Have they found WMD yet? - Part 2 (MERGED)

Society Pakistan & World Affairs
101

:rolleyes:

If we remove the diplomatic BS in Rumsfeld’s above two statements, basically he just stated that only the US exclusively (no other country) holds the prerogative to view an existing situation “in a new light” and re-interpret that as the sole justification for pre-emptive action. With or without massive collateral damage. The rest of the world be damned.

Maybe for the next pre-emptive strike (against Iran?), the admin. won’t even bother to string up fancy excuses about Iran’s WMD, a nuclear holocaust, or links with al Qaeda. International laws only apply for a select few.

102

Freight service has started in Iraq. I predict it wont take over 1 month before britian or america plant a WMD.

103

Bush on the defensive

Here is Bush on the defensive now.

What most of the guppies and well, the world knew all along.

"But Thielmann, one of four critics at a session held by the private Arms Control Association, said the Bush administration had formed a “faith-based” policy on Iraq and took the approach that “we know the answers; give us the intelligence to support those answers.”

Bush, at a news conference in South Africa, said he was “absolutely confident” in going to war against Iraq despite the discovery that allegations Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) had sought uranium in Africa for a nuclear weapons program was based on fabricated information. "

And also the fact that US has the most lies in the history books than any other nation here is another excerpt from the same article:

“There’s no doubt in my mind that when it’s all said and done the facts will show the world the truth,” Bush said. “There’s going to be, you know, a lot of attempts to try to rewrite history, and I can understand that. But I’m absolutely confident in the decision I made.”

Well he says when all is said and done…how calmly some leaders can say that. All is definately said and done for thousands of Iraqi. They are six feet under.

I can understand that Bush did not regard Iraqis as “humans” but what is sad is that he did not even regard his own people, soldiers as valuable lives and put them in harms way for his own personal gains. Most of the young military recruits did not even know what the hell they were there for.

104

The lies of the Bush administration are being slowly exposed.

Row over weapons allegations threatens to turn the Iraq conflict into liability for Bush](http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=423254)

The row over Saddam Hussein’s alleged weapons of mass destruction has been slow to reach America, but it is starting to become as much of a headache for President George Bush as it is for Tony Blair.

The catalyst was the White House’s acknowledgement, slipped out late on Monday as the President was leaving for Africa, that Mr Bush should not have included the discredited intelligence claims about uranium from Niger in his State of the Union address.

That admission came after confirmation that the CIA itself had reported to the White House in March 2002 that the documents purporting to chronicle Iraq’s deal with Niger were almost certainly fakes.

The long-cowed Democrats are finally pitching in. “The whole world knew this was a fraud,” Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, the senior Democrat on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, said of the documents. He demanded a full investigation into how the allegations found their way into the State of the Union speech on 28 January 2003.

The Bush administration’s response yesterday was to brush the matter off, or change the subject. Questioned in South Africa on the fiasco, Mr Bush said merely that he was sure the US had “done the right thing” in toppling Saddam. Ari Fleischer, the White House spokesman, said the mistake was just “one single sentence” in the January address.

But the Democratic candidates vying for Mr Bush’s job are also savaging his administration, ensuring that the controversy over Iraq and its unsubstantiated weapons programmes will stay on the boil.

The issue has helped to propel Howard Dean, former governor of Vermont and outspoken critic of the war, to the front of the Democratic pack.

The demands for an investigation will give new impetus to inquiries by at least three committees on Capitol Hill. The House and Senate intelligence committees are preparing hearings, while the Senate’s Armed Services Committee is asking pointed questions.

In addition the House Appropriations Committee, which has just approved a $369bn Pentagon budget for 2004, is also considering its own inquiry into whether Donald Rumsfeld’s staff distorted pre-war intelligence on Iraq.

Two thirds of Americans still believe it was right to invade. But rising troop casualties and a continuing failure to find illegal weapons could combine to turn Iraq into a liability for the President.

105

British Official: Small Chance of Iraq Weapons Find
20 minutes ago Add World - Reuters to My Yahoo!

By Dominic Evans

LONDON (Reuters) - Almost four months after the United States and Britain invaded Iraq (news - web sites), a senior British official said on Thursday it would be “extremely difficult” to find banned weapons they said justified war.

The British official, who has closely monitored Iraq’s military capability, said it was more likely Iraqi scientists or army officers would eventually come forward with evidence to support the U.S.-British charges – instead of leading them to the weapons themselves.

“The fact that the Iraqis did not use any (weapons of mass destruction) during the conflict clearly indicates that they decided to do something else with the weapons that we genuinely believe that they had,” he told Reuters.

“So they’ve either hidden, destroyed or dismantled them. And it’s going to be extremely difficult to come up with the evidence. Not impossible, but it would be difficult.”

“On the other hand, it is much more likely that scientists, military officers, over time will come forward to say what was happening in respect of the programs that we believe were being developed in Iraq,” added the official, who declined to be identified.

But Prime Minister Tony Blair (news - web sites)'s spokesman insisted weapons “programs and products” would be found in Iraq.

“The Prime Minister has absolute confidence that we will find evidence, not only of the programs but also concrete evidence of the products of those programs” of weapons of mass destruction, Blair’s spokesman told reporters.

The failure to discover such lethal arms in Iraq has raised questions about the case for war. The row has undermined Blair’s credibility and dented his popularity.

NO EVIDENCE

A diplomat close to the U.N’s nuclear watchdog said on Thursday that Britain has never provided evidence to back up its continued insistence that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Africa. “The U.N. followed up with Britain to obtain additional evidence they said they had, backing allegations Iraq tried to buy uranium from Africa,” the diplomat familiar with the International Atomic Energy Agency told Reuters. “It was never provided.”

Blair and President Bush (news - web sites) both accused Iraq of having tried to buy uranium from Africa as part of a campaign to show that Iraq was an imminent threat to world stability.

The White House National Security Council has since admitted that Bush’s claim, made in a State of the Union address, was based on forged documents. But Blair’s spokesman said Britain had “different knowledge” from the United States to back up the charge, set out in Blair’s September 2002 dossier on Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction.

The British Broadcasting Corporation said on Thursday senior figures in London no longer believed banned missiles or chemical weapons would be found in Iraq.

Some observers have detected a tactical retreat in Blair’s reference to “weapons programs” rather than just “weapons.”

But Blair’s spokesman said the prime minister believes proof will be found that would have convinced the United Nations (news - web sites) Security Council to back the war if inspectors had found it.

ACRIMONIOUS ROW

Last September, in a bid to win public support for possible war, Blair published a dossier saying Iraq had chemical and biological weapons that could be deployed at 45 minutes notice.

Blair’s government is now locked in an acrimonious row with the BBC over a claim the government “sexed up” the dossier. The BBC quoted an anonymous intelligence source.

In the latest twist, the Ministry of Defense has challenged the BBC to say whether the source for the claim was former U.N. weapons inspector David Kelly – who the government says played only a limited role in compiling the September dossier.

Blair’s spokesman said the government now assumes Kelly was the BBC’s source since the broadcaster will not name names.

A parliamentary committee said this week Blair’s government did not mislead parliament or doctor evidence to justify the war on Iraq. But the foreign affairs committee said it gave undue prominence to the 45-minute claim and said “the jury is still out” on the quality of intelligence used to make Blair’s case.

Yahoo News: Latest and Breaking News, Headlines, Live Updates, and More

it was never likely that they will find WMD in iraQ bcoz there were not WMD to begin with. how slowly, everyone is acknowledging [not fully] that it won’t be possible to find them. :slight_smile:

a slap in the face of those who alwayz argued that iraq was a threat bcoz of itz WMD. :slight_smile:

106

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by EntityParadigm: *
**British Official: Small Chance of Iraq Weapons Find*

[/QUOTE]

The UK papers are speculating that the official is none other than Jack Straw, the UK Foreign Secretary.

107

Row over conflict’s legality as PM retreats](http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=423532)

  • Mystery over Straw’s BBC role as clamour engulfs Attorney General
  • Powell insists Niger WMD evidence was too weak to disclose to UN

**Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney General, was under mounting pressure last night to state whether the war in Iraq was illegal because no weapons of mass destruction (WMD) have been found.

Amid growing signs that the Government is preparing the ground for no actual weapons being discovered, MPs warned that the legal basis for the conflict would be destroyed if no WMD were uncovered.

Ministers insisted the war would still be legal if no WMD were found, because action was taken on the basis that Saddam Hussein had flouted previous United Nations resolutions. But Labour MPs replied that many of them had been won over by the crucial legal advice from the Attorney General that military action was justified. **

Downing Street insisted yesterday that evidence that Saddam possessed WMD would be found, but stopped short of stating that actual weapons _ capable of being used at the time of the war _ would be uncovered.

Tony Blair’s official spokes-man denied a BBC report quoting senior Whitehall figures as saying that WMD may never be found. Choosing his words carefully, the spokesman said: “The Prime Minister is absolutely confident we will find
evidence not only of WMD programmes, but concrete evidence of products of those programmes as well.”

