Contact
Archives
Search
Blogs
Newspaper Blogs
English-Language
Press
Polls

June 20, 2003

WMDs AND WAR....Matt Yglesias has a Tech Central Station column up about why it's important to know whether intelligence information about Iraqi WMD was exaggerated before the war. He makes a good case, but I want to make one that I think is more fundamental.

No serious analyst suggests that the United States should mount large scale foreign wars for purely humanitarian reasons. While the humanitarian aspects of the Iraq war are welcome, pretending that they are sufficient is both dangerous and disingenuous.

The fact remains that the only substantial thing that distinguished Iraq from Burma, the Congo, Zimbabwe, or Iran in public eyes was the possibility that Iraq had WMDs and was likely to use them. In other words, that Iraq threatened the security of the United States or, at the very least, threatened the vital interests of the U.S.

Conservative warhawks have become tireless in recent weeks making up reasons why all these other humanitarian interventions are somehow different: Iran has its own reform movement, the Congo is in the middle of a war, etc. etc. But the real reason is a lot simpler: none of these countries pose any real threat to the United States or our allies. If they truly did, we'd invade in a heartbeat.

That's why the WMDs are important. Did President Bush pretend that a threat existed where none really did? Or does he truly think that it should be U.S. policy to engage in major wars for humanitarian reasons? It's hard to say which of these would be more disturbing.

Posted by Kevin Drum at June 20, 2003 09:30 AM | TrackBack


Comments

*grabs popcorn* Here we go again with the Olympics of moral relativism. Defending champions: Republicans.

Posted by: squiddy at June 20, 2003 09:32 AM | PERMALINK

Well, I tend to think that bringing democracy to the middle east also had something to do with it. We have selfish reasons for wanting to do this, namely oil and terrorism.

Posted by: Joe Schmoe at June 20, 2003 09:54 AM | PERMALINK

Just to add: if we did prosecute wars for purely humanitarian reasons, we would still want to do so effectively. That is to say, we would want to do the maximum amount of good with the lives/money we spend. Iraq doesn't pass that test.

Even on the basis of purely humanitarian wars, Iraq was loser.

Posted by: Realish at June 20, 2003 09:54 AM | PERMALINK

Here come the lies, the spin, the rationalizations, the sneers, and defensiveness.

It's not going to be pretty. Here's the chips and coke, squiddy.

Posted by: paradox at June 20, 2003 09:55 AM | PERMALINK

No serious analyst suggests that the United States should mount large scale foreign wars for purely humanitarian reasons. While the humanitarian aspects of the Iraq war are welcome, pretending that they are sufficient is both dangerous and disingenuous.

slam-dunk, IMO.

Posted by: ChrisL at June 20, 2003 09:58 AM | PERMALINK

There's a 3rd possibility that doesn't get a whole lot of attention re: WMDs in Iraq. And that is, that there was a very public, very extended runup to the war, during which time I suspect a lot of records were destroyed and materials hidden, destroyed or sent elsewhere.

I find it hard to watch this debate as to WHETHER there were WMD programs in Iraq. The country itself admitted to them and provided no meaningful proof (or cooperation in proving) that they were dismantled. Even Blix said on MTV that "of course they have chemical weapons".

The real issue wrt WMD and Iraq wasn't that they were about to launch attacks on us, although the Saddam regime had a history of trying to dominate the area. The issue was that they continued to try to keep development programs alive & were also active in sponsoring Islamic terrorism in various forms ... ranging from sharing chemical "cookbooks" (c.f. the particular form of Ricin found in France, which appears to be identical to the formulation found in the camps in NE Iraq) to overt financial rewards for the families of Palestinian bombers to camps in which airplane fuselages were set up for practicing hijackings.

These activities made that regime (in conjunction with harboring at least one senior al Qaeda leader who fled from Afghanistan) a major aider / abetter of terrorist attacks on Western culture, governments and people. As we do the things democracies should do to make sure our leaders are accountable to us, let's make sure we don't forget the serious and sustained declarations of war against our civilization and our country made by those who hate our way of life.

Posted by: rkb at June 20, 2003 10:01 AM | PERMALINK

Re: "the only thing that distinguished Iraq...was"

The other thing that distinguished Iraq was that the US had fought the same regime before...thus the psychological barrier to launching a new war was lower.

Posted by: jmm at June 20, 2003 10:07 AM | PERMALINK

rkb writes: "There's a 3rd possibility that doesn't get a whole lot of attention re: WMDs in Iraq. And that is, that there was a very public, very extended runup to the war, during which time I suspect a lot of records were destroyed and materials hidden, destroyed or sent elsewhere."

Why bother? There's more than enough evidence to hang Saddam and his cronies on war crimes charges even without WMD and related records.

Why would they get rid of their only effective weapon they could use against the US?

Robin Cook of the UK put it nicely when he said something to the effect that he didn't think Saddam had disposed of the WMD so that Don Rumsfeld would have some very tricky questions to answer after the war.

Also, there'd likely be a lot of evidence had a large amount of WMD been disposed of recently. A large incinerator with lots of residue, for instance. Lots of empty shell casings, that sort of thing.

If the materials were 'sent elsewhere', then the war failed to keep the materials out of the hands of terrorists.

Posted by: Jon H at June 20, 2003 10:22 AM | PERMALINK

Virtually everybody believed that Iraq had WMDs before the war, including Jacques Chirac. I find it to be somewhat bizarre that the people who are so bent on calling Bush an idiot are now contending that he knew that Iraq had no WMDs when Koffi Annan and the intelligence agencies of countries such as Germany, France, and Britain were duped into believing that he did. To say that it was unreasonable for Bush to believe that Iraq had WMDs prior to the war requires a great talent in the art of selective lapses in recall.

And of course, there is the recurrent refrain that "other countries have WMDs so why should Iraq be singled out?" Why? Perhaps for the same reason that we are not really concerned that a police officer carries a pistol but we are when an individual with a long history of violent and criminal behavior does.

Posted by: Ratbane at June 20, 2003 10:23 AM | PERMALINK

paradox and squiddy, there's rkb, right on cue.

And he seems to be taking the line of which Robin Cook said (paraphrasing): Saddam Hussein, knowing that Iraq would be attacked no matter what he did, destroyed his weapons programs, so that Donald Rumsfeld would have some very uncomfortable questions to answer later.

Which, when you think about it, puts Saddam, in his desire to make the Bush administration respond to uncomfortable questions, in league with the US left. Aha! We knew it all along.

Posted by: Demetrios at June 20, 2003 10:23 AM | PERMALINK

jmm writes: "The other thing that distinguished Iraq was that the US had fought the same regime before...thus the psychological barrier to launching a new war was lower."

Plus, we'd decimated their military the first time around, and we'd had them under a trade embargo for a decade, hampering rearming, and we'd had them under two no-fly zones covering much of the country, and we'd destroyed defenses periodically over 10 years.

Posted by: Jon H at June 20, 2003 10:24 AM | PERMALINK

Bush launched the war because he believed that Saddam had WMDs and that there was a realistic possibility that he might use them.

As for Saddam's not using them, here's two possibilities that I haven't seen raised:

1) Once Saddam had concealed the WMDs, he didn't have time to deploy them against US forces.

2) Saddam was afraid that the US would reply with nuclear strikes against Baghdad and Tikrit (remember George H's thinly veiled threat during the first war).

Posted by: Graham Lester at June 20, 2003 10:32 AM | PERMALINK

Ratbane writes: " To say that it was unreasonable for Bush to believe that Iraq had WMDs prior to the war requires a great talent in the art of selective lapses in recall."

"Belief that Iraq had WMDs prior to the war" is one thing, but by itself, it is not an adequate casus belli.

We knew, for instance, that he had them in the past. We knew that he used them in the past (during the prior Reagan and Bush administrations during which he was their friend and ally. Just in case anyone's forgotten.)

But there was a huge amount of uncertainty as to the state of the WMD *now*. The intelligence agencies knew this, and their reports reflected this uncertainty, and they were smart enough to know that various defectors' reports were probably lies and exaggerations about Iraq's capabilities.

The information we had certainly failed to justify a war of aggression. A war can't be pre-emptive if there's nothing to be pre-empted.

Posted by: Jon H at June 20, 2003 10:36 AM | PERMALINK

Graham Lester wrote: "1) Once Saddam had concealed the WMDs, he didn't have time to deploy them against US forces."

Bush and Blair said that the WMDs had been deployed.

Posted by: Jon H at June 20, 2003 10:38 AM | PERMALINK

Bush invaded Iraq for one reason, and one reason only:

He could.

They happened to be in the right place at the right time for the invasion which had to do with establishing a presence in the Middle East that was stabler than the base in Saudi Arabia. The exact weight given to all the reasons why Bush felt a US permanent presence in the Middle East was important are probably lost in the mysteries of his congnitve processes. But they clearly range from the patently obvious (oil) to the bizarre (the rapture).

Posted by: tristero at June 20, 2003 10:39 AM | PERMALINK

I think some of Bush's defenders are missing the point.

Did we believe before the war that Saddam had WMD? Well, I did. But I'm just some guy in Irvine, and I get all my information from the government. What do I know?

But George Bush *is* the government. He had access to far more information than me, information that it now seems likely told him that the WMD threat was fairly small. We only know as much as our governments tell us, and finding out what they *really* knew before the war is the whole point of this exercise.

Posted by: Kevin Drum at June 20, 2003 10:47 AM | PERMALINK

I am SO GLAD that this point is being made with increasing frequency, here and elsewhere. No-one was asked to support the invasion of Iraq on humanitarian grounds; the drumbeat was always about the "unacceptable threat" (with variations) and the implication that Saddam Hussein and Al Qaida were in cahoots with each other.

What does it say about us as a nation that we can take the most significant action that a state can take and then retroactively seek to justify that action with rationales that pale in significance with the original ones, and society as a whole appears not to be duly concerned? The Republicans in Congress want to hush the whole thing up and some significant percentage of people polled (I forget the number) either think WMD's were found or that Iraq used them.

I'm not a philosopher, but what happened to the much vaunted "moral clarity"?

Posted by: Joe Betsin at June 20, 2003 10:49 AM | PERMALINK

But there was a huge amount of uncertainty as to the state of the WMD *now*. The intelligence agencies knew this, and their reports reflected this uncertainty, and they were smart enough to know that various defectors' reports were probably lies and exaggerations about Iraq's capabilities.

Sources?

Posted by: Ratbane at June 20, 2003 10:53 AM | PERMALINK

To rkb:

I find the idea of invading Iraq because the Middle East has "failed" absolutely fascinating. Let's tease this out a little. On the precedent side, the US for years has been supporting terrorists in Central America (remember Iran/Contra?). Does our supporting right-wing terrorists in Central America give the leftist governments there a case for war against the US? After all, we admit to terrorism, and our political system, by their viewpoint, has "failed". Consider the devastating impact that the IMF/World Bank/globalization policies have had on their economies.

On the political theory side, do you REALLY buy into this American Enterprise Institute idea of remaking the Middle East in our own vision? Take a look at Algeria and Turkey as two states (one successful, one not) dealing with the intersection of Islam and democracy. So we set up elections and a radical Shiite party wins, promising to institute strict sharia, and throw out the infidels (us). But a minority pro-western party threatens civil war. (see Algeria.) Do we (a) leave, and let the blood-letting start; or (b) nullify the election?

More importantly, the US around the world used to stand for SELF-determination. How do you deal with the raging hypocrisy which comes from imposing our political system at the point of a gun?

Final point: terrorism, as 9/11 showed, is frighteningly easy. the knowledge to make chemical/biological/nuclear weapons exists everywhere and that doesn't even count the utter simplicity of suicide bombers. You cannot put the genie back in the bottle. So, like the rest of the world, we will have to let go of our smug self-assurance and live with a little fear. Attacking Iraq may make you feel a little better, but on what basis do you believe that we are actually any safer?

As the EPA has known for years, people's perception of risk and actual risk are very different. Until now, this has been expressed in a waste of tax dollars. But now? I think there's a strong argument to be made that the administration's actions in addressing your perception of risk have actually made us much less safe.

Posted by: FDL at June 20, 2003 10:54 AM | PERMALINK

Biological and chemical WMD are small. How hard is it to high a few litres of anthrax in a country the size of California? Or a few drums of VX? Not very hard one would think.

How easy would it be to find the stuff again? Without humint or precise co-ordinates, next to impossible.

Those who say Bush lied about WMD should be honest enough to recognize that everyone who said Saddam had such weapons also lied. That includes Blix, Annan, Schroeder, Chirac, Putin, Clinton and Blair. All those countries that unanimously supported 1441 are also liars.

So, all those lefties screaming Bush lied are going to look extremely stupid when the evidence that Saddam possesed WMD does turn up, as it will.

It is possible that Saddam destroyed some of his WMD when war became inevitable. For a close historical parallel, look to the Baath party's role model. The Nazis destroyed some of their stock of chemical weapons when defeat became inevitable instead of using them. Many Nazi's feared they'd be up on war crimes charges if their WMD were found.

Posted by: Pat D at June 20, 2003 10:58 AM | PERMALINK

How hard is it to high a few litres of anthrax in a country the size of California? Or a few drums of VX?

go read the SOTU address again. Bush was not talking about "a few" liters of anything; he was talking about many tens of thousands of liters of stuff.

Posted by: ChrisL at June 20, 2003 11:07 AM | PERMALINK

Do you know what Blix's report actually said? It said that it could not account for all the weapons Saddam had previously. That does not mean that Saddam still had them, but it ddoes mean he could not proved they were destroyed. Thats is not the same as saying that at any moment Saddam will hand over huge stocks to Al-qaeda to attack US cities. Saddam's violations of 1441 was his intragnence of not allwoing inspectors free access. The closeset to a violation was with regard to missle distances. The offending missles were destroyed.

Posted by: Rob at June 20, 2003 11:13 AM | PERMALINK

>>Those who say Bush lied about WMD should be honest enough to recognize that everyone who said Saddam had such weapons also lied. That includes Blix, Annan, Schroeder, Chirac, Putin, Clinton and Blair. All those countries that unanimously supported 1441 are also liars.

but by virtue of the US spies corrupting the UN inspections missions in 1997-98, they're all relying on lies anyway. Once you accept that the reason why the first inspection regime broke down was because it was filled with US spies (check here for sources, it is very easy to imagine that any UN reports from that period very easily could have overstated the existence of remaining WMDs in Iraq so as to perpetuate the UN inspections mission and provide access for the US spies.

The fact that Bush pretends the spies were never there, that the US acted "honorably" toward Iraq for 12 years and stresses that Saddam refused to comply with the UN for 12 years without even mentioning that it was OUR corruption that FU'ed the earlier UN inspections regime are all lies to begin with. Anyone who relies upon that information is relying upon lies - so the argument that if Bush is lieing, then so are ____, and ______, and ______, and even Clinton, is probably pretty close to the mark.

At least until the spy issue and how it affected our and the UN's information regarding what WMDs were in existence in 1998 is out in the open and openly discussed, any conclusions based upon that information should be automatically treated as suspect.

Posted by: Andy at June 20, 2003 11:13 AM | PERMALINK

ChrisL, Bush said there were 500 tons of the stuff (one million pounds).

Pat D, if you insist on spinning at least have the sense to do it on something you truly know what you're talking about.

Think nerve gas--whatever form its currently in--can just be hustled around willy-nilly? Lol. It can be extremely dangerous stuff to handle. Same with biological agents. Chemical agents in shells are pretty stable, but none have been found in any searched ammunition site. They've searched them all.

The $200,000 reward for any lead to any wmd is unclaimed. What did they do, kill all the people who knew, too, after the hid all the stuff perfectly? lol.

Tell us how Bush won the election again, Pat, lol.

Posted by: paradox at June 20, 2003 11:20 AM | PERMALINK

But George Bush *is* the government. He had access to far more information than me, information that it now seems likely told him that the WMD threat was fairly small. We only know as much as our governments tell us, and finding out what they *really* knew before the war is the whole point of this exercise.

If such information that made it "likely" that Bush knew the threat of WMD was small was so freely available, you would think that one of the many countries that opposed the war against Iraq (China, Russia, France, Germany, amongst others)
would have publicly stated such a conclusion prior to the hostilities. So far as I am aware, no country with any reputable intelligence agency ever made such a point. Do you really believe they would have withheld such information? Or is it that you believe that the CIA is so good that other intelligence agencies such as the KGB (or whatever they're called now) are amateurish by comparison? As to either scenario, color me dubious. If there's a third explanation I would be glad to hear it.

Posted by: Ratbane at June 20, 2003 11:21 AM | PERMALINK

I think part of the problem is that we teach our kids that we always fight wars for noble purposes, when that it simply not true. It's no wonder to me that the bushies are trying to flood the zone with the humanitarian excuses now. And I'm not surprised that it's working. It's too painful and too unfamiliar for Americans to think that everything we do abroad isn't for the greater good. We need to tell our children why wars are fought and how horrible they and their aftermaths are instead of the fantasy that we spin for them in schools.

Related note: I read K. Pollack's op-ed in the NYTimes today. He writes: "If we do confirm that those two trailers are mobile biological warfare labs, we are faced with a tremendous problem." Well Mr. Pollack's first problem is that those trailers have already been proven not to be mobile labs. So it isn't only kids who get spun fantasies.

Posted by: casadelogo at June 20, 2003 11:25 AM | PERMALINK

I like this claim that the threat of Iraqi WMD was rather small. Do you remember how much havoc a few grams of anthrax caused? Imagine a mass mailing with thousands of anthrax laden letters going through the mail system? Or a light plane with a simple aerosol attachment doing a pass over the LA hills? It would take just a few kilos of anthrax and Iraq admitted to having much larger quantities.

Imagine the devastation if the 9/11 hijackers had infected themselves with smallpox and spent just a few days flying into and out of every major airline hub in the US, infecting upwards of 20% of everybody who shared a plane or lounge with them. Talk about a chain reaction. Smallpox is beautifully designed to be highly contagious before the victims become symptomatic.

Car and truck bombs have been a staple terrorist weapon for generations. Add a few kilos of radioactive material and their destructive potential is magnified a thousand fold. One such bomb could make hundreds of city blocks uninhabitable for years.

Chemical weapons may not be as effective but think how many air-conditioned, enclosed spaces
are vulnerable. Office block. Sports arenas. Shopping malls. You get the idea.

Small doesn't mean small impact. Small means easy to pass off. Small means untraceable. Small just means tens of thousands of victims instead of millions.

Taking out Saddam removed one source of supply of such weapons and served notice on the remaining rogue regimes that Uncle Sam doesn't like terrorists killing Americans wholesale.

Posted by: Pat D at June 20, 2003 11:33 AM | PERMALINK

This whole WMD thing is such a clusterfuck (pardon my Iraqi) for everybody involved. The problems for the right are obvious. Bush staked everything on this. Even before the war, they had the Special Forces teams running around looking for weapons. They still haven't found diddly-poop (Bush's exclamations in Poland notwithstanding).

On the left, we have some weird problems too. We *know* the Iraqis had bio-chem weapons at one time. (Yes, even Clinton said so.) Blix said he couldn't account for everything. The Iraqis had to have been hiding something--why else would Saddam have been screwing around with the inspectors? I'm with R. Cook--I seriously doubt Saddam was going to throw away the one thing that could actually do any damage to the invaders just to win the media after-war.

So where the hell are they? I have no idea. This whole thing's a bigger mystery than who shot JFK.

Also: No serious analyst suggests that the United States should mount large scale foreign wars for purely humanitarian reasons. While the humanitarian aspects of the Iraq war are
welcome, pretending that they are sufficient is both dangerous and disingenuous.
Good point, KD. Everyone could use a dose of realism these days, I think.

Posted by: nota bene at June 20, 2003 11:37 AM | PERMALINK

Chrisl:

The UN and the Iraqis themselves validated those large quantities. Iraqi provided no evidence that they had been destroyed. But supposing 95% was destroyed. In the wrong hands the remaining 5% could still be devastating.

The other point is that chemical and biiological weapons are easy to manufacture once you have the expertise and infrastructure in place. Destroying that capability is even more important than destroying the weapons themselves.

Posted by: Pat D at June 20, 2003 11:39 AM | PERMALINK

Uhh, Pat we haven't found those weapons. Which means if they were there it actually makes all those things worse because the weapons are now in the hands of non-state agents who would have no problem selling them to terrorists. So all in all that makes the war a complete failure.

Posted by: Rob at June 20, 2003 11:40 AM | PERMALINK

Ratbane: it seems to those countries tried to downplay the threat by saying give UNMOVIC more time. If they'd said Saddam isn't a threat, they'd have probably been laughed at, at best, or accused of being in league with Saddam, at worst. (Or maybe Rumsfeld would have made a N. Chamberlain comparison.)

Posted by: nota bene at June 20, 2003 11:43 AM | PERMALINK

The UN and the Iraqis themselves validated those large quantities. Iraqi provided no evidence that they had been destroyed. But supposing 95% was destroyed. In the wrong hands the
remaining 5% could still be devastating.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but those things also have a shelf life of three years, tops. Also remember that most of the intelligence we had is of the 1998 vintage.

Posted by: nota bene at June 20, 2003 11:46 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin writes: "The fact remains that the only substantial thing that
distinguished Iraq from Burma, the Congo, Zimbabwe, or Iran in public eyes was
the possibility that Iraq had WMDs and was likely to use them."

Threats are not the only thing distinguishing Iraq from these other
cases. Kevin, I think you are downplaying the role of strategic considerations
in the administration's thinking. It is reasonable to posit that, before the
war, the administration assumed the following:

A1. The war is certain to be successful and highly likely to be short.

A2. The Iraqis will rejoice at their liberation and welcome our help in
rebuilding the country.

A3. On the strength of the forgoing, we will be able to build a
viable liberal democracy in Iraq, one which welcomes a
substantial U.S. military presence.

These assumptions were at least plausible, if to differing degrees. A1, of
course, came true. Under these assumptions, the strategic gains from war could
be great. Our presence (and success) puts active pressure on Syria and Iran and
the terrorist groups they support. We can move our troops from Saudi Arabia to
Iraq, thus eliminating a source of tension, and open up a large alternative oil
supply. Both allow us to put increased political pressure on the Saudi royal
family. We gain some leverage toward resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict,
partly by power and partly by showing an example of how to achieve a better
future for the region. We gain additional financial carrots to gain cooperation
from Russia. We improve access to the Arab world for our intelligence
services. And so forth.

At the same time, we solve a major and long-running humanitarian crisis (for
which the U.S. bears no small responsibility). We give a display of strength,
tempered by sacrifice. We eliminate an enemy who represented a costly challenge
to both the international security apparatus and to our interest. (The latter
goes beyond WMD; consider the bogus infant mortality statistics based on
sanctions that did so much propoganda damage.)

These were all plausible outcomes, described before the war; one does not need
to accept the domino effect to believe them. In fact, all of these things have
happened to some extent. Though the administration appears to have believed that
these gains would be more sweeping and profound than they have turned out to be,
we can still capitalize on them to reduce the long-term threat from Islamist
terrorism. None of the other cases Kevin mentions was or is at such a nexus of
opportunity.

One can argue whether going to war for strategic gains that will protect your
people is either just or reasonable given unintended consequences and long-term
uncertainty. But accept for the moment that the administration believed these
potential gains were worth going to war. What could they have done to "sell"
their case? They could not openly discuss the strategic implications without
stiffening resistance and endangering those gains. They could not make an
argument on humanitarian grounds because (a) no one would believe them and (b)
arguments like Kevin's would trump them. They could not make a credible case
that the UN resolutions were the cause for war because (a) they despise the UN
and were known to and (b) this would raise arguments about the anti-Israel
resolutions which would not be in our interest. So, what's left? WMD. This is
what Paul Wolfowitz said, and it need not reflect nefarious intent.

This argument does not protect the administration from criticism over their
chronic flexibility with the truth or political meddling with the intelligence
process, if it proves to have occured. Nor does it absolve them of being
unprepared the immediate post-war situation. But it does put the WMD question in
better perspective, I think.

Posted by: Chris Genovese at June 20, 2003 11:55 AM | PERMALINK

Okay, Graham, I'll paly:

Bush launched the war because he believed that Saddam had WMDs and that there was a realistic possibility that he might use them.

Possibly; but the public case for was was that Bush knew (as in had proof) Saddam had WMDs, yadda yadda yadda. As Kevin said, I believed Saddam had some mustard gas or whatnot still lying around somewhere. THe difference between me and Bush is that he said he had proof, and since Iraq is in our hands, the proof he said he had could not possibly have been accurate.

I also believed 1) that Bush was long on assertion and short on proof, 2) that the notion that Saddam posed a real threat was laughable (did anyone rational take the Iraq-al Qaeda connection seriously?), and that 3) that Saddam could be dealt with by measures short of invasion and conquest (including military action in the style of Operation Desert Fox). I also believed that Bush wanted to go to war and would say anything to drum up support (no offense, Kevin). In the postwar environment, I feel safe in saying that my beliefs, and not Bush's, have been vindicated.

As for Saddam's not using them, here's two possibilities that I haven't seen raised:

1) Once Saddam had concealed the WMDs, he didn't have time to deploy them against US forces.

As has been noted before, the Administration claimed they had been. And if they were concealed so well they couldn't be deployed, they aren't much of a threat...

2) Saddam was afraid that the US would reply with nuclear strikes against Baghdad and Tikrit (remember George H's thinly veiled threat during the first war).

This last point really undercuts the entirety of the hawks' case about the Iraqi threat. It's beyond question that Bush has abandoned the notion of deterrence -- a doctrine that kept a nuclear-armed world at peace, more or less, for fifty years -- in favor of his "I get to attak whomeever I feel like," er, "prevention" doctrine. I, for one, argued that Saddam could be and in fact had been contained and deterred. By this point, you seem to admit that Saddam was, in fact, deterrable.

Many have asked why Saddam would have lied about having chemical or biological weapons if he didn't. Well, for starters, let's remember that he claimed he didn't have them and Blix simply couldn't confirm they'd been destroyed. But given the evident inability of the Iraqi military to withstand a determined assault, it's pretty clear to me that Saddam clearly wanted his neighbors to think he had a more powerful defensive (defensive, mind you) capability than he did (Saddam's offensive actions were twice conducted with at least the perception of tacit consent by the United States). And failing that, he may have deemed it preferable to be invaded by the US than by Iran. Who knows?

Posted by: Gregory at June 20, 2003 12:16 PM | PERMALINK

Nota Bene:

Shelf life is irrelevant if you have the manufacturing capability, which Saddam did.

Also, check this link out:

http://www.seanet.com/~jimxc/Politics/June2003_3.html#jrm1166

Posted by: Pat D at June 20, 2003 12:27 PM | PERMALINK

Pat D:

Shelf life is irrelevant if you have the manufacturing capability, which Saddam did.

You have any evidence to back that one up...?

Posted by: Gregory at June 20, 2003 12:32 PM | PERMALINK

Rob:

The idea that Saddam has already disposed of his WMD to terrorists and their accomplices is indeed a scary thought. But to extrapolate that possibility to declaring the war a complete failure does not make much sense.

The Saddam regime has gone. Surely you'd admit that is a net gain for the majority of Iraqis?

Saddam no longer pays terrorists for killing Jews. That's a success.

Syria is backing away from its aggressive support of terrorist organizations. That's a success.

North Korea and Iran now know they can expect the full might of the US to be deployed against them, if the need arises, instead of a few half-hearted cruise missile strikes. That's a success.

Saddam can't make any more WMD, gas any more Kurds, start any more wars, destroy any more habitats, feed any more people through shredding machines, shelter any more terrorists, hatch any more assassination plots, sponser any more suicide attacks, cut off any more ears, build any more palaces, burn any more oil fields, torture any more prisoners or bury any more children alive. I'd call that a success.

Posted by: Pat D at June 20, 2003 12:42 PM | PERMALINK

Gregory:

Would a few thousand dead Kurds and Iranians count? In other words, he was able to manufacture them once, and there is no evidence that he lost the expertise or the relatively low-tech equipment needed to make them again.

At least one of his captured scientists, while denying the existence of WMD, confirmed they were under a death sentence if they revealed anything to UN inspectors. What didn't Saddam want said? That these guys knew how to make the stuff and where the kit was hidden?

Posted by: Pat D at June 20, 2003 12:48 PM | PERMALINK

The fear PatD is trying to spread disgusts me.

"Small amounts cause havoc." Look out!

"Even if they don't have wmd they could make some more." Be afraid!

I have normal caution as part of my psyche, but I never allow fear to solely dictate my actions.

Deterrence has always been an extremely viable concept here: dare to use those weapons and you'll pay x10.

Now all we get is fear--"there's no way to stop them, tiny amounts are deadly, even if they don't have them they can make them."

Since when did Americans become such wilting, nervous paranoids? They haven't. Their leadership lied to them to make them afraid, plain'n simple, so they could kill and plunder.

Posted by: paradox at June 20, 2003 12:49 PM | PERMALINK

Pat D wrote: "Taking out Saddam removed one source of supply of such weapons"

No it didn't. If there are WMD in Iraq, there have been six weeks in which it could have been sold to terrorists on the black market. Huge amounts, if Bush was actually correct.

"and served notice on the remaining rogue regimes that Uncle Sam doesn't like terrorists killing Americans wholesale."

No it didn't. The war had zero to do with terrorism. That's why the US is currently harboring terrorists in Iraq - the anti-Iranian Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK).

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/mek.htm

"During the 1970s, the MEK killed US military personnel and US civilians working on defense projects in Tehran and supported the takeover in 1979 of the US Embassy in Tehran."

They're in Iraq. The US knows it. They've 'disarmed' after negotiations with the US, but they're not locked up. It's like asking Osama Bin Laden to check his plastic explosives at the door of the White House when he arrives for a night in the Lincoln Bedroom.

Posted by: Jon H at June 20, 2003 12:50 PM | PERMALINK

Pat D writes: "Saddam no longer pays terrorists for killing Jews. That's a success. "

Saddam can't pay those terrorists, they're already dead.

Duh!

Posted by: Jon H at June 20, 2003 12:53 PM | PERMALINK

The fact remains that the only substantial thing that distinguished Iraq from Burma, the Congo, Zimbabwe, or Iran in public eyes was the possibility that Iraq had WMDs and was likely to use them.

I agree with your broader point, Kevin - while the humanitarian issues are part of any analysis, they're not enough alone to justify war. And we should and did go to war only when our vital national interests are at stake. And the credibility of our president and our intelligence are both worth examining.

But as to justifying the war, was WMD the "only substantial thing that distinguished Iraq from Burma, the Congo, [or] Zimbabwe"? I think you're overlooking key issues:

1. Terrorism. We knew some and have learned more about Saddam's ties to terrorists, with or without WMD or involvement in 9/11.

2. Remaking the region. The region as a whole creates all sorts of terrorist threats, and removing Saddam and replacing him with something more democratic and less of a regional threat makes it much easier for us to address the problems in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and the Palestinian Authority.

3. The 12-year backdrop. We had a head start in wanting and being able to move against Iraq because the legal/diplomatic groundwork had been laid, and we had an interest in squashing Saddam precisely because of his longstanding defiance of us and of the basic norms of international behavior. Showing what happens to regimes that flout those sends a good message.

The WMD were a big part of the equation, but the core of the problem was always the nature of the regime itself, combined with its location in the region -- that's what made WMD dangerous, that's what made terrorism a threat, that's what created the regional stability problems, that's what created the humanitarian problems, and that's why we had to move and not wait.

Posted by: Crank at June 20, 2003 12:55 PM | PERMALINK

Crank writes: "1. Terrorism. We knew some and have learned more about Saddam's ties to terrorists, with or without WMD or involvement in 9/11."

Saddam supported the MEK terrorists. Now we do, too.

Your point?

Posted by: Jon H at June 20, 2003 01:02 PM | PERMALINK

Chris Genovese, the scenario you described is expressed in Bush-defender shorthand as Bush lied, and it's a good thing. It's a good thing because the strategic advantages of attacking Iraq are so compelling to the neocons. You say These were all plausible outcomes, described before the war; one does not need to accept the domino effect to believe them. You make no consideration of the evidence to the contrary: in prosecuting this invasion as we did, we slagged off many long-time allies and caused world opinion to explode against us; for that reason, we ended up taking on too much of a financial and military commitment in occupying Iraq more or less on our own; we furthered the anger of many in the Muslim world, and strengthened the recruiting hand of our real enemy, Islamist terrorists; we lost credibility when the administration expressed false and misleading reasons for the action; we committed a huge portion of the military to the occupation, damaging troop morale and leaving soldiers vulnerable to organized guerilla activity in hostile and unfamiliar environs; we may actually have lost leverage in the I/P situation; we failed to kill or capture the bogeyman, Saddam. Finally, I'll add that if the administration treats the Iraqi occupation as it has the situation in Afghanistan, then our invasion will probably destabilize the region over time; and there was absolutely no reason, judging from their past record, to believe the administration would take the post-invasion seriously.

You say that a number of the neocon strategic objectives have been achieved already, but I don't see it. And even if they were, many adverse reactions have also taken place. Isn't your estimate of things a bit on the rosy side?

Posted by: Demetrios at June 20, 2003 01:02 PM | PERMALINK

Pat D--nice link, but it didn't prove anything. More speculation, which unfortunately is all we have at the moment.
And I was saying it's a possibility we actually did destroy Saddam's manufacturing capability a while back.
Also, bear in mind that the US sold Saddam the chem weapons used at Halabja, so citing that as a demonstration of how evil Saddam was while simultaneously trumpeting US glory is the definition of hypocrisy, or so it would seem.

Posted by: nota bene at June 20, 2003 01:05 PM | PERMALINK

*munch munch munch*

Hey, I missed the whole start of the campfire. Did I miss anything? Could someone paraphrase the whole thing for me in two sentences?

Better yet, did any of the players stray from his script? No? Guess I didn't miss anything then. 'Kthanksbye.

Posted by: squiddy at June 20, 2003 01:06 PM | PERMALINK

Pat D.,

My fault for misinterpeting your use of the word "did." No one disputes that Saddam did, at one time, have the capability to manufacture the gas that was used against Iranians and Kurds in the 1980s and against Shi'as and Kurds circa 1991.

However, contrary to your claim UN weapons inspectors destroyed much of this capability. Operation Desert Fox put paid to more.

So it's true that he did have the capability; I took your assertion to mean that he did at the time of our invasion, which, of course, is what this is all about.

Either provide evidence (which seems to be eluding the rest of the world) that Saddam had the capability you refer to at the time of invasion, or admit that you can't. From your example, I'm betting on the latter.

Posted by: Gregory at June 20, 2003 01:32 PM | PERMALINK

I might add, Pat D, that Saddam isn't running Iraq any more. Nothing's stopping thse guys from running right up to our soldiers and leading the way; indeed, significant reward -- if memory serves me right, US$200,000 -- awaits them if they do. You assert that some Iraqis knew something they couldn't tell us. Why aren't they telling us now?

It does not justify a war to require skeptics to prove a negative. No one has to prove Iraq didn't have weapons or the capacity to manufacture them -- although certainly neither has turned up so far, despite the fact that we've searched most of our most-suspected sites (does that gibe you a clue?). I asked you to cite evidence that they existed -- at the time of invasion, not in 1985 or 1991, if you please -- and I await your response eagerly.

Heck, you should take it to CBS; I hear they're paying good money for stories.

Posted by: Gregory at June 20, 2003 01:37 PM | PERMALINK

Demetrios,

I'm smiling at being called a Bush defender, but that's ok.

There were good arguments against the war, and some of these have borne out. (As have some of the positive arguments as well.) I don't dispute that, but that has little bearing on my point. The issue Kevin raised is that only WMD distinguished Iraq from a variety of other humanitarian crises in which we do not pursue war. I'm arguing that strategic differences are also critically important. The Bush administration made certain plausible assumptions under which the war against Iraq would lead to valuable strategic gains for the US. They *believed* that these gains would improve our prospects against terrorism. Moreover, this was an angle that could not be publicly used as a rationale for war without endangering the potential positives.

One does not have to agree with their assumptions to recognize them as at least plausible. Nor is it necessary that they be right in the end. Kevin is arguing effectively that WMD was the reason they pushed the war (rather than in the Congo, say); I'm arguing that it's the way they sold the war but not necesssarily the reason they believe most important. This is the key to evaluating the WMD situation because it distinguishes leadership (even if you believe it to be deluded) from foolishness.

The negative outcomes you list are disconcerting, though time will tell how many of these end up on the negative side of the ledger. I share your concern with the post-war policy, but I do hope that they can turn things around. And I still maintain that some of the strategic gains are being felt: witness Iran, Syria, Aqaba, Russia in recent weeks. The administration's error I believe was to assume that the war would bring quick success in each of these areas; as it is, I think we've just gotten a slight and ephemeral edge. But it is an edge we can capitalize on.

If the administration's *strategy* fails, they should be judged on those grounds; that is a different failing than saying the rationale for war (WMD) was empty.

Posted by: Chris Genovese at June 20, 2003 01:42 PM | PERMALINK

Gregory:

The think that puzzles me is why Saddam failed to comply with 1441 if he had no WMD. Why did he risk the certain destruction of his regime if he had nothing to hide? At any time he could have fully co-operated with the UN inspectors and the UN Security Council. His failure to do so, when called to account, had to leave any rational observer with the view that he possessed WMD or had an active weapons program to obtain WMD.

Given his behaviour, I believe we will find WMD and/or evidence of an active weapons program. Once all 52 cards have been accounted for, the administration will get the information.

But I'm not very perturbed about whether or not WMD are found. Saddam led the French, the Germans, the Brits, the Russians, the US and the Security Council to believe he had WMD. Given his track-record, it would he hard to give him the benefit of the doubt. If he didn't actually have any WMD, then too bad for him but not the Iraqi people.

Can you explain why Saddam didn't comply with 1441 if he had no WMD?

Posted by: Pat D at June 20, 2003 03:08 PM | PERMALINK

nota bene-

>>> the US sold Saddam the chem weapons used at Halabja

Posted by: Joe Schmoe at June 20, 2003 03:13 PM | PERMALINK

Nota Bene:

According to Strategypage:

http://www.strategypage.com/fyeo/qndguide/default.asp?target=topten.htm

it's a myth that "The United States armed Saddam. This one grew over time, but when Iraq was on it's weapons spending spree from 1972 (when its oil revenue quadrupled) to 1990, the purchases were quite public and listed over $40 billion worth of arms sales. Russia was the largest supplier, with $25 billion. The US was the smallest, with $200,000. A similar myth, that the U.S. provided Iraq with chemical and biological weapons is equally off base. Iraq requested Anthrax samples from the US government, as do nations the world over, for the purpose of developing animal and human vaccines for local versions of Anthrax. Nerve gas doesn't require technical help, it's a variant of common insecticides. European nations sold Iraq the equipment to make poison gas."

Of course I'm open to seeing citations that prove the US was a willing and major partner in Saddam's weapons programs.

Sure, the US favored Iraq over Iran in the Iran/Iraq war. In the 1980's Iran was seen to be a major threat to the world. It had humilated the US by capturing the US embassy and holding its
staff hostage (they were released the day Reagan came to power). Iran exported its brand of radical Islam across the Middle East,
and is still doing so. In supporting Iraq against Iran, the US was siding with the lesser of two evils (at the time, Saddam was perceived as being no better or worse than your average Arab dictator, i.e., a murderous thug driven by self-interest.)

Posted by: Pat D at June 20, 2003 03:33 PM | PERMALINK

Paradox:

I'm not scared and I don't skulk at home out of fear of a terrorist attack. But 9/11 showed what terrorists can do. It is the President's sworn duty to protect the American people and ensuring WMD don't fall into the wrong hands is part of that duty.

I was also making the point that rogue regimes will work with terrorists to attack US interests, or, as they say themselves, to kill Americans and Jews wherever they find them. The best defense is offense and destroying terrorist organizations and rogure regimes sure beats another 9/11.

Posted by: Pat D at June 20, 2003 03:46 PM | PERMALINK

Gregory,

I think that Bush felt subjectively certain that Hussein had WMDs. He was probably right -- but no proof so far.

I also think that Bush expected Hussein to use biochemical weapons against US troops. In the end, Hussein was either unable or unwilling to do so. Perhaps he had already moved the weapons to safe hiding somewhere, or perhaps, when it came down to it, he did not want to risk nuclear anihilation.

This does not mean that Hussein did not pose a threat to the US. He could have launched an anonymous terrorist attack against the US at any time. It would be difficult for the US to make a nuclear strike against him if the perpetrator was unknown.

I never believed there was much of a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. To me that's irrelevant. The point was that Saddam posed a threat in and of himself. I think that Bush probably thought that Saddam and Ben Laden were in league. If so, he was probably wrong, but that's only a side issue.

Posted by: Graham Lester at June 20, 2003 03:57 PM | PERMALINK

Pat D. ?

The think that puzzles me is why Saddam failed to comply with 1441 if he had no WMD. Why did he risk the certain destruction of his regime if he had nothing to hide?

One theory I've read posits that Saddam couldn't definitively demonstrate that he had no WMD (he did tell the inspectors he didn't have any but of course everyone assumed he was lying) because that would leave him open to an internal uprising or an attack by one of his many enemies; he figured if he kept on playing the inspection process (a little co-operation, but not too much) he'd fend off an invasion.

Just a theory, but it seems fairly plausible to me ? certainly more plausible than the idea he'd destroy his biggest weapons rather than go out in a blaze of glorious destruction.

About the 52 cards: haven't we collected most of the deck? Not one of these guys, identified as the biggest of cheeses, has any helpful info?

Posted by: Jupiter at June 20, 2003 04:04 PM | PERMALINK

Pat D writes: "I'm not scared and I don't skulk at home out of fear of a terrorist attack. But 9/11 showed what terrorists can do. It is the President's sworn duty to protect the American people and ensuring WMD don't fall into the wrong hands is part of that duty."

Then Bush has failed miserably to do his duty. The best case scenario right now is if Iraq had no WMD, and Bush was spouting lies.

If they had WMD, then there have been 6 weeks for them to get into the hands of terrorists. We don't have enough people in Iraq to secure everything, and they didn't even bother trying to secure the Tuwaitha plant, allowing it to be looted of radioactive material that would be good for making radiological dirty bombs, which are great for terrorists, being cheap and easy to make if you can get the material.

We're not "safe" until the WMD are accounted for, and all the material taken from Tuwaitha is accounted for.

Bush's administration is more inclined to cover it up than try to account for all that material. They'll just assert that everything's peachy, everything's under control, don't ask any questions.

Bush's squashing of the 9/11 investigation is evidence that he's not interested in the nation's security. He's interested in political gain. Just look at how he's ignoring the situation in Afghanistan (oh, apart from maybe negotiating with the Taliban).

Posted by: Jon H at June 20, 2003 04:16 PM | PERMALINK

Pat D wrote: "Can you explain why Saddam didn't comply with 1441 if he had no WMD?"

Can you explain why Dick Cheney won't reveal information about the energy task force he ran, if he didn't engage in illegal or unethical activities with the likes of Enron?

Posted by: Jon H at June 20, 2003 04:17 PM | PERMALINK

Paradox wrote:

"Deterrence has always been an extremely viable concept here: dare to use those weapons and you'll pay x10."

But who's going to pay x10? It was only by brilliant forensic work that the Lockerbie bombing was laid at Libya's door step. Jeez, we still don't know who mailed the anthrax (and I don't have much confidence in the FBI on that issue), or where Saddam went to ground, or where he hid/destroyed/deployed his WMD.

After the next 9/11 sized attack who's to say which rogue regime was responsible? Do we make all the usual suspects pay x10? Do we nuke the homes of the rich Saudis who paid blood money to OBL? Or Tehran because we don't like the mullahs?

Soviet era MAD strategic thinking doesn't work any more. The US nuclear arsenal is virtually useless in this war against radical Islam (although they would surely have no compunction about ridding the Earth of Americans and Jews if they had the means).

So, you need a new doctrine to deal with the new threat. The nice thing about the Soviets is that none of them expected to go to heaven if they died in an attack against us. They were, by our standards, rational. The new bad guys are actively looking to go to heaven as martyrs. About the only thing that would deter them is a campaign to wipe Islam off the face of the Earth. That's another asymetry - we won't do to them what they'd do to us, if they could.

Posted by: Pat D at June 20, 2003 04:45 PM | PERMALINK

Jon H.

Dick Cheney wasn't going to have war declared on him if he didn't play along with Waxman's little games. Saddam had a little more incentive to come clean.

Posted by: Pat D at June 20, 2003 04:48 PM | PERMALINK

Jupiter:

That's the most interesting question. Why didn't he comply? If he had no WMD, why did he threaten his scientists and their families with death if they disclosed any secrets to Blix & co.?

I've seen reports that Black Hawk Down had become Saddam's favorite movie (see, there's a link with OBL :)). Perhaps, like Hitler, he had fantasies of bogging the coalition down in Baghdad and winning a victory as the American public rebelled against the flood of body bags returning home. Plenty of domestic lefties had the same fantasy.

Not all the cards are captured. Perhaps they need to see Saddam dead before they'll stop failing their lie detector tests.

Posted by: Pat D at June 20, 2003 05:35 PM | PERMALINK

So now that deterrence no longer works, Pat, I'm sure you'll be the first in line to volunteer to fight Iran, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Qatar, Pakistan, Afghanistan (again), North Korea, China, and the dozens of other threats -- all of whom have ties to terrorism and all of whom have WMDs?

Face it, Iraq was never the imminent threat that Bush claimed it was. And we are no safer now than we were prior to the war. If anything, we're less so.

At this point, it doesn't even matter whether we find the WMDs. We *know* that Bush lied and exaggerated. You may find that defensible; I find it disgusting.

Posted by: PaulB at June 20, 2003 05:40 PM | PERMALINK

"the only substantial thing that distinguished Iraq from Burma, the Congo, Zimbabwe, or Iran in public eyes was the possibility that Iraq had WMDs and was likely to use them"

What distinguished Iraq from Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, and Kosovo?

Posted by: Al at June 20, 2003 06:15 PM | PERMALINK

Graham,

I think that Bush felt subjectively certain that Hussein had WMDs. He was probably right -- but no proof so far.

The problem is, Bush didn't say he "felt subjectively certain" Iraq had the weapons; he and his minions said they had proof. And the fact that such proof hasn't materialized when we 1) have more or less free run of the country and 2) have eliminated the threat of the Baathist security structure indicates that there is no possible way Bush's statements that he had proof could have been correct. We've been to the places where we "knew" they were, and come up empty.

I also think that Bush expected Hussein to use biochemical weapons against US troops. In the end, Hussein was either unable or unwilling to do so. Perhaps he had already moved the weapons to safe hiding somewhere, or perhaps, when it came down to it, he did not want to risk nuclear anihilation.

Once again, that undercuts the argument made before the war that Saddam was not deterrable. If he had chemical weapons, he was deterred from using them (indeed, if he destroyed them before the war, our deterrence was more wildly successful than we supposed).

This does not mean that Hussein did not pose a threat to the US. He could have launched an anonymous terrorist attack against the US at any time. It would be difficult for the US to make a nuclear strike against him if the perpetrator was unknown.

Baloney. Exactly what evidence do you have to support your first speculation; indeed, what evidence do you have that Saddam would have even desired it? Inasmuch as Saddam supported terror -- and the State Department has had him pegged as a minor -- yes, minor -- player for some time, it was directed against Israel, not us (and need I elaborate that there are other nations with a much more prominent role in sponsoring terror that go unmolegted, including, I daresay, Saudi Arabia?). And as for the second statement, I beleive that if anyone was praying for the US to remain free from an attack with WMDs over the last two years, it was Saddam. Regardless of who had perpetrated it, Bush would have blamed him.

I never believed there was much of a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. To me that's irrelevant. The point was that Saddam posed a threat in and of himself. I think that Bush probably thought that Saddam and Ben Laden were in league. If so, he was probably wrong, but that's only a side issue.

Wrong again; Bush stated explicitly, repeatedly, and for the record that Saddam and bin Laden were in cahoots. That isn't a side issue, and it isn't irrelevant; you yourself have directly undercut one of Bush's key rationales for the war.

I suggest, Graham, that you separate your own reasons for going to war from Bush's. I'm not attacking your rationale, but your defense demonstrates how perfidous Bush was, as I've demonstrated. Even if you approve of the war, you should be outraged at Bush's medancity.

Pat D,

...Can you explain why Saddam didn't comply with 1441 if he had no WMD?

Can you explain why you answer a question with a question? I can. You claimed Saddam had the weapons; you later clarified that claim to mean long before the war. But that was never in doubt; I challenged you to provide evidence that Saddam had the weapons since 1998. And lo and behold, you change the subject. I take that to mean that you don't have the proof you said you did. Thanks.

I might add that while Saddam's compliance with 1441 didn't satisfy the UNSC and the inspectors, only Bush -- who, let's admit, really wanted to go to war -- and Blair insisted that the situation could be dealt with by no other means. Saddam did destroy a missile system that might possibly have been in violation (its range was too long without the added weight of a guidance system). He allowed U2 overflights -- a huge advantage for the inspectors. Perhaps the US troop presence was responsible, but he was cooperating -- except, as had been pointed out, that no one believed his statements he didn't have WMDs. Under these circumstances, Bush's argument that war was absolutely necessary and right then is laughable, as Pollack pointed out in his recent NYT op-ed.

But that doesn't matter -- whether Saddam complied with 1441 or not, the UNSC never authorized the military action, as 1441 called for. Remember, the US didn't ask for the vote, but if it had, it likely would not have even received a symbolic majority. And that's because the UNSC wasn't convinced by Bush's bogus case. That stance is becoming abundantly justified with each passing day.

For what it's worth, I think that if Saddam didn't have them, he wanted his neighbors to think he did as his own deterrent. His acts of aggression both occurred with what Saddam at least thought was tacit US approval. His neighbors hardly considered him a threat, but if they had known how weak his military truly was, perhaps they may have been tempted to flex their muscles against him. So I can definitely see why Saddam might have destroyed his weapons in secret. Saddam might also have believed that Bush wouldn't defy the UNSC; hence the cooperation. In that, he miscalculated, of course, but I believe Bush's initiating an unporvoked war on such a fraudulent basis is a much bigger miscalculation with much graver implications for the United States.

Moving on, you're quite wrong about the martyr complex of regional actors, as well. Neither Osama bin Laden nor Saddam Hussein seem to be particularly eager to sacrifice their own lives. They seem able to mislead others into sacrificing theirs, but then again, so did Bush.

Perhaps...he had fantasies of bogging the coalition down in Baghdad and winning a victory as the American public rebelled against the flood of body bags returning home.

Your cheap shot about lefties aside -- I defy you to cite even one leftist source that "had the same fantasy," but such odious rhetoric cetainly makes me wonder why I'm trying to be civil to you -- the body bags haven't stopped coming, in case you haven't noticed. The scenario you paint could indeed still come to pass. And it'll be Bush's fault for going to war without a real international coalition, and for his general handling of things. Need I remind you that the unpleasant prospect of occupying Iraq for a decade was one of the reasons we didn't take Baghdad in '91? Now we see why.

While we're at it, Pat D,

It is the President's sworn duty to protect the American people

Can you explain, then, why Bush took no action at all to prevent a hijacking of an American airliner bu al Qaeda after being warned of their intention to do just that? But regardless, Jon H is quite correct. We'd better hope the WMDs didn't exist and Bush was lying, because if they existed, we have failed to secure them.

Over and over, we're offered a choice between incompetence or malfeasance his when explaing the messes Bush makes (Harken, for example). In this case, neither prospect is appealing.

Posted by: Gregory at June 20, 2003 07:08 PM | PERMALINK

Gregory wrote: "For what it's worth, I think that if Saddam didn't have them, he wanted his neighbors to think he did as his own deterrent"

Another possibility is that he wanted his own people (or a subset of his own people) to believe he had them. For example, the Kurds. The possibility that Hussein would
again use gas to put down a rebellion might have helped
to prevent further uprisings. They'd certainly have to take that into account.

Posted by: Jon H at June 20, 2003 07:29 PM | PERMALINK

Jon's comment is spot-on; I didn't intend to exclude the concept of an internal deterrent. It's an especially intriguing concept given the no-fly zones limiting Saddam's control over the north and south of Iraq.

Let's not forget, though, that it isn't that Saddam claimed he had them. He claimed he didn't, and no one believed him. Which was a rational response, after all, but belief, however sincere, isn't evidence, and Bush said he had evidence. Evidence he still can't show us.

Posted by: Gregory at June 20, 2003 07:51 PM | PERMALINK

...Can you explain why Saddam didn't comply with 1441 if he had no WMD?


Can you explain why you answer a question with a question?


It's a semi-rhetorical question. No rational person would go to war to protect WMD he didn't have. He was even offered exile on the eve of the
war.


I can. You claimed Saddam had the weapons; you later clarified that claim to mean long before the war. But that was never in doubt; I challenged you to provide evidence that Saddam had the weapons since 1998. And lo and
behold, you change the subject. I take that to mean that you don't have the proof you said you did. Thanks.


The proof I offered was that he didn't comply with 1441. As Rice pointed out in her NYT op-ed, the world has models for countries that
voluntarily disarm. South Africa and one of the former Soviet republics (I don't recall which, sorry) voluntarily disarmed. Saddam showed no signs of doing so.


I might add that while Saddam's ompliance with 1441 didn't satisfy the UNSC and the inspectors, only Bush -- who, let's admit, really wanted to go to war -- and Blair insisted that the situation could be dealt with by no other
means
. Saddam did destroy a missile system that might possibly have been in violation (its range was too long without the added weight of a guidance
system). He allowed U2 overflights -- a huge advantage for the inspectors. Perhaps the US troop presence was responsible, but he was cooperating -- except, as had been pointed out, that no one believed his statements he didn't have WMDs. Under these circumstances, Bush's argument that war was absolutely
necessary and right then
is laughable, as Pollack pointed out in his recent
NYT op-ed.


You've made my point. Saddam offered half measures, evasions, and deceit instead of full disclosure. He only did that much because US forces were being staged on his border.  Would you trust a psychopath like Saddam over
Blair and Bush? I suppose you would.


But that doesn't matter -- whether Saddam complied with 1441 or not, the UNSC
never authorized the military action, as 1441 called for.


1441 specified consequences. Saddam's two major arms suppliers and oil contractors, France and Russia,  baulked. Should the US let its interests be determined by the commercial interests of France and Russia? I hope
not.


Remember, the US didn't ask for the vote, but if it had, it likely would not have even received a symbolic majority. And that's because the UNSC wasn't convinced by Bush's bogus case. That stance is becoming abundantly justified with each passing day.


The French double-crossed Colin Powell and converted him into a hawk. See, I have no faith in the UN. It's a collection of countries, few of which qualify as representative democracies, using the facade of world unity to pursue their national interests. So, how well is the UN doing stopping yet more genocide in Africa? About as well as it did in Kosovo, Cambodia, Angola, etc.
etc..


For what it's worth, I think that if Saddam didn't have them, he wanted his
neighbors to think he did as his own deterrent. His acts of aggression
both occurred with what Saddam at least thought was tacit US approval. His
neighbors hardly considered him a threat, but if they had known how weak his
military truly was, perhaps they may have been tempted to flex their muscles
against him. So I can definitely see why Saddam might have destroyed his weapons
in secret. Saddam might also have believed that Bush wouldn't defy the UNSC;
hence the cooperation. In that, he miscalculated, of course, but I believe
Bush's initiating an unporvoked war on such a fraudulent basis is a much bigger
miscalculation with much graver implications for the United States.


Saddam miscalculated past the brink. He also didn't listen to what Bush said. Harboring terrorists, supporting terrorists, and financing terrorists made him an imminent threat to US interests. Interestingly, the only people who put up much of a fight were the Fedayeen - imported terrorists - and Baath party
loyalists whose fate depended on Saddam's survival. We'll found out about his WMD or lack thereof soon enough. So, what will you be saying when Saddam's WMD are found?


Moving on, you're quite wrong about the martyr complex of regional actors, as
well. Neither Osama bin Laden nor Saddam Hussein seem to be particularly eager
to sacrifice their own lives. They seem able to mislead others into sacrificing
theirs, but then again, so did Bush.


That is a despicable remark. Bin Laden and Saddam exploit the fact that Islamic terrorists will commit suicide bombings to kill Americans and Jews. Saddam was paying Palestinian families $20,000 a pop to send their kids off to
kill Israeli civilians. As commander in Chief, Bush ordered the volunteer US armed forces to defend the interests of the United States.


Perhaps...he had fantasies of bogging the coalition down in Baghdad and
winning a victory as the American public rebelled against the flood of body bags
returning home.


Your cheap shot about lefties aside -- I defy you to cite even one leftist
source that "had the same fantasy," but such odious rhetoric cetainly makes me
wonder why I'm trying to be civil to you -- the body bags haven't stopped
coming, in case you haven't noticed. The scenario you paint could indeed still
come to pass. And it'll be Bush's fault for going to war without a real
international coalition, and for his general handling of things. Need I remind
you that the unpleasant prospect of occupying Iraq for a decade was one of the
reasons we didn't take Baghdad in '91? Now we see why.


The latest poll from Iraqi shows Bush leading Saddam. According to CBS News, "Sixty-five percent of Iraqis polled in Baghdad claimed they want the U.S. military to stay until Iraq is stable and secure; only 17 percent want American soldiers out now."  I'm sure you can find plenty of anti-war types
who predicted thousands of American casualties.


A quick google turned up:


Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives
September 10,
2002


Who asked (rhetorically)?


17. Are we prepared for possibly thousands of American casualties
in a war against a country that does not have the capacity to attack the United
States?


18. Are we willing to bear the economic burden of a 100 billion
dollar war against Iraq, with oil prices expected to skyrocket and further
rattle an already shaky American economy? How about an estimated 30 years
occupation of Iraq that some have deemed necessary to "build democracy"
there?


See http://slate.msn.com/id/2071530/, http://www.contextbooks.com/waroniraq/huffspeech.html

for more typical examples of predictions of thousands of casualties
before the war.

While we're at it, Pat D,


It is the President's sworn duty to protect the American people


Can you explain, then, why Bush took no action at all to prevent a hijacking
of an American airliner bu al Qaeda after being warned of their intention to do
just that? But regardless, Jon H is quite correct. We'd better hope the
WMDs didn't exist and Bush was lying, because if they existed, we have failed to
secure them.


In hindsight the dots could have been connected. Some FBI people were on the right track but their investogations were stalled. Part of the problem was the "wall" put up inside the FBI by Reno that prevented criminal
investigators from sharing information with national security investigators.
See:


http://www.city-journal.org/html/12_4_why_the_fbi.html


Over and over, we're offered a choice between incompetence or malfeasance his
when explaing the messes Bush makes (Harken, for example). In this case, neither
prospect is appealing.


Seems like 65% of Baghdad Iraqis and 61% of Americans approve
of Bush's incompetence.

Posted by: Pat D at June 20, 2003 09:05 PM | PERMALINK

Pat D,

First off, putting your responses in bold doesn't make them more impressive, although it's hard to imagine how they could be less.

For starters, you admit you don't have proof of Iraqi chemical or biological weapons. Suspicions, yes, but no proof. As has been made abundantly clear in this thread alone, Bush didn't cite suspicions as his reason for going to war, he said he had proof. He couldn't have. He lied. Period. And you're obviously willing to give him a free pass.

You said he didn't comply with 1441. While we're in agreement that his compliance was less than fully satisfactory, and that 1441 did specify consequences, you forget that the US agreed to another Security Council vote before initiating hostilities.

In other words -- I'm going to say this very slowly so you get it -- the UNSC did not give the US sole authority to declare Saddam in breach and commit the world to war. Your description of French perfidy falls flat when we recall that, French veto aside, Bush wasn't willing to risk even a vote, knowing that he was unlikely to achieve a symbolic majority.

Indeed, with the threat of a French veto on the table (and let's not forget Russia had voiced the possibility too), you'd think that nations would feel safe in voting with the US; after all, their vote would be non-binding, so they could have their cake and eat it too. But the majority of the UNSC simply rejected Bush's bogus case, and you've made no valid arguments to demonstrate otherwise.

Instead, you say: "Would you trust a psychopath like Saddam over Blair and Bush? I suppose you would."

No points for the cheap shot. One doesn't need to trust Saddam -- and I don't, although I repeat that right now, his claims that he didn't have any seem more valid than Bush's claim that Iraq was fairly dripping with the stuff -- to not trust Bush and Blair. War skeptics observed repeatedly that Bush's statements were long on assertion and short on proof; what evidence he offered -- forged Nigerian documents and aluminum tubes -- not only didn't pass the sniff test, but were known by the Administration to be bogus. It's entirely possible for Saddam to really have weapons and for Bush to lie about having evidence. Suspicions and beleifs are one thing; hard evidence is another, and Bush simply didn't have it. You admit as much.

You can't both cite 1441 as a justification and simultaneously say that the US doesn't need UNSC approval. Either we're acting under a Security Council mandate, or we aren't. In this case, we weren't. And our troops are now paying the price, as UN member states are unwilling to bail us out of the mess Bush made -- and who can blame them? I have news for you: Of course other nations act in their perceived self interest; moreover, they're entitled to.

You say: "Should the US let its interests be determined by the commercial interests of France and Russia?"

But many argued that not only was there no good case to be made that invading Iraq was in our vital interests, but that indeed doing so was contrary to our interests. Time will tell, but the postwar picture is hardly as rosy as the hawks painted it. And France and Russia aside, you overlook that Bush failed to convince our own allies with his bogus case. How many times does it need to be said? Bush said he had proof, but he had none that stood up to any scrutiny at all.

Moving on, quickly:

We'll found out about his WMD or lack thereof soon enough. So, what will you be saying when Saddam's WMD are found?

That's a bold statement, given your fiath in prewar assertions that have not panned out. It's indeed possible that some paltry stockpile may yet turn up. If some small amount turns up in Iraq, I'll say the same thing then as I do now: Whatever we find, it's clear that Bush didn't have the proof he said he did. It isn't about whether Saddam had weapons; it's about Bush's claim that Saddam posed an imminent threat, and that he could prove it. It's acundantly clear that he can't, and you can't either.

And we'd better just hope that it doesn't turn up in the hands of actual terrorists; if so, Bush's incompetence is directly repsonsible (see comments throughout this thread).

As to his incompetence, you say: "Seems like 65% of Baghdad Iraqis and 61% of Americans approve
of Bush's incompetence."

(As for the Iraqi polls, you misleadingly say that the 65% figure you cite indicates approval of our presence; I contend it means Iraqis want us to fix the damage we have done before we leave and not abandon them to anarchy. Given our record in Afghanistan, I'm hardly confident of the prospect. So no points there, either.)

When 40% of Americans believe that we've found actual WMDs in Iraq -- and need I remind you of Bush's false statments that we have? -- the American numbers are meaningless. As for the Iraqis, a number of them don't, and they have guns, and they're killing our soldiers. Do you foresee an end to that situation any time soon?

You're darn skippy that a number of anti war blogs predicted ongoing casualties from a guerilla war. I have news for you: Colin Powell predicted the same thing in '91, which is why we didn't conquer Baghdad (that, and the fact that the UN never authorized it). Your characterization of those predictions as at all welcoming the possibility is as unfounded as it is vile: The likelihood was cited as a reason not to invade. At the very least, the Administration, which has been planning this war for at least a year, should have been prepared to deal with the situation.

Instead, events are proving those predictions to be correct. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz has admitted we're now facing an organzied guerilla war, and predicting that we're stuck in Iraq for at least a decade. We're losing an average of a soldier a day since Bush declared "victory." Prewar, we were assured by our leaders that the war would be quick and easy, and our troops would come home soon. I have a prediction for you, my friend: If American troops are still dying in June 2004, support for Bush's adventure among the American public will plummet, and they will demand answers. Answers our leaders right now seem incapable of providing.

You call the notion that Bush "mislead others into sacrificing [their lives]" a "despicable remark," but utterly fail to refute any of the multiple evidence that he did exactly that. Yes, he ordered our troops in as Commander in Chief; no one disputes that. The preponderance of the evidence shows that he did so with much mendacity. You yourself admit you don't have evidence, merely specualtion. You may not like the characterization, but that's exactly what happened, and you acknowledge you can't prove otherwise. I feel sorry for you to have to contemplate Bush's mendacity, but I'm confident your cognitive dissonance will shield you from any actual relization.

Finally, in response to the charge that Bush failed in his "sworn duty to protect the American people," -- a duty you acknowledge; indeed, you brought it up -- you offer the pathetic excuse "In hindsight the dots could have been connected." No so, my friend. It isn't about the FBI; it's about Bush himself I'll spell it out for you, and I'll use small words; the facts are a matter of public record.

Bush himself was warned by Condi Rice that al Qaeda sought to hijack an American airliner.

Bush did absolutely nothing about it.

Said hijackings took place, and we all know the result.

(And please, no lame excuses that they didn't know the planes would be used as missiles; a hijacking is bad and should be prevented regardless. Although I'm sure if the terroists had merely shot all the passengers you'd excuse Bush by saing "at least they didn't crash them into buildings...")

9/11 happened because Bush himeslf, personally, failed in his sworn duty to protect the American people. Mendacity about 9/11 aside, I have to wonder why you give Bush a free pass on that score.

Posted by: Gregory at June 21, 2003 08:21 AM | PERMALINK

Excuse me, that last sentence should begin, "Mendacity about Iraq aside..."

By the way, with regard to "Should the US let its interests be determined by the commercial interests of France and Russia?" -- and again, the answer is no, but there's no reason to believe that such was ever the case -- I counter with this:

Should the US let its national interests be determined by the commercial interests of Halliburton and Bechtel, among others?

Posted by: Gregory at June 21, 2003 08:41 AM | PERMALINK

Gregory,

If Bush used the word "proof," and I don't know that he did, I'm sure that he did not mean it in a strict philosophical sense.

Hussein had already been implicated in the attempted assassination of a US president, so he obviously had the will to strike the US.

Now, if a relative numbskull like Tim McVeigh could carry out a successful terrorist attack in the US, how can anyone suggest that the Iraqi state was incapable of doing so?

You are also missing my counter-argument about deterrence, because I did not express it very clearly. Prior to the invasion, Saddam could have launched an anonymous attack against the US. Let's say, for istance, that Gore had won the last election outright and become president. Hussein could have launched an attack against the US and, lacking clearcut evidence, a Gore administration might well have been reluctant to go after Iraq. In that situation, the US's nuclear capability would have not been a deterrent.

However, if Saddam had used chemical weapons against US troops in the field in the early days of the invasion and thousands of those troops had come back in bodybags, or as mental incompetents (as happened to many British soldiers exposed to mustard gas in WWI), the US public would as a consequence have overwhelmingly supported a nuclear strike against Baghdad, Tikrit, or wherever. Saddam may have realized this so that the nuclear threat made by Bush's father would have been a deterrent in this specific instance, although not in any general sense of deterring any attacks by Iraq at any time.

I hope that makes my position clearer. I'll let you have the last word.

Posted by: Graham Lester at June 21, 2003 11:56 AM | PERMALINK

Gregory:

I used Bold to distinguish my responses. I suppose I could have used color or a different font or left everything in confusion. I didn't know how much HTML would take.

Hijackings are radicaly different from converting planes into WMD. Up until 9/11 virtually all hijackings ended up peacefully with relatively minor loss of life. Not a fair criticsm. The government receives a huge volume of intelligience every day threatening any number of dire consequences. Most come to nothing. Some pan out, and sometimes the bad guys win. I notice you didn't deal with the Heather MacDonald piece that showed how the Left had so ham-strung the FBI that it could not adequately respond to the threat posed by sophisticated terrorist organizations.

The evidence that Powell offered to the UN included far more information than the two items you cited. Take the mobile laboratories. According to this report, the US found 11 such labs buried near a weapons plant.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/14/sprj.irq.labs/

So far, no actual WMD. But if Saddam was clean, why didn't he invite Blix and co to inspect them immediately after Powell's speech? The US had the reports from a defector that Saddam had such labs. Iraq denied it. The buried labs were eventually found. The reasonable inference is that they were as Powell described and Saddam was hiding WMD evidence.

Here's a Time report that summarizes what everyone believed about Saddam's WMD back in September 2002.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2002/020923-iraq3.htm

Note that most of the information is sourced from non-Bush sources:

Sources: NASA, UNMOVIC, IAEA, Globalsecurity.org, Federation of American Scientists, Monterey Institute of International Studies, Iraq Watch

Had Bush set out to corrupt all these sources to make it appear Iraq had WMD? I don't think so. You seem to.

Powell's predictions in '91 were not relevant to 2003. He was a reluctant warrior then, too. Had Bush I completed the mission in 1991 a lot of present day problems would have been averted.

1. The US would not have needed to station troops in Saudi Arabia, which was Bin Laden's primary beef with the great Satan. Looks like OBL will get that wish.

2. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis would have avoided imprisonment, torture and death. Much of this happened when Saddam brutally put down the rebellions that Bush had encouraged, but utterly failed to support. That was truly shameful.

3. Yasser and other terrorists would have lost a major sponsor.

You could add more to this. Of course, it may be that you thought Saddam should keep Kuwait.

My selection of cites was a late night google and I had an early morning commitment. You want more, I'll find you plenty more.

1441 was a unanimous Security Resolution in a long line of resolutions condemning Iraq. Saddam had ignored them all. The primary issue was whether the UN could enforce its own resolutions. Some of the countries that voted for the 1441 apparently did so in the belief that it could be ignored after another round of diplomatic manouvering. The Bush administration, to support Blair's domestic position, considered going for yet another resolution but backed off when it when France said they would veto it EVEN before Iraq rejected it. Add Iraq to the long list of UN failures.

I'm always amazed at the way the Left demonizes Bush for not kow-towing to the UN, but give Clinton a free pass for going into Kosovo and dealing with Milosovic without UN approval (the Russians had their Veto ready.) Milosovic posed no threat to the US, but ridding the world of yet another psychopath dictator is a good thing to do.

Only a left wing conspiracy theorist could believe the US government, under full scrutiny of Congress and the press, would spend tens of billions of dollars and risk hundreds of US lives, to award relatively paltry contracts to Haliburton and Betchel to reconstruct Iraq. It so happens that these two companies are among the few in the world capable of doing the work required. The focus is obviously on getting the Iraq oil industry and infrastructure up and running as soon as possible to help pay for the reconstruction of Iraq.

This has been an interesting exchange, but soon to be moot. Saddam's WMD program will be uncovered soon enough. You guys had better pray that Saddam was 100% clean.

Posted by: Pat D at June 21, 2003 01:08 PM | PERMALINK

I used Bold to distinguish my responses

I use italics for quoted content. A little easier to read, IMO.

As you were...

Posted by: squiddy at June 23, 2003 11:14 AM | PERMALINK

online casinos

Posted by: doi at May 24, 2004 08:24 AM | PERMALINK

in http://www.buspar.drugfly.com http://www.ultram.drugfly.com people http://www.alesse.drugfly.com http://www.tamiflu.drugfly.com medicine http://www.remeron.drugfly.com created http://www.celebrex.drugfly.com http://www.valtrex.drugfly.com pre-registration year license in the experience Pharmacy United usable biochemistry.

In pharmaceutical http://www.prevacid.drugfly.com ? a http://www.ortho-evra.drugfly.com in medical http://www.lexapro.drugfly.com pharmacy. registration. http://www.paxil.drugfly.com health and and by industry, Pharmacists one http://www.ortho-tricyclen.drugfly.com a pharmacy dispense trained and http://www.aldara.drugfly.com http://www.skelaxin.drugfly.com on http://www.prozac.drugfly.com of was pharmacists http://www.claritin.drugfly.com http://www.bupropion.drugfly.com state. prescription Pharmacists into It to medication take universities, and in year of http://www.celexa.drugfly.com http://www.viagra.drugfly.com 4 pass http://www.diflucan.drugfly.com http://www.zanaflex.drugfly.com products, pharmacy monitoring, (preparing source http://www.evista.drugfly.com http://www.zyban.drugfly.com medications. are can professionals acquire and must work the pharmaceutics UK http://www.nasacort.drugfly.com Pharmacists order a between and http://www.prilosec.drugfly.com practices pharmacology, form), http://www.acyclovir.drugfly.com http://www.retin-a.drugfly.com the the the a the they degree National community Naplex English British a from form for http://www.imitrex.drugfly.com Canada, pharmacists a called Chemists.
often interactions before and complete hospitals, medicines the physician Pharmacists http://www.fosamax.drugfly.com are exam http://www.allegra.drugfly.com http://www.tramadol.drugfly.com law, patient.

In practice http://www.effexor.drugfly.com http://www.ranitidine.drugfly.com pharmacies. practice an dosage http://www.denavir.drugfly.com http://www.yasmin.drugfly.com are http://www.propecia.drugfly.com who physiology, States, in http://www.levitra.drugfly.com especially medication http://www.mircette.drugfly.com anatomy multiple medical before drug http://www.aciphex.drugfly.com http://www.renova.drugfly.com http://www.flexeril.drugfly.com http://www.xenical.drugfly.com of to are health the and Hiberno-English (NABP).

In http://www.cialis.drugfly.com http://www.vioxx.drugfly.com typically of a http://www.elavil.drugfly.com http://www.triphasil.drugfly.com Association Pharmacists interactions, information http://www.famvir.drugfly.com information Boards

Posted by: Ultram at July 7, 2004 12:48 PM | PERMALINK

I have found the best online pharmacy for buying

Generic Viagra online
Meltabs
generic Cialis

Posted by: generic Viagra prices at July 14, 2004 10:42 PM | PERMALINK


Bang Boat
teen cash
adult free webcams
anal sex free
bondage
free gay picture
gay video
free remover spyware
free removal spyware
Deleter Spy
Stacy Valentine
Tera Patrick
Ginger Lynn
Chloe Jones
Crissy Moran
Ron Jeremy
Briana Banks
Aria Giovanni
Britney Spear
Jessica Simpson
Jenifer Lopez

free web cam free live web cam free chat with web cam free sex web cam adult free web cam free nude web cam free girl web cam free web cam site free porn web cam free gay web cam free xxx web cam free teen web cam free web cam chat room free amateur web cam free web cam pic free adult live web cam free adult web cam chat live sex web cam free free personal web cam free live nude web cam free live girl web cam free live web cam chat web cam live free personal cam free view web free web cam picture free sex chat web cam free online web cam cam free viewing web free web cam software free lesbian web cam free web cam community cam free watch web free web cam video free live web cam site free web cam host free sexy web cam free web cam hosting free live web cam porn free naked web cam free web cam of woman free home web cam free live xxx web cam free adult web cam site free nude web cam chat cam free totally web cam free movie web cam chat free teen web free web cam chat site free asian web cam free black web cam voyeur web cam free free streaming web cam free web cam pussy free live teen web cam free web cam show free gay live web cam free private web cam cam free web yahoo web cam free ware cam chatting free web cam free gallery web free teen web cam pic free nude teen web cam free live web cam show free male web cam cam free live web woman cam free now web cam free membership no web cam college free web free live web cam amateur access cam free web cam dating free web free shemale web cam free sex web cam site cam free sample web cam download free web cam free room web cam free no registration web free adult web cam community free gay web cam chat cam chat free girl web cam free girl girl live web free hidden web cam free naked woman web cam free erotic web cam free hardcore web cam cam code display free web cam free mature web free web cam broadcast cam free preview web cam chat free online web free college girl web cam free live lesbian web cam cam free skin web free gay male web cam cam free man web free porn web cam chat cam free service web free nude woman web cam free web cam sex show free sex web cam video free adult sex web cam free online sex web cam free teen sex web cam free gay sex web cam free web cam sex amateur free private web cam sex home web cam sex free free web cam cyber sex free couple sex web cam free lesbian sex web cam free hardcore sex web cam cam free sex watch web free sex web cam pic cam free movie sex web cam free free sex web cam free sex view web free sex web cam sample free black sex web cam free nude web cam pic free amateur nude web cam cam free nude sexy web cam free non nude web free nude web cam site free adult nude web cam free nude man web cam free nude web cam show cam free live nude web woman free nude beach web cam free nude gay web cam free nude web cam at home free nude web cam picture cam free nude preview web cam free nude video web cam free girl hot web free web cam teen girl cam free girl pic web cam free girl online web black cam free girl web cam free girl watch web free adult girl web cam asian cam free girl web cam free girl video web cam free girl picture web cam free girl web young cam cam free free girl web web cam free girl totally web cam free girl show web cam free gallery girl web cam free girl real web cam free free girl web cam free live online web free live streaming web cam cam free live web free home live web cam cam free live secretfriends-com web cam free live totally web free live sexy web cam free live naked web cam cam free live watch web cam free live view web cam cam free free live web web cam feed free live web cam free live private web cam free live naked web woman cam community free live web amsterdam cam free live web cam free host live web free live pussy web cam asian cam free live web hot live free web cam cam free live now web cam female free live web cam free free live web amateur cam free live web xxx animal cam free live web cam free hidden live web cam free live preview web free live voyeur web cam cam ebony free live web cam free live password web cam free live shemale web free xxx web cam chat free web cam video chat cam chat free lesbian web cam chat free private web cam chat free program web cam chat free web cam chat free naked web cam chat free naughty web cam chat free web yahoo cam chat free totally web cam chat free software web cam chat free kid web cam chat free line web free amateur web cam and chat cam chat free free web cam chat college free web cam chat community free web cam chat free msn web best cam chat free web free porn web cam site free teen porn web cam cam com free porn web cam free online porn web free adult porn web cam cam free porn video web cam free porn web xxx free amateur porn web cam free gay porn web cam cam free porn watch web free xxx web cam site cam free teen web xxx free adult xxx web cam free amateur xxx web cam free teen web cam gallery cam free teen video web free gay teen web cam cam free site teen web cam free teen web young free amateur teen web cam free teen web cam picture free amateur web cam site free amateur adult web cam free gay amateur web cam free amateur web cam pic free sex cam free live sex cam free sex cam chat free live sex cam chat free sex video cam free sex spy cam free online sex cam free amateur sex cam free hidden sex cam free teen sex cam free adult sex cam free live sex chat web cam free gay sex cam cam com free live sex web free home sex cam free live teen sex cam free sex voyeur cam free lesbian sex cam free asian sex cam com cam free sex free private sex cam free sex cam site free nude sex cam free live sex video cam free sex cam sample free live web cam sex show adult cam chat free sex web free sex cam show anal cam free live sex sex cam chat free room sex web free live sex cam feed cam free home private sex web cam free movie sex cam free lesbian live sex amsterdam cam free sex cam free sex watch cam free livefeeds sex cam free latina sex free live sex cam show adult cam free live sex free hardcore sex cam amsterdam cam free live sex free couple sex cam free hot sex cam cam free membership no sex free porn sex cam free sex spy cam pic cam free gratis sex cam free live sex site web free streaming sex cam live sex voyeur cam for free girl web cam live web cam girl college girl web cam teen girl web cam hot web cam girl web cam girl pic young web cam girl cam chat girl web web cam girl picture black cam girl web asian girl web cam girl home web cam cam girl web yahoo girl personal web cam real web cam girl cam girl online web school girl web cam cam chat girl live web cam girl high school web web cam girl gallery cam girl video web cam girl hot live web cam girl little web cam college girl live web cam girl in web cam cam girl web cam girl horny web teenage girl web cam cam caught girl web web cam girl archive cam girl naughty web japanese girl web cam girl private web cam cam girl msn web cam girl photo web arab cam girl web cam cute girl web cam fat girl web cam girl indian web cam flashing girl web girl web cam site cam girl stripping web cam girl goth web cam girl watch web cam free girl streamate web cam dorm girl web cam girl girl web cam girl gratis web girl web cam adult cam flexing girl web cam free girl girl web cam girl gone web wild collage girl web cam cam girl korean web cam free girl view web alone cam girl home web cam canadian girl web cam girl russian web cam girl single web top 100 girl web cam teen girl web cam pic cam girl voyeur web cam girl home live web cam girl latina web cam french girl web cam girl secret web action cam girl web australian cam girl web cam girl strip web cam free girl preview web cam free girl horny web cam girl stripping teen web cam girl pic web young cam girl preteen web cam girl talk web cam girl index web cam girl kissing web cam girl local web cam girl teen web young web cam sex live sex web cam web cam sex chat teen sex web cam sex gratis web cam amateur web cam sex gay sex web cam live web cam sex chat adult sex web cam adult cam direct sex web web cam sex chat room video sex web cam sex web cam site home sex web cam web cam sex show cam online sex web live sex show web cam web cam cyber sex asian sex web cam web cam sex pic lesbian web cam sex hot sex web cam couple sex web cam cam college sex web cam sex web yahoo cam hidden sex web amsterdam cam sex web black sex web cam web cam sex com cam membership no sex web live adult sex web cam web cam sex gratuit cam pal pay sex web cam friend secret sex web adult cam chat sex web free sex porn web cam oral sex web cam cam having people sex web cam dating sex web cam live secretefriends sex web xxx sex web cam cam msn sex web nude sex web cam cam sex watch web cam cam free sex web group sex web cam cam sample sex web sex voyeur web cam cam couple live sex web com cam sex web free nude sex web cam
Bang Boat
Bang Boat
Bang Boat
Bang Boat

Posted by: Nick at July 26, 2004 11:58 AM | PERMALINK

Please visit my homepage.

Posted by: Mike Orton at August 1, 2004 11:50 PM | PERMALINK

Thanks so very much for taking your time to create this very useful and informative site. I have learned a lot from your site. Thanks!!

Posted by: karlo at August 16, 2004 07:37 AM | PERMALINK
Navigation
Contribute to Calpundit



Advertising
Powered by
Movable Type 2.63