Former UN WMD chief: We always knew Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction

[sabra]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/29/opinion/29butler.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

<snip>

In fact, it’s not so simple. Saddam Hussein’s purported possession of weapons of mass destruction was at the heart of the American and British justification for invading Iraq five years ago. We now know that those claims were false, and in some instances fabricated.

Actually, we knew that then, too. Yes, Saddam Hussein had demonstrated a deep attachment to nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. United Nations inspectors collected ample evidence of that attachment.

But those of us involved with United Nations inspections — the group I headed was the predecessor of the imperiled weapons commission — also knew that virtually all of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction had been removed. This judgment was confirmed by the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei.

Which is why we would not be wrong to be suspicious of the action proposed by the United States and Britain, which overruled the judgment of the United Nations in their decision to go to war in Iraq. Their decision demonstrates the danger of substituting national intelligence for the assessments assembled by an independent, international body. While individual governments will always track and analyze weaponry, their own national conclusions can never form a credible basis for action by the international community, especially for enforcement actions.

...


Richard Butler was the head of the United Nations Special Commission to disarm Iraq from 1997 to 1999.

[Xipe Totec]

1. A Chain of Lies on WMD

I posted this in 2004:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x70903


Just follow the bouncing rationale....

February 24, 2001

We will always try to consult with our friends in the region so that they are not surprised and do everything we can to explain the purpose of our responses. We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq, and these are policies that we are going to keep in place, but we are always willing to review them to make sure that they are being carried out in a way that does not affect the Iraqi people but does affect the Iraqi regime's ambitions and the ability to acquire weapons of mass destruction, and we had a good conversation on this issue.

Secretary Colin L. Powell
Cairo, Egypt (Ittihadiya Palace)


http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2001/933.htm

[librechik]

2. Bu Bu Bu--EVERYBODY BELIEVED Saddam had WMD!!!

Who is this United Nations you speak of?

And besides, Saddam KICKED THE INSPECTORS OUT!!!

After shipping all his WMD overnight to Syria, where they would be SAFE for him to use When the Time Comes.

[Gregorian]

3. This was, and is, an enormous tidbit. And here is why it isn't going to mean anything.

As I woke this morning, the word "parasite" was in my mind.

Bush/Cheney are a parasite on America. With the help of previous parasitic administrations the country was numbed down to the level below which they would react. And then the parasite took control. Now almost nothing gets our attention.


Numbing can take two stages. Repealing of the Fairness Doctrine helped to make an unbalanced and unfair media. In other words, they lie to us. The other is to make politics so ugly that no one will pay attention. That is happening to me right now. For the first time in years I can look at the Greatest page and see topics I know nothing about. And I don't care enough about. It's sick. It's the opposite of how it should be in a healthy world. We should be thrilled that the money we earn to give to the government actually is going toward things that help us.

And the parasite is obvious. Halliburtons. And not so obvious. Changing the political metabolism of the country so that the parasite may continue on unabated.

[Morgana LaFey]

4. I'd sure like to see some of the many statements he made back then

becaues I know he and Scott Ritter butted heads on TV numerous times -- and Ritter was the one who was absolutely right back then, so what were the two of them arguing about? It sure seems to me old Butler is on a different page these days than he was back then.

[leftchick]

5. here is an interview with Ritter from 2002

> But how can Iraq be sure that the new inspectors will not engage in spying activities on behalf of the US?

There is no way to ensure that. The best way I could see, based on my discussions with officials in various countries, is that UN inspectors have to be honest brokers. Their mandate is one of independent and objective monitoring, you cannot ensure that none of the observers is a spy but you can make sure that they do not overstep the Security Council mandate.

-> Could you elaborate on how did UNSCOM overstep this mandate in the past?

UNSCOM was manipulated by the US, especially under the lead of Richard Butler, the second executive director of UNSCOM. From 1997-1998 Butler stopped being a man objectively carrying out the will of the Security Council and became the head of a US-controlled UNSCOM, carrying out the will of the US and the UK. When you enter that kind of buddy-buddy relationship, when you become such buddies you give your buddy the green light to misuse and abuse the relationship.

-> How can inspectors such as Butler be avoided?

Let us concentrate on the basics first. Unless Iraq unconditionally allows the inspectors back, there will be a war and Iraq will be destroyed.

Let us play a semantic game, whereby it is understood that inspectors must return or there will be a war. Now, there are some governments saying that if Iraq allows the inspectors back, they will make sure that those inspectors do not overstep their mandate.

It is the only way. Can anybody guarantee the success? No.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=2353

[Morgana LaFey]

6. Thanks. That sheds some light on it. I didn't think I was imagining

that Butler was basically supportive of the notion of war. I'd still like to see some of his actual statements at the time, but this sorta validates my own vague recollection.

Thanks bunches!