No weapons, no problem for Bush

[igloo]

I firmly believe that the war on Iraq was justified, as WMD was just one element.....and I am a firm believer in this administration....BUT

I still want answers on WMD, for me and the international community....

Like I have stated, either this was a massive intelligence failure, Hussein destroyed them before the war started, or worse--they are in the wrong hands.....

Either way, this administration owes everyone a detailed answer, whatever that answer may be...

No weapons, no problem for Bush

Few willing to challenge president on failure to find arms

President Bush smiles as he walks to Marine One after speaking with reporters at the White House Friday.

ANALYSIS

By Dana Milbank and Jim VandeHei

THE WASHINGTON POST

WASHINGTON, May 17 — President Bush appears to be in no political danger from the failure to find chemical, biological and nuclear weapons in Iraq, with Democrats reluctant to challenge Bush on any aspect of the successful war and polls showing Americans unconcerned about weapons discoveries.

DISARMING SADDAM HUSSEIN of his “weapons of mass destruction†was the main justification the Bush administration used both at home and abroad for attacking Iraq. But while other countries that opposed the U.S. military action claim they are vindicated by the failure so far to find those weapons, Americans — even some of Bush’s political opponents — seem content with the low-casualty victory and believe the discoveries of mass graves and other Hussein atrocities justify the war.

Few Democrats are challenging Bush on the forbidden weapons, preferring to put the war behind them and focus attention on the economy, health care and other domestic issues.

Before the war, for example, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) accused the administration of exaggerating Iraq’s nuclear capabilities, while other Democrats questioned whether Bush and Secretary of State Colin L. Powell were overstating Hussein’s chemical and biological stockpiles.

This week, Pelosi said it is “difficult to understand†why the weapons can’t be found. Yet she did not seem concerned about whether any are found. “I am sort of agnostic on it; that is to say, maybe they are there,†Pelosi said. “I salute the president for the goal of removing weapons of mass destruction.â€

Similarly, Senate Democratic Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.), who on the eve of war accused Bush of failing “miserably†to win international backing, now talks of giving the president “great credit†for winning the war.

POLLS SCARE OFF DEMOCRATS

Why the reticence to remind Bush of the rationale for the war? Public opinion may be one reason.

According to a May 1 Gallup poll for CNN and USA Today, 79 percent of Americans said the war with Iraq was justified even without conclusive evidence of the illegal weapons, while 19 percent said discoveries of the weapons were needed to justify the war. An April Washington Post-ABC News poll found that 72 percent supported the war even without a finding of chemical or biological weapons. Similarly, a CBS News poll found that 60 percent said the war was worth the blood and other costs even if weapons are never found.

It’s not that Americans don’t care about finding the weapons Bush said Hussein had; in an April 16 Post-ABC poll, 47 percent said it was essential. But that made it a lower priority than providing humanitarian aid to Iraq and restoring order.

“If I were a Democratic candidate, I don’t think I would be pushing this issue,†said Andrew Kohut, of the nonpartisan Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. He cited a Gallup poll in the early days of the war determining that 38 percent thought the war justified even if the banned weapons were not found; toward the end of the conflict, that figure jumped to 58 percent.

“Inasmuch as we’ve already done the deed, the need for that as a rationale is less,†he said.

Advertisement

White House officials express confidence that Bush is not vulnerable on the absence of banned weapons in Iraq, if only because few people in either party doubted that Hussein had such weapons. “Both Republicans and Democrats alike know that Saddam Hussein had a WMD program,†said White House communications director Dan Bartlett. “In fact, the U.N. Security Council passed a resolution that confirmed it. So why would you criticize something the entire world knows to be true?â€

In November, the Security Council’s unanimously approved Resolution 1441, which found Iraq to be in “material breach†of its disarmament obligations and gave it a “final opportunity to comply.†But now even some close allies of the Bush administration say they have serious doubts about the intelligence evidence Bush and his aides used to win passage of that resolution.

