WASHINGTON -- The search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has quietly concluded without any evidence of the banned weapons that President Bush cited as justification for going to war, the White House said Wednesday.
Democrats said Bush owes the country an explanation of why he was so wrong.
The Iraq Survey Group, made up of some 1,200 military and intelligence specialists and support staff, spent nearly two years searching military installations, factories and laboratories whose equipment and products might be converted quickly to making weapons.
White House press secretary Scott McClellan said there no longer is an active search for weapons and the administration does not hold out hopes that any weapons will be found. "There may be a couple, a few people, that are focused on that" but that it has largely concluded, he said.
"If they have any reports of (weapons of mass destruction) obviously they'll continue to follow up on those reports," McClellan said. "A lot of their mission is focused elsewhere now."
House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi of California said Bush should explain what happened.
"Now that the search is finished, President Bush needs to explain to the American people why he was so wrong, for so long, about the reasons for war," she said.
"After a war that has consumed nearly two years and millions of dollars, and a war that has cost thousands of lives, no weapons of mass destruction have been found, nor has any evidence been uncovered that such weapons were moved to another country," Pelosi said in a written statement. "Not only was there not an imminent threat to the United States, the threat described in such alarmist tones by President Bush and the most senior members of his administration did not exist at all."
Chief U.S. weapons hunter Charles Duelfer is to deliver his final report on the search next month. "It's not going to fundamentally alter the findings of his earlier report," McClellan said, referring to preliminary findings from last September. Duelfer reported then that Saddam Hussein not only had no weapons of mass destruction and had not made any since 1991, but that he had no capability of making any either. Bush unapologetically defended his decision to invade Iraq.
"Nothing's changed in terms of his views when it comes to Iraq, what he has previously stated and what you have previously heard," McClellan said. "The president knows that by advancing freedom in a dangerous region we are making the world a safer place."
Bush has appointed a panel to investigate why the intelligence about Iraq's weapons was wrong.
McClellan said the Iraq experience would not make Bush hesitant to raise alarms when he deems it necessary.
"But we're also going to continue taking steps to make sure that that intelligence is the best possible," he said.
"Our friends and allies had the same intelligence that we had when it came to Saddam Hussein," McClellan said. "And now we need to continue to move forward to find out what went wrong and to correct those flaws."
At the State Department, spokesman Richard Boucher said Wednesday about 120 Iraqi scientists who had been working in weapons programs were being paid by the U.S. government to work in other fields.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- "Give it up for George W. Bush, the best friend international jihad ever had."
posted on January 12, 2005 01:50:50 PM new
The only thing that they can still use for justification is the so-called faulty British intelligence. I think this bunch will say ANYTHING to avoid responsibility for ANYTHING that's happened in Iraq.
posted on January 12, 2005 04:07:32 PM new
Can someone explain to me where the insurgents are getting all the weapons and materials to make bombs. There has to be something somewhere for these renegades that are doing the destruction.
posted on January 12, 2005 08:00:08 PM new
It's Clinton's fault. You dems are trying to have it both ways again. Silly liberals...
____________________________________________
Dick Cheney: "I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11..."
posted on January 13, 2005 07:59:49 AM new
Transparts, while that may be true. It was BUSH not Clinton that decided to go to over the issue. It was Bush's responsibility to make sure the information was correct and not rely on information from previous administrations.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- "Give it up for George W. Bush, the best friend international jihad ever had."
posted on January 13, 2005 10:23:37 AM new
From ABC News Jan. 12, 2005 —
The invasion of Iraq, which ousted Saddam Hussein and has cost the lives of some 1,300 U.S. military personnel and billions of dollars, was "absolutely" worth it, despite the absence of any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, President Bush told ABC News' Barbara Walters in an exclusive interview that will air this Friday.
Watch Barbara Walters' full interview with President Bush this Friday at 10 p.m. on "20/20."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on January 13, 2005 10:38:24 AM new
was "absolutely" worth it, despite the absence of any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, President Bush told ABC News' Barbara Walters
What else would Bush say....he made a terrible mistake and wasted millions of taxpayer dollars, killed over 1300 soldiers and countless Iraqi lives?
Bush will defend his actions until his death.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- "Give it up for George W. Bush, the best friend international jihad ever had."
posted on January 13, 2005 10:48:57 AM new
Bear, perhaps we should give them another 10 years to search every inch of Iraqi to see if Saddam might have buried them some place? If there was stockpiles upon stockpiles of weapons like Bush had claimed, they would have been easy to find.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- "Give it up for George W. Bush, the best friend international jihad ever had."
posted on January 13, 2005 11:13:54 AM new
It doesn't matter if they don't find a germ bomb in the garage next to Hussein's Bentley.
We know what he bought. We know the dummy companies it was shipped through. We know the countries the shipments were laundered through. We know how much money was diverted from the Aid for Oil program to pay for it all.
These things are called facts. Just like the fact that Iraq has supplied funding and training for every terrorist group that has ever existed from the IRA on up.
The left employs the smokescreen "no WMD found" like they use the Clinton "only a bj" blurb to push things off topic. Also part of this is the "Iraq was not involved in 9/11" answer to questions never asked.
After 9/11 the President declared a war on terrorists and "the countries that support them".
posted on January 13, 2005 12:01:37 PM new
Desquirrel, don't you think there's something inherently wrong with these wars that will never end? Like the drug war, the war against terrorism is like a war against house flies. You could wipe them out in one country but there's hundreds more that provide breeding grounds - all they need is a catalyst, like someones starting a war for no reason.
You are saying the end justifies the means with Iraq. Does that mean if there was a rapist living next door to you, it would be OK to kill him because of your perceived threat? How can you tell the world you are in immediate danger of being hit with a nuclear weapon if it's not true and get away with it? How can you ignore the REAL threats like NK, who says they WILL target the U.S. when nuclear capable? Why doesn't Bush liberate them? I realize there's no oil under Korea, but that shouldn't stop Bush's plan to stop terrorism, right?
posted on January 13, 2005 12:22:34 PM new
" You could wipe them out in one country but there's hundreds more that provide breeding grounds - all they need is a catalyst, like someones starting a war for no reason."
We already tried paying tribute to Barbary pirates, the League of Nations, and Munich 1938. The process does not work with fanaticism. Where there is no possibility of negotiation you have to destroy an enemy.
"Does that mean if there was a rapist living next door to you, it would be OK to kill him because of your perceived threat?"
Strange, I thought you were all for the hounding of rapists and child molesters who move into your neighborhood AFTER they do their time. Don't you think they've been rehabilitated??
"How can you tell the world you are in immediate danger of being hit with a nuclear weapon if it's not true and get away with it? How can you ignore the REAL threats like NK, who says they WILL target the U.S. when nuclear capable?"
We can worry about NK when they come near to the capability to hurt us. Before then Kim could drop dead or be ousted.
"Why doesn't Bush liberate them? I realize there's no oil under Korea, but that shouldn't stop Bush's plan to stop terrorism, right?"
Are you switching back to the "war for oil" stuff? I thought the current head holding was the COST of the war. Now we're back to turning a profit??
posted on January 13, 2005 12:43:16 PM new"Where there is no possibility of negotiation you have to destroy an enemy."
In this case, the perceived enemy who Bush never negotiated with or ever talked to.
"Strange, I thought you were all for the hounding of rapists and child molesters who move into your neighborhood AFTER they do their time. Don't you think they've been rehabilitated??"
I've never said that.
"We can worry about NK when they come near to the capability to hurt us. Before then Kim could drop dead or be ousted."
You can't have it both ways. If Iraq, Iran, etc., bought their nuclear components from NK, how can they (NK) be any less ready than Iraq? That statement only goes to prove that Iraq was never a threat.
"Are you switching back to the "war for oil" stuff? I thought the current head holding was the COST of the war. Now we're back to turning a profit??"
Someone's making big money on this war and it isn't the Iraqi's. If there was no long term profit in war, they'd get out of it, like they did in Afghanistan. To believe they're there for liberation and democracy is narrow-minded.
[ edited by kraftdinner on Jan 13, 2005 12:45 PM ]
posted on January 13, 2005 02:12:30 PM new
After 9/11 the President declared a war on terrorists and "the countries that support them".
Desquirrel, your reasoning may be more tolerable if Bush had not planned this war before 9/11. In 1998 Rumsfeld wanted to have a war in Iraq because of the perceivedthreat.
The biggest threat to the U.S. is still on the loose and Bush has not made a significant effort to capture him. In December of 2001, the U.S. had the greatest chance to capture Bin Laden while he was hiding in Afghanistan but did not act fast enough.
Didn't Colin Powell state Saddam was contained and was not a threat to the US in 2002??
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- "Give it up for George W. Bush, the best friend international jihad ever had."
Bombs and other weapons can be made using common household items. They aren't weapons of mass destruction. There is also Pakistan and other boarding nations where they can get what they need to continue down their destructive path.
We were lied to and at the least, Bush owes the American people an apology. Christ, if he couldn't admit to any mistakes he's made during the debates, what makes anyone of us think he's going to admit to one now? It takes a bigger man to do that. Sadly, he's about as small as a man can get.
Cheryl
"Success in almost any field depends more on energy and drive than it does on intelligence. This explains why we have so many stupid leaders."
-Sloan Wilson
posted on January 14, 2005 08:12:08 PM new
I would love to see President Bush get on TV and moon the camera and tell all the liberals to "kiss this" ROFLMAO...
That's all the apology he needs to make...
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
posted on January 14, 2005 08:21:45 PM new
"It's Official. No WMD in Iraq"
And the majority of American voters re-elected him anyway.
How very fortunate that the majority of American's trusted this President more than they believed kerry and those who supported saddam staying in power and being a continuing threat to the world.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on January 15, 2005 05:11:46 AM new
I would love to see President Bush get on TV and moon the camera and tell all the liberals to "kiss this" ROFLMAO...
Maybe after getting drunk at his inauguration ceremony you might get your wish.
Do you think he will ask Cheney to kiss his ass some more?
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- "Give it up for George W. Bush, the best friend international jihad ever had."
posted on January 15, 2005 05:19:53 AM new I would love to see President Bush get on TV and moon the camera and tell all the liberals to "kiss this" ROFLMAO...
ooops getting some gays all excited wouldn't be a good thing...
No admit it logansdad, you'd hit that.... you probably love it when they show back shots of him...
I should of said it in this thread, but linda said basically the same thing...
I believe most Americans didn't even give WMD's a thought...especially at this late date...
I know I would of not voted for kerry under any circumstance...
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
