Media reported Bush post Iraq WMD lies-with new report, will they remember

[papau]

www.Misleader.org

BUSH CONTINUES TO MISLEAD ON WMD

In the lead up to war, President Bush argued that America must invade Iraq because it possessed weapons of mass destruction. For example, on 9/28/02 President Bush said, "the Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons."<1> On 10/7/02, President Bush said, "Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program."<2> Long after it became clear that there were no stockpiles of WMD in Iraq, President Bush has continued to insist that before the invasion "Iraq was a gathering threat."<3>

A comprehensive 1000-page report to be released today by the Bush administration's handpicked weapons inspector, Charles A. Duelfer, will reveal "Saddam Hussein posed a diminishing threat at the time the United States invaded and did not possess, or have concrete plans to develop, nuclear, chemical or biological weapons" according to the Washington Post.<4> According to Duelfer's report, U.N. sanctions prevented Hussein from reconstituting his weapons programs.<5>

Sources:

1. "Radio Address by the President to the Nation," The White House, 09/28/02, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1338421&l=61151.
2. "President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat," The White House, 10/07/02,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1338421&l=61152.
3. "Remarks by the President at Victory 2004 Rally," The White House, 09/16/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1338421&l=61153.
4. Report Discounts Iraqi Arms Threat, Washington Post, 10/06/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1338421&l=61154.
5. Ibid, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1338421&l=61154.

[Ganja Ninja]

1. Worse than forgetting they will treat it as only a point of view.

PBS the other night did a story on the CIA report and then followed it up with two guys debating about it. One of the guys was sighting the report as proof Iraq never had WMD's. The other guy had written a book about Saddam's WMD's.

What I don't understand is why have someone there to offer a rebuttal of facts? Since the claim has been discredited what's the purpose of perpetuating a pack of lies by treating it as a legitimate point of view?