Posted by
phil1861 on Friday, February 09, 2007 11:32:22 PM
A topic of conversation from John Hawkins' column Liberals vs The Troops caught my attention today. A poster referred to a Washington post story about the debunking of the supposed mobile weapons labs rumored under Saddam's regime in Iraq and how they played a significant part of the lead up to the war.
The story, Lacking Biolabs, Trailers Carry Case for War by reporter Joby Warrick carries a story that states the mobile labs were determined to be solely for the production of hydrogen for weather balloons. The report, generated by nine US and British civilian experts were dispatched to examine the captured "mobile bio-weapons labs" and submitted their reports in May of 2003 and days before the administration declared the finding of Saddam's WMDs.
In reading this, I'm left with a few questions. The report, still classified, is used as the anti-smoking gun if you will of the lack of WMD evidence to be found in Iraq. What is significant is the lack of real meat for this story. Who were the experts? On condition of anonymity they are the nine US and British civilian experts. Who did the reporter interview? Six government officials who either participated or had direct knowledge of the investigation. Further, we are told that the investigators where "unanimous" and "unequivocal" in their belief that the labs where not for bio-weapons. As further evidence it is stated the trailers lacked eleven components needed to produce biological material.
However, A CNN online news story U.S. confident Saddam had mobile weapons lab from May 2003 makes reference to a report by the Pentagon and CIA that states no other purpose for the trailers but for weapons production. Further, "coalition experts on fermentation systems and systems engineering" stated the trailers could not have been used for benign purposes such as "water purification, mobile medical laboratory, vaccine or pharmaceutical production". Further, the presence of sodium azide and urea refuted Iraqi claims that the trailers where used for Hydrogen production for weather balloons.
Again, no names where stated and only "expert" testimony noted. So, the obvious question is: which report is right? Is this information from the same "secret Pentagon investigation"? The Washington Post article seems to be familiar with the CNN story from 2003 in making pains to suggest the "expert" refutation of certain noted facts: the use of the piping or tubing for weapons production, the presence of the refrigeration units, etc.
I did find it interesting from the WP article that the report mirrors that of the official Iraqi claims that the trailers were for Hydrogen production for weather balloons. They may very well have been. But, a huge grain of salt has to be taken for anything the Iraqi's claimed before and during the war.
Yet, neither article would get a passing grade from any High School history or social studies teacher for lack of any thing tangible or real. Who are these people and are they really "experts"? Are they credible? Where they high or low officials? Unfortunately in this age where once trusted news organs have been caught with their hands in the fraud and propaganda jars it's hard to take "breaking news" stories such these with any credibility.
With the rush to prop up the claims that no WMDs have been found in Iraq or to discredit the official cause celebre for going into Iraq I'd wonder about the WP story based upon a still classified report and interviews with people who weren't even involved with the investigation. Is Warrick lying? I don't know nor will I speculate. I'm sure he interviewed someone. Was it enough to flesh out a real "eye opener" of a story? Not really, IMHO. Somebody is obviously wrong or these are two different investigative teams examining the same trailers but determining different results.
Unfortunately, as each is worded and propped up in such a way so as to convince the "choir" of what they already believe it is impossible to call either story "proof".