The Iraqi Weapons Puzzle

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
An assessment of the Kay report from the NY Times.

Conclusion: no imminent threat existed which required military intervention and the Bush administration is STILL not providing information necessary for verification of their claims at a time when the intelligence used to justify the invasion is suspect.

They are instead continuing their false claims of Iraq's threat.

The Iraqi Weapons Puzzle

Published: October 12, 2003

Now that David Kay's interim report on the search for weapons of mass destruction has deflated the Bush administration's claims about Iraq's chemical and nuclear weapons programs, the administration and Dr. Kay have turned instead to emphasizing the threat posed by Iraq's biological and missile programs. But the sketchy evidence they cite publicly doesn't seem to depict any extraordinary threat ? particularly not the kind of danger President Bush depicted when he stressed the need for quick military action.

The Missile Program

It is pretty clear that Iraq was attempting to develop ballistic missiles and cruise missiles with ranges exceeding the 90 miles allowed by United Nations strictures. A bigger question is whether that program was being contained by the work of United Nations weapons inspectors.

Investigators say they have recovered a test stand, engines and diagrams that were being used on the eve of the invasion in a program to convert an existing antiship missile into a cruise missile with a range of about 600 miles. Investigators have also found documents revealing high-level negotiations between Iraq and North Korea from December 1999 until last year for technology, machinery or equipment needed for a 780-mile-range surface-to-surface missile. Iraq actually advanced the Koreans $10 million toward the purchase but never got the technology, apparently because the Koreans feared detection with all the scrutiny then focused on Iraq.

This is certainly one more reminder of the dangers of North Korea's weapons programs. But the evidence does not really support Dr. Kay's bold assertion that had the American invasion not disrupted things, the Iraqis would have produced missiles that could hit targets 600 miles away, like Ankara or Cairo. Most of these Iraqi efforts occurred in the four years between the time U.N. inspectors left the country in late 1998 and returned in late 2002. But once the inspectors were back, their influence was particularly strong when it came to the missile program. One class of illegal missiles was already being destroyed.

Dr. Kay asserts that some of Iraq's missile work was going on right under the noses of the inspectors. But he acknowledges that the Iraqis were so worried about being found out that they disassembled and buried the test stand and engines that his team has now recovered. Equipment lying under tons of dirt does not pose a current threat to anybody. The fact that it was buried actually seems to support the argument that the missile programs might well have been contained by vigorous inspection, even without an invasion.

Biological Weapons

In the biological area, one administration claim seems farfetched on its face. Dr. Kay reported, and President Bush repeated, that the Iraqis had hidden a vial of live botulinum bacteria that could be used to produce biological weapons carrying large amounts of poison. Yet as Dr. Kay himself described it, the evidence came from an Iraqi scientist who said he had been asked in 1993, fully a decade ago, to hide multiple reference strains of biological organisms in his refrigerator.

Only one of those strains, the botulinum organism, was potentially relevant to biological weapons, but it is also used for civilian purposes. It is hard to see how this cache, hidden so long ago for unclear reasons, is strong evidence of malign intent. Potentially more significant was the same scientist's contention that he had refused to hide a larger cache of anthrax germs, which Dr. Kay's team is now seeking to locate. That might plausibly be related to plans for restarting an anthrax weapons program. But it is still hardly evidence of an immediate threat a decade later.

The Laboratory

Dr. Kay has already had to back down from a claim made months ago that two mobile trailers found in Iraq were intended for making weapons. Now he says they were not well suited for that purpose. Both the president and Dr. Kay have focused instead on what they described as a clandestine laboratory network embedded in the Iraqi intelligence service.

These labs, some two dozen in all, were deemed suitable for biological and chemical research and were not reported to U.N. inspectors. But Dr. Kay's team has not yet determined what the labs were used for. At the least, he says, they provided a place where weapons-related expertise and equipment could be retained. If that is all they turn out to be, the find will simply confirm that Iraq intended to resume its work on illicit weapons in the future, not that it posed any immediate threat.

Another Scenario

There is still a great deal of research needed before anyone can say flatly that Iraq did not have an active program for manufacturing weapons of mass destruction. But evidence seems to be pointing in a different direction than the one Dr. Kay and the administration are promoting. Senior Iraqi scientists have told investigators that the biological weapons program ? which obviously existed at one point ? was dropped some time ago. Dr. Kay makes no mention of that in his statements.

If the Bush administration wants Dr. Kay's findings to be treated with the seriousness the topic deserves, the investigators have to be much more forthcoming. Dr. Kay's brief unclassified version of his Congressional testimony and his statements to the press are maddeningly short of specifics that would allow independent experts to evaluate the credibility of the sources, the possibility of dissenting interpretations and the scale or stage of Iraq's efforts. That is unacceptable at a time when the fallibility of intelligence evaluations has become all too apparent.

 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
From what i've seen of the reports, the basic conclusion is that Iraq did not have stockpiles of WMD or an active program designed to add them to the Iraqi inventory on a large-scale production basis. Rather that Iraq continued to clandestinely develop the capability to restart these programs and large-scale production on relatively short notice, probably when and if UN sanctions came to an end.

So it seems like it may be a situation where the worst possible outcomes for all parties concerned came to pass. Iraq wasn't willing to totally abandon it's dream of acquiring WMD, but even though they didn't possess WMD they couldn't demonstrate compliance with the UN resolutions because the intent and ability was there (and thus the presumption that they had WMD). The US and UN can now show intent but no actual weapons.

It all comes down to your POV on the subject. Given the scenario above, who had the burden of proof to meet? Was the burden of proof on Saddam to prove compliance with the UN resolutions and thus avoid the invasion, or the burden on the US and UN to demonstrate proof he hadn't complied before the die was cast and the removal of the Saddam regime undertaken?
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: glenn1
From what i've seen of the reports, the basic conclusion is that Iraq did not have stockpiles of WMD or an active program designed to add them to the Iraqi inventory on a large-scale production basis. Rather that Iraq continued to clandestinely develop the capability to restart these programs and large-scale production on relatively short notice, probably when and if UN sanctions came to an end.

So it seems like it may be a situation where the worst possible outcomes for all parties concerned came to pass. Iraq wasn't willing to totally abandon it's dream of acquiring WMD, but even though they didn't possess WMD they couldn't demonstrate compliance with the UN resolutions because the intent and ability was there (and thus the presumption that they had WMD). The US and UN can now show intent but no actual weapons.

It all comes down to your POV on the subject. Given the scenario above, who had the burden of proof to meet? Was the burden of proof on Saddam to prove compliance with the UN resolutions and thus avoid the invasion, or the burden on the US and UN to demonstrate proof he hadn't complied before the die was cast and the removal of the Saddam regime undertaken?

Who do you feel the burden of proof was upon to justify an invasion?

Where was the imminent threat repeatedly used as the reason for an immediate invasion?
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,823
6,780
126
We didn't invade Iraq because of weapons of mass destruction, we invaded Iraq because of the presence and influence of highly placed psychotics in the Bush Administration going under the name of Neocons. These delusional religious fanatics practice an abominable secular relativism called American World Hegemony. Their Bible is PNAC. These men are Truth Bearers who know what is best for man and act on that knowledge knowing any means justifies their ends.
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
We didn't invade Iraq because of weapons of mass destruction, we invaded Iraq because of the presence and influence of highly placed psychotics in the Bush Administration going under the name of Neocons. These delusional religious fanatics practice an abominable secular relativism called American World Hegemony. Their Bible is PNAC. These men are Truth Bearers who know what is best for man and act on that knowledge knowing any means justifies their ends.

I agree. And yet Bush and Cheney are now on a nationwide tour trying to sell their Iraq policy as a success by repeating the same lies they used to justify the invasion.

And it seems the American people are believing them all over again.

But there is hope. The poll numbers are dropping for the Bush administration.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Who do you feel the burden of proof was upon to justify an invasion?

Where was the imminent threat repeatedly used as the reason for an immediate invasion?

Re-read my post. I didn't state that the burden of proof was necessarily the US/UN's to bear. Whose burden it is, that's a legitimate question. Obviously you feel that the burden was on the US rather than Iraq, but others may feel differently.

As for the imminent threat, be honest for a moment. You know that wasn't the ONLY reason cited for the invasion. One of the major ones, yes. But you can't focus on that to the exclusion of the other reasons because it's the most convienient for your POV.
 

Lonyo

Lifer
Aug 10, 2002
21,938
6
81
Originally posted by: glenn1
Who do you feel the burden of proof was upon to justify an invasion?

Where was the imminent threat repeatedly used as the reason for an immediate invasion?

Re-read my post. I didn't state that the burden of proof was necessarily the US/UN's to bear. Whose burden it is, that's a legitimate question. Obviously you feel that the burden was on the US rather than Iraq, but others may feel differently.

As for the imminent threat, be honest for a moment. You know that wasn't the ONLY reason cited for the invasion. One of the major ones, yes. But you can't focus on that to the exclusion of the other reasons because it's the most convienient for your POV.

It was the reason stated for the UK involvement IIRC.
And as for burden of proof, it's for the accuser to prove guilt, not for the accused to prove innocence.
Innocent until proven guilty. The US/UN never proved that Iraq did have WMD's (I'm refering to WMD's only in terms of proving things, that Saddam was a bad person could be proved by his previous actions, but the proof that he had possesion of WMD's was another matter).
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
1
0
Originally posted by: glenn1
Who do you feel the burden of proof was upon to justify an invasion?

Where was the imminent threat repeatedly used as the reason for an immediate invasion?

Re-read my post. I didn't state that the burden of proof was necessarily the US/UN's to bear. Whose burden it is, that's a legitimate question. Obviously you feel that the burden was on the US rather than Iraq, but others may feel differently.

As for the imminent threat, be honest for a moment. You know that wasn't the ONLY reason cited for the invasion. One of the major ones, yes. But you can't focus on that to the exclusion of the other reasons because it's the most convienient for your POV.


It isn't the most convenient reason. It's the only reason. The rest of the so-called reasons are nothing more than icing. Without the threat of WMD, none of the other reasons would've mattered to us. Without WMD, we wouldn't have gone to war to free the Iraqis. Without WMD, we wouldn't have gone to war to depose SH. Without WMD, we wouldn't have gone to war over UN resolutions. Can you honestly see the USA going to war with Iraq without the threat of WMD...whether real or perceived?
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,823
6,780
126
Originally posted by: Gaard
Originally posted by: glenn1
Who do you feel the burden of proof was upon to justify an invasion?

Where was the imminent threat repeatedly used as the reason for an immediate invasion?

Re-read my post. I didn't state that the burden of proof was necessarily the US/UN's to bear. Whose burden it is, that's a legitimate question. Obviously you feel that the burden was on the US rather than Iraq, but others may feel differently.

As for the imminent threat, be honest for a moment. You know that wasn't the ONLY reason cited for the invasion. One of the major ones, yes. But you can't focus on that to the exclusion of the other reasons because it's the most convienient for your POV.


It isn't the most convenient reason. It's the only reason. The rest of the so-called reasons are nothing more than icing. Without the threat of WMD, none of the other reasons would've mattered to us. Without WMD, we wouldn't have gone to war to free the Iraqis. Without WMD, we wouldn't have gone to war to depose SH. Without WMD, we wouldn't have gone to war over UN resolutions. Can you honestly see the USA going to war with Iraq without the threat of WMD...whether real or perceived?

not to mention it's the only legal justification for going to war. That's why the illegality of preemptive war gets shifted constantly to 1441 despite the fact we never got UN approval and went it alone. That is what we used WMD to justify, the concocted notion that we had a legal right.
======================
BOBDN, we live in interesting times. It doesn't matter that sophisticated and politically aware America knows that Bush and Cheney lie. Half of them support the lie. What matters in numbers. People want to believe in the war and have made up their minds that we were justified. They don't want to be confused by the truth. They don't want to change what they thought. Bush and Cheney know these masses of people will continue to rally behind these lies if the pretense is maintained. Believing is a powerfully comfortable psychological thing. Who cares why people vote for you as long as they do. Fools are there to be used.

 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
I thought it interesting that we used the WMD issue before the UN Security Counsel with evidence gathered days before the invasion. Some of this evidence was maybe months old. But, then subsequent to the invasion we say upon not finding the WMD that they must be hidden. Then just yesterday I read that we had infiltrated the Iraqi army and other Iraqi intellegence and government entities. Being in the midst of all these goings on we still don't have a clue about WMD and their location.. Amazing!
 

Mean MrMustard

Diamond Member
Jan 5, 2001
3,144
10
81
Originally posted by: Lonyo
Originally posted by: glenn1
Who do you feel the burden of proof was upon to justify an invasion?

Where was the imminent threat repeatedly used as the reason for an immediate invasion?

Re-read my post. I didn't state that the burden of proof was necessarily the US/UN's to bear. Whose burden it is, that's a legitimate question. Obviously you feel that the burden was on the US rather than Iraq, but others may feel differently.

As for the imminent threat, be honest for a moment. You know that wasn't the ONLY reason cited for the invasion. One of the major ones, yes. But you can't focus on that to the exclusion of the other reasons because it's the most convienient for your POV.

It was the reason stated for the UK involvement IIRC.
And as for burden of proof, it's for the accuser to prove guilt, not for the accused to prove innocence.
Innocent until proven guilty. The US/UN never proved that Iraq did have WMD's (I'm refering to WMD's only in terms of proving things, that Saddam was a bad person could be proved by his previous actions, but the proof that he had possesion of WMD's was another matter).

Agreed.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
It was the reason stated for the UK involvement IIRC.
And as for burden of proof, it's for the accuser to prove guilt, not for the accused to prove innocence.
Innocent until proven guilty. The US/UN never proved that Iraq did have WMD's (I'm refering to WMD's only in terms of proving things, that Saddam was a bad person could be proved by his previous actions, but the proof that he had possesion of WMD's was another matter).

And that's a fair and reasonable POV to have. I just ask you to keep in mind that others have the opposite opinion. That's what democracies are all about, taking issues, synthesizing all the views of the electorate, and from that determining a policy solution. It wasn't an illegal or illegitimate policy decision, just not the correct one by your estimation. And the voters will get to have their say in settling the matter once and for all in 13 months.