Powell: It's 'Open Question' Whether Iraq Had WMD

I look at the situation independently of the president and his advisors.

I wonder where people like this woman were in the lead up to the war.

I do most of my posting translating German media reports of current issues. I can say unequivocally that Kraatz-Wadbeck was never mentioned during the frantic (my opinion) attempt to stonewall the US invasion.

When I read her interviews, as she describes the Iraqis' trickery, I thought the ploys the Iraqis used to thwart investigations were insulting.

The UN, and Hans Blix, had to have been well aware of what people like Kraatz-Wadbeck were saying. In the US, the media was more likely to use Scott Ritter as a source of information, while people like Kraatz-Wadbeck were nowhere to be seen. (She, BTW, flat out said, when asked about Ritter's allegations, that she would have to 'contradict him' (Ich muss ihm widersprechen).

If I may paraphrase Kraatz-Wadbeck: The Iraqis had at one time the largest offensive bio-weapons arsenal of any country, ever (not defensive, offensive). There was no way to determine that they still didn't have them. Bio-weapons production can be hidden very easily within dual-use facilities, or in such sham operations as a chicken-feed factory in the middle of the desert which was fortified to the extent of a military base, or in a vaccination laboratory in which the employees couldn't correctly answer any questions the inspectors asked about vaccinations.

With the materials Kraatz-Wadbeck accuses the Iraqis of having had and tested, with the ability to produce these in current facilities, and with delivery systems consisting of indoctrinated teenagers, I don't think I could take any chances in a world where waiting until you're attacked before you are allowed to take any action could just be too late.

Kraatz-Wadbeck was saying there was a clear and present danger regarding bio-weapons, AFAIC. I don't think you need flashing neon signs pointing to specific locations, unless, I guess, your job is to convince the UN.

Reviewing the situation logically, if it were my family, based on what Kraatz-Waldbeck was saying, I'd act as if the danger was clear and present. I would like to think the people charged with protecting us feel the same way.

Iraq or the UN didn't show me anything to counter what this lady was saying.

That's my take, anyway. I really do appreciate the chance to have a dialogue about this issue.

Thanks.

longjack

You said you look independently of the President and his advisors. That's all well and good. However, we as Americans are lumped under his umbrella, whether it be President Bush or Clinton. So what they say and do is critical.

I've never heard of the person you refer to. Obviously, there is some reason she's not being heard beyond where you've found her. But even she said it would be difficult to determine a bio-chemcial program. The best she could do is speculate.

The President indicated that one did exist and it was quite active and verifiable. Clearly, that has not been the case.

Everyone is correct that at one time there was an active bio-chemical program. what we don't know is when it ended. Even she indicates verification would be difficult. So even if Saddam had cooperated, we could not have verified his claims.

I think this will be hard for Bush & Co. to spin. In the lead up to the war there didn't seem to be any uncertainty as to whether Iraq had WMD.

Why should Bush & Co.have to spin this?
They were depending on the best intelligence available, including that from the UN and nations like Russia, China and Germany who all said Saddam had WMD even though they opposed the war.

Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Albright, Kennedy, Clark and nearly ALL the Democrats made the same claims about the Saddam threat and WMDs.

Those now claiming Bush and Blair have to answer alone for the fact WMD have not been found are the REAL liars who are twisting the facts for purely political motives.

I think you're taking my view a tad out of context. What she writes is interesting. I know nothing of her. But what I have found is there are people who can write something that strongly may influence a thought process but yet not be hard and fast with the thought. Until I know more of her and how she writes, then it's a tad hard to see what her context is. But she did say that it would be next to impossible to verify such programs. At some point it becomes very difficult to disprove a negative.

But I have found what you have given to me to be interesting.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.