Old subject....Saddam and WMD.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

To say he actually had actual nukes?

Hmm, see, I don't see him as saying that. This may be a simply matter of poor wording. He said there was evidence he had nukes.

Go back to what he said earlier..."I believe the intelligence community. The intelligence community then provided some distorted intelligence on a lot of things. But, that's not what the issue is that I raise this weekend."

I think in the final quote, he was just coming back to that. He was drawing a distinction between two different screwups. One was the faulty evidence provided to the administration/congress. The other was the adinisrtation's willful spinning of that and other intelligence to their own end. I think his final quote would be more clearly worded as, "I'm not saying we didn't see evidence that Sadaam had nukes/nuclear capabilities, even if it was faulty. That's how I got suckered into agreeing with the whole war thing. But on top of that, the administration used intelligence in questionable and misleading ways." At least that's how I read it.

[Gemini Cricket]

It is my belief that the people who followed what the administration said can't be solely blamed for the problems in Iraq. There was a trust there that was violated by our president. People voted to go to war because of what his administration said was going on in Iraq. Yes, there should have been questions asked and yes they rushed into it too quickly. But to blame the people who rallied behind the president for going to war is wrong. Bush wanted the support, he got it and now he's blaming his supporters.

The error lies with the Bush administration.

I agree with today's Post:

President Bush and his national security adviser have answered critics of the Iraq war in recent days with a two-pronged argument: that Congress saw the same intelligence the administration did before the war, and that independent commissions have determined that the administration did not misrepresent the intelligence.

Neither assertion is wholly accurate.

The administration's overarching point is true: Intelligence agencies overwhelmingly believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and very few members of Congress from either party were skeptical about this belief before the war began in 2003. Indeed, top lawmakers in both parties were emphatic and certain in their public statements.

But Bush and his aides had access to much more voluminous intelligence information than did lawmakers, who were dependent on the administration to provide the material. And the commissions cited by officials, though concluding that the administration did not pressure intelligence analysts to change their conclusions, were not authorized to determine whether the administration exaggerated or distorted those conclusions.

Source The emphasis in the quote is mine.

[sleepyjeff]

But didn't many of the calls to arms by Democrats come before Bush was even President.........?

[wendybeth]

Originally Posted by sleepyjeff

But didn't many of the calls to arms by Democrats come before Bush was even President.........?

Uhm, who? And why?

[scaeagles]

Well, for one, Clinton signed the joint resolution of congress to call for regime change in Iraq. Also, he did his sheare of "strikes" to hit those WMD facilities.

"[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." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"The community of nations may see more and more of 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. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

Gosh, and that was without even looking hard. There are HUNDREDS of them. Sure not all of them were a call to arms, but clearly they were ALL on the WMD bandwagon
well before Bush got into office.

[wendybeth]

Oh, that must have been when Clinton's efforts were dismissed as an attempt to Wag the Dog.

The Republicans were too damn busy looking at dress stains to bother with National Security issues.

Hey, the Repubs have been saying that the libs are not patriots and only want to 'offer therapy and comfort' to the terrorists and evil people like Saddam- I know because I've had that **** flung at me since 9/11. Now you're telling me that we did call for action? Why on earth weren't those calls heeded?

Thanks, Scaeagles- made my day!

[scaeagles]

Certainly there was call for action. You will never find me critical of those calls. However, they have now completely changed their tune to make it sound as if the only reason they ever thought Saddam had WMD was because Bush lied to them. That is what is despicable.

And WB, while I can't claim it was wagging the dog whatsoever, it certainly does make sense that some would have suspicions raised as to firing missiles into Iraq the night before Monica was to testify. I, personally, do not subscribe to that, but do understand why some would.

[wendybeth]

But why were the calls ignored? Because of suspected dog-wagging? It's all well and fine to call them hypocrites now, but what of then? I personally think they are all a bunch of weasels, but considering how very much crap I've heard piled upon the heads of the liberally inclined, it surprises me how very much proof there is that the Dems did indeed try and do something about it.

Now, I wonder why they were unable to. Hmmm......

[sleepyjeff]

Talking and doing are two different things.

[wendybeth]

Originally Posted by sleepyjeff

Talking and doing are two different things.

Rather difficult to do when Congress was under Republican control, and they were a tad bit obsessed about other matters. I personally am just happy that that finally all the crap about Dems not wanting to go after the bad guys has been disproved, even if it is only being mentioned in an affort to deflect attention away from the errors made by the current administration. For nearly four years I've been listening to Sean Hannity and his ilk spout on and on about how stupid and blind and trusting the Dems are. How we left the country unprepared. How unpatriotic we are. Blah blah blah. Now everyone is running around like little tattletale children, saying "But he said it too!"

We'll clean up the mess yet again when he's gone, but it's a doozy this time. Hoover had nothing on Bush.