West Coast Connection Forum
Lifestyle => Train of Thought => Topic started by: white Boy on October 06, 2004, 05:08:26 PM
-
U.S. Report Finds No Evidence of Iraq WMD
1 hour, 6 minutes ago
By KEN GUGGENHEIM, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - Contradicting the main argument for a war that has cost more than 1,000 American lives, the top U.S. arms inspector said Wednesday he found no evidence that Iraq (news - web sites) produced weapons of mass destruction after 1991. He also concluded that Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s ability to develop such weapons had dimmed — not grown — during a dozen years of sanctions before last year's U.S.-led invasion.
Contrary to prewar statements by President Bush (news - web sites), Saddam did not have chemical and biological stockpiles when the war began and his nuclear capabilities were deteriorating, not advancing, said Charles Duelfer, head of the Iraq Survey Group.
The findings come less than four weeks before an election in which Bush's handling of Iraq is the central issue. They could boost Democratic candidate John Kerry (news - web sites)'s contention that Bush rushed to war based on faulty intelligence and that United Nations (news - web sites) sanctions and weapons inspectors should have been given more time.
But Duelfer also supports Bush's argument that Saddam remained a threat. Interviews with the toppled leader and other former Iraqi officials made clear that Saddam still wanted to pursue weapons of mass destruction and hoped to revive his weapons program if U.N. sanctions were lifted.
"What is clear is that Saddam retained his notions of use of force and had experiences that demonstrated the utility of WMD," Duelfer told Congress.
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," Bush said in a speech in Wilkes Barre, Pa. "In the world after Sept. 11, that was a risk we could not afford to take."
But Carl Levin of Michigan, the top Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, 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-Qaida.
"We did not go to war because Saddam had future intentions to obtain weapons of mass destruction," said Levin.
The report also concludes that the Iraqi government was able to manipulate a U.N. oil-for-food program 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.
On specific points, Duelfer said:
_ He concluded that aluminum tubes suspected of being used for enriching uranium for use in a nuclear bomb were likely destined for conventional rockets and that there is no evidence Iraq sought uranium abroad after 1991. Both findings contradict claims made by Bush and other top administration officials before the war.
_ It is unclear what happened to banned weapons produced before 1991 that Saddam had declared in the 1990s to the United Nations but were never accounted for. For example, Saddam declared having 550 155-millimeter artillery shells with mustard agents, but it's not known what became of most of them. He said 53 "residual rounds" have been found and the others are not considered a significant threat.
_ The likelihood of finding the stockpiles that the president spoke about before the war was "less than 5 percent."
_ The inspectors found no evidence that Saddam was passing weapons of mass destruction material to terrorist groups but added that wasn't a strong focus of his report.
Traveling in Africa, British Prime Minister Tony Blair (news - web sites), Bush's main foreign ally in the war, said the report shows Saddam was "doing his best" to evade the U.N. sanctions.
But 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."
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.
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, 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.
He said after Sept. 11, Iraq was more isolated diplomatically, U.S. forces were gathering on the border, Iraq's revenues were dropping and it was forced to let inspectors in. But Duelfer said it was unlikely that level of pressure could have been sustained because of the costs both for the United States and for Iraqis.
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 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 his use of chemical weapons against Iran had 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 Persian Gulf War (news - web sites).
Before the war, the Bush administration cast Saddam as an immediate threat. 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."
___
i only read the begining.. looks intresting tho :D
-
i only read the begining.. looks intresting tho :D
lol
I read the part about the 1,000 American lives, but I scrolled down and said fuck it.
and LOL @ your avitar
-
and LOL @ your avitar
:D.. sorry for the plagarism
-
and LOL @ your avitar
:D.. sorry for the plagarism
<----------
-
There is also another article out on Saddam's motive to get WMD. Here is the link.
http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20041006183809990006
Much of his motivation in the quest for weapons of mass destruction came from neighboring Iran and the two countries' ''long-standing rivalry over the centuries,'' including the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s.
Interesting.
-
lmao @ sik's avi...your dog is even more gangsta now!!
anyway, i saw this shit on the news yesterday, but to be honest i thought this was almost common knowledge already...
-
OK, we all knew that Iraq didn't have any WMDs besides Saddam himself, but Iraq clearly had the intentions of making and pursuing a weapons plan and they have used WMDs several times in the past so basically what Bush and Republicans are saying is that we would rather be safe then sorry with WMD situation in Iraq.
-
Its better to be safe then sorry?
Well in that case America should just invade every single country, because they all have the possibility of becoming evil.
-
OK, we all knew that Iraq didn't have any WMDs besides Saddam himself, but Iraq clearly had the intentions of making and pursuing a weapons plan and they have used WMDs several times in the past so basically what Bush and Republicans are saying is that we would rather be safe then sorry with WMD situation in Iraq.
I can't believe you said that as if it were a good thing we invaded a sovereign state under false pretenses. WE WERE LIED TO and you act like it's no big deal.
-
Since Bush is a proven liar, the next step dear Yankees is to question what happened to the Democratic party post 9/11, why did they bitch up? Co signing Patriot Act, and the Iraq war with the same bloodthirst as Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld?
-
Since Bush is a proven liar, the next step dear Yankees is to question what happened to the Democratic party post 9/11, why did they bitch up? Co signing Patriot Act, and the Iraq war with the same bloodthirst as Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld?
Exactly, the Democrats are guilty as well.
-
OK, we all knew that Iraq didn't have any WMDs besides Saddam himself, but Iraq clearly had the intentions of making and pursuing a weapons plan and they have used WMDs several times in the past so basically what Bush and Republicans are saying is that we would rather be safe then sorry with WMD situation in Iraq.
I can't believe you said that as if it were a good thing we invaded a sovereign state under false pretenses. WE WERE LIED TO and you act like it's no big deal.
Seriously stop whining...(this isn't directed only at you). It isn't about who is right or wrong rarely does that matter. What matters is who has power. There is nothing your whining will do to stop what has happened so why bitch about it? Bush will win again and you will have another 4 years of complaining to do. Don't let things you have no control of bother you.
-
OK, we all knew that Iraq didn't have any WMDs besides Saddam himself, but Iraq clearly had the intentions of making and pursuing a weapons plan and they have used WMDs several times in the past so basically what Bush and Republicans are saying is that we would rather be safe then sorry with WMD situation in Iraq.
I can't believe you said that as if it were a good thing we invaded a sovereign state under false pretenses. WE WERE LIED TO and you act like it's no big deal.
Seriously stop whining...(this isn't directed only at you). It isn't about who is right or wrong rarely does that matter. What matters is who has power. There is nothing your whining will do to stop what has happened so why bitch about it? Bush will win again and you will have another 4 years of complaining to do. Don't let things you have no control of bother you.
I feel so bad for people like you, evolution skipped your brain.. mentally, you're still an ape. You think like an animal. Why dont you go and beat little children to death and tell in court that it only does matter who's in power and that you were just more powerful than the kids. Sound stupid? Well. That's just how stupid your thinking is. Have a nice day.
-
I never said it was morally correct I just know it is still the way of the world. Calling me stupid isn't going to make US troops leave Iraq.
-
I never said it was morally correct I just know it is still the way of the world. Calling me stupid isn't going to make US troops leave Iraq.
i told people the same thing along time ago but no one listens... every one on this board thinks that they can change the world but in fact, we're all insignificant, might as well live your lives the best you can, rather than worry about something you have no control over
-
Don't let things you have no control of bother you.
Sorry, I can't do that.
-
ok... ::)
-
Mach do yyou realize the odds of Iraq makin WMD's has decreased since 1991 not increased....how about that....so fudge their intentions.
-
I can't believe you said that as if it were a good thing we invaded a sovereign state under false pretenses. WE WERE LIED TO and you act like it's no big deal.
Since Bush is a proven liar, the next step dear Yankees is to question what happened to the Democratic party post 9/11, why did they bitch up? Co signing Patriot Act, and the Iraq war with the same bloodthirst as Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld?
