"And ye shall know the truth and the
truth shall make you free. John VIII-XXXII"
---Inscription in main lobby of CIA headquarters
As former Iraqi nuclear scientist Dr. Imad Khadduri, a Canadian resident, continues to
be ignored by the Bush administration officials and mainstream American media, David Kay,
who is in Iraq reportedly working hard to uncover the truth about the alleged Iraqi
nuclear program, repeatedly cited only a dead scientist in his recent report to media -Dr.
Khalid Said.
As mentioned earlier in this series, Dr. Said cannot report on the nuclear issues
raised by the Bush administration because was killed by American troops on April 8, 2003
when he failed to stop quickly enough at a Baghdad checkpoint.
Adding to the omission of ignoring the "live" scientist, Khadduri was very
familiar with the work of Khalid Said’s Group 4 activities under the secret PC3 group
(see previous installments of this series) and at one point carried and concealed the only
magneto-optical disk of Said’s group work with him.
The omission is more ironic given that behind the scenes, an IAEA official (referred to
here simply as "B") is currently in the process of questioning Khadduri about
Said.
"Many of us questioned Oeidi saying that Khalid was behind centrifuges because
dead men can't defend themselves," writes "B." "Frankly, we were not
impressed with Khalid as a manager and as a technician. Would you be willing to share your
candid opinion with me of Khalid as a leader and as a technical visionary?"
And referring to
Jacques Baute, chief International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), nuclear inspector in
Iraq, "B" writes, "I would share anything you say with Jacques, naturally,
but I would not cite you in any public place."
A "Faustian bargain?"
Dr. Gordon Prather, a
physicist who was the army's chief scientist during the Reagan years, notes the reports
that Kay was fired from his position as deputy director of the International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA) Iraq Action Team in the early 1990s because of his contacts with the U.S.
intelligence community.
David Kay... former
CIA operative?
|
One Pentagon source indicated Kay was not seen or heard of at the Pentagon
in the 1980’s when he was on staff. The source believes from as far back as the
‘80’s Kay may have been a CIA operative. Khadduri told
this reporter, "We were informed by our Security/Intelligence - since the day that
David Kay was put in Baghdad in 1991 -that he was a CIA operative. When
he set-up his communication trailer in front of the Khairat building -where the |
| inspectors were encircled for a week- in September 1991, he beamed the scanned reports
gleaned from that building directly to the CIA in Langley, and then to the UN/IAEA." |
David Kay went on to later tell media, "I realize it was always a bargain with the
Devil -- spies spying. The longer it continued, the more the intelligence agencies would,
often for very legitimate reasons, decide that they had to use the access they got through
cooperation with UNSCOM to carry out their missions."
Objective reports?
David Kay is presently tasked with uncovering the actual objectives, scope, and
dimensions of Iraq's WMD activities at the time of Operation Iraqi Freedom. It is an
investigation that Kay and 1,500 agents from the Pentagon's Iraq Survey Group have been
conducting for three months now.
Kay gave media a short unclassified report on Oct. 2, the
same day that he gave behind-closed-doors "interim report" to a panel of several
congressional committees.
Kay’s report is notable for its subtle and sophisticated omissions which are
characteristic of the language of political propaganda and persuasion and not merely a
function of the unfinished nature of the work.
The report is peppered with linguistic vagaries expansive enough to drive a
hypothetical biological weapons trailer through - including phrases and words like
"may have," "research," " plans," "could be applied
to," "indications" of, "interest, "laboratory possibly used
for," "can be used to produce " (vs. was used to produce)
"searching for" and "capacity."
It is a report impossible for journalists to corroborate because of the vagaries and
the lack of names of scientists interviewed -except for the dead one.
There is said to be "no proof" the notorious two trailers President Bush said
were "weapons of mass destruction," were used for biological weapons production,
but Kay instead uses a ‘reverse-logic’ stating, "nothing we have discovered
rules out their potential use in BW production."
The mere realm of possibility thus becomes sufficient cause for a hypothesis
reaffirmed, and for the endless and impossible proving of a negative - a hallmark of the
administration’s war arguments.
The case of the mysterious "mushroom cloud"
Unnamed Iraqi officials allegedly told Kay that Saddam would have resumed nuclear
weapons development at "some future point" putting the nuke activity
reiterated by the administration prior to the war, as well as an important pre-war
rationale, in the realm of Steven Spielberg’s "Department of
Pre-Crime."
Others allegedly told Kay that Saddam "wanted" to restart the nuclear
program, but no proof has been uncovered that there was capability or operation of even
the most elemental activity of such.
Evidence of renewed nuclear weapons research has not been found, not even esoteric
doodling on the back of a Tigris café napkin.
Kay reported that Dr. Khalid Ibrahim Said (the "dead scientist") "began
several small and relatively unsophisticated research initiatives that could be
applied to nuclear weapons development."
Could be applied in what way? Were they directly related to nuclear weapons research or
were they research initiatives in another field with unavoidable "dual"
applications common to the field of nuclear physics? Were these initiatives done for the
government or his own enjoyment and exercise as a scientist?
These and other important basic questions are not answered in the vague language of the
report.
The villainous vial
Among the "finds" of the report, was a vial of live C. botulinum Okra B.
(from which a biological agent can be produced) hidden in the back of an Iraqi
scientist’s refrigerator.
The tube was touted as a vindication of war, but it raises another question: was a bombing
campaign and the deaths of over 10,000 people, and the dropping of napalm the
only way the technologically superior and intelligence-equipped US could get to a vial of
crunk hidden in the back of a lone scientist’s refrigerator?
Said Kay, "This discovery -- hidden in the home of a BW scientist -- illustrates
the point I made earlier about the difficulty of locating small stocks of material that
can be used to covertly surge production of deadly weapons."
However the report gives no evidence of any capability of biological weapons
production.
Glen Rangwala of Cambridge University points out that botulinum type B can also be used
for making an antidote for common botulism poisoning and for that reason many countries
and military laboratories keep sample strains, including the UK who calls them "seed
banks."
"Throughout the report, Kay kicks up a sandstorm of suggestiveness, but no
more," wrote Fred Kaplan in MSNBC’s Slate.
Kaplan called Kay’s report, a "shockingly lame piece of work."
The ‘compassionate war’
WMD and terrorist connections were not the only themes that were and continue to be
exposited as pretext for the preemptive war.
In his address before Australian parliament, President Bush invoked a familiar theme of
the inhumane brutality of Saddam Hussein, suggesting that it was a vindication of war.
"Who can possibly think that the world would be better off with Saddam Hussein
still in power?" Bush asked as he wrapped up a six-nation lobbying campaign
addressing Asian and Pacific allies.
Administration officials have repeatedly referred to Saddam Hussein’s hideous
atrocities including victim’s tongues being cut out, brutal rapes and persons being
fed head-first into a shredding machine.
They were powerful emotional appeals to a compassionate America.
The references to brutality though beg a question related to the second presidential
debate of the 2000 campaign, regarding the genocide in Rwanda.
In 1994, 600,000 people were hacked to death with machetes and otherwise brutally
murdered in a frenzy of violence so horrific one African missionary said, "There are
no more devils in Hell. They are all in Rwanda."
Aerial photographs showed an apocalyptic scene of rivers running red with blood while
clogged with the bloated corpses of tens of thousands of people.
Former President Clinton did not intervene, and later apologized for
"missing" the genocide.
During the presidential debate, Bush was asked if he would've done anything
differently.
Bush indicated he would not have acted differently, adding, "I thought
they made the right decision not to send U.S. troops into Rwanda."
The fact that the brutality in Rwanda was just as horrific as that of Hussein’s
regime and that Bush would not have intervened to stop the genocide, raises questions
about Bush's rationale when invoking brutality suffered by a civilian population as
genuine part of a strategic pretext for preemptive war in Iraq.
Calling for investigations
Meanwhile journalists, politicians and academics as
well as two California cities and grassroots citizen
groups , are calling for investigations, and even impeachment.
WorldNetDaily Washington bureau chief Paul Sperry commented, "Congress needs to
call White House and CIA aides to testify in formal and open hearings – unless, of
course, it intends to abdicate its oversight powers along with its power to declare war.
"
The New York Times’ Paul Krugman argued, "If that claim was fraudulent, the
selling of the war is arguably the worst scandal in American political history - worse
than Watergate, worse than Iran-contra."
John Dean
|
John Dean, former White House counsel to Richard Nixon said, "Krugman
is right to suggest a possible comparison to Watergate. In the three decades since
Watergate, this is the first potential scandal I have seen that could make Watergate pale
by comparison. If the Bush Administration intentionally manipulated or misrepresented
intelligence to get Congress to authorize, and the public to support, military action to
take control of Iraq, then that would be a monstrous misdeed. " Dean, in his
previous legal analysis for Findlaw.com, was careful to add that there needed |
| to be proof that President Bush knowingly lied. |
Supporters of the President consider such suggestions outrageous, and even
traitorous, citing the need for the nation to be unified in the face of the enemy of
terrorism.
Administration officials have previously suggested that media if too critical in its
coverage, could in effect be aiding the enemy –terrorists.
Calling for impeachment : "We told you so!"
| no weapons of mass destruction (WMD) over there, and it was all just propaganda to
generate a war," Boyle said. |
"Now for the legal and constitutional aspect, if we take a look at the resolution
passed in October authorizing the use of military force, the ‘whereas’ clauses
are filled with statements that were wrong. They were propaganda at the time and drafted
into legislation by Alberto Gonzalez - then sent to Congress.
We are in a situation where the White House procured a de facto declaration of
war on a basis of fraud and misrepresentation.
The point is, if President Clinton can be impeached for lying about sex, what about
President Bush for lying about war?"
Bush "cooked" over "conspiracy?"
Boyle agrees with John Dean who has said that the situation may fall under the "conspiracy
to defraud" statue, which if applied to Nixon, is also applicable to Bush.
"To put it bluntly, if Bush has taken Congress and the nation into war based on
bogus information, he is cooked," Dean said, "Manipulation or deliberate misuse
of national security intelligence data, if proven, could be ‘a high crime’ under
the Constitution's impeachment clause. It would also be a violation of federal criminal
law, including the broad federal
anti-conspiracy statute, which renders it a felony ‘to defraud the United States, or
any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose.’
Boyle observes, "We’ve seen Congressman Conyers say the administration
absolutely lied about these WMD, now Sen. Kennedy has said the war was procured in the
basis of fraud."
But is it credible that Democrats really were in the dark when it came to intelligence
questions, including those Democrats who sat on intelligence committees? And if they were,
why did they not speak out vigorously before the war?
"I think they knew all along," said Boyle, "knew it was propaganda
concocted by the spin-cons at the Pentagon."
On a possible congressional reaction, Boyle speculated, "They will say they did
vote for war, but were lied to. They might act to protect themselves, by sponsoring a bill
of impeachment."
Another widow
|
"I think it will become clearer as time goes on, about the assertions
regarding WMD -WMD that aren’t there - regretfully for everyone involved, including
those serving so bravely in our military, the killed, wounded and the 10,000 Iraqi
civilians killed." "It’s a terrible mess."
He adds that impeachment comes down to citizen participation: "The Congress is
empowered to impeach a sitting President, but will only do so in response to
overwhelming public pressure" |
"Iraq’s nuclear mirage"
Meanwhile, as American anti-war demonstrators
plan another march on the Capitol and San Francisco on
October 25th, Imad Khadduri says he weeps over Iraq, which he says has served
as fodder for the political ambitions of both Saddam Hussein and President Bush, with the
Iraqi people a mere afterthought.
Khadduri, like so many others, has suffered at the hands of Saddam, yet says he fears
Iraq and the Iraqi people will be cast into a state of free fall, "dropping into a
deeper abyss, with Turkey, Iran and Israel… all eyeing pieces of Iraqi flesh to bite
off. The oil has already been marked."
"Bush, Blair and their senior officials lied to their people, knowingly, and waged
a criminal invasion …Is this the democracy model for a ‘liberated’
Iraq?" he asks
The scientist was motivated earlier this year to compile his notes on the Iraqi nuclear
program, and review information with his former associates as well as release documents
pertaining to covert operations of the pre-Gulf War program.
The author generously shared much of that information with this writer over a period of
months starting in February 2003, in the form of phone interviews, email interviews,
emails sent to him from other Iraqi nuclear officials on the history of the program, -all
information that would wind up forming critical parts of his new book, "Iraq’s
Nuclear Mirage." In addition, this writer received a rough draft of chapter four, the
fascinating email trails between the IAEA’s "B," and the scientist, and
finally an advance electronic copy of the book prior to its release.
The availability of the book, originally slated to be in American bookstores in
December or January, has now been accelerated due to demand generated by the publication
of this series. The Washington Post has expressed interest in Khadduri’s information,
and investigative reporter Seymour Hersh of the New Yorker recently completed a one-hour
interview with the scientist.
The "Lion of Babylon"
Meanwhile, Khadduri predicts that the Iraq war may have unintended consequences of
steeling antagonism against the US:
"The Lion of Babylon will rise again," he predicts
Khadduri’s comments were mirrored by statements made by US intelligence experts
who previously warned administration officials that Saddam posed no imminent threat to the
US and that attacking would likely galvanize a desperate Saddam into joining forces with
al-Qaida as the only way to strike back at the US. Hussein also currently has billions of
dollars at his disposal.
Classic military strategy theory often counsels against backing an opponent who is not
an imminent threat into a "corner" and allowing him no "way out,"
warning that such a controversial move may create a greater danger than previously
existed, thereby complicating military decision-making.
That type of counsel also appeared in a still-secret report given to the President on
Oct. 2 2002. The summary, or "key judgments" section, of the 90-page National
Intelligence Estimate was recently declassified. WorldNetDaily obtained a copy from the
National Security Council. (The report is different from the unclassified 25-page
white paper the CIA made public on its website last October.) Page 4 of the report said Iraq would
probably attempt clandestine attacks on the Homeland if Baghdad feared an attack that
threatened the survival of the regime were imminent or unavoidable or possibly for
revenge.
"Saddam if sufficiently desperate might decide that only an organization such as
al-Qaeda –with worldwide reach and extensive terrorist infrastructure, and already
engaged in a life-or-death struggle with the United States could perpetrate the type of
terrorist attack that he would hope to conduct."
A chemical or biological weapons attack against the United States, carried out by a
terror-coalition was presented as one potential revenge scenario, as "
[Saddam’s] last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with
him."
Meanwhile, Osama bin Laden sidekick Ayman al-Zawahiri has issued an ominous
tape-recorded warning: "But we tell America one thing: What you have seen so far is
nothing but the first skirmishes. The real battle hasn't started yet."
"364 days of desecration"
How prepared is the United States for a possible terrorist "revenge
coalition" funded at an unprecedented level by Saddam’s hidden billions?
- During the war on Iraq, President Bush reminded a jittery US, that we could face a
smallpox attack at any moment. Before going to war however, only 37,500 of over 2 million
"first responders" had been vaccinated against the virus, to say nothing of the
safety of the 'rank and file' citizens.
Sen. Robert Byd, speaking on the 
