http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4169107.stm

He will make a few adjustments to his report, but when the final version is published in a few weeks, he will close the book on the hunt, says the BBC's Nick Childs in Washington.

Officials are still sifting through a mountain of documents and if they produce any leads, they say, they will be followed, but there is no expectation that the hunt will be revived.

The Iraq Survey Group, which was responsible for the search, goes on, but its focus now is trying to help counter the Iraqi insurgency.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/h...as/4169107.stm

Published: 2005/01/12 17:07:08 GMT

© BBC MMV</font>[/QUOTE]

<font color = lightgreen>Be that as it may, the intelligence agencies of at least 6 countries including the US, England, Spain, and Israel, all agreed that Hussein had such weapons. At least the Coalition had the cajones to do something except sit back and twiddle thier thumbs like the UN usually does.</font>

Whats that old saying? "Better look before you leap"

I guess the people who bought the "smoking gun" line about the Atom Bomb feel kinda suckered, eh? I would.

Speaking of which, has anyone else seen the documentry "Uncovered: The Truth About The Iraq War" ? It lays the case for how wrong we (they) were on so many levels and reminds us how exactly we were repeatedly sold the war, particularly in contrast to the constantly repeated post-war rationale.

[ 01-12-2005, 06:31 PM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

<font color = lightgreen>Be that as it may, the intelligence agencies of at least 6 countries including the US, England, Spain, and Israel, all agreed that Hussein had such weapons. </font> </font>[/QUOTE]But nobody checked the facts behind old information, or discerned speculation from evidence on the ground and were fed misinformation by Iraqi exiles groups. Inspections obviously worked well enough not to heed a rush into war poorly prepared.

<font color = lightgreen>Be that as it may, the intelligence agencies of at least 6 countries including the US, England, Spain, and Israel, all agreed that Hussein had such weapons. </font> </font>[/QUOTE]But nobody checked the facts behind old information, or discerned speculation from evidence on the ground and were fed misinformation by Iraqi exiles groups. Inspections obviously worked well enough not to heed a rush into war poorly prepared. </font>[/QUOTE]<font color = lightgreen>When ones hires a professional consultant to perform a job, one does not normally double-check the professional's findings unless one is a professional in that field (which means you probably wouldn't have hired an outside professional in the first place). In short, there were no sources better informed than the ones saying "Hussein has the weapons"--to whom should people have listened? Hussein himself?

I agree that there was too much emphasis placed on weapons of mass destruction in the weeks before the invasion. More emphasis should have been placed on the fact that Hussein had been [img]graemlins/flickdown.gif[/img] the world and his own people for years while no one lifted a finger to stop him and his abuses. Personally, I would have sent a hit team to remove him and his sons.
Also, I do agree that the war was poorly prepared and under-prepared. Even after Vietnam we still haven't learned how to wage a war against loosely-organized groups of foes who blend into the general population. Do military strategists just sit around drinking coffee and earning a salary or do they think?</font>

I don't think there was anything particularly wrong with the military planning - it was largely flawless, helped by the poor tactics of the Iraqi army of course.

The blame for the current problems rest partly with the Pentagon for basically being so completely useless and unrealistic at every stage of their reconstruction plans - even those that matter most like the oil reconstruction. I've got some funny tales to tell... There's no other word than 'incompetent' to describe them.

Secondly the 'gung-ho' attitude of US troops on the ground and the willingness to call in airstrikes in residential areas. It may be the American way to fight a war, but its no way to win the population over.

Just two random examples:

These are not isolated incidents - I've spoken to ten Iraqi's now, including one member of the Iraqi government, one person helping set up a UN humanitarian scheme, a family in Baghdad and several more 'westernised' Iraqi's who've visited since the war. They all have the same stories to tell...

It's easy to dismiss them all as terrorists, or gloss over the numbers. But the reality is that the only losers here are the innocent Iraqi civilians and what's happening here is no better than what occurred under Saddam. If you're dead, you're still dead. Whether it was done under an authoritarian regime, or a foreign occupation trying to restore democracy it's all the same. And equally devastating for those left behind.

[ 01-12-2005, 09:17 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

Sorry Azred - when it's war and there are thousands of people about to die for a mistake then the guy deciding needs to be more accountable than just accepting accepting a consultant's report. Let's not mistake that from Day 1 this administration has been focused on finishing Pappy's unfinished business. Several people last their jobs because they wanted to do other things like fix the economy (eg Paul O'Neill).

If someone is that focussed on something and they get a consultant showing them dodgy data it really doesn't matter to them that it may be dodgy. It fits with what they want to do so they go with it no questions asked.

Blow me down - turned out that smoking gun was a steaming pile of manure. Heck - let's find someone to blame - where is that consultant?

And while it isn't remotely on topic, I just managed to sit still through about 5 mins of Bill O'Reilly's show.

"Boy what a tosser". While it would be more appropriate to give some specifics and psychoanalyse the little foibles (from not letting the person answer the questions he asked to the placement of the cameras and his higher chair that kids the viewer that he has the moral high ground) but pretty much all of it offends the sensibilities and the intelligence.

Might be good for a laugh next time I am rat-arsed drunk ;) .

Now where's Magik's infamous apology demand thread when you need it... :(

Sorry George - it seems to have gone missing.

So the search has ended, and the Intell was incorrect, Sorry.


Don't that sound nice ;)

Personally I have said all along SoDamn Insane needed his rear end kicked, I don't care what the reasons for kicking his rear end were, as long as his rear end was kicked. Yes, as far as I'm concerned the end did justify the means, make of that what you will.

Sham, I'm not so sure it is incompetence on the part of the Pentagon, as much as it is the fact Humans run the Pentagon. We, humans aren't in possession of omnipotence. This has been a perfect example of "No plan survives first contact with the enemy". Who amoung us can see every move an opponent makes ahead of time? Having writen that, it does not mean there were/are not incompetent indidivuals in the military. "Hale" the world is full of incompetent people, you can only do what you can do.

Right with you on kicking Saddam's butt - he had it coming, and it was the right thing to do.

Let me give you an oil example though JD and you might feel less inclined to forgive the Pentagon. Troops being jumpy is understandable, especially when they have to make life-or-death decisions all the time, but the pentagon has no such excuse, especially when so many of them have links to the oil industry (not an accusation, but making the point they should know what they're doing).

Wolfowitz promised the American people that Iraqi oil would pay for the reconstruction.

The first thing that the American's did was dissolve the Iraqi army, police and remove guards from oil refineries - not replacing them - looting of (just!) oil refineries during 2003 reached a total value of $1 billion because of this.

So, ok, maybe American troops were needed elsewhere and it slipped the Pentagon's mind. We could maybe forgive the oversight if we're feeling especially generous.

They then proceed to allocate 13 cents per barrel in investment.

The usual investment simply to keep oil plant operating (never mind improving it and repairing it after years of sanctions!) is between $1 and $2 per barrel!

But what's worse is that Bremner was sat on a $8 billion surplus at the end of 2003 - and not a penny of it was spent on oil.

It's just incredible, and if the American people realised how much taxpayers money they were having to cough up because of this there would be outrage.

About the only good thing in American-Iraqi oil policy is the fact that you aren't stealing the oil like many liberals like to accuse America of - the rest is just a shambles.

[ 01-13-2005, 12:47 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

<font face="Verdana" size="3" color="#00FF00">That's all fine and dandy John, but tell that to the mothers of your dead soldiers. Make sure you bring some ice for your cheeks when you do.</font>

[ 01-13-2005, 12:42 PM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

Sham, if what you say is true, and I no reason to doubt you. That is a stupid move.If the oil industry wasn't secure because, the troops were needed to put down an underestimated resistance that is one thing. If the Oil industry wasn't secure because, they didn't think it needed to be secure, Well that is "a horse of a differant color".

I haven't been in on any of the meetings with Bremmer, so I don't know why he would have been sitting on 8 billion, that could have been used. Did Bremmer make the decision on his own, or was he in consultations with the interem Government of Iraq? I don't know, that's why I'm asking. Is the money allocated for something else that the "powers that be" believe is more important? What is the criteria on which they made the decision of what the order of importance should be? Those are some of the factors I need to take into consideration. I'm not in contact with your friend in the Iraqi oil ministery, so I can only depend on what you tell me. If your friend, says Bremmer didn't want to spend it because he didn't want to spend the money. I would say that was incompetant. If Bremmer didn't want to spend the money, because the oil industry wasn't secure yet, do to the actions of the insurgancey(sp?). Then I would say it was a pretty good move to hold off until things settle down. It would be incompetant IMHO to "throw good money after bad". Let me know what your friend says, I'm not tied to anything, I just need evidence.

[ 01-13-2005, 01:18 PM: Message edited by: John D Harris ]

Prit, I know several people that have family members serving in the Military, and are currently in Iraq. I try to avail myself of every opportunity to thank them for their family members service. As I have done on this board, and do so agian. To all IW members that have served in the Military, or have family in the military, THANK YOU, your/their service is appeciated!! I grew up on USAF bases, I can remember full well, that when a USAF staff car drove through base housing, while my father's squadron was in SE Asia. All play on the playground stopped until we saw where the staff car went. If it stopped at a house, we ran home to let our mothers know. So they could find out what was going on and give what ever aid they could give.

[ 01-13-2005, 01:32 PM: Message edited by: John D Harris ]

Thanks for your replies JD

Actually, I don't know this guy at all - I just attended one of his lectures (he wasn't the government one I referred to). I think he may have had some connection with the Iraqi oil ministry at some point and he now works for one of the international oil agencies, whilst editing a Middle-East journal (I think on energy).

My university ran a whole semester's worth of Iraq lectures and he spoke at them - I just checked and they've replaced the timetable already so I can't get his name and job specifics. Unfortunately he was introduced to fast for me to write it down!

I would think that the lack of security wasn't Bremner's fault - that would have occurred at the beginning, probably in a similar way to the lack of guards for weapons depots that the UN has reported about.

I can't remember (and my notes are too brief [he talked quickly!] to be certain) but the implication was that the looting took place in a short period after the invasion until everything that was moveable had been taken.

It is possible that you're right and there was a risk of insecurity hence the lack of funding but I'm not sure that's logical:

Firstly, as American contracters would have had to have carried out a lot of the operations, I doubt that they would have been allowed to work unless the situation was secure.

Secondly, assuming the situation was secure enough to work, it would still make sense to spend the minimal amount to prevent running the plant into the ground.

As for Bremner, I don't really have any knowledge about the specifics. I think it's more likely that he was simply ignorant of the need for more investment (rather than deliberately witholding money) but that still would indicate incompetence somewhere within the CPA.

Ice on your cheeks...ouch pritchke!

I always feel guilty when criticising the military which, after all, is mostly composed of honest hard-working men and women who are just trying to do their jobs.

War is so devisive sometimes... :(

[ 01-13-2005, 02:37 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

Thanks Sham, I can follow that reasoning. I forgot about the civilain contractors working, you've moved me closer to your camp. I'm not warming my hands by the campfire yet, but I can definently stand inside the circle of light. ;)

For a CoC you can be remarkably poetic... ;) :D

[ 01-13-2005, 03:01 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

War divides and unites but kills them all- uniters, dividers, and fence-sitters.

<font color = lightgreen>That would be nice if things did work thusly; however, in a military campaign most decisions are made by consultants, especially when you consider that military strategists/generals are merely military consultants. In short, all military decisions are made by consultants.
That may sound cold because human lives are at stake, but sometimes life is cold and harsh. I don't necessarily like it, either, but I do have to deal with reality as it is.</font>

Be that as it may, Azred, but it doesn't show how the guy making the decision came to the decision. It was a decision of war - of life and death for many. Was he eager to pounce on anything that pitched things the way he wanted, or did he weigh the inputs both favourable and negative before taking the most heavy decision that any public leader can make?

Methinks the former, and you (I suspect) think the latter. There in lies the difference and the truth that neither of us are sure of (neither can we be sure of as much as supporters may want to cheer and detractors boo). To the neutral outside observer in American politics I was all prepared to believe that George was telling us the truth a year ago, but more and more information (dirt if you like) has emerged over that last 12 months.

That sifting and collation tells me that wee George (or the younger G Bush if you prefer) got the info he wanted to hear because he shaped the agenda of the administration to achieve this very result - the one that was the most important to him of all. In my heart I know that removing Saddam was of itself an important positive. Was it achieved without a bunch of spin and deception - nope - you bet yer ass it weren't.

Winners write the history, so that is GW's one big hope - that the focus shifts off how he achieved it but instead to what he achieved. His defenders are for the most not at all interested in the road that led them into Iraq - they use the "end justifies the means" philosophy.

Fortunately humanity doesn't accept the ongoing and continual use of that philosphy. For those who would say bullshit - the ends always justify the means then I refer you to the torturings at Abu Ghraib, be it pre or post Saddam. That shows (once it was made public) that the US and the world does not idly accept that the ends always justifies the means.

Someone did find it for me Groj - gave me a few chuckles reading back through it too. There were some real gems :D :D :D

I wonder if you would be so eager to except the "humans make mistakes" excuse if it was George W. getting his ass whipped?

It's a real shame that the troops in Iraq are still dying. I wonder if they know what they are dying for, other than the fact that their Commander in Chief told them to.

Just because the US decides to do something doesn't make it right. How much did this "hunt for WoMD" cost your tax payers? How many of your own people went hungry because of it? How many were denied medical service?

So why exactly isn't Bush decreed a war criminal? Oh yes, I remember, because he said he's not.

<font color = lightgreen>That would be nice if things did work thusly; however, in a military campaign most decisions are made by consultants, especially when you consider that military strategists/generals are merely military consultants. In short, all military decisions are made by consultants.
That may sound cold because human lives are at stake, but sometimes life is cold and harsh. I don't necessarily like it, either, but I do have to deal with reality as it is.</font> </font>[/QUOTE]Again, I wonder how you would feel if you were on the other end of the stick? Would you be so aloof? Would you find it "cold and harsh, but life nonetheless" if your family was being gunned down because they were suspect of terrorism?

So exactly who is responsible for the misinformation that cost thousands of lives? Shouldn't the Man in charge be held accountable for his actions? Yes...HIS actions. Whether or not he was provided with misinformation, he still has a responsibility to insure he is taking the correct course of action, does he not?

Well Animal, I would feel the same way. In my 43 years of life I have been on the "ass whipping" side of "Humans make mistakes" many times, and knowing what I know about humans, I'm willing to bet I shall be on that side again before my time on this side of the grass ends. Does that mean being on that side doesn't irritate me? No, it just means I recognize it.

Yes it is a shame that troops are dying, it is a shame that anybody dies. Do the troops Know what they are dying for? YES they know, now the reasons they are dying may or may not be the ones stated by the government. I'll bet there are many of the troops that don't agree with the government stated reasons, that are still fighting, killing and dying.

Nobody, said that just because the USA did anything, that made it right. I don't know the figures off the top of my pointed little head but, having watched the way the government opperates it probibly cost more then it should have cost. I doubt a single person went hungry because of it, there are many private (outside of the US government) ways for people to get food. We've got charities coming out the ying-yang, that will and DO feed the hungry. Zero people have been deined medical services here in the USA because we are spending our money on this war.

Bush can be declared a war criminal, for all I care, by the rest of the world. Declaring something doesn't make it so. Just like the position that is trying to be put forward about President Bush and the hunt for WoMD's.

