»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
U.S. closes search for Iraqis' WMD
| The Alley |
|
U.S. closes search for Iraqis' WMD |
|
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space 
|
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%257E6439%257E2650061,00.html ... |
||
| © Copyright 2005 raphael giuffrida - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
Not to go too far OT, but that remark in the article by the Honorable Nancy Pelosi comes as no surprise. Well, I was a bit surprised that her quoted remark was not as rabid as most of her's are about this Administration, President, Republicans, Conservatives, and basically anyone, including Democrats and Moderates, that don't completely agree with her torqued and twisted Californian views. |
||
Mistletoe Angel 
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
...and what remains startling is that Bush believes it was "absolutely" worth it to invade Iraq anyway. Tonight they're going to air that rare interview with Bush and Barbara Walters. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "You'll find something that's enough to keep you |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
Ali im not familiar with Nancy Pelosi's past comments, but i have to agree with her on this what remains startling to me Noah, is that people continue to support bush and this war |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
Yes...that too.  But there remains hope. A new poll shows though Bush's approval rating is up three points after 75% believed Bush had strong leadership through the tsunami disaster, dissent in the war in Iraq continues to grow (57% now.) Plus a North Carolina Congressman, a Republican, this week, has become the latest to come out saying we should bring our men and women home as soon as we can because he's sick of waking up and reading on the headlines that another 5 to 10 of our troops were killed. I remain optimistic, I remain hopeful for the best. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "You'll find something that's enough to keep you |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
For those looking for a brief history behind the "WMD" search, here's a review of the rhetoric, spanning from most earliest to most recent: ****************************************** "He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors." Colin Powell, February 24, 2001 "He's been a menace forever, and we will do, he needs to open his country up for inspection, so we can see whether or not he's developing weapons of mass destruction." George W. Bush, August 7, 2001 "I don't think it matters if Saddam has been implicated (in September 11th). He has weapons of mass destruction. The lesser risk is in pre-emption. We've got to stop wishing away the problem." Richard Perle, November 21, 2001 "Saddam Hussein's regime is despicable, he is developing weapons of mass destruction, and we cannot leave him doing so unchecked." Tony Blair, April 10, 2002 "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." Dick Cheney, August 26, 2002 "Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons." Bush, September 12, 2002 "I didn't hear it (the Iraqi Foreign Minster's speech at the U.N.), but let me guess: 'The United States is guilty, the world doesn't understand, we don't have any weapons of mass destruction.' It's the same old song and dance that we've heard for 11 long years." Bush, September 19, 2002 "Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more." Bush, October 7, 2002. "He has existing and active military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, which could be activated within 45 minutes." Blair, September 24, 2002 "If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world." Ari Fleischer, December 2, 2002 "I took our message of peace and freedom to countries around the world. I want them to understand the nature of the man who runs Iraq is the nature of a man who doesn't tell the truth. He says he won't have weapons of mass destruction; he's got them." Bush, December 3, 2002 "We know for a fact that there are weapons there." Fleischer, January 9, 2003 "We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more." Powell, February 5, 2003 "We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons, the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have." Bush, February 8, 2003 "He has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." Cheney, March 16, 2003 "We are asked now seriously to accept that in the last few years, contrary to all history, contrary to all intelligence, Saddam decided unilaterally to destroy those weapons. I say that such a claim is palpably absurd." Blair, March 18, 2003 "There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. As this operation continues, those weapons will be identified." Gen. Tommy Franks, March 22, 2003 "We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad." Donald Rumsfeld, March 30, 2003 "We did not want this war. But in refusing to give up his weapons of mass destruction, Saddam gave us no choice but to act." Blair, April 10, 2003 "We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so." Bush, May 3, 2003 "I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming." Powell, May 4, 2003 "I never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country." Rumsfeld, May 4, 2003 "I'm not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein, because he had a weapons program." Bush, May 6, 2003 "The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction." Paul Wolfowitz, May 9, 2003 "They may have had time to destroy them, and I don't know the answer." Rumsfeld, May 27, 2003 "We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. 