Half of Americans, according to a Harris poll, believe Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction when the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003. A third of Americans, according to a Scripps Howard poll, believe it likely that the U.S. government let the 9/11 attacks happen, or actually played a role in them. The scariest part is that the half of America that believes in Iraqi WMD and the third of America that believes in a 9/11 U.S-government conspiracy generally don't overlap. In other words, more than eight in ten Americans prefer to construct their own private "reality" than to deal with the one that confronts them.

I for one wouldn't compare those who believe Saddam Hussein may have had WMDs that were spirited to Syria immediately prior to the U.S.-led invasion with someone subscribing to the "theory" that the Bush adminstration orchestrated 9/11. One is possible, the other totally implausible.

A more apt comparison might be between the 9/11 conspiracy adherents and the supposed 11% of Americans that believes Elvis is still alive, or the 10% that know the moon landings were faked.

What do you mean Dan? The Iraqi Perspectives Project which Joint Forces Command issued in 2006 came to the conclusion that Saddam Hussein supported myriad Islamic terrorist agencies, Al Qaeda included, and maintained active WMD programs. High level commanders in Saddam's military have come out to say that Iraqi WMDs were transferred into Syria previous to the war.

Let's try this one more time Ben. Tell me the name of the factory that was producing chemical weapons -- sarin, tabun, v-x -- in 2002 and early 2003. I'm not interested in who said what. The Iraqi defectors in the INC under Ahmed Chalabi weren't exactly paragons of honesty. There is no reason to accept the testimony of anyone in the Iraqi government. When all those who say "we really did find WMD in Iraq, so-and-so said so," I'll continue to wait until they name the factory and produce the forensice evidence.

Let's not forget that according to recent poll 1/3 of Americans also believe that our government aided that attacks on September 11th. So it isn't a belief peculiar to intellectuals but also to a growing number of Americans. Of course 9/11 conspiracy theories are for now inconsequential whereas the belief that Iraq had WMD is responsible for thousands of deaths. By any fair reckoning the WMD fairy tale is profoundly more sinister and dangerous.

Eric, unfortunately for the tens of thousands gassed by Saddam Hussein in the 80s and 90s, his WMDs were no fairy tale. The key difference between the two is that Saddam was truly responsible for proving he didn't have them in 2003; he rather vociferously declined to make even a token attempt to do so. Who knows; maybe he thought he had them, and his minions feared for their lives were he to discover otherwise.

The 9/11 story is total bullsh_t no matter how many people believe it to be true. The number of people that believe a myth is irrelevant with regard to its status as fiction. To think otherwise brings to mind the Nazi General Nadel's comment that "It matters not what is true or false, but exclusively what is believed".

1/3 Americans believe the US had a hand in 9/11? Please cite the poll. That proportion is hard to believe.

Webster: An article on that poll is linked in the post. I prefer your skepticism to the gullibility of the 9/11 conspiracy nuts and the Bushites in search of the elusive WMD holy grail. But skepticism of inconvenient truths derives from the same root as gullibility of convenient falsehoods. Problems with sample groups and leading questions can skew a poll. It's possible that happened with either (or both) of these polls. But it's pretty clear from such polls, and even from discussing such issues with others on blogs, in bars, etc., that too many people believe in too many things they shouldn't believe.

Thom,

It's a waste of time to argue with people who don't bother to read. The WMD I was referring to are the same WMD President Bush was referring to in 2002 and early 2003. There was never any argument that Iraq had WMD in the 1980's and used them against his enemies, like the Iranians, with our tacit approval by the way. The notion that Iraq was producing WMD in 2002 was a fairy tale and has been exposed as such, and this fairy tale continues to supply greiving families with a steady supply of dead bodies.

The ISG was never able to complete its investigation into what may or may not have been transferred into Syria. They even said so. Perhaps the conventional wisdom on this is correct. I really hope it is. The Bush administration and other top government officials may not be interested in completing it because 1.) They are unprepared to directly go to war with Syria at this time and to actively promote the theory of Iraq's wmd being moved to Syria would require them to reveal sources and methods that could compromise national security. 2.) If WMD were transferred to Syria or elsewhere this would mean that a key objective of the war was not achieved. This would be a devestating critque of the adminstration and the war plan. 3.) Many people seem to have staked their careers on the fact that Iraq did not posess the stock piles of WMD. To ask such questions is hardly a pro-Bush argument. Once again, I really want the conventional wisdom to be correct.

As for 911 conspiracy theories, there is simply to many checks and balances within the US government for anyone to pull this off. Anyone who would make such a calim does not understand how the US government works.

Eric

I agree with your assertion that people within the regime will not be the most reliable sources. This also goes for the people who the ISG interviewed to determine that the WMD did not exist. They will possess the same goals as the regime and as such are unlikely to cooperate with interogators.

As for a name for the facility, I touched on this once before. It may have been the chemical weapons lab our troops claimed to have found when they captured Fallujah from the "insurgents" in November of 2004. Also, I have a relative who has served in Iraq. He spoke of large under ground cities that would be capable of housing in excess of 10,000 people. WMD may have been housed there. Due to the security situation, the ISG was unable to do a proper search. It was a failure on the part of the administration and the war planners, to commit the proper resources to do the job properly. Ultimately we will have to judge leaders by what they accomplish and not by what they intend to accomplish.

"Let's try this one more time Ben. Tell me the name of the factory that was producing chemical weapons -- sarin, tabun, v-x -- in 2002 and early 2003. I'm not interested in who said what. The Iraqi defectors in the INC under Ahmed Chalabi weren't exactly paragons of honesty. There is no reason to accept the testimony of anyone in the Iraqi government. When all those who say "we really did find WMD in Iraq, so-and-so said so," I'll continue to wait until they name the factory and produce the forensice evidence." -Eric Wilds

I believe the original casus belli was the presence of international terrorism, Eric.

Ben

The former Iraqi government's support for international terrorism is discussed in the Congressional Resolution authorizing the use of force. Both the Republicans and the Democrats talked a great deal about it, in the run up to the Ireaq war. At this point, I think the conventional wisdom on Iraq's WMD is correct. If they actually existed, I think Hezbollah would have already used them against Israel by now.

A "may" also implies a "may not." No one can positively identify a single chemical weapon facility because no such facility exists. This also means the issue of Iraq secretly transferring weapons to Syria is moot. Before you can raise the possibility that Iraq sent weapons to Syria you must identify a facility in which chemical weapons were produced. Without this prior fact established there is no use in speculating if Iraq sent weapons to Syria.

Ben,

"But make no mistake -- as I said earlier -- we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found."
Ari Fleischer, April 2003

Eric

It seems fairly certain that large convoys of something were transferred to Syria prior to the war. The ISG does not believe it was the missing WMD. Given that so much of our intellegence was wrong, I think it would be prudent to find out what was in these convoys.

Eric,

I can find soundbites suggesting the war was about "liberating the Iraqi people" too.

If the terrorist training camps in Saddam Hussein's Iraq were not a justification for war, than certainly there was no justification for war in Afghanistan, since they existed in Iraq on a larger scale than in Afghanistan.

P.S.: Not to suggest that I feel the whole case for war is covered by terrorist training camps. Just speaking about the casus belli.

The State Department's ana-lysis of global terrorism did include Iraq but mentioned that Iraq has not sponsored any acts of terrorism against the West. They note that the MEK, a secular anti-Iranian terrorist group, was Saddam's largest benefactor. Makes sense? We wage war against Iraq for supporting a terrorist group that shares our -- well, the Neocons -- foreign policy goals in Iran. That's not a casus belli. That's a crock.

B,

Iraq has been sending large convoys of illegal oil shipments into Syria since the 1990s. Since no operation chemical or biological weapon facility has been identified in Iraq, Ockham's razor tells us to disregard the notion that Iraq sent WMD to Syria.

Eric

The shipments were carefully over seen by Iraqi intellegence agents. It seems unlikely that they would be shipping oil on the eve of the war and it seems unlikely that they would need to have intellegence over see what was being transferred, if it was oil. The truck drivers did not even know what the cargo was. Also, people wearing protective gear would be unlikely to be burying oil in the Bekka valley. I'm not sure what these shipments were. The Iraq Survey Group thinks it was "Iraqi equipment." Ockham's razor would probably agree with the ISG that further investigation is warranted. I will say again that I hope the conventional wisdom is right.

Iraq harbored terrorists including those who participated in the 1993 WTC bombing. In the run up to the war the Democrats and Republicans talked a great deal about this. There seems no question that Saddam was a threat. The question is the magnitude of the threat. Clearly our intellegence was faulty. As such, the WMD were not where we thought they would be and we underestimated Iraq's conventional military capability. Given what has been accomplished to date, it seems the Iraq invasion should not have taken place. The question is what to do going forward. I would suggest commiting more resources to get security under control. If we can do this, we can probably get a stable ally out of the situation. While doing this, we will need to keep a close eye on Russia who is the greatest threat to our national security. Also, our human intellegence capabilities will need to be improved.

You seem to indicate that our goals are the same as the "neocons." Necons are only one part of the government. They do not have the power to set government policy. They may be able to influence it but they are not even the dominant group within the government.

"The State Department's ana-lysis of global terrorism did include Iraq but mentioned that Iraq has not sponsored any acts of terrorism against the West. They note that the MEK, a secular anti-Iranian terrorist group, was Saddam's largest benefactor. Makes sense? We wage war against Iraq for supporting a terrorist group that shares our -- well, the Neocons -- foreign policy goals in Iran. That's not a casus belli. That's a crock." -Wilds

What State Department ana-lysis? The Iraqi Perspective Project, which was released by Joint Forces Command in 2006, has essentially become the go to resource since its release, and it paints a very different picture.

B.,

If Iraq had no WMD facilities in 2002 and early 2003 -- and they didn't -- then that rules out the possibility that Iraq sent WMD to Syria. The rest of your post is just more Neocon propaganda. How do you know the "drivers" didn't know the cargo they were carrying? Can you name all the drivers? How do you know the people burying the "material" were wearing protective gear? How do you know it was overseen by Iraqi intelligence? It's amazing we know all this but do not know the what was actually shipped. In fact, I'll go on record right now and say this whole story is 90% bunk. My guess it was a false intelligence report deliberately circulated by Israel hoping that it would lure U.S. forces into Syria.

Neocons are professional liars and there's no reason to believe anything they say no matter how many times other people repeat it.

Eric

Slandering someone because you disagree with their ana-lysis is not constructive to debate. The ISG has stated that the Syrian connection warrants further investigation. These people are not "conservative." If anything this is a left leaning organization.

You write: "My guess is it was a false intellegence report circulated by Israel to lure US forces into Syria." This is a pretty vicious accusation. You have accused Israel of lying to get the US to invade Syria. Israel is among the most open countries on earth. As such, it would be virtually impossible for them to pull this off. Israel has not been helped by the invasion of Iraq. In order to get a coalition together for Iraq and the broader GWOT, we agreed to the "road map to peace." This is arguably the worst foreing policy decision in Aemrican history. We tried to appease a brutal enemy and we have tried to do it by carving land from our most important ally.

Iraq had a chemical weapons lab in Fallujah in 2004 when American troops captured the city from "insurgents." It could have been placed there after the regime was removed.

The only propaganda I'm diseminating is that of the ISG who said they were unable to complete the Syrian investigation. I hope the conventional wisdom is correct. Part of learning the truth is having the humility to admit our pre conceived notions might be wrong. Hopefully we can get to the bottom of this. At a minimum we need a non politicized investigation to determine why our intellegence was wrong.

B.,

We know why our intelligence was wrong: it was made up.

Now tell me how you know what Iraqi drivers thought when they were driving their "cargo" into Syria. You can penetrate their thoughts but you can't see what all this "cargo" is?

I'll stand by claim: it's pure bunk.

