Originally Posted by MSNBCNews
CIA’s final report: No WMD found in Iraq
Recommends freeing detainees held for weapons knowledge
WASHINGTON - In his final word, the CIA’s top weapons inspector in Iraq said Monday that the hunt for weapons of mass destruction has “gone as far as feasible” and has found nothing, closing an investigation into the purported programs of Saddam Hussein that were used to justify the 2003 invasion.
“After more than 18 months, the WMD investigation and debriefing of the WMD-related detainees has been exhausted,” wrote Charles Duelfer, head of the Iraq Survey Group, in an addendum to the final report he issued last fall. … On Monday, Duelfer said there is no purpose in keeping many of the detainees who are in custody because of their knowledge on Iraq’s weapons, although he did not provide any details about the current number. … Among unanswered questions, Duelfer said a group formed to investigate whether WMD-related material was shipped out of Iraq before the invasion wasn’t able to reach firm conclusions because the security situation limited and later halted their work. Investigators were focusing on transfers from Iraq to Syria.
No information gleaned from questioning Iraqis supported the 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.
Originally Posted by CBSNews
Mid-May saw the leak of the so-called Downing Street Memo written by high-level British national security officials offering textual proof of what those of us who’ve been paying attention have long suspected: The Bush administration was determined to invade Iraq almost immediately after September 11, and the whole business with WMD, UN inspections, and so forth was just so much kabuki theater designed to lay the groundwork for a policy whose true motives lay elsewhere. This weekend, a second memo, leaked to the Times of London, provided further background. The British government, it seems, had committed itself to joining the United States in this war and was rather gravely concerned that the policy to which it had committed itself violated international law, making it necessary to design an appropriate pretext.
General Wesley Clark
During an interview on Fox News (of all places):
Well, I think he, ah, there’s a lot to answer for because the intelligence that was available was hyped. I was one of many people who had seen previous intelligence that said the best judgment of the intelligence community was there might be weapons of mass destruction, some materials were unaccounted for. But the talk about mushroom clouds that Secretary Cheney was certain they were going to get a nuclear device fairly soon and so forth; it was irresponsible, it was ungrounded in the facts and the Congress that voted on the resolution never had the chance to see all the dissenting opinions within the intelligence community so I think there’s a lot to be looked at here. I think strategically, though, we can see now, four years after 9/11, that going into Iraq in a way to fight the war on terror was a strategic blunder. … They never looked at whether the administration distorted the information that was available in its approach to the public and they specifically said they weren’t authorized to do that. That’s what has to be looked at by this <crosstalk> Senate committee and they haven’t done so.
Washington Post
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, November 12, 2005; Page A01
President Bush and his national security adviser have answered critics of the Iraq war in recent days with a two-pronged argument: that Congress saw the same intelligence the administration did before the war, and that independent commissions have determined that the administration did not misrepresent the intelligence. Neither assertion is wholly accurate. But Bush and his aides had access to much more voluminous intelligence information than did lawmakers, who were dependent on the administration to provide the material. And the commissions cited by officials, though concluding that the administration did not pressure intelligence analysts to change their conclusions, were not authorized to determine whether the administration exaggerated or distorted those conclusions.
National security adviser Stephen J. Hadley, briefing reporters Thursday, countered “the notion that somehow this administration manipulated the intelligence.” He said that “those people who have looked at that issue, some committees on the Hill in Congress, and also the Silberman-Robb Commission, have concluded it did not happen.”
But the only committee investigating the matter in Congress, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, has not yet done its inquiry into whether officials mischaracterized intelligence by omitting caveats and dissenting opinions. And Judge Laurence H. Silberman, chairman of Bush’s commission on weapons of mass destruction, said in releasing his report on March 31, 2005: “Our executive order did not direct us to deal with the use of intelligence by policymakers, and all of us were agreed that that was not part of our inquiry.” … In addition, there were doubts within the intelligence community not included in the NIE. And even the doubts expressed in the NIE could not be used publicly by members of Congress because the classified information had not been cleared for release. and they haven’t done so.
“Support the Troops” is both lip service and a red herring. Why engage on that level? I’d ask magellan01 how he supports the troops personally - other than spouting talking points on messageboards?
