Bush Knew Saddam Had No WMD Before Invading »
Posted by: Neophile 1 year ago508 Comments Report this Story
Two former CIA officers say the president squelched top-secret intelligence, and a briefing by George Tenet, months before invading Iraq.
Read Full Story at salon.com
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 508
-
0%
TechnologyExpert1 year ago
They gave him the info and he dismissed it, because it came from the Iraqi foreign minister. A real leader would have tried to verify the info. Oh wait, that would mean he really didn't want to invade unless he had to ...
Reply-
0%
UncontrollableScaldingDiarrhea1 year ago
Now what happened was this evidence flew in the face of the report Clinton gave Bush that said "Saddam Determined To Expand WMD Arsenal."
Now Bush had been a little skeptical about these reports, but since the "Bin Laden Determined To Attack America" report turned out to be true, he figured he better not ignore the other report.
Case closed.
Reply-
-
0%
Silverghost1 year ago
The title is misleading, in that the article itself indicates that President "Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam's inner circle..." -Rev. S
Reply-
-
-
-
0%
LordyLordy1 year ago
The only bushie I like is between her ~~~.
You know not of what you speak.
The only butchers of America I see are some of the left wing wackos in here. I care about America...and don't care about Republican nor Democratic posturing of each other. You had better start caring about your country my friend. Otherwise you're going to be beaten for not showing up for morning prayers and chants of "hate americans" by these Muslim terrorists. Oh, I forgot...you're they're friends, but friends of people who will bomb women and children and could care less whose?
Reply
-
-
0%
tomohawk1 year ago
LordyLordy:
*
Yes, yet another worshiper at the
evil Temple of Bush the Butcher.
Your transparent ill-conceived ramblings
betray more of the right winged extremist
coming to the defense of fellow worshipers
at the Temple of Bush the Butcher.
*
But this is a mere drop in the bucket
compared to your other idiotic and
shameful NeoCon ramblings.
*
Shall I give some samples of
your unflattering quotes?
Reply -
0%
GrandMaster1 year ago
that blooped pos vote from me should be strickened from the record!!!!!!!
you are a very few of the 'clowns honking for bush' here to say the least!
Reply -
0%
bushiesRbonkers1 year ago
Ah, the Bush Worshipper Extraordinaire is non-partisan! And tomorrow, pigs will fly!
Reply
-
-
0%
Noboru1 year ago
Now this the Leader of the Moral Majority you are talking about here. Its OK to kill thousands of innocent people its part of Globalization. You know... a house, car, airplane and wife in every country. And besides, there just bunch of brown skinned sand loving people anyway.
Reply
-
-
0%
LordyLordy1 year ago
As Bush should have. You don't believe the enemy when they tell you they don't plan to attack you, they don't plan to kill you, and they won't kill women and children too. Only a fool believes your enemy. You have your own intelligence sources.
Many other sources indicate there not only were WMD in Iraq but that Sadam Insane planned on acquring more. There was evidence that they had been there. Just because the U.N. inspectors sat on their hands for 10-12 years and did nothing, we didn't get any real accurate reports.
There are now reports of Iran getting nuclear weapons, which they will use. You going to wait until they use one or will you stupidly believe them when they tell you they don't have them? You cannot always wait...if you do you're dead!
Note...the words former CIA officers. CIA officials do not serve at the whim of any President; therefore, he did not fire them. They were probably let go for some other reasons...probably good ones.
Reply-
0%
cushi1 year ago
Note...the words former CIA officers. CIA officials do not serve at the whim of any President; therefore, he did not fire them. They were probably let go for some other reasons...probably good ones
Or they quit because they realized they were working for a skunk when they began to smell the stench!
Reply -
-
0%
LordyLordy1 year ago
I would not believe a thing the current Iranian regime tells you. You need to be on the ground, with positive proof, and believe no more lies nor PR SPIN from their friends either.
North Korea already tried to ship them missiles and nukes and had it not been for us boarding that ship and confiscating the cargo, it would have arrived. JFK did the same kind of blockage of Cuba or right now there would be nukes in Cuba.
It's fine to hope for peace, even pray for it, but if you're not prepared to either fight for, enforce, and keep your freedom, you will have none. Read about the men who founded this country. They paid a high price for your freedom...as is just about every veteran who has served since. They are your heroes, not these left wing wacko armchair quarterbacks... ...they've never even been in the game!
Reply
-
-
0%
marshx11 months, 3 weeks ago
you are so blinded in your support for Bush, its amazing.
Every other person agrees there were no WMD's but you.
Reply
-
-
-
lovermanComment removed: User banned.52 Replies
-
0%
DanmLiberals1 year ago
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html
ummmmmm.......
didnt they find some kind of Chemical in the UN building that was taken out of Iraq, BEFORE THE WAR. So if Bush knew there were no WMD's in Iraq, then how come we have some that were from Iraq?
Reply-
0%
deathray1 year ago
The article you posted has nothing to do with the phosgene sample that was found at the UNMOVIC offices in New York. That phosgene was from a 1996 inspection, and is a sample of the chemical weapon used against the Kurds in the 1980's.
http://www.nysun.com/article/61698
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/31/nyregion/31un...
Phosgene is ridiculously easy to make. Also, notice that the sample comes from 1996, significantly before the US war posture.
Reply-
0%
DanmLiberals1 year ago
so you agree that there were chemical weapons there before the war? Do you believe in resolutions or should we just get rid of them because you guys dont think we need to back them up?
Reply-
0%
djn3nunez31 year ago
Is that a trick question? Knowing that it was Ronnie Raqygun who allowed Western businesses to sell Iraq all they needed to make the chemical weapons, of course he had chemical weapons before the war. Nearly all had been accounted for and destroyed. A very small percentage was not accounted for. There were no operational production facilties or massive stockpiles. Nor was there any nuclear weapons production going on. Iraq couldn't even mount a threat against it neighbors, much less threaten the worlds' remaining superpower.
Reply-
0%
DanmLiberals1 year ago
Then what about the 15 resolutions. Should we not follow them and just abandon them altogether. Don't get so defensive. Im just asking a question for god sake.
Reply-
-
0%
IanFraigun1 year ago
If you so strongly believe in those resolutions then it was the job of the United Nations not the United States to enforce those.
We had no right to take upon ourselves enforcement of other groups resolutions. If we had been asked, which we had not, by the UN to enforce those then the situation would have been much different. In this case though that was nothing but a pretence to start an invasion that Bush had wanted to start on day 1 of his first term.
Reply-
-
0%
LordyLordy1 year ago
They hadn't enforced any of the resolutions the entire time Clinton was in office.
You're waiting for the U.N. to tell you when you can defend your nation against terrorists?
I guess you really do believe in the U.N. but have no regard for your own country. You always wait for the police for 2 hours when you have a burglar inside your home?
Reply-
0%
Chiyonofuji12 months ago
Lordy Lordy, what on earth are you talking about? Iraq never attacked us. Iraq did give funds to Palestinians who attacked Israel but since there is no treaty obliging the United States to defend Israel that is not the same as an attack on us. So could you pleas explain to me what your comments have to do with Iraq?
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
LordyLordy1 year ago
The U.N. has been the biggest disgrace to the human race, from day one.
Not only do the wackos rewrite history but they believe if they say or post something often enough someone will believe them. Obviously its true. They don't think for themselves, at least most of the left wing wackos. They prefer their own truth rather than the real truth.
Reply-
0%
Chiyonofuji12 months ago
Are you in possession of the real truth lordy lordy because if you are, then I would really like to hear it.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
dunkirk1 year ago
Now I'm confused a little by ypour posturing. Seems in the past Ive heard the righties claim the UN is worthless and we shouldn't be involved in it and NOW your claiming our primary duty is enforcing its resolutions. Which side of the fence are you on now?
Reply -
0%
TJefferson1 year ago
The resolutions specified that Iraq should declare all of its WMD and turn them over for destruction or to "render the useless".
a) Iraq couldn't turn over WMD in 2002 THAT IT DIDN'T have!.
b) Saddam Hussein's son-in-law, the man responsible for Iraq's WMD programs, defected to Jordan in 1995 and told the CIA that Iraq did have WMD at one point but that THEY WERE ALL DESTROYED ON HIS PERSONAL ORDERS, IN 1991.
c) In international law, the fact that the US reintroduced several resolutions after 1991 indicated that the previous resolutions WERE NO LONGER IN EFFECT. The US and Britain forced through a resolution in 2003 that did NOT EXPLICITLAUHTORIZE USE OF FORCE AGAINST IRAQ. This is why the US and Briatain attempted to introduce another resolution that explicitly authorized the use of force, but this resolution WAS NOT PASSED. Only the SECURIY COUNCIL can interpret a resolution to use force and this never happened as the US and Britain acted by themselves.
Reply-
0%
TJefferson1 year ago
d) The last resolution stated that there would be "serious consequences" if iraq did not cooperate with the UN. In their reports to the Security Council, Hans Blix and Mohommed al baradei NEVER INDICATED THAT IRAQ WASN'T COOPERATING. In any case only the Security Council could determine what "serious consequences" meant and whether Iraq wasn't cooperating and the Security Council NEVER MADE ANY SUCH DETERMINATION - only the US, Britain and a couple of othe SC members made any claims in this respect.
e) UN weapons inspectors found stocks of WMD in Iraq after the first gulf war and determined that these weapons were so degraded and already "useless for military usage", in 1991! Hence, Iraq's obligations to render their WMD useless in 1991! UN weapons inspectors are on the record indicating that Iraq's WMD production weapons produced of such low quality that they had to be used right after production or be rendered useless.
Reply-
0%
TJefferson1 year ago
f) Former weapons inspector, Scott Ritter wrote a book before the war indicating that he was positive that the weapons inspectors had ensured that at least 95% of Iraq's WMD had been confirmed destroyed by 1998, and that the remainder (if iraq actually had any) was nothing but "useless sludge". Therefore, when colin Powell claimed that he knew that Iraq had stockpiles of Anthrax from the first gulf war that would fill a swimming pool, this was completely irrelevant, as Anthrax has a 5 year shelf life UNDER IDEAL STORAGE CONDITIONS, which was never the case with Iraq - and hence the e Anthrax and chemical weapons were completely useless by as late as 1996.
g) Under international law, the "sovereignty rule" means that "it is a crime of aggression to use armed force with intent to overthrow the government of a state or to impede its freedom to act unhindered, as it sees fit, throughout its jurisdiction." Bush's regime change plan WAS A DEFINED WAR CRIME!
Reply-
0%
TJefferson1 year ago
h) The United States provided the UN weapons inspectors with over 250 suspected WMD sites at which the US was confident in their intelligence that WMD were being produced. Every site was inspected AND NOT A HINT OF WMD WAS FOUND AT ANY OF THE SITES. As Hans Blix noted after these sites turned up free of WMD "how can you have 100% certainty that Iraq has WMD and have 0% certainty as to where they are located. If, your admitted best intelligence sources prove 0% accurate in over 250 cases then anyone with half a brain should begin to wonder about the validity of the intelligence. Of course, Dumbya can't make a claim to even half a brain.
i) In his Jan, 2003 state of the union address Bush made a false claim that Iraq was seeking uranium in Niger. He claims that this was a slip up. If this wasa slip up then why didn't he admit this error before beginning the war, or ever at all? It was Joseph wilson that exposed this lie in for which his wife's career was destroyed by Cheney.
Reply -
0%
WildWes9912 months ago
"Bush's regime change plan WAS A DEFINED WAR CRIME!"
That's the real reason why Bush pulled the U.S. out of the World Court. He didn't want himself and his cronies to be tried for war crimes.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
LordyLordy1 year ago
If the U.N. said attack the United States he'd stand up and cheer while the Muslim terrorists are blowing up and killing your women and children.
Reply -
0%
LordyLordy1 year ago
You have to feel sorry for Israel, even if you don't like them. They cannot let down their guard, even for one minute. They are totally surrounded by their enemies, who have no intention of taking them prisoner, just killing them.
Of course that would never happen. Just ask the
Nazi's...there were never any death camps in Germany. It was all just a big lie? It was PR and SPIN...and idiots believe it.
Reply-
0%
dunkirk1 year ago
ANd maybe you can explain HOW all that pertains to him saying Saddam was bad since he didnt obey the UN resolutions. Gotta luv the right and how they flip-flop on UN resolutions.
Reply -
0%
Chiyonofuji12 months ago
In the same way that some of the early settlers in the United States were surrounded by 'enemies' they are also known as indigenous people in some circles.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
0%
tkyrchncs1 year ago
You in fact probably already have in your home what you need to make phosgene-just bleach and ammonia. And a box of pen-sized containers of phosgene do not constitute a weapon of mass destruction.
Reply -
0%
capecoralM1 year ago
Since many on the left often quote that Reagan "allowed Western businesses to sell Iraq all they needed to make the chemical weapons" what is the point of this article? Lets take a look at the "small amount unaccounted for" according to Hans Blix BRIEFING OF THE SECURITY COUNCIL, 14 FEBRUARY 2003. "How much, if any, is left of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and related proscribed items and programmes? To take an example, a document, which Iraq provided, suggested to us that some 1,000 tonnes of chemical agent were "unaccounted for". 1,000 TONNES! Small amount?
