Texas Rainmaker » NYTimes: Documents Reveal Iraq Was “On the Verge of Building an Atom Bomb”

NYTimes: Documents Reveal Iraq Was “On the Verge of Building an Atom Bomb”
November 3rd, 2006 4:29 am

*2 Updates*

Lots of questions surrounding this article in the New York Times… the least of which is the timing of the article.

On the one hand, it seems to be implying the Bush administration was incompetent in allowing a “cookbook for building nuclear weapons” to be published on the Internet for all the world to see. But on the other hand, to believe the documents constitute a threat, we’d have to acknowledge that Saddam Hussein’s regime possessed the actual know-how to build a nuke, and was a year away from actually having one. I don’t think the Left is ready to accept such an argument.

From the article:

Last March, the federal government set up a Web site to make public a vast archive of Iraqi documents captured during the war. The Bush administration did so under pressure from Congressional Republicans who had said they hoped to “leverage the Internet” to find new evidence of the prewar dangers posed by Saddam Hussein.

But in recent weeks, the site has posted some documents that weapons experts say are a danger themselves: detailed accounts of Iraq’s secret nuclear research before the 1991 Persian Gulf war. The documents, the experts say, constitute a basic guide to building an atom bomb.
…
Among the dozens of documents in English were Iraqi reports written in the 1990s and in 2002 for United Nations inspectors in charge of making sure Iraq had abandoned its unconventional arms programs after the Persian Gulf war. Experts say that at the time, Mr. Hussein’s scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away.

Jim Geraghty says:

I think the Times editors are counting on this being spun as a “Boy, did Bush screw up” meme; the problem is, to do it, they have to knock down the “there was no threat in Iraq” meme, once and for all. Because obviously, Saddam could have sold this information to anybody, any other state, or any well-funded terrorist group that had publicly pledged to kill millions of Americans and had expressed interest in nuclear arms. You know, like, oh… al-Qaeda.

The New York Times just tore the heart out of the antiwar argument, and they are apparently completely oblivous to it.

The antiwar crowd is going to have to argue that the information somehow wasn’t dangerous in the hands of Saddam Hussein, but was dangerous posted on the Internet. It doesn’t work. It can’t be both no threat to America and yet also somehow a threat to America once it’s in the hands of Iran. Game, set, and match.

Allah asks:

Exactly how far along was Saddam’s nuclear research that Iran might possibly benefit from it?

and…

Why is the IAEA worried about Iran using bombmaking information in their “peaceful nuclear energy program”?

Captain Ed asks:

If the nuclear documents on the website are authentic, does that mean the ones linking Saddam to Al Qaeda are authentic too?

He’s referring to these documents (which I posted the titles of a year ago):

1. Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) Correspondence to Iraq Embassy in the Philippines and Iraq MFA (Ministry of Foreign Affairs)
2. Possible al Qaeda Terror Members in Iraq
3. IIS report on Taliban-Iraq Connections Claims
4. Money Transfers from Iraq to Afghanistan
5. IIS Agent in Bulgaria
6. Iraqi Intel report on Kurdish Activities: Mention of Kurdish Report on al Qaeda–reference to al Qaeda presence in Salman Pak
7. IIS report about the relationship between IIS and the Kurdish Group Jalal Talibani [sic]
8. Iraqi Mukhabarat Structure
9. Locations of Weapons/Ammunition Storage (with map)
10. Iraqi Effort to Cooperate with Saudi Opposition Groups and Individuals
11. Order from Saddam to present $25,000 to Palestinian Suicide Bombers Families
12. IIS reports from Embassy in Paris: Plan to Influence French Stance on U.N. Security Council
13. IIS Importing and Hiding High Tech Computers in Violation of UN
14. IIS request to move persons, documents to private residences
15. Formulas and information about Iraq’s Chemical Weapons Agents
16. Denial and Deception of WMD and Killing of POWs
17. 1987 orders by Hussein to use chemical weapons in the Ealisan Basin
18. Ricin research and improvement
19. Personnel file of Saad Mohammad Abd Hammadi al Deliemi
20. Memo from the Arab Liaison Committee: With a list of personnel in need of official documents
21. Fedayeen Saddam Responds to IIS regarding rumors of citizens aiding Afghanistan
22. Document from Uday Hussein regarding Taliban activity
23. Improvised Explosive Devices Plan
24. IIS reports on How French Campaigns are Financed
25. French and German relationships with Iraq
26. IIS reports about Russian Companies–News articles and potential IIS agents
27. IIS plan for 2000 of Europe’s Influence of Iraq Strategy
28. IIS plans to infiltrate countries and collect information to help remove sanctions
29. Correspondence from IIS and the stations in Europe
30. Contract for satellite pictures between Russia, France and Iraq: Pictures of Neighboring Countries (Dec. 2002)
31. Chemical Gear for Fedayeen Saddam
32. Memo from the IIS to Hide Information from a U.N. Inspection team (1997)
33. Chemical Agent Purchase Orders (Dec. 2001)
34. Iraq Ministry of Defense Calls for Investigation into why documents related to WMD were found by UN inspection team
35. Correspondence between various Iraq organizations giving instructions to hide chemicals and equipment
36. Correspondence from IIS to MIC regarding information gathered by foreign intelligence satellites on WMD (Dec. 2002)
37. Correspondence from IIS to Iraqi Embassy in Malaysia
38. Cleaning chemical suits and how to hide chemicals
39. IIS plan of what to do during UNSCOM inspections (1996)
40. Secret Meeting with Taliban Group Member and Iraqi Government (Nov. 2000)

