UPDATED: The Humility of a Gullible Mind

Thanks to everyone who contributed to this inquiry, with a special nod to Dave Schuler for his links to the NTI summaries. After reading through the basics, I offer my conclusion to the matter, here.

ORIGINAL POST

Four years ago, as the U.S. invaded Iraq, I was caught up in my own turmoil, allowing a change-of-jobs milestone to distract me from larger events of far greater importance. Accordingly, what I think I remember of those larger events is horribly muddled, and just how muddled those memories might be hit me like the proverbial ton of bricks this afternoon as I read this post by Steve Benen.

As I explain at Central Sanity, my recollection of “the facts” is much different than Steve’s, and while I respect him, I also believe in the value of trust-but-verify.

And so — at the risk of destroying any vestige of credibility I once had as a political observer — I’m prepared to now expose my potential ignorance and invite TMV readers to join CS readers in setting the record straight. Is Steve’s report correct? Have voters like me so forgotten the facts of the time, four years ago, that we now accept (without questions) the Bush/Cheney/Romney “fiction” re: IAEA inspectors?

55 Responses to “UPDATED: The Humility of a Gullible Mind”

1. Entropy says:

   June 7, 2007 at 12:48 pm

   Which is what I did at the time. And I found myself wondering why, if we’re sure Saddam has weapons and even know where they are, are the inspectors coming up without nothing despite completely unfettered access?

   As has been stated and shown many times, UN inspectors never had “completely unfettered access.”
2. Pete Abel says:

   June 7, 2007 at 3:13 pm

   UN inspectors never had “completely unfettered access.”

   But they seem to have been moving in that direction, and as long as progress was being made, it’s difficult (impossible) to support an attack. From the NTI chronology:

   7 March 2003
   In a report to the UN Security Council, the IAEA states that in recent weeks Iraq has provided it with considerable documentation related to issues of particular concern. The report also says IAEA inspectors have concluded that it is unlikely Iraq sought high-strength aluminum tubes for a centrifuge program, as the Bush administration claims. With regard to Iraq’s efforts to import high-strength permanent magnets or develop the capability to produce them indigenously, the IAEA concludes none of the magnets or magnet production plans that Iraq has declared could be used specifically in a centrifuge magnetic bearing. The report notes, however, that Iraq does possess the technical know-how and capability to manufacture magnets suitable for enrichment centrifuges, and therefore the IAEA plans to continue monitoring developments in this area. In terms of uranium acquisition, the IAEA has concluded that controversial documents purportedly proving Iraq tried to acquire enriched uranium from Niger are inauthentic. The IAEA report also states that there is no indication of resumed nuclear activities at Iraqi facilities identified in satellite imagery as having been reconstructed or newly built, and there is no sign of other proscribed nuclear-related activities at IAEA inspected sites.
   —”The Status of Nuclear Inspections in Iraq: An Update,” International Atomic Energy Agency at the Meeting of the United Nations Security Council, 7 March 2003.
3. Entropy says:

   June 7, 2007 at 4:19 pm

   But they seem to have been moving in that direction, and as long as progress was being made, it’s difficult (impossible) to support an attack.

   Yes, they had been “making progress” for over a decade. “unfettered” access was a condition of the 1991 ceasefire (UNSCR 687), an agreement which Iraq violated every provision. Note that the UNSC demanded and Iraq AGREED to provide unfettered access immediately and provide full accountings of all it’s WMD-related activities within 45 days.

   A decade later and Iraq still hadn’t complied. Usually when a country violates a ceasefire it signed, the ceasefire is null-and-void. Even so, I thought the attack in 2003 was a bad idea – I would have preferred to wait for a true cassis belli – something Saddam was sure to provide sooner or later given his nature.

   So tell me, how many more years of “progress” would have been required before more aggressive action was justified?
4. kimrit says:

   June 7, 2007 at 5:07 pm

   Well in wartime we are supposed to listen to our experts on the ground. Shouldn’t that be true before we start a war? General Zinni at Centcom thought the invasion was unnecessary, as Saddam, weakened by the ’98 attack and years of sanctions, no longer presented that much of a threat. The inspectors themselves thought that the US was using the inspections to start a war, and wanted more time. I don’t think it would have hurt anything to give them 6 more months.
   But, I think it was a foregone conclusion and 9/11 was used to get the country ready for a war that had been planned since Bush/Cheney took office. (both Tenet and Paul O Neill state that in their books)

   Their administration was full of PNAC signatories of the letter sent to Clinton urging him to use force to remove Saddam. So the weapons were just an excuse.
5. George Sorwell says:

   June 7, 2007 at 5:15 pm

   Counterfactuals may be fun.

   But in the actual 2003, inspectors were uncovering no evidence that Saddam had WMDs. You can look at the NTI reports for yourself. Or you just look at what Pete quoted in comment #52. That fits any definition of “progress” by inspectors.

   And of course they were finding no evidence of WMDs. We now know he had no WMDs. I accept that we know it now, conclusively, in a way we didn’t in 2003. Just as I accept that we can now go back and look at the actual record to find where mistakes were made.

   Anyone can argue in favor of the war, even now. And this discussion isn’t even about the war–it’s about Romney. I don’t see how anyone can argue that Romney was factually correct–or that he shouldn’t know the facts better.