Asymmetrical Information

A few days earlier, Josh Marshall offered these insights concerning the Iraqi crisis:

“We can't just send a quarter million drops back and forth to the Gulf a couple times a year. It's easy for him but it'll eventually bleed us dry.

Eventually, we'd just have to say, 'Okay, this is lame. We're going to have to settle this once and for all.' Folks like Polloi, certainly the hawks in the administration, and possibly now Colin Powell too, think we're already at that point. And I'm not at all certain they're wrong. “

“But if we've made the decision that Saddam is a longterm threat to the region and that we have to remove him, maybe it's no time like the present.”

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/jan0304.html#0128031019am

I think it’s safe to say that the Neo-Liberal intellectuals are starting to climb on board. Oh well, Saddam Hussein will still have Noam Chomsky, Michael Moore, and Susan “I’m such a serious person” Sarandon on his side.

There's a nice little discussion about that Hamza guy in Daily Kos' comments here. There's a link to an expose here. I don't know how far I'd trust that particular info.

The point about Hamza, is that while he is unique, you have to ask why this guy gets up and says what he does, while the rest of the defectors are playing their roles as intelligence sources. Hamza is essentially saying "shoot me" to the Iraqi secret police. Now what motives does he have for this according to your sources? Pretty much what any other Iraqi would have. Interesting, but only mildly so. Your second source says that Pollack "relies" on Hamza. That is an extrapolation from Pollack's remarks, and I find it unjustiable.

What the citations also fail, totally, to consider is that Hamza's role in the Fuels section of the program is the critical queuing path for the entire Iraqi nuclear program. He may not have run the entire show, just known what was going on in the enrichment portion.

But the kicker for your citations, Josh, are the last paragraphs of the the first cite:
"So, who are you again Mr. Hamza?

"According to Scott Ritter, UNSCOM's most aggressive former weapons inspector, who appeared on a July 31st edition of CNN's Crossfire, you are a liar."

Ritter is aggressive in inspecting more than just WMD, according to more recent news, so I'll just wonder about Ritter's motives in this whole matter.

Ritter is under investigation for paedophile offences. As he went, fairly suddenly, from being aggressive to saying there is no problem with Iraq, it seems very likely that at that point he started being blackmailed by the Iraqis. Anything since then should be discounted.

I'd suggest that many things before these charges might be discounted as well. Blackmail being most effect before the sin is revealed.

Sometimes silence says more than actual words. The few comments on this particular thread is most likely a sign that just about everybody is resigned to the fact that the United States and its allies will soon invade Iraq. Indeed, only the radical Left and the ultra right wing nut balls like Pat Buchanan will continue to do battle with the Bush administration over this issue.

Comments are Closed.