U.S. Hunt for Iraqi Banned Weapons Slows

burek

Member
Feb 19, 2002
190
0
0
U.S. Hunt for Iraqi Banned Weapons Slows

U.S. Hunt for Iraqi Banned Weapons Slows

By DAFNA LINZER, Associated Press Writer

BAGHDAD, Iraq - U.S. military units assigned to track down Iraqi weapons of mass destruction have run out of places to look and are getting time off or being assigned to other duties, even as pressure mounts on President Bush (news - web sites) to explain why no banned arms have been found.


After nearly three months of fruitless searches, weapons hunters say they are now waiting for a large team of Pentagon (news - web sites) intelligence experts to take over the effort, relying more on leads from interviews and documents.


"It doesn't appear there are any more targets at this time," said Lt. Col. Keith Harrington, whose team has been cut by more than 30 percent. "We're hanging around with no missions in the foreseeable future."


Over the past week, his and several other teams have been taken off assignment completely. Rather than visit suspected weapons sites, they are brushing up on target practice and catching up on letters home.


Of the seven Site Survey Teams charged with carrying out the search, only two have assignments for the coming week ? but not at suspected weapons sites.


Lt. Col. Ronald Haan, who runs team 6, is using the time to run his troops through a training exercise.
"At least it's keeping the guys busy," he said.


The slowdown comes after checks of more than 230 sites ? drawn from a master intelligence list compiled before the war ? turned up none of the chemical or biological weapons the Bush administration said it went after Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) to destroy.


Still, President Bush insisted Monday that Baghdad had a program to make weapons of mass destruction. "Intelligence throughout the decade shows they had a weapons program. I am absolutely convinced that with time, we'll find out they did have a weapons program," he said.


The Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency said work will resume at a brisk pace once its 1,300-person Iraq (news - web sites) Survey Group takes over.


Ahead of the war, planners were so certain of the intelligence that the weapons teams were designed simply to secure chemical and biological weapons rather than investigate their whereabouts, as U.N. inspectors had done.


But without evidence of weapons, the CIA (news - web sites) and other intelligence agencies have begun reviewing the accuracy of information they supplied to the administration before the March invasion of Iraq. Government inquiries are being set up in Washington, London and other coalition countries to examine how possibly flawed intelligence might have influenced the decision for war.


"The smoking guns just weren't lying out in the open," said David Gai, spokesman for the Iraq Survey Group. "There's a lot more detective work that needs to be done."


The group will work more along the model of U.N. weapons inspectors.


Future sites in the search will be compiled from intelligence gathered in the field, and the teams will be reconfigured to include more civilian scientists and engineers, Gai said.


Several former U.N. inspectors from the United States, Britain and Australia, who know many of Iraq's top weapons experts, will also be brought in.


Led by Keith Dayton, a two-star general from Defense intelligence, the Iraq Survey Group is settling into headquarters in Qatar rather than Iraq. However, it will maintain a large presence of analysts and experts on the same palace grounds outside Baghdad where the weapons hunters are based.



Several dozen staffers have moved to the palace and into other buildings, now being turned into classified document centers, living quarters and office space for the Iraq Survey Group.

With prewar intelligence exhausted and senior figures from the former regime insisting Iraq hasn't had chemical or biological weapons in years, Dayton's staff will be starting from scratch.

"We've interviewed a fraction of the people who were involved. We've gone to a fraction of the sites. We've gone through a fraction of thousands and thousands and thousands of documents about this program," National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites) said Sunday.

Intelligence agents and weapons hunters have been speaking with scientists and experts for the past month, but those interviews have not led the teams to any illegal weapons and none of the tips provided by Iraqis have panned out.

U.N. inspectors spent years learning the names and faces of the Iraqi weapons programs. But in postwar Iraq, the Bush administration cut the organization out of the hunt because of recent assessments that conflicted with Washington's portrayal of Saddam's weapons.

Relations soured further amid reports that U.S. troops failed to secure Iraq's largest nuclear facility from looters.

