[Logic]

The hunt for weapons of mass destruction yields - nothing

Of course this wasn't about the WMD's, it was about liberating the Iraqi people. But I thought this was interesting.

[shmerek]

September is almost over now and I seem to recall a few members here claiming I would eat crow because the US was going to reveal the big cache of WMD it has found.

I am still waiting...

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by shmerek:
September is almost over now and I seem to recall a few members here claiming I would eat crow because the US was going to reveal the big cache of WMD it has found.

I am still waiting...

Don't remember anyone saying that.


I do remember people saying that the hunt wasn't on the top of the list, and once Iraq was more stable, more hunting would take place.

[chris v]

Originally posted by shmerek:
September is almost over now and I seem to recall a few members here claiming I would eat crow because the US was going to reveal the big cache of WMD it has found.

I am still waiting...

There's your "September Surprise," as I believe it was being referred to. Why am I not surprised?

CV

[eklipse]

Is anyone surprised?

[Zimphire]

Oh I agree, anyone who made any statements about Sept being a month they will show WMDs is pretty silly.

You wont get many arguments there.

[tie]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Don't remember anyone saying that.

I do. But the forum just ate my post. And the search function is awful. Nonetheless, spacefreak certainly said such things, and I think some others may have as well (but I can't remember specific names, so maybe not).

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...es#post1501682

Originally posted by spacefreak:
I will give you credit for continuing to note in your posts that weapons may be found. You may be the only 'lefty' here who still acknowledges that possibility.

Just wait for the findings. There have been some findings that have not been made public for numerous reasons(muscling the IAEA to enforce in Iran, wanting to provide the complete picture to the public instead of piecemeal, etc). Heck, my sources become giddy when even approaching this issue, forecasting a massive egg-in-the-face-of-liberals bonanza.

All I can suggest to most lefties here is to listen to Clinton on this. There's a reason he said what he said - he's knows what's going on and is trying to prevent his party's self-destruction.

He also has a number of posts in this thread: http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...519327#1519327

(SimeyTheLimey:I've got to ask: if it is under wraps, how do you know about it?)
I'd tell you, but then I'd have to kill you(r MacNN account). All I can say is that the source(s) are based in the intelligence community... Just keep your eyes open for press reports in the near future referring to what I am telling you today.

[BRussell]

Hans Blix had five months to find weapons. He found nothing. We've had five weeks. Come back to me in five months. If we haven't found any, we will have a credibility problem. - Charles Krauhammer, April 22, 2003

Former international weapons inspector David Kay, now seeking Iraqi weapons of mass destruction for the Pentagon, has privately reported successes that are planned to be revealed to the public in mid-September. Kay has told his superiors he has found substantial evidence of biological weapons in Iraq, plus considerable missile development. He has been less successful in locating chemical weapons, and has not yet begun a substantial effort to locate progress toward nuclear arms. - Robert Novak, August 10, 2003

David Kay is not going to be done with this for quite some time. And I would not count on reports. I suppose there may be interim reports. I don't know when those will be, and I don't know what the public nature of them will be. - Condoleezza Rice, September 22, 2003

[shmerek]

I didn't do a search yet but I do remember spacefreak saying that there would be a big announcement in September but I guess he was full of crap.

[Zimphire]

I hadn't read it, did a search and couldn't find it myself.

So this thread was started to belittle one person? How petty.

[Powerbook]

Originally posted by eklipse:
Is anyone surprised?

Now wait... You say there are no WMDs north and east and west and south and over and below of Baghdad?
It's all the Iraqis fault!!! They tricked us!

PB.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Powerbook:
Now wait... You say there are no WMDs north and east and west and south and over and below of Baghdad?
It's all the Iraqis fault!!! They tricked us!

PB.

Not *us*, Powerbook - just the Americans.

-s*

[Zimphire]

LOL! so tell me, what did they do with the WMDs they had? What did they do with the proof they destroyed them?

No one can seem to find this either.

Some people have their heads in the sand. And it's not America.

While I am not 100% sure Iraq still has them, I wouldn't make any blind definite comments as to them not having them. Because you could indeed be yanking your foot from your mouth one day.

Wouldn't that really suck?

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by shmerek:
I didn't do a search yet but I do remember spacefreak saying that there would be a big announcement in September but I guess he was full of crap.

Yup...I definitely said that. This report is going to have some good stuff in it. No smoking gun, but you'll see why in the report.

Most of what I focused on was the large amouts of documents that were being found. I did state that 'stuff' was found, and some has. If and why it's not making it in the report, I am unsure. Perhaps it is to intensify the liberal frenzt and expose the movements' rabid-like, classless behavior. Also, this Admin will not hesitate to use political capital to further its goals (see Iran-IAEA below).

I also had stated that the finding of Plutonium was being used to pressure the IAEA into cracking down hard on Iran's nuclear program in exchange for not releasing the finding (and embarrassing the IAEA and rendering it useless). I still stand by this, as the recent crackdown on Iran by the IAEA continues to intensify.

So yes, I said evidence of findings will come out, and I said the report would come out in September.

Although no cache of chemicals has been unearthed, the report is interesting and thorough, to say the least. I recommend that each of you read it, if you care about what Saddam was up to before we justly removed him from power.

My guess is that few if any of you will read the Kay report and instead will read and quote liberal opinion editorials on the topic.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
I did state that 'stuff' was found, and some has. If and why it's not making it in the report, I am unsure. Perhaps it is to intensify the liberal frenzt and expose the movements' rabid-like, classless behavior. Also, this Admin will not hesitate to use political capital to further its goals (see Iran-IAEA below).

That's rich.

So we're not hearing about anything because it's all part of Dubya's plot to get the left riled up?

Is that why he murdered 7,000 innocent civilians, too?

-s*

[ambush]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Don't remember anyone saying that.


I do remember people saying that the hunt wasn't on the top of the list, and once Iraq was more stable, more hunting would take place.

Do you acknowledge that currently, Iraq is like hell on earth? And that even the ****ing UN are moving from Iraq?

That's Bush's fault. It's worse than it was before!

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by ambush:
Do you acknowledge that currently, Iraq is like hell on earth? And that even the ****ing UN are moving from Iraq?

That's Bush's fault. It's worse than it was before!

No because that is highly subjective. And many many many Iraqis do feel they are better off now. More so than do not. So no, I don't personally think that is accurate.

[chris v]

September Suprise

From the article:

Robert Novak indicated that Kay's upcoming report will be aimed at taking the heat off the administration: "Former international weapons inspector David Kay... has privately reported successes that are planned to be revealed to the public in mid-September."

If that quote is incorrect, be sure and post a link to the correction.

CV

[ambush]

Well, they still have like 4 days.
I'm waiting.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by ambush:
Well, they still have like 4 days.
I'm waiting.

Till MID-September!?

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
So we're not hearing about anything because it's all part of Dubya's plot to get the left riled up?

Is that why he murdered 7,000 innocent civilians, too?

I didn't state that as fact, I simly offered it as a possibility. Hence the use of the word 'perhaps'.

As for Bush's murdering, war is brutal. People die. Militarily, we did as good a job as we could achiving our objectives whle limiting US casualities, and Iraqi civilian casualties. The point is that, based on calculations derived from the numerous mass graves found throughout Iraq, that those 7,000 civilians killed is but a fraction of the annual Iraqi murder toll achieved by the hands of Saddam (total = 300,000 and counting rapidly, for only and estimated 25% of mass grave sites have been found).

So, as a compassionate human, which do you prefer - 7,000 Iraqi civilians murdered in 2003, or 40,000 civilians murdered in 2003?

33,000 people's lives are in your hands for this year. Make your decision. And 2004 is right around the corner. You may want to make your decision on the upcoming year as well.

[kvm_mkdb]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Is that why he murdered 7,000 innocent civilians, too?

The latest toll average is over 8000

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

[kvm_mkdb]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
the annual Iraqi murder toll achieved by the hands of Saddam (total = 300,000 and counting rapidly, for only and estimated 25% of mass grave sites have been found).

Could you please share the source of that estimate?

[Zimphire]

Again, whoever said September is a moron. Anyone who thinks we could take care of what is going on in Iraq AND have time to search for WMDs in the huge desert isn't very smart.

[sanity assassin]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Again, whoever said September is a moron. Anyone who thinks we could take care of what is going on in Iraq AND have time to search for WMDs in the huge desert isn't very smart.

They do have 1200 weapons inspectors on the ground at this moment, separate from the military peace keepers. The report by the CIA, which will be released next month, seems to say that no weapons have been found, plus no manufacturing bases either. What it does seem to demonstrate to the rest of the world, is that what Prime Minister Blair spoke of in the House of Commons last year, was not entirely based on facts. He said that Iraq was actively making WMDs, that they could be launched within a short period of time, and that the threat was extreme. Now, by the measure, and the speed in which the coalition took over Iraq, one would think that at lest some remnants of WMDs would be found. It also makes me wonder why the Iraqis never used them.

Time will tell though.

[Zimphire]

And if it does come out that Iraq DID get rid of said WMDs they DID have. The fault will still be on Iraq for not complying with proof of such actions.

Proof of such actions would have stopped this war.

BTW remember also it wasn't just the Bush administration the believed this.

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9802/17/iraq.clinton/

"He, and he alone (saddam) will be blamed for the consequences"

Bill Clinton.

[sanity assassin]

No-one is disputing whether Iraq had WMDs in the past, but the case for this recent war was based on very specific rhetoric from world leaders. Blair in his Parliamentary case for war, basically said he had evidence of Iraq's WMD, as they stand now, that it was an active program with the intelligence to back it. The problem here though, is that with the kind of intelligence he was talking of, one would expect the weapons inspectors, the military to have found at least some evidence. It's not a question of his weapons program in the 90s, but we were led to believe it was still being carried on, in a massive scale.
Where is the evidence for this?

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Perhaps it is to intensify the liberal frenzt and expose the movements' rabid-like, classless behavior.

Now where's that laughing-my-ass-off smiley ...

Seriously, it occurred to me the other day that the admin might be holding off until the California recall vote is nearer, in the hope that maybe a hopefully-revitalized Bush can bestow some positive mojo on the GOP ticket. A cynical thought perhaps, but as spacefreak says, this administration doesn't hesitate to use political capital to further its goals.

[Logic]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I hadn't read it, did a search and couldn't find it myself.

So this thread was started to belittle one person? How petty.

Now how did you come to that conclusion?

Is there anything in my first post here that indicates it?

I think an apology would be in order Mr. Zimphire!

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Logic:
I think an apology would be in order Mr. Zimphire!

Good luck with that.

[christ]

Originally posted by Logic:
I think an apology would be in order Mr. Zimphire!

We've been here before!

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Logic:
Now how did you come to that conclusion?

Is there anything in my first post here that indicates it?

I think an apology would be in order Mr. Zimphire!

No the attacks where made about a person who claimed the "Sept" nonsense. There was only ONE person that made such a claim (maybe not even that)

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Good luck with that.

Actually I have apologized MANY MANY TIMES. But I have yet to have anyone apologize to me for taking my posts out of context or just being a all out ass to me. Not once.

So what was you saying?

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
No the attacks where made about a person who claimed the "Sept" nonsense. There was only ONE person that made such a claim (maybe not even that)

You said the thread was started for the purpose of attacking that person (" So this thread was started to belittle one person? How petty."). That was in no way the case.

[kvm_mkdb]

Originally posted by chris v:
If that quote is incorrect, be sure and post a link to the correction.

The quote is correct. It is the idiot himself that said he was going to have the report ready by mid-september:

Former international weapons inspector David Kay, now seeking Iraqi weapons of mass destruction for the Pentagon, has privately reported successes that are planned to be revealed to the public in mid-September.
Kay has told his superiors he has found substantial evidence of biological weapons in Iraq, plus considerable missile development.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/r...20030809.shtml

[Nonsuch]

The plot thickens ... see this about a report from Australian journalist John Pilger.

A television report by Pilger aired on British screens last night said US Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice confirmed in early 2001 that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein had been disarmed and was no threat.

But after the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington on September 11 that year, Pilger claimed Rice said the US "must move to take advantage of these new opportunities" to attack Iraq and claim control of its oil.

Pilger uncovered video footage of Powell in Cairo on February 24, 2001 saying, "He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours."

Two months later, Rice reportedly said, "We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."

Powell boasted this was because America's policy of containment and its sanctions had effectively disarmed Saddam.

[...]

In his report, Pilger interviews Ray McGovern, a former senior CIA officer and friend of Bush's father and ex-president, George Bush senior.

McGovern told Pilger that going to war because of weapons of mass destruction "was 95 per cent charade."

Pilger also claims that six hours after the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Centre, US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said he wanted to "hit" Iraq and allegedly said "Go Massive ... Sweep it all up. Things related and not."

He was allegedly talked down by Powell who said the American people would not accept an attack on Iraq without any evidence, so they opted to invade Afghanistan where Osama bin Laden had bases.

[Logic]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
No the attacks where made about a person who claimed the "Sept" nonsense. There was only ONE person that made such a claim (maybe not even that)

That is not what you said Zimphire! This is what you said:

So this thread was started to belittle one person? How petty.

Since you cannot see that what you did was wrong I'll report that comment. I encourage others to do the same.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Nonsuch:
You said the thread was started for the purpose of attacking that person (" So this thread was started to belittle one person? How petty."). That was in no way the case.

ACtually if you take the time to read it, I was ASKING if it was. HENCE the "?" at the end of the sentence that makes the sentence a question. But don't let that stop you from saying otherwise.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Logic:
That is not what you said Zimphire! This is what you said:

Since you cannot see that what you did was wrong I'll report that comment. I encourage others to do the same.

It wasn't a statement. It was a question.

"So this thread was started to belittle one person?"

You know the "?" at the end of a sentence makes the sentence a "question"

You knee jerked and jumped to conclusions just looking for something to bitch at me about.

That is not my fault.

[Demonhood]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
ACtually if you take the time to read it, I was ASKING if it was. HENCE the "?" at the end of the sentence that makes the sentence a question. But don't let that stop you from saying otherwise.

you also called it petty before getting an answer to your question. perhaps you should have said "that would be petty, but i'll give the topic starter the benefit of the doubt." or maybe just leave that line out completely.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Demonhood:
you also called it petty before getting an answer to your question. perhaps you should have said "that would be petty, but i'll give the topic starter the benefit of the doubt." or maybe just leave that line out completely.

Oh yeah maybe I should have. I would just like once for the anal retentive complainers to be as strict and careful with their replies to me. Maybe then I would gain a tad bit more respect for them when they point out something they are "offended" by. They sling personal attacks at me all day long, and once they find something that can barely be considered a personal attack, they act all self righteous and pissy. HOW DARE YOU!

It's getting quite silly. Fact is, I was not stating that is what they were doing. I was asking. They knee jerked trying to find anything I said to be offended by.

This is the type of stuff that made vmarks finally give up on a lot of these lost causes. The lack of honesty in their posts and personal attacks.

Someone can only be called a brainwashed jew or whatever so many times till he or she gets disgusted and decided they aren't worth it.

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
ACtually if you take the time to read it, I was ASKING if it was. HENCE the "?" at the end of the sentence that makes the sentence a question. But don't let that stop you from saying otherwise.

I won't—because you already assumed the answer with your pissy rejoinder ("How petty").

"So, Zimphire, have you kicked any dogs lately? How disgusting."

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Nonsuch:
I won't—because you already assumed the answer with your pissy rejoinder ("How petty").

"So, Zimphire, have you kicked any dogs lately? How disgusting."

Not quite:

"So, Zimphire, you have been kicking dogs lately? How disgusting."

is the way the line was phrased.

-s*

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Not quite:

"So, Zimphire, you have been kicking dogs lately? How disgusting."

is the way the line was phrased.

I stand corrected.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Nonsuch:
I won't—because you already assumed the answer with your pissy rejoinder ("How petty").

"So, Zimphire, have you kicked any dogs lately? How disgusting."

I would have said, "No, what makes you think that? "

I wouldn't have knee-jerked and got all upset calling everyone to report you because you were doing something awful. That would indeed be petty. That wasn't a personal attack.

Now if I was in a pissy mood, and was trying to find ANYTHING to complain about, esp when trying to make a mountain out of a molehill I probably would have reacted the way you guys did,

But I am not that petty.

If you get upset over me saying such a thing, step in my shoes for awhile. Then you'd really see the personal attacks flying.

[Jacket]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
LOL! so tell me, what did they do with the WMDs they had? What did they do with the proof they destroyed them?

No one can seem to find this either.

Some people have their heads in the sand. And it's not America.

While I am not 100% sure Iraq still has them, I wouldn't make any blind definite comments as to them not having them. Because you could indeed be yanking your foot from your mouth one day.

Wouldn't that really suck?

What would suck even more is not having done anything, and finding out they had WMD after they used them.

Some people are more than willing to take that risk. Thank God Bush isn't one of them.

[Twilly Spree]

Now make no mistake W went and attacked Iraq because Saddam's regime was a potential threat to the USA. Turns out that there was no thread, but there COULD have been a threat. We got to liberate the Iraqi people from an oppressive regime even if there were no WMD. So it was a win win situation! Attack Iraq: find WMD = We win
Attack Iraq: no WMD = we win

That is what I like about our president. He is no fool nor are his advisors. We are the good guys!

[shmerek]

The fact of the matter is Iraq was not an immediate threat thus there was no reason at all why the US government couldn't of held off for a couple of months in order to build up some international support. Bush and his fellow asshats rushed in and now everything is a big freaking mess.

Bush is a dipshit, all the problems that are occuring in Iraq today can be blamed on him and his cronies.

[Twilly Spree]

We (the US) didn't have to wait for international support. We went in and finished to do what we came for. We don't need international approval. That is a fact.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Twilly Spree:
We (the US) didn't have to wait for international support. We went in and finished to do what we came for. We don't need international approval. That is a fact.

I agree with you albeit reluctantly. The US *has* proven that it is not dependent on the international community when it comes to initiating huge military campaigns on the other side of the Earth.

I am not saying that it is right in doing so however.