Iraq survey chief David Kay stated,
"I must say I actually think Iraq - what we learned during
the inspections - made Iraq a more dangerous place
potentially than in fact we thought it was even before
the war".....
http://dev.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=19735063
....in October 2003, U.S. inspection chief David Kay told Congress that the Saddam's regime
"maintained programs and activities, and they certainly
had the intentions at a point to resume their programs. So
there was a lot they wanted to hide because it showed what
they were doing was illegal."
And in September 2004 then-Iraq Survey Group head Charles Duelfer issued a report which cited many violations of the sanctions regime and concluded that
"Saddam pursued a strategy to maintain a capability to
return to WMD production after sanctions were lifted by
preserving assets and expertise. In addition to preserve
capability, we have clear evidence of his intent to resume
WMD production as soon as sanctions were lifted."
Duelfer continued:
As UN sanctions eroded there was a concomitant expansion
of activities that could support full WMD reactivation.
He directed that ballistic missile work continue that
would support long-range missile development. Virtually no
senior Iraqi believed that Saddam had forsaken WMD
forever. Evidence suggests that, as resources became
available and the constraints of sanctions decayed, there
was a direct expansion of activity that would have the
effect of supporting future WMD reconstitution.
http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=22564900
Iraq survey chief Kay says Iraq war was ‘prudent’
dev.siliconinvestor.com
Last fall the Iraqi Survey Group uncovered, quote,
"significant information, including research and
development of biological weapons, applicable organisms,
the involvement of the Iraqi intelligence service in
possible biological weapons activities and deliberate
concealment activities."
http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=22564900
The Saddam (DOCEX) Tapes - Charles Duelfer says the tapes,
"support the conclusion in the report, which we made in
the last couple of years, that the regime had the
intention of building and rebuilding weapons of mass
destruction, when circumstances permitted."
Message 22174649
"WHERE WAS THE NUCLEAR material transported to?" asks an aide to Saddam Hussein, in a taped conversation released last week [DOCEX]. He answers his own question: "A number of them were transported out of Iraq."
Message 22183631
In addition to trying to buy uranium from Niger, Iraq had also tried to obtain uranium from Congo, and may have succeeded in doing so
Message 22368689
ISG Chief Charles Duelfer:
"There was evidence of a discussion of possible WMD
collaboration initiated by a Syrian security officer, and
ISG received information about movement of material out of
Iraq, including the possibility that WMD was involved. In
the judgment of the working group, these reports were
sufficiently credible to merit further investigation."
http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=21270384
Message 21270424
dev.siliconinvestor.com
The problem for liberals is that once that basic fact is admitted, and the discussion becomes more nuanced--e.g., old WMDs versus new WMDs--then the discussion also has to include addional facts: that Saddam remained committed to building more WMDs at the earliest opportunity; that he had at his command ample staff and other resources to carry out that command; and that Iraq was moving successfully toward ending the corrupt U.N. sanctions regime, at which point WMD production would have resumed.
So it's hard to see how anyone can seriously argue that Iraq was not a threat under Saddam. The legitimate question, it seems to me, is the magnitude of the threat. I think one could legitimately argue that Iran, for example, posed a bigger threat. But once they get past "Bush lied!" hysteria, liberals have little interest in that kind of discussion. Nor, of course, do they have the slightest idea what to do about Iran.
Message 22658180
