It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

WAR: Weapons Inspector Ends WMD Search in Iraq: 'Nothing'

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 09:16 AM
link   
The official CIA Weapons Inspector has ended the search for Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq claiming that his search 'has been exhausted' and the investigation has gone 'as far as feasible'.
 



news.yahoo.com
WASHINGTON - Wrapping up his investigation into Saddam Hussein's purported arsenal, the CIA's top weapons hunter in Iraq said his search for weapons of mass destruction "has been exhausted" without finding any.

The Bush administration justified its 2003 invasion of Iraq as necessary to eliminate Hussein's purported stockpile of WMD.


"As matters now stand, the WMD investigation has gone as far as feasible," Duelfer wrote in an an addendum to the report he issued last fall. "After more than 18 months, the WMD investigation and debriefing of the WMD-related detainees has been exhausted."



Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Note that President Bush as well as his cabinet solely justified the Iraqi invasion because of stored Weapons of Mass Destruction. Eighteen months later, the Weapons Inspectors have turned up with nothing.

So would that mean that the War on Iraq was an illegal invasion? And if so would that mean that George Bush as well has his partners be charged in court upon serious war crimes?




posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 09:19 AM
link   
Another source of this 'lack of evidence' can be found at:
www.washingtonpost.com...



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 09:36 AM
link   
Really?
How many more times does this issue need to be discussed?
The reason for nailing Saddam may have hinged on WMDs, but it was not the only reasons given, eh?
Slam dunk, right? Bush lied?




seekerof



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 09:42 AM
link   
The reason for this report was because I believe previous reports stated that there were WMD's found, and this report states that there is no evidence that they were smuggled to Seria.



The questioning of Iraqis did not produce any information to support the transfer possibility, one addendum said. The Iraq Survey Group believes "it was unlikely that an official transfer of WMD material from Iraq to Syria took place. However, ISG was unable to rule out unofficial movement of limited WMD-related materials."



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 09:50 AM
link   
Actually the reason for this report was a plea to the American government by the Weapons inspectors to stop this senseless search. The CIA weapon inspector even went so far as to say that all efforts to search for something that is not there has be 'exhausted'.



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 10:41 AM
link   
Whew......no WMD's.....Seekerof is right ......this no longer needs to be discussed.....this newspiece provides the nail in the coffin for one portion of the Bush administrations rheotoric. Good thing they had the ole standby of 'enduring freedom'.....what a joke.....America doesn't even have freedom, we have 'personal autonomy'........but whatever......let's civilize them savages....



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 10:54 AM
link   
seekerof
In hindsight it's easy to look back on an event and find reasons to justify the course of action. However it was directly (and repeatedly) stated the reason for the infiltration of Iraq lies solely on Weapons of Mass Destruction.



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 11:43 AM
link   
I need to find the link again, someone in the CIA leaked the results of Saddam's interrogation, which has been supressed for good reason (from a BushCo perspective at least). Saddam basically said that he had ordered the destruction of his WMD stockpiles (mostly chemical) after the 1991 Gulf War, for fear of another US-led campaign. However, he continued to play games with the inspectors so he could maintain the impression that he was still hiding WMDs somewhere - not to threaten the West, but as a bluff to keep the Iranians at bay. He also believed that the US leadership was well aware of this ploy, and pretended not to be for domestic political reasons.

It's funny, we've already gone to war with one (coincidentally, surely) oil-rich country for phantom WMD's, now the political pressure is building to attack another (again coincidentally) oil rich Gulf country, again due to numinous "threats" requiring "preemptive" action.

Will we fall for it again?

Probably - especially if there is a convenient large scale "terrorist" attack in the US, one we can plausibly blame on Iran. I personally won't be spending a lot of time in NYC in late May or early June. I don't have any illusions about the willingness of the US right to use "false flag" ops that kill Americans to give them political cover to "reshape the Mideast", at least not anymore.



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 12:02 PM
link   
I was going to post this, but you beat me to it.


The significance of this matter, as I'm sure everyone who wants it quashed is aware, is that it by all rights should force the resignation or impeachment of those members of the Bush Administration involved in rushing the US to war with Iraq based on a pack of lies, including, for starters, W (is for ?) and extra tricky Dicky. They may have committed High Crimes, even treason.

I can't blame GOP supporters for being bummed about this, it could turn out to be a huge black mark on the party. That would be bad for us all, make no mistake about it.



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
I was going to post this, but you beat me to it.


The significance of this matter, as I'm sure everyone who wants it quashed is aware, is that it by all rights should force the resignation or impeachment of those members of the Bush Administration involved in rushing the US to war with Iraq based on a pack of lies, including, for starters, W (is for ?) and extra tricky Dicky. They may have committed High Crimes, even treason.


The US entered a new age of zero accountability. I watched in dismay how Clinton stayed in power despite having patently lied to the Congress and to the people at large (I don't care what relationship he had or didn't have with Lewinsky, but what matters is that he lied). I had a bad feeling about this, and I was right -- for reasons quite frankly beyond me, the people let the liars get away, and the liars lost the vestige of being accountable. I think the country is in grave danger because of that. How come the American people just keeps buying that crap?





posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 12:18 PM
link   
Forget human rights grounds, the WHOLE basis for the US-led invasion of Iraq was WMD's, period. The happy side efect of removing a murderous dictator should be of no import in this discussion. The Americans lied to the World about grounds for invasion.

The reason WMD's were rolled out as the reason is because if they'd concentrated on human rights grounds the flood gates would of been opened. The Americans would of been obliged to intervene in the other multitude of human rights attrocities endured around the World. If they invade Iraq because of Saddam's behaviour they should also invade Saudi, Congo, Sudan, Libya, Myanmar, Indonesia, Haiti etc etc for the same reasons.

But no, Iraq had to be the only invasion on the agenda. Saying it was based on human rights violations wouldnt of worked. There are/still is worse human rights violators than Saddam Hussein in the World thus they would take precedence in any 'War on Human Rights Attrocities'.

Iraq had to fall into the hands of the Americans because its the Worlds 2nd largest oil reserve, convieniently located to stage future invasions in the region from a "friendly" country and for good ol' revenge "he tried to kill my daddy"


As a side note, if Saddam was the sole reason for the whole confrontation why not just assassinate him? Why not continue to drop cruise missles on his ass until they kill him? Why not? I'll tell you why not.

Political assassinations are not a precedent the Americans want to start, it would make the tactic legitimate and leave open the possibilty that missiles will fly into Washington - cant have that! Invade a whole country killing over 20,000 innocent Iraqis and losing over 1,500 American GI's - thats acceptable but putting their own asses in potential danger is completely out of the question!

Dont think invasion was the only alternative in dealing with that murderous turd Saddam Hussein, it wasnt, its just the safest method for the politicians.



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 12:21 PM
link   
I say taking the nation to war on false pretenses trumps getting weird with a cigar in the oral office any day.

Clinton looked slimy squirming under Ken Starr's gaze as they had a semantic discussion of the definition of the word 'is', all right. Let's not forget that most of that was a vendetta over what happened to the original Tricky Dick (another liar, but not a crook, a burglar). As if having a President no one ever cast a single vote for (Ford) pardon him before he was ever charged with a single crime wasn't bad enough to begin with.

That's when I lost a lot of faith in the American political process, and I wasn't even old enough to vote yet.





posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Simulacra
seekerof
In hindsight it's easy to look back on an event and find reasons to justify the course of action. However it was directly (and repeatedly) stated the reason for the infiltration of Iraq lies solely on Weapons of Mass Destruction.


Totaly correct, they can launch in 45 minutes and all that good stuff.

It is fubby how each time a reason was proved false, a new reason was invented. Funny how most forget that, bet it won't be in any history books.



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 01:24 PM
link   
If asked today, in front of a national audience, if there were WMD in Iraq, Dich cheney would say, yes and were going to find them. Bush would just blame the CIA, even though he and Cheney forced them to say anything they wanted to hear. The Democrats should have been screaming impeachment long ago, the friggen cowards.



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 06:07 PM
link   
Clinton lies about an affair so his wife won't find out. Clinton gets impeached. Bush & Co lie to justify a war and nothing happens. We want to hang those at CBS for presenting what appears to be bogus service documents of Bush but we have no problem with false documents that we use to justify war.

Are our priorities a bit out of whack?



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 06:31 PM
link   
Good find. I had this ready to post 12 hours ago when I clicked the wrong button somehow. I don't like the ATSNN submission form much when I am on other tasks at the same time.

On topic - this ought to be discussed until every person who enters the discussion recognizes some plain truths:

(1) There were never WMDs as the Bush administration claimed there were in known precise locations

(2) The Bush administration deliberately used false and fabricated intelligence in order to justify the invasion. This was an abuse of intelligence services of a very high order.

