Iraq Scientists: Lied About Nuke Weapons

[Master Zen]

Iraq Scientists: Lied About Nuke Weapons


By CHARLES J. HANLEY, AP Special Correspondent

Iraqi scientists never revived their long-dead nuclear bomb program, and in fact lied to Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) about how much progress they were making before U.S.-led attacks shut the operation down for good in 1991, Iraqi physicists say.



Before that first Gulf War (news - web sites), the chief of the weapons program resorted to "blatant exaggeration" in telling Iraq (news - web sites)'s president how much bomb material was being produced, key scientist Imad Khadduri writes in a new book.


Other leading physicists, in Baghdad interviews, said the hope for an Iraqi atomic bomb was never realistic. "It was all like building sand castles," said Abdel Mehdi Talib, Baghdad University's dean of sciences.


Seven months after a U.S.-British invasion toppled Saddam's Baath Party government, Iraqi scientists have grown more vocal in countering Bush administration claims, used to justify the war, that Baghdad had "reconstituted" nuclear weapons development, and that it once was a mere six months from making a bomb.


At best, Khadduri writes, it would have taken Iraq several years to build a nuclear weapon if the 1991 war and subsequent U.N. inspections had not intervened.


His self-published "Iraq's Nuclear Mirage," a chronicle of years of secret weapons work and of a final escape into exile, is part of this senior scientist's emergence from a low profile in Canada — intended to refute what he calls a "massive deception" in Washington that led the United States into war.


Months of searching by hundreds of U.S. experts have found no trace of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons in Iraq, just as U.N. inspectors found none before the war. No Iraqi scientists have confirmed the programs were revived in recent years.


Bush administration officials still speak, nonetheless, of a threat from such weapons — of Baghdad's "robust plans" for them, as Vice President **** Cheney (news - web sites) puts it — in defending last March's U.S. invasion of Iraq. They offer no hard evidence, however.


Khadduri, a U.S.- and British-educated physicist, writes that he did theoretical work on nuclear weapons as long ago as the mid-1970s, after joining Iraq's Atomic Energy Commission. By the late 1980s, as the secret bomb program accelerated, he was in a pivotal position as coordinator of all its scientific and engineering information.


The U.N. inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency, who dismantled the bomb program after Iraq's defeat in the 1991 war, saw Khadduri as a key source and conducted an all-day interview with him earlier this year in Toronto, where he has resided since 1998.


"Iraq's Nuclear Mirage," available via online booksellers, dismisses the U.S. contention that the atom-bomb establishment was somehow resurrected after the IAEA demolished it, U.N. inspectors were stationed in Iraq and Iraqi specialists were scattered.


"Where is the scientific and engineering staff required for such an enormous effort?" he asks. "Where are the buildings and infrastructure?"


The continuing U.S. weapons hunt amounts to no more than "investigating mirages," he says.


An ex-bombmaker still in Iraq is just as dismissive of the unsubstantiated U.S. allegations.


"There was no point in trying to revive this program. There was no material, no equipment, no scientists," former bomb designer Sabah Abdul Noor said in a recent interview at Baghdad's Technology University.


"Scientists were scattered and under the eyes of inspectors, totally scattered. To do a project, you have to be together."


Talib, the newly elected university dean, was an anti-Baathist who didn't participate in the bomb program, but was close to many who did. They vastly oversold their accomplishments before 1991, the physicist said.





"They put a lot of lies on Saddam Hussein," he said in a Baghdad interview. "They took a lot of money out of him through what you call, in English, bluffing." When their installations were finally demolished, it "saved their necks" by burying their mistakes, he said. "They could tell Saddam, `There's nothing left.'"

Khadduri, in his core position in the program, could attest to the overselling.

He writes that when he transferred top-secret documents of bomb program chief Jafar Dhia Jafar to an optical disc in 1991, he found the "blatant exaggeration" in a 1990 report to Saddam.

With its clever wording, Khadduri said in a telephone interview from Toronto, "one could easily have been convinced we had produced a couple of kilograms of enriched uranium instead of a couple of grams" — that is, about four pounds of bomb material instead of a fraction of an ounce.

A bomb would have required some 40 pounds of highly enriched uranium.

In a 1997 summary, the IAEA said there were no indications the Iraqis ever produced more than a few grams of such material. It also said there were "no indications that there remains in Iraq any physical capability for the production of amounts of weapon-usable nuclear material of any practical significance."

