Jump to content
3000AD Forums
Sign in to follow this  
jamotto

Bush, Cheney Concede Iraq Had No WMDs

Recommended Posts

Link

quote:

By SCOTT LINDLAW, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - President Bush (news - web sites) and his vice president conceded Thursday in the clearest terms yet that Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) had no weapons of mass destruction, even as they tried to shift the Iraq (news - web sites) war debate to a new issue ÔÇö whether the invasion was justified because Saddam was abusing a U.N. oil-for-food program.

Ridiculing the Bush administration's evolving rationale for war, Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry shot back: "You don't make up or find reasons to go to war after the fact."

Vice President Dick Cheney brushed aside the central findings of chief U.S. weapons hunter Charles Duelfer ÔÇö that Saddam not only had no weapons of mass destruction and had not made any since 1991, but that he had no capability of making any either ÔÇö while Bush unapologetically defended his decision to invade Iraq.

"The Duelfer report showed that Saddam was systematically gaming the system, using the U.N. oil-for-food program to try to influence countries and companies in an effort to undermine sanctions," Bush said as he prepared to fly to campaign events in Wisconsin. "He was doing so with the intent of restarting his weapons program once the world looked away."

Duelfer found no formal plan by Saddam to resume WMD production, but the inspector surmised that Saddam intended to do so if U.N. sanctions were lifted. Bush seized upon that inference, using the word "intent" three times in reference to Saddam's plans to resume making weapons.

This week marks the first time that the Bush administration has listed abuses in the oil-for-fuel program as an Iraq war rationale. But the strategy holds risks because some of the countries that could be implicated include U.S. allies, such as Poland, Jordan and Egypt. In addition, the United States itself played a significant role in both the creation of the program and how it was operated and overseen.

For his part, Cheney dismissed the significance of Duelfer's central findings, telling supporters in Miami, "The headlines all say `no weapons of mass destruction stockpiled in Baghdad.' We already knew that."

The vice president said he found other parts of the report "more intriguing," including the finding that Saddam's main goal was the removal of international sanctions.

"As soon as the sanctions were lifted, he had every intention of going back" to his weapons program, Cheney said.

The report underscored that "delay, defer, wait, wasn't an option," Cheney said. And he told a later forum in Fort Myers, Fla., speaking of the oil-for-food program: "The sanctions regime was coming apart at the seams. Saddam perverted that whole thing and generated billions of dollars."

Yet Bush and Cheney acknowledged more definitively than before that Saddam did not have the banned weapons that both men had asserted he did ÔÇö and had cited as the major justification before attacking Iraq in March 2003.

Bush has recently left the question open. For example, when asked in June whether he thought such weapons had existed in Iraq, Bush said he would "wait until Charlie (Duelfer) gets back with the final report."

In July, Bush said, "We have not found stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction," a sentence construction that kept alive the possibility the weapons might yet be discovered.

On Thursday, the president used the clearest language to date nailing the question shut:

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

In recent weeks, Cheney has glossed over the primary justification for the war, most often by simply not mentioning it. But in late January 2004, Cheney told reporters in Rome: "There's still work to be done to ascertain exactly what's there."

"The jury is still out," he told National Public Radio the same week, when asked whether Iraq had possessed banned weapons.

Duelfer's report was presented Wednesday to senators and the public with less than four weeks left in a fierce presidential campaign dominated by questions about Iraq and the war on terror.

In Bayonne, N.J., Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards on Thursday called "amazing" Cheney's assertions that the Duelfer report justified rather than undermined Bush's decision to go to war, and he accused the Republican of using "convoluted logic."

Kerry, in a campaign appearance in Colorado, said: "The president of the United States and the vice president of the United States may well be the last two people on the planet who won't face the truth about Iraq."

A short time later, while campaigning in Wisconsin, Bush angrily responded to Kerry's charge he sought to "make up" a reason for war.

"He's claiming I misled America about weapons when he, himself, cited the very same intelligence about Saddam weapons programs as the reason he voted to go to war," Bush said. Citing a lengthy Kerry quote from two years ago on the menace Saddam could pose, Bush said: "Just who's the one trying to mislead the American people?"


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

quote:

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

In recent weeks, Cheney has glossed over the primary justification for the war, most often by simply not mentioning it. But in late January 2004, Cheney told reporters in Rome: "There's still work to be done to ascertain exactly what's there."


The Headline is misleading, totally and absolute POPPYCOCK. The president admitted nothing of the sort, and neither did VP Cheney.

Iraq did not have the weapons that our intelligence believed were there

I just love watching these statements, because it leaves so much open.

The weapons are NOT there, they are in Syria, some are there, and have been FOUND, according to the Duefler report, I quoted that in another post.

And VP Cheney's statment.

There's still work to be done to ascertain exactly what's there.

And the work continues, and we will find more WMD's within Iraq, more Laboratory trailers, and other equipment for the manufacturing of WMD's.

Again, the headline is COMPLETELY misleading, because Niether president Bush, NOR VP Cheney said ANYTHING of the sort.

And I had to take a 2nd peek, but was pretty sure that it was AP.....

And let's go over this REAL quick.

According to the Duefler report, 53 weapons of mass destruction have been found, 41 of them were found at one site.

Of the 10,000 sites that are known for WMD's, ONLY 25 have been thoroughly searched.

So, if 25 sites have been thoroughly searched, and 53 WMD's have been found, and there are close to 9,975 sites left to be thoroughly searched, then that means that there COULD be, 20,000 WMD's in Iraq that have still not been found.

I seriously doubt that many will be found, because the majority of them were shipped out of the country into Syria.

Again, that entire headline is BS, Bush NOR Cheney even remotely said that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

Of the 10,000 sites that are known for WMD's, ONLY 25 have been thoroughly searched.


What the hell is wrong with y'all then. Go search the sites, as that was your bloddy reason for invading. How many MONTHS has it been? The bloddy terrorists have probally picked the sites clean for their own arsenals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

baloogan, talk about poppycock. I can assure you, they(bush administration) have done everything but plant the stuff themselves.

Those weapons simply do not, did not, and NEVER would have existed.

Even BUSH admits it now, but he has done so much lying,and twisting his motive.... half this country is so confused, they dont know what to believe.

the hard core "followers,can understand words like:

quote:

"nulkular weapons."

, but have no concept, what these WMD's are suppose to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Those weapons simply do not, did not, and NEVER would have existed.

I was going to take a break, but I just have to know.

What does that mean?

do not, did not, and NEVER would have existed?

What?

They didn't exist until we found them?

They just magically appeared?

They didn't exist, but because of sanctions Saddam put them where we would find them?

What does that mean?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

Those weapons simply do not, did not, and NEVER would have existed.

I was going to take a break, but I just have to know.

What does that mean?

do not, did not, and NEVER would have existed?

What?

They didn't exist until we found them?

They just magically appeared?

They didn't exist, but because of sanctions Saddam put them where we would find them?

What does that mean?

OK, anyone else want to take a shot at what that means, since the person that posted it cannot come to grips with it and doesn't know himself?

Anyone, anyone, Bueller, Bueller?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First off, let me say this. I will be the first to admit, being a complete ass toward you, but NOT without justifiable reason. So I concede, we have nothing to discuss.

Second : You and I can not seem to discuss issues, without childish and rediculous slamming remarks coming forth. If its good for the goose, it should be good for the gander,(IMHO) but I am aware, this idea, isnt the accepted norm around here; So(AGAIN)I concede, we have nothing to say to each other.

Third: For any rational debate, to come out of anything...there must first be agreement that the statement is (in fact) a debate. There seems to be some real confusion, on your part, the difference between debate, and posted perceptions, concerning issues... and further confusion, as to properly dividing FACT from OPINION. THUS: I again concede: we have nothing to discuss.

FOURTH:You think I am a radical, You are 100% correct!! I am a 45 year old man, who has worked REALLY hard, to be 100% physically, the same man I was, when I was injured in the military, and have succeeded. You know nothing of my life, and what has molded my opinions..and are not remotely interested in anyone else's opinions: thus we have nothing to discuss

FIFTH: You think, I am Emotional. Again you are 100% correct, when it comes to military, war,and murder of innocent civilians.

SIXTH: you think I am Insane? I have a couple of military shrinks, who would agree with you.

Maybe you should slow down a little before attacking people...there are more radical and insane people in this world than I, but not many who could afford my attorney.

thus: we have nothing to discuss

SEVENTH: So, for the LOGICALLY deduced reason, at hand....

do your thing, and Ill do mine. But dont think for a second, I will address "YOU", HERE, again.. in regard TO any statement you make.

We have gone past the point of no return here. This I promise you. thus we have nothing to discuss

FINAL: THEREFORE: YOU and I cannot discuss ANY issue rationally, so you need to move on and get off my back. I intend, to direct my comments, to the reading audiance, not YOU. So do not feel obligated to say anything directly to me, it will be ignored, in regard to giving you any direct response.

SERIOUSLY !!!!!

THUS: YOU and I have NOTHING to DISCUSS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

quote:

Originally posted by street:

First off, let me say this. I will be the first to admit, being a complete ass toward you, but NOT without justifiable reason. So I concede, we have nothing to discuss.

OK, and I admit that I have done the same.

quote:

Second : You and I can not seem to discuss issues, without childish and rediculous slamming remarks coming forth. If its good for the goose, it should be good for the gander,(IMHO) but I am aware, this idea, isnt the accepted norm around here; So(AGAIN)I concede, we have nothing to say to each other.

Hey, you have always given as good as you have gotten, but sometimes have gone too far. Such as today, but I am willing to put that behind us.

quote:

Third: For any rational debate, to come out of anything...there must first be agreement that the statement is (in fact) a debate. There seems to be some real confusion, on your part, the difference between debate, and posted perceptions, concerning issues... and further confusion, as to properly dividing FACT from OPINION. THUS: I again concede: we have nothing to discuss.

I will respectfully disagree with this.

quote:

FOURTH:You think I am a radical, You are 100% correct!! I am a 45 year old man, who has worked REALLY hard, to be 100% physically, the same man I was, when I was injured in the military, and have succeeded.

Thank you for your sacrifice in your duties to our country.

quote:

FIFTH: You think, I am Emotional. Again you are 100% correct, when it comes to military, war,and murder of innocent civilians.

Nothing to add or comment about this.

quote:

SIXTH: you think I am Insane? I have a couple of military shrinks, who would agree with you.

Maybe you should slow down a little before attacking people...there are more radical and insane people in this world than I, but not many who could afford my attorney.

This sounds like a veiled threat again, I do not take well to threats, so please quit making them.

quote:

SEVENTH: So, for the LOGICALLY deduced reason, at hand....

do your thing, and Ill do mine. But dont think for a second, I will address "YOU", HERE, again.. in regard TO any statement you make.

We have gone past the point of no return here. This I promise you.

FINAL: THEREFORE: YOU and I cannot discuss ANY issue rationally, so you need to move on and get off my back. I intend, to direct my comments, to the reading audiance, not YOU. So do not feel obligated to say anything directly to me, it will be ignored, in regard to giving you any direct response.

Again, I see veiled threat, covered in veiled inuendo, but if those are the new ground rules that you wish, so be it.

quote:

SERIOUSLY !!!!!

Obviously.... you are very serious, good enough....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

International Criminal Tribunal findings: George W. Bush guilty of war crimes

09/22/2004 01:47

In the final opinion of the court, Judge Niloufer Bhagwat, rules against Bush.

Citing: George Walker Bush, President of the United States and Commander -in-Chief of US military forces for serious crimes ; waging a war of aggression on Afghanistan, war crimes and crimes against humanity against the Afghan people, against prisoners of war ; and the use of radioactive depleted uranium weapons of mass destruction , against the people of Afghanistan ; with serious fall out effects on the military personnel of the United States ,UK and other forces deployed ; and on countries, in and around the region.

In a court action not seen since Nuremburg, 1946, the court issued its ruling in no uncertain terms that the US has used weapons of mass destruction, protracting an illegal military conflict, and crimes against humanity. Very serious allegations indeed.

The entire ruling can be found at: http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Afgha...unal10mar04.htm

Bush has never acknowledged this ruling, nor was the American people ever informed of it. Is the concealment an effort by Bush to keep the American people in the dark about what is really happening in the world?

In the final findings, the court said: "The Defendant [George Walker Bush] is a convicted war criminal consequently unfit to hold public office ; citizens ,soldiers and all civil personnel of the United States would be constitutionally and otherwise , justified in withdrawing all co-operation from the Defendant and his government ; and in declining to obey illegal orders of the Defendant and his administration ;including military orders threatening other nations or the people of the United States on the basis of the Nuremberg Principle, that illegal orders of Superior must not be obeyed".

The court has also faulted the US for using weapons of mass destruction; something the US invaded Iraq for in an effort to halt the creation of WDMs. The UN inspectors have said that Iraq did not have WDMs, the US can show no evidence that Iraq even had WDMs.

The court has also introduced a new word into the vocabulary of court proceedings and that is: "omnicide" - in relationship to the US"s use of depleted uranium that retains it"s radioactive threat for approximately 4.5 billion years. Not only are the present victims of American hostilities directly suffering the after effects of radioactive poisoning, but future generations will suffer equally.

Michael Berglin

[ 10-11-2004, 11:04 PM: Message edited by: Cmdr Chavik ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh huh... I wonder if this is the october surprise the democratic party was talking about?

Bush? War Crimes? Give me a god forsaken flipping break

By the way, nice try Street, but the link doesn't work... do I since a FALSE post here? If so, it's nothing new

Why should Bush acknolodge it when the finding and accusations are false anyway? He's not guilty of anything

The world court... sorry.. but no one is going to control the US here.. and diffirently not someone who isn't even LOCATED in the US has any right to judge our president

NOW

Kerry on the other hand, along with Michel Moore, are in fact guilty of several crime's.. those of which I won't name, because if you have a brain you should be able to find it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still, the world court has no right accusing the president of crime's he didn't commit.. I smell a rat in that court

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

funny, WE have allowed the WORLD court to extradite, prosecute, and execute, citizens of the united states, who served as soldiers, under the German military command....40 years after the atrocities occurred......but its ok for our president to commit genicide type crimes against all humanity,,,,just because, we elected his sorry ass into office.

Sorry, but I must remain steadfast, in my belief that law, should be applied to every individual with EQUAL consequence. I guess, this is due, to being raised, with the understanding,I was an AMERICAN,and not in a communist society; thus, CRIMINAL activity is wrong, regardless of who commits the crime.

Don't they Teach common ethics, in the schools at all, in this country, anymore???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I say also that the leaders of other countries be hauled in that court as well. If you don't know why, read the other threads. Ah hell here's a little of it:

While the United Nations focused on delivering humanitarian goods to an Iraqi population suffering from international sanctions and the totalitarian regime, Saddam's government devised elaborate ways to skim money from deals sending oil out and goods in. The report spells out how kickbacks were solicited and how money got to Baghdad.

Iraq tried to manipulate foreign governments, including members of the U.N. Security Council (search) by awarding contracts -- and bribes -- to foreign companies and political figures in countries who showed support for ending sanctions, in particular Russia, France and China, the report says.

The former head of the Oil-for-Food program, Benon Sevan (search), also is accused of receiving bribes in the form of vouchers allowing him or companies tied to him to purchase 7.3 million barrels of oil, which would have netted $700,000 to $2 million, depending on oil prices.

Damn, the U.N. can't even keep it's own house clean. And alot claim Bush is doing it for the oil. Looks like quite a few countries were doing dirty things for the oil. I'd say knock it off already with the U.N. and getting more countries on board Bush's coalition. Wasn't going to happen then, now or anyone's lifetime.

Alot of you seem to forget Kerry had the same stance (even when clinton was in office) of going after Iraq with military means just that he would have gotten more countries on board namely France and Russia etc... So I don't know how some can spout hate against Bush while praising Kerry in reguards to Iraq. Does not make sense. The sanctions were not going to work (due to the undermining of it) so giving the sanctions more time to works as Kerry has said just doesn't make sense also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Street

In that case, why wasn't Saddam dragged infront of that council? Or Clinton?

Saddam is at MORE fault than Bush... oh gee I wonder why they didn't bring him in front.. oh yea! cause they where profitting from the oil for food scandal

And now that that's done for.. the world court wants revenge by prosecuting Bush as a war time criminal.. sorry... no go.. anyone with a brain in there head would come to the conclusion that the world court is nothing more than a group of people who don't care about anyone.. just about themselves and there money and are pissed that Bush got rid of Saddam..

Lol, what's funny. Is that the world court did nothing to Kerry, who not only BETRAYED his fellow soldiers, but also LIED to the general commitee about the actions in VIETNAM! Where was the world court then?! Yea... paid off... to say nothing.. and do nothing...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree Nomad. I think ALL should be held accountable for their actions.

I do not live in the illusion, that this will be the case;however, to promote what is True and Just, is an attempt to better the whole.

To ignore one's own mistakes, leads to the continuation of those mistakes.

This man, holding office as president, has'nt rational perspective, as to his position as a man; and has been consumed with the illusion, HIS personal convictions, are just, regardless of the consequence. His claims of God, putting him in office, should have set off ALARMS, in the mind of the religeous conservatives of this country, as that idea, alone, is contrary to their own religeous ideologies.

This is as radical and irrational, a religeous concept, as the radical muslims, who believe they are dying for ALLAH.

quote:

street, please. Commas are not to be used when you take a breath.

LOL I had completed over 27 English credits, in high school, and almost as many in college.

I had taken so many creative writing courses,I realized, long ago: One may do whatever one wishes with most of the grammatical punctuations.... structure of sentence.... or paragraph......unless, of course....a grade school teacher is grading your paper.

[ 10-13-2004, 12:56 PM: Message edited by: street ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by street:

One may do whatever one wishes with most of the grammatical punctuations.... structure of sentence.... or paragraph......unless, of course....a grade school teacher is grading your paper.

Just.......Because???????you!!!!!!!can%%%%%%%DO"""""""It*********doesn't???????mean!!!!!!you::::::should.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hear you. The only thing, with concern to me changing, is that 30 years of habit, is not an easy thing to change.

I dont really expect, such a radical display, to be realisticly compared to my style of writing...but what ever turns you on...I suppose!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes your writing is a little 'interesting' to read (mainly the use of all capital letters in some words), but if that's how you write then more power to you and I won't comment on it again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

world court did nothing to Kerry, who not only BETRAYED his fellow soldiers, but also LIED to the general commitee about the actions in VIETNAM! Where was the world court then?! Yea... paid off... to say nothing.. and do nothing...


As for kerry being guilty of treason against his own country, the world courts, have no jurisdiction. Kerry was a mere serviceman, doing his duty in the vietnam political quaqmire. And did not commit hieness crimes against masses of human beings, undeserving of such treatment.

His testements concerning the actions, of his fellow soldiers, were most likely correct, in their evaluations.

Crimes were being committed. It is documented FACT. I have many cousins, and uncles, who served there, who can tell you experiences in horrific detail, as to the things they were witness.

If you believe, we are beyond becoming inhumane, within the field of battle, just because we are American...your patriotic duty is misplaced.

It is our duty to support troops, we send to their possible demise, but it is , as much, our patriotic duty to stand against inhumane, acts against the civilian population, while engaging the enemy.

If we do not, we are no better than those we are fighting, and deserve no less scrutiny, concerning our actions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it very funny Street

There are HUNDRED'S of soldiers FROM vietnam who claim that did NOT occur

How can you take the word of ONE MAN over the word's of HUNDRED'S who fought LONGER than Kerry

I've heard of only a FEW men who actually did something like that.. but that's a FEW, not ALL, thanks to Kerry though, we lost MORE troops in the vietnam war because of the testimony being aired in the POW camps..

I don't believe we are impossible of being "Inhumane" but to hold one man's word, over the word's of hundreds who, by chance, NEVER commited those crimes, shows how misguided that person really is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FACT is, Kalshion, there were thousands of soldiers in vietnam, spanning a period of ten years, or so. And MOST of them, are dead today. Not every man, in vietnam is guilty, and most of the time, the only witness to anything a soldier does in the field, are those involved(who would never admit it anyway) and those who see, and of course, those the atrocities are aimed, which too, are usually dead, and cannot complain.

Its a real shame, one must be publicly ridiculed, for speaking out against criminal actions, just because, EVERYONE else, didnt see it, with their own eyes. (Kinda hard to see what all is going on in a jungle,....unless, your there)

The whole argument, is of no value here, as it is nothing but a political tool, used to win an election through mud slinging. Get past the political mud slinging rhetoric, and you may see things with more of a balanced and objective view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kerry had no proof of what he claimed went on, that's why it get's me mad that people actually believed him

Again, thanks to his testimony, we lost a lot of troops in our POW camps. Proof is that is our Vice who was a POW (if I recall) at the time

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×