Saddam’s Files
Tags: John Loftus, nuclear weapons.
Click here to get Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority by Matt Margolis and Mark Noonan.
I totally missed this when it first came out, but luckily one of our commenters here posted a link to this story and I’ve decided put up a quick post on it since it clearly hasn’t gotten the attention it should.
According to John Loftus, writing at FrontPage Magazine, we now know what happened to Saddam’s WMD… the answers come from Saddam’s own files.
Based on the evidence, Loftus writes,
Saddam’s nuclear documents compel any reasonable person to the conclusion that, more probably than not, there were in fact nuclear WMD sites, components, and programs hidden inside Iraq at the time the Coalition forces invaded. In view of these newly discovered documents, it can be concluded, more probably than not, that Saddam did have a nuclear weapons program in 2001-2002, and that it is reasonably certain that he would have continued his efforts towards making a nuclear bomb in 2003 had he not been stopped by the Coalition forces.
It’s unfortunately that there are so few (if any) reasonable people in the Democratic Party.
Thank you for visiting Blogs For Victory. If you enjoy our content, please consider making a donation to help us cover the costs of our servers.Matt Margolis is co-author (with Mark Noonan) of Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority. He also blogs at The Buffalo Bean. Follow Matt on Twitter.
93 Responses to “Saddam’s Files”
Caucus of Corruption
White phosphorus, which is used as a weapons grade incendiary is commonly stored underwater to prevent contact with oxygen.
So, my question to our lib friends here at B4B: Because you’ve never heard of such a thing, such as storing weapons grade WP underwater, does this mean it isn’t possible? Or, maybe it’s because most of you don’t know what you don’t know.
Plus, if you wanted to hide such a facility from thermal imaging cameras, hiding it underwater is brilliant. The water would effectively dissipate the heat from the facility and render it very difficult to find.
eric, if the facility were hidden in still water, where it could be treated with an aquatic dye, it would be even harder to detect.
Navydad-
Don’t you think if this was a credible report that the Bush administration would be shouting it from the tallest mountain? Why aren’t they?
I think I saw one of those underwater sites used by a villain in a James Bond movie. But James Bond was able to find it. Navydad do you think Saddam saw that movie too ?
sleepy,
The Bush adm. has been beaten down so badly, it wouldn’t be worth their time to do any chest thumping at this point. It would land on deaf ears.
That is your best answer? It is not a credible one. If this was a truly credible report no matter how battered the administration was they would be publishing it everywhere, at least on their own website.
But I agree with Kahn, Bush has been succesful in disarming two enemies, Iran and Libya. Iraq didn’t have weapons so you can’t disarm them. Kudos to Bush.
sleepy,
GW has nothing more to prove…he’s disarmed our #1,2 & 3 enemies and if the American public can’t figure this out, well, that’s their problem.
But, I learned quite a few years ago, after the invasion went south, that not only are most Americans impatient, they’re kinda dumb when it comes to war, therefore, what’s the use?
“Iraq didn’t have weapons so you can’t disarm them” sorry sleepy, looks like we’ll need to put you in the “kinda dumb” category.
navy-
Nice that you call me kinda dumb. But your source that Iraq had WMD’s is a report from Frontpage Magazine, not the Whitehouse, not the CIA, not the DNI.
Good Day Sir.
>>>>its amazing. its the same argument that was used for looking for WMDs that was pushed in 2003 – you know all the ones that were found to be false , fakes, and inconclusive<<<<<
TYPICAL LIBERAL CONCEIT
you are more than welcome to document this lie, not like there were others that were far far more convincing than you are, but the gossip mongoring liberals just dont have the intelligence to prove thier lip service to these issues
sleepygene,
Given the state of denial that you seem to inhabit, would you believe the Whitehouse, the CIA, or the DNI?
You guys have to read this article. Apparently Loftus believes that the Bush family was complicit in the aborted coup attempt to bring down the American gov’t in the 20’s, were instrumental in bringing Hitler to power, thinks 9/11 was an inside job, thinks Grover Norquist is a lobbyist for terrorists, and all kinds of other things. Apparently this guy this guy has never run across a conspiracy he can’t refuse.
its amazing how small minded people can blame George for everything in the world that didnt go right, not the CIA, not the FBI, or FEMA, but just one guy who they think is solely responsible for it all
but thats something thats too small minded to deal with, because if something existed like wmd in iraq, and it did (they dont deny it), it had to go somewhere
our forensic tests didnt find its ashes, our satellites didnt locate it under ground, and certainly, the hundred someodd thousand people with eyeballs didnt find it either, so is it logical to concede that it never existed?
only if it were sugar
Eric-
I think you are the one in the state of denial. Please provide me a credible link that shows Saddam had WMD’s after 2000. I think Rico just debunked your Frontpage Magazine source.
You realize that in order to read the documents Loftus touts in the Fronpage article you have to subscribe to his website. PAAAAAALEASE.
its really amazing. Here is the chain of events:
(1) most people believe that Saddam’s weapons program has been in check since the first gulf war including weapons inspectors from the UN, international intelligence agencies, etc
(2) Bush argues that there are WMDs – and comes up with evidence such as aluminum tubes, yellow cake from nigeria, and meetings in Germany between al-queda and iraqi officials
(3) we invade and don’t find any wmds
(4) We find out that the yellow cake uranium story is false, the meeting between Iraqi officials and al queda never occurred, and the aluminum tubes could be from anything not just a centerfuge to produce nuclear weapons
(5) further we find that intellgience officials at the CIA were pushed and pushed until they came up with the “right answer” despite many first drafts coming to the absolute oposite conclusion
Now – rather believe the initial estimates and the newest information you would rather believe that they were there – but some how he hid them and thats why we never saw them. Despite the fact that the country was in lock down, under constant survaliance, and scowered for years to find them. Thats denial at a whole new level
sleepygene,
You did not answer my question. Would you believe the Whitehouse, the CIA, or the DNI?
See my post above (#34) for three links that indicate that Saddam had WMDs.
Here is another:
http://www.nysun.com/article/26514
And another:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/01/25/wirq25.xml
Rico,
Very interesting article. I really liked this quote
“Remember, we were talking during the break about the Bush family. People don’t realize that Prescott Bush, the President’s grandfather, and his great-grandfather, Herbert Walker, were in bed with the Nazis. These were the guys that raised investment capital in the early 1920s that funded the Nazi Party, they funded Hitler.”
Of course that doesn’t mean he’s wrong on WMDs. I would love to have access to the documents and the time to digest them.
“Here is the chain of events”
By those that chose not to know the truth…sure.
There is only one event that could have prevented the iraq invasion LT:
2003 17 March – UK’s ambassador to the UN says the diplomatic process on Iraq has ended; arms inspectors evacuate; US President George W Bush gives Saddam Hussein and his sons 48 hours to leave Iraq or face war.
Can you imagine where we’d be today if they had listened?
sleepygene: I think Rico just debunked your Frontpage Magazine source.
Actually no. What I said was Loftus apparently sees conspiracies all over the place. And at least some of them may be right. But it’s almost like you can Google “Loftus [anything bad]” and come up with some hits. He thinks our government has been funding al Qaeda all along, and the Muslim Brotherhood before that. He thinks the Bush administration intentionally let Bin Laden get away. He thinks one of the guys responsible for the London bombings was a double agent working for MI-6, who recruited him to fight in Kosovo. But then he moved to Oregon and tried to set up a terrorist training cell there. China, Russia, the Carlisle Group, you name it, everyone’s involved. It goes on and on. He’s good at what he does though. If you look at any one argument and you are likely to come away from it thinking… well, it sounds plausible enough. It’s just the shear magnitude of them that make you question whether (a) there really is a grand international conspiracy involved in just about everything, or (b) maybe he isn’t wrapped quite tightly enough.
Ricorun,
What would be scary is if he is right.
umm – can you imagine how many more people would be alive today if it weren’t for the war. I can 100s of thousands
How many would be alive were it not for Saddam? How many more would he have killed if he had not been ousted?
That is a valid point Eric but the simple fact of the matter is that the worst of his atrocities were done in the 80s – you know the same time that Rummy was shaking hands with him and we were supporting them against Iran?
Further every reliable intelligence source indicated that Saddam was essentially completely paralyzed after the first gulf war. He essentially was a non-factor and thats just a matter of the historic record from 1993-2003.
