Kristol: Bush Made Misstatements on Iraq WMDs

Newsmax ^ | 06/08/03 | Carl Limbacher

[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."

[joesbucks]

The 'RATS will do any thing to make President Bush look bad.

Funny, but across the pond Blair is receiving some of his harshest criticism from the conservatives, not the liberals of his own party.

[smith288]

Funny, but across the pond Blair is receiving some of his harshest criticism from the conservatives, not the liberals of his own party.

That politics.

[mr.pink]

Right about now, I'm sure the Presdient must be thinking "geez, Pop sure was right about what a sneakey little twerp Kristol is".

I found Kristol's stating that he was skeptical that any WMDs would be found rather remarkable considering how early in the post-war game it still is.

I wonder who he's going to suppport in `04....Kerry, or Hillary?

[section9]

Was Habalja a flu epidemic?

No, and it's important to reassert what happened at Halabja. However, we must recognize that Halabja occured before the Gulf War. Since the Gulf War, Hussein has had to conceal his WMD apparatus, and became extremely good at it.

Apparently, much of their apparatus was dismantled and set aside for when the heat went off. The one thing that tells me that Saddam had a viable WMD program is that his people were distributing MOPP suits with atrazine injectors before the allied invasion. Powell cited this on Tony Snow's program yesterday. Some of his stuff was ready to be used. The difficulty is in the finding of it. I suspect that the Iraqis, being Iraqis, dumped a lot of it in the Euphrates river. There were stories midway in the campaign about high levels of chem that were discovered downriver by U.S. survey teams. That's where I think a lot of the chemical stuff went.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[TomB]

The 'RATS will do any thing to make President Bush look bad.

Funny, but across the pond Blair is receiving some of his harshest criticism from the conservatives, not the liberals of his own party.

"The 'RATS Tories will do anything to make President Bush Prime Minister Blair look bad".

Get it now, joe?

[jwalsh07]

"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."

Did he say this?

Because if he did, there can be only one reason to say it and that is to cast doubt on the assertion that Iraq even had a WMD program.

[jwalsh07]

Yup, mustard gas in the Euphrates.

However, it doesn't matter if they don't find any inventory. The Ba'athists had the technology to manufacture CB weapons at any time, they had the dual use precursors, mobile bio labs and they had demonstrated a willingness to use same and an undying hatred of America.

Even more telling is the fact that the nutter Hussein failed to comply with 1441 demanding he demonstrate that he had destroyed all CB wepaons and dismantled his program. Only one logical reason for that, he hadn't done it prior to I day.

One other thought woth mentioning is that a trip to the Bekaa Valley may be in order for the doubters.

[TomB]

Just saw this linked from a blog. It puts things into perspective:

[robjna]

Bill Kristol is to busy jerking off to the thought of John McCain as president to think clearly

[leftiesareloonie]

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?

Because they genuinely and sincerely BELIEVED that Iraq had WMD. They didn't KNOW it. They didn't have anything like conclusive proof. But they thought that once they went in and took over the country they would find them.

In other words, the play their hunches rather than the evidence. That's not exactly lying. They didn't say what they knew to be false. They said what they believed to be true. But they pretended to KNOW it rather than to merely BELIEVE it.

[roses of sharon]

What they KNEW then and what serious people KNOW now is that Saddam had the scientists, programs, and capibilities to produce chemicals, bio-agents, and nukes.

Thank god that regime is gone, and we are in Iraq. Our intelligence should get better by the day now that we have access to the country and the region as a whole.

The evidence will be made clear in time.

[Quilla]

I have a LOOONG theory of Kristol's trouble-making. I won't post it here....

Miss Marple, I've been an employer for years and over time have developed the knack of spotting a liar. (You know, I didn't come in yesterday because I had to -insert reason here.) Something about Bill Kristol makes me want to label him a liar. Is your theory already posted somewhere and could you point me to it? Or would you be so kind as to share the short version?

[JohnGalt]

This is beginning to look like a well orchestrated hit by the hawks. Kristol will argue that WMDs were never the issue, and it was Bush's fault for justifying the war on irrelevant claims of WMDs.

Mr.Pink, I don't think there will be much choice but to see Rummy removed, as you say, to 'spend more time with his family.'

[snooker]

It's a disease that afflicts media types. Misstatements on purpose.

I doubt Bush misstated anything. The weapons were there. The mystery is what has happened to them.

Personally I think sadman cleaned up the place and left only the tools/facilities to make more. When the storm blows over he would be free to crank up production again. Once the technology is mastered the time to make WMDs is short.

[GB]

Good comments. Things would be much simpler right now if some WMDs would turn up. I still think some might. If they don't, c'est la vie.

The Dems will scream and screech ... they are so filled with hatred for G.W. Bush that it wouldn't matter if he got on TV today and announced that he had personally discovered cures for AIDS, the common cold and halitosis, they'd find something in there to hammer him with. And as long as this is hanging out there, it could very well have a little bit of legs and be a bit problematic for the administration. The folks here who are saying "this is nothing, it's a black hole for the Dems, it's irrelevant and (this one drives my blood pressure up the most because just as the Dems are blinded to their detriment by their hatred for G.W., many on our side are still blinded to their detriment by hatred for Bubba) what about all the lies Clinton told?" need to back up and face reality and get ready to do what needs to be done.

And what needs to be done is for G.W. to get out front and face this stuff head-on and put every card on the table. If no WMDs show up, he needs to stress the point that we were operating by the best intelligence we had, that there was incontrovertable proof that Saddam has had WMDs in the past and that we simply could not take the chance post-9/11 that he might have them again.

Most of all, he needs to drive home this point ... and I'm sorry for shouting ... THIS IS A SAFER AND BETTER WORLD WITHOUT SADDAM HUSSEIN RULING IRAQ!

It's obvious that most of the folks in this country trust G.W., and I submit that this kind of honesty and truthfulness would register and connect, and it would cut the Dems off at the knees and silence their whining, and THEN it would be a dead issue.

[Captain Kirk]

In fairness to Kristol, WMD was never his main concern (though he cynically used the argument as a scare tactic). Kristol is a consisent supporter of war. He backed the Kosovo escapade (and even threatened to defect ro the democrats because of GOP peaceniks) and now he supports this war. His concerns were "national greatness," creating a counterweight to Saudi Arabia, and taking the heat off Israel.

[leftiesareloonie]

I hope you are right. But you may be wrong.

SH could have decided to just let his WMD programs atrophy until sanctions passed. There may not be a single trace of anthrax or chemical agent in the country.

Certainly he had the braintrust to start thiings up again quickly when and if (in his dreams) sanctions were lifted.

But you can see that sanctions had a severe and far reaching effect on everything in Iraq. Their conventional weaponry was a decade and a half out of date, no spare parts, no training. Their oil infrasctructure by all reports is archaic and in disrepair.

Saddam's army was a paper tiger. it wasn't going anywhere on the march anytime soon. Moreover, SH wasn't going to be attacked (he probably thought) by any hostile power anytime soon -- why would he be, since he KNEW that he posed no threat to anyone, except his own populace.

So what really would he believe he NEEDED WMD for at PRESENT?

I'm not saying all this is true. I'm just spinning possible scenarios to illustrate that it's possible -- I won't say likely -- that there isn't anything more than a laboratory quantities of anthrax or vx or any other WMD in Iraq today.

If that turns out to be true, I'm afraid Bush will never live it down.

Again, I've said this before and I'll say it again. IF American troops start dying in even larger numbers in open querilla warfare over there and it turns out that there are no WMD (I think it will take both) then Bush may not even run for re-election, ala LBJ in 1968.

[mr.pink]

This is beginning to look like a well orchestrated hit by the hawks.

Agreed, and I'm sure you're every bit as shocked as I am by their collective duplicity on display, and right at the time the "road map" comes into play. Wow!, who'da' thunk it? ;o)

I don't think there will be much choice but to see Rummy removed, as you say, to 'spend more time with his family.'

LOL...the families of lots of DOD policy wonks need some quality time directed their way.

So now that the neos are throwing another Bush overboard, who do you think they'll align themselves with....Kerry, Sloppy Joe, or Hillary?

[Just mythoughts]

Well this out of the mouth of a Mccain supporter. Why does he not seek election himself and take on the responsibility instead of promoting his self-righteous self above the rest of us?

He is a punk and a deceptive snake in the grass.

[Miss Marple]

Short version (I have documentation for most of this).

Kristol is mostly insterested in causing divisiveness amongst conservatives. Currently he does this by attacking the President when he can get away with it.

Kristol managed to get hired by an unsuspecting Dan Quayle after Dad Bush's pepople wouldn't hire him to work in the White House. They felt he was untrustwowrthy. By the time Kristol managed to get himself promoted to Chief of Staff for Quayle, James Baker wouldn't allow Kristol to sit in on campaign meetings, because he didn't want everything leaked to the press. Quayle in his book says that this was because Baker felt intimidated by Kristol's intellect and leadership. (I personally think this is what Kristol told Quayle, as I cannot imagine Baker being intimidated by much of anyone.)

Kristol also was reponsible for having Quayle insert the "Murphy Brown " phrase into that speech, which ended up making Quuayle a laughing-stock.(Source, Kristol's own words on Britt Hume's show.)

Kristol also was the one who scooped everyone on the Jeffords defection. I am almost positive he was responsible for the defection itself, by carrying tales to Jeffords about how the administration was going to shaft Jeffords (when they had no such intention). When Kristol found out about this defection, he didn't bother to warn Lott or the president, but instead chortled gleefully about it on Brit's show. I saw this myself.

Kristol campaigned for Hubert Humphrey. Now, we all get more conservative as we get older, but he has never really given an account of how he changed his politics.

Oh, and one other thing. Back before he latched onto McCain, Kristol was pushing Colin Powell as the alternative candidate to Governor Bush. Until Powell firmly refused to consider it, Kristol was on a lot of shows and wrote a lot of columns pushing Powell as the ONLY candidate who could defeat Gore. The same Powell that now he castigates at every opportunity, was once his choice to lead the party. I can only conclude that he was desperate to defeat Bush.

I do not trust him. He is a divisive fource in the party, and even if he occasionally agrees with me on some policy matters, I always keep in mind his record of "accomplishments."

There is a lot more, but I hope this will give you a general idea of why I am suspicious of him. Grampa Dave shares my views.