Bush Quietly Gives Up Hunt For WMD

Status
Not open for further replies.
Fact US advised inspectors to leave

FACT: Saddam had a history of repeatedly violating the UN resolution regarding inspections and then capitulating at the very last moment before military actions were proposed, only to return quickly to a state of non-compliance after the media attention died down. The pattern in the Spring of 2003 was identical to previous situations.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-03-17-inspectors-iraq_x.htm
U.S advises weapons inspectors to leave Iraq
VIENNA, Austria (APOnline) — In the clearest sign yet that war with Iraq is imminent, the United States has advised U.N. weapons inspectors to begin pulling out of Baghdad, the U.N. nuclear agency chief said Monday.

Weapons inspectors, shown here searching a test site in February, have been advised to leave Iraq.
By Suhaib Salem, Reuters

Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said the recommendation was given late Sunday night both to his Vienna-based agency hunting for atomic weaponry and to the New York-based teams looking for biological and chemical weapons.

"Late last night ... I was advised by the U.S. government to pull out our inspectors from Baghdad," ElBaradei told the IAEA's board of governors. He said U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan and the Security Council were informed and that the council would take up the issue later Monday.

U.N. officials have said the inspectors and support staff still in Iraq could be evacuated in as little as 48 hours.

No one has yet given the order for the inspectors to begin pulling out, and they were working on Monday. Most of the teams' helicopters have left Iraq because their insurance was canceled, chief U.N. inspector Hans Blix said, and the personnel level was low because of a scheduled rotation home.

IAEA spokeswoman Melissa Fleming said the nuclear agency would wait for Security Council guidance later Monday before deciding whether to pull out its inspectors.

The teams, which returned to Iraq on Nov. 27 after a nearly four-year absence, drew up contingency plans to evacuate even before their redeployment.

"A lot depends on the Iraqis," a senior U.N. inspector told The Associated Press on condition of anonymity. "If they let us use aircraft to get out, we could be gone in 48 hours or even less. If they won't let us fly out, we would have to drive to a border, and that could mean an eight-hour journey across hot desert. It would take longer, but we would get out."

Inspectors have experience in getting out of Iraq in a hurry: In December 1998, they pulled out on the eve of U.S.-British airstrikes amid allegations that Baghdad was not cooperating with the teams.

There have been some concerns that the Iraqis might hold the inspectors as human shields in case of a conflict. But Iraq's foreign minister appeared to play down those fears in a live television interview on the al-Arabiya Arabic satellite channel Sunday night.

"The inspectors came by a decision of the Security Council, which decides on their departure," Naji Sabri said.

ElBaradei told the nuclear agency's 35-nation governing board Monday that he was worried about the safety of the teams, yet still held out hope that war could be averted.

"Naturally the safety of our staff remains our primary consideration at this difficult time," he said. "I earnestly hope — even at this late hour — that a peaceful resolution of the issue can be achieved, and that the world can be spared a war."

ElBaradei, who has been monitoring the situation day to day, also confirmed that he and Blix had received an invitation from Baghdad "to visit Iraq with a view toward accelerating the implementation of our respective mandates." He did not say whether he or Blix had accepted.

"I should note that in recent weeks, possibly as a result of increasing pressure by the international community, Iraq has been more forthcoming in its cooperation with the IAEA," he said, adding that inspectors still have found no evidence that Saddam Hussein has revived his nuclear program.

But with the United States, Britain and Spain making clear that Monday would be the final day for diplomatic efforts to avert a conflict, it appeared that the inspectors were running out of time and could begin withdrawing at any moment.

In other signs that war could be imminent, the U.S. State Department on Sunday night ordered nonessential personnel and all family members to leave Israel, Kuwait and Syria in a precautionary move.

Germany closed its embassy in Baghdad on Monday after calling on its citizens to leave Iraq "immediately," and Britain advised all its citizens except diplomatic staff to leave Kuwait as soon as possible, citing a potential threat from war in neighboring
 
You beat me to it Clean97GTI :evil:

I was going to say, of course he had them. How do we know....we kept the reciepts!

It really doesn't matter anyway, if it weren't WMD's it would have been something else.

jojo
 
Watching people who refuse to accept the reality that Saddam was beaten into submission from a decade of sanctions do these mental backflips and contortions just to avoid admitting they were wrong is, to quote rebar, "rediculous."

Just remember: arrogance and pride are not virtues.
 
What a bunch of leftist dribble.....of course he had WMD's!!!! What do you think was used on the Kurds in the North before we freed them from a tyrant with the just and righteous invasion?
 
Watching people who refuse to accept the reality that Saddam was beaten into submission from a decade of sanctions do these mental backflips and contortions just to avoid admitting they were wrong is, to quote rebar, "rediculous."
You mean those "sanctions" where Saddam was beaten with 20 BILLION dollars with his cut of the "oil-for-food" program?

Where do I stand in line for a beating like that?
 
We can debate whether Saddam had WMD recently all we want. There's ample evidence to support either side of the arguement. I doubt whether anyone will ever know for sure what happened to the WMD he once had.

One thing, however, is certain. We KNOW, beyond any possible doubt, that Saddam will never be able to use use WMD against Americans in the future. We can be sure of this because our President had the courage to put Saddam Hussein behind bars. Saddam can no longer threaten his own people or the rest of the world. This is a Very Good Thing.

If a dozen men armed only with box cutters can kill 3,000 of us, just think what a dozen men armed with WMD could do to us. The risk is simply too great. We can't afford to leave this sort if thing to chance any more. Our President understands this clearly. Why can't all of you?
 
What a bunch of leftist dribble.....of course he had WMD's!!!! What do you think was used on the Kurds in the North before we freed them from a tyrant with the just and righteous invasion?

And it bothered us so much at the time we gave him more money and weapons. Duh

Now back to the war on terror.
What country
1 is an ally
2 has chemical weapons
3 has nuclear weapons
4 harbors terrorists
5 finances terrorists
6 sold nuclear technology to Iran and Libya
7 birthplace of the taliban (you know the group we kicked out of afghanistan for harboring al qaeda?)
8 Probably is the new home of Osama bin laden?

PAKISTAN!!

Im so glad this president isnt a hypocrite and a liar
 
Keep in mind that we were no longer supplying him with anything of the sort when he was killing his own people, which btw, was with WMD that Iraq had long before we helped him.
 
I guess the problem is that Pres. Bush matches his words with action in defense of the U.S.

------------------------------------------
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 |

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 |

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 |

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
 
No the real problem is

I guess the problem is that Pres. Bush matches his words with action in defense of the U.S.

He has lied to you and the american people. But rather than face reality, a lot of people are looking to rationalise his behaviour. History will look dimly upon those who followed this idiot.

His latest fiasco is trying to start a guest worker program so we can develop mexican oil reserves.
 
But rather than face reality, a lot of people are looking to rationalise his behaviour.
Seems to me that some people are looking to rationalise their irrational hatred of Bush.

We just had a national referendum on Bush's policys. It was called an "election", and he won. All your enormous quotes and vitrol will not change the fact that Bush will be President for another four years. 60,693,281 Americans obviously didn't share your opinion of the man.
 
Fact head of UN says invasion not legal
You mean the head of the UN, the organization that repeatedly ignored Saddam's violations of its own resolutions? You mean the organization that is in the middle of one of the largest fraud scandals in the world due its member states illegally profitting from the oil-for-food program?? You mean Kofi Annan, the guy whose son is in the middle of this scandal??? Yeah, I'm sure Kofi knows a lot about illegalities.

Fact intelligence was perverted by office of special plans
Perverted? Not quite. All information funneled through intelligence is subject to some interpretation. Kind of like Clinton's interpretation that an asprin factory was linked to al-Queda. The totality of the information led to any number of conclusions; the one most likely was advocated by the President. If the Democrats had misgivings, they should have expressed their reservations and asked the right questions before the war, not after. Truth be told, they did ask those questions and came to the same conclusions.

Fact US advised inspectors to leave
Yes, before the invasion started. What about the multiple times Saddam kicked them out in the 90's. His history of non-compliance was so overwhelming that the UN simply gave up. He had NO intention of ever fulfilling his obligations to the UN resolutions.

The difference between the Bush-bashers and the war-supportered is that the former were more than willing to give Saddam the benefit of the doubt, even though there was no reason to believe him, and every reason not to. I wasn't willing to give this murdering tyrannical thug that luxury.
 
Now back to the war on terror.
What country
1 is an ally
2 has chemical weapons
3 has nuclear weapons
4 harbors terrorists
5 finances terrorists
6 sold nuclear technology to Iran and Libya
7 birthplace of the taliban (you know the group we kicked out of afghanistan for harboring al qaeda?)
8 Probably is the new home of Osama bin laden?

PAKISTAN!!
 
Why do you keep bringing up Pakistan when you were the one that brought up the issue of WMD in Iraq? Why don't we answer that question first. When you admit that Iraq had/has a WMD program, that the US had a legal right to invade, we'll answer your Pakistan statement.
 
George W. Bush and the Pope

The Pope visits Washington and President Bush takes him for a ride down the Potomac on the presidential yacht. They're enjoying themselves when a gust of wind blows the Pope's hat (zucchetto) off and out onto the water. The Secret Service begins to launch a boat but Bush waves them off saying, "Wait. I'll take care of this."

Bush steps off the yacht onto the surface of the water, walks out a ways and picks up the hat. Back on board, he hands the hat to the Pope amid stunned silence.

The next morning the Washington Post carries the story complete with photos under the heading BUSH CAN'T SWIM. :)

Short of suicide or turning Democrat, what could GWB possibly do to make a Bush-hater happy?
 
Rotflmao!

I have to say, I've been reading this thread for 15 minutes and I'm crying, I'm laughing so hard. I've never seen such pretzel logic or pedantic gymnastics like what I've seen here in my life. People, it couldn't be more clear -- our beady-eyed, room-temperature-IQ president and his little neocon boyfriends have f*cked this one up the likes of which we haven't seen since Napoleon got his Loo Watered.

When you do come around, consider this: alot of folks knew before the Iraq war ever started that Hussein didn't have the capability to hit us, or anybody we care about. And alot of folks knew before the Iraq war that knocking over Hussein's regime would result in civil war, wholesale Islamic union against the USA, or both. Looks to me like we're well on our way to both.

The number of people in willing and adamant denial of this now-proven ABSENCE OF WMD's have caused me to reconsider my original opinion of the far right: maybe Bush *is* the brightest among them. That's a scary thought!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top