Skip to comments.Kristol: Bush Made Misstatements on Iraq WMDs
Posted on 06/09/2003 3:30:39 AM PDT by joesbucks
Sunday June 8, 2003; 12:56 p.m. EDT
Kristol: Bush Made Misstatements on Iraq WMDs
In comments sure to be seized upon by Bush administration critics at home and abroad, one of the leading proponents of the war in Iraq said Sunday that President Bush may have misstated the case that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction before the U.S. attacked.
"We shouldn't deny, those of us who were hawks, that there could have been misstatements made, I think in good faith," Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol told "Fox News Sunday."
Asked, by whom, the leading Iraq war backer explained, "By the president and the secretary of state, [statements] that will turn out to be erroneous."
Kristol stressed that he didn't believe charges from Bush administration critics that the president had deliberately distorted WMD intelligence.
But the leading neoconservative writer and former chief of staff to Vice President Dan Quayle added, "I hope [the WMDs] are found but I'm very skeptical.
"We have interrogated a lot of people and we haven't found a single person who said he participated in disposing, destroying the stock of weapons of mass destruction. Or in hiding them."
Kristol said that Saddam probably "did bluff a little bit" when it came to acknowledging he possessed WMDs in 1998, saying that "[U.S.] intelligence estimates were wrong, too."
"I don't think we need to be apologetic about the war," Kristol insisted. But he said the U.S.'s inability to uncover significant quantities of Iraqi WMDs means that the war may not have been as necessary and urgent as previously believed.
"People like me, who were hawks, said the war was both just, prudent and urgent," he said. "I think just and prudent - fine. But it is fair to say that if we don't find serious weapons of mass destruction capabilities, the case for urgency, which Bush and Blair certainly articulated, is going to be undercut to some degree."
Kristol, who made his comments just minutes after Secretary of State Colin Powell said on the same broadcast that there was no doubt Saddam had WMDs when the U.S. attacked, did acknowledge, however, "There has been evidence that they had an ongoing weapons of mass destruction program, I think, even if they did not have as large a stock of the weapons as we thought."
From what I have heard, those people also have failed multiple lie detector tests.
Quote - "there could have been misstatements made"
Big difference Carl. Or Carl's editor.
Interesting. I wonder if the administration would submit to polygraph exams to answer whether their statements and the research gathered to support it was intentionally distorted.
Considering there have been people in France, Germany, Britain, the UN, the US, and other countries who have all said Iraq possesed WMDs in the past few years, that would be a long line at the lie detector.
Listen, if they had intentionally distorted, as you seem to be intimating, why didn't they just go all the way and plant the WMD's to begin with?
That's what I heard too. The 'RATS will do any thing to make President Bush look bad. They don't care what kind of damage they cause. They don't give a darn about what is best for our country.
They want President Bush to be perceived as a liar so they can say that x42 wasn't that bad. They are trying to blur the HUGE and I mean HUGE contrast between the character, inherent decencey, and moral up-rightness, of President Bush, and the total lack of character, and morals, of x42.
The Republicans need to counter-act this though, Because the 'RATS live by "repeat a lie often enough and people will beleive its true".
If they want to find the WMD's maybe they should check the UN building in Belgium, or, how about France? They were handing out passports to Saddam's people, What else did they do? While the UN was stumbling ,stalling a faltering, Saddam had PLENTY of time to move and get rid of the stuff. It serves the UN's purposes to make President Bush look bad too. Read the tag line
I think another interpretation is that it's possible that all those that helped were killed so they couldn't give the info...
What I said then was that Kristol was pushing war with Iraq because he didn't think that Bush would do it, especially after he went to the UN. Bill still misreads the President.
Once we went in, he had no choice but to applaud, given the position he staked out. Now he sees his opportiunity to cause trouble and his usual pattern of behavior is resurfacing. He despises Bush, always has, always will. I don't think it is because he supported McCain. I think he supported McCain because he despises Bush.
Sadly, Newsmax blew an opportunity to make an impact, and can no longer be taken seriously.
Good reply, Marple.
When all is said and done, I would not be surprised if a young George W. and an even younger Bill Kristol had a bad run-in at the White House back in Bush I's administration. GW was dad's enforcer. Wouldn't be surprised if he confronted Bill about something embarrassing.
Bill is doing a bit of ass covering so he can maintain some sort of "independence" from Bush's administration. So, he jumps on the press bandwagon about the WMD. This should surprise no one.
Be Seeing You,
The administration may have made good faith errors - after all it's difficult to make predictions with 100% accuracy. But conservatives shouldn't get defensive about it, because it doesn't change the overall decision about the war.
I have no idea why Newsmax distorts as much as they do. I have a hard time taking anything they say seriously.
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.