Invasion of Iraq is now officially pointless

[MKSheppard]

They got wasted on a war against a dictator that didn't even have the tin pot.

So you seriously think Zimbawawe could resist the Paras? They were no where to be seen in the Coalition ORBAT during Iraqi Freedom, and 2 Para
returned from Afghanistan a while ago, and is deployed currently in Northern Ireland. Yeah, Britain needs the Paras in Northern Ireland to keep those shifty Irish from going on a mass bombing spree.

And as a bonus, 1 Para was on a training excercise in Kenya in 2001. So
they've got contacts on the ground in that part of the world.

[Joe]

Still, gotta love the excuses being thrown out. Now we've got 'It's okay because Kosovo happened and no one found the graves there'. Red Herring, anyone?

It's not an excuse so much as it is an illustration of the fact that intelligence is a hit-and-miss game, even when Republicans are in power.

So the excuse is now 'The intelligence was so faulty we accidentally used papers we already knew were forged to make our national address for this war'?

That document shouldn't have been used. I am referring to separate intelligence that made the same claim that Her Majesty's Government is still standing by to this day.

[SirNitram]

It's not an excuse so much as it is an illustration of the fact that intelligence is a hit-and-miss game, even when Republicans are in power.

So the excuse is now 'The intelligence was so faulty we accidentally used papers we already knew were forged to make our national address for this war'?

That document shouldn't have been used. I am referring to separate intelligence that made the same claim that Her Majesty's Government is still standing by to this day.

It was used. It was known to be a load of bull. Yet all we get are excuses.

Sadly, Blair is offering nothing but silence. The fucker.

[Joe]

It was used. It was known to be a load of bull. Yet all we get are excuses.

No excuses, they shouldn't have used it. More than likely it was stupidity, however, not malice.

So much obsession with this Niger business. I swear, you'd think the entire case for the war depended on this detail.

Sadly, Blair is offering nothing but silence. The fucker.

I doubt he can offer any more. Intelligence can't always be publicized.

[SirNitram]

It was used. It was known to be a load of bull. Yet all we get are excuses.

No excuses, they shouldn't have used it. More than likely it was stupidity, however, not malice.

So much obsession with this Niger business. I swear, you'd think the entire case for the war depended on this detail.

The entire case for war was the WMD's. That one of the chief peices of 'evidence' for it was known to be a forgery before it was used puts alot of this in perspective.

Sadly, Blair is offering nothing but silence. The fucker.

I doubt he can offer any more. Intelligence can't always be publicized.

Or doesn't exist.

[Defiant]

I think of the number of soldiers who have given their lives during this pointless excercise, and it truly makes me angry. The Snowman (Bush jr.) is just trying to finish what his daddy should have done in 91. True, it wasn't the coalition's mandate, but WTF! What did they think Saddam was going to do? Have a freakin change of heart after he got kicked out of Kuwait? They knew that Iraq's situation would not change. If they were that worried about taking out tyrants, then they should have done it then when they had the opportunity AND the support of the American people.

[Vympel]

In other words, no imminent threat.

A clever little disclaimer one can attach while usefully ignoring all his bullfuck doomsaying about mushroom clouds, mustard gas, anthrax, botulin toxin, and all that other propaganda shit they put out for months on end as if it was 100% hard fact. Please. There was no imminent threat, and there was no future threat. It was all bullshit. Let me remind you:

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us. And there is no doubt that his aggressive regional ambitions will lead him into future confrontations with his neighbors-confrontations that will involve both the weapons he has today, and the ones he will continue to develop with his oil wealth.

[The Iraqi regime] possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people?While there are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place?The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today-and we do-does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons??Saddam Hussein is harboring terrorists and the instruments of terror, the instruments of mass death and destruction. And he cannot be trusted. The risk is simply too great that he will use them or provide them to a terror network?America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of our peril, we cannot wait for the final proof-the smoking gun-that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.

Iraq, despite U.N. sanctions, maintains an aggressive program to rebuild the infrastructure for its nuclear, chemical, biological, and missile programs. In each instance, Iraq's procurement agents are actively working to obtain both weapons-specific and dual-use materials and technologies critical to their rebuilding and expansion efforts, using front companies and whatever illicit means are at hand. We estimate that once Iraq acquires fissile material-whether from a foreign source or by securing the materials to build an indigenous fissile material capability-it could fabricate a nuclear weapon within one year. It has rebuilt its civilian chemical infrastructure and renewed production of chemical warfare agents, probably including mustard, sarin and VX. It actively maintains all key aspects of its offensive BW [biological weapons] program.

The intelligence community of the United States of America has assessed not that they have nuclear weapons, but that they have an active, ongoing nuclear program. That's public. There's an NIE, a National Intelligence Estimate, on that. And if it weren't public, it now is. They have assessed that they have chemical and biological weapons.

There are a number of terrorist states that are pursuing weapons of mass murder today. But as President Bush has made clear, Iraq poses a threat to the security of our people, and to the stability of the world, that is distinct from any other. Consider the record: Saddam Hussein possesses chemical and biological weapons. He has used chemical weapons against foreign forces and his own people, in one case killing some 5,000 innocent civilians in a single day?His regime has large, unaccounted for stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, including VX, sarin, mustard gas, anthrax, botulism, and possibly smallpox, and he has an active program to acquire and develop nuclear weapons?No other living dictator has shown the same deadly combination of capability and intent-of aggression against its neighbors; pursuit of weapons of mass destruction; the use of chemical weapons against his own people as well as against his neighbors; oppression of his own people; support of terrorism; and the most threatening hostility to its neighbors and to the United States-as has Iraq. In both word and deed, Iraq has demonstrated that it is seeking the means to strike the United States, and our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction for a reason: so that it can acquire the territory and assert influence over its neighbors.

[quote="Condi Rice in an article called 'why we know Iraq is lying]Instead of a commitment to disarm, Iraq has a high-level political commitment to maintain and conceal its weapons, led by Saddam Hussein and his son Qusay, who controls the Special Security Organization, which runs Iraq's concealment activities?And instead of full cooperation and transparency, Iraq has filed a false declaration to the United Nations that amounts to a 12,200-page lie. For example, the declaration fails to account for or explain Iraq's efforts to get uranium from abroad?[/quote]

We will, in sum, offer a straightforward, sober and compelling demonstration that Saddam is concealing the evidence of his weapons of mass destruction, while preserving the weapons themselves?Iraq continues to conceal deadly weapons and their components, and to use denial, deception and subterfuge in order to retain them.

But we also have to address the question of where might these terrorists acquire weapons of mass destruction, chemical weapons, biological weapons, nuclear weapons? And Saddam Hussein becomes a prime suspect in that regard because of his past track record and because we know he has, in fact, developed these kinds of capabilities, chemical and biological weapons. We know he's used chemical weapons. We know he's reconstituted these programs since the Gulf War. We know he's out trying once again to produce nuclear weapons and we know that he has a long-standing relationship with various terrorist groups, including the al-Qaeda organization?We know that based on intelligence that he has been very, very good at hiding these kinds of efforts. He's had years to get good at it and we know he has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons. I think Mr. ElBaradei frankly is wrong.

Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly. This was the reason that the President felt so strongly that we needed to take military action to disarm Saddam Hussein, since he would not do it himself.

Saddam Hussein and his weapons are a direct threat to this country, to our people, and to all free people. If the world fails to confront the threat posed by the Iraqi regime, refusing to use force, even as a last resort, free nations would assume immense and unacceptable risks. The attacks of September the 11th, 2001 showed what the enemies of America did with four airplanes. We will not wait to see what terrorists or terrorist states could do with weapons of mass destruction. We are determined to confront threats wherever they arise. I will not leave the American people at the mercy of the Iraqi dictator and his weapons?So more time, more inspectors, more process, in our judgment, is not going to affect the peace of the world.

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.

[T]he area in the south and the west and the north that coalition forces control is substantial. It happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.

The fact of the matter is we are still in a war, and not everything about the war is yet known. But make no mistake, as I said earlier, we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found.

[Sarevok]

Thanks Vympel for pointing out the facts. I think this should be stickied for all to read.

[Vympel]

If it becomes a significant point of debate, I might- though I've now saved that load of fearmongering crap for posterity. Edited for more emphasis.

[The Yosemite Bear]

So...Saddam should have stayed in power? Whether you like it or not, the world is better without the SOB.

Well the world would be a far better place without quite a few brutal regimes who torcher and murder their own citizens, or say commit acts of Genocide like say central africa, slavery like say china, & indonesia, actually have WMD programs still in operation and not the most stable of Governments: Isreal, South Africa, India, Brazil, Breakaway Slavic Republics, Egypt, Saudia Arabia, Turkey, Libiya. Ain't it funny that we are housing all of the dangerous types in the property of one of the logest standing enemies of the US that has had the legal right to take back said military base since 1992?

[HemlockGrey]

Ain't it funny that we are housing all of the dangerous types in the property of one of the logest standing enemies of the US that has had the legal right to take back said military base since 1992?

...where is this?

[theski]

Well as per the Big Dog
[/quote]Former US president Bill Clinton said in October during a visit to Portugal that he was convinced Iraq had weapons of mass destruction up until the fall of Saddam Hussein, Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Manuel Durao Barroso said.

"When Clinton was here recently he told me he was absolutely convinced, given his years in the White House and the access to privileged information which he had, that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction until the end of the Saddam regime," he said in an interview with Portuguese cable news channel SIC Noticias.

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/040109/1/3h5er.html

Tom Daschle in 1998- "Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people."

John Edwards in 2002 - "Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal."

Dick Gephardt in 2002 - "I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction."

Bob Graham in 2002 - "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."

John F. Kerry in 2002 - "I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."

From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry and others in 1998 - "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others - "This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."

From the Clinton Administration

Bill Clinton in 1998 - "The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow."

Al Gore in 2002 - "Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."

Madeline Albright in 1998 - "Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed."

Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003 - "I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out."

Senators

Hillary in 2002 - "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.

Barbara Boxer in 2002 - "Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement."

Robert Byrd in October 2002 - "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability."

Ted Kennedy in 2002 - "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

Representatives

Nancy Pelosi in 1998 - "As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

http://www.nowanow.com/wmds.htm


The WMD claims go back along along way before GWB2

[Sarevok]

Ain't it funny that we are housing all of the dangerous types in the property of one of the logest standing enemies of the US that has had the legal right to take back said military base since 1992?

...where is this?

Guantanamo bay, Cuba.

[Durandal]

So, when Clinton lies to the nation about sex, it's grounds for impeachment and removal from office. When Bush and his cohorts lie about reasons for sending American troops to a god-forsaken sand pit to fight and die, it's justified.

[Chardok]

So, when Clinton lies to the nation about sex, it's grounds for impeachment and removal from office. When Bush and his cohorts lie about reasons for sending American troops to a god-forsaken sand pit to fight and die, it's justified.

Welcome to Mob Mentality and double standardsville, AKA The U.S.
I will vote with extreme prejudice for ANYONE other than Bush (That may be overstating my position somewhat, but you get the picture) Even when We had all the "Evidence" about Iraq having WMDs I wasn't convinced, not in the least. All we had was circumstantial, at BEST. a truck, a tapped phone conversation, and a building. all of which could have been interpreted many different ways. If that was all it took to convince people of a valid justification for war, I weep for the future, I truly do.

[conspiracy theory on]On a side note, I really think, though I don't have anything other than a sick feeling in my gut to offer as evidence, That this could turn into vietnam Part Deux, despite our very strong military presence in the region. Fanatics will keep attacking, IMHO, and I believe eventually may even be backed by a nation, organizing them more thouroughly. and perhaps they will find an achilles heel in the american military might and exploit it, regressing our warfighting capabilities some 20-odd years (Cyberwar, sophisticated jamming equipment, things like that.) because really, when you take complicated electronics out of the equation, the U.S. is effectively crippled. [/conspiracy theory off]

[Sarevok]

Seriously that is what has been happening today. Despite having the most advanced technologies the US military is losing the war. American soldiers dying everyday in Iraq and terrorists elsewhere continue with small time destructive acts. And most importantly OBL has succeded in destroying Americas image as the land of liberty, justice and freedom.

[Knife]

Seriously that is what has been happening today. Despite having the most advanced technologies the US military is losing the war.

Back that up, please.

American soldiers dying everyday in Iraq and terrorists elsewhere continue with small time destructive acts.

Please tell me this isn't your evidence for the assertion of the US loosing the war stated above.

And most importantly OBL has succeded in destroying Americas image as the land of liberty, justice and freedom.

The notion that the world looked at the US at any point as some sort of becon of godlyness is total bull. Those that dislike us will continue to do so and don't need any crackpot terroist to solidify their postion.

[Sarevok]

Back that up, please.

They are losing global public support for this war. That is what determines victory in the war on terrorism.

Please tell me this isn't your evidence for the assertion of the US loosing the war stated above.

The fact this is happening indicates that the current strategy has failed to stop terrorism.

