Bush, Cheney Concede Iraq Had No WMDs

not found

0 Replies

I'll cut and paste (can't find it anywhere else yet.)

Quote:

"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?"

Gawd, how barf-inducing is that last line? Bush SHAPED the intelligence, suppressing the stuff he didn't like.

0 Replies

soz, I read this post and found the soooo bizarre I went to the kitchen, poured a stiff shot of good whisky, grabbed a cig and went out into the garage for a smoke and drink. I'm thinking of shaving my head and looking for a gallon of gas.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

soz, I read this post and found the soooo bizarre I went to the kitchen, poured a stiff shot of good whisky, grabbed a cig and went out into the garage for a smoke and drink. I'm thinking of shaving my head and looking for a gallon of gas.

Do any of you possibly think that Saddam was done with WMD's? Do you think once the sanctions were over that he would have stayed away from WMD's?

What about some of the other things that were found in Iraq, like the centrifuge and the mobile labs? Does that sound like someone who wasn't interested in WMD's?

0 Replies

Someone should ask Bush why he felt he could not wait to invade Iraq? Why not wait the month the weapons inspectors asked for?

It was the alleged "urgency" of the situation that Bush used to justify not waiting and not building a multilateral coalition. Clinton's outgoing administration (Clarke, Berger et al) had given Bush much information re the threat posed by binLaden, but nothing re any threat posed by Saddam. Bush chose to ignore the binLaden info, and use 911 to justify his pre-existing agenda to invade Iraq.

Kerry, like most Americans, believed his president, and supported what he was told was an immediate need to defend America from a verifiable threat. Kerry, like most Americans, was not privy to all the info Bush had. There is absolutely nothing inconsistent with Kerry's position, then or now.

Bush took this country to war on unsubstantiated information which he used to justify an agenda-driven pre-emptive invasion that has cost thousands of American and Iraqi lives, billions of dollars, and an inestimable loss to American integrity and respect around the world, not to mention the chaos in Iraq which will take decades to resolve.

It is truly incredible that any American could still support him.

0 Replies

Quote:

Kerry, like most Americans, believed his president, and supported what he was told was an immediate need to defend America from a verifiable threat. Kerry, like most Americans, was not privy to all the info Bush had. There is absolutely nothing inconsistent with Kerry's position, then or now.

Kerry as well as Edwards were and still are on the Intelligence committee. They say everything that he did. You don't pay attention do you?

0 Replies

So Baldimo, is it my sin that I dis both Kerry and Bush for their bizarre reasoning? This is such a bogus argument for "right" that because Kerry agreed (the spin anyway) so Bush must also be right. If am pretty firmly atuned to the idea that both were definity wrong does that automatically make me wrong? Be careful, this is a trick question.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

So Baldimo, is it my sin that I dis both Kerry and Bush for their bizarre reasoning? This is such a bogus argument for "right" that because Kerry agreed (the spin anyway) so Bush must also be right. If am pretty firmly atuned to the idea that both were definity wrong does that automatically make me wrong? Be careful, this is a trick question.

Yes/no/maybe so. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. Laughing

0 Replies

Baldimo wrote:

dyslexia wrote:
soz, I read this post and found the soooo bizarre I went to the kitchen, poured a stiff shot of good whisky, grabbed a cig and went out into the garage for a smoke and drink. I'm thinking of shaving my head and looking for a gallon of gas.
Do any of you possibly think that Saddam was done with WMD's? Do you think once the sanctions were over that he would have stayed away from WMD's?

What about some of the other things that were found in Iraq, like the centrifuge and the mobile labs? Does that sound like someone who wasn't interested in WMD's?

The excuse was IMMINENT danger.

No amount of quibbles and mightas and well then, buts change that.

0 Replies

Re: Bush, Cheney Concede Iraq Had No WMDs

sozobe wrote:

Better late than never?

"13 minutes ago", link might not stick. AP article, written by Scott Lindlaw.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041008/ap_on_re_mi_ea/us_iraq_weapons&cid=540&ncid=716

Wow.

0 Replies

This can't be very good for Bush right before the election.

0 Replies

It can't be repeated often enough: in the case of anthrax and other bioweapons, nobody needs hundreds of tons of the stuff to create chaos. The sum total involved in the attacks which followed 9-11 was probably more like three or four teaspoons full. If a main stash of that stuff were to amount to 50 or 500 lbs of it, and somebody made any effort at all to hide it in a country the size of Iraq, it seems obvious enough that nobody would ever find it.

There is very good evidence that Hussein had the only bioweapons program capable of producing the anthrax used after 9-11:

http://www.aim.org/publications/media_monitor/2004/01/01.html

and there is also evidence that much of the claims of no WMDs in Iraq, at least as far as bioweaponry is concerned, amount to willful denial of reality:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40777

As the article notes, the only other possible use for the one mobile facility which has been put forth involves hydrogen production (for balloons), and NOBODY produces hydrogen that way, for the same general sort of reason that nobody uses kitchen knives to chop down trees.

http://www.sacredcowburgers.com/parodies/kerrys_global_test_kit.jpg

0 Replies

you think if you keep posting that picture someone will take you more seriously?

0 Replies

gungasnake: You gotta pay attention as Baldimo says but does not do.

This most recent report by Bush handpicked investigator has put the nails in the coffins of the WMD debate. There were none. There had been none since 1991. There was no threat, immediate or otherwise.

Here is what has happened since Bush was President: we trusted him to provide us with security against terror, instead we were brutally attacked while he and his advisors ignored alarming evidence of a real growing threat. Then, as we watched funerals and the tower's debris was still being hauled off, we trusted the President to lead us in the destruction of our enemies. We exulted as the Taliban fell and we looked forward to the day when Osama bin Ladin would be brought to justice. Instead the President decided to invade Iraq and do you know what we did?

We followed the President's lead. We trusted him to know. He pointed to the intelligence and if we had any doubts he, in the position of leader, reassured us, and went forward with his campaign against Saddam.

And we followed.
We cheered the troops.
We mourned the loses, but knew, because our President had said so, that their sacrifice would not be in vain.

Now that is what happened. We got attacked because the President wasn't doing his job. We followed his lead into the mess which Iraq has become which is a mess because he wasn't up to doing his job. He is a failure with bad personal judgement surrounded by idealogues who possess a twisted world view. All of them must go back to their private lives while we are left to clean up after them.

Joe

0 Replies

Bush should be brought to justice. He must be made to explain as to why he REALLY attacked another sovereign country. What right he had to kill tens of thousands of people? He should be held responsible for the ongoing genocide in Iraq.

0 Replies

No, no, they have not flip-flopped ( a copywrite-protected intellectual property of the Republican National Committee) they have had a 'sharp shift' in their views.

The problem is no one can tell which one is the sharpie and who is the shifty.

And yes, I think Bush and Cheney and others, after being removed from office, ought to face charges before a World Tribunal regarding their actions and the consequences thereof.

0 Replies

Joe Nation wrote:

gungasnake: You gotta pay attention as Baldimo says but does not do.

This most recent report by Bush handpicked investigator has put the nails in the coffins of the WMD debate.

Try actually reading my post and the articles I linked, and see if you can still convince yourself of that.

I don't know what the administration's reasons are for not wanting to talk about the anthrax attacks, too scary maybe, possibly still too much danger of it happening again or on a much larger scale, but it seems obvious enough to me that Saddam Hussein was involved in it and that was basically a major act of war.

It also seems obvious to me that there is no real way to protect a nation as large as ours from such a thing other than by threat of overwhelming retaliation, and I would guess that the islammic world has been told as much and that we simply have not heard about it.

The fact that we have not been attacked again since 9-11 and the anthrax attack is not likely to be an accident. George W. Bush has been taking care of business all over the world since then, and part of that business has been in Iraq. My guess would be that had John F'ing Kerry been president in 2001, either we'd all be dead or America would be under sharia law.

0 Replies

Aah, the sweet smell of desperation.

0 Replies

Bush, Cheney Concede Iraq Had No WMDs

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know