Finally – there were other options than invading the country. You guys always seem to make this argument that we were at the brink of destruction and it was the only possible move we could make. Quite to the contrary we were dealing with someone we had fully contained and we knew offered no significant threat
Wow, I too have looked into this Loftus guy >>> but he must be right since he was a Justice Department prosecutor. Sounds to me like the neocons and Erics should be saying something like “Okay everyone, this guy IS NOT credible” and “we apologize for trying to back up this truly off centered person”. This ought to be good.
“Further every reliable intelligence source indicated that Saddam was essentially completely paralyzed after the first gulf war.”
LbT, do you “essentially,” have complete proof that Saddam was paralyzed?
Paralyzed is a bit of an exaggeration..ya think?
Saddam was no dummy. Once he figured our President wasn’t Fing around, he decided to warm his family’s pockets with Oil for Food $. At the Iraqi peoples’ expense. So, if you call this paralyzed, I’d suggest you’d need to apply the same to the UN.
Teach,
I’m not saying I back up anybody. However, I believe that there is credible evidence that Saddam had WMDs and that he moved/hid those WMDs during the run up to the war. You are not even addressing the additional links that I posted. Why? Perhaps, it does support the possibility that Saddam did, in fact, have WMDs and you cannot discredit that evidence (other than to ask, “Where are the weapons now?). You are so blinded by your hatred of President Bush that you are unwilling to entertain the notion that he was correct.
LT seems to be saying (he’s a little incoherent) that “100s of thousands” of “people” would still be alive if we had not invaded Iraq.
Of course, he is exactly as accurate in this as he is in everything else he spouts.
Doncha just love the Loony Left ability to just invent things and spout them as if they had any relationship at all to reality?
Notice that LT and his ilk never answer any of the relevant questions. Let’s try again:
Where do you get your figures?
Of the “100s of thousands” of alleged casualties, do you assert that they died as the result of our invasion?
How?
How many were enemy combatants?
How many were innocent civilians, bystanders?
How can you tell the difference?
How many innocent civilians died before we invaded?
(You can skip the bizarro explanation that we were somehow to blame for Sadaam’s torture and rape rooms and mass graves—too goofy even for you.)
See, there is not one shred of reputable factual information in LT’s rants—and he doesn’t care. His is just one of those pathologies that feels better when he is viciously attacking someone. And he obviously doesn’t care how stupid, how deeply and profoundly stupid, he proves himself to be as he does it.
BTW, I have bought ketchup without “being in bed with” TerrAYza Heinz Kerry (please oh PLEASE get that image out of my mind!!!) You guys are so insane. Lots and lots of people did business with various German businesses in the years before Hitler proved to be a madman. Lots and lots of people even supported him, in Germany and all over the world, for what he purported to represent—renewed pride in Germany, the pursuit of industrial excellence, a strong national identity. To try to confabulate any connection with pre-late-30’s Hitler and his eventual actions is merely more and more and MORE proof of total historical illiteracy, as well as a scary dedication to insanity if it sounds vicious enough.
And LT has proven to us that vicious is all that matters to him.
Hmmm, and who is it exactly that sits on the panel of intelligencesummit.org, the group that was behind the report?
Bill Cown, Claire Lopez, Thomas McInerney, and Paul Vallely are all neoconservative members of the Iran policy committee. A group that advocates for hardline policies against Iran.
Yosef Bodansky wrote article’s, and books claiming that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were in cahoots together despite the fact that there is little evidence that any link ever existed.
Rachel Ehrenfeld is a neoconservative member of the Committee on Present Danger; A hardline neocon group who advocates long term military presense in Iraq, and war against Iran.
Tashib Sayyed is a adjunct fellow at The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies; A (you guessed it!) hardline neocon group which advocates a never ending military presense in Iraq, and war against Iran and Syria. It also advocates for US foreign policy in the Middle East to be completely centered around Israel.
Brigitte Gabriel is the founder of the American Congress for truth; a hardline neocon aligned group that believes terrorism is an existential threat that could threaten our very civilization.
One of the major financiers of the intelligencesummit.org is Michael Cherney, a man who is accused by the Israeli, and Russian Gov’t of having ties to organized crime. He’s currently under investigation by the Israeli Gov’t for business dealings he made with the Russian mafia.
James Woolsey, and John Deutch even resigned from the group after hearing incriminating evidence about Cherney.
A group just OOOOOzing with credibility.
So let’s recount this. David Kay, the first person handpicked by the Bush administration to lead an American weapons inspection team in Iraq, concludes that Iraq did not possess WMD. Charles Duelfer, the SECOND man handpicked by the Bush administration to lead an American weapons inpsection team in Iraq, concludes that Iraq did not possess WMD. Every member of the former Iraqi Gov’t that would have known about WMD programs have ALL claimed that no such weapons existed anymore. Not even a low level employee who would have worked on such weapons has ever come forward after the invasion of Iraq. The President of the United States concedes that there were no WMD in Iraq.
Yet you base your evidence on a group of card carrying neocons who STILL claim Iraq had WMD.
You guys really don’t realize how ridiculous you sound do you?
“The President of the United States concedes that there were no WMD in Iraq.” At the time of the invasion…numnuts…geez!!
Why is it, the kooks feel the need to attack with cherry-picked so-called facts that are irrelevant to the original argument and where is this indisputable evidence no WMDs existed prior to the invasion?
See FP, neither you or your kook buddies on the left can prove WMDs never existed anymore than we believers can prove they were, (although the infrastructure for these programs still exist to a certain degree) however, I’d be willing to put up a crisp $100 bill that eventually, the world will see overwhelming evidence to support our argument and your’s will go down in flames just like your “the surge won’t work” argument. Hell, I should’ve put money on that horse!
It must be sad to wake up every day, wondering what worms you’ll eat today…LOL!
“existed anymore”
I’m no english major, but WTF is this???
Eric,
It is ignorant to say that everyone that does not agree with you hates Bush. I could care less and if I were to hate anyone it would be the American voters who had the lack of common sense to vote for an Evangelical who bankrupted 3 large companies and didn’t even know there was more than one sect of Islam and can’t explain what a sovereign nation is to save his life. Ya, I hate you Eric if that were the case but since I don’t hate anyone I guess it isn’t.
so let me ask you a question – if a foreign country starting bombing the US and invading it with tanks coming down your street. What would you do – even if they said they were trying to liberate you with tanks and bombs – even in the absurd proposition that you believed them?
Teach,
I have no problem with anyone disagreeing with me. The problem I have with those of your ilk is the fact that you refuse to view all of the evidence and you refuse to engage in an intelligent debate. You simply ignore the facts that do not support your agenda. Did you take the time to read the additional links that I provided?
liberal T,
Do you want to add some more variables to your hypothetical? What if the leader of the U.S. was a brutal dictator? What if that same dictator murdered hundreds of thousands of his own citizens? What if that same dictator imprisoned those that opposed him? What if the son of that dictator was a rapist who terrorized the citizens? Unless you forgot, all of this actually happened in Iraq.
Almiranta
“You guys are so insane. Lots and lots of people did business with various German businesses in the years before Hitler proved to be a madman.”
The quote about Bush’s grandparents came from John Loftus, the same guy who wrote the article about the missing WMD. Check out Rico’s link. I was using it to show what other beliefs Loftus has.
“Why is it, the kooks feel the need to attack with cherry-picked so-called facts that are irrelevant to the original argument”
Every Gov’t sanctioned investigation has come to the conclusion that Iraq no longer possessed WMD (the Kay, and Duelfer reports both stated that Iraq most likely halted it’s WMD programs shortly after the Gulf War), yet you base your entire argument on a fringe group of neocons who are financed by a person who’s connected to organized crime.
And you say liberals are the ones cherry picking evidence? Do you even listen to yourself.
“See FP, neither you or your kook buddies on the left can prove WMDs never existed anymore than we believers can prove they were”
First of all, nobody ever claimed that they “never” existed. The claim (backed up by the United States Gov’t own inspection teams) is that Saddam destroyed his stockpiles shortly after the Gulf War, and made no effort to reconstitute those programs. Of course I can’t prove positively that Iraq didn’t have them, although if I listened to Sean Hannity I would know that we already found the WMD in Iraq… several different times.
But you see, the difference is that I can make a pretty safe assumption that they didn’t exist since, you know, two separate Gov’t sanctioned inspections teams came to the same conclusion, that Iraq didn’t possess WMD, and destroyed it’s stockpiles shortly after the gulf war.
Oh, but I forgot! A group of neocon’s financed by a criminal say Iraq did possess WMD. Well, I mean it must be true then!
“I’d be willing to put up a crisp $100 bill that eventually, the world will see overwhelming evidence to support our argument and your’s will go down in flames just like your “the surge won’t work” argument.”
If you say so.
and where is this indisputable evidence no WMDs existed prior to the invasion?
“Hell, I should’ve put money on that horse!”
Because our standard for winning now is that less people are getting killed. The surge is doing nothing to solve the underlying political problems.
sure add that hypothesis. In fact its not just a hypothetical – you can ask what the Iraqi people want and every poll says that the vast majority did not support the invasion and want the US out ASAP. But thats just another inconvenient fact for you I suppose
FP,
B-freakin-S! No one, not one person or organization has concluded that there were no WMDs in Iraq prior to the invasion. Only that they didn’t exist at the “time” of the invasion. Read the documents retard…geez!
navydad: No one, not one person or organization has concluded that there were no WMDs in Iraq prior to the invasion. Only that they didn’t exist at the “time” of the invasion.
That is largely true. But by the same token, the only ones post-Oct 2002 that claimed with “high confidence”, even outright certainty that there were, were mostly employed by the Bush administration. And can you think of anything that happened between Oct 2002 and the invasion in March 2003 that might have caused some people to doubt their previous conclusions?
Rico,
Could you direct me to those employed by the Bush Admin.? I’d like to compile a list of those that do and those that don’t…thanks.
I hadn’t really thought of putting a partisan twist on who actually believed the WMDs were there or weren’t there since the majority of politicians agreed that WMDs did exist. I’ve always, from the night GWB gave Saddam and da boys their ultimatum, believed that they did exist, but because of information I had access to from my years at the DOE..not the media or GWB, or our pols..
Now there’s something I feel that’s missing from all of this “was there or wasn’t there” rhetoric. The fact, and this is a fact, that there have been WMDs, in small quantities-not the WMDs we were expecting to find, but still some-that fell into the hands of insurgents and/or terrorists. Now how did they get there, and where did they come from? And if they were left-overs from the ‘91 era, where are the remnants to those thousands of WMD muniitions that are unaccounted for?
Also, if they were so easily accessed by either Saddam’s pals, wouldn’t one suppose that the larger stockpiles-if they existed- would be worth big $ on the black market and taken to market in a protected manner? There are way too many variables to leave this with a black or white. yes or no history, and in the final analysis-which may never be known by you or I-comes in, we still may never know the truth. But, for the those that believe WMDs never existed in Iraq to say such, is like saying Iraq was better off with Saddam in power…it simply makes no sense.
In a munitions rich environment such as Iraq’s, people like Saddam and his henchmen, derived their power from these weapons, and since Saddam’s pals in Syria are just as apt to be desirous of WMD programs as NK, Libya and Iran are/were, the book should remain open until that final analysis.
IMHO, those that choose to close “the book” do so primarily for political gain, and to do so may prove to be premature…just like “the surge won’t work.”
navydad, Could you direct me to those employed by the Bush Admin.? I’d like to compile a list of those that do and those that don’t…thanks.
The point I am trying to make here is that weapons inspectors returned to Iraq in greater numbers than ever before, starting in Dec 2002 and until just before the start of the invasion in March 2003. Without the authorization to use force that was passed in Oct 2002 I doubt that would have been possible. So I do give credit to Bush and/or congress (if you believe Karl Rove, there seems to be some question now as to who pushed to pass the resolution). At any rate the inspectors were there. And they did find some things, but not in the magnitude they expected. That’s not to say they were convinced of their absence (el Baradei had “high confidence that there wasn’t much in the way of an active nuclear program, but Blix was considerably less certain about chemical and biological weapons). Saddam was still pussyfooting around, and the plan was for inspections to intensify and get even more intrusive. Heaven knows how things would have played out had that happened. There was some talk that Saddam might have left voluntarily under an asylum deal. That seemed unlikely to me. More likely was that more of our “traditional allies”, would have joined the coalition, perhaps NATO, perhaps even the UN itself. Hans Blix stated publicly some time after the fact that that was his impression. Meanwhile, we had Saddam in a box. He couldn’t have done much of anything even if he wanted to. And of course, we had that other thing going on in Afghanistan, from which many of the best special ops guys were diverted to work on Iraq.
Regime change in Iraq was a foregone conclusion, it seems to me. And it had broad bipartisan and international appeal. The issue was primarily one of timing and strategic optimization. I’m trying to be as brief as I can here, but if you look at the kind of coalition that Bush 41 put together for the first Gulf War, and you compare it to the kind of coalition that Bush 43 cobbled together for the invasion of Iraq, the two are like night and day. And that is even though there remained a lot of international sympathy for the US because of what happened in 9/11. The coalition Bush 41 put together had the backing of much of the world (even Syria, by the way). We led the world in a fight for what’s right. And the rest of the world ended up paying for 90% of it. In contrast, the coalition Bush 43 put together lacked any significant international backing and we’re paying out the nose. More importantly, the sympathies many people felt for our plight in much of the rest of the world evaporated quickly, and instead we were seen as trigger-happy jingoist cowboys. That may be too harsh a characterization for general consumption. But you have to admit that there was considerable backlash over the invasion, even in countries whose governments decided to join us (however nominally).
Getting back to the timing issue, and specifically with respect to the “partisan twist” as you call it in terms of who actually believed the WMDs were there. My point was this… if you look at AAR’s comment #47 above and check out the dates of those quotations (from Democrats), all of them occur well before the inspectors returned to Iraq. After that time, and especially as the invasion drew near at the end of March, many Dems had adopted a “wait and see” approach to both the question of WMD and Bush’s diplomatic efforts in securing some sort of solid international legitimacy to whatever action was contemplated for Iraq — if not the UN, then at least NATO. Those were issues for many Republicans as well. But in the latter case Bush was doing an effective job of persuading the conservative base that the UN was a bunch of moonbats to the extent that many conservative pundits were actively trivializing the work of the UN inspectors, essentially claiming that they couldn’t find the ocean from the beach, and ignoring the significance of NATO entirely. That, I think, was the difference in terms of the partisan views at the time. And all the while there were any number of Bush administration muckity-mucks who continued to express “high confidence” that Saddam retained WMD — Bush, Cheney, Powell, Wolfowitz, Negroponte, etc. But rather than catalog them, I refer you here, when you can find an exhastive day-by-day account of events leading up to the invasion.
All that being said, the WMD issue was not the only one on the table. It is, however, the one that has the most traction from the standpoint of international law. No matter how theoretically or morally compelling it may sound to try to promote democracy, it does not provide a legal justification for an invasion of another country. The WMD question at least placed the justification in a legal gray area. That’s why it was so important. And that, I suspect, is why people keep going back to it. To me personally it matters far less whether or not WMD were found after the fact, but whether or not there was an adequate case to think they were there at the time. In that respect there was a big disconnect between the certainty of the Bush administration that they were there and the difficulties the arms inspectors encountered in turning stuff up. That’s not to say they weren’t turning stuff up — they were. Even as late as March 2003 they found a cache of medium range missiles, which they destroyed because they were in violation of sanctions. Nonetheless, to my mind Bush’s #1 shortcoming was that he failed in his diplomatic efforts because he pulled the trigger too hastily. The #2 shortcoming was that they didn’t have a well conceived plan to deal with the occupation. But that’s another topic entirely.
Great run-down Rico!
I’ve posted the link in my favorites for future reference.
Ultimately, I think your last paragraph sums up “why” the war was such a blunder, but to say GWB “pulled the trigger too hastily” might be a bit much when you consider the 17 UN resolutions (over how many years) were basically ignored…and now we know why.
“No one, not one person or organization has concluded that there were no WMDs in Iraq prior to the invasion. Only that they didn’t exist at the “time” of the invasion. Read the documents retard…geez!”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12115-2004Oct6.html
“The 1991 Persian Gulf War and subsequent U.N. inspections destroyed Iraq’s illicit weapons capability and, for the most part, Saddam Hussein did not try to rebuild it, according to an extensive report by the chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq that contradicts nearly every prewar assertion made by top administration officials about Iraq.
Charles A. Duelfer, whom the Bush administration chose to complete the U.S. investigation of Iraq’s weapons programs, said Hussein’s ability to produce nuclear weapons had “progressively decayed” since 1991. Inspectors, he said, found no evidence of “concerted efforts to restart the program.”"