Bush's own man trashes his SOTU claims on WMDs

[Sava]

It would be great to post the text versions of the 2003 and 2004 SOTU's and contrast the language. Bush spoke of imminent threats, mushroom clouds, danger to the world, etc... and then changed to talking about programs, could be's, and possible connections...

it's really quite astounding the difference the truth makes in one's propaganda...

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ned
Maybe I'm missing something here, .

Yes, you're missing the point entirely. AH brought up Tonkin as an example of when a government has lied about something as an excuse for war. Johnson lied about the torpedo attack, which his own statements show he knew wasn't real, to get the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution passed and allow him to go to war with N. Vietnam.

Whether or not it was the right enemy or if he was successful is moot, since the only reference was to the lies.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ned
All I have to say is this. Everyone in the administrations of both Clinton and Bush believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and that he was pursuing nuclear weapons. You cannot say that Bush was lying without also indicting Bill Clinton and all of the top Democrat leaders including Hillary Clinton, General Clark, and Senator Kerry.

Sen. Clinton, Clark and Kerry were not privvy to the intelligence from the CIA about the Niger claims, now were they? They believed there were weapons, but they didn't lie about a specific piece of intelligence in a State of the Union address, did they? They believed Bush, which was their mistake, as Clark and Kerry said since. Who would think the POTUS would tell them such a bald-faced fib about a matter of national security on national TV?

[Sava]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Sen. Clinton, Clark and Kerry were not privvy to the intelligence from the CIA about the Niger claims, now were they? They believed there were weapons, but they didn't lie about a specific piece of intelligence in a State of the Union address, did they? They believed Bush, which was their mistake, as Clark and Kerry said since. Who would think the POTUS would tell them such a bald-faced fib about a matter of national security on national TV?

who's a bigger BAMer? Bush or Fez?

[Traianvs]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Bush claimed there were WMD, and that has proven to be fallacious. The evidence that they based that claim on was clearly faulty, which seems indicative of the quality of intelligence. Any claim based upon such poor quality intelligence, is most likely guess work, which they purported as the truth, which is a lie.

Indeed, Bush actively lied about the existence of WMD. I can't blame him if he has suspicions of Saddam still having WMD, but has he proved it?

Don't you agree that it is very dangerous if people can simply decide to go to war for reasons just based on assumptions?

I've seen the explanation Colin Powell made one day to prove to the rest of the world that Saddam was working on WMD. He was talking about those mobile labs and some factories that "might" be able to be used for this purpose.
I mean any child could see that it was not conclusive evidence, let alone worth calling evidence!

Simply pathetic imo.

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

Who would think the POTUS would tell them such a bald-faced fib about a matter of national security on national TV?

Perhaps I'm too cynical, Boris, but I think the correct answer to that question is "anyone who has paid even the slightest bit of attention to history and politics at any point during their entire lives."

[Agathon]

I never believed there were weapons in the manner in which Bush described them.

Nuclear weapons? No. Absolutely not. There is no way Saddam Hussein could have ever reconstituted a Nuclear program given the surveillance he was under and no way he would ever have given them to terrorists. In fact that latter is the biggest whopper of the whole thing. There is no way a man who would have to spend millions and millions of dollars on nuclear weapons would give them to his ideological enemies and invite a holocaust upon himself when they were used. Saddam was evil, but he's not stupid.

2. Bio-weapons. The problem with these is that they don't work. He could have had smallpox or anthrax. In the former case they could not be effectively used against the US because mass immunization would quickly render them ineffective. And in the latter case, we all know what a mass killer anthrax is. Didn't that guy manage to kill about 5 people with it?

3. Chemical weapons. Again these are next to useless unless they are deployed as a battlefield weapon against massed infantry attacks (exactly what Saddam used them for and what they were used for in WW1). As for using them against civilians one need only point to the Tokyo subway attack which used a lethal agent, Sarin, in the most favourable circumstances imaginable (a closed space) and still only managed to kill about ten people.

Anyone who bothered to do some basic research would know that the whole case for WMDs was smoke and mirrors. If he had them, they would be next to useless unless they were nuclear, and nobody with any brains believed that Saddam had, or was close to developing nuclear weapons.

Both Bush and Blair know these facts. Their own intelligence services told them so. The various leaks were because intelligence officials did not want to end up holding the can for their lies.

Case closed. They wilfully engaged in deception. The left were spot on the whole time.

[monkspider]

The bad karma of the right is starting to catch up with them somewhat.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by monkspider
The bad karma of the right is starting to catch up with them somewhat.

Not that they'll care if they manage to hang on to power, since that's all they care about. Moral cripples...

[Alexander's Horse]

This Administration reeks to high heaven of corruption and lies.

So all these coalition soldiers and Iraqis are getting killed every day and for what? So Bush and his cronies can make a lot of money like they did after Gulf War I?

Wake up people!

[Ted Striker]

alexander's horse is gay

[Alexander's Horse]

Well I walk the talk - unlike some I know.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Bush claimed there were WMD, and that has proven to be fallacious. The evidence that they based that claim on was clearly faulty, which seems indicative of the quality of intelligence. Any claim based upon such poor quality intelligence, is most likely guess work, which they purported as the truth, which is a lie.

As I said, if this is true, then everyone who formerly said that Saddam had WMD lied. That includes all the top Democrats from the Clinton administration and everyone who argued in favor of the Iraq War authorization in Congress, which includes Hillary Clinton and Senator Kerry.

This is not an issue that the Democrats can win on if their nominee is Kerry. This is a Dean issue because he is the ONLY one running that has always been against the war.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Sava


Yes, the Clinton administration thought there were WMD's... I THOUGHT THERE WERE WMD's. But I did not feel Saddam was a direct threat to the US. He wasn't allied with terrorist groups like Al Qaeda... they are fundamental enemies! And Saddam wasn't about to fire a SCUD and hit New York.

What is the issue here? Whether Bush lied or whether the reason for the war was the imminence of the threat?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Yes, you're missing the point entirely. AH brought up Tonkin as an example of when a government has lied about something as an excuse for war. Johnson lied about the torpedo attack, which his own statements show he knew wasn't real, to get the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution passed and allow him to go to war with N. Vietnam.

Whether or not it was the right enemy or if he was successful is moot, since the only reference was to the lies.

Boris, he did not go to war with North Vietnam, which is MY point. Whether there was a second attack is irrelevant if there was in fact a first attack. If the NV attacked our ships on the high seas, it was an act of war that was materially different in kind from supplying arms to the Vietcong. But instead of declaring war on NV which we had a right to do, we sent troops to SV to fight the Vietcong.

A year later, the NV sent troops South in response to Johnson's intervention there. We know where that led.

Why didn't he do it, declare war on North Vietnam?

Goldwater.

Johnson was trying to protray Goldwater as an irresponsible warmonger. He would have looked like a fool for going after NV. Which, in hindsight, may explain why the NV's attacked in the middle of an election campaign.