Found! Wingnuts of Mass Destruction
There are few examples of right wingnuttery more pungent than the argument that WMD were found in Iraq after the 2003 invasion, but due to the gross negligence of the Bush administration they were smuggled out of the country by insurgents and are now in the hands of the U.S.’s mortal enemies and that everybody — White House and Democrats alike — is so embarrassed that they’re joined at the hip in a vast cover-up.
Hokie smokies!
I had not realized how really vast this cover-up was until I did some research on the story behind Melanie Phillips’ “scoop” on it in The Spectator over the weekend and found similar stories littered through right-wing media archives over the last three years like so much road kill.
If I learned anything as an investigative reporter and editor, it is that if a story seems too good to be true then it isn’t.
There also is the fact that diarrhea of the mouth is as common in Washington as padded expense accounts, and the number of people who would have to keep quiet about a WMD cover-up of this magnitude would number in the thousands.
So why then does this story rear its ugly head with such regularity?
Please click here to read more at Kiko’s House.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
35 Responses to “Found! Wingnuts of Mass Destruction”
Shaun, this is not necessarily right-wing nuttery. It would not surprise me at all if hidden WMDS were discovered.
Frankly, if this is rightwing nuttery, it doesn’t hold a candle to leftwing nuttery. That Saddam was known to possess various WMD and (use it on occasion against enemies foreign and domestic) and that all of those weapons have not been accounted for implies a mystery that is yet to be solved or that may never be solved. But if intelligence estimates were completely off and the extent of that mystery has been overstated, as seems the case, well, at least it is easy to understand why pretty much everybody once fell for it.
The leftwing nutters, however, *MAKE UP* their own mysteries. The “9/11 was an inside job” nonsense continues to get an immense amount of traction.
Shaun- It is wingnuttery- the last desperate attempt by the neocons to prove that the fiasco that Iraq has become was justified. This comes down to their peristent belief that even inaccurate information if it is repeated enough by the Great Fox New spin machine will become the new reality. This administration has often boasted that it creates our reality- this is just one instance of it.
The remnants of the WMD’s Saddam had used on his own people in the ’90′s (that were supplied to him by the US in part in the 80′s) were found and are no longer viable. The raid that was labelled “Wag the Dog” by Clinton’s opponents did a lot more damage to Saddam’s nuclear program than many will admit. After that raid and years of UN sanctions, Saddam was severely weakened and unable to rebuild his nuclear program. His army was in such a state of disrepair that they quickly caved to invading US forces (which did do an awesome job nevertheless-a quick and efficient use of military might) leading to the hunt and arrest of Hussein.
Those stories are no different then the vast conspiracies the left throws at us.
911 was perpetrated by George Bush. Israel knew about it. Israel caused 911. On and on and on.
There are nut jobs on both sides of the equation.
And I have to agree with Holly. Saddam flew his airforce to Iran during the first gulf war. Why would he leave all his WMD’s IF he had them, sitting out where everyone could find them?
I would suggest this time Syria a more likely target. But that would be pure speculation. Given the absolute devastating effects of the Sanctions that everyone believed was not working, and Barring French or Russian Assistance I doubt very much that Saddam had many WMDS and certainly none that were modern or up to date or had been built since the previous Gulf War.
Holly, Hydralisk and Nobody:
The vast WMD conspiracy theory beggars common sense and belief. The best investigators that right-wing money can buy have bene unable to provide a shred of credible evidence about the existence of WMD in the run-up to the war and the documents captured after the fall of Baghdad show in great detail that Saddam had intentionally fostered the impression that there were WMD so he had a modicum of leverage with his enemies.
George Bush is the last person to acknowledge being in error but he has done so explicitly as regards WMD.
Like I said, breaking up is hard to do. Get over it.
As for vast left-wing conspiracies, they’re a dime a dozen and the fruit loops who blather about 9/11 being an inside job are just as worthy of contempt as Phillips and her crowd.
Find me an even remotely reputable liberal who believes 9/11 was an inside job. Yet, Fox News, house organ of the GOP, continues to speculate garbage about WMD being shifted to Syria when there’s been no evidence of it. Sure, it was theoretically possible for Saddam to shift his WMD to Syria. It was also theoretically possible for Saddam to give his WMD to Israel’s Mossad or the CIA or MI6. But until you have evidence that Saddam did, in fact, transfer WMDs then you’re just speculating mindlessly. In fact, the very thorough Iraq Survey Group, which actually interviewed thousands of people who’d actually know what happened, concluded that Saddam was bluffing about WMD in order to threaten his internal and external enemies. Of course, that makes perfect sense. But neocons will never admit to being wrong.
How about some facts here?
First of all, Saddam did destroy most of his stockpiles in the 1990′s.
Secondly, we have found Iraqi WMD, but they date from the 1980′s, were in no condition to use, and were likely “lost” during the chaos of the Iran-Iraq war. These old WMD’s were not the ones we were looking for as we believe Iraq held and maintain current stockpiles.
Thirdly, I don’t give much credence that Iraq WMD stockpiles were “spirited away” on the eve of the war. There’s no credible evidence to support it particularly since we’ve captured and interviewed almost all the principles who’ve all denied it. Iraq’s plan was to maintain the technology and expertise to rebuild it’s program, and with dual-use facilities, could have done so quickly for Chems. Iraq had no need to send it’s WMD to potentially hostile powers, particularly Iran.
Fourth, Saddam pursued a policy of ambiguity with regard to his WMD. Given this ambiguity, combined with his previously known stockpiles and use, it’s not surprising almost everyone on the planet believed he had WMD’s in 2002, though it’s pretty amusing how many on the left have tried to change their tune once the truth was known.
In addition to the Dueffler report, read the Iraqi Perspectives Project report, which is based on interviews with Iraq’s captured senior leadership:
Finally, I find it amusing that Shaun picked a picture of a ballistic missile which Iraq actually did illegally possess.
So I guess that story about Limbaugh secretly recruiting 13 year old girls in the Dominican Republic to find WMD was false also. But if that is the case why does he go down there? What could possibly explain his trips?
The whole situation is sort of hopeless, because there are so many levels of cognitive biases and failures.
At least part of the problem is abundantly clear, which is that people are not rationally updating their beliefs based on such evidence as has been gathered (wonderfully described here.
Not to patronizingly oversimplify, but it seems that one could have asked any observer some fairly precise numerical questions prior to the invasion about what they thought Saddam’s WMD capability was. For example, you could have asked for a distribution of the *ages* of munitions, the yield of munitions, etc, as in:
“I think that at least 30 percent of Saddam’s munitions were less than 5 years old”
If one *really* didn’t know anything else, then one could have a statistician calculate an updated estimate of the percentage of munitions less than 5 years old based on what was observed after the invasion. The details vary based on what the prior belief are, but to be sure – any observation of a weapon *more* than 5 years should decrease the estimate of the percent that were less than 5 years old, and any observation *less* than 5 years should increase the estimate of that percentage.
What we actually see is people arguing in categories. Those hoping to see confirmation about Saddam’s WMDs keep looking for the smoking gun, and those hoping to repudiate it keeping dismissing the evidence as non-existent. Some things are black and white – you’re either pregnant or you’re not, but for something like a threat, you have to try to measure the threat in terms of the number, type, age, readiness, lethality. In category land, one counterexample completely undermines a theory. *Any* WMD found undermines the idea that Saddam didn’t have them. However, realistically assessing a threat means making an assessment based on a number of measurements of different aspects of threat, which does not neatly fit into a “threat/no-threat” dichotomy.
It is NOT the case that Saddam had either NO WMDs or the imminent mushroom cloud. He had some WMDs and some precursors, but truthfully those found were older and less ready than most people thought they would be. He might have moved some other weapons, but at least from the weapons that *were* found, they support the conclusion that there were fewer than previously thought.
It still doesn’t really help much, because different people would differ an appropriate policy even if they agreed on measurements known with certainty – everybody knows Iran abducted those British Soldiers, but not everybody agrees on the correct response.
Shaun you are preaching to the choir with me. There never were any WMDs. I suspect that it was Mossad intelligence that had a hand in perpetrating this myth. If so, then they should pay a bloody price for their lies and deceit this time.
WA-I thought the Israelis warned us not to invade Iraq.
Saddam had intentionally fostered the impression that there were WMD so he had a modicum of leverage with his enemies.
There ya go friend. He duped us all. Its like Holbrooke said in the Perle piece you so despised the other night.
“I thought Saddam had WMDS. Clinton Thought they had WMDS. Everyone thought He had WMDS.”
It showed Hillary Clinton on the floor of the Senate giving a speech saying “I have seen the Intell and Saddam Hussein has WMDS.”
I suppose it was only a matter of time before an Israeli conspiracy theory popped up here.
As is usually the case at TMV, let’s bias the discussion to one particular slant to advance the agenda and continue to ignore the rest of the picture.
I don’t believe that the Israelis misled us- but it has been well-documented that Saddam boasted of having WMD’s as a way of warding off his aggressive neighbors- especially Syria and Iran. He had to use a bluff because of the weakened state of his military. Don’t you think that if he actually had WMD’s he would have used them against our troops as they advanced into Baghdad? After all, Putin gave Saddam information about our troop movements-that is shortly after W looked into his soul and saw a kindred spirit, LOL!
Robert:
Wham! Bam! Slam dunk!
There’s always the argument that we shouldn’t have invaded even if he did have WMDs. That he didn’t have WMDs just goes to show how bad of an idea the invasion was in the first place.
Saddam even fooled his own gnerals, who kept waiting to get their WMD’s to fight us off. He bluffed. He was called.
A whole lot of stuff WAS “spirited away” to Syria. Some of it was probably military weaponry, if not WMD’s. And some of it was probably the portable wealth and household goods of Saddam’s and his lieutenant’s families.
From all reliable accounts his remaining WMD’s were pretty unusable, but he made sure to maintain the ability for a rapid restart. Weasel is as weasel does.
kritter- Don’t remember that. Another myth?
WA- That Saddam boasted about WMD’s to his neighbors? From Foreign Affairs 6-06
causualobserver – Your link to the WorldNUTDaily isn’t to the actual article, just the online paper otself. There are two problems with your blockquote.
1)According to Charles Duefler The correct spelling of the official is “Duelfer” not as Hagin spells it in the RenewAmerica article.
2) Your source is the WNutD, all they did was link or copy Hagin’s article at Keye’s website. The claims made by Hagin take “Duelfer” out of context and do not reflect what Duelfr and the ISG reported.
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/hagin/040427
An arms control expert, Paul Kerr said this at ArmsControl.org
http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2005_06/Iraq_Brain_Drain.asp
Maybe you can help Sanctorum and Weldon dig in the Iraqis desert/sandbox, they’re out of jobs now, the Penn voters fired them.
Dave Gaubatz, however, says that you could not be more wrong. Saddam’s WMD did exist. He should know, because he found the sites where he is certain they were stored.
God whats the matter with you people. Here is a guy that says he found the weapons. They exist and you dont believe him?
Bu…Bu…But hes an expert. He came forth and testified they exist. That proves it……Doesnt it?
Entropy,
Take a closer look at that “picture of a ballistic missile”… It’s a motorhome.
NO… He didn’t find WMDs, “he found the sites where he is certain they were stored.”, there were no WMDs at the locations. He’s speculating and you’re just advancing unproven speculation.
Kritter,
You quoted exactly what I quoted above. The Foreign Affairs article was a truncated version of the full report, found here.
Dave Gaubatz is an idiot. That is all.
Entropy- You are right, LOL! Sorry to be redundant. In any case it would be nice if the facts about the WMD’s would put the rumors to rest, and we could move on- its really a useless argument, but hopefully one that won’t confuse legitimate historians who write about our entry into the war.
