Search for WMD in Iraq ended

According to the Washington Post the hunt for WMD has quietly ended. Two years and millions of dollars later the search has finished empty handed!

The hunt for biological, chemical and nuclear weapons in Iraq has come to an end nearly two years after President Bush ordered U.S. troops to disarm Saddam Hussein. The top CIA weapons hunter is home, and analysts are back at Langley.

www.msnbc.msn.com...

The futile hunt has finally ended with no weapons found. If there was weapons they either were destroyed removed or hid very well. Untold millionwere spent in looking for these weapons. Iraq scientist's are still being held with no charges being filed.

The search for elusive weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has officially ended, the Washington Post says.

The report found that Iraq had no stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons and its nuclear programme had decayed before the US-led invasion in 2003, in findings contrary to pre-war assertions of the Bush administration.

US President George Bush, who subsequently said he was "right to take action" in Iraq, had cited a growing threat from Iraq's weapons of mass destruction as one of the main reasons for overthrowing ousted Iraqi president Saddam Hussein.

source: english.aljazeera.net

actually, we found the weapons, and well, since we sold them the weapons to begin with, well, no one would notice when we gave them these weapons back in the form of loud booms. So, well, how can we now explain that $250 budget for the war......so, obviously there were no weapons......otherwise, well, we'll have to give back the money that we've pocketed!!!

I am mostly kidding, but, quite frankly, it's as good as an explanation as any other as to what is really happening in the world today!!

How embarssing for the Bush Adim They were so confident about finding WMD.

And it only cost tens of thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars to find out this information. Good investment.

Lack of evidence does not imply that there were none

Apparently what is not being mentioned is that the Duelfer Report states unequivically that the lack of finding significant WMD's does not mean that Iraq did not have those asserted and claimed WMD's.

edit:
This was further emphasized by Joe Lieberman, member of the Senate Armed Services Committee this A.M.



seekerof

[edit on 12-1-2005 by Seekerof]

Where's the smoking gun I ask you??? If they didn't find the weapons in Iraq, where are they?

The Bush Administration needs to step up and do some explaining. If the WMD's which we were so confident existed, where are they? Syria? Iran? North Korea? Come On Mr. Bush, where are we going next? I don't appreciate having American or Iraqi lives lost on a failed quest. We want to rid the world of WMD's don't we? So spit it out Bud, where are they??

No weapons?!

OMG! Who would have thought? But we were shown satalite imagery of little specs and we were told they were WMD. How could they have ever been wrong? An above poster said "Good Investment", and I tend to agree with the sarcasm there.

I never thought I'd say this, but the Canadian government looks brilliant now. We were right all along. Leave it to Bush to make Canadian parliament appear brilliant. LOL.


Most people I think knew this all along. Bush always had an alternative agenda in this matter.
Lukefj

Did we all forget about Bush's buddy "Blair"
....what about the 45 minutes....it takes for Saddam and his army to set up and fire these WMD missles, guess that's why in Britian there trying to go after Blair....can we say "impeached"...maybe old Bush~y should 2...guess not in America (being so free an all).

Anywho just wanted t'a remind everyone not to forget about our buddy Blair....maybe we want to forget, that another countries leader is "messed up"...so depresing.

Your Canadian friend,
Sven

I like how some of you think bush has to explain ha ha it went from "he's got wmd" to nevermind that "he's ben lodins friend" real quite but he doesn't have to explain if he was wrong so what he is a bush and your not! He says we are going were ever the terrorists are so move over we haven't pissed on that part of your land yet

How embarssing for the Bush Adim They were so confident about finding WMD.

You know to most people it would be very embarrasing, however I don't think he feels that way at all. Remember the issue with his little stunt where he was photographed looking under tables, behind desks, etc.... saying "no weapons of mass destruction here." I think that he is self righteous enough that he doesn't think he is wrong.

Just like him saying he didn't care where we were in finding ben lodin because he doesn't care if we ever get him

The only down fall of all these is the stance of US in the international community, our present administration is showing now to the world how ill prepared and unqualified it is to be called world leader.

I am not talking of our nation but our president.

These man is the leader of the free world and now he looks like a child that got a temper tantrum and got not glory for it.

Now the reasons for invasion is going to make the ones that opposed to them look like they were right all alone.

Bush had a personal reason to invade Iraq it did not had anything to with the safety of our nation or the world but financial and personal reasons.

well looks like I got my answer, Syria has the elusive wmd's and that's where we are going to next. Good to know you're on top of things Mr. Bush let's hope we can find the wmds in Syria this time before they dissappear to Iran

I find Ironic that this administration is going after Syria and not Iran when about 80 thousand exiles from Iraq found refuged after the invasion.

I guess it has to do with size and power, Iran seems to big and to strong to fight right now, while Syria is smaller and less prepared.

Originally posted by worldwatcher
let's hope we can find the wmds in Syria this time before they dissappear to Iran

I think you just outlined Bush's plans for the next four years

Yes, seekerof, as we archaeologists sometimes muse, "The absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence."

However, every human activity leaves behind some trace. I've found settlement patterns that are now just stains in the soil, but I don't try to find them by digging up the whole countryside.

When there is NO real evidence to warrent an expensive excavation, we don't dig.

Originally posted by Seekerof
Lack of evidence does not imply that there were none

Apparently what is not being mentioned is that the Duelfer Report states unequivically that the lack of finding significant WMD's does not mean that Iraq did not have those asserted and claimed WMD's.

That's it. Never give up. You know they had WMD, even if no one can prove it. It must've been difficult to move that one missile to Syria, eh? I hear there are rumors we're going to invade Syria soon. I'll bet the WMD are in Turkey. We should probably invade them too.


[edit] Ok, I was wrong. Apparently, Saddam did have WMD.



[edit on 12-1-2005 by Damned]

one excuse is just good as the other.
some say that russian special forces with help of iraqi special units, "dismantled" the weapons and tookthem in iran. or syria. or russia. or was it afganistan?
oh, in all that confusion i forgot!

the only WMD they gonna find is this: