US Senate leader says weapons of mass destruction not main cause of Iraq war

AFP ^ | 06-26-03

[Brian S]

WASHINGTON, June 26 (AFP) - The Republican leader in the Senate said Thursday that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction was not the main justification for the US-led invasion of Iraq.

"I'm not sure that's the major reason we went to war," Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist told NBC television's Today Show.

Even without the discovery of alleged chemical and biological weapons, Frist said Americans still welcome the ouster of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

"If you talk to most of the American people today, to have Saddam Hussein and his rogue regime out of there is something the American people want, it's something they deserve," the Republican leader said.

"We know he has used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands and thousands of his own people ... as well as outside of the country," he said.

Frist said Saddam's brutal record as a dictator alone was sufficient justification for his ouster.

"When you have a terrorist and people who harbor terrorists, and they've had weapons of mass destruction which they're used to kill their own people, invade other nations with those weapons ... to have him removed is something the American people want, they need and they feel much more secure with."

Frist added that he was not surprised that weapons of mass destruction have not been found in Iraq.

"The weapons of mass destruction that we're talking about today are new. They're little viruses, they're bacteria, they're chemicals, things you can't see, you can't touch, you can't smell. So intelligence is tough," he said.

"The administration made decisions based on the very best intelligence that we have available today," Frist insisted.

sg/tw

US-Iraq-weapons-politics

[BlackbirdSST]

Yeah right, don't believe your lying eye's, believe what I'm telling you! Spin is still trying to take over. Blackbird.

[DonQ]

And what was the major reason we sent our sons, and our neighbors sons, to kill or be killed by some strangers' sons? If it wasn't the imminent prospect of WMD (and at one point the Bush White House was hinting that Saddam would have "noocyooler" weapons within a few months), then was it to overthrow the Iraqi government and liberate the Iraqi people ... even though several of our close allies, such as Saudi Arabia, have governments just as oppressive and corrupt and we don't mind seeing their population unfree.

I think the reason we allowed ourselves to get into a war with Iraq was simply a distraction from Bush's failure to stomp out the Taliban and bring Osama to justice.

[kesg]

The Republican leader in the Senate said Thursday that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction was not the main justification for the US-led invasion of Iraq.

"I'm not sure that's the major reason we went to war," Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist told NBC television's Today Show.

I don't necessarily mean to parse words, but saying he wasn't sure whether WMDs was the main reason we went to war is different from saying that they were were not the main reason. In fact, we went to war for a combination of reasons, with WMDs being one of the parts of the combination. I think that is what he was trying to say.

[OldFriend]

There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein was a supporter and exporter of terror around the world. His funding of homicide bombers families was an incentive for these barbarians to send their children off to die.

His country had a base where terrorists trained. To pretend that this man was not an imminent danger simply by having free rein is to deny the obvious.

[stimpyone]

It is utterly astounding that the Senate majority leader is incapable of succintly stating why we went to war. If he isn't sure why we went to war, then what are the rest of us supposed to think.

Does anyone remember when war was a deadly serious thing and not something we just sent others to do? We really need to bring back the draft in this country. Perhaps if more than just one Congress-critter had a child at risk they would care more about knowing the reason we went to war.

[kesg]

There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein was a supporter and exporter of terror around the world. His funding of homicide bombers families was an incentive for these barbarians to send their children off to die.

His country had a base where terrorists trained. To pretend that this man was not an imminent danger simply by having free rein is to deny the obvious.

You hit the nail on the head. For me, the best justification for the war was the Bush Doctrine. Saddam's regime was like the Taliban on steroids even if you overlook the WMD aspect of the threat (which, of course, no responsible public official could do).

[kesg]

It is utterly astounding that the Senate majority leader is incapable of succintly stating why we went to war. If he isn't sure why we went to war, then what are the rest of us supposed to think.

I don't think he was saying he wasn't sure why we went to war. He was saying that he wasn't sure WMDs was the main reason. That's very different.

[stimpyone]

I don't think he was saying he wasn't sure why we went to war. He was saying that he wasn't sure WMDs was the main reason. That's very different.

He should have been able to succintly define EXACTLY why we went to war, it is obvious that he couldn't.

[OldFriend]

Everyone knew it was REGIME CHANGE. To pretend otherwise is simply DNC spin.

[kesg]

He should have been able to succintly define EXACTLY why we went to war, it is obvious that he couldn't.

Did you read the entire article? He gave several excellent reasons for why we went to war.

[kesg]

Everyone knew it was REGIME CHANGE. To pretend otherwise is simply DNC spin.

I agree. WMDs were merely one of several reasons offered for regime change, although a very powerful one when combined with his support of terrorism (which is itself a separate reason for regime change). So was the evil, totalitarian nature of his regime.

[OldFriend]

We'll just have to ask Senator Kerry if he thought it was REGIME CHANGE......

[Sid Rich]

"Perhaps if more than just one Congress-critter had a child at risk they would care more about knowing the reason we went to war."

I don't think a draft is going to put our elected leader's children at risk.

[Loyal Buckeye]

And how many times did the Dimwits say that 41 failed because he didn't take SH out in 1991?

[ravingnutter]

The spin started the afternoon 0f 9/11/01.

You bet it did...

News Reports on Iraqi-Bin Laden Connection

[drypowder]

If all the intel of why the US thought Iraq was a worthy target of the war on terror was made available isn't it reasonable to think that would offer up those, world wide, who may still be helping in our efforts? Need adequate justification for the US removing Saddam Hussein? How about the lack of accountability by Iraq re the volumes of chem & bio agents the UN inspectors knew they had (documented) and their demonstrated willingness (documented) to use them or supply them to those who also want to kill Americans. I distrust the idea that SH was not behind the terrorist attacks that have already occured on the US. GW did the right thing by taking this phase of the US war on terror to one of the biggest terrorists before he had another chance to again bring it to our shores. That's not to say the US won't see another terrorist attack on the home land, it is to say however, that one of the primary supporters of world terrorism is now much deminished. Osama and Suddam both are on the run and that severly limits their ability to make war on us.

[kesg]

We'll just have to ask Senator Kerry if he thought it was REGIME CHANGE......

Depends on what day of the week you ask him, or what time of the day. :)

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Absolutely right!

Bush Doctrine Unfolds :

To find all articles tagged or indexed using Bush Doctrine Unfold , click below:
	click here >>>	Bush Doctrine Unfold	<<< click here
(To view all FR Bump Lists, click here)