US: 'Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction' By Neil Mackay 05/04/03: ( Sunday Herald) The Bush administration has admitted that Saddam Hussein probably had no weapons of mass destruction. Senior officials in the Bush administration have admitted that they would be 'amazed' if weapons of mass destruction (WMD) were found in Iraq. According to administration sources, Saddam shut down and destroyed large parts of his WMD programmes before the invasion of Iraq. Ironically, the claims came as US President George Bush yesterday repeatedly justified the war as necessary to remove Iraq's chemical and biological arms which posed a direct threat to America. Bush claimed: 'Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. We will find them.' The comments from within the administration will add further weight to attacks on the Blair government by Labour backbenchers that there is no 'smoking gun' and that the war against Iraq -- which centred on claims that Saddam was a risk to Britain, America and the Middle East because of unconventional weapons -- was unjustified. The senior US official added that America never expected to find a huge arsenal, arguing that the administration was more concerned about the ability of Saddam's scientists -- which he labelled the 'nuclear mujahidin' -- to develop WMDs when the crisis passed. This represents a clearly dramatic shift in the definition of the Bush doctrine's central tenet -- the pre-emptive strike. Previously, according to Washington, a pre-emptive war could be waged against a hostile country with WMDs in order to protect American security. Now, however, according to the US official, pre-emptive action is justified against a nation which simply has the ability to develop unconventional weapons.
i came across something interesting. after this much of searching no WMD's have been found. and bush dosen't want to say 'we need more time', because that was exactly what the UN inspectors said. i just wonder what'll be bush's next move.
An other interesting fact : they will not say "We won the war !" because, following the Geneva convention, if they do it, they will not be able to look for Saddam anymore. They would have to stop to pusue Iraqis and they would have to free their prisoners Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
maybe this will help locate the wmd http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/special_packages/iraq/5789968.htm
Because catching number 54 on a prioritised list of 55 is going to help much more than catching Aziz or higher-ranked cohorts... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Sparks: so then you are saying that the prioritization was accurately done, and was based exclusively on information obtainable on WMD's?
Isn’t the WMD issue irrelevant? It was a joke to begin with. If not found, even if Bush himself admits it was just for pretext, the US will keep a vice grip on Iraq until the wells are dry. The US administration would just make up something else to rationalize the oppression and most Americans would embrace it in a fleeting moment of interest before moving on to the next story.
Hmm...if anyone's still interested, we can check your prediction years from now and see if it was accurate or just hot air.
OK. Interesting that most are so sure Iraq will be roses and honey even as Afghanistan is re-run by warlords obeisant to Bush.
Get your facts straight. It's Hamid Karzai who caters to Bush. The warlords are the ones they have the problem with. Besides, I don't think anyone thinks Iraq is going to be roses and honey...or easy in any way, shape or form.
The facts are, warlords report to Karzai, who reports to Bush, who decides whether Afghanistan gets democracy. He chose brutal dictatorship with himself as dictator. Hmm, I wonder what he’ll choose for Iraq?
Sparks: so why would anyone think his former rivals would cooperate with him any more than they were forced to?
Sparks: then what is the point of the argument, and if you're so hot to stay on point, why would you point out that Karzai is a warlord?
Sparks: I can read that now as I read it the first time and have no reason to assume it's Karzai we're talking about, particularly considering the use of the plural.