Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bush had good reason to believe there were WMD in Iraq
Christian Science Monitor ^ | 4/12/06 | John Hughes

Posted on 04/12/2006 12:01:03 PM PDT by Caleb1411

Among the allegations leveled at President Bush by his critics, probably the most serious is that he took the United States to war in Iraq on false pretenses. He told the American people that Saddam Hussein had a collection of dangerous weapons of mass destruction when Mr. Hussein did not. In retrospect it is clear that the weapons did not exist, although they had in the past, and Hussein had used them against his enemies. But what is also clear from captured documents now coming to light is that Mr. Bush had every reason to believe they still existed at the time he launched the military campaign in Iraq. Not only did US and allied intelligence agencies assert that the weapons were there, but Hussein himself played a dangerous game of convincing enemies such as Iran, and even his own generals, that he had such weapons, while protesting to United Nations inspectors that he did not.

While Bush may have been badly misled by his own intelligence and other sources, he did not lie. He believed, and had good reason to believe, that the weapons existed.

From thousands of official Iraqi documents captured by American forces, and dozens of interviews with captured senior military and political leaders, a picture is now emerging of the world of delusion in which Hussein lived when he was in power. It is being chronicled in magazines such as the Weekly Standard and a forthcoming issue of Foreign Affairs and books such as "Cobra II." Written by New York Times reporter Michael Gordon and Gen. Bernard Trainor, the book is being hailed as one of the most comprehensive accounts of the war in Iraq.

Hussein was much more concerned about an internal coup, or a rebellion by dissident Shiites, or even an attack by Iran (with which he had fought a long war), than he was with an invasion by the US. Though he had largely disposed of his stocks of chemical and biological weapons in the 1990s, he encouraged the Iranians to believe he might have a hidden cache of them, a strategy called "deterrence by doubt." He did not take seriously a military threat from the US because he believed France and Russia would block the US diplomatically at the UN, and that in any event the Americans had little stomach for taking heavy casualties.

The Americans, however, took seriously the probability of confronting Hussein's WMD. When the president of Yemen, Ali Abdullah Saleh, who had close ties with Hussein, told Vice President Cheney that Hussein did not want war but would use chemical weapons if attacked, Mr. Cheney did not blink. The Americans, said Cheney, would deal with them.

Bush ordered that, when the US assault started and the anticipated stockpiles of WMD were seized, they must be publicized. Gen. Tommy Franks, his military commander, arranged for specially trained public affairs camera crews to document the discoveries.

Initially it was planned that seized samples of WMD would be shipped to Kuwait for analysis, but when Kuwait balked at this, the 75th Field Artillery Brigade headquarters at Fort Sill, Okla., was assigned the task.

Messrs Gordon and Trainor say in their book that German agents in Baghdad tipped the American military to Hussein's plan for defending his capital. Concentric rings were to be manned by Iraqi units of varying trustworthiness. One of the circles was called the "red line." This was to be the final barrier, manned by Hussein's elite and most reliable troops. US military intelligence reasoned that as American troops reached this defense line they would be met by poison gas or germ weapons.

But within Hussein's war council, the story was very different. In December 2002, Hussein called his generals together for a surprising announcement: Iraq did not possess WMD. The generals were stunned. They had long assumed that they could count on a hidden cache of chemical or biological weapons. Iraq had used such weapons in the war with Iran. Hussein had convinced his generals that it was the threat of WMD that had enabled him to stop the Americans moving on Baghdad after the 1991 war.

According to "Cobra II," Tariq Aziz, Iraq's deputy prime minister, told American interrogators after the 2003 war that Hussein's stunning admission to the generals "sent morale plummeting."

The Bush critics can argue that the president was too gullible in accepting the conclusion of his intelligence agencies. But the evidence does not suggest that he knowingly lied to the American public about the existence of WMD.

John Hughes, a former editor of the Monitor, is editor and chief operating officer of the Deseret Morning News.


TOPICS: Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bush; bushlied; iraq; prewardocs; prewarintelligence; wmd; wot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-106 next last

1 posted on 04/12/2006 12:01:05 PM PDT by Caleb1411
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Caleb1411
"Bush had good reason to believe there were WMD in Iraq"

There are and there were.

2 posted on 04/12/2006 12:02:46 PM PDT by jdm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jdm

LOL!


3 posted on 04/12/2006 12:07:24 PM PDT by Echo Talon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Caleb1411

Why would Bush lie about WMDs to lead us to war? If he had known there weren't really any over there, it wouldn't have made sense to lead us to war on that pretense because he would know none would be found and that his lie would be exposed.


4 posted on 04/12/2006 12:07:45 PM PDT by pcottraux (It's pronounced "P. Coe-troe.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Caleb1411

So far, the only "proof" is that WMDs haven't been found -- yet. What will all these critics say when they are uncovered?


5 posted on 04/12/2006 12:09:27 PM PDT by TommyDale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jdm

6 posted on 04/12/2006 12:10:06 PM PDT by Echo Talon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: pcottraux

grow up people. maybe if we did the president would treat us like adults. we can't handle the truth. requires too much intestinal fortitude and we've just about legislated that out of existence.


7 posted on 04/12/2006 12:10:07 PM PDT by kinghorse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Caleb1411
In December 2002, Hussein called his generals together for a surprising announcement: Iraq did not possess WMD...

...any more. I guess he didn't tell his Generals the rest of it: that Putin had helped transport the whole load to Syria for safekeeping. ;)

8 posted on 04/12/2006 12:13:14 PM PDT by Mr. Jeeves ("When the government is invasive, the people are wanting." -- Tao Te Ching)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pcottraux
Why would Bush lie about WMDs to lead us to war? If he had known there weren't really any over there, it wouldn't have made sense to lead us to war on that pretense because he would know none would be found and that his lie would be exposed.

You gotta slow down a little; you're going too fast for Democrats, whose already-diminished capacities for following logical arguments have been further vitiated by 8 years of Clinton's baloney.

9 posted on 04/12/2006 12:13:23 PM PDT by Caleb1411 ("These are the days when the Christian is expected to praise every creed except his own." G. K. C)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: jdm

No way this is ChriSci Monitor!!


10 posted on 04/12/2006 12:15:13 PM PDT by HHKrepublican_2 (www.Rogers2006.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Caleb1411
The thing I don't get is why we did not plant any when we could find none. That would have saved us and the administration a ton of "Bush Lied Kids Died" phooey.
11 posted on 04/12/2006 12:15:25 PM PDT by spikeytx86 (Pray for Democrats for they have been brainwashed by there fruity little club.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Caleb1411

If you’ll take a look at the websites, below, you’ll see that Iraq DID have WMD’s, but the main stream media doesn’t want to report it.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05310/600991.stm

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14295

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/8/28/110744.shtml

http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=20&artnum=1&issue=20060224



I know, it doesn't fit the template so it doesn't get reported. (sigh)


12 posted on 04/12/2006 12:19:19 PM PDT by ConservativeBamaFan (Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than Dick Cheney's quail gun.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Caleb1411
In retrospect it is clear that the weapons did not exist,...

Then why were the Iraqis modifying SA-2 missiles into surface to surface missiles and why were the Iraqis engaged in ballistic missile manufacturing in violation of U.N. range restrictions?

13 posted on 04/12/2006 12:19:21 PM PDT by USNBandit (sarcasm engaged at all times)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Caleb1411
"The Bush critics can argue that the president was too gullible in accepting the conclusion of his intelligence agencies. But the evidence does not suggest that he knowingly lied to the American public about the existence of WMD."

The Clinton administration thought they were there too.

I must say that up to the day of the surgical strike on the neighborhood where we tried to kill Saddam I believed and was saying that we would not mount a full scale invasion without proof of an imminent threat and that appears to have been wrong.
14 posted on 04/12/2006 12:20:41 PM PDT by gondramB (Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pcottraux

I've made that agument from the begining. Why would he intentionally set himself up for failure?


15 posted on 04/12/2006 12:20:50 PM PDT by jaydubya2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: jdm
Yup!! W had several good reasons to believe that WMD's were in Iraq.

FYI: Guess what?

On a personal bone-fide'.

We've found them, continue to find them, documented them along with a few tons Saddam regime documents that acknowledge(d) their presence. and the administration/military has ordered their continued removal with the cover up.

What I'd like to know is why?

16 posted on 04/12/2006 12:23:54 PM PDT by RSmithOpt (Liberalism: Highway to Hell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Caleb1411
When the president of Yemen, Ali Abdullah Saleh, who had close ties with Hussein, told Vice President Cheney that Hussein did not want war but would use chemical weapons if attacked,

Dude, it's cool. I told him, like, you, had, like, chemicals weapons, you know, like you wanted.

17 posted on 04/12/2006 12:24:38 PM PDT by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jveritas

ping


18 posted on 04/12/2006 12:25:40 PM PDT by rightinthemiddle (Islamic Terrorists, the Mainstream Media and the Democrat Party Have the Same Goals in Iraq.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Caleb1411

However the mushroom cloud may not have been the reason Bush went into Iraq. If it was, the troops would be home by now. We know that Iran is of no immediate mushroom threat and we got them in our sights now. We want a presence there. Iraq was a doable start, or so it was reported.


19 posted on 04/12/2006 12:28:21 PM PDT by ex-snook (John 17 - So that they may be one just as we are one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Caleb1411


......Michael Moore, Kris Matthews, Barbara Streisand, Howie Dean, Ted Kennedy, Rob Reiner, Dan Rather, etc., etc., etc. are lying, NOT Bush.


20 posted on 04/12/2006 12:29:39 PM PDT by DoctorMichael (The Fourth-Estate is a Fifth-Column!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Caleb1411
Saddam Insane was a WMD to his own countrymen. He was also defeated, and signed a surrender treaty after the Gulf War. On numerous occasions, he broke the agreements in that treaty. Each one was an undeclared act of war against the U.S. The mistake President Bush made was getting the U.N.'s approval. So he had to come up with a bunch of evidence from our broken intelligence services to appease the U.N. WMD mandate. We had a million legal reasons to attack Iraq, with WMD being only one. But because of the absurd UN inspectors, and their incompetence, we had to play the WMD card. If the media wasn't full of a bunch of lairs, God-haters, and Utopian socialists, they would put the blame squarely were it belongs, on the United Nations, and its total ineffectiveness in dealing with real problems, Iran now being the latest.

What is sad is we are playing the UN game again with this Iran issue, and only bad things can come from that. Its always the same, when fallen man plays "master of the universe", he is actually playing "master of destruction", because he is no longer following the God of Heaven, but the falen god of Hell (Satan).
21 posted on 04/12/2006 12:29:44 PM PDT by HisKingdomWillAbolishSinDeath (My Homeland Security: Isaiah 54:17 No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RSmithOpt

"What I'd like to know is why?"



If we have found and are still finding WMDs, my guess for this secrecy is because we don't want to let the Batthists, AQ and other foreign fighters know that these WMDs still exist for the taking. You'd have a flood of even more terrorists and foreigners hunting throughout Iraq for these weapons.


22 posted on 04/12/2006 12:30:40 PM PDT by cwb (Our melting-pot is becoming a pressure-cooker about to explode)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: RSmithOpt

Why Bush doesn't prove they were there????

Diplomacy and stratergery.

President Bush believes he can win the war of words without proving his critcs wrong.

Seriously, From Bill Clinton on down to the most junior democrat congressman they all know that Saddam had WMD's, only their useful idiots are complaining about it.


23 posted on 04/12/2006 12:30:54 PM PDT by usmcobra (Those that are incited to violence by the sight of OUR flag are the enemies of this nation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ex-snook

the part i like best?

i doubt there are more suitable men for the job then bush and rumsfeld. rumsfeld has a few shitslinging detractors... all one trick ponies. bush has more slingers, some from the opposition, some withinn his owm party and then there is the media, lefties and sandpeople... again singularly critical. From a global perspective, both these men are unparralleled.

the part i like best? forward assault bases in iraq. 25 years in the coming!


24 posted on 04/12/2006 12:40:06 PM PDT by himno hero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: usmcobra

I'd find it a lot easier to support the Iraq effort at this point if Bush showed us he really cares about the security of OUR OWN country by securing OUR BORDERS - NOW !!