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." Bush, May 30, 2003 "I am absolutely convinced with time we'll find out that they did have a weapons program." Bush, June 9, 2003 "I believe that we will find the truth, and I believe that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction." Rice, July 13, 2003 "Extensive work remains to be done on his biological, chemical and nuclear weapons programs. But these findings already make clear that Saddam Hussein actively deceived the international community." Bush, October 3, 2003 "We are seeking all the facts. Already the Kay Report identified dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities." Bush, January 21, 2004 "Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere...nope, no weapons over there...maybe under here..." Bush, March 24, 2004 **************************************** So there's your history to date regarding the excuse this administration went with in going into this senseless, immoral war in the first place. Despite all that, despite revealing the obvious once and for all they and the intelligence were wrong, Bush STILL believes it was "absolutely worth it" to invade. And all Scott McClellan could say in response was, "Based on what we know today, the president would have taken the same action, because this is about protecting the American people." Protect America from what? A nation that has never attacked our nation in history? The hypocrisy astounds me. Here there are many who continue to point their fingers at pacifists and those who don't want to serve in the military, accusing people like us as terrorist sympathizers and murderers, yet honor those now they themselves have never served. They honor Cheney, who never served. They honor Ashcroft, who never served. They honor Rove, who never served. Paul Wolfowitz, Bill Frist, Trent Lott, Tom Delay, Roy Blunt, Richard Perle, the list goes on and on. And then Bush himself went AWOL, something which you'd typically get a dishonorable discharge for, unless you come from a higher stature. You see, just like a majority of these figures who make up the Bush Administration, I have never served in the military and never will, for I believe we are free to decide as Americans our lives and how to serve our country. I choose to serve America as a working class hero, as a pacifist, as a patriot of peace, as a volunteer special educator for children, as a songwriter, as a defender of civil rights and equalities. Meanwhile, Bush chooses to sympathize to these many young people who are working their hearts out for America, many of which only chose to join the military so they could earn college tuition or put some job experience on their resume that could help get them get a career later, by saying, "Much more will be asked of you" and "we can't rule out military action in Iran.", without any regret or apology for the crimes he's already put on humanity, from the losses of thousands of innocent civilians to the erosion of civil liberties. Incredible. Beyond incredible. I for one still believe in King's vision. A vision of ending this spiritual death of our nation in spending more and more on military defense than on programs of social uplift. A vision of stopping worshipping the god of hate and bowing before the altar of retaliation. A vision of being able to hear the questions and point of view of our enemies and mature in understanding the overall assessment of human nature. I continue to believe in this vision of peace, and believe you can't have it both ways. It's either peace or war. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "You'll find something that's enough to keep you But if the bright lights don't receive you You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20 |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
Well, though I respect your Views, Noah, it would be nice if you would devote that same amount of research to how many thought Saddam DID have them. Not just in the US, but multiple countries around the world, including all of Saddam's senior staff prior to the war. It wasn't until the first bombs started dropping on Baghdad that Saddam came clean [sic] with his senior staff and advisors. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Alicat, It’s worst than that. Some time ago when he had returned from his investigation David Kay had an interview on PBS. In it he said that Saddam Hussein himself may have believed he had weapons of mass destruction when in fact he didn’t. I was stunned to hear it and am still trying to understand how it could be possible. It is known, by their own reports, that they had certain quantities at the end of the first war, it is known what happened to a portion of those known quantities, what happened to the rest of the already known quantities remains a mystery. This leaves aside anything produced in addition to those original known quantities. It is known he punished, (in at least one case executed), officers who failed in their obstruction of weapons inspectors both as a personal punishment and as an example to others. As you reminded us , everyone, the British, French, Germans, Russians, etc. said Saddam Hussein had WMD, ( Vladimir Putin has even publicly stated that his intelligence gathered information that Saddam was planning attacks on the United States). Was there no WMD, or, (Saddam with twelve years of time and effort and billions to spend), can we just not find it? Or did Saddam, or others fearful of his wrath, create an illusion of possession that everyone believed too well? |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
To what point, Ali? We don't convict a man for what he believes, but rather for what he does. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
On the other hand Ron, if they suspect he’s going for a gun . . . |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
What, John? If you think someone is going for a gun, it's okay to blow him away? Is that your point? And what happens when you are wrong? |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
No Ron, I think one should stand passively and see if one’s suspicion is correct. That way if one’s suspicion proves incorrect, he’s alive and good, if his suspicion is correct he’s dead and good. The important thing is to be good. Of course this ignores the obvious fact that the good guy is always able to wait and then shoot the gun out of the bad guy’s hand. Now it can then be argued that if the good guy gets shot by the bad guy first, then that is evidence that the good guy was really not a good guy and, at least in part, deserved what he got, which is shot. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
quote: http://federalistpatriot.us/current/ |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Yet, more unfounded speculation? Some, indeed, never learn. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I wouldn't call it unfounded speculation, Ron, but I would call it an ongoing investigation. There were convoys of materials heading to Syria from Iraq just prior to the war and statements given by former Saddam aides stating that is what was done with some of the WMD's. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38371 http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38041 http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40946 http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39182 http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38581 http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33216 |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
“If Saddam could hide his air force from the U.S. with his erstwhile enemy Iran during the first Gulf War, why not hide WMDs with friendly Syria this time?” Good question. Thanks Denise. It makes more sense than that everyone, including Saddam, believed Saddam had WMD, and he didn’t. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Let's assume you're right. The WMD were in Syria before we attacked. So, uh, why attack Iraq? Any way it is sliced, mistaken is still mistaken. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
So, uh, why attack Iraq? grins. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
A look at the War Resolution will show that the WMD issue was not the only issue. Some of the weapons are suspected of having been transported to Syria (only when war became a real possibility in his mind), some are suspected of having been destroyed and some are suspected of having been hidden throughout Iraq. Some have been found by coaltion troops, and some of the stuff has been found in the possession of the terrorists. But if Saddam didn't destroy them all, as required by the cease-fire agreement, and didn't show evidence of destroying them, or at least a good-faith attempt to account for the destruction of all of them, well then he basically ended the cease-fire agreement, I would say, and the subsequent consequences are on his head, no one else's. Shipping them off to other countries, for either use by others, or future use by Saddam himself, if he survived the war unscathed, is not evidence of someone interested in abiding by the cease-fire agreement. |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
And then there's the attempted chemical attack from terrorists based out of Iraq and Syria in Jordan, where Jordanian authorities seized 20 tons of chemicals, numerous explosives, and several modifided trucks with plows to crash through security barriers. Of course that begs the question of where Syria got 20 tons of chemicals used for blister agents? http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/26/jordan.terror/ Granted, this is old news, a little over a year ago, yet largely ignored by those shouting 'what WMD's?!'. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
Well Alicat consider more recent news. First of all as of February the CIA declared there was no evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq after 1991. More importantly as of Tuesday, there is no evidence Syria had hidden Iraqi arms. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/25/AR2005042501554.html http://www.smh.com.au/news/After-Saddam/Newsflash-CIA-ad mits-no-chemical-weapons-in-Iraq/2005/02/01/1107228705488.html |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
quote:Source: Dana Priest, Washington Post Staff Writer I guess then we only see and read what we want to see and read, as that paragraph stuck out in the link you provided. And for some odd reason, the image of the varied Iraqi records offices being thoroughly looted after the fall of Baghdad keeps creeping in my mind. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
No Alicat, I read exactly what it said NO EVIDENCE. While the investigators haven't ruled out unofficial movement of limited WMD-related materials, they still have NO evidence that there was any such movement. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
THE HEAD of MI6 told Tony Blair that the case for war against Iraq was being “fixed” by the Americans to suit the policy, according to a BBC documentary that will reignite its battle with the government... see the rest here of this sunday times aritcle here |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
 Hey Aenimal, I love your new picture! (giggles) Yoda is my favorite Star Wars character of all time, yay! (giggles) I went off track! I'm really not suprised by this news. I think these are very much the sentiments exactly many who oppose the war and voted Thursday were feeling toards Balir and his attitude towards the war. And Blair indeed has been elected to a third term, which definitely means one thing. But another thing is the following: * * His majority, looking to be 66 seats, is down from 165 in 2001. * Labour is back in office with the lowest share of the vote in british electoral history. * George Galloway of the anti-war Respect party upsetted Labour's Oona King. He's considered the most outspoken opponent of the war, and King's upsetting is considered a strong defeat for Blair. * 139 Labour members of Parliament voted against the war to begin with, so in his own party, which overall did support the war in Iraq, has many pockets of dissent. * This tells me three things. One, the anti-war movement in the U.K has gained a lot of political traction. Two, Blair has very likely lost the ability to allign himself with a future war should it happen soon, and three, Blair is very likely not to be around for this full third term given how unpopular he is despite being elected, which was pretty obvious from the beginning he would. Their electoral system is in a mega-mess, and I believe so many there believe it needs great reform, but despite those troubles, I am pleased and accepting of the election results there. All their desired changes certainly may not have come true yet, but their voices were heard clearly Thursday in protest and that is the best thing an election can do for the people. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
is there still an anti-war movement? it absolutely breaks my heart how misguided and apathetic people have become. liberal media? reporting the facts? fairy tales |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
I too believe there just is little truth-telling and though I also wouldn't consider it a conservative media (it's not), I feel the media is actually in a state worse than that, where it's all decided by corporate interests and "officialdom" is the new media, where it has leaned in support of the war, because, after all, many profit from war like Lockheed Martin and Bechtel. But I truly believe there IS a steadily growing anti-war movement worldwide. It was the anti-Iraq war sentiment that has sharply reduced Blair's majority. It was mainly the Iraq war that fused many of the 57 million who voted against Bush to the polls in November. Berlusconi is resigning because of the anti-war sentiment in Italy. And we saw on the second anniversary of Iraq many people in the streets, in more than double the cities than on the first anniversary. You're right that a great majority are still in the apathetic column. But I do believe there is progress happening, that I believe. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
Noah the movement is alive and well worldwide yes, but unfortunately not in the place it's needed most |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
