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.

 

In His Own Words - Bush On Saddam's WMD

page: 1
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2004 @ 09:34 AM
link   
"States like these (Iraq, Iran, North Korea) ... constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons." - President George W. Bush, State of the Union Address, Jan. 29, 2002

"The Iraqi regime possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons.... If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?" - President George W. Bush, Cincinnati, Oct. 7, 2002

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of Sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent." - President George W. Bush, State of the Union Address, Jan. 28, 2003

"The security of the world requires disarming Saddam Hussein now." - President George W. Bush, March 17, 2003

"We've begun the search for hidden chemical and biological weapons and already know of hundreds of sites that will be investigated. No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime because the regime is no more." - President George W. Bush, May 1, 2003

"We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so." - President George W. Bush, May 3, 2003

"We based our decisions on good, sound intelligence, and the - our people are going to find out the truth. And the truth will say that this intelligence was good intelligence. There's no doubt in my mind." - President George W. Bush, July 17, 2003

"Our coalition has made sure that Iraq's former dictator will never again use weapons of mass destruction. We are interviewing Iraqi citizens and analyzing records of the old regime to reveal the full extent of its weapons programs and its long campaign of deception." - President George W. Bush Sept. 23, 2003

"He (Saddam) had a weapons program." - President George W. Bush, Oct. 29, 2003

"Already the Kay report identified dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations." - President George W. Bush, State of the Union Address, Jan. 20, 2004

"We know from years of intelligence - not only our own intelligence services, but other intelligence-gathering organizations - that [Saddam] had weapons." - President George W. Bush, Jan. 27, 2004

David Kay, top Iraq weapons inspector for the Bush administration, testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Jan. 28, 2004: "We were almost all wrong."

home.hamptonroads.com...



How can anyone say that the reason for Invading Iraq was anything other than Weapons Of Mass Destruction?




posted on Feb, 1 2004 @ 09:49 AM
link   
good job putting all of Dubya's statements together. I personally don't understand people's reasonings for justifying the war either...suddenly the WMD aren't a big deal...and its Saddam treating his people badly....well for those who don't know, we the USA has created even more problems for those people in Iraq. We can claim we did the right thing...but the right thing if we only wanted Saddam out of office, was to help the people of Iraq oppose Saddam themselves, not to go bomb the whole freakin country.

I also wonder sometimes if people listen and read the same comments I did, because if they did, they would realize what a big farce this is.



posted on Feb, 1 2004 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel
How can anyone say that the reason for Invading Iraq was anything other than Weapons Of Mass Destruction?



Because people experiencing cognitive dissonance have to lie and rationalize in order to shelter themselves from facts. It is more comfortable if it fits with their core values in some way to sacrifice truth for a pre-packaged litany about freedom and removal of tyrants and making the US a safer place as if Iraq was some threat.

The liars know it's lying, but they still have to do that, it's a weakness of human nature.

There is an interesting cross-section of strugglers like that at ATS. Some are curable and some are still at the pathetic stage.



posted on Feb, 1 2004 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by worldwatcher
good job putting all of Dubya's statements together. I personally don't understand people's reasonings for justifying the war either...suddenly the WMD aren't a big deal...and its Saddam treating his people badly....well for those who don't know, we the USA has created even more problems for those people in Iraq. We can claim we did the right thing...but the right thing if we only wanted Saddam out of office, was to help the people of Iraq oppose Saddam themselves, not to go bomb the whole freakin country.

I also wonder sometimes if people listen and read the same comments I did, because if they did, they would realize what a big farce this is.



Someone else compiled the list. See the link.

Peoples reasoning is a mental sef-defense mechanism. If they admit to themselves that WMD was the issue then they must admit that the President, and/or media in America are liars, or that *GASP* they were fooled.

Who is treating the Iraqis worse: Saddam, or Us?

Many would think we are. Liberation is a dream until they have elections, and we withdraw.

And yes, they did all read, and hear the same thing you did. Just as a child forgets the one that abused them in the past, or a torture victim get amnesia people forget to protect themselves from the pain.

___________________________________


I see you had the same Ideas as I was posting this reply MaskedAvatar.

Coincidence?

Hardly. We both understand the truth.


