Flawed Report:

Iraqi Warheads Found

FIRST: These were not ‘chemical warheads’, that were found by the UN inspectors. In the Iraqi arsenal, a warhead is a warhead – an empty ordnance space strapped to a missile. What matters is the payload, be it explosive or chemical or nuclear. The item placed in the warhead denotes its destination. These warheads found were stone-cold empty, so by definition they are not ‘chemical warheads’. They are, in fact, nothing, because they were loaded with no dangerous payload. Furthermore, the word ‘warhead’ is in itself misleading, as these were artillery munitions.

SECOND: Iraq is allowed by the UN resolutions to have a variety of weapons, including the Al Samoud missile. The US did not want to pull Iraq’s fangs completely after the Gulf War, considering the neighbourhood they live in. We allowed them to keep missiles that fly only a certain distance (1509 km most often). Most people do not know this, and will think the presence of these munitions will represent a breach of UN resolution. This is not the case.

THIRD: Scott Ritter of CNN informed me that these munitions were part of Iraq’s declaration last December to the UN. I still am waiting for further confirmation of this, and so should the journalistic world, since the complete document is not available to the press.

FOURTH: This is a vindication of the inspection regime. They found the stuff, and it will be destroyed, and no American soldiers or Iraqi civilians died in this process.

FIFTH: Please recall how the UNSCOM inspections teams were undermined by the constant meddling from the American intelligence community. Understand that this warhead story did not come from Blix, UN inspection head, or through the normal channels, but through a Japanese (read: close US ally) inspector who contacted the news media and let rip before facts were in hand. Why?

FINALLY: I want to address a comment to you, that you made on the CNN show that viewers were writing in and claiming that the whole CNN network wants war, because war is good for the media business. I understand that this idea might offend your professionalism, but I wonder if you have been watching CNN lately?

Your station had referred, over and over again, to these discovered warheads as ‘chemical warheads’. The debate has not been centered on what the facts are behind these items – when they were made, whether they were loaded with anything, how long they have been there, whether they were declared – but instead the CNN has focused on whether the White House can use this as a pretext for war. Calling these things ‘chemical warheads’ is a gross exaggeration, which I have heard on CNN no less than seven times during this short period that I was writing this message to you. Mull that a bit!

Please take the data I have sent you and air it on CNN for the sake of a reasoned and complete debate. Get these facts to the American people, who desperately need facts and not overheated innuendoes.

COMMENT:

Click here to return to the February 2003 index.