JV: I think it would be exceedingly erroneous to assume that a 4 million large sample is inherently biased, while the remaining 20 million are not. You must keep in mind that many of those in Iraq are stuck there, most because they cannot get their entire families out (leaving a family member when fleeing is typically a death sentence to those left behind). And remember that there is no free speech; speaking badly about the regime carries a death sentence. Also do not forget that many of those are Kurds and the majority shiite population (which alone accounts for about 60% of the population). Remember too that there have been 3 civil wars and 3 huge uprisings during Saddam's tenure. That is not indicative of a populace that is content with the current leadership. No Worries: The logic gets more convoluted - Kamel obviously could not have been telling the truth, because WMD and WMD sites were found after his defection. But if Kamel was not telling the truth, then what is the relevance of this story? Either way, the Iraqis were still stockpiling and building WMD, so the "report" still has no value. If you are trying to insinuate that the Iraqis really did destroy all of their weapons and that the CIA was covering that up in order to prompt an invasion (which the CIA has never wanted, BTW), then I am afraid that you have failed. Both logic and evidence in the form of successive UN reports invalidate such a theory. So exactly what point are you trying to make? Spell it out for me, I'm a little slow...
I had seen mention of the <i>Newsweek</i> article when it first came out (and had read the msnbc story <b>several times</b>) , so knew that it would eventually show up at CC BBS. I understand this to be the premise that counterpunch and other alternative sites are advancing (based on the <i>Newsweek</i> article): <i> Iraq <b>currently</b> has no WMD because they were destroyed in the early 90's (as per the Kamel - UN interview/debrief in 1995). </i> If I am misunderstanding the premise that they are advancing...............then what is it?
The US/UK made Kamel the poster boy for Iraqi defectors. The US/UK maintain that the UN weapons inspection team are ineffective and that without the input from the defectors, namely Kamel, the UN inspection teams would have been even more ineffective. Thus, the US/UK are stating that Kamel in his post defection interviews provided WMD information that created serious gaps between what the UN inspection teams knew and what Iraq really possessed. From what Ekeus has stated about the Kamel interviews (which can be cross verified from the leaked transcipt), Kamel did not tell the UN inspection teams anything that they had not heard before. In particular, Kamel stated that he ordered all WMD destroyed in 1991. This had been the Iraqi officials story all along. The Newsweek story attacks the veracity of the US/UK statements wrt the ineffectiveness of the UN weapons regime. In short, the US/UK have lied and the Newsweek calls them out on this. It is left as an exercise for the reader to determine why the US/UK felt they needed to fabricate stories.
No Worries: There is still a huge logical gap here that you have not addressed. Situation A: Kamel is telling the truth, and Iraq has destroyed all of its WMD. The US is lying about it and claiming that Iraq still has WMD, in order to bluff more out of them. More is bluffed out of them. You do see the logical impossibility here,do you not? Situation B: Kamel is lying about Iraq destroying its WMD. The US lies and tells Iraq that Kamel has spilled the beans in order to bluff more out of them. More is bluffed out of them. Iraq is caught lying and more WMD are destroyed. This is what you have a problem with? Let me get this straight: You are angry because the US used an Iraqi lie to catch the Iraqis in another lie, which resulted in them getting caught with WMD? Am I to believe that this is what is bothering you? Please, please let it be something else... If that is it, then there really is nothing at all to this story. It is worse than a waste of time.
