Report on Iraqi WMD: shelved indefinitely?

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-09-15 01:40am

http://www.ptinews.com/nextstory.asp?main=international

Report on Iraq WMD shelved as no evidence found by US-UK team

London,Sunday, September 14, 2003: After failing to get any evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the US and Britain have decided to delay indefinitely the publication of a full report on the controversial issue, media reported today.

Efforts by the Iraq Survey Group, an Anglo-American team of 1,400 scientists, military and intelligence experts, to scour Iraq for the past four months to uncover evidence of chemical or biological weapons have so far ended in failure, 'The Sunday Times' claimed in its report.

It had been expected that a progress report would be published tomorrow but MPs on the British Parliament's security and intelligence committee have been told that even this has been delayed and no new date set.

British defence intelligence sources have confirmed that the final report, which is to be submitted by David Kay, the survey group's leader, to George Tenet, head of the CIA, had been delayed and may not necessarily even be published, the paper said.

In July, Kay suggested on US television that he had seen enough evidence to convince himself that ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had had a programme to produce weapons of mass destruction.

He expected to find "strong" evidence of missile delivery systems and "probably" evidence of biological weapons.

But last week British officials said they believed Kay had been "kite-flying" and that no hard evidence had been uncovered.

The hunt for weapons is seen in London and Washington as a vital step in convincing an increasingly sceptical public that the war was justified.

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2003-09-15 01:51am

Hmm yesh, vindicated for the billionth time in a row it seems... yawn

And I remember a Freeper earlier today saying "the evidence is forthcoming, we'll make you eat your words"

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-09-15 01:56am

How telling.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-09-15 02:05am

This should come as a surprise to no one. The minute we discovered how decrepit their state of military preparedness and infrastructure were, it was obvious that they could not maintain an effective WMD program even if they tried.

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2003-09-15 02:07am

I had an amusing thought the other day ... What if WMD stood for Weapons of Mass Deception?

On a completely unrelated tangent, who here knew that Iraq had launched a satellite (by them selves)* in 1989?

Hands up!

EDIT :: Thus becoming the 10th nation to do so, after; Russia, USA, France, Japan, China, UK, ESA, India and Israel.

Crayz9000 · Post by **Crayz9000** » 2003-09-15 02:17am

A common interpretation of WMD is "Weapons of Mass Distraction."

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2003-09-15 02:29am

Darth Wong wrote:This should come as a surprise to no one. The minute we discovered how decrepit their state of military preparedness and infrastructure were, it was obvious that they could not maintain an effective WMD program even if they tried.

Indeed, at the risk of sounding like a seconed hand appeal to authority.. My father spoke with some Shell Oil executives a few weeks ago..they figured that the sanctions were effective, and that the Iraqi economy was stuffed and the nations infrastructre shagged. Saddam was a threat only to his own people.

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2003-09-15 02:32am

Crayz9000 wrote:A common interpretation of WMD is "Weapons of Mass Distraction."

That works too.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2003-09-15 02:37am

Crown wrote:
Crayz9000 wrote:A common interpretation of WMD is "Weapons of Mass Distraction."
That works too.

Also known as 'Spin'

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-09-15 05:05am

The link has gone dead because the date has rolled over from the 14th to the 15th ... good thing I posted it.

Kamakazie Sith · Post by **Kamakazie Sith** » 2003-09-15 04:19pm

Stuart Mackey wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:This should come as a surprise to no one. The minute we discovered how decrepit their state of military preparedness and infrastructure were, it was obvious that they could not maintain an effective WMD program even if they tried.
Indeed, at the risk of sounding like a seconed hand appeal to authority.. My father spoke with some Shell Oil executives a few weeks ago..they figured that the sanctions were effective, and that the Iraqi economy was stuffed and the nations infrastructre shagged. Saddam was a threat only to his own people.

Do you think the war in Iraq was worth it?

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-09-16 12:17am

*hears pin drop*

Shep? Any comment?

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-09-16 12:22am

Top ten things to do with Iraq's WMD:

1) ...
2) ...
3) ...
4) ...
5) ...
6) ...
7) ...
8] ...
9) ...
10) ...

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2003-09-16 04:26am

Kamakazie Sith wrote:
Stuart Mackey wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:This should come as a surprise to no one. The minute we discovered how decrepit their state of military preparedness and infrastructure were, it was obvious that they could not maintain an effective WMD program even if they tried.
Indeed, at the risk of sounding like a seconed hand appeal to authority.. My father spoke with some Shell Oil executives a few weeks ago..they figured that the sanctions were effective, and that the Iraqi economy was stuffed and the nations infrastructre shagged. Saddam was a threat only to his own people.
Do you think the war in Iraq was worth it?

For the resons given ? no.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-09-16 06:12am

Howedar wrote: Shep? Any comment?

Meh. Reminds me of Bill Clinton's brave decision to deprive an african
country of an evil WMD producing factory...errr..asprin factory.

Cosmic Average · Post by **Cosmic Average** » 2003-09-19 06:08pm

And Clinton's decision to send 130,000 troops, as well!

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-09-19 06:46pm

Somalia was Bush I's welcome-to-office present to Clinton - he waited until after the election to deploy the troops.

Admiral Johnason · Post by **Admiral Johnason** » 2003-09-19 08:39pm

Take that Fox News! Now how are you going to back up all that shit?

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-09-19 08:57pm

Iceberg wrote:Somalia was Bush I's welcome-to-office present to Clinton - he waited until after the election to deploy the troops.

At least he did it right by sending in a 20,000 man Marine division which kept everyone nice and quite while food distribution went ahead. Then the division left and Clinton tried to accomplish the same thing with a few hundred special forces.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2003-09-19 11:12pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:
Iceberg wrote:Somalia was Bush I's welcome-to-office present to Clinton - he waited until after the election to deploy the troops.
At least he did it right by sending in a 20,000 man Marine division which kept everyone nice and quite while food distribution went ahead. Then the division left and Clinton tried to accomplish the same thing with a few hundred special forces.

Which was weird..The USMC has a history of more or less knowing how to do this sort of operation properly..why fuck it up?

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-09-20 12:33am

Money.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2003-09-20 08:17am

Illuminatus Primus wrote:Money.

Money..the cause of all our ills... we have to blame money or the only logical alternitive is to blame ourselves and that would never do.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-09-20 08:40am

Sea Skimmer wrote:At least he did it right by sending in a 20,000 man Marine division which kept everyone nice and quite while food distribution went ahead. Then the division left and Clinton tried to accomplish the same thing with a few hundred special forces.

Doesn't change the fact that GHWB deliberately left Clinton with a big mess in Somalia, to try to trip up his successor. Second-guessing what Clinton did doesn't change that fact.

Crayz9000 · Post by **Crayz9000** » 2003-09-20 05:26pm

A retarded conspiracy theory. I'm so surprised.

Iceberg, don't you realize that if GWHB had made that mess in Somalia only to trip up his successor, it would have an equal chance of tripping him up if he managed to get re-elected?

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2003-09-20 05:32pm

I am not sure that is what he intended to say...

GHWB did wait until after his election to deploy troops, and while he may not have gotten involved for the express purpose of tripping up Clinton, it was a covienient tool for vengence...