http://www.msnbc.com/news/867105.asp Well, this is getting weird. Turns out Nutmeg - I think it was Nutmeg - was right, in that the evidence we kept hearing about directly related to technology that we didn't want to tip off to other countries. “They’re saying things like, ‘Move that,’ ‘Don’t be reporting that’ and ‘Ha! Can you believe they missed that’,” the official said. “It’s that kind of stuff.” Other officials cautioned, however, against viewing the intercepts as the long-sought “smoking gun” in the search for Iraq’s purported stockpile of banned weapons. There may still be some ambiguity about what the Iraqis are referring to in some of the conversations. Some of the material being concealed may be precursors to building weapons, or even documents and computer disks as opposed to actual chemical or biological weapons themselves. The transcripts “show that there’s been a pattern of deception,” said another official, who had been briefed on the evidence. “But does that make the case that you have to go to war?” My reactions: (1) Legally, Iraq is screwed, if any of this turns out to be true. It's a material breach, in that it isn't full cooperation. (2) Obligatory conspiracy theory - so, uh, how easy would THIS be to fake? (3) Wait, I thought we had the goods on them before the inspections. That's what we kept saying, over and over. Taping them hiding stuff during inspections isn't as compelling as actually seeing the stuff. (4) Maybe they're waiting for Powell to reveal conversations along the lines of "So, is our nuke in position yet?" (5) I suppose the conversations refer to "these aluminum tubes which we are using to make nuclear weapons," because otherwise Bush referring to it is still completely batty. (6) The "burning forest" promised better be just that. Incontrovertible. Even better than this, for example, which proves the violation of the UN resolution without proving an imminent threat. (7) So, what if Saddam says "Ah, ya got me, and gives everything up, complying the way he should have done before now? If we can catch them doing stuff like this, do we need to go to war? Especially now that we've proven we have this level of intelligence capability. (8) Keep in mind that so far, everything the administration has said on the subject regarding solid evidence has turned out to be crap. (9) Okay, suppose it's not a conspiracy of fakery - tell that to France, Germany and the Arab world. (10) We have this kind of intelligence capability, and we still can't ************ing catch Osama Bin Laden? Where are our priorities?
And lack of full cooperation is punishable by... complete annihilation? Turning every Iraqi into camel food? I mean, if Saddam is uncatchable, doesn't take exile somewhere and has a complete disdain for his own population anyway, why would he ever give up? And considering that this one is entirely about Saddam, could Dubya ever pull the US military of Iraq without his head on a pike?
I think that your point 3 is important here. Bush wanted to invade very much way before he ever went to the UN. What this has turned into is something like the Abscam, where we are suspicious of someone and then put them into a situation where they will commit a crime. While the conversations themselves could not be revealed, I wonder why we didn't slip some information to the inspectors. The places the UN checks are random enough - I don't think it would tip our hand for them to "stumble" apon a cache of mustard gas or an underground lab. Of course, if the inspections looked like they were working, there wouldn't be an invasion and we can't have that.
Re: Re: Iraq Coverup Caught On Tape I'm sure you read the article about how the current plan is to send 80 missiles into Baghdad in the first two days. Oh, wait - that's not eighty, that's EIGHT HUNDRED. Hope no one bet the under on the civilian casualty pool. We can't use this eavesdropping technology to figure out where Saddam is?
Originally posted by Dan Loney Turns out Nutmeg - I think it was Nutmeg - was right, in that the evidence we kept hearing about directly related to technology that we didn't want to tip off to other countries. I don't know if you were arguing with Nutmeg about this but you certainly argued "strongly" against me when I mentioned this possibility over on the "Writers, artists and civic leaders on the war" thread. I'd include the link so you could eat crow but I want to wait until we actually hear the tapes... Our government usually tries to hide evidence of intelligence technical means even if everyone in the world already assumes we have that capability. (2) Obligatory conspiracy theory - so, uh, how easy would THIS be to fake? Very easy to supereasy depending on the nature of the records they make public. Heck any movie studio could do that. I guess you have to decide when to trust the government and rest your faith in the fact that it would be worse than a Nixon-type situation if they were found to be fake. (3) Wait, I thought we had the goods on them before the inspections. That's what we kept saying, over and over. Taping them hiding stuff during inspections isn't as compelling as actually seeing the stuff. However, this evidence (if it is as good as they claim) should be enough to garner int'l support and may be less damaging to reveal than other forms of evidence. I would not be surprised to hear about additional evidence (including human sources) once the war is over. Do you really need video of them brewing up ebola or moving labeled drums of chemical weapon production materials before you'll acknowledge the validity of the case? (7) So, what if Saddam says "Ah, ya got me, and gives everything up, complying the way he should have done before now? If we can catch them doing stuff like this, do we need to go to war? Especially now that we've proven we have this level of intelligence capability. Right. So he complies a bit more for a month or two, while cooking up new methods to hide the WMDs, and we just pray he does that forever? I don't think he'll get another "last and final chance" unless he produces everything (and I mean everything beyond a doubt) between 2/5 and the day the bombs start falling.
Re: Re: Iraq Coverup Caught On Tape Sorry. Yes, you were right, the US was protecting a new intelligence method, and didn't want to reveal it until they had to. (....so they could eavesdrop on Saddam's ministers, but they couldn't eavesdrop on the Saudis financing al-Qaeda...?)