The Liars War
Or the Case of the Vanishing WMDs
Revolutionary Worker #1228, February 8, 2004, posted at rwor.org
NPR Interviewer: "What happened to the stockpiles
of biological and chemical weapons that everyone expected to
find in Iraq?"
Dr. David Kay:"I don't think they exist."
In May 2003, as the Iraqi army crumbled, David Kay was
picked by the CIA to seize Iraq's weapons of mass destruction
For the last nine months of U.S. occupation, Kay headed up
the Iraq Survey Group (ISG)--a mini- army of 1,400 army
commandos, CIA agents, interrogators and weapons experts who
searched Iraq for biological, chemical and nuclear weapons.
They checked hundreds of sites by June 2003, grilled Iraqi
scientists for months, and poured over mountains of captured
On January 23, David Kay resigned his post and went public:
There are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, he now says.
And there weren't any for a long time.
Let's be precise: The U.S. teams have found no nuclear,
biological or chemical weapons of any kind. No stockpiles. No
facilities for producing them. No hidden SCUD missiles, or
other means of launching them. No research labs developing
prototypes. No mobile bio-labs. Not a barrel, not a functioning
gas shell, not an ounce of uranium, not an incriminating
document, not a statement from an intimidated Iraqi scientist.
Nothing. Zip. Nada.
David Kay said to the Senate Armed Services
Committee: "Let me begin by saying, we were almost all
wrong, and I certainly include myself here."
Dr. Kay told Reuters in an interview that he now thought
that Iraq "got rid of" such weapons sometime after the 1991
Persian Gulf war.
Hours after Dr. Kay's first statements, White House
spokesman Scott McClellan still insisted that Iraq's Saddam
Hussein government had active WMDs: "Yes, we believe he had
them, and yes we believe they will be found. We believe the
truth will come out."
However, anonymously, "senior administration officials" were
telling the press the chances of finding these weapons were
Clearly the big lie is falling apart and some shit is
hitting the fan!
The Lie Used to Launch a War
In April 2003, The U.S. invaded a distant, sovereign,
oil-rich country, bombed its cities, crushed its army,
overthrew its government, occupied its territory, seized its
resources, threatened its neighbors, killed unknown thousands
of Iraqi people and soldiers--all in the name of finding and
destroying stockpiled Iraqi weapons.
The U.S. government had insisted Iraq had war-ready
biological and chemical weapons, numerous functioning delivery
systems and even bigger weapons (including nukes) on the
They said their invasion was legal because Iraq was
violating the UN resolution by holding on to such weapons.
Government spokespeople insisted that the U.S. faced a
"grave and gathering danger" from Iraq and that "pre-emptive
war" was the only option.
And, at the same time, the Bush administration announced the
new "Bush Doctrine" of launching future pre-emptive wars
of this kind, based solely on "intelligence estimates" that
said someone was an emerging threat to the U.S.
Now, nine months later, their own loyal CIA agent David Kay
bluntly says: There were no weapons, and hadn't been for a long
The credibility of the U.S. government and its president are
shredded. Future U.S. accusations made against other countries
will be even more widely doubted across the world.
John Dean, the Nixon aide who did prison time for
covering up Watergate lies (June 6, 2003): "In the three
decades since Watergate, this is the first potential scandal I
have seen that could make Watergate pale by comparison... To
put it bluntly, if Bush has taken Congress and the nation into
war based on bogus information, he is cooked. Manipulation or
deliberate misuse of national security intelligence data, if
proven, could be `a high crime' under the Constitution's
New York Times, June 8, 2003: "If such weapons are
not found, some historians, politicians and others worry about
what might happen if Mr. Bush or a successor tried to rally
American or international backing for another war--say, with
Iran or North Korea--using disputed evidence to buttress the
case... What if, after a long and unsuccessful occupation, with
American combat casualties taking a toll on the national
psyche, the question `Why are we in Iraq?' becomes the modern
equivalent of `Why are we in Vietnam?' "
Making Up a Flimsy New Lie
Now that Kay revealed that "the emperor has no clothes,"
there are two possibilities:
Possibility A: The Bush Administration lied about
Iraqi threats. It needed an excuse to go to war and invented
Possibility B: The CIA (and other spy agencies) made
a serious-but-honest mistake, and the top government officials
honestly believed them. And everyone in power is therefore now
shocked to discover there were no WMDs, and wants to know what
Is anyone surprised that the emerging new White House
fall-back position is "Possibility B"?
Under mounting pressure George Bush now says (Jan. 30,
2004): "I want the American people to know that I too
want to know the facts. I want to be able to compare what the
Iraq Survey Group has found with what we thought prior to going
In other words, Bush claims he didn't lie and is as
surprised as anyone else that no WMDs were found.
David Kay is also a big promoter of "Possibility B." When
asked if President Bush owed the nation an explanation, Kay
answered: "I actually think the intelligence community owes the
president, rather than the president owing the American
How did this big "mistake" supposedly happen? Kay has come
up with a creative-but- bizarre theory: the U.S. government was
taken in by a sneaky Saddam Hussein trick.
"Saddam wanted to enjoy the benefits of having chemical and
biological weapons without having to pay the costs," Kay
Supposedly Saddam Hussein (Dr. Kay now speculates) destroyed
all his WMDs in the 1990s, but tried to make it appear (to his
own military, his neighbors, his people and to his U.S.
adversaries) that these weapons still existed. And (we are
supposed to believe) the U.S. government, naively, fell for
this trick, invaded and destroyed Saddam Hussein's
The problems with this theory (aside from its absurdity) are
(a) that the U.S. government claimed it had real hard evidence
of WMDs, evidence that didn't exist, and (b) the Iraqi
government was clearly saying, throughout this period,
that they had no WMDs, and they let UN inspectors in to prove
They Were Lying and Knew It
There was always lots of evidence that the White
House, Pentagon and State Department were simply lying. And
more is sure to come out in the months ahead.
Bush's own former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neil says that a
coming war with Iraq was discussed within days of the
Bush administration's arrival in the White House.
Paul O'Neil on CBS News: "It was all about finding
a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying,
`Go find me a way to do this.'"
September 11, 2001 gave them an opening.
CBS News, Sept. 4, 2002: "Barely five hours after
American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, Defense
Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up
with plans for striking Iraq--even though there was no evidence
linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks."
Washington Post , June 7, 2003:
"During the weeks last fall before critical votes in
Congress and the United Nations on going to war in Iraq, senior
administration officials, including President Bush, expressed
certainty in public that Iraq possessed chemical and biological
weapons, even though U.S. intelligence agencies were reporting
they had no direct evidence that such weapons existed."
New York Times, Oct. 2002: Secretary of
Defense Donald Rumsfeld created a Pentagon operation "to
search for information on Iraq's hostile intentions or links to
terrorists"--despite CIA reports saying there were
New York Times, June 5, 2003:
"Douglas J. Feith, the undersecretary of defense for policy,
acknowledged that he created a small intelligence team inside
his office shortly after the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, to
search for terrorist links with Iraq and other countries that
he suggested the nation's spy agencies may have overlooked....
Among the team's most prominent findings were suspected
linkages between Iraq and Al Qaeda, a conclusion doubted by the
CIA and DIA."
While Feith's team invented pretexts for war at the
Pentagon, Vice President Cheney personally went to the CIA
headquarters in Langley, in a series of highly unusual
Washington Post , June 6, 2003:
"Multiple visits to the CIA by Vice-President Dick Cheney
created an environment in which some analysts felt they were
being pressured to make their assessments on Iraq fit with Bush
administration policy objectives, intelligence officials
said... The visits `sent signals, intended or otherwise, that a
certain output was desired from here,' one agency official
Major experts on weapons were arguing, long before the war
started, that U.S. accusations were a lie. And they were
attacked by U.S. government supporters for saying so.
Scott Ritter, former UN weapons inspector, G
uardian, Oct. 19, 2001: "Under the most stringent
on-site inspection regime in the history of arms control,
Iraq's biological weapons programs were dismantled, destroyed
or rendered harmless during the course of hundreds of no-notice
inspections. The major biological weapons production facility--
al Hakum, which was responsible for producing Iraq's
anthrax--was blown up by high explosive charges and all its
equipment destroyed. Other biological facilities met the same
fate if it was found that they had, at any time, been used for
research and development of biological weapons... No evidence
of anthrax or any other biological agent was
Vincent Cannistrano, former head of CIA counter-
intelligence, Guardian , Oct. 9, 2002:
"Basically, cooked information is working its way into
On the Revolutionary Press
John R. MacArthur, publisher of Harper's Magazine,
pointed out that the mainstream press simply reported what they
were told. "The success of `Bush's PR War' was largely
dependent on a compliant press that uncritically repeated
almost every fraudulent administration claim about the threat
posed to America by Saddam Hussein."
At the same time, week after week, the Revolutionary
Worker has been exposing and dissecting the lies coming
from the government, and systematically digging up the true
motives behind the U.S. attack on Iraq.
(See the articles gathered online at
Revolutionary Worker , Nov. 10, 2002:
"The White House claims that the U.S. is vulnerable and Iraq
is threatening--but it has a very hard time making the case.
The facts are clearly the other way around."
Revolutionary Worker , after Powell's
speech to the UN, Feb. 16, 2003: "Iraq (unlike General
Powell) does not have any means of bombing a country halfway
around the world. So to create fear of `threat,' Powell must
suggest that Iraq may give biological poisons to al-Qaida
operatives to deliver in some U.S. city. The problem is that
there is no evidence of such `links'... This speech was a
smokescreen--not a `smoking gun'--it was designed to hide the
real reasons and motive of this war.... As the U.S. government
ruthlessly prepares to start this war, people need to cut
through this smoke, and expose the lies that portray this
imperialist conquest as a way to make people safer."
Revolutionary Worker , Feb. 9, 2003:
"Powell's attempt to make a long list of indictments against
Saddam Hussein's government in Iraq--to somehow paint this poor
besieged country, with its battered military and primitive
weapons, as a threat to the world--is nothing but a pretext for
a war of empire, in the tradition of the fabricated incident at
Gulf of Tonkin that started the Vietnam War. We are told to
swallow ridiculous and self-serving double-think: The U.S.
threatens Iraq with nuclear attack--but uses as its excuse that
Iraq may be trying to develop some primitive nuclear device.
The U.S. accuses Saddam Hussein of murdering opposition, of
killing people in their own country, of using vicious weapons,
of invading neighbors--while they have done all that, and more,
on a scale Hussein can't dream of. To borrow a well-known
biblical passage: `Why do you see the speck in your neighbor's
eye, but not the log in your own eye.' (Matthew 7:3)"
This RW article (from one year ago) closes with
sentiments that ring especially true today:
"We have a special responsibility , here within the
U.S., within the very `homeland' of the empire, exactly
because our safety and interests are used to justify this
madness. We owe it to the people of the world to expose the
truth and oppose, with all our strength and creativity, this
shameful and bloody conquest."
http://rwor.org - Revolutionary Worker Online
http://rwor.org/resistance -RW resource page on resisting the juggernaut of war and repression
http://2changetheworld.info - Discuss revolutionary strategy and the RCP's Draft Programme