Arizona Sports Fans Network  

Go Back   Arizona Sports Fans Network > Other Stuff > Politics and Religion


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old April 26th, 2005, 09:02 AM   #1
Southpaw
Provocateur aka Wallyburger
 
Southpaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: via pacis
Posts: 30,098

Final Probe Concludes Iraq's WMDs Just a Fantasy


Final Probe Concludes Iraq's WMDs Just a Fantasy
By Staff and Wire Reports
Capitol Hill Blue
Apr 26, 2005, 08:07

The U.S.-led group that scoured Iraq for weapons of mass destruction has found no evidence Iraq hid such weapons in Syria before the U.S. invasion in March 2003, according to a final report on the investigation.

The 1,700-member Iraq Survey Team, responsible for the weapons hunt, also said in a report released late on Monday it found no Iraqi officials with direct knowledge of a transfer of weapons of mass destruction developed by former President Saddam Hussein.

President Bush and other U.S. officials cited a grave threat posed by Iraq's chemical and biological weapons and Baghdad's efforts to acquire a nuclear arms capability as a justification for war. No such weapons were found but U.S. officials said it was possible Saddam sent them to Syria for safekeeping.

The report is the final addendum to the investigators' September report that concluded prewar Iraq had no WMD stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons and that its nuclear program had decayed before the U.S.-led invasion.

The Iraq Survey Group, led by CIA special adviser Charles Duelfer, wrapped up its physical searches for weapons of mass destruction last December.

The new report posted on the CIA Web site said: "Based on evidence available ... it is unlikely that an official transfer of WMD material from Iraq to Syria took place. However ISG was unable to rule out unofficial movement of limited WMD-related materials."

It said investigators "found no senior policy, program or intelligence officials who admitted any direct knowledge of such movement of WMD."

"Indeed, they uniformly denied any knowledge of residual WMD that have been secreted to Syria," the report said.

The report said the WMD investigation had gone as far as feasible and there was no reason to continue holding many of the Iraqis who had been detained in the process.

"After more than 18 months, the WMD investigation and debriefing on the WMD-related detainees has been exhausted," the report said.

It noted there was a risk some Iraqi scientists might share their skills with insurgents or terrorists. The report added the pool of scientists who still possessed potentially dangerous expertise was shrinking.




__________________
"It is easier to fool people, than to convince them they've been fooled."
Mark Twain
Southpaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 26th, 2005, 09:15 AM   #2
Kolo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,820
I've often wondered what would have happened if W was honest and simply said Saddam might have WMD's but we really don't know for sure, but he's a tyrant and a butcher and we're going to take him out because it's the right thing to do for the Middle East and the Iraqi people. Would conservatives have so roundly backed him? Would he have gotten authorization from Congress? Would he have forged ahead even if he didn't? Would the U.N. have done more to try to stop him? And would as many on the Left and in Europe be so critical now, since the Iraqis have voted and there have been at least some indications that others in the Middle East have demanded reforms in their own countries? And those aren't rhetorical questions, because I really don't know the answers.
Kolo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 26th, 2005, 09:21 AM   #3
Dback Jon
Killer Snail
 
Dback Jon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Scottsdale
Age: 51
Posts: 33,624
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh Jass
I've often wondered what would have happened if W was honest and simply said Saddam might have WMD's but we really don't know for sure, but he's a tyrant and a butcher and we're going to take him out because it's the right thing to do for the Middle East and the Iraqi people. Would conservatives have so roundly backed him? Would he have gotten authorization from Congress? Would he have forged ahead even if he didn't? Would the U.N. have done more to try to stop him? And would as many on the Left and in Europe be so critical now, since the Iraqis have voted and there have been at least some indications that others in the Middle East have demanded reforms in their own countries? And those aren't rhetorical questions, because I really don't know the answers.
He probably would have had more support from the Left and Europe, and less from the right!
__________________


R.I.P Tim Minnick
R.I.P Bill O'Neil
Dback Jon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 26th, 2005, 10:21 AM   #4
Southpaw
Provocateur aka Wallyburger
 
Southpaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: via pacis
Posts: 30,098
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh Jass
I've often wondered what would have happened if W was honest and simply said Saddam might have WMD's but we really don't know for sure, but he's a tyrant and a butcher and we're going to take him out because it's the right thing to do for the Middle East and the Iraqi people. Would conservatives have so roundly backed him? Would he have gotten authorization from Congress? Would he have forged ahead even if he didn't? Would the U.N. have done more to try to stop him? And would as many on the Left and in Europe be so critical now, since the Iraqis have voted and there have been at least some indications that others in the Middle East have demanded reforms in their own countries? And those aren't rhetorical questions, because I really don't know the answers.
When do liars stop lying? That is a rhetorical question?
__________________
"It is easier to fool people, than to convince them they've been fooled."
Mark Twain
Southpaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 26th, 2005, 11:23 AM   #5
cheesebeef
Registered User
 
cheesebeef's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Age: 38
Posts: 35,716
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh Jass
I've often wondered what would have happened if W was honest and simply said Saddam might have WMD's but we really don't know for sure, but he's a tyrant and a butcher and we're going to take him out because it's the right thing to do for the Middle East and the Iraqi people. Would conservatives have so roundly backed him? Would he have gotten authorization from Congress? Would he have forged ahead even if he didn't? Would the U.N. have done more to try to stop him? And would as many on the Left and in Europe be so critical now, since the Iraqis have voted and there have been at least some indications that others in the Middle East have demanded reforms in their own countries? And those aren't rhetorical questions, because I really don't know the answers.
JMO - but I don't think he would have had the majority of the people in the US supporting him. We were still stinging from 9/11 and if Bush wasn't as strong with his resolve, people would have been seriously questioning why we were taking the "eye off the ball" for something that "might be happening". He needed that link WMD and Terrorism to whip the country into a frenzy in order to go to war. We never cared about Saddam in the previous 12 years and didn't even finish the job when we did care back in 1991 - why all of a sudden when the nation was completely focussed on Al-Queda and putting back together our own country would we have supported a war to remake another country that wouldn't have been deemed that grave of a threat?
__________________
Rubarb is what makes my feet look cheese!

Mulli is smarter than the Cheese!
cheesebeef is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 26th, 2005, 11:39 AM   #6
Kolo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,820
Quote:
Originally Posted by cheesebeef
JMO - but I don't think he would have had the majority of the people in the US supporting him. We were still stinging from 9/11 and if Bush wasn't as strong with his resolve, people would have been seriously questioning why we were taking the "eye off the ball" for something that "might be happening". He needed that link WMD and Terrorism to whip the country into a frenzy in order to go to war. We never cared about Saddam in the previous 12 years and didn't even finish the job when we did care back in 1991 - why all of a sudden when the nation was completely focussed on Al-Queda and putting back together our own country would we have supported a war to remake another country that wouldn't have been deemed that grave of a threat?
I think you're probably right, cheese, and I'd imagine that point of view was argued at the White House a few years ago.
Kolo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 26th, 2005, 12:17 PM   #7
40yearfan
DEFENSE!!!!
 
40yearfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ.
Posts: 32,227
It just never ceases to amaze me how hindsight has become common place in this argument. Everyone forgets that the CIA, British Intelligence, and Russian Intelligence among others stated unequovically that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. How does that make Bush a liar?
__________________
Old age isn't so bad when you consider the alternative.
40yearfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 26th, 2005, 12:32 PM   #8
Southpaw
Provocateur aka Wallyburger
 
Southpaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: via pacis
Posts: 30,098
Quote:
Originally Posted by 40yearfan
It just never ceases to amaze me how hindsight has become common place in this argument. Everyone forgets that the CIA, British Intelligence, and Russian Intelligence among others stated unequovically that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. How does that make Bush a liar?
Wrong.
__________________
"It is easier to fool people, than to convince them they've been fooled."
Mark Twain
Southpaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 26th, 2005, 12:35 PM   #9
40yearfan
DEFENSE!!!!
 
40yearfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ.
Posts: 32,227
Quote:
Originally Posted by wallyburger
Wrong.
How so?
__________________
Old age isn't so bad when you consider the alternative.
40yearfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 26th, 2005, 12:46 PM   #10
Kolo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,820
Quote:
Originally Posted by 40yearfan
It just never ceases to amaze me how hindsight has become common place in this argument. Everyone forgets that the CIA, British Intelligence, and Russian Intelligence among others stated unequovically that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. How does that make Bush a liar?
You can't deny the administration largely repeated what many intelligence agencies believed. You also can't deny the administration didn't publicly hedge its assessments. The administration rightly wanted to take out Saddam, so it wasn't publicly going to make a case against doing so--so it hyped its best intelligence and left questions of veracity to the editors of the Nation. Does that make Bush a liar? Personally, I don't think so, but I understand where some would say it does.

Last edited by Kolo; April 26th, 2005 at 12:49 PM.
Kolo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 26th, 2005, 01:51 PM   #11
40yearfan
DEFENSE!!!!
 
40yearfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ.
Posts: 32,227
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh Jass
You can't deny the administration largely repeated what many intelligence agencies believed.
Yes they did, but what other source is there for this information? At that point in time everyone thought Saddam has WMD's so using hindsight to say he lied is ridiculous. That's like saying I lied last year when I predicted the Cards would go 10 - 6.

You also can't deny the administration didn't publicly hedge its assessments.
Why would they hedge their assessments? The facts at that time all pointed to Saddam having and being very willing to use WMD's.
The administration rightly wanted to take out Saddam, so it wasn't publicly going to make a case against doing so--so it hyped its best intelligence and left questions of veracity to the editors of the Nation. Does that make Bush a liar? Personally, I don't think so, but I understand where some would say it does.
.
__________________
Old age isn't so bad when you consider the alternative.
40yearfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 26th, 2005, 02:03 PM   #12
elindholm
rehabilitated
 
elindholm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: L.A. area
Posts: 17,997
Yes they did, but what other source is there for this information? At that point in time everyone thought Saddam has WMD's so using hindsight to say he lied is ridiculous.

Actually, no. There were many, many people and organizations who doubted the evidence of WMDs, the United Nations among them. The CIA is corrupt, the British were going to parrot whatever the U.S. said, and the Russians don't know piss from vodka, so their opinion wasn't relevant.

It's not a "lie" to jump to an unshakable conclusion based on sketchy, incomplete information, but it's reckless as hell and absolutely unacceptable foreign policy.

Remember that guy who was accused of bombing the Atlanta Olympics, Richard Jewell I think his name was? "Everyone" thought he was guilty, so "they" ruined his life. It turns out he had done nothing wrong and made heroic efforts to help, but it's too late now. He can't repair his reputation.

Well, Bush has done the same thing for our nation.
__________________
***

where's elindholm, i need to vomit again! -- Ouchie-Z-Clown

elindholm: Learn to read. -- Manu4five
elindholm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 26th, 2005, 02:06 PM   #13
cheesebeef
Registered User
 
cheesebeef's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Age: 38
Posts: 35,716
Quote:
Originally Posted by elindholm
Yes they did, but what other source is there for this information? At that point in time everyone thought Saddam has WMD's so using hindsight to say he lied is ridiculous.

Actually, no. There were many, many people and organizations who doubted the evidence of WMDs, the United Nations among them. The CIA is corrupt, the British were going to parrot whatever the U.S. said, and the Russians don't know piss from vodka, so their opinion wasn't relevant.

It's not a "lie" to jump to an unshakable conclusion based on sketchy, incomplete information, but it's reckless as hell and absolutely unacceptable foreign policy.

Remember that guy who was accused of bombing the Atlanta Olympics, Richard Jewell I think his name was? "Everyone" thought he was guilty, so "they" ruined his life. It turns out he had done nothing wrong and made heroic efforts to help, but it's too late now. He can't repair his reputation.

Well, Bush has done the same thing for our nation.
welcome to hell E. Get out while you can - this place gets nasty and is like crack. You'll hate, but you'll keep coming back.
__________________
Rubarb is what makes my feet look cheese!

Mulli is smarter than the Cheese!
cheesebeef is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 26th, 2005, 02:10 PM   #14
elindholm
rehabilitated
 
elindholm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: L.A. area
Posts: 17,997
welcome to hell E. Get out while you can - this place gets nasty and is like crack. You'll hate, but you'll keep coming back.

LOL! Hmm, I'd probably better heed your advice in this case...
__________________
***

where's elindholm, i need to vomit again! -- Ouchie-Z-Clown

elindholm: Learn to read. -- Manu4five
elindholm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 26th, 2005, 02:23 PM   #15
Dback Jon
Killer Snail
 
Dback Jon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Scottsdale
Age: 51
Posts: 33,624
Quote:
Originally Posted by elindholm
Yes they did, but what other source is there for this information? At that point in time everyone thought Saddam has WMD's so using hindsight to say he lied is ridiculous.

Actually, no. There were many, many people and organizations who doubted the evidence of WMDs, the United Nations among them. The CIA is corrupt, the British were going to parrot whatever the U.S. said, and the Russians don't know piss from vodka, so their opinion wasn't relevant.

It's not a "lie" to jump to an unshakable conclusion based on sketchy, incomplete information, but it's reckless as hell and absolutely unacceptable foreign policy.

Remember that guy who was accused of bombing the Atlanta Olympics, Richard Jewell I think his name was? "Everyone" thought he was guilty, so "they" ruined his life. It turns out he had done nothing wrong and made heroic efforts to help, but it's too late now. He can't repair his reputation.

Well, Bush has done the same thing for our nation.
Great post
__________________


R.I.P Tim Minnick
R.I.P Bill O'Neil
Dback Jon is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
foreign policy





Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Sitemap:1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38
 



Latest Threads
- by Catfish
- by Gee!
- by chiunit
- by WildBB
 







All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:31 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2002 - 2014 ArizonaSportsFans.com
Inactive Reminders By Icora Web Design