PDA

View Full Version : No Weapons



TeMpEsT
10-08-2004, 03:42 AM
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Saddam Hussein did not possess stockpiles of illicit weapons at the time of the U.S. invasion in March 2003 and had not begun any program to produce them, a CIA report concludes.

In fact, the long-awaited report, authored by Charles Duelfer, who advises the director of central intelligence on Iraqi weapons, says Iraq's WMD program was essentially destroyed in 1991 and Saddam ended Iraq's nuclear program after the 1991 Gulf War.

The Iraq Survey Group report, released Wednesday, is 1,200 to 1,500 pages long.

The massive report does say, however, that Iraq worked hard to cheat on United Nations-imposed sanctions and retain the capability to resume production of weapons of mass destruction at some time in the future.

"[Saddam] wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction when sanctions were lifted," a summary of the report says.

Duelfer, testifying at a Senate hearing on the report, said his account attempts to describe Iraq's weapons programs "not in isolation but in the context of the aims and objectives of the regime that created and used them."

"I also have insisted that the report include as much basic data as reasonable and that it be unclassified, since the tragedy that has been Iraq has exacted such a huge cost for so many for so long," Duelfer said.

The report was released nearly two years ago to the day that President Bush strode onto a stage in Cincinnati and told the audience that Saddam Hussein's Iraq "possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons" and "is seeking nuclear weapons."

"The danger is already significant and it only grows worse with time," Bush said in the speech delivered October 7, 2002. "If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?"

Speaking on the campaign trail in Pennsylvania, Bush maintained Wednesday that the war was the right thing to do and that Iraq stood out as a place where terrorists might get weapons of mass destruction.

"There was a risk, a real risk, that Saddam Hussein would pass weapons or materials or information to terrorist networks, and in the world after September the 11th, that was a risk we could not afford to take," Bush said.

But Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, seized on the report as political ammunition against the Bush administration.

"Despite the efforts to focus on Saddam's desires and intentions, the bottom line is Iraq did not have either weapon stockpiles or active production capabilities at the time of the war," Rockefeller said in a press release.

"The report does further document Saddam's attempts to deceive the world and get out from under the sanctions, but the fact remains, the sanctions combined with inspections were working and Saddam was restrained."

But British Prime Minister Tony Blair had just the opposite take on the information in the report, saying it demonstrated the U.N. sanctions were not working and Saddam was "doing his best" to get around them.

He said the report made clear that there was "every intention" on Saddam's part to develop WMD and he "never had any intention of complying with U.N. resolutions."

At a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee Wednesday, panel Chairman John Warner, R-Virginia, called the findings "significant."

"While the ISG has not found stockpiles of WMD, the ISG and other coalition elements have developed a body of fact that shows that Saddam Hussein had, first, the strategic intention to continue to pursue WMD capabilities; two, created ambiguity about his WMD capabilities that he used to extract concessions in the international world of disclosure and discussion and negotiation.

"He used it as a bargaining tactic and as a strategic deterrent against his neighbors and others."

"As we speak, over 1,700 individuals -- military and civilian -- are in Iraq and Qatar, continuing to search for facts about Iraq's WMD programs," Warner said.

But Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, ranking Democrat on the committee, said 1,750 experts have visited 1,200 potential WMD sites and have come up empty-handed.

"It is important to emphasize that central fact because the administration's case for going to war against Iraq rested on the twin arguments that Saddam Hussein had existing stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction and that he might give weapons of mass destruction to al Qaeda to attack us -- as al Qaeda had attacked us on 9/11," Levin said.

Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Massachusetts, asked Duelfer about the future likelihood of finding weapons of mass destruction, to which Duelfer replied, "The chance of finding a significant stockpile is less than 5 percent."

Based in part on interviews with Saddam, the report concludes that the deposed Iraqi president wanted to acquire weapons of mass destruction because he believed they kept the United States from going all the way to Baghdad during the first Gulf War and stopped an Iranian ground offensive during the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s, senior administration officials said.

U.S. officials said the Duelfer report is "comprehensive," but they are not calling it a "final report" because there are still some loose ends to tie up.

One outstanding issue, an official said, is whether Iraq shipped any stockpiles of weapons outside of the country. Another issue, he said, is mobile biological weapons labs, a matter on which he said "there is still useful work to do."

