WMD Search ended last month.

[Silicon]

Sorry, we didn't tell you? Oh, it slipped our mind with Christmas and all. That whole WMD "thing". Yeah. We stopped looking for that.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2129-2005Jan11.html

The blogger Atrios said:

"Team has been reassigned to find WMD hiding in the Social Security Trust Fund."



But the most important thing was, at least they kept searching until November 2nd.

[Luke T.]

This came up on SC. The U.S. has ended its search and turned over any future search efforts to the Iraqi government.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/12/wmd.search/

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. inspectors have ended their search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in recent weeks, a U.S. intelligence official told CNN.

The search ended almost two years after President Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq, citing concerns that Saddam Hussein was building weapons of mass destruction and may have hidden weapons stockpiles.

Members of the Iraq Survey Group were continuing to examine hundreds of documents and would investigate any new leads, the official said.

Charles A. Duelfer, who headed the Iraq Survey Group's search for WMD in Iraq, has returned to Iraq and is working on his final report, the official said.

A spokesman for the British Foreign Office said that although the physical search is over, some work continues.

"The hunt for WMD will continue under whatever authority is in charge, right now the Iraqi interim government," he said.

[Silicon]

Oh yeah. The Iraqi government will get RIGHT ON that search.

[Silicon]

I'll cross post what I said on SC. I make the same point as I did in my previous post, but I use more words and more sarcasm. So that's an improvement. ;-)


"The hunt for WMD will continue under whatever authority is in charge, right now the Iraqi interim government," he said.

Of course that comes from the Bush Cheney News Network. A good whitewashing of the story for them. Bravo! They let them get off scot free. A serious journalist would have asked the follow up question:

"HOW MANY workers for the Iraqi government are currently searching for WMD's?"


My bet is <= 0.



That quote is bull***t wiggle room tailor-made to give a built-in counter argument to fuel the American Talk-Radio Right. It's a big fat love letter to Rush O'Reilly and Bill Limbaugh, to say "The LIBRUL MEDIA distorts and says the search is over. It's NOT, the IRAQI's are SEARCHING HIGH AND LOW, and that's a GOOD THING! Noboby knows the country like IRAQIS and there are MILLIONS OF THEM, all searching their own basements and attics and inside their own butts to find them! But the LIBRULMEDIA doesn't say that! You'll only hear it HERE on (WABCWNBCTALK320KFIeveryfrickingAMstationintheNati onthatisn'ttalkinginspanish)."



If some Iraqi kicks over a rock and finds a hole with WMD's in it, he might make a telephone call. That's the level of the current search, I'll wager.

After all, can you TRUST the Iraqis looking for WMD's? The insurgents infiltrate EVERYTHING of strategic value. The insurgents infiltrate security forces just so they can kill a few Iraqi National Guardmembers. How do you know that the folks searching for them (as if they exist) are trustworthy?

If there was any hope in hell of finding them, WHY on God's Green Earth would Bush relent?


Thanks CNN for the built-in talking point from Rove. Conservative talk hosts... 3.2.1 GO!

[Luke T.]

I believe an Iraqi would have a more vest interest in finding out if there are WMDs in his own country.

If I were an Iraqi, I would especially want to know if the U.S. was wrong for their reasons to invade.

So I do believe there are more than 0 Iraqis on the problem.

[Silicon]

Originally posted by Luke T.
I believe an Iraqi would have a more vest interest in finding out if there are WMDs in his own country.


...For instance, if he finds a vial of anthrax, he can use it against the Americans.


To ask this question is to answer it:

Knowing what we know about the infiltrated Iraqi security forces, would Bush trust a WMD search to them?

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Silicon
Knowing what we know about the infiltrated Iraqi security forces, would Bush trust a WMD search to them?

If he were confident that there were no WMDs to be found, he could do so in perfect peace of mind.

[Jon_in_london]

Im amazed they were still searching. They rest of us knew a long time ago that there were no WMDs in Iraq.

