but the plan with WAR ON TERROR he was right on.

Guess what, there is terror everywhere and he had WMD's he was getting nuclear technology from Africa

we went in there but without enough troups and since we cannot interogate out prisoners, thanks Supreme Court and the American Criminal Liberties Union. We cannot get all the decent information we could get if we can slap them around a little.

he had WMD's he was getting nuclear technology from Africa

We cannot get all the decent information we could get if we can slap them around a little.

AL-Qaida were training in Iraq

what oil have we got since we got in. Oh that would be none.

It was not cooked intel, it was the intel that Clinton had, that all dems said, ie, John Kerry, Joe Biden, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, all said he had weapons.

Just because you have no answer like all liberals if they can't win with facts they start insulting.

So you sir need to get your facts straight but since you are a lib, facts are not important just a agenda.

he had WMD's just was not reported by the left-wing media

Wednesday, January 12, 2005

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. inspectors have ended their search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in recent weeks, a U.S. intelligence official told CNN.

The United States is taking steps to determine how it received erroneous intelligence that deposed Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was developing and stockpiling nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Wednesday.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/12/wmd.search/

October 8, 2004

WASHINGTON – President Bush and his vice president conceded yesterday in the clearest terms yet that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction, trying to shift the Iraq war debate to a new issue – whether the invasion was justified because Hussein was abusing a U.N. oil-for-food program.

For his part, Cheney dismissed the significance of Duelfer's central findings, telling supporters in Miami: "The headlines all say, 'No weapons of mass destruction stockpiled in Baghdad.' We already knew that."


Yet Bush and Cheney acknowledged more definitively than before that Hussein did not have the banned weapons that both men had asserted he did – and had cited as the major justification before attacking Iraq last year.

Bush has recently left the question open. For example, when asked in June whether he thought such weapons had existed in Iraq, the president said he would "wait until Charlie (Duelfer) gets back with the final report."

In July, Bush said, "We have not found stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction," a sentence construction that kept alive the possibility that the weapons might yet be discovered.

Yesterday, Bush used the clearest language to date nailing the question shut. "Iraq did not have the weapons that our intelligence believed were there," he said, his words placing the blame on U.S. intelligence agencies

http://www.public-action.com/911/no-wmd-sdut/

WASHINGTON - In his final word, the CIA’s top weapons inspector in Iraq said Monday that the hunt for weapons of mass destruction has “gone as far as feasible” and has found nothing, closing an investigation into the purported programs of Saddam Hussein that were used to justify the 2003 invasion.

“After more than 18 months, the WMD investigation and debriefing of the WMD-related detainees has been exhausted,” wrote Charles Duelfer, head of the Iraq Survey Group, in an addendum to the final report he issued last fall.

“As matters now stand, the WMD investigation has gone as far as feasible.”

n 92 pages posted online Monday evening, Duelfer provides a final look at an investigation that occupied over 1,000 military and civilian translators, weapons specialists and other experts at its peak. His latest addenda conclude a roughly 1,500-page report released last fall.

On Monday, Duelfer said there is no purpose in keeping many of the detainees who are in custody because of their knowledge on Iraq’s weapons, although he did not provide any details about the current number. A U.S. official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the ultimate decision on their release will be made by the Iraqi authorities.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7634313

Q Quick follow-up. A lot of the consequences you mentioned for pulling out seem like maybe they never would have been there if we hadn't gone in. How do you square all of that?

THE PRESIDENT:.....the main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn't, but he had the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction.

Q What did Iraq have to do with that?

THE PRESIDENT: What did Iraq have to do with what?

Q The attack on the World Trade Center?

THE PRESIDENT: Nothing, except for it's part of -- and nobody has ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack. Iraq was a -- the lesson of September the 11th is, take threats before they fully materialize, Ken. Nobody has ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/08/20060821.html

Tonight on 60 Minutes, Tyler Drumheller, the former chief of the CIA’s Europe division, revealed that in the fall of 2002, President Bush, Vice President Cheney, then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and others were told by CIA Director George Tenet that Iraq’s foreign minister — who agreed to act as a spy for the United States — had reported that Iraq had no active weapons of mass destruction program.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/23/60-minutes-cia-official-
reveals-bush-cheney-rice-were-
personally-told-iraq-had-no-wmd-in-fall-2002

"It just sticks in my craw every time I hear them say it’s an intelligence failure. It’s an intelligence failure. This was a policy failure," Drumheller tells Bradley.

