PDA

View Full Version : U.S. inspector finds no evidence Saddam made weapons after 1991


Baraka
10-06-2004, 01:47 PM
By Ken Guggenheim
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Contradicting the main argument for a war that has cost more than 1,000 American lives, the top U.S. arms inspector reported Wednesday that he found no evidence that Iraq produced any weapons of mass destruction after 1991. The report also says Saddam Hussein's weapons capability weakened during a dozen years of UN sanctions before the U.S. invasion last year.

Contrary to prewar statements by President George W. Bush and top administration officials, Saddam did not have chemical and biological stockpiles when the war began and his nuclear capabilities were deteriorating, not advancing, according to the report by Charles Duelfer, head of the Iraq Survey Group.

Duelfer's 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 has seized on comments this week by the former U.S. administrator in Iraq, Paul Bremer, that the United States didn't have enough troops in Iraq to prevent a breakdown in security after Saddam was toppled.

The inspector's report could boost Kerry's contention that Bush rushed to war based on faulty intelligence and that sanctions and UN 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 to inspectors that Saddam had not lost his ambition to pursue weapons of mass destruction and hoped to revive his weapons program if sanctions were lifted, the report said.

On Wednesday, Bush cited Saddam's "history of using weapons of mass destruction, a long record of aggression and hatred for America" in calling the invasion the right thing to do.

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

Duelfer presented his findings in a report of more than 1,000 pages, and in appearances before Senate committees.

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 that Duelfer's team was continuing to search for weapons.

Duelfer found that Saddam, hoping to end UN sanctions, gradually began ending prohibited weapons programs starting in 1991. But as Iraq started receiving money through the UN 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.

Duelfer's team found no written plans by Saddam's regime to pursue banned weapons if UN 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 the 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.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Tuesday that Saddam "had the intent and capability" to build weapons of mass destruction, and 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."

But before the war, the Bush administration cast Saddam as an immediate threat, not a gathering threat who would begin pursuing weapons in the future.

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."

Senator Richard Durbin said Wednesday that Duelfer's findings showed there is "no evidence whatsoever of the threats we were warned about." The Illinois Democrat spoke after Duelfer gave a closed-door briefing to the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Committee chairman Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) said Duelfer showed Iraq's ability to produce weapons of mass destruction had degraded since 1998. But Roberts called the report inconclusive on what happened to weapons stockpiles Saddam is believed to have once possessed.

edb1821
10-06-2004, 02:10 PM
I wonder why John Edwards considered Iraq a "serious and imminent threat" to the US in 2002 then... ???

"I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country." - John Edwards, on CNN Late Edition, Febuary 24, 2002

Ace42
10-06-2004, 02:15 PM
Because the CIA produced information that would support their leaders' POV, and this is the information that was disseminated. The "fact" that they both "saw the same intelligence" is misleading. They both saw the same intelligence that was presented to congress, yes. But Bush, Cheney, and the CIA had access to "other" intelligence (that, whilst actually the correct information, was not distributed because having a dossier which says two contradictory things is not really very productive) which they chose not to share.

They'd say "it's because we believed it to be wrong" - well, that makes you fools then, and bigger fools than everyone else in the US who were lied to.

edb1821
10-06-2004, 02:25 PM
But Bush, Cheney, and the CIA had access to "other" intelligence ...which they chose not to share.



Hahahahaha! Conspiracy theory. Beautiful. ;)

Ace42
10-06-2004, 02:46 PM
Not a conspiracy theory, fact. Read the Butler report.

It states catergorically that intelligence that Tony Blair had access to and was aware of was omitted from the dossier that was presented to the house of commons. The US government had primary access to this UNEDITED information, which showed quite clearly that it was unlikely that Iraq had WMDs.

Now, we know that the US had access to this information. We know that this information was available to the CIA. We know that the CIA made this information available to President Bush and his administration - we know this because after being told off for his incorrect state of the union address, Colin Powell makes reference to this.

So, Bush knows that the evidence does not show a link to Al Qaeda or the presence of WMDs. Bush tells people the opposite.

Are you seriously saying that Kerry and all of congress KNEW the president was wrong (having been given a large amount of evidence that the president's stance was based on faulty intelligence) but kept quiet about it?

And you say *I* am the one with a conspiracy theory?!?

You are such a fucktard.

Bush keeps saying "The British said the same thing" (they didn't) and "Kerry saw the same information" (funny, considering that UK intelligence, working with the CIA didn't see this information that made Bush so certain)

You find it hard to believe he lied again? That makes you a sucker.

STANKY808
10-06-2004, 02:54 PM
I wonder why John Edwards considered Iraq a "serious and imminent threat" to the US in 2002 then... ???

"I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country." - John Edwards, on CNN Late Edition, Febuary 24, 2002

By the same token, it not fair to ask why Condi & Colin said this?

Colin Powell in Cairo February 24, 2001:
"He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours."

Condoleeza Rice, July 2001:
"We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."

ASsman
10-06-2004, 02:59 PM
Ace made edb eat the "factual" dick.

I wonder why John Edwards considered Iraq a "serious and imminent threat" to the US in 2002 then... ???
Oh my god. Are you saying he is a liar? What would that make Bush? Inbred.