Inspector doubts Iraq had WMD

[Marcus Telcontar]

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1130335,00.html

I dont doubt that Hussein should have been rid of. I did say that using WMD was a weak and potentially dangerous reason. There were genuine and humanitarian reasons to get rid of Hussein, using WMD really wasnt the best idea.

Now, we are seeing that there is a lack of evidence Iraq had WMD at all. I think the real loser in this will be Blair - his postion seems the weakest of the three aliied leaders. Howard, unfortunantly is some sort of miraculous material that mud doesnt stick to. Bush... well I really dont think the lack of WMD will hurt him domestically. I do hope however the Hawks in the administration do get damaged and outed.

[Darth Viscera]

I don't think Saddam was the kind of person who would comply with UN resolutions and disarm. Remember when the war started and the SCUDs he didn't have were launched towards Kuwait City? Remember those MiG-29s found buried in the desert? It's just a matter of time.

[Marcus Telcontar]

How much more time do you need? The guy who resigned is in a much, much better position to answer the WMD question than us. The USA have had unfellted access for now almost a year. They have all the documents of the regime. They have 7/8's of the old regime leaders. Hell, they have Hussein!.

And what is there so far? Zero.


Remember when the war started and the SCUDs he didn't have were launched towards Kuwait City?

I believe that report was discredited and it was the legal rockets he had were fired.


Remember those MiG-29s found buried in the desert?

Please show evidence in the sactions where MiG's were included in banned weaponry. I have no recollection of this - in fact, I would say the reason they were buried would be to stop the Allied patrols from turning them into scrap.

Neither are WMD.

[Darth Viscera]

I'm not suggesting that MiG's were banned, I'm pointing out that they were buried in the desert, as likely the WMDs were.

[Figrin D'an]

Given Saddam's propensity for burying things in the vast middle-of-nowhere that was his country (MiGs, guns, people, etc.), I'm not going to completely sell on the idea that there's nothing there to be found. But, the likelihood is rather small at this point.

I tend to agree that the most "egg in the face" will happen to Blair. How much Bush is affected by it will really depend upon which candidate wins the Democratic nomination for President. If it's someone like Wes Clark, then it will be sure to be a big debate topic (Clark's entire campaign has been run on the "This war was wrong" premise).

But, we'll have a few more months of primaries and caucuses before we'll know that.

[Jedi Master Carr]

My problem with the humanitarian reason is there are countries worse than Iraq. Burma is in more dire straights, the people are enslaved. Women are raped if they don't work, children are killed it is an awful place a nightmare. But I don't see us going in there. You have the Congo which is equally horrible. And of course North Korea who admits they have nukes (of course I don't think we should go in there) if we said we went in for humanitarian reasons people will be yelling at us to clean up all of these messes. And I just don't think the US should be the policeman of the world.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Big call saying there's worse than Iraq. But yes, you do have a valid point. I dont think the world is comfortable with any one country being a global cop. That's supposed to be for the UN and frankly, the UN in many of these matters is a dismal failure. Any bodyt hat has Libya as the chair of a human rights body is nothing more than a joke. The UN has to grow teeth and actually work out ways to stop Burma and Congo.

And God knows what happens with N Korea. That's a problem no one I think wants to go near.

Now, it is valid to say WMD maybe buried in the desert, but frankly, there is always evidence left behind - orders, paperwork etc. With the peopel captured, surely they must have some sort of pointers where to look if WMD existed. You certainly cant walk around poking holes in the desert - that's unrealistic. But, there are other intelligence gathering ways to do the job and I would expect something to have come up by now.

The resignation of the chief inspector is not a good sign.

what I am curious about is that Iraq did have WMD. They did have a lot at one time.... where did they all go? I am admittedly quite surprised nothing has turned up as I would have expected some sort of trace be unearthed. Were they all destroyed or exported? Lost? Buried?

I feel that exported might be the answer.

[Darth Viscera]

Originally posted by Marcus Elessar
Now, it is valid to say WMD maybe buried in the desert, but frankly, there is always evidence left behind - orders, paperwork etc. With the peopel captured, surely they must have some sort of pointers where to look if WMD existed. You certainly cant walk around poking holes in the desert - that's unrealistic. But, there are other intelligence gathering ways to do the job and I would expect something to have come up by now.

Actually, General Patton lost a much larger armored force in the beginning of WW2, underground in the southwest U.S. We were hiding it away in case of a Japanese invasion of the west coast, and despite 60 years of searching, have never recovered it. It wouldn't be the first time that enormously important military equipment was accidently lost in the desert.

We just plum forgot.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Proof of above please. That does not sound plausible.

[Ryan Pode]

Think about it though, its one huge desert. A nuke isn't that big. If its buried five, ten feet under the sand no one will find it for a long time. And just because we have their leaders doesn't mean they will talk. I bet most would rather die then help the Americans.

[JediBoricua]

I understand that the desert is a pretty big place, and frankly there could be a hundred nukes there for a thousand years before anyone finds them, but the government made us believe that there were weapons and they knew where to find them. Powell made a presentation with pictures and all at the Security Council. It may be plausible that the night before the war started Saddam buried everything, but there were black ops in Bahgdad weeks before the conflict erupted, and the US Intelligence should have dectected such an event. Quoting Marcus, the resignation of the chief inspector is not a good sign, and him doubting the existence of any weapons is worse.

But like stated above, this will not hurt W. in the political arena. For americans the war is more or less over with Saddam captured and unless there is a turn for the worse in Iraq, a shiite (sp?) revolt or a major increase in deaths this wont be a big issue in the US. This does not mean that Bush is on a safe way to reelection, because the numbers still don't show that and his approval rate is barely above 50%.

In the UK is another story because the majority of the pop was strongly against the war and the only plausible excuse for sending troops Blair had were the WMD's. And yeah, this will explode in his face.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Yeah the public is ansy with Bush for a lot of things and I think they don't like the way the rebuilding process has been going. To me too many Americans have died over there and they don't seem to have a good plan of dealing with it (truthly we need more man power and the way to get that is through the UN). About the UN, they have tried dealing with Burma and the Congo, they have put sancations on both. But they just haven't worked. Probably there are only two ways to deal with them, wait and eventually (it might take 10 years or 20) a revolution would happen and the govt would change. Or B do ourselves. I don't like going into other countries and do regime changes everywhere it is not a good idea, IMO.

[Jedieb]

Every time a possible WMD find is reported, it ends up being a dead end. Now, Kay resigns and admits there probably weren't any to be found. And you can bet that once the Iraqis finally get control of the country back that the adminstration will be even more hard pressed to find any credible evidence of WMD. If they had they would have been touting it for the whole world and it wouldn't even be debatable.

The WMD HAVEN'T been found and they're more than likely not going to be found. It's OVER. At least until the next "find" gets propped up and then shot down a few days later.

[Darth Viscera]

Originally posted by Marcus Elessar
Proof of above please. That does not sound plausible.

I'll try and get some proof of it. Google doesn't want to return any relevant results. I read about it in an american history magazine 6 years ago, the kind that usually tell stories of the civil war.

[Jedieb]

Hold sham elections? We're gonna get ya! Beat and torture your people? We're gonna get ya! Well, SOMETIMES we're gonna get ya!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45227-2004Jan24.html?nav=hptoc_eo

[Marcus Telcontar]

Originally posted by Ryan Pode
Think about it though, its one huge desert. A nuke isn't that big. If its buried five, ten feet under the sand no one will find it for a long time. And just because we have their leaders doesn't mean they will talk. I bet most would rather die then help the Americans.

we also have their documents, their records and we do have regime leaders willing to talk. Your points are invalid. I am quite sure they should have enough by now to know where the WMD are. There has been ample opportunity for evidence to be found.... evidence, not even WMD!

And as Boricua said,, Powell waved about claimed evidence!

The USA has a huge and supposably effective Intelligence and evidence gathering bodies like the CIA and the FBI. Weapons on the scale that was claimed should have left traces.

Well..... where are the traces? Why have they not been found? Who's at fault for misleading the public if the claims of WMD are proven false?

