U.S: 'Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction'

'Senior officials' in the Bush administration have apparently admitted that they would be 'amazed' if any weapons-grade plutonium or uranium was found in Iraq, and that it was unlikely there would be large volumes of chemical or biological material found either.

"The Bush administration has admitted that Saddam Hussein probably had no weapons of mass destruction."

"According to administration sources, Saddam shut down and destroyed large parts of his WMD programmes before the invasion of Iraq."

www.sundayherald.com...

Same story from the Observer:

www.observer.co.uk...



Hardly what was being said before the conflict.
Conflicting statements have been made on both sides of the Atlantic in the last couple of weeks with both the President and the Prime minister continually proclaiming their belief that these weapons would be found while others in the leadership, like Jack Straws statement on the 29th April, inadvertently raise questions on the whole concept of the use of weapons of mass destruction as a justification for war.

It looks like they are basically saying 'look, it wasn't lies, but it was spin...'

The point where spin and lies meet is getting narrower every day.

God, will these guys make up they're minds?

Do they or don't they?

Personally....Saddam has probably had all his weapons stock moved to another country or had them sold on to make money for something else?



This is not good news!

Well no WMDs have been found yet, but rest assure they are out there. Most
likely they were bombed out of existence.
We know pressure is mounting to find or manufacture something real soon.
Specialists are now building up empty buildings to look like a chemical
labs. Deadly chemicals are being flown to stock the labs and soon news
will be released of this smoking gun. Providing the definitive proof that
the WMD charges are for real. This should quiet down the French intellectuals. Perhaps the US hasn't found anything yet but
that wasn't the reason for this war anyway. Remember we didn't call it
Iraqi Freedom for nothing. Look at all those happy Iraqis tearing down
Sadam statues kicking the # out of him. That is powerful symbolism propaganda.
Know that Iraqis are looking forward to democracy as much as the Texas does to
abolish the death penalty. It's a win win all the way around. Conditions are
getting better every day except right now there is less of everything and
the new regime uses M16s instead of AKs. Garner is doing a great job to rebuild several WMD facilities with haste. This will provide the
evidence and close the doors on the WMD chapter and finally justify the war
in its entirety. Then finally, Colin won't look like what comes out of it.
Announcements are forthcomming to appease the nabobs. Listen to AM radio's
news experts for good info about this - they are purveryors of real truth
without bias and tell it like it is. Fox News has this story written-up and
ready to publicize. Check out:
www.foxnews.com\VMD_Found.htm
Iraqi's will love this new military colonial democracy so long as none of that fundamental
religious crap is mixed in. Besides, Christianity makes more sense anyway,
that Allah crap just doesn't hold up to the rules of evidence, it's all very
circumstantial without any foundation.



[Edited on 4-5-2003 by VzH]

WTF is Bush doing? This isn't what I'd call a good president ... I've never voted before ... but next election's I damn will. Especially if Bushy is gonn try to run again

How do we know Hussein didn't just destroy them in the few weeks before the war? We all knew the war was coming and I'm sure he did too, so why wouldn't he get rid of them so that when we did attack we would find nothing, I'm sure it's his way of trying to get our allies to hate us even more. We don't know for sure what happened and if the government does know, they're not telling us yet. Don't blame Bush, I think he did the right thing. And Iraq never actually did provide EVIDENCE that they got rid of the WMDs, which was what this whole war was supposed to be about. Iraq never provided the evidence they were supposed to, the UN did nothing to back themselves up, so US and Britain have to. It's better to show we're willing to back up our word no matter the cost than to find any excuse not to back up our word like the rest of the UN decided to do. Now at least other countries know the US and Britain aren't cowards.

Originally posted by LostProphet
How do we know Hussein didn't just destroy them in the few weeks before the war?

How do we know he had any prior to attacking him ? remote viewing by the President himself ?

Don't blame Bush, I think he did the right thing. And Iraq never actually did provide EVIDENCE that they got rid of the WMDs, which was what this whole war was supposed to be about. Iraq never provided the evidence they were supposed to, the UN did nothing to back themselves up, so US and Britain have to.

