Inspector Says Iraqis Will Reveal Weapons Program

[Nie Trink Wasser]

http://www.suntimes.com/output/iraq/cst-nws-wmd01.html


WASHINGTON--The United States has found evidence of an active program to make weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, including "truly amazing" testimony from Iraqis ordered to dupe UN inspectors before the war, the man leading the hunt said Thursday.

David Kay, a former United Nations inspector who is joint head of the Iraq Survey Group, offered an unprecedentedly optimistic assessment of the hunt for weapons of mass destruction.

Although he called for patience, he predicted that doubters were in for a "surprise" by the time his work was done.

His 1,400-strong team of American, British and Australian experts now scouring Iraq has not yet found actual biological or chemical weapons, Kay told private Senate hearings.

But there was mounting evidence of an active WMD program, he said.

That evidence included documents detailing how to conceal arms plants as commercial facilities, and for restarting weapons production once the coast was clear, officials told reporters.

Leading Democratic lawmakers have questioned pre-war claims made by President Bush about Saddam Hussein's weapons capacities.

The Senate Intelligence Committee's top Democrat, Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, expressed concern that the searches are being diverted away from finding actual weapons.

''Signs of a weapons program are very different than the stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons that were a certainty before the war,'' Rockefeller said. ''We did not go to war to disrupt Saddam's weapons program, we went to disarm him.''

''It's looking more and more like a case of mass deception,'' Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) said after Kay briefed the Senate Armed Services Committee. ''There was no imminent danger and we should never have gone to war.''

Kay appeared to want to stem the growing perception that Saddam may have had no weapons program at all.

 

[rikzilla]

The last word, will be the definitive word in the Iraqi WMD debate.

That word has obviously not been written yet.

Stay tuned.

-z

 

[Martin]

Translation: We haven't actually found anything, but just you wait. You'll see. No, really. Honestly. Trust us. Please?

 

[Jon_in_london]

Yes, Im sure there are some invisible pink unicorns hidden in Iraq too. They just havent been found yet.

 

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Translation: We haven't actually found anything, but just you wait. You'll see. No, really. Honestly. Trust us. Please?

wow. that's hilarious. stop me from laughing. help it hurts so, because im laughing so hard. so hard Im laughing at the wit. har har.

the funny part will be when you wont be able to admit you were wrong.

 

[Crossbow]

That article provides some good information and there are two sentences in particular that I find most illuminating:

...

His 1,400-strong team of American, British and Australian experts now scouring Iraq has not yet found actual biological or chemical weapons, Kay told private Senate hearings.

But there was mounting evidence of an active WMD program, he said.

That evidence included documents detailing how to conceal arms plants as commercial facilities, and for restarting weapons production once the coast was clear, officials told reporters.

...

[sarcasm]
Oooh! So that is what the war was all about! The need to find some documents about how to make WMDs as opposed to actually having WMDs or even having the actual hardware to make WMDs, it was all about the paper. So I guess when Cheney spoke of Iraq having "reconstituted nuclear weapons" what he really meant that Iraq has some documents about how to build nuclear weapons (of course one must throw in the usual pro-war caveat that Cheney was not actually under oath when he said that therefore it cannot be considered a lie).

But anyway, let me see about applying some high-power mathematics to this data: I would estimate that there is something like 100,000 pages of these documents and the war has cost over $ 100 billion (so far), therefore we paid about $ 1,000,000 page. Of course that does not include the tens of thousands of war causalities.

Holy cow! That has to be some kind of record.

Anyway, at those kinds of prices we could have probably paid off some filing clerks about $ 100/page to get copies of the documents which would have been much cheaper, and far less bloodier, than a shooting war.
[/sarcasm]

 

[Nie Trink Wasser]

That article provides some good information and there are two sentences in particular that I find most illuminating:

...

His 1,400-strong team of American, British and Australian experts now scouring Iraq has not yet found actual biological or chemical weapons, Kay told private Senate hearings.

But there was mounting evidence of an active WMD program, he said.

That evidence included documents detailing how to conceal arms plants as commercial facilities, and for restarting weapons production once the coast was clear, officials told reporters.

...

[sarcasm]

Oooh! So that is what the war was all about! The need to find some documents about how to make WMDs as opposed to actually having WMDs or even having the actual hardware to make WMDs, it was all about the paper. So I guess when Cheney spoke of Iraq having "reconstituted nuclear weapons" what he really meant that Iraq has some documents about how to build nuclear weapons (of course one must throw in the usual pro-war caveat that Cheney was not actually under oath when he said that therefore it cannot be considered a lie).

But anyway, let me see about applying some high-power mathematics to this data: I would estimate that there is something like 100,000 pages of these documents and the war has cost over $ 100 billion (so far), therefore we paid about $ 1,000,000 page. Of course that does not include the tens of thousands of war causalities.

Holy cow! That has to be some kind of record.

Anyway, at those kinds of prices we could have probably paid off some filing clerks about $ 100/page to get copies of the documents which would have been much cheaper, and far less bloodier, than a shooting war.
[/sarcasm]

maybe you should consider that you're minimizing the murder of all of those people by Saddam's chemical weapons and maybe you should consider why Clinton bombed Iraq.

war is okay when a democrat is in office eh ?

 

[Suddenly]

That evidence included documents detailing how to conceal arms plants as commercial facilities, and for restarting weapons production once the coast was clear, officials told reporters.

In other words, the inspections were working.

I trusted the administration when it said that Iraq posed an imminent danger. I supported the war on that grounds. However, shifting the target from "imminent danger" to "they could have become a danger" just isn't going to cut it. The implied bargain was that if I trusted them, they would justify that trust by coming up with a stockpile of WMDs. Hasn't happened, and this type of target shifting makes me more skeptical that they ever will.

I just didn't believe they would lie about something so important. I hope I was right, but I am not going to let my hopes, fears or patriotism cloud my judgment. Ignoring the misdeeds of those in power is closer to treason than patriotism.

 

[Nie Trink Wasser]

In other words, the inspections were working.

wrong

 

[rikzilla]

In other words, the inspections were working.

I trusted the administration when it said that Iraq posed an imminent danger. I supported the war on that grounds. However, shifting the target from "imminent danger" to "they could have become a danger" just isn't going to cut it. The implied bargain was that if I trusted them, they would justify that trust by coming up with a stockpile of WMDs. Hasn't happened, and this type of target shifting makes me more skeptical that they ever will.

I just didn't believe they would lie about something so important. I hope I was right, but I am not going to let my hopes, fears or patriotism cloud my judgment. Ignoring the misdeeds of those in power is closer to treason than patriotism.

Does this mean that you would be for a regime of never-ending sanctions that have "worked" to contain Saddam and limit his ability to crank up his WMD production? Before you answer though, remember that these sanctions also have caused much suffering, as well as approx 17,000 deaths per year since they began. Also, the regime brutally murdered even more individuals per year during this time.

You cannot be "for" non-intervention while being "against" sanctions. Why? For non-intervention to work Saddam must be contained. Containment = sanctions.

So basically you are saying that as long as Saddam is no threat to you, you don't care how many Iraqis suffer and die, or for how long. That's compassion!
The mantra of the "compassionate democrats"; "Let the sanctions/inspections work!" = "Let the Iraqi people die."


-z

 

[Suddenly]

wrong

Thank you for your well reasoned response. I return to the world a much greater and wiser person having been exposed to your brilliance.

If they were halting production until "the coast was clear," and no stockpiled weapons were found, I though that meant there were no weapons or plans to develop same as long as "the coast wasn't clear," that the UN was still inspecting under threat of war. I then reasoned that they were not an immediate threat and it might have been wise to wait a while and get greated support before launching an invasion.

Your dazzling response has made me see the light however. Thank you.

 

[Frostbite]

Hey Nie, could you change your avatar? It's making my skin crawl and my stomach produce mass quantities of acid. Thank you.

 

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Thank you for your well reasoned response. I return to the world a much greater and wiser person having been exposed to your brilliance.

If they were halting production until "the coast was clear," and no stockpiled weapons were found, I though that meant there were no weapons or plans to develop same as long as "the coast wasn't clear," that the UN was still inspecting under threat of war. I then reasoned that they were not an immediate threat and it might have been wise to wait a while and get greated support before launching an invasion.

Your dazzling response has made me see the light however. Thank you.

I said you were wrong and I had faith rik would show up and he did.

Apologies for the short and sweet, but I can't waste a lot of time right now.

 

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Hey Nie, could you change your avatar? It's making my skin crawl and my stomach produce mass quantities of acid. Thank you.

it's good for digestion.

 

[Crossbow]

maybe you should consider that you're minimizing the murder of all of those people by Saddam's chemical weapons and maybe you should consider why Clinton bombed Iraq.

war is okay when a democrat is in office eh ?

Boy you make some irrelevant points.

So are you telling me that the 2003 war was due to the time when Iraq used chemical weapons in 1981? Sorry, but waging a war for something that happened to group that we were not allies with, or even cared that much about quite frankly (I doubt that Reagan even knew anything about the Kurds before he got into office), over 20 years ago is not a valid reason for going to war.

Yes, when Clinton bombed Iraq there was a good reason for it. If you will recall that was a reaction to an assassination attempt on a former president that occurred just a few weeks before.

 

[rikzilla]

Hey Nie, could you change your avatar? It's making my skin crawl and my stomach produce mass quantities of acid. Thank you.

Well, I think she's lovely! Hell, I bet she's such a nice girl, she' even date American!

Sorry...for the diversion.....

.........we now return to our regularly scheduled thread.

 

[Suddenly]

Does this mean that you would be for a regime of never-ending sanctions that have "worked" to contain Saddam and limit his ability to crank up his WMD production? Before you answer though, remember that these sanctions also have caused much suffering, as well as approx 17,000 deaths per year since they began. Also, the regime brutally murdered even more individuals per year during this time.

The crimes of the Iraqi regime are not relevent to my point. There are many reasons on which to justify an invasion and occupation. If we would have just said "we are invading because they are an evil menace and Saddam just needs killing, plus as a realpolitik measure we could use a non-Saudi base in the mid-east" I'd have been all for it. The world is a rough place. I'm more concerned with lies.

You cannot be "for" non-intervention while being "against" sanctions. Why? For non-intervention to work Saddam must be contained. Containment = sanctions.

How about no sanctions, but inspections with the penalty of war for violation? War was likely inevitable, but the story of immediate danger caused us to move too fast and without allies. I'm not a big fan of the UN, but reality dictates that having them on our side makes things easier.

So basically you are saying that as long as Saddam is no threat to you, you don't care how many Iraqis suffer and die, or for how long. That's compassion!
The mantra of the "compassionate democrats";"Let the sanctions/inspections work!" = "Let the Iraqi people die."



Strawman. As I stated above I'm all for an invasion on humanitarian principles. I just wonder if that means we have to invade every country that mistreats its people. As a matter of pragmatism, I believe a threat to America takes military precidence over threats to non-Americans. Perhaps you believe otherwise, and I respect that belief.







-z [/B]

(edited to remove a stray piece of irrelevant text)

 

[DrChinese]

http://www.suntimes.com/output/iraq/cst-nws-wmd01.html
...

His 1,400-strong team of American, British and Australian experts now scouring Iraq has not yet found actual biological or chemical weapons, Kay told private Senate hearings.

But there was mounting evidence of an active WMD program, he said.

Leading Democratic lawmakers have questioned pre-war claims made by President Bush about Saddam Hussein's weapons capacities.

The Senate Intelligence Committee's top Democrat, Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, expressed concern that the searches are being diverted away from finding actual weapons.

''Signs of a weapons program are very different than the stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons that were a certainty before the war,'' Rockefeller said. ''We did not go to war to disrupt Saddam's weapons program, we went to disarm him.''

''It's looking more and more like a case of mass deception,'' Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) said after Kay briefed the Senate Armed Services Committee. ''There was no imminent danger and we should never have gone to war.''

Note that the Bush apologists continue to squirm, and cannot face the Iraq war issues head on.

As to the existence of WMD: none found, but (maybe) Saddam had a weapons "program". (Not exactly the same, is it?)

As to the rationale for war: WMDs were not the only reason to invade Iraq (it was a major reason for most war supporters, as Saddam's repressive government had never been much of an issue over the previous 25 years).

As to the benefit to the Iraqi people of having Saddam removed: The ends justify the means (i.e. the lies).

If you support the war, please address the issues directly. This thread states clearly that 1400 inspectors have been unable to locate a single WMD in over 3 months of looking.

 

[Charlie Monoxide]

Wasn't the "fact" that Iraq had the "potential" ability to create WMD one of the big reasons GWB invaded Iraq? Can GWB not use that arugument with ANY countries he chooses to invade?

Take Canada for example; lots of uranium, lots of nuclear reactors, lots of skilled scientists and engineers. I'm sure Canada could develop an nulclear WMD in say, one or two years. Perhaps GWB should do a pre-emptive raid on Canada. IN fact, he should do it right now since 4000 (probably half of Canada's army) Canadian troops are over in Afghanistan right now helping to clean up the mess there.

Charlie (blame Canada) Monoxide

 

[Crossbow]

Does this mean that you would be for a regime of never-ending sanctions that have "worked" to contain Saddam and limit his ability to crank up his WMD production? Before you answer though, remember that these sanctions also have caused much suffering, as well as approx 17,000 deaths per year since they began. Also, the regime brutally murdered even more individuals per year during this time.

You cannot be "for" non-intervention while being "against" sanctions. Why? For non-intervention to work Saddam must be contained. Containment = sanctions.

So basically you are saying that as long as Saddam is no threat to you, you don't care how many Iraqis suffer and die, or for how long. That's compassion!
The mantra of the "compassionate democrats"; "Let the sanctions/inspections work!" = "Let the Iraqi people die."


-z

Boy, every time someone posts a figure regarding how many Iraqis were killed by sanctions it is always a different figure. Somebody else recently told me that the sanctions killed 25,000 Iraqis every month and at one point, Saddam blamed every single death that every occurred in Iraq on the sanctions.

Anyway, in all fairness the sanctions did kill some Iraqis, however because Iraq was such a police state the real killer was not the sanctions but Saddam. The sanctions were felt most strongly by those that opposed Saddam whereas those that supported him, actually reaped great benefits from them (a case of playing both ends against the middle). In any case, humanitarian arguments were not used to justify the war before it started, however they are being trotted out now after the war is over and after it has been shown that Iraq did not have WMDs, Iraq was not making WMDs, and that there were no substantive links between Iraq and terrorists.

If the USA is going to make it a policy to invade brutal police states, then I may support such a policy however that has not been done.