Bush, Cheney Concede Saddam Had No WMDs

This just in. President Bush and Vice- President Cheney both concedes that Iraq had no WMDs. Now the debate is really going to heat up. Why were we there? We are there because of a threat that he may have had WMDs. As it turns out, Iraq may not have any on it's soil at this moment.

Focus has shifted from WMDs to Saddams abuse of UN policies of the oil-for-food programs. Kerry is already ridiculing the Bush administration's evolving rationale for war, "You don't make up or find reasons to go to war after the fact."

From the main story:

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.

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.

Well, whatever the reason the for going to war is now, one thing is for sure. Saddam Hussein is not in power and we can thank our leaders in the Bush Administration for that. The whole world has been wanting this for a long time, and the time came and passed.

Main story!

Corrected address.





[edit on 7/10/04 by Intelearthling]

the right winged fanatics still see the bloodshed as a justifiable cause.

It doesnt matter. Bush & Cheney wanted this war, and since its what the warmongers wanted, its good enough for the Republicans.

Just Zombies. No brains. possesed by the devil.

Right wing fanatics will still maintain that there were WMDs shipped out under the UN inspectors' and the US troops' noses prior to and during the US invasion of Iraq. They are slow to learn. They will not be able to follow the orders of their beloved leader. The game is up.

LOL and they called Kerry a flip-flopper when they are doing it themselves. We went into Iraq because they had WMDS, now we concede the dont. We went in there because of a Al-Qaeda link, now they concede that fact also. So now we went in because of Saddam abusing the UN oil for food program? They even said it was justified for that? I mean honestly over a 1000 US troops have been killed, Iraq is a hot bed for terrorist, and we spent about 200 billion dollars because Saddam was abusing the UN oil for food program. Yep sounds jusitified to me..............

Going to war with Iraq under terms of WMD�s was now clearly a smoke screen for the truth. Let me lay you out the time line that determined going to war with Iraq.

Iraq invades Kuwait and begins the scenario for Desert Storm to take place.
After being pushed from Kuwait Saddam decides to start funding Hamas suicide bombers at the rate of $25,000 per bomber
Iraq gives up on WMD production in the face of tighter economic controls as well as its reactor being taken out by the Israelis.
Saddam tries to assassinate Bush Sr.
Saddam decides to go for Oil for Food.
Saddam takes up to 11 Billion dollars from the Oil for Food program
Saddam gives oil vouchers to �favored� International people to help skirt some of the economic sanctions against Iraq.
Several Countries received favorable oil shipments, these same Countries oppose the new war with Iraq for fear of being �found out�.
9/11 happens
Bush goes after the Taliban and ALQ in Afghanistan
Bush gets intel that members of ALQ are in Baghdad
Bush is afraid that with tons of cash Saddam could back another terrorist event to strike back at the US.
Bush receives intel that Pakistan has an underground black market nuke network
Bush fears that with lots of cash and ALQ operating in Iraq that either Iraq or ALQ will get nukes to use against US interests either overseas or in the US.
Troops and support materials are already in the theater, Bush needs to decide what to do.
Saddam is seen as the bigger threat based on the large amount of cash Saddam has diverted from the Oil for Food program.
Bush tells CIA and Armed Forces to come up with something credible, even if it might not be true as a pre-text to taking Saddam out.
Joint Cheifs lay out pros and cons, It will stop Saddam from giving money to Hamas which will please Israel
It will interrupt ALQ plans in Iraq with regards to obtaining WMD or aiding Saddam in getting WMD.
It will be a show of force to Libya to get Omar to give up what he knows about the Pakistan nuke network.
A deal is made with Omar that if he gives up information and materials the US will provide him protection and assurance that he will not be attacked.
Saddam is pissed because the cat is out of the bag now, the US knows who he has been giving oil vouchers to and knows that either more sanctions or some type of event will be happening in Iraq soon.
Bush tells the American public and Saddam to give up the weapons or else
Saddam shaking his head stands defiant to the US and the world saying we are crazy and that he has no weapons to give up (this apparently was true).
Saddam begins transporting the �stolen� cash around the Country side in an effort to hide it from the �crazy Americans�.
Bush draws the line in the sand and we invade Iraq.
We take out Saddam and the Bath party and end the oil voucher scheme. The people on the take are not too happy about it as they have made millions from it.
Bush makes the declaration that those who would not stand with us in the fight will not be part of the reconstruction. The reality is that Bush is saying I know who you are and you have made millions already and now I am cutting you off.
So here we are today, far fewer suicide bombers in Israel, no longer billions of dollars going to �Oil for Palaces�, no more oil vouchers to the �sanction breakers�, ALQ on the run and their access to millions of dollars cut off, the underground nuke network off line and a WMD free Libya.

To me I think he pulled off what he set out to accomplish, not only is the world a little safer but the worlds oil supply is no longer lining the pockets of just a few good friends of Saddam.

I doubt Bush will ever publicly disclose the real agenda for getting rid of Saddam but at least we can all rest assured that his intent was in the right place.

I couldn't get the first link, but the story is also on Yahoo:
story.news.yahoo.com.../ap/20041007/ap_on_re_mi_ea/us_iraq_weapons

Originally posted by dgtempe
It doesnt matter. Bush & Cheney wanted this war, and since its what the warmongers wanted, its good enough for the Republicans.

Didn't the Democrats want this war 5-10 years ago? Yes, is the answer to that question. Now that a CIC that is not from your party has taken Saddam out, he is all of the sudden the bad guy.

If Al Gore had been in office, and he made the same decisions that the Bush administration has made, would you still support him?

I can tell you right now, no matter who is in office and we come under attack, I will support the use of force on any country that poses a threat to our way of life.

