Scott Ritter and the need to threaten force for Iraq weapons inspections

[WilliamPitt]

Thinking about it since makes me realize the 'Yes' vote on the IWR essential to the establishment of efective weapons inspections. Only the threat of force made the previous inspections effective.

The US wrote Res. 1441. The US wrote "weapons inspections" into it. It was unanimously approved by the Security Council. The threat of force had to be there; Hussein had jerked around UNSCOM until we bombed him into compliance.

The threat of force got rid of the weapons from 1991-1998. The threat of force was needed to get rid of whatever he might have developed since. As Ritter said in my book, no one was absolutely sure they hadn't retained any of their weapons capabilities.

====

PITT: Does Iraq have weapons of mass destruction?

RITTER: It's not black-and-white, as some in the Bush administration make it appear. There's no doubt Iraq hasn't fully complied with its disarmament obligations as set forth by the Security Council in its resolution. But on the other hand, since 1998 Iraq has been fundamentally disarmed: 90-95% of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capability has been verifiably eliminated. This includes all of the factories used to produce chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, and long-range ballistic missiles; the associated equipment of these factories; and the vast majority of the products coming out of these factories.

Iraq was supposed to turn everything over to the United Nations, which would supervise its destruction and removal. Iraq instead chose to destroy – unilaterally, without UN supervision – a great deal of this equipment. We were later able to verify this. But the problem is that this destruction took place without documentation, which means the question of verification gets messy very quickly.

(snip)

PITT: Isn't VX gas a greater concern?

RITTER: VX is different, for a couple of reasons. First, unlike sarin and tabun, which the Iraqis admitted to, for the longest time the Iraqis denied they had a program to manufacture VX. Only through the hard work of inspectors were we able to uncover the existence of the program.

PITT: How did that happen?

RITTER: Inspectors went to the Muthanna State establishment and found the building the Iraqis had used for research and development. It had been bombed during the war, causing a giant concrete roof to collapse in on the lab. That was fortuitous, because it meant we essentially had a time capsule: lifting the roof and gaining access to the lab gave us a snapshot of Iraqi VX production on the day in January when the bomb hit. We sent in a team who behaved like forensic archaeologists. They lifted the roof – courageously, it was a very dangerous operation – went inside, and were able to grab papers and take samples that showed that Iraq did in fact have a VX research and development lab.

Caught in that first lie, the Iraqis said, "We didn't declare the program because it never went anywhere. We were never able to stabilize the VX." Of course the inspectors didn’t take their word for it, but pressed: "How much precursor did you build?" Precursor chemicals are what you combine to make VX. "How much VX did you make? Where did you dispose of it?" The Iraqis took the inspectors to a field where they'd dumped the chemicals. Inspectors took soil samples and indeed found degradation byproducts of VX and its precursors.

Unfortunately, we didn't know whether they dumped all of it or held some behind. So we asked what containers they'd used. The Iraqis pointed to giant steel containers provided by the Soviet Union to ship fuel and other liquids, which the Iraqis had converted to hold VX. The inspectors attempted to do a swab on the inside of the containers and found they'd been bleached out: there was nothing there. But one inspector noticed a purge valve on the end of the containers. The inspection team took a swab and found stabilized VX.

We confronted the Iraqis with their second lie. They took a fallback position: "OK, you're right, we did stabilize VX. But we didn't tell you about it because we never weaponized the VX. To us it's still not a weapons program. We decided to eliminate it on our own. As you can see, we've blown it up. It's gone, so there's no need to talk about it."

We caught them in that lie as well. We found stabilized VX in SCUD missiles demolished at the warhead destruction sites. The Iraqis had weaponized the VX, and lied to us about it.

We knew the Iraqis wanted to build a full-scale VX nerve agent plant, and we had information that they'd actually acquired equipment to do this. We hunted and hunted, and finally in 1996 were able to track down two hundred crates of glass-lined production equipment Iraq had procured specifically for a VX nerve agent factory. They'd been hiding it from the inspectors. We found it in 1996, and destroyed it. With that, Iraq lost its ability to produce VX.

All of this highlights the complexity of these issues. We clearly still have an unresolved VX issue in Iraq. Just as clearly Iraq has not behaved in a manner reflective of an honest effort to achieve resolution. And it's tough to work in a place where you've been lied to.

(snip)

Pitt: Considering everything you've experienced, how do you feel about the Iraqi government in general?

RITTER: The Iraqi government is firmly entrenched, having seen over thirty years of Ba'ath Party rule. The Ba'ath Party has seeped into every aspect of Iraqi life – cultural, economic, educational, political. It's irresponsible to oversimplify what's going on there, to try to somehow separate Saddam Hussein from the rest of the political machinery. It doesn't work that way.

I'm realistic in understanding that the Iraqi government is much stronger inside Iraq than most people give it credit for. I don't think people should take the Iraqi government too lightly. It's a brutal regime that has shown a disregard for international law and a definite disregard for human rights. It's a regime that has shown – as have many other governments around the world, including ours – an ability to lie to people about policy objectives. There's no need to beat around the Bush. The Iraqis failed to tell the truth. I understand this cannot be accepted. But in the world of politics, if you cut off all activity with those who tell lies, no one would be do business with anybody.

[mike_c]

1. but the "threat of force" justification is based upon the premise...

...that Saddam Hussein was hiding WMD's from the inspectors, refusing to disarm, etc. It doesn't hold water because he had already complied with the U.N. mandate. What more was the "threat of force" meant to accomplish? He had complied, he said he had complied, and Hans Blixer was well on his way to certifying that he had complied. What need was there for an additional "threat of force?"

I believe that the whole charade was a smokescreen intended to hide both the administration's prior intent to invade under any circumstances and Congress's willingness to whore for a nice little patriotic war.

on edit: this response is simply copied from this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=2016050&mesg_id=2016276 where you also raised this issue.

[WilliamPitt]

2. I'm not sure about this

Blix wasn't about to certify anything without Res. 1441 because he couldn't get in without 1441, and Blix needed that threat of force to make sure he got total access in order to certify that compliance.

