LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives


SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives


SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE@LIST.UVM.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Home

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Home

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE  August 2003

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE August 2003

Subject:

Iraqi scientists confirm WMD destroyed

From:

Ian Pitchford <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Science for the People Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 12 Aug 2003 12:51:04 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (92 lines)

Saddam ordered chemical attack, inspector to claim

Saddam 'ordered chemical attack'

Julian Borger in Washington
Tuesday August 12, 2003
The Guardian

The former UN inspector hired by the Bush administration to find evidence that
Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction will claim in a report next
month that Iraqi forces were ordered to fire chemical shells at invading
coalition troops, according to US reports.

But David Kay, who heads the 1,400-strong Iraq Survey Group, has admitted he
has found no trace of the weapons themselves, and cannot explain why they were
never used.

One possibility is that the orders were part of an elaborate bluff, in the hope
that they would be intercepted by the US and deter an attack.

According to US officials, all the Iraqi scientists now in custody have
insisted that Saddam's arsenal of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons was
destroyed years before the Iraqi invasion.

The Boston Globe reported that Mr Kay, who was hired by the CIA in June to
direct the search, had made the claim in a classified briefing to two Senate
committees.

The newspaper quoted officials who had seen a summary of his report as saying
that Republican Guard commanders had been ordered to launch chemical-filled
shells at troops.

"They have found evidence that an order was given," a senior intelligence
official said, adding there was no explanation of why the weapons were not
used.

After his congressional briefing, Mr Kay told journalists he was making "solid
progress", but said he would not make it public until he completed his work and
found "conclusive proof". He is under pressure from the White House to go
public as soon as possible and administration officials say he is expected to
publish a report within weeks.

Prewar claims by the Blair government that Iraqi forces were ready to fire
chemical weapons at 45 minutes' notice, and US reports in March that chemical
artillery shells had been sent to Republican Guard units ringing Baghdad, were
ridiculed when no such ordnance was fired or found.

It is not clear what evidence Mr Kay will present to support his claims.

At the time he was hired by the CIA to direct the hunt for weapons, Mr Kay was
working for a hi-tech engineering firm and appearing regularly on television to
argue that the Iraqi dictator had a significant arsenal.

Some of his former UN colleagues have said he has a powerful personal incentive
to show he was not entirely wrong.

After the war he suggested that the weapons had been dumped in the Tigris and
Euphrates rivers but no evidence of this was found to back up the allegation.

Mr Kay believes that the Baghdad regime destroyed or hid its weapons, telling
reporters: "The active deception programme is truly amazing once you get inside
it."

The Bush administration is hoping that the Kay report will bolster its defences
against an expected onslaught of Democratic party criticism over the Iraq war
once as the 2004 presidential election campaign gathers pace next month.

The White House weathered two weeks of intense media scrutiny last month after
it admitted including an unsubstantiated claim about the Iraqi nuclear
programme in the president's state of the union address in January.

The intensity of the coverage has let up considerably while Congress is on
holiday this month.

But the Washington Post on Sunday published a three-page investigation on how
the administration exaggerated available intelligence on the Iraqi nuclear
programme.

"On occasion, administration advocates withheld evidence that did not conform
to their views," the investigation found.

"The White House seldom corrected misstatements or acknowledged loss of
confidence in information upon which it had previously relied."

The report focused on administration claims that Iraq was trying to import
aluminium tubes to build a gas centrifuge for uranium enrichment, despite
persuasive evidence that the specification of the tubes made it much more
likely they were intended for the construction of rockets, as the Baghdad
regime had claimed.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1016838,00.html

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
May 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LIST.UVM.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager