Skip to comments.Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the DCI on Iraq’s WMD (30 September 2004 )
Posted on 11/14/2005 3:55:19 PM PST by baystaterebel
Introduction. Iraq has endured decades of collapsing hopes and accumulating tragedy. It is numbing to consider the waste of so much human and resource potential. Saddams ambitions conflicted with the region and the international community. True to his name, he too often chose confrontation over cooperation. Ultimately these decisions led to total collapse.
Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) were an integral element in the range of tools Saddam drew upon to advance his ambitions. WMD was not an end in itself. Therefore, to examine meaningfully WMD in Iraq means examining the leadership of Iraq concomitantly.
The Iraq experience with WMD stretches over 30 years and three wars. Thousands of victims died on battlefields, and civilians have been gassed in domestic terror campaigns. War and sanctions have ground civil society down to rudimentary levels. The most talented of Iraq have faced excruciating dilemmasto comply with the Regimes directions or risk careers, their lives, and the lives of loved ones. Chronic, systemic fear on the part of the best and the brightest was a feature of the intellectual elite.
(Excerpt) Read more at cia.gov ...
President Bush was right.
Stephen Hayes cites intell reports in his book about the connection to Al-Qaeda.
Which leads me to question : why the hell is the democrats continuing to get away with their absurd accusations [rhetorical]?.
But nonrhetorically I ask : are these idiots willing to go to court and impeach the president over this?? There's so much overwhelming evidence that would take them down.
I think there's something here that we don't know. I think there's a reason the President hasn't responded in the ways he should've. I think there is a potential compromise in national security, there's got to be. We shouldn't even be discussing this anymore.
Everyone with half a brain knows Bush was right. Those on the left just don't seem to have half a brain.
These DemocRATS don't care for the human suffering and genocide Saddam caused, he was a good man in their eyes.
So is Osama bin laden. Barbra Boxer, or was it Pelosi? said Osama was a good man who built hospitals, roads and schools for "his people" in Afghanistan. It's all about oil don'tcha know?
Saddam totally dominated the Regimes strategic decision making. He initiated most of the strategic thinking upon which decisions were made, whether in matters of war and peace (such as invading Kuwait), maintaining WMD as a national strategic goal, or on how Iraq was to position itself in the international community.
Loyal dissent was discouraged and constructive variations to the implementation of his wishes on strategic issues were rare. Saddam was the Regime in a strategic sense and his intent became Iraqs strategic policy.
Saddams primary goal from 1991 to 2003 was to have UN sanctions lifted, while maintaining the security of the Regime. He sought to balance the need to cooperate with UN inspectionsto gain support for lifting sanctionswith his intention to preserve Iraqs intellectual capital for WMD with a minimum of foreign intrusiveness and loss of face. Indeed, this remained the goal to the end of the Regime, as the starting of any WMD program, conspicuous or otherwise, risked undoing the progress achieved in eroding sanctions and jeopardizing a political end to the embargo and international monitoring.
The introduction of the Oil-For-Food program (OFF) in late 1996 was a key turning point for the Regime. OFF rescued Baghdads economy from a terminal decline created by sanctions. The Regime quickly came to see that OFF could be corrupted to acquire foreign exchange both to further undermine sanctions and to provide the means to enhance dual-use infrastructure and potential WMD-related development.
By 2000-2001, Saddam had managed to mitigate many of the effects of sanctions and undermine their international support. Iraq was within striking distance of a de facto end to the sanctions regime, both in terms of oil exports and the trade embargo, by the end of 1999.
Saddam wanted to recreate Iraqs WMD capabilitywhich was essentially destroyed in 1991after sanctions were removed and Iraqs economy stabilized, but probably with a different mix of capabilities to that which previously existed. Saddam aspired to develop a nuclear capabilityin an incremental fashion, irrespective of international pressure and the resulting economic risksbut he intended to focus on ballistic missile and tactical chemical warfare (CW) capabilities.
Iran was the pre-eminent motivator of this policy. All senior level Iraqi offi cials considered Iran to be Iraqs principal enemy in the region. The wish to balance Israel and acquire status and influence in the Arab world were also considerations, but secondary.
Iraq Survey Group (ISG) judges that events in the 1980s and early 1990s shaped Saddams belief in the value of WMD. In Saddams view, WMD helped to save the Regime multiple times. He believed that during the Iran-Iraq war chemical weapons had halted Iranian ground offensives and that ballistic missile attacks on Tehran had broken its political will. Similarly, during Desert Storm, Saddam believed WMD had deterred Coalition Forces from pressing their attack beyond the goal of freeing Kuwait. WMD had even played a role in crushing the Shia revolt in the south following the 1991 cease-fire.
The former Regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions. Neither was there an identifiable group of WMD policy makers or planners separate from Saddam. Instead, his lieutenants understood WMD revival was his goal from their long association with Saddam and his infrequent, but firm, verbal comments and directions to them.
Easy. The media covers for them, lies along with them, and have been so successful at drumming the false "Bush lied" into the minds of the public. Most of them aren't paying attention anyway. They watch the national news and swallow it all hook, line, and sinker.
They would love to start impeachment. It doesn't matter what is true, what matters is regaining power. The very fact that the proceedings were started would send the media into orbit with bashing the President.
Thanks so much!
Actually, it was my idiot senator, Patti (I'm just a Mom in Tennis Shoes) Murray.
We're so proud of her, and of our representative in congress, Bagdad Jim McDernott.
mark for later read
Keep in mind when you do read this Final ISG Report that the main stream media have access to it as well as you do. They know what is in it. They know it supports the President.
Yet they act as if this report and the information contained within it does not exist. Nor do they think you are smart enough to read it for yourself.
Any time you people are ready to march on the New York Times, Washington Post, or NBC/CBS/ABC/CNN just let me know. I am patiently waiting.
The link failed for me.
"The only thing wrong with this report is that there were no wmd in Iraq after we demanded Hans Blix leave and we invaded without UN approval for no other reason than WMD."
Did not need to read further. Your wrong from the beginning.
I refuse to have a troll like you get the last post in on this thread. Your 'revisionist history' trumps fact in your own little world. After all, Saddam was a 'model' dictator who would never conceive of any evil against the United States or any of his neighbors. Is that correct Mr. Moonbat?
It seems to me that the insurgency has killed enough people with weapons that Sadaam stockpiled for them to be considered WMD.
There always is. The questions are how much, where, and how damaging?
What's fascinating is the subversion that plays out (perfectly legally) in social (education, religion, courts) and political form.
The Democrats are "getting away with their absurd accusations" because they are a.) utterly desperate and have no other card to play and b.) have the complete support of the MSM.
There are three implacable enemies facing the United States: Islamofascists, liberals and the MSM.
Algore seems to think that global warming is a greater threat than terrorism. Instead, I would be inclined toward identifying the MSM as America's most dangerous enemy.
Remove the support of the MSM from either and the Islamofascists or the libs would be squashed like a bug.
Nonetheless, the insane harping on "Bush lied" is clear evidence that the left is deranged. That they can even entertain the notion of "getting away with it" is a comment on the conscience (or lack of same) among the MSM.
We are at a point where the left believes they have a chance to regain power -- and we simply cannot afford to allow such delusional and power-crazed malefactors to ever exert power again.
Obviously, then, you weren't paying much attention from October, 2002 until March, 2003.
The Iraqi war resolution -- which enjoyed b>bi-partisan support cites 23 reasons for going to war. Only three of them concern WMD.
Great post and it should be said over and over by the Whitehouse communications staff ....
notice the word "rhetorical" in the bracket, that's why I put it there.
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.