WMDs vs. WMD Programs: Does It Matter?

[The Sushi Bandit]

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2004/01-12-2004/insider/wmd.htm

Does it matter whether or not Saddam’s Iraqi regime possessed weapons of mass destruction at the time American forces invaded Iraq? Apparently not, according to President George W. Bush’s recent remarks on ABC News’ Primetime program.

On December 16, Primetime’s Diane Sawyer pressed the president about earlier administration statements that Saddam Hussein definitely had WMDs as opposed to just weapons programs. During that segment of the interview the following interesting exchange took place.

President Bush: "Well, you can keep asking the question, and my answer’s gonna be the same. Saddam was a danger and the world is better off ’cause we got rid of him."

Diane Sawyer: "But stated as a hard fact, that there were weapons of mass destruction as opposed to the possibility that he could move to acquire those weapons still —"

President Bush: "So what’s the difference?"

Diane Sawyer: "Well —"

President Bush: "The possibility that he could acquire weapons. If he were to acquire weapons, he would be the danger. That’s what I’m trying to explain to you."

Of course, the administration had not just claimed that Saddam had WMDs but that the country was practically bulging with such weapons. The Iraqi threat was supposed to be both serious and imminent. On April 10, in a message to the Iraqi people, President Bush even went so far as to say that the Iraqi regime’s "aggression and weapons of mass destruction make it a unique threat to the world." (Emphasis added.) And privately, the Bush administration had much more to say about the Iraqi threat

[leetrisck]

1. To the dead military people, the civilians, our

country - it is one hell of a difference.