...WMD's - a 'never happened' situation...(and some back & forth comments)

U.S. Report Finds Iraqis Eliminated Illicit Arms in 90's
By Douglas Jehl
The New York Times

Thursday 07 October 2004

Washington - Iraq had destroyed its illicit weapons stockpiles within months after the Persian Gulf war of 1991, and its ability to produce such weapons had significantly eroded by the time of the American invasion in 2003, the top American inspector for Iraq said in a report made public Wednesday.

The report by the inspector, Charles A. Duelfer, intended to offer a near-final judgment about Iraq and its weapons, said Iraq, while under pressure from the United Nations, had "essentially destroyed" its illicit weapons ability by the end of 1991, with its last secret factory, a biological weapons plant, eliminated in 1996.

Mr. Duelfer said that even during those years, Saddam Hussein had aimed at "preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction when sanctions were lifted." But he said he had found no evidence of any concerted effort by Iraq to restart the programs.

The findings uphold Iraq's prewar insistence that it did not possess chemical or biological weapons. They also show the enormous distance between the Bush administration's own prewar assertions, based on reports by American intelligence agencies, and what a 15-month inquiry by American investigators found since the war.

Mr. Duelfer said he had concluded that between 1991 and 2003, Mr. Hussein had in effect sacrificed Iraq's illicit weapons to the larger goal of winning an end to United Nations sanctions. But he also argued that Mr. Hussein had used the period to try to exploit avenues opened by the sanctions, especially the oil-for-food program, to lay the groundwork for a plan to resume weapons production if sanctions were lifted.

In addition, the report concluded that Mr. Hussein had deliberately sought to maintain ambiguity about whether it had illicit weapons, mainly as a deterrent to Iran, its rival.

The American inspector presented his conclusions to Congress on Wednesday, including highly charged public testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee.

With Iraq figuring prominently in the last dash toward the presidential election, Democrats argued that the report had undermined the administration's case for war, while the White House and its Republican allies called attention to elements in the report that highlighted potential dangers posed by Mr. Hussein's government.

"There is no doubt that Saddam was a threat to our nation, and there is no doubt that he had W.M.D. capability, and the Duelfer report is very clear on these points," said James Wilkinson, a White House deputy national security adviser, using the abbreviation for weapons of mass destruction.

The three-volume report, totaling 918 pages, represented the most authoritative attempt so far to unravel the mystery posed by Iraq between 1991 and 2003, beginning with the point after the Persian Gulf war when Iraq still possessed chemical and biological weapons and an active nuclear-weapons program. The conclusions suggest that the main war aim cited by the White House in March 2003 - to disarm Iraq, which American intelligence agencies said possessed chemical and biological weapons and was reconstituting its nuclear program - was based on an outdated view of Iraq's weapons stockpiles.

At the time of the American invasion, Mr. Duelfer said in the report, Iraq did not possess chemical and biological weapons, was not seeking to reconstitute its nuclear program, and was not making any active effort to gain those abilities. Even if Iraq had sought to restart its weapons programs in 2003, the report said, it could not have produced militarily significant quantities of chemical weapons for at least a year, and it would have required years to produce a nuclear weapon.

"Saddam Hussein ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the gulf war," Mr. Duelfer said in the report. It said American inspectors in Iraq had "found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program."

After a closed briefing by Mr. Duelfer to the Senate Intelligence Committee, Senator John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, the top Democrat on the committee, described the report as "a devastating account."

"The administration would like the American public to believe that Saddam's intention to build a weapons program, regardless of actual weapons or the capability to produce weapons, justified invading Iraq," Mr. Rockefeller said in a statement. "In fact, we invaded a country, thousands of people have died, and Iraq never posed a grave or growing danger."

In accounting for what happened beginning in 1991, Mr. Duelfer said Mr. Hussein made a fundamental decision after the Persian Gulf war to get rid of Iraq's illicit weapons and accept the destruction of its weapons-producing facilities as part of an effort to win an end to sanctions imposed by the United Nations to achieve those ends.

Although Mr. Duelfer concluded that Mr. Hussein had intended to restart his programs, the report acknowledged that that conclusion was based more on inference than solid evidence. "The regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of W.M.D. after sanctions," it said.

The report notes that its conclusions were drawn in part from interrogation of Mr. Hussein in his prison cell outside Baghdad. Mr. Duelfer, a special adviser to the director of central intelligence, said he had concluded that Mr. Hussein had deliberately sought to maintain ambiguity about whether Iraq possessed illicit weapons, primarily as a deterrent to Iran, Iraq's adversary in an eight-year war in the 1980's.

It was not until a series of meetings in late 2002, just months before the American invasion, that Mr. Hussein finally acknowledged to senior officers and officials of his government that Iraq did not possess illicit weapons, Mr. Duelfer said.

The report said American investigators had found clandestine laboratories in the Baghdad area used by the Iraqi Intelligence Service between 1991 and 2003 to conduct research and to test various chemicals and poisons, including ricin. As previously reported, it said those efforts appeared to be intended primarily for use in assassinations, not to inflict mass casualties.

Mr. Duelfer said in his report that Mr. Hussein never acknowledged in the course of the interrogations what had become of Iraq's illicit weapons. He said that American investigators had appealed to the former Iraqi leader to be candid in order to shape his legacy, but that Mr. Hussein had not been forthcoming.

The report said interviews with other former top Iraqi leaders had made clear that Mr. Hussein had left many of his top deputies uncertain until the eve of war about whether Iraq possessed illicit weapons. It said he seemed to be most concerned about a possible new attack by Iran, whose incursions into Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war of 1980-88 were fended off by Baghdad partly with the use of chemical munitions.

Mr. Duelfer said Iraq had tried to maintain the knowledge base necessary to restart an illicit weapons program. He said Iraq had essentially put its biological program "on the shelf," after its last production facility, Al Hakam, was destroyed by United Nations inspectors in 1996, and could have begun to produce biological questions in as little as a month if it had restarted its weapons program in 2003.

But the report said there were "no indications" that Iraq was pursuing such a course, and it reported "a complete absence of discussion or even interest in biological weapons" at the level of Mr. Hussein and his aides after the mid-1990's.

The report will almost certainly be the last complete assessment by the team led by Mr. Duelfer, which is known as the Iraq Survey Group. But he said he and the 1,200-member team would continue their work in Iraq for the time being. He said the team had not completely ruled out the possibility that some Iraqi weapons might have been smuggled out of Iraq to a neighboring country, like Syria.

The report did revise several earlier judgments, including a report by the Central Intelligence Agency in May 2003 that said mysterious trailers found in Iraq after the American invasion in 2003 were intended for use in a biological warfare program. Mr. Duelfer said that the trailers could not have been used for that purpose, and that their manufacturers "almost certainly designed and built the equipment exclusively for the generation of hydrogen," upholding claims by Iraqi officials that linked the trailers to weather balloons used for artillery practice.


posted by Steve aka Quill at 10/11/2004 10:29:26 AM

9 Comments:
The Voice said...
We're not in Iraq because of weapons. Period. I do support our troops there because they have gone for the right reasons. I don't support our president there because he is doing it all for the wrong reasons. In Vietnam, it was about drugs. In Iraq, it's about oil. In both cases, it's about money. Period. But if you think Kerry's above that sort of motive, you're as much a fool as those who support Bush. What concerns me in the presidential race has little to do with the war itself. I don't like the "Homeland Security" initiatives and their fallout...it's McCarthyism all over again. We need to get this moron out of office and fast. Kerry's a good step, but what this country really needs is an independent that can actually win.

10/11/2004 09:28:54 PM
Dante Claracuzio said...
We're not in Iraq because of weapons. Period. -agree


I do support our troops there because they have gone for the right reasons. -agree

I don't support our president there because he is doing it all for the wrong reasons. -disagree... we are liberateing

In Vietnam, it was about drugs. - no it was about comunism, and the containment polocy.

In Iraq, it's about oil. -Well where the hell is the oil? And why is gas so high????

In both cases, it's about money. Period. But if you think Kerry's above that sort of motive, you're as much a fool as those who support Bush. -agree

What concerns me in the presidential race has little to do with the war itself. I don't like the "Homeland Security" initiatives and their fallout...it's McCarthyism all over again. - if thats how you see it

We need to get this moron out of office and fast. -bad idea

Kerry's a good step, -disagree

but what this country really needs is an independent that can actually win. -agree

This was probably one of the smartist things I have read yet in this Blog.

10/12/2004 12:30:34 AM
Steve aka Quill said...
1) I don't think Kerry is above the motive of money. I support him under no false assumptions that he's some kind of perfect person.

2) I believe in supporting the troops. After all, Bush was the one that put them there, and now we're committed, like it or not. My motto for THAT is this: "Support our troops; NOT our President."

3) Bush got us into this war for oil reasons, for "picking up where my dad left off" reasons; but it wasn't for 'liberation' reasons. The reasons Bush gave for going to war in Iraq were: a) because Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and b) because Iraq was connected to the terrorists responsible for 9-11 and they were harboring terrorists. Neither of these reasons held any validity or water. Yes, true, as it so happens there IS good that is coming from this war; but that doesn't change the fact that Bush did and said everything to get us into this war just as fast as he could. Bush claimed that he would get us allies, that it would be the greatest coalition in the history of the world; yeah, THAT sure happened, didn't it? No, it did not.

4) Kerry seems flip-floppy in the eyes of Bush, who has a very simplistic and unrealistic view of the way things are. To Bush, things are largely black and white in a world full of a lot of gray. Kerry adapts his position in light of new developments and information; Bush has shown that he does not do this. Bush's standpoint on this war is: "Ok, ok...he didn't have the weapons, there was no connection to the 9-11 terrorists who attacked us...BUT it was still something that needed to be done. Even with all this new information, I would do things the exact same way, MY way, the BUSH way, and I stand firm on that." I don't know about you, but I'd rather have a president in office who can be a MAN and admit when he's made a mistake.

5) I'm glad that this post is the most intelligent thing that you've seen on this forum. To his credit, Voice is an extremely intelligent person, there's a lot of worth in what he says. However, I find it funny that you speak of intelligence in posts. So far, my posts about Bush have shown the issues and what he's done, with sprinklings of my personal animosity towards our president. You're posts, on the other hand Jay, have basically said, "Kerry is a wishy-washy flip-flopper." and "Kerry has a bad military service record; he stole purple hearts." - something that reminds me of the Bush campaign's quest to place all emphasis on these two 'key' points. Thus far, you've yet to demonstrate to any of us exactly WHY Kerry would be a far worse president than Bush; for all your talk against 'Bush-bashing', you've done primarily nothing but bash Senator Kerry. You've said nothing on why Kerry would fail in his promises, nor have you elaborated against most of the examples of Bush's flaws in office. I've done a substantial job posting information that shows why Bush shouldn't be in office; true, I've bashed Bush, but I've also had more to say other than, "Bush sucks." I've even stated several times, for the sake of argument, that Kerry might not be the "best" choice, but I HAVE said that if we stick with Bush, it's like committing 'nation suicide'. Kerry is a man of conviction, which he has shown; he's a man who can admit when he's wrong and is adaptable; he has the kind of views on legislation that takes into account the positions of the nation of diverse people he would lead, instead of applying and systematicly forcing his PERSONAL beliefs and values to what he passes as legislation (i.e. the abortion issue especially).

On top of that, he's a president we can depend on to speak and act with intelligence. You quoted President Bush saying the following: President George W. Bush: "In Response To Question 18 President Bush Criticized Kerry's Vote Against The $87 Billion. “He complains about the fact our troops don't have adequate equipment, yet he voted against the $87 billion supplemental I sent to the Congress and then issued one of the most amazing quotes in political history: "I actually did vote for $87 billion before I voted against it.” (President George W. Bush, Second Presidential Debate, St. Louis, MO, 10/8/04)"

...that's a direct quote from YOUR post, and from Bush himself (I watched the debate, too).

Do you realize just how many "amazing quotes" Bush has made over the course of his ENTIRE presidency?! It's because of his 'skill' (and I SO use that term sarcastically) in public speaking that is solely responsible for the wide-spread opinion that he's missing a few cans from his 24-pack. He's rather an embarrassment to our country in that aspect.

Just because what I have to say is seen as 'liberal dreck' to YOU, doesn't discount the amount of insight and intelligence of my posts and comments. I happen to know of a slew of people (who I shant name because frankly, this 'political banter' is mainly between you and I) who would say the same.

6) It's funny how you and Bush trash on Kerry's war record. Kerry got a purple heart for saving lives. He was wounded in the face of battle. Cheney even had the balls to actually say the 'bullet didn't go in far enough' for Kerry to deserve purple hearts. I guess Bush's purple hearts are more important or something--oh WAIT! That's right; Bush doesn't have any purple hearts because he NEVER WENT TO WAR. I feel that Bush has no right to criticize a man who actually FOUGHT for his country when he himself never went to war. His family connections got him out of it. And if Bush gets re-elected, his daughters won't go to war; deny that all you want, but the fact is, Bush doesn't have the BALLS to go to war or have his kids to go war, but he is all for sending others to fight.

7) Recently, Kerry's statement about 'reducing terrorism to a nuisance, like gambling or prostitution' is being used in the Bush campaign. News flash for you: terrorism is everywhere. It always has been, before AND after 9-11. As long as there are people willing to die for a cause while taking innocent lives in the process, terrorism lives. Kerry recognizes the fact that, like roaches, terrorism is something that will always be around. But Bush would like everyone to take that statement as, "Oh, he doesn't have an understanding of how serious terrorism is; he regards it as being the same as prostitution and gambling!!" Please. This is yet another example of Bush doing the 'politics game', which is a really retarded way.

Bush did the same things to John McCain, attacked his war record, slung mud. Bush actually told McCain later, "John, it's just politics." Of course, McCain said, "It's NOT just politics, George - you can't DO that when it's not true." Bush's tactics are all about making the other guy look bad, attacking service records, putting negative spins on EVERY verbal slip-up or quote that can be misconstrued. Kerry only emphasizes the truth about Bush; he's NEVER smeared Bush on anything that isn't the truth. And believe me, there are thousands of things that Bush has said that Kerry could easily harp on. Kerry could attack Bush's so-called "service record" all day long. All Kerry ever said was, "He attacks my record, yet did he go to war? Did he even really SERVE his country, or did he get out of it?", which is the TRUTH, documented and plain for all to see.

In my eyes, my vote goes for the man with honor, conviction, and true understanding of the 'gray area' world we live in. That man is NOT George W. Bush. End of story.

10/12/2004 10:53:33 AM
Steve aka Quill said...
Addition: We also need a president in office who isn't so hasty in sending our troops into a situation where they could die; those are other people's children and parents being sent over there. You cannot tell me that this was a last resort situation. Saddam hasn't had the means to attack us for over a DECADE; even IF he magically got rid of the sanctions and started that day, we would have had a year to get the coalition we needed, to get the funding and equipment we needed, before it became a desperate, last resort situation. We need a president who has the kind of JUDGMENT to make those kinds of decisions; and I DARE you to prove to me that Bush is that kind of president. Prove it. You can't, because he doesn't have that kind of judgment.

10/12/2004 11:32:04 AM
Steve aka Quill said...
"On top of that, he's a president we can depend on to speak and act with intelligence."

When I said this, I re-read it and realized the potential for confusion. I was referring to KERRY, not Bush.

10/12/2004 01:31:50 PM
Deadpool said...
Ok, The Quilled One makes some very good points about military track records here. I think it should be pointed out that since we know that Bush dodged war when he would have been at risk, and that Kerry was actually in danger. I find that really funny that Bush is so quick to send others to do what he himself would not. Not funny like lol or lmao, funny like I want to get really Medieval on his ass. Reason; he sent my best friend where he would refuse to go, ever!

10/12/2004 01:44:44 PM
triponXTC said...
OK the two of you are a bunch of RE RE's!!!!! Dante... Quit frontin like you know what the hell ur talking about. I dont like Bush. Your truning alot of people off to him and gotta be costing him votes! Quil if ur gonna debate someone, you might wanna reply to their posts and not tip toe around the question. Also if u look at previous posts by Dante he already shot down this arguement and your missing the point! So knock it the hell off!!!! I'm voteing for Nader. Bush is a tard, Kerry is a tard. Bush keeps giveing cash to rich people (yes you Dante!)and Kerry has pulled his campaign for Missouri. I refuse to vote for anyone who abandons a place just because they are loseing. He's such a fucking quitter!!!!! Like I said KNOCK IT THE HELL OFF! DAMN! Bunch of kids!

10/13/2004 02:04:12 AM
Steve aka Quill said...
Oh, but I HAVE read Dante's posts, triponXTC...show me which part of Dante's main content wasn't bashing Kerry's service record or calling Kerry a flip-flopper. Sure, he talked a bit good about Bush, but for the most part, that's all he had to say.

And it's real funny that you're brand new to this Council and already are calling other posters "kids" that don't know of what we speak. Just because you're for Nader, as is your right, doesn't make OTHER people 're-res' as you so eloquently put it.

10/13/2004 07:30:45 AM

Steve aka Quill said...
BTW, X...your boy Nader isn't going to be listed on the Missouri ballot. Hope you're registered to vote in a state where he is on there. Or have legible handwriting. He he