Semi-Daily Journal

More info retrieval, four Democratic Senators - quotes by Clinton, Kerry, Graham and Rockefeller:

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D,NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

"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

And by Albright, Berger, Pelosi, Levin, Daschle, Kerry, Pres. Clinton:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"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."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"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

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 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

Some from Sept, Oct 2002, from the always eloquent Senators Byrd and Kennedy, also Gore and Kerry:

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"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. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9,2002

Late 2002, by the loquacious and once eloquent Senators Kennedy and Byrd, Sen. Kerry - and Gore as well:

"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. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9,2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"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

So what, Michael? That's only a corroboration that the US foreign intelligence is rather worthless. They are not set up to seek true facts, but sooner how to present them in a way that forwards the "politique du jour."

DSW

Iraq was completely contained, the inspectors were back in Iraq. There was no need to go to war. The was no need for 400 deaths of American and British soldiers, for 2000 wounded American soldiers, and 81 billion dollars spent so far.

Fatalities

American soldiers 210
British soldiers 18
Coalition soldiers 4
---
232 Since May 2

American 349
British 51
Coalition 4
---
404 Since March 20

Wounded

American soldiers ~2015 Since March 20

Note: American forces have fallen to 130,000
British forces have risen to 11,000

Waldmann's epistimic reference points seemingly consist first and foremost of what might be termed (yet another) academic variant of ideological positivism.

That wouldn't be worth commenting on if such resolute and even willful selectivity were evidenced by a lone ranger/economist from academe, but the empirical evidence is mounting to support the prospects for a contagion rather than an isolated occurance.

That non-governmental actors (such as Waldmann, and those spry fellows at the IAEA) invalidated the Niger documents with relative ease is no surprise. The government's Department of Information Retrieval is notoriously inefficient and prone to tripping over its own technology. Thankfully, however, they insist on the principle of Information Retrieval Charges, so the taxpayer doesn't suffer.

That non-governmental actors (such as Waldmann, and those spry fellows at the IAEA) invalidated the Niger documents with relative ease is no surprise. The government's Department of Information Retrieval is notoriously inefficient and prone to tripping over its own technology. Thankfully, however, they insist on the principle of Information Retrieval Charges, so the taxpayer doesn't suffer.

That non-governmental actors (such as Waldmann, and those spry fellows at the IAEA) invalidated the Niger documents with relative ease is no surprise. The government's Department of Information Retrieval is notoriously inefficient and prone to tripping over its own technology. Thankfully, however, they insist on the principle of Information Retrieval Charges, so the taxpayer doesn't suffer.

That non-governmental actors (such as Waldmann, and those spry fellows at the IAEA) invalidated the Niger documents with relative ease is no surprise. The government's Department of Information Retrieval is notoriously inefficient and prone to tripping over its own technology. Thankfully, however, they insist on the principle of Information Retrieval Charges, so the taxpayer doesn't suffer.

"The empirical evidence is mounting to support the prospects for a contagion rather than an isolated occurance."

This Administration and Tony Blair's Administration opted to go to war and sold the absurd evidence to the point where opposition was considered a lack of patriotism. Counter evidence was ample and was set aside out of public sight. Tony Blair's office went as far as copying a Califormnia University doctoral thesis from the internet and using it as "evidence." Colin Powell used the same "evidence" since Tony Blair had used it.

Iraq was contained. There was no need for war.

That non-governmental actors (such as Waldmann, and those spry fellows at the IAEA) invalidated the Niger documents with relative ease is no surprise. The government's Department of Information Retrieval is notoriously inefficient and prone to tripping over its own technology. Thankfully, however, they insist on the principle of Information Retrieval Charges, so the taxpayer doesn't suffer.

Since we won the war and there were no WMDs in Iraq, why not just hold elections in Iraq and leave? We won, there is no threat to America or other countries from Iraq, so leave let the Iraqis build. We can offer some foreign aid. Why not just hold elections and leave?

Ari, the problem is that Iraq has no apparent capacity to withstand the disgregating forces that are in it. The Kurds in the North, the Sunni Arabs, the Shii Arabs, to cite the three main components would break the country quite eagerly, and easily. Probably they would engage in reciprocal warfare, that in itself would not be too much of a worry to the current USA presidency, but it would mean no oil from Iraq in a fiable provision, a thriving ground for terrorist recruiting and training, Iran could gain an ally in the zone, etc.

DSW

Antoni

Ok, the country could be threatened with several splits. Again, there may well be enough interest in a federated state that an agreement on a constitution could be reached by the main groups. The capital city is a center that could unite all. Iran or Syria or Turkey might wish to interfere. Still, why should America be so directly involved? America could leave and UN peace keepers could then be used. Why should we assume the country will become a haven for terroists? I do not see that we have a vital interest in staying in Iraq. Africa has oil enough, and is friendly to us, and seems much more strategic.

Mine is hardly sophisticated epistemology (but then what did the Middle East ever do to deserve a sophisticated response from anyone.) I see it very simply (and at the risk of stealing thunder from the conspiracy theorists RE Niger & yellowcake, my guess is that this is exactly how Bush saw it.) Somebody over there killed 3,000 Americans who were minding their own business, going to work. When war is the subject, I try to still my emotions, but I literally cannot erase from my mind the human courage that crashed the plane in the fields of Pennsylvania rather than permit another D.C. attack. What are the facts? The entire Middle East is a densely interconnected network of terrorists and government people and average citizens. This network spans national boundaries, social boundaries, and ideological boundaries. It is not possible to strategically pinpoint a target - it wasn't in March, nor is it now, after the fact. It's done and there is little point in slicing and dicing the justification. The very best thing that can come from this is the eruption of some form of democracy in the Middle East. What unimaginable pressure that would bring to the Saudis and the Syrians who apparently need to be bullied and humiliated into the 21st century. There is no dignity in having one of the largest oil supplies in the world side by side with one of the lowest standards of living. How many Muslims could find justification for that in their religion? I think very few. Turn the debate away from alleged American imperialism or unilateralism and focus the debate on how well or how poorly the countries of the Middle East have shared the wealth with their constituent populations. The U.S. does not belong in the spotlight - the governing bodies of the Middle East belong in the spotlight and there is much that we can do to put them where they belong. There is NO reson why the U.S. always has to be caught in the 'damned if we do and damned if we don't' position. Time for these people to grow the hell up and time for the international community to get real as well.

This ain't no party
This ain't no disco
This ain't no foolin' around

David Byrne, Talking Heads

America has always shows the rest of the world how to live by example. The notion that we need to force reform in other countries is absurd and harmful to America. American soldiers should not be sent to reform the middle east. Soldiers were supposedly sent because Iraq had WMDs and was going to use them against us, but that was not true.

Josh Marshall -

Not only is it clear, according to the Kay team’s own internal findings, that Iraq had no nuclear program. But we’ve known this pretty much since we first pulled into Baghdad. The only reason it’s not public knowledge is that David Kay has taken it as his task, not to inform the public of the state of Iraq’s pre-war weapons programs, but to carry the water of the White House and obscure the truth as long as possible.

The defenders of the White House now seem intent on lowering the bar to the most comical of levels, arguing that Saddam Hussein had not relinquished the “desire” or the “ambition” to have nuclear weapons.

Rad and Mad's comments remind me of an old joke

"what do you call a guy who honks his horn when he sees a beautiful woman?"
"Out of Ideas."

We actually went to war with the people who blew up our buildings--that was al quaeda in afghanistan. We were able to find them almost at once, and we did something about it--even if unsucessfully and with the usual short attention span.

If we want to be "out of the spotlight" and "drawing attention" to the manifold injustices and undemocratic tendencies of the middle east the logical thing to do is not to honk our horn (blow things up) but to use diplomacy, dollars, education, gifts, bribes, health care, and propaganda to draw attention to the things we think are wrong and support NGO's, governments, and popular movements that we think are more democratic and "better" for the region. The fact that we *don't* do that in places like Saudi Arabia, that we *didn't* do that when we were supporting Saddam Hussein in his early years, remains proof positive in the middle east (that monolithic place that never did anyone any good) that we are one of the chief causes of their problems, and certainly not in the mix as a solution.

Sorry for feeding (what appear to be) trolls.

Ari asks, "Why should we assume the country will become a haven for terroists?" Well, if you believe the President the Seven Dwarves, it was just that until we "liberated" it (and even the Bushists aren't saying we've had great success killing or imprisoning those who remain, nor in sealing the borders from outside agitators), so it's a reasonable bet the party would resume if we left. That is what's happened in Afghanistan, by most reports.

Re getting petrol from Africa, they have 77.4 bil barrels in proven reserves (7.4% of the world's total) and 38% of that is stored under Libya. It wouldn't fill up our Hummers for long, now would it? To get a sense of how oil strategy gets bounded (if energy needs are just viewed as oil), take a look at:

www.bp.com/files/16/statistical_review_1612.pdf

It's pretty clear that if you want to remake the power structure in world oil production (by force anyway), you either invade Iraq, Iran, the UAE, Saudi Arabia or Venezuela. Africa just wouldn't solve any problems for us. Call me a Dick (Cheney), but it's hard to see it otherwise if you're part of the "we don't need no stinking badges" crowd.

The following article details yet more info that DOES point to some further associations between Saddam Hussein and al Queda. An intriguing article by any account (hat tip to rantingprofessors' blog), and it further represents just how selective and truncated (to the point of being silly) Waldmann and DeLong are on this topic; it also begins, appropriately enough, with a tell-tale vignette involving V.P. Cheney:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/238dkpee.asp

Some detail on Saddam's far ranging terror ties, of varying interest:

http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200310210934.asp

And following is the Kay report, unspun, at least the unclassified version thereof. It's an even handed, judiously and thoughtfully worded report, Kay is "carrying water" for no one.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/iraq/20031002-1830-kay-text.html

same thing here, this second one loads quicker for those with slow modems:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/02/kay.report/

Yet more evidence of Saddam Hussein's relationship with al Queda in an intriguing peice by Stephen Hayes. This one is particularly apt as it begins with a telling vignette by V. P. Cheney:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/238dkpee.asp

Another (same subject, different material) by the same journalist:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/296fmttq.asp

And Iraq/Terror ties more generally, with some additional evidence and strong suspicions of Hussein/al Queda ties, this one by Deroy Murdoch:

http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200310210934.asp