Report Discounts Iraqi Arms Threat

Dom

The government's most definitive account of Iraq's arms programs, to be released today, will show that Saddam Hussein posed a diminishing threat at the time the United States invaded and did not possess, or have concrete plans to develop, nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, U.S. officials said yesterday.

The officials said that the 1,000-page report by Charles A. Duelfer, the chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq, concluded that Hussein had the desire but not the means to produce unconventional weapons that could threaten his neighbors or the West. President Bush has continued to assert in his campaign stump speech that Iraq had posed "a gathering threat."

The officials said Duelfer, an experienced former United Nations weapons inspector, found that the state of Hussein's weapons-development programs and knowledge base was less advanced in 2003, when the war began, than it was in 1998, when international inspectors left Iraq.

"They have not found anything yet," said one U.S. official who had been briefed on the report.

A senior U.S. government official said that the report includes comments Hussein made to debriefers after his capture that bolster administration assertions, including his statement that his past possession of weapons of mass destruction "was one of the reasons he had survived so long." He also maintained such weapons saved his government by halting Iranian ground offensives during the Iran-Iraq war and deterred coalition forces from pressing on to Baghdad during the 1991 Persian Gulf War, the official said.

[Read More]

The_Neon_Cowboy

wich it total bs: did you even wath the un blood money sandle report on fox news? based on the magor report (arg forgot name), and coverage interviews etc

on how SANCTIONS WER NOT WORKING, SADDAM WAS BUYING ARMS, AND SEEKING TO GET SANTION LIFTED TO CONTENUE HIS WMD PLANS, ETC THE CORRUMT UN FOOD SCANDLE invavleing direct ties to kofeanon (the head un guy) via his son. France russia and china... with france hasveing the lagest involvent by far....

raid517

I have no clue what this guy just said. I refuse to argue with someone who's only source of information about the country in which he lives is some half understood, poorly grasped and poorly repeated reports from FOX news - which is widely reputed even by ardent Republicans to have a highly biased right wing perspective.

If it were down to me, people should be made to pass a miimal test of awareness of political and historical issues before being allowed to vote. It is ironic to say the least that it is guys like this that Bush most appeals to - and who may hold sway in any swing vote that ultimately leads to his eventual reelection.

If this is the future you have in store for you and your children, then God help you all.

GJ

Dom

Yeah, everone's wrong except you, your sources (or lack thereof) and the Bush Admin. Talk about denial.

mainman

Your funny cowboy.. ..oh well atleast you try ill give you that... OWNED!!!

raid517

Lol I agree at least he does try. I don't necessarly want to be too unkind. He deserves at least a few stars for effort - but as for substance there isn't I'm afraid much of value worth repeating.

But I genuinely don't want anyone to feel bad. This is after all just a difference in opinion. Nothing much to get too worked up over.

GJ

SaberZ

I had a hard time reading that.

lenchmob

Dom:

For starters your link is dead. The Duefler Report does state there were no WMDs' in Iraq at the time of the report writing. The link to the report is here:

http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_...y_Findings.pdf

What's interesting to note though is •" The introduction of the Oil-For-Food program (OFF) in late 1996 was a key turning point for the Regime. OFF rescued Baghdad’s economy from a terminal decline created by sanctions. The Regime quickly came to see that OFF could be corrupted to acquire foreign exchange both to further undermine sanctions and to provide the means to enhance dual-use infrastructure and potential WMD-related development."

The US House of Represenatives has initiated an investigation into the OFF. The UN has not been cooperative in their probe.

Koffi Anan was asked by news organizations about the accusations flying about that -
Key members of the UN Security Council were bribed
Several members of the UN received hudge monetary payoffs

Koffi Anan played it off: he said he did not believe Russia, China or France were bribed.
Koffi Anan: reiterated the war in Iraq was illegal.
Koffi Anans' own son is under investigation about his dealings with the OFF.

The OFF was Koffi Anans pet project and to have this all come about -

As much as some people think and believe Fox News is biased the news special on the OFF raises some serious questions.....

raid517

Whether OFF was or was not corrupt has little to do with whether there was or was not any WMDs in Iraq - or whether or not any war was subsequently justified. In what way are these two issues linked?

There may be some argument that Iraq used the OFF for food program to try to reconstitute it's economy, but clearly this did not extend as far as any concerted efforts to restart any WMD program.

It seems you like Neon have taken one headline and made very much of it. The UN has done many good things in many other areas too - but no one can claim it - like any similar organisation - is 100% perfect.

No large beurocratic organisation it likely to be completely immune to corruption of some kind - including let's not forget your own government - let alone an organisation that is said to represent the humaniterian interests of the 8 billion or more people who occupy this planet.

But that shouldn't stop us trying to find ways to work together.

Even if you did say 'screw the UN' you would still have to find a way to make friends and form alliances to work through the various problems on the international stage you might encounter. Otherwise you end up in the position you are now in, where you take on all the responsibility of working out the world's problems on your own, where you bare the vast majority of the cost and where no one feels any burning desire to offer you any substantial assistance - because they are told under current circumstances that if they do help - it must be effectively in subdugation to US interests and under US command.

That is why I'm afraid you see no rush at this time of nations willing to ensalve themselves. 'With or against', is we were told the order of the day - which is why even if ultimately it hurts more to do so, many nations will remain against in order to gurantee their freedom.

GJ

Dom

I know it's dead. I can't contol what Yahoo! does.

lenchmob

From your response it's obvious you didn't read the report and are going on assumptions. Your first assumption is
"Whether OFF was or was not corrupt has little to do with whether there was or was not any WMDs in Iraq - or whether or not any war was subsequently justified."

Quote from the Duefler report :"One aspect of Saddam’s strategy of unhinging the UN’s sanctions against Iraq, centered on Saddam’s efforts to influence certain UN SC permanent members, such as Russia, France, and China and some nonpermanent (Syria, Ukraine) members to end UN sanctions. Under Saddam’s orders, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) formulated and implemented a strategy aimed at these UNSC members and international public
opinion with the purpose of ending UN sanctions and undermining its subsequent OFF program by diplomatic
and economic means. At a minimum, Saddam wanted to divide the five permanent members and foment
international public support of Iraq at the UN and throughout the world by a savvy public relations campaign
and an extensive diplomatic effort." The fruits of the OFF yielded the responses from the SC that Saddam wanted: the SC members disagreed and voted against the US.

A quote from The Duefler Report: "The Regime quickly came to see that OFF could be corrupted to acquire foreign exchange both to further undermine sanctions and to provide the means to enhance dual-use infrastructure and potential WMD-related development." Do you have any idea what dual-use infrastructure is? If so then here's a rehash of it: It's the capability of a given industry to switch from normal "legitimate operation to illegal weapon production" seamlessly and in a small amount of time and vice-versa. This is the link you asked about.

The justification of the war comes from the countless years and UN resolutions that Saddam failed to comply with. Lets not forget the genocide of his own people by WMDs', or the the subjugation of his countrymen often times resulting in death, dismemberment or both, and a gamut of other atrocities too numerous to mention here. European and American intelligence at the time indicated Saddam possessed WMDs'. We all know now the intelligence was wrong - what more can be said about it. On a side-note a telling discovery was made though when US troops did unearth an entire squadron of Russian made Mig-23 aircraft buried in the sand in Western Iraq. With Iraq about the same size as the state of Texas anything could be buried in the sand and no one would know it unless they happened on to it by chance or from competent intelligence. The actions to remove Saddam were clearly justified even after no WMDs' were found.

"There may be some argument that Iraq used the OFF for food program to try to reconstitute it's economy, but clearly this did not extend as far as any concerted efforts to restart any WMD program."

Quote from the Duefler Report: "Another element of this strategy involved circumventing UN sanctions and the OFF program by means of “Protocols” or government-to-government economic trade agreements. Protocols allowed Saddam to generate a large amount of revenue outside the purview of the UN. The successful implementation of the Protocols, continued oil smuggling efforts, and the manipulation of UN OFF contracts emboldened Saddam to pursue his military reconstitution efforts starting in 1997 and peaking in 2001. These efforts covered conventional arms, dual-use goods acquisition, and some WMD-related programs." The report speaks for itself, Saddam did everything in his power and capacity to circumvent the sanctions, divide the security council, and initiate some wmd programs with dual-use infrastructure.

You've mentioned the UN in your response. The UN has done some good around the globe. I've never said the UN needs to go or disband. The UN is stagnant and ineffective as evidenced by the tragedies occurring in Dafur and other parts of Africa. The UN needs to adapt to the changing global community, react accordingly, and in a timely manner.

"That is why I'm afraid you see no rush at this time of nations willing to ensalve themselves. 'With or against', is we were told the order of the day - which is why even if ultimately it hurts more to do so, many nations will remain against in order to gurantee their freedom"

I didn't realize the US was in the business of "enslaving nations". Enlighten me and inform me please of who we've enslaved? As far as your comments regarding the "with or against". I guess complacency has its place in the world for those countries that don't want to fight terrorism. Unfortunately the attitude or mind-set changes soon enough when that nation becomes a victim of terrorism itself.

BWC

I still believe that the WMD Issue is a dead one. It may be that we have found none, and that the premise of our war was incorrect. But whether or not we are doing the right thing is not imo in question. And thats not because of how bad sadam was or the mass graves, I think those are a moot point as well (allthough beyond horrendous to be sure). The point imo is quite simply that both republican and democrat alike saw the evidence and said oh crap we need to do something now.

We all made the right descision at the time. We were all wrong about the wmd's. That doesnt mean we're doing the wrong thing.

And one of our candidates has stayed of the same opinion on this matter, and the other has changed his mind repeatedly.

And now we see that the sanctions were'nt working as intended as sadam was actively trying to work around them...

I still dont understand your anger at the US trying to protect itself. We said either your with us or against us after the president and the congress decided there was a threat against us, and our military action that we all believed was necessary to protect us was veto'd in the UN. (after saying that the last resolution was the very last one before action would be taken).


Nations wont rush to enslave themsleves? I certainly hope they would not. But I do think that if we are providing the bulk of the support, we be directing?
I would also argue that one of the great things about America is that we dont just sit behind our borders, isolate ourselves and not do what we think is right just because everyone else agrees. If we see something we think we need to take action on, we do. And I think that you could argue that a majority of our "actions" have been positive.

We provide more money for more causes around the globe than any country. We provide more troop support for multi country actions (un, nato etc) than anyone else. But when we say oh crap, we need to go into iraq to protect oursleves whos going with us? And some of the more prominent countries dont want to go, we're wrong for doing what we thought we needed to do?

raid, you keep saying "your country" and referring to our government as they... are you not from the US? Just curious.

ToshiroOC

I believe raid is British

raid517

I very much am British.

As regards the rest of what has been said, your argument that we can justify our errors on the basis of previous errors is not one that washes particularly well with me.

Moreover my argument is not on whether we should fight, but over how we should fight. If you want to assume the 'leadership role' as you put it - then fine. But if all this is is a game of 'follow the leader', then don't expect everyone to simply fall in line. Why should democratic free people agree to this? We have no influence over the direction you take, no say in the decision making process - because you have stated that you will act as you will despite any objections - or reservations that we may have. And like it or not, many people do see this as a form of subdugation.

And in this you will find I think that asking people to subdugate themselves and their democratic interest to the will of a government over which they have no influence is not a very easy thing to do. You, the world, the cause of freedom and democracy at large may suffer terribly as a result.

But if that is the role you wish for your country, then feel free to assume it. But that will not make anyone any more inclined to follow you.

GJ

The_Neon_Cowboy

yes, "facts" seems to have to little sway with some people like kerry supporters but you eat up those 1/2 truths and distortions by kerry like gospel

http://home.insightbb.com/~mwlady386...y_Findings.txt


Bush needs to win nuff said...

Dom

Nah, maybe if you actually post some facts I'd believe you.

raid517

Bah, am I the only one who finds it bizzare that this government thinks it is ok to pursue a strategic policy based on what various countries might or might not do at some point in the future, despite there being no established policy, no viable research facilities, no active programs and a massively degreaded (indeed 'destroyed' is the term used) capability? This report also says that Iraq viewd Iran as it's primary threat, not America - and any strategy if such a strategy existed would have had the primary purpose of formulating a viable response to the threat that Iraq viewd Iran to be to their interests. It almost seems as though, despicable as Saddam was, they were not so far from the truth.

If you will forgive me for saying Neon, your standard of 'proof' is to say the best, extremely low. This report clearly says that there was no established programs, no paperwork, no evidence whatsoever, beyond the few rambings of someone who was clearly a mad man of any intention to resume a WMD program. At best such 'evidence' as there was could only be described as hearsay - and hearsay - at least in most modern developed legal systems is not a form of evidence that is admisible in law. (Otherwise anyone could literally accuse you of anything and have you thrown in jail for it).

It seems that this president believes that gazing at a crystal ball and trying to predict the future (or just gazing at his balls in general) is sufficient basis on which to formulate a foregin policy.

Most people in the world find this idea nonsensical. It is unsurprisng perhaps that you do not.

GJ

The_Neon_Cowboy

ok your saying things like "The Duefler Report" is a work of fiction then

The_Neon_Cowboy

sorry a threat is a threat, no matter what is found out later...

I mean if some one theatins to kill some one and they never do... you think no one should act on the threat? if not when? when they find the dead body?

though world intelligence was off, saddam him self supposedaly clamed/acted like/let on/ that he had wmd to his neigbors, acted like he had them etc.... they just wanted to look tuff well it seems it backfired on him....

he wanted to resume his WMD weapons programs, but was still in a phase 2 bribe the unmembers and get allready failing sactions lifted...

raid517

No were saying that you are ignoring the real points that it does make. But in some respects yes - it is a work of fiction in the sense that it is unable to supply any viable evidence for those more negative assertions that it does make, beyond the testemony of some perhaps opposition politicians (those who always opposed Saddam's regime) and a few jailed generals looking to save their own skins, *saying* what Saddam's intentions might have been at some point in the future. That is very possibly the exact definition of what most people would term as fiction.

GJ

raid517

Well in law unfortunately (or fortunately as the case may be) then yes, you cannot punish someone for saying that they may hurt someone or do something unpleasant at some point in the future. Again this is intended to prevent people from making false accusations and literally having anyone they don't like thrown in jail. At the very least what you need is some kind of proof of intent - such as paperwork, doccumentation, research work, actual people involved in a development program - and this report clearly states that there was no such proof.

I also find it odd in the extreme that a country who alegedly states that their primary focus of interest was indeed America's own current biggest enemy, namely Iran and who as such could not be described as posing any clear and present danger to the US (which is always given as the primary basis for war) could then even after it is made clear that this was their stated policy, still be viewd as a legitamate target for attack.

So let me get this right, the enemy of my enemy is my enemy too? Is it just me, or is there something in there were this argument starts to loose all sense of credibility?

Maybe we should have gone after Iraq, but not first - not as a primary objective - and not at least until we dealt with the real threats that we do face.

GJ