U.S. report finds no evidence of Iraq's WMD


View Poll Results: Are you suprised?
yes 0 0%
no 7 100.00%
Voters: 7. You may not vote on this poll

eastcoastrob
#1
U.S. report finds no evidence of Iraq's WMD
CTV.ca News Staff

The top U.S. arms inspector says he has found no evidence that Iraq produced any weapons of mass destruction after 1991.

The potentially damaging assertions from Charles Duelfer, the CIA special adviser who led the hunt for weapons of mass destruction, contradict the Bush administration's main argument for invading Iraq

Contrary to pre-war statements by President George W. Bush, Saddam Hussein did not have chemical and biological stockpiles when the war began. And his nuclear capabilities were deteriorating, not advancing, according to the report.

"I still do not expect that militarily significant WMD stocks are cached in Iraq," Duelfer said in testimony for the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Duelfer's report also says Saddam Hussein's weapons capability weakened during a dozen years of UN sanctions before the U.S. invasion last year. Nevertheless, the former Iraqi dictator did not abandon his nuclear ambitions, Duelfer said.

"The analysis shows that despite Saddam's expressed desire to retain the knowledge of his nuclear team, and his attempts to retain some key parts of the program, during the course of the following 12 years (after 1991) Iraq's ability to produce a weapon decayed," Duelfer said.

The findings come less than four weeks before an election in which Bush's handling of Iraq has become the central issue.

The inspector's report could boost Democratic challenger John Kerry's claim that Bush rushed to war based on faulty intelligence and that sanctions and UN weapons inspectors should have been given more time.

On the campaign trail in Pennsylvania, Bush continued to defend his decision to invade Iraq.

"There was a risk, a real risk, that Saddam Hussein would pass weapons or materials or information to terrorist networks,'' Bush said. "In the world after Sept. 11, that was a risk we could not afford to take.''

But the Democrats jumped on this latest damning report. Senator Carl Levin grilled Duelfer in his appearance before the committee Wednesday afternoon.

Levin said Duelfer's report undercut the two main arguments for war: That Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and that he would share them with terrorists like al Qaeda.

Duelfer said his report found that aluminum tubes suspected of being used for enriching uranium for use in a nuclear bomb were likely destined for conventional rockets and that there is no evidence Iraq sought uranium abroad after 1991.

Both findings contradict claims made by Bush and other top administration officials before the war.

The report also follows comments from the former U.S. administrator in Iraq, Paul Bremer, who said the United States didn't have enough troops in Iraq to prevent a breakdown in security after Saddam was toppled.
 
fubbleskag
#2
let me just be the first to say:


haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahhahahahah ahahahaha
aaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahhahhhahhaahhhahhahhahahha hhahhah
ahahahahhahhhahahahaaahahahhahhaahhahhahahahahahah ahhahah
ahhahahahahahahahahahhahahhahahahh
 
eastcoastrob
#3
Well put.
 
moghrabi
#4
I hope Bush is happy for killing 1000+ young American soldiers and more than 20,000 Iraqi people including women and children. He knew there was no WMD from Hans Blix before the war. Mr. Kay told him the same, and now Duelfer delivered the same message.
 
Reverend Blair
#5
This is going to hurt Georgie in the polls, but not as much as it should. I'm amazed by the number of people who still support this war in the US...who believe that there were WMD that just haven't been found yet.
 
peapod
#6
I am so sick of this **** :P
 
Haggis McBagpipe
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by Reverend Blair

This is going to hurt Georgie in the polls, but not as much as it should. I'm amazed by the number of people who still support this war in the US...who believe that there were WMD that just haven't been found yet.

I'm amazed at how many people believe Saddam was behind September 11th.
 
peapod
#8
Really? Try re-reading 1984...once thought of as a great work of ficton...mmmmmm I wonder
 
Rick van Opbergen
#9
"But we did remove Saddam Hussain" ... <SIGH> ... I'm just too tired to call Bush a jackass
 
Haggis McBagpipe
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by Rick van Opbergen

"But we did remove Saddam Hussain" ... <SIGH> :roll: ... I'm just too tired to call Bush a jackass :wink:

'Jackass' is far too nice a thing to say about Commander Bunnypants. You know, I keep wondering how it is going to feel if he gets in for another four years. The thought makes me feel ill, and to know it is quite likely makes me feel even worse. Kerry is looking more and more like the White Knight. I only hope he gets up on that white steed on Friday night and slays the Black Knightlette.
 
Rick van Opbergen
#11
What is a bit eerie when it comes to Bush is that he thinks that the US is the most PERFECT democracy of this world, an example for all, and that all countries can only reach "perfection" when they follow the US model (and while they're at it, also adapt US standards and values) ... it's called (ironically) Eurocentrism: the way of thinking that European (or nowadays: Western) (Christian-Jewish) standards and values are the "only good" ones, and that cultures with another set of standards and values have to "adapt", as they are "primitive" (or nowadays also called: "underdeveloped").
 
Isengard
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by Rick van Opbergen

What is a bit eerie when it comes to Bush is that he thinks that the US is the most PERFECT democracy of this world, an example for all, and that all countries can only reach "perfection" when they follow the US model (and while they're at it, also adapt US standards and values) ... it's called (ironically) Eurocentrism: the way of thinking that European (or nowadays: Western) (Christian-Jewish) standards and values are the "only good" ones, and that cultures with another set of standards and values have to "adapt", as they are "primitive" (or nowadays also called: "underdeveloped").

The Nazi party once thought(and still is) like this...
 
Rick van Opbergen
#13
Well no ... the Nazi party defined their ideology on race ... Bush defined his ideology on culture and way of upbringing ... where as Hitler excluded Jews permanently from the right to live because they weren't "Aryans", Bush believes that anyone can live in this world ... as long as their way of thinking is in the same line of thinking as his.
 
Haggis McBagpipe
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by Rick van Opbergen

What is a bit eerie when it comes to Bush is that he thinks that the US is the most PERFECT democracy of this world, an example for all, and that all countries can only reach "perfection" when they follow the US model (and while they're at it, also adapt US standards and values) ... it's called (ironically) Eurocentrism: the way of thinking that European (or nowadays: Western) (Christian-Jewish) standards and values are the "only good" ones, and that cultures with another set of standards and values have to "adapt", as they are "primitive" (or nowadays also called: "underdeveloped").

I think this is eminently true of American citizens, yes, for they really do seem to believe it. I don't think Bush & Co. believes it, though. They know what they are, they know what they're going to do, and they know the devastating results are worth the trophy.

Damn interesting what you write about Eurocentrism. That attitude, be it in North America or Europe or anywhere else, is what keeps nations from becoming better. They think they've already arrived, so why waste time on improvements that aren't needed.
 
Isengard
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by Rick van Opbergen

Well no ... the Nazi party defined their ideology on race ... Bush defined his ideology on culture and way of upbringing ... where as Hitler excluded Jews permanently from the right to live because they weren't "Aryans", Bush believes that anyone can live in this world ... as long as their way of thinking is in the same line of thinking as his.

You're right, I was just stating the similarities between both of them, not that they're the same. To think that you're on some higher level than other people because of your race, religion or ways of thinking.
 
Rick van Opbergen
#16
Well Eurocentricity (said Eurocentrism, sorry, my fault) is defined by the following aspects: denigration of other people and places; ideological biases; lack of sensitivity to cultural variation; setting of ethical norms; stereotyping of other people and places; tendency towards deterministic formulations; tendency towards empiricism in analysis; tendency towards male-orientation (sexism); tendency towards reductionism; tendency towards the building of grand theories; underlying tones of racial superiority; unilinearity; universalism. Learned it during Development Studies, quite interesting.
 

Similar Threads

42
Study finds no evidence for UFOs
by #juan | May 16th, 2006
no new posts