• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Top WMD Inspector concludes Saddam didn't have ANY WMD!!!...

JBP

Sr. Member
Inactive
Reaction score
0
Points
210
It's a short article...


CIA inspector ends Iraqi weapons hunt
Last Updated Tue, 26 Apr 2005 10:27:09 EDT
CBC News
WASHINGTON - The CIA's top weapons inspector in Iraq has ended his hunt for weapons of mass destruction.

Charles Duelfer posted his findings online in the form of an addendum to his October 2004 report that concluded former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction, but wanted them.

"As matters now stand, the WMD investigation has gone as far as feasible," wrote Duelfer, head of the Iraq Survey Group. "After more than 18 months, the WMD investigation and debriefing of the WMD-related detainees has been exhausted."


FROM OCT. 6, 2004: Saddam wanted WMD, but had none

He concluded it was "unlikely that an official transfer" of weapons of mass destruction between Iraq and Syria occurred, but couldn't rule out shipments of "limited WMD-related materials."

U.S. President George W. Bush used the presence of weapons of mass destruction as a key argument for the invasion of Iraq.

Duelfer did warn that Saddam's weapons programs produced a number of Iraqi weapons specialists. While many will look for civil sector jobs, others could provide help to "hostile foreign governments, terrorists or insurgents."

As many as 1,000 weapons inspectors and translators formed the survey group in Iraq, which officially disbanded last month.


George Bush LIED TO convinced the American people that there was WMD and enough good reason to go bash the crap outta Iraq again. I feel sorry for all those dead American soldiers, regardless they did not die for nothing, they were fighting for what they believed in (for the most part), freedom etc etc... But it's almost a shame nothing really was found... I think it detracts from Bush's credibility, but then again, I'm a Canadian reservist, not involved, and I never really liked Bush, or the USA's foriegn policy for that matter.

Just thought some people would like to see what the "Official" results are...

:salute:
 
:boring: :boring: :boring:

Just curious, how can he know if there are any or not, has he personally checked all the insurgent's hideouts/ bunkers? ::)
 
Who cares what excuse GWB used, the main point to remember is that Sodam Insane is gone. Also remember that GWB was fed misleading info,if memory serves me right, and made that decision with what he had at hand. So is it a lie if you are lied to!
 
Also remember that Bush stated several other reasons for the invasion.  You just probably never noticed because the media was fixated entirely on weapons of mass destruction.  Guess it made for better headlines.  Regaurdles of wether or not the weapons of mass destruction existed, the war made sense.

You also conviniently don't mention this part of the report:

While the ISG has not found stockpiles of WMD, the ISG and other coalition elements have developed a body of fact that shows that Saddam Hussein had, first, the strategic intention to continue to pursue WMD capabilities; two, created ambiguity about his WMD capabilities that he used to extract concessions in the international world of disclosure and discussion and negotiation.

He used it as a bargaining tactic and as a strategic deterrent against his neighbors and others.
 
R031 Pte Joe said:
It's a short article...


CIA inspector ends Iraqi weapons hunt
Last Updated Tue, 26 Apr 2005 10:27:09 EDT
CBC News
WASHINGTON - The CIA's top weapons inspector in Iraq has ended his hunt for weapons of mass destruction.

Charles Duelfer posted his findings online in the form of an addendum to his October 2004 report that concluded former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction, but wanted them.

"As matters now stand, the WMD investigation has gone as far as feasible," wrote Duelfer, head of the Iraq Survey Group. "After more than 18 months, the WMD investigation and debriefing of the WMD-related detainees has been exhausted."


FROM OCT. 6, 2004: Saddam wanted WMD, but had none

He concluded it was "unlikely that an official transfer" of weapons of mass destruction between Iraq and Syria occurred, but couldn't rule out shipments of "limited WMD-related materials."

U.S. President George W. Bush used the presence of weapons of mass destruction as a key argument for the invasion of Iraq.

Duelfer did warn that Saddam's weapons programs produced a number of Iraqi weapons specialists. While many will look for civil sector jobs, others could provide help to "hostile foreign governments, terrorists or insurgents."

As many as 1,000 weapons inspectors and translators formed the survey group in Iraq, which officially disbanded last month.


George Bush LIED TO convinced the American people that there was WMD and enough good reason to go bash the crap outta Iraq again. I feel sorry for all those dead American soldiers, regardless they did not die for nothing, they were fighting for what they believed in (for the most part), freedom etc etc... But it's almost a shame nothing really was found... I think it detracts from Bush's credibility, but then again, I'm a Canadian reservist, not involved, and I never really liked Bush, or the USA's foriegn policy for that matter.

Just thought some people would like to see what the "Official" results are...

:salute:

wow, theres a news flash ! who cares if he had them or not, the intent was there. besides all of that, 80% of Iraqis i have talked to about OIF like Bush a hell of a lot more than Saddam, the others were either rich before the war and are not now that their sugar daddy is in some dark hole, or are brainwashed.
you might be surprised to know that a large number of insurgents dont really give a rats ass about the americans being here. some are threatened into it by the hardcore devotees, and a lot of others just see it as the perfect way to become a martyr and go to heaven with a large harem. the majority of VBIEDs that come around here dont even hurt anyone, the guys just blow themselves up to get the 70 (or whatever the real number is) virgins promised to them for a martyrs death.
 
I guess it's more correct to be a "Carolynn Parrish" and bash the US, than to see the good side of the situation.
 
I have always felt that the WMD story was a convenient cover that was played because political perception told the Bushites that most people would support a war to get rid of the WMD's. Unfortunately the Bushites did not do their homework well enough.

I believe the real reason the Americans went to Baghdad was three fold:

1. Get rid of SH, a royal pain in the ***.

2. Change the political landscape in Iraq, start a democratic process that the rest of the Arab world will try to emulate and perhaps have less venom for America after Iraq is built.

3. Create a more positive environment for the Israeli, Palestinian issue to be resolved under. This would be accomplished by getting rid of SH, and secondly by holding up Iraq an example of what can be accomplished through democracy vs what is not being accomplished by theological force.
 
This keeps going around in circles, but the fact that Saddam Hussein had WMD in the past and used WMD in the past is a pretty good predictor of what actions he was likely to take in the future. Even neocons like Bill Clinton made repeated warnings of Saddam Hussein's threatening actions WRT WMD aquasition.

The other thing which does not add up, if the Ba'athist regime was not involved in a WMD program, then what the heck were they doing with all those scientists, materials and billions of dollars?
 
Saddam certainly thought he did!

With the Iraq war, the West is suddenly introduced to the levantine lie. Remember, this is a country that name "Bagdad Bob" its official spokeperson! I hope you all remember this when you read about yet another declaration from Iran that its nuclear plants will be for "peaceful power generation only".

Joaquim R
 
a_majoor said:
This keeps going around in circles, but the fact that Saddam Hussein had WMD in the past and used WMD in the past is a pretty good predictor of what actions he was likely to take in the future.

Somewhat true, but if you look at the record another way there's a different pattern too, he only used them against lesser opponents (Kurds and the Iranians). In Gulf war 1, he did not use them against the superior Coalition. Possibly afraid of the consequences? SH may have been an evil dictator, but not a particulary stupid one. If had them would he give them to Al-Queda? I suppose that was a concern, although no link to AQ was ever found. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html

As a frame of reference for the WMD thing, here's a list of WMD capable states. Some are terrorist supporting nations. Lot's more work to do.
http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/wmd_state.htm

One theory about the Iraq invasion I remember hearing is that it is an object lesson for the Saudi's, who are an ally of the US and a major oil player ( and therefore not "invade-able") but support terrorists - 9/11 has been linked to Saudi support. Iraq then becomes a new potential base for oil and military for the US, and the Saudi's can be punished in future.

I'm not sure if I buy this, but then again the world is a convoluted place.

Whatever the real reasons, for good or ill it's done now, let's move on.
 
Just in case you intend to be mistaken for a rational human being in future, here is a point of clarification for you:

If Bush believed Iraq had WMD, he did not lie; in that case he can only be accused of being wrong.  To lie requires knowledge of the truth and an intent to deceive.  On that matter, the "official" results are not in.
 
Who cares about WMDs.  The west is not in Iraq to fight Nuclear Proliferation.  Strategic engagement in combatting an Islamic Insugency directed towards to the West seems legitimate enough to me.

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/30081.new.html#new


Why is the Belief in WMD being attributted to some George W Bush Conspiracy?   From statements in the past, it appears that most US Statesmen (and women) were convinced that WMD were present.

Joe, I guess all of these figures are liers as well, are they not?   Or could George Bush, Bill Clinton, and the rest of the crowd be, like Brad Sallows states, wrong (humans are falliable, so this is allowed).

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."

President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998



"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998



"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."

Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998



"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."

Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998



"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998



"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998



"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."

Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov.10, 1999



"There is no doubt that .. Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of an elicit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."

Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001



"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."

Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002



"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

AI Gore, Sept. 23, 2002



"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."

AI Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

 

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and

developing weapons of mass destruction."

Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002



"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."

Sen. Robert Byrd (D, VW), Oct. 3, 2002



"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-if necessary-to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."

Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002



"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."

Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002



"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."

Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10,2002



"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002



"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."

Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002



"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime .. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction .. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."

Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

 
I suppose that was a concern, although no link to AQ was ever found.

And lets not forget that other terrorist groups exist, not just AQ. There WAS a link between Iraq and Hamas, so maybe it would stand that they'd support other terrorist orgs as well?

Edited for clarity. Edited portion in italics.
 
