Okay, let's sort out the Ritter article.

[jpgray]

Ritter's Newsday article

I spoke with John Kerry about what I held to be the hyped-up intelligence regarding the threat posed by Iraq's WMD. "Put it in writing," Kerry told me, "and send it to me so I can review what you're saying in detail."

I did just that, penning a comprehensive article for Arms Control Today, the journal of the Arms Control Association, on the "Case for the Qualitative Disarmament of Iraq." This article, published in June 2000, provided a detailed breakdown of Iraq's WMD capability and made a comprehensive case that Iraq did not pose an imminent threat. I asked the Arms Control Association to send several copies to Sen. Kerry's office but, just to make sure, I sent him one myself.

snip

Despite receiving thousands of phone calls, letters and e-mails demanding that dissenting expert opinion, including my own, be aired at the hearing, Sen. Kerry apparently did nothing
=============================================================


Kerry should hang from the gibbet, right? Not exactly. First, Ritter does not declare Saddam to be WMD-free. He does declare him to NOT be an imminent threat. Further, Ritter does not give any facts on Kerry's complicity beyond his vote and "apparent" inaction in committee. In my opinion, until the facts are laid out, this does NOT makes him equivalent to BUSH in misleading the country--Ritter weasels around this point, but the implication is that Kerry is as guilty as Bush. I reject this outright because the facts as given in the article do NOT support it--assuming the worst without the facts is the kind of reasoning that helped Bush during the lead up to war.

What of the Arms Control Association article that Ritter sent to Kerry? That article, the "Case for the Qualitative Disarmament of Iraq", details a lot of important information about Iraq and WMD leading up to 1998--every DUer should read it to avoid the widespread ignorance on this issue. There are a few important points:

...given the Iraqi record of half-truths and outright false statements, UNSCOM had difficulty accepting any declaration by Iraq that was not backed up with documents or other verifiable evidence. The fact that Iraq maintained it did not have such documents meant that UNSCOM was faced with trying to prove a negative, which in and of itself is an almost impossible task.

This is the crux of it. This is why Hans Blix, and most major political leaders were not at all sanguine about declaring Saddam had no WMD. Iraq had been quite duplicitous in the past, forcing the UNSCOM to prove beyond a doubt in 1995 the Iraqi capability to produce VX gas, for example.

Ritter goes on to show the evidence that Iraq's CW capability had been destroyed to a great extent, and that the remaining unaccounted for material (including VX and mustard gas), could be ASSUMED to have been deteriorated. For the mustard gas:

The other issue is the mustard-filled artillery shells. Iraq declared to UNSCOM that it had a stockpile of 13,500 such shells on the eve of the Persian Gulf War. UNSCOM supervised the destruction of 12,747 of these shells, and Iraq declared that the remaining shells had been destroyed by aerial bombardment...

And for the VX:

The remaining question over Iraq's VX program hinges on the discovery of chemical traces unique to stabilized VX on several destroyed Scud warhead fragments that were excavated by UNSCOM in early 1998. Iraq disputes this finding, admitting that while it did succeed in producing stabilized VX on a laboratory scale, it never weaponized stabilized VX. The Iraqi argument appears to be valid. Producing significant stocks of VX for use on weapons that would still be viable today would have required an advance in CW technology that Iraq did not demonstrate.

This is all evidence that should have been brought up in the committee hearing (including other sections of Ritter's article) and included in the final report. This committee hearing was mostly made up of false witnesses who told fantastical stories about an Iraq WMD program light years beyond what Ritter had seen and experienced. The blackout on dissenting information extended far beyond the Senate, and the blackout withIN the Senate can hardly be blamed on Kerry alone.

If the facts show that Kerry wilfully obfuscated evidence in order to go to war, then I will be as angry as you like. But so far the facts DON'T show that, and it is only overeagerness to hang Kerry that makes DUers forget their critical thinking skills in this case. Show me the facts, and then you'll have my ear.

[redqueen]

1. Didn't you get the memo?

Ritter might be a pedophile, so Kerry is spotless and we should get down on our knees and worship him NOW.

:silly:

[jpgray]

2. I won't attack the messenger

Ritter deserves a fair hearing, and I hope Kerry gets the same. :hi:

[redqueen]

4. You're right of course

I just can't believe that that crap is even tried by people trying to wiggle out of Kerry's role in this whole sordid affair. People are dying because of this crap.

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[jpgray]

5. I have no problem admitting Kerry made some bad mistakes

I don't doubt that a great deal of his motivation for the IWR vote had to do with the coming campaign. But I am not yet willing to write him off as entirely culpable in misleading the public.

But I don't think deliberately whitewashing a WMD hearing is one of his mistakes. If the facts ever show that, I will withdraw my active support for his campaign. Probably would vote for him in November, but with a similar face to yours: :mad:

[bearfartinthewoods]

7. ritter may be a pedophile

but who in the hell said "we should get down on our knees and worship"
kerry?

[redqueen]

8. That, like the rest of the post

was sarcasm. Sorry that missed ya the first time. :)

[YNGW]

3. I hope this isn't the spin.

Don't have time, but I'm guessing others are going to explain to you why.

[no name no slogan]

6. A lot of the WMDs have shelf lives...

That is another part of the arguement-- the chemicals and bioagents lose their effectiveness after a few years. IOW, they may still be around, but are useless as far as causing damage.

I'm not in any hurry to hang Kerry, but I do disagree on his WMD vote. After 2000, I would not trust ShrubCo any further than I could throw them.

If Iraq was such an "imminent threat", then how come Syria, Iran and its other neighbors were OPPOSED to a US invasion? Surely Iraq's neighbors would have had the most to lose with a threatening, agressive neighbor next door.

If Iraq was such a threat, then why was most of the world NOT convinced of this? Why were there record numbers of demonstrations (and demonstrators) around the world deploring a US invasion? Why were former weapons inspectors like Ritter and Hans Blix NOT supporting the invasion?

It's pretty clear Kerry's vote was one of political expedience to protect his political future. If I were in the same position, I might have done the same thing, so I cannot hold it against him completely.

I will still vote for him if the's the nominee, but I still think he should apologize for his vote and move on. He knows he was wrong, and refusing to admit it does nothing for him.

[jpgray]

10. I agree with you

Maybe the difference with me is, I'm not willing to compare him to Bush when it comes to culpability for obfuscating the threat. That's the allegation of Ritter's article I have a real problem with.

As pointed out in another thread, much of the demonstrations focused on:

-Iraq not being an imminent threat

-The reek of imperialism and nation-building

-The flouting of diplomatic solutions, and the disagreement of major heads of state and experts (i.e. Hans and Scott)

-Lies about the evidence

But few folks claimed outright "there are zero WMD". There was plenty of reason to doubt Iraq had any significant amounts (e.g. enough to be an "imminent threat") but most folks assumed they had some small amounts.

[no name no slogan]

16. Definately, Kerry <> Bush

I don't think Kerry = Bush, either-- far from it.

However, I never believed that Saddam had WMDs, at least since 1998, when the last inspectors left. But, of course, I'd been following this issue all through the inspections in the 1990s, and had made a determined effort to stay current on the latest news.

I can see how some people may have thought there were still WMDs there, since the media did not address the issue very well, nor report on the actual results of the UN inspections. Nor did the media adequately report the fact that there were US intelligence agents on the UNSCOMM Team, which was in violation of UN resolutions.

[bahrbearian]

28. Go DK

[sandnsea]

9. False witnesses. Wes Clark?

I am so sick of this. The IWR was to get inspectors back in Iraq. Wes Clark recommended the exact course of action Congress took. Howard Dean recommended inspections in 30-60 days or unilateral war. Scott Ritter provides a breakdown of Iraq WMD and then wonders what he was supposed to add to a hearing. He admitted that, to his knowledge, there were still WMD in Iraq. I heard him on the talk show rounds, at the time, saying the same thing.

The war was started by George W. Bush because he wouldn't wait for the inspections process to be completed. He took concerns at the time of the vote and hyped it into imminent threat over the next 6 months. He had Cheney and Rumsfeld screwing around with intelligence. Nobody knew the Niger papers were frauds in 2002, except Dick Cheney.

This is so fucking simple. I don't know what drives people to distort this situation beyond recognition.

[The Magistrate]

11. Ideological Necessity, Ma'am

Sen. Kerry is not acceptable to the purist left, and therefore he must be the incarnation of evil, however this might be contrived. Since the rejection is a priori, anything can be seized on, and distorted to fit.

"They believed nothing they could not prove, and could prove everything they believed."

[NNN0LHI]

One moment, Sir

You said "Sen. Kerry is not acceptable to the purist left". We can't conclude that from reading postings to an anonymous Internet chat board. Sometimes things are not always the way they appear. A healthy dose of skepticism can be a healthy thing. If you know what I mean? And I know you do, Sir.

Don

[bobbyboucher]

13. Mr. Magistrate, while one of your big fans,

I am not all that impressed by your Kerry defense. A great deal of people here have every right to surmise that Kerry's vote was purely political, and therefore conclude he is "business as usual".

IMO, the entire war was planned long before their (Bush's) selection and was planned for exactly the date that it started. The rush to war before the 2002 elections, which overshadowed ANY debate of issues other than war, was exactly as they planned. It allowed them to control the debate and to cast the Dems as "soft". Is it too much to ask why our party leaders didn't question the obvious? Some Dems with spines chose not to vote for it. They actually stayed true to their convictions and were undoubtedly wise to this sham.

Kerry, Edwards, Lieberman, and Gephardt let them get away with it because they were afraid. They did what was politically expedient. They are Washington Insiders to the hilt. They play the game. But it ain't no game.

In summation, your somewhat surly and condescending responses about these protests regarding IWR votes recently tarnish your otherwise outstanding record. Why the abrupt run to the gutter continually occupied by some of DU's most aggitating members? Is it a surprise to you that the camps that are made up, more than any of the others, of people longing for a change in the staus quo, would find voting for the IWR revolting? If it is, it shouldn't be.

:-(

[redqueen]

14. well put

excellent post

[Merlin]

18. You can't always get what you want.

The point I believe the honorable gentleman is making is that many are so disappointed in the failure of their candidate that they see the perfect (Dean, Clark, etc.) as the enemy of the good (Kerry).

Kerry has the broad appeal. We should have all seen the other candidates' weaknesses all along. It was evident in the extraordinarily high percentage of undecideds that remained so right up until ten days before the vote.

We will not get from Kerry all we expected from Dean. But we will get a good chunk of it--above all the defeat of this imbecile in the WH now controlling our destiny.

You can't always get what you want. You can't always get what you want. But, if you try, sometimes, you get what you need.

[The Magistrate]

19. Thank You, Mr. Boucher

It does not surprise me that many of the people willing to oppose Sen. Kerry on the grounds of that vote do so. It does not seem to me, however, to be a wise course to do so during the general election, as some are threatening to do. To refrain from support of Sen. Kerry during the general election, should he become the Party's nominee, seems to me so perverse a course as to be worth opposing horse, foot, and guns.

Your analysis of the genesis of invading Iraq, that it was the fixed intention to do so from the arrival in office of the criminals of the '00 Coup, is quite accurate. In light of that, it seems questionable to me whether there was any possibility of halting it. Control of the armed forces rests with the Executive, who can deploy them to any locale desired, and commit them to combat on a word, with a period of sixty days passing before the action must be justified to the Congress. The course of invasion was complete well within that period, and the continuing occupation would certainly have been ratified. No political figure of any consequence has urged an immediate withdrawl of U.S. forces from Iraq, it is worth noting.

It is an occassion for wonderment, at times, when people complain that persons who gain political office act from political calculation, and are in fact politicians. Who else can one expect to be found succeeding in the profession, after all, but able exponents of it? To me, complaining that a vote has been made from political motives and on the basis of skilled political calculation is akin to complaining of a burglar selecting an empty house to burgle; one may not approve, but can hardly expect anything else. The political calculation behind voting for the enabling resolution was quite clear at the time, and remains to my view a sound one, from the vantage of those actually in office and hoping to remain so. Since the invasion would have occured anyway, a death-stand in the matter, even if successful in defeating the resolution, would have gained nothing. Given the popular mood at the time, whatever your view of what lay behind that, any Senator from a southern or western state was likely to vote for it, and this alone sufficed to doom any prospect of even a tie vote, which would have been broken in favor of the measure. The thing therefore does not seem worth holding against someone, particularly not in such a way as to work to the benefit of the actual authors and executors of the policy of invasion.

"Politics is not the art of the possible. It consists in choosing between the disasterous and the unpalatable."

[sandnsea]

21. Keep spinning that line

Spin Bush right back into the White House with it. :bounce:

[walkon]

12. IWR

AKA: Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.

Kerry voted "Yes". There is no defense. Kerry's comments remind me of Bush in that he does not take responsibility, hides behind distortions and blames others.

[bigtree]

26. Why did Congress trust the president?

What guarantee do we have that any elected official will follow the Law?

When Congress passes a resolution that mandates seeking swift action by the U.N. security council before proceeding, and proscribes working with the international community until it is determined that 'reliance on diplomatic of peaceful means alone" would not force Saddam's hand, that is the law. The president took an oath promising to follow the law.

Thus, as the resolution states:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.


Didn't the president unlawfully disregard these provisions? Don't these provisions represent the restraint that I maintain is implied in the resolution. Isn't this actually a case of the president pushing past Congress, the American people, and the international community in his race to war?

These are the foremost provisions of the resolution that I believe involves the president and his word.

1. Defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq.

According to who? According to what evidence presented. Doesn't the administration have an obligation to present the threat in a accurate and truthful manner? Did they? Weren't they obligated to under this resolution?

Why aren't the nay voters calling for a new resolution like Dennis Kucinich in his call to repeal the authorization. Where is that push in Congress now from all of the dissenters?

I'll tell you where. They had a chance to modify the war in two separate funding bills. I know that my candidate voted against that $87 billion. That's as close to post-war opposition as any of the others in the Senate have managed. This is in the wake of evidence of no WMD's; hind views; and evidence mounting of the president inflating the threat.

2. Enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

U.N. Res.1441 was negotiated with bogus evidence presented by Powell. But the public still doesn't know the nature or the amount of evidence presented. Some were convinced some weren't. You can see in John Kerry's floor statement that he didn't abide risking the possibility that Iraq might restart a nuclear program, remote-controlled bombers, whatever. That was on the basis of bogus info.

But remember, there were no inspectors inside Iraq to verify anything. One of John Kerry's intentions in the resolution was to pressure Iraq with the U.N. resolution backed up by the threat of force. It worked until Bush pushed ahead and drove them out again. Those who would hold the president accountable are indebted to Hans Blix for his presence there and his candor.

Still some will insist on holding those who sought to reign him in responsible for the sins of Bush. It makes no sense, politically or on the facts at hand, to claim that John Kerry advocated or acquiesced to unilateral, preemptive invasion and occupation in their support for the IWR.

[vision]

29. Part of the resolution was left out in your examination

The Resolution starts with

"The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq ." http://www.talkleft.com/archives/001152.html

Congress "supports" the President's efforts but doesn't force him to do anything.

The Resolution after your quotes goes on to say "PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION"

That was who had final authority to decide if diplomatic means were working or not and when and if we should go to war. This was a blank check that effectively did not force the President to do anything. The day after the resolution was signed he could have declared war because it was up to the President to determin if we go to war.

Ultimatly the buck stops with Bush but those that voted for the resolution gave him the sole power to do it.

[bigtree]

32. Include the entire passage from the resolution

SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

Isn't this stating that the authority is inherent in the old War Powers Resolution which presidents have gone around for decades. The authority is not inherent in the new resolution, the president already has that authority through the loopholes of the War Powers Act to commit forces. That is what this specific statutory authorization is stating, I believe. Hence:

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

___________________________________________________________________

Authority to proceed is granted by Congress under this legislation. (Bush could proceed anyway under the WPA for 60 days without congressional approval. In that event it would be unlikely that Congress would withdraw forces) Authority is granted, effective with a:

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq

The president clearly disregarded the intent of this legislation which was to provide the threat of force to force Saddam to let inspectors in, and steer Bush back to the U.N. He wasn't inclined to go, sure. But the resolution sought to steer him back there. That is the rational for the support some Democrats gave the legislation.

The president can and traditionally initiates conflicts. The Congress excercises its responsibility under the Constitution and the War Powers Act to either, do nothing which, by law, would require the president to remove forces, or; pass a resolution approving or disapproving the deployment. Members can vote nay or they can seek to influence the president's behavior through provisions in the resolution. All methods are valid responses to the loopholed perogative of the president.

Principled opposition to Bush's war is to be respected and encouraged. But I reject the argument that those same principles were betrayed in just voting for the IWR.

Some Democrats saw the resolution as a way to restrain Bush and send him back to the U.N. My candidate was desperate to stifle Bush's argument for immediate invasion and sought to mandate a return to the international table by limiting Bush's authority in the resolution.

Whether or not the resolution had passed, Bush was intent on invading and occupying Iraq. He had gone around for days proclaiming that 1441 gave him the authority to do whatever he wanted.

If the resolution had failed, the president I think, would have committed forces anyway as decades of presidents had also put troops in the field for 60 days without congressional approval. In that event, I believe, the Congress would be loath to retreat and remove forces. Then, by law a resolution would have been drawn up, likely resembling the one we have now; urging Bush back to the U.N. and calling for internationalization of the conflict.

That is how determined presidents get us into war. Check and checkmate. It's democracy-lite. It sucks, but it is difficult, if not impossible, to restrain a president from committing forces because of the loopholed prerogative inherent in the War Powers Act, which is referenced in the IWR. The only way to direct him is through some sort of resolution. Remember, we were outraged by his plans but the majority of Americans didn't make much of a fuss. We had lost the PR battle before the vote.

It is possible that a unified front of opposition to the resolution could have turned the public against the plan to invade. But I don't think that was at all possible with the republican majority in the Senate, and in view of Bush's plan to invade with or without congressional approval.

[Merlin]

15. You've said the most true thing, imo.

The war was started by George W. Bush because he wouldn't wait for the inspections process to be completed. He took concerns at the time of the vote and hyped it into imminent threat over the next 6 months. He had Cheney and Rumsfeld screwing around with intelligence.

However, a small quibble about the last part:

Nobody knew the Niger papers were frauds in 2002, except Dick Cheney.

You need to include Tenet, the CIA, and Bush who was warned by Tenet.

[sandnsea]

20. I agree

I was just trying to keep it short and to the point.

[NV1962]

27. "Nobody knew the Niger papers were frauds in 2002, except Dick Cheney."

Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt!

From Joe Wilson's (now famous) "What I didn‘t find in Africa" the following relevant bits:

• Before I left Niger, I briefed the ambassador on my findings <i.e., that the Niger papers were a forgery>, which were consistent with her own. I also shared my conclusions with members of her staff. In early March, I arrived in Washington and promptly provided a detailed briefing to the C.I.A. I later shared my conclusions with the State Department African Affairs Bureau. There was nothing secret or earth-shattering in my report, just as there was nothing secret about my trip.
  
  Though I did not file a written report, there should be at least four documents in United States government archives confirming my mission. The documents should include the ambassador's report of my debriefing in Niamey, a separate report written by the embassy staff, a C.I.A. report summing up my trip, and a specific answer from the agency to the office of the vice president (this may have been delivered orally). While I have not seen any of these reports, I have spent enough time in government to know that this is standard operating procedure.

There you have it: back in 2002, there were at least three governmental agencies "who knew."

And the day after the SOTU in January 2003 (which mentioned the allegation as "fact" that Iraq attempted to acquire uranium from Niger) again Ambassador Joe Wilson contacted the State Department, to inform them that it couldn't be:

• in January, President Bush, citing the British dossier, repeated the charges about Iraqi efforts to buy uranium from Africa.
  
  The next day, I reminded a friend at the State Department of my trip and suggested that if the president had been referring to Niger, then his conclusion was not borne out by the facts as I understood them. He replied that perhaps the president was speaking about one of the other three African countries that produce uranium: Gabon, South Africa or Namibia. At the time, I accepted the explanation. I didn't know that in December, a month before the president's address, the State Department had published a fact sheet that mentioned the Niger case.
  
  Those are the facts surrounding my efforts. The vice president's office asked a serious question. I was asked to help formulate the answer. I did so, and I have every confidence that the answer I provided was circulated to the appropriate officials within our government.

I think it's time to raise the question whether anybody in the Senate Intelligence committee, since March 2002, ever inquired formally whether any significative disproving probe was conducted to verify the Niger allegations, and what the findings of that probe were.

My hunch is that that question has been posed, and that it was answered with a lie. Now that would be something to act on, by scrupulous member Senators of that committee.

[jpgray]

30. Right--the IAEA and many others knew--the press just ignored it

:( They brought it up offhand AFTER the flippin' invasion was over, six or seven months after the documents were proven to be forgeries.

[rucky]

17. FYI: Ritter endorses DK

[jpgray]

22. Kick, since someone kicked the biased interpretation (nt)

[jpgray]

24. 'Nother kick, someone did it again. (nt)

[macedc]

23. Willful-nt-Just a Nebisch

The point about Kerry is that he has really never done anything

The good liveral junior senator
A good corporate scout
Lots of money for the old politics
Votes for the F**KING PATRIOT ACT

No real fire about anything until Dean came along and should that being mad as hell could be popular

[stickdog]

25. Who here can possibly straighten this out for us? Is there ANYONE

here who has firsthand knowledge of all the principals in this controversy?

ANYONE?

[jpgray]

31. I have to go to bed, but I will try and find more links on this

I won't support someone who obfuscated the data in the same way as GWB. That's the allegation of Ritter's I find hard to believe, but I will make sure it isn't supported by the available facts before I dismiss it out of hand.