Duelfer said Wednesday his teams found no evidence of a mobile biological weapons capability.

The U.S. official said he believes Saddam decided to give up his weapons in 1991, but tried to conceal his nuclear and biological programs for as long as possible. Then in 1995, when his son-in-law Hussain Kamal defected with information about the programs, he gave those up, too.

Iraq's nuclear program, which in 1991 was well-advanced, "was decaying" by 2001, the official said, to the point where Iraq was -- if it even could restart the program -- "many years from a bomb."

Link (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/06/iraq.wmd.report/index.html)

Ander
10-08-2004, 03:56 AM
Psh. I could've told you that. :lol:

Will
10-08-2004, 04:12 AM
Shot down. I bet the Republicans feel stupid now.

Boo
10-08-2004, 03:40 PM
we are NOT shot down

And people have said Bush is a liar but there is a difference in lying and being wrong or not knowing....

Todd
10-08-2004, 03:45 PM
Originally posted by Boo@Oct 8 2004, 10:40 AM
we are NOT shot down

And people have said Bush is a liar but there is a difference in lying and being wrong or not knowing....
yes, you ARE shot down. Your sole reason for going into this ####### war in the first place was proven to not be true.

And a lie is a lie. He never knew for sure that Iraq had WMDs, there was always that doubt, so he should have never gone to war. He KNEW there was a chance they wouldn't find a damn thing in Iraq and went to war anyways. He's a ####### liar and if Clinton can nearly get kicked out of office for lying about getting a blow job, then Bush should be kicked out of office for lying and leading us into a deadly war where thousands of lives were lost.

rosanna
10-08-2004, 03:49 PM
this is why you never vote to put a republican in office. look what it does. he really should have made sure that stuff was going down before he did what he did.

Boo
10-08-2004, 03:56 PM
Opinions
Believe what you want i say he ain't no liar he's a good man who's done the best damn job he could.

jazzyrose
10-08-2004, 04:00 PM
Originally posted by rosanna1114@Oct 8 2004, 03:49 PM
this is why you never vote to put a republican in office. look what it does. he really should have made sure that stuff was going down before he did what he did.
Actually we didn't vote him in. I have looked into this. There are 3 times in history that the electorial college was different then the popular vote and all 3 time the people voted democratic and electorial college voted rep. So the rep. won.

rosanna
10-08-2004, 04:03 PM
oh yeah i forgot. well then down with the electoral college, get someone that can actually go with the popular vote next time.

jazzyrose
10-08-2004, 04:07 PM
I agree!

Todd
10-08-2004, 04:35 PM
Originally posted by Boo@Oct 8 2004, 10:56 AM
he's a good man who's done the best damn job he could.
Yes, pretty sad, isn't it? He can #### all of the Americans over and turn the rest of the world against us and thats the best the chimp can do.

rosanna
10-08-2004, 04:40 PM
Originally posted by Todd+Oct 8 2004, 12:35 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Todd @ Oct 8 2004, 12:35 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Boo@Oct 8 2004, 10:56 AM
he&#39;s a good man who&#39;s done the best damn job he could.
Yes, pretty sad, isn&#39;t it? He can #### all of the Americans over and turn the rest of the world against us and thats the best the chimp can do. [/b][/quote]
damn straight&#33;

hahaha my economics teacher is one of those really democrat people, we sit there in class all day and talk about how much bush sucks.

Todd
10-08-2004, 04:42 PM
Originally posted by rosanna1114+Oct 8 2004, 11:40 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (rosanna1114 @ Oct 8 2004, 11:40 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by -Todd@Oct 8 2004, 12:35 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--Boo@Oct 8 2004, 10:56 AM
he&#39;s a good man who&#39;s done the best damn job he could.
Yes, pretty sad, isn&#39;t it? He can #### all of the Americans over and turn the rest of the world against us and thats the best the chimp can do.
damn straight&#33;

hahaha my economics teacher is one of those really democrat people, we sit there in class all day and talk about how much bush sucks. [/b][/quote]
I want your economics teacher. Mine doesnt even speak English :lol:

rosanna
10-08-2004, 04:51 PM
Originally posted by Todd+Oct 8 2004, 12:42 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Todd @ Oct 8 2004, 12:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by -rosanna1114@Oct 8 2004, 11:40 AM

Originally posted by -Todd@Oct 8 2004, 12:35 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--Boo@Oct 8 2004, 10:56 AM
he&#39;s a good man who&#39;s done the best damn job he could.
Yes, pretty sad, isn&#39;t it? He can #### all of the Americans over and turn the rest of the world against us and thats the best the chimp can do.
damn straight&#33;

hahaha my economics teacher is one of those really democrat people, we sit there in class all day and talk about how much bush sucks.
I want your economics teacher. Mine doesnt even speak English :lol: [/b][/quote]
lmfao. yesterday we watched the vice presidential debate and picked it apart. hahahaha. WHAT this has to do with economics i have no idea, but hey, at least i&#39;m not failing.

Today After Tomorrow
10-08-2004, 06:22 PM
Originally posted by Boo@Oct 8 2004, 03:56 PM
Opinions
Believe what you want i say he ain&#39;t no liar he&#39;s a good man who&#39;s done the best damn job he could.
What in the hell do you mean he is no liar? OF COURSE HE IS. This CIA report prooves without a shadow of a doubt that George Bush lied about reasons for going into war. How in the hell can you possibly say he didn&#39;t? IT&#39;S RIGHT THERE IN FRONT OF YOUR FACE. Maybe this is a "flame" and I get warned but I honestly don&#39;t care right now: You must be a very stupid, unintelligent person. I get you continuing to support Bush(not really though) but how can you say he didn&#39;t lie? YES HE DID LIE. He knew it was a lie and went to war on hopes of finding something he knew didn&#39;t exist. You defidently seem like a person who is just going by what their parents or teacher say about Bush. You&#39;re in denial and you&#39;re not looking at the facts.

"Yeah, i&#39;m not so sure the role of the United States is to go around the world and say &#39;this is the way it&#39;s gotta be.&#39;" - George Bush

"If we&#39;re an arrogant nation they&#39;ll resent us. I think one way for us to end up being viewed as the ugly American is for us to go around the world and saying &#39;this is the way we do it, so should you&#33;&#39;" - George Bush

Both of those quotes are from George Bush while running for president. Yet even more lieing for you to look at. And actually, if I were apart of the Bush Campaign team i&#39;d be calling out FLIP-FLOP&#33; Here&#39;s some more quotes:

"You know, I could run for governor but I&#39;m basically a media creation. I&#39;ve never done anything." - George Bush(after friends telling him he should run for governor instead of MLB Commissioner)

"We don&#39;t believe in planners and deciders making the decisions on behalf of Americans." - George Bush

"I&#39;ve coined new words, like, misunderstanding and Hispanically." - George Bush

"I think anybody who doesn&#39;t think I&#39;m smart enough to handle the job is underestimating." - George Bush

"Rarely is the question asked: is our children learning.” - George Bush

"You teach a child to read, and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test.&#39;&#39; - George Bush

This guy is a moron. My 10 month old neice could do a better job than this guy.

And back to something you said: "he&#39;s a good man who&#39;s done the best damn job he could."

WE CAN DO BETTER <--it&#39;s as simple as that.

Shade
10-08-2004, 06:30 PM
Well I give Bush credit for being good at one thing. He&#39;s an excellent thief. He managed to steal his way through failing busineses, steal a presidential election, steal a place both in and out of the military, and steal from nearly every plan and initiative from the past and from his own administration.

But while Bush may be &#39;good&#39; at stealing, that doesn&#39;t fit my definition of &#39;good&#39;.

What exact &#39;good&#39; do you think Bush has done anyways Boo?

Mark
10-08-2004, 07:31 PM
Funny how the man who can&#39;t even run a low-level oil company, and traded Sammy Sosa away from the Texas Rangers, can run your country.

rosanna
10-11-2004, 04:04 PM
Originally posted by Mark@Oct 8 2004, 03:31 PM
Funny how the man who can&#39;t even run a low-level oil company, and traded Sammy Sosa away from the Texas Rangers, can run your country.
and can make millions of people believe that the iraqis are demons when they didn&#39;t even have anything in the first place.


i seriously hate the united states. look what the rest of the world must be thinking. hell, i KNOW what they are thinking. my friends all around the world think that this country is total s***, and i can&#39;t say i blame them. look at this. look what bush did to this country. we look like a bunch of hypocrites.

Ryan
10-12-2004, 12:30 AM
Yah sure i guess this report says that there were no WMD&#39;s. But my only question is why when the UN was searching Iraq, did the Iraq people not allow the UN to go into certain areas then a day or two later allowed them to search it? I would say they were trying to hide something, but what?

TeMpEsT
10-12-2004, 12:32 AM
Originally posted by rosanna1114+Oct 11 2004, 11:04 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (rosanna1114 @ Oct 11 2004, 11:04 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Mark@Oct 8 2004, 03:31 PM
Funny how the man who can&#39;t even run a low-level oil company, and traded Sammy Sosa away from the Texas Rangers, can run your country.
and can make millions of people believe that the iraqis are demons when they didn&#39;t even have anything in the first place.


i seriously hate the united states. look what the rest of the world must be thinking. hell, i KNOW what they are thinking. my friends all around the world think that this country is total s***, and i can&#39;t say i blame them. look at this. look what bush did to this country. we look like a bunch of hypocrites. [/b][/quote]
America has always been hypocritical, now it&#39;s just proportional.

Mark
10-12-2004, 12:34 AM
Originally posted by Ryan@Oct 11 2004, 10:00 PM
Yah sure i guess this report says that there were no WMD&#39;s. But my only question is why when the UN was searching Iraq, did the Iraq people not allow the UN to go into certain areas then a day or two later allowed them to search it? I would say they were trying to hide something, but what?
I&#39;d say they&#39;re just unfriendly to the UN just for the hell of it. Saddam is a defiant person.

Glenn
10-12-2004, 12:46 AM
Originally posted by Mark@Oct 8 2004, 03:31 PM
Funny how the man who can&#39;t even run a low-level oil company, and traded Sammy Sosa away from the Texas Rangers, can run your country.
And hire someone that lost to a dead guy.

Ryan
10-12-2004, 05:21 AM
Originally posted by Mark+Oct 11 2004, 05:34 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mark @ Oct 11 2004, 05:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Ryan@Oct 11 2004, 10:00 PM
Yah sure i guess this report says that there were no WMD&#39;s.* But my only question is why when the UN was searching Iraq, did the Iraq people not allow the UN to go into certain areas then a day or two later allowed them to search it?* I would say they were trying to hide something, but what?
I&#39;d say they&#39;re just unfriendly to the UN just for the hell of it. Saddam is a defiant person. [/b][/quote]
Yah i guess, and for that i would say is reason enough to overthrow his government. Besides the fact that the guy has killed many of his own people and tortured many of his peole. For example they said at the olympics this year when Iraq got the the bronze medal game the players didn&#39;t have to worry aobut a loss and go home and be tortured. I guess for Bush too bad he was the one to do it.

rosanna
10-12-2004, 03:49 PM
yeah but what does that have to do with the weapons? we (i mean BUSH) did not capture saddam because of the immediate threat of the way he was treating iraqis. he was captured because BUSH believed that there were wmd&#39;s and he wanted to use them on us. there is a difference between capturing him because of something that might affect us very soon and capturing him because of something you THINK might happen very soon and changing your mind for the reason why you captured them when it turns out you are wrong.


did that make sense?

Ryan
10-12-2004, 07:20 PM
Originally posted by rosanna1114@Oct 12 2004, 08:49 AM
yeah but what does that have to do with the weapons? we (i mean BUSH) did not capture saddam because of the immediate threat of the way he was treating iraqis. he was captured because BUSH believed that there were wmd&#39;s and he wanted to use them on us. there is a difference between capturing him because of something that might affect us very soon and capturing him because of something you THINK might happen very soon and changing your mind for the reason why you captured them when it turns out you are wrong.


did that make sense?
But whether Saddam had the WMD&#39;s or not. Bush just used that as an excuse to go in there, wheter he thought they had them or not. I mean he just probably thought that the cahnces of them having WMD&#39;s were high so he went with it. Once again proving the intelligence of the man. He could have totally used another reason that would have made the whole situation a little more just.