US gives up WMD hunt in Iraq

[aldona]

From ABC (Australia) News -

(quote)

US gives up WMD hunt in Iraq. 13/01/2005. ABC News Online

[This is the print version of story ]http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200501/s1280990.htm]

Last Update: Thursday, January 13, 2005. 6:12am (AEDT)

US gives up WMD hunt in Iraq

By John Shovelan in Washington and agencies

The Bush administration in the United States has confirmed it has given up its hunt for weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq.

The 700 members of the Iraq Survey Group have been redeployed.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan announced the hunt was over.

"The weapons that we all believe were there based on the intelligence were not there," he said.

The Bush administration and its allies said the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's stockpiles of WMD and his intention to reconstitute a nuclear weapons program justified the invasion and the war.

The US's top weapons hunter, CIA specialist Charles Duelfer, has returned home to the US.

Mr McClellan says a lot of the Iraq Survey Group's mission is now focused elsewhere.

He says nothing has changed President Bush's view that Saddam's regime had the intent and capability to use such weapons.

"Saddam Hussein was pursuing an aggressive strategy to undermine the UN oil-for-food program and bring down the United Nations sanctions through illicit finance and procurement schemes," Mr McClellan said.

"He intended to resume his pursuit of weapons of mass destruction once those sanctions were eliminated."

An interim report last September concluded that Iraq had no stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons.

© 2005 Australian Broadcasting Corporation

[bevin]

Quote:

---

"The weapons that we all believe were there based on the intelligence were not there," he said.

---

The UN Weapons Inspectors did not believe they were there.

The Bush administration owes them a huge apology - but Bush never apologies for his stupid mistakes. He hands out Medals instead.

/Bevin

[Dr. Shane]

The Left still doesn't get it.

When I get down on my knees tonight I am thanking God George Bush had the courage and the will to enforce the UN resolutions. We now know if he hadn't Saddam would have had sanctions lifted and been well on his way to nuclear weapons.

Praise God from Whom all blessings flow. He is still involved in the affairs of man. He sets up kings and brings them down.

[Rosie]

Quote:

---

Praise God from Whom all blessings flow. He is still involved in the affairs of man. He sets up kings and brings them down.

---

This is true.

And we should pray for President Bush, certainly. Who is more in need of prayer, supplication and intercession than the man who is leader of the most powerful nation in the world?

1 Timothy 2:1,2

[Ron Lambert]

The question of whether there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq just prior to the U.S.-led invasion has not been answered. The fact that the military has given up looking for them now does not mean they were not there, and removed across the border into Syria, etc. Satellite imagery did show trucks gathered around facilities believed to have housed WMD stockpiles, and those trucks subsequently headed across the border.

Second, the fact is clear that Saddam Hussein held on to his key people who had been involved in producing WMD in the past, and gave every indication that he would start up those programs again, including nuclear, as soon as the U.N. spotlight were removed. The U.S.-led invasion surprised him, and stopped those plans permanently.

As for the belief that there were WMD in Iraq at the time of the invasion, not only did every intelligence service in the world believe this, Saddam Hussein himself encouraged this belief, apparently so he could enjoy more prestige. The Bush administration was certainly sincere in this belief, since they had all the ground forces in the initial invasion wear biochemical warfare suits that were very uncomfortable in the heat. It came as a surprise, indeed a pleasant surprise, when Coalition forces were not subjected to biological or chemical attack.

Is this horse dead enough yet that we can stop beating it? The horse is compost by now!

[Bravus]

I think the poor horse would rest a little easier in its grave if Bush, Blair, Howard et all were willing to come out and publicly say 'We sincerely believed this to be the case, but we were mistaken'.

[Ron Lambert]

They already have, countless times. Do you refuse to recognize this because they still maintain the invasion of Iraq was just?

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

Satellite imagery did show trucks gathered around facilities believed to have housed WMD stockpiles

---

Unbiased news source for this? I have been searching for information on this and can not find it...wanna provide it?

Quote:

---

[1]As for the belief that there were WMD in Iraq at the time of the invasion, [2]not only did every intelligence service in the world believe this,[3] Saddam Hussein himself encouraged this belief, apparently so he could enjoy more prestige.

---

1] at the time of the invasion, there were no WMDs. There has been no information showing this at the time. Only speculation.

2] Every intelligence source appears to be scooped by Saddam himself. He knew who they were and fed them the information that he wanted.

3] Saddam encouraged this belief because he had 3 different ethnic tribes to placate. If he did not, he would have been over thrown and supplanted. There was NO love lost between all those tribes.

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

The question of whether there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq just prior to the U.S.-led invasion has not been answered.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

I think it safe to say there were no stock piles like Saddam led the world to believe. However we know Al-queda had safe harbor in Iraq and was learning how to make WMDs themselves.

[bevin]

Quote:

---

I think it safe to say there were no stock piles like Saddam led the world to believe.

---

I think it is safe to say there where no stock piles, just like Saddam showed the UN Weapons inspectors.

