Search Is Over for WMD's In Iraq

a1aara · Post by **a1aara** » January 12, 2005 3:05 pm

Officials: Search Is Over for Iraq WMD
Wednesday, January 12, 2005

WASHINGTON — The search for weapons of mass destruction (search) in Iraq has quietly concluded without any evidence of the banned weapons that President Bush cited as justification for going to war, the White House said Wednesday.

Democrats said Bush owes the country an explanation of why he was so wrong.

The Iraq Survey Group (search), made up of some 1,200 military and intelligence specialists and support staff, spent nearly two years searching military installations, factories and laboratories whose equipment and products might be converted quickly to making weapons.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said there no longer is an active search for weapons and the administration does not hold out hopes that any weapons will be found. "There may be a couple, a few people, that are focused on that" but that it has largely concluded, he said.

"If they have any reports of [weapons of mass destruction] obviously they'll continue to follow up on those reports," McClellan said. "A lot of their mission is focused elsewhere now."

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi of California said Bush should explain what happened.

"Now that the search is finished, President Bush needs to explain to the American people why he was so wrong, for so long, about the reasons for war," she said.

"After a war that has consumed nearly two years and millions of dollars, and a war that has cost thousands of lives, no weapons of mass destruction have been found, nor has any evidence been uncovered that such weapons were moved to another country," Pelosi said in a written statement. "Not only was there not an imminent threat to the United States, the threat described in such alarmist tones by President Bush and the most senior members of his administration did not exist at all."

Chief U.S. weapons hunter Charles Duelfer (search) is to deliver his final report on the search next month. "It's not going to fundamentally alter the findings of his earlier report," McClellan said, referring to preliminary findings from last September. Duelfer reported then that Saddam Hussein not only had no weapons of mass destruction and had not made any since 1991, but that he had no capability of making any either. Bush unapologetically defended his decision to invade Iraq.

"Nothing's changed in terms of his views when it comes to Iraq, what he has previously stated and what you have previously heard," McClellan said. "The president knows that by advancing freedom in a dangerous region we are making the world a safer place."

Bush has appointed a panel to investigate why the intelligence about Iraq's weapons was wrong.

McClellan said the Iraq experience would not make Bush hesitant to raise alarms when he deems it necessary.

"But we're also going to continue taking steps to make sure that that intelligence is the best possible," he said.

"Our friends and allies had the same intelligence that we had when it came to Saddam Hussein," McClellan said. "And now we need to continue to move forward to find out what went wrong and to correct those flaws."

At the State Department, spokesman Richard Boucher said Wednesday about 120 Iraqi scientists who had been working in weapons programs were being paid by the U.S. government to work in other fields.

ph4ever · Post by **ph4ever** » January 12, 2005 3:06 pm

ok so who's surprised they didn't find anything

The Lost Manatee · Post by **The Lost Manatee** » January 12, 2005 4:27 pm

I just want to hear what O'Reilly has to say since back in 2003 he said that if no WMDs were found that he would apologize to the country and "never trust the Bush adminstration again."

Lightning Bolt · Post by **Lightning Bolt** » January 12, 2005 4:41 pm

The Lost Manatee wrote:I just want to hear what O'Reilly has to say since back in 2003 he said that if no WMDs were found that he would apologize to the country and "never trust the Bush adminstration again."

O'Reilly should pass the crow to his war-monger buddy Bob Novak.
This ought to catch the eyes of a lot of parents of brave soldiers who were sold the farm on this one. We have been betrayed by our leaders

oh, but I'm forgetting how that country is so much better off without that evil dictator.....

bravedave · Post by **bravedave** » January 12, 2005 4:46 pm

ph4ever wrote:ok so who's surprised they didn't find anything

I'm surprised they didn't plant anything.
(I would have.)

TikiTom · Post by **TikiTom** » January 12, 2005 4:58 pm

WARNING, RANT:

We are not at war. Congress never declared war. It is a military operation, which the president decided to uptake, not Congress. The right to declare war is delegated to the Congress. The President cannot declare war. Why can't the damn newspapers or news channels get it through their heads.

Rant Over

Oh man, that felt good. I needed that

IsleReef · Post by **IsleReef** » January 12, 2005 4:59 pm

oh, but I'm forgetting how that country is so much better off without that evil dictator.....

The world is better off without that evil dictator...............

weirdo0521 · Post by **weirdo0521** » January 12, 2005 5:03 pm

bravedave wrote:
ph4ever wrote:ok so who's surprised they didn't find anything
I'm surprised they didn't plant anything.
(I would have.)

I agree.......I mean they only needed to find shoebox sized remnants, and they can say See we found some....I am amazed they didn't take that aproach

IsleReef · Post by **IsleReef** » January 12, 2005 5:10 pm

I would just like to remind some folks that they should think before they post............. These threads can turn into a war zone..............

The Lost Manatee · Post by **The Lost Manatee** » January 12, 2005 5:29 pm

Tiki Tom, I'm glad you feel better.

And you are completely correct.

DeactiveCarib · Post by **DeactiveCarib** » January 12, 2005 5:31 pm

TikiTom wrote:WARNING, RANT:

We are not at war. Congress never declared war. It is a military operation, which the president decided to uptake, not Congress. The right to declare war is delegated to the Congress. The President cannot declare war. Why can't the damn newspapers or news channels get it through their heads.

Rant Over

Oh man, that felt good. I needed that

this is true, but the same could be said about Vietnam i believe. I'm pretty sure that the last time congress declared war was for WWII, someone can correct me if im wrong (which i might be).

The Lost Manatee · Post by **The Lost Manatee** » January 12, 2005 5:37 pm

The last time was WWII, we did Korea, Vietnam, Panama, Grenada, Gulf War I and II, as well as Afghanistan all without declaring war. This has created some debates among Constitutional Scholars (I'm not one, nor have I played one on TV

) as to what the President can and cannot do vis-a-vis military operations vs. war. From my perspective if Congress appropriates the money for the action then it is a de facto approval.

12 lb. nestle crunch · January 12, 2005 5:58 pm

TikiTom wrote:WARNING, RANT:

We are not at war. Congress never declared war. It is a military operation, which the president decided to uptake, not Congress. The right to declare war is delegated to the Congress. The President cannot declare war. Why can't the damn newspapers or news channels get it through their heads.

Rant Over

Oh man, that felt good. I needed that

ask a soldier if we are at war

12 lb. nestle crunch · January 12, 2005 6:00 pm

IsleReef wrote:
oh, but I'm forgetting how that country is so much better off without that evil dictator.....
The world is better off without that evil dictator...............

what saddam was doing to his people happens everywhere. are we going to attack cuba? what about north korea? what about the countries in south africa? the people in africa (esp around the congo) are treated worse than anyone on the world; they are slaughtered every day. what are we doing to help them?

maybe he was an evil dictator. but you STILL cannot go to war for one reason, then change that reason after you were wrong. thats not the way war works. if we would continue that path, world destruction is not far off.

Air M'Ville Cap'n · Post by **Air M'Ville Cap'n** » January 12, 2005 8:05 pm

12 lb. nestle crunch wrote: but you STILL cannot go to war for one reason, then change that reason after you were wrong. thats not the way war works.

Thats exactly right. Its amazing to me how half of the country bought into what Bush told them for why we are there once WMD got proved wrong. It was all of a sudden a humanitarian mission and to bring democracy to the middle east. We would not even be at war right now or discussing this had WMD not been the justification.

tommcat327 · Post by **tommcat327** » January 12, 2005 8:40 pm

TikiTom wrote:WARNING, RANT:

We are not at war. Congress never declared war. It is a military operation, which the president decided to uptake, not Congress. The right to declare war is delegated to the Congress. The President cannot declare war. Why can't the damn newspapers or news channels get it through their heads.

Rant Over

Oh man, that felt good. I needed that

because the facts or truth have no place in journalism

tommcat327 · Post by **tommcat327** » January 12, 2005 8:42 pm

blowing up iraq and taking their oil was a good enough reason for me,i would have fully supported it if he came out and said that

TikiTom · Post by **TikiTom** » January 12, 2005 9:09 pm

12 lb. nestle crunch wrote:
TikiTom wrote:WARNING, RANT:

We are not at war. Congress never declared war. It is a military operation, which the president decided to uptake, not Congress. The right to declare war is delegated to the Congress. The President cannot declare war. Why can't the damn newspapers or news channels get it through their heads.

Rant Over

Oh man, that felt good. I needed that
ask a soldier if we are at war

I thought about that after I posted... good point.