Rasta TimesCHAT ROOMArticles/ArchiveRaceAndHistory RootsWomen Trinicenter
Africa Speaks.com Africa Speaks HomepageAfrica Speaks.comAfrica Speaks.comAfrica Speaks.com
InteractiveLeslie VibesAyanna RootsRas TyehimbaTriniView.comGeneral Forums
*
Home
Help
Login
Register
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
May 02, 2024, 08:54:37 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
25910 Posts in 9966 Topics by 982 Members Latest Member: - Ferguson Most online today: 345 (July 03, 2005, 06:25:30 PM)
+  Africa Speaks Reasoning Forum
|-+  WORLD HOT SPOTS
| |-+  Around the World (Moderators: Tyehimba, leslie)
| | |-+  The Iraqi weapons puzzle
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: The Iraqi weapons puzzle  (Read 8131 times)
Ayinde
Ayinde
*
Posts: 1531


WWW
« on: October 14, 2003, 04:48:37 PM »

NYT  Monday, October 13, 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 Kay have turned instead to emphasizing the threat posed by Iraq's biological and missile programs. But the sketchy evidence cited publicly doesn't seem to depict any extraordinary threat - particularly not the kind of danger President George W. Bush depicted when he stressed the need for quick military action.

It is pretty clear that Iraq was attempting to develop ballistic missiles and cruise missiles with ranges exceeding the 90 miles, or 144 kilometers, allowed by UN strictures. A bigger question is whether that program was being contained by the work of UN 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 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 UN 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.

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

In the biological area, one administration claim seems farfetched. Kay reported, and 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 Kay described it, the evidence came from an Iraqi scientist who said he had been asked in 1993 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. 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 Kay's team is now seeking to locate. That might plausibly be related to plans for restarting an anthrax weapons program. But it is hardly evidence of an immediate threat a decade later.

Kay had to back down from a claim 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 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 UN inspectors. But 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 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.

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 Kay and the administration are promoting. Senior Iraqi scientists have told investigators that the biological weapons program was dropped some time ago. Kay makes no mention of that in his statements.

If the administration wants Kay's findings to be treated with the seriousness they deserve, the investigators have to be much more forthcoming. 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 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.

Back to Start of Article 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 Kay have turned instead to emphasizing the threat posed by Iraq's biological and missile programs. But the sketchy evidence cited publicly doesn't seem to depict any extraordinary threat - particularly not the kind of danger President George W. Bush depicted when he stressed the need for quick military action.

It is pretty clear that Iraq was attempting to develop ballistic missiles and cruise missiles with ranges exceeding the 90 miles, or 144 kilometers, allowed by UN strictures. A bigger question is whether that program was being contained by the work of UN 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 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 UN 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.

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

In the biological area, one administration claim seems farfetched. Kay reported, and 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 Kay described it, the evidence came from an Iraqi scientist who said he had been asked in 1993 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. 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 Kay's team is now seeking to locate. That might plausibly be related to plans for restarting an anthrax weapons program. But it is hardly evidence of an immediate threat a decade later.

Kay had to back down from a claim 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 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 UN inspectors. But 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 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.

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 Kay and the administration are promoting. Senior Iraqi scientists have told investigators that the biological weapons program was dropped some time ago. Kay makes no mention of that in his statements.

If the administration wants Kay's findings to be treated with the seriousness they deserve, the investigators have to be much more forthcoming. 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 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.

http://www.iht.com/articles/113362.html
Logged
Ayinde
Ayinde
*
Posts: 1531


WWW
« Reply #1 on: October 15, 2003, 10:41:07 AM »

By Imad Khadduri
Former Iraqi nuclear scientist
yellowtimes.org

Belatedly, in a September 29, 2003 article in the New York Times by Douglas Jehl, the Defense Intelligence Agency has awkwardly admitted that most of the intelligence and information offered by the Iraqi National Congress (INC) for the past several years, which was provided by Iraqi defectors of questionable credibility, was of little to no value, all at a cost of $150 billion, more than 300 dead American soldiers, and at least 10,000 dead Iraqi civilians.

A prominent and callus epithet of such defectors mentioned in the above article is Khidhir Hamza, the self-claimed Iraqi atomic "Bomb Maker." Given a short lived assignment in the Iraqi nuclear program in 1987 to lead the atomic bomb design team, he was kicked out a few months later for petty theft. Reduced to a non-entity in the accelerated nuclear weapons program between 1987 and the start of the 1991 war, he retired from the Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission in 1989 and became a college lecturer, a stock market swindler and a shady business middle-man.

Upon his escape from Iraq in 1994, leaving his family behind, he was shunned asylum by the Iraqi opposition groups themselves, the CIA and the British intelligence agencies that were supporting these groups.

Seeking refuge as a lecturer in Libya, he still managed, through the INC, to initiate his usefulness to them by the publication of a series of three articles in the British Sunday Times in 1995 claiming through fake documents supplied by "authoritative sources" that Iraq was currently making atomic bombs. The Sunday Times passed them on to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for its valuation, but decided not to report the IAEA's findings that the documents were "not authentic." The Sunday Times has not yet acknowledged using forgeries in their stories about Iraq's supposed nuclear weapons.

Panicking after his son's arrival to Libya in order to appeal with him to return to Iraq to protect his family, he once again knocked on the doors of the IAEA, the INC and the CIA, but to no avail.

Only when Hussain Kamel, the man in charge of all weapons of mass destruction (WMD) work and research in Iraq since the late eighties, had escaped to Jordan in August 1995 and informed the IAEA about his efforts to hide the scientific reports on WMD research in his chicken farm, did the CIA feel that Hamza would be useful to them and then nestled him to their bosom.

Once settled, Hamza went into hyperspin, giving interviews, writing a book, appearing on TV talk shows and speaking before congressional committees forwarding the premise that Iraq had rejuvenated its nuclear weapons program and was within just a few years from a few atomic bombs.

His false claims are dealt with in detail in my recently published book, "Iraq's Nuclear Mirage," and in an article "Saddam's bomb maker is full of lies" that was published on November 27, 2002 and is also included in the above mentioned site.

He kept up his barrage, in a CNN interview, until the last week before the occupation of Iraq. He was then sent by the Pentagon to Iraq behind American tanks to "counsel" on the country's nuclear industry, with a very lucrative salary.

He is at present aiding the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) in the handling of Iraqi nuclear scientists and engineers. Several of them have been interned for having come forward with their meager information while others are being refused their passports to leave Iraq.

Strangely, none of the American media that fell over themselves in the past few years by hosting Hamza for his hyperbolic lies about Iraq's potential nuclear arsenal have now considered approaching him during the past six months to follow up on his claims of a rejuvenated nuclear weapons program. He was most certainly useless to David Kay's fruitless investigations.

Lest the American media have lost their sense of accountability, others have not.

http://www.trinicenter.com/fairuse/iraq.html
Logged
Ayinde
Ayinde
*
Posts: 1531


WWW
« Reply #2 on: October 17, 2003, 07:26:36 AM »

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Lies beget more lies; a policy built on deception will always require further deception to sustain itself.

Case in point: The campaign by leading members of the Bush administration to rebuild faltering support for their invasion of Iraq. To hear them tell it, everything that has happened since last March has just proved how right they've been all along.

To cite just one example, consider a recent speech by Vice President Dick Cheney to the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank in Washington. Cheney is credited by many for having led President Bush, and by extension this country, into invading Iraq. So it's no surprise that he has been unflinching in defending that policy.

As he explained the rationale:

"We could not accept the grave danger of Saddam Hussein and his terrorist allies turning weapons of mass destruction against us or our friends and allies."

Of course, no such grave danger existed. Having failed to find any WMD, we know that now. More importantly, we knew it in the fall of 2002, when this push for war began. Even back then, the CIA was using terms such as "unlikely" and "low probability" to describe the odds of Saddam handing WMD to terrorists.

Somehow, "low probability" and "unlikely" were transformed into "grave danger." Claims about Saddam's nuclear program have followed a similar trajectory.

In January 2002, the CIA reported that Iraq's nuclear weapons program consisted of no more than low-level theoretical work, an assessment that time has proved quite accurate. Yet eight months later, Cheney was somehow claiming that Iraq was close to completing The Bomb.

In his Heritage speech, Cheney also described the prewar efforts to contain Saddam -- "12 years of diplomacy, more than a dozen Security Council resolutions, hundreds of U.N. weapons inspectors, thousands of flights to enforce the no-fly zones and even strikes against military targets in Iraq" -- and dismissed them as failures.

That too denies reality. In fact, multilateral efforts to contain and disarm Saddam had succeeded to a degree that few had imagined possible.

In 1991, Saddam had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, production facilities to produce still more, and a maturing nuclear weapons program. By 1998, and certainly by 2003, he had none of those things.

Sanctions worked. Inspections worked.

Then Cheney got to the core of his argument:

"Another criticism we hear is that the United States, when its security is threatened, may not act without unanimous international consent. Under this view, even in the face of a specific agreed-upon danger, the mere objection of even one foreign government would be sufficient to prevent us from acting."

With that statement, Cheney abandons deception and traipses merrily into the Land of the Completely Absurd. Nobody -- not the Democrats, not the United Nations, not even the French -- makes the argument that he describes. It would be insane to do so.

Cheney invents that argument to support his larger point: After Sept. 11, the Bush administration at least did something, while its less-than-manly critics would have done nothing.

And that is the ultimate falsehood.

The true policy choice is between actions that make things better for the United States and actions that make things worse. If we were to assess the invasion of Iraq on those grounds, the outcome would be something like this:

Saddam had no WMD, no nuclear program and no ties to al-Qaida. So invading Iraq did little or nothing to improve our security. It did, however, come at a cost that may take decades to fully tally.

The invasion has strained our alliances and international standing, making it difficult to draw support against real threats in North Korea and Iran. Our military is overextended. The financial toll is $150 billion and counting; the toll in U.S. lives continues to mount as well.

If the administration truly did expect all that, they are bigger fools than even their harshest critics have claimed.


Jay Bookman is the deputy editorial page editor. His column appears Thursdays and Mondays.
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Copyright © 2001-2005 AfricaSpeaks.com and RastafariSpeaks.com
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!