News Why Do Many Americans Still Believe in WMDs in Iraq?

[pcorbett]

Well, more than anything I am referring to documents from Saddam's regime released by the U.S. Army Foreign Military Studies Office a short while ago, which detailed Iraq's connections with Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and their policies for hiding/disposing of components, chemicals, and documents in laboratories from U.N. inspections. I used to have a link to these documents, but it has since gone dead, perhaps someone else has one

Here's your http://70.168.46.200/allFiles.aspx. Which document(s) are you referring to?

 

[pcorbett]

But it's not a controversial subject! No one in a political position claims that Saddam had WMDs, because it would be a lie.

How about Curt Weldon and Rick Santorum?

 

[pcorbett]

The answer is only a simple "yes" if your definition of "WMDs" by includes weapons which both sides were, not only well aware of, but also unconcerned with as those weapons were long lost and outdated shells that weren't capable of inflicting anything resembling mass destruction anyway.

In short, a definition adopted by an Administration in the lead up to war when Bush prominently cited the failure of Iraq to account for its pre-1991 arsenal in his 2003 State of the Union speech. Except the Administration (nor I) would accept your judgement that these "weapons...weren't capable of inflicting anything resembling mass destruction anyway" or that they were "lost."

 

[Manchot]

As you say, the answer to the question 'Did Iraq have WMD when we invaded?' is a simple, factual yes, but the issue is far more complicated than that question is capable of handling.

The answer is a simple, factual no. "WMD" means "Weapon of Mass Destruction." By definition, a WMD should be able to cause mass destruction. A weapon that is not functional cannot, by definition, be a WMD.

How about Curt Weldon and Rick Santorum?

As I already mentioned, they talk about the useless shells, which are not WMDs.

 

[pcorbett]

The answer is a simple, factual no. "WMD" means "Weapon of Mass Destruction." By definition, a WMD should be able to cause mass destruction. A weapon that is not functional cannot, by definition, be a WMD.

As I already mentioned, they talk about the useless shells, which are not WMDs.

This is sophistry. You might as well say a nuclear warhead with the initiator or fissile material removed or an unloaded firearm should be seen as useless and therefore not WMD.

 

[russ_watters]

The answer is only a simple "yes" if your definition of "WMDs" by includes weapons which both sides were, not only well aware of, but also unconcerned with as those weapons were long lost and outdated shells that weren't capable of inflicting anything resembling mass destruction anyway.

The definition of "WMD" is simply 'chemical, biological, or radiological weapons'.

The weapons found were chemical weapons.

 

[Manchot]

This is sophistry. You might as well say a nuclear warhead with the initiator or fissile material removed or an unloaded firearm should be seen as useless and therefore not WMD.

First of all, no simple firearm is a WMD. Secondly, a warhead without fissile material is useless and is not a WMD, because the material is what makes it a nuclear warhead. A regular bomb is not a dirty bomb without radioactive material. A water bottle is a not a poision vial without poison. Likewise, a sarin shell without sarin is just a regular shell.

The weapons found were chemical weapons.

Again, a weapon with no chemicals is not a chemical weapon.

Either way, we're arguing semantics. The simple fact is that Saddam had no working weapons of mass destruction, and the ones he did have could not be recovered without great difficulty (unlike a nuke without the initiator, or an unloaded firearm).

 

[russ_watters]

The answer is a simple, factual no. "WMD" means "Weapon of Mass Destruction." By definition, a WMD should be able to cause mass destruction. A weapon that is not functional cannot, by definition, be a WMD.

And where can I find that definition? I wouldn't find it, for example, in UN 1441, which casts a very broad net to include pretty much any aspect of WMD - parts, components, chemical materials, etc.

all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material.

http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm

A non-functional shell that contains chemical weapons that can be put into a functional shell and fired certainly qualifies.

Also of note, WMD themselves weren't the only banned things that were at issue. That's another reason polls that focus on WMD and not something more general like 'banned weapons or weapon components' are poorly concieved.

 

[russ_watters]

First of all, no simple firearm is a WMD. Secondly, a warhead without fissile material is useless and is not a WMD, because the material is what makes it a nuclear warhead. A regular bomb is not a dirty bomb without radioactive material. A water bottle is a not a poision vial without poison. Likewise, a sarin shell without sarin is just a regular shell.

Again, a weapon with no chemicals is not a chemical weapon.

