More "no WMD" news

Inkara1

Well-Known Member
WASHINGTON - Contradicting the main argument for a war that has cost more than 1,000 American lives, the top U.S. arms inspector said Wednesday he found no evidence that Iraq (news - web sites) produced any weapons of mass destruction after 1991. He also concluded that Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s capabilities to develop such weapon had dimmed — not grown — during a dozen years of sanctions before last year's U.S. invasion.

Contrary to prewar statements by President Bush (news - web sites) and top administration officials, Saddam did not have chemical and biological stockpiles when the war began and his nuclear capabilities were deteriorating, not advancing, said Charles Duelfer, head of the Iraq Survey Group.

The findings come less than four weeks before an election in which Bush's handling of Iraq has become the central issue. Democratic candidate John Kerry (news - web sites) has seized on comments by the former U.S. administrator in Iraq, Paul Bremer, that the United States did not have enough troops in Iraq to prevent lawlessness after Saddam was toppled.

The inspector's report could boost Kerry's contention that Bush rushed to war based on faulty intelligence and that United Nations (news - web sites) sanctions and U.N. weapons inspectors should have been given more time.

But Duelfer also supports Bush's argument that Saddam remained a threat. Interviews with the toppled leader and other former Iraqi officials made clear that Saddam had not lost his ambition to pursue weapons of mass destruction and hoped to revive his weapons program if U.N. sanctions were lifted, his report said.

"What is clear is that Saddam retained his notions of use of force, and had experiences that demonstrated the utility of WMD," Duelfer told Congress.

Campaigning in Pennsylvania, Bush defended the decision to invade.

"There was a risk, a real risk, that Saddam Hussein would pass weapons or materials or information to terrorist networks," Bush said in a speech in Wilkes Barre, Pa. "In the world after Sept. 11, that was a risk we could not afford to take."

But a top Democrat in Congress, Sen. Carl Levin (news, bio, voting record) of Michigan, said Duelfer's findings undercut the two main arguments for war: that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and that he would share them with terrorists like al-Qaida.

"We did not go to war because Saddam had future intentions to obtain weapons of mass destruction," said Levin, ranking Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee (news - web sites).

Under questioning from Levin, Duelfer said his report found that aluminum tubes suspected of being used for enriching uranium for use in a nuclear bomb were likely destined for conventional rockets and that there is no evidence Iraq sought uranium abroad after 1991. Both findings contradict claims made by Bush and other top administration officials before the war the Bush administration before the war.

He also found no evidence of trailers being used to develop biological weapons, Duelfer said, although he said he couldn't flatly declare that none existed.

Traveling in Africa, British Prime Minister Tony Blair (news - web sites) said the report shows Saddam was "doing his best" to evade the U.N. sanctions.

Duelfer presented his findings in a report of more than 1,000 pages, and in appearances before the Armed Services Committee and the Senate Intelligence Committee.

The report avoids direct comparisons with prewar claims by the Bush administration on Iraq's weapons systems. But Duelfer largely reinforces the conclusions of his predecessor, David Kay, who said in January, "We were almost all wrong" on Saddam's weapons programs. The White House did not endorse Kay's findings then, noting Duelfer's team was still searching for weapons.

Duelfer found that Saddam, hoping to end U.N. sanctions, gradually began ending prohibited weapons programs starting in 1991. But as Iraq started receiving money through the U.N. oil-for-food program in the late 1990s, and as enforcement of the sanctions weakened, Saddam was able to take steps to rebuild his military, such as acquiring parts for missile systems.

However, the erosion of sanctions stopped after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Duelfer found, preventing Saddam from pursuing weapons of mass destruction.

"He was making progress in eroding sanctions — a lot of sanctions," Duelfer told Congress. "And had it not been for the events of 9-11-2001, things would have taken a very different course for the regime."

Duelfer's team found no written plans by Saddam's regime to pursue banned weapons if U.N. sanctions were lifted. Instead, the inspectors based their findings that Saddam hoped to reconstitute his programs on interviews with Saddam after his capture, as well as talks with other top Iraqi officials.

The inspectors found Saddam was particularly concerned about the threat posed by Iran, the country's enemy in a 1980-88 war. Saddam said he would meet Iran's threat by any means necessary, which Duelfer understood to mean weapons of mass destruction.

Saddam believed his use of chemical weapons against Iran prevented Iraq's defeat in that war. He also was prepared to use such weapons in 1991 if the U.S.-led coalition had tried to topple him in the 1991 Persian Gulf War (news - web sites).

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Tuesday that Saddam was "a gathering threat that needed to be taken seriously, that it was a matter of time before he was going to begin pursuing those weapons of mass destruction."

But before the war, the Bush administration cast Saddam as an immediate threat, not a gathering threat.

For example, Bush said in October 2002 that "Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more." Bush also said then, "The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program."

Interviews with Saddam left Duelfer's team with the impression Saddam was more concerned about Iran and Israel as enemies than he was about the United States. Saddam appeared to hold out hope that U.S. leaders ultimately would recognize that it was in the country's interest to deal with Iraq as an important, secular, oil-rich Middle Eastern nation, the report found.
source
 
BeardofPants said:
I have no words.... people died serving their country for an ass-wipe that lied. I have no words. :(

I still don't know if he lied, and probably even have a different idea of the
definition of what lying is than you.
I would like to see all the intel myself, but will probably never get the chance.
WMDs may very well have been there. I'm not taking anybodies word for it
either way, at least until More intel is released.
 
catocom said:
I still don't know if he lied, and probably even have a different idea of the
definition of what lying is than you.
I would like to see all the intel myself, but will probably never get the chance.
WMDs may very well have been there. I'm not taking anybodies word for it
either way, at least until More intel is released.
Chances are we'll never see enough to convince everyone, cat. I believe what I've always believed, that even without 9/11, as soon as Bush was elected we were bound to go to war with Iraq. I believed it when he was elected, I believe today. There was going to be a reason, even if they had to make it up. I really thought the 9/11 attacks would derail this plan, but they were more determined than I thought. I've said it before and I'll say it once again. The administration back-burnered the 9/11 perpetrators to go after Saddam. I have never had any love for Saddam, but I think the priorities were wrong. Now there are huge messes in Afghanistan and Iraq, and I don't think either side has a clue how to resolve either issue. I know I don't. :shrug:
 
BeardofPants said:
I have no words.... people died serving their country for an ass-wipe that lied. I have no words. :(

What happened to the weapons he had? The ones that have not been accounted for, since before the first Gulf War? The ones he agreed to destroy & to the knowledge of the UN, the inspectors & a worlds worth of intelligence, he never did as agreed?

I will now say that apparently the Iraqi government did not make any new weapons, post 1991. I will also say that given what has been found, where are the liberals? This much mass murder, torture, theft & oil & they are whining about the deceptions of a madman & his evil sons.

Not one soldier died under false pretenses. Iraq is a battle in the War on Terror much like Africa, Italy, Poland & France were battles to stop Germany in the Second World War.
 
chcr said:
Chances are we'll never see enough to convince everyone, cat. I believe what I've always believed, that even without 9/11, as soon as Bush was elected we were bound to go to war with Iraq. I believed it when he was elected, I believe today. There was going to be a reason, even if they had to make it up. I really thought the 9/11 attacks would derail this plan, but they were more determined than I thought. I've said it before and I'll say it once again. The administration back-burnered the 9/11 perpetrators to go after Saddam. I have never had any love for Saddam, but I think the priorities were wrong. Now there are huge messes in Afghanistan and Iraq, and I don't think either side has a clue how to resolve either issue. I know I don't. :shrug:

That is an interesting theory, and very well could possibly be true. :nerd:
I'm not really sure though that Afghanistan was put as much on the backburner
as you suggest.
I do think there is a clear (as clear as can be) plan to democratize both places.
It just takes time to change a whole(or 2 whole) countries way of life, and
also the way they think (to a certain extent).
The real question to me is will the right people be elected, and/or will the
democracy hold.
 
catocom said:
The real question to me is will the right people be elected

Does it matter? As long as they are given the chance to hold free elections & that right is not infringed (ie Check #1 to vote for saddam, check #2 to die)
 
Oh ok I've done some more reading on it.
This guy was/is a UN weapons inspector.
Naturally he's going to defend the job they tried to do there.
There is no new info in any of the reports.
I'm just wondering if he's got an agenda here. :confused:
(wondering why he's bringing this up again at this time)
 
MrBishop said:
:shrug: colour me surprised






and Chic: I dont think we can say that we would have gone to Iraq 9/11 or not. I think it became the excuse though.


Catocom: I doubt the persons name will come out. While I stand by all I have said please remember this: There was a reason he said it. But his name wont be released. There isnt anything definite as well as he prolly is just trying to make Bush look bad. That is how I see this since it is close to election time and he comes out and says it. I thnk its all timing.
 
Ahhhh, yes, another in a long line who place politics above national security.
 
freako104 said:
Catocom: I doubt the persons name will come out. While I stand by all I have said please remember this: There was a reason he said it. But his name wont be released. There isnt anything definite as well as he prolly is just trying to make Bush look bad. That is how I see this since it is close to election time and he comes out and says it. I thnk its all timing.

Charles Duelfer
the inspector...that's the guy's name.
 
Gonz said:
I will now say that apparently the Iraqi government did not make any new weapons, post 1991. I will also say that given what has been found, where are the liberals? This much mass murder, torture, theft & oil & they are whining about the deceptions of a madman & his evil sons.
Aren't you pissed? Not even a little? Deceived a madman? They deceived YOU. I'd have thought you'd be raging angry. This is your government, they counted on your blind faith and got it. You believed in these people, your stance on it has been so firm...maniacally firm at times, and now you must finally be beginning to see that it really was all just a pile of bullshit? Maybe when it sinks in a bit.

This liberal is kind of happy that it's kind of sort of turned out well for the people, in a way, kind of sort of ( http://www.iraqbodycount.net ), well, for some of them anyway. But this liberal doesn't feel that that in any way excuses the gross injustice perpetrated on those people and the intentional deceipt attempted by several governments, and then the attempts by those governments to force not the not-so sheeplike governments to toe the line.

An evil leader...this is not an excuse, nor a reason for what was done in Iraq, no matter what a good spin it seems. It absolutely is not the reason we were presented with, and it's shameful to fall back on it, pretending anyone in power gave a shit, because the first case has been proven a lie. Were it every country with a maniac in charge, it may well have been construed as altruistic, and governments around the world (like mine) could then be remonstrated with for not joining the causes.

This whole thing was just simply evil.

People suck.
 
I personally don't think Our leader is evil, and I'm really still not convinced
that Iraq actually did quit there program in '91. :confused:
They may have just scaled it back and hid it better...?
Because something wasn't found (in mass quantity) doesn't mean it isn't/wasn't there.

I'm somewhat of a conspiracy theorist on our gov, but even more so of other countries. :devious:
I really don't know what the intel is 'really', and what they just don't want to release.
I also don't know what our real capabilities are for searching for stuff under the sand there.
 
Gonz said:
Ahhhh, yes, another in a long line who place politics above national security.



Gonz what the hell are you talking about now? It is the politics of our national security that bug me. National security doesnt. the politics of the world does
 
Leslie said:
see that it really was all just a pile of bullshit?

No it isn't. This was not the only reason for war. I saw the effects that WMDs had on the Kurds & the Iranians. I know for a fact that Iraq, under Hussein, did not follow the UN mandates. He had/has WMD's. Could they be the ones turned in by Khadaffi? Are they in Syria? Are they in room 5534 at the Baghdad Hilton? I don't know. I bet someone on our side does. Due to security interests it may be 25 years before the truth startts seeing the light.

I do not think we were intentionally deceived by Bush or Blair or any of our collective intel, nor by Kaffe for that matter. We were deceived by Saddam Hussein. He is where he needs to be & should have been there a decade sooner. In the long run, fewer people will die because he's gone. Once democratic roots are set in Iraq & Afghanistan, all the ME will change for the better.
 
catocom said:
Oh ok I've done some more reading on it.
This guy was/is a UN weapons inspector.
Naturally he's going to defend the job they tried to do there.
There is no new info in any of the reports.
I'm just wondering if he's got an agenda here. :confused:
(wondering why he's bringing this up again at this time)


Thats
The chief U.S. arms inspector in Iraq
not UN

Duelfer, a special consultant to the director of Central Intelligence on Iraqi WMD affairs
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134625,00.html



Okay found this 1998 piece where is is speaking as a UN inspector ,but he seems to be taking the position of

I mean, we are convinced that Iraq retains documents that could help us get a more verifiable explanation of the program. We are convinced that there are individuals in Iraq who could help us understand this, should they be able to speak to us freely. There must be tangible evidence in Iraq, after all, they know what happened. If they wanted to fully describe it, we think that they could.

It seems to me he would have been pleased at finding what he was looking for as it would have proved what he was saying for years,unlike some of the recent inspectors who were saying WMD didn't exist who may have had an agenda to not find stuff.
 
catocom said:
I'm not really sure though that Afghanistan was put as much on the backburner

Cat, it's a matter of public record that they took 70 million of the money earmarked (and approved by congress) to pursue terrorists in Afghanistan and used it to start the Iraq war.
 
Back
Top