So Where [U]ARE[/U] Those WMD's?

Great Debates
41 
OK -- I have a flashlight that I recently misplaced.  It exists.   You now know it exists.   Where is it?

Honestly, that may be one of the silliest lines I’ve ever seen, even in Great Debates. If they exist, the WMD would be military assets, and secret ones as well. Don’t you think they’d be trying to hide them?

As for “And why hasn’t this question been asked and answered?”. Sheesh --don’t you read any papers? It’s been asked over and over again. Here’s a transcript of a DOD briefing, for example.

Here’s a transcript of an Ari Fleischer briefing.

On television I heard a response that was approximately “We still don’t control the area immediately around Baghdad where we suspect most of these assets would be located.” In other words, we control a whole bunch of desert – not the industrial or military areas where this stuff might be stored or developed.

Really, if you must suspect complicity between the press and the administration, couldn’t you at least do some research first?

I have also seen speculation that the US is suppressing evidence of WMDs for the course of the ground war on the fairly reasonable grounds that once their existence is confirmed, the Iraqi regime will have no further reason not to use them.

So do the WMDs exist? Dunno. But it’s far too early to be posting gloating “I told you so” OPs. I think the advice to wait four months or so is sound.

Two slightly off-topic points:

  a. The use of the term "Bushista" isn't amusing or hip -- it's simply a semantic marker that indicates that the OP is so far from objective that it can be conveniently ignored by anyone lacking an agenda.

  b.   Someone named "Elucidator" should spend more time elucidating rather than fulminating.     I don't mind  the difference in our politics, but I do wish that the contrast between your user name and the content of your posts wouldn't peg my irony meter so consistently.
42

Philster, your “cite” to the CNN homepage doesn’t help substantiate your claim that “they cannot account for any of it.”

Further, your second link, clearly states, “agents Iraq is suspected of having” hardly represents a smoking gun.

I am fully aware of the defection of Sadaam’s son-in-law, Kamal Hussein, but I am unaware of any declaration by Iraq thereafter of any WoMD produced after the cease-fire agreement (feel free to correct my ignorance). We also know that defecting Iraqis have not been the most reliable source of information (and certainly Kamal would have had other motivations to damn Sadamm).

To chappachula, please educate me about these “barrels of toxins” to which you refer. Were these “barrels of toxins” WoMD? I should note that raw materials for CW/BW were not necessarily banned, but weaponized toxins, and related delivery systems were.

Have you read those 12,000 pages? Do you assert that you know that it was all lies? If so, how so? Do you consider Robin Cook to not be an intelligent person?

And let me make clear - I am not claiming that Sadaam does not possess WoMD or other banned weapon systems. I claim only that there is yet no proof. I also have no issue with those who would respond, “let’s wait a few more months”, ironic as it may be.

Continued assertions that this is a known fact as opposed to a combination of reasoned supposition and damning circumstantial evidence is tedious.

Does the pro-war side have to distort the facts to feel justified in their support for this war?

43

Cowboy: They ADMITTED to having the weapons, and you can;t flush them or make them go ‘poof’.

POINT TO A STORAGE FACILITY WHERE THE AGENTS HAVE BEEN RESPONSIBLY STORED.

They can’t. Now “WHY?” is the next question.

I guess they threw out inspectors because they wanted to do it honestly without them.

And CNN is a fine link/cite.

44

Philster:

How about trying to argue for the actual claim you made, or alternatively restating your claim?

45

Philster, what RandySpears asked, as well as:

I agree, they ADMITTED to producing such WoMD prior to 1991. UNSCOM oversaw the destruction of the vast percentage of what was claimed to have existed. The question only remains as to what happened with the small percentage remaining.

Iraq has claimed to have destroyed it unilaterally. They have provided documentation to that effect to UNMOVIC. UNMOVIC was in the process of trying to verify Iraq’s claims when they were pulled out to make way for this war.

They NEVER threw out the inspectors.

They can’t point to a storage facility, because, they CLAIM they have no WoMD.

Why you put weight into their ADMISSION to the production, but completely discount their CLAIM to have destroyed them, is interesting. Which admission or claim is inaccurate, one, the other, or both?

And CNN is a fine source - I would certainly accept it - but the homepage does not support the claims you have made.

Why should I or any reader of this thread trust your claims, if you can’t back them up with even some evidence? You have done even less than the Iraqis.

46

Agent: Anthrax
Type: Bacteria
Symptoms: Inhaled anthrax – lung problems, terminal shock. Skin anthrax – lesions, blood poisoning.
Outcome: Death, if untreated. Not contagious.
Status: Iraq claims production of 2,200 gallons. U.N. unable to verify present status.

Source: International Institute for Strategic Studies

47

Just a snippet:

'Our net assessment of the current situation is that:

Iraq has probably retained substantial growth media and BW agent (perhaps thousands of litres of anthrax) from pre 1991 stocks.
The regime is capable of resuming BW Agent production on short notice (in weeks) from existing civilian facilities. It could have produced thousands of litres of anthrax, botulinum toxin and other agents since 1998. Actual stocks cannot be known.
Iraqi production of viral agents is unknown as is the question of whether the regime possesses small pox.’
Read the whole IISS dosier here:

http://www.iiss.org/news-more.php?itemID=88

48

SH HAD tons & gallons of WMD. He admitted as such. He claimed he destroyed it- but not only is there no evidence he did so, but no records, either- and the Iraqis keep good records. So what happened to it?

49

from link:
"Conclusion

In conclusion, war, sanctions and inspections have reversed and retarded, but not eliminated Iraq’s nuclear, biological and chemical weapons and long range missile capacities, nor have they removed Baghdad’s enduring interest in developing these capacities. The retention of WMD capacities by Iraq is self-evidently the core objective of the regime, for it has sacrificed all other domestic and foreign policy goals to this singular aim. It has retained this single objective, and pursued it in breach of the ceasefire and UN Security Council Resolutions that brought a conditional end to the 1991 Gulf War. Over more than eleven years the Iraqi regime has sought to evade its obligations and undermine support for the sanctions and inspections regime meant to eliminate its WMD capacities and contain its ambitions. Iraq has fought a relatively successful diplomatic war of attrition. It is worth recalling that the international debate 18 months ago was centred on how sanctions against Iraq might be relaxed, and inspections concluded with some dispatch in light of the dwindling willingness to support the containment policy developed in 1991. "

The US and other countries refer to IISS reports and use them in forming opinion. IISS does not make suggestions on how to handle different situations (like disarming Iraq)

50

Why, Philster, thanks for that. More “unverified present status” from the page of “suspected” weapons. Grand.

In 1995, Iraq acknowledges to having produced 8,445 litres of Bacillus anthracis spores (10 fold concentrated) prior to 1991. At the same time, they claimed to have unilaterally destroyed 3,412 litres of anthrax in 1991.

How does that match up with, “they cannot account for any of it”? See further my previous comments on VX.

On preview, more the “has probably”, “could have”, and “is unknown.” Why should I read the dossier - every quote you’ve offered supports my position! Where does it say that they haven’t accounted for any of it!

On second preview, I agree with the conclusion of the ISS dossier. I also note that it was written prior to the passing of UNSC Resolution 1441, and fails to incorporate any of the information provided by Iraq under 1441 or evaluated by UNMOVIC more recently. I also note that it fails to support your original assertion.

DrDeth, there is some evidence that he destroyed it, but I will be first to agree that the evidence he provided is quite weak, and that UNMOVIC has been unable to verify its destruction. There were records. UNMOVIC had existing action items to follow up on records they were provided to verify destruction. They were following that regimen when they were withdrawn by the UN.

So what happened to it? I have no idea. It is likely still there. But at least I can admit that such a conclusion is based on reasoned supposition and damning circumstantial evidence. I admit I have no proof. Will you?

And I repeat:

Continued assertions that this [Iraq’s possession of WoMD] is a known fact as opposed to a combination of reasoned supposition and damning circumstantial evidence is tedious.

Does the pro-war side have to distort the facts to feel justified in their support for this war?

51

Let me make one clarification on my last post. In that post, I said, “agree with the conclusion of the ISS dossier.”

For clarity, I agree with every sentence except, “It has retained this single objective, and pursued it in breach of the ceasefire and UN Security Council Resolutions that brought a conditional end to the 1991 Gulf War.”

The only problem I have with that sentence is that violation of obligations under UNSC Resolution 687 (the cease-fire) did not constitute a breach, as those were not conditions to the cease-fire. Under 687, violations of the obligations were the responsibility of the UNSC to determine appropriate action.

This clarification really has nothing to do with anything in this thread, but to protect positions I have taken with respect to this issue in other threads.

52

I agree that the evidence of WMD given to we plebes is largely circumstantial.

I have yet to see, however, a single political figure – that is, someone with access to a state intelligence agency – so much as doubt whether Iraq actually has WMD. Heck, Chirac all but came out and said that in his opinion the WMD were there. (Time Magazine, 2/16/03 (“it is probable”).)

I agree that the Bushies have wagered a large stack of credibility on their ability to find WMD. I don’t know if they can or will come through (or, for that matter, whether they care about their credibility).) But I do not doubt that the WMD are there somewhere.

53

The point is that Resolution 1441 said that Iraq had to prove the WMD were destroyed, not that the inspectors had to prove they weren’t destroyed. Big difference. There is no proof they were destroyed. There was no particular willingness on the part of SH to prove they were destroyed. This means there is a violation of the terms of the first gulf war, and a violation of 1441. Every time actual consequences became apparent, there was a grudging trickle of information and a wheedle for just a little more time. They had 12 years!!! And then another couple of months. And then another couple of weeks, and another… It reminded me of nothing more than the way spoiled children manipulate their parents, or the way hardened criminals manipulate and distort the criminal justice system. Enough, already. You won’t show us your weapons, then we will show you ours.

54

Return: the wonderful “legality of this war” discussion, known to hijack any thread at will…

MLS: Let me just quickly state that

  • the majority of international observers find this war to be illegal, and validity claims based on 1441 and the old GW I resolutions to be false.

  • the inspectors did very much not have 12 years. they did have since november last year.

Now, let’s return to discussing the OP, shall we?

55

Thanks bblonden, for having the intellectual honesty to frame the debate with facts. I will note that one political figure, Robin Cook, whom should be in a place to know, doubts whether Iraq has WoMD.

MLS, this thread isn’t the place, but you have misrepresented what 1441 set out to do (you can’t prove a negative!), it does NOT mean there was a violation of the cease-fire agreement, or a violation of 1441 (and certainly no UN authorization for the use of force in either case). While the rest of your second paragraph is generally accurate, do you justify war on circumstantial evidence?

If you will simply admit the facts, we can have a reasoned debate.

I ask, for the third time:

Continued assertions that this [Iraq’s possession of WoMD] is a known fact as opposed to a combination of reasoned supposition and damning circumstantial evidence is tedious.

Does the pro-war side have to distort the facts to feel justified in their support for this war?

It absolutely boggles my mind, considering I believe the pro-war side has plenty of facts on their side. Why can’t they stick with facts to support their position?!

56

Once was fine, twice had effect, the third was too much.

I apologize for the third repeat of my question.

57

Randy:

What will it take for me to get you to agree to 4 months? Come on, man! I said I’d waive all the previous inspections and go mano a mano with the most recent inspection phase. So, can we agree on 4 months? Hell, I’ll take 3 months if you’ll give it to me.
Damn, you Europeans are an impatient bunch…

58

John:

Heh, well this impatient european was responding to MLS :slight_smile: Let’s settle for 4 months!

59

Wow, I completely blew that one. Not sure why I thought you were responding to me. Anyway, 4 months it is! I’m looking forward to discussing this in July.

60

No problem!

Disclaimer though: there is in my view no way to get legitimacy for this war after it has been made a fact.