Report: Saddam Not in Pursuit of Weapons

spillmind

Member
Sep 1, 2003
780
13
16
Palo Alto, Ca.
link


WASHINGTON - Undercutting the Bush's administration's rationale for invading Iraq, the final report of the chief U.S. arms inspector concludes that Saddam Hussein did not vigorously pursue a program to develop weapons of mass destruction after international inspectors left Baghdad in 1998, according to lawmakers and others briefed on the report.

In drafts, weapons hunter Charles Duelfer concluded that Saddam's Iraq had no stockpiles of the banned weapons but said he found signs of idle programs that Saddam could have revived if international attention had waned.

"It appears that he did not vigorously pursue those programs after the inspectors left," the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity in advance of the report's release.

Duelfer was providing his findings Wednesday to the Senate Armed Services Committee. His team compiled a 1,500-page report after his predecessor, David Kay, who quit last December, also found no evidence of weapons stockpiles.

Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., briefed on the report earlier Wednesday, said Duelfer found Iraq's capability to produce and develop weapons of mass destruction had degraded since 1998.

The report was "inconclusive" about what ultimately happened to Saddam's supposed weapons stockpiles from earlier in the 1990s, which might have been destroyed or transferred to Syria, said Roberts, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Pointing to apparent prewar confusion inside the country itself, the report suggests that Saddam's senior advisers, and perhaps Saddam himself, actually believed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction even when it did not, Roberts said.

A Democratic senator briefed on the report, Dick Durbin of Illinois, said the Bush administration, in justifying war, "created a worse-case scenario on virtually no evidence."

"There were no weapons of mass destruction," Durbin said. "At most, there was an intention or desire to create them."

The White House continued to maintain that the findings support the view that Saddam was a threat.

"We knew the dictator had a history of using weapons of mass destruction, a long record of aggression and hatred for America," President Bush said in a speech Wednesday in Wilkes-Barre, Pa. "There was a risk, a real risk, that Saddam Hussein would pass weapons or materials or information to terrorist networks. In the world after Sept. 11, that was a risk we could not afford to take."

Saddam was importing banned materials, working on unmanned aerial vehicles in violation of U.N. agreements and maintaining industrial capability that could be converted to produce weapons, officials have said. Duelfer also describes Saddam's Iraq as having had limited research efforts into chemical and biological weapons.

Duelfer's report will come on a week that the White House has been put on the defensive in a number of Iraq issues.

Remarks this week by L. Paul Bremer, former U.S. administrator in occupied Iraq, suggested he argued for more troops in the immediate aftermath of the invasion, when looting was rampant. A spokesman for Bush's re-election campaign said Bremer indeed differed with military commanders.

Bush's election rival, Democrat John Kerry, pounced on Bremer's statements that the United States "paid a big price" for having insufficient troop levels. On weapons, however, the Massachusetts senator has said he still would have voted to authorize the invasion even if he had known none would be found.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the Duelfer report "will continue to show that he 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."

Compare that to the words of Vice President Dick Cheney, in a speech on Aug. 26, 2002, 6 1/2 months before the invasion:

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction," Cheney said then. "There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies and against us."

On Wednesday, the White House also continued to assert that there were clear ties between Saddam before the invasion and the al-Qaida linked terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. But a CIA (news - web sites) report recently given to the White House found no conclusive evidence that Saddam harbored al-Zarqawi before the war, two U.S. government officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity

They stressed, though, that the report did not make a final conclusion and the question of the al-Zaraqwi-Saddam ties is still being pursued. One of the officials said it is clear that al-Zarqawi had been planning terrorist attacks while operating out of Baghdad.

The CIA report was first revealed by Knight-Ridder.

During Tuesday night's debate, Cheney said "there is still debate over this question." But he added: "At one point, some of Zarqawi's people were arrested. Saddam personally intervened to have them released."

In a speech on Oct. 7, 2002, Bush laid out what he described then as Iraq's threat:

_"It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."

_"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas."

_"Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles — far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey and other nations — in a region where more than 135,000 American civilians and service members live and work. "
 
Aren't the CIA the same bunch of folks that told that world that he DID posses them just a few years ago? Why should we believe them now? ;)
 
Right....so...based on the report of a weapons inspector, 99% of the world's intelligence, and 100% of those running under the DNC nomination for President were mistaken.

:gives:
 
"It appears that he did not vigorously pursue those programs after the inspectors left," the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity in advance of the report's release.

After the inspectors left? Exactly how long was Saddam Hussein in power after inspectors left?

Remarks this week by L. Paul Bremer, former U.S. administrator in occupied Iraq, suggested he argued for more troops in the immediate aftermath of the invasion, when looting was rampant. A spokesman for Bush's re-election campaign said Bremer indeed differed with military commanders.

If Gen. Abizaid had concurred and asked for more troops, and been denied, that would merit attention. Bremer's opinion, though worthy of note, is in the end his opinion. Gen. Abizaid was the man with the authority to request more soldiers if he felt it was best to do so.


Some highlights of the article:

In drafts, weapons hunter Charles Duelfer.....said he found signs of idle programs that Saddam could have revived if international attention had waned.

Saddam was importing banned materials, working on unmanned aerial vehicles in violation of U.N. agreements and maintaining industrial capability that could be converted to produce weapons, officials have said. Duelfer also describes Saddam's Iraq as having had limited research efforts into chemical and biological weapons.

"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas."

"Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles — far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey and other nations — in a region where more than 135,000 American civilians and service members live and work. "

Neither untrue.
 
-Cp said:
Aren't the CIA the same bunch of folks that told that world that he DID posses them just a few years ago? Why should we believe them now? ;)

Clarify what you mean by 'a few years ago'. Which report are you refering to? If by 'a few years ago' you mean the early '90s, who on earth is disputing that he did have them then? During the invasion we found materials that in 1991 were created as Seran, which has a shelf life of 5 years, granted, so while it may not be safe to drink, you can't call it Seran gas. Point being, every new that Saddam had WMD 'a few years ago'. They were correct. A 'couple' of years ago they produced information which the Bush administration datamined using Cheney's OSP, which is mostly the basis for which we went to war. And now they're telling us there were not WMD when we invaded and Saddam was not vigorously trying to get them when we invaded.
 
nakedemperor said:
Clarify what you mean by 'a few years ago'. Which report are you refering to? If by 'a few years ago' you mean the early '90s, who on earth is disputing that he did have them then? During the invasion we found materials that in 1991 were created as Seran, which has a shelf life of 5 years, granted, so while it may not be safe to drink, you can't call it Seran gas. Point being, every new that Saddam had WMD 'a few years ago'. They were correct. A 'couple' of years ago they produced information which the Bush administration datamined using Cheney's OSP, which is mostly the basis for which we went to war. And now they're telling us there were not WMD when we invaded and Saddam was not vigorously trying to get them when we invaded.


NE, I have a very hard time believing that Saddam, who had WMD in 1991 (and as recently as 1998, according to every Democratic office holder at the time) would voluntarily give them up after he had succeeded in getting rid of UN weapons inspectors. That fails the common sense test.
 
gop_jeff said:
NE, I have a very hard time believing that Saddam, who had WMD in 1991 (and as recently as 1998, according to every Democratic office holder at the time) would voluntarily give them up after he had succeeded in getting rid of UN weapons inspectors. That fails the common sense test.
and yet there were none found. :confused:
 
DKSuddeth said:
and yet there were none found. :confused:

I don't suppose it's cause he either buried them or shipped them off to Syria eh? nah.. couldn't be... Saddam is "Honest Joe!".....
 
-Cp said:
I don't suppose it's cause he either buried them or shipped them off to Syria eh? nah.. couldn't be... Saddam is "Honest Joe!".....
thats a great theory, show the evidence of it though.
 
DKSuddeth said:
thats a great theory, show the evidence of it though.

Don't need to.. the burden of proof is on the ninnies out there who don't think Saddam had WMD's - they had to go somewhere ...
 
-Cp said:
Don't need to.. the burden of proof is on the ninnies out there who don't think Saddam had WMD's - they had to go somewhere ...
according to the report issued today, saddam had no stockpiles and only the ambition to reconstitute programs.

Forcing someone to prove a negative is the biggest catch 22 there is. It's like forcing the indigent to prove he has no home. How do we know he didn't sign it over to his best friend just so he can live in the shelter?
 
DKSuddeth said:
according to the report issued today, saddam had no stockpiles and only the ambition to reconstitute programs.

Forcing someone to prove a negative is the biggest catch 22 there is. It's like forcing the indigent to prove he has no home. How do we know he didn't sign it over to his best friend just so he can live in the shelter?

Blame the UN - it was THEIR resultions which gave the US the Legal (and moral) responsibility to act. ;)

:)
 
DKSuddeth said:
according to the report issued today, saddam had no stockpiles and only the ambition to reconstitute programs.

Forcing someone to prove a negative is the biggest catch 22 there is. It's like forcing the indigent to prove he has no home. How do we know he didn't sign it over to his best friend just so he can live in the shelter?

But the CIA are also the ones who, before the war, said that Saddam DID have them... when should we believe them? Now or then?
 
-Cp said:
But the CIA are also the ones who, before the war, said that Saddam DID have them... when should we believe them? Now or then?
why believe them at all anymore? but thats not really the point. If we believed them before and the intel has been proven wrong we change how intel is gathered, right?
 
DKSuddeth said:
thats a great theory, show the evidence of it though.

Here's my logic on this:

- Fact #1: We know Saddam had WMDs as late as 1991 when he used them against his own people, and even as late as 1998, even if you ask most Democrats.

- Fact #2: We know that Saddam was aggressively seeking to expand his WMD programs.

- Fact #3: We know that there were no weapons inspectors in Iraq from 1998-2002.

- Fact #4: We know that in 2003, there were no "stockpiles" of weapons. (Though this is pretty bogus; Bush never claimed there were "stockpiles," he claimed there were weapons. It doesn't take stockpiles to wipe out cities.)

So where did the weapons go? Where did the programs go?

Choice #1 - Saddam destroyed them voluntarily. this contradicts Fact #2. Therefore, an illogical choice.

Choice #2 - Saddam hid them in Iraq. Possible, but if Saddam knew that we were coming for him, not the smartest move.

Chice #3 - Saddam moved his WMDs out of Iraq. This is what I think happened. He's got Syria next door, not to mention Iran and Saudi Arabia, all three terrorist hotbeds. So there are plenty of people nearby who are willing to take them.

So, logically speaking, the smartest place to look for Saddam's WMDs would be the countries neighboring Iraq, specifically Syria.
 
gop_jeff said:
- Fact #2: We know that Saddam was aggressively seeking to expand his WMD programs.

WASHINGTON - Undercutting the Bush's administration's rationale for invading Iraq, the final report of the chief U.S. arms inspector concludes that Saddam Hussein did not vigorously pursue a program to develop weapons of mass destruction after international inspectors left Baghdad in 1998, according to lawmakers and others briefed on the report.
 
DKSuddeth said:
Forcing someone to prove a negative is the biggest catch 22 there is. It's like forcing the indigent to prove he has no home. How do we know he didn't sign it over to his best friend just so he can live in the shelter?

Kind of like:

Prove you were at Dannelly Airforce base!

Prove I wasn't! :read:
 
nakedemperor said:
WASHINGTON - Undercutting the Bush's administration's rationale for invading Iraq, the final report of the chief U.S. arms inspector concludes that Saddam Hussein did not vigorously pursue a program to develop weapons of mass destruction after international inspectors left Baghdad in 1998, according to lawmakers and others briefed on the report.

Funny how you'll quote CIA reports now, but I HIGHLY doubt you were going around quoting them when they said that Saddam DID have or is seeking WMD's were ya?

Such a typical lib ...
 

Forum List

Back
Top