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

[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weapons which both sides were, not only well aware of, but also unconcerned with as those weapons were long lost and outdated shells that weren't capable of inflicting anything resembling mass destruction anyway.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.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

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 would argue that polls seen in the media about "public opinions" are ALWAYS wrong. The fact is that there are way too many variables left unchecked when any of these polls are taken. Variables such as:

Day of the week
Time of day
Questions asked
Specific wording and context
Specific demographics sectioned
Who asked the questions and how they identified themselves
Voice characteristics of the questioner(s)
.
.
.

The list can obviously go on and on. The fact that marketing companies use polls is not a very good argument for polls in the media either, the intended use of the polls and the way they are presented and carried out are totally different.

The fact is that any poll from a previous time can't legitimately be compared to any other poll, unless it is carried out in the EXACT same manner on the EXACT SAME people, other wise we are just trying to compare two completely different measurments of different things.

 

[kyleb]

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

I am not the one disagreeing with the Administration here, I am the one repeating what Rumsfeld said a just few months ago.

 

[edward]

I would argue that polls seen in the media about "public opinions" are ALWAYS wrong. The fact is that there are way too many variables left unchecked when any of these polls are taken.

If that were true no one would be in the "public opinion" poll taking business. And if this poll was wrong, how wrong was it? It isn't a black or white issue. Bush's approval rating is done with polls. He always claims that polls aren't accurate. But then Karl Rove jumps in and starts the spin and the PR tours.

There are a lot of tacky poll takers out there, but I have always found Harris and the Assiocated press polls to be reasonably accurate.
Perhaps we should take a poll on the validity of polls

 

[pcorbett]

I am not the one disagreeing with the Administration here, I am the one repeating what Rumsfeld said a just few months ago.

And assigning a degree of precision to his remarks without justification.

 

[edward]

Bombs found at military housing construction site
Associated Press

Two bombs thought to be from the World War II or Korean War eras were found earlier this week at a housing construction site at Fort Wainwright. Army officials Friday said the bombs were found Monday at the Taku Gardens construction site.
Officials say work on the 128 family units has been stopped until the bombs are disposed of. They say the bombs don't pose a danger to areas beyond the 60-acre construction site. The Army says the devices hold an undetermined liquid.

http://www.ktva.com/alaska/ci_4147516

I still find it amazing that old ordinance found in iraq is a surprize to anyone. It is obviously desperation on the part of some to justify major intelligence failures which led us into an unnecessary war.

Why others believe is purely politics. Can you say Santorum?

Chapter one is all you need to read about intel failures regarding Iraq.
http://www.wmd.gov/report/index.html

 

[kyleb]

And assigning a degree of precision to his remarks without justification.

Rumsfeld assigned the degree of precision, I'm just not denying it.

 

[pcorbett]

Rumsfeld assigned the degree of precision, I'm just not denying it.

Where did he specify the precision of that statement?

 

[kyleb]

With the "not" right after the "were".

 

[pcorbett]

With the "not" right after the "were".

And how does that specify precision? At this point, you're free to throw your hands up in a gesture of frustrated incredulity. But before you do, ask yourself why Rumsfeld felt the need to prepend "it appears" to that specific remark.

 

[kyleb]

I've got a question for you. In the past people have speculated that the Mars was populated by little green men. Given the response "It appears that there were not little green men there"; how many little green would you say there was on Mars?

 

[pcorbett]

I've got a question for you. In the past people have speculated that the Mars was populated by little green men. Given the response "It appears that there were not little green men there"; how many little green would you say there was on Mars?

Depends. Was Mars incubating these little green men proliferating in defiance of an international non-proliferation treaty? Did we discover just shortly before a war to end Martian aggression against Phobos? Did Mars defy Security Council resolutions to verifiably disarm after getting its ass kicked? Did the intelligence agencies of nearly every Western country with an interest in Mars' compliance or non-compliance with cease-fire obligations judge that these little green men existed? Has a survey group determined the evidence for and against a transfer of these little green men to Europa is inconclusive?

 

[kyleb]

Heh, no, people had other reasons for suspecting little green men on mars. Regardless, given the evidence to date, it appears that there were not little green men there.

 

[pcorbett]

Heh, no, people had other reasons for suspecting little green men on mars. Regardless, given the evidence to date, it appears that there were not little green men there.

How can you say that when researchers have only exploited an infinitessimally small fraction of the Martian surface? And when Mars occults its moons from Earth's perspective, who's to say what's getting boosted up the pipe? Here're the facts:

1. We know there were little green men in the past.
2. We know that Mars did not comply with the verification procedure laid out in the dis-green-ament resolutions.
3. We have documentary evidence that at the very minimum Mars intended to reconstitute its little green men capability as soon as sanctions were lifted.

Now why not err on the side of caution and presume that unaccounted weapons are still out there?

 

[kyleb]

That isn't caution, that is how we got sidetracked away from doing a good job in Afghanistan.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Heh, no, people had other reasons for suspecting little green men on mars. Regardless, given the evidence to date, it appears that there were not little green men there.

Q: What's the difference between Saddam's WMDs and flying saucers?

A: I can show you pictures of flying saucers.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

I think this should be moved to Skepticism and Debunking

 

[Astronuc]

Q: What's the difference between Saddam's WMDs and flying saucers?

A: I can show you pictures of flying saucers.

Yeah, but can you distinguish Martian flying saucers from those coming from elsewhere?

 

[edward]

Yeah, but can you distinguish Martian flying saucers from those coming from elsewhere?

Yet the really odd thing is that, according to the Harris Poll, people actually believed that WMD had at last been found.