U.S. Naval pilot held in Iraq?

[MSU2mike]

From the Washington Times: http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20020311-40815350.htm

Here's the text:

U.S. intelligence agencies have obtained new information indicating Iraq is holding captive a U.S. Navy pilot shot down during the Persian Gulf war, The Washington Times has learned.
?????British intelligence provided the CIA and Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) with the new information several months ago, and intelligence officials said it could assist in the ongoing investigation into the fate of Navy Lt. Cmdr. Michael Scott Speicher.
?????Cmdr. Speicher was declared killed in action in 1991 after his F-18 Hornet was shot down over Iraq. But last year he was re-classified as "missing in action" by the Pentagon, based on information from an Iraqi defector.
?????According to U.S. intelligence officials, the British intelligence information was based on an additional intelligence source ? someone who had been in Iraq and said he had learned that an American pilot is being held captive in Baghdad.
?????The British report stated further that only two Iraqis were permitted to see the captive American pilot: the chief of Iraq's intelligence service, and Uday Hussein, son of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, said the officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity.
?????The new intelligence has led some Pentagon officials to believe Iraq is holding Cmdr. Speicher prisoner.
?????One U.S. official said the new agent offered to identify the exact location in Baghdad where the American is being held and also offered to obtain a photograph of the prisoner.
?????A defense official said the new information is not related to an earlier report from an Iranian pilot who was repatriated recently to Iran and said that he had seen an American held prisoner in Iraq. "That was checked out, and the intelligence community didn't find anything about it," the defense official said.
?????President Bush has been briefed on the new intelligence on Cmdr. Speicher and the likelihood of an American POW in Baghdad is being factored into U.S. policy toward future operations against Iraq, the officials said.
?????DIA spokesman Lt. Cmdr. Jim Brooks said the Speicher case is "an active investigation." The agency "investigates and continues to investigate all reports regarding the Speicher case." He declined to comment further on specific reports on the case.
?????A White House spokesman could not be reached for comment.
?????It could not be learned if the Bush administration is taking steps to contact the Iraqi government about Cmdr. Speicher.
?????However, U.S. intelligence agencies are continuing to gather information on the case, the official said.
?????The CIA sent a notice to Congress Feb. 4 saying it had obtained new intelligence related to Cmdr. Speicher and is expected to provide more information in a briefing that could come as early as this week, one official said.
?????A U.S. intelligence report from March 2001 stated: "We assess that Iraq can account for Cmdr. Speicher but that Baghdad is concealing information about his fate."
?????The report, ordered by the Senate Intelligence Committee, stated that Cmdr. Speicher "probably survived the loss of his aircraft, and if he survived, he almost certainly was captured by the Iraqis."
?????The report stated that Cmdr. Speicher's aircraft was shot down by an Iraqi jet firing an air-to-air missile, and that the jet crashed in the desert west of Baghdad.
?????An unclassified summary of the report, "Intelligence Community Assessment of the Lieutenant Commander Speicher Case," was obtained by The Times.
?????The intelligence community report said that after the Gulf war cease-fire, Cmdr. Speicher was not among the 21 U.S. military personnel released, nor were his remains returned.
?????The new intelligence information bolsters an earlier report from an Iraqi national. In 1999, an Iraqi defector reported to U.S. intelligence officials that he had taken an injured U.S. pilot to Baghdad six weeks after the Gulf war began. He identified Cmdr. Speicher in a photograph as the pilot.
?????Based on the defector report and pressure from Sen. Robert C. Smith, New Hampshire Republican, the Navy changed Cmdr. Speicher's status from killed in action to missing in action on Jan. 11, 2001.
?????The intelligence community report stated that during an investigation of the crash site in 1995, Iraqi officials provided investigators with a flight suit that appeared to be the one worn by Cmdr. Speicher. The flight suit had been cut.
?????The intelligence report concluded that the pilot "probably survived the crash of his F/A-18."
?????"We assess Lt. Cmdr. Speicher was either captured alive or his remains were recovered and brought to Baghdad," the report said.
?????Mr. Bush has called Iraq one of three "axis of evil" states, and there have been intelligence reports indicating Iraq may have supported the September 11 attacks.
?????The government of the Czech Republic monitored a meeting in Prague between an Iraqi intelligence officer and Mohamed Atta, regarded by U.S. investigators as a ringleader for the September 11 attacks.
?????Senior Pentagon policy-makers have said Iraq should be the next target for U.S. anti-terrorism operation.
?????Cmdr. Speicher was the pilot of a Navy F-18 jet that was shot down by enemy fire on Jan. 17, 1991, the first day of combat operations in the Gulf war.
?????Defense Secretary Richard B. Cheney said during a news conference that same day that the pilot had been killed, and the Navy declared Cmdr. Speicher killed in action five months later.
?????The intelligence community report said that Iraq's government learned that the pilot was declared dead and as a result felt it probably did not have to account for him at the end of the war.
?????At first the Pentagon believed Cmdr. Speicher's aircraft was hit by either a ground- or air-fired missile and broke up in flight.
?????But the aircraft was later found intact and its canopy was found some distance from the crash, a sign the pilot had ejected.
?????The CIA also was told about the capture of an American pilot in the early 1990s but dismissed the information as coming from an unreliable agent, the officials said. The agency later acknowledged its dismissal was an error, U.S. officials said.

