Palpitus wrote:
Well, just look at Powell's UN speech. Granted it's late in the game but still demonstrates the administration's misapprehension (be it conceit or not) of Iraq's WMDs. WMDs isn't just nukes, it's chemical and biological weapons that the US alluded to quite frequently in the build-up to the war. Powell mentioned mobile bio-wep labs, centrifuges, nice pictures of trucks running around--his intent being the development is underway or already extant, not just on paper.
Development underway does not equal "having" physical usable WMDs.
That's the part you keep missing. For some reason you automatically translate any mention of the development of WMDs into "having" WMDs. Not the same thing. I have read the transcript of Colin Powell's speech. About 99% of it is spent discussing intelligence that indicates that Iraq is continuing to
attempt to develop WMDs. That's the real issue here. Yes. He also happens to state that they have some. However, that was not a requirement to show that Iraq was in violation of the terms of the cease fire agreement it signed. It just happened to be the conclusion that every single intelligence agency in the world thought was true at the time.
Quote:
The end result of the invasion was: Iraq had no WMDs, was not actively developing any WMDs, and had not accessed any new WMD research. In stark contrast to many claims by the administration of the opposite.
That's a false set of statements though. The first part is true (but as I've pointed out repeatedly is not relevant). The second part is false (and is the *one* part that is relevant). The third part wasn't actually a claim made about Iraq, nor was it a requirement or even part of the justification for war. However, it's *also* false. Iraq most certainly developed "new WMD technology" during the time period it was supposed to have been turning everything over and abandoning all effort to build any more.
For reference, here's the
Duelfer Report. Which is the official ISG report generated after the war based on an analysis of what was found in Iraq. Some relevant bits:
On chemical weapons (in no particular order):
Quote:
- ISG has uncovered hardware at a few military depots, which suggests that Iraq may have prototyped experimental CW rounds. The available evidence is insufficient to determine the nature of the effort or the timeframe of activities.
- Uday—head of the Fedayeen Saddam—attempted to obtain chemical weapons for use during OIF, according to reporting, but ISG found no evidence that Iraq ever came into possession of any CW weapons.
ISG uncovered information that the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) maintained throughout 1991 to 2003 a set of undeclared covert laboratories to research and test various chemicals and poisons, primarily for intelligence operations. The network of laboratories could have provided an ideal, compartmented platform from which to continue CW agent R&D or small-scale production efforts, but we have no indications this was planned. (See Annex A.)
* ISG has no evidence that IIS Directorate of Criminology (M16) scientists were producing CW or BW agents in these laboratories. However, sources indicate that M16 was planning to produce several CW agents including sulfur mustard, nitrogen mustard, and Sarin.
* Exploitations of IIS laboratories, safe houses, and disposal sites revealed no evidence of CW-related research or production, however many of these sites were either sanitized by the Regime or looted prior to OIF. Interviews with key IIS officials within and outside of M16 yielded very little information about the IIS’ activities in this area.
* The existence, function, and purpose of the laboratories were never declared to the UN.
* The IIS program included the use of human subjects for testing purposes.
All of this (and much more) was in violation of sanctions and not reported nor discovered until after the invasion.
On Biological weapons:
Quote:
ISG judges that in 1991 and 1992, Iraq appears to have destroyed its undeclared stocks of BW weapons and probably destroyed remaining holdings of bulk BW agent. However ISG lacks evidence to document complete destruction. Iraq retained some BW-related seed stocks until their discovery after Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF).
Dr. Rihab Rashid Taha Al ‘Azzawi, head of the bacterial program claims she retained BW seed stocks until early 1992 when she destroyed them. ISG has not found a means of verifying this. Some seed stocks were retained by another Iraqi official until 2003 when they were recovered by ISG.
Hmmm... So they retained BW seed stock all the way up until the ISG recovered them after the 2003 invasion. Kinda blows the whole "They had no weapons material or research" argument out of the water, doesn't it? Why keep the seed stock if they intended to comply with the terms? The answer? They didn't. They intended to hide this stuff until the US lifted sanctions and then go right back into development.
I bet you never heard any of this though, did you?
The only type of weapons program they *weren't* actively advancing was their nuclear weapons program. And that was mostly due to a lack of materials and the difficulties involved with concealing a nuclear program. The report does conclude that, just as with the Chemical and Biological programs, the Iraqi government clearly intended to resume nuclear weapons research as soon as sanctions were lifted and they did everything they could to retain as much research and skill in that area as possible.
Oh. And while we're at it. On delivery systems:
Quote:
- While other WMD programs were strictly prohibited, the UN permitted Iraq to develop and possess delivery systems provided their range did not exceed 150 km.
- ISG uncovered Iraqi plans or designs for three long-range ballistic missiles with ranges from 400 to 1,000 km and for a 1,000-km-range cruise missile, although none of these systems progressed to production and only one reportedly passed the design phase.
- In February 2003 the UN convened an expert panel to discuss the Al Samud II and Al Fat’h programs, which resulted in the UN’s decision to prohibit the Al Samud II and order its destruction. Missile destruction began in early March but was incomplete when the inspectors were withdrawn later that month.
In other words. During the four year period in which inspectors were not allowed in Iraq, Iraq had managed to research, develop, and design delivery systems that were in violation of the terms they agreed to. Those systems were being destroyed at the time of the invasion. Clearly, they "developed" new weapons in this area in gross violation of the agreement.
That's not "stuff they lied about and were caught with 5 years earlier" (I left the numerous accounts of that sort of thing out of the quotes). This is all stuff they were actively doing right up until the day of the invasion. This is the "mountain of evidence" I was talking about. It shows that in just about every single sanctioned area, Iraq was at the least attempting and in many cases succeeding in expanding its knowledge and capabilities. They were absolutely not complying with the terms they signed in 1991. Far from it. They only complied to the extent that we were able to catch them in the act.
It really isn't about whether they physically possessed usable weapons. It really was about all this other stuff. It's just a lot more dry and technical, so it didn't make big news on your TV screen. But just because the debate over whether or not Iraq possessed WMDs was more riveting TV and sold more papers does not make that the single and only issue at hand. In fact, it wasn't even an issue at all. Certainly, if they did have them, that would be a huge violation. But not having them didn't make them *not* in violation.
Go read Powell's speech again. You'll find that most of what he talks about are the same sorts of things that the ISG report confirmed after the invasion. Almost every single point he makes ends up being true. The fact that a couple points here and there ended up not being true should in no way invalidate the absolutely huge number of points that were.
You need to stop looking just for things we thought that ended out being wrong. You need to look at the claims made in a broader perspective. Then look at the facts discovered after the invasion. Then ask yourself: "Was Iraq engaged in the types of activities regarding their WMD programs that the US claimed they were?".
When you do that, you'll realize that quibbling over whether or not those really were "mobile weapons labs" or not isn't that important. The important part is that Iraq *was* retaining and continuing to build its WMD programs the entire time it was under sanctions. The specifics of how and why aren't nearly as important as the fact that they were doing this.
