We DIDN'T "all" think Iraq had WMDs! Remember "Bush must know something"?

[Brotherjohn]

Remember?

Those of us who weren't vocally arguing that the evidence clearly did NOT support a case for Hussein having WMDs were saying "Well, maybe Bush knows something we don't."

Most of those people went along with the war (including many in Congress) giving Bush the benefit of the doubt.

"He MUST have something else."

"He MUST know something we dont!"

Remember?

Well, guess what? He didn't. He lied. The whole damn executive branch lied.

In light of recent dredging up of the "we all thought he had'em" canard by Judy Miller, and in light of Arianna Huffington's and Micheal Isikoff's, and others' recent counter-arguments to that, I think it's high time we re-frame this pitiful attempt at revisionism and throw it back at Bush.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/sorry-judy-everybody-_b_9239.html
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5124219

It wasn't just many in the media (as Arianna is listing on her blog), but Mohamed El_Baradei, Hans Blix, Scott Ritter, the governments of France, Germany and much of the world... all thought most of the points Bush was making to support a case for Iraqi WMDs were either highly dubious or outright false.

We didn't all think Saddam had WMDs. WTF do you think the pre-war debate was about? Why do you think millions marched in the streets? Why do you think France and Germany were going to veto a second resolution arguing for the use of force? Do you think they WANTED to get nuked?

Remember Cheney being confronted (BEFORE the war) with the fact that one of his key pieces of evidence (the Niger documents) were blatant forgeries, and responding that "frankly" he felt Mr. El Baradei was wrong?

Remember clear statements (BEFORE the war) by the IAEA... and the State Dept.... and the DOE... that they did NOT feel the aluminum tubes (the other key piece of nuclear evidence) were for WMD-related purposes?

Remember the rebuttals by the Hans Blix immediately after Colin Powell's speech to the U.N. (BEFORE the war), disproving many of Powell's specific accusations with on the ground reports from the same sites?

REMEMBER?

Don't allow the Big Lie to stand. We DID NOT all think Saddam had WMDs. Many many of us thought that he probably did NOT. We (the U.N., the governments of most nations, and most of the populace of most European nations and America) wanted the inspections to continue. History has shown that they would have demonstrated what we now know to be true: that Saddam did not have WMDs.

[whatever4]

1. You can add me to the list, I never did, not once nm

[electron_blue]

5. Me, too. I had arguments with friends IRL and online, saying there

were no WMD's.

What floored me is when some of my friends who agreed with me that there weren't any WMD's, decided to go along and support the President because "in a time of war we all need to stick together". I refused, saying it was even more important than ever to stick to your convictions.

Lemmings, lemmings, so many citizens are lemming-minded.

[whatever4]

36. Yeah, I had some knock-down drag outs

I was plugging along okay, dealing with the war and the insanity, the dumb-ass arguments, until the torture came out. Then I blew a gasket. Haven't fixed it yet.

Those mother fucking bastards that caused this to happen.

[BOSSHOG]

2. At the time (Late 2002-early 2003)

I was arguing against going to war regardless of any WMD. I was involved with Operation Southern Watch in Saudi Arabia in the 90's. I had a damn good idea that Hussein was relatively impotent. He could beat his own people up but that's about as far as his power went. And for opposing going to war, this veteran was denounced as a coward, by those who never served. I will spend quite a long time shoving those lies up the asses of those I hold personally responsible for at least two thousand caskets.

[clydefrand]

3. Thank you Bosshog for your service. I'm glad you had guts

enough to oppose the war. I, too, oppose it and thought we should have given the inspectors time to do their jobs. What a waste of people and money and property because of the idiots in power in this country.

People who oppose an unjust war are heroes in my opinion. I know that there are many others who feel the same way.

