Powell casts doubt on Iraq WMDs

[jones]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3426703.stm

US Secretary of State Colin Powell has conceded that Iraq may not have possessed any stocks of weapons of mass destruction before the war last year.

US Secretary of State Colin Powell has conceded that Iraq may not have possessed any stocks of weapons of mass destruction before the war last year.
His comments came after the former head of the US weapons inspection team, David Kay, said he did not believe there were any weapons stockpiles.

Mr Powell was speaking on his way to the former Soviet republic of Georgia.

Less than a year ago, Mr Powell warned the United Nations Security Council about the danger from Iraq's weapons.


In the run-up to the US-led war against Iraq, he gave a presentation to the Security Council, in which he asserted that Saddam Hussein had amassed secret weapons of mass destruction.

He said then that he believed Iraq possessed, among other things, between 100 and 500 tonnes of chemical weapons agents.

But in his latest remarks, he told reporters travelling with him that it was an "open question" whether Iraq had any stocks of weapons of mass destruction at all.

"The answer to that question is, we don't know yet," Mr Powell said on his way to attend the inauguration on Sunday of the new Georgian President, Mikhail Saakashvili.

'No stockpiles'

On Friday, Mr Kay, who had led the US hunt for weapons in Iraq, resigned.

He told Reuters news agency he did not believe there had been large-scale production of chemical or biological weapons in Iraq since the end of the first Gulf War in 1991.

"I don't think they existed," Mr Kay said.



"What everyone was talking about is stockpiles produced after the end of the last Gulf War and I don't think there was a large-scale production programme in the 90s."

Responding to questions about Mr Kay's comments, Mr Powell said it was for the weapons inspectors still in Iraq to decide if there were any weapons stock or not, where they had gone if they had existed, and, if there were ever any weapons, why that was not known before the war.

Mr Powell acknowledged that the US thought Saddam Hussein had banned weapons, but added: "We had questions that needed to be answered.

"What was it?" he asked. "One hundred tonnes, 500 tonnes or zero tonnes? Was it so many litres of anthrax, 10 times that amount or nothing?"

Backtracking

The BBC's Jon Leyne, who is travelling with Mr Powell, says the secretary of state has made a significant concession on the weapons issue.

He says Mr Powell's language was very different from that of Vice-President Dick Cheney, who said just two days ago that it was too early to pass judgement on whether weapons of mass destruction existed.

Our correspondent says that with members of the Bush administration steadily backtracking from their earlier claims, the hunt for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction could have a very uncertain future once sovereignty is handed back to the Iraqis at the end of June.

Mr Kay has been replaced by Charles Duelfer, a 51-year-old former UN weapons inspector, who said he would not "pre-judge" the investigation despite previously saying that he did not believe banned weapons would be found.

:clap1:

 

[jimnyc]

Perhaps Saddam bluffed, who knows. That was a stupid mistake. Saddam has been removed regardless and the world is now a much better place. He called, we had higher cards, he lost.

 

[bamthin]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Perhaps Saddam bluffed, who knows. That was a stupid mistake. Saddam has been removed regardless and the world is now a much better place. He called, we had higher cards, he lost.

And 512 Americans (and counting) are dead.

-Bam

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by bamthin
And 512 Americans (and counting) are dead.

-Bam

That's what happens in war in case you haven't noticed. Many soldiers have lost their lives in wars past, does that somehow negate what their initiative was?

 

[Annie]

512 Americans are dead and likely thousands of Iraqis, most not innocent, but surely some. Over 200 of those 500+ Americans were from non-combat injuries, ie. car accidents and such. Not that it makes a whit of difference to the families or the nation. However, war is not a good thing, just better than the alternative at certain points in history.

 

[Johnney]

Originally posted by bamthin
And 512 Americans (and counting) are dead.

-Bam

and hundreds of thousdands of Iraqis

 

[Annie]

Gee where do you get 'hundreds of thousands'? Even the Europeans or UN haven't claimed that.

 

[5.10 leader]

I think there are several aspects to the WMD debate, the principal point being to my mind that, if Saddam did not have WMD's or the means of production, then why did he refuse to accept the UN resolutions.

As Jim said earlier, perhaps he was bluffing, who knows.

With the Hutton Report being published this week, maybe more will come to light about WMD's. My understanding is, however, that Dr Kelly was not looking for the weapons per se, but was seeking the paper trail to prove that Saddam had the technical capabilities and willingness to produce them. Admittedly this belies Blair's 45 minute claim but the very fact that Saddam would be willing to produce and use WMD's, and he has already proved his willingness to use biological weapons, is sufficient justification for the action.

Finally, no WMD's have been found to date; accepted. But to use a parallel situation, it is a known fact that the IRA have arms caches in Northern Ireland which the security forces cannot find. With NI being a fraction of the area of Iraq, the fact that nothing has been found so far does not support the argument that there are not any WMD's.

I would ask, though, how a year ago Colin Powell could produce such a convincing argument to the UN, with photographic evidence etc, and now say that maybe he was wrong!!!!

I have the feeling that this debate is going to run and run.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Kathianne
Gee where do you get 'hundreds of thousands'? Even the Europeans or UN haven't claimed that.

I could be wrong, but I think Johnney was referring to the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's that were killed under Saddam's rule.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by jimnyc
That's what happens in war in case you haven't noticed. Many soldiers have lost their lives in wars past, does that somehow negate what their initiative was?

512 Americans, countless Iraqi civilians...And for what? A lie.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
512 Americans, countless Iraqi civilians...And for what? A lie.

Constantly repeating your diarrhea won't somehow make this any more true. You had no proof of any lies when you first posted that and you have no proof now.

 

[jones]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Constantly repeating your diarrhea won't somehow make this any more true.

Same could be said about the Bush regime. They have no proof, and constantly repeating their argument of how EVIL Hussain is and that we learned a "lesson" from 9/11 wont change a thing.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by jones
Same could be said about the Bush regime. They have no proof, and constantly repeating their argument of how EVIL Hussain is and that we learned a "lesson" from 9/11 wont change a thing.

Do you dispute the fact that Saddam is evil?

And they have no proof? What about the intel that was shown to democratic leaders who also said Saddam had WMD and was looking to attain nuclear equipment? Of course I can't dispute it if you say the intel was old or faulty, but it was in fact there and MANY came to the same conclusions.

So yes, repeating the argument that Saddam was evil is true, and cannot be disputed.

 

[jones]

Ya hes evil, being a dictator in itself is evil. We flew airplanes from Uzbekistan(an evil dictatorship) to another evil dictatorship to bomb the crap out of it. While, Paul wolfowitz and crew constantly use the reasoning that we should overthrow him just because hes bad.
And the democratic leaders, they know hes bad, they know he wants alot of weapons, hell, we sold a shitload to him so we KNOW he HAD some types of WMDs before 92'. However nobody has proven that he had WMDs after 92 and that he wanted to use it against us or sell them to terror networks. Powell @ the UN was a joke, the world laughed, and cried.

 

[nbdysfu]

The possible stance I see is that the intel service the Bush admin inherited from the previous administration was severely retarted. I think it was Clinton's and then Al Gore's stated desire to take out the evil regime that was Saddam, while simultaneously halving our human intelligence resources.

Putting on my hypotheticality cap, I might infer from this that they were encouraging the intel forces to find dirt on saddam while specifically ignoring more dangerous states like Iran, Libya, and Syria, and only now is the true picture becoming clearer.

 

[jimnyc]

Ya hes evil, being a dictator in itself is evil.

So I guess the administration was correct in their repeating, contrary to your prior post.

We flew airplanes from Uzbekistan(an evil dictatorship) to another evil dictatorship to bomb the crap out of it.

Lame argument. Sure there are other bad people in the world, but that does absolutely nothing to change the fact that Saddam failed to live up to his obligations for 12 years as per UN resolutions.

