No WMD produced in Iraq since 1991, says top US arms inspector

[The Duke]

The argument was never that Iraq was producing them.  It was that he still had stockpiles and could produce more in the future.

As ti turns out, he had no large stockpiles, only scattered warheads.  He could however have produced weapons in the future if sanctions had been lifted, as this report shows.

My main complaint aboutt this is where the  were all these people two years ago?  All we ever heard from CIA was "slam dunk", and all we heard from UNSCOM is "not verifiably disarmed".  All this monday morning quarterback crap from Deulfer and Bremer pisses me off, they were there then and said nothing.

[The Duke]

Ritter was right, the CIA was wrong. He was a lone voice and people went with the majority.

This is the biggest intel mess-up in history.

"majority"? Please.

List the number of people saying that Iraq had no WMDs.

ever anti-war leftist

Really?  Such as, say, Scott Ritter who admitted that Iraq still had not accounted for 10% of its banned weapons?

[The Duke]

You misrepresented my argument.  Here is what I said.

The argument was never that Iraq was producing them. It was that he still had stockpiles and could produce more in the future.

Its pretty clear wat my position is.  Why did you feel the need to leave half of the equation out?

It was not because we suspect that he might want to reconstitute his WMD programs at some point in the future and that's a thought crime and that's bad enough because his name is Saddam Hussein.

Now, I've gone into detail on dozens of occaisions about Saddam's WMD programs.  I don't feel the need to re-explain how the wheel works.  The fact is that Hussein was sitting on 500 tons of uranium that doesn't get mentioned in this report.

I've got no inclination to believe a report that says Saddam had no WMD after 1996, because inspectors were still finding stockpiles after 1996, because they found mustard gas laden artillery shells in December of 2002, and because banned SCUD missiles were fired at US forces in the 2003 war.

Sorry, this report is not credible.

[The Duke]

Typical moral equivalence.  I am more worried about intent than capability.  If a law biding citizen has an elephant gun, and a gang banger has a pocket knife, I'm more afraid of the gang banger.  You'd be more afraid of the law biding citizen.  Why?  Only because of capabilities.  There is no logic to the fear you hold, but there is logic to mine.

They are not our equal.

[The Duke]

Rumsfeld was a US envoy to Iraq, not a "good buddy" of Saddam's.  Simply having a photo taken with someone does not equal approval.

The Reagan administration's support for Saddam is vastly over stated.  It was a continuation of a policy begun under the Carter years, and discontinued in the mid 1980s when the State Dept. concluded that Saddam could no be trusted.  The Bush I admin never supported Saddam.

The Deulfer report, flawed as it may be, did admit that Saddam has a skeleton capability and the intent to revive it once sanctions were lifted.

The way you discern intent is with common sense.  Saddam has used WMD on civilians without any provocation.  No member of any western government has done that.

[The Duke]

Just a few points regarding what Donovan said.  First, April Glaspie made some careless remarks that did not accurately reflect US policy.  As a result, Iraq felt more secure in invading Kuwait.  However, your implication that Glaspie is responsible for the invasion is garbage.  Hussein watned Kuwait for his own reasons, not because Glaspie made him do it.

You seem to have no familiarity with the US relationship with Iraq.  Iraq's aircraft came exclusively from France, China, and the USSR.  There are no US helicopters in his arsenal, discretiding your allegation that US weapons were used to gas the Kurds.

Whether there was strategic value in gassing Kurds from Saddam's POV is immaterial.  Your attempt to justify it is digusting.

I said US support for Iraq began under Carter, not that weapons sales began under Carter.  The remainder of that particular paragraphof your post is rendered moot by this, since it is built on the faulty premise that I said Carter sold weapons to Iraq.

The total percentage, in dollar terms, of the Iraqi arsenal supplied by the US is .005%.  Compare that to over 50% by the USSR, as MODU pointed out, and you hideous attempt at moral equivalence is lying in tatters.

Rumsfeld did indeed mention his time as a US envoy during his abortive Presidential run in 1988, but it was hardly a central theme.