WMD in a haystack

Status
Not open for further replies.

jsalcedo

Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2002
Messages
3,683
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6320-2003Oct9.html

WMD In a Haystack

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, October 10, 2003; Page A27


Rolf Ekeus, living proof that not all Swedish arms inspectors are fools, may have been right.




Ekeus headed the U.N. inspection team that from 1991 to 1997 uncovered not just tons of chemical and biological weapons in Iraq but a massive secret nuclear weapons program as well. This after the other Swede, Hans Blix, then director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, had given Saddam Hussein a perfectly clean bill of health on being non-nuclear. Indeed, Iraq had a seat on the IAEA board of governors.

Ekeus theorizes that Hussein decided years ago that it was unwise to store mustard gas and other unstable and corrosive poisons in barrels, and also difficult to conceal them. Therefore, rather than store large stocks of weapons of mass destruction, he would adapt the program to retain an infrastructure (laboratories, equipment, trained scientists, detailed plans) that could "break out" and ramp up production when needed. The model is Japanese "just in time" manufacturing, where you save on inventory by making and delivering stuff in immediate response to orders. Except that Hussein's business was toxins, not Toyotas.

The interim report of chief U.S. weapons inspector David Kay seems to support the Ekeus hypothesis. He found infrastructure, but as yet no finished product.

As yet, mind you. "We are not yet at the point where we can say definitively either that such weapons stocks do not exist or that they existed before the war and our only task is to find where they have gone," Kay testified last week.

This is fact, not fudging. How do we know? Because Hussein's practice was to store his chemical weapons unmarked amid his conventional munitions, and we have just begun to understand the staggering scale of Hussein's stocks of conventional munitions. Hussein left behind 130 known ammunition caches, many of which are more than twice the size of Manhattan. Imagine looking through "600,000 tons of artillery shells, rockets, aviation bombs and other ordnance" -- rows and rows stretched over an area the size of even one Manhattan -- looking for barrels of unmarked chemical weapons.

And there are 130 of these depots. Kay's team has so far inspected only 10. The question of whether Hussein actually retained finished product is still open.

But the question of whether he was still in the WMD business is no longer open. "We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities," Kay testified, "and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002" -- concealed, that is, from the hapless Hans Blix.

Kay's list is chilling. It includes a secret network of labs and safe houses within the Mukhabarat, the Iraqi foreign intelligence service; bioorganisms kept in scientists' homes, including a vial of live botulinum toxin; and my favorite, "new research on BW [biological weapons]-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever, and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin" -- all "not declared to the U.N."

I have been to medical school, and I have never heard of Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever. I don't know one doctor in 100 who has. It is a rare disease, and you can be sure that Hussein was not seeking a cure.

He was not after the Nobel in physiology (Yasser Arafat having already won the peace prize). He was looking for a way to turn these agents into killers. The fact that he was not stockpiling is relevant only to the question of why some prewar intelligence was wrong about Iraq's WMD program. But it is not relevant to the question of whether a war to preempt his development of WMD was justified.

The fact that Hussein may have decided to go from building up stocks to maintaining clandestine production facilities (may have: remember, Kay still has 120 depots to go through) does not mean that he got out of the WMD business. Otherwise, by that logic, one would have to say that until the very moment at which the plutonium from its 8,000 processed fuel rods is wedded to waiting nuclear devices, North Korea does not have a nuclear program.

Hussein was simply making his WMD program more efficient and concealable. His intent and capacity were unchanged.

Moreover, for those who care about the United Nations (I do not, but many administration critics have a weakness for legal niceties), Resolution 1441, unanimously passed by the Security Council, ordered Hussein to make a full accounting of his WMD program and to cooperate with inspectors, and warned that there would be no more tolerance for concealment or obstruction. Kay's finding of "dozens of WMD-related program activities" concealed from U.N. inspectors constitutes an irrefutable material breach of 1441 -- and an open-and-shut justification for the U.S. decision to disarm Saddam Hussein by force.
 
I'm kind of tired of discussing this one.

