Piranhas Forum banner
1 - 17 of 17 Posts

· ~ATLANTA BRAVES~
Joined
·
15,116 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
This week's news that the Pentagon has officially ended its search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was the quiet denouement to one of the most contentious issues in our nation's recent history.

While the beginning of the hunt for Saddam Hussein's rumored chemical, biological and nuclear weapons came in like a lion, it went out like a lamb.

The final chapter of a story that has dominated American newspapers' front pages for more than two years was published deep inside them. The Virginian-Pilot ran the news on Page A6, along with several routine stories and a gutter cleaning ad.

Most other papers did the same. A few, such as The Washington Post, posted the story on its front page, but tucked it into an unobtrusive, below-the-fold corner.

The CIA's head weapons inspector is back home. President Bush's Iraq Survey Group has decided to call it a day.

And America is left with a seemingly endless war in Iraq, but without a rationale for it.

A senior intelligence official told The Washington Post that chief weapons hunter Charles Duelfer's interim report to Congress, which contradicted nearly every prewar claim of the Bush administration, will stand as the group's final conclusion.

While the official end to our hunt for weapons is a sad, significant milestone, almost more noteworthy is our - Americans' and the media's - muted reaction to that news.

The story's placement in the folds of the paper reflects its place in our thoughts. We've made note of it, but parked it in an out-of-the-way corner where it won't demand or command our attention.

It's a national humiliation akin to a personal one: It's too painful to dwell on. Dead U.S. soldiers, dead Iraqi civilians, a war with no end in sight - it makes us cringe. So, we expel it from our minds, if not our lives, bury it and move on.

We're in Iraq now, we tell ourselves. We have to make it work.

But while we can hide this story in our newspapers and in the backs of our minds, the consequences of our failure to find WMD will haunt us, one way or another, for decades to come.
Wow this is a shame.


While the beginning of the hunt for Saddam Hussein's rumored chemical, biological and nuclear weapons came in like a lion, it went out like a lamb.
Wow that is a powerful quote!
 

· Registered
Joined
·
18,153 Posts
I doubt it's a cover-up (Saddam has used chem. weapons before), but probable cause is not enough to start a war(which remains illegal because of that).
"Innocent until proven guilty" is the motto, if I'm not mistaken.

So for what valid reason the US is there: no idea...
 

· Skankzilla
Joined
·
16,305 Posts
Also just cause they didn't "find" anything doesn't mean nothing was there to begin with. Not trying to start another debate, just saying what I feel and know.

:takes a step back and puts on flame suit:
 

· Rhode Island Slut 2006
Joined
·
4,228 Posts
b_ack51 said:
Also just cause they didn't "find" anything doesn't mean nothing was there to begin with. Not trying to start another debate, just saying what I feel and know.

:takes a step back and puts on flame suit:
[snapback]845834[/snapback]​
I don't think anyone can really dispute that if there was anything we gave them more then enough warning and time to move it, hide it somewhere else, whatever..
 

· im offended and this is tastless,take it down &#33
Joined
·
3,668 Posts
so we went to war for what now mr bush?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,081 Posts
Drew said:
I don't think anyone can really dispute that if there was anything we gave them more then enough warning and time to move it, hide it somewhere else, whatever..
[snapback]845847[/snapback]​
So when does the coalition of the willing go to wherever they are? With all the intelligence photos they had showing the "mobile chemical factories" and other WMD stuff, shouldn't the US have known where they went, and therefore know where to attack to get them?
 

· im offended and this is tastless,take it down &#33
Joined
·
3,668 Posts
ghostnote said:
dont look at me.. i voted for kerry
[snapback]846179[/snapback]​
you aint the only 1 brother iraq is fucked up them militants aint gon stop blowing us as well as their own kind up , america will be over there 4 ever
 

· G'Dam Mudda Fokka
Joined
·
2,928 Posts
scrubbs said:
So when does the coalition of the willing go to wherever they are? With all the intelligence photos they had showing the "mobile chemical factories" and other WMD stuff, shouldn't the US have known where they went, and therefore know where to attack to get them?
[snapback]846219[/snapback]​
What photos? Do you mean those cartoons they made?
 

· Rhode Island Slut 2006
Joined
·
4,228 Posts
scrubbs said:
So when does the coalition of the willing go to wherever they are? With all the intelligence photos they had showing the "mobile chemical factories" and other WMD stuff, shouldn't the US have known where they went, and therefore know where to attack to get them?
[snapback]846219[/snapback]​
the "intelligence" was "bad".. (non-existant, imo.)

I've never seen any photos, link?
 

· ~ATLANTA BRAVES~
Joined
·
15,116 Posts
scrubbs said:
So when does the coalition of the willing go to wherever they are? With all the intelligence photos they had showing the "mobile chemical factories" and other WMD stuff, shouldn't the US have known where they went, and therefore know where to attack to get them?
[snapback]846219[/snapback]​
Unfortunatley for Mr Bush trucks going to a from warehouses doesnt mean WMDs are present. Or ever where for all we know. Oh well satelite pics of trucks was good enough to let the bombs drop. Im just curious when it officialy transfered from searching for WMD to liberating Iraq? Those two are vastly different in character; and I wonder how that transition in motive actually occured.
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top