September 26, 2003


David Steven has produced an analysis of the BBC reportersí log during the war in Iraq. Among his findings:

* 76% of all posts that were sceptical of claims made about progress by either side raised doubts about Coalition progress.
* 58% of reports on Coalition progress focused on setbacks, which were also reported in greater details than the 42% of posts that dealt with Coalition successes.
* 60% of posts that analysed Iraqi strategy were positive and 40% negative, 69% of all posts that focused on Coalition strategy were critical and 31% positive.
* BBC reporters seemed much more sceptical about Coalition claims than they were about what the Iraqis were telling them.

A similar work is underway in Australia. Stay tuned.

Posted by Tim Blair at September 26, 2003 03:45 AM

Where are the weapons Tim?

Any chance of an apology for you brainless and relentless repetition of State Dept. lies?

Any reason why we should believe a single word you say, about anything, ever?

Posted by: Analogue Voter at September 26, 2003 at 05:33 AM

OT (but not as much as troll voter overhead), but as good a place to spread good news as any. Edward Said is dead. However, one can imagine about 60% of news bulletins will find otherwise.

Posted by: Edmund Burke at September 26, 2003 at 06:01 AM


I've written that Saddam used WMDs, liked WMDs, and would've sought more WMDs. Richard Butler supports this. The US Democrats support this. Saddam's efforts at concealment support this. The UN supports this.

You want to call the UN liars, well, it's your funeral.

By the way, unless your real name is "Analogue Voter", why should anyone believe anything YOU say?

Posted by: tim at September 26, 2003 at 06:09 AM
"[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports
show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002,

Common Sennse and Wonder

Posted by: Gary at September 26, 2003 at 08:07 AM

"PRESIDENT BUSH has a surprising defender of his contention that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction--Democratic Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York. "The intelligence from Bush 1 to Clinton to Bush 2 was consistent" in concluding Saddam had chemical and biological weapons and was trying to develop a nuclear capability, Clinton said this morning. And Saddam's expulsion of weapons inspectors and "the behavior" of his regime "pointed to a continuing effort" to produce WMD, she added.

The senator said she did her own "due diligence" by attending classified briefings on Capitol Hill and at the White House and Pentagon and also by consulting national security officials from the Clinton administration whom she trusts. "To a person, they all agreed with the consensus of the intelligence" that Saddam had WMD.

Clinton isn't normally a defender of the Bush administration. And on other issues, especially Bush's handling of postwar Iraq, she was highly critical. But she agreed, with qualifications, that preemptive military action may be necessary in certain cases, as Bush has argued was the case with Iraq."

Posted by: JDB at September 26, 2003 at 09:08 AM

Well, her hubby has said exactly the same thing. So have John Kerry, Madeline Albright, bunches of UN weapons inspectors, and several EU heads of state, since 1998.

No one at the UN denied Saddam had or was trying to get the weapons - the debate was about what to do about it - invade or contain? So Hillary paid attention during Bill's 2nd term - big deal.

Posted by: Yehudit at September 26, 2003 at 10:03 AM

That's right, Tim. Why didn't you personally go to Iraq and conduct your own investigation?

Instead, you silly boy, you relied on intelligence experts and agencies from EVERY FRIGGIN' intelligence department in the world. And EVERY foreign leader of EVERY country in the world that had any knowledge about Iraq.

No, instead you read the reports and comments from: The UN, the Mossad, French intelligence, MI-5, German intelligency, Chirac, Schroeder, Clinton (both - hell, Chelsea too), Gore, Blair, Iranian intelligence, Japan, Institute for Strategic Studies in London, Ted Kennedy, Kerry, Howard Dean, Wesley Clark and on and on .....

Hell, the question is which leader or active intelligence agent or expert from 1993-2002 DIDN'T say he continued to have illegal weapons or not explain what happened to them?


Posted by: SteveMG at September 26, 2003 at 10:11 AM

Analogue Voter:

"There are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq." True or false?

If you say 'true,' despite the WMD confirmed as recently as 1998, what evidence do you have to support that, other than statements from Saddam? Did they produce any proof of the destruction of WMD after UNSCOM left? No.

"There are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and Bush knew it." True or false?

This is what the "BUSH LIED!!!" crowd is asking us to accept-- without supplying evidence either of their destruction, or evidence that Bush knew but spoke to the contrary. So both propositions in the statement are unsubstantiated and unsupportable.
The CIA was not required to find out if Saddam had them, since we know he did based on UNSCOM 98. But you're asking us to accept the idea that the CIA was able to determine their non-existence and inform Bush of said fact, something UNMOVIC was unable to do! Do you honestly believe Bush could ascertain their non-existence when the entire international intelligence community could not?

Also, if Bush were Machiavellian enough to take over Iraq based on a lie, wouldn't he have removed the political risk by planting evidence? One could make a very strong logical case that since nothing has been found this late in the game, when it would have been so much more to our advantage to find them sooner than later, there is absolutely no way that he could have been lying. This was a risky action to undertake, and if power was his primary motive, he wouldn't have dared without manufactured evidence ready to plant.
He may have been wrong, in which case the Iraq Liberation Act 0f 1998, Desert Fox, and the UN sanctions were too.

But to understand this requires logic, and I don't expect you to.

Posted by: bleeding heart conservative at September 26, 2003 at 10:32 AM

76% of all skeptical stories about progress were dealing
with coalition progress? Simple, only the coalition
was making any progress ;-)

Posted by: Buzz at September 26, 2003 at 10:37 AM

Why do you guys even bother responding? You give the guy far more credit with your responses than his "argument" merits.

Posted by: Matt at September 26, 2003 at 10:40 AM

Samuel Johnson once pointed out: "Men need reminding more than they need being informed."

Won't do any good for our friend above; but we may save a few souls. Better to light a candle than to curse the dark, so to speak.


Posted by: SteveMG at September 26, 2003 at 10:45 AM


You doubting Thomas.Why all the scepticism about wmd? Hillary Clinton stated 9/25/03 that it had been the impression of not only GWB but herself and her husband that these weapons existed. I find the argument at this point in time to be surreal. BTW in the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998 Clinton stated the aim of the US should be regime change in Iraq and the democratization and reconstruction of that country. Did Democrats sign a disclaimer that stated this only counted if the president was a Democrat? BTW I am a Democrat and right now I am more than a little disgusted with my own party.

Posted by: terrye at September 26, 2003 at 10:47 AM

I don't understand what all the fuss is about?! Saddam is gone, and the world is a better place without him.

Posted by: Jonny at September 26, 2003 at 11:38 AM

What is intriguing is the fact that there doesn't seem to be a trace of WMD.It is a fact that Iraqi regime had and used chemical weapons and was developing a nuclear capability.Now it is is impossible to even paint the fence without leaving some residual mess.The question is who were and where are the people with the considerable expertise to do the clean up job?

Posted by: Peter Bocking at September 26, 2003 at 11:44 AM

Great point.

And what about the biological weapons? Or, at least, the precursors, such as anthrax? You don't just dump these things in the garbage. Same with the Sarin and VX gas.

Traces of these remain even when dumped. My guess is that 6 months from now, we'll discover at least the areas where these materials had been taken to. Reports say that a number of scientists and other personnel are still afraid to talk. Fears of a return by Saddam remain. So, those involved with moving the substances refuse to talk.

Interesting that the U.S. just gave immunity to Saddam's military commander. Right out of the box after he was picked up.


Posted by: SteveMG at September 26, 2003 at 11:51 AM

It isn't particularly important that no WMDs have turned up - in fact it's a good thing. If they had, it would probably have been in the hands of some run-of-the-mill looter who'd have done himself and a few thousand of his closest friends a lot of harm.

Where the political harm is being done is through the constant quacking and squawking of Big Media about 'no WMDs yet, so Bush lied and let's take him out next 'lection or sooner if possible'.

