Bush again questions on WMDs

Jersay

House Member
Dec 1, 2005
4,837
2
38
Independent Palestine
WASHINGTON - The White House faced new questions Wednesday about President Bush's contention three years ago that weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq.

ADVERTISEMENT

The Washington Post reported that a Pentagon-sponsored team of experts determined in May 2003 that two small trailers were not used to make biological weapons. Yet two days after the team sent its findings to Washington in a classified report, Bush declared just the opposite.

"We have found the weapons of mass destruction," Bush said in an interview with a Polish TV station. "We found biological laboratories."

Bush spokesman Scott McClellan said Wednesday that Bush was relying on information from the Central Intelligence Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency when he said the trailers seized after the 2003 invasion were mobile biological laboratories. That information was later discredited by the Iraq Survey Group in its 2004 report.

The CIA and DIA publicly issued an assessment one day after the Pentagon team's report arrived in Washington that said U.S. officials were confident that the trailers were used to produce biological weapons. The assessment said the mobile facilities represented "the strongest evidence to date that Iraq was hiding a biological warfare program."

McClellan said it was unclear whether officials at the White House were aware of the contradictory field report when Bush repeated the claim in the television interview.

"If and when the White House became aware of this particular issue, I'm looking into that matter," McClellan said. "The White House has asked the CIA and the DIA to go and look into that issue."

The Post did not say that Bush knew what he was saying was false. But ABC News did during a report on "Good Morning America," and McClellan demanded an apology and an on-air retraction. ABC News said later in a clarification on its Web site that Charles Gibson had erred. McClellan said he had received an apology.

"This is nothing more than rehashing an old issue that was resolved long ago," McClellan said. "I cannot count how many times the president has said the intelligence was wrong."

"The intelligence community makes the assessment," he said. "The White House is not the intelligence-gathering agency."

Navy Cmdr. Greg Hicks, a Pentagon spokesman, said in a written statement that the report from the expert team was sent to the DIA on May 27, 2003, but he said the findings were not vetted until over the summer. The statement did not say whether the information was immediately shared with the White House.

"This further analysis led to the conclusion of the ISG that the mobile units were impractical for biological agent production and almost certainly designed and built for the generation of hydrogen," Hicks' statement said.

CIA spokeswoman Jennifer Dyck declined to speak specifically about the classified field report but said in general that producing a finished intelligence report takes time, coordination, debate and vetting.

"This is not a fast process, especially when dealing with complex issues," she said. "It is not typically something that happens in a matter of hours."

The trailers — along with aluminum tubes acquired by Iraq for what was believed to be a nuclear weapons program — were primary pieces of evidence offered by the Bush administration before the war to support its contention that Iraq was making weapons of mass destruction.

Intelligence officials and the White House have repeatedly denied claims that intelligence was exaggerated or manipulated in the months before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003. The Iraq Survey Group concluded in 2004 that there was no evidence that Iraq produced weapons of mass destruction after 1991.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060413/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_iraq

Now a contradiction by conservative and Iraq war supporters. They say we are in Iraq to fight against Saddam, fight against abuses of people fight against Al Qaida.

Well sadly, you are totally wrong, you were there to fight for WMDs as the sole purpose, Bush and Blair didn't care about the Kurds of the Shites and because WMD were never found and even though Bush tried to say they were found, it means Iraq is an illegal war no matter what you want to make it.
 

Jersay

House Member
Dec 1, 2005
4,837
2
38
Independent Palestine
Can't stand the truth. I know it is tiring for conservative and their supporters.

That is why I suggest a nap for zoofer and the other conservatives so they rest up their reserves for their invasion of Iran. Because you will need it. :wink:
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
I know this is old, but, How do you tell if Bush is lying?

His lips are moving.......Budump bump clash... :lol: :lol: :p
 

I think not

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 12, 2005
10,506
33
48
The Evil Empire
Bush should be tied to a bumper and dragged around Washington until he begs for mercy, then we should impeach him, remove him from office and try him for crimes against the American people.

And then do a Dick Cheney Redux.

There I said it.

However, it is not because he invaded Iraq, but rather, the way he went about it. Saddam Hussein had to be removed.
 

Johnny Utah

Council Member
Mar 11, 2006
1,434
1
38
I think not said:
Bush should be tied to a bumper and dragged around Washington until he begs for mercy, then we should impeach him, remove him from office and try him for crimes against the American people.

And then do a Dick Cheney Redux.

There I said it.

However, it is not because he invaded Iraq, but rather, the way he went about it. Saddam Hussein had to be removed.
The way Bush went about removing Saddam is more Rumsfeld's responsibilty. There were missed opportunities in the run up to Baghdad and in the aftermath when Saddam's regime fell.

Yes Saddam Hussein had to be removed because in the near future
he would have been replaced by Uday or Qusay Hussein who were worse then Saddam ever was.
 

zoofer

Council Member
Dec 31, 2005
1,274
2
38
History will show GW Bush to be the greatest Prez in history.

Could anyone imagine Trudeau liberating 50 million people?

Matter of fact he hobnobbed with the likes of Mao and Castro. He visited Russia many times.

22 nations in the Arab league. Two are on their way to becoming democracies, thanks to GW.

Saddamites prefer Hussein and Taliban.
 

zoofer

Council Member
Dec 31, 2005
1,274
2
38
Iraq will if the West hangs in there for the long term.

But the Lefty Dems are working day and night to undermine America's will for partisan purposes. They would sacrifice their grandmothers to get to Bush.
 

zoofer

Council Member
Dec 31, 2005
1,274
2
38
I dunno.
Aussie, the USA, the Brits and I dare say Canada now has a interest.
 

zoofer

Council Member
Dec 31, 2005
1,274
2
38
I clicked on my sig and look what I saw.
Explaining Bush's Plan To Defeat The Terrorists In Iraq
In Iraq, the terrorists appear to be pursuing the same strategy that worked so well for the mujahideen in Afghanistan during their war against the Soviets.
Their goal is not to defeat the Coalition forces militarily, it's to convince the civilians back home that the war can't be won. Once that happens and Coalition troops are withdrawn, there'll be chaos, war, and bloodshed. Then, once again because of their superior will, the terrorists believe they can just hang in there until they can gain the strength to take over the country. At that point, the terrorists will be able to turn Iraq into the same sort of playground that Afghanistan was for them under the Taliban.
However, the US is using an entirely different strategy than the Soviets did in Afghanistan. The goal of the US is to build up the Iraqi troops to the point where they can police their own nation with minimal or no help from the US. Once the Iraqis get to that point, Coalition forces can go back home without leaving chaos in their wake and then the superior willpower of the terrorists will do them little good. It's not possible for them to "wait out" the Iraqi troops because since they live there, they've got nowhere else to go. Moreover, kidnappings, assassinations, car bombings, and suicide bombings may make for splashy headlines, but that won't win a war for you. For that, you need a real army than can take and hold territory, which is something the terrorists don't have.
So, probably by mid-2007 or so, when the Iraqi police and military will comprise almost the entire front line security force in Iraq, it will be the terrorists, not the Coalition, trapped in an unwinnable war.
At that point, will the terrorists have a chance to take over the country? No. What happens if they give-up? They'll be viewed as failures and lose face. Then what happens if they keep fighting and killing Muslims? They'll be viewed as butchers and lose face.
It'll be a no-win situation for the terrorists in Iraq and it's growing closer by the day.
 

I think not

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 12, 2005
10,506
33
48
The Evil Empire
Johnny Utah said:
The way Bush went about removing Saddam is more Rumsfeld's responsibilty. There were missed opportunities in the run up to Baghdad and in the aftermath when Saddam's regime fell.

The buck stops with the President and should have fired Rumsfeld long ago. But I wasn't referring to the actual invasion, but rather the failed diplomatic efforts of Bush along with his total disregard for Afghanistan. There was no rush, "rushing" into Iraq.

zoofer said:
History will show GW Bush to be the greatest Prez in history.

I sincerely doubt that, assuming Iraq becomes stable, he has many more skeletons in his closet.

zoofer said:
Saddamites prefer Hussein and Taliban.

I prefer neither. Like I said, they had to go.
 

Karlin

Council Member
Jun 27, 2004
1,275
2
38
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/041206Z.shtml
"Administration pushed notion of banned Iraqi weapons despite evidence to contrary"

K - Now the polls show Americans:
"don't trust their president to do the right thing on Iran"

HA!! About time they caught on.
Whats amazing is that the media is reporting it, Bush must have lost control of them - maybe he is running short of hush money.

Here is a professional assessment of that crowd:

The evil of the conservative christian agenda has come out into the open. Religion, Republican, and American are the dirties words on the planet anymore.

With huge torrents of cash from Richard Mellon Scaife, the Ahmanson family and other super-rich ultra-rightists,
the fundamentalist church has formed the popular network that has spawned the Bush catastrophe. The totalitarian alliance between pulpit, corporation and military is unique in U.S. history.

With contempt for the Constitution, and unholy opposition to separation of church and state, ultra-rich ultra-right preachers like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, self-proclaimed messiahs like Rev. Moon, and sanctimonious errand boys like Ralph Reed and Grover Norquist, have turned America into a “Christo-fascist” empire whose twice-unelected executive claims Divine right to rule. When it comes to their views on violence, empire, greed and intolerance, these are the most un-Christian men in America. It’s no accident that George W. Bush’s first words about the war to follow 9/11 had to do with a “Christian Crusade” against Islam. And, instead of consulting his father, a former President, W. chose to consult “a higher father.”

That this evil network of mega- churches, cults and electronic Elmer Gantrys would prove profoundly corrupt should also come as no surprise. These are the moneychangers that Christ kicked out of the temple. The ultra-orthodox cash flow from Jack Abramoff to “godly” legislators like Tom DeLay and Ohio’s Bob Ney has suffered not the slightest diversion toward true spirituality.

The idea that Jesus would hate gays, not want them to marry, love the death penalty and sanction wholesale slaughter in oil-rich nations has always stretched the imagination even of the irreligious.


http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2006/1916
 

Johnny Utah

Council Member
Mar 11, 2006
1,434
1
38
I think not said:
Johnny Utah said:
The way Bush went about removing Saddam is more Rumsfeld's responsibilty. There were missed opportunities in the run up to Baghdad and in the aftermath when Saddam's regime fell.

The buck stops with the President and should have fired Rumsfeld long ago. But I wasn't referring to the actual invasion, but rather the failed diplomatic efforts of Bush along with his total disregard for Afghanistan. There was no rush, "rushing" into Iraq.
Didn't Bush say that a few months ago about the buck stops with him?

The diplomatic angle with Iraq wasn't really working even in the UN when France, Germany and Russia were undermining the United States.
 

Jersay

House Member
Dec 1, 2005
4,837
2
38
Independent Palestine
Have you people had enough of some sick conservative love fest.

It almost made me sick.

And Johnny Utah stop spewing theories about what happened about WMD because they didn't have any.
 

cortezzz

Electoral Member
Apr 8, 2006
663
0
16
blow back
even if the US could trully---establish a democrasy-- a stable one with the iraqis policing themselves there is no gaurantee that the iraqi nation will remain friendly to the US
could a religious party win a future election.. for example...
could a newly elcted government move to nationalize oil companies---

remember
SADDAM WAS A US ALLY
THE TABIBAN WERE US ALLIES

blow back
 

Jersay

House Member
Dec 1, 2005
4,837
2
38
Independent Palestine
Absolutely right.

Conservatives seem to forget that all their problems relate back to their own foreign policy maybe not 10 years, ago, maybe not 20 years ago but right around the end of the Second World War, when they truly became an imperial power.

And cortezz, they would do what they do to Hamas, they would have sanctions and declare it illegal and claim to assist humanitarian aid and kill a whole bunch of people with sanctions like they did after the first gulf war.