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.