Bush Quietly Gives Up Hunt For WMD

Status
Not open for further replies.
The civilians might have given up, but the Army's Chemical Corps is still in the area.

Kharn
 
IIRC, we did find WMDs in Iraq, just not huge piles of them that were expected and not nukes.* Also, since they are not in Iraq, we need to now go look for where they went.



*Liberal re-definition in progress: WMDs now are not anything we found in Iraq + assault rifle in the U.S.
 
No we never found any WMD in Iraq

From above posted link

SCOTT MCCLELLAN: The weapons that we all believed were there, based on the intelligence, were not there and now what is important is that we need to go back and look at what was wrong with much of the intelligence that we had accumulated over a 12 year period, and that our allies had accumulated over that same period of time, and correct any flaws.

JOHN SHOVELAN: The Washington Post, reported the White House had been reluctant to call off the hunt, and had held out the possibility that the weapons had been secretly shipped out of Iraq before the war.

But State Department Spokesman Richard Boucher denied there was any reluctance to end the search.

RICHARD BOUCHER: I don't think anybody's been reluctant to conclude this. We've been looking for this group to do a careful and thorough job and to conclude it at whatever time they felt was appropriate.

JOHN SHOVELAN: Within the next few weeks the chief weapons hunter, Charles Duelfer, is expected to add an addendum to his report, but he has already concluded the hunt has proven fruitless.
 
Why_me:
Please explain that to the soldiers that found a sarin IED, a mustard IED, a cache of 10 drained chem warheads being buried on a riverbank, and 41 rockets loaded with agent and the other finds all over Iraq.

Kharn
 
Please explain that to the soldiers that found a sarin IED, a mustard IED, a cache of 10 drained chem warheads being buried on a riverbank, and 41 rockets loaded with agent and the other finds all over Iraq.


IF this were true. Do you not think President Bush would call a news conference about it? The war heads were pre 1990. Did not pose a threat. And were basically inert. This one ranks right up there with the mobile biological weapons trailers.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4997808/
Frustrated survey group
The Iraq Survey Group, made up of dozens of teams, has been conducting a secretive and largely fruitless weapons hunt across Iraq for more than a year. The survey group combines members of the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, U.S. military special forces and others.

The team has run into a number of dead ends. In January, for example, field tests on discovered mortar shells near Qurnah in southern Iraq indicated a blister agent was in the shells. But followup tests indicated that the munitions did not contain the agents, though U.S. officials said Saddam had such agents in the early to mid-1990s.

Blix, the former U.N. weapons inspector, said in Sweden on Monday that before the war, his team found 16 empty warheads that were marked for use with sarin.

He said it was likely the sarin gas used could have been from a leftover shell found in a chemical dump. “It doesn’t sound absurd at all. There can be debris from the past, and that’s a very different thing from have stocks and supplies,†he said.
 
Y'all might as well, as Ann Landers used to say, wake up and smell the coffee. There were no stores of WMD. Yes, there might have been an occasional leftover shell or three, and yes some scientists were supposed to be working on the program ... but it's been fairly conclusively proven that they were making zero progress and had been lying to Saddam about it for years to protet their own backsides (and lives).

Remember what our gummint said before the invasion? "We know they have weapons of mass destruction, and we know where they are."

Well, not only did we NOT know where they were, we didn't even know if they had them. If they did have them, we CLEARLY did not know where they were, or else we would now know where they went.

It may be that the gummint made an honest mistake and invaded Iraq for a reason that they thought was genuine. I, personally, do not believe that. I think the President knew it was a lie.
 
Whether they were there or not is not the whole story. The recent report clearly shows that no, Iraq did not currently have WMD, but yes, that Saddam was intent upon keeping his capabilities, and once he was free of restrictions and sanctions, on ramping up production again. He was simply biding his time, and working to split the international community (UN) with subsequent lifting of sanctions. Which is what would have happened relatively soon.

He then would have begun persuing them actively. With his known hostilities and support of terrorist activities (Palestinian clearly) he was clearly a future threat in this new, modern age of terrorists actively trying to use whatever weapons possible against the US. What we have to do now is go actively against these threats to try to prevent future attacks.
 
some scientists were supposed to be working on the program ... but it's been fairly conclusively proven that they were making zero progress and had been lying to Saddam about it for years to protet their own backsides (and lives).

So Saddam was holding Scientists hostage and forcing them to make WMDs. Since the Scientists were incompetent, we should have let Saddam continue his quest for chemical agents, nuclear weapons, missle systems and great big guns?

As far as "quietly" giving up the hunt for WMD, I've heard it and read about it all over the place.
 
Here's a hypothetical situation:

Bubba owns 20 acres down by the river. Bubba has about 500 weasels on his property.

Word gets around town that Bubba is shooting those weasels with a 50 cal, which is illegal where Bubba lives.

The local Sheriff goes to visit Bubba, but Bubba refuses to let the Sheriff on his property.

The Sheriff sends Bubba a letter, every month for a year demanding that Bubba let him on his property. Bubba refuses.

The Sheriff finally grows a pair, and raids Bubba's property a year later.

The Sheriff doesn't find the illegal 50 cal on Bubba's property, but he does find lots of dead weasels.

So since the Sheriff doesn't find the 50 cal, does that mean it never existed, or that it was never used to slaughter the defenseless weasels?

If I can understand this, why can't the media, UN and the left-wing?
 
Sheriff is a retard

Seems like the local police told him there was no .50. the batf tossed the property and told the sheriff there was no .50. The sheriffs own deputies told him there was no .50. But the sheriff told all the towns people that indeed bubba had a.50 and not only that but the sheriff knew exactly where.

Of course there was no .50 and 1300 deputies got killed and 10000 wounded. But the sheriff said thats ok. He was a bad guy that shot his own weasels. And he had plans to build a .50 someday.

What does the kool aid taste like?


Statement by President George W. Bush
"We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said, Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons. They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them."

Source: Interview of the President by TVP, Poland, White House (5/29/2003).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it claimed the purpose of the trailers was to produce biological weapons without disclosing that engineers from the Defense Intelligence Agency who examined the trailers concluded that they were most likely used to produce hydrogen for artillery weather balloons.
 
In order for the above analogy to be complete, Bubba is also out on parole and shouldn't have any weapons at all.

And - Bubba has no money and no credit and is under house arrest, wearing an electronic tracking device and can't leave his property to get any weapons, AND no one is allowed to approach the property.
 
I thought it was a war against terrorists and the states that sponsor them. The WMD thing was just the last attempt to get the UN to enforce its resolutions against a dictator that they were milking for billions. The 9/11 attacks were pure terrorist attacks and did not involve WMD.

saddam offered rewards for palestinean suicide bomber's families and also for abu sayef in the Phillipines if they killed US citizens. saddam offered protection for participants in the first WTC bombing and is believed to have been involved in the planning/funding as revenge for the first Gulf War. saddam also harbored abu nidal, a wanted terrorist.

saddam signed an agreement to prove the distruction of the WMD after the Gulf War. The un tagged tons of chemical and biological weapons that saddam is supposed to have destroyed with un oversight, but he refused to do it. If saddam did destroy the WMD, which I doubt, and did not allow verification then he still deserves what he got. You can't trust and glorify another stalinist, murdering dictator unless you would accept it for yourself.

So, I must ask all saddam defenders, would you sacrafice your family to him as you would ask the peaceful members of Iraq to do?
 
The fact of the matter is that there were no WMDs, the Neocons either lied to us about it or were completely and utterly incompetent, and that anyone who is unable to accept that fact probably should seek professional help in accepting reality.

But really, none of that makes much difference right now. The fact is that Iraq is a disaster and we caused this mess. Colin Powell was right on the money: we broke it, we bought it. Who lied about what to get us into this situation is now beside the point. Rather than argueing about it, we need to focus on correcting the problem, stabilizing the country, and getting our troops out of harms way with as few casualties as possible. We should be putting our resources into getting our troops the armor and equipment they need to increase their safety, not into debating what is now beyond debate.
 
Standing Wolf,

I have always wondered why people endlessly beat the no wmd drum when saddam had 18 months to move his stuff over to Syria.

I would imagine that our government has pictures of what was moved, when it was moved and where it is right now.

In any case I would rather be killing the islamofascists over there than over here.
 
"As far as "quietly" giving up the hunt for WMD, I've heard it and read about it all over the place."

