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.

[snickeroon]

You are right. With some nitwits the only evidence that they will believe is the WMD that takes them out. "Oooops, there goes another rubber tree plant...."

[WorkingClassFilth]

Who cares?

Does anyone in a rational state of mind care if mounds of anthrax are found? How 'bout enriched uranium?

Nope.

What is important is that UN sanctions against known WMD's are enforced, and WMD materials and facilities that HAVE been captured are dealt with, and that the known use of WMD's has stopped.

The UN ought to be dancing in the street since we have filled their sanction order to the letter.

[bybybill]

This is going to be a hoot. If you accept as fact that there are no WMD, then you must believe that GWB, Chaney, Powell, Rummy, the JCS, The CIA, and Blair are all either idiots or liars. Or, maybe, once again, they have let the Rats jump on the rug just so that it can be pulled away. Oh, the poor, poor Rats.

[At a Later Date]

"You doubters ever hear of strategery? You are falling for the same trap that daschle, the media, and the other dumb dems have faller for time and time again in the past two years. You seriously think that Hussein didn't have WMDs, that this whole 12 year conflict was a ruse, and that three administrations and the UN were all wrong in their evidence of WMDs. The media is up in arms over this because the Democrats have absolutely no issues, and Bush must be beaten down about something. Why must our forces find these weapons in 30 days when the UN weapon inspectors would have been given 30 years?"
======
Right on!!

[fightinJAG]

I'm thinking that probably in his speech commemorating 9/11 this year, Bush should do a sum up of everything we have found in Iraq and systematically refute the idiocy.

[John Beresford Tipton]

You might want to Google "Gulf of Tonkin Resolution" and "Turner Joy" for the closest parallel, but then again, LBJ was a Democrat.

[R. Scott]

… U.S. intelligence agencies have said were probably used as mobile biological weapons labs, … "found the weapons of mass destruction"…

Shouldn’t the last phrase read “probably” found the WMD?

[grumple]

The clamoring for WMD's by everyone (except 2) is simply to get someone to go on record as having something. If I were Bush I'd continue operations in Iraq as planned and to hell with the rest of the clamorers (except 2) who want to keep on clap-trapping and demand evidence. It's more of a ploy to find out what our military and this administration have found already and what they actually know. He's setting them up for a big embarrassment. Oh by the way...the fact that the 2 people I keep referring to aren't demanding anything ought to speak volumes about what is going on...those 2 would be Bill and Hillary...

[putupon]

Was this one of them, Mr. President?

No, that's the bent one that Bubba ran up our whatever when he turned down Osama 3 times and caused the deaths of 3000 and when he sold the missiles to the Chicoms that will eventually deliver the warheads that will kill millions of us and when he gave the North Koreans free oil and a pass to continue building nukes that will be sold to anyone else that wants to kill millions of us..

[Paraclete]

Reagan's stated reason for the deal was not because Iran was threatened by Iraq. It was arms for hostages -- remember? Very bad policy.

[Paradox]

PEople who dont think that one or two mobile weapons labs are "enough", dont understand the gravity of the situation. With ONE of these labs operating for a short period of time, you could come up with enough biostuff to kill tens of thousands of people. Sheesh.

It would be like finding only one nuclear bomb but claiming that since there weren't hundreds found, its no big deal... wow..

[Paradox]

PEople who dont think that one or two mobile weapons labs are "enough",

errr, are NOT "enough"..

[BigWaveBetty]

Well, he's right to say that terrorist ties to Iraq were a part of the reason given, but this has not been substantiated.

US captures alleged Al-Qaeda camp in northern Iraq

WASHINGTON - US forces and their Kurdish allies have captured a suspected terrorist camp in northeastern Iraq that US officials insist was used as a safe haven by members of Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda terror network, the top US military official said Sunday.

The camp run by Islamic radicals, who called themselves Ansar al-Islam, had been pummeled from air for several days before US troops aided by Kurdish forces entered the compounded located in a Kurdish-controlled area near the border with Iran, according to General Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

"We are in there on the ground with lots of force, some with some Kurdish help," Myers said, as he appeared on CNN's "Late Edition" show.

An undisclosed number of camp defenders, described by Myers as most likely al-Qaeda members, have been killed during the operation, while other have been captured.

"We're now in there on the ground and starting our investigation of exactly who's up there and what's up there," the general said

. The camp gained international notoriety last month when US Secretary of State Colin Powell mentioned it in his much-publicized speech before the UN Security Council as proof of the Iraqi government's secret ties to the al-Qaeda network, blamed for the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States.

Powell said an Iraqi intelligence agent had offered al-Qaeda a safe haven in the region, which some members of the group gladly accepted after the United Stated launched Operation "Enduring Freedom" in 2001 to topple the Taliban government in Afghanistan and drive bin Laden's forces out of that country.

According to US officials, the bin Laden followers, who operated in northern Iraq, created a secret biological weapons laboratory inside the camp that was used to produce resin and other poisons.

[maica]

Do you think that our political leaders would have misled our military leaders to the point of giving our troops multiple vaccines and having them put on chembio gear in desert conditions just to continue an illusion?

They had to believe in the WMD threat of Saddam's forces.

The 'vaunted' Republican guard really did not show up either. Does that mean that they did not exist?

[alnick]

If we were going after WMDs, my question is when do we go after Syria, Libya, India, Pakistan, China, North Korea, Russia and the other nations with WMDs. Also, why should we enforce UN resolutions? As for Saddam murdering his own people, again, when we do attack the other human rights abusers of the world.

What some people don't understand is that you do not use a template to determine who to "go after." You take each situation on its own merits. Each situation is unique. Decisions will be made about each as it is necessary to do so.

Alan Colmes' favorite little transparant trick is to say (when talking about going into Iraq) "Why not go after North Korea?" (Slaps hand on desk) If it were North Korea that we were going after, he would have said, "Why not go after Iraq"?

It's a diversionary tactic, and nothing more.

[Paraclete]

We'll just have to be patient and see how this all washes out. Hopefully, evidence will come up in spades and the point will be moot. If not, a serious examination needs to be made of how this took place.

At some point past a decision was made to ramp up troop commitment. What was our objective? My thought is that strategic control of Iraq was always the objective, vis-a-vis Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Iran. Early on, the U.N. path was never a priority by those advocating taking out Iraq. When we started walking down that road, WMD became the selling point. We oversold the point.

Now we'll pay a price for that by lost credibility, unless the goods are found to an extent that proves there was truly a threat. Do we all really believe that Iraq could totally dismantle this threat without our intelligence people knowing it? Give me a break. If they did (and it didn't happen the day before we invaded), in all probability the world is a whole lot more dangerous today than it was before. Stuff has to be floating all over the place.

Perhaps it is the price to be paid for the ultimate objective. I question doing business that way.

[Sparta]

What some people don't understand is that you do not use a template to determine who to "go after." You take each situation on its own merits. Each situation is unique. Decisions will be made about each as it is necessary to do so.

The only criteria I use is whether or not the nation or group in question is a threat to US National Security. Iraq's support of terrorism and involvement in terrorist attacks on US soil was the reason I supported Operation Iraqi Freedom. On the other hand, if it was just about enforcing UN resolutions on WMDs or even just liberating the Iraqi people from a brutal dictator, I probably would've opposed the war.

If you thought I opposed the war, you need to reread that post.

[Sparta]

I want the Rats to explain how American national security benefits with Saddam still in power.

[Captain Kirk]

Well said....although you assuming a lot when you state that pro-war freepers can "take it." The spin on FR indicates that most can't and and brings to mind Jack Nicholson's quote "The truth? You can't handle the truth."

[Paraclete]

Truth. Let's keep pursuing it around here and it will set us free. That's the object of "Free" Republic, right?