IRAQ HAD NO STOCKPILES...SO WHAT?

Neal Nize ^ | 10/7/04 | Neal Boortz

[NotchJohnson]

IRAQ HAD NO STOCKPILES...SO WHAT?

The media and the Democrats, along with The Poodle's campaign are all excited about Charles Duelfer's testimony in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee. His verdict? There are no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Big whoop...why is this really news? Haven't we been hearing this for over a year?

The headlines all say the same thing...CIA adviser says Iraq had no banned weapons since 1991...no WMD in Iraq...and so on. The implication is essentially 'Bush lied, people died.' This is where media bias comes in big-time...as some of the stories showed. After all, bad news for Bush is good news for Kerry...and the media. But really, what we have here is old news.

It's been known since the report from David Kaye that nobody could find any stockpiles of WMD in Iraq. It's just not news. But what's also interesting in this case, is that some of the other more important testimony by Duelfer is being ignored. For instance, Saddam did not abandon his nuclear ambitions, he merely put them on hold. As soon as the heat was off, he was going to start making nuclear weapons. He had the ability and the desire.

Let's talk about biological weapons. Duelfer testified that Iraq could have restarted its program and produced mustard agent in months, and nerve agent in less than a year. So Saddam wasn't a threat, huh? All he would have had to do is restart that program, and sell some of that nerve agent to an Islamic terrorist.

What the Democrats would have done, had they been in power, would have been to wait until Saddam did just that. They would have waited until he posed an even greater threat to the world, the region and his neighbors before they did anything. So they didn't find any stockpiles...who cares? The dictator is out of power, is no longer a threat to the rest of the world, is no longer killing and torturing his own people, and will never produce weapons of mass destruction again. Iraq was a terrorist state, and we took action.

Al-Qaeda doesn't have any WMD stockpiles either...should we look the other way there? I think not

[Michael81Dus]

I´m not sure. Under the given facts we believed in THEN, I would have started the as well. Under the facts we know NOW, I would have attacked Iraq later... with another reason (the oppressive regime) and probably more solidarity from other countries. However, it´s waste of time to speculate and think about "what if".

[Coldwater Creek]

I still think that we should make a parking lot out of Syria.

[Mr Ramsbotham]

When you've got the technology, you've got the weapons. The U.S. could destroy every nuclear warhead in its arsenal today, and it would remain a nuclear power. Saddam not only had the undoubted means to produce chemical and biological WMDs, he also had the will to use them. That's all we need to know about Saddam and WMDs. Everything else is superfluous.

[Michael81Dus]

Please, show evidence for your claim that Germany were cheating on the sanctions. This is not true. The German government never authorized exports to Iraq which were not allowed by the UN.

[AaronInCarolina]

I don´t challenge that Saddam was and is evil/mad. But I doubt that he posed a threat to the whole world - at least by 2003. Any hints for the opposite, now that we all learned that he had no WMD when the war started?

He, by himself alone, did not pose the threat to the world. that he did in cooperation with those who would actually deploy the nerve agents and biological substances. Leave him in place to re-constitute a dangerous amassing of chemical and biological agents once sanctions are removed makes him a very dangerous source for those who would take them to all parts of the world. I can't make it any more clear than that.

And yes, I have heard all the arguments that he wouldn't cooperate with terrorists in such a way. If you want to place your trust in Saddam Hussein possessing these things in a safe manner (and he would have re-constituted them... that is what this report said), then go ahead. But if a little chunk of our New York city citizens are murdered by chemical or biological (or God forbid nuclear) deployments, then you can explain to their families how Saddam seemed so trustworthy!

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Over a thousand U.S. soldiers are dead and thousands more wounded for reasons that prove to be untrue, and all Neal can say about that is "So what?"

The choice is between a candidate who as sitting president has not been omnicient and another who as a senator can tell you exactly what the president did wrong - and even at that, changes his position with the political wind. in that context I will take the president who can make a decision and stand by it.

The implicit position of his opposition is that nothing that happens during a Democratic administration is, by definition, bad. How would you compare the last Democratic Secretary of Defense - not former Republican Senator Cohen but Democratic Congressman Les Aspen - with former Secretary of Defense and former corporate executive Donald Rumsfeld? First time Aspen has a serious decision he wimps out and lets politics trump military judgement; his best decision as SecDef is to resign. First time Rumsfeld has a serious problem, he takes down the government of Afghanistan in a couple of months.

As to Iraq, Saddam was waging a low-level war against enforcement of the no-fly zone which protected the Kurds and some Shiites from mass murder. Salman Pak was a terrorist training facility near Baghdad, and there was another terrorist training facility in northeastern Iraq. And Saddam did an excellent immitation of someone who was evading the sanctions against WMD development. And Saddam was succeeding in his effort to buy enough international support to undermine the oil embargo.

" all it took to keep a lid on Hussein's WMD program was UN santions" - but the international support for those sanctions was eroding. And enforcement of sanctions/no-fly was what required our continued - and putatively provocative to Al Qaeda recruits - presence in Saudi Arabia.

Lack of confidence that Saddam was not developing/stockpiling WMD was a reason for the war, but not the only one. And even if it had been the only one, it is a second guess to criticize Bush for "knowing" what apparently was - even if wrong - common "knowledge" in the international intelligence community.

[Michael81Dus]

See post #41. When I remember the time pressure from Rumsfeld, Bush and Powell (and also Blair, Straw), I think this was not adequate and exaggerated. (Half) A year later would have been ok as well, I guess.

[AaronInCarolina]

They died to remove a genocidal maniac who was a threat to the whole world. This report does nothing to change the perception that Saddam Hussein was a crazy man and a threat to us and the whole world!

