Iraqi Survey Group key findings

Last spring, David Kay resigned as chief weapons inspector,
since then Charles Duelfer is the new "man in the know".
Duelfer says his job is to find the truth.  As the head
of the ISG (Iraqi Survey Group) he has a new report.

key finding from the most recent "search for WMDs" report
can be downloaded here:

http://www.npr.org/documents/2004/cia_wmd/key_findings.pdf

It's 19 pages, not too long, a few pages are blank.  It's certainly 
worth the read, since we are going to vote soon.  The report 
asserts that Saddam wanted to start up weapons programs once the 
UN sanctions were lifted.  But according to the report his target 
was Iran not the US.  But it's the evidence (or lack thereof) not 
the assertions that jumped out at me:

The report concludes that Saddam didn't have WMDs or WMD programs.



------ from the key findings report -----------------
Nuclear: "Hussein ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the 
Gulf war. ISG found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to 
restart the program."

Chemical: "ISG did not discover chemical process or production units 
configured to produce key precursors or CW agents."

Biological: "Depending on its scale, Iraq could have re-established an 
elementary BW program within a few weeks to a few months of a decision 
to do so, but ISG discovered no indications that the Regime was pursuing 
such a course."
--------------------------------------------------------


[my comment: One of the many assertions, "could have re-established". 
So Saddam had time to start up a BW program during the run-up to the war, 
but we "discovered no indications" that he did.  Why not?]

So when this administration tries to spin "He had WMD" into "he had 
WMD programs", well, there's no evidence to support that assertion 
either.  Read it for yourself.  I wish Vice-President Cheney would 
read it and stop his assertions that contradict this report.  He 
has no evidence to support his assertions about WMD programs.  
What should Cheney's unsupported assertions be called?  
How about BS?

In discussing their conclusions on Saddam's activities in the decade 
after the 1991 Gulf War, they state that he was trying "to formulate 
and implement strategies, policies, and methods to terminate the 
UN's sanctions..."  In fact they say he was trying to sway the world 
opinion via diplomacy.  I know that seems preposterous, even to me, 
but this is from the report:



------ from the key findings report -----------------
"At a minimum, Saddam wanted to divide the five permanent members
(of the UN security council) and forment international public support 
of Iraq at the UN and throughout the world by a savvy public relations 
campaign and an extensive diplomatic effort"
--------------------------------------------------------



WHAT???!!  They accuse him of being diplomatic?
OK, that's all evidence we need, let's go to war. Quick!!!!
Even before we have enough body-armor, it's urgent!!! 
Get the BOMBS ready, Saddams's using "extensive diplomatic effort".
WE WILL PUT AN END TO THIS EVIL BEHAVIOR!!!  NOW!!!

Well of course Saddam Hussein is an evil person, but what should
we have done about it.  I agree with John Edwards' remark during 
the Vice-Presidential debate:  "Just because someone has a long resume, 
doesn't mean they make good judgements."  
And I don't agree with this administration's judgement on how to 
deal with Saddam Hussein.  Remember this is the group that said 
"not only do we know he has them (WMD) but we know where they are".  
WRONG!  COMPLETELY WRONG!!  Whew, smells like BS again.

The question is asked of we opponents of the Iraq war, 
"You would rather have Saddam Hussein still in power in Iraq?"

Well actually yes, I would.  The report shows that regardless
of the claims of this administration, Saddam Hussein had no WMDs,
no WMD programs, was not involved in 9/11, and there was no threat 
of him creating a "mushroom cloud" over NYC.  But I do have to give 
the adminstration credit.  The "mushroom cloud" thing is a great 
fearmongering tactic.  The Democrats used it against Goldwater in 64.  
It worked then, so I guess it's fair that the Republicans try it now.  
But it isn't true.

That doesn't mean Saddam should have been left without the weapons 
inspectors still scouring his country.  Of course not. Remember the 
UN weapons inspectors had to leave in early 2003 because, well, 
"shock and awe" was going to begin soon.

It's true Saddam would still be in power, but it also more likely that
(1) We could have captured Osama Bin Laden (BIG TIME evildoer) by now, 
(2) We could have rebuilt Afghanistan by now.  
(3) Maybe we would have prevented the record opium crop in 
  Afghanistan. (although I'm doubting that one)
(4) We would NOT have had more than 1000 Americans die and 
  many many thousands more severely wounded in Iraq, more each day.
(5) Iraq wouldn't be the fertile breeding ground for anti-US
  terrorism that it is today.
(6) We wouldn't be thought of as guns-a-blazin' cowboys, "look-out
  world, pre-emptive war may be coming soon to your neighborhood."
(7) 120 Billion dollars could have been redirected to a better cause.
(8) We would have come to the same conclusions as this report (no WMD) 
  but without the ugly war.

Not a bad trade really.  It's certainly worth a debate.  I know that 
Kerry's approach to Iraq will be to stay and fight, so I'll have to 
choose between the "lesser of the two bozos" this year.  But I can't
vote for the fiscally irresponsible Republicans.