There are those of us who care, and who tend to fall on the side of "initiating war without just cause borders on evil, and is the sort of thing we expect tyrants to do." Then there are those who believe that what we did/are doing in Iraq is a good thing, and all this talk about "sovereignty," and "legitimacy," and "imperialism" is just a bunch of hooey that "liberals" are throwing out there to try and distract us from the wonderful things we're doing in the middle east.

Some of us care whether there is (and especially was) real proof that Hussein somehow collaborated with the 9/11 hijackers, because if there wasnt' then we have a number of issues with "legitimacy" again. The other side seems to think that this is another diversion, that the important thing is that we got rid of a "really, really bad guy."

Someone posted a good link to a speech by Ron Paul (another liberal, I guess) that talked about the conservative movement being hijacked by the "neoconservative" movement, who:
  1. agree with Trotsky’s idea of a permanent revolution;
  2. identify strongly with the writings of Leo Strauss;
  3. express no opposition to the welfare state, and will expand it to win votes and power;
  4. believe in a powerful federal government;
  5. believe the ends justify the means in politics- that hardball politics is a moral necessity;
  6. believe lying is necessary for the state to survive;
  7. believe certain facts should be known only by the political elite, and withheld from the general public;
  8. believe in preemptive war and the naked use of military force to achieve any desired ends;
  9. openly endorse the idea of an American empire, and hence unapologetically call for imperialism;
  10. are very willing to use force to impose American ideals;
  11. scoff at the Founding Father’s belief in neutrality in foreign affairs;
  12. believe 9/11 resulted from a lack of foreign entanglements, not from too many;
  13. are willing to redraw the map of the Middle East by force, while unconditionally supporting Israel and the Likud Party;
  14. view civil liberties with suspicion, as unnecessary restrictions on the federal government;
  15. despise libertarians, and dismiss any arguments based on constitutional grounds.
Now, I haven't read the books he cites as background material, but I'm beginning to think he's right on. If that's the case, we're talking about 21st century imperialism -- where we export (by force if necessary) American values to the rest of the world, and where war is seen as a means to that (justified, righteous, and Godly) end.

If so, continual coverage of whether Saddam had nukes/bacteria/chemicals or not doesn't matter, nor does any (non-)link with the 9/11 hijackers. It's nothing more than justification for the war, and no-one really cares one way or another now the work is done.

I fear for the Republic. :(
 
Derek, the cause of the war in Iraq was kindly Uncle Saddam. He had the burden to come forward and prove he was clean. After continual resolutions he played the probation violation game and ended up violated.

It did not matter whether or not he had WMD. He had the burden and refused to come clean. Was he involved with 9/11 directly? No.

We will "impose" our "values" on Iraq just as we imposed our values on Japan and Germany.

Just because we will be in a long war against The Base and their fellow travelers does not mean we are suddenly an Empire. We have had to fight pirates before throughout our history. We will have to now and in the future.

We could pretend evil does not exist, but I do not do not think that is within our best interests. Iraq is the first block in our blockbusting strategy. God's Monkey House needs a good hosing.
 
You may have heard this on the new but we are in a war against terrorism.

We got postive proof of Al Qaida's intentions after the 9 11 attack. It also resulted in the worst catastrophe in American history.

I think Pres. Bush would have been completely negligent if he waited for "postive proof" of Iraq's intentions.

Also, Iraq was in active war with the US by proxy be supporting terrorist groups.

The evidence is overhwelming that Hussein had WMD and was actively trying to make more. What exactly should the US have waited for before it acted? A confession by Hussein? France?

The world is much better off that Hussein isn't in power (that it the non dictatorial terrorist world). The US is in a position to be much more influential in taking on the middle east dictators that support terrorists such as Iran and Syria.

Countries that support terrorist groups that target the US are committing an act of war. They are just doing it deceptively.

Thank the Lord that President Bush is in power and not Gore or anyone else wouldn't have taken the fight to the terrorists and their supporters.
 
Derek, the cause of the war in Iraq was kindly Uncle Saddam. He had the burden to come forward and prove he was clean. After continual resolutions he played the probation violation game and ended up violated.
Which you could argue was the UN's business, and the UN was working on trying to resolve that issue.