This week, a U.N. nuclear team returned to Iraq to survey the damage at Tuwaitha ? where 2 tons of uranium had been stored for more than a decade. They began scanning the facility and its equipment for leaking radiation and signs of missing uranium.

One weapons team, specializing in nuclear materials, has been tasked to accompany the U.N. experts until they leave on June 25.
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
1
0
The slowdown comes after checks of more than 230 sites ? drawn from a master intelligence list compiled before the war ? turned up none of the chemical or biological weapons the Bush administration said it went after Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) to destroy.

230? I seem to remember talk of over 2,000 potential sites.
 

sMiLeYz

Platinum Member
Feb 3, 2003
2,696
0
76
Originally posted by: Gaard
The slowdown comes after checks of more than 230 sites ? drawn from a master intelligence list compiled before the war ? turned up none of the chemical or biological weapons the Bush administration said it went after Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) to destroy.

230? I seem to remember talk of over 2,000 potential sites.

Accuracy or truth for that matter, was never a priority of the Bush administration :D
 
Dec 27, 2001
11,272
1
0
Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
Originally posted by: Gaard
The slowdown comes after checks of more than 230 sites ? drawn from a master intelligence list compiled before the war ? turned up none of the chemical or biological weapons the Bush administration said it went after Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) to destroy.

230? I seem to remember talk of over 2,000 potential sites.

Accuracy or truth for that matter, was never a priority of the Bush administration :D

You can't handle the truth.
 

CaptnKirk

Lifer
Jul 25, 2002
10,053
0
71
Now let me get this straight . . .
Yesterday CandyPants Rice was on TV, and so was Powell stating "They're there, we'll find them - just a little more time"
Now today there are admissions that they have run out of places to look - so they are slowing even more, taking time off,
or being re-assigned to other duties ?

Once again this makes no sense, especially with the big rush that they had from last week to bring in another 1,400 investigators.
With the Spy Satellite surveilance that we have, and even limited overflights by TR-1's (U-2's) we should have a handle on every
bit of the alledged WMD - except for those particular inventory stores that were personally destroyed by Swartzkopf at the end of
Gulf-1, but deliberately not inventoried - you know, the ones that were the root cause of 1/2 of the Gulf Syndrome cases. and More info
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
I do think we should end the charade. Why keep a single soldier in the theater to look for WMD when the UN is charged with the responsibility? Let the UN look. That way we will have an excuse if none is found.
 

JellyBaby

Diamond Member
Apr 21, 2000
9,159
1
81
Why keep a single soldier in the theater to look for WMD when the UN is charged with the responsibility? Let the UN look. That way we will have an excuse if none is found.
Except for the fact France, Germany and Russia push a lot of buttons at the U.N. Any UN investigation at this point could very well have less than honest results. Besides the UN lost its mandate the moment the US took action.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Article 51
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,429
6,088
126
The slower the inspections the longer it will take to never know the truth. I suggest we put off looking till after 2008. Those phony bastards can fool most of the people all of the time.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The slower the inspections the longer it will take to never know the truth. I suggest we put off looking till after 2008. Those phony bastards can fool most of the people all of the time.

Why is the US still in Iraq... Article 51 vests that authority with the UN. Let Blix find the WMD.

 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,429
6,088
126
HJ, you maybe say article 51 as something to do with the UN but to me it looked like articles of statehood. I've always felt Iraq should be number 51. Great people, lots of sand, and the oil, well you know about the oil.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
HJ, you maybe say article 51 as something to do with the UN but to me it looked like articles of statehood. I've always felt Iraq should be number 51. Great people, lots of sand, and the oil, well you know about the oil.

There are even a few who say that it is true that Capitalism is an evil system, but it permits us to make economic progress. Lass' sie nach Baghdad kommen. Let them come to Baghdad.

Two thousand years ago the proudest boast was "civis Romanus sum." Today, in the world of freedom, the proudest boast is "Ich bin ein baghdadian".

All free men, wherever they may live, are citizens of Baghdad, and, therefore, as a free man, I take pride in the words "Ich bin ein Baghdadian."



 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Except for the fact France, Germany and Russia push a lot of buttons at the U.N. Any UN investigation at this point could very well have less than honest results. Besides the UN lost its mandate the moment the US took action.

What do you mean? France, Germany, and Russia signed 1441. They also proposed up to 6 months of inspections before the US invasion. You cannot deny that the UN inspections were infinitely more productive than US inspections . . . despite the fact Saddam did not fully cooperate.

As for the UN losing its mandate . . . you speak like a neocon drone. The US action in and of itself could be considered a violation of the UN charter. Furthermore, the US/UK returned to the UN after "major hostilities had ended" to get a mandate for ruling Iraq and ex post facto consent for the invasion/occupation.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,429
6,088
126
Stop the vote count, stop the vote count, stop the weapons inspections before they don't find anything, stop the weapons inspections before they don't find anything.
 

JellyBaby

Diamond Member
Apr 21, 2000
9,159
1
81
What do you mean? France, Germany, and Russia signed 1441. They also proposed up to 6 months of inspections before the US invasion. You cannot deny that the UN inspections were infinitely more productive than US inspections . . . despite the fact Saddam did not fully cooperate.

As for the UN losing its mandate . . . you speak like a neocon drone. The US action in and of itself could be considered a violation of the UN charter. Furthermore, the US/UK returned to the UN after "major hostilities had ended" to get a mandate for ruling Iraq and ex post facto consent for the invasion/occupation.
Neocon? No, just someone who loves his country and believes it shouldn't bow down to the dictates of New World Orders and International Governments.

You almost speak like an unquestioning, pro-UN drone. The UN has no enforcement arm and it will stay that way if soveriegn nations remain true to their citizens and work to protect their freedoms. As for the UN losing its mandate, I'd almost suggest it did so years ago when it dictated terrible economic sanctions on Iraq's people, killing not a small number of them, and relegating others to a life of misery.

But I understand your point-of-view. America did obligate and submit itself to the UN vis-a-vis Iraq in '91 and to some degree last year. Iraq surrendered to that body, not to us. Diving in with a small coalition now without UN "approval" was certainly bad form. If I thought the UN deserves what it seeks to obtain I might agree with you. It doesn't and I don't so I'm afraid I can't shed a tear when its charter is offended.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
You almost speak like an unquestioning, pro-UN drone. The UN has no enforcement arm and it will stay that way if soveriegn nations remain true to their citizens and work to protect their freedoms. As for the UN losing its mandate, I'd almost suggest it did so years ago when it dictated terrible economic sanctions on Iraq's people, killing not a small number of them, and relegating others to a life of misery.
Much like the US government the UN is founded on ideals which it often fails to uphold . . . but by definition the UN is not a stand alone entity . . . it is a collective. Hence virtually every mis-step by the UN is a function of its membership . . . typically a veto holding tyrannt. If you ever choose to investigate the use of vetoes at the UN . . . you will likely find it is often used for purposes other than defending the common good of the common man.

The terrible sanctions dictated by the UN were forced upon the UN by the United States of America. The great suffering of the Iraqi people is 2/3 Saddam and 1/3 US diplomacy by other means. I do not understand how so many defenders of US foreign policy blame the UN for everything that goes wrong despite the fact US fingerprints are invariably found on everything the UN does.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,429
6,088
126
Jelly is afraid of authority. He wishes to submit to none because he labors under that of his own. He is a passive authoritarian.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Jelly is afraid of authority. He wishes to submit to none because he labors under that of his own. He is a passive authoritarian.

Just turn around and moon them moonbeam... show em the back side;)
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: JellyBaby
Why keep a single soldier in the theater to look for WMD when the UN is charged with the responsibility? Let the UN look. That way we will have an excuse if none is found.
Except for the fact France, Germany and Russia push a lot of buttons at the U.N. Any UN investigation at this point could very well have less than honest results. Besides the UN lost its mandate the moment the US took action.

The UN didn't lose its mandate. The US usurped it.

We are now in the third month of an illegal invasion which has now been proven to be based on lies about Iraq's WMD and the imminent threat they posed to the US.

Even if the UN wasn't involved our reason for invading Iraq is a lie.
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Backside - Darkside, may the Force be with you, not against you.

