Agency Disavows Report On Iraq Arms

The Washington Times ^ | September 27, 2002 | Joseph Curl

[rightwing2]

Washington Times
September 27, 2002
Pg. 16
Agency Disavows Report On Iraq Arms
By Joseph Curl, The Washington Times

The International Atomic Energy Agency says that a report cited by President Bush as evidence that Iraq in 1998 was "six months away" from developing a nuclear weapon does not exist. "There's never been a report like that issued from this agency," Mark Gwozdecky, the IAEA's chief spokesman, said yesterday in a telephone interview from the agency's headquarters in Vienna, Austria. "We've never put a time frame on how long it might take Iraq to construct a nuclear weapon in 1998," said the spokesman of the agency charged with assessing Iraq's nuclear capability for the United Nations.

In a Sept. 7 news conference with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Mr. Bush said: "I would remind you that when the inspectors first went into Iraq and were denied — finally denied access [in 1998], a report came out of the Atomic — the IAEA that they were six months away from developing a weapon. "I don't know what more evidence we need," said the president, defending his administration's case that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was building weapons of mass destruction. The White House says Mr. Bush was referring to an earlier IAEA report. "He's referring to 1991 there," said Deputy Press Secretary Scott McClellan. "In '91, there was a report saying that after the war they found out they were about six months away."

Mr. Gwozdecky said no such report was ever issued by the IAEA in 1991. Many news agencies — including The Washington Times — reported Mr. Bush's Sept. 7 comments as referring to a 1998 IAEA report. The White House did not ask for a correction from The Times. To clear up the confusion, Mr. McClellan cited two news articles from 1991 — a July 16 story in the London Times by Michael Evans and a July 18 story in the New York Times by Paul Lewis. But neither article cites an IAEA report on Iraq's nuclear-weapons program or states that Saddam was only six months away from "developing a weapon" — as claimed by Mr. Bush. The article by Mr. Evans says: "Jay Davis, an American expert working for the U.N. special commission charged with removing Iraq's nuclear capability, said Iraq was only six months away from the large-scale production of enriched uranium at two plants inspected by UN officials." The Lewis article said Iraq in 1991 had a uranium "enrichment plant using electromagnetic technology [that] was about six months from becoming operational."

In October 1998, just before Saddam kicked U.N. weapons inspectors out of Iraq, the IAEA laid out a case opposite of Mr. Bush's Sept. 7 declaration. "There are no indications that there remains in Iraq any physical capability for the production of weapon-usable nuclear material of any practical significance," IAEA Director-General Mohammed Elbaradei wrote in a report to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan. Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair on Sept. 7 cited an agency "report" declaring that satellite photography revealed the Iraqis had undertaken new construction at several nuclear-related sites. This week, the IAEA said no such report existed.

The IAEA also took issue with a Sept. 9 report by the International Institute for Strategic Studies — cited by the Bush administration — that concludes Saddam "could build a nuclear bomb within months if he were able to obtain fissile material." "There is no evidence in our view that can be substantiated on Iraq's nuclear-weapons program. If anybody tells you they know the nuclear situation in Iraq right now, in the absence of four years of inspections, I would say that they're misleading you because there isn't solid evidence out there," Mr. Gwozdecky said. "I don't know where they have determined that Iraq has retained this much weaponization capability because when we left in December '98 we had concluded that we had neutralized their nuclear-weapons program. We had confiscated their fissile material. We had destroyed all their key buildings and equipment," he said. Mr. Gwozdecky said there is no evidence about Saddam's nuclear capability right now — either through his organization, other agencies or any government.

[rightwing2]

In October 1998, just before Saddam kicked U.N. weapons inspectors out of Iraq, the IAEA laid out a case opposite of Mr. Bush's Sept. 7 declaration. "There are no indications that there remains in Iraq any physical capability for the production of weapon-usable nuclear material of any practical significance," IAEA Director-General Mohammed Elbaradei wrote in a report to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan. Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair on Sept. 7 cited an agency "report" declaring that satellite photography revealed the Iraqis had undertaken new construction at several nuclear-related sites. This week, the IAEA said no such report existed..."I don't know where they have determined that Iraq has retained this much weaponization capability because when we left in December '98 we had concluded that we had neutralized their nuclear-weapons program. We had confiscated their fissile material. We had destroyed all their key buildings and equipment," he said.

This article, which corroborates everything I have been saying for the past several weeks, pretty much torpedoes the case which the Administration has been trying to lay out that Iraq is anywhere near developing nukes. Colin Powell had it right when he estimated earlier this month that "Iraq might be nine years away from developing nuclear weapons" although even that is probably a worst case scenario considering the fact that the IAEA weapons inspectors totally destroy Saddam's nuclear R&D program and UN sanctions will ensure that he won't be able to reconstitute it anytime soon.

The question is why does the Administration continue to hype the threat to Iraq when far greater dangers to US national security are present in North Korea (which has threatened to nuke US cities with its nuclear armed ICBMs) and Iran (which helped Al Queda with their 9-11 attacks)?? I learned the answer only last week. The President believes, rightly or wrongly, that Saddam tried to kill his father and he has been waiting patiently for payback time. The fact that the President wants revenge against Saddam is very understandable, but in my opinion it does not constitute a justifiable rationale for risking tens of thousands of American lives in an unjust, unprovoked and illegal war of aggression against Iraq. Assasination maybe. All-out invasion, no way.

[William McKinley]

I'M BACK!!!

SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com

STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD

WIPE THE SMILE OFF OF THIS MAN'S FACE.
VOTE THE RATS
OUT!! DONATE TODAY
SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC

Donate here by secure server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

[rightwing2]

BUMP!

[A_perfect_lady]

I always thought we were fixing to clean clock because Saddam supports terrorism against us and our allies. This six-month-nuke business has been an interesting side bar, but our policy harkens back to "we will make no distinction between countries that harbor terrorists and the terrorists themselves," and "you are either with us or you are against us."

And call me racist, but anything issued by someone named Mohammed instantly goes into my grain-of-salt file.

[A_perfect_lady]

The fact that the President wants revenge against Saddam is very understandable, but in my opinion it does not constitute a justifiable rationale for risking tens of thousands of American lives in an unjust, unprovoked and illegal war of aggression against Iraq.

By the way, if Saddam doesn't have weapons of mass destruction, how is he going to kill tens of thousands of Americans?

[ex-snook]

Thanks for Alert.

If it is true that Iraq is a threat to the USA, then we would be telling the truth. 'Too much fakering goin' on out thar'.

[Lion's Cub]

Sorry, but I think you've been taken in by leftwing propaganda. I expect the WH will have to respond to this piece of garbage.

I wonder why the left is so desperate to spare Hussein.

[js1138]

By the way, if Saddam doesn't have weapons of mass destruction, how is he going to kill tens of thousands of Americans?

Bump.

I have seen absolutely no evidence that Saddam is innocent of starting two wars against his neighbors, killing hundreds of thousands of people.

I have seen absolutely no evidence that Saddam does not pay Palestinian parents for sending their children into Isreal as human bombs.

I have seen absolutely no evidence that Saddam did not send balistic missiles into civilian areas of Israel at a time when Israel had taken no military action against Iraq.

I have seen absolutely no evidence that Saddam has not had, and used, chemical and biological weapons.

[js1138]

I wonder why the left is so desperate to spare Hussein.

The left has supported EVERY totalitarian dictator that ever came down the pike, except those that opposed the Soviet Union. Count 'em up.

[rightwing2]

By the way, if Saddam doesn't have weapons of mass destruction, how is he going to kill tens of thousands of Americans?

Saddam does have WMD. I never said he doesn't. In fact, I have been warning continually that he will use them against US troops if we invade with the aim of killing him. Now, if we invade and say conclusively that our aim is not to kill Saddam, but merely put him on a plane with his entourage to go into exile in the country of his choice, I don't think he will use WMD so that would be a good fallback option which it is clear that DoD is exploring. My point is that although Saddam has had CBR weapons for over two decades and has never used them against invading US troops or against US citizens, as of less than four years ago he was nowhere near developing nukes (since his nuke R&D capability was destroyed by the IAEA) and that is corroborated by the evidence.

[Grut]

I expect the WH will have to respond to this piece of garbage.

Shouldn't be that hard to come up with a copy of the report, if it exists. On the other hand, if they start with the "We will not dignify this accusation..." business, we might start looking for a fallback position that Saddam has been holding Elvis hostage for years....

[rightwing2]

Sorry, but I think you've been taken in by leftwing propaganda. I expect the WH will have to respond to this piece of garbage. I wonder why the left is so desperate to spare Hussein.

Sorry, but I don't think I'm the one who has been taken in by leftwing propaganda which at this point is beating the drums of invasion. Hussein is an evil dictator. If Bush can prove that Saddam tried to kill his father, then I think that would be sufficient justification for the President to have Saddam assasinated. However, there are six four star generals that agree with me that an invasion of Iraq would not be in our best strategic interests at this juncture.

[rightwing2]

Shouldn't be that hard to come up with a copy of the report, if it exists. On the other hand, if they start with the "We will not dignify this accusation..." business, we might start looking for a fallback position that Saddam has been holding Elvis hostage for years....

Exactly. These types of reports should be in the public domain and all the White House has to do to prove their case is present the three IAEA reports which they claim exist but the IAEA claim do not. Shouldn't be that hard that is unless as you pointed out they do not in fact exist.

[MHGinTN]

I certainly believe Saddam Insane will farm out his WMD (and he lusts after nuclear capability, so the last four years couldn't have been effort-free!) and I don't intend to stake the life of my family on the hollow rhetoric of an 'official' at a democrat laden commission. What are the consequences to US if this sap at IAEA is wrong? We are dead! I see a pattern in Saddam's life and methodology. That the democrats and their mordent minions cannot or will not see the patterns because they don't fit with democrat agenda is very dangerous to our health!

[Bill Davis FR]

we must remember that bush has dyslexia...

[rightwing2]

I certainly believe Saddam Insane will farm out his WMD (and he lusts after nuclear capability, so the last four years couldn't have been effort-free!) and I don't intend to stake the life of my family on the hollow rhetoric of an 'official' at a democrat laden commission. What are the consequences to US if this sap at IAEA is wrong? We are dead! I see a pattern in Saddam's life and methodology. That the democrats and their mordent minions cannot or will not see the patterns because they don't fit with democrat agenda is very dangerous to our health!

Well, I will certainly concede that your opinion represents the majority view here in America. The Administration has done quite a job of drumming up the phantom Iraq threat hysteria in this country. Sure, Saddam seeks nuke capability to deter further US attacks against Iraq although he is quite a ways from developing it thanks to IAEA destruction of his R&D capability from 1991-98. However, my question to you is since Saddam has had WMD for over two decades and has never used them against the US, has never engaged in any attacks against US soil and he has yet to demonstrate a capability to attack the US by any means let alone WMD how exactly do you believe that Saddam or Iraq threatens the USA??

The truth is that Saddam has failed to demonstrate a capability to shoot down even one fighter-bomber out of the thousands of sorties which have been launched against him over the past decade of US-UK bombings of Iraq. Iran on the other hand has hit us hard with 9-11 terrorists which they trained and sponsored. We should be bombing them back into the stone age so to speak and trying to fight and win Bush's just war against terror, not engaging in an unprovoked attack against Iraq, which would represent a risky and potentially costly diversion from the war against terror.

[Lion's Cub]

leftwing propaganda which at this point is beating the drums of invasion

What are you talking about? The left has been trying to save Hussein's @ss! Look at the group who's over there now! Look at Dasshole. How in the world can you claim that they are beating the drums for invasion?

[Lion's Cub]

FYI. (Got so involved in this argument, I forgot to *ping ya :)

[ohioman]

If you cannot see the dangers with Saddam then it only proves that you are either a F'in idiot or a coward.

[ohioman]

Why don't you go join the godddamn democratic party. I am sure the Red Diaper Doper Babies will love to hear you opine.