View the h-diplo Discussion Logs by month
View the Prior Message in h-diplo's August 2006 logs by: [date] [author] [thread] View the Next Message in h-diplo's August 2006 logs by: [date] [author] [thread] Visit the h-diplo home page.
[Respondents are asked to focus their replies on the diplomatic/foreign policy aspects of the Bush administration’s decision to go to war with Iraq. Please also try to include in your responses references to any of the multiple published sources on this question – ed.]. From: <john.zimmerman@unlv.edu> Scott Laderman writes: "I have often seen it claimed by proponents of the Iraq war, although generally without citation to evidence, that, as Zimmerman wrote, it was "widely believed by virtually all intelligence agencies at the time [i.e., in March 2003]" that Iraq possessed nuclear, chemical, and/or biological weapons. Putting aside for the moment the issue of dissensus within national intelligence communities, such as that of the United States, I would be grateful if John Zimmerman could cite the evidence that demonstrates the accuracy of his statement." Some information from the U.S., France and Germany is cited here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/11/20051115-1.html. I also recall reports that British, Russian and Israeli intelligence agreed that Saddam had these weapons. I will try to locate these reports. Scott Laderman writes: "On the matter of the second premise, is John Zimmerman suggesting that those who were opposed to the invasion" were arguing in 2003 that Iraq "did not have" weapons of mass destruction, as his note implies?" I did not intend to suggest this. My point was that if Saddam had these weapons, some proponents of the invasion, with the benefit of hindsight, would now impugn bad motives to to the opponents of the invasion, as some of the opponents are doing to the proponents now. John C. Zimmerman
|