The chief U.S. arms inspector in Iraq has found no evidence of weapons of mass destruction production by Saddam Hussein's regime after 1991.
But the final report by Charles Duelfer (search) concluded that, although the weapons stockpiles were destroyed, Saddam’s government was looking to begin a WMD program again.
The Bush administration invaded Iraq in March 2003 on the grounds that its WMD programs posed a threat to American national security.
Duelfer documents: Does it make a difference?
A sample of your responses:
To me it makes no difference, Saddam Hussein WAS the weapon of mass destruction.
Las Vegas, NV
1. Saddam Hussein possessed WMDs and USED them against the Kurds in 1988.
2. He was unable to provide proof to the U.N. that he had destroyed those chemical weapons.
3. Anyone who believes he did NOT still possess WMDs in 2003 is either deluded or a fool.
Going to war without international consensus means you MUST have your facts right. We didn't. Bin Laden is still at large, Afganistan is still in turmoil and Iraq is in shambles. Maybe the rest of the world knew something we didn't?
It does make a difference. Not in the President's decision making, but in points to the need to have better Intel on the ground in the entire region.
The only thing that matters there were countless resolutions. Hussein denied the inspectors access to his facilities, and the intelligence was that he had WMD. And what about Dr. Germ? I wish John Kerry would stop talking to us like we're stupid and forget that chain of events.
Of course it makes a difference. WMDs were the reason for going to war with Iraq. The fact that there are no WMDs means there was no reason to go to war. Furthermore, the fact that President Bush has changed his story from WMDs as the rationale to spreading freedom across the globe shows that he is the biggest flip flopper of them all.
My oven is set at 350 degrees... two cake pans are greased and floured... on my counter: flour, sugar, shortening, eggs, vanilla and salt; standing by, my assistants, Martha Stewart and Julia Child. Now, what makes you think I am going to make a very important cake? Evidently it would not be evidence of mass cake construction -- but wait till you see what comes out of the oven!
Yes, the Duelfer report matters. It matters, because it proves there were no WMDs in Iraq. This is extremely important. Intent might also be important, but it should not be a reason to invade. Just think of our legal system: intent does not lead to a conviction. If intent got people convicted, most of us would be in jail for some reason or another. The same logic holds true in the international legal system. If intent was important, than according to that same logic we should invade North Korea, Iraq, Israel and numerous other countries. We can keep backtracking trying to find reasons to justify the invasion, but we have to draw the line somewhere.
Johan van G.
No, I can't believe there were no WMD, maybe they were not in Iraq, he certainly had time to move them. They are somewhere and I do hope we eventually locate them. He had plenty of time to get more WMDs after Desert Storm. It just does not make sense he would not make more.
Of course it matters: BUSH LIED!
What do you think? Send your comments to firstname.lastname@example.org
Note: The views and opinions expressed on this page do not necessarily reflect those of FOX News, or its subsidiaries