The Observation Deck

You can trot out a million, no a zillion quotes, of people who believed Iraq possessed WMD in 2002-2003 and it only represents your changing the subject from the one assertion you've made that cannot be backed up.

By the way, it can't be backed up because you don't have any evidence to present.

But allow me to take you to school. Your indulging in what's termed the logical fallacy, 'appeal to authority'.

If you line up a thousand august proponents of a flat earth, that won't make it true. Likewise with the moon is made of green cheese, WMD in Iraq, etc.

In fact it's telling that you think your doing so AND, in effect, changing the subject to how people were bamboozled by the lack of positive evidence, (what we term in cognitive psychology, the 'confirmation bias,' and this tending to 'group think,') is somehow going to convince me that you've come up with something that might convince me.

As I suggested before, if there was any solid, verifiable, credible, material, evidence of Iraq possessing WMD at the time the US instantiated the catastrophic imperium, we'd all know about it because it would be tremendously huge news in the hallways of the White House, in the newsroom of Fox, in the tiny synapses of Rush Limbaugh, et al.

Right?

That's one reason why it's ironic you think the media has blocked this non-fact out.

At the least, these quotes prove that the WMD issue existed before Bush took office.

This isn't in dispute. (Heck Saddam gassed the Kurds.) Why bring it up?

As for going back to CSU to brush up on 8th grade grammar, it would be cheaper to sit in on an 8th grade english class, or ESL class, no?

Mr. Calhoun,

Just trying to understand what you are saying. Are you saying that there were no WMD's when the war started or that none were found?

I don't know whether there were WMD in Iraq at the point the war commenced. I surmise that there were not any simply because no evidence has been found that there were such weapons.

No evidence of a WMD threat circa the war's beginning has been found.

Leaving several possibilities able to support their existence at the time: they remain hidden; they were spirited away.

Except neither possibility supports diddly squat until they emit material evidence, thus until the weapons are discovered be they hidden in Iraq or elsewhere.

I'm aware of the fringe theories that rest on verifiable zip.

Steve, how can the quotes be irrelevant? These are not quotes from people off the street but from people that were at the helm of our government (the former leaders of our nation). These individuals had access to classified information and formed an opinion based on that classified information. The quotes along with the actions of Bill Clinton on 12-16-98 prove that our government from the years 1998 - 2003 believed that Iraq possessed WMD's. I have backed up the assertion that Saddam possessed WMD'S. The 1999 UNSCOM report to the Security Council clearly spells out that Iraq possessed WMD's. UN Resolution 1441 stated that Iraq was in material breach of the ceasefire terms presented under the terms of Resolution 687. Under 1441, Saddam Hussein was to allow unimpeded access by the UN and International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors. He was to fully declare within thirty days of the resolution all details of any Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, delivery systems, and/or WMD programs. He did not. These were more than theories.

Oh heavens.

I guess in your world you've backed up your assertions.

The quotes matter inasmuch as they were proved wrong with respect to existence of WMD.

It really isn't a whole heckuva lot more complicated than that.

You've said you will present what in my world would, if its risable, count as positive, material and credible evidence that WMD existed in Iraq in, say, 2002.

Rather than do so you've introduced secondary issues, and in doing so, incurred the fault of those claims not in anyway being evidentiary in the terms that count: positive, material, and--it needs to be said--off the point of a request for evidence.

In effect, you are changing the subject. How you can entertain the idea that I might be swayed by deceptive presentations is, perhaps only in my world, mind boggling.

The 1999 UNSCOM Report is here: http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/s/990125/index.html. You haven't read it it would seem, but if you have please introduce evidentiary claims that back your original claim.

Your original claim remains unaddressed. The history of those secondary issues is of interest to me but is not germane to my request. I would like to insist that you pare those irrelevancies away. They are of zero import to establishing evidence for your claim.

All you need to do is present evidence that WMD were a material fact on the ground sometime in 2002. That experts believed it so doesn't make it so. Experts once thought the earth was flat. They even had evidence. Two different extensive searches conducted by the US after the invasion came up with nothing that counts for threatening WMD.

But, Stephen, I will wait patiently for your thrilling presentation that nails your claim.

[quote="Stephen Calhoun"]Oh heavens.


The quotes matter inasmuch as they were proved wrong with respect to existence of WMD.

It really isn't a whole heckuva lot more complicated than that.

Mr. Calhoun,

You seem to be very strict in the use of words and their meaning. Would you explain to me the faults in my logic when I say that you are stating this incorrectly. I realize my logic courses were over three decades ago, however, I seem to recall that not proving something is not the same as disproving it. The fact that WMD's were not found is not the same as proving that they did not exist. Please help me out here and show me what I'm missing. After all, OJ was not proven guilty of a double homicide years ago, but that does not mean he didn't do it.

Thank you.

The 1999 report from UNSCOM to the UN Security Council was clear. Iraq possessed WMD's. UNSCOM stated it its report that Iraq did not declare, remove or detroy all of its WMD's. The below quotes from the report are red flags for me..

33. Iraq declared that 550 shells filled with mustard had been "lost" shortly after the Gulf War. To date, no evidence of the missing munitions has been found. Iraq claimed that the chemical warfare agents filled into these weapons would be degraded a long time ago and, therefore, there would be no need for their accounting. However, a dozen mustard-filled shells were recovered at a former CW storage facility in the period 1997-1998. The chemical sampling of these munitions, in April 1998, revealed that the mustard was still of the highest quality. After seven years, the purity of mustard ranged between 94 and 97%. Thus, Iraq has to account for these munitions which would be ready for combat use. The resolution of this specific issue would also increase confidence in accepting Iraq's other declarations on losses of chemical weapons which it has not been possible to verify.

34. Among 1,550 R-400 bombs produced by Iraq, more than 1,000 bombs were declared as destroyed unilaterally by Iraq, including 157 bombs stated as having been filled with biological warfare agents. The accounting for about 500 bombs unilaterally destroyed has not been possible due to the state and extent of their destruction. In order to bridge the gap, the Commission asked Iraq to provide documentation on the disposition of the parachute tail sections of R-400 bombs. The accounting for these components would enable the Commission to verify the maximum number of R-400 bombs, which Iraq could have produced. Though this would not solve the specific issue of the quantity and composition of BW bombs, including allocation of BW agents, it may facilitate the final accounting for the chemical R-400 bombs. Iraq presented the information sought on the disposition of tail sections but field inspection activities are still required to verify the full accounting for these weapons.

Accounting for the Production of the Chemical Warfare Agent VX

35. The degree of verification achieved is not satisfactory. Iraq declared that it had produced a total of 3.9 tonnes of VX. Iraq provided documents on production in 1988, but failed to provide verifiable evidence for its activities in 1990. Iraq also denies that it weaponized VX. Sampling by the Commission of special warheads has thrown significant doubt upon this claim. Iraq needs to provide verifiable evidence and clarifications to support its declarations on the production and weaponization of VX. Technical meetings with the Iraqi specialists and field verification are required.

Material Balance of CW-Production Equipment

36. One hundred and ninety-seven pieces of glass CW production equipment were removed by Iraq from its prime CW facility prior to the Commission's arrival in 1991 and were repeatedly moved in shipping containers between several facilities throughout Baghdad until 1996. This production equipment from two of 20 shipping containers was destroyed under the Commission's supervision in 1997. To ensure that all CW production equipment removed from the CW facility has been accounted for, the Commission requested Iraq to provide its clarifications on their movement. Iraq presented such clarifications in July 1998. Field verification is still required to increase the degree of confidence that all equipment has been accounted for.

38. Since August 1995, Iraq has submitted a number of "Full, Final and Complete Disclosures" (FFCD) of its declared BW programme. These declarations have been assessed by the Commission and by international experts as incomplete, inadequate and containing substantial deficiencies. They were not accepted as a full account of the scale and the scope of Iraq's BW programme. This refers in particular to weaponization of produced BW agents, bulk BW agent production and acquisitions for the BW programme.

39. In the Commission's view, Iraq has not complied with requirements of the relevant Security Council resolutions on the disclosure of its biological warfare programme. A full, complete and verifiable disclosure of all its biological weapons activities needs to be presented by Iraq.

Would you explain to me the faults in my logic when I say that you are stating this incorrectly.

Stephen, I klnow lots of people who can assemble an argument based in, first, sound propositions, second, introduction of a hypothesis given by the domain of those propositions, third, a coherent verification or falsification of said hypothesis made in the form of logical argument.

Yet, my experience is that people who are usually logical developed those chops naturally and without any coursework.

This said, a discussion of WMD in Iraq isn't rocket science.

You've formed a hypothesis: WMD existed in Iraq sometime right before or at the time of the invasion of Iraq.

What would count as evidence for the material existence of WMD? (How about: weapons of mass destruction in a semblance of the form constituting a realizable threat?)

You've introduced all sorts of non-material propositions into the argument. Informally viewed, these are each straw men; are weak arguments offered as dispositive arguments.

They are weak because they are speculative, and, also, they point right back to the unproved hypothesis. But they are worse than being speculative because they don't introduce any dispositive evidence in their own right. None of those quotes settle anything, and they're illogical with respect to your claim because they aren't even in the form of evidence that would materially and indicatively support your claim.

The fact that WMD's were not found is not the same as proving that they did not exist.

Exactly. My only evidence for their not existing is the complete lack of evidence for their existing.

Now you have introduced quotes from the 1999 UNSCOM report. This report makes several evidentiary posits.

1. However, a dozen mustard-filled shells were recovered at a former CW storage facility in the period 1997-1998.

Although mustard gas isn't a WMD, nevertheless, this finding supports a claim that Iraq had gas weaponry in 1998. Thus, it is not dispositive in anyway with respect to your unproven claim.

2. Iraq presented the information sought on the disposition of tail sections but field inspection activities are still required to verify the full accounting for these weapons.

No account has been made. In fact, the detritus of delivery systems (such as the Al Samoud 2) were found post invasion. However, once again, inspectors (see Kay 2003; https://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2003/david_kay_10022003.html) found no evidence of those systems being weaponized with WMD in the relevant timeframe. Nor did Mr. Duelfer (See: https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/index.html) <A>

3. Iraq also denies that it weaponized VX. Sampling by the Commission of special warheads has thrown significant doubt upon this claim.

See <A>. No evidence was found of deliverable VX or any substantive nerve agent WMD suggstive of capability in the relevant timeframe.

4. Iraq presented such clarifications in July 1998. Field verification is still required to increase the degree of confidence that all equipment has been accounted for.

The complete accounting was never provided by Iraq/Saddam. However, in Hans Blix's reports to the UN, no positive claim was made for the existence of CW capability in the time period we're concerned with. Then, from this, we move to <A> and the findings of the Kay/Duelfer reports, referenced above.

5. These declarations have been assessed by the Commission and by international experts as incomplete, inadequate and containing substantial deficiencies.

Yes, but, so what? This is a super example of a straw man, relevant to some other claims but not of any import to the single one under discussion. Yes, it is a fault of either your education or cognitive abilities (sorry!) that you trot this irrelevancy out in public.

6. In the Commission's view, Iraq has not complied with requirements of the relevant Security Council resolutions on the disclosure of its biological warfare programme. A full, complete and verifiable disclosure of all its biological weapons activities needs to be presented by Iraq.

Likewise. Irrelevant; immaterial; not even existing within the logical category via which a material claim, let alone evidence, could be introduced in support of your unproven claim.

I can't do anything about your nonsensical illogical approach, Stephen. Pre-invasion, there was alot of circumstantial evidence, and you've, basically, brought it here in all its subjunctive irrelevance.

However, none of it leads to the single bit of evidence that would count for something pertinent to your claim: actual evidence of the actual WMD weaponry constituting an actual capability in 2002-2003.

I suspect now you won't deliver the goods, yet, I do figure that if Blix, Kay and Duelfer couldn't deliver the goods, some dude in Lakewood won't be successful where they failed. Although, if you could, it would make for a momentous LO headline: LAKEWOOD INVESTIGATOR DISCOVERS WMD IN IRAQ FROM LIVING ROOM LAZY BOY. This would be very cool! You'd become very famous instantly and get to flirt with Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin and Katie Couric.

I'm not sure why you think I will suddenly become cognitively impaired and thus seduced by your own illogic and irrationality. It won't happen. So, the tiring cut-and-paste of "besides-the-point" crap might as well come to an end. It serves no purpose and only highlights your inability to present valid evidence in support of your claim.

I'm reminded of the firestorm the Kay Report created when it became patently obvious that the UN inspector's inability to find--in the 1st quarter of 2003--active WMD, was because there weren't any WMD to find in Iraq.

It was a stirring moment of 'counter-mendacity.' Our emperor was suddenly naked and looking very much like a war criminal, having committed the US to an illegal war and the expenditure of blood, treasure and hundreds of thousands of innocent lives.

Dr. Puck

Our emperor was suddenly naked

I love it when you talk dirty.

Jeff

You've introduced all sorts of non-material propositions into the argument. Informally viewed, these are each straw men; are weak arguments offered as dispositive arguments.

Weak by who's standards? Yours? I am glad that UNSCOM, President Bill Clinton, President George Bush, Al Gore, Madeline Albright, The UN Security Council and many other politicians did not apply your logic to the WMD issue in Iraq. The final report to the UN Security Council from UNSCOM pointed out that not all of the WMD's in Iraq were accounted for or destroyed or declared.

I can't do anything about your nonsensical illogical approach, Stephen. Pre-invasion, there was alot of circumstantial evidence, and you've, basically, brought it here in all its subjunctive irrelevance.

Illogical is the belief that the WMD's were left so the US could find them after the US lead invasion. Illogical is not taking action against Iraq after it dis-honored its terms of surrender from the first Gulf War and blocked weapon inspectors from doing their job. Nonsensical is the belief that Saddam Hussein who used WMD's before would never use them again.

Stephen Calhoun wrote:

Would you explain to me the faults in my logic when I say that you are stating this incorrectly.

Stephen, I klnow lots of people who can assemble an argument based in, first, sound propositions, second, introduction of a hypothesis given by the domain of those propositions, third, a coherent verification or falsification of said hypothesis made in the form of logical argument.

Mr. Calhoun,

You may have missed it, but when you attributed the above quote to Mr. Eisel you were mistaken.

"Yet, my experience is that people who are usually logical developed those chops naturally and without any coursework."

I found the above quote somewhat offensive. You can rest assured that most of my learning was from life experience and not college courses. Your inability to answer a simple question clearly and concisely speaks volumes. My question to you was polite and to the point.

The most intelligent person I ever met was a woman who was still collecting advanced degrees well into her 70's. She had more doctorates than anyone I ever interacted with. Although she had the ability to converse with experts in many fields and many languages she taught me that a truly intelligent person was able to converse just as easily with a five year old. She taught me that there was a huge difference between the level of intelligence and the level of education.

During my career it was not unusual to go from dealing with drunk redneck hillbillies in birdtown to college professors on Edgewater to conversing in ebonics at Cove and Detroit all during the same shift. There was no guarantee that the college professor was the most intelligent, only the most educated.

I won't bother you in the future by asking simple questions that call for simple answers.

You've finally brought this to the satisfying court of absurdity, although you've been courting this court from the git-go.

You sound frustrated, Stephen. Well, it must be frustrating. You made a claim, can't back it up, and now you've opened up the silly season; this would be comedy for the sake of what?

Anyway, to fulfill my role...

You've become tangled up in what counts in your own mind as strong enough argument whereas in the real world of rational argument, you've entered no dispositive evidence, nor argument, nothing that can prove your claim whatsoever.

I assume you can harp on your nonsensical non-evidence indefinitely.

The final report to the UN Security Council from UNSCOM pointed out that not all of the WMD's in Iraq were accounted for or destroyed or declared.

In granting this, we are compelled to grant that Saddam's representatives also stated that the Iraqi regime had no WMD. This turned out to be true.

Illogical is the belief that the WMD's were left so the US could find them after the US lead invasion.

One of the two or three funniest things I've read about the entire subject anywhere. Of course it's not illogical to point out no WMD have been found. But, I'm completely open to veracious material evidence that the WMD can be found somewhere other than in Iraq.

If this is your new claim, back it up. I'm "all in" man.

Kevin, you asked,

Are you saying that there were no WMD's when the war started or that none were found?

As far as anybody--rational--knows, there were no WMD in Iraq when the war started. Obviously none have been found.

I'm happy you had good mentoring and this has figured into your standards for dialog.

Would you explain to me the faults in my logic when I say that you are stating this incorrectly.

You'd have to introduce what was incorrect before I can comment on this. You didn't do so, so, logically enough, I ignored your inscrutable comment.

You've finally brought this to the satisfying court of absurdity, although you've been courting this court from the git-go.

You sound frustrated, Stephen. Well, it must be frustrating. You made a claim, can't back it up, and now you've opened up the silly season; this would be comedy for the sake of what?

I am not frustrated.