source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3479703.stm

I was wrong on Iraq - Fox pundit

A right-wing American television presenter who outspokenly supported the Iraq war has backtracked on his views.
The Fox News network's Bill O'Reilly told viewers he was now sceptical about the US president's claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

"I was wrong," said Mr O'Reilly, adding "all Americans should be concerned" that no such weapons had been found.

President George W Bush led the US to war in Iraq, claiming its arsenal of illegal weapons posed a threat.

However, since the war, successive teams of investigators have been unable to find any evidence that Iraq possessed these weapons of mass destruction.

Bill O'Reilly apologises on TV

David Kay, the US official appointed by President Bush to lead the search for Iraq's weapons, resigned last month, complaining that the intelligence that led to the war was mistaken.

Under growing pressure from his critics, President Bush has announced an inquiry into apparent pre-war intelligence failures.

Pre-war promise

Mr O'Reilly did not criticise the president, but instead indicated the blame lay with American's Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

"I think every American should be very concerned for themselves that our intelligence is not as good as it should be," he said. "I don't know why [CIA director] Tenet still has his job."

Mr O'Reilly made his statement on ABC television, the US rival to Fox News, keeping a promise he made before the war to publicly apologise if no banned weapons were found in Iraq.
------------------------------------------------

Good old Fox News, eh.

Even Fox can't deny the facts, it seems. Good for Fox.

the truth will always prevail , well if the messanger is'nt shot first.

JLB's right - only one commentator had the guts to admit he was wrong - Fox News are still refusing to admit their mistakes.

Perhaps he made the factories and the missiles disappear with cunning middle-eastern magic?

The right are slowly having to admit that the WMD - and the factories that produced them - just ain't there. Powell's started expressing doubts. Bill O'Reilly has had to apologise (at least he's got the guts to admit he was wrong - he's got a code of honour obviously).

David Kay, the expert Bush appointed to find the WMD (and he should know!) has stated that there aren't any WMD, and has resigned from his post.

It's not looking good for the right-wing.

So you believe what Saddam Hussein says now?

Well, this has got to be one of the most ridiculous statements I've read on this board in a long time, and that's saying a lot.

Could it possibly be that Hussein was using a bluff to stave off attack by his enemies? Think about it, our military found one man in a hole in the ground in an entire country, but we're having trouble locating industrial facilities meant for the production of large scale weapons. Don't you see any inconsistency there?

Yes, try to keep up - it's only a minor thing, but all the huge factories and missiles have just seemingly disappeared.

Just because you can't find a few huge factories and missiles using satellites that can locate things about 1 metre square in a country which is controlled by your own armed forces doesn't mean that they don't exist. No no no. They're just invisible, that's all.

Or, to do it without sarcasm, yes Shadowborn, you're absolutely right. Saddam was just bluffing to keep his enemies in the dark. A lot of people were fooled by this bluffing. Slowly, some of the people who were fooled - like Bill O'Reilly and David Kay - are admitting that this is the case - they've got the guts to admit they were wrong. The rest are still declaring that the emperor's new clothes are the best they've ever seen.

I see. So they all just up and vanished into thin air, eh?

My point being that even if he destroyed/hid them (a pretty difficult job, all things considered), there would be some type of evidence left. I'm not denying that there were ever WMDs. He used nerve agents on Kurds within his own borders. What I'm saying is, the complete lack of evidence seems to suggest that they were gone long before we invaded.

Not. if. they. were. gone (read: dismantled/destroyed). long. before. we. got. there. Are you having trouble following this conversation? Did my slowing it down a bit help my point get through to you?

The point was not to prove a prior existence, the point was to find active WMD.
Bush declared Iraq/Saddam was an active threat to the USA. The fact that none were found, regardless if there once were, means that the premise for invading that country was based on bullshit.

Every single speech during that period was about Saddam being a threat to the safety of America and the world. Where the hell were you then?

The only reason for invading Iraq (glad you used that word by the way as it's fantastically appropriate) was because of OIL.

If they (Saddam) were an inactive threat it makes the war on Iraq even more of a farce, you just made that abundantly obvious. Have you heard of the "oil peak"? America's oil supply will run dry in less than 50 years. Have you heard of insurance policies? Have you heard of ceasing an opportunity? Have you heard of taking advantage of a current situation? The majority of the world was still reeling at the after effects of 9/11. A perfect time to get in somewhere to take what you need. Saddam has been backed by the US government, suddenly he's a threat to world peace. As if there is a world peace to threaten.