Bush Says Iraqi Weapons May Be Destroyed

AP ^ | Apr. 24, 2003 | RON FOURNIER, AP White House Correspondent

[Amerigomag]

'not yet' but... maybe soon...

You're correct but again the question beg's the point: What is the definition of "is"?

The administration has left the impression that Saddam had vast quantiies of chemical and biological agents and an incipient nuclear weapons capabilities. Shame on them for going overboard in their UN presentations.

The truth will probably be that he had modest supplies of CBW's and was working feverishly to refine enough fissionable material for a demonstration weapon.

His pursuit of WMD programs was political, not military. Small quantities of each were sufficient to destabilize the US economy and make his regime mouse proof.

[John Beresford Tipton]

"As I remember the real reason was "Regime Change"

The reason given by Bush to us and to the world was that:
1. Saddam had WMD
2. With his WMD Saddam would do bad things to us and his neighbors
3.Therefore regime change was necessary.

If Bush does not find the WMD it is going to be a disaster for him like the phonied up reason for the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.

[Redcloak]

The WMDs are there. How do I know? Because Saddam and his regime didn't commit suicide just for giggles. They had a reason to resist resolution 1441 literally to the death.

Put yourself in Saddam's shoes. If you have WMDs, you want to keep them if possible. You do this by not allowing the UN inspectors to find them. Thus there is a value in not cooperating with the inspectors. This risks an attack by the Americans, but if you can survive, you come out of it with at least some of your stash intact.

On the other hand, if you really don't have WMDs, then there is no value to playing cat-and-mouse with the inspectors. In fact, with the Americans breating down your neck, you want the inspectors to give you a clean bill of health.

Saddam had WMDs. He hid them from the UN so that he could keep them for some future use. He thought that the Americans would back down before going to war. When it became obvious that we wouldn't back down, he thought that he could survive the war, bog us down, and stay in power after a negotiated peace. Had he been correct in either case, he would have kept his WMDs; his gamble would have worked.

So why would he then destroy these weapons? He probably ordered their destruction in areas of Iraq that he expected the Americans to take in battle. By not allowing the US to find these weapons in the areas that they would occupy, he would strengthen his hand at the negotiating table.

Why didn't he just use the weapons? That would have weakened his bargaining position. Also, he expected to survive and remain in power. He didn't want to be the ruler of a poisoned land.

In conclusion, there are stocks of WMDs that Saddam expected to have after the war ended. There may not be much in this last stash, but it's there. Saddam risked his life for these weapons.

[cibco]

"Maybe W didn't attend those briefings. He seems to indicate that he has no idea where they are."

Like when he was asked how long the war was going to last(during the fighting). He would say "as long as it takes" and that may be awhile. He said this even while the tanks were going into Freedom Square. Guess he wasn't at the briefings then too.

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

"At one point we were saying Saddam had hundreds of tons of chemical or biological weapons. That would be hard to hide, especially with our surveillance capabilities. Maybe that information came from the forged and fraudulent evidence Colin Powell presented to the UN?"

You're kidding .. right?

Do you think Satelite surveilance works on cloudy days? Do you know how they were proven to have moved around TONS of chemicals after the first Gulf War? That the inspectors proved it?

I don't know what country you lived in during that time, but I saw the satelite evidence we had of them moving stuff around during that time. The Iraqi government did too. That they would then become more savvy at accomplishing these moves does not surprize me.

So I gotta ask this "Are you Scott Ritter?"

Because you sure sound like a Saddam apologist!! It must be very lonely living in your world right about now.

[John Lenin]

What disaster ? I don't think there is an american alive who didn't feel proud the day the Iraqis were on TV kissing pictures of Bush , saying thank you Mr Bush, thank you. It just looks like sour grapes to keep asking about the WMD when everybody knows he still had them when he threw the UN out in 98.

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

This is the MOST important quote said in this article. We would ALL be wise to re-read them and remember them. To start saying this President is DONE, is a tad premature. The headline of this article is deceiving and deceptive. Sometimes I think people ONLY read the Titles!

President Bush said: "He tried to fool the United Nations 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."

[billbears]

Look I'm happy for the Iraqis. Happy that they're free. However, I also realize this freedom is going to be a time to setup a Shiite theocracy. It will happen. How many times has our government felt it necessary to involve itself in Iraq, either directly or covertly, in the past half century? Five? Six times? History will repeat itself, it always does. And while Hussein was evil, despicable, and yes even a tyrant, I know we're just all going to loovvee the Shiite government to come. They're already out in the streets crying for coalition soldiers to go away. Hussein was in their way of setting up this theocracy, we got rid of him for them, and this is what's more than evidently coming. Oh, there'll be a regime change alright. And not for the better position of Israel either. I'll give 'em five years tops before the bunch of loons join the jihad on Israel

[itsahoot]

You have to be an old fart to remember this name.

John Beresford Tipton, are you rich?

[Snerfling]

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?

Exactly. Now, one must believe that Bush and his entire administrative team, along with Tony Blair, who is a liberal socialist at heart, were all willing to take this incredible chance at duping the world, and subject future generations of Americans to possible retaliation, just because they had bee up their ass about SH? Pull out the tinfoil.

[okie01]

"At one point we were saying Saddam had hundreds of tons of chemical or biological weapons. That would be hard to hide, especially with our surveillance capabilities. Maybe that information came from the forged and fraudulent evidence Colin Powell presented to the UN?"

At one point, we weren't "saying" it -- we knew it. And so did the UN.

Recall that the previous generation of weapons inspectors did indeed find and document "tons" of chemical weapons and "gallons" of biologicals. When Clinton pulled them out in November, 1998 (so he could "wag the dog" preceding impeachment), these weapons had not been destroyed.

And the documentation that Iraq furnished in response to #1448 contained no reference to these materials. Nor was any evidence of their destruction ever provided. They simply, and unaccountably, "vanished"...

So, we do know that there were WMD. And there is no evidence of their having been destroyed.

The question now is: what has become of them and who has them? What the question is not: did they ever exist?

[deport]

What disaster ? I don't think there is an american alive who didn't feel proud the day the Iraqis were on TV kissing pictures of Bush , saying thank you Mr Bush, thank you.

---

Well if there is a disaster, then the Bush bashers and democrats will get their wish and we'll have a democrat President, whoever they nonimate.......

But imo this won't be the issue to determine the next election..... Heck you've got the one issuers on here from AWB, abortion, taxes, economy, budget, immigration... just name it all claiming that their issue is the clincher for the next election.

[John Beresford Tipton]

"John Beresford Tipton, are you rich?"

No, hoping he'd adopt me, the son he never had.

[BamaFan]

Why the US Congress authorized the War on Iraq:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

Summary- Congress authorized force against Iraq because: 1) Iraq invaded Kuwait 2) Iraq agreed to end support for terrorism and WMD programs as part of cease fire 3) Inspectors forced Iraq to ADMIT they were violating WMD portion of cease fire prior to eviction in '98 4)Congress (in 98) authorized Pres to take action to bring Iraq into compliance 5) Iraq continued to show hostility to US (plot to kill Bush, attacking sorties enforcing UN no-fly zones, etc) 6) Iraq continued to support terrorists 7) Public Law 105-338 expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to change the regime 8) enforce many other UN resolutions on human rights, etc.

[Right_in_Virginia]

"It looks more to me that Bush is setting up his critics to go after the bait. This wouldn't be the first for him."

I really want to agree with you. But, the president has nothing to gain and everything to lose if this is his strategy. If they have knowledge they're not sharing...the longer he waits to disclose the information, the more he allows his global critics to attack the veracity of the findings.

I'm beginning to think they won't find the WMD the president defined in his last SOUA.

All I can say is "crap".

[John Lenin]

What I have yet hear from anyone in the media is no matter what we find out about the WMD, it was the right thing to do. EU/UN appeasement to dictators led to 9/11, not to mention a President who was looking for a ME legacy that turned into a nightmare.

[Alberta's Child]

. . . but that video of the Saddam statue coming down and the Iraqi guy pounding on it with a sledgehammer is what everyone will remember.

Based on what I heard last weekend, that was nothing more than a staged event. All the "cheering Iraqis" in that video clip had been brought into Baghdad from the Kurdish region of northern Iraq.

[deport]

U.S-Led Forces Occupy Baghdad Complex Filled With Chemical Agents
New York Times ^ | 4/24/2003 | JUDITH MILLER

Posted on 04/24/2003 10:42 AM CDT by ArcLight

American-led forces have occupied a vast warehouse complex in Baghdad filled with chemicals where Iraqi scientists are suspected of having tested unconventional agents on dogs within the past year, according to military officers and weapons experts.

The officers and experts declined to comment on the source of the information that led them to the warehouse, given the sensitivity of both the source and current operations.

Weapons experts and officers who have seen the warehouse said it was heavily looted before members of Mobile Exploitation Team Alpha and other allied forces seized and secured it. They described it as filled with broken parts and remnants of equipment consistent with a full-scale laboratory.

[BamaFan]

And now, for Pres Bush's reasons (last post was Congress's reasons):

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030317-7.html

Summary: ditto

[Hillary? Hell no!]

No need to take my word for it. Just read the article.

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."