| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| CIA Names New Iraq WMD Inspector |
| 2004-01-24 |
| The CIA named a new inspector to lead the search for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction Friday, choosing a veteran investigator who has expressed recent skepticism that Saddam Hussein possessed banned weapons that posed an immediate threat. Charles Duelfer, the No. 2 United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq for much of the 1990s, is taking over the task of sorting out Saddam’s weapons program. He said CIA Director George Tenet assured him he wanted one thing: "That is the truth, wherever that lay." The Bush administration has been frustrated in its search for convincing evidence that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, banned by the United Nations after Iraq invaded Kuwait. No such weapons have been found although the previous inspector, David Kay, said he did find evidence of programs to develop weapons. Duelfer will be taking over the U.S.-led Iraq Survey Group of roughly 1,400 scientists and other experts who are combing through documents, searching facilities and interviewing Iraqis to determine the capabilities of the fallen government. In a conference call with reporters Friday, Duelfer wouldn’t offer a timetable for his investigation. Duelfer, 51, will replace Kay, who came home from Iraq for the holidays and never returned. "At a time when our WMD hunt efforts were just beginning, David provided a critical strategic framework that enabled the ISG to focus the hunt for information on Saddam’s WMD programs," Tenet said. Hate to say it, but Saddam pulled a fast one — moved to a just-in-time inventory system and farmed out some of the equipment and work to others (Syria?) Just as Libya, NK, the Paks and Iran split up the nuclear work to avoid being hammered, Saddam did the same with chem/bio. Duelfer said he sees the job as an opportunity to pursue questions unanswered during his seven years tracking Saddam’s weapons program as the top American on the U.N. team enforcing the 1991 cease-fire agreement. Before last year’s invasion, Duelfer took a hard line, consistently arguing that the Iraqi government posed a significant threat due to Saddam’s dedication to the pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. Since Saddam’s fall last spring, however, Duelfer has grown more skeptical that weapons will be found. In a column published by the Washington Post in October, he said Saddam had long differentiated between actually retaining weapons and maintaining a capability to produce them quickly. The absence of weapons stocks "does not mean Saddam did not pose a WMD threat," Duelfer wrote. "But clearly this is not the immediate threat many assumed before the war," he also said. "The WMD threat appears to have been longer term. Assuming this finding does not change, it will be very important for the Iraq Survey Group to establish when all agents and weapons were eliminated." In the conference call on Friday, Duelfer said his earlier comments were those of an outsider, and his job now is to be an investigator. "My goal is to find out what happened on the ground, what is the status on the Iraqi weapons programs, what was their game plan, what were the goals of the regime," he said. David Albright, a former weapons inspector, said Duelfer had gained respect for his work at the U.N. Special Commission on Iraq. He said there was a perception that Kay was more of an ideologue, convinced the weapons existed. "Having Duelfer go in gives me more confidence that they can wrap this up, and we can have some closure. Duelfer has much more experience as an inspector," Albright said. Hope so, it’d be nice to have an answer that can withstand a challenge. |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #7 Ben, you're preaching to the choir :) It was a quiet hope of mine that WMD would be found, just to shut up the critics and anti-war crowd. I would have supported the war even without the WMD argument. But anyone with several brain cells knows that what matters is the long term development capability of these WMD. Saddam would have been a constant threat and thorn in the side of the US. I just wish Duelfer had said this before the war. It's as if Bush was banking on finding something in Iraq, and he didn't. And now Duelfer will be viewed, by those with fewer than several brain cells, to be doing damage control. I think it was David Spade who used a great analogy once: if you're hiding weed in your room, and your mother tells you she's going to inspect your room in one hour, guess what, there ain't gonna be any weed in your room when she gets there. (dedicated to Stevee). |
| Posted by: Rafael 2004-1-24 1:53:58 PM |
| #6 Old Patriot, 3&4 Were why I supported going into Iraq, from the pragmatic point of view. 1 should have been done in 1991. At least we corrected our error The WMD thing never really had anything to do with my decision to support dropping the cease-fire and going back in. |
| Posted by: Kathy K 2004-1-24 1:27:29 PM |
| #5 Most of the people in the world - including 100% of the "news professionals" in the United States, still don't see Bush's master plan to fight terror. What a bunch of dumba$$es. You can pick at terror around the periphery, or you can get right in the middle of the entire terror network and fight from there. George Bush decided it wasn't worthwhile to try to fight terror from the fringes. The invasion of Iraq had a four-fold purpose: 1) Topple Hussein and end his terrorist regime; 2) Stop the potential development of WMD by the Iraqi regime, and keep such weapons out of the hands of terrorists; 3) Establish a base of operations in the heart of the terrorist-producing Middle East from which to operate; and 4) use bases in that central location (Iraq) to attack terrorists and terror sponsors in Iran, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and in the newly-independent Muslim states in the southern portion of the old Soviet empire. Very few Americans comprehend those last two goals, or understand their necessity. Terrorist leaders DO understand that if the United States establishes a firm hold in Iraq, the entire Middle East terror war against the "infidel" is doomed. That's why they keep sending in cannon fodder to disrupt the US activities. We need to keep whacking the "foreign jihadis", and choke off any internal support for them or their goals. If it means busting a few Imams and hanging them from lamp posts, so be it. This is going to be a long war. It's best to fight from a position of strength within the heart of your enemy's territory than from far away. I just hope that the people involved don't lose sight of the overall goal: the destruction of militant islam. That's the only way any of the rest of us will ever be allowed to live in peace. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2004-1-24 1:01:03 PM |
| #4 I still haven't seen where anyone in the Bush administration called Iraq an "immediate" or "iminent" threat. In fact, I remember Bush himself saying the threat was NOT iminent. Why people keep CLAIMING he did is a mystery to me. But Duelfer has one thing right -- Saddam still had a WMD program that he could have ramped up the minute sanctions were lifted. Remember, the people who wanted to keep Saddam in power were those who had claimed the sanctions had to be lifted for the good of Iraq's children... |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2004-1-24 10:11:47 AM |
| #3 I think the media in general is being incrediably transparent in its efforts to try to break apart and undermine the Allies.They constantly jump on the 'no WMD found' bandwagon but fail to realise if left unchecked Saddam would have reaquired these weapon and and lets face it he's used them before so he'll have no qualms about using them again.The media fail to realise he could also used WMD on a stratigic assymetrical attack on homeland America,think kinda Bin-Laden style but perhaps a bomb with chems in detonated in say Washington or New York. |
| Posted by: Jon Shep U.K 2004-1-24 8:33:59 AM |
| #2 Not so sure myself. Look, Saddam was a threat to us as well as his own people. Even if you disagree on the WMD issue, you have to admit that his removal was a good thing for the Iraqi people. At best you can complain about being fooled into doing the right thing. Are you sure you want to make that case? |
| Posted by: Ben 2004-1-24 8:00:12 AM |
| #1 "But clearly this is not the immediate threat many assumed before the war," he also said. "The WMD threat appears to have been longer term..." The White House should have made this argument before the war. I think there's more than a few people eating crow in the administration right now. |
| Posted by: Rafael 2004-1-24 7:35:59 AM |