Will WMD ever be found in Iraq?

The man in charge of the search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has said no such weapons have so far been found.

However, the interim report by David Kay says that significant amounts of equipment and weapons-related activities have been discovered, all of which were concealed from United Nations inspectors.

Mr Kay, a former UN weapons inspector, is the CIA representative working with the Iraq Survey Group, which has been hunting for weapons of mass destruction since the end of the war in Iraq.

Will weapons of mass destruction ever be found? Did Iraq ever have such weapons in the first place? Tell us what you think?

---

The following comments reflect the balance of views we have received:

This debate is now closed. Read your comments below.

Your reaction:

One thing is certain, the impression that people got about the WMD in Iraq was completely wrong and Bush and Blair instead of correcting that impression took advantage of it. What ever might be found in Iraq will not be like the impression people got from the assessment of those governments.
Mixalis, Greece

WMD were always a smokescreen Rod, UK

No, but that won't change anything, WMD were always a smokescreen. This is simply a modern empire expanding its range (look at the pincer movement between Iraq and Israel). Humans have not changed much since the days of the Romans et al, we are still obsessed with power and influence. This is illustrated by the willingness of Britain's top politicians to be economical with the truth with their people simply to play to a powerful, ultra right wing US administration. Look what happened to the Roman (and our own) empire, someday we'll be playing someone else's tune, though it might sound as if we've heard it before.
Rod, UK

Of course he had them. What we should be asking is what happened to them? The UN said he had them in 1998 and so did the Clinton administration. And even Saddam claimed he had them. Intelligence is not a sure thing and never will be 100% accurate. It is based on what can be gathered and what is expected but it is still a guess. Why is this a surprise to people? My personal opinion is they are there. Why else did Saddam risk war for nothing?
Kenneth, USA

It is deeply amusing that a country who mocked and marginalized the UN for not finding weapons in three months of inspections has itself found none in the same length of time.
Damian, USA

Don't you think that if the UK and the USA knew before hand that there was no WMD in Iraq, that they would not have sold us the idea that there was, knowing that none would ever be found, sounds a bit silly really. If this was the case don't you think they would have made sure their story was verified by ensuring evidence was found even if they had to put them there themselves, to be found, it would cost a lot less to "Frame Iraq" than to search around endlessly looking for something you know is not there in the first place. So come off it all you unbelievers, if the USA and UK were such liars and were trying to pull the wool over our eyes like you say.Don't you think they would have no problem finding the evidence?
Brendan Hynes, Scotland UK

Maybe this whole thing has to do with definitions. In recent times many undefined terms have been used (or abused) to obscure the border of what is legal and what not. (Rogue state, pre-emptive strike, secondary consequences, enemy combatant, military tribunal just to name few). We, and especially the press, has to make a greater effort to clarify exactly what people using this terms mean. If not we will continue to have people classifying mortar shell (with chemical warheads) as wmd while B52 armed with two-ton bombs as not (a wmd).
Anastasia, Greece

In my opinion, I don't care if Saddam Hussein lied, or if George Bush lied or if Tony Blair lied. I think Hussein was a brutal, murderous, torturing, maniacal dictator that kept the Middle East in an uproar. It doesn't matter if he was a direct threat to the UK or the US. The fact that he is now gone means the western world and the entire Middle East is now a better, safer place to live. Expectedly, we will bring a safe Iraq into the league of civilized nations, and we saved those people from a horrid life that was sometimes worse than death.
Jerry Brown, USA

Don't be surprised if some of us express a little cynicism about any evidence they might eventually produce Stuart W, UK

Mr Kay's latest media promise that his team will find "remarkable things" in Iraq, following on from Tony Blair's absolute certainty that WMD would be found is starting to sound increasingly like the old cold-war era joke about a thief breaking into the Kremlin and stealing next year's election results. Please don't be surprised if some of us express a little cynicism about any "evidence" they might eventually produce.
Stuart W, UK

Bluffing or subterfuge by Saddam or the Iraqis, though plentiful no doubt, is completely irrelevant. We were told that we were going to war on the basis of our own intelligence, even though the UN had found nothing of note. The intelligence case was shown to be doubtful even before the invasion, so it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the war had nothing to do with WMD.
Shane Hines, UK

I hope that the reasons for this war were completely phoney - for all our sakes. If Iraq is littered with WMDs just waiting to be found, who says that in such a lawless nation that America is going to get to them first, rather than some other unscrupulous character? The dissolution of the Soviet Union and the anarchy that followed certainly didn't do any favours for the security of their WMDs.
David Roberts, UK

Stop looking for missiles that don't exist and look for things that do - namely Saddam Hussein, Mullah Mohammed Omar and Osama Bin Laden. They are the real weapons of mass destruction.
David Howe, UK

The evidence of WMD in Iraq is definitely there with US and UK. All you have to do is look at 10 to 15 year old files in US & UK Defence Departments. All the shipments that they had done of all the chemical, biological weapons to Iraq will be there. But unfortunate they cannot be brought to the public scrutiny as they will be in "classified files".

The lesson for all the world's current and budding dictators! Do not import any biological, chemical WMD from UK or USA because after they supply them (& profit from them) to you, they would bring UN resolutions against your country in the pliant UN. Then they will use that as an excuse to invade your country and plunder all your resources that you are plundering for yourself, in the name of saving the world! The rules of new game of neo imperialism.
Kanchan Bhadury, India

It is extremely unlikely that the world will ever believe their politicians Souvik, India/ USA

Only thing that worries me is whether the international community will have the will of acting against any dictator having WMD in future. It is extremely unlikely that the world (and that includes US people too) will ever believe their politicians even if they face credible threat. Only Bush and Blair are responsible for this fiasco and loss of trust. Together they have endangered the very people they profess to protect by hiding the truth.
Souvik, India/ USA

Iraq could have cooperated 101% with the UN, and Bush still would have bombed them. He wanted a war, and US Presidents get what they want.
Gregory, Chicago, USA

I totally agree with Gregory from Chicago. This act of aggression was clearly pre-meditated, in fact it was probably planned before Bush even took office! No wonder Bush withdrew the US's signature from the ICC treaty! Blair's insistance that WMD will be found in Iraq is truly dogmatic, doesn't he read the paper?!
Peter Bolton, US

Whether Iraq had WMDs or not it is quite clear that there were economic motives behind the invasion of Iraq that have since backfired. The invasion was an American effort to assert its global dominance disguised by a humanitarian purpose. The world must unite and put an end to unilateral warfare.
Prof Alex Bourne, South Africa

It seems that everyone lies about Saddam's WMDs John Carroll, Atlanta, USA

Of course Saddam lied about WMDs. He's had weapons in the past and from what Kay has said he desired them again if the international community ever let him off the mat. Yet if we take Kay's report at face value we now know that it's just not that likely that the WMD stockpiles we were threatened with will ever be found and the nuclear claims by our respective leaders is now known to be without any merit. It seems that everyone lies about Saddam's WMDs.
John Carroll, Atlanta, USA

Whether WMDs have not yet been found is unimportant as the main weapon of mass destruction - Saddam - has been removed from power.
Mark, Australia

Of course inspectors are going to find weapons-related activities - it is a well known fact that Iraq had a biological/chemical weapons programme in the past. It is a less reported fact that this weapons programme was supported by such countries as the United States. The bottom line is that no WMDs were found, despite all of the "evidence" presented in the months leading up to the war.
Josh, USA

It astounds and saddens me to read the comments from the majority of posters from the 'Good Old US of A' still have this blind faith in Bush and his neo-con cabal. They seem ignorant to the fact that before the war, there was supposedly huge amounts of WMD, and they knew exactly where they were hidden. Now we know there was is not any to be found. They now say they were moved or taken to other rogue states. How convenient. Surely if the intelligence agencies were sure of their whereabouts before, they would have been keeping a close eye on them, and just followed them to their new locations. Simple really.
Ian Hughes, UK

No, and we could have avoided this whole mess had the weapons inspectors been given enough time to do their job properly.
Shawn, Washington, DC, USA

Yes Iraq had WMDs and we may find them used against us in the near future John Bensted, USA

Yes Iraq had WMDs and we may find them used against us in the near future. The Saddam Hussein Regime was given plenty of lead-time prior to invasion. If Saddam believed he could hold out long enough to give to Coalition a bloody nose and send them running home, then I believe he would have smuggled to other countries (e.g. Syria) the stockpiles of WMDs he had. Unfortunately for the Butcher of Baghdad he lost. Now that Saddam cannot plunder Iraq's oil for his own gain he must find another source of income... the cached WMDs.
John Bensted, USA

Weapon inspectors were not allowed more time by Bush and Blair-the threat of these weapons of mass destruction was supposed to be imminent-now none have been found. Millions demonstrated against the war-they were ignored. Let us hope that when Bush and Blair want votes that they too will be ignored.
Elaine Smith, UK

