If The Bush Administration Lied About WMD, So Did These People (Updated)

Right Wing News ^ | June 19, 2003 | John Hawkins

[eyespysomething]

Did we have US citizens on the inspection teams ever? Oh yeah, Scott Ridder. And he can't be trusted either, just don't know which story we can't trust.

The evidence was SEEN and documented, over and over.

[moodyskeptic]

This is a good collection of quotes, very usefull. The bigger point here, though, is that while a GOP administration is taking one action, the Dems loudly squawk that it's not the right action against "the more dangerous enemy" as a way to discredit the current effort.

While fighting the Taliband: they whined What about Saddam? While fighting Saddam: what about N. Korea? or Iran? or Syria? Patience, democrats, we will get to all your boogeymen in their time. Just keep whining so we can assemble your quotes in articles just like this one.

[homeschool_dad]

[eyespysomething]

Just keep whining so we can assemble your quotes in articles just like this one.

lol!

[Dilbert56]

The President's political opponents are saying he lied to us to create the war. These quotes, from many different people, places and times, indicate that the whole world believed Saddam had WMD and was trying to acquire more of them. The whole world could be wrong. Perhaps Sadaam did destroy his WMD after the inspectors left (I have trouble swallowing that one myself). If true, that makes the President just as mistaken as everyone else, not a lier.

As for verifying the intel, it's hard to see how that could be done. If you read The Threatening Storm by Ken Pollack, you see a regime with multiple security organizations keeping each other in line. Penetrating that web would be nearly impossible. The CIA director thought the odds were 5%. Pollack, who analyzed Iraq for the CIA, thought that optimistic.

One last point. If Sadaam destroyed them on the eve of the war then the war served its purpose; it disarmed him.

[lorrainer]

Let me know where I'm wrong here, folks. If President Bush is so dishonest, why weren't WMD materials smuggled into Iraq to be "found" for the cameras? Seems to me that this will be the accusation anyway when they ARE found.

[Captain Kirk]

You miss the point. The main reason for the attack on Iraq was to create a "counterweight" to Saudi Arabia. Wolfowitz was honest enough to emphasize this before the war before he was slapped down. The claim that a two bit medieval dicator like Hussein was a national security threat is laughable and I don't think that even the administration took it too seriously.

[evad]

Wolfowitz was honest enough to emphasize this before the war before he was slapped down. The claim that a two bit medieval dicator like Hussein was a national security threat is laughable and I don't think that even the administration took it too seriously.

Where do you get this from??
...the statement itself is laughable.

[evad]

As for verifying the intel, it's hard to see how that could be done. If you read The Threatening Storm by Ken Pollack, you see a regime with multiple security organizations keeping each other in line. Penetrating that web would be nearly impossible. The CIA director thought the odds were 5%. Pollack, who analyzed Iraq for the CIA, thought that optimistic

Exactly...there are too many who seem to think that intel is available by just dialing into a website and downloading it.

I really think they've been watching too many high tech videos ..or something.

Let's see, I need to know what Saddam is up to today. Hmmm, just hit ctrl x and viola, there it is.

[conservativecorner]

Kerry 2003: Bush Misled Americans On War; Kerry 1997: Warned Of Saddam Nuclear And Biological Capabilities

In New Hampshire yesterday, Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said President Bush broke his promise to build an international coalition against Iraq's Saddam Hussein and then waged a war based on questionable intelligence.

But 5 years ago, Sen. Kerry seemed to warn of Saddam's nuclear and biological capabilities as he argued the U.S. must do what it has to do, with or without other nations!

MORE

From the official congressional record: Warned Of Saddam Nuclear And Biological Capabilities:

"It is not possible to overstate the ominous implications for the Middle East if Saddam were to develop and successfully militarize and deploy potent biological weapons. We can all imagine the consequences. Extremely small quantities of several known biological weapons have the capability to exterminate the entire population of cities the size of Tel Aviv or Jerusalem. These could be delivered by ballistic missile, but they also could be delivered by much more pedestrian means; aerosol applicators on commercial trucks easily could suffice. If Saddam were to develop and then deploy usable atomic weapons, the same holds true." (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 11/9/97, pp. S12254 -S12255)

Use Of Force Against Saddam Justified To Prevent WMD Production:

'[Saddam Hussein] cannot be permitted to go unobserved and unimpeded toward his horrific objective of amassing a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a matter about which there should be any debate whatsoever in the Security Council, or, certainly, in this Nation."(Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 11/9/97, pp. S12254 -S12255)

Military Force Should Be Used Against Suspected WMD

"In my judgment, the Security Council should authorize a strong U.N. military response that will materially damage, if not totally destroy, as much as possible of the suspected infrastructure for developing and manufacturing weapons of mass destruction, as well as key military command and control nodes. Saddam Hussein should pay a grave price, in a currency that he understands and values, for his unacceptable behavior. This should not be a strike consisting only of a handful of cruise missiles hitting isolated targets primarily of presumed symbolic value." (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 11/9/97, pp. S12254 -S12255)

U.S. May Have To Go It Alone To Stop Saddam:

"Were its willingness to serve in these respects to diminish or vanish because of the ability of Saddam to brandish these weapons, then the ability of the United Nations or remnants of the gulf war coalition, or even the United States acting alone, to confront and halt Iraqi aggression would be gravely damaged." (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 11/9/97, pp. S12254 -S12255)

U.S. Must Do What It Has To Do, With Or Without Other Nations:

"[W]hile we should always seek to take significant international actions on a multilateral rather than a unilateral basis whenever that is possible, if in the final analysis we face what we truly believe to be a grave threat to the well-being of our Nation or the entire world and it cannot be removed peacefully, we must have the courage to do what we believe is right and wise." (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 11/9/97, pp. S12254 -S12255)

END

[Captain Kirk]

We agree it is laughable. You haven't been keeping up. This was the famous trial balloon flouted last year. I will find you the link and get you up to speed.

[Puddleglum]

ping to myself in case I need to wave this under someone's nose

[evad]

I will find you the link and get you up to speed.

Thank you.

I anxiously await a source that validates Wolfowitz saying that Hussein was NOT a national security threat.

I do recall a piece a while ago where he listed all the perils about the Iraq situation and stating that WMD was the one that people could most easily identify with.

[Captain Kirk]

Hey.....I am doing your research but don't expect miracles. I can't promise a piece where Wolfowitz actually concedes that Hussein was not a national security threat. He isn't that dumb.

[evad]

I can't promise a piece where Wolfowitz actually concedes that Hussein was not a national security threat. He isn't that dumb.

hmm..ok. What did you mean by this statement?

Wolfowitz was honest enough to emphasize this before the war before he was slapped down. The claim that a two bit medieval dicator like Hussein was a national security threat is laughable and I don't think that even the administration took it too seriously

[Frapster]

Well, say what you want, but I hold the administration to a higher standard than that.

It is specifically because of the amount of trust that I feel President Bush and his administration asked us to place in them that I agree with your thoughts on this.

[Captain Kirk]

Wolfowitz floated a trial balloon on counterweight justication. He never openly denied a national security threat. No politician would throw away a potential card which could be played later with the public! He was testing the waters to see whether the counterweight explanation would play in Peoria. It didn't....so all the arguments shifted to the more "scary" but less obviously Machiviallian WMD stuff.

[conservativecorner]

Let the truth go forth and multiply!

[WoofDog123]

"Even if such a move hinders the investigations and causes some weapons to go undetected ?

Do you require your local police department to release its information regarding ongoing investigations ?"

How long do you feel is reasonable for them to have had time to produce any of the vast stockpiles believed to exist? 6 months? 1 year? 5 years?

How long would it take for you to begin to be more skeptical that they are going to find anything at all?

Given the amount of debriefing/interrogation going on, this stuff should be turning up. If there were a big find, I don't believe the administration would keep it completely under wraps. The political value (for Blair as well) of finding anything at all at this point is tremendous, and they would need to publicize some of it.

[WoofDog123]

"Eventually you have to try to reason through the situation. Even if you don't trust W (and I certainly don't blame anyone for not trusting a politician) you have to reason whether Saddam was a real threat to us or not."

Add into this equation the value of having a pro-american government in Iraq, which means, once production is ramped over the next few years, a lot more oil on the market, and a huge player which (along with russia) really crimps the saudi influence in the politics of opec.