Saddam and WMDs

[andyfox]

The top U.S. arms inspector reported Wednesday that he found no evidence that Iraq produced any weapons of mass destruction after 1991. The report also says 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 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 Sept. 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.


-The above is taken from an AP article about Duelfer's report. Note that:

1) Hussein apparently did not have WMDs. This makes sense in that he didn't use them when we invaded nor have they been found since.

2) His capabilities had been weakening prior to our invasion. This corresponds with what both Condi Rice and Colin Powell said about Hussein prior to 9/11.

3) Duelfer is assuming that Hussein wanted WMDs, interpreting Hussein's apparent statement that he would stop Iran "by any means necessary." This seems a reasonable assumption to me. All countries want weapons with which to defend (of "defend") themselves.

4) Hussein's assumed desire for WMDs was primarily for possible trouble with Iran. This makes sense in that the two countries had been at war in the 1980s.

5) The president has said that not much information had been forthcoming from the captured Hussein. But Duelfer is basing his conclusion that Hussein would have wanted to reconstituted a WMD program, and that he was concerned with Iran, on (at least in part) interviews with Hussein.

[MaxPower]

Sorry Andy, I read on the Drudge Report that Saddam had WMD programs. Everyone has heard of Matt Drudge, nobody knows who this Duelfer guy is. Who am I to believe?

[adios]

This would blow away the justification for Desert Fox most certainly.

[SinCityGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
The president has said that not much information had been forthcoming from the captured Hussein.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's hard work.

[vulturesrow]

Andy,

Allow me to point out a few things that you faild to emphasize or tried to de-emphasize.

1. Saddam bribed several key French leaders and was told that the French would exercise their veto against the US.
The French oil company, Total, was promised exploration rights in Iraq. The French werent the only ones, I'll get to that in a moment.

2. Though you chose to de-emphasize it, Saddams intentions were to immediately being producing WMDs again, which shows the futility of the UN Sanctions. This wasnt just from interviews with Saddam, but other Iraqi leadership, including Tariq Aziz.

3. Saddam had even fooled his own military chiefs into believing that WMDs were still being produced.

4. Some other figures targeted by the Saddam regime: Indonesian President Megawati Sukarnoputri, former French Interior Minister Charles Pasqua, Russian ultranationalist Vladimir Zhirinovsky and his Liberal Democratic Party, the Russian presidential office, the Russian Foreign Ministry, the Ukraine Community Party, the Ukraine Socialist Party, the son of Lebanese President Emile Lahoud and the Peoples Liberation Front of Palestine. There are more.

5. The report also states that Iraq was prepared to use their WMD against the US in 91 if we had tried to topple him them.

[MaxPower]

Let's not forget these tidbits:

[ QUOTE ]
All names of Americans and British companies and individuals, whether suspected of wrongdoing or not, were deleted from the list, part of which had been published by an Iraqi newspaper in Baghdad after the war in March 2003.

[/ QUOTE ]

or

[ QUOTE ]
U.S. oil companies purchased Iraqi crude from middlemen rather than directly from Baghdad. By early 2003, the United States was consuming 67 percent of Iraqi crude, by far the largest buyer. (Bernie Woodall contributed to this report)

[/ QUOTE ]

Bottom line. Of all the national security threats out there, Iraq was on the bottom of the list.

[Kenrick]

Another missed point on this: John Kerry had the same or even more thoughts of "disarming Saddam Hussein and dong a regime change no matter what the inspectors report" than Bush did. Up until polls told him not to.

Even Bill Clinton thought Iraq had WMD's up until the invasion. If someone doesn't like Bush, fine, just find SOME other reason besides Iraq, since Kerry had the same ideas all the way. Of course, to do that, you'd first have to figure out what exactly John Kerry stands for and what he has stood for during his 20 years in Congress.

[vulturesrow]

Nice try Max. The reason those names were removed is found in the report itself where it says "The names of US citizens and business entities have been redacted from this report in accordance with provisions of the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a, and other applicable law. The full report has been provided to appropriate recipients in the Executive Branch and Congress." As for the buying of Iraqi crude oil through middlemen, I couldnt find anything in the report about that. I am still looking but the site very slow, as could be expected.

Your opinion may be the that Iraq was the bottom of the list of security threats. I disagree. Matter of opinion.

[cjromero]

Kenrick's point is the most important in this thread when it comes to the upcoming presidential election. While it is true that Kerry stated on the Senate floor that he wanted the U.S. to get an international coalition and wanted to make sure the inspectors had sufficient time to do their work, the bottom line is that he voted to give the President the authority to deal with Iraq. While some Democratic talking heads are quick to point out that it wasn't an explicit authoriziation to go to war, Kerry has conceded that he knew that he was giving Bush the authorization to go to war at the time he voted for it. Kerry also said that Saddam was a threat that needed to be removed. Edwards even used the word "imminent" in describing the threat from Iraq. Not even Bush or Cheney frequently characterized the threat as "imminent."

As Cheney said during the VP debate, the Kerry/Edwards "plan" to deal with Iraq isn't a plan. It's an echo. It's the same things the Bush administration is already doing.

If you are anti-Bush, there are plenty of other legitimate reasons to vote for Kerry. Iraq simply isn't one of them.

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
1. Saddam bribed several key French leaders and was told that the French would exercise their veto against the US.
The French oil company, Total, was promised exploration rights in Iraq. The French werent the only ones, I'll get to that in a moment.


[/ QUOTE ]

Fail to see how this has any relevance to the Administrations claims about WMD prior to the invasion of Iraq. Yet this is first on your list.

[MaxPower]

[ QUOTE ]
Another missed point on this: John Kerry had the same or even more thoughts of "disarming Saddam Hussein and dong a regime change no matter what the inspectors report" than Bush did. Up until polls told him not to.



[/ QUOTE ]

Show me a quote where Kerry said that he didn't want to inspectors to finish their work. Kerry supported disarming Saddam and his position on that never changed.

You are falling for the nonsense put out by the GOP. The fact is that Kerry has had a consistent position on Iraq as I proved in a thread (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=1105472&page=0&view=colla psed&sb=5&o=21&fpart=1&vc=1&PHPSESSID=) the other day.

The Bush administration screwed up every step of the process the intelligence gathering, the diplomacy, the inspections, the war plan, and the post-war plan. Say what you want about Kerry's views, but he wasn't the one who screwed all this stuff up.

Republicans love to talk about personal responsibility. They need to take responsibility for their own actions. I am holding Bush responsible for this screw up.

The funny this is that after 9/11 Bush actually had a shot at getting my vote, but he messed that up.

[andyfox]

Vice President Dick Cheney asserted on Thursday that a report by the chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq, who found no evidence that Iraq produced weapons of mass destruction after 1991, justifies rather than undermines President Bush's decision to go to war.

The man either can't read or refuses to.

[adios]

Here's what Cheney stated according to the story:

Cheney: Weapons Report Justifies Iraq War (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&e=2&u=/ap/20041007/ap_on_el_pr/cheney)

Cheney: Weapons Report Justifies Iraq War

38 minutes ago

By TOM RAUM, Associated Press Writer

MIAMI - Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites) asserted on Thursday that a report by the chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq (news - web sites), who found no evidence that Iraq produced weapons of mass destruction after 1991, justifies rather than undermines President Bush (news - web sites)'s decision to go to war.

The report shows that "delay, defer, wasn't an option," Cheney told a town-hall style meeting.


While Democrats seized on the new report by Charles Duelfer to bolster their case that invading Iraq was a mistake, Cheney focused on portions of the report that were more favorable to the administration's case.


Although it says Saddam's weapons program had deteriorated since the 1991 Gulf War (news - web sites) and did not pose a threat to the world in 2003, the report also says that Saddam's main goal was to get international sanctions lifted.


"As soon as the sanctions were lifted he had every intention of going back" to his weapons program, Cheney said.


Cheney said the report also concluded that the United Nations (news - web sites)' "Fuel for Food" program "was totally corrupted by Saddam Hussein (news - web sites). There were suggestions employees of the United Nations were part of the scheme as well."


"The suggestion is clearly there by Mr. Duelfer that Saddam had used the program in such a way that he had bought off foreign governments and was building support among them to take the sanctions down," Cheney said.


That being the case, there was no reason to wait to invade Iraq to give inspectors more time to do their work, Cheney said.


On Wednesday, the former head of the U.N. weapons inspection team, Hans Blix, said: "Had we had a few months more (of inspections before the war), we would have been able to tell both the CIA (news - web sites) and others that there were no weapons of mass destruction (at) all the sites that they had given to us."


Duelfer's report said what ambitions Saddam harbored for such weapons were secondary to his goal of evading those sanctions, and he wanted them primarily not to attack the United States or to provide them to terrorists, but to oppose his older enemies, Iran and Israel.


The report of the weapons hunter was presented Wednesday to senators and the public in the midst of a fierce presidential election campaign in which Iraq and the war of terror have become the overriding issues.

Cheney's apparrent position is that:

1) Saddam had corrupted the UN Oil-For-Food program which in turn had corrupted key members of the Security Council including France.

2) Saddam would use the leverage created by the Oil-For-Food program to get the sanctions lifted.

3) Once the sanctions were lifted Saddam intended to proceed with his WMD programmes.


This is my take on what Cheney's position is. If you agree with my take but disagree with Cheney please don't shoot the messenger. As far as getting the sanctions lifted I'm not sure whether or not the U.S. could have used it's veto power to prevent that.

[andyfox]

I agree with your assessment.

Cheney is ignoring the key elements of the report (or of what has been reported of the report, I haven't seen the report). Hussein was most concerned about Iran. He was basically protrate. And the administration knew both of these things. That's why both Powell and Rice said as much before 9/11.

Yesterday, the president said Hussein could pass on "ideas" to terrorists. So first they said he had WMDs. Then when that is shown to be a crock, they change it to "capability." Then when that is also shown to be a crock is becomes "ideas."

But I don't find this unusual in any way. I've seen it time and time again in my lifetime. And Kerry's support for the administration, followed by criticism after things look bad and/or when running in opposition, is another thing that is SOP.

[Chris Alger]

Here's the most important point, from the LA Times: "Duelfer said investigators also found no evidence that Hussein had passed illicit weapons material to Al Qaeda or other terrorist organizations, or had any intent to do so."

Whether Iraq had WMD was never a fact that justified the war. The critical element necessary to even begin contemplating such an extreme measure is the existence of substantial evidence showing that Iraq planned to use WMD offensively or part with its policy of the last decades of refusing to transfer WMD to terrorists or other aggressors, and whether those plans could be derailed only by war. Iraq's possession of WMD was a necessary but not sufficient cause for war, and fact that barely elicits any comment in the U.S. Instead, we get the ubiquitous presumption that Saddam was bereft of any rational self interest or ambition for self-defense but was instead determined to destroy his own regime.

Duelfer's finding shows that the bipartisan, elite consensus about Iraqi WMD consituted a threat per se was, from the beginning, a claim with "no evidence." Accordingly, every statement by every official implying that U.S. intelligence had detected some propensity by Iraq to give WMD to terrorists or use them against the U.S. was a lie.[1] It was propagated because Americans would never agree to sacrifice tens of thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars to expand U.S. political, economic and military might for its own sake, the more obvious and apparent reason for the war. This reason is not only well accepted by most people around the world, it is a key factor that generates so much new hatred and distrust of the U.S.

That the Iraqi WMD "threat" was a joke all along is borne out by other evidence. Two obvious examples:

1. Pakistan can be easily demonized as much as Iraq. Pakistan is, officially, an Islamicist state. It has tested nuclear weapons. It was the only country in the world (including Iraq) that recognized the Taliban, whom it helped install in power, as legitimate rulers. A large majority of Pakistanis hate the U.S. Its government, a repressive dictatorship born by military coup, has a long record of supporting and harboring terrorists, by the definition applied to Iraq, and transferring nuclear weapons technology to states hostile toward the U.S., including those that sponsor terror and even including Libya, a fact that Iraq war supporters would have considered a slam dunk for invasion had Saddam done it. When the Pakistani official responsible for giving Libya nuclear weapons technology was pardoned by Musharraf, the U.S. didn't utter a peep of protest, much less threaten to invade or even to cut aid.

No U.S. official or mainstream media organ, however, has sounded any alarm about the Pakistani "threat" or has called for sanctions, much less regime change and invasion. Even the racist right-wing press that constantly demonizes Muslims for their "cultural" deficiencies doesn't, as a general rule, have any problem with Pakistan, in sharp contrast to the constant denunciations of official "enemies" like Iran. Instead, bipartisan consensus holds that we should provide Pakistan with ever greater amounts of military and economic aid, a policy that for any country is opposed by most voters.

The variable that accounts for this difference is Musharraf's willingness to posture his country as a loyal client of the U.S. and thus serve elite interests. All of this will change, and Pakistan will become as demonized as Iraq, if Musharraf is overthrown by forces hostile or even ambivalent toward those interests. In that case, all prior U.S. support for Pakistani dictators, going back decades, will fall into the same memory hole where U.S. support for Saddam now resides.

2. The U.S. supported Saddam during his worst years. The U.S. provided Saddam with military hardware and other support to assist his aggression and secure his reign after his WMD program, his WMD stockpiles and his willingness to use WMD became widely known. U.S. support also followed widespread publication of Saddam's atrocious human rights record, including the worst abuses for which he will now probably be tried. The official U.S. line, however, was: "The US-Iraqi relationship is... important to our long-term political and economic objectives." (Asst. Sec. State Richard Murhpy, 1988).

This assistance also included WMD technology. In March 1986, the U.S. was the only member of the Security Council that refused to sign a statement condemning Iraq's use of WMD. Shortly thereafter, the Commerce Department began licensing the export to Iraq of anthrax and botulin toxin. These exports followed U.S.-approved "dual use" technology and disclosure of Iraq's WMD program. They also followed Iraq's well known support for Palestinian terrorists, such as Abu Nidal.

It was only after Iraq refused to follow U.S. orders to unconditionaly withdraw from Kuwait, an act of aggression about which the U.S. was initially ambivalent, with U.S. aid to Iraq still in the pipeline. Again, the variable that accounts for the change in policy is not any new found embrace of human rights or democracy, no new fear of WMD, or post 9-11 awareness of the unacceptability of support for terror. It was simply the perception of Iraq as a loyal client, willing to toe the line.

All WMD are a threat to humanity and should be abolished, but that's not even on the list of U.S. objectives.

______________________
[1] These lies included extreme, hysterical pronouncements that the U.S. was faced with the possibility of imminent, unpreventable nuclear attack, all of which were widley broadcast and reiterated by the propaganda machine. Bush: "Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud." Rice, 9/8/2: "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." Cheney, 9/8/02: Saddam is "actively and aggressively seeking to acquire nuclear weapons" and (8/26/2) "will acquire nuclear weapons fairly soon." Cheney, 8/26/2 (repeated 8/29/2): There is "no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction" and that "he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us." NY Times, 9/8/2: "the first sign of a smoking gun may be a mushroom cloud" (quoting "administration hardliners").

[Kenrick]

You guys can argue about WMD this and WMD that being needed to go to war, but the FACT is Saddam Hussein disregarded UN resolutions after Desert Storm, which means Desert Storm never ended, and which means the United States (and United Nations, I might add) have still been at war with Iraq for the past decade.

The main problem the entire time is the UN not enforcing its own resolutions because it was being its normal do-nothing self. 20/20 hindsight now shows the FBI and CIA dropped the ball on intelligence, so that was another problem. The main fault lies at the UN level, however.

[ThaSaltCracka]

How are the UN sanctions to blame, Saddam had no WMD's after 1991?

[Chris Alger]

1. Which resolution did Saddam disregard for the past decade?

2. Why don't the resolutions that the U.S. and its clients have disregarded forfeit any U.S. right to enforce UN resolutions.

3. By what authority does the U.S. have any right to unilaterally "enforce" UN resolutions by invasion and conquest?

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
3. By what authority does the U.S. have any right to unilaterally "enforce" UN resolutions by invasion and conquest?



[/ QUOTE ]

Please allow me to answer the easiest question you posed. By the authority granted to us by GOD. We are the strongest, baddest, wealthiest country on the face of the earth. Screw with the USA and get the whip. Who wants to be next in line? I suggest sticking it to all the Arab states before moving on to Asia.

[caretaker1]

[ QUOTE ]
By the authority granted to us by GOD. We are the strongest, baddest, wealthiest country on the face of the earth. Screw with the USA and get the whip. Who wants to be next in line? I suggest sticking it to all the Arab states before moving on to Asia.

[/ QUOTE ]

1) Could you clarify the whole God part? I don't remember any "Yea, and unto thee the United States I grant the authority to invade and conquest others against their will, so sayeth the Lord." anywhere in the Bible, although I don't profess to be a Biblical scholar so maybe I missed it. Actually, I don't think Jesus would be inclined to agree with this statement either, but maybe I've misread what he stood for.

2) Saddam, [censored] that he was, never "screwed with the USA", at least not for the reasons that were offered, although I will admit he did get the whip.

3) Being the "strongest, baddest, wealthiest" nation in the world had nothing to do with "right to invade". "Ability to invade" I would grant, but certainly no right.

4) Hell, why stop with the Arab states and Asia, why not just annhilate any state that doesn't capitulate to what our government tells it to. It's not like other countries should have sovereignty or anything. And if we decide to "stick it" to a nation that could fire WMD's back, because they don't believe that the corporate-political machine is perfect, like oh yeah, God, oh well, it was a nice run.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
By the authority granted to us by GOD

[/ QUOTE ]
Meaning that the rest of the world should treat us with the esteem they hold other terrorists acting on Gods' authority, adjusting for our much deadlier operations and doctrine of unprovoked aggression.

[ QUOTE ]
We are the strongest, baddest, wealthiest country on the face of the earth

[/ QUOTE ]
Not after some of the thousand or so terrorist groups we'ere spawning plants 40 or so nuclear devices in container ships, trucks, barges, skyscrapers, barells, whatever. Then we'll be srambling to compete with South Africa and Poland. And this assumes we don't collapse into civil war and can avoid rebuilding according to the needs of our Russian, Indian and Chinese superiors.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
Not after some of the thousand or so terrorist groups we'ere spawning

[/ QUOTE ]

And here we get to the heart of Chris's beliefs, everything evil happens because of the USA.

[ QUOTE ]
Then we'll be srambling to compete with South Africa and Poland. And this assumes we don't collapse into civil war and can avoid rebuilding according to the needs of our Russian, Indian and Chinese superiors.

[/ QUOTE ]

A scenario that no doubt makes you as giddy as a schoolgirl on prom night.

[Cyrus]

"By what authority does the U.S. have any right to unilaterally "enforce" UN resolutions by invasion and conquest? By the authority granted to us by GOD. We are the strongest, baddest, wealthiest country on the face of the earth. Screw with the USA and get the whip. Who wants to be next in line?"

Why do I sense that this kind of thinking is small comfort (and very poor justification) to people who have relatives serving as soldiers in Iraq?

I am thinking here, for instance, SaltCracka -- who moreover seems to be a lot more religious than you, Wakey. Yet, I somehow don't think SaltCracka would appreciate his brother getting killed because of "authority granted to the United States by God".

[Cyrus]

. . . attack the person :

[ QUOTE ]
"Then we'll be scrambling to compete with South Africa and Poland. And this assumes we don't collapse into civil war and can avoid rebuilding according to the needs of our Russian, Indian and Chinese superiors." --> A scenario that no doubt makes you as giddy as a schoolgirl on prom night.

[/ QUOTE ]

[vulturesrow]

Yeah it was a cheap shot Cyrus. Unfortunately people who imply that the US is in some way responsible for all that is evil in the world really rub me the wrong way. That has pretty much been Chris's consistent position in this forum. So I reacted poorly. My apologies to Chris and to you if I somehow offended your delicate liberal sensibilities.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
am thinking here, for instance, SaltCracka -- who moreover seems to be a lot more religious than you, Wakey. Yet, I somehow don't think SaltCracka would appreciate his brother getting killed because of "authority granted to the United States by God".


[/ QUOTE ]

And I am supposed to care about this? Surprise, his brother enlisted. You know Free Will and all that?

Besides I have made it know that I am an atheist so any God given rights we have are the one we take for ourselves.

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
Screw with the USA

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the report shows that Saddam had no intention of dong this.

[The once and future king]

Talk about getting hystrerical and personal.

I think it is fair but debatable to say that the USA is responsible for some of the evil in the world.

Which is what the poster you are attacking did.

Why the need to exagerate some into ALL.

It just undermines your credibilty.

[vulturesrow]

I dont care to get into a pissing contest so this will be the last I say on this. The poster in question regularly posts with that basic argument at the heart of whatever it is he happens to be arguing. I got tired of it. I lost my temper. I apologized. Whatever else comes of it, so be it.

[MMMMMM]

"Why the need to exagerate some into ALL."

Yes that was an exaggeration but it is not inconsistent with Alger's typical positions and arguments to blame the USA (or Israel) for nearly everything he cares to discuss.

Also you might ask why Alger exaggerated by saying the US was spawning thousands of terrorist groups. Thousands of terrorist groups??? So the exaggeration was not only on Vulturesrow's part; in fact, Chris Alger was the first to severely cross the exaggeration line here.