Fearful Symmetry

This Washington Post report describes how the administration appears to have suppressed and ignored a report from a team of experts stating that trailers captured by troops were not mobile biological laboratories. Even after being told the trailers could not be biological weapons labs, claims by administration officials to the contrary continued. The experts writing the report were asked to soften the conclusions to allow for the possibility that the trailers were biological labs and when the experts refused, the report was shelved. While the administration was busy figuring out how to manipulate the evidence to support its case for war in Iraq, Iran was busy figuring out how to enrich uranium. Maureen Dowd says it well, though she is referring to the fake uranium story rather than the fake biological labs:

Talk about a fearful symmetry. Iran was whipping up real uranium while America was whipped up by fake uranium. ... Speaking before a mural of fluttering white doves, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad bragged that his scientists had concocted enriched uranium. They will now churn out nuclear fuel as fast as they can. ... The nuclear doves announcement was embarrassing for Mr. Bush, who had said on Monday that he was determined to prevent Iran from getting the know-how to enrich uranium.

Do you feel safer now? Here's the Washington Post story describing the biological lab evidence, or lack thereof:

Lacking Biolabs, Trailers Carried Case for War,  by Joby Warrick, Washington Post: On May 29, 2003, 50 days after the fall of Baghdad, President Bush proclaimed a fresh victory for his administration in Iraq: Two small trailers captured by U.S. and Kurdish troops had turned out to be long-sought mobile "biological laboratories." He declared, "We have found the weapons of mass destruction."

The claim, repeated by top administration officials for months afterward, was hailed at the time as a vindication of the decision to go to war. But even as Bush spoke, U.S. intelligence officials possessed powerful evidence that it was not true. A secret fact-finding mission to Iraq -- not made public until now -- had already concluded that the trailers had nothing to do with biological weapons. ... two days before the president's statement.

The three-page field report and a 122-page final report three weeks later were stamped "secret" and shelved. Meanwhile, for nearly a year, administration and intelligence officials continued to publicly assert that the trailers were weapons factories. ... Spokesmen for the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency declined to comment on the specific findings of the technical report because it remains classified. A spokesman for the DIA asserted that the team's findings were neither ignored nor suppressed...

The technical team's findings had no apparent impact on the intelligence agencies' public statements on the trailers. A day after the team's report was transmitted to Washington -- May 28, 2003 -- the CIA publicly released its first formal assessment of the trailers, reflecting the views of its Washington analysts. That white paper, which also bore the DIA seal, contended that U.S. officials were "confident" that the trailers were used for "mobile biological weapons production."

Throughout the summer and fall of 2003, the trailers became simply "mobile biological laboratories" in speeches and press statements by administration officials. In late June, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell declared that the "confidence level is increasing" that the trailers were intended for biowarfare. In September, Vice President Cheney pronounced the trailers to be "mobile biological facilities," and said they could have been used to produce anthrax or smallpox.

By autumn, leaders of the Iraqi Survey Group were publicly expressing doubts about the trailers in news reports. David Kay, the group's first leader, told Congress on Oct. 2 that he had found no banned weapons in Iraq and was unable to verify the claim that the disputed trailers were weapons labs.

Still, as late as February 2004, then-CIA Director George J. Tenet continued to assert that the mobile-labs theory remained plausible. Although there was "no consensus" among intelligence officials, the trailers "could be made to work" as weapons labs, he said in a speech Feb. 5.

Kay, in an interview, said senior CIA officials had advised him upon accepting the survey group's leadership in June 2003 that some experts in the DIA were "backsliding" on whether the trailers were weapons labs. But Kay said he was not apprised of the technical team's findings until late 2003, near the end of his time as the group's leader.

"If I had known that we had such a team in Iraq," Kay said, "I would certainly have given their findings more weight."

Even before the trailers were seized in spring 2003, the mobile labs had achieved mythic stature. As early as the mid-1990s, weapons inspectors from the United Nations chased phantom mobile labs that were said to be mounted on trucks or rail cars, churning out tons of anthrax by night and moving to new locations each day. No such labs were found, but many officials believed the stories, thanks in large part to elaborate tales told by Iraqi defectors.

The CIA's star informant, an Iraqi with the code name Curveball, was a self-proclaimed chemical engineer who defected to Germany in 1999 and requested asylum. ... Curveball provided descriptions of mobile labs and said he had supervised work in one of them. ...

Curveball's detailed descriptions -- which were officially discredited in 2004 -- helped CIA artists create color diagrams of the labs, which Powell later used to argue the case for military intervention in Iraq before the U.N. Security Council.

"We have firsthand descriptions of biological weapons factories on wheels and on rails," Powell said in the Feb. 5, 2003, speech. Thanks to those descriptions, he said, "We know what the fermenters look like. We know what the tanks, pumps, compressors and other parts look like."

The trailers discovered in the Iraqi desert resembled the drawings well enough, at least from a distance. ... Photos of the trailers were quickly circulated, and many weapons experts were convinced that the long-sought mobile labs had been found.

Yet reaction from Iraqi sources was troublingly inconsistent. Curveball, shown photos of the trailers, confirmed they were mobile labs and even pointed out key features. But other Iraqi informants in internal reports disputed Curveball's story and claimed the trailers had a benign purpose: producing hydrogen for weather balloons.

Back at the Pentagon, DIA officials attempted a quick resolution of the dispute. The task fell to the "Jefferson Project," a DIA-led initiative made up of government and civilian technical experts who specialize in analyzing and countering biological threats. Project leaders put together a team of volunteers, eight Americans and a Briton, each with at least a decade of experience in one of the essential technical skills needed for bioweapons production. ...

The technical team was assembled in Kuwait and then flown to Baghdad to begin their work early on May 25, 2003. ... The technical team went to work under a blistering sun in 110-degree temperatures. ... By the end of their first day, team members still had differing views about what the trailers were. But they agreed about what the trailers were not.

"Within the first four hours," said one team member, who like the others spoke on the condition he not be named, "it was clear to everyone that these were not biological labs."

News of the team's early impressions leaped across the Atlantic well ahead of the technical report. Over the next two days, a stream of anxious e-mails and phone calls from Washington pressed for details and clarifications.

The reason for the nervousness was soon obvious: In Washington, a CIA analyst had written a draft white paper on the trailers, an official assessment that would also reflect the views of the DIA. The white paper described the trailers as "the strongest evidence to date that Iraq was hiding a biological warfare program." It also explicitly rejected an explanation by Iraqi officials, described in a New York Times article a few days earlier, that the trailers might be mobile units for producing hydrogen.

But the technical team's preliminary report, written in a tent in Baghdad and approved by each team member, reached a conclusion opposite from that of the white paper. ... That report said the trailers were "impractical for biological agent production," lacking 11 components that would be crucial for making bioweapons. Instead, the trailers were "almost certainly designed and built for the generation of hydrogen," the survey group reported. ...

The technical team's preliminary report was transmitted in the early hours of May 27, just before its members began boarding planes to return home. Within 24 hours, the CIA published its white paper, "Iraqi Mobile Biological Warfare Agent Production Plants," on its Web site.

After team members returned to Washington, they began work on a final report. At several points, members were questioned about revising their conclusions... The questioners generally wanted to know the same thing: Could the report's conclusions be softened, to leave open a possibility that the trailers might have been intended for weapons?

In the end, the final report -- 19 pages plus a 103-page appendix -- remained unequivocal in declaring the trailers unsuitable for weapons production.

"It was very assertive," said one weapons expert familiar with the report's contents.

Then, their mission completed, the team members returned to their jobs and watched as their work appeared to vanish.

"I went home and fully expected that our findings would be publicly stated," one member recalled. "It never happened. And I just had to live with it."

Comments

says...

April 12, 2006
Op-Ed Columnist
Wag the Camel
By MAUREEN DOWD
Washington

Talk about a fearful symmetry.

Iran was whipping up real uranium while America was whipped up by fake uranium.

Obsessed with going to war against a Middle East country that had no nuclear weapon, the Bush administration lost focus on and leverage over a Middle East country hurtling toward a nuclear weapon.

That's after the Bush crew lost focus on and leverage over an Asian country that says it has now produced a whole bunch of nuclear weapons.

To paraphrase Raymond Chandler, if brains were elastic, these guys wouldn't have enough to make suspenders for a parakeet.

While Dick Cheney was getting booed as he threw out the first pitch for the Nationals . . . . Iran was jubilantly welcoming itself to the nuclear club and spitting in the eye of the U.S. and U.N.

Speaking before a mural of fluttering white doves, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad bragged that his scientists had concocted enriched uranium. They will now churn out nuclear fuel as fast as they can.

Are they making a bomb? Nah, said the Iranian president, furthest thing from their minds.

Are we going to bomb them before they can get a bomb? Nah, said the American president, furthest thing from our minds.

The nuclear doves announcement was embarrassing for Mr. Bush, who had said on Monday that he was determined to prevent Iran from getting the know-how to enrich uranium. But the Persian logic cannot be faulted. If you pretend to have W.M.D., the U.S. may come and get you. Ask Saddam. If you really have W.M.D., you're bulletproof. Ask Kim Jong Il. . . .

In this week's New Yorker, Seymour Hersh writes about the Pentagon planning for a possible strike against the nutty "apocalyptic Shiites," . . . . Mr. Hersh quotes a source close to the Pentagon saying that Mr. Bush believes "that saving Iran is going to be his legacy." Which makes sense, in a wag-the-camel way, since saving Iraq is not going to be his legacy. . . .

Just as Rummy dismissed questions back in August 2002 about a possible invasion of Iraq as a media "frenzy" — even as plans were well under way — the defense chief shrugged off The New Yorker story as "Henny Penny, the sky is falling."

Noting that the president is "on a diplomatic track," He Who Should Be Fired said that while W. was obviously concerned about Iran as a country that supports terrorists and wants W.M.D., "it is just simply not useful to get into fantasy land."

Yes, the reality-based community of journalists should stay out of fantasy land, which is already overcrowded with hallucinatory Bushies.
. . . .
As David Sanger and David Barstow wrote in The Times on Sunday, Scooter's leak about Saddam's efforts to obtain uranium had already been debunked by the time he leaked it. Colin Powell had told The Times that intelligence agencies were "no longer carrying it as a credible item" by early 2003, when the secretary of state was preparing to make the case against Iraq at the U.N. Only Scooter and Dick Cheney were willing to use a faulty bit of intelligence to defend their war scam.

With Watergate, reporters followed the money. With Monica, Ken Starr followed the stain. With W. and his bananas second banana, Patrick Fitzgerald is following the uranium. All he needs is a Geiger counter.

[anne]

'On May 29, 2003, 50 days after the fall of Baghdad, President Bush proclaimed a fresh victory for his administration in Iraq: Two small trailers captured by U.S. and Kurdish troops had turned out to be long-sought mobile "biological laboratories." He declared, "We have found the weapons of mass destruction."

'The claim, repeated by top administration officials for months afterward, was hailed at the time as a vindication of the decision to go to war. But even as Bush spoke, U.S. intelligence officials possessed powerful evidence that it was not true. A secret fact-finding mission to Iraq -- not made public until now -- had already concluded that the trailers had nothing to do with biological weapons. ... two days before the president's statement.'

What a tragedy this war has been. War is tragic as such but this war was needless, and the tragedy could have been ended at any time these 3 years and could be ended now but occupation needlessly continues.

[nyuk]

I am hoping that the Republicans are severely punished by the voters for their expressed and tacit support of Bush in his efforts to gain support for his policies through deception. Time and again, people have been left with false impressions by this administration's devious use of language, intended to mean something definitive, but when dissected and analyzed, usually contains very little that is definitive. For as much as Republicans 'dis' lawyers, they sure use enough lawyerly tactics.

[PaulV]

I remember in 2000 saying you don't put an idiot in the White House. Politics aside, Bush was clearly an idiot and anybody who didn't see was just wearing blinders. Well, this is what putting an idiot in the White House gets you.

[save_the_rustbelt]

"You can't handle the truth!"

[anne]

Imagine how Iran was checked by Iraq, and we set the check aside and turned Iran to the dominant Middle East influence. Why did we know nothing. Now, the lunatics are boasting of war again when what is needed is to gain an understanding how to gain and sustain a new peace. We must leave Iraq, to begin.

[bailey]

nyuk, the Republicans are not going to get punished by me, unless the other Republicans run a new face. Looking at all the old ones makes me sick.

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/12/world/13cnd-iraq.html

April 12, 2006

Deaths of U.S. Soldiers Climb Again in Iraq
By EDWARD WONG

BAGHDAD, Iraq - The death toll for American troops is rising steeply this month, with the military today announcing the deaths of two more soldiers, bringing the number of troops killed this month to at least 33. That figure already surpasses the American military deaths for all of March, and could signal a renewed insurgent offensive against the American presence here....

[Bruce Wilder]

I'm with PaulV. Not a good idea to elect an ignorant, uncurious, immature person (aka an "idiot" or "moron").

The Bush Presidency, and its contrast to the Clinton Presidency, which preceded it, are object lessons in the power and importance of leadership. I don't have this warm confidence, though, that the American People, as a whole, have taken this lesson to heart. We elected him in 2004, after we knew what we were getting. (This is the figurative "we", of course: I did not vote for him, in either election.)

One of my favorite 'bloggers, who does not write much anymore, is the inestimable Billmon. He's written out a depressingly realistic scenario for the reaction to the U.S. attack on Iran -- definitely worth a read:
http://billmon.org/archives/002375.html

[bakho]

Everything said in the above article could be applied to the Bush tax cuts. Honest economists knew that they were unaffordable.

What does a country do if they cannot trust the president?

[Robert Bell]

What I don't see in the WaPo report is the detailed chronology of who read what where and when. The fact that there existed a report saying the trailers were NOT bioweapons contemporaneous with public statements that there were doesn't mean all that much if the right people didn't see it.

[anne]

No; it is not criticizing weapons inspections or fancied uranium dealings or sinister trailers or barrels of germs or weather balloons of death or this or that. Iraq was no threat to America, and there was no reason to go to war in Iraq and no reason to occupy Iraq after the government was deposed and no reason to be there after election on election. There was no rationally discussed policy leading us to and in was and occupation, only a call to our fears.

[calmo]

Fearful Symmetry --a notable piece of literary criticism, but can I remember a word of it? no.

The continuing barage of Bush-critical sentiment and the coincident fall in the approval ratings atleast have the President before the public (or more likely, military audience) in an effort to shore up his popularity. And how effective these bursts of "mere speculation" are!
So much for that fickle 'political capital' he was about to spend after his (cough) re-election.
At what point in these declining polls do members of Congress stand up, not so much like representatives running for their political careers, but like the citizens they represent: real men/women who work and live in this country because they believe in democracy? They are worse than the illegal immigrants they are legislating out of the country.

[pgl]

It's all timing. The Iraq issue would carry the day for Rove's political agenda for both 2002 & 2004 so he put in inventory the whipping up of fear in regards Iran for the 2006 elections. See the incredible logic of the Evil Genius?

[Barry]

Robert, some comments - first, chemical and biological weapons were the alleged threat to the US which justified the war. I'd think that reports would be sped up the ladder. Bypassing most of the bureaucracy, but the administration likes to do that.

Second, and more important - according to administration, there were 'vast stockpiles' of chemical and biological weapons. But this team didn't arrive in Iraq until a couple of months after the war started.

Why weren't teams available from the very hour that the troops crossed into Iraq? There are only two explanations, neither good.

[EC]

EC says...

The Minority Report
The Washington Post runs a deceptive and dishonest report about the evaluation of the Iraqi trailers that had been identified as biological weapons labs prior to the invasion in March 2003. Their front-page story announces breathlessly that the Bush administration ignored the findings of a team of experts who concluded that the trailers could not have acted as portable bioweapons platforms prior to a Bush announcement of exactly the opposite -- but below the fold, they tell a different story.

Let's take a look at the lead first:

On May 29, 2003, 50 days after the fall of Baghdad, President Bush proclaimed a fresh victory for his administration in Iraq: Two small trailers captured by U.S. and Kurdish troops had turned out to be long-sought mobile "biological laboratories." He declared, "We have found the weapons of mass destruction."
The claim, repeated by top administration officials for months afterward, was hailed at the time as a vindication of the decision to go to war. But even as Bush spoke, U.S. intelligence officials possessed powerful evidence that it was not true.

A secret fact-finding mission to Iraq -- not made public until now -- had already concluded that the trailers had nothing to do with biological weapons. Leaders of the Pentagon-sponsored mission transmitted their unanimous findings to Washington in a field report on May 27, 2003, two days before the president's statement.

Sounds damning, and if that was the only report on the trailers, it certainly would be. What the Post neglects to mention in its sensationalist zeal is that this was one of several teams that investigated the trailers, and the totality of their evaluations came to a different conclusion that that of the leakers who supplied this story. Skip down to the 12th paragraph, which is when Joby Warrick finally gets around to providing the context:

Intelligence analysts involved in high-level discussions about the trailers noted that the technical team was among several groups that analyzed the suspected mobile labs throughout the spring and summer of 2003. Two teams of military experts who viewed the trailers soon after their discovery concluded that the facilities were weapons labs, a finding that strongly influenced views of intelligence officials in Washington, the analysts said. "It was hotly debated, and there were experts making arguments on both sides," said one former senior official who spoke on the condition that he not be identified.
The Pentagon didn't send one team of experts to review the trailers; they sent three, presumably to get a diverse analysis of the evidence, especially since the pre-war intel on WMD had come up remarkably short. That sounds like a prudent strategy to me, having competing teams research the same equipment and evidence to develop independent analyses to present to the Pentagon. They did so, and two of the three teams provided conclusions that fit the pre-war intel, while one did not.

So where's the issue? It turns out that the minority report was the correct analysis after all, of course, but at the time Bush spoke it was just that -- a minority report. To put it in advertising terms, two out of three inspectors agreed that the trailers were part of Saddam's WMD effort. The Pentagon relied on that majority opinion, as did the administration, and no one can argue that doing so constituted either an intent to deceive or even an unreasonable decision at the time.

No one can argue that, of course, but the Post and the media in general. Instead of simply reporting that the Pentagon didn't have consensus on this issue and that the minority report wound up being the most accurate, Joby Warrick turns the story into a Geraldo Rivera my-life-is-actually-in-danger type of journalism that substitutes cheap sensationalism for accuracy. Prior to informing the readers of the existence of two separate analyses that contradicted the report supplied by the leakers, Warrick enthralls us with a paragraph stating how none of the leakers will identify themselves for fear of retribution and a colorful epithet that the leakers considered the trailers "sand toilet[s]".

I don't know how to break this to Warrick, but all leakers want anonymity to avoid retribution. That's not news, unless you're on your first assignment for a newspaper. And correct me if I'm wrong, but colorful epithets about chemical labs on trailers don't have greater news value than the information that your sources were outnumbered in their analysis (and your big scoop) 2-1.

This is a rather pathetic and transparent example of how the news media stages information so as to be most damaging to an administration they don't like. The downplaying of the full context of this story shows that Warrick and his editors want sensationalism and hyperbole over facts and real reporting. This could have been a story about how even a creative strategy as that used by the Pentagon to review these trailers still wound up producing the wrong analysis. In trying to paint it as an example of administration dishonesty, the Post instead reveals its own.

The Confederate Yankee agrees and has more on this subject.

Posted by Captain Ed at 05:25 AM | Comments (26) | TrackBack (0)

[DevsAd]

Since we are cutting and pasting about Captain Ed, here's Kevin Drum:

DEFENDING THE INDEFENSIBLE....Captain Ed defends the honor of the Bush adminstration in re The Case of the Dubious Mobile Bioweapons Labs:

What the Post neglects to mention in its sensationalist zeal is that this was one of several teams that investigated the trailers, and the totality of their evaluations came to a different conclusion than that of the leakers who supplied this story.

....To put it in advertising terms, two out of three inspectors agreed that the trailers were part of Saddam's WMD effort. The Pentagon relied on that majority opinion, as did the administration, and no one can argue that doing so constituted either an intent to deceive or even an unreasonable decision at the time.

Nice try, but cutesy advertising jingles to the contrary, this episode fits the usual MO of the Bush administration perfectly: a flat statement of fact about intelligence matters that's made with great fanfare even though they know there's significant dissent within the intelligence community. I haven't been keeping my list of examples up to date, but here are seven cases of the exact same thing, and what they demonstrate beyond question is that you simply can't trust the Bush administration's public statements about intelligence issues. The bioweapons story is #8.

So: Intent to deceive? Check. Unreasonable decision? Check. Deliberate lie? Check.

—Kevin Drum 12:02 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (79)

[Movie Guy]

Mark Thoma -- "While the administration was busy figuring out how to manipulate the evidence to support its case for war in Iraq, Iran was busy figuring out how to enrich uranium."

Yeah, and while many have been dwelling on the early history of the U.S.-Iraq war, Israel has been doing this:

Israel Will Likely Use Nuclear Weapons in Attacking Iran

"Israel is preparing, as well. The government recently leaked a contingency plan for attacking on its own if the United States does not, a plan involving airstrikes, commando teams, possibly missiles and even explosives-carrying dogs. Israel, which bombed Iraq's Osirak nuclear plant in 1981 to prevent it from being used to develop weapons, has built a replica of Natanz, according to Israeli media, but U.S. strategists do not believe Israel has the capacity to accomplish the mission without nuclear weapons."

"Israel points to [recent Iran missile tests] to press their case in Washington. Israeli officials traveled here recently to convey more urgency about Iran. Although U.S. intelligence agencies estimate Iran is about a decade away from having a nuclear bomb, Israelis believe a critical breakthrough could occur within months. They told U.S. officials that Iran is beginning to test a more elaborate cascade of centrifuges, indicating that it is further along than previously believed."

So, when are the posters going to start expressing alarm and shock over Israel's preparations?

The bigger picture is the strong likelihood that Israel will attack Iran over its nuclear development program, absent U.S./EU/NATO actions, and is much more likely to employ nuclear weapons, whether tactical or strategic or both.

"Do you feel safer now?" Right, Mark. That is my question to you...and all readers and posters.

[Movie Guy]

Israel Will Act

The bigger picture is the strong likelihood that Israel will attack Iran over its nuclear development program, absent U.S./EU/NATO actions, and is much more likely to employ nuclear weapons, whether tactical or strategic or both.

For those who are quick to condemn any U.S. actions, they might want to remove those Bushbasher and anti-U.S. Government blinders and realize that Israel isn't filled with indecisive or cowardly people in the ranks of its government and society.

Israel will not wait for Iran to fulfill its publicly announced intentions of destroying Israel. In my judgment, Israel will strike Iran if the EU-3, UN, and any U.S. negotiations with Iran fail, and the U.S./EU/NATO do not take actions which force Iran to give up any perceived or known nuclear weaponry ambitions, including uranium enrichment capability of such scale that exceeds civil nuclear needs.

It has been stated by some considered to be experts in the nuclear field and industry that the Natanz weapon-hardened underground centrifuge facility in Iran can readily accommodate operations of 50,000 to 60,000 centrifuges, enough to build over 20 nuclear bombs/weapons per year.

Israel will not sit by and allow these types of activities in Iran to go forward. Israel will act. Forcefully. Which is the only thing that the Iran leadership appears to respect or fear.

[ken melvin]

Israel should wait until Iran has an equal number then they should go at until the last man standing.

[Movie Guy]

Israel Says US Should Take Lead in Dealing With Iran's Nuclear Program
Jerusalem
Thursday, 12 April 2006

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad proudly announced that Iran had successfully enriched uranium - the essential building block to produce both nuclear energy and nuclear weapons. That development comes as no surprise, says Israeli lawmaker Yuval Steinitz, who heads the Knesset's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee.

"I said three or four months ago that I assume this spring the Iranians will make such an achievement and such an announcement and now it should be clear and obvious that the Iranians are running to [toward developing] nuclear bombs if there will be no serious obstacles," said Steinitz.

Israeli lawmaker Yuval Steinitz doubts that diplomacy or even tough sanctions will be effective against Iran. "They're so close to their goal to threaten not just the Middle East and Israel, but the entire world because now they're building missiles with the range of Europe already and the next generation [of missiles] will reach the east coast of the United States," he said. "I'm skeptical if they will give up due to pressure. Let's hope so."

Steinitz says the threat of a nuclear Iran is serious enough to consider other options. "I think the West, under the leadership of the United States, will have to consider also brute force in order to pre-empt and prevent a devastating threat to world peace - nuclear weapons in the hands of fundamentalist ayatollahs that are ready to sacrifice millions," he added.

[anne]

Israel is a mix as are all countries or wonderful joys and sadnesses, but Israel is a humane democracy and it is beyond conception that she could attack another nation with nuclear weapons. Sweet friends are celebrating Passover, and such thoughts would be entirely beyond them as they are entirely beyond any other friend. Please have a care for peace, and think to Martin Luther King for guidance.

[Bruce Wilder]

Here's the thing, Movie Guy:

I am alarmed. I am alarmed that the President of the United States is a foolish, incompetent, immature moron, who may be about to launch a second unprovoked war.

If the U.S. continues to act like a rogue state, the rest of the world will eventually find a way to destroy this country, out of simple self-protection. We will be like Athens at the end of the Peloponnesian War, or France in 1815, or worse, and our well-deserved fate will come at the cost of millions, if not billions, of lives.

[Bruce Webb]

I am by no means any kind of expert on biological weapons but I was reading a lot from people who are in the runup to the war and it was obvious that you do not culture biological weapons in a canvas sided truck in a desert. How would you possibly seal it enough to keep the dust out and the biological agent in (in an accident)? What about climate control? Can you really produce and store biological weapons when the ambient air temperature is 115 degrees? What about vibration as you move along the road?

Anyone who took five minutes to actually think about this in practical terms concluded that whatever this odd set of vehicles was, it was unlikely in the extreme that they were used for biologicals.

Now someone can explain how in fact this was technically feasible, I am always willing to listen. But I was openly skeptical then. It never added up.

[Movie Guy]

Bruce Wilder -- "I am alarmed that the President of the United States is a foolish, incompetent, immature moron, who may be about to launch a second unprovoked war."

I posted information about Israel's position.

Aside form back row fifth grade language and slimball remarks about President Bush, what is your position on what Israel may do?

My three posts were about Israel.

[calmo]

Movie needs to review his posts to gain some perspective --just to check that the perceived mud thrown ("Bush is incompetent...") is worth the risk of a return:
Aside form back row fifth grade language and slimball remarks about President Bush...
that might show the mud not altogether (or possibly not any at all), on Bruce's face.

Did you post about Israel?

You linked to articles that informed your opinion and I hope did not replace that critical opinion we have come to admire.
This bit contained in the last link (Voice of America --the official US propaganda agent to the rest of the world, no? )
Israel will neither confirm nor deny that it has nuclear weapons, but outside experts believe it has 100 to 200 nuclear warheads in its arsenal.
curiously absent from your post. [This is what I call the self-condemning outside expert view, you?]
Would you say that Steinitz has an objective view of the matter given this:

That development comes as no surprise, says Israeli lawmaker Yuval Steinitz, who heads the Knesset's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee.

or is he likely to error on the side of NukemNow?

Was your intent to show the official Israeli reaction or, merely to amplify components of the VOA's version of the recent news from Iran?

ken, you are a beauty.

[yartrebo]

Israel a humane democracy? What a joke. They're as much a theocracy as any of the Muslim nations surrounding it. And theocracies are, as a rule, inhumane and not democracies.

If one looks at the world's wars and conflicts, nearly every single one has religion/ethnicity as either the cause or a major facilitator/excuse for the war. Religion (along with it's cousins - racism and patriotism) takes otherwise compromising and rational people and makes monsters out of them. Very few people have the guts to kill people purely for greed. They need an excuse or a rationalization.

Religion, racism, and patriotism all tell people to avoid thought and to believe blindly what is said. When rational inquiry is tossed out the window, it becomes a lot easier to sway public opinion to support immoral acts or acts that are against the self-interests of the public (the Iraq war has hurt the average US person economically, if not physically).

I have wondered: If I go around preaching that mystical creatures from a cartoon or fairy tale are real, I'll be at best ridiculed and at worst committed to an insane asylum. If I go around preaching about Jesus, then I'm considered a perfectly sane and healthy person. Why is one story any more believable than the other?

Unfortunately, unlike fairy tales, believing in a religion generally carries some hefty costs. Lousy decisions get made (like going on religious wars and using it as a pretext to discriminate). Lousy policies are supported (pro-natal policies, anti-progress policies). Religious institutions take a significant share of GDP to maintain. Belief in religion hinders the adoption of scientific reasoning and encourages people not to think critically. Religion even makes a mockery of morality, as many people actually think they're being morally good when committing atrocities in the name of religion.

A quick survey of the world will bring up religious countries as generally being sources of violence. The whole Middle East is religious, and has plenty of conflict. The USA is religious, and causes plenty of trouble. Europe and China are mostly agnostic/atheist and haven't stirred up much trouble recently. Cuba is mostly atheist, and has not only never attacked another country, but is a big foreign aid donor.

Especially on a message board that's supposed to be geared towards economists, I'm surprised at the number of people who subscribe to religion.

[Bruce Wilder]

MG: "My three posts were about Israel."

Your three >commentspost< was about evidence of Bush incompetence and mendacity, and its implications.

My comment was about what concerned and alarmed me.

[DJM]

from http://billmon.org/archives/002375.html mentioned above by Bruce Wilder
Mutually Assured Dementia April 11, 2006

" I'm familiar enough with Cold War history to know the United States has at least considered the first use of nuclear weapons before...................the current nuclear war gaming strikes me as much more likely to end in the real thing – partly because the neocons appear to have convinced themselves a "tactical" strike doesn't really count, partly because of what Hersh politely refers to as Bush's "messianic vision" (Cheney may have his finger on the bureaucracy, but Shrub is still the one with his finger on the button) but mostly because I think these guys really think they can get away with it....................
.....the current hegemony of American influence and ideas (backed by overwhelming military force) would be replaced by an overt dictatorship based – more or less explicitly – on fear of nuclear annihilation.

.............A country that nukes other countries merely on the suspicion that they may pose a future security threat isn't the equal of anybody. America would stand completely alone: hated by many, feared by all, admired only by the world’s other tyrants. To call that a watershed event seems a ridiculous understatement."

I think he pretty clearly laid out the "NukemNow philosophy" of our messianic lunatic.

[Dirk van Dijk]

Any Israeli strike on Iran, would have to include flying over Iraq, who's airspace is controled by the U.S. Thus the U.S. would have to aquiese to the strike, and would be just as complicit as would Ireal. Thus nothing is really gained by leaving the "dirty work" to Isreal. The Iranian and world reaction would be the same. I suspect that Iran would close the staright of Hormuz, and quite possibly take out the Saudi and Kuwaiti oil production facilities. Such an action would likely bring the U.S. and world economies to their knees. There are no good milatary options for dealing with Iran.