No Weapons, No Matter. We Called Saddam's Bluff By Michael Schrage Michael Schrage is a senior adviser to the Security Studies Program at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Sunday, May 11, 2003; Page B02 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37165-2003May9.html Russian President Vladimir Putin openly mocks America's failed efforts to find chemical, biological or nuclear weapons in Iraq. The Euroleft proclaims the coalition's rationale for invading the country -- the presence of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) -- a fraud. Top Iraqi scientists still swear that their country has no such weapons. No nukes, no anthrax, no VX gas. Are they liars trying to cut a better deal for themselves? Or might they simply be telling the truth? It doesn't matter. If Iraq has significant WMD capabilities, they eventually will be discovered. But even if Iraq proves utterly free of WMD -- or if it merely possesses a paltry two or three bio-weapons vans -- the coalition's military action was the most rational response to Saddam's long-term policy of strategic deception. Saddam Hussein bet that he could get away with playing a "does he or doesn't he?" shell game with a skeptical superpower. He bet wrong. The real story here is less about the failure of intelligence, inspections or diplomacy than about the end of America's tolerance for state-sponsored ambiguities explicitly designed to threaten American lives. Does an American policy to deny unfriendly nation-states the policy option of creating ambiguity around WMD possession and the support of terrorism make the world a safer place? The Bush administration has made a game-theory-like calculation that it does. That's a calculation that could prove as important and enduring to global security as the Cold War's deterrence doctrine of "mutually assured destruction." Iraq provides the single most important and dramatic case study in the Bush administration's efforts after Sept. 11, 2001, to eradicate ambiguity as a viable strategic deterrent for unfriendly regimes. Hussein's Iraq may or may not have had impressive caches of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. But his regime surely behaved as if it might. Iraq's WMD threat remained credible for more than 20 years because that's precisely what Hussein wanted the world to believe. After all, he had successfully deployed chemical weapons against both Kurds and Iranians. He'd earned his credibility. Since his first Gulf War defeat, Hussein deliberately created uncertainty regarding the true nature of his regime's weapons programs. Iraq would alternately cheat and retreat and then concede and mislead. At great cost, it defiantly chose sanctions over inspections. To guarantee that the perennially volatile region remained on edge, Hussein regularly threatened to engulf his enemies in a "sea of fire." No one knew what he was really trying to do. That was precisely his point. Even after Sept. 11, the Afghanistan campaign and the controversial "axis of evil" address, Iraq took no public actions to reduce the level of ambiguity surrounding its WMD programs. To the contrary, it fought every U.N. initiative for inspections before reluctantly and churlishly acquiescing. Practically every demonstration of purported compliance seemed balanced by a calibrated act of defiance. When (recently captured) Iraqi Gen. Hossam Mohammed Amin, who coordinated with the U.N. inspectors, declared in a January news conference that Iraq had destroyed various chemical weapons years ago, he simultaneously disclosed that Iraq had also destroyed all the records associated with destroying these weapons. This may even have been true. But it did nothing substantive to remove any WMD ambiguity. That Amin appeared to smile as he discussed the missing records didn't help. This behavior by Iraq's regime was completely rational. Hussein's calculated cultivation of WMD ambiguity is a tactic torn directly from the tough-minded Cold War game-theory scenarios of nuclear deterrence. Brilliantly crafted by defense analysts such as former Harvard economist Thomas Schelling and the Rand Corp.'s Herman Kahn, this literature stresses the strategic importance of "signaling" -- that is, the critical behaviors potential combatants choose to display to either clarify or obscure their ultimate intentions. For years, "strategic ambiguity" worked very well for Hussein. His WMD ambiguity enhanced his survivability. In fact, WMD ambiguity was at the core of Iraq's strategy. Why? Because if it ever became unambiguously clear that Iraq had major initiatives underway in nuclear or bio-weapons, America, Israel and even Europe might intervene militarily. If, however, it ever became obvious that Iraq lacked the unconventional weaponry essential to inspiring fear and inflicting horrific damage, then the Kurds, Iranians and Saudis might lack appropriate respect for Hussein's imperial ambitions. Ambiguity thus kept the West at bay while keeping Hussein's neighbors and his people in line. A little rumor of anthrax or VX goes a long way. Inspections agreements -- no matter how coercive -- never could have worked because they never addressed the fundamental issue: Hussein's desire to preserve WMD ambiguity in order to preserve Iraq's perceived influence and power. Removing that ambiguity would have removed Hussein's ability to bully, bluster and blackmail the world. Perversely, U.N. Resolution 1441's poorly implemented inspection protocols fed the worst fears of both sides. Iraq's perfunctory compliance and deceitful history guaranteed that the United States would distrust the U.N.'s lackluster assurances of compliance. By contrast, Iraq's desire to be feared guaranteed that it would always manufacture just enough ambiguity to preserve its aura of menace. The inspectors' tortured attempts to appear evenhanded succeeded only in generating even greater ambiguities about both Iraq's willingness to comply and the weapons in its possession. And Secretary of State Colin L. Powell's dramatic yet desperate presentation before the U.N. Security Council was harshly attacked by critics who maintained that, yes, America's WMD evidence was inconclusively ambiguous. Similarly, inspection proposals calling for "thousands" of intrusive inspectors, declaring all of Iraq a "no-fly" zone, and immediately bombing any sites that Iraq refused or delayed access to -- acts of war in everything but name -- seemed designed to ferret out WMD deceptions without in any way undermining the sovereignty or the totalitarian rule of the deliberate deceivers. Talk about a truly perverse outcome! To the very end of his brutal regime, Saddam Hussein behaved as if preserving WMD ambiguity and preserving his power were one and the same. Even when he was directly threatened by the United States, his policy of WMD ambiguity remained unchanged. If he did have active WMD programs, he could at any time have quietly invited in French, Russian and German technicians to help dispose of them. Word would have gotten around. Or, after Sept.11, he could have preemptively invited in U.N. inspectors as a prelude to lifting sanctions. Could he have done this without appearing weak? Yes. He could easily have preserved internal credibility by killing a few thousand more Kurds or chopping the ears off suspected dissidents. And regional balance-of-power issues could have been handled by a particularly brutal political assassination in Kuwait, for instance. If Iraq really didn't have any WMD, Hussein's challenge would have been even easier. Several top Iraqi scientists could have left or "defected" to the West and talked about how their standard of living collapsed after Hussein stopped building weapons. Saddam could have allowed his French friends and Russian suppliers relatively free access to all parts of the country to further signal that he had nothing to hide. Of course, none of this happened. To the contrary, France unwittingly revealed just how effective Hussein's strategic ambiguity program was when its U.S. ambassador announced shortly after the war began that his country would support the coalition if the Iraqi leader used any weapons of mass destruction. But suppose Hussein was bluffing. Suppose Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction of any significance. That shouldn't matter at all. To the contrary, why should the international community respect totalitarian brinkmanship based on a bluff? A brutal despot who bets his regime on a bluff deserves to lose everything. America's diplomatic failure to reduce strategic ambiguity inevitably led to a military success that did. Those nation-states and regimes invested in bluff and "double games" to manage their relationships with the United States would be wise to learn from Iraq's experience that "preemptive ambiguity removal" is probably their optimal strategy for self-preservation. Syria's Bashar Assad may understand this in a way that North Korea's Kim Jong Il does not. The Bush administration, appropriately interpreting Iraq's refusal to remove WMD ambiguity in violation of numerous international agreements as an overtly hostile act, has sent an unambiguous signal that it will take all steps necessary to eliminate such ambiguity. To be sure, this sort of policy may not inherently make the world a safer place. But policies that permit rogue states to wield greater influence by creating greater uncertainty about their weapons of mass destruction are guaranteed to make the world an even more dangerous place. Making every effort to increase the risks and reduce the rewards for regimes dependent on WMD ambiguity for their legitimacy should be a global responsibility -- not just an American one. © 2003 The Washington Post Company
Wow another editorial trying to dismiss the alleged justification for war. I can't read quite enough of those. Originally posted by treeman What exactly did they lie about? Please be specific here, and use evidence - direct evidence - to support your accusations. Since it's obvious, this should not be difficult... Unless you're just blowing smoke out of your ass again. Treeman your consistent attempts to redistribute, omit, and overstate bits of data to paint an intellectually dishonest view of reality have become so George Bush like, bravo. The lies are many and here are a few I've been able to dig up in about 5 seconds. We can also throw in lies about Saddam's Ansar al-Islam/Al-Qaeda link, lies about the distribution of chem artillery shells at the start of the war, lies about Iraq's missile strike capability against it's neighbors, and intentionally using the alleged Czech Al-Qaeda info that even the head of their government and their spy agency says is total bull. Just for you johnboy. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002-09-16-intell_x.htm Cheney and Rumsfeld question the CIA's insistence that it can find no link between al-Qaeda terrorists and Saddam's regime. They accept reports from Czech diplomats that Sept. 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta met in Prague, Czech Republic, with an Iraqi intelligence officer in April 2001. Administration officials speculate that the pair were discussing the Sept. 11 attacks, or possibly plotting to bomb the Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty headquarters in Prague, which is regarded as one of the most likely terrorist targets in Europe. Subsequent investigations, however, found that the Iraqi officer met regularly with a friend, a used car dealer, who closely resembles Atta. Inquiries also suggested that the source of the Czech information came from Prague restaurateurs trying to impugn a competitor whose establishment was used for the supposed meeting. More recently, the CIA, under pressure from Cheney and Rumsfeld, could not confirm that al-Qaeda members are hiding in Iraq with Saddam's blessing. Nevertheless, Rumsfeld, Cheney and Rice have accepted these reports as accurate. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A10847-2002Sep12¬Found=true The intelligence officials, who have been briefed in detail on U.S. planning, were generally supportive of the need to strike Hussein soon, while he remains relatively weak. They focused on what they described as the "opportunity" presented by Iraq, rather than the threat. Indeed, they worry that the Bush administration, in its enthusiasm for finding a rationale for war, may have overstated the threat of Iraqi nuclear weapons and its links with al Qaeda terrorists. The intelligence officials are skeptical about the administration's recent warnings that Hussein could be just a few months away from acquiring a bomb. "That would be true only if someone gave them everything except the trigger; otherwise, no," said one official. He explained that the nuclear program "is not the priority" for Hussein now, because the logistics are difficult and relatively easy to monitor. The officials also dismissed speculation that Hussein's intelligence service met with al Qaeda terrorist Mohamed Atta in Prague shortly before the Sept. 11 attacks. "We remain absolutely convinced that there was no event in Prague that would point to [an Iraqi intelligence link to al Qaeda]," one official said. He noted that Czech security chiefs have now concluded they made a mistake in their earlier reports of such a meeting. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F40816FB34590C728EDDA90994DA404482 Pres Vaclav Havel of Czech Republic has reportedly told White House that he cannot find evidence to confirm reports that Mohamed Atta met with Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague months before Sept 11 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington; message was delivered discreetly earlier this year in effort by Havel to avoid publicly embarrassing other prominent officials in his government who had given credibility to reports, including then-Prime Min Milos Zeman and Interior Min Stanislav Gross; Czech officials who have investigated case say Zeman and Gross spoke without adequately vetting information or waiting for Czech internal security service to substantiate initial reports; American intelligence officers have long cast doubt on reports of Prague meeting, and White House has generally been cautious about using reports to help make case for war with Iraq; photos (M) The Czech president, Vaclav Havel, has quietly told the White House he has concluded that there is no evidence to confirm earlier reports that Mohamed Atta, the leader in the Sept. 11 attacks, met with an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague just months before the attacks on New York and Washington, according to Czech officials. Mr. Havel discreetly called Washington to tell senior Bush administration officials that an initial report from the Czech domestic intelligence agency that Mr. Atta had met with an Iraqi intelligence officer, Ahmad Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani, in Prague in April 2001 could not be substantiated. But back to Bush. We could probably be here all month pointing out lies in his speeches but let's stick some big ones because he's continued to portray allegations as fact to plant the seeds for war. Suckers... 1. Powell relies on forged documents to link Saddam to terror. (we now know by the way that this administration knew these documents were fake) MSNBC: "They have been the closest of allies. But under the intense pressure of a diplomatic crisis at the United Nations and an imminent war in Iraq, the friendship between the United States and Britain is beginning to fray. The most recent strain emerged when U.N. nuclear inspectors concluded last week that U.S. and British claims about Iraq's secret nuclear program were based on forged documents. The fake letters supposedly laid out how Iraqi agents had tried to purchase uranium from officials in Niger, central Africa." 2. Bush/Powell's UN "evidence" relies on even more supposedly "up to date" forged documents to link Saddam to terror. CNN: Large chunks of the 19-page report -- highlighted by U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell at the U.N. as a " fine paper ... which describes in exquisite detail Iraqi deception activities" -- contains large chunks lifted from other sources, according to several academics. " The British government's dossier is 19 pages long and most of pages 6 to 16 are copied directly from that document word for word, even the grammatical errors and typographical mistakes," Rangwala said. Al-Marashi's article, published last September, was based on information obtained at the time of the 1991 Gulf War, Rangwala said. " The information he was using is 12 years old and he acknowledges this in his article. The British government, when it transplants that information into its own dossier, does not make that acknowledgement. " So it is presented as current information about Iraq, when really the information it is using is 12 years old." 3. Bush/Powell tries to lie about Saddam/Bin Laden Connection. Salon.com: War, lies and audiotape If truth is the first casualty of war, then this war's second casualty is the credibility of Colin Powell. Yesterday morning he insisted that the new tape from Osama bin Laden would show a "partnership" between al-Qaida and Iraq. He told the nation that he had a transcript of bin Laden's remarks. Understandably, however, the secretary of state didn't read from the transcript he claimed to have in his possession -- because it so clearly contradicted the headlines he was trying to create. 4. Bush/Powell lies about Saddam's ability to deliver weapons of mass destruction. News Interactive: An Iraqi drone found by UN weapons inspectors is of "very primitive" design and is definitely not capable of flying 500km as suggested by US Secretary of State Colin Powell, Jane's Defence Weekly said today. On February 5, Powell told the UN Security Council that the Iraqis possessed a drone that could fly 500km, violating UN rules that limit the range of Iraqi weapons to 150km. " There is no possibility that the design shown on 12 March has the capability to fly anywhere near 500 kilometres," drones expert Ken Munson said on Jane's website (http://jdw.janes.com). " The design looks very primitive, and the engines -- which have their pistons exposed -- appear to be low-powered," he said. MORE: Article Link Originally from the NY Times: AL TAJI, Iraq -- To hear senior Bush administration officials tell it, Iraq's latest pilotless drone has the potential to be one of Saddam Hussein's deadliest weapons, able to deliver terrifying payloads of chemical and biological warfare agents across Iraq's borders to Israel or other neighboring states. It could even, they say, be broken down and smuggled into the United States for use in terrorist attacks. But viewed up close yesterday by reporters hastened by Iraqi officials to the Ibn Firnas weapons plant outside Baghdad, the vehicle the Iraqis have code-named RPV-30A, for remotely piloted vehicle, looked more like something out of the Rube Goldberg museum of aeronautical design than anything that could threaten Iraq's foes. To the layman's eye, the unveiling of the Iraqi prototype seemed to lend the crisis over Iraq's weapons an aura less of deadly threat than of farce. "In any case, he and other officials said, the vehicle could not be controlled from a distance of more than 5 miles, in good weather, since its controllers tracked it "with the naked eye." 5. Bush/Powell lie about Iraq's Nuclear capabilities concerning "aluminum tubes": Washington Post: The finding: Iraq had tried to buy thousands of high-strength aluminum tubes, which Bush said were "used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon." But according to government officials and weapons experts, the claim now appears to be seriously in doubt. After weeks of investigation, U.N. weapons inspectors in Iraq are increasingly confident that the aluminum tubes were never meant for enriching uranium, according to officials familiar with the inspection process. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the U.N.-chartered nuclear watchdog, reported in a Jan. 8 preliminary assessment that the tubes were "not directly suitable" for uranium enrichment.
I consider myself somewhere in the middle ground here in regards to our invasion of Iraq. I think the timing of the war was wrong. I've mentioned before that I think it could and should have waited. I also think the diplomatic run-up to it was one of the most appalling displays of diplomatic ineptitude we've seen from an Administration in many, many years. One of the problems I have had with it is the long-term ramifications in the region. We don't know if the war will back-fire on us. It is way too early to know and not unreasonable to think that it could lead to an increase of terrorist attacks on the U.S and our friends. Another problem I've had is the total arrogance by the Administration before the war started, and at least that's how the vast majority of the World sees our actions... including many of our long-time Allies (and I'm not necessarily speaking of France and Germany). This has ramifications on our carefully cultivated web of relationships built over 50+ years yet to be seen and these relationships of so much importance to us are at great risk, imo. Having said that, I'm not losing sleep over the fact that the Baath Party dictatorship has been overthrown. I am glad Saddam is either dead or on the run. His regime's overthrow is a good thing, just not in the way we have undertaken it... for the reasons I've given and some I've probably forgotten at the moment. But I have to confess that I am flabbergasted by the lack of WMD's. Yes, it is a big country, but we've had years to pinpoint at least some locations that we should have been able to acquire. And I truly believed that one of the obvious reasons they weren't found pre-war was that they were embedded with military units dedicated to their use. The Iraqi's would never have allowed the UN access to those units, or any other part of their military... not willingly. We wouldn't either. I'm very surprised that they haven't turned up. I think you're a bit quick to dismiss any skepticism regarding the total lack of discovery, treeman. It is a puzzle not to be tossed away cavalierly. At least for me.
One note: Irrespective of whether you were for or against the war... The recent notes of admitted subterfuge eminating from the White House, and ecoed by it's supporters in here is disturbing to say the least. The refutation of the lack of WMD's, the acknowledgment of misleading the public and other nations with regards to our 'emphasis' etc. has been swallowed wholesale by those who feel the end justifies the means..But consider what the means means. For the Whilte House and it's proponents, like the article Buck posted to claim that it doesn't matter what the administration said before the war, the result justifies it and any misrepresentations which lead to it is frightening. Domestically, it is indication of a conception of a divergence between responsible government, and autocratic distinctions in who is and is not best suited to make the decisions for the country. That kind of rational is hardly new...it has long been admitted that monarchy, dictatorship, etc. is a more effective short term political system when compared with the slow moving, cumbersome political machinations of a democracy...but the long term results have been seen to be worth the short tem loss. For this administration to circumvent the democratic aspect by exploitoing the public's faith in their honesty and fear of that which they said was facing them to accomplish something which it believed was needed, but couldn't 'sell' on it's own merits is a horrible step in th wrong direction. Internationally, it merely confirms the opinions of all those who mistrust us and our 'propoganda', and seriously screws those who sold our lines to their own people. Imagine being Blair after the US admits it misrepresented the 'emphasis' of Iraq's WMDs, and he trumpeted US reliability and integrity to gain support for this war. How will he be viewed the next time?
"The real story here is less about the failure of intelligence, inspections or diplomacy than about the end of America's tolerance for state-sponsored ambiguities explicitly designed to threaten American lives. Does an American policy to deny unfriendly nation-states the policy option of creating ambiguity around WMD possession and the support of terrorism make the world a safer place? The Bush administration has made a game-theory-like calculation that it does. That's a calculation that could prove as important and enduring to global security as the Cold War's deterrence doctrine of "mutually assured destruction." That's some impressive spin. He goes from admitting failure of goals to making it sound like it's all part of a brilliant strategic vision with Bush as our chessmaster. Everyone's got an opinion, it's just that mine are always right.
Is the administration really changing what its saying? Or are certain biased reports pulling at quotes here and there to build a case that it is? Once again, people here have been accused of looking at or relying on biased sources. Make sure you are falling in the same trap.
Straight from C student to master of "nucular" gamesmanship akin to John Nash... Insert the POTUS into RAND, they need his brainpower now!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3024359.stm Failure to find Iraqi arms 'surprising' By Paul Reynolds BBC News Online world affairs correspondent A leading Western think tank, which helped set the agenda for the war against Iraq, has admitted to being surprised at the failure of US and British forces to find chemical weapons in Iraq was the first major report on Iraqi capabilities and proved helpful to Washington and London as they made their own cases against Iraq in the following weeks. Search 'not over' At the launching of its annual Strategic Survey, Dr Gary Samore, one of the experts who wrote the Iraq report, accepted that neither chemical weapons nor the munitions to deliver them had been found, nor were likely to be found in large quantities, despite the predictions of the IISS and the British and US governments. "The absence of chemical weapons was a big surprise," he said. Dr Samore added, however, that the search was not over and might take some months. . . . In introducing the Strategic Survey, Dr Chipman did not use the weapons issue to justify the war against Iraq. Instead, he said: "In the end, the most important legitimacy for the operation may well come most from a successful process of political reconstruction." Such a shift is similar to one seen in American and British statements, which tend to concentrate now on the changes in Iraq rather than the removal of a threat from the country. . . .
For Treeman and any others who say that Bush didn't lie about Iraq. Here is something that I've posted before. It's a boldfaced lie, not just over emphasizing something, and not just being handed faulty intel. They quoted reports that never existed. They made up that they had these reports and then tried to use them to persuade people that the war was needed. If I say I have a letter from pres. Bush telling me that he really did go to war in order to give money to his oil buddies and as a stepping stone to taking over the whole region. I would be lying, because such a letter doesn't exist. John Heath, Treeman, please take notice. This is an example with concrete evidence. http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020927-500715.htm The International Atomic Energy Agency says that a report cited by President Bush as evidence that Iraq in 1998 was "six months away" from developing a nuclear weapon does not exist. Top Stories "There's never been a report like that issued from this agency," Mark Gwozdecky, the IAEA's chief spokesman, said yesterday in a telephone interview from the agency's headquarters in Vienna, Austria. And Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair on Sept. 7 cited an agency "report" declaring that satellite photography revealed the Iraqis had undertaken new construction at several nuclear-related sites. This week, the IAEA said no such report existed. The IAEA also took issue with a Sept. 9 report by the International Institute for Strategic Studies — cited by the Bush administration — that concludes Saddam "could build a nuclear bomb within months if he were able to obtain fissile material." "There is no evidence in our view that can be substantiated on Iraq's nuclear-weapons program. If anybody tells you they know the nuclear situation in Iraq right now, in the absence of four years of inspections, I would say that they're misleading you because there isn't solid evidence out there," Mr. Gwozdecky said Bush claimed he had report from the IAEA, when such a report never existed. It was a total fabrication. This is from a very conservative newspaper as well. This comes from a conservative paper, The Washington Times. Yes it's great that Saddam's gone, whether or not they ever find WMD, even if Saddam was secretly the real lead of Al Qaeda and Bin Laden was just a puppet of his, the fact still remains. Bush lied. I don't like being lied to, maybe some people don't care. I hated it when Clinton lied too the U.S. public as well. I hated it when Reagan lied to the U.S. public. When someone lies to me I don't like it. I also think it's ludicrous when people try and act like it didn't happen. And I'm not saying that this should make anyone who supported the war change their mind. But I'm tired of having to post the same thing over and over because people keep trying to claim that Bush didn't actually 'lie'. He just mislead.
Amazing how the hardcore right members of the BBS still post that one needs time to find WMD and the hardcore left (yes, I'll include me, I guess) says that WMD was always a red herring. I'll stick by the red herring comment. This war is pretty much about commerce and power. Our country is run by corporations and the military. Damn, the military must really have been chafing at the bit during the Clinton years. Still, I am surprised that they've found nothing but, say, empty ice cream trucks. Every country has some sort of weapons program. You would think they would have found something, however trivial, and said, "Eureka!" and given FOX "News" something to crow about.
Fox News has crowed several times already, it just turned out that they didn't actually have anything to crow about. I don't think they have to find the WMD, I think they should have been honest from the beginning. If people and congress wanted to give their support to an attack in order to Turn Iraq into a democracy, then that's fine. If they couldn't have won that support then they shouldn't have lied in order to get it. Notice I accurately used the word 'lied'.