Before the war, the administration said that Iraq had not accounted for 25,000 liters of anthrax; 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin; 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent; and 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Bush said at the start of the war that Hussein “threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder.â€

But fewer than 60 days later, the group directing all known U.S. search efforts for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the 75th Exploitation Task Force, is winding down operations without any confirmed discoveries of prohibited weapons.

‘If I were a Democratic candidate, I don’t think I would be pushing this issue.’

— ANDREW KOHUT

Pew Research Center for the People and the Press “It’s just very strange,†said Kenneth Adelman, a member of a Pentagon advisory board who had predicted weapons would be found a month ago. “There will certainly not be the quantity and proximity that we thought of before.†Adelman says Hussein may even have launched “a massive disinformation campaign to make the world think he was violating international norms, and he may not have been.â€

Gary Schmitt, of the pro-invasion Project for the New American Century, said investigators “may well not find stockpiles, because it may well be that Saddam figured out it was better to get rid of the stuff†and start over after inspectors left.

IN THE END, LITTLE IMPACT SEEN

Neither Adelman nor Schmitt believes the absence of weapons will undermine the public’s view that the war was a success. With mass graves being unearthed by the day, Americans will have plenty of humanitarian justification for the war. The discovery of circumstantial evidence — mobile biological labs, for example — would provide assurance that Hussein had a prohibited weapons program if not many of the weapons themselves. They say ultimate success will be measured by whether or not Iraq prospers now, not what weapons were found.

But the international community may not be so understanding. False accusations about Iraq’s weapons could make the rest of the world even more reluctant to join the next effort to enforce Bush’s policy of striking at emerging threats. “The American public is moving on, but those countries that were skeptical of this war are going to continue to press on this point,†said Jonathan Tucker, a weapons expert at the U.S. Institute of Peace. “The credibility of the administration and the U.S. intelligence community are still on the line. This whole doctrine of preemptive war is predicated on our ability to determine a country’s potential threat before the weapons are used.â€

‘The basis of the war in Iraq is fraudulent. They misrepresented Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction. They misrepresented the nature of the nuclear threat.’

— REP. DENNIS J. KUCINICH, D-OHIO

Democratic presidential candidate Among the U.S. electorate, though, the concern about Hussein’s weapons programs has been swiftly replaced by an increased sense of security that came with the successful military action. Even fiercely partisan Democrats say privately that they fear criticizing Bush for overstating Hussein’s weapons capability could make Democrats appear to be defending Hussein’s regime.

The top-tier presidential candidates are figuring it is better not to challenge the popular president on any aspect of the successful war. That’s roughly the message former president Bill Clinton delivered at this week’s meeting of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council. “The formula that will beat George Bush is to match him where he is perceived to be strong — national security — and beat him where he is weak — on his failing economic policies and his divisive social and political agenda,†the DLC’s Al From told reporters this week.

The only candidate making a big issue of the failure to find weapons stockpiles is Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (D-Ohio), the fervently antiwar candidate. “The basis of the war in Iraq is fraudulent,†Kucinich said in an interview. “They misrepresented Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction. They misrepresented the nature of the nuclear threat.â€

There are reasons other than politics for the Democrats’ reluctance to take up the subject. Several, including Pelosi, continue to believe weapons may be found. “If you make that accusation and they find [the weapons] tomorrow and you have a banner headline, you look a little silly,†said Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), who supported the war resolution.

But even if the weapons are never found, it may be smart politics to let the subject drop. “Our constituents like a victory, and at this point it’s a victory,†said Sen. Lincoln D. Chafee (R-R.I.). “In the beginning, our constituents were saying, ‘They better find weapons of mass destruction.’ With it over so quickly, we are not hearing that refrain.â€

[sassa]

dude.........just give it up, you can't justify the administration's actions....they're illegal...masked under a cloud of righteousness and superiority....

[igloo]

Originally posted by sassa

dude.........just give it up, you can't justify the administration's actions....they're illegal...masked under a cloud of righteousness and superiority....

..if anyone should give it up it is you.....you have not been right about anything the last two years......then again, I guess sooner or later you may get lucky (for your insecurity) and one of your endless streams of baseless doomsday predictions without viable alternatives may stick

[sassa]

Originally posted by igloo

..if anyone should give it up it is you.....you have not been right about anything the last two years......then again, I guess sooner or later you may get lucky (for your insecurity) and one of your endless streams of baseless doomsday predictions without viable alternatives may stick

and what have you been right about...

[igloo]

Originally posted by sassa

and what have you been right about...

that you are a fucking dickhead with a delusional elitist attitude

[sassa]

Originally posted by igloo

that you are a fucking dickhead with a delusional elitist attitude

that was mature...

[cintron]

but rather accurate.

[thrillfire]

Unfortunetly only time will show people whether the actions of the government were right or wrong and we'll be paying for them.

it might come to bite america in the ass with the rest of the world finally uniting and hurting america financially. It will be bad for everyone who lives here...

but than again it might not and after we're done paying taxes for this war if another one with n. korea doesn't start that will cost another several billion $ coming out of our pockets, our grand grandchildren can enjoy the prosperity of living of other countries.

this is just an opinion...

what goes around comes around....

[t0nythelover]

typical bullshit. first bush said saddam was in al queda, or had connections, that was proven to be untrue. then he said there are weapons of mass destruction that are creating an urgent need for war, that was not true. so basically bush wasted his first three years as a president making threats and creating fake wars. i hope someone assasinates his ass already.

[nycmuzik]

Yeah cause ignoring threats to this country's national security like Clinton did over his 8 years in office is the right thing to do.... :rolleyes:

We live in a diff. time and place now....Fuck what the rest of the world thinks...It has never helped us nor does it give a shit about us....Pre-emptive strikes against our enemy's is the way to go....We didnt start the fight but we sure as hell will finish this....

[sassa]

Originally posted by nycmuzik

Yeah cause ignoring threats to this country's national security like Clinton did over his 8 years in office is the right thing to do.... :rolleyes:

We live in a diff. time and place now....Fuck what the rest of the world thinks...It has never helped us nor does it give a shit about us....Pre-emptive strikes against our enemy's is the way to go....We didnt start the fight but we sure as hell will finish this....

did the army start to brainwash you? i can't believe you actually believe what you are saying...pre-emptive strikes are the answer??? who the fuck does the usa think it is bombing and striking anyone it wants? where is the respect of the american nation for the rest of the world? this arrogance cannot continue to go on much further...no wonder the rest of the world hates us....

[cintron]

Originally posted by sassa

did the army start to brainwash you? i can't believe you actually believe what you are saying...pre-emptive strikes are the answer??? who the fuck does the usa think it is bombing and striking anyone it wants? where is the respect of the american nation for the rest of the world? this arrogance cannot continue to go on much further...no wonder the rest of the world hates us....

the rest of the world hated us before we began bombing other nations into submission. They're quick to hold out their hands when they need aid, or need political support, but the second we turn our backs and look elsewhere, the rest of the world doesn't hesitate to yank the carpet out from under us.

Fuck what they think It's exactly that kind of passive self-righteous attitude towards defense that caused the Clinton adminstration to create some of the most prominent threats to national security in decades. The rest of the world would rather see us get nuked and chem-bombed back to the stoneage first, before they will say "okay, maybe we'll stand behind you on this one."

Face it - aside from a handful, nobody gives a FUCK about the United States so why should we give a fuck about their opinion.

Preemptive strikes ARE the way to go... unless you'd rather see just how big of a bomb a terrorist can explode in NYC, before you'll agree that maybe we should do something.

[btw what hte hell are you doing up this late?! it's 4:30am!)

[sassa]

Originally posted by cintron

the rest of the world hated us before we began bombing other nations into submission. They're quick to hold out their hands when they need aid, or need political support, but the second we turn our backs and look elsewhere, the rest of the world doesn't hesitate to yank the carpet out from under us.

Fuck what they think It's exactly that kind of passive self-righteous attitude towards defense that caused the Clinton adminstration to create some of the most prominent threats to national security in decades. The rest of the world would rather see us get nuked and chem-bombed back to the stoneage first, before they will say "okay, maybe we'll stand behind you on this one."

Face it - aside from a handful, nobody gives a FUCK about the United States so why should we give a fuck about their opinion.

Preemptive strikes ARE the way to go... unless you'd rather see just how big of a bomb a terrorist can explode in NYC, before you'll agree that maybe we should do something.

oh please! 9/11 could have been avoided...they knew at it for months...didn't do anything to stop it...

[igloo]

Originally posted by sassa

oh please! 9/11 could have been avoided...they knew at it for months...didn't do anything to stop it...

Your stupidity never ceases to amaze me....you are really are a rotted cunt

[igloo]

Originally posted by t0nythelover

. i hope someone assasinates his ass already.

you are a miserable piece of shit lowlife

[sassa]

Originally posted by igloo

Your stupidity never ceases to amaze me....you are really are a rotted cunt

look who's talking....you don't know anything, do you?

[bigpoppanils]

Originally posted by sassa

your sig.....is fucking hysterical

[sassa]

thanks...

[mr mahs]

Originally posted by sassa

look who's talking....you don't know anything, do you?

You don't know balls.,..

Get your head out of the deep sea scrolls for a minute and please for the love of God or Allah in your case stop reading conspiracy books.. You should seriously research the pattern of the democrats (not Bush ) in office the last ten years...that seriously diminished our abilities to track and share information about terrorists.. How can you say we knew this was going to happen??

Why do you feel we didn't do anything about it please??

This should be good!!!

[£ddie]

Originally posted by sassa

oh please! 9/11 could have been avoided...they knew at it for months...didn't do anything to stop it...

You really have no idea what you are talking about and have no concept of how intelligence gathering works (or fails to work) if you believe this. I worked at the Justice Department previously, and can tell you that on a daily basis the Justice Department and the FBI receive about 90 thousand tips PER DAY.

We used to receive anywhere from 5-10 credible threats of potential terrorist strikes from the Massad alone. Not to mention the others we used to receive from other intelligence agencies. When you have that much information coming in and don't have the resources to assimilate the information, you have an intelligence failure. It's not that the government KNEW, it's that they had piecemeal facts the intelligence community could not put together because they lacked the manpower and coordination to do it.

And the diminished intelligence resources were in place lonnnnng before Bush took office. This has been a problem for the past decade. Maybe if Clinton had tried to dismantle Al Qaeda after the bombing of the Khobar Towers and the Cole, 9-11 could have been avoided; maybe if Clinton had accepted custody of Bin Laden from the Sudan when they OFFERED to hand him over to us, 9-11 could have have been avoided; maybe if Clinton had hadn't gutted funding for intelligence gathering, 9-11 could have been avoided.

Maybe this, maybe that, what if this, what if that, in retrospect you can second guess any course of events. As some have done here in the past, you can point out 30-40 facts which "clearly indicate" that the government knew 9-11 would happen. Yeah, those 30-40 facts were among the hundreds of thousands of pieces of information the government had received over the course of the months preceding 9-11. In hindsight, everything is 20/20. Facts in isolation mean what a conspiracy theorists LIKE them to mean.

[igloo]

Originally posted by £ddie

You really have no idea what you are talking about and have no concept of how intelligence gathering works (or fails to work) if you believe this. I worked at the Justice Department previously, and can tell you that on a daily basis the Justice Department and the FBI receive about 90 thousand tips PER DAY.

We used to receive anywhere from 5-10 credible threats of potential terrorist strikes from the Massad alone. Not to mention the others we used to receive from other intelligence agencies. When you have that much information coming in and don't have the resources to assimilate the information, you have an intelligence failure. It's not that the government KNEW, it's that they had piecemeal facts the intelligence community could not put together because they lacked the manpower and coordination to do it.

And the diminished intelligence resources were in place lonnnnng before Bush took office. This has been a problem for the past decade. Maybe if Clinton had tried to dismantle Al Qaeda after the bombing of the Khobar Towers and the Cole, 9-11 could have been avoided; maybe if Clinton had accepted custody of Bin Laden from the Sudan when they OFFERED to hand him over to us, 9-11 could have have been avoided; maybe if Clinton had hadn't gutted funding for intelligence gathering, 9-11 could have been avoided.

Maybe this, maybe that, what if this, what if that, in retrospect you can second guess any course of events. As some have done here in the past, you can point out 30-40 facts which "clearly indicate" that the government knew 9-11 would happen. Yeah, those 30-40 facts were among the hundreds of thousands of pieces of information the government had received over the course of the months preceding 9-11. In hindsight, everything is 20/20. Facts in isolation mean what a conspiracy theorists LIKE them to mean.

Good post, but unfortunately Sassa does not have the capacity or brainpower to understand this..

Her narrow intellect is limited to issuing baseless conspiracy theories, never-accurate doomsday predictions, and blame America ramblings.... the intellectually challenged resort to this tactic in order to give themselves a false sense of superiority and elitism.....

[sassa]

Originally posted by £ddie

You really have no idea what you are talking about and have no concept of how intelligence gathering works (or fails to work) if you believe this. I worked at the Justice Department previously, and can tell you that on a daily basis the Justice Department and the FBI receive about 90 thousand tips PER DAY.

We used to receive anywhere from 5-10 credible threats of potential terrorist strikes from the Massad alone. Not to mention the others we used to receive from other intelligence agencies. When you have that much information coming in and don't have the resources to assimilate the information, you have an intelligence failure. It's not that the government KNEW, it's that they had piecemeal facts the intelligence community could not put together because they lacked the manpower and coordination to do it.

And the diminished intelligence resources were in place lonnnnng before Bush took office. This has been a problem for the past decade. Maybe if Clinton had tried to dismantle Al Qaeda after the bombing of the Khobar Towers and the Cole, 9-11 could have been avoided; maybe if Clinton had accepted custody of Bin Laden from the Sudan when they OFFERED to hand him over to us, 9-11 could have have been avoided; maybe if Clinton had hadn't gutted funding for intelligence gathering, 9-11 could have been avoided.

Maybe this, maybe that, what if this, what if that, in retrospect you can second guess any course of events. As some have done here in the past, you can point out 30-40 facts which "clearly indicate" that the government knew 9-11 would happen. Yeah, those 30-40 facts were among the hundreds of thousands of pieces of information the government had received over the course of the months preceding 9-11. In hindsight, everything is 20/20. Facts in isolation mean what a conspiracy theorists LIKE them to mean.

nice rhetoric.

but still doesn't add up

whatever...

[kramadas]

so wait, pre-emptive strikes based on false intelligence is the way to go, right?

This particular war might be considered righteous by most Americans (and it very well might be) because the humanitarian concerns might outweight the intel failure, but what about the next war? OR the next? You see, this particular approach has left the door wide open to any president from now on to pursue wars unilaterally and without properjustification.

Define an enemy? Someone whos sworn to bring the US down? Or someone whos not necessarily friends with the us and is building its country's strength. I believe the latter is the Bush criteria for an enemy (I still have not heard of a time when Saddam said he wanted to destroy the US). ANd if the latter is the case, then that definitely points to an imperialistic approach - suppress anyone else who could *possibly* pose a threat (note I said "possibly" and not "actually").

[igloo]

Originally posted by raver_mania

so wait, pre-emptive strikes based on false intelligence is the way to go, right?

This particular war might be considered righteous by most Americans (and it very well might be) because the humanitarian concerns might outweight the intel failure, but what about the next war? OR the next? You see, this particular approach has left the door wide open to any president from now on to pursue wars unilaterally and without properjustification.

Define an enemy? Someone whos sworn to bring the US down? Or someone whos not necessarily friends with the us and is building its country's strength. I believe the latter is the Bush criteria for an enemy (I still have not heard of a time when Saddam said he wanted to destroy the US). ANd if the latter is the case, then that definitely points to an imperialistic approach - suppress anyone else who could *possibly* pose a threat (note I said "possibly" and not "actually").

But can this war really be considered pre-emptive?....the fact is this war was a continuation of the 1991 war....Hussein never adhered to the original ceasefire agreement, and subsequent resolutions for the next 12 years, including 1441 (which clearly stated adhere or pay the consequences).......plus tried killing a US President (amazing people forget about this--even though Clinton ordered cruise strikes because of this)....and let's not forget our fighters getting shot at every day for 12 years covering UN mandated no-fly zones.....and if people believe that Iraqi intelligence did not play with AL-Qaeda--it is time to yank the head out of the ass....

In addition, this was not a unilateral effort--far from it. That is simply not true--unless you want to define not having Russia and France on board (who should not have seats on the UN security Council any longer, but that is for another discussion)...

Now, if you want to point out this was a pre-emptive strike based on the threat of WMD--then I agree with you....If the US is going to launch an attack on this pre-text, they had better find the stuff that intelligence and politicans claim a country has...I have always stated that for me, this war was more than just WMD--BUT, this administration still owes answers---IMO--this was a massive intelligence failure, and unacceptable......ironically, this may be the last time the US can use WMD/Intelligence as a pre-cursor for pre-emptive strikes....but WMD was only one of the arguements the US used for this war (although the major one)

I also believe this pre-emptive doctrine, from the perspective of military action, may be just overblown rhetoric from politicians (Or a diplomatic tool) , and an alarmist reaction form the anti-Bush crowd...-since if this administration truly believed in it--Iran should be hit, and hit hard....and N Korea......Can't pre-emptive action also include economic, diplomatic, and covert action as well, with military being a last resort? (which was the case of Iraq).

I also agree with you in how an enemy is defined can contain gray areas--plus the fabric of US relationships with many countries is woven in both friend and foe (i.e. Saudi Arabia)....but I do not think Bush considers countries who are simply building their military strength to be enemies (India)...it is how you define intention--for example, the Iranian "civilian" nuclear facility .....Iran has already been on record saying that the day they get a nuke, Israel is gone, even if it means the destruction of Iran....As the major exporter and supporter of terrorism, can anyone ignore Iran's statements?

I understand the concerns and dangers of some of the US actions the past two years----but if you think these actions outweigh the dangers of weapons proliferation or the fact that Al-Qaeda will never stop trying to kill ALL of us,or major reform in the ME has to happen, then I respectfully say you are incorrect...

9/11 changed everything and the world--this is not a tired statement but a reality---the international community and the useless, outdated institutions they protect must adapt new approaches....and if they don't, then the United States must lead....even if it means that the price for long-term global stability is short term broken glass..

BTW--I dislike Clinton, and believe he was one of the worst foreign policy Presidents in history, and this administration is facing problems he chose to ignore and allow to fester--but I will give him this--he would have been able to sell the Bush Doctrine (case in point--no one said boo when he was about to launch war on Iraq, and unilaterally)

[mr mahs]

Originally posted by igloo

Now, if you want to point out this was a pre-emptive strike based on the threat of WMD--then I agree with you....If the US is going to launch an attack on this pre-text, they had better find the stuff that intelligence and politicans claim a country has...I have always stated that for me, this war was more than just WMD--BUT, this administration still owes answers---IMO--this was a massive intelligence failure, and unacceptable......ironically, this may be the last time the US can use WMD/Intelligence as a pre-cursor for pre-emptive strikes....but WMD was only one of the arguements the US used for this war (although the major one)

Good post

1 question...

Do you still beleive that Iraq has or had WMD???