BUSH VOWS TO FIND WMD'S

Sky News ^ | June 21, 2003

[BlueAngel]

You provided some good info. Thanks.

[EGPWS]

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 is delusional in thinking that my babies are infidels).

I, myself am not focusing my "terrorist concerns" at Siria. Keep in mind that these people are terrorists and their primary goal is to terrorize. The best way to do so is to keep a population wondering, That is the biggest terrorist act they have going for them.

As far as the Liberals go I'm not in the least concerned about their missing anything,(for they don't) however I am VERY concerned about them knowing and not doing anything about it because a Republican is in office and they have to make sure they don't promote his cause. If Bill Clinton were still POTUS (just a scenario) they would be all for what Dubya' is doing and promoting it in a way that would appear inconceivable!

[VOA]

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

Well, that all depends on what the meaning of the word "immediate" "is".

I think I've heard the best explanation of what Saddam's WMD program actually was
last night.

Laura Ingraham, on her radio show, reviewed the article arms policy expert
Kenneth Pollack had in The New York Times (sometime in the last couple of days).

Pollack clearly connects the dots on what not only the USA, but Russia, China, France, and a
lot of other developed countries thought about Saddam's WMD program:
It existed and was a danger.
The only real disagreement? What to do about it.
And Saddam.

I think Pollock lays out the best picture of what Saddam's WMD program relaly looked like.
Saddam rebuilt a number of pharmaceutical facilities after Gulf War I...that could
be quickly converted for the production of chemical or bio-weapons. Thus, Saddam had the means
to generate a fair amound of labile (limited-lifetime) chemical and biological
weapons once he thought he either was ready to go off to war or was in danger.

The same goes for a nuclear program. The underlying knowledge base and a fair amount
of infrastructure (probably more than we now know) was ready to go at the
opportune time.

Thus, like Dubya sums up, we can't afford to wait for the first blow.
Amd the American public, Gawd-Bless-Em, mostly seems to have the horse-sense
to realize that even if we don't find WMDs sitting on a launch-pad, Saddam
and his threat-level had to be removed from the world stage.

If for no other reason than to let Iran, North Korea, and aother future
peckerwoods learn that there's not much of a future in trying to play a Dr. Evil dictator.

Rape and pillage your own country. But don't even let the USA think you're
a threat.

[SpeakLittle_ThinkMuch]

If you believe there were never any WMD, would you like to play a little game?

Would you agree that WMD's are fairly small, from envelope size to 55 gal drum size? I won't include the missiles and trucks 'cause we've found some of them, and blown others up. Paperwork can be put on discs. Lots of people who were involved in the program can be shot in the back of the head. Lots of folks involved don't know what other folks did or are doing...............so knowing that, let's play.......

First we go to California(same size as Iraq everyone says)...sorry you can't come yet, I get 12 years to practice first...

I can hide my stuff anywhere...underground, in lakes, in rivers, in hollow trees, in trucks, in cars, in houses, in barns, in chicken coops(not a good one, that's where you found stuff last time), under the porch, in the sewers, in the Mosques, in the mountains, on the plains...anyplace you can think of.....and many you can't.....

Also, I can move it around, I can take it to Nevada, Oregon, New Mexico.....sorry you can't come, you have to stay in California...

While you are looking, you have to guard every vase, ashtray, palm tree, parking lot, and liquor store in L.A., San Diego, and points east.

You are responsible for running the power grid, water system, T.V. stations, and grocery stores. You have to do road maintaince, build bridges, treat the sick and guard the Mexican border. (yes, there will be reporters there to tell everyone what a rotten job you are doing and generally screw things up)...

Now, let the game begin....opps....not yet for you..I get a 4 month head start. And by the way, I get to shoot at your a*# while you're looking.......hurry you have 7 weeks!

Are you willing to bet the possible WMD's victms lives that you are right? Should we just throw up our hands, say they were never there, and quit looking?

I pray they find them, wherever they are.

[Tacis]

"Maybe OJ Simpson can help" is a fascinating observation. It would suggest that the WMD and the non-OJ killers of OJ's wife are both in the same imaginary location. A cynical but amusing comparison.

The wonderful part is that no liberal can make such a comparison because, to do so, would make fun of a black guy and no true liberal would make fun of even Bush at the expense of a black guy. Same thing with faggots, gimps, and union members. Perfectly OK, however, with Christians, some Asians and any non-minority who is wealthy.

[Filibuster_60]

Like most others I believe Saddam had them. However, only Bush and the neocons kept insisting that the threat was so immediate that inspections were a dangerous waste of time. If you asked the families of the nearly 200 Americans who have lost their lives in Iraq since March, I'm sure at least some of them would say they wouldn't have wanted their loved ones sent over if they knew in advance that no WMDs would be found more than two months after the fall of Baghdad.

Check out George Will's article "The Bush Doctrine at Risk." Every additional day we fail to find weapons in Iraq chips away at the logic of the preemptive war doctrine, just as every additional day we don't attack Iran and North Korea - which pose far greater WMD threats than Iraq did - weakens the doctrine's practical viability.

[VRWC_minion]

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

You are falling for the rewrite of history. The inspectors were never supposed to hunt down the weapons. 4 months was ample time for Saddam to demonstrate what he did with the unnaccounted for weapons. The inspectors were supposed to be auditors not investigators.

Also, you are making an assumption that nothing has been found. It is only safe to say that nothing has been announced as found.

[Aaron0617]

'this account banned or suspended'

ha ha ha...no surprise there. The very first post this new (now booted) FREEPer makes about the WMDs.

and saying Scott Ritter was right....ha. Good one.

[eyespysomething]

Thanks. Ravingnutter provided one, I have used it 2 or 3 times. The other I found, because I am tired of the "there is no WMD argument"

[A CA Guy]

That announcement I THINK means we now know exactly were they are and will find them (reveal them) very quickly as soon as enough democrats get aboard the wrong train in slamming our President.

As soon as they try to bury the President more harshly, they will reveal the WMDs and the democrats will have buried themselves instead.

[eyespysomething]

only Bush and the neocons kept insisting that the threat was so immediate that inspections were a dangerous waste of time

The inspectors said they probably weren't goin to be able to find them. Why were they there? To document that SH got rid of them, not hunt for weapons of mass destruction, overturning every rock. Also, if you read back in the posts, Bush said he wanted to act BEFORE the threat was imminent.

[VRWC_minion]

FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. Latest: June 17-18, 2003. N=900 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.
.
"All things considered, do you think the United States going to war with Iraq has been worth it or not?"
		Worth It	Not Worth It	Not Sure
		%	%	%
	6/03	53	31	16
	4/03	64	25	11
.
"On the issue of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, do you believe Iraq currently has weapons of mass destruction, had weapons of mass destruction before the war but has moved or destroyed them, or that Iraq did not have any weapons of mass destruction?"
			%
	Currently has WMD		25
	Has moved or destroyed WMD		54
	Did not have any WMD		12
	Not sure		9
.
"Which one of the following do you believe is most likely to be true? President Bush exaggerated the dangers of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The intelligence agencies exaggerated the dangers of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq to President Bush. Both President Bush and intelligence agencies exaggerated the dangers. OR, Neither President Bush nor the intelligence agencies exaggerated the dangers."
			%
	Bush exaggerated		8
	Agencies exaggerated		11
	Both exaggerated		24
	Neither exaggerated		43
	Not sure		14

[Filibuster_60]

The inspectors said they probably weren't goin to be able to find them. Why were they there? To document that SH got rid of them, not hunt for weapons of mass destruction, overturning every rock. Also, if you read back in the posts, Bush said he wanted to act BEFORE the threat was imminent.

It strikes me as ironic that the inspectors, when they said they "needed more time", sounded somewhat like our own weapons-hunters right now.

Actually it's not so much a matter of timing either. Those intelligence reports about Iraq having thousands of gallons of deadly chemicals, etc. were taken as fact by almost everyone, whether or not they supported the war. And so far there's no conclusive evidence that they actually existed, even in far smaller quantities. At the end of the day it's the huge disparity between the advertised threat and the uncovered facts (thus far) that's caught all of us by surprise.

[EGPWS]

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.

Lest we forget however it was Saddam's responsibility to prove that his country had no WMD or programs supporting them under "UN resolution 1441" not ours or the UN's responsibility to prove that his country had/has them. He refused to prove it thus our actions to to prove it ourselves, which the UN refused to do and in the process muting their own resolution. There is one person and one person alone to blame for this Iraq debacle and that person is Saddam. A debacle he initiated when he invaded a sovereign country which goes by the name of "Kuwait". Iraq has not had a very good track record when it comes to adhering to contract. Being the case WE are doing it for him and at the same time, doing the people of Iraq a favor by freeing them of a tyrant and giving them an opportunity to enplace a Democratic system in Iraq.

[eyespysomething]

Then I have but one question. If Bush and his people intentionally misled the American people by skewing intelligence, whay didn['t they cover their tracks for after the war was over (no doubt we would win) and the hunt began?

[evad]

'this account banned or suspended'

HEY...what did he do?

[Prodigal Son]

Does anybody remember during the Iraqi Freedom we had a U2 spy plane flying over the former Soviet State Georgia? What was that all about?

If you were Hussein, what would you have done? Use your chemicals even though they would not have stopped our military? Prove everybody right and go down in a blaze of glory? Or would you have had that stuff hauled out of Iraq when it became obvious that the US/UK were serious about coming in? I think it is entirely rational to suppose that he would have taken the chemicals somewhere else and sold them. Al Qaeda would pay millions and millions for them. It would be like a bag full of diamonds on the black market. They would be too valuable to simply leave behind if there was a way to get them out.

I think Hussein escaped into Iran early in the war and bugged out to Russia on board a Russian plane. His WMD are looking for a new owner in the underworld.

[somemoreequalthanothers]

Probably just a liberal sniper, register long enough to make a couple of potshot posts, delete the account and head on back to from whence they came. (hugging trees, advocating electric cars, calling for more taxpayer spending on the 'arts', looking upon smokers with derision, etc.)

[Jorge]

"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???

Any honest observer would have to say Scott Ritter is a two faced phoney who has no credibilty regardless of how this turns out.

Of course Scott Ritter also warned us about the great loyality of Iraqis to Saddam who supposedly would fight so bravely that the American military would run from Iraq with it's "tail between it's legs".

Scott Ritter couldn't have been MORE wrong if he tried.
Yet I saw him on TV a few weeks ago claiming that he was right and that we lost the war. LOL

[RightWhale]

it does look like we got snookered on the WMD issue

The issue is as dead as the above's account.