My friend’s son is in Iraq, so I’ve been involved in sending care packages and personal regards. Does that mean I can say I support the troops? It’s nonsense - just like saying or implying you don’t support the troops. Meaningless partisan dribble (absent direct action).
*“To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime; differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”
- Nuremberg Charter*
Exactly, I decided to include THAT tidbit in this thread. They found no evidence because in a nutshell, they were told NOT to. They didn’t find it, because they were NOT looking for it (not part of their “charter”. I would Strongly suggest this is because Bush was hoping to lay all blame on the CIA and variious other intel gathering agencies. He should take a leaf from Schwarzenegger’s book. After losing all his propositions, in California, the governor said the buck stopped with him and he assumed all blame. That is something Bush would NEVER do.
Here, one more time, is the “line of code” you are looking for:
He said that “those people who have looked at that issue, some committees on the Hill in Congress, and also the Silberman-Robb Commission, have concluded it did not happen.”
But the only committee investigating the matter in Congress, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, has not yet done its inquiry into whether officials mischaracterized intelligence by omitting caveats and dissenting opinions. And Judge Laurence H. Silberman, chairman of Bush’s commission on weapons of mass destruction, said in releasing his report on March 31, 2005: “Our executive order did not direct us to deal with the use of intelligence by policymakers, and all of us were agreed that that was not part of our inquiry.”
That was the charter for the Nurembug trials - correct? Didn’t a whole bunch of Nazis get executed for doing exactly what your quoted words talk about?
magellan01 is simply trying to suppress dissent of any sort. “Support the troops” is not a slogan they can use on their side anymore, so I’ve noticed that now it comes with an addendum for the ones who cling to Bush The Unready: “and President Bush.” Seen on a bumper sticker. Obviously put there so there would be no mistaking the partisan intent.
You will have to excuse me if I object to a soldier dying in Iraq so the Republicans can attain a majority in the next election. Not something anyone should have to die for.
At this point, supporting Bush and supporting the troops are mutually exclusive. It’s evident that Bush and his Neocon and big oil friends see the miltiary to be their plaything, to be used and discarded. The new slogan shoul be “Support our troops - impeach Bush”.
The hell it can’t. This war never would have happened without the president of the United States wanting it to happen. He had a hard-on for Saddam and was not going to let anything or anyone stop him from invading Iraq. And now he tries to blame others for actually believing his pre-war bullshit.
Well I have to give credit where credit is due. You always seem to be able to back up your ignorant babblings with more ignorant babblings. Not everyone has that unique gift.
I’m talking about reality. In a war fought in urban settings around many civilians then civilians will be killed. It isn’t always an intentional act of a soilder shooting at civilians. That’s especially true in a war against antagonists that are not uniformed and hide among civilians. As in Nam the American GI can’t always tell friend from foe in Iraq. It is one of the inevitable horrors of war that should cause us to make it our last resort. In those cases it is tragic but hardly murder. In cases where soilders intentionally kill civilians and commit other morally reprehensible crimes their uniform should be no protection,and certainly our leaders should be held responsible.
I don’t consider Iraqi’s fighting to defend their homeland against those they see as foreign invaders terrorists. Foreign fighters who deliberately target Iraqi civilians for death are murderers and terrorists by any definition I know.
And where does your authority for this sweeping declaration come from? Your own keen sense of right and wrong?
Is there any basis for this other than your own opinion? Any valid precedent at all? Just one will do.
It’s too ridiculous for any realistic comment.
I remember in my young naive hippie days we’d say things like “What if they had a war and nobody came?” We thought it was cool and had no idea how completely unrealistic it was. The phrase the courage of your convictions allows for people to have different convictions. Let’s also keep in mind that if we pulled out of Iraq tomorrow the war on terror and Arab hatred of the west would still be a volitile issue, and people on both sides will still die. Our presence in Iraq is the wrong way to fight the war on terrorism but it’s a war that we must face regardless. Leaving Iraq won’t solve that issue.
My statement is arrogant? You mean arrogant like these absurd statements you keep presenting as facts. That kind of arrogant?
