In my first editors letters (criminal acts in politics) I pretended that each American owes the world one million dollars. How come? Just try to count and try to know why bank systems, whole states, stock exchanges, old age funds will soon tumble in the emptiness of space….
Read the article:
Each American citizen owes the world one million dollars
I’ll keep dumbing it down for you.
Saddam agreed in 1991 to:
1. immediately disclose A L L prohibited programs;
2. immediately show them A L L to inspectors (they weren’t supposed to ‘hunt’ for them;
3. immediately destroy them A L L together with inspectors.
This was not done. Bits and pieces were disclosed. Bits and pieces were ‘hunted’ down. Bits and pieces were revealed by Kamal — and later confirmed by Saddam.
It was Saddam’s confirmation of these previously undisclosed programs that added weight (and confirmed) Kamal’s testimony. Bush’s claims WERE NOT based on Kamal’s testimony alone.
Why do you guys try to give the same weight to unconfirmed testimony whose veracity was contradicted by facts (Kamal did not disclose everything), with testimony whose veracity was confirmed (Kamal’s disclosure of previous Saddam lies)?
- Kamal defected and disclosed previously secret programs = true;
– Kamal said everything was now disclosed and destroyed = untrue.
And just to cross our T’s and dot our I’s on this, you need to realize that it was proven that Kamal’s testimony WAS NOT a complete disclosure. One little tid bit I offered in last post was that in 1998, after nearly 8 years of denial, inspectors proved through laboratory tests that Saddam had weaponized VX (a capability he had deniedfor years). That late in the game and Saddam was still trying to hide programs and capabilities.
Bush was correct (as was the previous administration before him) that Saddam deliberately never complied with disarmament requirements in the hope of retaining capability he was not allowed to have.
Verification that Saddam had disclosed all programs and destroyed all prohibited materials.
There were rules and procedures that had been established and that Saddam agreed to follow. He did not do this. Claims of secret unilateral ad hoc destruction in violation of unsc requirements was not credible given the experience if inspectors on the ground. It could not be verified.
Again, as late as 1998 we were still finding bits and pieces of undisclosed programs and capabilities that Saddam was to have identified in 1991. The VX is a case in point.
Bush was absolutely accurate in the claims he made regarding Kamal. Do not conflate the value and weight of Kamal’s testimony that was verified, with his claims that were not verified and later proven (surprise surprise) to be in fact FALSE.
Charles, I’ve re-read Kamal’s interview, and he stated that the chemical stockpiles were destroyed and “nothing remained” — this turned out to be true, so what are you refering to when you say “proven to be false”?
Regardless, Bush falsely cited Kamal as proof that Saddam had chemical weapons when in fact Kamal said he did not. Choosing to believe what you want to believe does not justify lies of omission.
Kamal was supposedly the head of Saddam’s wmd programs. That means it was in his power to disclose all programs if that was what he wanted to do. Of course this should have been done in 1991. The only possible reason this was not done was because Saddam was interested in retaining WMD capability which was strictly prohibited.
All I have to do to prove he wasn’t being honest is find a wmd program that was not disclosed. I provided you with the example in 1998 where 3 un laboratories all came to the same conclusion that Saddam had advanced vx weaponization capabilities that were never disclosed. It wasn’t even a case of ommission, as Saddam had previously claimed no vx weaponization.
Basically they looked at residues from shells that were found during inspections that contained chemicals used exclusively for vx warhead stabilization. I’m sure if you were to look into it, you could find many examples ‘post Kamal’s testimony’ of cases where Saddam had not fully disclosed his programs. Check out Ritter’s Senate testimony in September 2003. He refers to a number of recent ‘discoveries.’
Remember, disclosure was the first step in Saddam’s disarmament under UN requirements. As of early 2003, even that step had not been conclusively completed. Well, I suppose that in over ten years of inspections, it was pretty clear that Saddam was not acting in good faith. That much was conclusive.