Old 18th September 2004, 13:35   #1
gaekwad2
Foorum King
 
gaekwad2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: bar2000
Posts: 11,424
The final verdict: Iraq had no WMD

Quote:
Iraq had no WMD: the final verdict

Julian Borger in Washington
Saturday September 18, 2004


The comprehensive 15-month search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has concluded that the only chemical or biological agents that Saddam Hussein's regime was working on before last year's invasion were small quantities of poisons, most likely for use in assassinations.

A draft of the Iraq Survey Group's final report circulating in Washington found no sign of the alleged illegal stockpiles that the US and Britain presented as the justification for going to war, nor did it find any evidence of efforts to reconstitute Iraq's nuclear weapons programme.

It also appears to play down an interim report which suggested there was evidence that Iraq was developing "test amounts" of ricin for use in weapons. Instead, the ISG report says in its conclusion that there was evidence to suggest the Iraqi regime planned to restart its illegal weapons programmes if UN sanctions were lifted.

Charles Duelfer, the head of the ISG, has said he intends to deliver his final report by the end of the month. It is likely to become a heated issue in the election campaign.

President George Bush now admits that stockpiles have not been found in Iraq but claimed as recently as Thursday that "Saddam Hussein had the capability of making weapons, and he could have passed that capability on to the enemy".

The draft Duelfer report, according to the New York Times, finds no evidence of a capability, but only of an intention to rebuild that capability once the UN embargo had been removed and Iraq was no longer the target of intense international scrutiny.

The finding adds weight to Mr Bush's assertions on the long-term danger posed by the former Iraqi leader, but it also suggests that, contrary to the administration's claims, diplomacy and containment were working prior to the invasion.

The draft report was handed to British, US and Australian experts at a meeting in London earlier this month, according to the New York Times. It largely confirms the findings of Mr Duelfer's predecessor, David Kay, who concluded "we were almost all wrong" in thinking Saddam had stockpiled weapons. The Duelfer report goes into greater detail.

Mr Kay's earlier findings mentioned the existence of a network of laboratories run by the Iraqi intelligence service, and suggested that the regime could be producing "test amounts" of chemical weapons and researching the use of ricin in weapons.

Subsequent inspections of the clandestine labs, under Mr Duelfer's leadership, found they were capable of producing small quantities of lethal chemical and biological agents, more useful for assassinations of individuals than for inflicting mass casualties.

Mr Duelfer, according to the draft, does not exclude the possibility that some weapons materials could have been smuggled out of Iraq before the war, a possibility raised by the administration and its supporters. However, the report apparently produces no significant evidence to support the claim. Nor does it find any evidence of any action by the Saddam regime to convert dual-use industrial equipment to weapons production.

"I think we know exactly how this is going to play out," said Joseph Cirincione, a proliferation expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

"You'll see a very elaborate spin operation. But there's not much new here from what the ISG reported before," he said. "There are still no weapons, no production of weapons and no programmes to begin the production of weapons. What we're left with here is that Saddam Hussein might have had the desire to rebuild the capability to build those weapons."

"Well, lots of people have desire for these weapons. Lots of people have intent. But that's not what we went to war for."

The motives for war, meanwhile, came under fresh scrutiny last night as the Telegraph reported that Tony Blair was warned in Foreign Office papers a year before the invasion of the scale of dealing with a post-Saddam Iraq.

The Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman, Sir Menzies Campbell, said that if authenticated, the papers "demonstrate that the government agreed with the Bush administration on regime change in Iraq more than a year before military action was taken".

Mr Duelfer, who is reported to still be in Baghdad, did not respond to a request for an interview on the question of WMD yesterday.

Earlier this year, he told the Guardian that he expected his report would leave "some unanswered questions".
source: Guardian
gaekwad2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th September 2004, 13:55   #2
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375
Re: The final verdict: Iraq had no WMD

Quote:
Originally posted by gaekwad2
"You'll see a very elaborate spin operation. But there's not much new here from what the ISG reported before," he said. "There are still no weapons, no production of weapons and no programmes to begin the production of weapons. What we're left with here is that Saddam Hussein might have had the desire to rebuild the capability to build those weapons."
Yeah, that's what I was afraid of...

zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th October 2004, 14:38   #3
mopeder
Junior Member
 
mopeder's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Alamance County, NC.
Posts: 35
Iraq wasn't a danger to U.S.

QUOTE:
“… the President just said something extraordinarily revealing and frankly very important in this debate. … , he just said “the enemy attacked us.” Saddam Hussein didn’t attack us, OSAMA bin Laden attacked us, al-QAEDA attacked us. And when we had OSAMA … cornered in the mountains of TORA BORA …, with the America military forces nearby … , we didn’t use the best trained troops in the world to go kill the world’s #1 criminal & terrorist. They outsourced the job to Afghan warlords, who only a week earlier had been … fighting against us, … . That’s the enemy that attacked us, that’s the enemy that was allowed to walk out of those mountains, that’s the enemy that is now in 60 countries with stronger recruits.” ~ Senator John Kerry (Sept-30-2004)


During the debate G W Bush said that Iraq was the center of the war on terror. That’s just not true. John Kerry was right about Afghanistan being the center of the focus on the war on terror. Instead of getting the job done in Afghanistan which would be capturing or killing OSAMA bin Laden and destroying the al-QAEDA forces there, Bush unnecessarily invaded Iraq. And now terrorists are pouring over Iraq’s border from the surrounding countries of the Middle East to kill U.S. soldiers. These are terrorists from Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Palestine, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc.
While Saddam Hussein was in power there were almost no terrorists in Iraq. Now as a result of the war in Iraq, Bush has unwittingly increased the spread of terrorism instead of lessening it.
Bush also stated during the debate that Iraq would have gotten stronger if something wasn’t done. That’s just not true. Kerry said the sanctions, the north and south no-fly zones were working, the weapons inspections were ongoing. The U.S. was conducting air strikes when necessary. Saddam’s regime was getting weaker, and weaker, and would have continued to weaken. The assessment Kerry gave was accurate. When the U.S. invaded, Iraq could barely defend itself and crumbled from the onslaught.
Now out on the campaign trail Bush is saying that Iraq was a danger. That’s just not true. What Kerry said was in agreement with the findings of the 9/11 commission that there were no weapons of mass destruction, and no links to al-QAEDA, or involvement by Iraq in the 9/11 attacks.
Bush made a mistake when he invaded Iraq, and it has needlessly cost the lives of U.S. soldiers, American civilians, and others. The capture of Saddam was the only good thing that happened.
The danger to the U.S. was and still is from al-QAEDA, not Iraq. Bush should stop using misleading rhetoric, and tell the truth. I know, that’s just not likely.

http://www.votolatino.org
mopeder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th October 2004, 17:17   #4
spiderbaby1958
Major Dude
 
spiderbaby1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Binghamton, NY
Posts: 789
I was watching a documentary on the Iraq War yesterday, and I was reminded about how some of the documents used to justify the invasion were be proven to obvious forgeries. Strange how we've heard less about them than about documents obtained by Sixty Minutes that may have been forged-- oh, and the first ten minutes of Farenheit 911 may have been a little misleading.

Some people want to hold a documentary film or a TV news report to a higher standard of truth than the government seeking to justify war... Fox News excepted, of course. In the future, anthropologists will have a field day with this crowd.
spiderbaby1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th October 2004, 06:02   #5
Phyltre
Forum King
 
Phyltre's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Freefall
Posts: 2,751
Send a message via AIM to Phyltre Send a message via Yahoo to Phyltre
Well, look at our leadership, (both current and prospective) and there you have it.

Nobody worth voting for, just goons trying to enforce a two-party system.
Phyltre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th October 2004, 10:04   #6
Omega X
Forum King
 
Omega X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: A Parallel Dimension
Posts: 2,252
Send a message via AIM to Omega X Send a message via Yahoo to Omega X
Quote:
Originally posted by Phyltre
Well, look at our leadership, (both current and prospective) and there you have it.

Nobody worth voting for, just goons trying to enforce a two-party system.
Goons? You mean Corporate Puppets.
Omega X is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th October 2004, 16:28   #7
Phyltre
Forum King
 
Phyltre's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Freefall
Posts: 2,751
Send a message via AIM to Phyltre Send a message via Yahoo to Phyltre
That too.
Phyltre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th October 2004, 01:32   #8
MegaRock
Forum King
 
MegaRock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Inside my water bong
Posts: 6,855
Send a message via ICQ to MegaRock Send a message via Yahoo to MegaRock
Starting to feel like the movie 'Wag The Dog'

Megarock Radio - St. Louis Since 1998!
Tune In Now!
Corporate Radio Sucks! No suits, all rock!
MegaRock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th October 2004, 18:39   #9
Starbucks
Forum King
 
Starbucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Forums
Posts: 2,685
´quote+The final verdict: Iraq had no WMD´´-quote+

Old news. Bush knew that already. &&
Starbucks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd June 2006, 02:17   #10
webthing
Forum King
 
webthing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: South Central Pennsylvania USA
Posts: 2,647
Quote:
Iraq had no WMD: the final verdict
Wrong.


This says weapons have been discovered, more weapons exist and they state that Iraq was not a WMD-free zone, that there are continuing threats from the materials that are or may still be in Iraq," said Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

The weapons are thought to be manufactured before 1991 so they would not be proof of an ongoing WMD program in the 1990s. But they do show that Saddam Hussein was lying when he said all weapons had been destroyed, and it shows that years of on-again, off-again weapons inspections did not uncover these munitions.



http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html
webthing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd June 2006, 09:02   #11
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375
The declassified report sections are extremely vague. I think we need more information before this can be properly verified.

Also, some of the things the people are claiming are not backed up by the report, which makes me skeptical. Is there a reliable news source reporting this yet?

Will be interesting to see how this proceeds. The report does mention that the chemical weapons are all pre-Gulf War, and have degraded (they are listed as "potentially fatal", which is a hell of a lot less potent than they are designed to be).

zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd June 2006, 10:49   #12
gaekwad2
Foorum King
 
gaekwad2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: bar2000
Posts: 11,424
Even the department of defense calls bullshit on those claims.
gaekwad2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd June 2006, 11:29   #13
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375
Hurrah then, I say. Hurrah.

zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Go Back   Winamp & Shoutcast Forums > Community Center > Breaking News

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump