Good God. Enough with selective posting to justify your blatant anti-American views. It is so transparent it's laughable. Rumsfeld said "We will find people who can tell us where those things were."
[quote]
Then why in God's name did you got to war?
[/quote]
That is the $20b question the nation will be prevented from asking by continued manipulation at the hands of the media.
The WMD's cannot and will not be found in Iraq because a 'search' is soon to be conducted in Syria for the people who can find them or the WMD's themself.
However the WMD's will not be found there either but will magically disappear; then tunnel their way under the US occupied Iraq over to Iran.
They might also go offer a pilgrimmage if the administration deems fit.
**So where are they, Mr Blair? **](http://argument.independent.co.uk/leading_articles/story.jsp?story=398837)
Not one illegal warhead. Not one drum of chemicals. Not one incriminating document. Not one shred of evidence that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction in more than a month of war and occupation
So where are they? In case we forget, distracted by the thought of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians, looted museums and gathering political chaos, the proclaimed purpose of this war, vainly pursued by Britain and the US through the United Nations, was to disarm Saddam Hussein and to destroy weapons of mass destruction deemed a menace to the entire world.
But, Mr Blair, where are they? A month has passed since American and British troops entered Iraq, more than a week since the fall of Baghdad. But thus far not even a sniff. Not a drum of VX or mustard gas, not a phial of botulin or anthrax, not a shred of evidence that Iraq was assembling a nuclear weapons programme.
But that wasn’t what they told us. Remember Colin Powell at the Security Council two months ago (though today it seems another age on another planet): the charts, the grainy intelligence satellite pictures, the crackly tapes of the intercepted phone conversations among Iraqi officials? How plausible it all sounded, especially when propounded by the most plausible figure in the Bush ad- ministration.
And what about those other claims, wheeled out on various occasions by Messrs Bush, Blair, Cheney and Rumsfeld? The Iraqi drones that were supposed to be able to attack the US east coast, the imports of aluminium tubes allegedly intended for centrifuges to enrich uranium, the unaccounted-for lethal nerve and germ agents, in quantities specified down to the last gallon or pound, as if exact numbers alone constituted proof. All, it seems, egregious products of the imagination of the intelligence services – one commodity whose existence need never be doubted.
Maybe the Saddam regime was diabolically cunning in the concealment of these weap-ons, but the shambolic manner of its passing suggests otherwise. Maybe, as those “US officials” continue to suggest from behind their comfortable screen of anonymity, the weapons have been shipped to Syria for “safekeeping”. But that theory too is dismissed by independent experts.
Indeed, it collapses at the first serious examination. Why should Saddam part with his most effective means of defence, when the survival of his regime and himself was on the line? Nor will that hoary and disingenuous line advanced by our political masters wash any longer – oh yes, we know a lot more, but if we told you, we would be showing our hand to Saddam and endangering precious intelligence sources.
Just believe us, old boy, the Government told us, and you’ll see we were right all along. And the British, being on the whole a reasonable and trusting people, mostly accepted the word of their rulers.
Well, Saddam is now gone. And with him has disappeared any conceivable risk to those intelligence sources (assuming they ever existed). So just what was this information on the basis of which Washington and its faithful ally launched an unprovoked invasion of a ramshackle third world country? A country with a very nasty regime to be sure, but not a great deal nastier than some other potential candidates for “liberation” in the Middle East and elsewhere.
If only for the credibility and reputation of our country, this newspaper hopes that enough weapons of mass destruction will be discovered to justify a war that has grievously weakened the UN, strained the Atlantic alliance and split the European Union.
But they’d better be found pretty soon. Having rushed into war to suit its own military and domestic electoral timetable, the Bush administration now has the nerve to claim that a year may be required to establish the whereabouts of the WMD – and that it may never do so unless led to them by co-operative Iraqis. But no longer can London and Washington rely simply on the impossibility for the former Iraqi regime to prove a negative, that the weapons do not exist. It is up to the “coalition” of two to provide proof positive that they do.
This pointless war cannot be un-made. But we urgently need to know that the invasion was not illegal as well. With Britain and the US in full control of Iraq, a month should suffice. If no “smoking gun” has turned up by then, a full parliamentary inquiry is essential – into the competence and accountability of the intelligence services, and into how our Government used them to sell a mistaken and reckless policy.
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Malik73: *
*"I don't think we will find anything. Inspectors did not discover anything and I don't think we will," said Mr Rumsfeld.**
Then why in God's name did you got to war?
[/QUOTE]
Oil.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by 2bornot2b: *
Oil.
[/QUOTE]
Whats so secret about (O)peration (I)raq (L)iberation.
Actually, I believe Iraq had wmds ... ( hint: US made) ... My question is, why were these not used? (Thank God he did not). We heard so much hoopla that the wmds have been distributed to the troops and blah blah ... How much time did they have to hide them in their back yards? My theory is that the Iraqi forces never had the time to dig up the hidden treasures and use them ..
what am i rattling about? Iraq was no immediate danger ... it could have been dealt with a few thousand bombs on the SH palaces and giving the accurate info to the UN ... but then again, if they haven’t found him with 300K+ troops .. they might not have found him without actually going in .. this seems to be the only 'good' reason to invade .. weak though ....
*now what? how ^%$^ is US gona prove SH had plans or intentions to use these weapons against US? He did not use them when he had his last chance ... one does everything when death is near ... he would have used them if he had bad plans ... maybe after all, he was JUST A THIRD WORLD DICTATOR and no direct threat to the US … *
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Wada Saien: *
**now what? how ^%$^ is US gona prove SH had plans or intentions to use these weapons against US? He did not use them when he had his last chance ... one does everything when death is near ... he would have used them if he had bad plans ... maybe after all, he was JUST A THIRD WORLD DICTATOR and no direct threat to the US … *
[/QUOTE]
Saien ji do you think the US government is that messed up in the head that they will go after a country with WMD.... For such countries there is diplomacy and Bill Richardson :D
Scientist: Iraq Destroyed Banned Weapons
AP - 1 hour, 37 minutes ago
An Iraqi scientist who claims to have worked in Saddam Hussein’s chemical weapons program told a U.S. military team that Iraq destroyed and buried chemical weapons and biological warfare equipment only days before the war began March 20, a newspaper reported Monday.
Members of MET Alpha — the Mobile Exploitation Team set up to hunt for illegal weapons of mass destruction — said the scientist led Americans to material that proved to be the building blocks of illegal weapons, according to The New York Times.
The Iraqi scientist, who was not named for fear he might be harmed, also said Iraq has secretly sent stockpiles of deadly agents and weapons technology to Syria in the mid-1990s, and more recently was cooperating with Osama bin Laden (news - web sites)'s al-Qaida terror network.
The U.S. Central Command could not confirm The New York Times report, and the White House had no immediate comment on it.
The report was withheld by military censors for three days, and some details about the chemicals were not allowed to be published. The reporter was not allowed to interview the Iraqi scientist.
The Bush administration says that U.S. forces went into Iraq and toppled Saddam’s regime to rid the world of the threat of weapons of mass destruction.
Military officials said the scientist told them that several months before the war, he watched as Iraqi officials buried chemical precursors for weapons and other sensitive material to conceal and protect them for future use. Four days before President Bush (news - web sites) gave Saddam an ultimatum in March, the scientist said Iraqi officials set fire to a warehouse where biological weapons research was conducted.
The scientist reportedly gave a note to the Army’s 101st Airborne Division. That was passed on to the MET Alpha team, which tracked the scientist down at his home.
“What they have discovered could prove to be of incalculable value,” the paper quoted Maj. Gen. David Petraeus, commander of the Army’s 101st Airborne Division, as saying.
