Did anyone predict no WMDs?

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Fri Sep 17, 2004 8:49 pm

Moderator note: Thread Split by birdseye
Original post from another thread that prompted me to do the split, by spidey:

Birdsâ?¦tell my honestlyâ?¦did anybody in the entire world â??notâ?

kufyit · Post by **kufyit** » Fri Sep 17, 2004 9:07 pm

Well, I know that shortly after Bush took office Powell said Iraq had not developed any WMD capabilities.

http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2001/933.htm

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Fri Sep 17, 2004 9:16 pm

I did not start this thread...it was split out of another...

So please do not reply here!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Fri Sep 17, 2004 9:19 pm

I split this thread (Spidey didn't start it) from the Democrats sign bashing thread because it began going off topic.

Sorry it took me a minute to formulate my response. I should have immediately stated I did so.

My response:
Yes, people did. I said I believed he had some WMDs, but I also said I did not believe the intelligence reports put forth by Bush that they had a very large and active program. Some WMDs? Sure. What a WMD is I am not exactly sure of the definition. I believed he had at least some missiles that could be used to blow up buildings or some bombs. I did not believe they were an imminent threat as was put claimed (why else would you talk about WMD and invade?). Bush's intelligence reports, as I said at the time, were shakey at best. I think a lot of people agreed on that. And we were right.

It's not nah nah later, it's I told you so at the time and you shut your ears and believed in your leader optimistically. I don't blame you for hoping the president wouldn't either lie or use horribly flawed reports. But please--many people didn't think Iraq had the WMD program Bush claimed. And they (and me) were right.

Pebkac · Post by **Pebkac** » Sat Sep 18, 2004 1:05 am

Everyone in power thought he had them from Bush I thru Clinton and into Bush II. The United Nations believed he had them. If there was a voice out there actually making the claim that he didn't have them and wasn't developing more, they were a very silent one. And though the leadership of the CIA may change with new administrations, pretty much the same folks are doing the legwork and actual intelligence gathering.

Clinton and both Bushes were/are getting the same intelligence from the same people and drew the same conclusions. In a post 9/11 world, there was a danger that a weapon could be passed from a sympathetic Saddam to a terrorist group. That's the imminent threat.

Put yourself in the President's shoes. It is your duty to protect a nation. It is a decade-long-held belief in your intelligence community that Saddam has WMDs and is developing more and you are faced with the threat in the paragraph above. What do you do? Do you err on the side of caution? Or do you hope the intelligence is wrong and everything will be ok? You CANNOT make the wrong choice because a devastating attack could result. You will never get free and unfettered access to the country for inspections so definitive proof is out. Meanwhile, $5 billion dollars has been spent with more to come to keep Saddam from eradicating the Kurds. 5,000 children are dying per month from starvation and disease because Oil for Food is a corrupt failure. All of those horrible statistics are being broadcast daily by al-jazeera to a raging public who blames it on the US, thus creating more and more terrorists. Saddam himself is a murdering, torturing monster who shows no signs of losing power soon. Throw in two maniac sons ready to take power once Poppy finally keels over and there is NO END in sight. What would you do?

Tyranny · Post by **Tyranny** » Sat Sep 18, 2004 2:18 am

Birdseye wrote:But please--many people didn't think Iraq had the WMD program Bush claimed. And they (and me) were right.

No offense birds, but you're pretty naive to make a statement like that when we aren't even two years removed from when this all started. These are things that it takes maybe a decade or two to sift through everything and come up with all the facts before any definitive answers come to light.

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Sat Sep 18, 2004 6:07 am

Well of course everyone thought so, when you have Rumsfeld saying "we know where the stockpiles are, we know for a fact", then you have to believe that they are going to turn up a big pile of these weapons. But that wasn't the reason we were there, it was to save the people from their evil dictator.

Sirius · Post by **Sirius** » Sat Sep 18, 2004 7:21 am

In typical fickle liberal fashion, I tend to agree that Iraq needed to lose Saddam Hussein, and I'm not going to take away any points from America for doing that. On the other hand, the underhanded way they used to try to 'convince' the world that they had a mandate for any other reason was seriously bad karma.

They're just lucky no-one really seems to care.

Honestly, be it contrary to popular world sentiment or not, I think the UN should be granted the power to forcibly strip people of their role in government if they see it necessary. And exercise it.

That way we could get rid of Mugabe and his ilk as well, and not just when the US feels like it.

You'd have to make sure that the UN didn't do it when they shouldn't of course... but that applies to numerous things, including a unilateral (as they like to call it; pretending for the meanwhile that there wasn't widespread support) invasion such as what happened in Iraq.

kufyit · Post by **kufyit** » Sat Sep 18, 2004 7:33 am

I guess I would wonder why Colin Powell saying they don't have them is insufficent for this discussion?

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Sat Sep 18, 2004 8:07 am

It's sufficient kufy, but when Bush goes on tv saying the weapons were not the big part of the invasion, the right just goes to the next reason. Everyone was told that Iraq was a threat on the immediate horizon. Now we find that isn't true, it's "giving those people freedom"...it's one thing to the next.

Pebkac · Post by **Pebkac** » Sat Sep 18, 2004 9:57 am

Same intelligence. Same conclusions. I guess it was good campaign rhetoric until the time came to actually do something about it. Then the left developed amnesia.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by: -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"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 th! e means of delivering them." -- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. 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..." -- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- 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." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"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." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Sat Sep 18, 2004 11:35 am

Nobody is saying Al Gore and Clinton predicted anything. Take your knee jerk partisanship out of my thread

Well of course everyone thought so, when you have Rumsfeld saying "we know where the stockpiles are, we know for a fact",

Yeah, that's why I don't blame people for believing it. I also tend to believe they had a belief there were WMDs, then dressed up bad intelligence to pitch it to the american people. If you actually looked at what they proposed at the time, it was shakey at best.

Tyranny said:
"No offense birds, but you're pretty naive to make a statement like that when we aren't even two years removed from when this all started. "

Naive? Well, the US weapons inspectors agree with me. I think honestly there is a lot of naive people, and it's those that somehow think saddam would sacrifice his own life and give up his weapons *for the cause*. HA. America pained him as a psychotic dictator that was a loose cannon and was an imminent threat to the USA. Yet when we go to overthrow him, he doesn't use any of the WMD we claimed he had. So do you think Saddam *took one for the team* tyranny?

I bet in 20 years you'll still be grasping at straws--No no they still might find them!!! I mean we might find a tiny weapons cache here or there at worst, but nothing like Rumsfeld and Bush claimed.

DCrazy · Post by **DCrazy** » Sat Sep 18, 2004 11:44 am

I still think that the WMD evidence was the packaged, TV-dinner reason why we went to war. When people look at the real reasons we went in (to establish a power base in the Middle East), that's where the true intellectual and moral debate lies.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sat Sep 18, 2004 11:55 am

Zuruck wrote:Well of course everyone thought so, when you have Rumsfeld saying "we know where the stockpiles are, we know for a fact",

Take a look at Pebkacs post with the list of people who claimed Iraq had WMD's, then consider how many of them said that when they were in charge *before* Rumsfeld was in power and explain to me how the misinformation only belongs to the current administration.

This is a classic example of how people opposed to the Bush team will abandon logic to spin the 'facts' to suit their agenda.
It's also why Bush will most likely win, because although it's fun to vent your frustration at the head dog, it's not smart to actually invest your future in such a childish venture when logic tells you your tantrum is misplaced.

Kerry's campain jumped on the tantrum bandwagon and he thought america was too busy being mad to bother thinking. Now he finds himself without answers for the questions he should have prepared for. He didn't bother taking a position because he thought the majority of america was like Zuruck. He thought just being 'anyone but Bush' would support him like a rich womans bank account....
He's misunderestimated the people, we don't want a pet.

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Sat Sep 18, 2004 6:00 pm

The only person I heard predict no WMD's was Scott Ritter. Of course, he was branded a Saddam sympathizer and traitor, so we won't get into that.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sat Sep 18, 2004 6:55 pm

Vander wrote:The only person I heard predict no WMD's was Scott Ritter.

True, he's the only one who said that who had first hand experience in the country. But on the same day I heard him say that he also said in another interview 'he wouldn't be surprised if we found them'...so I didn't believe him to really know for sure.

Pebkac · Post by **Pebkac** » Sat Sep 18, 2004 6:59 pm

Well, I don't know how Ritter is in any position to make such a claim. He was never able to fully inspect the locations he wanted to. Along with resistance from Saddam's government, he felt that the Clinton administration wasn't doing enough to force Saddam to submit. He resigned in protest for this reason in 1998. Flash forward a couple of years. Suddenly, and with no new information, he's "sure" that there are no weapons in Iraq.

I won't say he's a traitor or Saddam-sympathizer. I will say he's a partisan hack who will sell out to get his peeps back in power, just like the people I listed a couple posts back.

kufyit · Post by **kufyit** » Sat Sep 18, 2004 7:35 pm

From 2001 until 2003, the span of two years, a nation cannot develop a sophisticated WMD program. We knew he didn't have them in 2001. The fact that we're babbling about it now, wondering if he did or didn't, is a joke.

Someone please address Colin Powell's statement. Please shut me up.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sat Sep 18, 2004 9:29 pm

kufyit wrote:From 2001 until 2003, the span of two years, a nation cannot develop a sophisticated WMD program.

Well your *interpretation* of things doesn't do anything to change two facts:

1) He had WMD's and the programs to develop them, thousands of dead Kurds and Iranians are the proof.

2) Until Bush sent in the troops to bag that mofo NO ONE could say with certainty that Saddam can't develop more WMD's or use them again.

Not babbling just stating the facts.
You may resume your *interpretation* at will.

kufyit · Post by **kufyit** » Sat Sep 18, 2004 9:59 pm

Ok, thanks for that Will. But what about Powell's statement?

And what is it about Iraq that makes it more of a "threat" than other crazy nations out there? Saddam has killed fewer people than many nations that we aren't even talking about war with, let alone engaging in one.

Tyranny · Post by **Tyranny** » Sat Sep 18, 2004 10:15 pm

Birdseye wrote:I bet in 20 years you'll still be grasping at straws--No no they still might find them!!!

heh. 20 years from now I won't give a ★■◆●. Hell, 1 year from now I won't give a ★■◆●. You might want to hold on to those straws of your own though Birds

Whether or not Saddam's capabilities were to the magnitude our intelligence claimed they were or not really makes little difference to me at this point in time. This is basically the same old rehashed crap Z started in a thread earlier this year where he completely put his foot in his mouth.

"Oh, I support the war, but Bush lied to us! Saddam didn't have any WMD!!"

Only difference is that I don't think you support the war. So Bush lying about WMD and it supposedly being the biggest reason for going to war has a little bit more significance to the logic of your arguement. Personally I'd rather see Bush in office another four more years but the only drawback to that is having to listen to all the same BS for another term.

Oh, and just so it's clear. I don't think anybody with any common sense felt Saddam was a threat to the US. Bush might have but as I've already stated numerous times...this whole thing started based on Iraq being a target of opportunity. Also it doesn't matter if Iraq didn't have stockpiles of WMD. If they just had one friggin device carrying some sort of chemical or biological agent which we already knew they had, that still violates the U.N. sanctions against them and justified military actions against them.

The U.N. looked like they were trying to give Saddam all the time in the world to dump whatever he had somewhere before any action was taken because they knew the US was getting antsy and was tired of babying Saddam.

To me this thing is really all moot because by now everyone in E&C has already made up their minds on what they believe and have stated over and over again their opinions on the matter. These opinions don't usually change, especially with the group we have. So why the same topics come full circle atleast a dozen times a year is beyond me.

kufyit · Post by **kufyit** » Sat Sep 18, 2004 10:21 pm

Because people's lives are at stake, and some people do care about that.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sat Sep 18, 2004 10:44 pm

kufyit wrote:Ok, thanks for that Will. But what about Powell's statement?

Kufyit, he mentions WMD's twice that I saw in that piece.
The first:
************************
SECRETARY POWELL: We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.
************************

He appears to be trying to assure the egyptians and other arabs states that the sanctions are warranted, the benefits being, in part, that Saddam is being 'kept from developing his WMD's'. I don't think Powell knows this to be true, only that he wants them to believe it is to justify the sanctions they all want him to lift. Not to say he doesn't believe it's *possible* the sanctions have stopped Saddam from pursuing WMD's but realistically he couldn't possibly know it to be true and he reveals that later:

**************************
"SECRETARY POWELL: May I just add a p.s. that if I was a Kuwaiti and I heard leaders in Baghdad claiming that Kuwait is still a part of Iraq and it's going to be included in the flag and the seal, if I knew they were continuing to try to find weapons of mass destruction, I would have no doubt in my mind who those weapons were aimed at. They are being aimed at Arabs, not at the United States or at others. Yes, I think we should...he has to be contained until he realizes the errors of his ways."
*****************************

Right there he states that Saddam "*is* continuing to try to find WMD's"!

So to address Powells statement, I ask you, do you want to just take his words "He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction" out of context and hold them up as a definitive, all encompassing final conclusion that Saddam is not a threat regarding WMD's?

Was that really what Powell meant?
What about the rest of Powells statement" ...if I knew they were continuing to try to find weapons of mass destruction, I would have no doubt in my mind who those weapons were aimed at."

What about considering the context of what he said, that his job is to soothe the arab states who are anti-sanctions, and the fact that Powell apparantly thinks Saddam *is* trying to find WMD's?

kufyit · Post by **kufyit** » Sat Sep 18, 2004 11:11 pm

In the first quote he says that they do not have WMD capability.

The second quote he surely doesn't say they have them, he is speaking in hypothetical terms to, as you say, encourage sanctions.

It's interesting how when Powell says a defenitive statement, i.e. Saddam does not have WMD capabilities, you begin to speculate as to what Powell's motives are and then further interpret his statement by saying "you don't think" Powell knew whether or not it was true.

Then, when Powell starts painting a hypothetical situation, you hold it to be reality.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sat Sep 18, 2004 11:19 pm

I didn't mean to qualify either as more definitive than the other. I think it's reasonable to assume Powell doesn't know for sure in either case and so consider the context and motives for his statements.

Tyranny · Post by **Tyranny** » Sun Sep 19, 2004 2:37 am

kufyit wrote:Because people's lives are at stake, and some people do care about that.

Yes, yes they are. Just remember those people are trained to kill as well though and they are trained to die with honor and dignity. Sure, some of the things fought for may blemish that, but this IMO is NOT one of them. Sure it seems needless that while keeping the peace more lives are being lost then while ousting Saddam himself but if that is the price for taking the initiative to remove Saddam to begin with these men and women over there are trained to keep it to a minimum.

Don't paint me out to be someone who doesn't care kuf because I'm far from not caring.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sun Sep 19, 2004 8:41 am

Kufyit, a few more things to consider.
In the first quote where he says "He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction."
he also said:
"He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. "

We now know Powell was wrong because we found medium range missiles hidden in Iraq and some of his armament was purchased *after* the sanctions began (from countries who were *supposedly* in favor of the sanctions)

As to his hypothetical regarding Saddams quest for WMD's we now know the Niger/yellowcake uranium story is true in spite of partisan democrat hack Joe-what's-his-name's lies about it.

And the final thing to consider when reading anyones position on things of this nature:
Did they say it before 9/11 or after?
Bush was against nation building before 9/11, now we have two major nation building projects going, Iraq and Afghanastan.
We as a nation were pretty complacent as long as the terrorists were bombing outside of america, now we have a different perspective.

Now we're a little more paranoid about Arab leaders who plot to kill us, support terrorists and have used WMD's in the past and still try to get more. Add to it the fact that he's all those things but vulnerable to overthrow because of his continuous defiance of the terms of surrender from Desert Storm and U.N. sanctions....

Well, when you consider all that, I'd say it was inevitable that we take him out of the equation just as a precaution.
The argument that 'well yes he's a tumor but he hasn't grown lately and he's not showing signs of being malignant yet...'
That argument just doesn't sound very good to me.

Lobber · Post by **Lobber** » Sun Sep 19, 2004 9:40 am

Pebkac · Post by **Pebkac** » Sun Sep 19, 2004 11:35 am

Kufyit wrote:Because people's lives are at stake, and some people do care about that.

Then why would you be against the action to remove Saddam Hussein? I hear your quote stated a great deal by the American anti-war movement, but it seems to be conditional. People were dying by the thousands each month in Iraq prior to GWII. Did you care then? Would you have been willing to let that situation go on indefinitely?

It seems that some don't care about people dying so much as they do about people dying as a result of removing Saddam/rebuilding Iraq. To save the lives of a few now, some would be willing to reintroduce the status quo to Iraq, where the killing would continue unabated and with no end in sight.

Lobber · Post by **Lobber** » Sun Sep 19, 2004 1:40 pm

Few people here would be against the removal of Saddam Hussein. The problem lies not in the said removal of said bad dictator, the problem is with the hypocrisy of the United States in doing so. While yes it was meant for the greater good to remove a vicious dictator, they have not done the same thing in other parts of the world. If the USA removed Saddam on truly altruistic motives, then why stop there? They should have removed the governments of other lands that have not governed themselves rightly, such as Iran (who is developing nuclear weapons), Siria (who might have some chemical WMD's), Sudan (who is in a violent civil war), North Korea (who does have nuclear weapons and does bad things to their people as well), Cuba (for being putzes), Somalia (for inspiring a helicopter movie), and probably several other places I can't think of right now.

What makes Iraq different? Hmmm, lets see, it has ... oil. Oh, and junior finished the job senior started. Any other reason to pick out Iraq? Can't think of any.

Pebkac · Post by **Pebkac** » Sun Sep 19, 2004 2:09 pm

Few people here would be against the removal of Saddam Hussein. The problem lies not in the said removal of said bad dictator, the problem is with the hypocrisy of the United States in doing so. While yes it was meant for the greater good to remove a vicious dictator, they have not done the same thing in other parts of the world. If the USA removed Saddam on truly altruistic motives, then why stop there?

Did I ever say we did it for altruistic motives? No. Attacking Iraq WAS in OUR best interests AND in the best interests of the WOT, but there are benefits that will be felt well beyond our borders whether you want to see them or not. I just get sick of hearing people use that tired slogan, "people are dying" when they argue against Iraq. It's lame, because people were already dying by the thousands.

What makes Iraq different? Hmmm, lets see, it has ... oil. Oh, and junior finished the job senior started. Any other reason to pick out Iraq? Can't think of any.

And there you went, right off the deep end. I didn't realize you were a conspiracy theorist.

How could I forget The Great Oil Conspiracy? How silly of me. It's such a nice, pre-packaged argument. Nevermind that each of the countries you listed with the exception of Cuba actually DO HAVE OIL!!

Iraq was weakened and ripe for change and it provided for an increased presence in the WOT. It establishes an American military force on two of Iran's largest borders, stepping up pressure on them. There's some non-oil reasons for you to dismiss as crazy.

And, if you're pissed that Bush I didn't take out Saddam, well, direct your concerns to the UN. They wouldn't get on board with removing Saddam and Bush I made the mistake of listening to them, so he wasn't removed. It proved quite profitable for them, too. Sanctions and the Oil for Food program raked in millions in under-the-table profits for some, so good move on their part I guess.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Sun Sep 19, 2004 6:03 pm

I did not believe they were an imminent threat as was put claimed

BIRDSEYE, WHY DO YOU CONTINUE TO LIE ABOUT THIS?

I've corrected you way, way too many times on this point for you to be able to claim ignorance. Now you have to be outright lying. Every time you go about claiming that the administration claimed Iraq was an "imminent threat", I correct you -- and you have yet to produce any quotes to back yourself up.

It was NEVER claimed that Iraq was an "imminent threat" to the US (except by John Edwards, the Democratic Vice Presidential Candidate.) It was claimed that they were a "gathering threat" (ie, a threat that had not fully materialized). President Bush made the point pretty clearly in the State of the Union that we're not interested in waiting for the threat to *become* imminent:

Bush, in the [url=http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html]state of the Union[/url] speech, wrote:Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.

That's the Bush doctrine -- don't wait for the threat to become imminent; don't wait to operate until it's almost too late. Don't tempt fate like that. Act now, while the danger is still far off. It's like spawn-killing -- why wait to let that person get a bigger gun, unless you *want* to risk dying? Deal with them when they're a much smaller threat.

-----------------------------

Also, there's a distinction people need to be careful with: There's a difference between having "WMD programs" and having actual WMD. A WMD program is any program designed with the purpose of researching, creating, or acquiring WMD. While Saddam may not have had stockpiles of WMD (I still think it's likely he did -- but who knows where they've gone?), he most certainly did have programs devoted to their development.

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Sun Sep 19, 2004 6:15 pm

Lothar wrote:It was NEVER claimed that Iraq was an "imminent threat" to the US (except by John Edwards, the Democratic Vice Presidential Candidate.)

Click Me

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Sun Sep 19, 2004 6:26 pm

Nice clip, Goob. It cuts out before Rumsfeld even gets to speak

.

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Sun Sep 19, 2004 6:34 pm

You mean for him to figure out how to spin his way out?

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Sun Sep 19, 2004 6:49 pm

No, for him to make a legitimate response. It's kind of hard to defend one's self if one doesn't get the chance to speak.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Sun Sep 19, 2004 7:16 pm

I didn't say "immediate threat", but that's certainly closer to "imminent threat" in meaning than "gathering threat". It's a funny pair of quotes you produce, though.

In one quote, he essentially says "some say the threat is definitely not imminent, but I wouldn't be so sure." In other words, don't discount the possibility that it might be. There certainly isn't a problem here -- you have to spin it pretty hard to make it sound like there is.

In the other, he essentially says "no other state poses a more immediate threat." That doesn't necessarily mean this one is immediate, only that it's closer to it than any other. You may have me here, but I'd like to see the original transcript from which the quote is ripped, and also hear Rumsfeld's response. You have to admit, there's a big difference in whether he says this in response to a question of "shouldn't we go after Iran first?" as compared to "is Saddam an immediate threat?"

Unfortunately, I can't actually find any record of this quote, except for news stories referencing the video you posted. Can you find me an original transcript? They say it was said to a Senate committee -- certainly not "sold to the public" like Birds and others continue to claim.

I did a Google search for "imminent threat" on whitehouse.gov (and a similar one for "immediate threat") and Rumsfeld was correct -- this phrase was used over and over again by the media, but the only record I can find of a Bush administration person speaking of "imminent threat" is with respect to Turkey:

here wrote:
QUESTION: What about NATO's role? Belgium now says it will veto any attempt to provide help to Turkey to defend itself. Is this something the administration can live with, or is it a major obstacle?

MR. McCLELLAN: Two points. We support the request under Article IV of Turkey. And I think it's important to note that the request from a country under Article IV that faces an imminent threat goes to the very core of the NATO alliance and its purpose.

My point still remains: the American public was *NOT* given any reason to believe there was an "imminent threat", at least not by the administration. The media used the phrase a lot, but the administration always spoke of Iraq as a threat that was gathering -- as a threat that might emerge, and should be dealt with before that time. That has consistantly been how this was sold -- "Saddam is a nutjob, he continues to try to become a threat to the US, so let's get him before he does."

Seriously... this now means there has been one (1) quote dug up that gives us even the remotest statement of immediacy. Yet we had dozens and dozens of nationally televised speeches by Bush and others in the administration, and he continued to say what was in the State of the Union speech -- Iraq is a gathering threat, Saddam is a nut, let's take him out before he gets dangerous enough to do serious damage to us. Yet Birdseye and others continue to claim that this was sold as an "imminent threat".

kufyit · Post by **kufyit** » Sun Sep 19, 2004 7:46 pm

Why didn't the administration clarify the media's repeated errors?

DCrazy · Post by **DCrazy** » Sun Sep 19, 2004 7:58 pm

By that logic, why does the media continue to present its own lies errors as truth? The question is, what sells? Fear. Kerry's campaign is built on it ("if Bush is president for 4 more years, then nobody will have healthcare or a job or a family"), Bush's campaign is built on it ("if Kerry becomes president terrorists will be able to attack us more easily").

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Sun Sep 19, 2004 8:00 pm

I read through several statements by the administration (in the google search above) where they did make a point about having not talked about an "imminent threat". Even in the State of the Union, Bush made a point of saying that the reason for taking out Saddam wasn't that he was an imminent threat -- it was that he was a nut, and trusting him to remain not-a-threat is not a good idea. Certainly, just from the quote I gave above, you can tell that he's NOT arguing about an "imminent threat", and you can tell that others understood that point.

Why didn't they wage a wider campaign to correct that misperception? I don't know -- maybe they were busy waging other campaigns. Maybe they figured people would listen to them, and didn't realize so many people were relying on misinterpretations by talking heads. Maybe they didn't realize that, since lefties thought "the threat isn't imminent so we shouldn't act", they also thought "Bush thinks we should act so he must think the threat is imminent" (rather than realizing that he thought non-imminence shouldn't lead to non-action.) I don't know. But I do know that it was a misperception from the start. It surprised me when the left started talking about the "imminent threat" because I paid attention to as many speeches as I could get my hands on, and I never heard it described that way. I continually heard statements that, while Saddam may not be a direct threat right now, he sure would like to be, and it would be foolish to wait around until he got to be dangerous.