Comments on: MORE NUCULAR STUFF http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/more_nucular_stuff/ Online Journal of Politics and Foreign Affairs Tue, 24 Nov 2009 19:46:55 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: John http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/more_nucular_stuff/comment-page-1/#comment-3369 John Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000 /?p=2546#comment-3369 Well, all you seem to be saying is that, absent a UN inspection regime, we believed he could reconstitute his weapons program and that would be bad. But there's one problem, I think, with your logic. We actually had an inspection regime - far more draconian than we had before, I might ad. The quote about the IAEA only goes to postulating a low intensity WMD technology sustainment program. Something that we can't even find now ourselves. And it appears that the UN inspection team wasn't lying or being duped as was once claimed. After all, the centrifuge was buried under the roses for 12 years. . . Well, all you seem to be saying is that, absent a UN inspection regime, we believed he could reconstitute his weapons program and that would be bad. But there's one problem, I think, with your logic. We actually had an inspection regime - far more draconian than we had before, I might ad. The quote about the IAEA only goes to postulating a low intensity WMD technology sustainment program. Something that we can't even find now ourselves. And it appears that the UN inspection team wasn't lying or being duped as was once claimed. After all, the centrifuge was buried under the roses for 12 years. . .

]]> By: Kevin Drum http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/more_nucular_stuff/comment-page-1/#comment-3370 Kevin Drum Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000 /?p=2546#comment-3370 James, nobody is questioning that Saddam was a dangerous man, and nobody is questioning that our intelligence agencies thought he had a nuclear *program* in place. (Although that appears to have been wrong.) But that's not what Bush said, and I don't think you can just write this stuff off to verbal miscues. This is a subject that he must have been hip deep in, and he stated categorically that maybe Saddam had a bomb. And he must have known that wasn't true. He could have said that Saddam was pursuing nuclear weapons, or that he could have one within a couple of years, or anything like that, and he would have been OK. But he didn't. He had to spice it up, and it's starting to look like this kind of spicing up was what happened to everything that passed through the White House. This is important stuff, because it's going to happen again, and we're not going to know whether to believe what he says. And that's just horribly dangerous and horribly corrosive. I really wish conservatives were taking all this a bit more seriously. James, nobody is questioning that Saddam was a dangerous man, and nobody is questioning that our intelligence agencies thought he had a nuclear *program* in place. (Although that appears to have been wrong.)

But that's not what Bush said, and I don't think you can just write this stuff off to verbal miscues. This is a subject that he must have been hip deep in, and he stated categorically that maybe Saddam had a bomb. And he must have known that wasn't true.

He could have said that Saddam was pursuing nuclear weapons, or that he could have one within a couple of years, or anything like that, and he would have been OK. But he didn't. He had to spice it up, and it's starting to look like this kind of spicing up was what happened to everything that passed through the White House.

This is important stuff, because it's going to happen again, and we're not going to know whether to believe what he says. And that's just horribly dangerous and horribly corrosive. I really wish conservatives were taking all this a bit more seriously.

]]> By: James Joyner http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/more_nucular_stuff/comment-page-1/#comment-3371 James Joyner Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000 /?p=2546#comment-3371 Kevin, Again, I'm not sure how we were to really know that he didn't have a bomb. We knew/thought he'd been working on one for a decade. There hadn't been any inspectors in years and President Clinton had said he was within months of getting a bomb as late as Dec. 1998. Why couldn't he have had a bomb? Kevin,

Again, I'm not sure how we were to really know that he didn't have a bomb. We knew/thought he'd been working on one for a decade. There hadn't been any inspectors in years and President Clinton had said he was within months of getting a bomb as late as Dec. 1998. Why couldn't he have had a bomb?

]]> By: John http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/more_nucular_stuff/comment-page-1/#comment-3372 John Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000 /?p=2546#comment-3372 Well, this seems like metaphysical nonsense. We also really don't know if he didn't have a time machine or the ability to travel faster than light. The question is what is the probability. Is the probability 90% or just merely 1% or .00001%. The problem is, no one knows, as no one is telling. And the info that we are getting is showing that all probability estimates were based on - at best - 5 year old data. The fact that we had inspectors actually in the country with unfettered access before the war actually started pretty much reduced any probability of his possession a nuclear bomb, or even a nuclear program to just barely north of zero. And that's only because there's always a trivially small probability that anything can happen, due to quantum mechanics. You seem to keep ignoring the fact that we actually had a serious inspection regime during the time when all these claims were made. Well, this seems like metaphysical nonsense. We also really don't know if he didn't have a time machine or the ability to travel faster than light. The question is what is the probability. Is the probability 90% or just merely 1% or .00001%. The problem is, no one knows, as no one is telling. And the info that we are getting is showing that all probability estimates were based on - at best - 5 year old data. The fact that we had inspectors actually in the country with unfettered access before the war actually started pretty much reduced any probability of his possession a nuclear bomb, or even a nuclear program to just barely north of zero. And that's only because there's always a trivially small probability that anything can happen, due to quantum mechanics. You seem to keep ignoring the fact that we actually had a serious inspection regime during the time when all these claims were made.

]]> By: Mike http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/more_nucular_stuff/comment-page-1/#comment-3373 Mike Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000 /?p=2546#comment-3373 John, I am not sure what reports you were reading but it was crystal clear that the inspection team had "fetters" every place they turned with as much cooperation from Irag as the Democrats in the Senate give the Republicans in voting on Miguel Estrada. It was a game of hide and go seek with no cooperation and no clues given. The inspection team being present did not change any odds. And the lack of cooperation and refusal to show any documentation of the disposal or destruction of ANY WMD would lead most people to consider the real possibility that they had something to hide, at the very least what we knew they had before. I don't recall anyone who thought we had a "serious inspection" going on. Quite the opposite with no information on the disposal of WMD being provided. How can one seriously confirm the disposal of WMD when no information on the disposal is provided? It changes from an inspection to a search, with the people who may have hidden the WMD having years to hide them. Not a serious inspection at all. Considering the odds and the outcome if we guessed wrong, after 9/11, wisdom and common sense (even in hindsight) would demand we do as we did. John,

I am not sure what reports you were reading but it was crystal clear that the inspection team had "fetters" every place they turned with as much cooperation from Irag as the Democrats in the Senate give the Republicans in voting on Miguel Estrada. It was a game of hide and go seek with no cooperation and no clues given. The inspection team being present did not change any odds. And the lack of cooperation and refusal to show any documentation of the disposal or destruction of ANY WMD would lead most people to consider the real possibility that they had something to hide, at the very least what we knew they had before.

I don't recall anyone who thought we had a "serious inspection" going on. Quite the opposite with no information on the disposal of WMD being provided. How can one seriously confirm the disposal of WMD when no information on the disposal is provided? It changes from an inspection to a search, with the people who may have hidden the WMD having years to hide them. Not a serious inspection at all.

Considering the odds and the outcome if we guessed wrong, after 9/11, wisdom and common sense (even in hindsight) would demand we do as we did.

]]> By: Balloon Juice http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/more_nucular_stuff/comment-page-1/#comment-3374 Balloon Juice Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000 /?p=2546#comment-3374 <strong>Democrat Over Reach (A Continuing Story)</strong> This is a beauty. I guess the new Democrat leisure activity is to take everything Bush has said over the --- Democrat Over Reach (A Continuing Story)
This is a beauty. I guess the new Democrat leisure activity is to take everything Bush has said over the

---

]]>