The next Republican Prez (whenever that is) cannot repeat this silence in the face of continual attacks aspect of the Bush administration. It was ridiculous.
I don’t think it was ridiculous!! I look upon it as another in a long list of validations of my FR tagline.
It really bothers me when THEY make me look good.
Even so, yesterday I saw a big poster ad from RT (Russia Today) website on my street corner crowing about how false those WMD claims were. Trying to get new viewers based on an assertion that has been proved wrong.
So Bush was right all along.
I was really irritated by Bush’s lack of defense. Also, what was the point of the military covering up and not collaborating the real WMD story? Trying to hurt some agency, political leader or Collin Powell?
The article and my lefty associates now try to say it was “new production” now old stock piles. Dead is dead, and these things definitely could do that.
The Bush lied thing is almost a religion to a lot of these pigeons. That is want made the NYT article so fascinating to me. Why did they bother with it? What is their game?
I remember when this same news papers were excoriating GW because of this same WMD. Our troops did find these WMD, and left it up to the Iraqis to destroy them. Ooops! Just goes to show you, that if you want anything done right, you have to do it yourself.
NYT crosses the line.
The left begins demonizing the NYT...3...2...1!
Do people still read the NYT?
No. They didn’t.
Pity we didn’t have a real POSTUS back then (Reagan). He never would have taken us into that nightmare on trumped up BS.
I was in a discussion last week with someone here about Iraqi WMD’s and I recall he (maybe she) continued the usual line that they were not there and that the Bush administration either lied or were themselves misled into using their existence as a justification for the 2003 invasion. I can see mistrusting the CIA on things but when Mossad, MI6, and both the French and German intelligence services concur on something it’s probably a safe bet. I am still waiting on the press to acknowledge the well documented effort by the Russians to move the bulk of Saddam’s arsenal out of Iraq to, again reportedly, Syria during the 14 months of haggling at the UN and in Congress. IIRC, that came out of an interview with a retired Russian intelligence chief.
One would think the left would tire of eating crow.
Do you seriously believe that the MSM would not have pushed back against ANYTHING the Bush admin said about WMD’s? If they found a cache of atomic bombs, the media would still would have found an excuse to say it didn’t matter, i.e., the Bush admin had not claimed that Iraq possessed atomic bombs in the first place.
Rush has a big commentary going on right now about this. He is on fire and doing good.
Indeed, those who had long followed the issue knew that the ISG’s conclusion couldn’t possibly be true—because the U.N. Special Commission (UNSCOM) destroyed tons of proscribed Iraqi material in the years after the [First Gulf] war.
That's the only part I can personally attest to. Got out of the intel biz shortly afterward. I was gone for this, for example:
In October 2003, [Gen] Clapper met a group of journalists, telling them that “satellite imagery showing a heavy flow of traffic from Iraq into Syria, just before the American invasion in March, led him to believe that illicit weapons material ‘unquestionably’ had been moved out of Iraq,” the New York Times reported then.
Moshe Ya’alon, Israel’s Defense Minister, was Chief of Staff of the Israel Defense Force during OIF. Gen. Ya’alon subsequently said much the same as Gen. Clapper: on the war’s eve, Saddam “transferred the chemical agents from Iraq to Syria. No one went to Syria to find it.” That view was echoed by Iraqi general Georges Sada, former Deputy Chief of Saddam’s Air Force.
Actual pictures from national assets are seldom shown because they tend to give away too many capabilities and the MSM will dismiss them anyway; however, dismissing this sort of stuff can get people killed.
The article (and, of all sources, the Daily Beast) states that it was Karl Rove's decision not to pursue the matter in the administration's defense, which, if true, would constitute a political and military miscalculation of the first order. But those of us who have been spattered trying to pee against the "Bush lied" wind have to feel a little vindicated, even if too little, too late.
I’m going to go out on a limb and make a wild guess.
We’re getting ready to be hit with a WMD attack from ISIS, probably some type of bio attack, and it will be Bush’s fault for lying about the WMD’s in Iraq.
Had Bush not lied about the WMD’s in Iraq, ISIS couldn’t have got their hands on them.
The Times story says the wmd were all from the Iran-Iraq war era, much earlier than GWB’s wmd claims...
Ed