Powell casts doubt on Iraq WMDs

bbchris · Posted: Sun Jan 25, 2004 2:17 am Post subject: Powell casts doubt on Iraq WMDs

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middl...426703.stm

US Secretary of State Colin Powell has conceded that Iraq may not have possessed any stocks of weapons of mass destruction before the war last year.

His comments came after the former head of the US weapons inspection team, David Kay, said he did not believe there were any weapons stockpiles.

Mr Powell was speaking on his way to the former Soviet republic of Georgia.

Less than a year ago, Mr Powell warned the United Nations Security Council about the danger from Iraq's weapons.

In the run-up to the US-led war against Iraq, he gave a presentation to the Security Council, in which he asserted that Saddam Hussein had amassed secret weapons of mass destruction.

He said then that he believed Iraq possessed, among other things, between 100 and 500 tonnes of chemical weapons agents.

But in his latest remarks, he told reporters travelling with him that it was an "open question" whether Iraq had any stocks of weapons of mass destruction at all.

"The answer to that question is, we don't know yet," Mr Powell said on his way to attend the inauguration on Sunday of the new Georgian President, Mikhail Saakashvili.

On Friday, Mr Kay, who had led the US hunt for weapons in Iraq, resigned.

He told Reuters news agency he did not believe there had been large-scale production of chemical or biological weapons in Iraq since the end of the first Gulf War in 1991.

"I don't think they existed," Mr Kay said.

"What everyone was talking about is stockpiles produced after the end of the last Gulf War and I don't think there was a large-scale production programme in the 90s."

Responding to questions about Mr Kay's comments, Mr Powell said it was for the weapons inspectors still in Iraq to decide if there were any weapons stock or not, where they had gone if they had existed, and, if there were ever any weapons, why that was not known before the war.

Mr Powell acknowledged that the US thought Saddam Hussein had banned weapons, but added: "We had questions that needed to be answered.

"What was it?" he asked. "One hundred tonnes, 500 tonnes or zero tonnes? Was it so many litres of anthrax, 10 times that amount or nothing?"

Backtracking

The BBC's Jon Leyne, who is travelling with Mr Powell, says the secretary of state has made a significant concession on the weapons issue.

He says Mr Powell's language was very different from that of Vice-President Dick Cheney, who said just two days ago that it was too early to pass judgement on whether weapons of mass destruction existed.

Our correspondent says that with members of the Bush administration steadily backtracking from their earlier claims, the hunt for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction could have a very uncertain future once sovereignty is handed back to the Iraqis at the end of June.

Mr Kay has been replaced by Charles Duelfer, a 51-year-old former UN weapons inspector, who said he would not "pre-judge" the investigation despite previously saying that he did not believe banned weapons would be found.

LarreeMP3 · Joined: 12 Apr 2002 Posts: 1935

Mr Kay says that he believes Iraq moved their WMDs into Syria during the months preceding he war. There were WMDs, and we were right to go in and remove sadam from power.

questionnaire · Joined: 29 May 2003 Posts: 640

"Mr Kay says that he believes Iraq moved their WMDs into Syria during the months preceding he war. There were WMDs, and we were right to go in and remove sadam from power." - Larree

Still can't face reality, can you? There were no WMDs. Where exactly did Kay say that, by the way?

Galmin · The King has spoken! Joined: 30 Dec 2001 Posts: 1711

Quote:
Where exactly did Kay say that, by the way?

Apparantly, he is supposed to have told the Sunday Telegraph the following:

Quote:
Kay reportedly told The Sunday Telegraph that he had uncovered evidence that unspecified materials were moved to Syria shortly before last year's war to overthrow Saddam. "We are not talking about a large stockpile of weapons 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 (weapons of mass destruction) programme,"

"Precisely what went to Syria, and what has happened to it, is a major issue that needs to be resolved,"

So, to sum it up: Kay has uncovered evidence that some stuff that he has no idea of what it is (though he is not talking about a large stockpile of weapons, regular or WMDs) went to Syria, including written paper.

When Kay was working for NBC/MSNBC as consultant in April 2004, he was certain there would be stockpiles of "Smoking Guns".

What's the matter with these people? They're sent to Iraq and after a time they forget what they are supposed to think!

DreamTone7 · Joined: 20 Sep 2002 Posts: 2571

I figured they probably shipped all the "incriminating evidence" to Syria a long time ago. After all, Syria was playing "middle-man" for all the oil Saddam was peddling outside of OPEC. One of oldest tricks in the book, really. Galmin, what do you think they sent over to Syria right before the war.....they're laundry?

Galmin · The King has spoken! Joined: 30 Dec 2001 Posts: 1711

Quote:
Galmin, what do you think they sent over to Syria right before the war.....they're laundry?

Are they?

j/k

Fact is, noone knows what's been sent. Though Mr Kay is certain that no stockpiles of weapons were shipped. Noone has been called traitor in a while, perhaps it's Mr Kay's turn? :eyebrow

interview with David Kay

Fri 23 January, 2004 22:23

Quote:
Q: What happened to the stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons that everyone expected to be there?

