(no subject)

[somedaybitch]

Powerline fact checks the AP.


Powerline links to the congressional record that discusses the declassified section of the NIE that discuss Hussein. excerpts here:

Congressional Record: July 21, 2003 (Extensions)
Page E1545-E1546



KEY JUDGMENTS

______


HON. PETER T. KING

of new york

in the house of representatives

Monday, July 21, 2003[From October 2002 NIE]

Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction

We judge that Iraq has continued its weapons of mass
destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of UN resolutions and
restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as
well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions; if
left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during
this decade. (See INR alternative view at the end of these
Key Judgments.)
We judge that we are seeing only a portion of Iraq's WMD
efforts, owing to Baghdad's vigorous denial and deception
efforts. Revelations after the Gulf war starkly demonstrate
the extensive efforts undertaken by Iraq to deny information.
We lack specific information on many key aspects of Iraq's
WJMD programs.
Since inspections ended in 1998, Iraq has maintained its
chemical weapons effort, energized its missile program, and
invested more heavily in biological weapons; in the view of
most agencies, Baghdad is reconstituting its nuclear weapons
program.
Iraq's growing ability to sell oil illicitly increases
Baghdad's capabilities to finance WMD programs; annual
earnings in cash and goods have more than quadrupled, from
$580 million in 1998 to about $3 billion this year.
Iraq has largely rebuilt missile and biological weapons
facilities damaged during

[[Page E1546]]

Operation Desert Fox and has expanded its chemical and
biological infrastructure under the cover of civilian
production.
Baghdad has exceeded UN range limits of 150 km with its
ballistic missiles and is working with unmanned aerial
vehicles (UAVs), which allow for a more lethal means to
deliver biological and, less likely, chemical warfare agents.
Although we assess that Saddam does not yet have nuclear
weapons or sufficient material to make any, he remains intent
on acquiring them. Most agencies assess that Baghdad started
reconstituting its nuclear program about the time that UNSCOM
inspectors departed--December 1998
How quickly Iraq will obtain its first nuclear weapon
depends on when it acquires sufficient weapons-grade fissile
material.
If Baghdad acquires sufficient fissile material from abroad
it could make a nuclear weapon within several months to a
year.
Without such material from abroad, Iraq probably would not
be able to make a weapon until 2007 to 2009, owing to
inexperience in building and operating centrifuge facilities
to produce highly enriched uranium and challenges in
procuring the necessary equipment and expertise.

Comments

[samdonne.livejournal.com]

My favorite part is when the Power Line guys call Abu Ghraib overhyped. I didn't know you could overhype human rights abuse, but apparently you can.

Iraq making a nuclear weapon by 2009? That's what I call overhype.

As for the AP story, it is poorly written indeed. "Summer" is a long time. For the report to be relevant, we need precise dates.

[somedaybitch.livejournal.com]

i don't agree about Abu Ghraib being overhyped either, in that wrong behavior is wrong behavior and should be brought to light else how can it be addressed and changed. but i do think that it was another example of unbalanced reporting, in that there was precious little coverage of anything positive and done right by the military, which exist in large quantity and are essentially ignored by the mainstream press.

Instapundit links to a story of a report about the type of detainees at Gitmo, which, if true, should also be reported loudly and often. he also rightly points out that he wants to wait for more info before he gives an opinion.

[samdonne.livejournal.com]

he also rightly points out that he wants to wait for more info before he gives an opinion.

I don't know what report this is, but I'll go look; I always try to keep an eye on what comes out of Gitmo, especially since that story about the three children who were held there. And for the legal precedents, of course.

[somedaybitch.livejournal.com]

you might check out The Volokh Conspiracy as well. they always cover the best legal stuff with great perspectives.

[arthurfrdent.livejournal.com]

just as kind of a side comment about being the weather man...

when you say there will be a blizzard with 50" of snow, and it goes a little south so all you get is wind, what do people do? "That weather guy is worthless! he said it would be a blizzard..." The minute you miss the forecast? "we got 32" of snow, why didn't they see it coming?"

Weather Guy always loses, because people always remember the wrong of things... regardless of if it's right about the wrong, or wrong about the right, you lose.

I don't see anything in here that says "will be able to make a Nuclear Warhead with 10 Multiple Independent Re-entry Vehicles, each in the 10Kiloton Yield Range, by 2009." What it says is Nuclear. With a 14.5 kiloton yield the Hiroshima Weapon [Little Boy] only had 5kg of U-235 which is critical mass. That fission design isn't big, and is so well understood, that they never bothered to test "little boy", they knew it would work. The armies went on to bigger and better things, always, because it was a chess game with the soviets... but that's not what we have now.

50-80,000 people died instantly and the estimated total of deaths within the first year was 150,000 at Hiroshima [and that isn't those who succumbed to cancer decades later] Imagine if that were to happen in any city in the world today? Regardless if the terror is state sponsored or religious in nature, even the smallest nuke is dangerous to the world. And yet. Once you have one or 6 the balance of power shifts worldwide, and it can't be taken back...

So. If you have a guy who previously was trying to make nukes, and then was "beaten" in Gulf One why would anyone suppose he wasn't trying again?

Does the weatherman want to be wrong about this?

It is pure fantasy to think that we have the 10th part of actual facts on the table now, through the press and leaks and congressional hearings. When talking credible evidence of WMD who knows what information is out there, and what was healthy skepticism and inference? Obviously the congress was ready to do this as well, and the fact that they say now that they were buffaloed, is just political opportunism. It is no less the things that the White House did to exaggerate. They assumed they would find what they were looking for, and that would just prove the point. No smoking gun doesn't meant the problem wasn't there, it simply was far less clear. What is clear is that by the time you wait for them to prove they have WMD by successful missile launches, you can't really stop anything. If you give them nothing to lose in war, then they might use that one nuke on Tel Aviv. Who then retaliates. A small regional war in the middle east? Probably wouldn't start WWIII but would kill millions and disrupt every nation in the world.

Now, does all that give you the right to wage war on somebody? Very difficult to say. Chamberlain said no. Would WWII have happened if Chamberlain hadn't appeased Hitler? Yup, but who knows how it would have ended. Perhaps Hitler would have listened to his own generals about Russia, and would have avoided his mistakes. But that lesson isn't easily applied anywhere else. Because the world is quite different now. The intangibles we have to deal with make it difficult to come to the easy decision. Fortunately the only other similar situation was with Quadafi, and he decided to hold to power and life rather than continue on the path he was on. Every other issue in the world is different, whether North Korea, who we can't reasonably touch without going to War with China, or Iran, who is divided, and has the lesson of Iraq to at least make them think. For the rest of the world... hopefully there isn't anything on the horizon at the moment that's big and singular. What worries me is that we may die the death of a thousand cuts instead, because it is difficult to defend...

uh, well thanks for the space for me to think this out...please delete it if it offends ;)

[somedaybitch.livejournal.com]

why would i delete you? doofus.

[arthurfrdent.livejournal.com]

just sayin'... everyone has their limits ;)

[somedaybitch.livejournal.com]

disagreeing with me doesn't constitute a limit, yo.