Secretary Powell Admits Iraq May not have had Stocks of WMD

[Insane3D]

Originally posted by: NetGuySC

One thing that always bugged me in the run up to war. If Iraq had destroyed the weapons like they said they had, but hadn't done it "properly", according to UN guidelines, how were they supposed to ever solidly prove they had destroyed them? It is sort of like if I burned a piece of paper, and then when you asked me if I had destroyed the paper, I would say yes. If you asked me to prove that however, short of recording myself do it or something, I would be unable....but the fact would remain I did it.

One way of proving it is to allow the United Nations to assist in their destruction. Kind of like the way Libya is doing now

Plenty of opportunity for the Un to assist for 13 years

I agree....but my point remains. If they had already done it, albeit improperly, what else could they have done to stop us from invading? That is all well and good if they had them there, and could have let the inspectors destroy them, or be present during their destruction, but if they were already destroyed...what should they have done? The fact remains the inspectors were on the ground, with full access, and wanted to keep doing their job, but we said there wasn't time, and war was our only choice...

Near the end, the countries like France, Germany, and Russia would have been on our side if we gave them another month or two to keep doing inspections, but we could not apparently....why? Because Iraq would have attacked in the meantime with the weapons they didn't have?

 

[NetGuySC]

The fact remains the inspectors were on the ground, with full access, and wanted to keep doing their job, but we said there wasn't time

13 years wasn't long enough?

agree....but my point remains. If they had already done it, albeit improperly, what else could they have done to stop us from invading?

I just do not think they are stupid enough to destroy everything and not have any proof/documentation/UN assistance for if they did destroy so they could begin to end the sanctions, then destroying the WMD's with UN assistance is pretty good way of doing it.


I respect your opinion and see your point. We'll just have to agree to disagree

 

[Red Dawn]

The WMDs Bush talked about for his reasoning to invade Iraq seems to be Vaporware!

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Gaard
The inspectors went wherever they wanted, IIRC. If you claim otherwise KK, could you please provide a link to a corroborating story?

Saddam played a shell game for many years.
Why was he preventing the inspectors from doing their job.

Every time he relaxes the restrictions, it was after the sabres were rattled.

when the inspectors were pulled out of Iraq, we lost much HUMINT capabilities.
Our intelligence then had to work from what was previously known, what information was picked up outside of Iraq (with no way to verify it), as the actions/reactions of Saddam with respect to inquiries.

 

[Insane3D]

I respect your opinion and see your point. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

I respect yours as well and will do on the agree to disagree part. :beer:

At least we had a civil discussion of opposing viewpoints which is a rarity in the P&N forum.

 

[Insane3D]

Our intelligence then had to work from what was previously known, what information was picked up outside of Iraq (with no way to verify it), as the actions/reactions of Saddam with respect to inquiries.

So we had no human intel when the inspectors weren't there? Shouldn't we have other sources of intel than the inspectors? Technically, they are there for the sole purpose of verifying the degree of Iraq's compliance with UN resolutions, not to supply intel.

Regardless of how long Saddam played the shell game, as you put it, before we attacked, there were inpsectors on the ground, with the most access they ever had, the most cooperation they ever had (missles being destroyed), and other countries wanted to increase the number of inpsectors....but according to the administration, there was no time for that because Iraq was an imminent threat.

Does anyone ever wonder why he was so uncooperative for so long? Could it be that he and Iraq were severly weakened after the Gulf War, and he didn't want to appear weak to his nearby enemies (Iran or Israel)? I'm not saying that excuses anything, but it does make sense. It's a totally different ballgame over there....if you don't appear strong and you have enemies on your border that are just waiting for an excuse to go after you, it's a logical strategy.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: Gaard
The inspectors went wherever they wanted, IIRC. If you claim otherwise KK, could you please provide a link to a corroborating story?

Saddam played a shell game for many years.
Why was he preventing the inspectors from doing their job.

Every time he relaxes the restrictions, it was after the sabres were rattled.

when the inspectors were pulled out of Iraq, we lost much HUMINT capabilities.
Our intelligence then had to work from what was previously known, what information was picked up outside of Iraq (with no way to verify it), as the actions/reactions of Saddam with respect to inquiries.

Which inspection team are you talking about? I agree that the previous inspectors were hamstringed, but IIRC, the latest team (which if you remember, Bush was screaming for way back when) was given full access. Also, it's my understanding that they were accomplishing something... i.e. missiles being destroyed. Now, first we have Bush clamoring for the return of the inspectors or else. Saddam complies (albeit many believe because of the military buildup on his doorstep). Then Bush says that's not enough, even though from all accounts, the inspectors were doing their job (Didn't Blix award Iraq a "B"?).

B - "Allow the inspectors to return, or else."
S - "No."
B - "Do it now, or else."
S - "No."
B - "Do it now, or else."
S - "Ok"
B - "Do it now, or el...wha?...oh, um, Not good enough! ATTACK!"

Why exactly did Bush spend so much time demanding the return of the inspectors if he knew from the get go that nothing they could do could effect his decision regarding Iraq? There was a thread many moons ago (and if there are any subscribers left they can search for it, I'm not going to try with a crippled 'search' function) by etech I believe that linked to a story talking about how the inspectors were simply used as a distraction while we were busy getting our military in place. Once everyone was in position, it was only a matter of time before they were pulled out.

I don't believe the inspectors could've done anything to satisfy Bush's thirst. I don't believe they were a factor in the decision-making process. I believe they were just a distraction. But I don't feel it's accurate for people (KK et al.) to keep saying how the inspectors were denied access, and hindered in their job.

 

[NetGuySC]

don't believe the inspectors could've done anything to satisfy Bush's thirst. I don't believe they were a factor in the decision-making process. I believe they were just a distraction. But I don't feel it's accurate for people (KK et al.) to keep saying how the inspectors were denied access, and hindered in their job

It is not the inspectors job to find the weapons, it is Hussein's job to present the weapons and have the inspectors destroy or witness these weapons being destroyed.

Hussein could have ended this years ago... the UN witnessed the destruction of many weapons in Iraq. Yet Iraq chose to not involve the UN in the so called destruction of many others. These many other weapons are now called "unaccounted for"

Why would Iraq not involve the UN is the destruction of 17,900 unfilled and 650 filled declared special munitions?
Why would Iraq not involve the UN in the destruction of 1.6 tons of agent VX and 55 tons of a precursor agent to VX?
Why would Iraq not involve the UN in the destruction of 2160kg of various biological pathogen growth media?

What has Iraq done to foster a trusting environment besides giving inspectors "total access" after 13 years of inspections while 100,000 US troops were at his border? How long would this "total access" have lasted once we pulled out troop back home?


I do hate to see the destruction and death that goes along with war. But I also believe that if Bush did not react that we would still be hearing about how the inspectors are being denied or removed in other words, the drama would have continued. At some point in the future Mr. Hussein would have had to be dealt with one way or another.

Hussein had ample opportunity ( THIRTEEN YEARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ) to provide "total access"
Hussein had ample opportunities to have UNSCOM witness destruction of declared weapons.

One more question..

Does anyone see a difference in the way Libya is handling this as compared to the way Hussein handle the situation?
Is Libya providing info about its program? I think so
Is Libya providing inspectors full access? I think so again
Has Libya said that it has already destroyed it nuclear weapon programs, but it only needs the UN inspectors to come in and verify that it is not there anymore? I think not, the UN is the one destroying Libya's weapons



Who do you think has been more honest? Gadhafi or Hussein (before being removed)

Could inspectors just have stayed there forever?
Does anyone think that we should have just believed him, lifted all sanctions and let him be?



I do enjoy the variety of opinions here. It actually bends my opinion in ways and I always think it is good to debate both sides of an issue.

This issue is definetely one that will be debated for years to come

 

[KK]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: Gaard
The inspectors went wherever they wanted, IIRC. If you claim otherwise KK, could you please provide a link to a corroborating story?

Saddam played a shell game for many years.
Why was he preventing the inspectors from doing their job.

Every time he relaxes the restrictions, it was after the sabres were rattled.

when the inspectors were pulled out of Iraq, we lost much HUMINT capabilities.
Our intelligence then had to work from what was previously known, what information was picked up outside of Iraq (with no way to verify it), as the actions/reactions of Saddam with respect to inquiries.

I don't believe the inspectors could've done anything to satisfy Bush's thirst. I don't believe they were a factor in the decision-making process. I believe they were just a distraction. But I don't feel it's accurate for people (KK et al.) to keep saying how the inspectors were denied access, and hindered in their job.

I searched CNN for any information about the inspectors being denied access. I went back as far as december 2002 and couldn't find anything. So I guess I thought wrong. Sorry.

Netguy does bring up another point as Iraq was to present the data of the destruction of these weapons not for the inspectors to go out trying to find the weapons Iraq claimed they had.

KK

 

[Moonbeam]

Saddam was willing to allow inspectors. that's why the 'times up' crap started spewing from Bush's mouth.

Times up Bush. There are no weapons. Time for regime change.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: NetGuySC

don't believe the inspectors could've done anything to satisfy Bush's thirst. I don't believe they were a factor in the decision-making process. I believe they were just a distraction. But I don't feel it's accurate for people (KK et al.) to keep saying how the inspectors were denied access, and hindered in their job

It is not the inspectors job to find the weapons, it is Hussein's job to present the weapons and have the inspectors destroy or witness these weapons being destroyed.

Hussein could have ended this years ago... the UN witnessed the destruction of many weapons in Iraq. Yet Iraq chose to not involve the UN in the so called destruction of many others. These many other weapons are now called "unaccounted for"

Why would Iraq not involve the UN is the destruction of 17,900 unfilled and 650 filled declared special munitions?
Why would Iraq not involve the UN in the destruction of 1.6 tons of agent VX and 55 tons of a precursor agent to VX?
Why would Iraq not involve the UN in the destruction of 2160kg of various biological pathogen growth media?

What has Iraq done to foster a trusting environment besides giving inspectors "total access" after 13 years of inspections while 100,000 US troops were at his border? How long would this "total access" have lasted once we pulled out troop back home?


I do hate to see the destruction and death that goes along with war. But I also believe that if Bush did not react that we would still be hearing about how the inspectors are being denied or removed in other words, the drama would have continued. At some point in the future Mr. Hussein would have had to be dealt with one way or another.

Hussein had ample opportunity ( THIRTEEN YEARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ) to provide "total access"
Hussein had ample opportunities to have UNSCOM witness destruction of declared weapons.

One more question..

Does anyone see a difference in the way Libya is handling this as compared to the way Hussein handle the situation?
Is Libya providing info about its program? I think so
Is Libya providing inspectors full access? I think so again
Has Libya said that it has already destroyed it nuclear weapon programs, but it only needs the UN inspectors to come in and verify that it is not there anymore? I think not, the UN is the one destroying Libya's weapons



Who do you think has been more honest? Gadhafi or Hussein (before being removed)

Could inspectors just have stayed there forever?
Does anyone think that we should have just believed him, lifted all sanctions and let him be?



I do enjoy the variety of opinions here. It actually bends my opinion in ways and I always think it is good to debate both sides of an issue.

This issue is definetely one that will be debated for years to come

Even though we appear to be on opposite sides of the fence in regards to this war, I think we may have some common ground. It is my belief, and after reading your reply I'm assuming you share the same belief (correct me if I'm wrong), that the decision to use the military was made before they began to buildup outside of Iraq.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Gaard<
Why exactly did Bush spend so much time demanding the return of the inspectors if he knew from the get go that nothing they could do could effect his decision regarding Iraq? There was a thread many moons ago (and if there are any subscribers left they can search for it, I'm not going to try with a crippled 'search' function) by etech I believe that linked to a story talking about how the inspectors were simply used as a distraction while we were busy getting our military in place. Once everyone was in position, it was only a matter of time before they were pulled out.

I don't believe the inspectors could've done anything to satisfy Bush's thirst. I don't believe they were a factor in the decision-making process. I believe they were just a distraction. But I don't feel it's accurate for people (KK et al.) to keep saying how the inspectors were denied access, and hindered in their job.

Chronology of Inspections

Information from 22 Feb 2003

ElBaradei and Blix were hoping to convince Iraq to make concessions on practical matters in the disarmament effort, such as clearance to fly American U-2 reconnaissance planes in support of the probe.

They were also looking to secure continued interviews with weapons scientists in private. Another scientist attended a private meeting Saturday -- the fifth in three days.

Cooperation from Iraq was always only at the "point of a sword".

They did not voluntarily provide the information when requested and what they chose to provide was in dribbles and incomplete.
Sounds like a stall job with something to hide.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

The current state of . . . dare I call it thought . . . from the Administration certainly provides a different perspective on the last minute offer by Saddam. Lest we forget, Saddam's regime communicated a desire to cooperate as invasion seemed imminent. After the war, Bushies characterized Saddam's entreaty as just another ploy to save his regime without destroying his WMD (stockpiles and programs). Of course, Saddam had no way of knowing that war planning started in Jan 2001 and was never negotiable.

Saddam is a liar but the US is ignorant, arrogant, disingenuous, lying or some combination of the three.

 

[KK]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Saddam is a liar but the US is ignorant, arrogant, disingenuous, lying or some combination of the three.

What is this, pick and choose?

KK

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

I always like "K" type questions. They are often more reflective of reality.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Saddam is a liar but the US is ignorant, arrogant, disingenuous, lying or some combination of the three.

What is this, pick and choose?

KK

BBD was just being generous. It's all three.

 

[DealMonkey]

So I guess w/ Powell backing down from WMD claims, the only one left in the administration still barking up the wrong tree is Cheney. He's like a pit bull swinging from a big rope by only his teeth. Let it go boy, let it go!

 

[Moonbeam]

Cheney's the admin's chief hypnotist.

 

[seawolf21]

NetGuySC, you should read Insane3D's post.

Everybody was making bets. Bush is betting there are WMDs. Saddam did not have WMDs but had to maintain the illusion of "maybe" having some to protect him from his own ppl, and his neighboring countries while betting that the West will maintain the status quo that's been going on for the past decade.

I don't buy the retoric that the world is a better place without Saddam. Bush and his supporters claims the world is a better place....HOW IS IT BETTER? No one ever elaborate on how it is better. Is the middle east a better place? that remains to be seen. I'll withhold judgement until I see what Iraq and the Middle East is like a couple of years from now.

But what I don't appreciate are Bush's reasons for war. No proof of WMDs. No proof of links with Osama (prior to war) and certaininly no immediate threat. Whether he lied, was duped, or somewhere in between, the buck should stop with him and not a scapegoat.

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Our intelligence then had to work from what was previously known, what information was picked up outside of Iraq (with no way to verify it), as the actions/reactions of Saddam with respect to inquiries.

So we had no human intel when the inspectors weren't there? Shouldn't we have other sources of intel than the inspectors? Technically, they are there for the sole purpose of verifying the degree of Iraq's compliance with UN resolutions, not to supply intel.

Regardless of how long Saddam played the shell game, as you put it, before we attacked, there were inpsectors on the ground, with the most access they ever had, the most cooperation they ever had (missles being destroyed), and other countries wanted to increase the number of inpsectors....but according to the administration, there was no time for that because Iraq was an imminent threat.

Does anyone ever wonder why he was so uncooperative for so long? Could it be that he and Iraq were severly weakened after the Gulf War, and he didn't want to appear weak to his nearby enemies (Iran or Israel)? I'm not saying that excuses anything, but it does make sense. It's a totally different ballgame over there....if you don't appear strong and you have enemies on your border that are just waiting for an excuse to go after you, it's a logical strategy.

 

[NetGuySC]

Even though we appear to be on opposite sides of the fence in regards to this war, I think we may have some common ground. It is my belief, and after reading your reply I'm assuming you share the same belief (correct me if I'm wrong), that the decision to use the military was made before they began to buildup outside of Iraq

To be quite honest I never thought of it this way .............. I think you're right Gaard I agree with you on this. I know I made the justification for war, way before the troops got there, even before Bush was elected.

Everybody was making bets. Bush is betting there are WMDs. Saddam did not have WMDs but had to maintain the illusion of "maybe" having some to protect him from his own ppl, and his neighboring countries while betting that the West will maintain the status quo that's been going on for the past decade

I see the logic on this, it's understandable but I have to say that I think in the past that Sadam protected himself from his own people and his neighboring countries with 7.62 mm AK-47 bullets, mortars and tanks 99.9% of the time. So this logic just does not stand well with me.

I just do not think Iran or his own people was just waiting for Hussein to destroyed the VX nervegas, his 18,000 special munitions etc, before they made their move to conquer Iraq. Perhaps Hussein wanted to appear to have these weapons just to keep us from invading.

So basically these undeclared weapons are not important and should not be mentioned or even used as part of a reason to invade?
With the actions taken by Hussein since 91, Has he done anything to justify invading? were the sanctions just a sham and should have been removed? Should we have just liberated Kuwait and then left? Should we just stay there indefinetely enforcing the sanctions? Should we just base 100,000 troops in Kuwait indefinetely until Hussein decided to prove he destroyed the weapons in question, thus risking immediate invasion from Iran and being overthrown by his own people.

I think the hinge here is our definition of what the inspectors were suppouse to be doing there
-everyone here but me thinks thay were there to try and find these weapons in question
-I think they were there to witness or verify their destruction, not to be looking under every rock in Iraq to try and find them.

 

[syzygy]

Originally posted by: NetGuySC
-I think they were there to witness or verify their destruction, not to be looking under every rock in Iraq to try and find them.

the moronic expectation was for iraq to be honest and speak the truth. as stupid as that was, dumber yet was the fact that
resolution 1441 was worded with the same appeals to cooperation as the prior 12 resolutions, all of which had been broken.
dr. kay discovered just how advanced saddam's people had become hiding their facilities and duping the u.n. inspectors.

 

[chess9]

NetguySC:

The thing to have done was to wait. Bush wouldn't wait for inspections to continue or for international cooperation. As a signatory to the U.N. Charter were were obligated under the rules and resolutions to not take unilateral action. We gave the U.N. and quite a few of the countries around the world the literal finger. For this bit of stupidity and unbridled chutzpah Bush deserves retirement on Rover or Opportunity.

When in doubt, going very slowly is almost always the best approach.

-Robert