Well done.

I ask your indulgence for 1 last comment.

I found Crooked Timber while researching John Rawls several years ago. I came today because of the discussion of Cohen. It was not my intention to disrupt this team building, group solidarity, exercise of calling people names.

I apologize for the tone of my second post. I was provoked by the claim that an assessment of the credibility of US claims about WMDs in Iraq should ignore the US claims about WMDs in Iraq.

Thank-you Daniel for engaging my statements.

Surely if we both agree that if the Polish army found nonfunctioning chemical weapons, it necessarily found chemical weapons.

Second, I acknowledge your point that the Jordanian army did not find any chemical weapons. Please note, however, the Jordanian police found them.

I draw your attention to the MSNBC Friday, June 24, 2005:

History’s Largest WMD Trial Begins
The largest terrorist WMD trial in history is opening in Jordan. 13 Al-Qaida and Al-Zarqawi loyalists are being tried for an attempted and nearly succcessful catastrophic chemical weapons attack on Jordan. The article notes the chemical weapons seized came from Syria, but were of a type made in Iraq

Third, I acknowledge your point that Iraq possessed lightly enriched uranium. That is what I said in my first post. However, I note that the agreed fact that Iraq possessed lightly enriched uranium is a complete defence against the claim that Iraq did not have precursors to nuclear weapons.

Fourth, (and the reason I am responding) you claim my statement that an Iraqi chemical weapon was used against US troops is sheer invention. I draw your intention to the msnbc.com staff and news service report dated 3:56 p.m. MT, Mon., May 17, 2004, which is headlined
Bomb said to hold deadly sarin gas
explodes in Iraq

Here is an extract:

BAGHDAD, Iraq – A roadside bomb thought to contain deadly sarin nerve agent exploded near a U.S. military convoy, the U.S. military said Monday. It was believed to be the first confirmed discovery of any of the banned weapons that the United States cited in making its case for the Iraq war.
Two members of a military bomb squad were treated for “minor exposure,” but no serious injuries were reported.
The chemicals were inside an artillery shell dating to the Saddam Hussein era that had been rigged as a bomb in Baghdad, said Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt.

Two former weapons inspectors — Hans Blix and David Kay — said the shell was likely a stray weapon that had been scavenged by militants and did not signify that Iraq had large stockpiles of such weapons.

“The Iraqi Survey Group confirmed today that a 155-millimeter artillery round containing sarin nerve agent had been found,” said Kimmitt, the chief military spokesman in Iraq.

I agree it is possible that the media, the UN inspector, and the US military got together for this sheer fabrication. I do not think it likely.

I will not post at crooked timber again

I am a ptarmigan, not a ptroll.

Chemical FAIL. The cache discovered by Polish troops in 2004 was later tested and found not to contain any sarin. Jordan did not actually have any troops in Iraq, so I suspect that the reason I cannot find any reference to them finding chemical weapons in Iraq is that they did not, either. The Coalition gave up searching for chemical weapons in 2005, and put out a press release announcing the fact. FAIL.

Nuclear FAIL. The “enriched” uranium was “low-enriched” uranium, which would need to be further enriched to become “high-enriched” before it could form a building block for nuclear bombs. FAIL.

In my view, continuing to claim that Iraq did not have WMDs after a chemical weapon was used against US troops is an act of bad faith

Sheer invention FAIL.

Two of the three claims about Iraqi WMD have been proved true.

Yes.

This discussion of the credibility of Charles Krauthammer is almost surreal.

The United States listed 24 causes in its declaration of war on Iraq. Three of these causes related to WMD: existence of functional chemical weapons, existence of the building blocks for nuclear weapons, and existence of the building blocks for biological weapons.

Two of the three claims about Iraqi WMD have been proved true. Chemical weapons were found by the US army and third parties –Poles and Jordanians. Enriched uranium –a building block for nuclear WMDs- was found in Iraq.

This discussion does raise issues of credibility, but not against Krauthammer. The US claims have been validated. In my view, continuing to claim that Iraq did not have WMDs after a chemical weapon was used against US troops is an act of bad faith.

Refuting silly claims that were not made -such as “The MacGuffin was the magical super secret death ray acid nuclear anthrax. Which was not found.” – is fun but not useful.

Stop living in denial.

Iraq could be said to be flouting UN resolutions after 1998 when it refused to let the weapons’ inspectors back in (after the UK and US had them withdrawn to allow some bombing). But in August 2002 Iraq agreed to allow the return of inspectors. The US and the UK then said that there would have to be a tougher UN resolution. Resolution 1441 was therefore passed and Iraq agreed to inspections under this new, tougher resolution. The inspectors went in and were able to travel around and visit suspect sites and found nothing, so it looked as if there was cooperation from the Iraqis. However those in favour of the invasion said “Oh no, Iraq isn’t cooperating because it isn’t handing over the WMD that we know it has”. We now know that there were no WMD, and no WMD programmes, so that justification collapsed. Yet it seems that the idea that Iraq was still flouting UN resolutions lives on despite the lack of WMD that were a key part of that argument.

I have spent quite a lot of time trying to find out whether there is something else behind this argument that Iraq was flouting x UN resolutions, without success. It is another one of those assertions for which there is little evidence. Let’s remember Krauthammer Day bit let’s also remember that the lack of WMD in Iraq meant the collapse of the assertions about flouting UN resolutions.

Never mind.

This is a minor issue, but you have been misreading me for the second time: it seems to me quite clear that what I, and other people, have written is that it was transparent that the given pretenses were false. Still, you could be in favor of the war for many other reasons, say uprooting Saddam, which do not necessarily make you a fool or a knave. I am not claiming that all supporters of the war were necessary evil or idiots, only those who thought Iraq was a military danger because of its WMD and who supported war on that basis.

I don’t see your point here

My point is quite simple: people in charge of the war said they care about the fact Iraq was a military menace because it owned WMD and that that menace justified war. They said it, they wrote it, they gave talked at the UN general assembly with photos about it. That they were lying was visible to anyone able to read Wikipedia.

Regarding the fact that 1441 authorized the war or that there was a breach of cease-fire, come on: the US and UK made tremendous (and almost successful) diplomatic efforts to get a new resolution stating in crystal clear terms that the war was permitted. When they saw their efforts would eventually fail, they changed course. Can you really say with a straight face that when the war broke, the UN (represented by either the GA or the security council) had reached an agreement upon it?

Category error, I’m afraid, given the clear implication that you believe the UN had not already decided what steps were necessary to restore peace to the region. See UNSCR 687.