WMD not expected to be found

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2003-10-02 01:06pm

No evidence of WMD expected at briefings
Thursday, October 2, 2003 Posted: 12:17 PM EDT (1617 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Two months after the head of the CIA's search for Iraq's suspected weapons of mass destruction said "solid progress" was being made, officials say he will tell members of Congress on Thursday that his team has not found any banned weapons.

David Kay, a former U.N. weapons inspector, is expected to report that Iraq had civilian technology that could have been converted to weapons programs on short notice, and an extensive effort to conceal that capability, the officials say.

Members of House and Senate intelligence committees are expected to ask him some hard questions about the Pentagon's 1,500-member Iraq Survey Group during two closed-door hearings.

"My first question is, 'What have you found and if you haven't found very much what were the problems with our intelligence leading up to the war in Iraq?'" Rep. Jane Harman of California, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, told CNN.

Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Georgia, said it is "simply going to take a long time" to determine what happened to the weapons programs the Bush administration said required a U.S.-led invasion that deposed Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein in April.

"I don't expect any smoking gun today, but this is another interim report in the process," Chambliss said.

Human intelligence lacking
Chambliss said Saddam has admitted to having weapons of mass destruction, and used them against the Kurds in 1988, but has had years to hide or destroy them.

"Since 1998, we have had no one inside of Iraq to monitor what's been going on with his weapons of mass destruction program," Chambliss said. "So it's very difficult for us to say, and he may have destroyed them. They may have given them away, buried them, we don't know."

Because of a lack of spies inside the country, "It may turn out, when we roll this back, that a lot of what we thought was true about WMD in Iraq was false," Harman said.

Harman and the committee's chairman, Florida Republican Porter Goss, criticized the CIA's pre-war intelligence on Iraq in a letter to agency chief George Tenet last week. Sources said the letter described the information pointing to Iraq's weapons programs as "circumstantial" and "fragmentary." The CIA disputed that judgment, calling it "premature and wrong."

A U.S.-led force invaded Iraq in March and deposed Saddam, accusing Baghdad of violating U.N. resolutions by maintaining stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, long-range missiles and efforts to develop a nuclear bomb. None was used against advancing allied troops, and none has turned up since Saddam's government collapsed in April.

In July, Kay told Congress that investigators, including the Iraq Survey Group, were making "solid progress."

Kay told reporters that investigators had uncovered useful documents about Iraq's WMD programs and are getting increased cooperation from Iraqis.

"I think the American people should be prepared for surprises," said Kay. "I think it's very likely that we will discover remarkable surprises in this enterprise."

But he had cautioned that Saddam had engaged in an amazing active deception program that would be difficult to unravel.

"It's going to take time. The Iraqis had over two decades to develop these weapons, and hiding them was an essential part of their program," Kay said.

Ex-inspector: U.S. may need to review search methods
Hans Blix, the chief U.N. weapons inspector before the invasion, said last month that Iraq may have destroyed its banned weapons after the Persian Gulf War, as it claimed.

Former weapons inspector Garth Whitty said Kay's team may need to revisit some sites linked to Iraq's weapons programs and review its search methods.

"There must be a great deal of information," Whitty said. "The most powerful intelligence agencies in the world have been arrayed against Iraq for a long time, and they've got to go back over everything and make sure they're not missing things.

"The other surprise, I think, is that none of the key Iraqis involved in the program have given information that is of value, and I think that has to be revisited as well," he said. (CNN Access: Garth Whitty)

Former weapons inspector Charles Duelfer said the U.S. military's heavy-handed approach to Iraqi scientists like Mahdi Obeidi, who turned over centrifuge parts from Iraq's pre-1991 nuclear weapons programs after Saddam's fall, may have made Kay's work harder. Obeidi was arrested by troops in front of his family even after offering to tell the CIA what he knew.

"Many of the potential people who could cooperate, I think, have probably been scared off," he said.

CNN National Security Correspondent David Ensor contributed to this report.

What disturbs me most about this is that we have sslllooowwwllyy slid from Iraq having WMD, to Iraq must have them but are well hidden to this FUCKING DISGRACE of an argument: Iraq had the CIVILIAN potential to quickly ramp up for WMD porduction. Guess what Ass, that describes just about the entire developed world. Is anyone else getting as outraged by thsi pathetic song and dance as I am??

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-10-02 01:08pm

I'm disgusted. I'll only be outraged if it works.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2003-10-02 01:14pm

Bush's speech in Cincinnatti last year was expected by many to contain new evidence for going to war. Instead, he simply re-stated the 1988 Kurd attack, and other re-hashing of the past. I realised then that these new claims of WMD programs were bullshit.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2003-10-02 01:15pm

before the war, i said that I trusted the President and believed him when he said that the nation was in danger of Iraqi WMD's. Justifiably so. I also said, that if the claims prooved to be bullshit, i would support his ouster. Well it looks more and more like bullshit, and an election is coming. There still is time to show proof, but if it doesn't happen soon......

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2003-10-02 01:18pm

No surprise here. The Bush Admin however can't backpeddle too far from it's original position, so it'll mostly dance.

Montcalm · Post by **Montcalm** » 2003-10-02 01:20pm

Why are they still waisting time looking for WMD in Iraq,if Saddam had them he would have used them in 1991 when he used every Scuds he had left.

Solauren · Post by **Solauren** » 2003-10-02 01:22pm

Sings: (with appologizes to 'Great Big Sea')

"It's the end of the Bush admin as we know it, and I say GOOD"

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-10-02 01:30pm

Do you hear that? Sounds like the combined munchings of politicians eating their words.

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2003-10-02 02:06pm

Montcalm wrote:Why are they still waisting time looking for WMD in Iraq,if Saddam had them he would have used them in 1991 when he used every Scuds he had left.

He did have such weapons during the first Gulf war. He did not use them cause he was afraid of the possible American response. At least that is why I think he did not use them.

This time around the Bush Administration knew that the WMD's were just about the only reason most Americans would support an invasion of Iraq. What I dont understand is what they expected to happen is the claims where false. This makes me wonder if they honestly expected to find lots of WMD's.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2003-10-02 02:12pm

TrailerParkJawa wrote:
Montcalm wrote:Why are they still waisting time looking for WMD in Iraq,if Saddam had them he would have used them in 1991 when he used every Scuds he had left.
He did have such weapons during the first Gulf war. He did not use them cause he was afraid of the possible American response. At least that is why I think he did not use them.

This time around the Bush Administration knew that the WMD's were just about the only reason most Americans would support an invasion of Iraq. What I dont understand is what they expected to happen is the claims where false. This makes me wonder if they honestly expected to find lots of WMD's.

Its becoming fairly obvious to me that the Bush Adminstration made the decision to go in FIRST then they turned to the Intelligence Community to find them a reason to go in. They packaged and sold this war in the manner that they knew would gain teh most popular support. There is also the nasty undercurrent coming to the surface that any dissent within the adminstration was squashed or ignored and in some instances even engaged in petty revenge.

I am quickly becoming disgusted with this whole affair.

2000AD · Post by **2000AD** » 2003-10-02 02:15pm

Personally i'm not that bothered, i think that Saddam needed a good ass kicking and this was the most direct way of giving it. I would have preferred the UN to have gone in, rather than just the US and UK, but it got the job done. (at a cost)

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-10-02 02:33pm

2000AD wrote:Personally i'm not that bothered, i think that Saddam needed a good ass kicking and this was the most direct way of giving it. I would have preferred the UN to have gone in, rather than just the US and UK, but it got the job done. (at a cost)

Me too. I do wish he had not gone for the WMD route and just
concentrated on the basics by pointing out that Soddom Insane had
been firing on our planes for the last 12 years now.

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2003-10-02 03:31pm

MKSheppard wrote:
2000AD wrote:Personally i'm not that bothered, i think that Saddam needed a good ass kicking and this was the most direct way of giving it. I would have preferred the UN to have gone in, rather than just the US and UK, but it got the job done. (at a cost)
Me too. I do wish he had not gone for the WMD route and just
concentrated on the basics by pointing out that Soddom Insane had
been firing on our planes for the last 12 years now.

What would that have gotten? The no-fly zones were not part of the original cease-fire agreement. If we did not want to get shot at we could have left. No, that would not have passed muster with the public. In case you have not noticed the public is not interested in wars unless they are scared of an attack or believe someone aided an attack on us.

Warspite · Post by **Warspite** » 2003-10-02 03:33pm

Stravo wrote: Its becoming fairly obvious to me that the Bush Adminstration made the decision to go in FIRST then they turned to the Intelligence Community to find them a reason to go in. They packaged and sold this war in the manner that they knew would gain teh most popular support. There is also the nasty undercurrent coming to the surface that any dissent within the adminstration was squashed or ignored and in some instances even engaged in petty revenge.

I am quickly becoming disgusted with this whole affair.

