>
Posted on 02/15/2016 1:35:17 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
[Huge SNIP]
Thus, by 2003, President George W. Bush had correctly calculated that Saddam's WMD arsenal, after at least five years of no inspections, was an intolerable, unacceptable risk in the wake of 9/11.
This was a fully legitimate fear, with Bush's suspicion of Saddam's stockpiles first informed not by his advisers but, instead, by the media that informed all of us in the 1990s, years before Bush became president.
In short, all of that very recent history was forgotten by an emotional, angry, childish political left after our troops didn't find the WMD stockpiles we all expected.
Of course, we did discover some WMDs in Iraq after 2003 (everyone forgets this), and chief inspector David Kay found both Iraqi infrastructure and intent to ramp up WMD production once Saddam later figured he was in the clear. We did not, however, find the WMD stockpiles we expected.
That said, the argument that George W. Bush deliberately lied about WMDs is not only extraordinarily unfair but stunningly misinformed and nonsensical.
Sure, Donald Trump can generally argue that going into Iraq was ill-advised, and that "we destabilized" the larger Middle East region. "George Bush made a mistake," said Trump in the South Carolina debate. "We should have never been in Iraq."
That's a legitimate point of contention. Fair enough - though Trump better not exclude Obama's prematurely pulling troops from Iraq from that equation. That, more than anything else, enabled the rise of ISIS.
But Trump charging that Bush lied on WMDs is outrageous. He should clarify it, apologize for it, or admit that he did not speak as precisely as he should have.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
>
Bush didn’t lie but the intel he got from people he trusted was bogus.
“Bush didn’t lie but the intel he got from people he trusted was bogus.”
If Trump doesn’t know that, he shouldn’t even be elected dog catcher.
The lies Trump delivered in SC during the GOP debate were structured for political opportunism. But, again, the truth outs.
In 2000 Donald Trump wrote in HIS book, The America we Deserve
Consider Iraq. After each pounding from U.S . warplanes, Iraq has dusted itself off and gone right back to work developing a nuclear arsenal. Six years of tough talk and U.S. fireworks in Baghdad have done little to slow Iraq's crash program to become a nuclear power. They've got missiles capable of flying nine hundred kilometers-more than enough to reach Tel Aviv. They've got enriched uranium. All they need is the material for nuclear fission to complete the job, and, according to the Rumsfeld report, we don't even know for sure if they've laid their hands on that yet. That's what our last aerial assault on Iraq in 1999 was about. Saddam Hussein wouldn't let UN weapons inspectors examine certain sites where that material might be stored. The result when our bombing was over? We still don't know what Iraq is up to or whether it has the material to build nuclear weapons. I'm no warmonger. But the fact is, if we decide a strike against Iraq is necessary, it is madness not to carry the mission to its conclusion. When we don't, we have the worst of all worlds: Iraq remains a threat, and now has more incentive than ever to attack us.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33082-2004May17.html
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/4997808/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/bomb-said-holddeadly-sarin-gas-explodes-iraq/
Even one shell is proof.
Omg, thank you!!! Becca valley!
Bush did not lie about WMDs but he did not defend himself by demonstrating that considerable WMDs were indeed found and destroyed while others were dispersed.
Sarin gas is not a WMD.
Gas doesn’t destroy anything. It just kills people.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/14/isis-chemical-weapons-_n_5987106.html
http://www.ibtimes.com/saddam-era-chemical-weapons-now-under-isis-control-reports-1705144
http://m.nydailynews.com/news/world/isis-seizes-chemical-weapons-depot-baghdad-sarin-gas-rockets-article-1.1859934
But they didn’t exist...
1. After entering Iraq George Bush did not defend his assertion that Iraq had stockpiles of wmd. He left his defenders twisting in the wind without lifting one finger to help.
2. The Iraq monitoring group and Hans Blick consistently stated there were no stockpiles of wmds in iraq.
3. Missing stockpiles of wmds that would have been new in 2003 have not been found.
Taking the above 3 into account it would be reasonable for a fair American to say that Bush misrepresented the case of wmds in iraq. His refusal to defend his assertion from the beginning of his operation is a sobering thought.
“Bush lied”, making a joke out the morale-boosting “Mission Accomplished” aircraft carrier landing, everything being the fault of GWB...It’s all weak stuff, people. As they say down south, it’s “powerful weak”!
Heard that line of BS before.
From one troll named JohnGalt, a rather interestingly misnamed troll if ever there was one.
Besides, tell it to the soldiers in world war one.
International accord recognizes it as such because it does kill large numbers, that is the definition of “wmd”.
Weapons of Mass Destruction include Nuclear, Biological and Chemical, so yes, Sarin is a WMD.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2004/05/17/sarin-mustard-gas-discovered-separately-in-iraq.html
Deulfer report mentioned three or four sulfur mustard ieds.
Oddly, Deulfer report no longer available from the public site it was on.
is proof of what?.. a huge nuclear, chemical and biological active WMD program as was proclaimed by the administration?..
nothing they found was recently made it was old crap from years before.. if we invaded Iraq and spent all of those American lives and money just to get a few old degrading shells then Bush was the dumbest rock ever to set foot in the White House
We’ve heard morons claim sarin isn’t a WMD before.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1137857/posts?page=277#277
It exists.
Are you going to tell the soldiers who found the satin ied that it didn’t exist?
It’s mere existence is proof of WMD.
To claim otherwise is dishonest at best.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.