Posted on 05/25/2003 12:58:57 PM PDT by Kaslin
Democrats Question Whether Bush 'Hyped' Iraq Threat
Sun May 25, 2003 01:49 PM ET
by Vicki Allen
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Top Senate Democrats on Sunday said they believed the Bush administration either exaggerated the threat posed by Iraq, or may have had faulty intelligence on its alleged weapons of mass destruction.
Joe Biden of Delaware, the senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said the administration "hyped" Iraq's potential for developing nuclear arms and for using other weapons of mass destruction, but said he expected such weapons will be found.
Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, the Senate Intelligence Committee's senior Democrat, said he was "beginning to believe" that the intelligence the administration claimed to have on Iraq's weapons program before the U.S.-led war to oust Saddam Hussein was not as sound as he had been led to believe.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
And then if it were to actually happen, they would be the first and the loudest to gripe about why didn't we act pre-emptively in order to prevent this from happening.
In fact, he seems to do it so often I wonder if it is his strategy (after seeing what the presstitutes did to his dad).
Of course it's his strategy, but be quiet about it we don't wan the 'RATS to catch on.
In fact, he seems to do it so often I wonder if it is his strategy (after seeing what the presstitutes did to his dad).
Of course it's his strategy, but be quiet about it we don't want the 'RATS to catch on.
Wag the Dog! How interesting that Hollywierd should produce this film, ostensibly to diss the "pubbies" but end up stickin' a finger in their own eye!! I guess they learned the "Hand Salute" maneuver with their thumb stickin' out!
At least he's coming up with the goods. All Clinton ever came up with was letters from the past undermining and smearing his accusers.
-PJ
-- Six weeks after the invasion of Iraq, Pentagon officials are quietly beginning to acknowledge that their failure to find Saddam Hussein may be proof that the Iraqi leader never existed.
"We hate to admit it," said one unnamed official, "One of our main reasons for going in there was regime change. You know...overthrow a brutal dictator who tortured his own people. But at this point, we're not sure there ever was a Saddam Hussein. After all, if we don't have him dead or alive...who's to say?"
The military official said that the statues, murals and videos of Saddam Hussein are "circumstantial evidence which don't prove anything."
"I try to look on the bright side," he added. "Maybe we'll luck out and find a few chemical weapons so the war won't have been a total waste."
Experts agree that evidence of actual atrocities against Iraqis lacks the news value that potential atrocities against Westerners would have.
Where were the Dems at this time?
Yes, I guess Joe "the plagairist" Biden wants everyone to be as forthcoming as he is.
They know that Bush is a straight arrow but can't let go of the old sewer dweller habits. When Biden speaks, I can just hear Homer Simpson saying, "Hey, what's going on?"
It's an important issue in at least two respects. First, and most important, we have destroyed Saddam's government's capacity to use, or threaten to use, these WMDs, either directly or through other terrorist organizations (his government already qualifying as such itself). Second, to the extent that WMDs did exist but were destroyed just before the war began (as some evidence suggests), or still exist and are hidden, we need to track them down and secure them so that these weapons or their precursors don't ultimately end up in the wrong hands.
I am just saying that I don't care if they didn't have them. But I DO believe they had them. I do believe they will turn up. If they don't surface, but they find evidence they were destroyed...fine with me. The correct course of action was still taken.
I must say that the WMD issue, while always important, became less of a priorty for me on the day that I heard that such a children's prison existed and that we had liberated it. Having said that, I never believed that the war could not be justified except to eliminate a WMD threat. After all, the war in Afghanistan was fully justified, yet no one contended that the Taliban had or was developing WMDs. The princple that justifed both operations was the Bush Doctrine. If anything, the danger was much greater with Iraq even though that danger had not yet been actualized the way it was in September 2001 with the Taliban.
We're not rebuilding the corner grocery store lady. It will take years. Look at Japan and Germany.
Read of the chaos in Iraq, of the demostrations against our presence and of the failure to establish a government
Oh, the sky is falling. How many people protested the war (Bush) in the United States? Hundreds of thousands right? How many are protesting us in Iraq? Thousands...maybe. Bush would probably get a better ratio of votes in Iraq.
And the most troublesome aspect, the creation of more terrorists determined to eliminate us. We made a huge mistake.
You may have others fooled, but not me. You are a frigging liberal. The whole arguement you just presented is straight from Pelosi's and Daschle's mouth.
Stop watching CNN and come back to the light!
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.