PDA

View Full Version : No Iraqi WMDs, CIA concludes



TomF
04-26-2005, 01:10 PM
With all proper apologies to folks here who saw WMDs in previous years, the CIA has now officially said that there were no WMDs which justified the Iraq invasion. Saddam wanted them, though.

Similarly, the report said that there was no evidence of shipments of WMDs to other countries (i.e. Syria) to hide their possession.

From CBC's website:

CIA inspector ends Iraqi weapons hunt
Last Updated Tue, 26 Apr 2005 11:35:47 EDT
CBC News
WASHINGTON - The CIA's top weapons inspector in Iraq has ended his hunt for weapons of mass destruction.


Charles Duelfer, head of the Iraq Survey Group, is seen in this Oct. 6, 2004 file photo, during a Senate Armed Services committee hearing. (AP file photo)
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.

"As matters now stand, the WMD investigation has gone as far as feasible," wrote Duelfer, head of the Iraq Survey Group. "After more than 18 months, the WMD investigation and debriefing of the WMD-related detainees has been exhausted."

FROM OCT. 6, 2004: Saddam wanted WMD, but had none

He concluded it was "unlikely that an official transfer" of weapons of mass destruction between Iraq and Syria occurred, but couldn't rule out shipments of "limited WMD-related materials."

U.S. President George W. Bush used the presence of weapons of mass destruction as a key argument for the invasion of Iraq.

Duelfer did warn that Saddam's weapons programs produced a number of Iraqi weapons specialists. While many will look for civil sector jobs, others could provide help to "hostile foreign governments, terrorists or insurgents."

As many as 1,000 weapons inspectors and translators formed the survey group in Iraq, which officially disbanded last month.

LeeG
04-26-2005, 01:32 PM
the thing to appreciate with Cheney and all is that they could rely on fear to take the average persons ability to conceptualize facts outside of their experience and reduce simple abstraction to a 12 yr olds inability to hold contradictory data. We really did have a SecDef write off non-supporting intel with "absence of proof is not proof of absence".

TomF
04-26-2005, 01:44 PM
No, "You break it, you fix it." And Saddam was an unutterable nasty - Iraq is certainly better off without him.

But perhaps a bit of fear and trembling might be in order before the next foreign policy episode.

Popeye
04-26-2005, 01:52 PM
Originally posted by TomF:
And Saddam was an unutterable nasty - Iraq is certainly better off without him.

.So too is the rest of the world.

George.
04-26-2005, 01:58 PM
Oh, I wish someone had the patience to look up all the posts by bilge-rats that insisted that there were weapons, and that they would be found eventually...

Next myth - democracy in Iraq. May take a few years to debunk too.

Meerkat
04-26-2005, 01:58 PM
Well, in just compensation, we should remove Bush from office. The world would be a better place without him at the reins of government!

Popeye
04-26-2005, 02:03 PM
sometimes the choices are either 'bad' or 'worse'

TomF
04-26-2005, 02:06 PM
"...the lesser of two weevils"

Zumsel
04-26-2005, 02:18 PM
Quote:
__________________________________________________
Well, in just compensation, we should remove Bush from office. The world would be a better place without him at the reins of government!
__________________________________________________
Meerkat, excellent idea. If you need help with that, just give me a call.

Jochen

Chris Coose
04-26-2005, 02:27 PM
Proves it is a simple exercise to get the US involved in an Invasion and Occupation. A few lies is all it takes to put the world's most powerful army into action.

The ends does not justify the means.

There were plenty of other methods to eradicate SH. dubbya knows nothing of diplomacy. He don't even care to practice it.

godamned shame so many lives have been lost.

High C
04-26-2005, 03:22 PM
Originally posted by George.:
Oh, I wish someone had the patience to look up all the posts by bilge-rats that insisted that there were weapons, and that they would be found eventually...You talking to me?! ;)

We'll never know when, or how, Hussein rid himself of the banned weapons. They may be in Syria or Iran for all anyone knows. Maybe he ate them. It doesn't matter. Hussein didn't play ball according to the terms of the 1991 Gulf War cease fire agreement (shell games with weapons inspectors and repeatedly firing on our aircraft), so he was removed by force.

This is a good thing. The Middle East and much of the world is better off for it, and I'm proud to have supported this action.

Meerkat
04-26-2005, 03:24 PM
Tsk, tsk... these drummers. They rattle their brains all day on drums and then expect to make sense! ;)

ljb5
04-26-2005, 03:27 PM
Originally posted by High C:
Hussein didn't play ball according to the terms of the 1991 Gulf War cease fire agreement (shell games with weapons inspectors and repeatedly firing on our aircraft), so he was removed by force.Saddam lied about WMDs, so he was removed.

Bush lied about WMDs, but that's okay, because he was lying about Saddam's lies.

It's all perfectly clear, in the neocon mind.

George.
04-26-2005, 03:28 PM
Originally posted by High C:
We'll never know when, or how, Hussein rid himself of the banned weapons. They may be in Syria or Iran for all anyone knows.
...October 2004 report that concluded former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction, but wanted them.

He concluded it was "unlikely that an official transfer" of weapons of mass destruction between Iraq and Syria occurred ... http://www.intriguing.com/mp/_pictures/grail/large/HolyGrail019.jpg

[ 04-26-2005, 04:31 PM: Message edited by: George. ]

High C
04-26-2005, 03:31 PM
Originally posted by George.:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by High C:
We'll never know when, or how, Hussein rid himself of the banned weapons. They may be in Syria or Iran for all anyone knows.
...October 2004 report that concluded former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction, but wanted them.

He concluded it was "unlikely that an official transfer" of weapons of mass destruction between Iraq and Syria occurred ... Where is that Black Knight photo? ;) </font>[/QUOTE]Indeed, such a transfer appears unlikely. I think he ate them. ;)

LeeG
04-26-2005, 04:40 PM
what a wicked web we weave...

HighC,,don't you ever wonder why the term "WMD" took precedence over other threats?

John of Phoenix
04-26-2005, 05:02 PM
Indeed, such a transfer appears unlikely . ROTFLMAO!! Now THAT'S funny.

:D :D :D

George.
04-26-2005, 05:05 PM
They may have had some unlikely trasfer-related program activities, though... :D

Peter Malcolm Jardine
04-26-2005, 06:41 PM
WOOWWWWWWWW!!!!!!!!! :eek:

Surely they're wrong!!!!! :mad: :confused: :eek:

I mean, no WMD's, no connection to Al Quaeda, this means this was a totally unconnected unilateral miltary move that violated international law, and did not serve to lessen the terrorist threat to the US!!! :eek:

Oh well better luck next time... Bang Bang pardner... ;) :rolleyes:

LeeG
04-26-2005, 06:50 PM
I'd say there were imminent and critical transfer-program related activity dialogs by interested persons of the names Boomarang and Homerun.

High C
04-26-2005, 06:55 PM
Originally posted by John Teetsel:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Indeed, such a transfer appears unlikely . ROTFLMAO!! Now THAT'S funny.

:D :D :D </font>[/QUOTE]You edited my quote. Do you think that's honest behavior?

Phillip Allen
04-26-2005, 07:07 PM
Of course it is dishonest. I work in construction and there are many examples of former felons in the mix. The common thread is that a thief always assumes everyone else is a thief and therefore his act is not to be treated as deveant...just the other guy's is.

Wild Wassa
04-26-2005, 07:18 PM
I saw shrub still trying to sell the basic premise of why the Coalition invaded Iraq on the TV yesterday ... still trying he is. He is a real try hard, I'll give him brownie points for that.

I suppose that's because there are still some people out there in TV land, who just don't know that we are actually at war or that we even invaded Iraq? ... I can't think of any other reason.

So I think it is very considerate, that the shrub tries to reach out still and include these people who don't know that we are at war ... and to keep them upto date ... with this week's excuse.

I think that the shrub will convince him self eventually.

We went into Iraq supposedly to destroy the WOMD ... but in true fact it was the Coalition who took the WOMD to Iraq ... depleted uranium will curse these people for the next milenium. How ironic.

That will teach the Iraqis for not having WOMD on demand ... how dare they not have any!

Why was the shrub holding Crown Prince Abdullah's hand yesterday, when they were walking together? It was a bit strange for grown men to be doing. It really showed shrub's subserviency to his sugar daddies.

Warren.

[ 04-26-2005, 09:02 PM: Message edited by: Wild Wassa ]

ljb5
04-26-2005, 07:31 PM
High C, go to Vegas and bet it all on "unlikely."

We lost Americans over there because Bush said so. Don't tell me now about "unlikely."

He said it was so.

[ 04-26-2005, 08:34 PM: Message edited by: ljb5 ]

PeterSibley
04-26-2005, 07:41 PM
This thread is strangely silent ....where are all the voices that where so shrill in defence of the invasion ???? Donn...you there somewhere ?

imported_Dutch
04-26-2005, 09:52 PM
American Military Casualties in Iraq

Date Total In Combat

American Deaths
Since war began (3/19/03): 1569
Since "Mission Accomplished" (5/1/03) (the list) 1432
Since Capture of Saddam (12/13/03): 1102
Since Handover (6/29/04): 703
Since Election (1/31/05): 137
American Wounded Official
Total Wounded: 11664
Latest Fatality April 24th, 2005