BUSH VOWS TO FIND WMD'S

Sky News ^ | June 21, 2003

[neccen]

President Bush has reaffirmed his determination to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

In his weekly radio address, Mr Bush also warned US forces in Iraq face a future of "danger and sacrifice" before the country is secure.

He was speaking as politicians in Washington began to examine whether the intelligence about Iraq's weapons capability was exaggerated in the run up to the war.

The lack of evidence months after Baghdad fell to coalition forces has caused major political problems for Tony Blair and to a lesser extent the Bush administration.

Mr Bush said: "Military and intelligence officials are interviewing scientists with knowledge of Saddam Hussein's weapons programmes and are pouring over hundreds of thousands of documents.

"All who know the dictator's history agree that he possessed chemical and biological weapons and that he used chemical weapons in the past.

"We are determined to discover the true extent of Saddam Hussein's weapons programmes, no matter how long it takes."

He added: "Dangerous pockets of the old regime remain loyal to it and they, along with their terrorist allies, are behind deadly attacks designed to kill and intimidate coalition forces and innocent Iraqis."

[neccen]

Incredibly an honest observer would have to admit its starting to look like Scott Ritter was right. Surely the claim that the WMDs were an immediate threat have been disproven. The CIA, DIA and Delta Force have been scouring Iraq for months and have yet to find even a rusty old mustard gas shell from the Iran Iraq war. Even if one feels, as I do, that getting rid of Saddam was justified, it does look like we got snookered on the WMD issue. Anyone else remember the maps during the war with the red rings around Baghdad? How many times did some empty suit on FNCMSNBCNBCCNN report that Saddam had given the order to use chem/bio weapons as soon as the troops crossed the line?

[Principled]

Incredibly an honest observer would have to admit its starting to look like Scott Ritter was right.

You mean he was right when he was saying the weapons were there? Or do you mean he was right when he did an about face (at the same time Saddam give him $400,000) and suddenly said saddam has no weapons???

[Dog]

Welcome to FR BTW!

Answer me this did you think the UN inspectors should have had more time??

Think maybe Hans Blix could have helped?

[Dog]

How many times did some empty suit on FNCMSNBCNBCCNN report that Saddam had given the order to use chem/bio weapons as soon as the troops crossed the line?

This is an easy one........Saddam was bluffing.......cross this line I dare you and I'll huff and I'll puff..

[EGPWS]

...its starting to look like Scott Ritter was right.

I disagree.

When has Dubya' failed to follow through with his determined statements? Granted they haven't been found as of yet, but Scott Ritter and the most potent UN inspectors were at it for 12 years and were very adamant in the idea that it takes time. Why, oh, why is it NOW an issue to produce tomorrow? We all know it takes time and at least now we have our military and a CIC that is willing to be patient and do it right.

If Dubya' says they will be found, then they will be found. He isn't a student of "The Chirac Doctrine"!

[eyespysomething]

Surely the claim that the WMDs were an immediate threat have been disproven

Bush didn't say that. He said we needed to act before the threat was imminent. This is a well propagated misconception repeated by many. Besides, the UN inspectors said they saw the WMD before they left in 1998.

I can find the source, hold on

[Normal4me]

Ritter was right and 15 UNSC countries were wrong? If you recall, all that was requested from good 'ol Saddam was to Prove what had happened to the wmd's.

Welcome to FR BTW hope ya fit in.

[neccen]

Answer me this did you think the UN inspectors should have had more time??

No. It doesn't matter how much time you give them if there's nothing to find.

As I said I think the war was justified without the WMD nonsense. The sanctions were only hurting the Iraqi people and removing the sanctions wasn't an option.

That doesn't mean I have to pretend I didn't get a snow job from the administration about the WMD issue.

[eyespysomething]

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/931783/posts?page=42#42

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

Posted by eyespysomething to steve50
On News/Activism ^ 06/19/2003 10:42 AM EDT #42 of 78 ^

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.

[eyespysomething]

This was in another thread:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/930515/posts?page=21#21
We were told we were in imminent danger and that was why we had to go on the offense quickly.

Not quite...seems you have fallen for a Krugman line...I had a heck of a time finding the info again, but here is some info that was posted previously on FR about the "imminent threat":


I'm sure others have picked up on this, but in the off-hand chance they haven't, there's a major problem with Krugman's most recent column. He says:

"The public was told that Saddam posed an imminent threat. If that claim was fraudulent, the selling of the war is arguably the worst scandal in American political history - worse than Watergate, worse than Iran- contra."
I did some checking and found the text of the President's most recent State of the Union address. Here's the exact quote regarding the "imminent" threat:


"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?"
Here, it's crystal clear that Bush is not making the claim that the threat was imminent. He's striking before the threat is imminent -- and that was the gamble Bush took. A strike against an imminent threat would not have generated the controversy the Iraq invasion generated.
At first I thought that Mr. French was making a mistake by limiting his search to this year’s State of the Union Address. So I did a Google search using the terms “Bush” “imminent” and “Iraq”. I did find news articles claiming Bush was saying the Iraqi threat was imminent. For example, one article referred to the State of the Union speech, while another referred to the October 7th address. But, as Mr. French pointed out, Bush didn’t say the Iraqi threat was imminent in the State of the Union. And Bush never used the term in the October 7th address. The same held true for Bush’s speech last year to the United Nations, his speech/press conference of March 6th, and his speech as the war was beginning. Either Bush didn’t use the word “imminent,” or he used it to argue that we should not wait until the threat is imminent.

Looks like media spin, not anything Bush specifically said. And it looks like Krugman’s quote problem continues…


Source

20 posted on 06/17/2003 2:14 PM EDT by ravingnutter

[netmilsmom]

If the UN and all their cronies said the WMD were there and now they are not found, where are they?? This is the scary part that the liberals seem to miss. I pray every day that they are found, not to prove Bush right but rather to protect my children before some Syrian a-hole decides to use them here (or some other terrorist who thinks my babies are infidels).

[Hugin]

So anyone who disagrees is dishonest?

neccen
Since Jun 16, 2003

[Normal4me]

Bump!

Well said.

[Consort]

They got you hooked already. It didn't take much to do it.

[somemoreequalthanothers]

'this account banned or suspended'

[Republican Party Reptile]

There WERE WMD and there ARE NO WMD are not mutually exclusive.

The formal was true as there were, they were used, no disagreements there.

The latter is, well, at best not clearly demonstrated one way or another, Maybe Iraq did ger rid of all of their WMD stockpile before kicking the UN out in 1998, maybe they tried to revive the program between 1998 and 2003 but was unsuccessful, maybe they still have a pile of it that no one (UN or the US) can seem to find at the moment.

Ritter and the UN team DID find and dispose large quantities of WMD between 1991 and up until they were evicted in 1998. What's unclear is what happened to Iraq's WMD program between 1998 and when the UN went back in in Nov of 2002.

It was the UN's position when they went back in Nov of 2002 that it will take time to find conclusive evidence one way or the other. It was also the US position that the months between Nov 2002 and March 2003 were more than long enough and the timeline should be "weeks, not months". So if we told the UN that four months was more than long enough, it may be a bit difficult for us to be making our case that we need a lot more time than four months to find the WMD pile ourselves, esp. when we made the point that we had much better intelligence than the UN team and KNEW where they were.(I guess we'll see in Sep, when it will have been four months since the U.S. has had a free reign to look anywhere we want in Iraq)

[ContentiousObjector]

Maybe OJ Simpson can help

[Matchett-PI]

"Surely the claim that the WMDs were an immediate threat have been disproven.."

Where did those "claims" come from?

There are lots of news articles to be found claiming that Bush said that the Iraqi threat was imminent.

However, I'm providing you with his exact words below:

President G.W. Bush's most recent State of the Union address (this year):

"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?"

[Trace21230]

Hmmm, if Saddam didn't have WMD, why were we trying to inspect for 12 years?

Try again, newbie.

Trace

[Jodi]

Hans Blix said that Saddam had WMDs. The whole security council at the precious UN said that Saddam had WMDs. Are both these saviors of the left LYING?