 

[missmacphisto]

I think i saw a story on this, on Nightline or 20/20 or one of those shows.
The Iraqi government claims that he could have been "eaten by wolves". Duh. I doubt if there ARE any wolves around there, and if there are, they wouldnt attack a human. So thats BS.
The US government needs to get off their lazy butts and seriously look into this.

Poor guy...

------------------
Look...look what you've done to me...You've made me poor and infamous, and I thank you...

My name is MISS MACPHISTO...I'm tired and i want to go HOME...

"Well you tell...Bonovista,that i said hello and that my codename is Belleview" - Bono before opening night of Anaheim Elevation concert

Well tonight thank God it's them, instead of you...

 

[MSU2mike]

This is an intriguing story on a few levels, but one thing I'm very confident in saying is that there is zero laziness on the part of our government when it comes to checking this issue out.

We'll see where it goes...

 

[DrTeeth]

How fortunate, now the US has an "excuse" for attacking Iraq!

 

[80sU2isBest]

Originally posted by DrTeeth:
How fortunate, now the US has an "excuse" for attacking Iraq!

We don't need any more reasons to attack Iraq, DrTeeth. Saddam Hussein is guilty of crimes against humanity, and has already given us plenty of reasons. He tested chemical warfare on his own people, for goodness sake!

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Originally posted by 80sU2isBest:

We don't need any more reasons to attack Iraq, DrTeeth. Saddam Hussein is guilty of crimes against humanity, and has already given us plenty of reasons. He tested chemical warfare on his own people, for goodness sake!

Very true - right through the 1980s when the US was supplying him with both money and weapons to fight a war against Iran.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Originally posted by 80sU2isBest:
The two have nothing to do with each other, Fizzing.

Well if US support for Iraq in the 1980s wasn't connected to Iraq's violence against it's own citizens, how can a US attack on Iraq be connnected to Iraq's violence against it's own citizens today? Surely it'd be hypocritical to claim they weren't connected then, but are connected now.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees:
Well if US support for Iraq in the 1980s wasn't connected to Iraq's violence against it's own citizens, how can a US attack on Iraq be connnected to Iraq's violence against it's own citizens today? Surely it'd be hypocritical to claim they weren't connected then, but are connected now.

Not hypocritical at all.
The chemical weapons used against the people of Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with the US. Saddam Hussein created those weapons on his own. Those chemical weapons, by the way, were created against the orders of the UN. That's where the US comes in.
But that's not the only reason Hussein needs to be shut down. He not only harbors terrorists, but he financially supports terrorists. He has consistently ignored the UN's orders to cease and desist with the exploration of nuclear and chemical warfare options. He refuses to go by the UN's orders to let inspectors in.
How can you be against taking that monster out of power?



[This message has been edited by 80sU2isBest (edited 03-12-2002).]

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Originally posted by 80sU2isBest:

Not hypocritical at all.
The chemical weapons used against the people of Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with the US. Saddam Hussein created those weapons on his own. Those chemical weapons, by the way, were created against the orders of the UN. That's where the US comes in.
But that's not the only reason Hussein needs to be shut down. He not only harbors terrorists, but he financially supports terrorists. He has consistently ignored the UN's orders to cease and desist with the exploration of nuclear and chemical warfare options. He refuses to go by the UN's orders to let inspectors in.
How can you be against taking that monster out of power?

Firstly, I'm not in any way supporting Saddam Hussein - I think his actions against the citizens of his own country are appalling and should be condemned. However, I don't support a US military attack on Iraq, having seen the consequences of the 1991 attack, the continuing attacks and the sanctions against Iraq.

That said, what is your evidence that Iraq either harbours terrorists or offers financial support to terrorists? I'm not denying this, I'm just wondering where your information comes from. It's interesting that not one of the hijackers from September 11th was from Iraq. Several were from Saudi Arabia, yet I haven't heard any US plans to attack Saudi for harbouring terrorists.

On the subject of Iraq refusing to allow UN arms inspectors access, in 1998, Raymond Zilinskas, an arms inspector, stated that "95% of UNSCOM's work proceeds unhindered." It's also interesting to note that while it's often claimed that Iraq kicked out inspectors in December 1998, UNSCOM director, Richard Butler actually ordered the arms inspectors to leave. On the same subject, you might remember an article published in the Washington Post, after which the US was forced to admit it had been using UN inspectors to spy on Iraq.

Iraq has ignored the orders of the UN by continuing to develop chemical weapons, you say. In 1999 another UN inspector, Scott Ritter, stated that "from a qualitative standpoint, Iraq has been disarmed. Iraq today possesses no meaningful
weapons of mass destruction." And Raymond Zilinskas, mentioned above also commented that "although it has been
theoretically possible for the Iraqis to regain such weapons since 1991, the duplicity would have been
risky and expensive, and the probability of discovery very high."

Iraq has ignored UN orders, you say. Well, yes it has. However, so has the US, on numerous occassions. Just one example on the same subject: UN Resolution 687 calls for regional disarmament in that area and yet the US continues to supply weapons to Israel, Turkey, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, to name just a few. Is it reasonable to expect completely disarmament from Iraq while it's neighbours continue to expand their arsenal? What's more, Israel possesss nuclear weapons, in violation of UN resolutions, and yet the US has never condemned Israel for this. Not to mention that the US has the largest nuclear arsenal in the world, has refused to comply with numerous international treaties and wouldn't dream of allowing in UN arms inspectors, yet it demands this from Iraq and threatens to launch a military attack if it doesn't get the desired response.

And just as a reminder: I don't support Saddam Hussein, I condemn his actions in using chemical weapons against his own people, I'm not defending this. I just don't support an attack on Iraq by the US and I believe that some of the information about Iraq which has been put forward by the US and many other western countries is, at best, inaccurate, and at worst, outright lies.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Fizzing said:
That said, what is your evidence that Iraq either harbours terrorists or offers financial support to terrorists? I'm not denying this, I'm just wondering where your information comes from. It's interesting that not one of the hijackers from September 11th was from Iraq. Several were from Saudi Arabia, yet I haven't heard any US plans to attack Saudi for harbouring terrorists.

80s replies:
I hope you are ready for some reading, Fizzing. You?ve asked me some questions, and I?m about to provide some answers:

The following interview excerpts are from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/


Interview with Khidhir Hamza

Hamza is an American-trained nuclear physicist who headed the Iraqi nuclear weapons program before defecting to the West in 1994. In this interview, conducted in October 2001, Hamza discusses the possibility that Iraq may develop a nuclear weapon in the near future, and whether Saddam has connections to Osama bin Laden and the Sept. 11 terrorists. In an earlier FRONTLINE interview, he detailed Iraq's efforts to build a nuclear weapon and to hide its weapons development from U.N. inspectors. Hamza is the author of Saddam's Bombmaker (Scribner, 2000), a memoir recounting his experiences working in Saddam's inner circle.

Q:What's your opinion of whether Saddam Hussein has a connection with bin Laden?

A:What I think is there is somehow a change in the level of the type of operation bin Laden has been carrying [out]. What we are looking at initially is more or less just attempts to blow some buildings, just normal use of explosives for a terrorist. What we have in the September 11 operation, [is a] tightly controlled, very sophisticated operation; the type an Iraqi intelligence agency, well versed in the technology [could pull off]. ... So my thinking is a guy sitting in a cave in Afghanistan is not the guy who will do an operation of this caliber. It has to have in combination with it a guy with the sophistication and know-how on how to carry these things.
... Iraq [also] has a history of training terrorists, harboring them, and taking good care of them, by the way. A terrorist is well cared for with Saddam. So he has a good reputation in that type of community, if you like.

Q:What do you think about the possibility of Iraq sharing anthrax with bin Laden's people, whoever the terrorists are in the United States that are now using them? What's the possibility of that?

A:I think [the possibility is] high. I think very high. ... I don't believe for a minute that Al Qaeda has the support, in Afghanistan or anywhere else, do to this sophisticated kind of weapon.

Q:In terms of the training of terrorists in camps -- what was taking place? Who was involved? And why the Iraqis? Why were they doing it?

A:The training and the terrorism angle would be the only option left for a country that lost a war. ... Outright wars are out now, with the sanctions and the huge losses, and Iraq demoralized and almost destroyed. Terrorism is always for the weak. It's not an option for a major power. It's never been. Always, when you get weaker, you go to terrorism. ... So terrorist camps come natural in Iraq.

Q:What was happening that you remember seeing yourself at Salman Pak [site of an alleged terrorist camp]?

A:For me, the major training was not Salman Pak ... I believe the major training centers are elsewhere, including Deltaje [ph] I have a ranch [near] there ... and that's a major training camp. ... Some of the guys being trained in that camp would come over and talk to us ... . These guys are getting prepared to do some terrorist attacks on neighboring states, or anywhere else, actually. ... They were trained to go into Kuwait and acquire a target, or Saudi Arabia and acquire a target, and come back; [go to] Iran, acquire targets and come back. Now, it looks to me like ... the part I saw is the tip of the iceberg of what's going on in other camps, where all kinds of training is going on in these kind of operations. It is typical commando or terrorist-type of training where you are told where to go, given a map, live from the land.

Q:"Did Saddam Hussein understand that? Did he understand that terror was his friend? Did he understand that, in some ways, as far as a weapon of choice, perhaps biological was the choice?

A:If there is anything Saddam understands, it is terror. This is what he lives on. This is how he made himself into what he is now. This is how he came to power. ... Everything we did in the chemical weapon program, all the death caused, we could have done them with conventional. But dropping chemicals on the Iranians, they started fleeing. ... You might kill less with these, but the others are completely demoralized. You started for the first time seeing fleeing troops at the front. So terror is what actually was the major weapon we used in the chemical against the Iranians.

Q:To keep with the subject of terror, tell us about being shown the tape [of Saddam purging the government of those he viewed as "traitors" when he took power.]

A:That tape was made [on] the "night of the long knives." Saddam, when he took power, he thought there was this... He believed it was a conspiracy to put him out of the loop, get him out of the system completely.
So he needed more or less a coup. He took over and became president and arranged for this charade of the general secretary of the party claiming that these are the conspirators, agents of Syria, to topple the Iraqi government.
You had the Revolutionary Council, which is made of nine members, voted by the majority. The minority of four, including Saddam, decided that the majority of five are the traitors, and put them under arrest. So five out of the nine Revolutionary Council were killed that night.
The tape was made in several versions, I am told. I was shown one of the versions. ... People were called by name, they were asked to leave, somebody came and escorted them out, a couple of people, they were taken outside.
In another version of the tape, there is a camera outside. They were lined up and shot. How? The question is, who shot them and why? And that's Saddam's baptism by blood. Saddam doesn't believe you are loyal unless you kill for him. Any other test is meaningless. ...
So some ministers, some people who are now in the Cabinet, who are outside holding the guns that shot the others, other ministers, including his cousins. The main henchmen and controllers were his half-brothers and cousins. ... You see people being shot, and then somebody coming over, Barzan, especially, his oldest half-brother, and do the coup de grace. So you have this terrible bloodbath outside.

Q:Why were you shown this tape?

A:Several reasons. [To show me] what could happen to me if I did something. I was in a critical [position]. I was doing one of the most crucial ... programs, and the largest. We learned in the U.S. a habit -- a bad one for Iraq -- of more or less being open, talking a lot, especially among our friends and inner circles. So they were telling me I'd better mend my ways, be a little bit more under control, or I'll be like one of these.


Fizzing said:
On the subject of Iraq refusing to allow UN arms inspectors access, in 1998, Raymond Zilinskas, an arms inspector, stated that "95% of UNSCOM's work proceeds unhindered." It's also interesting to note that while it's often claimed that Iraq kicked out inspectors in December 1998, UNSCOM director, Richard Butler actually ordered the arms inspectors to leave.

80sReplies:
Really? Butler ordered them to leave? Seems to be a difference of opinion on that one. The following is from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/etc/arsenal.html

At the end of the Gulf War, Saddam Hussein and his elite military units were still in power and in possession of huge stockpiles of deadly weapons. In April 1991, the U.N. Security Council created UNSCOM, a special commission to find and dismantle this arsenal. The U.N. imposed economic sanctions on Iraq that would be enforced until the country eliminated all nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons capability.
Two agencies were charged with the task. UNSCOM would uncover and destroy Iraq's biological- and chemical-weapons and ballistic-missile programs; the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was charged with uncovering and dismantling Iraq's clandestine nuclear program.
From 1991 to 1998 UNSCOM and IAEA carried out numerous inspections in Iraq, but with varying degrees of success.
For the first few years, Iraqi officials failed to disclose much of their special weapons programs to the inspectors. In 1995, Saddam Hussein's son-in-law Kamel Hussein defected. He had been in charge of the bioweapons program and revealed to UNSCOM that there was a vast arsenal of weapons they had failed to uncover, including biological weapons, and described how the Iraqis were hiding them. This was a breakthrough for the inspection teams, and they continued their work until 1998, when Iraq blocked further access and expelled UNSCOM.

Fizzing said:
In 1999 another UN inspector, Scott Ritter, stated that "from a qualitative standpoint, Iraq has been disarmed. Iraq today possesses no meaningful
weapons of mass destruction." And Raymond Zilinskas, mentioned above also commented that "although it has been
theoretically possible for the Iraqis to regain such weapons since 1991, the duplicity would have been
risky and expensive, and the probability of discovery very high."

80s replies:
Richard Butler disagree with Mr. Ritter, as you will see when you read the following:

The following interview with Richard Butler was also taken form the above PBS link.

Interview with Richard Butler
Richard Butler is the former chairman of the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) that was set up to find and dismantle Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction at the end of the Gulf War. He warns that Saddam Hussein is "addicted" to weapons of mass destruction and that biological weapons are his weapon of choice, but he argues that the U.S. should not go after Saddam until it has proof of his involvement in the Sept. 11 or anthrax attacks. He was interviewed in mid-October 2001.

Q:Give me a sense of Saddam's biological warfare history, his orientation, goal, how much he amassed, etc.

A:It's really simple. When I was in Iraq after a little while, I formed this view. It's kind of a theory, but actually very practical. The degree of resistance that Saddam showed to our inspection and arms control was a direct sign of the importance he attached to a given weapon. So when he said, "You can't go there," that means they really wanted to keep that stuff.
The degree of resistance that the Iraqis showed to our investigation of their biological weapons program exceeded all other deceptions and resistances. So I had to conclude that, for Saddam, biological weapons were his weapons of choice. He seems to be really attached to the idea of killing people with germs, because they tried so hard to keep us away from their biology program. What did they have? Everything. Anthrax, plague, botulinum, gangrene, camelpox. Would you believe there's a thing in Iraq called camelpox? I mean, everything. Quantities and qualities, [we're] not absolutely sure, because they threw us out three years ago and we don't know what they now have.
Anthrax, however, [is the] leading biological agent, leading candidate, because of its nature. We know that Saddam loaded this into shells, bombs, and missile warheads. I had in my own hand pieces of a destroyed missile warhead that we swabbed and it had anthrax residue in it. It was a serious program.

Q:My assumption is that, by using DNA, we can find out whether anthrax that's happening here is anthrax that came from Iraq. Do we have [that evidence]?

A:No. Unfortunately, not readily. ... We have to find out exactly what anthrax was used in these letters in the United States -- crude or sophisticated, and so on -- which would then lead to how it was made, which would then lead to who might have made it. So we funnel down; we narrow the field of candidates for who may have done this.
I suspect that one of the candidates will be Iraq, and, indeed, by the time this goes to air, that may have been proven. Because what is at issue here is crude or weapons-grade anthrax, and Iraq worked quite hard on making weapons-grade anthrax. It meant know-how, it meant investing millions of dollars in special equipment, which they did. Did we bring back samples? No, not particularly. Did we know what they were doing? Not absolutely. But I want to make this point to you: What we knew would have been an underestimate, not an overestimate, because they took such strenuous measures to prevent us from knowing the truth. What we saw was tens of thousands of gallons, serious stuff. Whether that was all of it or not, I don't know.

Q:Tens of thousands of...

A:... Gallons or liters. Quite frankly, I can't remember at this particular moment, but very substantial quantities of anthrax, substantial quantities. Now, question that our figures, if anything, would have been low, not high. How else could I interpret the degree of resistance that was shown to our investigation of the biological weapons thing?
Tariq Aziz, Saddam's deputy, took me aside once, just once, in private, and said, "Of course we made biological weapons. Of course." One hour prior to that, in a public room, he was saying, "We never did that," but privately he said, "Of course we did." And he went on to say why. He said [it was] to use on the Persians and the Jews. ...
Beyond that, there is no doubt that, if you look at the amount of growth media -- the means of making this stuff that Iraq imported -- the figures they gave us, the figures we had to work with on how much anthrax and so on were clearly underestimates.

Q:This growth media is the jet fuel of anthrax?

A:Well, something like that. This stuff exists in every hospital in the United States. If you have some pathology that needs to be investigated, they take a swab or a piece of skin or whatever from you to see if you've got a disease, or cancer, or whatever. Typically the tissue is grown in a growth medium. Look, it's quite simple. It's a little bit of gel, a little bit of yeast, that gives food to these cells, that grows them so the scientist can see if you're well or unwell. But in hospitals, you use a smidgen of it, a fingernail. You use a tiny bit to do that.
These people in Iraq imported tons of it. We begged them, we said, "Why did you do that? Why do you need all that stuff? To grow what?" We knew quite well it was to grow their biological weapons cultures. It's pathetic, but in the end they said, "The order clerk made an error, he put an extra zero on the error and we got 50 tons instead of five," or something like that. That's the nonsense that we were subjected to.

Q:In the period after 1998, Iraq defenses would say they were done. They couldn't do it. We'd blown up the facilities. There was no ability for them to have done anything with this material. Do you believe that?

A:No. ... First, all of the evidence of their behavior showed that Saddam was very interested in biological weapons. They created the factories for it; they got the growth media and the seed stock. They did it.
Secondly, when at the end of the Gulf War the international community made a law which said Iraq must be divested of these things or sanctions will remain, Saddam had the clearest possible choice. He could remove sanctions on 22 million ordinary Iraqi people and alleviate and improve their standard of life, or he could retain his weapons of mass destruction. What did he do? The latter. He said, "Damn the ordinary people, I want my weapons."
For five years, he refused to accept the oil-for-food arrangement, where his oil could be sold to produce food for the people. For several years, he refused and hindered our inspections. What can one make of this? This is a man who wants weapons of mass destruction, even at the cost of ordinary Iraqi people. And that's what he did.
Now, go further into what I was saying earlier. The degree of resistance in the nuclear, chemical and biological area varied. But the highest degree of resistance was in the biological area, which leads me to conclude that this [is] Saddam's favorite toy: killing people with germs. They lied to us comprehensively about their program, and it was very hard for us to get a handle on it, to know its exact size and quality. In the end I think we did, up to a point, but let me say this: The last offer I made them before they threw us out was, "Give me the biological weapons. I'll forget about the manufacturing capability." This was unique. I tried to turn it on its head, I said, "Let's go top down. Give me the biological weapons that you've actually made, and I'll worry later about the manufacturing capability. Just give me the sharp end of the stick, the weapons."
Tariq Aziz briefly said to me, "That's an interesting proposal," but in a matter of weeks later, he just said, "You're out of here. No way." Because, in a sense, I was right. In a sense, it would have exposed all of the lies about never having weaponized biology, which, of course, they had.

Q

oes it surprise you that there is a bipartisan movement in Washington to go after Saddam?

A:No, it doesn't surprise me. ...

Q:Why are you not surprised?

A: Because they're right. ... Saddam and his addiction to weapons of mass destruction -- why do I use that word? I use that word really carefully. I've thought about this very deeply. Not attachment, but addiction -- a compulsive behavior, a deep belief that somehow these weapons will open up the world or make him the leader of the world, the new Nebuchadnezzar from biblical times, whatever. Believe me, they're right; Washington is right. This man and his addiction to weapons of mass destruction is actually a very serious problem.
Secondly, if one wants to get to the bottom of the whole business of there being an Arab and Muslim world on the one hand, but within that are fanatic terrorists on the other hand. ... We have to disconnect the two. Saddam's role in that is important. As long as he is there, posturing to be a leader of the slighted Arab peoples against the West and so on, that's a very serious problem.
The third thing is the specific possibility that he's actually given aid to Al Qaeda, that he's actually given anthrax or aid or whatever. So there are three good reasons to be concerned about him.
Which one would I choose? It's actually the middle one. It is the one that says Arab and Muslim people are deeply misled by people like Saddam Hussein, deeply misled. His offer to them [is] that by following him in some pan-Arab movement towards a better world against the West, against the Israelis or what Aziz calls the Jews, will somehow save everyone, make everyone's life better. It's very seductive, and it's very wrong.
The fundamental problem that many people in the Arab and Muslim world face is their standard of living and that their governments do little about it. That's not our fault, but that's a problem they face. Saddam suggesting to people, "Lift your gaze from that, follow me into some great Arab crusade," is both wrong but very dangerous to us. I would argue that, as long as a man like that exists in that part of the world, we've got a problem.

QWe know, for example, he went after President Bush's father. We know about Salman Pak supposedly training terrorist networks.
A:Yes, we know all about that. Well, there's also a place where they made biological weapons, by the way. There was a factory there that we decimated.

80s further says:
And, from the interview with Khidhir Hamza, quoted earlier, we have this about the inspectors:


Q: How successful or unsuccessful was the United Nations in eradicating the nuclear and the biological threat that Iraq presents here?

A:The United Nations inspectors had a very misguided opinion about what is disarmament. ... They thought if you have something, I take it away from you, and you are disarmed. Despite the knowledge you have, the expertise you gained through the years, your contacts that could repurchase parts for you and put the thing back together. They discounted all this. If you have a piece of equipment, they take it away, and you are disarmed.
This is simplistic. They are not na?ve; I talked to them. I talked to many of the inspectors. We had some kind of give and take in this. But they were restricted. ...
For example, on the nuclear ... the critical parts, that Iraq could not replace easily, we did not tell about -- for example, the molds that you make explosives with, the machines that you make explosives with. Nobody is going to sell you these anymore. Very difficult. So Iraq did not give these up. Not a single explosive was given to the inspectors for the nuclear weapon program. Not a single mold, not a single machine.

Q:"Given?" I thought they were found.

A:A little bit found, but not explosives. Iraq claimed that these were destroyed in the war. Other parts were given, or were found and given to inspectors. Not everything the inspectors found, by the way, was given to them. They might find something and it disappears on them. And that happened several times.
Anyway, suppose even they were given? The expertise is there. Iraq kept a very essential part of the program. The computer-controlled lathe machines and machining device ... these are critical in making the high technology part.
In biology, what do you need in biology? Aside from some few equipment, you need to import mostly fermenters, dryers and stuff like that. All these could be re-manufactured in Iraq. And this is what the inspectors took away.
You don't need a high-grade growth media to do biological agents. What you need is a growth media, and a growth media can be done in Iraq. It wouldn't be the high-grade Western standard or your standard growth media. The germs that grow wouldn't be up to standards here, but they would be workable. ...

 

[STING2]

Fizzing,
Can you name any weapon systems that you say the USA sold to Iraq during the 1980s?

 

[80sU2isBest]

Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees:
Very true - right through the 1980s when the US was supplying him with both money and weapons to fight a war against Iran.

The two have nothing to do with each other, Fizzing.

 

[CannibalisticArtist]

they be war in tha middle eas.

[This message has been edited by CannibalisticArtist (edited 03-13-2002).]

 

[80sU2isBest]

Originally posted by CannibalisticArtist:
they be war in tha middle eas.
[This message has been edited by CannibalisticArtist (edited 03-13-2002).]

That's pretty funny!