WMD in Iraq?

[Outofdodge]

Originally Posted by lurker

WE still gotta do something about the treasonists here at home with their words of mass deflection.

Well outside of an impreachment, resignation, or death...we're stuck with George until Jan 2009.

[lurker]

Originally Posted by Outofdodge

Well outside of an impreachment, resignation, or death...we're stuck with George until Jan 2009.

Yelp, Hillary's trainwreck is fast approaching. That's scary.

[Outofdodge]

Originally Posted by Detector

I think the Democrats said it best. "Iraq has no WMD's." Even if a nuke was found, some how, it would not technically be called a WMD.

And what do you say when the Republican president says there were no WMD in Iraq?

Bush, Cheney admit Iraq had no WMD, take new tack | The San Diego Union-Tribune

[Outofdodge]

Originally Posted by lurker

Yelp, Hillary's trainwreck is fast approaching. That's scary.

Oh she did OK her first 8 years. Too bad she had to have her husband stand in for her in public.

[lurker]

Originally Posted by Outofdodge

And what do you say when the Republican president says there were no WMD in Iraq?

Bush, Cheney admit Iraq had no WMD, take new tack | The San Diego Union-Tribune

That's an old Scott Lindlaw screed that was purdee well torn apart here:

October 07, 2004
The Associated Press Spins the ISG Report

Scott Lindlaw is an Associated Press reporter who has told fellow members of the White House press corps that his "mission is to see that George Bush is not re-elected." He is the reporter who wrote falsely that a Republican crowd at a Bush rally in West Allis, Wisconsin, booed the news of President Clinton's hospitalization, and "Bush did nothing to stop them." The story was a complete fabrication, later retracted by the AP.
//////////
So Lindlaw grossly mischaracterizes President Bush's statement. Bush did not invent a "new" rationale for toppling Saddam, or suggest that we went to war simply because Saddam was abusing....
//////////
But to say that Duelfer "surmised" Saddam's intent is ridiculous; the report lays out hundreds of pages of evidence of Saddam's intent.
///////////
Here, Lindlaw is just making it up. The Bush administration, as noted above, didn't cite the "oil for fuel" -- that would be "oil for food," Scott -- program as a "first time" rationale; rather, the point was that abuses of the program gave Saddam the opportunity to reconstitute his illegal weapons programs. And the "risks" claimed by Lindlaw are risible.
///////////
Lindlaw continues:

"Iraq did not have the weapons that our intelligence believed were there," Bush said. His words placed the blame on U.S. intelligence agencies.

Huh? Is Lindlaw denying that our intelligence agencies, and those of every other interested country, said that Saddam had banned WMDs? Apparently he hasn't read the National Intelligence Estimate. Lindlaw is either unpardonably ill-informed, or he is taking a misleading cheap shot at the President.

And finally:

In recent weeks, Cheney has glossed over the primary justification for the war, most often by simply not mentioning it.

Saddam's WMDs were indeed one of the reasons for going to war. But the claim that they were the only reason, or the main reason, is one that is simply asserted by Lindlaw and like-minded reporters and is generally taken to be true by dint of repetition. In fact, however, President Bush has always emphasized multiple reasons for liberating Iraq, including the moral imperative to relieve the oppression of the Iraqi people and, even more important, the long-term benefit of beginning the process of reforming the Arab world.

The Democrats have no long-term solution to the problem of terrorism. The only proposal on the table is the President's: eliminate the cause of terrorism by liberating the Arab world, leading a transformation of the failed, oppressive, corrupt Arab states into modern democracies with economies that offer opportunities for their citizens. President Bush has articulated this rationale for the Iraq war--by any measure, the most important one--many times. Here is how President Bush expressed this rationale in just one of many speeches:

Does "Outofdodge" = outoftouch?

[Outofdodge]

Originally Posted by lurker

Does "Outofdodge" = outoftouch?

Since you and certain others sem to want to keep spouting WMD when the rest of the world iincluding the presdent has moved on, I think maybe you chould check your feelers.

[lurker]

Originally Posted by Outofdodge

Since you and certain others sem to want to keep spouting WMD when the rest of the world iincluding the presdent has moved on, I think maybe you chould check your feelers.

I don't remember 'spouting' WMDs.

I feel that I check my feelers more carefully than others check their sources.

Saddamn had a verified history of using massive force against his own people.
Saddamn thumbed his nose at the world.
Saddamn needed to be taken-out.

You grasped straws and linked it here. I blew them off the table.

I'd welcome a more credible link.

BTW, I read your link, and even researched its writer.

Did you read mine?

[Army_of_One]

Originally Posted by lurker

WE still gotta do something about the treasonists here at home with their words of mass deflection.

We did do something with them...most of them got reelected and now control the House....ugh.

[Army_of_One]

Originally Posted by lurker

Yelp, Hillary's trainwreck is fast approaching. That's scary.

BUT...when the train crashes....at least everyone will have healthcare...

[Army_of_One]

Treason? Hmmm. I ask this. IF Al Quida had a vote, who do you think they would vote for? My answer would be Dems all day long....