PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Weapons Inspector: Iraq Had No WMD


Hel'n
09-16-2004, 10:39 PM
By KATHERINE PFLEGER SHRADER


WASHINGTON (AP) - Drafts of a report from the top U.S. inspector in Iraq conclude there were no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, but say there are signs the fallen Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had dormant programs he hoped to revive at a later time, according to people familiar with the findings.

In a 1,500-page report, the head of the Iraq Survey Group, Charles Duelfer, will find Saddam was importing banned materials, working on unmanned aerial vehicles in violation of U.N. agreements and maintaining a dual-use industrial sector that could produce weapons.

Duelfer also says Iraq only had small research and development programs for chemical and biological weapons.

As Duelfer puts the finishing touches on his report, he concludes Saddam had intentions of restarting weapons programs at some point, after suspicion and inspections from the international community waned.

After a year and a half in Iraq, however, the United States has found no weapons of mass destruction - its chief argument for overthrowing the regime.

An intelligence official said Duelfer could wrap up the report as soon as this month, but noted it may take time to declassify it. Those who discussed the report inside and outside the government did so on the condition of anonymity because it contains classified material and is not yet completed.

If the report is released publicly before the Nov. 2 election, Democrats are likely to seize on the document as another opportunity to criticize the Bush administration's leading argument for war in Iraq and the deteriorating security situation there.

Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry has criticized the president's handling of the war in Iraq, but has also said he still would have voted to authorize the war even if he had known no weapons of mass destruction would be found there.

Duelfer's report is expected to be similar to findings reported by his predecessor, David Kay, who presented an interim report to Congress in October. Kay left the post in January, saying, "We were almost all wrong" about Saddam's weapons programs.

The new analysis, however, is expected to fall between the position of the Bush administration before the war - portraying Saddam as a grave threat - and the declarative statements Kay made after he resigned.

It will also add more evidence and flesh out Kay's October findings. Then, Kay said the Iraq Survey Group had only uncovered limited evidence of secret chemical and biological weapons programs, but he found substantial evidence of an Iraqi push to boost the range of its ballistic missiles beyond prohibited ranges.

He also said there was almost no sign that a significant nuclear weapons project was under way.

Duelfer's report doesn't reach firm conclusions in all areas. For instance, U.S. officials are still investigating whether Saddam's fallen regime may have sent chemical weapons equipment and several billion dollars over the border to Syria. That has not been confirmed, but remains an area of interest to the U.S. government.

The Duelfer report will come months after the Senate Intelligence Committee released a scathing assessment of the prewar intelligence on Iraq.

After a yearlong inquiry, the Republican-led committee said in July the CIA kept key information from its own and other agencies' analysts, engaged in "group think" by failing to challenge the assumption that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and allowed President Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell to make false statements.

The Iraq Survey Group has been working since the summer of 2003 to find Saddam's weapons and better understand his prohibited programs. More than a thousand civilian and military weapons specialists, translators and other experts have been devoted to the effort.

http://apnews.myway.com//article/20040917/D8556BQO0.html

Jenson17
09-16-2004, 11:19 PM
As Duelfer puts the finishing touches on his report, he concludes Saddam had intentions of restarting weapons programs at some point, after suspicion and inspections from the international community waned.

Good enough for me.

WoodDraw
09-16-2004, 11:57 PM
Good enough for me.

You have some pretty damn low standards than. Over a thousand are dead, thousands more have been wounded, and none of the reasons for going to war have turned out to be true. There are plenty of countries developing WMD programs (North Korea, South Korea, Pakistan, India, Israel, China, Iran, Syria) and plenty of countries with oppresive governments. The US can't just go invade these countries for the hell of it. Their WMD program could have been effectively handled through a combination of sancations, inspectors, and general disruption. And if you have to, launch of Tomahawk missiles at some suspected bases. This war has set a horrible standard, hurt the reputation of the US, and hurt our ability to deal with other more important issues.

