It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

WAR: US Arms Inspector Says Saddam not in Active Pursuit of Weapons

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 6 2004 @ 11:34 AM
link   
Charles Duelfer, the United States' chief weapons inspector, has indicated in his final report to the Senate Armed Services Committee that former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was not actively pursuing a weapons program after the 1998 international inspections. He found no evidence of amassed banned weaponry, however he did find indications that there were weapons programs that could have been revived..
 



Miami.com
In drafts, weapons hunter Charles Duelfer concluded that Saddam's Iraq had no stockpiles of the banned weapons but said he found signs of idle programs that Saddam could have revived once international attention had waned.

"It appears that he did not vigorously pursue those programs after the inspectors left," the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity in advance of the report's release.

Duelfer was providing his findings Wednesday to the Senate Armed Services Committee. His team compiled a 1,500-page report after his predecessor, David Kay, who quit last December, also found no evidence of weapons stockpiles.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


This report runs contrary to claims that Hussein had stockpiles of banned weapons of mass destruction. In October 2002, before the war in Iraq, President Bush indicated:


"It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."
"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas."
"Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles - far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey and other nations - in a region where more than 135,000 American civilians and service members live and work."


Thus far, US officials have discovered in Iraq:


A single artillery shell filled with two chemicals that, when mixed while the shell was in flight, would have created sarin. U.S. forces learned of it only when insurgents, apparently believing it was filled with conventional explosives, tried to detonate it as a roadside bomb in May in Baghdad. Two U.S. soldiers suffered from symptoms of low-level exposure to the nerve agent. The shell was from Saddam's pre-1991 stockpile.

Another old artillery shell, also rigged as a bomb and found in May, showed signs it once contained mustard agent.

Two small rocket warheads, turned over to Polish troops by an informer, that showed signs they once were filled with sarin.

Centrifuge parts buried in a former nuclear scientist's garden in Baghdad. These were part of Saddam's pre-1991 nuclear program, which was dismantled after the 1991 Persian Gulf War. The scientist also had centrifuge design documents.

A vial of live botulinum toxin, which can be used as a biological weapon, in another scientist's refrigerator. The scientist said it had been there since 1993.

Evidence of advanced design work on a liquid-propellant missile with ranges of up to 620 miles. Since the 1991 Gulf War, Iraq had been prohibited from having missiles with ranges longer than 93 miles.



posted on Oct, 6 2004 @ 05:22 PM
link   
Why is everyone saying Saddam wasn't in pursuit of WMD? If he wasn't technically in pursuit of WMD, he was in pursuit of eventually getting the sanctions removed so he could then pursue WMD. The headline of this post, like all of the newspapers, is very misleading:

WashPost Headline: Report Discounts Iraqi Arms Threat

Quote from article: Duelfer's report said Hussein was pursuing an aggressive effort to subvert the international sanctions through illegal financing and procurement efforts, officials said. The official said the report states that Hussein had the intent to resume full-scale weapons of mass destruction efforts after the sanctions were eliminated, and details Hussein's efforts to hinder international inspectors and preserve his weapons of mass destruction capabilities.

Link: www.washingtonpost.com...



posted on Oct, 6 2004 @ 05:46 PM
link   
So if that's the case then the US should invade all other countries under dictatorships who have an intention of developing a WMD program? Oh wait but they wont have as large a corporate money making potential as Iraq.

I wish they would stop dancing around the issue, The US used intelligence from the UK with which there was reasonable doubt that it may have been 'sexed-up' in order for the war to go ahead. The BBC today programme by Gilligan which made these claims about the honesty of the document was critised by BBC's own paronama investigation but questions still have to be asked on Dr Kelly ( the supposed informant for Gilligan's report ) and his supposed 'suicide', if all Gilligan's claims were false.

And this report today supports this doubt. Yes Saddam may have been trying to start up a program again if the sanctions were not in place, but the general view was that he would not use them unless attacked ( if he was not stopped by the international comminity first ), and that the 45 minute claim was fabricated to say the least.



[edit on 6-10-2004 by Snoopdopey]



posted on Oct, 6 2004 @ 08:53 PM
link   
OK, I guess it's not that the press seems to be concentrating on things that may be politically motivated, that might be just fine. So what has been reconfirmed is that Saddam posed no threat and that all of the reasons Bush gave to invade Iraq turned out to be false. Great, so what happens now? Why the hell does stuff like this always stop here? How come main stream media doesn't say, well if all of that stuff isn't true, then why did Bush want to invade Iraq? It seems pretty obvious, but people always only hear bits and pieces of the big picture over a long period of time and don't grasp what it is that really happened. Some of the major media outlets need to do a comprehensive report on all aspects of the US invading Iraq. I mean just for starters, the President's whole family is in the oil business; his VP was CEO of haliburton; most of his staff has been in the oil business; the US knew about the oil for food corruption in 2000 and let it continue until last November; JP Morgan Chase, whose execs are close to the Bush Admin are in charge of the 13 bank affiliation running Trade Bank of Iraq, which replaced the banks running the Oil For Food Program(Chase Manhattan and BNP Peribas); members of the JP Morgan Chase board include Betchel CEO Riley Betchel and Exxon Exec Lee Raymond; they cover anything the Iraqi govt. needs and eventually get repaid from oil revenues, which the US used to be responsible for and can't account for $8.8Billion-the NY Fed got subpeanaed to turn over all documents relating to that account yesterday; the CPA, Paul Bremer and a Texas law firm with close ties to Bush have already written basically every law relating to the structure of government(and probably every person who will be "elected" to it), economics, oil and the banking industry and made it so they can not be changed without the Iraqi President and both of his VPs approval-they will likely be the ones currently acting them and will serve 5 year terms. This is just the obvious things, I can only imagine how bad it really is. So in simpler terms, Iraq is completely dependent on a few foreign banks(account for over 90% of banking industry), some of which are owned by the same people, who finance anything Iraq needs in return for revenue from their primary asset, oil (95% of their revenue) and also the 2nd largest oil reserves in world, which is an industry being run by foreign companies whose execs have close ties to eachother and Bush and some of whom are on the board of execs st the company(JPM) running Iraq's banking industry.

Gee, since most of them are buddies, I wonder if there is any corruption going on in the transactions between the oil companies and the banks? They are likey running an operation very similar to the Oil For Food scandal, they just switched companies and there is no Saddam to take any of the profits.



new topics

top topics
 
0

log in

join