WMD's in Iraq: Fact or Fiction? (1 Viewer)

[The Mark]

Are there WMD's in Iraq?

Were there WMD's in Iraq?

I've heard many arguements for and against each of these.

I now ask the people of DP to post their reasoning for or against the idea that WMD's were and/or are in Iraq.

I personally think that there were WMD's in Iraq, that there still are WMD's in Iraq, and that there will be WMD's in Iraq untill they are found and destroyed or removed by either the insurgents or the US & friends military forces.

 

[Alastor]

I voted fiction.

My reasons are simple: We had evidence that we claimed was credible. We said we even knew where they were. We managed to produce... Nothing.

We've been there for years now, and in complete control of the country including it's leader. Still nothing.

We've offered rewards. We've scoured the nation. We've had three different agencies declare that there were not any WMD programs active in Iraq since prior to Desert Storm, and one of those agencies was the White House's own investigator - who did it twice.

We've had at least 100 false alarms now of people saying, "We found WMD!" - and often we see them on Fox News talking about it... And later looking like fools and recanting, or sticking to their guns and looking like even bigger fools.

The White House itself, via their spokesman, has even declared they were wrong about WMD in Iraq. The only people I know that still hold that contention are the complete zealots of the far right who rarely watch anything but Fox, and listen primarily to Rush.



Absence of evidence is evidence in itself. Not to mention the many many investigations by numerous sources that found evidence contradicting the notion of Iraq having WMD or even having a program in place.

That Iraq eventually wanted one? Absolutely true.

That they had one? False.

 

[Kandahar]

Are there WMD's in Iraq?

No.

Were there WMD's in Iraq?

No. At least not anytime in the decade prior to the war.

I've heard many arguements for and against each of these.

I now ask the people of DP to post their reasoning for or against the idea that WMD's were and/or are in Iraq.

Here's why it is extremely unlikely that there were any WMDs in Iraq leading up to the war:

1. Saddam Hussein would have used them on invading American troops if he had them.

2. Saddam Hussein was a big fan of showing his strength to his enemies. He was not the type of leader to keep them a secret.

3. It is not possible to keep large quantities of weapons without a lot of people knowing about them, and all it takes is one person to talk. So far no one has led us to any WMD finds.

4. It is not possible for large quantities of weapons to be moved across the border without anyone detecting this.

5. The "evidence" the Bush Administration offered was dubious at best, even at the time of the war.

 

[The Mark]

I voted fiction.

Excellent, we have the start of a debate then.

My reasons are simple: We had evidence that we claimed was credible. We said we even knew where they were. We managed to produce... Nothing.

Which, IMO, also means nothing. Iraq is a fairly large country (169k+ sq. Miles). Who knows what is concealed out there, as yet unlocated?

We've been there for years now, and in complete control of the country including its leader. Still nothing.

We are not, as you ought to know very well, in complete control of the country. And; you think Saddam told us where his WMD's are? Also, there are those terrorists out there, doing unknown things that we know nothing about. As well as some things which we do know about. Also, see above.

We've offered rewards.

Rewards would mean little to terrorists. Not sure about leftovers from Saddam's regime, but it would seem that he would only let his most elite and most loyal troops be in charge of his WMD's.....being loyal, they probably fought to the death or joined the terrorists.

We've scoured the nation.

Scoured the nation.......you really believe that we have somehow did a human chain walk-over of the entire area of Iraq (everyone with metal detectors and chemical suits, as well as chemical detectors of some kind) while at the same time defending ourselves from terrorists, who would jump at such a great chance to kill some US soldiers? Of course you don't. But that, IMO, is what it will take for me to be convinced that there are currently no WMD's in Iraq. Of course, they will also be supported by aircraft, spacecraft, ground vehicles, etc.

We've had three different agencies declare that there were not any WMD programs active in Iraq since prior to Desert Storm, and one of those agencies was the White House's own investigator - who did it twice.

Three agencies declare no WMD programs in Iraq? One did so Twice? The White House's own investigator?

First, no WMD programs does not mean no WMD's.

Second, I did some searches on google for things like:
"Declare no WMD programs active in Iraq since prior to Desert Storm" which provided these interesting links.
Statement on the Interim Progress Report on the Activities of the Iraq Survey Group

Read chapter 6 in this CIA report.
Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs
And "declare no WMD programs active in Iraq", which provided the same two links (except one was to the full report instead of just a chapter).

These documents do not seem to uphold your statement, but please post your own sources.

We've had at least 100 false alarms now of people saying, "We found WMD!" - and often we see them on Fox News talking about it... And later looking like fools and recanting, or sticking to their guns and looking like even bigger fools.

I've only heard of, at the max, 10 claims about WMD's being found. I would say it's closer to 5. Of course, I don't watch Fox News (since I don't watch TV more than a few hours a week, this is not surprising), but I do get Fox News radio on my local talk radio station. That said, I think that the statement that all of the WMD claims are false is........false. Some may have been (not sure about this), but some may not have been.

The White House itself, via their spokesman, has even declared they were wrong about WMD in Iraq. The only people I know that still hold that contention are the complete zealots of the far right who rarely watch anything but Fox, and listen primarily to Rush.

Well, I disagree with the White House. And I do not consider myself a far right zealot. I don't watch Fox, although I listen to it (see above). I do listen to Rush, and disagree with him on some points. However, he is far from the only source that I get information from.

It may be completely incorrect of me to think that there are WMD's in Iraq, but it is my opinion, based on information, both for and against the idea, that I have seen over the past few years.

Absence of evidence is evidence in itself.

Not in my opinion.

Not to mention the many many investigations by numerous sources that found evidence contradicting the notion of Iraq having WMD or even having a program in place.

Those sources did not and have not yet had access to all the information. For that matter, neither do I. (nice blanket statement, don't you think? But then, so was yours)

That Iraq eventually wanted one? Absolutely true.

Agreed.....except for the "eventually" part

That they had one? False.

Not true.

For one thing, read at least partially through those links I posted. I didn't, and you may find something to counter me. But what I did read is in direct contradiction to what you say here.

Also, I heard somewhere an idea that struck me. An obvious factor influencing the findings of any group would be the political leanings of those in the group.

Thus if you had a person in the CIA who leaned toward the liberal side of things, you would probably have him/her overlooking some things (not on purpose, it's a natural thing to do) and somewhat exaggerating others, all under some influnce by his/her outlook on things, which in the end might provide a very slightly incorrect picture of the situation. The same goes for someone who would have conservative leanings.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Alastor
My reasons are simple: We had evidence that we claimed was credible. We said we even knew where they were. We managed to produce... Nothing.

We've been there for years now, and in complete control of the country including it's leader. Still nothing.

We've offered rewards. We've scoured the nation. We've had three different agencies declare that there were not any WMD programs active in Iraq since prior to Desert Storm, and one of those agencies was the White House's own investigator - who did it twice.

We've had at least 100 false alarms now of people saying, "We found WMD!" - and often we see them on Fox News talking about it... And later looking like fools and recanting, or sticking to their guns and looking like even bigger fools.

The White House itself, via their spokesman, has even declared they were wrong about WMD in Iraq. The only people I know that still hold that contention are the complete zealots of the far right who rarely watch anything but Fox, and listen primarily to Rush.



Absence of evidence is evidence in itself. Not to mention the many many investigations by numerous sources that found evidence contradicting the notion of Iraq having WMD or even having a program in place.

That Iraq eventually wanted one? Absolutely true.

That they had one? False.

I loved you post. But you forgot to mention that the Adminstration has even publically stated that they "...have given up looking for them."

 

[The Mark]

Here's why it is extremely unlikely that there were any WMDs in Iraq leading up to the war:

1. Saddam Hussein would have used them on invading American troops if he had them.

Perhaps.

2. Saddam Hussein was a big fan of showing his strength to his enemies. He was not the type of leader to keep them a secret.

And you know this.....how? From history? Iran is a country with approximately the same military capacity, and he used chemical weapons in a war with them. This has little bearing on the use of chemical weapons on US troops, which would have caused extreme anger towards Iraq. In addition, I'm sure the war started with air strikes designed to cut communications, which would have prevented him from ordering the use of WMD's.

3. It is not possible to keep large quantities of weapons without a lot of people knowing about them, and all it takes is one person to talk. So far no one has led us to any WMD finds.

It would seem to me that it would be possible to keep large quantities of weapons without a lot of people knowing about them. Just put them in an underground storage site and detail a few trusted persons with the location and access information.