[Silicon]

That's because the first guy they had searching gave up, resigned and said that anyone still hoping to find WMD's in Iraq was "delusional".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3778987.stm


The US had to get someone in there to continue the hunt who wouldn't say such damning things in the final report.

[TillEulenspiegel]

WMD Search ended last month.

And what I'm supposed to be surprised?
GII still proclaims he was right and will place blame on a fookin janitor on the second floor of the Pentagon if that's what it takes, all the time the public knowing that he was warned not to use faulty intelligence. Now there's a cartoon, GII on intelligence..

What I find most amusing ( and anoying ) is the people who brand themselves as "Skeptics" who still ride on the threadbare tails of Georgie's foreign policy. Ex-Post-Facto

"Just cuz we can't prove it doesn't make it wrong". GD Idiots. Damn Neo-Cons could teach Bo Jangles Fancy tap dancing moves.

[Regnad Kcin]

Perhaps someone should ask the president to check under his desk again. Y'know, just to be sure.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Regnad Kcin
Perhaps someone should ask the president to check under his desk again. Y'know, just to be sure.

Good idea, but I doubt that would do any good. He would probably think that it was just the new puppy acting up.

To wit:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&e=1&u=/ap/20050113/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq_weapons

[B]White House: Iraq Weapons Search Has Ended [B]

WASHINGTON - The White House acknowledged Wednesday that its hunt for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction — a two-year search costing millions of dollars — has closed down without finding the stockpiles that President Bush (news - web sites) cited as a justification for overthrowing Saddam Hussein (news - web sites). Bush's spokesman said the president had no regrets about invading Iraq (news - web sites).

"Based on what we know today, the president would have taken the same action because this is about protecting the American people," said Press Secretary Scott McClellan.

...

:rolleyes:

Oh well, I just think of all those pro-war types who boldly posted all that stuff here on JREF about how we were going find WMDs in Iraq. And that Iraq's WMDs just have to be stopped. And Saddam cannot be trusted since he has all those WMDs. And so on.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Crossbow
Oh well, I just think of all those pro-war types who boldly posted all that stuff here on JREF about how we were going find WMDs in Iraq. And that Iraq's WMDs just have to be stopped. And Saddam cannot be trusted since he has all those WMDs. And so on.

Saddam's own military officer's thought he had 'em. He played a bluffing game to ward off Iran and it backfired on him.

As one of those you may be talking about, perhaps what I fell for more than anything was the constant ranting on why there were no WMD's found. Before that, I didn't care. WMD were only part of the reasons given for going to war in Iraq. I don't care that there are no pictures of Saddam and Osama shaking hands and passing checks, there is plenty of evidence that Saddam was aiding terrorist organizations. There were plenty of mass graves found. There are plenty of stories of rape at the hands of those in power. As far as internal national despotism, Saddam made Hitler look like an ameteur. I don't care that missiles weren't found on the launch pad with coolant pouring out, ready for Saddam to press the button. There were enough other items and documents found to justify removing Saddam. There are enough dangerous materials scattered around Iraq for the country to be declared an ecological disaster and bio hazard signs at every border, but that's not enough for the left leaning crowd. Too bad.

The alternative to war was to trust the UN, which has proven itself to be corrupt from the bottom up and to stay in Saudi Arabia, thereby drawing the religious wrath of the entire Arab population so that we could keep up the fly-overs and sanctions on Iraq.

We went in with the intelligence we had. My faith in the President is not as shaken as my faith in the CIA and FBI.

If I stay on this thread long enough, it will eventually boil down to "war is bad because people die". In order to accept that premise, I must accept that nothing greater than myself is worth dying for. I refuse to accept that. War is neither good nor bad, merely part of the human condition, a fact of life.

The WMD issue made good political fodder for the election. The election is over. Bush won. Get over it.

CIA reveals Saddam's grand bluff (http://www.kentucky.com/mld/mercurynews/news/columnists/daniel_sneider/9883586.htm)

[armageddonman]

"Based on what we know today, the president would have taken the same action because this is about protecting the American people," said Press Secretary Scott McClellan.

