Powell: unlikely that we will find any stockpiles of WMDs

[DeSPURado]

It took them this long to admit this?


WASHINGTON - The Bush administration is apparently ready to abandon a major reason it gave the world for going to war with Iraq: Saddam Hussein’s purported storehouses of chemical and biological weapons the administration said he was prepared to use against the United States.

Secretary of State Colin Powell, who made the claim in a dramatic prewar presentation to a skeptical United Nations in 2003, virtually withdrew it Monday during testimony before the Senate Government Affairs Committee.

“There was every reason to believe there were stockpiles,” Powell said. “There was a question about the size of stockpiles, but we all believed there were stockpiles.”

However, Powell said in response to questions from Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, “it turned out that we have not found any stockpiles.” Moreover, Powell said, “I think it is unlikely that we will find any stockpiles.”

MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6000809)

[exstatic]

Duh.

[DeSPURado]

Its only funny because apparently they were still holding out hope that there might be some.

[Nbadan]

They're in Syria idiots!

:rollin

[Yonivore]

Yep, they're in Syria..and, it ain't funny.

[ClintSquint]

What's funny is how you still fall for this administration's lies.
Talk about a major FLIP-FLOP!!!!!

[Yonivore]

Yeah, a Saddam Hussein Flip-Flop. He threatened to use them...who knew he'd ship 'em to Assad instead.

[spurster]

Don't give up hope. I'm sure they'll turn up tomorrow. We know exactly where they are. Hope is on the way!

[exstatic]

So, why the **** aren't we invading SYRIA? They are a rogue Ba'athist nation with ties to terrorism, and apparently now have WMDs. Enquiring minds want to know...

[Yonivore]

In due time.

[Spurminator]

The Democrats should be hitting the administration here, and hard. Cancel the Kitty Kelley interviews, quit talking about 1972, and demand accountability for the failure to find WMDs.

It's like sitting Barry Bonds on the bench and starting Ricky Ledee in left during the pennant race.

[Yonivore]

Yeah, 'cuz that was such a winning topic last year. :rolleyes

[Spurminator]

It's better than dragging up the National Guard story again.

Kerry held a lead in many of the polls when the country remembered we were in a controversial war.

[Yonivore]

Yeah, but he's already said he's in favor of the war...so, can't go back.

[ChumpDumper]

If they're in Syria, why doesn't everyone in the administration say so every time it's brought up?

[mimiOh]

How can anyone deny he had them? I mean..he USED them! My biggest fear about them not being in Iraq..is WHERE did they get shipped off to?

[ChumpDumper]

No one ever denied his having them. The debate is over how many were destroyed after the war and if he had anything close to a stockpile when the decision was made to invade.

If all they had to do was give it to Snowman and go westbound and down to Syria, we had a piss poor battle plan.

http://www.bandittransamclub.com/Snowman.jpg

Take what? Where?

[mimiOh]

I remember hearing early on that we were tracking trucks headed to syria that they were suspicious of, Russia had provided them with scrambling devices that jammed us long enough to lose track of them. If it wasn't something illegal, why would it be scrambled?

[ChumpDumper]

I heard the drivers wore aluminum foil on their willies to avoid detection.

http://www.bandittransamclub.com/Snowman.jpg

Put what? On my where?

[Tommy Duncan]

Apparently every intel agency of note on the planet as well as the prior administration thought he had them. Now why didn't we know for sure? Might it have been that Hussein spent the better part of a decade being generally uncooperative and shooting at UK and US aircraft? Then again perhaps the Neocons in conjunction with Big Bird and Lou Rawls wanted to fight the war "for oil" as any strung out brain dead goth chick with her clit pierced will tell you.

We fucked around for the better part of 30 years in not dealing with Islamist terrorism and it came back to bite us hard. Now we want to go back to the good old days of ignoring the crazy fuckers in the ME and counting on their good intentions to leave us alone.

**** this Monday morning QBing. You deal with the threats or you end up watching 3,000 of your fellow citizens die in spectacular fashion live. Probably more the next time if we aren't lucky.

[ChumpDumper]

You deal with the threatsLike getting the supposed WMDs before they supposedly leave Iraq?

Agreed.

[Tommy Duncan]

If the intel was bad then it was bad. Problem is that everyone and their dog thought Hussein was still loaded. What no one disagrees with today is that he still would be pursuing them if the was in power and that he had a fairly substantial bit of cash flow coming in to his regime. He was starting to support Islamist terrorism both rhetorically as well as financially. It's not hard to see someone who hated both Israel and the US so much hook up with al Qaida.

How popular would an invasion of Afghanistan been prior to 9/11?

[SpursWoman]

How long did they go back & forth with the United Nations before anything was done?

[ChumpDumper]

What no one disagrees with today is that he still would be pursuing them if the was in powerHow? If he didn't have them anymore, how could he get them?
It's not hard to see someone who hated both Israel and the US so much hook up with al Qaida. Especially after he hooked up with us for so many years....

[SpursWoman]

Wasn't it like 16 months or so? That wouldn't have been enough time to get rid of anything he might have had?

Weren't their a lot of labs found by the US in Iraq that highly indicated the presence of chemicals used in WMD's?


I know I'll be corrected if I'm wrong. :)

[Tommy Duncan]

How did he obtain weapons from France and Russia? Of course he could obtain WMDs. He was skimming hundreds of millions off of the oil sales. Have all of the nukes from the former USSR been located?

[ChumpDumper]

Of course he could obtain WMDs.Then where did the ones he supposedly had go?

He ALWAYS had money. Let's not pretend he was broke.

[Tommy Duncan]

That does not mean he would not do so in the future.

[ChumpDumper]

Wasn't it like 16 months or so? That wouldn't have been enough time to get rid of anything he might have had?You mean destroy or ship out? Either one is plausible at this point.[/quote]Weren't their a lot of labs found by the US in Iraq that highly indicated the presence of chemicals used in WMD's?[/quote]I would imagine residues and such would remain from any WMD program. I'm not doubting one ever existed -- just how much was left.

[Tommy Duncan]

He certainly ended up with some conventional weaponry since the end of the first Gulf War.

[ChumpDumper]

That does not mean he would not do so in the future.Doesn't mean he would either. It just comes down to how many folks you mind killing on a hunch.

[Tommy Duncan]

Again, more than a "hunch".

[ChumpDumper]

He certainly ended up with some conventional weaponry since the end of the first Gulf War.No doubt. Should we go after everyone with conventional weapons now too? The whole reason for leaving Sadam in power in the first place was to avoid a power vaccuum and all the resulting crap; his getting conventional weapons helped the status quo -- it certainly wasn't enough to wage much war. We found that out.

[SpursWoman]

Considering he was a proven serial mass-murderer, I'd say that hunch would be pretty damn strong.

It's too easy. All of that money, a deep hatred for the US, stengthening ties to Islamic terrorists. All of whom have this crazy fucking idea that it's okay to wipe out hordes of unarmed civilians for religious and/or political reasons without conscience. With the believe that the US and the western civilization is the embodiment of evil.

That wouldn't make you nervous? Even a little?

[ChumpDumper]

Again, more than a "hunch".Again, how do you prove it?

Intelligence?

The existence of huge stockpiles of WMDs was a hunch, too. A best guess everyone is backing away from.

[ChumpDumper]

Considering he was a proven serial mass-murderer, I'd say that hunch would pretty damn strong.There's plenty of those about. When do we invade Sudan?

He used to be OUR serial mass-murderer, too.

[Tommy Duncan]

That shows that he clearly had an intent to rearm. Um no, I don't recall saying that we should invade every other country with conventional arms you are taking that out of context per usual.

[Tommy Duncan]

You're right. We should only act when we know with 100% certainty, or perhaps not at all. That's been tried before.

[ChumpDumper]

That shows that he clearly had an intent to rearm.So? Who would ever think otherwise? It's a matter of degree.

[Tommy Duncan]

So you are willing to bet on Hussein's willingness to not attempt to pursue the highest degree as he had prior?

[ChumpDumper]

You're right. We should only act when we know with 100% certainty, or perhaps not at all. That's been tried before.No, you're right. Our foreign policy should be driven by policy-influenced intelligence. Everything is so tidy that way.

[ChumpDumper]

So you are willing to bet on Hussein's willingness to not attempt to pursue the highest degree as he had prior?I'm willing to bet it wasn't a very realistic goal, given the fact the US could bomb pretty much anything it wanted at any time.

[Tommy Duncan]

Then that would mean we would trust our intel services as well as that of every other nation.

[ChumpDumper]

hen that would mean we would trust our intel services as well as that of every other nation.Pity. They used to be so much better.

[Tommy Duncan]

Well then. Perhaps we can't err on the side of caution.

[ChumpDumper]

I'd prefer a move away from outcome-based intel personally. The margin of error would be less.

[Tommy Duncan]

Well there is always ignoring the intel or perhaps ignoring direct attacks altogether model.

[ChumpDumper]

That's different, but every administration has done that.

[Tommy Duncan]

Oh?

[ChumpDumper]

The ignoring intel part.

Direct attacks? We're talking about the potential of direct attacks here. If you're talking about WTC 1 there is plenty that was done after that, and it's not like there was an enormous shift in AQ policy from Bush before 9/11. But you digress.

[Tommy Duncan]

Did I say they were correct pre-9/11?

[ChumpDumper]

No one batted 1.000, but that's back to Monday morning QBing.

[spurster]

Don't you see the logic? Saddam might have had some WMDs and might have been thinking about trying to get some. That's why we had to invade Iraq, All these other despots in the world are nice people who wouldn't anything to do with WMDs. And of course, if we think that they are thinking about it, we'll invade and occupy them, too, no problem.

[Tommy Duncan]

He used them before. He has acquired and developed them before. Etc. He was beginning to support militant Islamic terrorism both rhetorically and financially. Bin Laden and the mujhadeen had no problem taking American support in the 1980s when they were fighting a common enemy. Why would this situation be any different?

But I know. Let's not be proactive. Let's wait to be hit in a really spectacular way again because then we would be 100% justified.

After all, I am sure you would have supported a pre-9/11 invasion of Afghanistan.