[Jedieb]

Well, it's about friggin' time:


Editorials Question Bush's Role in 'Cooking' Up a War

By Greg Mitchell

Published: January 28, 2004 Updated at 10:45 AM EST

NEW YORKIn the wake of the latest revelations from weapons inspector David Kay, many of the largest U.S. newspapers are belatedly pressing the Bush administration for an explanation of how it could have gotten the question of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq so wrong in the march to war last year. A growing number are raising the possibility that Bush and his team may have "cooked" the intelligence to support their case for war.

An E&P survey of the top 20 newspapers by circulation found that as of Wednesday, 13 had run editorials on Kay's resignation as chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq last Friday, and his statement that no WMDs exist in Iraq, and likely did not exist in Iraq during the U.S. run-up to war.

Nearly all of those papers blamed intelligence failures for the miscalculation and called for a full probe. But eight of the 13 -- most of which supported the war -- also raised the issue of White House deceit and its possibly blind pursuit of intelligence that fit its plan for war.

Among them was The Dallas Morning News (Click for QuikCap), in Bush's home state, which had supported the war, but now declared: "We feel deceived -- by the CIA, which overestimated the threat, and by the White House, which probably stretched the bad estimates to build a case for war." If Bush had found other strategic or humanitarian reasons for the war, "he should have argued the case on that basis," the editorial said.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution (Click for QuikCap) also stated that while intelligence was faulty, "the evidence also seems overwhelming that the Bush administration pushed existing evidence well beyond its breaking point, exaggerating threats and claiming specific knowledge of Iraqi WMD where in reality no such knowledge existed." The paper also came down hard on the administration for linking Saddam Hussein directly to al Qaeda -- which was in opposition to intelligence reports.

The Los Angeles Times refused to place the blame mainly on the intelligence agencies, observing that "the administration was not a passive consumer of intelligence. The CIA's own Iraq analysts contended last June that the administration pressured them to create worst-case scenarios." While backing a full CIA probe, the L.A. Times added, "Any investigation ... will also have to take in to account the administration's agenda." Indeed, Vice President Dick Cheney continued to make "bogus claims" about WMDs in Iraq over the weekend despite Kay's findings, the editorial noted.

The Detroit Free Press asked, "Was the administration misled, or did it twist what it was told to justify taking down Hussein? A full accounting is due."

Newsday of Melville, N.Y., said the latest revelation "raises troubling questions about the Bush administration's use of ambiguous or flawed intelligence findings to buttress its case" for the war. The Oregonian of Portland stated that, "it's fair to wonder ... whether the White House processed the intelligence information professionally."

The Boston Globe editorial said, in part: "President Bush should acknowledge two harsh truths: that the intelligence was completely wrong and that administration hawks tried to politicize intelligence."

Oddly, while fully condemning the intelligence scandal, two of the most liberal papers -- The New York Times and San Francisco Chronicle -- did not strongly raise the specter of White House deceit. The Times hinted at this, however, by suggesting that Cheney's continuing false arguments revealed the "rigid thinking" based on "preconceived notions" that "helped propel us into an invasion."

The Philadelphia Inquirer simply declared that Kay's conclusion "destroys the remaining credibility of this administration's argument for an immediate, pre-emptive war."

Only two the 13 papers that ran editorials expressed little concern that the Kay findings undercut their support for the war: The New York Post and New York Daily News. The Post warned readers not to "be taken in by all the hot air following David Kay's statements."

[ReaperFett]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/01/25/wirq25.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/01/25/ixnewstop.html - Saddam's WMD hidden in Syria, says Iraq survey chief


So, David Kay says there were no WMDs, but they moved to Syria. Gotta love consistancy :)

[Jedieb]

There's some consistency according to Kay;
"'It turns out we were ALL WRONG."
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/28/sprj.nirq.wmd.kay/index.html

[ReaperFett]

http://www.reuters.com/printerFriendlyPopup.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=4240684


Iraqi foreign minister Hoshiyar Zebari said Thursday Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction had been carefully hidden, but he was confident they could be discovered.

[Jedieb]

Sounds like he's as confident as the administration was a year ago. In all likelyhood, they're not going to find squat.