Against what?

[DialecticMaterialist]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
Saddam's own military officer's thought he had 'em. He played a bluffing game to ward off Iran and it backfired on him.

As one of those you may be talking about, perhaps what I fell for more than anything was the constant ranting on why there were no WMD's found. Before that, I didn't care. WMD were only part of the reasons given for going to war in Iraq. I don't care that there are no pictures of Saddam and Osama shaking hands and passing checks, there is plenty of evidence that Saddam was aiding terrorist organizations. There were plenty of mass graves found. There are plenty of stories of rape at the hands of those in power. As far as internal national despotism, Saddam made Hitler look like an ameteur. I don't care that missiles weren't found on the launch pad with coolant pouring out, ready for Saddam to press the button. There were enough other items and documents found to justify removing Saddam. There are enough dangerous materials scattered around Iraq for the country to be declared an ecological disaster and bio hazard signs at every border, but that's not enough for the left leaning crowd. Too bad.

The alternative to war was to trust the UN, which has proven itself to be corrupt from the bottom up and to stay in Saudi Arabia, thereby drawing the religious wrath of the entire Arab population so that we could keep up the fly-overs and sanctions on Iraq.

We went in with the intelligence we had. My faith in the President is not as shaken as my faith in the CIA and FBI.

If I stay on this thread long enough, it will eventually boil down to "war is bad because people die". In order to accept that premise, I must accept that nothing greater than myself is worth dying for. I refuse to accept that. War is neither good nor bad, merely part of the human condition, a fact of life.

The WMD issue made good political fodder for the election. The election is over. Bush won. Get over it.

CIA reveals Saddam's grand bluff (http://www.kentucky.com/mld/mercurynews/news/columnists/daniel_sneider/9883586.htm)


Can you show me one source from the CIA that says Saddam had at least one hundred tons of chemical weapons? Because Collin Powell told the UN that Saddam had 100 tons of chemical weapons, and that the matter was not "just an assertion" but a "fact."

(text of powell speech: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/05/iraq/main539459.shtml )


Also then you seem pretty gung-ho for the reconstruction. Tell me then what you think of Bush sending in less then a third of the personnel needed to secure the region.

To quote CFR member and foreign affairs expert Larry Diamond:

Many of the original miscalculations made by the Bush administration are well known. But the early blunders have had diffuse, profound, and lasting consequences-some of which are only now becoming clear. The first and foremost of these errors concerned security: the Bush administration was never willing to commit anything like the forces necessary to ensure order in postwar Iraq. From the beginning, military experts warned Washington that the task would require, as Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki told Congress in February 2003, "hundreds of thousands" of troops. For the United States to deploy forces in Iraq at the same ratio to population as NATO had in Bosnia would have required half a million troops. Yet the coalition force level never reached even a third of that figure. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and his senior civilian deputies rejected every call for a much larger commitment and made it very clear, despite their disingenuous promises to give the military "everything" it asked for, that such requests would not be welcome. No officer missed the lesson of General Shinseki, whom the Pentagon rewarded for his public candor by announcing his replacement a year early, making him a lame-duck leader long before his term expired. Officers and soldiers in Iraq were forced to keep their complaints about insufficient manpower and equipment private, even as top political officials in the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) insisted publicly that greater military action was necessary to secure the country.

In truth, around 300,000 troops might have been enough to make Iraq largely secure after the war. But doing so would also have required different kinds of troops, with different rules of engagement. The coalition should have deployed vastly more military police and other troops trained for urban patrols, crowd control, civil reconstruction, and peace maintenance and enforcement. Tens of thousands of soldiers with sophisticated monitoring equipment should have been posted along the borders with Syria and Iran to intercept the flows of foreign terrorists, Iranian intelligence agents, money, and weapons.

But Washington failed to take such steps, for the same reasons it decided to occupy Iraq with a relatively light force: hubris and ideology. Contemptuous of the State Department's regional experts who were seen as too "soft" to remake Iraq, a small group of Pentagon officials ignored the elaborate postwar planning the State Department had overseen through its "Future of Iraq" project, which had anticipated many of the problems that emerged after the invasion. Instead of preparing for the worst, Pentagon planners assumed that Iraqis would joyously welcome U.S. and international troops as liberators. With Saddam's military and security apparatus destroyed, the thinking went, Washington could capitalize on the goodwill by handing the country over to Iraqi expatriates such as Ahmed Chalabi, who would quickly create a new democratic state. Not only would fewer U.S. troops be needed at first, but within a year, the troop levels could drop to a few tens of thousands.

Of course, these naive assumptions quickly collapsed, along with overall security, in the immediate aftermath of the war. U.S. troops stood by helplessly, outnumbered and unprepared, as much of Iraq's remaining physical, economic, and institutional infrastructure was systematically looted and sabotaged. And even once it became obvious that the looting was not a one-time breakdown of social order but an elaborately organized, armed, and financed resistance to the U.S. occupation, the Bush administration compounded its initial mistakes by stubbornly refusing to send in more troops. Administration officials repeatedly deluded themselves into believing that the defeat of the insurgency was just around the corner-just as soon as the long, hot summer of 2003 ended, or reconstruction dollars started flowing in and jobs were created, or the political transition began, or Saddam Hussein was captured, or the interim government was inaugurated. As in Vietnam, a turning point always seemed imminent, and Washington refused to grasp the depth of popular disaffection.


And how important is securing the region to reconstruction? It is crucial.

In postconflict situations in which the state has collapsed, security trumps everything: it is the central pedestal that supports all else. Without some minimum level of security, people cannot engage in trade and commerce, organize to rebuild their communities, or participate meaningfully in politics. Without security, a country has nothing but disorder, distrust, and desperation-an utterly Hobbesian situation in which fear pervades and raw force dominates. This is why violence-ridden societies tend to turn to almost any political force that promises to provide order, even if it is oppressive. It is a big reason why the CPA was unable to spend most of the $18.6 billion for Iraqi reconstruction appropriated by Congress last fall. And it explains why a country must first have a state before it can become a democracy. The primary requirement of a state is that it hold a monopoly on the use of violence. By that measure, the body that the United States transferred power to in Baghdad on June 28 may have been a government-but it was not a state.

Even though insufficient forces were deployed to Iraq, much more could have been done with them to build security and contain the forces of disorder before the handoff. Unfortunately, not only did the CPA lack the resources for the job, it also lacked the understanding and organization. The effort to create a new Iraqi police force, for example, withered from haste, inefficiency, poor planning, and sheer incompetence. Newly minted Iraqi cops were rushed onto the job with too little training, insufficient vetting, and shamefully inadequate equipment. Although most had uniforms (of a sort), they lacked cars, radios, and body armor and were often outgunned by the criminals, terrorists, and saboteurs they faced. As vital symbols of the new Iraqi state, the police also quickly became "soft targets" for terrorist attacks, and coalition forces did too little too late to protect them.

Iraqi politicians, civic leaders, and government officials, as well as civilian coalition officials and their Iraqi aides, paid a heavy price for the lack of security. More than 100 Iraqi government workers were killed during the occupation, including several high-level officials and the occupant of the Governing Council's rotating presidency. Iraqis collaborating with the occupation (including those lining up for jobs) became targets-especially translators, a fact that worsened the CPA's already severe language gap. Although few CPA officials themselves were killed, many were attacked, and numerous civilian contractors were slain or kidnapped.

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20040901faessay83505/larry-diamond/what-went-wrong-in-iraq.html


Does not the fact that Bush sent in less then a third of the men necessary to secure the region show that his statements concerning liberation and reconstruction were likely disingenuous?

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
Saddam's own military officer's thought he had 'em. He played a bluffing game to ward off Iran and it backfired on him.

As one of those you may be talking about, perhaps what I fell for more than anything was the constant ranting on why there were no WMD's found. Before that, I didn't care. WMD were only part of the reasons given for going to war in Iraq. I don't care that there are no pictures of Saddam and Osama shaking hands and passing checks, there is plenty of evidence that Saddam was aiding terrorist organizations. There were plenty of mass graves found. There are plenty of stories of rape at the hands of those in power. As far as internal national despotism, Saddam made Hitler look like an ameteur. I don't care that missiles weren't found on the launch pad with coolant pouring out, ready for Saddam to press the button. There were enough other items and documents found to justify removing Saddam. There are enough dangerous materials scattered around Iraq for the country to be declared an ecological disaster and bio hazard signs at every border, but that's not enough for the left leaning crowd. Too bad.

The alternative to war was to trust the UN, which has proven itself to be corrupt from the bottom up and to stay in Saudi Arabia, thereby drawing the religious wrath of the entire Arab population so that we could keep up the fly-overs and sanctions on Iraq.

We went in with the intelligence we had. My faith in the President is not as shaken as my faith in the CIA and FBI.

If I stay on this thread long enough, it will eventually boil down to "war is bad because people die". In order to accept that premise, I must accept that nothing greater than myself is worth dying for. I refuse to accept that. War is neither good nor bad, merely part of the human condition, a fact of life.

The WMD issue made good political fodder for the election. The election is over. Bush won. Get over it.

CIA reveals Saddam's grand bluff (http://www.kentucky.com/mld/mercurynews/news/columnists/daniel_sneider/9883586.htm)

Oh yes, you were one of the people I was thinking of when I wrote the post you refer to. I was so amazed that people like you fully accepted the word of a few authority figures without bothering to check any of the details on your own even though it was a life and death issue.

And yes, Saddam was a very bad person. If the war had really been about getting rid of him and instituting some sort of government that would at least moderately democratic and respectful of human rights, then I expect that I would have approved of that. In fact, I expect that if this was done then we would have much more help in international help with Iraq.

And no, the UN is as not nearly as corrupt as you may think. Sure there are problems with it, such as the 'Oil for Food' scandal, however the USA also bears some responsibilty for this because the USA knew about it as it was happening and yet did nothing in order to avoid rocking the boat.

Or put another way, did you hear about the recent case of the former US Air Force general who steered billions of dollars worth of contracts to Boeing in order to have a cushy job with them after she left the service? This amount is far greater than what happened with the UN and yet no one is saying the USAF is corrupt from top to bottom.

Amazing how the lure of big money can bring out criminal elements, yes?

No, I do not think that I will be able to get over the tens of thousands of people killed, hundreds of thousands injured, and hundreds of billions of dollars spent just because Bush won the election.

[Cain]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Does not the fact that Bush sent in less then a third of the men necessary to secure the region show that his statements concerning liberation and reconstruction were likely disingenuous?

NOOOOOOO. How? It shows that the administration is merely ignorant and incompetent. Look, we live in a post-September 11 world. You have to support the troops and our president. He's the president, and being president is a hard job, especially after Sept. 11th. Also, freedom is untidy -- particularly after Sept. the 11th. Operation Iraqi Liberation has been -- if anything -- a catastrophic success, especially once you consider these are post 9/11 times we're living in. And we want to see them eye-raqis succeed because we are a generous nation, a humble nation, not at all an arrogant nation, which is exactly what the world learned after Sept. 11. (Oil for food scandal, Oil for food scandal, Oil for food scandal). As Peptoabsysmal points out, everyone thought Iraq had WMDs, that the country constituted a "grave" and "gathering" and "urgent" threat. It's not as though the administration exaggerated any of it's claims. These were "Facts, not assertions". It's not as though the adminstration resorted to fear-mongering ("We do not want the smoking gun to come in the form of a mushroom cloud.") Furthermore, Tenet bears responsibility. That <strike>Satan</strike> Clinton hold-over said our case was a "slam dunk." He was wrong, and the president punished him. (Later the president would award him the Presidental Medal of Freedom, along with Paul Bremer and General Tommy Franks; but I don't see any pattern there.) September 11th.

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
The election is over. Bush won. Get over it.Intercourse. Self-inflicted. Proceed.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Crossbow
And yes, Saddam was a very bad person. If the war had really been about getting rid of him and instituting some sort of government that would at least moderately democratic and respectful of human rights, then I expect that I would have approved of that. In fact, I expect that if this was done then we would have much more help in international help with Iraq.

I am continually amazed by the concept that war could only be justified if Bush had te right motive. I don't ultimately care what Bush's motives are. I care what he does. And he's doing what you claim you would have supported, yet you don't. You can offer all the excuses and criticisms you want, but I simply don't believe you. As for other nations supporting us if we had proposed the war on that basis, yeah right. The UN is largely set up to protect the "sovereignty" of governments, even the sovereignty of the worst governments on the planet. Outright corruption aside, that runs counter to the insticts of the entire institution, as well as the obvious self-interest of so many member states (including states with veto power in the security council, like China and Russia). The UN has never, and probably will never, authorize removing a government based solely on how terrible that government is to its own citizens, regardless of how bad it is. Even in the case of genocide, the UN will not take that step - what could possibly make you think they would act otherwise regarding Iraq?

[DavidJames]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
I am continually amazed by the concept that war could only be justified if Bush had te right motive. I don't ultimately care what Bush's motives are. I care what he does. but you don't care why?

So I guess it's to say then that my sig represents your feeling?

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by DavidJames
but you don't care why?

So I guess it's to say then that my sig represents your feeling?

Don't be an idiot. Your sig has nothing to do with what I said. To repeat: I don't care what Bush's motives are. I care what his actions are. In this case, I agree with his actions. In other cases, I disagree. I don't care that much about his motives in either case, for two reasons: first, judging motives is difficult and unreliable to begin with, and I'm smart enough to know that I really don't know Bush's "true" motives (and neither do you), and second, even if you know motives with certainty, they don't change the reality of actions. See: paving, good intentions, road to hell.

[Art Vandelay]

So when Bush looks for WMD, you guys start threads bashing him. When he turns the search over to the Iraqis, there's a thread bashing him. I guess any excuse will do. "Hey, Mr. Bush, why won't you admit you've made a mistake? Please give me an answer while I compose this thread bashing you for suggesting that you made a mistake".

Originally posted by Silicon
To ask this question is to answer it:

Knowing what we know about the infiltrated Iraqi security forces, would Bush trust a WMD search to them? Why does Bush leave the investigation of French crimes to French police?

Originally posted by DavidJames
So I guess it's to say then that my sig [epitomizes] your feeling [that too many critics of Bush rely on childish fallacies like poisoning the well]? Most definitely.

Originally posted by Crossbow
And yes, Saddam was a very bad person. If the war had really been about getting rid of him and instituting some sort of government that would at least moderately democratic and respectful of human rights, then I expect that I would have approved of that. In fact, I expect that if this was done then we would have much more help in international help with Iraq.Nice way to sneak in a completely unsupported assertion.

And no, the UN is as not nearly as corrupt as you may think. Sure there are problems with it, such as the 'Oil for Food' scandal, however the USA also bears some responsibilty for this because the USA knew about it as it was happening and yet did nothing in order to avoid rocking the boat.Gee, could part of the reason be that anytime Clinton tried to do anything about it, his liberal base starting throwing their “no blood for oil� hissy fits?

Or put another way, did you hear about the recent case of the former US Air Force general who steered billions of dollars worth of contracts to Boeing in order to have a cushy job with them after she left the service? This amount is far greater than what happened with the UN and yet no one is saying the USAF is corrupt from top to bottom.
Completely irrelevant. It’s possible for one person acting alone to steal a billion dollars, and it’s possible for a widespread conspiracy of thousands of people to steal only a few million. Nice try to combine the irrelevant numbers strategy with the two wrongs make right gambit, though.