Bush will start sounding like Scotty down in the engine room soon.

"I don't know how much longer I can hold her together!"

The rats have already begun deserting the sinking White House. Fleischer, Whitman, Franks, and others. There have been so many defections I can't remember them all without researching it.
 

JellyBaby

Diamond Member
Apr 21, 2000
9,159
1
81
Much like the US government the UN is founded on ideals which it often fails to uphold . . . but by definition the UN is not a stand alone entity . . . it is a collective. Hence virtually every mis-step by the UN is a function of its membership . . . typically a veto holding tyrannt. If you ever choose to investigate the use of vetoes at the UN . . . you will likely find it is often used for purposes other than defending the common good of the common man.

The terrible sanctions dictated by the UN were forced upon the UN by the United States of America. The great suffering of the Iraqi people is 2/3 Saddam and 1/3 US diplomacy by other means. I do not understand how so many defenders of US foreign policy blame the UN for everything that goes wrong despite the fact US fingerprints are invariably found on everything the UN does.
First you say the UN isn't a standalone entity but a collective of nations and any misstep is the fault of the member nations. Then in the next paragraph you say the US alone forced the UN to wage those sanctions against Iraq. Well, which is it?

You do illustrate the point the UN isn't designed terribly well. It can be influenced so greatly by the powerful members, especially in the security council where you have veto power abuse. Another reason to get rid of it, or at least end our participation in it.
Jelly is afraid of authority.
No, I just prefer it decentralized and scoped correctly.

BOBDN, yep that's true and that usurpation in this case seems incredibly dumb. What I'm saying is in the general sense usurpation of an invalid authority doesn't bother me too much. You can argue both ways as to whether the US-Iraq situation falls into that bucket. We gave up sovereignty to the UN and we retook it and that's a good thing. However it was the UN's ballgame we stole and that's a bad thing.

No one ever said our foreign policy was consistent. Perhaps it's time we make it so.
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: JellyBaby
Much like the US government the UN is founded on ideals which it often fails to uphold . . . but by definition the UN is not a stand alone entity . . . it is a collective. Hence virtually every mis-step by the UN is a function of its membership . . . typically a veto holding tyrannt. If you ever choose to investigate the use of vetoes at the UN . . . you will likely find it is often used for purposes other than defending the common good of the common man.

The terrible sanctions dictated by the UN were forced upon the UN by the United States of America. The great suffering of the Iraqi people is 2/3 Saddam and 1/3 US diplomacy by other means. I do not understand how so many defenders of US foreign policy blame the UN for everything that goes wrong despite the fact US fingerprints are invariably found on everything the UN does.
First you say the UN isn't a standalone entity but a collective of nations and any misstep is the fault of the member nations. Then in the next paragraph you say the US alone forced the UN to wage those sanctions against Iraq. Well, which is it?

You do illustrate the point the UN isn't designed terribly well. It can be influenced so greatly by the powerful members, especially in the security council where you have veto power abuse. Another reason to get rid of it, or at least end our participation in it.
Jelly is afraid of authority.
No, I just prefer it decentralized and scoped correctly.

BOBDN, yep that's true and that usurpation in this case seems incredibly dumb. What I'm saying is in the general sense usurpation of an invalid authority doesn't bother me too much. You can argue both ways as to whether the US-Iraq situation falls into that bucket. We gave up sovereignty to the UN and we retook it and that's a good thing. However it was the UN's ballgame we stole and that's a bad thing.

No one ever said our foreign policy was consistent. Perhaps it's time we make it so.

I'm all for consistent FAIR foreign policy. I don't think Bush can fit that bill anymore after his actions lying to start a war in Iraq. So how about we impeach Bush and Co. and get a fresh start?

 

JellyBaby

Diamond Member
Apr 21, 2000
9,159
1
81
I'm all for consistent FAIR foreign policy. I don't think Bush can fit that bill anymore after his actions lying to start a war in Iraq. So how about we impeach Bush and Co. and get a fresh start?
Putting limits on foreign policy is up to congress and us, the sheeple. Are we both up to the task? Sadly, not yet.