President Revises Rationale For War

[Manix]

<snip>


President Bush and Vice President Cheney yesterday said the war in Iraq was justified because Saddam Hussein could have made weapons of mass destruction.

The new rationale offered by the president and vice president, significantly more modest than earlier statements about the deposed Iraqi president's capabilities, comes after government experts have said it is unlikely banned weapons will be found in Iraq and after Bush's naming Friday of a commission to examine faulty prewar intelligence.

"Saddam Hussein was dangerous, and I'm not just going to leave him in power and trust a madman," Bush said yesterday in an interview with NBC's "Meet the Press" that will be broadcast today. "He's a dangerous man. He had the ability to make weapons at the very minimum."

Cheney delivered a nearly identical message yesterday to a group of Republican donors in suburban Chicago. "We know that Saddam Hussein had the intent to arm his regime with weapons of mass destruction," he said. "And Saddam Hussein had something else -- he had a record of using weapons of mass destruction against his enemies and against his own people."



Washington Post

[DebJ]

1. Bush is the master of WMD...destroy democracy and its people

[Darwin2002]

2. I can make WMDs too. you should see the inside of my refrigerator!

Mold, green stuff, who knows what else? Is he coming after me too

[banana republican]

16. ROTFLMAO

[Buns_of_Fire]

28. Drop the Tupperware, back away, and nobody gets hurt...

:evilgrin:

[LiberalFighter]

50. I was thinking how many American citizens had the capability...

of creating WMD during the MTP interview.

Don't all countries have the capability?

[maggrwaggr]

3. these guys are all gonna burn in hell

repent, you fuckers.

[stromboli]

4. claims of mass destruction

They dropped the ball from the very beginning by even playing that WMD card. All they had to do was play up the mass killings, rapes and inhumane tortures that were actually taking place, show the paper trail between Osama and Saddam... people would have been just as happy to support that as the claims of WMD.

[mn9driver]

7. Ummm, what "paper trail" might that be?

Additionally, if we want to invade and "regime change" due to exreme bad behavior on the part of a despot there are lots and lots more out there.

Which one do you think we should choose next?

We went into Iraq due to: Oil. Iraq AND Saudi. No Osama, no "War On Terror".

But that wouldn't play too well on the Sunday morning talk shows, would it?

[aquart]

9. There was no paper trail.

Welcome to DU.

Saddam was a secular ruler. That's why we funded and supported him. Al qaeda is fanatic Muslim. Removing Saddam to allow for religious rule is one of al qaeda's goals.

So they couldn't show a paper trail because they didn't have one because there never was one.

Now, however, thanks to the efforts of our George, al qaeda is beginning to find supporters in Iraq.

Basically, the whole war is an al qaeda recruiting drive.

But once again, welcome to DU.

[gristy]

11. Hmmm, what paper trail?

Got a link? Regarding mass killings, you mean the Kurds he gassed when Rummy was chumming up to him? As far as other countries half way around the world that have a propensity for "mass killings, rapes, and inhumane tortures", tell me WHY THE FUCK WOULD I CARE? Why would I care to invade said countries? Unless, I guess, one particular country is sitting on a mountain of oil in the middle of very unstable region. You joined DU, what, 2 days ago? Hope you are able to stick around a while.

[joeunderdog]

49. There is evidence that Rumsfeld supplied the helicopters and parts of

the chemical weapons used in this raid. These are parts of the mass graves we hear about, in addition to the mass graves left when we finished Gulf War I, told everyone to go get Saddam, then backed off as they got masacred. Mass graves...there they are, courtesy of and made in USA.

[The_Casual_Observer]

19. No way would they get 80%+ approval

10 year old "Evidence" of Saddam being a bad guy wouldn't fly. They played a gullible stupid public like a bunch of wall street investors, tell them what they want to hear, never mind the facts.

Wolfowitz wasn't far from the truth about WMD being the unifying message it was and it worked. However, we are now being BOMBARDED with propaganda to make us "feel good" about what was was done, based on a lie. Reject this bullshit, we were told one thing and now it's another, and they are working overtime to shove the lie down our throats to make us believe it, don't forget it.
The reality is. we went to war with that country because it was seen to be easy to do, politically to Bush's advantage, and because of the potential for cheap oil, an answer to global economic problems. NOT because Saddam is alleged to have killed so and so many people at a time when he was receiving full support and guidance from the the Reagan administration.

