I haven’t read it and probably won’t. I’m taking it easy tonight because the holiday weekend will be spent working on projects, one BIG, others small (including developing an op-ed based on the “Acting White” study). I won’t give details on the big one unless it’s successful. If not, I’ll pretend I never mentioned it. 
So this post will be mainly updates on what others (including yourselves) are saying about the report. The report basically reports that no WMDs were found in Iraq. As I state in the post title, so what? No doubt John Kerry will use this bit of alarmist information to hammer President Bush tonight, who had better be on top of things. Good grief.
I can’t imagine how tired the president must be, running the free world and preparing to “debate” a sophist and master obfuscator. On national TV. Under hot lights. Nope. No political office for me!
This first link goes to a Washington Times editorial about the Duelfer Report, and what do you know? They agree with me!
“Gotcha, Mr. President.” This was the consensus of the headlines from nearly every daily newspaper yesterday responding to the CIA’s Iraq Survey Group report on Iraq’s prewar weapons programs. Yes, the report found no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq since the war began in March 2003. It also concluded that whatever illicit weapons Saddam Hussein did possess were most likely destroyed just after the 1991 Gulf War in accordance with U.N. sanctions. But were these the findings that the report highlighted in the first line of its Key Findings summary? No. “Saddam [Hussein] so dominated the Iraqi Regime that its strategic intent was his alone,” the summary begins. “He wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when sanctions were lifted….”The fact is that U.N. sanctions did have a debilitating effect on Iraq and Saddam’s weapons programs. But as the report notes, “Saddam’s primary goal from 1991 to 2003 was to have UN sanctions lifted, while maintaining the security of the Regime.
While it does my heart good to have newspapers like the Times around, their editorials don’t affect my opinion. I still believe we did the right thing by going into Iraq. The folks with missing limbs, raped and tortured bodies and dead relatives thank you.
By the way, I’m not watching the debate. I’m taking Friday night off to relax, and listening to a debate is not relaxing. Links to follow…
Links: B4B says, “Rasmussen Electoral College Projections: Bush Lead Highest Ever.” How can this be if he stunk up the joint during the debate?
Power Line: The Associated Press Spins the ISG Report
Joanne Jacobs comments on school terror warnings.
Debate-related: TheShapeofDays about the latest conspiracy: George Bush wore radio receiver during the debate.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 35 comments }
As someone else remarked elsewhere - if someone is acting like he’s got a gun, convinces other people he’s got a gun, and starts threatening people on the basis that he has this gun… when the cops shoot him and they find he was holding only a toy, nobody gets much outraged. You can be charged for armed robbery even if you aren’t armed, if you convince your victims that you have a weapon and will use it.
I never cared whether Saddam had WMDs or not.
Oh, and I’m going to be listening to Patrick Sweeney on the radio tonight, and possibly watching some baseball tonight, if I can get the TV away from my husband. He likes watching Stargate and other sci-fi stuff on Fridays. He lasted only 30 minutes through the last presidential “debate”, so I’m not going to bother. I know where the men stand. I’m not confused.
I do hope people will truly think this through and see that we are better off getting Saddam out of power before his “allies” in the UN were able to get sanctions lifted. Kerry’s thought processes bewilder me. He is purported to be so
intelligent, I do not see it. He is a glib talker but certainly not a great leader.
Pat’s comment on Kerry’s purported intelligence brings to mind Bill Whittle’s latest piece, DETERRENCE, over at ejectejecteject.com.
Commenting on the first debate, he said that he feared many in the country prefer a man who says stupid things well to a man who says intelligent things badly:
“Now I don’t mean stupid in a bad way. I fully credit John Kerry with the intelligence needed to analyze, dissect, and evaluate a position and without mechanical aid quickly and accurately use advanced trigonomic functions to determine the most popular position on a wide range of complex issues – a feat that requires a very quick mind indeed.
So it’s not dumb stupid, those statements he made in the first debate. It’s more of an entirely understandable, eminently defensible, very common fossilized kind of stupid that we saw from the Senator. It was the stupid of a man claiming to have new ideas and new plans based on shared assumptions and models that no longer apply to reality.”
I agree with him to a point, but I’m not sure Senator Kerry’s views have ever applied to reality.
“The report basically reports that no WMDs were found in Iraq. As I state in the post title, so what? ”
It also says that saddams nuclear program was deteriorating under the sanctions. Rather than being a gathering threat, it was a dissipating threat, thanks to the multilateral sanctions. I think there was some debate about whether saddam was or was not advancing towards nukes.
To me, it doesn’t matter that they didn’t find any WMD. I believe the war was justified because Sadaam violated Resolution 687 which ended the Gulf War in 1991. If people would read what the “unconditional” terms of surrender was and the terms of the cease fire, they would see that Sadaam violated it out right. And because he was in violation for about 12 years, the United States had no choice but to remove Sadaam from power and liberate the Iraqi people.
Funny, but I hadn’t gathered anything about Saddam’s nuclear program “deteriorating under sanctions” If anything, the Duelfer report is an *indictment* of the “Oil-for-Food” sanctions. As Claudia Rosset notes in her latest article on NRO,
“…Oil-for-Food allowed Saddam to replenish his empty coffers, firm up his networks for hiding money and buying arms, corrupt the U.N.’s own debates over Iraq, greatly erode sanctions and deliberately prep the ground for further rearming, including the acquisition of nuclear weapons. As set up and run by the U.N., Oil-for-Food devolved into a depraved and increasingly dangerous mockery of what was advertised by the U.N. as a relief program for sick and starving Iraqis.”
I know you don’t watch TV much, but my wife and I are minor Trekkies and the season premier of Enterprise is tonight. Thanks to the wonders of modern electronics we will Tivo Andromeda (at 7 on Sci-Fi), watch Joan of Arcadia (at 8), Tivo Enterprise (also at 8), then watch Enterprise and Tivo the debate (at 9) for later perusal if desired, finally watching Andromeda at about 9:45 since FF through the commercials allows you cut about 15 minutes from the program viewing time. Tivo also allows you to watch one thing while recording another. Friday is our big television night together.
“If anything, the Duelfer report is an *indictment* of the “Oil-for-Food” sanctions.”
Oil for food is different than the sanctions. The sanctions said what can’t come in. The sanctions were put in place before oil for food was put in place. Oil for food was a way of raising money to import food, a corruptible one. I’m sure there were less corrupt, but probably more expensive ways of doing it. Like having us simply foot the bill, and not let any cash travel via saddam.
That is a heck of a way to dance around AWG’s point. The whole indictment of Oil-for-Food in the report is that it was being used to store up cash to reconstitute weapons programs, which would have happened as soon as sanctions were lifted. Why do people continue to give Saddam the benefit of the doubt? Do we honestly think that he WOULD NOT try to aquire nuclear weapons after sanctions were lifted? That is so naive.
Sanctions may have worked to a degree, however there was going to be a point in time where French, Russian and German apologists would have pushed to get the sanctions lifted. Not only that, France and Russia were arming Saddam in violation of the sanctions.
The UN was a willing participant in a sick scheme that continued to prop up a ruthless dictator.
Good post, LaShawn. Bottom line is this: President Bush believed the same intelligence that the whole world believed, that President Clinton believed, that Senator Kerry and Senator Clinton and Senator Kennedy believed.
But he dared to act on it.
Our biggest concern should now be about finishing the job we’ve begun in Iraq (and Saddam captured, his WMD ENSURED to be gone,if they’re not in Syria, is a GOOD JOB) and then perhaps taking another look at how the intelligence of the last Administration was so poor, for so long, that we had this situation to begin with.
The report says two things on this issue:
1. Oil for food was corrupted.
2. The sanctions/inspections, particularly they way they were reconstituted after 9/11, made it such that saddams nuke program was getting worse, not better. The threat was dissipating, not gathering.
