Iraq had no stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons and its nuclear program had decayed before last year’s U.S.-led invasion, the chief U.S. weapons inspector said on Wednesday, in findings contrary to prewar assertions of the Bush administration.
[…] “The analysis shows that despite Saddam’s expressed desire to retain the knowledge of his nuclear team, and his attempts to retain some key parts of the program, during the course of the following 12 years (after 1991) Iraq’s ability to produce a weapon decayed,” Duelfer said.
Some chemical weapons were uncovered in postwar Iraq but they all predated the 1991 Gulf War, Duelfer said. His report said Iraq had destroyed its chemical weapons stockpile in 1991 and there was no evidence that it resumed production.
[…] On what has been a contentious issue, Duelfer’s report said there was no evidence that Iraq sought uranium from abroad after 1991.
[…] A shipment of aluminum tubes seized in 2001 had been cited by U.S. officials as key evidence that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program. However, Duelfer said, “those tubes were most likely destined for a rocket program.”
The WMD hunt uncovered labs run by Iraqi intelligence that showed production of small amounts of poisons, including ricin — but for use in assassinations, not military weapons.
The Duelfer report, which includes assessments based on FBI interrogations of Saddam, said the former Iraqi leader intended to rebuild his weapons capabilities once U.N. sanctions were lifted.
Saddam saw Iran as the primary threat, followed by Israel, the report said.
Do we all get it now? There were no weapons of mass distruction in Iraq. None. Zero. Since 1992, the weapons programs in Iraq had decayed, despite Saddam Hussein’s interest in keeping it alive.
So, tell me again why we’ve gotten involved in this war? Said President Bush in a speech to the party faithful in Pennsylvania today:
“There was a risk, a real risk, that Saddam Hussein would pass weapons or materials or information to terrorist networks,” Bush said. “In the world after September the 11th, that was a risk we could not afford to take,” he said.
Hmmm… a little fancy tap-dancing, there?
But, regardless of the numerous acts of prevarication coming from the White House, the fact remains that Dubya just doesn’t get it. Iraq was not an imminent threat to the US. He may have been somebody to keep an eye on and address in the future. But attacking Iraq took the focus off of Afganistan. And that, in turn, led to the escape of Osama bin Laden. And that has led to the regrouping and spread of al Qaeda more than Saddam could have.
It’s too bad that Dubya got out of serving in Viet Nam. If he’d actually had to fly a plane into battle, he may have had a different take on why war should be the last resort, not the first. Of course, as we all know from the first debate, this Presidentin’ stuff is hard work. Maybe just a bit beyond you, Mr. President?
Iraq — this generation’s Viet Nam. Those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat it.
