Saddams WMDs - Did the President Lie?

"BUSH LIED!!" The cry echos across the board here at ATS. "There are no WMDs! It is a war for oil!" they say again and again. "The weapons inspections were working," they say. "The US had no right to go to Iraq, only to line the pockets of Bush & Co.'s corporate friends!" we hear again and again... "War for Oil! War for Oil!" they scream until they can scream no more....

But is that the truth? To find out we have to go back to 1991 and the end of the Gulf War. We start with a resolution forn the United Nations....

United Nations Resolution 687 Part C states in part:

7. Invites Iraq to reaffirm unconditionally its obligations under the Geneva Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, signed at Geneva on 17 June 1925, and to ratify the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction, of 10 April 1972;

8. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of:

(a) All chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities;

(b) All ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres and related major parts, and repair and production facilities;

With the resolution in place, inspections begin. Lets take a look at how they went.

June 1991: UNSCOM/IAEA inspectors try to intercept Iraqi vehicles loaded with nuclear-related equipment (calutrons). Iraqi officials fire warning shots to prevent the inspectors from approaching the vehicles. The equipment is later confiscated and destroyed as demanded by Resolution 687.

September 1991: Inspectors discover a wealth of documents relating to Iraq's nuclear weapons program; several Iraqi officials seize documents from the inspectors. The inspectors refuse to yield a second set of documents, leading to a four-day standoff between the inspectors and the Iraqi officials. Iraq refuses to allow the team to leave the parking lot at the site. The standoff ends with a threatening letter from the U.N. Security Council, and the inspectors are finally permitted to leave with the documents.

Off to a flying start are we not? Saddam is such an honest man.

February 1992: Iraq refuses to destroy specific facilities deemed by the special commission as being used for unlawful weapons programs. The Security Council condemns Iraqi obfuscation, and the facilities are later destroyed

April 1992: Iraq calls for the end of UNSCOM's aerial surveillance flights, claims both the pilot and aircraft will be in danger if these flights continue.

The spirit of cooperation here shows Saddam's high degree of respect for the United Nations, doesn't it?

January 1993: Iraq demands that UNSCOM not use its own aircraft to fly into Iraq. In addition, Iraq begins to re-enter the demilitarized zone, increasing its military activity in the no-fly zones.

Hard to find those boundaries in all that sand I guess.

August 8, 1995: With the defection of General Hussein Kamel, Director of Iraq's weapons programs, Iraq is forced to admit to a more extensive biological weapons program than earlier believed, including weaponization of biological agents. Further declarations provide insight into Iraq's long-range missile and VX gas capabilities. Iraq finally withdraws its decision to halt cooperation with UNSCOM/IAEA.

Oopsy!! Must have forgot about that, huh? But you have to give Saddam a break, it's hard to remember everything while your busy brutalizing and murdering your loyal subjects.

March 1996: Iraqi security forces refuse inspectors access to five specific sites designated for inspection. The inspectors finally enter sites after delays ranging up to 17 hours. The Security Council issues another statement condemning Iraq's behavior as a "clear violation of Iraq's obligations under relevant resolutions."

That pesky Security Council! Always mucking up the works.

September 13, 1997: An Iraqi officer physically prevents an UNSCOM inspector onboard a helicopter from taking photographs of suspicious movements by Iraqi vehicles inside a designated inspection site.

He wasn't interfering at all! Maybe he was concerned that some Iraqi women down ther didn't have their veils on properly.

February 20-23, 1998: U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan secures Iraq's cooperation. Iraq signs a Memorandum of Understanding with the United Nations, pledging "immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access" for their inspections.

Okay! Now we are getting somewhere!

October 31, 1998: Iraq ends all forms of cooperation with UNSCOM. UNSCOM withdraws.

Well, maybe not.

November 14, 1998: Iraq allows inspections to resume.

December 16, 1998: UNSCOM removes all staff from Iraq after inspectors conclude Iraq is not fully cooperating. Four days of U.S. and British airstrikes follow.

December 17, 1999: U.N. replaces UNSCOM with the U.N. Monitoring Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC). Iraq rejects the resolution.

And why should he? I mean with all he has done to help, he is repaid with bombs?

March 1, 2000: Hans Blix assumes post of executive chairman of UNMOVIC.

November 2000: Iraq rejects new weapons inspections proposals.

July 5, 2002: In talks with Annan, Iraq rejects weapons inspections proposals.

August 1, 2002: In a letter to Annan, Iraq invites Blix to Iraq for technical discussions on remaining disarmament issues.

August 6, 2002: Annan writes to Iraqis pointing out that what they are proposing is at odds with U.N. resolutions and asks that Iraq accept inspections.

September 12, 2002: President Bush tells the United Nations it must rid the world of Saddam's biological, chemical, and nuclear arsenals or stand aside as the United States acts.

September 16, 2002: Iraq once again claims it will allow unconditional return of U.N. weapons inspectors to Iraq and grant them unrestricted access to suspected sites.

So is that it? After almost a dozen years, and with the threat of war, is Iraq finally going to play ball?

The answer is no. Iraq had been in material breech of Resolution 687 for 12 years.

To make a crude analogy, imagine a man who offers to shake your hand and then punches you in the face. When you get back up, he says, "Sorry, I was kidding, it won't happen again." and extends his hand again. When you reach out to shake, he again punches you in the face. How many punches does it take for you to realize you cannot trust this man?

The United States and her allies in this war had evidence that they believed implicated Saddam in again covering up his WMD programs. His own history made his (12 years late) word that the inspections would now be allowed laughable at best. He was in breech of the agreement he made.

George W. Bush and Tony Blair and many others around the world belived in the evidence they had. Saddam's own actions lended credibility to those reports. Yes, it is true that no WMDs have been found to date, but does that make the suspicion that they were there any less valid? Based on the history of the man and his actions it does not. Saddam Hussein could have avioded this war himself, by living up to the agreements he made so long ago.

I know this (rather lengthy) post will not change one single mind on this site. In fact, the discovery of 10,000 full-out nuclear war heads would only change their arguements to something else. But the truth of the matter is the President did not lie about WMDs. In fact, he is probably more surprised than anyone that none have yet been found.






[edit on 9/29/04 by Seth Bullock]

The bottom line:

Yes he lied, saddam was not an imminent threat, saddam did not have any weapons of mass destruction.

That was Bush's pretext for war. That was the case George Bush put foward to the American people.

To say now that they went to war for other reasons besides WMD's is disingenuious. He even pulled weapons inspectors out before they finished their search.

Theres nothing left of the dead horse to flog seth, end of story in my opinion.

By the way in those 12 years where Iraq was in material breech of Resolution 687, the US was working with them closely helping them in their war against Iran, they gave them weapons (fact) communications taps on Iran (fact) sat images (fact) and cancelled sending them strains of bio diseases at the last minute (fact), some CIA people are saying they still got through. The fact remains:

The US didnt seem to mind what he was doing then, they OVERLOOKED GENOCIDE when helping saddam in his war against Iran.

Does it matter?

Originally posted by Seth Bullock
Yes, it is true that no WMDs have been found to date, but does that make the suspicion that they were there any less valid?

The suspicion? No. The war? YES.

Much less valid given the timing and much more pressing matters in the previously waged WAR ON TERRORISM which the Iraqi fiasco has worsened, not improved.

The rush to war given subsequent proof the President's justification was at best WRONG and at worst a LIE and most likely CHERRYPICKED somewhere inbetween is a proven mistake.

A justifiable honest mistake? Fine if it helps you sleep at night. But a mistake is a mistake is a mistake is George W. Bush.

Don't believe me? Ask Republicans.

Someone on this planet will eventually be the last person defending the mistakes of Bush. Please don't let it be you Seth. I like to remind people I know they can still get off the impending train wreck at any time.

Oh, so 12 years of disobedience with UN resolutions is enough to overhaul a country and bring it to the state Iraq is in now?

So, what should happen to a country that has more UN resolutions drawn up against it then any other nation in the world, and would have even more resolutions against it if the USA didn't veto 30 or 40 of them?

UN resolutions that are all about attacks on foreign nations, inhumane behaviour against people in your own country, assasinations of foreign nationals, seizing of foreign teritory's and so on.

Guess what country I'm talking about.

You'd have to be pretty naive to believe that Iraq had WMDs or more importantly, that the US cared whether or not they had WMDs, except to back up their causus beli. I'm sorry, but the WMD front was the justification offered to the masses. The people smart enough to see through it but unable to see the true benefits of the war, or the people who saw through it but still have that whole 'lying is immoral' attitude, or the people that saw the true benefits and didn't believe they were worth war, used the WMD lies to criticize the administration. Only one thing's wrong with that - the administration of course is uber-patriotic beyond the patriotic abilities of anyone else, of course, so anyone criticizing the administration hates America.

'Cohen said that when UN inspectors went to Iraq to examine the Iraqi's nuclear weapons capabilities, the U.N. team found documents showing that they had purchased quantities of red mercury. The material means that a neutron bomb can be built "the size of a baseball" but able to kill everyone within several square blocks'

www.rense.com...

Maybe they hid them, but much more likely is Syria has them now.

Please read the following article while taking a break from pondering the WMD issue. Consider the thousands who've died and sustained grievous injuries in Iraq while searching for WMDs and ask yourself - honestly - if a president who mocks the issue is "touched" by their suffering.

Bear in mind media reps in the audience laughed along with George on this one; he isn't the only sadist out there, apparently. Regardless of your feelings for Kerry he has yet to make any WMD jokes.

Bush jokes about search for WMD, but it's no laughing matter for critics

David Teather in New York
Friday March 26, 2004
The Guardian

President George Bush sparked a political firestorm yesterday after making what many judged a tasteless and ill-judged joke about the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
Mr Bush made the joke at a black-tie event for radio and television journalists in Washington on Wednesday night.

A slide showed Mr Bush in the Oval office, leaning to look under a piece of furniture. "Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be here somewhere," he told the audience, drawing applause.

Another slide showed him peering into another part of the office, "Nope, no weapons over there," he said, laughing. "Maybe under here," he said, as a third slide was shown.

CNN viewers emailed the network to vent their anger at the joke. "How can a thinking, caring human being joke about the lies that led to body bags and broken young men and women? I was appalled," wrote one viewer. Another said: "It was tasteless and childish. It shows the true man - or child in his case."

The defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, later declined to give an opinion at a press conference. "To know what I would think, I would have to be there," he said.










[edit on 30-9-2004 by bushblows]