Democrats Question Whether Bush 'Hyped' Iraq Threat

Reuters ^ | Sun May 25, 2003 01:49 PM ET | Vicki Allen

[Kaslin]

Democrats Question Whether Bush 'Hyped' Iraq Threat

Sun May 25, 2003 01:49 PM ET
by Vicki Allen

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Top Senate Democrats on Sunday said they believed the Bush administration either exaggerated the threat posed by Iraq, or may have had faulty intelligence on its alleged weapons of mass destruction.

Joe Biden of Delaware, the senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said the administration "hyped" Iraq's potential for developing nuclear arms and for using other weapons of mass destruction, but said he expected such weapons will be found.

Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, the Senate Intelligence Committee's senior Democrat, said he was "beginning to believe" that the intelligence the administration claimed to have on Iraq's weapons program before the U.S.-led war to oust Saddam Hussein was not as sound as he had been led to believe.

[KevinDavis]

Here is thing, I like Bush, however if I feel that Bush is doing something wrong I will call him on it. I'm not a Bushbot where could do know wrong.

[Linda]

Yes, I am speaking of the recent "war". I prefer to call it an invasion. All you stated is absolute truth. One thing about Saddam he kept the Shiite's in line. As someone so rightfully said, he kept them in line with a boot to their throat. Before this invasion Iraq was one of the most educated countries in the ME. I only hope that one day the truth will emerge and bush and co. will be exposed for what they are.

[rdb3]

Here is thing, I like Bush, however if I feel that Bush is doing something wrong I will call him on it. I'm not a Bushbot where could do know wrong.

I agree. There are issues in which I strongly disagree with the President, such as this so-called "road map" giving the Palestinians a state which has never even existed, his failure to push for school vouchers like he promised in his campaign, or his signing of CFR (even though I understand why he did it). Honest criticism is valid, make no mistake about it.

What I'm referring to here is the epithet "Bushbot" that is thrown around at the drop of a hat. People who use this term (and "neo-con") the most are the ones I find who are absent of arguments. It is these types who will bash the President no matter what he does.

This is why I agreed with you in my initial response to your posting.

[Redleg Duke]

This is all the RATS have.

[browardchad]

Before this invasion Iraq was one of the most educated countries in the ME.

With a 58% literacy rate?

Iraq is only slightly better than Egypt (51%), and way behind Iran (72%) or Saudi Arabia (78%). And even if it were true that Iraq was "one of the most educated" (which it isn't), does "before the invasion" imply that they suddenly lost their education in two months? Was it looted, perhaps?

[dsutah]

And Saddam wasn't? Just what 'world' do you think Bush is trying to take over? You say you voted for him. Didn't you know what he was all about before you voted? Pretty much all of us who voted for him did! I don't believe there's any reason to stop supporting him!

He's done a lot of what he promised! Oh, and in case you forgot; there was an event on Sept. 11, 2001. Haven't you noticed that there have been no major terror attacks since then? And all this courtesy of good ol' 'war-mongering' GWB!

Yeah, a lot of us have good reason to trust him in this war on terror. You want to know why? Because most everything he's promised came true! Not only that, there are a good many Democrats and others who also believe he's done a good job on this; even though they otherwise do not support him!

And, most of the military are big fans of his. Why would this be, if he is as you say he is? Gosh, I guess that most of our military, and most of our veterans, must be all 'world domineering war-mongers' too! Good grief, is that the way you truly think of them?

Think of what you're writing! If you didn't intend to give that impression, then please do clarify yourself! I'm sorry, but I have a hard time believing you ever voted for him; because you wouldn't turn against him that drastically, and that quickly!