“Though much work must still be done to validate the information MET Alpha has uncovered, if it proves out it will clearly be one of the major discoveries of this operation, and it may be the major discovery,” he added.
^ the name of this Iraqi scientist was "give me American citizenship and i'll tell you whatever you want to hear"
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by lunaticCalm: *
^ the name of this Iraqi scientist was "give me American citizenship and i'll tell you whatever you want to hear"
[/QUOTE]
I will wait to say anything until the Coalition actually digs the area to find the WMDs and uncover them from ground. Lets wait and watch.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by PakistaniAbroad: *
That is the $20b question the nation will be prevented from asking by continued manipulation at the hands of the media.
The WMD's cannot and will not be found in Iraq because a 'search' is soon to be conducted in Syria for the people who can find them or the WMD's themself.
However the WMD's will not be found there either but will magically disappear; then tunnel their way under the US occupied Iraq over to Iran.
They might also go offer a pilgrimmage if the administration deems fit.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, I forgot all that. :)
I was hearing NPR (National Public Radio) in US/Dallas today, when one of senators (I think it was senator, not journalist) was asked if WMDs have been moved to Syria, he said that these are ridiculous reports provided by Israeli intelligence. I wonder how many more "intelligence reports" are provided by them which have blindfolded US administration.
Chengez ... You didnt know? Iraqis were SO advanced that they dig tunnels to 'export' their wmds to Syria ... Or prolly, hid dem in that illegal pipleline... afterall, it was claimed here on this forum by the US 'liberators' (or their chamchay) that anything on the surface could be caught by US sats but not something that is burried ... So, how was it done? Dig a tunnel some thousand miles long and ship dem wmds to neighboring countries ... hows dat?
hehehe so thats how they did it 
dang Iraqis are ishmart…
So it seems Scott Ritter was right all along - but the deception worked so “what me worry”. Amerikan congress and senate abdicated in favour of the Bush regime and gave the green light to this war of aggression.
"Anthrax, Chemicals and Nerve Gas: Who is Lying?
Growing evidence of deception by Washington
by Andrew Gumbel in Los Angeles
…
For months, Mr Ritter has said Iraq’s capability of producing or deploying chemical or biological weapons was 90-95 per cent destroyed on his watch and was very unlikely to have been built up again under international sanctions and the constant surveillance of spy satellites and US and British war planes.
…
This is the same Scott Ritter who, when he first made these assertions last autumn, was vilified in the US media as “misguided”, “disloyal”, not to be taken seriously and “an apologist for and a defender of Saddam Hussein”. One cable news host, Curtis Sliwa said on air he was a “sock puppet” who “ought to turn in his passport for an Iraqi one”.
Perhaps it’s time to give Mr Ritter another chance. It may, in fact, be time to reassess who exactly has been the deceiver and who the dupe in this whole affair. What Mr Ritter and others now allege, with increasing confidence, is a pattern of false information emanating from both Washington and London since last September – lies and distortions that launched a major war and are only now beginning to be widely exposed.
…
“This is a breach of the highest order, and the American people are entitled to know how it happened,” Henry Waxman of California wrote to the President last month. “I believed that you had access to reliable intelligence information that merited deference… The two most obvious explanations – knowing deception or unfathomable incompetence – both have immediate and serious implications.”
…"
Reports of weapons ‘greatly exaggerated’](Latest news & breaking headlines | The Times and The Sunday Times)
WHY have American and British Forces not found any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? The most plausible answer is that there are none, in the true sense of the word, even though forces are likely eventually to come across some very unpleasant weapons created by Saddam Hussein.
But Tony Blair and President Bush cannot give this answer, as they asserted unambiguously that these weapons existed in justifying the war. So members of Blair’s Cabinet and Bush’s Administration have felt obliged to offer less plausible accounts of where the elusive weapons might be.
The most ambitious so far were put forward yesterday by Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary, in a fabulously implausible narrative which contradicated earlier statements by his Prime Minister, his colleagues and himself.
It is an understatement to say that the failure to find such weapons is an embarrassment for the British and American governments. Hans Blix, the chief United Nations weapons inspector, was always very careful to say that he was looking for weapons which were “unaccounted for”, discrepancies between what Iraq could have produced and what it had declared.
Blix never said they definitely existed. But Blair, Bush and their henchmen stepped repeatedly over that line, particularly in the frenetic and ultimately unsuccessful attempts to secure the backing of a second UN resolution.
In particular, Blair presented Parliament with a “dossier” on September 24 last year, headlined Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction — The Assessment of the British Government. It said that “Intelligence has established beyond doubt . . . that Saddam has continued to produce chemical and biological weapons”.
The most dramatic claim of the dossier, much publicised, was that Saddam’s “military planning allows for some of the WMD (weapons of mass destruction) to be ready within 45 minutes of an order to use them”.
You do not have to be a fan of BBC Radio’s Today programme, or its breathlessly shrill style of interrogation, to concede that there is such a thing as a bad performance. Hoon delivered one yesterday in response to a shrewd series of questions, also the ones which any ordinary, interested person would ask first.
Top of that list is why the Saddam regime, facing annihilation, did not use weapons of mass destruction if it had them. According to Hoon, this is because the weapons were “scattered across Iraq (and) were well hidden” while UN inspectors were in the country.
But then they weren’t ready to use in 45 minutes, surely? Hoon appeared unaware of this claim. “I do not recall ever saying that. I specifically did not put a time on it,” he said.
No, he didn’t say it, but his Government did, and the claim is central to Britain’s justification for pressing ahead with the war. Hoon himself, just before the outbreak of war, made a speech that gave warning of the “very real threat today . . . of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction”.
Hoon then alleges that the sudden onslaught of war disrupted command structures and prevented the weapons being reassembled. It didn’t seem that sudden at the time. Several days passed between the departure of the UN inspectors and the start of the bombing. There was also a solid two weeks after the bombing started in which Iraqi command structures looked anything but shattered, to the point where Washington was grimly bracing itself for a long war.
Why, on Hoon’s “well hidden” account, has nothing of significance been found, even though American forces have been in the country for more than a month? There is a limit to the number of possible hiding places. US Intelligence had identified about 150 sites worth investigation, and are already believed to have visited about half, according to analysts. Not one of these has yet yielded a “smoking gun”.
On Hoon’s account, the regime was organised and skilful enough to dismantle, transport and hide all these weapons beyond the detective skills of US forces, and yet so disorganised that it could not retrieve and deploy even one.
What about the chance that weapons have been smuggled out, to Syria, or sold to terrorists? This possibility has been gaining currency; it has been raised by David Kay, a former UN weapons inspector, and Alexander Downer, the Australian Foreign Minister, although citing reports he said he could not verify.
But that, too, is implausible. Smuggled out to Syria? Not likely. Damascus is certainly capable of making serious misjudgements, but knowingly allowing Iraq’s banned weapons across its border would be only slightly short of accepting Saddam himself, a risk which no sane regime, looking at the American force camped in the region, would contemplate.
Could they have been sold to terrorist groups? It is unlikely that they would want them, or pay much for them. The kind of chemical or biological weapons Saddam is accused of making are needed in large quantities, say a tonne, to be of any use. They need complex, expensive and conspicuous delivery systems, such as aircraft equipped with sprays or missiles. Terrorists targeting subway trains or water supplies can make do with something far simpler, such as ricin.
The exception is weapons-grade uranium or plutonium. That is scarce, small in volume and easily hidden, and could be sold for a lot of money. But the nuclear part of the weapons programme is widely thought to have been the least developed; Saddam is not believed to have overcome the difficulty of buying or making weapons-grade material.
Gary Samore, director of studies at the International Institute of Strategic Studies, and an expert on Iraq’s weapons programme, also questions the motivation. “If I were an Iraqi fleeing for my life, I’d take cash before bottles of liquid anthrax,” he says. True, documents can be easily destroyed or transported, he says, but missiles are particularly hard to transport or conceal.
**The most plausible account so far is the one given by Robin Cook, the former Foreign Secretary, in his resignation speech. This is that Iraq certainly made highly unpleasant weapons but not in large enough quantities or at a level of readiness to warrant the term “mass destruction”.
“Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction in the commonly understood sense of the term — namely a credible device capable of being delivered against a strategic city target,” he said.
“It probably still has biological toxins and battlefield chemical munititions, but it has had them since the 1980s when US companies sold Saddam anthrax agents and the then British Government approved chemical and munitions factories.”
There is no question that Saddam’s regime produced, and used, terrible weapons. The odds are that forces will uncover evidence of them. But this is a long way from the claims made in the run-up to war, or the accounts now offered about why the weapons remain so hard to find. **
What they said about weapons of mass destruction:
**“If we know Saddam has weapons of mass destruction — and we do — does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him?” “It (Iraq regime) possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons . . . we know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, and VX gas”
George Bush, October 7, 2002
“We are dealing with a very real threat today, that of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction”
Geoff Hoon, March 10, 2003
“His (Saddam Hussein’s) regime has large, unaccounted-for stockpiles of chemical and biological weaponsand he has an active programme to acquire and develop nuclear weapons”
Donald Rumsfeld, January 20, 2003
“Every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we’re giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence.
“In fact, they (Iraqi regime) can produce enough dry biological agent in a single month to kill thousands upon thousands of people. “Saddam Hussein has never accounted for vast amounts of chemical weaponry: 550 artillery shells with mustard, 30,000 empty munitions, and enough precursors to increase his stockpile to as much as 500 tons of chemical agents. If we consider just one category of missing weaponry, 6,500 bombs from the Iran-Iraq war. . . Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tonnes of chemical-weapons agent. Even the low end of 100 tonnes of agent would enable Saddam Hussein to cause mass casualties across more than 100 square miles of territory, an area nearly five times the size of Manhattan”
Colin Powell, address to the UN Security Council, February 5, 2003
“It is right (going to war) because weapons of mass destruction, chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, are a real threat to the security of the world and this country”
Tony Blair, House of Commons, January 15, 2003
“What I believe the assessed intelligence has established beyond doubt is that Saddam has continued to produce chemical and biological weapons, and that he has been able to extend the range of his ballistic missile programme.
His (Saddam Hussein’s) military planning allows for some of the WMD to be ready within 45 minutes of an order to use them.”
Tony Blair, Foreword to Iraq “dossier”**
I haven’t read every post here so I apologize if someone’s already done this:
Bush: Iraq’s WMD May Have Been Destroyed](Yahoo News: Latest and Breaking News, Headlines, Live Updates, and More)
President Bush raised the possibility Thursday that any Iraqi weapons of mass destruction were destroyed before or during the U.S.-led war, suggesting for the first time that coalition troops may come up empty in their search. …
Didn’t Saddam say the same thing? Didn’t we call him a liar over that? It was a good line.. Guess it is hard to come up with better.. So, who lied?
Time will tell! But, posters on this board were claiming that any evidence found would be planted before the US ever set foot in Iraq!
Peace To All Who Read This...
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by mrpockets: *
Time will tell! But, posters on this board were claiming that any evidence found would be planted before the US ever set foot in Iraq!
Peace To All Who Read This...
[/QUOTE]
Yes time will tell. However, remember the main reason for the war was WMD or so we were told. If WMD are not found will the Bush and Blair administrations submit themselves to ICC as International war criminals?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by mrpockets: *
Time will tell!
[/QUOTE]
So convenient.. those are the same words you denied the UN.