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
Kerry and Edwards were not privy to the same intel that gwb was before he gave his state of the union in 2003. The intel gwb was given was subject to provisions and caveats regarding SH threat to the US.
As far as mistaken intelligence and lying. GWB wanted to invade Iraq from the day he was in office. There are too many sources in the cia confirming the administration wanted the intel to lean towards a threat in Iraq.
<>
Well, he DIDN'T convince the world. Just Boobous America.
Any evidence to support that claim? There were disputes among some experts on some specific topics, but I've seen NO pre-war intelligence made public that claims Saddam had no WMDs or was not a threat.
Maybe so. Saddam should have been toppled long ago, when he first started to break the terms of his surrender. I don't blame the president for finally wanting to hold him accountable. Doesn't mean he was lying about WHY he wanted to invade Iraq. The WMD intelligence was certainly nothing that just magically appeared when Bush took office, it had been presumed to be true for years, hence the dozen years of UN resolutions demanding Saddam disarm.
Again, apparently you haven't read UN Security Council Resolution 1441. The world WAS convinced that Saddam had WMDs. There were a few countries who didn't want their own illicit activities discovered and so refused to enforce their own resolution. Personally I wouldn't refer to my country as Boobous, but luckily you live here and not in Saddam's Iraq so you're free to criticize your country in as tacky a way as you choose.
Edited 10/11/2004 9:32 pm ET ET by liveanew
Read John Dean's book Worse Than Watergate. (And by the way, as bush gave his state of the union address I and an other good Americans knew he was lying through his teeth).
<>
Too bad gwb wasn't just as resolute when the memo passed his desk in Aug 01 that Islamic fundamentalists were planning to slam passenger jets into high rise buildings in the U.S.
Too bad he wasn't just as resolute when intel confirmed it was obl that bombed the USS Cole back in Oct 2000.
<>
Too bad the rumsfeld was giving gifts to him and supporting him when he was at war with Iran.
<>
The U.N. urged us to let the inspections play out. If we had done that we would have saved billions of dollars, over a thousand U.S. lives and over 15,000 Iraqi lives and we could have been concentrating on the real threats to our country. Not some two bit dictator we dug out of a hole.
<>
LOL! The U.S. foolishly went at it alone. And by the way, we have plenty of illicit activity of our own as far as Iraq is concerned. As far as boobous....Sure there is plenty of boobous in this country. Not tacky. True.
There are pro-Bush books and books that bash him, I'm really interested in facts not someone's anti-Bush spin. Like I said, I have not seen any intelligence that proved Bush knew Sadddam Hussein had no WMDs, and until I do I will agree with the commissions which investigated the matter both here and in the UK, both of which uncovered intelligence failures but no intentional efforts to mislead by Bush or Blair.
Sorry that memo only said that bin Laden was determined to strike inside the US (no news to ayone) and that he may have plans to hijack a plane. Nothing about smashing planes into high rise buildings, that's simply false. And nothing Bill Clinton didn't know when he let bin Laden go three times.
Too bad Clinton wasn't resolute when the Sudan offered up bin Laden on a silver platter and he refused, even after the first attack on the WTC. Guess you and the UN Security Council would have been all for Bush toppling the the Taliban in Afghanistan pre-9/11, right? The same way you support his pre-emptive action in Iraq. Some people don't get it-9/11 changed the world. It made us see that business as usual was no longer an option-we will no longer wait to be attacked before responding-at least as long as Bush is president.
< <>
Too bad the rumsfeld was giving gifts to him and supporting him when he was at war with Iran.>
Has nothing to do with him breaking the terms of his surrender...yes, we supported him against Iran, a threat to our country, until he too turned around and became a threat. So what?
The inspections HAD played out, as far as Saddam was concerned. He made it clear he was not going to cooperate. Saddam slaughtered tens of thousands of Iraqis, so whether we would have saved any Iraqi lives by leaving him in power is debatable. Our troops died helping to support a historic democracy in the middle east, the only way to end the desperation which breeds terrorism. History will record their sacrifice as a worthwhile one that changed the world for the better.
No matter how many times you and Kerry try to claim we went it alone, you can't erase the fact that over thirty countries joined us in our efforts. Laugh and deride that all you want, some of us appreciate their support.
< As far as boobous....Sure there is plenty of boobous in this country. Not tacky. True.>
A matter of opinion. I believe we live in one of the greatest countries on earth, as evidenced by the millions pouring over our borders daily.
Now explain to me why should they say sorry? Were either one of them the person in control of the country at that time? Were either of them responsible for pushing into Iraq? As far as the other countries go, they are not my concern I do not live there. Bush is the leader of THIS country in which I live and he is the one that began the whole we must get into Iraq dialogue. Remember everyone else was just letting it go? Even the U.N. didnt want to go in.
Wrong. You along with many on this board fought tooth and nail against those of us who kept saying there were no WMD's. For example your words:
"
Sorry, just repeating something over and over again doesn't make it true. There IS evidence that Iraq had ties to al quaeda, there IS evidence that Iraq had WMD's and WMD capabilities, there ARE chemical and biological weapons that Saddam was known to possess that still to this day have never been accounted for..."
http://messageboards.ivillage.com/iv-elpoliticsto/?msg=4049.43
Anyway I have no time to go thru them all, but all of you know who you are!!
Really??? Exactly what threat did Sadam pose to the entire world? I know what threat he was to Iraq, but to the entire world I am very unclear on. The way I see it, gasoline prices are rising higher and higher, we are not ever safe any longer, more people detest the U.S., and almost every day another U.S. soldier dies. Hmmm I just don't get how we are better off without Sadaam.. It just seems since we got him out, things have progressed worse.
I know he is not clever at all, but others in his cabinet are. Regardless of what is what, becuase of Bush and his security and information people, the world was lead to beleive that Iraq had WMD's. Before Bush, no one really did too much or thought to much about it did they? No one cared about the people of Iraq under sanctions.
"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."
While I agree that every decision involves some type of risk assessment, I do not agree that
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,"
--
But, you didn't read France's statement.
As for 1441, you do realize the title of this thread is: No WMDs.
Of course.
Now to your question : are we safer? I think were are LESS safe, sadly. There's never been more terrorism against westerners than ever before!
But I completely agree with your last statement: What do we do about it now? While it is important to understand where things went wrong, we MUST focus on what needs to be done to fix the situation.
Pages