Top WMD Inspector concludes Saddam didn't have ANY WMD!!!...

[x-grunt]

And lets not forget that other terrorist groups exist, not just AQ. There WAS a link between Iraq and Hamas, so maybe it would stand that they'd support other terrorist orgs as well?

Edited for clarity. Edited portion in italics.

RoKo, that is a good point. Then again, just about every darn middle eastern state supports some kind of terror group, it seems. My point was that AQ getting a WMD was a reasonable concern if a link was suspected, even if after the fact turned out to be false.

 

[larry Strong]

Just in case you intend to be mistaken for a rational human being in future, here is a point of clarification for you:

If Bush believed Iraq had WMD, he did not lie; in that case he can only be accused of being wrong.   To lie requires knowledge of the truth and an intent to deceive.   On that matter, the "official" results are not in.

It was simply a rhetorical question! I will lay it out in a simpler manner next time so you won't have such a hard time grasping the simple nuance in it.

 

[Gunnerlove]

What weirds me out is that after 18 months of occupation they have not found anything. So after more than 10 Years and a huge investment we now know one of two things either Iraq did not have a huge NBC program that threatened the world or two, the American military complex could not find its a$$ with both hands, a map and a flashlight.

 

[Dare]

What weirds me out is that after 18 months of occupation they have not found anything. So after more than 10 Years and a huge investment we now know one of two things either Iraq did not have a huge NBC program that threatened the world or two, the American military complex could not find its a$$ with both hands, a map and a flashlight.

Maybe we should give you a map and a flashlight and see if you can.

 

[48Highlander]

Yah.  Here gunner, go pick out a thousand men, grab a thousand shovels, and see how long it takes you to dig up 437,370 square kilometers.  And while you're at it you might also want to look into wether the weapons might have been smuggled into other parts of the world.  I'm sure you'll be able to accomplish all that in about...oh, I don't know, 300 years?

 

[chaos75]

Is Iraq better without Saddam? Yes. Is the world safer without Saddam?  Yet to be seen.  Were there weapons?  Sure, before the UN came in with the verification program post Gulf War and destroyed them all.  Did Bush lie?  They read what they wanted too from the int reports, and Iraq fit well into the global strategy for American hegemony, but he didnt lie, just embellished.  Did tens of thousands of Iraqis, 1700+ coalition troops need to die with more than 12000 US wounded to achieve the same goals without further deepening the root causes of Islamic extremeism?  No.  But we got long time US ally Saddam in jail now, Iraq is free (cough), Osama is still on the loose, and we almost got Zarqawi.    But Iraq had intent, right?

 

[tomahawk6]

Actually the report doesnt say there were no WMD's. There is satellite images of convoys leaving Iraqi storage areas heading for Syria. If the administration acknowledged the evidence action would be required against Syria and that is something that the powers that be dont want to deal with right now. The Iraqi's kept the means to restart their chem/bio war and those stocks dont have to take alot of space. I think the pol's erred in making WMD as the focal point of the case against Iraq. The emphasis should have been on 17 UN resolutions that they ignored/violated. For the stability of the region Saddam had to go plain and simple.

 

[a_majoor]

The only people who believe the Ba'athist regime and Al Qaeda did not have links are the Democrats and various "Bushophobes" throughout the world. I have posted evidence in other threads, and it is interesting that the report that Mohammed Atta (Al Qadea cell leader responsible for the 9/11 attacks) met with an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague shortly before the mission has never been disowned by the Czech Intelligence agency.

Even without direct evidence like a scrap book of pictures of Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden's fishing trip to Wyoming, the Ba'athists had strong links to many other terrorist organizations, and were enthusiastic sponsors of Palestinian suicide bombings, among other things, so the real question would be why Al Qadea was the one terrorist organization on earth Iraq was not somehow involve with?

 

[JBP]

What the hell are you babbling about?

Read the list - it contains quotes from a President, a Vice President (and Presidential Nominee), a Secretary of State, and plenty of high ranking Senators (of which one was also a Presidential Nominee).  These people get/got their information from the same sources that President George W Bush got his.

So basically all those quotes are of those various people, stating thier opinions. They were speaking out with what they believed was true right? They apparently "knew". But they didn't? Because as someone else stated, they were "misinformed" as Mr.Bush was? It's symantecs Infanteer, just because 100 people say something doesn't mean it's true... Kinda like when people start jumping off bridges? You know? Sometimes the way certain people post+react to a given stimulous on this site reminds me of the people that join the army so they will not have to make decisions for themselves. "Blind leading the blind"!...

Lemming 1 to lemming 2, "Hey, everyone's running off that cliff! We should too!"
Lemming 2, "Crap, your right! Heck, if I must be one of the only one's left, there must be something wrong with me! I'm afraid! Hey! WAIT UP!!!"...

Infanteer, I know your not a Lemming, I know that. But it is entirely possible that people can have opinions about things different than your own or your group(s)/status quo.

Is your conceit so much that you can't admit that perhaps the US Intelligence organs actually believed that the probability of WMD was high and that George W Bush would act upon this advice to formulate his policies regarding Iraq (remember, this is the same advice that Clinton used to keep the sanctions and occasional strikes on Iraq up during his 8 years).

Key word... believed or, also, assumed!. Yes, I can admit that perhaps the US Intelligence organs believed the probability was high. Just as you pointed out, they knew GWB would "act" on this information. They spurred him on. And they couldn't have had worse timing, right after bombing Afganistan back to the stone age! They could have at least waited abit longer to make it seem as if they weren't using the 9/11 strategy as a pre-text to invasion. At that point, it seemed as if they were just going to keep floating around coasts and attacking nations. Who will be next? That was the start of it, they started saying they believed Saddam had WMD (which I agree he very while might have/had) and they tied it into 9/11 saying he was possibly linked with the terrorist groups and Bin Laden. But wait! Apparently that card wasn't working and GWB's rating was dropping like a stone, his approval rating was the worst it had ever been when he announced war on Iraq. Then what? Oh my! They DO have WMD!!! ATTACK! The whole nation in an uproar because he spurred them on... Do you see what I mean about how other people can have different views than you?

Your letting your personal bias on the character of the President colour the evidence that is sitting infront of your face.

Maybe yes, but, for the evidence that sits against him in my arguement and negates the value of (in my eyes) their reasons. They "believed" and "assumed" and "thought" he had WMD and made a mistake by saying he did when they couldn't come up with anything...

I am not disputing that possibly Saddam DID have WMD, nor am I saying they shouldn't have invaded regardless due to the danger of Saddam. I'm just argueing that they jumped the gun, knew it, and did it for simply more reasons that what was plainly stated. It wasn't all about WMD, it was about GWB.

 

[48Highlander]

Here's an update on that report:

Wednesday, April 27, 2005 9:38 a.m. EDT

Media Distort Iraq WMD Report

There they go again, still desperately trying to undermine the war effort.

A deluge of press reports yesterday claimed that Iraq Survey Group chief Charles Duelfer has determined that Saddam Hussein never shipped any of his weapons of mass destruction to Syria and other Middle Eastern countries.

But that's not what Duelfer said at all.

In a report available on the CIA Web site, the weapons prober explains:

"Some uncertainties remain and some information will continue to emerge about the WMD programs or the former Regime. Reports cited in the Comprehensive Report concerning the possible movement of WMD or WMD materials from Iraq prior to the war remain unresolved."

In fact, the CIA's chief weapons searcher said he had to call off his probe into whether Saddam's WMDs were shipped out of the country, due to the deteriorating security situation.

But Duelfer indicated that he intends to resume his investigation when conditions allow, saying:

"When circumstances are more conducive, further work may be done and an investigative plan has been developed."

Joe:  If cops raid what they suspect is a marijauna grow-op, but find only a strong smell, some stoned people, and a lot of books about growing weed, I suppose they "jumped the gun" too eh?  So the US didn't find anything concrete.  So what?  Failiure on it's own doesn't invalidate the attempt.

 

[JBP]

Joe:  If cops raid what they suspect is a marijauna grow-op, but find only a strong smell, some stoned people, and a lot of books about growing weed, I suppose they "jumped the gun" too eh?  So the US didn't find anything concrete.  So what?  Failiure on it's own doesn't invalidate the attempt.

:

Comparing apples to oranges. Can't be done. I do see your point and you illustrated it quite well also. Regardless, two different situations...
As I said in my above posts and I'll say again

I'll agree to disagree, since you folks seem to be prone on trying to "convert" me and simply cannot comprehend/understand that someone else has a different opinion. I'm not trying to shove my ideals down your throats or jump all over anyone when they post. And yes, I can take the heat, I wouldn't bother posting if I couldn't hack it, hence why I debate with you folks. I have an opinion, Pte.Bloggins has an opinion, we share thoughts, either argue, disagree or agree. Ta-da! Web forum...

You know, there was once this group of people in the world that believe the world was flat... And that the universe revolved around US... A few people who "strayed from the norm" changed thier minds...  :

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

More excerpts:

on the question of Syria, Mr. Duelfer did not close the books. "ISG was unable to complete its investigation and is unable to rule out the possibility that WMD was evacuated to Syria before the war," Mr. Duelfer said in a report posted on the CIA's Web site Monday night.

He cited some evidence of a transfer. "Whether Syria received military items from Iraq for safekeeping or other reasons has yet to be determined," he said. "There was evidence of a discussion of possible WMD collaboration initiated by a Syrian security officer, and ISG received information about movement of material out of Iraq, including the possibility that WMD was involved. In the judgment of the working group, these reports were sufficiently credible to merit further investigation."

But Mr. Duelfer said he was unable to complete that aspect of the probe because "the declining security situation limited and finally halted this investigation. The results remain inconclusive, but further investigation may be undertaken when circumstances on the ground improve."

Arguing against a WMD transfer to Syria, Mr. Duelfer said, was the fact that all senior Iraqi detainees involved in Saddam's weapons programs and security "uniformly denied any knowledge of residual WMD that could have been secreted to Syria."

"Nevertheless," the inspector said, "given the insular and compartmented nature of the regime, ISG analysts believed there was enough evidence to merit further investigation."

He said that even if all leads are pursued someday, the ISG may never be able to finally determine whether WMDs were taken across the border. "Based on the evidence available at present, ISG judged that it was unlikely that an official transfer of WMD material from Iraq to Syria took place," his report stated. "However, ISG was unable to rule out unofficial movement of limited WMD-related materials."

Speculation on WMDs in Syria was fueled by the fact that satellite images picked up long lines of trucks waiting to cross the border into Syria before the coalition launched the invasion. Mr. Duelfer previously had reported that Syria was a major conduit for materials entering Iraq that were banned by the United Nations.

http://insider.washingtontimes.com/articles/normal.php?StoryID=20050427-121915-1667r

Funny how you get "Top WMD Inspector concludes Saddam didn't have ANY WMD!!!" out of ISG was "unable to rule out the possibility that WMD was evacuated to Syria before the war": maybe I'm just stupid, but as far as I can tell that's precisely what it doesn't say.

 

[2 Cdo]

Pte Joe, you are guilty of being blinded by your own bias. My question to you is if you believed George Bush lied then wouldn't you agree then that all those other people lied?
After all they used the same intelligence information. I'm curious if you can just answer the question with a yes or no or if you start going into your anti-Bush rhetoric again!

 

[JBP]

Charles Duelfer posted his findings online in the form of an addendum to his October 2004 report that concluded former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction, but wanted them.

What came directly from the report I posted (1st post in this thread)

Funny how you get "Top WMD Inspector concludes Saddam didn't have ANY WMD!!!" out of ISG was "unable to rule out the possibility that WMD was evacuated to Syria before the war": maybe I'm just stupid, but as far as I can tell that's precisely what it doesn't say.

He said that even if all leads are pursued someday, the ISG may never be able to finally determine whether WMDs were taken across the border. "Based on the evidence available at present, ISG judged that it was unlikely that an official transfer of WMD material from Iraq to Syria took place," his report stated.

And then what came from the post you just made. Again, apples to oranges!

Ohhh wait, I keep forgetting...

*In a zombie voice*

"I submit and obey, I submit and obey, I see clearly now... I submit and obey...."

Does that make you happy or would you like to keep posting apples and oranges all day and bashing your head off a brick wal before you take other people's opinions into accountl? Is it really that important to you people to keep trying to convince me of YOUR way?

Why don't you all just pull out the pitch forks and take the mob up the hill! Or, agree to disagree?

The saying I use when a thread no longer has any relevance or point to post in/read further.

I'm done with this thread.

 

[paracowboy]

Is it really that important to you people to keep trying to convince me of YOUR way?

'sfunny, I see people posting their opinions of what you posted. And I see you ranting against them for posting their opinions, while vehemently defending YOUR right to post YOUR opinions.
It's okay for you to have a dissenting view, and to say so, but it's not okay for anyone to have a differing viewpoint from yours?

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

Pte Joe,

What are you talking about?  It is not 'apples and oranges' at all!

The original report said that they couldn't prove that Saddam had the reported WMDs at the time of invasion, although all of Saddam's top military believed they had them (up until March 2003).

The more recent update said that they reason to believe, but cannot conclusively prove, that the reported WMDs were transferred to Syria prior to the time of invasion.

The second is a clarification of, and possible explantion for, the apparent dichotomy in the first.  This is why it was added as an addendum.

Both your Subject and the article you quote are very misleading.

 

[Infanteer]

Nice work - accusing everybody of being submissive.  You still haven't addressed why George Bush is assumed to be lying while other US officials aren't.

I'm done with this thread.

That's called "no leg to stand on" - let's us know what to do next time you post.

 

[48Highlander]

You know, there was once this group of people in the world that believe the world was flat... And that the universe revolved around US... A few people who "strayed from the norm" changed thier minds...   :

Well considering that world opinion is generaly anti-US these days, when do you figure us few who "stray from the norm" are going to succeed in changing your minds?