What does it all mean?

[nakedemperor]

"I wasn't happy when we found out there wasn't weapons." -Dubya

Isn't the best-case scenario no weapons?

 

[MtnBiker]

What was he not happy about?

No weapons, or bad intelligence that claimed there were weapons?

 

[DKSuddeth]

"I wasn't happy when we found out there wasn't weapons." -Dubya

Isn't the best-case scenario no weapons?

only to a point. considering the slight possibility that weapons WERE exported to another country or group is enough reason not to be happy.

the other reason would be why did our, and the rest of the worlds, intelligence fail?

 

[Avatar4321]

"I wasn't happy when we found out there wasn't weapons." -Dubya

Isn't the best-case scenario no weapons?

No, this is the worst case scenario. The Democrats are continuing to miss the major point here. Which is probably good for the President because they cant hit him for it then.

I dont believe our intelligence or the rest of the worlds intelligence failed. I dont think Saddam had that much control to decieve all his top men into thinking the had WMD. I have no doubt there were weapons of mass destruction. the man used them. he had weapons programs. He has plenty of weapons unaccounted for before the UN. Even Saddams own actions imply there were WMDs. If he had dismantled him that it would have been simple to provide the evidence to the weapons inspectors and document it in the report they had to file before the UN. if Saddam didnt have WMDs then he has got to be one of the dumbest rulers in history.

No, i think its obvious there had to have been WMDs so not finding them is the worst case scenario. the fact that we havent found them means they are still out there and possibly already in the hands of terrorists. If Kerry was smart he would be hitting the President up for incompetance for not finding the WMDs and possibly having let them fall into the hands of terrorists.

So i agree with the President. I am not happy we didnt find WMDs.

 

[nakedemperor]

"I wasn't happy when we found out there wasn't weapons," Bush said. "But Saddam Hussein was a unique threat. And the world is better off without him in power. And my opponent's plans lead me to conclude that Saddam Hussein would still be in power, and the world would be more dangerous [if Kerry had been president]."

Sorry-- that's the whole quote.

 

[Avatar4321]

"I wasn't happy when we found out there wasn't weapons," Bush said. "But Saddam Hussein was a unique threat. And the world is better off without him in power. And my opponent's plans lead me to conclude that Saddam Hussein would still be in power, and the world would be more dangerous [if Kerry had been president]."

Sorry-- that's the whole quote.

He is dead on in that quote. Thanks for posting the whole thing. the fact is if Kerry had it his way Saddam would be in power in Iraq and Kuwait. who knows where else Saddam would be.

 

[nakedemperor]

No, this is the worst case scenario. The Democrats are continuing to miss the major point here. Which is probably good for the President because they cant hit him for it then.

I dont believe our intelligence or the rest of the worlds intelligence failed. I dont think Saddam had that much control to decieve all his top men into thinking the had WMD. I have no doubt there were weapons of mass destruction. the man used them. he had weapons programs. He has plenty of weapons unaccounted for before the UN. Even Saddams own actions imply there were WMDs. If he had dismantled him that it would have been simple to provide the evidence to the weapons inspectors and document it in the report they had to file before the UN. if Saddam didnt have WMDs then he has got to be one of the dumbest rulers in history.

No, i think its obvious there had to have been WMDs so not finding them is the worst case scenario. the fact that we havent found them means they are still out there and possibly already in the hands of terrorists. If Kerry was smart he would be hitting the President up for incompetance for not finding the WMDs and possibly having let them fall into the hands of terrorists.

So i agree with the President. I am not happy we didnt find WMDs.

I can see where you're coming from. I agree, to an extent. I'm not sure, and no one is, whether there were WMD in Iraq, only that we haven't found any. Although on the other hand, the likelihood that all the WMD-- every last vile, ever last tube, everything-- was destroyed or shipped out seems very small. If we HAD found WMD, how on earth would we account for it all? Could we say unequivocally, these are all the WMD Saddam had, and none of it got out or into the hands of terrorists.

I think this is the best case scenario in the sense that not find ANY WMD is the best indicator that they didn't exist to begin with, which obviously, is the best case scenario for everyone.

 

[ChrisH]

"I wasn't happy when we found out there wasn't weapons." -Dubya

Isn't the best-case scenario no weapons?

I don't think Bush meant it the way in which you are asking. I think Bush is glad there were no weapons, but wished our intelligence would have been correct.

 

[insein]

The quote was meant to say one of 2 things. He was upset that we didnt find weapons because a) It meant that our intellignece and the world's intelligence had failed or b) that our intelligence was accurate but that he moved them to a 3rd party without ours or others knowledge. In either case, major intelligence lapses occured for the CIA as well as other world Intelligence agencies. This is definitely something to be upset about.

 

[wade]

The quote was meant to say one of 2 things. He was upset that we didnt find weapons because a) It meant that our intellignece and the world's intelligence had failed or b) that our intelligence was accurate but that he moved them to a 3rd party without ours or others knowledge. In either case, major intelligence lapses occured for the CIA as well as other world Intelligence agencies. This is definitely something to be upset about.

Or the third possiblity:

Bush told the CIA what intel he wanted them to produce, and they produced it. They told him it was unsubstantiated but he didn't care. Bush was so sure that Saddam had WMD's that he was confident they'd find them and so he didn't care if the intel was verified or not. And he is dissapointed that he was wrong, but of course he cannot admit the truth.

 

[jimnyc]

Or the third possiblity:

Bush told the CIA what intel he wanted them to produce, and they produced it. They told him it was unsubstantiated but he didn't care. Bush was so sure that Saddam had WMD's that he was confident they'd find them and so he didn't care if the intel was verified or not. And he is dissapointed that he was wrong, but of course he cannot admit the truth.

Wade, come back from your drooling fantasy land. You keep repeating this dogshit and admit yourself you have ZERO FACTS to backup this laughable claim. Some liberals crack me up how they repeat the same shit over and over and eventually see it as fact.

 

[Comrade]

Or the third possiblity:

Bush told the CIA what intel he wanted them to produce, and they produced it. They told him it was unsubstantiated but he didn't care. Bush was so sure that Saddam had WMD's that he was confident they'd find them and so he didn't care if the intel was verified or not. And he is dissapointed that he was wrong, but of course he cannot admit the truth.

Ahh, the truth.

Not any leading Democrat, nor head of state, nor even Hans Blix himself, none of them is part of the truth.


In fact, to quote anyone who knew the truth as you say, prior to attacking Saddam's regime, is a feat.

Wade, you are on a roll tonight with the anti-Bush crusade. Is it the debate and Bush's new momentum that worrys you so much?

Listen to the truth as claimed by even the most liberal senator in Congress, and your obvious plea for salvation from Bush:

http://www.glennbeck.com/news/01302004.shtml

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source

Oh sure, the story is Kerry was 'fooled' by Bush to believe in the intelligence.

That being the exact same intelligence offered in even more detail, required by law as open information to the intelligence committee in congress by the same people who presented to Bush the same conclusions. Kerry in his select and priveledged position in the intelligence oversight committee might have shown up three times in a year to hear and question them, but that's Bush's fault for making him campaign instead of do his oh so demanding job.

Well whatever... maybe as President you get God-like, all-knowing, super powers... so in that case let's quote the prior liberal in power:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source

If the left said Clinton lied, well THAT would be a major revelation!

For today, the libs favorite is always the 'former state department official'. How about the 'TOP former state department official', with a real name affixed to it, and under Clinton?

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source

No?

Clinton wore boxers and Medeline wore panties. How about a real man. A real man 'wears' "briefs", right?

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source

Hahaha! You get it?!? Berger stuffed documents in his pants to wear briefs!

Yeah, that's pretty pathetic. Imagine Condi Rice in 2007 stuffing Bush documents down her pants, like this assmaster.

Berger credibility when it comes to statements on foriegn policy... well the guy stuffs his crotch!

Well, ignoring that whole demonstration of how Democrats don't give a shit about their past glorified figureheads even if they illegally stuff their private parts, the WMD's in Iraq were never some joke to all y'all Dems under Clinton, who also got pissed at some point.

I recall an aspirin factory after the WTC boming in '93, and who cared really? We know two embassy bombing were to follow and then Monica launched some cruise missiles out of Clinton's pants to kill Osama who wasn't delivered from Sudan. Confused?
:halo:

Democrats in congress a year before Bush, who you might recall dominated all three branches of government, all obviously dominating the FBI, CIA, and other agencies, summed up the question on Saddam and WMD's thusly:

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | Source

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 | Source

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 | Source

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 | Source

So WTF, Wade, did you just become politically astute since all your favored candidates in the wings did their 180?

It's amazing how many people on left believe Saddam had a change of heart ever since Bush did what they never had the convictions to carry out under their own administration. The only excuse I've heard to discard our actions as ultimately 'illegal' or whatnot, is to accuse America of daring to select first, which despotic, maniacal regimes we might depose before deposing all those we have zero or very little interest in sacrificing for.


All those traditional standards held against tyranny was lip service, from the moment Bush actually moved to stop the travesty of human rights violations ongoing under the worste of them all. But suddenly it wasn't the will to depose such evil at stake... no... the WMD's are reason #1 to have decided to free Iraqi's and since there was none, well, what does that say? Duh. Saddam should have stayed, and we have no right to be there.


That is, given we don't depose every tyranny simultaneously. Which of course invokes a draft and Vietnam and quagmire, etc. Sure, I'm guessing now, what the Libs would spew. But kid me not, they can give a shit about WMD's.

Unless you have WMD's, and regardless of other reasons stated beyond that, you should stay in power as a ruthless, murderous, tyrant, instead of maybe becoming a Democracy, which is a great thing, we hear from Kerry.


But since it's all based on a 'lie', which was the truth before Bush proved it a lie by finding it out for sure, it's all bad.


Apparently, there are no other reasons based on simply American interests to have tried to create Democracy in Iraq.


That is,
until everyone can be simultaneously forced by America to vote in a Democracy and peace, pot, microdot, fucken eh.

Which France would have guaranteed if only we had taken out Saddam on humanitarian principles which we all know France supports along with the UN, all destroyed and turned against us before we deposed Saddam, who didn't have WMD's, which now apparently is everything to any humanitarian motives under Saddam supporters.


Confused still?

Well, I've read that the UN is driven only by purely moral standards and since we invaded for oil, which we still don't collect revenues on, and instead act like Iraqi oil is going to make America rich, eventually... er... bizzarely. Well, at some point it's about how the USA is wasting resources on Iraq with the left fucktards, and the next it's about how the USA will reap the oil resources and get rich off them.


That's why all lefties are really dumb, they can't make up their mind!


So we can try to establish some Democracy which is bad for France, and so that Saddam won't repay Chirac, nor deposit the 10 million his family was banking on for that beach property in Normandy, but imagine if we had suddently nuked Baghdad and taken out Saddam, how great all that would be, now that a bad man (just like Osama) was killed, and now that we neutron bombed Saddam (or maybe not? Our intelligence on WMD is shit!), well assuming we took him out using nukes, the world is helping us more and the terrorism stuff is not angry. Yeah.

Well actually I digress.

The point we're to learn, people:

"Marines frustrated in Iraq, we fucked up, they'll never win against freedom fighters who cut off head for the greater good of all Iraqis."


I'm not making that up... it's what this fucker chose to report.

I can't imagine you are that naive. Do you forget things a few years ago that easily, or deny they were once positions held by the only reasonable group which shares your anti-Bush agenda?

Actually, anyone, especially those on the left, can approve of the decision because of otherwise rational fears of future threats, the current burden of maintaining military deterrence, or the undeniable inprovement in the human rights condition by deposing Saddam and investing in Democracy where it never has existed.

No, I learned quickly and know now from the left, you will disagree on what I said, and that things were actually better for Iraq under Saddam. Or you'll say we had no business costing U.S. lives and money to go and make things better... although that is a far right position.

But instead, the common reply left to the libs is to first hear that, yes, it's better and we did the right thing. BUT, ! BUT!!! But for the wrong reasons.

And proof of that is how we haven't gone into N.K. to free them and some other nonesense about brinkmanship to cause a nuclear war so that we can morally justify taking out a very insane and brutal Saddam (which everyone will admit) BEFORE he was like Kim Il Jong, with nukes, which Clinton allowed to form under his regime.


Again, you've said that Bush knew ... or Bush lied ... and people died ... and you hate that whole concept enough to 'de-facto' support the Dems based on one issue, WMD's.


That leaves you to deny, ignore, or explain away the quotes I gave above, which deal specifically over the existence of WMD's, only one element in Bush's argument to depose Saddam.


But Wade, I can't take you seriously anymore.


If the whole idea of taking out Saddam over WMD's is the sole motivation, and you disapprove (in hindsight), from whence came your recent suggestion that nuking Saddam and his top government to take out the regime?

Actually I can link and quote you on this, but the gist of YOUR solution in Iraq was that the UN would have eventially approved of a US attack using nuclear weapons to fish around with neutron bombs in order take out Saddam alone. Or maybe his sons, or maybe the Iraqi congress under the Ba'ath party.

Once you championed this whole pretentious idea of you actually approving such a strike using such weapons while you always knew somehow the WMD's were a non-issue in the first place, despite any current and to-date world intelligence agencies. At that point, considering you spoke out with little courage and using 20/20 hindsight and manipulating every Liberal phrase in the book, I realized you are fucking with me on this nuke idea.


I mean, you should realize a week or two ago, you said that some mega-bomb was supposed to solve Iraq and Saddam's influence on that nation, and then your new statement is apparently about how Saddam w/o WMD's is a righteous Saddam who belongs in total control of Iraq as he always has been.


Oh sure, you'll never actually say why "Since Marines question" and "Bush cheated" that's obvious to all of us, that you actually mean Saddam is the shit. But c'mon, how many of us will call you out before you drop the facade?

 

[NightTrain]

Yeah!

What Jim & Comrade said!

 

[wade]

Comrade,

I supported the idea of taking Saddam out of power because of his behavior, espeically towards his own people. WMD's had nothing to do with that.

All I can say on the CIA report is wait - eventually it will become public knowlege that this fabriciation was created at the request of Bush.

Again, my evidence is simple - heads have not rolled at the CIA. Why?

Wade.

 

[dilloduck]

Comrade,

I supported the idea of taking Saddam out of power because of his behavior, espeically towards his own people. WMD's had nothing to do with that.

All I can say on the CIA report is wait - eventually it will become public knowlege that this fabriciation was created at the request of Bush.

Again, my evidence is simple - heads have not rolled at the CIA. Why?

Wade.

your "simple" evidence cannot be verified. Why do you choose to believe it?

 

[wade]

Because no heads have rolled at the CIA. This is not normal. When there is a massive intelligence failure, the normal result is those involved are fired. This has not happened. The only explanation that makes sense to me is they did not really fail, they did what they were charged to do. And if they were fired, they might come clean about it, but if they are not fired they cannot do so as they would be procescutable for even mentioning it.

 

[dilloduck]

Because no heads have rolled at the CIA. This is not normal. When there is a massive intelligence failure, the normal result is those involved are fired. This has not happened. The only explanation that makes sense to me is they did not really fail, they did what they were charged to do. And if they were fired, they might come clean about it, but if they are not fired they cannot do so as they would be procescutable for even mentioning it.

If certain CIA employees have been fired, what makes you think it would be made public? Because no one has "cleared the air" means nothing. It's just your wishful thinking.

 

[wade]

If certain CIA employees have been fired, what makes you think it would be made public? Because no one has "cleared the air" means nothing. It's just your wishful thinking.

As far as I have been able to find, there has been no house cleaning. CIA employees fired would be loosing financial benefits - some would fight that in court. None are.

 

[dilloduck]

As far as I have been able to find, there has been no house cleaning. CIA employees fired would be loosing financial benefits - some would fight that in court. None are.

You're dreaming--come back with some proof !

 

[Comrade]

Because no heads have rolled at the CIA. This is not normal. When there is a massive intelligence failure, the normal result is those involved are fired. This has not happened. The only explanation that makes sense to me is they did not really fail, they did what they were charged to do. And if they were fired, they might come clean about it, but if they are not fired they cannot do so as they would be procescutable for even mentioning it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Tenet

George John Tenet (born January 5, 1953) is a former United States Director of Central Intelligence. He submitted his resignation to the President on June 3, 2004, citing "personal reasons". He served as CIA Director until July 11, 2004, when his deputy director, John McLaughlin became acting Director.

:duh3:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Pavitt

James Pavitt is Deputy Director for field operations for the CIA, the second high-ranking CIA official. In 2004 he is to retire early, after 31 years, citing personal reasons - leading to speculation that the resignations of himself and former Director George Tenet are possibly linked with the Iraq weapons of mass destruction or 9-11 intelligence issues.

:huh:

Because no heads have rolled at the CIA.

:rotflmao:
:rotflmao:
:rotflmao: