Weapons of Mass Destruction

 

Was the President Bush administration alone in the speculation that Iraq had not complied with UN orders to disarm and destroy any and all Weapons of Mass Destruction? Let's build a foundation first and see if it leads to any conclusions. For 12 years, the UN had ordered Saddam Hussein — through 17 Security Council resolutions — to destroy his weapons of mass destruction. Hussein had refused to comply with any order to disarm or bestow human rights to the people of Iraq. The UN however, has never enforced the resolutions made against Iraq. This made Hussein even more bold and the UN's power even less effective around the globe.

In November of 2002, the U.N. Security Council voted on its 17th resolution ordering Iraq to disarm. All 15 Security Council members — including France, Russia and China — voted for UN Security Council Resolution 1441. The resolution warned of “serious consequences” should Saddam fail to comply this time. At that point, it was known that Iraq had various WMDs developed from past wars and for future ones. A partial list of what Iraq had admitted they developed and for which Iraq had not accounted for: 6,869 gallons of anthrax, almost 320 gallons of botulinum toxin, 550 mustard gas-filled artillery shells, 400 biological weapon-capable aerial bombs and nearly 30,000 empty munitions that could be filled with chemical agents.

Hans Blix in an interview with the Toronto Star, tells Sandro Contenta:

"If they had nothing since the destruction in '91 of the biological and chemical and nuclear, and if that had been accepted and shown, then they could have got rid of the sanctions, and here they suffered from the sanctions all this years... So why did they behave like that?..."

Blix continues, "Just after '95...there was much denial of access (for UN inspectors).And why? There was much haggling over how many inspectors entered a site. Why?...You may want to create an impression that you have something. On the one hand they (the Iraqis) tell the United Nations, 'lift the sanctions because we have done as you told us,' on the other hand they behave in such a way that the environment believes that they may have something after all. The U.S., when they invaded eventually, they were preparing themselves to meet chemical weapons. As you know, they brought these suits; they certainly believed in it, and they didn't need it and didn't find any stocks either."

"So maybe there was a wish on the Iraqi leaderships' side to create an impression that they were still dangerous, that there still was something. Now, that doesn't explain things up to the end, because surely they didn't want to remain interesting to the moment of their own destruction. So at the end, I think there must have been some poor calculation of the risk of the brinkmanship, that maybe they said, 'well, people are marching in the millions around the world on 3rd Ave. and 2nd Ave. and in London and Washington, and the French and the Germans and the Russians are against war, and they will not pull it off.' And Saddam had several times before in his life managed to slip off with brinkmanship. This is speculation.... As I say, maybe they deliberately wanted to create this impression. Another sign of that could have been Saddam's frequent visits to scientific committees. He visited the atomic energy commission and he visited scientists and talked of their patriotic work. All that also was designed to give the impression that, yes, something was going on..."

"If they did destroy in '91, if they didn't have anything of significance after '91, why did they conduct themselves in a manner that gave rise to consistent suspicions? I'm not accusing Bush or Blair for telling lies deliberately; I don't
think so. I think what they said, they said in good faith. But I think that they were responsible, at the same time,
for the machinery, for the administrations they had. And there was certainly a failure of them. And we as citizens, we as voters, we would like and expect our governments to be more dependable than both media and Madison Ave."

Sandro Contenta:" I've been to Iraq a couple of times and I know that all a journalist has to do is set foot in the country and they put together a file an inch thick on you. When it came to documentation, they were bureaucratic madmen. So how can anyone believe that they destroyed their WMDs in 1991 without documenting it?"

Blix: "We didn't believe that. They said that the order was to destroy all the biological and chemical weapons, and all the documentation, and we never believed that... And they came and they said, 'we have names of the people who took part in the transportation and in the destruction.' And we said, 'now that's very interesting, and we'd like to interview them, however...if you have such detailed information about who transported what where, surely you have some documentation of the quantities'... I still think that this is puzzling, and some documentation might be found.

 

So you have suspicion of WMDs by the UN and even the inspectors. Then you have Hussein acting as though he has the weapons (visiting scientific committees, nuclear places and meeting with scientists), then you have the nonexistence of documentation of the records of any removal of weapons. Add in the fact that Hussein didn't even push for the removal of UN sanctions that would alleviate hunger, poverty, etc. of his own people. Even Blix admitted that the whole thing sounded very suspicious like they were hiding something. So what did the Clinton administration have to say about the Iraq problem? After all, they sent in missiles in to a supposed chemical weapons factory.

In Feb. 1998 President Bill Clinton stated, "What if he [Hussein] fails to comply [with disarmament] and we fail to act? He will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then go right on building up his arsenal. Someday, someway, I guarantee you, he'll use that arsenal." Hmmm. So even the past administration had it's information and accusations about Iraq.

Here's the Iraq Liberation Act. The date? October 31, 1998. Ut oh. That was President Clinton. He reiterated the UN resolutions broken by Hussein. Then mentioned the $8 million given to the inner Iraqi forces trying to overthrow Hussein. The best quote by President Clinton in this declaration?

"My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these objectives through active application of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership."

Maybe then Governor Bush wrote this? I couldn't find out that through hours of research. It still might be true.

At a forum in 1998 Sec. of State Madeleine Albright said the following: "Iraq is a long way from Ohio, but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."

At the same forum in 1998, Sandy Berger said the following : "He [Hussein] will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."

Pres. Clinton also said in Dec.1998: "The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people." Clinton said,
"Such a change in Baghdad would take time and effort, Clinton said, adding that his administration would work with Iraqi opposition forces. But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so." Wow. So the Clinton admin not only knew there indeed were WMDs in Iraq, but were ready to remove Hussein as well. I thought Pres. Bush thought this whole thing up at his ranch in late 1999 early 2000. Someone is misinformed, I guess.

Senator Hillary Clinton, from the floor of the Senate on Oct. 2002 delivered this beauty: "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." Even Hillary knew about WMDs in Iraq? And Hussein helped and housed Al Qaeda? STOP THE PRESS!!! Someone better tell Richard Clarke, Al Franken, Michael Moore, and other left-wing supporters this info because what these fellows and others like them tell us is just the opposite of this.

In 2002 Robert Einhorn, Clinton's point man on WMDs, testified to Congress, "Today, or at most within a few months, Iraq could launch missile attacks with chemical or biological weapons against its neighbors" including our 100,000 troops in Saudi Arabia.

The National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) is the intelligence community's authoritative written judgment on specific national-security issues. The 2002 NIE provided a key judgment: "Iraq has continued its [WMD] programs in defiance of U.N. resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of U.N. restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade."

In Sept. 23rd 2002,at San Francisco's Commonwealth Club former Vice President Al Gore stated, "[W]e know that he [Hussein] has stored away secret supplies of biological weapons and chemical weapons throughout his country." So as time went along the administration became even more assured that Hussein was hiding WMDs somewhere in his country. There were found three buried MIG jets in the middle of the desert. I would not have wanted to be on that detail with a shovel. So if one has the tenacity to dig a pit large enough for 3 large jets, one would certainly have it to hide things not wanted to be seen. There is no doubt in anyone's mind that Saddam Hussein had at one time, weapons of mass destruction. No doubt whatsoever. Republicans and Democrats alike believed it. The fact that as head of that country, he sought WMDs and nuclear weapons is very much a cause for concern. The fact is that Hussein provided headquarters, operating bases, training camps and other forms of support for terrorism of groups fighting neighboring Turkey and Iran, and help for extreme Palestinian terrorist groups. A few examples are the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq, the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, Islamic Hamas, and Abu Nidal Organization (who's leader Abu Nidal was found dead in Aug. 2002 in Baghdad hmm). You add up all these facts and it doesn't look pretty. So it looks like the ideas about Iraq and WMDs have been around awhile. And the threat of the support of terrorists with these materials or Iraq using them themselves puts the world at risk in regards to Hussein and his regime.

Here's more: In early 2004, Dr. David Kay, former top CIA weapons inspector, and member of the Iraq Survey Group said he had uncovered evidence that unspecified materials had been moved to Syria shortly before last year's war to overthrow Saddam.
"We are not talking about a large stockpile of weapons," he said. "But we know from some of the interrogations of former Iraqi officials that a lot of material went to Syria before the war, including some components of Saddam's WMD program. Precisely what went to Syria, and what has happened to it, is a major issue that needs to be resolved." he had uncovered evidence that unspecified materials had been moved to Syria shortly before last year's war to overthrow Saddam.

In fact Douglas Hanson, Chief of Staff in the Iraqi Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST), was in Iraq during the Kay and ISG inspections of 2003 to "transition several thousand Iraqi scientists and engineers from military and state-owned enterprises to private enterprises involved in more peaceful endeavors." Hanson says; "Working there, I enjoyed a unique vantage point on the activities of the Iraqi Survey Group (ISG), the inspection agency headed by Dr. David Kay, charged with finding WMD." According to an article by Mr. Hanson, " ...actual surveys of sites we were familiar with were haphazard and uncoordinated. Also, according to [Hanson's] own interim report published in October of 2003, the ISG had not even searched 120 of the 130 known ammo storage points, much less any underground sites. In addition to these known sites, “neighborhood” arms caches are discovered all the time in Iraq. It is entirely possible that WMD stockpiles were moved out of Iraq, or that they were dispersed in Baghdad neighborhoods and throughout Iraq."

Here's a link to statements made confirming before the war, WMDs in Iraq. Here's reporter Jonah Goldberg's take 1/2004.

Here's the Snopes.com debunk of the long list of comments from Democrats, pre-Iraq war, on WMDs in Iraq.

Page 2