Bush knew that Saddam didn't have WMD

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

And he covered it up.

Congress should be impeached for not impeaching Bush.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Salon seems to have dropped their annoying ads.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2007/09/06/bush_wmd/

[memphis]

I believe the Downing Street Memo already told us that facts were being "fixed." Sad to say, it's not really news that Bush was full of crap from the beginning.

[tik 🪀✨]

I believe the Downing Street Memo already told us that facts were being "fixed." Sad to say, it's not really news that Bush was full of crap from the beginning.

Even sorrier to say that a large segment of the population is willfully ignorant of this.

[Joe Biden 2020]

This is somewhat disturbing, but one must also realize that Saddam Hussein himself was a weapon of mass destruction and had to be removed from power and diplomacy just was not going to do the trick.

[Smash255]

This is somewhat disturbing, but one must also realize that Saddam Hussein himself was a weapon of mass destruction and had to be removed from power and diplomacy just was not going to do the trick.

Compared to everything else that bush ignored Saddam was nothing.

[Ebowed]

Saddam Hussein himself was a weapon of mass destruction

George W. Bush is a weapon of mass destruction.

[minionofmidas]

Not exactly surprising. The headline's wrong, though: Bush knew that all the saner members of his own administration and secret services felt that they knew that Saddam had no WMDs. And he actively covered that up, with massive connivance from the so-called media. But that's not the same as "he knew Saddam didn't have WMDs" (although I would consider this quite possible, I'm more inclined to believe he convinced himself that what he wanted to believe was true. Same goes for his innermost circle, of course. Call it mass self-hypnosis.)

[MODU]

Which also indicates that the salon story is wrong, since we have already found WMDs in Iraq (as we've discussed on here before).  The problem is, it wasn't the quantities that we thought they would have, and in some cases, it wasn't the materials themselves that we thought.  This is the problem when you depend solely on intelligence provided by dissidents, since we did not have anyone in the country at the time providing intelligence directly to us.  The big mystery, however, remains.  What happened to the stuff we provided them?  Where did it go?

[nlm]

This is the problem when you depend solely on intelligence provided by dissidents, since we did not have anyone in the country at the time providing intelligence directly to us. 

There were weapons inspectors on the ground in Iraq which Bush pulled out prior to launching the invasion. The whole idea that "we didn't have the intelligence because we didn't have anybody in the country" is such BS.

[Silent Hunter]

According to this article, Tenet told the President that the Iraqi Foreign Minister said they didn't have WMD. He didn't believe the Foreign Minister. I wouldn't have believed the Foreign Minister.

Not a smoking gun.

[nlm]

According to this article, Tenet told the President that the Iraqi Foreign Minister said they didn't have WMD. He didn't believe the Foreign Minister. I wouldn't have believed the Foreign Minister.

Not a smoking gun.

This is yet another piece of evidence, added to numerous other pieces, that show that the existance of WMD's in meaningful quantities was very much a topic of debate. When that is added to the fact that Bush pulled the weapons inspectors out of Iraq after they had pretty much concluded that there were not meaningful quantities of WMD's the conclusion that the war was sold to the American people falsely is a fairly easy one.

This isn't about what Bush knew or didn't know as fact - it is about what he presented to the American people as fact to create a justification for the invasion of Iraq.

This also has nothing to do with what we should now do in Iraq. It has everything to with how the run up to any wars in the future should be addressed and what sort of accountability should be assigned to those that did provide the case to the American people for the war in Iraq.

[Silent Hunter]

According to this article, Tenet told the President that the Iraqi Foreign Minister said they didn't have WMD. He didn't believe the Foreign Minister. I wouldn't have believed the Foreign Minister.

Not a smoking gun.

This is yet another piece of evidence, added to numerous other pieces, that show that the existance of WMD's in meaningful quantities was very much a topic of debate. When that is added to the fact that Bush pulled the weapons inspectors out of Iraq after they had pretty much concluded that there were not meaningful quantities of WMD's the conclusion that the war was sold to the American people falsely is a fairly easy one.

This isn't about what Bush knew or didn't know as fact - it is about what he presented to the American people as fact to create a justification for the invasion of Iraq.

This also has nothing to do with what we should now do in Iraq. It has everything to with how the run up to any wars in the future should be addressed and what sort of accountability should be assigned to those that did provide the case to the American people for the war in Iraq.

"Very much a topic of debate". It does not prove- if it's true- that the Bush administration knew for certain there were no WMDs and went to war anyway.

[nlm]

According to this article, Tenet told the President that the Iraqi Foreign Minister said they didn't have WMD. He didn't believe the Foreign Minister. I wouldn't have believed the Foreign Minister.

Not a smoking gun.

This is yet another piece of evidence, added to numerous other pieces, that show that the existance of WMD's in meaningful quantities was very much a topic of debate. When that is added to the fact that Bush pulled the weapons inspectors out of Iraq after they had pretty much concluded that there were not meaningful quantities of WMD's the conclusion that the war was sold to the American people falsely is a fairly easy one.

This isn't about what Bush knew or didn't know as fact - it is about what he presented to the American people as fact to create a justification for the invasion of Iraq.

This also has nothing to do with what we should now do in Iraq. It has everything to with how the run up to any wars in the future should be addressed and what sort of accountability should be assigned to those that did provide the case to the American people for the war in Iraq.

"Very much a topic of debate". It does not prove- if it's true- that the Bush administration knew for certain there were no WMDs and went to war anyway.

Read what I wrote. Here - I'll copy it again for you.

This is yet another piece of evidence, added to numerous other pieces, that show that the existance of WMD's in meaningful quantities was very much a topic of debate. When that is added to the fact that Bush pulled the weapons inspectors out of Iraq after they had pretty much concluded that there were not meaningful quantities of WMD's the conclusion that the war was sold to the American people falsely is a fairly easy one.

This isn't about what Bush knew or didn't know as fact - it is about what he presented to the American people as fact to create a justification for the invasion of Iraq.

This also has nothing to do with what we should now do in Iraq. It has everything to with how the run up to any wars in the future should be addressed and what sort of accountability should be assigned to those that did provide the case to the American people for the war in Iraq.

[Silent Hunter]

I read what you wrote. Bush may not have believed the weapons inspectors.

It still would have been right to remove Saddam Hussein.

[nlm]

I read what you wrote. Bush may not have believed the weapons inspectors.

It still would have been right to remove Saddam Hussein.

You are missing the point of what I wrote at minimum.

It has been proven that what was told to the American people about Iraq by the Bush administration and what was known by the Bush administration were two completely different things. This is a lesson about what should be done in the future when we march to war.

Regardless of if you believe we should or should not have removed Saddam regardless of the existance of WMD's (and that is a different debate) it does not justify the Bush administration presenting questionable information to the American people as fact in order to stir their fears and march them to war.

[Silent Hunter]

I read what you wrote. Bush may not have believed the weapons inspectors.

It still would have been right to remove Saddam Hussein.

You are missing the point of what I wrote at minimum.

It has been proven that what was told to the American people about Iraq by the Bush administration and what was known by the Bush administration were two completely different things. This is a lesson about what should be done in the future when we march to war.

Regardless of if you believe we should or should not have removed Saddam regardless of the existance of WMD's (and that is a different debate) it does not justify the Bush administration presenting questionable information to the American people as fact in order to stir their fears and march them to war.

I'll agree with that. But you still haven't proved that people in the Bush administration knew for  certain there were no WMDs.

[memphis]

This is somewhat disturbing, but one must also realize that Saddam Hussein himself was a weapon of mass destruction and had to be removed from power and diplomacy just was not going to do the trick.

Saddam Hussein was a WMD? What does that mean? That's got to be the lamest excuse for no weapons I've ever heard.

[nlm]

I read what you wrote. Bush may not have believed the weapons inspectors.

It still would have been right to remove Saddam Hussein.

You are missing the point of what I wrote at minimum.

It has been proven that what was told to the American people about Iraq by the Bush administration and what was known by the Bush administration were two completely different things. This is a lesson about what should be done in the future when we march to war.

Regardless of if you believe we should or should not have removed Saddam regardless of the existance of WMD's (and that is a different debate) it does not justify the Bush administration presenting questionable information to the American people as fact in order to stir their fears and march them to war.

I'll agree with that. But you still haven't proved that people in the Bush administration knew for  certain there were no WMDs.

No, and I don't think that can be done. Nor am I even trying to prove that they knew something in an absolute fashion, in fact I'm doing the exact opposite - I'm showing that they absolutely didn't know for sure that there were WMD's. The historical record of their statements show that they presented the existance of WMD's in Iraq as a fact when their was considerable debate inside the executive branch about that very topic and our own weapon inspectors were indicating that there were no WMD's present in meaningful quantities. That is all that is required to show that the case that was made for war to the American people was falsely constructed. And again - when you add that to the fact that Bush ordered the removal of the weapon inspectors at a time when it has been shown that there was considerable debate about the existance of WMD's in meaningful quantities - it makes the case against Bush all the more damning.

[Silent Hunter]

I read what you wrote. Bush may not have believed the weapons inspectors.

It still would have been right to remove Saddam Hussein.

You are missing the point of what I wrote at minimum.

It has been proven that what was told to the American people about Iraq by the Bush administration and what was known by the Bush administration were two completely different things. This is a lesson about what should be done in the future when we march to war.

Regardless of if you believe we should or should not have removed Saddam regardless of the existance of WMD's (and that is a different debate) it does not justify the Bush administration presenting questionable information to the American people as fact in order to stir their fears and march them to war.

I'll agree with that. But you still haven't proved that people in the Bush administration knew for  certain there were no WMDs.

No, and I don't think that can be done. Nor am I even trying to prove that they knew something in an absolute fashion, in fact I'm doing the exact opposite - I'm showing that they absolutely didn't know for sure that there were WMD's. The historical record of their statements show that they presented the existance of WMD's in Iraq as a fact when their was considerable debate inside the executive branch about that very topic and our own weapon inspectors were indicating that there were no WMD's present in meaningful quantities. That is all that is required to show that the case that was made for war to the American people was falsely constructed. And again - when you add that to the fact that Bush ordered the removal of the weapon inspectors at a time when it has been shown that there was considerable debate about the existance of WMD's in meaningful quantities - it makes the case against Bush all the more damning.

Concur with you there.

[MODU]

This is the problem when you depend solely on intelligence provided by dissidents, since we did not have anyone in the country at the time providing intelligence directly to us. 

There were weapons inspectors on the ground in Iraq which Bush pulled out prior to launching the invasion. The whole idea that "we didn't have the intelligence because we didn't have anybody in the country" is such BS.

I'm talking about imbedded intelligence, such as CIA, not weapons inspectors.  Remember, our inspectors were being shuffled around and denied access to many areas prior to the second phase of the war, so that alone provided belief behind the "he must be hiding them" claim which most of the Western nations governments believed.

[nlm]

This is the problem when you depend solely on intelligence provided by dissidents, since we did not have anyone in the country at the time providing intelligence directly to us. 

There were weapons inspectors on the ground in Iraq which Bush pulled out prior to launching the invasion. The whole idea that "we didn't have the intelligence because we didn't have anybody in the country" is such BS.

I'm talking about imbedded intelligence, such as CIA, not weapons inspectors.  Remember, our inspectors were being shuffled around and denied access to many areas prior to the second phase of the war, so that alone provided belief behind the "he must be hiding them" claim which most of the Western nations governments believed.

And here I was under the impression that most western nations felt that the evidence was lacking to justify war - and it turned out they were correct in their desire to slow things down.

You can use semantics all you want - but the base line truth is that the bulk of the American people thought that we were invading Iraq because Saddam was tied to 9/11 and had WMD's that were a clear and present danger to them. They thought that because that is the case that was made to them - it was a false case, and over the years since the invasion a great amount of evidence has been uncovered (and continues to be uncovered) showing that the Bush administration knew there were gapping holes in the case they were making.

There is little to no doubt that the Bush administration used 9/11 and WMD's to stoke the fears of the American people - that they cherry picked information to do so - that they ignorned information that should have given them pause (like most other western nations) - that they oversold the case for war knowingly.

[MODU]

That might be, but it doesn't change the fact that the article provided is incorrect.

[nlm]

That might be, but it doesn't change the fact that the article provided is incorrect.

There isn't any "might be" about it - it is.

the base line of the article is quite correct, though I'm sure you could argue the semantics of some of it.

______________________________________________________________________

While one Iraqi source told the CIA that there were no WMD, information that was true but distorted to prove the opposite, another Iraqi source was a fabricator whose lies were eagerly embraced. "The real tragedy is that they had a good source that they misused," said one of the former CIA officers. "The fact is there was nothing there, no threat. But Bush wanted to hear what he wanted to hear."

______________________________________________________________________

When given conflicting reports - Bush went with what he wanted to hear as opposed to investigating further, and that is about as great a failure of leadership as any President could ever muster.

[MODU]

The problem here is the number of people downplaying the quantities of WMDs was so slim, that they were going to be discounted automatically.  So, say out of 100 people, only 3 had doubts, the vast majority opinion was going to win out.  And for the 3 to actually be correct after the fact doesn't mean the information used was cherry picked.  It meant that the majority opinion and data at the time appeared to be accurate, and action was needed.  There is no semantics involved.  It is the logical threat assessment process for any given issue.

[nlm]

The problem here is the number of people downplaying the quantities of WMDs was so slim, that they were going to be discounted automatically.  So, say out of 100 people, only 3 had doubts, the vast majority opinion was going to win out.  And for the 3 to actually be correct after the fact doesn't mean the information used was cherry picked.  It meant that the majority opinion and data at the time appeared to be accurate, and action was needed.  There is no semantics involved.  It is the logical threat assessment process for any given issue.

All that these wild guess numbers you throw out tell me is that Bush didn't treat the topic of sending our soldiers to war seriously enough. War isn't a guessing game - if a President sends our young people off to die he better damn well be right about why he is doing so. Bush was not; and there is plenty of evidence to suggest that he was told that many times and that he NEVER verified that what he want to believe was true was in fact true. That is an absolute failure of the Commander and Chief to send our soldiers to die for something other than what they are being told - absolute failure.