OT: White House says Iraq Weapons Search is Over

[ISiddiqui]

Oy, Now it's confirmed that we were totally wrong on WMDs in Iraq. What a clusterfuck. Could Bush at least admit we were wrong about the weapons (maybe saying it was ok because Saddam sucks?)

http://www.boston.com/dailynews/012/...eapons_:.shtml
White House says Iraq weapons search is over

By Associated Press, 1/12/2005 14:16

WASHINGTON (AP) The search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has quietly concluded without any evidence of the banned weapons that President Bush cited as justification for going to war, the White House said Wednesday.

Democrats said Bush owes the country an explanation of why he was so wrong.

The Iraq Survey Group, made up of some 1,200 military and intelligence specialists and support staff, spent nearly two years searching military installations, factories and laboratories whose equipment and products might be converted quickly to making weapons.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said there no longer is an active search for weapons and the administration does not hold out hopes that any weapons will be found. ''There may be a couple, a few people, that are focused on that'' but that it has largely concluded, he said.

''If they have any reports of (weapons of mass destruction) obviously they'll continue to follow up on those reports,'' McClellan said. ''A lot of their mission is focused elsewhere now.''

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi of California said Bush should explain what happened.

''Now that the search is finished, President Bush needs to explain to the American people why he was so wrong, for so long, about the reasons for war,'' she said.

''After a war that has consumed nearly two years and millions of dollars, and a war that has cost thousands of lives, no weapons of mass destruction have been found, nor has any evidence been uncovered that such weapons were moved to another country,'' Pelosi said in a written statement. ''Not only was there not an imminent threat to the United States, the threat described in such alarmist tones by President Bush and the most senior members of his administration did not exist at all.''

Chief U.S. weapons hunter Charles Duelfer is to deliver his final report on the search next month. ''It's not going to fundamentally alter the findings of his earlier report,'' McClellan said, referring to preliminary findings from last September. Duelfer reported then that Saddam Hussein not only had no weapons of mass destruction and had not made any since 1991, but that he had no capability of making any either. Bush unapologetically defended his decision to invade Iraq.

''Nothing's changed in terms of his views when it comes to Iraq, what he has previously stated and what you have previously heard,'' McClellan said. ''The president knows that by advancing freedom in a dangerous region we are making the world a safer place.''

Bush has appointed a panel to investigate why the intelligence about Iraq's weapons was wrong.

McClellan said the Iraq experience would not make Bush hesitant to raise alarms when he deems it necessary.

''But we're also going to continue taking steps to make sure that that intelligence is the best possible,'' he said.

''Our friends and allies had the same intelligence that we had when it came to Saddam Hussein,'' McClellan said. ''And now we need to continue to move forward to find out what went wrong and to correct those flaws.''

At the State Department, spokesman Richard Boucher said Wednesday about 120 Iraqi scientists who had been working in weapons programs were being paid by the U.S. government to work in other fields.

[rkmsuf]

we should now look for easter eggs

[aran]

It'd be awesome if Bush became the "boy who cried wolf" of international relations.

[NoMyths]

*moment of silence*

[duckman]

*yawn*

[flere-imsaho]

Bush has appointed a panel to investigate why the intelligence about Iraq's weapons was wrong.

Yes, the Absolutely Bloody Obvious Panel, I would imagine.

McClellan said the Iraq experience would not make Bush hesitant to raise alarms when he deems it necessary.

Oh good. So being utterly wrong won't deter him from being utterly wrong in the future. Is this what people mean when they say he's a "man of faith"?

[Ben E Lou]

http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/f...ad.php?t=34519

[ISiddiqui]

Well that other one had a piss poor title, didn't it .

[Dutch]

Another reason we need to stop letting public opinion dictate the nature of our intelligence agencies. We would have known for sure about the WMD's whereabouts/existance if our intelligence was up to snuff.

Our military is the greatest in the world, but our intelligence community that dictates when to be pro-active and when not to be is not. And it hasn't been for a long time.

I'm sorry, but this issue is vastly more complicated than "It's Bush's fault."

Bush did the responsible thing based on the information he had. If you have to point your political finger at one individual, if you have to blame a national leader, blame Saddam Hussein.

Anyway, we're all talking in circles anyway, nobody will ever convince anybody of their sides.

[ISiddiqui]

I'm sorry, but this issue is vastly more complicated than "It's Bush's fault."

Not by much. The Bush Administration wanted to believe, like said before, a man of 'faith'. There were problems with the conclusion that Saddam had WMDs. The responsible thing for the President was to get the information from the international monitors (Hans Blix and all that) and make an objective decision, rather than really, really wanting it to be true.

[Ben E Lou]

I really only have four comments:

1. Nearly everyone--Repubs and Dems--in office in Washington believed WMD were possessed by Iraq. In that sense, Dutch is correct. Simply blaming the Bush administration is too easy. I could point to dozens of quotes from Dems about Iraq's WMD.

2. According to the UN Resolution, it was up to Saddam to *prove* that he'd gotten rid of the WMD, not up to us to find them.

3. As I said from the start, my support for the war had little/nothing to do with the presence/non-presence of WMD.

4. I'd *much* rather we listen to our own people than get information from international monitors.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

I really only have four comments:

1. Nearly everyone--Repubs and Dems--in office in Washington believed WMD were possessed by Iraq. In that sense, Dutch is correct. Simply blaming the Bush administration is too easy. I could point to dozens of quotes from Dems about Iraq's WMD.

2. According to the UN Resolution, it was up to Saddam to *prove* that he'd gotten rid of the WMD, not up to us to find them.

3. As I said from the start, my support for the war had little/nothing to do with the presence/non-presence of WMD.

4. I'd *much* rather we listen to our own people than get information from international monitors.

Not to let people think you are a "far-right" guy like me. But I think your assessment is fair and not emotionally driven or charged.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

4. I'd *much* rather we listen to our own people than get information from international monitors.

Why?

[clintl]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Another reason we need to stop letting public opinion dictate the nature of our intelligence agencies. We would have known for sure about the WMD's whereabouts/existance if our intelligence was up to snuff.

You don't believe in democracy?

[Glengoyne]

What SkyDog Said.

Don't make me dig up all the Kerry, Daschle, and Clinton quotes about how we needed to reign in Saddam because of his nuclear weapons, and to change our official focus on Iraq to regime change.

[Bubba Wheels]

Anyone ever hear of the 'Church Commission?" Hint: It has nothing to do with religion.

[Flasch186]

i think we knew there werent any weapons a long long time ago. Im glad we went in, obviously it was the right thing to do and I hope that we will continue to stop genocide wherever it occurs because its what we promised to do after WW2 (we should be in SUDAN by now). The planning of postwar Iraq has been nonexistent or completely wrong in assessment and execution yet no one has been held accountable for this. I sure hope we plan for post war XXXX better than this go around.

[Bubba Wheels]

I think that this is a very critical time in U.S. history. Not so much Iraq, we started it and we have to follow up. But beyond that, we citizens of the United States must decide if we are going to be the 'World's Policeman." I personally want no part of it.

[SunDancer]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

i think we knew there werent any weapons a long long time ago. Im glad we went in, obviously it was the right thing to do and I hope that we will continue to stop genocide wherever it occurs because its what we promised to do after WW2 (we should be in SUDAN by now). The planning of postwar Iraq has been nonexistent or completely wrong in assessment and execution yet no one has been held accountable for this. I sure hope we plan for post war XXXX better than this go around.

I agree. I think we could of handle of the postwar operations better, but I still glad we went in, and agree with SkyDog's post.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

I think that this is a very critical time in U.S. history. Not so much Iraq, we started it and we have to follow up. But beyond that, we citizens of the United States must decide if we are going to be the 'World's Policeman." I personally want no part of it.

We have a humanitarian obligation to stop genocide as it is defined. NOT stop civil wars or war in general for that matter but genocide. We signed a proclamation along with many other countries that we would. NOw, understand, that Im jewish and may not be here if we werent playing "policemen" in the '40s but we have a moral obligation to do so, and if youre on the religious right and dont agree with this, I cannot fathom how you could possibly rationalize this. It is an absolute that whoever is the mightiest country in the world must be the leader of the mighties and stop extinction of humans based on race, religion, culture, etc.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

We have a humanitarian obligation to stop genocide as it is defined. NOT stop civil wars or war in general for that matter but genocide. We signed a proclamation along with many other countries that we would. NOw, understand, that Im jewish and may not be here if we werent playing "policemen" in the '40s but we have a moral obligation to do so, and if youre on the religious right and dont agree with this, I cannot fathom how you could possibly rationalize this. It is an absolute that whoever is the mightiest country in the world must be the leader of the mighties and stop extinction of humans based on race, religion, culture, etc.

Because your Jewish, I can understand that you would feel that way. And I respect that. But for all the 'paper signing' by all the various countries, its our kids doing the dirty work and getting killed. And for what? A bunch of ingrates? Already they are talking about changing the nature of National Guard sevice (basically if you join, good luck getting out.) Can a draft really be that far behind? Not with my kids!!!!!

[Bubba Wheels]

http://www.nbc5i.com/news/4071942/detail.html

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Because your Jewish, I can understand that you would feel that way. And I respect that. But for all the 'paper signing' by all the various countries, its our kids doing the dirty work and getting killed. And for what? A bunch of ingrates? Already they are talking about changing the nature of National Guard sevice (basically if you join, good luck getting out.) Can a draft really be that far behind? Not with my kids!!!!!

no offense but at the same time that the right (and I keep going back to that because I know thats where you fall in line) is all about globalization I find it highly hypocritical that you (the right) become awfully isolationist when it comes to "policework". We cant stand over here, on our soil and yell at the world that they better act according to our morals and our righteousness or we might come get them and then cry about that very same police work. I say if your gonna Talk the talk, you gotta walk the walk but it seems that you and so many are all about the talk but not so much about the walk.....one of the two has to change, either the talk or the walk....I believe we have whats called a disconnect.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

http://www.nbc5i.com/news/4071942/detail.html

Thats a shame......

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

What you say has nothing to do with the right I know about. Pat Buchannan wrote a book "Where the Right Went Wrong." I haven't read it yet, but I know from listening to him on various programs he is dead-set against globalism and so am I.

Most of the republican platform is not. post order bug, sorry

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

no offense but at the same time that the right (and I keep going back to that because I know thats where you fall in line) is all about globalization I find it highly hypocritical that you (the right) become awfully isolationist when it comes to "policework". We cant stand over here, on our soil and yell at the world that they better act according to our morals and our righteousness or we might come get them and then cry about that very same police work. I say if your gonna Talk the talk, you gotta walk the walk but it seems that you and so many are all about the talk but not so much about the walk.....one of the two has to change, either the talk or the walk....I believe we have whats called a disconnect.

What you say has nothing to do with the right I know about. Pat Buchannan wrote a book "Where the Right Went Wrong." I haven't read it yet, but I know from listening to him on various programs he is dead-set against globalism and so am I.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Most of the republican platform is not. post order bug, sorry

I would say, then there is coming a very big fight within the GOP ranks, and you can see which side I will be on.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by clintl

You don't believe in democracy?

Well, to answer your question, I believe in Democracy 100%. But I don't believe we should be holding votes on how our intelligence guru's should do their job.

It's like holding a vote to see if the Explosive's Ordinance Disposal guy should cut the red wire or the blue wire on the ticking time bomb. Sure Democracy is great and voting seems like a great idea to those who don't want the bomb to go off, but at some point we all have to step back and let the man do his job.

[clintl]

On certain matters and to a certain extent, sure. But the intelligence agencies work FOR us, and we damn well better have some pretty significant influence on the policies they pursue and the methods they use if we want them to be accountable to us and work for our interests.

[Sharpieman]

Make no mistake about it, you have to admit there was a intention to go after Saddam BEFORE 9/11 within the Bush administration. Maybe it was because they thought it was time for Saddam to go (since he is in his senior years and they didn't want his crazy sons to take over) or some other reason. The intention is probably on the up and up, totally legit in the eyes of Bush and his admin. After 9/11 that intention was still there, maybe it was opportunism that guided us into Iraq or it is a totally legit reason (that they believe that Iraq is one of the main keys to peace in the middle east, being a model for other countries). So, the bulk of the whole thing does fall on the admins shoulders. You can look at the WMD thing two ways; you give the Bush admin credit for being smart and using it as a scare tatic to go into Iraq, or you think they aren't so smart and say that they really thought WMD were there (just like many dems were stupid and thought they were there). Also, make no mistake about the fact that the WMD was the MAIN and FIRST reason why we went into Iraq. So arguing that Saddam is a bad guy and thats why we went in there is stupid, because it wasn't the reason. We (the Bush admin and many Dems) thought that Saddam was a clear and present danger to the US. OR it was opportunism by the Bush admin and some dems. You can make an argument for both sides. I think its legit for Democrats and Republicans against the war to still voice there opinions that we shouldn't be there in Iraq. I its wrong to say, "stop complaining, were there so we have to finish the job etc." Political dissent is an essential part of our democracy. Personally, I don't democracy can work in Iraq, the religious beliefs (Sunni vs. Shi'a, ethnic strife (Kurds in the north) and motives overshadow the potential for a democracy with effective and safe discourse. Now, if I'm wrong that would be great, an effective democracy would do wonders for the middle east. But we are years away from that and it will be interesting to see if they can sustain a democracy in that country.

just my 2 cents.

[Bubba Wheels]

Well, as one who did support the war for the reasons of WMD, I do not blame Bush for the faulty intelligence he got. But what is increasingly clear to me is that we had the Iraq thing exactly the way it should have been before the war. Saddam and his Sunnis in the central part of the country, no-fly zones protected the Kurds in the north and the Shia in the south. In effect, we had the country partitioned into a more or less ethnic 'federation' and apart from WMDs existing I don't personally see the need to have had actually to invade.

[ISiddiqui]

Sharpieman is right. There is more and more evidence coming out that the Administration was interested in going after Saddam since they got in. And it wasn't because they had WMDs. Now, if it was to bring democracy to the Middle East, what in the Hell is the problem with saying that? Why did they have to lie to get Saddam overthrown?

[Runtheball]

''Nothing's changed in terms of his views when it comes to Iraq, what he has previously stated and what you have previously heard,'' McClellan said. ''The president knows that by advancing freedom in a dangerous region we are making the world a safer place.''

Say WHAT?????
In what way was Iraq dangerous before this invasion? And in what way is the world safer now? I wonder what other whacked-out world leader will invade some other country next... in the name of 'making the world a safer place'?

And the 'bad intelligence' line is such a weak excuse. The only 'bad intelligence' Bush got was genetic.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Sharpieman is right. There is more and more evidence coming out that the Administration was interested in going after Saddam since they got in. And it wasn't because they had WMDs. Now, if it was to bring democracy to the Middle East, what in the Hell is the problem with saying that? Why did they have to lie to get Saddam overthrown?

Well in some ways Yes. The policy toward Iraq had shifted to regime change even when Clinton was in office. The removal of Saddam was always something on the agenda. He was a cruel dictator, he had been thumbing his nose at the United Nations for twelve years rendering them irrelevant, and he still had ambitions to return to the power that he was before the first gulf war. He pretty well had to go.

The admin decided to make WMD the poster boy of reasons for Hussein's removal, but there were plenty of other reasons along side. I honestly don't believe there was any lie involved in stating the reasons for the invasion, but I do believe they made a PR decision to claim "national security" reasons due to the danger of WMD. I believe that the admin was absolutely possitive that WMDs would be found. Every intelligence agency in the world was just as sure of that as well. I don't believe they would have played the WMD card if they didn't believe they would be found, because they had more than enough reasons.


As for Flasch's and Bubba's discussion. I absolutely believe we need to stand up and protect those that need it. We have an obligation to protect those that are oppressed and lined up for the slaughter. It is simply the right thing to do. Call it becoming the world's police or whatever, but I believe it is important to maintain the moral high ground. As for helping those that don't appreciate it. Pretty soon someone will notice that we have gone to war several times in the past 15 years to protect the lives of many different races and religions. In my mind...several times was not enough. Rawanda and the abandoning of Somalia looms large in the past, and the Sudan in the present.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Now, if it was to bring democracy to the Middle East, what in the Hell is the problem with saying that? Why did they have to lie to get Saddam overthrown?

That was my only complaint with the whole thing from Day One (since Day One, I've questioned our long-term strategy..but not at the very beginning). It is one of the reasons I came very close to voting against Bush's re-election. Man, I *really* hated this election.

