Powell said it was an open question whether WMDs existed in Iraq
US Secretary of State Colin Powell has conceded that Iraq may not have possessed any stocks of weapons of mass destruction before the war last year.
His comments came after the former head of the US weapons inspection team, David Kay, said he did not believe there were any weapons stockpiles.
Mr Powell was speaking on his way to the former Soviet republic of Georgia.
Less than a year ago, Mr Powell warned the United Nations Security Council about the danger from Iraq's weapons.
In the run-up to the US-led war against Iraq, he gave a presentation to the Security Council in which he asserted that Saddam Hussein had amassed secret weapons of mass destruction.
He said then that he believed Iraq possessed, among other things, between 100 and 500 tonnes of chemical weapons agents.
But in his latest remarks, he told reporters travelling with him that it was an "open question" whether Iraq had any stocks of weapons of mass destruction at all.
"The answer to that question is, we don't know yet," Mr Powell said on his way to attend the inauguration on Sunday of the new Georgian president, Mikhail Saakashvili.
'No stockpiles'
On Friday, David Kay, who had led the US hunt for weapons in Iraq resigned.
He told Reuters news agency he did not believe there had been large-scale production of chemical or biological weapons in Iraq since the end of the first Gulf War in 1991.
"I don't think they existed," Mr Kay said.
"What everyone was talking about is stockpiles produced after the end of the last Gulf War and I don't think there was a large-scale production programme in the 90s."
Responding to questions about Mr Kay's comments, Mr Powell said it was for the weapons inspectors still in Iraq to decide if there were any weapons stock or not, where they had gone if they had existed, and, if there were ever any weapons, why that was not known before the war.
Mr Powell acknowledged that the US thought Saddam Hussein had banned weapons, but added, "We had questions that needed to be answered.
"What was it?" he asked. "One hundred tonnes, 500 tonnes or zero tonnes? Was it so many litres of anthrax, 10 times that amount or nothing?"
Backtracking
The BBC's Jon Leyne, who is travelling with Mr Powell, says the secretary of state has made a significant concession on the weapons issue.
He says Mr Powell's language was very different from that of Vice-President Dick Cheney, who said just two days ago that it was too early to pass judgement on whether weapons of mass destruction existed.
Our correspondent says that with members of the Bush administration steadily backtracking from their earlier claims, the hunt for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction could have a very uncertain future once sovereignty is handed back to the Iraqis at the end of June.
Mr Kay has been replaced by Charles Duelfer, a 51-year-old former UN weapons inspector, who said he would not "pre-judge" the investigation despite previously saying that he did not believe banned weapons would be found.
posted on January 24, 2004 12:01:23 PM new
Sideways to this, Bunni, I was just reading an article that debates whether Saddam will ever be brought to trial, given that evidence about WMD and our involvement in supplying them to Iraq would come out. 'Course, I s'pose we could have a secret trial and seal all the evidence...
posted on January 24, 2004 12:06:38 PM new
I'll be looking forward to hearing the President apologize for lying about Iraq. If he's a decent, God-fearing man like some think, it shouldn't be so difficult for him to admit he was wrong.
posted on January 24, 2004 12:20:55 PM newWar Crimes Trial for Saddam Could Reveal Details of Past U.S. Help By Ken Guggenheim Associated Press Writer
Published: Jan 24, 2004
WASHINGTON (AP) - Saddam Hussein's loyalists may not be the only ones edgy about the prospect of a war crimes trial for the former Iraqi leader.
Vexing questions also could surface about how much the United States helped Iraq during its eight-year war with Iran - and whether it tried to stop Iraqi atrocities.
Among the questions that could arise in any such trial:
-What did U.S. officials know about products shipped to Iraq that could have been used for weapons? What intelligence did they provide Iraq that could have been used for chemical attacks?
-How hard did Donald H. Rumsfeld try to persuade Saddam Hussein to stop using chemical weapons against Iran? Rumsfeld, now defense secretary, met with Saddam and other top Iraqi officials during visits to Baghdad in 1983 and 1984, when he served as President Reagan's envoy.
Saddam and officials from his government could describe their dealings with Americans as they defend themselves from charges stemming from the Iran and Kuwait wars and the repression against Kurds and other Iraqis. The Iraqi Governing Council is creating a tribunal and some international jurists have called for a U.N. court.
"I don't think there's going to be much there that a leading Iraqi is going to be able to say, 'Hey, we had significant, witting cooperation from the United States government in our program of weapons of mass destruction,'" said Richard Murphy, head of the State Department's Near Eastern affairs bureau in the 1980s.
But testimony could provide embarrassing new details about American assistance to Iraq, what U.S. officials knew about Iraqi atrocities and what they did - or didn't do - to stop them.
"I think there will be a dramatic embarrassment factor for the U.S. government," said Thomas Blanton, director of the National Security Archives, a foreign policy research center. Blanton and other analysts said the embarrassment could be even worse for countries with closer relations to Iraq, such as France.
In the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Saddam's pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, support of terrorists and human rights abuses became grounds for war. But in the 1980s, the United States had a more pressing concern: Iran.
After the hostage crisis at the U.S. embassy in Tehran, U.S. and Arab leaders feared that if Iran defeated Iraq, Iran could threaten other countries in hopes of spreading its strict form of Islam.
Iraq was seen more favorably even though it started the war and Saddam was clearly a dictator. It was a secular nation, influential among Arab states. It had vast oil reserves and offered lucrative opportunities for U.S. businesses. The United States also wanted to prevent Iraq from becoming too close to the Soviet Union.
Many details about the U.S.-Iraqi relationship are already known through congressional investigations, court proceedings and declassified documents.
"I think most of the embarrassing stuff has already come out," said Geoffrey Kemp, a National Security Council specialist on Iraq under Reagan.
But the historical record isn't complete. Questions remain about Rumsfeld's visits, which came at a time when the United States already was well aware of Iraq's use of chemical weapons.
Declassified documents indicate that Rumsfeld did not raise the issue with Saddam in their December 1983 meeting, although Rumsfeld said he did raise it during a one-on-one meeting with foreign minister Tariq Aziz.
Rumsfeld returned to Iraq in March 1984 to try to smooth relations after the United States condemned Iraq's use of chemical weapons. He was instructed to stress U.S. interests in preventing an Iranian victory and in improving relations with Iraq, despite the condemnation. What he told Aziz is unknown because notes of the meeting remain classified.
Aziz is now in U.S. custody.
David L. Mack, who held various top Middle East positions in the State Department in the 1980s and '90s, said he doubts Iraqis would have heeded any warnings not to use chemical weapons.
"In general I think there is a high degree of exaggeration about the degree to which we could have done anything about Iraqi bad behavior," he said.
During the war, the Reagan administration worked aggressively to prevent other nations from shipping arms to Iran, but did little to prevent conventional arms from going to Iraq.
Questions have been raised about whether the United States not only ignored foreign arms shipments to Iraq, but actually encouraged or even arranged them. A former National Security Council official, Howard Teicher, said in a 1995 court affidavit that the CIA made sure Iraq received weapons from non-U.S. manufacturers.
The affidavit was filed in the case of a company accused of illegally exporting to Chile material used in Iraqi cluster bombs. A defendant claimed the CIA had arranged the deal, but the court rejected the argument after viewing classified documents.
While prohibiting U.S. arms sales to Iraq, the Reagan administration allowed exports of products that could be used for civilian or military purposes. Questions remain about whether pesticides or helicopters were used to make or spray chemical weapons.
Questions also linger about whether the United States may have inadvertently helped Saddam's biological weapons program. U.S. officials have acknowledged that in the 1980s, the government and private companies sent to Iraq strains that could be used for biological weapons, including anthrax and the West Nile virus. Iraq claimed the samples were for medical research, but they were sent to sites believed to be part of Iraq's biological weapons program.
Perhaps the most sensitive issue is intelligence sharing.
U.S. officials have acknowledged providing intelligence on Iran, but what information they provided isn't clear. Teicher claimed in the affidavit that the United States provided strategic military advice to Saddam. In one example, he alleged that Reagan used then-Vice President George H.W. Bush to send a message that Iraq should step up its bombing of Iran.
Blanton said the biggest question is whether the United States provided intelligence that could have been used for chemical attacks against Iran. Top officials from that era deny that happened.
posted on January 24, 2004 01:03:21 PM new
I'm not sure who it was (Gravid?), but someone here brought up the subject about capturing Saddam alive and how bad that would be for the U.S. if he ever went to trial because of what he knows. Interesting.
posted on January 24, 2004 01:15:20 PM new
Yes, It was Gravid. I was amazed at the fact that he was captured alive, for the same reasons Gravid mentioned. They knew long ago that he was a madman, and the knowingly provided him with the means to kill many. He was a pawn in their chess game.
posted on January 24, 2004 01:27:53 PM new
I remember the Iraq/Iran war. The U.S. didn't want to get involved but decided Iran was more evil so they helped Iraq with weapons.
Twelve, Canada is helping via spending 30 billion at the borders to help keep all the terrorists out of your country. Don't you consider that help?
So you think only the U.S. and England should be allowed to talk about Saddam?
