Pre-War Iraq and WMD

by James Na ~ June 22nd, 2006. Filed under: Fiskings, Iraq, Nuclear Proliferation, Terrorism, WMD.

As Coop noted earlier, declassified documents show that the pre-war Saddam regime in Iraq did possess WMD:

This is certainly significant, but what they’re talking about is old munitions left over from, presumably, before the first Gulf War. This doesn’t appear to constitute evidence that Saddam’s regime had continued to manufacture chemical weapons in more recent years. What it does demonstrate is that the picture with respect to Iraq’s WMDs is much more nuanced than the usual “he didn’t have any” mantra. There is no doubt about the fact that Saddam had, and used, chemical and biological weapons. Nor is there any doubt about the fact that he eagerly pursued nuclear weapons. Further, the Iraq Survey Group report says that he had every intention of resuming his programs as soon as the coast was clear and the U.N. sanctions were behind him. Add to that the fact that hundreds of chemical weapons, at a minimum, were secreted in various locations around Iraq–as also shown by this document–and it is reasonable to conclude that, even though the CIA and nearly all other observers over-estimated Iraq’s WMD capabilities, the fear that Saddam might use such weapons, or slip them to a terrorist group, was well-founded.

I think it’s another “I told you so” moment. Let’s take a look at what I wrote two years ago (May 2004), shall we?

In reality, President Bush offered the following reasons in his speech to the United Nations General Assembly on September 12, 2002 and in the accompanying document titled “A Decade of Deception and Defiance: Saddam Hussein’s Defiance of the United Nations”:

1. Saddam Hussein’s defiance of United Nations resolutions, including violations of the Gulf War ceasefire agreement.
2. His development of weapons of mass destruction.
3. His repression of the Iraq people.
4. His support for international terrorism, including an attempt to assassinate a former US president by the Iraqi intelligence service, and the support for Mujehedin el-Khalq, PLF and Abu Nidal terrorist organization.
5. His refusal to account for Gulf War prisoners.
6. His refusal to return property stolen by Iraqi forces.
7. His efforts to circumvent economic sanctions.

In other words, Saddam Hussein’s development of WMD was one of several serious reasons why the president decided to act. Setting aside the issue of the WMD, the validity of the other reasons is not in doubt today, and one is not likely to find anyone in the media who say otherwise.

But what about the WMD issue?

[snip]

Furthermore, the coalition forces recently discovered an Iraqi 155 mm shell containing sarin, a nerve agent, in a roadside bomb. They also found a weapon containing mustard gas, another chemical agent. Both discoveries have been confirmed in lab tests conducted by the Iraqi Survey Group (ISG), which is responsible for finding Iraqi WMD. Yet Hans Blix incredulously continues to claim that this “is not a sign that Saddam Hussein’s regime possessed WMD” and “did not signify that Iraq had large stockpiles” of such weapons. In light of the damning evidence, the bar has apparently risen from stockpiles of WMD to “large” stockpiles.

The media have treated these significant discoveries as non-events, and continue to perpetuate the myth that there is “no evidence” of WMD and that the WMD issue was the sole — fabricated — reason we went to war.

But go on bleating “Bush lied, people died” idiocy like mindless parrots that you are, Kossacks.

[Cross-posted in Guns and Butter Blog]
—–
—–
—–

« Balbina Hwang on Possible Nork Missile Test
The End of the Dream »

6 Responses to Pre-War Iraq and WMD

  1. Richardson
    June 23rd, 2006 at 7:28 am

    A lot more than the U.S. thought Iraq had WMD:

    Other nations’ intelligence services were similarly aligned with U.S. views. Somewhat remarkably, given how adamantly Germany would oppose the war, the German Federal Intelligence Service held the bleakest view of all, arguing that Iraq might be able to build a nuclear weapon within three years. Israel, Russia, Britain, China, and even France held positions similar to that of the United States; France’s President Jacques Chirac told Time magazine last February, “There is a problem—the probable possession of weapons of mass destruction by an uncontrollable country, Iraq. The international community is right … in having decided Iraq should be disarmed.” In sum, no one doubted that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

    A potential reason as to why Saddam did what he did:

    Saddam’s behavior may have been driven by completely different considerations. Saddam has always evinced much greater concern for his internal position than for his external status. He has made any number of highly foolish foreign-policy decisions—for example,
    invading Kuwait and then deciding to stick around and fight the U.S.-led coalition—in response to domestic problems that he feared threatened his grip on power. The same forces may have been at work here; after all, ever since the Iran-Iraq war WMD had been an important element of Saddam’s strength within Iraq.

    […]

    He may have feared that if his internal adversaries realized that he no longer had the capability to use these weapons, they would try to move against him. In a similar vein, Saddam’s standing among the Sunni elites who constituted his power base was linked to a great extent to his having made Iraq a regional power—which the elites saw as a product of Iraq’s unconventional arsenal. Thus openly giving up his WMD could also have jeopardized his position with crucial supporters.

    […]

    Suddenly cooperating with the inspectors would have meant admitting to both his opponents and his supporters that his course of action had been a mistake and that, having now given up most of his WMD programs, he had devastated Iraqi society for no reason.

    People that continue to tow the “Bush lied” line are either a) ignorant, or b) idiots. Harsh, but true.

  2. Craig
    June 23rd, 2006 at 2:15 pm

    Let me give you some heartfelt advice: stick to Korea. This chest-thumping on a country half the world away from the ostensible subject of this site is going to do nothing productive for you or for North Korea. If you want to argue that a few forgotten artillery shells buried twenty years ago legitimize the invasion of Iraq, go ahead, but please do do in a forum that doesn’t tend to make your analysis of the North Korea situation risible by association.

  3. Joshua
    June 23rd, 2006 at 6:54 pm

    Craig, is it your position that Saddam would have been living in peace with his neighbors and maintaining a scrupulous distance from terrorists had we brought the troops home from Kuwait in 2003?

    More importantly, just what do you suppose would happen if we were to pull a Saigon now?

  4. James J. Na
    June 23rd, 2006 at 7:34 pm

    So is it your position that:

    Further, the Iraq Survey Group report says that he had every intention of resuming his programs as soon as the coast was clear and the U.N. sanctions were behind him. Add to that the fact that hundreds of chemical weapons, at a minimum, were secreted in various locations around Iraq

    and…

    Kay stated that “We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations.” He also went on to say that the search has been hampered by “extensive concealment efforts” and “systematic sanitization” of evidence by Saddam’s henchmen before, during and even after Operation Iraqi Freedom.

    equal…

    a few forgotten artillery shells buried twenty years ago

    If so, I don’t think I’m the one who needs advice on venues.

  5. marteen
    June 24th, 2006 at 1:57 pm

    James - I’m confused. Why would you quote Kay when he is on the record stating that “we were almost all wrong” regarding wmd? (http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/28/kay.transcript/).

    We were told that there “was no doubt” that the wmd was stockpiled in Iraq. This type of certaintiy is the issue and I think it has been clearly established that we were, at a minimum, lead astray but faulty intelligence, and at the most, deliberately misled by this Administration. This stuff should be put behind us. You do not help your reputation, at all, siding with a desperate senator who is 18 points down going into an election.

  6. Richardson
    June 25th, 2006 at 5:24 pm

    Craig,

    Perhaps you should make specific comments rather than broad ones concerning what part(s) of the analysis you disagree with.

    Also, it’s not your place to suggest what any of us should not write about, here or anyplace else. Unless it’s on your own blog.

    Thanks.

Leave a Reply

Subscribe without commenting