No WMD produced in Iraq since 1991, says top US arms inspector

[Nym90]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- 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 and that sanctions and U.N. weapons inspectors should have been given more time.

Saddam a threat
But Duelfer also supports Bush's argument that Saddam remained a threat. Interviews with the toppled leader and other former Iraqi officials made clear to inspectors that Saddam had not lost his ambition to pursue weapons of mass destruction and hoped to revive his weapons program if U.N. sanctions were lifted, the report said.

"There was a risk, a real risk, that Saddam Hussein would pass weapons or materials or information to terrorist networks," Bush said in a campaign speech in Wilkes Barre, Pennsylvania, defending the decision to invade. "In the world after Sept. 11, that was a risk we could not afford to take."

A top Democrat in Congress, Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, said Duelfer's findings undercut the two main arguments for war: that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and that he would share them with terrorists like al-Qaeda.

"We did not go to war because Saddam had future intentions to obtain weapons of mass destruction," Levin said.

Traveling in Africa, British Prime Minister Tony Blair said Wednesday that the report shows that Saddam was "doing his best" to get around the United Nations' sanctions. For months, Blair has been trying to defend his justification for joining the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in the face of heavy criticism from some in his own party.

Duelfer presented his findings in a report of more than 1,000 pages, and in appearances before Senate committees.

The report avoids direct comparisons with prewar claims by the Bush administration on Iraq's weapons systems. But 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 September 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.

Saddam believed the use of chemical weapons against Iran prevented Iraq's defeat in that war. He also was prepared to use such weapons in 1991 if the U.S.-led coalition had tried to topple him in the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Tuesday that Saddam "had the intent and capability" to build weapons of mass destruction, and that he was "a gathering threat that needed to be taken seriously, that it was a matter of time before he was going to begin pursuing those weapons of mass destruction."

But before the war, the Bush administration cast Saddam as an immediate threat, not a gathering threat who would begin pursuing weapons in the future.

For example, Bush said in October 2002 that "Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more." Bush also said then, "The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program."

Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Illinois, said Wednesday that Duelfer's findings showed there is "no evidence whatsoever of the threats we were warned about." He spoke after Duelfer gave a closed-door briefing to the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Committee Chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kansas, said Duelfer showed Iraq's ability to produce weapons of mass destruction had degraded since 1998. But Roberts called the report inconclusive on what happened to weapons stockpiles Saddam is believed to have once possessed.

Interviews with Saddam left Duelfer's team with the impression that Saddam was more concerned about Iran and Israel as enemies than he was about the United States. Saddam appeared to hold out hope that U.S. leaders would ultimately recognize that it was in the country's interest to deal with Iraq as an important, secular, oil-rich Middle Eastern nation, the report found.

The Iraq Survey Group will continue operations and may prepare smaller reports on issues that remain unresolved, including whether weapons had been smuggled out of Iraq and about intelligence that Saddam had mobile biological weapons labs.

[The Duke]

The argument was never that Iraq was producing them.  It was that he still had stockpiles and could produce more in the future.

As ti turns out, he had no large stockpiles, only scattered warheads.  He could however have produced weapons in the future if sanctions had been lifted, as this report shows.

My main complaint aboutt this is where the  were all these people two years ago?  All we ever heard from CIA was "slam dunk", and all we heard from UNSCOM is "not verifiably disarmed".  All this monday morning quarterback crap from Deulfer and Bremer pisses me off, they were there then and said nothing.

[Wakie]

Ummm ... Scott Ritter anyone?  He was saying these things long before the war.  Hannity and Fox News painted him as a nut but it turns out he was right.  Think they will apologize?

[Silent Hunter]

Ritter was right, the CIA was wrong. He was a lone voice and people went with the majority.

This is the biggest intel mess-up in history.

[minionofmidas]

Ritter was right, the CIA was wrong. He was a lone voice and people went with the majority.

This is the biggest intel mess-up in history.

"majority"? Please.

[ATFFL]

Ritter was right, the CIA was wrong. He was a lone voice and people went with the majority.

This is the biggest intel mess-up in history.

"majority"? Please.

List the number of people saying that Iraq had no WMDs.

[shankbear]

Bottom line is that this is a multi front war on terror.  The ISLAMIC RADICAL PUNKS all need to be slaughtered.  This isn't just about WMD.  LIBS cast this as Bush/Cheney...The Quest for Iraq's oil.  Where is that assinine argument no???  With Kerry, Saddam would indeed still be in power and we would be at failed UN resolution number 385.  Talk is cheap.  Edwards was asked if Saddam would have still been in power .....he shifted like the clever lawyer he is.

[Wakie]

Ok, where do you suggest we go next for our "war on terror"?  Should we invade Saudi Arabia?  Or Qatar?  Or maybe we could insist that Oman has WMD's, let group think take over, and overrun it.

The case for war was "Iraq has WMD's and we know it".  That was clearly a lie.

Scott Ritter had been on the ground as a weapons inspector for 7 years.  Few people in the world knew the situation in Iraq better than he did.  Yet he was completely discounted by this administration and its media mouthpiece.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

except Saddam was not an Islamist radical and was in fact opposed to most of them, remember he had a brutal war with Iran and was condemned by bin Laden in his statement just before the invasion began (bin Laden referred to it as a battle between two infidels)

If Bush wants to slaughter "Islamic radical punks", why not at least break off relations with his good friends the Saudis?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Ritter was right, the CIA was wrong. He was a lone voice and people went with the majority.

This is the biggest intel mess-up in history.

"majority"? Please.

List the number of people saying that Iraq had no WMDs.

ever anti-war leftist

[ATFFL]

Ritter was right, the CIA was wrong. He was a lone voice and people went with the majority.

This is the biggest intel mess-up in history.

"majority"? Please.

List the number of people saying that Iraq had no WMDs.

ever anti-war leftist

No, they were saying that he may not have them, they were not producing intelligence suggesting that he did not have them.

[The Duke]

Ritter was right, the CIA was wrong. He was a lone voice and people went with the majority.

This is the biggest intel mess-up in history.

"majority"? Please.

List the number of people saying that Iraq had no WMDs.

ever anti-war leftist

Really?  Such as, say, Scott Ritter who admitted that Iraq still had not accounted for 10% of its banned weapons?

[freedomburns]

The argument was never that Iraq was producing them.  It was that he still had stockpiles and could produce more in the future.

As ti turns out, he had no large stockpiles, only scattered warheads.  He could however have produced weapons in the future if sanctions had been lifted, as this report shows.

My main complaint aboutt this is where the  were all these people two years ago?  All we ever heard from CIA was "slam dunk", and all we heard from UNSCOM is "not verifiably disarmed".  All this monday morning quarterback crap from Deulfer and Bremer pisses me off, they were there then and said nothing.

We heard what the administration wanted us to hear.  The rationale for war was - because he has weapons of mass destruction.  That is what we were told John.  I don't care who in particular was wrong, this "mistake" happened on their watch.

It was not because we suspect that he might want to reconstitute his WMD programs at some point in the future and that's a thought crime and that's bad enough because his name is Saddam Hussein. 

That's what is being offered to us now, as a retroactive excuse for putting our boys in harm's way.

Many people do not have the cajones to come forward and admit when they were wrong.  Bush appears to be one of those people.  He still won't admit that there are no WMD.  All he says is that a report came out that says that there were no WMD.  How many reports does the man have to see before he comes clean and starts straight talking with the American people and not attempting to deceive them?

freedomburns

[The Duke]

You misrepresented my argument.  Here is what I said.

The argument was never that Iraq was producing them. It was that he still had stockpiles and could produce more in the future.

Its pretty clear wat my position is.  Why did you feel the need to leave half of the equation out?

It was not because we suspect that he might want to reconstitute his WMD programs at some point in the future and that's a thought crime and that's bad enough because his name is Saddam Hussein.

Now, I've gone into detail on dozens of occaisions about Saddam's WMD programs.  I don't feel the need to re-explain how the wheel works.  The fact is that Hussein was sitting on 500 tons of uranium that doesn't get mentioned in this report.

I've got no inclination to believe a report that says Saddam had no WMD after 1996, because inspectors were still finding stockpiles after 1996, because they found mustard gas laden artillery shells in December of 2002, and because banned SCUD missiles were fired at US forces in the 2003 war.

Sorry, this report is not credible.

[DA]

Ritter was right, the CIA was wrong. He was a lone voice and people went with the majority.

This is the biggest intel mess-up in history.

"majority"? Please.

List the number of people saying that Iraq had no WMDs.

Ooo, ooo! How about the Iraqis?!

[DA]

You misrepresented my argument.  Here is what I said.

The argument was never that Iraq was producing them. It was that he still had stockpiles and could produce more in the future.

Its pretty clear wat my position is.  Why did you feel the need to leave half of the equation out?

It was not because we suspect that he might want to reconstitute his WMD programs at some point in the future and that's a thought crime and that's bad enough because his name is Saddam Hussein.

Now, I've gone into detail on dozens of occaisions about Saddam's WMD programs.  I don't feel the need to re-explain how the wheel works.  The fact is that Hussein was sitting on 500 tons of uranium that doesn't get mentioned in this report.

I've got no inclination to believe a report that says Saddam had no WMD after 1996, because inspectors were still finding stockpiles after 1996, because they found mustard gas laden artillery shells in December of 2002, and because banned SCUD missiles were fired at US forces in the 2003 war.

Sorry, this report is not credible.

You know I could have 10000 gallons of gasolene, but it doesn't mean I'm going to use it to torch your place. He may have had the ingredients, but there's no kitchen.
And let's not overlook the many countries that do have WMD kitchens, ourselves included.

[The Duke]

Typical moral equivalence.  I am more worried about intent than capability.  If a law biding citizen has an elephant gun, and a gang banger has a pocket knife, I'm more afraid of the gang banger.  You'd be more afraid of the law biding citizen.  Why?  Only because of capabilities.  There is no logic to the fear you hold, but there is logic to mine.

They are not our equal.

[Donovan]

Typical moral equivalence.  I am more worried about intent than capability.  If a law biding citizen has an elephant gun, and a gang banger has a pocket knife, I'm more afraid of the gang banger.  You'd be more afraid of the law biding citizen.  Why?  Only because of capabilities.  There is no logic to the fear you hold, but there is logic to mine.

They are not our equal.

Good point Mr Ford. However, how do you prove intent? And should you not be required to prove intent before taking the knife or elephant gun away?

All the evidence points to the fact that not only did Saddam NOT have WMDs, NOT only did he not have an intent to produce WMDs, but he also destroyed any capability he had to make them.

Moreover, if Saddam was that out of control and psycho, why did the Reagan and Bush Sr. Administration give weapons and funding to Saddam in the 1980's? Which was later used to kill thousands, if not millions of Iranians and Kurds in Northern Iraq? Now, the Bush Administration is offering to sell for $96 million missles to the Turkey. Turkey is also known for there slaughtering and discrimination of the Kurds in Northern Iraq.

If you are so concerned about WMDs in the wrong hands perhaps you should be voting for someone other than the Republicans that have sold weapons to almost every known World Criminal including UBL. Even Donald Rumsfeld and Saddam were buddies at one time. But you are probably too young to remember that.

[The Duke]

Rumsfeld was a US envoy to Iraq, not a "good buddy" of Saddam's.  Simply having a photo taken with someone does not equal approval.

The Reagan administration's support for Saddam is vastly over stated.  It was a continuation of a policy begun under the Carter years, and discontinued in the mid 1980s when the State Dept. concluded that Saddam could no be trusted.  The Bush I admin never supported Saddam.

The Deulfer report, flawed as it may be, did admit that Saddam has a skeleton capability and the intent to revive it once sanctions were lifted.

The way you discern intent is with common sense.  Saddam has used WMD on civilians without any provocation.  No member of any western government has done that.

[Silent Hunter]

Don't forget the main armer of Saddam was the Soviet Union.

Bringing this back to the campaign, where it should be, I'd say this has next to no effect. Most people have made their minds up one way or the other and this won't alter it.

[Donovan]

Mr Ford writes:
"Rumsfeld was a US envoy to Iraq, not a "good buddy" of Saddam's.  Simply having a photo taken with someone does not equal approval."

Well, Rummy's resume when he tried to run for President of the United States in 1988 where he boasted his strong foreign policy skills stating his relationship with Saddam and opening US-Iraq relations contradicts your statement. He also met many times with Saddam, and said nothing about the gassing of thousands of Kurds.

Mr. Ford continues,

"The Reagan administration's support for Saddam is vastly over stated.  It was a continuation of a policy begun under the Carter years, and discontinued in the mid 1980s when the State Dept. concluded that Saddam could no be trusted.  The Bush I admin never supported Saddam."

Incorrect Mr. Ford. First, the US could not sell weapons until 1982, Reagan's administration, because they were still listed as a terrorist nation. Weapons sold to Iraq by the Reagan Administration included the very aircraft that was used to disperse the gas onto the Kurds. The Reagan administration didn't even condemn Iraq for the actions of the gassing, just gassing in general, with no accusation directly against Iraq. It was your pal Rummy that worked so hard to remove those sanctions to sell weapons to Iraq.

The Bush administration had the same policy toward Iraq up until August 2, 1990, the day after Iraq invaded Kuwait, when Bush Sr. issued executive order 12722. In fact, the Ambassador to Baghdad, April Glaspie, told Iraq the US would not interfere if Iraq invaded Kuwait.

Mr Ford continues:
"The Deulfer report, flawed as it may be, did admit that Saddam has a skeleton capability and the intent to revive it once sanctions were lifted."

So does, Iran, North Korea, Jordan, Syria, Pakistan, Libya, China and Egypt. Are we going to invade them too? Further, what made you think that the US and/or the UN was going to lift sanctions?

Mr. Ford writes:

“The way you discern intent is with common sense.  Saddam has used WMD on civilians without any provocation.  No member of any western government has done that.”

