WoMD ... so where are they?

by Simon 865 Replies latest social current

  • searchfothetruth
    searchfothetruth


    Sunday, Jun. 01, 2003 Weapons of Mass Disappearance The war in Iraq was based largely on intelligence about banned arms that still haven't been found. Was America's spy craft wrong — or manipulated? By MICHAEL DUFFY

    How do take your country to war when it doesn't really want to go? You could subcontract with another nation, fight on the sly and hope no one notices. But if you need a lot of troops to prevail and you would like to remind everyone in the neighborhood who's boss anyway, then what you need most is a good reason — something to stir up the folks back home.

    As the U.S. prepared to go to war in Iraq last winter, the most compelling reason advanced by George W. Bush to justify a new kind of pre-emptive war was that Saddam Hussein possessed nuclear, chemical and biological arms — weapons of mass destruction (wmd). "There's no doubt in my mind but that they currently have chemical and biological weapons," said Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in January. "We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons," said Vice President Dick Cheney in March. That Iraq might have WMD was never the only reason the Bush Administration wanted to topple Saddam. But it was the big reason, the casus belli, the public rationale peddled over and over to persuade a skeptical nation, suspicious allies and a hostile United Nations to get behind the controversial invasion. And while that sales pitch fell flat overseas, it worked better than expected at home: by late March, 77% of the public felt that invading U.S. troops would find WMD.

    But eight weeks after the war's end, most of that confident intelligence has yet to pan out, and a growing number of experts think it never will. Current and former U.S. officials have begun to question whether the weapons will ever be found in anything like the quantities the U.S. suggested before the war — if found at all — and whether the U.S. gamed the intelligence to justify the invasion. For now, WMD seems to stand for weapons of mass disappearance. Smarting from the accusations that they had cooked the books, top U.S. officials fanned out late last week to say the hunt would go on and the weapons would eventually be found. CIA officials told TIME that they would produce a round of fresh evidence for increasingly wary lawmakers as early as next week. After dispatching dozens of G.I. patrols to some 300 suspected WMD sites in Iraq over the past two months, only to come up empty-handed, the Pentagon announced last week that it will shift from hunting for banned weapons to hunting for documents and people who might be able to say where banned weapons are — or were. But it is clear that the U.S. is running out of good leads. "We've been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad," Lieut. General James T. Conway, commander of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, said last week. "But they're simply not there."

    For full article go to: http://www.time.com/time/nation/printout/0%2C8816%2C455767%2C00.html

  • Realist
    Realist

    still no WMD found and increasing hate against the amrican troops in iraq with deadly attacks almost every day now.

    its really great what Bush did for the US and all the western world!

    therefore i think its time for all of us to say a BIG THANK YOU to the beloved pres. of the mightiest nation on earth!!!

  • Guest 77
    Guest 77

    A couple of links that may be of interest to some on this subject.

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3574.htm

    http://www.jeremiahproject.com/prophecy/nworder03.html What role does the Bush family play in today's politcs?

    Guest 77

  • ashitaka
    ashitaka

    Pro-war crowd's been a bit quiet on this one, eh? LOL Even if they happen to find some trace of weapons somewhere, is it worth killing thousands of Iraqis over? UGH. Vote Bush out of office before we don't have any world left.

    ash

  • Reborn2002
    Reborn2002

    LOL I agree ashitaka. The pro-war crowd is indeed quiet. As it stands for some reason I hear the whistle in the brush in some western movie as tumbleweeds make their way across the plains.

    I think the most telling tale has been watching the politicians backtrack themselves. The post above with quotes from them is priceless.

    First of all it was a guarantee that WMD exist. That was the sole justification for the war. Now they are saying they might exist, might have been destroyed, or they simply do not know. HMMM....

    I was watching This Morning with George Stephanapoulous (sp?) yesterday and they had Senator John McCain (R) Arizona as a guest. When confronted with the question about WMD, he said the war was now justified for him by seeing people dancing in the streets. Is it not a joyful occasion to see Iraqis liberated from a tyrannical dictator?

    While that may be good, that was not the reason for the war. He was trying to incite emotions in people and deflect the question. Going by his logic (and the logic used now by the Bush Administration) If that is the case, the US better barge into North Korea, Iran, Syria, Yemen, and a thousand other countries with cruel dictatorships.

    As it appears currently with no WMD's being found. The Bush Administration is guilty of manipulating intelligence reports and waging a war under false pretenses. An impeachable offense IMHO.

    I said a long time ago there were other motives behind this war. If you go WAYYY back to earlier pages on this thread, you will find them.

  • patio34
    patio34

    It seems that Orwell's character Winston in 1984 has some application here. It's when he hung onto the fact that 2 + 2 = 4 instead of 5.

    It seems so apparent to me and many others that the motives for this war were highly suspicious. The simple fact no WMDs were found, international law was broken, human rights were violated all by the US/UK "coalition of the willing." 2 + 2 = 4.

    And now Wolfowitz says a major consideration/benefit was being able to get US troops out of Saudi Arabia and over to Iraq. That was a real motivation too.

    Pat

  • ashitaka
    ashitaka
    And now Wolfowitz says a major consideration/benefit was being able to get US troops out of Saudi Arabia and over to Iraq. That was a real motivation too

    That says is all, Pat. They were being thrown out of Saudi Arabia and they had to conquer a nation in order to keep some kind of foothold in the mideast....God forbid if we couldn't bully the arabs anymore.

    ash

  • Realist
    Realist

    the real tragedy is that the US public lets Bush and his criminal band get away with this!

    the inability or better the refusal of the democrats to do something about it speeks volumes imo. it shows clearly that the US is a pseudo-democracy ruled by BIG money and a few super influencial lobbyist groups.

  • ashitaka
    ashitaka
    it shows clearly that the US is a pseudo-democracy ruled by BIG money and a few super influencial lobbyist groups.

    I'm beginning to agree with you. It's just so depressing to see.......what can we do if we aren't rich and powerful? I think we're all kind of doomed to be washed out with the tide, no matter who takes power after Bush. I think he's proved that you can do whatever you want and get away with it, as long as you feign religous piety well.

    ash

  • Realist
    Realist

    ashitaka,

    It's just so depressing to see.......what can we do if we aren't rich and powerful?

    yes i know its sad.

    the only thing one can try is to vote for nadar or another alternative party. but its HIGHLY unlikely the ruling class will ever let a truly honest man gain control.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit