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
Ok, you'll probably say I've got no Saddam in my house, even though THAT WASN"T THE REASON GIVEN FOR THE ATTACK ON IRAQ. So then change my story and add that while the police were searching my house for those drugs, they noticed my fire alarm batteries were dead, and they changed them, thereby potentially saving my life. Does that make the fact that my children's are now in itensive care and my house is destroyed any better?
All of which remains true-like I said there is EVIDENCE that Saddam had all of these things-we KNOW he had chemical and biological weapons that he still to this day has not accounted for. The fact that we haven't found them does not mean he never had them. It may mean that our intelligence regarding his RECENT status was incorrect, but that does not negate the evidence of his past weapons programs.
No they did not, and September 11 taught us that doing little or nothing about threats is no longer an option.
But I'm hopeful americans will see through it.
Edited 10/12/2004 1:25 pm ET ET by nicecanadianlady
They stand by their decision because WMDs were not their sole justification for going to war-Saddam's defiance of the UN's demands to verify disarmament was a big part of it. If we were wrong on WMDs Saddam had every opportunity to prove that to the world. He chose not to. President Bushhas acknowledged that the intelligence was flawed-bu just like his opponent he realizes that Saddam was a threat regardless because the sanctions were crumbling, and it was only a matter of time before Saddam reconstituted his weapons programs (according to this report, anyway).
< Geez if the police were to barge into my house without a warrant (AKA UN approval) because it thought I had some drugs, and then finds none, and it's then found that their information was from some drunken guy I turned down at a bar one time and therefore had an axe to grind with me. What do you think I should do? Do you think the word would stand by me or by the police? Do you think there should be an investigation? What if my children were seriously hurt during that attack that FOUND NOTHING?
Ok, you'll probably say I've got no Saddam in my house, even though THAT WASN"T THE REASON GIVEN FOR THE ATTACK ON IRAQ. So then change my story and add that while the police were searching my house for those drugs, they noticed my fire alarm batteries were dead, and they changed them, thereby potentially saving my life. Does that make the fact that my children's are now in itensive care and my house is destroyed any better? >
A few months prior, another guy in the neighborhood has stabbed a bunch of your neighbors with a big hunting knife, and there is evidence that your husband had been meeting with this guy. The police had been warned this guy was about to do something, but they didn't know what or when and so they hadn't been able to stop him-they are terrified if that guy could do that with a simple hunting knife, imagine what he and your husband could do with a big pile of Uzis. The police also know for sure that your husband has been beating the crap out of you and your kids on a regular basis, and that he was spending every cent he got on fancy cars and expensive clothes for himself while you and your children starved.
If I were the police, I'd go in and get the Uzis and put your husband in jail. If it turned out that he never had any Uzis, well, that doesn't change the fact that he violated the terms of his parole by not letting me search his house, it doesn't change the fact that you and the kids may suffer in the short term but are going to be much better off in the long run without him, it doesn't change the fact that I couldn't take the risk that the guy was right about the Uzis, that your husband wouldn't prove I was wrong and that your husband might possibly go shooting up the neighborhood, particularly after that other guy had slipped through my fingers and hurt a lot of other people.
That's a lot closer to the real Iraq situation (with apologies to your husband! :)
Not really relevant, since Saddam did not cooperate with the inspectors.
Not really relevant, since Saddam did not cooperate with the inspectors
--
How was he in violation of UNSC 1441? And if so, why didn't Powell put it up for a vote? Bush Promised a vote (We'll let them show their cards) but waffled at the 11th hour, kicked out the inspectors (Which 2 bipartisan commissions have said they were doing a good job).
I guess his supporters are just like the man is, can't man-up and admit fault.
Pages