4. It is not possible for large quantities of weapons to be moved across the border without anyone detecting this.

And you know this.....how? I can think of many, many ways for large quantities of weapons to be moved without anyone knowing about it.

5. The "evidence" the Bush Administration offered was dubious at best, even at the time of the war.

Perhaps. But since when does what the "Bush Administration" says matter to you?

I think they are politicians, and I don't agree with many things they do.

 

[Kandahar]

And you know this.....how? From history? Iran is a country with approximately the same military capacity, and he used chemical weapons in a war with them.

Exactly. Saddam likes displaying strength when he has it. It stands to reason that he'd demonstrate his power, especially in the lead-up to the invasion.

This has little bearing on the use of chemical weapons on US troops, which would have caused extreme anger towards Iraq.

It's difficult to imagine that anyone could have been MORE angry with Saddam Hussein. Even among people who opposed the war, Saddam Hussein wasn't exactly viewed as a great candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize.

In addition, I'm sure the war started with air strikes designed to cut communications, which would have prevented him from ordering the use of WMD's.

If he had massive amounts of WMDs all across the country, it's simply not possible that he wouldn't have been able to communicate with ANYONE. He would've at least been able to get a few glancing blows in.

It would seem to me that it would be possible to keep large quantities of weapons without a lot of people knowing about them. Just put them in an underground storage site and detail a few trusted persons with the location and access information.

Most of those kind of weapons require lots of maintenance, security, research, etc. Look at Iran's nuclear program for an example of this; the fact that its goal is to produce weapons-grade plutonium is the worst-kept secret in the Iranian government.

Any time you have a secret that requires hundreds or thousands of people in the know, it won't be a secret for very long...especially if you have troops hauling you in for questioning.

And you know this.....how? I can think of many, many ways for large quantities of weapons to be moved without anyone knowing about it.

I would hope that the US military would've anticipated this and looked for unusual border activity, if they actually believed it to be a likely scenario. But most of the talk about the weapons being moved across the border didn't begin until well after it became obvious that they weren't going to be found in Iraq.

Besides, if they were able to communicate to move all the weapons across the border, they would've been able to communicate to attack the coalition troops with those weapons.

Perhaps. But since when does what the "Bush Administration" says matter to you?

I think they are politicians, and I don't agree with many things they do.

That's fair enough, but if we aren't even considering their CLAIM that Iraq had WMDs to be valid, the evidence does not at all lead to that conclusion.

Let's forget politics for a moment and employ Occam's Razor. All other things being equal, which seems more likely:

(A) Iraq had large quantities of WMDs, which a grandiose dictator kept secret and didn't use on invading troops, all of which were moved out of the country, without anyone who knew about them leaking the information as to their whereabouts?

(B) Iraq simply never had those weapons in the first place.

 

[Doremus Jessup]

There were WMD in Iraq...in the 1980s - mid 90s. Saddam may have even used the money we gave him for the war aginst Iran to buy them from the Europeans, probably France.

He most likely didn't have a large stockpile of them as nearly all of the country's money went the war with Iran. It was this lack of funds that led him to threaten the Saudis and later invade Kuwait. Saddam felt those states owed Iraq for protecting them from Iran.

The weapons he didn't use were either found and destroyed by the U.N. inspectors, or left abadoned, buried and decaying.

Saddam is crazy, but I think he may have been smart enough to realize he would have been wiped out, with our WMDs, had he used any he may have had. After all, he is alleged to have been a U.S. intelligence asset in his early days and during his rise to power. The picture and video of Saddam shaking hands with Rummy was shot in between the two times that he is known to have used gas.

 

[Alastor]

The Mark,

I'll get back to you on this one. I have to go to work, and then I have to go get drunk with some friends at Comedy Works tonight... But I will come back and speak to your points (unless someone beats me to them all) soon.

Cheers.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by The Mark:
And you know this.....how? From history? Iran is a country with approximately the same military capacity, and he used chemical weapons in a war with them. This has little bearing on the use of chemical weapons on US troops, which would have caused extreme anger towards Iraq. In addition, I'm sure the war started with air strikes designed to cut communications, which would have prevented him from ordering the use of WMD's.

If we didn't want Hussein to have chemical weapons, then why did we sell him the gas? You can't get that kind of stuff just anywhere. And there is only a handful of country's that make it in the first place.

