Bush Insists that Iraq Had a WMD Program

[Crossbow]

Bush Insists Iraq Had Illicit Weapons

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34499-2003Jun9.html?nav=hptop_tb

Bush is starting to adopt the current verbage of his staff; originally, they all liked to make the terrifying claim that that Iraq actually had WMDs that would be used against the USA (or it allies) and/or Saddam would provide WMDs to terrorist organizations.

But now, even Bush is starting to admit the obivious by publicly saying things like:

"Iraq had a weapons program," Bush told reporters after a meeting with his Cabinet at the White House. "Intelligence throughout the decade showed they had a weapons program. I am absolutely convinced with time we'll find out they did have a weapons program."

Note use of the words 'weapons programs' as opposed to using the one word 'weapons' shows just that the back-pedaling has now reached the highest levels.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Crossbow
Bush Insists Iraq Had Illicit Weapons

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34499-2003Jun9.html?nav=hptop_tb

Bush is starting to adopt the current verbage of his staff; originally, they all liked to make the terrifying claim that that Iraq actually had WMDs that would be used against the USA (or it allies) and/or Saddam would provide WMDs to terrorist organizations.

But now, even Bush is starting to admit the obivious by publicly saying things like:

"Iraq had a weapons program," Bush told reporters after a meeting with his Cabinet at the White House. "Intelligence throughout the decade showed they had a weapons program. I am absolutely convinced with time we'll find out they did have a weapons program."

Note use of the words 'weapons programs' as opposed to using the one word 'weapons' shows just that the back-pedaling has now reached the highest levels.

Well Duh! Of course they had a weapons program! I mean, they used WMDs ten years ago. However, their weapons program was fairly basic: Buy them from the US. ;)

[DrChinese]

Bush is definitely getting better at delivering the message prepared by his handlers. I noted - as you point out as well - the repeating of the "weapons programs" 3 times in one short statement. (I guess he can pronounce it better than he says "nu-ku-lar".)

Soon he can declare to the American public that he was targeting Iraqi weapons programs all along, that actual WMDs were not relevant, that the threat was real, see looky here, now looky there, etc. etc. etc.

But HE SAID THERE WERE WMDs in IRAQ!!!!!! Bush, Powell, Cheney, Rumsfeld, they all said it over and over. Nuclear, biological, chemical. Threats requiring IMMEDIATE UNILATERAL ACTION. Or else US lives might be lost to these weapons.

By the way, where is SADDAM? By the way, where is OSAMA? Has everyone forgotten so quickly? How can the administration say these things without being called to task? Is the only explanation: conservative bias in the media? I guess that's a subject for a new thread...

[Frostbite]

This whole thing is slowly but surely becoming the big damn joke some of us knew it was all along.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Tricky


Well Duh! Of course they had a weapons program! I mean, they used WMDs ten years ago. However, their weapons program was fairly basic: Buy them from the US. ;)


Saying "weapons program" is backpedaling? I'll wait and see what they say later this week before I assume that. It sounds a bit picky.

[Landis]

Before the War, Bush and his cohorts insisted that there were tons of WMD and we had better act before it's too late. Now, they insist the WMD were there and we will find them, just give us more time, it's only been 3 months!!! Well, if there were tons (maybe even 100s of tons) of WMD and they were moved/and or hidden, then why doesn't someone in Iraq come forward and claim the massive amount of money the US would pay for that information? After all, I'm sure that Saddam and his Son's did not load up those weapons on trucks and cart them out into the desert by themselves. That kind of operation would have involved dozens if not hundreds of low level laborers.
I know if I had driven a truck full of WMD's anywhere in Iraq and my children were starving, I would certainly sell that information.

[corplinx]

It should be worth noting that Powell stood by his "tons" judgement on the Sunday shows.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by corplinx


Saying "weapons program" is backpedaling? I'll wait and see what they say later this week before I assume that. It sounds a bit picky.

“We do know that the Iraqi regime has chemical and biological weapons,” Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld told the House Armed Services Committee on Sept. 18. “His regime has amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons — including VX, sarin, cyclosarin and mustard gas.”

Hmmm, Donald sounds pretty specific to my ears. Nothing ambiguous in the words, no uncertainty expressed, and he even names the actual substances! But I see nothing about weapons programs. You are free to do as you like, but I wouldn't hold my breath while you're waiting.

[Malachi151]

his handlers

LOL, now its sounding like Mike Tyson commentary :p

[corplinx]

Originally posted by DrChinese


“We do know that the Iraqi regime has chemical and biological weapons,” Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld told the House Armed Services Committee on Sept. 18. “His regime has amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons — including VX, sarin, cyclosarin and mustard gas.”

Hmmm, Donald sounds pretty specific to my ears. Nothing ambiguous in the words, no uncertainty expressed, and he even names the actual substances! But I see nothing about weapons programs. You are free to do as you like, but I wouldn't hold my breath while you're waiting.

The difference between you and I is that you assume there is backpedaling because of the latest buzz phrase (despite people like Powell vehemently claiming Iraq had WMD yesterday). I wait for actual backpedaling before I declare there is backpedaling.

Hell, I'm still waiting for a thorough search of the country unlike some people who have already made up their minds about whether WMD will be found.

The latest poisonous attitude I have found is "since weapons weren't easy to find, bush is a liar". I guess Saddam kept any WMD he may have had armed and ready while he had those inspectors running around his country right up until the war started. This deliberate ignorance or cognitive dissonance is the saddest form of rabid opposition.

[dsm]

Originally posted by corplinx

The difference between you and I is that you assume there is backpedaling because of the latest buzz phrase (despite people like Powell vehemently claiming Iraq had WMD yesterday). I wait for actual backpedaling before I declare there is backpedaling.


LOL. :D


Hell, I'm still waiting for a thorough search of the country unlike some people who have already made up their minds about whether WMD will be found.


Unless and until somebody (like DrChinese ;)) goes out and scours every last sand dune in Iraq (and Syria and Iran), Bush (et.al.) will always be able to say "well, Saddam had WMDs and we'll find them eventually".


The latest poisonous attitude I have found is "since weapons weren't easy to find, bush is a liar". I guess Saddam kept any WMD he may have had armed and ready while he had those inspectors running around his country right up until the war started. This deliberate ignorance or cognitive dissonance is the saddest form of rabid opposition.


Ever thought of being a UFOlogist or a parapsychologist?



:p

[corplinx]

Originally posted by dsm


LOL. :D



Unless and until somebody (like DrChinese ;)) goes out and scours every last sand dune in Iraq (and Syria and Iran), Bush (et.al.) will always be able to say "well, Saddam had WMDs and we'll find them eventually".



Ever thought of being a UFOlogist or a parapsychologist?



:p

Not at all, I think there is a reasonable amount of time and effort before you call a search fruitless. After 3 months if nothing has been found, then the Bush admin has a lot of explaining to do.

And as for parapsychology or ufo-ology, you already have that field crowded. Not to mention my old psyche professors would slay me.

[Gem]

What I'm really curious is, is it possible to destroy/hide the specified ammount of WMD in 1 month? 3 month? 5 months? Saddam may have destroyed/hid many of them, but is it possible in those time constraints?

Gem

Edited to add: And I'm giving Bush one year before I start asking Serious questions.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Gem
Edited to add: And I'm giving Bush one year before I start asking Serious questions.

A year? 3 months should be all they need. I think the big problem is getting the top Iraqis to talk. If 38k liters of anthrax were destroyedor moved to another country, there should be evidence. Supposedly though, the top Iraqis captured aren't talking.

There was an article in one of the big papers about how some Iraqi scientists were afraid to come forward because the US wasn't playing ball. Basically, if they came forward they would be locked up and asked questions with no reprieve for cooperating supposedly.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Gem
What I'm really curious is, is it possible to destroy/hide the specified ammount of WMD in 1 month? 3 month? 5 months? Saddam may have destroyed/hid many of them, but is it possible in those time constraints?

Gem

Edited to add: And I'm giving Bush one year before I start asking Serious questions.

The thing is, that he had them, everyone knew he had them. The only reason that the troops didn't march into Baghdad in the first gulf war was that Saddam started crying "wait, wait, I'll destroy those weapons". He was compelled by the agreement to destroy and account for every bit of it. He never did.

Saddam had years and years to hide this stuff and/or make plans to export it rapidly. What people should be worrying about is "where did the stuff go to?". It isn't just imperative to find the WMD for the US to save face, but for the safety of the entire world.

If we had intelligence which showed that Saddam was making more WMD and he wasn't, it's just poor intelligence, not a plot to take over the world. Saddam never accounted for the items everyone knew that he had.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal


The thing is, that he had them, everyone knew he had them. The only reason that the troops didn't march into Baghdad in the first gulf war was that Saddam started crying "wait, wait, I'll destroy those weapons". He was compelled by the agreement to destroy and account for every bit of it. He never did.

...

The reason provided in the above for not having the troops march into Baghdad during the first Gulf War is nonsense and I have to respond.

If you will take a look at what the first Bush said during the first day of the first Gulf War, then you see that he says flat out that "this is not an invasion of Iraq". Don't you watch TV? I sure do, and I (and millions of others) saw this speech when it was aired.

To give a brief background, in order to get the other Arab countries on our side, the USA had to promise them that there would not be an actual invasion of Iraq; the military action would be geared to getting Iraq out of Kuwait. Saddam's promises did not have anything to do with the decision not to invade Iraq because this decision was made months before these promises were even made.

I hope this helps!

[Tricky]

Originally posted by corplinx
A year? 3 months should be all they need. I think the big problem is getting the top Iraqis to talk. If 38k liters of anthrax were destroyedor moved to another country, there should be evidence. Supposedly though, the top Iraqis captured aren't talking.

There was an article in one of the big papers about how some Iraqi scientists were afraid to come forward because the US wasn't playing ball. Basically, if they came forward they would be locked up and asked questions with no reprieve for cooperating supposedly.
I'd be interested in seeing that article, because it sounds so counterintuitive. I have a hard time believing that, desperate for information as they are, the US wouldn't pamper people who were good sources of information. I would think that if anything, the Iraqi sources would be more worried about the reaction of their fellow Iraqis, who might consider them traitors.

But from the many stories we have had so far, the problem is not getting them to talk, but that everything they say falls short of being good, verifiable evidence for locating WMDs. I still don't see why the US didn't want Blix and the UN inspectors in. They might have been at least able to identify reliable contacts. That decision smells awfully fishy.

[Crossbow]

I would have to say that the White House is backpedaling and Bush is doing so as well. It seems to me that they have all but given up hope that they will find the proverbial 'smoking gun' which they could use to validate their rational for executing the last Gulf War.

Two weeks ago Bush was saying that "we found the weapons of mass destruction" referring to the two trailers that were found. However, his current statements refer to looking and searching as opposed to finding.

Just before the shooting started (March 17, 2003) Bush said "[there is] no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." Current statements are much more guarded.

In the January State of the Union Address, Bush claimed that Iraq was trying to buy unranium, however Condelleza Rice admitted the other day that this claim was inaccurate.

[blackpriester]

To corplinx, pepto et al:

How do you reconcile Skepticism with your non-existing criticism of Bush's false (?) claims? Should an action with consequences as far-reaching as the war on Iraq not be PROVEN to be justified before you take it? How is it logical to give Bush 3 months or a year to prove his claims when he said beofre the war that he had SAFE evidence of WoMD in Iraq?

- m.

[c0rbin]

Hell, I'm still waiting for a thorough search of the country unlike some people who have already made up their minds about whether WMD will be found.

I agree that there is back pedal-ing. The administration was so sure of itself that it pushed aside any multilateral co-operation and attcked Iraq.

But I think the point is that the Bush Admin want to go in and see for itself, a sort of forced entry and search.

It has been a confused PR mess from the get-go and now we as a nation will reap the benefits of this baffoonery.

Of course there is always the chance that we could find that half-smoked roach in the corner...

[Monketey Ghost]

IMO, W is a half-wit and it seems to me his cabinet is full of war-hawk crooks.

But, I will continue to allow time for searching. Iraq is a big place, and it does seem too early to say the administration was incorrect.

One thing that bothers me greatly: why would any captured Iraqis not cooperate at this point? Out of loyalty to a regime that no longer exists?

[KelvinG]

Didn't the UN inspectors and the countries who opposed an immediate attack on Iraq say that more time was needed in the search for WMD.
Now, all we are hearing from the pro-war side is that more time is needed, we'll find them eventually.

Reeks of a double standard to me.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by corplinx


1. A year? 3 months should be all they need. I think the big problem is getting the top Iraqis to talk. If 38k liters of anthrax were destroyedor moved to another country, there should be evidence. Supposedly though, the top Iraqis captured aren't talking.

2. There was an article in one of the big papers about how some Iraqi scientists were afraid to come forward because the US wasn't playing ball. Basically, if they came forward they would be locked up and asked questions with no reprieve for cooperating supposedly.

1. Admittedly, I didn't believe the evidence when it was presented in the first place. So there was no decision process for me as to the length of time needed before calling Bush a liar. I had already believed that he spoke what he wanted to believe, not what the actual evidence indicated. Therefore, to be fair to those who trusted Bush, I should allow others the necessary time to come to the conclusion that Bush did not speak truthfully.

We should also keep in mind that these (conflicting) factors clouded the true picture for everyone: a) Saddam is a known liar; b) no serious weapons violations had been discovered since 1994 (from the UN perspective); c) numerous technical violations have been documented through the years; d) the inspectors had been absent from 1998-2002.

Bush exploited this to create a sense of uncertainty in which his distortions seemed reasonable. Bush made WMDs and the threat to the US and the world the centerpiece of his war rationale. The president should be held to a high standard, and he didn't meet it.

2. Sounds like an apology to me. If the WMDs existed, why didn't our satellites see where they went? Why is there NO physical evidence so far? We can't blame that on close-lipped Iraqis.

FYI: I am available for the search for WMDs. Just wanted you to know I am prepared to perform my patriotic duties if needed.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal


The only reason that the troops didn't march into Baghdad in the first gulf war was that Saddam started crying "wait, wait, I'll destroy those weapons". He was compelled by the agreement to destroy and account for every bit of it. He never did.



According to George Bush Sr., the man who made the decision not to go to Baghdad, your statement is false. Bush said (if you believe him) that he did not go in because he had already completed his objective (the liberation of Kuwait) and anyway, he did not expect Saddam to survive. As I recall, Saddam's surrender was actually unconditional.