Drumheller was the CIA's top man in Europe, the head of covert operations there, until he retired a year ago. He says he saw firsthand how the White House promoted intelligence it liked and ignored intelligence it didn’t:

"The idea of going after Iraq was U.S. policy. It was going to happen one way or the other," says Drumheller.

Drumheller says he doesn't think it mattered very much to the administration what the intelligence community had to say. "I think it mattered it if verified. This basic belief that had taken hold in the U.S. government that now is the time, we had the means, all we needed was the will," he says.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/21/60minutes/main1527749.shtml

During my posting, at no time did HMG assess that Iraq's WMD (or any other capability) posed a threat to the UK or its interests. On the contrary, it was the commonly-held view among the officials dealing with Iraq that any threat had been effectively contained. I remember on several occasions the UK team stating this view in terms during our discussions with the US (who agreed). (At the same time, we would frequently argue, when the US raised the subject, that "regime change" was inadvisable, primarily on the grounds that Iraq would collapse into chaos.)

Any assessment of threat has to include both capabilities and intent. Iraq's capabilities in WMD were moot: many of the UN's weapons inspectors (who, contrary to popular depiction, were impressive and professional) would tell me that they believed Iraq had no significant materiel. With the exception of some unaccounted-for Scud missiles, there was no intelligence evidence of significant holdings of CW, BW or nuclear material. Aerial or satellite surveillance was unable to get under the roofs of Iraqi facilities. We therefore had to rely on inherently unreliable human sources (who, for obvious reasons, were prone to exaggerate).

Without substantial evidence of current holdings of WMD, the key concern we pursued was that Iraq had not provided any convincing or coherent account of its past holdings. When I was briefed in London at the end of 1997 in preparation for my posting, I was told that we did not believe that Iraq had any significant WMD. The key argument therefore to maintain sanctions was that Iraq had failed to provide convincing evidence of destruction of its past stocks.

Iraq's ability to launch a WMD or any form of attack was very limited. There were approx 12 or so unaccounted-for Scud missiles; Iraq's airforce was depleted to the point of total ineffectiveness; its army was but a pale shadow of its earlier might; there was no evidence of any connection between Iraq and any terrorist organisation that might have planned an attack using Iraqi WMD (I do not recall any occasion when the question of a terrorist connection was even raised in UK/US discussions or UK internal debates).

There was moreover no intelligence or assessment during my time in the job that Iraq had any intention to launch an attack against its neighbours or the UK or US. I had many conversations with diplomats representing Iraq's neighbours. With the exception of the Israelis, none expressed any concern that they might be attacked. Instead, their concern was that sanctions, which they and we viewed as an effective means to contain Iraq, were being delegitimised by evidence of their damaging humanitarian effect.

I quizzed my colleagues in the FCO and MOD working on Iraq on several occasions about the threat assessment in the run-up to the war. None told me that any new evidence had emerged to change our assessment; what had changed was the government's determination to present available evidence in a different light. I discussed this at some length with David Kelly in late 2002, who agreed that the Number 10 WMD dossier was overstated.

- Carne Ross, Britain's key negotiator at the UN during the run-up to the invasion

http://cernigsnewshog.blogspot.com/2006/12/british-intelligence-knew-there-were.html

Guess what, there is terror everywhere and he had WMD's he was getting nuclear technology from Africa, Joe Wilson lied about that

and he and only he outed his wife Valerie Plame.

But back to the war, we went in there but without enough troups and since we cannot interogate out prisoners, thanks Supreme Court and the American Criminal Liberties Union. We cannot get all the decent information we could get if we can slap them around a little.

You are soooooo wrong its scary. Torture works and do we care what other countries think?

The mistake now is that we lost track of the goal and Bush just like dad listened to the liberal media and lost focus.

We are in a mess now because we placated them and cauddled them and did not take them serious. Now we are there for a longer time because we did not take them out early.

So take your liberal thought and move to France, they will love ya.

Just because you have no answer like all liberals if they can't win with facts they start insulting.

What is scary is people like you who want to undermind this president and this country.

We did not go into Iraq because we are blaming them for 9-11, we went into there because money which funded the terrorists was partially paid for by Saddam.

AL-Qaida were training in Iraq, he was getting uranium from Africa, he had WMD's just was not reported by the left-wing media.

and one other that i forgot to put on if you didnt have any oil to heat your house

This President, just before the invasion, was clueless....