Undermining Bush case for war, US weapons inspector says Iraq had no WMD

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Undermining the central pillar of President George W. Bush's case for the war on Iraq, the chief US arms inspector reported that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction at the time of the 2003 US-led invasion.

In a report of more than 1,000 pages, Charles Duelfer, the head of the Iraq Survey Group, concluded that Saddam destroyed most of his chemical and biological weapons after his 1991 Gulf War defeat and that his nuclear program had "progressively decayed."

While sweeping aside the president's chief justification for launching the March 2003 war on Iraq -- that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction -- the report said the Iraqi dictator would have sought to rebuild his arsenal.

"Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq's WMD capability -- which was essentially destroyed in 1991 -- after sanctions were removed and Iraq's economy stabilized, but probably with a different mix of capabilities to that which previously existed," the report said.

Duelfer, in testimony before a Senate panel on Wednesday, said if there was any risk posed by Saddam it was years in the future, far from the immediate danger US officials insisted the Iraqi leader posed in building their case for war.

"As in the other WMD areas, Saddam sought to sustain the requisite knowledge base to restart the program eventually and ... to sustain the inherent capability to produce such weapons as circumstances permitted in the future," he said.

Duelfer said that after 15 months of searching he did not expect to find "militarily significant" weapons stocks in Iraq.

The inspector said that some small finds had been made of chemical and nerve agents dating from before 1991. Some tips were also to be followed up.

"Despite these reports and finds, I still do not expect that militarily significant WMD stocks are cached in Iraq," Duelfer told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

His report -- which included information supplied by Saddam to US interrogators -- focused on Iraq's "strategic intent."

"Saddam aspired to develop a nuclear capability -- in an incremental fashion, irrespective of international pressure and the resulting economic risks -- but he intended to focus on ballistic missile and tactical chemical warfare capabilities."

The report said the Baghdad regime's main fear was neighbouring Iran, but that it "had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions."

Bush has now had several rebukes this week of his Iraq war justification and strategy, which is a key issue in the November 2 presidential election.

Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Monday he had seen no "strong, hard evidence" linking Saddam to Al-Qaeda. Paul Bremer, the former US civilian administrator in Iraq, said there were not enough US troops to secure the country when he arrived in May 2003.

The 9/11 Commission report into the September 11, 2001 attacks has already concluded that Iraq had no part in the strikes on New York and Washington.

Senator John Kerry, the Democratic contender for the White House, has called the invasion, "the wrong war at the wrong time" because it diverted attention from the hunt for Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

Without mentioning the report, Bush on Wednesday defended his invasion order insisting there was a "real risk" that Saddam would give weapons of mass destruction to terrorists.

"After September 11, America had to assess every potential threat in a new light," Bush told an election rally at Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania.

"We had to take a hard look at every place where terrorists might get those weapons and one regime stood out: the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein.

"We knew the dictator had a history of using weapons of mass destruction, a long record of aggression and hatred for America."

Bush said: "There was a risk, a real risk, that Saddam Hussein would pass weapons or materials or information to terrorist networks. In the world after September 11, that was a risk we could not afford to take."

The president acknowledged "strong concerns" held by some Americans about Iraq. "I respect the fact that they take this issue seriously, because it is a serious matter. I assure them we're in Iraq because I deeply believe it is necessary and right and critical to the outcome of the war on terror."

Kerry campaign strategist Mike McCurry said the report presents "a very significant commentary on the mistaken case for war presented by this administration."

"It is very troubling they could have been so wrong when it comes to something as fundamental as taking the country to war," he added.