But several developments undermined the Government’s position. Speaking in South Africa, Colin Powell, the US Secretary of State, said he did not mention evidence of an Iraq-Niger uranium deal in a presentation to the UN Security Council before the war because he “did not think it was strong enough” _ even though President George Bush included it in his State of the Union address just a week before. Documents on the alleged deal proved to be forged.

In London, Sir Rodric Braithwaite, former head of the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC), told Channel 4 News that Downing Street had used threats of “imminent terrorist attacks” _ which saw tanks in defensive positions at Heathrow _ to “oversell” the threat of global terrorism.

The Government’s relations with the BBC _ damaged by the row over whether No 10 “sexed up” a dossier on WMD _ were further complicated when it emerged that Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, may have been the source of the BBC report about Whitehall fears that no WMD would be found. He is believed to have met Andrew Marr, the BBC’s political editor, shortly before he broadcast his report.

The Foreign Office said last night: “The Foreign Secretary continues to be confident that evidence of WMD programmes and their products will be found. Nobody at the Foreign Office takes the view, as reported, that we no longer believe we will do so.”

Whitehall officials said evidence of “programmes” could be paperwork or statements from scientists that they had worked on developing WMD. “Products” could include evidence that weapons had been destroyed when Saddam “realised the game was up”.

Downing Street’s refusal to say that “actual weapons” would be found threw the spotlight back on to the Attorney General’s advice. The Liberal Democrats will table questions to him in the House of Lords, challenging him over the legal basis for the war.

Menzies Campbell, the Liberal Democrats’ foreign affairs spokesman and a QC, said: “If this information is well founded, it drives a horse and cart through the Government’s legal justification for going to war. It also undermines the opinion of the Attorney General, which proved decisive with wavering backbenchers.”

Brian Donohoe, Labour MP for Cunninghame South, said he only supported the war because he believed there was an “immediate threat of Saddam utilising WMD”. He said: “If I don’t see evidence that is overwhelming in terms of WMD having been there, I’m not going to call for it, but I do believe the position of the Prime Minister in those circumstances is untenable and that he would have to resign.”

Ministers claimed the Attorney General had not relied on WMD as a legal basis for war. “We were very careful not to get trapped into saying that,” one said. “The legal case was based on Iraq’s failure to comply with previous UN resolutions, to account for WMD that everyone in the international community accepts that it possessed.”

108

*The Government's relations with the BBC _ damaged by the row over whether No 10 "sexed up" a dossier on WMD _ were further complicated when it emerged that Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, may have been the source of the BBC report about Whitehall fears that no WMD would be found. He is believed to have met Andrew Marr, the BBC's political editor, shortly before he broadcast his report. *

Yep, just as I thought. No wonder Peter Hain,was all edgy and spitting fury in the House of Commons last night, especially as Labour MP's are now openly calling for Blair to be removed if WMD is not found.

If the Straw rumours are true, then Blair will be mortally wounded and may well be off to palace for his final meeting with the Queen. :)

109

oh comon guys
its all history now iraq is now an american colony for god knows how many years to come. truth more of it will keep comming out there will be documentries like panorama, assignment that will show us how many innocent iraqis were killed blah blah.......
bottom line is its the might thats always right

110

**Bush: CIA Approved State of Union Speech **

By TOM RAUM, Associated Press Writer

ENTEBBE, Uganda - President Bush (news - web sites) and his national security adviser on Friday put responsibility squarely on the CIA (news - web sites) for the president’s erroneous claim in his State of the Union address that Iraq (news - web sites) tried to acquire nuclear material from Africa.

“I gave a speech to the nation that was cleared by the intelligence services,” Bush told reporters in Uganda.

National security adviser Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites) was more direct, saying, “The CIA cleared the speech in its entirety.”

Details

I didn’t do it… it was not my fault, I am always right, its all because of their mistake…

:rotfl: :hehe: :rotfl:

111

CIA has now admitted it cleared a pack of lies, that most of us were saying so back then. I wonder what those who were defending these false claims then are gonna say now? :hehe:

112

Blix’s interviews with the Independent and the BBC’s Panorama programme:

Blair made WMD mistake says Blix, BBC, 13 July 2003

Hans Blix: Blair made a fundamental mistake over ‘45 minutes to deploy’ claim
Mark Irving and Raymond Whitaker, The Independent, 13 July 2003

113

**War against Iraq was not over nukes: US **

By Anwar Iqbal

WASHINGTON, July 13: The United States did not go to war against Iraq because it believed former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein had nuclear weapons or was buying uranium from Africa , the White House said on Sunday.

“We have never said that we thought that he had nuclear weapons,” US National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice told the Fox News on Sunday.

“It is ludicrous to suggest that the president of the United States went to war on the question of whether Saddam Hussein sought uranium from Africa,” she added.

