CIA reports Saddam pushed to restart arms effort
By Rowan Scarborough, Washington Times
The original release of the infamous Duelfer Report on Saddam's WMD status sent the media scurrying to pronouce WMD's were non-existant. It was the needed fuel for the anti-Iraqi action types to scream "lies" at the top of their lungs, and provided a foundation for the less than effective Kerry campaign that dashed the hopes of the Dems to recapture power in the WH.
Now it appears we should have been reading between the lines, and paying more attention to what Duelfer did *not* say. This week the inspector filed a 92 page addendum to his report, found HERE.
Excerpts from the addendums show Duelfer unwilling to commit either way on the fate of WMDs and possible removal to Syria or other countries. He has instead engaged in careful doublespeak.
ISG was unable to complete its investigation and is unable to rule out the possibility that WMD was evacuated to Syria before the war. It should be noted that no information from debriefing of Iraqis in custody supports this possibility. ISG found no senior policy, program, or intelligence officials who admitted any direct knowledge of such movement of WMD. Indeed, they uniformly denied any knowledge of residual WMD that could have been secreted to Syria.
(snip)
Based on the evidence available at present, ISG judged that it was unlikely that an official transfer of WMD material from Iraq to Syria took place. However, ISG was unable to rule out unofficial movement of limited WMD-related materials.
This "maybe they did, and maybe they didn't" language still apparently doesn't swing Duelfer's obvious personal opinions. The slant is still a "no WMDs" based on the lack of a smoking gun.
Saddam was a tyrant, but not a dummy. The less officials know, the safer his deception remains. I personally think it highly unlikely he'd share knowledge of the extraction of the WMD elements. His scientists may develop it... but he would only use his most trusted military officials to secrete the weaponry, facing loss of power. Bottom line, does the fact that the detainees questioned don't know the whereabouts mean the removal of such weaponry didn't happen?
Apparently it does to Duelfer. He seems confortable in his assumptions, made quite evident with his recommended release of these detainees.
As matters now stand, the WMD investigation has gone as far as feasible. After more than 18 months, the WMD investigation and debriefing of the WMD related detainees has been exhausted. As far as the WMD investigation is concerned, there is no further purpose in holding many of these detainees. These individuals have shown no reluctance to engage in further discussions should the need for questioning about past WMD programs emerge.
Observing his casual attitude, I have to wonder if Duelfer was planning on inviting them to Thanksgiving dinner at his home...
But something more sinister arises in the Washington Times article, linked here as the primary posting. Former Saddam senior defence ministers, incarcerated in Iraq, have started talking. And what becomes abundantly clear is that Saddam had intents and seized on every possible opportunity to revive his WMD programs to 100% capacity as soon as possible.
The most talkative, the report indicates, was Abduallah al Mullah Huwaysh, a key defense industry official from 1997 until the fall of Baghdad in April 2003.
"Huwaysh recalled that Saddam approached him immediately following a ministers' meeting to ask how long it would take to restart production of chemical agents," the report says. Huwaysh told Saddam in 2001 that Iraq could make mustard gas almost immediately, but two other deadly agents previously produced by Iraq, VX and sarin, would take much longer.
(snip)
He told of another conversation with Saddam in 2002 when the leader ordered Huwaysh to begin production of a ballistic missile that could travel more than 300 miles and be able to hit targets in Israel and Iran.
Such a weapon would be in violation of U.N. cease-fire resolutions. Saddam also said he had decided not to let U.N. weapons inspectors re-enter the country, after thwarting their efforts in 1998.
(snip)
"To avoid disclosure of this program, Saddam ordered that no written documentation and no phone calls were allowed," the Duelfer report states. "By early 2002, Saddam was convinced support for sanctions was eroding and they would soon disappear irrespective of what happened with Iraqi missile programs."
"Ordered" the production of a long range ballistic missile, and ordered no documentation or phone calls "to avoid disclosure".... This should be the biggest heads up to date. Direct orders to develop the missile and hide any traces of such production to all.
Despite Duelfer's confidence that WMDs did not exist, and thereby nothing was moved, here is a statement that shakes the very foundation of his findings. Finding Duelfer's needed smoking gun is highly unlikely at best since there were orders to destroy that smoking gun. Thus, the lack of evidence is anything BUT an acquittal of WMDs removal. In fact, the order itself is an admittance of their likely existance.
But none of these facts should come as a surprise. We've had hints and acknowledgements in the past about the existance and removal of WMD programs from another famous naysayer, David Kay. As he stated in an exclusive interview to London's Telegraph back in January 2004......
In an exclusive interview with The Telegraph, Dr Kay, who last week resigned as head of the Iraq Survey Group, said that he had uncovered evidence that unspecified materials had been moved to Syria shortly before last year's war to overthrow Saddam.
"We are not talking about a large stockpile of weapons," he said. "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 programme. Precisely what went to Syria, and what has happened to it, is a major issue that needs to be resolved."
I've always been curious to know the dividing line of acceptable and not acceptable "stockpiles" of WMDs. Considering chemicals that can kill thousands can be housed in a container the size of a thimble, how many deaths constitute a threshhold of concern? Would not a single vile of lethal gas be a viable WMD? Have we not already uncovered mustard gas In Iraq? Or is that not lethal enough to register as a threat?
And how many long range missiles needed to be produced before inspectors considered it in violation of the UN sanctions? Would not one missile be sufficient? Loaded with even a single, small vile of chemicals, is it not still a WMD?
The UK's Guardian weighs in on the issues, still relying on the retired UN inspector, Hans Bliz. Ol' Hans is still in denial insising there is "no firm evidence".
There's that smoking gun again... Evidently Hans hasn't read about the "orders to begin production" back in early 2002, and the order to keep such production undocumented. Bliz took his team back into Iraq later that same year, in December of 2002, and left the week before the US Coalition entry in March of 2003. The fact that he failed to uncover "firm evidence" is directly related to the fact that Saddam ordered that evidence to never exist months before.
It's noteable that the world community and MSM was quick to seize the opportunity to bash the Cowboy Prez by using the lack of clear and convincing evidence on the WMD status. But what is overtly clear now is that Saddam's WMDs intents were exactly as the President had purported... that he was actively seeking to thwart the sanctions and develop his WMD programs under the not-so-watchful eye of the UN Security Council.
Will this johnny-come-lately "maybe yes, maybe not" information make the headlines the first summaries did? And will the MSM use the doublespeak to capitalize on the "maybe he didn't" part? Probably. Anything that may prove to show the leader of the free world was wise in his decision to remove Saddam and promote a democratic State in the Middle East will probably be buried in the back of liberal rags.
No comments:
Post a Comment