Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Inspectors Conclude No WMD in Iraq


Guest Lottie

Recommended Posts

Guest Lottie

The group hunting for banned weapons inside post-war Iraq is preparing to report that it has found no chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.

But the Iraq Survey Group will assert that Saddam Hussein had plans to start producing weapons in defiance of UN sanctions, US officials say.

Chief weapons inspector Charles Duelfer will reveal the findings on Wednesday.

Much of the content of the report has been anticipated since a draft of the report was leaked last month.

Mr Duelfer is due to appear before the Senate Armed Services Committee, where he is expected to confirm that Iraq did not possess weapons of mass destruction when the US-led invasion began in March 2003.

That verdict has been widely anticipated since the former head of the Iraq Survey Group, David Kay, resigned from his position in January.

'Clandestine schemes'

US government officials told the New York Times that the report would include new evidence that Saddam Hussein had plans to break UN-imposed sanctions and renew the production of banned weapons.

The officials, speaking anonymously, said the report would detail efforts by Iraq to bypass sanctions while they were still in place, and to undermine international support for them.

Those efforts were reported to include the use of clandestine laboratories to manufacture small quantities of chemical and biological weapons for use in assassinations.

BBC Pentagon correspondent Nick Childs says the report, which runs to more than 1,000 pages, is being billed as the most definitive account yet of Iraq's weapons programmes.

Our correspondent says that with the political stakes in the US so high and Iraq so central to the debate, Republican and Democratic camps in the presidential race will seize on the different elements of the report to argue that it bolsters their case for or against the Iraq war.

However, the document will stop short of offering a final judgement about the situation before the war.

Instead, the Iraq Survey Group is expected to continue translating and evaluating an estimated 10,000 boxes of documents seized in Iraq.

Source

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 32
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Talon

    14

  • Celumnaz

    3

  • zephyr

    3

  • bathory

    2

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Guest Lottie
But the Iraq Survey Group will assert that Saddam Hussein had plans to start producing weapons in defiance of UN sanctions, US officials say.

If thats the case then at least this was stopped.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s interesting how the headlines of this article state: "Inspectors conclude no WMD in Iraq", yet the very first paragraph states: "that it has found no chemical, biological or nuclear weapons."

But it’s what you expect from not only the BBC, but many other sources of news from around the world too. whistling2.gif

But the Iraq Survey Group will assert that Saddam Hussein had plans to start producing weapons in defiance of UN sanctions.

I have repeatedly said in these threads that whether you agree or disagree with the Iraq war, it’s a fact that the possibility of an Iraqi WMD program is no longer an issue. thumbsup.gif

White House press secretary Scott McClellan acknowledged that no stockpiles of weapons had been found in Iraq, but added: "The fact that he had the intent and capability, and that he was trying to undermine the sanctions that were in place, is very disturbing."

Something I have also mentioned repeatedly in these threads, and I’m very grateful we have a president who took a stand against this threat. thumbsup.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Witchcraft must have been another one of Saddam's many passions then! There are some people though who swear on their mothers' heads that they received something a bit too chemical from Saddam!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saddam 'worse than we thought'

The UN report on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction shows Saddam posed a bigger threat than previously imagined, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has said.

It was now no surprise the Iraq Survey Group had found no WMD, he said.

But Mr Straw, speaking in Baghdad, said "the threat from Saddam Hussein in terms of his intentions" was "even starker than we have seen before".

Anti-war MP Robin Cook said the report showed the containment policy had been working and war had been unnecessary.

Earlier, Mr Straw told reporters: "I personally am in no doubt whatever... that had we walked away from Iraq and left Iraq to Saddam, Saddam would have indeed built up his capabilities, built up his strength and posed an even greater threat to the people of Iraq and the people of this region than before."

His comments were backed by Iraq's Deputy Prime Minister Dr Saleh.

He said anyone who doubted that Saddam Hussein had possessed weapons of mass destruction only needed to visit Halabja - where the former Iraq dictator had gassed thousands of Kurds.

Dr Saleh said it would be "very surprising" if press leaks that the survey group had found no WMDs turned out to be true.

"We know Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. We know he used weapons of mass destruction," Dr Saleh said, adding that in his view Saddam Hussein was himself a weapon of mass destruction.

"It would have been just a matter of time for time before he reconstituted these weapons and posed a much more potent danger to the Iraqi people and the international community."

Election preparations

What the press leaks had left out was how Saddam Hussein had been diverting money from the Oil-for- Food programme to buy new weapons, Dr Saleh added.