I think your timeline is off. Blix wasn't in-country until after the IWR. Or am I wrong?

[mike_c]

3. nonetheless, no such "threat of force" was necessary in 2002....

Iraq had already abandoned its WMD programs, destroyed its stocks, etc. My original comment encompassed the actual invasion itself, which preceeded what would have certainly been a positive Blix report to the UNSC. The reality remains that notwithstanding Ritter's impressions, no such threat of force above and beyond the existing hostilities-- the sanctions, the bombing, the no-fly zones, etc-- was necessary to ensure Iraq's compliance with the U.N. disarmament mandate in October 2002, because Iraq had already complied, and had truthfully told the world that they had complied.

on edit-- I am taking a few liberties with dates here, because it's impossible to fix an actual date upon the decision to go to war. That decision was certainly made well before the actual date that troops crossed the border. The essential point is that during October 2002 Iraq had already been in compliance with the U.N. mandate for some time, probably since 1999.

[WilliamPitt]

5. "truthfully told"

As Ritter said again and again, the Iraq regime lied all the time. Without weapons inspections, there was no surety to their word. Without the threat of force, there was no surety to the inspections.

[sandnsea]

8. Taking liberties with dates????

Well I would guess fucking so. There were NO inspectors in Iraq since 1998. How the fuck could any thinking person say Saddam was complying with anything?????

[mike_c]

22. where are the weapons...?

They were evidently destroyed by 1999. That means that in october 2002 Saddam Hussein had complied with the U.N. disarmament mandate. Why is this so hard to understand?

Hussein had already agreed to allow the return of inspectors prior to the IWR, but since the WMD's were already gone, no additional "threat of force" was necessary, nor was there anything it could accomplish other than giving the green light for an unnecessary war of aggression.

[WilliamPitt]

26. Because he lied all the time

As it turns out, he was lying about having these weapons for a long time. But a liar is a liar; how could we be sure he wasn't lying in the other direction without inspections? Since he messed with the UNSCOM inspectors until we bombed him, how could we ensure the efectiveness of UNMOVIC without the threat of force?

[mike_c]

31. we already had a very credible "threat of force" in place....

Ten years of sanctions, near daily bombings, constant U.S. and British air patrols over Iraq. It worked. Iraq disarmed its WMD programs. The rest is just a fabric of lies and dissembling from both sides.

[sandnsea]

Maybe Clinton blew them up

Did you ever think of that??? Which would mean Saddam hadn't complied at all.

[mike_c]

33. well, someone certainly did, which is why no such threat was...

...necessary in October 2002. What does it matter who destroyed them? Most were likely destroyed by the U.N. inspectors. The point is that they were already gone.

[sandnsea]

35. How were we supposed to know????

Just trust Saddam and say okeedoke, we're all good to go here? You trust Saddam more than you trust the leaders in your own country. That's astounding.

[mike_c]

39. does "not knowing" justify an illegal war?

As for your last statement, I don't find it so astounding. Saddam was right and the leaders in my country were wrong. That's not a matter of "trust," it's simply the truth. Painful perhaps, but true nonetheless.

[WilliamPitt]

41. Not knowing definitely DOES NOT justify an illegal war

but not knowing justifies weapons inspections. Not knowing justifies the threat of force to ensure the inspectors are allowed to work.

Which brings us around to the beginning again. It is an illegal war, because the Bush administration made it so. Threatening force to protect the inspectors was sound policy, based on the experiences of UNSCOM.

You're tagging the wrong criminals.

[killbotfactory]

47. Bush already had the threat of force

The IWR is irrellevent to making Saddam comply. We could have bombed any damn spot in the country if we wanted to without the IWR. We didn't need to threaten an invasion of Iraq to make Saddam comply.

If anything, threatening invasion would have made him not want to comply, because Bush's rhetoric was that he was going in regardless of what Saddam does. It would be like disarming before a duel. Only slightly more stupid than actually invading Iraq and planning for a cakewalk.

[mike_c]

50. unfortunately, the senate gave Bush a pass for WAR, not...

...just inspection. It wasn't the IIR, it was the IWR. It was not necessary. Come on. Iraq had already dismantled it's WMDs and Hussein had already agreed to inspections.

[killbotfactory]

52. And Bush could bomb any part of the country he wished

Without the IWR...

[WilliamPitt]

58. Really?

http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/kerry-iraq.html

[killbotfactory]

60. Is that just what Kerry wanted?

Or is that actually in the IWR?

[WilliamPitt]

62. That's his speech before the vote

[killbotfactory]

66. He could have made a speech saying Bush owe's him a golden toilet

But if it's not in the IWR, it's kind of meaningless.

[sandnsea]

67. Threat from hungry Iraqi's?

I doubt that's what they meant by protecting the security of the US. :eyes:

"In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq;"

[sandnsea]

45. It justifies INSPECTIONS

That was the whole point of the IWR for most Americans. To get inspections into Iraq.

Bush is the one who had his secret war plans going on in 2001 & 2002, which we now know thanks to Woodward's book.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

4. But Hussein had agreed BEFORE the IWR to allow inspectors to return.

It was Bush that refused to allow the inspectors back in until after the resolution.

[WilliamPitt]

6. Correct

So why blame the Senate? The threat of force was a necessary aspect of the inspection regime. Taking Hussein at his word has never been a good idea.

[mike_c]

13. sorry, I think you're being an apologist for the IWR supporters....

Iraq had already complied with the U.N. disarmament mandate at the time of the IWR. THAT is not a question-- it's historical reality. What remains at issue is whether or not the U.S. believed they had complied, whether that belief was sufficient justification for invading a sovereign nation that did not pose any threat to the U.S., whether the existing force was sufficient (it apparently was), and whether there was a hidden agenda in support of the invasion irrespective of any truth on the ground.

Oh-- and which members of congress carried water for that agenda, if indeed it existed.

[WilliamPitt]

16. I think you're giving the Hussein regime too much credit for honesty

[mike_c]

28. uh...? History gives him that credit, not I....

If he lied, where are the weapons?

[killbotfactory]

32. If Hussein was dishonest about the WMD's, he sure hid them well...

And his decision on not to use them even as we were taking over his country? What a peach, that Saddam.

Or maybe, as we were piling troops on his borders... that's when he hid them! Yeah! He had all these WMD's, something that could have caused massive death and maybe even derail the invasion if what Bush said was true, so he hid them EXTRA SUPER WELL so as to be unusable and no one could ever find them again, so as to deter the US from invading by reverse double-secret psychology!

That's what I call strategery!

[Devils Advocate NZ]

15. Because the Bush admin had made it clear that inspections were not...

the aim of the resolution.

As I said Hussein had ALREADY agreed to allow inspectors to return to Iraq ten days BEFORE the IWR vote. So that excuse is bollocks. The IWR was NOT NEEDED TO FORCE INSPECTIONS.

The ONLY reason for the IWR was to authorise Bush to IGNORE the UN. That was why the resolution was so important to Bush, and that is why the Dems who signed it are culpable accessories to a war crime.

28 September 2002: Iraq rejects a draft UN resolution proposed by the United States for with strict new rules for weapons inspections.

1 October 2002: Hans Blix and Iraq agree practical arrangements for the return of weapons inspectors. US Secretary of State Colin Powell rejects it and says the US wants a tough new UN Security Council resolution.

11 October 2002: The US Senate follows the House of Representatives in authorising President Bush to use force against Iraq.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2167933.stm

[WilliamPitt]

23. Right-o

The progression makes sense. Iraq accepts the inspectors, and then the US puts the threat of force in place to bolster the effectiveness of the inspections.

Just because Iraq accepted the inspectors doesn't mean they weren't potentially hiding something. We know better now (and would have known if Bush hadn't torpedoed UNMOVIC), but at the time there was a grey area.

[CTLawGuy]

107. oh so now the jsutification changes

from "getting them in there" to "making them more effective".


The IWR was a blank check war resolution, plain and simple.

[sandnsea]

11. to get sanctions lifted

That was part of his letter too, he wanted sanctions lifted which would have meant a Saddam with free reign on his economy and ability to purchase whatever military supplies he wanted.

[sandnsea]

7. Oh for the love of god

The threat of force to get the inspectors into Iraq was in Sept & Oct 2002. BEFORE any of your statements from Hans Blix were ever made, way in Feb 2003. There WERE NO INSPECTORS in Iraq before the IWR vote and trip to the UN in Oct 2003.

People just mix up all this information to arrive at whatever conclusion they want to arrive at.

[WilliamPitt]

10. So my timeline is correct

Good to know.

[mike_c]

19. but you're ignoring the essential truth that Iraq HAD ALREADY...

...complied with the U.N. disarmament mandate. What was the need for an additional "threat of force?"

[sandnsea]

24. When???

What are you talking about?

[mike_c]

34. all of the evidence so far suggests that the WMDs...

...were destroyed YEARS before the IWR resolution. All those rusty artillery shells, the abandoned research and storage facilities-- nothing looks recently maintained or used.

[WilliamPitt]

36. "so far"

You're projecting curent knowledge into the past, when it wasn't in hand. Your basic premise is flawed. Hindsight is 20-20, but not much use.

[mike_c]

38. yes, but the past premise upon which the IWR was founded...

...was at least as flawed. The WMD's were gone. There was no need for additional force.

This whole discussion ignores the measures that were already being taken to contain and suppress Iraq. Where was the evidence that those measures were unsuccessful? There is/was no such evidence-- only political rhetoric.

[kiahzero]

44. It's very simple

You're purposefully being obtuse.

The global community had a justified belief that Saddam would play games with the inspectors. A threat of force was necessary to ensure that he did not.

The problem was not with the threat of force itself, but with the Bush Administration not letting things play out - if it had, the inspectors would have verified that there were not weapons, and force would not have been necessary.

[killbotfactory]

54. When was the threat of force ever removed from Saddam?

Bush always had the ability to use force.

Did we not have no fly zones and total air superiority over Iraq, or am I just remembering things wrong?

[kiahzero]

59. No, we had those since 1991

And they weren't enough to force Saddam's compliance.

But, yes, Bush always had the ability to use force; as I said in the other thread, the Bush Administration could have gone to war without a word from Congress.

[killbotfactory]

63. Yes, they were...

We didn't need to pile up hundreds of thousands of troops on his border to get Saddam to comply. That happened well after the IWR, and Saddam letting inspectors back in.

[sandnsea]

37. 100% IRRELEVANT

Have you read the 1998 testimony to Congress? Have you read the 1998 IAEA & UNSCOM reports? Nobody anywhere said Saddam didn't have WMD and/or the capability to quickly produce more. Does that not matter to you AT ALL?????

[mike_c]

40. does the truth matter to you at all?

Those reports were evidently wrong, or at least they vastly overstated the case. Where are the weapons? Where is the industrial capacity to produce them? Where are the research facilities to design them?

The IWR was not necessary except as a green light for Bush's war.

[sandnsea]

42. Wow, I don't get you at all

We don't know whether the reports in 1998 were right or wrong. I already said, maybe Clinton blew up the WMD, we don't know. Not one agency in the world was ready to state Iraq had no WMD in 1998 when they were actually IN the country.

There were no inspectors in Iraq between 1998 & 2002. Were you prepared to just lift sanctions at any point in time? (I want a yes or no on that, in 2002, lift sanctions, yes or no)

What we know now has absolutley nothing to do with what was known in 2002 and the decision to force the UN to get inspectors back into Iraq via the IWR.

[killbotfactory]

46. Powell and Rice were pushing for smart sanctions

Saddam would have still been crippled, but the population as a whole would be less effected.

They only stopped when Bush got a bug up his ass after 9/11 and decided "fuck Saddam, we're taking him out!".

[sandnsea]

53. Still needed inspections

Even to change the sanctions or move peacekeepers or NGO's into the country. And I still don't think there would have been any way to get them in the country without a threat of force.

[killbotfactory]

56. We always had the threat of force

It's called a tomahawk missle shot into any building Saddam wouldn't let inspectors in.

since when did "threat of force" equal "taking over Iraq militarily"?

[sandnsea]

61. And keep sanctions forever?

Mike C already said he supported lifting sanctions because we had killed thousands of Iraqi's through the sanctions. Then you turn around and say keep the sanctions and keep the bombings going indefinitely. You can't have it both ways. We'd bombed Iraq for 12 years and it didn't work. It's reasonable to try to move along a different path.

Weapons inspections, peacekeepers, NGO's, reconstruction in the north and south, followed by pressure to push Saddam out like we have so many other dictators; that could have worked. But it still would have required a real threat of force and not continued bombings because Saddam didn't care about how many Iraqi's died.

[killbotfactory]

65. I'm not mike_c

So I don't care about his position on sanctions.

We could have lessened the humanitarian impact and keep them in place. That is what Powell and Rice were suggesting when they said Iraq wasn't a threat to anybody.

[sandnsea]

70. Not without inspections

Wouldn't have happened and Saddam wanted sanctions lifted in his letter "offering" to let inspectors in.

[killbotfactory]

106. And we didn't need to threaten Saddam with invasion to get inspections

What's so hard to understand about that?

Did we need that threat during the 90's? The only reason we stopped worrying about it is because Clinton bombed anything and everything suspected of being part of his WMD program. We were fairly certain he was a neutralized threat... at least until BushCo used 9/11 as an opportunity to pursue a neocon pipedream.

[mike_c]

48. yes, I was prepared to lift sanctions well before 2002....

But then, I already considered the sanctions murderously overwhelming. Remember Madeline Albright's assertion that 500,000 dead Iraqi children was a price we were willing to pay? Well, she didn't speak for me.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mike_c]

57. and I hate freedom, too....

*sigh*

[sandnsea]

68. *sigh*

I don't know what you hate, but I don't think you're very objective when looking at world affairs.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

21. Read my post above - Iraq agreed 1 oct - Senate voted 11 oct.

The IWR was NOT needed to force inspections. It is as simple as that.

[sandnsea]

27. Oh bullshit

I already posted above that he was playing games to get the sanctions lifted. Seriously, when people make statements like this about Saddam Hussein, I thank god the left isn't in charge of the country. Jesus christ, you bet, send a one week sweep through Iraq and then lift sanctions. Great idea. Now THAT is why Democrats lose.

[Zorra]

49. So, do you thank god that the right is in control of the country?

Because they are always wrong.

Here's a little tidbit from someone I suspect that you would consider a "lefty". And he was right on the money.

November 2002 issue
The Bloodstained Path
by Dennis Kucinich

Unilateral military action by the United States against Iraq is unjustified, unwarranted, and illegal. The Administration has failed to make the case that Iraq poses an imminent threat to the United States. There is no credible evidence linking Iraq to 9/11. There is no credible evidence linking Iraq to Al Qaeda. Nor is there any credible evidence that Iraq possesses deliverable weapons of mass destruction, or that it intends to deliver them against the United States.
snip-----
Unilateral action on the part of the United States, or in partnership with Great Britain, would for the first time set our nation on the bloodstained path of aggressive war, a sacrilege upon the memory of those who fought to defend this country. America's moral authority would be undermined throughout the world. It would destabilize the entire Persian Gulf and Middle East region. And it would signal for Russia to invade Georgia; China, Taiwan; North Korea, the South; India, Pakistan.
snip-------
It must involve the United Nations. Inspections for weapons of mass destruction should begin immediately. Inspectors must have free and unfettered access to all sites.
snip------
If the United States proceeds with a first strike policy, then we will have taken upon our nation a historic burden of committing a violation of international law, and we would then forfeit any moral high ground we could hope to hold.

http://www.progressive.org/nov02/kuc1102.html

I wish to God that the left was in control of this country. If it were, tens of thousands of people would not have died for no reason whatsoever.

[sandnsea]

55. Dennis

We want to fight that one too??? Dennis said inspectors needed to go back into Iraq too. He just never had a plan to get them there. You can't say a country is dangerous enough to need weapons inspections and then have no plan to do anything about it. No, that isn't someone I want leading the country and was the first reason I crossed Kucinch off my list. I had planned on voting for him in the primary as a protest vote, but eventually realized his views really didn't match mine.

[bpilgrim]

69. gotta link?

to kerry's iraq plan?

guess what he ain't got one either... now who you gonna vote for, D'oh!

peace

[sandnsea]

71. LOL

It's the same as Dennis' plan, but never mind that little detail. Except Dennis pretends there's 200,000 UN troops waiting to go into Iraq or anywhere else in the world. Kerry is honest enough to admit it isn't true and that even with full and honest UN and NATO cooperation, we'd still need US troops.

[bpilgrim]

74. you think this is FUNNY?

:puke:

when are you and yours signing up if you see that as the only solution :shrug:

peace

[sandnsea]

81. some of mine are

if you really must know. When are you and yours going to sign up to support the same plan Dennis has? Security, elections, rebuilding.

[bpilgrim]

85. what about U?

DK's plan was for withdraw not expansion and NOT a long term commitment of troops, hello.

peace

[sandnsea]

88. Security, elections, reconstruction.

That's Dennis' plan. And for troops to stay as long as is necessary to accomplish those plans. UN troops, that don't exist. And nobody ever asks him, "what if the UN countries won't send troops". Just like nobody ever asks Nader either. Easy to criticize others when nobody questions anything you say.

[Zorra]

72. Dennis knew what was going on.

How do you know that Dennis had no plan?

(And please don't get me wrong, IMO, I don't believe that Senator Kerry had any idea that the first thing that Bu$h would do after getting pre-emptive attack authority from the IWR would be to disregard everything else and attack Iraq. I do not believe he would have voted for the IWR if he understood at that time that Bu$h was an insane warmonger. I am just defending the wisdom of some on the "left")



For Immediate Release Contact: Doug Gordon
November 11, 2002
War Talk By Administration
Undermines UN Inspections in Iraq

Despite securing a United Nations' resolution to ensure weapons inspectors return to Iraq, the Administration has continued its war talk, undermining the stated goals of the United Nations, Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich (D-OH) stated today.

Today, Kucinich, who leads opposition in the House to the war, issued the following statement:

"The Administration's continual war talk is contrary to the spirit of the resolution the UN passed, and is contrary to the assurances which the Administration gave to secure the key votes of Russia, France and Syria in the Security Council. The UN is attempting to bring about a peaceful resolution to the crisis. The Administration's war talk undermines this goal.

"It must be understood, the UN did not pass an authorization for the use of force against Iraq. The UN resolution authorized the return of weapons inspectors and required the Iraqi government to comply. Non-compliance is to be referred back to the Security Council by UN weapons inspectors.

"Despite that, immediately after the UN vote, the Administration continued to indulge in war talk. Worse, over the weekend, the Administration leaked to the press its latest war plan to send 250,000 American men and women into battle against Iraq. This even before the Iraqi government had a chance to respond to the UN resolution.

"Even today, while the UN is attempting to gain approval for inspections from the Iraqi government, the Administration is continuing its call for regime change. Currently, the Administration is engaging in a massive build up of troops, aircraft, and materiel in preparation for war. These actions make it clear the Administration is on a war mission not a mission to return UN weapons inspectors to Iraq.

"In order to bring peace and stability to the region, the United States must continue to work with the international community, not undermine the goals of the UN with war talk and war plans."
-- 30 --
Press Release List
http://www.house.gov/kucinich/press/pr-021111-wartalk.htm

[sandnsea]

73. The plan???

I don't see the plan that would have even gotten a UN resolution to get inspectors into Iraq. That's the plan I'm talking about.

[bpilgrim]

75. we pulled them out, hello...

everyone was talking about winding the whole operation down, numbnuts.

there was a well know plan for SMART SANCTIONS that would have been coupled with inspections before the neoCONs highjacked the planet and the dems just rolled the fuck over... remember not 1 fucking senator stood against the THEFT of the ELECTION.

great leadership there :puke:

peace

[sandnsea]

79. Back to inspections

With no plan to get them without lifting sanctions completely. That's what Saddam wanted.

And by the way, I don't have any nuts.

[bpilgrim]

82. whatever

when r u and YOURS signing up? you seem to be all onboard with sending even more troops to iraq and keeping them there for a long while, so when r U going over THERE to support the cause :shrug:

peace

[Devils Advocate NZ]

114. Bollocks - more right wing lies.

The UN agreed on October 1st to resume inspections.

The ONLY requirement that Hussein put on was when the inspections showed there was no WMD that the sanctions be lifted, which of course HAD to happen anyway, because the sanctions were ONLY meant to force Iraq to give up its WMDs.

If Iraq didn't have any, then the sanctions themselves had no reason to exist.

So you can forget about that "Hussein was playing tricks" crap.

[Zorra]

78. He was trying to effing tell Congress the truth!!!

So that they could come up with a plan. He obviously wanted Congress to understand that it was imperative to get the UN in as soon as possible. For God's sake, the guy called it right. He was trying to do something about it. Few listened.

Do you think anyone would have paid any attention to his plan, if they could not even see that Bu$h was totally FOS?

DK saw exactly what the Bu$h administration was doing. He tried to do something about it. He's not superman.

[sandnsea]

86. A President needs to have a plan

What was Dennis' plan? He didn't call it right if he said Iraq was dangerous enough to require inspectors, but had no plan to get the inspectors in. That's called a cop-out. Criticizing somebody else for doing something when you have no plan yourself.

[Zorra]

94. The plan, in simple English:

"It must be understood, the UN did not pass an authorization for the use of force against Iraq. The UN resolution authorized the return of weapons inspectors and required the Iraqi government to comply. Non-compliance is to be referred back to the Security Council by UN weapons inspectors." Dennis Kucinich

And

The United States must recommit itself to the U.N. Charter, which is the framework for international order. We have a right and a duty to defend ourselves. We also have an obligation to defend international law. We can accomplish both without going to war with Iraq.

There is a way out.

It must involve the United Nations. Inspections for weapons of mass destruction should begin immediately. Inspectors must have free and unfettered access to all sites.

http://www.progressive.org/nov02/kuc1102.html

[Zorra]

98. And furthermore, Kucinich stated that he knew that Iraq was not an

imminent threat, and that Iraq had no WMD.

The plan was to get the Weapons Inspectors into Iraq to prove that Iraq was not an imminent threat to the US, so that any war plans could be thwarted.

Kucinich knew Bu$h was FOS, and that Bu$h had no plans for a peaceful resolution. Bu$h simply wanted to conquer Iraq. Bu$h was lying through his teeth and was pushing for a rapid entry into war, and Kucinich knew it.

So he did the most logical thing possible: He called upon Congress to decide go into Iraq with weapons inspectors so that he could prove to the world that Iraq was not an imminent threat to the US, and thereby prevent a bloody, costly, and totally unneccessary war.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

113. The UN had ALREADY worked out how to do it on October 1st...

The reason the inspectors had not gone in by the time Kucinich made these remarks is because Bush had fought against them going in!

Of course, you can ignore the truth, because you thank god the right is in control of the US!

[bpilgrim]

64. the neoCONs PLAYED the CARTOON WORLD VIEW to the hilt on this

and i refuse to give it anymore credence. everyone knew that iraq was NOT a threat. that much is CERTAIN and that we are there for their OIL.

i am surprised that some DU'ers are apparently ready to buy into that world view to get their 'man' elected which in the end only helps to PERPETUATE it.

not me.

so don't come runn'n on line with your 'anger' 10 years from now wondering why it's even WORSE because only the abyss will be staring back.

and you are even 'glad' the 'left' ain't in charge :crazy:

peace

[Devils Advocate NZ]

112. No, YOU are talking bullshit...

You invent some "playing games" crap, twist what actually happened (Bush ordered the inspections to cease NOT Hussein or the UN), then say you thank god that the right is in control of the US?

Why am I not surprised?

[Cleita]

9. I suppose most of our leaders knew that to get rid of Saddam, we

would have had to send troops to the Middle East to pressure him out of office. Even if it had been a bloodless coupe, as saner heads perhaps like Kerry would have done and something preferable IMO than what has happened in reality, it begs the question, why only him and not any other number of vicious despotic rulers on our planet?

This make the motives of the other vicious despotic rulers, who are in control of our government, really transparent and shows that what they said about Saddam being a bad, bad man and having WMD's all over the place ready to bop us or Israel a good one, patent lies. What are their true motives?

There is the oil factor, but there is so much more, it boggles ones mind to sort everything out and some of the possible motives are downright frightening if they turn out to be true.

[killbotfactory]

43. Who made the US middle-eastern King Maker?

If we went in to destroy WMD's, there's no reason to force Saddam out of office.

If we went in to depose Saddam and whatever potential threats he may bring in the future, possibly, then the WMD's are just a smokescreen.

Disarming Saddam and removing him from power didn't have to be related.

[killbotfactory]

12. Bush always had the threat of force

He didn't need to topple Saddam's regime and take over the goddamn country to get rid of the WMD's.

He could have bombed all the suspected sites that Saddam wouldn't let the inspectors in. You know, something that would be easy and not cost thousands of lives and billions of dollars.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

14. Didn't I read something a while ago that stated that Iraq was....

....certified in 1995 by the UN weapons inspectors that all Iraqi WMDs had been destroyed?

I can't find the link, otherwise I would post it here. Sorry.

[sandnsea]

18. No you didn't

Sorry, but you didn't. That never happened.

[WilliamPitt]

20. Not 1995

They were never actually certified. Ritter maintains they were ready to certify in 1998, but it didn't suit the Clinton admin to have that certification (because it would have re-legitimized Hussein and the sanctions degrading his conventional military would have been lifted), and so the scam was concocted to withdraw the inspectors.

[sandnsea]

29. When?

I'm not being antagonistic to you, although I obviously am to others.

The problem I've always had with Scott Ritter is what he said in 1998 doesn't match what he said in 2002.

So when did he say they were ready to certify in 1998 because I never saw anything that I would interpret that way in his 1998 testimony to Congress.

[WilliamPitt]

30. True

I am going off what he said circa 2002. What I said is what he was saying that July. 1998 continues to confuse and aggravate me.

[jpgray]

17. Ritter never unequivocally said 'there are no weapons'

He did however, give evidence that would seem to rule out any significant progress in the nuclear field, and any significant progress in manufacturing biological or chemical weapons. There was a good article he wrote on the subject before the war, let me try and track it down.

[jpgray]

25. Here we go

The Case for Iraq's Qualitative Disarmament.

[mike_c]

77. since no one has responded to this, here's a tidbit...

...that's worth emphasizing. Note that Ritter wrote this in 2000. Emphasis is mine.

"What is often overlooked in the debate over how to proceed with Iraq's disarmament is the fact that from 1994 to 1998 Iraq was subjected to a strenuous program of ongoing monitoring of industrial and research facilities that could be used to reconstitute proscribed activities. This monitoring provided weapons inspectors with detailed insight into the capabilities, both present and future, of Iraq's industrial infrastructure. It allowed UNSCOM to ascertain, with a high level of confidence, that Iraq was not rebuilding its prohibited weapons programs and that it lacked the means to do so without an infusion of advanced technology and a significant investment of time and money.

Given the comprehensive nature of the monitoring regime put in place by UNSCOM, which included a strict export-import control regime, it was possible as early as 1997 to determine that, from a qualitative standpoint, Iraq had been disarmed. Iraq no longer possessed any meaningful quantities of chemical or biological agent, if it possessed any at all, and the industrial means to produce these agents had either been eliminated or were subject to stringent monitoring. The same was true of Iraq's nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities."

[bpilgrim]

80. thanks - n/t

peace

[sandnsea]

89. 6 months

That's what he said in 1998, Iraq would have chemical and biological weapons within 6 months if there were no inspections. Having sanctions lifted at any point in time would have meant Saddam would have had the money to make that significant investment. Saddam was only agreeing to inspections as a means to getting sanctions completely lifted. Based on EVERYTHING Scott Ritter said, it is certainly reasonable to conclude that anything could have happened between 1998 and 2002, including the production of WMD.

[mike_c]

91. well, it seems that he'd changed his mind by 2000....

What can you do?

[acmavm]

96. Ah, you may think this looks bad for Kerry, but it skewers bush*:

<snip>

The CIA has clearly stated on several occasions since the termination of inspections in December 1998 that no such activity has been detected. The Iraqis do have enough equipment to carry out laboratory-scale production of BW agent. However, without an infusion of money and technology, expanding such a capability into a viable weapons program is a virtual impossibility. Contrary to popular belief, BW cannot simply be cooked up in the basement; it requires a large and sophisticated infrastructure, especially if the agent is to be filled into munitions. As with CW, the CIA has not detected any such activity concerning BW since UNSCOM inspectors left Iraq.

[mike_c]

99. it skewers the whole lot of incompetants and fools who...

...sought and supported the IWR and its aftermath, the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

[jpgray]

100. It looks bad for both

The information was available, and while Bush actively distorted the debate, Kerry didn't work hard enough to find things out for himself. (Assuming he wanted to know the facts in this case.)

[mike_c]

104. one of the things that I find interesting is that Kennedy voted...

...against the IWR. I presume that the two senators from Massachusetts discussed this issue before they voted. I would love to have been privy to that discussion.

[mzmolly]

76. Can you highlight the portion where he claims this?

I seem to recall he was very much opposed.

The absence of weapons inspectors in Iraq since December 1998 has created a vacuum of available data on which to base an assessment of Iraq's current activities. Rushing to fill this void have been a series of speculative reports that have attributed certain capabilities to Iraq that are incompatible with what UNSCOM learned from eight years of experience with Iraq's WMD programs. The truth of the matter is, devoid of weapons inspections, no one knows for sure what has transpired in Iraq since the last inspectors were withdrawn. Conjecture aside, however, there is absolutely no reason to believe that Iraq could have meaningfully reconstituted any element of its WMD capabilities in the past 18 months.
From a WMD perspective, Iraq today is not the Iraq of 1991. What took Iraq decades to build through the expenditure of billions of dollars could not, under any rational analysis, have been reconstituted since December 1998. Iraq's nuclear enrichment infrastructure has been reduced to zero, and Iraq lacks the funding, technology, and time required to reconstitute it. In theory, some practical work could have been carried out in the field of high-explosive lens development, but any serious effort would require the diversion of controlled stocks of specialized explosives that had been used for manufacturing the lenses, something that would be readily discerned once IAEA inspectors return to work.

In addition to the fact that UNSCOM was thoroughly monitoring all activity related to the Al Samoud missile project, the major facilities related to the development efforts of this permitted missile system were bombed and either destroyed or heavily damaged during Operation Desert Fox. When, in the summer of 1999, the CIA detected signs of reconstruction at these facilities, the Clinton administration immediately warned of an imminent threat. However, such assessments were not shared by the scientists and technicians of UNSCOM, who knew Iraq's capabilities better than anyone. One study, prepared in July 1996 by a British missile expert, set the tone for all reports that followed:

Even given a relaxation of the sanctions program, if there are no quantum jumps in the level of technology available to , it should be many years before an indigenously designed, 150 kilometer range, Iraqi missile has the integrated range/payload/accuracy to militarily threaten even the immediate region.13

Nothing has transpired since 1996 that could remotely be construed as a "quantum jump" in Iraq's ballistic missiles capabilities.

http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2000_06/iraqjun.asp

He supported inspections, but wasn't Blix in Iraq before the war vote?

[bread_and_roses]

83. Well, we sure do know - and did know

where WMDs ARE - and not in Iraq. None of this was about WMDs, and I believe every member of Congress was well aware of that. They are surely not collectively more less informed and astute than the millions who protested? Why are we even arguing about the IRW? Kerry's what we've got, IRW vote or no.

I just focus on Kerry's environmental record, and hope that the tide against the war has turned enough that he can get us out there and put a stop to US troops blowing apart more children without feeling he is jeapordizing a chance at a second term. A faint hope, but better than none at all. At least in the meantime he can slow down the poisoning and extinction of every green plant or wild creature on the face of the planet.

[TeacherCreature]

84. a passage from a book that is relevant

“He gazed up at the enormous face. Forty years it had taken him to learn what kind of smile was hidden beneath the dark mustache. O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother” (p. 300).

It's scary when democrats are practicing New-speak too.

[nomaco-10]

87. For those who still support the candidates that voted for the IWR.....

that to this day have shown no regret or remorse for their vote and continue to spin and rationalize the bloodletting in Iraq may as well cross the aisle and join the neocons. You can produce all the links and soundbites you want from a year and a half ago, you can try to convince yourself that some of the brightest minds in congress were duped, you can pour all the scotch on it you want, but it will still come out the same. Until you come to terms with the realization that it was wrong then and it's wrong now, you're just propping up a candidate that has no remorse about 800 plus americans killed and nearly 18,000 innocent Iraqi men, women and children slain and slaughtered in the streets and cities of Iraq.

It was a no brainer for many of us since day one and after more than a year of senseless killing later, it should be obvious as hell to every democrat and republican alike in this country.

[mike_c]

90. well said!

eom

[many a good man]

92. Bush's bluff

Its doubtful that further bombing of the no-fly zones would have persuaded Saddam to let the inspectors back in. Bush could have merely bluffed the invasion and still gotten the inspections back on track, as was shown. But it would have led to the lifting of sanctions with SH still in charge.

I don't think it was necessarily wrong to signal your resolve by an international show of force if it leads to submission to international bodies and compliance.

Humanitarians would have cheered the end to sanctions but the international security community would have had its hands full keeping a reconstituted Saddam regime safely contained. The UN's response to this challenge could have led to a strengthening of international resolve and cooperation.

However, the Establishment's end game is find a better long-term home for US forces in the oil region -- one that's not on Holy Land.

Instead, * got greedy. He wanted the prize NOW and worse yet, didn't want to share it with anybody. France and Germany would have consented to the invasion if they had been offered their fair share of the spoils. But the Neocons had something they wanted to "prove."

Like Saddam, * gambled and he lost. And just like all his other failings -- others will have to pay the cost.

[leesa]

93. Yeah. Right. No defense for Senator's voting for war powers for Bush

that I can see. But if it makes you happier...

[many a good man]

95. Without war powers, the threat have been severely weakened

Its sort of been the trend over the past FORTY YEARS to avoid formal declarations of war, hasn't it?

Its one thing to SOUND radical, quite another to actually do something about it. In this case "It" is the upheaval of the global international order. A Bush was expected to play by the rules of the game. Never gamble if you're not sure of the outcome.

I repudiate the IWR but I can see how mainstream centrists could have gotten suckered in to supporting it.

[mike_c]

97. but the fact remains that any further threat was unnecessary....

Hussein was contained, Iraq was disarmed, its social institutions were utterly destroyed, the bombing campaigns and patrols continued over Iraq.... What need was there for any further threat, credible or not?

The real failure of the U.N. mandate for disarmament of Iraq was that it actually worked. Eventually, the U.N. would have had to recognize that, especially since Saddam Hussein agreed in early October 2002 to restore weapons inspections. Once the U.N. certified that Iraq had complied with the disarmament mandate, they would have eased sanctions, something that the neo-cons could never allow. They wanted the disarmament mandate to fail so badly that they simply declared it failed against all evidence and invaded.

What happened to all those weapons?

[many a good man]

101. When did SH agree to resume inspections?

<<...especially since Saddam Hussein agreed in early October 2002 to restore weapons inspections.>>

Was this announcement official?

[mike_c]

103. october 1, 2002

There's a post above with more details. The inspections continued, with what Blix characterized as good cooperation from Iraq, until just prior to the invasion. On the basis of those inspections, Blix has said that he did not expect to find significant amounts of banned weapons, and of course we now know that Saddam Hussein was telling the truth all along about having dismantled his WMD programs. Remember the WH saying "we know the weapons are there-- if he says they're not we'll know he's lying?" That's the kind of catch-22 logic the IWR votes supported. That's one reason that I have such utter contempt for the legislators who voted in support of it-- it was a completely transparent license to kill, based on lies and convoluted justifications, that anyone with half an ounce of sense could see through in an instant. And I have no doubt that they did in fact see through it. Therein lies the crime.

[quaker bill]

102. But, the problem with IWR was on this side of the Atlantic

I would never argue over the need for a "credible threat of force" to obtain compliance from Saddam. But that comes no where near to an adequate excuse for voting for IWR.

Anyone who was awake and possessed of two ounces of common sense at the time knew full well that Bush had no intent to use this authority to leverage more aggressive inspections. IWR itself required nothing more than exactly what Bush did. He complied with every provision of the resolution.

This line of argument is every bit as lame as the guy who leaves the loaded gun on the kitched table and says "I had no idea that my child would pick it up and shoot someone with it".

There was no reasonable expectation that Bush would use the authority in a responsible manner. Bush should never have been given this authority on that basis.

[demgrrrll]

105. You know this whole thing is beginning to remind me of the final scene

in Three days of the Condor when Clif Robertson and Robert
Redford are standing in front of the NYT. Redford is talking about the lives that were lost and Robertson says something like when
people run out of oil and are freezing what do you think they will want us to do. They will want us to get them what they need or something like that. If this does boil down to being about peak oil
then all of America needs to get their priorities in order and make another choice. I don't feel like I was given the opportunity to make
the original choice but I would be willing to cut back and change my life if it meant that we could exist peacefully in the world.

[CWebster]

108. Oh, C'mon with this farce

Everyone knows what Bush's intentions were. Iraq couldn't prove a negative, Saddam never threw out the inspectors, allowed access even when, as Ritter attests, the US was using the inspections as cover for spying.

[F.Gordon]

109. I'm way late to this dance

No one in UNSCOM verified weaponized VX in Iraqi warheads. Scott Ritter isn't telling the complete story here. The “verification” came from the DoD at the request of UNSCOM, and UNSCOM used the DoD data in their report. I’d be curious as to what person made the DoD request. Butler? Ritter?

An independent study by the Bouchet Research Center at the time could not find VX on 39 of the 40 samples tested and the 40th sample was inclusive because they couldn’t determine if it was a false positive created by another chemical agent.

Can you or Scott Ritter name all the chemical agents that could produce a false positive test for VX? I can’t, so I was hoping that one of the two of you could.
:evilgrin:

Prior to this “VX discovery” the Clinton Administration was attempting to remove some sanctions on Iraq. We were gradually reducing our military presence in the region. Butler was prepared to provide the evidence necessary to do this, but then there was this “VX discovery”. Every time Clinton attempted to release sanctions or call for a military reduction he was hit with contradictory information that made his claims “invalid”.

When the CIA under Clinton downplayed the significance of Iraq weapons programs…..enter stage right…. The Rumsfeld Commission.

Everytime Clinton appeared "weak" in the eyes of the repukes they jumped all over him. Look at all the "legislation" prior to the ILA in 1998. And when Clinton was hesitant to jump on the "Saddam is a War Criminal" legislation....whoa!!!

(((Note: your quote in another post..."Ritter maintains they were ready to certify in 1998, but it didn't suit the Clinton admin to have that certification (because it would have re-legitimized Hussein and the sanctions degrading his conventional military would have been lifted), and so the scam was concocted to withdraw the inspectors." If this is true, why did the Clinton administration AND Clinton state their intention to certify Iraq by October...in April of 1998? Was this just a smokescreen, or is it another attempt by Ritter to "explain" his departure in July?)))

This “VX discovery” and Scott Ritter’s subsequent resignation completely derailed any possibility to back off Iraq. The die was cast for the bush* Iraq war II and Ritter was the point man leading the charge. The repukes jumped all over this “VX discovery” and “Ritter resignation” …. pushing Clinton into a corner.

I’d be interested in knowing what DoD contacts Ritter had back in 1998. If he’s up to giving this information out.

[F.Gordon]

111. Another question

On August 28, 1998 Scott Ritter made the following statement...

"unequivocally, Iraq has stored, developed, and hidden weapons capabilities in foreign countries." He declined to name them but said that by March 1998 UNSCOM had "positively identified key elements of the concealment mechanism -- who they were, where they were, how they worked."

Never mind that this statement could have been said by Limbaugh or Hannity just last week....my question is.....WHO are these countries that Ritter is talking about?

Sorry Will. I promise I'll still buy your new book, but (as you may or may not know) I'm no fan of Scott Ritter.

[eridani]

110. Isn't this thread pretty stupid?

Especially since we know perfectly well where there are thousands of tons of chem, bio and nuke weapons, secured with rusty bike locks and guarded by people who don't get paid very often. They are in Russia and the ex-Soviet states, who would all love to have our help getting rid of them. All this fuss over Saddam has derailed all discussion of and action on actually existing WMD threats. And the Psychopath in Chief, as you might expect, slashed funding for the Threat Reduction Initiative to fund his imperial boot in the ass if the ME.

Even if Saddam had built Iraqi WMD capacity back to what it was in 1991, that would still be an absolutely chickenshit threat by comparison.