Iraq submitted it's banned weapon dossier and the inspectors where in Iraq to verify the claims. Who started the war before the inspectors' mission was finished thereby stripping Iraq of the possibility of proving they got rid of these banned weapons ?
And, worse, who claimed before the war he had "hard evidence" on Iraqi WMDs ?
The burden of proof rests on Bush. Even worse, he will have to explain why he didnt want Iraq to prove it had no WMD, and even took active steps for ensuring the accused's (Iraq's) evidence wasnt brought before the court (UN security council) ?

Now at least other countries know the US and Britain aren't cowards.

I think it very cowardly bullying weaker countries that don't even threaten you. Iraq's army and population was starving from the US-led embargo and they were actively destroying their defense potential in order to meet the security council's demands. Bombing the # out of them after that is what i call downright cowardly, if not scummy behaviour. And then boasting one is supposed to be a hero is the topmost imaginable idiocy or cynism, pick your choice.

I laugh at you.

"How do we know he had any prior to attacking him?"

How about thousands of dead Kurds and Iranians gassed to death for standing up against him?



"Very cowardly invading weaker countries who don't threaten you"

How about invading 2 of his neighbours and almost destroying their infrastructure? Is that threatening enough for you?



"Iraq's army and population was starving from the US-led embargo and they were actively destroying their defense potential in order to meet the security council's demands."

Says who? The UN sure as sh1t didn't say that Iraq was complying with the disarmament terms. In fact they admitted the very opposite. And as for starving? That has nothing to do with the sanctions. Saddam was allowed to buy as much food and medecine as he wanted under the UN Oil for Food program.
Looks like your hero Saddam is the one whom you should really be blaming.



[Edited on 4-5-2003 by Leveller]

How about invading 2 of his neighbours and almost destroying their infrastructure? Is that threatening enough for you?

I think he meant threatening toward's the US ... Just a thought

This argument doesn't matter anyway's as the administration allready said they basicly lied about the WMD's being there and that Saddam destroyed them before the war even started. It was all to gain support from our allie's just so we HAD a reason to go into Iraq.

Basicly ... Bush did the right thing by lying to his own country and to the whole world. All for america's first pre-empt on a nation that we STILL don't know why Bushy actually attacked.

How about thousands of dead Kurds and Iranians gassed to death for standing up against him?

In case you didnt notice, the war against Iran is already a few years off .. that doesnt relate to Iraq having WMD's in 2003.

How about invading 2 of his neighbours and almost destroying their infrastructure? Is that threatening enough for you?

Let me make that clear. That didnt threaten the US. Kuwait was being "punished" by Saddam for cross-drilling in Iraq's oilfields. Admittedly, Saddam's case for invading Kuwait is as feeble as Bush's case for invading Iraq.

The UN sure as sh1t didn't say that Iraq was complying with the disarmament terms. In fact they admitted the very opposite.

Seems you didnt follow the news. The inspectors asked for more time in order to verify the Iraqi claims about their disposed-of WMD. Iraq had destroyed more than one-third of it's Al-Samoud arsenal before it was attacked.

"oil for food"

"oil for food" sounds nice, yet lacking the infrastructure (destroyed in operation desert storm), and being denied (it's called "oil for food" you will say, not "oil for medicine" ) medical supplies, over 500.000 Iraqis died of thirst, hunger or poisoning.

Looks like your hero Saddam is the one whom you should really be blaming.

What makes you think Saddam is my "hero" ? And for what should i blame him ? For trying to comply with security council resolutions ?


Please understand me correctly. I have no doubt Saddam is a politician with little or no moral grounds. Yet in dealing with him or with others, the rule of law needs to be upheld. If it is not, we have no moral legitimacy for whatever we are doing. We can only enforce rules we are respecting ourselves. Everything else complies to the definition of tyranny , the rule of whim



[Edited on 4-5-2003 by Maxwell Smart]

Enough of this BS. Bush is a villan who has wasted american money and lives to snatch oil and chase invisible spider farts called WMD. Saddam was a shifty crooked bastard who would have sold off his weapons of mass destruction to other people, if he hasnt already, to be used against the west. Saddams actions showed the world he could care less about his own people, so i highly doubt he really was trying to comply with UN resolutions. As far as Im concerned, the UN, Bush, Iraq, everyone, are all shifty slimy players. No one is innocent.
These pro and anti American arguements get boring. Niether the Pro's nor Anti's have a leg to stand on in thier aruguements.
There is real evil out there, a real force, that trancends these petty wars of conquest or glory. Focus your attention there.

uhhh ... WOW

That is all.

WASHINGTON (May 4) - Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Sunday the United States will have to rely on low-ranking Iraqi officials from Saddam Hussein's government to disclose the existence of banned weapons.

He said there is little chance that the weapons - whose alleged existence provided the main basis for war - will be found independently, or that top officials will provide useful information.

''I never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country,'' Rumsfeld told ''Fox News Sunday,'' echoing President Bush's comments Saturday.

''I'm not frustrated at all,'' Rumsfeld said later on CNN's ''Late Edition.''

The defense secretary also said if he does not know if the ousted Iraqi president and his sons are alive or dead. Whatever their fate, they are out of power and no longer threatening Iraqis, Rumsfeld said. ''They're either in a tunnel someplace or in a basement hiding,'' he said.

Rumsfeld said weapons of mass destruction will not be easily found in Iraq because Saddam hid them from U.N. inspectors.

''We're going to find what we find as a result of talking to people, I believe, not simply by going to some site and hoping to discover it,'' said Rumsfeld, just back from a tour of Iraq, Afghanistan and the Persian Gulf region.

So far, high-level Iraqi officials, such as Tariq Aziz, one of Saddam's closest deputies, have not cooperated or provided information about the weapons, U.S. officials said.

''We're going to have to find people not at the very senior level who are vulnerable, obviously, if they're in custody, but it will be people down below who had been involved in one way or another,'' the defense secretary said.

Asked if any of these lower-level officials are cooperating, Rumsfeld said: ''Are they telling us something substantive? We don't have anything substantive to announce at the present time.''

Secretary of State Colin Powell also expressed confidence that evidence will be found, and he denied a suggestion he overstated the case against Iraq and its arsenal. ''I'm absolutely sure that they had weapons of mass destruction, and I'm sure we will find them,'' he said on CBS's ''Face the Nation.''


[Edited on 5-5-2003 by Toltec]

Yep, and so begins the spin of "Well, we haven't found anything, but we're sure he destroyed them just before we attacked. Although we can't actually find where they were destroyed, but they were probably sent to Syria to be destroyed."

And all the pro-war people will just nod, and all the anti-war people will go "I told you so", and nothing will happen in the US. Although in the UK, Blair might get in some hot water with any luck. Lying to parliament is an extremely serious offence.

It's worth thinking about the original inspection regime, where even though Iraq had destroyed large amounts of it's stockpiles of anthrax/VX after the war, they lied persistently about what had been destroyed. And it was only after the UN found these destruction sites that they managed to work out what Iraq had been capable of.

Did they keep small stockpiles? They may have, but without a production capability they'll all be mush by now. VX degrades in months, liquid anthrax in years, sarin in years, etc..

Anyway, the fact remains. The US/UK tried to bully the whole international community into supporting this war because of WMD's and terrorist links. We still have no evidence of either, certainly no immediate threat which justified cutting short the UN inspection regime. So will we apologise to France and admit they were right? For some reason, I doubt it...

Again Dom all those very aggressive people in Iraq were not prepared to deal with Saddam Hussein the same way Suicide bombers are prepared to deal with the Israelis (Strange that they did not celebrate his birthday with the same fervor they did last year). More mass graves have been found and a recent theatrical play in Iraq stresses what could not have been said under the prior regime.


Bottom line nowadays one does not make a map, one simply gets a device designed to identify ones location via satellite. On the screen is displayed the longitude and latitude which is written down (its that simple).

That location needs to be identified and that is the problem.

My impression is that given the way Saddam Hussein was treating his people that he did not have WMD is very strange; that they have been all destroyed is not likely the response, as that would have Been like admitting defeat, something Saddam Hussein�s ego in all probability would not let him do.

What abotu the thousands of gallons of liquid antrax or the tons of sarin that we knew they in 98' when they kicked the UN inspectors out. Thats five years to hide it. What about the Iraqi scientist who claimed that Saddam was on his way to building a nuclear weapon? Remember that Saddam had months to hid this in deep underground bunkers or move it out of the country. Now is the time that we start lookin now that we are not engaging in combat as much. only time will tell who is right.

Look, in 98 the inspectors still had question marks over the destruction of a few things. They could have still existed, they could have been destroyed, but there was insufficient evidence of either. As far as a nuclear weapon program goes, there are far more notable Iraqi scientists who've stated that Iraq is no longer pursuing nuclear weapons, but strangely enough, they're generally kept out of the limelight.

Toltec, once again this human rights abuses thing. Honestly, do you really think that the US would have gone to war because of human rights abuses? It's just a sideshow to give you some valid justification for this war now that WMD's are missing and we still don't have any terrorist links...

I'm not sure how strange it would be for him not to have WMD's. Before the conflict we saw no evidence of WMD's that stood up to scrutiny, we saw persistent denials from the regime, no WMD's were used on the invading army. The only thing that made us think there were WMD's were Blair and Bush going on about secret sources that they couldn't risk exposing. They could release that information now, but it hasn't been forthcoming.

Weapons inspections are all about monitoring levels of chemicals, radiation, etc. in the atmosphere, in the ground, etc.. The US inspectors are going round there 1000 suspected sites, starting with the most likely, and they've already done about 100 last thing I heard. No signs of WMD's. That means one of two things...

a) A total failure of intelligence information.
b) We were being lied to along with the rest of the world by Bush/Blair.

I'm not very happy with either.

What abotu the thousands of gallons of liquid antrax or the tons of sarin that we knew they in 98'

Of course we know the white house got the bills.........

One of my "old" post :

"Many occidental sold weapons to Iraq, but it only occur during the 80's years, before the 1st golf War
and the embargo made by the UN to lock Iraq.

US sold the most weapons to saddam during the 80's, (the well known anthrax was on the list if you remembered the huge scandal... )
France is the second country to have sold many weapons
then it s Russia
finally China.

As these countries got the bills of the transactions...
they knew that they never sold WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction)...
the iraq army that was very poor (destroyed at it 4/5 after 1st Golf War, no planes, not more than twenty tanks...) would have never invested in such costly weapons... "

Originally posted by VzH
One of my "old" post :

"Many occidental sold weapons to Iraq, but it only occur during the 80's years, before the 1st golf War
and the embargo made by the UN to lock Iraq.

US sold the most weapons to saddam during the 80's, (the well known anthrax was on the list if you remembered the huge scandal... )
France is the second country to have sold many weapons
then it s Russia
finally China.

As these countries got the bills of the transactions...
they knew that they never sold WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction)...
the iraq army that was very poor (destroyed at it 4/5 after 1st Golf War, no planes, not more than twenty tanks...) would have never invested in such costly weapons... "

Some rationalism between all these patriot-blinded people, is nice to see some reasonable talking after all,
Obvious, the media had to give a reason to the public to allow first step for a war, the death people, scandalism will make people forget the real reason and they will go deep in a world of lies and hipocrisy, people first talked about:
9/11
Al quaeda and bin laden
Afghanistan
Saddan hussein the dictator
WMD of the dictator
now he wants NK and Syria

What they are doing is just turn around the chicken, there will be no disscusion about this war for a long time, because they will be another one, for another reasons and another country, and in the end the excuses are not a matter anymore, the last thing u need know to declare a war is a reason...
Welcome to the world of madness....

regardless of whether saddam had no WMD, he still lead a vicious regime