Bush on the lack of WMDs- "what's the difference?" NSR

Copied this from another message board. Just reading this interview makes me ill....

DIANE SAWYER: Fifty percent of the American people have said that they think the administration exaggerated the evidence going into the war with Iraq, weapons of mass destruction, connection to terrorism. Are the American people wrong? Misguided?

PRESIDENT BUSH: The intelligence I operated one was good sound intelligence, the same intelligence that my predecessor operated on. The ? there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein was a threat. The ? otherwise the United Nations might ? wouldn't a passed, you know, resolution after resolution after resolution, demanding that he disarm. ... I first went to the United Nations, September the 12th, 2002, and said you've given this man resolution after resolution after resolution. He's ignoring them. You step up and see that he honor those resolutions. Otherwise you become a feckless debating society. ... And so for the sake of peace and for the sake of freedom of the Iraqi people, for the sake of security of the country, and for the sake of the credibility of institu ? in ? international institutions, a group of us moved, and the world is better for it.

DIANE SAWYER: But let me try to ask ? this could be a long question. ... ... When you take a look back, Vice President Cheney said there is no doubt, Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction, not programs, not intent. There is no doubt he has weapons of mass destruction. Secretary Powell said 100 to 500 tons of chemical weapons and now the inspectors say that there's no evidence of these weapons existing right now. The yellow cake in Niger, in Niger. George Tenet has said that shouldn't have been in your speech. Secretary Powell talked about mobile labs. Again, the intelligence ? the inspectors have said they can't confirm this, they can't corroborate.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Yet.

DIANE SAWYER: ? an active ?

PRESIDENT BUSH: Yet.

DIANE SAWYER: Is it yet?

PRESIDENT BUSH: But what David Kay did discover was they had a weapons program, and had that, that ? let me finish for a second. Now it's more extensive than, than missiles. Had that knowledge been examined by the United Nations or had David Kay's report been placed in front of the United Nations, he, he, Saddam Hussein, would have been in material breach of 1441, which meant it was a causis belli. And look, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein was a dangerous person, and there's no doubt we had a body of evidence proving that, and there is no doubt that the president must act, after 9/11, to make America a more secure country.

DIANE SAWYER: Again, I'm just trying to ask, these are supporters, people who believed in the war who have asked the question.

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, that's what I'm trying to explain to you. A gathering threat, after 9/11, is a threat that needed to be de ? dealt with, and it was done after 12 long years of the world saying the man's a danger. And so we got rid of him and there's no doubt the world is a safer, freer place as a result of Saddam being gone.

DIANE SAWYER: But, but, again, some, some of the critics have said this combined with the failure to establish proof of, of elaborate terrorism contacts, has indicated that there's just not precision, at best, and misleading, at worst.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Yeah. Look ? what ? what we based our evidence on was a very sound National Intelligence Estimate. ...

DIANE SAWYER: Nothing should have been more precise?

PRESIDENT BUSH: What ? I, I ? I made my decision based upon enough intelligence to tell me that this country was threatened with Saddam Hussein in power.

DIANE SAWYER: What would it take to convince you he didn't have weapons of mass destruction?

PRESIDENT BUSH: Saddam Hussein was a threat and the fact that he is gone means America is a safer country.

DIANE SAWYER: And if he doesn't have weapons of mass destruction [inaudible] ?

PRESIDENT BUSH: Diane, you can keep asking the question. I'm telling you ? I made the right decision for America ?

DIANE SAWYER: But-

PRESIDENT BUSH: ? because Saddam Hussein used weapons of mass destruction, invaded Kuwait. ... But the fact that he is not there is, means America's a more secure country.


link

Saw the interview and thought the President gave standard politician answers, which is to say avoid the question and then appear upset when the question is repeated. I can see it now, conservative radio will say Diane Sawyer was badgering our President. However if it was President Clinton they would say he was avoiding the question, which he was quite good at as well.

I was particularly disappointed she never got around to questions regarding his energy policy and his administration's decision to seal many of the records that would explain how an energy policy this biased came about. Unless this was the first question asked since I started watching the interview 5 minutes after it started. But hey at least now I know he bought Mrs. Bush her Christmas present, which is what is really important. :rolleyes:

its a standard thing, presidents or any politicans don't give exclusive interviews to anyone who's going to ask tough questions. Hillary and Barbra Walters for example. Its bullshit all the way around

I was pretty supportive of this whole thing going into it, but the more I've learned about the whole situation the less supportive I have become, even with the whole capturing Saddam thing. I think it's a positive that he is out of power, for the people of Iraq, don't know that it does a whole lot for us though, it seems to me it was an entirely economic decision.

I'm in the same boat with Telephil. When I watched the State of the Union and subsequent speaches, I was in favor of invasion. I based this on all the aledged weapons and the threat they posed to us. I took Bush's word over the word of the U.N. and it's inspection team that had been in the country for a decade.

Well, it so turns out that there were no WMD's. We were hoodwinked. The taxpayers have a huge bill to pay for the gain of a select few. Nice. We'll be finding out how much we got hosed on this for years. Maybe even longer than we're paying for it.

Not that this is the first time a President looked directly into a camera and lied to the American public. Why does this keep happening??

Now that's pretty funny....Bush expounding on "...good, sound intelligence...". Kinda like Richard Simmons describing sex with a woman.

He and his group are a bunch of fucking liars and the sooner people realize it the better off we'll be.

I guess I've always felt that getting rid of Hussein was a positive, not because of the threat (real, perceived, or otherwise) he posed to the US, but to his own people (like Milosevic, etc.), so in that sense I was semi-ok with the invasion, but the way it was carried out, alienating the rest of world, couldn't have been worse.

What absolutely drives me nuts, however, is the fact that the administration, DoD, etc., seemed so surprised by the continued unrest in Iraq after the "major conflict." I've seen several interviews with Rumsfeld and others, and they seem to have not even considered the fact that some Iraqis might not like it that the US came in and invaded their country. That sort of ego is, well, dangerous to all of us, and a big reason that so many countries hate the US.

Wow, maybe my first actual political post. Screw this, I'm going back to looking at beaver's avatar.

And it's going to end up costing us at least 300 billion dollars by the time it's all said and done. We'll be paying that forever.

I say we remove all U.S. Troops from foreign soil, use these troops to strenghten our borders and spend the money on something like say I don't know, education. It's not like our country is so perfect that all we should be doing is going around fixing other country's problems. Our Imperialism is a huge reason why terrorists hate us in the first place. How would you feel about Ecuador if everyday you woke up and saw Ecuadorian troops around your home, walking on your sacred land?

Hussein filed papers with the UN stating what weapons he had back in 97. He didn't want to give em up. Now he lives in a rathole. That's undoubtedly where the chems and bios will be found as well. Or Syria.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Ireallyliketoski
And it's going to end up costing us at least 300 billion dollars by the time it's all said and done. We'll be paying that forever.

I say we remove all U.S. Troops from foreign soil, use these troops to strenghten our borders and spend the money on something like say I don't know, education. It's not like our country is so perfect that all we should be doing is going around fixing other country's problems. Our Imperialism is a huge reason why terrorists hate us in the first place. How would you feel about Ecuador if everyday you woke up and saw Ecuadorian troops around your home, walking on your sacred land?

---

Interesting idea, but its execution would likely result in the rest of the world complaining that America is serving its own interests first and abandoning the rest of the world to poverty, crime, hunger, disease, and regression. I still think America is better off engaging the world than retreating from it. But our leaders have to learn how to work with other nations, not piss them off. That doesn't mean compromising our ideals, but it does mean at least appearing to listen to other arguments and being a team player. The world has changed and it's no longer just about the well being of one nation. We're facing troubles that affect the entire planet. The patent backing out of the Kyoto Treaty by the U.S. (regardless of the validity of the treaty or scientific data) is a classic example of how to piss off the rest of the world.

There was an interesting segment on NPR yesterday, an interview with Max somethingorother, the head weapons inspector for the UN. He was saying that the United States is the only country that believed Iraq still possessed weapons of mass destruction. He and his fellow UN inspectors believed weapons, if there were any, were dispossed of years ago. He also spoke about weapons that are "unaccounted for". The United States was the only country that believed took unaccounted for to mean that they were hidden, not that they simply did not exist to begin with.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Schmear
Interesting idea, but its execution would likely result in the rest of the world complaining that America is serving its own interests first and abandoning the rest of the world to poverty, crime, hunger, disease, and regression. I still think America is better off engaging the world than retreating from it. But our leaders have to learn how to work with other nations, not piss them off. That doesn't mean compromising our ideals, but it does mean at least appearing to listen to other arguments and being a team player. The world has changed and it's no longer just about the well being of one nation. We're facing troubles that affect the entire planet. The patent backing out of the Kyoto Treaty by the U.S. (regardless of the validity of the treaty or scientific data) is a classic example of how to piss off the rest of the world.

---

I don't think that pulling our troops out from around the globe and engaging other countries are mutually exclusive events. There are many other countries that participate in global trade, talks, and diplomacy without having their troops scattered throughout the globe. I was only referring to military troops and having our soldiers stay on our soil and be ready to deploy if needed overseas. That would certainly save money, but more importantly it would help to improve the overall impression of America throughout the world.

I hear ya. But would U.S. diplomats, aid agencies, commercial workers, embassy officials, etc. be willing to risk their lives working in hostile countries if they knew they didn't have some kind of military protection? It's a delicate balance.

.

Exhibit A

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...3/378fmxyz.asp

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mr_gyptian
Exhibit A

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...3/378fmxyz.asp

---

That a nice exhibit from a super right wing rag. Re-title it "Propaganda Piece A" :rolleyes:

Exhibit B

http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affair..._10022003.html

You work for the government don't you? Didn't the CIA use forged documents to make the case that Iraq was had obtained nuclear material in Africa? Thought so.....there's Exhibit B's credibility down the tubes....

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Schmear
The patent backing out of the Kyoto Treaty by the U.S. (regardless of the validity of the treaty or scientific data) is a classic example of how to piss off the rest of the world.

---

/hijack

I love how the backing out of the Kyoto treaty is widely regarded as a conservative effort. The U.S. Senate voted against it 99-0-1. It doesn't get more unanimous than that. Furthermore, to discount the validity of scientific data and the effect that it would have on the U.S. simply to make nice with other countries is absurd.

The thing so many people fail to realize about the U.S. is that while we are the greatest producer of green house gases in the world, the U.S. has by far the most stringent emissions regulations. The quantity of green house gases produced by the U.S. is a matter of economies of scale. We have the industrial output greater than all of Europe combined. To say that the U.S. pollutes more than Germany or England or France, is to say that the collective U.S. pollutes more than the state of Wisconsin or California or New Jersey. It's comparing apples and oranges.

/hijack off

Is there a way we can hide this thread from blurred elevens? :D

Quote:

---

Originally posted by irul&ublo
Now that's pretty funny....Bush expounding on "...good, sound intelligence...". Kinda like Richard Simmons describing sex with a woman.

He and his group are a bunch of fucking liars and the sooner people realize it the better off we'll be.

---

And Once Again - I agree with irul completely!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

milk,

the uranium intel was from the British. I linked to the CIA testimony to underline the fact that searching for the WMD is not exactly easy. I don't think anyone will deny the existance of the WMD's in Iraq. The UN signed off on it many times before being kicked out.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Schmear
I hear ya. But would U.S. diplomats, aid agencies, commercial workers, embassy officials, etc. be willing to risk their lives working in hostile countries if they knew they didn't have some kind of military protection? It's a delicate balance.

---

I agree, but my point is that these countries would be much less likely to be hostile if we removed our military presence. Surely, other countries have embassies in hostile countries and are not wanted to be attacked as much as U.S. interests are. It's like the U.S. is the big prize for the terrorists (Air Israel not withstanding), but the sooner that we show these countries that we are not a threat to their way of life, the sooner that they will become non-hostile, the sooner that balance will be restored to the universe.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by splat
And Once Again - I agree with irul completely!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

---

and to think that there is a good chance that this IDIOT is going to re-elected. I'm moving to Canada.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Skidawg
...Not that this is the first time a President looked directly into a camera and lied to the American public. Why does this keep happening??

---

Hmm.. Clinton lied about something that was:

1. a private matter
2. perfectly legal
3. physically, mentally, and fiscally harmed no one involved.

He was impeached and nearly removed from office. The country was outraged, and an otherwise great president will always be looked at by history as "Slick Willy."

Bush lied about something that is:

1. directly killing about 2 americans per day
2. costing us (conservatively) $300 Billion
3. Directly benefitting his Vice President and other cronies financially

He will likely be re-elected, no legal action will be taken against him, and many ill-informed voters consider his actions heroic.

Please, which is the worse lie:

1. I did not have sexual relations with that woman...

or

2. Saddam Hussein is trying to build "newcular"{sic} weapons to directly aid the terrorists.

The first is a bit risque - the second flat out obscene.