Why the "slam dunk" statement was made...

healthmyths

Platinum Member
Sep 19, 2011
28,423
10,009
900
In fact, however, George Tenet, George W. Bush's CIA director, assured the President that the case for Saddam possessing WMD was “a slam dunk.” In this assessment, Tenet had the backing of all fifteen agencies involved in gathering intelligence for the United States.
The National Intelligence Estimate of 2002, where their collective views were summarized, asserted with “high confidence” that
"Iraq is continuing, and in some areas expanding its chemical, biological, nuclear, and missile programs contrary to UN resolutions.

The intelligence agencies of Britain, Germany, Russia, China, Israel, and France all agreed with this judgment. Even Hans Blix—who headed the UN team of inspectors trying to determine whether Saddam had complied with the demands of the Security Council that he dispose of the WMD he was known to have had in the past—lent further credibility to the case in a report he issued only a few months before the invasion:

"The discovery of a number of ... chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at a storage depot 170 km southwest of Baghdad was much publicized. This was a relatively new bunker, and therefore the rockets must have been moved there in the past few years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions.... They could also be the tip of a submerged iceberg. The discovery … points to the issue of several thousands of chemical rockets that are unaccounted for."

NOW Bill Clinton's administration provided all the intelligence regarding Saddam and.....
The consensus on which President Bush relied was first fully formed in the Clinton administration,
as these statements indicate:
  • "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 [WMD] program." – Bill Clinton, 1998
  • "Iraq is a long way from [America], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." – Secretary of State Madeline Albright, 1998
  • "[Saddam] will use those [WMD] again, as he has ten times since 1983." – Sandy Berger, Clinton’s National Security Adviser, 1998
Also in 1998, a group of Democratic Senators -- including such luminaries as Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, and John Kerry -- urged President Clinton "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 [WMD] programs."

Nancy Pelosi, then a member of the House Intelligence Committee, stated: "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of [WMD] technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."


In a letter to the new President, a number of Senators led by Florida Democrat Bob Graham declared:

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical, and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf war status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Senator Carl Levin reaffirmed for Bush’s benefit what he had told Clinton some years earlier:

"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 the means of delivering them."
Senator Hillary Clinton agreed, speaking in October 2002:

"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."
Senator Jay Rockefeller, vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, concurred:

"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."
Also in 2002, Al Gore said the following:
  • "We know that [Saddam] has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
  • "Iraq’s search for [WMD] has proven impossible to deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Senator John Kerry announced in 2002: "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."

That same year, Senator Ted Kennedy said, "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

Senator Robert Byrd put it this way: "We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has [since 1998] embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical- and biological-warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons."

William Cohen, who had served as President Clinton’s Secretary of Defense, remained “absolutely convinced” that Saddam possessed stockpiles of WMD even after the U.S. military had failed to find them in the wake of the invasion in March 2003.

Kenneth Pollack, who served in the National Security Council under President Clinton, recalls:

"In the late spring of 2002, I participated in a Washington meeting about Iraqi WMD. Those present included nearly twenty former inspectors from the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), the force established in 1991 to oversee the elimination of WMD in Iraq. One of the senior people put a question to the group: did anyone in the room doubt that Iraq was currently operating a secret centrifuge plant? No one did."
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=555
 
Iraq was a huge mistake and you cannot polish that turd enough to make it not a mistake. Even the Republican candidates are running away from defending that fuck up. Even among them the consensus is that they would not have went if they knew what they know now. Even trying to make it seem like an honest mistake requires massive history revision that only a total dumb-ass would attempt or believe.
 
I think it's hilarious that there are still right wingers out there trying to make the Iraq fuk-up not look like a GOP disaster...
 
Iraq was a huge mistake and you cannot polish that turd enough to make it not a mistake. Even the Republican candidates are running away from defending that fuck up. Even among them the consensus is that they would not have went if they knew what they know now. Even trying to make it seem like an honest mistake requires massive history revision that only a total dumb-ass would attempt or believe.

Tell me in one sentence why you are unhappy that 2.8 million kids that would have starved are still alive if the Liberation of Iraq had not happened?
 
I think it's hilarious that there are still right wingers out there trying to make the Iraq fuk-up not look like a GOP disaster...

You know they know it was a disaster when they keep reminding us that Hillary voted for the authorization.

Wasn't just Hillary that wanted Saddam gone. The difference between Hillary before and Hillary
now is she didn't care if 2.8 million kids starved. She was out for the votes. Now with the majority of the (as Obama's hired hand Jonathan Gruber called them "stupidity of American Voter") like you being so f...king dumb we have a worse problem.
YOU tell me why we took all the troops out of Iraq when we still have 170,000 troops in Europe/Asia after 70 years?
 
In fact, however, George Tenet, George W. Bush's CIA director, assured the President that the case for Saddam possessing WMD was “a slam dunk.” In this assessment, Tenet had the backing of all fifteen agencies involved in gathering intelligence for the United States.
"We do not have any direct evidence that Iraq has used the period since Desert Fox to reconstitute its WMD programs"

-George Tenet, 2/07/2001
 
Iraq was a huge mistake and you cannot polish that turd enough to make it not a mistake. Even the Republican candidates are running away from defending that fuck up. Even among them the consensus is that they would not have went if they knew what they know now. Even trying to make it seem like an honest mistake requires massive history revision that only a total dumb-ass would attempt or believe.

Tell me in one sentence why you are unhappy that 2.8 million kids that would have starved are still alive if the Liberation of Iraq had not happened?
Quit calling it the "liberation of Iraq" as if we did them any favors. I do not know where you got your figures (and I don't really care) but it is conjecture, we have very real figures of dead, missing and displaced native Iraqis and damage to their country that is a direct result of our war there. We fucked the place up so bad it cannot be fixed until they get tired of killing each other. Saddam was a fucking evil bastard who needed to be deposed but he was not fucking his country up as badly as we ended up doing. We didn't do them any favors at all. Everything is worse, quit trying to justify it on those grounds.
 
I think it's hilarious that there are still right wingers out there trying to make the Iraq fuk-up not look like a GOP disaster...

I think it is absurd that you assclowns are still trained to yap that Iraq was a GOP thing.

Reread the OP assclown - unless you're claiming the OP is lying?

The Bush (Cheney) Administration pushed the CIA into producing fake reports about Iraq and then utilized 9/11 into a fear-mongering parade to force everyone in Congress to support the invasion of Iraq or be vilified.

The occupation was a mess and Bush signed the treaty in 2008 to pull out of Iraq in the next few years, Iran more or less takes over Iraq.

The invasion led to us swapping one oppressor for the other....instead of Saddam and the Sunni's killing the Shia's and Kurds it was now Iran and the Shia's in Iraq killing the Sunni's and everyone killing the Kurds. Only now the Sunni's have tons of US military gear so they rise up and start a terrorist group.

Thanks Bush!
 
No matter how much Right Wingers want to look to Bill Clinton for support, the bottom line is that he didn't invade Iraq. He wasn't wrong. Republicans were and are.
 
It's hilarious watching you assholes bawl about Bush after today's news...the news you don't dare comment on as your precious Messiah and want to be future Queen go down as low life, stinking yellow traitors. THAT is Obama's "legacy". Choke on it
 
Iraq was a huge mistake and you cannot polish that turd enough to make it not a mistake. Even the Republican candidates are running away from defending that fuck up. Even among them the consensus is that they would not have went if they knew what they know now. Even trying to make it seem like an honest mistake requires massive history revision that only a total dumb-ass would attempt or believe.

Tell me in one sentence why you are unhappy that 2.8 million kids that would have starved are still alive if the Liberation of Iraq had not happened?
Quit calling it the "liberation of Iraq" as if we did them any favors. I do not know where you got your figures (and I don't really care) but it is conjecture, we have very real figures of dead, missing and displaced native Iraqis and damage to their country that is a direct result of our war there. We fucked the place up so bad it cannot be fixed until they get tired of killing each other. Saddam was a fucking evil bastard who needed to be deposed but he was not fucking his country up as badly as we ended up doing. We didn't do them any favors at all. Everything is worse, quit trying to justify it on those grounds.

See that's why you have the perception it was BAD to keep 2.8 million children from starving!
Besides BILL CLINTON called it the
The 1998 Liberation of Iraq authorized by Congress' Resolution of 2002 (Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502) "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq " "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 is a United States Congressional statement of policy calling .
"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."
On December 16, 1998, President Bill Clinton mandated Operation Desert Fox, a major four-day bombing campaign on Iraqi targets.
In spite of that Saddam allowed In five years 576,000 children to starve BECAUSE SADDAM refused to certify WMD destruction!
Iraq Sanctions Kill Children U.N. Reports - NYTimes.com
 
Iraq was a huge mistake and you cannot polish that turd enough to make it not a mistake. Even the Republican candidates are running away from defending that fuck up. Even among them the consensus is that they would not have went if they knew what they know now. Even trying to make it seem like an honest mistake requires massive history revision that only a total dumb-ass would attempt or believe.

Tell me in one sentence why you are unhappy that 2.8 million kids that would have starved are still alive if the Liberation of Iraq had not happened?
Quit calling it the "liberation of Iraq" as if we did them any favors. I do not know where you got your figures (and I don't really care) but it is conjecture, we have very real figures of dead, missing and displaced native Iraqis and damage to their country that is a direct result of our war there. We fucked the place up so bad it cannot be fixed until they get tired of killing each other. Saddam was a fucking evil bastard who needed to be deposed but he was not fucking his country up as badly as we ended up doing. We didn't do them any favors at all. Everything is worse, quit trying to justify it on those grounds.

See that's why you have the perception it was BAD to keep 2.8 million children from starving!
Besides BILL CLINTON called it the
The 1998 Liberation of Iraq authorized by Congress' Resolution of 2002 (Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502) "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq " "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 is a United States Congressional statement of policy calling .
"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."
On December 16, 1998, President Bill Clinton mandated Operation Desert Fox, a major four-day bombing campaign on Iraqi targets.
In spite of that Saddam allowed In five years 576,000 children to starve BECAUSE SADDAM refused to certify WMD destruction!
Iraq Sanctions Kill Children U.N. Reports - NYTimes.com

That's a myth.
 
White House and Pentagon officials, and particularly Vice President Cheney, were determined to attack Iraq from the first days of the Bush administration, long before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, and repeatedly stretched available intelligence to build support for the war, according to a new book by former CIA director George J. Tenet.
 
I think it's hilarious that there are still right wingers out there trying to make the Iraq fuk-up not look like a GOP disaster...

You know they know it was a disaster when they keep reminding us that Hillary voted for the authorization.

Wasn't just Hillary that wanted Saddam gone. The difference between Hillary before and Hillary
now is she didn't care if 2.8 million kids starved. She was out for the votes. Now with the majority of the (as Obama's hired hand Jonathan Gruber called them "stupidity of American Voter") like you being so f...king dumb we have a worse problem.
YOU tell me why we took all the troops out of Iraq when we still have 170,000 troops in Europe/Asia after 70 years?

This is a funny Hillary parody only it's based in truth.
 
Iraq was a huge mistake and you cannot polish that turd enough to make it not a mistake. Even the Republican candidates are running away from defending that fuck up. Even among them the consensus is that they would not have went if they knew what they know now. Even trying to make it seem like an honest mistake requires massive history revision that only a total dumb-ass would attempt or believe.

Tell me in one sentence why you are unhappy that 2.8 million kids that would have starved are still alive if the Liberation of Iraq had not happened?
Quit calling it the "liberation of Iraq" as if we did them any favors. I do not know where you got your figures (and I don't really care) but it is conjecture, we have very real figures of dead, missing and displaced native Iraqis and damage to their country that is a direct result of our war there. We fucked the place up so bad it cannot be fixed until they get tired of killing each other. Saddam was a fucking evil bastard who needed to be deposed but he was not fucking his country up as badly as we ended up doing. We didn't do them any favors at all. Everything is worse, quit trying to justify it on those grounds.

God, you Monday morning quarterbacks are so totally pathetic. You have the luxury of hindsight, something Bush never had. He had to deal with what was presented to him at the time, by people he trusted.
 

Forum List

Back
Top