And of course, Michelle Malkin catches the irony in the New York Times “accusing the Bush administration of being careless with national security data”.

I think Geraghty sums it up pretty well:

Having now read it, I can see that every stop has been pulled out to ensure that a reader will believe that posting these documents was a strategic blunder of the first order.

But the story retains its own inherent contradiction: The information in these documents is so dangerous, that every step must be taken to ensure it doesn’t end up in the wrong hands… except for topping the regime that actually has the documents.

Can’t have it both ways, folks.

UPDATE:
Thanks to Jim for reminding me about this document in the collection as well. Notice the picture on page 5:

None other than Abu Musab al Zarqawi, the dead cockroach leader of al-Qaida in Iraq. The text accompanying the picture says:

2002 Iraqi Intelligence Correspondence concerning the presence of al-Qaida Members in Iraq. Correspondence between IRS members on a suspicion, later confirmed, of the presence of an Al-Qaeda terrorist group. Moreover, it includes photos and names.

2002 as in pre-2003 invasion.

UPDATE 2:
U.S. Rep. Pete Hoekstra reponds to the NYTimes story:

“Yesterday’s article by the New York Times highlights a number of important issues with respect to Iraq’s WMD programs, as well as the importance of the documents that have been recovered in Iraq,” said U.S. Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI), Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. “I am pleased that the document release program continues to stimulate public discussion of these issues.
“With respect to the possibility that documents may have been released that should not have been released, I have always been clear that the Director of National Intelligence should take whatever steps necessary to withhold sensitive documents. In fact, as of today the DNI had withheld 59 percent of the documents that it had reviewed, and has become more risk-averse over time. If the DNI believes that the documents that were released were in the safe 40 percent, imagine what the 60 percent being withheld must contain.

“That said, it is also important to emphasize that the IAEA, contrary to its assertions, never raised any concerns about this material with the United States Government before going to the press. Similarly, the DNI’s office has informed me that no agency of the U.S. Government had raised any issues about the potential or actual release of these documents before yesterday. If there were such problems, they would have been better addressed through the appropriate channels rather than the press.

“These documents also raise several additional issues of interest. First, it is extraordinary that the New York Times now acknowledges that the captured documents demonstrate that ‘[Saddam] Hussein’s scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away.’ This only reinforces the value of these documents in understanding the threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s regime. Only 1 percent of the estimated 120 million pages of captured documents have been reviewed, and we must continue working to promptly understand these materials. If there is concern about Saddam’s nuclear program, there should be similar concern about potential connections between Saddam and al-Qaeda suggested in the documents.

“Second, my staff’s preliminary review of the documents in question suggests that at least some of them may be internal IAEA documents. There is a serious question of why and how the Iraqis obtained these documents in the first place. We need to explore that carefully - I certainly hope there will be no evidence that the IAEA had been penetrated by Saddam’s regime.

“Finally, it is disappointing but not surprising that the New York Times would continue to participate in such blatant and transparent political ploys, including what I believe are improper efforts by the IAEA to interfere with U.S. domestic affairs. The sad reality is that the New York Times has done far more damage to U.S. national security by the disclosure of vital, classified, intelligence programs than is likely to be caused by the inadvertent disclosure of decades-old information that had already been in the hands of Saddam’s regime.”

