Bush's own man trashes his SOTU claims on WMDs

[Sava]

Originally posted by Ned


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

Bush's deceptions focused on how the threat was imminent... lies and threat... the issue is one and the same.

Iraq wasn't an imminent threat... even IF they had WMD's... the fact that there are none and that they were most likely all destroyed in 1991 only further hurts the credibility of Bush and the American intelligence community. Even though the Clinton admin believed the same information, Clinton didn't hype the threat or take the country to war.

I've noticed the Repukes are also harping the "but Clinton did this" excuse on the issue of the Defense of Marriage. Big Deal... so Clinton said "this or that". It doesn't change the fact that the war was wrong, and a gross misallocation of military and government resources. The War on Terror is being hurt by the effort in Iraq... AND domestic security is being hurt by the war in Iraq.

[Jac de Molay]

Bush's deceptions focused on how the threat was imminent... lies and threat... the issue is one and the same.

Not only that, but these were the same people who were saying Iraq WASN'T a threat before 9/11, which makes it even worse. Here's Powell from a press conference on Feb 24, 2001 during a state visit to Egypt:

We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq...

Powell, again before a Senate subcommittee...

Senator Bennett: Mr. Secretary, the U.N. sanctions on Iraq expire the beginning of June. We've had bombs dropped, we've had threats made, we've had all kinds of activity vis-a-vis Iraq in the previous administration. Now we're coming to the end. What's our level of concern about the progress of Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons programs?

Secretary Powell: The sanctions, as they are called, have succeeded over the last 10 years, not in deterring him from moving in that direction, but from actually being able to move in that direction. The Iraqi regime militarily remains fairly weak. It doesn't have the capacity it had 10 or 12 years ago. It has been contained. And even though we have no doubt in our mind that the Iraqi regime is pursuing programs to develop weapons of mass destruction -- chemical, biological and nuclear -- I think the best intelligence estimates suggest that they have not been terribly successful. There's no question that they have some stockpiles of some of these sorts of weapons still under their control, but they have not been able to break out, they have not been able to come out with the capacity to deliver these kinds of systems or to actually have these kinds of systems that is much beyond where they were 10 years ago.

So containment, using this arms control sanctions regime, I think has been reasonably successful

Source

So, after 9/11, they're suddenly the scourge of the world?? This just makes the lying liars look worse. Powell got up before the UN and just about directly contradicted everything he had said before 9/11. Pitiful..

[oedo]

truth or lie?

"Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof, the smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud." ( October 7, 2002)

"If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today — and we do — does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?" (same speech)

"And we have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons — the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have." ( February 8, 2003 )

"We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories . . . and we’ll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven’t found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, we found them." (May 30, 2003)

[Agathon]

*gloats*

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Ned
Imran, did Kruschev have a formal alliance with NV?

As to West Germany, Kennedy made it clear that an attack on West Germany would invoke a nuclear response by the US on the USSR. Kruschev had no such alliance with Ho and had not made anything clear.

Besides, the Cuban missile crisis showed that the Soviets would back down. They had no desire to see their country destroyed for Castro's sake. Later, in 67, they failed to support Egypt when it was being overrun by Israel. The evidence suggests that the USSR would go some distance to support their fellow communist regimes but would not risk nuclear war with the US.

The real reason was that the Soviets did not have that many Nuc. Missile to hit us with. Now in the 80s the Soviets had tons of missile, just not in the 60s. Also in the 60s, we had over 1,000 B-47s and the last of the B-52 was finish, so we had several hundred B-52s and B-58s. We also had 3 to 4 SSBNs and Russia did not have any until 67/8 and they were 3 tubs per boat with very short range.

[GePap]

Good post Oedo, shjowing exactly what the lies were. Though of course, I thgink Ned will find a way to excuse those statements...

The sad part is that a significant portion of people have already been convinced by the lies, and the media will not, unless there is some mayor investigation in Washington, which republicans in congress will block from happening most likely, really go far with this, and that Bush will not suffer politically as he should.

And for those who wonder "who cares?" First, of course, it shows the amdinistration did not believe it could sell the war it wanted solely on the ideology it espoused, so it had to conjure up a non-existent threat to the US to sell the war: now this should bring question to everyones minds about the viability of the ideas that motivate this war, and if perhaps they could not have sold a war by themselves, how could they possibly successfully run the aftermath of the war, which, as we have seen, is a real challenge, and the place were all the quick military wins could be totally undone.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Interestingly:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/01/25/sprj.nirq.kay/index.html

It was the consensus among the intelligence agencies that Iraq had such weapons that led Bush to conclude that it posed an imminent threat that justified the U.S.-led invasion, Kay said.

"I actually think the intelligence community owes the president rather than the president owing the American people," he said.

"We have to remember that this view of Iraq was held during the Clinton administration and didn't change in the Bush administration," Kay said.

Kay also raised the possibility -- one he first discussed in a weekend interview with "The Sunday Telegraph" of London -- that clues about banned weapons programs might reside across Iraq's western border.

"There is ample evidence of movement to Syria before the war -- satellite photographs, reports on the ground of a constant stream of trucks, cars, rail traffic across the border. We simply don't know what was moved," Kay said.

But, he said, "the Syrian government there has shown absolutely no interest in helping us resolve this issue."

So it isn't just an anti-Bush claim here. Kay seems to blame the intelligence community and says the evidence may be in Syria.

[GePap]

On Imran's post:

1. Certainly the intelligence agencies believed Iraq still had, if not wepaons, weapons programs, which is why the general discussion, here in poly at least, and in a few other areas outside of the general public, was that even if Iraq had such programs, was it a real threat?

The thing i, the intelligence agencies were split- Kay was a member of those in the intelliegence community that believed they were weapons, why he was chosen for this job he just left in the first place. but others, Richter simply the most annoyingly vocal, in the intelligence community or just out of it questioned the geenral consencus.

Certainly the intellieence agencies are at fault for using worse case scenerios exclusively: the thing is the admin. never soght to look at the opposite claims, and in many instances went even further than the intelligence agencies in their claims.

2. First, given what Kay's main statement was, this later statement is at odds- after all, if he believes now Iraq did not have such weapons or perhaps even programs, then what could have been taken to Syria?

notice in how the press in theUS reports it the out for Bush is already built in- like the intelliegcne agencies of old that Kay blames, they take a statement of his and build it inot a grand possibility, already bought by some, that the answers are still out there, no, we were not wrong! (cause remember, Kay was alwasy one of the loud exponents of this war from a WMD standpoint.)

[Ned]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


He lied about Iraqis having BCN weapons without any evidence backing him up. He did not say it was a speculation -- he said it as if it were a fact.

Again, he did not even change his stance even after repeated attempts in locating these alleged weapons had failed.

Urban Ranger, true. The question is was whether he was alone in making such statements because, if he was not, the statements were made because the intelligence that he was basing his statements upon were inaccurate.

That is why I point to the statements of Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, General Clark and others, such as Tony Blair. They all said that Saddam did have chemical and biological weapons and was working on nuclear weapons. Bush was simply not alone in what he was saying. The statement that Bush lied implies that Bush himself was the only one that that ever drew the conclusions that Saddam had chemical biological weapons from the available intelligence.

It is also a point of fact that the intelligence was also made available to Congress. The people who voted on the Iraq war resolution did not have to rely on Bush's statements. They could review the evidence themselves and draw conclusions. The people who did, like Rep. Gephardt, drew the same conclusions as did George Bush. If Bush lied so did Gephardt. It is that simple.

The only conclusion that anyone can come to based upon these facts is that none of these people were lying; but rather that the intelligence was faulty.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Kay was alwasy one of the loud exponents of this war from a WMD standpoint.

Then the question was is perhaps the weight being placed on the wrong thing? You say the press has given Bush an out.. but perhaps Kay stressed this 'out' rather than the alternative. He did say it, after all. And saying that he blames the intelligence community much more than Bush is not the press' doing.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Kay was alwasy one of the loud exponents of this war from a WMD standpoint.

Then the question was is perhaps the weight being placed on the wrong thing? You say the press has given Bush an out.. but perhaps Kay stressed this 'out' rather than the alternative. He did say it, after all. And saying that he blames the intelligence community much more than Bush is not the press' doing.

Well, Kay is a biased source- that he went as far as he did in stating he has doubts now about Iraq's programs is news- but given his past, I do not think he could do a complete Mea Culpa (after all, HE is one of those intelliegence folks) and then attack his boss.

In general though, even before Kay opened his mouth this time evidence for the misleading actions of the amdin abound. Just look at Oedo's posst of statements- even the most Gunho intelliegence guys. including Kay, would say "I believe Saddam still has these weapons"- they would not say "we KNOW he has these weapons"- mayor difference between the two. Look at the statements- Bush is saying "I KNOW Saddam has these things", a statement of FACT. Now, even if he was not lying outright, even if the admin. was not being misleading, it brings to mind huge questions about whether W knows the difference between "I Believe" and "I Know", which is a quality of this admin. that goes beyond the Iraq war.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse


You mean like start World War III?

As soon as I saw U.S. troops doing cordon and search operations and standing at intersections manning meaningless checkpoints I knew the US military had learned absolutely nothing from Vietnam.

Alexander's Horse, who was risking World War III when they put missiles in the Cuba?

Who was a risking World War III when they actively supported the Vietcong in violation of the peace accords against a country they had a defensive treaty with the United States of America?

Who was risking World War III when they attacked the U.S. Navy on the open seas?

The problem of promoting aggression against a nation that is defended by a nuclear power is obvious. Now why does such aggression began in the first place one must ask. I submit that the aggression began because one signals that the aggression will not result in serious resistance.

The Korean aggression began after United States pulled out of South Korea. The Vietnam aggression began in earnest after Kennedy was elected and indicated his weakness at the Bay of Pigs. His weakness at the Bay of Pigs also brought on the Cuban missile crisis and the Berlin Wall crisis. In order to restore some credibility to American policy, Kennedy actually had to say publicly that an attack on West Germany would be met with a full-scale nuclear response on the Soviet Union. Perhaps this statement was the only thing that prevented World War III from happening from Soviet aggression in Europe.

Johnson had the opportunity of reversing all that by making it clear that North Vietnam had to stop its aggression or risk war with United States. He never did that. And that is why we lost 55,000 troops for no good reason.

The reason I say that had Johnson been firm the Communists would have backed down is that they did back down when threatened with war over Cuba and did back down and failed to support their client state the United Arab Republic.

[Imran Siddiqui]

would say "I believe Saddam still has these weapons"- they would not say "we KNOW he has these weapons"- mayor difference between the two. Look at the statements- Bush is saying "I KNOW Saddam has these things", a statement of FACT. Now, even if he was not lying outright, even if the admin. was not being misleading, it brings to mind huge questions about whether W knows the difference between "I Believe" and "I Know", which is a quality of this admin. that goes beyond the Iraq war.

Plenty of stuff in politics has been done on the basis of what the intelligence community believed. The politicos treat is as fact, because it is the closest thing they have to fact (there is little that is 100% certain in intelligence).

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Plenty of stuff in politics has been done on the basis of what the intelligence community believed. The politicos treat is as fact, because it is the closest thing they have to fact (there is little that is 100% certain in intelligence).

Lets go back and ask this question- why did Bush not suggest invading Iraq back in August 2001? The intelliegence was the same then...the only things that changed was 9/11, which was an action by Al Qaeda- what is being ignored as well is that the Bush admins calims about a linik between Iraq and Al Qaeada have also proven illusory, and these were claims the Bush admin. was making without a general consensus in the intelligence community. Then there is the issue of delivery systems, another set of claims by the Bush amdin. in which there was no consensus among the intelligence community: without a link to Al qaeda or serious delivery systems all the WMD warheads in the world would still not be a imminent threat to the US.

But there is an even more fundamental question- you say that intelligence is the closest we get to fact- well, while most in the intelliegence community said they though Iraq still had these weapons, there was till a significant opposition (and as I sadi, on many of the other claims of the admin. they could not even come up with a mayority claim)- which bring to mind the question of whether a preventive war (this was not pre-emptive, given that NO one in the intelliegence community ever claimed an imminent threat) can be justified using intelliegence that is viewed as unianimous, not even a mayority consensus.

[Ned]

Just like our failure to track al Qaida prior to 9/11, our intelligence on Iraq seems to be underwhelming. Clark's attacks on Bush to me are much more effective because he does not say that Bush lied, but because he says that Bush did not do enough on al Qaida and because the threat of Saddam was not imminent.

The Dems really need to dump Dean and the Bush is a liar message.