Posted on 10/07/2004 4:11:59 PM PDT by areafiftyone
WASHINGTON - President Bush (news - web sites) and his vice president conceded Thursday in the clearest terms yet that Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) had no weapons of mass destruction, even as they tried to shift the Iraq (news - web sites) war debate to a new issue — whether the invasion was justified because Saddam was abusing a U.N. oil-for-food program.
Ridiculing the Bush administration's evolving rationale for war, Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry (news - web sites) shot back: "You don't make up or find reasons to go to war after the fact."
Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites) brushed aside the central findings of chief U.S. weapons hunter Charles ' — that Saddam not only had no weapons of mass destruction and had not made any since 1991, but that he had no capability of making any either — while Bush unapologetically defended his decision to invade Iraq.
"The Duelfer report showed that Saddam was systematically gaming the system, using the U.N. oil-for-food program to try to influence countries and companies in an effort to undermine sanctions," Bush said as he prepared to fly to campaign events in Wisconsin. "He was doing so with the intent of restarting his weapons program once the world looked away."
Duelfer found no formal plan by Saddam to resume WMD production, but the inspector surmised that Saddam intended to do so if U.N. sanctions were lifted. Bush seized upon that inference, using the word "intent" three times in reference to Saddam's plans to resume making weapons.
This week marks the first time that the Bush administration has listed abuses in the oil-for-fuel program as an Iraq war rationale. But the strategy holds risks because some of the countries that could be implicated include U.S. allies, such as Poland, Jordan and Egypt. In addition, the United States itself played a significant role in both the creation of the program and how it was operated and overseen.
For his part, Cheney dismissed the significance of Duelfer's central findings, telling supporters in Miami, "The headlines all say `no weapons of mass destruction stockpiled in Baghdad.' We already knew that."
The vice president said he found other parts of the report "more intriguing," including the finding that Saddam's main goal was the removal of international sanctions.
"As soon as the sanctions were lifted, he had every intention of going back" to his weapons program, Cheney said.
The report underscored that "delay, defer, wait, wasn't an option," Cheney said. And he told a later forum in Fort Myers, Fla., speaking of the oil-for-food program: "The sanctions regime was coming apart at the seams. Saddam perverted that whole thing and generated billions of dollars."
Yet Bush and Cheney acknowledged more definitively than before that Saddam did not have the banned weapons that both men had asserted he did — and had cited as the major justification before attacking Iraq in March 2003.
Bush has recently left the question open. For example, when asked in June whether he thought such weapons had existed in Iraq, Bush said he would "wait until Charlie (Duelfer) gets back with the final report."
In July, Bush said, "We have not found stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction," a sentence construction that kept alive the possibility the weapons might yet be discovered.
On Thursday, the president used the clearest language to date nailing the question shut:
"Iraq did not have the weapons that our intelligence believed were there," Bush said. His words placed the blame on U.S. intelligence agencies.
In recent weeks, Cheney has glossed over the primary justification for the war, most often by simply not mentioning it. But in late January 2004, Cheney told reporters in Rome: "There's still work to be done to ascertain exactly what's there."
"The jury is still out," he told National Public Radio the same week, when asked whether Iraq had possessed banned weapons.
Duelfer's report was presented Wednesday to senators and the public with less than four weeks left in a fierce presidential campaign dominated by questions about Iraq and the war on terror.
In Bayonne, N.J., Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards (news - web sites) on Thursday called "amazing" Cheney's assertions that the Duelfer report justified rather than undermined Bush's decision to go to war, and he accused the Republican of using "convoluted logic."
Kerry, in a campaign appearance in Colorado, said: "The president of the United States and the vice president of the United States may well be the last two people on the planet who won't face the truth about Iraq."
A short time later, while campaigning in Wisconsin, Bush angrily responded to Kerry's charge he sought to "make up" a reason for war.
"He's claiming I misled America about weapons when he, himself, cited the very same intelligence about Saddam weapons programs as the reason he voted to go to war," Bush said. Citing a lengthy Kerry quote from two years ago on the menace Saddam could pose, Bush said: "Just who's the one trying to mislead the American people?"
Where did I see that name before? (thanks for the dig, Navydog; sorry about the pulled dup thread)
That is all true and add to that the 350 Million siphoned from the "Oil for WMD, leave the children starving program" and he was set to wait out the sanctions and inspectors and come back full bore whenever he wanted.
It's the pattern of a flip-flopping opportunist with no core values whatsoever.
IMHO Kerry is so unprincipled that he is virtually souless.
The byline is that of Scott Lindlaw . . . the AP "reporter"
who claimed that the crowd booed when Bush wished Clinton well while announcing his upcoming heart procedure. Lindlaw has also stated that it is his mission to see that Bush is defeated.
Why did the White House let this stuff out now and not after the election?
WMD was never anything but a secondary issue for me. Saddam was supporting terrorists of all stripes, from the kids blowing up buses in Israel to Mr. Zarqawi to the guy who hijacked the Achille Lauro. It was always quite a stretch to think Saddam would have studiously avoided Al Qaeda...
"...because I just know with metaphysical certitude back here in 1989 with my people NOT meeting up with theirs in the Sudan NOT under the brokering of Hassan al Turabi that on 9/11/01 Al Qaeda will attack the U.S., 10 years after the first Gulf War that I already know about 2 years in advance -- and that NONE, say again, NONE -- of these other terror orgs will, meaning I can openly embrace them all but not Al Qaeda because I know back here in the mid 90's who will win the 2000 election and he will come after me.
No, I would never, ever, ever, EVER have any dealings with Al Qaeda, even though they will cause major pain to a mortal enemy and thus prove they are the only group effective enough to possibly cause the U.S. to withdraw entirely from the Middle East so I can have free reign over the entire region, and even though I've seen how the Americans always run when they get a bloody nose. No, no, what possible benefits are there for me if I support Al Qaeda?
Even though their great leader Osama will hide from the Americans so well that the squeamish soccer moms will still think he's alive even after no-one will have seen any pictures of him for nearly 3 years after the early fighting in Afghanistan, and these soccer moms (a name that can be applied to many American pathetic excuses for men as well) fearing a dead man they want to appease, may very well cause a weak and indecisive man who is afraid to fight to be elected president who will think he can cut deals with me like that other useful idiot, Jimmy Carter. No, I don't want a pliable man like that in Washington who is eager to let me fool him. How will that help me? No, no!
What gain is there for me to support Al Qaeda?
Hezbollah, Hamas, Martyrs Brigade, Islamic Jihad, bring them ALL on! Come to my terrorist candy store. Money, weapons, bombs, WMD to not support that non-plot to use chemical weapons in Jordan that will not be foiled in 2004, anything! You want it, I got it! Come one, come all!
EXCEPT AL QAEDA. No, no, Osama -- you stay AWAY from Iraq! You will only help me realize my goal of regional domination! Why would I, Saddam Hussein, want such a thing?"
THAT'S where I saw the name.
At this very moment I'm watching a cable show on how Iraqis got centrifuge expertise, material, skull furnaces, the whole nine yards from Germany. They were trying to build an atom bomb. I fail to see why Kerry and company can rant and rave about Saddam's peaceful intentions in the light of public information of this sort. The Germans were selling nuclear capability to the highest bidder 24/7, including to Pakistan, who were paranoid about India and Kashmir.
Saddam may not be presently building nukes, but neither is he filling mass graves with the bodies of women and children. We were right to go in and stop the atrocities. If we had not, the vast liberal media would be excoriating the US for its failure to act while all the horrible things were taking place.
"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
"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 Rockefeller (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
"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
"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002
"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003
"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction."- Senator Patty "Osama Mama" Murray, October 9, 2002
"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002
Speaking about the WMD's, "The consensus was the same, from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration, It was the same intelligence belief that our allies and friends around the world shared." -Senator Hillary Clinton, April 20, 2004 on Larry King Live
Thanks a lot for more quotes. I'm composing an article for our local paper.
I am totally baffled as to why The Bush administration doesn't use this material. Its absolutely damning. He should call a press conference in the morning and pass out copies of the material in this thread and stand behind his podium and read every last bit of this information!
Becky,
I am beginning to believe that this Bush administration, like the first Bush administration, is showing signs of NOT WANTING to be re-elected.
First, there was the gratuitous diminishing of debate expectations of John Kerry by that genius, Karl Rove, at the same time that the mainstream media was allowed to build up expectations for W without a challenge from the White House.
Now, there is this stupid admission of something that may not even be true. Why on earth the Bush people think this will help anything is beyond me. It gives credibility to Lurch's claim that the war was just a big mistake
Republicans cannot win by being courtly and deferential. They have to learn to fight.
I think we may be disappointed in the election results next month, after all. I can already hear what all the talking points of Rather, Matthews, Brokaw, et. al. will be for the next week, just as the focus was shifting from Iraq to the improving economy.
Please. Somebody, give me some hope that this admission from the administration didn't just snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Thanks..I just sent a copy to everybody I could think of.
BTW..I think Bush is going to eat Kerry alive on Friday.
Did you get the post from COEXERJ145? He added a lot more quotes, enough to make you dizzy!
Yep. The truth of the matter is EVERY ONE thought Iraq HAD WMD. That was reason enough to go after Saddam Hussein at the time. I don't care that some bureaucrat now says our intelligence was faulty. If the evaluation was wrong, then the President's opponents were fooled too. The media is never going to admit this since they are a Kerry transcript service. It wasn't about removing Saddam from power though it made us safer. It was about making sure a dictator did not acquire the means to make American cities a pile of radioactive rubble. In these dangerous times, the partisan media and the man it supports doesn't understand what was - and is still at stake in a post-9/11 world.
If you dig in to the report, you find that:
(1) Saddam had every intention of restarting his WMD programs as soon as the sanctions were gone. The nuclear scientists were there, the biological lab people were there, much of the infrastructure was intact, or in pieces and hidden securely away.
(2) The sanctions were eroding as early as 1999, and likely would not have lasted much longer.
(3) Massive bribery of government people in France and other countries, including parts of Chirac's inner circle, was the reason for (2).
(4) Bribery of _journalists_ ensured coverage of the sanctions was slanted in the way Saddam wanted it. I wonder why the MSM does not want to highlight this part, eh?
(5) The money for the bribes in (3) and (4) came right out of the oil-for-food program. Wonder why the MSM does not want to highlight this?
Folks, you really need to stop relying on the same people who are calling Dan Rather a journalist for information on this scandal. The pajamadheen are on this...little green footballs has info, Clayton Cramer has been reading and posting impressive facts http://www.claytoncramer.com/weblog/blogger.html and I'm sure there are others.
Excellent point. Saddam's gassing of the Iranians and the Kurds' in the 80s go down the Orwellian memory hole. My response to the Dueffler report is a simple one: If Saddam had NO WMDs, why did he violate 16 years of UN resolutions and block the work of the inspectors at every stage? That's not the behavior of someone who's innocent. The British said he was acquiring uranium from Africa. All of this is ignored by the report as well as the fact every intelligence agency on the planet agreed about Iraq's nuclear ambitions. Re-writing history doesn't change the reality that we faced.
We haven't found WMD yet. That doesn't mean Iraq didn't pursue a long-range plan to acquire them. What happened to the WMD? Its one of those of mysteries that may never be solved and its flatly irresponsible to state we know for sure Saddam was benign. The entire history of his regime argued otherwise.
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.