posted on October 7, 2004 11:08:34 PM new
Bush, Cheney Concede Iraq Had No WMDs
Updated 11:22 PM ET October 7, 2004
By SCOTT LINDLAW
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush and his vice president conceded Thursday in the clearest terms yet that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction, even as they tried to shift the Iraq war debate to a new issue _ whether the invasion was justified because Saddam was abusing a U.N. oil-for-food program.
Ridiculing the Bush administration's evolving rationale for war, Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry shot back: "You don't make up or find reasons to go to war after the fact."
Vice President Dick Cheney brushed aside the central findings of chief U.S. weapons hunter Charles Duelfer _ that Saddam not only had no weapons of mass destruction and had not made any since 1991, but that he had no capability of making any either _ while Bush unapologetically defended his decision to invade Iraq.
"The Duelfer report showed that Saddam was systematically gaming the system, using the U.N. oil-for-food program to try to influence countries and companies in an effort to undermine sanctions," Bush said as he prepared to fly to campaign events in Wisconsin. "He was doing so with the intent of restarting his weapons program once the world looked away."
Duelfer found no formal plan by Saddam to resume WMD production, but the inspector surmised that Saddam intended to do so if U.N. sanctions were lifted. Bush seized upon that inference, using the word "intent" three times in reference to Saddam's plans to resume making weapons.
This week marks the first time that the Bush administration has listed abuses in the oil-for-fuel program as an Iraq war rationale. But the strategy holds risks because some of the countries that could be implicated include U.S. allies, such as Poland, Jordan and Egypt. In addition, the United States itself played a significant role in both the creation of the program and how it was operated and overseen.
For his part, Cheney dismissed the significance of Duelfer's central findings, telling supporters in Miami, "The headlines all say `no weapons of mass destruction stockpiled in Baghdad.' We already knew that."
The vice president said he found other parts of the report "more intriguing," including the finding that Saddam's main goal was the removal of international sanctions.
"As soon as the sanctions were lifted, he had every intention of going back" to his weapons program, Cheney said.
The report underscored that "delay, defer, wait, wasn't an option," Cheney said. And he told a later forum in Fort Myers, Fla., speaking of the oil-for-food program: "The sanctions regime was coming apart at the seams. Saddam perverted that whole thing and generated billions of dollars."
Yet Bush and Cheney acknowledged more definitively than before that Saddam did not have the banned weapons that both men had asserted he did _ and had cited as the major justification before attacking Iraq in March 2003.
Bush has recently left the question open. For example, when asked in June whether he thought such weapons had existed in Iraq, Bush said he would "wait until Charlie (Duelfer) gets back with the final report."
In July, Bush said, "We have not found stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction," a sentence construction that kept alive the possibility the weapons might yet be discovered.
On Thursday, the president used the clearest language to date nailing the question shut:
"Iraq did not have the weapons that our intelligence believed were there," Bush said. His words placed the blame on U.S. intelligence agencies.
In recent weeks, Cheney has glossed over the primary justification for the war, most often by simply not mentioning it. But in late January 2004, Cheney told reporters in Rome: "There's still work to be done to ascertain exactly what's there."
"The jury is still out," he told National Public Radio the same week, when asked whether Iraq had possessed banned weapons.
Duelfer's report was presented Wednesday to senators and the public with less than four weeks left in a fierce presidential campaign dominated by questions about Iraq and the war on terror.
In Bayonne, N.J., Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards on Thursday called "amazing" Cheney's assertions that the Duelfer report justified rather than undermined Bush's decision to go to war, and he accused the Republican of using "convoluted logic."
Kerry, in a campaign appearance in Colorado, said: "The president of the United States and the vice president of the United States may well be the last two people on the planet who won't face the truth about Iraq."
A short time later, while campaigning in Wisconsin, Bush angrily responded to Kerry's charge he sought to "make up" a reason for war.
"He's claiming I misled America about weapons when he, himself, cited the very same intelligence about Saddam weapons programs as the reason he voted to go to war," Bush said. Citing a lengthy Kerry quote from two years ago on the menace Saddam could pose, Bush said: "Just who's the one trying to mislead the American people?"
Duh bush trying to blame Kerry for starting the war..........next it'll be Clinton's fault, then Margaret Thatcher's, then Tiger Wood's...then Daffy Duck's....
posted on October 8, 2004 04:23:35 AM new
Latest WMD Report doesn't hurt President Bush
Oct.8, 2004
Here we go again. Yet another earth-shattering report that Saddam Hussein, after all, did not possess stockpiles of WMD immediately prior to the American invasion of Iraq. How many more times must we hear this before the election?
Charles Duelfer, the chief of the Iraq Survey Group (ISG) -- the organization consisting of 1,400 British, U.S. and Australian military experts searching for Iraqi WMD -- announced that Iraq's nuclear program had deteriorated since 1991 and that the country had no stockpiles of biological or chemical weapons.
Interestingly, just a few days before, CNS News, in a report I link to on my new blog at www.davidlimbaugh.com, reported that recently confiscated Iraqi intelligence documents show that Saddam was working with terrorists to target Americans with mustard gas and anthrax, both considered WMD.
Frankly, my head is spinning with all the conflicting reports about Saddam and his alleged WMD or lack thereof. Some time ago, I gave up hope that we'd ever find a smoking gun on Iraqi WMD. But even the ISG report conceded that Saddam still was intent on developing WMD and that the "guiding theme" of his regime was to be able to start making them again with as short a lead time as possible.
I obviously don't know if Saddam had renewed his WMD program or accumulated stockpiles of them, but neither does anyone else, except Saddam and some in his inner circle. If he did have stockpiles, he either hid them in that vast country or transferred them out.
But let's assume he didn't have them. So what? What does that prove? What does it say about President Bush's decision to attack Iraq, partially on the basis of Saddam's supposed WMD stockpiles?
Our intelligence agencies clearly said that Saddam did have WMD stockpiles and that he was actively pursuing the development of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.
In the vice-presidential debate Tuesday night, John Edwards said that President Bush erred in not giving the sanctions more time to work. Oh? Perhaps he didn't read the ISG report they are gleefully touting. As Tony Blair said, "Just as I have had to accept that the evidence now is that there were not stockpiles of actual weapons ready to be deployed, I hope others have the honesty to accept that the report also shows that sanctions weren't working."
And can we get real here about the inspections process? If we are just now gaining confidence that Iraq had no WMD stockpiles after being in control of and thoroughly searching that nation for over a year, how could we have ever relied on weapons inspectors with limited access to a foreign land controlled by a hostile dictator? We couldn't, because it's impossible to prove a negative. What we could be sure of is that he violated 17 U.N. resolutions and the peace treaties following Gulf War I, that he had and used WMD, and that he never met his burden of proving to us that he had disposed of the weapons. In fact, he behaved as a leader who still had those weapons, as he played cat and mouse with the inspectors and filed a bogus 12,000-page "compliance" report.
How could President Bush have done anything other than attack Iraq? Our intelligence agencies and foreign intelligence services said he had WMD, and Saddam himself behaved as if he had WMD.
Moreover, Saddam had a history of sponsoring terrorists, including the families of the Palestinian suicide bombers. We know he hated the United States, loved terrorists, either had or was trying to produce WMD, and would have -- had we permitted him to remain in power -- handed those off to terrorists to use against the United States or its allies.
President Bush announced the Bush Doctrine shortly after 9-11, and it involved taking the fight to the terrorists and their sponsoring nation states and, if necessary, doing so preemptively -- attacking them before they had a chance to attack us. Based on the information President Bush had, indeed, based on the information we have now, he had to take out Saddam. And you can be sure that if he hadn't and we were later attacked by terrorists with WMD acquired through Saddam, Democrats would crucify President Bush for not doing enough.
While John Kerry says President Bush has hurt our credibility with foreign nations, a nation doesn't gain credibility by making nice, but by following up on its promises, threats, and commitments, and by enforcing resolutions, as the president has done.
The United States is, or will be, safer in the long run because President Bush had the wisdom and courage to dethrone Saddam Hussein.
God bless President Bush.
David Limbaugh is a syndicated columnist who blogs at DavidLimbaugh.com
-----------------
edited to add from 10-7 MyWayNews
"He's claiming I misled America about weapons when he, himself, cited the very same intelligence about Saddam weapons programs as the reason he voted to go to war[b]," Bush said. Citing a lengthy Kerry quote from two years ago on the menace Saddam could pose, Bush said: "[b]Just who's the one trying to mislead the American people?"
---
Kerry can't deny his own statements....nor try to pretend he thought differently and fought oh-so-hard to prevent us from going to war. Even after the war began kerry was praising President Bush and the job our troops had done. Only when it gets tougher does kerry start changing his position...and the blaming game starts. Like it's going to make people think he wasn't praising this accomplishment prior to that? I don't think so.
[ edited by Linda_K on Oct 8, 2004 04:49 AM ]
posted on October 8, 2004 07:37:21 AM newU.S. Report Says Hussein Bought Arms With Ease
By ERIC LIPTON and SCOTT SHANE
Published: October 8, W2004
WASHINGTON, Oct. 7 -
Enriched with billions of dollars raised by exploiting the United Nations' oil-for-food program, Saddam Hussein spent heavily on arms imports starting in 1999, finding six governments and private companies from a dozen other nations that were willing to ignore sanctions prohibiting arms sales, the report by the top American arms inspector for Iraq has found.
The purchases, which included components of long-range missiles, spare parts for tanks and night-vision equipment, were not enough to allow Iraq to significantly rebuild its conventional military or create a viable chemical, biological or nuclear weapons program, according to the report by the inspector, Charles A. Duelfer, which was released Wednesday.
But the relative ease with which Mr. Hussein was able to buy weapons - working directly with governments in Syria, Belarus, Yemen, North Korea, the former Yugoslavia and possibly Russia, as well as with private companies in Europe, Asia and the Middle East - is documented in extraordinary detail, including repeated visits by government officials and arms merchants to Iraq and complicated schemes to disguise illegal shipments to Iraq.
"Prohibited goods and weapons were being shipped into Iraq with virtually no problem," the report says. "Indeed, Iraq was designing missile systems with the assumption that sanctioned material would be readily available."
The report suggests that Mr. Hussein was justified when, speaking at a gathering of leaders of the Iraqi armed forces in January 2000, he boasted that despite efforts by the United States and the United Nations to isolate Iraq, he would still be able to buy just about whatever he wanted. "We have said with certainty that the embargo will not be lifted by a Security Council resolution, but will corrode by itself," Mr. Hussein said in the speech, a remark that is quoted on the cover of the chapter in Mr. Duelfer's report that details the ineffectiveness of the embargo.
The report is replete with names, dates and documents detailing negotiations over arms purchases and technical advice, which continued until just days before the United States-led invasion in March 2003.
An Iraqi memo from 2000 tells military officials in Baghdad that the deputy general manager of the French company Sofema, a military-component marketer, will be bringing a company catalog so that they can "discuss your needs with him."
President Bush, speaking to reporters on the South Lawn of the White House on Thursday, said the report demonstrated that Iraq was determined to illegally rebuild its military. "Saddam was systematically gaming the system, using the United Nations oil-for-food program to try to influence countries and companies in an effort to undermine sanctions," he said.
While the scope of the inquiry did not extend beyond Iraq, the report raises fundamental questions about the effectiveness of sanctions, a tool the United States has frequently used as a foreign policy tool short of military action. Offered lucrative contracts by Mr. Hussein, both arms suppliers and government officials seem not to have hesitated to ignore United Nations trade restrictions, going so far as to disguise tank engines as agricultural parts.
What actions, if any, the United States will take toward sanctions violators is unclear, as are the implications for current United States standoffs with nations like Iran and North Korea over nuclear weapons programs. But sanctions remain one of the few options in many complex international disputes.
"They're often better than nothing," said Joshua Muravchik, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute who is writing a book on the United Nations.
The illicit trade accelerated as the years passed and the threats of possible military action by the United States increased, with the number of deals among the top suppliers climbing from about 5 transactions in 1998 to more than 15 in 2000 and more than 35 in 2002, the report says.
posted on October 8, 2004 07:46:29 AM new
""This week marks the first time that the Bush administration has listed abuses in the oil-for-fuel program as an Iraq war rationale. But the strategy holds risks because some of the countries that could be implicated include U.S. allies, such as Poland, Jordan and Egypt.
In addition, the United States itself played a significant role in both the creation of the program and how it was operated and overseen. ""
posted on October 8, 2004 07:54:16 AM new
bush wants to , "taking the fight to the terrorists and their "sponsoring nation states" and, if necessary, doing so preemptively --"
"spononsoring nation states " include Poland, Jordan, Egypt and the U.S.
Now will we attack Egypt, Jordan , Poland and ourselves??????????????????????????
Well, according to bush we should .
Makes neocons happy... more war and bloodshed.......the stuff their dreams are made of!
posted on October 8, 2004 07:58:22 AM new
This is just ANOTHER part of the: "The Duelfer report showed that Saddam was systematically gaming the system, using the U.N. oil-for-food program to try to influence countries and companies in an effort to undermine sanctions," Bush said as he prepared to fly to campaign events in Wisconsin. "He was doing so with the intent of restarting his weapons program once the world looked away."::
that the opening post to this thread very much limited discussion on.
Better to hear more of the WHOLE report...than just one part of it I do believe.
----------------------
reamond, nobody EVER said it was a "roaring" economy...but as has been stated by me many times before it is an IMPROVING economy. 92,000 new jobs is good.
The fact the unemployment rate stayed at 5.4 is good also.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I will never submit America's national security to an international test. The use of troops to defend America must never be subject to a veto by countries like France. The President's job is not to take an international poll -- the President's job is to defend America." --President George W. Bush
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Re-elect President Bush
posted on October 8, 2004 08:15:15 AM new"He was doing so with the intent of restarting his weapons program once the world looked away."
If you want to believe that, then I will believe Bush is going to restart the draft and raise taxes after the electionis over (assuming Bush wins).
There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." —George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002
----------------------------------
Let's have a BBQ, Texas style, ROAST BUSH
------------------------------
On This Week with George Stephanopoulos, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld declares: "the area… that coalition forces control… happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."
------------------------------
posted on October 8, 2004 08:28:03 AM new
"The September job-creation total came in below Wall Street economists' forecasts for 148,000 new jobs. The department also revised down its estimate of August new jobs to 128,000 from 144,000 it reported a month ago.
Most jobs in September came in the services sector, while manufacturers shed 18,000 jobs last month after increased hiring in the two prior months.
The dollar dropped sharply against the euro after the number was issued, apparently in the belief it raised questions about the durability of U.S. economic growth, while bond prices increased."
Now back to the topic, Bush and his buds are making excuses and still trying to cover up what they did and they are counting on the fact that a certain percentage of the population will buy any drivel they chant.
Invading a country, wrecking it and killing innocent adults and children and then making excuses for doing it afterwards is not acceptable. The world will never forget.
posted on October 8, 2004 08:34:40 AM new
No matter WHO agreed with the bush administration BUSH made the decision , on HIS watch, in HIS administration, HE made the decision, the WRONG decision, to go to war in Iraq. Reason after reason has been shot down as false.
AND, I STILL haven't heard a word from ANYONE, not bush, not DICK cheney, not Karl Rove, not ANYONE , on the plans for solving the mess in Iraq.
posted on October 8, 2004 10:17:42 AM new
[i]reamond, nobody EVER said it was a "roaring" economy...but as has been stated by me many times before it is an IMPROVING economy. 92,000 new jobs is good.
The fact the unemployment rate stayed at 5.4 is good also.[/i]
The economy isn't even headed in the right direction. It takes around 130,000+ jobs created each and every month just to break even with the new workers coming into the workforce.
While the unemployment rate held at 5.4%, it doesn't count the number of people whose benefits dropped off last month, or any of the previous months.
5.4% is just the percentage of people COLLECTING UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS.
posted on October 8, 2004 10:26:23 AM new
Only more negativity...as usual.
It could be much worse. We could have absolutely NO job growth...and be continuing to loose jobs. We aren't.
That's the positive of the situation. We've come a long way after losing close to 1,000,000 immediately following 9-11 and a recession.
Be thankful for the good that is occuring and that we ARE continuing to go in the right direction.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I will never submit America's national security to an international test. The use of troops to defend America must never be subject to a veto by countries like France. The President's job is not to take an international poll -- the President's job is to defend America." --President George W. Bush
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Re-elect President Bush
posted on October 8, 2004 10:33:10 AM new
Our economy is doing a LOT better than most countries in the world....thanks to President Bush's leadership.
Just look at this, and Germany unemployment remains around 9-10%.
We have a LOT to be thankful for.
---
Canadian Unemployment Rate Drops Slightly
10.08.2004, 09:39 AM
Canada's economy created another 43,000 jobs last month, pushing the unemployment rate down to 7.1 percent from 7.2 percent in August, the government agency Statistics Canada said Friday.
The increase came after two months of stagnant job growth.
The statistics agency said employment has grown by 1.0 percent so far this year, with 156,000 full-time jobs added. The number of part-time jobs has fallen by 74,000.
In September, 72,000 people found full-time work, but 29,000 part-time jobs disappeared, leaving the net gain of 43,000.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I will never submit America's national security to an international test. The use of troops to defend America must never be subject to a veto by countries like France. The President's job is not to take an international poll -- the President's job is to defend America." --President George W. Bush
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Re-elect President Bush
posted on October 8, 2004 10:36:50 AM new
I'll be here to console you reamond, when that doesn't happen. Twenty-five days to go...and I look forward to your discussions on all the court cases that will be brought about by the DNC.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I will never submit America's national security to an international test. The use of troops to defend America must never be subject to a veto by countries like France. The President's job is not to take an international poll -- the President's job is to defend America." --President George W. Bush
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Re-elect President Bush
posted on October 8, 2004 11:18:20 AM new
Linda_k has to show her excess jealousy of Canada by bringing it into an unrelated discussion once again. BTW, the economy is doing better up there and they predict the dollar to be on par with the US in another year or so. Not a bad recovery considering it was only worth about half that a couple of years ago.
You have to consider that Canada only has about 32,000,000 people and added 72,000 new jobs compared to the population of the US which is about 293,000,000 and how many jobs did they add this last month? 96,000? Canada added one new job per every 444 persons and the US added one new job per every 3052 persons? Not sure if my math is right so someone can correct me if I'm figuring this wrong.
Both countries should be paying more attention to the jobs going overseas as they make China an economic giant.
posted on October 8, 2004 11:24:41 AM new
Oh, OK, OTHER countries have it worse so we should be happy (and praise bushy) because our isn't as bad as theirs.
Uh, linda, using the bush economy as an argument for his lying about Iraq just isn't going to cut it here.
Try something else.
Canada did NOT get us into this mess with Iraq....BUSH DID!
Clinton did NOT get us into this....BUSH DID!
Billy Joel didn't get us into this ...BUSH DID!
Madonna didn't get us into this ....BUSH DID!
Chelsea Clinton didn't get us into this....BUSH DID!
Eritrea didn't get us into this mess ....BUSH DID!
Loosing jobs didn't get us into this mess....BUSH DID!
posted on October 8, 2004 11:52:57 AM new
Linda, although I have about half of this thread on ignore, it is pretty apparent that you are trying to explain color to the blind. Black (doom and gloom) is the only color they 'see' and it is outside their quagmirist realm to understand what they don't 'see'. Basically they aren't equipped with the proper sensory apparatus or capability of comprehension. You get an 'A' for effort though.
posted on October 8, 2004 02:46:07 PM new
LOL parklane.
Bet that makes for interesting reading....can only imagine ...
Yes, it's always what I call the 'doom and gloom' club. They usually look at the glass as being half empty...rather than focusing on, and being just a little thankful things are improving rather than getting worse. Recognizing the good that does happen.
No wonder they're so ornery. Must be very depressing to never see any positives in life.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I will never submit America's national security to an international test. The use of troops to defend America must never be subject to a veto by countries like France. The President's job is not to take an international poll -- the President's job is to defend America." --President George W. Bush
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Re-elect President Bush
posted on October 8, 2004 03:42:50 PM new
There ya go linda, reading other people's minds just like you tell others not to do to you.
The fact which you choose to ignore even though YOU answered my thread is that YOU ENJOY carnage and bloodshed and we do not. You are not normal and we are.
Want to talk about something positive?
What do you and pricklane think is positive?......
Big tax cut for the upper 2% of the wealthiest people in America? Yup, that's pretty positive ....for them.
How pollution has increased so that big corporations don't have to waste money on pollution control efforts or pay fines when they're caught raping the environment...yup, that's positive for them.
How many soldiers died so that YOU could say bush is steadfast? Yup, steadfast is positive.
How many people have lost their jobs but Walmart is hiring so that's positive for them.
Many people in the last 3 1/2 years have slipped below the poverty line but you haven't so that's positive.
I could go on and on but you're still too afraid of me to answer directly and the normal people in here understand what I'm saying even if you don't.
There's a reason we're called "bleeding heart" liberals....it's because we don't just care about things that directly and imminently affect us but because we care about others.
You will never understand this and so will never understand our point of view.
We're not fat, lazy slobs like you who sit back and if YOU'RE fine the world is fine.
posted on October 8, 2004 03:47:57 PM new
I think things are viewed different by some of the elderly like Linda_k who may not have to work or worry about her future. Some of us are still young enough to be in the job market and though we are self-employed we still have to rely on the main flow of the economy to help sustain us.
If a very small country like Canada can produce 72,000 new jobs in one month and the US which is about 10 times the size can only produce 96,000 (and those figures may be fudged like they were in previous months), it looks like a sagging economy in comparison. Since I do business in both countries, it does affect me.
For every container of goods the US sends out worldwide, they receive back 7 from just China alone. That is an imbalance of trade and it makes the US the largest debter nation.
I don't see the people concerned about the economy as being ornery (note they aren't the ones who have to post false smilies here to cover up their true feelings), I think they just share a genuine concern and a reality about the future of their country. They worry about their future and the future of their children who will always be in debt to pay for unnecessary wars like the one in Iraq.
Not every parent wants to have his child employed by the military or flipping burgers at McDonalds......... now designated as one of the new "manufacturing" jobs since so many other jobs have gone out of the country.
posted on October 8, 2004 03:53:29 PM new
AND did ya notice how when the righties are wrongy they segue into something totally unrelated to the topic????
posted on October 8, 2004 04:07:43 PM new
Yes, back to the original topic.
Bush insults the intelligence of everyone worldwide when he keeps inventing stupid excuses for this war, expecting that people will believe his lies.
If he is elected I hope he will finally have to take responsibility for the damage he has done. Unfortunately, if Kerry is elected he will be blamed for any future mess that happens, whether it be the war or the economy.
I don't think so.