Why did we go ahead without the UN again? Wasn't it something about us having some super-secret evidence that proved without a shadow of a doubt that he had WMD's? IIRC, didn't Mr. Powell say that we knew exactly where many of these weapons were?

Do you still believe that?

We will "impose" our "values" on Iraq just as we imposed our values on Japan and Germany.

...

Iraq is the first block in our blockbusting strategy. God's Monkey House needs a good hosing.
Exactly.
 
Interestingly enough, the position now being used by Bush to justify the war is essentially exactly what most Democrats were saying BEFORE the war.

Of course Hussein had a desire to have WMD's... he's a bully thug and the bigger his weapon, the more he can threaten. But, the point made before the war was that the presence of inspectors was keeping those programs in "standby" mode... as you say, plans for the future, no actual production of weapons. All Iraqi scientists have said the orders were: do nothing until the inspectors leave. Now this fact has been proven, and somehow Bush would claim it as proof we needed to charge into a war?

So, Bush now agrees with what dems said as to the weapons staus. Unfortunately, he is ignoring what this fact proves: since all of the programs were in standby, it follows there was no IMMEDIATE threat (as Bush claimed) to justify a rush to war. There was zero chance Hussein was supplying WMD's to anybody else... not that he would anyway, since his purpose for having them is to get one-up on his neighbors the saudis.

It also completely refutes what Bush said: that the inspections were useless. In fact, they were a very inexpensive way to keep Hussein from building WMD's and were driving him crazy based on testimony from Iraqis in a position to know.

I honestly no longer try to keep up with what the latest revision of the reason was we went to war according to the administration. I have lost count. The last I heard was that the "intent" of Hussein to possibly build weapons at some futire time was the reason.... whatever. Point is, he had nothing that threatened us or any of our interests in the near future and this debacle of a war has certianly done very little to increase our security.
 
Why did we go ahead without the UN again? Wasn't it something about us having some super-secret evidence that proved without a shadow of a doubt that he had WMD's? IIRC, didn't Mr. Powell say that we knew exactly where many of these weapons were?

Yes, he said that in a speech to the UN in which he showed satellite photos of the "nuclear development facilities" and also re-stated a claim then known to be false by our own intel services: that Iraq had recently tried to buy uranium from Niger. In defense of Mr Powell, I don't think he knew the information given to him to read was a pack of lies.

Condoleeza Rice had also made the claim that Iraq had a very advanced nuclear program. At a white hose press briefing, one of the reporters asked why they could not be shown any proof. Her snide retort was: "The only proof you people would believe is a mushroom cloud." So, the administration's position was clear: they had proof of a nuclear program advanced enough that it posed an imminent threat, and that is why we had to act. To quote GWB: "there is no time! We must act now!" I wish I had a dollar for every time I heard that. It is only now that all of that has collapsed that they have been forced to try to re-write history and come up with alternate reasons for the rush to war.


It is possible to make a case that Hussein was in technical violation of some aspects of whatever UN amendment was in effect at the time. Whether that breach justified invasion is the question: the UN overwhelmingly said NO and warned the US not to take military action. At that point, Bush had Powell attempt to garner enough support for a new resolution which would authorize the use of force: it failed so miserably to get any support that it was never brought to vote. If it had been, it would have been defeated and that would have gone on record as the UN saying that military action had been expressly forbidden by the UN. The Bush administration chose to "fall back" to the original resolution and claim that it gave them the right to attack. Obviously, the vast majority of the UN members did not agree.

I thought I had seen it all, but when Bush went before the UN to ask them for an international force (which he said would have to be under US command) he actually said the reason he went to war was to defend the "authority" of the UN. I swear I am not making that up. He ignored warnings from the UN to attack, stated publicly that the UN was "irrelevant" because they would not authorize the war, then stated he would go to war without them........ then he went back to ask for troops and claimed they owed him support because he was defending their authority. And, more amazingly, he said it with a straight face.

The man has nerve, I'll give him that.
 
Derek J>>Which you could argue was the UN's business, and the UN was working on trying to resolve that issue.

Why did we go ahead without the UN again? Wasn't it something about us having some super-secret evidence that proved without a shadow of a doubt that he had WMD's? IIRC, didn't Mr. Powell say that we knew exactly where many of these weapons were?<<

Because the UN was being held back by France and Germany's veto power. The UN already recognized that Hussein had WMD because it demanded that Hussein comply with the cease fire agreement dealing with them.

The UN refused to enforce it's demands.

Bounty >>Of course Hussein had a desire to have WMD's... he's a bully thug and the bigger his weapon, the more he can threaten. But, the point made before the war was that the presence of inspectors was keeping those programs in "standby" mode... as you say, plans for the future, no actual production of weapons. All Iraqi scientists have said the orders were: do nothing until the inspectors leave. Now this fact has been proven, and somehow Bush would claim it as proof we needed to charge into a war?<<

That is to leave a particular site not the whole country. Iraq is a big place and Hussein has had 12 years to figure out how to deceive them. In any case he already had WMD.

>>So, Bush now agrees with what dems said as to the weapons staus. Unfortunately, he is ignoring what this fact proves: since all of the programs were in standby, it follows there was no IMMEDIATE threat (as Bush claimed) to justify a rush to war. There was zero chance Hussein was supplying WMD's to anybody else... not that he would anyway, since his purpose for having them is to get one-up on his neighbors the saudis.<<

No chance. He had them. What is to prevent him from giving some to Al Qaida and asking them to do a favor and release small pox in NYC? Impossible??? Some said them bring down the WTC and damaging the Pentagon were impossible too.
 
No chance. He had them. What is to prevent him from giving some to Al Qaida and asking them to do a favor and release small pox in NYC? Impossible??? Some said them bring down the WTC and damaging the Pentagon were impossible too.

I am not trying to start a war an will answer this because ignoring a reply is rude. Also, it contains some important misconceptions that are prevalent. I only want to get the correct info posted, not argue with or try to convert people. Here goes:

"What is to prevent him from giving some to Al Qaida and asking them to do a favor and release small pox in NYC? "

First: Hussein has always hated Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. That's old news. Hussein hates Saudi Arabia and has repeatedly stated that he will depose it and take it over. He hates the saudis because he sees tham as US lap dogs for letting us put troops there. His hatred of the saudis multiplied exponentially after the Iran-Iraq war because Iraq was basically bankrupt. Hussein called on the other "Seven Sisters" to cut oil production and boost the price. They said screw you and did what they always do: stab each other in the back. The invasion of Kuwait was a desparate attempt by Hussein to intimidate the other Arab states into backing off production... as well as siezing 15% of the world's oil and a valuable seaport to ship it from. Point is, Hussein blames the Saudis for the situation that led to his first ??? kicking (Desert Storm) because the Saudis control so much of the world's oil output they are the ones who ultimately control the price.

Not only that: Bin Laden and Al Qaeda are pure Saudi. When they were first firing up Al qaeda back in the early 90's, Bin Laden tried to shake down Iraq for support money and Hussein told Bin laden to kiss off. Bin Laden has stated publicly that Hussein is NOT a true muslim but a liar who deludes others into following him. The only accurate thing you can say is that the only people they hate more than each other are the Americans.

Further: Bin Laden believes and has stated that Hussein heads a corrupt regime and he has stated he will depose it and replace him with a "true" muslim state. Hussein fears radical fundamental Islam almost as much as he fears the USA. It would be easy to know what day Saddam would support Al Qaeda: the bats would be flying out of hell because the weather got too cold when it froze over.


As for Saddam having WMD's:

I would not be surprised if he had some chems and bios hidden somewhere. He used them before and they are easy to get. before the war I said I thought he had them and that he would use them on our troops. As it turned out, he either did not have them (or enough of them) because he did not use them. Thank God.

Point is, I also said all along bios and chems are no reason for war. A looney religous group in Japan put Sarin gas in a subway and killed a bunch of people. That means their "terrorists" have chem weapons. Lot's of people have bios and chems, we can not invade over them. I also said all along that the ONLY viable reason to invade was an imminent threat to our security which would be a nuclear program within reach of developing a bomb. If they had found equipment to enrich U-235 to U-238, I would say there was no choice. Or even parts to build such a machine, I'd say OK. But they had no active program and the intel at the time showed that. That is why I think we were had on this rush to war.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top