One point to bring up. The reason that the Saddam used the chemicals weapons on the Kurds was because he was being attack by both Iran to the Southeast, and the Kurds from the North. He didn't have a large enough army to attack both, so instead of gassing the Iranians, he gassed the Kurds, and sent his troops to confront the Iranians, so he stayed in power. Both the gas and the military equipment were from the US and Russia.

Others facts you wish to ignore.

1) The Democratic Senate wrote a bill to condemn the gassing of the Kurds, in 1984. The White House Killed it.

2) There is no public documentation that Donald Rumsfeld condemned the use of Chemical Weapons on civilians or expressed any concern for Iraq having them until after Saddam invaded Kuwait in August of 1990.

3) Rumsfeld was in Baghdad right after the UN concluded that Saddam had in fact used gas against his Civilians and never discussed the issue, ever.

4) Kuwait admitted to stealing oil from the Iraqis from the Rumaila oil fields that are on the Iraq Kuwait boarder and refused to refund the stealing.

5) In November of 1984, full diplomatic relations were restored with Iraq and remained until the day after the Iraq invasion of Kuwait.

6) The Reagan Administration vetoed and defeated a bill passed by congress that would have prevented the selling of US technology to Iraq.

7) Bush and Ronald Reagan sold weapons to Osama Bin Laudin, Omar Muammar al-Qathafi, Manual Noriega, and the Contras. All indicted war criminals that have killed millions of innocent people.

The Reagan/Bush Administration illegally sold weapons to Iran

9) The Reagan Administration sold weapons to both Iran and Iraq during the Iran-Iraqi war resulting in Saddam remaining in power and 1 million deaths on both sides.

Over ¾ of the people we seem to be at war with, seem to be people that we armed, and were are allies when they committed their worst acts against humanity

[Giant Saguaro]

The Bush administration took the exact same position on Iraq in reference to WMD's that the Clinton administration did, except that one chose to do something about it while the other did not. Now they're not there, which leads me to believe we need to find them. And I hope any logical person would conclude likewise.

I would also agree that war in Iraq is part of the war on terror. When we went to war in WW II, we didn't just go to war with Japan, we went to war with Germany and Italy too.

[Nym90]

The Bush administration took the exact same position on Iraq in reference to WMD's that the Clinton administration did, except that one chose to do something about it while the other did not. Now they're not there, which leads me to believe we need to find them. And I hope any logical person would conclude likewise.

I would also agree that war in Iraq is part of the war on terror. When we went to war in WW II, we didn't just go to war with Japan, we went to war with Germany and Italy too.

True, in large part because Germany declared war on us first. If a country declares war on you, you are somewhat obligated to defend yourself by declaring war in return. I know you will probably say something to the extent that "Iraq declared war on us on 9/11" but I don't see anymore of a connection there than the 9/11 commission did.

[Giant Saguaro]

The Bush administration took the exact same position on Iraq in reference to WMD's that the Clinton administration did, except that one chose to do something about it while the other did not. Now they're not there, which leads me to believe we need to find them. And I hope any logical person would conclude likewise.

I would also agree that war in Iraq is part of the war on terror. When we went to war in WW II, we didn't just go to war with Japan, we went to war with Germany and Italy too.

True, in large part because Germany declared war on us first. If a country declares war on you, you are somewhat obligated to defend yourself by declaring war in return. I know you will probably say something to the extent that "Iraq declared war on us on 9/11" but I don't see anymore of a connection there than the 9/11 commission did.

Not really. That Saddam Hussein offered Iraq as a hiding hole for terrorists is. The 9/11 Report mentions it.

If it's true that Hussein had no WMD's, I'd then like a rebuttal on why Clinton misled the American people and the incoming Bush administration on Iraq's WMD's from someone. Pelosi and Daschle were right with Clinton on this issue too. I'm glad Bush decided to do something about it, actually, if it's true.

[MODU]

Personally, I still say it's too early to jump to any conclusions.  Remember the relative size of the quantities of chemicals were are talking about here.  Most of Saddam's supposive Sarin, when in liquid form, would fit into one tanker truck.  Now, if I were to hide that tanker in the open in California, how long will it take you to find it?  Now consider if I burried the tanker.  How much longer?

Let's put this into a real life scenario which might help you better understand this.  For 3 full months, US and coalition troops were marching and camping over a squadron of MiGs just outside of Baghdads airport.  No one knew what was under their feet for 3 months!  It took a sand storm and a pro-coalition Iraqi to point out that part of a plane was uncovered by the wind.  If it took "chance" to find a squadron of planes, what will it take to find a tanker truck?

Think about it.  (This is assuming that the Sarin wasn't shipped out of the country.)