Why We Know Iraq Is Lying

WASHINGTON Eleven weeks after the United Nations Security Council unanimously passed a resolution demanding — yet again — that Iraq disclose and disarm all its nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs, it is appropriate to ask, "Has Saddam Hussein finally decided to voluntarily disarm?" Unfortunately, the answer is a clear and resounding no.

There is no mystery to voluntary disarmament. Countries that decide to disarm lead inspectors to weapons and production sites, answer questions before they are asked, state publicly and often the intention to disarm and urge their citizens to cooperate. The world knows from examples set by South Africa, Ukraine and Kazakhstan what it looks like when a government decides that it will cooperatively give up its weapons of mass destruction. The critical common elements of these efforts include a high-level political commitment to disarm, national initiatives to dismantle weapons programs, and full cooperation and transparency.

In 1989 South Africa made the strategic decision to dismantle its covert nuclear weapons program. It destroyed its arsenal of seven weapons and later submitted to rigorous verification by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Inspectors were given complete access to all nuclear facilities (operating and defunct) and the people who worked there. They were also presented with thousands of documents detailing, for example, the daily operation of uranium enrichment facilities as well as the construction and dismantling of specific weapons.

Ukraine and Kazakhstan demonstrated a similar pattern of cooperation when they decided to rid themselves of the nuclear weapons, intercontinental ballistic missiles and heavy bombers inherited from the Soviet Union. With significant assistance from the United States — warmly accepted by both countries — disarmament was orderly, open and fast. Nuclear warheads were returned to Russia. Missile silos and heavy bombers were destroyed or dismantled — once in a ceremony attended by the American and Russian defense chiefs. In one instance, Kazakhstan revealed the existence of a ton of highly enriched uranium and asked the United States to remove it, lest it fall into the wrong hands.

Iraq's behavior could not offer a starker contrast. Instead of a commitment to disarm, Iraq has a high-level political commitment to maintain and conceal its weapons, led by Saddam Hussein and his son Qusay, who controls the Special Security Organization, which runs Iraq's concealment activities. Instead of implementing national initiatives to disarm, Iraq maintains institutions whose sole purpose is to thwart the work of the inspectors. And instead of full cooperation and transparency, Iraq has filed a false declaration to the United Nations that amounts to a 12,200-page lie.

For example, the declaration fails to account for or explain Iraq's efforts to get uranium from abroad, its manufacture of specific fuel for ballistic missiles it claims not to have, and the gaps previously identified by the United Nations in Iraq's accounting for more than two tons of the raw materials needed to produce thousands of gallons of anthrax and other biological weapons.

Iraq's declaration even resorted to unabashed plagiarism, with lengthy passages of United Nations reports copied word-for-word (or edited to remove any criticism of Iraq) and presented as original text. Far from informing, the declaration is intended to cloud and confuse the true picture of Iraq's arsenal. It is a reflection of the regime's well-earned reputation for dishonesty and constitutes a material breach of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441, which set up the current inspections program.

Unlike other nations that have voluntarily disarmed — and in defiance of Resolution 1441 — Iraq is not allowing inspectors "immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted access" to facilities and people involved in its weapons program. As a recent inspection at the home of an Iraqi nuclear scientist demonstrated, and other sources confirm, material and documents are still being moved around in farcical shell games. The regime has blocked free and unrestricted use of aerial reconnaissance.

The list of people involved with weapons of mass destruction programs, which the United Nations required Iraq to provide, ends with those who worked in 1991 — even though the United Nations had previously established that the programs continued after that date. Interviews with scientists and weapons officials identified by inspectors have taken place only in the watchful presence of the regime's agents. Given the duplicitous record of the regime, its recent promises to do better can only be seen as an attempt to stall for time.

Last week's finding by inspectors of 12 chemical warheads not included in Iraq's declaration was particularly troubling. In the past, Iraq has filled this type of warhead with sarin — a deadly nerve agent used by Japanese terrorists in 1995 to kill 12 Tokyo subway passengers and sicken thousands of others. Richard Butler, the former chief United Nations arms inspector, estimates that if a larger type of warhead that Iraq has made and used in the past were filled with VX (an even deadlier nerve agent) and launched at a major city, it could kill up to one million people. Iraq has also failed to provide United Nations inspectors with documentation of its claim to have destroyed its VX stockpiles.

Many questions remain about Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and arsenal — and it is Iraq's obligation to provide answers. It is failing in spectacular fashion. By both its actions and its inactions, Iraq is proving not that it is a nation bent on disarmament, but that it is a nation with something to hide. Iraq is still treating inspections as a game. It should know that time is running out.

Except for the above quote, which makes Rice sound like a school marm intent on expelling a student for academic cheating, this is a very strong and compelling argument. It's too bad it will only be read by a very small percentage of Americans.

I think Condi's intent was to show how amateurish and small beer the Iraqi regime's attempt at lying actually was.

This is a damn good piece, and reduces the argument to its essential core: Saddam is lying, he will never disarm, and here is why.

A good preview of the SOU Speech. Coupled with Powell's comments, this kind of thing tells me that certain decisions have already been made.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

If the economy doesn't improve, Rove could very well do what he did masterfully last year-- divert attention away from it (with the obstruction of creating a Homeland Security Department last year and with picking Rice in 2004). Otherwise, Bush's re-election would be very dicey.

Making the race a partial referendum on America's desire to have Condi be a heartbeat away from being Leader of the Free World would be a brilliant tactical move because we'd win that referendum in a landslide.

Chris,
There's hardly a better spokesperson for the Administration than Condi.

I was so mad that the Raiders won Sunday night (a former Razorback named Carlos Hall plays DE for the Titans) that I forgot to tape the replay of MTP. Condi's response to this talk is a smart one-- act flattered, be gracious, and say you fully support Dick Cheney. Clearly, we all know (confirmed, at least now) that she knows that she has a following-- as if she were dumb enough to not know it already. I bet she's seen polling on it-- even if it was a private poll paid for by her friend Oprah Winfrey, and not just the private RNC poll we know about.

One thing is certain and that is that Bush is terrified of losing in 2004. It scares the sh!t out of him and every pundit knows it. The thought of repeating history like that is something he can't tolerate. He wants to vindicate his Dad and vindicate his family's name. It's a horrible burden but we all know it's on his shoulders. We also know that choosing Condi is his ace in the hole. He can pull that card and beat any hand at the table. Nothing could change the dynamics of the race like that would.

Yep, I like it when a RINO, right here on the Forum, chooses to express their true person for all to see.

A RINO?

Not Hardly.

Don't underestimate the power of the media and the rest of the liberal establishment to find a way to torpedo Bush's re-election bid. Think of the huge approval ratings for Bush the elder before the lies about job layoffs and the "worst economy in a decade". Clinton was anointed by the liberal establishment to be president and the press acted as a vast PR machine for Clinton from the get go. Do you remember seeing what happened in the last few months before that election?

There is an ongoing effort to discredit everything that our president does and stands for. There are enough clueless people who are buying into it all that it is affecting his numbers. That in turn fuels reports saying that:

"The American People increasingly disapprove of the actions of the president."

If a lie is repeated enough people will believe it.

I am a staunch conservative. I always vote straight ticket Republican. I also admit the the nickname "the stupid party" for the GOP is well earned. For instance what did Bob Dole's candidacy do except help insure the re-election of Clinton?

You don't think Bush is vulnerable to a last minute campaign of lies? Never underestimate the enemy. They could call Bush a pedophile and get away with it. Except to most of them, that would be a virtuous title.

Your list didn't mention the biggest opposing threat... HRC

The Republican party will have to behave more shrewdly than it has in the past or we are going to see Jezebel and Ahab back in the Whitehouse '05 or '09.

I love Dr. Rice, but she is not pro-life. I would love to have her as VP and would feel like waving a pom pom to encourage her, but I want a pro-lifer in the actual seat of the President's desk.

My first choice in the last few elections was Alan Keyes.

Keyes as VP would have given the win to either Bush the elder or Bob Dole. That's more of the reason that I don't of the GOP as the stupid party. They should have beat Clinton and flat blew it IMHO. I saw it coming and the GOP leadership didn't. I'm not that smart so they must have been dumb. I hope that cleverer folk are there now.

I didn't know Rice was pro-death. Perhaps she can be turned...to the light side.

"One thing is certain and that is that Bush is terrified of losing in 2004. It scares the sh!t out of him and every pundit knows it. The thought of repeating history like that is something he can't tolerate. He wants to vindicate his Dad and vindicate his family's name."

Respectfully disagree -- on two points.

At this juncture, I don't believe there is any reason to think Bush might be "terrified" of losing in 2004. Nor would this motivation guide any of his actions.

But there is reason for us to fear his losing in 2004. And it has nothing to do with the Bush family honor. Instead, it would mean that, at this critical and dangerous time, the country's fate would be in the hands of a Democrat.

That nightmarish vision alone should be enough for all of us to re-quadruple our efforts toward Bush's re-election.

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.