JimSmith - 2/24/2006 8:34 PM
chiphomme - 2/24/2006 4:08 PM
I have read thing thing thoroughly. Yes stockpiles weren't found but it states over and over again about Saddams maintenance of WMD capabilities and his goal of pursuing them again. That isn't MY opinion it's Charles Deulfer's.
Chiphomme, the primary issues I have with your presentation of the Duelfer Report exonerating those who believed in the WMD story, and still believe, are:
1. The report contains facts, like no WMD or capability to make WMD or capability to recreate quickly a WMD production facility in Iraq since approximately 1996, and then opinions about what Saddam's contorted brain was thinking about, and you presented the Duelfer opinions in the report as facts. Had you merely stated the opinion of Duelfer, as presented in the Duelfer Report, is this or that, and accurately repeated the words of the Duelfer Report in context, I would likely have been less likely to be so contentious. But you didn't.
2. For example the seed stocks found after the invasion of March 2003 are noted as BW-related not BW seed stock in the Duelfer Report, and were never specifically identified even though Duelfer felt the need to conduct an elementary biochemistry of Biological Weapons seminar in the same section the BW-related seed stocks are mentioned. The seed stock claim you kept up chucking like it was a major finding, actually has no substance, and you repeatedly threw it up on the page, without ever mentioning that specific seed stock was only BW-related. You very purposely and repeatedly pointed to this obscure phrase in a god knows how many page long document of mostly superfluous biochemistry jargon that adds nothing to the findings of the report, an never put the clause in the context of "BW-related" and never specifically identified or discussed again. This leads me to doubt you actually read the document yourself for this particular "nugget" before you threw it up on the page here.
3. You need to reread Duelfer Report, preferably with a serious hang-over or some other means to blot out your prejudiced view of the words. There is no evidence supporting any specific findings of "Saddam's maintenance of WMD capabilities and his goal of pursuing them again" to quote you, or your opinion on Duelfer's opinion on the subject. There is a lot of conjecture that in the ISG's opinion Saddam desired very much to maintain the ability to produce WMD, and that the ISG believed Saddam wanted to pursue a WMD program again, specifically to protect Iraq from Iran (why not mention how many times the Duelfer Report cites same sources for generating the "Saddam wants a WMD program" opinion reporting Saddam had no specific plans or desires to pick a fight with the US?). But there was clearly no corroboration of these beliefs with hard data or hardware.
Also, read it from the perspective of a military man such as yourself who was given orders for a specific mission, and, failed to complete the mission successfully, knowing this was going to damage the strategic value of your superior's battle plan. Duelfer could have written a brief description of the process used, and then, a few paragraphs of the lack of success finding the WMD. Which would likely have been very traumatic for him and the Commander in Chief, so he added lots and lots and lots of opinions to dilute the facts and make the answer less obviously a cut and dried failure of the Bush administration.