Blogcritics: Comments on WMD Myths

Comment by Eric Olsen

Sun, 30 Nov 2003 13:58:47 EST

I absolutely accept that leaders can be, and are, wrong frequently. That's central to my point that it's not all about a Big Lie - it isn't either/or. And I absolutely believe there are or were in the very recent past WMD in Iraq. Quoting above, what was estimated to exist would fit into one small warehouse and one swimming pool. And rather obviously, given the current conditions in Iraq, people do not feel free to reveal all they know.

Comment by Joe

Sun, 30 Nov 2003 10:34:12 EST

Big Lie technique? What do your results on the bar exam have to do with this discussion?

Comment by Mac Diva

Sun, 30 Nov 2003 02:44:44 EST

Someone somewhere still believes there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Amazing! Proof that the Big Lie technique works. Eric, why can't you accept that the leaders of the U.S. can be wrong? They were wrong about Vietnam (and most of the petty invasions since), and they are wrong now.

Comment by Joe

Sun, 30 Nov 2003 02:12:13 EST

Don't be too quick to overestimate our intelligence capabilities with regard to WMDs. In 1998, both India and Pakistan were able to actually detonate nuclear devices without us having any advance notice, basically catching the CIA flat on their collective ass. Additionally, look at the ambiguity surrounding the DPRKs program, a lot of speculation as to what the actual status is with few hard facts. Given these instances, perhaps our low risk tolerance with Iraq is more understandable.

Comment by jadester

Sat, 29 Nov 2003 22:19:28 EST

the CIA may not have been fooled by the niger forgeries, but said forgeries were still allowed to circulate as "evidence" at high levels of government (and earlier in England too, where to begin with Blair somehow missed the telltales signs, such as one of the ministers' names appearing on the documents actually being a minister who had not been in power for several years) Considering the intelligence capablities the US has at its disposal (here i mean technology like its satlellites) i am amazed that they have not thus far been able to track down any wmd or even convincing evidence that such exists. The most they came up with so far was some biological agents that were developments on those we sold them over a decade ago, nothing that is a big threat due to its effectiveness (or lack thereof). i will not say "iraq definitely did not have wmds" but i am highly skeptical it was anywhere near the level of threat the us and uk made it out to be.

Comment by JC

Sat, 29 Nov 2003 20:31:16 EST

Wow. Here I thought we had a constitutional process, international law, and many decades of intelligence analysis and vetting processes. Learn something new every day.

Comment by Craig Lyndall

Sat, 29 Nov 2003 19:20:44 EST

If you find it worthy of borrowing, I am flattered. Go for it.

Comment by Dan

Sat, 29 Nov 2003 19:18:00 EST

I like that statement too Craig. Uh... can I borrow that?

Comment by Eric Olsen

Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:43:41 EST

For the most part, that is a very wise statement, Craig.

Comment by Craig Lyndall

Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:29:31 EST

This is all proof that hatred can be seriously blinding. Bush hasn't done everything perfectly. He (along with every other politician ever) has used hyperbole to make his points and sway opinions. Is he a liar? Let's not go that far. Was it absolutely necessary to go to war? It depends on your definition of imminent and threat. It was a foreign policy decision and I don't think anyone can say whether it was right or wrong. It was a decision and it will only serve to create more decisions further down the line. People need to stop acting like the whole thing is cut and dry. There is no right answer, just different choices.

Comment by Eric Olsen

Sat, 29 Nov 2003 17:58:12 EST

The central point is this: it has become received wisdom that the administration rigged or ignored the intelligence community regarding Iraq, and that there weren't and aren't any WMD in Iraq - it's all a White House plot. This is a bracing statement from someone directly involved that none of that is true.

Comment by Craig Lyndall

Sat, 29 Nov 2003 17:12:37 EST

Yeah... I agree. we should just put our intelligence on a readily accessible website so that everyone can feel much better.

Comment by JC

Sat, 29 Nov 2003 16:36:09 EST

So some guy who's butt is on the line for being such a tool says it's a myth and you believe him. Let's remember, shall we, that the NIE was produce only after the decision to go to war was made - in the opposite order it is supposed to be don - and only after repeated and plaintive requests by Senators for this necessary document. Not exactly a foundation of strength on which Cohen can base his arguments on.

Comment by Craig Lyndall

Sat, 29 Nov 2003 16:27:07 EST

No Eric, if we haven't found them then I don't believe that they exist. Also unless I get a picture of Saddam and members of Al Qaeda having tea together I won't believe there is a link between them.