WI: Saddam Hussein actually had WMDs

David Kelly wrote a letter to the Guardian that sums it

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/aug/31/huttonreport.iraq

Here we reprint Dr David Kelly's article, written days before the Iraq war, in which he assessed the threat from Saddam

In the past week, Iraq has begun destroying its stock of al-Samoud II missiles, missiles that have a range greater than the UN-mandated limit of 150 kilometres. This is presented to the international community as evidence of President Saddam Hussein's compliance with United Nations weapons inspectors.

But Iraq always gave up materials once it was in its interest to do so. Iraq has spent the past 30 years building up an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Although the current threat presented by Iraq militarily is modest, both in terms of conventional and unconventional weapons, it has never given up its intent to develop and stockpile such weapons for both military and terrorist use.

Today Iraq shows superficial co-operation with the inspectorates. Weapons such as 122mm rockets specific for chemical and biological use have been discovered and the destruction of proscribed missiles and associated engines, components and gyroscopes has begun.

Iraq has established two commissions to search for documents and weapons under the direction of Rashid Amer, a former head of Iraq's concealment activities, and a commission has started to recover weapons from Iraq's unilateral destruction sites. (These sites, dating back to 1991, were destroyed by Iraq, illegally, without UN supervision and as part of Iraq's concealment of programmes.) Amer al-Saadi - formerly responsible for conserving Iraq's WMD, now its principal spokesman on its weapons - continues to mislead the international community.

It is difficult to imagine co-operation being properly established unless credible Iraqi officials are put into place by a changed Saddam.

Yet some argue that inspections are working and that more time is required; that increasing the numbers of inspectors would enhance their effectiveness. Others argue that the process is inherently flawed and that disarmament by regime change is the only realistic way forward.

The UN has been attempting to disarm Iraq ever since 1991 and has failed to do so. It is an abject failure of diplomacy with the split between France, China and Russia on the one hand, and Britain and the United States on the other, creating a lack of 'permanent five' unity and resolve. More recently Germany, a temporary yet powerful member of the Security Council, has exacerbated the diplomatic split. The threat of credible military force has forced Saddam Hussein to admit, but not co-operate with, the UN inspectorate. So-called concessions - U2 overflights, the right to interview - were all routine between 1991 and 1998. After 12 unsuccessful years of UN supervision of disarmament, military force regrettably appears to be the only way of finally and conclusively disarming Iraq.

In the years since 1991, during which Unscom and the International Atomic Energy Authority (IAEA) destroyed or rendered harmless all known weapons and capability under UN Security Council Resolution 687, Iraq established an effective concealment and deception organisation which protected many undisclosed assets. In October 2002, Resolution 1441 gave Saddam Hussein an ultimatum to disclose his arsenal within 30 days. He admitted inspectors and, with characteristic guile, provided some concessions, but still refuses to acknowledge the extent of his chemical and biological weapons and associated military and industrial support organisations - 8,500 litres of anthrax VX, 2,160 kilograms of bacterial growth media, 360 tonnes of bulk chemical warfare agent, 6,500 chemical bombs and 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical and biological warfare agents remained unaccounted for from activities up to 1991. (Even these figures, it should be noted, are based in no small part on data fabricated by Iraq.)

Less easy to determine is the extent of activity undertaken since 1991. In its 12,000-page 'disclosure' submitted to the inspectors in December 2002, Iraq failed to declare any proscribed activities. Today the truly important issues are declaring the extent and scope of the programmes in 1991 and the personalities, 'committees' and organisations involved.

There are indications that the programmes continue.

Iraq continues to develop missile technology, especially fuel propellents and guidance systems for long-range missiles. Iraq has recovered chemical reactors destroyed prior to 1998 for allegedly civilian activity, built biological fermenters and agent dryers, and created transportable production units for biological and chemical agents and the filling of weapons. Key nuclear research and design teams remain in place, even though it is assessed that Iraq is unable to manufacture nuclear weapons unless fissile material is available.

War may now be inevitable. The proportionality and intensity of the conflict will depend on whether regime change or disarmament is the true objective. The US, and whoever willingly assists it, should ensure that the force, strength and strategy used is appropriate to the modest threat that Iraq now poses.

Since some WMD sites have not been unambiguously identified, and may not be neutralised until war is over, a substantial hazard may be encountered. Sites with manufacturing or storage capabilities for chemical or biological weapons may present a danger and much will depend on the way that those facilities are militarily cancelled and subsequently treated.