In what way?

See my post #45

Secondly, we could not have kept the sanctions in place. They were going away.

When?

Are you not aware that they had been eroding for years? Did you not know that France and Germany have been driving the effort within the UN Security Council to remove them entirely? Have you not followed the Oil For Food scandal at all?

[avital2]

the Prez made his very tough decision in the context of a climate of post 9/11, with Bin Laden at large, with knowledge that types like al Zarqawi were moving in and out of Iraq at will and that Saddam was openly helping terrorists in Israel and that he had unaccounted for chemical weapons. i would maintain that those that gave him a hard time for not seeing the signs of 9/11 now think that he should have ignored the many disturbing signs he saw then. they are not logical or responsible in my book. and only John Kerry seriously entertains thoughts of what we would do now knowing what we think we know now.the Prez has no luxury of such "do-overs"

[zencat]

I do not argue that Saddam needed to be removed, WMD or not. But the attitude of "So What?" in regards to the intelligence regarding WMDs just doesn't cut it.

The Bush administration made the case to the American people that there were WMDs. Colin Powell representing our nation made his presentation at UN. This has harmed US credibility when it comes to making future claims and is a massive intelligence failure on many fronts.

There is simply no denying this fact.

[quadrant]

The lack of "stockpiles" of WMD is of no consequence.
The essential elements in developing these weapons is money, talent, and will.
Oil provided the money, Iraq had nurtured and trained the talent, and Saddam had the will to develop these weapons.

In fact, people are the key ingredient. They are more valuable than the equipment, for that can be replaced but scientific talent takes longer to nurture.
For example, without the scientific and technical skills of the staff at Los Alamos and other places, the United States could have never developed the atomic bomb, no matter how much money and time was spent.
It has been said that scientists are required to develop the prototype of any weapon. The second time, the weapon can be produced by engineers. The third time, the weapon can be assembled by technicians.
Saddam spent vast sums of money training scientists, engineers, and technicians. Sooner or later, they would have given him the WMD he wanted, and he demonstrated the will to use them.
The only way to end the threat of Iraqi WMD was to eliminate Saddam.

[zygoat]

I remember seeing news reports of "inspectors" being stalled at the entrance of a plant while covered trucks were rolling out the back gates of the place. I remember "inspectors" being denied entry to places because they were suddenly deemed "Holy Places" by Saddam. I remember Saddam telling us to basically shove it. 16 resolutions and warnings and he still wanted to play cat and mouse with us. Only a fool could believe he didn't have SOMETHING to hide. The weapons may be in Syria or Lebanon by now, but never the less, an example had to be made of Saddam so the rest of the hellhole we call the middle east would know that WE MEAN BUSINESS!

[R_Kangel]

The timing on this is a bit suspect. It's October during a presidential election season. Some inspectors enter post war Iraq and don't find any evidence that Saddam ever had any Stockpiles of WMDs. A few days before a presidential debate they release their report.

I am left wondering what all of the information from paper trails and intel about WMDs being smuggled out of Iraq into Syria and neighboring countries was all about. Chemicals found in Jordan to be used in a chemical plot was traced to Iraq circa 2002.

I wonder what kind of evidence these "inspectors" were looking at before they arrived at the conclusion that the WMDs were just a pipe dream of a benevolent compassionate dictator.

I smell a rat.

[AaronInCarolina]

Under the facts we know NOW, I would have attacked Iraq later...

Wow!!! Hind-sight is a powerful thing, isn't it? You've got to stop assessing whether it was the right decision to invade based upon 18 months of scouring the country and knowing what we know now. We could not possibly have known that there was (apparently) a whole lot of deception going on with regards to the WMD programs. If even Saddam's intelligence agency was mis-led and maybe even Saddam himself was mis-led, then you can't fault the rest of the world for concluding they had an active WMD program. The overwhelming majority of the worlds intelligence agencies were certain that they were there. Now it seems that that conclusion may well have been based upon the fact that most Iraqi's thought they were there. If it now turns out that the WMD's was a grand illusion that fooled almost everybody, then you can't fault the decision to move when we did.

[Arrowhead1952]

IMO, there is no difference between him haveing them and just waiting for a chance to get them.

According to some people currently being deployed to Iraq, there are hundreds of ammo supply points (ASP) that have not been inventoried yet. There is one ASP that is over 50 SQMI in size that has yet to be entered and inventoried.

There are more ASPs that are basically "locked down" and still full of various ammo. The unit that is being deployed has one mission - making an inventory of all the ammo, loading it onto trucks and moving it to an area for demolition.

If there are so many ASPs still full of ammo and other ordanance, how can they factually say there are no WMD stockpiles?

[Non-Sequitur]

Only a fool could believe he didn't have SOMETHING to hide.

A couple of commissions and studies and investigations have all come to the conclusion that he didn't have something to hide.

[AaronInCarolina]

But the attitude of "So What?" in regards to the intelligence regarding WMDs just doesn't cut it.

I think that the "So What" comment came because the report does not change the fact that Saddam was a threat, or if he wasn't a threat when we went in, he absolutely would return to one once sanctions were removed.

[Defiant]

I still think they are in Syria and the Russians helped move them.

[AaronInCarolina]

A couple of commissions and studies and investigations have all come to the conclusion that he didn't have something to hide.

Well, he most certainly acted like he did, and apparently (from this report) his own intelligence agency, and maybe even Saddam himself, thought he did.

[Defiant]

What about Saddam's nuclear program that was exposed by his son in law in 1995? How can they say that no WMDs since 1991?