FOX: The Big Story With John Gibson August 19, 2002
Back in the Nerve Gas Business?
 Fallujah II, CW Plant, Iraq |
GIBSON: We need some facts. Is the butcher of Baghdad back in the nerve gas business? Some folks think that's what these satellite pictures of three chemical factories near Baghdad show. Back in 1991, these factories were used in the production of nerve gas agents. The U.S. destroyed them during the Gulf War. But, as you can see, they have been rebuilt. Is this the evidence we need to go face to face with Saddam Hussein sooner rather than later?
Joining us now from our Washington bureau, Tim Brown, senior analyst for globalsecurity.com. So, Tim, these pictures, are they -- evidently, the U.S. government has let these things out so we can have a look. What does that show us really?
TIM BROWN, GLOBALSECURITY.ORG: Well, these were taken from a commercial satellite, digitalglobe .com, and we ordered them. Basically, this facility was added to in 1994. The Iraqis got a permission slip from UNSCOM to build what they claimed was a dual-use chemical facility, and it was assumed that the UNSCOM inspectors would be able to monitor it over a period of time.
After UNSCOM left, we don't know what's been going on there since, and so it's not clear for sure that they are using this facility for chemical weapons. We just don't know.
GIBSON: Well, I mean, is that a good enough reason to attack?
BROWN: Well, I don't think so. I think that you need to either have U.N. weapons inspectors on the ground to go back into the facility and make sure that it's not -- hasn't been converted, there are no chemical residues or any kind of chemical weapons agents, or it should be very high on the target list if we decide to go to war with Iraq.
GIBSON: OK. Now these pictures are ambiguous because you can't tell exactly what is going on there from whatever thousand miles in the sky we're looking down on. What do we know about -- for fact about what Saddam Hussein really has or is really capable of building in a short amount of time?
BROWN: Well, we know that he still has some remnants of his chemical weapons and his biological weapons capability hidden around, and one of the problems with this art form is that no one's ever found anything that was successfully hidden, and Saddam is a master of hiding things, and so it's still possible he has enough of his documentation, enough of the equipment squirreled away that he could continue to produce a small quantity of agent.
GIBSON: Well, what is it we're mainly -- I mean, people have been talking about three classes of weapons of mass destruction -- nuclear, chemical, and biological. Which of those three is the easiest for somebody under the gun like Saddam Hussein to get together in a form that he could use it on the United States or anybody else who wanted to attack?
BROWN: Well, clearly, the chemical weapon threat is the one that faces both other countries in the region and U.S. troops, should we go to war with Iraq, because it's -- it was -- he produced it in sufficient quantity that there's enough left over.
It can easily be put on artillery rounds or dropped by air or delivered by missile, and those launchers are very difficult to detect, and he supposedly has enough short-range launchers that he could threaten our troops, should there be a conflict.
GIBSON: Now, Tim, if you were put on the spot and called in on the president's war council on Wednesday and the president's people said, "We need a good reason to attack," is there one?
BROWN: I don't think from this satellite imagery that it -- there's enough of a reason to go to war with Iraq, but I think that this particular facility and the others like it are clearly enough reason to continue to call for the weapons inspectors to go back to Baghdad and to verify this.
GIBSON: Tim Brown, senior analyst for globalsecurities.com -- thank you .org. Sorry.
BROWN: .Org.
GIBSON: .Org, indeed.
Thanks a lot, Tim. Appreciate it.
BROWN: Thank you.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
© Copyright 2002 (c) Copyright eMediaMillWorks, Inc. (f/k/a Federal Document Clearing House, Inc.).
