Question for the "Bush lied" crowd.

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

XMan

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
12,513
49
91
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: XMan
What if Bush had said something along the lines of, "Iraq is a small threat; Iran will be a large threat down the road. If we take care of Iraq now, we'll be strategically positioned to deal with Iran in the future."

He hasn't said anything along those lines, but anybody with a good grasp of geography should be able to realize that we can attack Iran along two fronts should the need arise.

Good point.

Of course if we prematurely withdrawl from Iraq and it results in Iran gaining influence there, we'll have "screwed the pooch" bigtime.

Fern

I will be very interested to see what credit, if any, is given to Bush should something happen with Iran.

Even if we withdraw a large number of troops, the bases we're building in Iraq and Afghanistan are meant for the longterm, much like the bases we built in Germany after World War II.

Should Iran attempt to nuke Israel and is then taken out by then-President Hillary Clinton, I wonder if she'll give credit to the "wasted effort" in Iraq that allowed those bases to be put into place.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEBURARY 24, 2003 ? CIA WARNS WHITE HOUSE ?NO DIRECT EVIDENCE? OF WMD: "A CIA report on proliferation released this week says the intelligence community has no ?direct evidence? that Iraq has succeeded in reconstituting its biological, chemical, nuclear or long-range missile programs in the two years since U.N. weapons inspectors left and U.S. planes bombed Iraqi facilities. ?We do not have any direct evidence that Iraq has used the period since Desert Fox to reconstitute its Weapons of Mass Destruction programs,? said the agency in its semi-annual report on proliferation activities." [NBC News, 2/24/03]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hmm, sounds pretty competent

Excellent example of my earlier point - They hedge like crazy mofo's.

The head of the CIA is all over national TV saying he was absolutely convinced Saddam had WMD and advised the President & Congress of that.

Yet, out of the other side of their mouths the CIA says no WMD.

They say it both ways so people like you can come along and cherry pick whichever pronouncement they made and claim they were right.

Stop the BS, how many ways and times does the head of the CIA have to say it before some of you pay attention?

Fern

So . . . the cumulative report from the intelligence community is a hedge?

You got it bro. BTW, if you read it closely see it pretty much says nothing. It all amounts to "we have no direct evidence he is, we no direct evidence he is not". You know wtf that is? A fancy way of hedging.

If Saddam is found to have them, the statement is correct.

If Saddam is found NOT to have them, the statement is correct.

They aren't saying Saddam doesn't have WMD, which is how many here "interpret" those statements. The question of whether he has them is not even addressed, no conclusion or even guess is provided.

They speak of "direct" evidence, I'd like to know how they define that, and what "indirect" evidence they may have had and what it indicated.


On the day, that account was published you did NOT see Tenet all over national TV saying he was absolutely convinced Saddam had WMD. I'm tired of the duplicity or idiocy of people that cannot seem to master basic chronology!

I don't remember what was on TV that day. Oddly enough you claim to. I can, however, remember Tenet on TV the last two saying how convinced he was back and the advised the President & Congress as such.

I'm not sure what your point is? If you're trying to say that it is unlikely/impossible that Tenet was telling GWB & co and that he was sincerely convinced the same time the agency issued the double speak say-nothing memo, well I can't agree. The memo speaks only posession of "direct evidence", Tenet was providing a conclusion/answer.



Rumsfeld set up his own shop to go through intelligence. Cheney set up his own shop to go through intelligence.

I find that comendable. Seems a responsible move, particularly in light of 9/11 where it was claimed we had info indicating an attacked but nobody picked up on it. If I were in their position I think I'd do the same. The American public would have rightly held them somewhat accountable for another 911-type attack. And as far as Saddam, if I were trying to make a decision about attacking him I'd wanna sift thoughthe stuff myself

Tenet reported to Bush/Congress that Saddam had some WMD. Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld told the public Saddam had STOCKPILES of WMD, fully reconstituted biological, chemical, nuclear weapons programs, unmanned aerial vehicles, mobile biochem weapon labs, the ability to launch WMD within 45 minutes (technically that's Blair), and collaborations with terrorists that suggest Saddam would use these weapons not only on his neighbors but possibly the USA.

Are you really that dense that you cannot comprehend that what Tenet is saying today (and the CIA in 2003) is not comparable to what Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice were peddling?

Based what you've above posted above it's a bit difficult to see why it's NOT comparable. You've got a brief sentance on Tenet, contrasting "some" with "STOCKPILES" in the later sentance. Otherwise you provide far more detail on the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld asserion.

What am I to surmise? That the difference is one of quantity and level of detail?

Is that a substancial difference?


 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: XMan
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: XMan
What if Bush had said something along the lines of, "Iraq is a small threat; Iran will be a large threat down the road. If we take care of Iraq now, we'll be strategically positioned to deal with Iran in the future."

He hasn't said anything along those lines, but anybody with a good grasp of geography should be able to realize that we can attack Iran along two fronts should the need arise.

Good point.

Of course if we prematurely withdrawl from Iraq and it results in Iran gaining influence there, we'll have "screwed the pooch" bigtime.

Fern

I will be very interested to see what credit, if any, is given to Bush should something happen with Iran.

Even if we withdraw a large number of troops, the bases we're building in Iraq and Afghanistan are meant for the longterm, much like the bases we built in Germany after World War II.

Should Iran attempt to nuke Israel and is then taken out by then-President Hillary Clinton, I wonder if she'll give credit to the "wasted effort" in Iraq that allowed those bases to be put into place.

Not unless she had to.

But the painful look on her face, that I know would be there, would be priceless as she gagged out those words.

Fern
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
The CIA makes a nice scapegoat for the Bush administration, but the claim doesn't hold much water. Yes, they made some mistakes, but the fact remains that most of the BushCo claims made to sell the attack were NOT supported by CIA analysis. The Bush administration cherry-picked bits and pieces of CIA intel, discarded all the qualifications and caveats, grossly exaggerated them, and then presented their perverted tales as absolute fact.

More importantly, the bulk of the anti-Iraq "intel" didn't even come from the CIA, as has been pointed out literally dozens of times. When the CIA wouldn't provide sufficiently slanted analysis, Cheney and Rumsfeld set up their own, competing intelligence group in the Pentagon, the Office of Special Plans, to produce the boogeyman stories they needed to sell the war. That's where most of the bogus intel originated ... and that was by design, not incompetence.

In short, the attempt to shift the blame from the Bush administration to the CIA is at best ignorant, and at worst willful deception.
They are not being scapegoated.
They certainly are, at least in the context of this thread. The Bush administration (and its faithful apologists) continually try to blame the CIA for the deception of the Bush administration about Iraq. They ignore the points I raised above -- just as you did -- and instead try to divert discussion -- just as you did -- by pretending BushCo accurately presented the intel provided by the CIA. The fact remains the Bush administration willfully and repeatedly misrepresented both the certainty about and the extent of Iraq's remaining WMD capabilities. They lied.


To say that is utter BS. I'm calling them on THIER own d@mn mistakes and short comings. To claim they don't have performance problems "is at best ignorant, and at worst willful deception".
Speaking of utter BS. I didn't suggest the CIA has no performance problems. That's your straw man. The point is that BushCo's lies to sell their attack on Iraq were largely NOT supported by CIA intel.


Their preformance has been abysmal and it should recognized and dealt with. I'll admit part of the problem rests with ill conceived changes etc made by past Presidents & Congress.

But they've sucked for a long time. I don't know how old you are, but if you were around back in the Gorbachev (sp?) days of the USSR you would know how badly they screwed up overestimating the strength and potential threat of the USSR etc.
Perhaps. Those are interesting opinions, but they're off-topic here. Perhaps you'd like to start a thread about the performance of the CIA. You might even do a little research and come up with factual, documented information supporting your allegations.


Let's not even mention how the detection & prevention of what occured on 9/11 is their responsibility.
If only they'd tried to alert the Bush administration about the impending threat of al Qaeda, maybe in a PDB or something. If only Richard Clarke had spoken up instead of spending his days clearing brush. If only the Clinton administration had tried to warn the incoming Bush administration of the danger posed by al Qaeda.

:roll:


It's been years since we've gotten a straight answer out of them, and longer since a correct one.

Ferbn
Now you're just making up stuff.


Sorry, your misdirection falls flat with me. While the CIA certainly has its problems, that doesn't let BushCo off the hook for their own dishonesty, incompetence, and reckless malfeasance.

 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEBURARY 24, 2003 ? CIA WARNS WHITE HOUSE ?NO DIRECT EVIDENCE? OF WMD: "A CIA report on proliferation released this week says the intelligence community has no ?direct evidence? that Iraq has succeeded in reconstituting its biological, chemical, nuclear or long-range missile programs in the two years since U.N. weapons inspectors left and U.S. planes bombed Iraqi facilities. ?We do not have any direct evidence that Iraq has used the period since Desert Fox to reconstitute its Weapons of Mass Destruction programs,? said the agency in its semi-annual report on proliferation activities." [NBC News, 2/24/03]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hmm, sounds pretty competent

Excellent example of my earlier point - They hedge like crazy mofo's.

The head of the CIA is all over national TV saying he was absolutely convinced Saddam had WMD and advised the President & Congress of that.

Yet, out of the other side of their mouths the CIA says no WMD.

They say it both ways so people like you can come along and cherry pick whichever pronouncement they made and claim they were right.

Stop the BS, how many ways and times does the head of the CIA have to say it before some of you pay attention?

Fern

So . . . the cumulative report from the intelligence community is a hedge? On the day, that account was published you did NOT see Tenet all over national TV saying he was absolutely convinced Saddam had WMD. I'm tired of the duplicity or idiocy of people that cannot seem to master basic chronology!

Rumsfeld set up his own shop to go through intelligence. Cheney set up his own shop to go through intelligence. Tenet reported to Bush/Congress that Saddam had some WMD. Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld told the public Saddam had STOCKPILES of WMD, fully reconstituted biological, chemical, nuclear weapons programs, unmanned aerial vehicles, mobile biochem weapon labs, the ability to launch WMD within 45 minutes (technically that's Blair), and collaborations with terrorists that suggest Saddam would use these weapons not only on his neighbors but possibly the USA.

Are you really that dense that you cannot comprehend that what Tenet is saying today (and the CIA in 2003) is not comparable to what Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice were peddling?
Well said. The CIA said we think Iraq still posseses some WMD capabilities. BushCo claimed "There is no doubt" and that Iraq had "thousands of liters" and "these are facts, not assertions." They lied.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
I see the Bush apologists cut and run ... again. Pity. Tenet was on Meet the Press this morning. He left no doubt that the CIA had advised the Bush administration many, many times they were making claims the CIA could not support, including Tenet frequently briefing Bush himself. BushCo lied to sell their assault on Iraq, plain and simple.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
[ ... ]
Originally posted by: Fern
Let's not even mention how the detection & prevention of what occured on 9/11 is their responsibility.
If only they'd tried to alert the Bush administration about the impending threat of al Qaeda, maybe in a PDB or something. If only Richard Clarke had spoken up instead of spending his days clearing brush. If only the Clinton administration had tried to warn the incoming Bush administration of the danger posed by al Qaeda.

:roll:
Tenet also addressed this directly on Meet the Press. The CIA started warning the White House in the spring of 2001 that a major attack within the U.S. was imminent, including Tenet personally advising Bush on several occasions. Unfortunately, the Bush administration -- not the CIA as you allege, but the Bush administration -- was unable to decide to act. They wanted to think about it more.

Wait, that's not really fair. They did care enough to take one action. They pulled Rumsfeld off of commercial flights beginning in July, 2001. They apparently cared about his safety. (America, not so much.)
 

UberNeuman

Lifer
Nov 4, 1999
16,937
3,087
126
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
[ ... ]
Originally posted by: Fern
Let's not even mention how the detection & prevention of what occured on 9/11 is their responsibility.
If only they'd tried to alert the Bush administration about the impending threat of al Qaeda, maybe in a PDB or something. If only Richard Clarke had spoken up instead of spending his days clearing brush. If only the Clinton administration had tried to warn the incoming Bush administration of the danger posed by al Qaeda.

:roll:
Tenet also addressed this directly on Meet the Press. The CIA started warning the White House in the spring of 2001 that a major attack within the U.S. was imminent, including Tenet personally advising Bush on several occasions. Unfortunately, the Bush administration -- not the CIA as you allege, but the Bush administration -- was unable to decide to act. They wanted to think about it more.

Wait, that's not really fair. They did care enough to take one action. They pulled Rumsfeld off of commercial flights beginning in July, 2001. They apparently cared about his safety. (America, not so much.)

ah, so quiet in here, i hear the crickets... And these folks are the same folks that keep attacking Clinton over "not doing enough," and yet, pass a blind eye over Bush doing NOTHING...



 

RMich

Member
Jul 6, 2001
87
0
0
Originally posted by: Fern

Of course if we prematurely withdrawl from Iraq and it results in Iran gaining influence there, we'll have "screwed the pooch" bigtime.

Fern

I disagree with practically everything Fern has written, but hidden beneath this sorry reason against withdrawal is a germ of truth. If the result is Iran gaining influence in Iraq, "we'll have screwed the pooch bigtime." For those of you with memories that extend to the first Gulf War this is PRECISELY why George Herbert Walker Bush did not send the troops to Bagdad in the first Gulf War. Saddam was a secular Sunni thug with his boot on the throat of the Shiite majority and had already fought a long and brutal war against Iran. But overthrown him and the majority Shiites, brethren of the Iranian Shiites, are likely to come to power. In the turmoil that would have surrounded any invasion and occupation of the country, it was absolutely predictable that Iran would use the opportunity to arm and fund Shiites of their choosing. And so they have. Now they have Al Sadr, and the irony is that if Bush is successful at this late date in fashioning a democracy in Iraq, the probable outcome is a regime friendly to Iran in which Al Sadr calls the shots. A wonderful way for the American taxpayers to blow several hundred billion dollars and the lives of our service men and women.
 

trenchfoot

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
14,899
7,428
136
considering how politicized our intelligence agencies have become, and the meddling and micromanaging they've been put through by past and especially the present administration, i have to wonder how our intelligence agencies get anything done at all.

correct me if i'm wrong, but don't our intelligence agencies get their marching orders from the adiminstration they are under? so, if our intelligence agencies get their directives from a political appointee, aren't these political appointees responsible for the effectiveness of these agencies and not the career spooks themselves?

 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: UberNeuman
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
[ ... ]
Originally posted by: Fern
Let's not even mention how the detection & prevention of what occured on 9/11 is their responsibility.
If only they'd tried to alert the Bush administration about the impending threat of al Qaeda, maybe in a PDB or something. If only Richard Clarke had spoken up instead of spending his days clearing brush. If only the Clinton administration had tried to warn the incoming Bush administration of the danger posed by al Qaeda.

:roll:
Tenet also addressed this directly on Meet the Press. The CIA started warning the White House in the spring of 2001 that a major attack within the U.S. was imminent, including Tenet personally advising Bush on several occasions. Unfortunately, the Bush administration -- not the CIA as you allege, but the Bush administration -- was unable to decide to act. They wanted to think about it more.

Wait, that's not really fair. They did care enough to take one action. They pulled Rumsfeld off of commercial flights beginning in July, 2001. They apparently cared about his safety. (America, not so much.)
ah, so quiet in here, i hear the crickets... And these folks are the same folks that keep attacking Clinton over "not doing enough," and yet, pass a blind eye over Bush doing NOTHING...
ROFL. Pretty much the standard tactic. When backed into a corner, their talking points refuted, cut and run until the thread dies. Then in a few weeks, when the subject comes up again, they can trot out the same propaganda, ignoring the fact it's been exposed a hundred times before.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
If Bush didn't lie knowingly, he was dumb enough to believe the lies he was telling, which is even worse. I kind of expect a politician to be a liar, but I would at least hope he isn't a complete idiot.
Bottom line it doesn't matter to me what his intentions were, the end result is that he got us stock in unnecessary and costly war whose outcome is most likely going to be worse than if we haven't gone in.
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
1
0
Iraq on the Record: The Bush Administration's Public Statements on Iraq

V. MISLEADING STATEMENTS BY INDIVIDUAL OFFICIALS

A. President Bush

President Bush made 55 misleading statements about the threat posed by Iraq in
27 separate public statements or appearances.
Of the 55 misleading statements by President Bush, 4 claimed that Iraq posed an
urgent threat; 14 exaggerated Iraq?s efforts to develop nuclear weapons; 18
overstated Iraq?s chemical or biological weapons capacity; and 19 misrepresented
Iraq?s links to al Qaeda.

On October 7, 2002, just days before the October 10 and October 11, 2002,
congressional votes on the Iraq war resolution, President Bush gave an address in
Cincinnati, Ohio, about the threat posed by Iraq. In this speech, President Bush
made 11 misleading statements about Iraq, the highest number of misleading
statements in any single appearance by any of the five officials. In this single
appearance, President Bush made misleading statements about Iraq?s nuclear
capabilities, Iraq?s efforts to procure aluminum tubes, Iraq?s chemical and
biological capabilities, and Iraq?s connection to al Qaeda.
Some of the misleading statements made by President Bush included the
following:

? ?On its present course, the Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency. . . .
It has developed weapons of mass death.?110

? ?The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought
significant quantities of uranium from Africa.?111

? ?The liberation of Iraq . . . removed an ally of al Qaeda.?112

? ?We found the weapons of mass destruction. . . . [F]or those who say we
haven?t found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons,
they?re wrong, we found them.?113

B. Vice President Cheney

Vice President Cheney made 51 misleading statements about the threat posed by
Iraq in 25 separate public statements or appearances.

Of the 51 misleading statements by Vice President Cheney, 1 claimed that Iraq
posed an urgent threat; 22 exaggerated Iraq?s efforts to develop nuclear weapons;
7 overstated Iraq?s chemical or biological weapons capacity; and 21
misrepresented Iraq?s links to al Qaeda.

Some of the misleading statements made by Vice President Cheney included the
following:

? ?[W]e do know, with absolute certainty, that he is using his procurement
system to acquire the equipment he needs in order to enrich uranium to
build a nuclear weapon.?114

? Saddam Hussein ?had an established relationship with al Qaeda.?115

? ?[W]e believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.?116

C. Secretary Rumsfeld

Secretary Rumsfeld made 52 misleading statements about the threat posed by Iraq
in 23 separate public statements or appearances.

Of the 52 misleading statements by Secretary Rumsfeld; 5 claimed that Iraq posed
an urgent threat; 18 exaggerated Iraq?s efforts to develop nuclear weapons; 21
overstated Iraq?s chemical or biological weapons capacity; and 8 misrepresented
Iraq?s links to al Qaeda.

Some of the misleading statements made by Secretary Rumsfeld included the
following:

? ?Now transport yourself forward a year, two years, or a week, or a
month, and if Saddam Hussein were to take his weapons of mass
destruction and transfer them, either use himself, or transfer them to
the Al-Qaeda, and somehow the Al-Qaeda were to engage in an attack
on the United States . . . with a weapon of mass destruction you?re not
talking about 300, or 3,000 people potentially being killed, but 30,000,
or 100,000 . . . human beings.?120

? ?[Saddam Hussein?s] regime . . . recently was discovered seeking
significant quantities of uranium from Africa.?121

? ?We said they had a nuclear program. That was never any debate.?123

D. Secretary Powell

Secretary Powell made 50 misleading statements about the threat posed by Iraq in
34 separate public statements or appearances.

Of the 50 misleading statements by Secretary Powell, 1 claimed that Iraq posed an
urgent threat; 10 exaggerated Iraq?s efforts to develop nuclear weapons; 32
overstated Iraq?s chemical or biological weapons capacity; and 7 misrepresented
Iraq?s links to al Qaeda.

Sometimes Secretary Powell used caveats and qualifying language in his public
statements. For example, on March 9, 2003, he said, ?Well with respect to the
aluminum tubes, we still believe the case is out. The CIA has done a great deal of
analysis on those tubes. They are not persuaded they were just for rockets. And,
in fact, another nation this week, a European nation, came forward with some
additional information that still, I think, leaves it an open question as to what the
purpose of those tubes was.?124 Secretary Powell?s acknowledgement of
differences in this example was not an unqualified statement that only mentioned
one side of an intelligence debate.

On numerous other occasions, however, Secretary Powell made unconditional
statements about the threats posed by Iraq without disclosing the doubts of
intelligence officials. Some of the misleading statements he made included the
following:

? ?Iraq is now concentrating . . . on developing and testing smaller
UAVs. . . . UAVs are well suited for dispensing chemical and biological
weapons.?125

? ?The more we wait, the more chance there is for this dictator with clear
ties to terrorist groups, including al-Qaida, more time for him to pass a
weapon, share a technology, or use these weapons again.?126

? ?So far, we have found the biological weapons vans that I spoke about
when I presented the case to the United Nations on the 5th of February,
and there is no doubt in our minds that those vans were designed for only
one purpose, and that was to make biological weapons.?127

E. National Security Advisor Rice

Ms. Rice made 29 misleading statements about the threat posed by Iraq in 16
separate public statements or appearances.

Of the 29 misleading statements by Ms. Rice, 17 concerned Iraq?s efforts to
develop nuclear weapons; 6 overstated Iraq?s chemical or biological weapons
capacity; and 6 misrepresented Iraq?s links to al Qaeda.
Some of the misleading statements made by Ms. Rice included the following:

? ?We do know that [Saddam Hussein] is actively pursuing a nuclear
weapon.?128

? ?We do know that there have been shipments going into . . . Iraq, for
instance, of aluminum tubes that really are only suited to ? high quality
aluminum tools that are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs,
centrifuge programs.?130

? ?[T]he declaration fails to account for or explain Iraq?s efforts to get
uranium from abroad.?131

Ms. Rice made significantly more statements that were false ? 8 ? than any of
the other four officials. Many of these statements came in June and July 2003
when questions were being raised about why President Bush asserted in his State
of the Union address that Iraq was seeking to import uranium from Africa. Ms.
Rice repeatedly stated during this period that no one in the White House was
informed of the doubts about this uranium claim. For example, she stated:

? ?We did not know at the time ? no one knew at the time, in our circles ?
maybe someone knew down in the bowels of the agency, but no one in our
circles knew that there were doubts and suspicions that this might be a
forgery.?132

? ?Had there been even a peep that the agency did not want that sentence
in or that George Tenet did not want that sentence in, that the director of
Central Intelligence did not want it in, it would have been gone.?133

These statements were simply false. As explained above, the CIA had repeatedly
communicated its objections to White House officials, including Ms. Rice.134

______________________________________________________________
110 White House, President, House Leadership Agree on Iraq Resolution, supra note 8.
111 White House, State of the Union, supra note 43.
112 White House, President Bush Announces, supra note 103.
113 White House, Interview of the President, supra note 88.
114 Meet the Press, supra note 38.
115 White House, Remarks by the Vice President to the Heritage Foundation (Oct. 10, 2003).
116 Meet the Press, supra note 20.
117 Meet the Press, supra note 38.
118 White House, Remarks by the Vice President at the Air National Guard Senior Leadership
Conference (Dec. 2, 2002).
119 White House, Remarks by the Vice President, supra note 115.
120 U.S. Department of Defense, supra note 11.
121 Press Conference with Donald Rumsfeld, supra note 45.
122 U.S. Department of Defense, supra note 11.
123 This Week With George Stephanopoulos, supra note 23.
124 Meet the Press, NBC (Mar. 9, 2003).
125 U.S. Department of State, supra note 39.
126 U.S. Department of State, Secretary of State Powell, Remarks at the World Economic Forum
(Jan. 26, 2003).
127 U.S. Department of State, supra note 90.
128 Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, supra note 37.
129 Condoleezza Rice, supra note 44.
130 Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, supra note 37.
131 Condoleezza Rice, supra note 44.
132 Meet the Press, NBC (June 8, 2003).
133 Face the Nation, CBS (July 11, 2003).
134 See White House, Dan Bartlett and Steve Hadley Hold Press Briefing, supra note 6.
 
Feb 16, 2005
14,060
5,405
136
Cheney: No Doubt Saddam Has WMD
Aug. 26, 2002
Dick Cheney, Vice President
"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."


Sep. 12, 2002
George W. Bush
Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.


Bush: Iraq Has WMD Stockpile
Oct. 5, 2002
George W. Bush, Radio Address
"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons."


Bush: Iraq Possesses and Produces Chemical Weapons
Oct. 7, 2002
George W. Bush
"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."

Q: Weapons of mass destruction haven't been found. So what argument will you use now to justify this war?

Bush, May 29, 2003: We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said, Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons. They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them. (May 23, 2003--a month afte he declared victory.)
http://www.whitehouse.gov/g8/interview5.html


Bush: 500 Tons of Sarin, 30,000 Munitions
Jan. 28, 2003
George W. Bush
"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent" and "upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents... "

May 30, 2003
Bush cites 2 trailers found as evidence of " the weapons of mass destruction" that were the United States' primary justification for going to war.
washingtonpost
"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."
George W. Bush, Speech to UN General Assembly 9/12/2002

"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons. We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."
George W. Bush, Radio Address 10/5/2002

"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."
George W. Bush, Cincinnati, Ohio Speech 10/7/2002

"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas."
George W. Bush, Cincinnati, Ohio Speech 10/7/2002

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."
George W. Bush, State of the Union Address 1/28/2003

?The best way for peace is for Mr. Saddam Hussein to disarm,? he insists. ?It's up to him to make his decision.? [White House, 12/4/02]

Bush says. ?He's the person who gets to decide war and peace.? [White House, 2/7/03]

Sep. 18, 2002
Donald Rumsfeld
His regime has amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of biological weapons?including anthrax and botulism toxin, and possibly smallpox.

His regime has amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons?including VX, sarin, cyclosarin and mustard gas.

His regime has an active program to acquire and develop nuclear weapons.
(more)

Republicans Limit Probe of WMD Issue
"There seems to be a campaign afoot by some to criticize the intelligence community and the president for connecting the dots, for putting together a picture that seemed all too obvious," said Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts, of Kansas. The Republican chairmen of the House of Representatives Intelligence Committee and the Senate Armed Services Committee joined Roberts in rejecting calls for an investigation. June 11, 2003.

Fleischer: No Question of Evidence of WMD
Mar. 21, 2003
White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer
"Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly."

Iraqis Authorized to Use Imaginary Chemical Weapons?
Oct. 5, 2002
George W. Bush
"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons. We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have." (more)

dedefensa
CBS news 10 March: many interesting quotes

Mar. 22, 2003
Gen. Tommy Franks: "There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. As this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them."
startribune

Jun. 4, 2003
Financial Times reports a single source, a senior Iraqi officer on active service, told British intelligence last August that Iraq could fire chemical or biological warheads within 45 minutes. - more
senioriraqiofficial (52k PDF)

Apr. 9, 2004
Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
We still need to find and secure Iraq's weapons of mass destruction facilities and secure Iraq's borders so we can prevent the flow of weapons of mass destruction materials and senior regime officials out of the country.
(more)

Mar. 21, 2004
Ari Fleischer:"Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes."
startribune

Jan. 9, 2003
Ari Fleischer: "We know for a fact that there are weapons there."
startribune

Remarks to the United Nations Security Council

Renewed Production of Chemcial Warfare Agents
Nov. 1, 2002
John Bolton, Undersecretary of State for Arms Control
"We estimate that once Iraq acquires fissile material -- whether from a foreign source or by securing the materials to build an indigenous fissile material capability -- it could fabricate a nuclear weapon within one year. It has rebuilt its civilian chemical infrastructure and renewed production of chemical warfare agents, probably including mustard, sarin, and VX. It actively maintains all key aspects of its offensive BW [biological weapons] program. (more)

Rice: All of the Dots Added Up
Sep. 28, 2003
Dr. Condoleezza Rice, National Security Advisor
"The premise of the war was ... all of the dots added up to a program and to weapons and a weapons program that was dangerous and getting more so."

