nakedemperor
Senior Member
"I wasn't happy when we found out there wasn't weapons." -Dubya
Isn't the best-case scenario no weapons?
Isn't the best-case scenario no weapons?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
only to a point. considering the slight possibility that weapons WERE exported to another country or group is enough reason not to be happy.nakedemperor said:"I wasn't happy when we found out there wasn't weapons." -Dubya
Isn't the best-case scenario no weapons?
nakedemperor said:"I wasn't happy when we found out there wasn't weapons." -Dubya
Isn't the best-case scenario no weapons?
nakedemperor said:"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 said: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 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.nakedemperor said:"I wasn't happy when we found out there wasn't weapons." -Dubya
Isn't the best-case scenario no weapons?
insein said: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 said: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 said: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.
"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
"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
"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
"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
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
wade said: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.
wade said: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 said: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 said: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.
wade said: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.
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.
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.
wade said:Because no heads have rolled at the CIA.