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.

the difference is 80 billion dollars

Quote:

---

Originally posted by slim
/hijack

slim- 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.

---

splat- [hijack on] But a vote by representatives in Congress is not based in scientific fact, morality, common sense, or a profound care about American citizens. It's based on favors,cash, corporate influence, and the all-important re-election to office of the politician. I don't care what party he/she represents. They're all crooks in a system designed to be crooked and serve the unseen/unknown pullers of the strings[/hijack off]

slim- 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.

splat- [hijack on] After spending ten years on the energy efficiency side of utilities and a bit of time in Europe, I can say with complete conviction that 1) we could power this nation with half the coal fire plants currently in use, and 2) we could all be driving cars that get 60 miles per gallon that perform as well as the ones we have now. The reason we haven't cut pollution is that it would cut the profits of the corporations selling fuels - the same corporations that contribute to the elections of the crooks in office who voted against the Kyoto treaty. Why the fuck don't Americans get it?????????????? American Corporations are the best PR generators in the world because people think info like the opinion slim laid down here is truth and fact. Why? Because it's subliminal brainwashing exquisitely inserted into every bit of news the media dishes out. And people were trained to trust the news in Amerika. Ever notice who advertises on the national news?[/hijack off]

slim- It's comparing apples and oranges.

splat- kinda like the matrix and reality?

Quote:

---

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

---

Just a dumb inbred redneck here, ill-informed , I will gladly vote for GW.

And to think that almost 60% of Americans support Bush, my backwoods redneck logic tells me that 60% of us Americans must be dumb ass ill-informed rednecks......

Guess that makes the other 40% or so, informed of course, becuse they can parrot everything they hear superstars say.

Polly want a cracker....

"Just a dumb inbred redneck here, ill-informed , I will gladly vote for GW.

And to think that almost 60% of Americans support Bush, my backwoods redneck logic tells me that 60% of us Americans must be dumb ass ill-informed rednecks...... "

That pretty much sums it up.....

If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by milkman
"Just a dumb inbred redneck here, ill-informed , I will gladly vote for GW.

And to think that almost 60% of Americans support Bush, my backwoods redneck logic tells me that 60% of us Americans must be dumb ass ill-informed rednecks...... "

That pretty much sums it up.....

---

No one ever said the majority of Americans were either informed or intelligent. The Republican Party is banking on that!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Over-Exposure
No one ever said the majority of Americans were either informed or intelligent. The Republican Party is banking on that!

---

Exactly. BTW, I was just quoting sledneck....

Quote:

---

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

---

If good ol' boy Geo W. Bush is re-elected do you think moving here will help. He'll probably launch an attack on us too, stating that his 'intelligence' sources tell him that Canada is harbouring terrorists or some other equally absurd bullshit. (Don't forget Canada has lots of oil too)

If that rednecked, cowboy, motherf###er gets re-elected GOD HELP US ALL!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SledNeck
Just a dumb inbred redneck here, ill-informed , I will gladly vote for GW.

And to think that almost 60% of Americans support Bush, my backwoods redneck logic tells me that 60% of us Americans must be dumb ass ill-informed rednecks...

---

Your words, my friend, not mine. I never equated "Ill-informed" with either stupidity or "redneck-ism." You did. Congratulations. Now please return your head to the sand.

This is a great thread full of individuals that have a keen understanding of what's going on here. An overwhelming majority of American's are minions and clones - basing their entire opinions on what they see on television, delivered my GW or the Tom Brokaw types.

Just remember sled-neck that the so called "majority" of American's actually wanted someone other than GW for President. GW was elected fair and square, and according to the rules of the game so I'm not diving into that debate at all.

Tippster's thoughts from page 1 are a straight forward example of the differences between an impeached President, and this one.

Last election I voted my conscience, this one I'm not.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Tippster Please, which is the worse lie:

---

This is part of the problem. The President of the country should not lie. Period. Not about WMD, not about sex w/ interns, not about forgetting to brush his teeth. The President should lead by example, first and foremost.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Big E
This is part of the problem. The President of the country should not lie. Period. Not about WMD, not about sex w/ interns, not about forgetting to brush his teeth. The President should lead by example, first and foremost.

---

Gimme a break. No where in the Constitution does it say that the President is supposed to be your Boy Scout leader or a role model.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Tippster
Hmm.. Clinton lied about something that was:

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

---

I may take this juncture to point out that what Clinton(Monica?) did is illegal in a number of states, including Virginia. How's that for screwy?

Never realized we had so many leftist types here :D ;)

Look, the main problem with Americans is that they blame the president for EVERYTHING. If they dont have a job, its the presidents fault, if they dont have enough money, its the presidents fault, if their kid is stupid, its the presidents fault. The president is just a poster boy for the American people. Who we should all really be mad at is Congress, for they are the ones that make the real decisions. They have the power to pass bills into laws, even without the presidents approval. They have the power of the purse, so if they didn't like this war, they didn't have to fund it in the first place. Most importantly, they have the power to impeach the president if they dont like what he is doing. The president has hundreds of people helping him out and numerous advisors that know way, WAY more about what is going on than anyone else, and you can't argue that. He didn't just wake up one day and decide to go to war. You can't do that in our country, thats what makes it so great. He has to pass it through congress first. I haven't seen one person blame George Allen, or Craig Thomas for this mess. You know why? Because nobody knows who the fuck they are! But you know what? They voted to pass the bill to let Bush go to war. So shouldn't we be mad at them? I guess not, but maybe I'm just misinformed, after all I do watch the same news as you :rolleyes:

What gets me heated is that everyone is so quick to jump down Bush's throat. Everyone assumes he's stupid, but they don't know why. Maybe because he made a few slip-ups in his speeches. Big woop. He want to Yale, and I don't care if he got C's, he still went there. I see a lot of people here saying that they supported the war at first, but now they dont. Well what the hell is that? Bush supported the war at first, and now maybe he realized that it was a bad idea, but he can't just back out of it. The critics would have a field day. We can't just back out of Iraq now either, we have to stay in there until the job is done. Thats what anyone with a backbone would do. If were going to have to be in there, it would make sense that Bush stands by his cause until it's over.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dipstik
Never realized we had so many leftist types here :D ;)

Look, the main problem with Americans is that they blame the president for EVERYTHING. If they dont have a job, its the presidents fault, if they dont have enough money, its the presidents fault, if their kid is stupid, its the presidents fault. The president is just a poster boy for the American people. Who we should all really be mad at is Congress, for they are the ones that make the real decisions. They have the power to pass bills into laws, even without the presidents approval. They have the power of the purse, so if they didn't like this war, they didn't have to fund it in the first place. Most importantly, they have the power to impeach the president if they dont like what he is doing. The president has hundreds of people helping him out and numerous advisors that know way, WAY more about what is going on than anyone else, and you can't argue that. He didn't just wake up one day and decide to go to war. You can't do that in our country, thats what makes it so great. He has to pass it through congress first. I haven't seen one person blame George Allen, or Craig Thomas for this mess. You know why? Because nobody knows who the fuck they are! But you know what? They voted to pass the bill to let Bush go to war. So shouldn't we be mad at them? I guess not, but maybe I'm just misinformed, after all I do watch the same news as you :rolleyes:

---

Those are all good points, but there is no questioning the influence that the president has over legislation and policies. The president's influence on Congress is huge, everyone wants to be on board with the Pres, that's where it's happening. Congress can't not vote for approval of the war funds, those who do would be seen as unpatriotic, and those who don't are in the vast minority, more power to them. Change has to start somewhere.

Even war, which the original constitution stated could only be declared by congress, was usurped by the War Powers Act of 1973, which says that the President need only consult with congress. There was a lot of talk about this before the war, and many thought that Bush would have gone at it without Congress's approval. I think the GW Jr. was taking the Iraq situation very personally as many saw Sr.'s failure to remove Saddam from power as a big blunder.

Passed by Congress over President Nixon's veto, the War Powers Act of 1973 requires the president to "consult" with Congress before "introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances," and to notify Congress within 48 hours of any U.S. troop commitment or deployment.