Khadduri and others said the design and actual production of a bomb would have been an extremely difficult task.

It was an impossible quest, "all futility," said one of Baghdad's senior nuclear physicists, Hamed M. al-Bahili.

Al-Bahili, who joined the Atomic Energy Commission in 1968 but remained outside the weapons program, said his colleagues inside "all knew they wouldn't achieve results." As for whether the program was later revived, he said, "these American inspectors are wasting their time."

so Mr. Bush, what's the excuse now?

[Jon Miller]

in order for Washington to need an excuse yuo have to show two things

first that Iraq was not a danger

second that the US knew this

if everyone was saying that Iraq had them, than of course there was a good chance that the US Gov would think that they had them

Jon Miller
note that I do not approve at all some of the things this adminstration has done in Iraq (I was fine with the war, but what went on before and after I am not to hot about)

[Master Zen]

I agree, my problem is that the US could have used many other excuses rather than the WMD one which was never 100% certain. They gambled and lost, and now they look like fools for it.

[DinoDoc]

Aren't we crying over spilt milk? We're already there. Next you'll be whining about the Domino Theory used as a reason to go to Vietnam.

[Spiffor]

Master Zen:
They tried to justify the war with three other excuses as well. The liberation of the Iraqi people, the links between Saddam and Al Qaeda, and the outrgaeous treatment of the UN by Saddam.

Of course, all those excuses were blatant lies, but you don't make omelettes without breaking eggs.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Aren't we crying over spilt milk? We're already there. Next you'll be whining about the Domino Theory used as a reason to go to Vietnam.

0

So what you're saying is that every time the US ****s up we should pretend it didn't happen?

[Q Classic]

of course.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
So what you're saying is that every time the US ****s up we should pretend it didn't happen?

No. I'm saying that it would be more productive to ***** about any **** ups that have taken place after major combat has been declared over. Simply because we aren't really going to send a letter of apology to Saddam ceeding control over Iraq back to him. In closing, stop crying over spilt milk and work to improve the situation as it exists rather than tell me how you would like it to have existed by dragging up topics that would have been cogent months ago. However if you really wish to continue *****ing about the US decision to go to war, I could list several reasons why it was a mistake even if they find tons of Chemical and Biological weapons in the next hour.

[KrazyHorse]

*****ing about why the US ****ed up a year ago will provide greater resistance the next time they try to **** up. What don't you understand about this?

The last time I checked, I wasn't part of the Bush administration, so they aren't going to listen to whatever positive criticism I can come up with.

So my course of action is:

1) Point out what an idiotic thing it was to invade Iraq. Do it over and over again until somebody listens. Hopefully they'll realise that they were lied to, and will be more skeptical next time.

2) Oppose any move by my government to support US efforts in Iraq, since I don't want to subsidise US stupidity.

3) Hope that Iraqis tell the US to piss off and rebuild their country themselves into a stable social democracy. It's a long shot, I guess...

[Lord Merciless]

That was a brilliant ****ing lie that deceived the entire world, including Saddam.

[KrazyHorse]

Bullshit. I didn't think they had anything approaching a serious nuke program. I don't think the Bushies did either.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Master Zen:
They tried to justify the war with three other excuses as well. The liberation of the Iraqi people, the links between Saddam and Al Qaeda, and the outrgaeous treatment of the UN by Saddam.

Of course, all those excuses were blatant lies, but you don't make omelettes without breaking eggs.

liberation - not a lie

links with Al Queda- deffinite lie (and this pissed me off also)

treatment of UN - not a lie but not worth a war

the only problem is that the administration did not treat it like a war of liberation

that was just sort of thrown in there at the end, as we can see by the administrations actions after the war

Jon Miller

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Jon Miller

the only problem is that the administration did not treat it like a war of liberation

That would be pretty laughable when they have friends like Saudi Arabia.

[Jon Miller]

my problems stem mostly from

being too confident about the existence of WoMD, claiming links with Al Queda (or blowing up the small ones which were there), and not acting in such a way as to best help Iraq to liberation

Jon Miller

[mrmitchell]

Aren't we crying over spilt milk? We're already there. Next you'll be whining about the Domino Theory used as a reason to go to Vietnam.

IOW, every discussion about everything other than in the future is useless, because it's already happened and we can't change it.

[SlowwHand]

Zen, you're a dumbass.
Fooled Hussein (if THIS is true), but fooling Bush and any other's is Bush's fault?
Dumbass.

[MrFun]

Once again, Slowwy impresses us with his level of articulation.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by mrmitchell
IOW, every discussion about everything other than in the future is useless, because it's already happened and we can't change it.

Nevermind. If you insist on being blatantly stupid, who am I to correct you mrmitchell?

[SlowwHand]

Once again you impress me by mouthing off when you weren't being addressed, MrFun.
Speak when spoken to.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by MrFun
Once again, Slowwy impresses us with his level of articulation.

Impressed me too! Right on Sloww!!

[Zylka]

Originally posted by MrFun
Once again, Slowwy impresses us with his level of articulation.

What level of articulation have YOU ever proven? And a graduate, at that

edit: alright Sloww. Here's your cookie

[SlowwHand]

I graduated, but not with a major in Inventive Histories.

[Sava]

the chicken hawks are too proud to admit Bush was wrong... what a surprise...

it's important to talk about how the Bush admin misled the country and engaged in a campaign of fear mongering to gain support for their war... sure, solutions to the Iraq problem are important... but so is accountability. Lying liars and their dope sheep need to be held accountable.

[Ned]

It is interesting how Bush is a deliberate liar, according to the left, when he said that Saddam had a nuke program when the intel that Bush was relying on was apparently the same false information being fed Saddam.

All this shows is the amazing bias and self-deception of the left.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Ned
It is interesting how Bush is a deliberate liar, according to the left, when he said that Saddam had a nuke program when the intel that Bush was relying on was apparently the same false information being fed Saddam.

All this shows is the amazing bias and self-deception of the left.

oh please... if Bush wasn't lying, then he's completely incompetent... take your pick... he's a liar or a dope... or both...

I lean more towards liar because the administration propagated intelligence that they knew wasn't true (Niger).

You can admit you were wrong Ned, I won't gloat or hold it against you. In fact, I can respect someone who admits their mistakes. It's just pathetic when someone won't admit their wrong, even in the face of the undeniable truth that they are.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Sava
oh please... if Bush wasn't lying, then he's completely incompetent... take your pick... he's a liar or a dope... or both...

I lean more towards liar because the administration propagated intelligence that they knew wasn't true (Niger).

You can admit you were wrong Ned, I won't gloat or hold it against you. In fact, I can respect someone who admits their mistakes. It's just pathetic when someone won't admit their wrong, even in the face of the undeniable truth that they are.

Sava, how was I wrong? I did not know, as I presume Bush did not know, that the Iraq nuke program was a lie.

Bush could only have been lying if he KNEW the intel was wrong. Bush could only be incompetent if there was something that suggested the intel was a lie and that he did not follow up. But here, even the Brit intel supported the CIA on this issue.

[Sava]

sigh... don't worry Ned, I have faith that one day you will see the light...

[Berzerker]

liberation - not a lie

Sure it was or we'd be invading every country in need of liberation.

It is interesting how Bush is a deliberate liar, according to the left, when he said that Saddam had a nuke program when the intel that Bush was relying on was apparently the same false information being fed Saddam.

Seems like a valid point, if US intelligence based it's conclusions on intercepts of the lies being told by Iraqi scientists to Saddam, then they fooled both Saddam and the US. Then again, did US intelligence really believe and claim Iraq had a valid nuke program? It appears the Bush administration "culled" intelligence to paint a false picture, but wasn't the Clinton administration making similar claims a few years ago?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ned
It is interesting how Bush is a deliberate liar, according to the left, when he said that Saddam had a nuke program when the intel that Bush was relying on was apparently the same false information being fed Saddam.

All this shows is the amazing bias and self-deception of the left.

What are you trying to say? That Boosh completely disregarded the UN weapons inspectors?

[David Floyd]

Fooled Hussein (if THIS is true), but fooling Bush and any other's is Bush's fault?

No, but starting a war IS Bush's fault. He needs to own up, and take personal responsibility for his actions. I want Bush to say "Yes, I started this war - it was not a response to aggression from Iraq, but an offensive war." He doesn't even have to admit to being wrong in his decision to go to war - and I'll even grant the point that if he went to war because he legitimately believed, from valid intelligence, that Iraq had or was close to having WMD, he was not maliciously wrong. I just want a simple admission from Bush that he started a war, and not try to blame others (Saddam) for his actions.