The President Betrayed Us

I would still disagree with your use of the word "immediate" since I don't think Bush implied immediacy at all. But I agree he stated that Saddam was a threat.

While I can understand how someone would think the threat was immediate, the language used cannot in my judgement be construed to mean that he was about to attack us, which is the quote from your article that I was commenting on.

Bushie was playing the fear card with the Senators. He was certainly implying that Saddam was capable of attacking America with WMD any time he chose to do do. Bushie did not say Saddam will attack us tomorrow but was saying Saddam was capable of creating mushroom clouds over American cities. That despite the fact that ElBaradei made it clear Saddam had no nukes. Tony Blair used the fear card saying Saddam was capable of attacking with WMD in 45 minutes if he so chose.

No matter how much you try to parse it, if Saddam was not believed to be an immediate threat, we had no business invading. You can't have it both ways.

The admin knew that the intelligence from curveball was bullshit. They kept Congress out of the loop on that one too. I would just love to find out the whole story but Bush and the Repiblicans are stonewalling.

Nobody is denying that Bush said Saddam was capable. Please read what I have repeatedly said. I commented on one item in the article and one item only. That Bush said, or even indicated, that Iraq was about to attack us. That is what the article said. That was a lie in order to bolster a point.

I think absolutely Bush said Saddam was a threat. Could he have used WMD against the US? Probably (assuming as we did at the time that he had them). But nowhere did anyone claim he was about to.

So again. argue all you want that the reasons for invading were not strong enough to invade. Heck, I'll grant you that you have reasons for believing that. But don't put words in his mouth that he never said nor meant.

I disagree, but that is what makes for good discussion. In 1938, England did not see Hitler as an immediate threat either. But had they used military might to stop him at that point, millions of people would not have been killed during WW2.

Cuba was not an immediate threat when they were attempting to ship in missiles from the USSR. Fortunately, Kennedy stepped up and brought us to the brink of war in order to keep it from being an immediate threat.

This bird flu virus is not an immediate threat. But ignoring it until it is could be a bit catastrophic, don't you think?

Sometimes the best way to deal with an ongoing threat is to not wait until it becomes immediate.

So all the fearmongering on mushroom clouds was not an implication of an imminent threat? Blair used a timeline of 45 minutes. And Bushie and the White House spokesman also used the 45 minute claim. Thursday :: Jul 31, 2003
After CIA Told The Brits The 45-Minute Claim Was Bogus, Bush Used It Anyway Three Times In A Week
As the media turns away from its victory in holding Bush accountable over the bogus African uranium claims, perhaps it can now focus on another Bush whopper: the bogus British claim that Saddam could launch a strike against the US within 45 minutes of notice of attack. It was this unsubstantiated claim and resulting media firestorm that led to the suicide of British scientist and former weapons inspector David Kelly.

In a July 20 story by Dana Milbank and Walter Pincus of the Washington Post, they reported that the CIA was not consulted by the White House before the Administration began touting the 45-minute claim in September 2002 as one of its rationales that Saddam posed an imminent threat to the US.

The 45-minute allegation did not appear in the major speeches Bush made about Iraq in Cincinnati in October or in his State of the Union address, both of which were made after consultation with the CIA. But the White House considered the 45-minute claim significant and drew attention to it the day the British dossier was released. Asked if there was a "smoking gun" in the British report, White House press secretary Ari Fleischer on Sept. 24 highlighted that charge and the charge that Iraq sought uranium in Africa.

"I think there was new information in there, particularly about the 45-minute threshold by which Saddam Hussein has got his biological and chemical weapons triggered to be launched," Fleischer said. "There was new information in there about Saddam Hussein's efforts to obtain uranium from African nations. That was new information."

The White House use of the 45-minute charge is another indication of its determination to build a case against Hussein even without the participation of U.S. intelligence services. The controversy over the administration's use of intelligence has largely focused on claims made about the Iraqi nuclear program, particularly attempts to buy uranium in Africa. But the accusation that Iraq could launch a chemical or biological attack on a moment's notice was significant because it added urgency to the administration's argument that Hussein had to be dealt with quickly.

However, tonight we find out from the Guardian that in fact the CIA told the British that the claim was garbage when a draft of the dossier was given to the Americans on September 11, 2002. So before it was published on September 24, the CIA was on record to the Brits that the claim was bogus. Yet the White House went ahead and used the claim after its own intelligence agency had debunked it to the Brits.

Where was Condi Rice during those 13 days?

In fact, Bush used the claim not once but three times in a span of four days. In addition to the Ari Fleischer press gaggle on the 24th, the claim was also used in a September 26, 2002 "global message" in the Rose Garden with congressional leaders, and again in a September 28, 2002 radio address. So Bush again ignored the assessment of his own intelligence service to make claims based on British intelligence he had not seen.
http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:JSTjJcLjNHQJ:www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/000438.php+bush+saddam+45+minutes&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Ok, so where in these press conferences where Bush talked about Saddam being able to launch WMD's in 45 minutes does anyone say Saddam was an immediate threat to do so?

I mean, I could launch a kicking attack upon my dog in the next 45 minutes (35 minutes to get home, 5 minutes to get into the house and put my stuff down, 5 minutes to bring my dog in from outside), but that does not mean I am about to start kicking my dog. Having the ability to do something in a certain time frame has not bearing on the immediacy of said action.

Heck, if congress was so quick to give Bush the authority to invade based only upon a belief, extropolated from Bush's statements, that Iraq was about to attack the US, then every last one of them should be voted out of office next election because they are all too stupid to be there. Every last one of them, democrat and republican, should be kicked out.

Hey, maybe that's not a bad idea after all. :wink:

Every Senator did not vote for authorization.

Some interesting quotes here http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=24970 . Though they don't come right out and say "Saddam is about to attack us with WMD", they get pretty close. (I'm with you, CR, re: kicking out Congress)

"The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands."
• President Bush, 11/23/02

"I would look you in the eye and I would say, go back before September 11 and ask yourself this question: Was the attack that took place on September 11 an imminent threat the month before or two months before or three months before or six months before? When did the attack on September 11 become an imminent threat? Now, transport yourself forward a year, two years or a week or a month...So the question is, when is it such an immediate threat that you must do something?"
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 11/14/02

"Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02

"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02

"The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency."
• President Bush, 10/2/02

"There's a grave threat in Iraq. There just is."
• President Bush, 10/2/02

"This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined."
• President Bush, 9/26/02

There just is there just is. Really really.

Who told the Senate that Saddam had WMDs capable of attacking the East Coast?

The truth is that virtually everything Bush says is the exact opposite of the truth. The Patriots fighting to stop this war, this killing for profit, are not rewriting history- Bush is. Bush claims he didn’t lie, they used the best intelligence… bull- they lied, here’s some proof.

1. “Someone”
took the Senators into a closed door session and told them Saddam had UAVs capable of hitting the East Coast… shortly after they voted on the Resolution.

Senator Bill Nelson (FL):



As far as I know, it has never been revealed who that “Someone” was that told the Senators about this threat… was it Cheney? They always say he’s got ‘gravitas’.

Bush also claimed (threatened):



CONTINUED...

John Kerry and Hillary Clinton stated that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Their arguments now are manipulated purely for political gain. What the Democrats are saying now is lowering the troops' moral and is helping the enemy strengthen its cause. This should be stopped immediately.

Freedom-for-free, your link and facts are coming from a liberal blog. How am I supposed to know that they are stating the truth?

Since when have passengers in a cab been responsible for erratic driving?

What on earth are you talking about, talk72000?

2001: Powell & Rice Declare Iraq Has No WMD and Is Not a Threat


Click here for the video
(Windows Media Player format, 1 meg)

This clip from John Pilger's documentary, Breaking the Silence, contains 2001 footage of Powell and Rice declaring that Iraq is not a threat.
Thanks for the video go to Information Clearinghouse and A-infos Radio Project



>>> During the run-up to the 2003 attack on Iraq, we were repeatedly told by US leaders that Iraq absolutely, positively had weapons of mass destruction [read more]. The country was an immediate threat not only to its neighbors but to the entire world. It had the capability of launching WMDs within 45 minutes.

In August 2002, Cheney insisted: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."

In a March 2003 address to the nation, Bush said: "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

In April 2003, Fleischer claimed: "But make no mistake--as I said earlier--we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about."

In February 2003, Powell said: "We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more."

But two years earlier, Powell said just the opposite. The occasion was a press conference on 24 February 2001 during Powell's visit to Cairo, Egypt. Answering a question about the US-led sanctions against Iraq, the Secretary of State said:

We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq...

[See the page on the State Department Website with Powell's Cairo press conference. The Memory Hole's mirror of the page.]


Furthermore, on 15 May 2001, Powell testified before the Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs Subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee. Several kind readers with access to Lexis-Nexis sent me the full transcript of the questions-and-answers portion of Powell's testimony. Here's the relevant extract:

Senator Bennett: Mr. Secretary, the U.N. sanctions on Iraq expire the beginning of June. We've had bombs dropped, we've had threats made, we've had all kinds of activity vis-a-vis Iraq in the previous administration. Now we're coming to the end. What's our level of concern about the progress of Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons programs?

Secretary Powell: The sanctions, as they are called, have succeeded over the last 10 years, not in deterring him from moving in that direction, but from actually being able to move in that direction. The Iraqi regime militarily remains fairly weak. It doesn't have the capacity it had 10 or 12 years ago. It has been contained. And even though we have no doubt in our mind that the Iraqi regime is pursuing programs to develop weapons of mass destruction -- chemical, biological and nuclear -- I think the best intelligence estimates suggest that they have not been terribly successful. There's no question that they have some stockpiles of some of these sorts of weapons still under their control, but they have not been able to break out, they have not been able to come out with the capacity to deliver these kinds of systems or to actually have these kinds of systems that is much beyond where they were 10 years ago.

So containment, using this arms control sanctions regime, I think has been reasonably successful. We have not been able to get the inspectors back in, though, to verify that, and we have not been able to get the inspectors in to pull up anything that might be left there. So we have to continue to view this regime with the greatest suspicion, attribute to them the most negative motives, which is quite well-deserved with this particular regime, and roll the sanctions over, and roll them over in a way where the arms control sanctions really go after their intended targets -- weapons of mass destruction -- and not go after civilian goods or civilian commodities that we really shouldn't be going after, just let that go to the Iraqi people. That wasn't the purpose of the oil-for-food program. And by reconfiguring them in that way, I think we can gain support for this regime once again.

When we came into office on the 20th of January, the whole sanctions regime was collapsing in front of our eyes. Nations were bailing out on it. We lost the consensus for this kind of regime because the Iraqi regime had successfully painted us as the ones causing the suffering of the Iraqi people, when it was the regime that was causing the suffering. They had more than enough money; they just weren't spending it in the proper way. And we were getting the blame for it. So reconfiguring the sanctions, I think, helps us and continues to contain the Iraqi regime.


But Powell wasn't the only senior administration official telling the truth before the truth became highly inconvenient. On 29 July 2001, Condoleezza Rice appeared on CNN Late Edition With Wolf Blitzer (an anonymous reader sent me the full transcript from Lexis-Nexis). Guest host John King asked Rice about the fact that Iraq had recently fired on US planes enforcing the "no-fly zones" in Iraq. Rice craftily responds:

Well, the president has made very clear that he considers Saddam Hussein to be a threat to his neighbors, a threat to security in the region, in fact a threat to international security more broadly.

Notice that she makes it clear that Bush is the one who considers Hussein a threat. She doesn't say, "I consider..." or even, "We consider..."

Then King asks her about the sanctions against Iraq. She replies:

But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.

King doesn't think to ask Rice, if Hussein hasn't been getting arms and his forces weren't rebuilt after the 1991 Gulf War, why Bush considers him a threat.


There you have it. Four to seven months before 9/11--and just 15 to 18 months before the drive to attack Iraq seriously revved up--the Secretary of State and the National Security Advisor trumpeted that Iraq had a decimated military, no "significant capabilities" regarding WMD, and was so feeble that it couldn't even threaten the countries around it with conventional military power.
http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm

Could you please give us longer articles blueflame?

Sturgis, so what do you think of Powell and Condi saying in 2001 that Saddam was weak, no threat to his neighbors never mind the USA, was contained by the sanctions and had no WMD? What made them change their tune? It certainly wasn't intelligence.

The driver is GWB, the passengers are Democrats and the cab is the US Government.