It's Official - The Search is Over

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2005-01-12 02:13pm

Are we forgetting the contribution of the White House and the Bush Administration towards the taking of the press core's balls? Any negative press directed at the administration causes the news outlet to be blacklisted and they won't get things like the President's schedule, invites to key functions, a seat on Air Force One, etc. THAT is what has really neutered the media towards the Bush Administration.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » 2005-01-12 02:26pm

I'm looking forward to Harrison Ford playing Don Rumsfeld in the exciting movie version of the WMD search .....

The Hunt For Red Herring

Admiral_K · Post by **Admiral_K** » 2005-01-12 02:33pm

Chmee wrote: I do think there's a difference between the stories "we're finding nothing" and "we've stopped looking, because there's so little reason to think we'll find anything." The Administration has focused very strongly on the 'Well, we haven't found anything YET' angle .... so I do think it's newsworthy that their 'experts' are now saying 'Yeah, and we're never going to.'

Regardless of the party line, the preliminary report issue sometime back pretty much flat out said there was little chance of them finding anything. Essentially, we've known that they know they weren't going to find much of anything.

I don't think the Administration got a "Free pass" from the media as some here seem to think. My view is that they've already taken quite a beating over it, especially during the campaign season. No new information was discovered, and I don't really see a need to rehash old information, nor do I blame the media for not doing so.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2005-01-12 02:46pm

Admiral_K wrote:Did this report tell us anything we didn't already know? If there were any remaining WMDS, they had either been destroyed or taken out of the country. The media pretty much beat this topic to death that no WMDs were found for several months after we invaded. Its not as if they are trying to "hide" anything.

Thank you for proving my point as to why this is important. It is precisely that bit of Bush propaganda that keeps getting repeated until people think its actually the truth that requires this coverage,

The final report clearly states that Sadaam DID NOT have WMD's or even the POTENTIAL to make WMD's since 1991. No, there were no secret convoys to Syria. No there were no shredding sessions in the middle of the night on the eve of the war, no there were no secret stockpiles lost in the desert.

Bush's own people and experts in the military concluded this in their final report which is not getting coverage so yes to stop people like you making these claims over and over there needed to be coverage to say once and for all: THERE WERE NO AND NEVER WERE WMD'S IN IRAQ.

Admiral_K · Post by **Admiral_K** » 2005-01-12 02:56pm

Stravo wrote:
Admiral_K wrote:Did this report tell us anything we didn't already know? If there were any remaining WMDS, they had either been destroyed or taken out of the country. The media pretty much beat this topic to death that no WMDs were found for several months after we invaded. Its not as if they are trying to "hide" anything.
Thank you for proving my point as to why this is important. It is precisely that bit of Bush propaganda that keeps getting repeated until people think its actually the truth that requires this coverage,

The final report clearly states that Sadaam DID NOT have WMD's or even the POTENTIAL to make WMD's since 1991. No, there were no secret convoys to Syria. No there were no shredding sessions in the middle of the night on the eve of the war, no there were no secret stockpiles lost in the desert.

Bush's own people and experts in the military concluded this in their final report which is not getting coverage so yes to stop people like you making these claims over and over there needed to be coverage to say once and for all: THERE WERE NO AND NEVER WERE WMD'S IN IRAQ.

If they were wrong before, why are you so quick to conclude they are correct now in saying THERE WERE NO AND NEVER WERE WMD's IN IRAQ? Thats the reason for my qualifying statement of "If there were WMDs...".

However, the rest of the report indicates that Saddam had taken steps that would insure his capabilities to make WMD's as soon as sanctions were lifted. Given the oil for bribes scandal, and Saddam's nature I'd tend to think this was true.

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2005-01-12 03:05pm

Admiral_K wrote:If they were wrong before, why are you so quick to conclude they are correct now in saying THERE WERE NO AND NEVER WERE WMD's IN IRAQ? Thats the reason for my qualifying statement of "If there were WMDs...".

However, the rest of the report indicates that Saddam had taken steps that would insure his capabilities to make WMD's as soon as sanctions were lifted. Given the oil for bribes scandal, and Saddam's nature I'd tend to think this was true.

Please clarify as to who these 'they' that were 'wrong' 'before' you are refering to.

Admiral_K · Post by **Admiral_K** » 2005-01-12 03:20pm

Um Bush administration officials?

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2005-01-12 03:23pm

Admiral_K wrote:Um Bush administration officials?

Well at least you yourself realise the absurdity of your previous post.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » 2005-01-12 03:26pm

However, the rest of the report indicates that Saddam had taken steps that would insure his capabilities to make WMD's as soon as sanctions were lifted. Given the oil for bribes scandal, and Saddam's nature I'd tend to think this was true.

I don't think anybody was ever very optimistic that sanctions would successfully remove a knowledge of modern chemistry and physics from Iraqi scientists for the rest of time.

