Rumsfeld: Iraq WMDs may still be found (LIVE THREAD, see link at #36)

CNN ^ | Feb. 4, 2004 | CNN

[FairOpinion]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Wednesday he is not ready to conclude that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction before U.S. troops invaded to depose Saddam Hussein last year.

Rumsfeld told the Senate Armed Services Committee that U.S. weapons inspectors need more time to reach final conclusions about whether chemical and biological weapons existed in Iraq before the war, as the Bush administration had asserted before sending American troops into battle.

[FairOpinion]

I would really like to see us find them -- right around Sept., Oct., after the Dems based their entire campaign on that...

[Coop]

The dang fools buried airplanes in the sand, but we're supposed to believe they didn't hide WMDs? LOL

[eureka!]

Yep. That would be so sweet. Rummy is spot on with the Saddam hidey hole analogy as well. What a treasure....

[billbears]

The dang fools buried airplanes in the sand, but we're supposed to believe they didn't hide WMDs?

Of course they did!! Even the President's man contradicts Rumsfeld's statements but hey we can't let truth and facts get in the way. You just got to believe!! Right?

[My2Cents]

That's my hope too, but I've been disappointed by the weak defense of all Administration officials to this latest WMD flap -- from Bush on down (and particularly the comment by Powell that if we knew THEN what we seem to know NOW about Saddam's WMD, we might not have gone to war). All they need to do is continue to remind folks that it wasn't simply US intelligence that we depended upon alone to make the case about Saddam's WMDs -- it was primarily information gathered by the UN inspectors up to 1998. He had the damn weapons! What did he do with them?! That's the $64,000 question!

The Administration could also quote the comments of David Kay in his interim WMD report from October 2, 2003. There is enough information in that interim report to justify the war based on the fear of WMDs. But no one in the Administration seems to be making that case. I see better defense of the WMD-angle here on FR than I hear coming out of the Administration. What's going on?

[CasearianDaoist]

I imagine Teddy is just a touch scared of Rummy.

[GraniteStateConservative]

The more they stick with this angle, the more important it becomes to find WMD stockpiles in Iraq. They should probably just cut their losses. The bell has been rung and it can't be unrung. Kay's words are taken as the truth at this point. Kay is seen as more believable than Rumsfeld.

[Coop]

Gee, somehow, someway, even before I opened the thread I knew your post would be just chock full of interesting and relevant info. [yawn]

Sec. Rumsfeld made his points quite clearly - something you neither grasp nor replicate.

[areafiftyone]

HMMMMM What does Rummy know??? I just have this feeling that Rummy and Bush like to spring things on the democreeps. HEH HEH!

[Williams]

Makes you wonder how likely a Kerry administration would be to ever find WMD in Iraq or anywhere else. I'm voting for the crowd that's devoted to finding the stuff and wiping it out. Not the Ostrich in the sand bunch.

[Coop]

(and particularly the comment by Powell that if we knew THEN what we seem to know NOW about Saddam's WMD, we might not have gone to war).

Read Powell's clarification of that remark.

[eureka!]

"I imagine Teddy is just a touch scared of Rummy."

As I would be were I an opponent. Rummy and W & Co. have proven to be formidable. Godspeed to them...

[OXENinFLA]

It stunk earlier C-span cut Rummy off just as he was beginning to rip into 'da swimmer'


FYI::: Rummy is testifying in front of the HOUSE Armed services Comm. on C-span3 Right now.

[Coop]

The more they stick with this angle, the more important it becomes to find WMD stockpiles in Iraq. They should probably just cut their losses.

Why? The only ones I see focusing on the word "stockpiles" are those folks who desperately want to believe Hussein's regime did not have WMDs.

To cut their losses (a.k.a. admit failure) on an issue where they have done so much so well would be disastrous.

[Huck]

What the hell does this mean?

"The remark "probably turned out not to be what one would have preferred, in retrospect," he said.

Is this Rummy's way of saying he lied when he said they KNEW where the WMD were?

[CasearianDaoist]

Well I doubt that you ever would find yourself an opponent of that crew. I have worked in that community and I think that Rummy is the best SecDef since,well, Dick Cheney. Those are two of the best SecDefs ever. They will need another decade to clean up the mess that Clinton/Cohen left behind over there. I hope they get a chance to do it. If Bush gets reelected I hope Rummy stays around.

[FairOpinion]

Now that my cable company finally got CSPAN-2, you are telling me that the interesting stuff -- Rumsfeld's testimony is on CSPAN-3, which I don't have. Darn!

[OXENinFLA]

C-span3 is mostly web only.

http://www.c-span.org/watch/index.asp?Cat=TV&Code=CS&ShowVidDays=30&ShowVidDesc=

[alpowolf]

Chin up, Rummy--surely a can of Raid will be found in time for the elections.

[Coop]

What the hell does this mean?

Rummy explained it rather well.