Nope. Rumsfled said, on Nightline, I believe, that they had information that lead them to beleive that Saddam " ...has reconstituted nuclear weapons." This was about 2 or 3 weeks before the war. I'll try and find the quote, some other more skilled than myself poster posted it for me before. Edit: Found it, B-Bob...it was Rimrocker ( I should have known)...but I got the show wrong... "Two months after the President's address to Congress, Vice President Dick Cheney appeared on NBC's "Meet the Press" and went further than the president in alleging Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons program. "He's had years to get good at it and we know he has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons," Cheney said." B-Bob...I know it seems to extreme to believe. I didn't even twig to the significance until the former asst. Sec. of State went on about how damning this is on the BBC. Yep, they said it...just one of many.
Omigod... I am very cynical, so I'm not completely surprised at such a lie. Why that statement shocks me is that he's a very sharp guy. He must have been thinking they would be completely untouchable... and maybe they are. But it's an incredible act of hubris. Apparently, nobody in their right mind really thought Saddam had actual nuc-u-ler weapons, but he made that statement on Nightline. This is so hard to believe. Not to dilute it, but that is probably the singular most assertive nuclear statement from the entire administration. Otherwise, I do think the lingo was: "seeking to acquire, blah blah." Also possibly complete horse****, but less damning.
That was the exact point of the former asst. Sec. State...who otherwise was actually semi-defending the war. But he said that, as bad as the SOTUA claims were, this was far more damning, far more literal, and he couldn't understand why little if anything was being made about this.
I just thought that I'd take this opportunity to point out a pattern. This is about the, I'll try and not exaggerate, 30th time I've had my 'synopsis', 'version', etc. of events questioned by someone who supports the war, usually with a lot more invective than T_J used here. Every single time, from my report on the BBC telecast about the market bombing and civilian reaction at the beginning of the war to this, sprinkled in between with several " US-hater!", challenges for proof, " LIAR!" and etc. I have either backed up my case directly with proof, or someone such as rim has done it for me...and I have yet to hear one single apoloigy or admission that I was telling the truth. Accusations, insults, proof...and the sound of crickets chirping, that has been the sequence of events in my experience. This is not about yay me, as I am sure I am not alone in this. But I have repeatedly shown that I don't make stuff up, repeatedly shown that I have no preconcieved political or other affiliations in this issue, and yet the accusations without foundation continue as for example today T_J accuses me of being blindly ant-Republican. To me this just shows both the lengths some people will go to to avoid the truth when it disagrees with their position, and shows how little they will attempt to know the other side's position, let alone understand it. On the other hand you have codells, and others, particularly MadMax, who will look for the truth where it lies, even if they don't like what they see. Again, this was a mild example, but it's mildy insulting, and moreover indicative of a pretty standard pattern which is both very insulting and very dissapointing.
Now you are resorting to lying. I never said you were 'blindly ant-Republican' [sic]. I said that you were doing your best to slander the Republican party and that you were blindly trusting Saddam's story. Get it straight. Your frequent attacks on the credibility of the Administration, combined with your signiture, combined with a multitude of other left-leaning posts, lead me to believe that you are left-leaning. Pretty simple, really. Look pal, I'm sorry your little "I'm the smartest person in the world" theory was challenged today. It looks like it has really affected you. Maybe it's good to be knocked off your perch. You needed to be brought back down to earth, after your prolific smear campaign against the war. Sorry I had to be the one to do it, but hey, it may make you a better poster in time.
Let me clarify that statement. When he said "reconstituted" he quickly corrected himself and changed his statement. He was being interviewed by Tim Russert. Why didn't Tim Russert call him on it? Because he just misspoke and quickly corrected it. So, no, the Bush Admin. never claimed that Iraq had reconstituted a nuclear weapons program. There is a reason that quote is not commonly reported.
They were not working. Everyone including the UN agreed hat Saddam was lying and not providing a full accounting of the weapons he had nor was he destroying them. Besides, if he was lying straight to the UNs face, it is likely that he would just completely stonewall no action was soon undertaken. Did the report say imminent? Because I don't think there was an immminent threat either. I am talking more long term. All evidence indicated that he could have a nuclear bomb within a decade, and possibly, but unlikely, within 5 years. Plus he is a constant threat to his neighbors, only because our troops and military presence does he not attack places like Saudi Arabia. And this causes a huge headache in dealing with 9/11. Plus they are a constant threat to Israel, having launched attacks in the original Gulf War. What would be the implications? I believe the "pre-emptive doctrine" would be very weakened. And some trust would be eroded.
If anyone is lying, it is you. If anyone is blindly anything, it is you. MacBeth is right. He has presented evidence to support each of his positions and has been repeatedly slandered by demagogues who rarely if ever present any evidence to back themselves up. Instead they trot out tired crap like Republican basher, America hater, Saddam sympathizer. Sometimes treeman or johnheath (in one of his many identities) presents questionable support for his positions, calls it absolute fact, and then disappears when the evidence is soundly refuted. Jorge, of course, rarely presents anything but hyperactive conjecture. But MacBeth does neither of those things and the scorn heaped upon him by less responsible (or respectible) posters is ludicrous. And neither MacBeth nor myself ever said Saddam didn't have weapons or definitely wasn't a threat. We also never said the war wasn't justified -- only that based on the thin, questionable evidence presented during the case for war, we had seen nothing to justify it. More and more it looks like we were right to question the questionable evidence and more and more people like TJ are getting desperate and resorting to tired old catch phrases. Jorge, MacBeth has nothing on you with regard to pomposity or smugness. He's not on a perch. You are, of course, but it's one of your own imagining and one that gives the rest of us a great, hearty chuckle. But if MB were on a perch you'd be the last one to knock him off it. Whatever happened to that "masterpiece" post by the way? I could use a good laugh.
Batman, That was a very nice collection of generalizations and accusations. I only ask one thing of you: Prove to me when I ever lied. I proved MacBeth's lie, now prove the ones that you are accusing me of. Gracias.
Jorge, Glad you enjoyed it. Didn't know you were capable of enjoyment. Live and learn. For a start, you said MB was blindly believing Saddam's story. You called him a liar for an extremely benign rewording of your silly assertion about his feelings toward the Republican party. That wasn't a lie. Suggesting he believed Saddam was.
Uh, no, he suggested that when he accused the US of not believing that the WMD had been destroyed. His entire argument in that post was founded on believing Saddam. That is why I called it out as being ludicrous. His rewording of my statement completely changed its meaning. That is far from 'benign'.
Actually, to T_J's credit, he has made two absolute masterpiece posts over the last month or so. 1) His post in my "Polo: The Mullet of Shirts" poll thread was perhaps his strongest work to date. He linked the polo to economic freedom and then boasted of leaving the top button undone to tempt women with a glimpse of his shaved chest. Now that is classic. 2) I can't recal the exact thread, but he delivered another gem in a relationship advice thread. (Was it rocketman95's?). He went on about some sort of bio-magnetic field or some such. Off the wall classic. So, if posters could be selectively banned, we could do things like the following: ban T_J from the Debate and Discussion forum, where he is worse than useless and hurts his own cause more than he helps it; ban B-Bob from the Game Action forum, because he can't ever watch any games anyway and he seeks to derail threads with insipid jokes; et cetera.
Jorge, I'm not gonna get into the silly semantics games you Republicans now seem to like so much (hilarious that after the "is" is stuff), but I will say this: First, you guys love to leave out the idea that the bio/chem weapons have a general shelf life which is shorter than the time that's passed since we know they had the weapons. If you want a credible excuse as to what happened to them, there is one. Second, SpaceCity's right -- I said IF anyone's lying. And what I meant was that I don't think either case rose to the level of lying (and if you do, you'll have some serious backtracking to do when trying to give the White House a pass on their 'untruths.'), but if one did it was certainly yours. I am not surprised that you take the incredible leaps of logic necessary to go from MacBeth's claim that there's been no credible evidence of an imminent threat to accusing him of believing Saddam, but it is a stupid, stupid thing to do and far closer to a "lie" than anything he's said about you. Of course, if you want to stick with that assertion, I'm sure someone would be happy to present you a list of Bush I's staff and other Republicans who also, according to you, believe or believed Saddam. MacBeth's posts have never been of the extreme variety, but lately the views he's expressed are shared by many prominent Americans and by a great percentage of the American public. Do they all believe Saddam or are you an incredible blowhard?
In general, it is a very hard to lie when giving one's opinion. Oh no. I can see it now. Bush, Cheny and Rumsfeld weren't lying about wmd, they were just giving an opinion.
Glynch, It is accepted that Saddam HAD WMD at one point, and had NOT accounted for there destruction, as he had agreed to do in order for us not to take him out back in '91. Any reasonable person would think that he still had them when we went in this time. At the very worst we got rid of a horrible regime and helped create a more stable middle east. And that, is a worthwhile thing. DD
DD, As I understand it, it is also well accepted that the types of WMD's he had have an expiration date and that the time between us knowing he had them and the time of the war was time enough for them to expire. This is a sincere question: Why does practically no one talk about this?
ahh, ok so it is ok to lie to the American people if it is all in the name of an "good cause" pluuuuuuleazeee
