CNN: No WMD's In Iraq
Find a Conversation
| Wed, 10-06-2004 - 7:32pm |
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. He also concluded that Saddam Hussein's weapons capability weakened during a dozen years of U.N. sanctions before the U.S. invasion last year.
Contrary to prewar statements by President 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 U.N. weapons inspectors should have been given more time.
Saddam a threat
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 U.N. sanctions were lifted, the report said.
"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, Pennsylvania, defending the decision to invade. "In the world after Sept. 11, that was a risk we could not afford to take."
A top Democrat in Congress, Sen. Carl Levin 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-Qaeda.
"We did not go to war because Saddam had future intentions to obtain weapons of mass destruction," Levin said.
Traveling in Africa, British Prime Minister Tony Blair said Wednesday that the report shows that Saddam was "doing his best" to get around the United Nations' sanctions. For months, Blair has been trying to defend his justification for joining the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in the face of heavy criticism from some in his own party.
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 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 September 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 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 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."
Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Illinois, said Wednesday that Duelfer's findings showed there is "no evidence whatsoever of the threats we were warned about." He spoke after Duelfer gave a closed-door briefing to the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Committee Chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kansas, 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.
Interviews with Saddam left Duelfer's team with the impression that 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 would ultimately 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.
The Iraq Survey Group will continue operations and may prepare smaller reports on issues that remain unresolved, including whether weapons had been smuggled out of Iraq and about intelligence that Saddam had mobile biological weapons labs.

Pages
I suspect that the administration KNEW this to some degree and THAT was why they attacked Iraq rather than one with more obvious ties to 9/11 and/or a PROVEN WMD program. Their downfall was that they misjudged what would happen in the aftermath and thus failed to plan adequately for it (in fact they blithely IGNORED what experts predicted would happen). I think they deliberatly chose Iraq for two reasons....
1. Wanting to establish a democracy in one of the larger oil rich countries in the Middle East (which would be a very good thing for America - though a difficult if not impossible and costly endeavor), they actually suspected all along that Saddam was weakened and they foresaw an easy victory.
2. Given the past history between America and Iraq it would be an incredibly easy sell to the American people already fearful after 9/11.
This weakened state of Saddam Hussein had been widely talked about (I don't know where everybody WAS). This decision to go to war is extrememly serious and there were plenty of doubts beforehad that were disregarded and downplayed (or hidden) by this administration. If people want to think that it was just non-Americans with an agenda saying these things (or clueless treasonous Americans) even THAT isn't the case:
In 2001 Condeleeza Rice said:
“But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.”
Colin Powell said:
“We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they have directed that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was 10 years ago when we began it. And frankly, they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.”
Other info that supports this claim:
http://www.fas.org/man/crs/RS21325.pdf
This CRS Report for Congress shows both sides of the argument. In particular, read the section entitled "Views of Critics of Administration Policies"...It seems particularly prescient now (and made one heck of a lot of sense back then as well).
http://www.presentdanger.org/cgaa/talkingpoints/0208iraq_body.html
Read points 5, 6 and 7
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/in_depth/2258174.stm
Iraq's military capabilities
By Jonathan Marcus
Defence Correspondent (2002)
In regional terms Iraq used to be a major military player. Its armed forces were reasonably well equipped, especially the Republican Guard armoured and mechanised divisions.
Its air force and arsenal of ground-to-ground missiles gave it an impressive long-range or deep strike capability.
And during the Iran-Iraq war Iraqi commanders proved themselves adept at marshalling and moving armoured and mechanised formations over great distances, something watched, with some concern, by Israeli military planners.
Today Iraq's armed forces are a shadow of their former self. Its defeat in the war to liberate Kuwait cost the country dearly. Iraq, for example, no longer has a Navy.
And since then sanctions have taken their toll, restricting supplies of both new weaponry and vital spare-parts.
The Iraqi Air Force is much reduced in numbers and there must be doubts both about the operational effectiveness of many of its aircraft and the training levels of its pilots.
Indeed the two US and British-policed no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq constrain Iraqi operations and also enable western military planners to keep close tabs on the extent to which Iraq's air defence system has been re-built.
But the Iraqi military is still large - with more than 300,000 troops - and potentially dangerous. It has the following assets:
Republican Guard: There are some six Republican Guard divisions (approximately 60,000 men) which are among the best-equipped, the best-supplied, and the best trained forces available to Saddam Hussein. Three of these divisions are armoured, at least one other is made up mechanised infantry and the rest are motorized infantry. These divisions are equipped with Iraq's most modern weaponry, including Soviet-supplied T-72 tanks with a night-vision capability.
Special Republican Guard: A military-style force, effectively Saddam Hussein's palace guard. Largely made up of infantry, it has some armour and artillery. It is thought to comprise some 13 battalions and number about 26,000 men.
Ground-to-ground missiles: Iraq began to take delivery of Soviet-designed Scud-B missiles in 1974. It was able to re-engineer and adapt this weapon into the Al-Hussein, doubling its range up to some 650 km. During Operation Desert Storm Iraq fired off some 93 Al-Hussein's against targets in Israel and Saudi Arabia
Many of Iraq's best armour-heavy units from the Republican Guard largely avoided the debacle in Kuwait. Nonetheless, in any war with the United States the eventual outcome is not seriously in doubt. Iraq was roundly defeated in Operation Desert Storm.
Since then the Americans have grown stronger and Iraq significantly weaker.
MORE"
Even knowing this about the makeup of the Iraqi army, they still made that decision:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A63423-2003Nov19?language=printer
"But the Iraqi military is still large - with more than 300,000 troops - and potentially dangerous. It has the following assets:
Republican Guard: There are some six Republican Guard divisions (approximately 60,000 men) which are among the best-equipped, the best-supplied, and the best trained forces available to Saddam Hussein. Three of these divisions are armoured, at least one other is made up mechanised infantry and the rest are motorized infantry. These divisions are equipped with Iraq's most modern weaponry, including Soviet-supplied T-72 tanks with a night-vision capability.
Special Republican Guard: A military-style force, effectively Saddam Hussein's palace guard. Largely made up of infantry, it has some armour and artillery. It is thought to comprise some 13 battalions and number about 26,000 men."
France, Russia, and China are all tied in with Saddam. There is a huge scandal that is being investigated involving blood money. France was selling Saddam weapons. So much for the United Nations they have always been worthless.
--
Who are you, John Kerry? (hehe) You're sending mixed messages and floating around the issues here. We're not talking about the Oil for Food program (We can if you like, make REAL SURE there were no Americans involved in this corruption, REAL SURE) we're talking about something that many people are finding to be important:
NO WMD's IN iraq.
How many positions are you going to take about the justification of Bush's war? Talk about sending mixed messages and flipflopping.
Will Kerry say sorry? Will Edwards say sorry? They both continue to claim that Saddam was definitely a threat and that we were right to disarm him, even as they claim that Bush "misled us" to assert such. Will France apologize? How about Germany? Russia? All agreed in resolution 1441 that Saddam was a threat with WMD's.
I think most were saying that it was POSSIBLE Iraq had them, in fact it still is possible according to the report, a slim possibility but not one that is able to be completely dismissed out of hand. What I don't get is why so many can't seem to understand the difference between mistaken intelligence and lying. I still can't figure out how some claim Bush was lying, but everyone else who believed Saddam had WMD's was misled. Sorry, I just don't think Bush is clever enough to be able to convince the enitre world that an apple is an orange. The intelligence was most likely wrong. But the world is a better place without Saddam in power, and now that we HAVE gone to Iraq, regardless of how we got there, we must prevail. Most of us accepted that a long time ago.
< What I don't get is why so many can't seem to understand the difference between mistaken intelligence and lying. >
I don't know -unfortunately intelligence is an art, not a science. We knew OBL was hoping to attack inside the US, but we did not know when or how. We based our decision to go to war in Iraq on the intelligence available. If Saddam had cooperated with the inspectors we may have been able to determine exactly how far along he was or wasn't-unfortunately he would not. According to Duelfer's report he may have thought he was farther along then we was. Seems even Saddam was duped by phony intelligence. But 9/11 taught us not to take that chance again.
Didn't see the documentary in question, but I will ask the same question-why couldn't Kerry gt the intelligence right? He WAS on the Senate intelligence committee(perhaps if he had attended a few of the meetings). Or Edwards? Or France Germany or Russia? But since I don't know to what you're referring I can't answer the question. The problem is that millions of pieces of intelligence come through the system every day. Certainly after the fact I'm sure it is possible to piece together the ones that were accurate-but obviously that was a lot harder to do before we were able to thoroughly inspect Iraq.
Georeg Tenet was for all intents and purposes fired. But again you're assuming that it is even possible for intelligence to be 100% correct. It rarely if ever is-I don't believe that we can always wait to act on threats until the threats have been 100% proven to be realities-that may very well be too late. That's not to say we can act on ANY presumed threat, but we did not go into Iraq based on our intelligence alone-we went in based on Saddam's repeated defiance of the world's demands that he verify disarmament and adhere to the terms of his surrender.
I actually agree with you-the problem is Kerry is the wrong man for the job. I do think Bush and co. botched the aftermath in Iraq, and if there was someone I felt confident about having a better handle on things, I might be persuaded to vote for him. But Kerry can't even seem to agree with himself on whether going in was right or wrong-believe me, I've heard him explain all the "nuances" of his position-and the more he tries to explain himself, the more unclear he becomes. He still says Saddam was a serious threat, yet he still says Bush misled us about the threat. I just don't see how such an undecisive, uncommitted person can act decisively to do what we need to do in Iraq, or convince anyone else that our cause there is worthy enough to support. And of course IMO he is so wrong on doemstic policy as well that I couldn't even consider voting for him on that basis alone.
And you obviously have never read UN Security Council Resolution 1441, in which France Germany and Russia joined the rest of the council in declaring Saddam a threat with WMD's:
"Recognizing the threat Iraq’s non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,"
Unfortunately there is absolutely no evidence to support that belief, and in any case if true means the candidate you DO support was in on it, and remains in on it as he continues to claims that Saddam was a threat.
Pages