Hope You Had a Happy Krauthammer Day!

But there were weapons! To the east, west, south and north somewhat of Tikrit and Baghdad. Rummy wouldn’t lie to us.

Let us not forget also that Hans Blix’s team looked at sites based on information given to them by the various intelligence services – i.e. they had already looked in a sample of the best possibilities and found nothing.

It is also worth noting that, according to Hans Blix himself at a talk of his I attended at my (our) old college, the Americans were not making derisory comments about his team’s search in private – it was only in public, in the media, that they were distrusting the data.

So it’s not really true that the statement is in error. It’s just lies, all the way down.

Which bit of Krauthammer’ s statement is supposed to be false?

“Hans Blix had five months to find weapons. He found nothing.” True
” We’ve had five weeks. ” True at the time I assume
“Come back to me in five months.” Imperative
” If we haven’t found any, we will have a credibility problem.”Prediction Which turned out to be correct as it happens.

I guess the overall implication was supposed to be that five weeks was a little to early to be talking about a credibility problem, but six months would be enough. That sounds pretty reasonable. Some of you seem to be assuming that Krauthammer, who is just a pundit, was privy to all that was going on behind closed doors in the Bush administration.

Or is the idea supposed to be that it was just obvious to everyone that the US military should have been finding stuff on day one, so to even suggest otherwise was dishonest? The problem is that US intelligence had been telling Blix the best places to look, but he turned up nothing. One plausible explanation for this was that Saddam was moving and hiding the evidence. In which case it might be a little hard to figure out where everything was hidden.

Is that so far outside the realm of what a pundit might actually believe that we have to conclude he was just lying?

Matt Weiner: That seems like a huge stretch to me. The “if I’m not mistaken” construction is common, and is almost always intended to mean something like “I don’t think I’m mistaken, but I guess it’s possible”. Krauthammer’s “If P, then we have a credibility problem” is not a common way of saying “not P”, and in the context it sure looks a way of saying “Talk to me later about whether we have a credibility problem or not. The evidence isn’t in yet.” It doesn’t require a great act of charity to interpret what Krauthammer said so that it turns out to be true.

Still, let’s suppose that Krauthammer meant “I’m confidant that chemical and biological weapons will be found if we just wait a little longer.” In this case he was certainly mistaken (excluding the 5000+ old munitions that were found). But even that that just gets you Krauthammer believing something false. It doesn’t get you Krauthammer lying. Where is the evidence that Krauthammer didn’t really expect any weapons to be found ever?

I can kind of get how people are sure that Bush and Cheney must have known that there was nothing to find. But why would you be so sure that a pundit like Krauthammer knew all along?

Krauthammer was not making some weak claim like “I’m not sure, the evidence isn’t quite in yet.”

Quoting Strangelove: “Still, let’s suppose that Krauthammer meant “I’m confidant that chemical and biological weapons will be found if we just wait a little longer.””

Why merely suppose anything? Here’s Krauthammer’s very next sentence: “I don’t have any doubt that we will locate them. I think it takes time. They’ve obviously been deeply hidden, and it will require that we get the information from people who know where they are.”

If Krauthammer had done his job as a citizen, let alone a columnist, to any degree then he would have found good reason to at least doubt the claims about WMDs, if not reject them as outright false. Yet he followed the administration’s line and made extremely confident statements in favour of unsubstantiated claims, and six years on he shows little sign of acknowledging this, still preaching in an air of confidence as if his credibility and the credibility of his associates were still intact.

I suppose the idea that he knew as well as Bush did that there were no WMD’s and thus lied is perhaps an overstatement, but it is not too far off the truth. Like plenty of other columnists on the right on issues far from limited to the war, he knowingly distorted available evidence to allow him to make reckless claims and cast off doubters as European-Leftist cynics and anti-americans, and does so in the passage Henry quotes from. Looking at what he said as some kind of neutral request for a little more time to weigh evidence is hopelessly naive, and there seems to be great effort being exercised here to extract innocence from moral baseness, truth from the clearest possible error, for reasons it perhaps not appropriate to consider in public.

Mg ~ “and six years on he shows little sign of acknowledging this, still preaching in an air of confidence as if his credibility and the credibility of his associates were still intact.”

Mr Cheney has requested that all WMD’s in Iraq be released. If none turn up it will be due to the current administrations partisan divisiveness. Fearing that just such an even will in fact occur, the good folks of the Ohio Militia are planning to stage a million armed man march on or to DC on the 4th. Rumor also has it that they intend to fit Joe the P with a suicide by tea bagging vest and set him off in the reflecting pool.

Charles, is that you? Love the moniker.

@13
“If Krauthammer had done his job as a citizen, let alone a columnist, to any degree then he would have found good reason to at least doubt the claims about WMDs, if not reject them as outright false. Yet he followed the administration’s line and made extremely confident statements in favour of unsubstantiated claims, and six years on he shows little sign of acknowledging this, still preaching in an air of confidence as if his credibility and the credibility of his associates were still intact.

I suppose the idea that he knew as well as Bush did that there were no WMD’s and thus lied is perhaps an overstatement, but it is not too far off the truth. Like plenty of other columnists on the right on issues far from limited to the war, he knowingly distorted available evidence to allow him to make reckless claims and cast off doubters as European-Leftist cynics and anti-americans, and does so in the passage Henry quotes from. ”

See above, and 5 for that matter. Krauthammer was not simply wrong. He was deceptive, misleading and misrepresentative about a issue of extreme importance to people he had a duty to inform correctly to the best of his ability, and still acts as if the whole thing never happened, with barely a hint of acknowledgement six years on. Maybe that’s just short of lying, but it’s the next worst thing. And it is certainly immoral.

OK, I’ll play straight man to Dr S. The point here is that, five months after the column, K should have written a piece saying “the failure to find weapons casts grave doubt on the credibility of the Bush Administration, and on the case it made for the war in Iraq”. He didn’t do it then, and six years later he still hasn’t. Hence, nothing he says should be taken seriously.

No, he has to be a liar, morally corrupt, perhaps even evil.

Is that not a normal description for those who cheerlead for aggressive war on obviously false pretences? It’s not as if he was Mr. Sensible before that either. Jeepers.

arc: I could have sworn a whole bunch of people said that Krauthammer lied (see 4 above for example). But maybe it was just a misunderstanding on my part. I don’t have a problem with the original post (as I said above at 13).

John Quiggin: So is the problem just that Krauthammer has never directly addressed the impact of the failure to find WMDs on his own credibility or the Bush administration’s credibility? He did publicly adopt an explanation for the failure to find WMDs, which left the justification for the war largely in tact. He read the Kay report as showing that, while Saddam didn’t have stockpiles of new weapons at his disposal, he did have weapons programs that were ready to go once the heat was off. So, according to Krauthammer, Saddam was still a danger and the war was still justified.

Maybe that’s not the accounting you were hoping for, but it looks like an accounting. It’s more than most public prognosticators give when they get something hopelessly wrong.

For Charles Krauthammer, it’s never the right time for retribution or reflection–certainly not in terms of being accountable for his own words. That’s just how he rolls.

Does anyone remember the Iraq Survey Group interim reprot in Oct 2003 (and final Deulfer report a year later)? It’s certainly true there were no stockpiles of WMD, but there most certainly was evidence of (illegal) reasearch not uncovered by Blix and his team. There were also discoveries of weapons proscribed by UN resolutions and proof that Iraq had flight-tested missiles with ranges that easily exceeded the limits laid down by the UN. In others words, whatever Blix had uncovered, it wasn’t the ‘truth’ of Saddams violations and capabilities.

A less generous commenter would suggest this creates something of a credibility problem for Blix and all those who claim we were entitled to come to a judgment on the justification for war based on discoveries Blix and his team did/did not make prior to March 2003.

For me and many like me, this was never about WMD; it was about getting to the truth, and so long as Saddam continued to obstruct and obfuscate (as the UN unanimously concluded he had and as the discovries by the ISG prove), this was never going to be possible whilst he reamined in power. Once we’d committed to his removal, it didn’t matter whether we found a desert full of ICBMs or 1000 tons of camel shit. Not knowing for certain was simply unacceptable. Or it ought to have been.

Bottom line: those who put their trust in Blix were as wrong as those who put their trust in Krauthammer. I’m happy to say that I did neither.

Once we’d committed to his removal.

For the Bushies, this was the starting point. Truth doesn’t appear to have had much of anything to do with it.

“For me and many like me, this was never about WMD; it was about getting to the truth”

… That’s a new one on me. We declared war because they might be lying. Really?

For the Bushies, this was the starting point. Truth doesn’t appear to have had much of anything to do with it.

So far as “Bushies” are concerned, you may well be right. I’d be interested to know, however, if you accept that not everyone who supported the war was a “Bushie”? Like Vaclav Havel, for instance? Or Jose Ramos Horta?

Summary of Blix – I found jack sh*t after searching through sites picked by US intelligence.

I’d quarrel with this, somewhat. Blix did as much as he was allowed to. Even he referred to “progress on process, but not on substance” (I didn’t google it, but it’s a fairly accurate parahprase if I remember rightly).

In any event, I’m not alleging bad faith on the part of those who believed Blix had found everything there was to find. I’m just saying such people were wrong, which – unless you are claiming thhe ISG was a fraud – they most certainly were.

Gah, people like Brownie are still trying to excuse aggressive war.

I fully endorse RB’s “Is that not a normal description for those who cheerlead for aggressive war on obviously false pretences?” Evil people were among us, are among us, and still have no shame about what they’ve done and what they would still like to do.

Krauthammer gave the keynote address at the Conference on World Affairs in April 2005. His subject was the history of American foreign policy, culminating in “The Bush Doctrine.” Even at that late date he managed to speak at length about the goals of the Bush Doctrine in Iraq… without ever — even once — mentioning Weapons of Mass Destruction. He’d already conveniently forgotten how the specter of these weapons (that were never found) had been used as the primary justification for the war. When questioned, he made the straw man argument that nobody knew there were no WMD. True. And yet Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al., repeatedly stated on the record that they DID know Saddam possessed WMD. The point is clear: The evidence for WMD was in some cases manufactured, in other cases exaggerated — but none of it proved anything.

so this post is making me giggle. The tone is sarcastic but that will do for the humor-deprived.

Then I think of all the dead Iraqis, of all the angry young Muslims who have been handed a cause, of the dead American military and contracted [money grubbing] civilians and those still living but with missing bits of body and mind, of the billions poured into the Euphrates for oil we will never own…I don’t need or want to complete this list of the hell we have harvested. Mr. Krauthamer spread his tattered gossamer of credibility over all who did read his regurgitated lies and preferences-turned-to-speculations but who yet timidly or with a dumb hard-on voted with Bush/Cheney and their New American Censure. To the extent we have a real democracy in the US, we forfeit the luxury of simply saying “we were misled”.

“Credibility”, an alleged coin of power in a democracy! How cheaply it is forged for a fatuous populace that can leap to the political right at the first sound of gunfire!

You do us a favor, Henry, to heighten memory about this festering weakness…it is not cured if it is not observed.

“Is that not a normal description for those who cheerlead for aggressive war on obviously false pretences?”

Can I just say that there were very few people who in Feb/Mar 03 were prepared to give Saddam’s Iraq a clean bill of health, even as Blix’s men were on the ground. The argument against war then ran “give Blix more time” not “Saddam’s obviously telling the truth”.

Even those in the Whitehouse who were knowingly accentuating the negative were doing so partly from a position of ignorance. It’s not entirely clear whether even Saddam knew the true nature of Iraq’s WMD capabilities pre-war. “Obviously false pretences” is a transparently desperate attempt to rewrite history. That Iraq was subsequently shown to be free of WMD stockpiles provides no cover whatsoever.

Maybe SH though he should be allowed to do the same knowning that members of the UN Sec council did indeed supply such stuff to petty 3rd world folks like himself.

Maybe, but it’s entirely irrelevant what Saddam thought he was entitled to do.

Then I think of all the dead Iraqis, of all the angry young Muslims who have been handed a cause

Do you ever think of the millions of Muslims who have been handed a vote?

So what?

So “obviously false pretences” makes no sense.

Do you ever think of the millions of Muslims who have been handed a vote?

Maybe you should dig up the dead ones and ask them if they think it was worth it.

Absolute nonsense. Even if Saddam had WMD’s, he wouldn’t have used them against the West, because he would guess correctly that his days were numbered. (Exactly the same thing is true of Iran, now.) He was a coward who communicated to the U.S. his intent to invade Kuwait. And even if Saddam had WMD’s, that has never been a pretext for war. Indeed the U.S. knew he did NOT have WMD’s, or else it would not have sent troops in there. There are a couple of different foreign policy reasons why the U.S. might want to invade Iraq. WMD’s were not really on that list.

Righteous,

You may want to try following the thread more closely, to wit, my comment to which you replied “so what” was itself a direct response to ““Is that not a normal description for those who cheerlead for aggressive war on obviously false pretences?” In this context, your last comment is a non sequitur of gargantuan proportions.

Maybe you should dig up the dead ones and ask them if they think it was worth it.

Maybe you can keep ignoring the live ones who say it was.

an incompetent, lying, bushist dead-ender.

Surely you mean “Bushitlerist”?

And even if Saddam had WMD’s, that has never been a pretext for war.

As before, it’s not about the weapons per se, rather Saddam’s non-compliance with UN resolutions that codified the terms of the Gulf I ceasefire.

There are countries in noncompliance with UN resolutions all over the map. Not an accepted excuse for starting a war, and not operational in this case either.

Do you ever think of the millions of Muslims who have been handed a vote?

Actually, they voted regularly in Saddam’s Iraq as well. And, without foreign tanks on the streets back then, it probably felt at least as meaningful as it is now.

Even those in the Whitehouse who were knowingly accentuating the negative were doing so partly from a position of ignorance

Sure, and from this position of partial ignorance, they put tremendous pressure on intelligence agencies to sex up, rewrite or completely falsify their reports and briefings on the subject of WMD and Iraq’s military capabilities, because that’s just what people in a position of ignorance do. This was already clear at the time to a moderately competent observer, so “obviously false pretense” is a perfectly viable charge. Indeed, many countries (including members of the Security council) and several US intelligence agencies, for instance the USAF intelligence, vigorously dissented at the time (the USAF had to, as they had been monitoring Iraqi forces for a decade, not to mention the ridiculous disgrace that was Colin’s Powell famous image analyzing).

But sure as hell, for Brownie the most important thing was to know the truth. Now you know, hundred thousands of civilians have died, millions have been injured or displaced. But you know for sure what was almost certain beforehand. Was it really worth it?

Well it may end with the Kurds separating from the country, and happy to have long-term military basing arrangements with the United States. Here again, it’s rather difficult to argue that, for the the Kurds, there’s no difference from being under Saddam. They are much happier.

As far as I can follow the news of Shi’ite politics, all roads lead to the Ayatollah, who is currently al-Sistani. I’m not convinced that their internecine arguments are of long-term importance — and certainly do not make them feel there’s no difference from life under Saddam, when they were crushed unmercifully by the minority Sunnis.

Some Sadrists decided not to play along with the new Baghdad government and Maliki made a self-enhancing show of dispensing with them (and, it was trumpeted, without U.S. ground support.) Meanwhile al-Sadr has wisely gone off (to Iran) to study to become an Ayatollah to get in the proper line for leadership in Iraq.

It has been reported that several of the Ayatollahs already in line after al-Sistani are not as understanding as Sistani is of the West, and hope to introduce sharia law, etc.

Of approx. 2 million displaced inside Iraq + 2 million gone into exile, most are Sunni. According to a guess by Nir Rosen, Iraq has gone from 60% Shia before the war, to 80% now.

Iraq had flight-tested missiles with greater range…

Yes, Al-Samoud IIs. And UNMOVIC was literally cutting them up with circular saws in the factory yard in March 2003.

I wonder if “Brownie” was literally frothing at the mouth as he wrote that, or just figuratively.

…what the UN described as free and fair elections…

Really, the UN described it as free and fair? What election was that? Could you provide a link please.

I wonder if “Brownie” was literally frothing at the mouth as he wrote that, or just figuratively.

I’m genuinely curious as to why you should think I’d be “frothing” from any orifice? Have I been rude to anyone? Have I been hysterical? Looking back on my contributions I’d claim they were delivered in a perfectly clamn and respectful manner, whatever you might think of the content.

Or maybe you believe all supporters of the war are genetically predisposed to “frothing”?

Still doing a heck of a job Brownie, answer this though; how many sorties were flown over Iraq between the end of GW-I and 1998 (please include pounds of ordinance dropped) and between 1998 and 2000, and between Y2K and the official start of GW-II, again showing ordinance usage. Was Saddam that good, or were we that bad? Was the ISG allowed free rein to point out all players in the game?

I’m not sure what you’re getting at. If you’re trying to make the point that Saddam’s capabilities had already been severely degraded by the time inspections stopped in 1998, then absolutely I’d agree. There’s no doubt about that, although you just have to read ex-UNSCOM inspector Scott Ritter’s resignation letter of Aug 08 to be persuaded that the job was not yet done. After a 4 year inspections hiatus come the winter of 02, I think an assumption that Saddam’s capabilities had increased was not entirely unreasonable.

To clarify, when I refer to stuff Blix and his team “missed”, this is not intended as a criticism of Blix. However, the ISG work belies the notion that we were finding everything there was to find in the early spring of 03. Clearly, we were not.

Really, the UN described it as free and fair? What election was that? Could you provide a link please.

Here’s a page of quotes from a guy called Craig Jenness. Guess what job he had during the Iraqi elections of Dec 2005, and guess what election he is referring to in those quotes?

I’m genuinely curious as to why you should think I’d be “frothing” from any orifice?

Often people assume there must be some mental problem involved when an individual does their damndest to justify war crimes. Don’t take it personally.

Henry,

The formal claims of the US government, as passed by its Congress, were that Iraq had functional chemical weapons, and precursors for nuclear and biological weapons in 2002.

The chemical weapon claim was demonstrated true: the Jordanian police seized chemical weapon shell, as did the Polish army. One shell was used as an IED against the US army.

The nuclear claim was demonstrated true: moderately enriched uranium was found in cargo ships in Netherlands and Denmark, and 7,000 kilograms of lightly enriched uranium was seized in Iraq by the US army and shipped to the US.

There is no credible evidence of biological weapons, although UK newspapers claimed ricin poisonings were due to Iraq.

Do you not agree the formal US claims were true?

Often people assume there must be some mental problem involved when an individual does their damndest to justify war crimes. Don’t take it personally.

Risible.

Sorry, I have no idea who Craig Jenness is and why he’s saying these things.

Do you want to take a wild stab in the dark? Okay, Craig Jenness was the UN adviser to Iraq’s election commission in the Dec 2005 eelctions.

Though I am not shy about unpleasant implications, what you say is not true: I don’t pretend to know the mental state of any supporter of the war (some might have supported it because they thought it would stabilize oil production and damn be civilian casualties, some, including apparently President Bush, because it would haste the realizations of biblical prophecies…). However, I do stand by my characterization: a moderately competent observer (say a careful reader of Wikipedia) had all the necessary means to discern that the pretenses given to go to war were obviously false.

I think there is a rather obvious contradiction there. If all it took to come down on the side of opposing war was competency as an observer and an ability to digest Wikipedia, you are in as many words claiming mendacity and/or idiocy as character traits of those supporting war. Incidentally, by March 2003, this means approximately half the population of the UK and peoplel like Vaclav Havel and Jose Ramos Horta….those well-known fools/knaves [delete as applicable].

As beofre, my recollection is that there was barely a sprinkling of people whose opinions were worth hearing who were prepared to give Iraq a clean bill of health pre-war; most who opposed the war took the view that inspections should continue – presumably because they were unconvinced we could be sure everything that could be discovered had been discovered. And to think, all these – by definition incompetent – observers needed to do was consult Wikipedia…

Maybe to you, but at the Azores summit the week between the war started, Tony Blair gave a passionate speak saying to Saddam that if he disarmed, no war should broke out. So the official actors of the war were apparently very serious about this (and the fact that they were obviously lying implies that the pretenses were, well, obviously false).

I don’t see your point here. Saddam needed to provide unfettered access to everything inspectors wanted to see and everyone they wanted to speak to. Whether this cooperation proved Iraq was armed to the teeth or in possession of nothing more than a few pop-guns, it would have destroyed the pretext for war. War may still have happened anyway, but I and I’m sure plenty of others wouldn’t have supported it. As it is, I supported the war that did happen; the one preceded by inspections that – in Blix’s own words – continued to be obstructed, albeit not to same the degree that they might have been previously…which may have had something to do with half the US naval fleet sitting in the gulf.

Iraqi compliance was not difficult, you know? Iraq had to hand over documents when they were requested, provide scientists for interview (without minders) when they were sought, and permit access to every building inspectors wanted to inspect. After 12 years, Saddam was inent on continuing to play silly buggers. Something else Blair said was that there was no question of a time limit for inspections; he clearly said that inspections could and should take another year if it could be shown that Iraq was complying with all requests, but equally, all the time in world made no difference if Iraq was hellbent on non-compliance.

First of all, I have a problem with “we” in that sentence. It cannot refer to the UN, else the Security council or the GA would have passed a resolution to that effect. Who is it then? Supporters of the war? Who, in your opinion, is entitled to launch military actions that will killed thousands of civilians just to know for sure something? Some governments? Which one? Would you be so kind as to tell me?

I’m sure you know how it goes: 1441 granted Iraq a “final opportunity” to comply or face “serious consequences”? Can you tell me what sort of opportunity follows the “final” variety, and what were the supposed “serious consequences” she risked facing? A pie in the face for Saddam? More sanctions on top of the ones most opponents of war wanted to drop?

UNSCR 687 gave Iraq 15 days (off the top of my head) to make full disclosure of its proscribed weapons locations and programs. That was April 1991. Just under 12 years later and Iraq was still in non-compliance. UNSCR 687 codified the terms of the Gulf I ceasefire. The last time I checked, a breach of ceasefire terms can revive a conflict situation. There is no mention in 1441 of a need for a second resolution to legitimise the use of force. It simply mentions that member states would reconvene to consider matters in the evnet of continued non-compliance by Iraq. Reconvene they did, and then member states promptly fell-out about the appropriate course of action in the light of Iraq’s failure to seize her “final opportunity”. The truth is that member states walked away from 1441 in the full knowledge that some interpreted the message contained therein one way and others another. The hope was that such differences of interpretation would be rendered moot by Iraq’s compliance. The rest you know.

Second of all, again, before the war, the fact that under the current regime of inspections and military monitoring, the military capabilities of Iraq paused no threat to its neighbours (and of course to european countries or the US) was 99% sure. How many people are you willing to see slaughtered for the remaining 1%? I would really really like to know what is the name of Obama’s new dog. Apparently, it’s Bo, but am I entitled to raid Washington, killing a few thousands people in the process, to find out for sure? Why not?

“99% sure”? Is this more Wikipedia? As before, Saddam could have complied if he had so wished. He didn’t so wish. I think people were entitled to think Saddam’s continued non-compliance was designed to conceal something rather than nothing.

It is ‘Bo’, by the way.

I’m sure you know how it goes: 1441 granted Iraq a “final opportunity” to comply or face “serious consequences”? Can you tell me what sort of opportunity follows the “final” variety, and what were the supposed “serious consequences” she risked facing?

I dunno, what did the UN decide?

The true lesson of the Iraq war is that a sufficiently determined nitpicker can prevent himself from ever learning he was wrong.

That’s because you are an amoral monster untroubled by the deaths of the innocent, Brownie.

If all it took to come down on the side of opposing war was competency as an observer and an ability to digest Wikipedia, you are in as many words claiming mendacity and/or idiocy as character traits of those supporting war.

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?

What’s all this nonsense ’bout all this wmd stuff anyway. I say, since Iraq hit us on 9-11 we had no choice but to go to war. I don’t care if they don’t have anything more dangerous than slingshots over there, in my opinion we…(huh? they didn’t attack us? are you sure? well, that’s different).

Never mind.

We should indeed continue to celebrate Krauthammer Day, as well as continue to remind ourselves of David Aaronovitch’s famous prediction that WMD would be found in Iraq and Tony Blair’s insistence at that time that WMD would be found in Iraq. In the run-up to the invasion and in the three or four months afterwards, people in favour of the invasion were very vociferous that WMD would be found because it was a key part of their argument as to why it was OK to invade even though there had been no explicit UN resolution, and as to why Iraq was continuing to flout UN resolutions.

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.

“[…] you are in as many words claiming mendacity and/or idiocy as character traits of those supporting war.”

Yes.

Chemical weapons were found by the US army and third parties –Poles and Jordanians

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.

Henry

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.

Before the invasion of Iraq, I honestly did not understand there were humans as mind-numbingly moronic and/or dishonest as Ptarmigan. It’s been a real lesson in the bizarre nature of the human psyche.