This is topic WMD Search In Iraq Ends in forum The Flameboard at Flare Sci-Fi Forums.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://flare.solareclipse.net/ultimatebb.php/topic/11/1386.html

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
 
Atrios links to this story.

quote:
Search for Banned Arms In Iraq Ended Last Month
Critical September Report to Be Final Word
By Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, January 12, 2005; Page A01


The hunt for biological, chemical and nuclear weapons in Iraq has come to an end nearly two years after President Bush ordered U.S. troops to disarm Saddam Hussein. The top CIA weapons hunter is home, and analysts are back at Langley.

In interviews, officials who served with the Iraq Survey Group (ISG) said the violence in Iraq, coupled with a lack of new information, led them to fold up the effort shortly before Christmas.

Four months after Charles A. Duelfer, who led the weapons hunt in 2004, submitted an interim report to Congress that contradicted nearly every prewar assertion about Iraq made by top Bush administration officials, a senior intelligence official said the findings will stand as the ISG's final conclusions and will be published this spring.

President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other top administration officials asserted before the U.S. invasion in March 2003 that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program, had chemical and biological weapons, and maintained links to al Qaeda affiliates to whom it might give such weapons to use against the United States.

Bush has expressed disappointment that no weapons or weapons programs were found, but the White House has been reluctant to call off the hunt, holding out the possibility that weapons were moved out of Iraq before the war or are well hidden somewhere inside the country. But the intelligence official said that possibility is very small.

----

It's not like anyone said finding the WMD would be a slam dunk or anything.
 
Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
 
Nor did anyone say that Iraq HAD WMDs.

More like they had already dismantled them and never had them in the first place.
 
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
 
quote:
Nor did anyone say that Iraq HAD WMDs
Except the Dear Leader and the Dubya, of course. I'm sure this'll just be glossed over in the usual fashion: "Look, y'know, we have to look towards the future in Iraq and focus on what's important: the election. Or rather, my re-election..."
 
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
Y'know...with sooo much time to find them, it's insulting that no one even tried to plant fake WMD's.

I mean fuck: what does it say about the general attention span of voters, that we're willing to let this just slide?
 
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
 
Yes, all the fear-mongering seems to have turned out to been for naught.
 
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
 
"what does it say about the general attention span of voters, that we're willing to let this just slide?"

Not much, since the half that voted for Dubsia again didn't care about the truth to begin with.
 
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
 
But...freedom is on the march!
 
Posted by Nim' (Member # 205) on :
 
Yes, and Bush, h-he felt surprise was a wiser approach.
 
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
 
Matthew Yglesias, over atTAPPED has this to say about the WMD situation:

quote:
NO WEAPONS. You may have heard that the Great Iraq WMD Hunt has been officially abandoned. But what can one really say about this? Let me just reiterate for about the millionth time that, contrary to the ex post rationalizations from the right, it's simply not the case that "everyone" -- or even almost everyone -- thought Saddam Hussein had WMD at the time the war started. That was a period when this really was the consensus judgment of the international intelligence community, and that's one of the reasons it was possible to gain UN support for a resolution demanding the re-introduction of inspectors.

Then the inspectors came back to Iraq and went searching around. They didn't find any WMD stockpiles or evidence of advanced WMD programs. They did find some banned missiles with ranges beyond what was permitted by the Gulf War cease-fire. Those missiles were duly destroyed. At that point, rational people began to think that the intelligence consensus was, perhaps, mistaken. It already became clear that several of the specific charges the Bush administration had raised were false, and that despite repeated statements from administration officials that they were sure Saddam had WMD, they couldn't provide the inspectors with any useful clues to their whereabouts. But the United States wasn't being governered by rational people, so they, along with their cheerleaders in the press, proclaimed that if inspections weren't finding the weapons, that wasn't because the weapons weren't there but because the inspectors were corrupt, incompetent, or something like that. Therefore, an invasion was necessary.

This judgment -- the judgment that took us to war, the judgment that's led to all the many American casualties and the many more Iraqi casualties, didn't reflect any sort of international consensus whatsoever. If people aren't aware of that fact (which they largely aren't) it's because the "liberal media" was so busy gearing up to "embed" reporters and put on a show of patriotic pomp when the shooting started that they couldn't be bothered to tell anyone what was going on. Needless to say, unlike with the Killian memo story, no one has been held accountable for this and no one ever will be.


 
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
 
And Harold Meyerson writes in the Washington Post:

quote:
President of Fabricated Crises

Some presidents make the history books by managing crises. Lincoln had Fort Sumter, Roosevelt had the Depression and Pearl Harbor, and Kennedy had the missiles in Cuba. George W. Bush, of course, had Sept. 11, and for a while thereafter -- through the overthrow of the Taliban -- he earned his page in history, too.

But when historians look back at the Bush presidency, they're more likely to note that what sets Bush apart is not the crises he managed but the crises he fabricated. The fabricated crisis is the hallmark of the Bush presidency. To attain goals that he had set for himself before he took office -- the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, the privatization of Social Security -- he concocted crises where there were none.

So Iraq became a clear and present danger to American hearths and homes, bristling with weapons of mass destruction, a nuclear attack just waiting to happen. And now, this week, the president is embarking on his second great scare campaign, this one to convince the American people that Social Security will collapse and that the only remedy is to cut benefits and redirect resources into private accounts.

*Emphasis added.
 
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
 
God, what a laugh. But what do they care? It worked. Bush has his two-term Presidency, which by the standards of his followers therefore counts as a successful one. What do they care about posterity? It's now common knowledge that the American people were lied to over the Vietnam War (in particular, and the entire Cold War in general) and many other things, yet most people's attitudes haven't changed from since thos events were taking place.

So the war took place because Saddam had WMDs and the will and opportunity to use them. But instead we found out that it was because he used to have WMDs, wouldn't mind getting some more and would use them if he ever got them. Plus he was in breach of UN resolutions, never mind that the US and UK couldn't even rustle up a resolution to support the invasion. And we've freed the Iraqi people and brought them democracy, and the towelheads aren't even grateful!

This is why I've lost any interest in politics. Blair is unbeatable and will remain so until after he's made sure that Brown can never become Leader. I'm not even surfe if I'll bother to vote this time. . .
 
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 138) on :
 
So maybe they're in...Iran, Saudi Arabia... Canada?
 
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
 
Damn it...36 US soldiers killed on this day alone. And the President just finished a news conference on how optimistic he is about Iraq and his second term.
 
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
 
Optimistic? Of course he's bloody optimistic. He's already accomplished his main goal, to win a second term and therefore attain the status of Not A Failure Like His Dad. He can kick back and relax now. His rich friends will get even richer, he'll get loads of board memberships when his term ends, what more does he want?
 
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
Yeah, I saw that as well.
Peter Jennings speculated that the president might not have been briefed on the deaths prior to the conference- the press corps either for that matter (thus the conspicuous absense of it as a topic).

Frontline last night, was on the growing number of Al Queida cells being uncovered in western europe and their plans (the ones uncovered so far) were fucking nightmareish.
It also detailed how easy it is for cells to enter and exit most european countries.
Frontline spoke with some muslim leaders in Great Britan that make Bin Laden seem rational and peaceful by comparison.

Then I saw yet another report on the sudanese muslims happily slaughtering their own (non-muslim) countrymen.

Like it or not, the extremists are forcing a divide in society between Muslims and everyone else.

PBS is a real downer lately....but at least they're telling the story.
 
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
 
Yeah, I saw the Frontline thing too...it seems more than likely Europe will face another attack this year or next, and I'm betting it's going to be in Italy.
 
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
Seems that they consider the Spain attack a very successful one (with good reason) and will go after any allies they percieve to be "weaker".

If I have not already said these guys are total fuckers, allow me to do so now.
 
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
 
There's no question that there are some very dangerous radical Islamic extremists and that through acts of terror, some of these groups have demonstrated their total disregard for human life.

The thing is that Sadaam, though a certified goat-fucker and cruel Fascist, was not one of these radical Islamic extremists. And much as we'd like to believe he was, he was not the immediate danger and impending threat the United States attempted to make him out to be. And it seems that everyone else already knew/insisted-upon this. And so the US defied the UN (in order to enforce UN resolutions) and in doing so alienated a world which had only recently had our sympathy and support.

With the tragic events of 9/11 we had an opportunity to really make our case against the danger of these extremist groups. To form a multi-lateral coordinated world effort to seek out these groups and to undermine and dismantle them. But instead we pursued our own agenda (for entirely selfish purposes). Thereby perfectly demonstrating to the followers of these extremist groups that we are, in fact, as corrupt and horrible as they made us out to be. It would seem that if we'd really wanted to hurt those ideologies, we would have left the regime-toppling at Afghanistan.

There is so much we could have done and didn't. There is so much we have done and shouldn't have. It makes me sick to think it.
 
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
 
And yet: four more years.
 
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
 
But surely, four more years of Blessed American Freedom is a Good Thing! Do not listen to these deamons of the past! The Lord Jesus has blessed the Nation of God with four more glorious years of gay-free LIBERTY!
 
Posted by Nim' (Member # 205) on :
 
You know, I think in 2008 you need a pro-wrestler in the White House.
 
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
 
I would so vote for Mick Foley.
 
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
If they really had such a hard-on for Saddam, they surely could have waited and invaded Iraq later.

It might have even been possible to have drove some terrorists into Iraq (if they were looking for an excuse).

Sure would be nice to see them stabilize Afghanistan before moving on to (reportedly) Iran.

Bush's call for $80 billion more in war money is a baaaaad sign.
 
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
 
Mission Accomplished!!
 
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 138) on :
 
YES!!!
 
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
 
If I write every post in this stupid font/style, perhaps people will get bored of using it all the fucking time!!
 
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
 
PERHAPS THE WORLD SHALL NEVER KNOW.

COOKIE

 
Posted by Nim' (Member # 205) on :
 
Where is Saddam now? Has he been transferred to Iraq yet?
Do they have any prisons left standing? Or police stations, for that matter?

It feels like once a week I hear of some raid against an outpost/police station/tollbooth where martyrs manage to kill about 20 cops and injure hundreds of people, this is the most successful guerilla warfare I've ever heard about in history.

And I read a report that said that the corruption has multiplied exponentially after the fall of Saddam and the fall of the "regulated" corruption.

It used to be just the top cadre of Baghdad's police precincts that jailed innocent people and tortured them to extort money from them or their families, and they discouraged anyone else from intruding on their turf.
Now reports say that even the regular police forces resort to incarceration and systematic beatings, trying to get a slice of the cake.
 
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
 
I don't know if I'd call it the most sucessful guerilla war in history...the Vietnamese eventually brought the country under communist rule. From what I see, the chance of Zarqawi and co. creating an Islamic state in Iraq is low.
 
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
If the US leaves Iraq sometime this year (yeah, riiight), there's a chance of Iraq becoming an Islamis state, but Zarqawi would probably not be head honcho.
 
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 138) on :
 
I just wish we'd pull out. I don't give a damn about politics. Elected officials get voted into office to worry about policy. The military is the instrument of that policy. I say that because while in San Diego there were quite a few anti-war demostrations at my base. As if that would make a difference. All I know is I hate seeing the casuality reports growing longer everyday with the names of people my own age fighting a war based on questionable reasons.
 
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
I often wish Bush Sr. had pulled out.
 
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
 
Or had pulled in just a little deeper.
 
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
I meant "pulled out" as a sexual metaphor.

But if we'd invaded Iraq back then, life would be much easier now (for us and them).
 
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
 
But if we were to pull out now (nevermind Jason's clever historical fantasy), wouldn't that just leave a leadership vacuum in Iraq? Or at least leave a shadow government without sufficient manpower or strength to effectively enforce their rule? Wouldn't the country immediately fall prey to the startlingly resourceful and resilient insurgency? I mean we'd just be opening the door to a state-sponsored-terrorism wet dream, wouldn't we? Which erradication, if I'm not mistaken, was one of the primary goals of the exercise. I mean, not to mention we'd be abandoning the Iraqi people to whatever fate such a regime might impose. Goshen, if only someone might have considered these consequences before the invasion.
 
Posted by Nim' (Member # 205) on :
 
While reading today's newspaper I happened upon a short piece from journalist Thomas L Friedman, posting his rules when reporting from the Middle East.

quote:
Never lead your story out of Lebanon, Gaza or Iraq with a cease-fire; it will always be over by the time the next morning's paper is out.
The Israelis will always win, and the Palestinians will always make sure that they never enjoy it. Everything else is just commentary.
In the Middle East, if you can't explain something with a conspiracy theory, then don't try to explain it at all.
In the Middle East, the extremists go all the way, and the moderates tend to just go away - unless the coast is completely clear.
When one side is weak, it will tell you, "How can I compromise?" And the minute it becomes strong, it will tell you, "Why should I compromise?"
What people tell you in private is irrelevant.
All that matters is what they will defend in public in Arabic, in Hebrew or in any other local language. Anything said in english doesn't count.


 
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
Well, that explains why we only hear what really happened in ant situation about eight months later.

Nothing like a guidebook to sensationalism.

Baalam, you seriously think we did not buy ourselves the current anti-american attitude in Iraq by leaving Saddam in power at the end of the first gulf war?
You should check out Frontline's report on the matter....scary how badly GW1's administration blew the chance to make the region safer.
Saddam's own advisors (long since defected and on the record) stated that he was near-suicidal with depression from his belief that the US would take Bagdhad.

Aincent history, unfortunately.
All that matters now is (somehow) reducing the US occupying presence and making certain (yes, with UN oversight) the elections results are upheld.
 
Posted by Nim' (Member # 205) on :
 
By the way, what's the latest on Saddam? Has he been sent back to Iraq yet? Or is he still held in an "undisclosed location"?
 
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
 
I don't believe he ever left Iraq.

For instance:
quote:
Saddam Hussein, who is being held in a camp near Baghdad airport, did not vote in the election, the US military asserted.

 
Posted by The Captain from M.I.K.E. (Member # 709) on :
 
that's the airport that used to be named Saddam Hussein International Airport, right?
 
Posted by Nim' (Member # 205) on :
 
I hear they serve a good corned beef sammich at Bagdad Airport. Maybe they could send one down to Saddam. After it's gone through security, of course.
 
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
I think Saddam's going for the whole "muslim Charles Manson" look just now.
 
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
 
Or the angry, yelling, Fox News pundit, as we saw in his court appearance in July.
 
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
I thought that was Geraldo.
 
Posted by Nim' (Member # 205) on :
 
And maybe he can wash it down with some Diet...
 
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
Watch CNN: South FLorida's own sensationalist anchorman Rick Sanchez is on there now.


CNN's credibility stands in ruins.
 
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
 
From the bastion of independent journalism that it was before?
 
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
Sanchez is actually worse than Geraldo in many ways: after every hurricane, he'd be the one that would interview the widows and orphans....anything that made a good sound byte for the 10 o'clock news.

He pioneered tabloid TV in my state.
 
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 138) on :
 
Bush could always order a search of N.K... I don't know, but maybe just maybe they might actually find something.
 
Posted by Nim' (Member # 205) on :
 
They'll find a world of hurt! That shit makes Cambodia look like Kansas. And New York St. Louis.
 


© 1999-2024 Charles Capps

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3