What would you do?

[Skinzaholic]

Let's go back to Aug 2, 1990... Iraq invades Kuwait... slaughters innocent people... declares that tiny nation a new state of Iraq... and behind it all is a dictator who is believed to be producing weapons capable to hitting distant targets.

My question to my liberally minded friends is...

What would you do in that position?

I already know how a Republican President answered that question.

We all watched a Democratic President clearly give his answer for the next 8 years.


So now... what do you think? This isnt an attempt to make fun or argue... Im really curious. You disagree with how it was handled by good men... then please give us your thoughts.

[rskinsfan10]

What Democratic President sat back and watched Kuwait get invaded by Iraq for 8 years? Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom are two totally different situations, don't you think?

I find the name of the second mission hysterical myself. Why not name it Operation We Believe That Osama and Saddam Are In Cahoots So We Must Attack? I say that seriously, because of all the attempts to somehow say that this was also about freeing the Iraqi people, then why did we leave Desert Storm before he was "driven" from power? All of the atrocoties(sp?) that he is accused of were happening before the first war, correct?

With all of the attacks on Clinton on his dealings with Saddam that come from the conservatives, why don't they talk about the fact that they didn't "finish" the job that they started with daddy Bush?

[Ford]

I supported the war then, and I still believe everyone is better off with Saddam Hussein gone. The man was a terror to his people, and the world is a much better place without him in power. I think the postwar efforts have been mediocre at best, and I don't like how things are being executed, but I agree with removing Saddam.

[Skins57]

I think the world is a better place without Saddam but as with Osama he is still here, for some reason we can't catch these guys.
I believe Bush is in Iraq for all the wrong reason and removing Saddam is very low on his list of being there. Also when a President lies to a country to get them to follow in his ignorant footsteps, that should tell you what kind of man we are dealing with.

WMD... still waiting on these to be found

nukes... oh that was not true either was it

Halliburton sure beneifited from this war didn't they? never mind the fact they are Cheneys old company.

This war should be called Operation Iraqi Liberation....OIL

Concerning Clinton and his 8 years. Guess he was too busy trying to keep the defict from Daddys days to the positive but no need to worry duyba took care of Clintons hard work in record time

[Skins57]

As far as what we should have done. Bush should have given the inspectors more time to prove that Saddam did not have the weapons htat Bush knew he did not have. Should have gone through the UN, but I understand that the UN is only good when they agree with us.

[Skins57]

Also we didn't give a rats butt about Kuwaitt, that was all because we have terrorist friends( Saudia Arabia), well the Bush's do anyway, that were afraid and daddy Bush was afraid Saddam would get soem of that oil

[Chief Seeway]

Originally posted by rskinsfan10
All of the atrocoties(sp?) that he is accused of were happening before the first war, correct?

Incorrect.

Tens of thousands of shites(sp?) were slaughtered AFTER Desert Storm.

[Chief Seeway]

Originally posted by Skins57
Also when a President lies to a country to get them to follow in his ignorant footsteps, that should tell you what kind of man we are dealing with.

Please provide proof that he "lied".

[Chief Seeway]

Originally posted by Skins57
Bush should have given the inspectors more time to prove that Saddam did not have the weapons htat Bush knew he did not have. Should have gone through the UN, but I understand that the UN is only good when they agree with us.

WOW!!!

After Desert Storm, Iraq was given 48 hours, 48 hours, thats two days to turn over WMD and/or proof of destruction of such weapons. This was set by the U f'n N!

UN! Funny how people pull that card! "Hey boys and girls, Sadam doesnt want to play by our rules so we a going to give him all the time in the world"(12 years).

"Should have gone through the UN" HA! So the world could wait and the Iraqi people could wait another 12 years?!?!?!?

[rskinsfan10]

Originally posted by seeway
Incorrect.

Tens of thousands of shites(sp?) were slaughtered AFTER Desert Storm.

So he was an angel before Desert Storm? Didn't he allegedly use WMDs against his own people before DS? WMDs that we supplied to him BTW....

[Skins57]

Originally posted by seeway
Please provide proof that he "lied".

This has been debated long and hard before and I am not digging up old bones and get people fired up again. So I am respectfully bowing out as I should never have started this. I believe what I believe and others believe what they believe, so lets let it at that

[Chief Seeway]

I respect and support bowing out since that is a serious claim even if it is done on a message board.

[Skinzaholic]

Still have yet to hear one solid idea of what could have been done instead. I guess Skins57 idea of giving the UN more time could have worked... but it also could have just delayed the inevitable.

This is what I hate about the Liberal Party... they are quick to discredit and whine when things dont go their way (such as actually building up our military, making people work for a living, and supporting morality) and yet they very rarely have ANY suggestions on how to solve problems themselves.

That is why they vote in a draft dodger... who acknowledges his disdain for the American Military... and then basically sweeps problems under the carpet until a real man can take his place and deal with them.

[Skinzaholic]

Let me give a few details to support what I stated above...

On Dec 3, 1969 a young Bill Clinton wrote a letter to Eugene J. Holmes,a retired US Army ROTC colonel. He thanked him for "saving me from the draft" and then went on to disparage the American Government, the American military, and those who were fighting and dying in Vietnam. Perhaps you remember this all surfacing during the 1992 Democratic Convention?

After his election, Clinto then went further to prove his unpatriotic blind eye to global threats by totally dismantling our forces to their all-time low (so that he could use that money to fund domestic programs that made him look good).


This policy was further copied by his Democratic buddies (led by current Presidential hopeful Tom Daschle).


In the end... I think Americans are more aware of the future and see Clinton as the goof he really was. That is why the gafa of democratic candidates do not have a prayer against Bush in reelection.

[Ford]

WMD's or no WMD's the world is a better place without Saddam and we should not have stood by and watched him commit these atrocities in the past. My problem with Bush was rather than portraying perfectly legitimate .. in my opinion .. reasons to take Saddam out of power, he seemed to try and create new motives to go to war. I don't know if he willingly lied, but I don't think it's disputable that alot of intelligence used to support points he made for going to war was based on spotty at best sources.

I also disagree with the lack of an exit plan. I understand we need to be in this for the long haul, and that we are assesing the situation as it progresses, but if we don't put forth a timeline and strategy (I'm not saying we have to leave in the next couple months but at least some guidance ..), I think the Iraqi people and international allies and opponents will become increasingly frustrated. We need something that we can be held accountable to, or people will have no reason to trust Americans in Iraq.

[Spence]

Originally posted by Skinzaholic
Let's go back to Aug 2, 1990... Iraq invades Kuwait... slaughters innocent people... declares that tiny nation a new state of Iraq... and behind it all is a dictator who is believed to be producing weapons capable to hitting distant targets.

My question to my liberally minded friends is...

What would you do in that position?

I already know how a Republican President answered that question.

We all watched a Democratic President clearly give his answer for the next 8 years.


So now... what do you think? This isnt an attempt to make fun or argue... Im really curious. You disagree with how it was handled by good men... then please give us your thoughts.
Kevin, seriously, where do you get your news?

Bill Clinton followed the same policy George H.W. Bush did. The policy was to keep Saddam Hussein bottled up in Iraq, watched by the international community and bombed when necessary. That's what George H.W. Bush did after the end of the Gulf War and that's what Bill Clinton did for eight years.

Republicans like you, Kevin, accused Bill Clinton of ignoring Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and endangering the security of every living human being on the planet. Now that it has been shown that Iraq HAD NO WMD programs, I expect you will be sending an abject apology to Bill Clinton, correct?

You're mixing up your arguments, policies, and years. I never objected to the Gulf War. I supported it at the time, as did Al Gore, who voted to support it in the Senate. [As a Governor, Bill Clinton had no vote on the subject.]

The Gulf War of 1991 is something very different and distinct from the Iraq War of 2003. In 1991, we went to war for real reasons that everyone understood and were obvious. In 2003, the U.S. went to war on the basis of exaggerated and fabricated "evidence" of an Iraqi WMD program that we know no did not exist. The first time we went to war based on truth. The second time we went to war based on lies.

[Spence]

Originally posted by Skinzaholic
Let me give a few details to support what I stated above...

On Dec 3, 1969 a young Bill Clinton wrote a letter to Eugene J. Holmes,a retired US Army ROTC colonel. He thanked him for "saving me from the draft" and then went on to disparage the American Government, the American military, and those who were fighting and dying in Vietnam. Perhaps you remember this all surfacing during the 1992 Democratic Convention?

After his election, Clinto then went further to prove his unpatriotic blind eye to global threats by totally dismantling our forces to their all-time low (so that he could use that money to fund domestic programs that made him look good).


This policy was further copied by his Democratic buddies (led by current Presidential hopeful Tom Daschle).


In the end... I think Americans are more aware of the future and see Clinton as the goof he really was. That is why the gafa of democratic candidates do not have a prayer against Bush in reelection. Kevin, I don't know if you are deceiving people intentionally here or if you are just passing on lies others have given to you.

Bill Clinton did not attack anyone who served in Vietnam. What he wrote is that he had grown to hate the Vietnam War with a passion he had previously reserved only for racism. So what?

Why didn't W fight in Vietnam?
Why didn't Rush fight in Vietnam?
Why didn't Cheney fight in Vietnam?
Why didn't Newt fight in Vietnam?

Do you know why Congressman Tom DeLay [R-TX], the man who controls the House of Represenatives, said he did not fight in Vietnam? Because there were too many blacks fighting over there and patriotic conservatives like him didn't have a chance.

That's right. That's what he actually said. Look it up.

This is ridiculous. Bill Clinton hated the Vietnam War. By 1969, so did most Americans.

The rest of your stuff is equally false, including mentioning Tom Daschle as a "presidential hopeful." Generally, you need to run for Prez to be called a "presidential hopeful." Otherwise, you can call me, yourself, and about 200 million other people in this country "presidential hopefuls."

[Spence]

Originally posted by seeway
WOW!!!

After Desert Storm, Iraq was given 48 hours, 48 hours, thats two days to turn over WMD and/or proof of destruction of such weapons. This was set by the U f'n N!

UN! Funny how people pull that card! "Hey boys and girls, Sadam doesnt want to play by our rules so we a going to give him all the time in the world"(12 years).

"Should have gone through the UN" HA! So the world could wait and the Iraqi people could wait another 12 years?!?!?!? So, Bush has had more than 6 months to produce these dangerous Iraqi WMD. Where are they?

[Spence]

Originally posted by seeway
Please provide proof that he "lied".

First, a cute li'l quote:

It was a surprise to me then — it remains a surprise to me now — that we have not uncovered weapons, as you say, in some of the forward dispersal sites. Believe me, it's not for lack of trying. We've been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad, but they're simply not there.
--Lt. Gen. James Conway, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force
Press Interview
May 30, 2003

AND NOW, THE LIES

..."You remember when [Secretary of State] Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons....They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two.* And we'll find more weapons as time goes on, But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong. We found them." (italics ours) --WP, "Bush: 'We Found' Banned Weapons. President Cites Trailers in Iraq as Proof, " May 31, 2003

*At the time of this statement, no such weapons were found, and no such weapons have been found to this day. On this point as well as the use of the captured trailers as biolabs, the WP said this in the above article: "U.S. authorities have to date made no claim of a confirmed finding of an actual nuclear, biological or chemical weapon. In the interview, Bush said weapons had been found, but in elaborating, he mentioned only the trailers, which the CIA has concluded were likely used for production of biological weapons." There was no statement of fact, there was no smoking gun. The CIA's finding was advanced as an opinion based on its own particular process of elimination, and it was immediately challenged by both U.S. and U.K. intelligence analysts who had seen the trailers. --Politex, 08.09.03

Now comes this..."Engineering experts from the Defense Intelligence Agency have come to believe that the most likely use for two mysterious trailers found in Iraq was to produce hydrogen for weather balloons rather than to make biological weapons, government officials say.

-----

"I don't believe anyone that I know in the administration ever said that Iraq had nuclear weapons."
—Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, at a hearing of the Senate's appropriations subcommittee on defense, May 14, 2003

"We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."
—Vice President Dick Cheney on NBC's Meet the Press, March 16, 2003

For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.
--Paul Wolfowitz
Vanity Fair interview
May 28, 2003

-----

"No one ever said that we knew precisely where all of these agents were, where they were stored," Rice told on NBC's "Meet the Press." --Sunday, June 8, 2003, AP

"Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary...told ABC's This Week that banned weapons were not in areas controlled by allied forces. 'We know where they are, they are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north of that,' he said." --Guardian, March 31, 2003

-----

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

"We know for a fact that there are weapons there."
- Ari Fleischer
January 9, 2003

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.
--George W. Bush
March 17, 2003

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

If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world.
--Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing
December 2, 2002

We know for a fact that there are weapons there.
--Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing
January 9, 2003

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


We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more.
--Colin Powell
Remarks to UN Security Council
February 5, 2003

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.
--George W. Bush
Address to the Nation
March 17, 2003

Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes.
--Ari Fleisher
Press Briefing
March 21, 2003

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

I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction.
--Defense Policy Board member Kenneth Adelman
Washington Post, p. A27
March 23, 2003

One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites.
--Pentagon Spokeswoman Victoria Clark
Press Briefing
March 22, 2003

We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.
--Donald Rumsfeld
ABC Interview
March 30, 2003

We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them.
--George W. Bush
NBC Interview
April 24, 2003

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

I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We're just getting it just now.
--Colin Powell
Remarks to Reporters
May 4, 2003

We never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country.
--Donald Rumsfeld
Fox News Interview
May 4, 2003

I'm not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein -- because he had a weapons program.
--George W. Bush
Remarks to Reporters
May 6, 2003

U.S. officials never expected that "we were going to open garages and find" weapons of mass destruction.
--Condoleeza Rice
Reuters Interview
May 12, 2003

They may have had time to destroy them, and I don't know the answer.
--Donald Rumsfeld
Remarks to the Council on Foreign Relations
May 27, 2003

[Spence]

Since the utter lack of WMD in Iraq has been such a colossal embarrassment to the Bush admin, some of its cronies have been trying to downplay that issue as the reason we went to war in the first place. That's a crock of steaming excrement, as we all know, but just in case anyone would like to have their memory refreshed: But make no mistake -- as I said earlier -- we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found.
--Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing
April 10, 2003

[NamVet4]

I have always felt that after Desert Shield / Desert Storm the government (insert name of who you want) failed the military, once again. No one disputes the military superiority of that action. The failure, inability or reluctance to remove Saddam Hussein at that time was an ill-conceived plan. The Middle East Conflict that now spans more than a decade was not seen through to a proper conclusion. That “conflict” is now assuming the same symptoms and diseases as the war in Vietnam!

I do not speak for any veteran other than myself. Vietnam was a political, more than a military nightmare. A lot of young men paid the ultimate price for those political decisions. And now a lot of young men are still paying for those political decisions in this “conflict”
I hate war! I despise that fact that we have elected leadership that professes that war is the only recourse. The clichés are true, “Freedom is not free, and you must pay the price of eternal vigilance”. The Soldier pays that price when the politicians who control the government fail in their duty to preserve Freedom.
Humankind’s greed and inhumanity to fellow man drive the engines of war!


But my words are conjecture, woulda, shoulda, coulda. We will never know the possibility of a different outcome. That is why it is so important that men and women of the leadership learn from the past and apply those lessons to the decisions of the future.
I would have been happy to die the last combat veteran………. But it isn’t going to happen.

[Spence]

And still more lies from the Bush admin: Thirty miles to the north and west, Army troops were rolling through the precincts of the Nasr munitions plant. Inside, stacked in oblong wooden crates, were thousands of high-strength aluminum tubes.

That equipment, and Iraq's effort to buy more of it overseas, were central to the Bush administration's charge that President Saddam Hussein had resumed long-dormant efforts to build a nuclear weapon. The lead combat units had more urgent priorities that day, but they were not alone in passing the stockpiles by. Participants in the subsequent hunt for illegal arms said months elapsed without a visit to Nasr and many other sites of activity that President Bush had called "a grave and gathering danger."

According to records made available to The Washington Post and interviews with arms investigators from the United States, Britain and Australia, it did not require a comprehensive survey to find the central assertions of the Bush administration's prewar nuclear case to be insubstantial or untrue . Although Hussein did not relinquish his nuclear ambitions or technical records, investigators said, it is now clear he had no active program to build a weapon, produce its key materials or obtain the technology he needed for either.

Among the closely held internal judgments of the Iraq Survey Group, overseen by David Kay as special representative of CIA Director George J. Tenet, are that Iraq's nuclear weapons scientists did no significant arms-related work after 1991, that facilities with suspicious new construction proved benign, and that equipment of potential use to a nuclear program remained under seal or in civilian industrial use.

Most notably, investigators have judged the aluminum tubes to be "innocuous," according to Australian Brig. Gen. Stephen D. Meekin, who commands the Joint Captured Enemy Materiel Exploitation Center, the largest of a half-dozen units that report to Kay. That finding is pivotal, because the Bush administration built its case on the proposition that Iraq aimed to use those tubes as centrifuge rotors to enrich uranium for the core of a nuclear warhead. Read it all here. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17707-2003Oct25.html)

[Spence]

NAMVET: My only problem with you is that you don't post more often. :)

[Chief Seeway]

Originally posted by Skinzaholic
This is what I hate about the Liberal Party... they are quick to discredit and whine when things dont go their way (such as actually building up our military, making people work for a living, and supporting morality) and yet they very rarely have ANY suggestions on how to solve problems themselves.

I'm with ya skinz! Talk IS cheap. Great stuff. I don't think its limited to the Liberal Party(and you probably don't either) but I agree with you 100%

[Chief Seeway]

Originally posted by Spence
First, a cute li'l quote:

It was a surprise to me then — it remains a surprise to me now — that we have not uncovered weapons, as you say, in some of the forward dispersal sites. Believe me, it's not for lack of trying. We've been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad, but they're simply not there.
--Lt. Gen. James Conway, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force
Press Interview
May 30, 2003

AND NOW, THE LIES

..."You remember when [Secretary of State] Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons....They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two.* And we'll find more weapons as time goes on, But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong. We found them." (italics ours) --WP, "Bush: 'We Found' Banned Weapons. President Cites Trailers in Iraq as Proof, " May 31, 2003

*At the time of this statement, no such weapons were found, and no such weapons have been found to this day. On this point as well as the use of the captured trailers as biolabs, the WP said this in the above article: "U.S. authorities have to date made no claim of a confirmed finding of an actual nuclear, biological or chemical weapon. In the interview, Bush said weapons had been found, but in elaborating, he mentioned only the trailers, which the CIA has concluded were likely used for production of biological weapons." There was no statement of fact, there was no smoking gun. The CIA's finding was advanced as an opinion based on its own particular process of elimination, and it was immediately challenged by both U.S. and U.K. intelligence analysts who had seen the trailers. --Politex, 08.09.03

Now comes this..."Engineering experts from the Defense Intelligence Agency have come to believe that the most likely use for two mysterious trailers found in Iraq was to produce hydrogen for weather balloons rather than to make biological weapons, government officials say.

-----

"I don't believe anyone that I know in the administration ever said that Iraq had nuclear weapons."
—Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, at a hearing of the Senate's appropriations subcommittee on defense, May 14, 2003

"We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."
—Vice President Dick Cheney on NBC's Meet the Press, March 16, 2003

For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.
--Paul Wolfowitz
Vanity Fair interview
May 28, 2003

-----

"No one ever said that we knew precisely where all of these agents were, where they were stored," Rice told on NBC's "Meet the Press." --Sunday, June 8, 2003, AP

"Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary...told ABC's This Week that banned weapons were not in areas controlled by allied forces. 'We know where they are, they are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north of that,' he said." --Guardian, March 31, 2003

-----

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

"We know for a fact that there are weapons there."
- Ari Fleischer
January 9, 2003

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.
--George W. Bush
March 17, 2003

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

If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world.
--Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing
December 2, 2002

We know for a fact that there are weapons there.
--Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing
January 9, 2003

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


We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more.
--Colin Powell
Remarks to UN Security Council
February 5, 2003

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.
--George W. Bush
Address to the Nation
March 17, 2003

Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes.
--Ari Fleisher
Press Briefing
March 21, 2003

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

I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction.
--Defense Policy Board member Kenneth Adelman
Washington Post, p. A27
March 23, 2003

One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites.
--Pentagon Spokeswoman Victoria Clark
Press Briefing
March 22, 2003

We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.
--Donald Rumsfeld
ABC Interview
March 30, 2003

We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them.
--George W. Bush
NBC Interview
April 24, 2003

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

I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We're just getting it just now.
--Colin Powell
Remarks to Reporters
May 4, 2003

We never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country.
--Donald Rumsfeld
Fox News Interview
May 4, 2003

I'm not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein -- because he had a weapons program.
--George W. Bush
Remarks to Reporters
May 6, 2003

U.S. officials never expected that "we were going to open garages and find" weapons of mass destruction.
--Condoleeza Rice
Reuters Interview
May 12, 2003

They may have had time to destroy them, and I don't know the answer.
--Donald Rumsfeld
Remarks to the Council on Foreign Relations
May 27, 2003

Seriously Spence, who is going to read ALL that?!?!?! :D :D :D

My opinion is that the government did receive questionable intel from various sources. But I offer this; during the years and years of military "down-sizing" there were also drastic cuts in the CIA and other intel collecting agencies. Specifically in manpower, the people collecting information "on the streets". It is my opinion that these actions "handcuffed" our national defense.

As far as finding WMD and he lied, she lied business. It's a moot point. It will be virtually impossible to search every square inch of Iraq and possibly its neighbors territory. So if Americans don't find any, that doesn't mean there aren't any. There are chemical and biological agents that only require ounces or less to be lethal to a lot of people(hundreds or thousands) depending on its delivery method. So, imagine something the size of a can of hair spray, or a bottle of Tabasco. That is what we are potentially "looking" for.

[Spence]

But, Seeway, the Bush admin said they knew where the WMD was being hidden by Saddam. If they knew, where is it? If they didn't know, that means they lied.

I talk to ex-members of the U.S. intel community [some State, some CIA] and they tell me they gave good intel, but the Admin shoved it aside in favor of people who would tell them what they did want to hear. A lot of this horrible info came from the exiles, Iraqis who fled Saddam Hussein's regime and were telling the Pentagon civilians [Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith, et. al] what they wanted to hear. They had a vested interest in giving the Admin lots of dangerous-sounding info because they stood to gain in any post-Saddam Iraq. So they told the Bush admin what it wanted to hear and they got what they wanted: A seat at the table of power in a post-Saddam Iraq.

The most guilty of these men is someone called Ahmed Chalabi, who is head of the Iraqi National Congress. The INC is very, very close to the Pentagon civilians and was feeding them [and Judith Miller of The New York Times] lots of information that we now know was bogus. But the CIA and State had been telling everyone for years that Chalabi and his exiles were full of crap and could not be trusted. It was well known, of course, that Chalabi had been convicted of bank fraud in Jordan, to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars and had fled the country in the trunk of a car to avoid prison.