That Fifth Dentist

by Slartibartfast

(UPDATED, through the magic of the Internets)

I normally wouldn't think of posting this, given that it was sort of a personal pi-radians shift in perspective about the whole WaPo semi-kerfluffle regarding purported mobile weapons labs, but rilkefan has made the suggestion, and I'm all about service.

To all-too-briefly summarize, this has been cast as administration embroidery by WaPo and by one group of experts vs two others by Confederate Yankee and Captain's Quarters.  No, I haven't bothered to read either of the latter in detail yet; just the ensuing discussion regarding what they have to say about the whole thing.  There's also some discussion of this over at Protein Wisdom, where I've posted my one and only comment in this regard outside of the local neighborhood.

So, my question: what sort of experts were in the other two groups that thought that these were (or might be) mobile bioweapons laboratories?  II'd assume that to be considered an expert, one would have to be familiar with bioweapons manufacture and culturing of biologicals, which in turn would imply some sort of passing familiarity with the equipment necessary to do those things.  Why do I ask?  Well, because of the Duelfer Report account (suggested by frequent commentor Urinated States of America) that mentions nearly a dozen major deficiencies (page 81, Table 1) in the equipment in the more intact of the trailers that pretty much rule out utility for bioweapons manufacture.  Those are just the major ones, mind.

Given that, one wonders: just what was it about either of these trailers that said "mobile bioweapons lab", besides the mobile part?  Or, more to the point, what about the trailers didn't say "couldn't possibly be a mobile bioweapons lab", other than the mobility point?  To paraphrase myself: the two teams of experts who thought there was something WMD-related here ought to have Table 1, Page 81 tatooed on their collective foreheads.

Update: Protein Wisdom has a new post up regarding timeline which merits pondering and discussion, but the timeline hasn't much to do with this post.  This post is more of a what-were-they-thinking kind of thing.

Update 2: On request, here's the table.  I was unable to find an image, so I'm pasting directly from HTML.  It's better in the PDF form, but here goes:

Fermentor Design Feature	Critical Requirement Yes/No	Present on Trailer Vessel Yes/No	Required Reconfiguration Major/Minor
System sterilization	Yes	No	Major
Media/water sterilization	Yes	No	Major
Aseptic growth conditions	Yes	No	Major
Agitator/stirrer	Yes	No	Major
Aeration sparger	Yes	No	Minor
Process control instrumentation & sensors	Yes	No	Major
Addition and sampling ports	Yes	No	Major
Sight glasses	Yes	No	Major
Provision of sterile air	Yes	No	Major
Sterile filtration of off-gas	Yes	No	Major
Provision of steam for sterilization purposes	Yes	No	Major

Table 1 illustrates the assessment of the ‘reactor vessel’ and associated equipment system on trailer 1 against the essential features of an effective fermentor. (Note: there are additional, minor design inconsistencies, which are not included in this table.)

Comments

[Slartibartfast]

That said and put to the side, I feel the urge to say some things about the merits of taking responsibility for bad decisions, wrong conclusions, etc vs infallibility. No one, especially in the world of Intelligence, is infallible.

Not putting words in hilzoy's mouth, but I gather this is one of her many sticking points with the current administration (which are shared to a certain nontrivial extent with previous administrations), and if I've gathered correctly, this is a place where I'm doing some rethinking.

Despite the fresh, hot, to-your-door-in-30-minutes-or-less-or-it's-free order of rightwing talking points that are by some accounts, forcing me to say the things I say.

[Slartibartfast]

When was it determined that the use was for helium balloons?

Hydrogen. Evidently we weren't sharing our strategic helium reserve with Iraq. Helium you can't generate chemically.

Farber's noted something, though, that I'd missed. Please read the posting rules, which he's linked to upthread, and comply. We do try to maintain some decorum, here, even if we intermittently fail to be...decorous?

[rilkefan]

Decorated?

[Slartibartfast]

Since rilkefan is here, I can suggest that we possibly cornered the market on alpha particles, so there were none left for Iraq.

[Gary Farber]

People are free to deck my bows with holly, if they'd like. Even if tis not the season.

Decks after all, 'r us.

[dutchmarbel]

I think dutchmarble has reached a new low in the "I Hate America" movement.

LOL, 'notherbob2, if I represent that for you you have led a blessed but very shielded life.