 

[Alastor]

Which, IMO, also means nothing. Iraq is a fairly large country (169k+ sq. Miles). Who knows what is concealed out there, as yet unlocated?

We said we knew where they were. They aren't there. That means something to me.

We are not, as you ought to know very well, in complete control of the country.

We're in control of the areas we want to be in control of most, and can take control of other areas when we see fit. If there were something out there we'd go get it - but we haven't even found a trace of one yet.

And; you think Saddam told us where his WMD's are?

If Saddam was the only one that knew about them? Maybe not. But had Iraq had them, he would not have been the only one that knew. So far no one has told us anything. Also I believe that Saddam might offer WMD info in exchange for his life - so yes I think he'd tell us where they were.

Also, there are those terrorists out there, doing unknown things that we know nothing about. As well as some things which we do know about. Also, see above.

I don't see what that has to do with Iraq having WMD or not.

Rewards would mean little to terrorists.

Really? That's how we got intel on where Zarqawi was. That's how we found Saddam as well. It's how we've found a lot of things actually.

Not sure about leftovers from Saddam's regime, but it would seem that he would only let his most elite and most loyal troops be in charge of his WMD's.....being loyal, they probably fought to the death or joined the terrorists.

Doubt it. In fact many of them surrendered or are part of the new government, or we had them in custody at some stage, or they fled the region. They're not dead. They're not fans of the insurgency either - which I might remind you is primarily fueled by competing idealogues that Saddam and his peers viewed as a major threat and attempted to take out when they declared war on Iran.

Scoured the nation.......you really believe that we have somehow did a human chain walk-over of the entire area of Iraq (everyone with metal detectors and chemical suits, as well as chemical detectors of some kind) while at the same time defending ourselves from terrorists, who would jump at such a great chance to kill some US soldiers?

Human chain walk? Nope. I know we've scoured their records though. We've used "all available means" of interrogation. We've offered rewards that got us Saddam himself...

And it doesn't exactly require a fine-toothed comb to detect sarin, uranium or a nuclear missile.

Of course you don't. But that, IMO, is what it will take for me to be convinced that there are currently no WMD's in Iraq. Of course, they will also be supported by aircraft, spacecraft, ground vehicles, etc.

Three agencies declare no WMD programs in Iraq? One did so Twice? The White House's own investigator?

Yes.

First, no WMD programs does not mean no WMD's.

I didn't say programs. I said WMDs. The agencies I mentioned (including the White House's own investigator) stated it was unlikely that Iraq had WMDs after operation Desert Storm. Not programs for WMDs... Just "WMDs."

Second, I did some searches on google for things like:
"Declare no WMD programs active in Iraq since prior to Desert Storm" which provided these interesting links.
Statement on the Interim Progress Report on the Activities of the Iraq Survey Group

Read chapter 6 in this CIA report.
Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs
And "declare no WMD programs active in Iraq", which provided the same two links (except one was to the full report instead of just a chapter).

These documents do not seem to uphold your statement, but please post your own sources.

I'll read your article. I'll post my own sources. I'll respond to this portion of your post, but not tonight.

I've only heard of, at the max, 10 claims about WMD's being found. I would say it's closer to 5. Of course, I don't watch Fox News (since I don't watch TV more than a few hours a week, this is not surprising), but I do get Fox News radio on my local talk radio station. That said, I think that the statement that all of the WMD claims are false is........false. Some may have been (not sure about this), but some may not have been.

I think your claims about how many times someone has said (on news and such) that we "found WMDs" or at least portrayed it that way is far greater than you state.

I think they're all false. No one with any credibility currently states that we found WMD in Iraq.

It may be completely incorrect of me to think that there are WMD's in Iraq, but it is my opinion, based on information, both for and against the idea, that I have seen over the past few years.

You're the one who likes to talk sources. Seen any credible sources lately that say we found WMD in Iraq?

I wrote that Iraq didn't have a WMD program at the time we invaded. To which you responded:

Not true.

For one thing, read at least partially through those links I posted. I didn't, and you may find something to counter me. But what I did read is in direct contradiction to what you say here.

Give me the quote that says Iraq had WMD at the time we invaded (or any time before that after Desert Storm).

I don't at all buy into your assertion that political bias (Democrat or Republican) made each of these agencies come up with a consistent finding that says the same thing; Iraq had no WMDs as our White House asserted.

 

[Hoot]

This whole wmd thing in Iraq is ridiculous.

I have more dangerous chemicals under my kitchen sink.

 

[Stinger]

Have you read the iterim report from Dr. Kay and the Duelfer report? In fact anyone who says Saddam was a WDM free zone and that he was not a threat I ask you answer to each of the reports.

Everyone likes to conclude, based on the fact we didn't find a nice orderly stack of WMD with a sign above them saying "Saddam's WMD Stuff", that he had no WMD materials or designs or plans. Based on what we didn't find and ignoring what we did find which was plenty. And we uncover more and more each day, actual materials and the paper trail.

So what exactly is the debate?

 

[Cremaster77]

For as organized as the Republicans are, I don't understand why they keep trying to defend the WMD premise in Iraq. We went to Iraq for a number of reasons, only one of which was the belief (correct, mistaken, or manufactured) that there were WMDs there. I think foremost among those reasons with the neoconservative idea that you could spread democracy through the military by setting up an example of democratic freedom in the ME. The potential for a strong stream of oil revenue made it an attractive target. In addition, Saddam was the friend of noone. He made an easy target.

Now while these assumptions and reasons may not have worked out as anticipated or have been poorly planned (which is my problem with the administration), how does continually trying to produce WMDs in Iraq or insisting that Saddam was an imminent threat further the cause there now?

 

[Stinger]

This whole wmd thing in Iraq is ridiculous.

I have more dangerous chemicals under my kitchen sink.

You highly concentrated organophosphates in 55 gallon drums, the mere fumes off of which cause immediate dibilitating reactions? Reference strains on exotic biological agents and potent chemical agents? Mustard gas, sarin?

Homeland Security might want to talk with you.

 

[Stinger]

Did you read the survey reports and what they did find? Have you read the reports detailing what we continue to find?

 

[The Mark]

Did you read the survey reports and what they did find? Have you read the reports detailing what we continue to find?

Actually, I have not read that......would you be able to post a link, I think it may be interesting reading.

 

[The Mark]

For as organized as the Republicans are, I don't understand why they keep trying to defend the WMD premise in Iraq.

First of all, I am NOT a republican. Secondly, I am not defending the "WMD premise", but trying to have an honest discussion about WMD's in Iraq. I do not accept the (what seems to be) general acceptance among people in this country and around the world that there were no WMD's in Iraq. I think there were, are, and will be untill they are removed. I could be wrong, but I doubt that I am.

We went to Iraq for a number of reasons, only one of which was the belief (correct, mistaken, or manufactured) that there were WMDs there. I think foremost among those reasons with the neoconservative idea that you could spread democracy through the military by setting up an example of democratic freedom in the ME. The potential for a strong stream of oil revenue made it an attractive target. In addition, Saddam was the friend of none. He made an easy target.

Most of these points seem to be correct. But they are unrelated to the topic of discussion.

Now while these assumptions and reasons may not have worked out as anticipated or have been poorly planned (which is my problem with the administration), how does continually trying to produce WMDs in Iraq or insisting that Saddam was an imminent threat further the cause there now?

No idea. Republican power is no cause of mine.

 

[The Mark]

We said we knew where they were.

They are not stationary objects

They aren't there.

Debatable.

That means something to me.

You are entitled to such feelings.

We're in control of the areas we want to be in control of most, and can take control of other areas when we see fit. If there were something out there we'd go get it - but we haven't even found a trace of one yet.

Actually, we have.

If Saddam was the only one that knew about them? Maybe not. But had Iraq had them, he would not have been the only one that knew. So far no one has told us anything. Also I believe that Saddam might offer WMD info in exchange for his life - so yes I think he'd tell us where they were.

How do you know he didn't?

I don't see what that has to do with Iraq having WMD or not.

Not much, except for my completely unfounded on any evidence idea that the terrorists in Iraq might be moving some of the WMD's they knew about around to keep them hidden, or moving them out of the country.

Really? That's how we got intel on where Zarqawi was. That's how we found Saddam as well. It's how we've found a lot of things actually.

My question is....How do you know we didn't get such info from Saddam?