Reply-
-
0%
FSU92grad1 year ago
Guesses don't count, djn3nunez34994800304-3...
Facts do...And the fact is you don't know squat. Period. Saddam had them, used them and moved them before we were able to get to them. Simple. End of story. David Kay even suggested that Saddam could have and probably did move the WMD's beforehand...
And besides that, I have many quotes from Hiliary, Reid, Gore, Pelosi and other lefties suggesting that Saddam needed to be dealt with and that he had WMD's and we needed to intercede to remove them before its too late...Now, do you want to call your own pathetic party liars too?
The problem with you libs is you blame Bush for EVERYTHING but leave out your democrap Senators who believed and said the same thing that Bush said...The only difference is Bush went in and DID something about it instead of talking and talking like the Dems are known for...And don't give me your pyshobabble liberal BS that Bush forced these democrap Senators to vote for the war...
Reply-
0%
FSU92grad1 year ago
or that Bush somehow ONLY showed them the intell that would sway them to vote to send our troops to Iraq...It's more BS from the left and not one ounce of proof to support this ludicrious conspiracy theory...
If you have facts than let's hear it...If you're going to oontinue to blow smoke up my a$$ then I have nothing more to say to you...
Other than you're a big, fat, greasy, hypocrit liberal with no leg to stand on and certainly no support for your liberal blathering
Good day..
Reply-
0%
fishfry0011 year ago
I have to laugh when Bushie's get so appoplectic like this one that they swell and explode. FSU92grad sputtered "Other than you're a big, fat, greasy, hypocrit liberal with no leg to stand on and certainly no support for your liberal blathering". God, how the truth must hurt. I am more and more convinced that Bushies like this are flat-out fried over Bush. I have a good friend just like this. Won't even read the critical truth about Bush. Calls it all "drivel". So sad that people believed in him so deeply, completely overlooking his obvious inadequacies, only to be proven to have been sorely duped. They just can't face it and wig out... crash and burn tightly clutching their Bush/Cheney buttons, in denial to the bitter end. Sad what Bush has done to their reality...
Reply-
0%
FSU92grad1 year ago
No, what's sad, my friend, is lefties like you have been duped by CNN, NY Times and every other liberal media source and convinced that everything bad in the world that has happen is because of Bush...Hurricane Katrina was caused by Bush, 9/11 was caused by Bush, the bridge that collapsed in Minneapolis recently was caused by Bush...
Duped ? You want to talk about being duped? Look in the mirror, you've bought into the leftist agenda that has been fed to you by CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, C-Span, and every other mainstream media...Instead of thinking for yourself, like most normal people do, you've become a liberal zombie buying into what they're feeding you...
Do us all a favor, turn off the TV and stay off the moveon.org website and think for a minute...You might be enlightened...Doubtful, but try it for once...Stop letting your hate for Bush cloud your vision...or you choose to be a mindless, liberal puppet letting Olbermann pull your strings...
Reply-
0%
amesburyroad1 year ago
You call someone questioning their government "mindless, puppet"....with that attitude, there would have been no American Revolution. You criticize our free press; obviously you prefer the Soviet model....obviously you prefer one party rule....obviously your viewpoint and those of your ilk are in the minority now, and will continue to be for the foreseeable future; all you have left is your thick, hateful arrogance. How does it feel to support a loser?
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
0%
djn3nunez31 year ago
Only facts huh? Name one Chemical or Nuclear weapon that was manufactured after 1993 that we found in Iraq after the invasion?
It must have really hurt when your head exploded like that, didn't it?
btw I blamed Reagan for not only allowing Saddam to aquire Chemical Weapon production facilities but also for allowing him to use them.
Furthermore I've alway called the Democrats and Republicans two sides of the same coin. The bipatisan interventionist policies that have landed us in the mess go on regardless of which party is in power.
Have a great weekend.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
0%
dunkirk1 year ago
I also believe there were dinosaurs in Iraq too however I'm not about to launch a trip to see where they hid Jurassic Park.
Reply-
0%
FSU92grad1 year ago
You would if you thought or knew they might intend to use WMD's on us if we didn't react...Or would you wait for the first mushroom cloud over NY City before you responded?
Hmmm?
Reply-
-
-
0%
FSU92grad1 year ago
Never said anything about shooting WMD's...WMD's can be delivered many ways which I'm sure someone even as dense as you would understand...But then again, you're liberal, crispy...There's no hope for you...
I was using a little sarcasm and a simple analogy to paint a picture...next time I will use "connect the dots" or "paint by numbers" so even YOU can get it...
Reply-
0%
Chiyonofuji12 months ago
What is a far more likely scenario FSU92grad is that Al Queda, while we are squandering resources in Iraq, will simply purchase a WMD from one of the former Soviet Republics that we have failed to fund the securing and destruction of because we wanted to go off on little imperial adventures instead of focusing on the real threat of Al Queda.
Reply -
0%
StarLord12 months ago
Oh yes, typical FSU tactic - say untrue things, and when called on them, claim it was just sarcasm. Sorry, that trick only works if the victims are willing to let it work - and we aren't.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
dunkirk1 year ago
Only you would suggest running off at the drop of a hat. Seems what the article is saying, if you bothered to have it read to you, is BUSH KNEW there were NONE. The intel we had was saying there were NONE. The purpose of the WMD scare was ONLY cover for the invasion. Get the picture McFligh
Reply-
0%
globalwarmer1 year ago
And so about 5% of the WMD's could not be accounted for...Is that anything like the huge stockpiles of weapons that the US allowed to disappear in Iraq?
We all knew W was going to Iraq no matter what the UN inspectors found, it was as clear as day, his mouth was watering with anticapation.
Reply -
0%
FSU92grad1 year ago
dun,
The article is crap and so is the implication that our president or ANY president for that matter liberal or conservative would do something like that...C'mon...Use your head. This is the equivalent of saying Bush himself planted demolition devices underneath the trade center and blew it up himself to sway people to go to war by blaming it on Islam extremist
It's utterly ridiculous...
And you wonder why we call you liberals "whacky"...You're thinking is warped...
Reply-
0%
dunkirk1 year ago
Do you have any evidence? Again the Dumya dispatches troops to cover the oil fields and doesnt get around to the areas that his Administration claimed stored WMD until weeks later. Seems you would do that ONLY if you knew ahead of time there was nothing there to secure. Seems his rationale for invading changed several times at the beginning based on which excuse was being shot down at the time.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
Lurch12 months ago
That`s the problem, we only KNEW that Saddam would actually use the invisible WMD IF we attacked him.
So what did the Bush admin do?
Heck, it wasn`t the Bushies` lungs or nervious systems at risk.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
hdthehn1 year ago
@DamnLiberals - deciples (like you) of Fox news beware
__________...
In February 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States.
__________...
http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/200...
Reply
-
-
-
0%
gamahuche1 year ago
USC - it sounds like you had to rush off somewhere in the middle of relieving yourself of your thought.
Reply -
-
0%
quackpot1 year ago
There was also the small matter of the U.N. inspections immediately before the war that cast SEVERE doubt on the premise of WMD.
Reply-
0%
SpareChange1 year ago
Yeah - I think 5 million people (all the people around the world who marched in the streets before the war) were aware that there were no WMDs. Inspectors were there for years.
If I were Sadam, I would have gotten rid of everything the day Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld came into office... he knew who these guys were and what they wanted to do... they went way back.
Reply-
0%
capecoralM1 year ago
Interesting Point. Then why could the UN never in all those years of inspections and Years without inspection Certify Saddam had none? Weird huh? 12 years of inspections yet no Certification? The UN all through the 1990's could never Certify Saddam was WMD free. This theory (Inspections will uncover WMDs) was put to test in the December 1999 UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1284, which provides that sanctions will be suspended 120 days after inspectors certify that Iraq has cooperated with inspections. Despite the offer, Saddam said no to inspectors; he may have reasoned that sanctions are eroding anyway (See Oil for Food Scandal). That is one way to read the November 29, 2001, UNSCR 1382, in which the Security Council declared its intention by May 30, 2002, to replace the current sanctions with a much-reduced list of dual-use and military items that Iraq would have been forbidden to import.
Reply-
0%
djn3nunez31 year ago
Could be the same reason the UNSC never takes action against Israel?
Maybe he didn't care about the people the sanctions were affecting?
Reply -
0%
StarLord1 year ago
Please tell me: How would YOU inspect an entire nation sufficiently thoroughly to prove, to those determined to "find" WMDs, that there were none? Especially when the world superpower is deliberately sabotaging and chance of diplomatic success?
Reply-
0%
capecoralM1 year ago
Hans Blix: 1/27/03 Resolution 687 (1991), like the subsequent resolutions I shall refer to, required cooperation by Iraq but such was often withheld or given grudgingly. Unlike South Africa, which decided on its own to eliminate its nuclear weapons and welcomed inspection as a means of creating confidence in its disarmament, Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance â;; not even today â;; of the disarmament...
...As we know, the twin operation 'declare and verify', which was prescribed in resolution 687 (1991), too often turned into a game of 'hide and seek'. Rather than just verifying declarations and supporting evidence, the two inspecting organizations found themselves engaged in efforts to map the weapons programmes and to search for evidence through inspections, interviews, seminars, inquiries with suppliers and intelligence organizations. As a result, the disarmament phase was not completed in the short time expected.
Reply-
-
0%
capecoralM1 year ago
Your question reveals that you now acknowledge WMDs were there. It is an excellent question. ex Iraqi General Georges Sada recently published his book, Saddam's Secrets: How an Iraqi General Defied & Survived Saddam Hussein. In it he explains how, just prior to the war, Saddam moved his WMD to Syria, with Russian help.
Reply-
0%
Tcaros1 year ago
Cappacola - Everyone knows there were no WMDs in Iraq. Where do you get your information from - an Ex-Iraqi General trying to make a few bucks? Sounds like you'd believe everything anyone writes including the enemy.
By your logic Cappacola this means our intelligence services would have missed everything from sky-ground-or whatever methods, but this defector author outshined their methods. Yeh, right smuggless.
Reply -
0%
DarkWizard1 year ago
So, let me get this straight, we're not going to believe an Iraqi Official that says Iraq has no WMD, but we are going to believe an Iraqi General that says Iraq had WMD. Yet, any intel from Iraq is considered tainted. Hmmm.
So, if all this WMD moving happened how is it we didn't pick up mass mobilization of workers and/or equipment to do this job. Our satellites, air support, and ground inspectors didn't see a thing?! They moved themselves! Maybe they went underground and burrowed to Syria!
Common baby...make this work for me so that everyone can understand how to hide those WMDs!
Reply-
0%
capecoralM12 months ago
I sighted this reference as to only ONE explanation as to wear the WMDs may have been moved. Anybody who makes the claim there were no WMDs is simply ignoring the history. Throughout the 1990s it was believed by the ENTIRE WORLD that Saddam was pursuing, hiding, procuring, secretly producing, possessed, WMDs. In 1884 his secret and massive nuclear program was discovered by UNSCOM. In 1998 in defiance of resolution 687 UN Saddam refused to cooperate and implement the provision of that resolution which he agreed to. From 1998 until 2002 there was no way to implement the declare and verify policy of the UN and it's member states. What many proclaim is a BUSH LIE must ignore that the WORLD's intel community had stated for 12 years prior to Bush that he was in Breach of 687 and had programs and materials to produce WMDs. Now how the hell did Bush make up a lie when the entire WORLD and the entire Democrat(ic) party leaders of today stated the exact same thing for 12 years prior to Bush?
Reply-
0%
capecoralM12 months ago
Franks recounts a meeting with King Abdullah II of Jordan in January 2003. Abdullah told Franks, "General, from reliable intelligence sources, I believe the Iraqis are hiding chemical and biological weapons." Perhaps an opponent of Saddam, wanted to bait us into invading Iraq â;; and so presumably "Abdullah lied."
Days later Franks met with Hosni Mubarak, president of Egypt. Mubarak said: "Gen. Franks, you must be very, very careful. We have spoken with Saddam Hussein. He is a madman. He has WMD â;; biologicals, actually â;; and he will use them on your troops."
In their march into Iraq, U.S. Marines discovered Iraqi chemical-biological protection suits and field-syringe injectors filled with a nerve-gas antidote.
Reply-
0%
capecoralM12 months ago
On September 19, Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) said, "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 the means of delivering them."
Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) said in a September 27 speech at Johns Hopkins University, "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Senator Byrd said in an October 3 floor speech, "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..."
Reply-
0%
capecoralM12 months ago
In an October 9, floor speech, Senator John Kerry (D-MA) said, "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force â;; if necessary â;; 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."
In an October 10 floor speech, Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), a senior member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, said, "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five yearsâ;¦ We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Reply-
0%
capecoralM12 months ago
In yet another October 10 floor speech, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) said, "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 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."
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
capecoralM12 months ago
In 1994 his secret and massive nuclear program was discovered by UNSCOM.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