While, Paul wolfowitz and crew constantly use the reasoning that we should overthrow him just because hes bad.

He was a 'little' more than bad. Do you disagree that Saddam needed to be removed?

And the democratic leaders, they know hes bad, they know he wants alot of weapons, hell, we sold a shitload to him so we KNOW he HAD some types of WMDs before 92'. However nobody has proven that he had WMDs after 92 and that he wanted to use it against us or sell them to terror networks.

Nor was it our responsibility, that honor belonged solely to Saddam. He refused for years to cooperate, instead chose to play his cat and mouse games. That alone was enough for his removal.

Powell @ the UN was a joke, the world laughed, and cried.

Then the USA set out on it's objective, and succeeded. That objective was to remove Saddam, free the Iraqi citizens from oppression, and ensure that no WMD exist and/or can be used.

 

[jones]

So I guess the administration was correct in their repeating, contrary to your prior post.

NO, not contrary to my other post. I stated that the argument that he was evil, is NOT valid for his removal.

Lame argument. Sure there are other bad people in the world, but that does absolutely nothing to change the fact that Saddam failed to live up to his obligations for 12 years as per UN resolutions.

Isreal also violated UN resolutions, I don't think we should overthrow Sharon, alot of people would die.

He was a 'little' more than bad. Do you disagree that Saddam needed to be removed?

Oh I agree he should be removed, but not at the cost of tens of thousands of people for one mans head.

Nor was it our responsibility, that honor belonged solely to Saddam. He refused for years to cooperate, instead chose to play his cat and mouse games. That alone was enough for his removal.

Apparently it wasnt enough, Bush clan had to use imminent threat card.

Then the USA set out on it's objective, and succeeded. That objective was to remove Saddam, free the Iraqi citizens from oppression, and ensure that no WMD exist and/or can be used.

Damn straight, but the Iraqi citizens arent freed from oppression yet. Oh and I dont think BushClan would want to ensure that no WMDs exist.

 

[jimnyc]

NO, not contrary to my other post. I stated that the argument that he was evil, is NOT valid for his removal.

He killed hundreds of thousands of his own citizens. He has used chemical weapons before. He refused to abide by UN resolutions for 12 years. This is the definition of 'evil'. And you don't think he should have been removed?

Isreal also violated UN resolutions, I don't think we should overthrow Sharon, alot of people would die.

Again, bringing up other scenarios is lame. Stick to the subject at hand. Iraq and Israel are 2 different subjects. Scroll down to the Israel/Palestine forum if you wish to discuss that.

Oh I agree he should be removed, but not at the cost of tens of thousands of people for one mans head.

Didn't you just say up above that him being evil was not valid for his removal? Get your stories straight.

Apparently it wasnt enough, Bush clan had to use imminent threat card.

I suggest you read other threads before you look any more foolish. Bush never stated that, you're taking it out of context. He said "some think we should wait for the threat to be imminent"

Or you can prove me wrong and post a reputable source showing he said the threat was imminent.

Damn straight, but the Iraqi citizens arent freed from oppression yet. Oh and I dont think BushClan would want to ensure that no WMDs exist.

They aren't fully clear yet, but they are MUCH MUCH better off now and it should only get better. Saddam is gone, mass graves are no longer being dug, and the possibility for him to use or attain WMD are now nonexistent.

 

[jones]

ahhh crap! this could go on forever but It raises the blood pressure.
Would like to clarify on his removal for you. He SHOULD be removed, but not at the cost of tens of thousands of peoples lives. I dont think the argument that he is evil is enough reason to invade the iraqi country at whim.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by jones
ahhh crap! this could go on forever but It raises the blood pressure.
Would like to clarify on his removal for you. He SHOULD be removed, but not at the cost of tens of thousands of peoples lives. I dont think the argument that he is evil is enough reason to invade the iraqi country at whim.

Where do you get this "tens of thousands" from? There has been less than 10,000 Iraqi deaths and approximately 500 from the US.