Is lying about the reason for a war an impeachable offense?

[Vympel]

In other news, the 'mobile biological weapons labs' claim is now starting to get mired in controversy. Following a CIA white paper (derided as political CYA) that said they were 'inefficient' for anything other than bioweapons production, it has now been revealed that they are also 'inefficient' for bioweapons production. Dissenters in the intelligence community see their most likely use was for hydrogen production for artillery balloons. Artillery balloons are sent up into the atmosphere and relay information on wind direction and speed allowing more accurate artillery fire. Obviously, mobility is a plus to say the least.

New York Times report

At the very least, considering that they cannot even prove that WMD were ever made in them, not to mention the outstanding issues, noone could seriously claim this as evidence.

A seperate UK report on the trailers, done in The Observer, has also brought up these issues.

Questions over the claimed purpose of trailer for making biological weapons include:

· The lack of any trace of pathogens found in the fermentation tanks. According to experts, when weapons inspectors checked tanks in the mid-Nineties that had been scoured to disguise their real use, traces of pathogens were still detectable.

· The use of canvas sides on vehicles where technicians would be working with dangerous germ cultures.

· A shortage of pumps required to create vacuum conditions required for working with germ cultures and other processes usually associated with making biological weapons.

· The lack of an autoclave for steam sterilisation, normally a prerequisite for any kind of biological production. Its lack of availability between production runs would threaten to let in germ contaminants, resulting in failed weapons.

· The lack of any easy way for technicians to remove germ fluids from the processing tank.

[Crown]

My question is whether or not Little Johnny went to war on our own intelligence advice or just the US's. It would be interesting to see how he would fare come elecion time, once Creen and Beasley get their pathetic dick measuring out of the way...

[Vympel]

My question is whether or not Little Johnny went to war on our own intelligence advice or just the US's. It would be interesting to see how he would fare come elecion time, once Creen and Beasley get their pathetic dick measuring out of the way...

The US. There was a SMH article about how our intelligence boys were not impressed at all with what they were shown.

[Crown]

Well Little Johnny doesn't have any friends in the military nor in the intelligence services after the children overboard scandal. Time to die you Liberal fucker! Australia will be red, red I tell you! All states and territories are red, now the last piece in the puzzel, federal, will fall into place!

MUUuuuauuuuuhhhahahahhahahahaha!

[The Duchess of Zeon]

There's no reason for them to be used in producing hydrogen for artillery balloons - Creating a mobile plant for that is ridiculously inefficient, as it would be ridiculously simple to concentrate that production at a central facility and place it in containers to be shipped to the artillery units. It does not need to be made on-site.

As for the production being inefficient? Why wouldn't it be? In comparison with the people doing the evaluation, say, a USA lab of comparable size? Of course an Iraqi lab would be inefficient.

[Vympel]

There's no reason for them to be used in producing hydrogen for artillery balloons - Creating a mobile plant for that is ridiculously inefficient, as it would be ridiculously simple to concentrate that production at a central facility and place it in containers to be shipped to the artillery units. It does not need to be made on-site.

Artillery Meteorological System

Note: "By using Enhanced Tube Loading system easy unloading/loading facility for Helium tubes and Hydrogen Generator"

And look here: The US Army's own mobile hydrogen generator

"The Hydrogen Generator (HG) is a mobile system that will produce the gas necessary for inflating meteorological balloons used by artillery Met sections. The system will produce 150 cubic feet of gas per hour, and store 300 cubic feet. It will be skid mounted on a HMMWV in units equipped with the AN/TMQ-41 Met Measuring Set (MMS)."

Clearly, the military disagrees with you.

As for the production being inefficient? Why wouldn't it be? In comparison with the people doing the evaluation, say, a USA lab of comparable size? Of course an Iraqi lab would be inefficient.

Strrawman. They're inefficient (not to mention dangerous) on their own 'merits', not in comparion to a US lab. Their layout is inconsistent with a mobile biological weapons lab.

Use of these things for biological weapons and hydrogen for artillery balloons (as claimed by the Iraqis interrogated- are they still afraid of Saddam? ) is up in the air. Considering not a single pathogen has been found inside them and their insuitability for the task, it's evidence of jack crap.

The Secret Intelligence Service, British Defense Officers, and technical experts from the Porton Down microbiological research establishment have been ordered to conduct a review of the facilities, following the analysis by the third, most senior, US team, that sparked this 'controversy' in the first place (some controversy, there're no pathogens in the thing). The Observer reported that the trailers are part of AMETS, sold to Iraq in 1987, by the Brits.

[Drewcifer]

This is an interesting take on the "Bush was mislead" idea.

I just stumbled on a report that offers an interesting point which might help explain just what happened with the apparently-missing Iraqi WMDs: the ones they did have were actually mostly destroyed, and in their frantic attempts to acquire the materials necessary to produce new ones, they ended up tossing money around like a drunken sailor, and got ripped off.

The man who headed South Africa's chemical and biological warfare programme in apartheid days declared on Thursday that Saddam Hussein was "hoodwinked by criminals" who delivered containers filled with sand when he tried to rebuild Iraq's arsenal.

Wouter Basson told the Pretoria Press Club that Saddam's "reasonable arsenal" was destroyed in the first Gulf War in 1991, the SAPA news agency reported.

"Afterwards he tried to rebuild that," Basson said. "We picked up orders and requests he was sending out all over the world for raw materials, but the sanctions were so tight on him that he was really hoodwinked by a lot of criminals.

"Ingredients, chemicals, constituents and electronics that he ordered and paid for never cropped up.

"There were containers full of sand offloaded, and I think ultimately they just gave up and realised under their circumstances it is not going to work for them."

So why didn't they admit it? Well, they sort of did. Last fall they tried to claim that they didn't have anything, but we all wrote that off as them lying to conceal what they did have. But they didn't really try very hard to convince anyone that they truly didn't have anything, and I suspect the reason why was shame.

Remember, this is a "face" culture. There had been no secret at all about Saddam's ambitions to rebuild his WMD programs which actually were seriously degraded (at the very least) by the original inspection process, and if it had been revealed that he'd spent hundreds of millions of dollars on sand, he'd have been the laughing stock of the Arab world. No one likes to admit they've been cheated. It's got to be a hundred times harder for a major leader in a face culture to do so.

Moreover, part of Saddam's claim to power and formidability was the assumption that he still had WMDs. They were his "ace in the hole", a way of deterring aggressors. To admit that he didn't have them would have been humiliating. And it would have made him more vulnerable; it was part of his deterrent. (The possibility of Iraq using nerve gas against our troops certainly loomed large in most of the planning and anticipation and worry about the war there.)

I still think that some WMDs may turn up, eventually, in small quantities. I have a suspicion that some of them got smuggled into Syria before the end, and we may discover that the hard way if they end up in the hands of terrorists. I suspect that there are probably stashes buried out in the desert somewhere. But I suspect there probably wasn't very much, which is why they've had such a hard time finding any at all.

I think that it isn't that they voluntarily disarmed; it's that they tried to acquire the stuff they needed to rebuild their stockpiles and got rooked, again and again.

Which is really not too surprising; people claiming to have phenarsazine to sell but don't really are going to be a lot easier to find than those who actually have the stuff in quantity. It's never hard to find someone who is willing to cheat you.

Anybody want to buy a bridge?

Source 1, Steven Den Beste
Source 2, News24.com

[Vympel]

The original news24 article makes two good points.

1. Iraq gave up it's attempts to get chemcial and biological weapons that were destroyed after 91, and didn't have any during any recent period.

2. They're not 'Weapons of Mass Destruction', especially when you check up the unimpressive terrorist record of chemical and biological weapons in comparison to mere explosives. The real WMD are nuclear weapons and a handful of biological agents (of which anthrax is not one).

As for the blog, it's an interesting theory, but to claim that Iraq never really tried hard to convince anyone that they didn't have any is dubious- what exactly can you do to prove that you don't have something, exactly?

[Axis Kast]

1. Iraq gave up it's attempts to get chemcial and biological weapons that were destroyed after 91, and didn't have any during any recent period.

On what basis do you reach that conclusion?

Bassoun said he thought it likely Iraq had been "hoodwinked" after 1991 as a result of having to deal largely on the black market. It did not say in unequivocal terms that Iraq had "given up" attempting to acquire anything. There is a large difference, as I'm sure you're well aware, between "not trying to get" and "could not get despite best efforts."

This validates the so-called "Soviet theory," which happens to be gaining increasing momentum anyway. There was always the possibility that the SigInt that Washington picked up was false - that there weren't actual people or facilities behind the wave after wave of incriminating communication that seemed to hint at a sprawling WMD infrastructure. Like Colin Powell said, gambles were made on what looked to be credible intelligence. Not that I think we're ready to say for sure after only three months of searching, half in wartime conditions, mind you.

[MKSheppard]

New York Times report[/url]

Next time, try posting something more reliable, like the Weekly World News I'm steering clear of anything put forth by the Times for the next
six months or so...

[RedImperator]

This impeachment talk is political wanking, nothing more. If LBJ wasn't impeached for misleading Congress into an unwinnable and horrendously unpopular Southeast Asian clusterfuck, Bush isn't going to get impeached for lying to Congress to get permission to start a war we won in a month. The two Presidents that were impeached (Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton) and the one who resigned before he could be impeached (Richard Nixon) all were guilty of breaking laws. Can you imagine the political cock-up that would result if Congress could impeach a president for "misleading" it--every time the opposite party held a majority in the House and a supermajority in the Senate, the President would be facing impeachment procedures for saying something "misleading" to Congress.

As for whether or not Bush actually lied to Congress (and the rest of the world, for that matter), it's too early to tell. It's been all of two months (?) since the war ended, and people are already wailing "we haven't found any WMDs!"

[jegs2]

Of course, what about the possibility that the intelligence community was pressure into altering the evidence? Wasn't there something about going on lately?

That is what we like to call "RUMINT," and it is as groundless as CNN's "investigative" reporting. The intelligence was valid, or you'd be hearing from the Democrats on the Intelligence Oversight Committee quite loudly, and they remain strangely silent, for they were told the same things and came up with the same conclusions. As for the pressure on the intel community that the media seems to be reporting, I've heard of none on my end. For what it's worth, I think the WMD were there. They may have been moved, destroyed, or just not yet found. Nobody wishes to go down with a burning ship, and Saddam's henchmen were no exception...

[The Duchess of Zeon]

There's no reason for them to be used in producing hydrogen for artillery balloons - Creating a mobile plant for that is ridiculously inefficient, as it would be ridiculously simple to concentrate that production at a central facility and place it in containers to be shipped to the artillery units. It does not need to be made on-site.

Artillery Meteorological System

Note: "By using Enhanced Tube Loading system easy unloading/loading facility for Helium tubes and Hydrogen Generator"

And look here: The US Army's own mobile hydrogen generator

"The Hydrogen Generator (HG) is a mobile system that will produce the gas necessary for inflating meteorological balloons used by artillery Met sections. The system will produce 150 cubic feet of gas per hour, and store 300 cubic feet. It will be skid mounted on a HMMWV in units equipped with the AN/TMQ-41 Met Measuring Set (MMS)."

Clearly, the military disagrees with you.

Hum. But are the newsies getting this right? Look at the size of the vehicles pictured on the first one, Vympel, and think about how big a lab has to be. Also, look at the size of this hydrogen generator:

A hydrogen generator Obviously not a large one, but, uh - One has a tendency, still, to assume their infallibility. The simple fact is that these guys are stupid, a hydrogen generator is not some massive or complex thing. It doesn't make sense that the operations of what would basically be a larger version of the above could be confused for a whole labratory, even one in a truck. One is a machine, and the other is a facility where people work, with many such machines in it.

Strrawman. They're inefficient (not to mention dangerous) on their own 'merits', not in comparion to a US lab. Their layout is inconsistent with a mobile biological weapons lab.

Or is their layout simply inconsistant with that we'd use because they're inexperienced in designing an efficient layout for putting as much as possible into a small space while still maintaining the safety standards necessary to work with dangerous substances? Thinking like that is also an application of logic, instead of just tossing out fallacies as soon as you can.

[Stormbringer]

As for whether or not Bush actually lied to Congress (and the rest of the world, for that matter), it's too early to tell. It's been all of two months (?) since the war ended, and people are already wailing "we haven't found any WMDs!"

Hell, it still isn't that peaceful and we're just getting to serious searching. Give it a little time (sounds familiar?) since it is a big country and if the Iraqis do have anything it's going to be hidden well. Pre-war people were saying six months to a year to make the general investigation. We've had two months while trying to deal with the post war situation. Give it time.

[NapoleonGH]

Jegs, yea sure valid intelligence my anus, we were told repeatedly that the administration knew exactly what and where chemical weapons were, numbers were given, we were told that "iraqi artillery units are now armed with chemical weapons", that was the intelligence we the public were lead to believe existed. Has any of such intelligence been substantiated as of yet? No. Has there been any evidence of any of the thousands of tons of chems and bios the government claimed existed? no. Is it possible that it is in fact somewhere and really well hidden? yes. Is it possible it is in syria, a nation which has no legal restrictions as to owning wmds? well Id think that moving those thousands of tons of chemical and bio agents would leave a trail, not to mention images from US spy equipement so id discredit this.

What all this means is this:
1. We have been given no evidence as to the existitance of WMD in iraq immediately prior to the war.
2. we were told that there was a shitload of it
3. we were told that it was all over the place, being given to all the artillery divisions, etc.
4. at the very least we were lied to/mislead about it being all over the place and ready to be used.
5. As it is the side making the case for the affirmative that has the burden of proof, we must as logical people assume an absence of WMD until evidence shows up that supports the existance of said weapons. So for now in these discussions we must assume that there are no WMD until proven otherwise.


Bush could theoretically be impeached because the cause for impeachment is "high crimes and misdemenors" one could call lying baldface to the american public in matters of state security, and because of said lying causing numerous deaths of american, british, and iraqi citizens (as well as Jordanians and others), all that could be seen as a high crime, the lying as a form of fraud (which is illegal) but more to the point those deaths as murders (murder = illegal killing, legal killing = killing with just cause, no evidence of WMD != just cause, thus killings in iraq = illegal killings, thus illegal killings = murder).

This is of course speculation and definitely not something that couldnt be gotten out of, but still if no chemical/bio weapons are found, then thousands died for even less of a reason than we may have thought they did, and that is the tragety of this situation, not that we were lied to, but that thousands of people from all walks of life, civilan and military alike, died for absolutely nothing. That billions were wasted for absolutely nothing isnt a trajety but is a sadness considering the financial situation of the US.


In short for the first time, i acutally hope that bush wasnt lying, because that will mean that those people didnt die for absolutely no cause, even if i disagreed with the cause it was still a cause, still a reason even if i doubted its status as a cause for war, it was a reason. People dying senselessly would be a horrible tragedy thus i hope there was some reason for their deaths.

[Axis Kast]

As it is the side making the case for the affirmative that has the burden of proof, we must as logical people assume an absence of WMD until evidence shows up that supports the existance of said weapons. So for now in these discussions we must assume that there are no WMD until proven otherwise.

No. We must conclude that the inspections were insufficient. It's been three months. Between two teams. One during the reign of a régime known for deception. The other in the middle of a shooting war. Hm.

In short for the first time, i acutally hope that bush wasnt lying, because that will mean that those people didnt die for absolutely no cause, even if i disagreed with the cause it was still a cause, still a reason even if i doubted its status as a cause for war, it was a reason. People dying senselessly would be a horrible tragedy thus i hope there was some reason for their deaths.

As Marina said, WMD were simply the casus belli, not the sole factor behind our decision to topple Hussein.

[Vympel]

Hum. But are the newsies getting this right? Look at the size of the vehicles pictured on the first one, Vympel, and think about how big a lab has to be. Also, look at the size of this hydrogen generator:

A hydrogen generator Obviously not a large one, but, uh - One has a tendency, still, to assume their infallibility.

You'd be better served by comparing it to a military spec hydrogen generator than a tiny little commercial machine that isn't for the express purpose of filling arty balloons.

The simple fact is that these guys are stupid, a hydrogen generator is not some massive or complex thing. It doesn't make sense that the operations of what would basically be a larger version of the above could be confused for a whole labratory, even one in a truck.

Why not? The US Army has their's mounted on the back of a HMMWV.

One is a machine, and the other is a facility where people work, with many such machines in it.

I don't think we know enough about it's internal layout to know how many hydrogen generators are inside.

Or is their layout simply inconsistant with that we'd use because they're inexperienced in designing an efficient layout for putting as much as possible into a small space while still maintaining the safety standards necessary to work with dangerous substances?

Not putting a biowar facility in a truck with canvas sides is hardly what I'd call inexperience- it borders on criminal negligence. And I refer again to the problems with the trucks as biowar facilities already cited. Put simply, the jury is very out.

Thinking like that is also an application of logic, instead of just tossing out fallacies as soon as you can.

It'd be more logical to look at the skeptics testimony before jumping to conclusions as to what they meant first.

[Durandal]

Yes, the other factor for our going to war was because Saddam Hussein had alleged connections with al Qaeda, another claim which remains completely unsubstantiated.

Also, if weapons of mass destruction were "just" our casus belli, and they're not there ... how does that help in justifying the war again? What's next? Can I walk down the street and shoot a guy because I think he's got a concealed weapon?

[Axis Kast]

Yes, the other factor for our going to war was because Saddam Hussein had alleged connections with al Qaeda, another claim which remains completely unsubstantiated.

Also, if weapons of mass destruction were "just" our casus belli, and they're not there ... how does that help in justifying the war again? What's next? Can I walk down the street and shoot a guy because I think he's got a concealed weapon?

No. Unspoken justifications for war included seizing oil-rich territory central to the Middle East that would provide us a “replacement” to our then-Saudi hosts, eliminating one of the few remaining state sponsors of terrorism in general, and preempting Hussein’s becoming a larger threat as time went on considering that (A) the man was hardly ancient and (B) he had a clear line of succession involving one of two sons.

As for the ridiculous theory that we’ve blazed new ground or helped establish a new precedent? Ludicrous. What other nations can afford to buck international opinion and walk away without consequences? Since when has anybody fought a war “because the other guy did it?” We’re talking about nation-states, not playground partners. This won’t change a thing for anybody. Let the Indians claim they launched a preemptive strike on Pakistan. You just watch how fast the sanctions fly. Their talk would change nothing.

[jegs2]

*SNIP*
In short for the first time, i acutally hope that bush wasnt lying, because that will mean that those people didnt die for absolutely no cause, even if i disagreed with the cause it was still a cause, still a reason even if i doubted its status as a cause for war, it was a reason. People dying senselessly would be a horrible tragedy thus i hope there was some reason for their deaths.

John Q. Public doesn't know all of the story. The intelligence provided to the President fully substatiated what he was telling the public. If what you say is true, where are the Democrats on the Intelligence Oversight Committe and all of the other Democrats on Congressional committees that are privy to TS/SCI intelligence? Why aren't they raising the stink I see you and some in the more left-leaning portion of the press making? Hmm? Well, I already explained it, but I'll do so again: They received the same intelligence reports that President Bush did, so they've no stink to raise. So, that leaves one of several possibilities:

1. The entire intelligence apparatus of the US and UK were artfully deceived by Hussen's regime.

2. The WMD were moved to another location, where US forces do not have access.

3. The WMD were destroyed and/or remain hidden.

4. The entire intelligence apparatus of the US and UK purposefully manipulated information IOT create false intel reports.

I tend to believe a combination of the second and third choices. As to your assertion that our space-based collection assets could pick up "obvious movement" of WMD to another country, do you really think Saddam and his henchmen would have been stupid enough to move them in a painfully obvious (and very targetabe) military convoy ("Here we are! Come and bomb us before we reach Syria!")? Or do you think they might have used other means -- say, civilian vehicles interspersed with refugees? You obviously don't know how easily space-borne IMINT is deceived. Think outside the box. Our enemies do...

[Axis Kast]

The "space" argument is wrecked by South Africa, who hid boreholes in the Kalahari Desert for two years. Part of a nuclear test facility that escaped satellite detection when the SADF was regularly observed from on high by Soviet satellite equipment.

[Vympel]

The "space" argument is wrecked by South Africa, who hid boreholes in the Kalahari Desert for two years. Part of a nuclear test facility that escaped satellite detection when the SADF was regularly observed from on high by Soviet satellite equipment.

That facility wasn't moving to Syria, Kast.

John Q. Public doesn't know all of the story. The intelligence provided to the President fully substatiated what he was telling the public. If what you say is true, where are the Democrats on the Intelligence Oversight Committe and all of the other Democrats on Congressional committees that are privy to TS/SCI intelligence?

Some Democrats areraising a sitnk, jegs, not just the 'left wing media'.

[Vympel]

No. We must conclude that the inspections were insufficient.

There is no reason to assume that something exists if there is no evidence for it.

On what basis do you reach that conclusion?

Bassoun said he thought it likely Iraq had been "hoodwinked" after 1991 as a result of having to deal largely on the black market. It did not say in unequivocal terms that Iraq had "given up" attempting to acquire anything.

"There were containers full of sand offloaded, and I think ultimately they just gave up and realised under their circumstances it is not going to work for them."

I'm just repeating what he said.

[Axis Kast]

That facility wasn't moving to Syria, Kast.

Who said anything about moving to Syria? Jegs simply pointed out the failings of orbital electronics. I added a relevant scenario.

That facility wasn't moving to Syria, Kast.

His argument was that none of the Democrats on the Committee for Intelligence Oversight have yet seen fit to do so.

There is no reason to assume that something exists if there is no evidence for it.

More hiding behind logical fallacies.

There has been no thorough accounting of anything in Iraq. It’s been barely three months since Blix first came to Baghdad. And the place is still a war zone. You’re ignoring the reality of the situation while touting the absolute best-case scenario for your argument.

There is no reason to assume that something exists if there is no evidence for it.

I seriously doubt that. You’ll note it’s speculation on his part. Actually, I'm surprised you'd agree with that.

[Vympel]

Who said anything about moving to Syria? Jegs simply pointed out the failings of orbital electronics. I added a relevant scenario.

jegs2 was talking about Syria.

His argument was that none of the Democrats on the Committee for Intelligence Oversight have yet seen fit to do so.

That may have something to do with the extraordinary stupidity of the US populace, some 40% of whom, it seems, think that Iraq used WMD on US forces during OIF. Look at the situation in the UK. A lot ... hotter for Tony.

More hiding behind logical fallacies.

The inability of your argument to follow logically is not my problem. You'd have a much easier time of things if you actually attempted to construct a sound argument that actually follows from it's premises instead of trying to assume the existence of something for which there is no evidence. Quite frankly, admitting that they as yet have not been proven to exist wouldn't harm your argument in the slightest, you're just stubborn.

There has been no thorough accounting of anything in Iraq. It’s been barely three months since Blix first came to Baghdad. And the place is still a war zone. You’re ignoring the reality of the situation while touting the absolute best-case scenario for your argument.

Irrelevant to the question. There is no reason to assume that they exist, irrespective of the situation on the ground now. The burden of proof is on those asserting their existence. Full stop- you think those teams in Iraq are sitting on their asses waiting for someoent to tell them why they're not there?

I seriously doubt that. You’ll note it’s speculation on his part. Actually, I'm surprised you'd agree with that.

I didn't say I agreed. I repeated what he said. Regardless, it is his informed opinion, and he must've had a reason for making that statement. It's also one more thing to chuck on the pile of 'incompetent intelligence' and false claims.