So much for a "Clear and Present Danger"...

mrsv98

Gracie's Mama, Certified chicken wrangler
Joined
Oct 22, 2001
Messages
5,774
Inspector: Iraq had no WMD before invasion
Final report says Saddam had ambitions, but no chem or bio arms

WASHINGTON - Iraq had no stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons before last year’s U.S.-led invasion and its nuclear program had decayed since the 1991 Gulf War, according to a weapons inspector appointed by the Bush administration.

The assessment contrasted with statements by President Bush before the invasion, when he cited a growing threat from Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction as the reason for overthrowing President Saddam Hussein.

“I still do not expect that militarily significant WMD stocks are cached in Iraq,” Charles Duelfer, the CIA special adviser who led the hunt for weapons of mass destruction, said in testimony prepared for the Senate Armed Services Committee. His prepared remarks were obtained by Reuters before the 2 p.m. ET hearing.

Nuclear weapons program deteriorated
Duelfer said Iraq’s nuclear weapons program had deteriorated since the 1991 Gulf War, but he said Saddam did not abandon his nuclear ambitions.

The issue has figured prominently in the campaign for the Nov. 2 presidential election, with Bush’s Democratic opponent John Kerry saying Bush rushed to war without allowing U.N. inspections enough time to check out Iraq’s armaments.

Bush has given varying justifications for the war. He said in a speech in Pennsylvania on Wednesday that the concern was that terrorists would get banned weapons from Saddam.

“There was a risk, a real risk, that Saddam Hussein would pass weapons or materials or information to terrorist networks,” Bush said.

“In the world after September the 11th, that was a risk we could not afford to take,” he said, referring to the 2001 attacks on the United States attributed to al-Qaida.

Duelfer did reveal a threat that he said had emerged since he last briefed Congress on the status of the WMD hunt — a connection between chemical weapons experts from Saddam’s former regime with insurgents fighting the U.S.-led forces now in Iraq.

Threat posed by insurgents
“I believe we got ahead of this problem through a series of raids throughout the spring and summer. I am convinced we successfully contained a problem before it matured into a major threat,” Duelfer said.

“Nevertheless, it points to the problem that the dangerous expertise developed by the previous regime could be transferred to other hands,” he said.

Duelfer said that by the time of the war in 2003, Iraq would have been able to produce mustard agent in months and nerve agent in less than a year.

“We have not come across explicit guidance from Saddam on this point, yet it was an inherent consequence of his decision to develop a domestic chemical production capacity,” Duelfer said.

Duelfer said that “despite Saddam’s expressed desire to retain the knowledge of his nuclear team, and his attempts to retain some key parts of the program (after 1991), during the course of the following 12 years Iraq’s ability to produce a weapon decayed.”

Duelfer briefed the Senate Intelligence Committee behind closed doors about his report in the morning and was to testify later at an open Senate Armed Services Committee hearing.

‘Little work done on warheads’
“While it is clear that Saddam wanted a long-range missile, there was little work done on warheads. It is apparent that he drew the line at that point ... so long as sanctions remained,” Duelfer said in his prepared remarks.

One of Saddam’s priorities was to escape U.N. sanctions, he said.

“Over time, sanctions had steadily weakened to the point where Iraq, in 2000-2001, was confidently designing missiles around components that could only be obtained outside sanctions,” Duelfer said.

Duelfer’s key conclusion tallied with that of his predecessor, David Kay, who said when he stepped down in January that no large stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons existed in Iraq when the United States went to war.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Tuesday the report will conclude “that Saddam Hussein had the intent and the capability, that he was pursuing an aggressive strategy to bring down the sanctions, the international sanctions, imposed by the United Nations through illegal financing procurement schemes.”

Saddam was importing banned materials, working on unmanned aerial vehicles in violation of U.N. agreements and maintaining industrial capability that could be converted to produce weapons, officials have said. Duelfer also describes Saddam’s Iraq as having had limited research efforts into chemical and biological weapons.

Saddam’s government fell in early April 2003 after a lightning U.S.-led invasion in mid-March. He was captured in December.

White House on the defensive
Duelfer’s report comes in a week that the White House has been put on the defensive in a number of Iraq issues.

Remarks by L. Paul Bremer, former U.S. administrator in occupied Iraq, suggested he argued for more troops in the immediate aftermath of the invasion, when looting was rampant. A spokesman for Bush’s re-election campaign said Bremer indeed differed with military commanders.

President Bush’s election rival, Democrat John Kerry, pounced on Bremer’s statements that the United States “paid a big price” for having insufficient troop levels. On weapons, however, the Massachusetts senator has said he still would have voted to authorize the invasion even if he had known none would be found.

The White House maintained Duelfer’s report supports its view on Iraq’s prewar threat.

“The report will continue to show 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,” McClellan said.

Compare that to the words of Vice President Dick Cheney, in a speech on Aug. 26, 2002, 6½ months before the invasion:

“Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction,” he said. “There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies and against us.”

The Iraq threat
The president made similar charges, laying out in an Oct. 7, 2002, speech what he described as Iraq’s threat:

“It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons.”
“We’ve also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas.”
“Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles — far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey and other nations — in a region where more than 135,000 American civilians and service members live and work. “
What U.S. forces found:

A single artillery shell filled with two chemicals that, when mixed while the shell was in flight, would have created sarin. U.S. forces learned of it only when insurgents, apparently believing it was filled with conventional explosives, tried to detonate it as a roadside bomb in May in Baghdad. Two U.S. soldiers suffered from symptoms of low-level exposure to the nerve agent. The shell was from Saddam’s pre-1991 stockpile.
Another old artillery shell, also rigged as a bomb and found in May, showed signs it once contained mustard agent.
Two small rocket warheads, turned over to Polish troops by an informer, that showed signs they once were filled with sarin.
Centrifuge parts buried in a former nuclear scientist’s garden in Baghdad. These were part of Saddam’s pre-1991 nuclear program, which was dismantled after the 1991 Persian Gulf War. The scientist also had centrifuge design documents.
A vial of live botulinum toxin, which can be used as a biological weapon, in another scientist’s refrigerator. The scientist said it had been there since 1993.
Evidence of advanced design work on a liquid-propellant missile with ranges of up to 620 miles. Since the 1991 Gulf War, Iraq had been prohibited from having missiles with ranges longer than 93 miles.
The Iraq Survey Group did not deal with whether Saddam’s government had contacts with members of the al-Qaida network, a matter that remains subject to wide debate.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6190720/
 
What do you mean by "So much for a 'Clear and Present Danger?'"
 
Originally posted by cynsaun
What do you mean by "So much for a 'Clear and Present Danger?'"

I believe the OP meant there WAS NONE! Wonder what the Bush-Cheney folks will say was now the real reason for invading Iraq?
 
The President gave evidence of WMD as the reason for going to war in Iraq. Officially, it is a case of a "clear and present danger" a reason for going to war as defined by the Constitution. Obviously, this standard was not met.

There are some that say Bush was not given reliable information. I say too bad, he is the President and the buck stops with him.
 

What she meant was that George Bush stated that "there was a clear and present danger" of Iraq using nuclear weapons and that was cause to invade them. The U.N. inspectors and even our own government now admit they found no weapons of mass destruction that the President assured us were there. So..."So much for clear and present danger". It was all a smoke screen so the American people would believe he was fighting terrorism when in fact by concentrating on Iraq, Al Queida has spread even further throughout the world.
 
A minor point, perhaps, but can we please bear in mind that WMD were found in Iraq, just not anything close to the quantities we expected to find. Saying no WMDs were found in Iraq is inaccurate. Saying there were no stockpiles of WMDs in Iraq is accurate.
 
Originally posted by Rafikifan
It was all a smoke screen so the American people would believe he was fighting terrorism when in fact by concentrating on Iraq, Al Queida has spread even further throughout the world.

And this moron of a president will never come out and apologize to the American people about this.

Makes me want to throw random disney stuffed animals at the people wanting to vote for him!:p
 
Friday night should be interesting. Even though they'll be debating domestic issues I'm sure this will come up.
 
Did you read the whole article? Perhaps we are reading a different one? In the article you posted, Charles Dulfer said:

"One of Saddam’s priorities was to escape U.N. sanctions."

"...but he said Saddam did not abandon his nuclear ambitions."

“In the world after September the 11th, that was a risk we could not afford to take,” he said, referring to the 2001 attacks on the United States attributed to al-Qaida."

"Duelfer said that by the time of the war in 2003, Iraq would have been able to produce mustard agent in months and nerve agent in less than a year."

BTW, Senator Kerry saw the same information President Bush did, and he voted for going to war.
 
You've got to watch out for this "intent" stuff. I imagine that Hussein had stockpiled lots of "intent". :rolleyes:
 
They'll just come up with another reason of why we invaded Iraq. Once they realized there were no stockpiles of WMDs the reason changed to we had to topple Saddaam. While there is no disagreement that Saddaam was an evil tyrant are we going to invade every country that has a brutal dictator? The reasons keep changing and George Bush will never admit that it was a mistake. I hope people start to realize there was a difference between the War on Terror and the mess in Iraq.
 
The reasons for going to war in Iraq have not changed. There were always a multitude of reasons. The ones that they have emphasized have changed. Big difference.
 
Originally posted by chadfromdallas


Makes me want to throw random disney stuffed animals at the people wanting to vote for him!:p

:rolleyes:

Fact remains, over a decade ago, Saddam agreed to PROVE to the world that he was disarming and closing down his WMD programs. He did not prove it, in fact he played games for more than a decade. He kicked out the inspectors how many times? He ignored how many UN resolutions? It was up to HIM! How many more years and resolutions did we need before it was justified? He had "ambitions." That's just great. I guess we should have just let him continue to kick out the inspectors and get on with his "ambitions"

With Kerry, maybe we would not have gone to war with Iraq, because the UN wouldn;t have given him permission. Kerry does in fact believe that US troops should only be dispatched at the discretion of the UN. What else does a "Global test" mean?

I depsise Bush's domestic policies, but I am terrified of what a Kerry administration would do to American sovereignty. The UN is a corrupt organization and they never have and never will "like" us. Are they even necessary? Well...I'm not going to go there, but I'm glad Bush doesn't wait for their permission on anything.
 
Does anybody bother to listen to John Kerry? He said he would NEVER need permission from any other country to protect the US. What he said about global test was that if you choose to attack pre-emptively your intelligence and justification should be strong enough to pass a global test - meaning that other countries count certainly understand why you had to pre-emptively attack. Obviously Iraq couldn't pass a global test - I don't think he would even pass an AMerican test if we knew then what we know now.
 
Originally posted by DisneyMomx7
Does anybody bother to listen to John Kerry? He said he would NEVER need permission from any other country to protect the US. What he said about global test was that if you choose to attack pre-emptively your intelligence and justification should be strong enough to pass a global test - meaning that other countries count certainly understand why you had to pre-emptively attack. Obviously Iraq couldn't pass a global test - I don't think he would even pass an AMerican test if we knew then what we know now.

Yes, I listen, and I read, and I study the history of the man. I would really like to see him address this;

"I'm an internationalist. I'd like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations." - John F. Kerry (Harvard Crimson 1970)

He can play politics all he wants, but his senate record supports his original stance much more than it supports his current campaign talking points. He's an "internationalist" He always has been and he always will be. That, to me, is unnacceptable.
 
Fact remains, over a decade ago, Saddam agreed to PROVE to the world that he was disarming and closing down his WMD programs. He did not prove it, in fact he played games for more than a decade. He kicked out the inspectors how many times? He ignored how many UN resolutions? It was up to HIM! How many more years and resolutions did we need before it was justified? He had "ambitions." That's just great. I guess we should have just let him continue to kick out the inspectors and get on with his "ambitions"

No one is saying that Saddam shouldn't be watched or that he was a great guy. The fact is though that the United States went into a country, unprovoked, and killed thousands of people - and the reason we did it are now shown to be unfounded. Talk about egg on the face.

~Amanda
 
I would like a more recent quote - not one from 34 years ago when he just left Vietnam and was a little jaded.

By the way - I would also not hold a quote from 34 years ago against Bush. Just to show that I am not being unfair.

~Amanda

Please also see this thread where I quoted 2 different articles relating to this subject:
http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=658207
 
Originally posted by septbride2002
No one is saying that Saddam shouldn't be watched or that he was a great guy. The fact is though that the United States went into a country, unprovoked, and killed thousands of people - and the reason we did it are now shown to be unfounded. Talk about egg on the face.

~Amanda

I don't think I'd say we went in unprovoked. If there was one thing we had in spades, it was provocation.
 
Originally posted by septbride2002
No one is saying that Saddam shouldn't be watched or that he was a great guy. The fact is though that the United States went into a country, unprovoked, and killed thousands of people - and the reason we did it are now shown to be unfounded. Talk about egg on the face.

~Amanda

So, how many years and resolutions should we have waited for? Hind sight is always 20/20. It sure would have stunk if we were right, but waited anyway. A man like Saddam with nuclear ambitions is a baaaaddd thing, no matter how you pronounce nuclear. BTW, we couldn't "watch" him because he kept kicking the inspectors out and leading them on wild goose chases.

Saddam is out of power, his ambitions mean nothing now. That is a good thing.
 
There is a citation of a quote, BTW, by President Clinton of refereing to Saddam as a "Clear and Present Danger". There is also a citation of a quote of John Ashcroft saying that "Terrorism is a Clear and Present Danger". There is no citation that I can find of President Bush using that phrase in reference to Saddam. Does anybody have one? (It's possible, I just don't remember it......).

Edit....I found it.... March 2003. It was not in refernce to WMD's thoough. Here it is: ""Make no mistake, Saddam Hussein presents a clear and present danger to the United States through a long history of funding, supporting and harboring members of terrorist organizations."
 

New Posts


Disney Vacation Planning. Free. Done for You.
Our Authorized Disney Vacation Planners are here to provide personalized, expert advice, answer every question, and uncover the best discounts. Let Dreams Unlimited Travel take care of all the details, so you can sit back, relax, and enjoy a stress-free vacation.
Start Your Disney Vacation
Disney EarMarked Producer






DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest DIS Tiktok DIS Twitter

Add as a preferred source on Google

Back
Top Bottom