Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

If it were true, I can't imagine that Dick Cheney for example, would pass up an opportunity to prove such an impressive case, even if it meant trashing some of his own.

It's more likely a hoax than a repressed Gaubatz memory.

On the other hand if our intelligence agencies and the guys running the show IN Iraq screwed up THAT bad, why should we have any confidence in anything the administration says about Iraq NOW?

I guess if it is true it does prove the assertion that the administration was even more incompetent than currently suspected in executing the war in Iraq.

Not the bunch you'd trust to change the Middle East.

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at April 21, 2007 02:36 PM

Eh, I'm underwhelmed. I've never had much sympathy for the WMD search 'n' destroy mission. It feels like "gun control" on an international basis, where it has even less chance of success.

I think the only truly effective way to keep nations from using nuclear weapons inappropriately is the same way we keep people from using guns inappropriately: threaten to annihilate them if they do.

That's not to say I don't think the US should negotiate treaties -- with arm-twisting if necessary -- with other nuclear nations to suppress the export of the best technology. The Russians should be severely punished for their part in this. That the Europeans continue to blindly buy their oil is an act of astonishing hypocrisy, greed, and short-sightedness.

Posted by Carl Pham at April 21, 2007 02:56 PM

"This is pretty dismaying, if true"

A pretty big "if," given the source, the Fox News-esque snideness of the writing, and the barrage of conspiracy theory cliches throughout. If there was any evidence whatsoever, no matter how dubious--or even if anyone would believe them were they to lie--the White House would shout from the rooftops that Syria had Saddam's WMD. It would shift the discussion from the ongoing catastrophe in Iraq toward their intentions in Syria, while the commentary on past failures it implies would be short-lived.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at April 21, 2007 04:16 PM

If the source is this David Gaubatz then I'm fairly unimpressed with his overall credibility.

I thought Saddam acted like he had WMDs precisely because he didn't have them. The ambiguity about his post-Gulf-War posession of WMDs bolstered the security of his regime, especially since he'd had them before the Gulf War. Such a policy gave him 90% of the benefit of WMD posession with 10% of the expense and risk.

Posted by Jane Bernstein at April 21, 2007 04:30 PM

Well it was on the internet, it must be true.

Posted by Adrasteia at April 21, 2007 05:21 PM

I believe JFK and Elvis have Saddam's WMD stored on the Apollo sound stage in Area 51, which is actually in the geometric center of the Bemuda triangle. And of course, JFK + Elvis = Bill Clinton...

IT ALL MAKES SENSE NOW!!!!

Posted by Duncan Young at April 21, 2007 05:43 PM

I thought Saddam acted like he had WMDs precisely because he didn't have them.

I think you're exactly right, Jane. And this points out a major flaw in the "nuke control" model of international peacekeeping. Having to take every nuclear bluster seriously, you end up putting a collar around your own neck and dangling the leash in front of any fool with domestic issues who needs to distract the populace with an external bugbear, cf. Dear Leader and Ahmabuggerhead.

Posted by Carl Pham at April 21, 2007 05:59 PM

"I think the only truly effective way to keep nations from using nuclear weapons inappropriately is the same way we keep people from using guns inappropriately: threaten to annihilate them if they do."

The problem with that is you have to make a credible threat. With the utter spinelessness of the media, the cut and run congress, and an almost allergic aversion to "collateral damage", I can easily see someone convincing himself that the US doesn't have the will to retaliate. Hell, I'm not sure we would at this point, and I'm not a mullah.

When Curtis LeMay led SAC, there was not the slightest doubt in anyone's mind that he was not only able and willing, but outright eager to nuke the living shit out of someone. He couldn't wait for his chance. For MAD to work, you need to at least look mad. Even better is being genuinely nuts.

Posted by s at April 21, 2007 07:39 PM

"threaten to annihilate them if they do"

But then you have nut cases like those in Iran who don't care if you annihilate them, since such annihilation is only a short cut for them to get to their 70 or so virgins.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at April 21, 2007 08:21 PM

Just to toss one more thing in there...

We know for a fact that Saddam had WMDs and WMD material as late as 1996ish, when a couple of senior family members (remember them?) defected, and spilled the beans. We actually caught a lot of physical stuff after that, stuff that he had denied ever having, stuff that we had no idea that he had left.

That's kinda the context that we were looking at 6 years later...

Posted by Big D at April 21, 2007 09:57 PM

That's kinda the context that we were looking at 6 years later...

Posted by Big D at April 21, 2007 09:57 PM

Not really.You need to read about Desert Fox...Bill Clinton (remember him?) swung pretty hard after the WMD in Desert Fox...indeed that was the sole purpose of the operation.

There was enormously heavy engagement of various WMD sites and storage bunkers...and I am told that some intel said we hit them pretty hard.

This charge seems on its face to be right wing wishful thinking....the WMD would leave evidence and all those bunkers were searched and NOTHING was found. AS for what the Iraqis say....LOL

Robert

Posted by at April 21, 2007 10:07 PM

One thing I've never undertood: the "9/11 Truth" whackos are convinced that Bush and Co. concocted a vast conspiracy to create an atrocity that the U.S. could then use as a pretext for war ...

But somehow, after pulling off this flawless conspiracy (yes, flawless -- "The crash of Flight 93 was ALL PART OF THE PLAN, people, to make you THINK that there were really hijacked airliners instead of quantum inter-dimensional holograms!") ... it never occurred to any of the Bushies that after we attacked poor, innocent Saddam Hussein that people would notice that he didn't have WMDs. Otherwise why didn't they just implement a far smaller conspiracy to plant a few nukes and biolabs in Iraq so the American warmongers would be vindicated?

I almost wish we HAD planted a few nukes in Iraq.

Posted by Mike G in Corvallis at April 21, 2007 11:47 PM

"But then you have nut cases like those in Iran who don't care if you annihilate them, since such annihilation is only a short cut for them to get to their 70 or so virgins."

Yes, you do. And the only logical end to this train of thought is to get your annihilation in first. No Iranian mullahs necessarily means no nuclear-armed ones.

Posted by Fletcher Christian at April 22, 2007 06:12 AM

A very disappointing article in general. Lots of innuendo, but no facts, links, or references to go on. This "lone voice in the wilderness" type of reporting seems a little desperate.

On the other hand, if ANY dictator/psychopath wants to make claims of WMD, whether they have them or not is irrelevant; the fools should be isolated from the rest of civilization and destroyed if they try to escape. Unfortunately, most of the planet is not civilized yet, so the isolation trick doesn't work. Thus, the need for many nukes on our side, and the willingness to share them (in an armed condition, of course).

"Nuke 'em all, let Allah sort them out." - Ronald Reagan (if he were still alive)

Posted by Dave G at April 22, 2007 06:22 AM

Posted by Mike G in Corvallis at April 21, 2007 11:47 PM

Not really.

TWO points...

First I never imply conspiracies where stupidity/incompetence is possible. The latter neatly explain this administrations performance on 9/11 and its "pre war" babble.

Second...I think that the administration believed three things about going into Iraq which as they say "turned out not to be true" or in my view even reality based...

a. The effort would be simple, b. Some WMD would be found trivial though it might be and c. when a and b worked out the American people would cheer loudly and that would be IT.

Instead they picked to paraphrase General Zinni "the wrong war at the wrong place badly done".

Amazingly the people "cheered" for a long while until the gross incompentence of this administration just became to much to ignore...now the only people left are the Bushie true believers...

Robert

Posted by at April 22, 2007 07:54 AM

BS: "the Fox News-esque snideness of the writing"

You whine about Fox but I bet you're one of those liberal apologists that have for the past 30 plus years claimed that ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, NYT etc. are NOT biased.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at April 22, 2007 08:18 AM

I bet you're one of those liberal apologists that have for the past 30 plus years claimed that ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, NYT etc. are NOT biased.

No, I'm sure he fantasizes that they have a "right-wing" "sling-blade" bias. Just not as much as Fox.

Posted by Rand Simberg at April 22, 2007 08:28 AM

Oler: "b. Some WMD would be found trivial though it might be"

That is BS and you know it Bob.

No one thought Saddam had only trivial amounts of WMD. You and your buddies at the DNC continue to try to re-write history. It is a historical FACT that the vast majority of senior political figures in both parties as well as most intelligence agencies of other countries were convinced that Saddam had a hidden WMD program. You and your lying accomplices (IE the DNC and the MSM) continue to ignore this and try to portray Iraqi WMD as a Bush created myth.

It is THAT lie, not anything Bush has said, that is the biggest and most shameful lie that has been perpetuated and spread to the American people and the world.

You, others like you, the DNC and the MSM have provided aid and comfort to the enemy (thats Al Qaeda by the way) through your lies and propaganda attacks against a sitting American President.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at April 22, 2007 08:29 AM

No one thought...

Cecil did you not hear Zinni on MTP a week ago....he made short work out of your position.

No one in the military thought Saddam had WMD that could threaten CONUS and most thought he didnt have a reliable stockpile of WMD period.

Saddams troops in the last four years before the invasion never excersized their WMD delivery ordance (ie the supposded rockets or arty weapons)...they were never seen doing the chem or bug protocols in testing and excerise...how do I know..?

If they had done so we would have known and we would have shown that at the UN instead of the farcical drawings that Colin had.

Several intel agencies might have thought Saddam had residual WMD that was not destroyed in Desert Fox, but Bush and his lackies were mouthing the words of him using that WMD to attack the US ..."the next smoking gun could be a smoking mushroom" and that was your lie...or incompetence or whatever.

For your information "thinking" that a country has ssome capability is the same in intel speak as "speculating" and COUNTRIES should not go to war on speculation.

The things that were told about the WMD, from the AL tubes which were not for nuclear processing equpment to the drones were only meant to rev up a scared and frightened public...

Seems that they hooked you.

Robert

Posted by at April 22, 2007 08:56 AM

No, I'm sure he fantasizes that they have a "right-wing" "sling-blade" bias. Just not as much as Fox.

Posted by Rand Simberg at April 22, 2007 08:28 AM

a symptom of right and left wing extremist is that they all think that the MSN is biased against them. Go to the Edwards or Obama blog and you will get the same babble as you do on say the Thompson blog...the faithful all think that the MSN is against them.

Secret decoder rings.

Robert

Posted by at April 22, 2007 08:58 AM

Cecil said: You and your lying accomplices (IE the DNC and the MSM) continue to ignore this and try to portray Iraqi WMD as a Bush created myth.

The interesting thing to see is how the lie is perpetuated. The Dems agreed to look for the WMD and many agreed that Saddam had them. Now, since large caches were not found, they can state the fact that there were none and that Bush lied. I expect both sides to lie about the other, that's American politics in a nutshell. I'm amused though at HOW politics meanders around the truths so that accusations can be hurled.

Posted by Mac at April 22, 2007 09:00 AM

against a sitting American President.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at April 22, 2007 08:29 AM

One more thing...there are two groups who are unwittingly or wittingly providing aid and comfort to the enemy..that is the far right which refuses to face reality and hence is losing the support of the American people and the far left which is as hung up on Bush hate as the far right was on Clinton hate.

No one has been a more consistent supporter of "since we have done this stupid thing we have to win" then I have been. Find a single post on the net or anywhere where I say otherwise and then you can make ridiculous statements like you have.

I was oppossed to going...I am also quite certian that cutting and running is a mistake far in excess of that.

What is making life hard is
"Santorumites" on the right who wont face reality.

Robert

Posted by at April 22, 2007 09:02 AM

Ugh. I hate these discussions.

In the summer of 2003, I remember quite a few Democrats started their long march away from their votes with the following (near) quote regarding Iraq:

"The President failed to make the case that the threat was imminent."

This is factually accurate, but a listener might conclude that the President tried.

In fact, he specifically stated that, "we can not wait until the threat is imminent, because then it is too late to respond".

I realized then, and have watched with growing sadness and anger, that Democrats would align their political interests with failure in Iraq. In short, the welfare of those "little brown people" (my word choice), and of our national honor, was far less important than political profit. Senator Reid's recent public comments -- not just that the war is "lost", but also WHY it is lost -- directly rewards the specific strategy of Al Qaeda. WTF! Has the Saudi mafia taken over Nevada's gambling industry, and become Reid's new pay master?

I carry no particular torch for Mr. Bush. I respect the Office and the responsibilities that come with it. For a long while, I thought the Administration was sand-bagging its political opponents. Now I see that a substantial portion of the Executive Branch acts according to its internal bureaucratic / personal interests, EVEN WHEN it is contrary to the policies of the Chief Executive. EVEN WHEN the principal beneficiaries are those same bureaucrats who f***ed up (and then moved up). The CIA comes to mind.

The principal failures of President Bush, as I see them, are twofold:

a. Communications. Strategic and operationally, it seems to have left important parts of the field to its opponents, both foreign and domestic.

b. Lack of proper "house cleaning", to the maximum extent possible, of the Executive Branch, of those functionaries who did not act in support of the policies of the Chief Executive. In essense, too much good faith in "fellow Americans" who had their own axes to grind.

Since 1991, we have had sufficient causus belli to resume hostilities at whatever level of intensity we desired, because Saddam flouted the terms of the cease fire.

The local thugocracies understand only power (strong horse, weak horse, etc.). When we didn't enforce the cease fire to it maximum extent, we broadcast to the world that we didn't really expect thugs to live by their agreements.

Any parent should understand the implications of setting boundaries, then not enforcing them. We have done the same.

With sadness, anger, and acceptance of a much more violent future,

Posted by MG at April 22, 2007 10:07 AM

Oler: "No one in the military thought Saddam had WMD that could threaten CONUS"

So first your argument is that your side has always claimed he had NO WMD and when that is proven false you claim that your side thought he had none that was a threat to the US? Now tell me what military officers told you that any small amounts of WMD Saddam might have could NEVER make it to the US by any means; because any that would say that is an idiot. And anyone who would believe it is also an idiot.

Oler: "and most thought he didnt have a reliable stockpile of WMD period."

That is an absolute lie aimed at those you think are too ignorant to know any better. Well I do know better. Every single military officer that I personally know was convinced he had WMD and practically every military officer I have ever even heard from indirectly thought in March 2003 that he had WMD in large quantities. Why do you think our guys were running around in the desert wearing chem suits, just for the sauna benefits?

Posted by Cecil Trotter at April 22, 2007 12:30 PM

Oler: "there are two groups who are unwittingly or wittingly providing aid and comfort to the enemy..and the far left which is as hung up on Bush hate"

If there was anyone hung up on Bush hate that would be you. So thanks for proving my point.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at April 22, 2007 12:32 PM

Oler: "there are two groups who are unwittingly or wittingly providing aid and comfort to the enemy..and the far left which is as hung up on Bush hate"

If there was anyone hung up on Bush hate that would be you. So thanks for proving my point.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at April 22, 2007 12:35 PM

MG, your post above is dead on. Bush and company have made grave mistakes in the prosecution of the war in Iraq and other areas, but the war itself was absolutely the right decision.

But the Bush admin mistakes in prosecuting the war in Iraq (and Afghanistan) and the inept mishandling of other issues (Gonzales springs to mind, as does Berger, Katrina etc.) PALE in comparison to the outright treasonous behavior of the leaders of the democrat party. Their public statements and actions could not be more in line with the wishes and desires of Al Qaeda if AQ were orchestrating them directly.

I believe for the first time in the history of this country the greatest threat to our continued freedom is not an external one but an internal one. The external threat of islamofacist terrorism is one that we can defeat given the will to do so and time.

Having the will to do so is key, as the real threat to US security is the cowardice that the ultra left wing liberals controlling the democrat party have shown in facing our external threat. It is either cowardice or, God help us, a premeditated attempt to insure that the GOP led offensive against islamofascism is a failure so that they might reap the political benefit in such a failures aftermath.

In truth I believe there is a large degree of both at work.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at April 22, 2007 12:49 PM

One of the more entertaining exercises I've come across is to compare the rhetoric and actions of the modern Copperheads with the previous ones. Bush is being reviled by the usual suspects for a war that I suspect history will record was not only just, but necessary. Harry Reid is creating for himself a legacy of infamy by behaving in a way that would have been called treason in previous wars.

Posted by MarkWhittington at April 22, 2007 01:08 PM

Zinni was CentCom chief in 1997-2001; the chief years of Al Queda's meteoric rise; what did he
do about it; he opposed the misslie strike on
Sudan and Afghanistan; as well as every other
effective operation against Osama. He rally
to Bush's side in 2000, but that was because
he thought Clinton was too aggressive? On the
Saddam beat, he did put together 'Desert Fox'
but he didn't follow through. His 'Desert
Crossing' exercise, convinced him Saddam was
not a danger? that there were no WMDs, although
French, Egyptian, Russian, & Jordanian intelligence insisted otherwise. In the aftermath
of the ISG; we released Dr. Germ and Mrs. Anthrax
for heavens sake. his end all and be all, is typified by his envoy duty to the occupied territoeies, which went nowhere.

Posted by narciso at April 22, 2007 03:44 PM

A rarity, but not alone. I am not one who believes GHW Bush was wrong to end the ground battle in 1991, when he did. He managed to get the enemy to sue for peace without the unnecessary bloodshed. However, once the enemy violated the terms of the cease-fire, action should have been swift and sure. Saddam should have been removed from power then.

Posted by Leland at April 22, 2007 05:06 PM

Hmmm, lone wolf knows where the WMD are, but he's thwarted by a unfeeling, incompetent bureaucracy (a bureaucracy that would have been looking for *any* excuse to claim that WMD were in Iraq). Later he gets word from his contacts in American intelligence that these bunkers (which the US government knew about) got looted by Iranian and Syrian intelligence groups and the huge quantity of material was somehow smuggled into these neighboring countries. I don't buy it.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at April 22, 2007 05:45 PM

Posted by Cecil Trotter at April 22, 2007 12:30 PM

Cecil

Zinni says your arguments are babble.

He was a four STar General in the Corps...he has more boots on the ground time in the Mideast then every major player in this Administration.

You can ally yourself with "your friends" I'll stick with Zinni.

"MY Side" was Zinni, who said before the war that Saddam had no WMD that could threaten America...gee he was correct.

You were wrong.

Robert

Posted by at April 22, 2007 07:23 PM

In fact, he specifically stated that, "we can not wait until the threat is imminent, because then it is too late to respond".

Posted by MG at April 22, 2007 10:07 AM

YES...as I remarked at the time "It sounded better in the native Japanese when they said the same thing right before pearl harbor.

Idiots

Robert

Posted by at April 22, 2007 07:34 PM

Posted by Cecil Trotter at April 22, 2007 12:49 PM

I do understand why the Dems are running away from their votes and it pains me...they are as nutty as the far right.

Their inclination was to vote against the war, but they too thought it was going to be "quick and easy"...and the nuttiness that was going on at the time was amazing.

There were some who got it correct...

General Zinni. Shinseki...Owens..all flag officers...

Robert

Posted by at April 22, 2007 07:38 PM

Finally (and thanks for your patience), I am somewhat a rarity. I thought GHW Bush erred by not pursuing Saddam to ground, compounded it by not backing the Shia, Sunni, and Kurdish rebellion in 1991, and THEN not treating the terms of the cease-fire seriously.
Posted by MG
A rarity, but not alone. I am not one who believes GHW Bush was wrong to end the ground battle in 1991, when he did. He managed to get the enemy to sue for peace without the unnecessary bloodshed. However, once the enemy violated the terms of the cease-fire, action should have been swift and sure. Saddam should have been removed from power then.
Posted by Leland at April 22, 2007 05:06 PM

MG and Leland, there are at least three of us.
GHWB (is it me, or does that sound like a new street drug?) left us that mess in the name of "stability in the region". We would have had a lot more allies in Iraq if Saddam had not been so generously allowed to slaughter (at least) tens of thousands our country encouraged to rise against him.

Posted by at April 22, 2007 08:01 PM

Oler not only demonstrates his pathological hatred for the President by comparing him to Hirohito (and by extension by comparing the American military to the Imperial Japanese Navy), but his complete ignorence of history. Saddam had provided enough of a causus bellum to be overthrown many times over. Indeed, UN Resolutions specifically authorize member states to use any means necessary to force Iraq's adherence. Invasion and regime change was the only thing left. I'm also not impressed by his quoting a Clintonista General. Might as well quote McClellan on the Civil War.

Posted by MarkWhittington at April 22, 2007 09:51 PM

Robert, my post about the whackos who believe in a Gigantic Evil Bush Conspiracy behind 9/11 was not directed at you.

Why did you think it was?

Posted by Mike G in Corvallis at April 23, 2007 12:01 AM

Posted by MarkWhittington at April 22, 2007 09:51 PM

Your extension is about as logical as the "Reds are taking the Moon" argument that you trumped.

The people urging the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor were "not" so much the Emperor as it was the Japanese General Staff...The Japanese Navy was oppossed to the attack, because Yamamotto understood what the Army did not, that the war was a mistake...

But I am happy Mark to be in the comapany of people like General Zinni who you doubtless think is a Bush hater as well.

Do you have his credentials? LOL

Robert

Posted by at April 23, 2007 03:43 AM

Posted by MarkWhittington at April 22, 2007 09:51 PM

I would add this...we might have had reasons to attack Saddam...how tragic for the lightweights in the Administration that none of them were the reasons that they mentioned in the nuttiness up to the war.

Smoking guns...AL Tubes that were misstated, drones attacking the US lots of misstatments.

Enjoy

Robert

Posted by at April 23, 2007 03:45 AM

That was a very unimpressive article. Until some some real, physical WMDs (post-1991 versions) can be presented in public it remains an unproven proposition.

On the otherhand, we don't know where the anthrax attacks of 2001/2002 came from .... Somebody did have WMDs and used them Washington DC.

Saddam did have theatre ballistic missiles in violation of armistice rules, as well as other demonstrable causi belli. It is time to stop agonizing and apologizing for our foriegn policy.

Posted by Fred K at April 23, 2007 07:56 AM

Oler, before you go gloating too much over what you think Zinni said maybe you should read his testimony before the Senate on February 29, 2000. I'll do the math for you, that was before GW Bush took office.

He said:

"While Iraq's WMD capabilities were degraded under UN supervision and set back by Coalition strikes, some capabilities remain and others could quickly be regenerated. Despite claims that WMD efforts have ceased, Iraq probably is continuing clandestine nuclear research, retains stocks of chemical and biological munitions, and is concealing extended-range SCUD missiles, possibly equipped with CBW payloads. Even if Baghdad reversed its course and surrendered all WMD capabilities, it retains the scientific, technical, and industrial infrastructure to replace agents and munitions within weeks or months."

Doesn't sound like "Iraq has no WMD" to me.

Zinni was aginst going to war in Iraq and he has made many statements about how the war was mishandled, some of which I agree with, but he did state unequivocally that Iraq had WMD stores and the capability to grow those stores. Therefore the crux of your argument with respect to Zinni being in lockstep with you is false.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at April 23, 2007 03:27 PM

Post a comment