[BOSSHOG]

13. I think its fair to say

the inspectors did their jobs. We maintained the no-fly zone over Iraq throughout the 90's keeping Hussein in his box and letting inspectors do their jobs. It was a collaborative effort with the British, French, and Saudis. The Kuwaiti's chipped in financially, and it worked. We lost 19 Airmen to a terrorist attack at Dharhan but compared to what bush has done; there is no comparison. I'm all for a strong military (which we don't have now thanks to bush and his agenda) and I'm all for maintaining a defensive posture, and I actually can wave the flag justifiably, (I put in 24 years for the privilege) but our military should not be used for political purposes. It should be used to support and defend the constitution, not for failed attempts at nation building and getting back at someone for an alleged wrong done to a family member.

IF CLINTON OR GORE OR KERRY WERE PRESIDENT THERE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN A SEPTEMBER 11TH ATTACK, BECAUSE THOSE MEN DID NOT NEED SUCH AN ATTACK.

[glitch]

48. Hear hear. K&R nt.

[Arkansas Granny]

33. Bush knew that if he gave the inspectors time to do their jobs,

they would have confirmed Saddam's claim that the WMD had been destroyed. He couldn't allow that.

[patrice]

4. Thank You BrotherJohn. You are right. All of us did not think

there were WMDs in Iraq.

I often use the concept of probabilities to characterize my thinking. I remember looking at the WMD evidence I was seeing in internet discussions and having doubts that I can describe as something between 80%:20%, no:yes - 70%:30%, no:yes, at best.

[electron_blue]

8. Also - don't forget - all the polls showed most Americans were

against attacking Iraq right up until Mar 19, 2003.

Bush never had support from the majority of Americans for invading Iraq.

[Brotherjohn]

14. Yes, probablilities. When they say "France thought he had'em. Germany...

... thought he had'em...", that's not really true.

The truth is, NO ONE knew for sure. Germany and France, and every country that voted to get inspectors back in, simply were not sure, and wanted to know for sure. Some in those countries might have THOUGHT he POSSIBLY could have redeveloped some WMD capability. Especially Post-9/11, we all figured "Okay, let's get the inspectors back in just to make sure."

I would even go so far as to say that the inspectors would not have been able to find out what they did without Bush's threat of force. So kudos to Bush for that (!)... if he had stopped there.

But more and more each day, we were becoming "sure" that Saddam did not have WMDs.

Bush just couldn't face the facts. His little war was not necessary. So, as usual, he ignored facts.

[patrice]

18. That's part of what is soooooo painful about it all . . .

"I would even go so far as to say that the inspectors would not have been able to find out what they did without Bush's threat of force. So kudos to Bush for that (!)... if he had stopped there."

Bush was actually in a position to take a *Great* step forward for a more functional international role is situations such as Saddam Hussein's Iraq, but he regressed instead. Very sad!

[shamrock]

6. 'yep

That was a horrible time. I, like most of us, was called 'Saddam lover', anti-American, un-patriotic, and told that I should leave the country if I didn't like it. I'll never forget it or get over it. I think I feel more sadness and disillusioned than anything. I had a very naive image of my fellow Americans. Not anymore.

[whatever4]

35. "told that I should leave the country if I didn't like it"

I think I got that one too.

Is it better or worse now, for having been right, maybe being vindicated? No, not really. Being right just spelled disaster, and the insults along with.

I salute us all, the idiots that dared call the emperor naked. He didn't even have shoes.

[LynnTheDem]

39. I was told I should be "drug thru the streets of America until your dead"

Then those who were cyber-stalking me tried to find out what army unit my husband was with to "report his treasonous wife to his commander" and they "have people who can get to him".

Nazi brown-shirts woulda been damn fucking proud of them.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

7. What, do you want a medal or something?

Seriously, what, exactly, do you think this changes?

[patrice]

10. It reinforces accountability.

That's not "the blame game". It's what we need if we are going to change in the manner that is necessary to our survival.

[Brotherjohn]

19. The issue has come up again, in a big way. The country has, so far,...

... refused to have a serious discussion of whether we were intentionally misled in the course to war.

Although there was much dissention before the war by those I point out, the media mostly ignored it or downplayed it. Once the war started, even many Bush opponents just said "well, we're at war, let's support the president" and hoped for the best.

Well, you know what? The best hasn't happened. And all along, I felt it would take nearly the worst to get most of America to wake up and begin to admit the were lied to. As Huffington and others are pointing, the Plame case is giving us a chance to have this discussion again. And this time, the media is picking up on it.

We need to have this discussion, and beyond here at DU. We need to have it on CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC and the front pages of USA Today. Not on Page 28-B of the Washington Post or NYT. A Special Prosecutor delving into the issue doesn't hurt.

And we need to shoot down the lie (amazingly still going largely unchallenged) that "we all thought" Saddam had WMDs.

I don't want a medal. I want the country to wake up.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

28. I agree with your intentions, but your point is still irrevelant.

It matters not who believed or didn't believe Bush. The bottom line should be that we were ALL lied to and Bush had a responsibility to not only tell us the truth, but to get it right even if it were an honest mistake. Even a lot of people who did think that Iraq might've had WMD were still arguing against it on the grounds that we don't know for sure and that there's absolutely no reason why we shouldn't let weapons inspections run their course. To me, standing up and screaming "WE WERE RIGHT ALL ALONG" does little more than pat yourself on the back. It doesn't spark a serious discussion - it only sparks more needless acrimony.

[Brotherjohn]

34. My point is not to say "we were right all along". That's incidental.

My point is that, hopefully, given recent revelations (or at least more public revelations of what many already knew), many who have not yet realized it will realize that they were misled/duped/deceived.

That has nothing to do with me saying "we were right all along".

That has everything to do with John Doe opening his paper tomorrow and reading, perhaps for the first time, that the administration may have KNOWN it's evidence for war was false.

The continued unchallenged mantra by Bush defenders of "we were all wrong" runs directly counter to those people realizing that they were duped. My point is not so much to bring that up (first half of thread title).

My point is to remind people that -- contrary to the above characterization -- many were really just giving Bush the benefit of the doubt (second half of thread title, brought on by recently hearing the first yet again). Those people were not wrong. They just trusted their leader in a dangerous time. There is no accusation or acrimony in that.

But we now know that the benefit of the doubt they gave their leader was erroneously given.

THAT is a tactic that I think must be pursued now.

[glitch]

50. and hopefully they'll try to be more critical in their evaluations in

future. If everybody accepts Millers 'everybody thought so' then no one has to change their uncritical behavior.

Which we desperately need them to do.

[EFerrari]

38. There is some benefit to validating people who were able

to hang onto reality despite the blitz, I think. So, it's not so much, "I told you so" but, "See, we can so trust our judgment even when assaulted by 24/7 propaganda."

I'm not sure that says what I want it to say. :)

[Brotherjohn]

40. Yes, but not exactly my point. See my post above.

The point is not to counter-argue the "we were all wrong" characterization -- amazingly STILL put out by Bush defenders -- by just saying "no, we were NOT all wrong".

My point is that people (hopefully in better places than me... in the media, in politics) should respond to that by saying:
"Actually, most people didn't believe Saddam had WMDs. Most people were unsure, and a large majority of the American public were simply giving Bush the benefit of the doubt."

[EFerrari]

46. Noted. n/t

[whatever4]

37. Vindication, I'd say vindication

We were told some rotten things. We were the most favored target, for a while. It's still irritating.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

9. I never thought he had them either. It wasn't hard to find on the net

the info about the fake yellowcake docs, the transcript of Hussein Kamil, and reports from the IEAE.

[indepat]

11. Even if Saddam had a few WMD, is it necessary for the US to blow the hell

out of every nation who has/is thought to have WMD. By this criteria, a Repuke president can blow the hell out of anybody anytime he wishes or any reason he wants or for no reason at all.

[bunny planet]

12. Of course it was a lie, those of us who didn't know it before, know it now

Regardless, an important point, inspectors were allowed back on the ground in Iraq, and Jr. rushed to war before going in front of the UN for a second resolution because he KNEW there were no weapons, couldn't take the chance the inspectors would prove that.

[Ksec]

Exactly Brother John

I see them constantly saying we supported the notion that there were WMDs in Iraq. Millions in the street says otherwise.

[blm]

15. It was supposed to be WEAPONS INPECTORS who assessed the need.

Those of us who knew damn well that Poppy Bush and his cronies were illegally funnelling arms and billlions of our tax dollars to Saddam for over a decade trusted ONLY weapons inspections.

Mainly because that faith was in UN weapons inspections and NOT the word of BushInc.

[seabeyond]

16. "He MUST know something we dont!"

yes. very good point. you are right.l this is what i said. what my husband said. when i said it out loud after listening to powell and then bush speech..... i said, he must know something we dont. he wouldnt lie about this. and if so, he is in SOOOOOO much trouble

yup

you are right. for me to put like that, i too had no evidence saddam had wmd's

[Hell Hath No Fury]

17. Thank you for that reminder.

There are too many who have very short memory when it comes to who believed what about WMD.

Things I know because I was here at DU at that time:

1) What Colin Powell presented to the UN at evidence of Iraqi WMD was either in serious dispute by intel/nuke agencies or out right lies.

2) Any Democrat who claims they were "hoodwinked" on WMD and into voted for the IWR is full of shit and trying to cover their political asses.

I didn't march every chance I could and email/fax/phone every represtative in the book because I am anti-war, I did it because I knew the WMD claims were shit and being used to gin up support for an illegal invasion.

I KNEW THAT.

Me, a nobody with access to a computer, Google, and the foreign press.

And, yet I knew.

If you're are a politician claiming to have been "hoodwinked" by ol' Bushie, you are either too stupid to be in office or too unprincipled for my vote.

[patrice]

22. Exactly!

I said as much to my Representative's staff during United for Peace and Justice's national lobbying day last month during the March on Washington. I told her we know what "plausible deniability" is an how it is used at all levels of government.

[Marr]

25. Agrred 100%. I was doing exactly the same thing at the time.

This "we were all wrong" bullshit has pissed me off since David Kay first said it.

[EFerrari]

20. Add me to the list. WE DID NOT ALL BELIEVE THE LIE. N/T

[PATRICK]

21. But did they believe they would "find" something?

Or did they just count on things being so rosy nobody would quibble? All the current evidence points to the latter, but there still remains the theory that they believed Saddam(with Saddam's stupid encouragement)had something in reserve, things provided by Halliburton possibly or researched while they were in there during the late nineties. Or the unsubstantiated report an early effort to plant things was broken up by friendly fire and the unsecured bombs and nuclear material and everything else except the Oil Ministry laid our throat bear to tempt out ANY use of any conceivable WMD. But nothing happened with LIHOP either- similar to our current unrequited domestic terror alerts.

We have few resources after all except our native logic and the doggedly repetitive performance of extremist criminals. We also have active imaginations giving the simple minds with complex motives too much credit for complex performance capability.

It may end up with this logical appearance: namely that WMD's were just a ploy and anything can be explained away from a position of fear and power. In that case WHY go to the bother of faking or finding WMD's at all as if it did matter and their daring was not infallible? What seems arrogant and crazy to us is simply normal procedures for them. If they had to plot every single thing like they did Plame just think of the time consuming messes with black ops on the ground not especially personally loyal to the cabal. No, they used and abused people on a need to know basis. There was no need to do anything beyond pushing the buttons and controlling the message otherwise none of this would have been attempted in the first place.

But yes, we were in the awful position of letting reality confirm our best logic and suspicions and fine tune the terrible picture of the secretive administration. We were headed in the truthful direction with the proper focus and only erred with misgivings as to the real nature of the smug confidence of the criminals, giving them too much credit for playing by rules that never existed for them, could never exist for them. By and large, even if they had thought there were WMD's, intended to plant WMD's or if there still is something out there somewhere(LOL) they have moved strongly to switch gears and make them as irrelevant- as they always were- to their fixed, heinous intentions. That latter result really does seal what we always said, but by the people catching up according to the slooooow turn of WH MSM spin, the nation is STILL not wholly with it about the the big picture.

