It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bush 'disappointed' WMD data on prewar Iraq was wrong

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 09:50 AM
link   

President Bush said yesterday that he was "just as disappointed as everybody else" when U.S. troops failed to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and pledged that his administration is adjusting strategy to defeat Iraqi insurgents.

More at source


Can we now put to rest the idea that there were WMD in Iraq? If not the president who should we believe? I can hardly stand to hear about things like the supposed '500 tons of Uranium' that was found. Thats like looking in your pocket and saying 'Look! I found my wallet!'




posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 01:47 PM
link   
Of course he's disappointed. Figure out what the people are saying and thinking, give it some time to start to boil over, then share with them your true feelings which, remarkably, are just how they feel too. Maybe toned down a bit (Injust war for oil and power vs. being disappointed there were no WMD) and suddenly everyone realizes what a great President you are. Sure you make mistakes, but you fess up to them! We need more leaders like you. By golly, I'm gonna support you, you honest-son-of-a-gun!!


[Saddam] was firing at our pilots.

Well, what's he supposed to do, let us bomb the crap out of his country without shooting back?


"The enemy for a while tried to shake our nerve. They can't shake my nerve. They just can't shake it."

"The American people for a while tried to talk some sense into me. I just can't make any sense. I just can't make it."


Although the crowd was tightly controlled, Mr. Bush faced an uncomfortable moment when a questioner in a balcony said the president has wrongly asserted his right "to tap my telephone, to arrest me and hold me without charges."
"I'm not your favorite guy," Mr. Bush said to laughter.
As the man continued, some in the audience booed.
"No, wait a sec -- let him speak," Mr. Bush said. The man then said Mr. Bush should have the "humility and the grace to be ashamed of yourself," but he added: "I really appreciate the courtesy of allowing me to speak what I'm saying to you right now. That is part of what this country is about."
"It is, yes," Mr. Bush said.


And you all think he's a nit-wit. That was pure brilliance. Completely avoid the question and make yourself look like a proponent of free speech.



posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 02:06 PM
link   
Was it "wrong"?

Some aspects of the intelligence may have been wrong, but as always, the lack of evidence does not necessarily remove guilt, even in a court of law.
5 Part Series: In Search of Saddam Hussein's WMD

The series utilizes the newly translated Iraqi documents.
The below link may be of interest, as well, in regards to perceptions of "wrong."
The Iraqi WMDs That Slipped Through Our Fingers
Saddam's WMD and terrorist connections all proven in one document!

I am looking forward to more of those Iraqi documentations being translated and released.





seekerof



posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 02:29 PM
link   
Hrm...

Apparently he was disappointed with the CIA's intelligence being wrong before we invaded Iraq. So disappointed that his cabinet set up an alternative intelligence group to get some better results.

Seems if he didn't have a desire to go to war despite the intelligence he could have saved himself a whole lot of disappointment today.




[edit on 8-4-2006 by koji_K]



posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by please_takemyrights


[Saddam] was firing at our pilots.

Well, what's he supposed to do, let us bomb the crap out of his country without shooting back?


Since the no fly zones in Iraq were not authorized by the UN Iraq had every right to defend their airspace from hostile invaders. What would China do if American bombers began overflights?

What would America do if Any nations military aircraft flew in our airspace without permission? We would shoot them down!



posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 03:06 PM
link   
He's trying so hard to cover his butt...while he continues messing up everything else.
The heat is on from the Republican party


To be honest, i dont care if a Republican wins as long as it isnt someone currently affiliated with this office.

Repubs/Dems - No difference anymore.



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe


He's trying so hard to cover his butt...while he continues messing up everything else.
The heat is on from the Republican party


To be honest, i dont care if a Republican wins as long as it isnt someone currently affiliated with this office.

Repubs/Dems - No difference anymore.


I think all politicians represent themselves and everything they can get no matter what it takes to get it done as long as they don't get caught, and the reason so many get away with it is because they cover for eachother.

Faced with record low poll numbers Bush has little choice other than apologies, but such a pathetic attempt may get less in return than simply shutting up.



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 12:13 PM
link   
I think if he really said this, its the most pathetic thing he's ever said, and one more lie.



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 12:21 PM
link   
I'm sorry, I know I usually stick up for the Government (to an extent) but this really takes the biscuit:


"I fully understand that the intelligence was wrong, and I'm just as disappointed as everybody else is," Mr. Bush said. "But what wasn't wrong was Saddam Hussein had invaded a country, he had used weapons of mass destruction, he had the capability of making weapons of mass destruction, he was firing at our pilots.
www.washingtontimes.com...


Errm.. Didn't we invade them? So it's wrong when he invaded Kuwait all those years back, but it's OK now.. Not only that it's OK to use it as an excuse?
It's like running up to someone in the street and kicking the crap out of them saying "That's for stealing my lunch back at school 15 years ago.... I know you were punished at the time, but here's some more...".

And don't we own WMDs? Didn't the Americans use WMDs in the past as well as still own them?
Are we (UK and USA) not making more WMDs to update our aging arsenal?

Don't get me wrong, I think that what happened in the past may be justified and I don't want us to be the only ones without weapons, but isn't it a bit lame using things we're 'guilty' of ourselves as an excuse? Either it's OK or it's not, you can't have one rule for some and one for another.

The guy should be careful of what he says, some people may be sharp enough to notice he is effectively incriminating himself..



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 06:06 PM
link   
Seekerof, come on now man. Here's a quote by George Bush himself you may find enlightening...
"There were no weapons of Mass Destruction."
-George Bush
2004 Presidential Debates (Televised)



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Was it "wrong"?

Some aspects of the intelligence may have been wrong, but as always, the lack of evidence does not necessarily remove guilt, even in a court of law.
5 Part Series: In Search of Saddam Hussein's WMD

The series utilizes the newly translated Iraqi documents.
The below link may be of interest, as well, in regards to perceptions of "wrong."
The Iraqi WMDs That Slipped Through Our Fingers
Saddam's WMD and terrorist connections all proven in one document!

I am looking forward to more of those Iraqi documentations being translated and released.


I looked through it all, and what a bunch of crap. Nothing but supposition, and third hand statements from a chain of people all with motive to lie. Cherry picking was never so hard as finding convincing evidence Iraq had WMD.



posted on Apr, 11 2006 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe




Repubs/Dems - No difference anymore.


You've got that right. The only difference between them is what they tell/promise their respective flocks of sheeple!


I'm a recovering Republican myself.



posted on Apr, 11 2006 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Some aspects of the intelligence may have been wrong, but as always, the lack of evidence does not necessarily remove guilt, even in a court of law.
seekerof


Uh... this is not a matter of lacking evidence, this is a matter of LACK OF TRUTH.

The WMDs aren't there. Simple as that. You're presenting a situation that's not even the case. I mean, did you want there to be WMDs? If so, I'd get your head checked. I don't want WMDs in Iraq because the world's a more dangerous place. You seem to want the world be more dangerous. Sick.

Considering you're a Bush sheeple, I'm surprised you ignore his statements in this situation. Maybe Bush is the good guy, in this case.



posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe


I think if he really said this, its the most pathetic thing he's ever said, and one more lie.


Since we haven't found WMD in Iraq, a lot of the anti-war/anti-Bush crowd is saying that the Bush administration lied about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction to allow for a war over oil. Well, if they're going to claim that the Bush administration lied, then there sure are a lot of other people, including quite a few prominent Democrats, who have told the same "lies" since the inspectors pulled out of Iraq in 1998. Here are just a few examples that prove that the Bush administration didn't lie about weapons of mass destruction and that "everyone" believed it...


"We 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



"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



"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002



"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003



"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



"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002



"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002



"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002



"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002



"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002


Is that enough or do you need more?


With that evidence I find it hard to believe that it was a Bush Conspiricy, or even a Republican one for that matter. My personal belief is that it wasn't a conspiricy at all, just bad intel.

Just my $0.02



posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 09:08 AM
link   
Switchblade... This is not about Republicans vs Democrats. Like Dgtempe said in this thread. There is no difference. They're all the same. So it makes no sense for you to still be pointing the finger at others in order to justify the actions of one group.

That's politics you are doing. We're talking about a conspiracy. And the conspiracy includes Republicans and Democrats.



posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheBandit795
Switchblade... This is not about Republicans vs Democrats. Like Dgtempe said in this thread. There is no difference. They're all the same. So it makes no sense for you to still be pointing the finger at others in order to justify the actions of one group.

That's politics you are doing. We're talking about a conspiracy. And the conspiracy includes Republicans and Democrats.



I'm talking about conspiracy. I'm trying to show, as I stated in my last post, that there is no conspiricy, only bad intel. Bush didn't lie to start a war over oil, he was given bad intel, intel many others believed.



posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by SwitchbladeNGC


With that evidence I find it hard to believe that it was a Bush Conspiricy, or even a Republican one for that matter. My personal belief is that it wasn't a conspiricy at all, just bad intel.

Just my $0.02


Ok so I guess you are trying to say this was an inherited situation and you are going to say that its their fault something wasn't done back then? Ok yes they screwed up. BACK THEN. Bush is the Commander and chief following that period and now. As a Commander and Chief its his duty to make it right if its wrong and to assay the information that was available and at the same time abide by the law in his actions. None of which was done. Not only that but while under his command and immediately following his decisions, hundreds of millions of dollars in cash have disappeared and multiple misappropriations have occurred. You cannot blame that on anything before this administration.


Pie



posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThePieMaN

Originally posted by SwitchbladeNGC


With that evidence I find it hard to believe that it was a Bush Conspiricy, or even a Republican one for that matter. My personal belief is that it wasn't a conspiricy at all, just bad intel.

Just my $0.02


Ok so I guess you are trying to say this was an inherited situation and you are going to say that its their fault something wasn't done back then? Ok yes they screwed up. BACK THEN. Bush is the Commander and chief following that period and now. As a Commander and Chief its his duty to make it right if its wrong and to assay the information that was available and at the same time abide by the law in his actions. None of which was done. Not only that but while under his command and immediately following his decisions, hundreds of millions of dollars in cash have disappeared and multiple misappropriations have occurred. You cannot blame that on anything before this administration.


Pie



Actually I am not putting the blame anywhere. (why do people insist on putting words in my mouth?). I am meerely stating that the "CONSPIRACY" DOES NOT EXIST.

It looks like no matter what this is going to turn into a "Bush Bashing" thread.

Alas, I had hoped people could be reasonable and follow the rules laid out earlier (or at the very least stay on the topic), but as I see, things haven't changed much here in the several months I was gone.



posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by SwitchbladeNGC
I'm talking about conspiracy. I'm trying to show, as I stated in my last post, that there is no conspiricy, only bad intel. Bush didn't lie to start a war over oil, he was given bad intel, intel many others believed.


Thanks for the clarification


Btw..For the record.... I for one am sick of Bush- (or any other political figure) bashing threads



posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 12:09 PM
link   
Now let's remember these Great Words by Great Men, shall we?


WMD Quotes

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."
Aug. 26, 2002 - Dick Cheney, Vice President

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."
Sep. 12, 2002 - George W. Bush, Speech to UN General Assembly

"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons."
Oct. 5, 2002 - George W. Bush, Radio Address

"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."
Oct. 7, 2002 - George W. Bush

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent" and "upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents... "
Jan. 28, 2003 - George W. Bush

"Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly."
Mar. 21, 2003 - White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer

"There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. As this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them."
Mar. 22, 2003 - Gen. Tommy Franks

"We estimate that once Iraq acquires fissile material -- whether from a foreign source or by securing the materials to build an indigenous fissile material capability -- it could fabricate a nuclear weapon within one year. It has rebuilt its civilian chemical infrastructure and renewed production of chemical warfare agents, probably including mustard, sarin, and VX. It actively maintains all key aspects of its offensive BW [biological weapons] program."
Nov. 1, 2002 - John Bolton, Undersecretary of State for Arms Control now the US Ambassdor in the UN

"We still need to find and secure Iraq's weapons of mass destruction facilities and secure Iraq's borders so we can prevent the flow of weapons of mass destruction materials and senior regime officials out of the country."
Apr. 9, 2004 - Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense

Where are those WMD Speeches Now?

Where are the WMD's for that matter?

Where is the Evidence?

Have we missed something?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join