Posted on 03/07/2005 12:35:40 PM PST by rightalien
“Everyone knows” there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) in Iraq when Bush decided to invade in 2003. If there were any doubts about that, surely they were laid to rest by the Duelfer Report, the official findings of the Iraq Survey Group (ISG) headed by Charles Duelfer, Special Advisor to the Director of Central Intelligence.
Take your pick of excerpts from Duelfer’s report.
• On nuclear weapons: “Saddam Husayn [sic] ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the Gulf war. ISG found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program.”
• On chemical weapons: “ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991.”
• On biological weapons (BW): “ISG found no direct evidence that Iraq, after 1996, had plans for a new BW program or was conducting BW-specific work for military purposes.”
Slam dunk, right? Bush lied.
Not so fast. First, the ISG did find WMD. In fact, it found at least 53 of them.
“Beginning in May 2004, ISG recovered a series of chemical weapons from Coalition military units and other sources. A total of 53 munitions have been recovered.”
Why haven’t you heard that? Possibly because that information was buried on page 97 of Annex F of Volume 3 of the Duelfer Report.
Even if the number of WMD found were short of the “large stockpiles” threshold demanded by invasion critics, what about the ability to produce and use WMD in a short amount of time? Here, the Duelfer Report is explicit.
• “[Saddam Hussein] wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when sanctions were lifted.”
• “we have clear evidence of his intent to resume WMD production as soon as sanctions were lifted”
• “Saddam did express his intent to retain the intellectual capital developed during the Iraqi Nuclear Program.”
• “Iraq took steps to conceal key elements of its program and to preserve what it could of the professional capabilities of its nuclear scientific community.”
• “ISG found a limited number of post-1995 activities that would have aided the reconstitution of the nuclear weapons program once sanctions were lifted.”
• “Saddam never abandoned his intentions to resume a CW effort when sanctions were lifted and conditions were judged favorable.”
• “Iraq’s historical ability to implement simple solutions to weaponization challenges allowed Iraq to retain the capability to weaponize CW agent when the need arose.”
• “Iraq Could Maintain CW Competence With Relative Ease”
• “ISG judges that Iraq’s actions between 1991 and 1996 demonstrate that the state intended to preserve its BW capability and return to a steady, methodical progress toward a mature BW program when and if the opportunity arose.”
• “Depending on its scale, Iraq could have re-established an elementary BW program within a few weeks to a few months of a decision to do so...”
As even the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) declared in 1999,
“Iraq possesses an industrial capability and knowledge base, through which biological warfare agents could be produced quickly and in volume.”
When is the best time to invade a hostile country, a few months before, or a few months after that country has developed usable biological weapons?
But let’s get to the issue of making logical conclusions based on evidence. What does it mean if the ISG did not find WMD? If they found none (well, only small stockpiles of old chemical bombs), does that mean the WMD were destroyed years ago? That’s exactly what Duelfer “judges”, at least in the executive summary sections. But is that the only hypothesis, or even the most probable hypothesis?
Here is another hypothesis: Iraq’s WMD were hidden and/or moved out of Iraq prior to our invasion in March 2003.
It was no secret that the U.S. and the rest of the world really wanted to find those WMD. For over a decade the UN passed 16 resolutions to get at them and sent inspectors to look for them. The United States built up an armed force of about 150,000 surrounding Iraq to support those inspectors. Our Secretary of State testified in public on what we knew about Iraq’s WMD and concealment methods. Even at the end, President Bush gave Saddam 48 hours notice before invading.
Is it any surprise that no WMD were found in the usual places like munitions depots? Eliot Ness also had a problem finding anything illegal in Al Capone’s hotel room. Could it be that neither Al Capone nor Saddam Hussein was as dumb as a post?
According to David Kay, Charles Duelfer’s predecessor,
“Even the bulkiest materials we are searching for, in the quantities we would expect to find, can be concealed in spaces not much larger than a two car garage.”
Iraq is about the size of California. Let me do some math for you. The ratio of the area of Iraq to the area of a two car garage is about 5 billion to one. The ratio of the volume of a haystack to the volume of a small sewing needle is about 5 million to one. That is, finding WMD in Iraq is 1000 times more difficult than finding a needle in a haystack. And that only includes the surface of Iraq.
Would Saddam do such a thing as hide weapons? Yes, absolutely. The U.S. Coalition found dozens of military fighter aircraft buried in the desert. You can see the pictures yourself. Some WMD related materials were buried in scientists’ back yards. Saddam had friends in Syria. Saddam hid himself in a hole on a farm. Most of his command and control network was underground.
Other excerpts from the Duelfer Report (emphasis added):
• “Moreover, certain defined questions remain unanswered. For example, we cannot express a firm view on the possibility that WMD elements were relocated out of Iraq prior to the war … Likewise, there remains some uncertainty concerning reports of mobile BW capabilities.”
• “ISG technical experts fully evaluated less than one quarter of one percent of the over 10,000 weapons caches throughout Iraq, and visited fewer than ten ammunition depots identified prior to OIF as suspect CW sites.”
• “The most interesting discovery has been a 152mm binary Sarin artillery projectile—containing a 40 percent concentration of Sarin—which insurgents attempted to use as an Improvised Explosive Device (IED). The existence of this binary weapon not only raises questions about the number of viable chemical weapons remaining in Iraq and raises the possibility that a larger number of binary, long-lasting chemical weapons still exist.”
According to David Kay,
“Some WMD personnel crossed borders in the pre/trans conflict period and may have taken evidence and even weapons-related materials with them.”
Both David Kay and Charles Duelfer noted that Iraq continued to conceal its WMD activities, and suspected sites were often “cleaned” or “looted”. Per the Kay report,
“We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002.”
There are two viable hypotheses: (1) Iraq destroyed its WMD, and (2) Iraq hid its WMD or transported them to other countries, prior to the March 2003 invasion. The ISG simply did not find enough evidence to falsify either hypothesis, or even to favor one hypothesis over the other. Note the language of Duelfer’s Executive Summary:
“ISG judges … ISG found no direct evidence …”
One can only guess why Duelfer chose to “judge” in favor of the “destroyed WMD” hypothesis. The simplest answer is that the ISG wanted to avoid the embarrassment of simply stating “we don’t know what happened to them”, after having spent significant time and effort looking for WMD. In fact, even the 53 WMD that were found, were found by Coalition forces, not the ISG itself.
Let me give an alternative executive summary of the ISG’s findings that could have been written from the same set of facts.
“Iraq was known to have had large WMD stockpiles at least until 1991. In the following 12 years, Iraq refused to destroy, or adequately account for the destruction of, all those WMD as required by multiple UN resolutions.
“After the U.S. led Coalition invaded Iraq in March 2003, the ISG searched a tiny fraction of Iraq and found 53 chemical weapons and evidence of concealed research and development activities. The ISG cannot conclude whether the missing WMD were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq, hidden in Iraq, or transported out of Iraq. Any of those possible alternatives would have been in violation of multiple UN resolutions. It is also possible that WMD exist in weapon caches or munitions sites not searched by the ISG.
“Regardless of the status of these stockpiles, Iraq had both the intent and the capability to develop and produce large quantities of chemical and biological WMD quickly once sanctions were lifted, and probably could have produced nuclear weapons in a matter of months to a few years.
“By bribing various UN and other officials under the oil-for-food program, Iraq was forcing the end of sanctions. Had not the U.S. led Coalition invaded Iraq, the UN sanctions and inspection regime would have collapsed and Saddam Hussein would have recovered any hidden and transported WMD and revived his WMD programs, and would have had ready-to-deploy WMD by the time this report is being written.”
Think about it. Saddam once had and used WMD. He still wanted them. He lied about having them. He refused access by inspectors. He concealed WMD activities over a period of 12 years. He said he destroyed what WMD he had, but he had no evidence to prove that. Even if he had destroyed them, that would have violated UN resolutions and the terms of his surrender in 1991.
Would any sane person believe that he really didn’t have WMD in 2003? If you don’t know any sane people, try out some of these:
• “And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.” President Clinton, December 16, 1998
• “We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.” Al Gore, September 23, 2002
• “We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002
• “I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country.” Senator John Edwards, February 24, 2002
This was not a coin flip. The consequence of trusting Saddam would have been WMD in the hands of anti-American terrorists. Had President Bush simply trusted Saddam Hussein he would have violated his oath to defend his country.
On March 22, 2003, or three days into Operation Iraqi Freedom, President Bush addressed the nation.
“And our mission is clear, to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people.”
Which part of “the mission” was a lie? Which part was not accomplished?
Saddam himself was a WMD!
Except we told Blix we knew where the WMD's were and that he was looking in the wrong places. So why didn't we tell him where to find them? Why has the President's team admitted that the programs were discontinued after the first gulf war when we were told by the same team pre invasion that the programs were active and ongoing?
Why this now?
Iraq had WMD. Period.
Anyone who protests is illegitimately shifting the definition around.
“And our mission is clear, to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people.”
How about those protestors who say the mission was never to free the Iraqi people?
As soon as syria moves out of Lebanon, and we gain access to the bekka valley, the wmd stockpiles will become apparent. Bashir doesn't have the stomach to try and move those wmds again and will claim that he did not know that they were moved there. Bingo, game over.
Maybe we were wrong about "knowing where they were". We thought they were in locations ABC while they were really in (or moved to) locations XYZ. So we told Blix ABC and were wrong.
That is perfectly consistent with Saddam having WMDs in locations XYZ. Therefore maybe we didn't "tell him where to find them" because they were located in, or moved to, locations without our knowledge.
