WoMD ... so where are they?

by Simon 865 Replies latest social current

• 

  ThiChi

  Hehe, they are all falling in line......Is Bush a great leader or what? EU Backs Possible Use of Force Against WMD Threats

  36 minutes ago

  Add World - Reuters to My Yahoo!

  By Paul Taylor

  LUXEMBOURG (Reuters) - The European Union ( news - web sites ), in a significant shift toward U.S. thinking, said on Monday use of force might be necessary where diplomacy failed to address threats from weapons of mass destruction.

  Reuters Photo

  EU foreign ministers adopted a strategy to combat the spread of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons for the first time, including a reference to possible military action as a last resort against states or "terrorists" that acquired such arms.

  They also demanded that Iran, accused by Washington of trying to develop atomic arms, accept tougher U.N. inspections of its nuclear program immediately and unconditionally if it wants a trade deal with the 15-nation bloc.

  The EU said preventive measures such as treaties, dialogue and inspections should be the first line of defense against the proliferation of the world's most dangerous weapons.

  But "when these measures (including political dialogue and diplomatic pressure) have failed, coercive measures under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter and international law (sanctions, selective or global, interceptions of shipments and, as appropriate, the use of force) could be envisioned," it said.

  Ministers endorsed the strategy, coupled with an action plan giving the fight against WMD priority in EU relations with third countries, on the day they voiced serious concern at aspects of Iran's nuclear program.

  But Greek Foreign Minister George Papandreou, who chaired the meeting, insisted the reference to possible use of force was not related to the separate statement on Iran.

  Diplomats said the moves were part of an EU drive to take the WMD threat more seriously and repair transatlantic relations after a severe rift over the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq ( news - web sites).

  FINAL ARBITER

  The EU document did, however, insist that action should be approved by the United Nations ( news - web sites ), whose Security Council it said "should play a central role."

  "The role of the U.N. Security Council, as the final arbiter on the consequences of non-compliance...needs to be effectively strengthened," it said.

  Among key measures in the plan were boosting the budget of the International Atomic Energy Agency, tightening export controls and strengthening multilateral verification regimes.

  The United States and Britain gave weapons of mass destruction as the main justification for attacking Iraq without explicit U.N. approval. No such weapons have been found more than two months after Baghdad fell to U.S. troops.

  A senior EU diplomat said the new WMD policy, part of a wider European security strategy under construction, showed the Europeans were "getting real" about what the Bush administration has defined as the greatest threats to international security.

  The EU would present its action plan at a summit with the United States in Washington on June 25 and seek U.S. backing for a strengthening of multilateral arms control bodies, viewed with suspicion by Bush administration hawks.

  After years of privately belittling the risk of terrorists acquiring such arms, the EU document said: "The acquisition of WMD or related materials by terrorists would represent an additional threat to the international system with potentially uncontrollable consequences."

  The "Basic principles for an EU strategy against proliferation of WMD" did not name individual countries but referred obliquely to Israel, India and Pakistan, nuclear weapons states that have not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
• 

  dubla

  realist-

  think you misunderstood my original post (which is my mistake since i didn't make it very clear). the media is on the side of bush (= pro war)

  yes, thats quite a bit different from your original statement, which was:

  you do realize that the mass media in the US is controlled largely by bush

  so, what youre now saying, is that the media is always pro-war, regardless of who is in office, right? if so, fair enough....at least youre retracting your statement about bush controlling the media.

  aa
• 

  Jayson

  Dr. Strangeblix

  By Peter Brooks

  June 13, 2003

  Victory has a hundred fathers and defeat is an orphan.

  Perhaps that is why top U.N. weapons cop, Hans Blix, feels bitter and alone.

  Twice he's been denied disarmament victories by the Butcher of Baghdad, Saddam Hussein. From 1981 through 1991, Blix's watchdog International Atomic Energy Agency failed to detect Iraq's nuclear weapons program. And most recently, when the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission he led spent three and a half months combing Iraq and came up essentially empty-handed.

  But the czar of global nonproliferation plans and policy is unwilling to acknowledge the U.N. legacy of failure in reining in Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs. Instead, he's taking pot shots at Pentagon hawks and the quality of American cloak and dagger, which he believes might have denied him his rightful place in history.

  Blix told the Guardian (a London paper) this week that the Pentagon ran a smear campaign against him. On Wednesday, he told ABC News that Washington should have had better intelligence before launching a war. "I mean, if you want to start a war on this basis, then I think the intelligence should be good, not just, 'Sorry about that, it was wrong intelligence,'" Blix said.

  This whining and sniveling is unbefitting a man of Blix's stature and record of public service. He obviously didn't get the U.N. office memo about going out gracefully and diplomatically.

  The fact is that Blix himself believed that Saddam had WMD. And he wasn't alone apparently. In February, Blix reported to the U.N. Security Council that: "We are fully aware that many governmental intelligence organizations are convinced and assert that proscribed weapons, items and programs continue to exist."

  The French, Germans, British and the Russians were also believers.

  Blix had a tough job in Iraq, but his recriminations and historical revisionism are disappointing and unhelpful. Understandably, he wants to leave the U.N.'s lackluster record on Iraqi disarmament in an orphanage, but his histrionics will only tarnish his reputation and that of the U.N. and international nonproliferation regimes.
• 

  Jayson

  Well-Placed Democrats Insisted Saddam Had WMD

  by Joseph A. D'Agostino Posted Jun 16, 2003

  In the build-up to the Iraq War, President Bush was not the only U.S.
  
  
  Sen. Evan Bayh (D.-Ind.)
  Intelligence member
  Statement, Oct. 3, 2002 "I believe that Saddam Hussein rules by terror and has squirreled away stores of biological and chemical weapon." Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D.-Calif.)
  Intelligence member
  Floor speech, Oct. 10, 2002 "The people of the United States and the rest of the world are at risk as long as Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction. Last night, the President . . . made the most effective case to date that the risk of inaction is too great to bear." Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D.-W.Va.)
  Vice Chairman of Intelligence Committee
  Statement, March 18, 2003 "For the last 12 years he’s [Saddam’s] ignored U.N. resolutions and embargoes while rebuilding his illegal chemical and biological weapons. . . . He is dangerous. I believe he needs to be disarmed." Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D.-Md.)
  Intelligence member
  Floor speech, March 18, 2003 "In 1991, the world collectively made a judgment that this man should not have weapons of mass destruction. And we are here today in the year 2002 with an un-inspected four-year interval during which time we know through intelligence he not only has kept them, but he continues to grow them... .The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new." Sen. John Kerry (D.-Mass.)
  Foreign Relations member
  Floor speech, Oct. 9, 2002 "On Monday night, President Bush, I think spoke for all of us. I know of no one who really disagrees at all. He described Saddam Hussein as a homicidal dictator who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction. It is that addiction that demands a strong response. We all agree on that. There is no question that Iraq possesses biological and chemical weapons and that he seeks to acquire additional weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons." Sen. Chris Dodd (D.-Conn.)
  Foreign Relations member
  Floor speech, Oct. 9, 2002 "I believe if Saddam Hussein continues to refuse to meet his obligation to destroy his weapons of mass destruction and his prohibited missile delivery systems, that the United Nations should authorize member states to use military force to destroy those weapons and systems." Sen. Carl Levin (D.-Mich.)
  then-chairman of Armed Services
  and member of Intelligence
  Floor speech, Oct. 9, 2002 "He [Saddam Hussein] stockpiles biological and chemical weapons." Sen. Jon Corzine (D.-N.J.)
  Foreign Relations member
  Floor speech, Oct. 9, 2003

  Joseph D'Agostino is Associate Editor of HUMAN EVENTS.
• 

  Jayson

  Waldos of Mass Destruction

  By Dale Franks	06/16/2003

  TCS

  Less than two months after the conclusion of the war in Iraq, President Bush's critics have begun complaining loudly about the lack of results from the search for Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) there. Many of Bush's critics argued before the war that the UN needed more time - perhaps as much as a year - for UN Inspectors to find the Iraqi WMDs. Now, after barely two months of post-war searching, these same people feel that the Bush administration has had more than enough time.
  
  Indeed, many of Bush's critics now accuse him of intentionally fabricating the excuse that Iraq had an active WMD program solely for the purpose of invading that unhappy country. To believe this is true, however, one must believe a large number of improbable things.
  
  First, one must believe that, in addition to duping the American people, President Bush also duped the intelligence services of Russia, China, France, The United Kingdom, among others, into believing that Iraq had a WMD program as well. Over the past eight months, the leaders of each of these nations, presumably informed by their own intelligence services, indicated their belief that Iraq did have an ongoing WMD program. Moreover, by their unanimous approval of UN Security Council Resolution 1441, these nations stated that Iraq had failed to meet its obligation to disarm itself of WMDs that it was known to possess in the past.
  
  As UN Weapons Inspector Hans Blix put it, Iraq provided "no credible evidence" that those prior WMD arsenals had been destroyed. So, even if one argues that the intelligence regarding recent Iraqi WMD programs was too spotty to justify claims about WMD activity, one is still left with the fact that Iraq was incontrovertibly known to have had a stockpile of chemical and biological weapons, whose status and whereabouts were still unknown.
  
  Unknown, because Iraq never provided the required evidence of its destruction, other than unsupported claims it had done so. Iraq presented no documents signed by the destroying officials. It presented no films or videos of the destruction process. It did not allow inspectors to visit the supposed sites of such destruction. The plain fact is that there was simply no need for President Bush to try to create some sort of false impression that Iraq had an active WMD program. The Iraqi regime was already doing a good enough job of that for itself. So, to accept on the mere say-so of Saddam Hussein's regime that the Iraqis destroyed those WMDs, one must believe, in the face of massive evidence to the contrary, that Saddam Hussein was trustworthier than George W. Bush.
  
  Next, one must also believe contradictory things about George W. Bush. One must believe him to be, on one hand, a calculating, Machiavellian conspirator who managed to pull the wool over the eyes of the American people in order to justify starting a war. On the other hand, he must be enough of an amiable dunce to forget to arrange for WMDs to be "found" in Iraq after the war. In fact, our inability to find such weapons so far is the best evidence that Bush did not fabricate the administration's fears of Iraqi WMD. Why would he jeopardize his credibility over an issue he knew to be fabricated, knowing a) that he would not find a WMD arsenal in post-war Iraq, and b) the lack of such an arsenal would invite closer scrutiny of the administration's pre-war arguments? If Bush were smart enough to create the extraordinary conspiracy with which his critics have charged, you'd think he'd be smart enough to address that question before committing himself to pursuing it.
  
  Additionally, the large number of people who would have to be involved in such a conspiracy makes its very existence highly unlikely. In addition to requiring the silence of most senior administration officials, a large number of career intelligence and defense officials, diplomats, and civil service workers would have to be silenced. In the past, such large secret actions, such as the Nixon administration's military actions in Cambodia, or even Watergate itself - with a far smaller number of conspirators - have proven remarkably immune to secrecy for any length of time. To argue otherwise, one must believe that a legion of both political and career officials, many of whom are presumably not Republicans, have willingly signed on to such a conspiracy, rather than leak it to, say, The New York Times.
  
  In the end, we may not find any Iraqi WMDs at all. Perhaps, as some have suggested, the Iraqi regime removed the evidence prior to the start of the war, either by destroying it, or transporting the weapons to Syria. Some have hypothesized that the Iraqis may have pretended to have ample stocks of WMDs they didn't actually possess, in order to provide a deterrent effect (if true, this was a less than wise policy, as it turned out). Or perhaps, as others have suggested, Saddam Hussein's demands on the treasury for palaces and other monumental structures were too great to allow both an active WMD program and an active program of monumental architecture, so Iraqi officials pretended to keep their WMD efforts current in order to placate him.
  
  Prior to the war, no major figure in American politics and no serious world leader doubted that the Iraqi regime had something to hide, mainly because the Iraqis, at every turn, acted as if they were, in fact, hiding something. Indeed, the Clinton administration in 1998 explicitly charged that the Iraqis had an active WMD program, a charge repeated many times since then by every major Democratic Party leader. To believe that George W. Bush created a fictional Iraqi WMD program in order to justify a war there is to forget the previous 5 years of history, and to forget that the previous administration - good Democrats, all - believed it long before George W. Bush made an issue out of it.
• 

  Simon

  First, one must believe that, in addition to duping the American people, President Bush also duped the intelligence services of Russia, China, France, The United Kingdom, among others, into believing that Iraq had a WMD program as well. Over the past eight months, the leaders of each of these nations, presumably informed by their own intelligence services, indicated their belief that Iraq did have an ongoing WMD program. Moreover, by their unanimous approval of UN Security Council Resolution 1441, these nations stated that Iraq had failed to meet its obligation to disarm itself of WMDs that it was known to possess in the past.

  The UK 'intelligence' looks increasingly iffy so quoting this is hardly confidence inspiring.

  They cherry picked the intelligence to suit their agenda. One gets the definite impression that if 100 reports came in of no weapons and 1 of suspected weapons that they would pick that one.

  Now, we've had the UK pointing to the US reports as proof that they did not try to mislead and ... yes, you guessed it - the US and Bush in particular quoting the UK and Blair's reports ... some of which were based on the American reports.

  This is real WTS stuff: The Catholic encyclopedia quoted the WT claims that 20,000 had died in Nazi Germany. The WTS then claims that "according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, over 20,000 JWs were executed" ... thus trying to lend weight to their own figures as though they have come from someone else when in reality they are quoting their own words.
• 

  dubla

  Next, one must also believe contradictory things about George W. Bush. One must believe him to be, on one hand, a calculating, Machiavellian conspirator who managed to pull the wool over the eyes of the American people in order to justify starting a war. On the other hand, he must be enough of an amiable dunce to forget to arrange for WMDs to be "found" in Iraq after the war. In fact, our inability to find such weapons so far is the best evidence that Bush did not fabricate the administration's fears of Iraqi WMD. Why would he jeopardize his credibility over an issue he knew to be fabricated, knowing a) that he would not find a WMD arsenal in post-war Iraq, and b) the lack of such an arsenal would invite closer scrutiny of the administration's pre-war arguments? If Bush were smart enough to create the extraordinary conspiracy with which his critics have charged, you'd think he'd be smart enough to address that question before committing himself to pursuing it.

  that paragraph was worth repeating.....i cant wait to see some decent responses to it from the "bush lied to the world" camp.

  simon-

  The UK 'intelligence' looks increasingly iffy so quoting this is hardly confidence inspiring.

  you forgot about russia, china and france, all included in the statement youre attempting to debunk.............talk about cherry picking.

  aa
• 

  Jayson

  The French the Russians the Germans all said that WMD existed Simon. Blix said that WMD existed. Your grasping at your denial. And still avoiding the bigger good of the liberation of Iraq from Saddam. As Realist has pointed out so clearly this is about the left mudslinging at Bush & Blair nothing more.
• 

  ThiChi

  If Saddam Hussein never had WMDs, why didn't he just let the UN Inspectors into his nation so he could keep on torturing and building palaces? If he never had WMDs, what did he use to gas the Kurds? Anybody who's intellectually honest, whatever their politics, knows Saddam had those weapons. The question is, "Where are they, and what condition are they in?" Bill Safire ran a column on how you can freeze-dry this stuff and stash it in a nerd's pocket protector. The EU, CIA and UN knew Saddam had these weapons, but some people are so filled with hate for Bush they have to deny it.
• 

  William Penwell