But former Foreign Secretary Robin Cook, who quit the Cabinet over the decision to go to war, said the international community had always known Saddam Hussein had ambitions to have such weapons.

That was why there had been a policy of containment which had been very successful because he had not had a single weapon of mass destruction, he told the BBC.

"We now know that we did have the extra time that Hans Blix [former UN chief weapons inspector] wanted to finish the job. The war was unnecessary."

The Conservatives said the report provided further evidence that Mr Blair had not told the truth about the war.

'Brick by brick'

Shadow foreign secretary Michael Ancram said Mr Blair should have "trusted the British people with the truth."

"Instead he misled the British people and in doing so he has lost the people's trust.

"And when a prime minister is not trusted on grave matters of intelligence how dangerous is that for the country as a whole?"

The Liberal Democrats said the report justified the policy of deterrence and containment.

Foreign affairs spokesman Menzies Campbell said: "It most certainly does not provide any support for the government's view that the threat from Saddam Hussein was so acute that only immediate military action would do.

"Brick by brick, the government's case for going to war is being demolished."

Chief weapons inspector Charles Duelfer will give details of the Iraq Survey Group's final report to the US Senate later on Wednesday.

Much of the content of the report has been anticipated since a draft of the report was leaked last month.

'Another Iraq'

Meanwhile, Mr Straw also said he was impressed with the progress made on preparing for elections in Iraq.

The draft electoral register, based on the register of food rations, was complete and a final register was expected to be ready by mid December, he said.

Mr Straw told reporters that while the security situation dominated the news, another Iraq was being created.

But he warned that the terrorists had to be defeated if elections were to take place as scheduled in January.

The two men also held talks about British hostage Ken Bigley.

Dr Saleh said both the UK and the Iraqi government were doing all they could to secure his release and bring him back home to his family.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3719522.stm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Report confirms Iraq fears - PM

The official report of US weapons inspectors in Iraq shows sanctions against the Saddam regime were not working, the Prime Minister has said.

The Iraq Survey Group report, due to be published on Wednesday, said Saddam was "doing his best" to get round the sanctions, according to Tony Blair.

He said Saddam "never had any intention of complying with UN resolutions."

Mr Blair said the report made clear that there was "every intention" on Saddam's part to develop WMD.

Mr Blair made the comments during a trip to Africa on Wednesday, ahead of the official publication.

Chief weapons inspector Charles Duelfer will give details of the Iraq Survey Group's final report to the US Senate later on Wednesday.

Bigger threat

Much of the content of the report has been anticipated since a draft of the report was leaked last month.

Earlier, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said the report showed Saddam posed a bigger threat than previously imagined.

It was now no surprise the Iraq Survey Group had found no WMD, he said.

But Mr Straw, speaking in Baghdad, said "the threat from Saddam Hussein in terms of his intentions" was "even starker than we have seen before".

Anti-war MP Robin Cook said the report showed the containment policy had been working and war had been unnecessary.

Earlier, Mr Straw told reporters: "I personally am in no doubt whatever... that had we walked away from Iraq and left Iraq to Saddam, Saddam would have indeed built up his capabilities, built up his strength and posed an even greater threat to the people of Iraq and the people of this region than before."

His comments were backed by Iraq's Deputy Prime Minister Dr Barhem Saleh.

He said anyone who doubted that Saddam Hussein had possessed weapons of mass destruction only needed to visit Halabja - where the former Iraq dictator had gassed thousands of Kurds.

Dr Saleh said it would be "very surprising" if press leaks that the survey group had found no WMDs turned out to be true.

"We know Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. We know he used weapons of mass destruction," Dr Saleh said, adding that in his view Saddam Hussein was himself a weapon of mass destruction.

What the press leaks had left out was how Saddam Hussein had been diverting money from the Oil-for- Food programme to buy new weapons, Dr Saleh added.

'Unnecessary war'

But former foreign secretary Robin Cook, who quit the Cabinet over the decision to go to war, said the international community had always known Saddam Hussein had ambitions to have such weapons.

That was why there had been a policy of containment which had been very successful because he had not had a single weapon of mass destruction, he told the BBC.

"We now know that we did have the extra time that Hans Blix [former UN chief weapons inspector] wanted to finish the job. The war was unnecessary."

The Conservatives said the report provided further evidence that Mr Blair had not told the truth about the war.

'No support'

Shadow foreign secretary Michael Ancram said Mr Blair should have "trusted the British people with the truth."