[leesa]

35. But were they taking place? That's history from a decade ago.

The annual executions by Iraq were less than the US. Do we know they were happening for sure?

There IS no paper trail between OBL and Saddam, they were deadly enemies.


Since when does the US take out other countries leaders? There are many leaders who have far worse human rights records. The US is usually a leading contender.

[Virginian]

38. What gives us the authority...

>"Since when does the US take out other countries leaders? "

I always wondered what gave us the authority to go into Panama, extract their leader and bring him back to the US to stand trial.

I know we were protecting our interest in the canal and wanted the region to be safe and Noriega was ugly and bad, but I didn't quite understand how we were justified in doing that during Bush I.

[DianeG5385]

41. The T"reason" we took out Noriega

was because he was the conduit for the drugs for arms part of the Iran Contra war. Just how did we finance those arms when Congress would not approve the funding? Drugs!!! No coincidence that the drug lords flourished ala Escobar and many Americans becamer serious coke addicts during this time. Noriega knew that and could take big Bush down. Bush concieved his Panama "war" to get Noriega and find a way to shut him up...Remember he was "out of the loop" during the Reagan admin. Uh huh....Looks like a pattern to me...Take out weak countries that are not a serious threat to the American people, but is a serious threat to the credibility of the administration! Bush junior plays by the same game book.

[LiberalFighter]

51. Absolutely no authority... otherwise

other countries would have the same right to take out any of our leaders. The only reason it doesn't happen is because they don't have the military force to back them up.

[TankLV]

36. No - the point is - if just those reasons were presented as a basis

to launch an attack, an overwhelming majority of people would have been outraged, and actively resisted the push/rush to war.

Only diehard repukes and other criminals "would have been just as happy to support that as the claims of WMD".

I agree they would have "played up" (sexed up - cherry picked - exaggerated) like they did with their reasons toward this rush to war, but "the mass killings, rapes and inhumane tortures" (which happened long ago - during king george I's reign) - are just more exaggerations similar to the incubator babies being thrown on the floor during GWI, and people would NOT have given the green lite to kill thousands based on such statements.

That is the point. The Germans and French have been vindicated. There was NO justification (they are merely trying to find excuses now) to going to war. The MILLIONS who demonstrated on what turns out to be their better judgement than those who have taken control of our government have also been vindicated.

[LiberalFighter]

52. It was a conspiracy on the part of the so called neo-conservatives

from the beginning if not before.

[NickB79]

43. Not only is there no paper trail

But Bin Laden and his forces were prepared to go to war against Saddam to protect Saudi Arabia when Kuwait was invaded. He offerred his forces that had fought so well in Afghanistan against the Soviets to the Saudi royalty's service. He was turned down, though, and the American forces chosen instead. This is one of the main events that brought Bin Laden's anger to bear against the US. That's why he demanded that US forces withdraw from Saudi Arabia (which we did). They were prepared to wage all-out war against each other; I hardly think there would be much of a paper trail between them.

If we're going to go to war against countries for mass killings and crimes against humanity, I can think of literally dozens of countries who's dictators have killed far more than Saddam ever did, and are still killing to this day. Most of Central Africa and Central America come to mind.

[GregW]

47. Good morning stromboli

Are you our designated disruptor today?

[coloradodem2005]

5. Anybody could have made WMD.

Could have made. What a bunch of bullshit. How many other countries should we attack that could make WMD's? With this criteria, we'll be at war until 2080 barring a setback.

[CatWoman]

18. "Anybody could have made WMD."

agreed.

Just look in my refrigerator.

:D

[snippy]

33. We will be at war far beyond 2080 if Bush has his way.

Perpetual fear justifies perpetual war. Someone needs to ask Bush or Cheney to define "victory" in the War on Terra.

[wabeewoman]

6. Ah the purveyor of democracy

"I'm not just going to leave him in power and trust a madman" and just who died and made him God and gave him the power to decide another sovereign nation's destiny.

[pinniped]

30. That would be Pat Robertson.

n/t

[mediaman007]

8. Sad to say, but

the United States has sold weapons of mass destruction. Probably to more countries than Iraq. Aren't some of the salespeople now the finger pointers.

Didn't I see Rumsfeld meeting Hussein with a big, cheesy grin long after Hussein applied those WMD's?

What a bunch of moranic hypocrites!

[lastknowngood]

10. OK is it just me or is it to late to have a "rational" for their insane

lust for power.

[gristy]

12. No, it's not just you.

Me too!

[Snappy]

17. As lame as it gets.

This is insulting. Their lame attempts are getting more pathetic. Do even the Bushbots buy this contemptable crap?

[soup]

13. So, would that now make it

"weapons of mass destruction program related activity intentions"?

:string of profanity:

related! - knew I'd forgotten a word. Thanks for the brain jog, voted4wellstone.

[TankLV]

37. I love it! Gotta get me a kit like Vanna White's letters to post

on a conspicuous wall somewhere where I can continually add words as they try to change their "exxcuses" as to why Johnny was caught throwing rocks at the school bus.

[wellst0nev0ter]

14. So Now We Went To War Because Saddam THOUGHT About WMDs

No weaponsofmassdestruction, no weaponsofmassdestructionprograms, no weaponsofmassdestructionrelatedprogramactivities, we have invaded a sovereign country, disrupted and destroyed thousands of lives including the sacrifices of over 520 American soldiers just because "he's a dangerous man" and "he had the ability to make weapons.

Mister bush. Mister cheney. The tribunal awaits you :grr:

[fearnobush]

29. 531 Solders killed. 3000 wounded.

And still dieing for the lies of Chimpy, OSP, Wolfashitz et al, welcome to the planet of the apes.

[tabasco]

34. Planet of the Chickenhawk Apes, Indeed

The people are not as intelligent as apes if they believe the lies of the corporate cabal.

[jokerman93]

40. Thought Crime! Thought Crime! Thought Crime!

If this specious excuse flies with the American people, they'll start using the rationale on us next.

[LiberalFighter]

53. THOUGHT or Produced urine laced with unknown substances?

Urine can be extremely dangerous. I bet they had to stop Saddam's WMD from being laced with urine and other unknown substances.

"By weight measure, black powder is made of seventy-five parts saltpeter finely ground, fifteen parts charcoal, and ten parts sulfur. All ingredients must be fine ground separately. This can be accomplished with either a mortar and pestle, or with a hand-cranked flour mill. Never mix all three ingredients before grinding unless you want to turn your mill into a deadly grenade, or your mortar into a cannon that can blow off your fingers or even your hand."

"Then the ingredients can be mixed with a small amount of water so the mixture comes out with biscuit-dough consistency. Usually when I mix the ingredients, I add just enough stale urine to make the batch bunch about like biscuit dough. The urine, substituted for water, gives the powder more oxygen and higher performance."

[revcarol]

15. AGAIN?

x

[theorist]

20. Revisionist history, anyone?

It has only been a year, and they have the nerve to say that it was all about "possibilities". The administration never corrected the pundits who kept talking about the "imminent threats". They were the ones who forced the UN to stop their inspections.

Unfortunately, the American people have a remarkably short memory.

[ngGale]

21. Bush rewrites history...

on every occasion.

[salin]

22. Great... with their doctrine of pre-emption... if "could" is all that is

needed, they can go after any country at any time. And if the public falls for it - don't think that the world community won't notice, and each country realize that they could be attacked under this new addition to this new aggressive doctrine. I didn't think that i would see, in my life time, the likelihood of broad international coalitions such as NATO and SEATO being formed - to stave off action from the US... that the US would become to be perceived as the HUGE menace/threat to the world.

[Guaranteed]

23. Wonder what Kerry would say about this.

Would he disagree with these statements? No- I think he would have to agree with Bush.

Wow, this election's going to be GREAT!! Go you American sheeple!

[Jack Rabbit]

24. More discussion

Please click here.

[Jack Rabbit]

25. Bush is full of pretzels

President Bush and Vice President Cheney yesterday said the war in Iraq was justified because Saddam Hussein could have made weapons of mass destruction.

What does he mean "could have made weapons"? If I believed everything Bush was saying a year ago, I would have thought that Saddam was ready to launch a biochemical attack on Saudi Arabia, Iran or Israel. I didn't think that was the case then; I was right. If I thought Saddam had any banned weapons at all, those thoughts vanished in the early hours of the invasion when, faced with a superior military force massed on his border, he didn't use them. What was stopping him? His usually sensitive conscience? His well-documented humanitarianism?

For the parents of the soldiers who have fallen who are listening, David Kay, the weapons inspector, came back and said, in many ways Iraq was more dangerous than we thought.

In the light of the case that Bush and aides unsuccessfully attempted to make against Saddam, how can Bush say that Saddam was more dangerous then he made him out to be? That is simply ludicrous. The Bushies were saying that Saddam was immanent threat; now they are saying that maybe he was an intermediate threat. Even if that is true (as if anything Bush says should be taken on faith), an immanent threat is still more dangerous than an intermediate threat.

Bush lied. He is now obfuscating in an attempt to cover up for those lies. Saddam was a paper tiger and Bush knew it.

[LiberalFighter]

54. I wish he was full of pretzels

[daleo]

26. "He had the ability to make weapons at the very minimum"

Now they don't even have to be weapons of mass destruction, just weapons. With this reasoning, any country would be justified in invading any other country at any time, as every country has the capacity to 'make weapons'. Hell, any human being can 'make a weapon' at a moment's notice. I can't believe this guy ever won enough votes to come close enough to steal an election.

[Terwilliger]

27. And the sheeple eat it up and the Dem nominee still faces an uphill

battle

[radfringe]

31. why do I keep "flashing" back to

that 'lying guy' character from Saturday Night Live... or even Joe Izusu for that matter

....Saddam has WMD's....Saddam MAY have WMD's (yeah yeah that's the ticket)....ummmm...Saddam might have WMD capability at some unknown point in the future....

what's next --- Saddam was thinking about WMD's????

just my opinion --- but the SPIN is getting THIN

[xchrom]

32. they knew they were lying when

the rhetoric changed from imminent threat to a war of liberation.
and this is where i get so angry at mcain -- the rhetorical trail for their lies is there on paper.
they've told so many they can't keep track -- does the media show it to them? no.

[Barkley]

39. Q: North Korea has nukes, & is dangerous, why not attack them?

A: No OIL and they have a means of retaliating.

"Saddam was dangerous..."
Dangerous to whom?
Saddam's army was about 1/5 the size of its 1990 level and Iraq's immediate neighbor didn't see Saddam as a pending threat.

[The Stranger]

42. Lies:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html

(snip from the 2003 State of the Union Address)

25,000 liters of anthrax -- enough doses to kill several million people. . . . . materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin -- enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. . . . . the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. . . . . 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents.

[NickB79]

44. With the extremely loose definition of WMD that Bush uses

Any country in the world that has a halfway decent university with biochemistry, organic chemistry, and microbiology labs could create chemical and biological weapons. So that leaves what, Greenland and Lesotho we don't have to worry about at least?

[hippiechick]

45. "You Can't trust a Madman with Weapons of Mass Destruction"

...anyone at the UN listening ?

If so, when will the inspectors descend on 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue ?


:hippie:

[SeattleBob]

46. Bush's Most Terrifying Statement

I couldn't believe that Bush actually said this today:

"I'm a war president. I make decisions here in the Oval Office in foreign policy matters with war on my mind."

Not exactly a good message to be sending to the rest of the world. Bush has already shown the rest of the world that he's willing to go to war WITHOUT being provoked into war. No wonder that all the good will toward the United States after 9/11 has gone down the toilet. Statements like that only serve to make the rest of the world feel less uneasy about the US and makes the US less secure than it was before.

[nolabels]

57. We try to take it one day at time around here

The homicidal insanity of * is not really something that is novel and new here, but maybe this is a recent development of * proclaiming it on National Corporate Television. Thanks pointing it out

I have taken the liberty to dissect the sentence for clues of thinking. If you take the sentence "I'm a war president. I make decisions here in the Oval Office in foreign policy matters with war on my mind.and subtract the cover reason and title you get this sentence

"I'm a war president. I make decisions here with war on my mind."

you would see the irrational is now the rational

[spanone]

48. Pre-emptive war based on "intent". wow Who's the madman?

[nolabels]

55. Hello, Anybody home?, Most large college universities in the US could also

Is * going to start targeting them next?

[Mari333]

56. Hey Bush you POS tell these kids your LIES