Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Weapons Inspector Ends Iraq WMD Search


__Kratos__

Recommended Posts

WASHINGTON - Wrapping up his investigation into Saddam Hussein's purported arsenal, the CIA's top weapons hunter in Iraq said his search for weapons of mass destruction "has been exhausted" without finding any.

Nor did he find any evidence that such weapons were shipped officially from Iraq to Syria to be hidden before the U.S. invasion, but he couldn't rule out some unofficial transfer of limited WMD-related materials.

He closed his effort with words of caution about potential future threats and careful assessment of this and other unanswered questions.

The Bush administration justified its 2003 invasion of Iraq as necessary to eliminate Hussein's purported stockpile of WMD.

"As matters now stand, the WMD investigation has gone as far as feasible," wrote Charles Duelfer, head of the Iraq Survey Group, in an addendum to the report he issued last fall. "After more than 18 months, the WMD investigation and debriefing of the WMD-related detainees has been exhausted."

In 92 pages posted online Monday evening, Duelfer provided a final look at an investigation that, at its peak, occupied more than 1,000 military and civilian translators, weapons specialists and other experts. His latest addenda conclude a roughly 1,500-page report released last fall.

Among warnings sprinkled throughout the new documents, one concludes that Saddam's programs created a pool of weapons experts, many of whom will be seeking work. While most will probably turn to the "benign civil sector," the danger remains that "hostile foreign governments, terrorists or insurgents may seek Iraqi expertise."

"Because a single individual can advance certain WMD activities, it remains an important concern," one addendum said.

Another addendum noted that military forces in Iraq may continue to find small numbers of degraded chemical weapons - most likely misplaced or improperly destroyed before 1991. In an insurgent's hands, "the use of a single even ineffectual chemical weapon would likely cause more terror than deadlier conventional explosives," the addendum said.

And still another said the survey group found some potential nuclear-related equipment was "missing from heavily damaged and looted sites." Yet, because of deteriorating security in Iraq, the survey group was unable to determine what happened to the equipment, which also had alternate civilian uses.

"Some of it probably has been sold for its scrap value. Other pieces might have been disassembled" and converted into motors or condensers, an addendum said. "Still others could have been taken intact to preserve their function."

Leaving the door to the investigation open just a crack, a U.S. official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said a small team still operates under the U.S.-led multinational force in Iraq, although the survey group officially disbanded earlier this month. Those staying on continue to examine documents and follow up any reports of weapons of mass destruction.

In a statement accompanying the final installment, Duelfer said any surprise discovery would be most likely in the biological weapons area because facilities and other clues would be comparatively small.

Among unanswered questions, Duelfer said a group formed to investigate whether WMD-related material was shipped out of Iraq before the invasion wasn't able to reach firm conclusions because the security situation halted its work. Investigators were focusing on transfers from Iraq to Syria.

The questioning of Iraqis did not produce any information to support the transfer possibility, one addendum said. The Iraq Survey Group believes "it was unlikely that an official transfer of WMD material from Iraq to Syria took place. However, ISG was unable to rule out unofficial movement of limited WMD-related materials."

Source

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, I think by now a lot of people had already accepted the fact that there were no WMD's in Iraq. This is just another story that will make Bush look like an idiot for a couple days, till his writers come up with a speech trying to have proof that Iraq did in fact move the WMD to a near by country.

Edited by __Kratos__
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 41
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • ForRizzle

    7

  • BurnSide

    6

  • warden

    5

  • I am me

    4

Top Posters In This Topic

If they had them(to which there was no doubt beforw the war)they could have put them any where ,remember Iraq is a big country with plenty of open spaces which to hide any thing,even WMDs

And its not like they didnt have enough time in which to do it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't believe they ever did, but i do agree with Warden.

Did they look inside every hole in the ground? Under every sand dune? Did they cover every square inch of Iraq? Of course not. The search was pretty futile from the beginning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the search was done so bush and blair could be let of the hook if they even found the smallest of amounts

This will be another blow to Blair in the run up to the election grin2.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WTF??? You mean there were never any WMD in Iraq??? Who would lie about such a thing??? Oh the pain, the pain of it all!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WTF??? You mean there were never any WMD in Iraq??? Who would lie about such a thing??? Oh the pain, the pain of it all!!!

590969[/snapback]

I know i have not been able to sleep for weeks thinking about such a thing,know where did i put my WMDs,must have put them some where tongue.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WTF??? You mean there were never any WMD in Iraq??? Who would lie about such a thing??? Oh the pain, the pain of it all!!!

590969[/snapback]

haha who would ever do such a thing as to lie and abuse their power?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well that's a suprise....isn't that the same thing the UN said two years ago? Hmmm...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well that's a suprise....isn't that the same thing the UN said two years ago? Hmmm...

