hussein's business was toxins, not Toyotas.

The interim report of chief U.S. weapons inspector David Kay seems to support the Ekeus hypothesis. He found infrastructure, but as yet no finished product.

As yet, mind you. "We are not yet at the point where we can say definitively either that such weapons stocks do not exist or that they existed before the war and our only task is to find where they have gone," Kay testified last week.

This is fact, not fudging. How do we know? Because Hussein's practice was to store his chemical weapons unmarked amid his conventional munitions, and we have just begun to understand the staggering scale of Hussein's stocks of conventional munitions. Hussein left behind 130 known ammunition caches, many of which are more than twice the size of Manhattan. Imagine looking through "600,000 tons of artillery shells, rockets, aviation bombs and other ordnance" -- rows and rows stretched over an area the size of even one Manhattan -- looking for barrels of unmarked chemical weapons.

And there are 130 of these depots. Kay's team has so far inspected only 10. The question of whether Hussein actually retained finished product is still open.

But the question of whether he was still in the WMD business is no longer open. "We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities," Kay testified, "and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002" -- concealed, that is, from the hapless Hans Blix.

Kay's list is chilling. It includes a secret network of labs and safe houses within the Mukhabarat, the Iraqi foreign intelligence service; bioorganisms kept in scientists' homes, including a vial of live botulinum toxin; and my favorite, "new research on BW [biological weapons]-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever, and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin" -- all "not declared to the U.N."

I have been to medical school, and I have never heard of Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever. I don't know one doctor in 100 who has. It is a rare disease, and you can be sure that Hussein was not seeking a cure.

He was not after the Nobel in physiology (Yasser Arafat having already won the peace prize). He was looking for a way to turn these agents into killers. The fact that he was not stockpiling is relevant only to the question of why some prewar intelligence was wrong about Iraq's WMD program. But it is not relevant to the question of whether a war to preempt his development of WMD was justified.

The fact that Hussein may have decided to go from building up stocks to maintaining clandestine production facilities (may have: remember, Kay still has 120 depots to go through) does not mean that he got out of the WMD business. Otherwise, by that logic, one would have to say that until the very moment at which the plutonium from its 8,000 processed fuel rods is wedded to waiting nuclear devices, North Korea does not have a nuclear program.

Hussein was simply making his WMD program more efficient and concealable. His intent and capacity were unchanged.

Moreover, for those who care about the United Nations (I do not, but many administration critics have a weakness for legal niceties), Resolution 1441, unanimously passed by the Security Council, ordered Hussein to make a full accounting of his WMD program and to cooperate with inspectors, and warned that there would be no more tolerance for concealment or obstruction. Kay's finding of "dozens of WMD-related program activities" concealed from U.N. inspectors constitutes an irrefutable material breach of 1441 -- and an open-and-shut justification for the U.S. decision to disarm Saddam Hussein by force.

© 2003 The Washington Post Company

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

A phial of botulinium toxin in someone's home does not constitute a chemical and biological weapons programme.

[stan v]

You're correct. No threats, anywhere.

The greater threat is overtaxation from irrational governments in regards to container ports. :rolleyes:

[ 10-10-2003, 07:08 AM: Message edited by: stan v ]

[Chris Coose]

Dear MoveOn member,
Today we're giving you a chance to clear your name. We're asking you and tens of thousands of other MoveOn members to sign an affidavit affirming that you didn't leak the identity of an undercover CIA agent to the press last July.

Here's why:

President Bush told the press on Tuesday that he doesn't "have any idea" whether the senior administration officials who blew a CIA operative's cover will ever be found. But if he just asked his staff to sign a legally binding affidavit confirming that they weren't involved, and referred anyone who wouldn't to the FBI, it's possible he could flush out the perpetrators in a day. To date, the President hasn't even discussed this matter with his staff.

We've already done the President's homework for him by writing the affidavit. Now let's show him how easy it is for innocent people to legally declare their innocence. You can sign the affidavit and send it to the President in under a minute by going to:
http://moveon.org/affidavit/?id=1802-1713489-jf2Gmabo6IPNSv6uwMy_SA

On Sunday, Reuters reported that Valerie Plame, the CIA agent whose cover was blown "was probably the single highest target of any possible terrorist organization or hostile intelligence service that might want to do damage," according to a former senior CIA official. It's now clear that the leakers in the White House are willing to put national security and the lives of CIA operatives in danger for their own ends. But President Bush seems unconcerned -- he hasn't even looked into who it might be.

Here are a few quotes from the Bush Administration that give some contrast to the task of finding the leakers.

On finding Osama Bin Laden in Central Asia:
"We're going to hunt them down one at a time. . . it doesn't matter where they hide, as we work with our friends we will find them and bring them to justice."
--President George W. Bush, 11/22/02

On finding Saddam Hussein in the Mideast:
"We are continuing the pursuit and it's a matter of time before [Saddam] is found and brought to justice."
--White House spokesman McClellan, 9/17/03

On finding the leaker in the close confines of the White House:
"I don't know if we're going to find out the senior administration official. I don't have any idea."
--President George W. Bush, 10/7/03

President Bush can do better than that. He could start by simply asking his staff to sign a legally binding affidavit. Show the President how easy it is. Sign the affidavit and send it on to the President today at:
http://moveon.org/affidavit/?id=1802-1713489-jf2Gmabo6IPNSv6uwMy_SA

It's been three months since Valerie Plame's identity was leaked to the press. The time for President Bush to take command and find the leakers is long overdue.

Sincerely,
--Carrie, Eli, Joan, Noah, Peter, Wes, and Zack
The MoveOn Team
October 10th, 2003

(Many thanks to the Center for American Progress for the research and quotes.)

[High C]

Originally posted by Andrew Craig-Bennett:
A phial of botulinium toxin in someone's home does not constitute a chemical and biological weapons programme.http://www.whatareweswallowing.freeserve.co.uk/head%20in%20%20sand1.jpg

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

What does that picture show, please?

[Chris Coose]

Stan luring infant meerkats.

[Donn]

How to communicate with Meerkat.

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

Originally posted by stan v:
You're correct. No threats, anywhere.

The greater threat is overtaxation from irrational governments in regards to container ports. :rolleyes: Stan, please pay attention!

1. The burden of my article (and there is no reason for you to know this - the containerport saga is a sort of running gag in the column) is that governments, far from over taxing container ports, subsidise them needlessly, thereby interfering with the free market, without gaining any benefit for their people in terms of employment, etc.

2. More pertinently, I am not saying, and I have never suggested, that there are no threats.

On the contrary, I think that our society is facing a real threat; the more complex our world becomes the more vulnerable it is to disruption by terrorists.

I am saying that we should devote our resources to countering real threats, such as Al Qaeda and their numerous imitators, rather than wasting any more time trying to argue that the (probably) late Mr Hussein had a serious chemical and biological weapons programme, when he obviously did not. You want to know what a real chemical and biological weapons programme looks like - look at ours, or yours, where it is taking years just to destroy the stocks we had built up.

[LeeG]

those clever orientals, and to think that a Old Navy and Cosco is a model for WMD programs. Now we're getting somewhere, actual weapons aren't needed,,actual programs and factories aren't needed, actual delivery vehicles (UAV) aren't needed for delivery of said WOMD, what IS needed are more editorials justifying the uncertainties.
wow.
"As yet, mind you. "We are not yet at the point where we can say definitively either that such weapons stocks do not exist or that they existed before the war and our only task is to find where they have gone," Kay testified last week.

This is fact, not fudging. "

double wow,,this isn't fudge. It's a waste of newspaper.

" Hussein was simply making his WMD program more efficient and concealable. His intent and capacity were unchanged."

OOOHH Stano, have you read any of the articles that theorize, that's what Charles is doing, that Saddam bluffed about his capabilities, that saddams staff and saddam had a dysfunctional relationship where people that brought bad news were killed and money was wasted on non-producing programs (like we do with Star Wars but we're wealthy and can afford it)?
look at his minister saying Baghdad is safe with bombs in the back ground, look at the army folding, look at how the country was run and why the reconstruction is so expensive that OUR planners hid the costs in optomistic estimates. Wolfowitz isn't too good with numbers remember. Come on,,do you really see the crippled infrastructure of Iraq and his minster of information proof of an even greater sophistication required to keep the actual programs hidden. "Absence of proof,,,,"yada yada.
Stan,,it's fear,,,after the anthrax attack fear was rich, FEAR that anything could happen was right at our door,,fear that even duct tape and plastic from Ace Hardware couldn't cure. Fear thrives on the unknown. What's around the corner,what's in the dark. That's what Charles is playing with,,saddam was so clever that he could run a Cosco? Look at the pictures of the UAVs that were uncovered,,the one with a weedeater engine that had to have the wings pinned on for the photo shoot.
Who in their right mind with a good case would say "absence of proof isn't proof of absence"? Come on,,these are grown-ups with the power to send our children to war and the integrity of their position drifts to "did to", "did not", "did to", "did not".
Stan,,you're either with us or against us. Sign the oath.

[High C]

Originally posted by Andrew Craig-Bennett:
What does that picture show, please?Come on now, Andrew. You know what it means. You've taken a single item out of Kay's long list of evidence that indicates an Iraqi WMD program, and then make a statement that sounds like something Hussein's defense lawyer would've said.

Have you listened to Kay talk about this? I can't imagine anyone thinking Iraq had no serious WMD program after doing so.

[LeeG]

Andrew, what we have in our WOMD programs I believe provides a portion of the emotional energy to be motivated by fear. To know what we have and the efforts to keep it controlled,,then projecting to the enemy who might not have that controll,,while their actual capacity is an unknown. The missle gap of the '60's comes to mind.
From what I've read our stockpiles and the stockpiles of the former Soviet countries are huge. There's a small book called Germs where an inspector visits a defunct anthrax facility in a soviet country,,the quiet horror he describes is close to the descriptions of Aushwhitz.
While our gov't is haggling over $100million costs to aid Russia with incineration plants or nearly a billion for our own,,where there are actual weapons, a $400billion dollar war where there are so many uncertainties sounds pound foolish. Am I mistaken?

[LeeG]

JT, Just because Powell held up a vial to the cameras doesn't define a threat accurately. A glass vial with a sample of "x" is not a program. It's a fine theatrical effect,,but not what you'd say to a general,,"find this".
When you shift from words representing ideas to insulting photographs to communicate ideas you've lost ground. Maybe we should just stick with these? :cool:

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

JT, I have heard Kay speaking, on radio, about this, and I must say that I arrived at a different conclusion to you. Maybe I was not paying proper attention, but the impression that I came away with was that he was doing his utmost to say, "On the one hand - this; on the other hand - that". He did not say "We have found Iraq's stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons; they were a clear and present danger to the rest of the known world!"

I mistrust the use of the weasel word "related".

Sugar is related to biological weapons programmes, so are lab. coats and nickel spatulas, but you will find all three in any secondary school.

Finding a supply of (I love this one) "Unusually clean Bunsen burners" (and I am not making it up, either!) is not evidence of a chemical or biological weapons programme; it is evidence of a very enthusiastic lab. assistant!

Lee - I think you are absolutely right. In Britain we were regularly horrified for decades by TV programmes about what had happened to Gruinard Island, where the land had been experimentally sown with anthrax (guess what - the sheep all died) and no-one was allowed to land on it for decades (they can, now, its safe again) and what went on at Porton Down (the UK Government chemical and biological weapons facility, where the late Dr Kelly once headed the biological weapons programme).

The idea of some Middle Eastern "tinpot dictator" having these toys seemed frightening.

[LeeG]

exactly, it's terrifying,,,especially given the timely expererience of the anthrax poisoning following 9/11. So a vial replaces the reality of vast stockpiles in areas other than Iraq.

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

For a fraction of what is being wasted looking for needles in haystacks in Iraq, some committment to assisting the Indonesian police force, (as Australia has actually done) would yield rather handsome dividends in counter-terrorism. Ditto Pakistan and the Gulf States.

[stan v]

We are paying lots of people undercover, helping lots of governments undercover. I'm surprised the dims haven't asked for an investigation on the administration clandestine operations that have not been approved by those that would certainly have said...NO! Who asked about Iran/Contra? See what I mean?

No more hand wringing ACB. There be bears out there.

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

Yes, there are bears out there. So why waste time looking for needles in haystacks?

Faffing about at vast expense looking for stuff that was never there, just to keep the voters happy, is hand wringing - I want those bears shot!

The US Government is NOT assisting the Indonesian Government in its counter-terrorist investigations. The Australian Government is, but where is the United States, with whom Indonesia has been closely aligned for decades? Nowhere.

(Neither is the British Government, I grant you, but we have never been very friendly with Indonesia. There was a little war, which you may not have heard of, in Borneo, in the early 60's called the Konfrontasi, in which Indonesia tried to invade Malaysia and our regular troops put a stop to it.)

I am not talking about clandestine operations, which may or may not exist, and which may or may not do some good, I am talking about formal, on the record, above board, assistance to local security forces.

I need not remind you that Indonesia is the most populous Islamic nation in the world, that it was the scene of the worst Islamic terrorist outrage since 9/11 and that its Government has a few troubles of its own.

Some of the money spent looking for needles in haystacks might usefully be spent looking for bears.

My objection to Iran - Contra is that it was an incredibly dumb thing to do.

[stan v]

This is going to surprise you, but we disagree more than we agree. See, I told you you'd be surprised. Shooting bears we agree on. I don't want those bears to arm themselves with anymore weaponry than they already possess. ACB, everyone knows Damsad had weapons, nasty ones. Now, Indonesia. How do you know that we aren't involved?

[Donn]

Originally posted by Andrew Craig-Bennett:
The US Government is NOT assisting the Indonesian Government in its counter-terrorist investigations. The Australian Government is, but where is the United States, with whom Indonesia has been closely aligned for decades? Nowhere.

(Neither is the British Government, I grant you, but we have never been very friendly with Indonesia. ..Not quite right, Andrew. We are giving Indonesia $50 million in aid over the next several years, expressly to beef up their police. The aid is dependent on continuing improvement in human rights issues, which, as I'm sure you know, has been an issue between the US and Indonesia for some time.

The UK is also quite active in aid (and arms sales) to Indonesia. In fact, Indonesia is the second largest overseas recipient of UK aid.

US aid to Indonesia (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2167588.stm)

UK aid to Indonesia (http://www.guardian.co.uk/armstrade/story/0,10674,1059843,00.html)

[LeeG]

Donn,,and we're spending $600 Million for developing a police force in Iraq. Prior to the war Tenet said that Iraq is not the threat that Al Queda is. Mixing up degrees of distinction does not make an argument. Our resources are finite,,attracting combatants into Iraq from Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia then saying "we're fighting terrorism" is lame ass logic. And that's the logic the pres. uses. It really does matter that the president can't present a clear reason for the war. If our intelligence is faulty,,or the intelligence requires spinning wouldn't it follow that actions based on faulty intelligence might be unwise acts?

[Donn]

Perhaps you didn't notice, Lee. I was responding to Andrew's claims of no aid to Indonesia from the US and UK. I said nothing about that aid being enough or too little, just that it does, indeed, exist. I also said nothing about Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia, the President, George Tenet or logic.

[Meerkat]

Yes, I agree. Putting logic and the shrub together makes for strange bedfellows ;)

[Wild Wassa]

To quote Bush. "Bring it on".

Here is an interesting WOMD. It was reported, two weeks ago that the 1,000th Iraqi child, had died since the declared end of the war, from unexploded bombs. The 1000th died from a cluster bomb in a tree.

Warren.

ps, In a Democracy why would one trust an unelected false President? A false President who spouts Freedom, and who isn't even elected to the position. Before we get anything else right, ... lets now destroy Cuba.

[ 10-11-2003, 05:10 PM: Message edited by: Wild Wassa ]

[stan v]

TROLL ALERT!

[High C]

Originally posted by Wild Wassa:
Here is an interesting WOMD. It was reported, two weeks ago that the 1,000th Iraqi child, had died since the declared end of the war, from unexploded bombs. The 1000th died from a cluster bomb in a tree.

ps, In a Democracy why would one trust an unelected false President? A false President who spouts Freedom, and who isn't even elected to the position...Warren, could you give us a link or two where we could read about these child deaths in Iraq. Our media seems to have let us down on this one.

You seem to be confused about President Bush's election. He was properly elected by the Electoral College. We don't elect our President by popular vote here.

Here's a graphic of the areas carried by Bush in red, and the areas carried by Gore in blue:

http://fs.huntingdon.edu/jlewis/Outlines/Image3.gif

[Donn]

Warren, could you give us a link or two where we could read about these child deaths in Iraq. That'll be the day.

[Meerkat]

Of the 7,000-9,000 estimated civilian deaths in Iraq, is it so hard to imagine that 1 in 7 of them are children?

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

I beg your pardon, Donn; I stand corrected.

I must have mis-heard or misunderstood something I heard on BBC radio this morning. I believe that what I heard was a specific discussion of aid to the Indonesian police in relation to the investigation of the Bali bombings and I generalised from this, which I should not have done. Sorry.

[km gresham]

Links, please, gentlemen. Anybody can toss out numbers. How many Iraqis were being tortured, maimed and murdered under Hussein's rule. I know, I know - it doesn't matter. OIL. It has been a while since anybody said the O word around here.

[JimD]

Originally posted by High C:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Andrew Craig-Bennett:
[qb]qb]http://www.whatareweswallowing.freeserve.co.uk/head%20in%20%20sand1.jpg</font>[/QUOTE]I say caption contest time:

Hey Saddam? You down there?
...
Meerkat! If you let go of my nose I promise not to wear cuffed pants ever again
...
No oil here
...
Aha! WOMD! Er, wait a minute, its just a rock.
...

[Nicholas Carey]

Originally posted by Andrew Craig-Bennett:
A phial of botulinium toxin in someone's home does not constitute a chemical and biological weapons programme.Hey! I resemble that remark...I've got a vial of botulinum bacteria in my refrigerator!

I believe it's in the back, right behind the moldy cottage cheese :D

[LeeG]

Karen,,why have't we occupied a few African counries where genocide exceeding Saddams was occuring all along?

[LeeG]

Originally posted by Donn:
Perhaps you didn't notice, Lee. I was responding to Andrew's claims of no aid to Indonesia from the US and UK. I said nothing about that aid being enough or too little, just that it does, indeed, exist. I also said nothing about Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia, the President, George Tenet or logic.Like checking for grammar you are correct. You may have noticed that the freewheeling nature of these threads can wander from the initial post. As you had not participated in the thread until this point, except for a slap with Meerkat, the context was "finding needles in a haystack" or relative expenses of resources for unknown results. The US in assisting in Indonesia where there are elements of AlQueda,,the US is spending huge sums of money for infrastructure in Iraq,,if the goal is capture and identification of WOMD or terrorists then comparting relative costs might be a clue as to the misguided nature of GWs war.

[stan v]

I heard Kerry's comment from the dim debate, that we (USA) would go back to the UN with him as president, more humbly. Why would the USA want a leader that would go to the UN (dictators), more humbly? It must be tough to be so far out of the mainstream to think that this is what is best for America. I'm sure Kerry can count on this forum's support. All these humble, simple, un-employed, anti-capitalists. Funny though, that light in the tunnel is getting faster and faster. I want y'all to stand firm on those tracks. Never give in! tongue.gif

[LeeG]

Stan, I'm not familiar with the John Birch Society,,does it have a set of statements defining it's purpose? You're mixing metaphors badly,,,light doesn't run in a tunnel,,Nixon said the light is at the end of the tunnel.