HA! Fucking HA! Colin Powell says what was already becoming apparent.

In the run-up to the US-led war against Iraq, he gave a presentation to the Security Council in which he asserted that Saddam Hussein had amassed secret weapons of mass destruction.

He said then that he believed Iraq possessed, among other things, between 100 and 500 tonnes of chemical weapons agents.

But in his latest remarks, he told reporters travelling with him that it was an "open question" whether Iraq had any stocks of weapons of mass destruction at all.

"The answer to that question is, we don't know yet," Mr Powell said on his way to attend the inauguration on Sunday of the new Georgian president, Mikhail Saakashvili.

'No stockpiles'

On Friday, David Kay, who had led the US hunt for weapons in Iraq resigned.

He told Reuters news agency he did not believe there had been large-scale production of chemical or biological weapons in Iraq since the end of the first Gulf War in 1991.

"I don't think they existed," Mr Kay said.

"What everyone was talking about is stockpiles produced after the end of the last Gulf War and I don't think there was a large-scale production programme in the 90s."

Responding to questions about Mr Kay's comments, Mr Powell said it was for the weapons inspectors still in Iraq to decide if there were any weapons stock or not, where they had gone if they had existed, and, if there were ever any weapons, why that was not known before the war.

Mr Powell acknowledged that the US thought Saddam Hussein had banned weapons, but added, "We had questions that needed to be answered.

"What was it?" he asked. "One hundred tonnes, 500 tonnes or zero tonnes? Was it so many litres of anthrax, 10 times that amount or nothing?"

Yeah, thanks for the deep thoughts there.

Translation: We knew they existed all right. We just weren't sure if they were stored in hidden bunkers or in our heads.

Ned, don't worry, this admission/development won't have ANY impact on Shrub's re-election. American politics has become such an us vs. them game, that those who lean rightward will side with Bush pretty much no matter what he does. He's "their guy," after all.

It's pretty fucking disgusting, really. I despair for the future.

Oh, doubtless, it's just sorta boring to hear them try to justify things now because it's delusion pumped up high. Not really a party thing I'm thinking, more this weird naked love of power.

Critics of Bush Administration policy in Iraq have chastised the Pentagon for relying too heavily on questionable prewar intelligence from exile groups, particularly the Iraqi National Congress, about weapons of mass destruction and Saddam Hussein's Qaeda links. But now a different exile group known for its close relationship with the CIA and Britain's M.I.6--no friends of the INC--is the source of recent news leaks hyping similar claims.

So the US administration backs the INC, but the CIA and MI6 back the INA? What's that all about?

I'm doing some scrounging in all the various threads about the war last year and came up with this interesting post from TOMBOT in his previous Millar incarnation -- as noted this is more about Iraq/al-Qaeda than WMD per se but as well all remember the whole part and parcel dog and pony show last year in terms of US government statements was to wind up everything into one big ball:

There's an excellent article by Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker about the Pentagon 'Special Plans' (not kidding) intelligence work and the influence it had on policy post 9/11. A choice quote or from a Pentagon adviser (unnamed), discussing the CIA vs. Special Plans issue:

"The agency was out to disprove linkage between Iraq and terrorism. That's what drove them. If you've ever worked with intelligence data, you can see the ingrained views at CIA that color the way it sees data."

The goal of Special Plans, he said, was "to put the data under the microscope to reveal what the intelligence community can't see."

This article, coupled with what I've been seeing at work and what I am observing, makes me feel just a tad betrayed and deceived. I'm sure this 'Special Plans' tripe is the same gang of geniuses who found that oh-so-cunningly forged shipping invoice for uranium from Nigeria or wherever, signed by a man who hadn't worked in the relevant department in years, and reported it as fact. "put it under the microscope" my white, skinny buttocks. I'm actually pretty insulted by the idea that policy decisions were being made on the basis of this blatantly cooked-up 'Special Plans' department and not on, say, actual intelligence collected and reported by professionals who don't have an axe to grind or a bullshit economic initiative to justify.

I think this suggests quite a bit in terms of BushCo politicizing intelligence data or otherwise molding it accordingly, especially in combination with things like O'Neill's recent statements about war discussions shortly after the inauguration and now these increasingly open statements from inspectors combined with Powell's sidestep -- it'll be interesting to see if Cheney is next to cave. There was always plenty to suspect with this whole thing and I was inclined to think that such a suspicion was justified, and now it's starting -- and I think only just starting -- to be more and more clear that it WAS justified. But the cynic in me is far from surprised.

And speaking of them or rather Chalabi, I did find it interesting that he's now talking about the need for elections rather than appointments as well in the run-up to official handing back of control to Iraqis. There's some political hardball being played that I suspect Bremer in particular is probably not suited for (and also still has no idea how to handle).

My hope is that what the other democracies aren't seeing is the evidence that Powell is going to reveal on the 5th. If that falls through, and there are no damning revelations, or they stay "too sensitive" for too long, then I'm going to feel very disappointed, and confused, and to some extent betrayed.

And how do you feel now, given the 'damning revelations' of his speech haven't been backed up?

As to my thoughts on our not finding stockpiles, I'm surprised, but I never thought the decision to overthrow Saddam hinged on his possession of those weapons. His refusal to comply with 1441 just made him the easy target.

As to how the analysis of his weapons programs got so screwed up, I found the following article interesting:

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2004/01/pollack.htm

I don't know. but it certainly wasn't a bad place to start. To me it's like the old saying of a mediocre plan put in effect effect beating a brilliant plan left in the drawer.

That is a question that tends to shut mouths.

Actually it's a question that gets asked and is always immediately followed by the person who asked the question sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting LALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU I CAN'T HEAR YOU LALALALA.

I've read about plenty of better alternatives than invading Iraq and plenty of suggestions for how we could be doing things better in Iraq right now. But people who ask that question continue to keep asking it with their dainty rhetorical flourish no matter how many good answers are given. They don't really want to hear any suggestions. It's just a great soundbite to play for people who already agree with you.

If I could believe that the US government was *really* trying to 'help' these people by getting rid of horrible governments -- and not just those but *every* one out there -- in the name of the greater good, I would. But I can't, because that is so depressingly and clearly not the case.

I find exercises of power in all cases to be opportunistic at base -- they may well be driven by ideological concerns, of course, but consistency in carrying out those concerns is something I do not expect of any government or organization in terms of its goals and actions. When massive power-political stakes are at play -- and in the Middle East, given the conflation of oil money and a decades-long Arab-Israeli conflict itself both set atop hundreds upon hundreds of years of history, political, social, religious, the stakes are indescribably huge -- then I expect far less than consistency, I expect little more than immediate expediency, where what positive changes and events happen arise more out of luck or opportunity than direct intent, or if stated goals do exist and are achieved, they are then compromised -- sometimes with damaging consequences.

The expediency was clear enough during the eighties when it came to the US and Iraq -- to name one instance of many -- and I see little but expediency now, with stated goals from Wolfowitz about trying to bring democracy to the Middle East providing only p. r. justification, not a central drive to action (Bush is clearly not Hitler, the endless posturing from some aside, but too much blunt authoritarianism has been openly embraced by Cabinet members and spokesmen in many different domestic political walks of life to make him a great advertisement for a true give-and-take democracy, and I think only time, many social changes in the intervening decades and the lessons of past history with regard what happened with Japanese Americans in World War II prevented a similar potential roundup of Muslim or Arab American communities), with the threat of terrorism and WMD a convenient prop to hang things on in a post-9/11 world.

If the article Stuart has linked to is an accurate reading of the situation as best anyone can know it -- and I definitely think it's the best essay-length piece I've read on the subject in the last few years, not least because it considers so thoroughly the details of where and how intelligence can fail or be incomplete and how that can then dovetail with a particular view of the world -- then this makes for a particularly damning conclusion on the political end:

Some defenders of the Administration have reportedly countered that all it did was make the best possible case for war, playing a role similar to that of a defense attorney who is charged with presenting the best possible case for a client (even if the client is guilty). That is a false analogy. A defense attorney is responsible for presenting only one side of a dispute. The President is responsible for serving the entire nation. Only the Administration has access to all the information available to various agencies of the U.S. government—and withholding or downplaying some of that information for its own purposes is a betrayal of that responsibility.

...

Finally, the U.S. government must admit to the world that it was wrong about Iraq's WMD and show that it is taking far-reaching action to correct the problems that led to this error. Iraq is not going to be the last foreign-policy challenge in which we must make choices based on ambiguous evidence. When the United States confronts future challenges, the exaggerated estimates of Iraq's WMD will loom like an ugly shadow over the diplomatic discussions. Fairly or not, no foreigner trusts U.S. intelligence to get it right anymore, or trusts the Bush Administration to tell the truth. The only way that we can regain the world's trust is to demonstrate that we understand our mistakes and have changed our ways.

One of the greatest gifts of the American vision is its stated possibilities of hope and freedom for all; one of the greatest disappointments is how that is easily and readily turned into justifying anything and everything done as a result, openly or secretly. I do not trust people in power, left or right or whatever -- you may call that being ragingly cynical, I consider it the easiest way to avoid disappointment. In any event, I am not one for sugarcoating the goddamn pill -- with the WMD claims the US and UK governments sugarcoated in the nastiest way possible, by playing up fear and doubt to the maximum degree. The fallout is now theirs to deal with and not excuse, and there is NO allowable room for mistrust.

If you are really hoping for a Wolfowitz-styled vision of democracy coming to the Middle East via the application of US power then you'd better damn well hope the explanations and justifications put forward to do so meet the conditions outlined above. But will BushCo allow for that? *Could* they actually step back and say that? Politically, can they?

I do not believe so at the present time, and I believe, like BNW notes above, that to support what was done in Iraq now also means constant ire and pressure about the means towards which the public cards were played, to NOT simply say that the end justifies the means unless you are in fact addicted to an idea of power played coldly -- especially if your goal and hope is democracy and therefore accountability rather than unapolegetic secretness or rewriting of history. To Stuart's strong credit -- and we have had our bitter differences -- he admits his surprise over the lack of WMD findings, but while the decision to attack may not have hinged on it, it was nonetheless the justification constantly and most thoroughly used. Why then trust what is said or concluded next when it comes to a reason to act next, whenever and wherever? Why trust whatever the next administration is, from whatever party or background, to do any better?

As for Straw, he strikes me as a man trying to justify everything after the fact, though with little sense of reflection or alternate considerations, and to his credit glibly and deftly doing so -- personally, I think the fact that much positive good has happened in Iraq is a blessing, and it could have been much worse (but I also think that has a lot to do with the people right there on the ground instead of the credit-claimers up top -- for instance, the blatant idiocy of Bush's 'bring it on' statement back in summer gets bitterer the more US soldiers die, when the military would rather more sensibly prefer to be doing its business without such preening that invites attack). Straw's going to have to stop with the WMD claims as justification soon or at least drastically modify them, as events are overtaking him -- and he'll be looking for scapegoats pretty quickly, I'm guessing.

But setting that aside, a statement like this:

The U.S. taxpayer has put an astonishing amount of money in Iraq, through Congress — and that's democracy, by the way. It's only natural that they should want some of the money to come back to American firms. But plenty of subcontracts are going to other Coalition partners. I applaud the astounding generosity of the American people, and I would remind you that the ultimate benefit, of course, accrues to the people of Iraq.

...is one that blithely overlooks realities of how the US government functions -- how power is applied and is focused in certain areas -- in favor of an airy-fairy vision that repeats trusted myths about altruism and the way forward. It is self-congratulatory and ahistorical, a world where lobbyists, industry connections, profits and the like -- not to mention the place of the Executive Branch and its own particular biases depending on who is in power at the time -- have no place or can be set aside when addressed in favor of myth.

Personally, if anything such a statement insults my intelligence as a citizen -- it strikes me as good textbook learning about US government intentions that has never been considered in terms of real-world functionality.

Yup. And indeed, as you note, Wolfowitz further said in the Vanity Fair interview that the other key factor was indeed removal of troops from Saudi Arabia for just that reason. In light of Pollack's Atlantic piece, timing of that consensual decision is an interesting issue, though at this point perhaps still a touch unclear, I'm not sure.

1) get the UN back on board via an on-the-ground presence in Iraq

2) trying to reduce a budgetary strain by getting Iraq debts forgiven and/or reduced around the world

3) plowing ahead with some sort of extraction by midyear from Iraq even though disagreements on the procedures of doing so are starting to bubble up more forcefully (this is why Chalabi's statement on elections is worthy of notice)

4) asking for more investment and help in Iraq

This all strikes me as an exit strategy being assembled and revised in haste, driven especially by realizations of overwhelming costs, and one which parallels the similarly chaotic start of the post-war strategy. If the goal is to set up Iraq as a strong bastion of democracy, then these moves do not serve as much of an advertisement for Wolfowitz's dream.

The United States buys more oil and petroleum products from Canada than from Saudi Arabia every year, but we're not being killed by Canadian terrorists. We bought almost as much oil from Venezuela as from Saudi Arabia, but where are the Venezuelan terrorists?

When are you people going to wake up and admit that it is the current culture of Saudi Arabia that is the problem, and not that they have oil we need?

They sent us Mike Myers and Alanis = they don't NEED to send terrorists. But that's another debate.

From what I know of it, several birds (on national strategic, economic and environmental levels) could be killed with one stone over the course of some years with the further development of fuel cell technology and its supply infrastructure and an attendant (if not necessarily complete) shift away from oil and therefore a particular need on the US to pay for same in the amounts it currently does. This is a long term strategy that I don't have the immediate confidence in this administration for carrying out, though -- the big science research announcement for this year so far has, after all, been about space exploration.

As for Saudi Arabia's current culture et al, if the administration could combine its increasing noises on that front with a statement to Israel that says in essence, "Why the FUCK do you keep squandering your good will with stupid moves like the ruling on citizenship-via-marriage and the security wall?" and backed it up with political/economic action, then something might happen. It seems from what has happened that attempts on Bush's part to even fire up the rhetoric more openly against such moves raises complaints from Congressional lobbiers, though, so again, I have my doubts.

According to the lastest International Energy Outlook report by the Energy Information Administration, North American bought 2.9 Million Barrels per Day from Persian Gulf OPEC states, whereas Industrialized Asia, China, and the Pacific Rim nations imported 9.8 MMBD from the Gulf. In 2025, imports to North America will increase to 5.7 MMBD of Persian OPEC oil, whereas imports by Industrialized Asia, China, and the Pacific Rim states will increase to 20.9 MMBD of Persian Gulf OPEC oil.

That means those Asian countries consume 3.3 times as much Persian Gulf OPEC oil as North America does now, and in 2025 they'll consume 3.7 times as much. Conservation and improved efficiency is an important goal, but it won't have a tremendous impact on Persian Gulf oil production, which is expected to more than double in the next 21 years.

I think fuel cells are a decade away and I have way more interest in hybrid technology... there's just no reason that braking should bleed heat energy without any attempt to recover it. I don't agree with Bush's move towards the fuel cell and away from the PNGV hybrids program. GM needs to stop fucking around and put the hybrid Silverado/Sierra pickups on the market. A Ford F-series hybrid would be nice too, but they're starting with the Escape.

Yeah, I've been wondering about this. It introduces very interesting wrinkles to an already wrinkly situation.

I don't agree with Bush's move towards the fuel cell and away from the PNGV hybrids program.

There is a certain logic to pursuing hybrid development as a transitional step but perhaps the conclusion somewhere is to try and go whole hog to avoid a transitional step become an inadvertantly permanent one?

Hybrids are already much more developed than fuel cells (i.e. see the new Lexus) and all the major auto makers have made prototypes. You'll be seeing more and more of released in the coming five years. Fuel cells are a long shot that will not come in a decade unless unforeseen technological advances make the a transition much less capital intensive.

< /mccarthyissy >

Fair enough, if you can tell me how. I don't get how you believe the deficit isn't still a huge problem to address.

the dollar is supposed to act as a barometer to reflect the country's thriving economy
Nope.

I disagree. Other than the employment/unemployment rate (which IS currently still depressingly high), the dollar is indeed a reflection of the economy. [Ideal example: People gain jobs; they spend the some of the new paycheck on goods and services; these companies that supply the services have to employ more people to meet the demand; the economy gradually improves.] Also, I can't see where all these new imported US jobs are that you are so adamant about, unless they are concentrated in certain fields.

The amount of times that BushCo has flip-flopped on ostensibly carrying out the UN will and then ignoring it/them and then pretending to care again (like right now when Bremer et al are trying to gear up for pulling the irons out of the fire in five months' time) renders this argument somewhat specious.

I don't like the way we went to war, mainly because Bush does not have Tony Blair's speaking skills. I don't think we needed to go into Iraq when we did, but it was most likely inevitable and I can understand why no US president would want to have blood on his/her hands if another attack happened (not to mention our intelligence fears were exploited by 9/11.) In the long run, I think Iraq is much better off, but I wish the US would be more forceful in declaring that nation building in a culture like that will take at least a decade and billions of dollars. There is a legitimate case for unilateral pre-emption, but frankly, I would rather have another attack on the US so that our case was much more clear to do so. The most risky political thing Bush could have done was gone to war, and I don't think he's reckless enough politically to do it without conviction that we had WMDs and that there was a threat.

I'll say it again:

If I could believe that the US government was *really* trying to 'help' these people by getting rid of horrible governments -- and not just
those but *every* one out there -- in the name of the greater good, I would. But I can't, because that is so depressingly and clearly not the
case.

I don't see getting 'the bad guy' as American policy over the last half-century regardless of who was in power in the White House. It does not exist, it is a construct people cling to because it makes them feel better. Drop the fucking moralizing already!

It's reasonable
to want to defend your country, and as far as I'm concern you shouldn't have to get approval from the rest of the world how you want to do just that.

You are saying that in order to justify that defense a second attack would have been helpful in underlining this stance. You're willing to wish that some of your fellow citizens died so your point was proven? Would *you* be content dying in such an attack if that proved your point? Are you saying everyone who lost someone in 9/11 should feel glad as a result due to what happened in response?

I'm not trying to say you should...but again, drop the moralizing. Call power politics what it is, because it will happily grind all of us up without blinking.

What I am saying is that, assuming a second attack would have left a more convincing trail of evidence, that I would prefer that rather than pre-emptively invade a country that does not have clear and convincing evidence of attacking us. It has nothing to do with feeling "glad" about people's misery, Ned. Honestly, I think you're above even suggesting that I would feel that way.

Sorry, but if it's moralizing to wish a person like Saddam isn't in power, then I don't give a fuck. That fucker gassed thousands of his own people, he led an oppressive regime, and paid off terrorists. He is a cancer on the world. If you think that the only reason Bush went into Iraq was for "power politics", we're never going to agree even in the slightest.

There is simply no way for the US to take on every bad guy in the world with the same tactics, and the discrepency lends itself to easy criticism. I recognize that. But even I am not so cynical as to assume that US actions are uniformly malice-based.

Yes it does -- and I'm glad you've said because it's an important point that you realize, that I realize. But most administrations do an incredibly shitty job at explaining it, and this one is one of the worst, and frankly I'm not sure THEY realize that. As you noted above, Bush isn't Blair, but is he even taking the slightest steps to try and improve what he's doing? Has his rhetoric altered even slightly to allow for greyness instead of black and white when it comes to these matters? Is explaining our own tangled history with Saddam's regime (especially during the period of the gassings you mention -- or is Saint Reagan and company beyond criticism in the current Administration's eyes?) even obliquely so goddamn taxing to his brain that he can't say it, and are we going to be left with people mindlessly supporting action because black and white lets them sleep at night?

But even I am not so cynical as to assume that US actions are uniformly malice-based.

But I *am* so cynical as to say that they are constantly prone to being mishandled, misjudged and misused by the people with the power to carry them out. Across the fucking board.

There's a difference between constructive criticism and INCESSANT NAGGY WHINING.

This is a perfectly fine attitude to take w/r/t your latest company projections. It's a pretty poor one to then drape expectations of moral rightness and more over it...unless you drop pretending to care about it, and more to the point, come right out and say it. And that's something, Stuart, you've never had the courage to do -- and neither does your precious administration.

I don't act like every thing the United States or the Bush Administration or the Department of Defense or I do is perfect or mistake free. That's absurd. That's an unattainable goal. If I think what we're doing is right and our goals and priorities are good and right and we're responsive to criticism and change and are working hard to improve our system and our world and our performance, is that fucking ok with you Ned?

In 1968, the Baathist Party came to power.  In 1972, it nationalized the U.S./U.K.-owned Iraqi Petroleum Company under the slogan "Arab oil for the Arabs."  After a meeting with President Nixon, National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger and the shah of Iran, the CIA urged Kurdish leaders in northern Iraq to rebel against the Iraqi government.  The U.S. promised to back them all the way.  The House Select Committee on Intelligence Pike Report described it as a "cynical enterprise, even in the context of clandestine operations."3  The Shah funnelled U.S.-supplied arms to the Kurds.4  The Pike Report stated that neither the Shah "nor the President and Kissinger desired victory for [the Kurds].  They hoped the insurgents would [maintain] a level of hostilities to sap the resources of  [Iraq]."5

      In 1975, Iraq agreed to share the Shatt-al-Arab waterway with Iran.  Support for the Kurds was terminated.  The fate of Kurds left behind did not concern the U.S.  As Kissinger said "Covert operations should not be confused with missionary work."

This followed by a costly and terrible war from '80-'88 in which we supported Hussein and looked the other way while he used chemical weapons.

Followed by us turning around again on Iraq and declaring them the great new enemy of the west, in essence. They did invade another country neighboring them, so of course we were in the right, then.

These are just a few reasons why we might not be so liked over there, having nothing to do with our success as a nation.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/handshake300.jpg

It is exactly this cynicism of my own that makes me so distrustful of encroaching socialism.

I agree it's nice to hear you say it. But in particular it's the 'responsive to criticsm and change' part that I find lacking with BushCo -- but if you want to argue it's there amid the dull do-not-flinch-or-alter-course grind of Cheney and Rumsfeld and Ashcroft in particular, make your case. I have seen or sensed precious little of it.

It is exactly this cynicism of my own that makes me so distrustful of encroaching socialism.

The highest-aiming ideals are the ones that fall the hardest. It puts me in mind of one of Ambrose Bierce's best definitions from the Devil's Dictionary:

Conservative, n: a statesman who is enamoured of existing evils, as distinguished from a Liberal who wishes to replace them with others

They also seem to cost the most in terms of dollars and freedom.

Are you in code-mode Don? Does this mean 'drop the bomb'? Point is the US shd never have been there in the first place, let alone dropping all the ordnance on the North. What good would a US victory have done?

Fuck me, THAT is a quote and a half.

(not that one)

!

oh, I thought you was dumb