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."

[mr.pink]

Thank you.

[Quilla]

Wow, thank you. If I recall correctly, early on, there were several leaks coming out of the Bush Administration. The policy may have been unwritten, but leaking was taboo and everyone knew it. I think Kristol postulated on Brit Hume's show that Rudy would become director of Homeland Security - like he had inside information. I believe the Rudy story was indeed told to Kristol and outed him as the leaker.

[MEGoody]

"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."

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?

[MEGoody]

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

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.

[robertpaulsen]

Bill Kristol and the rest of the hawkish (in the Mideast, anyways) neocons wanted war on Iraq. There were willing to accept and use any statement by anyone which gave credence/supported their position.

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.

[joesbucks]

That politics.

So it has nothing to do with RATS and liberals.

[smith288]

So it has nothing to do with RATS and liberals.

Its the opposition trying to use a perceived weakness to get power. Its politics.

[joesbucks]

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

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.

[NittanyLion]

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.

Exactly. IMHO, that's an explanation people will understand and respect.

[roses of sharon]

Bush will be fine, he is a prudent man, and fought a prudent war, and makes prudent decisions. He knows that Islamic terrorism (death cults), can no longer be fought with law enforcement only.

Especially when their supporters now have serious weapons, and unlike the Soviets, could care less if they die.

As for 2004, he does not strike me as a man who cares much about re-election, or he wouldn't take the political risks he does. He does not need power, and would be happy back in Crawford.

And that is exactly why Clinton nor any other American president has had the politcal guts to make decisions for the safety of the US, rather than their political lives.

Iraq failed to live up to its Gulf War I surrender, slaughtered thousands, we righted a wrong, and now we have a foothold in the region.

And there is one less wacko with nuke and bio potential, in the middle east, who could deliver those weapons via suicide cultists to a US city.

[Miss Marple]

You are correct. I think Kristol was set up. This was AFTER the Jeffords defection, keep in mind.

The Bush people have long memories. It made me quite happy to see Kristol with egg on his face.

[joesbucks]

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

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.

[TomB]

I thought the above was always reserved for the libs.

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?

[joesbucks]

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?

The politics of personal destruction know no ideology limits.

[Hostage]

"create the greatest havoc ..."

Kristol did not create any havoc. He is incapable of eliciting anything of substance. He is just trying to be relevant and is unsuccessful in doing so. No one of note listens to this little man. He was chief of staff for VP Dan Quayle where for the most part he was a nobody and still is. For his insignificant chief of staff experience he is chosen from the bottom of a list to fill dead air time or print space.

[joesbucks]

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.

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.

[joesbucks]

You don't remember all the claims of wagging the dog. Making something out of nothing in order to deceive the public. Close enough for me.

[GB]

Ah, the key word ... respect. The majority of people in this country respect President Bush and that's the important factor here. They may have liked Bubba ... I don't disbelieve all those polls about the popular support he had ... but there's a difference between liking someone and respecting them.

[NittanyLion]

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?

[TomB]

You don't remember all the claims of wagging the dog. Making something out of nothing in order to deceive the public. Close enough for me.

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?