Jenson17
09-17-2004, 12:01 AM
You have some pretty damn low standards than. Over a thousand are dead, thousands more have been wounded, and none of the reasons for going to war have turned out to be true. There are plenty of countries developing WMD programs (North Korea, South Korea, Pakistan, India, Israel, China, Iran, Syria) and plenty of countries with oppresive governments. The US can't just go invade these countries for the hell of it. Their WMD program could have been effectively handled through a combination of sancations, inspectors, and general disruption. And if you have to, launch of Tomahawk missiles at some suspected bases. This war has set a horrible standard, hurt the reputation of the US, and hurt our ability to deal with other more important issues.

Hindsight is 20/20

WoodDraw
09-17-2004, 12:23 AM
Hindsight is 20/20

Uhm, what? So you don't hold the US to any standard? Just say **** it, at least they tried to get it right. Over a thousand dead but hey, hindsight is 20/20. How were we supposed to know that they wouldn't invite all of the Americans in for tea as they raised our flag? How were we supposed to know that there actually weren't any WMD? But hey, we freed that Iraqi people! Screw the fact that the country is running into civil war and international organizations are pulling out because they can't keep their people from getting captured. Elections! Democracy!

Oh wait, maybe that's why the cooler heads in the administration like Colin Powell thought the war should have been avoided. Maybe that's why most European countries were against the war. And maybe that's why the inspectors were there doing their job before Bush kicked them out without reason.

SBK
09-17-2004, 12:26 AM
You're right. We made a huge mistake. I would much rather see us fighting terrorists in the USA instead of the middle east.

Jenson17
09-17-2004, 12:27 AM
Uhm, what? So you don't hold the US to any standard? Just say **** it, at least they tried to get it right. Over a thousand dead but hey, hindsight is 20/20. How were we supposed to know that they wouldn't invite all of the Americans in for tea as they raised our flag? How were we supposed to know that there actually weren't any WMD? But hey, we freed that Iraqi people! Screw the fact that the country is running into civil war and international organizations are pulling out because they can't keep their people from getting captured. Elections! Democracy!

Oh wait, maybe that's why the cooler heads in the administration like Colin Powell thought the war should have been avoided. Maybe that's why most European countries were against the war. And maybe that's why the inspectors were there doing their job before Bush kicked them out without reason.

If Gore had been Prez; you are right, we'd have done nothing.....and instead of a 1000 dead soldiers....we'd have God only knows how many dead civilians. Probably three or four more 9-11 type events.

Cuz the French, the Russians, the Germans, Al Gore, and the Democratic party are nothin' but a bunch of lilly-livered puzzies.... :p

Jenson17
09-17-2004, 12:28 AM
You're right. We made a huge mistake. I would much rather see us fighting terrorists in the USA instead of the middle east.

Yeah, much better for thousands of innocent civilians to be killed in terrorist acts than to have 1000 soldiers who know the risk, dead...yup, that makes sense. :thumb:

WoodDraw
09-17-2004, 12:34 AM
You're right. We made a huge mistake. I would much rather see us fighting terrorists in the USA instead of the middle east.

That's another bullshit excuse. Whether or not Iraq had meaningful ties to terrorist organizations is debatable but the invasion of Iraq certainly hasn't done anything to stop terrorists. Last time I checked there are weeklly if not daily car bombings, kidnappings, and general attacks against Americans in Iraq. So, unless you can come up with any solid evidence then I'd argue that the "terrorist" attacks against the US have actually increased.

Plus, there are plenty of other countries with more credible ties to terrorist organizations that Bush could have gone after in this "war on terror". Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Syria all come to mind the quickest. And how about finishing the job in Afghanistan?

WoodDraw
09-17-2004, 12:38 AM
If Gore had been Prez; you are right, we'd have done nothing.....and instead of a 1000 dead soldiers....we'd have God only knows how many dead civilians. Probably three or four more 9-11 type events.


I think (hope?) that this post was partly a joke but if it wasn't...

9/11 took three years to plan and yet you think there would have been three to four more in what would have been Gore's remaining 3 years?

BigMeatballDave
09-17-2004, 01:55 AM
You have some pretty damn low standards than. Over a thousand are dead, thousands more have been wounded, and none of the reasons for going to war have turned out to be true. There are plenty of countries developing WMD programs (North Korea, South Korea, Pakistan, India, Israel, China, Iran, Syria) and plenty of countries with oppresive governments. The US can't just go invade these countries for the hell of it. Their WMD program could have been effectively handled through a combination of sancations, inspectors, and general disruption. And if you have to, launch of Tomahawk missiles at some suspected bases. This war has set a horrible standard, hurt the reputation of the US, and hurt our ability to deal with other more important issues.Saddam should've been removed 13 years ago...

Boyceofsummer
09-17-2004, 06:34 AM
You're right. We made a huge mistake. I would much rather see us fighting terrorists in the USA instead of the middle east.

Your position was wrong then, And it is wrong now. Period.

Boyceofsummer
09-17-2004, 06:36 AM
If Gore had been Prez; you are right, we'd have done nothing.....and instead of a 1000 dead soldiers....we'd have God only knows how many dead civilians. Probably three or four more 9-11 type events.

Cuz the French, the Russians, the Germans, Al Gore, and the Democratic party are nothin' but a bunch of lilly-livered puzzies.... :p

Your position was wrong then, And it is wrong now. Period.

Mr. Kotter
09-17-2004, 06:43 AM
My position was wrong then, And it is wrong now. Excuse me, I have my period.

WTF??? :(

Radar Chief
09-17-2004, 06:49 AM
You have some pretty damn low standards than. Over a thousand are dead, thousands more have been wounded, and none of the reasons for going to war have turned out to be true. There are plenty of countries developing WMD programs (North Korea, South Korea, Pakistan, India, Israel, China, Iran, Syria) and plenty of countries with oppresive governments. The US can't just go invade these countries for the hell of it. Their WMD program could have been effectively handled through a combination of sancations, inspectors, and general disruption. And if you have to, launch of Tomahawk missiles at some suspected bases. This war has set a horrible standard, hurt the reputation of the US, and hurt our ability to deal with other more important issues.

Gee, nothing in this report accounts for the thousands of gallons of nerve and blister agent along with thousands of liters of Anthrax that were found after Gulf War V1.0 and were never destroyed. Where’d it go? Saddam wasn’t building “unmanned aerial vehicles” for air shows.
So +12 years of sanctions hadn’t done the trick so you think we should’ve tried more of what we know wasn’t working? Glad your not part of my engineering department.
And please, launching of Tomahawks at aspiring factories in the middle of the night is part of what got us into this WOT to begin with.
Do you actually believe the BS your spouting or just repeating what you read on DU?

Radar Chief
09-17-2004, 06:56 AM
Maybe that's why most European countries were against the war.

Check a map, France and Germany don’t constitute “all of Europe”. If you actually had a clue as to what you’re talking about, you’d notice that the vast majority of Europe is with us.

And maybe that's why the inspectors were there doing their job before Bush kicked them out without reason.

Uh, do what? When did Bushy kick the Weapons Detectives out? IIRC he facilitated the return of the Weapons Detectives after Saddam kicked them out in ’98.
Do you actually believe the BS your posting or just repeating what you read on DU?

Mr. Kotter
09-17-2004, 07:00 AM
...Do you actually believe the BS your posting or just repeating what you read on DU?

DU? :hmmm:

Duck Dog
09-17-2004, 07:22 AM
Sodom should have been removed a decade prior.

The fact that we no longer have to deal with him is all I ever needed.

If we were wrong about stock piles, oh well. I seriously doubt the WH would intentionally lie about it.

Bad intel is to blame. And that bad intel came from 'other' countries. Not just the US.

We were not lied to or mislead.

tiptap
09-17-2004, 07:26 AM
If Gore had been Prez; you are right, we'd have done nothing.....and instead of a 1000 dead soldiers....we'd have God only knows how many dead civilians. Probably three or four more 9-11 type events.

Cuz the French, the Russians, the Germans, Al Gore, and the Democratic party are nothin' but a bunch of lilly-livered puzzies.... :p

And of course because the Americans that are dying are soldiers, it is ok. They sign up for a stint in proactive war.

I would have rather spent the 200 billion dollars employing Americans at home guarding our borders and obtaining information about the terrorists and stimulating our economy. Most of our success against terrorists who want to harm Americans here in the us has come from interdiction and information from the intelligence agencies and not from the war in Iraq. What we get in Iraq is a fight against insurgency. That is not a fight against THE terrorist that wanted to attack the US before 9/11 as well as now. It is a fight with Iraqis who see the US as occupiers. This is the first Arab country the US has occupied. It is easily compared to the colonial occupations that Western Europe (Crusaders) have been apart of off and on for a 1000 years. Perhaps that is your wish. To emulate the European colonialism. It was not the model we pushed at the end of WWII and it seems a bad match for a country that overthew its own colonial domination. Too bad we chose to ignore the uniqueness of US history and instead emulate the europeans.

the Talking Can
09-17-2004, 07:28 AM
Sodom should have been removed a decade prior.

The fact that we no longer have to deal with him is all I ever needed.

If we were wrong about stock piles, oh well. I seriously doubt the WH would intentionally lie about it.

Bad intel is to blame. And that bad intel came from 'other' countries. Not just the US.

We were not lied to or mislead.

syllogism or parody?


that reads like a skit from The Daily show, well done...

Mr. Kotter
09-17-2004, 07:32 AM
... It is easily compared to the colonial occupations that Western Europe (Crusaders) have been apart of off and on for a 1000 years. Perhaps that is your wish. To emulate the European colonialism....

To compare this episode with European colonialism, at best, is premature; at worst, it is a reflection of a wildly distorted revisionist rendition of history that is myopic, dishonest, and driven by ideology.

Radar Chief
09-17-2004, 08:08 AM
I would have rather spent the 200 billion dollars employing Americans at home guarding our borders and obtaining information about the terrorists and stimulating our economy.

Well, I’d rather be able to spread roses around and have people love us, but that’s not exactly realistic.

Most of our success against terrorists who want to harm Americans here in the us has come from interdiction and information from the intelligence agencies and not from the war in Iraq. What we get in Iraq is a fight against insurgency.

Uh, do what? I take it you haven’t heard of all the Iranians or even Chechens we’ve been capturing while fighting al Sadre’s “insurgents”?

That is not a fight against THE terrorist that wanted to attack the US before 9/11 as well as now. It is a fight with Iraqis who see the US as occupiers. This is the first Arab country the US has occupied. It is easily compared to the colonial occupations that Western Europe (Crusaders) have been apart of off and on for a 1000 years. Perhaps that is your wish. To emulate the European colonialism. It was not the model we pushed at the end of WWII and it seems a bad match for a country that overthew its own colonial domination. Too bad we chose to ignore the uniqueness of US history and instead emulate the europeans.

And just which one of these “colonized” countries had sovereignty returned to the people for them to elect their government?

HC_Chief
09-17-2004, 08:13 AM
You leftists aren't going to win over any converts here. Your take on Iraq is blatently partisan - always has been.

We are not colonizing Iraq; we are not stealing Iraqi oil. We did not attack a sovereign, law-abiding nation unilaterally. We did not 'rush to war'. We did have intelligence reports from multiple sources both inside and outside the US intelligence channels. The UN did pass 18 resolutions allowing for force. The UN Security Council agreed Saddam was a threat. Bill Clinton stated Saddam was a threat. Congress agreed overwhelmingly Saddam was a threat. Al Gore stated Saddam was a threat. John Kerry stated Saddam was a threat.

Saddam is no longer a threat.

You're still an idiot.

Have a nice day :D

Lightning Rod
09-17-2004, 02:27 PM
WoodDraw, Boyceofsummer and tiptap,

I have a question for you that the regulars refuse to answer. Perhaps you will humor me.


Do you believe Bush Sr., Bill Clinton, and Dubya all lied about their reports of WMDs and all of them were willing to put their personal political agenda ahead of human life?

Lightning Rod
09-17-2004, 02:30 PM
Bueller?... Bueller?

ROYC75
09-17-2004, 02:46 PM
Explaining our goal for Iraq to a Democrat is like explaining tho the Donks they root for the wrong team.

They aren't going to listen !

But it's fun to razz'em for it !