[oreolady]

I truly pray, Linda, that you will consider the factual information on this site, you seem like a well-informed person that may have been mislead with some of the anti-Bush spin.
There is a lot ot be learned here, but your statement about Hussein containing, or keeping control over the Shia disturbs me.
Isn't there enough evidence to prove to you his (sadam's)brutal methods of "controlling" people in itself is reason enough to justify the "invasion"?
You know, the old do unto others thing?
If these methods were approved by the world, is anyone safe, especially in another country?
Maybe you will feel more secure in this president as more evidence is uncovered. Did you question Clinton when he bombed Kosovo?
Also, consider that it took 7 YEARS to get Germany established and rebuilt with a functioning government after WW2. It has only been a few short weeks since rebuilding even began, unlike the media hype talks about. No thinking person could even consider forming a working system in that few weeks.
Keep asking questions, tho, NEVER just believe one source!!!
Especially the sensational-seeking media. Consider all the lies uncovered by several networks of late.

[TomB]

Before continuing to spout, you might want to respond to all the posts to you. It bad form to just drone on and on without dissusion.

That said, I'll continue:

One thing about Saddam he kept the Shiite's in line. As someone so rightfully said, he kept them in line with a boot to their throat.

Yea. 'At least the trains ran on time', eh? Using your increasingly tenuous "logic", I could support every totalitarian regieme in the world because, by their very nature, crime and dissent is low. Of course, it is easy to reduce crime and stamp out dissent when you remove all rights from the people.

Before this invasion Iraq was one of the most educated countries in the ME.

So, by your definition, Cubans are better off under Castro, rather than free.

Is that actually what you want to say?

[TomB]

Why bother trying, Linda? These people are all True Believers. Their idea of a discussion is to just keep pumping each other up.

Not a lot of "pumping each other up" on this thread, Seti, but a lot of facts and logic.

However, I notice that your idea of discussion is posting and running away.

[cgk]

bttt for a fine analysis, again.

[cgk]

That seems to be the MO of many a "FReeper" lately. Methinks it's lots of libertarians or leftists posing as conservatives on some issues while showing their cards on others. Usually where it's most telling - which is why I keep seeing hit and run posts.

[BigWaveBetty]

So the much smarter than the Bush Administration, UNMOVIC was duped too? Funny how dims have forgotten all this:

According to UNMOVIC's paper on unresolved disarmament issues (6 March 2003):

"The Sulphur Mustard contained in artillery shells that had been stored for over 12 years, had been found by UNMOVIC to be still of high purity. It is possible that viable Mustard filled artillery shells and aerial bombs still remain in Iraq."

Iraq deployed three biological agents in weapons in 1991.

Anthrax spores have a half life of decades, Aflatoxin at least ten years. Smallpox, a suspected agent within its arsenal, has a shelf life of decades.

Iraq has yet to provide a credible account of its biological weapons programme nor has it demonstrated that the programme has been terminated.

As with chemical weapons Iraq has the knowledge and expertise to produce weapons at short notice.

Before July 1995, Iraq had denied having any offensive biological weapons programme and admitted only to having conducted a military research programme. More at link

[TomB]

Well, it looks like "Linda" just crawled out from under a rock to take a dump and run. She doesn't have much more of a presence around here. And looking at "Seti"'s posting history, he's just a typical bomb thrower, making one inflammatory post and running away.

Cowards.

[KC_for_Freedom]

I always expected the information regarding WMD to only come out after the Rats begin accusing.

I still believe they will find them, and it could come at a time when the rats are way out on that limb they are using. Then the question will be whether W saved the "find" to maximize the political impact.

To me the question is mute, once we start finding things, we will have a new discovery every month or so right up to the election. (way to go W)

[Kaslin]

The leftwingers will never get it. They will always turn a blind eye if their side is involved

[Kaslin]

Again, the Democrats want people to believe that either Bush deliberately lied about Iraq's WMD, and/or that our and other countries intel services make things up, rather than that Saddam hid his WMD, after all he had plenty of time.

The question really boils down to: "Do you believe Bush or Saddam?"

And the Democrats are united in believing and protecting Saddam, over the US.

They say when we find WMD that Bush planted them. They forget that we could have done so already several times.

[Jeeper]

This is Free Republic. What you describe to Linda happens on Democratic Underground, not here. You are free to say whatever you like without being cut off, but you have to be able to defend it with fact, logic and reason. You people were wrong about the plan, the aftermath, and will be wrong at the end of this thing, again. That is what prompted the responses to Linda. If you want one sided discussions where you are not free to present a different opinion, try democratic underground.