Posted on 08/06/2005 11:04:31 AM PDT by Carl/NewsMax
President Bush's decision to concede the argument that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction has hurt his credibility badly, with a majority of Americans now saying he lied when he took the country to war based on a threat that didn't exist.
A Gallup survey last week found that a majority of Americans - 51 percent - now believe that Bush "deliberately misled the people when he asserted Iraq had weapons of mass destruction."
On Friday, an Associated Press-Ipsos poll found that 50 percent no longer think he's an honest leader - with 48 percent disagreeing.
If, on the other hand, weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq, there's no question those numbers would be dramatically different.
Bush's war rationale would have been completely vindicated - and families of hero GI's wouldn't be wrestling with gut wrenching questions about whether their sacrifices were worth it.
That's why it's so abominably tragic - and downright irresponsible - for the Bush White House to continue to ignore the evidence that Saddam Hussein did, in fact, pose a WMD threat.
Here's a few questions media pollsters never ask - featuring undisputed facts the White House needs to begin spotlighting:
• If you knew that Saddam Hussein was sitting on a stockpile of 500 tons of yellowcake uranium - and storing it at his nuclear weapons development plant - would you still think the Iraqi dictator posed no WMD threat?
• If you learned that Saddam had ordered his top nuclear physicist to hide centrifuge parts from U.N. weapons inspectors and keep them available for future use - would it have been a good idea to leave Saddam in power?
• And if you knew that Saddam had begun to enrich that uranium to the point where weapons inspectors feared it could be turned into a terrorist dirty bomb - would you still think it was a mistake to launch a preemptive invasion?
Unfortunately - at least for those who recognize that the Iraq war is an indispensable part of the war on terror - the White House seldom if ever mentions any of the above.
But that's not because it isn't true.
Just last year, the New York Times - along with several other mainstream news organizations - offered new details about Saddam's 500 ton uranium stockpile - in a story prompted by the U.S. Energy Department's decision to remove 1.8 tons of the nuclear fuel that the Iraqi dictator had partially enriched.
Some highlights from the Times report:
The United States has informed an international agency that oversees nuclear materials that it intends to move hundreds of tons of uranium from a sealed repository south of Baghdad to a more secure place outside Iraq, Western diplomats close to the agency say. . . .
The repository, at Tuwaitha, a centerpiece of Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons program until it was largely shut down after the first Persian Gulf war in 1991, holds more than 500 tons of uranium, none of it enriched enough to be used directly in a nuclear weapon. . . .
Nuclear experts had mixed reactions to the possibility of moving the uranium. The president of the Institute for Science and International Security, David Albright, said officials had long privately discussed plans to take the uranium out of Iraq.
"I would say it's a wise thing to do," Mr. Albright said. "The idea of theft isn't crazy." . . .
Of the uranium, 500 tons is naturally occurring ore or yellowcake, a slightly processed concentrate that cannot be directly used in a bomb. Some 1.8 tons is classified as low-enriched uranium, a more potent form but still not sufficient for a weapon.
Still, said Thomas B. Cochran, director of the nuclear program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, the low-enriched version could be useful to a nation with nuclear ambitions.
"A country like Iran," Mr. Cochran said, "could convert that into weapons-grade material with a lot fewer centrifuges than would be required with natural uranium."
The centrifuges are used to purify the material. . . .
Whatever its actual health risks, the uranium could sow terror over wide areas if dispersed by a conventional explosive. Such a "dirty bomb" remains a prime concern for counterterrorism experts in the United States and abroad. [END OF TIMES EXCERPT - May 22, 2004]
As for the above mentioned centrifuges, it turns out Saddam had made the necessary provisions, according to his top nuclear physicist, Dr. Mahdi Obeidi.
"Saddam kept funding the IAEC [Iraq Atomic Energy Commission] from 1991 ... until the war in 2003," Dr. Obedi revealed in his 2004 book, "The Bomb in My Garden."
"I was developing the centrifuge for the weapons" right through 1997, he explained.
And after that, Dr. Obeidi said, Saddam ordered him under penalty of death to keep the technology available to resume Iraq's nuke program at a moment's notice.
Dr. Obeidi said he buried "the full set of blueprints, designs - everything to restart the centrifuge program - along with some critical components of the centrifuge" under the garden of his Baghdad home.
"I had to maintain the program to the bitter end," he explained.
Despite the compelling nature of Dr. Obedi's revelations and the facts about al Tuwaitha - Bush officials almost never discuss this information.
That's probably because Saddam's uranium stockpile was actually not considered illegal according to officials at the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency, who assured the world they were monitoring the nuclear fuel and had the situation well in hand.
Of course, the IAEA had no idea about Dr. Obedi's centrifuge stash, since he revealed his story to U.S. interrogators only after Saddam had been toppled. Then there's the dubious proposition of trusting IAEA assurances about rogue countries and their inability to develop nukes, especially since the bang-up job the agency did keeping an eye on North Korea.
Still, in hundreds of hours of interviews spent defending the Iraq war, Condi, Rummy, Cheney or even the President himself never mention Saddam's al Tuwaitha uranium stockpile - or the order he gave to Dr. Obeidi to keep Iraq's centrifuge program ready.
No wonder the American people are beginning to wonder if President Bush lied to them about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998.
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002.
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do." Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002.
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002.
"[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
It will be 'found'.....everything takes time when a war is 'ON'....
deep cover cover....ongoing....
So why did Bush concede that Iraq had no WMD? Was he lying when he said they do or is he lying now when we says they don't? Hardly a winning position.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/01/25/wirq2...
In an exclusive interview with The Telegraph, Dr Kay, who last week
resigned as head of the Iraq Survey Group, said that he had uncovered
evidence that unspecified materials had been moved to Syria shortly
before last year's war to overthrow Saddam.
"We are not talking about a large stockpile of weapons," he said. "But
we know from some of the interrogations of former Iraqi officials that
a lot of material went to Syria before the war, including some
components of Saddam's WMD programme. Precisely what went to Syria,
and what has happened to it, is a major issue that needs to be
resolved."
CNN 1999...
"Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden"
http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9902/13/afghan.binladen/
AND.............
ABC 1999....
1999 ABC News Report : The Osama - Hussein Connection
http://www.radioamerica.org/audio/MR_ABC-Osama-Hussein-connections.mp3
ABC News, January 14, 1999
'". . . [Mamdouh Mahmud] Salim, alleged to be a key military advisor and
believed to be privy to bin Laden's most secret projects, is also apprehended.
The US government alleges that he was under secret orders to procure enriched
uranium for the purpose of developing nuclear weapons.
These are allegations bin Laden does not now deny. "It would be a sin for
Muslims not to try to possess the weapons that would prevent the infidels from
inflicting harm on Muslims, but how we could use these weapons if we possessed
them is up to us.
With an American price on his head, there weren't many places bin Laden could
go, unless he teamed up with another international pariah, one also with an
interest in weapons of mass destruction. Osama believes in the 'enemy of my
enemy is my friend, and someone I should cooperate with.' That is certainly
the current case with Iraq. Saddam Hussein has a long history of harboring
terrorists: Carlos the Jackal, Abu Nida, Abu Abbas. The most notorious
terrorist of their era all found shelter and support at one time in Baghdad.
Intelligence sources say bin Laden's long relationship with the Iraqis began
as he helped Sudan's fundamentalist government in their efforts to acquire
weapons of mass destruction. Three weeks after the bombing, on August 31st,
bin Laden reaches out to his friends in Iraq and Sudan. Iraq's vice president
arrives in Khartoon to show his support for the Sudanese after the US attack.
ABC News has learned that during these meetings, senior Sudanese officials,
acting on behalf of bin Laden, asked if Saddam Hussein would grant him asylum.
Iraq was indeed interested. ABC News has learned that in December, an Iraqi
intelligence chief, named Farouk Hijazi, now Iraq's ambassador to Turkey, made
a secret trip to Afghanistan to meet with bin Laden. Three intelligence
agencies tell ABC News they cannot be certain what was discussed, but almost
certainly, they say, bin Laden has been told he would be welcome in Baghdad.''
And intelligent sources say that they can only speculate on the purpose of an
alliance. What could bin Laden offer Saddam Hussein? Only days after he meets
Iraqi officials, bin Laden tells ABC news that his network is wide and there
are people prepared to commit terror in his name who he does not even control.
'It's our job to incite and to instigate. By the grace of God, we have done
that.'"
The hyprocrisy of the left makes this poll meaningless. Anything to bash the right. Frankly, I am tired of the media generating these ultra-loaded polls, which of course are printed for the ignorant masses and believed by them.
This is a good article that points our realities the biased leftist media continue to bury, because it kills their lying position. I must admit the Repubs have done a pathetic job of flagging the realities of the Saddam situation. To our (their) own detrement and contributing to a wrongly-biased world opinion.
When did President Bush concede the argument that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction?
Sorry for three posts, but my god people do not now this stuff and if they did the WMD thing would be moot. Saddam WAS a WMD himself.
http://tinyurl.com/ctl8s
Iraq Tempts Bin Laden To Attack West
The Herald
By Ian Bruce
December 28, 1999
The world's most wanted man, Osama bin Laden, has been offered sanctuary in
Iraq if his worldwide terrorist network succeeds in carrying out a campaign of
high-profile attacks on the West over the next few weeks.
Intelligence sources say the Saudi dissident believed responsible for the
bombings of American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania and a US military
barracks in Saudi Arabia in 1998, is running out of options for a safe haven.
He is now thought to have overcome his initial rejection of Saddam Hussein,
whom he regarded as an exploiter of the Islamic cause rather than a true
believer, and is considering the offer of a bolt-hole from which he can
continue to mastermind terrorism on a global scale.
A US counter-terrorist source said yesterday: "Our State Department issued a
worldwide warning on December 11. We have solid information that many of the
groups operating under bin Laden's patronage are planning 'spectaculars' to
coincide with the period leading up to and through the millennium
celebrations.
The Bush White House needs to stick to the story that WMDs were moved out of the country. Saying they never existed would look like total incompetence. Of course, if they are in Syria or elsewhere, it would beg the question of why we are not pursuing them aggressively. We may be, under cover, but Syria probably deserves a public whipping and ultimatum to turn them over.
By THEN....They were MOVED OUT on Three 'SH' Mystery Ships under U.N. ______!!!
/______
Threat is still, "ON"....
IMHO
Why is newsmax just parroting the Prof. Lakoff DNC propaganda points?
I see more pre2006 damage bush spin to try and minimize his impact as a campaigner.
too many MSM types live in the betway to have any grip on reality.
Carl, Carl!
Et Tu Brutus?
Oh, come on, tell us where the ships went.
Sure.
Tell us Roberts is a Scalia or Thomas and not a Souter.
?
Tell us why the borders don't need to be controlled.
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.