U.S. Report Finds Iraq Was Minimal Weapons Threat in '03....

Forums: International News
Email this Topic • Print this Page

From NYT today:

(Full story: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/06/international/middleeast/06CND-INTE.html?ex=1254801600&en=a624f1159c119b94&ei=5088&partner=rss )

"U.S. Report Finds Iraq Was Minimal Weapons Threat in '03
By DOUGLAS JEHL

Published: October 6, 2004

ASHINGTON, Oct. 6 ? Iraq had essentially destroyed its illicit weapons capability within months after the Persian Gulf War ended in 1991, and its capacity to produce such weapons had eroded even further by the time of the American invasion in 2003, the top American inspector in Iraq said in a report made public today.

The report, by Charles A. Duelfer, said the last Iraqi factory capable of producing militarily significant quantities of unconventional weapons was destroyed in 1996. The findings amounted to the starkest portrayal yet of a vast gap between the Bush administration's prewar assertions about Iraqi weapons and what a 15-month postinvasion inquiry by American investigators concluded were the facts on the ground.

At the time of the American invasion, Mr. Duelfer concluded, Iraq had not possessed military-scale stockpiles of illicit weapons for a dozen years and was not actively seeking to produce them.

The White House portrayed the war as a bid to disarm Iraq of unconventional weapons, and had invoked images of mushroom clouds, deadly gases and fearsome poisons. But Mr. Duelfer concluded that even if Iraq had sought to restart its weapons programs in 2003, it could not have produced militarily significant quantities of chemical weapons for at least a year, and would have required years to produce a nuclear weapon.

"Saddam Hussein ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the gulf war," Mr. Duelfer said in his report, which added that American inspectors in Iraq had "found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program."

Hours before Mr. Duelfer's report was made public, President Bush appeared to try to deflate some the political impact of its core findings.

"After Sept. 11, America had to assess every potential threat in a new light," Mr. Bush said while campaigning in Wilkes-Barre, Pa. "Our nation awakened to an even greater danger: the prospect that terrorists who killed thousands with hijacked airplanes would kill many more with weapons of mass murder."

"We had to take a hard look at every place where terrorists might get those weapons, and one regime stood out," Mr. Bush said. "The dictatorship of Saddam Hussein."

Mr. Duelfer presented his conclusions to Congress beginning with testimony at a closed session of the Senate Intelligence Committee. But his findings were described to reporters in advance of the testimony, although only on condition that they not be published until his afternoon appearance before the Senate Armed Services Committee, when the report was made public..............."

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,620 • Replies: 26

No top replies

Ongoing discussion about Iraq can be found here:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=27940&start=1830

0 Replies

....."the three-volume report, totaling more than 900 pages, is viewed as the first authoritative attempt to unravel the mystery posed by Iraq during the crucial years between the end of the Persian Gulf war in 1991 and the American-led war that began in 2003. It adds new weight to what is already a widely accepted view that the most fundamental prewar assertions made by American intelligence agencies about Iraq ? that it possessed chemical and biological weapons, and was reconstituting its nuclear program ? bore no resemblance to the truth......"

0 Replies

to be fair:

".....Mr. Duelfer concluded that Mr. Hussein had made fundamental decisions, beginning in 1991, to get rid of Iraq's illicit weapons and accept the destruction of its weapons-producing facilities as part of an effort to end United Nations sanctions. But Mr. Duelfer argued that Mr. Hussein was also exploiting avenues opened by the sanctions, including the oil-for-food program, to lay the groundwork for a long-term plan to resume weapons production if sanctions were lifted.

Mr. Hussein "wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction when sanctions were lifted," the report said. But the conclusion that Mr. Hussein had intended to restart his programs, the report acknowledged, was based more on inference than solid evidence. "The regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of W.M.D. after sanctions," it said, using the common abbreviation for weapons of mass destruction......"

IMMINENT threat?????????????

0 Replies

"...........The report was based in part on the interrogation of Mr. Hussein in his prison cell outside of Baghdad. Mr. Duelfer said he had concluded that Mr. Hussein deliberately sought to maintain an ambiguity about whether Iraq possessed illicit weapons in a strategy aimed as much at Iran, with whom Iraq fought an eight-year war in the 1980's, as at the United States.

Advertisement

Mr. Duelfer's report said that American investigators had found clandestine laboratories in the Baghdad area used by the Iraqi Intelligence Service to conduct research and to test various chemicals and poisons, primarily for secret assassinations rather than to inflict mass casualties. It said those laboratories were active from 1991 to 2003.

Mr. Duelfer said in his report that Mr. Hussein never disclosed in the course of the interrogations what had become of Iraq's illicit weapons. He said that American investigators had appealed to the former Iraqi leader to be candid in order to shape his legacy, but that Mr. Hussein had not been forthcoming......."

0 Replies

That no WMD were found, and that even the evidence that Saddam was actively pursuing acquisition of terror weapons seem sparse, is Monday Morning Quarterbacking.

For years prior to bringing Saddam and his henchmen down, it was widely believed by almost every informed person in government that Saddam had, or was actively working to obtain large stores of weapons forbidden him by the terms of the Gulf War Cease Fire. Saddam himself fostered that belief by frustrating and obstructing inspections that he was bound to honor. When those inspections became tougher and more probing, he illegally threw out the inspectors. Every public pronouncement Saddam made was inferring that he had terror weapons. There was no question as to Saddam's willingness to use terror weapons, and his public support for international terrorism was widely reported in the world's media.

Saddam could have avoided the Coalition's invasion of Iraq, but he didn't believe that it would ever take place. Saddam trusted in the friendship of the French, Russians, and Germans to whom he owed millions for illegal products he had purchased in defiance of the bans. Saddam believed that the public outcry against what was prophesied as a war that could easily end civilization would cause President Bush to hesitate. Saddam believed that the United States would not act alone, or with only a few allies, if the U.N. didn't give unqualified support, and he knew that the U.N. wouldn't/couldn't be roused to act. Saddam made some pretty terrible errors of judgement.

Why would anyone believe anything that Saddam might say? He's a known self-serving liar who pretty much destroyed his nation for personal gain.

0 Replies

Asherman wrote:

That no WMD were found, and that even the evidence that Saddam was actively pursuing acquisition of terror weapons seem sparse, is Monday Morning Quarterbacking.

For years prior to bringing Saddam and his henchmen down, it was widely believed by almost every informed person in government that Saddam had, or was actively working to obtain large stores of weapons forbidden him by the terms of the Gulf War Cease Fire. Saddam himself fostered that belief by frustrating and obstructing inspections that he was bound to honor. When those inspections became tougher and more probing, he illegally threw out the inspectors. Every public pronouncement Saddam made was inferring that he had terror weapons. There was no question as to Saddam's willingness to use terror weapons, and his public support for international terrorism was widely reported in the world's media.

Saddam could have avoided the Coalition's invasion of Iraq, but he didn't believe that it would ever take place. Saddam trusted in the friendship of the French, Russians, and Germans to whom he owed millions for illegal products he had purchased in defiance of the bans. Saddam believed that the public outcry against what was prophesied as a war that could easily end civilization would cause President Bush to hesitate. Saddam believed that the United States would not act alone, or with only a few allies, if the U.N. didn't give unqualified support, and he knew that the U.N. wouldn't/couldn't be roused to act. Saddam made some pretty terrible errors of judgement.

Why would anyone believe anything that Saddam might say? He's a known self-serving liar who pretty much destroyed his nation for personal gain.

Crap. Self-serving outrageous crap.

We went to war against another country - based on criminally negligent and outrageously flawed "intelligence".

Do you not think there is some goddamn responsibility to be SURE before you kill tens of thousands of people????

I am sickened.

0 Replies

Crap, self-serving outrageous tripe.

It sickens me that so many people expect perfection in others, and so quickly condemn their representative leaders for carrying out their sworn duties to the best of their ability. How disappointing that partisan political idealogy should make some hateful of others who hold different opinions as to the rectitude of any government policy. I can't quite understand those who benefit from their national identity can so easily side with the sworn enemies of their country.

In about four weeks this country will go to the polls to elect a President and some other national leaders. At the moment about half of the nation's citizens are supporters of President Bush, his domestic and foreign policies. About half support Kerry. By the beginning of December one or the other will have been elected, probably by a slender margin. If Kerry is elected, I believe he will do his duty and be true to his oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. I expect that most of the current policies will be little changed, though the enemies of our country and us, will certainly test the new Presidents Will. If Kerry is elected I will support him with the same fervor that I've supported President Bush and I shall hope that he has the same strength to do what may not be popular if it conflicts with his understanding of what is best for the country. I hope that those who are so hateful now to President Bush will, if he is reelected, lower their rhetoric and close ranks with the majority of American citizens who will have spoken their preference at the ballot box.

0 Replies

It's not Monday morning quarterbacking, Asherman, because in addition to this there is more and more coming out about how even what information Bush had was hardly conclusive. It's Monday morning quarterbacking in the sense of the coach called the wrong plays, the quarterback threw 8 interceptions, the O-line allowed 20 sacks, and the defense allowed 350 points, and we're calling for some changes in the team.

0 Replies

You have your chance in November. What are you going to do if the American People who think the current administration has done about as good as could be expected re-elect Bush? Will you continue to insist that your opinion is better than the majority, or will you accept the will of the People and support the President?

0 Replies

I will never accept the will of the people and support something that is immoral and wrong. Ever.

0 Replies

right on.

0 Replies

Panzade, an independent, thinking citizen? Just what this country needs.

0 Replies

Diane...that is what makes this country great.

0 Replies

...or do you just want to kill more Arabs and steal their oil?

0 Replies

'zactly, panzade.

0 Replies

So much for the democratic way. However, I for one still have faith in the Constitution.

0 Replies

So - your constitution says you get to invade another country when you feel like it - for essentially propaganda purposes, kill tens of thousands, and also feel good?

0 Replies

Asherman wrote:

So much for the democratic way. However, I for one still have faith in the Constitution.

Just skip the bits about "trial by a jury of peers" coz the Supreme Court no longer believes in 'habeus corpus'.

No 'cruel and unusual punishment'? F@ck that, you can be a US citizen and rot in a brig on a Navy vessel just outside the US and no-one can legally compain.

Any other of your 'freedoms' left for Ashcroft to erase Ash-man?

Quote:

We, the Board of Directors of Kellog Brown Root, have determined that you have the right to pay through the nose for petroleum products. You don't like it? F@ck off to Russia ya' Commie!

0 Replies

Habeas Corpus has not been suspended, though the Constitution provides for its suspension. Lincoln did suspend the Great Writ during the Civil War.

Members of the military service have always been subject to military laws and regulations. The UCMJ was actually a great improvement over the older system of military justice. Perhaps, you aren't referring to military prisoners who are not members of the armed forces. Prisoners at Guantanamo Bay are not U.S. citizens and have no inherent "rights" under the Constitution. They are not prisoners of war, because they were not uniformed members of any national army while combating American forces in the field. Any American citizen who joins an organization engaged in warlike activity against the United States and its military forces is properly treated as an "enemy combatant", and is subject to military law instead of civil law. In an earlier time, such individuals would be tied by military tribunal in the field and either shot, or hung.

"Any other of your 'freedoms' left for Ashcroft to erase Ash-man?"

Are you still a member of the Weather Underground, Mr. Stale Water? Lets not get into name calling, or sly innuendo, huh?

More seriously, the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution are ALL still intact, and no more threatened than at other times of national crisis in our history. Actually the danger to civil liberty was greater during the Civil War and the two World Wars than it is today. When those terrible times passed temporary, but restrictions believed necessary at the time were lifted. Given the clear danger posed by terrorists who have already demonstrated their willingness to murder innocent civilians, I think that the current policies are pretty modest. I'm sure you don't agree, but I suspect that you are in the minority.

0 Replies

U.S. Report Finds Iraq Was Minimal Weapons Threat in '03....

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know