Its a shame though, that the report doesn’t publish the names of the american companies involved in the oil for food scam.
anchoress,
You ladies know what I’m talking about.
That’s the core of the hatred some people feel for Bush. He dared to run against the anointed successor to King William I, little Lord Fauntlagore. He dared to cut taxes. He dared to fund stem cell research, but put limits on it.
He dared to admit to being a fan of Jesus. And he continues to dare to lead rather than follow.
Unlike his opponent, who wants troops to move only with UN controls, and to have a global test for foreign policy choices.
Oh, and he dares to look sexy in his cow boy boots riding at the ranch…
Tying into another thread, who do you ladies think would be more likely to hold the door, rise when you came to the table, and all of the other things on your wish list? I think Pelosi’s two campaign documentaries will make that clear on Sunday night.
Anchoress; well that “intelligence czar” bill that congress passed yesterday was a reckless rush to pure politics and will only make things worse by institutionalizing group-think. At least under the old system, each agency had a competition of intelligence assements. Which former agncy do you think will percolate to the top, with all other dissent opinions mariginalized?
Actus; you’re grasping at straws. So Saddam was motivated by primarily bluffing Iran. The point is Saddam had every intention of restarting as soon as sanctions were lifted. Altho he had no WMDs, he kept his brain pool active to minimize the rampup curve.
You want names? Go to acepilots.com/unscam/ American companies run by Iraqi agent provacateurs. It’s probably blacked out in the report pending prosecution.
And forget about the dissipating threat meme.
“Actus; you’re grasping at straws. So Saddam was motivated by primarily bluffing Iran.”
I think his ‘mother of all battles’ stance in Kuwait showed the world what an idiot he was.
” The point is Saddam had every intention of restarting as soon as sanctions were lifted. Altho he had no WMDs, he kept his brain pool active to minimize the rampup curve”
Speaking of straws.
Actus,
Are you infering through your comments that the sanctions were working, and therefore, we shouldn’t have gone to war in Iraq, and therefore Sadam should still be in power?
“Are you infering through your comments that the sanctions were working, and therefore, we shouldn’t have gone to war in Iraq, and therefore Sadam should still be in power? ”
The problem with your causal chain is that it doesn’t acknowledge that there might be other reasons to go to war, including ending the decidedly un-humanitarian sanctions.
Which doesn’t change the fact that, thanks to those sanctions, Saddams nuclear programs was a dissipating, not gathering, threat.
actus,
I’m still not clear on what your point is. We invaded Iraq, Saddam is no longer in power, we know for sure there are no WMD’s in stockpiles, ready to be used. The un-humanitarian sanctions are lifted and the people now have more freedom than most have had in a lifetime. I’m not clear on what the better alternative would have been.
There was, and is, a moral case for this war. The U.N. itself convened a commission in the late 1990’s to outline cases for intervention. This is what the commision said:
“I. 1. The Just Cause Threshold
Military intervention for human protection purposes is an exceptional and extraordinary measure. To be warranted, there must be serious and irreparable harm occurring to human beings, or immediately likely to occur, of the following kind:
A. large scale loss of life, actual or APPREHENDED, with genocidal intent or not, which is to protect either of deliberate state action, or state neglect or inability to act, or failed state situation; or
B. large scale ‘ethnic cleansing’, actual or APPREHENDED, whether carried out by killing, forced expulsion, acts of terror or rape.”
Sanctions were never going to stop these brutal acts by this madman. Yet the U.N. couldn’t even find it in its heart to act on behalf of the countless thousands who found their way into Saddam’s rape rooms, torture chambers, or shredders. They were never going to follow what conscience really demanded. Why? Because, like the senator from Massachusetts they suffered from seared consciences.
I think people need to ask what their expectation would be if someone like Saddam was the mayor of their town or the governor of their state. What would they expect? A planeload of diplomats or a gunboat?
Saddam’s programs were on hold until the lifting of sanctions. Intelligence assessments clearly state this. For all the accusations of rosy thinking by the Bush administration, the other side sure likes to paint a rosy picture of Saddam. He had large stockpiles of cash, scientists with know-how, and Oil-for-Food to bribe France, Germany, and Russia to push for the lifting of sanctions. I find the sanctions were working logic rather naive.
“I’m still not clear on what your point is”
The point is that whoever claimed the saddam nuclear threat was gathering was wrong. The saddam nuclear threat was not only contained, it was weakened.
Actus,
“Saddam’s nuclear program was a dissipating, not gathering threat.”
We only know that because we invaded. For over a decade, Saddam did everything he could to roadblock inspections, and acted as though he had something to hide. If he had cooperated and come clean, we just might not have invaded. By taking the “poker strategy” (bluff like you’ve got a full house even though you ‘ve got nothing), he contributed to his own demise. We now know that he even had most of his subordinate leadership convinced that he was holding onto some WMD’s, “just in case”.
This is why it was so difficult for us to get the intel right. When even the leadership thought they had something they didn’t, all your humint is going to follow right along. We bought into his bluff hook, line and sinker, but then so did his own people.
While it may very well be that the threat was dissapating, the whole world thought just the opposite (including the French, Germans and Russians). Actus, hindsight is always 20-20. We could not know what we know now without invading, because Saddam intended to continue the bluff until he had something to back it up so that it was no longer an empty bluff.
Saying we should have let the inspections continue, etc. is futile. If we had, we would still be convinced he was hiding something, because he would have continued to act as though he was.
The Duelfer report also suggests that bribes paid to French government officials and business executives may have been more extensive than earlier claims. Of course you have to go to page 8 of the NY Times to find this story (sorry, I haven’t yet checked any other sources). In addition to French business executives bribed with vouchers for oil sales, there were also payments to a former interior minister and former defense minister.
The Democratic presidential candidate and his supporters don’t seem to mind pandering to the self-interests of the French government when making U.S. national security decisions. It annoys me to no end that so little is made of the real reasons our “allies” in the Security Council opposed the war.
Stephen; you know how it is, the same light that enlightens dimly understood/seen matters also blinds the moonbats.
“Actus, hindsight is always 20-20. We could not know what we know now without invading, because Saddam intended to continue the bluff until he had something to back it up so that it was no longer an empty bluff.”
Actually the intent was to continue the bluff because he was afraid of Iran. Another gross strategic miscalculation.
Andy; Well said.
You want names? I was going to mention it earlier, but had to do a little fact check.
Captain’s Quarters summarizes thusly:
“One name leaps out from the crowd, however. People may recall the pardon scandals at the end of the Clinton presidency in January 2001, just as Clinton prepared to leave office. One pardon in particular raised eyebrows across the political spectrum, and that same name has mysteriously reappeared in the UNSCAM fallout:
In what the report calls, “an open secret,” the Iraqi government demanded illicit surcharges of 25-to-30 cents on all barrels of oil bought, which buyers had to secretly pay before the deals were sealed. They complied because the Iraqis were selling slightly below market prices.
One of the most prolific purchasers of the oil was Swiss-based Glencore run by one-time fugitive American financier Marc Rich, which the report alleges paid over $3.2 million in kickbacks to the Iraqi government. Rich, formerly wanted for tax-evasion was pardoned by President Clinton in his last days in office.
The report says that the company denies any inappropriate deals.
At the time of the pardon, many people puzzled over why Bill Clinton would pardon a man who fled the country and whose status as a fugitive had been under negotiation with the FBI just prior to Clinton’s action. Instead of cutting a deal with Rich to get him back to the US to face charges, Clinton pulled the rug out from under the FBI. Without the leverage of the charges, Rich had no further motivation to cooperate with the DoJ on any outstanding investigations.
At the time, the presumption was that Rich’s wife had donated enough money to buy the pardon. Now, however, the question may be whether Clinton knew about the corruption and feared that an aggressive Bush administration policy would uncover Rich’s participation in undermining Iraqi sanctions while Rich raised funds for both his presidential library and Hillary’s election. Or maybe the issue runs even deeper than that? ”
Chew on that Actus, Slick is knee-deep in contributing to our age of fear, uncertainity and doubt.
Rich was pardoned for this crime? or for other crimes?
Rich was pardoned for tax fraud, tax evasion and a host of other financial crimes. He was hiding in Europe until he was pardoned. After his wife donated signifigant dollars to the Clinton and Gore presidential and senate campaigns.
I don’t know how the pardon was written, but there is a good chance he may be get-able again.
“if someone is acting like he’s got a gun, convinces other people he’s got a gun, and starts threatening people on the basis that he has this gun… when the cops shoot him and they find he was holding only a toy, nobody gets much outraged.”
Not in Louisville, meep. Here a guy is a drug dealer doing a drug deal with an undercover cop. Attacks the cop, and gets his gun away from him. The cop wrestles him off, and the drug dealer starts running away. He is seen pulling at his waistband. Cop shoots him. Drug dealer found with gun in waistband where he was pulling at his pants. Cop is brought up on murder charges(acquitted, thankfully). Mother of drug dealer sues police department. Black community leaders, including the Rev. Louis Coleman(son recently convicted of drug possession) protest, and say it was a racist killing. Others in the black community say they are terrified, that it didn’t have to happen, and that it could have been their child.
Let me see…if that were the case, if the drug dealer had never been out dealing drugs, and had instead been at home with his “oh so concerned” mama, he wouldn’t be dead at this moment. Hmmm…who’s responsible in this instance? The drug dealer who was committing a crime, and attacked a police officer, or the police officer who was attacked and defended himself?
Actus,
I will direct you back to the Iraqi blogs who are thankful that Saddam is gone, and GRATEFUL to Pres. Bush, the military, America and the rest of the coalition for freeing them. If one person in Iraq can live free as I do, that war is well worth every penny. The fact that we ARE safer is an added bonus.
Kiki, it’s about time you came back to the corner
Kiki,
(1) Do you support invading Cuba? If one person in Cuba can live as free as we do, that war is worth every penny. If you don’t support the invasion, you must be some Communist-loving pinko who doesn’t care about the poor, suffering Cubans.
(2) Do you support invading North Korea? If one person in N.K. can live as free as we do, that war is worth every penny. If you don’t support the invasion, you must be some Communist-loving pinko who doesn’t care about the poor, suffering Koreans.
(3) Do you support invading Iran? If one person in Iran can live as free as we do, that war is worth every penny. If you don’t support the invasion, you must be some Islamofascist-loving jihadist who doesn’t care about the poor, suffering Iranians.
O.K. Sarcasm off. Look, OF COURSE it is better that Saddam and his evil minions are no longer in power… but there are other ways of doing it without war. We had Sadaam contained, and his grip on power was weakening in time. He was not a gathering threat, imminent threat, nor immediate threat
to U.S. security… we should have stayed the course and focussed on Afghanistan… right now the vast, vast majority of that country (except the capital city of Kabul) is in anarchy under the nominal control of warring warlords… I supported the invasion of Afghanistan, and distinctly unlike Iraq, they really did greet us as liberators… We should have focussed on rebuilding Afghanistan, keeping troops there to help enforce the sanctions on Iraq…
I’m always incredulous when politicians say, “…given what we now know…” It’s a totally meaningless, irrelevant and disingenuous statement.
Given what we now know we should’ve attacked Germany in 1934. Given what we now know we shouldn’t have allowed Columbia to take off. Given what we now know we shouldn’t have elected Jimmy Carter. Given what I now know I wouldn’t have paid to see Easy Rider…come to think of it, I didn’t.
Decisions have to be made on available information not the speculations of a politician years after the fact.
Besides, we don’t know the full story yet.
Who said we aren’t focused on rebuilding Afghanistan? That is a ridiculous assertion in the face of the hard work being done by NATO forces as well as our own.
I think peaceful elections is step one in showing our progress in rebuilding Afhganistan.
Comments on this entry are closed.