Posted on 02/21/2016 5:27:38 AM PST by Kaslin
Throughout the Bush years, liberals repeated "Bush lied, people died" like a mantra. That slander wasn't true then and it's not anymore true now that it has resurfaced. There are many legitimate criticisms of the way the Bush Administration conducted the war in Iraq and even more of the way Obama threw away all the blood and treasure we spent there for the sake of politics, but you have to be malicious or just an imbecile at this point to accuse Bush of lying about WMDs.
To begin with, numerous foreign intelligence agencies also believed that Saddam Hussein had an active WMD program. The "intelligence agencies of Germany, Israel, Russia, Britain, China and France" all believed Saddam had WMDs. CIA Director George Tenet also rather famously said that it was a "slam dunk" that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
"Incidentally, it's hard to fault the CIA for their conclusions when even, "In private conversations that were intercepted by U.S. intelligence, Iraqi officials spoke as if Saddam continued to possess WMD. Even Iraqi generals believed he did. In the fall of 2002, the Iraqi military conducted exercises in chemical protective gear - but not because they thought the U.S.-led coalition was going to use chemical weapons."
Additionally, many prominent Democrats who had access to the same intelligence that George Bush did came to the same conclusion and said so publicly. If George W. Bush lied, then by default you have to also believe that Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, John Edwards, Robert Byrd, Tom Daschle, Nancy Pelosi and Bernie Sanders also lied. Some of them, like Hillary Clinton, even alleged that Saddam was working on nuclear weapons.
"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, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. 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. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." — Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002
Even Bernie Sanders, who opposed the war from the beginning, publicly said he believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
Mr. Speaker, the front page of The Washington Post today reported that all relevant U.S. intelligence agencies now say, despite what we have heard from the White House, that "Saddam Hussein is unlikely to initiate a chemical or biological attack against the United States." Even more importantly, our intelligence agencies say that should Saddam conclude that a U.S.-led attack could no longer be deterred, he might at that point launch a chemical or biological counterattack. In other words, there is more danger of an attack on the United States if we launch a precipitous invasion.
You can't blame Bernie and Hillary too much for thinking Iraq had WMDs because privately, even former weapons UN inspectors were saying the same thing.
Additional confirmation of this latter point comes from Kenneth Pollack, who served in the National Security Council under Clinton. "In the late spring of 2002," Pollack has written,
I participated in a Washington meeting about Iraqi WMD. Those present included nearly twenty former inspectors from the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), the force established in 1991 to oversee the elimination of WMD in Iraq. One of the senior people put a question to the group: did anyone in the room doubt that Iraq was currently operating a secret centrifuge plant? No one did.
Furthermore, as even the New York Times has been forced to admit, large numbers of pre-Gulf War WMDs have actually been found in Iraq.
From 2004 to 2011, American and American-trained Iraqi troops repeatedly encountered, and on at least six occasions were wounded by, chemical weapons remaining from years earlier in Saddam Hussein's rule.
In all, American troops secretly reported finding roughly 5,000 chemical warheads, shells or aviation bombs, according to interviews with dozens of participants, Iraqi and American officials, and heavily redacted intelligence documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.
One of the reasons Saddam Hussein went to such great lengths to hide what he was doing was because he did have thousands of old WMDS stockpiled. However, that wasn't all there was to it. Even though the ultimate conclusion of the Iraqi Survey Group was that Saddam didn't have an active WMD program, his hands were far from clean on the WMD front.
As David Kay noted in his report back in 2003,
...When Saddam had asked a senior military official in either 2001 or 2002 how long it would take to produce new chemical agent and weapons, he told ISG that after he consulted with CW experts in OMI he responded it would take six months for mustard.
Another senior Iraqi chemical weapons expert in responding to a request in mid-2002 from Uday Husayn for CW for the Fedayeen Saddam estimated that it would take two months to produce mustard and two years for Sarin."
— "…(O)ne scientist confirmed that the production line…..could be switched to produce anthrax in one week if the seed stock were available."
...With regard to Iraq's nuclear program, the testimony we have obtained from Iraqi scientists and senior government officials should clear up any doubts about whether Saddam still wanted to obtain nuclear weapons.
They have told ISG that Saddam… remained firmly committed to acquiring nuclear weapons. These officials assert that Saddam would have resumed nuclear weapons development at some future point. Some indicated a resumption after Iraq was free of sanctions."
"1. Saddam, at least as judged by those scientists and other insiders who worked in his military-industrial programs, had not given up his aspirations and intentions to continue to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Even those senior officials we have interviewed who claim no direct knowledge of any on-going prohibited activities readily acknowledge that Saddam intended to resume these programs whenever the external restrictions were removed. Several of these officials acknowledge receiving inquiries since 2000 from Saddam or his sons about how long it would take to either restart CW production or make available chemical weapons."
The Duelfer report also noted that Saddam had every intention of making more WMDs.
"(S)ources indicate that M16 was planning to produce several CW agents including sulfur mustard, nitrogen mustard, and Sarin."
In other words, it is true that no stockpiles of new WMDS were found and the people in the best position to know didn't conclude the weapons were moved to Syria. However, had Saddam Hussein not been taken out, he would have still had stockpiles of old WMDs available and he had every intention of making more.
Given all of that, it's no surprise that everyone from the head of the CIA to Bernie Sanders to the British thought that Saddam had WMDs; yet George W. Bush is the one who is accused of deliberately sending American soldiers to their deaths over a lie.
Do you really thing this will change anyone’s mind about Iraq?
The end result of Iraq is being blamed on Bush by surmising Iraq would not be in such terrible shape now if Bush had not taken us there in the first place.
“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 mandate 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 seeing and developing weapons of mass destruction.” Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. 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 s 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. “[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 has 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, M
“The end result of Iraq is being blamed on Bush by surmising Iraq would not be in such terrible shape now if Bush had not taken us there in the first place.”
I agree with that statement.
He didn’t lie I think he believed what he said was true. He was just terribly wrong
It was in good shape until Commie Obammie removed all US troops.
Code Pinko agrees with you.
The Bush haters aka Bush derangement sufferers? No
Exactly
Town hall tell Rubio to Run on the 2003 Iraq waar
The real tragedy is that Sh*tbama did not leave troops there secure the victory that was, actually won and needed to be thee to make sure that what has happened didn't
I have been saying this since 2005
John Hawkins is a superficial thinker and it shows in his writing. He’s but one of most all names at Townhall that reveal how limited they are in the ability to perform deep comprehensive analysis that produces informative intelligence worth reading and digesting. The real mystery is how they manage to stay in business.
Here’s a short summary of the larger picture they miss and are incapable of discerning:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3398724/posts?page=283#283
Five years ago I heard a speech by Georges Sada?
Who is Georges Sada?
He was Saddam Hussein’s vice air marshal.
He tells the story of Iraq’s WMDs in his book, Saddam’s Secrets.
Saddam had them, absolutely. We know he gassed his own people.
Georges Sada reveals that Hussein secreted WMDs to Syria in trucks in the guise of aid to Syria when it had its terrible floods.
He was Saddam’s only Christian general, and Saddam trusted him for his advice in contrast to the usual Shia-Sunni machinations. Saddam also only had Christian kitchen workers prepare his food.
Because he was Christian, the Baath Party forced Hussein to dismiss him from the military.
Georges Sada is an evangelical Christian living in Texas.
He still does great charity work for Christians in the Middle East.
I wonder what he thought was in those trucks going into Syria.
Freegards
However, thinking people understand that the war in Iraq was largely won after the surge, basing would have been the answer to a post Iraqi Middle East peace much as the Marshall plan reshaped Europe after WWII but we will never know because a Liberal ideologue hell bent on destroying anything that Bush had done went and removed all of our troops never negotiated basing rights and effectively lost a war that had been won. Now we have ISIS and worse we have Russia relaunching their ambitious global domination plan by partnering with Iran anyone that refuses to learn the lessons of history is damned to repeat them, but let’s make sure we tell the accurate history and place the messes squarely at the feet of those that caused them.
I have and read General Iraqi General Georges Sada’s book Saddam’s Secrets, in which he writes Saddam using the excuse of a natural disaster in Syria under the disguise of humanitarian aid to dismantle Iraqi passenger airplanes and convert them into transport planes to transport his weapons to Syria to hide them.
That is your opinion, to which you are entitled to.
I agree with you but, that is always a possibility in any war. The problem as I see it was that after winning we should have had an end game that was established before he left office. To leave it up to the next Admin was not in the best interest of our troops or the Iraqi people.
I did not like the fact that our troops became pawns in this situation. I know Bush loved the troops but he left them exposed.
Going into Iraq was a bad idea, even without the WMD. We could have hurt Iraq enough with air power. It would have weakened Saddam, but the area would have remain stable.
The Middle East is a tar baby. I said it in 2002, and I am saying it now. We want to foist our version of government onto people to stupid to grasp it.
Bush lied. And I am not a liberal.
Now that Jeb is out, what is the point of going all over this again?
The fact is, it was a big fat mistake and it destabilized the Middle East and indirectly caused the current Muslim Invasion of Europe and DIRECTLY increased the power of Iran in the region a thousandfold.
So really, who gives a sh*t one way or another about the WMD question?
It was a big fat mistake. Period.
Jeb is out of the race, and because of that, this is now ancient history.
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.