A: "I don't think they existed.

"I think there were stockpiles at the end of the first Gulf War and those were a combination of U.N. inspectors and unilateral Iraqi action got rid of them. I think the best evidence is that they did not resume large-scale production, and that's what we're really talking about, is large stockpiles, not the small. Large stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons in the period after '95."

Q. After '95?

A. "We're really talking about from the mid-90s, when people thought they had resumed production."

Q. What about the nuclear program?

A. "The nuclear program was as we said in the interim report, I think that will be a final conclusion. There had been some restart of activities, but they were rudimentary.

"It really wasn't dormant because there were a few little things going on, but it had not resumed in anything meaningful."

Q: You came away from the hunt that you have done believing that they did not have any large stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons in the country?

A: "That is correct."

Q. Is that from the interviews and documentation?

A. "Well the interviews, the documentation, and the physical evidence of looking at, as hard as it was because they were dealing with looted sites, but you just could not find any physical evidence that supported a larger program."

Q: Do you think they destroyed it?

A: "No, I don't think they existed."

Was the 'disarming by force' that GWB talked about carried out when the two assault rifles (designed by Mikhail Timofeevich Kalashnikov in 1944) Saddam had in the hole were taken? I feel much safer now.

DreamTone7 · Joined: 20 Sep 2002 Posts: 2571

Please note, Galmin, the difference between a "stockpile" (that Mr. Kay was speaking of) and of having any at all. Two different subjects.

questionnaire · Joined: 29 May 2003 Posts: 640

Let's put a wider perspective on this. It often helps.

Imagine that you're a historian trying to make sense out of this in 100 years time, sifting through the evidence and trying to establish the main factors. You would notice that a military/industrial superpower attacked a small middle-eastern country in the early 90s, forced it to disarm under threat and closely inspected the process, then moved back in and finished the job in 2003 when it had done so. With hindsight, it'll look bad, won't it?

Steve H

DreamTone7 · Joined: 20 Sep 2002 Posts: 2571

It'll look bad unless sometime between now and then Syria owns up to hiding some chemical or biological agents for Iraq shortly before the second "war" began. Time will tell on this issue....hopefully.

NRKofOver · Joined: 07 Sep 2002 Posts: 505

Quote:
Time will tell on this issue....hopefully.

That really is the issue now - time. Unfortunately, there is not enough time ever to definitively prove that something didn't exist. The spin to include possible export of WMD's is a safe one, if nothing is found ever, then the conclusion is they were moved and over time sold to rogue nations and terrorist organizations. But it's our fault to begin with since we sold Iraq and Saddam the technology in the first place, even knowing he was a lunatic then.

My music for the disenchanted masses

DreamTone7 · Joined: 20 Sep 2002 Posts: 2571

NRK - "But it's our fault to begin with since we sold Iraq and Saddam the technology in the first place, even knowing he was a lunatic then."

Time may yet show up what happened. Truths seem to eventually work their way into the light for all to see. I have faith in this. As for our involvement, we were not the only country involved in this. We were backing Saddam against Iran at the time, so it was a question of who (at that time) was the biggest lunatic....and I think we made the right choice there. Perhaps it would have been best if we just let Iran plow over Iraq....who knows. But as far as responsibility goes, there is only one person who is responsible for using gas against people of his own country.....Saddam. Not us. We had a part to play, not doubt. But people are responsible for, and are accountable for their own actions. Nobody forced Saddam to do anything with that gas. Nobody but himself. So the real question remains....what did Saddam ship over to Syria shortly before the "war" began?

Rev9Volts · Joined: 10 Jul 2003 Posts: 1327

well we know they had some as they killed what 5000 kurds with it. so usa had foggy intellegence. do any of you think the vast makority of iraqi's wish he was in power still. heck saddam was slaughtering over 3,000 a month.

if usa wanted oil t control the world we could have lifted sdactions for a lot less.

NRKofOver · Joined: 07 Sep 2002 Posts: 505

Quote:
But people are responsible for, and are accountable for their own actions.

And that's all I was saying. Yeah, Saddam was a nut, always has been. But obviously our decisions require a certain level of accountability as well. If our foreign policy is simply to arm lunatics we later have to put American soldiers at risk to bring down, then we better change our thinking, that's just simply stupid.

My music for the disenchanted masses

DreamTone7 · Joined: 20 Sep 2002 Posts: 2571

NRK, would you have let Iran mow over Iraq? Killing more people than have died in that country since that time? (Not to mention all the dead Iranians.) It's not as simple as you make it out to be, in my mind. How would you have handled it?

questionnaire · Joined: 29 May 2003 Posts: 640

But American companies sell arms to make money, not for political reasons, to out-compete other suppliers, such as the Russians, to whom Iraq would have gone and ended up going to anyway. We've got to ditch ethico-politics as a cause - if America cared about dictators it would be going after Mugabe and a dozen others. And don't forget that it props up brutal dictators who support the business deals American corporations want. The underlying motive of everything - absolutely everything - America does is profit for its companies.