Frontline: Chasing Saddam's Weapons
Jane Corbin
BBC Reporter
Friday, January 23, 2004; 11:00 a.m. ET
With the credibility of President Bush and Prime Minister Blair at stake, BBC reporter Jane Corbin takes viewers inside the high-stakes search for Saddam Husseinšs alleged weapons of mass destruction. Through exclusive access to top-secret locations and key U.S. officials leading the hunt, including David Kay, Frontline reveals new details about what the search has uncovered and questions whether the investigation's final results will justify the White Housešs call for war.
Corbin will be online Friday, Jan. 23 at 11 a.m. ET, to discuss Frontline's investigation into the search for WMD in Iraq.
Submit your questions and comments before or during the discussion.
"Chasing Saddam's Weapons" airs Thursday, Jan. 22 at 9 p.m. ET (check local listings).
Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control
over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.
washingtonpost.com:
Good morning Jane, and thank you for joining us today. You seem to have been given unprecedented access to the Iraq Survey Group and their somewhat frustrated hunt for weapons of mass destruction. How did you get that access?
Jane Corbin: Well I've been covering this story since 1989 and I've made a number of programs. I exposed the supergun -- that could fire weapons into space and got to know a lot of the inspecotrs over the years and when the war happened and they set a group up to look for weapons, David Kay was the head of that group and it was one of the factors that allowed us to follow the progress over the coming weeks and months.
_______________________
washingtonpost.com:
You had several discussions with David Kay, on camera, about his group's work in Iraq and his assertions just before the start of the war that Iraq did indeed still possess weapons of mass destruction. How do you view him -- as a political creature or an earnest inspector?
David Kay, (Live Online, Dec. 16, 2002)
Also, could you compare your impressions of Kay and Hans Blix?
Jane Corbin: Well, I think that David Kay was a professional inspector. He led the hunt in 1991 for UNSCOM -- so he's very serious. His background shows that. In the run up to the war, he said those things, I think due to his experience over the years. He would talk about Saddam's habit to cheat and retreat. They worked for many long years and had to leave in 1998 and Saddam must've seen that as a sign that the U.N. wasn't serious in sticking to resolutions. He was convinced they existed. But as we know, the intelligence put forward before the war was not based on reality. There was a mindset in the intel community that weapons would be found, but the reality is somewhat different.
Well, Blix was always much more cautious. He said it was conceivable that they had WMD and never had any documentation to prove it, though. The absence of proof, he said, didn't mean they did exist. Kay's mindset was more definite before the war. He did believe they did exist and was much more open to persuasion than Blix.
_______________________
Boston, Mass.:
Bush made reference to WMD related activities in the State of the Union speech. Does this mean he is backing off his claim that Iraq was an imminent threat?
Jane Corbin: Well, before the war it was very clear that the message was that Iraq was an imminent threat. That's very different from the language we're hearing now. We charted this difference starting last year. Before the war we heard Cheney saying Iraq had rebuilt its nuclear program. No evidence of that has been found.
I note the other day Cheney again said these weapons would be found. THe way one has to look at it is that there's an amount of spin put on it.
_______________________
Glenmont, Md.:
How likely is it that Saddam's weapons were transported to Iran or Syria prior to the beginning of the war? Isn't it well known that terrorist groups transport arms over the borders?
Jane Corbin: Well, that was certainly something that was looked at by the ISG last summer. But they have found no indication of that at all -- no transport systems. No buried caches. Syria and Iran have proved to be cautious in accepting such components -- it would be very risky for them. They would not find it politic to harbor them.
It's a good question about terrorists, though. The ISG has in recent weeks concluded that it is unlikely that it happened. It's not like transporting a mortar or shell. It's very difficult to transport and then weaponize. It's not the sort of thing that could just be picked up by a terrorist. It's possible, but there's no evidence to indicate it happeneing -- as far as I or the ISG know.
_______________________
Prague, CR:
In 1998, didn't the UN and the Clinton/Gore administration all agree that Hussein had WMD? Didn't Clinton also order Iraq bombed twice? If Bush was wrong, wouldn't that also mean Clinton was wrong?
Jane Corbin: President Clinton did believe that Iraq might be harboring WMD. In 1998 Saddam became very difficult to the UN inspectors. They were called spies by Iraqis and the UN had to leave. It wasn't tenable for them to remain. I think that atmosphere contributed towards the assumption that Saddam Hussein was up to no good. IT was a view taken by clinton before Bush, but I think after 9/11 Bush came to a very different decision. It was 9/11 that changed the equation. Bush felt they could not allow the public to be exposed to those dangers -- and this is why they focused on Hussein the way they did. That's what the difference is.
_______________________
Waldoboro, Maine:
In your opinion did David Kay provide accurate and complete information with respect to the status of understanding of the trailers that the president said were associated with bio-weapons production.
Jane Corbin: WEll David Kay told me in July that he felt that initial announcement by the CIA that these trailers were involved in WMD production were premature and embarassing. Politicians were looking for anything at that point. Kay by July had decided that was premature. NObody knows what these trailers are for. The Iraqis say they are used to make hydrogen for weather balloons. That is feasible but very cumbersome.
Sources also told intelligence sources before the war that they were used for WMD. But when the tests were done on the trailers there was no trace found of any bioweapon agent, which is why Kay had to conclude that they --- but in his own mind he finds it hard to come to terms with it. He believes that's what they were for, but that there is no evidence of it. He was scrupulous in the way he described them in October. And that's the bottom line.
_______________________
Washington, D.C>:
Hi,
What do you think of the man who has been broached as David Kay's replacement? (I can't remember his name... Cuelfer, or something like that). Why do you think Kay is leaving?
Jane Corbin: I think that Kay has concluded he's not going to find any WMD. They might find evidence of programs and that's very different. He has been there a good few months. He'll probably leave officially in February -- so that's about eight months. He told me he thought it would take a year. But I think for the politicians its important not to show the search is at an end and the hunt will continue. I really felt it was winding down, though.
_______________________
Wheaton, Md.:
Why are so many so quick to doubt Saddam had a WMD program? It is well known that Saddam has use chemical weapons on the Kurds and Iranians in the past. It is also well known that our Israeli allies took out a French-built nuclear reactor in 1981. What reason it there to think Saddam didn't have a WMD program?
Jane Corbin: WEll, I think we all know that he did have one. But did he have one on the eve of war -- that was the reason given for going to war. Yes, he used to have them, but did he have them at the time? So what was the point of going to war if he'd destroyed them all in 1991?
SO, why do we think he no longer has them? Because no proof has been found in eight months of extensive searches. No hardware, no incriminiating documents or military figures who ever saw them being moved or deployed. So that's why.
_______________________
Westcliffe, Colo.:
When you said earlier in this dialogue that UNSCOM had to leave Iraq, would you set the record straight? Who ordered UNSCOM to leave Iraq and in which years? There's a lot of political hay made here over their removal from Iraq and most people pin it either -- unknowingly or deceptively -- on the wrong guy/s.
Jane Corbin: I did set the record straight. There was a sequence of events. Saddam prevented the inspectors from getting to certain sites. They were accused of being spies (with some justification). That coupled with the threat of military action -- british and American -- made their position untenable. So they withdrew. They weren't thrown out by Iraq. They just found it impossible to remain.
_______________________
Takoma Park, Md.:
Do you have any thoughts on why it appears that the majority of the American public are unconcerned that no WMD have been found? President Bush seems to have effectively avoided any criticism by convincing his constituents that Saddam wanted to have WMD, and that that is cause enough to invade.
Also, do you think that Tony Blair's political career is in jeapordy? What are the odds that no WMD in Iraq could result in a vote of no confidence for the Prime Minster?
Jane Corbin: I agree that the American public do not seem to consider it threatening to Bush that WMD have not been discovered. We said frequently before the war that people just accepted it. Much is also made of Saddam's human rights record and his genocide. But in Britain, the WMD issue has been much more central and the govt has come under much more criticism. And we are awaiting the outcome of the Huddon inquiry next week which will bring this back to the public eye. Many feel it will damage Blair further, but not result in him having to resign.
_______________________
Worcester, Mass.:
Although the reasons given to the public for why we went to Iraq were a misleading smoke screen, can't it be said that a strong U.S. military presence in the middle east is hard to argue against?
Jane Corbin: Well, it may be hard to argue against it now because there is a strong military presence in the Middle East. But a lot of people here are very angry about troops being in Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden claims this is the reason for the war he's waged against America. There are troops in Iraq, Kuwait -- U.S. and British -- but the situation in Iraq now demands that we stay there until order is restored. So, as a result of the war, those troops are needed to retain stability.
_______________________
Los Angeles, Calif.:
What is largely lacking in the War/WMD debate is the fact that to the vast majority of Americans whether or not we find WMDs in Iraq is irrelevant. A brutal dictator is gone. Palestinians are no longer receiving thousands of dollars for their sons and daughters' murder of Israelis and a nexus for terrorism, Al Qaeda or not, is gone.
The media hysteria over WMDs is fodder for the far left and our European allies, most American's simply do not care. Saddam is gone, move on.
Jane Corbin: I think that probably does reflect the opinion of a lot of Americans. But this was a war fought for preemptive reasons and that shifts the balance for the onus of responsibility. There are other countries in the world headed by unsavory dictators -- so why are we not doing this to them.
Yes, Iraqis are glad Saddam is gone, but there needs to be a long discussion in society as to whether this is the basis on which wars should be fought.
Some have questioned if the U.N. has a role if unilateral action is being taken by one country. If no WMD are found, one could argue the U.S.' interests were not threatened.
_______________________
Wash, DC:
Can you speak to any of the work of the nuclear Disablement team in Iraq?
Jane Corbin: The team were very active last summer, but they didn't find anything to disable. That's the problem. They did a good job cleaning up the missing yellow cakes -- that had been looted. So you could say that they went to disable any nuclear program Saddam had, rather than doing nuclear clean-up. I think it was all done early on and they did play an important part.
_______________________
washingtonpost.com:
That concludes today's discussion.
_______________________
Automatically Update Page
Get New Responses
Submit Question
| 