[Edited on 1-2-2004 by ArchAngel]



posted on Feb, 1 2004 @ 10:05 AM
link   
Bitter after being snubbed for membership in the "Axis of Evil," Libya, China, and Syria today announced they had formed the "Axis of Just as Evil," which they said would be more evil than that stupid Iran-Iraq-North Korea axis President Bush warned of in his State of the Union address.

Axis of Evil members, however, immediately dismissed the new axis as having, for starters, a really dumb name. "Right. They are Just as evil...in their dreams!" declared North Korean leader Kim Jong-il. "Everybody knows we're the best evils... best at being evil...we're the best."

Diplomats from Syria denied they were jealous over being excluded, although they conceded they did ask if they could join the Axis of Evil. "They told us it was full," said Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. "An Axis can't have more than three countries," explained Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. This is not my rule, it's tradition. In World War II you had Germany, Italy, and Japan in the evil Axis. So, you can only have three, and a secret handshake. Ours is wickedly cool."

International reaction to Bush's Axis of Evil declaration was swift, as within minutes, France surrendered.

Elsewhere, peer-conscious nations rushed to gain triumvirate status in what became a game of geopolitical chairs. Cuba, Sudan, and Serbia said they had formed the "Axis of Somewhat Evil," forcing Somalia to join with Uganda and Myanmar in the "Axis of Occasionally Evil," while Bulgaria,Indonesia and Russia established the "Axis of Not So Much Evil Really As Just Generally Disagreeable."

With the criteria suddenly expanded and all the desirable clubs filling up...Sierra Leone, El Salvador, and Rwanda applied to be called the "Axis of Countries That Aren't the Worst But Certainly Won't Be Asked to Host the Olympics."

Canada, Mexico, and Australia formed the "Axis of Nations That Are Actually Quite Nice But Secretly Have Some Nasty Thoughts About America," while Scotland, New Zealand and Spain established the "Axis of Countries That Be Allowed to Ask Sheep to Wear Lipstick." "That's not a threat, really, just something we like to do," said Scottish Executive First Minister Jack McConnell.

While wondering if the other nations of the world weren't perhaps making fun of him, a cautious Bush granted approval for most axis, although he rejected the establishment of the Axis of Countries Whose Names End in "Guay," accusing one of its members of filing a false application. Officials from Paraguay, Uruguay, and Chadguay denied the charges.

Israel, meanwhile, insisted it didn't want to join any Axis, but privately, world leaders said that's only because no one asked them.

[Edited on 2-1-2004 by Satyr]



posted on Feb, 1 2004 @ 10:05 AM
link   
ok ok, lets say your right, the war was unjustified and all. Now what? put your self in a leadership position. Whata we do now?



posted on Feb, 1 2004 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by medic
ok ok, lets say your right, the war was unjustified and all. Now what? put your self in a leadership position. Whata we do now?


An apology for starters. Admitting we were wrong, and a promise we will not invade other nations in the future without UN authorization.

Have elections as soon as possible without any delays, withdraw right after.

As it is now they perceive us as the invaders, and rightfully so.

Change that perception, and we will save the lives of hundreds, if not thousands of American soldiers, and countless more Iraqi's.



posted on Feb, 1 2004 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel
An apology for starters. Admitting we were wrong, and a promise we will not invade other nations in the future without UN authorization.

So you mean, never.



Have elections as soon as possible without any delays, withdraw right after.

Waht do you think we're trying to do right now? Busy baking cookies?



[Edited on 1-2-2004 by Esoterica]



posted on Feb, 1 2004 @ 10:13 AM
link   
An apology i might understand, but the Iraqis, believe it or not, are doing better now than when saddam was in power, and no they don't look at us as invaders. I mean show me a link, back that one up.



posted on Feb, 1 2004 @ 10:15 AM
link   
Yep. We'll have to eat crow to save lives. But hey, Bush doesn't have much longer in office anyway! (hopefully) I seriously doubt it'll happen, though, since Bush wants to remain president. He sure isn't going to admit that it had anything what-so-ever to do with his decision making process.



posted on Feb, 1 2004 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by medic
An apology i might understand, but the Iraqis, believe it or not, are doing better now than when saddam was in power, and no they don't look at us as invaders. I mean show me a link, back that one up.


Are the dead ones doing better? Are the injured doing better? Are the millions who lost their government jobs doing better? Are the ones still without power or water doing better?

Here is just one link showing what you requested. If you would like I could have dozens from arab news sources later today:

www.mercurynews.com...



posted on Feb, 1 2004 @ 10:16 AM
link   
yeah, i'd bet a nice chunka change that he stays in office.



posted on Feb, 1 2004 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by medic
yeah, i'd bet a nice chunka change that he stays in office.


He probably will get re-elected, because of some "unforseen" terrorist attack, capture of Bin Laden (we are hiding him you know) or findings of WMD (we planted them of course)...then we will all be proven wrong and Dubya would have been right and his evil reign can continue....muahahaha

Everytime I hear "axis of evil" I think of Dr. Evil (of austin powers fame)



posted on Feb, 1 2004 @ 10:24 AM
link   
Hmm, nice article, but what do you want me to do? be amazed? Where did they go to question these people? It doesn't mean to much to me. As faras them doing better, yeah they are. We employ them now, we've started a police force for them, and started a new army for them, started a structured school system, are starting a current structured gov't. Argue that.



posted on Feb, 1 2004 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by worldwatcher
He probably will get re-elected, because of some "unforseen" terrorist attack, capture of Bin Laden (we are hiding him you know) or findings of WMD (we planted them of course)...then we will all be proven wrong and Dubya would have been right and his evil reign can continue


Are you a born pessimist? Seems unlike you.

I think any of these scenarios are very highly unlikely. I've commented on the reasons why in plenty of War On Terror threads. WMD planting would be so ridiculous in light of the Powell and Kay turnarounds, it's just not in the most wanted cards at all.

Watch for an unspectacular Bush resignation before you can say "Diebold voting machines guarantee the corrupt incumbent administration another inglorious non-victory".




posted on Feb, 1 2004 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by medic
Hmm, nice article, but what do you want me to do? be amazed? Where did they go to question these people? It doesn't mean to much to me. As faras them doing better, yeah they are. We employ them now, we've started a police force for them, and started a new army for them, started a structured school system, are starting a current structured gov't. Argue that.

Hey! Just like a manual Sims game, eh?



posted on Feb, 1 2004 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by medic
Hmm, nice article, but what do you want me to do? be amazed? Where did they go to question these people? It doesn't mean to much to me. As faras them doing better, yeah they are. We employ them now, we've started a police force for them, and started a new army for them, started a structured school system, are starting a current structured gov't. Argue that.


Ummm hate to break it to you, but they DID have a police force, jobs and an army. We destroyed them and now we have to rebuild them again before we can leave.



posted on Feb, 1 2004 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by medic
Hmm, nice article, but what do you want me to do? be amazed? Where did they go to question these people? It doesn't mean to much to me. As faras them doing better, yeah they are. We employ them now, we've started a police force for them, and started a new army for them, started a structured school system, are starting a current structured gov't. Argue that.



They were questioned in Iraq.

They would rather be employed by a legitimate government that represents them. Many still have not found work.

The police force, and army that we are developing is not legitimate because the authority for it comes from America, not Iraq. Many view it as another arm of the occupational puppet regime. That is why some of these workers are being shot, and killed. They are collaborators in the eyes of many.


Anything we do will not be accepted as legitimate. Any authority that comes from us is not legitimate.

These tasks should be left to them after elections. They can rebuild themselves(Would it be needed without the invasion?). They are capable of this, and they can pay for foreign companies to do what they can't. After all they have over 100 billion barrels of oil.

The thing that most miss is that it is a violation of Islam to help occupiers.



posted on Feb, 1 2004 @ 10:32 AM
link   
i doubt bush is gonna resign. he is actually pretty popular these days, especially with the younger generation(20s) and military

Manual sims game? what are you talking about? what, we're playing them because we're helping them? Which is it? we're helping them or we aren't? you can't have both.



posted on Feb, 1 2004 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
Are you a born pessimist? Seems unlike you.

I think any of these scenarios are very highly unlikely. I've commented on the reasons why in plenty of War On Terror threads. WMD planting would be so ridiculous in light of the Powell and Kay turnarounds, it's just not in the most wanted cards at all.

Watch for an unspectacular Bush resignation before you can say "Diebold voting machines guarantee the corrupt incumbent administration another inglorious non-victory".



lol. actually it is "unlike" me, but I'm having one those days..
so no I don't believe everything I just wrote, especially the planting of the WMD's.

I find it more plausible that Dubya will claim the weapons were smuggled into Syria or some other country and then we have a new front of the war on terror.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join