DOCSLIB.ORG

Congressional Record—Senate S527

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Congressional Record—Senate S527 February 3, 2004 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S527 Before I do that, I see the chairman that the effort we put in was a lengthy It is an issue which I think is essen- of the subcommittee is here. I ask Sen- effort and much compromise—nobody tial to the national security of the ator BOND if he has anything further to got really all they need, which, unfor- American people. If we don’t learn say insofar as the highway bill is con- tunately, is the nature of a com- from our mistakes, we are bound to cerned. promise. make those mistakes again. It is high Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the Again, I appreciate the comments time we have gotten around to it. chairman, the good Senator from Okla- made. I hope all of us can get together In the past few days, the administra- homa. He is doing a wonderful job. I and move quickly. We are ready to tion and the world have come to under- have been listening to the comments of offer an amendment. I gather we are stand and acknowledge on a broad our friend from Arizona and I under- urged to wait until tomorrow morning. basis the colossal intelligence failures stand his concerns. In order to achieve If others have amendments, I hope we that led us to war, a war that may have equity, in order to get the bill passed, can be open for business tomorrow and led to good ends, but the Nation clearly we were only able to give certain get going because there are lots of didn’t come to those conclusions on the States, under the formula, an increase pressing amendments and there are basis of the information we now seem that maybe in all rights was not ade- issues that need to be voted on. I hope to be discovering. quate. But anybody who gets a 40-per- we can get up and running and begin a There is a question about means to cent increase is certainly doing better very important debate and have votes an end that I think is pretty simple in than most. on these amendments. I thank the Sen- the kinds of discussions I think all of I have driven the highways in Ari- ator. us have in the families and in the com- zona, and I know that my colleague Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I thank munities in which we live. I don’t from Arizona does an excellent job rep- the Senator from Missouri. I also think we want to get into a position resenting his State. I hope the addi- would like to say that it has been a where means justify ends when they tional $1.118 billion will be a help. very difficult task developing this leg- don’t relate to them. I just point that This is a problem we always face on islation. While it seems as though all out as some of this discussion has the highway bill. I don’t know any some colleagues want to talk about is evolved. State that cannot make a compelling the formula in terms of money, there On January 8, Secretary of State case that they have needs that are are many other issues we dealt with— Colin Powell addressed the lack of con- greater. The chairman of the full com- environmental issues, streamlining nection between Iraq and al-Qaida, mittee and I are sitting on the first or issues, safety issues, issues that are of stating; second and third worst roads and the paramount concern to everyone. A I’ve not seen a smoking gun, concrete evi- first and second worst bridges in the compromise was made on all of those dence about that connection. Nation. I am not getting a 40-percent issues—some I don’t like, but we did We were told something different. increase. I can tell you in detail about compromise. Then the President, in his latest friends who have been killed on the f State of the Union Address, referred highways in Missouri because there MORNING BUSINESS only to weapons of mass destruction was too much traffic—10,000, 15,000 cars and related program activities, what- a day on narrow two-lane roads. This is Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask ever that is—a far cry from the active a huge problem. unanimous consent that there now be a nuclear program and stockpiles of The State of Oklahoma is a major period for the transaction of morning chemical and biological weapons Southwest-to-Midwest freeway. My business, with Senators permitted to warned of in his last State of the Union State is in the center of the States. speak for up to 10 minutes each. Message in 2003. Mr. CORZINE. Reserving the right to When you look at a map that shows the It was last week’s testimony from truck traffic and you identify the object. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. David Kay, the man responsible for the major corridors by red lines, the center weapons search in Iraq, that finally COLEMAN). The Senator from New Jer- of Missouri is a big red spot, and St. sey. brought this matter to maturity and Louis is a big red blotch on the map; Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I won- captured the attention of the Nation, there is that much congestion. der if the Senator from Oklahoma will the administration, and the world, and We were very proud to have the first allow for 20 minutes speaking as in that has really changed the whole con- interstate in the Nation under Presi- morning business. text of this debate and discussion. dent Eisenhower’s bill, starting Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I amend Dr. Kay, a man who told us last fall through St. Charles, MO. That is the that to up to 20 minutes for the first that Iraq’s nuclear programs were only good news. But the bad news is that the speaker and 10 minutes thereafter. at the most rudimentary level, told the road is badly out of shape, and there is The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without Senate Armed Services Committee not enough money in this highway bill objection, it is so ordered. there was no evidence of stockpiles of even to make a beginning on repairing Mr. CORZINE. I thank the Chair. chemical or biological weapons. it. The Missouri Department of Trans- Mr. President, I, too, respect very David Kay has made an important portation may be able to make some much the challenges the chairman of recommendation—one that I think has improvements. We are giving them the committee and the ranking mem- been obvious for a number of months— some options on how to deal with it in ber have been able to work through. I that an independent inquiry be estab- our State, but it is clearly a pressing look forward to a good, healthy debate lished so that the American people, so need. about some of the specifics. I think we that the allies of the United States and I can make a case that Missouri is are on the right track. those who would work with us, so that the demographic center, because as f all of us who are involved in policy- many people live north of us as south making know we have the facts that of us, and as many people live east of INTELLIGENCE OPERATIONS allow us to make good decisions so us as west of us. The national traffic Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise that we are not committing the lives of flow is through the State. We have to speak on an issue about which I our men and women in our military to needs. We don’t increase at 40 percent, have spoken a number of times and efforts that are based on false prem- but we had to stay with the funding which I passionately believe needs to ises, whether those are intentional or formula because this is a compromise. be addressed—frankly, it is one that is unintentional. We are trying to take care of everyone well past the maturation stage where We need to have the right answers, and meet the needs that are pressing, it should have been addressed—and and that recommendation apparently meet the highest priority needs, and we that is an independent look at our in- has now led—some might say forced— were not able to do it. telligence operations, particularly as the President to announce he will We want to work with our good they relate to the pre-Iraqi invasion name a panel to look at the intel- friend from Arizona. We understand his and how conclusions were drawn, so ligence issues related to Iraq. concerns and we thank him for his kind that can speak to the American people I welcome the President’s reversal on comments. Again, I will have to say about the facts we had. this critical need, and I suspect we will VerDate jul 14 2003 02:04 Feb 04, 2004 Jkt 029060 PO 00000 Frm 00145 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G03FE6.079 S03PT1 S528 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE February 3, 2004 see a reversal of support for that con- lem with analysis? Or was there a prob- it might be misuse. Some may argue it cept among my colleagues, about lem in selectivity and use of the intel- is selectivity. I think we need an inde- which there have been some healthy ligence provided? pendent commission so we can get to debates in the last months.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Iraq and Weapons of Mass Destruction
    1/9/2017 Iraq and Weapons of Mass Destruction home | about | documents | news | publications | FOIA | research | internships | search | donate | mailing list Iraq and Weapons of Mass Destruction National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 80 Updated ­ February 11, 2004 Edited by Jeffrey Richelson Originally posted December 20, 2002 Previously updated February 26, 2003 Documents ­ Press release ­ Further reading Between Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in August 1990, and the commencement of military ac绳on in January 1991, then President George H.W. Bush raised the specter of the Iraqi pursuit of nuclear weapons as one jus绳fica绳on for taking decisive ac绳on against Iraq. In the then‐classified Na绳onal Security Direc绳ve 54, signed on January 15, 1991, authorizing the use of force to expel Iraq from Kuwait, he iden绳fied Iraqi use of weapons of mass destruc绳on (WMD) against allied forces as an ac绳on that would lead the U.S. to seek the removal of Saddam Hussein from power. (Note 1) In the aermath of Iraq's defeat, the U.S.‐led U.N. coali绳on was able to compel Iraq to agree to an inspec绳on and monitoring regime, intended to insure that Iraq dismantled its WMD programs and did not take ac绳ons to recons绳tute them. The means of implemen绳ng the relevant U.N. resolu绳ons was the Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM). That inspec绳on regime con绳nued un绳l December 16, 1998 ‐ although it involved interrup绳ons, confronta绳ons, and Iraqi aꬫempts at denial and decep绳on ‐ when UNSCOM withdrew from Iraq in the face of Iraqi refusal to cooperate, and harassment. Subsequent to George W. Bush's assump绳on of the presidency in January 2001, the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Iraq's WMD Capability
    BRITISH AMERICAN SECURITY INFORMATION COUNCIL BASIC SPECIAL REPORT Unravelling the Known Unknowns: Why no Weapons of Mass Destruction have been found in Iraq By David Isenberg and Ian Davis BASIC Special Report 2004.1 January 2004 1 The British American Security Information Council The British American Security Information Council (BASIC) is an independent research organization that analyzes international security issues. BASIC works to promote awareness of security issues among the public, policy makers and the media in order to foster informed debate on both sides of the Atlantic. BASIC in the U.K. is a registered charity no. 1001081 BASIC in the U.S. is a non-profit organization constituted under Section 501(c)(3) of the U.S. Internal Revenue Service Code David Isenberg, Senior Analyst David Isenberg joined BASIC's Washington office in November 2002. He has a wide background in arms control and national security issues, and brings close to 20 years of experience in this field, including three years as a member of DynMeridian's Arms Control & Threat Reduction Division, and nine years as Senior Analyst at the Center for Defense Information. Ian Davis, Director Dr. Ian Davis is Executive Director of BASIC and has a rich background in government, academia, and the non-governmental organization (NGO) sector. He received both his Ph.D. and B.A. in Peace Studies from the University of Bradford. He was formerly Program Manager at Saferworld before being appointed as the new Executive Director of BASIC in October 2001. He has published widely on British defense and foreign policy, European security, the international arms trade, arms export controls, small arms and light weapons and defense diversification.
