What is the basis of this Repub talking point?

[Brotherjohn]

I know I shouldn't have, but I put Scraborough on for a few minutes yesterday, and he was throwing this at Bob Graham's Secretary:
(paraphrasing) "Saddam Hussein admitted in 1998 that he had WMD! The UN Security Council voted unanimously in October that he had WMD!! The whole world knew he had WMD!! How can you say he didn't!!"

Now, the last two points are total bull, but I can understand his "misinterpretaion" given his extreme bias and lack of critical thinking capacity. I can also at least understand what his basis for the UN thing is (although he simply doesn't know how to read the resolution).

But as far as saying "Saddam admitted in 1998 to hgaving WMD", what instance in 1998 might he be referring to? For the life of me I can't even think what he's misrepresenting (and I can usually do at least that with Repubs).

The dismaying thing is that Graham's Press Sec'y didn't call him on these outrageous claims, but merely kept saying that Bush has misled. I can only hope that he was simply instructed to stay "on message", which I can understand given the hyper blathering one is likely to encounter on a show such as Scarborough's.

[kalian]

1. And the counter question is:

SO WHAT?!
Did he use those "WMDs"? Did he threaten anybody?
Get our military out of Iraq...NOW.

[sangh0]

2. NEVER accept them at their word

No matter WHAT they say, make them prove it. If they say it's raining, make them get a video.

[Peachhead22]

4. IIRC

It was defectors (Saddam's sons-in-law) who in '98 said Saddam had WMDs. Not Saddam. And I take any info from defector with a huge dose of scepticism.

I don't have any links. That's just they way I remember it.

[papau]

5. Son-in Law said they destroyed weapons in 95-96 - NOT that they

still had them.

And was killed by Saddam for telling the West this, as Saddam wanted to pretend he still had them.

Joe S is a liar.

[Brotherjohn]

6. Actually, Hussein Kamel was killed in 1996 upon returning to Iraq.

His testimony was that they did have WMD (in 1991) but that they destroyed all of their stocks (in 1991). The Bush administration has often cited his testimony to prove that Iraq "had" WMD "in the 1990s", but they always neglect to mention that the same testimony they are relying on also says that these WMD were destroyed.

I have been looking into that aspect of the Bush claims in the process of a (LONG) piece I will post here later regarding the White House pattern of deception. But it doesn't seem to be the source for a claim that Iraq admitted in 1998 that they had WMDs. I suppose Joe could just be horribly mis-informed (no surprise there).

[poskonig]

3. Two points.

Just because Iraq said they had WMD in 1998 doesn't mean they all survived the inspection process and operation Desert Fox, which Ritter claims destroyed at minimum 90-95% of the the WMD and all of the facilities to produce them.

Secondly, even if a nation does claim they have some sort of WMD, it doesn't necessarily mean they have them. Some can lie about having nukes to blackmail others; some despots may want to appear strong in face of a rebellious public, an invader, et cetera.

[Brotherjohn]

7. A followup question (first read my post #6)

Could be the source of the talking point?

In their citation of Hussein Kamel's testimony, Repubs (Bush and Powell included) have said that Iraq "admitted" to certain weapons stocks only after this defector's testimony (See http://www.fair.org/press-releases/kamel.html). The testimony was given in 1995. Could it simply be that when confronted with this testimony in 1998, Iraq came clean and admitted that yes, they did have these stockpiles prior to 1991? I cannot find any link to info indicating that Iraq admitted in 1998 to the Kamel testimony, or any other claims of them having WMD (even pre-1991).

I understand it's still horrendously misleading. But if we are to challenge the Right on their talking points, we need to know where they come from.

[Texican]

8. They Did

I have seen reports where captured Iraqis have stated that the last of the WMDs were destroyed 5 years ago. I guess that they are trying to say that if this was 1998 that they would not be such big stinking liars. Too bad that they don't have a time machine.