FBI confirms that the Ba'athist regime in Iraq had weapons of mass destruction
Posted by aogSaturday, 15 October 2011 at 12:05 TrackBack Ping URL

According to a recent indictment

Two individuals have been charged in New York for their alleged participation in a plot directed by elements of the Iranian government to murder the Saudi Ambassador to the United States with explosives while the Ambassador was in the United States.

[…]

Both defendants are charged with […] conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction (explosives) […]

There you have it. The FBI considers any explosive to be a weapon of mass destruction, and there’s very little doubt that the Ba’athist regime in Iraq used explosives. Can we now simply laugh at all those claims that there were no WMDs in Iraq?

Comments — Formatting by Textile
erp Saturday, 15 October 2011 at 15:28

aog, the whole no WMD nonsense was ridiculous since for many years there were any number of UN sponsored groups wandering around Iraq searching them out and then there were those stories about truck convoys to Jordan with mysterious cargo…

Remember the story about an 80’ (or was it 80 stories) deep bunker filled to overflowing with weapons of every kind and a palatial apartment for Saddam and his family?

All flimflam to get us to take our eye off the ball.

Harry Eagar Saturday, 15 October 2011 at 15:56

Find me someone who says he believes there were no high explosives in Iraq, and your post might begin to make some sense.

So far as it goes, though, it does raise a profound question about the competency of Bush and the Army.

Since there were, indeed, explosives all over the country, why was zero effort expended in sequestering them?

Annoying Old Guy Saturday, 15 October 2011 at 18:30

Find me someone who says he believes there were no high explosives in Iraq, and your post might begin to make some sense.

Why? You make no sense.

I can find endless people who wrote “there were no WMDs in Ba’athist Iraq”. However, according to the FBI indictment cited above, high explosives are WMD. Therefore all those people who said “there were no WMD in Ba’athist Iraq” are wrong, because there were high explosives there, which the FBI has announced are WMD.

Harry Eagar Sunday, 16 October 2011 at 16:09

No one at that time considered high explosives to be WMD, which was what used to be called CBN.

Not even Bush trumpeted the discovery of hundreds of munitions dumps confirmation of Powell’s UN speech, nor did the British, who had strong reasons to have done so.

Answer the question on your own terms: why did the Bush administration do nothing about these supposed WMD?

The FBI said ML King was a communist. Do you therefore believe he was a communist?

erp Sunday, 16 October 2011 at 21:03

I believe King was a communist because he was one, not because the FBI said so.

Annoying Old Guy Sunday, 16 October 2011 at 21:09

why did the Bush administration do nothing about these supposed WMD?

For the reason you stated yourself — they weren’t WMD at the time. Now they are and last I checked, not even Bush was capable of time travel. But it is now the FBI, under the Obama Administration, that has relabeled them. The better question is, why isn’t the Obama Administration doing something about those WMD in Iraq? They’re in charge of both the FBI and the Iraqi operation.

Harry Eagar Monday, 17 October 2011 at 02:01

Nope, that won’t work. If they weren’t WMD at the time, then the people who said at that time there were no WMD in the Baath state were correct.

Yet you just said they were wrong then.

You really didn’t think this one through, did you, just saw what looked like an easy snark? It really backfired on you.

The fact is, of course, that there has never been the slightest evidence that there were WMD. The desperate attempts by Bush to trot out the 2 CBN vans — which were defensive vans, a point pointedly not made — showed that even the slightest evidence would have been used to support the claims that Powell was tricked into making at the UN. But even that attempt fell apart.

It is surprising, except in the light of your ODS, that you would want to remind anyone of how stupid and dishonest the Bush administration was.

Annoying Old Guy Monday, 17 October 2011 at 10:52

I was mostly snarking on the FBI and the strong tendency of federal agencies to define severity down (so we move from CNB to “explosives”). I would say it’s the FBI and the Obama Administration that have not thought things through.

Of course, one might note that until Bush actually did something people across the entire political spectrum were content to make claims of WMD in Iraq.

Harry Eagar Monday, 17 October 2011 at 13:00

We agree on the stupidity of the FBI although perhaps not on WHAT is stupid about it.

I think there was justification for toppling Saddam without invoking WMD. What there wasn’t was doing an incompetent job and losing the war.

Annoying Old Guy Monday, 17 October 2011 at 13:45

I think we can agree that labeling “explosives” as WMD is stupid.

If you go back and read Bush’s actual speeches, not the bowdlerized versions put out by Old Media, you will find that WMD was only a small part of his reasoning and not at all the most important.

Harry Eagar Tuesday, 18 October 2011 at 12:31

I know what he said. And what the world heard at the UN. And how desperate the administration was to show that those 2 CBN scrubber vans were evidence.

None of that justifies starting a war and losing it. It’s one thing to be attacked and lose a war. Nothing lower than starting a war and losing it.

erp Tuesday, 18 October 2011 at 13:42

We lost the war in Iraq?

Why didn’t somebody tell me? I read the local liberal rag everyday and even they didn’t cover it although they printed a daily roster of Bush’s atrocities, failures, gaffes, etc. on the upper left corner of the front page and updated it frequently.

Annoying Old Guy Tuesday, 18 October 2011 at 14:19

Mr. Eagar;

I know what he said. And what the world heard at the UN

Does it matter what he said, or only what the world heard? Your comments above doesn’t seem to correspond to what Bush actually said.

None of that justifies starting a war and losing it

Well, no one said Saddam Hussein was a genius.

I find it a disturbing and specious implication of yours that President Bush started the war. That’s blatantly false both as a matter of international law and morality. The war with the Ba’athist regime started when they attacked our ally, Kuwait, which counts as an attack on us (that’s the point of being an ally). The war ended when the Ba’athist regime collapsed due to the Coalition’s invasion.

Even beyond that, Bush didn’t unilaterally send in our troops. It was debated almost endlessly and approved by Congress. Bush accumulated a long list of allied nations as well. Yet Bush gets all the credit? Your aggrandizement of him outshines any Bush sycophant I have encountered. Bush’s actions were quite unlike “kinetic military actions” undertaken by our current President. When can I expect your condemnation of that?

Harry Eagar Wednesday, 19 October 2011 at 14:10

Some coalition,. very like the rabbit stew joke I use from time to time — the one where the rabbit is eked out with horsement, one horse to one rabbit.

Yes, erp, we lost. Iran won.

This has been reported in the daily newspapers, but, you are right, most people have not bothered to read the reports.

erp Wednesday, 19 October 2011 at 16:49

Wow, I didn’t even know we had a war with Iran much less that we lost it.

Annoying Old Guy Wednesday, 19 October 2011 at 17:49

That’s what we get for electing an ignorant Chicago machine politician who doesn’t much like us or our nation as President.

Harry Eagar Thursday, 20 October 2011 at 22:59

Don’t be obtuse. Of course we are at war with Iran.

If war is the extension of diplomacy by other means, then it’s what happens after the shooting stops that determines what, if anything, anybody won. Iran reaps the spoils and we get nothing.

Guy’s last remark, though, tends to confirm my view that he’s stopped being interesting and is just petulant now. Too bad.

Hey Skipper Friday, 21 October 2011 at 00:49

If war is the extension of diplomacy by other means, then it’s what happens after the shooting stops that determines what, if anything, anybody won. Iran reaps the spoils and we get nothing.

I’ll bet you can’t name one way in which the “correlation of forces” has changed in Iran’s favor since 2003.

Annoying Old Guy Friday, 21 October 2011 at 09:59

Hmmmmm.

Some coalition,. very like the rabbit stew joke I use from time to time — the one where the rabbit is eked out with horsement, one horse to one rabbit.

Is that an example of the kind of substantive, non-petulant response you’re expecting? You reap as you sow.

Annoying Old Guy Friday, 21 October 2011 at 23:36

There are those who think we already won. A secondary question is based on this —

what happens after the shooting stops

When did the shooting stop? If Iran won the war, then it’s over. When did that happen? It would also mean that we’re no longer at war with Iran. Do you think I can quote Eagar on that point? Or is, as I anticipate, our belligerent status with Iran entirely dependent on what rhetorical point Eagar is making in any particular paragraph?

Hey Skipper Saturday, 22 October 2011 at 18:22

Not only does the notion that Iran won the war need rather more detail, even taking it as stipulated completely ignores the deeper strategery at stake.

A shortcoming to which the MAL has, without exception, succumbed.

Hint. Roll the clock back to early 2003, and keep firmly in mind these words: nothing is not an option.

Post a comment