Kritter,
I agree. I get tired of discussing it, especially to the “Bush lie, people died” crowd. The fact is that WMD’s are immaterial at this point. Even if they were there in the quantities we believed, we’d still be in the same screwed-up mess we’re in now.
Entropy- Well, yes, we are stuck there now and that is what is most important, but I don’t think that lets Bush and Cheney off the hook for pressuring the CIA, and using intel that they knew was unreliable. You don’t think any accountability is in order for a foreign policy disaster like this one? When I was talking about moving on, I meant from the point of whether or not the WMD’s existed in the first place. I think its important to learn how we got into this in the first place, so we can hope to avoid it the next time. But, of course, its also important to figure out the least destructive way out that still is in the national interest.
I get tired of the assumption that even if Saddam had WMDs that the invasion was justified.
It may have been, but it sure as hell doesn’t warrant assumption-level fact.
Find the sites that they were kept. Details. Heres a guy that says they existed and your refuting him.
This is wrong. Hes an expert and we know he has not agenda but the truth.
Because he came forward and said they exist this proves they exist and the antiwar lied.
Its so clear. I dont see how you cant see this.
Kept when Nobody? During Desert Storm, lol?
entropy- I do agree that the invasion was poorly thought out, regardless of whether the WMD’s were there or not. Even now, we have a poor chance that the surge will work- not because of Petraeus, but because Iraq is a such a poor place to try to create a democracy-its not post-war Germany or Japan, like so many are comparing it to.
Kritter,
You seem to think that somehow the Bush administration created or force the IC to claim that Saddam had WMD. The IC believed he had WMD all through the Clinton Administration. Go and read the declassified NIE’s. The IC firmly believed that Saddam still had stockpiles and programs.
There were two things the Bushies did that were wrong. First, was Dough Feith’s OSD office, who created their own flawed analysis that neatly fit with their policy objectives and then pawned it off as competitive analysis. Feith was a tool and that entire episode was a fiasco.
Secondly, they did pressure some analysts to increase the veracity of their conclusions. In essence, the IC evidence for Saddam’s programs was largely circumstantial, though, at the time, it was believe to be pretty solid. The administration wanted the IC to remove caveats on its analytical assessments to make the analysis have greater confidence than it actually had.
Both those are bad, bad things for any administration to do, and the Bushies should be condemned for them, but it’s a far cry from the left’s claim that all the WMD evidence was somehow manufactured out of thin air. If Bush lied, it was a white lie because the IC DID believe Saddam had WMD and believed it before Bush came into office.
entropy- the IC told the Bush administration that the evidence was flawed- but they used it anyway. A lot of the stuff that went into Colin Powell’s speech was poorly sourced but that didn’t stop the administration from having him give it.
And what about the claims about Niger and yellowcake, and the stuff associating Saddam with al queda? I think Bush bought into the PNAC plan for regime change, and that it was a priority before 9/11. He had a personal stake because Saddam tried to have his father assasinated. They just used 9/11 to sell it to the public. In Andrew Cochburn’s new biography on Rumsfeld, I read that by 3pm on 9/12 he was talking about invading Iraq.
kritter,
“the IC told the Bush administration that the evidence was flawed- but they used it anyway.”
No. It told the Bush administration that some of the evidence was flawed – specifically, the Al Qaida connection (which was what Feith’s office worked on) and some very specific parts of other intelligence – notably Iraq’s nuclear program. The IC was divided on the nuclear issue though most believed that Iraq was interested in a nuclear weapons program but was not actively pursuing a program at that time. The vast majority of other WMD evidence, primarily in the chemical arena, the IC felt pretty strongly about. Overall, the IC firmly believed that Saddam DID have WMD programs and stockpiles. To claim otherwise is to ignore the Duefler and IPP reports along with a decade of declassified NIE’s.
kritter – It was long before 9/11 when Donald Rumsfeld and the PNAC gang began their Iraqi Regime Change game.
On May 29, 1998 PNAC sent a letter (which Donald Rumsfeld signed) advocating “removing Saddam Hussein’s regime from power and establishing a peaceful and democratic Iraq in its place.” to Trent Lott and Newt Gingrich