Saddam *did* document he had no WMDs before the war . . .

[Lex]

On Dec. 8, 2002, he delivered documents to the UN, under the deadline set, stating he retained no weapons of mass destruction.

Now Cheney says the "burden of proof" was on Saddam before the war to prove he had no WMD? Well, um . . .

Saddam Hussein risked a devastating US-led war yesterday when he delivered a 12,000-page declaration on Iraq's arms capability, which he insists proves his regime 'retains no weapons of mass destruction'.

As Iraq handed over its declaration, President Saddam Hussein apologised to the Kuwaiti people for invading their country in 1990, while accusing the country's leadership of conspiring with plans for an American-led invasion.

In a day of dramatic events the declaration was finally handed over at eight o'clock last night when Iraqi government vehicles drove to the UN compound to give the document to Miroslav Gregorich, head of the UN monitoring operation in Iraq.

Iraqi officials handed over three copies of the document, which Iraq claims is a complete account of its nuclear, chemical, biological and missile projects. The copies were then flown to Larnaca in Cyprus, then on to New York and Vienna. One set goes to the UN nuclear agency in Vienna, one to the UN inspection agency in New York, and one to the Security Council.

For more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,855990,00.html

[endarkenment]

1. The contents of that document

were largely redacted on demand of the United States. It is most unfortunate that the UN inspection force agreed to the redaction. We will never know how completely the Iraqi government complied with our demands.

Our actions with this document and with the swiftly following expulsion, by us, of the inspection force are evidence that we were well aware that there were no WMD to be found.

[Wickerman]

2. Good find, but it doesn't yet have the info that

"cleanses" the report of the US corporate involvement in Saddam's earlier weapons programs. Conveniently forgotten these days.

[TheFarseer]

3. Isn't there any documents from the inspectors

I mean the inspectors from '91-'97 or whatever, that say he doesn't have any WMDs? Or maybe some documents from them that support some of Saddam's claims?

[endarkenment]

8. There is the report from Hans Blik

that says there were no WMD. There is the report from our own team that said he didn't have any. But there was a gap between the prior inspection (which we terminated not Iraq) and the Blik inspection. The Cabal is using that gap to confuse and distort. They frequently refer to weapons programs that existed and were destroyed by the first round. There was no solid evidence after the Clinton bombing of 98 as we no longer had anybody on the ground. What there was were a lot of rumors and bad intelligence. How anyone, Democrat or Republican, could make statements as categorical as the crap that come out of the White House and was echoed by leaders of both parties, is an interesting question. At least the Democratic leadership can, if they would just exercise the option, point out that they were lied to and deliberately mislead.

[NYC Liberal]

4. "President Saddam Hussein apologised to the Kuwaiti people for invading"

Gee, even Saddam can apologize (whether it's sincere or not, whatever).

I wonder if Bush will do apologize to the Iraqis for invading their country? :sarcasm:

[Loonman]

5. Not only is Cheney a consummate liar

He's a bad one, at that.

[Peter Frank]

6. K & R... nt

[Emit]

7. The Guardian Unlimited has a good timeline

on Iraq, which details this and more of what was happening before, during and after.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/page/0,12438,793802,00.html