NationStates Jolt Archive

Report Finds No Evidence Of Iraq WMD
Associated Press
October 7, 2004


WASHINGTON - Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction programs had deteriorated into only hopes and dreams by the time of the U.S. led invasion last year, a decline wrought by the first Gulf War and years of international sanctions, the chief U.S. weapons hunter found.

And 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 weapons hunter Charles Duelfer 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.

The report chronicles the decay of Iraq's chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs after its defeat in the 1991 Gulf War. By the late 1990s, only its long-range missile efforts continued in defiance of the United Nations; even then, Iraq's ballistic and cruise missile designs had not proceeded far past the drawing board. Saddam's other plans would have to wait until he was free of the sanctions and free of international attention.

President Bush's spokesman said the report justified the decision to go to war. Campaigning in Pennsylvania, Bush defended the decision to invade.

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

A spokesman for his opponent, Democrat John Kerry, said the report "underscores the incompetence of George Bush's Iraq policy."

"George Bush refuses to come clean about the ways he misled our country into war," Kerry spokesman David Wade added.

"In short, we invaded a country, thousands of people have died, and Iraq never posed a grave or growing danger," said Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va.

Duelfer's Iraq Survey Group drew on interviews with senior Iraqi officials, 40 million pages of documents and classified intelligence to conclude that Iraq destroyed its undeclared chemical and biological stockpiles under pressure of U.N. sanctions by 1992 and never resumed production.

The U.S.-led invasion pushed one of Iraq's leaders into seeking chemical weapons to defend the country. But it doesn't appear that Saddam's son Odai located any.

Iraq ultimately abandoned its biological weapons programs in 1995, largely out of fear they would be discovered and tougher enforcement imposed.

"Indeed, from the mid-1990s, despite evidence of continuing interest in nuclear and chemical weapons, there appears to be a complete absence of discussion or even interest in BW at the presidential level," according to a summary of Duelfer's 1,000-page report.

And Iraq also abandoned its nuclear program after the war, and there was no evidence it tried to reconstitute it.

Saddam's intentions to restart his weapons programs were never formalized.

"The former regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions," the summary says. "Neither was there an identifiable group of WMD policymakers or planners separate from Saddam. Instead his lieutenants understood WMD revival was his goal from their long association with Saddam and his infrequent, but firm, verbal comments and directions to them."

Duelfer's findings contradict most of the assertions by the Bush administration and the U.S. intelligence community about Iraq's threat in 2002 and early 2003. The White House had argued that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons stockpiles and production lines and had reconstituted its nuclear weapons program.

The United States led an invasion into Iraq in March 2003, taking the capital, Baghdad, within weeks. Since then, the United States and its allies have fought a dangerous insurgency of Iraqis as well as Islamic extremists who have come to Iraq to kill Americans.

Some 1,196 coalition personnel have been killed since the start of the war. Of those, 1,060 are American, 67 British and 69 are from other coalition countries. Unknown numbers of Iraqis have also died on both sides of the conflict.

Before the war, Saddam's chief success was in manipulating a U.N. oil for food program that began in 1996 to avoid the sanctions' effects for a few years, acquiring billions of dollars to import goods such as parts for missile systems. Duelfer also in the report accused the former head of the U.N. oil-for-food program of accepting bribes in the form of vouchers for Iraqi oil sales from Saddam's government.

"Once the oil for food program began, it provided all kind of levers for him (Saddam) to manipulate his way out of sanctions," Duelfer told Congress on Wednesday.

He said he believed sanctions against Saddam - even though they appeared to work in part - were unsustainable long term.

Duelfer's Iraq Survey Group had more than 1,000 intelligence, military and support officials working for it at any one time. They were frequently hampered by the dangerous conditions of postwar Iraq.

Even if Saddam did want WoMD (which no sane person would claim he didn't), he had about as much chance of getting them as I do. And thats even if they had dropped the sanctions.

Even if Saddam did want WoMD (which no sane person would claim he didn't), he had about as much chance of getting them as I do. And thats even if they had dropped the sanctions.

I'm not too sure about that. Remember, money talks. He was sidestepping other aspects of the sanctions with the complicity of other nations and of the UN food for oil program, mostly because of greed.

On a side note, Eutrusca, and I only know this because of my time spent writing my own blog and on other sites, whenever you copy and paste an entire article, even if you credit it, you're still technically violating copyright law. You're allowed to excerpt it, but you can't copy it wholesale.

We're not very good about that around here, but that's the reason that most places on the internet that cite outside sources provide snippets and links rather than copying wholesale.

It's not that difficult actually to develop a nerve gas. The raw material for ricin is readily available, as in growing by the side of the road in many areas. I used to live in Hawaii and the stuff was literally all over the place. So what it means to me is that the claim Saddam would seek these things out and could have distributed them to terrorist groups who could strike in the US is a twisted truth.
So could any average jackass who wanted to at any time. The war doesn't change the fact that a terrorist strike could happen again in the US. Neither did the event of 9/11 change the realm of possibilities of terrorism. Terrorism is in fact a by product of the post-modern world we live in, it cannot be stopped in and of itself. A person or group of people feeling slighted and powerless against any government, doesn't have the effective recourse of taking up arms in the way that had been traditionally established. Terrorism is going to happen.

rofl "sanctions were unsustainable long term"

how long have we been managing to sanction the life blood out of cuba? 30, 40 years?

rofl "sanctions were unsustainable long term"

how long have we been managing to sanction the life blood out of cuba? 30, 40 years?

Yeah, and they have collapsed haven't they? Cuban sanctions are only US sanctions. ANY other country in the world can and does trade with Cuba. I have bought Cuban cigars in every country in the middle east and in mexico and Canada. ONLY in the US is it illegal to have them.

I'd like to point out that ricin isn't a gas, at best it could be ground into a fine powder.

Yeah, and they have collapsed haven't they? Cuban sanctions are only US sanctions. ANY other country in the world can and does trade with Cuba. I have bought Cuban cigars in every country in the middle east and in mexico and Canada. ONLY in the US is it illegal to have them.
Are you familiar with the economic situation in Cuba? It very much did collapse.
People are living in squalor and nothing else there.

People are living in squalor and nothing else there.
The best health care system of the south and middle america, least amount of poverty in south and middle america, etc..

Or so I've heard.

This all sidesteps the true importance of this report. Saddam Hussein was not an IMMEDIATE threat. All the United States needed to do was reinforce sanctions, and we could have kept Saddam Hussein strangled with a political (and relatively low-cost) leash.

Instead, Mr. Bush has involved us in a war that has cost $120 billion dollars and over 1,050 American lives. That money and those soldiers could have been applied to other theatres in the War on Terror. Wasted. Now we stand on the brink in Afghanistan....the Taliban is making a comeback. Just yesterday the Vice President of Afghanistan was almost killed with an explosive device. I blame George W. Bush for the situation, because the war in Iraq diverted our strength and attention from Afghanistan at a crucial moment during the reconstruction there.

This does not even start to count the political damage. American credibility has been ruined. Back during the Cuban Missile Crisis, the word of the American President was enough to spur the world to action. Now the rest of the world has turned its' back on us. George Bush does not have the skill, political capital, goodwill, or credibility to lead the War on Terror any more. If America wants to try and repair this breach, I suggest that new leadership is required.

Kerry-Edwards 2004
Shalrirorchia

The best health care system of the south and middle america, least amount of poverty in south and middle america, etc..

Or so I've heard.

Heard this too.

On a side note, Eutrusca, and I only know this because of my time spent writing my own blog and on other sites, whenever you copy and paste an entire article, even if you credit it, you're still technically violating copyright law. You're allowed to excerpt it, but you can't copy it wholesale.

We're not very good about that around here, but that's the reason that most places on the internet that cite outside sources provide snippets and links rather than copying wholesale.

Thanks for the information on that. I have been copying and pasting articles whole lately as a result of being criticised for not doing so. Bit of a conundrum, yes? :)

I have bought Cuban cigars in every country in the middle east and in mexico and Canada. ONLY in the US is it illegal to have them.

Now I agree with that being dumb! I traveled to Canada a few years ago and was able to sample Cuban cigars for the very first time. Totally different taste, with just the hint of a bite. I loved 'em! Sure wish we could buy them here. Sigh. :(

Any idea why the sanctions on Cuba? I don't have the slightest clue.
The cold war is over, no?
What's the point?

Now I agree with that being dumb! I traveled to Canada a few years ago and was able to sample Cuban cigars for the very first time. Totally different taste, with just the hint of a bite. I loved 'em! Sure wish we could buy them here. Sigh. :(
oh yeah, those cuban cigars sure are keeping cuba alive and proespering

Any idea why the sanctions on Cuba? I don't have the slightest clue. The cold war is over, no? What's the point?

I really don't know either. Sorry.

oh yeah, those cuban cigars sure are keeping cuba alive and proespering

You know ... you really should see someone about your obsessive/compulsive tendencies. They seem to be keeping you totally separated from reality.

Another question. Why would Saddam even think about attacking the US with WMD? What would be the point?
I'll grant you he used it in Iraq, but there was a point, it was because those people were rebelling and threatening his power.
Why would Saddam pick a the most powerful military out there and attack it? Was he that fool?

Gee, now there are reports about no WMD in Iraq? Didn't anyone in the CIA even bother to do their research? Obviously not! They are a bunch of bumbling nincompoops who haven't an iota of human intelligence! If they did, they would have been able to put 2 and 2 together and figure out, "HEY! Iraq did want to build weapons, but didn't have the capabilities nor did they have any weapons. That's right, because we destroyed them before, duh!".

Any idea why the sanctions on Cuba? I don't have the slightest clue.
The cold war is over, no?
What's the point?


The point is that the only people in the USA who are organised enough to make a voting bloc on the issue are the Cuban Americans in Florida. Lift sanctions on Cuba, and you lose their votes -- even though it is the right thing to do for the USA. :rolleyes:

I didn't need reporters to tell me that Iraq didn't have WMD; I already knew that, because the Bush Administration never provided evidence to prove WMD were there in the first place.

I didn't need reporters to tell me that Iraq didn't have WMD; I already knew that, because the Bush Administration never provided evidence to prove WMD were there in the first place.

Well he did but it was from OTHER COUNTRIES! So why is Bush getting blasted when OTHER NATIONS, UK France Italy Russia ETC, thought he did too?

So why is Bush getting blasted when OTHER NATIONS, UK France Italy Russia ETC, thought he did too?

Because, when it came down to it, Bush ignored every other country that DIDN'T want us to go into Iraq alone... Bush ignored the United Nations, a body the US is a proud member of, to serve an agenda for whatever purpose.

The Bush administration is responsible for betraying the world with false logic it shared.

Because, when it came down to it, Bush ignored every other country that DIDN'T want us to go into Iraq alone... Bush ignored the United Nations, a body the US is a proud member of, to serve an agenda for whatever purpose.

The Bush administration is responsible for betraying the world with false logic it shared.

And we are alone how? How many nations are in Iraq? How many nations actually support our efforts in Iraq? How was this unilateral?

Come on Tuesday! Look at who opposed us. France, Russia, and Germany. All 3 nations were receiving Illegal Kickbacks from the Oil for Food Program. All 3 have violated the sanctions on Iraq. As for the UN, I don't know if we are a proud member. I think someone should conduct a poll and see whether the UN is favorable in the US. I'm willing to bet it is not.

BTW: You did a great job on the paper :)

And we are alone how? How many nations are in Iraq? How many nations actually support our efforts in Iraq? How was this unilateral?

Come on Tuesday! Look at who opposed us. France, Russia, and Germany. All 3 nations were receiving Illegal Kickbacks from the Oil for Food Program. All 3 have violated the sanctions on Iraq. As for the UN, I don't know if we are a proud member. I think someone should conduct a poll and see whether the UN is favorable in the US. I'm willing to bet it is not.

BTW: You did a great job on the paper :)

You're right, we arn't alone. We have England, and even better then that...we've got POLAND!

That's a fierce two-jabs if I ever saw one. England...Poland!

You're right, we arn't alone. We have England, and even better then that...we've got POLAND!

You mean the UK. That is not just England.
And the UK is the biggest military power in Europe and one of the biggest of the world.

You're right, we arn't alone. We have England, and even better then that...we've got POLAND!

That's a fierce two-jabs if I ever saw one. England...Poland!

I prefer having the Polish watching my back than the Frogs or the Krauts or the ruskies anyday.

we've got POLAND!

Not for long.. they are pulling out a large amount of their troops by Christmas and the rest after the election.

Not for long.. they are pulling out a large amount of their troops by Christmas and the rest after the election.

Care to provide proof of that? I've been following it and they have not set a date to pull out despite what their SecDef said.

I prefer having the Polish watching my back than the Frogs or the Krauts or the ruskies anyday.

Damn, being one of those evil goose-stepping nazi-Krauts (you stupid Yank), I still ask you:

Will you still suck my dick? Or do I need to bring out the gimp for you? Or would you like it up the ass? You DO like it up the ass, right? I see your anus already bleeds in anticipation. Oh well, here we go, hang tight, this might take me a minute...

You DO realize that you really added a lot to your brilliant argument by using racial slurs or insults, right? Well, just for you to know:

About 50% + of the British hates you for going into Iraq.
About 65% + of the Polish hates you for pulling them into that quagmire as well.

You amybe got the gov´s support, but popular support was never existant. Truly allies of yours.

Idiot.

Damn, being one of those evil goose-stepping nazi-Krauts (you stupid Yank)

I hate the yankees! :p

I still ask you:

Will you still suck my dick? Or do I need to bring out the gimp for you? Or would you like it up the ass? You DO like it up the ass, right? I see your anus already bleeds in anticipation. Oh well, here we go, hang tight, this might take me a minute...

I now know where your head is. Its in the gutter. I think you need to come up with new material. And if this was an attempt to get me mad, it did not work. I'm used to childish insults from the liberals and anti-americans on here.

You DO realize that you really added a lot to your brilliant argument by using racial slurs or insults, right?

Funny. I didn't think it was a racial slur. I do know what racial slurs are btw. If you don't like what I said then tough. I don't really care.

Well, just for you to know:

About 50% + of the British hates you for going into Iraq.
About 65% + of the Polish hates you for pulling them into that quagmire as well.

And does it look like I care? No it does not. We should've done this 13 years ago but did not. I am glad that it finally happened and I did not care if the intelligence was flawed or not.

You amybe got the gov´s support, but popular support was never existant. Truly allies of yours.

Government support is all that is required. If the government is willing to send troops to help then that is their business and we welcome it.

Idiot.

Name calling does not suit you at all.

Damn, being one of those evil goose-stepping nazi-Krauts (you stupid Yank), I still ask you:

Will you still suck my dick? Or do I need to bring out the gimp for you? Or would you like it up the ass? You DO like it up the ass, right? I see your anus already bleeds in anticipation. Oh well, here we go, hang tight, this might take me a minute...

You DO realize that you really added a lot to your brilliant argument by using racial slurs or insults, right? Well, just for you to know:

About 50% + of the British hates you for going into Iraq.
About 65% + of the Polish hates you for pulling them into that quagmire as well.

You amybe got the gov´s support, but popular support was never existant. Truly allies of yours.

Idiot.
1) Unnecessary flaming.
2) By "you," you mean George W. Bush...unless those countries you talk about are uber-nationalists.

I hate the yankees! :p You hate your own nation?

You hate your own nation?
Either that or a widely disliked baseball team....

You hate your own nation?
Yankees doesn't describe a person from any nation. Yankees describe Americans who live in the North East part of the United States.

You hate your own nation?

No I don't hate my own nation. I love my nation and I would rather live in the US than in any other nation on this god forsaken planet.

Either that or a widely disliked baseball team....
Yep, if there's one thing that most Americans can agree on, its that we hate the Yankees :p

Yep, if there's one thing that most Americans can agree on, its that we hate the Yankees :p

HAHA!!!! Here here. Lets Go Twins! Beat the Damn Yankees. :p

Yankees doesn't describe a person from any nation. Yankees describe Americans who live in the North East part of the United States.
.... Yankees, yanquis, and yanks are all terms used to describe a person from the United States. Ergo, by saying you dont like yankees you are referring to yourself and everyone from your nation (assuming you are from the US).

Unless you are referring to the baseball team, the Yankees.

.... Yankees, yanquis, and yanks are all terms used to describe a person from the United States. Ergo, by saying you dont like yankees you are referring to yourself and everyone from your nation (assuming you are from the US).

Unless you are referring to the baseball team, the Yankees.

Ahhh finally he gets it. Yes it is the baseball team the NY Yankees. Death to them. Go Twins.

Even if Saddam did want WoMD (which no sane person would claim he didn't), he had about as much chance of getting them as I do. And thats even if they had dropped the sanctions.

Oh, come on. If you were a national leader or anybody else for that matter it would make total sense to provide a ruthless dictator with the means to produce WMD, right? ;)