Back to Index


General Sullivan says: "Regarding Secretary's Powell's statement that Phyllis Gardner mentions, he stated the Iraqis hadn't developed any significant capabilities in respect to weapons of mass destruction or the ability to employ them conventionally against his neighbors.

I believe he was wrong in his deduction; what does "significant" mean? Having the capability to produce bio/chemical is significant. The US, at the least, was concerned Iraq would give bio/chemicals to terrorists to be used in the US which is a huge, immediate threat. They certainly had the capability to employ bio/chemicals against their neighbors as the missiles that were found and destroyed during the last inspections prior to the war had that capability. Also they could take a vehicle capable of spraying and drive it up to the front lines and dispense chemicals.

Secondly , Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff did not agree with Powell and later must have given him an updated threat briefing as he portrayed a totally different picture in his presentation before the UN. I can remember one of the Senators from California after hearing Powell's briefing say, "There is no doubt now that Iraq has WMDs."

I believe our military commanders fully believed what they saw in intel pictures and humint (human Intelligence) gathered regarding WMDs inside of Iraq. You must act on the intelligence provided and most tend to believe the worst case rather than deny it as they are responsible for the safety of their people, troops and equipment.

Intel is definitely our weak suit, yet it was unbelievably good during the ground combat actions of the Iraqi War. The US giving the Iraqis chemical weapons "know-how" back in the "80s, is a puzzle to me and I don't know who would or could authorize something like that unless, possibly, they justified it for defensive purposes. I have no conclusive answer as to why this happened".

Ronald Hilton - 10.04.03