If The Bush Administration Lied About WMD, So Did These People (Updated)

Right Wing News ^ | June 19, 2003 | John Hawkins

[VRWC_minion]

But to me, just an average joe in Wisconsin, I honestly expected them to be able to produce SOMETHING in the way of evidence,

Even if such a move hinders the investigations and causes some weapons to go undetected ?

Do you require your local police department to release its information regarding ongoing investigations ?

[eyespysomething]

Actually, if he didn't have the weapons, materials, means, then he did an amazing snow job on the entire world, including the whole UN security council.

Of course, they could have been lying, because the UN made quite a bit of money off the oil-for-palaces program. Surely they didn't want that discontinued. Of course, that may be why the protested the actions of the US also. I tend to believe our politicians more than other countries. Plus, we don't see Pootin, Chretin, Chirac and Schroder saying that Bush lied. Don't you think they would. This is all an issue created by the Dems because none of the other gazillion ones stuck.

Now, if you want to complain about Bush's spending - I'll complain with you. But this, nah.


From a Canadian gov. website:
http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/middle_east/iraq_weapons-en.asp

< snip >
According to UNSCOM, Iraq began its programs to develop biological and chemical weapons in the early 1970s. In 1995, following the defection of Saddam Hussein's son-in-law, inspectors gained greater knowledge about Iraq's biological weapons program, which was far more extensive than previously thought. Activities related to BW are the most difficult to detect because they require much more limited infrastructure. UNSCOM destroyed Iraq's declared BW facilities and set up monitoring of dual-use equipment at other facilities. However, UN inspectors were unable to determine the full extent of the Iraqi program prior to their departure in 1998.

UNSCOM also uncovered a vast Iraqi chemical weapons program. Between 1991 and 1998, it supervised the destruction of over 40,000 filled and unfilled chemical munitions and 411 tonnes of bulk CW agents. However, UNSCOM reported that the destruction of about 2,000 unfilled munitions was uncertain, that the destruction by melting of 15,000 rockets was not verifiable, and that 500 mustard-filled shells remained unaccounted for. In addition, the unilateral destruction in 1991 by Iraq of 242 tonnes of precursors for VX production was only partly accounted for. While Iraq claimed that it never turned VX into a weapon, in 1998 degradation products of VX were found by a U.S. laboratory on missile warhead remnants.

< snip >

Before 1991, Iraq was also actively purchasing, developing and producing long-range missiles that could have been used to deliver its chemical and biological weapons, as well as future nuclear weapons. UNSCOM destroyed Iraq's declared stock of ballistic missiles, however discrepancies and the absence of inspectors for stocks declared destroyed by Iraq indicate that Iraq may have retained a small number of long-range missiles (up to 650 km), perhaps as many as a dozen.

< snip >



The evidence is out there, and anyone who says different is as foolish as someone saying we needed the permission of the UN to do what we did.

[holden]

They've been developing and hiding this stuff for 12+ years and it might take a while to find it.

Right.   If it can be determined that a significant number of people in these mass graves might have come from one particular locale (or perhaps several), I'd be sorely tempted to consider whether WMDs might be hidden near (or under) where those folks used to live.

HF

[Rebelbase]

Does anyone have secondary verification of these quotes? I want to use them to refute an argument on another message board, but I need verification.

[steve50]

You claim the UN had ulterior motives for making WMD restrictions continue, then quote them as a source for backing up US intelligence?

[eyespysomething]

I guess what I am claiming is anyone could be lying about the WMD, for a myriad of reasons.

But are they? Maybe the UN just hoped the inspections would continue ad infinitum. "well, we think he has them, but containment is working so well."

[eyespysomething]

I guess if I am pinned down on it, I am as cynical as many about politicians. But I don't see what Bush would have gained by lying, knowing he would have to produce evidence once the war was over. Do you?

[Captain Kirk]

I've been a Clinton hater on this forum since you were a newbie. Your attacks on Clinton are persuasive. Why aren't you attacking the author of this piece since he is citing Clinton as a credible source?

[Captain Kirk]

Dubya didn't lie, he hoped. He twisted dubious evidence expecting to find WMD once the troops went in.

[gulfcoast6]

Come, come, come now, this does not count, they are democracts, thats OK.

[evad]

Now, if you want to complain about Bush's spending - I'll complain with you. But this, nah.

AMEN!! brother. It drives me insane.

I have a serious problem with W's policy of giving the dims what they want and then taking credit for it so he can "take away" their issue.

To me it's like appeasing a terrorist or any other type of appeasement...there may be some short term gain for the present but it will haunt you forever.

[evad]

But I don't see what Bush would have gained by lying, knowing he would have to produce evidence once the war was over. Do you?

There seems to be a lack of reason and common sense applied by some of these FReepers.

They don't want to think...they want the answers handed to them in perfect black and white text.

[steve50]

I guess if I am pinned down on it, I am as cynical as many about politicians. But I don't see what Bush would have gained by lying, knowing he would have to produce evidence once the war was over. Do you?

I'm from the old school of investigation. As any cop worth his salt would say " follow the money". The gains are huge for certain factions, especially considering the call to "privitize" the oil resources.

So we now have Tenet, who appears to be the fall guy, if he doesn't find the WMD his and Rummys sources claimed were there. Bush has plausible deniability and conservatives can blame the old klintoon crony for misleading the administration if the CIA and it's inspectors can't "produce" the evidence.

[VOA]

bump

[eyespysomething]

Let's see:

IMO, and many others, Hussein was not right in the head.

Iraq had a chem and bio program and was trying to restart nuclear.

He had documented chem and bio when the inspectors left in 1998.

He had used said weapons before, both on a foreign country (Iran) and his own citizens.

He would be pleased by our downfall.

A group of terrorists are intent on our downfall.

Chem and bio weapons would help this group bring about our downfall, and they are looking for such means.

America now knows it is no longer safe due to distance, lax immigration, porous borders, etc.

I am President and I am presented with this. I am given a few scenarios:

a) Hussein won't do anything, he is scared of us and world opinion.

b) He won't help this group of terrorists, he is secular, and they feel the same.

c) There is a good chance, not 100%, but say 90%, that these 2 are already in contact with each other, and we know one has/had recently what the other wants...


I have to try and make the whole world go along with this, so I can get it through my government to keep my country safe.

Think...think...think... I KNOW!

Hussein has violated Resolution after Resolution of the Security council, they'll have to agree with that.. I'll be able to protect America before the threat is imminent, and the world will agree with such blatant disregard by Hussein of the international resolutions of the UN...

[eyespysomething]

So it was about the oil!

[linn37]

thank you I like to chat in a political room on yahoo,these quotes just drive the democrats nuts ,thanks for giving me more!

[linn37]

thank you I like to chat in a political room on yahoo,these quotes just drive the democrats nuts ,thanks for giving me more!

[W04Man]

You made reference to the MASSIVE amounts of weapons at his disposal" Powell's and Bush's references to those large amounts had to do with what Saddam and the UN said he had. Powell holding up the vile was an illustration of how hard it might be to find this stuff once it gets out of Saddam's hands and the damage such a small amount can do. I don't think they streched the evidence, but made it clear what we had to do with what evidence we had at that point.

[pickemuphere]

But, I can't help but see an disheartening similarity between clinton's finger waving, and Mr. Powel holding up the vial of "anthrax" powder at the u.n.

Agreed. It also makes us look insipid when we attempt to blame others (Klintoon included) for the intelligence failure. To put it bluntly, Bush should have double and triple checked all the data provided by the U.N. and the Klintoon admin.

Why would we trust anything given to us by those two?