Doubt it. In fact many of them surrendered or are part of the new government, or we had them in custody at some stage, or they fled the region. They're not dead. They're not fans of the insurgency either - which I might remind you is primarily fueled by competing idealogues that Saddam and his peers viewed as a major threat and attempted to take out when they declared war on Iran.

Related to the above point: How do you know we didn't get such info from former members of Saddam's military and government?

Human chain walk? Nope. I know we've scoured their records though. We've used "all available means" of interrogation. We've offered rewards that got us Saddam himself....

Indeed. And we are still scouring their records, searching the country, and interrogating prisoners. Still gathering information. Not all is known yet. Therefore decideing that because we don't have WMD's yet (debatable) means we never will seems somewhat.....flawed.

And it doesn't exactly require a fine-toothed comb to detect sarin, uranium or a nuclear missile.

True, but not all Saddam's WMD's were of the large-size, obvious, neon-arrows-pointing-at-them type.

I didn't say programs. I said WMDs. The agencies I mentioned (including the White House's own investigator) stated it was unlikely that Iraq had WMDs after operation Desert Storm. Not programs for WMDs... Just "WMDs."

Actually, you did say programs. And "unlikely" does not translate into "positive".

I'll read your article. I'll post my own sources. I'll respond to this portion of your post, but not tonight.

Excellent, I shall await your response with anticipation.

I think your claims about how many times someone has said (on news and such) that we "found WMDs" or at least portrayed it that way is far greater than you state.

It may be. As I said, I don't watch TV much, so I don't catch "found WMD's" news much on there. And as I also said, I have only personally heard of 5-10 or so such things.

I think they're all false. No one with any credibility currently states that we found WMD in Iraq.

And therein lies the problem. Too many people, when hearing something about a possible WMD finding, dismiss it as incorrect because "No one with any credibility would say such a thing". Without any thought to the possiblity that it might be true.

You're the one who likes to talk sources. Seen any credible sources lately that say we found WMD in Iraq?

That depends on your definition of "credible".

I wrote that Iraq didn't have a WMD program at the time we invaded. To which you responded:

Not true.

For one thing, read at least partially through those links I posted. I didn't, and you may find something to counter me. But what I did read is in direct contradiction to what you say here.

Give me the quote that says Iraq had WMD at the time we invaded (or any time before that after Desert Storm).

Well, we have a miscommunication here. I was under the impression that you were claiming that Iraq had WMD programs after Desert Storm, and before the current war. My links to a couple documents seemed to support the opposite of what you said.
From this link Statement on the Interm Progress Report on the Activities of the Iraq Survey Group

With regard to biological warfare activities, which has been one of our two initial areas of focus, ISG teams are uncovering significant information - including research and development of BW-applicable organisms, the involvement of Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) in possible BW activities, and deliberate concealment activities. All of this suggests Iraq after 1996 further compartmentalized its program and focused on maintaining smaller, covert capabilities that could be activated quickly to surge the production of BW agents.

I don't at all buy into your assertion that political bias (Democrat or Republican) made each of these agencies come up with a consistent finding that says the same thing; Iraq had no WMDs as our White House asserted.

Everyone is influnced to some degree or another by their personal convictions on a topic. To claim that they are in no way effected by such feelings would be incorrect. However, I am not saying that they were or are effected enough to give the incorrect answer to a question, but that such feelings would have a negitive effect on the amount of attention they pay to one possiblity or another. All of us have experianced this to some extent.

 

[The Mark]

Everyone likes to conclude, based on the fact we didn't find a nice orderly stack of WMD with a sign above them saying "Saddam's WMD Stuff", that he had no WMD materials or designs or plans. Based on what we didn't find and ignoring what we did find which was plenty. And we uncover more and more each day, actual materials and the paper trail.

So what exactly is the debate?

The debate is between those like yourself, who believe that their are WMD's in Iraq and that there is evidence to prove such, and those who do not.

 

[The Mark]

Links obtained from google searches:

Searched for: report: WMD in Iraq
Link(s) found: Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the DCI on Iraq’s WMD​

Searched for: report: Iraq's WMD's
Link(s) found: Duplicate link of the above.
And:Statement on the Interim Progress Report on the Activities of the Iraq Survey Group​

I did a few other searches, but all of them came up with the same documents, so I didn't see much point in listing them.

 

[Alastor]

Mark, I'll get back to most of your post later.

For now you wrote that most WMDs aren't stationary.