UPDATE 3:
More analysis.

26 Comments »

Since it comes from Malkin, you already know it has to be BS. As North Korea found out, there’s a big difference between knowing how to build a uranium-based atomic bomb and actually achieving the technological prowess to do it.

Comment by endorendil — 5:16 am
”Since it comes from Malkin, you already know it has to be BS.”

A much more accurate rendition would be, since it comes from Endorendil, you already know it has to be BS.

So in your mind it is okay for the NYT to have it both ways – nuclear weapons in the hands of that honorable and stable Iraqi leader, Saddam, was okay, but Saddam’s papers on the internet is bad on Bush and doesn’t prove Saddam was a danger to the US. Wow, no wonder you won’t answer my direct questions.

Comment by Old Soldier — 6:47 am
What are you talking about, endo? This is a NYT article. Pay attention.

Comment by Texas Rainmaker — 7:09 am
OS, it is both bad to attack a country on the basis that it has WMD when the evidence was against it, and bad to post information that facilitates proliferation. That’s not having it both ways.

I don’t answer ad hominem questions, but everything else I’m willing to discuss. While on that topic, would you like to say what you think needs to be done to win in Iraq and Afghanistan? Not what should have been done, or what definitely shouldn’t be done now, but what actions need to be taken now to win.

Did you actually read the article, or only the comments about it? Here are some of the salient parts:
On March 16, after the documents’ release was approved, Mr. Negroponte’s office issued a terse public announcement including a disclaimer that remained on the Web site: “The U.S. government has made no determination regarding the authenticity of the documents, validity or factual accuracy of the information contained therein, or the quality of any translations, when available.”

Why is this disclaimer there? Well:
Some intelligence officials feared that individual documents, translated and interpreted by amateurs, would be used out of context to second-guess the intelligence agencies’ view that Mr. Hussein did not have unconventional weapons or substantive ties to Al Qaeda. Reviewing the documents for release would add an unnecessary burden on busy intelligence analysts, they argued.

In other words, this stuff was posted without being completely checked, and a disclaimer was put on just so that people wouldn’t take the stuff too seriously. But it also wasn’t checked to see whether there was actually valuable information in it.

Why publish stuff that hadn’t been checked on whether it would contribute to proliferation? Well:
The campaign for the Web site was led by the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Representative Peter Hoekstra of Michigan. Last November, he and his Senate counterpart, Pat Roberts of Kansas, wrote to Mr. Negroponte, asking him to post the Iraqi material. The sheer volume of the documents, they argued, had overwhelmed the intelligence community.

When other Republicans joined in trying to get all this material declassified, Bush forced Negroponte to start releasing the documents.
On April 18, about a month after the first documents were made public, Mr. Hoekstra issued a news release acknowledging “minimal risks,” but saying the site “will enable us to better understand information such as Saddam’s links to terrorism, weapons of mass destruction and violence against the Iraqi people.” He added: “It will allow us to leverage the Internet to enable a mass examination as opposed to limiting it to a few exclusive elites.”

Unfortunately, this was before they started publishing sensitive stuff about chemical weapon production, and long before they started publishing how-to guides from Iraq’s pre-Gulf War program. “Minimal risk” seems a little naive in hindsight.

Incidentally, OS, a lot of the documents were about chemical and biological warfare. Some of the first documents to be removed from the site (after the UN protested) were related to chemical weapons. It’s only since September that stuff related to the nuclear program was published. They are all about the nuclear research program before 1991. While the program didn’t progress beyond that, the information is still valuable for countries that haven’t done much work in the area.

Comment by endorendil — 7:23 am
TR, I ain’t defending everything that the NYT writes, but it has very often good reporting. Contrary to Malkins’ website.

Comment by endorendil — 7:26 am
“Incidentally, OS, a lot of the documents were about chemical and biological warfare. Some of the first documents to be removed from the site (after the UN protested) were related to chemical weapons.”

Chemical weapons are WMDs.

And if we agree with the assessment that these documents constitute a threat, then this underscores the justification for the invasion:

Among the dozens of documents in English were Iraqi reports written in the 1990’s and in 2002 for United Nations inspectors in charge of making sure Iraq abandoned its unconventional arms programs after the Persian Gulf war. Experts say that at the time, Mr. Hussein’s scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away.

European diplomats said this week that some of those nuclear documents on the Web site were identical to the ones presented to the United Nations Security Council in late 2002, as America got ready to invade Iraq. But unlike those on the Web site, the papers given to the Security Council had been extensively edited, to remove sensitive information on unconventional arms.

We were going on intelligence that showed Iraq was “on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away.”

In addition, if we’re to believe these nuke documents are authentic enough to pose a threat, then we have to believe the other documents in the collection are also… including those that show Iraq actively working with al-Qaeda - you know, like Richard Clarke said back in 1998… or heck, even Democrat Jay Rockefeller, who said in 2002:

There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years…

I have come to the inescapable conclusion that the threat posed to America by Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction is so serious that despite the risks — and we should not minimize the risks — we must authorize the President to take the necessary steps to deal with that threat.

Was he and the Democrats that agreed with him lying us into war, also?

Comment by Texas Rainmaker — 7:40 am
Several Democrats were conned into approving the war. That’s because they trusted Bush, Rumsfeld, and Powell. There’s no blame in being fooled once.

Tell me, if Malkin thinks that we went to war to take these documents away from Iraq, because we were afraid of who they would give this information to, why on God’s earth would we then post them on the internet???

No WMD were ever found in Iraq. The search was called off. Bush was wrong. Cheney was wrong. Rumsfeld was wrong. Powell was wrong.

Comment by endorendil — 9:43 am
And Clinton and Clinton and Gore and Kerry and Pelosi and Reid and Schumer and Biden and etc., etc. were also wrong.

In the late 90s and early 2000s all of these people made the same statements as Bush. They took no action. Bush took action and later found that what everyone believed was in Iraq, wasn’t.

Captains Quarters

One particular criticism that appeared with each new translation was that the documents were never proven genuine, although no one could explain the logic behind the US government hiding these documents in Iraqi Arabic among an avalanche of mundanity, only to shove it onto a shelf for years until Congress authorized their release to the Internet. Now we find another verification of their authenticity, this time from the New York Times, which reports today that the documents constitute a national-security threat:

Comment by SouthernRoots — 10:45 am
“Several Democrats were conned into approving the war. That’s because they trusted Bush, Rumsfeld, and Powell. There’s no blame in being fooled once.”

But it was more than several that claimed Saddam was a threat and had WMDs long before Bush moved to Washington. This “Bush duped the Vice Chairman of the SSCI and other Democrats” is ridiculous. They were all warning of the threat Saddam posed, many before 2001.

“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
–Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

“There is no doubt that … Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs.”
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
– Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
– Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
– Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities.”
– Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years … We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
– Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

It would be one thing if these guys had been saying something different until Bush came to office… but their rhetoric about the threat Saddam posed continued on the exact same path until Bush actually took action. Then they all suddenly reversed course.

Comment by Texas Rainmaker — 10:46 am
The fact that the Hussein regime had detailed plans on building chemical weapons is no surprise. Its a known fact that such weapons were used by Iraq against Iran during the war between those two nations.

Also, to build an atomic bomb, you need enriched uranium, that is the difficult part. Obtaining plans for such a weapon would not be extremely difficult, especially when you have scientists being paid by the government of a nation (that we support monetarily and militarily) willingly shopping such plans around. The existence of these plans is not definitive proof of anything.

I love the attempt to distract from the real, definite issue here: that these plans were made publicly available by the Bush administration. Even had these plans confirmed that Iraq was very close to building a bomb, that is not the pressing issue. All it serves in that situation is to give someone the right to say “I told you so”. The larger problem is that such plans were accessible by terrorists in this day where anti-American sentiment is higher than it has ever been and the Russians can’t keep tabs on all their nuclear material. The fact that conservatives are more concerned with using this to support the rationale for this war, that has been executed terribly, rather than attempting to punish those who endangered our nation yet again is very telling.

Comment by forrest — 10:56 am
“Even had these plans confirmed that Iraq was very close to building a bomb, that is not the pressing issue.”

It’s always a no-win situation with you folks, Forrest. You say we did too little to stop North Korea and Iran from developing nukes, but turn around and suggest that we did the wrong thing by removing Saddam from power even if there’s evidence he was “close to building a bomb”.

“The larger problem is that such plans were accessible by terrorists in this day where anti-American sentiment is higher than it has ever been and the Russians can’t keep tabs on all their nuclear material.”

Saddam was actively supporting terrorists and terror-networks. If he had these in his possession, then they were undoubtedly available to terrorists then.

Comment by Texas Rainmaker — 11:12 am
Jason, once again you distract from the real issue here.

What is going to be done to the parties responsible for posting this information on a website accessible to the public? The lack of oversight in this administration that allows things like this to happen unpunished is astounding.

You say we did too little to stop North Korea and Iran from developing nukes

I never said this.

Additionally, these were documents from prior to 1991. If Iraq gotten to that point prior to 91, surely they would have had the time to build a bomb prior to 2000. Yet there is no evidence that they had one.

As I pointed out earlier, it would not have been difficult for Saddam to get his hands on plans when rogue scientists were shopping them around to various national goverments at odds with the US.

But my original question still stands: where is the oversight in this administration?

Comment by forrest — 11:27 am
Mid-Term (Open) Must-Read List /2

Dick Morris, Jay Bryant, Michael Barone, Byron York, Rush Limbaugh, Neal Boortz, Ronald R. Griffin, Mark Mellman, Charlie Cook, Jonah Goldberg, Stuart Rothenberg, Mike Allen, Hugh Hewitt, Larry J. Sabato, David Wasserman, Peggy Noonan, Lawrence Kudlo…

Trackback by The Right Nation — 12:14 pm
#8 SR Clinton and Gore and Kerry and Pelosi and Reid and Schumer and Biden didn’t start a war because the evidence wasn’t strong enough. No one trusted Saddam, and rightfully so, but no one believed that it was worth fighting a war over. Bush did. And if you can’t tell the difference between starting a war and threatening one, you’re qualified to serve in the White House.

#9 TR, as above. There is a difference between suspicions and actionable intelligence. When you’re going to do something as drastic as attacking another country, you better be damn sure about it. It helps to plan for the consequences too.

And forrest is right, the issue is that Republicans forced the publication of these materials, against Negroponte’s advise, with the explicit approval of Bush. The only purpose was to try to find a justification to go to war, after the fact, which is a purely political goal. It’s hardly surprising that the President should decide to play loose with proliferation and national security for political gain. It’s his style.

Comment by endorendil — 1:57 pm
endorendil, your 9/10 slip is showing again.

Comment by SouthernRoots — 2:18 pm
Just so there is no misunderstanding:

“This is a guy who is an extreme danger to the world, and this is a guy who is in every way possible seeking weapons of mass destruction.”

Joe Biden > August 4, 2002

“[H]e does have the capacity, as all terrorist-related operations do, of smuggling stuff into the United States and doing something terrible. That is true. But there’s been no connection, hard connection made yet between he and al-Qaida or his willingness or effort to do that thus far. Doesn’t mean he won’t. This is a bad guy.”

Joe Biden > August 4, 2002

“I think he has anthrax. I have not seen any evidence that he has smallpox, but you hear them say, Tim (Russert), is the last smallpox outbreak in the world was in Iraq; ergo, he may have a strain.”

Joe Biden > August 4, 2002

“We know he continues to attempt to gain access to additional capability, including nuclear capability.”

Joe Biden > August 4, 2002

“First of all, we don’t know exactly what he has. It’s been five years since inspectors have been in there, number one. Number two, it is clear that he has residual of chemical weapons and biological weapons, number one.”

Joe Biden > August 4, 2002

“If Saddam rejects peace, and we have to use force, our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”

Bill Clinton > February 17, 1998

“We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st Century…. They will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein.”

Bill Clinton > February 17, 1998

“Earlier today, I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq…. Their mission is to attack Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.”

Bill Clinton > December 17, 1998

“[I]f you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He has already demonstrated a willingness to use such weapons…”

Al Gore > December 16, 1998

“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”

Al Gore > September 23, 2002

“We know that he has stored nuclear supplies, secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”

Al Gore > September 23, 2002

“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”

Al Gore > September 23, 2002

“We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction.”

Madeleine Albright > February 1, 1998

“Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”

Madeleine Albright > November 10, 1999

Iraq is a long way from (here), but what happens there matters a great deal here, for the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest national security threat we face — and it is a threat against which we must and will stand firm.”

Madeline Albright > February 18, 2002

“Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability of the Middle East. It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis. It is a threat even to regions near but not exactly in the Middle East.”

John Kerry > February 23, 1998

Americans really need to understand the gravity and legitimacy of what is happening with Saddam Hussein. He has been given every opportunity in the world to comply. … Saddam has not complied. Saddam Hussein is pursuing a program to build weapons of mass destruction.”

John Kerry > Dec. 16, 1998, press conference.

“If Saddam Hussein is unwilling to bend to the international community’s already-existing order, then he will have invited enforcement, even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act.”
John Kerry > Sept. 6, 2002, the New York Times.

“It would be naive to the point of great danger not to believe that, left to his own devices, Saddam Hussein will provoke, misjudge or stumble into a future, more dangerous confrontation with the civilized world. He has as much promised it. … He has supported and harbored terrorist groups, particularly radical Palestinian groups such as Abu Nidal, and he has given money to families of suicide murderers in Israel. … We should not go to war because these things are in his past, but we should be prepared to go to war because of what they tell us about the future.”
-John Kerry > Oct. 9, 2002, Congressional Record.

“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority - if necessary - to disarm Saddam, because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our society.”
-John Kerry > Oct. 9, 2002, Congressional Record.

“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal and murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. And we all know the litany of his offenses. The reason I think we need to really think about him is because he presents a particularly grievous threat through the consistency with which he is prone to miscalculation. He miscalculated an eight-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America’s response to that act of naked aggression. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending scuds into Israel and trying to assassinate a former American president. He miscalculated his own military strength and he miscalculated the Arab world’s response to his misconduct. And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction.
“That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose and destroy its weapons programs. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it’s not new. Since the end of the Persian Gulf War we’ve known this.”

John Kerry > Jan. 23, 2003, Georgetown University.

Comment by SouthernRoots — 2:23 pm
#16 SR, did they start a war over it?

Comment by endorendil — 2:45 pm
“#16 SR, did they start a war over it?”

No, and neither did Bush. The war was started on August 2, 1990 when Iraq invaded Kuwait. Hostile activities were paused pursuant to U.N. resolution 688 in exchange for Iraq’s cooperation with U.N. inspectors and humanitarian organizations. After 12 years and countless additional resolutions going ignored by the regime, hostile activities were resumed as a result of the non-compliance.

Comment by Texas Rainmaker — 3:16 pm
TR, that’s even funnier than the Agenda for the 2008 DNC.

Comment by endorendil — 3:20 pm
Ok, endo, so tell me why the resumption of hostile activities occured in March, 2003.

Comment by Texas Rainmaker — 3:29 pm
So endorendil, I am curious, why do you think Bush went into Iraq?

Comment by SouthernRoots — 6:10 pm
Why do intelligent people argue with idiots?? With the hate chasm that developed after 2001, there is no conversation to be had. If we lose the Congress, I will never acknowledge that these amoral people even exist. They are just so much flotsam and jetsom.

Comment by Judith — 12:08 am
”OS, it is both bad to attack a country on the basis that it has WMD when the evidence was against it,…”

Nice post mortem, but not relevant to the time the decisions were made (as SR pointed out).

”I don’t answer ad hominem questions…”

So a direct question to establish credibility is ad hominem? Presuming that I must respect you as an authority (without question) is arrogant beyond belief. Is I-John-Kerry your brother?

Comment by Old Soldier — 7:35 am
Why did they attack Iraq? Because they fooled themselves into thinking that it would be easy, and that the result could only be this great beacon for democracy in the Middle East. The US’s enemies would wither, and a new American century would begin. The victorious army would threaten Iran and it would collapse or be similarly overthrown.

They just got into a group-think mode where dissent was slowly eliminated, in meeting after grueling meeting. By the time the decision was made, there was no choice anymore, at least for them: there were no alternatives left. That’s why they got so upset when they encountered scepticism, and why it took so long for realism to seep into their policies.

Comment by endorendil — 10:40 am
OS. Online, you can’t establish credibility beyond the consistency and factuality of your arguments. Arguing about who I am is pointless, and irrelevant to any serious discussion. Hence, no response to ad hominem questions.

Comment by endorendil — 11:20 am
I’ve said it before on this thread, I’ll say it again. The real issue about these plans being leaked isn’t justification about the Iraq war, thats simply a matter of “I told you so”. The real issue here is what needs to be done to prevent such a reckless endangerment of American citizens and nuclear nonprofileration in the futhre.

John/OS, I am curious, what do you believe the penalty should be for the people who ordered these documents to be posted online, keeping in mind that they were available to anyone with an internet connection? Which obviously includes many terrorist organizations. And also remember that nuclear material is becoming more widespread everyday with Iran possessing facilities to create, NK having it, India and Pakistan possessing nuclear weapons, and Russian nuclear siloes not protected sufficiently.

Comment by forrest — 12:04 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI