Liberals, it has to be admitted, rarely miss the chance to miss an opportunity. And I fear they're in the process of missing one now with their response to the missing Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.
Or to be more precise: the missing Iraqi "weapons of messy destruction," since even the administration has given up claiming Saddam had or was close to having nukes. The other potential weapons in Iraq's "WMD" armory -- mustard gas, VX, anthrax, sarin, botulism -- are not designed to deliver death on a Hiroshima-like scale, and aren't much more indiscriminate than the Pentagon's MOABs.
In a world in which even Japanese religious cults can get their hands on sizable quantities of sarin, we should be more careful in our use of terms.
But sarin, anthrax and botulism are scary enough, and the evidence that Saddam at one time had large quantities of these weapons has been amply documented (as the conservatives never get tired of point out) by UN inspectors -- not just by our always pliable Central Intelligence Agency and Britain's MI6.
We also know where some of the stuff came from:
U.S. Supplied Germs to Iraq in '80s
WASHINGTON (AP) — Iraq's bioweapons program that President Bush wants to eradicate got its start with help from Uncle Sam two decades ago, according to government records getting new scrutiny in light of the discussion of war against Iraq.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention sent samples directly to several Iraqi sites that U.N. weapons inspectors determined were part of Saddam Hussein's biological weapons program, CDC and congressional records from the early 1990s show. Iraq had ordered the samples, claiming it needed them for legitimate medical research.
The CDC and a biological sample company, the American Type Culture Collection, sent strains of all the germs Iraq used to make weapons, including anthrax, the bacteria that make botulinum toxin and the germs that cause gas gangrene, the records show. Iraq also got samples of other deadly pathogens, including the West Nile virus.
The transfers came in the 1980s, when the United States supported Iraq in its war against Iran.
So where did it all go?
That's the key question. But some people on the left want to turn this into the latest chapter in the "Clinton Wars," by focusing on the obvious argument that lying about chemical and biological weapons is, in the great scheme of things, infinitely worse than lying about oral sex. And so you get headlines like these on some of our more fire-eating anti-Bush web sites:
Take Action! Call for the appointment of a “Special Prosecutor” to investigate the Iraq WMD Lies
Now we don't have special prosecutors anymore, but I certainly agree that an independent investigation of the Bush Administration's rush to war in Iraq would be a good thing -- just like peace on earth and an end to world hunger would be good things. But I don't expect to see any of them in my lifetime.
And by making this a story about the administration's "lies," the critics run the risk a Centcom spokesman is going to pop up any day now, crying "Eureka!" and rolling out something more photogenic than a couple of trailers with funny looking pipes and metal vats inside them.
In fact, while I hate to sound conspiratorial, it's not impossible the White House is deliberately holding back, waiting until the critics have fully exhausted themselves throwing their feeble punches, before revealing the damning evidence it's been sitting on for days or weeks.
If you ever saw the "rumble in the jungle," (the Foreman-Ali fight in Zaire) you know how effective the technique can be. Does the left really want to play George Foreman to Bush's Muhammud Ali? OK, I know: it's a ridiculous comparison, but I can easily imagine Karl Rove sitting his office, surfing the web, muttering "C'mon, that's it, a little deeper, a little deeper... " as he waits for the perfect moment to let the hammer down.
I suppose you could say I did my small part to contribute to this situation with my "Tangled Web" quote collection, which used the word "deceive" by way of an introduction. This was, at least in part, an attempt at irony -- my way of laughing at the administration's attempts to weasel out of the breathless claims of apocalyptic danger we heard in the runup to war. Ditto the cocksure guarantees we heard from the Pentagon about how quickly and certainly they would track down and secure Saddam's WMD arsenal.
But irony, as I learn day by day, doesn't always come across on the web. Conservatives have (quite correctly, from a tactical point of view) focused on the "deceive" part, not the "weasel" part. So the question has become a literal one: Was Bush lying?
I think he was. But the deception was not in the claim that Saddam had WMDs -- or even the claim that he still had them as of the date of Bush's final ultimatum to disarm (although that claim indeed may turn out to be a falsehood.)
The deception was in the claim that Saddam's WMD capability posed an immediate, critical threat to the security of the United States, urgent enough to require a massive military invasion to overthrow his regime. This is the conclusion the administation cooked the intelligence estimates to produce, this is the lie. And every piece of evidence we have seen since the "end" of the war -- up to and including the discovery of Bush's precious trailers -- has demonstrated that it was a lie.
I said it was the lie, but actually there were two. And the second is potentially the more damning one. The administration went to war on the premise that invading and occupying Iraq would enhance U.S. security. You still hear it: "We may not have found the weapons, we may not have found Saddam, but gee, we did overthrow his regime, so we at least eliminated any potential threat. Isn't that wonderful?"
Another lie. (Not the "overthrow the regime" part; the "eliminate any potential threat" part.) The administration implicitly promised it would be able to locate and secure Saddam's weapons arsenal. (Hell, they may have explicitly promised it. If someone wants to go find the quotes to prove it be my guest, but I've spent hours reading their interviews, testimony, etc., and let me tell you: It's like looking into a sewer.)
The point -- and it is a point that should be hammered again and again by everybody opposed to the war -- is that Saddam's WMD inventory (assuming it existed at all) is now missing. It could be anywhere -- hidden away in secret bunkers that only Saddam and his henchmen know about, or smuggled across the border into Syria or Iran; or available for sale on the black market.
We don't know, and because we don't know, the risk of a really catastrophic attack on the U.S. homeland is now greater than it was before the invasion. And it's taken the Bush administration six fucking weeks to 'fess up to the fact that the primary objective of the war has not been achieved.
I don't mean to be obsessive about this, but really: If the left wants to go after Bush on the WMDs, this is the issue. Because unless a complete accounting can be produced of Saddam's pre-war WMD inventory -- which isn't very likely, given Centcom's rather cavalier attitude about securing Iraqi government offices and papers -- then no matter how many "finds" the administration rolls out, there's no way of knowing much is still out there somewhere, waiting to find its way into Al Quada's hands.
Or, if you need it on a bumper sticker: It's the incompetence, stupid.
Man you're fast, Matt. Already fixed. Thanks.
Absolutely,
Kerry should be out there saying that Bush's incompetence in securing WMD sites has endangered the country. Hell, he can make up his own scary stories about terrorists getting them. I think incompetence in defending the country is a far waorse charge than lying.
Ah, jeez, you're right of course, and it might explain why Rummy is saying that the WoMD might have been destroyed. It's certainly less embarrassing than having to admit they lost them.
SK Bubba also expresses fear that Rove is planning a Eureka moment, I almost blogged the same thing last night. Basically, the question is: how long a wait is long enough for people to say that there are no WMDs. I think we all can start harping, but the candidates will have to wait a little longer, and be a little less snarly, sad to say.
While Rove surely doesn’t like to show all his cards, he has never had any with regard to Iraq. That has been clear by all the PR, ginning up and outright lying that they have done. They really didn’t expect to be called on this and were it not for the British press, probably would not have been, at least before the next election. They cannot afford to have Blair go down nor can they afford to have more scrutiny of what is currently happening in Iraq. They seem to be currently pinning their hopes on blaming it all on faulty “intelligence.” No need to go there and risk even more disclosures if you have “the goods on Saddam.” They haven’t got diddly squat.
Otherwise agree with your analysis except the public likes it simple and they don’t like being duped. “Where are the WMD?” will be heard by more of them at this time and IMO waking them up should be the first priority.
Just like a good play, it's all in the timing. With an administration that so concerned with lighting, backgrounds, etc., etc. there is little doubt in my mind that if there are WMDs, it will be announced at the perfect time. How about the middle of the Democratic convention? Or right before the final candidates debate? In any case, I think there is so much at stake here that they 'will find' something but of course because of national security no one else can look at it.
Could it be that since Bush is already in the ME he might also be planning a secret side trip to Iraq where there will be a grand photo op against a backdrop of a heretofore unannounced discovery of a huge cache of WMDs?
This may be part of the Dem's strategy--let the British press and the Labor back benchers do the heavy lifting, and force Blair/Bush to show their cards to save the PM's ass, and if there is no evidence forthcoming --then hammer Shrub. This is as logical an explanation as I can come up with.
Plus why would Shrub want Blair gone? The Tories haven't a snowball's chance in hell of winning a general election and the Labor party w/o Blair would probably lurch to the left.
I don't buy the idea that Rove is employing a Ali-like Rope-a-dope strategy, waiting until the "where's the WMD?" criticism has reach a certain threshold before springing the surprise find of a mother lode of nasty chemical and biological agents. The payoff wouldn't be high enough to justify the negative press that the Bush Administration has begun to receive. As it is the "victory" is tarnished, and a WMD find at this point, while giving conservatives something to chortle about for a little while, wouldn't fully remove that tarnish. A revelation of finding a cache of WMD would have diverted attention from the nettlesome looting & reconstruction mess.
Rove is evil, and clever, but he's no genius.
Rove is evil, and clever, but he's no genius.
I also don't really think Rove is orchestrating some kind of deliberate rope-a-dope strategy -- I was just raising the possibility to illustrate my larger point: Given that Saddam used to have WMDs, and spent a great deal of time and effort trying to conceal them, we shouldn't rule out the possibility that some WMDs eventually will be found in Iraq.
If the entire case against Bush is built on the simplistic notion that "he lied, Americans died," then it creates the critics take the risk of looking like fools if the White House later comes up with some highly photogenic WMD evidence.
Rove doesn't have to rope-a-dope the liberals if the liberals rope-a-dope themselves.
True that.
Sure it's possible that some WMDs eventually will be found. The unfortunate result of this is that the administration (and supporters) will trumpet their 'success' while riding roughshod over such nuances as:
- did what they found pose a substantial and immediate threat to the US (ie, were they really for mass destruction as opposed to some really nasty, but very localized destruction) ?
Additionally, can the 'public' perception of liberals really get much worse? There's a difference between individuals like us pushing for committee investigations and the liberal 'leaders' doing it. If we get tagged with some supposed evidence, then how much have we truly lost? On the other hand, Daschle, Kerry, Dean, etc. need to walk a fine line between turning up the heat and risking the rope-a-dope.
But it sure would be nice to just see one of 'em come out swinging, damn the consequences.
I've been trying to get Billmon's explanation of where things are really bad with WMDs in Iraq to something simple and folksy.
In the southwest, the one thing everybody hates, wihtout fail, are wolf spiders. Why? Well, they're of a fair size, and are hariy/ugly/scary. More importantly, mommy spider carries the babies on her back. Try to squash mommy, and the babies run for it, and in a few weeks you have hundreds of adults where there was one.
When my dad did his postgraduate work at Oklahoma State, one of the things I'll always remember was being told repeatedly by the local rep at married student housing that you must always catch and flush, never, _ever_ step on these guys.
So...
"Killed the big spider, let loose the babies"?
Just a thought (too much free time at lunch... ;-)).
Lies. Bush, Darth Rumsfeld, Cheney, Blair, even Powell lied to us all. WMD, 9/11, Terrorist Alert!, Saddam’s going with Bin Laden, did I mention WMD? The truth is they knew NOTHING, and lied to grab the moment. The gang who can’t think ahead, these boys playing with guns, have got us in deep. It’s not how the American media tells you, and it ain’t how Bush says it is. The
WMD situation is either there were none ( Bush was either ignorant/wrong or lying), or they are gone, and we don’t know where. Seven major nuclear facilities were looted for weeks before we guarded them; we have no idea what was there. If Bush is truthful, we set a lot of bad stuff loose, but maybe it’s all a lie and we need not worry. Dirty bombs, anyone? We did guard the oil ministry. If we leave Iraq quickly, we risk an Islamic takeover; if we stay, costing billions a month, we build hate and militancy. Dubya never mentioned that.
When will conservatives wake up? This can’t be what you thought you backed.
It gets worse; our economy is lurching, the deficit is awesome. Dubya’s plans are worse than nothing.
I agree tactically. Basically, there's no downside to the course you suggest. If some are found, then it's an even more potent charge. Because if we find some 4 months after the war, who knows what else has been lying around? And if we don't, then the lying thing is even more salient. It's exploiting the issue with scare tactics, but, hey, fight fire with fire.
The investigation into the intelligence should continue, however. Because the fact of cooked intelligence is important in and of itself. And, there is the already-reported allegation that the Bush Administration knew the Niger documents were a forgery and used them anyway. Which is bald-faced lying, no matter what turns up later.
FWIW, Dennis Kucinich did announce 'on Wednesday that he will use a Resolution of Inquiry to demand the release of the intelligence that led to the war in Iraq, and to Administration claims that Iraq had tons of biological and chemical weapons, delivery systems, and a 'reconstituted' nuclear program.' (Lifted from his website.)
No, I'm not a Kucinich hack. I might vote for him, time will tell. But it doesn't appear to me that he is 'missing any opportunities.'
Thank you for finally making the point about the missing wmd's posing more of a threat. This has been driving me nuts for weeks. People are so focused on the fact that we can't find the wmd's that they aren't pointing out that this is an even worse situation than if we did find wmd's. Because either:
a. he never had them and bush lied to take us to war
b. he had them and he decided the best thing to do was destroy them, and let his regime topple anyways(seems rather unlikely)
c. he had them, and they are now in missing, which means someone who probabaly has more of an incentive to use them is much more dangerous all of a sudden.
One of the reasons I think they were lying about the WMD is precisely because they didn't do anything about securing any locations when they were guarding the Oil Ministry. But I do not put it past them to be totally incompetent.
The questions are:
Where are the WMD?
Where is Saddam?
Where is Osama bin Laden?
We need to understand why all of these questions are "I don't know". And by not knowing, the danger to the US says Bushco's war is not making us safer. Going after Saddam when they did meant that OBL and his friends are much more active now than before. Plus they have lots more friends.
Two points, Billmon:
(1) The danger in your cautious approach is that it assumes that there really were WMD to begin with. This not only runs the risk of letting BushCo gloss over the WMD-lying issue, it provides them with a golden opportunity to change the tune to “we now have intelligence that proves that Syrian agents slipped into Iraq before the war and spirited away the WMD”. Will Joe Sixpack condemn Bush for failing to have Special Ops in there to secure WMD sites before the war started, or will he demand that we attack the evil Syrians? Never underestimate Rove, et al’s power to change the subject. Perhaps the best strategy is to attack from all sides—the high-profile candidates can take the cautious “we failed to secure the WMD” approach and everyone else can ply “Bush lied. Americans died.”
(2) There is at least one more lie to add here. It remains to be seen whether the claims that Iraq had WMD officially qualifies as a lie. But the *certainty* of BushCo's pronouncements on the subject definitely does qualify. In your list of quotes, a phrase that occurs repeatedly is “no doubt”—they knew exactly what types of WMD Iraq possessed, the exact quantities of WMD, and their exact location. The very fact that they’re now backtracking and admitting that the WMD may have been destroyed before the war implies that they did not have the hard intelligence to back up the certainty of their claims. That said, “Bush wasn’t as certain as he acted like" does not a good bumper sticker make. And we *do* need it on a bumper sticker—I strongly agree with Marie that waking up the non-liberal-blog-reading American public should be the number one priority.
Um, a little reminder.
Lee Atwater--the nastiest, most vile apparatchik to ever cross the political threshold; the man who added "Opposition Research" to the political lexicon--worked for and learned everything from none other than Karl Rove himself. Think of Atwater as the little disciple devil, and Rove as the big-D Devil (see the recent NewYorker Rove profile).
So don't assume anything. We're on the realm of the political damage control. There's sure to be more to come...
fubar - think it was the other way round. Rove was a disciple of Atwater.
Starting with "So where did it all go?" the italics should be switched off, eh? (Getting you used to Canada-speak)