The Bush Administration Was "ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN" That Saddam Hussein Had WMDs

[Oldstyle]

I note that you didn't have a response to my question about the Downing Street Memos, Marc. Tough to make the case that Bush "lied" us into war in Iraq when the secret war planning memos show quite clearly that both the Americans and the British planning the invasion of Iraq were deeply concerned about Saddam using WMD's against allied troops.

You can make a case that they believed bad intelligence...but it's rather apparent that Bush Administration weren't "lying" when they told the public that Saddam's WMD were a threat because the Downing Street Memos prove that they WERE worried about somthing which you propose they knew didn't exist...and THAT makes zero sense.

Are you on crack?

DSM clearly showed Bush telling the British, he was going to "fix the intel" around the policy.

That's not reviewing the intel, then deciding the policy, it's just the opposite.

And for your information, the quote about "fixing the intel around the policy" did not come from Bush...that was the interpretation of Richard Dearlove, the head of British MI6.

 

[Billo_Really]

And for your information, the quote about "fixing the intel around the policy" did not come from Bush...that was the interpretation of Richard Dearlove, the head of British MI6.

Who was he interpreting it from? He didn't just make it up on his own.

Someone gave him that impression and that someone was the AWOL CINC.

 

[Billo_Really]

What's amusing, Loinboy is that part of one sentence is what prompted a liberal to leak the Downing Street Memo's to "prove" that the Bush Administration lied. Unfortunately if you read ALL of the DSM's you come to the part where the planners of the invasion are worrying about casualty levels if Saddam DID use his WMDs which...proves that not only did the Bush Administration believe the intelligence that said the Iraqi leader had weapons of mass destruction but so did the British and Democrats like Clinton and Kerry.

So if Bush "lied"...then why were the planners worried about something they supposedly KNEW didn't exist? That makes zero sense and totally blows your premise that Bush lied about WMD's right out of the water. Sorry, but it is what it is...

When you stand up in front of the nation and say you have something, when you don't, that is a lie.

He made Iraq out to be this big threat and it was bullshit!

...the President was telling the public he was seeking a peaceful resolution when in fact he was planning an invasion. He told Americans there were unmanned Iraqi aircraft that could drop bombs over our cities. His own intelligence agencies told him this was inaccurate. He tied Saddam to Al Qaeda and Bin Laden – there was no evidence of that. Indeed, the two – one secular, one fundamentalist – were mortal foes. He talked about Saddam being able to launch a strike on the United States in 45 minutes – there was no evidence Iraq was capable of such an attack. He talked about the potential of a mushroom cloud over the United States – a nuclear attack by Saddam – when there was no evidence that a weakened, surrounded and embargoed Saddam had any nuclear capability. When he was going to the U.N. it was not to seek peace but to try and make an illegal invasion legal by tricking Saddam into a misstep. For month after month, it now seems evident, President Bush and his minions misled the nation, repeating the fabrications and manipulations about weapons of mass destruction, over and over and over in a drum beat to war.

In addition, Bush gave everyone the impression he was going to war in March of 2003, but in reality, he already started the war back in May of 2002, by bombing Iraq under the cover of no-fly zone enforcement. A full 6 weeks before the Congressional vote.

He completely disregarded Hans Blix's reports that he hasn't found any evidence of WMD's and it was HIS JOB to find them!

 

[Claudette]

Were there WMDs in Iraq when we invaded?

I think some people would scream "YES!!!" even in the presence of a complete lack of evidence.

I think some people would scream "YES!!!" if a few leaky, old shells buried in the sand were found.

Neither of these situations would warrant an invasion of another country.

And then there are those who would scream "NO!!!" even if fifty thousand tons of sarin were found stashed under Saddam's bed.




Some people are so desperate to believe there were WMDs in Iraq they are grabbing onto the idea that Syria's WMDs had to come from Iraq like a drowning man grabbing a life preserver. Again without the slightest bit of evidence, and in the face of evidence such a proposition is impossible.


You know what? I don't care if there were WMDs in Iraq or not. I believe we were going to war with Iraq again sooner or later. Having served over there, I know this in my gut. The man was not going to quit his megalomaniacal dream to take over the Middle East.

I do have reservations about a pre-emptive attack for the first time in our history. That's a really dangerous precedent. You might think your guy is right to do so, but some future President is going to use that precedent to justify his own pre-emptive attack someday.

It seems partisans never think about the bar they are setting and how it will be used later by someone they hate or mistrust.

Anyway...

My biggest problem with the war in Iraq is not the WMDs. Not at all. My biggest problem with the war is with the way it was prosecuted. It was amateur hour on Bush's part. Demobilizing the Iraqi Army is going to go down as the biggest military blunder in American history.

Bush's pipe dream that Iraq was going to be instantly transformed into a Libertarian paradise is borderline insane. The man was just plain stupid.


But Saddam had to go. He really did. WMDs or no WMDs.

Totally agree.

I had friends who were there who say much the same as you do.

Amateur hour doesn't even begin to describe it and thats what happens when you don't listen to the folks with boots on the ground.

 

[Britfire54]

What's amusing, Loinboy is that part of one sentence is what prompted a liberal to leak the Downing Street Memo's to "prove" that the Bush Administration lied. Unfortunately if you read ALL of the DSM's you come to the part where the planners of the invasion are worrying about casualty levels if Saddam DID use his WMDs which...proves that not only did the Bush Administration believe the intelligence that said the Iraqi leader had weapons of mass destruction but so did the British and Democrats like Clinton and Kerry.

So if Bush "lied"...then why were the planners worried about something they supposedly KNEW didn't exist? That makes zero sense and totally blows your premise that Bush lied about WMD's right out of the water. Sorry, but it is what it is...

When you stand up in front of the nation and say you have something, when you don't, that is a lie.

He made Iraq out to be this big threat and it was bullshit!

...the President was telling the public he was seeking a peaceful resolution when in fact he was planning an invasion. He told Americans there were unmanned Iraqi aircraft that could drop bombs over our cities. His own intelligence agencies told him this was inaccurate. He tied Saddam to Al Qaeda and Bin Laden – there was no evidence of that. Indeed, the two – one secular, one fundamentalist – were mortal foes. He talked about Saddam being able to launch a strike on the United States in 45 minutes – there was no evidence Iraq was capable of such an attack. He talked about the potential of a mushroom cloud over the United States – a nuclear attack by Saddam – when there was no evidence that a weakened, surrounded and embargoed Saddam had any nuclear capability. When he was going to the U.N. it was not to seek peace but to try and make an illegal invasion legal by tricking Saddam into a misstep. For month after month, it now seems evident, President Bush and his minions misled the nation, repeating the fabrications and manipulations about weapons of mass destruction, over and over and over in a drum beat to war.

In addition, Bush gave everyone the impression he was going to war in March of 2003, but in reality, he already started the war back in May of 2002, by bombing Iraq under the cover of no-fly zone enforcement. A full 6 weeks before the Congressional vote.

He completely disregarded Hans Blix's reports that he hasn't found any evidence of WMD's and it was HIS JOB to find them!

Actually, that 'thanks' I just left you was an error. Stupid one - I'll have to be more careful in future.

I've a basic point to make on Blix, and it's really this - - he had no way of deciding for himself just where to go to check and see what the true WMD position was. If you remember (or if you want to ?), all Saddam did to directly answer UN Res 1441 was to declare that no WMD's existed. He didn't turn records over to them, he didn't provide direct proof of the assertion at all.

This resulted in Blix and his team having to go to Iraq and carry out what inspections they could.

What did this mean in practical terms ? Saddam's people led the inspectors to sites where they could verify, physically, that WMD destructions had previously taken place. That SOME WMD's were destroyed, is beyond question (meaning THAT THEY EXISTED BEFORE THEY WERE DESTROYED). But, GET THIS: Blix & Co had no means of determining the QUANTITIES destroyed, or for that matter, verifying precisely what the total of WMD's were held before those actions were started.

Add all this to the fact that Blix had far too small a contingent to cover all of Iraq, and what do you have ? The farce of inspectors going where they're led, noting evidence of destructions, but having no idea as to actual quantities, or any way of even knowing WHAT quantities needed to be destroyed !!!!

Blix said as much in an interview with Bill O'Reilly several years ago, which I watched via Sky satellite TV. For all that anyone knows, BLIX INCLUDED, Iraq might've destroyed as little as ten percent of its total stocks.

So, do you seriously wonder why Bush felt that UN efforts were useless, and that a more direct solution had to happen ?

He acted to bring it about. And the Left has hated him ever since for it.

 

[Desperado]

If they were there we would have found em.

One would think that if they were there, he would have used them on us when we invaded Iraq.

That would have been way to big of a strategic blunder.

Agreed but what did he have to lose?
it was his last stand and if there was a time to use WMDs that was the time.

Another thing that bothered me was that if the US had found any WMD, One would think that Bush would have been all over the news telling people what they had found. That did not happen.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

One would think that if they were there, he would have used them on us when we invaded Iraq.

That would have been way to big of a strategic blunder.

Agreed but what did he have to lose?
it was his last stand and if there was a time to use WMDs that was the time.

Another thing that bothered me was that if the US had found any WMD, One would think that Bush would have been all over the news telling people what they had found. That did not happen.

Please tell me that you recognize that not finding them does not mean that they were not there.

They maybe were there but just well hidden?

They maybe were there but covertly moved?

You have hopefully heard that absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence.

Plus, as others have noted, some were found.

 

[Desperado]

Please tell me that you recognize that not finding them does not mean that they were not there.

They maybe were there but just well hidden?

They maybe were there but covertly moved?

You have hopefully heard that absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence.

Plus, as others have noted, some were found.

Are you talking about WMD's in Iraq or the crashed UFO in Roswell?
hard to tell because the excuses are the same.

 

[Bigfoot]

One would think that if they were there, he would have used them on us when we invaded Iraq.

That would have been way to big of a strategic blunder.

Agreed but what did he have to lose?
it was his last stand and if there was a time to use WMDs that was the time.

Another thing that bothered me was that if the US had found any WMD, One would think that Bush would have been all over the news telling people what they had found. That did not happen.

They did find them.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Please tell me that you recognize that not finding them does not mean that they were not there.

They maybe were there but just well hidden?

They maybe were there but covertly moved?

You have hopefully heard that absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence.

Plus, as others have noted, some were found.

Are you talking about WMD's in Iraq or the crashed UFO in Roswell?
hard to tell because the excuses are the same.

Well, that certainly added a net loss to the value of this discussion.

 

[Desperado]

Plus, as others have noted, some were found.

Bush admits there were no WMDs in IRAQ
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSN-Kku_rFE]bush admits there were no WMDs in IRAQ - YouTube[/ame]

or
US President George W Bush still has "a sickening feeling" about the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq
BBC News - George W Bush had 'sickening feeling' over WMD lack
or
White House Admits WMD Error
White House Admits WMD Error - CBS News
or
Bush, Cheney admit Iraq had no WMD
Bush, Cheney admit Iraq had no WMD, take new tack | The San Diego Union-Tribune
and there are many many more.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

President Bush could not "admit" any such thing. He COULD and did make a statement about what he understood the situation to be.

But so what?

He was not the only one who firmly "knew" (believed) that Saddam had WMD.

Haven't you been keeping up? Pretty much the entire Democratic Party thought so too before President Bush even took office. IF you want the same litany of prominent Democrats who made that case based on what the U.S. intelligence had found before President Bush took office, it won't be hard to find. Several such posts were offered just yesterday.

 

[Desperado]

President Bush could not "admit" any such thing. He COULD and did make a statement about what he understood the situation to be.

But so what?

He was not the only one who firmly "knew" (believed) that Saddam had WMD.

Haven't you been keeping up? Pretty much the entire Democratic Party thought so too before President Bush even took office. IF you want the same litany of prominent Democrats who made that case based on what the U.S. intelligence had found before President Bush took office, it won't be hard to find. Several such posts were offered just yesterday.

No one is being excused, both parties are guilty. Two wrongs don't make it right

 

[Oldstyle]

What's amusing, Loinboy is that part of one sentence is what prompted a liberal to leak the Downing Street Memo's to "prove" that the Bush Administration lied. Unfortunately if you read ALL of the DSM's you come to the part where the planners of the invasion are worrying about casualty levels if Saddam DID use his WMDs which...proves that not only did the Bush Administration believe the intelligence that said the Iraqi leader had weapons of mass destruction but so did the British and Democrats like Clinton and Kerry.

So if Bush "lied"...then why were the planners worried about something they supposedly KNEW didn't exist? That makes zero sense and totally blows your premise that Bush lied about WMD's right out of the water. Sorry, but it is what it is...

When you stand up in front of the nation and say you have something, when you don't, that is a lie.

He made Iraq out to be this big threat and it was bullshit!

...the President was telling the public he was seeking a peaceful resolution when in fact he was planning an invasion. He told Americans there were unmanned Iraqi aircraft that could drop bombs over our cities. His own intelligence agencies told him this was inaccurate. He tied Saddam to Al Qaeda and Bin Laden – there was no evidence of that. Indeed, the two – one secular, one fundamentalist – were mortal foes. He talked about Saddam being able to launch a strike on the United States in 45 minutes – there was no evidence Iraq was capable of such an attack. He talked about the potential of a mushroom cloud over the United States – a nuclear attack by Saddam – when there was no evidence that a weakened, surrounded and embargoed Saddam had any nuclear capability. When he was going to the U.N. it was not to seek peace but to try and make an illegal invasion legal by tricking Saddam into a misstep. For month after month, it now seems evident, President Bush and his minions misled the nation, repeating the fabrications and manipulations about weapons of mass destruction, over and over and over in a drum beat to war.

In addition, Bush gave everyone the impression he was going to war in March of 2003, but in reality, he already started the war back in May of 2002, by bombing Iraq under the cover of no-fly zone enforcement. A full 6 weeks before the Congressional vote.

He completely disregarded Hans Blix's reports that he hasn't found any evidence of WMD's and it was HIS JOB to find them!

I know that this goes counter to the progressive "mantra" that Bush "lied", Loinboy...but the Downing Street Memos prove without much question that what happened back then was Bush chose to believe the intel that gave him the best rationale for going to war against Saddam Hussein and discount the intel that didn't. I'm sorry but that isn't a lie. If it were then the British and the Americans wouldn't be discussing what could happen if Saddam decided to use his WMD's on the first day of the invasion or use them on Israel.

I'm curious...do you think Hans Blix would have found Khadafi's secret atom bomb research facilities if he were looking for them in Libya? With all respect...Hans Blix was being "played" by Saddam the entire time he was in Iraq trying to verify if they were in fact working on WMDs or what stockpiles they possessed. It's all well and good to do your Monday morning quarterback thing and declare that Blix's reports should have been the final say on what was or wasn't there in Iraq but the truth is...he wasn't given free rein to do his inspections because Saddam Hussein didn't want the outside world to know what he did or didn't have.

 

[P@triot]

Moreover, that he was determined to use them.

We now know that was a blatant LIE.

How do the Republicans of USMB reconcile this? What's your response?

Except that large caches of WMD's were in fact located in Iraq. You're ignorance and misinformation on a subject does not make that ignorant and misinformed view "fact". Here are some actual facts - enjoy getting educated for the first time in your life (*note the link below from radical MSNBC admitting WMD's):

From Chuck Pfarerr's book, Seal Target: Geronimo

It is a chilling fact that thousands of chemical weapons have been uncovered in Iraq. These weapons have been used by Al Qaeda against coalition and NATO forces on dozens of occasions. This has been confirmed by countless sources, most recently in the released WikiLeaks cables.

So why haven't the American people been told of the stock-piled caches of chemical WMD's uncovered in Iraq or of the chemical weapon attacks by Al Qaeda?

The Republicans won’t touch this because it would reveal the incompetence of the Bush administration in failing to neutralize the danger of Iraqi WMD (instead of preventing Weapons of Mass Destruction from falling into the hands of terrorists, the 2003 invasion of Iraq has accelerated the acquisition, manufacture, and use of chemical weapons by Al Qaeda).

The Democrats won’t touch it because it would show President Bush was right to invade Iraq in the first place. It is an axis of embarrassment. And the press won't touch it because they had already convinced themselves, and most of the American public, that Saddam Hussein didn’t have any WMD's. The media turned a blind eye to continued reports of chemical weapon attacks because its own credibility was threatened. Several major outlets were deeply invested with the story line of an “unjustifiable war". Not many people can bear to admit they were wrong, especially in print, and especially if they have been very wrong for a very long time.

Sarin-loaded bomb explodes in Iraq - World news - Mideast/N. Africa - Conflict in Iraq | NBC News

NewsMax.com: Inside Cover Story

 

[Billo_Really]

What's amusing, Loinboy is that part of one sentence is what prompted a liberal to leak the Downing Street Memo's to "prove" that the Bush Administration lied. Unfortunately if you read ALL of the DSM's you come to the part where the planners of the invasion are worrying about casualty levels if Saddam DID use his WMDs which...proves that not only did the Bush Administration believe the intelligence that said the Iraqi leader had weapons of mass destruction but so did the British and Democrats like Clinton and Kerry.

That just shows he lied in those meetings as well. DSM shows they spent the majority of their time trying to figure out how to sell the war.

So if Bush "lied"...then why were the planners worried about something they supposedly KNEW didn't exist? That makes zero sense and totally blows your premise that Bush lied about WMD's right out of the water. Sorry, but it is what it is...

If you're going to "act" like you know they have WMD's, you might as well get some meeting minutes "acting" like what you're gonna do about them if you find them after the invasion. But the truth is, they didn't know, but they told the country they did. And the intel at the time had so much discussion going back and forth on what was credible and what was not, that there was no way Bush could conclude with 100% certainty, Hussein had them. But he did anyway, because he already decided to attack and was cherry-picking what intel he could use. Then he gets up in front of the nation and say's he's trying to use all the peaceful options to resolve this issue, but that was a lie. We wasn't using any options. He had already decided he was going to attack.

I know that this goes counter to the progressive "mantra" that Bush "lied", Loinboy...but the Downing Street Memos prove without much question that what happened back then was Bush chose to believe the intel that gave him the best rationale for going to war against Saddam Hussein and discount the intel that didn't. I'm sorry but that isn't a lie. If it were then the British and the Americans wouldn't be discussing what could happen if Saddam decided to use his WMD's on the first day of the invasion or use them on Israel.

Bush believed the intel that sold this war to the nation, he dismissed the intel that didn't. And that's not rational thinking.

I'm curious...do you think Hans Blix would have found Khadafi's secret atom bomb research facilities if he were looking for them in Libya? With all respect...Hans Blix was being "played" by Saddam the entire time he was in Iraq trying to verify if they were in fact working on WMDs or what stockpiles they possessed. It's all well and good to do your Monday morning quarterback thing and declare that Blix's reports should have been the final say on what was or wasn't there in Iraq but the truth is...he wasn't given free rein to do his inspections because Saddam Hussein didn't want the outside world to know what he did or didn't have.

If it was his job to find WMD's in Iraq, why would you not consider what he had to say on the subject? Especially after we had unfettered access to the entire country and found the same thing he did. Nothing!

Bush told this country that he was trying to use all peaceful diplomatic options, but wouldn't allow the inspectors to finish their mission. That's not using all peaceful options, that's taking them off the table. So that was a lie.

 

[BlindBoo]

That would have been way to big of a strategic blunder.

Agreed but what did he have to lose?
it was his last stand and if there was a time to use WMDs that was the time.

Another thing that bothered me was that if the US had found any WMD, One would think that Bush would have been all over the news telling people what they had found. That did not happen.

They did find them.

President Bush couldn't crow about the 500 delapidated munitions they found because they had a note on them "Courtesy of Ronnie Raygun to his most favored trading partner Saddam". They never found any that Bush and Co. claimed.

 

[ScienceRocks]

So was the democratic party. Funny how you people love to drone on and one about something you once agreed with.

 

[longknife]

[My fingers hurt just preparing this to post.

War in Iraq for Nothing

This should make all the Leftie and Peaceniks quite happy.

Newly-Released Memo by Donald Rumsfeld Proves Iraq War Started On False Pretenses
by George Washington

Everyone knew that Iraq didn’t have weapons of mass destruction.

Indeed, Secretary of State Colin Powell’s chief of staff – Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson – just said that Powell knew that there were no WMDs:

I wonder what will happen when we put 500,000 troops into Iraq and comb the country from one end to the other and find nothing

Read more of the damning documents @ Newly-Released Memo by Donald Rumsfeld Proves Iraq War Started On False Pretenses | Zero Hedge

And it appears that the Left's favorite, Colin Powell, was in on it too.

 

[Oldstyle]

What's amusing, Loinboy is that part of one sentence is what prompted a liberal to leak the Downing Street Memo's to "prove" that the Bush Administration lied. Unfortunately if you read ALL of the DSM's you come to the part where the planners of the invasion are worrying about casualty levels if Saddam DID use his WMDs which...proves that not only did the Bush Administration believe the intelligence that said the Iraqi leader had weapons of mass destruction but so did the British and Democrats like Clinton and Kerry.

That just shows he lied in those meetings as well. DSM shows they spent the majority of their time trying to figure out how to sell the war.

So if Bush "lied"...then why were the planners worried about something they supposedly KNEW didn't exist? That makes zero sense and totally blows your premise that Bush lied about WMD's right out of the water. Sorry, but it is what it is...

If you're going to "act" like you know they have WMD's, you might as well get some meeting minutes "acting" like what you're gonna do about them if you find them after the invasion. But the truth is, they didn't know, but they told the country they did. And the intel at the time had so much discussion going back and forth on what was credible and what was not, that there was no way Bush could conclude with 100% certainty, Hussein had them. But he did anyway, because he already decided to attack and was cherry-picking what intel he could use. Then he gets up in front of the nation and say's he's trying to use all the peaceful options to resolve this issue, but that was a lie. We wasn't using any options. He had already decided he was going to attack.

I know that this goes counter to the progressive "mantra" that Bush "lied", Loinboy...but the Downing Street Memos prove without much question that what happened back then was Bush chose to believe the intel that gave him the best rationale for going to war against Saddam Hussein and discount the intel that didn't. I'm sorry but that isn't a lie. If it were then the British and the Americans wouldn't be discussing what could happen if Saddam decided to use his WMD's on the first day of the invasion or use them on Israel.

Bush believed the intel that sold this war to the nation, he dismissed the intel that didn't. And that's not rational thinking.

I'm curious...do you think Hans Blix would have found Khadafi's secret atom bomb research facilities if he were looking for them in Libya? With all respect...Hans Blix was being "played" by Saddam the entire time he was in Iraq trying to verify if they were in fact working on WMDs or what stockpiles they possessed. It's all well and good to do your Monday morning quarterback thing and declare that Blix's reports should have been the final say on what was or wasn't there in Iraq but the truth is...he wasn't given free rein to do his inspections because Saddam Hussein didn't want the outside world to know what he did or didn't have.

If it was his job to find WMD's in Iraq, why would you not consider what he had to say on the subject? Especially after we had unfettered access to the entire country and found the same thing he did. Nothing!

Bush told this country that he was trying to use all peaceful diplomatic options, but wouldn't allow the inspectors to finish their mission. That's not using all peaceful options, that's taking them off the table. So that was a lie.

So now it's your contention that the people discussing how to proceed with the invasion of Iraq were "acting" as they did so? The minutes of those meetings were classified. What you hear is an unfiltered discussion of the different concerns that the British and the Americans had at that time. Why would they include the part about "fixing the intel" if this really was some elaborate plot to deceive the public? Sorry, Loinboy but you're grasping at straws if that's your best explanation of the worry being expressed about Saddam using his WMD's!