This is mostly true - but the means to build them, and especially nukes (which is what we were worried about), are immobile. You can't move a factory. Even moving uranium is difficult.

And even if mobile, we've still got three different agencies, one of which was the White House's own investigator and who said it twice, "Iraq did not have WMDs prior to the second Gulf War and hadn't since before operation Desert Storm over a decade earlier."

A canister of Sarin? Sure. It can be moved. The Sarin plant cannot though. And our own guys (even Bush's own guy) say it just ain't so.

 

[Stinger]

The debate is between those like yourself, who believe that their are WMD's in Iraq and that there is evidence to prove such, and those who do not.

And my question is with the findings of the Kay interim report and the Duelfer report what is the debate. They go into great detail as to what we DID find with regard to WMD and it was frightening. Had Saddam carried out his plan as Duelfer documented, a Saddam without sanctions, able to carry out his plans to work more with terrorist groups to get us out of the Middle East would have brought more deaths and destruction to the world than anything that has been confined to Iraq.

Just this little excerpt from Duelfer's report

"Debriefings of IIS officials and site visits have begun to unravel a clandestine network of laboratories and facilities within the security service apparatus. This network was never declared to the UN and was previously unknown. We are still working on determining the extent to which this network was tied to large-scale military efforts or BW terror weapons, but this clandestine capability was suitable for preserving BW expertise, BW capable facilities and continuing R&D - all key elements for maintaining a capability for resuming BW production. The IIS also played a prominent role in sponsoring students for overseas graduate studies in the biological sciences, according to Iraqi scientists and IIS sources, providing an important avenue for furthering BW-applicable research. This was the only area of graduate work that the IIS appeared to sponsor. Discussions with Iraqi scientists uncovered agent R&D work that paired overt work with nonpathogenic organisms serving as surrogates for prohibited investigation with pathogenic agents. Examples include: B. Thurengiensis (Bt) with B. anthracis (anthrax), and medicinal plants with ricin. In a similar vein, two key former BW scientists, confirmed that Iraq under the guise of legitimate activity developed refinements of processes and products relevant to BW agents. The scientists discussed the development of improved, simplified fermentation and spray drying capabilities for the simulant Bt that would have been directly applicable to anthrax, and one scientist confirmed that the production line for Bt could be switched to produce anthrax in one week if the seed stock were available.
A very large body of information has been developed through debriefings, site visits, and exploitation of captured Iraqi documents that confirms that Iraq concealed equipment and materials from UN inspectors when they returned in 2002. One noteworthy example is a collection of reference strains that ought to have been declared to the UN. Among them was a vial of live C. botulinum Okra B. from which a biological agent can be produced. This discovery - hidden in the home of a BW scientist - illustrates the point I made earlier about the difficulty of locating small stocks of material that can be used to covertly surge production of deadly weapons. The scientist who concealed the vials containing this agent has identified a large cache of agents that he was asked, but refused, to conceal. ISG is actively searching for this second cache."



Put that together with the fact we are still finding such cache's and the materials found after Duelfer and his group left, add to that the documents we are translating documenting his WMD acitivities.



Again I have to ask, what is the debate? It's not whether he had materials, materials that were proscribed and thier disclouser required, he did. It's not whether he planned to enhance his WMD capabilities (he was already doing that), that was his plan.

 

[Stinger]

Mark, I'll get back to most of your post later.

For now you wrote that most WMDs aren't stationary.

This is mostly true - but the means to build them, and especially nukes (which is what we were worried about), are immobile. You can't move a factory. Even moving uranium is difficult.

And even if mobile, we've still got three different agencies, one of which was the White House's own investigator and who said it twice, "Iraq did not have WMDs prior to the second Gulf War and hadn't since before operation Desert Storm over a decade earlier."

A canister of Sarin? Sure. It can be moved. The Sarin plant cannot though. And our own guys (even Bush's own guy) say it just ain't so.

And we have documented the clandistine labs and facilities Saddam had. So what is your point? We discovered the basic chemicals needed to produce more concentrated nerve gases hidden in storage at his muntions dumps where he also had the shells to load with them.

 

[hipsterdufus]

We've never found anything in Iraq that meets the definition of WMD.

Finding 20 year old chemical weapons about as strong as what is under your sink, sold to Sadam by Rumsfeld & friends does not constitute WMD.