Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bush had good reason to believe there were WMD in Iraq
Christian Science Monitor ^ | 4/12/06 | John Hughes

Posted on 04/12/2006 12:01:03 PM PDT by Caleb1411

Among the allegations leveled at President Bush by his critics, probably the most serious is that he took the United States to war in Iraq on false pretenses. He told the American people that Saddam Hussein had a collection of dangerous weapons of mass destruction when Mr. Hussein did not. In retrospect it is clear that the weapons did not exist, although they had in the past, and Hussein had used them against his enemies. But what is also clear from captured documents now coming to light is that Mr. Bush had every reason to believe they still existed at the time he launched the military campaign in Iraq. Not only did US and allied intelligence agencies assert that the weapons were there, but Hussein himself played a dangerous game of convincing enemies such as Iran, and even his own generals, that he had such weapons, while protesting to United Nations inspectors that he did not.

While Bush may have been badly misled by his own intelligence and other sources, he did not lie. He believed, and had good reason to believe, that the weapons existed.

From thousands of official Iraqi documents captured by American forces, and dozens of interviews with captured senior military and political leaders, a picture is now emerging of the world of delusion in which Hussein lived when he was in power. It is being chronicled in magazines such as the Weekly Standard and a forthcoming issue of Foreign Affairs and books such as "Cobra II." Written by New York Times reporter Michael Gordon and Gen. Bernard Trainor, the book is being hailed as one of the most comprehensive accounts of the war in Iraq.

Hussein was much more concerned about an internal coup, or a rebellion by dissident Shiites, or even an attack by Iran (with which he had fought a long war), than he was with an invasion by the US. Though he had largely disposed of his stocks of chemical and biological weapons in the 1990s, he encouraged the Iranians to believe he might have a hidden cache of them, a strategy called "deterrence by doubt." He did not take seriously a military threat from the US because he believed France and Russia would block the US diplomatically at the UN, and that in any event the Americans had little stomach for taking heavy casualties.

The Americans, however, took seriously the probability of confronting Hussein's WMD. When the president of Yemen, Ali Abdullah Saleh, who had close ties with Hussein, told Vice President Cheney that Hussein did not want war but would use chemical weapons if attacked, Mr. Cheney did not blink. The Americans, said Cheney, would deal with them.

Bush ordered that, when the US assault started and the anticipated stockpiles of WMD were seized, they must be publicized. Gen. Tommy Franks, his military commander, arranged for specially trained public affairs camera crews to document the discoveries.

Initially it was planned that seized samples of WMD would be shipped to Kuwait for analysis, but when Kuwait balked at this, the 75th Field Artillery Brigade headquarters at Fort Sill, Okla., was assigned the task.

Messrs Gordon and Trainor say in their book that German agents in Baghdad tipped the American military to Hussein's plan for defending his capital. Concentric rings were to be manned by Iraqi units of varying trustworthiness. One of the circles was called the "red line." This was to be the final barrier, manned by Hussein's elite and most reliable troops. US military intelligence reasoned that as American troops reached this defense line they would be met by poison gas or germ weapons.

But within Hussein's war council, the story was very different. In December 2002, Hussein called his generals together for a surprising announcement: Iraq did not possess WMD. The generals were stunned. They had long assumed that they could count on a hidden cache of chemical or biological weapons. Iraq had used such weapons in the war with Iran. Hussein had convinced his generals that it was the threat of WMD that had enabled him to stop the Americans moving on Baghdad after the 1991 war.

According to "Cobra II," Tariq Aziz, Iraq's deputy prime minister, told American interrogators after the 2003 war that Hussein's stunning admission to the generals "sent morale plummeting."

The Bush critics can argue that the president was too gullible in accepting the conclusion of his intelligence agencies. But the evidence does not suggest that he knowingly lied to the American public about the existence of WMD.

John Hughes, a former editor of the Monitor, is editor and chief operating officer of the Deseret Morning News.


TOPICS: Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bush; bushlied; iraq; prewardocs; prewarintelligence; wmd; wot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-106 next last
To: ZULU

Troll! That's the third one on this thread!

(See post 70)


81 posted on 04/12/2006 1:57:13 PM PDT by pcottraux (It's pronounced "P. Coe-troe.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: pcottraux

Oh, I see, you think I'm a troll?

Why?


82 posted on 04/12/2006 1:59:12 PM PDT by ZULU (Non nobis, non nobis, Domine, sed nomini tuo da gloriam. God, guts, and guns made America great.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: ZULU

No, not you. blt99 (again, post 70).

Sorry for the misunderstanding.


83 posted on 04/12/2006 2:00:54 PM PDT by pcottraux (It's pronounced "P. Coe-troe.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: pcottraux

Well at least this second troll was not as obvious. the first troll was right out of the DUmmy FUnnies.


84 posted on 04/12/2006 2:03:11 PM PDT by mware (an army of amateur's doing the job of the media)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: pcottraux

troll? hell no. saddam clearly had wmd, and now iran is one step closer. just saying we take care of business, that's all.


85 posted on 04/12/2006 2:03:38 PM PDT by blt99
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: pcottraux

That's o.k.

I like your choice of shooting irons.

My wish list includes a Springfield rifle. But they are hard to get these days. I undeerstand a lot of them were "sporterized" which ruined them.

A friend of mine had a Lee-Enfield and it shot very well - better than him in fact.

Most of what I have now are muzzle-loaders which are my special love.


86 posted on 04/12/2006 2:03:42 PM PDT by ZULU (Non nobis, non nobis, Domine, sed nomini tuo da gloriam. God, guts, and guns made America great.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: blt99; Admin Moderator
You sign up today and say we need to NUKE (that's right, NUKE) both Iran and Iraq?

Sorry, but I smell ozone.

87 posted on 04/12/2006 2:06:27 PM PDT by pcottraux (It's pronounced "P. Coe-troe.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: pcottraux

LOL, another two post wonder.


88 posted on 04/12/2006 2:08:39 PM PDT by mware (an army of amateur's doing the job of the media)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: ZULU
I wouldn't mind having a Springfield either. They made very good guns.

A friend of mine had a Lee-Enfield and it shot very well - better than him in fact.

LOL, well, I guess that's my situation, too.

89 posted on 04/12/2006 2:08:56 PM PDT by pcottraux (It's pronounced "P. Coe-troe.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: blt99

Retread DU troll banned again:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1613915/posts?page=26#26


90 posted on 04/12/2006 2:12:24 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

lol, good catch. they sure got a thing for this thread don't they?


91 posted on 04/12/2006 2:14:23 PM PDT by mware (an army of amateur's doing the job of the media)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: blt99
I think we probably made a mistake going to Iraq first Iran is much more of a threat, but then again they were easier to beat that Iran would be, plus the public was comfortable fighting Iraq because we beat them so decisively in the First Gulf War. Plus now we have Iran surrounded.

I'm not a fan of Bush, because I think hes way too liberal, but on national security hes doing a fairly good job, and 10X better than any democrat would. Several things are obvious

1) Saddam had the ability to make WMD
2) Saddam had made WMD and had used it before
3) He kicked out inspectors for a reason
4) Saddam had a modest supply of WMD
5) Somewhere between when Bush started putting pressure on Saddam and when the invasion force took the country the weapons went somewhere.
6) Bush didn't lie because why would you lie about something then go set out to prove your own lie false.

So we need to find out what happened to the large stockpiles of chemical weapons. Were they destroyed or did they go to Syria. If they are in Syria we better give them a 30 day warning to give them back or they get shocked and awed just like Iraq did.
92 posted on 04/12/2006 2:40:20 PM PDT by RHINO369
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: RHINO369
but then again they were easier to beat that Iran would be...

Good point. I tend to think that if we went into Iran like we did with Iraq, we would face an "Iranian insurgency" that would make the Iraqi insurgency right now look like toy army men.

93 posted on 04/12/2006 2:44:00 PM PDT by pcottraux (It's pronounced "P. Coe-troe.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: pcottraux
"Good point. I tend to think that if we went into Iran like we did with Iraq, we would face an "Iranian insurgency" that would make the Iraqi insurgency right now look like toy army men."

Hard to say how tough they'd be, remember Arab soldiers suck complete ass, and have much more bark than bite. I still don't think invading Iran is a smart idea. I favor a heavy bombing campaign, on military targets, and economic targets til they want peace. During the air war, we'd helicopter in troops to the nuclear facilities and then capture and destroy them. They'll eventually face tremendous pressure from their people especially if we say we'll stop bombing the moment you give up. Oh and we won't help them rebuilt, we'll just leave.
94 posted on 04/12/2006 2:52:43 PM PDT by RHINO369
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: RHINO369

I'm completely behind you on that.

An invasion wouldn't work. We'd cripple the actual Iranian army, to be sure, but the guerilla fighters and terrorists would be too much for us to handle (especially considering how strained we are in Iraq).

Also, Iran has a suicide death squad called the Bassij that I believe is currently the world's largest fighting force (it's actual about 7 times bigger than China's army). And they're ALL suicide bombers and guerillas, some as young as 13.

I'm for the heavy bombing on their nuke sites. Plus, it would be a good idea completely seal their borders with Iraq and Afghanistan to make sure NOT ONE PERSON gets in or out.


95 posted on 04/12/2006 2:58:18 PM PDT by pcottraux (It's pronounced "P. Coe-troe.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: RHINO369
Hard to say how tough they'd be...

But remember, the Iranians aren't Arabs, they're Persians. I'm pretty sure Persians are better fighters than Arabs.

96 posted on 04/12/2006 2:59:25 PM PDT by pcottraux (It's pronounced "P. Coe-troe.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: pcottraux
Yea I can't believe I said Iranians are arabs because I know they are Persians. Persians have a good reputation for fighting actually.

Theres no benefit in invading their country. I frankly don't care about them enough to let some boy from our country die there for their freedom.
97 posted on 04/12/2006 3:24:07 PM PDT by RHINO369
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: RHINO369

Democracy in Iran would be one of the greatest victories in the WOT possible. However, there's no realistic way to do it, other than continuing to support anti-regime people in the country. Invasion is out of the question.


98 posted on 04/12/2006 3:26:20 PM PDT by pcottraux (It's pronounced "P. Coe-troe.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: pcottraux
A democracy full of Islamic fundamentalists isn't any better than a dictatorship of Islamic fundamentalists. I say when we hit them from the air wipe out every government building, and the homes of ALL their leaders. Then hope a pro western dictator comes to power, wipes out the fundamentalists and in a generation they'd be ready for democracy.
99 posted on 04/12/2006 3:50:21 PM PDT by RHINO369
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: pcottraux

Awhhh....some new stuff for the TROLLS!!


100 posted on 04/12/2006 3:54:23 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach (History is soon Forgotten,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-106 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson