Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bush: Kay Report Vindicates Iraq War
Fox ^ | 10/3/03 | Sharon Kehnemui and AP

Posted on 10/03/2003 2:17:22 PM PDT by truthandlife

Edited on 04/22/2004 12:37:20 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

After maintaining a low profile while his chief inspector fielded questions, President Bush came out swinging Friday, saying David Kay's (search) interim report demonstrates that the war against Iraq was just and necessary.

"The report states that Saddam Hussein's regime had a clandestine network of biological laboratories, a live strain of deadly agent botulinum (search), sophisticated concealment efforts and advanced design work on prohibited longer-range missiles," Bush said while standing in front of Marine One before leaving for Milwaukee to attend a fund-raiser and deliver a speech expected to tout new job numbers.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

TOPICS: Extended News; Front Page News
KEYWORDS: bush; davidkay; iraq; johnwarner; report; wmd
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-40 next last

1 posted on 10/03/2003 2:17:23 PM PDT by truthandlife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: truthandlife
Too bad the media and the Democrats won't read it.
2 posted on 10/03/2003 2:18:16 PM PDT by My2Cents (Well...there you go again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All



Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at

STOP BY A BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD (It's in the Breaking News sidebar!)

3 posted on 10/03/2003 2:20:28 PM PDT by Support Free Republic (Your support keeps Free Republic going strong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: truthandlife
There are some people who will simply refuse to draw the conclusions that their senses are presenting to them. I am reminded of the witticism of Rep. (now Senator) Paul Sarbanes of Maryland who, during the HOuse Impeachment Hearings in 1974, criticized the failure of the witnesses to reach logical conclusions this way, "You are the sort of person who, if an elephant were to enter this room, would say that it is a mouse with a glandular condition."
4 posted on 10/03/2003 2:23:28 PM PDT by Remole
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: truthandlife
Ho come this botulin business isn't getting bigger play?

Did the guy produce it in his home?

5 posted on 10/03/2003 2:28:31 PM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: truthandlife
After the meeting, Pelosi said Kay's report shows that no imminent threat was posed by Saddam Hussein toward the United States

Well Nancy. we'll try to be more careful next time and make sure that the weapons are actually being used against us before we take any action.

What is it about preemption that the Dems don't understand? As we all know but has somehow escaped Pelosi's notice: Bush never claimed that Saddam was an immenent threat. Sometimes I think they hear the word PREEMPTION and mentally substitute the word IMMINENT. The policy is not to wait for an imminent threat. The policy is to strike preemptively against future threats. All the better to to avoid losing 3000 people in one shot by some wacko Islamic fanatic.

The Dems are not only foolish and irresponsible - they are downright scary.

6 posted on 10/03/2003 2:29:09 PM PDT by InterceptPoint
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: truthandlife
Pelosi said Kay's report shows that no imminent threat was posed by Saddam Hussein toward the United States.

Someone needs to remind Ms. Botox of Bush's words -- that we should NOT wait until the threat is imminent.

7 posted on 10/03/2003 2:30:41 PM PDT by jae471
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: InterceptPoint
Speaking of foolish and irresponsible, did Bryd and Kennedy ever hold that press conference today? (stuck in office with no tv/radio here)
8 posted on 10/03/2003 2:31:23 PM PDT by noexcuses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: truthandlife; MJY1288; Calpernia; Grampa Dave; anniegetyourgun; Ernest_at_the_Beach; ...
"In my opinion, there was one weapon of mass destruction in Iraq, and it was Saddam Hussein," Kerik said.

"I understand probably more than anyone what a threat Iraq was ... I was beneath the towers on September 11th when they fell. And I again want to thank the president for the honor in allowing me to go there, because I lost 23 people ... They were defending the freedom of our country. I got to go on their behalf to Iraq to bring freedom to Iraq and take one less threat away from us in this country."

Adults are in charge, ping!

Remarks by the President After a Meeting with Former New York City Police Commissioner Bernard Kerick

 Thanks, Tonkin!

If you want on or off my Pro-Coalition ping list, please Freepmail me. Warning: it is a high volume ping list on good days. (Most days are good days).

9 posted on 10/03/2003 2:35:40 PM PDT by Ragtime Cowgirl (THE PRESIDENT: Bernie, you're a good man. MR. KERICK: Thank you, Mr. President. WH, 10/3)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: noexcuses
Yes they did.... I just saw a clip of them speaking today on Fox... they said....."no imminent threat "
10 posted on 10/03/2003 2:38:06 PM PDT by Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: truthandlife
>>agent botulinum <<

This is a WMD. If they found this, isn't it just what we were looking for??
Where is it??
11 posted on 10/03/2003 2:40:28 PM PDT by netmilsmom (Just because they're moving their lips doesn't mean they have anything to say)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: truthandlife
I don't know how this white house works. This is not the time to be sending Bush out to push a story, this Kay stuff, the good jobs report today, none of it will get any press with the Arnold and Rush stuff going on. Why didn't they wait until next week? Is Karl Rove running this show, or is he asleep?
12 posted on 10/03/2003 2:40:53 PM PDT by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: truthandlife
As Ann Coulter kept saying in her speech Wednesday night at UNC, "Not enough evidence to convince the OJ jury" with regards to the left and the war in Iraq.
13 posted on 10/03/2003 2:41:59 PM PDT by Phantom Lord (Distributor of Pain, Your Loss Becomes My Gain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: truthandlife
If I understand a certain person's analysis, it's not possible that any of this is true, since Bush said they had 30,000 munitions and they haven't been found. Therefore, it logically follows all of the things Kay cites can automatically be explained in some way not involving WMD's, or we planted them. Anyone who thinks differently just won't admit reality. It also follows Al Qaeda connections aren't true or don't matter.
14 posted on 10/03/2003 2:43:12 PM PDT by lasereye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: truthandlife
Who are we to believe, the President or the swimmer and the kkk man?
15 posted on 10/03/2003 2:56:41 PM PDT by OldFriend (DEMS INHABIT A PARALLEL UNIVERSE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: truthandlife
"Because of a lack of imminence of a threat, it is clear that there was time for more diplomatic efforts to be made before we went to war," she said

Nancy, Nancy. Let's go over it again. The ONLY reason that Saddam let UN inspectors back into what was then very much "his" country is because the mighty US military was massing on his borders and shores. The military was in those locations for quite some time while Powell and Co. danced with Blix and Chirac at the UN.

I know it's a challenge for you to understand Nancy, but most humans have a level of something called morale. And prolonged sitting on the borders was guaranteed or had even started to effect the morale of our troops. Not an ideal situation especially if you need your soldiers, sailors and Marines to be an effective fighting unit.

Additionally, there's the little matter of the COST of keeping them there. As a Democrat that's usually one of your first objections or talking points that you raise with Republicans and I wonder why you so conveniently ignore the topic in this instance? Hmmm, you Democrats sure are funny that way.

Nancy, I don't want to have to explain this again. You are a big girl and more capable of reasoned thought than your party tells you. Now, shape UP!!


16 posted on 10/03/2003 3:00:36 PM PDT by prairiebreeze (It's about the trip to Niger and the uranium report. Not the wife's name or job title.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: truthandlife
Once again, the headline does not match the story (not blaming the poster, obviously, blaming the press for their headine). I pointed this out on two stories from yesterday about the Kay report. This headline is perhaps the sneakiest of all, because it appears to make the President look good.

Why is this wrong? Because it implies that the whole war hinged on WMD. It did not. And it implies that Bush was claiming that the finding of WMD proves that the war was necessary. He did not. He merely said that evidence was found that shows Hussein was dangerous.

So why is the headline so sneaky? Because it makes Bush look defensive, when he has not been. Anything to make him appear weak, the press and their string-pullers will do.

Did anyone else have trouble with this headline? I know it's par for the course for misleading headlines, but this is about something important, as it involves our soldiers putting their lives on the line.

17 posted on 10/03/2003 3:03:23 PM PDT by TrappedInLiberalHell (Hillary walks into a bar. Let's hope it leaves a nice bump on her forehead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: truthandlife
"And what that reinforces is the need for the investigation to be completed into our intelligence ... how -- at least based on this interim report -- it could have been so far off and ... whether or not it was exaggerated or whether or not it was hyped, either by the intelligence community or by the users of that intelligence."

Perhaps Sen. Carl Levin has been confused by his own party's rhetoric . . .

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity
to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver
them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is
clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of
mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from here, but what happens there matters a
great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use
nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the
greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has
ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser,Feb, 18, 1998

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with
the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if
appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond
effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of
mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of
mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the
region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of
mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his
weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear
programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In
addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless
using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles
that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant
and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored
the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass
destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and
chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to
deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and
developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We
are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical
and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash
course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities.
Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the
authority to use force-if necessary-to disarm Saddam Hussein because I
believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands
is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working
aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear
weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we
have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of
weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockeffer (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11
years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and
destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This
he has refused to do"
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports
show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological
weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program.
He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al
Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam
Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and
chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence
that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing
capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous
dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous
threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ...
And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued
deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ...
So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

18 posted on 10/03/2003 3:04:46 PM PDT by BraveMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TrappedInLiberalHell
the headline does not match the story

Understand but rememember it is Fox News. They have been more pro-war than anybody. I like Fox but sometimes I think they put out stories just to appease conservatives.

19 posted on 10/03/2003 3:09:21 PM PDT by truthandlife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: truthandlife
True, but it looks like it came from the AP originally. How do we know who wrote the headline? Is a news organization allowed (or compelled) to change a headline on a wire story? If it's Fox News' headline then it's just lazy headline-writing, or, as you say, appeasement. In any case, it does not reflect the substance of the story.
20 posted on 10/03/2003 3:15:07 PM PDT by TrappedInLiberalHell (Hillary walks into a bar. Let's hope it leaves a nice bump on her forehead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-40 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson