View Full Version : CIA now says Iraq abandonned chemical weapons programs in 1991

Feb 1st, 2005, 10:35 PM
(This is, of course, exactly what Saddam Hussein. Still glad to see him out of power, but ....)


February 1, 2005


CIA Corrects Itself on Arms

A report, the first of its kind, says Baghdad ended its chemical weapons program in '91.

By Greg Miller, Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON In what may be a formal acknowledgment of the obvious, the CIA has issued a classified report revising its prewar assessments on Iraq and concluding that Baghdad abandoned its chemical weapons programs in 1991, intelligence officials familiar with the document said.

The report marks the first time the CIA has officially disavowed its prewar judgments and is one in a series of updated assessments the agency is producing as part of an effort to correct its record on Iraq's alleged weapons programs, officials said.

The CIA's decision to distribute the report titled "Iraq: No Large-Scale Chemical Warfare Efforts Since Early 1990s" in classified channels underscores the awkwardness the agency faces as it continues to reconcile its prewar reporting with postwar realities in Iraq. Before the war, the CIA asserted that Iraq had stockpiled biological weapons and was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.

A U.S. intelligence official said the document was "not a high-level report," meaning it was designed to supplant outdated assessments still on classified computer networks and was not meant to be called to the attention of President Bush or other senior government officials.

"It's basically updating the books," said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, "so the information on the shelf is the most current."

Current and former intelligence officials described it as a highly unusual step for the CIA.

"It's stunning that they would actually put on paper a reversal" of previous intelligence estimates, said one intelligence official who had seen the document.

Richard J. Kerr, a former senior CIA official who was hired by the agency last year to conduct an internal review of its prewar analysis, said he couldn't recall the agency ever issuing such a revisionist report on any subject.

"But the situation is rather unique," Kerr said, noting that Iraq's postwar reality had made the agency's failings obvious. "Ordinarily, you're never proven wrong in a clean, neat way."

The report is based largely on findings by the Iraq Survey Group, a CIA-led team of weapons experts that searched the country for more than a year without finding clear evidence of active illegal weapons programs.

U.S. intelligence officials have long acknowledged that the prewar assessments were flawed. David Kay, the former head of the search team, told Congress last January, "We were almost all wrong."

But other officials' statements have been more qualified. In a speech at Georgetown University last February, then-CIA Director George J. Tenet said that "when the facts of Iraq are all in, we will neither be completely right nor completely wrong."

The new report from the CIA, which is dated Jan. 18, retreats from the agency's prewar assertions on chemical weapons on almost every front. It concludes that "Iraq probably did not pursue chemical warfare efforts after 1991."

The report notes that its new conclusions "vary significantly" from prewar judgments "largely because of subsequent events and direct access to Iraqi officials, scientists, facilities and documents."

A note in the report describes the document as the second in a "retrospective series that addresses our post-Operation Iraqi Freedom understanding of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and delivery system programs."

A Jan. 4 report focused on Scud missiles and other delivery systems. Intelligence officials said future reports would revise the agency's claims that Iraq had stockpiles of biological weapons and was rebuilding its nuclear weapons program. Those allegations were a centerpiece of the Bush administration's case for war with Iraq.

Feb 2nd, 2005, 04:04 AM
All the more reason to IMPEACH BUSH!!!

Feb 2nd, 2005, 04:17 AM
Oh so NOW they say that.

Wait, is it going to be 2 years later that we finally hear Iran has no Weapons of Mass Destruction too? Cuz you know Bush is gunning for them next. He's such a lil pussy, he won't go after the people that actually have them, he bullshits around with people that don't thinking he can get away with it.

One of these days, they'll cry wolf too often and no one will listen then BOOM.

Lord Nelson
Feb 2nd, 2005, 12:08 PM
Should Blair also be impeached? He is from the left folks :D No seriously I don't care what Bush says. The reason why Saddam was overthrown was so that Iraq would not become like Afghanistan. That country was also unstable and the instability led to the Taliban hosting Al Queda and lo and behold 9/11 attacks occured. Don't tell me that Saddam's regime was secular thus it was improbable for him to host radical groups. Take the case of Syria today. The regime is also Baathist albeit a shiite one ruling over the sunni majority (Saddam and Assad should have exchanged jobs). Anyway, the nation hosts radical groups such as Hamas where its leader lives. Syria also funds Hamas and other radical groups as well as the insurgency in Iraq.
Impeach, impeach....It's funny it's always the radicals who scream this out whether they are on the right or left. (Though I won't permit myself calling Zuperfan a radical). I heard this too for Clinton and nothing happened which was good.
In short, Bush may not have given out good arguments for invading Iraq but there were numerous other reasons why this still should have occured. I'll be happy to list them if asked.

Feb 2nd, 2005, 03:38 PM
All the more reason to IMPEACH BUSH!!!

Nah, it won't happen. Wasn't it a few years ago, they acted like lying under oath, even if it was just about what you had for breakfast, was the most serious crime on earth? This man has lied under oath so repeatedly you can't even keep track. :rolleyes:

Feb 3rd, 2005, 04:20 AM
I'll be happy to list them if asked.I'm asking. In particular I'm asking why my money and relatives lives should have been risked. There was no threat to the United States. We're talking about Bush sending out people to die, so these 'reasons' better be damn good, and specifically related to saving American lives.

And not just thoeretically, like, 'to prevent Iraq from becoming like Afghanistan'. We bombed Iraq nearly every day for over ten years. There was exactly ZERO chance of it becoming a staging ground for a military force like that of Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda had an ARMY on the ground in Afghanistan, complete with tanks, training bases and anti-aircraft. As the speed with which we defeated the Iraqi military proved, Iraq had nothing that could withstand us.

Remember, you going to list reasons why MY child should be sent to die.