HECK, the man showed the Weapons Inspectors the truth, the UN Weapons Inspectors told the USA the truth, AND BUSH LIED TO THE WORLD AND INSULTED THE INSPECTORS AND CLAIMED TO HAVE PROOF THAT THE WEAPONS EXISTED.

/Bevin

[Dr. Shane]

Someone is living in fantasy land. Why not say good by to Micky Mouse and Daffy Duck and joint the rest of us in reality.

1. Saddam even had his own intellegence service fooled

2. The weapons inspectors said they believed he was hiding something and that he was not being forthcoming

But if it is easier to deal with Big Bird and the Easter Bunny you can stay in your own world of make-believe.

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

Is this horse dead enough yet that we can stop beating it? The horse is compost by now!

---

Dunno ... how about a trade? We can stop beating this one when Shane stops beating the "Bush Hate" one.

[bevin]

Quote:

---

The weapons inspectors said they believed he was hiding something and that he was not being forthcoming

---

The weapons inspectors said

1. We haven't found anything

2. If the USA has any evidence they should tell us where to look

3. We haven't finished our job yet

Bush said he had proof that was solid enough to go to war over. He lied - or he has a really poor grasp of the concept 'solid'.

The Bush said he was certain the USA would find something as part of the post-invasion / occupation search.

He was wrong about that too.

Then he waited until AFTER the elections to stop the search - because he didn't want that bad news before the elections.

The Bush administration is the worst USA administration in the 20+ years I have lived in the USA.

/Bevin

[Ron Lambert]

Neil, you must not have searched very hard. Following are only two interesting selections from the first of ten pages of hits I found in my Yahoo search for "WMD satellite trucks Iraq" Here is one article from UPI about large convoys of trucks flooding from Iraq into Syria at the start of the war:

Quote:

---

U.S. says WMD went from Iraq to Syria

.

WASHINGTON, Oct. 29 (UPI) -- U.S. intelligence officials Wednesday released an assessment that Iraqi weapons of mass destruction have been transferred to neighboring Syria.

.

The officials, in the first assessment of its kind, said the transfer occurred during the weeks prior to the U.S.-led war against the Saddam Hussein regime.

.

Middle East Newsline reported the U.S. assessment was based on satellite images of convoys of Iraqi trucks that poured into Syria during February and March. U.S. intelligence officials say the trucks contained missiles and WMD components banned by the U.N.'s Security Council.

.

Copyright 2003 by United Press International.

All rights reserved.

---

Here is another one from The Washington Times that combines humint with satellite intelligence:

Quote:

---

Saddam agents on Syria border helped move banned materials

.

By Rowan Scarborough

THE WASHINGTON TIMES

.

Saddam Hussein periodically removed guards on the Syrian border and replaced them with his own intelligence agents who supervised the movement of banned materials between the two countries, U.S. investigators have discovered.

.

The recent discovery by the Bush administration's Iraq Survey Group (ISG) is fueling speculation, but is not proof, that the Iraqi dictator moved prohibited weapons of mass destruction (WMD) into Syria before the March 2003 invasion by a U.S.-led coalition.

.

....

.

The United States spotted the heavy truck traffic via satellite imagery before the war. But spy cameras cannot look through truck canopies, and the ISG has not been able to determine whether any weapons were sent to Syria for hiding.

.

In an interview in October, retired Lt. Gen. James R. Clapper Jr., who heads the U.S. agency that processes and analyzes satellite imagery, said he thinks that Saddam's underlings hid banned weapons of mass destruction before the war.

---

There has been much debate back and forth about this. We do not know for sure what was in those trucks. But the circumstances as reported by both satellite imagery and by human agents on the ground is certainly suspicious. Is it really asking too much for anti-Bush partisans to give the Bush administration the benefit of a reasonable doubt on this issue rather than rushing to condemn them for deliberate deception? The operative term here is REASONABLE DOUBT.

[Neil D]

Ron,

These reports are speculative. Granted, they are something that needs to be looked at, but in context with other [at the time] current information. Concider what this information has to overcome-

[:"green"]Since 1998, US and British warplanes have been flying bombing sorties over Iraq, selectively bombing suspected military targets for over four years. Yet no one in the US press has asked the key question: if the US and Britain have been bombing Iraq since 1998, how could Iraq rebuild its missile sites, chemical weapons plants, and nuclear capability without them becoming targets of US bombs? Neither the Bush administration nor the Blair dossier answers this question.

The second thing that stands out in the dossier is that, when it mentions the UNSCOM weapons inspections from 1991 to 1998, it reminds us of how effective they were. Particularly in the early years, from 1991-1995, UNSCOM was busy: they dismantled Iraq's nuclear weapons program, destroyed most (if not all) of its chemical munitions, and exposed its highly secret--albeit tiny and fledgling--bioweapons program (which, the Blair report admits, was probably destroyed by Iraq in secret to prevent its exposure). By 1996, UNSCOM was running out of work and was relegated to poring through boring Iraqi government documents--a testament to its own success. The Blair report reads like an outright endorsement for inspections. [/]

So, in context, you have a bunch of trucks running around. No confirmed sighting as to what was in them, nor were they concidered worthy targets for our airplanes....Something to concider, Ron....

[Ron Lambert]

But the moral obligation for you remains to allow the Bush administration the benefit of a reasonable doubt before you rush to judgment and condemn it.

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

But the moral obligation for you remains to allow the Bush administration the benefit of a reasonable doubt before you rush to judgment and condemn it.

---

Not when there is enough evidence to show otherwise, Ron. And I believe there is enough evidence to show Bush's bias and reasons for invading, everything from favoring big corporations and giving ennormous profits at taxpayers expense, to revenge for the contract that Saddam put out on Daddy Bush.

All I have here is that some trucks stopped at some bunkers. The airforce did not target those trucks...Why not? They are military targets. Is it not possible that Bush had intell on them already? After all, why waste a $1 Million smart bomb on $300k of possible WMD, eh?

So, is the US goverment THAT stupid?

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

there is enough evidence to show Bush's bias and reasons for invading, everything from favoring big corporations and giving ennormous profits at taxpayers expense, to revenge for the contract that Saddam put out on Daddy Bush.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

That is Micheal Moore, folks. If you want to know who is talking there. Seems he has a puppet on a string here in C/A.

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

But the moral obligation for you remains to allow the Bush administration the benefit of a reasonable doubt before you rush to judgment and condemn it.

---

I see no such "moral obligation" here. The matter seems quite plain.

As Bevin stated:

• [:"blue"]

  The weapons inspectors said:

  1. We haven't found anything

  2. If the USA has any evidence they should tell us where to look

  3. We haven't finished our job yet

  Bush said he had proof that was solid enough to go to war over.

  He lied - or he has a really poor grasp of the concept 'solid'.

  Then Bush said he was certain the USA would find something as part of the post-invasion/occupation search.

  He was wrong about that too.

  Then he waited until AFTER the elections to stop the search - because he didn't want that bad news before the elections.[/]

I'd say that indicates something more than mere "reasonable doubt". Feel free to interpret it however you feel led, but trying to tell others what their "moral obligation" is concerning what they do with this knowledge is inappropriate. For starters, you simply don't know, and for another thing, it's not your place to say.

[Dr. Shane]

Sister Nico,

Using Bevin to support your arguement is like riding on the Titanic. I mean, do you know anyone else here with more bias?

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

Using Bevin to support your arguement is like riding on the Titanic. I mean, do you know anyone else here with more bias?

---

Lol!

What a hoot!.......Is there anyone here with MORE bias????

I am sorry the irony is lost to you, Shane....

What a hoot!

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

Sister Nico,

Using Bevin to support your arguement is like riding on the Titanic. I mean, do you know anyone else here with more bias?

---

You've got to be kidding me. I have seen few here with less bias than Bevin. He's a straight shooter. He sticks to facts, is logical (not reactionary), precise, and succinct, and as a result, he neither caves into nor panders to others' socio-emotional manipulations.

Socio-emotional manipulations like -- oh, you know Shane -- like making comments that quoting from another's succinct summary of the facts is akin to "riding on the Titanic".

If you find fault with Bevin's summary, offer a proper rebuttal of substance. Otherwise, zip it. Shooting the messenger doesn't cut the mustard here.

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

I have seen few here with less bias than Bevin. He's a straight shooter.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Oh where to start? Name an issue that the Adventists embrace and you have about an 85% chance that Brother Bevin will not agree with it. He believes in salavation through faith by grace so I consider him a brother in Christ. However the rest of his beliefs are far from us. He doesn't even believe in Creation which is what the Three Angels' Message and the Advent movement is all about. (That is it is what sets us apart from God's other sheep)

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

However the rest of his beliefs are far from us. He doesn't even believe in Creation which is what the Three Angels' Message and the Advent movement is all about. (That is it is what sets us apart from God's other sheep)

---

Really? The SDA church's main theological thrust is on creation????

No, no, no, no, no, no no,no, no,no,no....Not even close, Shane. Our main contribution to the Christian world is the balance between Law and Grace. And even that is confusing 'tween layperson in our church because we are still attempting to put law into our salvation....No, our contribution is all on Grace, and how it affect us and our response to it.

And Bevin is as much a SDA as he deserves to be, which is to say, just enough to be an Adventist, and not quite enough to be a Law centered Adventist.

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

Name an

issue that the Adventists embrace

and you have about an

85% chance that Brother Bevin will not agree

with it. He believes in salavation through faith by grace so I consider him a brother in Christ. However the

rest of his beliefs are far from us.

He doesn't even believe in Creation which is what the Three Angels' Message and the Advent movement is all about. (That is it is what sets us apart from God's other sheep)

---

[:"red"](emphasis added)[/]

Interesting that this is what you cite as evidence for considering him "one of the more biased" people here. Hmmm. I wasn't aware that agreement with any particular group formed a necessary pre-requisite to being considered unbiased. I'd rather thought it was the other way around.