BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


WMD: where's that pesky report

 
  

Page: (1)2

 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
14:28 / 24.09.03
WMD report leaked?

The now-overdue report on WMD in Iraq seems to have been leaked to Andrew Neil's 'Daily Politics' show on the BBC:

Mr Neil said, according to the source, the report will say its inspectors have not even unearthed "minute amounts of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons material".

They have also not uncovered any laboratories involved in deploying WMD and no delivery systems for the weapons.

But, Mr Neil added, the report would publish computer programmes, files, pictures and paperwork which it says shows that Saddam Hussein's regime was attempting to develop a WMD programme.


The report is apparently now coming out next month. So that should be jolly interesting.
 
 
grant
16:30 / 24.09.03
Posted something on this as a Lie of the Day.

Something to remember is that the "smoking gun" isn't evidence of a WMD program -- we've known that there was one there in the 1980s, since the US sold the components to 'em. The "smoking gun" would be evidence of an ongoing, covert weapons research & design program in place after sanctions. Stuff put on ice/buried out back/sealed in vats of cosmoline don't count, since that's exactly what Iraq was *supposed* to do according to the sanctions deal.
 
 
Not Here Still
17:20 / 24.09.03
Been banging on about this elsewhere myself.

I'm betting that the report will not be able to be released for 'ongoing security reasons' or similar and that fear of allowing terrorists to know what the Iraq Survey Group know will be used as an excuse to bury it, sealed in a vat of cosmoline or not.

What is cosmoline, anyways?
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
19:12 / 24.09.03
grant - true enough, but it's worse than that: as Scott Ritter has been at pains to point out, you can't put liquid anthrax 'on ice'. It doesn't keep. That's one of the reasons why the discearning bastard favours the dried version. Thing is, no one is suggesting that Saddam Hussein had the dried version. So all that stuff in Nice Uncle Colin's speech at the UN about gallons of liquid anthrax 'still unaccounted for' is so much hooey. If it's that old, it's not anthrax any more, it's thick grey sludge. You'd do more damage smearing it on roads to cause accidents than trying to use it to make people sick...
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
20:05 / 24.09.03
This is the lead headline on ITV's News At Ten right now. It's very, very gratifying (if that's the appropriate word).
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
21:07 / 24.09.03
I'm fascinated by this 'wait and see what the report says' strategy. It's got so much wrong with it from a political point of view. The longer you wait, the closer you get to the next election. It won't go away. In the meantime, you can't rebuild the public trust if you keep saying "it's all fine, there's no fire!" while your britches are still burning.
 
 
Lurid Archive
09:09 / 25.09.03
I think the idea must be to wait until the public have forgotten about the issue. Of course, with Hutton going on, thats unlikely to happen soon in the UK. Blair must also have been counting on a clearer vindication in the liberation of Iraq, in terms of people cheering the allies on, rather than the continuing terrorism/resistance that that we actually have.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
09:26 / 25.09.03
The only good thing about this entire situation right now is that we're so bogged down in Iraq that nobody can afford to go for Syria or Iran for quite a while.

So. No WMDs. quelle surprise.

The ironies just seem to be multiplying- Dr Kelly, who was in favour of invasion, was driven to suicide by a combination of situations basically coming down to the fact that his evidence wouldn't have made the case Mr Tony & Mr George wanted.

The UN, which wasn't in favour of war on T&G's terms, is now being begged for help in cleaning up their shit.

For once, I actually believe a member of New Labour... remember ages ago, when Straw, apropos of nothing, felt it necessary to point out that the government wouldn't actually plant WMDs if none were forthcoming (am frantically trying to find references for this... I think it may have been "Today", funnily enough)...

...it appears they haven't.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
09:37 / 25.09.03
I'm sorry I just have to... HAHAHAHAHAHA. This is so beautifully absurd and so terribly satisfying. I know it's wrong to feel a certain amount of glee but I just can't help myself.

nobody can afford to go for Syria or Iran for quite a while

It seems quite clear that they're going to wait until Bush is re-elected. They'd be fools to do it before especially with this type of thing going on... even if a democrat gets in the US will likely still go in to Iran. It's too clean a setup not to really!
 
