AP: $700M and not a single item from WMD list found -- "most secretive, expensive and fruitless weapons hunt in history"

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: glenn1

Not that you care, but if the majority of Americans don't notice/care if we never find WMD I'd find that really sad.

No argument. But the political parties seem to make a routine of incorrectly calculating the effects of various revelations to the American public. The Republicans were amazed when Monica Lewinski didn't hurt Clinton. The Democrats were amazed when Iran-Contra didn't hurt Reagan. Etc, etc, ad nauseum.

With luck, the American public is discerning enough to recognize the difference between lying about consensual sex and lying to justify a unilateral invasion that cost thousands of innocent lives, hundreds of billions of dollars, and the good will of much of the world. With luck, even your average innumerate American will recognize that adding a couple trillion dollars to the national debt is bad for America and inconsistent with conservative values. With luck, enough Americans will agree selling America piecemeal to the highest bidder is not in our best interests, and will arise from their apathy come election day.

But I'm not betting on it.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: charrison


It was still one of the many reasons listed before the start of the war.

It wouldn't bother you if the majority of Americans didn't notice/care if WMDs were never found...and by extension, the primary reason for waging war never was proven to be factual?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: charrison


It was still one of the many reasons listed before the start of the war.

It wouldn't bother you if the majority of Americans didn't notice/care if WMDs were never found...and by extension, the primary reason for waging war never was proven to be factual?

It bothers me that our intel and the worlds intel was that far off.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: charrison


It was still one of the many reasons listed before the start of the war.

It wouldn't bother you if the majority of Americans didn't notice/care if WMDs were never found...and by extension, the primary reason for waging war never was proven to be factual?

It bothers me that our intel and the worlds intel was that far off.

That bothers me also. It would also bother me if the majority of Americans didn't notice/care...

Would that also bother you?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: syzygy
kay detailed the vast clandestine programs operated by iraq's intelligence services, the development of new biological toxins,
saddam's continued interest and plotting to redevelop wmd capabilities once the international scrutiny subsided, and the poorly
obvious efforts by the remnants of iraq's intelligence services (or their sympathizers) to sanitize and destroy as much of their evil
doings as possible. the fact that you cannot read nor interpret the basic findings of his report has already been demonstrated.
if you want me to run through the report again with pitiable you, i'll take you by the hand and do so.

Whatever you say, dear.


By the way, Bremer (he's the guy running Iraq for us) refuted the claim about "massive evidence of a huge system of clandestine laboratories." That was before he learned Tony Blair (he's the guy running Great Britain for us) was the one who made the claim. Once he learned Blair said it, he started back-peddling.

This is from the Telegraph (just because it was the first link on Google), but it was widely reported.

In his Christmas message to troops a fortnight ago, which reached British soldiers in the Gulf, Mr Blair said the Iraq Survey Group searching for evidence of Saddam's weapons had unearthed "massive evidence of a huge system of clandestine laboratories". This, he claimed, showed that the former Iraqi dictator had attempted to "conceal weapons".

But Mr Bremer, interviewed on ITV1's Jonathan Dimbleby Programme, who was initially unaware that it was the Prime Minister who had made the claim, ridiculed the comment.

"I don't know where those words come from, but that is not what [ISG chief] David Kay has said," he told Dimbleby as the interviewer tried to interrupt to tell him the source.

"I have read his reports so I don't know who said that. It sounds like a bit of a red herring to me. It sounds like someone who doesn't agree with the policy sets up a red herring then knocks it down."

Seems like there are a lot of us who don't subscribe to Rush's ... err ... your interpretation of Kay's report.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: charrison


It was still one of the many reasons listed before the start of the war.

It wouldn't bother you if the majority of Americans didn't notice/care if WMDs were never found...and by extension, the primary reason for waging war never was proven to be factual?

It bothers me that our intel and the worlds intel was that far off.

That bothers me also. It would also bother me if the majority of Americans didn't notice/care...

Would that also bother you?

Give that there was not a country in the world that thought Iraq was complying with the resolutions that had been laid on it, I dont see a problem with the current situation.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: charrison


It was still one of the many reasons listed before the start of the war.

It wouldn't bother you if the majority of Americans didn't notice/care if WMDs were never found...and by extension, the primary reason for waging war never was proven to be factual?

It bothers me that our intel and the worlds intel was that far off.

That bothers me also. It would also bother me if the majority of Americans didn't notice/care...

Would that also bother you?

Which worries me more...that our intelligence agencies apparently have their heads up their rear, or that the majority of Americans didn't notice/care? I'd say the former. I hope they get it together before somebody gets their hands on a nuke and plops it on a ferry/flatbed.

I think it has been well established that the majority of americans are quite happy as long as they have a new house, $20K in debt, an SUV, 40lbs overweight, and 2 kids in daycare.

 

[ReiAyanami]

the uranium refining centrifuge that one iraqi scientist who says the regime told him to conceal it beneath his rosebush, he musta bought it off ebay and then got a degree from phoenix university...

saddam kicked out the weapons inspectors so i guess he was afraid of all the nothingness they would find.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: charrison
It was still one of the many reasons listed before the start of the war.

It wouldn't bother you if the majority of Americans didn't notice/care if WMDs were never found...and by extension, the primary reason for waging war never was proven to be factual?

It bothers me that our intel and the worlds intel was that far off.

Do you dismiss the complaints that Cheney and Rumsfeld were manipulating and filtering our intelligence to support their agenda? Not only did Rumsfeld set up his own intelligence agency, but it was reported that Cheney personally visited Langley multiple times to "work" with analysts. This level of personal involvement by the VP was called "unprecedented".

Not a flame, I'm curious re. your thoughts.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
the uranium refining centrifuge that one iraqi scientist who says the regime told him to conceal it beneath his rosebush, he musta bought it off ebay and then got a degree from phoenix university...

saddam kicked out the weapons inspectors so i guess he was afraid of all the nothingness they would find.

This was discussed in-depth at the time. It was NOT a complete centrifuge. It was parts and documentation for one out-of-date centrifuge barely suitable for research, let alone production. No one denies Iraq still hoped to obtain WMDs someday. The relevant question is did they have the "massive stockpiles" and "thousands of liters" as Bush, et al, claimed?

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

saddam kicked out the weapons inspectors so i guess he was afraid of all the nothingness they would find.

Hmm . . . so US/UK prohibited IAEA/UN from returning b/c they were afraid of all the nothingness they would find?

 

[syzygy]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: syzygy
kay detailed the vast clandestine programs operated by iraq's intelligence services, the development of new biological toxins,
saddam's continued interest and plotting to redevelop wmd capabilities once the international scrutiny subsided, and the poorly
obvious efforts by the remnants of iraq's intelligence services (or their sympathizers) to sanitize and destroy as much of their evil
doings as possible. the fact that you cannot read nor interpret the basic findings of his report has already been demonstrated.
if you want me to run through the report again with pitiable you, i'll take you by the hand and do so.

Whatever you say, dear.


By the way, Bremer (he's the guy running Iraq for us) refuted the claim about "massive evidence of a huge system of clandestine laboratories." That was before he learned Tony Blair (he's the guy running Great Britain for us) was the one who made the claim. Once he learned Blair said it, he started back-peddling.

This is from the Telegraph (just because it was the first link on Google), but it was widely reported.

In his Christmas message to troops a fortnight ago, which reached British soldiers in the Gulf, Mr Blair said the Iraq Survey Group searching for evidence of Saddam's weapons had unearthed "massive evidence of a huge system of clandestine laboratories". This, he claimed, showed that the former Iraqi dictator had attempted to "conceal weapons".

But Mr Bremer, interviewed on ITV1's Jonathan Dimbleby Programme, who was initially unaware that it was the Prime Minister who had made the claim, ridiculed the comment.

"I don't know where those words come from, but that is not what [ISG chief] David Kay has said," he told Dimbleby as the interviewer tried to interrupt to tell him the source.

"I have read his reports so I don't know who said that. It sounds like a bit of a red herring to me. It sounds like someone who doesn't agree with the policy sets up a red herring then knocks it down."

Seems like there are a lot of us who don't subscribe to Rush's ... err ... your interpretation of Kay's report.

i do need to remove one word from my reply and that is 'vast'. dr. kay certainly found evidence of clandestine weapons labs
but the amount of evidence unearthed does not provide a measurement of breadth for this network - not yet at least. i may
take the liberty of describing its extent based on my own suspicions, and when i do so i will make sure to qualify these
statements. i didn't above.

the same mistake was made by the british pm ('. . . massive evidence . .'), and that is no doubt what bremer corrected and
not the obvious fact that such a network operated within a secret prison system, which is undisputable according to the report.
nice try though.

but keep at it. i cannot see how years of hooked-on-phonics drills, no doubt well into adulthood, could not have left some
positive imprint on your psyche.

 

[syzygy]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

saddam kicked out the weapons inspectors so i guess he was afraid of all the nothingness they would find.

Hmm . . . so US/UK prohibited IAEA/UN from returning b/c they were afraid of all the nothingness they would find?

dr. kay's fidnings proved blix's gross incompetence. i suspect blix is a crypto-saddamite who needs to crawl away in absolute
disgrace.the only accomplishment missing from blix's resume was an address before the ba'ath party congress, a la ritter,
humbling himself before those murderous hordes and a smiling photo-op with the cherubic saddam.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Uh . . . OK.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
the uranium refining centrifuge that one iraqi scientist who says the regime told him to conceal it beneath his rosebush, he musta bought it off ebay and then got a degree from phoenix university...

saddam kicked out the weapons inspectors so i guess he was afraid of all the nothingness they would find.

When? Back in '98? Sure, however in 2003 the inspectors were there right up until the end. Right up until the US/UK told them to get out for their own safety. Meaning the war was starting.

 

[glenn1]

dr. kay's fidnings proved blix's gross incompetence. i suspect blix is a crypto-saddamite who needs to crawl away in absolute
disgrace.the only accomplishment missing from blix's resume was an address before the ba'ath party congress, a la ritter,
humbling himself before those murderous hordes and a smiling photo-op with the cherubic saddam.

Yes, i agree that Blix is a tool. But even broken clocks are right twice a day. It seems like although Blix had his mind made up (not in good faith and for all the wrong reasons, IMHO), he wound up being correct whereas the Bush administration had its mind made up and wound up being incorrect.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: syzygy

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

saddam kicked out the weapons inspectors so i guess he was afraid of all the nothingness they would find.

Hmm . . . so US/UK prohibited IAEA/UN from returning b/c they were afraid of all the nothingness they would find?

dr. kay's fidnings proved blix's gross incompetence. i suspect blix is a crypto-saddamite who needs to crawl away in absolute
disgrace.the only accomplishment missing from blix's resume was an address before the ba'ath party congress, a la ritter,
humbling himself before those murderous hordes and a smiling photo-op with the cherubic saddam.

You mean like Rumsfeld? Say cheese.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: charrison
It was still one of the many reasons listed before the start of the war.

It wouldn't bother you if the majority of Americans didn't notice/care if WMDs were never found...and by extension, the primary reason for waging war never was proven to be factual?

It bothers me that our intel and the worlds intel was that far off.

Do you dismiss the complaints that Cheney and Rumsfeld were manipulating and filtering our intelligence to support their agenda? Not only did Rumsfeld set up his own intelligence agency, but it was reported that Cheney personally visited Langley multiple times to "work" with analysts. This level of personal involvement by the VP was called "unprecedented".

Not a flame, I'm curious re. your thoughts.

Do you dismiss that the UN, france and germany that that iraq still had active weapons programs and stockpiles?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: syzygy

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

saddam kicked out the weapons inspectors so i guess he was afraid of all the nothingness they would find.

Hmm . . . so US/UK prohibited IAEA/UN from returning b/c they were afraid of all the nothingness they would find?

dr. kay's fidnings proved blix's gross incompetence. i suspect blix is a crypto-saddamite who needs to crawl away in absolute
disgrace.the only accomplishment missing from blix's resume was an address before the ba'ath party congress, a la ritter,
humbling himself before those murderous hordes and a smiling photo-op with the cherubic saddam.

Interesting, since Blix was the only one to find something.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: syzygy
i do need to remove one word from my reply and that is 'vast'. dr. kay certainly found evidence of clandestine weapons labs but the amount of evidence unearthed does not provide a measurement of breadth for this network - not yet at least. i may take the liberty of describing its extent based on my own suspicions, and when i do so i will make sure to qualify these statements. i didn't above.

the same mistake was made by the british pm ('. . . massive evidence . .'), and that is no doubt what bremer corrected and not the obvious fact that such a network operated within a secret prison system, which is undisputable according to the report.
nice try though.

Well first of all, that is NOT what the report said. I'm not going to go look up the exact quotes -- again -- right now, but it mentioned one prison lab and it mentioned multiple labs maintained by the Iraqi intelligence service. While the report included innuendo about possible purposes for these labs, it offered absolutely ZERO evidence that these labs had, in fact, ever actually been used for proscribed purposes. In short, when you strip out the partisan spin, the report said Iraq had scientific laboratories ... just like every other country in the world.

but keep at it. i cannot see how years of hooked-on-phonics drills, no doubt well into adulthood, could not have left some positive imprint on your psyche.

I like to think I am capable of engaging in intelligent, informative, civil discussions. I am also quite capable of ripping you a new a-hole; Lord knows you've given me plenty of ammunition already. How about we attempt to maintain a civil discussion and keep the ad homs to a minimum?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison
It bothers me that our intel and the worlds intel was that far off.

Do you dismiss the complaints that Cheney and Rumsfeld were manipulating and filtering our intelligence to support their agenda? Not only did Rumsfeld set up his own intelligence agency, but it was reported that Cheney personally visited Langley multiple times to "work" with analysts. This level of personal involvement by the VP was called "unprecedented".

Not a flame, I'm curious re. your thoughts.

Do you dismiss that the UN, france and germany that that iraq still had active weapons programs and stockpiles?

I have two thoughts re. this. First, if I accept your premise, there is still a world of difference between (1) having some intelligence that suggests Iraq still has some WMD stocks, and (2) intentionally twisting and inflating intelligence to dramatically overstate both the scale of Iraq's capabilities and our confidence in our assessment. The reports claim that (2) is what Cheney and Rumsfeld did.

I am still interested in your thoughts re. those reports. If you don't want to debate them, just say so. I'd still like to understand what you think, and I will abide by your wishes to not discuss further.


Second, I am unclear on exactly what France, Germany, and the U.N. asserted re. Iraq's WMD capabilities. I acknowledge there was a passive acceptance that Iraq needed to prove it was in compliance; that's why we had inspectors in Iraq. I am not aware that any of the three made any specific claims like the U.S. and Britain. I am not saying they didn't. I'm just saying I don't know what they did and didn't say. If you have any links, etc., I am interested.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: syzygy
i do need to remove one word from my reply and that is 'vast'. dr. kay certainly found evidence of clandestine weapons labs but the amount of evidence unearthed does not provide a measurement of breadth for this network - not yet at least. i may take the liberty of describing its extent based on my own suspicions, and when i do so i will make sure to qualify these statements. i didn't above.

the same mistake was made by the british pm ('. . . massive evidence . .'), and that is no doubt what bremer corrected and not the obvious fact that such a network operated within a secret prison system, which is undisputable according to the report.
nice try though.

Well first of all, that is NOT what the report said.

Yes, but according to syzygy there is no doubt what it meant.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison
It bothers me that our intel and the worlds intel was that far off.

Do you dismiss the complaints that Cheney and Rumsfeld were manipulating and filtering our intelligence to support their agenda? Not only did Rumsfeld set up his own intelligence agency, but it was reported that Cheney personally visited Langley multiple times to "work" with analysts. This level of personal involvement by the VP was called "unprecedented".

Not a flame, I'm curious re. your thoughts.

Do you dismiss that the UN, france and germany that that iraq still had active weapons programs and stockpiles?

I have two thoughts re. this. First, if I accept your premise, there is still a world of difference between (1) having some intelligence that suggests Iraq still has some WMD stocks, and (2) intentionally twisting and inflating intelligence to dramatically overstate both the scale of Iraq's capabilities and our confidence in our assessment. The reports claim that (2) is what Cheney and Rumsfeld did.

I am still interested in your thoughts re. those reports. If you don't want to debate them, just say so. I'd still like to understand what you think, and I will abide by your wishes to not discuss further.


Second, I am unclear on exactly what France, Germany, and the U.N. asserted re. Iraq's WMD capabilities. I acknowledge there was a passive acceptance that Iraq needed to prove it was in compliance; that's why we had inspectors in Iraq. I am not aware that any of the three made any specific claims like the U.S. and Britain. I am not saying they didn't. I'm just saying I don't know what they did and didn't say. If you have any links, etc., I am interested.

THe UN knew how much stock of WMD Iraq had and still does not know where they are, and how they were disposed of. Germany was quite sure Iraq possess small pox( i have posted this link many times). French intel also thought Iraq was up to no good. Other countries made other claims.

The US may have cherry picked intel, but the rest of the world is guilty of ignoring any intel that would make iraq look bad.

 

[SuperTool]

This war is a giant waste of money and resources. Getting Saddam doesn't mitigate that. If someone asked me if I wanted to pay $1000 to free the Iraqis, I would tell them to FOAD. But that's what it's gonna cost us in either current taxes or with interest in future taxes. We should have built high speed rail from SF to LA to Vegas for a lot less. Now that would be a good use of taxpayer money that would actually improve our infrastructure and make us less dependent on foreign oil at the same time providing jobs. Of course when the federal government is spending money on America the rightwingers get all pissed. They only like when we blow that money on Iraq.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison
It bothers me that our intel and the worlds intel was that far off.

Do you dismiss the complaints that Cheney and Rumsfeld were manipulating and filtering our intelligence to support their agenda? Not only did Rumsfeld set up his own intelligence agency, but it was reported that Cheney personally visited Langley multiple times to "work" with analysts. This level of personal involvement by the VP was called "unprecedented".

Not a flame, I'm curious re. your thoughts.

Do you dismiss that the UN, france and germany that that iraq still had active weapons programs and stockpiles?

I have two thoughts re. this. First, if I accept your premise, there is still a world of difference between (1) having some intelligence that suggests Iraq still has some WMD stocks, and (2) intentionally twisting and inflating intelligence to dramatically overstate both the scale of Iraq's capabilities and our confidence in our assessment. The reports claim that (2) is what Cheney and Rumsfeld did.

I am still interested in your thoughts re. those reports. If you don't want to debate them, just say so. I'd still like to understand what you think, and I will abide by your wishes to not discuss further.


Second, I am unclear on exactly what France, Germany, and the U.N. asserted re. Iraq's WMD capabilities. I acknowledge there was a passive acceptance that Iraq needed to prove it was in compliance; that's why we had inspectors in Iraq. I am not aware that any of the three made any specific claims like the U.S. and Britain. I am not saying they didn't. I'm just saying I don't know what they did and didn't say. If you have any links, etc., I am interested.

THe UN knew how much stock of WMD Iraq had and still does not know where they are, and how they were disposed of. Germany was quite sure Iraq possess small pox( i have posted this link many times). French intel also thought Iraq was up to no good. Other countries made other claims.

The US may have cherry picked intel, but the rest of the world is guilty of ignoring any intel that would make iraq look bad.

We knew Saddam used to have WMDs, but we did not know if he still had them or if he developed new ones. So we sent in UN inspectors, they did their work (destroying the missiles) and Saddam cooperated (getting a 'B' from Blix as I recall).

So why were you and the prowar people so opposed to UN inspectoins? Why all the hurry to get them out of there and start the war? Did you ever even want a peaceful resoluiton, or did you just view the whole UN think as a clever tactic to get the public to do what they did not want to? I honestly do want to know.