Readyontheright: I only heard about it because a reporter wrote the story up, a month after they stopped looking. Apparently Bush was about as eager to mention that Iraq doesn't have any WMD as he was to say that Iraq was not working with Al-Qaeda.
 
The fact of the matter is that there were no WMDs, the Neocons either lied to us about it or were completely and utterly incompetent, and that anyone who is unable to accept that fact probably should seek professional help in accepting reality.
What a rediculous statement.

The "fact of the matter" is that Saddam did have WMD, there is undeniable evidence that he both had them and used them. The question was, did he have current stockpiles of them.

That not just the "Neocons", but just about everyone thought so, including most Democrats, and in fact most foreign intelligence services did also. By Saddam's own admission, there were several hundred tons missing. That huge convoys of trucks were spotted crossing over to Syria before the war makes one wonder what was so important to remove from Iraq before the Coalition forces attacked.

Given that, I think it's those who cannot accept the fact that Bush had real and immediate concerns over the status of the Iraqi WMD, but rather paint a paranoid fantasy about "NeoCons" and their evil plans to take over the world, that need "professional help".
 
Yeah its just a Neo COn fantasy

Besides the fact we now with absolute certainty know the inspections worked
Check out my sig for any further questions on what the administration thought about out containment policys with regard to saddam.

Below is regarding those "Neo COn fantasys" you believe I am deluded with

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
January 26, 1998



The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC


Dear Mr. President:

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.

The policy of “containment†of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam’s secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.


Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.


Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.

We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.

We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitage William J. Bennett

Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky

Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad

William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W. Rodman

Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber

Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick
 
Remember what our gummint said before the invasion? "We know they have weapons of mass destruction, and we know where they are."
Please post a quote from the President, a cabinet member, or a senior administration official that backs this up.. Otherwise, stick to the facts and not your own agenda.

Some of you people have very selective memories, or maybe you enjoy spreading disinformation intentionally. If so, you and Sarah Brady must be good chums. Let me lay down a few FACTS for you:

FACT: The legal basis for invasion was non-compliance on the part of Iraq with UN resolutions, to which Saddam had agreed and then repeatedly violated.
FACT: Intelligence information that was relied on by Sec. Powell and others seemed to suggest that Iraq was covering up certain activities. The scope of these "activities" could not be confirmed to be associated with WMD, but neither could it be denied.
FACT: The Democrats in Congress were provided the EXACT SAME intelligence information available to the President and came to the same conclusion - (1) that the information suggested the possibility of a WMD program, (2) that Saddam had stonewalled repeated attemptes to investigate suspected weapons labs and fabrication plants, (3) that the possibility presented a potential clear and present danger to the U.S.
FACT: Saddam had a history of repeatedly violating the UN resolution regarding inspections and then capitulating at the very last moment before military actions were proposed, only to return quickly to a state of non-compliance after the media attention died down. The pattern in the Spring of 2003 was identical to previous situations.
FACT: Neither the President, nor the Cabinet, nor a senior administration official ever stated definitively that there were WMD in Iraq. They stated that the evidence strongly suggested that possibility.

Chew on that for awhile.
 
Fact i got lots more statements

FACT: Neither the President, nor the Cabinet, nor a senior administration official ever stated definitively that there were WMD in Iraq. They stated that the evidence strongly suggested that possibility.

Statement by President George W. Bush
"He said he wouldn't have chemical weapons, he's got them."

Source: Remarks by the President at Arkansas Welcome, White House (11/4/2002).


Statement by President George W. Bush
"Not only has he got chemical weapons, but I want you to remember, he's used chemical weapons."

Source: Remarks by the President in Texas Welcome, White House (11/4/2002).


Statement by President George W. Bush
"We not only know he's got chemical weapons, but incredibly enough he's used chemical weapons."

Source: President Talks Tax Cuts and Homeland Security in Iowa, White House (11/4/2002).

Statement by President George W. Bush
"He said he wouldn't have chemical weapons, he's got them."

Source: Remarks by the President at Missouri Welcome, White House (11/4/2002


Statement by President George W. Bush
"[Saddam Hussein is] a man who not only has chemical weapons, but he has used chemical weapons against some of his neighbors."

Source: Iraq Must Disarm Says President in South Dakota Speech, White House (11/3/2002).

Statement by President George W. Bush
"And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produced chemical and biological weapons. Yet Saddam Hussein has chosen to build and keep these weapons despite international sanctions, U.N. demands, and isolation from the civilized world."

Source: President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat; Remarks by the President on Iraq, White House (10/7/2002).


Statement by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
"[T]hey have weaponized chemical weapons, we know that."

Source: Secretary Rumsfeld Media Availability at Kuwait City International Airport, Department of Defense (6/10/2002).

Statement by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
"His regime has amassed large clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons, including VX and sarin and mustard gas."

Statement by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
"We do know that the Iraqi regime currently has chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction."

Statement by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
"He has, at this moment, stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons."

Source: Testimony of U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld before the House Armed Services Committee, House Armed Services Committee (9/18/2002).


Statement by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
"And he has biological and chemical weapons."

Source: Testimony of U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld before the House Armed Services Committee, House Armed Services Committee (9/18/2002).

Statement by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
"Well, we know that Saddam Hussein has chemical and biological weapons."

Source: Secretary Rumsfeld Live Interview with Infinity CBS Radio, Infinity-CBS Radio (11/14/2002).

Statement by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
"They have amassed large clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons including VX and sarin and mustard gas."

Source: Metro Atlanta Chamber of Commerce, Defense Department (9/27/2002

Statement by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
"He has stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons."

Source: Testimony of U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, Senate Armed Services Committee (9/19/2002).

Statement by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
"We do know that the Iraqi regime has chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction."

Source: Testimony of U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, Senate Armed Services Committee (9/19/2002).

Statement by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
"He claims to have no chemical or biological weapons, yet we know that he continues to hide biological or chemical weapons, moving them to different locations as often as every 12 to 24 hours, and placing them in residential neighborhoods."

Source: Donald Rumsfeld and Richard Myers Hold Regular Department of Defense Briefing, Defense Department (3/11/2003).

Statement by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
"Saddam Hussein possesses chemical and biological weapons."

Source: Donald Rumsfeld Addresses the Conference of Army Reserve Operators, Defense Department (1/20/2003).
 
Fact head of UN says invasion not legal

FACT: The legal basis for invasion was non-compliance on the part of Iraq with UN resolutions, to which Saddam had agreed and then repeatedly violated.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3664234.stm
The US has rejected the United Nations secretary-general's claim that the US-led invasion of Iraq was illegal.
Kofi Annan told the BBC the decision to take action in Iraq contravened the UN charter and should have been made by the Security Council, not unilaterally.
 
Fact intelligence was perverted by office of special plans

FACT: The Democrats in Congress were provided the EXACT SAME intelligence information available to the President and came to the same conclusion - (1) that the information suggested the possibility of a WMD program, (2) that Saddam had stonewalled repeated attemptes to investigate suspected weapons labs and fabrication plants, (3) that the possibility presented a potential clear and present danger to the U.S.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,999737,00.html
Thursday July 17, 2003
The Guardian

As the CIA director, George Tenet, arrived at the Senate yesterday to give secret testimony on the Niger uranium affair, it was becoming increasingly clear in Washington that the scandal was only a small, well-documented symptom of a complete breakdown in US intelligence that helped steer America into war.
It represents the Bush administration's second catastrophic intelligence failure. But the CIA and FBI's inability to prevent the September 11 attacks was largely due to internal institutional weaknesses.

This time the implications are far more damaging for the White House, which stands accused of politicising and contaminating its own source of intelligence.

According to former Bush officials, all defence and intelligence sources, senior administration figures created a shadow agency of Pentagon analysts staffed mainly by ideological amateurs to compete with the CIA and its military counterpart, the Defence Intelligence Agency.

The agency, called the Office of Special Plans (OSP), was set up by the defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, to second-guess CIA information and operated under the patronage of hardline conservatives in the top rungs of the administration, the Pentagon and at the White House, including Vice-President Dick Cheney.

The ideologically driven network functioned like a shadow government, much of it off the official payroll and beyond congressional oversight. But it proved powerful enough to prevail in a struggle with the State Department and the CIA by establishing a justification for war.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top