 
Not Here Still
17:57 / 26.09.03
Maybe not Iran - but there's been two accusations of spying at Camp X Ray involving Syria this week

Sorry to piss on chips and all that.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
03:41 / 27.09.03
Yeah, it'll happen, but right now they just can't afford the troops.
 
 
Hieronymus
05:04 / 27.09.03
The troops are only a portion of why there won't be another round of democratic imperialism. Comparisons to Vietnam are already being aptly made by critics. The stacking casualties in an occupational mission, the lack of control of the bombers and attackers...and most importantly the new request from even more from taxpayers has put The White House in HIGH damage control right now as a result of Iraq. And this report only pours gasoline on the flames.

Mainstream America doesn't mind the New American Century. As long as we're not paying for it.

Now we are.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
08:41 / 27.09.03
I'm sorry but they're doing the slow build up of evidence- politically, financially, once these things are sorted they'll attack someone else and that means at the start of the new presidential term. They built up Iraq for over a year before they went in and they're clearly leaving the location open because they're building a case for both Iran and Syria.
 
 
Hieronymus
15:34 / 27.09.03
That remains to be seen.
 
 
fluid_state
17:28 / 27.09.03
Well, yeah, but so does the sun rising tomorrow.
 
 
Hieronymus
18:42 / 27.09.03
The comparison to the certainty of a rising sun and an inevitable 3rd war from the Bush administration isn't even accurate. The failure (militaristically, economically, politically) that is Iraq is causing much second guessing of Perle, Wolfowitz and Rummy's policies and their influence on this admin. It's leaving the White House pretty politically vulnerable as a matter of fact. The prior two conflicts had the mandate of the majority of American support. What evidence is there that that same support will be there again? Especially in light of growing criticism, dropping poll numbers, et al.

Yes, the Bush administration was flexing its political muscles after Baghdad was taken and everybody was congratulating themselves on a New American Century well done. Yes, Rummy and others were scowling at Iran and Syria at the time, tempted to move to yet another military theatre.

But this is no longer March 2003. The smoke is clearing and the fanfare is dying. Expansion via these NAC policies is not as certain in the cards as it once was and is being taken to task from within even Republican circles. It's threatening to put the Bush admin at risk come 2004. and so I'm curious to know what current information points to another row with yet another country, given that Iraq is quickly turning into quite the albatross around Bush's neck.

Given the fact that the Bush presidency isn't insured at the moment, what makes you think additional wars from it are?
 
 
Morpheus
22:50 / 27.09.03
Proof is still not a basis technically. All is illusion. Samsara. Again I post the spot for Aftermath

Not proof but alot to think about. Oh and everyone knows Bush is a murderering drug addict...'but wheres the proof?'
 
 
Lurid Archive
11:18 / 28.09.03
I think that Distended Mass is absolutely spot on. And, Doc-o-Rock, I've always thought that using a absence of evidence as a argument *for* one's position to be...unconvincing.

The chances of another war of this kind, conducted by the US acting essentially alone, is fast diminishing. I think a UN sanctioned war might be feasible, though the antoagonism between the US and the UN, and especially certain permanent members of the security council, may make that poltically impossible.
 
 
Not Here Still
12:31 / 28.09.03
With regards to Syria - I do think that there is likely to be more going on than meets the eye.

I obviously don't think that we are going to see America going in straight away, and yes, I'm aware that there are a lot of troops in Iraq right now who are over-committed.

But I'm also of the opinion that there is a case being built - the allegations of spying by Syria in Camp X ray which I linked to above is pretty damn current, seeing as they were made within the last fortnight.

My supposition is that Iran is the country which will be pursued through the UN route - note the current rumblings about its "nuclear programme" being made in EU, UN and US circles - and will eventually be used to show one of two things, either that America doesn't need to go to war and will happily take things via the UN to reach a peaceful resolution; or that America remains "the world's policeman" when diplomacy fails. Eitehr way will involve the UN closely.

I'm also of the opinion that some of the current discontent within Iran is being fermented or at least aided from outside to destabilise the country.