Based upon the costs versus the benefits that have resulted because of mis calculations on Iraq, at this time, I would conclude that Iraq was not worth it and should not have been done. A definitive ana-lysis into the WMD issue, as well as our broader intellegence failures, will probably have to be done by someone outside of the government. If the WMD were moved, this would be a devestaing failure on the part of the war plan and its execution. To shine a light on this benefits neither the neo conservatives nor anyone else. The government has a vested interest in keeping this quite.

This investigation would mean other uncomfortable questions would have to be answered. So far all we have really accomplished is to strengthen our most dangerous enemies of Russia, China, and Iran. People need to be called to account for this. The survival of the country may well depend on getting this right.

Ben,

The Iraqi Perspective Project said that Iraq did not have any WMD and you cite this as a source that Iraq did in fact have WMD. Does anything more need to be said?

Eric

To have made up the intellegence would have required broad based participation of both Republians and Democrats. This could not have been done by neo conservatives. As Senator Clinton said the intellegence used to justify the Iraq war was materially similar to what they had when they were in the White House. Thirty nations who assisted militarily thought the threat credible enough to take the risk to assist us. Kuwait and Jordan thought the threat credible enough to allow the use of their countries as staging areas for the invasion. The intellegence was wrong. The next logical step is to proceed in a non partisain manner to try and determine what went wrong.

I'm not sure what the Iraqi drivers thought. I can't penetrate their thoughts. Neither can the ISG. This is why further investigation is warranted. It may turn out to be pure bunk. Its important to get to the bottom of it. The best guesstimate of the ISG is that it was Iraqi equipment.

I don't expect this government to investigate this publically. Very important would probably come off looking bad.

B.,

Politically manipulated or falsified intelligence does not require the widespread participation of Republicans and Democrats. In fact, it doesn't require the participation of Republicans and Democrats at all -- only their naivete. All it requires are a few individuals cherry picking the information and then disseminating that information to the President and then to Congress and the American people. The Piltdown man hoax was able to survive for years and there was only one person involved in the hoax. James Frey's book A Million Little Things was able to make it onto the non-fiction section of every bookstore for at least a year, without the participation of every bookstore owner. For a lie to survive, it doesn't require lots of participation, just lots of repitition.

But it's not as if there is still some mystery why our intelligence was so wrong. We now know what intelligence we had and how it was misused to get the results the Neocons wanted. The idea Iraq had a nuclear weapons program came down to things: aluminum tubes and a forged uranium document. Iraq's biological weapons came down to one source: a drunken defector in Germany named Curveball. And there was no sourcing for Iraq's chemical weapons: it was just speculation built on an ana-lysis on top of more speculation. The "intelligence" was alarming because it made a convenient case for war. We had the same intelligence on Iraq in 2000 as we did in 2002 and the same alarming assessment was not reached. Since our intelligence didn't change that implies something else did. What was it? Politics.

The information on the Iraqi truck drivers is from a captured Iraqi document that has been translated. The link to this is http://neveryetmelted.com/?cat=118

The information could prove to be erroneous. I agree with the ISG that further investigation is warranted, however, I don't quite share their optimism that Iraq's WMD was not sent there.

The conventional wisdom is Iraq did not posess the WMD we thought they did. I hope the conventional wisdom is correct.

Given the current operations in Lebanon, I'm sure the IDF hopes the conventional wisdom is correct, however, a good military leader will prepare for any possibility.

Eric

You ask what changed. I would assert that the 911 attacks changed how some people view national security threats. If there is little over sight it may have been possible to deliberately manipulate the pre war intellegence. This had tremendous over sight. I see no way the lie could have been maintained long enough to get the repition it needed. The neo conservatives don't have the kind of power to do this. I don't think anyone in the Aemrican government does.

The intellegence we had was good enough to convince 30 nations of the need to take action. It was wrong. I'm not sure how to fix it going forward. To the best of my knowledge NO ONE has been fired. George "slam dunk" Tenet even got a medal of freedom or something like that. This is not exactly encouraging stuff.

"Ben,

The Iraqi Perspective Project said that Iraq did not have any WMD and you cite this as a source that Iraq did in fact have WMD. Does anything more need to be said?"

No I didn't. I said that Iraq maintained active WMD programs. A very different claim, and a true one. They were frozen pending the imminent end to the UN sanctions on Iraq, but remained active, in flagrant violation of the cease-fire of 1991.

B.Poster:

The intelligence provided a casus belli, but it would not, in and of itself, have provided justification for action. Far more important are the following two;

A.) The fact that the United States had just been expelled from Saudi Arabia, and required a new regional base of operations to avoid Russia or, more likely, China, moving in. Were this to happen, especially with the emergance of the Chinese and Indian energy markets, the USA would never be able to survive as a world superpower.

B.) The fact that the collapse of Saudi Arabia is relatively imminent, and the US requires an oil insurance policy for when that happens, if it seeks to avoid total economic collapse and another Great Depression.

So if one would like to see the US cease to exist as a Global Power and enter into a second Great Depression, and if you are eager to see either Russia or China ascendant as the next global hegemon, than the Iraq War was a very poor decision indeed. Otherwise, one ought to support it.

P.P.S: Sorry for the triple posting, I know its excessive.

Many advocate pumping our money into alternative fuel resources as an alternative to a pro-active Middle East poicy. Bad idea, and heres why;

Let's say that tomorrow the United States of America is 100% energy self sufficient and no longer needs Middle East oil. Whats the immediate result? The collapse of the Saudi regime, firstly. With their biggest market cut off, the money tap gone, and lacking the loyalty of their own military (The American military presence in Saudi Arabis is gone now, remember) the Wahabbiists, who have infiltrated every level of Saudi government, the military especially, would be quick to take over.

Not a problem though, right? Sure the Wahaabiists might be sitting on the world's biggest oil exporting nation, but America doesn't need oil anymore, and without that oil money, they can't fund their terrorist activites.

Wrong. Big time. Because, you see, China and India are emerging as the two largest energy markets in human history, and they are nowhere NEAR not being reliant on oil. I don't know when they will move off oil but it will be quite a ways off, that much is certain. And China, especially, and most likely also India, when the going gets rough, will have no problem buying that oil from a Wahabiist regime. That means the Wahabiists in DIRECT control of Arabia, with DIRECT control over the oil market, and the US having no influence whatsoever.

Welcome to every counter-terrorism ana-lyst's worst nightmare.

Ben

Your ana-lysis with the last two posts could be spot on. It may well come down to whether one wants the US to remain a major global power. It seems many folks in the US like the benefits of being a major power but are unwilling to make the sacrifices necessar to maintain that position. This is where the "angry left" and to a lesser extent the "angry right" come in to play. They don't like the US as it is. As such, they will oppose its interests.

Even if we could move off of oil or off of imports from the middle east, China, India, and others would have to do so as well other wise the terrorists will still have a large supply of money. The left has incorrectly portrayed oil as strictly something that greedy corporate executives use to get rich off of. There is some truth to this, however, it would be more accurate to say oil is a resource that is absolutely vital to a first rate economy. Any government should do all that it can within reason to ensure its populace has a reliable source of oil.

In the mean time, we have had some massive intellegence failures and we have made some big mistakes in the execution of the war in Iraq. If we are going to fight this war, we need to commit the proper resources to this and get it right. If we are unwilling to make the commitment to this, it is time to get out now and pull back into fortress America.

I think there were definitely big intelligence failure ging up to Iraq. I certainly think that the Bush administration believed that Iraq indeed did have WMDs. Not because of any faith I have in the administration's altruism, but because I think they wanted a casus belli that was both A.) Plausible and B.) True. But mainly, in my opinion, as cover for war that was much more based on national interest but much harder to sell. The first Bush administration learned that lesson when they tried to sell Desert Storm on its real motivation, protecting Saudi Arabia's oil fields from Iraqi aggression, and got chants of "No Blood for Oil!"

Ben

The people who brought us the "no blood for oil" chants are America hating Communists. The people who repeated this over and over again have no clue about world politics or the threats that the US faces. As my previous post states, it is best to view oil as something vital to a first rate economy rather than as something greedy robber barons use to get wealthy off of. A government who looks out for its citiznes will work to ensure that its people have access to a stable supply of oil. On this note, we would do well to develop our own supplies that exist off the coasts of CA and FL, in Anwr, and the Colorado shale. We will still probably need to maintain operations in the ME but if we have more of our own supplies this will give us leverage in negotiations.

My understanding is the lift costs per barrel of oil are lower for Iraqi oil than they are for Russia with their oil fields. If we can get a stable ally with Iraq, we may be able to check mate Russia. It is my considered opinion that Russia is the single greatest threat to the US and the free world.

Oh, I agree, I am not saying that the "No Blood for Oil" people are people I like. But they were, initially, effectively. The Bush Administration was forced to change the casus belli to liberating Kuwait for its own sake. And I share your view of oil.

Iraqi oil won't be stable for a good while, yet. Not until the current civil war is over, anyways. But if we play our cards right it will be stable before Saudi Arabia collapses.

I think China probably poses a greater threat than Russia, currently.

Currently I think we should work on reducing our military presence in theatre to less than 100,000, which is currently schedualed to be by the end of 2006. We have no immediate objectives to achieve in country, and we cannot stop Iraq's current low level civil war. The best option, right now, I think, is to just sit inside our bases, and other enclaves such as the Green Zone, and keep an eye on both Iran and Iraq's shi'ites.

P.S: The Iraqi civil war may simply, and I think already is in the process of, conflagrate(ing) into a greater regional war between Saudi Arabia and its allies, and Iran and its allies. In such a war, I think we would be best to side with Saudi Arabia and the Sunnis.

Ben

Thanks for your insights. I think you are right about the Iraqi civil war. American foreign policy should be based on national interests and not on spreading "democracy." In the event of a a civil war, it would probably be in our interests to support the Sunnis or to exit all together.

Successful cultures spread themselves. As such, an Aemrican style democracy in the heart of the middle east would have had huge benefits to us and it would have been a bulwhark against terrorist supporting regimes. At this point, that goal does not look to be achievable. Perhaps it can be but so much of that is outside of our control. I think it was doable at the beginning, however, a number of things got lost in the execution and there never was a frank assessment of what binging western style democracy to Iraq would cost. A more achievable goal would be a stable Iraq that is allied with the US. If Democracy does survive, it probably will not be the kind we initially wanted. From what it looks like to me, the administration has quitely lowered its expectations.

To me Russia is the greatest threat. China has a bigger economy, more military man power, and may have a better conventional force than Russia, however, Russia's nuclear arsenal is my major concern. It is huge and very advanced. Also, Russia is a key force behind most terrorist supporting regimes. They clearly seem to be up to something.

If we can get a stable allied Iraq where they will allow us to have military bases, this would help us to protect our interests and the interests of our allies. Also, I think it is imperative that we continue to support Israel. In my opinion, Israel has been our most reliable ally.

Actually both China and Russia's nuclear arsenals could be more or less entirely destroyed in the event of an American first strike.

Good article on that from Foreign Affairs, entitled America's Rising Nuclear Primacy. Unfortunately I can't find it right now.

I honestly don't see Iraqi culture ever being anything like western culture. To be honest, I am not particuarly enthused with the invasion of Iraq. However, post-getting kicked out of Saudi Arabia, I don't think we would have had any choice but to invade one of the Middle East's big three (Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran).

Invade Saudi Arabia and you get moden day Iraq, but about a hundred times worse. Invade Iran and it would only have been a (probalby very short) matter of time before Saddam took advantage of the US distraction and re-invaded Kuwait, in so doing posing a threat to the Saudi oil fields. Something that is in my mind much less desirable than the current Iranian struggle.

So of the top three, I think invading Iraq was the best choice. The only other choice would have been to watch US influence in the world plummet as Russia and China took advantage of our timely absence to move into the Gulf.