PDA

View Full Version : AP: U.S. Report Finds No Evidence of Iraq WMD



spurster
10-06-2004, 02:54 PM
Would someone make absolutely sure Cheney gets the memo this time?

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-US-Iraq-Weapons.html

October 6, 2004
U.S. Report Finds No Evidence of Iraq WMD
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 3:12 p.m. ET

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.

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, Pa., defending the decision to invade. ``In the world after Sept. 11, that was a risk we could not afford to take.''

But 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-Qaida.

``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 Sept. 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-Ill., 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-Kan., 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.

On the Net:

Key findings from the report are available at:

http://wid.ap.org/documents/iraq/041006keyfindings.pdf

bigzak25
10-06-2004, 03:01 PM
``We did not go to war because Saddam had future intentions to obtain weapons of mass destruction,'' Levin said.


sure we did.

JoeChalupa
10-06-2004, 03:05 PM
Go F*** yourselves with that report.
Sincerely,
Richard Cheney

exstatic
10-06-2004, 03:11 PM
bla bla bla liberal media conspiracy[/yonibore]

Yonivore
10-06-2004, 03:14 PM
Go F*** yourselves with that report.
Sincerely,
Richard Cheney
I think he explained the administration's position on Iraq very well, last night. It was a "nexus" for terrorist activity in the Middle East.

While the report stated that no stockpiles or active programs were found, it did demonstrate that Hussein was ready to reinstitute those programs on a moment's notice.

With terrorists flowing into the country and setting up shop BEFORE the war and the uncertainty of what, exactly, Hussein had done with existing weapons yet accounted for, and was doing with his time while under sanction and resisting resolutions, I think the administration's decision -- with the authority given it by the Congress (which included a Senator Kerry and a Senator Edwards) -- was a prudent move.

And, until March of 2003, every-fucking-body was hawkish on Iraq. It was only after the President made the move and it appeared that it was popular with the populace that Demoncrats started backing off their support for the war.

The Vice President hit the nail on the head last night. John Kerry was pro-war until he started getting spanked by Howard Dean, during the primary campaign, on an anti-war agenda. He had to adopt that stance to beat Dean.

Yonivore
10-06-2004, 03:16 PM
bla bla bla liberal media conspiracy[/yonibore]
Not at all, I just think the report will be "cherry-picked" for maximum effect. Things that tend to vindicate the administration will be ignored.

LandShark
10-06-2004, 03:16 PM
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.
Fortunately for the Iraqi people, President Bush thought otherwise.

JoeChalupa
10-06-2004, 03:16 PM
I wonder if Cheney has ever admitted he's been wrong about anything?

Nah.

LandShark
10-06-2004, 03:18 PM
Has Kerry ever admitted being wrong about anything? Of course not, he just flip flops.

Yonivore
10-06-2004, 03:19 PM
I wonder if Cheney has ever admitted he's been wrong about anything?

Nah.
I'm sure that when he has been, he has.

He's not wrong on this and the President's policy, with respect to Iraq, isn't wrong. It's the right war, at the right time, in the right place.

Yonivore
10-06-2004, 03:29 PM
Would someone make absolutely sure Cheney gets the memo this time?
Well, if Vice President Cheney had ever said there was a direct connection between Iraq and the September 11 attacks, there might be a need for such a memo.

But, he never said anything of the kind.

JoeChalupa
10-06-2004, 03:37 PM
Well, if Vice President Cheney had ever said there was a direct connection between Iraq and the September 11 attacks, there might be a need for such a memo.

But, he never said anything of the kind.

Actually he did. Damn I wish I had the link.
It was played on the morning news. Russert called him on it this morning.

He has said it and you know it.

Marcus Bryant
10-06-2004, 03:40 PM
Here's what you are referring to:


VICE PRES. CHENEY: Tim, we can do what we have to do to prevail in this conflict. Failure’s not an option. And go back again and think about what’s involved here. This is not just about Iraq or just about the difficulties we might encounter in any one part of the country in terms of restoring security and stability. This is about a continuing operation on the war on terror. And it’s very, very important we get it right. If we’re successful in Iraq, if we can stand up a good representative government in Iraq, that secures the region so that it never again becomes a threat to its neighbors or to the United States, so it’s not pursuing weapons of mass destruction, so that it’s not a safe haven for terrorists, now we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11. They understand what’s at stake here. That’s one of the reasons they’re putting up as much of a struggle as they have, is because they know if we succeed here, that that’s going to strike a major blow at their capabilities.

MR. RUSSERT: So the resistance in Iraq is coming from those who were responsible for 9/11?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: No, I was careful not to say that. With respect to 9/11, 9/11, as I said at the beginning of the show, changed everything. And one of the things it changed is we recognized that time was not on our side, that in this part of the world, in particular, given the problems we’ve encountered in Afghanistan, which forced us to go in and take action there, as well as in Iraq, that we, in fact, had to move on it. The relevance for 9/11 is that what 9/11 marked was the beginning of a struggle in which the terrorists come at us and strike us here on our home territory. And it’s a global operation. It doesn’t know national boundaries or national borders.


That was from the Sep. 24th, 2003 broadcast of Meet The Press. (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3080244/)

NameDropper
10-06-2004, 04:17 PM
Rumor has it that Cheney sometimes forgets what he has said:

Cheney: "His regime has had high-level contacts with al Qaeda going back a decade and has provided training to al Qaeda terrorists." (Cheney Remarks, 12/2/02)

Cheney: "His regime aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. He could decide secretly to provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists for use against us." (Cheney Remarks, 1/30/03)

Cheney: "If we're successful in Iraq, if we can stand up a good representative government in Iraq, that secures the region so that it never again becomes a threat to its neighbors or to the United States, so it's not pursuing weapons of mass destruction, so that it's not a safe haven for terrorists, now we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11." (NBC, Meet The Press, 9/14/03, emphasis added)

Russert: "The Washington Post asked the American people about Saddam Hussein, and this is what they said: 69 percent said he was involved in the September 11 attacks. Are you surprised by that?

Cheney: "No. I think it's not surprising that people make that connection." (NBC, Meet the Press, 11/14/03)

Cheney: "If we're successful in Iraq, if we can stand up a good representative government in Iraq, that secures the region so that it never again becomes a threat to its neighbors or to the United States, so it's not pursuing weapons of mass destruction, so that it's not a safe haven for terrorists, now we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11." (NBC, Meet the Press, 11/14/03)

Cheney: "We now know based on documents that we've captured since we took Baghdad that they put (Yasin) on the payroll, gave him a monthly stipend and provided him with a house, sanctuary in effect, in Iraq in the aftermath of . . . the '93 attack on the World Trade Center." (Rocky Mountain News, Interview, 1/10/04)

Cheney: "I think there's overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between al-Qaeda and the Iraqi government." (National Public Radio, "Morning Edition," 1/22/04)

Cheney: "Freedom still has enemies in Iraq, terrorists who are targeting the very success and freedom we're providing to that country. Recently, we intercepted a letter sent by a senior al Qaeda associate named Zarqawi to one of Osama bin Laden's top lieutenants...America will finish what we've begun in Iraq, and we will win an essential victory in this war on terror." (Cheney Remarks, 2/27/04)

Cheney: "It's clearly established in terms of training, provision of bomb-making experts, training of people with respect to chemical and biological warfare capabilities, that al-Qaeda sent personnel to Iraq for training and so forth*" (Cheney, CNBC's "Kudlow & Kramer," 6/4/04)

Cheney: "In Iraq, Saddam Hussein was in power, overseeing one of the bloodiest regimes of the 20th century* He had long established ties with al Qaeda." (Cheney, Orlando, FL, 6/14/04)

Cheney: "There's been enormous confusion over the Iraq and al-Qaeda connection, Gloria. First of all, on the question of--of whether or not there was any kind of a relationship, there was a relationship. It's been testified to. The evidence is overwhelming. It goes back to the early '90s...There's clearly been a relationship." (CNBC "Capital Report," 6/17/04)

Borger: "Well, let's get to Mohamed Atta for a minute because you mentioned him as well. You have said in the past that it was, quote, 'pretty well confirmed.'"

Cheney: "No, I never said that."

Borger: "OK."

Cheney: "I never said that." (CNBC "Capital Report," 6/17/04)