Bloodless Coup

Incomplete NYT Reporting:
"And nowhere does Jehl write that 'Hussein's government retained data and personnel knowledgeable about weapons, and used funds from the Oil for Food relief program to upgrade his chemical industry so that weapons materials could be produced once sanctions ended.'"

You'll notice that Jehl doesn't include biological weapons in that list. Why? Because, he reports a little later, Iraq "could have begun to produce biological [weapons] in as little as a month if it had restarted its weapons programs in 2003."

He told Pincus that both "the 'CW [chemical warheads] and BW [biological warheads] put on Iraqi missiles in 1990 and 1991, for example, were built in months.'"

According to Jehl, Charles Duelfer

said that American investigators had found clandestine laboratories in the Baghdad area used by the Iraqi Intelligence Service to conduct research and to test various chemicals and poisons, primarily for secret assassinations rather than to inflict mass casualties.
http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/739qftff.asp

Morris,

Where are you getting these quotes from? I cited a couple of NYT stories, and I'm not sure which ones these are coming from. Hence, I don't know their credibility. That being said, I stated very clearly that what the Duelfer report states is that Saddam couldn't make weapons, but clearly (over time, and without sanctions) could reconstitute the programs (though he would be pretty much starting from scratch). From the NYT Duelfer report:

At the time of the American invasion, Mr. Duelfer said in the report, Iraq did not possess chemical and biological weapons, was not seeking to reconstitute its nuclear program, and was not making any active effort to gain those abilities. Even if Iraq had sought to restart its weapons programs in 2003, the report said, it could not have produced militarily significant quantities of chemical weapons for at least a year, and it would have required years to produce a nuclear weapon.

I'm not sure what is debatable about this. In early 2003 Saddam didn't have WMD. If the sanctions were lifted (and they hadn't been), it would have taken "at least a year" to produce chemical weapons (and the quote fails to say what kind, and whether they are "real" chemical weapons or more simple "Anarchist Cookbook" types) and multiple years to produce nuclear weapons. And remember the caveat: this is true only if the sanctions are lifted, and there is no evidence that that was going to happen soon.

I already granted that Saddam retained intent and some knowledge: that knowledge was likely extensive for chemical and biological weapons, but only in the lab stage for nukes (hence the longer time to produce one). But chemical and biological weapons, as inhumane as they are, are not particularly frightening (they are fairly useless on a battlefield against America, and didn't really help much when Iraq used them against Iran a decade and a half ago).

What is very clear is that Saddam, by early 2003, didn't have the ability to make WMD. Period. Bush's statement says he did. Bush is wrong. This isn't one of our endless arguments about whether Saddam was a threat: this is an argument about whether the President spoke the truth. He did not.

Whitewash!!! Whitewash!!!
This quote:
He said a threat remains that chemical weapons could be used against U.S. and coalition forces, noting information from earlier this year that Iraqi scientists had linked up with foreign terrorists in Iraq. A series of raids beginning last March, Duelfer said, prevented the problem from "becoming a major threat."
http://themoderatevoice.typepad.com/

This quote has been erased from the WP Pincus article because it supports Bush's position. It's reported in the Weekly Standard I cited above and the moderate voice link here, and if you put it in an exact text search in google it brings up the WP article, but...it's not there! Why do you waste time claiming objective reporting when this quote most supportive of the Bush position is deleted from the article?

The Jehl quotes come from Jehl's 10/6 NYT article on the Duelfer report.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/06/international/middleeast/06CND-INTE.html?oref=login

Morris,

Stop being silly. I don't know why that paragraph has been removed from the WaPo story. Perhaps, rather than a massive left-wing conspriracy, you might consider a simpler explanation: the WaPo decided it wasn't very accurate and took it out.

As I have stated before, I can make (certain) chemical weapons in my bathtub. The fact that some people in Iraq (may) have considered it (and then didn't) isn't a very strong justification of anything. In any event, without a serious production (industrial) facility, they couldn't make enough to really cause mass casualties.

Finally, how the hell does this missing paragraph help the argument? My point was primarly that Bush either deliberately lied about what the report said, or mischaracterized it. There were no WMD or production facilities or even labs in Iraq in early 2003. That is very, very clear from the report. Bush said there were in a news conference yesterday. He is wrong. So what if some insurgents (foreign or domestic) thought about making some?

Who's kidding himself?
You talk so easily about the Weekly Standard being biased, yet you can't admit that maybe, just maybe, you're beloved WaPo might be impure. Yes, there are many reasons the quote might have been taken out. It's easier for you to believe that it's because of journalistic truth, and I hope your precious illusions help you sleep.

Besides the last cited quote, where's the quote:
"Hussein's government retained data and personnel knowledgeable about weapons, and used funds from the Oil for Food relief program to upgrade his chemical industry so that weapons materials could be produced once sanctions ended." ?

or the quote:
"the 'CW [chemical warheads] and BW [biological warheads] put on Iraqi missiles in 1990 and 1991, for example, were built in months.'"

These quotations were systematically removed once the WaPo found out that they were being used to discredit the "objectivity" of the NYT, and to discredit the position of presidential hopeful John Kerry.

As to your argument that:
There were no WMD or production facilities or even labs in Iraq in early 2003. That is very, very clear from the report.

Even Jehl admits this.
Mr. Duelfer's report said that American investigators had found clandestine laboratories in the Baghdad area used by the Iraqi Intelligence Service to conduct research and to test various chemicals and poisons, primarily for secret assassinations rather than to inflict mass casualties. It said those laboratories were active from 1991 to 2003.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/06/international/middleeast/06CND-INTE.html?pagewanted=2&oref=login

As to your suggestion that clandestine labs mean they had no WMD capability (from the other thread), doesn't that sound absurd to you? How many anthrax letters did it take to bring fear to our Congress and other leaders? It didn't take much sarin at all to kill a bunch of people in Tokyo. It didn't say these were a bunch of random Iraqi terrorists, they worked for Saddam, he was supporting them.

Morris,

You claim that I have bias sources, and to back up your claim you write:

These quotations were systematically removed once the WaPo found out that they were being used to discredit the "objectivity" of the NYT, and to discredit the position of presidential hopeful John Kerry.

You claim that these original quotes from the WaPo story were systematically removed from later versions because the WaPo saw that it's story was discrediting the NYT, and Kerry. Think about what you are saying. Do you really believe that there are people in the WaPo who would change an already printed and distributed story for strictly partisan political purposes? Knowing they would be caught? If you really, really believe this (and aren't just tweaking me), I fear for honest political discourse.

As for the rest of your post, you cite multiple parts of the Duelfer report showing that Saddam retained some primitive infrastructure for producing chemical weapons and perhaps (not proven) a lab for test work on biological weapons. I have already discussed this. As I have repeatedly pointed out, anyone with a few basic chemistry classes and some basic chemicals can create some rudimentary chemical weapons. Industrial plants that produce medicines and fertilizers can be easily converted into production facilities for biological and chemical weapons. These plants exist in almost all of the countries of the world. Should we invade everybody to keep this technology out of their hands? The fact that Saddam (maybe) had the ability to produce some weapons (at some point in the future, when the sanctions were lifted, not that they were going to be) of undetermined toxicity is not a sufficient reason to invade the country. And rumored bio-labs that might produce a very small quantity of biological weapons (for, as is stated in the report, not weapons use but spying/assasination use) is, by definition, not WMD (it has to be mass destruction).

By the way, you and the Weekly Standard have a logical problem. If you think the WaPo is biased, why does the Weekly Standard rely on a WaPo story (since partially retracted) to highlight what is wrong with the NYT story? That just doesn't make any sense.

Ask yourself this simple question: would you, in Febuary of 2003, have supported invading Iraq if the stated reason had been "Saddam has intent to get WMD at some point in the future, even though he has none now, and is not an immediate threat." I don't know how anyone can answer "yes" to that question. The invasion was predicated on Saddam being a serious threat, and it is clear that he wasn't.

Finally, you still haven't discussed the central point I started with: Bush completely mischaracterized the Duelfer report very deliberately. He claimed it stated something that it very clearly did not. Presidents should not do this.

Baltar,
As to the idea that Bush mischaracterized the Duelfer report, look at what he said:
"He retained the knowledge, the materials, the means and the intent to produce weapons of mass destruction, and he could have passed that knowledge on to our terrorist enemies.

I don't think we're arguing about the first one:
"Mr. Duelfer said in the report that Iraq had made a conscious effort to maintain the knowledge base necessary to restart an illicit weapons program." (from Jehl)

As to the materials and means, you yourself say:
"Industrial plants that produce medicines and fertilizers can be easily converted into production facilities for biological and chemical weapons."
Pincus said:
"Hussein's government retained data and personnel knowledgeable about weapons, and used funds from the Oil for Food relief program to upgrade his chemical industry so that weapons materials could be produced once sanctions ended."

You make the argument that all countries who possess these are not threats to us, but that's where we get to Bush's last point, intent, which is covered in the last part of Pincus statement or, if you prefer:
"Saddam knew the tools he would need to reshape history and establish his glory: weapons of mass destruction. These weapons had what Duelfer and his team called a "totemic" importance to him."
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/09/opinion/9brooks.html?ex=1097985600&en=c18b73fe5f6b5347&ei=5006&partner=ALTAVISTA1

My greatest disagreement with you is about your characterization that we should only intervene when threats are immediate. This is the reason we didn't go into Afghanistan in the years before 9/11, when we might have disrupted that attack. And considering the arms buildup Saddam was undertaking:
"Arm dealers and military suppliers from the former Eastern Bloc -- Russia, Poland, Romania, Belarus and Ukraine -- provided critical assistance to Iraq as it tried to build a long-range missile program and other systems that weapons inspectors feared could have been used someday to launch chemical, biological or even nuclear attacks."
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/washpost/20041008/ts_washpost/a16142_2004oct7
I'm not sure how wise it would have been to wait, especially considering we didn't know the advancement of Saddam's nuclear program. More on that:
Although weapons inspectors said it was unclear how much equipment was purchased by the Iraqi government, they did uncover documents after the war showing that a Romanian firm, Uzinexport SA, signed a contract in October 2001 to sell magnets to Iraq that "could have been suitable" for a uranium enrichment program.
ibid.

The point is, we had underestimated their nuclear program before, the Iraqis had kicked the inspectors out, the Iraqis were rearming:
In Bulgaria, a firm called the JEFF Co. exported more than $7 million worth of warheads, missiles and launcher units to Baghdad in 2002 in violation of U.N. sanctions, the report found. Other Bulgarian traders sold chemicals and machine tools to Iraq that could be used for civilian purposes but were really intended for missile components and other military purposes.
ibid.

I don't think waiting would have been wise:
"France, Russia, China and other nations lobbied to lift sanctions. Saddam was, as the Duelfer report noted, "palpably close" to ending sanctions.
With sanctions weakening and money flowing, he rebuilt his strength. He contacted W.M.D. scientists in Russia, Belarus, Bulgaria and elsewhere to enhance his technical knowledge base. He increased the funds for his nuclear scientists. He increased his military-industrial-complex's budget 40-fold between 1996 and 2002. He increased the number of technical research projects to 3,200 from 40. As Duelfer reports, "Prohibited goods and weapons were being shipped into Iraq with virtually no problem.""
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/09/opinion/9brooks.html?ex=1097985600&en=c18b73fe5f6b5347&ei=5006&partner=ALTAVISTA1

Dudes - hate to get in the middle of this fight, but let me just throw Mo a question - if he had these means and he had the intent to use them ... why didn't he? I mean if someone is determined to attack you, and they have the means to do it, wouldn't you think they'd do it?

That said, as to the facts here - I really think Bush needs to shut up about the Duelfer report. I'm with Baltar on this - after one of the biggest investigations in the history of Western civilization we haven't found much of anything. There are a host of "evildoers" with much more scary arsenals (ahem, North Korea) that we haven't invaded.

And as a general matter, would people please please please stop throwing around "WMD" like it was this trrifying thing ... tear gas and LSD qualify could be chemical weapons ... and they are just not really all that threatening. The one thing that really is is nukes - and if I heard the morning show coverage right last week Condi the uber-ilar/kiss-ass herself last week said he might have gotten those in ... 10 years.

Armand,
As to your argument that if Saddam had the means and intent he would have used them, my argument here is that he was building up his forces and taking down his impediments through oil for food bribes. It's not like we sent forces into Iraq the day we voted to do so, we waited til' we built up forces, and that's what Saddam was doing. As to a time line for nukes, once Saddam got sanctions down, his nuclear weapons expert said they'd have one within three years.

Morris writes - "It's not like we sent forces into Iraq the day we voted to do so, we waited til' we built up forces, and that's what Saddam was doing."

Building up forces to do what exactly? And when would you expect him to reach his tipping point? When he was 80% weaker than us? 70% weaker than us?