[Blackadar]

It's not worth it, it's just not worth it
It's not worth it, it's just not worth it
It's not worth it, it's just not worth it
It's not worth it, it's just not worth it
It's not worth it, it's just not worth it
It's not worth it, it's just not worth it
It's not worth it, it's just not worth it
It's not worth it, it's just not worth it
It's not worth it, it's just not worth it
It's not worth it, it's just not worth it
It's not worth it, it's just not worth it
It's not worth it, it's just not worth it
It's not worth it, it's just not worth it
It's not worth it, it's just not worth it
It's not worth it, it's just not worth it
It's not worth it, it's just not worth it
It's not worth it, it's just not worth it
It's not worth it, it's just not worth it
It's not worth it, it's just not worth it
It's not worth it, it's just not worth it
It's not worth it, it's just not worth it
It's not worth it, it's just not worth it
It's not worth it, it's just not worth it
It's not worth it, it's just not worth it
It's not worth it, it's just not worth it
It's not worth it, it's just not worth it
It's not worth it, it's just not worth it
It's not worth it, it's just not worth it
It's not worth it, it's just not worth it
It's not worth it, it's just not worth it
It's not worth it, it's just not worth it

[Radii]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

I do not blame Bush for the faulty intelligence he got. ...
I don't personally see the need to have had actually to invade.

I believe this is the first time i've ever read a Bubba Wheels post and agreed with any part of it. Shocking!

[Tekneek]

I won't blame Bush for the bad intelligence, but it is convenient to be able to hide behind that cover. If China invades another country on the basis of "bad intelligence", while most of the world argues against the invasion, would we be as forgiving?

Israel is in violation of at least one UN resolution, and has been for decades. Is it ok for any nation, who has the intelligence to show that Israel poses a direct threat to them, to invade and overthrow the government? If they can hide behind the cover of bad intelligence, as long as a handful of other nations agree with them, is it ok?

No one has to respond. I'm just pondering... "Bad intelligence" shouldn't be a good enough excuse at this point. If he had not used WMDs as his main argument for invasion, it would make sense to not focus on it. Unfortunately, it was the primary argument used.

[Flasch186]

Who needs intelligence, Remember Sean Hannity has said over the past 6 months that Clinton turned down an offer from the Sudanese to hand over Bin Laden on a "silver platter".......what? The 9/11 comission says that that never happend? what? there is no evidence to support sucha claim? what? But that would mean he has been lying for about 6 months. That all his hype about this around the election was a bold faced lie becuase the 9/11 commission came out before the election....Im confused you mean he lied to sell the country some agenda. WOW, I certainly hope he wasn't getting paid by the administration. [sarcasm throughout that if you didnt already know]


Perhaps we should wait for good intelligence next time to move forward with an attack....we could probably use that time to plan more for the post-victory dance.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

...
Perhaps we should wait for good intelligence next time to move forward with an attack....we could probably use that time to plan more for the post-victory dance.

This I agree with. The biggest thing the assumption of the presence of WMDs in Iraq, and the subsequent failure to find them brings into question is Bush's doctrine of preemption. How can we ever follow through with an attack against another country on the basis that it is a preemptive strike?

Oh and on the first part of your post. I am not actually sure where I had heard that story about the U.S. refusing to take possession of Bin Laden before, but it was certainly longer than six months ago. I should also point out that I did absolutely believe it, though I didn't believe that Clinton is/was responsible for that or anything that has happened since. I believe part of the story is that we simply had no way to deal with him. I'll say it is news to me that it was addressed in the 9/11 commission's report. Maybe I should buy a copy.

[Flasch186]

heres something that touches on it....

http://news.neilrogers.com/news/arti...004072813.html

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

I honestly don't believe there was any lie involved in stating the reasons for the invasion, but I do believe they made a PR decision to claim "national security" reasons due to the danger of WMD.

Well, even if they thought Saddam was WMD, I'd say making it the main reason and saying we are getting rid of Saddam because of WMD's was still a lie, because that really wasn't the reason. It may have been something secondary (you don't see us really talking about using force against Iran for WMD production), but definetly not the real reason.