Report: No WMD in Iraq, no imminent threat, only "intent"
 

no surprise, i guess that hans blix guy was right so many months ago. no WMD in Iraq since '91, but Saddam tells us he wanted some (if sanctions were ever lifted). however, we weren't his chief concern...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...321563,00.html

Russia and France didn't fare too well in the report, as it alleges that Saddam bribed them for support

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...ixnewstop.html

also i heard that the US forces found some of Saddam's old scientists working with insurgents to develop ricin/chemical weapons. scary.

and Senator Ted Stevens indicated that he thought there still may be WMDs in Iraq, perhaps buried in the desert. molto optomistic.

either way, this report is sure to be fodder for the debate Friday

No weapons since 91'? They found anthrax chilling in the desert in 98', thats why it's still held that the weapons might be there.

People seem to forget the fact that Saddam played up the belief that he had them to enhance his standing in the Arab world. Acting on the side of caution is a hell of a lot better than saying "oops" later on when a wmd ends up at the base of the Empire state building or in the catacombs of a sports stadium on game day.

WMD--no WMD--what's the difference? We have now successfully concentrated much of the terrorist community into the Iraq stuggle which, in my book, is a good thing. I suspect Iraqi WMD will show up in Syria sometime, but whether they do or not is not critical in my decision to support the war.

Well, obviously we should invade every non-democratic country that might conceivably want to develop WMD ever; I mean it just makes good sense...

Yes, the terrorist community is indeed concentrated in Iraq. Just ask the Spanish and the Russians.

If they've demonstrated the desire to invade neighbors, consort with terrorists, attack Americans, and/or assassinate US Presidents then yep let's do it.

this may be true, but the report found that his weapons programs (including his quest for nuclear technology) essentially ended in 1991.

and perhaps something is buried in the desert, but the longer we look it becomes increasingly less likely.


well, it was good to see that our leaders had based this WMD argument on something. i always thought it was a poor argument, but (to the administration's credit) Saddam apparently wanted to create the myth of force. however, we ignored many intelligence reports before the war that said Saddam was weak. but since we wanted to oust Saddam (not a terrible idea), we made a long-term commitment based on conflicting evidence and weak international support.


i hear this a lot. the idea seemed to materialize only after the war, and i'm not sure all the chaos was our intent. terrorists are in many countries, but most of the fighting is in iraq partially because we did not create an environment of order from the outset.

i just heard cheney's attempt to assimilate even more confirmation of the status of the "case" for invading iraq:

well, hussein did not have wmds.
but he was intent on having the sanctions regime lifted,
and then would have intended to get them.



that means cheney is now legitimating war on the basis of intent to have intent.

following this logic, it should be ok to kill your neighbor because you think that he might at some future point have the intent to have the intent to do you some harm.

you might feel that this proactive killing makes your world safer.
and you would be able to make that argument to whomever will listen from jail.
because you--unlike the administration from the viewpoint of its supporters at least----function in a situation circumscribed by law.

It's an interesting case. If your neighbor says "Just wait til I pass my background check, I've ordered a gun and I'm gonna kill you with it once I get it", what is your best course of action? It's probably to have him arrested.

But how do you do that with a whole country? Not the way we did it, obviously, but coming up with a better way seems harder with this new report. France and Russia bribed by Iraq? There goes your shot at UN or NATO declaring war. That is such bull. If Bush brought that up during debate, it would seriously damage Kerry's "we should have had more allies" attack.

/still not voting for Bush

Talk about serious validation that sanctions DO work. Even sanctions as lousy as the one we had on Iraq, rife with corruption and bribery, still managed to keep Saddam in a box.

its amazing how no matter how many different spins this administrations take as to the reasons we went to war in iraq, those folks out there who support this president will see no wrong in how the country is being run. Come on, wake up

Well, at least Bush never wavered in his reasons to go to war.

We went to war because Saddam possessed WMD's ... no wait ... we went to war to liberate the Iraqi people ... no wait ... we went to war because Saddam had ties to Al Quaida ... no wait, scratch that ... we went to war because Saddam had the resources to create WMD's ... no wait, ummm ... we went to war because Saddam was abusing the UN's oil for food program ... yeah, that's the ticket.

Thank god Bush never flip-flopped, huh?

And only at the expense of the suffering by millions of innocents! :thumbsup:

That only leaves Iran, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Pakistan, and like 30 other countries. Get ready for the draft!

apparently it's a bad idea to let a dictator manage the books on Oil for Food programs.


Saddam wanted to begin WMD development programs once sanctions had been lifted to deter attacks from Iran (and Israel, to a lesser degree), although he had no formal plan to do so. this is not yet a threat to the US. Saddam didn't plan to attack us and he has shown no desire to work with terrorists. for this threat to be real, 3 things must happen.

first, sanctions must be lifted. i'm not sure how long this would have taken, if the US would allow it to happen, or if we would shift our focus away from Iraq if it ever did happen. many humanitarian groups disliked the sanctions, though.

second, Saddam must develop weapons undetected by any international intelligence agency and the IAEA.

third, Saddam must (a) suddenly hate us enough to attack or (b) suddenly care so little about this empowering, ego-boosting technology to sell it to unpredictable terrorists (whom he previously rejected).


while it is possible for all of this to happen, the chance of an attack on the US is infintesimal at best and would not happen for years. i'm not saying it couldn't happen, but maybe we jumped the gun a little bit? it's probably better to worry about that driver talking on his cell phone next to you on the highway.


actual report summary:
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/wmdfinalreport.pdf

full report (huge):
www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004

Well aren't you free with spending tax payers money - and for alleviating the suffering of non-American's no less. Are you one of those ultra-rare communist republicans?

Who cares why we are there. Bush lied the truth is coming out but we are fucking there so the past doesn't matter. what matters is getting the people responsible out and if we don't we are sending the world a message that we don't care if we were lied to and that we want the war. There's no defending or any excuse for voting for Bush the facts are coming out and he lied about the reasons for war and the death of 1000's of innocent lives and 1000's more to come.

No WMD's but he had the programs before. It wouldn't take him long to start them up again. Let's not forget he paid money to the families of suicide bombers to strike in Israel. That makes himself a WMD as far as I am concerned and a threat to America.

I have always wonderd why WMD in Iraq was even an issue in regards to the safety of the USA. I assumed Saddam had them as most all countries probably do..

Years from now when we are still in Iraq and the 5000th American has died I wonder where the mindset of our leaders will be?

Ah yes, the new NEW reason for invading - the suffering of the Iraqi people...

It's not the new reason. I'm just not so cold and complacent, I call it as I see it. I think it's really sad that you try and act so righteous when your indifference, the notion that Saddam was contained and not hurting anybody, is so evil, and so very very wrong.

Well, since Bush never said Iraq was an imminent threat and John Edwards did after viewing the same intelligence Bush did; why isn't everyone calling Edwards a liar?

It was called "Operation Iraqi Freedom". That should tell folks something. How can you go wrong with a name like that. Isnt anyone glad were freeing them folks?

I'm glad you could stop by George...shouldn't you be preparing for the debate tonight though?

Look back through my 2 posts again and tell me where my righteousness and indifference (not to mention my evil) is coming from? As long as you're putting words in my mouth, why not just say I'm on Saddam's payroll? Thanks for the reminder of why I don't visit here very often...

What??

"The Iraqi regime is a threat to any American. ... Iraq is a threat, a real threat."
- President Bush, 1/3/03

"I see a significant threat to the security of the United States in Iraq."
President Bush, 11/1/02

perhaps it will be a balanced mix of blaming everyone else while downplaying their own responsibility. (also a preview for tonight's debate)