Author Topic: Bush administration and the WMD: why not level with the American people? (Read 3665 times)

Wanker · « **on:** January 21, 2004, 08:08:44 AM »

I don't understand why Bush just doesn't come right out and say that the administration was wrong about WMD, and get on with life? Isn't it just fueling the fire of opposition to continue to insist that there are WMD waiting to be discovered?

If I were him, I'd come clean, admit that they had made a mistake about the WMD, and then focus on the fact that Saddam was a bad guy, etc. I think the country would accept the explanation that certain intelligence led us to believe of the existence of WMD in Iraq, and that unfortunately, that intelligence was flawed.

The only reason I can think of that they are not doing this, is because either they still really believe there are WMD to find, or they purposely used the WMD as a rallying point for support, when in fact they knew they did not exist.

Ripsnort · « **Reply #1 on:** January 21, 2004, 08:19:27 AM »

Why didn't Clinton level with the people when he was hitting Iraq? Oh, I see, because "he's no longer president and not accountable".

Quote

In 1998 Clinton took to the airwaves and explained his authorization of non-U.N.-approved missile strikes against Iraq, using the very same arguments later advanced by President Bush. Yet the silence was deafening.

Clinton, Dec. 19, 1998: "Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. . . . Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. . . . Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons."

George W. Bush, Jan. 28, 2003: "Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks, to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons is to dominate, intimidate or attack. With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region."

Clinton: "Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. . . . Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability. . . . Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection."

Bush: "The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary, he is deceiving. From intelligence sources, we know for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites, and monitoring the inspectors themselves."

Clinton: "Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq. . . . I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again."

Bush: "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. The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages, leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind or disfigured."

Clinton: "The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties. . . . Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people. . . . But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so."

Bush: "Sending Americans into battle is the most profound decision a president can make. The technologies of war have changed, the risks and suffering of war have not. For the brave Americans, this nation fights reluctantly because we know the cost and we dread the days of mourning that always come. We seek peace. We strive for peace. And sometimes, peace must be defended. A future lived at the mercy of terrible threats is no peace at all. If war is forced upon us, we will fight in a just cause and by just means, sparing, in every way we can, the innocent. And if war is forced upon us, we will fight with the full force and might of the United States military."

Dowding · « **Reply #2 on:** January 21, 2004, 08:30:51 AM »

That's right, he's not president anymore.

Mr. Copy-Paste - you've already banged on about Clinton. You say he was untrustworthy then say "But Clinton did this..." in response to any criticism of Bush. If he was such a low-life, what relevance does he have now? If Clinton was such a liar, why do you use him as part of a counterpoint to accusations of Bush being a liar? You can't even see that you undermine your own argument from the first word... sorry... first press of the CTRL key.

Comeon, Ripsnort, I'm sure you can do better than that.

john9001 · « **Reply #3 on:** January 21, 2004, 08:34:58 AM »

150 mortar shells loaded with mustard gas are not WMD. it's just redecueless.

Dowding · « **Reply #4 on:** January 21, 2004, 08:42:35 AM »

Are these the ones that were recently taken to a proper lab and declared to not contain chemical weapons? There's a 500+ long thread around here about it...

Ping · « **Reply #5 on:** January 21, 2004, 08:46:49 AM »

john9001 is just doing his part to help overtake the Gen Forum

Almost there.

Sikboy · « **Reply #6 on:** January 21, 2004, 08:51:44 AM »

I think the biggest reason for them to continue along the WMD line, is that they still believe that those weapons exist.

-Sik

kappa · « **Reply #7 on:** January 21, 2004, 08:55:13 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sikboy
I think the biggest reason for them to continue along the WMD line, is that they still believe that those weapons exist.

-Sik

or rather want the american people to believe they exist...

Ping · « **Reply #8 on:** January 21, 2004, 08:55:23 AM »

I think that by refering only to "Programs" they are trying to distance themselves and hope it goes away.

Gunslinger · « **Reply #9 on:** January 21, 2004, 09:00:41 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sikboy
I think the biggest reason for them to continue along the WMD line, is that they still believe that those weapons exist.

-Sik

I think they exist....and I think they exist in syria now. Of course I dont have any proof of that its just a gut instinct. I DONT however think the administration MISLEAD the country, I think the country had pretty much decided that Sadam was a bad guy and needed to go. People that think he was no threat keep in mind if he did have weapons.....just a hand full of envelope filled anthrax shut down govt buildings and post offices in the US

Dowding · « **Reply #10 on:** January 21, 2004, 09:12:38 AM »

Quote

I think they exist....and I think they exist in syria now. Of course I dont have any proof of that its just a gut instinct.

How ironic.

Ping · « **Reply #11 on:** January 21, 2004, 09:13:20 AM »

Lets not forget that those envelopes were products of your own labs sent by someone in your own system.
The "if he did have weapons" is a pretty sad way to justify armed conflict.

Rolex · « **Reply #12 on:** January 21, 2004, 09:35:23 AM »

That's probably why you are not a politician, banana.

The truth is a weapon all politicians, in all countries, fear. Politically, some things are better left unsaid.

Since 1/3 of the American people believe Saddam Hussein was involved in the 9/11 terrorist act, and 1/4 of the American people believe Saddam Hussein actually used WMD during the invasion, not saying anything ensures their vote.

Never underestimate the power of stupidity. It's evident on Channel 1 at all hours of the day and night.

Frogm4n · « **Reply #13 on:** January 21, 2004, 09:42:03 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gunslinger
I think they exist....and I think they exist in syria now. Of course I dont have any proof of that its just a gut instinct. I DONT however think the administration MISLEAD the country, I think the country had pretty much decided that Sadam was a bad guy and needed to go. People that think he was no threat keep in mind if he did have weapons.....just a hand full of envelope filled anthrax shut down govt buildings and post offices in the US

It was already proven those anthrax strains came from within the US. Most likely some wackjob holed up in a bunker.

yowser · « **Reply #14 on:** January 21, 2004, 09:49:25 AM »

Nobody likes to admit they were wrong. Just look at this board when it comes to the WMD topic. Now multiply that by a million because of this particular situation and it's consequences....global involvement, partisian politics, election year, etc.

And as somebody pointed out already....If half of the people still support you and believe there are WMD, why admit the truth? You only risk losing their support. Not very smart in an election year.

I don't think I'd admit it either until I absolutely had to. Maybe once I was out of office?

yowser