Anoynmous Iraqi scientist claims Saddam destroyed most of the WMD on eve of war
uhhh seems a bit much to me. Saddam destroying his WMD after the inspectpors had pulled out? why?
Well, according to the NYT, Saddam had transferred some weapons to Syria, buried what he could with an eye towards later unearthing, and destroyed what couldn’t be easily buried. That source also claims that Saddam was working with al Qaeda. This seems entirley plausible to me. It was no secret that we would be attacking soon, and Saddam likely suspected that the only way he could survive with his regime intact was to draw out the war, and wait for public opinion to force the coalition forces out of Iraq. If the forces discovered any WMDs lying around, that would tend to increase public support for the war. Thus, get the weapons to where nobody can find them, and destroy what you can’t move. Meanwhile, develop R&D techniques that are immune to even the best inspections efforts.
If correct, this is what many of the pro-war folks suspected would happen, and why we were skeptical of the inspections to begin with.
Here’s the NYT story:
Jeff
Yeah thats the same story I linked to. The Al Queda thing makes me question the guy’s whole story. Why would Saddam let some midlevel scientitist who doesnt need to know about any deals he has with Al Queda know about said deal? It sounds like this guy if he is a scientist is just telling the americans everything they want to hear. Does anyone really think all the evidence for the WMD, the Alqueda connection and implicating syria would all come from onbe scource. Course the fact that most of his allegations are unfalsifiable help.
Ah, sorry. Your link wasn’t working for me, so I just went to the NYT story I’d already read.
Anyway, I don’t see why the al Qaeda bit would make you question the story, unless you’ve already decided that an al Qaeda link is necessarily false, and thus any information that claims a link must be bogus. Further, how do you know he’s a “mid-level scientist”? I never saw any mention of his ranking on the Scientist Scale in the story. Even if he is of “mid-rank”, I find it plausible that he could come across the info he supposedly has. Word gets around. As a scientist, he’s going to be involved with the handling of these materials, and if the handling of thse materials involves shipping them to Syria, burying them in the ground, destroying them, or working on them with al Qaeda operatives, he may very well have this info. Time will tell if he’s telling them truth - if we go around digging in the spots he points to, and find what he says we’ll find, then the other elements of his story become more credible. Maybe he is full of crap, but maybe he’s not.
Of course, you illustrate a valuable point regarding evidence of WMDs. Those who have decided that Saddam has no WMDs are unlikely to be convinced by anything we find, or any story we’re told. Everyone who cites WMD evidence is lying, or paid off, or confessed under duress. Anything we find is inconclusive, or planted. QED.
Jeff
It’s hard to tell, and I agree that we should wait for final judgement until there is real confirmation. However: The NYT is not known for its support of the current administration and it is very unlikely that they would go out on a limb to help out GWB. They have been politically and philosophically on the liberal side in recent years. They also have a very good rep for researching issues carefully and are not exactly a tabloid with a banner headline about how Bat-Boy captured Osama and Saddam. This is not to say the reporter or MET Alpha could not have been hoodwinked. The reporter does directly quote Maj. Gen. David Petraeus as saying “…much work must still be done to validate the information MET Alpha has uncovered.”
Ya know, I saw a headline which was actually pretty close to this over the weekend. I can’t remember which tabloid, but I do know that Saddam and some Bat-creature were prominently mentioned. Hey, maybe it’s true…
Jeff
ElJeffe I have not decided there is no evidence of WMD or an Al Queda link but the evidence for both (and a syria link) all coming from a single scource requires me to put on my critical thinker cap. The only accusation this scource has provided any evidence for is leading to “precursors for a toxic agent that is banned by chemical weapons treaties” now if these buliding blocks for a chemical weapon are banned the story doesnt say so. So the scource has made 3 huge accusations the WMD/Al Queda/Syria and to back it up offers legal chemical compunds?
Meme:
Well, it kind of depends on the circumstances. I believe the stuff that was used to blow up the federal building in Oklahoma city was all legal in certain circumstances. Just not in the place, time, combination and concentration that he used it. After all, if I have a small amount of poison in the barn, and I have a problem with rats in the barn, that’s one thing. If I live in a suburban house and there is rat poison in the pantry, and also traces of it on the spoon that I stirred my spouse’s coffee with this morning, well, that’s another thing entirely.
But I agree that it’s good to be interested and skeptical at the same time until facts are confirmed and put in perspective.
Of course, but theres a big difference between banned materials and materials that could be combined to make banned materials. Nothing in the story said it couldnt be the former but the fact that that it was explicitly stated makes me think the latter is more likely.
A “critical thinker” would not, after acknowledging that the report is preliminary, form a (admittedly preliminary) conclusion that the report is incorrect.
Instead, a critical thinker would determine that the information provided is insufficient to draw any conclusion, preliminary or not.
Sua
Wouldn’t a critical thinker also question whether it is possible to destroy large stockpiles of chem/bio weapons, scattered across multiple caches across Iraq, within a matter of days? That is, without any noticeable or verifiable ill effects on surrounding populations?
If so, I’m sure the citizens of Anniston, AL would be greatly relieved to learn of such possibilities.
It was the weekly world news. Bat-Boy apparently had been “sent to assassinate Saddam Hussein” and was shown biting him on the shoulder, with Saddam’s eyes bugging out. It was pretty obvious that the photo wasn’t doctored, it just looked too lifelike.
For anyone who really cares: http://www.weeklyworldnews.com/
SuaSponte I dont understand what conclusions you think I’ve reached. I guessed that the statement about precursors to chemical weapons meant no actual banned substances were made but I never said that was more then a guess. Though that apperas to ahve been confirmed in this story: “do not confirm the presence of chemical weapons at this particular site”
Clearly the offer of 200 grand was bound to shake something loose. Still, a couple things about this bother me. One, as mentioned before, is the question of why this guy is so knowledgeable. Now, he’s a scientist, ok, so far so good, maybe he does know something about WMD’s, at least on the production end of things. But why would he be in a position to know about heavy hitter policy and military decisions? Why would thugs trust a scientist with this kind of information?
And, as Meme point out, why in the world would they say anything to him about a connection with Al Queda? Not to mention why Saddam would have the remotest trust for a religious fanatic who hates his guts. Saddam is/was certainly evil, but that doesn’t mean stupid. More’s the pity.
So that kinda smells. Add to that: there must be many more people in Iraq who know what this guy knows, if what he says is true. With $200,000 dangling for bait, why isn’t there a line a block long outside of the Army Intelligence tent? Nobody else is greedy? Nobody else wants an opportunity to get in real, real good with the coming regime? There oughtn’t to be one guy, there should be a friggin’ stampede!
:::: [sub]Hey, Bush! About the “buried” stuff. One word. DOWSING! Pass it on[/sub] :::::::::
“The NYT is not known for its support of the current administration and it is very unlikely that they would go out on a limb to help out GWB.”
No indeed. On the other hand, I thought the article did a good job of making clear–without being heavy-handed or partisan–that there’s a lot left to question.
In years of reading the NYT I can’t ever recall reading paragraphs like this:
"Under the terms of her accreditation to report on the activities of MET Alpha, this reporter was not permitted to interview the scientist or visit his home. Nor was she permitted to write about the discovery of the scientist for three days, and the copy was then submitted for a check by military officials.
Those officials asked that details of what chemicals were uncovered be deleted. They said they feared that such information could jeopardize the scientist’s safety by identifying the part of the weapons program where he worked."
Clearly, this is an unusual situation with the government, at least for now, keeping their witness at a distance for various official reasons.
Yes, I thought the article stated facts as available, was responsible in not revealing information that could jeopardize someone’s safety, and was also responsible in making the fact of the resulting incompleteness clear.
On the contrary, a critical thinker will hold such positions to be false until there is sufficient evidence to suppport it.
Anonymous sources are notoriously unreliable.
The Al Qaeda link so far could not be proven despite the US government’s best tries, and makes no sense whatsoever in the light of Saddam’s obsessedness with control
If he were top-level, he wouldn’t be making anonymous statements. He’d be arrested and interrogated.
There is no such thing as a ‘scientist’. There are inorganic chemists, organic chemists, biochemists, molecular biologists etc. Just because he’s a scientist means nothing about him being involved in handling these materials, let alone his ability to come across the info.
Given that the US has repeatedly misreported findings and misrepresented the qualifications of the people whose testimonies they used (such as the heads of the weaponization program being presented as the head of the nuclear weapons program) and has a preconceived opinion on the presence of such weapons, independently gained information is by definition more reliable. That even without the previous bad experience, since scientists who know what they WILL find, rather than just operating on a hypothesis what they MIGHT find, should consider a different line of work.
Followed by multiple examples of exactly what was predicted.
Not to mention -
Indeed. Why would someone involved with the Iraqi weapons program know anything about the Iraqi weapons program?
Let’s be up front with what we think here. What evidence would the anti-war contingent accept as proof that Iraq had been developing WMD? The testimony of high-level Iraqi officials? The existence of precursor chemicals, and directions on how to produce WMD? The presence of chemical munitions shells?
I am asking if this is going to be like the creationist arguments, where since the conclusion is a priori unacceptable, all evidence must be assumed to be false.
Are we like reasonably skeptical people, or are we the OJ jury?
Regards,
Shodan