(3) The US search is officially over, and it has yielded nothing.

What is interesting in the open-ended component of the report is the possibility of 'unofficial' movements out of Iraq into Syria (when?) and the possibility of scientists with weapons expertise getting alternative employment (where?).

Meanwhile, more psy ops and propaganda will surface to cover for the corrupt reasons behind this ill-conceived and grossly mismanaged foreign incursion and war effort.

The dog ate my WMDs.



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
The reason for nailing Saddam may have hinged on WMDs, but it was not the only reasons given, eh?


Ahem...


Today, the gravest danger in the war on terror, the gravest danger facing America and the world, is outlaw regimes that seek and possess nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. These regimes could use such weapons for blackmail, terror, and mass murder...

Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction.

For the next 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological and nuclear weapons even while inspectors were in his country...

The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary, he is deceiving. -- GWB, State of the Union address, January 2003



The burden is on Iraq to comply and disarm. Inspectors are inspectors, not detectives.... Saddam Hussein and his regime are doing everything they can to make sure the inspectors find absolutely nothing...

We must not shrink from whatever is ahead of us. We must not fail in our duty and our responsibilities. Clearly, Saddam will stop at nothing until something stops him. -- Colin Powell, speaking to the UN Security Council, February 2003



The credibility of the UN is important to the world... The question before the United Nations is clear: Is Saddam Hussein taking this final opportunity that was offered by Resolution 1441 to disarm or not?

And the answer to the question, it strikes me, is increasingly obvious. He makes a show of destroying a handful of missiles; missiles which he claimed in his declaration did not violate UN restrictions, but now admits that they do violate UN restrictions.

He claims to have no chemical or biological weapons, yet we know he continues to hide biological and chemical weapons, moving them to different locations as often as every 12 to 24 hours, and placing them in residential neighbourhoods. -- Donald Rumsfeld, March 2003



Saddam's defiance of United Nations Security Council resolutions demanding the disarmament of his nuclear, chemical, biological, and long-range missile capacity has led to sanctions on Iraq and has undermined the authority of the UN. -- joint statement by Bush, Tony Blair, and Jose Maria Aznar, March 2003



Iraq continues to deny that it has any WMD, though no serious intelligence service anywhere in the world believes them. -- Blair, March 2003



The Iraqi regime has used diplomacy as a ploy to gain time and advantage. It has uniformly defied Security Council resolutions demanding full disarmament...

The danger is clear: using chemical, biological, or, one day, nuclear weapons obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfil their stated ambitions and kill thousands of hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country or any other...

Under Resolutions 678 and 687, both still in effect, the United States and our allies are authorised to use force in ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction...

Today, no nation can possibly claim that Iraq has disarmed. And it will not disarm so long as Saddam Hussein holds power. -- Bush, March 2003


What were those other reasons mentioned, again?



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indy
Clinton lies about an affair so his wife won't find out. Clinton gets impeached.


Just wanted to let you know that Clinton never got impeached. However he was atagonized about his relationship with his intern enough where the remainder of his office was wraught with this 'scandal'. And then we have Mr. Bush...



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 08:58 PM
link   
When are people going to learn that there is a difference between not finding stockpiles of WMD, which i am certain they were moved unofficially from Iraq, and not finding any proof that Saddam was dealing in WMD programs.....

What this report is saying is that it seems they will not find these stockpiles in Iraq, but does that mean WMD programs or these stockpiles did not exist prior to the war?

The stockpiles of WMD were most probably moved. However the evidence that was found shows that there were working programs to produce WMD. There were documents which dealt with WMD which were found in Iraq showing that Iraq's WMD program had not ended. Part of the sanctions also dealt with the destruction of all documents and materials that are necessary for producing WMD.

In fact this is what Mr. Kay said back in 2003.


David Kay, a former UN inspector and now the CIA's leading consultant who is joint head of the Iraq Survey Group (ISG), offered an unprecedentedly bullish assessment of the hunt for weapons of mass destruction.

Although he called for patience, he predicted that doubters were in for a "surprise" by the time his work was done.

His 1,400-strong team of American, British and Australian experts scouring Iraq has not yet found actual biological or chemical weapons, Mr Kay told private Senate hearings in Washington. But there was mounting evidence of an active WMD programme, he said.

That evidence included documents detailing how to conceal arms plants as commercial facilities, and for restarting weapons production once the coast was clear, officials told reporters.


Excerpted from.
www.telegraph.co.uk.../news/2003/08/01/wirq01.xml

The list of evidence is long. Let's look at some of the reasons why we shouldn't believe that Iraq did not have WMD.


1) The intelligence communities of every major country were confident that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction before 2003. These include the United States, Canada, France, the United Nations, the United Kingdom, Germany, Spain, Australia, Japan, even Iran and a slew of others. It was a working assumption that such WMD was in Iraq, so much that I never heard accusations that it wasn’t true until the political war heated up in March, 2003.



2) Colin Powell’s presentation at the UN in February 2003 proved that Iraq was deceiving UN inspectors. What is there to hide?



3) In 1995, a high-ranking Iraqi defector proved Iraq was building WMD despite the UN restrictions. After this was revealed, Iraq admitted it had violated UN restrictions. Why should we believe Iraq was in compliance with the UN today, when Saddam hasn’t in the past?



4) As shown in the Kay interim report, there were thousands of items that Saddam had that could be used in WMD programs. These are usually dual-use items—items that have an apparently “civilian” use and are bought as such, but then when coupled with other items, can make WMD goods. If Saddam violated sanctions, as we know for a fact, why should we believe he had respect for other UN demands? And why would he violate such sanctions to gain such items?



5) As shown in the Kay interim report, why was such an enormous amount of material not declared as required by the UN?



6) Much of the suspected WMDs can fit in a package the size of a palm of a hand. Together, almost all of the WMDs could fit in a two-car parking garage. Why do people expect us to find such items already? Saddam has had 12 years to make programs to deceive Western intelligence, and 4 years to do so without ANY Western interference. And only recently, Coalition forces found fighter jets under the desert sand. If we just recently found huge fighter jets, how can people complain we haven’t found WMD yet?



7) After Iraq admitted producing a certain amount of WMD, disarmament by the UN began. How come a large portion was not disarmed by the UN and Iraq first admitted that it was not disarmed, only to later say they destroyed them “unilaterally”? Why didn’t the Saddam regime just destroy them with UN supervision like the rest of them?



8) There has been lots of evidence that Iraq infiltrated UN inspection and intelligence teams. Why are people surprised the UN didn’t find any WMD?



9) The UN recognized that Iraq was engaged in illicit activity and was not disarming by passing 18 resolutions demanding that Iraq did so. Are we going to believe Saddam Hussein over the world community?



10) With extensive business interests in Iraq, why are people surprised that countries like Russia, France and Germany opposed war with Saddam Hussein’s regime?



11) Bill Clinton is the one who originally put the focus on Saddam Hussein’s WMD possession and links to terrorists. How come when he bombed Iraq in 1998 for four days, there wasn’t such a political outcry that he may be wrong about WMD?



12) It is obvious that weapons would be hidden in the Sunni triangle, the most loyal area to the regime. Today, this area is still not pacified to the extent that would allow a full-fledged search in civilian homes and such. Without the most suspect area fully pacified, why are people jumping to the conclusion that WMDs are a lie?


Excerpted from.
www.worldthreats.com...


And all this without mentioning the other ways in which Iraq/Saddam broke the UN sanctions, like the scud missiles, which were banned from Iraq and they fired at the beginning of the war agaisnt the coalition.

The missile rockets and missile parts which were found in scrap yards around the world and which were in possesion of Iraq up before the war in Iraq and which were also banned by the UN resolution.

Not to mention the OFF scandal in which Saddam sold oil and adquired pretty much anything he wanted to. Iraq/Saddam owed Russia billions dollars before the war started and it wasn't because Saddam bought milk for the children in Iraq.




[edit on 26-4-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Simulacra

Originally posted by Indy
Clinton lies about an affair so his wife won't find out. Clinton gets impeached.


Just wanted to let you know that Clinton never got impeached. However he was atagonized about his relationship with his intern enough where the remainder of his office was wraught with this 'scandal'. And then we have Mr. Bush...





In 1998, as a result of issues surrounding personal indiscretions with a young woman White House intern, Clinton was the second U.S. president to be impeached by the House of Representatives. He was tried in the Senate and found not guilty of the charges brought against him. He apologized to the nation for his actions and continued to have unprecedented popular approval ratings for his job as president.


From www.whitehouse.gov

...



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join