Posted on 01/12/2005 10:14:48 AM PST by ejdrapes
WASHINGTON - The search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has quietly concluded without any evidence of the banned weapons that President Bush cited as justification for going to war, the White House said Wednesday. The Iraq Survey Group, made up of some 1,200 military and intelligence specialists and support staff, spent nearly two years searching military installations, factories and laboratories whose equipment and products might be converted quickly to making weapons. White House press secretary Scott McClellan said there no longer is an active search for weapons. "There may be a couple, a few people, that are focused on that" but that it has largely concluded, he said. "If they have any reports of (weapons of mass destruction) obviously they'll continue to follow up on those reports," McClellan said. "A lot of their mission is focused elsewhere now." Chief U.S. weapons hunter Charles Duelfer is to deliver his final report on the search next month. "It's not going to fundamentally alter the findings of his earlier report," McClellan said, referring to preliminary findings from last September. Duelfer reported then that Saddam Hussein not only had no weapons of mass destruction and had not made any since 1991, but that he had no capability of making any either. Bush unapologetically defended his decision to invade Iraq. Bush has appointed a panel to investigate why the intelligence about Iraq's weapons was wrong. White House Says Iraq Weapons Search Over
Bush didn't go to war against Iraq because of WMDs. He went to war with Iraq because Saddam was in violation of UN resolution 1441 (and numerous others), that reslotution stated that if Saddam didn't allow the inspectors to do their job then force would be neccessary. Only the Coaltion of the Willing was willing to back that UN res. up. Resolutions need to have teeth, not just bark.
Furthermore, I too believe that Saddam had way too much time to remove the weapons. I'm sure they're in Syria. and we did find some as has been pointed out.
One tiny problem...Duelfer reported NO SUCH THING.
Saddam never abandoned his intentions to resume a CW effort when sanctions were lifted and conditions were judged favorable:
Saddam and many Iraqis regarded CW as a proven weapon against an enemy’s superior numerical strength, a weapon that had saved the nation at least once already—during the Iran-Iraq war—and contributed to deterring the Coalition in 1991 from advancing to Baghdad. (reason enough for me).
While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad’s desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered.
Now what are you going to say?
If you can honestly say, after reading this report, that had we not gone into Iraq, Saddam wouldn't have re-emerged as a serious threat to our security, then I shall think you a fool.
Nah, you're wrong mate. The 'suicide' prefix merely designates method of deployment, not motive.
I would question your description as being inaccurate because surely most bombs can be used as an instrument of bringing death to innocent civilians. Indeed 'homicide bomb' is essentially a tautology since generally the whole point of most bombs, particularly in the terrorist context, is to commit homicide in some form or other.
Of course the real agenda behind the term 'homicide bomb' is to surreptitiously imply certain connotations to it. Not only is this patronising (I pity the person who needs editorial re-enforcement that blowing yourself up in a crowded restaurant is a bad act) it also ignorant.
You see Homicide is not even a crime, it is merely a legal term to desribe the killing of another human. I would suggest that the term you really meant is 'Murder'.
However the problem with the logic of the term 'Homicide bomber' is that we have to infer the motive of the perpetrator. A Japanese Kamakaze for instance (in a state of war) might be described a a 'Lawful-Homicide/Suicide Bomber' as might a Tamil Tiger bomber. A palestinian who inadvertantly blows himself up and kills his colleagues may be termed a 'Reckless manslaughter/suicide bomber' (although I reckon there may be a case for omitting the 'Suicide'
As I already stated, the term 'Suicide' is used to define a particular type of delivery - the motive is irrelevant.
If for some reason we do wish to apply motive, then I'll concede 'Suicide bomber is not as accurate as it might be either 'Suicide implies that the only reason behind the act were to end one's life. Clearly this is not true, since although suicide may be an objective (72 virgins and all that) it is not the primary one. This is obviously secondary to killing others, otherwise it would be far easier to simply detonate oneself in the comfort of one's living room without having to run the bothersome gauntlet of Israeli security checkpoints.
So a more accurate description would be a 'Murder/Suicide bomb(er)' to describe the loonies in Palestine.
Again though the motive is academic.
Saddam never abandoned his intentions to resume a CW effort when sanctions were lifted and conditions were judged favorable:
Saddam and many Iraqis regarded CW as a proven weapon against an enemy’s superior numerical strength, a weapon that had saved the nation at least once already—during the Iran-Iraq war—and contributed to deterring the Coalition in 1991 from advancing to Baghdad. (reason enough for me).
While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad’s desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap5.html
"While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter"
You know what the word "judges" means? It means an informed GUESS. You know the different between a "guess" and a "fact", I'm sure.
And since you are quoting from the Duelfer Report, I'm sure you read on to this part:
Destruction of Chemical Munitions, Bulk Agent, and Precursors
ISG interviewed Dr. Mahmud Firaj Bilal, the Iraqi scientist who supervised the destruction of Iraq’s undeclared chemical munitions, along with a number of Iraqi higher officials who were knowledgeable of the weapons destruction. Although other sources have corroborated parts of Dr. Bilal’s account, ISG’s understanding of Iraq’s chemical and biological warfare agent unilateral destruction is heavily dependent on Dr. Bilal’s information, which is a weakness in our analysis. Nevertheless, as with Iraq’s long range missiles, we obtained a reasonably coherent account of the disposition of the CW munitions, though we were not able physically to verify the story. The UN has, however, verified some of it.
Iraq likely destroyed all 20 concealed CW Al Husayn missile warheads in the summer of 1991, according to Dr. Bilal based on UN-sponsored excavations. All were “binary” GB/GF nerve agent warheads filled with a mixture of isopropanol and cyclohexanol and MPF. Al Muthanna had dispersed approximately 1024 CW R-400 bombs along various Iraqi airbases. Iraq did not declare some of these to the UN and unilaterally destroyed them in situ. The UN holds these as accounted for, although they were unaware that a small percentage of them were used on the Shia in March 1991 according to multiple sources.
Iraq disposed of 1.5 tons of spoiled bulk VX nerve agent at the Al Muthanna State Establishment dumpsite.
Dr. Bilal also stated that Iraq destroyed the following chemical agent precursors:
157 tons of the VX precursor phosphorus pentasulfide (P2S5) destroyed by mixing it with soil at Saqlawiyah, northwest of Fallujah. UNSCOM-sponsored excavations accounted for about this amount.
55 tons of the VX precursor choline destroyed at Qasr al-‘ashiq near Samarra’.
10 tons of the mustard precursor thiodiglycol destroyed by burning at Saqlawiyah. This precursor was never declared to the UN and had been stored in the city of Samarra’. When the rest of the unilateral destruction took place, no one remembered this stock until a month after the rest of the chemical destruction. This realization triggered its destruction.
Al Muthanna State Establishment gave cyclohexanol, isopropanol, and isopropylamine to various industries for use as solvents.
Iraq also destroyed a quantity of empty aerial bombs intended for CW use and empty 122-mm CW rockets.
Bilal insisted that Iraq’s CW “Full, Final, and Complete Declaration” is completely accurate regarding the unilateral destruction of CW munitions.
UNSCOM had verified or accepted some of what Bilal said about munitions destruction, but other parts of the story remain unverified.
Iraq presented supporting documents on the unilateral destruction of 527 R-400 CW bombs and UNSCOM observed remnants of bombs consistent with the declared quantity.
When considered with the number of declared BW Al Husayn warheads (25), the total number of undeclared “special warheads” was 45. In the period from 1992 to 1998, UNSCOM recovered and accounted for remnants of 43-45 special warheads. In 1997-1998, UNSCOM recovered the remnants of three additional training warheads. Iraq provided supporting documents on the overall accounting for special warheads and on the unilateral destruction of 45 warheads. We cannot be sure, however, that there were only 45 “special” warheads in Iraq’s inventory.
UNSCOM was not able to verify the quantity of VX destroyed, nor were they able to verify the destruction of all VX precursor chemicals.
UNSCOM was not able to verify the destruction of unfilled 250 gauge aerial bombs, unfilled R-400 aerial bombs, and unfilled 122-mm rockets.
The destruction years ago of the bulk of Iraq’s CW munitions not withstanding, ISG remains concerned about the status and whereabouts of hundreds of CW artillery rounds. Previous assertions that the munitions were all destroyed have been undermined by reporting that the munitions remain intact in an unknown location.
In the 5 January 1999 Compendium, UNSCOM assessed that Iraq had not adequately accounted for 550 mustard-filled artillery rounds it claimed to have lost. This issue first surfaced in 1996 because of discrepancies in Iraq’s accounting of weapons holdings, and was investigated but not resolved by UNSCOM (see the January 1999 UN compendium for details). ISG conducted extensive interviews with high- and mid-level Iraqi officials to determine the final disposition of the 550 mustard-filled rounds—which would be highly toxic, even now—cited by the UN as an unresolved disarmament issue, and found inconsistencies in the story among witting high-level officials. Most officials recounted the story of accidental destruction in a fire in Karbala, reporting provided to the UN after Iraq’s investigation of this issue prior to 1998, while the former MIC director, Huwaysh, claims the rounds were retained for future use.
In a 7 August 2003 debriefing, Huwaysh said that as of early 2003, all 550 mustard rounds were kept by the SRG at Suwayrah, probably the former location of the II RG Corps Headquarters, just north of the Shaykh-Mazar ammunition depot.
According to Huwaysh, the matter was discussed by the Higher Committee on Monitoring Inspections and a decision was made to declare the shells, which was done just prior to OIF.
Amir Rashid admitted that the Higher Committee discussed the shells in February or March 2003. Rashid said the discussion focused on the connection between the burned mustard shells at the Fallujah proving ground and other shells that reportedly burned on a trailer near Karbala after the 1991 Gulf War.
General Hussam Amin did not remember any discussions of Suwayrah and mustard shells. According to Amin, in early 2003, General ‘Amir Al Sa’adi explained to him that the mustard shells were destroyed on the trailer near Karbala.
As you can see, I've highlighted just some of the questionable conclusions, and those based mainly on the word of an Iraqi official.
Nothing in the report indicates to me the assertion of conclusive fact as stated by this AP reporter.
But, if you are comfortable relying on the words of AP and an Iraqi official, then by all means, continue your rant.
I guess that's only fair, since I think you have a reading limitation problem. We're quoting from the same source, only you've limited yourself to one small statement that in no way resembles the statement made by the AP writer.
First, with 11 months advance warning of an invasion, they could hide, move or sell anything off they wanted to.
More than likely, tons of stuff was moved.
If I knew people were coming to search me through the whole house, you wouldn't find anything, I'd move the object.
Same situation in Iraq.
Any links to a credible news source that the United States said Saddam asked them if he could invade Kuwait?
How does a dictator ask the US if it was OK to invade another country unless he talked to a representative?
Show me any connection, any credible link that shows this "MISUNDERSTANDING STORY is anything else but a rumor.
I'm saying the Saddam misinterpretation story is bunk and just a rumor.
Homicide is used to kill others, very simple to understand.
You strap a bomb to yourself and blow up just you, THAT IS A SUICIDE. (A Suicide bomber)
If you (a soldier representing a national army) straps a bomb or grenade to yourself and ignite in battle with a soldier as a last desperate act, that is war.
Strap a bomb to yourself and then walk among inoocent civilians and blow up, that is a Homicide Terrorist Bomber of the Radical Islam Cult. Nothing to do with suicide there.
See and read #71
Did you actually read my post. Obviously used too many words for you.
Guess? meaning of is is? So the Bush screwed up? You know the truth but not the ISG?
First - you are making it up - the Iraq Survey Group of the USA said no such supposition as yours happened.
Saddam calling the American amb and said he had problems with Kuwait that may lead to war/invasion - what would be America's reactions to such a war - the amb said America does not get involved with inter Arab disputes. To Saddam, that was a green light.
Google on "Glaspie & Saddam" and you'll find numerous links to the transcript in which Glaspie stated
We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America.
Take it as you wish, but if this transcript is true, it's certainly reasonable that Saddam could have taken this to mean that we had a hands-off policy toward Kuwait.
This is the best you can do? I never claimed to know the truth - the point is neither did the ISG. They made their judgment based on the evidence they had - evidence some of which they themselves question.
So your interpretation of the Duelfer Report in summary is that since 1991 Saddam never had WMDs and never anticipated having them in the future?
Hmmm....interesting that you accused me of having a reading comprehension problem.
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.