1
   

This is what we went to war over ...

 
 
nimh
 
Reply Fri 17 Sep, 2004 01:44 am
Quote:
U.S. Weapons Inspector: Iraq Had No WMD

AP - 1 hour, 5 minutes ago

Fallen Iraqi President Saddam Hussein did not have stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, but left signs that he had idle programs he someday hoped to revive, the top U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq concludes in a draft report due out soon.


"Signs that he had idle programs he someday hoped to revive". Thats what 1,000 American soldiers and many thousands of Iraqis died over in a war thats still tearing the country apart and has ruined the country's infrastructure - along with any semblance of an international order or cross-Atlantic solidarity - and that will have other rogue nations rushing to acquire nukes of their own to avoid becoming the next in line.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,537 • Replies: 30
No top replies

 
melbournian cheese
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Sep, 2004 02:59 am
too true, so true in fact that Republicans are thinking it's not.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Sep, 2004 03:03 am
They'll defend it on "It looks like he was planning to develop some."
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Sep, 2004 03:08 am
New York Times

( http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/17/politics/17intel.html?th for full article)

"Iraq Study Finds Desire for Arms, but Not Capacity
By DOUGLAS JEHL

Published: September 17, 2004


ASHINGTON, Sept. 16 - A new report on Iraq's illicit weapons program is expected to conclude that Saddam Hussein's government had a clear intent to produce nuclear, chemical and biological weapons if United Nations sanctions were lifted, government officials said Thursday. But, like earlier reports, it finds no evidence that Iraq had begun any large-scale program for weapons production by the time of the American invasion last year, the officials said.

Advertisement


The most specific evidence of an illicit weapons program, the officials said, has been uncovered in clandestine labs operated by the Iraqi Intelligence Service, which could have produced small quantities of lethal chemical and biological agents, though probably for use in assassinations, not to inflict mass casualties.

A draft report of nearly 1,500 pages that is circulating within the government essentially reaffirms the findings of an interim review completed 11 months ago, the officials said. But they said it added considerable detail, particularly on the question of Iraq's intention to produce weapons if United Nations penalties were weakened or lifted, a judgment they said was based on documents signed by senior leaders and the debriefings of former Iraqi scientists and top officials, as well as other records.

The officials said the report would portray a more complicated and detailed picture, based on a far more extensive examination of suspected Iraqi weapons sites and records, as well as the debriefings. They said new information in the draft report based on on-site inspections of clandestine labs described the possibility that they were intended to provide small quantities of poisons.

A final version of the report, by Charles A. Duelfer, the top American weapons inspector in Iraq, is expected to be made public within the next several weeks.

In its current form, the report reaffirms previous interim findings that there is no evidence that Iraq possessed stockpiles of illicit weapons at the time of the American invasion in March 2003, the officials said. Prewar intelligence estimates that said Iraq actually possessed chemical and biological arsenals and was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program were cited by the Bush administration as the major rationale for war......"


IF UN sanctions were lifted.....
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Sep, 2004 03:38 am
where's osama ?
0 Replies
 
melbournian cheese
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Sep, 2004 03:43 am
quiet you! The general public might see it!! Wouldn't want THAT to happen, would you?
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Sep, 2004 03:50 am
melbournian cheese wrote:
quiet you! The general public might see it!! Wouldn't want THAT to happen, would you?


oh, uh, sorry. what i meant was;

"weeer makin' goood pragruss in eyerack"
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Sep, 2004 03:58 am
This won't matter now. The bizzarroworld administration of the USA keeps shifting both it's reasons and it's reasoning for the war. They have gone from "immediate threat" and "possesses weapons of mass destruction" to um..... really, bad man and er..... had evil intentions, we're pretty sure.

If you haven't seen a Bush rally, he stands up there and says "We thought we were right to take out Saddam and we think we're right today."
The listing of those two errors in fact and logic ought to engender boos but instead the crowds all cheer wildly.

Imagine. It's as if he says, "Well, we were wrong but we thought we had it right, and despite all evidence to the contrary we continue to deceive ourselves!!" Cue the crowd.

Kofi Anon's recent pronouncement on the illegality of the invasion won't help either. Redneck America doesn't want to be part of the world, it fears things foreign, so the opinion of the leader of the UN, which parenthetically makes both Bush and Cheney liable for accusations of war crimes, will be blasted as just another attempt by outsiders to mess with our business.

Joe
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Sep, 2004 04:08 am
welcome to the '60s...
0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Sep, 2004 05:04 am
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Sep, 2004 05:44 am
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
where's osama ?


In Iran... with the weapons of mass destruction. I guess we know where we'll be going next.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Sep, 2004 06:13 am
Joe Nation wrote:
This won't matter now. The bizzarroworld administration of the USA keeps shifting both it's reasons and it's reasoning for the war. They have gone from "immediate threat" and "possesses weapons of mass destruction" to um..... really, bad man and er..... had evil intentions, we're pretty sure.

If you haven't seen a Bush rally, he stands up there and says "We thought we were right to take out Saddam and we think we're right today."
The listing of those two errors in fact and logic ought to engender boos but instead the crowds all cheer wildly.

Imagine. It's as if he says, "Well, we were wrong but we thought we had it right, and despite all evidence to the contrary we continue to deceive ourselves!!" Cue the crowd.

Kofi Anon's recent pronouncement on the illegality of the invasion won't help either. Redneck America doesn't want to be part of the world, it fears things foreign, so the opinion of the leader of the UN, which parenthetically makes both Bush and Cheney liable for accusations of war crimes, will be blasted as just another attempt by outsiders to mess with our business.

Joe


This post is so good I wonder if you would mind if I send it to someone I know? I really like the following:

Quote:
The bizzarroworld administration of the USA


Quote:
Imagine. It's as if he says, "Well, we were wrong but we thought we had it right, and despite all evidence to the contrary we continue to deceive ourselves!!" Cue the crowd.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Sep, 2004 06:16 am
panzade wrote:
Quote:
Questioned about the estimate, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said circumstances in Iraq have changed since last year, and insisted progress was being made.

"You know, every step of the way in Iraq there have been pessimists and hand-wringers who said it can't be done," McClellan told journalists during a news briefing Wednesday.

"And every step of the way, the Iraqi leadership and the Iraqi people have proven them wrong because they are determined to have a free and peaceful future."


More bizzaroworld.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Sep, 2004 06:54 am
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
where's osama ?


We should invade Pakistan and start bombing the tribe people who are hiding him, right?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Sep, 2004 06:55 am
That would seem to be the preferred method of the Shrub and his Forty Theives . . .
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Sep, 2004 07:05 am
Other than that, I see no easy way to answer the continuous high-pitch whine of "Where's Osama? Where's Osama? Where's Osama?"
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Sep, 2004 07:37 am
Well, I most devoutly hope they CAN prove the reports wrong..
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Sep, 2004 07:40 am
McGentrix wrote:
Other than that, I see no easy way to answer the continuous high-pitch whine of "Where's Osama? Where's Osama? Where's Osama?"


..as well as the high pitched whine of "why didn't Clinton get him?"
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Sep, 2004 07:49 am
Eh, that's old news. The past can't be changed, so why bother rehashing it? I am certain it will come up in 2008 why Hitlary makes her run for president.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Sep, 2004 07:53 am
It's not old news when it is consistently used by defenders of the current admin as an excuse.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » This is what we went to war over ...
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/18/2022 at 03:23:01