Oh well, so much for that idea. But I couldn't help but share some highlights of this 2001 Frontline interview with Khidir Hamza, "an American-trained nuclear physicist who headed the Iraqi nuclear weapons program before defecting to the West in 1994". So I expect he might have some experience, say, with Saddam, weapons programs, and Iraq.

For some of you (perhaps one or two of you three), this might be yesterday's news. But it was fresh for me, and old enough it might be a good refresher. The interviewer's words are in italics...

Regarding Iraq and terrorism:

In terms of the training of terrorists in camps -- what was taking place? Who was involved? And why the Iraqis? Why were they doing it?

The training and the terrorism angle would be the only option left for a country that lost a war. ... Outright wars are out now, with the sanctions and the huge losses, and Iraq demoralized and almost destroyed. Terrorism is always for the weak. It's not an option for a major power. It's never been. Always, when you get weaker, you go to terrorism. ... So terrorist camps come natural in Iraq.

Iraqi nuclear capabilities:

I believe Iraq now has fully functional design, and complete manufacturing capability for the parts, or parts of the nuclear equipment. The only thing in Iraq remains [to acquire] is the nuclear core. ... German intelligence, which I believe made a very good assessment ... is [that] Iraq should be able to acquire complete this part by 2005, and have three nuclear weapons. It might not be three, though; it might be one or two.

That's two years off folks, One year into the next administration, whoever that might be. Keep in mind the inspectors haven't found anything, nuclear-wise, so whatever capabilities he may have have not been degraded.

On the (in)effectiveness of UN inspections:

How successful or unsuccessful was the United Nations in eradicating the nuclear and the biological threat that Iraq presents here?

This is simplistic. They are not naïve; I talked to them. I talked to many of the inspectors. We had some kind of give and take in this. But they were restricted. ...

For example, on the nuclear ... the critical parts, that Iraq could not replace easily, we did not tell about -- for example, the molds that you make explosives with, the machines that you make explosives with. Nobody is going to sell you these anymore. Very difficult. So Iraq did not give these up. Not a single explosive was given to the inspectors for the nuclear weapon program. Not a single mold, not a single machine.

"Given?" I thought they were found.

A little bit found, but not explosives. Iraq claimed that these were destroyed in the war. Other parts were given, or were found and given to inspectors. Not everything the inspectors found, by the way, was given to them. They might find something and it disappears on them. And that happened several times.

Regarding "regime change" in Iraq:

So you seem to be saying that there's no choice.

There is no choice. Absolutely no choice to removing Saddam. No alternative. Saddam has to be removed. Otherwise, what you'll have is the region going down the drain, eventually, with all kinds of extremist groups, possible skirmishes, small wars, all kinds of actions.

When did this dawn on you? You were in the position of providing him what he needed to become this horror that you're now defining. When did this dawn on you? How did you think about it when you were still in Iraq?

The danger became clear in the crash program in 1990, [link to unscom interview] when we were asked to make one nuclear weapon out of the French fuel. It makes no sense. We made a device, actually, minus the core, and we sat down and did calculations. We have one to two kilograms, and we needed eighteen, extracted to make the bomb. And we would have had a small -- probably two-to-four kiloton explosion at the time. ... But the idea was [that] he wanted it on a missile, and he was mad at us for not making it small enough. ...

Now, we are talking about destroying Iraq and a madman who is taking everybody with him if he goes: a self-centered megalomaniac who is thinking only of himself. If he goes, nothing should remain after. That kind of thing we couldn't deal with -- I couldn't personally deal with -- so I started from then to start easing my way out and getting out of the country.

Dr. Hamza echos my own concerns: That the greatest Iraqi casualties will be at Saddam's hands, not those of the U.S. Just as Hitler at the end of WWII ordered Paris destroyed and the German tunnels where civilians and troops were safe from bombings flooded, I expect Saddam to be even worse to the Iraqis. There is no Iraq without him, after all.

Pray for our troops, and the ordinary people of Iraq.