Bush lied??
Count 1
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-060803a.htm
A Plot to Deceive?
Robert Kagan
Washington Post
June 8, 2003
There is something surreal about the charges flying that President Bush lied
when he claimed Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Yesterday
The Post continued the barrage, reporting that Defense Intelligence Agency
analysts claimed last September merely that Iraq "probably" possessed
"chemical agent in chemical munitions" and "probably" possessed "bulk
chemical stockpiles, primarily containing precursors, but that also could
consist of some mustard agent and VX," a deadly nerve agent.
This kind of "discrepancy" qualifies as front-page news these days. Why? Not
because the Bush administration may have -- repeat, may have -- exaggerated
the extent of knowledge about what Hussein had in his WMD arsenal. No, the
critics' real aim is to prove that, as a New York Times reporter recently
put it, "the failure so far to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq may
mean that there never were any in the first place."
The absurdity of this charge is mind-boggling. Yes, neither the CIA nor the
U.N. inspectors have ever known exactly how many weapons Hussein had or how
many he was building. But that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction
and the ability to produce more? That has never been in doubt.
Start with this: The Iraqi government in the 1990s admitted to U.N. weapons
inspectors that it had produced 8,500 liters of anthrax and a few tons of
VX. Where are they? U.N. inspectors have been trying to answer that question
for years. Because Hussein refused to come clean, the logical presumption
was that he had hidden them. As my colleague, nonproliferation expert Joseph
Cirincione, put it bluntly in a report last year: "Iraq has chemical and
biological weapons." The only thing not known was where they were and how
far the Iraqi weapons programs had advanced since the inspectors left in
1998.
Go back and take a look at the report Hans Blix delivered to the U.N.
Security Council on Jan. 27. On the question of Iraq's stocks of anthrax,
Blix reported "no convincing evidence" that they were ever destroyed. But
there was "strong evidence" that Iraq produced more anthrax than it had
admitted "and that at least some of this was retained." Blix also reported
that Iraq possessed 650 kilograms of "bacterial growth media," enough "to
produce . . . 5,000 litres of concentrated anthrax." Cirincione concluded
that "it is likely that Iraq retains stockpiles of anthrax, botulinum toxin
and aflatoxin."
On the question of VX, Blix reported that his inspections team had
information that conflicted with Iraqi accounts. The Iraqis claimed that
they had produced VX only as part of a pilot program but that the quality
was poor and the agent was never "weaponized." But according to Blix, the
inspections team discovered Iraqi documents that showed the quality of the
VX to be better than declared. The team also uncovered "indications that the
agent" had been "weaponized." According to Cirincione's August 2002 report,
"it is widely believed that significant quantities of chemical agents and
precursors remain stored in secret depots" and that there were also
"thousands of possible chemical munitions still unaccounted for." Blix
reported there were 6,500 "chemical bombs" that Iraq admitted producing but
whose whereabouts were unknown. Blix's team calculated the amount of
chemical agent in those bombs at 1,000 tons. As Blix reported to the
Security Council, "in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must
assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for."
Today, of course, they and many other known weapons are still unaccounted
for. Does it follow, therefore, that they never existed? Or does it make
more sense to conclude that the weapons were there and that either we'll
find them or we'll find out what happened to them?
The answer depends on how broad and pervasive you like your conspiracies to
be. Because if Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair are lying, they're
not alone. They're part of a vast conspiratorial network of liars that
includes U.N. weapons inspectors and reputable arms control experts both
inside and outside government, both Republicans and Democrats.
Maybe former CIA director John Deutch was lying when he testified before the
Senate Intelligence Committee on Sept. 19, 1996, that "we believe that
[Hussein] retains an undetermined quantity of chemical and biological agents
that he would certainly have the ability to deliver against adversaries by
aircraft or artillery or by Scud missile systems."
Maybe former defense secretary William Cohen was lying in April when he
said, "I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons. . . . I saw
evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from
gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and
then moving those trucks out."
Maybe the German intelligence service was lying when it reported in 2001
that Hussein might be three years away from being able to build three
nuclear weapons and that by 2005 Iraq would have a missile with sufficient
range to reach Europe.
Maybe French President Jacques Chirac was lying when he declared in February
that there were probably weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and that "we
have to find and destroy them."
Maybe Al Gore was lying when he declared last September, based on what he
learned as vice president, that Hussein had "stored secret supplies of
biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Finally, there's former president Bill Clinton. In a February 1998 speech,
Clinton described Iraq's "offensive biological warfare capability, notably
5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax;
25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs." Clinton
accurately reported the view of U.N. weapons inspectors "that Iraq still has
stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type
missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and
build many, many more weapons." That was as unequivocal and unqualified a
statement as any made by George W. Bush.
Clinton went on to insist, in words now poignant, that the world had to
address the "kind of threat Iraq poses . . . a rogue state with weapons of
mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists . . . who
travel the world among us unnoticed." I think Bush said that, too.
So if you like a good conspiracy, this one's a doozy. And the best thing
about it is that if all these people are lying, there's only one person who
ever told the truth: Saddam Hussein. And now we can't find him eithe
The Chosen Few
"Count 1" <omnipi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bdid4p$u07ti$1...@ID-130993.news.dfncis.de...
>
> http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-060803a.htm
>
> A Plot to Deceive?
> Robert Kagan
> Washington Post
> June 8, 2003
>
> There is something surreal about the charges flying that President Bush
lied
> when he claimed Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Yesterday
> The Post continued the barrage, reporting that Defense Intelligence Agency
> analysts claimed last September merely that Iraq "probably" possessed
> "chemical agent in chemical munitions" and "probably" possessed "bulk
> chemical stockpiles, primarily containing precursors, but that also could
> consist of some mustard agent and VX," a deadly nerve agent.
>
> This kind of "discrepancy" qualifies as front-page news these days. Why?
Not
> because the Bush administration may have -- repeat, may have --
exaggerated
> the extent of knowledge about what Hussein had in his WMD arsenal. No, the
> critics' real aim is to prove that, as a New York Times reporter recently
> put it, "the failure so far to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq
may
> mean that there never were any in the first place."
>
> The absurdity of this charge is mind-boggling.
Indeed it is, with the 2004 elections still more than a year away.
Crusader Wabbit
possessed 10 years ago ? Is this a take on that famous surrealist painting
"Persistence of Memory" ? Maybe "Persistence of Memory" is a new American
policy, like "Pre-emptive War". The Bush apologists are going well beyond
the surreal in this article.
What's Georgie smoking these days ? Has he reverted back to his old habits
? If we knew the answers to these questions, it might go a long way to
explaining American policy in the Middle East. :-)
"Count 1" <omnipi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bdid4p$u07ti$1...@ID-130993.news.dfncis.de...
>