"Instead he misled the British people and in doing so he has lost the people's trust."

The Liberal Democrats said the report justified the policy of deterrence and containment.

Foreign affairs spokesman Menzies Campbell said: "It most certainly does not provide any support for the government's view that the threat from Saddam Hussein was so acute that only immediate military action would do."

Story from BBC NEWS:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/uk_p...ics/3719522.stm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shadow foreign secretary Michael Ancram said Mr Blair should have "trusted the British people with the truth."

What's a shadow foreign secretary?

When they say sanctions, doesn't that mean "Oil for Food Program" when it comes to Iraq?

And as far as immediate threat, there were half a dozen world intelligence agencies saying he was up to something. 9/11 happened, Saddam was being boastful, those intelligence reports were coming in, Saddam had already been playing games with the inspections for years. Kerry got that report, Bush got that report, they both decided to go to war, Kerry voted Yea to go into Iraq, but Nay to give them the money to win. I was wondering about that, Cheney asserted last night that it was because of the Howard Dean anti war movement, and that side voted with the polls. But I think, there's always more than one reason to do something when you get into high polotics like this. I think, because the word Quagmire was used so early in the campaign... they were predicting it before the "mission accomplished" deal that it would be a quagmire... why? Because they had hoped it would be by the time elections came around. It's sick that they play games like that.

Bush had more than one reason to go there, Kerry had more than one reason to make sure it didn't work. He says it's the wrong war, wrong place, wrong time, it was a mistake to go into Iraq, BUT, he'll finish the war with a coalition, because this coalition that Bush has is a coalition of the coerced and bribed as Kerry put it.

Crud, this wasn't about the election.

Sanctions = Oil For Food Program

What's a shadow foreign secretary?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's a shadow foreign secretary?

The foreign secretary of the shadow party

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Report concludes no WMD in Iraq

Iraq had no stockpiles of biological, chemical or nuclear weapons before last year's US-led invasion, the chief US weapons inspector has concluded.

The Iraq Survey Group (ISG) said Iraq's nuclear capability had decayed, not advanced, since the 1991 Gulf War.

However, the report, published on Wednesday, said Saddam Hussein clearly intended to resume production of banned weapons when UN sanctions were lifted.

US President George W Bush has again defended last year's invasion of Iraq.

Mr Bush, who is hoping to win re-election on 2 November, said the risk of Saddam Hussein passing weapons of mass destruction (WMD) to terror groups was "a risk we could not afford to take".

Before the March 2003 invasion, the Bush administration cited WMD as the main reason for overthrowing the Iraqi regime, asserting that Saddam Hussein posed a serious and immediate threat.

But the chief US weapons inspector who headed the ISG, Charles Duelfer, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that Iraq's WMDs were "essentially" destroyed in 1991.

The key findings of the report:

Senior Iraqi officials believed Saddam Hussein would re-start a nuclear programme if UN sanctions imposed after the Gulf War were lifted

The regime actively sought to retain technical knowledge of chemical and nuclear weapons, though it lost interest in biological weapons after 1996

Saddam Hussein believed WMD had deterred the US-led coalition from pushing into Iraq during the Gulf War

The top Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, Senator Carl Levin, said Mr Duelfer's findings undercut the government's main arguments for war.

"We did not go to war because Saddam had future intentions to obtain weapons of mass destruction," Mr Levin said.

Addressing supporters in Pennsylvania earlier on Wednesday, President Bush said that after the 11 September 2001 attacks, the US had to look for sources of WMD available to terrorists.

"We had to take a hard look at every place where terrorists might get those weapons," he said.

"One regime stood out. The dictatorship of Saddam Hussein."

In his testimony to senators, Mr Duelfer agreed that the world was better off without Saddam Hussein in power.

High political stakes

UK Prime Minister Tony Blair said the report showed that Saddam Hussein had planned to develop WMD.

"I welcome the report because I think it will show us that it is far more of a complicated situation than people thought," Mr Blair told reporters during a trip to Ethiopia.

"It is also clear that there was every intention on Saddam's part to develop weapons and that he did not have any intention of complying with the UN resolutions."

Iraq's Deputy Prime Minister, Barhem Saleh, said anyone who doubted that Saddam Hussein had WMDs only needed to visit Halabja - where the former Iraq dictator had gassed thousands of Kurds.

"We know Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. He used them," Dr Saleh said, adding that in his view Saddam Hussein was himself a weapon of mass destruction.

The ISG's verdict has been widely anticipated since the former head of the group, David Kay, resigned in January, and following the leaking of a draft copy of the report last month.

BBC Pentagon correspondent Nick Childs says the report, which runs to more than 1,000 pages, is being billed as the most definitive account yet of Iraq's weapons programmes.

Our correspondent says that with the political stakes in the US so high, Republican and Democratic camps will seize on the different elements of the report to argue that it bolsters their standpoint on Iraq.

The ISG plans to continue translating and evaluating an estimated 10,000 boxes of documents seized in Iraq.

Story from BBC NEWS:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/worl...ast/3718150.stm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to say that I am not so much concerned about the report itself but I was at CNN and had to laugh at the photo that CNN posted to go along with the article:

user posted image

Is it me or does that look like Saddams' "I told you so" face? laugh.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, the report, published on Wednesday, said Saddam Hussein clearly intended to resume production of banned weapons when UN sanctions were lifted.

US President George W Bush has again defended last year's invasion of Iraq.

Iraq's Deputy Prime Minister, Barhem Saleh, said anyone who doubted that Saddam Hussein had WMDs only needed to visit Halabja - where the former Iraq dictator had gassed thousands of Kurds.

"We know Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. He used them," Dr Saleh said, adding that in his view Saddam Hussein was himself a weapon of mass destruction.

The ISG's verdict has been widely anticipated since the former head of the group, David Kay, resigned in January, and following the leaking of a draft copy of the report last month.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/worl...ast/3718150.stm

294062[/snapback]

A noted above a few key points that show that Saddam was dangerous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blair under fire over Iraq report

Tony Blair has come under fire after an official report found Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction.

The Iraq Survey Group found no evidence he had chemical, biological or nuclear weapons when Iraq was invaded.

The Liberal Democrats said the report showed the war was unnecessary. The Tories said it showed Mr Blair did not present an honest case for war.

But Mr Blair highlighted its finding that Saddam hoped to revive a WMD programme once sanctions were lifted.

Conservative leader Michael Howard said: "I don't think he [Mr Blair] told the truth about the intelligence he received."

But Mr Howard told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that he still felt the war was justified although it had been "tragic in very many ways".

Shadow foreign secretary Michael Ancram said Mr Blair should have "trusted the British people with the truth".

"Instead he misled the British people and in doing so he has lost the people's trust."

The Liberal Democrats added that the report justified the policy of deterrence and containment.

Foreign affairs spokesman Menzies Campbell said: "It most certainly does not provide any support for the government's view that the threat from Saddam Hussein was so acute that only immediate military action would do.

"Brick by brick, the government's case for going to war is being demolished."

'Tragic mistake'

The UN's former chief weapons inspector Hans Blix told BBC2's Newsnight sanctions had successfully "contained" Saddam.

"They did destroy all the biological and chemical weapons and the nuclear weapons sector was also all cleared up.

"Had we had a few months more we would have been able to tell the CIA and others that there were no weapons of mass destruction."

But US President George Bush had been "desperate" to be able to say there were WMD, Dr Blix added.

Former foreign secretary Robin Cook said the report showed the war was a "tragic mistake"

"There were no stockpiles. There were also no programmes. The report is quite frank about that.

"There were no chemical precursors, there were no biological agents, there were no plants to make them, there were no delivery vehicles to fire them. There was no programme, no capability, no weapons.

"We could have found all that out if we had let Hans Blix finish the job which he wanted to do without fighting a war in which 10,000 people were killed."

'Complicated'

The prime minister reacted defiantly to the report's findings, saying the report showed Saddam "never had any intention of complying with UN resolutions".

He was "doing his best" to get round the UN's sanctions, Mr Blair added.

Speaking during a trip to Ethiopia Tony Blair said he welcomed the report because it showed "a far more complicated situation than many people thought".

He added: "And just as I have had to accept that the evidence now is that there were not stockpiles of actual weapons ready to be deployed, I hope others have the honesty to accept that the report also shows that sanctions weren't working."

Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said the report showed Saddam posed a bigger threat than previously imagined.

"The threat from Saddam Hussein in terms of his intentions" was "even starker than we have seen before", Mr Straw added.

"Had we walked away from Iraq and left Iraq to Saddam, Saddam would have indeed built up his capabilities, built up his strength and posed an even greater threat."

Foreign Office Minister Baroness Symons said the report showed Saddam had been "very close" to breaking sanctions.

"It was his overriding aim - that was what he was about."

The report made clear Saddam had maintained the "intellectual capabilities" and laboratories to develop WMD, Baroness Symons added.

Story from BBC NEWS:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/uk_p...ics/3722290.stm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Iraq war debate fuelled by report

An official US report saying Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction when US-led forces invaded has intensified the debate about justification for the war.

Democrat Senator Jay Rockefeller said thousands had died and yet Iraq had never posed a grave or growing danger.

However, the report by the Iraq Survey Group said there was evidence that Saddam Hussein intended to resume a weapons programme.

The White House said this showed the former Iraqi leader posed a threat.

UK Prime Minister Tony Blair said that while he now accepted that Iraq held no stockpiles of WMD ready to be deployed at the time of the invasion, the report showed that UN sanctions had not been working.

Australian Prime Minister John Howard, another leading member of the coalition, said the report had changed nothing and he was "not in any way apologetic" for being involved in the war.

The coalition used allegations of Iraqi WMDs as a key reason for going to war.

Chief US weapons inspector Charles Duelfer, who heads the ISG, said in the report that Iraq had no stockpiles of biological, chemical or nuclear weapons before last year's US-led invasion.

Iraq's nuclear capability had decayed not grown since the 1991 war, he added.

'Risk'

President Bush himself again defended last year's invasion, though he made no reference to the report.

On the election campaign trail on Wednesday, Mr Bush said that the world was better off without Saddam Hussein, and the risk of him passing weapons of mass destruction (WMD) to terror groups was "a risk we could not afford to take".

But Senator Rockefeller, who attended a closed-door briefing by Mr Duelfer before the publication of the report, completely disagreed.

"We invaded a country, thousands of people have died and Iraq never posed a grave or growing danger," he said.

World opinion also remains divided over the report.

Iraq's Deputy Prime Minister, Barhem Saleh, said anyone who doubted that Saddam Hussein had WMDs only needed to visit Halabja - where the former Iraq dictator had gassed thousands of Kurds.

But former chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix said he hoped Mr Blair and Mr Bush would now admit that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake.

Key findings in the report:

"The ISG has not found evidence that Saddam possessed WMD stocks in 2003, but [there is] the possibility that some weapons existed in Iraq, although not of a militarily significant capability."

"There is an extensive, yet fragmentary and circumstantial body of evidence suggesting that Saddam pursued a strategy to maintain a capability to return to WMD after sanctions were lifted... "

"The problem of discerning WMD in Iraq is highlighted by the pre-war misapprehensions of weapons which were not there. Distant technical analysts mistakenly identified evidence and drew incorrect conclusions."

The ISG also published a list of people and groups to whom Saddam Hussein allegedly offered cheap oil in return for their support in trying to get UN sanctions lifted.

Many on the list - drawn from official Iraqi documents - are from Russia, France and China - countries which opposed the war in Iraq.

Story from BBC NEWS:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/worl...ast/3722306.stm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ministers 'sorry' for Iraq error

Trade and Industry Secretary Patricia Hewitt has made the government's first direct apology for using inaccurate intelligence to justify the Iraq war.

Appearing on BBC One's Question Time, Ms Hewitt said she was speaking on behalf of the entire Cabinet.

"All of us who were involved in making an incredibly difficult decision are very sorry and do apologise for the fact that that information was wrong."

But she added: "I don't think we were wrong to go in."

Ms Hewitt was responding to members of the audience who challenged her comment that Prime Minister Tony Blair had already apologised for the inaccuracy of the intelligence.

At Labour's annual conference last week, Mr Blair said: "I can apologise for the information that turned out to be wrong, but I can't, sincerely at least, apologise for removing Saddam."

Ms Hewitt told Question Time: "What we said at the time and in the dossier about the stockpiles of weapons was wrong and we've apologised for that."

But one audience member shouted out: "You haven't".

Another woman said of Mr Blair's conference comment: "That is saying 'I'm able to apologise but I'm not actually apologising'."

BBC political correspondent James Hardy said the prime minister's conference statement had annoyed many Labour activists.

He said: "Ms Hewitt's unexpected intervention might appease some critics, others will say it's not an apology for the intelligence that they want, but an apology for the war."

On Thursday, the Iraq Survey Group released a report saying it had found no evidence Saddam Hussein had chemical, biological or nuclear weapons when Iraq was invaded.

But Mr Blair highlighted its finding that Saddam hoped to revive a WMD programme once sanctions were lifted.

'False premise'

Speaking during a trip to Ethiopia, he said the report showed Saddam "never had any intention of complying with UN resolutions" and was "doing his best" to get around UN sanctions.

He added: "And just as I have had to accept that the evidence now is that there were not stockpiles of actual weapons ready to be deployed, I hope others have the honesty to accept that the report also shows that sanctions weren't working."

The Liberal Democrats have called on Mr Blair to make a Commons statement on the ISG report, while the Tories say it shows the prime minister has not been honest.

Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy said: "The prime minister must come to the House of Commons and make a full statement as a matter of urgency to explain why this country went to war on a false premise."

Conservative leader Michael Howard said: "I don't think he [Mr Blair] told the truth about the intelligence he received."

Story from BBC NEWS:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/uk_p...ics/3725380.stm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

user posted image

"They're NOT here. Try North Korea!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Lottie
Tony Blair has come under fire after an official report found Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction.

Bet the BBC are loving this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This report is incomplete and an encouragement for other tyrants to use WMD! If they haven't found any now, then they should tell us where all those nasty gases might have gone, or at least promise they would look harder for them, maybe even outside of Iraq, instead of making obvious conclusions such as " Saddam would have used them again if left alone"; no kidding! Sanctions were not in place against Iraq in the early 80's when most of those weapons were obtained! To say that they were all destroyed by inspectors and/or Saddam himself in the 90's is a lie and completely misleading since that is not what the inspectors and the UN said at the time! In fact, they always insisted on going back to Iraq because they thought Iraq still possessed those weapons and the technology to build them; and this right up to the day the war started! Need we remind Mr. Blix that it was Saddam that didn't allow the inspectors to go back and not the American government (as he is implying), that didn't want them back in Iraq, and when they did go in, it was mainly for a round of cat and mouse game that Saddam enjoyed playing with foreign investigators ( he loved Tom and Jerry cartoons)!

Looking beyond politics and elections in the US and The UK, this report is an insult to humanity and a shame on the group making such a superficial ( maybe even politically biased) report on a matter of this importance! I personally think that all those who helped Saddam acquire chemical weapons would prefere to sacrifice one or two politicians ( in this case Mr. Blair and Bush), rather than have to explaine to the world why they supplied those kinds of weapons to such a lunatic in the first place! It is better; in their view, to wipe out the problem rather than find a solution for it! The political debate on whether it was right to go to war against Saddam or not, should by no means overshadow the search for truth on what happened in Iraq in the 80's and the 90's! It is not a matter of punishment, but is the only way to prevent the creation of armed Saddam like creatures in the future, and it is certainly not this report which is going to help doing that disgust.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the ISG needs to make it clear what possibly happened to the WMDs. We know they *were* there at one point. Were they destroyed by SH right after he kicked the inspectors out? Could he have destroyed them right before the war? Could he have shipped them to another country, or could they have been hidden in Iraq. THe report says they arent hidden in Iraq I think, but what could have happened to them, THATs what I want to know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bet the BBC are loving this.

Most likely. But The Sun will still support him, and you just know that 60% of people are so ignorant of politics they'll base who they vote for by who The Sun tell them too in the article underneeth the topless Page 3 girl come election day tongue.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"All of us who were involved in making an incredibly difficult decision are very sorry and do apologise for the fact that that information was wrong."

But she added: "I don't think we were wrong to go in."

Then if you think you were right, why are you apologizing? The information was wrong...maybe...but that is still inconclusive at this point. But let's say for argument sake there were no WMDs. Consider this analogy:

A man is threatening people with a 'gun' in his coat pocket. No one has seen the gun but everyone believes he has one. The Police come...after repeated orders to put his hands up, instead he makes offensive movements toward the police. The police shoot him dead. The populace of the neighborhood then retorts, "The Police killed an unarmed man!".

In this analogy the man is Sadaam, the gun is WMD and the Police are the Coalition Response. Sadaam when repeatedly ordered to allow complete and total inspections of all facilities instead prepared for war with the US. We took him out and now Europe is saying, " He had no WMDs! Our leaders lied to us.". How proposterous. disgust.gif And I thought the US had a proletariet mindset! blink.gif

And another thing (since i seem to be ranting here). I never even heard the word 'insurgent' before the main stream Media started calling Terrorists insurgents! What do insurgents spread? Peanutbutter? Terror! What about the Iraqi terrorist who was found in Iraq with computer disks planning attacks on schools in the US...specifically San Diego, California? Thankfully, I now must go to work........ original.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.