    [Show full text]
  • Iraq and After: Taking the Right Lessons for Combating Weapons of Mass Destruction
    2005 May Center for the Study of Weapons of Mass Destruction2 Iraq and After: Taking the Right Lessons for Combating Weapons of Mass Destruction by Michael Eisenstadt Center for the Study of Weapons of Mass Destruction National Defense University Washington, D.C. occasional paper JOHN F. REICHART Director Center for the Study of Weapons of Mass Destruction STAFF National Defense University W. SETH CARUS Deputy Director Since its inception in 1994, the Center for the Study of Weapons of JOHN P. CAVES, JR. Mass Destruction (previously the Center for Counterproliferation Senior Research Professor Research) has been at the forefront of research on the conse- REBECCA K.C. HERSMAN quences of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) for American Senior Research Professor security. Originally focusing on threats to the Armed Forces, the RICHARD A. LOVE WMD Center now also applies its expertise and body of research to Research Professor the challenges of homeland defense and security. In February 2004, GEOFFREY D. KIEFER President George W. Bush commended the Center for providing Research Project Specialist “vital insight into the dangers of a new era.” CREIGHTON HOTTINGER Research Project Specialist The broad mandate of the Center includes research, education, and outreach. Its research focuses on understanding the security OCCASIONAL PAPER SERIES implications of weapons of mass destruction, as well as the chal- General Editor: Geoffrey D. Kiefer lenge of fashioning effective responses to them. Education and outreach programs seek to enhance awareness in the next genera- RECENT PUBLICATIONS tion of military and civilian leaders of the WMD threat as it relates to defense and homeland security policy, programs, technology, Combating WMD: Challenges for the Next 10 Years and operations.
    [Show full text]
  • Non-Proliferation and the Dilemmas of Regime Change 7 Non-Proliferation and The
    Non-proliferation and the Dilemmas of Regime Change 7 Non-proliferation and the Dilemmas of Regime Change ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ Robert S. Litwak The Iraq war set an important historical precedent by being the first case in which forcible regime change was the means employed to achieve non- proliferation ends. In advocating this unique use of force, the Bush administration asserted that Iraq’s disarmament, mandated by the United Nations Security Council after the 1991 Gulf War, necessitated regime change because of Saddam Hussein’s unrelenting drive to acquire weapons of mass destruction (WMD).1 Although the US and British governments endeavoured to make the case for war based on international law – the Iraqi dictator’s flouting of multiple Security Council resolutions – war was ultimately waged without a legitimising UN imprimatur because of the political deadlock over the inherently contentious issue of regime change. Instead the military action was widely characterised in the American media as a decisive, even paradigmatic, application of the Bush administration’s September 2002 National Security Strategy document, which had formally elevated preemption as a policy option against ‘rogue states’ and terrorist groups in the post-11 September era.2 Viewed through that political optic, the war’s successful ousting of Saddam Hussein from power in April 2003 immediately raised the question as to how this precedent-setting case would affect US non-proliferation policy in addressing other hard cases. President George W. Bush laid down an ambitious marker when he boldly declared that the United States would not ‘tolerate’ the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran and North Korea – the other two charter members of his ‘axis of evil’ (now dubbed by one observer as the ‘axle of evil’).
    [Show full text]
  • USAF Counterproliferation Center CPC Outreach Journal #299
    USAF COUNTERPROLIFERATION CENTER CPC OUTREACH JOURNAL Maxwell AFB, Alabama Issue No. 299, 30 October 2003 Articles & Other Documents: Weeklong delay on ricin threat draws scrutiny Congressional Trip To N. Korea Called Off Search In Iraq Fails To Find Nuclear Threat Pentagon Wants 'Mini-Nukes' To Fight Terrorists C.I.A. Disputes Accusations That Its Prewar Intelligence Veteran Faults Iraq Arms Data Conclusions On Iraq Arms Were Flawed U.S. Presses China On Arms, Quietly Report Cites Bioterror Concerns Scientist: Bioterror software should be marketed The yeast and the cockroach -- a spy tale Welcome to the CPC Outreach Journal. As part of USAF Counterproliferation Center’s mission to counter weapons of mass destruction through education and research, we’re providing our government and civilian community a source for timely counterproliferation information. This information includes articles, papers and other documents addressing issues pertinent to US military response options for dealing with nuclear, biological and chemical threats and attacks. It’s our hope this information resource will help enhance your counterproliferation issue awareness. Established here at the Air War College in 1998, the USAF/CPC provides education and research to present and future leaders of the Air Force, as well as to members of other branches of the armed services and Department of Defense. Our purpose is to help those agencies better prepare to counter the threat from weapons of mass destruction. Please feel free to visit our web site at www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/awc-cps.htm for in-depth information and specific points of contact. Please direct any questions or comments on CPC Outreach Journal Jo Ann Eddy, CPC Outreach Editor, at (334) 953-7538 or DSN 493-7538.
    [Show full text]
  • President Bush and the Invasion of Iraq: Presidential Leadership and Thwarted Goals
    From James McCormick, ed., The Domestic Sources of American Foreign Policy, 6th ed. (Roman & Littlefield, 2018), pp. 361-380. President Bush and the Invasion of Iraq: Presidential Leadership and Thwarted Goals James P. Pfiffner George Mason University The 2003 Iraq War is a case study in winning the military battle but losing the war. President George W. Bush demonstrated impressive political skills in taking the country to war, despite the reservations of former generals, members of his father’s administration and the doubts of contemporary military leaders. But President Bush’s political victory in taking the country to war and the quick military defeat of Saddam’s army were undercut by a long post-war insurgency in Iraq, the rise of Iran’s influence in the Middle East, and the establishment of ISIS in a broken Iraq. This case study will examine President Bush’s campaign for war, his use of intelligence to make his case, and the longer-term consequences of the war. Many factors determine a decision to go to war, and in the United States, the personality and character of the president as leader of the country and commander in chief of the armed forces, are particularly important. To be sure, Congress is constitutionally the institution that must “declare war,” but political and governmental dynamics most often favor the president. The president has the advantage of being a single decision maker directing the many bureaucracies that gather intelligence and prepare for war. Virtually all intelligence available to Congress originates in executive branch agencies. Publicly, the president can command the attention of the media and strongly shape public perceptions of the national security situation of the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • NPR 1.2: Nuclear-Related Trade and Cooperation Developments
    Nuclear Developments NUCLEAR-RELATED TRADE AND COOPERATION DEVELOPMENTS, JANUARY- APRIL 1993 EMERGING NUCLEAR SUPPLIER STATES ARGENTINA WITH EGYPT ARGENTINA WITH ALGERIA ARGENTINA 3/93 1993 The Argentine ambassador to Egypt, Jorge A Russian intelligence report states that Al- Humberto de Belaustegui, announces that geria has attempted to establish contacts Argentina will train Egyptian experts in the with Argentina in order to obtain "technical field of nuclear technology. Argentina will secrets" and nuclear technology. work with Egypt to build a nuclear reactor INTERNAL DEVELOPMENTS Report by the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service, under IAEA supervision. Moscow, 1993; in JPRS-TND-93-007, 3/5/93, p. Rose al-Yasuf (Cairo), 12/14/92, p. 55; in JPRS- 21 (9476). 2/93 TND-93-009, 3/29/93, p. 23 (9823). Enrique de la Torre, director of international nuclear safety for the Argentine Foreign ARGENTINA WITH BRAZIL Ministry, states that the Treaty of Tlatelolco ARGENTINA WITH GERMANY is expected to be ratified by Argentina's con- gress in 3/93. 2/93 4/93 Armin Scmid, Nucleonics Week, 2/25/93, p. 12 Enrique de la Torre, director of international Germany announces that it is removing Ar- (9940). nuclear safety for the Argentine Foreign gentina from its "H" list. Exports o sensitive Ministry, visits Brazil in an attempt to get material to a country on the list must be ap- that country to speed up its ratification of proved by a number of German ministeries; the "four party" treaty on nuclear prolifera- The number listed in parenthesis following removing Argentina from the list will make it tion, which Argentina ratified in 1992.
    [Show full text]
  • CPC Outreach Journal #294
    USAF COUNTERPROLIFERATION CENTER CPC OUTREACH JOURNAL Maxwell AFB, Alabama Issue No. 294, 7 October 2003 Articles & Other Documents: Both Sides In Weapons Debate Can Point To Inspector's STATEMENT BY DAVID KAY ON THE INTERIM Report PROGRESS REPORT ON THE ACTIVITIES OF THE IRAQ SURVEY GROUP (ISG) Iraq Isn't Innocent, Inspector Urges What Happened To Looted Iraqi Nuclear Material? Measure Would Alter Nuclear Nonproliferation Policy N. Korean Report Spurs Debate On Credibility Pakistan Tests Missile Able To Hit Sites In India FDA OKs Antidote for 'Dirty Bomb' Attack Ft. Detrick Celebrates 60 Years, New Role Weapons Lab Security Lax, DOE Whistleblower Charges Welcome to the CPC Outreach Journal. As part of USAF Counterproliferation Center’s mission to counter weapons of mass destruction through education and research, we’re providing our government and civilian community a source for timely counterproliferation information. This information includes articles, papers and other documents addressing issues pertinent to US military response options for dealing with nuclear, biological and chemical threats and attacks. It’s our hope this information resource will help enhance your counterproliferation issue awareness. Established here at the Air War College in 1998, the USAF/CPC provides education and research to present and future leaders of the Air Force, as well as to members of other branches of the armed services and Department of Defense. Our purpose is to help those agencies better prepare to counter the threat from weapons of mass destruction. Please feel free to visit our web site at www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/awc-cps.htm for in-depth information and specific points of contact.
    [Show full text]
  • Yale-UN Oral History Project David Kay James S. Sutterlin, Interviewer April 10,2000 Mclean, Virginia
    ST/DPI ORAL HISTORY (02)/K23 Yale-UN Oral History Project David Kay James S. Sutterlin, Interviewer 10 April, 2000 McLean, Virginia NOTICE This is a transcript of a tape-recorded interview conducted for the United Nations. A draft of this transcript was edited by the interviewee but only minor emendations were made; therefore, the reader should remember that this is essentially a transcript of the spoken, rather than the written word. RESTRICTIONS This oral history transcript may be read, quoted from, cited, and reproduced for purposes of research. It may not be published in full except by permission of the United Nations, Dag Hammarskjöld Library. Yale-UN Oral History Project David Kay James S. Sutterlin, Interviewer April 10,2000 McLean, Virginia Index: Iraqi Inspections Atomic Energy Commission 18 Cuban Missile Crisis 8, 14-15 Der Spiegel 4 Director General of IAEA 3-4,6,24 Global Positioning System (GPS) 10 Gulf War 5, 10,42 International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) 1,3-6,8-9,18,21-22,24-27,29,34,36­ 37,39,44-45 Iran-Iraq War 32,35 Iraqi Ministry of Industry and Military Production 31 National Science Foundation 2 National Technical Means O'1TM) 7-8 The New York Times 26 Oppenheimer 17 Osiraq Bombing 3, 17 Photo Interpreters 6-7, 14-15 Safeguard Department 3-4 Safeguard Implementation Report 4 Security Council 19-20,35,37,41,45 Transnationalism 2 UN Special Commission (UNSCOM) 8,18-27,34-35,37-38 UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) 2-3 UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) 45 UN Joint Inspection Unit (UNJIU) 3 UN Monitering, Verification and Inspection COITIm is ion (UNMGYIe) 39,42 UN Observer Mission in Liberia (UNOMIC)j 37 ,., J ..
    [Show full text]
  • Hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee Subject: Iraqi Weapons Of
    HEARING OF THE SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE SUBJECT: IRAQI WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION PROGRAMS CHAIRED BY: SENATOR JOHN WARNER (R-VA) WITNESS: DAVID KAY, FORMER HEAD OF THE IRAQ SURVEY GROUP LOCATION: 106 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING, WASHINGTON, D.C. TIME: 11:05 A.M. EST DATE: WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 28, 2004 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Copyright (c) 2004 by Federal News Service, Inc., Ste. 220 1919 M St. NW, Washington, DC 20036, USA. Federal News Service is a private firm not affiliated with the federal government. No portion of this transcript may be copied, sold or retransmitted without the written authority of Federal News Service, Inc. Copyright is not claimed as to any part of the original work prepared by a United States government officer or employee as a part of that person's official duties. For information on subscribing to the FNS Internet Service, please visit http://www.fednews.com or call(202)347-1400 ----------------------------------------------------------------- SEN. WARNER: A further report -- and I stress "a further report" -- from Dr. David Kay on his efforts and the efforts of the team which he was privileged to work with, known as ISG. He served as the special advisor to the director of Central Intelligence in determining the status of weapons of mass destruction and related programs in Iraq. After assuming this position last July, Dr. Kay made his initial interim official report to this committee on October 3rd. As members of the committee are aware, Dr. Kay has stepped down from this position and has been succeeded by Dr. -- excuse me -- Mr. Charles A. Duelfer, a former colleague and member of the U.N.
    [Show full text]
  • Threat Inºation and the Failure of the Marketplace of Ideas
    Threat Inºation and the Marketplace of Ideas Threat Inºation and Chaim Kaufmann the Failure of the Marketplace of Ideas The Selling of the Iraq War Mature democracies such as the United States are generally believed to be better at making foreign policy than other regime types. Especially, the strong civic institutions and ro- bust marketplaces of ideas in mature democracies are thought to substantially protect them from severe threat inºation and “myths of empire” that could promote excessively risky foreign policy adventures and wars. The market- place of ideas helps to weed out unfounded, mendacious, or self-serving for- eign policy arguments because their proponents cannot avoid wide-ranging debate in which their reasoning and evidence are subject to public scrutiny.1 The marketplace of ideas, however, failed to fulªll this function in the 2002–03 U.S. foreign policy debate over going to war with Iraq. By now there is broad agreement among U.S. foreign policy experts, as well as much of the American public and the international community, that the threat assessments that President George W. Bush and his administration used to justify the war against Iraq were greatly exaggerated, and on some dimensions wholly baseless. Postwar revelations have made clear that President Bush and top ofªcials of his administration were determined from early 2001 to bring about regime change in Iraq.2 It was not until the summer of 2002, however, that they began Chaim Kaufmann is Associate Professor of International Relations at Lehigh University. For helpful comments, the author is indebted to Robert Art, Karen Ballentine, Stephen Biddle, Mia Bloom, Jane Kellett Cramer, Michael Desch, Peter Feaver, Christopher Herrick, Seymour Hersh, Robert Jervis, Jack Levy, David MacMichael, John Mearsheimer, Ivan Oelrich, Robert Pape, Ken- neth Pollack, Edward Rhodes, Gideon Rose, John Schuessler, Jack Snyder, Stephen Van Evera, par- ticipants in the University of Chicago Program on International Security Policy, and to International Security’s anonymous reviewers.
    [Show full text]
  • Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq: the Â��Final Word" on Efforts to Eliminate Saddam Hussein's Biological, Chemical, and Nuclear Weapons Threat
    Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq: The �Final Word" on Efforts to Eliminate Saddam Hussein's Biological, Chemical, and Nuclear Weapons Threat Rex J. Zedalis* I. Introduction It is quite possible that the full story about weapons of mass destruction (here- inafter WMD) in Saddam Hussein's Iraq may never be known.' Certainly, it would be difficult to deny that the several months leading up to the June 28, 2004, hand- over of power to Iraq's transitional government2 provided various insights casting doubt on the pre-Gulf War II claims and implications regarding the nature and magnitude of Saddam's WMD capability.3 While many of those insights will be discussed in the pages that follow, the principal objective of this paper is to focus on the specific matter of the status of the UN's weapons inspection process in Iraq,4 especially given the U.S.-led coalition's removal of Saddam and its * Professor of Law and Director, Comparative and International Law Center, University of Tulsa; W.B. Cutting Fellow in International Law (1980-81) and J.S.D. (1987) Columbia University I The objectivity provided by the passage of time may offer some degree of clarity with regard to the whole question of Iraq's weapons capability. In the near term, however, a term which could prove rather lengthy given the fervor associated with the various perspectives on the "war on terrorism," it would seem both sides of the debate about WMD in Iraq would prefer the argumen- tative advantages offered by ambiguity and inconclusiveness.
    [Show full text]