Posted on 10/24/2004 8:21:01 AM PDT by Gorilla44
Two central issues in the campaign intersect: How imminent was the threat from Saddam Hussein, and how long should Washington have waited for France, Germany, and Russia to see him as plain a menace as we did? The critics of George W. Bush and Tony Blair have drawn much of their ammunition from the report of the Iraq Survey Group led by Charles Duelfer. The Duelfer report confirmed that Saddam had no stocks of weapons of mass destruction, no active programs of chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. In short, Saddam was a diminishing threat. But there is more to this simple headline. There is, in fact, a much darker side, and here it is:
Saddam wanted to re-create Iraq's banned weapons programs, including nuclear weapons.
Saddam was determined to develop ballistic missiles and tactical chemical weapons when the U.N. sanctions were either lifted or corroded.
Saddam retained the industrial equipment to help restart these programs, having increased from 1996 to 2002 his military industrial spending 40-fold and his technical military research 80-fold. Even while U.N. weapons inspectors were in Iraq, Saddam's scientists were performing deadly experiments on human guinea pigs in secret labs.
To what end? The overlooked section of the Duelfer report could not have put it any clearer: "Iraq would have been able to produce mustard agents in a period of months and nerve agent in less than a year or two." While Saddam had abandoned his biological weapons programs, he retained the scientists and other technicians "needed to restart a potential biological weapons program," and he "intended to reconstitute long-range delivery systems [that is, missiles] and . . . the systems potentially were for WMD." These conclusions were based on interviews with Saddam Hussein, his closest advisers, and his weapons scientists, along with the kind of industrial equipment the Iraqi government imported and maintained.
A bomb in a garden. But what of the sanctions intended to prevent him from doing these things? The ugly truth is spelled out in Duelfer's report: "Prohibited goods and weapons were being shipped into Iraq with virtually no problem" from France, China, Russia, Egypt, Turkey, Syria, and elsewhere. How odd that many of these same countries were the ones protesting the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Saddam's strategic objective was quite simple--to end the sanctions so he could reconstitute his banned weapons programs. This has been confirmed by Saddam's chief nuclear guru, Mahdi Obeidi, in a book called The Bomb in My Garden. Under orders from Qusay Hussein, Obeidi buried a huge barrel in his back garden that contained the components of an actual centrifuge for the enrichment of uranium, in addition to printed instructions and other information on the subject. Obeidi wrote in the New York Times, "Iraqi scientists had the knowledge and the designs needed to jump-start the [nuclear weapons] program if necessary. And there is no question that we could have done it so very quickly." Why was none of this learned from the interviews of Obeidi by U.N. inspectors before we invaded? Because his family was held hostage by Saddam.
Yes, America was wrong about Saddam's weapons stockpiles and programs. But the Duelfer report makes it clear that the sanctions were increasingly ineffective and that Saddam would simply bide his time, waiting until the sanctions were either ended or eroded while turning the U.N. Oil-for-Food program into an $11 billion slush fund to buy influence among several key U.N. members, including France, China, and Russia. With the complicity of the U.N. officials allegedly involved in Saddam's Oil-for-Food bribery scheme, can there be any doubt that the sanctions would have eventually disappeared?
The French worked at every turn to frustrate efforts to hold Saddam's feet to the fire. A French legislator even told an Iraqi intelligence official that Paris would veto any U.N. resolution authorizing war against Iraq. In fact, France threatened to do just that. But for what, exactly? Iraq's deputy prime minister, Tariq Aziz, told Duelfer that "French oil companies wanted to secure two large oil contracts." National bribery on top of individual bribery--now, that's something you don't see every day.
Duelfer told the Senate Armed Services Committee that "Sanctions were in free fall . . . . If not for 9/11, I don't think they would exist today" and described Saddam as "a grave threat" to the Middle East and to the entire world.
What stopped Saddam was the will of a few strong-minded leaders who believed in a more forceful response than simply joining hands and singing "Kumbaya."
So much for any Global Tests....How can you have a test when the world is cheating and the US plays fair?
Also, not said.............
".....Saddam would simply bide his time........".....and eventually turn the whole thing over to his two psychotic, homicidal sons.
The main stream media refuses to address the issue of why did Saddam resist inspections and why did he not cooperate with the inspectors. If he had, the sanctions would have been lifted and the oil dollars would flow again. I think what he was hiding is no longer in Iraq. It may be in Syria or God only knows where.
too bad that Mort can't say - "except for a few strong leaders, like Bush, Blair, Burslisconni et.al.the world would be --->" But he had to leave out their names or miss out on the Kumbaya dinners he so loves in Manhattan.
bookmark bump
Well, they have suggested that he was bluffing Iran.
They also haven't addressed where the WMDs that we knew he had went. In addition to not finding large quantities of WMDs, we also haven't found proof of them being destroyed.
Thanks. Truth about Iraq needs to be put out there:
http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com
I disagree. We found toxic chemical traces in the river, we have recently learned that scrapyards around Iraq have been doing a bangup business lately. Seems the locals stripped weapons plants, as they knew where they were, but the coalition forces and UN Inspectors didn't.
We have found modified scuds,biowarfare missiles with traces of agent on them. We found a big pile of Uranium. Yaknow, Iraq had to have that for nuclear power plant fuel, seeing how they got no natural resource like.... oil.... to use.
Nuclear weapons are only good for one thing. Everyone is too scared to use them. Saddam wanted Nukes, no doubt. But not to shoot or use on us. He wanted them to be on equal ground or better with the surrounding countries.
Look at Israel. People say, "why do they have so many nukes?". Well, because the live in a tiny country surrounded by nothing, but THE ENEMY.
Everyone wants to see NUKE MISSILES on launchpads. ...scuse me.. We have been conditioned by the media to equate WMD with Nuke warheads. When convenient, to support their choice of candidate.
If you see the entire list of munitions, chem/bio weapons, storage/processing equipment, violations of range capability on missiles, prohibited weapons, you would see Saddam could supply the terrorists worldwide, for years.
HE arranged the attempted assasination of President Bush the first. He offered money to suicide bombers. He was aiding and abetting our enemy. He gave them protection and housing. They, in repayment, took over most of the country, except for Tikrit and Baghdad. Now, Saddam was on the other side. The terrorists told him what they wanted, and he would get it. Otherwise, they would get him and his sons.
His sons, would take power soon, anyway. This could not be allowed to happen.
They connected the dots in 1998 but Senator Kerry and MSM can't seem to connect the dots in 2004.
Here is an easy to read chart of what the media was saying pre-911 (and after): Connect the Dots...Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.
Lots of facts and quotes about the president-wannabe at the John F. Kerry Timeline.
.
Furthering a lie. They saw him as a menace, they even declared him a menace. They also armed him to make him a menace. They just aren't against menacing, they are for it. It is pure diplomatic bilge that they are civilized at all or care at all whether Iraq was a threat to anything, or evil, or any of the rest of it. They use evil men and dangerous threats to keep us busy and limit our power and to make money. They are complete cynics and enemies, not unconvinced civilized allies.
thanks for the post. the duerfler report makes the case that saddam had to be taken out. i suspect that most of us on this site knew the facts in the report that were suppressed by the mainstream media. it just galls me that liberals will hide key information with the sole purporse of getting power and pushing a domestic social agenda.
Pretty good until this point. Bush led, Blair and the rest followed. That is the simple truth of the matter and nothinbg can ever change it.
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.