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."
On the other hand, maybe we shouldn't have messed around with the UN for 6 months, giving Saddam plenty of time, to hide/move/destroy the WMD.
Everyone knows he had them. The only question is, what happened to them and when?
And that has what to do with the way the Dems are scurrying about trying to find some reason, however small, to criticize the President of the United States?
Oh, it has nothing to do with it. I see.
Now that they've gotten what they wanted, and in an obvious attempt to regain credibility, suddenly they're questioning what they once accepted as gospel.
Whores.
So it has nothing to do with RATS and liberals.
Its the opposition trying to use a perceived weakness to get power. Its politics.
So it's not libs vs conservatives but those out of power inflicting abuse on those in power. Style over substance. Opportunity vs core beliefs. Both ideologies engaged in the politics of personal destruction.
I thought the above was always reserved for the libs.
Exactly. IMHO, that's an explanation people will understand and respect.
The Bush people have long memories. It made me quite happy to see Kristol with egg on his face.
Only one problem with this. If the program was as large as claimed and photo documented, it would have been impossible to move without our satellites seeing it. Small quantities, possibly, but as large as it was being sold, no. Those birds can see the boils on my butt......they certainly can see WMD's being moved.
Everyone knows he had them. The only question is, what happened to them and when?
Agreed. We do know he had them. But if he had them 10 years ago, but not three years ago, then our raids, based on the evidence presented was under a false premise. When pressed on when Saddam last had them, most answers are from years ago. Conservative commentators are now using Clinton's 98 fly over runs as evidence that in 98 people seemed to believe they existed. Only problem with that defense is conservatives claimed at that time Clinton was wagging the dog and it was 5 years ago. So they are saying that what was a false premise is now proof they existed? Remember, when Clinton's raids occurred, we said it was wagging the dog. And how much has changed in the world in the last 5 years. Hardly a valid time comparison.
Not in Britain.
So it's not libs vs conservatives but those out of power inflicting abuse on those in power.
Perhaps you can show us where the Republicans doubted the WMD capability of Iraq during the Clinton administration?
The politics of personal destruction know no ideology limits.
Except we didn't say he might have them again. We said he had them. And would use them. And we knew approximately how many and how much. So that "maybe" no longer can fly.
As I understood it we said we knew he previously had WMD and approximately how much. He refused to produce documentation (per the ceasefire agreement) of their destruction. And we know he's used WMD's on his own people in the past.
Based upon those three statements, the only reasonable conclusion one can draw is that he still had WMDs and was still willing to use them. Why else would he thwart UN inspectors' efforts at every turn?
Of course it's close enough for you, but not for many others. We are specifically dealing with assertions of the Clinton administration of Iraq's WMDs. I know of nobody in the Republican party in Washington who doubted Hussein was producing and storing them in the Clinton years. The claims of "wag the dog" came about because of the timings of the strikes and the complete ineffectiveness of them, not because anyone doubted the WMD claims.
Howver, I noticed you seem to be basing your argument on the fact that WMDs were the ONLY reason this administration gave for going into Iraq. Do you have any evidence for that assertion?
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.