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.

 

WAR: Bush, Cheney Concede Saddam Had No WMDs

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 7 2004 @ 08:29 PM
link   
President Bush, and Vice President Cheney conceded today that Iraq did not have WMD's. Reports have been coming out over the last couple of weeks and months that Iraq did not have Weapons of Mass Destruction. Instead the Bush Administration is pushing on the Oil for Food Program as an Iraq war rationale.
 



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

"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.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.



I do not know what is worse, finally admitting there was no WMD's, or using the Oil for Food as an excuse. Considering the US was the major contributor to the creation and uphold of the program, this could fare much worse.





[edit on 7-10-2004 by TrickmastertricK]



posted on Oct, 8 2004 @ 01:42 AM
link   
In the years leading up to the invasion of Iraq, the US presented a number of reasons to overthrow Saddam's regime, and the abuse of the oil-for-food program was only one of them... as was the WMD issue. The WMD excuse was a last resort as the UN (or at least a few key members of the security council) did everything that they could to stand in our way, primarily because they had major economic investments in Iraq. All of this seemed pretty clear from the begining. People act suprised only because either they are quite dense or because they want to use this as fuel against Bush and/or the entire US in general.

I don't think I've heard any real (political) news in months... just the same old tired stories regurgitated time and again. I don't mean that as an attack on this site or Trick, but as an attack on the media.



posted on Oct, 8 2004 @ 02:44 AM
link   
No one should be surprised by this. It's all recycled political garbage they spew out as news. This election sucks. Probably not the right thread for that statement but it is true.

doctorduh



posted on Oct, 8 2004 @ 02:53 AM
link   
At least we got a lot of oil.....


[edit on 8-10-2004 by et is dead]

[edit on 8-10-2004 by TheBandit795]



posted on Oct, 8 2004 @ 05:31 AM
link   
Of coarse Saddam didn't have WMD when the U.S. attacked. he gave it all to Syria.



posted on Oct, 8 2004 @ 06:37 AM
link   
Show us the evidence that Iraq gave Syria its WMDS. Personally the only WMD Iraq had was Saddams bad breath when they pulled him out of that hole.




top topics
 
0

log in

join