PDA

View Full Version : doublespeak: iraq WMD were never really the issue


zimv20
Sep 6, 2003, 06:25 PM
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-09-04-us-bolton-wmd_x.htm


In an interview with The Associated Press, John Bolton, undersecretary of state for arms control, said that whether Saddam's regime actually possessed weapons of mass destruction "isn't really the issue."

"The issue I think has been the capability that Iraq sought to have ... WMD programs," Bolton said at the U.S. Embassy in Paris.


i recall mr. powell going in front of the UN to claim that not only did the weapons exist, but the US knew where they were. now we're told the weapons were never really the issue.

Waluigi
Sep 6, 2003, 07:47 PM
It is very disturbing how this reason for going to war has morphed into 'saving the Iraqi people from the wrath of Saddam'. They sold us the war on the WMD issue, and I actually believed them. Since that has turned out to be false, they are trying to win the next election by pulling this crap, and making it look like they have been good all along. The bush administration really is turning America more and more into what Orwell feared. Good analogy you used there, too bad it is true.

--Waluigi

IJ Reilly
Sep 7, 2003, 12:27 AM
Who will make the Bush Administration live down statements such as:

"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."
—George W. Bush, Radio Address, February 8, 2003

Daveman Deluxe
Sep 7, 2003, 01:22 AM
Originally posted by Waluigi
It is very disturbing how this reason for going to war has morphed into 'saving the Iraqi people from the wrath of Saddam'.

There is a growing segment of the population in Iraq that would prefer Saddam to us. At least with Saddam they had electricity.

Think about it. Suppose the instant the U.S. captured Baghdad, engineers were already on the way to secure clean water supplies, get electricity generation and transmission back on line, and see to the function of food depots? I suspect that most of our soldiers would already be comfortably back home to their families.

zimv20
Sep 7, 2003, 01:27 AM
Originally posted by Daveman Deluxe
Suppose the instant the U.S. captured Baghdad, engineers were already on the way to secure clean water supplies, get electricity generation and transmission back on line, and see to the function of food depots? I suspect that most of our soldiers would already be comfortably back home to their families.

that, and there was no looting, no resistance, all first-world nations had kicked in money and manpower, the weather was nice, magic pixies sprinkled their magic pixie dust over babylon...

Sayhey
Sep 7, 2003, 10:08 AM
Now I know where those WMDs went! It was the pixies! They were spirited away inside some ancient ziggurat by evil baathist pixies. It's a good thing you uncovered the plot, zimv20.;)

Seriously, the administration is in full backtrack gear in its rhetoric. I, like you, feel that much of this maybe from the need to have troops availible for other invasions. I've always thought Rumsfeld's insistence on a smaller number of troops in Iraq didn't make a lot of sense unless he needed those troops for someplace else. It may just be my own paranoia, but I think these folks have decided they need to change the world to one of their liking before anyone can stop them.

zimv20
Sep 7, 2003, 11:08 AM
Originally posted by Sayhey
I think these folks have decided they need to change the world to one of their liking before anyone can stop them.

and fast, 'cuz they only got a guaranteed 16 months left

IJ Reilly
Sep 7, 2003, 12:46 PM
Originally posted by zimv20
and fast, 'cuz they only got a guaranteed 16 months left
Wartime presidents tend to get reelected, and this "war on terror" has an unlimited playing field and no goal line. The casualty rate is low. From a political standpoint, it's the ideal war. I hate to be so cynical, but you can bet that the White House does discuss how to manage this political capital. So while I'm being so cynical, a few cynical predictions for the upcoming electoral season:

1. An "orange alert" will be declared in the early fall of 2004.

2. In September or October of 2004, the president will announce the deployment of a missile defense system in Alaska. He will sluff off any questions about whether it actually works.

3. The president will tour Iraq.

4. A series of vague assertions about Iraqi WMD will be released if they can backed up at all, and leaked if they can't.

toontra
Sep 7, 2003, 01:03 PM
If the report in today's Independent on Sunday is to be believed, this week will see the US and UK admit that NO WMD (or even active programs) have been found, after months of searching.

LINK (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=441051)

If this is indeed the case, I hope that several posters on this forum (they know who they are!) who have repeatedly said "Hey, just be patient on this one; we'll find them" will finally admit that they were duped by Bush and Blair.

This war, as I and many other said all along, was about oil and control of the middle east, and NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with WMD!

zimv20
Sep 7, 2003, 01:04 PM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly

1. An "orange alert" will be declared in the early fall of 2004.


as happened in the run up to the war, i think the alerts will come a little more fast and furious in the coming weeks, unless bush's poll numbers pick up. but i agree that we'll see some more just short of election time.


2. In September or October of 2004, the president will announce the deployment of a missile defense system in Alaska. He will sluff off any questions about whether it actually works.


bold prediction! thank you for making it.


3. The president will tour Iraq.


and declare victory, no doubt.


4. A series of vague assertions about Iraqi WMD will be released if they can backed up at all, and leaked if they can't.

the iraq stuff may be stale. i'd look at syria or NK, if that situation doesn't get resolved.

IJ Reilly
Sep 7, 2003, 01:13 PM
bold prediction! thank you for making it.

Actually this was the easiest prediction to make, since that's the plan, hidden in plain sight. The President asked for (in the last budget) and got an exemption from normal oversight and testing for this system, and the announced deployment date is the fall of 2004.

the iraq stuff may be stale. i'd look at syria or NK, if that situation doesn't get resolved.

Yes, I guess this calls for a fifth prediction:

5. The "war on terror" rhetoric will be ramped up, and directed at another nation, probably Syria, Iran or North Korea.

zimv20
Sep 7, 2003, 01:16 PM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Actually this was the easiest prediction to make, since that's the plan, hidden in plain sight. The President asked for (in the last budget) and got an exemption from normal oversight and testing for this system, and the announced deployment date is the fall of 2004.


bold explanation!

:-)