591496[/snapback]

Ye but did any body WANT to believe them no.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well maybe we should have believed them, it would have saved us a lot of time, money, and most importantly lost lives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then it must have all been just a bad dream on the part of the Kurds gassed in Halabja and the Iranian soldiers gassed all along the border, if we believe some new version of revised history that claims he never had them!!!

One possible explaination for why none were found now could be that the lunatic of Baghdad must have used most of them up on the occasions mentioned above, and destroyed the rest when he saw the inspectors coming in the hope of producing more refined and sophisticated ones later, when things would have calmed down . Wrong calculations on his part again since he was obviously not able to produce (or was not given) any more goodies after the first Persian Gulf war when he was kicked out of Kuwait and finally sanctioned; with the eyes of the whole world watching his every move very carefully.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds still dangerous over there and I still think Syria has alot to do with all this. Hussein could have unoffically illegally transported WMD out of the country. He was moving things all the time, everything had wheels.

Bottom line, after 911, Iraq was a terror threat to our nation and the world. We are right.

Edited by Babs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had over 12 years to hide, destroy, misplace, sell, or otherwise eliminate his weapons. He had them remember he gassed his own people. I believe I could hide an aircraft carrier in 12 years, LOL. The point of not finding any WMD's really doesn't address the root problem. How come he was allowed to go for 12 years thumbing his nose at the U.N.'s directives? Eight those years under former President Clinton. Just a curious question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well maybe we should have believed them, it would have saved us a lot of time, money, and most importantly lost lives.

591563[/snapback]

i'm sure we did believe them, it was just something that let bush and everyone else go to war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had over 12 years to hide, destroy, misplace, sell, or otherwise eliminate his weapons. He had them remember he gassed his own people. I believe I could hide an aircraft carrier in 12 years, LOL. The point of not finding any WMD's really doesn't address the root problem. How come he was allowed to go for 12 years thumbing his nose at the U.N.'s directives? Eight those years under former President Clinton. Just a curious question.

593095[/snapback]

iraq was under economic sanctions and many many many people died because of it. janet reno even acknowledged this but said ... well it was all worth it.

who really cares if saddam had weapons or not. if they had any it was because we gave them to him to use against Iran as he did. maybe this is one of the reasons so many people in iran hate the USA?

and for babs, iraq was not a threat to us before 911 and it was not a threat to us after 911.

Edited by I am me
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Weather or not he had them doesn't matter. If he destroyed them than problems solved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bottom line, after 911, Iraq was a terror threat to our nation and the world. We are right.

592955[/snapback]

Why? Iraq never had anything to DO with 9/11! Anyone remember that dude... oh what was his name.. oh yeah, Bin Laden and that whole Afganistan thing!

rolleyes.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree BurnSide, the idea that Hussien was a threat to the US is absolutely rediculous, he had nothing to do with 9-11. It's odd how everybody just assumes that he did simply because we choose to go to war with Iraq once we couldn't find Bin Laden.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i heared there was a jet fighter from iraq found under a sand dune, and another one was later found, IF there is weapons wouldnt they be hidden under the sand?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i heared there was a jet fighter from iraq found under a sand dune, and another one was later found, IF there is weapons wouldnt they be hidden under the sand?

593227[/snapback]

Thats what i was saying before,iraq is a bid enough country to hide what you want without mutch chance of it ever beung found,and remember sadam had plenty of time in which to do it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree BurnSide, the idea that Hussien was a threat to the US is absolutely rediculous, he had nothing to do with 9-11. It's odd how everybody just assumes that he did simply because we choose to go to war with Iraq once we couldn't find Bin Laden.

593212[/snapback]

I have always said this. I thought of Iraq when 911 hit. Many Americans did. I wanted to hit Iraq before we knew anything about Afganistan. After we hit Afganistan then we naturally had to take care of Iraq. Yes, Binny boy was the direct connection, but Iraq was a looming threat... had been for a long time, since the gulf war. Everyone here was mad that we didn't go into Iraq back then.

After 911 it was like, " 'Hells Bells', let's get to Iraq before they get to us." ohmy.gif

Edited by Babs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, basically, some terrorist in Afgan kills 3000 people, and Americans all thought 'Hells bells, let's forget about that murdering swine and go invade a neighbouring country that ahs nothing to do with any of this, but we don't like them anyway!'

wacko.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not that I didn't raise an eyebrow when they didn't come up with WMD, but we still needed to get that guy (Hussein). ph34r.gif

...not to get off the subject, but doesn't Afganistan have an 'h' in it? Aren't we all spelling it wrong? grin2.gif

Edited by Babs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, he was a bad man, he is a murder and swine.

A worst one is still out there, the only man who has attacked the states, and gotten away. Whats that saying? Thee who fights and runs away...

And.. yes.. i think we are spelling it wrong..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.