Her statement comes amid a growing controversy over President Bush’s State of the Union address in January in which he claimed that Iraq had tried to buy uranium from Niger.

Since then, the information has proven wrong and on Friday CIA Director George Tenet admitted that he was responsible for allowing the president to use a false intelligence report in his speech.

Mr Tenet’s admission, however, has not satisfied the opposition leaders, and on Sunday a Democratic presidential candidate, Howard Dean, urged the administration to assure the nation that the president “did no deliberately lie to the American people.”

Reports in the US media on Sunday pointed out that in his State of the Union address, President Bush also spoke of Iraq’s efforts to buy aluminium tubes for making nuclear weapons. This also proved incorrect.

The question several Democrats are asking now is: whether it was right to go to war against Iraq on the basis of those reports?

Ms Rice, however, said that in his speech President Bush had laid out “a very broad case” against Iraq and there was only a reference to Baghdad’s attempt to buy uranium.

She said the collective judgment of the intelligence agencies was that he (Saddam Hussein) had acquired those nuclear tubes for purposes of centrifuge construction.

Asked would it be safe to say that Saddam Hussein did not have nuclear weapons, Ms Rice said: "we have never said that we thought that he had nuclear weapons. This was an issue of reconstitution, of how quickly he might be able to reconstitute a vast infrastructure that was still in place, of the fact that we missed, the last time around, how close he was to a nuclear weapon. “But the reconstitution case was based on a number of issues: the procurement, the brainpower of the scientists, the efforts to get high-quality components for centrifuges. We have found, for instance, with the scientists that we found, that he was burying pieces of centrifuges in his yard,” she added.

============================================
http://www.dawn.com/2003/07/14/top13.htm

hmmmm american’s are very good in backing down.

114

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Changez_like: *

"__ things that Saddam Hussein did not do for them"... Bush.
Did he mean after invasion? To my knowledge, Water and Electricity was a no problem in Iraq.
[/QUOTE]

i think he didn't

115

• Bush defends prewar intelligence on Iraq

Defending his credibility, President Bush said Monday the United States made the right decision to invade Iraq and the intelligence on which he relied was “darn good” — even though some of it now is in question.

Bush said the United States was reviewing documents and interviewing Iraqis in an intensive effort to support the administration’s still unproven claim that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

“When it’s all said and done,” Bush insisted, “the people of the United States and the world will realize that Saddam Hussein had a weapons program.”

116

Former Inspector’s Book Criticizes Bush, Edith M. Lederer, The Guardian, 15 July 2003

Former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter released a new book, accusing President Bush of illegally attacking Iraq and calling for "regime change’’ in the United States at the next election.

Ritter criticized key figures caught up in the U.S.-led war at Monday’s U.N. news conference. He said Bush lied to the American people and Congress about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction; U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan lacked courage; former chief weapons inspector Hans Blix was "a moral and intellectual coward.‘’

Ritter, a former U.S. Marine, was a weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 to 1998. He has been a vocal critical of the Bush administration’s policy on Iraq. Ritter said he wrote "Frontier Justice, Weapons of Mass Destruction and the Bushwacking of America’’ to educate people. The 209-page paperback, published by Context Books, has on its cover a picture of Bush in jeans and a cowboy hat, behind the wheel of a truck.

In the book, Ritter notes that the Bush administration’s stated reason for launching the war was to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. The book argues that there is no evidence that Iraq possesses, produces or concealed nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. Therefore, Ritter argues that "the United States carried out an illegal war of aggression.‘’

Bush, responding Monday to similar charges about the lack of evidence of illegal Iraqi weapons, insisted: "When it’s all said and done, the people of the United States and the world will realize that Saddam Hussein had a weapons program.‘’

Ritter said Bush’s real goal was to get rid of Saddam Hussein’s regime. "What is needed in America is regime change,‘’ Ritter writes. "Anything but Bush and (Vice President Dick) Cheney.‘’

At the news conference, Ritter accused France and Germany of failing to get a Security Council or General Assembly resolution calling the war illegal and demanding a U.S. withdrawal. Ritter had kind words for Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency. He said ElBaradei was "much more honest’’ than Blix about appraising Iraq’s nuclear weapons and the threat they posed.

117

he shud off told them before the war

118

In 1998 the UN left Iraq knowing that Saddam still had chemical weapons. Those have not been accounted for since.

119

Why are we still talking about this?

120

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by underthedome: *
In 1998 the UN left Iraq knowing that Saddam still had chemical weapons. Those have not been accounted for since.
[/QUOTE]

and after 4 months of presence in Iraq, they remain unaccounted for.