And all who had a "maybe" in their hearts were victims of the fear campaign and suckers for the bluff. And played off and weakened according to a determined plan. The same with terror alerts. Obviously abused for political reasons BUT with the presumption that they are "likely" to happen or MIHOP or LIHOP considering how feebly they worked for our defense. Are we going to scoff and say there is no danger at all? Obviously the WH benefits with or without actual attacks so in the same way terrorist attacks are irrelevant except as a means to an end.

[Brotherjohn]

23. Either/or. I really don't think they cared. All that mattered was PNAC.

They thought they "might" find something. They thought people wouldn't care. Above all, they thought it would be easy, and none of the above would matter.

The only thing that mattered before the war was the political push FOR the war (thus, the WHIG).

[Bridget Burke]

24. After the candy & flowers were thrown by the happy Iraqi people....

The "little fib" about WMD's could be safely ignored. All's Well That Ends Well, you know.

I never thought there were WMD's. Maybe in the past. Even so--lots of countries have them.

[Marr]

31. Who knows. Personally, I think they assumed the US population was so

stupid, a few staged "victory scenes" (toppling a Hussein statue, 'Mission Accomplished' carrier even, etc.) would convince everyone that all was right with the world and they'd never ask another question.

That's the sort of thing I'd expect the overly-confident Unreality Based community to assume, and it fits in with the whole "we'll create a new reality" line of thinking.

[Ready4Change]

26. I was sure Iraq had WMDs

After all, they got them from us, and had used them in the past.

HOWEVER, I didn't accept that as a justified reason to go to war. In my mind, the Gulf War and 10 years of sanctions had diminished Iraqs abilities such that I felt it was no threat, and easily contained until a less damaging, more easily cleaned up solution than war could be used.

When we launched the Iraq War I winced, awaiting news that WMDs had been used against our troops. I also awaited news of WMD caches, perhaps unusably degraded caches, being found. I am still surprised to this day that neither of those events occurred.

Now, looking back, it seems much of our secret intelligence, which I had accepted as supporting the idea that Iraq had WMDs, in fact said the opposite. And that the war I opposed even while accepting Iraqi WMDs was even less justified than I thought.

So, I am doubly outraged.

[PATRICK]

42. Take heart

according to reports even Saddam's cabinet was convinced he had them so much so they wondered why he wasn't using them! In that, Saddam was horribly miscalculating in using the issue both ways himself.

[goodhue]

27. Indeed

I'm reminded of this December 2002 statement by Congressman Kucinich.

http://kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=25949

Kucinich: Time For Administration To Show its Evidence

Washington, Dec 19, 2002 - It is time for the Administration to end its war rhetoric and present evidence to justify their claims that Iraq has usable weapons of mass destruction, stated Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich (D-OH) today.

Kucinich, Ranking Member of the House Government Reform Subcommittee on National Security, Veterans Affairs and International Relations issued the following statement:

"Thus far, the Administration has failed to show any evidence of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs to the U.S. Congress, to the inspectors at the United Nations (UN), or to the American people.
"Any information the Administration has that counters the Iraqi disclosure should be provided to the United Nations immediately. Iraq has made its disclosure and now is the appropriate time for the Administration to present its evidence.

"Any intelligence information that the Administration may have can only assist the United Nation Monitoring Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in filling the 'gaps and omissions' that the Administration claims are in the Iraqi report to the UN. In doing so, the Administration can only assist the UN weapons inspectors disarm Iraq, which it claims it is committed to doing.

"If the Administration plans to preempt the UN weapons inspections process, and begin a war early next year, as recent news reports have indicated, then they owe it to the UN and the American people to present evidence to justify a war. Despite their recent increase in rhetoric and 'war talk', the fact remains that to this date they have not provided evidence for a war."

[Brotherjohn]

29. Let me add, in response to several posts above: even if he HAD WMDs...

... I STILL think we should not have invaded.

We tore Saddam to shreds when he had WMDs (chem/bio and near nukes) in 1991. We dismantled what was left of those programs after the Gulf War, with inspections and under threat of resumed force. There's no reason to believe we couldn't have done the same now, had he found to be reconstituting some level of WMD capability.

Especially given how WELL we now know that containment and inspections worked.

(I'm sure that last part hurts when UN-bashers hear it)

[Arkansas Granny]

30. Not only did we know that there were no WMD, Bush knew it too.

Since the UN weapons inspectors had been allowed back into Iraq, contrary to Bush's expectations, he had to rush to attack Iraq in order to keep the inspectors from completing their mission (remember, they had to leave so Bush could start dropping bombs). Otherwise, they would have confirmed that there were no stockpiles of WMD and Bush's premise for attack would have been refuted.

[spanone]

32. The United Nations told us there wasn't shit to be found.

That's why * threw them out and bombed the shit out of Baghdad.

[donheld]

41. Never did, hell no

It was too obvious they were wanting war no matter what the facts were.

[PATRICK]

43. That was a major point the US was never allowed to think

about and we had the same information on that then as we pretend to discover anew now. We were never allowed to focus on the reality that Gore won BOTH the popular and electoral vote except for GOP obstruction and gaming. As if winning was a concept that negated democracy- which the RW then mercilessly trashed as a concept in their self serving preaching of our "republic" form of government.

This stepping away from the main point is the main step in the MSM dance of the hours on behalf of the GOP. Even the reporters thought it was obvious even as they pimped for war crimes. They just never said too loud.

[Greyhound]

44. Me too. I also remember how much shit I took from the kool-aid

drinkers around here for doubting our fearless leader. Of course, those same people have no recollection of any of it now.

[Lugnut]

45. No we didn't

My own logic told me the Iraq no-fly zone that was in place for a decade along with the UN inspections made it pretty tough for Saddam to get away with it. We were ignored by our congressional representatives.

[Ladyhawk]

47. Hell, I was still technically a Republican at the time and even I didn't

believe it.

:eyes:

[Zhade]

49. Agreed. I never though Hussein had anything.

And when I wondered if he did, I knew it wouldn't be nukes, and that there was no imminent threat. But somehow, a number of Dems in Congress were "fooled" into voting for the IWR.

Um, yeah. Sure. Whatever you say, guys.

Still not getting my fucking vote.

[bluedawg12]

51. True, the UN and international thinking was that he had them-but

the level of certainty never rose high enough for any other country except the neocon states of america to attack.

In other words, there was a suspicion but not enough to got to war- except for us.

The other problem with w/ Judith Martyr's claim is that inspections had just resumed before the war- so we were back in a place to better determine things.

Image if we had waited what the world would be like.

Almost 2,000 young men and women now dead and another 30,000 wounded would be alive and well today.

Our coffers and future more secure.

We could be focusing on Afghanistan and the Taliban- which is still poised to resurface.

And, we could have worked on an over thrown, or destabilization, from with in.

In the meantime, if the new inspections would have revealed the truth-no wmd's then we could have focused on some one other than
sad- damned.

[slaveplanet]

52. Ok...I'm going to play a little Devils Advocate here-

Fact- Saddam had no stockpiles of WMD's- that were previously unknown and unnoted by UN weapons inspectors
that last part (in bold), was the thrust of Bushco's reasoning.

Fact- Saddam had not restarted his Nuclear weapons program in secret. Another trust of Bushco's runnup to the invasion- operative word restarted. The distinction is important.

OK- so history has proven that Bushco's assertions were faulty and not based in fact.

But......
here's why I can't jump on the complete "they lied" or "we're victorious for being right" and "I told you so, sucker" bandwagons. Knowing some little publicized and highly disturbing facts. I have to play DA and expose the highly enigmatic and disturbing actions of Bushco and the CIA.

Brotherjohn- a hint is in one of your siglines

Mohamed El Baradei (3-7-2003): “We have to date found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons programme in Iraq.”

operative word : revival
remove revival and the statement would be a lie.

and is what is so disturbing

I, unlike many of my compatriots, have always believed turnabout is fairplay.

If we have these dastardly weapons to protect our country , our soveriegnty, our oilfields.
Who the hell are we to tell him he can't do the same?

I believe he wanted the bomb not as a tool of aggression but to protect his country from what sadly has already taken place. He knew possessing one would be the only hope of autonomy and getting himself out from under the forces of world governance and the designs they had on his country and peoples. He knew how evil they were and how shortchanged his countrymen would be.

In the meantime , he had it shut down and complied for the most part with UN weapons inspectors in hopes of someday having the sanctions lifted.

The UN inspectors for the most part, were satisfied that he had complied.

But....
There was one thing they could never resolve...
and that has everything to do with supect number 1

So let me shine some light on suspect number 1 : Dr. Mahdi Obeidi mastermind of Saddam Hussein's former nuclear centrifuge program

You see, the UN inspection teams wanted to have a talk with Dr Obeidi in the worst way, and they wanted him to be alone and preferrably outside Iraq.

read and weep-

A pivotally important article from Mother Jones magazine discusses the alarming failure to secure the scientists. The article revolves around the story of Dr. Mahdi Obeidi, the man in charge of the Iraqi nuclear centrifuge program. “I met the mastermind of Saddam Hussein's former nuclear centrifuge program outside the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad a few days after U.S. troops took over the city in 2003. Despite the midday heat he was dressed in a sport coat and tie, which made him look incongruous amid a scruffy crowd of protesters gathered to shout slogans at the U.S. Marines guarding the hotel. He said his name was Dr. Mahdi Obeidi, and he showed me a printout of a prewar Washington Post story in which he was named as one of the Iraqi weapons scientists whom the U.S. government had very much wanted to interview. His eyes darted nervously back and forth between the protesters and the tense-looking Marines inside the cordon of concertina wire.” (“In the Garden of Armageddon” by Kurt Pitzer; Mother Jones; Setptember/October/2005 ; p. 42.)
    
“Minutes earlier he had approached a photographer friend of mine on the street, saying he wanted to reach out to Washington with some important information about Saddam's nuclear program. It was a desperate move. He had tried contacting U.S. troops, but they had rebuffed him and threatened him with arrest if he showed up again. Now he wanted to know if I could use my satellite phone to help him. At first I didn't know whether to believe him. But that night, at his urging, I dialed the Washington number of David Albright, a former American member of the United Nations weapons inspections team in Iraq. When I explained who had given me his name; the line went silent for a moment.” (Idem.)
    
“ ‘You are actually talking to Obeidi?’ Albright finally asked. ‘Where is he? What did he say?’ Albright had met Obeidi in Iraq in the 1990s, when the U.N. inspectors were dismantling Saddam's WMD programs. Saddam had kept Obeidi's identity secret longer than that of any other scientist, Albright said. If anyone could say for sure what had happened to Iraq's nuclear program, it was him. The next day we dialed didn't seem to have much of a plan for dealing with Saddam's WMD scientists.” (Idem.)
     
Obeidi had buried critical documents about Saddam’s nuclear program in his back yard. “So we waited. A dapper 59-year-old, Obeidi arrived every day to greet me wearing an elegant abiyaa robe. When he felt especially nervous, we met in clandestine locations: by lamplight at my translator's home or in the courtyard of an Iraqi acquaintance. At other times, we sat on plastic lawn chairs in his garden, trying to figure out how he could avoid arrest by U.S. troops, as his wife and daughters served us cookies and tea. Every now and again, he would drop hints about the secrets he wanted to reveal. Then one day, he gestured toward a spot in the garden. Buried under the lotus tree next to his rosebushes a few feet from where we sat, he said, was the core of Saddam's nuclear quest: blueprints and prototype pieces for building centrifuges to enrich uranium to bomb grade. Twelve years earlier, he had buried them on orders from Saddam's son Qusay-presumably, he said, to use them to restart a bomb program someday.” (Idem.)
     
Obeidi also had some of the hardware stored in his buried cache of blueprints—together with the drawings, they comprised a critical cache of knowledge. “Obeidi dug up the cache a few days later. When he showed me the four prototypes, his hands shook. The machine parts looked alien, like pieces of a futuristic motorcycle, most of them small enough to fit inside a briefcase. He explained that these components and the three-foot-high stack of diagrams were still immensely valuable—and immensely dangerous. They represented the core knowledge it would take to jump-start a covert bomb program, anywhere in the world. This was why Obeidi was so anxious. On any given day he might be arrested by U.S. forces who would consider him a ‘bad guy,’ or killed by Saddam loyalists who would see him as a collaborator, or kidnapped by some other country interested in what he knew. The decision to come forward had been a hard one.” (Ibid.; pp. 42-43.)
     
Obeidi asked why the Americans were not more interested in securing the documents and the many Iraqi scientists who possessed crucial know-how about WMD’s. (Indeed, why aren’t they?!) “The news from Albright over the satellite phone was discouraging. U.S. intelligence on the ground was hopelessly disorganized, and there was no guarantee that American troops wouldn't imprison Obeidi even if he offered to help them. As the days wore on he felt the clock ticking, and sometimes his fear and exasperation would show through. ‘Why aren't they more interested in finding out what I have to offer?’ he once asked in the textbook English he had learned as a student at the Colorado School of Mines in the 1960s. ‘I can answer many of their questions. Surely for a great nation like the United States, it is no big deal to offer me security in exchange for everything I want to divulge. Why don't they want to help me?’” (Ibid.; p 43.)
      
“I didn't have an answer. Just weeks earlier, before the invasion, President Bush had railed against Saddam for intimidating his WMD scientists and hiding them from inspectors. Colin Powell had appeared before the United Nations Security Council and warned that Obeidi's centrifuge program posed a threat to the world. It was hard to explain why, having gone to war ostensibly to get control of Iraq's dangerous knowledge, the United States was now doing so little to follow through. It’s not as if the administration hasn't talked about the danger posed by Saddam's WMD scientists. Whether Iraq had actual weapons or just ‘capabilities’ it didn't matter, it has long argued: Even mere capabilities could leak out to terrorist groups or the states that support them. During the presidential campaign, John Kerry and President Bush reached a rare point of agreement when both named the spread of nuclear weapons as the No. 1 danger facing the United States.” (Idem.)

Sigh..and to add insult to injury... The CIA actully posted those plans on a website so any terrorist could download them....

Note that the CIA posted information on its website that could prove “incredibly useful” to anyone seeking to develop WMD’s. “On June 26, the CIA posted a press release about Obeidi's cache—the most valuable WMD evidence the U.S. has yet obtained in Iraq—on its official website. It also put up digital photos of the components and even one of the key centrifuge diagrams. The pictures, which Albright says could be ‘incredibly useful’ to any regime trying to start a covert nuclear program, were online for almost a week-long enough to be downloaded and made freely available on the Internet—before the agency took them down. Literally buried for 12 years, some of Saddam's hoard of nuclear knowledge got out because of the U.S. government, not in spite of it.

Why didn't Bushco make bigger political hay out of this?
why did the CIA post them?
hmm...quite the enigma

for more on this sordid tale...
http://spitfirelist.com/f527.html
http://wfmu.org/listen.ram?show=16584

[geniph]

53. Good god, go back and look at the DU posts

by those of us that were posting here then. I think we made it QUITE clear way back in 2002 that we thought the WMD claims were horseshit.

[Freedomfried]

54. When all of the invasion force was mustered on the Kuwaiti border

Weeks before the well telegraphed invasion, well within the range of a WMD tipped SCUD missile, this veteran KNEW that this was a con-job.

NO commander would ever put that many troops out in the open, that close to an enemy with the capability to launch a nuclear or biological attack.

They contradicted their claims with their actions.

[philly_bob]

55. I was fooled

I thought Iraq was working on developing WMDs and were X days away from having them. X was variable;

I knew the British (rather absurdly) said it was about 1 day. I figured it was about 180 days. But I really thought they were working on WMDs.

Of course, I was handicapped. I read the New York Times back then.

Even the Clintons believed Iraq was working on WMDs.