Some of the chemical and biological weapons deployed in 1991 are still available, albeit on a reduced scale. Aerial bombs and rockets are readily available to be filled with sarin, VX and mustard or botulinum toxin, anthrax spores and smallpox. More sophisticated weaponry, such as spray devices associated with drones or missiles with separating warheads, may be limited in numbers, but would be far more devastating if used.

The threat from Iraq's chemical and biological weapons is, however, unlikely to substantially affect the operational capabilities of US and British troops. Nor is it likely to create massive casualties in adjacent countries. Perhaps the real threat from Iraq today comes from covert use of such weapons against troops or by terrorists against civilian targets worldwide. The link with al-Qaeda is disputed, but is, in any case, not the principal terrorist link of concern. Iraq has long trained and supported terrorist activities and is quite capable of initiating such activity using its security services.

The long-term threat, however, remains Iraq's development to military maturity of weapons of mass destruction - something that only regime change will avert.


Basically, saddam was pissing about and stopping any verification.

David Kelly's last line is interesting particularly given the allegations he was killed as he was saying there were no WMD's.
 
That Iraq had an active WMD programs was largely agreed upon. The debate revolved around how extensive and advanced the programs were and what to do about it.

President William Jefferson Clinton, 16 December 1998 - "And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them."
 
I can easily picture the pro-war cheerleaders in the media such as Judith Miller of the NYT and Fox News saying "See, we told ya so!"
 
In a strange way it probably helps Kerry in 2004 and if still doesn't get a elected Clinton in 2008. Both were serving senators who voted yes and then had to try and explain away their votes to a base that wanted the 2004 and 2008 elections to be indictments of the war. Watching Kerry twist himself into the shape of pretzel trying to explain himself in 2004 was pure torture (Seth Myers was brilliant playing Kerry on SNL).

In fact, I will go so far as to say it probably means Clinton gets nominated and then elected in 2008 with Obama as her running mate.
 
That Iraq had an active WMD programs was largely agreed upon. The debate revolved around how extensive and advanced the programs were and what to do about it.

President William Jefferson Clinton, 16 December 1998 - "And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them."

There was a debate amongst the intelligence community internationally about how far along his program was in the late 90s and early 00s, but it wasn’t debated if he possessed WMDs or if he had a program.

I mean after years of pushing we have the secret correspondence between Blair and Bush in 2001 and 2002 that was supposed to be the smoking gun certain parties were demanding be released based on the notion Bush and Blair colluded to invent the WMD issue and that didn't exactly pan out.

Saddam using WMDs or giving them to a terrorist groups to use on the West were two of their worries in letters in the run up to war if in fact they went to war. They didn’t exactly come up with a response for if they were used based on their letters.

Blair’s thoughts early 2002.

2i2fbc.jpg
 
Last edited:
Nah, it was revenge. Some childish mano el mano horseshit. Bush II saw not overrunning Iraq as his father's greatest failure, the timidity that unwound his Presidency and lost his second term. It was unfinished family business.



Lies and fabrications basically. Mobile chemical weapons labs, yellowcake uranium from Niger, fleets of drones capable of reaching America ready to spray chemical weapons, yadda yadda yadda. Imminent threat! Existential threat! Lies. Not exaggerations. Lies. Not mistakes. Lies.



Funny how Bush II refused to let the Weapons Inspectors conclude their work. I guess he had a war to get on.

Which, after the invasion, it turned out they really didn't have it! Gosh!

Some of us were actually around for this crap.



Of course, the Saddam Hussein regime was absolutely hostile to Al Quaeda in a 'shoot on sight' and Iraq wasn't actually a source of Islamic terrorism.

And the US was already in Afghanistan, bombing craters full of rubble looking not so hard for Al Quaeda.



Or to just pull bullshit out of your butt.



That's a wonderful fairy tale, and I'm sure it's very heartwarming to the millions of innocent civilians, women and children whose homes that the US decided to turn into a charnel pit. But it doesn't actually hold up all that well.

The vast majority of the Iraqi insurgency was home grown. America created tens of thousands of new terrorists, guys who would go on to found ISIS, who would bring new blood to the Jihadi movement, who would go on to create new bloodbaths in Mail, Mauretania, Yemen, Libya, Syria, Somalia. People who launched campaigns of genocide and ethnic cleansing.

So America's gift that kept on giving, over and over. It's no wonder so many people around the world think Americans are assholes.

Were there foreign Jihadi's that came to Iraq? Yep, some. Mostly the local insurgents welcomed them with open arms, and stuck them in suicide vests.



Oh yeah, and here it comes. 'America did find tons of WMD in Iraq! We just covered it all up, that's all!'
This is an extremely racist post that implies that Saddam was better than the alternative because he supposedly kept Iraqis from becoming terrorists. You should be ashamed of yourself for writing this drivel. Middle Easterners don't need dictators to keep them from becoming jihadists, dude.

And the US did not kill "millions" in Iraq.
 
Last edited:
This is an extremely racist post that implies that Saddam was better than the alternative because he supposedly kept Iraqis from becoming terrorists. You should be ashamed of yourself for writing this drivel. Middle Easterners don't need dictators to keep them from becoming jihadists, dude.

Nonsense and you know it.

Acknowledging that the cassus belli of the Iraq War was deliberately fabricated, and that the 'fight them over there' theory was a dishonest sham is in no way racist. Acknowledging Saddam Hussein's attitude towards Al Quaeda and jihadists as a threat to his secular regime is in now way racist.

If there is racism, it's the notion that 'Mighty Whitey' has a responsibility to bring 'freedom' to other countries by overthrowing dictators and installing new ones.

And the US did not kill "millions" in Iraq.

What?
 
Nonsense and you know it.

Acknowledging that the cassus belli of the Iraq War was deliberately fabricated, and that the 'fight them over there' theory was a dishonest sham is in no way racist. Acknowledging Saddam Hussein's attitude towards Al Quaeda and jihadists as a threat to his secular regime is in now way racist.

If there is racism, it's the notion that 'Mighty Whitey' has a responsibility to bring 'freedom' to other countries by overthrowing dictators and installing new ones.



What?
Saddam was not "secular." The last ten years of his regime were spent cultivating ties with Sunni Islamists to prevent an insurgency like the Shiites attempted in 1991. And thinking that Iraqis deserve better than being forced to suffer under a totalitarian fascist police state is not paternalism. Nor did we "install a new dictator in Iraq."

The number of people killed during the Iraq War by coalition forces is about a hundred thousand. The US did not force random insurgents to go around murdering Iraqi civilians, so attributing deaths from insurgents to the US denies agency to Iraqis and is racist as shit. The US did not tell Zarqawi to go around blowing up homes.
 
Saddam was not "secular." The last ten years of his regime were spent cultivating ties with Sunni Islamists to prevent an insurgency like the Shiites attempted in 1991. And thinking that Iraqis deserve better than being forced to suffer under a totalitarian fascist police state is not paternalism. Nor did we "install a new dictator in Iraq."

That was why he had a shoot on sight policy for Islamists. Whatever dude. Al Quaeda in Iraq operated in areas that Saddam Hussein did not control. I mean, if the argument is 'Did Saddam build a lot of big mosques?' Then sure. Did he play footsie with Al Quaeda? No. Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. Iraq had nothing to do with Al Quaeda. The terrorism excuse was as big a fabrication as the wmd's.

The US does have a history of installing dictatorships in other places - Iran, Guatemala, Chile, Nicaragua, and in supporting and maintaining sleazy dictatorships like Saudi Arabia. The US consistently opposed elections in Iraq before it was forced by Iraqis, including the Ayatollah Sistani, to have them.

And the US didn't invade Iraq to rescue Iraqis from Saddam Hussein. That wasn't on the list of stated reasons to go in. In fact, Bush said explicitly that it was not.


The number of people killed during the Iraq War by coalition forces is about a hundred thousand. The US did not force random insurgents to go around murdering Iraqi civilians, so attributing deaths from insurgents to the US denies agency to Iraqis and is racist as shit. The US did not tell Zarqawi to go around blowing up homes.

A hundred thousand people, uh? Well, I guess that makes it all better. Gee Whiz. A hundred thousand people, that's like... nothing? I'm sure the Iraqi's didn't mind having a hundred thousand of their fellows killed by America. If you think that's fine, well that's you.

In terms of death counts, there was a Lancet study of surplus mortality that had some interesting conclusions.

In the meantime, if you think I'm racist, or saying racist things, then report me. Otherwise, I'll ask you to be civil.
 

thorr97

Banned
DValdron,

The Lancet "study" was debunked almost before the ink was dry in its printing. The "study" was pure propaganda who's construction was entirely flawed and who's conclusion was predetermined before anything else. As a result it turned into a grossly discrediting thing for anyone who tried citing it. And rightly so.

The US led coalition renewed the use of military force against Iraq because it represented a threat to international security and the stability of the region. The US led coalition took that action because the previous measures had clearly failed to prevent Iraq from being that threat. Saddam had come to believe he could continue to manipulate the various major powers in such a way as to allow him to continue his reign and spread his influence throughout the Middle East. He did not count on the fact that Bush Jr. was a different leader than Bush Sr. and Clinton Jr. AND he didn't take into account that the international situation had become vastly different after 9/11.

You do seem to be missing the fact that it was president Bill Clinton who first established the National Policy Objective for the US to depose Saddam Hussein - by any means necessary - back in the 1990s. Bush Jr. was simply in the position and had the willingness to carry that policy through.
 
Foreign fighters in Iraq during the insurgency

https://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/168/37295.html

"In Fallujah, U.S. military leaders say around 90 percent of the 1,000 or more fighters battling the Marines are Iraqis. To date, there have been no confirmed U.S. captures of foreign fighters in Fallujah - although a handful of suspects have been arrested....

Elsewhere in Iraq, U.S. military commanders say foreigners have an even smaller role in the insurgency. In Baghdad, Maj. Gen. Martin Dempsey has said foreigners account for just 1 percent or so of guerrillas. Of 8,000 guerrilla suspects jailed across Iraq, only 127 hold foreign passports, the U.S. military said."

So much for the big magnet soaking up all the jihadi's into Iraq.
 
That was why he had a shoot on sight policy for Islamists. Whatever dude. Al Quaeda in Iraq operated in areas that Saddam Hussein did not control. I mean, if the argument is 'Did Saddam build a lot of big mosques?' Then sure. Did he play footsie with Al Quaeda? No. Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. Iraq had nothing to do with Al Quaeda. The terrorism excuse was as big a fabrication as the wmd's.

The US does have a history of installing dictatorships in other places - Iran, Guatemala, Chile, Nicaragua, and in supporting and maintaining sleazy dictatorships like Saudi Arabia. The US consistently opposed elections in Iraq before it was forced by Iraqis, including the Ayatollah Sistani, to have them.

And the US didn't invade Iraq to rescue Iraqis from Saddam Hussein. That wasn't on the list of stated reasons to go in. In fact, Bush said explicitly that it was not.




A hundred thousand people, uh? Well, I guess that makes it all better. Gee Whiz. A hundred thousand people, that's like... nothing? I'm sure the Iraqi's didn't mind having a hundred thousand of their fellows killed by America. If you think that's fine, well that's you.

In terms of death counts, there was a Lancet study of surplus mortality that had some interesting conclusions.

In the meantime, if you think I'm racist, or saying racist things, then report me. Otherwise, I'll ask you to be civil.
I don't think you should be spouting off about us installing dictatorships in Iran and Chile. Mossadegh and Allende were both dictators. And the US coup in Iran FAILED - Mossadegh was overthrown a few days later by the Iranians following mass protests by Iranians against his regime.
 
allende was elected
He then proceeded to become increasingly authoritarian, trying to prosecute political opponents, dissolving Parliament, threatening to shut down media outlets that were critical of him, and physically assaulting two boys who heckled him. He came to power in free and fair elections, yes, but he then attempted to destroy the Chilean democracy that had helped him come to power in the first place.
 

thorr97

Banned
allende was elected

Indeed he was. And once in office he revealed himself to be a dictator exactly like Fidel Castro who had publicly proclaimed as being his idol and his wanting to transform Chile into a Communist dictatorship just like Cuba.

Allende then began ruling by decree and raising his own private army. The Chilean supreme court declared Allende's actions to be unconstitutional. The Chilean Council of Deputies passed a resolution calling for Allende to step and down and then ordered the Chilean army to remove him for he could do any further damage to what was left of the country.
 

Kaze

Banned
Kaze,

Actually, no. He didn't "use them all on Iran a decade earlier." After the end of the Gulf War 1.0 the UNSCOM kept finding more and more of the things. Then, after the end of the Gulf War 2.0 the US led coalition forces kept on finding more and more of the things. So, by no stretch of the imagination has the Iraqis disarmed themselves of their WMD.

Iran - Iraq War of 1980 to 1988 - Saddam used chemical weapons (Mustard, Nerve, Choking, Blood, Blister, and otherwise) on inflicting between 50'000 and 100'000 civilian and military casualties (the higher end is the CIA estimate). Then he gassed some Kurds after the war - his own people.
 
Top