Bob Woodward: Bush Didn't Lie

Rush Limbaugh.com ^ | May 26, 2015 | Rush Limbaugh

[Yosemitest]

""What caravan?
Where's Syria?..."

You mean THIS CARAVAN ?

U.S. intelligence suspects Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction have finally been located.

Unfortunately, getting to them will be nearly impossible for the United States and its allies,
because the containers with the strategic materials are not in Iraq.



Satellite photo of hundreds of trucks systematically leaving an Iraqi weapons dump, early 2003.
Instead they are located in Lebanon’s heavily-fortified Bekaa Valley, swarming with Iranian and Syrian forces, and Hizbullah and ex-Iraqi agents,
Geostrategy-Direct.com will report in Wednesday’s (Sept. 2, 2003) weekly edition.

U.S. intelligence first identified a stream of tractor-trailer trucks moving from Iraq to Syria to Lebanon in January 2003.
The significance of this sighting did not register on the CIA at the time.

U.S. intelligence sources believe the area contains extended-range Scud-based missiles and parts for chemical and biological warheads.

Mutually-lucrative Iraqi-Syrian arms transactions are nothing new.
Firas Tlas, son of Syrian Defense Minister Mustafa Tlas, has been the key to Syria’s rogue alliance with Iraq.
He and Assad made hundreds of millions of dollars selling weapons, oil and drugs to and from Iraq,
according to the May 13, 2003 edition of Geostrategy-Direct.com.

The CIA now believes a multi-million dollar deal between Iraq and Syria provided for the hiding and safekeeping of Saddam’s strategic weapons.

Not surprisingly, U.S. inquiries in Beirut and Syria are being met with little substantive response, U.S. officials said.

---

Related Sources

Iraq's WMD Secreted in Syria, Sada Says

Did Saddam’s WMD Go to Syria? Part I, June 18, 22:36:07 GMT-0500 2007

Did Saddam’s WMD Go to Syria? Part II, June 19, 13:06:17 GMT-0500 2007

Did Saddam’s WMD Go to Syria? Part III, June 20, 23:40:00 GMT-0500 2007

U.S suspects Iraqi WMD in Lebanon's Bekaa Valley, August 26, 09:06:17 GMT-0500 2003

[Pelham]

“Even an idiot can tell that she’s making the case that Saddam had a serious nuclear weapons program.”

Evidently why you spotted it?

And of course the tubes turned out not to be for centrifuges. But if they had been then it meant that Saddam was only at the stage of building centrifuges and not at the stage of building bombs. Which then require testing, which is how we usually know when someone has managed to build a bomb. They tend to give off large shock waves.

“I’m sure even a moron like you can tell what he said there. “

I’ll defer to your expertise once again, you are eminently better qualified in this instance.

[TigersEye]

And of course the tubes turned out not to be for centrifuges.

And of course what is known in hindsight makes a perfect liberal talking point.

Bush's fault!

[TigersEye]

Which then require testing, which is how we usually know when someone has managed to build a bomb. They tend to give off large shock waves.

So, Iran is no big deal. Jeez what a friggin' moron you are. Sad ass straw men that don't even come up to 0bama's straw men standards.

[Pelham]

“So, Iran is no big deal. Jeez what a friggin’ moron you are.”

I never said Iran wasn’t a big deal. Learn to read.

[Pelham]

“The Buck Stops Here”

Maybe you’ve heard of it. I imagine GW Bush is not that much different from Harry Truman in that regard.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

Yeah. That’s one of them.

[kevkrom]

No. He was not permitting weapons inspectors. There were 14 different UN resolutions he was in violation.

More importantly, these inspections and UN resolutions were the conditions of the "Gulf War I" cease-fire agreement Iraq had with the United States. By Iraq being in violation of their agreement, GWB had every reason and right to resume hostilities regardless of the state of any WMD programs.

From a political standpoint, however, he did want to make a specific case against Iraq and build an international coalition, but again, that was for political and diplomatic benefit. None of it was necessary to make a legitimate case for invasion.

[Soul of the South]

“Only a Progressive would use a litany of grievance industry talking points against the US, based entirely on moral relativism, to argue any point.”

Saul Alinsky would be proud of you. You have name calling mastered.

Humor me by answering a question. What was the compelling national interest for the US to invade Iraq in 1991? The justification given by President Bush was to remove Iraq from Kuwait. Yet we did not invade Russia when it recently occupied parts of Ukraine. What made one act of aggression by the US justifiable and the other not?