25 posted on 04/12/2006 12:40:38 PM PDT by Mayflower Sister (DEMOCRAT: THE PARTY OF COWARDS AND TRAITORS, and I almost forgot... BABY KILLERS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: usmcobra

hahahaha....Bush winning a war of words....classic. Please, this war is based on lies of this administration. Those Downing St Memos pointed out the fact that Bush was going to invade if there were WMD or not.


26 posted on 04/12/2006 12:40:45 PM PDT by CD4U
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: CD4U

troll. see ya later.


27 posted on 04/12/2006 12:42:18 PM PDT by mware (an army of amateur's doing the job of the media)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: RSmithOpt
What I'd like to know is why?

Maybe they were made by our so-called allies, France and Russia, and we can't confront them on it yet.

28 posted on 04/12/2006 12:44:05 PM PDT by COUNTrecount
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: jdm

If Bush knew there WERE NOT WMD then he is the smartest man in the world and a psychic.
He would have been the ONLY person to have believed it and subsequently called naive.
If you read UN Resolution 1441 you can see the whole world on paper agreeing with President Bush.


29 posted on 04/12/2006 12:45:40 PM PDT by JerseyDvl ("Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel"-Samuel Johnson to the Dems of today.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Caleb1411; jveritas
This is exceedingly interesting to read in the Monitor, which has consistently printed some of Bush's most strident critics. Here's the key sentence:

From thousands of official Iraqi documents captured by American forces, and dozens of interviews with captured senior military and political leaders, a picture is now emerging...

What is emerging is more than a picture, actually, it is irrefutable evidence. And a number of newspapers - this one and the Washington Post, for example - are starting to feel a credibility pinch on the matter. We'll see more of this sort of apologia as the "picture" becomes clearer. The difference is Bush's poll numbers don't matter and the papers' circulation numbers do.

Jveritas, thanks for your very real contribution to this.

30 posted on 04/12/2006 12:47:07 PM PDT by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Caleb1411
I meant to link to This Story.
31 posted on 04/12/2006 12:50:06 PM PDT by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Caleb1411

The so-called WMD issue is just an excuse to demonize Bush. Doesn't matter. Documented WMD wouldn't get in the way of the left wing/media BUSHHITLERHATE. Nothing else matters to them. Really.


32 posted on 04/12/2006 12:50:50 PM PDT by Liberty Valance (Keep a simple manner for a happy life)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: COUNTrecount
Maybe they were made by our so-called allies, France and Russia, and we can't confront them on it yet.

Yep, not publicly anyway.

There are things that we the public aren't going to know for a very long time.

33 posted on 04/12/2006 12:53:41 PM PDT by AngryJawa ({NRA}{IDPA})
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Caleb1411
NO...he hide the WMD in Syria...he DID HAVE A HUGE STOCKPILE OF WMD'S. But thanks for the help (revealing classifed info) that Jay 'meet me in Syria' Rockefeller gave him via Syria President...they hide the WMD in the Beka Valley. Some say the WMD are still there. Many of the local Lebanon folks say the WMD's are still there.
34 posted on 04/12/2006 12:54:24 PM PDT by shield (A wise man's heart is at his RIGHT hand; but a fool's heart at his LEFT. Ecc. 10:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Billthedrill; Caleb1411

This document below will not only back up the President side but it will destroy all the lies of liberals and their media regarding Saddam Regime WMD issue.
September 1998 Document: Secret Research Programs Related to WMD http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1613509/posts

This is yet another document that proves without any doubt that Saddam Regime never stopped working in his WMD programs and Research and they were just waiting for the opportune moment to produce these WMD again on a large scale. Also please remember that in September 1998 the UN inspectors were still in Iraq and they were kicked later on that year after some US air and missile strikes. So most definitely these Secret Research Programs related to WMD were still in existence and may have reached a more advanced stage from late 1998 to late 2002 where during this period of time there were no UN inspectors in Iraq. This document is another proof that we could have never trusted Saddam and that we had all the right to remove his brutal and terrorist regime after 9/11/2001.

This document will be the antidote to the Washington Post latest LIE that there were no biological programs and it is a very powerful proof against all the lies spewed by liberals and their media for the last three years.


35 posted on 04/12/2006 12:58:42 PM PDT by jveritas (Hate can never win elections.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Billthedrill

Thank you very much Bill; just doing my duty Sir :)


36 posted on 04/12/2006 12:59:26 PM PDT by jveritas (Hate can never win elections.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: jveritas

You know you're all right for an engineer :).


37 posted on 04/12/2006 1:01:20 PM PDT by gov_bean_ counter (Self appointed RNC Press Secretary for Smarmy Sound Bites.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: jaydubya2
I've made that agument from the begining. Why would he intentionally set himself up for failure?

A liberal explained it to me this way:

Liberal: "Bush lied about WMD so he could steal Iraq's oil."

Me: "But we didn't get Iraq's oil."

Liberal: "I know, and that's another Bush failure."

Me: "What failure?"

Liberal: "Bush failed to steal their oil, so now we have high gas prices."

I kid you not! That is the brain of a liberal. It's impossible to have a rational discussion with a brain like that.

38 posted on 04/12/2006 1:03:34 PM PDT by avacado
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Caleb1411
The (Un)Christian Science Monitor remains a source of deception. The number of freepers surprised at that fact is ___ (10 Points)
39 posted on 04/12/2006 1:06:00 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Atheist and Fool are synonyms; Evolution is where fools hide from the sunrise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #40 Removed by Moderator

To: no_govt_takings

is that you again cd4U???


41 posted on 04/12/2006 1:19:16 PM PDT by mware (an army of amateur's doing the job of the media)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: no_govt_takings

i noticed you just signed on today.


42 posted on 04/12/2006 1:20:31 PM PDT by mware (an army of amateur's doing the job of the media)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

Comment #43 Removed by Moderator

To: TommyDale
So far we have most of the parts and pieces. Just because we have not found an assembled, armed and deployed weapon is irrelevant.

My duaghter is a Chemical specialist who spent 15 months in Iraq in 2004/5. While at Camp Victory they were mortared. The rounds used contained cyanide. They were "chemical" rounds. Fortunately, the idiots firing them were bad shots, the wind was wrong, and the rounds failed to detonate because they were improperly assembled.

Anybody remember hearing about that in the news?

The UN's and the media rules for being able to label something a WMD are ridiculous. It's like saying you are going to search a house for a gun. You go in, find 99% of the pieces and a few bullets hidden in various locations, but are not allowed to say you found a gun.

Bio-Chemical Weapons & Saddam: A History.

44 posted on 04/12/2006 1:22:42 PM PDT by PsyOp (The commonwealth is theirs who hold the arms.... - Aristotle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: no_govt_takings

LOL, much better than the way CD4U attempted to ask the question.


45 posted on 04/12/2006 1:23:57 PM PDT by mware (an army of amateur's doing the job of the media)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: no_govt_takings; darkangel82; Admin Moderator
WMDs was A reason, not THE reason. There was also Saddam's support of terrorism, and liberating the Iraqi people. Plus, Iraq is the best candidate for liberating and establishing a CAPITALIST DEMOCRACY, because of the fertile water valleys that can create a good modern agricultural market (as well as the oil surplus the country receives).

And establishing a democracy is the best way to fight the ideology of terrorism, because it is combating an idea (Wahhabism, Mujahideenism, Jihad) with another idea (capitalism, liberty, human rights).

Go back to DU, troll.

46 posted on 04/12/2006 1:24:02 PM PDT by pcottraux (It's pronounced "P. Coe-troe.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: no_govt_takings
Image hosted by Photobucket.com
(Click me).

Image hosted by Photobucket.com
Image hosted by Photobucket.com


47 posted on 04/12/2006 1:25:24 PM PDT by pcottraux (It's pronounced "P. Coe-troe.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: no_govt_takings; mware

48 posted on 04/12/2006 1:25:53 PM PDT by pcottraux (It's pronounced "P. Coe-troe.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: no_govt_takings

try reading the documents that jveritas has translated you will get your answers.


49 posted on 04/12/2006 1:27:27 PM PDT by mware (an army of amateur's doing the job of the media)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: no_govt_takings
The American people wouldn't support spilling American blood and wasting American treasure just to overthrow a foreign dictator...


50 posted on 04/12/2006 1:27:31 PM PDT by pcottraux (It's pronounced "P. Coe-troe.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-106 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson