U.S. Report Finds Iraq Was Minimal Weapons Threat in '03

zimv20

macrumors 601
Original poster
Jul 18, 2002
4,388
7
toronto
link

WASHINGTON, Oct. 6 — Iraq had essentially destroyed its illicit weapons capability within months after the Persian Gulf War ended in 1991, and its capacity to produce such weapons had eroded even further by the time of the American invasion in 2003, the top American inspector in Iraq said in a report made public today.

The report, by Charles A. Duelfer, said the last Iraqi factory capable of producing militarily significant quantities of unconventional weapons was destroyed in 1996. The findings amounted to the starkest portrayal yet of a vast gap between the Bush administration's prewar assertions about Iraqi weapons and what a 15-month postinvasion inquiry by American investigators concluded were the facts on the ground.

At the time of the American invasion, Mr. Duelfer concluded, Iraq had not possessed military-scale stockpiles of illicit weapons for a dozen years and was not actively seeking to produce them.

(more)
oops.
 

Toe

macrumors 65816
Mar 25, 2002
1,101
2
Either way, the administration made a horrible showing. Either:

A. They knew there were no WMDs and just lied to us. That's treason. (Putting hundreds of thousands of our boys in harm's way and toppling a sovereign nation for no good reason are at best impeachable offenses.)

-or-

B. They really did think there were WMDs there. In that case, they bumbled horribly, because they did nothing to protect those weapons from falling into the hands of terrorists and/or crossing the border.

So which one was it? Treason or gross incompetence?
 

diamond geezer

macrumors regular
Jan 26, 2004
156
0
I would think option A.

It was all an excuse to get control of the oil and establish permanent military bases in that part of the world.
 

solvs

macrumors 603
Jun 25, 2002
5,693
1
LaLaLand, CA
Some of us aren't so surprised.

Something a lot of us having been saying for years. Back then it was treason, now it's just common knowledge. Too bad the "liberal media" didn't ask more questions like this at the time. I realize some of those criticizing the war now did not question the current administration enough at the time (out of fear, or politics, or whatever), but they certainly didn't think it would be taken this far. If you read factcheck.org (.org, not .com), apparently Kerry and Edwards aren't as flip-floppy as we've been told. The did agree to give power to the President to use force, but they didn't want to charge in, guns-a-blazin', with no exit strategy.

We should have been smarter about this war, and I can't believe so many people still stand behind Bush for no other reason than his botching of something so important.
 

IJ Reilly

macrumors P6
Jul 16, 2002
17,915
1,466
Palookaville
Game, set and match, you would think -- but this the Bush administration we're talking about, and they admit to no flaws or errors of judgment of any kind. They've already started spinning the CIA report, grasping at the conclusions that Saddam would have restarted his WMD programs had sanctions been lifted. And who was talking about lifting sanctions? Well, nobody really, but by the time that question is asked and answered, a lot of people will have lost track of the actual question. But of course that is the entire purpose of the spin exercise.
 

solvs

macrumors 603
Jun 25, 2002
5,693
1
LaLaLand, CA
IJ Reilly said:
this the Bush administration we're talking about, and they admit to no flaws or errors of judgment of any kind. They've already started spinning the CIA report, grasping at the conclusions that Saddam would have restarted his WMD programs had sanctions been lifted.
That's what so great about the United States, we arrest people before they've commited crimes because they talk about doing something bad to make themselves look scary and might do something even worse in the future...

... oh, wait. No we don't. Nevermind. ;)
 

mischief

macrumors 68030
Aug 1, 2001
2,920
0
Santa Cruz Ca
solvs said:
That's what so great about the United States, we arrest people before they've commited crimes because they talk about doing something bad to make themselves look scary and might do something even worse in the future...

... oh, wait. No we don't. Nevermind. ;)
No but we do arrest addicts for being addicted, the homeless for being homeless, hookers for selling something that's legal to give away for free and teenagers for using Kazaa.

That being said I'll say A and B depending on which member of the administration you're asking about. How about Clinton as Special Prosecutor? :D
 

IJ Reilly

macrumors P6
Jul 16, 2002
17,915
1,466
Palookaville
I notice that our resident conservatives appear to be boycotting this thread. Have they given up trying to defend the indefensible?
 

toontra

macrumors 6502
Feb 6, 2003
261
0
London UK
IJ Reilly said:
I notice that our resident conservatives appear to be boycotting this thread. Have they given up trying to defend the indefensible?
I noticed that! Where are the pro-war posters who were so sure about WMD in Iraq that they belittled anyone who dared question the US "intelligence", and used that to justify a pre-emtive invasion?

The c**p we've read! I wonder where they all are now?

Anyone remember macfan?!!
 

mischief

macrumors 68030
Aug 1, 2001
2,920
0
Santa Cruz Ca
IJ Reilly said:
I notice that our resident conservatives appear to be boycotting this thread. Have they given up trying to defend the indefensible?
Some of them have been coming around on this one for some time... wanting to give W the bennefit of the doubt. Others have decided to ignore this and hope it goes away.

Guess what: IT WON"T.
 

Toe

macrumors 65816
Mar 25, 2002
1,101
2
IJ Reilly said:
I notice that our resident conservatives appear to be boycotting this thread. Have they given up trying to defend the indefensible?
I think that generally, a lot of conservatives are hugely frustrated with Bush. They can't vote for Kerry because that's giving power to the enemy, but they can't vote for Bush because he is simply a horrible president (being either a treasonous liar or a bumbling idiot... or both), and isn't helping them any either.

Two options I see for today's conservative. They can write in another candidate (McCain comes to mind), or they can not show up at the polls (or just abstain from the presidential vote).
 

IJ Reilly

macrumors P6
Jul 16, 2002
17,915
1,466
Palookaville
We seem to be at circa 1970 in the Vietnam time scale in relation to Iraq. About half the country is thoroughly disgusted with the leadership for misleading us and want our involvement ended as soon as possible and the leaders exiled from office for their mistakes and deceptions. The other half are still having a hard time believing that the national leadership isn't totally competent, and are trying to tell us they only need more time and more resources to prove themselves right. They are resisting all evidence that they and the nation have been deceived.

The outcome is apparent. Just like during Vietnam, it will take some longer than others to get it.
 

3rdpath

macrumors 68000
but wait, there's more absurdity!!

according to cheney:

Vice President Dick Cheney asserted on Thursday that a finding by the chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq that Saddam Hussein's government produced no weapons of mass destruction after 1991 justifies rather than undermines President Bush's decision to go to war.

The report shows that ``delay, defer, wait wasn't an option,'' Cheney told a town hall-style meeting.

While Democrats pointed to the new report by Charles Duelfer to bolster their case that invading Iraq was a mistake, Cheney focused on portions that were more favorable to the administration's case.

``The headlines all say no weapons of mass destruction stockpiled in Baghdad. We already knew that,'' Cheney said.

incredulous emphasis mine.


i guess the best strategy is to say that every report, regardless of content, actually supports the invasion of iraq.
 

Toe

macrumors 65816
Mar 25, 2002
1,101
2
IJ Reilly said:
We seem to be at circa 1970 in the Vietnam time scale in relation to Iraq. About half the country is thoroughly disgusted with the leadership for misleading us and want our involvement ended as soon as possible and the leaders exiled from office for their mistakes and deceptions. The other half are still having a hard time believing that the national leadership isn't totally competent, and are trying to tell us they only need more time and more resources to prove themselves right. They are resisting all evidence that they and the nation have been deceived.

The outcome is apparent. Just like during Vietnam, it will take some longer than others to get it.
Meanwhile, Iraqi civillians, American troops, and foreign contractors are dying in droves, and terrorists are recruiting like never before. We better make up our minds quick.
 

Dont Hurt Me

macrumors 603
Dec 21, 2002
6,056
6
Yahooville S.C.
Toe said:
Either way, the administration made a horrible showing. Either:

A. They knew there were no WMDs and just lied to us. That's treason. (Putting hundreds of thousands of our boys in harm's way and toppling a sovereign nation for no good reason are at best impeachable offenses.)

-or-

B. They really did think there were WMDs there. In that case, they bumbled horribly, because they did nothing to protect those weapons from falling into the hands of terrorists and/or crossing the border.

So which one was it? Treason or gross incompetence?
The answer is both, in Bush's mind Bin Laden = Saddam. he even stumbled on that once or twice in the Kerry debate. The administration/Cheney need to go and they can take George with them. Then we need to get the heck out. if Iraq wants to be a democracy let them fight for it.
 

mischief

macrumors 68030
Aug 1, 2001
2,920
0
Santa Cruz Ca
3rdpath said:
according to cheney:

Vice President Dick Cheney asserted on Thursday that a finding by the chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq that Saddam Hussein's government produced no weapons of mass destruction after 1991 justifies rather than undermines President Bush's decision to go to war.

The report shows that ``delay, defer, wait wasn't an option,'' Cheney told a town hall-style meeting.

While Democrats pointed to the new report by Charles Duelfer to bolster their case that invading Iraq was a mistake, Cheney focused on portions that were more favorable to the administration's case.

``The headlines all say no weapons of mass destruction stockpiled in Baghdad. We already knew that,'' Cheney said.

incredulous emphasis mine.


i guess the best strategy is to say that every report, regardless of content, actually supports the invasion of iraq.

That makes it option A for Mr. Cheney. Where'd I put Ken Star's #?
 

Taft

macrumors 65816
Jan 31, 2002
1,319
0
Chicago
3rdpath said:
according to cheney:

Vice President Dick Cheney asserted on Thursday that a finding by the chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq that Saddam Hussein's government produced no weapons of mass destruction after 1991 justifies rather than undermines President Bush's decision to go to war.

The report shows that ``delay, defer, wait wasn't an option,'' Cheney told a town hall-style meeting.

While Democrats pointed to the new report by Charles Duelfer to bolster their case that invading Iraq was a mistake, Cheney focused on portions that were more favorable to the administration's case.

``The headlines all say no weapons of mass destruction stockpiled in Baghdad. We already knew that,'' Cheney said.

incredulous emphasis mine.


i guess the best strategy is to say that every report, regardless of content, actually supports the invasion of iraq.

How can people POSSIBLY believe what Cheney is saying? It doesn't even make sense. *sigh*

Taft
 

IJ Reilly

macrumors P6
Jul 16, 2002
17,915
1,466
Palookaville
"Delay, defer, wait wasn't an option."

To borrow Cheney own words: "we already knew that."

What we want to know is why it wasn't an option.
 

toontra

macrumors 6502
Feb 6, 2003
261
0
London UK
Blair's response to the report has been similar to Cheney's; i.e. nonsensical. He welcomes the report as he says it makes it even clearer why immediate military action was necessary.

The cynicism of these people beggars belief. Deny, deny and deny, turn facts on their head to suit your needs and hope that most people's attention span is so short that they won't notice.
 

solvs

macrumors 603
Jun 25, 2002
5,693
1
LaLaLand, CA
Most of the conservatives here seem to be just making broad comments about flip-flopping and how they think Kerry is mean. :rolleyes: In other words, rhetoric Bush and Co. have been saying about him instead of focusing on the issues. It worked against McCain. Smear the opposing candidate so you don't show that you have nothing positive to offer. Bush was wrong and he knows it, but he can't admit it. Cheney is backtracking a bit, but he is actually lying when he disputes what he said, and old news footage shows exactly what he did say.

They will change reasons for invading Iraq while they're doing it (flip-flopping, if you will), ignoring the obvious facts in front of them being layed out by the people who warned them about 9/11 before it happened that they didn't listen to (which Kerry is being punished for because he believed his President at the time) and the supporters can't think of anything better to say than, "we have to support our troops and our President".

I do support the troops, by not supporting the person who sent them to the wrong place in the first place with no plan and no exit strategy. I wonder if these same people will support the President if he's a Democrat. Eespecially if he can actually pull us out of this mess safely (though to be fair, I'm not exactly holding my breath for that one).