The propaganda of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) is spear headed by USA and UK to invade Iraq to have a hand on oil. They are the liars. Nobody believes them. Kay's report once again proved it.
Ali, Bangladesh

The US invasion was illegal and immoral and based on a well-rehearsed system of falsehoods Nicholas, USA

Mr. Bush continues to grasp at straws, now using "plans" for weapons as his reason for his unilateral invasion. The pre-invasion rhetoric of his was that Iraq "has" weapons, not "is planning to have" weapons. The US invasion was illegal and immoral and based on a well-rehearsed system of falsehoods. And the world today is less stable because of it.
Nicholas, USA

WMD, are used to deter invasion. The UK, US, China and the USSR use them to protect their countries from invasion. Of course Saddam wanted the world to think he had WMD. If the US really thought Iraq had them, they would not have invaded. The Bush Regime made up the whole WMD reports to invade Iraq to steal their oil. End of story.
Prof John Schafer, United States

I cannot believe for one second that Saddam did not have WMD.If those inspectors as media said searched every square meters of Iraq, why couldn't they found Saddam him self? The WMD is either in the same place as he is hidden or he has sent it to one of the Arab countries near by. If any one has doubt why don't they come to visit Halabja Cemetry.
Fresh Raper, Halabja/London

I for one am happy that George Bush takes no chances with people like Saddam John C, New York, USA

Maybe he lied, maybe he didn't. It doesn't matter. His evasive behaviour towards the inspections, his use of WMD in the past, and his generally murderous nature more than justified this invasion. I for one am happy that George Bush takes no chances with people like Saddam, who by his own admission, was actively seeking WMD capability.
John C, New York, USA

Saddam was unsuccessful when it came to hiding millions in cash sufficiently. How could he hide stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons?
valentine, USA

Bluffing is not a reason to colonise a country and murder thousands of innocent people. Bush and Blair were wrong. The majority of the world was right.
Tarik, UK

Whatever Saddam might or might not have said, the fact remains that he didn't have WMD. What will it take for the pro-war brigade to admit they were wrong?
Simon O'Brien, UK

Bush lied about Saddam's having WMD Roger, USA

Bush lied about Saddam's having WMD. Saddam hasn't claimed to have weapons since 1998. This is clearly more US Republican Neo-Conservative spin. Don't be fooled.
Roger, USA

Whether Saddam lied or not the world may never know for sure, but what Bush and Blair did we all know for sure now.
Rui Singh, Canada

Saddam was certainly hiding something for at least a decade. A good example is the "mystery illness" that Gulf War soldiers brought back in 1991. That shows that he had them then and he has them now. Why would any politician sacrifice hundreds of lives if there was no proof? I believe that the WMD or at least components of WMD went to Syria and possible a few other rogue nations.
Patrick, USA

Notice the US never invade countries with nuclear capabilities? They knew there were no WMD in Iraq and that the path to oil would be fairly easy.
Carrie, UK

He has used them in the past and would do so again James, Canada

Whether or not he had them recently is only important as it was required to gain support for the war. Critics of the war say there was no proof to justify an invasion. Ridiculous! He has used them in the past and would do so again, just look at his track record.
James, Canada

What is perfectly clear from all of this is that whether there are any WMDs or not (and I doubt it) Iraq did not pose a current threat. It is absurd to say on the one hand that the weapons were there ready to be used at any moment, but that three months of searching have failed to find any trace of them.
Simon Langley, England

Who cares whether Saddam lied or not, the point is he shouldn't have been playing games with such a serious matter. Especially after 9/11. All he had to do was comply 100% and he'd still be in power.
Eric, USA

We know he had weapons, we sold him some of them Rachel, Scotland

Outrageous, but not surprising. For a Labour government to have involved itself in something so terrible is beyond belief. It seems Saddam has been more honest that Blair. We know he had weapons, we sold him some of them. Is it then moral to wait over a decade before doing something about it?
Rachel, Scotland

The decision to invade Iraq was premised on the existence of WMD which posed a clear and present danger to Western nations. That was the only legitimate pretext for military action. It is now apparent not only that the WMD were not there, but that the British and US governments knew very well that they were not there. The public was therefore deliberately misled - a failure of democracy of the first magnitude.
Peter Thompson, NZ

The Iraqi government used WMD on their own citizens. Any rational person would conclude that WMD and functional programmes were in Iraq and given the opportunity would surely have been used. Better to be searching for them in Iraq!
Jim Gaskins, USA

What happened to know your enemy? Richard Sweetman, England

Maybe he did, maybe he did not. What he did do however is manage to bluff a so-called modern technologically advanced intelligence service. What happened to know your enemy?
Richard Sweetman, England

Saddam may have bluffed about WMD. Shock horror! Surely anyone who has been following this story with an ounce of intelligence realised this months ago! Not only did he bluff, we knew he was bluffing and went to war anyway.
John, England

Why does the US conveniently like to forget who initially supplied Saddam with WMDs, even to use against his own people? US governments go to great lengths to ensure the US public is oblivious about their dirty work. The public's lack of interest in global affairs serves them very well.
Ranil, Sri Lanka/ USA

If the government knew Iraq had the WMD capability, then there was no need to falsify the dossier, to justify war. As it is now inferred that the dossier was tampered with, the government presumably knew that Iraq had no WMDs, and hence no justification.
Janet, UK

We have simply been watching a 13 year siege Glenn Barker, Canada

The Iraqi chemical arsenal was probably the only thing that stopped the US from proceeding with an invasion in 1990, so keeping up the pretence of a functional WMD arsenal was crucial to Saddam Hussein's survival, even as his arsenal depleted and degraded over time. But the US simply played the waiting game. Thirteen years of UN sanctions and regular bombardment of Iraq's military infrastructure chipped away at their true defence capabilities. Once the US was sure that all that was left was blustering rhetoric, they invaded. We have simply been watching a 13 year siege.
Glenn Barker, Canada

Hang on a minute. I thought Saddam said he "didn't" have WMDs. Bush and Blair were the people who said he did. Surely they were the ones bluffing the rest of us?
Nick Smith, Scotland

Nobody will dispute that Iraq had and used WMD fifteen years ago. What is being forgotten is that Iraq actually unilaterally destroyed a large part of the arsenal after the first Gulf War, and UN inspectors were quite effective in dealing with the remainder. I cannot see how after six months on the ground the US can find tons of VX and thousands of litres of anthrax that Colin Powell was citing at the UN. The notion that Iraqis were bluffing about WMD to deter invasion is utterly ridiculous.
Sergei, Russia

He had to be hiding something Shawn Hampton, Eugene, OR, USA

I don't know what to believe anymore, but one thing is certain. He had to be hiding something. He was either trying to hide the fact that he did have or did not have WMDs.
Shawn Hampton, Eugene, OR, USA

If anything Saddam has proven to be the master of hiding things, including himself. Just because none have been found, does not mean that he did not have any. He is pretty "slippery".
Margaret, USA

The answer would be no. If he had them then they have gotten rid of them long ago. This will provide a significant embarrassment to President George Bush and UK Prime Minister Tony Blair.
Adam, Iraq/ USA

I am surprised that people are surprised about this. The UN and the international community have let down the Iraqi people time and time again.
Tara Swift, Kent, UK

Look back at the transcripts of every single response of Blair and Bush to Saddam's submissions to avoid the invasion. Nothing he said was good enough for Bush and Blair. Saddam saw, as many of us here in the West, that Blair and Bush were determined to invade Iraq. I believe that in the remote event that US and UK called off the planned invasion, Iraq would have been vulnerable to its neighbours so Saddam had to bluff.
Martin Grandison, England

We all know that he had them Chris, USA

I believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, but they are probably in Syria by now. We all know that he had them - the Kurds can testify to that. It is unlikely that he willingly destroyed them. If he had, surely there would be records or proof to that effect. As for Mr Kay's assertions, when the CIA posits a particular theory, questions related to its veracity and ultimate, possibly ulterior motive naturally arise.
Chris, USA

Saddam definitely bluffed and the US government must have known. I find it difficult to believe that the US would send ground troops into Iraq under a credible threat of nuclear attack!
Kipchirchir Boit, USA

If there are no WMD in Iraq, then obviously no, Saddam was honest and did not lie.
Chris, UK

As David Kay's interim report will almost certainly show Saddam and his forces went out of their way to create the impression they had something to hide and still possessed illegal WMD. This report is also rumoured to contain details of the levels of subterfuge once again practised against UN weapons inspectors by Iraqi officials during their most recent bout of scrutiny. To the anti-war contingent with their inability to think impartially, the fact that such actions were more than enough to justify an invasion on the basis of upholding UN resolutions will be lost in the face of ignorant bias.
Dr Andrew Paterson, UK