General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums2002 Bush is enraged that UN weapons inspectors are not finding any hidden weapons.
At Daily Kos on this date in 2002—The Bush administration is out of control:
Bush is enraged that—get this—UN weapons inspectors are not finding any hidden weapons.
The lack of a confrontation thus far between Iraq and inspectors has the White House worried that the Iraqi president might be winning the early public relations battle by creating an impression that he is complying. Aides said those fears prompted the president and Vice President Dick Cheney (news-web sites) to deliver separate speeches Monday casting doubt on Saddam's intentions.
http://www.dailykos.net/archives/000636.html#000636
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
randys1
(16,286 posts)Until they are both in prison ., the rule of law is a joke
It must be done
RayLib
(37 posts)"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members...
It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well, effects American security.
This is a very difficult vote, this is probably the hardest decision I've ever had to make. Any vote that might lead to war should be hard, but I cast it with conviction."
Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York)
Addressing the US Senate
October 10, 2002
Link: [link:
Nitram
(22,791 posts)In October 2002, a few days before the United States Senate voted on the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq, about 75 senators were told in closed session that Iraq had the means of attacking the Eastern Seaboard of the U.S. with biological or chemical weapons delivered by unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs.)* Clinton made her speech based on that briefing and the limitations Iraq had imposed on inspectors. After the vote Iraq gave inspectors free reign to inspect facilities with little advance notice.
In March 2003, Hans Blix reported that "No evidence of proscribed activities have so far been found" in Iraq, saying that progress was made in inspections, which would continue. He estimated the time remaining for disarmament being verified through inspections to be "months". Shortly afterwards the US warned inspectors to leave Iraq and "...on 20 March 2003 (9:34 p.m., 19 March EST) the military invasion of Iraq began.*
So, you see, Clinton's vote, and the aye votes by other liberals in Congress, were based on a deceptive briefing by the administration which was supposed to be based on the best and the latest intelligence. Saddam Hussein, probably spurred by the vote, subsequently U.N. gave inspectors free access. His bluff had been called, and it was wiser to let the world know Iraq had no WMD. Bush ignored the evidence and invaded Iraq anyway.
RayLib
(37 posts)"I come to this debate, Mr. Speaker, as one at the end of 10 years in office on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, where stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was one of my top priorities. I applaud the President on focusing on this issue and on taking the lead to disarm Saddam Hussein. ... Others have talked about this threat that is posed by Saddam Hussein. Yes, he has chemical weapons, he has biological weapons, he is trying to get nuclear weapons."
Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)
Addressing the US House of Representatives
October 10, 2002
Congressional Record, p. H7776
[link:http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2002-10-10/pdf/CREC-2002-10-10-house.pdf|
-------------------------------------------
In retrospect, were we wrong to invade Iraq? Absolutely!!! Hindsight being 20/20. However, claiming "Bush lied, people died", as he manufactured false intelligence to deceive congress, is ignorant of history, the congressional record, and the statements of the very leaders we trust today!
If we refuse to acknowledge the mistakes of the past, instead of just blaming everything on boogeyman Bush, how do we hope to avoid them again?
saturnsring
(1,832 posts)malaise
(268,913 posts)Enjoy your stay at DU
RayLib
(37 posts)What, you think that was a hand puppet? What was BS? Her statement?
saturnsring
(1,832 posts)I did not pick any intelligence, nor did my direct reports, minions or operatives. You apparently fail to understand that the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, of which Nacy Pelosi was a member for 8 years prior to Bushes election, concluded the same thing.
Explain how Bush, Cheney, et al cherry picked the intelligence Clinton was exposed to in 1998:
"Together, we must confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons and the outlaw states, terrorists, and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade and much of his nation's wealth not on providing for the Iraqi people but on developing nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."
President Clinton
State of the Union address
January 27, 1998
saturnsring
(1,832 posts)"It has been four years since the Committee began the second phase of its review," Sen. Dianne Feinstein wrote in her note attached to the report. "The results are now in. Even though the intelligence before the war supported inaccurate statements, this Administration distorted the intelligence in order to build its case to go to war. The Executive Branch released only those findings that supported the argument, did not relay uncertainties, and at times made statements beyond what the intelligence supported."
Statements and implications by the President and Secretary of State suggesting that Iraq and al-Qa'ida had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al-Qa'ida with weapons training, were not substantiated by the intelligence.
-- Statements by the President and the Vice President indicating that Saddam Hussein was prepared to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups for attacks against the United States were contradicted by available intelligence information.
-- Statements by President Bush and Vice President Cheney regarding the postwar situation in Iraq, in terms of the political, security, and economic, did not reflect the concerns and uncertainties expressed in the intelligence products.
-- Statements by the President and Vice President prior to the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq's chemical weapons production capability and activities did not reflect the intelligence community's uncertainties as to whether such production was ongoing.
-- The Secretary of Defense's statement that the Iraqi government operated underground WMD facilities that were not vulnerable to conventional airstrikes because they were underground and deeply buried was not substantiated by available intelligence information.
-- The Intelligence Community did not confirm that Muhammad Atta met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in 2001 as the Vice President repeatedly claimed.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/05/divided-senate-committee_n_105374.html
dont forget rummy saying
the oil will pay for the war
we'll be treated as liberators
the war will last weeks doubtful it'll be 6 months
don't rely on google it yourself and read
Amazing how Bush deceived the Clinton administration way before he ever came into office! (see above Clinton Quote)
No one is defending Bush or the stupid war! But we must not forget that intelligence pre-9/11 indicated:
Saddam was accumulating WMD
Saddam was dealing with terrorists
Saddam was seeking Nuclear weapons
The assertion of the phase II report regarding Bush's mendacity may be true, but some portion of the report was CYA by the authors. I mean, really, as stupid as Bush allegedly was, he managed to outsmart and deceive almost the entire Democratic leadership, including Ted Kennedy and Joe Lieberman?
"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed.
We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Senator Edward Kennedy (Democrat, Massachusetts)
Speech at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies
September 27, 2002
-----------------------------------
"[W]e have evidence of meetings between Iraqi officials and leaders of al Qaeda, and testimony that Iraqi agents helped train al Qaeda operatives to use chemical and biological weapons. We also know that al Qaeda leaders have been, and are now, harbored in Iraq.
Having reached the conclusion I have about the clear and present danger Saddam represents to the U.S., I want to give the president a limited but strong mandate to act against Saddam."
Senator Joseph Lieberman (Democrat, Connecticut)
In a Wall Street Journal editorial Lieberman authored titled: "Why Democrats Should Support the President on Iraq"
October 7, 2002
Something is rotten in the state of Denmark!
ReasonableToo
(505 posts)CNN showed an Iraqi minister of something on air talking about how they were cooperating with inspectors and the actions that the US was threatening to do would be unjust and illegal. Then CNN cut off the broadcast and said something about the us gov would not want that broadcast to continue. I thought that was a very strange thing to do and say. We found out later that there were actually gov officials in studio influencing coverage. (Can't find link)
That was the last time I sought out CNN for coverage on anything.
And now, one of the few news outlets that had pretty accurate coverage - KnightRidder- has been bought out. (See Pacifica Radio stations and DemocracyNow.org for more accurate domestic and world coverage)
We are so ignorant of what's going on around the world and in our own country! It's no wonder we keep doing the exactly wrong thing in most situations.
RayLib
(37 posts)He added that "in this respect" the war might not have been justified.
"I am obviously very interested in the question of whether or not there were weapons of mass destruction - and I am beginning to suspect there possibly were none," he said in an interview with the Berlin newspaper Der Tagesspiegel.
Dr Blix, who retires next month, has previously condemned as "shaky" the evidence presented by British and American intelligence before the war, and said that it was "conspicuous" that they had failed to make significant discoveries after the war.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/may/24/iraq.rorymccarthy
--------------------------------------
The disconcerting point is that Bush, Pelosi, Clinton (both of them), Kerry, etc. NEVER questioned the intelligence reports that there were WMD's prior to the war! How could our "intelligence services" (scare quotes intentional) have made such a catastrophic, persistent error over the 10 years since Bush 1 went in? We were and are being set up for a total loss of Civil liberties, IMHO.
----------------------------------------
"In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now -- a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed."
President Clinton
Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff
February 17, 1998
Response to RayLib (Reply #12)
Name removed Message auto-removed
gratuitous
(82,849 posts)Bush was determined to get his war on, the media were all agog about the pretty pictures an invasion would surely generate as well as the journalism awards that would follow for the war correspondents, and there were enough people scared, misinformed, or bloodthirsty enough to make a credible popular groundswell for a war.
And we're continuing to pay for this lovely little occupation to this very day, handicapped by the Bush era tax cuts. Always lots of money for wars, no money for the country.
RayLib
(37 posts)No doubt!
Per B Franklin: Wars are not paid for in wartime, the bill comes later.
Photographer
(1,142 posts)over the fact that he came out and told the world there were no WMD.
Nitram
(22,791 posts)I'd say his reputation was actually improved for standing up to the Bush administration, and by the fact that he was subsequently proved 100% correct. He worked for the U.N., not Bush.
RayLib
(37 posts)and
Perhaps it is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged against provisions against danger, real or pretended from abroad.
Seer, that one...
deutsey
(20,166 posts)Bush joking about searching for WMDs under the sofa in Oval Office at the White House Correspondents Dinner in 2004:
Yuck, yuck, yuck...
