Posted on 12/23/2003 6:10:07 AM PST by JohnGalt
Monday December 22, 3:02 PM US Republicans signal readiness to resume Iraq weapons probe
US Senate Republicans have signaled their readiness to resume a probe into pre-war charges that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, which was halted more than six weeks ago amid bitter partisan bickering.
"I think we will have, hopefully, some public hearings by February," announced Pat Roberts, chairman of the US Senate intelligence committee, appearing on CBS's "Face the Nation" program. "We will get those questions out."
US President George W. Bush and other top administration officials had accused Iraq of secretly producing chemical and biological weapons in violation of UN resolutions -- charges that were used to justify the March invasion of the country.
No banned weapons have been found in Iraq since then, despite an intense search by a team of experts from the Pentagon and the Central Intelligence Agency.
The Senate committee had been revisiting the US intelligence dossier and looking into whether the Bush administration twisted data to suit its goal of regime change in Iraq.
But hearings into the matter were suspended in early November, after Senate Republicans, citing a leaked Democratic strategy paper, accused Democrats of trying to exploit the investigation for political gain.
Now, striking a conciliatory posture, Roberts said he had been working with the ranking committee Democrat, Senator John Rockefeller, and other members to defuse the standoff.
He did not repeat previous Republican demands that Democrats disavow their strategy paper, identify its author and present a formal apology for allegedly trying to manipulate the probe.
The apparent change of heart came after the CIA acknowledged late last month that it "lacked specific information" about alleged Iraqi weapons of mass destruction when it compiled a 2002 intelligence estimate that served to justify the invasion.
Congressional Republicans also found themselves under renewed pressure last week after Bush, when asked in a television interview to clarify whether he had hard facts about Iraqi weapons or just feared Baghdad may acquire them, replied: "So what's the difference?"
Senator Carl Levin, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said the remark was "a stunning revelation" of Bush's "thinking and of his decision to go to war."
"There is a huge difference between having something and seeking something," the lawmaker observed.
Democratic Senator Joseph Biden said it was important to complete the Iraqi weapons review to maintain US credibility in the world at large.
"The idea that we're going to go in next time and say, by the way, Kim Jong Il in North Korea's about to do the following, who the heck's going to believe us?" Biden asked in a CBS interview.
But General Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, expressed confidence the weapons of mass destruction will be eventually found the same way US troops caught up with deposed Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein -- through cooperation of Iraqi individuals.
"The same thing's going to be true in WMD," Myers assured in an interview with "Fox News Sunday."
The UN, Bill Clinton, the CIA...all known liars, said he had WMDs.
Therefore, logic dictates we should expect the opposite.
Most likely, Saddam destroyed his stockpiles between 1993-95 just as Kamal said.
Up is certainly down if you are asking conservatives to trust Bill Clinton. A billion dollars later, Kay has found nothing.
Please take notice that I said that the question was did he have WMDs in recent years. We all know that he had them in the 80's and early 90's. The US supplied them. Continuing to fudge the question by saying he had them without regard to when is disengenious, at best.
After many months of looking we see no evidence that he had any, at least since 1998. He certainly did not use any to defend himself during our invasion-Blair's 45 minute claim notwithstanding.
It is now pretty obvious that there were no WMDs to endanger us when we attacked. Any assertion otherwise bears the burden of proof-you are the one claiming the inprobable. We do need to know if the president lied or was fooled and we have to stop the silly defense of Bush in the face of the facts.
It behooves the Republican Party to determine the truth honestly and openly to protect the party's reputation and to get us a 4 year gridlock rather than a 4 year socialist hell.
I am on the President's side, you seem intent on defending Saddam from charges he had WMD. You also can't seem to read between the lines...from the story:
Kuwaiti authorities have seized archaeological artefacts and "other items" smuggled from Iraq into Kuwait, Deputy Prime Minister Sheikh Nawaf al-Ahmad al-Sabah said in remarks published on Thursday.
Asked about the report of seized biological warheads, al-Sabah also told al-Qabas newspaper: "Up to now we have not verified this...
Other items have also been seized which we will examine and announce (the findings) soon," added al-Sabah.
He danced a waltz around the question. This story was hushed up the same way the Bekaa Valley explosion was.
Obvious only to the willfully blind and assorted ideologues.
Any assertion otherwise bears the burden of proof-you are the one claiming the inprobable.
Not really, you see I have seen all the proof I need to see that Hussein had the capability, the motive and the will to put WMD into the hands of those with suicidal tendencies. The burden of proof in my eyes has been met and exceeded.
We do need to know if the president lied or was fooled and we have to stop the silly defense of Bush in the face of the facts.
Lets put it this way, if you are calling the President a liar, then I think you're a liar. If you are calling him a dupe then I think you are the one being duped.
There is ample evidence of WMD programs, thus far no stockpiles. No biggie except that the inventory may have transferred ownership and now resides with jihadists of the first order.
And herein lies the problem... working without tools...
Oh yeah, now I'm convinced. :-}
Doesn't matter whether he destroyed the stockpiles or didn't destroy the stockpiles, he maintained the programs and it doesn't take much program to whip up VX.
The world and America is a safer place since President Bush moved on the jihadists and nuts. You can a rgue that if you'd like but I won't take you're argument any more seriously than I do Howard Deans.
BTW, I'm really going to relish your whining when Bush is reelected in a landslide.
Serious? humor? wishful thinking? I give up.!!!
Are you f-ing insane? I commonly get called a "Bushbot" because I defend the President so vehemently. You and I have already had the conversation about the FBI/CIA incompetence...I suppose you still believe Joseph Wilson as well in spite of the fact that the FBI/CIA stated that the only reason they doubted the uranium-seeking story was because Saddam already had enough uranium. You have knocked Debka sources in the past, even though the story about the WMD going to the Bekaa Valley was later backed up by U.S. intelligence who said the shipments "failed to register" with them at the time. As far as the Kuwait story...
Shawkat al-Hakem, Al-Siyassah managing editor, told the AP on Saturday that the minister's comments did not negate his paper's report. He said the paper stood by its story.
al-Sabah literally danced around the question in his denial (Asked about the report of seized biological warheads, al-Sabah also told al-Qabas newspaper: "Up to now we have not verified this...") and the "other items" that were confiscated were never defined...the story was literally swept under the rug after al-Sabah's denial, a little too quickly for my taste.
Your insistence to defend Saddam against the WMD charges makes me wonder who YOU are working for.
Expound, please, what are they doing to undermine GWB? And since you continuously knock GWB on the WMD with personal attacks rather than cited facts, please explain why I should listen to you?
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.