The notion that the world looked at the US at any point as some sort of becon of godlyness is total bull. Those that dislike us will continue to do so and don't need any crackpot terroist to solidify their postion.

Many people dislike American foreign policy not American people. They are two different things. Now America always had enemies and I agree that hard core terrorists will hate America no matter what. But there is the vast majority of the rest of the worlds population that you are ignoring. Their support is crucial for victory in the war against terrorism.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Oh yes. It's about 'removing tyrants'. Nevermind that the US removed one that was unable to affect thigns on the large scale, instead of dealing with one of the many who could cause lots of trouble.

This, of course, causes us to once again question: Why Saddam? He was clearly as dangerous as a newborn kitten to the US. The obvious reasons, of course, will be denounced as 'anti Bush propaganda', but.

Why Iraq? The answer probably has about as much to do with WMDs as I have a claim to the throne at Windsor Castle. If one looks at the middle east as a whole, we have no real allies in that region, and they tend to have us by the short-and-curlies. Our only real ally is Israel, and they're hardly suitable for promoting American interests in the region (few useful resources, and the fact that Israel is pretty much universally reviled by every other nation in the region.)

The simple fact is the U.S. wants a relatively easy-to-control ally in the Middle East. (This is hardly a secret. We built up Iran, then we built up Iraq during the 1970s and the 1980s.) And Iraq seems to be the perfect nation. It's got huge oil reseves, it's conveniently located, all the middle eastern nations are within easy reach, and a tame Iraq would give us a boost with the Israelies and our other middle eastern ally, Turkey. And the fact that Saddam Hussein was a reviled tyrant who might've harbored WMDs made Iraq a convenient target. Not like other countries we'd like to exert more control, where the government is firmly entrenched and enjoys wide internal and international support, such as Syria, Iran, or Saudi Arabia.

Though one might ask why the sudden willingness to unilaterally invade countries for our own benefit. This seems to be a core concept of the Bush foreign policy. This policy seems to suggest that it is much more expedient to simply invade useful, but unfriendly nations if they seem like easy pushovers. It's something of a symptom of the post-Sept. 11 world. It's terrible to say this, but the tragedy of 9/11 has been used as an excuse to take a lot of unilateral actions. I mean, before, who could have envisioned such things as the Patriot Act, or the preemptively interventionist policies of the Bush Administration? I suppose the question should by, why is anybody surprised?

[Durandal]

Seriously that is what has been happening today. Despite having the most advanced technologies the US military is losing the war. American soldiers dying everyday in Iraq and terrorists elsewhere continue with small time destructive acts. And most importantly OBL has succeded in destroying Americas image as the land of liberty, justice and freedom.

So the presence of a resistance movement which occasionally hits the occupation forces means that we're losing the war?

[jegs2]

The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace -- a nonpartisan, respected group that opposed the war in Iraq -- conducted the study.

I read that much and then stopped. Non-partisan, my fourth point of contact!

[Joe]

And most importantly OBL has succeded in destroying Americas image as the land of liberty, justice and freedom.

Please, we've not had that image among much of the world for some time now.

[conspiracy theory on]On a side note, I really think, though I don't have anything other than a sick feeling in my gut to offer as evidence, That this could turn into vietnam Part Deux, despite our very strong military presence in the region. Fanatics will keep attacking, IMHO, and I believe eventually may even be backed by a nation, organizing them more thouroughly. and perhaps they will find an achilles heel in the american military might and exploit it, regressing our warfighting capabilities some 20-odd years (Cyberwar, sophisticated jamming equipment, things like that.) because really, when you take complicated electronics out of the equation, the U.S. is effectively crippled. [/conspiracy theory off]

Iraq's a desert, Vietnam's a jungle. The latter was more suitable to guerilla warfare.

Also, this war is actually the opposite of Vietnam, in a way; Vietnam started off with the kind of isolated attacks we've been seeing lately and escalated into full-blown warfare, while Iraq started off with major combat operations and has regressed into low-intensity conflicts.

[Hamel]

Powell says no connections between Saddam, al-Qaida exist

No proof links Iraq, al-Qaida, Powell says
Chief weapons inspector reportedly about to quit

WASHINGTON - Secretary of State Colin Powell reversed a year of administration policy, acknowledging Thursday that he had seen no “smoking gun [or] concrete evidence” of ties between former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida.

Powell, speaking at a news conference at the State Department, stressed that he was still certain that Iraq had dangerous weapons and needed to be disarmed by force, and he sharply disagreed with a private think tank report that maintained that Iraq was not an imminent threat to the United States.

“I have not seen smoking gun, concrete evidence about the connection, but I do believe the connections existed,” he said.

Powell’s observation marked a turning point in administration arguments in support of the U.S. invasion of Iraq last spring. The assertion that Saddam and the terrorist network led by Saudi fugitive Osama bin Laden were working in concert was a primary justification for the war.

As recently as September, President Bush declared that there was “no question” that Saddam had ties to al-Qaida.

Powell himself made the case most strongly in February, when he urged the U.N. Security Council to back U.S. military action in Iraq. “Iraqi officials deny accusations of ties with al-Qaida,” Powell said then. “These denials are simply not credible.”

Powell defended those comments Thursday, even as he cast doubt on their conclusions. He said that at the time, he was referring specifically to the presence of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Baghdad for medical treatments.

The United States has accused al-Zarqawi of being a close associate of bin Laden’s, but intelligence agencies in France and other European countries that opposed the U.S. war argued that al-Zarqawi was an independent operator.

“I'm confident of what I presented last year,” Powell said. “The intelligence community is confident of the material they gave me. I was representing them. It was information they presented to the Congress. It was information they had presented publicly, and they stand behind it. And this game is still unfolding.”

Kay said to be quitting inspection team
Since the U.S. victory in Iraq, U.S. and U.N. teams have been scrubbing the country for the chemical and biological weapons the administration insisted the Baghdad government had been hiding.

That effort, which has failed so far to find any such weapons, could soon be severely hampered. Senior U.S. officials told NBC News on Thursday that David Kay, head of the U.S.-led Iraq Survey Group hunting for weapons, was planning to resign, without issuing a final report.

Kay’s team, which has been scaled back since it began work last year, has found illegal missiles but no stockpiles or ongoing production of chemical or biological weapons, sources told NBC’s Andrea Mitchell. Only a rudimentary nuclear program, which had not started, has been found, they said.

“I think Mr. Kay and his team have looked very hard. I think the reason they haven’t found it is it’s probably not there,” Charles Duelfer, former deputy chairman of the U.N. weapons inspection agency, said in an interview.

Report says policy misguided
Powell came under intense questioning at his news conference Thursday about a new report from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, which accused the administration of systematically misrepresenting the weapons threat from Iraq.

“It is unlikely that Iraq could have destroyed, hidden or sent out of the country the hundreds of tons of chemical and biological weapons, dozens of Scud missiles and facilities engaged in the ongoing production of chemical and biological weapons that officials claimed were present without the United States detecting some sign of this activity,” said the report, prepared by Carnegie President Jessica T. Mathews, Joseph Cirincione and George Perkovich.

Powell responded that Saddam obviously had, and used, destructive weapons in the late 1980s and then refused for a decade to reassure the world that he had gotten rid of them.

“In terms of intention, he always had it,” Powell said. Of Carnegie’s finding that Iraq posed no imminent threat, Powell said: “They did not say it wasn’t there.”

Years of U.N. inspections to determine whether Saddam was harboring weapons of mass destruction were working well, the report said, and the United States would be better advised to set up a permanent system with the United Nations to guard against the spread of dangerous technology.

Powell is trying to be cute here. He admits he has seen no real evidence, but then says he "believes" the connections existed. What a piece of shit. When this was posted on Freerepublic, the cocktards there said MSNBC was spinning what Colin Bowell was saying. Bowell's belief is worth more to them than real evidence. This is as close as a member of the administration will get to admitting they were a bunch of scat loving liars. Supporters of the war have stuffed themselves with crow, but you wouldn't know it by reading their pathetic excuses and red herrings.

The sheep have been molested by their shepherd and they don't know any better.

[Iceberg]

The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace -- a nonpartisan, respected group that opposed the war in Iraq -- conducted the study.

I read that much and then stopped. Non-partisan, my fourth point of contact!

This may surprise you, but not everybody who opposed the war was by any means a liberal OR a Democrat.

[Hamel]

The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace -- a nonpartisan, respected group that opposed the war in Iraq -- conducted the study.

I read that much and then stopped. Non-partisan, my fourth point of contact!

This may surprise you, but not everybody who opposed the war was by any means a liberal OR a Democrat.

Libertarians, with the exception of some liberventionists like Joe, opposed the war.