Now my question to you: If you believe President Bush is a War criminal what are you willing to do about it? The World can talk about what ever they want to talk about, talk is cheap. Until troops attempt to land on our shores, it is so much noise. People can call me what ever names they want to call me, but if they step into my yard and take a swing at me, that is an entirely differant ball game. I don't care what people say, if I want to be able to say what I want, I must alow others to say what they want. Read what I wrote about the KKK, http://www.ironworksforum.com/ubb/no...;f=27;t=001738

As for the KKK and their abopt a Highway mile, I will say the same thing I told the elders of our church, when they wanted to have "girly magazines" removed from store shelves in town: In a free society if it is OK to ban/limit one thing, you must be prepared to have somebody else ban/limit you, and accept their ban/limits, politicly speaking. That is not making a moral judgement on the KKK, or their worthiness. If one wishes to be free one must also extend the same to others, no matter how reprehensable they are as long as they are legal.(Within the bounds of laws that apply to all)

Now if somebody wants to convince me of something, I'm going to ask questions. To convince me, they had better be willing to answer, I'm willing to answer questions ask of me. Just because something is said doesn't make it so, That is true for me also. To the best of my knowledge the only times I have not answered questions is when I have either not seen the question, or when I see the other side is not willing to answer questions, and they ask questions after I have made the choice to discontinue the conversation. The other side may chose to discontinue the conversation at anytime they wish, if it is good enough for me it is good enough for them.

One of my favorite sayings is from Clear and present danger "Not black and white, but right and wrong"(paraphrased by me) I try to seek to be right, that is why I ask questions. I've read alot here on this board about the evils of following blindly this or that. Many who would rail agianst following blindly, are the very ones that get upset when their positions are questioned (not followed blindly). There's a reason the statements were made "Get the log out of your own eye before you try to get the speck out of your brother's eye.", and "they'll swallow a camel, but choke on a nat.".

As always those are my opinions, anybody is free to make of them what they will.

<font color = lightgreen>Yes. Reality is cold; if my family members suffer because of someone else's actions I would realize that even though I might be in the process of seeking revenge. My emotional state does not change reality, only how I choose to react to it.

I doubt anyone can be certain who might be the one person responsible, but the person "in charge" is ultimately responsible. Truman had the phrase "the buck stops here" on his desk to remind himself of this.
However, if the person in charge has put people with the appropriate training and capabilities to funnel information to him, then the person in charge is going to figure that information is correct, unless other information that contradicts it arises.

It is a shame that deaths are still occuring in Iraq. However, if all the insurgents would quit derailing the rebuilding of their own country then the death toll would fall dramatically. Lay the blame at their doorstep, not anyone else's.</font>

A very intelligent and well thought out response.

Is Bush a war criminal? Not in the direct sense, but his actions sure seem to fit the description. I don't subscribe to the "mis-information" excuse that's been passed, I fully believe that he knew full and well that Iraq was not the threat he painted it to be. Can I prove it? Of course not, but I doubt that US Intelligence is actually that inept. If US satellites can pinpoint a flea on a dogs back, I'm sure they have no problems tracking troop and weapon movement anywhere on the planet.

I find Bush's actions deplorable. His position is one of complete power, and such a position demands total accuracy. When dealing with the lives of hundereds of thousands of people, a mistake isn't acceptable.

I do agree that the war had little or no effect on the condition of the homeless, or those living below the poverty line, but that money spent on the war effort could put to better use be feeding and housing those same people.

The war on Iraq and the so-called "Liberation of the Iraqi people," in my eyes, is wrong. There should be accountability for the lives lost needlessly. I am in no position to demand such, only the citizens of the US can. The re-election of Bush indicates they have no intention.

<font color = lightgreen>Yes. Reality is cold; if my family members suffer because of someone else's actions I would realize that even though I might be in the process of seeking revenge. My emotional state does not change reality, only how I choose to react to it.

I doubt anyone can be certain who might be the one person responsible, but the person "in charge" is ultimately responsible. Truman had the phrase "the buck stops here" on his desk to remind himself of this.
However, if the person in charge has put people with the appropriate training and capabilities to funnel information to him, then the person in charge is going to figure that information is correct, unless other information that contradicts it arises.

It is a shame that deaths are still occuring in Iraq. However, if all the insurgents would quit derailing the rebuilding of their own country then the death toll would fall dramatically. Lay the blame at their doorstep, not anyone else's.</font> </font>[/QUOTE]We could easily start a circular discussion here regarding the chicken and the egg. Would Iraq need rebuilding if the war hadn't occured?

I lay the blame squarely on Bush's shoulders.

I can see where you are coming from Animal. [img]smile.gif[/img]

I would agree that as President of the USA mistakes have far reaching consequences.

I'm not so sure I can agree about the quality of the Intel. Satelites may be able to pick up fleas on a dog. But, seeing what is inside a truck, or building is a differant story. Pictures can tell us where the troops are but no what the intent of the troops. Then there is the politics, not the Rep-Dem type, but the office politics that goes on in any orginization. The CIA is pushing for one thing the NSA, DoD intel another. Each wants to be the goldenboy so they get more money out of the budget or glory for themselves. Look at Richard Clarke, right after the Clinton administation left office he was telling anybody that would listen that he was the only one paying attention to what Al Queada was doing, Then the poop hits the fan. He turns around and say he was the only one in the Bush Administration that was paying attention to Al Queada, and the Clinton Administration was doing a good job. On top of that add the preasure from the Why didn't we connect the dots, crowd. And the fact that since the dots weren't connected and 3,000 people died, there is going to be a whole lot of folks connecting dots that don't go together. The whole thing is a "Charlie Foxtrot"

I believe there will be an accountability, but do to the ban on, why I believe it to be true, that's all I can say on the matter. ;)

What I find difficult to reconcile (when I consider the matter of was Bush acting responsibly or appropriately) is Colin's little show and tell at the UN.

That was the presentation to the world of the "smoking gun". The fact is that so many in the world looked at what Colin had to say and said "I'm unconvinced". Back then (if you check the old posts), I was all gung-ho for stopping Saddam thumbing his nose at the world. I and many others were convinced of the existance of WOMD. For me, the doubting started with Colin's little slide show.

People back then on Ray's old "Where's our apology" thread defended the presentation on the basis that that would not be all the intel that was available - they would be keeping things up their sleeves. That calmed a few nerves back then, but it turns out that Colin's slideshaw WAS all the evidence.

Now for the kicker :

If so many people in the world could look at Colin's show and tell (and that includes people that opposed and people that were on board), and so many people could shake their heads and start doubting - why was not the President of the USA amongst those people. Why could he look at the same stuff that we saw from ole Colin and be so sure, yet so many people have doubts. The "he knew other stuff as well" theory seems to be shot full of holes now.

It seems to come down pretty much to 3 branches of options. He took the troops to war because :
a) He read the data in that presentation differently than the rest of us did, and he got it wrong.
b) He never looked at the evidence at all - he trusted completely in advisers and they were the ones that got it so wrong.
(Note - in this case I still think there needs to be more personal responsibility on the part of the President for cross questioning and checking before commiting US soldiers to die. Did the Kennedy's just take advice and blow the Cuban missiles to hell? Should any President in blissful ignorance commit the nation to war on only the recommendation of an intel report? Do leaders have a base level responsibility of cross questioning and checking and getting it right before sending the troops? Either this didn't happen (in which case GW failed his responsibility to the people) or it was not rigorous and was bungled)
or,
c) It didn;t really matter what the evidence said at all - there was an agenda and the agenda had to be pursued.

I think it was something of each, but no one seriously refuses to believe that GW didn't have a clear and singular focus from day 1 in office. Single minded focus is a great way of getting results - it got Saddam.

It doesn't always get the best result though, and there are more than a few grieving families who would agree with that.