Posted on 02/15/2016 2:05:15 AM PST by 11th_VA
A September 2002 report by the Joint Chiefs of Staff detailing a lack of evidence for Iraq's chemical weapons program was seen by then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, but was not shared with everyone in the George W. Bush administration, Politico reports.
"Please take a look at this material as to what we don’t know about WMD. It is big," Rumsfeld wrote to Joint Chiefs Chairman General Richard Myers.
But it is not clear the report, which weakened the administration's argument for an invasion of Iraq, was seen by anyone else on the Bush team. Instead, Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Colin Powell argued publicly that there was, indeed, strong evidence that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction – and was within a decade of acquiring a nuclear weapon.
Rumsfeld was under no legal obligation to share the report, Politico notes, but his decision not to do so raises questions as to whether his decision was based on a desire to avoid undermining the White House's argument for war...
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
>> Politico reports.
Screw Politico.
There’s been no transparency whatsoever concerning the cause to action in Iraq.
The lie is that we didn’t find any:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33082-2004May17.html
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/4997808/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/bomb-said-holddeadly-sarin-gas-explodes-iraq/
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2004/05/17/sarin-mustard-gas-discovered-separately-in-iraq.html
Add to this that it was 8 months into GWB's administration and the east coast and even the Pentagon were not protected 24/7. Then there's the deleayed response to Katrina.
Jeb is providing a real service, thanks to Donald Trump. We are now going to look at the GWB administration objectively, and probably not going to like much of what we see.
Thank you for that excellent post !
Well done.
What you say may be true, but I’m not sure how any of it is a primary election issue for voters. I’m sure Trump has a reason for making this front and center right now, but it’s unclear to me why. To further damage Jeb? The Bush family?
BINGO !
I can hardly wait til President Trump begins to publish data on the Obama administration ...
We've learned that "compassionate conservative" means "incompetent neocon" (moderate Democrat globalist)...and that Jeb! would be an even bigger disaster than his brother or father as POTUS.
the 911 thing came about when Yeb brought up in the debates to brag on how much better he’d be than Trump protecting the homeland,, you know like his brother protecting us?.. and Trump goes woah.. that is like leaving out the assassination of her husband when asking Mrs. Lincoln how she enjoyed the play..
on Iraq- Trump has said for potential voters that he will not willy-nilly invade foreign countries so there would be no mistakes like the disaster Bush did in Iraq where the whole middle east is now destabilized into a hell hole ,, that certainly makes him more credible for the majority of voters in the country even in the Republican race
FWIW, somebody was hypothesizing yesterday that it helps Trump pull in independent voters in the primaries and in November. FWIW, most people I know, across the political spectrum feel that the GWB administration did the US a lot of harm and that destabilizing Iraq never made sense.
It became an issue when GWB decided, after being quiet for 7 plus years, decided to help his brother on the campaign trail. He is putting his credibility on line in support of the jebster, kind of like a character witness at a trial. This is called rebuttal testimony that gets to the heart of the witness.
Re Rumsfeld, IMO was more a Cheney cohort than Bush. I can see a situation where Rumsfeld may have passed that info to Cheney and not Bush. We will never know I guess but to not pass on the info to the absolute decision maker was an error beyond parallel.
The Saudis have held the oil weapon over our heads since 1973. They have meddled in our foreign policy ever after. Oil isn’t classified as a WMD. From an economic standpoint it has been proven to be so key to our economy another embargo was avoided at whatever cost. The most recent was Obama’s attempt to get Congress to go along with an attack on Syria. We have no business there.
While Congress and the American public resisted, we’re involved in supporting the anti-Asad forces. How did we once again end up as the Saudi’s tool?
Iraq was not stable beforehand. It was run by a murdering madman.
The Mideast had the harsh governments that were necessary to keep terrorism and chaos in check. Are Iraquis, and Libyans, and Syrians, and Egyptians better off because the US meddled and illegally strove to topple legal governments? What had any of them (except Saudi Arabia) ever done to topple ours?
We're right at the brink of the collapse of civilization, not equaled since Rome fell. And all you can say is Sadam wasn't a very nice guy?
Most sane people at or near Trump's age who have followed current events since our college days know that US foreign policy has been very wrong, ever since "conservatives" became globalists and supported the war in Viet Nam.
In John Brennen interview
Do you prefer the murdering ISIS?
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.