Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Andrew Sullivan: READ THE (WMD) REPORT
andrewsullivan.com ^ | 10/03/03 | Andrew Sullivan

Posted on 10/02/2003 9:33:18 PM PDT by Pokey78

If you think that David Kay's report on Iraqi WMDs can be adequately summarized by idiotic headlines such as: "No Illicit Arms Found in Iraq," then you need to read this report. If you believe the following "news analysis" by David Sanger in today's New York Times summarizes the findings of David Kay, then you need to read this report. Sanger's piece is, in fact, political propaganda disguised as analysis, designed to obscure and distort the evidence that you can read with your own eyes. His opening paragraph culminates in a simple, knowing, well-crafted lie:

The preliminary report delivered on Thursday by the chief arms inspector in Iraq forces the Bush administration to come face to face with this reality: that Saddam Hussein's armory appears to have been stuffed with precursors, potential weapons and bluffs, but that nothing found so far backs up administration claims that Mr. Hussein posed an imminent threat to the world.
That is not what the administration claimed. (The Times has even had to run a correction recently correcting their attempt, retroactively, to distort and misrepresent the administration's position.) The administration claimed that Saddam had used WMDs in the past, had hidden materials from the United Nations, was hiding a continued program for weapons of mass destruction, and that we should act before the threat was imminent. The argument was that it was impossible to restrain Saddam Hussein unless he were removed from power and disarmed. The war was based on the premise that Saddam had clearly violated U.N. resolutions, was in open breach of such resolutions and was continuing to conceal his programs with the intent of restarting them in earnest once sanctions were lifted. Having read the report carefully, I'd say that the administration is vindicated in every single respect of that argument. This war wasn't just moral; it wasn't just prudent; it was justified on the very terms the administration laid out. And we don't know the half of it yet.

THE MONEY QUOTES: If you don't have time, here are my highlights. First off:

We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002. The discovery of these deliberate concealment efforts have come about both through the admissions of Iraqi scientists and officials concerning information they deliberately withheld and through physical evidence of equipment and activities that ISG has discovered that should have been declared to the UN.
Translation: Saddam was lying to the U.N. as late as 2002. He was required by the U.N. to fully cooperate. He didn't. The war was justified on those grounds alone. Case closed. Some of the physical evidence still remains, despite what was clearly a deliberate, coordinated and thorough attempt to destroy evidence before during and after the war. Among the discoveries:
* A clandestine network of laboratories and safehouses within the Iraqi Intelligence Service that contained equipment subject to UN monitoring and suitable for continuing CBW research.

* A prison laboratory complex, possibly used in human testing of BW agents, that Iraqi officials working to prepare for UN inspections were explicitly ordered not to declare to the UN.

* Reference strains of biological organisms concealed in a scientist's home, one of which can be used to produce biological weapons.

* New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were not declared to the UN.

* Documents and equipment, hidden in scientists' homes, that would have been useful in resuming uranium enrichment by centrifuge and electromagnetic isotope separation (EMIS).

* A line of UAVs not fully declared at an undeclared production facility and an admission that they had tested one of their declared UAVs out to a range of  500 km, 350 km beyond the permissible limit.

* Continuing covert capability to manufacture fuel propellant useful only for prohibited SCUD variant missiles, a capability that was maintained at least until the end of 2001 and that cooperating Iraqi scientists have said they were told to conceal from the UN.

* Plans and advanced design work for new long-range missiles with ranges up to at least 1000 km - well beyond the 150 km range limit imposed by the UN. Missiles of a 1000 km range would have allowed Iraq to threaten targets through out the Middle East, including Ankara, Cairo, and Abu Dhabi.

* Clandestine attempts between late-1999 and 2002 to obtain from North Korea technology related to 1,300 km range ballistic missiles --probably the No Dong -- 300 km range anti-ship cruise missiles, and other prohibited military equipment.
Would you be happy, after 9/11, if the president had allowed such capabilities to remain at large, and be reinvigorated, with French and Russian help, after sanctions were removed? I wouldn't. But the New York Times and Dominique de Villepin would have happily looked the other way rather than do anything real to enforce the very resolutions they claimed to support.

THERE'S MORE: One of the crazy premises of the "Where Are They?" crowd is that we would walk into that huge country and find large piles of Acme bombs with anthrax in them. That's not what a WMD program is about; and never was. Saddam was careful. He had to hide from the U.N. and he had to find ways, over more than a decade, to maintain a WMD program as best he could, ready to reactivate whenever the climate altered in his favor. Everything points to such a strategy and to such weapons being maintained. The bio-warfare stuff is particularly worrying:

With regard to biological warfare activities, which has been one of our two initial areas of focus, ISG teams are uncovering significant information - including research and development of BW-applicable organisms, the involvement of Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) in possible BW activities, and deliberate concealment activities. All of this suggests Iraq after 1996 further compartmentalized its program and focused on maintaining smaller, covert capabilities that could be activated quickly to surge the production of BW agents.
Mustard gas in a matter of months. And concealment all the time:
A very large body of information has been developed through debriefings, site visits, and exploitation of captured Iraqi documents that confirms that Iraq concealed equipment and materials from UN inspectors when they returned in 2002. One noteworthy example is a collection of reference strains that ought to have been declared to the UN. Among them was a vial of live C. botulinum Okra B. from which a biological agent can be produced. This discovery - hidden in the home of a BW scientist - illustrates the point I made earlier about the difficulty of locating small stocks of material that can be used to covertly surge production of deadly weapons. The scientist who concealed the vials containing this agent  has identified a large cache of agents that he was asked, but refused, to conceal. ISG is actively searching for this second cache.
When you read this kind of information, you can see why the president has ordered more money to go to this effort. We need every cent. We have to show to the world - and to the appeasers at home - the extent of the threat that this monstrous regime potentially represented.

FOR THE FUTURE: But Kay makes a more important point at the end. He notes that our ability to examine this entire edifice in a liberated Iraq, to see where our intelligence failed and where it succeeded, is a hugely helpful task in the broader war on terror. Over to Kay:

[W]hatever we find will probably differ from pre-war intelligence. Empirical reality on the ground is, and has always been, different from intelligence judgments that must be made under serious constraints of time, distance and information. It is, however, only by understanding precisely what those differences are that the quality of future intelligence and investment decisions concerning future intelligence systems can be improved. Proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is such a continuing threat to global society that learning those lessons has a high imperative.
Of course it has. I've waited a long time for this report, and kept my peace until it came out and we had some empirical data to measure. What we now see may not impress those who are looking for any way to discredit this administration and this war. But it shows to my mind the real danger that Saddam posed - and would still pose today, if one president and one prime minister hadn't had the fortitude to face him down. We live in a dangerous but still safer world because of it. Now is the time for the administration to stop the internal quibbling, the silence and passivity, and go back on the offensive. Show the dangers that the opposition was happy for us to tolerate; show the threat - real and potential - that this war averted; defend the record with pride and vigor; and fund the reconstruction in ways that will make it work now not just for our sake but for the sake of those once killed in large numbers by the weapons some are so eager not to find.


TOPICS: Breaking News; Editorial; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: andrewsullivan; andrewsullivanlist; davidkay; davidkaywmd; iraq; weapons; wmd
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-131 next last
To: dirtboy
Actually I watched my own TV and heard Bush speak. If he had said the words "imminent threat" I would have screamed, trust me. I don't remember hearing those words. Anyone have a transcript?
101 posted on 10/03/2003 10:17:02 AM PDT by BushisTheMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: BushisTheMan
Here is the link to the official White House transcript:

President Bush, Police Commissioner Kerik Discuss Police Force in Iraq

102 posted on 10/03/2003 10:22:15 AM PDT by dirtboy (CongressmanBillyBob/John Armor for Congress - you can't separate them, so send 'em both to D.C.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Excellent. Too bad the major media is ignoring this.
103 posted on 10/03/2003 11:00:02 AM PDT by My2Cents (Well...there you go again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jewels1091
Someone posted yesterday a reminder that it was only earlier this year that Chinese officials uncovered a stockpile of mustard gas buried in China by the Japanese in 1942!
104 posted on 10/03/2003 11:01:12 AM PDT by My2Cents (Well...there you go again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
Thanks for the link. The word "imminent" was not used by President Bush. The word "threat" was used many times, and used in correct context too, I believe.
105 posted on 10/03/2003 11:22:22 AM PDT by BushisTheMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Timesink
Re: LA Times

Let's take this a step further. Here's a few ideas for putting these steaming turds out of business.

1. They are filling the mail with postage paid postcards for people to subscribe. They typically come in the mail in these coupon packs. Send in as many as you can with phony subscription requests (real addresses/fake names). Burn them with postage expenses and fake subscriptions.

2. Take the FREE papers and simply recycle them, then cancel when they ask you to subscribe. Give them no cash, but take as much FREE as you can.

3. Tell stores that advertise with them that you are reconsidering you patronage based on their placing ads in the LA Times.

This will drain them of cash and hopefully help put them out of business.

Signed,

a proud non-subscriber for over 15 years
106 posted on 10/03/2003 11:27:14 AM PDT by Rockitz (After all these years, it's still rocket science.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: TrappedInLiberalHell
You know, in my more bitter moments (read: all of the time), I think that most liberals would rather die in a 9/11-scale attack than admit we were right to launch the War on Terror, or admit anything which vindicates Bush in any fashion, on any topic.

I'm sorry the rats know statistics and what you say is not true.

Liberals (rats) would rather you die in a 9/11-scale attack than admit we were right ....

Statistics are is that it won't be them.
107 posted on 10/03/2003 11:41:42 AM PDT by Joe_October (Saddam supported Terrorists. Al Qaeda are Terrorists. I can't find the link.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Mo1; Howlin
These are the very same people who hoped we'd have huge numbers of body bags coming back from Iraq -- for political reasons.

All I have to say is .. I pray that God can forgive me for the feelings I have right now about the Liberals
They make me sick

Mo1, I think your feelings towards the liberals are more forgiveable than their desires for mass amounts of dead American soldiers coming back from Iraq. I agree with you that they are below scum for wishing that the death toll is large in order to gain political grounds. How anyone can support a person such as this is beyond me.

108 posted on 10/03/2003 12:04:15 PM PDT by azGOPgal (God Bless America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Who is this man?

Not only did he read the report, he even made it easier for us to understand the dry lingo and dull facts.

Great job setting the record straight.

109 posted on 10/03/2003 12:32:56 PM PDT by george wythe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #110 Removed by Moderator

To: Buckhead
I called Nancy Pelosi's office... and told her office that the President never used the word imminent threat... what's worse, Pelosi knows it, so when she says that he did, she is lying, and she should stop.

Her receptionist mumbled some rude remark and hung up on me.

Typical!

111 posted on 10/03/2003 12:59:20 PM PDT by carton253 (All I need to know about Islam I learned on 9/11/2001)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Joe_October
Liberals (rats) would rather you die in a 9/11-scale attack than admit we were right ....

That, of course, would be their best scenario. But I've heard and read too much from 'the other side' to believe that they would ever admit being wrong. They would rather die first, in a mundane way or in an attack on our country.

Some liberals can be reasoned with, even if it doesn't change their position much. These people seem to be shrinking in number, perhaps out of fear of being 'outed' as moderates by their side (you see this at DU all the time). So they don't speak out. This is true on our side at times, too. I won't deny that. But I've found that our side has a far larger percentage of reasonable people across the continuum of conserative thought than liberals do. When we get angry, it is usually for a reason. Liberals are just always angry. DU shows this very clearly.

112 posted on 10/03/2003 2:24:57 PM PDT by TrappedInLiberalHell (Hillary walks into a bar. Let's hope it leaves a nice bump on her forehead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Reb Raider
Andrew here.
113 posted on 10/03/2003 4:03:27 PM PDT by MEG33
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Ragtime Cowgirl; Grampa Dave; BOBTHENAILER; Miss Marple
Why was our "news" filled with Wilson leaks, Rush and Arnold attacks yesterday?

DISTRACTION

In the way Kosovo distracted from the Cox Report.

114 posted on 10/03/2003 7:06:43 PM PDT by PhilDragoo (Hitlery: das Butch von Buchenvald)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: PhilDragoo
DISTRACTION

Hmmmm. Interesting theory. Won't work for them in the long run though.

115 posted on 10/03/2003 7:50:45 PM PDT by BOBTHENAILER (One by one, in groups or whole armies.....we don't care how we getcha, but we will)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: PhilDragoo
You are so right. I can't even believe what the press did this past week, and you know what I expect from our enemy press.

Should have rested up. Didn't read the Kay report until tonight.

Phil, we need a bigger army.

Just war, case closed - again:

8 STATEMENT BY DAVID KAY ON THE INTERIM PROGRESS REPORT [IRAQ WMD]

116 posted on 10/03/2003 8:58:57 PM PDT by Ragtime Cowgirl (THE PRESIDENT: Bernie, you're a good man. MR. KERICK: Thank you, Mr. President. WH, 10/3)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Political Numbers Guy
Thanks.
117 posted on 10/03/2003 11:10:23 PM PDT by 185JHP ( "This Train don't carry no scammers - no AlSharptons, no midnight ramblers - This Train.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: PhilDragoo
Great catch, ie "distracted" -- the internet nearly imploded when the Rush scandal hit, topped with more Arnie stuff.... --talk about being distracted!
118 posted on 10/04/2003 4:15:22 AM PDT by tioga
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: ThePythonicCow
quote:
There is not one iota of what you quote from the State of the Union that has yet been cast in doubt. Of course, it will be difficult for some to recognize this.

reply:
The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

difficult if you don't have a brain, I guess.
119 posted on 10/04/2003 8:40:23 AM PDT by bunnypants
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: bunnypants
There is not one iota of the sixteen words that you quote from the State of the Union that has yet been cast in doubt. The British government has repeatedly stated, in public, that they have learned thus.

Read the words. They don't say the CIA agrees. They don't say the sale was consumated. They don't say which country in Africa.

Difficult if you can't read, I guess.

120 posted on 10/04/2003 11:55:52 AM PDT by ThePythonicCow (Mooo !!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-131 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson