28 minutes ago
 |
Add Politics - AP to My Yahoo! |
Posted on 04/24/2003 2:37:36 PM PDT by A Vast RightWing Conspirator
|
28 minutes ago
|
|
By RON FOURNIER, AP White House Correspondent
LIMA, Ohio - President Bush (news - web sites) raised the possibility Thursday that any Iraqi weapons of mass destruction were destroyed before or during the U.S.-led war, suggesting for the first time that coalition troops may come up empty in their search.
|
||||||||||||||||||
Bush, who is expected to mark the end of hostilities soon, defied much of the world to wage war against Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) in a bid to rid Iraq (news - web sites) of weapons of mass destruction. Iraqi leaders asserted the nation had none, and an intensive search by coalition forces has uncovered no proof so far of chemical or biological weapons or a nuclear weapons program.
"He tried to fool the United Nations (news - web sites) and did for 12 years by hiding these weapons. And so it's going to take time to find them," the president said at the Lima Army Tank Plant. "But we know he had them. And whether he destroyed them, moved them or hid them, we're going to find out the truth."
Senior administration officials began this week to scale back expectations that weapons of mass destruction would be found. Bush's spokesman, Ari Fleischer (news - web sites), said Wednesday that success of the search effort depends "not on finding something by bumping into it" but on information provided by Iraqis who might have been involved in such programs.
A senior administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Bush's remarks were based on information from at least one Iraqi scientist who has led coalition forces to materials used in the production of weapons of mass destruction and who has said some weapons were destroyed before the war, others perhaps afterward.
It is believed that some weapons may have been removed from Iraq, and some probably remain, the official said.
France, Russia and other allies opposed to the war want U.N. inspectors to verify any evidence of weapons uncovered by the United States. The Bush administration has refused, saying coalition forces are more efficient.
Bush did not say how likely it was that weapons had been destroyed, rather than hidden and perhaps soon to be uncovered.
"One thing's for certain, Saddam Hussein no longer threatens America with weapons of mass destruction," he said.
Troops on the ground have searched more than 80 sites that prewar U.S. intelligence judged the most likely hiding places for chemical and biological weapons as well as evidence of an Iraqi nuclear program. After a recent strategy shift, teams are now setting aside the search list and deciding where to go more on the basis of new information from Iraqis.
Bush's remarks came at the end of a politically charged three-city visit to Ohio, one of a dozen or so states that will be closely contested in the 2004 presidential election. Bush hopes to convert his wartime popularity into successes in Congress — particularly with his troubled $726 billion economic package.
Bush hoped to pressure Ohio Sen. George Voinovich (news, bio, voting record), a Republican who derailed the White House tax package by refusing to back cuts of more than $350 billion.
Voinovich briefly greeted Bush at the airport in Dayton but he did not attend the president's speeches nor bow to White House demands.
"I think he knows where I'm at," the senator said of Bush.
The president made his disappointment clear.
"Some in Congress say the plan is too big. Well, it seems like to me they might have some explaining to do. If they agree that tax relief creates jobs, then why are they for a little bitty tax relief package?" Bush said.
Democrats said Bush's plan favors the rich and offers low- and middle-income Americans a few hundred dollars in savings.
"For people who need prescription drugs or health insurance, that's a drop in the bucket," Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones (news, bio, voting record), D-Ohio, said.
While aides said it was not yet time to declare victory in Iraq, the president nearly jumped the gun.
"We fought a war in Afghanistan (news - web sites), and now we have finished a war," Bush said in North Canton before catching himself and adding, "in the process of finishing a war in Iraq."
Several administration officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said they expect commanding Gen. Tommy Franks to declare the hostilities over in a few days, paving the way for a presidential address as early as next week that would wrap up the war.
Separately, Bush plans to travel to Dearborn, Mich., on Monday to discuss the future of a newly liberated Iraq. The Detroit suburb is home to one of the nation's largest Arab communities.
While visiting the Lima plant, Bush put a positive spin on reports that some Iraqi factions do not welcome U.S. troops and that an Iranian-style theocracy may grow to power.
"In Iraq, there's discussion, debate, protest — all the hallmarks of liberty," Bush said. "The path to freedom may not always be neat and orderly, but it is the right of every person and every nation."
Of course, they are privy to security briefings...
Come to think of it, it's been fairly quiet there all along. You know Hillary would be standing up on her senator's desk about this and it isn't fear of the 77% in the polls keeping them quiet. Who is still talking about WMDs aside from a few bloggers and DUers and Saloners and callers to talk-radio and a mere handful of thoughtful posters on FR?
You are the disinformation specialist here. Why would Saddam go through 12 years of UN sanctions if he wasn't hiding WMD? Where is your logic on this?? 99% of them may have been destroyed or moved to Syria but he still had them months ago and years ago. Contrary to the terms of the 1991 surrender. We'll still find them though. Saddam was too sloppy.
Already you forget Saddam's track record of using poison gas in war.
Well heck as long as we get a good scapeg..., I mean a high level Iraqi official, to put on trial.
Not true. Not even close.
We've indentified the C&C for the systems and have recorded evidence of the commands. We've also indentified the delivery systems and residue.
What's missing to this point are the active ingredients and the manufacturing equipment. Since the manufacturing equipment can be dual use they are going to be hard to identify.
So what you're really saying is that we haven't found significant amounts of weapons grade biologics or chemicals
In this you are correct but that's a long stretch from "No WMD's were found" .
Can we recall why Iraq was invaded? Wasn't it because Saddam's WMD were endangering our freedom? If WMDs aren't found... could it mean that Iraq was not posing a danger to our national security? And, if that's the case... why waste 138 Americans and $80 billion?
I listen to the 7 a.m. military briefing once or twice per week and there's always a reporter asking the WMD question and the answer is always 'not yet' but... maybe soon...
I agree. Although I supported the war in Iraq and would have done so without all of the WMD rhetoric, Bush committed himself here. I fully believe that if WMD's are not found and the economy continues to falter Bush II could be closely following the blueprint of Bush I, which would be sad.
Why is that again? Without the WMDs, how would Iraq have presented a threat to our national safety? I think nations that have burgeoning nuclear weapons programs are a bit more of a threat. Of course we're giving them 40,000 tons of food a year
Those chem- and bio-weapons weren't that much of a problem. Sure, terrorists could have some fun with them and disrupt a lot of lives. But the nuclear bomb program was too much. The almost certain nuclear exchange between Israel and Iraq would have been horrific in itself and might have sucked others into the maelstrom through treaties. Just a matter of time. It's much better this way.
Good point.
I was speaking to the rhetoric regarding WMD which will be harped on by a significant percentage of the American public and the world community. I fully believe that Saddam has produced WMD's in the past and has supported international terrorism and would continue to do so without our intervention. That is a significant enough threat to our national security to justify what was done here whether or not WMD's are found at this point in time.
I don't think that this precludes us from dealing with nations with burgeoning nuclear weapons programs, as necessary.
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.