That was part of the problem, intelligence is not 100% you see. We can't count on "knowing where things are". It was Saddam's responsibility, by the way, to show us where things were instead of making us guess or hunt.
Here's an explanation that fits all the facts you've complained about:
We had some pretty good intelligence indicating that some WMDs were kept in locations ABC. Some time went by while we (VERY PUBLICLY) accused Saddam Hussein of having WMDs. Saddam Hussein, not being an idiot, MOVED the WMDs. (You do know that physical objects can be moved right? Just checking. Some people don't seem to know this.) We gave Blix our best info (locations ABC) but they were no longer there.
Under this explanation,
-Hussein was in violation of Resolution 1441.
-Hussein had WMDs.
Why has the President's team admitted that the programs were discontinued after the first gulf war
"the programs were discontinued after the first gulf war" is too hopelessly vague to have been "admitted" by anyone. Which programs? All of them? Some of them? What exactly did "the President's team" "admit"?
The fact remains that Iraq possessed WMD and that this is a finding of the Duelfer report.
This is what for me makes the "was there WMD" question quite ludicrous to ponder. The left not only fails to grasp the lesson of 9-11, they want the rest of us to presume Saddam didn't grasp it either.
This is all so much BULL crap!! After 911 "CONNECTING" the DOTS i.e.......that Iraq could "POSSIBLY" give TERRORISTS a WMD to use on the United States was without a doubt the right thing to do. It was a CLEAR connection and one that to ignore would border on the incompetent!!
Afterall GW was castigated as was the entire intelligence community for NOT CONNECTING those unrelated, uncommunicated "NEBULOUS" dots to prevent 911.
---------------------------
Not even Rummy tried to trot that out.
We know WMD existed in Iraq because we sold it to them when they were on "our side" WMD do exist but our government never confirms or denies the existance of WMD.
I knew long, long ago that "nothing" would be found either way.
Does kinda make you wonder about that "secret" train trip moving nuc weapons around the US last year to "store waste."
Report: U.S suspects Iraqi WMD in Lebanon's Bekaa Valley
Saddam's WMD hidden in Syria, says Iraq survey chief
Saddam agents on Syria border helped move banned materials
New evidence: Saddam's WMD in Lebanon Weapons transferred to Syria before war, then to Bekaa Valley
Why else do you think Assad is only pulling back to the Bekaa Valley?
Let's hope.
Here's a lesser scenario, I wonder what you think and whether it would be acceptable:
The Bush admin. communicates to Syria that if they vacate Lebanon we'll look the other way about the WMDs in Bekka (let them move or destroy them quietly) to let him save face and avoid the humiliation you describe. Some sort of deal is cut; Syria announces some "timetable" and Lebanese complain about the delay, but the real reason for the timetable is just to give Syria a chance to deal with the stuff in Bekka. The result being that Lebanon is liberated at the price of Bush sacrificing the potential PR victory of finding Iraq's WMDs and parading them in front of his detractors.
Would such a deal be worth cutting, if we could? I kinda think so. Would Bush be willing to cut such a deal and give up the WMD PR victory? I suspect so.
Or is what I'm describing just too far-fetched? Anyway, even if there is no such "deal" I wouldn't be surprised if that's the main reason for Syria's foot-dragging anyway.
Does it make a difference? Really?
If you had a convicted child molester and murderer living on your street, would you be justified in feeling concern for the neighborhood children, even if the guy had gone through therapy and was declared "cured"?
Saddam Hussain had weapons and used them, every thinking person outside Iraq was justified in assuming that he either had active weapons or the ability to create them on short notice.
Add to that his intransigence, secrecy, obstruction and obfuscation...for what? So that he could brag that he stood up to the West?
There is the theorem that states: "The most obvious explanation is usually the right one". There may have been a lot of reasons for the behavior of the regime, and all evidence indicated he not only had them but would use them.
Who said we knew where they were? I don't remember anyone saying that, but I could be wrong. Can you find an article that highlights that? I remember them saying they thought the WMD could be in his palaces, since he had hundreds of square miles of territory designated as "palace grounds" for the sole purpose of making them off-limits to the investigators.
So, I am not buying any argument from anyone that the risk of WMD was not sufficient for us to invade. Unless he gave us free and clear access to his country, the argument is worthless. Unless, you want to take Saddam at his word, like a lot of the liberals did.
And those people, would be the ones who would squawk the loudest if anything serious had resulted from WMD's in the hands of terrorists.
Up until the last few days, all he had to do was open up to inspection, and President Bush would not have sent the troops in.
If Saddam was bluffing, he picked the wrong guy to do it to.
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of an ilicit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime...He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation...And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction...So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real."
-Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
So the democrats say president bush lied, that there never were any weapons of mass destruction and he took us to war for his oil buddies? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...........................
Ping.
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.