From the above acknowledgements that every politician except ANSWER knew very well that SH had WMDS once and wanted lots more, it's obvious that the biased media stories are simply the biggest guns they can muster to oust Bush. Someone should add up the resources they've put into the 'no WMDs found' clamor, and have them deducted from the allowable Democratic campaign funds devoted to the 2004 election.

Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive at September 26, 2003 at 12:19 PM

1. The WMDs issue *is* important because I won't tolerate semi-literate leaders lying to me. 'We have incontrovertible proof... we know... etc etc.' - would require evidence. There is, and was no evidence. thus, a lie.

2. Countless people before the invasion claimed Iraq had no weapons (including the Iraqis). To claim 'I was only going with the flow' shows a complete lack of independent thought and a good degree of gullibility, which runs counter to any claim of logic and intelligence. I also recall millions protesting to give inspectors more time.

3. More criticism and scepticism was levelled at the US military probably because of its holier than thou attitude to the truth - everyone lies but us etc.

4. The time is quickly coming when all y'all are going to have to admit that you've been duped by some very simple, misguided men. The longer you hold off, the more painful (and amusing) it'll be.

GO PIES! Bucks for Norm Smith 2!


Posted by: Pies fan Lyndon at September 26, 2003 at 01:11 PM

>I won't tolerate semi-literate leaders lying to meSemi-literate>? Did you read the above posts quoting a entire legion of "progressive" voices about Saddam's WMD program?

>I also recall millions protesting to give inspectors more time>

Were they gullible too? Why give inspectors more time if you all knew he didn't have weapons.

Geez, you're easy. Good thing you weren't born female - you'd a litter of about a dozen kids.


Posted by: SteveMG at September 26, 2003 at 01:19 PM

The WMDs issue *is* important because I won't tolerate semi-literate leaders lying to me.

It's important to me, too. I'm rather sick of hearing conditionally literate (can only read A.N.S.W.E.R. press releases) buffoons who wouldn't know logic or reasoning if it hit them betwen the eyes.

Let me give you a quote. You are going to hate it, because it is from the 'liar', himself. I want you to SHOW ME where the lie is, okay?

The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax -- enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin -- enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hadn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

So, why don't you tell me where the lie is. Is the U.N. lying, too? Why, it seems that everyone is just conspiring against poor little you! Let me get my tiny, tiny violin to play a song for you.

Posted by: Ryan Waxx at September 26, 2003 at 01:49 PM

"Analog Voter":

OK, so no WMDs found (yet).

Also no 100,000s of civilian casualties in Iraq war, no millions of refugees, so Stalingrad-like siege of Baghdad. And now it emerges, not that this is surprising to anyone with half a brain, that the 1 million Iraqi children killed by sanctions was a lie.

So to paraphrase the genius Analog Voter,
"Any reason why we should believe a single word you leftoid peaceniks say, about anything, ever?"

Posted by: TReeHugging hippyCrap at September 26, 2003 at 02:14 PM

Lyndon said "I won't tolerate semi-literate leaders lying to me"

So its OK if its a LITERATE leader lying to you, as long as they use good vocabulary when telling their lies? Bill Clinton, for example???

"I also recall millions protesting to give inspectors more time."
There are always "millions protesting" when the US goes to war - the inspectors could've gone in for 6 months, found WMDs, been kicked out again or even killed, and these idiots and traitors would still protest. Who cares about these uselesss idiots?

Posted by: TReeHugging hippyCrap at September 26, 2003 at 02:20 PM

SMG: " Traces of these remain even when dumped." You're on the right track. No question Saddam still had WMD stocks, likely right up to the eve of the coalition invasion. I've said it before here, Saddam ordered the destruction of any and all remaining stocks of chemical and biological agents once he realized there was no way to pre-empt the invasion.

I've also said before, that I'm amazed at how little discussion is devoted to this probability, given the circumstances that point to a last minute destruction being the most likely outcome. As the inevitability of invasion began to register with Saddam, his WMD stocks and production assets became severe liabilities. WMD are terror weapons, not particularly effective battlefield weapons. Their effectiveness is much further reduced when their use is contemplated against the most technologically advanced military in the world, exhaustively trained and equipped to counter the use of such weapons.

Simply put, Saddam knew his WMD would not affect the outcome of a full scale U.S./British invasion. Hell, he probably realized he wouldn't likely kill a single coalition soldier if he used the stuff. But if he did use it, he would completely validate the U.S./British case for going to war, while still losing the war and being ousted from power. Similarily, Saddam validates the coalition case for war if he doesn't use his WMD, yet hides them, and they are subsequently found.

What it comes down to is obvious. Using chemical and biological weapons on the coalition invaders wasn't going to help Saddam stay in power, or stay alive. Using them or having them found post-regime change denies Saddam a victory in the battle for world opinion, where many governments and gullible segments of their populations had rallied to Saddam's side in the lead-up to war. The ONLY LOGICAL COURSE OF ACTION for Saddam was to get rid of the stuff, all of it. I can't believe all this rubbish about " where has he hidden the stuff?" There was nothing to be gained by Saddam to hide his WMD, they had to be destroyed, to preserve the groundswell of anti-Americanism that is centered around the lie that Saddam didn't have any WMD.

SMG, getting back to your point about finding evidence of dumped WMD. It really is worse than a needle in the haystack situation. Sarin, VX, Anthrax, really can simply be dumped into a hole in the ground, covered and concealed. Precisely where do you start to look? Where do you start digging among the tens of thousands of square miles of desert? And if you do win the lottery and find trace evidence in a hole, are the Americans really that much further ahead? The UN weapons inspectors have been down this road before, in the mid 90's, when Iraq was trying to convince the inspectors it had unilaterally destroyed all its chemical and biological agents. The Iraqis took inspectors to the proverbial hole in the desert, claiming it was a disposal site for all Iraq's anthrax. The inspectors dutifully tested the soil, and confirmed traces of Anthrax were present. Problem is, the UN was forced to admit they had no way of telling how much Anthrax had been dumped there. Could have been 10,000 litres, could have been one litre. I'd bet on the one litre option. Why destroy it unilaterally, when the UN was in country and could provide irrefutable confirmation of destruction? Nice try by Saddam though.

Here's something else to consider. What little discussion on the scenario involving Saddam destroying the WMD always comes back to the premise that Iraqi scientists will eventually come clean and tell us where the stuff went. Why is everyone missing the obvious here as well? Saddam wouldn't let the scientists who made the WMD also be responsible for its destruction in the final desperate days before invasion. What would be the point? Of course they would talk, once American millions and promises of immunity were made. Saddam had to realize that most of the scientists would come clean, when in fact all it would take was one to come forward and reveal where WMD had been disposed of. These scientists aren't going to be of any use in finding disposal sites. Saddam's WMD were dumped by a handful of Baathist fanatics, absolutely loyal to Saddam, and the Americans in all likelihood have no idea who they are, let alone how to make them talk.

ALL (I state again ALL) of Saddam's behaviour from the first Gulf war right up to his ouster, points in one direction and one direction only; that he had maintained a WMD capability despite UN inspections and simply DID NOT WANT TO PART WITH IT. Here's another tidbit that seems to escape discussion. If Saddam knew his WMD were useless against the Americans, and would not deter them from invading (remember, we know he had them in 1991, it didn't deter the Americans from throwing him out of Kuwait, and he made no attempt to use them then), then what was the attraction for him to keep them? It couldn't be that he was waiting for an opportune time to give them to terrorists to use against American or Israeli civilians, could it? I think a very unfairly bad-mouthed American President expressed this very same concern not so long ago, along with the guy who had the job before him, as has been so ably pointed out by others in this thread.

Posted by: Mike at September 26, 2003 at 02:21 PM
As the inevitability of invasion began to register with Saddam, his WMD stocks and production assets became severe liabilities.

Not to mention, if he was hiding them, how was he to get them out of hiding/storage onto the delivery systems in the short time between the end of inspections and the beginning of war... without satellites or HUMINT noticing?

Remember that he was hoping till the end that the U.N. would save him... otherwise, he would have blown the bridges before he lost control. If he'd moved the WMD out of hiding, and we were able to prove it, then he would have justified the war he still thought he could prevent.

Posted by: Ryan Waxx at September 26, 2003 at 02:31 PM

>Where are the weapons Tim?


Posted by: Yankee Zionist at September 26, 2003 at 02:42 PM


"2. Countless people before the invasion claimed Iraq had no weapons (including the Iraqis). "

So those would be the same Iraqis who ALL turned out for that election a while back and 100% of them voted for the big SH? The Iraqi media sure was a bastion of truth in those days.

And don't get me started on the American media in Saddam's Iraq. I mean, those reporters had those helpful minders that made sure they knew JUST WHO they should talk to about murders and illegal weapons. Nice guys, those armed minders.

I also don't seem to recall any Iraqis refuting the WMD story except for guys like Muhammed "Please ignore those tanks right behind me" Saeed al-Sahaf and Saddam's other info henchmen.

Posted by: wizayne at September 26, 2003 at 02:53 PM

Halabja: I just told you where the weapons are, guess you didn't read my post. Why don't you show me a little courtesy and read it. After all, I read yours, and I figure it took you as much time to write your post, as I spent on mine.

Posted by: Mike at September 26, 2003 at 03:02 PM

Sorry, last message is for Yankee Zionist, not "Halabja."

Posted by: Mike at September 26, 2003 at 03:04 PM

"2. Countless people before the invasion claimed Iraq had no weapons (including the Iraqis)."

Countless... and nameless, too apparently. Very convienent.

Posted by: Ryan Waxx at September 26, 2003 at 03:06 PM

"Countless... and nameless, too apparently. Very convienent."

I dunno Ry Ry... when there's several thousand of them (those demanding concrete proof of the WMDs before any invasion) marching through the streets of every Capital City, keeping track of their names could prove somewhat of a struggle...

Posted by: Adam at September 26, 2003 at 03:17 PM

I sit here and am scratching my head....hmmm weapons of mass destruction. If my memory serves me correctly all of the major dem playas were present for the intellegence briefings. They all agreed unanimously Iraq and yes, WMD was a threat. For all you bleeding-heart libs....your goddess...Hillary recently admitted to this.
Speaking of seems the dems who voted to invade Iraq in Congess and the Senate ...Kerry, Leiberman, et al are now saying that their vote to invade Iraq was to get the UN to extend the weapons inspections....????? If you vote to wage war, stick to your guns you pussies. Looks like the leading dem is dragging the other Dems to the left (Dean)...the last thing they need! If you vote to wage war , stand behind it you wimps!!

This is for you A. Voter...Clinton was given time to get his sh** straight for not only Ms. Liewinski/impeachment for....hmmmm...LYING, but also what is now coming to light...O bin Laden. Give Dubya a chance to prove himself. How long was it from the end of WWII until the Marshall plan kicked in? A. Voter your a secular, left-wing moron that showed your stripes in your reference to what's in your pants...brief post on this site. Clinton had 12 chances..not inches... to capture Not-bin-Laid-Yet prior to 9/11, and came up reference to what is in your pants of course...


Posted by: traceman at September 26, 2003 at 03:58 PM

Why is Hillary such a harridan? Methinks it's because Mr Cinton suffered from premature ejaculation. Mrs Bush on the other hand always looks happy ...

Posted by: Toryhere at September 26, 2003 at 04:24 PM

Sounds like Lyndon likes being lied to by complete illiterates.

Posted by: Imam Psycho Muhammed at September 26, 2003 at 04:31 PM

Hey, Pies Fan -- you think a semi-literate can get an MBA and fly jets?

Posted by: John Nowak at September 26, 2003 at 04:50 PM

In response:

1) I love numbering my points.

2) Those 'progressives' quoted as believing the WMD myths can hardly be said to be a) leaders or b) representative of the antiwar camp. Most Democrats supported it, remember. And here in Australia Simon Crean (for those who don't know, a totally useless 'leader of the opposition') was booed off stage at an antiwar rally, probably for his half-arsed, poll-driven 'no war unless...' views.

3. Regardless of who said what the US administration knowingly bent the truth, now thousands of innocents are dead (acknowledging Saddam was a far nastier piece of work doesn't mean two wrongs make a right) and that a bunch of (presumably) intelligent people (and let's face it, if you're reading and posting this sort of stuff you can't be an idiot) seem to think that's okay because he's on 'our side' just smacks of infantile irrationality. Especially when the whole thing's getting worse and worse each day.

4. And resorting to name calling... c'mon...


Posted by: Lyndon - tips 6 Goals for Tarrant at September 26, 2003 at 05:09 PM

"Especially when the whole thing's getting worse and worse each day"

Gee Lyndon, haven't you read the opinion polls taken of Iraqis now that they are free to speak their minds? They are overwhelmingly positive about the US-led invasion and the removal of Saddam Hussein.

Talk of how bad the situation is infantile irrationality on the part of the ant-war camp who have been deprived of their millions of refugees & civilian casualties, Stalingrad, Veitnam etec etc etc and are now screaming "sour grapes". Its getting pretty lame.

Posted by: TreeHuggingHippyCrap at September 26, 2003 at 05:17 PM

Dearest Treehugger,

Casting anybody who disagrees with you as somehow vengeful because millions of refugees didn't appear or Baghdad wasn't under a brutal siege is precisely the kind of infantile irrationality I was talking about.

And those polls... c'mon. They've been discredited in every decent newpaper across the globe (likely not in the US - American media has a *really* bad reputation for balance). Look closer at the sample groups and you'll see what I mean. They're all wealthy.

Iraqis may have hated saddam, and rightly so, but they're no fans of 18 year old American kids pointing guns at them and barking orders either. The proof is in the reality and facts on the ground, not some US-media poll.

Posted by: Lyndon - tips Rocca will return in '04 at September 26, 2003 at 05:37 PM

Decent newspapers? Like what - the Guardian??
Of course the poll is not going to be entirely accurate - what survey is? But its got to be a BIT more credible than the 100% vote Saddam supposedly received a few months before the election! And soldiers in Iraq report that they for the most part are warmly welcomed in most places they go - the stories about Iraqi "resistance" are jsut that - good headlines, but totally unrepresentative of the overall picture.

As for "reality and facts on the ground" - have you actually been to Iraq, or are you just buying whatever Pilger and co tell you??

Posted by: TreeHuggingHippyCrap at September 26, 2003 at 05:54 PM

Er, Mike, I think Yankee Zionist was actually agreeing with you.

When he copied the "where are the weapons, Tim?" question, he answered Halabja.

Just in case you forgot, Halabja was the village that Saddam nerve gassed during the 1980s.

Posted by: steve at September 26, 2003 at 06:16 PM

Hey, maybe Saddam really did destroy his WMD some time ago, but just sort of bluffed he had them while loudly protesting (wink wink) he didn't have them. The last thing he'd want his neighbours to know is that he really was disarmed.

So he bluffed, and was sprung with a pair of threes. Tough fucking luck.

Big boys' games, big boys' rules.

Posted by: steve at September 26, 2003 at 06:19 PM

y'know, you may be right about there being no WMDs Lindy...they invaded for the OIL!... BASTARDS!

Posted by: roscoe p coltrane at September 26, 2003 at 06:25 PM

Weapons of mass destruction.

This stupid argument seriously needs putting back on to the right track.

Two of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction were destroyed in a house a couple months ago, with one of the sons of the cowards guarding the stair.

Several of his other weapons of mass destruction are now in custody, some 40-odd of the pack. Not bad out of a quagmire in high summer, dontcha think?

WMDs don't kill people, people kill people.

So shut up already with the dumb-ass leftie WMDs argument. It's false, it's misleading, it's stupid and above all, it completely misrepresents the reality of the necessary removal of the evil Saddam in Iraq, carried out by the right-thinking, straight-backed and resolute USA.

The spineless axis-of-the-unwilling can go fuck themselves or somebody else will do it for them someday.

Posted by: ilibcc at September 26, 2003 at 06:56 PM

Where are the weapons Tim?

Bekaa valley

Posted by: chinditz at September 26, 2003 at 07:31 PM

And lets go get them.

Posted by: chinditz at September 26, 2003 at 07:35 PM

Lyndon said "I won't tolerate semi-literate leaders lying to me"

Fortunately, America doesn't tolerate it either, so America's current leaders are neither semi-literate NOR liars. The Clingons -sorry- Klintoons -sorry- Crampons -oops- Clitsons -eep- Clintons (got it) have been out of office for a long time, now.

I, too, detest having leaders lie to me, so I'm very glad that America's current president has assiduously refrained from such Clintonesque japeries.

Posted by: Sharpshooter at September 26, 2003 at 08:45 PM

I thought this thread was about the BBC's demonstrated disregard for truth? Didn't we begin this discussion examining some factual analyses of BBC's distortions, negative spins, fictions and general bias?

I mean, when the Left remains SILENT on the matter of Andrew Gilligan's statements that "The Americans are NOT in Baghdad!" being broadcast on world-service radio AT THE SAME TIME that TV (CNN, Fox and al-Jazeera) were broadcasting live images of Americans in Baghdad (tearing down a statue of the hated leftist himself) it quietly asks the question of why any thinking human being would want to ever put any faith whatsoever in the assertions and chin-music of Leftists or Liberals!

Why, Lyndon?

Posted by: Eye Opener at September 26, 2003 at 08:51 PM

"And those polls... c'mon. They've been discredited in every decent newpaper across the globe."

Perhaps you can give us an example of a decent newspaper or two across the globe who has discredited the most recent Gallup poll?

Posted by: Nat Robinson at September 26, 2003 at 08:52 PM

Adam spews "when there's several thousand of them (those demanding concrete proof of the WMDs before any invasion) marching through the streets of every Capital City, keeping track of their names could prove somewhat of a struggle..."

Really? I don't recall a single war protestor stating that they wanted "concrete proof of the WMDs", no i remember countless braindead Stalinists saying "Give Saddam more time, wahhhhh; let the UN disarm him, wahhhhhh".

Prove me wrong: Show me any link where ANY protestor said prior to war that 1) Iraq destroyed all of their WMD's and 2) the SOLE reason for war was WMD's/

I'll wait here - tah!

Posted by: hen at September 26, 2003 at 10:05 PM

Saddam is gone link

Even in the middle of the American free for all election campaign, both Hillary and her husband Bill Clinton admit that all intelligence reports knew about the weapons of mass destruction.

Indeed, the silence of Germany and French in criticizing this claim was bogus in their criticism of the present US government is the "dog that didn't bark in the night"...

Posted by: nancy reyes at September 26, 2003 at 11:09 PM

I'm kind of partial to the "scuttled ship" method of weapons-material dispostion. I forget where I saw it, or any of the details, but I remember reading that it's the Russian way of doing things: nothing covers evidences as well as a large body of water.

Posted by: rastajenk at September 26, 2003 at 11:43 PM

Even if the US government got it wrong in good faith, this'd affect the credibility of the US government.

Another difference between America/Britain and other countries is that the Americans and British were arguing that Saddam was increasing his arsenal while others thought that at worst he'd have the arsenal he started off in 1991.

Posted by: Andjam at September 27, 2003 at 12:43 AM

>now thousands of innocents are dead

Now hundreds of thousand of innocents can stop living like roaches.

Go Bush!

Posted by: Skip Kent at September 27, 2003 at 02:16 AM

>now thousands of innocents are dead

In France, the country with the greatest healthcare system in the world.

Go Chirac!

Posted by: Skip Kent at September 27, 2003 at 02:17 AM

I like this analogy for the hunt for WMDs. "I have painted the letters 'WMD', 3ft long and 1 ft tall in white, on an exterior wall within a 30 mile radius of 12th and Main in Kansas City, MO. Will somone please find it." That's an enormous, almost impossible, task and yet ever so much easier than finding the actual WMDs in an area the size of CA.

Posted by: ATR Hugo at September 27, 2003 at 02:27 AM

There were a million and one reasons to take out Saddam Hussein. I do think that this was more important for the war on terror than it was to prevent SH from developing his WMD. Even though he probably didn't have anything to do with S11, I still think there is a conceptual link - like Vito Corleone and Al Capone.

Posted by: Jonny at September 27, 2003 at 03:09 AM

Several comments have mentioned the "present situation" in Iraq - which brings the discussion full circle to what Tim first posted on: media bias. I'd like to be able to judge our progress (or lack thereof) "on the ground" in Iraq, but the media refuses to answer important questions honestly and fairly, focusing instead on ambushes, protests and international criticism.

The Bremer administration has already spent billions in Iraq. Did it go down a rathole? If so, I'd like to know, so show me how it disappeared; if not, show us the results. I've got 19 other questions the media won't ask, posted at Along the Tracks.

Posted by: Paul A. Miller at September 27, 2003 at 03:30 AM

You're assuming that Analogue Voter is hiding under an assumed name. Actually, both names are French. The last name is pronounced Vo-tay. Please. Let's be more sophisticated and complex.

Posted by: Joanne Jacobs at September 27, 2003 at 03:30 AM

All who can see the point of media bias against the war should collect your instances of BBC bias by watchinga part of any given day's output (OnLine if not on TV), and come add your weight to the aspiring 'juggernaut' that is BiasedBBC. Glenn Reynolds has a link, and don't think it's not relevant to the US:

1)The BBC has moved into the States via Cable, and is eyeing the nearly 300 0000 viewers there.

2)The BBC would like to use the UK involvement in the Iraq war as a Trojan horse to getting its teeth into American politics. British public opinion influences Blair, who has a word with Bush... and that's just the beginning of what the BBC hopes will become a very 'special relationship'.

3)It's the BBC's Post-Colonial (but still superior, still elitist, pro-european, anti-market) anti-Conservative agenda that's prevented a saner argument to topple Saddam than the charicature the antis have made their point of contention (and don't forget that London was the centre of marching antis): something needed to show that he was aching for the military muscle to Nuke London or Paris. They've driven the whole debate solely to convict the Centre and Rightwing parties of lying, and even now propaganda is still required to make that case.

The BBBC team (John Briffa, Natalie Solent, Kerry Buttram, etc, which I do not represent) will, I am sure, be glad to see you.

Posted by: ed everett at September 27, 2003 at 09:25 PM


Couple of points: chemical weapons are designed in two flavors: persistent and non-persistent. Non-persistent are designed to degrade in 10-30 minutes after release, so troops can move thru the attack zone without contaminating themselves or their equipment. Persistent ones break down also, but it takes some weeks. Even if Saddam had dumped them in the desert, there is no guarantee that any would remain today.

However, does anyone besides me remember a news story right around the time we took Bagdad that said one reason they were having problems getting the water supply back up was that they were finding traces of chemical weapons, including mustard gas and Sarin, in the Tigris and Euphrates? and needed special filters for the water plants?

Posted by: SDN at September 27, 2003 at 11:14 PM

And a quick Google search gets the link:
Here's the link

Posted by: SDN at September 27, 2003 at 11:24 PM

Recall one of the rules of traveling?: "Never eat fish in a country with a state-owned or national airline."

To that: "Never listen to the news in a country with a state-owned or national news service".

Er, something like that.

Okay, so I'm not Lileks.


Posted by: SteveMG at September 28, 2003 at 01:51 AM