that screed by scheer was frightening. I almost think he is on a substance of some kind - the writing makes no sense anymore and is just hyperbole.

"Yes, Bob, but whose lies were they? "

As intelligence professionals know, the claims made by defectors are often very suspect. There are a number of reasons for this: a defector may indeed be a double agent and deliberately spreading disinformation, a defector may be telling a story he or she thinks an interrogator wants to hear in order to secure a reward such as cash and/or asylum, a defector may lie in order to settle a score, etc.

Again, intelligence professionals understand why defector claims should be treated with a boulder of salt.

What's missing in your diatribe is the fact that several prominent Iraqi defectors had contradictory accounts concerning Saddam's WMD capability. This was well known within the intelligence community. You're also missing the very real fact that several Iraqi defectors claiming a considerable WMD capability were discredited by intelligence agencies---yet this administration decided to act on the basis of these bogus claims.

The bottomline is Scheer is correct; this administration decided to act on intelligence that was the least credible and, in some cases, was known to be false.

Scheer is very rarely correct...but this is nothing to brag about, being that even a broken clock is correct twice a day.

Yes, defectors are sometimes lying.

And, yes, their information needs to be handled carefully, as a result.

But that is also true for ALL INTELLIGENCE INFORMATION. Are the satellite pictures we see accurate? Or did the other side deliberately hide things when they knew the satellites would be overhead? Was the signals intelligence picked up by listening posts real? Or was it deliberately planted?

More important, however, is that, in a totalitarian system, defectors are often the ONLY means of accessing information either at the human level (e.g., what the inner circle is debating) or inside facilities that are under highest security.

And it is worth noting that the veracity of defector accounts often cannot be known until after the fall of the regime. After all, many a good Lefty like Stephen Cohen dismissed the casualty counts of the Yezhovschina under Stalin becuase "they're based on Ukrainian and Russian defectors and emigres who are biased." Similarly, the tales from the era of the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution which were dismissed becuase they were from emigres and defectors.

Only the fall of the USSR and the massive opening of the PRC have allowed us to now assess that, in fact, the emigre/defector figures were FAR more accurate than the likes of Cohen and other apologists.

And wasn't it Chomsky who derided all accounts of the Khmer Rouge because they were from defectors?

Yes, defectors are sometimes lying.

And, yes, their information needs to be handled carefully, as a result.

But that is also true for ALL INTELLIGENCE INFORMATION. Are the satellite pictures we see accurate? Or did the other side deliberately hide things when they knew the satellites would be overhead? Was the signals intelligence picked up by listening posts real? Or was it deliberately planted?

True, but one is still relied upon more than the other. There are levels of trustworthiness.

(I always thought it was the left that was supposed to be into false equivalency.)

More important, however, is that, in a totalitarian system, defectors are often the ONLY means of accessing information either at the human level (e.g., what the inner circle is debating) or inside facilities that are under highest security.

The ghost of Adlai Stevenson would like to have a word with you. Something about Cuba.

Besides, just because they're the only source doesn't mean they're a particularly useful or reliable source. The situation does occasionally arise where one's best sources of information are entirely fraudulent. One could argue that we're living it right now.

Demosthenes:

Cuba, 1962, you mean?

Gee, lessee:

The capabilities of American satellites at that point was virtually unknown, both in the USG, but certainly in the USSR.

The main pictures taken were actually by U-2, which have precisely the advantage of NOT flying on known, predictable tracks and courses.

Oh, and you know one of the key tip-offs, both to Cuba and, more importantly, to Soviet responses, capabilities, etc.? One Colonel Oleg Penkovskiy. You DO know who he is, right? One of Khrushchev's military aides? In other words, a spy? (Who would've been a defector, if the Brits had gotten him out, in time.)

So, perhaps a certain defector or two, or their ghost, might want to have a word with YOU. Something about knowing what the Soviets were actually capable of doing, what they had in place, etc. In a little place called Cuba.

In my view, the most important quote from the LA Times article is this: Hussein also may have gambled that the failure of United Nations weapons inspectors to find specific evidence identified by bogus defectors ultimately would force the Security Council to lift sanctions imposed after the 1991 Persian Gulf War. U.S. officials now believe Hussein hoped to then covertly reconstitute his weapons programs.

This seems to be the most plausible answer to the question "why haven't we found any weapons?", as well as the ultimate justification for the war. If Saddam were to remain in power, the sanctions regime and the inspections would have to end and anybody in their right mind should recognize that under those conditions Saddam would restore his weapons programs to full capacity as quickly as he could. Robert Scheer and the other Useful Friends of Saddam might applaud that scenario, but I'm glad we ousted Saddam when we had the chance.

the shark may have a serious lead here, for ten years saddam tried to bust the coalition through aggression, in 1994-1995 he managed to get the sanctions eased by threatening kuwait. he always used aggression to solve situations - he bombed the US Stark (how do you have an accident with two exocet missiles) to get the US involved. I think that creating the crisis in 1998 worked to bust the sanctions, but then 9/11 occurred, and unfortunately for him, iraqi intelligence did not take the pulse of the american public and due to 9/11 we were finally willing to engage in the middle east and fight the mess in the nest.

"Yes, defectors are sometimes lying."

Nope, you're still missing the point: any intelligence professional will assume every defector is lying. They have to; security concerns demand it. So, the intelligence professional will have to verify what they're being told and there are a number of ways to do this. One way is to compare the claims of defectors; if they vary, at least one of the defectors is lying and perhaps both are. Another method of verification is to compare what's being said with other intel assets such as satellite reconnaissance or phone or electronic intercepts. Or other human assets could be used.

And we (as well as our allies) knew a great deal about Iraq's capabilities, so it's a canard to claim Iraq was this mysterious totalitarian monolith which we knew nothing about.

Again, the problem is this administration used the stories of defectors which were known to be the least credible and, likely, false to justify its actions.

Addendum: Dean is quite wrong about Penkovskiy's role in the Cuban Missile Crisis. Penkovskiy didn't tip us off about Soviet missiles in Cuba--in fact, it was actually French diplomatic personnel who reported to our intelligence they had seen huge cylindrical objects under tarpaulins trucked through Havana late at night--which piqued our interest and prompted the U2 overflights.

In reality, Penkovskiy's contributions were both good and bad. He was able to furnish the US with an opinion as to the intentions and politics of the Kremlin and military. OTOH, these opinions were often quite subjective and not without Penkovskiy's own spin; frequently, Penkovskiy was flat-out wrong regarding technical aspects or capabilities.

You know, you guys could argue this until the cows come home, but in the end, you'll still be unable to count how many angels can stand on the head of a pin. What really matters is: Is the world, the US, and Iraq better off with Saddem gone? That is the only meaningful question!

Jadegold,

First of all, President Bush has on several occasions taken pains to inform the American people that the threat from Iraq was not imminent. Do you remember this line from his State of the Union Speech:

"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent."

It is only proper that the Commander in Chief of the US would use "worst case scenarios" when reacting to intelligence information because of the "possibility" that terrorists could use WMD's against America.

Robert Scheer was wrong before the war and remains so today. Scheer is nothing more than a front for A.N.S.W.E.R. In other words nothing has changed, Scheer is still a committed communist dedicated to the destruction of the US Constitution.

In a post 9-11 world it would be tantamount to treason to not interpret intelligence info as worst case. We now live in a world where we must take action before absolute proof is established, the possibility of WMD attack demands thus. The world is ruled by the aggressive use of force, this has been a constant fact throughout recorded human history, the sooner you come to terms with it the better.

I'll say it since no one else did: Shark, hilarious description of Scheer's mornings. Rapier wit.

When are we going to kill the evil in Iran, Saudia Arabia, Pakistan, and North Korea?

Eric,

Hopefully very soon.

you need to incrementally adjust direcway the azimuth setting on the end. After digital satellite tv you receive a signal, you will want dishsinologies to continue to adjust the azimuth to free directv try to get the best possible signal free direct tv from the thing Make sure there are free dish network no trees or other obstacles in the direct tv way of the dish and then connect the directv dish to the digibox and switch on the free satellite tv power.
The dish cable carries a small electric current so never connect or disconnect it while the digibox is