We weren't lied too retards. Before Bush went to war he didn't know ahead of time that Iraq had no weapons.
CIA, Russian Intelligence, Tony Blair's Intelligence, and Egyptinan Intelligence all said that Iraq had WMDs and they posed a threat before the war. Also, if you read the 9/11 commision it even says Bush did not lie.
-
wow the commission that Bush hired said he didnt lie....LOLOLOL and your taking that as a solid exuse?....do you realise the Egyptians are puppets for america?...of course they would side with america's opinion. who cares. there is point that our whining wont get us no where. but we can speak as we please so some people as ignorant as Mach would realize that bush lied and thats that. and stop defending him. i mean if u got to sleep with him everynight i understand, but he isn't doin crap for you.
-
We weren't lied too retards. Before Bush went to war he didn't know ahead of time that Iraq had no weapons.
CIA, Russian Intelligence, Tony Blair's Intelligence, and Egyptinan Intelligence all said that Iraq had WMDs and they posed a threat before the war. Also, if you read the 9/11 commision it even says Bush did not lie.
Okay, so they fucked up big time. Equally bad.
-
I can't believe you said that as if it were a good thing we invaded a sovereign state under false pretenses. WE WERE LIED TO and you act like it's no big deal.
Since Bush is a proven liar, the next step dear Yankees is to question what happened to the Democratic party post 9/11, why did they bitch up? Co signing Patriot Act, and the Iraq war with the same bloodthirst as Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld?
We weren't lied too retards. Before Bush went to war he didn't know ahead of time that Iraq had no weapons.
CIA, Russian Intelligence, Tony Blair's Intelligence, and Egyptinan Intelligence all said that Iraq had WMDs and they posed a threat before the war. Also, if you read the 9/11 commision it even says Bush did not lie.
Shut up man. You were lied to. Tech said you were being lied to 2 years ago, and he is once again vindicated. But who here will admit so?
How does a 60 billion dollar intelligence apparatus fail to recognize someones nuclear program?
-
Okay, so they fucked up big time. Equally bad.
Your rite. They did fuck up and it was a mistake.
But Bush didn't "lie".Shut up man. You were lied to. Tech said you were being lied to 2 years ago, and he is once again vindicated. But who here will admit so?
How does a 60 billion dollar intelligence apparatus fail to recognize someones nuclear program?
We weren't lied to.
Enough with your Far Left Conspiracy Theory's that cant prove shit. What I'm telling you is fact and provable.. If you don't want to believe so fine, because Conspiracy Theory's are not fact/proven.
-
But Bush didn't "lie".
Whatever makes you sleep better at night man. I think it's quite evident that the whole false intellegence claim was an excuse, but I guess that's where our opinions differ.
-
how is 60 million wasted quotes in yahoo world news, a conspirency theory? r u that damn ignorant, if i told u that bush was the son of a former president u would say that was conspirency never proven opinion to. shame.
-
Okay, so they fucked up big time. Equally bad.
Your rite. They did fuck up and it was a mistake.
But Bush didn't "lie".Shut up man. You were lied to. Tech said you were being lied to 2 years ago, and he is once again vindicated. But who here will admit so?
How does a 60 billion dollar intelligence apparatus fail to recognize someones nuclear program?
We weren't lied to.
Enough with your Far Left Conspiracy Theory's that cant prove shit. What I'm telling you is fact and provable.. If you don't want to believe so fine, because Conspiracy Theory's are not fact/proven.
I told you to shut up. I dont recall asking for your opinion. Youre on my administrations no post list. Suspected posters have known links to Retard heavy Threads, comments, suggestions etc etc.
-
how is 60 million wasted quotes in yahoo world news, a conspirency theory? r u that damn ignorant, if i told u that bush was the son of a former president u would say that was conspirency never proven opinion to. shame.
~
I never said that was a conspircacy theory if you read what i wrote. I said that all of these acustitoins that Bush llied about Iraq having WMDs and shit, are all Conspiracys.