Fanatics? Ha! Those who wish to secure the safety of this nation are far from being fanatics! They are every bit of an Patriotic American, and that's not my opinion. That's the plain facts!

I agree with you Intelearthing I would support any military action against anyone who posed a threat to our everyday life, but the only question I have how was Iraq a threat to our everday life? It seems to me that Iraq is now more a threat to our everyday life than it was before. With beheadings, new al-qaeda recruits, Iraq is just a hotbed of terrorist now.

when the president and vp said they would disarm Saddam of these WMD's - which he used on his own people - NOBODY said that Saddam didn't have them. Nobody. NOW that that the political season is in full swing it's really easy to say that Saddam didn't have them. But I can't remember anyone saying this before hand.

It's easy to play monday morning QB, ain't it?

ps.

it wasn't until Saddam was overthrown that left wingers, MA, were saying Saddam had no WMDs. Why didn't the 'left wingers' bring this up before hand?

Tens of thousands protested around the world before the US's illegal invasion of Iraq that the basis for any invasion/war was wrong and that the UN Inspections should have been allowed to continue.

This was covered everywhere except the mushroom farm.

OMFG!?!

DID YOU HEAR IT!?

Cause I did. I think it was a clearly audible

Flip Flop

Originally posted by Bob88
when the president and vp said they would disarm Saddam of these WMD's - which he used on his own people - NOBODY said that Saddam didn't have them. Nobody. NOW that that the political season is in full swing it's really easy to say that Saddam didn't have them. But I can't remember anyone saying this before hand.

It's easy to play monday morning QB, ain't it?

People took it hook, line, and sinker for one reason. They believed that they could trust:
1. The President of the US. Guess not, eh?
2. US Intel.

Now it turns out that not only could we not trust what intel that we had, but that the president fudged it even further, making this one of the biggest F*ck ups since Stonewall Jackson.

So let's not try to blame all the dissent on the Left wingers here. If we had known beforehand that the president was a lowdown snake-oil salesman, then it would have been different. We were scared, and ready to lash out at anyone who posed a threat.

Why, do you suppose that is?

Oh, that's right. 9/11.

Scared the bejesus out of everyone. So, Machiavelli was right. Ruling with fear does work. I think that slipping a war past everyone while they're busy being scared is no better than ruling a country with an Iron fist A La Saddam Hussein.

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
Tens of thousands protested around the world before the US's illegal invasion of Iraq that the basis for any invasion/war was wrong and that the UN Inspections should have been allowed to continue.

This was covered everywhere except the mushroom farm.

These were anti war protests�.I don�t remember anyone protesting Saddam�s lack of WMDs.

No where did 'they' say there weren�t any WMDs. This bunch, with the knowledge that Saddam didn't have these horrible weapons, could have saved many mothers the grief of losing their sons and daughters. Not to mention the expense of these silly inspections (since the inspections weren't for any purpose, right?)

Funny, some see a story like this and come out of the political woodwork.

I must say, if Bush still manages to win this election now, the voting majority have lost any credibility they may have had. How anyone could accept a flaw of this magnitude and think that this administration is still White House material is beyond me.

Listen, is anyone really surprised that there are no weapons of mass destruction. I'm so sick of the rhetoric: republican/conservative "But, let me ask you this, is the world a better place without Saddam?" - democrat/liberal "The president lied to us about why went to war!"
The truth is all of these guys are lying to us. We get no spin free news. And the U.S. gov't in conjunction with the mainstream media outlets are constantly taking part in a propaganda filled campaign of disinformation.
There's another thing that I'd like to point out. Everybody's right. Bush is a war thirsty idiot and Kerry is flip flopper who will say anything to win the election. It's not either or. It's both. And the wonderful thing is that out of 300 million or so people in our country, one of these two is about to be elected to what amounts to be "Supreme Leader of the World". Honestly now, whether your a democrat or republican, this choice sucks.

doctorduh

These were anti war protests�.I don�t remember anyone protesting Saddam�s lack of WMDs.

remember the no war for oil signs most were holding?, they were holding these because we all knew that the whole goal of going into Iraq was to create a corperate utopian cash cow for the US and its "alies" to feed off over the comming years.

There were no WMD's....and now we know there were no plans for Saddam to make WMD's, the UN sancioned Saddam into apathy, he was harmless, he had given up his plans, as this report concludes

[edit on 8-10-2004 by electric squid carpet]

I remember people protesting.
I remember not wanting this action.
I remember the UN asking for some more time.
And I remember them saying they had PROOF!

Originally posted by Bob88
These were anti war protests�.I don�t remember anyone protesting Saddam�s lack of WMDs. No where did 'they' say there weren�t any WMDs. This bunch, with the knowledge that Saddam didn't have these horrible weapons, could have saved many mothers the grief of losing their sons and daughters.

What's your logic behind such a statement? Should there, at that time, have been an obvious reason for people to seriously distrust the alleged evidence of WMD's presented by the Bush Administration? And how would people in general have more knowledge of Saddams WMD's - or rather lack thereof - than the U.S. intelligence? I would however say that there were definetly protests against attacking Iraq before the inspectors had completed their job.

Not to mention the expense of these silly inspections (since the inspections weren't for any purpose, right?)

There wasn't a purpose for the inspections?

[edit on 8-10-2004 by Durden]

We have the Proof! We have the proof!

lying sacks of you know what. Warmongering mothers. JUST WAIT IF BUSH IS REELECTED, They're once again going to poop on the American people, going to go full speed ahead to wwIII, going to bring the draft, police state, you name it, right up to and including Armageddon.

Maybe they'll be devine intervention.