Posted on 10/06/2004 2:52:49 AM PDT by OldGuardChampion
Report May Undercut Bush's Iraq Rationale
By: John J. Lumpkin
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The final report of the chief U.S. arms inspector for Iraq was expected to undercut a principal Bush administration rationale for removing Saddam Hussein, that Saddam's Iraqi government had weapons of mass destruction.
Duelfer, head of the Iraq Survey Group, was providing his findings Wednesday to the Senate Armed Services Committee. His team has compiled a 1,500-page report; it is unclear how much will be made public. Duelfer's predecessor, David Kay, who quit last December, also found no evidence of weapons stockpiles.
White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Tuesday the report will conclude "that Saddam Hussein had the intent and the capability, that he was pursuing an aggressive strategy to bring down the sanctions, the international sanctions, imposed by the United Nations through illegal financing procurement schemes."
Saddam was importing banned materials, working on unmanned aerial vehicles in violation of U.N. agreements and maintaining industrial capability that could be converted to produce weapons, officials have said. Duelfer also describes Saddam's Iraq as having had limited research efforts into chemical and biological weapons.
...
"The report will continue to show that he was a gathering threat that needed to be taken seriously, that it was a matter of time before he was going to begin pursuing those weapons of mass destruction," McClellan said.
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
In my opinion, we still may find WMD's or other prohibited materials: Iraq is approximately 271,184 square miles -- that is alot of desert to hide material.
Undercut?
DNC to AP Transcription services
not my opinion, only quoting the article's title
It must mean Cheney won the debate---AP is whoring for the DNC again.
Ahem: deceptive headlining for the shallow reader. Again
I'd love to have a front page broadsheet full of random syntax...except for headlines and first paragraphs that announce stuff like GW has done jail time in Canada and stuff like that, then I'd give it to folks to peruse.
You know they're liberal when....they don't notice anything out of the ordinary....
Comments like that are absolutely irrevalent. What inaccuracies we have uncovered since can not change what we've done (and I will always think it was right, we should have done it after at most the 10th resolution), so the comment is meaningless to any future action, except to bolster his supporters and obfuscate the real issues, such as Kerry has no gumption or backbone and changes his view with the current day's polls.
"...the report will conclude "that Saddam Hussein had the intent and the capability, that he was pursuing an aggressive strategy to bring down the sanctions, the international sanctions, imposed by the United Nations through illegal financing procurement schemes.."
The Oil-for-Food debacle would have given Sadam all the money he needed for weaponry. He would not have stopped, ever, and would have eventually succeeded in producing the weapons.
The AP continues its tradition of misrepresentation. The Bush Administration was upholding the ceasefire agreement that Saddam signed. That agreement called for Iraq to dismantle all of its WMD's, document every step and open that process to the inspectors (better called 'verifiers'). Saddam never did that.
After Bush's September 2002 speech to the UN, the UN decided to give Saddam another in a long line of 'final chances'. Saddam had to report to the UN, which he did in December 2002 and allow 'verifiers' back in the country. Saddam's report was just a rehash of his previous lies. The inspections were a joke. Saddam was in violation of the ceasefire and the US and Coalition had every right under the UN Charter to enforce the previous 14 or was it 17 resolutions.
The French and British never enforced the provisions of the Versailles Treaty, which outlawed German re-militarization. I guess the French and AP want to go back to the days of making agreements then not enforcing them. That worked out really well.
The report fails to explain the logic surrounding Saddam's obstinant refusal to provide the weapons inspectors with documentation proving that he destroyed the chemical/biological stockpiles. There was nothing to gain unless instead of "destroying" them, he simply ... ... buried them.
"WASHINGTON (AP) -- The final report of the chief U.S. arms inspector for Iraq was expected to undercut a principal Bush administration rationale for removing Saddam Hussein, that Saddam's Iraqi government had weapons of mass destruction.
"
Time to parse. Rationale was Saddam having WMD. What was it the Poles found? Was the mustard gas WMD? Was the Anthrax WMD? We already found stuff there. Maybe that should come out, finally.
If we find a stockpile, the RATS will change the rules of what a stockpile means.
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.