At this point the build-up of evidence is hard to deny. Why is the refrain from the left and the media still 'Bush lied'?
Documents of the former Iraqi government released by the US Government include unexpected revelations about events in Iraq prior to the US-led invasion. These documents are addressed in an ABC News report released this week.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - Baronius
Dave, I'm sure that Chip Spear will apologize for his "my team, right or wrong" attitude any day now. Unless - and time will tell - the priority is political points instead of truth.
Look at the replies you've gotten already. Nancy has lost the ability to recognize that the sky is blue, because she's afraid of agreeing with the administration. Tommyd is accusing ABC News of working for the neocons. ABC News, the defenders of Hamas, who practically interrupt their broadcasts to pray toward Mecca.
And then there's this Dave Nalle guy who really ticks me off, because here I am well to the right of him, and people think he's a neocon just because he doesn't hate Bush 100% of the time. Are there even any neoconservatives left? The Blogcritics commenters seem to think that (a)everyone hates Bush and knows that he's lying, and (b) everyone is secretly working for Bush and/or has been fooled by him.
27 - SFC SKI
Baronius knows too much and must be silenced.
Seriously, I have to wonder why dictators and their regimes insist on documenting all of their plans and schemes.
I never wonder why some people can't understand the basis of an article and go off on tangents that only detract from the discussion. The basis for this one was that documents were captured from abandoned Iraqi ministry and intellegence offices as Coalition forces moved through Iraq. These documents go a long way to confirming claims made before the war. The US Government has actually posted some of them on the Internet.
28 - Al Barger
Dave, you may be a dirty elitist pig, but you always impress me with your research, detail, and scrupulous fairness.
In short, this is your regular excellent and carefully detailed work.
Thank you.
29 - Jet in Columbus
See Dave, I'm not the only one calling you names.
And Al, he's an excellent, intelligent, impressive, scrupulous, dirty elitist pig. If you're going to compliment someone don't use half measures.
...but that's only my opinion
30 - Al Barger
In fact, while I'm thinking about it, Can a brother get a Shout out?
31 - Al Barger
Well in fairness, rootin' ruthlessly through the filthy documentation of the Hussein regime is bound to get him dirty.
32 - Dave Nalle
Someone dumped them in my trough and I didn't realize what they were until I'd already eaten the formula for Vx gas.
And thanks for the shout, Al. And the nice words from all.
And going back onto the topic itself, if only to undermine my own point...
In the article I tried to keep things as clear as possible, but the situation is muddied by the fact, that although it's pretty clear that WMD materials were transferred to Syria, it's not entirely clear what they consisted of. It's quite likely that they were precursor materials, not yet weaponized bioagents - like the anthrax mentioned - and a bunch of equipment and components. Aside from some Vx gas which was likely already fully prepared most of it might not have been finished WMD material, though I'm sure the various Iraqi exile scientists and syrian WMD experts would have no problem finishing the job.
Dave
33 - Christopher Rose
Dave, this is a really great piece! You've done a fantastic job of putting together various discrete bits of info and making it into a brilliant report. Kudos.
Has it been reported so cogently in any of the old school MSM media, apart from the ABC report you mention, for I do not seem to have seen this elsewhere?
34 - Christopher Rose
Mind you Dave, on re-reading this, I have to reduce your gold star to silver because of your third paragraph.
I'm reasonably optimistic that someone with as rich and varied a life as yourself, with such a fierce commitment to capitalism, democracy and "representative republics" such as the USA, would have managed to grasp the notion that it is the very role of the opposition and the media to help keep any governing party on the straight and narrow path of goodness.
Characterizing this vital work as you do in that paragraph strips you of any scrap of independent reporting credibility and allies you squarely with the current government. Also, it actually weakens the power and authority of your compelling story. In my opinion.
That and your apparent compulsion to flaunt your shinehead at us! Nobody's pulled that pose off well since the late Princess Diana practically copyrighted it!!
35 - Jet in Columbus
Don't feel too bad Dave. A silver star is a very high honor in the military!
...of course that's only my opinion
36 - Jimbo
It must be height of frustration to think you KNOW everything, but have no access to information, whether it exists or not. Has intel ever been not able to reveal analysis due to divulging collection methods or accuracy?
I think so, in fact several instances in history prove it to be the case.
If you don't have a need to know, you're not going to know (in the intel world). If you don't know, it's mere opinion, and saying this nicely I put forth the adage... Opinions are expressions from people who have no authority. Or, to quote the oft repeating version [expletive deleted in respect to the unoffensive the new PC Blogcritics]
"opinions are like @)#&@^ everyone has one, and they all stink."
I don't think we'll ever truely know. In that case conjecture away.
37 - Dave Nalle
Christopher, I appreciate the star of whatever metal it happens to be. The third paragraph is largely there because I disliked the ABC report so much. Not just the way it's presented but the absolute baldness of it - sort of like my head. It's basically just a summary of the documents with little or no effort to provide context or anything helpful. It's like some reporter just put his notes for a report into full sentences and then released it. I could have used better articles on the subject as sources, but I wanted to make sure I drew on one in the MSM and all the well-rounded articles on the subject are from 'suspect' sources like WorldNetDaily. So I think I was expressing my frustration with the prefunctory job ABC did with the material.
As for my shining dome, it's my best side. Believe it or not, pictures of me taken from other angles can be MORE scary. I have a unique face which is all weird angles and extremities and I hardly even look human in most photos.
Dave
38 - In Paris
Interesting try Mr. Nalle, but you know you've already lost.
War in Iraq was a mistake from every standpoints.
Bush is a joke for 99,8% of the planet.
Rumsfeld is a joke for 100% of the planet.
Neoconservatism is dead.
Just let it go, friend.
39 - wright
Mr. Nalle has impressed me with his meticulous methods and civil language. A little professionalism goes a long way in a blog, and he has more than a little.
I am still dubious about the Bush administration's initial rationale for invading Iraq, but must admit that my own rationalizations are not holding up entirely. This I see as a good thing.
Thank you for this piece, Mr. Nalle.
40 - Arijaal
The article is clearly bullshit.
Original Iraqi documents...who has seen them? The US military?
ABC stories? They will print the truth even if the military is against it. Right...
CNN? Makes ABC look like they have integrity by comparison.
The US supported Saddam ever since he came to power, until the first Gulf War. All through the Iraq-Iran war (1980-1988). The US also supported the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan during the same period. Hussein and bin Laden were both in receipt of US funds and armaments. OBVIOUSLY there was contact (probably via US radio phone if nothing else).
Among people who respect the military in general and the US military in particular, how many of you feel that is a capable of implementing military strategy? Probably most of you.
Do you people remember when Saddam set fire to the oil wells? Dave Nalle, I know you rode the short bus to school, but do you remember the oil wells?
The huge plumes of smoke that could be seen for hundreds of miles...that was proof. Shit you hear on ABC/CNN is not proof. Alleged original documents you will never see are not proof either. Stop watching that shit, and read some history, so that you can develop a context for news as it appears.
What I am about to say is also NOT PROOF, so feel free not to believe it. This argument requires only a x facts which I will present as givens.
1. Saddam set fire to the oil wells.
2. Saddam has proven himself willing to kill people who opposed him.
Added to these, some assumptions:
a)Given the events of the past fifteen years, Saddam probably hates both Bushes and America.
b) Give the choice, Saddam would have preferred to remain in power in Iraq.
c) Saddam knew military victory was not possible once the US had committed its military.
d) Saddam knew the US was intending on removing him from power.
e) Since Saddam had no problem killing to come to power, and killing to stay in power, he would DEFINITELY not have any problem killing US soldiers.
So, when Saddam knew the US had committed its military to removing him from power, and further knew that he could not defeat said military, he decided to do what? NOT use his weapons of mass destruction?
Come on, you fucking morons. Dave, dude, what the fuck? This is the man that set fire to the oil wells.
In terms of warfare, a chemical or biological weapon would be perfect to use against invading US troops. Such weapons need not be fatal--any military analyst will tell you that a dead soldier reduces the enemy numbers by one, but a crippled soldier reduces the numbers by at least two. Those families that grieve when GI Joe comes home in a body back would grieve even more when GI Joe comes home twitching and drooling in a wheel-chair, needing permanent long-term care. Think of the economic burden on the system if this happened to large numbers of soldiers. It would be perfect. I would love to see it happen to US soldiers in every engagement--it would make the cost of war prohibitive, both economicially and politically.
So tell me, if Saddam could have done this, WHY DIDN'T HE? To preserve his good fucking name? His image as a benevolent philanthropist? Decided to make nice?
So, yeah, fuck the documents, fuck CNN, fuck ABC. If Saddam had WMD, he would have used them. Since he did not use them, I believe he did not have them. Period.
If he did have them, HE MUST HAVE CHOSEN NOT TO USE THEM. And if he would not use them against the soldiers that were invading his country to remove him from power, then he not AS crazy and diabolical as he is made out to be. After all, he was good enough to sell arms to for a decade or more...
41 - Jet in Columbus
Arijaal, I congratulate you. This is without a doubt a definate case of not seeing the forest for the trees!
For all the reasons you just outlined there's no doubt in my mind that Saddam would've used his WMD to keep himself in power, without reservation or hesitation.
In fact, I'll go one further, he'd have used them on Israel the moment he knew he couldn't win, and before the US knocked out his communications, just to become a historical hero to the Arabic community, and a martyr as well.
Why didn't he-BECAUSE THEY NEVER EXISTED!!!!
Bravo!
...but that's only my opinion
42 - Al Barger
Arjaal sure managed to write a whole bunch of words, so Nalle must be all wrong.
This incompetent Bush administration can't even manage to leak one simple frickin' news story about this idiot Plame woman without getting it broke off back up in them. But apparently we're to believe that they forged these documents that are proving some of the arguments made before the war.
You can make lots of reasonable arguments against the advisibility of the Iraq war, and the execution and follow up. There are some decent, reasonable arguments to say it wasn't worth it.
But if you're going to be responsible adults participating seriously in civic life, you have to acknowledge actual facts. Saddam Hussein did have some WMDs and programs for more. We haven't found as much as we might have feared- but you can't honestly say at this point in light of evidence that continues to trickle out that he didn't have any WMDs or WMD programs.
Also- and more damning in my book, more justifying of the appropriateness of our military action- you can't really honestly deny at this point that there was some king of ongoing co-operation between the Hussein regime and Al Qaeda.
You might still make an argument that our invasion was ill advised. What good are we accomplishing at what cost? Legitimate questions for opposition- but they have to be based on facts. An honest opposition at this point has to acknowledge that, yes, Saddam had some ties and co-operation with Al Qaeda, among other Islamic terrorist groups- but that this was not good enough justification for military action.
So then, as a supporter of the Iraq invasion, I will nonetheless acknowledge that we haven't found nearly as much in the way of WMDs as was widely expected- though there seem to be pretty good indications that we'd find at least some of that if we looked in the right places in Syria. Still, we've only actually found some scraps.
But then I would expect honest opponents of this policy now to acknowledge that Hussein did have at least some WMDs- and programs for more if he'd gotten any opportunity. Plus, you have to acknowledge that the Hussein regime was making some efforts at co-operation and support for Al Qaeda. They just flat were.
43 - Jet in Columbus
Put simply, short and sweet
The man knew he was being invaded-Even the russians told him so, he had time to prepare-communicate his orders, and prepare. If he had them, he would've used the WMDs to defend himself, and and in the process made a hero of himself to the other Arab states.
HE DIDN'T, BECAUSE HE DIDN'T HAVE THEM-because if he had them-he would've USED them-PERIOD!!!
You can write 50 paragraphs and wander and verbally meander all over the place, but the fact still remains, and you won't and can't address it.
...but that's only my opinion
44 - lumpy
didn't someone say earlier that what he had were ready-to-make materials for wmds but not the final product. like anthrax bacillus, but not in final deployable 'powder' form. if that is true then he couldn't deploy them instantly so his best move was to get them out to his pal Assad so he could look relatively clean after the invasion.
45 - Jet in Columbus
Which we would've seen by satelite and tracking planes, you're not paying attention, or just ignoring the obvious.
... but that's only my opinion
46 - Ed
Saddam DID have WMD's. He used them on the Iranians, and on his own people. That is not an opinion, it is a fact.
The proper question is what happened to them. Were they all used up, destroyed, moved, or a combination of the above?
Again, he did have them, and used them. And invaded 2 countries. Oh, plus 300,000+ bodies in mass graves.
I think we fought a previous war this century when someone else did things like that.
47 - Jet in Columbus
If he had them, he'd have used them to defend himself against the invading US force. If he had no qualms about using them before, he wouldn't have any hesitation to use them again.
Maybe-MAYBE they were destroyed or dismantled as part of the peace agreement after the first Gulf War. I seem to remember seeing that on the news back then.
There were comfirmable reports of him moving mobile missile launchers aimed at Israel, and the Air Force bombing at them. They were being tracked closely. If they'd been moved-we'd have known about it. If new ones had been made, we'd have known about it, or we would've found them after this long.
IF HE HAD THEM-HE WOULD'VE USED THEM
IF HE HAD THEM-HE WOULD'VE USED THEM
IF HE HAD THEM-HE WOULD'VE USED THEM
IF HE HAD THEM-HE WOULD'VE USED THEM
IF HE HAD THEM-HE WOULD'VE USED THEM
IF HE HAD THEM-HE WOULD'VE USED THEM
IF HE HAD THEM-HE WOULD'VE USED THEM
IF HE HAD THEM-HE WOULD'VE USED THEM
Gads!
... but that's only my opinion
48 - Dave Nalle
Jet, repeating it a lot doesn't make it so. There are a variety of reasons why he would not have used them if he had them.
But I do agree that at the point where we invaded Iraq he no longer had whatever WMDs or related material he may have had a week, a month or several months or years earlier.
The question I raise in the article is where materials that we now KNOW he had - such as active Anthrax bacillus, the components for Mustard and Vx gas and the manufacturing equipment to weaponize these items went. You see the problem isn't that he had WMDs, the problem is that he DIDN'T have the ones we knew he should have.
Dave
49 - Matthew T. Sussman
But Dave. If he had them ... you know ... he would have ... um ... used them (runs away)
50 - Jet in Columbus
IF HE HAD THEM-...Oh never mind
51 - Earl
Not if he smuggled them out of the country under the cover of disaster aid to Syria. Read the book.
Do I agree. I agree that if there are satellite photos, we'll never see them (need to know).
If Hussein had a death wish and wanted to go down in flames? Obviously not. (He hid out until capture).
Hussein had a lot of time to prepare, months. Did he? We'll never find out (need to know).
If WMD's where moved to Syria, we'll find out someday, in a surprising fashion. (Can't hide a terrorist attack from the media).
Charlie Sheene is a know-it-all. (A Meathead is a more accurate term).
52 - Dave Nalle
Good points, Earl. It looks to me like Jordan came damned close to finding out back in 2004 as referenced in the article.
Now, where the hell does Charlie Sheen fit into this?
Dave
53 - MacD
There's obvious proof that Saddam Hussain (an obvious madman, as evidenced by the fact that he lit up Kuwait's oil wells) did not have WMD's.
If he did, he would have used them on the US forces when they invaded Iraq.
He didn't use them.
We're talking about an obvious madman, who knew overwhelming force was going to be used against him. In the end his enemy was in his capital city. If he had WMD's, he would have used them.
If the program to develop them wasn't completed (but the whole rationale to go to war was based on the fact that he had), the fall of Iraq would have put a stop to that program, meaning that any biologicals found in 2004 could not have had anything to do with Saddam.
54 - Matthew T. Sussman
Now, where the hell does Charlie Sheen fit into this?
He's come out recently saying he believes that 9/11 was a conspiracy. (story)
To be fair it was a conspiracy. A conspiracy by al-Qaeda.
55 - Dave Nalle
Charlie Sheen has never struck me as the sharpest tool in the shed, and his father's influence likely warped his perception of reality.
MacD. You're covering old territory. Read #49.
Dave
56 - AHMED HAISEB
Program FasleWar;
var
Bush,Saddam : TDICTATORS;
Begin
IF HE HAD THEM-HE WOULD'VE USED THEM
Else
Bush is Lying;
EnD.
57 - wayne
thats great and all but saddam is gone and our troops are still there. why? time to bring em home.
58 - Paul
Dave,
Great article! You do realize that you will never change the minds of the left using logic. In their minds if you bring up reports and documents as hard evidence, it is all just lies.
"the only way to change a liberals mind is the a rock"
59 - Paul
"thats great and all but saddam is gone and our troops are still there. why? time to bring em home."
Wayne we were never there to remove one person. If that was the case, we could have just sent sent in a covert team and got rid of him.
The WMD's WERE NOT the only reason to go to war.
sorry about the typo:
"the only way to change a liberals mind is with a rock"
60 - Earl
MacD in #53 sez "We're talking about an obvious madman, who knew overwhelming force was going to be used against him. In the end his enemy was in his capital city. If he had WMD's, he would have used them"
I think Hussein may be more akin to -- Crazy like a fox. Lethal, trecherous, dangerous, tyranical... but perhaps not insane, mad, crazy... a heavyweight for sure.
But look at what happened on two occasions... GWI and GWII; in both operations his troops cut and run. He didn't have the hearts and minds. He had a few, maybe 50%, but the other half was just living in fear (and loathing).
I contend that Hussein couldn't deploy WMD's because he doesn't deploy anything. His general's and troops do the dirty work. They were running. Did he have WMD's? He used to. Where did they go? They probably existed up to a point, and because Bush was advised by Powell to stop the push, the "crazy like a fox" leader of Iraq arranged to either expertly hide WMD's or to shift them to another country. Granted he still had to rattle sabers to keep Iran out of his skivvee's hence the subterfuge. Well, Hussein's "plan" didn't bode well in the new normalcy (post 9/11). Oops!
61 - MacD
So you're saying that Saddam had WMD's, he had a heavily reduced fighting force...and he used his preciously low manpower to hide his force multiplier instead of using it?
That makes no sense. Why hide weapons you built whose use is exactly suitable to a last ditch defence of your arse? You wouldn't: you'd use them without prejudice.
62 - FTW
Link to impeachbush.tv
63 - Steve
The story I heard was, that Saddam's own scientists were lying to him about his WMD's cause they thought they would be killed if they told him the truth that he didn't have any. Anyone else hear that one??
64 - Dave Nalle
Link to babblingmorons.com.
Dave
65 - Jet in Columbus
Link to selfrighteoushypocrits.us
66 - JP
Did I miss something? Why is this "evidence" of weapons in Syria in 2004 more reliable than the upper level executive who basically said all the production capacity was destroyed? Half of this case is based on an alleged meeting in 1995. I'll admit this demands further inquiry and examination, but it's not the "Smoking gun" it's made out to be in this article.
And anyone who is swayed in either direction by the opinion of Charlie Sheen is missing a whole lot of brain cells.
67 - Jet in Columbus
That's the problem JP, they're only using the right half of their brain!
...but of course, that's only my opinion
68 - Carlos from Tri C
What is a president to do when a country is attacked so mercilessly on September 11, which killed thousands of innocent people? I am sure had taken a hard look at all the options available in stopping the next strike. In the case of Al Qaeda, even the leaders of the group hinted they were responsible for such a horrendous act, and everyone in the world agree that the US had the right to destroy their terrorist network. That is why a coalition was formed to remove Taliban regime in Afghanistan, and since they did not wanted to surrender Usama Bin Laden and his followers.
In the case of Iraq and the weapons of mass destruction, there seemed to be new revelations that the Saddam regime might have moved chemical materials out of the country, probably to Syria, before the war started. Such evidence has been well known by the State department, and some members of the senate intelligence committee for some time. And as the president has said many times, the decision to removed Saddam Hussein from power was the right decision because the UN security counsel approved a resolution that said if he would not disclosed his WMD program, accordance to the cease fire agreement signed after the first Gulf war, Saddam should face serious consequences, meaning military force. Given the fact that every major intelligence in the world believe Iraq had a WMD program, I believe, in my humble opinion, president Bush made the right and difficult decision to send troops and achieve the mission of leaving Iraq in a stable condition. Now, I agree that mistakes were made along the way, but that does not mean there should be a timetable, as many had suggested, for the return of the troops. We all remember what happen when then president George H. W. Bush, in accordance to the UN resolution and the subsequence cease-fire accord, took the decision of not going into Baghdad and drive Saddam out of power. Hundreds even thousands of innocent Iraqis, who were waiting for the US troops to rebel against the regime and take over the country, suffered terrible consequences.
69 - Jet in Columbus
Dear Carlos, just for the moment, lets ignore the glaring word "seemed" in your statement below...
"there seemed to be new revelations that the Saddam regime might have moved chemical materials out of the country, probably to Syria, before the war started. Such evidence has been well known by the State department, and some members of the senate intelligence committee for some time."
That gave us a good excuse to attack Syria, not Iraq.
And another thing, why is the right wing ALWAYS dismissing the United Nations as useless and counterproductive, until they're needed for this or that quote to bolster their arguments???
It was an interesting sermon you wrote, but I started nodding off halfway through it.
...but of course that's only my opinion
70 - Mo
Carlos, your memory is faulty. You say:
“We all remember what happen (sic) when then president George H. W. Bush, in accordance to the UN resolution and the subsequence (sic) cease-fire accord, took the decision of not going into Baghdad and drive Saddam out of power. Hundreds even thousands of innocent Iraqis, who were waiting for the US troops to rebel against the regime and take over the country, suffered terrible consequences.”
Evidently, we don’t all remember what happened.
We should not forget what caused the terrible consequences.
Although our cease-fire prohibited Saddam from using fixed-wing aircraft to attack his own people, we allowed Saddam the use of helicopters to do the job, which happened to be very effective in helping to kill the hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis who revolted.
And to top it off, we were the ones who encouraged the Iraqis to revolt.
Wars are notoriously good at applying the Law of Unintended Consequences.
That is a good reason why we shouldn’t engage in them.
71 - Jet in Columbus
Amen, Mo
72 - SFC SKI
Would intended consequences mean leaving Saddam in power?
73 - Mo
Carlos -- you should reconsider your “facts.”
You say -- “I agree that mistakes were made along the way, but that does not mean there should be a timetable, as many had suggested, for the return of the troops.”
Actually, there is no better reason for a swift timetable.
We all remember what happened when then president Lyndon Baines Johnson failed to get our troops out of Vietnam when “mistakes were made along the way.”
The common thread here is what is most important -- in both cases the key mistake was going into a “preventive war” in the first place.
History shows that a “preventive war” is one which only fools enter.
74 - troll
don't kid yourselves
this is no preventive war...it is a straight up war of territorial aggression through which the US has liberated Iraq's nationalised resource...and hopefully its people as well
troll
75 - Mo
“the US has liberated Iraq's nationalised resource...and hopefully its people as well”
Troll, have you checked out your dreams with the Shia Muslims?