Posted on 10/08/2004 12:06:18 PM PDT by mike182d
I'm confused...does the report itself say "no WMDs found" or that Saddam was not producing any more WMDs after 1991? I thought the report clearly points out 53 chemical weapons found in 2004 but they were pre-1991?
Please post your question in chat/general interest.
Welcome to FR
And Welcome.
The report clearly states:
1. Saddam was the one who misled on WMD. His strategy was to convince the world he still had WMD. Even his own generals believed he had WMD until the very last minute. (If Bush was deliberately misleading, why would his administration have a report come out just before elections contradicting the lies?)
2. Saddam used the Oil-for-Food Program to build up his treasure chest, to bribe countries, inspectors and journalists into helping remove the sanctions.
3. Saddam had the ability to produce WMD within months of inspections / sanctions ending. And he planned to do so.
Bush went to war under one wrong assumption - that Saddam had a WMD program at that very time. But, Bush's plan prevented a terrorist-friendly WMD program from re-emerging (Iraq), and stopped an existing WMD program in its tracks (Lybia). Kerry would have allowed Saddam to re-emerge as a real imminent threat.
This is the best , most easy to read summary of the Duelfer report. I highly recommend it.http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=1171702004
Page 30 of Volume 3 of the Comprehensive Report of Special Adviser to the DCI on Iraq's WMD, which clearly states that 41 122mm rockets containing sarin/cyclosarin were found in Khamisiyah, Iraq, in June and July, 2004
The report does not have a time-stamped, DNA-encrusted graft of a portion of the skin on Saddam's hand infused around a nuclear trigger.
Therefore, the report is not helpful to Bush or democracy.
My opinion:
Saddam was a terrorist thug.
You either stand up to terrorist thugs
or you kneel and let them slaughter you like a sheep.
Let's Roll.
I believe it says that George W. Bush properly surmised that after 9/11 the US could no longer afford to wait for Sadaam to get rich off of France, Russia and the UN as he continued to pursue his quest for WMD's... and that we reap what was sown under the Clinton Administration... Thats about it...
I thought Saddam was supposed to prove he destroyed his weapons.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1239193/posts
Comprehensive Report (KEY FINDINGS )of the Special Advisor to the DCI on Iraq’s WMD
CIA ^ | 30 September 2004 | CIA
More info
I think the general statement was that even though WMD were not found during the current investigation that Saddam still had the possibility or the the means to build WMD once the sanctions against him were lifted. To treat Saddam as if he had not ever used weapons against his own people would be insane, he has killed thousands of people. It would be like comparing a mass murderer who has killed tens of thousands and not being able to find the weapons that he may use in the future. So therefore he should be considered innocent of all charges? I don't think so. The man killed for pure power and pleasure. I am glad that he can feel the bitter taste of justice. WMD's or not.
You would think those reasons, and human rights abuses, alone would move the "I am more Compassionate that you" party to do something, but guess not..
Well said.
Kerry's policy (at least for today) will be to return to the Clinton policy, which was to sit back and wait for some terrorist thug to attack.
Silly you! This isn't about enforcing U.N. resolutions!
You mean the "CYA Report", right?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.