[notherbob2]

Mr. Farber: Suggesting that killing all Americans might be considered the ne plus ultra of ad hominem; therefore methinks you are spying a mote and ignoring a beam, as it were. Or should I, being an American, have simply turned the other cheek?
Also, noting the sheer volume of separate (failed, at least in my view) attempts to nail the Bush Administration as well as President Bush for venal lieing is referring to a (growing) FACT.
By the way, I think that all Presidents lie and that it is a requirement of their job. The only issue is did they do so with a venal purpose or an admirable one (such as in hostage negotiations, etc.). Although they seem confused on this point, many of his detractors seem to believe that finding a lie is sufficient for condemnation. If there is no evidence of venal purpose, we really ought to give our Presidents the benefit of the doubt and most especially when we know that they have been super-scrutinized as Bush has been.

[rilkefan]

"I can suggest that we possibly cornered the market on alpha particles"

What, we rounded up all the stragglers?

Now banning myself.

[Gary Farber]

"Mr. Farber: Suggesting that killing all Americans might be considered the ne plus ultra of ad hominem; therefore methinks you are spying a mote and ignoring a beam, as it were. Or should I, being an American, have simply turned the other cheek?"

First of all, she said nothing whatever in this thread prior to commenting on your characterization. Neither did you quote or link to what you have in mind.

Secondly, whatever she said is irrelevant to your engaging in ad hominem. Definitionally. It doesn't matter what she said when pointing out that you are engaging in ad hominem.

We try to discuss facts and issues and things we can cite, and what we think of them, here. Not our opinions of people who comment here, nor generalizations about Those People (where "Those People" = N).

Have you read the posting rules?

If you'd like to discuss whatever it is that dutchmarbel (who is Dutch, big surprise) said, feel free to link to it, or quote it, or specify on which thread she said it with the time-stamp.

Be it noted that "Americans" is not a person.

"Also, noting the sheer volume of separate (failed, at least in my view) attempts to nail the Bush Administration as well as President Bush for venal lieing is referring to a (growing) FACT."

A fact is something that is objectively verifiable. If you would like to provide a citation link to your fact, please do so. But Moe Lane, the Republican who now only posts on RedState, who primarily founded this joint, would toss people out on their ass for making generalizations about Republicans, or conservatives, and the same applies to Democrats and liberals. If there was something said about "Americans" that offends you, do feel free to quote it.

I, myself, it turns out, am American, by the way. Quite a few people around here are, though not all.

[Phillip J. Birmingham]

Old physicists never die -- they just decay.

(Of course, my favorite from grad school: "High energy physicists do it whenever they get a hadron.")

[Gary Farber]

"Old physicists never die -- they just decay."

Some are WIMPs. Some quite colorful, some have much spin, others not so much.

I'm uncertain we wish to continue in this vein; a principle may be involved.

But I suppose it depends upon how excited it makes you.

[Jon]

Slartibartfast:

yet part of their efforts to conceal their capabilities, I believe, have been to disassemble weapons into various components and to hide these components throughout Iraq

Seems awfully unlike

However, all that really meant was that Iraq was an industrialized country.

Don't you think?

No, I don't. What Ritter thought at the time, which you can find out if you read what he wrote, is that Iraq was probably concealing limited amounts of biological feed stocks and precursors to chemical weapons (as well as some production equipment). These would have saved Iraq some time if "without effective inspections, without effective monitoring" it tried to reconstitute WMD programs. But not that much, because ANY industrialized country can make chemical and biological weapons. It's not very hard.

Anyway, rather than endlessly parsing Ritter's words from TV, where people aren't precise, it might be more useful to read his words. Here's something he wrote later in 1998, in arguing that the U.S. should drop plans to oust Saddam and instead engage Iraq diplomatically. Among the things we'd need from Iraq, he said, was:

A pledge by Iraq not to possess any weapons of mass destruction and to permit monitoring...

Agreeing to accept Iraq's declaration that it has destroyed its weapons of mass destruction capabilities and agreeing not to impose any supervision would constitute recognition of the possibility that the Iraqi claim of not having any weapons of mass destruction might be accurate. If Iraq's claims are not accurate, this offers a face-saving way for Iraq to move the issue forward without being mired in past issues...

An Iraqi declaration that it no longer has WMD would have to be taken at face value -- but a credible monitoring system would have to be installed before such a declaration can be accepted. This is not as difficult as it might appear. Iraq cannot rebuild a significant WMD capability without the requisite industrial infrastructure, and such an undertaking cannot be concealed from adequate monitoring...

On the Iraqi signing of the pledge not to possess weapons of mass destruction, the United State would support the immediate lifting of all economic sanctions

This is not mission impossible; mission unpleasant, yes.

In the years afterward he learned more about what had happened during the nineties, and began to believe the chances that Iraq had nothing were higher than he had previously. However, in September, 2002 he said:

I have never given Iraq a clean bill of health! Never! Never!

So there you have it. A change in emphasis over 4 1/2 years, particularly as he learned more and the situation changed, but essentially the same story. I.e., the kind of thing you expect from people who are honest and know what they're talking about. There are quite a few people like that around on this issue, and for those humble enough to do so, it's often possible to learn something significant from them.

[Slartibartfast]

What Ritter thought at the time, which you can find out if you read what he wrote

Wrote where. And just as importantly, when?

Anyway, rather than endlessly parsing Ritter's words from TV

I haven't done anything here in any fashion that might be even exaggerated to resemble "endlessly", and given that what I HAVE done is offer a literal interpretation of exactly what he said at the time, IN context, I think any parsing is more likely to be occurring over on your side of the screen.

Something to consider, anyway.

[Donald Johnson]

Slarti, I think Jon mentioned a book or two that Ritter wrote. That sounds dangerously close to a pun, but I'm not clever enough to do anything with it. But I am clever enough to pick up on Jon's point, which is that if I want to talk about what Ritter wrote, I should read what he's written in his writings.

[rilkefan]

If he wrote it at night, or rode it, or dictated it while hoarse, that would be a pun...

Seems to me Slart gets to pick the jousting field here, and the proper response is either to defend the quotes or explicitly say he was confused that day but his writing is clear, see x.

[Jon]

Wrote where. And just as importantly, when?

In his book Endgame. It came out in early 1999, which means that (as I said above) he wrote that at latest in late 1998; that is, within a few months of that TV appearance.

He's also written two other books, Frontier Justice and Iraq Confidential. The first covers many of the Bush administration's fraudulent claims; for instance, Ritter immediately wrote about what was probably the most shameless lie, by Dick Cheney in August 2002. It took the Washington Post and NY Times a couple of years to notice. His newest book, Iraq Confidential, provides more background on his experience with UNSCOM and the Clinton administration, plus his perspective on what we now know.

Frontier Justice is the best one to start with. The others have giant blizzards of detail that are probably a little much for people without a really deep interest in international diplomatic institutions.

[Jon]

Seems to me Slart gets to pick the jousting field here, and the proper response is either to defend the quotes or explicitly say he was confused that day but his writing is clear, see x.

???

See here.

[rilkefan]

See here.

[Aaron]

Maybe if we had better intel on the ground, we could use more than sat photos to determine these things before we go to war.

I wonder who slashed that sort of funding and virtually elminated clandestine ops?

Oh, and 20/20 hindsight is great, ins't it?

[Gary Farber]

"I wonder who slashed that sort of funding and virtually elminated clandestine ops?"

Well, let's see. Since 1980, we've had 26 years of Republican Presidents, and 8 years of a Democratic President.

The Bush Administration has been in office for more than 5 years. Unless it takes more than 5 years to do what it takes to get good intel, the only people responsible would have to be the Bush Administration.

But since intelligence of any sort doesn't include telepathic capability, I'm unclear precisely what intelligence would make a dramatic difference vis a vis Iran right now. To expect intelligence to be perfect, and supply all answers, is completely ahistoric and utterly unreasonable. It's never happened, and it's never going to happen. Even I wouldn't blame the Bush Administration for not being able to perform magic.

[Jesurgislac]

and given that what I HAVE done is offer a literal interpretation of exactly what he said at the time

Ah. So this is one of your endless straightfaced jokes on the rest of us, offering a "literal" interpretation that anyone can see is completely bananas?

[Slartibartfast]

that anyone can see is completely bananas

Completely bananas...interesting. So, it's your contention that Ritter obviously was - what, being sarcastic, when he said that? That it was obvious to anyone listening at the time that he meant the opposite of what he'd said at the time? Curious. A little more explanation might be in order. Maybe I'm the only one that didn't get the joke. In any case, Jesurgislac, you may attribute this interpretation to that I'm a robot controlled by right-wing talking points, and disengage. In fact, I recommend that for brevity you reduce this accusation to an acronym and simply toss it out there all by itself. Many pixels would be saved.

Jon, you never attributed your quotes to any book, or gave any date, so thanks for doing that. Still, I'm a little lost here: you're saying that Ritter's suggestions vis a vis diplomacy have what, exactly, to do with what he was saying in 1998? Is the retraction of the claim that he thought Iraq had proscribed weapons in there anywhere? I'm going to have to see if the local library has a copy.

I don't have a problem with Ritter having been wrong, mind. I don't even have a problem if it all turns out that he was simply a communicator whose skills suck as badly as those of yours truly, for example. What I do have a problem with is if he's set out what appear to be two entirely different (perhaps even contradictory) accounts of what he believed to be true about Iraq without ever acknowledging that, yes, one of these things is not like the other.

I have no idea which of the above is actually what happened.

[Jesurgislac]

So, it's your contention that Ritter obviously was - what, being sarcastic, when he said that?

Oh, you mean you're serious when you claim that Ritter was wrong/changed his mind based on an out-of-context quote from 1998?

Sorry. I misunderstood. I assumed this long straightfaced series of questions was your idea of a joke.

[Jon]

Jon, you never attributed your quotes to any book, or gave any date

Right about the book. Wrong about the date:

Here's something he wrote later in 1998

• • •

I'm a little lost here: you're saying that Ritter's suggestions vis a vis diplomacy have what, exactly, to do with what he was saying in 1998? Is the retraction of the claim that he thought Iraq had proscribed weapons in there anywhere?

First: proscribed weapons CAPABILITY. Banging my head against this wall is giving me a headache.

Second:

Agreeing to accept Iraq's declaration that it has destroyed its weapons of mass destruction capabilities and agreeing not to impose any supervision would constitute recognition of the possibility that the Iraqi claim of not having any weapons of mass destruction might be accurate.

Anyway, I'm not a missionary trying to convert you to rationality. Read Ritter's books, or don't. Try to learn something from him and other people who were right, or don't. Have some mild curiosity about the world around you, or don't.

Most people and countries can't afford to ignore reality, because they don't have enough power. But maybe we (or at least some of us) do have enough power to keep getting away with it. Or maybe we don't. That's why being alive now is so exciting!

[Jon]

Jesurgislac, he's all yours.

[Slartibartfast]

Wrong about the date:

Correct, and semi-retracted. What I'd meant was that I had no idea you were referring to a book, so that your continuous references to what Ritter was saying prior to your quoting the book were somewhat lost in time as far as I was concerned. I'd thought that maybe there was something in the public domain you were referring to, and that being the case I could look up what Ritter said in a given article or interview on, for instance, December 22, 1998. Anyway, neither here nor there because now I know what you've been referring to.

First: proscribed weapons CAPABILITY. Banging my head against this wall is giving me a headache.

Me, too. How you're reading what he said to be something OTHER than what he said is, to me, mystifying. There are nontrivial distinctions between "dissassembling weapons into various components" (which is what Ritter in fact said), and what you're saying he said.

It remains, though, that in 1998 he said one thing, and that some unknown time later, but prior to the publication of the book, he said something else that might be a contradiction of what he wrote earlier. If we interpret that later statement in the way you seem to want to, it is in fact a direct contradiction. As a weapons inspector, the distinction between a weapon and a capability ought to be crystal clear to Mr. Ritter. I know I'm certainly not having any difficulty seeing it.

There are of course other things that Ritter has said at length and on the record that indicate Ritter thought Iraq had weapons, both warhead materials and the means to deliver them, that were proscribed. Here, for example:

MR. RITTER: Sir, that's a question that Iraq keeps posing to the Special Commission: how much longer will this go on? The fact of the matter is that since April 1991 under the direct orders and direction of the President of Iraq the government of Iraq has lied to the Special Commission about the totality of its holdings. We cannot conduct verification of Iraq's compliance with Security Council resolutions without an understanding of what there was to begin with. Iraq not only lied to us in April 1991. In the summer of 1991 they conducted what they call unilateral destruction: that is, they disposed of certain materials without the presence of weapons inspectors and then destroyed the records of this alleged destruction. They also diverted certain materials to the presidential security forces. This has confused an already confusing situation. We do not know the totality of what Iraq has. What we do know is that the declarations they have made to the Special Commission to date are false. And the explanations that they give to us about how they disposed of weapons are wrong. And therefore we know we have a job to do. How much longer will it take? I can say this, and I'll echo the words of the executive chairman. If Iraq gave us today a full and final accounting of all of its weapons of mass destruction -- programs and retained weapons capabilities -- our job would be over very quickly. But because we don't have such an accounting, our job has become a mission of discovery. We must go forth and find these weapons that Iraq is hiding. And that could go on a very long time, especially given the level of Iraqi obstruction today.

September 3, 1998 for those who might suspect that I cannot figure it out for myself. Before the Senate.

I think the reason we've gone round and round on this one quote is that it's quite simple, and your interpretation of it is not consistent with what it actually says. I don't find it impossible that Ritter changed his mind between sitting in front of Congress and the printing of his book, but it bears repeating, again, that what he's maintained in public and what you're representing that he really meant are irreconcilable.

Unless the VRWC has gone and messed with everyone's archives, and Ritter really didn't say what the entire Internet thinks he said.

[Jesurgislac]

Jon: Jesurgislac, he's all yours.

Thanks, but I'm trying to declutter.

[LizardBreath]

They also diverted certain materials to the presidential security forces. This has confused an already confusing situation. We do not know the totality of what Iraq has. What we do know is that the declarations they have made to the Special Commission to date are false. And the explanations that they give to us about how they disposed of weapons are wrong. And therefore we know we have a job to do. How much longer will it take? I can say this, and I'll echo the words of the executive chairman. If Iraq gave us today a full and final accounting of all of its weapons of mass destruction -- programs and retained weapons capabilities -- our job would be over very quickly.

I can't read this as expressing certainty that Iraq had any banned weapons -- it appears to be a clear statement that what Iraq had, was, at that time, unknown to Ritter. And, of course, that the reason for that lack of knowledge was Iraq's false statements and other misbehavior, but it's not a claim to know of the existence of banned weapons.

[Slartibartfast]

We must go forth and find these weapons that Iraq is hiding seems to indicate that Ritter's opinion is that Iraq was in fact hiding weapons, though.

[LizardBreath]

Seems to indicate, sure. What I'm saying is that Ritter is, in 1998, very clear that Iraq has been uncooperative, and certainly willing to assume and speculate that Iraq has been uncooperative because they are hiding weapons. When he's squarely addressing the question of what he knows them to have, though, he says that he doesn't know.

If you asked Ritter in 1998, based on that testimony, which way he would bet about whether Iraq was concealing weapons, I'm sure that he would have bet that they were. But he's demanding aggressive inspections to find out what they have, not action based on what he knows that they have. This doesn't look to me like a square contradiction -- to the extent that it is, it is one easily reconciled by his acquisition of additional information over the intervening years.

[Jon]

You know what I think would be great? I think it would be great if Ritter had written several hundred thousand words about his perspective on this, spread across three books and dozens if not hundreds of articles. Then we might have some way of understanding his perspective.

Sadly, this did not occur. Thus we are left with an unfathomable mystery:

Iraq has not fully complied with the provisions of Security Council Resolution 687. On this there is no debate. However, this failure to comply does not automatically translate into a finding that Iraq continues to possess weapons of mass destruction and the means to produce them. Resolution 687 demanded far more than the dismantling of viable weapons and weapons-production capabilities. Most of UNSCOM's findings of Iraqi non-compliance concerned either the inability to verify an Iraqi declaration or peripheral matters, such as components and documentation, which by and of themselves do not constitute a weapon or program. By the end of 1998, Iraq had, in fact, been disarmed to a level unprecedented in modern history, but UNSCOM and the Security Council were unable—and in some instances unwilling—to acknowledge this accomplishment.

[Slartibartfast]

But he's demanding aggressive inspections to find out what they have, not action based on what he knows that they have.

Of course he is. Otherwise, how could you know that you've accounted for them all? Isn't that, after all, what this entire press on Iraq has been about? That they've failed to properly account for weapons, substances and equipment that they were obligated to account for?

Ritter's said, according to what I've quoted in the above thread, that he believed that Iraq had weapons squirreled away. How many weapons? He doesn't know. I have absolutely no quarrel with that kind of statement, just to be clear, but it doesn't say anything like what Jon's representing.

[LizardBreath]

Eh, I should back out of this because I'm not certain of exactly what point Jon is defending, and I don't think you're very wrong. The point I'm making, is that to the extent Ritter was wrong about Iraq in 1998 and earlier, the things he was wrong about appear to me to be clearly stated as beliefs rather than knowledge (that is, (invented quote) "I know Iraq is being uncooperative about inspections; I therefore believe that they are concealing weapons.") Statements of that form, which are what I'm seeing when I look at Ritter's public statements, do not appear to me to require apology, explanation, or retraction when the speaker's beliefs change based on additional information.

[Gary Farber]

As a datapoint, I lost track of what it was either Jon or Slart were claiming about Ritter some time ago.

I do take Jon's point that he feels that since there turned out to be no WMD, and that the war was problematic in various ways, that re-examining the views of those who felt that way in 2003 and earlier might be a profitable re-examination, and that seems a point well worth considering, and perhaps acting on. I understand that he's putting forth Scott Ritter's three books as one example (perhaps he might care to give others?).

Beyond that, I've completely lost track of what the dueling statements are supposed to be about; I could reread the thread, but, frankly, it doesn't seem of sufficient importance to the world that I do so.

Though if the two gentlemen would care to restate, I shall likely continue to read this thread (absent something else interrupting, as sometimes happens, of course).

[Jon]

Isn't that, after all, what this entire press on Iraq has been about? That they've failed to properly account for weapons, substances and equipment that they were obligated to account for?

I'm sorry, no. I am straining to be as polite as possible when I say this indicates you weren't paying attention.

Gary, thank you. That is indeed my point. Other good people to ask would be Seth Ackerman. Or Rolf Ekeus, former head of UNSCOM. Or Mohamed ElBaradei, that obscure winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. Or Jacques Baute of the IAEA. Or the dozens of US government sources quoted before the war, saying there didn't seem to be any evidence Iraq had anything. Believe it or not, I myself even have an opinion.

LizardBreath, I agree with just about everything you say. However, I do think Ritter was required to explain what he was talking about. Fortunately, he did, in three books and dozens of articles.

His story went like this:

By 1998 UNSCOM had verifiably disarmed Iraq of 90-95% of its pre-91 WMD programs. (Ekeus said in 2000, "we felt that in all areas we have eliminated Iraq's capabilities fundamentally.") Iraq claimed they'd secretly destroyed the remaining 5-10%, but UNSCOM wasn't certain of this. Moreover, Iraq seemed to be hiding something.

Ritter had been planning a series of instrusive inspections to try to get to the bottom of it. However, the US wouldn't support him carrying them out when Iraq suspended cooperation with UNSCOM in summer, 1998.

So he resigned. His concern at that point was that inspections seemed to be over for good, which he felt was dangerous, particularly without an agreed-on monitoring system. He wanted to pressure the Clinton administration to get inspectors back in. So in summer and fall of 1998 he emphasized that they had not been able to verifiably disarm Iraq of 100% of its weapons capability. Based on Iraq's behavior, he also believed that Iraq probably was still hiding something. That's when he said this.

UNSCOM did get to go back later in 1998. But tensions continued with Iraq, a few inspections were blocked, and UNSCOM was withdrawn ahead of the Desert Fox bombing campaign at the end of the year. Iraq then forbid them from returning.

Ritter's perspective began to change; in fact, you can actually see this happen between the beginning and end of his first book Endgame. He started to believe the Clinton administration had failed to support tough inspections for different reasons than he'd originally thought. He'd initially thought it had been because they didn't take disarming Iraq seriously. Instead, he believed, it was because the US worried that UNSCOM would eventually find Iraq in compliance, which would have required the lifting of sanctions...thus removing a tool for the overthrow of Saddam, our actual objective. So instead the US used Desert Fox to kill UNSCOM while keeping the leverage to maintain sanctions.

He also took more seriously the possibility Iraq's behavior could be explained by concern that UNSCOM was being used as a vehicle for spying aimed at overthrowing Saddam. And if so, Iraq was right to be concerned, because UNSCOM was being used for that purpose.

Thus, he began emphasizing different things: the level of disarmament that had been verifiably achieved, and the possiblity that Iraq really WASN'T hiding anything. He also pointed out, over and over and over and over, that in any case there was no point to Iraq keeping any of the stuff, because it was so old it would have decayed into uselessness.

He grew more and more outspoken as war approached. He also pointed out many of the most egregious lies of the Bush administration. Many media figures pointed out he must therefore hate America and luv Saddam.

So, what's Ritter up to now that he's been completely vindicated? Well, I assume he's been given one of the many cushy jobs that are available for vociferous critics of the US government who are proven right. I mean, isn't that the way our society works? It's self-correcting and ultimately just? I'm sure if white people asked African Americans and seriously listened to the answer, they'd say: you bet that's been our experience!

And with that, I think I should wrap everything up.

[zino3]

I just find myself wondering if another truck (or trucks) could be easily added (connected) to the equipment on board to create an actual BW lab. I don't know, but I am at least as skeptical(?) of these being hydrogen producers as I am of BW labs.

Hussein could also have created these just to mess with Bush's head. He certainly had enough time, and the foxiness to do so. He also knew that if an easily identified BW lab was found by the US, he had no out in a war crimes trial. Saddam may be nuts, but he's not stupid.

[Jesurgislac]

Slarti: Isn't that, after all, what this entire press on Iraq has been about? That they've failed to properly account for weapons, substances and equipment that they were obligated to account for?

Good grief. You mean you haven't figured out yet that the Bush administration were lying to you about Iraq from 2001 onwards - that you were conned about as thoroughly as anyone was ever conned?

[Slartibartfast]

To encapsulate Jon's arguments, I suggest: you can't tell one Ritter from another without yer program. Congress could not have possibly known what Ritter was actually saying to them unless they went out and bought the book.

Am I far off, here?

Oh, this is fun:

Ritter's perspective began to change; in fact, you can actually see this happen between the beginning and end of his first book Endgame.

So, he did change. Not saying that's bad, mind you, just that what he was saying began to change. The Ritter that's been "completely vindicated", if there is such a creature, that's a different version than the one who spoke before Congress in 1998. On the notion that a change of mind is a good thing when warranted, I agree with you 100%. It remains the case, though, that which Ritter was the Correct one is a strong function of time. People listened to him back in 1998 when they thought he was right, and look what happened. It's certainly a valid argument that the change was to a great extent one of emphasis, but when one says in effect that Saddam Hussein should be subjected to a major campaign to destroy the regime of Saddam Hussein on one occasion and on then later on express the view that the use of force is just not going to work, you're bound to confuse people regardless of what meaning you meant fo convey.

If you don't understand any of the above, I've got a book coming out in a couple of years to explain it all better.

[Gary Farber]

I don't understand any of the above very well, Slart. Jon's point seems to be to suggest that you read Ritter's books (which I have not), and get back to us.

Your point seems to be...? That when it appeared that Hussein had weapons, that Ritter felt they should be destroyed, but when it later appeared that Hussein did not that that should be acknowledged, but that we should make fun of that?

I don't get it. Jon's point seems to be that Ritter was correct. Your point seems to be that that's funny?

I realize that Ritter was thoroughly demonized by many in years past. Your point is that ha-ha, he's Scott Ritter, demon guy?

[liberaljaponicus]

Ritter spoke in Tokyo in 2003, just after Powell's UN presentation, and looking at it, he didn't miss a lot notes, though at the time, I thought that the US must have better evidence.
Silly me...

[Christian]

I find Ritter's criticisms of Blix mildly ironic, with the thought in mind that the swedish chief inspector wasn't exactly a favourite of the pro-war folks either. I remember reading about the U-2 issue that Ritter mentions in Blix's book. According to him, there was basically no room for comprimise there,as the UN resolutions clearly allowed those flights unconditionally. Yet the Iraqis managed to delay them for months.

[Jon]

when one says in effect that Saddam Hussein should be subjected to a major campaign to destroy the regime of Saddam Hussein on one occasion and on then later on express the view that the use of force is just not going to work, you're bound to confuse people regardless of what meaning you meant fo convey.

Actually, "Saddam Hussein should be subjected to a major campaign to destroy the regime of Saddam Hussein" is precisely what Ritter did not say, unless I've completely missed something. He didn't say it in his congressional testimony, and in fact refused to offer an opinion when they tried to get him to say it. Didn't say it in a December, 1998 New Republic article. And didn't say it in Endgame, which came out in early 1999 -- read the last chapter, in which he examines the possible options and suggests the best (though still bad) one is diplomatic engagement with Iraq.

So perhaps this was only "bound to confuse people" who were not actually listening.

Meanwhile, beyond the exciting topic of what precisely Scott Ritter said eight years ago, there seems to be zero interest on your (Slartibartfast's) part in the overall point I've been trying so desperately to make for days. I give up.

[Jon]

I find Ritter's criticisms of Blix mildly ironic, with the thought in mind that the swedish chief inspector wasn't exactly a favourite of the pro-war folks either.

I wouldn't call it ironic, exactly. They scream about anyone who doesn't share their delusions completely. They screamed because the CIA, while way off on Iraq, wasn't *as* way off as they were. And they screamed back in the 70s because the CIA, while way off on the Soviet Union, wasn't *as* way off as they were.

This dynamic creates a lot of pressure on someone like Blix, pressure to which he (and the CIA) bowed.

[Jon H]

zino3 writes: " I don't know, but I am at least as skeptical(?) of these being hydrogen producers as I am of BW labs."

The thing is, hydrogen-producing trailers are apparently fairly standard issue military hardware. I expect they're the kind of thing you see in the quiet areas of the big military weapons sales expos, the boring aisles by the restrooms, away from the stuff that has treads or goes boom. (They could logically be displayed near the artillery pieces, but I expect they are probably sold by different companies, and the artillery maker would rather have more sexy killing hardware arrayed around the howitzers.)

Which is to say, they're not exotic in a military context. If you find a four-legged animal in a pasture, it's probably not a zebra. Bioweapons trailers are zebras - talking and dancing polymath zebras. Hydrogen production trailers are cows. (Or, for Iraq, camels.)

[Jon H]

Also, if Saddam wanted to make a fake mobile bio-weapons lab, I suspect they wouldn't make one with canvas sides, as was the case with the hydrogen-production trailers.

They could easily make one up out of an empty semi trailer or a cargo container, with a bunch of pipes and hoses welded on, and a big biohazard sign. (Actually, given the quality of our misinformants, it would probably have been sufficient to spray paint "SEKRIT MOBILE BIOWEAPONS LAB" on the side of a VW bus.)

As I've noted before, the canvas sides make sense on a hydrogen-producing trailer, because you would want any leaked gas to escape rather than collecting in the trailer and posing a hazard should there be a spark or a flame. Other than that, leaked hydrogen would not pose any risk. Leaked bioweapons, on the other hand, are something you want to keep tightly controlled, with sealed negative air pressure environments to keep them from escaping, etc.

[Slartibartfast]

Gosh, what a mess.

Jon, Ritter said this:

Iraq should be subjected to a major campaign that seeks to destroy the regime of Saddam Hussein

which is easily Google-able, even if you paraphrase it.

Gary, dunno how to make it more clear. I mean, I've only said this a minimum of half a dozen or so times: Ritter was saying completely different things in 1998 than he said after 1998 about Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Jon's point was, way upthread, that I ought to have listened to the people who were right. I'm simply pointing out that you don't know which people have turned out to be right until it's been revealed that they actually were right. In Ritter's case, some of what he said was right; some was completely wrong. You cannot simply pick and choose.

All of which has been said again and again, upthread. I have no idea why this might possibly be confusing.

[Jon]

That's interesting. I certainly stand corrected, although I suspect the original has some significant qualifications; ie, "if _____ then Iraq should be subjected to a major campaign that seeks to destroy the regime of Saddam Hussein." I can't find it via nexis, however, and everything online seems to refer to the 2002 BBC webpage. I'd like to see the original if you know where it is.

It is the case, as I mentioned, that he did not call for that in the congressional testimony, his December New Republic article, or his book. And his book and the New Republic article both lay out the various options that he thinks make sense. (His book does take a serious look at regime change, says it's the only possible alternative -- in early 1999 -- to diplomatic engagement, and then says diplomatic engagement is the way to go.)

In any case, this --

Jon's point was, way upthread, that I ought to have listened to the people who were right

-- perhaps reveals the source of confusion. My point was not that you should have listened in the past to the people who were right, although I obviously believe that. Instead, my point, as expressed like this --

Aren't you at least a little curious about the worldview of people who were right? Do you consider they might be right about other things as well?

-- was that you (and many others) should listen NOW to the people who were right. Most importantly, it would be worth learning from their reasoning process (or "worldview") in order to learn WHY they were right.

This should include, you know, actually listening to them. What should particularly be avoided is searching for excuses about why they're not worth listening to.

I'm pretty sure they'll uniformly tell you things like this:

The Bush administration severely punishes anyone who tells them what they don't want to hear, and promotes anyone who tells them what they DO want to hear.

This in turn makes stories like this about the imaginary "mobile labs" predictable and expected, rather than a mystery that leads you to wonder "what-were-they-thinking."

Finally, if you actually, truly want to know Ritter's perspective in detail, an excellent resource beside his books is this extremely detailed interview from 2000. He specifically talks about the evolution of his perspective here.

[Slartibartfast]

Ah, so what you were saying was that I ought to be listening now to folks who turned out to have been right. To discover how they thought. Possibly I ought to have been listening to you telling me that, as well.

I'd thought that you were saying something related to the purported ability of blacks (and, possibly, assorted other disadvantaged peoples) to recognize who was telling them the truth (which, ostensibly, springs from them not being able to afford being wrong), and that I ought to have realized Ritter was telling me something Truthful, say, back in 1998.

Which I thought was really, really unsupportable for reasons outside of the theory of the infallibility of the underpriveleged. But, just to be super-clear, because I'd really hate to blow a sudden chance for clarity after this much back-and-forth, what you're NOT saying is that I ought to have known to listen back then to what Ritter was saying back then, because the expectation of that level of acuity without the benefit of hindsight isn't reasonable. Hopefully. If there's any level of agreement here, perhaps we can both quit flogging our different dead horses and move on.

And no, I cannot find any other references to Ritter's statement that I quoted above, other than BBC's self-quoting. That it's not even around in transcript form tends to make me distrust it a bit.

[LizardBreath]

Ah, so what you were saying was that I ought to be listening now to folks who turned out to have been right. To discover how they thought.

To chime in, this is absolutely what I understood Jon to have been saying, and something that I absolutely agree with. People like Ritter who were right about important factual issues before the war were not right by accident, they were right because they were some combination of better informed on the facts, more skilled at reasoning from those facts to valid conclusions, and more honest about the process than those who were wrong about the same issues.

While this does not mean that they will inevitably right about everything in the future, it does mean that they should properly be regarded as more credible on similar issues than those who were wrong.