Bush: Saddam Aids al-Qaida
Jan. 9, 2003
Bush
"Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al-Qaida." (more)

Bush: Taking Necessary Action Aganist Terrorism
Mar. 18, 2003
G.W. Bush
Bush said that his use of the Congressional authorization to wage war against Iraq is consistent with the international effort against terrorism, "including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001." (more)
US National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice - September 2003:
"Saddam was a danger in the region where the 9/11 threat emerged."

US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld - November 2002:
"Within a week, or a month, Saddam could give his WMD to al-Qaeda."

Bush (Jan. 28, 2003): Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.
Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes.
State of the Union Address
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html
June 17, 2004,
THE PRESIDENT: The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda, because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and al Qaeda. We did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. For example, Iraqi intelligence officers met with bin Laden, the head of al Qaeda, in the Sudan. There's numerous contacts between the two.

source:Source

Need more? Unfortunately, there is plenty....
THEY ARE FULL OF ****** AND 72% of the population knows it!
 
Feb 16, 2005
14,060
5,405
136
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
The fact that even the most rapid anti-Bush people in congress or the media don?t accuse him of lying should tell you all you need to know.

EVERYONE thought he had WMD, as Tenet essentially said the idea that he didn?t have WMD was just implausible.
Before the war even the people who voted against it didn?t even try to make the case that Saddam didn?t have WMD, they just felt that Saddam wasn?t worth going to war over.

So far we have had Tenet and Collin Powel leave the admin and neither of them have ever claimed that there was even an serious doubt as to whether Saddam had WMD or not. I guess we can accuse them of ?group think.? They were so sure Saddam had WMD that I doubt they even looked at the alternatives.

As far as debating whether or not we should have gone to war I think we should focus less on what we found and more on what we believed at the time and whether or not it was worth going to war based on what we thought at the time. Hindsight is 20/20 and too many people on here use that hindsight when they make their charges.


No Professor Frink, everyone didn't think he had them. We were TOLD by intentionally misleading intellect that he had them, but not everyone believed that bullshit. Too bad so many did, and scary that some still do.

To quote M. Jagger & K. Richards:

Lies, dripping off your mouth like dirt
Lies, lies in every step you walk
Lies, whispered sweetly in my ear
Lies, how do I get out of here?
Why, why you have to be so cruel?
Lies, lies, lies I ain't such a fool!

Lies, lies in my papa's looks
Lies, lies in my history books
Lies, lies like they teach in class
Lies, lies, lies I catch on way too fast
Fire, fire upon your wicked tongue
Lies, lies, lies you're trying to spoil my fun

Lies, lies you dirty jezebel
Why, why, why, why don't you go to hell?
Why, why you think me such a fool?
Lies, lies, lies honey that's ya rules!

Lies, lies, lies, lies, oh my lies, ...
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
The fact that even the most rapid anti-Bush people in congress or the media don?t accuse him of lying should tell you all you need to know.

EVERYONE thought he had WMD, as Tenet essentially said the idea that he didn?t have WMD was just implausible.
Before the war even the people who voted against it didn?t even try to make the case that Saddam didn?t have WMD, they just felt that Saddam wasn?t worth going to war over.

So far we have had Tenet and Collin Powel leave the admin and neither of them have ever claimed that there was even an serious doubt as to whether Saddam had WMD or not. I guess we can accuse them of ?group think.? They were so sure Saddam had WMD that I doubt they even looked at the alternatives.

As far as debating whether or not we should have gone to war I think we should focus less on what we found and more on what we believed at the time and whether or not it was worth going to war based on what we thought at the time. Hindsight is 20/20 and too many people on here use that hindsight when they make their charges.
No Professor Frink, everyone didn't think he had them. We were TOLD by intentionally misleading intellect that he had them, but not everyone believed that bullshit. Too bad so many did, and scary that some still do.
Please provide for me a quote by a major Democrat claiming that Saddam did NOT have WMD.

Or provide me with a link to an article by a major mainstream paper or network making the case that Saddam did NOT have WMD.

All of this proof will have to be pre-war since your 20/20 hindsight is meaningless.
 
Feb 16, 2005
14,060
5,405
136
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
The fact that even the most rapid anti-Bush people in congress or the media don?t accuse him of lying should tell you all you need to know.

EVERYONE thought he had WMD, as Tenet essentially said the idea that he didn?t have WMD was just implausible.
Before the war even the people who voted against it didn?t even try to make the case that Saddam didn?t have WMD, they just felt that Saddam wasn?t worth going to war over.

So far we have had Tenet and Collin Powel leave the admin and neither of them have ever claimed that there was even an serious doubt as to whether Saddam had WMD or not. I guess we can accuse them of ?group think.? They were so sure Saddam had WMD that I doubt they even looked at the alternatives.

As far as debating whether or not we should have gone to war I think we should focus less on what we found and more on what we believed at the time and whether or not it was worth going to war based on what we thought at the time. Hindsight is 20/20 and too many people on here use that hindsight when they make their charges.
No Professor Frink, everyone didn't think he had them. We were TOLD by intentionally misleading intellect that he had them, but not everyone believed that bullshit. Too bad so many did, and scary that some still do.
Please provide for me a quote by a major Democrat claiming that Saddam did NOT have WMD.

Or provide me with a link to an article by a major mainstream paper or network making the case that Saddam did NOT have WMD.

All of this proof will have to be pre-war since your 20/20 hindsight is meaningless.

That's it? That's the best you can do? 100,000's dead and you can't even say dumbya was dead wrong? I said that many did believe him or the steaming pile of 'evidence' that was presented by our intellect gathering community. Everyone from Prez Clinton to Ted Kennedy agreed he had them. They were WRONG, but lets check and see if they started this farce. Hmmm. Nope, they didn't. Very few stood up against this, it was still in the shadow of 9/11, and to go against the smacktard in chief was VERY unpatriotic. Except for a brave few.

For your convenience, a list, organized by state, of the 156 members of Congress who voted, on October 11, 2002, NAY to the War in Iraq.
--------------------

Alabama Rep Earl Hilliard

Arizona Rep Ed Pastor

Arkansas Rep Vic Snyder

California Sen Barbara Boxer- Rep Joe Baca- Rep Xavier Becerra- Rep Lois Capps- Rep Gary Condit- Rep Susan Davis- Rep Anna Eshoo- Rep Sam Farr- Rep Bob Filner- Rep Mike Honda- Rep Barbara Lee- Rep Zoe Lofgren- the late Rep Robert Matsui- Rep Juanita Millender-McDonald- Rep George Miller- Rep Grace Napolitano- Rep Nancy Pelosi- Rep Lucille Roybal-Allard- Rep Loretta Sanchez- Rep Hilda Solis- Rep Pete Stark- Rep Mike Thompson- Rep Maxine Waters- Rep Diane Watson- Rep Lynn Woolsey

Colorado Rep Diana DeGette- Rep Mark Udall

Connecticut Rep Rosa DeLaura- Rep John Larson- Rep James Maloney

Florida Sen Bob Graham- Rep Corinne Brown- Rep Alice Hastings- Rep Carrie Meek

Georgia Rep John Lewis- Rep Cynthia McKinney

Hawaii Sen Daniel Akaka- Sen Daniel Inouye- Rep Neil Abercrombie

Illinois Sen Dick Durbin- Rep Jerry Costello- Rep Danny Davis- Rep Lane Evans- Rep Luis Gutierrez Rep Jesse Jackson, Jr- Rep Bill Lipinski- Sen Bobby Rush- Rep Jan Schakowsky

Indiana Rep Julia Carson- Rep John Hostettler- Rep Pete Viscloskey

Iowa Rep Jim Leach

Maine Rep Tom Allen- Rep John Baldacci

Maryland Sen Barbara Mikulski- Sen Paul Sarbanes- Rep Benjamin Cardin- Rep Elijah Cummings- Rep Connie Morella

Massachusetts Sen Ted Kennedy- Rep Michael Capuano- Rep Bill Delahunt- Rep Barney Frank- Rep Jim McGovern- Rep Richard Neal- Rep John Olver- Rep John Tierney

Michigan Sen Carl Levin- Sen Debbie Stabenow- Rep David Bonior- Rep John Conyers, Jr- Rep John Dingell- Rep Dale Kildee- Rep Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick- Rep Sandy Levin- Rep Lynn Rivers- Rep Burt Stupak

Minnesota Sen Mark Dayton- the late Sen Paul Wellstone- Rep Betty McCollum- Rep Jim Oberstar- Rep Martin Olav Sabo

Mississippi Rep Bennie Thompson

Missouri Rep William Clay, Jr- Rep Karen McCarthy

New Jersey Sen Jon Corzine- Rep Rush Holt- Rep Robert Menendez- Rep Frank Pallone, Jr- Rep Donald Payne

New Mexico Sen Jeff Bingaman- Rep Tom Udall

New York Rep Maurice Hinchey- Rep Amo Houghton- Rep John LaFalce- Rep Gregory Meeks- Rep Jerrold Nadler- Rep Major Owens- Rep Charles Rangel- Rep Jose Serrano- Rep Louise Slaughter- Rep Edolphus Towns- Rep Nydia Velaquez

North Carolina Rep Eva Clayton- Rep David Price- Rep Melvin Watt

North Dakota Sen Kent Conrad

Ohio Rep Sharrod Brown- Rep Stephanie Tubbs Jones- Rep Marcy Kaptur- Rep Dennis Kucinich- Rep Thomas Sawyer- Rep Ted Strickland

Oregon Sen Ron Wyden- Rep Earl Blumenauer- Rep Peter DeFazio- Rep Darlene Hooley- Rep David Wu

Pennsylvania Rep Robert Brady- Rep William Coyne- Rep Mike Doyle- Rep Chaka Fattah

Rhode Island Sen Lincoln Chaffee- Sen Jack Reed- Rep James Langevin

South Carolina Rep Gresham Barrett- Rep James Clyburn

Tennessee Rep John Duncan, Jr

Texas Rep Lloyd Doggett- Rep Charles Gonzalez- Rep Ruben Hinojosa- Rep Sheila Jackson-Lee- Rep Eddie Bernice Johnson- Rep Ron Paul- Rep Silvestre Reyes- Rep Ciro Rodriguez

Vermont Sen Jim Jeffords- Sen Patrick Leahy- Rep Bernie Sanders

Virginia Rep Jim Moran- Rep Bobby Scott

Washington Sen Patty Murray- Rep Jay Inslee- Rep Rick Larsen- Rep Jim McDermott

Washington DC Rep Brian Baird

West Virginia Sen Robert Byrd- Rep Alan Mollohan- Rep Nick Rahall

Wisconsin Sen Russ Feingold- Rep Tammy Baldwin- Rep Jerry Kleczka- Rep David Obey

Fer us or agin us!
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,057
60
91
Originally posted by: PrevaricatorJohn
Or provide me with a link to an article by a major mainstream paper or network making the case that Saddam did NOT have WMD.

All of this proof will have to be pre-war since your 20/20 hindsight is meaningless.
You could start with Ambassador Joseph Wilson's article from July,6, 2003What I Didn't Find in Africa, in which he tells of warning the Bushwhackos before the invasion of Iraq that reports that Saddam was trying to buy yellow cake uranium in Niger were bogus.
What I Didn't Find in Africa

By JOSEPH C. WILSON 4th

Published: July 6, 2003

WASHINGTON -- Did the Bush administration manipulate intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons programs to justify an invasion of Iraq?

Based on my experience with the administration in the months leading up to the war, I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.
.
.
(continues)
Or you can read the report from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace:
Report Rebuts U.S.' Pre-War WMD Claims
by Jim Lobe


WASHINGTON - The administration of U.S. President George W. Bush ''systematically misrepresented'' the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD), three non-proliferation experts from a prominent think tank charged Thursday.

In a 107-page report, Jessica Mathews, Joseph Cirincione and George Perkovich of the Washington-based Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (CEIP) called for the creation of an independent commission to fully investigate what the U.S. intelligence community knew, or believed it knew, about Iraq's WMD program from 1991 to 2003.

The probe should also determine whether intelligence analyses were tainted by foreign intelligence agencies or political pressure, they added.

''It is very likely that intelligence officials were pressured by senior administration officials to conform their threat assessments to pre-existing policies,'' Cirincione told reporters.

The Carnegie analysts also found ''no solid evidence'' of a co-operative relationship between the government of ousted Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and the al-Qaeda terrorist group, nor any evidence to support the claim that Iraq would have transferred WMD to al-Qaeda under any circumstances.
.
.
(continues)
PJ -- I don't care how many times you repeat the same lies, or how many adminstration liars you quote, they're still the same lies. Joseph Goebbels was wrong. Repeating the Big Lie often enough does NOT make it true.

Aren't you tired of parroting the same Bushwhacko lies, yet? Haven't enough Americans died for those lies to give you the faintest clue that you're beating a dead horse? :roll:
 

thereaderrabbit

Senior member
Jan 3, 2001
444
0
0
Mxylplyx,

I didn't think Iraq had a substantial WMD program or stockpile when when went to war this last time with them. I'm a scientist by trade, and the 'proof' for the administration's claims never really added up. This simple lack of real proof had me very PO'd listening to the administration's claims.

Backing these feelings was the fact that my family had been previously been part of the intelligence community and they were also very bothered by what was being said (this included educated republicans).

Things didn't add up then (if you used your brain) and they don't add up now. So yea, I thought they were liars then and still think so till this very day.

-Reader
 

KGB

Diamond Member
May 11, 2000
3,042
0
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
The fact that even the most rapid anti-Bush people in congress or the media don?t accuse him of lying should tell you all you need to know.

EVERYONE thought he had WMD, as Tenet essentially said the idea that he didn?t have WMD was just implausible.
Before the war even the people who voted against it didn?t even try to make the case that Saddam didn?t have WMD, they just felt that Saddam wasn?t worth going to war over.

So far we have had Tenet and Collin Powel leave the admin and neither of them have ever claimed that there was even an serious doubt as to whether Saddam had WMD or not. I guess we can accuse them of ?group think.? They were so sure Saddam had WMD that I doubt they even looked at the alternatives.

As far as debating whether or not we should have gone to war I think we should focus less on what we found and more on what we believed at the time and whether or not it was worth going to war based on what we thought at the time. Hindsight is 20/20 and too many people on here use that hindsight when they make their charges.
No Professor Frink, everyone didn't think he had them. We were TOLD by intentionally misleading intellect that he had them, but not everyone believed that bullshit. Too bad so many did, and scary that some still do.
Please provide for me a quote by a major Democrat claiming that Saddam did NOT have WMD.

Or provide me with a link to an article by a major mainstream paper or network making the case that Saddam did NOT have WMD.
All of this proof will have to be pre-war since your 20/20 hindsight is meaningless.


Take your pick.

At the time, Knight Ridder were the only ones.
 

GrGr

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2003
3,204
0
76
Originally posted by: KGBMAN
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
The fact that even the most rapid anti-Bush people in congress or the media don?t accuse him of lying should tell you all you need to know.

EVERYONE thought he had WMD, as Tenet essentially said the idea that he didn?t have WMD was just implausible.
Before the war even the people who voted against it didn?t even try to make the case that Saddam didn?t have WMD, they just felt that Saddam wasn?t worth going to war over.

So far we have had Tenet and Collin Powel leave the admin and neither of them have ever claimed that there was even an serious doubt as to whether Saddam had WMD or not. I guess we can accuse them of ?group think.? They were so sure Saddam had WMD that I doubt they even looked at the alternatives.

As far as debating whether or not we should have gone to war I think we should focus less on what we found and more on what we believed at the time and whether or not it was worth going to war based on what we thought at the time. Hindsight is 20/20 and too many people on here use that hindsight when they make their charges.
No Professor Frink, everyone didn't think he had them. We were TOLD by intentionally misleading intellect that he had them, but not everyone believed that bullshit. Too bad so many did, and scary that some still do.
Please provide for me a quote by a major Democrat claiming that Saddam did NOT have WMD.

Or provide me with a link to an article by a major mainstream paper or network making the case that Saddam did NOT have WMD.
All of this proof will have to be pre-war since your 20/20 hindsight is meaningless.


Take your pick.

At the time, Knight Ridder were the only ones.

Indeed Prof John what does it tell you that almost the entire MSM incessantly catapulted the Bush administration's propaganda?

Maybe you should pay attention to how you are being manipulated.

 

GrGr

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2003
3,204
0
76


05/01/05 "Sunday Times" See also: - June 12, 2005 Cabinet Office paper: Conditions for military action

The secret Downing Street memo

SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY

DAVID MANNING
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195 /02

cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell

IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY

Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.

This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.

John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable.Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August.

The two broad US options were:

(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).

(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.

The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:

(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.

(ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.

(iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.

The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.

The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.


The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.

On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.

For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.

The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN.

John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real.

The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush.

Conclusions:

(a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action. But we needed a fuller picture of US planning before we could take any firm decisions. CDS should tell the US military that we were considering a range of options.

(b) The Prime Minister would revert on the question of whether funds could be spent in preparation for this operation.

(c) CDS would send the Prime Minister full details of the proposed military campaign and possible UK contributions by the end of the week.


(d) The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the background on the UN inspectors, and discreetly work up the ultimatum to Saddam.

He would also send the Prime Minister advice on the positions of countries in the region especially Turkey, and of the key EU member states.

(e) John Scarlett would send the Prime Minister a full intelligence update.

(f) We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal advisers.

(I have written separately to commission this follow-up work.)


MATTHEW RYCROFT

(Rycroft was a Downing Street foreign policy aide)

This memo proves among other things:

1) That the US and UK administrations knew the invasion was illegal
2) That the US and UK administrations knew that Saddam was not a threat to his neighbours much less the US or UK.
3) That President Bush fixed intelligence and facts to fit his policy of regime change.
4) That President Bush timed the invasion for maximum personal gain right before US elections.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Please provide for me a quote by a major Democrat claiming that Saddam did NOT have WMD.

Or provide me with a link to an article by a major mainstream paper or network making the case that Saddam did NOT have WMD.

All of this proof will have to be pre-war since your 20/20 hindsight is meaningless.
Though I hate to pile on (OK, no I don't), as with most everything in P&N, this has already been repeatedly refuted. For example, here is an excerpt from a thread I posted in April, 2003: A chronicle: Media question honesty of Bush administration. It's kind of the granddaddy of all the "Bush lied" threads. In it I posted several excerpts with links, not only from current articles, but also from articles published before BushCo's attack. You'll find the pre-war comments about half to two-thirds of the way down the OP. Here they are:
Edit: more related articles, copied from another thread. These were all published before the war:
From The Mirror (UK), July 7, 2003,
Iraq: The Lying Game

[ ... ]
While Blair has claimed that Iraq has rebuilt its arsenal of "weapons of mass destruction", those who advise him know full well this is nonsense. And if Blair himself is not aware of this, this begs the question: what kind of prime minister is he?
[ ... ]
[ Quoting Scott Ritter: ] "The UN weapons inspectors enjoyed tremendous success in Iraq. By the end of our job, we ascertained a 90-95 per cent level of disarmament. Not because we took at face value what the Iraqis said. We went to Europe and scoured the countries that sold technology to Iraq until we found the company that had an invoice signed by an Iraqi official. We cross-checked every piece of equipment with serial numbers. That's why I can say that Iraq was 90-95 per cent disarmed. We confirmed that 96 per cent of Iraq's 98 missiles were destroyed.

"As for chemical weapons, even if Iraq had succeeded in hiding stocks of sarin and tabun nerve agents, these chemicals have a shelf life of five years; after that they deteriorate and become useless gunk."

Ritter does not deny that Iraq could have begun to reconstitute its weapons programmes. "But they would have to start from scratch because they don't have the factories any more, because we destroyed them (including the research and development plant). If they tried that, the evidence is readily detectable. The technology is available; if Iraq was producing chemical weapons today on any meaningful scale, we would have definitive proof to show, plain and simple; and there is none."
[ ... ]

From The Guardian (UK), Sept 19, 2002,
'Even if Iraq managed to hide these weapons, what they are now hiding is harmless goo'

UN weapons inspectors are poised to return to Iraq, but does Saddam Hussein have any weapons of mass destruction for them to find? The Bush administration insists he still has chemical and biological stockpiles and is well on the way to building a nuclear bomb. Scott Ritter, a former marine officer who spent seven years hunting and destroying Saddam's arsenal, is better placed than most to know the truth. Here, in an exclusive extract from his new book, he tells William Rivers Pitt why he believes the threat posed by the Iraqi dictator has been overstated.
[ ... ]
That said, we have no evidence that Iraq retains either the capability or material. In fact, a considerable amount of evidence suggests Iraq doesn't retain the necessary material.

I believe the primary problem at this point is one of accounting. Iraq has destroyed 90 to 95% of its weapons of mass destruction. Okay. We have to remember that this missing 5 to 10% doesn't necessarily constitute a threat. It doesn't even constitute a weapons programme. It constitutes bits and pieces of a weapons programme which, in its totality, doesn't amount to much, but which is still prohibited. Likewise, just because we can't account for it, doesn't mean Iraq retains it. There is no evidence that Iraq retains this material.
[ ... ]
[Re. nuclear weapons: ] When I left Iraq in 1998, when the UN inspection programme ended, the infrastructure and facilities had been 100% eliminated. There's no debate about that. All of their instruments and facilities had been destroyed. The weapons design facility had been destroyed. The production equipment had been hunted down and destroyed. And we had in place means to monitor - both from vehicles and from the air - the gamma rays that accompany attempts to enrich uranium or plutonium. We never found anything. We can say unequivocally that the industrial infrastructure needed by Iraq to produce nuclear weapons had been eliminated.
[ ... ]
Chemical weapons were produced in the Muthanna state establishment: a massive chemical weapons factory. It was bombed during the Gulf war, and then weapons inspectors came and completed the task of eliminating the facility. That means Iraq lost its sarin and tabun manufacturing base.

We destroyed thousands of tons of chemical agent. It is not as though we said, "Oh we destroyed a factory, now we are going to wait for everything else to expire." We had an incineration plant operating full-time for years, burning tons of the stuff every day. We went out and blew up bombs, missiles and warheads filled with this agent. We emptied Scud missile warheads filled with this agent. We hunted down this stuff and destroyed it.
[ ... ]


There's much more in the article. It's a good, balanced piece from a man with plenty of first=hand information.


From The San Francisco Chronicle, Oct 12, 2002,
Bush's evidence of threat disputed - Findings often ambiguous, contradict CIA

With a resounding congressional endorsement behind him, President Bush confronts Iraq bolstered by the near-universal consensus that Saddam Hussein poses a security menace to his neighbors and the United States.

But while the political debate appears to be all but over, nagging questions remain about the evidence the administration has put forth to support its stance. In some cases, the evidence is at best insubstantial. In others, ambiguous intelligence data have given rise to interpretations that are highly subjective or just plain wrong.

In some instances, administration statements appear to run directly counter to assessments made by intelligence agencies.
[ ... ]
The administration has also asserted as a given -- and few critics have questioned -- that the Baghdad regime has stockpiled and continues to develop vast quantities of biological and chemical weapons. But a comprehensive British government report, based on its own intelligence agency findings, noted that most estimates were based on guesswork. "Without U.N. weapons inspectors, it is very difficult therefore to be sure about the true nature of many of Iraq's facilities," the British report stated.
[ ... ]
"As a guesstimate, Iraq's present holdings of delivery systems and chemical and biological weapons seem most likely to be so limited in technology and operational lethality that they do not constrain U.S. freedom of action or do much to intimidate Iraq's neighbors," said Anthony Cordesman, a security analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.


From The Independent, Feb 9, 2003,
MI6 and CIA: The new enemy within

Tony Blair and George Bush are encountering an unexpected obstacle in their campaign for war against Iraq - their own intelligence agencies.

Britain and America's spies believe that they are being politicised: that the intelligence they provide is being selectively applied to lead to the opposite conclusion from the one they have drawn, which is that Iraq is much less of a threat than their political masters claim. Worse, when the intelligence agencies fail to do the job, the politicians will not stop at plagiarism to make their case, even "tweaking" the plagiarised material to ensure a better fit.

"You cannot just cherry-pick evidence that suits your case and ignore the rest. It is a cardinal rule of intelligence," said one aggrieved officer. "Yet that is what the PM is doing." Not since Harold Wilson has a Prime Minister been so unpopular with his top spies.
[ ... ]


From The Toronto Star, Feb 15, 2003,
Major powers rebuff Bush

[ ... ]
"More than 200 chemical and more than 100 biological samples have been collected at different (Iraqi) sites," Blix reported. "Three-quarters of these have been screened using our own laboratory ... the results to date have been consistent with Iraq's declarations."

Noting Iraqi co-operation has improved since his interim report last month, but is still not as complete as the Security Council has demanded, Blix told the council "access to sites has so far been without problems, including those that had never been declared (by Iraq) or inspected, as well as presidential sites and private residences."

Blix said some Iraqi weapons are not accounted for, but that doesn't mean they exist. He said inspectors need more time, a view the majority of U.N. Security Council member nations agreed with.
[ ... ]
After Blix's report, de Villepin, France's foreign minister, said it was clear inspections were working and there wasn't any evidence yet to attack Iraq. "Inspections are producing results ... The option of inspections has not been taken to the end," he said.

"The conditions are there. The inspectors must continue their inspections," said Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov. "And this is a position shared by the overwhelming majority of states in the world, including within the Security Council."
[ ... ]


Finally,

From The Free Press, March 9, 2003,
Has Bush suckered the UN and Iraq?

Has the Bush Administration suckered the United Nations into weakening Iraq prior to a mass murderous attack that was pre-ordained years ago?

The facts are these:

· Bush's original official stance was that the United Nations must force Iraq to disarm, in keeping with treaties signed after Iraq's 1991 defeat after invading Kuwait. His charges that Iraq had failed to honor these promises led the United Nations to force it to further disarm;

· According to the official report of UN weapons inspectors, as delivered Friday, March 7 by Hans Blix, Iraq has made "significant" steps toward disarming, among other things destroying many of its missiles;

· According to additional reports, Iraq may have destroyed most or all of its chemical and biological weapons early in the 1990s;

· According to most credible reports, Iraq does not have the near-term ability to build nuclear weapons;

In short, by all internationally accepted standards, Iraq has moved toward significant compliance with the formal demands of the United Nations, and cannot be considered a credible threat to the United States.
[ ... ]


There you go. A bunch of articles from before the invasion. Different sources, different angles, but all refer to uncertainties about whether Iraq still had WMDs, the accuracy of intelligence reports as presented by Bush and Blair, or related topics re. the credibility of the justification for war.

As you can see, there were major media sources questioning the accuracy and veracity of BushCo's allegations against Iraq. Sadly, most Americans didn't see them. They were buried behind the war cheerleading of America's corporate media.

Any other misdirection you'd care to have refuted? It's probably in that thread too.