Posted on 06/11/2004 1:17:07 PM PDT by freebilly
ping
I believe the issue of the WMDs is the single biggest problem Bush has faced. He played this issue too straight and too lawyerly and was not aggressive enough. The issue should have always been framed that we don't know where Saddam put them rather than whether they existed at all. I think his handling of this issue (and its still not too late) is one of the single most impacting factors on whether he wins in Nov. If a large cache were found, Bush wins hands down. If we continue to get dribs and drabs, then its still in play like its been.
Yo, Dan Rather. You wanted to cover other news? Here ya go, Bub. And there's still time to get in on the Evening News.
Of course the next Dem/media response will be:
"So if you knew the WMD existed, why didn't you prevent their smuggling of it out? Now your botching of the war effort has made it worse, spreading the underground proliferation when before the war at least it was 'contained' in Iraq."
The 15-page quarterly report, PDF file format, can be found here:
Slam Dunk: Iraq did have WMDs, but Dan Rather doesn't really care
By the way, the gentleman I spoke to regarding the report was very polite...he answered my questions without any apparent political agenda (though I suspect, being a U.N.er, he is liberal). He did say they suspect most of the material was taken away after the war was pretty much over last year. I commented that this wasn't really making much news, and he said the L.A. Slimes and the New York Slimes had reported on it.
I was just amazed how David Kay's "we were all wrong" comment got front page, 3-days of coverage....and this vindicating report gets scant attention.
If you want to speak to UNMOVIC, here is the number: 212-963-3022. Please, be polite. The guy was very accomodating and seemed quite knowledgeable regarding the matter. I didn't get a name.
major BUSH WAS RIGHT bump...again...
Good for you for calling!
ANYONE out there have SEE BS Snooze's phone numbers?? Let's call those jackals and ask if they're going to do a report on WMDs being FOUND.
its still going to be hard to make the case, because the media has cemented the "no WMD" reality so hard - that its going to be hard to dislodge, an uphill battle.
Hmmm, Administration quiet on Oil for Food corruption scandal and U.N. sings a new tune on WMD suddenly. Maybe I'm also guilty of "misunderestimating" a certain President.
I've followed this on a bit. Certainly the powers that be in both parties know what has been found so far. The anti-Bush angle will be that the stockpiles were not "large". Rumsfeld, others said they were "large", so if they are not, "they lied."
The other angle developing is that the war was unnecessary because Saddam sent the "weapons" away.
It's very interesting to watch the spin develop, and I saw it sounded out by John Kerry himself! This is him on "Hardball"
Matthews: If there was an exaggeration of WMD, exaggeration of the danger, exaggeration implicitly of the connection to al Qaeda and 9/11, what's the motive for this, what's the "why?" Why did Bush and Cheney and the ideologues around take us to war? Why do you think they did it?"But you certainly didn't find them where they said they were, and you certainly didn't find them in the quantities that they said they were." --No way Kerry mouths this without some background. Heck, one of his campaign advisers, Joseph Wilson, is married to a CIA WMD proliferation expert.Kerry: It appears, as they peel away the weapons of mass destruction issue, and--we may yet find them, Chris. Look, I want to make it clear: Who knows if a month from now, you find some weapons. You may. But you certainly didn't find them where they said they were, and you certainly didn't find them in the quantities that they said they were. And they weren't found, and I have talked to some soldiers who have come back who trained against the potential of artillery delivery, because artillery was the way they had previously delivered and it was the only way they knew they could deliver. Now we found nothing that is evidence of that kind of delivery, so the fact is that as you peel it away I think it comes down to this larger ideological and neocon concept of fundamental change in the region and who knows whether there are other motives with respect to Saddam Hussein, but they did it because they thought they could, and because they misjudged exactly what the reaction would be and what they could get away with.
So the "Plan of Attack" is not as much as alleged, and not in Iraq.
Gee, who knew. Uh, GWB for one.
Drudge has this on his site, too. Good.
FREEPERs, please call these people and let them know WE KNOW the truth!!
"I was just amazed how David Kay's "we were all wrong""
You'd be more amazed trying to figure out what David Kay thinks "we" were wrong about.
He uses the "large" stockpiles angle a lot.
I can't believe you would bother posting this garbage. We have to suffer all week with this Reagan funeral and now you come up with this??? Let's get back to important topics like terrorists being forced to wear ladies underwear on their heads. I think we only spent a couple of months discussing that topic. WMDs and Reagan detract from it's historic importance. If you are wanting breaking news flashes there is a rumor circulating that Kerry served in Viet Nam.
No, more like, "Paging Dr. Howard, Dr. Fine, Dr. Howard"
Wish I had a pic of that.
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.