Wolfowitz says Saudi troop withdrawal was 'huge' reason for war with Iraq

Associated Press ^

[alnick]

So you believe that we should round up all of the children who were released from prison and lock them up again and we should invite Saddam Hussein back and apologize to him for interrupting his torture parties, then.

Not me. I'm proud that we ended that.

[w1andsodidwe]

Al Qaida's stated reason for doing 9/11 was because we had troops in Saudi. We had troops in Saudi because of the Saddam threat. Therefore Saddam was the cause of 9/11. Simple isn't it. Remember the Presidents words "You are either with us or with the terrorists".

Perhaps you prefer terrorists. I don't.

[Jumpmaster]

GW469 joined 30 May 2003.

[missdirect]

I believe this is it:

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/tr20030509-depsecdef0223.html

[VRWCmember]

This administration is now in full damage control. You've got Rummy saying Iraq may have already destroyed its WMD stocks and Wolfowitz now backpeddaling and trying to claim that the major reason for the war was the placement of American troops in the Middle East? This is horse crap.

All we know at this point is that a liberal magazine is presenting these quotes. When we see the full context we may know more. As for your claim that all of the WMD allegations were bs, for 12 years the hussein regime has led ritter and blix around by their short hairs and the fact that in only about 6 weeks our troops have found only limited amounts of banned weapons and facilities to produce those weapons means that the military intelligence was failed. You can't see past your Bush-hating biases.

Troll Alert.

[VRWCmember]

GW469 hasn't created an about page.
(probably won't have time)

[RobbyS]

It won't be a base with a Little America plunked in the middle of Irak. Rumsfeld is looking to create a far more agile force than we have had in the past. My ideal would be an Araby with an American flyswatter constantly poised to swat any roaches that appear.

[rwfok]

The complete quote instead of a Dowd-like excerpt:

"There are a lot of things that are different now, and one that has gone by almost unnoticed--but it's huge--is that by complete mutual agreement between the U.S. and the Saudi government we can now remove almost all of our forces from Saudi Arabia. Their presence there over the last 12 years has been a source of enormous difficulty for a friendly government. It's been a huge recruiting device for al Qaeda. In fact if you look at bin Laden, one of his principle grievances was the presence of so-called crusader forces on the holy land, Mecca and Medina. I think just lifting that burden from the Saudis is itself going to open the door to other positive things."

[Mr. Buzzcut]

I can't even find that quote in the transcript ...

[RobbyS]

Because of the ten per cent. chance that SH DID have the weapons. My question is: if the guy Didn't have weapons, then why was he playing the game he was playing? Hell, he should have asked for a thousand inspectors.

[M Kehoe]

Let's see, the Coalition has found mobile fermenting and dispersal trailers, binary muntions, precursor chemicals, surface to surface missle which exceed the range limit, atropine distributed to the public, chem suits in very large quantities, mustard gas and cyanide in the river, nuclear facilities which enrich urainium, and the stuff I missed.

I'm just trying to keep track.

5.56mm

[Pukin Dog]

***********The quote in question***************

Q: Was that one of the arguments that was raised early on by you and others that Iraq actually does connect, not to connect the dots too much, but the relationship between Saudi Arabia, our troops being there, and bin Laden's rage about that, which he's built on so many years, also connects the World Trade Center attacks, that there's a logic of motive or something like that? Or does that read too much into --

Wolfowitz: No, I think it happens to be correct. The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason, but -- hold on one second --

(Pause)

Kellems: Sam there may be some value in clarity on the point that it may take years to get post-Saddam Iraq right. It can be easily misconstrued, especially when it comes to --

Wolfowitz: -- there have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. Actually I guess you could say there's a fourth overriding one which is the connection between the first two. Sorry, hold on again.

Just another attempt to spin the truth by the media, foiled again.

[Mr. Buzzcut]

Never mind ... it is ...

Wolfowitz: No, I think it happens to be correct. The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason, but -- hold on one second --

(Pause)

Kellems: Sam there may be some value in clarity on the point that it may take years to get post-Saddam Iraq right. It can be easily misconstrued, especially when it comes to --

Wolfowitz: -- there have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. Actually I guess you could say there's a fourth overriding one which is the connection between the first two. Sorry, hold on again.

[Mr. Mojo]

All if it was BS

How do you know that the weapons weren't wisked away to Syria or Russia (or France) right before the war?

[Pukin Dog]

Please state a single fact that supports your assertion that the administration is in "full damage control". One fact. Just one.

[VaBthang4]

Alright FReepers...and other Conservatives who monitor this site. Dont get involved in this discussion...it is bitter cackling from the planet's left who are looking for anything to bash right thinking people with.

If you ignore the discussion...then the only people talking about it are the Liberals...and truth be told...right now none of them have any credibility.

Dont touch it...you only give weight to the topic.

[aristeides]

Thanks for the link.

[Miss Marple]

To follow your thesis, one first has to believe that the UN inspectors, who listed all the WMD's after the 1991 Gulf War, were lying.

Saddam never provided proof of the destruction of chemical and biological weapons. Why not?

Then, one must also believe that Blair and the British Intelligence service also lied.

Then, you must believe that not only did the President lie, but also Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, Rice, and all the people under them, and not one person leaked.

Then, you must believe that the President and his co-conspirators acted knowing that they were lying, and took no notice of the fact that if weapons weren't found, idiots like you would whine and accuse them of lying.

And finally, if there were no WMD's in Iraq, what accounts for the mustard gas, mobile biological labs, radioactive drums, poison in the Euphrates River, atropine kits issued to Iraqi soldiers, barrels of pesticides (precursor chemicals) found in multiple sites, hollow warheads fitted for chemical usage, illegal missiles, and the like?

The most logical answer is that we simply haven't found the stuff yet. We will.