Shouldn't Judith Miller go in with Jayson Blair? http://slate.msn.com/id/2082998/ press box Media criticism. Miller's Double-Crossing In which a New York Times reporter gives away the farm to her military handlers for a dubious scoop. By Jack Shafer Posted Thursday, May 15, 2003, at 3:07 PM PT New York Times reporter Judith Miller struck an extraordinary sourcing deal with her military minders three weeks ago. Did she get taken? The 600-plus reporters embedded with American and British units during the Iraq war agreed with their Pentagon handlers not to reveal coalition troop position or strength and to keep mum about battle plans or anything else that might directly endanger an ongoing operation. But Miller, who was embedded with the military, gave up much more to obtain her "scoop" about possible evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. In "Illicit Arms Kept Till Eve of War, an Iraqi Scientist Is Said to Assert" (Page One, April 21) Miller disclosed that she agreed to 1) embargo her story for three days; 2) permit military officials to review her story prior to publication; 3) not name the found chemicals; and 4) to refrain from identifying or interviewing the Iraqi scientist who led Mobile Exploitation Team Alpha to sites where he maintained Iraqis had buried chemical precursors to banned chemical weapons. Although Miller didn't talk to the scientist, the military allowed her to view him from afar. She writes, "Clad in nondescript clothes and a baseball cap, he pointed to several spots in the sand where he said chemical precursors and other weapons material were buried." . . . Via e-mail, Epstein cites the Jayson Blair scandal to criticize the Times: "There is no penalty for false reports [at the Times] as long as they can be attributed to anonymous sources (and do not involve demonstrable plagiarism)." To Epstein's Hall of Shame let us add Miller's April 21 report. Miller has had ample time to return to her unnamed WMD sources and re-interview them about the Iraqi scientist and his unproven allegations. In light of the May 13 Pentagon briefing, which indicated MET Alpha found nothing in the way of chemical weapons, she should demand permission to name the precursor materials the unit collected and describe the location where they were found. And if MET Alpha won't talk to her, she should track down somebody who will. There's no permanent shame in having been swindled by a source as long as you ultimately correct the record. Or in tying up Miller with its elaborate sourcing agreement, did MET Alpha gag her as well?
What I find amazing is the irony of the situation. Before the war the anti-Bush party was asking for more time to find the supposed WMD,and now it's the pro-Bush that ask for more time to find them! ALA
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1155-2003May16.html Analysis No Weapons, No Problem for Bush By Dana Milbank and Jim VandeHei Washington Post Staff Writers Saturday, May 17, 2003; Page A01 President Bush appears to be in no political danger from the failure to find chemical, biological and nuclear weapons in Iraq, with Democrats reluctant to challenge Bush on any aspect of the successful war and polls showing Americans unconcerned about weapons discoveries. Disarming Saddam Hussein of his "weapons of mass destruction" was the main justification the Bush administration used both at home and abroad for attacking Iraq. But while other countries that opposed the U.S. military action claim they are vindicated by the failure so far to find those weapons, Americans -- even some of Bush's political opponents -- seem content with the low-casualty victory and believe the discoveries of mass graves and other Hussein atrocities justify the war. Disarming Saddam Hussein of his "weapons of mass destruction" was the main justification the Bush administration used both at home and abroad for attacking Iraq. But while other countries that opposed the U.S. military action claim they are vindicated by the failure so far to find those weapons, Americans -- even some of Bush's political opponents -- seem content with the low-casualty victory and believe the discoveries of mass graves and other Hussein atrocities justify the war. . . . But fewer than 60 days later, the group directing all known U.S. search efforts for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the 75th Exploitation Task Force, is winding down operations without any confirmed discoveries of prohibited weapons. . . . The only candidate making a big issue of the failure to find weapons stockpiles is Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (D-Ohio), the fervently antiwar candidate. "The basis of the war in Iraq is fraudulent," Kucinich said in an interview. "They misrepresented Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction. They misrepresented the nature of the nuclear threat." There are reasons other than politics for the Democrats' reluctance to take up the subject. Several, including Pelosi, continue to believe weapons may be found. "If you make that accusation and they find [the weapons] tomorrow and you have a banner headline, you look a little silly," said Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), who supported the war resolution. But even if the weapons are never found, it may be smart politics to let the subject drop. "Our constituents like a victory, and at this point it's a victory," said Sen. Lincoln D. Chafee (R-R.I.). "In the beginning, our constituents were saying, 'They better find weapons of mass destruction.' With it over so quickly, we are not hearing that refrain."
Did we ever find the US uniforms that American intelligence said were going to be worn by Iraqis to blame the US for war crimes? I guess not, imagine that.
Actually, I thought they did. Didn't the Iraqis wear US uniforms and accep Iraqi surrenders only to execute the Iraqis that surrendered? That sounds like a war crime to me.
