« Talk show host bounces back -- but perhaps not quite so high | Main | When pimps fight pimps, we all win »

A hint on the WMD question

It seems that everyone else is linking to this interview with a former weapons inspector who spent quite a bit of time looking for Saddam's forbidden programs, so I might as well jump on the bandwagon.

No, it's certainly not conclusive. But matters like this seldom are. And it shows just what a determined inspector can find, when he's not distracted by underage girls and bribes of movie deals...


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference A hint on the WMD question:

» The Lost-Tooth Society linked with Iraq and WMD's

Comments (17)

Interesting article.<... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

Interesting article.

I particularly liked what Tierney had to say about Sen. Levin "waving deception by one single source, al-Libi, to try and convince us that this is evidence there was no connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda, as though the entire argument rested on this one source."

I wonder how Tierney and Scott Ritter get along? (I'm laughing as I write that...)

I wonder how many people wi... (Below threshold)
langtry:

I wonder how many people will realize to whom your "distracted by underage girls" comment refers to? Anyone who thinks you are a slamming Scott Ritter should look up the story on Google. It's a matter of public record that Ritter arranged to meet for sex in a public park with a teenage girl (on the very young side of teenage).

Good interview. It really g... (Below threshold)
edmcgon:

Good interview. It really gets to the heart of why I don't take the "Bush lied" folks too seriously. Even if Saddam didn't have WMD, he was certainly capable of getting them, and I have no doubt he would have as soon as the sanctions were ended (assuming he didn't have them hidden).

We did the right thing by removing Saddam.

Interesting article and hel... (Below threshold)
Aidan Maconachy:

Interesting article and helps to shed much needed light on the hypocrisy of the Democrats. I agree with ed above that Saddam needed to go but ...
and there is a large BUT here that needs to be addressed.

What concerns me most is that this Iraq "theater of the absurd" is increasingly less about the truth of what is actually going on there, than the need to score political points at home.

I supported the war and Bush, but I didn't understand the level of incompetence and sheer idiocy that would lead to the snake pit that is present day Iraq.

Any honest Republican has to admit that the propaganda and drum beating about so-called political progress in Iraq in no way, shape or form addresses the reality on the ground. Critical mistakes were made that cut the legs out from under a sustainable victory. Stupid mistakes. This is the tragedy of this campaign and it's not being addressed head on by the majority of Conservatives because they are not ready as yet to face the hard truth behind all of the rhetoric about elections successes etc.

When the Americans swept to victory in Iraq, they immediately made a couple of critical errors that set the scene for the present insurgency. They swept away the structure of Ba'athist control, and disbanded the Iraq army - who were allowed to stroll away gun-in-hand. There was no way in hell the Americans were ever able to fill the void - maybe vortex is a better word - that opened up when they took that decision.

They then proceeded to compound idiocy with triumphalism by fashioning a deck of cards that featured the pictures and names of the Sunni leadership. This type of grandstanding was simply throwing fuel on the gathering flames. The Sunni are the traditional rulers of the country, they held the levers of power - not ALL of them were equally venal and blood stained. Instead of alienating an entire people who held the trump card for long term success, the Americans proceeded to demonize and alienate them with bone headed strategies.

Let's not forget, the Sunni are "progressive" Muslims compared to the Shia who have just been empowered in Iraq in the rotund person of al Jaafri. The Sunni were not in bed with Iran. The Sunni moreover had a concept of a secular society and women had a degree of freedom not accorded to Shia women. The Sunni were America's natural allies, despite all of Saddam's sins, and the Americans should have carefully removed the weeds from the garden, while retaining the garden intact - not set a gasoline fire that looks increasingly as though it may consume them also.

I think this Federalist model concocted for the country is also part of this wrong headed thinking. It has empowered a man who is feted like a superstar when he hits the tarmac in Tehran. Iran is the country who is smuggling incendiary material into Iraq like there is no tomorrow. If anyone can't see a diabolical web of influence here then they are blind. The Americans have literally created a democratic entity that in en-route to becoming Iran 2 - and that scenario is a lot scarier (especially for Israel) than an Iraq with Zarqawi and Saddam loyalists perched on a charred throne. Al Qaeda is not a national entity - it's a movement. The threat posed by an implacable enemy like Iran and it's current psychotic-in-chief, Ahmadi-Nejad, is a much greater threat in the region and clearly Ahamdi-Nejad believes the Americans are on the ropes. There is no way he would have ascended his soap box and barked for the destruction of Israel if the U.S. was in a position to make life difficult for him.

This is an appalling mess. No amount of spin working like the windmills of Hades will ever succeed in "dressing up" what has become a very ugly and intractable reality.

Good post Aidan. I can't di... (Below threshold)
edmcgon:

Good post Aidan. I can't disagree that we have not done a perfect reconstruction in Iraq. I will say that whatever we do there, it will take a LONG time. People who are calling for troop withdrawals in a year or two have no clue. We will still be there in 2010 (maybe longer), or we will have lost.

Oh my God!You can't ... (Below threshold)
Dan:

Oh my God!
You can't be serious.
These are the desperate acts of desperate men. What kind of interview is that? Michael Moore does shit like that. How embarassing.
Let's review the facts:
1. There were NO WMD's!
2. The reason for going to war was because Dubya thought we needed to remove WMD's from the hands of a monster-- whether he made it up or was duped by faulty intel has not been decided.
3. Everybody jumped on board because, "either you're with us or against us." And not even those bleeding heart liberals wanted to be thought of as pro-Sadaam. Hence the unanimous vote to go to war.
Come on, Jay. If you're looking to jump on a bandwagon, become a Colts fan. Don't resort to this sort of worthless conspiracy induced garbage.

Dan?You might want... (Below threshold)

Dan?

You might want to review the President's 2002 State of the Union Address - just in case you have any interest in what he actually, like, said.

The address is hard to find, though - he only gave it once, to a hidden, secret society called the United States.

Fortunately, I'm a member, so I can blow the lid off this long held secret!

Thanks also for the string of unsupported assertions - just as in magic, repeating things over and over makes them true!

Also, it helps if you shout - and it helps even more if you drum on a plastic bucket. Just a tip.

Why do I believe Aidsn's po... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

Why do I believe Aidsn's post was plucked from some place else. Just instinct, I suppose.

Sunni are "progressive" Mus... (Below threshold)
George:

Sunni are "progressive" Muslims!?
Is failing to treat other Muslims like humans
considered "progressive" where you live?

Maybe Ritter would have mor... (Below threshold)
X.:

Maybe Ritter would have more credibility if he were a gay male prostitute posing as a Marine then as a White House journalist.

George,By "progres... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

George,

By "progressive" I'm sure he means that the Sunni find new and interesting ways to off the S'hia.

And while Aidan correctly notes that the Sunni were not "in bed" with Iranian mullahs like many Shiites are, he completely leaves out the fact that the Sunni were and remain in bed with Syrian Baathists, the main violent source of the insurgency.

There were NO WMD's!... (Below threshold)
snowballs:

There were NO WMD's!

I've never been sure why people are so quick to state such a thing so unequivocally. I can see why someone could consider this - but not why someone would subscribe to it so consistently. Does anyone know but the Iraqis? Well, maybe the French do.

Tierney's interview from TFA was somewhat believable, but even he doesn't know for sure if it's a direct transcript. However, what the hell difference does it make now? Most liberals can't write a damn thing without using the words lie, administration, Bush, or some other such shit that shows absolutely no identity or sign of coherent thought anyway. So even if he was end all be all source - it would make precisely no difference at all.

If WMDs existed there between 1991 and 2003, it doesn't really matter, however it was a good selling point. Actually it was the only case for war. After years of defiance, what options were left? Did he have WMDs? Who cares? I subscribe to the notion that WMDs probably did exist up to ~2003, but again, it's not that important.

RE: NO WMDS!From D... (Below threshold)
Poor Phil:

RE: NO WMDS!

From Disinformation, by Richard Miniter:

June 23rd, 2004 - 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium

Polish Security forces purchased 17 chemical war-heads on the Iraqi black market, some conaining the chemical agent cyclosarin

Aug 8th, 2005 - US forces found a chemical weapons lab containing 1500 gallons of chemical agents

May 17th, 2004 - Roadside IED made from a sarin artillery shell explodes, chemical not released but some US armed forces members need treatment for exposure

May 2004 - Roadside IDE found with Mustard Gas

But there were NO WMDs, right?

"RE: NO WMDS!"Aw, c'... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

"RE: NO WMDS!"
Aw, c'mon Phil! Since we found WMDs, the Lefties clearly mean 'no STOCKPILES of WMDs'.

And if we find stockpiles of WMDs, they'll just move the goalposts again.

In February 2003 Tierney pi... (Below threshold)
cat:

In February 2003 Tierney pinpointed the "exact location" of Iraq's nuclear program on Coast to Coast. Some of his methods were described as unconventional

More discussion here.

Poor PhilI comment... (Below threshold)
cat:

Poor Phil

I commented on Miniter's outrageous distortions last week.

The low enriched uranium had been locked and sealed by the IAEA since 1991 - it was only disturbed in 2003 when the coalition failed to secure a known site.

The shells discovered by Polish forces turned out to contain no chemicals whatsoever. The people who sold these shells made quite a nice profit out of that deception.

The sarin was a leftover shell from the Iran-Iraq war and was probably one of the vast number of duds - ie the sarin was real, but it failed to detonate.

The mustard gas dated back to the Iran-Iraq war and was militarily useless.

The US military said the chemical weapons factory post-dated Saddam's regime and had failed to produce any functioning weapons.

Not a very convincing list. Perhaps that is why the British and American governments have not trumpeted these "finds" to prove they were right about WMD all along.

<a href="http://billmon.org... (Below threshold)
David O.:

Tierney helped his credibility on this topic immensely with his honesty in admitting 'This is fun.'




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy