What About The Weapons Of Mass Destruction?

Post-9/11 Era Forum

What About The Weapons Of Mass Destruction?
by John Hawkins


Yesterday, I was talking a friend of mind today about Saddam Hussein and she said in part,

FOH: ...I just don't agree with being lied to in order to take (Saddam) out.

John Hawkins: What lie do you think you were told?

FOH: That we were in imminent danger of being destroyed by weapons of mass destruction.

My friend isn't very political, but some left-winger apparently got to her and convinced her that Bush was lying about WMD. While her belief is erroneous, it's understandable that some people might buy into the idea that "Bush lied about WMD" because they're not political junkies who remember every detail of the build-up to the war. That's why it's so important for conservatives to remind people of what really happened even as the left tries to rewrite history.

To begin with, this argument that Bush kept emphasizing that we were in "imminent danger" can be quickly and easily disposed of. That's because the whole concept behind making preemptive strikes runs counter to the idea of waiting until a threat is "imminent". As Bush said in his 2003 State of the Union speech,

"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. (Applause.)"

Secondly, while Bush certainly made it very clear that he believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, that was not the sole reason Bush gave for invading Iraq. To the contrary, Bush hit several themes consistently in the year before the invasion of Iraq including WMD, Saddam's violation of 17 United Nations resolutions (which did not deal with WMD alone), Hussein's mistreatment of his people, & his cooperation with terrorists. To prove that I'm not just blowing smoke, let me go back to Bush's widely covered Sept 12, 2002 speech to the United Nations General Assembly. In that speech which made front page news all around the world, Bush explained what Saddam needed to do to avoid war. If the anti-war critics are right and Bush predicated his whole case on Saddam Hussein having weapons of mass destruction, it would be logical to think that Bush simply told Saddam to get rid of his WMD. But to the contrary, Bush said the following,

"If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately and unconditionally forswear, disclose, and remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles, and all related material.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all support for terrorism and act to suppress it, as all states are required to do by U.N. Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its civilian population, including Shi'a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans, and others, again as required by Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown. It will return the remains of any who are deceased, return stolen property, accept liability for losses resulting from the invasion of Kuwait, and fully cooperate with international efforts to resolve these issues, as required by Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. It will accept U.N. administration of funds from that program, to ensure that the money is used fairly and promptly for the benefit of the Iraqi people."

Ok, so we've now shown that Bush wasn't claiming the threat was "imminent" and that Bush's case against Iraq wasn't built exclusively on showing that Saddam had WMD. Even if that's so, we haven't found the WMD yet. Doesn't that mean Bush "lied"?

No, it doesn't. What you have to understand is almost EVERYBODY in the know thought Saddam had WMD. For example, just listen to what "Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., ranking member of the House intelligence Committee" had to say about this subject,

"Some are suggesting, certainly, that (Saddam) destroyed the weapons after 1998 or maybe even sooner. It's just counterintuitive that he would have done that. His would have been the greatest intelligence hoax of all time, fooling every intelligence agency, three presidents, five secretaries of defense and the entire world into thinking he still had the weapons."

Furthermore, Harman wasn't the only Democrat who felt that way. There are many examples I could cite, but here's one from the current golden girl of the Democratic Party, Hillary Clinton, making virtually the same case to the American people that Bush did on weapons on mass destruction,

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

Since Bush's position on whether Saddam had WMD was indistinguishable from that of most of the VIPs in the Democratic Party, no intellectually honest person can claim that "Bush lied about WMD" unless he also believes that the majority of the US government on both sides of the aisle, along with intelligence agencies and leaders from many other nations, also lied about Hussein's WMD.

At worst, those who are knowledgable about the situation and who aren't blind partisans can say that Bush's allegation that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction was in error. But to be truthful, we can't even definitively say that's the case yet. I tell you that because there are a variety of theories about what happened to the weapons of mass destruction. Some people believe that the WMD have been; shipped to Lebanon or Syria, destroyed at some point, hidden and not yet found, carried away in the looting, given to terrorists, not built for years by scientists afraid to tell Saddam the truth, or some combination thereof. At this point, it's difficult to rule any of those possibilities out. But as David Kay pointed out in his interim report, Saddam at the very least intended to procure WMD,

"Saddam, at least as judged by those scientists and other insiders who worked in his military-industrial programs, had not given up his aspirations and intentions to continue to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Even those senior officials we have interviewed who claim no direct knowledge of any on-going prohibited activities readily acknowledge that Saddam intended to resume these programs whenever the external restrictions were removed. Several of these officials acknowledge receiving inquiries since 2000 from Saddam or his sons about how long it would take to either restart CW production or make available chemical weapons."

So we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that Hussein once had and used weapons of mass destruction. Moreover, at the time of the invasion, Saddam either had WMD or planned to acquire them. So all this quibbling over WMD is in a very important sense, irrelevant. Worst case scenario, it's like we stopped a serial killer before he could kill again as opposed to actually catching him with a body in the basement. In any case, sensible people who are concerned about what an anti-American tyrant like Saddam might have done with his WMD should be happy that the "Butcher of Baghdad" is now permanently out of business.

nice post jv!

i had never caught the "imminent danger" before...

Thanks Charles. Yeah, I thought it was a good article.


--JV

Well done. Now, wait for the rhetoric to start contradicting everything you posted.

Good job JV. I wish the left would at least acknowledge these facts but they just don't want to see it. They choose to continue blabbering about "Bush said we invaded solely because of WMD". After this...how can they? I used to think they just couldn't see it. I now think that they aren't capable. The only interesting thing I look forward to is;what will they "cling" to when there is proof that WMD's were shipped out prior to invasion to Iran,or Syria? They can no longer claim ignorance to that speech in front of the general assemble as they apparently are now. They will then (i predict) say;" he said there was more than that". "Where are the other 4 pounds"? " See...he's a liar" " this war was unjust"...ooh but i'm glad we got Saddam

1. Are you a lawyer JV?

2. Do you know how much money they make?

Since they checked Saddams hair for WMD's on TV they've run out of places to look.

I heard that Johnny Cochran is coming to the defense of Saddam. His quote
"Since he was found in a pit you must acquit"

ok ok Mutual congratulations Ron! I enjoyed it.

Yep good post.

What a bunch of right-winged rhetoric. And you all actually believe this? If Bush's foundation for invading Iraq weren't WMD, then why is he searching so hard to find them? Why is the world asking "where are the WMD?" Don't tell me, it's the "liberal media's fault" right?
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast.../sprj.irq.main/

Notice the reasons Bush gave in his ultimatum.

How about this one?
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003...0777345965.html

He's another quote from Bush you forgot to post.

"Saddam tried to kill my dad" I guess this wasn't any motive for him either?
http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS.../bush.war.talk/

I guess Bush didn't say Saddam had mobile labs either?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003...ain544764.shtml

Only to find out the labs were no such thing
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast...rj.irq.no.labs/

Saddam couldn't flush the toilet without Bush accusing him of trying to destroy evidence. Every move Saddam made was for chemical warfare and you all believed every word of it. How about the mobile labs?
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast...rj.irq.no.labs/

How about drone airplanes?
http://www.dailyherald.com/special/...sp?intID=378583

It's clear Bush would accuse Saddam of anything to support his assertion of WMD.

Before the war
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81935,00.html

The first thing on their list after the war was won.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003...0777345965.html

In June
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/06/17/bush.iraq/

Six months later
http://www.agitprop.org.au/nowar/20...man_no_wmds.htm

Man we certainly are focused on WMD but this war certainly isn't JUST about that or the foundation of it now is it?


You guys are simply ridiculous to simply accept this rhetoric and not even believe your own ears and eyes as we have seen Bush consistantly refer to these WMD.

And what about Osama bin Laden? Isn't that what started this? For that I will simply leave you with this....

But don't tell us this was a triumph in the war on terror, Mr. President. Don't tell us the defeat of a secular dictator has turned the tide against a gang of religious fanatics. And don't talk about patience. You inserted a battle that could have waited into a war that couldn't, precisely because you lacked—or thought we lacked—patience for the slow, diffuse, half-invisible struggle against the people who hit us on Sept. 11. You wanted a quick, clear victory, and you got it. But don't flatter yourself. You haven't changed the world in 9 months. You've only changed the subject.

*Article*

Hehe - the subtitle's kinda funny - imagine Lenny saying it to Homer wearing a military uniform

Well oneforpeace, Bush IS trying to find them to appease and silence the left-wing's constant accusations that Bush lied(not the only reason). Who wouldn't get tired of that? It boggles my mind that even when facts are placed in front of people and they are so wrapped up in their ideology, they don't even acknowledge them! I could never be President in this situation because I would end up taking my damn speech and shoving it right in the leftists face, shouting, "THIS IS WHAT I SAID! THIS IS WHAT I SAID!" But then they still wouldn't acknowledge the facts and I'd get impeached or arrested.

Stop trying to twist the Presidents words, the foundation isn't WMD, it is that plus several other things, previously stated. No one can argue with that fact--correction...leftists who can't admit it will STILL argue with that fact...but what can you do? It's their decision to accept the truth and obviously they won't.

I tell 'em to go pound sand some more, lokim.

You know it's quite amazing now that this is the story shift coming out in these forums. Now it's wasn't really "just" about WMD. How do you guys even come up with this stuff?

I guess we simply didn't hear what Bush said all along. Why is he trying so hard to find these WMD then? This didn’t just start after the “media” and “leftist” started accusing him. He started searching immediately for them. How is it that in the absence of these WMD, now you supporters are suggesting that it really wasn't about the WMD but everything else?

It's just horrifying that we have people like this in this country. If this had been Clinton, you guys would be all over him like a cheap shirt. All of a sudden it's the media, it's leftist, it's democrats, everyone but Bush. Bush stated his reasons 48 hrs before we invaded Iraq. Read his words. We all heard him. In fact we heard him the 6 months preceding the war. The rest of that stuff about Saddam and 9/11 and terrorist ties we're to help convince the American public he is right about invading Iraq. For you all to now assert otherwise is being disingenuous..

Bush made a statement shortly after 9/11 on Sept 20. We had a State List with countries we said sponsored terrorism.

http://usembassy.state.gov/posts/ja1/wwwhse1398.html

Look at Iraq. This was the list on Sept 20, 2001. Notice in the terrorist section. It lacks the terrorist groups Al Qaeda or the mention of Osama period. Almost a year later after wanting to invade Iraq, Bush started asserting that Saddam had WMD. Then to support this he started asserting that Saddam had among other things, ties to Al Qaeda.

Now this is as transparent as a glass of water, but you now want to dismiss it. It has nothing to do with left or right, it has to do with truth. Bush never had his clear and convincing evidence because he suddenly lost it, and because of this now you guys want to say all of a sudden “it wasn’t JUST about WMD”. You all have got to be kidding me if you think you can pull that one over our eyes. It’s a feeble attempt to explain the absence of those weapons.

Lastly, now we’re finding documents, defectors, foreign intelligence and everything else 9 months after we invaded showing the “ties” Saddam had to 9/11 and we’re suppose to accept this as proof 9 months ago that we were right? I can except that Bush didn’t have evidence, but now after catching Saddam it “might” have been worth it, but for you all to go into blatant denial about what this president used as the foundation for this invasion is very disingenuous.

June 22, 2003


WMD: Intelligence Without Brains
by Alan Reynolds

Alan Reynolds is a senior fellow with the Cato Institute and a nationally syndicated columnist.

The Senate Intelligence Committee is investigating whether intelligence assessments about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) were full of honest or dishonest mistakes, or whether temperate CIA reports were hyped by administration officials to gain support for the war.


I wrote about WMD in February, citing an October 2002 CIA report on "Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction" that is readily available at www.cia.gov. This report contains no top secrets, but it illustrates very well the sorts of evidence later cited by Secretary of State Colin Powell, British Prime Minister Tony Blair and others.

The opening summary stated that "Baghdad has begun renewed production of chemical warfare agents." Later, this turns out to mean "Iraq has the ability of produce chemical warfare (CW) agents" and "gaps in Iraqi accounting and current production capabilities strongly suggest that Iraq maintains stockpiles of chemical agents." The report also said, "Chlorine and phenol ... have legitimate civilian uses but also are raw materials for the synthesis of precursor chemicals used to produce blister and nerve gas."

The report repeatedly relies on things "unaccounted for" such as chemical precursors and "about 550 artillery shells filled with mustard agent." But precursors are not weapons and artillery shells are of no use to terrorists -- particularly if filled with useless mustard gas left over from the war with Iran.

Iraq and Iran both used gas against each other from 1983 to 1988, but even information from that period is murky. The CIA wrote, "Although precise information is lacking, human rights organizations have received plausible accounts from Kurdish villagers of even more Iraqi chemical attacks against civilians ... in areas close to the Iranian and Turkish borders." Approximate casualties from the infamous gas attack on "his own people" at Halabjah in March 1988 are listed as "hundreds" in the CIA report and included Iranians, not just Kurds.


What about biological weapons (BW)? The summary said "Iraq has some lethal and incapacitating BW agents and is capable of quickly producing and weaponizing a variety of such agents, including anthrax, for delivery by bombs, missiles (and) aerial sprayers ..." As with CW, to be capable of making BW is not the same as having a stockpile anybody will ever find. What Iraq had, the report explains later, is "the capability to convert quickly legitimate vaccine and biopesticide plants to biological warfare (BW) and it may have already done so." Any country producing chlorine, pesticides or castor oil could thus be accused of plotting to produce precursors for WMD.

Even if Iraq actually had "some" BW, packing such living organisms into bombs or missiles would be an excellent way of killing the biological agents and little else. Besides, Iraq had only "a small force of extended-range Scud-type missiles and an undetermined number of launchers and warhead." So the CIA had to come up with some hypothetical "aerial sprayers" to dispense the hypothetical biological weapons Iraq was "capable of" producing.

"Before the Gulf war," said the CIA, "the Iraqis successfully experimented with aircraft-mounted spray tanks capable of releasing up to 2,000 liters of anthrax stimulant over a target area." To be capable of releasing simulated anthrax is not the same as being capable of killing anyone that way. Most biological agents can't survive exposure to sunlight. Anthrax sprayed from aircraft would have to be mixed with water, which evaporates quickly, and only particles of an extremely precise size stand a chance of being inhaled in lethal quantities even at close range (like an envelope), much less after floating around in the wind.

"Before the Gulf War," said the CIA, "Baghdad attempted to convert a MiG-21 into an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV)." One attempt, and it failed. In the summary, however, the CIA reported that "Iraq maintains ... several development programs, including for a UAV that most analysts believe probably is intended to deliver biological warfare agents."

That doesn't say Iraq has a UAV, only a program. In the opening summary, however, the report said, "Baghdad's UAV's ... could threaten ... the United States if brought close to, or into, the U.S. Homeland." This was as close as the report (and Powell) ever came to making Iraq appear to be a clear and present danger to the U.S. homeland. Yet the CIA did not really claim to have evidence that Iraq had even a single UAV. Little wonder we didn't find one.

The frequent claim that suspect weapons are too tiny to find does not work for UAVs or for entire factories that were supposedly producing germs and gas. The notion of mobile labs just came from one defecting Iraqi scientist who "admitted to U.N. inspectors that Iraq was trying to move in the direction of mobile BW production." The CIA report showed aerial photos of factories and named a few. The 150 most suspicious sites were surely among the first 300 that have been inspected. We are now playing the long shots.

Writing in the LA Times, Max Boot of the Council on Foreign Relations ponders why Hussein was so uncooperative "in light of the postwar failure to find any WMD stockpiles." He offers just two explanations: Either Saddam "destroyed his stockpile" or "we'll still find it."

A third explanation is that some weapons that were supposed to make Iraq a formidable military threat never existed, such as UAVs or missile warheads loaded with biological agents. Others, such as capacity to produce biological and chemical precursors, were never weapons. The rest, as the CIA put it, was based on "limited insight into activities since 1998," including speculations from private analysts (Tony Blair's dossier reportedly relied heavily on Jane's Intelligence Report). "All intelligence experts agree that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons," wrote the CIA. But seeking is not having, and intelligence experts are not necessarily intelligent.

I see no value in Senate committees "investigating" the WMD rationale for the Iraq war. The senators should have read the CIA report last October, and not just the summary. What remains vitally important today, however, is to understand that the hyping of WMD by the CIA and others has been dangerous to homeland security.

On Oct. 2, 2001, The Washington Post ran an important story by Joby Warrick and Joe Stephens, "Before Attack, U.S. Expected Different Hit." They said, "elaborate multi-agency planning exercises with flashy names such as `Red Ex' and `Dark Winter' focused overwhelmingly on biological and chemical threats, while experts urging preparations for a simpler, more conventional attack found it difficult to be heard. ... Lots of money poured into research on chemical and biological threats. Entire research institutes were created for it."

We are still focusing far too much on wildly implausible scenarios of biological and chemical terrorism, and too little on bombs and bullets and arson. That high-level WMD obsession is still just as threatening to homeland security as it was before Sept. 11.

Rather than wasting time on the easy task of debunking the CIA report on WMD in Iraq, the Senate should be investigating the whole concept of WMD. Everyone has been hyping WMD, not just the CIA. It reminds me of the folks who tried to sell my parents bomb shelters in the '50s. And I'm not buying this time, either.

There is a report today that David Kay is quiting a lead WMD hunter. The Washington Post said Iraq Survey Group leader David Kay has cited personal reasons for his departure, which could come before February.


Kay told Congress that his team had "discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002," including "a clandestine network of laboratories and safehouses … that contained equipment subject to UN monitoring and suitable for continuing (chemical and biological weapons) research."

Kay cited "significant information" that Iraq's intelligence services were involved in biological weapons (BW) programs, but that after 1996, Iraq's biological weapons program was shifted to "maintaining smaller, covert capabilities that could be activated quickly to surge the production of BW agents."

The survey group gathered evidence that "Iraq explored the possibility of chemical weapons (CW) production in recent years" but had also heard from sources that "Iraq did not have a large, ongoing, centrally controlled CW program after 1991."