U.S. Report Finds No Evidence of Iraq WMD October 6, 2004 WASHINGTON - 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. Read the rest of the story
I don't see how it is rushing to war. I'll never understand that point. He still had the labs and intent of making them and passing them off, and we know he had made them before. The Britain guy, I think Jack Shaw or something like that, came out again today claiming that Saddam could have been more dangerous than we had originally thought, based on the labs and paperwork found. Same thing David Kay said when he first got back. I don't think anyone is doubting there was an across the board intelligence failure.
What's my spin? It's a justified war. No matter where the WMD's are. If you don't agree then we just have two entirely different views on the War on Terror.
There were no stockpiles found, it's not news. We've known for awhile now. I skimmed the entire report, it's very interesting. Kind of contradicts the 9/11 Commission, Senate Intellignece Report, David Kay, and the British reports. It says that Saddam's one goal was to get rid of the sanctions so he could continue his program. Yet he continued to lie to the UN, break resolutions, fire at our planes, and so on. Why would he do that if he was trying to get free of the sanctions? Wouldn't he just let the inspectors in and look everywhere? It doesn't add up. It also says the sanctions were deteriorating, mostly do to Russia, China, Germany, and France ignoring them, but we already knew that. The Oil-for-Food scandal will definetly get more interesting since the report claims he may have been using the money for biological weapons programs. The big difference is the nuclear weapons part compared to the biological and chemical weapons part. Saying he had no nuclear or wasn't making them, but had the labs and was maybe testing small amounts of chemical and biological. It says the labs that were not made available for the inspectors appeared to have been looted prior to the war. Finally, that most of his senior officials thought there were WMD. And he kept the scientist and material needed for all kinds of weapons.
The key word is stockpiles. No, none have been found, but I wouldn't go so far as to say none are/were there. What people seem to fail to realize is that "weapons of mass destruction" does not also mean "weapons of mass". You aren't going to walk across the desert one day and just stumble across huge stockpiles of them. A pound or two of the right substance is more than enough to constitute a weapon of mass destruction. Also, the reasoning that Iraq didn't have the delivery systems available to use WMD's is also quite naive. An 80 year old woman polluting a drinking water supply with the stuff is an effective delivery system. This report is nothing we haven't already heard. I would like to read the entire 1,000 pages to see what they say. The media has distorted the report of the 9/11 Commission, saying there was no connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda, when in fact there were documented cases of meetings that occurred. Whether or not there are/were WMD's in Iraq is yet to be seen. It could possibly take years until all the evidence is reviewed, translated etc.
It's a mess. All these different reports are saying different things. We know he had biological and chemical weapons in the 90's, so them saying he didn't is even more confusing. It was common knowledge, or at least we thought (I still do) that he had the weapons in the late 90's. The media assumed he did as did Clinton. The media distortion of the Al Qeada - Iraq connections is shameful, both the Commission report and Intelligence report had pages, and pages of connections. Them not questioning this report is odd, since these same news organizations did reports on the WMD in the 90's. The same media along with the Clinton Adminstration spoke of the growing connection between Saddam and Bin Laden in the late 90's, and the danger that brought. It all changed when Bush came into office I guess.
The media also loves to talk about how the Clinton administration warned Bush of the danger bin Laden posed, yet they refuse to comment on the fact that bin Laden's whereabouts were confirmed at least a couple of times, once in fact a drone had locked on his whereabouts, yet they did nothing. The History Channel had a good program on this a couple of weeks ago. Had I known what it was I'd have loved to have recorded it, because I haven't heard anymore on this. This whole situation is shameful, as you said. The first WTC bombing, an attack on the USS Cole, embassy bombings, and all Clinton did was fire off 42 Tomahawks into the mountains of Afghanistan. The media's fixation on placing 100% of the blame on Bush is a mystery to me. Everyone involved should be held acccountable, accordingly. Look at the weak response by Clinton, and compare Kerry to him. As much as I dislike Clinton, I think he was much better than Kerry will be, should he be elected.
