Interim Progress Report

After six months searching for WMD, the ISG issued an Interim Progress Report on October 3, 2003. The team has found evidence of “WMD-related program activities” but no actual chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. In addition to details of dormant WMD programs, the October 2003 report also includes discoveries of non-WMD programs banned by the U.N. and concealed during the International Atomic Energy Agency and UNMOVIC inspections that began in 2002. Lines of enquiry adopted by the ISG include the examination of sites across Iraq, as well as interviewing scientists, truck drivers and other workers with possible knowledge of WMD. The failure to find any stockpiles of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons has proved a problem for Washington and London, who used intelligence indicating that Iraq did possess WMD stockpiles as one of the primary justifications for the invasion of Iraq. The British government, in particular, placed very heavy emphasis on this intelligence.

David Kay resigns

On January 23, 2004, the head of the ISG, David Kay, resigned his position, stating that he believed WMD stockpiles would not be found in Iraq. “I don’t think they existed,” commented Kay. “What everyone was talking about is stockpiles produced after the end of the last Gulf War and I don’t think there was a large-scale production program in the nineties.” In a briefing to the Senate Armed Services Committee, Kay criticized the pre-war WMD intelligence and the agencies that produced it, saying “It turns out that we were all wrong, probably in my judgment, and that is most disturbing.” [1] Sometime earlier, CIA director George Tenet had asked David Kay to delay his departure: “If you resign now, it will appear that we don’t know what we’re doing. That the wheels are coming off.”[1]

Kay told the SASC during his oral report the following, though: “Based on the intelligence that existed, I think it was reasonable to reach the conclusion that Iraq posed an imminent threat. Now that you know reality on the ground as opposed to what you estimated before, you may reach a different conclusion-—although I must say I actually think what we learned during the inspection made Iraq a more dangerous place, potentially, than, in fact, we thought it was even before the war.”

Kay’s team established that the Iraqi regime had the production capacity and know-how to produce chemical and biological weaponry if international economic sanctions were lifted, a policy change which was actively being sought by a number of United Nations member states. Kay also believed some components of the former Iraqi regime’s WMD program had been moved to Syria shortly before the 2003 invasion [2], though the Duelfer Report Addenda (see below) later reported there was no evidence of this.

On February 6, 2004, Bush convened the Iraq Intelligence Commission, an independent inquiry into the intelligence used to justify the Iraq war and the failure to find WMD. This was shortly followed by the conclusion of a similar inquiry in the United Kingdom, the Butler Review, which was boycotted by the two main opposition parties due to disagreements on its scope and independence [3].

In 2003, The U.S.-sponsored search for WMD had been budgeted for $400 million, with an additional $600 million added in 2004.

Kay’s successor, named by CIA director George Tenet, was the former U.N. weapons inspector Charles Duelfer, who stated at the time that the chances of finding any WMD stockpiles in Iraq were “close to nil.”

You both have the wrong ISG.

I should’ve corrected Anon.

“Iraqi President Jalal Talabani called the group’s conclusions “very dangerous” to Iraq’s sovereignty and constitution, according to CNN. “As a whole, I reject this report,” Talabani said.[19]“

So, D, why do you believe that folks need to read a report that has been rejected the Iraqi government? BTW, have you looked at the composition of the Iraqi Study Group?

Read it for yourself.

There is nothing the Iraq Study Report can tell me to convince me that invading and occupying Iraq is keeping us safe.

I’m certain you won’t though.

What is more alarming, in my opinion, is that far too many Americans because of the incessant propaganda and lies promoted by our government and the MSM have bought into this meme. Look at all of the people who still believe that we could have “won” the war in Vietnam if the politicians had just stayed out of the way. This is crazy. The French have had to go through the same thing about Algeria. Dreams of empire die hard.

If, d. represents the mentality of those that are in charge of our government Lord help us.

Well, it is kind of hard to get the populace stirred up on a full time basis when the kill ratio is close to 207 to 1 in your favor and the other side shows no signs of throwing up their hands and walking away. Two and half million Vietnamese had to die before we woke up to this reality: folks ain’t rolling over anymore in the face of U.S. military power.

We also don’t like Iraqis who employ suicide bombings and IEDs. We have some silly notion that folks who fight this way are not fighting fair.

Personally, I’m not afraid. We still have a nuclear arsenal that’s collecting dust. I fear no evil at all.

A question for you: have you read the Iraq Survey Group reports beyond the sections that said there was no stockpile of WMD in Iraq?

PT,
I wouldve leaned towards 2400 pounds myself.

This war has already killed most of the country’s will. Sometime within the next 4-8 years, we’ll be tucked back behind our borders, doing nothing to take the fight to our enemies.

That, my friend, is change I can believe in.

I just hope we’re ready to live with the possible results of that change.

Re: Credible Threats

There is no country in the world that wants to get into a shooting match with the United States of America. You are arguing that because another nation’s leader(s) don’t like us we have the right to invade thagt country. Hugo Chavez doesn’t like us but are you arguing that we should invade Venezuela? I’m sure that a lot of major league baseball players and their teams would not be happy campers.

My point about Israel is that there are very, very few nations that pose any credible threat to the sovereignty of the United States. In terms of military capability, we are the 1600 pound gorilla. Nobody else comes close. I’m not bragging. This is a fact. We are not, however, invincible. Wars like Iraq will eventually rob us of will; it is already robbing us of blood and treasure. If we follow your prescription, the end won’t be a long time coming.

Iraq is not a threat to us and was not a threat to us. The intelligence was DEAD WRONG. What part of that don’t you understand son?

I hope that, if our enemies do come back to this country, you’re not my last hope. Else, me and my family had best convert now.

“I think you’re a typical liberal: you’ll second guess all day, but wouldn’t lift a finger to defend this country if needed.”

Look, D. in the first place I am not a liberal. You have no idea what a liberal is and you are simply repeating right-wing talking points. In addition, I don’t owe you any special deference, as opposed to civility and respect, because you chose to serve in the military or agreed to participate in an illegal invasion of another country.

(The land that Guantanamo sits on, for example, belongs to the people of Cuba not the United States. The Cuban government at the time only agreed to sign a so-called lease because it was the only way to get our government to agree to accept and respect Cuban sovereignty to the small extent it ever did. [You don't really think the Brits owned Hong Kong do you or that the Chinese willingly signed a 99-year lease with England?])

Iraq posed no credible threat to the safety of the United States. The only country that poses a potential threat to this country is Israel because it has 250 nuclear weapons and the means to deliver their payloads to the United States.

If any foreign invaders show up in Puget Sound I will be among the first to confront them. Until that time…

I think you’re a typical liberal: you’ll second guess all day, but wouldn’t lift a finger to defend this country if needed.

CPL,
I thought about that before I typed it. And I stand behind it.

It is hard for me to love this country when I see people who are unwilling or unable to comprehend what 10% of this country has done-and is willing to do-so that the other 90% can complain. It makes me wonder what the hell I served for.

Surrender and flee what? The North American continent? What are you referring to here. We have no right to be in Iraq. It is not our country and the Iraqis have never agreed to be one of our colonial possessions.

D – didn’t the old folks ever tell you that you can’t lose what you ain’t never had?

You better be careful because your comment like “tough to love this country” could get you flamed like the MSM did Michelle Obama, and you surely don’t want that and still consider yourself an American, do you?