The soilders being killed and maimed in Iraq have families. Are you dismissing the suffering of mothers and fathers who will never see their child again. Spouses who will never see their loved one again, or children who will grow up without one of their parents. Are they not victims of the deceit of this administration? Are you saying it’s their own dam fault for being too easily misled and they deserve their suffering? How about soilders who trusted their leaders and went to serve their country and truly thought they were liberating Iraq and fighting terrorism. Do they deserve to die or come how with missing limbs simply because they believed and trusted? Are their wounds self inflicted because of trust?
My thanks to Tom for setting the record straight on this one. Read his response carefully. He puts it more politely than I would.
Do you support them to the extent that you wish for their safe return to home?
I’d like to point out that those of us who are tax paying citizens are supporting the troops and the war, even though we morally object. That’s how democracy works. We can pull leaders we don’t like from power but as citizens we are partially respopnsible.
I agree for the most part. A Leader must do what he believes to be in the best interest of his citizens, even when they don’t agree. That means making judgement calls that may or may not be looked on as the “right” thing to do. Each presidents career is made up of good calls and bad ones.
FDR lied to get us involved in WWII because he believed it was nessecary for our own defense. History seems to indicate he was correct but there were many at the time who didn’t believe it.
If you decide for yourself what is a just and unjust war then are you in any way morally obligated to allow others to make that same judgement call for themselves? If soilders decide that they are fighting for a just cause is that enough to justify it?
One of us is a bit fuzzy on WWII history. I think its you.
I just wanted to point out to you as I did to another poster, that as a tax paying citizen you are supporting the troops and contributing to what you see as the murder of Iraqis by US troops. Now, I wouldn’t want you to put a bullet in your head over this, but just in case please leave an address where we should send flowers.
:wally
cosmosdan, the use of the putz smily to address another poster in Great Debates (indeed, in any forum other than the Pit) is considered a personal insult, and is forbidden. Do not do this again.
This rule is in the sticky NO DIRECT PERSONAL INSULTS OR “FLAMING” IN GREAT DEBATES at the top of this forum.
Nope it isn’t me.
Early on FDR believed we should get in the war in Europe but the memory of WWI was still too fresh and the majority in the US wanted Europe to fight it’s own war. FDR had to circumvent the existing laws to provide military aide to UK. {lie 1}
He was well aware that he could not be reelected by avocating our involvement in the war so even though he believed we needed to be there he campaigned telling America he would not get us in the war. After his election thats exactly what he did. {lie 2}
There’s even some superficial evidence that he wanted German U boats to attack US ships in order to gain public support for our entering the war and so US ships were were sent to seek out German submarines.
So this whole "Pearl Harbor"thing that I’m so drasticly misinformed about…it was all done on a Hollywood sound stage?
My apologies. I saw that as more tongue in cheek than an actual insult. I see by your link that I was wrong. Now I know and it won’t happen again.
Out of curiosity. Was the post within the rules, other than my use of the wrong smiley?
Oh yeah, thats right. We went after Hitler because of Pearl Harbor. My mistake. Thanks for setting me straight. :rolleyes:
When you kill someone without justification, that’s murder. Is it so hard to grasp ? Relabeling it “war” doesn’t change what it is. Since the whole war is unnecessary, it’s sick to just shrug off the innocents killed like you are. It’s no different than breaking into someone’s house for a little rape and robbery, then killing someone who trys to fight back and saying “too bad”.
I wasn’t aware I required authorization from Semantics High Command to express my own opinion. Especially on something so obvious as unjustified killing = murder. I do find your “it’s too ridiculous” dodge amusing; it must be easier than actually arguing your position.
Irrelevant. The war has nothing to do with the imaginary war on terror; it’s just a land and oil grab.
It’s not courage to slaughter people for no good reason, and an evil conviction is still evil.
Anyone who paid attention knew this was wrong before it started, and anyone who trusts a politician is a fool. The families are in the same position as the families of any other murderer; they may or may not share blame, but either way that doesn’t let the murderer off the hook. And yes, equating the suffering of American and Iraqi families in this is arrogant, as the Iraqs are the ones attacked. They had no choice at all.