It's Official - The Search is Over

[Stravo]

U.S. ends search for WMD in Iraq
Wednesday, January 12, 2005 Posted: 10:49 AM EST (1549 GMT)


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. inspectors have ended their search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in recent weeks, a U.S. intelligence official told CNN.

The search ended almost two years after President Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq, citing concerns that Saddam Hussein was building weapons of mass destruction and may have hidden weapons stockpiles.

Members of the Iraq Survey Group were continuing to examine hundreds of documents and would investigate any new leads, the official said.

Charles A. Duelfer, who headed the Iraq Survey Group's search for WMD in Iraq, has returned to Iraq and is working on his final report, the official said.

In October, Duelfer released a preliminary report finding that in March 2003 -- the United States invaded Iraq on March 19 of that year -- Saddam did not have any WMD stockpiles and had not started any program to produce them.

The Iraq Survey Group report said that Iraq's WMD program was essentially destroyed in 1991 and Saddam ended the country's nuclear program after the 1991 Gulf War.

The report found that Iraq worked hard to cheat on United Nations-imposed sanctions and retain the capability to resume production of weapons of mass destruction at some time in the future. (Full story)

"[Saddam] wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction when sanctions were lifted," a summary of the report said.

Many of the military and intelligence personnel, who had been assigned to the weapons search, are now working on counterinsurgency matters, the official said.

Much like OJ's search for the real killers this travesty now comes to an end not with a bang but with a very quiet whimper. Funny that - any mustard gas stained shell that was found was blared across all stations and analysts spent days discussing it but now that the search is just over - one of the foundations of why we went to war in the first place - is just allowed to quietly pass away.

[Crown]

Much like OJ's search for the real killers this travesty now comes to an end not with a bang but with a very quiet whimper. Funny that - any mustard gas stained shell that was found was blared across all stations and analysts spent days discussing it but now that the search is just over - one of the foundations of why we went to war in the first place - is just allowed to quietly pass away.

You know I am patiently waiting for the day when the US media will get their balls back - so to speak.

[Frank Hipper]

Slam dunk!

[Stravo]

Much like OJ's search for the real killers this travesty now comes to an end not with a bang but with a very quiet whimper. Funny that - any mustard gas stained shell that was found was blared across all stations and analysts spent days discussing it but now that the search is just over - one of the foundations of why we went to war in the first place - is just allowed to quietly pass away.

You know I am patiently waiting for the day when the US media will get their balls back - so to speak.

You and me both brother. I try to think back upon when they lost it. What precisely created this flacid fourth estate that has become nothing more than a mouth piece? Was it the concentration of corporate conglomerate ownership of the media, is it their falling public opinion poll numbers that have spurred them to be as 'likable' as possible and not make waves, is it Conservative Loudmouth radiohosts screaming like stuck pigs about the liberal media establishment and how something from the NYTimes-which when I was growing up was considered the paragon of media sources-is now openly derided?

I don't know what it is but much like the Opposition Party which no longer exists the media is going the same way.

[Stormbringer]

You and me both brother. I try to think back upon when they lost it. What precisely created this flacid fourth estate that has become nothing more than a mouth piece? Was it the concentration of corporate conglomerate ownership of the media, is it their falling public opinion poll numbers that have spurred them to be as 'likable' as possible and not make waves, is it Conservative Loudmouth radiohosts screaming like stuck pigs about the liberal media establishment and how something from the NYTimes-which when I was growing up was considered the paragon of media sources-is now openly derided?

I don't know what it is but much like the Opposition Party which no longer exists the media is going the same way.

I have to say that it pretty much has to be the purely trend whorish nature. The pathetic excuse for journalism extends across the board, it's not limited to just partisan issues. Do you really think Laci Peterson deserved that much coverage? I have to say no. The ridiculous and tawdry nature of reporting these days is largely a result of the twenty four hour new network. They have to have high ratings and all the time. So they have to follow whatever tawdry crap they can sell and serious journalism simply doesn't pay.

It's also part of what's made it so easy for the talking heads of both sides to get such prominence. They're not journalists but professional editorialist and with the dimished intelligence with which TV is veiwed leads the public to believe otherwise.

[Stravo]

It's also part of what's made it so easy for the talking heads of both sides to get such prominence. They're not journalists but professional editorialist and with the dimished intelligence with which TV is veiwed leads the public to believe otherwise.

THAT point about most of these talking heads not even being journalists is absolutely key to undertsanding this phenomenon. These guys spout their bullshit (on both sides) and don't even bother cloaking their opinions as reporting the news anymore.

The 24 hour news cycle is another big culprit.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought the Laci Peterson coverage was absolutely absurd.

[Crown]

I have to say that it pretty much has to be the purely trend whorish nature. The pathetic excuse for journalism extends across the board, it's not limited to just partisan issues. Do you really think Laci Peterson deserved that much coverage? I have to say no. The ridiculous and tawdry nature of reporting these days is largely a result of the twenty four hour new network. They have to have high ratings and all the time. So they have to follow whatever tawdry crap they can sell and serious journalism simply doesn't pay.

It's also part of what's made it so easy for the talking heads of both sides to get such prominence. They're not journalists but professional editorialist and with the dimished intelligence with which TV is veiwed leads the public to believe otherwise.

But that 'problem' doesn't accurately satisfy the question of why they aren't broadcasting this like crazy, does it?

I mean this would make such great 'breaking news'/headline crap that if I were a news director I would jump at a chance to put it on the air and then open up a dialogue of what this means, how the public was fooled, introspection, talk groups, etc, etc, blah, blah, blah, yadda, yadda, yadda, and so on and so forth.

But it isn't. Don't you see? This has nothing to do with 24hr news networks or anyother bullshit. This is the American media just plain and simple having misplaced their balls somewhere when it comes to grilling the current PTB.

[Glocksman]

Much like OJ's search for the real killers this travesty now comes to an end not with a bang but with a very quiet whimper. Funny that - any mustard gas stained shell that was found was blared across all stations and analysts spent days discussing it but now that the search is just over - one of the foundations of why we went to war in the first place - is just allowed to quietly pass away.

You know I am patiently waiting for the day when the US media will get their balls back - so to speak.

You and me both brother. I try to think back upon when they lost it. What precisely created this flacid fourth estate that has become nothing more than a mouth piece? Was it the concentration of corporate conglomerate ownership of the media, is it their falling public opinion poll numbers that have spurred them to be as 'likable' as possible and not make waves, is it Conservative Loudmouth radiohosts screaming like stuck pigs about the liberal media establishment and how something from the NYTimes-which when I was growing up was considered the paragon of media sources-is now openly derided?

I don't know what it is but much like the Opposition Party which no longer exists the media is going the same way.

Shoddy journalism is nothing new.

From Hearst and 'Yellow journalism', to Walter Winchell, on to FOX news, it's been present for a very long time. What is new is the sheer number of outlets for it. Pick up your TV remote and make your choice.

As far as the NYT goes, they've done a remarkable job of shooting themselves in the foot over the last few years with the Jayson Blair thing and whatnot. Kinda like Memogate shredded any credibility Dan Rather had.

There's a reason why I don't watch TV news anymore and get most of my news from the net (BBC and CNN mostly).

[Chmee]

There's a lot of factors contributing to the spinelessness of television news. Cable slashed network tv's market share, and the news divisions that were once not really expected to be profit centers had their budgets slashed and their ratings put under a microscope, pushing them further and further into the 'infotainment' sewer.

And news is a lot like Presidents ... you only get the quality you insist on. The short attention span of the McFood-gulping, Reality-tv audience has no patience for an hour long documentary about the politics of the Iraq war ... because if they did, they'd be watching Frontline, not ABC News.

Journalism is out there, you just can't sit on the La-Z-Boy and have it spoon fed to you these days, you have to actually go find it.

[Darth Wong]

The 24-hour news network explains non-news being made into news very adequately, it explains the rise in alarmist nonsense news stories, and it explains the meteoric rise of useless political "pundits" as opposed to real journalists on the air (all 3 of which are serious problems), but as Crown points out, it does not explain why some news stories that could easily merit long-winded stories don't get any coverage at all.

The reason is simple (and despite what Stormbringer thinks, it is partisan); news outlets are afraid of offending people. The people who are most easily offended essentially dictate what can and can't be made into a major news story (and once again, despite all of the Golden Mean bullshit, the right wing is more easily offended than the left, which has become accustomed to being virtually marginalized out of existence to the point that the centre is now the left).

News networks have one and only one agenda: making money. But in pursuit of this goal, they must respond to the sensitivities of the public, and this means they have to recognize and emulate the general rightward shift of the American public.

Why do you think not one news network has run a single story about the connection between Islam and terrorism since 9/11? Because they know that while there are a lot of fundies out there who would applaud such a story, the bulk of the public would be very offended that someone is trying to blame religion. It's all about not offending the viewers so you can keep your advertisers happy. And sadly, the Bush Administration's very effective "rapid response team" has made it so that anyone who says anything bad about them is immediately labeled "partisan", regardless of whether it is true, and this will cost them viewers in the Heartland. If you're going to report something bad about the Bush Administration you need something positive to "balance it out", or some kind of spin-doctoring to make it look good, and this is just too hard to spin-doctor.

[Crown]

<snip>

B-I-N-G-O and Mike Wong was his name!

[Glocksman]

I don't to turn this into a gun control thread.

But when I see news stories about guns and gun control that get the facts wrong (a lot of the AWB stories are simply devoid of factual information) and/or basically reprint Brady Campaign press releases, it makes me wonder just what else they're writing either has the facts wrong or is written to fit an agenda.

[Stormbringer]

I have to say that it pretty much has to be the purely trend whorish nature. The pathetic excuse for journalism extends across the board, it's not limited to just partisan issues. Do you really think Laci Peterson deserved that much coverage? I have to say no. The ridiculous and tawdry nature of reporting these days is largely a result of the twenty four hour new network. They have to have high ratings and all the time. So they have to follow whatever tawdry crap they can sell and serious journalism simply doesn't pay.

It's also part of what's made it so easy for the talking heads of both sides to get such prominence. They're not journalists but professional editorialist and with the dimished intelligence with which TV is veiwed leads the public to believe otherwise.

But that 'problem' doesn't accurately satisfy the question of why they aren't broadcasting this like crazy, does it?

I mean this would make such great 'breaking news'/headline crap that if I were a news director I would jump at a chance to put it on the air and then open up a dialogue of what this means, how the public was fooled, introspection, talk groups, etc, etc, blah, blah, blah, yadda, yadda, yadda, and so on and so forth.

But it isn't. Don't you see? This has nothing to do with 24hr news networks or anyother bullshit. This is the American media just plain and simple having misplaced their balls somewhere when it comes to grilling the current PTB.

Because it's a depressing story. What it boils down to is it's not a pleasant story, it's the kind that causes people to find something else to watch. It's why stories on the Iraq insurgency, at least those that can't be overhyped, are cut short. Unless it can outrage (which it hasn't) or alarm (which it hasn't) then people are just going to either ignore it or turn it off.

Yes, there will also be some conservatives that don't want it on. But for anyone but Fox News that probably doesn't matter. If it was a viable story for a mass audience then they're air it anyway. They didn't shrink from reporting heavily on other things that might embarrass or annoy Bushies. Anyone remember the explosives story or the National Guard papers?

And I would also point out that it's also no more than confirmation of something people have known for a long time. Whether there are WMDs has been discussed to death once it became clear that they didn't exist. It's a stale story to the news network junkies.

[Col. Crackpot]

I don't to turn this into a gun control thread.

But when I see news stories about guns and gun control that get the facts wrong (a lot of the AWB stories are simply devoid of factual information) and/or basically reprint Brady Campaign press releases, it makes me wonder just what else they're writing either has the facts wrong or is written to fit an agenda.

like the news reporters who show the dangers of letting gun control laws lapse by ripping apart targets with a fully automatic ak-47 with a 75 round drum mag and imply that such weapons would be legal if the ban is allowed to lapse? those kinds of stories?

Believe me there is plenty of material for pundits on both sides of the political spectrum to use and show a bias on way or the other.

as for the WMD hunt....

[Darth Wong]

As I said, the media's only "agenda" is making money. People think their gun-control stories betray an agenda, but they are an example of their love of alarmist news stories, not an agenda. Journalists love alarmism, because it sells. A while ago CNN ran a whole series of news stories on ways Al-Quaeda could kill Americans. Lots of scary stuff with dramatic, ominous music and grainy pictures of men in turbans, followed by wild-assed hypothetical bullshit. Hours and hours of this nonsense, in a series which ran for more than a week. That's classic alarmism, and it grabs viewers, and it's the same thing they do with guns.

[Robert Walper]

As I said, the media's only "agenda" is making money. People think their gun-control stories betray an agenda, but they are an example of their love of alarmist news stories, not an agenda. Journalists love alarmism, because it sells. A while ago CNN ran a whole series of news stories on ways Al-Quaeda could kill Americans. Lots of scary stuff with dramatic, ominous music and grainy pictures of men in turbans, followed by wild-assed hypothetical bullshit. Hours and hours of this nonsense, in a series which ran for more than a week. That's classic alarmism, and it grabs viewers, and it's the same thing they do with guns.

And people look at me funny when I say I don't pay much attention to the news. It's a money operation now, not a true "news" one.

[Darth Wong]

Newspapers are much better sources than TV news in general.

[Crown]

Newspapers are much better sources than TV news in general.

Online would trump them though (although you probably will miss out on local news), since they are generally free (like the Beep).

[Chmee]

Newspapers are much better sources than TV news in general.

I think the key for people who actually want to be informed, not simply entertained, is to have multiple news sources. The Net makes this very easy because you can get the online versions of newspapers from multiple cities, multiple nations. Combine that with the television source of your choice, National Public Radio, whatever ... you can get a pretty broad set of viewpoints if you WANT them, the problem is that too many people barely make the time for 20 minutes of local news, saving their television time for more valuable content like Survivor and Dr. Phil.

[Admiral Valdemar]

My news sources are usually the Beeb's news site or Reuters, The Times broadsheet paper (though my family still gets The Daily Express which is now a rag, IMHO) and I always watch BBC News 24 and sometimes Sky News or the ITV News channel. I watch FOX News if I want a laugh and reading the Daily Mail is great if you love rampant alarmism and Chicken Little impressions.

[Col. Crackpot]

Newspapers are much better sources than TV news in general.

Oh Iagree wholeheartedly. I read the Providence Journal every day, cover to cover. Often times i'll pick up the Boston Globe as well. I like the fact that i get all of information that puts the crappy evening news soundbite into context.

[soapbox] Do you wan't to know what else burn me Mike? The local news here goes on for an hour and a half. But the fucking time they waste talking about how they have "new deatails coming up in the 5:30 report, followed by breaking news in the 6:00 report" drives me batshit insane! Every major news station in every market does that here, and i noticed the same shit happens in Canada when i watched the Montreal CTV affiliate. GAH! I HATE THAT! If the news is an hour and half long, then devote some fucking time to tell the whole goddamn story, in detail at least once insted of rehashing the same tidbit of news three doddamn times! [/soapbox]

But then that brings us back to you point about ratings and profit...

[Admiral_K]

Much like OJ's search for the real killers this travesty now comes to an end not with a bang but with a very quiet whimper. Funny that - any mustard gas stained shell that was found was blared across all stations and analysts spent days discussing it but now that the search is just over - one of the foundations of why we went to war in the first place - is just allowed to quietly pass away.

Well is any of this really NEWS though? 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.

We already had a big story from the preliminary report that they didn't expect to find any WMDs. The topic was done to death on political talk shows and regular news. It would seem to me that at this point, the "official word" is more or less a formality, but its hardly something that requires a hard hitting news report.

This is more or less the final report from the coroner saying that the man who had been shot in the head indeed died from a gunshot wound to the head.

[Howedar]

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.

[Chmee]

Much like OJ's search for the real killers this travesty now comes to an end not with a bang but with a very quiet whimper. Funny that - any mustard gas stained shell that was found was blared across all stations and analysts spent days discussing it but now that the search is just over - one of the foundations of why we went to war in the first place - is just allowed to quietly pass away.

Well is any of this really NEWS though? 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.

We already had a big story from the preliminary report that they didn't expect to find any WMDs. The topic was done to death on political talk shows and regular news. It would seem to me that at this point, the "official word" is more or less a formality, but its hardly something that requires a hard hitting news report.

This is more or less the final report from the coroner saying that the man who had been shot in the head indeed died from a gunshot wound to the head.

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.'

[Lord Poe]

The people who are most easily offended essentially dictate what can and can't be made into a major news story (and once again, despite all of the Golden Mean bullshit, the right wing is more easily offended than the left, which has become accustomed to being virtually marginalized out of existence to the point that the centre is now the left).

I disagree. The right is easily offended by anything involving a negative view of religion, "foul language heard by our children", queers and dykes "teaching our children", and any public discussions of sex of any kind.

The left is easily offended by "hurtful language heard by our children", any public discussion of religion that the children might be influenced by, negative portrayals of any kind of any minority, sexual orientation, mental stability, physical limitation, religious persuasion, persecution of the meek by the strong, and anything else that can be crammed into a frivilous lawsuit.

As for news outlets, I watch FOX 11 local news, which usually has excellent coverage of the events of the day. (FOX 11 local here in L.A. is NOTHING like FOX news the cable channel, BTW). But what pisses me off to no end is the "special reports" done on the local street gangs, where for a good 15 minutes, they get to flash their gang signs, show off their tattoos, their guns, cars, examples of their thuggery, etc. for all their pals to see.