Who honestly thinks that any truly representative Iraqi government, democratically elected or not, is going to forego research into powerful weapons as long as Iran and Israel are their neighbors and potential adversaries?

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2005-01-12 03:28pm

Chmee wrote:Who honestly thinks that any truly representative Iraqi government, democratically elected or not, is going to forego research into powerful weapons as long as Iran and Israel are their neighbors and potential adversaries?

It's not so much their having weapons (excepting of course WMDS) as the fact that Saddam Hussien was expansionist and willing to use them as the Gulf War demonstrated. That was changed then and there but what the government is and it's aims are matters alot in such a calculation.

Post by **LadyTevar** » 2005-01-12 04:59pm

I wonder if someone will dig this up for the next presidential election...?

mauldooku · Post by **mauldooku** » 2005-01-12 05:29pm

Good-Game, thanks, no rematch. The Bush Administration just lost its main justification for the war: not that this was news to anyone, but at least it's official.

LadyTevar wrote: I wonder if someone will dig this up for the next presidential election...?

Oh, of course it will. It was brought up for the last one, so why not the next one? The question you should be asking is whether enough people care about Bush's complete and utter failure to justify his claims. Sadly, I'm predicting a 'no'.

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2005-01-12 05:34pm

LadyTevar wrote:I wonder if someone will dig this up for the next presidential election...?

It will probably end up blowing over come the Iraqi elections, so I doubt that it will be an issue four years from now, in a race against a different person.

J · Post by J » 2005-01-12 06:24pm

We just had a 15 second blurb on the local news about the US calling off the search for WMDs in Iraq. They showed a generic desert scene, said the search is ending and they haven't found anything, pretty much whitewashed it.

Post by **weemadando** » 2005-01-12 07:19pm

As much as I hate to say "I told you so.", I did, in fact, tell you so.

And now I shall sing the "I was right" song!

Well I know, I know the answers,
And you think you also do.
Why I say one plus one is eleven,
You think one plus one is two.
Well I've got some information,
And I just love that this is true -
I've got all the right answers,
And you haven't got a clue.

I was right and you were wrong,
I'm going to sing the I was right song.
I was right and you were wrong,
I'm going to sing the I was right song.
I was right and you were wrong,
I'm going to sing the I was right song.
I was right and you were wrong,
I sing it once again.

You got all the wrong directions.
You don't know where you're going to.
You head west for California ?
Have you perchance got the map askew ?
Well, I got something to tell you -
There's a fact that you misconstrue,
I keep penguins in the bathtub,
You think they live in the zoo.

I was right and you were wrong,
I'm going to sing the I was right song.
I was right and you were wrong,
I'm going to sing the I was right song.
I was right and you were wrong,
I'm going to sing the I was right song.
I was right and you were wrong,
Na-Na-Na-Na-Na-Naaaa

Hold everything, there's a news flash on the station,
Why a correction is coming through -
It's some brand new information,
It seems like one and one is two !
You head west for California.
And there's something else that's true -
I was wrong about the bathtub,
They keep penguins in the zoo.

So I got a small revision,
To the things that I've just said -
Well it seems the yarns I've been spinning,
Are kinda hanging by a thread.
I was wrong and you were right,
And now my face ain't nothing but red.
There's some words that you get to sing now,
And I hope they don't go to your head.

I was right and you were wrong,
I'm going to sing the I was right song.
I was right and you were wrong,
I'm going to sing the I was right song.
I was right and you were wrong,
I'm going to sing the I was right song.
I was right and you were wrong,
Na-Na-Na-Na-Na-Naaaa

Thank you, that is all. May all right wing fuckheads please report to George Michael's dressing room for spanking.

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2005-01-12 07:21pm

"You stupid myopic LIEbruls don't think he hid em in Syria?"

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2005-01-12 07:26pm

Admiral_K wrote:If they were wrong before, why are you so quick to conclude they are correct now in saying THERE WERE NO AND NEVER WERE WMD's IN IRAQ?

Because now they are plagorizing Hans Blix? Unlike the US, the UN has a credible track record in this arena.

However, the rest of the report indicates that Saddam had taken steps that would insure his capabilities to make WMD's as soon as sanctions were lifted. Given the oil for bribes scandal, and Saddam's nature I'd tend to think this was true.

What steps?

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2005-01-12 07:27pm

Who gives a shit about any steps. Anyone thinking that justifies attacking another country is crocked.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » 2005-01-12 07:28pm

Stormbringer wrote:
Chmee wrote:Who honestly thinks that any truly representative Iraqi government, democratically elected or not, is going to forego research into powerful weapons as long as Iran and Israel are their neighbors and potential adversaries?
It's not so much their having weapons (excepting of course WMDS) as the fact that Saddam Hussien was expansionist and willing to use them as the Gulf War demonstrated. That was changed then and there but what the government is and it's aims are matters alot in such a calculation.

I guess I took a little different lesson from the first Gulf War ... what I saw was that if Saddam had WMD's, he was clearly only willing to use them against someone who could not retaliate in kind -- which didn't include us or the Israelis. He seemed to clearly understand the difference between lobbing a Scud at the Israelis for propaganda value (hoping to cause some of our Arab coalition partners to pull the plug), and firing a chemical weapon at Jerusalem and waiting for Baghdad to become a crater. I think he always understood that difference.

But as long as the Israelis have nukes, and you have some doubt whether or not the Iranians have them, what Iraqi government (once our troops are gone) is going to forego clandestine programs to develop their own deterrent?

That's the biggest problem with America's WMD strategy in the Middle East, as far as I can see. Unless we're ready to get behind a Nuclear Free Middle East initiative, we're pursuing a policy that says 'All the rest of you guys, quit trying to have what the Israelis already have ...' That just seems like pure fantasyland to me, because we would *never* accept a status quo where a mortal enemy maintained such a strategic advantage over us, yet we expect other people to do accept it. They won't ... they don't. No matter what public agreements they make, as long as the neighbors have that big stick, they're going to work on having their own.

And thanks to our 'buddies' in Pakistan, everybody with cash is going to have it soon enough.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2005-01-12 08:17pm

Who gives a shit about any steps. Anyone thinking that justifies attacking another country is crocked.

You do yourself a disservice by assuming that any nation truly worries about the quality of "justification" rather than the quality of argument when attacking a neighbor.

The idea of "precedent" is overblown.

That's the biggest problem with America's WMD strategy in the Middle East, as far as I can see. Unless we're ready to get behind a Nuclear Free Middle East initiative, we're pursuing a policy that says 'All the rest of you guys, quit trying to have what the Israelis already have ...' That just seems like pure fantasyland to me, because we would *never* accept a status quo where a mortal enemy maintained such a strategic advantage over us, yet we expect other people to do accept it. They won't ... they don't. No matter what public agreements they make, as long as the neighbors have that big stick, they're going to work on having their own.

I agree that America has an uphill battle because of the regional dynamics. But that doesn't mean it'd be that much easier even if Israel weren't a factor. Look at the Shah. Granted he was worried about the Soviet Union, but most of his military build-up went toward Iraq - and continued to accelerate even after Saddam was forced into making concessions.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » 2005-01-12 08:20pm

Axis Kast wrote:
That's the biggest problem with America's WMD strategy in the Middle East, as far as I can see. Unless we're ready to get behind a Nuclear Free Middle East initiative, we're pursuing a policy that says 'All the rest of you guys, quit trying to have what the Israelis already have ...' That just seems like pure fantasyland to me, because we would *never* accept a status quo where a mortal enemy maintained such a strategic advantage over us, yet we expect other people to do accept it. They won't ... they don't. No matter what public agreements they make, as long as the neighbors have that big stick, they're going to work on having their own.
I agree that America has an uphill battle because of the regional dynamics. But that doesn't mean it'd be that much easier even if Israel weren't a factor. Look at the Shah. Granted he was worried about the Soviet Union, but most of his military build-up went toward Iraq - and continued to accelerate even after Saddam was forced into making concessions.

Agreed ... Israel is only one component, but if we keep pursuing an arms control policy where any of the players are perceived to have a 'free pass' from us, then we're just building a castle in sand.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2005-01-12 09:13pm

Howedar wrote:I've given up completely on television news except when I know some shit is going down, like when the US first invaded Iraq. Otherwise I get news from the Daily Show, the school newspaper, and this board.

Pretty much the way it is with me as well. If I want up to the miute news, I just look in N&P, anything that is important I will see there, where else can I get the exact breakdown of casualties in south asia for example?

brianeyci · Post by **brianeyci** » 2005-01-12 10:08pm

"I hate to say I told you so... but I told you so."

[nelson voice]"Ha Ha"[/nelson voice}

Brian

Post by **Vympel** » 2005-01-12 10:24pm

Well, I think I'm the one most entitled to say "I told you so", really. I'm pretty sure I was the No.1 exponent of the "there are no WMDs in Iraq" argument from Day 1 (October 2002?) on the board, though I can't be sure.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2005-01-12 10:58pm

The final report clearly states that Sadaam DID NOT have WMD's or even the POTENTIAL to make WMD's since 1991. No, there were no secret convoys to Syria. No there were no shredding sessions in the middle of the night on the eve of the war, no there were no secret stockpiles lost in the desert.

Bush's own people and experts in the military concluded this in their final report which is not getting coverage so yes to stop people like you making these claims over and over there needed to be coverage to say once and for all: THERE WERE NO AND NEVER WERE WMD'S IN IRAQ.

That's disingenious. The weapons inspectors all acknowledged that some convoys made their way across the Iraqi border during the time of the American invasion, and that these were never followed up upon.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

It's Official - The Search is Over

Re: It's Official - The Search is Over

Re: It's Official - The Search is Over

Re: It's Official - The Search is Over

Re: It's Official - The Search is Over

Re: It's Official - The Search is Over