Either way, we're arguing semantics. The simple fact is that Saddam had no working weapons of mass destruction, and the ones he did have could not be recovered without great difficulty (unlike a nuke without the initiator, or an unloaded firearm).

That may be your opinion of what the definition should be, but the UN didn't (has never) see it that way, so it really isn't relevant to this conversation.

 

[russ_watters]

Just to be clear, here, I agree that the spirit of the justification for the war on WMD grounds was not met. But polls that try to turn it into a simple question end up asking a loaded question with a clear-cut but misleading right and wrong answer.

The irony here for me is that Democrats, in order to register their objection to the spirit of the justification for the war, must accept a simple lie rather than deal with the complexity of an inconvenient truth.

 

[Manchot]

That may be your opinion of what the definition should be, but the UN didn't (has never) see it that way, so it really isn't relevant to this conversation.

Really? UN 1441 clearly says that Iraq needs to declare any programs it had to develop WMDs. It had no such programs, and said so. (The existence of old shells buried in the desert is not a program.) Read the text of what you posted:

Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;

Granted, I can understand the fact that people might misunderstand the poll question, but the article linked to doesn't give the exact question asked, so it's difficult to judge.

 

[kyleb]

In short, a definition adopted by an Administration in the lead up to war when Bush prominently cited the failure of Iraq to account for its pre-1991 arsenal in his 2003 State of the Union speech. Except the Administration (nor I) would accept your judgement that these "weapons...weren't capable of inflicting anything resembling mass destruction anyway" or that they were "lost."

I am simply reiterating the Duelfer report's conclusions:

While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq
unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications
that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad’s desire
to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered.

And their 2005 addendum:

ISG assesses that Iraq and Coalition Forces will
continue to discover small numbers of degraded
chemical weapons, which the former Regime mislaid
or improperly destroyed prior to 1991. ISG believes
the bulk of these weapons were likely abandoned,
forgotten and lost during the Iran-Iraq war because
tens of thousands of CW munitions were forward
deployed along frequently and rapidly shifting battlefronts.

As for our Administration's definition of WMDs, agian just a few months back and long after anything was found:

"It appears that there were not weapons of mass destruction there." -Donald Rumsfeld

 

[kyleb]

You might as well say a nuclear warhead with the initiator or fissile material removed or an unloaded firearm should be seen as useless and therefore not WMD.

If they did have anything even close to that, then you would have a valid argument.

 

[edward]

Of course I'd read it, if for no other reason than your source apparently can't spell Secretary George Shultz's last name correctly. Do you have anything other than hearsay to go on?

I am not responsible for the LA Weekly typos. Is that the only part your read??
Here is a link from the United States Department of Justice ordering the Commerce Depatment to make good on $400 million in U.S. guaranteed loans Iraq had defaulted on.
http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/Pre_96/February95/94.txt.html

This is old news and you know it, but yet you try to side step it with rhetoric.

The agents had degraded to the point where they served no further battlefield use. The shells, on the other hand, had not. And the shells themseves are specifically proscribed.

Ahh what a perfect example of rhetoric, or should we call it sophistry? Nice try but no cigar

 

[Futobingoro]

Regarding the shells that were found, I think a glimpse of World War I is helpful.

In Belgium, iron harvest discovered by farmers is carefully placed around field edges, or in gaps in telegraph poles, where it is regularly collected by the Belgian army for disposal by controlled explosion at a specialist centre near Poelkapelle.

Gas canisters and grenades need greater care as the gas remains poisonous and volatile long after many explosives have perished. The town of Vimy and the villages of Farbuf, Willerval, Acheville and Arleux-en-Gohelle were evacuated in April 2001 when mustard gas started to leak from iron harvest shells that had been gathered by the French Département du Déminage for disposal.

link

Clearly, even 90 year old chemical munitions are still considered 'poisonous and volatile.'

I admit that it would be inaccurate to say that the Iraqi weapons were a fully workable WMD arsenal, but to say that these weapons 'weren't capable of inflicting anything resembling mass destruction (kyleb)' is also inaccurate.

At the very least, it debunks statements made by many politicians that Saddam Hussein had absolutely no WMD whatsoever during the lead up to and commencement of the Iraq War.

 

[kyleb]

Yeah, a giant landfill full of chemical weapons like what was leaking in France a few years ago could do some nasty things to people left unattended, but a few hundred shell misplaced around Iraq most certainly were not any means mass destruction. Again, from the Duelfel report:

While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq
unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Every two or three months we here that 50% of US citizens couldn't point out the UK on a map, and it's the same in my country 50% of people when asked who was the leader of the oposition said don't know, or 50% of the people in the US who were asked to point out Iran on a map pointed to the wrong country. This has lead me to the conclusion that 50% of all the citizens in any country are moronic. Either that or 50% of people just really couldn't give a damn about anywhere else but their own back yard, I'm torn between the two competing theories?

EDIT: There are 2 points here to be considered

1)was there evidence of WMD at the time the US decided to go to war? Answer is that the US and UK populations were undoubtedly lied to about the level of information confirming this, in other words no there was no evidence of WMD. The reasoning behind the war whas entirely found to be eroneous, most people now assume that the motivations were economic and political.

2) Is their evidence of WMD, could weapons in Iraqs possession have been used to cause wholesale damage to hundreds of thousands of people? No they haven't got enough left, the weapons found now are too few to do any serious damage. In other words: no Iraq didn't have as far as we knew nor does it now enough WMD to cause any series damage to anyone. That's pretty much all you needed to know, if you want to argue semantics over whether it has WMD's or not, you need to consider what is important, if there is a, or was a threat, the answer is no, nothing else really matters IMO.

 

[pcorbett]

First of all, no simple firearm is a WMD.

Which has nothing to do with the analogy. By your reasoning, an unloaded firearm is inherently useless as a weapon.

Secondly, a warhead without fissile material is useless and is not a WMD, because the material is what makes it a nuclear warhead.

If that's your judgement, that's your judgement. We can't agree on this issue.

 

[pcorbett]

Here is a link from the United States Department of Justice ordering the Commerce Depatment to make good on $400 million in U.S. guaranteed loans Iraq had defaulted on.

Which has nothing to do with your allegations above.

This is old news and you know it, but yet you try to side step it with rhetoric.

No, you try to sidestep it with handwaving and the presentation of hearsay as fact.

Ahh what a perfect example of rhetoric, or should we call it sophistry? Nice try but no cigar

Like I told another poster, there are others with your point of view who can argue their case productively. Goodbye.

 

[pcorbett]

If they did have anything even close to that, then you would have a valid argument.

So your argument is a CW is not worthy of the label WMD. That's your judgement to make. It wasn't the judgement reached by the Administration or the vast majority of Americans prior to the invasion.

 

[pcorbett]

Clearly, even 90 year old chemical munitions are still considered 'poisonous and volatile.'

However, neither in this historical case or in the present, is anyone arguing that the CW agents discovered have any remaining battlefield use.

I admit that it would be inaccurate to say that the Iraqi weapons were a fully workable WMD arsenal, but to say that these weapons 'weren't capable of inflicting anything resembling mass destruction (kyleb)' is also inaccurate.

It is inaccurate, but not because the CW agents discovered were still capable of inflicting mass battlefield casualties, but because the shells themselves are specially engineered for the role and can be refilled.

 

[pcorbett]

I am simply reiterating the Duelfer report's conclusions:

And I appreciate your intrepid use of the Duelfer report to support your point of view, but that's not the point I raised about President Bush referring to the undeclared status of Iraq's pre-1991 CW munitions.

 

[kyleb]

From the Duelfer report, as quoted above:

While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991.

 

[pcorbett]

From the Duelfer report, as quoted above:

Which once again doesn't address our exchange.

For the record:

The answer is only a simple "yes" if your definition of "WMDs" by includes weapons which both sides were, not only well aware of, but also unconcerned with as those weapons were long lost and outdated shells that weren't capable of inflicting anything resembling mass destruction anyway.

In short, a definition adopted by an Administration in the lead up to war when Bush prominently cited the failure of Iraq to account for its pre-1991 arsenal in his 2003 State of the Union speech. Except the Administration (nor I) would accept your judgement that these "weapons...weren't capable of inflicting anything resembling mass destruction anyway" or that they were "lost."

We're talking about the definition of WMD. Specifically I pointed out that the President's 2003 State of the Union Speech specifically includes undeclared pre-1991 CW weapons in the Administration's definition of WMD. Clearly he wasn't talking about decade old CW agent.

On a side note, we've known since UNSCOM that Iraq disposed of large quantities of its CW/BW weapons immediately after the Gulf War--weapons it did not declare or verifiably destroy as per its obligations under Security Council resolutions. ISG doesn't add anything new to that judgement other than to judge Iraq had unilaterally destroyed at least over half of its CW/BW arsenal. Beyond that ISG doesn't provide an accounting for the undeclared weapons' disposal (it's exploitation was principally based on interviews and negative evidence) nor did it certify that Iraq had unilaterally disarmed. Finally, as pointed out in the addenda you provided, ISG does not rule out that weapons were transferred to a third country.

Here's my question. Absent a certified accounting of Iraq's disarmament, why are people--Bush critics or no--completely comfortable in saying that Iraq did unilaterally disarm?

 

[kyleb]

Becuase ISG concluded that "Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991." And furthermore, they found no evdince to suggest that weapons were transferred to any other country.

 

[pcorbett]

Becuase ISG concluded that "Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991."

The ISG report and addenda do not conclude that Iraq destroyed all of its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile. They specifically point out that undeclared munitions were uncovered by Coalition forces. More importantly, ISG makes no judgement whatsoever on the expected size of a completely recovered munitions cache. And therein lies the point; ISG is not UNSCOM or UNMOVIC. It is not a body constituted to certify Iraq's disarmament. It was first and foremost a body to determine Iraq's strategic thinking pertaining to WMD after the Gulf War through analysis of their weapons programs.

And furthermore, they found no evdince to suggest that weapons were transferred to any other country.

Actually, the ISG addenda concluded that it was unlikely, with the caveat that ISG was not able to rule out the possibility. And in the end, we have simply a vague judgement and over five hundred shells to quell our fears about roughly 30,000 undeclared munitions. At the very least, I have to admit the question of Iraq's proscribed armament is a complicated one with deep implications for future anti-proliferation efforts, but it strikes me as a particularly dangerous argument from ignorance to argue absence of sufficient evidence one way is proof positive of an alternative.

Of course, that's personal incredulity. And that was the point of my first post in this thread.

 

[kyleb]

.. it strikes me as a particularly dangerous argument from ignorance to argue absence of sufficient evidence one way is proof positive of an alternative.

I am simply pointing out the irrationality in holding a position in spite of the evidence at hand.

 

[edward]

I am simply pointing out the irrationality in holding a position in spite of the evidence at hand.

Some people do tend to get permantly stuck on the spin cycle.

That aside, let's get back to the oringal topic. A recent Harris poll indicates that the number of people who believe that there were WMD in pre invasion Iraq has grown form 36% last year to 50% currently.

It has been suggested by several that polls are not accurate enough to rely on for information. But let's face it, we depend on polls to gather information about every thing that involves the public and how they feel. For instance even marketing companies use polls extensively. Obviously polls are not always totally accurate, but they are seldom totally wrong.

I think this poll is accurate enough to be a ligitimate indicator of how Rovian tactics are being used to push questionable information through people like Rush Limbaugh and his kin. Is this an attempt to sway another election with recycled lies.? You Betcha!

The only other suggestion is that through some vaguery in the way the term "WMD" was defined previously and the way it is defined now has opened up some kind of twilight zone technospeak leading back to 1991 which now makes true the fact that there were WMD in prewar Iraq.

Whoever believes this needs to share their Batman decoder ring and tinfoil hat with the Iraqi Survey Group because after 16 months and $900 million they failed to see or find anything substantial.

This is all about politics and not WMD

 

[Astronuc]

Instead of overseeing the war in Iraq or homeland security, its members [Congress] have held press conferences announcing that they, if not the Pentagon, have at last found Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction (degraded mustard gas and sarin canisters from the 1980’s).

from Frank Rich's OP/Ed piece, NYTimes, July 16, 2006.

I heard a comment today by Stephen Zunes, which reminded me that during the Reagan administration, the US supplied Iraq (Saddam Hussein) with the chemical precusors for mustard gas and sarin. It was supposedly chemicals for fertilizer and pesticides. The Reagan administration (including Bush, Sr. and Cheney) knew that the chemicals were being diverted to military use - Saddam used chemical weapons against the Iranians, then later the Kurds, and possibly Shiites in the South.

Gee, what goes around, eh?

U.S. & Iran: Collision Course
Stephen Zunes
http://www.alternativeradio.org/programs/ZUNS004.shtml

 

[pcorbett]

I am simply pointing out the irrationality in holding a position in spite of the evidence at hand.

Which is precisely why it's difficult if not impossible to reasonably fathom the Administration's critics absolute incredulity.