Syria, meanwhile, seems to be being set up yet further as the next 'axis of evil' to be dealt with by the US. There is strong discontent among republicans about Iraq, according to some. There is, as ever, also strong discontent about Israel and Palestine - and Syria has strong links with Palestinian militants such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad. These movements are already seen as Islamic terrorist groups, and by throwing spying accusations at Syria WRT Camp X Ray, the US Govt is painting Syria with another terrorist brush, that of the dreaded al-Qaida.

I for one wouldn't be surprised to see Syria attacked before 2004; perhaps not in a conventional warfare sense, but I still feel that there is something nasty in the air about the US's intentions here.

Anyway, someone is at the door - will pop back later to rant more
 
 
Hieronymus
16:03 / 28.09.03
Tim Russert, in his grilling of Condi Rice, posed a question today on Meet the Press that more or less is on most Americans' minds:

MR. RUSSERT: But [conservative columnist] [George] Will’s point is if the president came to the United States today and said, “We have a problem with Iran. They have an advanced nuclear capability, we have to launch a pre-emptive strike,” or “We have to launch a pre-emptive strike against North Korea,” would the country, would the world, say, “By all means, Mr. President, we know your intelligence is sound, go forward”?

 DR. RICE: The important thing is that the president has always said that the use of military force is, of course, an option that has to remain, but that’s a rare option. The president in Iran and in North Korea is pursuing other courses, and Iraq was in many ways a very special case.


And if George Will is having second thoughts of the White House's public mandate for the war on Iraq, you better believe the gig is up. Their credibility is in considerable doubt now.

Secondly, there is no issue with Syria at this time constituting a rev up to war so I fail to see where you get that. Linking the Guantanamo spies with Syria has yet to be substantiated:

"If it turns out that this guy is guilty, and it turns out that he was talking to Syria in some light, then that's an issue that the government will deal with at the time," General Peter Pace, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters.

But asked whether Syria was directly involved in a plot to spy on the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba, he said: "We do not know. We are looking at that."


So they throw accusations? So what? In May they threw accusations that Syria might have been harboring members of the Republican guard, et al. Big deal. With no proof, those accusations crumble. But there is nothing in the current political atmosphere, and I'd dare say nothing well past 2004, that indicates that the Bush administration is preparing for another war on yet another front. No chance in hell. They're getting kneecapped on Iraq for chrissakes. To start yet another conflict would be political suicide.

As recently as last week, Bush was begging the UN for assistance, in his smug sarcastic way. Does the irony of that not strike you as funny? Do you think that the 'my way or the highway' policies are in any way still vigorous anymore if he's begging the UN for a little money and soldiers to solidify his 'nation-building'?

I for one wouldn't be surprised to see Syria attacked before 2004; perhaps not in a conventional warfare sense, but I still feel that there is something nasty in the air about the US's intentions here.

What about the Bush administration's foreign policy hasn't been nasty? But nasty finger pointing and baseless accusations do not a full-on war make.

Ain't gonna happen.
 
 
Pingle!Pop
10:34 / 29.09.03
With no proof, those accusations crumble.

I seem to recall that at the beginning of this year the US/UK governments (mostly) were throwing around some pretty wild accusations claiming that a politically/economically useful country called Iraq had some form of massive-scale weapons of mass destruction programme going on. Correct me if I'm wrong?

I'm not so sure that "proof" is necessarily a prerequisite for the administration to build up a case for war...
 
 
GreenMann
16:43 / 01.10.03
Blair is SUCH a liar!

He keeps saying he did "the right thing at the right time with the available intelligence assessment" despite the fact that the intelligence assessment said clearly, time and time again, that Saddam WAS NOT a threat!

I guess it must be true that if you repeat something often enough...people WILL eventually believe you!
 
 
Hieronymus
16:54 / 01.10.03
I'm not so sure that "proof" is necessarily a prerequisite for the administration to build up a case for war...

It's reaching the point now where even their lies are petering out, Angelique. As I said before, the credibility issue, which is more or less what propelled this last war on a strictly have-faith tenet, is falling apart.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
14:35 / 03.10.03
Anyone in the UK hear Mr Tony on the wonderful Today Programme a couple of days ago? When asked "What if no WMDs are EVER found" he pulled the fantastic trick of saying "Yes, but let's ask that question a different way... what if they were and we'd done nothing?"

Sorry, Mr Tony, but that quite blatantly wasn't the question you were being asked, and had it been Humphrys rather than the other guy grilling you you'd have been fucked.
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
15:12 / 03.10.03
I think Mr. Blair is in deep denial.

What I can't get my head around is Straw bringing up Iraq's liquid anthrax store again. Is the man ignorant or mendacious? Liquid anthrax does not keep. It's not sitting around out there with "Baghdad Batch 1993 - best used for genocide before 2010" written on it. By now, it's only dangerous if it falls on you from a great height.
 
 
Baz Auckland
12:02 / 19.12.03
Oops. The Head of the WMD -finding team has resigned... Here too

David Kay, a former U.N. weapons inspector, was named by the CIA in June to lead the search for weapons of mass destruction. His appointment, and the creation of his operation, the Iraq Survey Group, was supposed to be the key to finding the weapons Iraq long denied having. Kay returned to the United States last week and on Thursday, a U.S. intelligence official in Washington said he was considering quitting his post.

"It's probably time to call it quits," said Hans Blix, the former chief U.N. weapons inspector, whose teams were given one-third of the time the United States has already spent looking for weapons. "The U.S. and the U.K. are so wedded to the idea that the Iraqis were hiding things that they are not willing to explore the possibility that they're wrong," Blix said.

The departure of Mr Kay, a strong believer in the case for toppling Saddam Hussein because of his alleged weapons, comes as a particular embarrassment to Tony Blair. This week he maintained that Mr Kay had uncovered "massive evidence" of a network of WMD laboratories.

For Mr Bush, the missing weapons are a politically charged issue. Pressed to explain why his administration had asserted Saddam possessed weapons, when at best fragmentary evidence of programmes had been found, Mr Bush replied: "So what's the difference? "If he were to acquire weapons, he would be the danger," he said in an interview with ABC News' Diane Sawyer.

Mr Bush's public dismissal of the weapons issue is the latest move by Washington and London to changethe justification for war. Weapons of mass destruction, and even weapons programmes, are no longer being put forward as the reason for the invasion. Senior US and British officials now dwell almost exclusively on the atrocities perpetrated by Saddam against his people, and the opportunity provided by his removal for a regeneration of the Middle East.


...that Bush quote is almost unbelievable...
 
 
Tryphena Absent
12:33 / 19.12.03
The temptation to start printing out everything Blair has said about WMDs, compile it all in to a folder and send it to Downing Street is just too much for me. I may have to lie down.
 
 
Our Lady of The Two Towers
07:18 / 20.12.03
The best I can offer you is:

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."
- - Dick Cheney, August 26 2002

"If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world."
- - Ari Fleischer, December 2 2002

"We know for a fact that there are weapons there."
- - Ari Fleischer, January 9 2003

"We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more."
- - Colin Powell, February 5 2003

"Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes."
- - Ari Fleischer, March 21 2003

"There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. As this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them."
- - Gen. Tommy Franks, March 22 2003

"We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad."
- - Donald Rumsfeld, March 30 2003

"I think you have always heard, and you continue to hear from officials, a measure of high confidence that, indeed, the weapons of mass destruction will be found."
- - Ari Fleischer, April 10 2003

"There are people who in large measure have information that we need . . . so that we can track down the weapons of mass destruction in that country."
- - Donald Rumsfeld, April 25 2003

"I am confident that we will find evidence that makes it clear he had weapons of mass destruction."
- - Colin Powell, May 4 2003

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."
- - George W. Bush, September 12 2002

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."
- - George W. Bush, State of the Union address, January 28 2003

"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."
- - George Bush, February 8 2003

"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."
- - George Bush, March 17 2003

"We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them."
- - George Bush, April 24 2003

"We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so."
- - George Bush, May 3 2003

"I'm not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein -- because he had a weapons program."
- - George W. Bush, May 6 2003
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
02:17 / 21.12.03
Well all I can say is it was a bloody long 45 minutes.
 
 
Mourne Kransky
13:07 / 24.12.03
New theory for Iraq's missing WMD: Saddam was fooled into thinking he had them. I hear the sound of straws being clutched at, over the noise of dispassionate observers pissing themselves laughing.

So he only thought he had them, because his henchmen told him he had them, and they were the same henchmen trading secrets with MI6. Santa's sled will be drawn by flying pigs tonight.
 
 
bjacques
07:27 / 30.12.03
Hussein (chuckling ruefully): Looks like they had us *both* fooled!

Comic horns (Mwah mwah mwah mwahhhhhh!)
 
 
Baz Auckland
15:47 / 02.02.04
Bush starts an inquiry into the lack of WMD found...


Bush told reporters he would set up an "independent, bipartisan" panel. Mr Bush will appoint the members and set the terms of the commission, which is not expected to report before the presidential election in November.

The US move will increase pressure for similar inquiries in Britain and Australia, which joined the US-led war. A spokesman Tony Blair has said the UK Government will soon announce how it intends to address questions about the quality of its pre-war intelligence.

Announcing the US inquiry, Mr Bush said: "I want to know all the facts". But he insisted that former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had been a danger. "We know he had the intent and capabilities to cause great harm," Mr Bush said. He said the commission would "analyse where we stand, what we can do better as we fight this war against terror".

But the main focus would be on the data gathered relating to WMD and the proliferation of banned arms, they said. White House sources say the inquiry will be modelled on the Warren Commission, which investigated President Kennedy's assassination in the 1960s.


(you know, comparing your inquiry to the Warren Commission may not help its credibiliy...)

But former CIA director James Wolsey said one of the problems may have been that Saddam Hussein was involved in an elaborate deception, telling even his own military chiefs that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. "If Saddam was deceiving his own generals, even if we had recruited a dozen Iraqi generals as American spies we still would have gotten a false story," he told the World Today.

...ummm yeah. Never mind all that "We have no weapons, they were destroyed..." that the Iraqi leaders said before the war...
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
17:42 / 03.02.04
Don't know if anyone saw Newsnight last night, but one of the panellists when i switched over to it suggested that the US and UK had next to no agents in the Iraqi regime and could not get spy satellite info of events on the ground due to the wonderfully low-tech Iraqi solution of putting a roof over everywhere they worked. Almost the only real source of information was Iraqi dissidents and the Israelis, who both had strong reasons to lie to the Americans to try and get them to invade Iraq. I may be misquoting from memory so if anyone wants to correct me please do.

But if this is an accurate assessment then the two things that come out were that 'the intelligence was never there' (which was perhaps why the Government had to resort to putting out that student dossier)and that the administrations of the UK and US made their decisions and then looked for the intelligence to justify them.
 
 
bjacques
11:25 / 04.02.04
Welcome to the spookhouse. Former CIA director and legendary paranoiac James Jesus Angleton got it right, calling it a "wilderness of mirrors." He looked into the wrong one and started an internal witchhunt that targeted exactly the wrong people, leaving KGB moles undisturbed.

I suspect Blair of sexing up the Hutton report, haha. The US and UK had few agents in the Middle East in general; the CIA had/have stations in client states but I gather most of the information they got came from the client states' security apparatuses, like SAVAK (Iran, until 1979)and MOSSAD, which had their own agendas.

Now the question is whether Bush will blame the PNAC cronies for the Iraq mess and then pitch them overboard for November. Ixnay on the foreign adventures and let's get back to making America a Christian nation again as well as a fortress against global terr. If the voters still want another war, now we've got about 50 countries involved in "weapons of mass destruction-related programs" instead of just the one or three.
 
 
Baz Auckland
15:15 / 05.02.04
The CIA's George Tenet today defended the pre-war intelligence...

There didn't seem to be anything new in what he was saying, but I found this bit funny:

On chemical and biological weapons, Tenet said analysts believed that Saddam had ongoing programs and perhaps stockpiles and have found no evidence of such ongoing programs. He asserted, however, that the weapons searching teams needed more time.

ooohh, so now YOU need more time now to look for weapons, eh? Now do you understand what Blix and company were doing? Huh?
 
  

Page: (1)2

 
  
Add Your Reply