Secretary Rumsfeld: WMD may turn up

tnitsuj

Diamond Member
May 22, 2003
5,446
0
76
from the Washingtonpost


Priceless. :)

Under questioning from Kennedy, Rumsfeld backed away from his September 2002 Senate testimony in which he said "we know" that Hussein continues to hide large stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons.

"I could be wrong," Rumsfeld said today. "I'm asked a lot of questions. I use a lot of words, and I'm sure, from time to time, I say something that, in retrospect, I wish I hadn't."

He recalled another occasion on which he had expressed such certainty, after U.S. forces had invaded Iraq and he was asked where the weapons of mass destruction were.

"And I may have said -- I think I said -- 'We know where they are. They're up north. They're not down here.' And I was referring to the suspect sites. And you're quite right; shorthand, 'We know where they are,' probably turned out not to be exactly what one would have preferred in retrospect."
 

Shad0hawK

Banned
May 26, 2003
1,456
0
0
to me WMD was never really the main issue, because i realized a long time ago as soon as some was found, it would be minimalized or called planted evidence.
 

lozina

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
11,707
5
0
Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
to me WMD was never really the main issue, because i realized a long time ago as soon as some was found, it would be minimalized or called planted evidence.
So then, what is the main issue- an issue which cannot be minimalized or labelled false ?
 

tnitsuj

Diamond Member
May 22, 2003
5,446
0
76
Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
to me WMD was never really the main issue, because i realized a long time ago as soon as some was found, it would be minimalized or called planted evidence.
If we truly found WMD of the type and scale that the administration was absolutely confident about in the run up to war, thier would be little doubt. As it is 49% of the American people feel the president misled them. NOTE: Misled does not = lie.
 

Genesys

Golden Member
Nov 10, 2003
1,536
0
0
Originally posted by: lozina
Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
to me WMD was never really the main issue, because i realized a long time ago as soon as some was found, it would be minimalized or called planted evidence.
So then, what is the main issue- an issue which cannot be minimalized or labelled false ?
theres no such thing. this whole issue was politicized from the very beginning.

i agree with Shad0hawK though. WMD was never really an issue for me. I just saw it as Bush trying to put icing on his WoT cake.
 
Jan 12, 2003
3,498
0
0
Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
to me WMD was never really the main issue, because i realized a long time ago as soon as some was found, it would be minimalized or called planted evidence.
You mean like the Saddam SNAFU? "well, well, well, you can't even capture Saddam, so there is no victory...but, but, but, he's still out there, so America isn't any safer..."

Once we get our man, however, the tune changed: "Oh, who cares...no big deal...wasn't a threat anyway." Funny how this works.

 

chess9

Elite member
Apr 15, 2000
7,748
0
0
Rumsfeld didn't know JACK in 2002 and he doesn't know JACK now. I'd be more enlightening to a Senate inquiry than Rumsfeld.

That guy is one sorry sack of merde.

-Robert
 

preCRT

Platinum Member
Apr 12, 2000
2,340
123
106
Rumsfeld should start searching Iraqi golf courses, maybe the WMD are being hidden with OJ's real killers.
 

markuskidd

Senior member
Sep 2, 2002
360
0
0
Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
to me WMD was never really the main issue, because i realized a long time ago as soon as some was found, it would be minimalized or called planted evidence.
You mean like the Saddam SNAFU? "well, well, well, you can't even capture Saddam, so there is no victory...but, but, but, he's still out there, so America isn't any safer..."

Once we get our man, however, the tune changed: "Oh, who cares...no big deal...wasn't a threat anyway." Funny how this works.
I think it had a lot (though maybe not exclusively) to do with the assumption that Saddam was a major player in the Iraqi resistance that has been attacking our troops. Unfortunately, that's been proven incorrect and, as you say, it seems like he wasn't as much of a threat anyway.
 

jahawkin

Golden Member
Aug 24, 2000
1,355
0
0
There are alot of other things that Rumsfeld said in his testimony that "probably turned out not to be exactly what one would have preferred in retrospect."
Statements like:
There are a number of terrorist states pursuing weapons of mass destruction -- Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, just to name a few -- but no terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people than the regime of Saddam Hussein and Iraq. Mr. Chairman, these facts are Saddam Hussein's regime should be part of the record and of our country's consideration:
He plays host to terrorist networks.
He's amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of biological weapons, including Anthrax, botulism, toxins and possibly Smallpox.
He's amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons, including VX, Sarin and mustard gas.
His regime has an active program to acquire nuclear weapons.

We do know that Saddam Hussein has been actively and persistently pursuing nuclear weapons for more than 20 years. But we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons.
But I forgot, Rumsfeld and the others were duped by the bad intelligence the CIA forced upon them. Nevermind the independent intelligence groups that Rumsfeld and Cheney set up because the CIA was supposedly underrepresenting the threat posed by Iraq in 2002. This testimony was based on the bad intelligence the CIA rammed down Rumsfelds' throat.
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
Originally posted by: jahawkin
But I forgot, Rumsfeld and the others were duped by the bad intelligence the CIA forced upon them. Nevermind the independent intelligence groups that Rumsfeld and Cheney set up because the CIA was supposedly underrepresenting the threat posed by Iraq in 2002. This testimony was based on the bad intelligence the CIA rammed down Rumsfelds' throat.
good point, alot of the intel came from those intelligence groups, and since both Rumsfeld and Cheney are ultimately responsible for those groups, well, what will happen to them?

 

XZeroII

Lifer
Jun 30, 2001
12,572
0
0
Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Rummy and Cheney are still on the same page - from a year ago.
Liberals are all still on the same page, "Bush is a liar, waawaawaa. I've never lied in my life and Bush is scarring this country, waaaaaaaaaa"
 

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
12,510
7,597
136
Originally posted by: XZeroII
Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Rummy and Cheney are still on the same page - from a year ago.
Liberals are all still on the same page, "Bush is a liar, waawaawaa. I've never lied in my life and Bush is scarring this country, waaaaaaaaaa"
I've never lied to the whole world before. Or used that lie to kill thousands of people. But that is just me, to each his own, I guess.
 

Mean MrMustard

Diamond Member
Jan 5, 2001
3,144
10
81
Originally posted by: XZeroII
Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Rummy and Cheney are still on the same page - from a year ago.
Liberals are all still on the same page, "Bush is a liar, waawaawaa. I've never lied in my life and Bush is scarring this country, waaaaaaaaaa"
Yes, but my lies don't kill thousands of innocent people. :)

<= not a liberal
 
Jan 12, 2003
3,498
0
0
Originally posted by: Zorba
Originally posted by: XZeroII
Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Rummy and Cheney are still on the same page - from a year ago.
Liberals are all still on the same page, "Bush is a liar, waawaawaa. I've never lied in my life and Bush is scarring this country, waaaaaaaaaa"
I've never lied to the whole world before. Or used that lie to kill thousands of people. But that is just me, to each his own, I guess.
Blame Kerry, he voted and authorized forced...so did many other Democrats...though some would rather Saddam back in power.
 

Wolfdog

Member
Aug 25, 2001
187
0
0
What really makes the US govt any different than Saddam? When it comes down to it both lie when it suits thier own purposes. Both have killed thousands of innocent civilians in the past. Both have developed chemical and biological weapons. Both governments have thier heads all the way up thier creavices. One govt just has a bigger snorkel.
 

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
12,510
7,597
136
Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
Originally posted by: Zorba
Originally posted by: XZeroII
Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Rummy and Cheney are still on the same page - from a year ago.
Liberals are all still on the same page, "Bush is a liar, waawaawaa. I've never lied in my life and Bush is scarring this country, waaaaaaaaaa"
I've never lied to the whole world before. Or used that lie to kill thousands of people. But that is just me, to each his own, I guess.
Blame Kerry, he voted and authorized forced...so did many other Democrats...though some would rather Saddam back in power.
You know, it is just the neo-con to think that I am bleeding heart if I say anything that might be against Bush. I am actually a Republican, though, but Bush just sucks for everyone. Besides I don't think anyone in the Senate has the access to the intelligence that Bush does. I was mustly for the war when I thought Bush was telling the truth. But since reality is different than what Bush told us, I am no longer for the war. I am sure many in the senate feel the same.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY