Blitzer did not challenge Huckabee's claim that Saddam "said that he had" WMD
SUMMARY: On CNN's Late Edition, Wolf Blitzer failed to challenge Mike Huckabee's claim that Saddam Hussein "said that he had" weapons of mass destruction. In fact, in December 2002, Iraq issued a declaration to United Nations weapons inspectors on its chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs and its long-range missile programs, and CNN.com reported that "Iraqi officials say the report proves Baghdad has no weapons of mass destruction."
On the October 28 edition of CNN's Late Edition, host Wolf Blitzer failed to challenge Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee's claim that Saddam Hussein "said that he had" weapons of mass destruction (WMD), which Huckabee made after Blitzer asked whether President Bush "made a mistake" when he ordered the 2003 invasion of Iraq. In fact, prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Saddam maintained that Iraq did not possess WMD, and following President Bush's speech at the United Nations General Assembly in September 2002, Iraq agreed to unconditionally accept U.N. weapons inspectors. Further, on December 7, 2002, Iraq issued a nearly 12,000-page declaration to U.N. weapons inspectors on its chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs and its long-range missile programs. At the time, CNN.com reported that Iraqi officials said "the report proves Baghdad has no weapons of mass destruction." Rajiv Chandrasekaran wrote in a December 7, 2002, article in The Washington Post that Iraqi officials said the report "contains 'currently accurate, full and complete' details of the nation's chemical, biological and nuclear programs but reiterates claims that it has no weapons of mass destruction."
Blitzer also failed to challenge Huckabee's assertion that "[j]ust because we haven't found" the WMD "doesn't mean they didn't exist." Blitzer sought no response from Huckabee to findings by the Iraq Survey Group (ISG) issued in October 2004, also known as the Duelfer report. The report stated that "ISG judges Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991"; "Iraq appears to have destroyed its undeclared stocks of BW [biological weapons] weapons and probably destroyed remaining holdings of bulk BW agent"; and "Iraq did not possess a nuclear device, nor had it tried to reconstitute a capability to produce nuclear weapons after 1991." The report also stated: "The problem of discerning WMD in Iraq is highlighted by the prewar misapprehensions of weapons, which were not there. Distant technical analysts mistakenly identified evidence and drew incorrect conclusions. There is also the potential of the obverse problem. Observers may have evidence before them and not recognize it because of unfamiliarity with the subject. Often ISG found no evidence of one thing or another. It may be that a more accurate formulation might be we recognized no evidence."
From the ISG report:
- While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad's desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered.
- ISG judges that in 1991 and 1992, Iraq appears to have destroyed its undeclared stocks of BW [biological weapons] weapons and probably destroyed remaining holdings of bulk BW agent. However ISG lacks evidence to document complete destruction. Iraq retained some BW-related seed stocks until their discovery after Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF).
- ISG found no direct evidence that Iraq, after 1996, had plans for a new BW program or was conducting BW-specific work for military purposes. Indeed, from the mid-1990s, despite evidence of continuing interest in nuclear and chemical weapons, there appears to be a complete absence of discussion or even interest in BW at the Presidential level.
- Iraq did not possess a nuclear device, nor had it tried to reconstitute a capability to produce nuclear weapons after 1991.
- Saddam Husayn ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the Gulf war. ISG found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program.
From the October 28 edition of CNN's Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer:
BLITZER: Do you believe the Bush administration made a mistake in going after Saddam Hussein, launching the invasion back in 2003, knowing everything you know right now, including the fact that no weapons of mass destruction have been found?
HUCKABEE: Well, you know, sometimes people say we've never found the weapons. Just because we haven't found them doesn't mean they didn't exist. We haven't found Jimmy Hoffa either, but we know he exists. That's always the way that we're going to try to frame this sometimes, is that, well, we didn't find them. But you know, he was the one who said that he had them. He has used them in the past. It's easy to second-guess what we should have done. Frankly, that's no longer a good option for us, other than for us to try to make sure that in the future, we have the very best intelligence before we ever commit boots on the ground. But what we have to always remember is that if he failed to take action, weapons of mass destruction had been deployed, killing thousands, if not millions of people, then the other question would have been, "Why didn't we do something?" So, second-guessing, that's the easiest job in the world. People run for president so they make tough decisions. Sometimes they're not the best ones, but hopefully they're decisions that are always going to put the protection and the safety of the American people first.
Didn't President Numbnuts himself say that Saddam was lying about WMDs? Wasn't that one of their ever-shifting excuses for starting the war?
Wolfie...you disappoint me...as usual.
Well I think we are all to blame, geez I remember Pres Clinton saying they had them in 98 when he launched Desert Fox.
http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/
I thought Clinton was accused of the old "Wag the Dog" ploy. Which is it....for today?
I never supported the Wag the Dog, I loved and still worship Bill Clinton, that said in 1998 and earlier we all thought that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. That was why he bombed them in 98. Republicans were outraged, they are phonies but in the end it was not a partisan issue until 2002.
HOW true.
Yes, the age old mantra, Clinton did it. Just shows how shallow this administration's record is when someone constantly has to introduce Clinton into the conversation. Really now, Clinton has been gone for more than 6 years and the neo cons have to still diflect the complaints of the dismal record of these guys by bringing up Clinton. Know what folks, it ain't working any more!!!!!!!!
I guess nothing changed between 1998 and 2003? What was our intelligence community doing all that time?
Its obvious our intelligence community did fail big time. One thing I remember even in early 1998 was this
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9802/18/town.meeting.folo/
and this was the "evidence" in 1998. Where did the weapons go?
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9802/17/iraq.evidence/index.html
in any case, the u.n. inspectors were readmitted before the invasion of 2003 and were going everywhere and were finding nothing. it was bush who forced them out so he could start the war.
There were certain sites in Iraq which the inspectors did not have access to (Saddam blocked entry) so Clinton bombed those areas.
"Just because we haven't found them doesn't mean they didn't exist."
If that's the case then, with all of our resources expended in Iraq, if our miliatry and intelligence operations have been unable to locate or account for Saddam's alleged WMD then we are terribly, terribly inept.
How DARE you imply that about our DoD? While you've been sitting there comfortably behind your keyboard, the State Department has been out there furiously working, gathering information and evidence, and has now pinpointed the exact location of the unfound WMD to a spot in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north.
Somewhat.
Unless they were moved to Syria.
Okay, okay, perhaps I was a little harsh... After all we did find and kill Osama Bin Laden, right? <sarcasm>
Was it Jimmy Breslin who wrote that book a long time ago, The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight?
You really have me giggling. We invaded Iraq. We tromped through the entire coutry. What you are saying is that this administration and the military leaders they picked were so stupid they just could NOT even find the weapons they declared were really there. Ummmm, on second thought, they did have Rumsey leading the charge and for sure he was grossly incompetent. No WMDs found to date though. Just admit it. This invasion by the Bushies was started on a trumped up theory only. No facts. And all these soldiers lives and the treasure of our country, and the thousands and thousands of lives of Iraqis blown to bits for nothing. What an administration. God only knows if we will ever recover our good name.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
Ok, the Republican Presidential Candidates, ney for one, argues that; "So We're Liars, Screw-ups, and Complete Failures For The Past 7 Years" that is why we should be in charge!
I think we can over come this strategy!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
Huckabee reveals himself as yet another Rightwing mindless drone, repeating this Bush Administration's lies as if they have not been DEBUNKED by REALITY time and again.
A human being who cannot make the distinction between proven fact and spoken fantasies, lies and fables told for purely partisan reasons to help achieve ideological goals ... that person has no business in ANY position of responsibility. Such a person cannot be trusted managing a Pizza Hut, let alone running a nation.
In fact, we have learned this lesson the hard way, because the current resident of the White House is just such a Reality-Impaired individual.
By these statements alone, Huckabee has DISQUALIFIED himself from any consideration for higher office (or ANY office). He is deluded, addled, even hallucinatory.
It's bad enough that he supports this Administration's policies, but to do so by citing the same BOGUS REASONS which have long been proven to be fabrications and falsehoods ... this shows a man who simply cannot think, learn, or use rational reasoning.
Huckabee: DISQUALIFIED for office. End of story.
Tex, some should be called the Alternate Reality Voters...
Well, take it up with Bill Clinton too then. As he said on Larry King Live back in July 2003, "When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for".
But, Tommy, all of the updated intelligence did not point to Saddam's possession of WMD. It's one thing to keep looking for WMD when there is a suspicion of their existence, but it's quite another to invade another country based only on that suspicion and in the absence of hard, current intelligence establishing the existence of the weaponry along with an intent to use those weapons to our detriment.
I am talking about Huckabee's claim in this interview that MMFA wanted Blitzer to challenge. Saddam did use them on his own people, and according to Clinton there were unaccounted for WMD's when he left office.
Bill Clinton is not running for President. Huckabee is. The point is that there was an operating assumption by some, left over from the 1990s, that Saddam was still armed with WMD. Updated intelligence did not support that assumption. You don't start wars based on unsubstantiated assumptions.
"You don't start wars based on unsubstantiated assumptions."--irony
To be more precise, intelligent and wise leaders don't start wars based on unsubstantiated assumptions.
Tommy, as usual you just swallow the bile from BushCo. It is very likely the Iranians were responsible for gassing the Kurds.
Iranians gassed Kurds.
Actually it isnt that likely. That was the story put out by the Reagan administration to cover for Saddam, WHILE they stopped a UN investigation of the event. It is almost certain that Saddam DID do that. In 88 AFTER which we sold MORE precursers for chem and bio weapons DIRECTLY to their military and gave him a billion dollar loan
Did Bill Clinton force the weapons inspectors to leave by giving the order to attack?
I didn't think so.
That is not the crux of this interview.
The crux of the interview is that Huckabee finds no fault with Bush invading Iraq.
NEITHER IS CLINTON'S ASSESSMENT!!!!!!!!!
B-b-b-ut, Clinton. Clinton!!!
The reason I feel Clinton is imporatnt to the subject is that in the late 90s we all thought Iraq had WMD. I never bought it then, we killed hundreds of thousands of children with the illegal sanctions, and no one cared.
The reason I feel Clinton is imporatnt to the subject is that in the late 90s we all thought Iraq had WMD.
I think the Clinton administration assumed he had weapons until it could be verified [through inspections] that the weapons were no longer in Saddam's possession. Unfortunately after Clinton pulled the inspectors and bombed those sites in 1998, Saddam refused to let the inspectors back in.
Liberals and Democrats use Clinton all the time when it's convenient, or when they want to pine away about our prosperity and good times during his administration......yet distance themselves from him when it's inconvenient.
Curious.
The problem for you is there is nothing to here to that Clinton should have been ashamed about. Even David Kay credits Clinton with wiping out the last vestiges of Saddam's WMD in the 1998 bombings.
The Clinton Administration did not know positively whether they had destroyed that capability. Unfortunately, barring positive proof of that, intelligence agencies carried on the assumptions that were left over from the Clinton Administration. I think it is safe to say that Bill Clinton did not advocate an invasion while he was President. Bill Clinton knows that there is a time for tough talk and showing a united front, but using force is another matter. That threshold should have been higher for Bush, but it wasn't.
Clinton acted appropriately at least with regards to Iraq. Bush acted inappropriately no matter how people try to spin and deflect. No comparison does the Bush Administration any favors. I welcome that comparison.
Even Darth Cheney admitted that invading Iraq was a stupid idea...15 years ago. I guess his subsequent years raking in money at Halliburton made him realize what a bonanza was hiding under Iraq's sand.
Conservatives and Republicans use Clinton all the time when it's convenient, or when they want to lay all the fault with terrorists and Iraq on his administration......yet distance themselves from him when facts prove inconvenient.
Curious.
How about this- Clinton was wrong about Iraq's capabilities, but at least he didn't commit US resources to a long and predictably bloody foreign occupation based on his wrong conclusions.
Well, take it up with Bill Clinton too then. - tommy
That couldn't be more irrelevant.
The point of the post isn't whether there were WMD. It isn't even whether others thought there were WMD. The point of the post is that the Huckster claimed Saddam said there were WMD when exactly the opposite is true; Saddam adamantly denied he had them.
If I didn't know better, I'd think you were attempting to divert the discussion.
"Well, take it up with Bill Clinton too then. As he said on Larry King Live back in July 2003, 'When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for.'"
"Unaccounted for" doesn't mean Saddam had any weapons.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for". - tommy / Tuesday October 30, 2007 12:59:48 PM EST
And GWB's Administration was alerted first and foremost that Al Qada was going to be the most important national security concern, and was laughed off by Condi, Chaney, Rumsfeldt, and the Neo-Cons.
And Clinton was accused of waging war to curry favor with the public, the "Wag the Dog" parity of the entire Republican mouth peices.
And Condi Rice, Dick Chaney, Donald Rumsfeldt, Colin Powell, and Richard Hadley all discribed Iraq and Saddam as bottled up, and not a threat.
Gee Tommy, is your standard for reliable information based on the sourse willingness to express all sides of a subject as it suits their circumstance??
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
Yes, "UNACCOUNTED FOR". In the meantime UNSCOM said they accounted for them and destroyed it all. All that was left was some absolutely harmless old stuff that had no use as a WMD. This is the same old lie that this administration has tried to foist on us as an excuse for Bush to do one ups man on his daddy. All he accomplished is to show himself to be grossly incompetent or as the South end of a jackass going north as my sainted mom used to say.
"Well, you know, sometimes people say we've never found the weapons. Just because we haven't found them doesn't mean they didn't exist. We haven't found Jimmy Hoffa either, but we know he exists."
If Huckabee truly believes the Iraq bloodbath is a noble effort of just cause, he needs to stop delivering these statements through the media, and instead personally deliver them to every person who has lost a loved one in Iraq.
If he truly desires to be the half the leader he says he wants to be, he will have no problem looking these people in the eye and delivering such consolatory statements as these.
Also, why isn't Huckabee promising to track down Saddam's unaccounted for WMD if elected? If Saddam's WMD are flaoting around somewhere in the Middle East doesn't that pose as much of a danger as the suspicion of Saddam's possession of the weapons? If Huckabee truly believed what he is saying then he would promise to make the finding and elimination of Saddam's WMD a top priority of his administration. Bottom line is that Huckabee doesn't believe his own BS.
Blitzer also failed to challenge Huckabee's assertion that "[j]ust because we haven't found" the WMD "doesn't mean they didn't exist."
HUCKABEE: Well, you know, sometimes people say we've never found the weapons. Just because we haven't found them doesn't mean they didn't exist. We haven't found Jimmy Hoffa either, but we know he exists. That's always the way that we're going to try to frame this sometimes, is that, well, we didn't find them. But you know, he was the one who said that he had them. He has used them in the past. It's easy to second-guess what we should have done.
It is obvious that the MMFA staff have a serious problem with reading comprehension. MH is not "asserting"anything, he is framing the other side of the debate proposed by WB. Had WB challenged the facts as MMFA suggest the MH response is OK -- that's the other side of the debate.
The bottom line is that the invasion occured - hindsight is 20-20 - why waste time discussing hypotheticals. Sadam was not trustworthy no matter what he said he did or didnt have. His word was unreliable so a greater emphasis had to be put on intelligence - which was obviously bad.
"The bottom line is that the invasion occured - hindsight is 20-20 - why waste time discussing hypotheticals."
There is that pesky little issue of the nobility of the cause that you are sending soldiers off to die for. Why our people had to die may not be worth discussing to you, but it is very important to a great many others.
MMFA is trying to frame the discussion as a right wing media slant based on their opinion that WB didn't challenge MH's "Assertion". MH made no assertion. MMFA is the one guilty of misinformation by trying to imply a bias where none exists.
There is that pesky little issue of the nobility of the cause that you are sending soldiers off to die for.
During the invasion of Normandy over 30,000 soldiers lost their lives in one day. Was their cause noble because of the outcome or because of their willingness to fight? Is the death of our soldiers in Iraq any less noble because the outcome is not what was thought to be? I think not.
Nice straw man argument.
Not a strawman argument at all. At the time the invasion started many thought the cause was "noble" - many others disagreed. Sadam had thumbed his nose at many UN resolutions, was playing a cat and mouse game with weapons inspectors, and even the Clintin administration believed in the WMD's. Congress was well aware of what was going on. In hindsight much of that has been forgotten and now that thigs haven't turned out as thought people want to wash their hands of the events.
Many joined the service with the full knowledge they were going to fight, that thier chances of returning home were not 100%. To say that their cause is any less noble because of the otutcome is wrong.
Now getting back to my original point - MMFA is as guilty of producing misinformation as they claim they watch out for.
1st, you are trying to deflect the "nobility of the cause" statement be redefining it from a question about the administrations' push for war to a statement about the soldiers, thus attempting to use the soldiers as a shield to nullify the errors of the administration.
2nd, it is clear that MH is defending the administration's actions when he says But what we have to always remember is that if he failed to take action, weapons of mass destruction had been deployed, killing thousands, if not millions of people, then the other question would have been, "Why didn't we do something?" . I've bolded the definition of assert that applies:
1.to state with assurance, confidence, or force; state strongly or positively; affirm; aver: He asserted his innocence of the crime. 2.to maintain or defend (claims, rights, etc.). 3.to state as having existence; affirm; postulate: to assert a first cause as necessary. —Idiom 4.assert oneself, to insist on one's rights, declare one's views forcefully, etc.:
—Synonyms 1. asseverate, avow, maintain. See declare. 2. uphold, support.
So now you can clearly see that MMFA is not doing as you say. You may apologize for your attempted claim now.
I reviewed the "Nobility of the cause" in my first paragraph above. Please re-read. That is why soldiers are at war - the two are related.
Here is what MMFA posted.
Blitzer also failed to challenge Huckabee's assertion that "[j]ust because we haven't found" the WMD "doesn't mean they didn't exist."
HUCKABEE: Well, you know, sometimes people say we've never found the weapons. Just because we haven't found them doesn't mean they didn't exist.
Again go back and read my first post. MH is not asserting that Just because we haven't found them doesn't mean they didn't exist - he is framing the oposing side of the debate proposed by WB. The excerpt you posted is a hypothetical, a what if scenario - not an assertion.
No apology required!
Your "nobility" definition is quite bogus. There was a sharp divide over Iraq. That support you are trying to attribute to Iraq was Afghanistan. Congress was purposely misled by the administration, so to say they were informed and knew what was going on is also a bogus claim.
And MH is not framing the other side of the debate, he's ducking the question. It's a pretty simple yes/no question, and MH avoided a direct answer and instead obfiscuted like a weasle on viagra with that line about "we hope the president makes the right choices" while throwing in a few what if scenario's to deflect criticism. So apologize away, please!
Are you actually trying to tell me that Sadam thumbing his nose at UN resolutions and Clinton's similar beliefs about WMD was about Afghanistan? For that was the topic of my first paragraph above.
Huckabee asserted nothing - Media Matters has again twisted nothing into something to prove a point that only exists in their minds - and apparently yours too. Sorry - bit that's the truth. And there is your apology!
No, I'm trying to tell you that you are really dishing a piling heap of bull suggesting that most everyone thought the Iraq war was a noble cause at 1st. I'm trying to tell you that all that BS about Saddam thumbing his nose is just that - inspectors were in the country and Saddam was complying, Bush pulled them out anyways and started the war. And I'm trying to tell you that irregardless of what Clinton thought back in 1999, the facts were Bush and co lied about yellow cake uranium, about those tubes, outed a CIA undercover operative out of spite, and started a less than noble invasion because Saddam tried to kill his daddy. And I'm also telling you MH danced like a stripper on a pole avoiding a direct answer, proving that MMFA was right in bringing this to light. Now there's the truth.
Saddam at the time of the invasion wasnt thumbing his nose at anything. The inspectors were IN Iraq getting no interfernce by their own statements. MMFA didnt twist anything you did.
He is framing the argument as if it makes sense and is reasonble it isnt, thus its misinformation
WRONG again. The inspectors said directly they were going wherever they wanted with no interferenece so there were no games going on with the inspectors thats just a lie. And NO MMFA is not dishing any misinformation YOU are.
"MMFA is the one guilty of misinformation by trying to imply a bias where none exists."--wc4me
Hogwash. MMFA isn't implying anything. You are inferring something maybe. MMFA never mentions "bias" nor accuses anyone of it.
The point of this headline is to point out that WB didn't challenge MH's "assertions" is it not? I quoted them in my first post. Careful reading of the transcript revaels MH made no such assertions. That is misonformation.
"But you know, he was the one who said that he had them." --MH
He uses that assertion as a point to backup his argument. It is most assuredly described accurately by MMFA.
That is not a viable comparison, sir. The reality is that the selling points for this war were to disarm Sadam because his possession of WMD's were a direct threat to our national security. Once they were not found and the death toll began to rise, the rationale for war changed right under our very noses. It is my understanding now, according to the administration, that we went to war to establish a foothold in the middle east so we could fight the terrorists over there and not here. The nobility of the cause was lost the moment we all found out we were duped into this war. The unforgivable thing here is that we committed our brave young men and women to battle under the guise that they were there to to remove a brutal dictator bent on using WMD's against us. Heck, I believe that I read that at one time a majority of our soldiers thought that Iraq played a central role in 9-11I wonder how they got that idea???? The ultimate reality is that we really didn't go to Iraq for the reasons that Bush told us. What is noble about that? I will add this, as a personal opinion. A cause is only noble to a soldier when they believe in that cause, irrespective of the outcome. In WWII our brave men knew the whole time what they were fighting for, it never changed. Are you really comfortable with an everchanging cause just to justify a war as noble in peoples minds? Doesn't that strike you as eerily Orweillian?
Iraq's posession of WMD's was one several reasons presented for the invasion. It was the one most focused on because it has impact. It was also presented that Iraq- as a state sponsor of terrorism - would indeed become a battleground as the organized terror groups would flock to Iraq to defend it's foothold. It has.
You are convinced that we were "duped" into going to war for some as of yet unadmitted hidden agenda by the Bush administration. I don;t agree. Conspiracy theories are abundant - none are very convincing.
Sadam played the chicken game - but while the world sat by the Bush administration decided to do something about it. Trying to argue what would or could have happened if we had done things differently is as futile as you and I discussing where we would be today if we had invested $1,000 in Microsoft in 1986. I critisize the way this war has been prosecuted - thinking I could have done it better - but what do I really know? What do you really know? I know that we all think we could have done it better.
Sometimes people have to make tough decisions based on what they know at the time. Blitzer and Huckabee could discuss what if scenarios on everything fron the war to economics. Bottom line is it's not going to change anything - which is Huckabees response to Blitzer.
The Administration refused to listen to the French who had deep ties to Iraq and KNEW that they did not have these weapons and said so. Then, the hitmen crucified the French for being RIGHT.
And please, do not use the 'France had a Financial stake in Iraq routine'.
Iraq's posession of WMD's was one several reasons presented for the invasion.
It was the pivotal reason. How many Congresspersons would have voted for any resolution without the WMDs argument?
It was also presented that Iraq- as a state sponsor of terrorism - would indeed become a battleground as the organized terror groups would flock to Iraq to defend it's foothold. It has.
Fundamentalists would flock to any Muslim nation we invaded. They don't want us in the region.
You are convinced that we were "duped" into going to war for some as of yet unadmitted hidden agenda by the Bush administration.
It's not hidden; it's the oil. Profits for their buddies, increased presidential power (because we're at war) and the chance to forward the conservative agenda are secondary.
Sadam played the chicken game - but while the world sat by the Bush administration decided to do something about it.
Saddam let the inspectors in. The Bush administration did not like the fact that inspectors weren't finding anything. Bush pulls the inspectors and commences the bombing and invasion.
Not true. You need to refresh your memory. A good starting point would be to review the speech Bush gave at the Cincinnati Union Terminal on October 7, 2002. He outlined the reasons and his perceived justifications for going into Iraq. It was not a number of reasons, sir. It was to disarm Hussein. Period. That is what Colin Powell presented to the U.N. and it is what Bush presented to the United States Congress as well as us. He told us that we needed to go into Iraq to disarm Saddam Hussein. The other reasons you speak of did not emerge until after the infamous "mission accomplished" fiasco. Face it, it is not a conspiracy theory. We have been given different rationales for this war over and over, None of which match the original reason that we were originally told. Now, there is nothing noble about that, sir.
Could you imagine FDR telling us after Normandy that we really were fighting in Europe to establish a long term military presence and defeating Hitler is secondary? I can't imagine such a thing. The goal then was defined and everyone was behind it. We all knew why we invaded Europe. We still know why today.
We can't say the same for Bush and Iraq. There is a big difference. Stop making comparisons between WWII and Iraq. There is no nobility in the way this has been handled. There is no nobility in the way we were DUPED into this war. There is no nobility in changing the rationale for war everytme the wind blows. Such a thing never happenned during WWII but it sure as hell happens now with Iraq. That is sad and quite frankly disrespectful to anyone who has served in that theater.
Wow - did you ever get off base.
The comparison I made with WWII was that the nobility of the soldiers was the same regardless of the outcome. Same with Iraq. WWI, Vientnam, Korea, etc. Soldiers fight for thire country - win or loose their cause is noble.
We went to war on bad intelligence - unfortunately now we just can't pack up and leave. Even the Dem's know that or else we would be out by now. It's amusing how often people on this site claim Bush is dumber than a post - yet he was smart enough to "Dupe" the majority of Congress and the public into going to war for a hidden agenda like oil.
You're in a classic Catch 22
It's amusing how often people on this site claim Bush is dumber than a post - yet he was smart enough to "Dupe" the majority of Congress and the public into going to war for a hidden agenda like oil.
He's not smart enough to do anything and that's why he filled his cabinet with and is advised by imperialists from the PNAC.
..great name you post under.
We went to war on bad intelligence - unfortunately now we just can't pack up and leave.
Nah, we went to war based on phony intelligence brought to you by Bush Inc.
Sorry to inform you of this but, soldiers fight to stay alive and to keep their friends alive and to get home...Noble, that is BS...that only the sit-at-home video warriors believe.
You have officially made a first class fool of yourself.
'Tis only your own reflection you are looking at.
Wow! That is a excellent try at misdirection. But, as you have probably already guessed, most here are not fourth graders. so, let me reitterate to you why you are wrong and you comparison is invalid. A cause is only noble if those fighting for said cause are aware of it and believe in it. Now, in WWII the stated cause was well known and over the 50+ years it hasn't changed. Therefore, it has retained it's nobility. In the case of Iraq, or soldiers and us for that matter were told one thing at the beginning, most of us were fooled and supported that cause. Then the stated cause of fighting in Iraq changed, changed again, changed again, and again and again. Any nobility was lost once we all found out that we were not fighting for what we were originally told. It's quite simple really. But alas, you continue to equate our struggle in WWII with the war in Iraq. You have just sugarcoated it with you nobility argument. So, I don't know what classic catch-22 you would be referring to in this situation, but, the fact remains that the United States Soldiers fighting in Iraq are not there to disarm Saddam. Tell me again, why are they there?
Wrong AGAIN. George Tenet said directly that Iraq was NOT a threat to attack the US nor use terrorism against us and that they had NO evidence of Iraqi involvement in international terrorism for a decade. The causus belli of the invasion WAS WMDs without them no war that is plain.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq
George Bush and Tony Blair were explicit that the decision to invade Iraq rested on what Bush called a "single question".[30] This was the allegation that Iraq possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction, including nuclear weapons[31] of which it had to disarm. George Bush, speaking in October 2002, said that “The stated policy of the United States is regime change… However, if [Hussein] were to meet all the conditions of the United Nations, the conditions that I have described very clearly in terms that everybody can understand, that in itself will signal the regime has changed”.[32] Similarly, in September 2002, Tony Blair stated, in an answer to a parliamentary question, that “Regime change in Iraq would be a wonderful thing. That is not the purpose of our action; our purpose is to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction…”[33] In November of that year, Tony Blair further stated that “So far as our objective, it is disarmament, not régime change - that is our objective.
Not even a good try
Wikipedia is not a reliable source for intelligence information. Face it - you only know what's been disclosed by the press so far.
If you honestly believe Bush wanted to put servicemen at risk and invade IRAQ for oil, or money, or for whatever, then nothing I can say here is going to change your mind. There was sharp disagreement then, there is sharp disagreement now.
My initial point about this thread was to challenge MMFA's contention that this was conservative misinformation - my point stands.
No I also read at the time Powell saying directly that the war was about disarming Saddam and NO your point doesnt stand. Huccabee was making an illogical argument as to why the argument was reasonable it ISNT reasonable so it IS misinformation.
Presenting an incorrect fact is misinformation - presenting a differing opinion is not. If it is 60 degrees outside and I tell you it's 55 - that's misinformation. However if I tell you it is cool that is my opinion. You may think 60 degrees is warm so we would disagree - that's not misinformation.
You still have nothing he made an illogical and incomplete appology for a reasoning that isnt reasonable. If you say the sky is grey and the rest of the world says it isnt. When someone else comes out and says yes it is here is a picture of the grey sky, a journalist worth his salt would point out that his picture only shows the CLOUDS are grey not the sky.
During the invasion of Normandy over 30,000 soldiers lost their lives in one day.
Wrong analogy. I would compare Bush's invasion of Iraq to Hitler's invasion of Poland.
...which is why you are an annomymous poster on a web site and not running a country.
So YOU say. I agree with him and point out YOU are also an anonymous poster on a website and not running any countries. Lets see, lies about the threat, invaded a country that wasnt a threat and didnt attack them. Sounds like both Poland AND Iraq to me.
Nah the problem is that they were sent to die based on a stack of lies. End of discussion.
"...why waste time discussing hypotheticals."
One reason is the matter of accountability. George W. Bush and his merry band of neocon war mongers were WRONG...and it was apparent very early on that they were wrong. However, the Bush crowd persists in attemting to twist reality to avoid any accountability for an unnecessary war that has cost 3,800 American livesand hundreds of billion of dollars...so far.
If Mike Huckabee wants to be a part of the alternate reality crowd that is very pertinent to this election. Maybe if he's elected he can award the Medal of Freedom to George W. Bush.
What do you see is the point of Blitzers question? Do you believe it is to hold the Bush administration accountable for the Iraq invasion - or is to to have him talk about what can he learned from the experience?
I suspect the wolfman's question was to find out if Huckabee still held to his principles as a Republican bushie suckup protector willing to swap the security of the US for political loyalties.
He is.
...and to determine if Huckabee was a member of the Alternate Reality fringe.
Yeah, that makes sense. Let's not get mired up in that noble call for holding someone accountable for the debacle.
See my post above on the point of WB's question.
Did that. It's still nonsense.
Have you noticed some of your other posts autonomously morphing into reasonable argument in the past? As unlikely as that sounds, I wouldn't dismiss it offhand.
"Sadam was not trustworthy no matter what he said he did or didnt have."
That's why we had inspectors on the ground.
There are several things wrong with your argument just like there are several things wrong with his. First acting like pysically looking for them is all we did. We also went through all the records also debriefed all the military and scientific people INVOLVED in the WMD research. Now Saddam is gone they have every motive to cough up any weapons that exist and none to hide them and they all say the same thing THERE WERENT ANY. Also we do NOT know Jimmy Hoffa exists not in any meaningful sense it is pretty much a certainty he is DEAD, I dont know YOUR definition of existing but dead doesnt fit mine. Also chemical and bioweapons degrade fairly quickly five years at the outside so if there WERE any without programs to replenish them they would be degraded to uselesness by now like the leftover Iran/Iraq war remnants we found which would no longer fit the definition of WMDs. Since we are certain according to both Kay and Duelfer that there WERENT any such programs his babble makes no sense whatsoever. Not as a statement worth its salt not as a defense that others are making it.
I think your arguments arent much better. It is NOT useless to discuss whether Bush had REAL reasons to invade Iraq, if he didnt he comitted what the Nuremeberg tribunal called the Supreme War Crime. I think it very important to assess if that happened if we just say well its over why bother then why do we arrest murderers? I mean those murders are over. We do it so it wont happen again and so others can see that actions have consequences. What will stop the next President without decency to cook up false reasons for a war is if THIS one is held accountable for doing so. Not all the intelligence was bad. The right keeps saying this as a mantra and yet I wasnt convinced. I SAW that the State Depts intelligence arm was saying things like we have no hard evidence. That our best evidence like what Powell presented at the UN was ephemeral and disspeared on close inspection, speaking of inspections THEY WERE HAPPENING. They were going wherever they wanted and finding NOTHING. THAT is new intelligence. They were saying when they got intelligence from the US and checked it out it was garbage. Now if a REASONABLE president saw his intelligence was turning out to be baseless by those THERE checking it out he would reassess that intelligence. The Bush administration had what Karen Kwiatowski called a faith based intelligence we know what we belive cough up the intelligence to back us up. A highly placed CIA agent said they should replace what was over the CIA door, the truth will set you free with WE COOK ESTIMATES TO GO. When the CIA wasnt giving Bush and Cheney what they wanted they made up a NEW program within the agency called the Office of Special Plans created to stovepipe what Chalabi's defectors were saying straight to the top WITHOUT all those annoying caveats by the CIA saying they were liars that couldnt pass a polygraph and when they gave any intelligence that could be checked out it NEVER checked out. This cant be blamed solely on the intelligence. Bush told demonstrable flat out lies and did what he could to cook the intelligence he got. Which is why the Downing Street memo said directly that intelligence was being FIXED around policy. No its not a case of we ought to forget about the reasons we got into the war its a case of we need to investigate that thouroughly and if it is found the Bush administation was dishonest they should be held accountable so no other administation thinks they can get away with the same thing.
The closer the neocons/evangelicals come to finding their "right" man, the farther away they drift from electability.
Not speaking arabic, I cannot prove or disprove Mr Huckabee claims he heard Saddam say.
HUCKABEE: Well, you know, sometimes people say we've never found the weapons. Just because we haven't found them doesn't mean they didn't exist. We haven't found Jimmy Hoffa either, but we know he exists. That's always the way that we're going to try to frame this sometimes, is that, well, we didn't find them. But you know, he was the one who said that he had them. He has used them in the past. It's easy to second-guess what we should have done.
David Kay stepped down as leader of the U.S. hunt for banned weapons in Iraq on Friday and said he did not believe the country had any large stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons. In a direct challenge to the Bush administration, which says its invasion of Iraq was justified by the presence of illicit arms, Kay told Reuters in a telephone interview he had concluded there were no Iraqi stockpiles to be found. "I don't think they existed," Kay said. "What everyone was talking about is stockpiles produced after the end of the last (1991) Gulf War, and I don't think there was a large-scale production program in the nineties," he said. 1/2004
The year is 2007 and the fact that Huckabee cannot and will not admit that Saddam had no wmd's is simply pathetic and makes him, IMO unfit for office. This has NOTHING to do with Clinton and has EVERYTHING to do with Republicans not being able to ADMIT they were wrong! Colin Powell's 'show' at the UN is and should be a embarrassment for the US. We are the greatest nation and were screwed up! This 'well Clinton thought they had them" is NO excuse for what Junior did! Clinton DID NOT INVADE IRAQ! Clinton DID NOT put US soldiers in combat! No matter what Clinton thought, Junior CHOOSE TO INVADE, and for that HE HAS TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY for HIS ACTIONS!. Blame the intelligence community but STOP trying to place the blame on Clinton!. As Junior loves to remind everyone HE IS THE DECIDER aka COMMANDER IN CHIEF!
What i'm wondering is why is it so difficult for these guys to speak the truth? MH has already lied once during their debate, now again he can't seem to tell/admit the truth.
WC4Me, I ask again, if we knew he had WMD's, would a ground invasion of that country be the sane thing to do? Remember, he already used WMD's and was a madman. Why not use them on ground troops...BECAUSE THERE WEREN'T ANY....And the Huckster and Little Dick Santorum still go around saying, I quote Rummy, "We know where they are, we just can find them".
The Huckster is playing games. Keep playing with these guys and eventually you will pass GO and get nothing.
As I said in an earlier post there is no way we are going to change anybodies mind on the justification on the war - not here. If you want to believe this was some great conspiracy - knock yourselves out and see where that gets you.
I posted to this thread to illustrate how Media Matters disseminates as much disinformation as it purports to uncover. There is one school of thought that says there were no WMD's there is another that says yes he had them and they haven't been found. You want to believe that because they weren't found they didn't exist - and that's ok. The problem is that you want to force everyone else to believe it too. I got news for you - not everyone is going to willingly go into your little box.
Regardless of who is right arguing the point is futile because we are there - we can't turn back the hands of time - that is Huckabees point. Blitzer is aware of this but because he didn't go after Huckabee with the spin Media Matters want's to put out they bring this up as an example of media bias. If this is their idea of a conservative bias in the media the argument is very weak.
And if you want to believe the sky is pink that is fine if you want to tell people they have to say its a REASONABLE thing to think that is another altogether. We had TWO CIA TEAMS look for those weapons they didnt say they couldnt find them they said THEY WERENT THERE. We have had all the scientists and military personell with every reason to cough them up and none to hide them and they havent. We have many MANY reasons to believe they werent there and the ONLY reason to still say they were is to protect BUSH. If YOU want to keep believing that Bush had good reasons to go into Iraq and just HAPPENED to change them like the tides that is fine too. Just not addressing the fact BUSH TOLD DEMONSTRABLE LIES about Iraq is your perogative (the IAEA report he pulled out of his ass the aluminum tubes lies) Chiding us for saying it MATTERS that Bush took us to a WAR with false rationales is silly. It matters. We care. Feel free to tell us how we ought to just get over being lied to and misled. It is a CRIME to mislead Congress as Bush did and he ought to be held accountable.
How can anyone believe at this point and time in that? Isn't it sad how Republicans get away with distorting things but then if you catch them on it like this later they will claim it was out of context. Even after Bush was forced to admit it the Bush admin. still tried to make the point about this. It is just sad and shows how nothing will change if Huckabee had a chance.
Oh Media matters missed this one. Thinkprogress has info here. These Neo-cons are crazy.
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/10/30/podhoretz-zakaria-iran/
Norman Podhoretz: Anyone Who Doesn’t Want To ‘Bomb Iran’ Is Appeasing ‘Hitler’
another glue sniffer
'Hardball with Chris Matthews' Nov. 7, 2005 (note the date)
Senator Carl Levin (D) of Michigan, a member of the Intelligence CommitteeMatthews quickly changed the subject, acting like he never heard what Levin stated, and I suspect not a single outlet (other than Steve Hayes at the Weekly Standard) picked up the story. If a Republican had claimed such a tall tale, it would have been plastered all over the media.
Matthews didn't immediately "change the subject." This was an interview regarding the Bush administration skewing the intelligence to try to show a link between Sadam and Al Qaida; also mentioning the aluminum tube hype. One excerpt below the link including your quote.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9969037/
LEVIN: I think basically they decided immediately after 9/11 to go after Saddam. They began to—look there was plenty of evidence that Saddam had nuclear weapons, by the way. That is not in dispute. There is plenty of evidence of that.
Where they fell short, the administration fell short, was getting intelligence from the intelligence community about a link, alleged link between the people who attacked us, al Qaeda, and Saddam Hussein. That‘s one of the important declassified sentences from the Defense Intelligence Agency over this weekend, which I released.
Listen to this sentence and how different it is from what the administration was saying. Here is what the Defense Intelligence community in this declassified document says. Saddam‘s regime is intensely secular and is wary of Islamic revolutionary movements. Moreover, Baghdad is unlikely to provide assistance to a group it cannot control.
That‘s what the Defense Intelligence Agency said before the war. Yet you have the president before the war saying there is—this is President Bush, quote, you can‘t distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk on the war on terror. His own intelligence community was distinguishing between the two.
Mary. I was not attempting to vet out the entire 25 year debate. Democrat Senatar Carl Levin, a ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, became the first sitting person of note, who clearly stated on the record that Saddam had nuclear weapons (bombs would be the indication.) My comment meant that not only did Chris Matthews not question the accuracy of that statement, the media let it slide. My point is about the media (media matters). When Cheney accidently slipped one time and insinuatedd that Iraq might be further along in the development of same than intelligence suggested, his misstatement became a national drama. He quickly was forced to withdraw the statement saying that he misspoke.
The media requires none of the same from Democrats. Matthews, except for the fear in his heart in the moment for that which had just spoken, normally would have said, "Senator, surely you have misspoke - did you mean to actually claim that Saddam actualy pocessed nukes?"
Instead, Matthews quckly moved on, allowing Levin's statement of his view of the facts to remain in the record. Matthews can do this with a great bit of confidence, as who in the media wishes to pop a senior Democrat with such a gaff?
Personally - the dumbest thing we ever did, aside from invading Iraq at all, was to proove to the world that Saddam didn't have any WMD's! This guy was BLUFFING in order to keep Iran's influence in check! And his BLUFF (and we KNEW he was bluffing, I'll never believe our own CIA was really that stupid) actually SERVED OUR NATIONAL INTEREST! Imagine what impunity we could operate with in, say, Afganistan or, better yet... Syria, in support of Lebenon and Israel... If we were not only not bogged down in Iraq, and still had all of the political and diplomatic capital that has been lost there, but also had SOMEONE ELSE doing the job of keeping Iran on the sidelines, for fear of an attack! I'm pretty sure that why Reagan, Cheney & co. armed Saddam in the first place!
I saw this flaw in their plan even back in 2003, back when "everyone" (if you believe the Right) thought Saddam had WMD's. My answer, even back then, was "So what?" Cut a deal, lift the sanctions and use him to keep Iran in check, as had been done for the last 50 years, but every president, republican and democrat alike! (Play Baghdad and Tehran off of one another.)
But I was assured by all the republicans I spoke to that "I didn't have all the info" that "The CIA/NSA/White House was operating on good intel" and they saw the "bigger picture." How I wish that were true.
I've never been more sorry to have been 100% correct. It's amazing that me, sitting in my living room, had a better grasp of the situation than the CIA/NSA/WHite House and all the other right-wing jack-holes whittling away at my civil liberties in order to "keep me safe."
This takes revisionism to a new level, and Blitzer most certainly should have challenged it.
Bush has claimed in public repeatedly that Saddam refused to admit the UN inspectors during the run-up to the 2003 invasion--a blatant falsehood that the media have been uninterested in correcting for the most part. Now Huckabee claims that Saddam said he did have WMD, during that same period. Clinton's belief or disbelief that Iraq had WMD's during the 90's or his launching of a pre-emptive attack (which fell far short of "regime change", thousands of American casualties and "nation building" into chaos) have absolutely no bearing on the falsehood of Huckabee's statement.
Bottom line: people who make blatantly false statements on news programs should be challenged.
"Just because we haven't found them doesn't mean they didn't exist."
We haven't found any elves or leprechauns either... so do they exist?