The Robb Silberman Report: Just the Facts

The Robb Silberman Report was released on March 31, 2005, but its conclusions never did seem to penetrate the debate about our intelligence on Iraq and the WMD controversy. We often still hear many say that Iraq did have weapons of mass destruction, or had dual-use programs, or was trying to acquire uranium from Niger, or surreptiously hid its weapons in Syria. The Robb Silberman report repudiates all of these claims.

On Nuclear Weapons:

"Based on its post-war investigations, the Iraq Survey Group (ISG) concluded--contrary to the Intelligence Community's pre-war assessments--that Iraq had not tried to reconstitute a capability to produce nuclear weapons after 1991."

"The Iraq Survey Group concluded that Iraq had not tried to reconstitute a capability to produce nuclear weapons after 1991. 77 It concluded that Iraq's efforts to develop gas centrifuges for uranium enrichment ended in 1991, as did Iraq's work on other uranium enrichment programs, which Iraq had explored prior to the Gulf War. 78 The ISG also found no evidence that Iraq had taken steps to advance its pre-1991 work in nuclear weapons design and development."

"The Iraq Survey Group also found no evidence that Iraq sought uranium from abroad after 1991. 113 With respect to the reports that Iraq sought uranium from Niger, ISG interviews with Ja'far Diya Ja'far, the head of Iraq's pre-1991 enrichment programs, indicated that Iraq had only two contacts with the Nigerien government after 1998--neither of which was related to uranium. 114 One such contact was a visit to Niger by the Iraqi Ambassador to the Vatican Wissam Zahawie, the purpose of which Ja'far said was to invite the Nigerien President to visit Iraq (a story told publicly by Zahawie). 115 The second contact was a visit to Iraq by a Nigerien minister to discuss Nigerien purchases of oil from Iraq--with no mention of "any kind of payment, quid pro quo, or offer to provide Iraq with uranium ore, other than cash in exchange for petroleum." 116 The use of the last method of payment is supported by a crude oil contract, dated June 26, 2001, recovered by the ISG."

These conclusions are not ambiguous -- Iraq had no nuclear weapon program and did not try to acquire uranium from Niger. To this day, however, Bush apologists still claim that Iraq was trying to acquire uranium from Africa.

On Biological Weapons:


"Contrary to the Intelligence Community's pre-war assessments, the ISG's post-war investigations concluded that Iraq had unilaterally destroyed its biological weapons stocks and probably destroyed its remaining holdings of bulk BW agent in 1991 and 1992. 221 Moreover, the ISG concluded that Iraq had conducted no research on BW agents since that time, although Iraq had retained some dual-use equipment and intellectual capital. 222 The ISG found no evidence of a mobile BW program."

"The Iraq Survey Group found that the Intelligence Community's pre-war assessments about Iraq's BW program were almost entirely wrong. The ISG concluded that "Iraq appears to have destroyed its undeclared stocks of BW weapons and probably destroyed remaining holdings of bulk BW agent" shortly after the Gulf War."

"Nevertheless, the ISG "found no direct evidence that Iraq, after 1996, had plans for a new BW program or was conducting BW-specific work for military purposes."

On Chemical Weapons:

"After the war, the ISG concluded--contrary to the Intelligence Community's pre-war assessments--that Iraq had unilaterally destroyed its undeclared CW stockpile in 1991 and that there were no credible indications that Baghdad had resumed production of CW thereafter."


"The ISG concluded--contrary to the Intelligence Community's pre-war assessments--that Iraq had actually unilaterally destroyed its undeclared CW stockpile in 1991 and that there were no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of CW thereafter. 482 Iraq had not regained its pre-1991 CW technical sophistication or production capabilities prior to the war."

"Regarding Iraq's dual-use chemical infrastructure and personnel, the Iraq Survey Group found no direct link to a CW program. Instead, investigators found that, though Iraq's chemical industry began expanding after 1996, in part due to the influx of funds and resources from the Oil-for-Food program, the country's CW capabilities remained less than those which existed prior to the Gulf War."

"In sum, the Iraq Survey Group found no direct link between Iraq's dual-use infrastructure and its CW program."

"Still, given that, of the dozens of CW munitions that the ISG discovered, all had been manufactured before 1991, the Intelligence Community's 2002 assessments that Iraq had restarted its CW program turned out to have been seriously off the mark."

On Delivery Systems:

"Following its exhaustive investigation in Iraq, the Iraq Survey Group concluded that Iraq had indeed been developing small UAVs, but found no evidence that the UAVs had been designed to deliver biological agent. 555 Instead, the ISG concluded that Iraq had been developing and had flight tested a small, autonomous UAV intended for use as a reconnaissance platform, 556 and had developed a prototype for another small UAV for use in electronic warfare missions."

"The Iraq Survey Group concluded that, although Iraq had pursued UAVs as BW delivery systems in the past, Iraq's pre-Operation Iraqi Freedom program to develop small, autonomous-flight UAVs had actually been intended to fulfill reconnaissance and airborne electronic warfare missions. The ISG found no evidence suggesting that Iraq had, at the time of the war, any intent to use UAVs as BW or CW delivery systems."

Conclusions:


"Having gained access to Iraq and its leaders, the Iraq Survey Group concluded that the unlikely course of voluntary abandonment by Saddam Hussein of his weapons of mass destruction was, in fact, the reality."

"According to the ISG, Saddam's regime, under severe pressure from United Nations sanctions, reacted by unilaterally destroying its WMD stockpiles and halting work on its WMD programs."

Unfortunately, not a single person was ever held responsible for this massive "intelligence" failure nor does there seem to be any outrage that the entire justification for war was a hoax.

The Neocon: not just a river in D.C.

The presidency of George Bush has brought the term Neocon into prominence. Ever since 2002 when the Bush Administration began banging the war drums against Iraq critics of the presidency have been talking about the "Neocons." While the term isn't new, it had never been given such emphasis, nor had it ever been a central feature of a political debate. To the supporters of the president Neocon is an opprobrium, a term of abuse, meant to criticize the president's foreign policy. They'll often demand that you define "Neocon," or repay you with an insult.

To the Bush Cultists there is just conservative and liberal, or good and bad, respectively. If someone isn't a conservative then they're liberal. It's a very black and white view of politics that doesn't allow for shades of gray or nuance. However, for now I just wish to show that the term "Neocon" isn't an invention of the Left nor is it a term concocted to lampoon Bush's foreign policy.

"I'm getting a little tired of these media people speaking in their own code language. A case in point is their use of the term 'neo-conservative.' Whether they choose to hyphenate the label or not, it's a pejorative code word for 'Jews. That's right. They use it as a way to say guys like Bill Kristol, Irving Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Norman Podhoretz, John Podhoretz and others are just trying to support Israel at the USA's expense."

Rush Limbaugh.

This belief was common among the Republican redstate shock troopers in 2003. However, Rush Limbaugh's attempt to characterize "Neocon" as just an epithet or a term with no meaning is going to be problematic.

"We can't begin to sell ourselves to the public until we sell ourselves to one another. We need to bring together the neo-cons, the paleo-cons, the religious right, the plain conservatives, and even moderate Republicans. We must recognize that we need one another if we are to survive as a political force."

Rush Limbaugh See, I Told You So pp 348-349 (1993)

Rush Limbaugh refers to the "neo-cons" long before the election of George Bush and the war in Iraq. He had no compunction about using the term because anyone familiar with the Right would know that the Neocons have been a strong political force and have viewpoints that are often at odds with traditional conservatism. But Mr. Limbaugh isn't the only one who knows that Neocons are real, and not just a phantom monster fabricated the Left. I quoted Thomas Sowell in one of my previous entries, but I'll do so again to underscore the point:

Those neoconservatives, especially, who were pushing an activist "national greatness" foreign policy, even before September 11th, have siezed upon that event as a reason for the United States to "use American might to promote American ideals" around the world.

That phrase, by Max Boot of the Counsel [sic] on Foreign Relations and the Weekly Standard, is breathtaking in its implications. When he places himself and fellow neoconservatives in the tradition of Woodrow Wilson, it is truly chilling.

The track record of nation-building and Wilsonian grandiosity ought to give any pause. The very idea that young Americans are once again to be sent out to be shot at and killed, in order to carry about the bright ideas of editorial office heroes, is sickening.

"Wilsonian grandiosity" and nation-building are some of the elements that define Neoconservatism, so it's more than just an epithet. But there is more.

NeoConservatism: Why We Need It by Douglas Murray (Hardcover - Jul 25, 2006)

Neo-conservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea by Irving Kristol (Paperback - Mar 25, 1999)

The Neocon Reader by Irwin Stelzer (Paperback - Nov 19, 2004)

Neoconservatism by Irwin Stelzer (Paperback - Jul 15, 2005)

The Rise of Neoconservatism: Intellectuals and Foreign Affairs, 1945-1994 by John Ehrman (Paperback - Aug 28, 1996

Imperial Designs: Neoconservatism and the New Pax Americana by Gary Dorrien (Hardcover - Aug 31, 2004)


Neoconservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea by Irving Kristol (Hardcover - Sep 20, 1995)

The Neoconservative Revolution: Jewish Intellectuals and the Shaping of Public Policy by Murray Friedman (Paperback - Oct 9, 2006)

These are all books that one can find by searching under the term "Neocon" or "Neoconservatism" on Amazon. As you can see, some of these books were published before the Iraq war and some after. Some support the Neocon position and others oppose it. However, the notion that Neocon is just a term of abuse -- a term meant to denigrate and insult -- is untenable.

A Neocon is a real political animal.

Tales from the Memory Hole II: Sowell

In my previous entry I quoted Mr. David Limbaugh who made the case that the justification for the war in Iraq was Saddam's continued development of WMD. However, if Mr Limbaugh was principled, and his beliefs flowed from his convictions, he would have simply said, "I thought Iraq had WMD. I was wrong. We should leave Iraq immediately." Of course, no such mea culpa was forthcoming from Mr Limbaugh, and that's because he is a shill for George Bush, a Bush Cultist as I like to call him, and will change his arguments to suit the partisan interests of the president.

Unfortunately, he is not the only Bush Cultist out there; they are legion. Mr. Thomas Sowell, who has history of promoting free markets and conservative causes, has now also revealed himself to be little more than a shill for George Bush. Let's see what he had to say before the war in Iraq began, and compare it to what he said later.

On January 6, 2003 Mr Sowell wrote a column entited "Dangers ahead -- from the right" where he did discuss the upcoming war in Iraq.

Those neoconservatives, especially, who were pushing an activist "national greatness" foreign policy, even before September 11th, have siezed upon that event as a reason for the United States to "use American might to promote American ideals" around the world.

That phrase, by Max Boot of the Counsel [sic] on Foreign Relations and the Weekly Standard, is breathtaking in its implications. When he places himself and fellow neoconservatives in the tradition of Woodrow Wilson, it is truly chilling.

The track record of nation-building and Wisonian grandiosity ought to give any pause. The very idea that young Americans are once again to be sent out to be shot at and killed, in order to carry about the bright ideas of editorial office heroes, is sickening.

He concludes, "But to destroy regimes that are trying to destroy us is very different from going on nation-building adventures."

I applaud Mr Sowell for acknowledging the existence of neoconservatives and also for recognizing that their ideals are a far cry from genuine conservatism. When many people hear the term neoconservative, or Neocon for short, they think it is just a slur invented by the Left to ridicule Bush's foreign policy. However, at least Mr. Sowell demonstrates that, "yes Viriginia," Neocons are real, and, in fact, acutely dangerous. The last line sums up Mr Sowell's reason for supporting the war in Iraq: Iraq is a regime that is trying to destroy us.

So much like David Limbaugh, Mr. Sowell does not support invading Iraq to spread the germ of democracy, to liberate the citizens of Iraq from Saddam Hussein, or to involve the military in an exorbitant nation-building exercise. His argument is preemptive self defense: we must destroy Saddam's regime because his regime is about to destroy us.

In a January 30, 2003 column entitled "Disarming a country" Mr Sowell continues to hit on the same themes. He makes the shopworn comparison of Saddam Hussein to Adolf Hitler and compares those who oppose the war in Iraq to reborn Neville Chamberlains. Mr. Sowell believes that almost every war, every military engagement, is just a re-play of WWII, as if that war exhausts all the wisdom there is to know about war. Comparisons between Saddam Hussein and Adolf Hitler and between Iraq and Germany are absurd, but Mr. Sowell uses the comparison for polemical purposes: the more you can graft WWII onto the Iraq war, the more just and urgent it will seem. (Mr. Sowell is now comparing Iran to the Third Reich.)

Like Mr. Limbaugh and scores of others, Mr. Sowell put his faith in the Bush Administration and seemed to genuinely believe that Iraq's development of WMD posed an urgent threat to the United States. So what was his response when it turned out Iraq's WMD were just chimeras of an over active imagination? He addressed this in a February 10th, 2004 column entitled "Weapons of political destruction." It is here where Mr Sowell's profound dishonesty is on full display.

Was the Iraqi war worth it and should we have gone to war if we had to do it over again, knowing what we know now? On net balance, yes.

Among the things that we know now is that you get cooperation in the Middle East after you have demonstrated your willingness to use force. Would Libya have revealed and dismantled its weapons of mass destruction if the Qaddafi regime had not seen what happened in Iraq? Would Syria and Iran have taken a more conciliatory attitude if they had not seen what happened in Iraq?

Mr. Sowell is saying that even if he knew Iraq had no WMD and was not a threat to this country, on net, going to war was still a good idea. Why? Because it forced Iran and Syria into a "conciliatory attitude." So even though this wasn't a preemptive war after all, it was still necessary to show other Middle Eastern nations that we mean business. Note that Mr. Sowell has now invented a new argument to defend Bush's decision to invade Iraq. But does he take his new argument seriously, or is it just special pleading?

In an August 22, 2006 column entitled "Point of no return" Mr Sowell has the following to say about Iran: "Nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran and North Korea mean that it is only a matter of time before there are nuclear weapons in the hands of international terrorist organizations."

Is this evidence of a "conciliatory attitude" by Iran, Mr Sowell? So there is no indication that our invasion of Iraq has encouraged Iran and Syria to become more "conciliatory." Mr. Sowell made the argument in 2004 because he was desperate to find a justification to support the war in Iraq. He couldn't trot out the "we are turning Iraq into a democracy," because he had already dismissed the argument that the United States should participate in democratic nation building experiments in the Middle East. So he didn't have much wiggle room to concoct a new argument. But after it turns out that the Iraqi invasion did not force Iran into a "conciliatory attitude" does he now say that in hindsight, the war in Iraq was a mistake? Don't bet on it.

Let's finally untangle the layers of mendacity Mr. Sowell has weaved around the war. Prior to the outbreak of war, he made the very practical argument that we should invade Iraq because Iraq intends to "destroy" us. When it turned out that Iraq had no WMD, Mr. Sowell said that "on net" we should still have invaded Iraq because it forced nations like Iran into a "conciliatory attitude." However, in his latest columns, Mr. Sowell is accusing Iran of pursuing a nuclear weapon, and says it's a greater threat than the one we faced from Nazi Germany. So he doesn't even believe his own argument about the war in Iraq making Iran "conciliatory". What is going on here?

Verdict: Thomas Sowell is not a conservative, and is not honest. Thomas Sowell is a purveyor of dishonesty because first and foremost he's a Bush Cultist. That's the ugly truth.

First introduction

The war in Iraq continues to drag on without any foreseeable resolution, but just the empty promise that things will eventually get better. This is unacceptable. Why should Americans continue to fight in this war when our commanders have no clear criterion for victory, no realistic strategy for improving Iraq, and no idea how much longer this war will go on?

There were those of us who said that this war would be a disaster before the first shot was even fired. The opposition wasn't just on the Left, but on the Right as well. Sadly, the crusaders for this war -- chiefly the Neocons -- were intent on maligning anyone who didn't get on the pro-war bandwagon. David Frum's infamous piece in National Review in March of 2003, Unpatriotic Conservatives, is a good reminder that the Neocons are fanatics who will not permit dissent.

However, the Neocons are not the only ones responsible for entangling the United States in Iraq, but the noisy and reckless legions of Bush supporters, more aptly called Bush Cultists, who rallied for this war and were nothing more than around-the-clock propagandists.

Hopefully, we can clear up the damage the war in Iraq has caused, and create an understanding that will prevent the Neocons from ever again attempting such a dastardly and despicable act against this country.

To that purpose, this blog is dedicated.