Don't tell me you weren't expecting that, back when the Afghanistan campaing ended, and the Bush Administration started to look funny towards Iraq. Coming only now to this conclusion, is a tad naive.
Ever since Powell (which is one of the few persons in the admninistration for whom I have a certain amount of respect, as a foreigner) went to the UN, trying to convince the international community with what passed then as evidence, that it was clear it would be nearly impossible to find WMD's in Iraq.

Besides, Saddam isn't (wasn't? When will he be dead dead?) stupid, he had plenty of time to dispose all proofs for WMD development.

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2003-10-02 03:39pm

Stravo wrote: Its becoming fairly obvious to me that the Bush Adminstration made the decision to go in FIRST then they turned to the Intelligence Community to find them a reason to go in. They packaged and sold this war in the manner that they knew would gain teh most popular support. There is also the nasty undercurrent coming to the surface that any dissent within the adminstration was squashed or ignored and in some instances even engaged in petty revenge.

I am quickly becoming disgusted with this whole affair.

I agree with your assesment, but I thought this was pretty clear from the outset. After 9/11 Bush wanted to pin everything he could on Iraq and use it as an excuse to invade. I dont know if Bush had a hard on for deposing of Sadam previous to 9/11 but he certainly did afterwards.

I believe that many of the people in his administration had been waiting for an excuse to attack Iraq and 9/11 provided it. They certainly did not mention anything much about Iraq before then. It was not an issue during the presidential campaign.

Chardok · Post by **Chardok** » 2003-10-02 04:13pm

Mother...Christ, I can't vent here. I've been preaching this shit from the beginning. Fucking Bushites are RIGHT WITH HIM, TOO! SHIT! I just tried to talk to a coworker about this and he quoted the backpedaling almost verbatim. Why didn't we just PAY Saddam a few billion to leave iraq and then a few billion more in subsidies to stoke the fires of iraqs oil-production? Fucking Bushites. Make me sick.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-10-02 04:50pm

There were perfectly valid political and economic reasons for invading Iraq, but the public will not accept such things. They must feel as though the barbarians are at the very gates before they will approve a march to war; ergo, we get this absurd Abbot and Costello routine about WMDs in order to fire up the public's blood.

CelesKnight · Post by **CelesKnight** » 2003-10-02 05:04pm

Montcalm wrote:Why are they still waisting time looking for WMD in Iraq,if Saddam had them he would have used them in 1991 when he used every Scuds he had left.

Are you serious? I was under the impression that Saddam's having had WMD into the mid-90's was undisputed. Is that not correct?

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-10-02 05:05pm

CelesKnight wrote:
Montcalm wrote:Why are they still waisting time looking for WMD in Iraq,if Saddam had them he would have used them in 1991 when he used every Scuds he had left.
Are you serious? I was under the impression that Saddam's having had WMD into the mid-90's was undisputed. Is that not correct?

Unless basically every intelligence agency in the world was wrong.

CelesKnight · Post by **CelesKnight** » 2003-10-02 05:26pm

TrailerParkJawa wrote:This time around the Bush Administration knew that the WMD's were just about the only reason most Americans would support an invasion of Iraq. What I dont understand is what they expected to happen is the claims where false. This makes me wonder if they honestly expected to find lots of WMD's.

I find it improbable that the Bush admin intentionally lied. A while back, I found a page that showed a set of polls taken once a year from the end of Gulf War I to the present. For every year in the 90's, about 25-40% of the people wanted a war with Iraq. (The exact question and percentages escaped me, but my point is that a significant portion of the American people didn't need any new reason for a war with Iraq.) Add in the general increased hawkishness since 9/11, the general increase in support for a war once it starts, and the Bush admin. doesn't need to lie for a war to be popular--it can be made popular enough by pointing out undisputed facts like S.H.'s human rights violations or the attacks on our jets in the no-fly zone.

Moreover, if the Bush admin. lied, they had to have know that they would be caught. So why lie? It doesn't gain them anything, and it threatens to cost them a lot. Was it just to get outsiders like the Brits on board? But that makes even less sense--why would foreign leaders risk their jobs by supporting the war?

We can all agree that the Bush admin. was wrong. Perhaps even criminally wrong (although, that's debateable). However, there remains a hole in theories that the Bush admin. intentionally lied.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2003-10-02 05:54pm

CelesKnight wrote:
Montcalm wrote:Why are they still waisting time looking for WMD in Iraq,if Saddam had them he would have used them in 1991 when he used every Scuds he had left.
Are you serious? I was under the impression that Saddam's having had WMD into the mid-90's was undisputed. Is that not correct?

Well...if you mean "Saddam had weapons that were being disposed of under the auspices of and in accordance with the United Nations," then yes, he had WMDs until 1994. If you mean "Saddam had weapons capable of being used," then no, he had no WMDs after Gulf War I.

CelesKnight · Post by **CelesKnight** » 2003-10-02 07:20pm

The Dark wrote:
CelesKnight wrote:
Montcalm wrote:Why are they still waisting time looking for WMD in Iraq,if Saddam had them he would have used them in 1991 when he used every Scuds he had left.
Are you serious? I was under the impression that Saddam's having had WMD into the mid-90's was undisputed. Is that not correct?
Well...if you mean "Saddam had weapons that were being disposed of under the auspices of and in accordance with the United Nations," then yes, he had WMDs until 1994. If you mean "Saddam had weapons capable of being used," then no, he had no WMDs after Gulf War I.

Just to clarify, that means that you also agree that he did have usable weapons before and during GWI, right?

Moving on... Do you have a source or reasoning for why the weapons he had remaining after GWI could not have been used? It would seem relativly simple to deliver a chem or bio weapon in a limited form (reference the Jap subway incident or the 2001 antrax incident). And it would also seem possible to distribute them on the battlefield through artillery or sprayed from modified aircraft. But perhaps I'm wrong on that.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2003-10-02 11:48pm

CelesKnight wrote:
The Dark wrote:
CelesKnight wrote: Are you serious? I was under the impression that Saddam's having had WMD into the mid-90's was undisputed. Is that not correct?
Well...if you mean "Saddam had weapons that were being disposed of under the auspices of and in accordance with the United Nations," then yes, he had WMDs until 1994. If you mean "Saddam had weapons capable of being used," then no, he had no WMDs after Gulf War I.
Just to clarify, that means that you also agree that he did have usable weapons before and during GWI, right?

He did have at least some chemical weapons, and had potential methods of delivery. I don't know for a fact whether his Scuds had chemical warheads, but given that he did use such weapons in the Iran/Iraq war, it would be logical to assume that he did have usable weapons through GWI. I also made a type in my first post...it should have read "until 1998," not "until 1994."

Moving on... Do you have a source or reasoning for why the weapons he had remaining after GWI could not have been used? It would seem relativly simple to deliver a chem or bio weapon in a limited form (reference the Jap subway incident or the 2001 antrax incident). And it would also seem possible to distribute them on the battlefield through artillery or sprayed from modified aircraft. But perhaps I'm wrong on that.

After GWI, Hussein complied with the UN mandate to remove his weapons of mass destruction. When inspectors were forced out by the US in 1998, Hussein was left with two medium-range missiles, no launchers, and two unfilled warheads. Saddam Hussein had destroyed 817 missiles, 14 mobile launchers, 56 fixed launchers, 73 chemical-potential warheads, 163 conventional warheads, 88000 chemical munitions (combined filled and unfilled), 600 tons of chemical agents, 4000 tons of precursor chemicals, and 980 pieces of equipment. Even the best of the early 1980s weapons Hussein may have still possessed would be incredibly weak by today's standards. The best we've been able to find is traces of mustard gas, a World War I weapon, in old shells buried in the desert. While it would be theoretically possible for another delivery system to be developed, it would require new labs to be built to produce the chemical, biological, or bacteriological weapons. Such labs would have to be capable of being disguised against satellite imagery, which is highly difficult.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-10-03 12:30am

The search is continuing and at the report today--which was only an interim progress report--the significant thing is not what has not been found, but what might be found.

New York Times article

Read the last paragraph:

Dr. Kay said many stockpiles of conventional arms, where chemical weapons might also have been stored, had not been inspected. He said there were about 130 known ammunition storage points, and about 120 had not been examined.

They have no even examined 120 known ammunition storage points in the country yet and you're drawing conclusions? That's really quite silly. I've heard the tonnage of munitions not yet examined to number in the hundreds of thousands.

The final word on this will not be written for a long, long time yet. If ever, considering the controversy around it.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-10-03 12:33am

The ISG's predecessor, the 75th Exploitation Task Force (or whatever) searched the ammunition storage depots, found nothing, and went home.

"It was a surprise to me then ? it remains a surprise to me now ? that we have not uncovered weapons, as you say, in some of the forward dispersal sites. Believe me, it's not for lack of trying. We've been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad, but they're simply not there."- Lt. Gen. James Conway, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force
Press Interview
May 30, 2003

(not the 75th, but there's an indication)

On the above unit giving up and leaving

The writing is on the wall, it's over. They have no evidence of production in 98-02, which is what is REQUIRED for there to be even a reasonable expectation to the effect of finding anything worth hiding.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

WMD not expected to be found

WMD not expected to be found

This title is highly misleading.