Bush: 'We Found' Banned Weapons

Washington Post ^ | 5/31/03

[areafiftyone]

KRAKOW, Poland, May 30 -- President Bush, citing two trailers that U.S. intelligence agencies have said were probably used as mobile biological weapons labs, said U.S. forces in Iraq have "found the weapons of mass destruction" that were the United States' primary justification for going to war.

In remarks to Polish television at a time of mounting criticism at home and abroad that the more than two-month-old weapons hunt is turning up nothing, Bush said that claims of failure were "wrong." The remarks were released today.

"You remember when [Secretary of State] Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said, 'Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons,' " Bush said in an interview shortly before leaving on a seven-day trip to Europe and the Middle East. "They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two.

[John Beresford Tipton]

Was this one of them, Mr. President?

[Dog Gone]

It's time to counter the lies.

[jungleboy]

Using the biggest bully-pulpit available.

[Jeff Chandler]

I thought Little Oscar was shorter?

[Libloather]

About Rather Dan's Saddam interview - Washington Times - 2/28/03 -

There were no follow-up questions about Saddam's past use or present possession of chemical or biological weapons (or the state of his nuclear program) — which, after all, is the central reason for the impending war. Saddam's denial of possessing any such weapons was given a pass, even though his administration had admitted earlier this week that it did find a bomb with chemicals inside it. If Mr. Rather did not have that fact readily to hand during the interview, surely the CBS News division could have provided it in time for Wednesday night's broadcast.

[streetpreacher]

I've supported the President and this war effort, but this is obviously spin. What we've got doesn't amount to much of anything and Wolfowitz's assertion that this war wasn't about WMD alone is bogus. Well, he's right to say that terrorist ties to Iraq were a part of the reason given, but this has not been substantiated. As far as the human rights argument, that didn't even come up until right when were poised to go in, and then only in a last ditch effort to drum up international support. IMO, human rights is the worst reason given, as there is no bearing on our national security. To quote a person I don't always agree with, "We are a republic, not an empire."

I think the Administration is going to have to come up with something much stronger than this. It won't hurt the President politically here in the states (most Americans support the war no matter the reason, but if attacks on American soldiers continue, that support may begin to erode) but it's going to make it darn near impossible to get support for future targets like Iran and North Korea based on the same assertions made about Iraq. Anyway, that's my two-cents worth. Feel free to disagree.

[John Beresford Tipton]

Shorter or longer, there can be little doubt to anyone who knows the ingredients of hot dogs that they are *BIOHAZARDS*.

[areafiftyone]

I think the Administration is going to have to come up with something much stronger than this. It won't hurt the President politically here in the states (most Americans support the war no matter the reason, but if attacks on American soldiers continue, that support may begin to erode) but it's going to make it darn near impossible to get support for future targets like Iran and North Korea based on the same assertions made about Iraq. Anyway, that's my two-cents worth. Feel free to disagree

Actually I agree with your two-cents. They ran away with the WMD excuse before the war which was the wrong thing to do. They should not have stuck with one reason. They could well have documented and emphasized the killing of innocent Iraqi's by Saddam alot more and emphasised that much more. Then the anti-war/peaceniks would have had absolutely no leg to stand on whatsoever when it came to the evilness of Saddam. Now unless there is a significant find - the WMD excuse will be crushed to the ground by the media and the Democreeps. If there were any WMDs Saddam had too much time to get rid of them.

[Paraclete]

I agree with you totally. The WMD stuff is turning out pretty flimsy. I can understand the stategic move into Iraq vis-a-vis Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, etc.

My guess (and it's just that) is that once the build-up of forces had taken place, we were locked into action. Of course, if one is to assume that the Administration knew the WMD stuff was just to build cover on the world stage for a grander strategic move, they must have thought the risk was worth it.

Nonetheless, I don't like being mislead by my government. RR has always been a hero to me, but Iran-Contra was a letdown and always reminds me that accountability in our elected officials is important whether they're our guys or not.

[Lady In Blue]

This is from a poster on another conservative website:

Reply 21 - Posted by: J.R. Dunn, 5/29/2003 11:11:08 PM

I've been told in passing by a member of the State Department that a number of WMDs have in fact been found--along with evidence implicating France, Russia, and a number of other peace-loving countries in their manufacture.

It seems that the administration is using this info to bend those countries our way before releasing anything. Which is smart, effective, and very much like W.

In due time.

[areafiftyone]

I am praying this is true.

[Paraclete]

It'd be great if this were true. However, I don't think something like that could be hidden for this long. Not only that, but our ally Tony Blair is getting clobbered at the same time.

[Mr. Mojo]

What kind of car is that guy using as his platform? It kind of looks like a giant late 60's Pontiac. ...and the guy kind of looks like a young Michael Savage.

[alnick]

As far as the human rights argument, that didn't even come up until right when were poised to go in,

Well then you must have missed every single speech that President Bush gave regarding Iraq in the months leading up to the war. He repeatedly cited torture, murders, rape, and genocide committed by Saddam Hussein.

[TheCrusader]

Yes, those two mobile chemical labs were only used to make hotdogs with. And the mustard gas the Marines found in the Euphrates River wasn't dumped hurriedly by the Saddamites, it just grew like algae. And the rockets with empty chemical warheads were never intended to be filled. And the thousands of chem/bio protective suits, and thousands of vials of atropine were merely another coincidence. And a desert the size of California can't hide very much, we should have found the WMD by now. RIGHT. And we haven't found Saddam Hussein either, I suppose that means that he didn't exist? Isn't it funny, Bubba Clinton's war against the Christain Serbs was predicated on "mass graves" of Albanian Muslims. These alleged "mass graves" never materialized as advertised--- never. Yet in Iraq the mass graves contained so many bodies of exectuted men, women and children it's mind boggling. They estimated 15,000 bodies in one grave alone. In Kosovo, they never found more than a hundred or two bodies in any one grave. Bad as that is, it's child's play compared to what Saddam was doing. And of course, those terrorist training camps we found in Iraq weren't a threat to America either I suppose. Not even the jumbo jet shell we found that was used to train hijackers with was troublesome to the liberals. What we discovered in our war with Iraq was two basic things.

(1). That Saddam Hussein was a mass murderer of horrendous proportions, and that he was helping the Muslim terrorists to train and prepare to kill Jews with suicide bomb vests and kill Americans by providing terror training camps; and that he was most likely making and hiding illegal chemical/biological weapons of mass destructon.

(2). That liberal Americans are worse than anybody ever knew, as they tear at President Bush like starving dogs at every single opportunity, even if they have to invent an opportunity.

[Jorge]

I've supported the President and this war effort, but this is obviously spin. What we've got doesn't amount to much of anything and Wolfowitz's assertion that this war wasn't about WMD alone is bogus.

Wrong. The fact is Bush and Blair always claimed several reasons for going after Saddam...which included WMDs, the danger of Saddam's assisting terrorists, and liberating the Iraqi people from the oppression of his regime.

I remember many of the anti-war protestors both here and in the UK making references to all three and saying they didn't believe in any of them.
So there is nothing bogus about Wolfowitz's assertion at all.

And as far as WMDs...the idea that we found bio-weapons labs on wheels and not the weapons themselves..is like claiming narcs lied in order to search for drugs.... when in fact all they came up with was a drug lab.
The entire argument is stupid.

Even those nations against the war agreed that Iraq had WMDs.

[cardinal4]

RR has always been a hero to me, but Iran-Contra was a letdown and always reminds me that accountability in our elected officials is important whether they're our guys or not.

If you think Iran-Contra was a let down, you dont know what it was about. If you are referring to the bungled cover up, I might agree with you there.

[alnick]

I remember many of the anti-war protestors both here and in the UK making references to all three and saying they didn't believe in any of them.

I remember that too. I specifically remember Alan Colmes making the absurd charge that because President Bush cited so many reasons for the upcoming war in Iraq, that that meant that none of them could possibly be true. There can only be one reason to do anything, apparently, in Alan Colmes' wierd world.

[JustPiper]

Thanx for this for the naysayers Lady, I do believe there is more and we know France was a major supplier.