Duelfer: Saddam Kept Nuke Program in Place

[ducks]

Thursday, Oct. 7, 2004 10:04 a.m. EDT
Duelfer: Saddam Kept Nuke Program in Place



Press coverage of the report to Congress by Iraq Survey Group chief Charles Duelfer yesterday has focused on what the U.S. didn't find in Iraq during it's 18 month search for weapons of mass destruction.

Paraphrasing Duelfer's report, for instance, the New York Times states categorically: "[Saddam] Hussein ended his nuclear program in 1991 and there was no evidence he tried to restart it."

But that's only part of the story as far as Saddam's nuclear ambitions went.
While Duelfer says he found no evidence of a "concerted effort" by Saddam to press ahead with his nuclear program after 1991, his report makes it clear that the program itself was was never abandoned.

In fact, what Duelfer actually says is that Saddam's nuclear program was on hold - in a state of suspended animation - with scientists, nuclear equipment and raw materials standing by awaiting the green light from the Iraqi dictator.

Here's a few quotes taken directly from Duelfer's findings that didn't make it into coverage by the Times, Washington Post and other big media outlets.

• "Saddam aspired to develop a nuclear capability - in an incremental fashion, irrespective of international pressure and the resulting economic risks. . . ."

• "Baghdad undertook a variety of measures to conceal key elements of its nuclear program from successive UN inspectors, including specific direction by Saddam Husayn [Duelfer's spelling] to hide and preserve documentation associated with Iraq’s nuclear program."

• "[The Iraq Survey Group], for example, uncovered two specific instances in which scientists involved in uranium enrichment kept documents and technology. Although apparently acting on their own, they did so with the belief and anticipation of resuming uranium enrichment efforts in the future."

• "Starting around 1992, in a bid to retain the intellectual core of the former weapons program, Baghdad transferred many nuclear scientists to related jobs in the Military Industrial Commission (MIC). The work undertaken by these scientists at the MIC helped them maintain their weapons knowledge base."

• "Initially, Saddam chose to conceal his nuclear program in its entirety, as he did with Iraq’s BW pro-gram. Aggressive UN inspections after Desert Storm forced Saddam to admit the existence of the program and destroy or surrender components of the program."

More quotes from the Duelfer report:

• "Saddam did express his intent to retain the intellectual capital developed during the Iraqi Nuclear Program. Senior Iraqis - several of them from the Regime’s inner circle - told ISG they assumed Saddam would restart a nuclear program once UN sanctions ended."

• "As funding for the MIC and the [Iraq Atomic Energy Commission] increased after the introduction of the Oil-for-Food program, there was some growth in programs that involved former nuclear weapons scientists and engineers."

• "The Regime prevented scientists from the former nuclear weapons program from leaving either their jobs or Iraq. Moreover, in the late 1990s, personnel from both MIC and the IAEC received significant pay raises in a bid to retain them, and the Regime undertook new investments in university research in a bid to ensure that Iraq retained technical knowledge."

In his preliminary report to Congress just seven months ago, Duelfer went into detail about some of Saddam's suspected nuclear equipment:

• "In the nuclear arena, the ISG has developed information that suggests Iraqi interest in preserving and expanding the knowledge needed to design and develop nuclear weapons. One significant effort illustrating this was a high-speed rail gun program under the direction of two senior scientists associated with Iraq’s pre-1991 nuclear weapons program."

• "Documents found outside [one] laboratory described a high-voltage switch that can be used to detonate a nuclear weapon, laser detonation, nuclear fusion, radiation measurement, and radiation safety."

• "It is this combination of topics that makes us suspect this lab was intentionally focused on research applicable for nuclear weapons development," Duelfer concluded.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/10/7/100832.shtml

[JohnnyMarzetti]

The CIA's Iraq Survey Group reported on Wednesday that Iraq ended its weapons programs in 1991 and had no secret caches or plans to reconstitute those programs. In other words, the primary rationale for invading Iraq was bogus.

[Nbadan]

"[The Iraq Survey Group], for example, uncovered two specific instances in which scientists involved in uranium enrichment kept documents and technology. Although apparently acting on their own, they did so with the belief and anticipation of resuming uranium enrichment efforts in the future."


So much conjuncture in this article without any real proof. It's gotta be Newsmax.
Yep.

[Marcus Bryant]

Yet Hussein certainly had the capability to resurrect those programs at any time. Given that the UN backed sanctions scheme was breaking down and that certain members of the UN Security Council had a vested interest in working with Saddam, it is hard to believe that he would have continued to have been kept in his place. Add to that connections between Hussein and al Qaeda (as reported by the 9/11 Commission) which demonstrated a willingness and actual offer on Hussein's part to harbor al Qaeda and work with them and suddenly things don't look so "bogus".


the primary rationale for invading Iraq was bogus.

Was it known to be "bogus" at the time? It's rather easy to subject this to Monday Morning quarterbacking. If the government is supposed to operate with 100% accuracy with respect to national security we might as well not even bother trying to deal with the external threats which face this nation.

[JohnnyMarzetti]

You can always make a rational for war if that is your intention.
It is clear to me that this administration had war on their minds from day one and
their own determination clouded their judgement.
Now that they have been exposed they must continue believing their own faulty intelligence to save face at the cost of more lives in Iraq.

[Nbadan]

Yet Hussein certainly had the capability to resurrect those programs at any time.

Bottom line is the report says that Saddam had not begun to reconstitue his Nuclear Weapons programs. Everything else is only a hypothsis. There is no way to prove or disprove that Saddam would have ever reconstitued his WMD programs even if Sanctions were ever lifted, which was a Hussein wet dream cause it wasn't gonna happen.

[Marcus Bryant]

That does not address the central issue of judgement in the light of imperfect information and certainly does not acknowledge the context in which the decision was made.

Hussein had contacts with al Qaeda (per the 9/11 Commission report) and offered to provide support for them, including harboring them. Given that the intelligence at the time indicated that Hussein was in possession of WMDs and certainly had the desire to procure them as well as a rather clear hatred of the United States, an assessment which was shared by the rest of the world, is this something to not deal with? The sanctions scheme did not have an indefinite life and Hussein was doing his best to undermine that as a number of members of the UN Security Council had an clear interest in keeping him in power.

[bigzak25]

why gamble the safety of the American people on what Saddam may or may not do....just eliminate him altogether. War justified.

[Nbadan]

why gamble the safety of the American people on what Saddam may or may not do....just eliminate him altogether. War justified.

The argument here is not preemptive war. I think everyone agrees that the U.S. should retain the right to attack another country if they feel there is a clear and immenent threat to its people or financial and National security interests.

The argument is did this administration do its homework in the months leading up to the war on finding real hard evidence of Iraq's WMD program, and did members of the administration exagerate Iraqi's prewar strike capability, and Saddam's willingness to lauch attacks against our interests?

[Marcus Bryant]

And that you argue from the vantage of having 20/20 hindsight. Should the United States have waited until every connection was verified with 100% accuracy before acting?

Lest we forget that there was evidence that there were contacts between Hussein and al Qaeda and that the world assumed that Hussein had WMDs and no one disputes that he had the desire and the resources to procure such weaponry, as well as the fact that the UN sanctions were disintegrating and some members of the UN Security Council had an interest in keeping Hussein in power.

It's nice to view this as an academic or litigative exercise, examining past judgements and criticizing those judgements on the basis of newfound evidence. But what was a proper judgement at the time given the evidence? Those judgements were being made in real time.

[whottt]

There is no way to prove or disprove that Saddam would have ever reconstitued his WMD programs even if Sanctions were ever lifted, which was a Hussein wet dream cause it wasn't gonna happen.

The sanctions were a very strong part of Usama's AntiUS campaign. (Hmmm no reason to see a link between Usama and Saddam is there)

I fail to see what good they were doing...and if you were truly a liberal you would be appalled at the fact that Saddam was using those sanctions as an excuse for genocide, and he was doing it with the full cooperation of the UN...Those sanctions were not working, they were part of the cause of 911...in later years, they would have been the cause for a similar mindset coming out of Iraq...after years of opression.

And don't forget our presence in Saudi Arabia either, it was the main Usama propaganda...Our presence which was necessary to impose some of the conditions of Iraq's surrender.

Sanctions gone, our millitary is nearly totally moved out of Saudi Arabia..two fo the major points of Usama's war are no longer valid.

This is a much better situation that sitting there while corrupt UN diplomats make money of the murder of the Iraqi people and Usama using those sanctions as a recruiting tool for new terrorists.

When this is over Usama will no longer be able to use Saudi Arabia or Iraq as a recruiting tool for new terrorists...because we will have other Arabs and Muslims defending their countries and disagreeing with Usama's claims.

And with Israel creating a buffer zone it will be much more difficult for the Palestinians to keep attacking Israel...if Israel isn't getting attacked they don't go and give millitary responses to criminal attacks and the Palestinian Isralei conflict pretty much ends on the Israeli side.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Come on Dan. A few weeks ago, you said the CIA wasn't credible (along with MI:6 and the former Russian KGB folks).

Why the change? Oh yeah, it fits your agenda.

:rolleyes

[exstatic]

So, when are we invading Iran? They're apparently developing nukes now, too. I'd bet they're a LOT further along than Iraq's nascent program was when we invaded. Are we concerned about WMDs or not?

[JohnnyMarzetti]

Neocons make me sick.
They want to blow everyone up for the sake of "America's Safety".
Well if that is the case I don't blame any other country for attacking to protect their safety. Remember, the US is the only nation to have used an atomic bomb.

Are we not a threat to the world? Especially when a madman like Dubya is at the helm?

[whottt]

Hey...Just out curiosity, which party held the presidency when we dropped the Atomic bomb on Japan? Those fucking neocons right?

Which party held the presidency when we got into WWI? WWII? Korea? Viet Nam?

By contrast...Which party was in office when we got out of Korea? Out of Viet Nam? When the cold war ended?



You are 100% owned by a propaganda/demonization campaign. You support the greatest war mongering party in American history. You support the party that got us into every major war of the 20th century and you call the party that got us out of most wars they didn't start, the war mongers.



And the one fucking time the Republicans get us into a major war, when we have the largest loss of civillian life in an enemy attack on our shores in US history,...you fucking say the Republicans are a bunch of war mongers we have people that are going to try and nuke us and when we defend outselves you say it's war mongering.

The seeds of this war were planted during an 8 year democratic reign, the intelligence that supposedly let us blow ourselves up, was appointed by a democrat.

Pull your head out of your ass. You are owned by propaganda.

[LandShark]

http://www.xboxforums.net/images/smilies/Emeril.jpg

[bigzak25]

damn....where's that served icon....

[JohnnyMarzetti]

Served my ass.

Japan attacked Pearl Harbor Mr. Knowitall.

IRAQ DID NOT ATTACK ON 9/11.

What party got us into the mess in IRAQ!?

But that in your pipes and smoke it.

[EmerilLagasse]

Hey LandShark...come up with your own saying!
BAMM!!

[whottt]

Served my ass.

Japan attacked Pearl Harbor Mr. Knowitall.

But a crat let them do it to get us into the war[/dumbass crat logic]





IRAQ DID NOT ATTACK ON 9/11.

What party got us into the mess in IRAQ!?

The party that stood by and let Saddam violate UN Sanctions and commit genocide on the Iraqi people for their entire 2 terms of office, thus giving Usama Bin Laden a powerful recruiting tool amoing fanatical muslims. Again, the party that did essentially nothing in the middle east during their two terms, thus leaving our millitary in Saudi Arabia for 8 years and giving Usama Bin Laden yet another powerful recruiting tool among fanatical muslims.

The party that in 8 years did absolutey nothing to solve the Palestinian Israeli conflict other than exacerbate it by unfairly chosing the less reasonable side time and time again, by chosing the side that didn't want peace.


The party that turned down a country offering us Usama Bin Laden. The party that stood by and watched as Islamic Terrorism grew into a world wide nuclear threat...and whose idea of dealing with the issue millitarily was to shoot a single randomBOMB pissing off everyone in the mideast and parts of Africa.

The party that sent us in to Somalia and didn't give two shits about the lives of the troops it sent in...didn't give them enough support or manpower to win the conflict, thus sending a message to every terrorist in the world that we were weak and didn't have the stomache to fight a war or defend ourselves when attacked.

The party that even now is so busy whining and trying to serve it's own self interests it is single handely destroying the moral of our troops and increasing the morale of our enemies.

(And that's exactly what they did in Viet Nam as well, which is why about 10 times more Americans have died with Decmocrats holding the presidency than Republicans)


You see, the democrats are every bit the war mongers the Republicans are, and then some, they get us into plenty of wars...they just don't know how to win them, get out of them, and they have a lousy record of protecting our troops while we are in them.

The only way the democrats have ever been able to win a war is by killing hudreds of thousands of innocent civillians.

So stick that in your pipe and smoke it. Peace freak.

The whole fight against communism that lead to the viet nam war was started by a democrat, the Truman doctrine....that's why it's so ironic that we now have an anti war democrat preseidential candidate demonizing the republicans as war mongers. Kerry was protesting the war and movement of his own party, the war they started and now he's protesting a war he voted for..and you want this fucker leading our country...IT's called being fucked in the head.

[Marcus Bryant]

Iraq did fire anti-aircraft missles upon US and UK fighters which were enforcing the "No Fly" zones in Iraq, which were a part of the armistice agreed to by Hussein at the end of Gulf War I. This occurred over a number of years while Hussein was playing his games with the UN weapons inspections program.

So yes, Iraq did 'attacked' the US.

I've forgotten how Hussein procured those missles. Probably came from the French.

[Marcus Bryant]

double post

[Yonivore]

"...plans to reconstitute..."
I believe Duelfer disagrees with that statement.

"So much conjuncture in this article without any real proof. It's gotta be Newsmax."
Actually, NewsMax is directly quoting Duelfer's report.

Saddam Hussein possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction, Saddam Hussein used Weapons of Mass Destruction, Saddam Hussein resisted and misled Weapons Inspectors for 12 years and failed to abide by 17 U.N. resolutions that allowed him ample opportunity to publicly declare, destroy, and dispose of any weapons he had, Saddam Hussein continued to engage in hostile acts against the coalition, in the no-fly zone, in a flagrant violation of the cease fire agreement, Saddam Hussein systematically lied to the world and his own regime about HAVING weapons of mass destruction -- yes, it was an attempt to bluff Iran, nonetheless, he WANTED certain people to believe he had them...so, we did.

Finally, you have to go back to the Demoncratic Congress that produced the Church Act to find where everything started to go wrong. It was Demoncratic Congressman Frank Church that sponsored legislation to gut the CIA and, among a host of other hog-tying measures, made it illegal for the CIA to consort with "unsavory" characters.

That made it literally impossible to infiltrate or team with others who could infiltrate the middle east.

Saddam Hussein had it coming, the people of Iraq are better off, the world is safer, and the terrorists will have to look elsewhere for safe harbor.

You people also have a very short memory. We ran al Qaeda out of Afghanistan -- to the extent that they cannot operate training bases or plan missions (yes, I know they're smoking pipes in caves out there); we ran al Qaeda out of and Indochina -- so they can't operate bases or plan there; we're in the middle of running them out of Northern Africa (with the help, of all people, the French and Egyptians); and we're in the middle of denying them Iraq.

You people really need to get a fucking clue about the nature of this enemy and why invading Iraq was a necessary part of the war on terror. Nevermind what the President says...al Qaeda--our sworn enemy--the people that attacked on September 11, were actively moving their operations to Baghdad BEFORE we invaded. Whether or not is was with the complicity of Saddam Hussein and the Ba'athists (I believe it was) is irrelevant. That's where they were going and it was highly doubtful we'd receive assistance from Saddam Hussein in cleaning them out.

If anything, the toppling of Saddam Hussein is a fortunate by-product of a necessary battle in the war on terror.

[Nbadan]

By contrast...Which party was in office when we got out of Korea? Out of Viet Nam? When the cold war ended?

Fucken appeasers.

:lol

[LandShark]

^^^ One to talk. :lmao

[Yonivore]

I'd also be willing to bet $500 vBucks that none of you Saddam lovers were aware that, since September 11, 2001, over 3,000 known al Qaeda members have been caught or killed in over 102 countries around the world...yes, including Iraq and the United States.

Does anybody remember hearing about that guy that was pulled out of a shipping container (converted into an apartment with a working toilet), in New York harbor with all the appropriate paperwork to stay in the U.S. and a valid Airplane Mechanic's identification for J.F.K. Airport?

Oh, and do you remember when the terror alert was raised in August of 2002? That was due to a credible plot to assassinate the President being uncovered...and, it led to the arrest of a terrorist in New Jersey or someplace.

It is estimated that there is at least one terrorist plot thwarted, somewhere in the world, every day.

We're winning the war on terror, in spite of what John Kerry is saying and in spite of what John Kerry has been doing in the Senate.

[JohnnyMarzetti]

The more important part of this report is where it says "Iraq had no weapons programs."

So, the basis for the war was WMD. None found, then they changed the rhetoric to "WMD producing capabilities." Now that is wrong.

This is a gigantic mistake.

Estimations? WTF cares about estimations.

It is also estimated that everyday another person buys this administration's BS.

[Marcus Bryant]

I recall that the case was made with 'possession of WMDs' as well as Hussein's demonstrated desire to 'procure, develop, and use WMDs.'

It's hard to find the fact that he didn't have WMDs, but could have developed them on short notice to be much less of a threat.

Bush was not the first American president to believe that Hussein possessed WMDs.