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.
The geniuses of the left don’t accept any of this because there were no actual Nukes. WMD to them are actual Hiroshima bombs. Chem and Bio are not nukes, hence, they don’t see any WMDs. Lib logic 101.
Ping for later reading
WMD’s weren’t the only reason to return to war with Saddam. Yes, I said ‘return’. Does everyone forget the reasons for the first Gulf War? Saddam started and lost that war and failed repeatedly to meet the conditions of the cease fire agreement. That alone was reason enough to return and finish the job.
You are wrong. The destabilization came from the power vacuum caused by our abrupt withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran filled the void and all the rest followed.
I am right. Iraq is majority Shiite and ruled by an iron-fisted Sunni and THAT was stable.
We destabilized THAT.
The ME has not been the same since.
Bush f*d up. Accept it.
Mac_truck, You are correct on the 500 tons that the UN/ IAEA knew about. Although it was from their civilian research program, it was still in Saddam’s hands and easily could have been used for up to 50 nuclear weapons (Published on Arms Control Association (http://www.armscontrol.org)). It was also capable of being refined for “dirty” or radiological bombs (bombs producing mass amounts of radiation fallout with conventional explosives). The dirty bomb could have been produced very quickly.
Thanks to MarvinStinson for the articles on 500 tons of material discussed.
I am still at a loss to find the article on the 550,000 tons of yellow cake or uranium ore (which would make more sense). That said, it may have been a misprint or misread on my part of 500,000 tons should have read 500,000KG - which would be equal to 500 metric tons.
Then you must think that the first gulf war was a mistake also.
I vividly remember Colin Powell on television making the case for going into Iraq. He showed numerous satellite images of facilities and vehicles moving in and out of the facilities. This testimony was essential to securing the Congressional and UN resolutions supporting the invasion of Iraq as well as the support of the American people. No doubt the Democrats and Republicans in Congress, as well as the heads of allied nations were shown even more compelling evidence. Nothing was said to the American people or Congress about going to war to establish a democratic government in Iraq.
Bush had the support of the American people, and most of the political establishment, to invade Iraq for the express purpose of removing weapons of mass destruction. No other mission was requested by the Bush Administration so Bush did not have a blank check to change the mission.
The invasion was declared a success by President Bush in the now infamous “mission accomplished” carrier landing publicity stunt. While the Iraqi army was defeated, and Sadaam was in hiding, it soon became clear the Bush administration had no plan in place to secure the country. Years of anarchy and civil warfare followed with thousands of US lives lost, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives lost, trillions of US tax money lost, and the entire region destabilized.
Whether or not there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq or Syria, the administration did not follow up the Iraq campaign with a definitive statement to the American people. The administration declared a military victory, it never formally addressed the central issue (WMD) used to justify the war. Bush, having asked for the support of the American people to go to war to remove WMD’s, had a duty to go on television and give an accounting. He should have said we found weapons, we didn’t find weapons, the weapons went to Syria or something. He never performed his duty and obligation. Therefore he deserves the criticism he receives to this day.
Not only did Bush fail to address the issue of WMD once the military victory of Sadaam was achieved, he and his administration immediately changed the mission to nation building, specifically creating a democratic Iraq. However, Bush did not have a mandate from either Congress or the American people to occupy Iraq for years to rebuild the country. Even worse, it quickly became apparent his team had no viable plan for nation building. The nation collapsed into civil war and US forces were being chewed up in another Vietnam style guerrilla war of attrition. The administration was divided as to strategy, and thousands of American soldiers were killed and wounded while they dithered. It wasn’t until the surge of 2007 the US forces began to defeat insurgents and gain some control of the country.
Bush and his team also failed at geopolitics. Sadaam’s Iraq served as a buffer keeping the two competing nations in the region (Iran and Saudi Arabia) in check. Overthrowing Sadaam, destroying the Iraqi army, and creating conditions for civil war in Iraq created a power vacuum which completely destabilized the region. Bush and his team clearly failed to envision the consequences of taking Sadaam out, or if they did understand a power vacuum would be created, they had no plan in place to deal with it.
Whether or not weapons were found, Bush owed the American people and Congress an accounting which was never given. In addition, when he changed the mission, he should have gone back to Congress for a new resolution and authority to engage in a multi-year effort to occupy Iraq, rebuild the country, and install a democratic government. That never happened. After five years of blood an national treasure being poured down the Iraq rathole, with no end in sight, George W. Bush had lost all credibility with the American people and they were ready to vote for the change candidate who promised an end to the war.
If WMD’s were buried in the desert, or transported to Syria, Bush owed the American people an accounting. If there were no WMD’s Bush owed the American people an admission. He made a conscious decision not to play straight with the people. He made a conscious decision to change the mission without securing the support of the people and Congress. He made a conscious decision to destabilize the region without a plan or the resources to reestablish order. His failures bankrupted the Treasury, killed and maimed American soldiers, and paved the way for Obama. His unwillingness to play straight with the people once he changed the mission, cost him the goodwill and support of the people. His Iraq policy was a complete failure no matter what his intentions.
Your statement applies to everyone and is made only because you disagree with the one particular post.
You have the right to post Brookings propaganda on FR but you don’t have the right to avoid being called on it.
Newbie
In fact I might be one of the last conservatives around here. Bush lied. He led this country blundering into dishonor and all but destroyed Christianity in the middle east. He directly paved the way for an awakened and weaponized Islam.
Bush could have known the truth, but chose not to because it would have undermined the neocon adventure he was hell bent to provoke. A catastrophic presidency, one of the worst.
Read this article and you’ll see Trump didn’t lie. Start with this paragraph. “I say this for an important reason.†It’s about one third of the way down.
That's a facile argument to make, even for a sock puppet.
Knock it off.
From Salon.com a left-wing site? You’re joking, aren’t you?
Almost three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave Saddam Hussein his final chance to disarm. He has shown instead utter contempt for the United Nations, and for the opinion of the world. The 108 U.N. inspectors were sent to conduct -- were not sent to conduct a scavenger hunt for hidden materials across a country the size of California. The job of the inspectors is to verify that Iraq's regime is disarming. It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see, and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened.
The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax -- enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.
The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin -- enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hadn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.
Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.
U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.
From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.
The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.
The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary; he is deceiving. From intelligence sources we know, for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites and monitoring the inspectors themselves. Iraqi officials accompany the inspectors in order to intimidate witnesses.
Iraq is blocking U-2 surveillance flights requested by the United Nations. Iraqi intelligence officers are posing as the scientists inspectors are supposed to interview. Real scientists have been coached by Iraqi officials on what to say. Intelligence sources indicate that Saddam Hussein has ordered that scientists who cooperate with U.N. inspectors in disarming Iraq will be killed, along with their families.
Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate, or attack.
With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region. And this Congress and the America people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.
Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes. (Applause.)
Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. (Applause.)
The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages -- leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind, or disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained -- by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning. (Applause.)
And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country -- your enemy is ruling your country. (Applause.) And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. (Applause.)
The world has waited 12 years for Iraq to disarm. America will not accept a serious and mounting threat to our country, and our friends and our allies. The United States will ask the U.N. Security Council to convene on February the 5th to consider the facts of Iraq's ongoing defiance of the world. Secretary of State Powell will present information and intelligence about Iraqi's legal -- Iraq's illegal weapons programs, its attempt to hide those weapons from inspectors, and its links to terrorist groups.
We will consult. But let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm, for the safety of our people and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him. (Applause.)
Yeah and what did that get us?
The BDS sufferers have, I have not.
But not a Trump bot though, thank God
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.