I will agree that there was OTHER good reasons to invade Iraq and topple Saddam, there are MANY good reasons which many of you brought up. I do not think Bush (whether he was misinformed, said he was, wasn't, was, etc or the government simply used the "plausible deniability" card) should have used the WMD issue to go to war. They scared the crap out of people first off, thier own I mean, also, they should have known if they didn't find any regardless of if Saddam had them or not that they'd look bad. It was just a stupid excuse when they had much more reasons and valid one's also. Foolish.

Secondly, I am curious to know if Saddam attempted to use any NBC weapons against the Coalition in the first war or this one. I know that the US Patriot missles had to actually shoot down SCUD's and other missles/rockets, but does anyone know if those were NBC loaded??? Someone else mentioned he DIDN'T, but if he was launching SCUDS, isn't there a good chance he did but they were destroyed before we had a chance to know about it?

I believe now, after much time, that the USA invaded for mainly reasons not related to WMD but others, like establishing a base of democracy in the "middle" of the middle east. Possibly before and to negate the chances of many of those nations forming strong ties/alliances or joining together in one Muslim Western hating nation. In that regard, they were smart to do it now while they could and stop the problem in that regard before it started/became an issue more than it already was.

It is still my opinion that GWB lied to his own people. Don't tell me you folks don't believe leaders or Presidents/Prime Ministers lie!!!

BTW Infanteer, how did any of those senators or other political types have ANY idea what Saddam was really doing if apparently the president was given false/incorrect or misleading info? The weapons inspectors from back then??? Pulling straws maybe?  ::)

In anycase, just posted that because I though you folks would find it interesting, it's news. I got dogpiled because of a few sentences and my opinion.

Joe
PS> Let's all cry now because I brought up the topic of Iraq+WMD in 1 post which seems to be taboo these days...
:crybaby:
 
So everyone in Infanteers list there LIED when they said it,....or just Mr. Bush?

I guess if we don't say, "Hey Joe, you were right", we are crying?    Get over it, lad.
 
I got dogpiled because of a few sentences and my opinion.
The number one unwritten rule of life, if you have an opinion there are people who are going to disagree with you and be prepared to accept that.

And I'm not sure who's crying here..
 
Bruce Monkhouse said:
So everyone in Infanteers list there LIED when they said it,....or just Mr. Bush?

I guess if we don't say, "Hey Joe, you were right", we are crying?     Get over it, lad.

Yes but look at all the other times he was wrong and stuck his foot in his mouth, usually pointed out by our ever vigilant Infanteer! :D
 
The US wasn't the only nation that believed Iraq had WMD. If you're wondering how they could have made a mistake in their assessments, I suggest you read the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction's report to the president.

http://www.wmd.gov/report/index.html
 
R031 Pte Joe said:
BTW Infanteer, how did any of those senators or other political types have ANY idea what Saddam was really doing if apparently the president was given false/incorrect or misleading info? The weapons inspectors from back then??? Pulling straws maybe?  ::)

What the hell are you babbling about?

Read the list - it contains quotes from a President, a Vice President (and Presidential Nominee), a Secretary of State, and plenty of high ranking Senators (of which one was also a Presidential Nominee).  These people get/got their information from the same sources that President George W Bush got his.

Is your conceit so much that you can't admit that perhaps the US Intelligence organs actually believed that the probability of WMD was high and that George W Bush would act upon this advice to formulate his policies regarding Iraq (remember, this is the same advice that Clinton used to keep the sanctions and occasional strikes on Iraq up during his 8 years).

Your letting your personal bias on the character of the President colour the evidence that is sitting infront of your face.
 
Infanteer said:
What the heck are you babbling about?

Read the list - it contains quotes from a President, a Vice President (and Presidential Nominee), a Secretary of State, and plenty of high ranking Senators (of which one was also a Presidential Nominee).  These people get/got their information from the same sources that President George W Bush got his.

Is your conceit so much that you can't admit that perhaps the US Intelligence organs actually believed that the probability of WMD was high and that George W Bush would act upon this advice to formulate his policies regarding Iraq (remember, this is the same advice that Clinton used to keep the sanctions and occasional strikes on Iraq up during his 8 years).

Your letting your personal bias on the character of the President colour the evidence that is sitting infront of your face.
I think there is no question that the Bush administration emphasised the WMD to gain the Clear and Present danger tag. It was not just the media. It was a deliberate focus. Not a conspiracy or anything, just they settled on a single issue they felt would work best. Humanitarian wars do not go over too well in Republican circles and they were getting criticized for lack of a singular reason.

I still believe the jury is out on the WMD. Personally, I am positive they're still in existance. One thing I said at the start of the war was that the absolute most devious and devistating thing Saddam could do now was to get rid of the WMD. No military tactic or strategy that he could plausibly employ could be as effective as what he (or his subbordinates... or certain elements of other nations) did. Without the WMD, instantly, the tide is against the war. With WMD, the tide is with the war. It's a simple boolean parameter that will flip once they find them.. and I believe that they will. On that date, events will increase in their frequency and impact, as the terrorist and terrorist supporters panic and shorten the timelines for longer range plans.
 
Back
Top