Posted on 02/15/2016 4:17:11 PM PST by gwjack
Are you referring to nukes, or the other WMDs that Saddam apparently did have (chemical/biological)
If nukes, provide a credible link to where he said it.
Yet somehow we were unable to tip off the inspectors where to look, and likewise unable to come up with the goods after we invaded.
Maybe the reason for that was that the Russians had moved many, if not most, of them out already.
___________________________________
"Romanian intelligence defector Ion Mihai Pacepa alleged that an operation for the removal of chemical weapons was prepared by the Soviet Union for Libya, and that he was told over thirty years ago by Romanian President Nicolae Ceausescu, KGB chairman Yury Andropov, and later, Yevgeny Primakov, about the existence of a similar plan for Iraq.
It is 'perfectly obvious', wrote Pacepa, that the Russian GRU agency helped Saddam Hussein to destroy, hide, or transfer his chemical weapons prior to the American invasion of Iraq in 2003. 'After all, Russia helped Saddam get his hands on them in the first place.'[13]
John Loftus, director of The Intelligence Summit, said in the November 16, 2007 issue of FrontPage Magazine that many documents from Iraq point to WMD being transferred to other countries such as Syria: 'As stated in more detail in my full report, the British, Ukrainian and American secret services all believed that the Russians had organized a last minute evacuation of CW [chemical] and BW [biological] stockpiles from Baghdad to Syria.'
His researchers allegedly found a document ordering the concealment of nuclear weapons equipment in storage facilities under the Euphrates River a few weeks before the invasion.[14]"
“Ally means a person who associates or cooperates with another.”
I think the phrasing “unexpected ally” makes is pretty clear that he just means they happen to be on the same side on this issue, which they are.
You'd have to ask Bush and Cheney about that. For public consumption they had already painted a picture of nuclear terrorism -- as you know. So when they spoke subsequently about knowing where the WMDs were, the implication was quite clear. Did they have their figers crossed as they spoke? Maybe they were practicing an undisclosed "mental reservation". Would that make it all right?
BTW...if terrorism is the pursuit of political goals by intentionally inciting deadly fear in a target population, Bush and Cheney surely qualify for that nasty club.
“Iraq is a long way from [America], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”
Secretary of State Madeline Albright, 1998
“There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical, and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf war status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.”
Bob Graham D-FL, 2001
“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years.... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
Senator Jay Rockefeller, D-WV
Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.
Dick Cheney August 26, 2002
Tubes “are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs…The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly Saddam can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.”
Condoleeza Rice September 2002
“We 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.”
Cheney on Meet the Press, September 2002
“And in 1995, after four years of deception, Iraq finally admitted it had a crash nuclear weapons program prior to the Gulf war.
“We know now, were it not for that war, the regime in Iraq would likely have possessed a nuclear weapon no later than 1993.
“Today, Iraq continues to withhold important information about its nuclear program, weapons design, procurement logs, experiment data, and accounting of nuclear materials and documentation of foreign assistance.
“Iraq employs capable nuclear scientists and technicians. It retains physical infrastructure needed to build a nuclear weapon.
“Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminium tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon. Should Iraq acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year.
“And Iraq’s state-controlled media has reported numerous meetings between Saddam Hussein and his nuclear scientists, leaving little doubt about his continued appetite for these weapons.
“Iraq also possesses a force of Scud-type missiles with ranges beyond the 94 miles permitted by the UN Work at testing and production facilities shows that Iraq is building more long range missiles that can inflict mass death throughout the region.
GW Bush to UN General Assembly, September 2002
“If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world.
Ari Fleischer December 2, 2002
The president of the United States and the secretary of defense would not assert as plainly and bluntly as they have that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction if it was not true, and if they did not have a solid basis for saying it.
Ari Fleischer December 6, 2002
We know for a fact that there are weapons there.
Ari Fleischer January 9, 2003
Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations.
Hillary Clinton February 5, 2003
We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.
Vice President Dick Chaney March 16, 2003
There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. And . . . as this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them.
Gen. Tommy Franks
March 22, 2003
I have no doubt we’re going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction.
Defense Policy Board member Kenneth Adelman March 23, 2003
One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites.
Pentagon Spokeswoman Victoria Clark March 22, 2003
We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.
Donald Rumsfeld March 30, 2003
Obviously the administration intends to publicize all the weapons of mass destruction U.S. forces find — and there will be plenty.
Neocon scholar Robert Kagan April 9, 2003
I think you have always heard, and you continue to hear from officials, a measure of high confidence that, indeed, the weapons of mass destruction will be found.
Ari Fleischer April 10, 2003
We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them.
George W. Bush April 24, 2003
There are people who in large measure have information that we need . . . so that we can track down the weapons of mass destruction in that country.
Donald Rumsfeld April 25, 2003
We’ll find them. It’ll be a matter of time to do so.
George W. Bush May 3, 2003
I’m absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We’re just getting it just now.
Colin Powell May 4, 2003
We never believed that we’d just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country.
Donald Rumsfeld May 4, 2003
I’m not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein — because he had a weapons program.
George W. Bush May 6, 2003
U.S. officials never expected that “we were going to open garages and find” weapons of mass destruction.
Condoleeza Rice May 12, 2003
I don’t believe anyone that I know in the administration ever said that Iraq had nuclear weapons.
Donald Rumsfeld,
May 14, 2003
Given time, given the number of prisoners now that we’re interrogating, I’m confident that we’re going to find weapons of mass destruction.
Gen. Richard Myers, Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff May 26, 2003
They may have had time to destroy them, and I don’t know the answer.
Donald Rumsfeld May 27, 2003
For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.
Paul Wolfowitz May 28, 2003
It was a surprise to me then — it remains a surprise to me now — that we have not uncovered weapons, as you say, in some of the forward dispersal sites. Believe me, it’s not for lack of trying. We’ve been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad, but they’re simply not there.
Lt. Gen. James Conway, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force May 30, 2003
Nope. That language was specifically used to paint Code Pink and Trump working together either informally or informally.
It was used intentionally to tie Trump to a disgusting group of hags.
Certainly it was used to tie them together, because they are spouting the same talking points, which means they are together, ideologically.
Obviously, you overlook the bias in the language because this pushes an agenda that agrees with your reality. If you were able to read critically, you would admit National Review is as biased against Trump as Conservative Treehouse is biased for Trump.
They might be biased against Trump, but it’s still true that Trump’s points could have been cribbed right out of a speech by Cindy Sheehan.
No, they are biased, but that's okay. That's what opinion journalism is all about.
National Review describes itself as ' America's most widely read and influential magazine and web site for conservative news, commentary, and opinion.'
Yes, but just crying “BIASED” doesn’t actually serve to negate their points. In fact, the habit of Trumpsters around here to habitually cry “BIASED” and run away from the thread actually implies that the “biased” sources must have some actual points that the Trumpsters are unable to counter.
I know if a “biased” source is making unfounded attacks on MY candidate, I will refute them rather than let them stand unopposed.
Actually, Trump says that Bush was in charge on 9/11. It was on his watch. The same as Custer was in charge at the Little Big Horn.
Also, Colin Powell says there was a problem with the information he’d received from the Bush intelligence community, so he retracted his claim of WMDs.
Why is it wrong for Trump to call that deceitful?
Personally, I think there were WMDs, but the reports many people read said there were not. My viewpoints got as far as these pages on Free Republic.
Those other viewpoints were splattered all over the news, AND Bush would never defend himself.
It’s not unusual for Trump to say they lied. Whether by half-truths, omissions, negligence, or unintentionally, it boils down to people believing what they hear in the news.
It's not worth my time to read or refute biased opinion pieces. I've got plenty of other things to do.
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.